journal article·2021-11

Practice of Taguchi design of experiments in the valuation of mechanical behavior of rigid polyurethane foam composites

Raminder Kaur, Mukesh Kumar

Polymers and Polymer Composites· Volume 29· Issue 9_suppl
Publisher page

Abstract

In the present study, Taguchi design of experiments (DOEs) L 18 orthogonal array has been used for the investigation of the mechanical behavior of rigid polyurethane foam (RPUF) composites. The outcome of the process parameters such as polyol, filler, surfactant, catalyst, blowing agent, and anti-flaming agent on the mechanical properties, such as tensile, flexural, and compressive strengths and hardness (Shore D) of RPUF composites, has been examined, and the resulted data were analyzed by means of Taguchi design of experiments. The raw data for the average values of the mechanical properties and the signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio for each parameter were evaluated at three levels, and the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and optimum process parameters are determined. The confirmation experiments were performed for the validation of the improved performance and to measure the contribution of individual parameter on the responses. The confirmation experiments revealed the average tensile strength, average compressive strength, average flexural strength, and average hardness (Shore D) as 5.24 MPa, 6.37 MPa, 12.28 MPa, and 72.43, respectively, which fall within the 95% confidence interval of the anticipated optimum process parameters.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites · Polymer composites and self-healing · Polymer Nanocomposites and Properties

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

Affiliations

Department of Applied Chemistry & Polymer Technology, Delhi Technological University, Delhi, India

References (22)

Show source-provided references
1. Agrawal A · Int J. Exp. Des. Pro. Optim · 2019 · 6 · 89
2. Jazani OM · J. App. Poly. Sci · 2010 · 116 · 231210.1002/app.31721 ↗
3. 10.1002/app.4576910.1002/app.45769 ↗
4. 10.1002/app.3885210.1002/app.38852 ↗
5. Khosrokhavar R · Iran. Polym. J · 2011 · 20 · 41
6. 10.1007/s00170-012-3970-110.1007/s00170-012-3970-1 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.actbio.2009.08.03710.1016/j.actbio.2009.08.037 ↗
8. 10.1149/1.183745610.1149/1.1837456 ↗
9. Eslick J · Proc 9th Int Sym Proc Sys Eng · 2006 · 21 · 769
10. 10.1016/j.jaap.2008.03.00810.1016/j.jaap.2008.03.008 ↗
11. El-Shekeil YA · Adv. Mech. Manuf. Eng · 2014 · 564 · 394
12. 10.1016/j.ces.2005.01.02010.1016/j.ces.2005.01.020 ↗
13. 10.1515/epoly-2017-007210.1515/epoly-2017-0072 ↗
14. 10.1515/polyeng-2013-008310.1515/polyeng-2013-0083 ↗
15. Agrawal A · Mater. Res. Express · 2019 · 6 · 1
16. 10.1080/10426914.2011.56424910.1080/10426914.2011.564249 ↗
17. 10.1080/1042691050041164510.1080/10426910500411645 ↗
18. 10.1080/0360255060088754110.1080/03602550600887541 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.msea.2012.05.10510.1016/j.msea.2012.05.105 ↗
20. 10.1515/epoly-2019-004210.1515/epoly-2019-0042 ↗
21. 10.1080/15583724.2014.98042710.1080/15583724.2014.980427 ↗
22. 10.1088/2053-1591/ab68a210.1088/2053-1591/ab68a2 ↗