Journal of Natural Fibers

ISSN: 1544-0478 (Print) 1544-046X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjnf20

Impact of surface treatment on the mechanical

properties of sisal and jute reinforced with epoxy
resin natural fiber hybrid composites

A. Arun Premnath

To cite this article: A. Arun Premnath (2018): Impact of surface treatment on the mechanical
properties of sisal and jute reinforced with epoxy resin natural fiber hybrid composites, Journal of
Natural Fibers, DOI: 10.1080/15440478.2018.1432002

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2018.1432002

Published online: 29 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 39

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjnf20
JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS
https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2018.1432002

Impact of surface treatment on the mechanical properties of sisal

and jute reinforced with epoxy resin natural fiber hybrid
composites
A. Arun Premnath
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Associate Professor, Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi Viswa Maha
Vidyalaya University, Enathur, Kanchipuram, India

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Natural fiber composites (NFCs) are gaining importance in various fields of Natural fibers; mechanical
engineering due to their ecofriendly nature and low cost. The present work properties; surface
is aimed in studying the mechanical properties such as tensile strength, treatment; SEM
flexural strength, impact strength, and hardness for natural fiber/epoxy 关键词
resin composites reinforced with sisal and jute. The composites are pre- 天然纤维; 力学性能; 表面
pared by hand lay-up method by varying the proportion of jute fiber. One 处理; 扫描电子显微镜
set of fibers is surface treated with NAOH solution and its impact on
mechanical strength was studied. From the results obtained, it was
observed that the tensile strength increases by 20%, flexural strength by
25%, impact strength increases by 27.27%, and hardness by 5% for surface
treated composites. Scanning electron microscope was used to study the
morphology of prepared specimen and fractured specimen. The results
indicate that surface-treated composites perform better than the untreated
fiber composites.

摘要
天然纤维复合材料（NFC的）变得越来越重要，在各个领域的工程由于其
环保性和低成本。本工作旨在研究剑麻和黄麻增强天然纤维/环氧树脂复
合材料的拉伸强度、弯曲强度、冲击强度和硬度等力学性能。通过改变
黄麻纤维的比例，采用手工铺层法制备了复合材料。用氢氧化钠溶液对
一组纤维进行表面处理，研究其对机械强度的影响。结果表明，表面处
理的复合材料的拉伸强度提高了20%，弯曲强度提高了25%，冲击强度提
高了27.27%，硬度提高了5%。用扫描电子显微镜（SEM）对制备的试样
和断裂试样的形貌进行了研究。结果表明，表面处理的复合材料的性能
优于未经处理的纤维复合材料。

Introduction
Natural fiber composites (NFCs) find a bigger place in today’s automotive and construction field
because they are renewable, low cost, easily available, light weight, have low density, acceptable
mechanical properties, etc. The application of natural fiber in automotive industries is gradually
increasing every year. Mercedes-Benz used sisal, hemp, and flax fibers for its inner door panel
(Puglia, Biagiotti, and Kenny 2005). Sisal and flax reinforced composites are used for door trim
panels for Audi in the year 2000 (Vinayagamoorthy 2017). Among various types of natural fiber,
flax, hemp, jute, kenaf, and sisal are important due to their properties and availability. In particular,
jute has good dimensional stability, less abrasive behavior, and high specific properties that make it

CONTACT A. Arun Premnath arun_premnath@yahoo.co.in Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sri

Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi Viswa Maha Vidyalaya University, Enathur, Kanchipuram, India.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/wjnf.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 A. ARUN PREMNATH

more suitable for wide range of applications. Gopinath, Kumar, and Elayaperumal (2014) found that
inclusion of jute fiber in epoxy resin matrix has better mechanical properties when compared with
polyester resin matrix. Due to the low extraction costs and high level of recycling, sisal fiber turns to
be an excellent reinforcement. In the present investigation, in order to improve the mechanical
properties of sisal reinforced composites, jute is added which forms hybridization.

Literature review
Venkatram et al. (2016) evaluated the mechanical properties such as tensile strength, flexural
strength, and impact strength for sisal reinforced with nano-clay composites and found that
improved properties of these composites can act as a better alternative for glass fiber composites
in future. Ramesh, Palanikumar, and Reddy (2013) studied the mechanical properties of jute, sisal,
and glass fiber with polyester composites. The study shows that addition of sisal–jute fiber increases
the mechanical properties of the composites. Vijay and Singaravelu (2016) used hand lay-up
technique to fabricate Cyperuspangorei fibers and jute fiber epoxy hybrid composites. They per-
formed tensile, flexural, compressive, impact, and hardness tests. The results indicate that
Cyperuspangorei hybrid composite has superior mechanical properties than pure Cyperuspangorei
fiber and pure jute fiber epoxy composites.
One of the main drawbacks experienced with NFCs is that they are very much sensitive to water
absorption which results in lower mechanical properties of the fabricated composites. This can be
rectified either by matrix modification or by surface treatment of fiber prior to the preparation of
composites (Mohanty, Drzal, and Misra 2002). The main purpose of the surface treatment of fibers is to
remove pectin, waxy substances, lignin, and other impurities covering the external surface of the fiber
(Raharjo et al. 2017). This will result in greater matrix and fiber interface bonding. The most commonly
used chemicals for surface treatment are NaOH (Herlina Sari et al. 2017; Leão et al. 2015). Maheswari
et al. (2013) has chemically modified the matrix by maleic anhydride grafted high density polyethylene
(HPDE) to improve the mechanical properties of the composites. The results show that the modified
composites exhibits better mechanical properties than the unmodified one. Obi Reddy et al. (2015)
studied the structural and physical properties of Borassus fibers epoxy matrix composites by Fourier
transform-infrared spectroscopy and SEM. The fibers are chemically treated with alkali and akali
combined with saline to improve the mechanical properties. Sood, Dharmpal, and Gupta (2015)
investigated the effect of chemical treatments on tensile and flexural properties of sisal fibers compo-
sites. They used NaOH + maleic anhydride (MA) and NaOH + benzoyl peroxide + MA. They studied
the mechanical properties of chemically treated composites. Thwe and Kin Liao (2002) studied the effect
of chemical treatment on the tensile behavior of bamboo and glass fiber reinforced with polypropylene
hybrid composites prepared by injection molding method. They observed that the chemical treatment
results in an increase in the tensile modulus and tensile strength. Khondker et al. (2005) studied the
influence of surface modifications on the tensile, flexural, and impact strength of jute fiber-based
thermosetting composites. They concluded that the increases in the mechanical properties are due to
the changes in the microstructural imperfections namely interfacial adhesion and debonding between
the matrix and fiber. Tayfun, Dogan, and Bayramli (2016) used alkali, permanganate, and peroxide and
silanization treatment on thermoplastic polyurethane matrix reinforced with flax fiber composites. They
studied the mechanical properties, water uptake behaviors, morphologies, and melt-flow properties of
composites fabricated by extrusion process. The result reveals that all the treated fibers exhibit better
properties than the untreated fiber composites. Hong et al. (2008) investigated the mechanical proper-
ties of chemically modified jute fiber polypropylene composites. By using SEM, they found that a good
interfacial bonding occurs in between the matrix and the chemically modified fibers.
With this literature background, it is arrived to a conclusion that NFCs are receiving considerable
importance in the field of engineering application. The present work deals in studying the mechan-
ical properties of surface-treated jute and sisal fiber reinforced epoxy hybrid composites prepared by
hand lay-up method.
 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 3

Experimental procedure
Materials
In the present study, Epoxy resin (Araldite LY651) is used as the matrix materials. Jute and sisal
fibers of various proportions are used as the reinforcement. Epoxy resin is purchased from the Roto
polymers and chemical, India. The jute and sisal fibers are purchased from Go Green products,
Chennai. Both sisal and jute fiber are obtained in mat form of unidirectional orientation.

Surface treatment
Both sisal and jute fiber mats are cut into 25 cm × 25 cm in length and breadth is washed with
distilled water. They were dried during 3–4 h. Then, the fibers are soaked in the 10% concentrated
NaOH solution for 24 h at 30°C, after which the fibers are washed with distilled water to remove the
presence of NaOH sticking in the fibers. The fibers are then allowed to dry for 6–8 h at room
temperature. One set of sisal and jute fiber is surface treated and the another set of fibers is left
untreated.

Preparation of composites
The composites are prepared by hand lay-up method. The steps used for the composites preparation
are given below. The first step is to spray the release gel to prevent the sticking of fiber. Then, Epoxy
resin in liquid form is mixed thoroughly in the weight ratio of 10:1 with a Hardener (Araldite
HV953) and poured onto the surface of jute mat. A roller is used even for distribution of the epoxy
resin as shown in Figure 1. Then, the sisal fiber laminate is placed and the process is repeated again
and again until the required layers are completed. Lastly, the composite specimens were pressed
using a hydraulic press to ensure that the epoxy resin has penetrated the porosity of the mat. Thus,
four different composite specimens are made using this process by varying the wt% of jute and sisal
fibers with epoxy resin. The fabricated specimens are kept in curing temperature for 24–48 h for
strengthening of matrix and reinforcement. Table 1 shows the composition of specimens. The
composites specimens contain one pile of sisal and 1 pile of jute was equal to 30%. It is denoted
by 1S1J. The composites specimens contain one pile sisal and 2 piles of jute were equal to 40%. It is
denoted by 1S2J. C denotes chemically treated fibers. The prepared specimen was tested for its
microstructure using scanning electron microscope (SEM) (Make: Hitachi and Model: S-3700N).
The specimen was cut into 20 mm × 20 mm using a diamond cutter and the specimens were coated
with conducting material before observation.

Figure 1. Specimen during fabrication.

4 A. ARUN PREMNATH

Table 1. Composition of the prepared composite specimens.

Sisal fiber Jute fiber Epoxy resin
Composite specimens Wt. (%) Wt. (%) Wt. (%) NaOH treated
1S1J 20 (1 pile) 10 (1 pile) 70 No
1S2J 20 (1 pile) 20 (2 pile) 60 No
C1S1J 20 (1 pile) 10 (1 pile) 70 Yes
C1S2J 20 (1 pile) 20 (2 pile) 60 Yes

Mechanical properties
Tensile test
The tensile strength was measured using universal testing machine as per ASTM D638. During the
test, the test specimen is placed in the UTM and the tensile force is applied until fracture occurs. The
experiments are repeated thrice and the average values are tabulated.

Flexural test
Flexural test properties were measured using a three-point bending test on flexural testing machine.
The flexural tests were carried out at a room temperature as per ASTM D790. The experiments are
repeated thrice and the average values are tabulated. Calculation of flexural strength was performed
using the formula:

M 3WL
Flexural Strength ¼ ¼ (1)
Z 2bd2

where W, L, b, d represent the flexural load, length of the support span, width of specimen, and
depth of specimen, respectively.

Impact test
Impact test was carried out using impact testing machine (Charpy’s method). The test was carried
out on the specimens as per ASTM D 256. The specimen for impact test is given in Figure 2. The
impact testing machine is used to measure the impact energy need to break the specimen which is
recorded.

Figure 2. Impact test specimen.

 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 5

Hardness test
Rockwell hardness tester is used to measure the hardness of the specimen. The test was done as per
the ASTM 111 standard. The method is most often used for composite materials such as reinforced
thermosetting resins. Rockwell D-scale is used for the depth of penetration of an indenter under a
force of 100 kgf and the values are tabulated. All the mechanical properties were performed at room
temperature. The hardness was measured at five different places and the average values are tabulated.

Results and discussion

Microstructure
The image obtained from SEM of the prepared specimen is shown in Figures 3 and 4. Figures 3(a)
and 4(a) represent SEM image of the surface untreated fiber composites. Figures 3(b) and 4(b)
represents SEM image of the surface-treated fiber composites. Figures 3(b) and 4(b) compared with
Figures 3(a) and 4(a) show rougher surface due to the removal of surface cementing. The rougher
appearance of the images in the figure confirms a better adhesion between fiber and matrix in case of
fiber treated composites. A similar observation was found by Herlina Sari et al. (2017). Because of
uniform load applied during preparation of composites, the presence of voids is found to be small.

Figure 3. SEM images of the prepared specimen (a) untreated (b) treated.

Figure 4. SEM images of the prepared specimen (a) untreated (b) treated.
6 A. ARUN PREMNATH

Table 2. Mechanical properties of different composite specimens.

Composite specimens Tensile strength (MPa) Flexural strength (MPa) Impact strength (J) Hardness (HRD)
1S1J 42.45 39.8 19.5 490.81
1S2J 57.11 52.85 24.84 519.52
C1S1J 53.74 44.58 22.25 510.33
C1S2J 69.64 59.42 33.46 569.65

Figure 5. Tensile strength of the composite specimen with standard deviation.

The mechanical properties observed during the experiment for untreated and surface treated
composites are given in Table 2.

Tensile strength
The tensile strength of sisal and jute reinforced epoxy composites are shown in Figure 5. The tensile
strength of composites without surface treatment is 42 and 57 MPa, with surface treatment 53 and
69 MPa for one and two layer of jute fiber, respectively. The tensile strength increases by 26.31% for
IS2J compared with 1S1J; this is due to the higher strength of jute which altogether increases the
tensile strength of the composites. The tensile strength increased from 42 to 53 MPa for treated
(1S1J) and untreated composites (C1S1J); thus, the improvement was around 20.75%. This indicates
that a better bonding occurs due to improved matrix–fiber interactions. The inclusion of one

Figure 6. Specimen after tensile test.

 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 7

Figure 7. SEM images of tensile fractured specimen (a) untreated (b) treated.

additional layer of jute increases the strength compared to surface treatment for the same specimen.
Figure 6 shows the specimen after test. Figure 7(a, b) shows the SEM image of tensile test specimen
for untreated and surface-treated composites. From the figure, it is found that fiber pull out occurs
for both types of composites. Also, it is seen that limited amount of resin adhering occurs for
untreated composites. The amount of resin adhering to fiber was more in Figure 7(b) which
indicates a better matrix–fiber interface which occurs for surface treated with NaOH composites
which ultimately results in the higher tensile strength of composites. The results are in line with
Joshy, Lovely, and Rani (2007). The breakage of fiber leads to fiber ridges which results in saw like
structure as shown in Figure 7(a, b). Similar observation of saw like structure for alkali treated jute
fiber composites was noticed in Ray, Sarkar, and Bose (2001).

Flexural strength
Figure 8 shows flexural strength of composites obtained from the flexural test. Figure indicates that
flexural strength of surface-treated composites is superior to the untreated fiber composites.
Figure also shows that from all the composites, tested C1S2J composite was found to have highest
flexural strength. The percentage increase in the flexural strength of surface-treated composites

Figure 8. Flexural strength of the composite specimen with standard deviation.

8 A. ARUN PREMNATH

Figure 9. Flexural specimen after test.

(C1S1J and C1S2J) is around 25.42 and 25, compared with 1S1J and 1S2J, respectively. Whereas
increase in flexural strength of 1S1J and CIS2J is 11.36%, IS2J and C1S2J is 11.86%. From here, it is
concluded that increase in flexural strength is higher for two layer of jute composites (1S2J and
C1S2J) compared with surface treated composites. Therefore, the impact of jute fiber plays a vital
role compared to surface treatment. Figure 9 shows the specimen after flexural test. It is found that
the specimen was initially subjected to resin fracture, followed by fiber breakage.

Impact strength
The impact test was performed to study the impact capabilities of the composites. Figure 10 shows
the energy absorbed by each specimen during the test. From the figure, it is understood that surface
treatment of the fibers has affected the impact strength of the composites. The impact strength
increases due to surface treatment. Specimen C1S2J has the better impact absorbing capacity which
is 33 J compared with 1S2J which is around 24 J. With the increase in the jute layer, there is an
increase in the energy absorbing capacity of the composites. Further, fibers in the composites act as a
load transfer medium and they resist the crack propagation. Therefore, increase in the fiber layer
increases the impact strength of the composites. The increase in impact strength because of surface
treatment is smaller compared to increase in jute layer of the composites which is clearly shown in
the figure. Similar result is obtained in the research work of Ramesh, Palanikumar, and Reddy (2013)

Figure 10. Impact strength of the composite specimen with standard deviation.
 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 9

Figure 11. Impact tested specimen.

Figure 12. Hardness of the composite specimen with standard deviation.

who found that both sisal and jute fiber added with glass fiber composites have better impact when
compared with sisal and jute added separately. Figure 11 shows the specimen after impact test.

Hardness
The result obtained from the hardness test is shown in Figure 12. The greater hardness is
obtained for surface-treated composites C1S2J. From the figure, it is found that the increase in
hardness is more for surface-treated composites. This is due to effective interfacial bonding
that occurs between resin and the fiber. The hardness value increases from 490 to 520 HRD
which is 5.76% for 1S1J and 1S2J, whereas the hardness value increases from 490 to 510 HRD
which is 3.92% for 1S1J and C1S1J. From the result obtained, it is seen that the inclusion jute
fiber plays a vital role in impact strength compared to surface treatment. Similar results are
obtained by Gopinath, Kumar, and Elayaperumal (2014).

Conclusion
The mechanical properties of the sisal and jute fiber reinforced with epoxy resin natural fiber hybrid
composites have been studied in this paper. The results obtained from the experimentation are listed as
follows:
10 A. ARUN PREMNATH

From the SEM, it is found that better bonding occurs at the matrix–fiber interface for surface-
treated composites.
The tensile test result shows that specimen C1S2J has the maximum tensile strength of 69 MPa.
An increase of 25% in flexural strength was observed for surface-treated composites with respect
to the untreated ones.
The impact strength result shows that specimen CIS2J has the better impact absorbing capacity
which is 33 J compared with IS2J which is around 24 J.
The result obtained from the hardness test reveals that the hardness of the surface-treated
composites increased by 5% with respect to that of the untreated composites.
From the work, it is concluded that surface-treated fiber composites exhibit better mechanical
characteristics with respect to the untreated ones, which will serve as a potential materials in the
various fields of engineering in the near future.

References
Gopinath, A., M. S. Kumar, and A. Elayaperumal. 2014. Experimental investigations on mechanical properties of jute
fiber reinforced composites with polyester and epoxy resin matrices. Procedia Engineering 97:2052–63. doi:10.1016/
j.proeng.2014.12.448.
Herlina Sari, N., I. N. G. Wardana, Y. S. Irawan, and E. Siswanto. 2017. Characterization of the chemical, physical, and
mechanical properties of NaOH-treated natural cellulosic fibers from corn husks. Journal of Natural Fibers 1–14.
doi:10.1080/15440478.2017.1349707.
Hong, C. K., N. Kim, S. L. Kang, C. Nah, Y. S. Lee, B. H. Cho, and J. H. Ahn. 2008. Mechanical properties of maleic
anhydride treated jute fibre/polypropylene composites. Plastics, Rubber and Composites 37 (7):325–30. doi:10.1179/
174328908X314334.
Joshy, M. K., M. Lovely, and J. Rani. 2007. Effect of alkali treatment on properties of unidirectional isora fibre
reinforced epoxy composites. Plastics, Rubber and Composites 36 (6):259–66. doi:10.1179/174328907X229682.
Khondker, O. A., U. S. Ishiaku, A. Nakai, and H. Hamada. 2005. Tensile, flexural and impact properties of jute fibre-
based thermosetting composites. Plastics, Rubber and Composites 34 (10):450–62. doi:10.1179/174328905X66199.
Leão, R. M., S. M. Luz, J. A. Araujo, and K. Novack. 2015. Surface treatment of coconut fiber and its application in
composite materials for reinforcement of polypropylene. Journal of Natural Fibers 12 (6):574–86. doi:10.1080/
15440478.2014.984048.
Maheswari, C. U., K. O. Reddy, E. Muzenda, M. Shukla, and A. V. Rajulu. 2013. A comparative study of modified and
unmodified high-density polyethylene/borassus fiber composites. International Journal of Polymer Analysis and
Characterization 18 (6):439–50. doi:10.1080/1023666X.2013.814027.
Mohanty, A. K., L. T. Drzal, and M. Misra. 2002. Novel hybrid coupling agent as an adhesion promoter in natural fiber
reinforced powder polypropylene composites. Journal of Materials Science Letters 21 (23):1885–88. doi:10.1023/
A:1021577632600.
Puglia, D., J. Biagiotti, and J. M. Kenny. 2005. A review on natural fibre-based composites—Part II: Application
of natural reinforcements in composite materials for automotive industry. Journal of Natural Fibers 1 (3):23–
65. doi:10.1300/J395v01n03_03.
Raharjo, W. W., R. Soenoko, Y. S. Irawan, and A. Suprapto. 2017. The influence of chemical treatments on cantala
fiber properties and interfacial bonding of cantala Fiber/Recycled High Density Polyethylene (rHDPE). Journal of
Natural Fibers (15):1–14.
Ramesh, M., K. Palanikumar, and K. H. Reddy. 2013. Mechanical property evaluation of sisal–Jute–Glass fiber
reinforced polyester composites. Composites Part B: Engineering 48:1–9. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.12.004.
Ray, D., B. K. Sarkar, and N. R. Bose. 2001. Impact fatigue of glass fibrevinylester resin composites. Composites Part A:
Applied Science and Manufacturing 32 (6):871–76. doi:10.1016/S1359-835X(00)00151-2.
Reddy, K. O., C. U. Maheswari, K. R. Reddy, M. Shukla, E. Muzenda, and A. V. Rajulu. 2015. Effect of chemical
treatment and fiber loading on mechanical properties of borassus (toddy palm) fiber/epoxy composites.
International Journal of Polymer Analysis and Characterization 20 (7):612–26. doi:10.1080/1023666X.2015.1054084.
Sood, M., D. Dharmpal, and V. K. Gupta. 2015. Effect of fiber chemical treatment on mechanical properties of sisal
fiber/recycled HDPE composite. Materials Today: Proceedings 2 (4–5):3149–55. doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2015.07.103.
Tayfun, U., M. Dogan, and E. Bayramli. 2016. Influence of surface modifications of flax fiber on mechanical and flow
properties of thermoplastic polyurethane based eco-composites. Journal of Natural Fibers 13 (3):309–20.
doi:10.1080/15440478.2015.1029191.
Thwe, M. M., and K. Liao. 2002. Tensile behaviour of modified bamboo–Glass fibre reinforced hybrid composites.
Plastics, Rubber and Composites 31 (10):422–31. doi:10.1179/146580102225006378.
 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 11

Venkatram, B., C. Kailasanathan, P. Seenikannan, and S. Paramasamy. 2016. Study on the evaluation of mechanical
and thermal properties of natural sisal fiber/general polymer composites reinforced with nanoclay. International
Journal of Polymer Analysis and Characterization 21 (7):647–56. doi:10.1080/1023666X.2016.1194616.
Vijay, R., and D. L. Singaravelu. 2016. Experimental investigation on the mechanical properties of Cyperus pangorei
fibers and jute fiber-based natural fiber composites. International Journal of Polymer Analysis and Characterization
21 (7):617–27. doi:10.1080/1023666X.2016.1192354.
Vinayagamoorthy, R. 2017. A review on the polymeric laminates reinforced with natural fibers. Journal of Reinforced
Plastics and Composites 36 (21):1577–1589.