Stability of GFRP composites with varied fractions of reinforcement exposed to ageing processes outdoors
Source abstract
Abstract
The effects of outdoor ageing on various compositions of glass fibre reinforced plastic (GFRP) composites were studied. Changes in the interlaminar shear strength (ILSS) of hand-laid samples with 50–60 wt.% of fibre were determined by three-point bending and glass transition temperature (T g ) measurements. SEM analysis was carried out for exploring the mode of failure. The moisture ingress rate and extent were concentration-dependent at first, but became increasingly dependent on the fibre-matrix interfacial area. The ILSS initially fluctuated and then showed a decreasing trend with time, especially for the higher fibre concentrations. ILSS variations were zigzag initially and showed a lowering trend after the initial periods. Rate of lowering of ILSS was the highest for samples with the highest fraction reinforcement. Weight fraction reinforcement didn’t have any significant effect on the T g variations. SEM fractograph revealed excessive fracture and fragmentation for the composite samples with the highest weight percentage reinforcement.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites · Fiber-reinforced polymer composites
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Technical and Education Research (ITER), Siksha-O-Anusandhan (SOA) Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, Odisha, India
School of Physics, Gangadhar Meher University, Sambalpur, Odisha, India
References (22)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.02.07510.1016/j.compstruct.2018.02.075 ↗
2. 10.1108/0002266101108273110.1108/00022661011082731 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.10776010.1016/j.compositesb.2020.107760 ↗
4. 10.1111/j.1151-2916.1994.tb07068.x10.1111/j.1151-2916.1994.tb07068.x ↗
5. Reiab MR · 2008 · 136
6. 10.1016/j.coco.2019.11.00810.1016/j.coco.2019.11.008 ↗
7. 10.1002/pc.2296710.1002/pc.22967 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2019.10088610.1016/j.mtcomm.2019.100886 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.02.08210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.02.082 ↗
10. 10.1177/00219980177266217210.1177/002199801772662172 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2004.01.00510.1016/j.compscitech.2004.01.005 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.coco.2019.02.00310.1016/j.coco.2019.02.003 ↗
13. 10.1680/emr.12.0000910.1680/emr.12.00009 ↗
14. 10.1088/1757-899X/75/1/01202910.1088/1757-899X/75/1/012029 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2013.11.00210.1016/j.compositesa.2013.11.002 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.jcis.2005.12.02310.1016/j.jcis.2005.12.023 ↗
17. 10.1177/073168441875435910.1177/0731684418754359 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.jobe.2016.12.00310.1016/j.jobe.2016.12.003 ↗
19. Kassab Z · Mater Today Commun · 2019 · 13 · 964
20. 10.1016/0266-3538(95)00128-X10.1016/0266-3538(95)00128-X ↗
21. 10.1088/1757-899X/178/1/01201310.1088/1757-899X/178/1/012013 ↗
22. 10.1177/002199831560204910.1177/0021998315602049 ↗