journal article·2025-07-10Open access

Investigating mechanical properties of composites reinforced with jute/cotton natural fibers in hybridized epoxy/vinylester and epoxy/polyester resins

Hammad Ahmad, Muhammad Hamza Abid, Eddie Gazo‐Hanna, Atta Ur Rehman Shah, Imran Sajid Shahid Ghumman, Saad Arif, Muhammad Shoaib Naseem, Hafiz Muhammad Zohaib

Polymer Composites· Volume 46· Issue 10

Abstract

Abstract This study explores the hybrid effect of environmental friendly jute and cotton fabrics as reinforcement in a multiresin based composite system. Two hybrid resins (containing epoxy/vinylester and epoxy/polyester) were reinforced with hybrid jute and cotton fabrics, which makes it a multihybrid composite material. Effect of hybridization and varying the content of fibers (10, 20, and 15 wt%) was analyzed by employing tensile, bending, and charpy impact tests of the composites. The fractured surfaces after tensile testing were examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) whereas the bonding structure of multiresin and the interaction of reinforcement with the resins were scrutinized through Fourier transformation infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). The results showed that higher content of cotton fiber has a superior impact on mechanical properties as compared with jute fiber, this is because of the higher cellulose content found in the cotton fiber. Moreover, in terms of resins, epoxy/vinylester hybrid resin proved to be dominant in enhancing mechanical properties compared with epoxy/polyester resin. For reference, the tensile strength of cotton/jute/epoxy/vinylester hybrid composite (61.12 MPa) was observed to be 11.71% higher than that of cotton/jute/epoxy/polyester (54.71 MPa). A similar behavior was observed in flexural and impact tests. The SEM analysis provided evidence that the composites mainly failed due to matrix failure rather than interfacial failure, which is a reason of enhancement in mechanical strength. Such newly developed materials are auspicious for high‐performance engineering applications in addition to environmental friendliness. Highlights Two hybrid resins were reinforced with hybrid jute/cotton natural fibers. IPN structure was formed in epoxy/polyester and epoxy/vinyl ester resins. The multi hybridization enhanced the mechanical properties of the composites. Cotton fiber exhibited more influence on the properties of the composites. Epoxy/vinylester has better fibril removal resistant than epoxy/polyester.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites · Polymer Nanocomposites and Properties

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

Affiliations

State key Laboratory of Advanced Machining Technology Lab (AMT), School of Mechanical Engineering Beijing Institute of Technology (BIT) Beijing China

Department of Mechanical Engineering HITEC University Taxila Pakistan

College of Engineering and Technology American University of the Middle East Egaila Kuwait

Department of Mechanical Engineering COMSATS University Islamabad‐Wah Campus Wah Cantt Pakistan

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering King Faisal University Al Ahsa Saudi Arabia

Key Laboratory of Cluster Science of Ministry of Education, School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Beijing Institute of Technology Beijing People's Republic of China

References (34)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.3390/polym1417369810.3390/polym14173698 ↗
2. 10.18720/MPM.4012018_410.18720/MPM.4012018_4 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2021.12510610.1016/j.matchemphys.2021.125106 ↗
4. 10.1038/s41586‐018‐0054‐x10.1038/s41586‐018‐0054‐x ↗
5. 10.3390/jcs712050610.3390/jcs7120506 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.rineng.2021.10026310.1016/j.rineng.2021.100263 ↗
7. 10.1088/2631‐6331/abff3610.1088/2631‐6331/abff36 ↗
8. 10.3390/jcs505013010.3390/jcs5050130 ↗
9. 10.3390/jcs802006610.3390/jcs8020066 ↗
10. 10.1080/15376494.2023.223535210.1080/15376494.2023.2235352 ↗
11. 10.1080/23311916.2024.233816010.1080/23311916.2024.2338160 ↗
12. 10.1080/23311916.2023.227920910.1080/23311916.2023.2279209 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2022.12648510.1016/j.matchemphys.2022.126485 ↗
14. 10.1007/s10570‐022‐04417‐910.1007/s10570‐022‐04417‐9 ↗
15. 10.1002/pc.2481710.1002/pc.24817 ↗
16. 10.1080/15376494.2022.211675810.1080/15376494.2022.2116758 ↗
17. 10.1002/pc.2832910.1002/pc.28329 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2020.10700810.1016/j.polymertesting.2020.107008 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.02.03310.1016/j.compositesb.2013.02.033 ↗
20. 10.1080/15440478.2019.162914810.1080/15440478.2019.1629148 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.matdes.2013.03.04810.1016/j.matdes.2013.03.048 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.matdes.2011.03.00210.1016/j.matdes.2011.03.002 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2015.08.03810.1016/j.compositesa.2015.08.038 ↗
24. 10.1179/174328905X6619910.1179/174328905X66199 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.matlet.2022.13286410.1016/j.matlet.2022.132864 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2005.04.02410.1016/j.compstruct.2005.04.024 ↗
27. 10.3390/gels910082810.3390/gels9100828 ↗
28. 10.25103/jestr.122.1210.25103/jestr.122.12 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.rineng.2023.10127110.1016/j.rineng.2023.101271 ↗
30. 10.3390/polym1313217010.3390/polym13132170 ↗
31. Karger‐Kocsis J · 2005 · 273
32. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2017.01.00510.1016/j.compscitech.2017.01.005 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.jmrt.2019.11.01310.1016/j.jmrt.2019.11.013 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.12.106010.1016/j.matpr.2020.12.1060 ↗