Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Mechanical properties of micro and Nano-Filler content on

polypropylene composites
M.R. Rajesh Kanna a, Eunice Jerusha b,⇑, Sumanta Bhattacharya c, Santosh B. Pore d, S.B.Inayath Ahamed e,
Chandra Kumar dixit f, S. Rajkumar g
a
Department of Mathematics, Sri.D.Devaraja Urs Government First Grade College, Hunsur 571105, Karnataka, India
b
Department of Physics, R. M. D. Engineering College, Kavaraipettai, 601206 Tamil Nadu, India
c
Department of Science and Technology and Biotechnology, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology, West Bengal 700064, India
d
Department of Chemistry, Prof. Dr. N. D. Patil Mahavidyalaya, Malkapur, Kolhapur, Maharashtra 415101, India
e
Department of Business Administration,Kalasalingam Business School,Kalasalingam Academy of Research and Education(Deemed to be University), Krishnankoil, 626 126.
Tamil Nadu, India
f
Department of Physics, Dr Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow, UP 226017, India
g
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Manufacturing, Institute of Technology, Hawassa University, Ethiopia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Micro and nanofiller content were evaluated in polypropylene composites to see their effect on the
Available online xxxx mechanical properties. The matrix substantial is polypropylene; the micro-fillers are aluminium oxide
(Al2O3), titanium dioxide (TiO2), and fly ash added in concentrations ranging from 0 to 30% by mass;
Keywords: and the nano-fillers are aluminium oxide, titanium dioxide, and clay added in concentrations ranging
Polypropylene from 0 to 10% by mass. To conduct the test, a die with an open mould was employed. To validate the
Composites strain measurements, testings like flexural, 3-point bending, and hardness tests are made. We analyzed
Flexural strength
and estimated the flexural strength, elastic modulus, and flexibility of the composite materials. The duc-
Nano-fillers
tility, flexural strength, and elongation at break values of samples decreased while the tensile modulus
and flexural modulus risen when the proportion of micro and nano-filler content increased.
Copyright Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Confer-
ence Virtual Conference on Technological Advancements in Mechanical Engineering

1. Introduction
In the polymer matrix, properties are controlled by adding var-
ious fillings. Fillers, minerals, agriculture, and/or pozzolanic trash
are all terms of fillers. Since polymers have different properties,
researchers have attempted to find out what impacts these differ-
ent aspects of polymeric composites, such as shape, filler kind, size,
filler to polymer matrix proportion, and stickiness, have on poly-
meric composite mechanical properties [1]. There are certain
qualities that make polypropylene-filled ZnO-polypropylene com-
posites valuable. These polypropylene-filled ZnO-polypropylene
composites are useful due to their properties and uses [2]. The
Nano-filled composites outperformed the Micro-filled composites,
regardless of the filler ratios. Accordingly, important catalyst inter-
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: eunjer@gmail.com (E. Jerusha), inayathahamed@klu.ac.in (S.B.
Inayath Ahamed), ckdixit@dsmnru.ac.in (C. Kumar dixit), rajkumar@hu.edu.et (S.
Rajkumar).
action between the matrix and filler particles was discovered, lead-
ing to enhanced morphological images and nano-filler dispersion
[3,4]. The polymeric composite gained stiffness from the added fil-
lers, but it exceeded a certain filler ratio and created an accumula-
tion of particles, which diminished the matrix-filler bond strength
and hence decreased the composite’s mechanical strength [5,6].
The mechanical performance of nano-clay-filled crystal fibre epoxy
amalgams is affected by dispersion methods; as the viscosity
increases, the uniform dispersion of fillers becomes more difficult,
which leads to the formation of agglomerated filler particles nano-
clay-filled epoxy composite material’s hardness ratings [7]. Com-
posite hardness is raised by the addition of nano-clay fillers up
to a limit, after which it is diminished due to clusters forming at
high filler ratio levels. Graphite-filled epoxy amalgams with 2% to
5% filler content contain 2.5% to 5% graphite by weight [8]. At a five
wt% filler ratio, they discovered that the ductile strength and mod-
ulus of the composite were improved, and this was because of the
formation of agglomerates, and therefore an increase in compres-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.465
2214-7853/Copyright Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference Virtual Conference on Technological Advancements in Mechanical
Engineering

Please cite this article as: M.R. Rajesh Kanna, E. Jerusha, S. Bhattacharya et al., Mechanical properties of micro and Nano-Filler content on polypropylene
compositesgiven names and surnames to make sure that we have identified them correctly and that they are presented in the desired order. Carefully
M.R. Rajesh Kanna, E. Jerusha, S. Bhattacharya et al.
sive strength [9,10]. Sayer employed glass-reinforced epoxy resin
combined with ceramic fillers, like SiC, Al2O3, and B4C. Composite
materials boosted their elastic modulus and buckling load carrying
capabilities by including ceramic particulate fillers [11]. Al2O3-
filled glass fibre-reinforced epoxy composites and their mechanical
characteristics. Composites with Al2O3 fillers had lower tensile
strengths. With up to 10% filler bending strength, the ratio rose
while it dropped at higher filler ratios [12]. Rice husk flour-filled
polypropylene composites’ mechanical characteristics It is possible
to polymerize propylene molecules to make PP92–96, a thermo-
plastic polymer [13]. The following compound is composed of
three primary elements. The global majority of propylene mono-
mer is derived via steam cracking naphtha using crude oil. Ethy-
lene monomer is often the target invention of a naphtha cracker.
The primary (crude) product of the cracking process is propylene
[14]. The degree of propylene formation depends on the feedstock
used for crude oil production. In many cases, a propylene factory is
linked to a cracking operation in order to collect naphtha cracking’s
waste propylene. It is the second-largest raw material, propylene,
is used in its production [15]. The most recent and ongoing method
of dehydrogenating propane to propylene monomer is now being
employed.
The tender of polypropylene happens as an assortment, and a
tender point is found by using a differential scanning calorimetry
(DSC) chart that displays a higher range of temperatures [16].
The majority of commercial PP ranges around between 40 and 60
percent crystallinity. The melting point of perfectly isotactic PP is
1710 °C. (3400°F). Although some commercially available isotactic
PP melts at around 320 °C, commercially available isotactic PP has
a crystalline structure of 30% and melts at temperatures well over
1300 °C (2660 °F) [17]. Marketable polypropylene exhibits a vari-
ety of mechanical characteristics, which are summarised in table.
It had a tensile strength of 22 MPa, a Young’s modulus of
535 MPa, an Eb percentage of 322%, and a BS of 27 MPa,
2050 MPa, and a BS of 4.2 kJ/m2. The high filler ratios caused the
polymer composite to become brittle because of the rise in the
interfacial area [18]. This led to a drop in ductile and impact
strength, whereas an increase in tensile modulus was observed—
filled polyester composites with 10% to 30% fillers. The addition
of more filler materials increases the modulus while decreasing
the composites’ ductility and flexibility carbon/nitrile rubber com-
posite composed of rice bran powder. Using small particle fillers
improved dispersion with respect to particle size [19]. Efforts to
further increase the element size and filler proportion produced
the homogenous diffusion of fillers to be quite problematic, result-
ing in an inferior bond between the matrix and the fillers [20]. Fill
ratios of 5 wt% to 30 wt% were used to create epoxy cocoa pod
composites. The most evenly distributed filler was found at the
5% filler content [21]. Furthermore, while modulus and microhard-
ness improved when fillers were introduced, mechanical strength
declined—Fly ash-filled vinyl ester composites, whose mechanical
characteristics have been studied in great detail. In addition to
improving stiffness and rigidity, fly ash boosted the composite’s
mechanical strength but reduced its strength. Glass fibre-
reinforced polyester composites were treated with fly ash. Fly
ash (10% weight) added to the composite greatly improved the
mechanical characteristics [22]. The term ‘‘fibres” has traditionally
been used to refer to both natural and manufactured fibres. Com-
posites of natural and synthetic fibres have been the subject of
an enormous amount of effort by numerous researchers. Despite
these benefits and shortcomings, both fibres offer advantages and
drawbacks. In contrast to natural fibres, which have worse
mechanical qualities, thermoplastic composite fibre reinforce-
ments have greater mechanical capabilities [23]. However, they
are not environmentally friendly. Natural fibres like lignin, natural
materials, linen, hemp, silk, jute, sisal, kenaf, and cotton are being
2
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
studied by researchers around the world as reinforcing materials
like thermoplastics and thermosets. Natural fibres, except for
organic fibres, have little resistance to abrasion, porosity, durabil-
ity, acceptable strength attributes, acceptable heat properties,
and good biocompatibility. Some of the natural fibres in composite
materials offer advantages such as environmental stewardship, the
ability to replenish the material’s fibres, great sound dampening
capability, and fuel savings. Conversely, FRPCs are often of interest
because of their strength, greater durability, and resistance to
moisture. Glass, carbon, and aramid are the most often used syn-
thetic fibres in composites [24]. Glass fibres are popular synthetic
fibre due to their lower cost and improved physicomechanical
characteristics. Cenosphere-filled vinyl ester composites’ tribolog-
ical behaviour is enhanced by utilizing low filler loading and large
filler size. The mechanical and tribological behaviour improved as
filler content increased to 6 per cent, and optimal rates were
achieved [25]. The study found that the micro-and nano-filled pul-
truded unidirectional glass fibre-reinforced epoxy amalgamated
exposed significant improvements in mechanical properties, creat-
ing it a promising choice for structural applications. Filler content
in epoxy/PTW composites influenced density, hardness, and stiff-
ness properties of composites, with PTW enhancing beneficial
impacts on density, hardness, and stiffness while also decreasing
strength and ductility [26].
Reinforcement of polypropylene fibres with polymers is an
excellent way to develop natural-synthetic polymer combinations.
The effectiveness of FRPCs is determined by their composition. The
length of the reinforcing fibres and the quantity of the reinforcing
fibres influence the mechanical characteristics. Lightweight mate-
rials play vital role in automotive and marine sectors [27–52].
The effect of epoxy mixes’ structural qualities on micro-and
nanocomposite mechanical properties was studied in this study.
In order to carry out these tests, 3-point bending, tensile, and stiff-
ness testing were required. A number of properties of the
polypropylene composites were tested, including their ductile
strength, percentage elongation, ductility, modulus of rupture,
and rigidity.
2. Experimental procedure
2.1. Materials
The polypropylene polymer matrix in this study is the one
examined. Various types of micro-fillers, like aluminium oxide,
titanium dioxide and fly ash, were used in different ratios, with
the number ranging from 0% to 30% by weight. Aluminium oxide,
titanium dioxide and nano clay were incorporated in varying
weight percentages at 0%, 10%, and 10% by weight to nano-fillers
such as silica (SiO2), carbon (C), and alumina (Al2O3).
2.2. Composite preparation
The filler was dehydrated in a kiln at 85 °C for 300 min. To make
the polymer less viscous, the polypropylene was heated. Filler
ingredients were added to the resin, and it was stirred using a
mechanical stirrer for two hours and fifteen minutes. Entrapped
air was removed using suction methods during this step. It was
then time to add the curing ingredient (MGS LH 285) and physi-
cally mix it in. This was the third time the void operation had been
used. Afterwards, the open moulds were filled with composite
resin. Nano-filler was exposed to an ultrasonic technique for
30 min prior to the hardener is added. Molds were placed in a
55 °C kiln for 20 h, followed by an 85 °C kiln for 6 h, before being
returned to a 55 °C kiln for 24 h to enhance cross-linking during
post-curing. Shimadzu used a crosshead speed of 6 mm/s to con-
M.R. Rajesh Kanna, E. Jerusha, S. Bhattacharya et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

duct standard tensile testing at a temperature of 23 °C. The tensile 4400

strength has been established by ASTM D638-10. Value. A value Al2O3
was collected and tested, and it’s at 100% now. ASTM D790-10 4200 TiO2
was used for 3-point bending tests carried out using a Shimadzu Fly ash
4000 Nano Al2O3
apparatus. This particular specimen was

Tensile modulus(Mpa)
Nano TiO2
3.5 mm  13 mm  130 mm and was running at 3 mm/min. The 3800
Nanoclay
following data were calculated and assessed: ductility, modulus
of rupture, and percentage of elongation 3600
The graphic in Fig. 1 illustrates the correlation between ductile
strength and filler content for micro-and nano- polypropylene 3400
composites. It is apparent that as the filler percentage increased,
3200
the tensile strengths of micro-filled composites declined. Al2O3-
filled composites showed reduced susceptibility to changes in filler 3000
content ratios. Nano-filler increases up to 3% filler content. For the
nano-TiO2 and nano-Al2O3-filled composites, the respective 2800
increase about 7.5% and 11%.
The data are shown in Fig. 2 demonstrates the range of tensile 2600
Nano 0 2.5 5 10
modulus in the micro-and nano-filler composite fillers with filler
percentage. They were increasing the filler amount further primes Micro 0 10 20 30
to a rising in the tensile modulus of polypropylene composites. The Filler content (wt %)
polymer stiffness was improved thanks to the incorporation of
Fig. 2. The relationship between micro and nano polypropylene composites’ tensile
micro-and nano-fillers, which added mass and hence increased
modulus and filler content.
the polymer’s modulus. The modulus of Al2O3- and TiO2-filled
polypropylene composites increased by 48.5% due to the inclusion
of more filler. An additional 298% increase in nano-filler content
resulted in an 8.8%, 9.5%, and 23.8% rise in the moduli of nano- 6
Al2O3nano-TiO2, and nano-clay, respectively.
Micro- and nano-polypropylene composites’ elongation at
break is shown in Fig. 3 as a function of filler content. It is clear 5
Elongation at break (%)

from this graph that the elongation-at-break values decreased with

increasing amalgam filler content. The brittleness of the matrix
4
was caused by the fillers. When the micro-Aluminium oxide, tita-
nium dioxide, and fly ash filler content is increased by 198 per cent,
the elongation at break reduces by 48 per cent, 65.8 per cent, and 3
65.2 per cent, respectively. Increases of 298 per cent in nano- Alu-
minium oxide, titanium dioxide, and nano-clay concentration Al2O3
2 TiO2
result in a reduction of 36.8 per cent, 33.8 per cent, and 59.89
per cent in elongation at break, respectively. Fly ash
In Fig. 4, the flexural strength of micro-and nano-polypropylene 1 Nano Al2O3
composites is plotted as a function of filler content. When micro- Nano TiO2
composite filler levels increased, the flexural strengths decreased, Nanoclay
0
Nano 0 2.5 5 10
100 Micro 0 10 20 30
Filler content (wt %)
90
Fig. 3. The relationship between elongation at break and filler quantity in micro
and nano polypropylene composites.
80
Tensile strength (Mpa)

70 and these decreases ranged between 11.89% and 44.85%. The

Nano-composites increase steadily at a 2.48% to 5.2% Filler Ratio,
60 after which they drop at higher Filler ratios. A 2.58% Al2O3
nanocomposite reached the greatest increase when filled to
50 12.5% of its theoretical weight. At a five wt% resin ration, the com-
Al2O3
posite reaches a 12.8% increase in flexural strength. Following this
TiO2
40 trend, the nano-clay-filled composite comes to 19.86% at the 9.86%
Fly ash
Nano Al2O3 filler ratio
30 Nano TiO2 A link between filler content and flexural modulus is shown in
Nanoclay Fig. 5. With increasing filler quantity, the flexural modulus of the
20 polymer composite rose. Composites using 30% micro-filler had
Nano 0 2.5 5 10 the highest flexural modulus. The flexural modulus of the compos-
Micro 0 10 20 30 ite increases by 56.8%, 47.28%, and 52.88% for each 198 per cent
rise in micro Aluminium oxide, titanium dioxide, and fly ash con-
Filler content (wt %) tent. The flexural modulus of nano-titanium dioxide and nano-
Fig. 1. The relationship between micro and nano polypropylene composites’ tensile
clay polypropylene composites increased by 8.99 and 44.6 per cent
strength and filler content. for a 298 per cent increase.

3
M.R. Rajesh Kanna, E. Jerusha, S. Bhattacharya et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

150 60

140

130 50
Flexural Strength (MPa)

120

Barcol hardness
40
110

100
30
90
Al2O3
80 TiO2 Al2O3
20
70 Fly ash TiO2
Nano Al2O3 Fly ash
60 Nano Al2O3
10
Nano TiO2
50 Nano TiO2
Nanoclay Nanoclay
40 0
Nano 0 2.5 5 10 Nano 0 2.5 5 10
0

Micro 0 10 20 30 Micro 0 10 20 30
Filler content (wt %) Filler content (wt %)
Fig. 4. Flexural strength of micro-and nano-polypropylene composites relates to
Fig. 6. The relationship among hardness and filler content of micro and nano
filler content.
polypropylene composites.

5000
3. Discussions

4500
The results show that as the filler ratio increased, the ductility
Flexural modulus (Mpa)

of micro-filled composites decreased. The adhesion between the

4000 matrix and fillers weakened as the amount of filler was added, low-
ering the value of the polypropylene composite. Because of the
3500 high filler ratios, quasi dispersion causes agglomeration and stress
concentration zones in nano-filler, weakening it. Even at low filler-
3000 to-polypropylene content ratios, agglomeration may be the cause
Al2O3
TiO2 of the decreased strength of the composite.
2500
Fly ash The polymer matrix becoming brittle when filled could explain
Nano Al2O3
Nano TiO2
the decrease in curvature at break values of the composite with fil-
Nanoclay ler content. Because fillers inhibit polymer mobility, the higher the
2000
Nano 0 2.5 5 10 filler concentration, the more brittle the composite. Agglomeration
Micro 0 10 20 30 of nano-fillers at developed ratios and weak adhesion between fil-
Filler content (wt %) ler and matrix materials could explain the decrease in flexural
strength of composites. The rise in flexural modulus is due to the
Fig. 5. The affiliation of flexural modulus against filler content of micro and nano fillers boosting the firmness and rigorousness of the polymer
polypropylene composites.
composite.
The filler usually amplifies the composite’s hardness. A minor
Fig. 6 shows how filler content affects elongation at break for decline in hardness was seen with fly ash, nano-clay, and high filler
micro and nano polypropylene composites. According to the graph, contented ratios. The weak adherence between the polypropylene
the composites with the highest filler ratio had the lowest elastic matrix and filler components could explain this.
deformation at break values. The elongation at break values fall As shown in Figs. 1–6, filler content has a considerable effect on
by 71.85%, 79.8%, and 86.65% for a 198 per cent rise in micro Alu- most mechanical possessions of polypropylene composites, but
minium oxide, Titanium dioxide, and fly ash filler content. For only on specific filler ratio. Excessive amounts of micro-fillers pro-
nano- Aluminium oxide, nano- Titanium dioxide, and nano-clay duce a weakening of the matrix-filler adhesion force, although high
composites, a 298 per cent increase in filler content results in planes of nano-fillers cause accumulation. As a result, the
38.5 per cent, 44.8 per cent, and 776 per cent decreases in elonga- polypropylene composite’s mechanical qualities deteriorate.
tion at break. Hardness variations of micro-and nano polypropylene compos-
Hardness variations of micro-and nano polypropylene compos- ites with filler (Fig.). The stiffness of the composites enlarged with
ites with filler (Fig. 7). The stiffness of the composites amplified filler amount. The stiff fillers boosted the polypropylene’s stiffness.
with filler amount. The stiff fillers boosted the polypropylene’s Except for fly ash and nano clay-filled polypropylene composites,
hardness. Except for fly slag and nano clay-filled polypropylene all composites had a cumulative filler content profile. The hardness
composites, all amalgams had a cumulative filler content profile. value increases from 29.8% to 49.8%, while the filler content
The hardness value increases from 29.8% to 49.8%, while the filler increases from 198 to 298.
content increases from 198 to 298.

4
M.R. Rajesh Kanna, E. Jerusha, S. Bhattacharya et al.
4. Conclusion
4.1. This study’s findings are as follows:
Composites containing micro-and nano-fillers Al2O3, TiO2, fly
ash had lower tensile, flexural, and elongation at break values as
filler ratios increased.
 Tensile and flexural modulus of micro-and nano-filler Al2O3,
TiO2, fly ash polypropylene composites increased with filler
quantity.
 The hardness of the micro-and nano-fillers Al2O3, TiO2, fly ash
and clay polypropylene composites increased with filler
quantity.
 The filler made polypropylene composites brittle.
 Agglomeration of filler occurs at greater nano-filler ratios.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
M.R. Rajesh Kanna: Writing – original draft. Eunice Jerusha:
Writing – original draft. Sumanta Bhattacharya: Writing – original
draft. Santosh B. Pore: Methodology, Formal analysis, Supervision,
Validation. S.B.Inayath Ahamed: Methodology, Formal analysis,
Supervision, Validation. Chandra Kumar dixit: Formal analysis,
Writing – review & editing. S. Rajkumar: Formal analysis, Writing
– review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] H.U. Zaman, P.D. Hun, R.A. Khan, K.-B. Yoon, J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 31 (5)
(2012) 323–329.
[2] Y. Gao, L. Liu, Z. Zhang, Acta Mech. Solida Sin. 22 (6) (2009) 555–562.
[3] V.A. Agubra, P.S. Owuor, M.V. Hosur, Nanomaterials 3 (3) (2013) 550–563.
[4] C.-K. Lam, H. Cheung, K. Lau, L. Zhou, M. Ho, D. Hui, Compos. Part B Eng. 36 (3)
(2005) 263–269.
[5] M. Sayer, Compos. Part B Eng. 59 (2014) 12–20.
[6] O. Asi, J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 28 (23) (2009) 2861–2867.
[7] H.-S. Yang, H.-J. Kim, J. Son, H.-J. Park, B.-J. Lee, T.-S. Hwang, Compos. Struct. 63
(3–4) (2004) 305–312.
[8] M.S. Ibrahim, S.M. Sapuan, A.A. Faieza, J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 2 (2012) 133–147.
[9] M.-C. Li, Y. Zhang, U.R. Cho, Mater. Des. 63 (2014) 565–574.
[10] P.E. Imoisili, T.C. Ezenwafor, B.E. AttahDaniel, S.O.O. Olusunle, Am. Chem. Sci. J.
3 (4) (2013) 526–531.
[11] D. Ray, D. Bhattacharya, A.K. Mohanty, L.T. Drzal, M. Misra, Macromol. Mater.
Eng. 291 (7) (2006) 784–792.
[12] R.S. Raja, K. Manisekar, V. Manikandan, Mater. Des. 55 (2014) 499–508.
[13] S.R. Chauhan, S. Thakur, Mater. Des. 51 (2013) 398–408.
[14] S. Mohanty, S.K. Verma, S.K. Nayak, S.S. Tripathy, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 94 (3)
(2004) 1336–1345.
[15] M. Sudheer, R. Prabhu, K. Raju, T. Bhat, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2014 (2014).
[16] A. International, Standard test methods for flexural properties of unreinforced
and reinforced plastics and electrical insulating materials by four-point
bending. ASTM International, 2010..
[17] H.-S. Yang, M.P. Wolcott, H.-S. Kim, S. Kim, H.-J. Kim, Polym. Test. 25 (5) (2006)
668–676.
[18] J. Ganster, H.-P. Fink, M. Pinnow, Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 37 (10)
(2006) 1796–1804.
[19] N. Ljungberg, J.-Y. Cavaillé, L. Heux, Polymer (Guildf) 47 (18) (2006) 6285–
6292.
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
[20] S. Pilla, S. Gong, E. O’Neill, L. Yang, R.M. Rowell, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 111 (1)
(2009) 37–47.
[21] M. Abdelmouleh, S. Boufi, M.N. Belgacem, A. Dufresne, Compos. Sci. Technol.
67 (7–8) (2007) 1627–1639.
[22] G.-H. Doh, S.-Y. Lee, I.-A. Kang, Y.-T. Kong, Compos. Struct. 68 (1) (2005) 103–
108.
[23] Z. Tartakowski, A. Pietrzak-Mantiuk, Polym. Test. 25 (3) (2006) 342–346.
[24] S.-H. Lee, S. Wang, G.M. Pharr, H. Xu, Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 38 (6)
(2007) 1517–1524.
[25] E. Rodríguez, R. Petrucci, D. Puglia, J.M. Kenny, A. Vazquez, J. Compos. Mater.
39 (3) (2005) 265–282.
[26] S. Ok Han, S. Muk Lee, W. Ho Park, D. Cho, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 100 (6) (2006)
4972–4980.
[27] A. Rohit Sai Krishna, B. Vamshi Krishna, T. Sashank, D. Harshith, Ram Subbiah,
Mater. Today: Proc. 27 (2) (2020) 1555–1558, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.matpr.2020.03.201.
[28] K. Arul, V.S. Senthil Kumar, Mater. Manuf. Process. 35 (4) (2020) 404–414.
[29] Ram Subbiah, M.d. Rahel, A. Sravika, R. Ambika, A. Srujana, E. Navya, Mater.
Today: Proc. 18 (7) (2019) 2265–2269, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.matpr.2019.07.008.
[30] Vinayagam Mohanavel, S. Suresh Kumar, J. Vairamuthu, P. Ganeshan, J. Nat.
Fibers (2021), https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2021.1875368.
[31] S. Memon, M. Paidar, K.P. Mehta, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 30 (2021) 334–345.
[32] M. Paidar, S. Memon, V.O. Samusenkov, B. Babaei, O.O. Ojo, Mater. Lett. 15
(285) (2021 Feb) 129160.
[33] S. Memon, M. Paidar, S. Sadreddini, K. Cooke, B. Babaei, O.O. Ojo, Results Phys.
1 (19) (2020 Dec) 103629.
[34] K. Manjith Srinivas, S. Bharath, P.N.V. Krishna Chaitanya, M. Pramod, Ram
Subbiah, Mater. Today: Proc. 27 (2) (2020) 1575–1578, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matpr.2020.03.254.
[35] B. Chaitanya, Kumar, P. Sri Charan, Kanishkar Jayakumar, D. Alankrutha, G.
Sindhu, Ram Subbiah, Mater. Today: Proc. 27 (2) (2020) 1541–1544, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.03.195.
[36] V. Mohanavel, K. Rajan, M. Ravichandran, J. Mater. Res. 31 (2016) 3824–3831.
[37] K. Arul, V.S. Senthil Kumar, Int. J. Machining Sci. Technol. 24 (5) (2020) 810–
836.
[38] S. Memon, A. Murillo-Marrodán, H.M. Lankarani, H. Aghajani Derazkola,
Materials 14 (13) (2021 Jan) 3604.
[39] Ragavanantham Shanmugam, Monsuru Ramoni, Jishu Chandran, Vinayagam
Mohanavel, Lakshmanan Pugazhendhi, J. Phys.:Conf. Ser., IOP publishing 2027
(2021), 012-026778.
[40] M. Vinayagam, K.S. Ashraff Ali, S. Prasath, T. Sathish, M. Ravichandran, J. Mater.
Res. Technol. 9 (2020) 14662–14672.
[41] Monsuru Ramoni, Ragavanantham Shanmugam, Nimel Sworna Ross, Munish
Kumar Gupta, J. Manuf. Process. 70 (2021) 225–235.
[42] R. Thandavamoorthy, A. Palanivel, J. Testing Eval. 48 (1) (2020) 647–655,
https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE20180640.
[43] T. Raja, P. Anand, Mater. Performance Characterization 8 (1) (2019) 481–490,
https://doi.org/10.1520/MPC20190135.
[44] M. Vinayagam, M. Ravichandran, Mater. Res. Express 6 (2019) 106557.
[45] B. NagarajaGanesh, P. Ganeshan, P. Ramshankar, K. Raja, Ind. Crops Products
139 (2019) 111546.
[46] D. Vinothraj, S. Ragavanantham, M. Saravanakumar, M. Vivekananthan, G.S.
Sivagnanamani, Mater. Today Proc. 37 (2020) 1809–1812.
[47] T. Raja, P. Anand, M. Sundarraj, M. Karthick, A. Kannappan, Int. J. Mech. Eng.
Technol. 9 (2) (2018) 686–689.
[48] V. Yamunadevi, K. Palaniradja, A. Thiagarajan, P. Ganeshan, K. Raja, Mater. Res.
Express 6 (2019) 095057.
[49] P. Ganeshan, S. Senthil Kumuran, K. Raja, D. Venkateswarlu, Mater. Res.
Express 6 (2019) 015303.
[50] Ragavanantham Shanmugam, Monsuru Ramoni, Geethapriyan Thangamani,
Muthuramalingam Thangaraj, Metals 11 (2021) 778.
[51] T. Lakshmi Deepak, G. Ananda Mithra, K. Lokesh, B. Sai Chandra, Ram Subbiah,
Materials Today: Proceedings 27 (2) (2020) 1681–1684, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matpr.2020.03.571.
[52] G. Maruthupandian, R. Saravanan, S. Suresh Kumar, B.G. Sivakumar, J. Chem.
Pharm. Sci. 9 (2) (2016) 978–980.
Further reading
[53] K.S. Ashraff Ali, S. Suresh Kumar, J. Allen Jeffrey, M.M. Ravikumar, S.
Rajkumar, Mater. Today: Proc. 47 (Part 1) (2021) 493–499, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matpr.2021.05.038.