Professional Documents
Culture Documents
International
17(1): 32-48, 2016
ISSN: 2395-3438 (P), ISSN: 2395-3446 (O)
AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS
This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. Author CCI designed the study, wrote the
protocol and interpreted the data. Author MKA anchored the field study and gathered the initial data and author
CEO performed preliminary data analysis, managed the literature searches and produced the initial draft.
All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
*Corresponding author: Email: ce.okafor@unizik.edu.ng;
1. INTRODUCTION
Most of the pressing scientific problems that are
currently faced today are due to the limitations of the
materials that are currently available [1]. Mulinari [2]
defined composite materials as materials made from
two or more constituent materials with significantly
different physical or chemical properties, that when
combined, produce a material with characteristics
different from the individual components. American
Composites Manufacturers Association [3] defined
composite materials as the combination of two or
more materials to reinforce their properties and make
them stronger together than they are apart. The
individual components remain separate and distinct
within the finished structure. Composite materials are
continuously replacing traditional materials due to
their excellent properties. A single large part made of
composites can replace many metal parts [4].
Composite materials can be embedded with sensors,
which can monitor fatigue and performance. They
have high stiffness to density ratio thereby providing
greater strength at lighter weights. The use of lightweight materials means an increase in the fuel
efficiency of automobiles and airplanes. Also the
endurance limit of some composites is higher than
that of aluminum and steel [5]. Most composites are
made up of plastics or resins and hence provide a high
level of resistance to corrosion, while aluminum and
iron need special treatments like alloying to protect
them from corrosion. Composites have a low coefficient of thermal expansion, which can provide a
greater dimensional stability when required. The fact
that composites in general can be custom tailored to
suit individual requirements, have desirable properties
in corrosive environment, provide higher strength to
weight ratio and have lower life-cycle costs has aided
in their evolution [6].
33
2. METHODOLOGY
The methodology of this research considered volume
fraction of fibres and particle size of fibres as factors
controlling the behavior of HDPE matrix filled fillers.
The ASTM specified standard particle sizes are
presented in Table 1. Archimedes principle was
employed to determine the density of coconut fibre
from where the composite samples are designed
following the method of Okafor et al. [28] and ASTM
Standards for mechanical properties tests [29].
Table 1 shows three grades of fibre particle sizes and
their corresponding sieve sizes according to ASTM
Standard. This study leveraged on the Taguchi robust
design and response surface method to design and
optimize experiments that lead to optimal surfaces of
performance characteristics of CNFRHDPE. Taguchi
method uses signal to noise ratio to decide optimal
variables while RSM establishes optimal surface
without reference to noise factors. This is a major
limitation of RSM. This research therefore uses
Taguchi method to set up design matrix that is used to
evaluate the responses while RSM is used to optimize
the responses of Taguchi experiment by linearization
of Taguchi experimental results on assumption that
the results follow a power law model. The responses
of the design matrix of RSM are evaluated with the
power law model obtained from the experiments
based on Taguchi orthogonal array of control factors.
SN = 10log
(1)
Where
= number of experimental trials,
performance characteristics.
y =
ASTM number
325
270
200
Sieve size
45 micron (0.045 mm)
53 micron (0.053 mm)
75 micron (0.075 mm)
34
Vfr (%)
PS (mm)
Levels
2
30
0.053
3
40
0.075
(2)
(3)
(4)
= * + *
(5)
35
Parameter 1:A
Parameter 2:B
Parameter 3:C
Parameter 4:D
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
Volume
fraction Vfr
(%)
20
20
20
30
30
30
40
40
40
Fibre particle
sizes Ps (mm)
0.045
0.053
0.075
0.045
0.053
0.075
0.045
0.053
0.075
Tensile
strength
(MPa)
28.6
28.2
24.8
28.4
27.8
24.4
27.6
27.4
25.0
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
20.6
19.5
19.0
21.8
20.0
19.8
22.3
21.6
21.0
Impact
strength
(J/m)
55.0
52.0
48.0
52.0
49.0
45.0
49.0
47.0
43.0
Hardness
values (HR)
46.5
36.2
32.4
52.6
44.8
40.2
54.0
48.6
42.8
(6)
36
Vfr (%)
27.20
26.87
26.67
0.63
2
Tensile
Ps (mm)
28.20
27.80
24.73
3.47
1
Vfr (%)
19.70
20.53
21.63
1.93
1
Flexural
Ps (mm)
21.57
20.37
19.93
1.63
2
Vfr (%)
51.67
48.67
46.33
5.33
2
Impact
Ps (mm)
52.20
49.33
45.33
6.67
1
Hardness
Vfr (%)
Ps (mm)
38.37
51.03
45.87
43.20
48.47
38.47
10.10
12.57
2
1
Vfr (%)
PS (mm)
Tensile
Optimum Parameter
level
setting
1
20%
1
0.045 mm
Flexural
Optimum Parameter
level
setting
3
40%
1
0.045 mm
(7)
For response of two variables (7) reduces to
Hardness
Optimum Parameter
level
setting
3
40%
1
0.045 mm
Impact
Optimum Parameter
level
setting
1
20%
1
0.045 mm
2 = 34 5 "6 57 "
(9)
AB = C4 + C 5 + C7 57 + C 5 7 + C77 57 7
+C7 5 57
(10)
38
4.8874V
I4.W477
(LM)
(12)
1
(13)
Y2 = 2.91559 4.8VWW7V(LM)I4.V7OPV
(14)
Processing
factors
A: Volume
fraction Vfr (%)
B: Fibre particle
sizes Ps (mm)
Low
level (-1)
20
High
level (+1)
40
0.045
0.075
Run order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Pt type
0
-1
1
-1
-1
1
1
0
-1
1
0
0
0
Blocks
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Vfr
30
44.14214
20
30
15.85786
40
40
30
30
20
30
30
30
Ps
0.06
0.06
0.045
0.081213
0.06
0.045
0.075
0.06
0.038787
0.075
0.06
0.06
0.06
R
26.41135851
26.13737532
28.85052527
24.34578936
26.86992211
28.31560952
24.68019581
26.41135851
29.70006873
25.14643424
26.41135851
26.41135851
26.41135851
Run order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Pt type
0
-1
0
1
1
0
-1
0
1
0
-1
-1
1
Blocks
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
39
Vfr
30
30
30
40
20
30
15.85786
30
40
30
44.14214
30
20
Ps
0.06
0.081213
0.06
0.045
0.075
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.075
0.06
0.06
0.038787
0.045
R
20.52096
19.66813
20.52096
22.20025
18.84315
20.52096
18.85021
20.52096
20.66579
20.52096
21.60431
21.8154
20.24227
Table 10. Central composite design (CCD) matrix for impact strength
Std order
13
4
11
3
12
1
7
2
10
6
9
8
5
Run order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Pt type
0
1
0
1
0
1
-1
1
0
-1
0
-1
-1
Blocks
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Vfr
30
40
30
20
30
20
30
40
30
44.14214
30
30
15.85786
Ps
0.06
0.075
0.06
0.075
0.06
0.045
0.038787
0.045
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.081213
0.06
R
47.66424
42.95371
47.66424
47.87444
47.66424
54.8031
53.49657
49.17021
47.66424
44.86908
47.66424
43.99509
52.66431
Run order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Pt type
0
1
0
-1
0
1
0
-1
0
1
-1
1
-1
Blocks
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Vfr
30
40
30
30
30
20
30
15.85786
30
40
44.14214
20
30
Ps
0.06
0.045
0.06
0.081213
0.06
0.075
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.075
0.06
0.045
0.038787
R
42.86132
55.23051
42.86132
36.54174
42.86132
33.00586
42.86132
34.19271
42.86132
42.1972
49.14893
43.20028
53.93849
(16)
(17)
(18)
40
22
21
20
19
40
0.08
30
Vfr
0.06
20
0.04
Ps
41
19.0
19.5
20.0
20.5
21.0
21.5
40
35
Vfr
R
<
>
19.0
19.5
20.0
20.5
21.0
21.5
22.0
22.0
30
25
20
0.04
0.05
0.06
Ps
0.07
0.08
55
50
40
45
30
0.04
Vfr
20
0.06
0.08
Ps
44
46
48
50
52
40
Vfr
35
R
<
>
44
46
48
50
52
54
54
30
25
20
0.04
0.05
0.06
Ps
0.07
0.08
42
50
R
40
40
30
30
0.04
Vfr
20
0.06
0.08
Ps
Fig. 11. Minitab depiction of 3-D surface plot of hardness response of CNFRHDPE
Contour Plot of R vs Vfr, Ps
35
40
45
50
40
Vfr
35
R
<
>
35
40
45
50
55
55
30
25
20
0.04
0.05
0.06
Ps
0.07
0.08
43
( 19)
DF
5
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
7
3
4
12
Seq SS
28.9490
28.3132
0.5187
27.7945
0.6346
0.0001
0.6345
0.0012
0.0012
0.0074
0.0074
0.0000
28.9563
Adj SS
28.9490
28.3132
0.5187
27.7945
0.6346
0.0125
0.6345
0.0012
0.0012
0.0074
0.0074
0.0000
Adj MS
5.7898
14.1566
0.5187
27.7945
0.3173
0.0125
0.6345
0.0012
0.0012
0.0011
0.0025
0.0000
F
5499.34
13446.42
492.71
26400.12
301.37
11.86
602.68
1.12
1.12
P
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.000
0.325
0.325
F
5674.04
13864.84
17276.77
10452.92
314.88
347.94
201.96
10.74
10.74
P
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.014
0.014
F
4715.44
11505.07
9139.52
13870.62
273.58
315.32
303.19
19.91
19.91
P
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.003
DF
5
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
7
3
4
12
Seq SS
12.0927
11.8197
7.3642
4.4555
0.2684
0.1824
0.0861
0.0046
0.0046
0.0030
0.0030
0.0000
12.0957
Adj SS
12.0927
11.8197
7.3642
4.4555
0.2684
0.1483
0.0861
0.0046
0.0046
0.0030
0.0030
0.0000
Adj MS
2.41854
5.90985
7.36417
4.45553
0.13422
0.14831
0.08608
0.00458
0.00458
0.00043
0.00099
0.00000
DF
5
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
7
3
4
12
Seq SS
150.138
146.527
58.200
88.327
3.484
1.554
1.931
0.127
0.127
0.045
0.045
0.000
150.183
Adj SS
150.138
146.527
58.200
88.327
3.484
2.008
1.931
0.127
0.127
0.045
0.045
0.000
44
Adj MS
30.0276
73.2635
58.1999
88.3272
1.7421
2.0079
1.9307
0.1268
0.1268
0.0064
0.0149
0.0000
DF
5
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
7
3
4
12
Seq SS
526.158
510.401
224.432
285.969
13.742
4.094
9.648
2.015
2.015
0.241
0.241
0.000
526.399
Adj SS
526.158
510.401
224.432
285.969
13.742
2.563
9.648
2.015
2.015
0.241
0.241
0.000
Adj MS
105.232
255.201
224.432
285.969
6.871
2.563
9.648
2.015
2.015
0.034
0.080
0.000
45
F
3051.95
7401.38
6509.03
8293.73
199.27
74.34
279.80
58.43
58.43
P
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Press
0.0324
0.0206
0.0009
1.71634
R2 (%)
99.97
99.98
99.42
99.95
R2 (pred) (%)
99.82
99.82
98.87
99.67
R2 (adj) (%)
99.96
99.96
99.23
99.92
5. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this study investigated the performance
of coconut fibre particles as a filler material in high-
46
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
COMPETING INTERESTS
12.
13.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
14.
15.
16.
17.
47
18.
48