4.7 Article

Compressive behavior of crump rubber reinforced epoxy composites

Journal

POLYMER COMPOSITES
Volume 42, Issue 1, Pages 329-341

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pc.25828

Keywords

compression testing; crump rubber; energy absorption; epoxy; polymer composites

Funding

  1. Mechanical Design and Manufacturing Engineering Program under the School of Chemical, Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Adama Science and Technology University, Ethiopia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that crump rubber reinforced epoxy composites exhibit high energy absorption and higher strain capacity, but their compression modulus and strength values are lower than pure epoxy. By increasing the crump rubber content, the energy absorption of the composite can be significantly improved.
In the present investigation, compressive behavior of crump rubber reinforced epoxy composites was studied. Crump rubber/epoxy composites were prepared with 0, 10, 20, and 30 vol% of crump rubber. Open mold casting was adopted for the fabrication of composites. Compressive stress-strain curves depict brittle failure for neat epoxy samples whereas crump rubber reinforced composites reveal high-energy absorption. Crump rubber reinforced composites undergo higher strain in comparison with neat epoxy sample. Compression modulus (43%-61%) and strength values (53%-55%) were lower than neat epoxy sample. Energy absorption of epoxy matrix reinforced with (10, 20, and 30 vol%) crump rubber particles depict enhancement of 34% to 73% in comparison with neat epoxy sample. Further, densification stress and strain of crump rubber composites also register higher values. Scanning electron micrographs of tested samples were used to study the structure property correlations. Property map reveals crump rubber composites possess moderate compression modulus and high-energy absorption in comparison with the values extracted from literature.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available