journal article·2022-06Open access

Improvement in fracture toughness and impact resistance of E-glass/epoxy composites using layers composed of hollow poly(ethylene terephthalate) fibers

Reyhaneh Laghaei, Seyyed Mahdi Hejazi, Hossein Fashandi, Saleh Akbarzadeh, Samira Shaghaghi, Alireza Shamaei-Kashani

Journal of Industrial Textiles· Volume 51· Issue 3_suppl

Abstract

Incorporation of hollow fibers in polymer base composites has gained great interest due to their flexibility and lightweight structure. Among many research studies on this subject, the mechanical performance of polyester hollow fiber/E-glass reinforced polymer composites has not been investigated. The main objective of the present work was to investigate the fracture toughness and impact resistance of E-glass/epoxy composites hybridized by a separate layer of polyethylene terephthalate hollow fibers (PETHFs). The samples were prepared by placing a layer of PETHFs in different contents (0, 0.23, 1.18, or 2 wt.%) and in two different forms of filaments (PETHF-FIs) or staple fibers (PETHF-STs) between two layers of biaxial or triaxial E-glass fabrics. The mechanical behaviors of the samples were investigated by performing a set of tensile and impact tests. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Field Emission Scanning Microscopy (FESEM) were also used to evaluate the surface morphologies of the hollow fibers and the fractured samples. The results revealed that, unlike PETHF-FIs, PETHF-STs could weaken the mechanical performance of the pristine E-glass/epoxy composites. The internal channel blockage of PETHF-STs was observed in the FESEM images of the fractured PETHF-STs hybrid samples. The highest toughening effects were observed with incorporation of 1.18 wt.% PETHF-FIs in biaxial E-glass/Epoxy composites and 2 wt.% PETHF-FIs in triaxial E-glass/Epoxy composites. The highest value of impact resistance belonged to the samples hybridized with 2 wt.% of PETHF-FIs. Crack deflection, fiber pull out, and fiber stretching were the predominant fracture mechanisms observed in the PETHF-FIs hybrid composites.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Fiber-reinforced polymer composites · Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Textile Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran

MAPNA Pars Generator Company, Karaj, Iran

Funding

MAPNA Group Co.

References (32)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.10.05210.1016/j.compositesb.2016.10.052 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2009.10.01810.1016/j.compositesa.2009.10.018 ↗
3. 10.1177/152808372097721010.1177/1528083720977210 ↗
4. 10.1115/1.404592810.1115/1.4045928 ↗
5. Nanami N, Ochoa O. Bird impact study of a preloaded composite wind turbine blade. In: International Journal of Applied Engineering, the 19th International Conference on Composite Materials, Montreal, Canada, 28 July-2 August 2013.
6. Keegan MH, Nash DH, Stack MM. Modelling rain drop impact of offshore wind turbine blades. In: ASME Turbo Expo 2012: Turbine Technical Conference and Exposition, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 2012, pp. 887–898.10.1115/GT2012-69175 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11209610.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112096 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.03.02110.1016/j.compstruct.2019.03.021 ↗
9. 10.1177/152808371879591410.1177/1528083718795914 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.10.06010.1016/j.compstruct.2016.10.060 ↗
11. Boniface L · Plastics rubber composites Process Appl · 1998 · 27 · 234
12. 10.1016/S1359-835X(03)00236-710.1016/S1359-835X(03)00236-7 ↗
13. 10.1016/B978-0-12-817354-1.00017-X10.1016/B978-0-12-817354-1.00017-X ↗
14. 10.1177/155892502093544810.1177/1558925020935448 ↗
15. Nasr Isfahani M · J Textiles Polym · 2014 · 2
16. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.11799810.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.117998 ↗
17. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.312.40610.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.312.406 ↗
18. 10.1177/15589250130080010810.1177/155892501300800108 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.dental.2016.10.00410.1016/j.dental.2016.10.004 ↗
20. 10.1177/0021998321101338810.1177/00219983211013388 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.jmps.2005.09.00210.1016/j.jmps.2005.09.002 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.07.05710.1016/j.compstruct.2016.07.057 ↗
23. 10.1088/0964-1726/19/8/08502110.1088/0964-1726/19/8/085021 ↗
24. 10.1002/pc.75013061010.1002/pc.750130610 ↗
25. 10.1088/0508-3443/3/3/30210.1088/0508-3443/3/3/302 ↗
26. Krenchel H · 1964
27. 10.1080/09506608.2018.146736510.1080/09506608.2018.1467365 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2004.07.01110.1016/j.compositesa.2004.07.011 ↗
29. Czigány T, Kling S. A comparative analysis of hollow and solid glass fiber reinforced composites. In: Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Composite Materials, Venice, Italy, 24-28 June 2012, pp. 24–28.
30. 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2015.02.00310.1016/j.pmatsci.2015.02.003 ↗
31. 10.1177/152808371769936710.1177/1528083717699367 ↗
32. 10.30509/pccc.2018.7666110.30509/pccc.2018.76661 ↗