4.7 Article

The optimal formulation of recycled polypropylene/rubberwood flour composites from experiments with mixture design

期刊

COMPOSITES PART B-ENGINEERING
卷 56, 期 -, 页码 350-357

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.08.041

关键词

Polymer-matrix composites (PMCs); Mechanical properties; Statistical properties/methods; Extrusion

资金

  1. Prince of Songkla Graduate Studies Grant
  2. Government budget Fund [2555A11502062]
  3. Rubberwood Technology and Management Research Group of Faculty of Engineering, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand [ENG-54-27-11-0137-S]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A mixture design was used in experiments, to determine the optimal mixture for composites of rubberwood flour (RWF) and reinforced recycled polypropylene (rPP). The mixed materials were extruded into panels. Effects were determined of the mixture components rPP, RWF, maleic anhydride-grafted polypropylene (MAPP), and ultraviolet (UV) stabilizer, on the mechanical properties. The overall composition significantly affected flexural, compressive, and tensile properties. The fractions of recycled polypropylene and rubberwood flour increased all the mechanical material properties; however, increasing one fraction must be balanced by decreasing the other, and the rubberwood flour fraction had a higher effect size. The fraction of MAPP was best kept in mid-range of the fractions tested, while the UV stabilizer fraction overall degraded the mechanical properties. Our results suggest that the fraction of UV stabilizer should be as small as possible to minimize its negative influences. The models fitted were used for optimization of a desirability score, substituting for the multiple objectives modeled. The optimal formulation found was 50.3 wt% rPP, 44.5 wt% RWF, 3.9 wt% MAPP, 0.2 wt% UV stabilizer, and 1.0 wt% lubricant; the composite made with this formulation had good mechanical properties that closely matched the model predictions. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据