The Effect of Different Laminations on Mechanical

and Physical Properties of Hybrid Composites

H. P. S. ABDUL KHALIL* AND C. W. KANG

School of Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Penang, Malaysia

A. KHAIRUL
Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, 52109 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

R. RIDZUAN
Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB), Biomass Technology Centre
Engineering & Processing Division, Jalan Sekolah, Pekan Bangi Lama
43000 Kajang, Selangor, Malaysia

T. O. ADAWI
Fibre & Biocomposite Development Centre, Malaysian Timber Industry Board
Level 13–17, Menara PGRM, No 8 Jalan Pudu Ulu, Cheras P.O. Box 10887
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

ABSTRACT: The mechanical properties of the vinyl ester reinforced with oil palm of empty fruit
bunch fibers (EFB) laminated at different layer arrangements with glass fiber (CSM) composites
were investigated. The EFB and CSM fibers were laminated at different layer arrangements and then
were impregnated with vinyl ester resin using resin transfer molding (RTM). Post-cure was carried
out after cool press for about 24 h in an oven at 508C. Six different layers of lamination with a ratio
of 50/50 fiber composite (50% EFB and 50% CSM) were manufactured. Control fiber composites
with 100% mechanical fibers, 100% chemical fibers and 100% glass fibers were investigated for
comparison. The mechanical properties (tensile, flexural, and impact test) and physical properties
(water absorption, dimension stability, and density) were analyzed. The mechanical properties, water
absorption, and density of hybrid composites exhibited higher properties than control composites
(chemical and mechanical fibers). While comparing the layers of orientation of hybrid composites,
the results of the tensile and flexural tests showed that composites with glass fiber at the outer layer
showed higher tensile and flexural properties than the others.
The impact test and the composites with natural fibers in the outer layer showed the highest results
as compared to other layer laminations. However, hybrid composites exhibited comparable
properties as compared to glass fiber composites, alone.

KEY WORDS: vinyl ester, empty fruit bunch (EFB), glass fibers, mechanical and physical
properties, water absorption, dimension stability, thermoset composites.

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: akhalil@usm.my

Journal of REINFORCED PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES, Vol. 28, No. 9/2009 1123
0731-6844/09/09 1123–15 $10.00/0 DOI: 10.1177/0731684407087755
ß SAGE Publications 2009
Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore
1124 H.P.S. ABDUL KHALIL ET AL.

INTRODUCTION

HE ADVANTAGES OF technology has greatly improved and changed the success

T of wood in products such as composites, papers, and packaging products.
These technologies are fully capable of utilizing trees for maximum production.
Recently, researchers have found great interest in utilizing agricultural occurring
waste fibrous materials such as palm oil fibers (empty fruit bunch, palm tree fibers)
in combining glass fiber as fiber reinforcement in thermoset composite materials [1,2].
Thermoset resins, such as vinyl ester, are capable of replacing the use of very expensive
steels and alloys. Thermoset resins qualify in this field of advanced composites because of
their characteristics such as resistance to erosion, high strength, simple application process,
and reduced cost. These special characteristics have made thermoset resins such as vinyl
ester viable in the composite process. However, thermoset resins capable of releasing a
great amount of volatile content can affect human health.
The use of matrices is not capable of undertaking the force when enduring a weight.
Moreover, these matrices contain hazardous raw materials that are harmful to human
health. In order to increase the force that the board undertakes and reduce dangerous
levels, a reinforced raw material has to be used [3,16]. Reinforced materials that are
normally used are natural lignocelluloses, such as empty fruit bunch, oil palm, jute, etc.
Natural lignocelluloses were taken as an alternative to replace non-organics, such as
asbestos, which have deadly effects on human health [4]. However, natural lignocelluloses
do have negative effects such as biodegradability. In order to reduce biodegradable time,
the natural raw material has to be processed right away and undergo a chemical and
mechanical pulping. Both processes are capable of producing an individual fiber with the
difference of lignin components. Chemical pulping is free from lignin components while
mechanical pulping contains them.
Lignocelluloses provided mechanical strength while thermoset resins held the fibers
together. A fine combination of both these materials when cured produced a composite
board which enhanced the properties [5].
However, lignocellulose composites do not have the special characteristics that glass
fiber has. That is why a new technology was created where natural and inorganic
reinforced raw materials are used to enhance the properties of a board [6]. This composite
board is called a hybrid composite board. Normally, the glass fibers are used as the main
raw material in the composites, which will contribute to the environmental problems. In
order to have good mechanical properties without disregarding the environment issue, a
combination of natural fibers and synthetic fibers were used to maximize the properties
and utilities of hybrid composites.

EXPERIMENTAL

Materials and Methods

MATERIALS PREPARATION
Empty fruit bunch (EFB) was obtained from the Malaysia Palm Oil Board (MPOB).
Glass fiber was obtained from Chi Mei Co. Ltd, Taiwan in the form of a mat, while the
Euro Chemo-Pharma Sdn. Bhd supplied the vinyl ester matrix. The physical and chemical
properties of the vinyl ester matrix are shown in Table 1.
The Effect of Different Laminations on Properties of Hybrid Composites 1125

Table 1. The physical and chemical properties of vinyl ester matrix.

Appearance Brownish, viscous liquid
Odor Aromatic odor
Solubility Insoluble in water, soluble in most organic solvents
Boiling point 1458C
Melting point N/A
Vapor pressure 5 mm Hg
Percent volatiles 44–48%
Vapor density Heavier than air
Specific gravity 1.10 at 258C
Other properties Viscosity at 258C: 450–650 cps
pH N/A

MECHANICAL PULPING
The EFB raw material was softened in water for a period of 24 h. The soft EFB was then
transferred to the refining machine, refiner model Andritz Sprout-Bauer Inc. The beating
or refining process underwent three cycles with different settings at each cycle. The refined
pulp was then transferred to a valley beater and beaten for 45 min. After beating, the pulps
were removed and dried in a washing machine. Moisture content was then taken after the
beating process.

FIBER MATS FORMATION

The weight of EFB was weighted accordingly. Loose single pulp fibers were transferred
to a molding compound with a size of 24 cm
19 cm by using the equipment for Manual
Hand Sheet Paper Making. After mat formation, the mats were dried at ambient
temperature for about two to three days and then completely dried in an oven. The ratio of
the board was arranged accordingly.

Preparation of Composites

The impregnation of fiber mats after prepreg with vinyl ester was carried out using
Resin Transfer Molding (RTM) Model Hyperject 2000 machine at 5 bar pressure
for 10 min [7]. Then the hybrid composites were allowed to cool and cure
at room temperature. The composites produced were placed in an oven at 358C for
24 h to post-cure. The composites were then ready for characterization. A schematic
diagram of symmetry formation of hybrid laminate composite, 100% mechanical
pulping board, 100% chemical pulping board, and 100% glass fiber board is given
in Figure 1.

Mechanical Tests

A tensile test was performed according to ASTM D638 using the Universal Testing
Machine, Model STM-10. Rectangular strips of dimensions 100
12
9 mm were used.
The gauge length was set at 70 mm with a crosshead speed of 3 mm/min. Tensile strength,
tensile modulus, tensile toughness, and elongation at break were recorded and calculated
by the instrument’s software. The properties were reported after taking statistical average
values of 12 samples for each composite.
1126 H.P.S. ABDUL KHALIL ET AL.

M 50/50 A M 50/50 B M 50/50 C

M 50/50 D M 50/50 E M 50/50F

100% mechanical 100% chemical 100% glass fibre

Symbols:

Glass fibre (CSM) EFB natural fiber

M 50/50 = Mechanical pulping 50% EFB and 50% Glass fibre

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of symmetry formation of hybrid laminate composite, 100% mechanical pulping
board, 100% chemical pulping board, and 100% glass fiber board.

A flexural test was performed according to ASTM D790, using the same machine.
Rectangular strips of dimensions 80
12
9 mm were used with a crosshead speed of
3 mm/min. Flexural properties (flexural strength and flexural modulus) were automatically
calculated by the instrument’s software. The properties were reported after taking
statistical average values of 12 samples for each composite.
The Charpy impact test was carried out on polished samples with dimensions of
80
12
9 mm using the Impact Pendulum Tester (Zwick) Model CS-1370. The shape and
size of the test specimens were according to ASTM D-256. The samples were rigidly
mounted in a vertical position and were struck using a pendulum with a force of 11 J at the
center of the samples.

Physical Tests

The physical tests of dimensional stability and density were determined. The
dimensional stability tests involved were thickness swelling and water absorption.
The composite samples were immersed in distilled water at room temperature
(25  38C). The water absorption was determined from Equation (1) for various periods
of time up to 60 days. Samples were weighed and their dimensions were determined before
and after removing from water at various intervals. After the samples were removed at
The Effect of Different Laminations on Properties of Hybrid Composites 1127

specified intervals they were gently blotted with tissue paper to remove excess water on the
surface, and the weight and thickness values were recorded. The percentage of water
absorption, Mt, was calculated from Equation (1) using ASTM D1037-89 (ASTM, 2000):

WN  Wd
Water absorption %, Mt ¼
100% ð1Þ
Wd

where Wd is the weight of oven dried composite samples before immersion and WN is the
weight of the composite after immersion. The percentage equilibrium water absorption
was calculated as an average value of several measurements.
Dimension stability was calculated according to Equation (2). The thickness swelling
was expressed throughout this study as the increase in thickness over the original thickness
recorded for the samples. The methods of determining the dimension stability was the
same as the determination of water absorption:

T1  T0
Thickness swelling % ¼
100% ð2Þ
T0

where T0 is the thickness of samples before immersion (mm) and T1 is the thickness of
samples after immersion (mm).
The density of specimens was calculated using Equation (3), where m is the mass of the
composite and v is the volume of composite:

m
D¼ ðg=cm3 Þ: ð3Þ
v

Mass determination was carried out by weighing the composites to four decimal places on
an analytical balance (Mettler 5000). The dimensions of the samples were measured by
using a digital veneer caliper (Mitutoyo). After oven drying, the experimental samples were
cooled in desiccators over granulated silica gel before mass and volume determination was
conducted.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Tensile Properties

Figure 2 shows the tensile modulus at different layers arrangement of hybrid EFB/glass
fiber composites using vinyl ester as matrix. The tensile modulus follows the order: fiber
glass (highest) 4 M50/50D 4 M50/50E 4 M50/50F 4 M50/50C 4 M50/50A 4 M50/
50B 4 chemical board 4 mechanical board (lowest). Samples M50/50D (50% mechanical
fibers, 50% glass fibers) exhibited higher properties than other layer hybrid composites.
This was due to glass fiber being more brittle than vinyl ester matrices where most of the
stress on the composite was transferred to the natural fibers effectively [8]. It was also
observed that most composites with glass fiber as the outer layer (sample M50/50D, M50/
50E, and M50/50F) had higher tensile modulus than other hybrid composites as compared
to natural fiber in the outer layer (M50/50A, M50/50B, and M50/50C). It can be proved
that glass fibers were more effective in withstanding heavy loads before transferring the
loads to natural fibers. For samples which had natural fibers in the outer layer, the natural
1128 H.P.S. ABDUL KHALIL ET AL.

1.00
Tensile modulus (GPa)
0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
Mechanical

Chemical

Fiber glass

M 50/50 A

M 50/50 C

M 50/50 D

M 50/50 E

M 50/50 F
M 50/50 B
Sample at various hybrid lamination
Figure 2. Effect of orientation on tensile modulus of composites.

fibers were incapable of carrying heavy loads which caused the synthetic fibers (glass fiber)
to withstand most of the load or stress.
Chemical fibers showed higher tensile property than mechanical fibers. This was due to
chemical fibers being more refined than mechanical fibers. Besides, the presence of lignin
in the mechanical fibers interfered with the bonding between fibers and matrices (vinyl
ester), hence lowering the tensile modulus properties of the composites. The only
drawback to both mechanical and chemical fiber composites exhibiting a low tensile
modulus was mainly due to poor interface between the natural fibers [9]. Few void spaces
in the fibers itself were observed. This meant that the voids influenced the load transferring
in composite boards and caused cracks to the boards.
The results found that the sample with 100% glass fiber exhibited a significantly high
tensile modulus with 0.86 GPa as compared to hybrid composites (0.52–0.82 GPa),
chemical pulping composite (0.43 GPa), and mechanical pulping composite (0.26 GPa).
The properties of hybrid composites were mainly dependent on the properties of individual
reinforcing fibers, orientation and arrangement of fibers, the extent of intermingling of the
fibers, and also the fiber–matrix adhesion [10].
Figure 3 shows that sample M50/50C (99 MPa) exhibited the highest tensile strength as
compared to other hybrid composites (50–99 MPa). This was due to the sample having a
good fiber–matrice interface where it ensured a better load transfer. In this case, increase
in the strength of the hybrid composite was mainly due to the high tensile strength of
glass fiber alone (1.6–3.7 GPa) compared to the low strength nature of EFB fiber alone
(0.1–0.5 GPa) [4].
Figure 4 shows the elongation at break values obtained for various laminations
of composites. The values of elongation at break for composites were between 0.35
and 0.88 mm. Overall, the 100% fiber glass exhibited the lowest value (0.35 mm). This was
due to the fact that glass fiber had low elongation fiber compared to the EFB fiber
(0.44 mm) [11].
Figure 5 presents the results of the tensile toughness of the composites. Hybrid
composites exhibited values from 2 to 4 MPa, while 100% mechanical board gave 0.9 MPa
The Effect of Different Laminations on Properties of Hybrid Composites 1129
120.00

100.00
Tensile strength (MPa)

80.00

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00
Mechanical

Chemical

Fiber glass

M 50/50 A

M 50/50 B

M 50/50 C

M 50/50 D

M 50/50 E

M 50/50 F
Sample at various hybrid lamination
Figure 3. Effect of orientation on tensile strength of composites.

1.00
Elongation at break (mm)

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
Mechanical

Chemical

Fiber glass

M 50/50 A

M 50/50 B

M 50/50 C

M 50/50 D

M 50/50 E

M 50/50 F

Sample at various hybrid lamination

Figure 4. Effect of orientation on tensile elongation of composites.

and 100% chemical board gave 1.1 MPa. The 100% glass fiber composite showed the
highest value of tensile toughness (4.1 MPa). This was due to good bonding between the
glass fiber and vinyl ester matrices. Incorporation of fiber glass and EFB fibers in hybrid
composites increased the toughness of composites through the excellent dispersion of
fibers and good interface bonding between the fibers and the matrices.

Flexural Properties

Figure 6 shows the flexural modulus of the composite samples. From the graph, it was
found that samples M50/50D, M50/50E, and M50/50F (50% natural fibers, 50% synthetic
1130 H.P.S. ABDUL KHALIL ET AL.

5.00
Tensile toughness (MPa)
4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
Mechanical

Chemical

Fiber glass

M 50/50 A

M 50/50 B

M 50/50 C

M 50/50 D

M 50/50 E

M 50/50 F
Sample at various hybrid lamination
Figure 5. Effect of orientation on tensile toughness of composites.

10.00
Flexural modulus (GPa)

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
Mechanical

Chemical

Fiber glass

M 50/50 B

M 50/50 C

M 50/50 D

M 50/50 E

M 50/50 F
M 50/50 A

Sample at various hybrid lamination

Figure 6. Effect of orientation on flexural modulus of composites.

glass fibers) showed higher modulus flexural than other samples in the range of
7.5–8.2 GPa. This phenomenon can be explained by the strong interface bonding between
the natural and synthetic fibers with the matrices. A strong interface enables better load or
stress transferring through the composite fibers while a weak interface bonding will lead to
poor adhesion between the fibers and matrices [12]. A weak bonding only caused the fibers
to snap and pull out easily when the force acting on the composite was higher than the
interface bonding [13]. A sample with glass fibers at the upper layer (M50/50D) of the
composite showed higher modulus flexural as compared to samples at the upper layer of
natural fibers (M50/50B). This condition clearly showed that upper layer of glass fibers
was capable of withstanding stronger loads as compared to natural fibers. The upper
The Effect of Different Laminations on Properties of Hybrid Composites 1131
300.00

250.00
Flexural strength (MPa)

200.00

150.00

100.00

50.00

0.00
Mechanical

Chemical

Fiber glass

M 50/50 A

M 50/50 B

M 50/50 C

M 50/50 D

M 50/50 E

M 50/50 F
Sample at various hybrid lamination

Figure 7. Effect of orientation on flexural strength of composites.

layer glass fibers absorbed the stress applied and transferred it to the inner layer of natural
fibers. Unlike the upper layer of natural fibers, these natural fibers were incapable of
withstanding the stress and loads. This trend can also be seen in sample M50/50B with
only 5.07 GPa as compared to sample M50/50D with 7.52 GPa. Meanwhile, 100% glass
fiber samples showed higher modulus flexural as compared to both 100% chemical and
100% mechanical composites. Glass fibers consisted of finer fiber orientation than natural
fibers. This enabled glass fiber to withstand a higher force than conventional fibers.
Besides, the wettability of natural fibers and matrices vinyl esters (non-polar) were not
suitable for better bonding.
Figure 7 shows the flexural strength of different composites. Hybrid composites
showed properties in the range of 104–237 MPa, whereas mechanical and chemical fiber
composites had 46 MPa and 49 MPa, respectively. A hybrid composite with M50/50D
showed the highest flexural strength with 237 MPa. This result was due to the good fiber–
matrix interactions and dispersion in the composite.

Impact Properties

Figure 8 shows the effect of impact properties at different layer arrangements

of hybrid EFB/glass fiber composites using vinyl ester as matrix. The impact properties
are in the following order: M50/50B (highest) 4 M50/50C 4 fiber glass 4 M50/50A 4
M50/50E 4 M50/50F 4 mechanical board 4 chemical board (lowest). The sample
M50/50B exhibited the highest impact strength (1214 J/M) of all the hybrid composites.
This was due to the outer layer consisting of EFB (M50/50B), as compared to other
hybrid composites which had glass fiber as outer layer (M50/50D, M50/50E,
and M50/50F). EFB fibers are comprised primarily of cellulose, hemicellulose,
and lignin. Hence, the chemical composition and the architecture of cell
wall (primary wall, secondary wall, and middle lamella) that gives composites
higher impact properties. Figure 9(a) shows the surface fracture of hybrid
composites (M50/50B) with scanning electron micrographs (SEM) studies. It shows
1132 H.P.S. ABDUL KHALIL ET AL.

1400.00

1200.00

1000.00
Impact (J/M)

800.00

600.00

400.00

200.00

0.00
Mechanical

Chemical

Fiber glass

M 50/50 A

M 50/50 B

M 50/50 C

M 50/50 D

M 50/50 E

M 50/50 F
Sample at various hybrid lamination
Figure 8. Effect of orientation on impact of composites.

(a) Glass fiber pull-out

(b) Void
EFB fiber fracture
EFB fiber fracture

Void

100 mm Matrix cracking 100 mm

(c) (d)

Glass fiber pull-out

EFB fiber fracture

100 mm 100 mm

Figure 9. SEM micrographs of impact fracture surface of composites: (a) 100% mechanical composite
board, (b) 100% chemical composite board, (c) 100% fiber glass composite board, and (d) EFB/glass hybrid
vinyl ester composites; magnification (a)–(d) 100
.
The Effect of Different Laminations on Properties of Hybrid Composites 1133

good fiber–matrix bonding and less void appearance as compared to mechanical and
chemical composites alone.
Chemical and mechanical treatment of fiber composites without a hybridization
system showed the lowest value of impact strength. This was due to the fact that
both (EFB or glass) fibers and layer arrangements resulted in numerous potential sites for
crack growth, particularly in the case of poor adhesion between the fiber–matrix
composite [14]. Figures 9(b) and (c) show SEM studies on the failure impact surface of
the EFB/vinyl ester composites (mechanical and chemical treatment) fiber composites.
This clearly shows that fiber fracture and matrix cracking were observed. This was due
to the presence of voids and air entrapments in the composite of the fracture that created
the poor bonding between the EFB fiber and vinyl ester matrix. This phenomena
affected the composite properties and resulted in low impact strength of EFB/vinyl
ester composites.
100% glass fiber composite alone (1137 J/M) showed higher properties compared to
mechanical and chemical treatment fiber composites. This was due to superior fiber–
matrix bonding between the synthetic fibers and the ability of glass fibers to withstand the
loads (Figure 9(d)).

Water Absorption

Figure 10 shows the percentage of water absorption in the composites. From the graph,
all hybrid EFB/glass fiber vinyl ester composites showed the percentage of water
absorption between 1.0 and 3.5%, whereas chemical and mechanical fiber composites
showed the values of 4.5 and 6.1%, respectively. Glass fiber composites showed lowest
water uptake at 0.8%. Composites or hybrid composites, with the incorporation of EFB
fibers, exhibited higher water uptake as compared to composites without EFB fibers.
This was due to the absorption of water occurring, which reflected the hydrophilic
nature of the lignocelluloses, as well as being due to the capillary action in the matrix when
the fiber composites were exposed to water for up to 60 days [15,7]. The EFB fiber
(both mechanical and chemical) anatomy consisted of high cavities which enabled easy
water access [16]. Moreover, the hemicelluloses and celluloses in the fibers showed a
hydroscopic characteristic where waters were absorbed into the composites [17].

Dimensional Stability

Figure 11 shows the dimensional stability of the samples after being submerged in
water for 60 days. Dimensional stability follow the order: mechanical board (high-
est) 4 chemical board 4 M50/50A 4 M50/50D 4 M50/50E 4 M50/50B 4 M50/50C 4
M50/50F 4 fiber glass (lowest). The hybrid composite M50/50F showed the lowest
dimensional stability as compared to all the hybrid composite samples. This was due to the
presence of an outer layer of glass fiber in M50/50F. It also showed that the thickness
swelling values of composites increased with an increased water exposure time. By
increasing the exposure time of composites to water, a significant amount of water
absorbed resulting in the swelling of the fiber. The swelling of the fiber places stress on the
surrounding matrix and leads to micro-cracking which would eventually cause the
composite to fail catastrophically. Moreover, the hydroscopic properties in the natural
fibers increased the water swelling ability where water crept under the capillary of the
composite [18].
1134 H.P.S. ABDUL KHALIL ET AL.

7.00

6.00

5.00
Water absorption (%)

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Days
Mechanical Chemical Fiber Glass M 50/50 A M 50/50 B
M 50/50 C M 50/50 D M 50/50 E M 50/50 F

Figure 10. Effect of orientation on water absorption of composites.

5.00

4.50

4.00
Dimension stability (%)

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Days

Mechanical Chemical Fiber glass M 50/50 A M 50/50 B

M 50/50 C M 50/50 D M 50/50 E M 50/50 F

Figure 11. Effect of orientation on dimension stability of composites.

Density Determination

Figure 12 shows the density of the various fiber composites. The results showed that the
value of density for 100% fiber glass composite was the highest (1.50 g/cm3) as compared
The Effect of Different Laminations on Properties of Hybrid Composites 1135
1.60
1.40
1.20
Density (g/cm3)

1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Mechanical

Chemical

Fiber glass

M 50/50 A

M 50/50 B

M 50/50 C

M 50/50 D

M 50/50 E

M 50/50 F
Samples at various hybrid lamination
Figure 12. Effect of orientation on density of composites.

to the mechanical composite (0.97 g/cm3) and chemical composite board (1.18 g/cm3). This
was due to glass fibers and the matrix vinyl ester having a density of 2.50 and 1.10 g/cm3,
respectively, whereas the density of hybrid composites (50% natural fibers, 50% synthetic
glass fibers) were in the range 1.21–1.30 g/cm3 [19]. Lower density of hybrid composites
was due to lower density of EFB fibers at 0.90 g/cm3. The density of the hybrid decreased
as the quantity of the EFB fibers decreased. This phenomena was due to the
incompatibility between the vinyl ester matrix and the EFB fibers, resulting in poor
fiber–matrix adhesion. Thus, incomplete wetting out of the EFB fibers by the resin
resulted in the formation of voids.

CONCLUSIONS

This article reported the use of hybrid oil palm EFB fiber and glass fiber as rein-
forcement at different lamination in vinyl ester composites. The conclusions from this
study are summarized as follows:
1. The mechanical (tensile, flexural, and impact) properties of hybrid EFB/glass fiber with
vinyl ester hybrid composites were found higher than those of mechanical board and
chemical board. Different arrangements of layers of fibers (EFB and glass fibers)
showed different properties of composites.
2. Mechanical properties of the hybrid composites at various layer arrangements were
decreased by the incorporation of glass fiber compared to mechanical board and chemical
board. The properties followed in the order: tensile properties: M50/50C (highest) 4 fiber
glass 4 M50/50D 4 M50/50E 4 M50/50A 4 M50/50F 4 M50/50B 4 chemical
board 4 mechanical board (lowest); flexural properties: M50/50D (highest) 4 M50/
50E 4 M50/50F 4 fiber glass 4 M50/50B 4 M50/50A 4 M50/50C 4 chemical
board 4 mechanical board (lowest); and impact properties: M50/50B (highest) 4 M50/
50C 4 fiber glass 4 M50/50A 4 M50/50E 4 M50/50F 4 mechanical board 4 chemical
board (lowest).
1136 H.P.S. ABDUL KHALIL ET AL.

3. Water absorption and thickness swelling properties of the hybrid composites at

various layer arrangements were decreased by the incorporation of glass fiber compared
to mechanical board and chemical board. The effect of lamination did not change
the water absorption and thickness swelling of the composites. The properties
were followed in the order: water absorption: mechanical board (highest) 4 chemical
board 4 M50/50B4 M50/50C 4 M50/50F 4 M50/50A 4 M50/50E 4 M50/50D 4
fiber glass (lowest); and thickness swelling: mechanical board (highest) 4 chemical
board 4 M50/50A4 M50/50D 4 M50/50E 4 M50/50B 4 M50/50C 4 M50/50F 4
fiber glass (lowest).
4. Increased loading of EFB fibers in vinyl ester would increase the density of composites.
The effect of lamination did not change the density of the composites.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The researchers would like to thank the Ministry of Science, Technology and
Innovation (MOSTI) and Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang for providing the research
grant E-Science Fund (RM-9) 03-01-05-SF0334 or 305/PTEKIND/613323 that has made
this work possible.

REFERENCES

1. Richardson, T. (1987). Composites: A Design Guide, pp. 1–7, Industrial Press Inc., New York, NY.
2. Richardson, T. (1988). Composites: A Design Guide, pp. 2–5, Industrial Press Inc., New York, NY.
3. Youngquist, J. A. (1995). Unlikely Partners? The Marriage of Wood and Nonwood Materials, Forest
Products Journal, 45(10): 25–30.
4. Rozman, H. D., Tay, G. S. and Kumar, R. N. (2000). Polypropylene Empty Fruit Bunch-Glass Fiber Hybrid
Composites: A Prelininary Study on the Flexural and Tensile Properties, European Polymer Journal, 37(6):
1283–1291.
5. Bledzki, A. K. and Gassan, J. (1999). Composites Reinforced with Cellulose Fibers, Progression Polymer
Science, 24(2): 221–274.
6. Abdul Khalil, H. P. S. and Rozman, H. D. (2004). Gentian dan Komposit Lignoselulosik, pp. 28–48, Penerbit
Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia.
7. Ismail, H., Hong, H. B., Ping, C. Y. and Abdul Khalil, H. P. S. (2003). Polypropylene/Silica/Rice Husk Ash
Hybrid Composites: A Study on the Mechanical, Water Absorption and Morphological Properties, Journal
of Thermoplastic Composite Materials, 16(2): 121–137.
8. Abdul Khalil, H. P. S., Ismail, H., Rozman, H. D. and Ahmad, M. N. (2001). The Effect of Acetylation
on Intrefacial Shear Strength Between Plant Fibers and Various Matrices, European Polymer Journal, 37(5):
1037–1045.
9. Hanafi, I., Jaffri, R. M. and Rozman, H. D. (2003). The Effect of Filler Loading and Vulcanisation System
on Properties of Oil Palm Wood Flour-Natural Rubber Composites, Journal of Elastomers and Plastics,
35(2): 181–192.
10. Sreekala, M. S., George, J., Kumaran, M. G. and Thomas, S. (2002). The Mechanical Performance of
Hybrid Phenol-Formaldehyde-Based Composites Reinforced with Glass and Oil Palm Fibers, Composites
Science and Technology, 62(3): 339–353.
11. Abdul Khalil, H. P. S. (1999). Acetylated Plant Fiber Reinforced Composites. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis,
University of Wales.
12. Rozman, H. D., Saad, M. J. and Mohd Ishak, Z. A. (2003). Flexural and Impact Properties of Oil Palm
Empty Fruit Bunch (EFB) – Polypropeylene Composite – The Effect of Maleic Anhydride Chemical
Modification of EFB, Polymer-Testing, 22(3): 335–341.
13. Owalabi, O. and Czaiskovszky, T. (1985). Coconut Fiber Reinforcement Thermosetting Plastics, Journal of
Applied Polymer Science, 30(5): 1827–1837.
14. John, K. and Venkata Naidu, S. (2004). Sisal Fiber/Glass Fiber Hybrid Composites: The Impact and
Compressive Properties, Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 23(12): 1253–1258.
The Effect of Different Laminations on Properties of Hybrid Composites 1137

15. Gassan, J. and Bledzki, A. K. (1997). Effect of Moisture Content on The Properties Silanized Jute-Epoxy
Composite, Polymer Composites, 18(2): 179–184.
16. Rouson, D., Sain, M. and Couturier, M. (2004). Resin Transfer Molding of Natural Fiber Reinforced
Composites: Cure Simulation, Composites Science and Technology, 64(5): 629–644.
17. Mohd. Ishak, Z. A. and Berry, J. P. (1994). Hygrothermal Ageing Studies of Short Carbon Fiber Reinforced
Nylon 6.6, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 51(13): 2145–2155.
18. Abdul Khalil, H. P. S., Ismail, H., Ahmad, M. N., Ariffin, A. and Hassan, K. (2001). The Effect of Various
Anhydride Modification on Mechanical and Water Absorption Properties of Oil Palm Empty Fruit Bunches
Reinforced Polyester Composites, Polymer International, 50(4): 1–8.
19. Wambua, P., Ivens, J. and Verpoest, I. (2003). Natural Fibers: Can they Replace Glass in Fiber Reinforced
Plastics? Composites Science and Technology, 63(9): 1259–1264.
20. Mishra, S., Mohanty, A. K., Drzal, L. T., Misra, M., Panja, S., Nayak, S. K. and Tripathy, S. S. (2003).
Studies on Mechanical Performance of Biofiber/Glass Reinforced Polyester Hybrid Composites, Composites
Science and Technology, 65(10): 1377–1385.