Next Article in Journal
Experimental Characterization and Analysis of the In-Plane Elastic Properties and Interlaminar Fracture Toughness of a 3D-Printed Continuous Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Composite
Next Article in Special Issue
Numerical Investigation of the Orientability of Single Reinforcement Fibers in Polymer Matrices
Previous Article in Journal
Synthesis of Polyacids by Copolymerization of l-Lactide with MTC-COOH Using Zn[(acac)(L)H2O] Complex as an Initiator
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Graphite Filler Type on the Thermal Conductivity and Mechanical Behavior of Polysulfone-Based Composites
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Micromechanical Modeling for Tensile Properties of Wood Plastic Composites: Use of Pruned Waste from Pecan Orchards as Sustainable Material for Reinforcement of Thermoplastic Composite

by
Juan Miguel Díaz-Mendoza
1,*,
Delia J. Valles-Rosales
2,*,
Young H. Park
3 and
Ronald C. Sabo
4
1
Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juarez, Av. Del Charro 450, Juarez Chih 32410, Mexico
2
Department of Industrial Engineering, New Mexico State University, 1060 Frenger Mall Dr. MSC 4230, Room 294, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, New Mexico State University, 1780 E. University Ave, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA
4
USDA Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot Drive, Madison, WI 53726, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Polymers 2022, 14(3), 504; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14030504
Submission received: 21 November 2021 / Revised: 6 January 2022 / Accepted: 10 January 2022 / Published: 27 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Collection Reinforced Polymer Composites)

Abstract

:
Wood plastic composites (WPCs) specimens containing high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and wood pruning waste were manufactured and evaluated for their mechanical properties. Pecan waste was used as an accessible and sustainable source in this study, and the effects of its particle size and concentration on WPC strengths were evaluated. Pecan waste was milled and sieved to various particle sizes, and testing samples were fabricated by mixing them in a twin-screw extruder and injection molding. A coupling agent was used to create a stable bond between the HDPE and wood. Both tensile modulus and strength were increased with an increasing pecan flour concentration up to about 60 weigh percent. A micromechanical model is proposed for predicting the mechanical properties of the wood flour/fiber reinforce composite. This model uses a correction factor of an elliptical of carried sizes and shapes. The preliminary results of the model have a high correlation with the experimental values of the composite in all mesh sizes.

1. Introduction

The use of composites containing natural fibers is growing rapidly around the world. The combination of thermoplastic polymers (e.g., polyolefins) with natural fibers has been used to develop wood plastic composites (WPCs) widely. WPCs have been developed from a variety of agricultural and forest resources, including wood flour and other types of fibers from plants [1,2]. In particular, the use of agricultural waste fibers has reached a production of 140 billion metric tons annually around the globe [3]. A literature review [1,4] shows an increased use of agro-waste as a reinforcement option in plastic composites. Many of these composites are based on the use of waste from crops after harvesting. Some of these natural materials are obtained from orchard pruning residues. Currently, this waste is typically either burned or mixed in the soil as fertilizer. Using an agro-waste approach can create composites that would be greener and less harmful to the environment. In the manufacturing industry, there is an increase in environmental awareness and government regulations forcing companies to look for environmentally friendly materials that can be biodegradable, ecologically friendly, low cost with good physical properties and energy-efficient [5]. Natural fibers, including agricultural waste, are considered to be a viable option to meet the manufacturing industry requirements [6]. Different waste sources have been studied to characterize WPCs. For example, Fernandez-Garcia et al. [7] analyzed the mechanical properties of palm tree pruning in particleboard. In the case study from Merida, Mexico [8], Cruz-Estrada et al. studied the use of pruning waste from trees and recycled HDPE [8]. In another study, conducted by Pinzón, Moreno and Saron [9], the mechanical properties of low-density polyethylene with waste pinewood were analyzed. An analysis by Valles-Rosales et al. [10] reviewed the potential use of chili stalks waste as a fiber for polypropylene. In a study presented by Oliver-Ortega et al., waste from rapeseed and polypropylene was used to fabricate specimens, which were tested for mechanical properties for potential construction material [11]. Sutivisedsak et al. [12] developed WPCs from three different nutshell flours such as almond, pistachio and walnut waste. Jorda-Reolid et al. [13] analyzed the waste of argan nutshell with bio-based polyethylene. These composites have properties to potentially be used in several areas such as building, construction, automotive and furniture. Even so, the physical requirements on each application are different; the composites have a wide variety of applications. Therefore, an evaluation of the properties of WPCs with various materials is important.
Various studies have focused on the thermal, rheological and mechanical properties of WPCs [11]. In particular, efforts have been devoted to obtaining good mechanical properties for new WPCs [13]. For example, Maldas et al. [14] discussed the effect of additives on fiber dispersion and mechanical properties in high-density polyethylene and peanut hull and a 10% pecan shell particle composite. The study was conducted to analyze the effect of maleate polyethylene (MAPE) and peroxide on mechanical characteristics. The results indicated an improvement of fiber dispersion when MAPE was used. The mechanical properties of tensile strength were significantly improved when maleate polyethylene was used; however, the tensile modulus remained unchanged. In a study conducted by Sutivisedsak et al. [12], WPCs were created from three different nutshell flours such as almond, pistachio and walnut. The results obtained showed lower mechanical properties than the base polymer matrix (polypropylene and poly lactic acid). In another study, Adhikary, Pang and Staiger [15] investigated WPCs based on recycled and virgin HDPE with wood flour, and they observed a significant an increase in tensile strength. Some previous studies have also analyzed the effect of wood content and particle size. For example, Gallagher and McDonald [16] evaluated the fiber size impact on the mechanical properties of WPCs. They used maple flour and high-density polyethylene. The results indicated that fiber size affects the modulus of elasticity (MOE) and the modulus of rupture (MOR). The results of these investigations showed that fiber content may increase tensile strength in WPCs. It is clearly shown that there is an ongoing interest to improve the tensile strength of WPCs using thermoplastics and sustainable materials. It is also important to mention that some of the polymers used were polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), the chemical structures of which are shown in Figure 1.
These polymers have several advantages such as low cost, recyclable, high impact and good strength, among other properties. These characteristics become an import asset to the composites because they reinforce materials. Natural fibers, including from wood, have been used to impart good mechanical properties and to improve the sustainability of these plastics. Figure 2 shows the chemical structure of cellobiose, which is a component of wood [18]. Wood is made from three components composed of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin [19]. Pecan wood is a hardwood with content consisting of 70% holocellulose, 21% lignin and 9% others [19].
As mentioned by Golofit et al. [20], composites from wood sources have been increasingly studied in the past ten years with the purpose of positively impacting the environment [21]. Within the development of WPCs, the analysis of wood degradation in the polymer matrix has been one focus of attention [22]. Understanding the other properties of WPCs is important since applications of the new developed material may be suitable for new applications where it is necessary to evaluate electrical or physical properties [23].
The mechanical properties of composites have been predicted using several micromechanical models. Various studies [11,15,24,25,26,27,28] have analyzed tensile properties based on experimental testing and theoretical modeling using models developed by Reuss, Vought, Hirsch, Halpin-Tsai, Modified Bowyer and Bader, among others, where the predicted values of the composites did not fit the test data very well. Little research has been performed on composites developed from tree pruning waste; specifically, reports from pecan trees are very limited. No study has been published that used pecan tree pruning flour as reinforcement in polyethylene. Some studies have reported on composites using pecan shells [8,12,14,22,23,29,30], although with different responses. In these studies, the composites were coupled with different types of coupling agents depending on the matrix type, most of which were polyolefin and polylactic acid. No studies have been reported on composites based on pecan wood flour or composites using pecan pruning waste. Due to the lack of information on the mechanical properties of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and pecan wood flour composites, there is a need for assessing the mechanical properties of such material for potential application in different uses in construction or automotive. In this article, we developed and tested WPCs specimens based on pecan wood flour from tree pruning waste as reinforcement for HDPE and a coupling agent to enhance the bond between them. WPC specimens were fabricated using different weight ratios and particle sizes to determine their effect on the resulting mechanical properties. Statistical analysis was conducted to understand interaction effects on the mechanical response. Additionally, a micromechanical model was developed to better predict the tensile strength based on the shear interfacial strength.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

ExxonMobil HDPE HD 6733 (ExxonMobil, Spring, TX, USA) was used as a matrix. This HDPE has good mechanical properties with a density of 0.950 g/cm3, melt index of 33/10 min at 190 °C (ASTM D1238). The coupling agent used in the composite was Polybond 3009 (Addivant, Danbury, CT, USA), which is a maleic anhydride modified high density polyethylene with a maleic anhydride content of 0.8 to 1.2%.
Pecan pruning waste was obtained from orchards in the region of Las Cruces, NM, USA. The pecan pruning waste was shredded as a first step, and then milled in a commercial hammer mill (Model 250E10-5780-12, Meadows Mill Inc., North Wikesboro, North Carolina, USA). Flour was milled using a ¼-inch screen as the initial step. The pecan wood flour was milled and sieved at 10, 20, 40 and 60 mesh. The flour from pecan wood was processed using a commercial sieve shaker.

2.2. Specimen Fabrication

In this study, specimens were fabricated in three steps. As a first step, pecan flour was sieved with 10-, 20-, 40- and 60-mesh screens (2000, 841, 400 and 250 microns) and dried for 24 h at 90 °C in an oven. In a second step, the composite blends were mixed in a twin extruder extrusion machine of 15 cc twin co-rotating screws, Xplore model DSM 15 cc capacity (DSM Research, Sittard, The Netherlands).
The extruder temperatures were set to 180 °C in all temperature zones; motor speed was set to 50 rpm with a maximum force of 8500 N; acceleration speed was set to 1000 rpm/min. Once the highest value of force was reached, a valve was opened to fill the injection molding cylinder. The third step was the injection molding process using a machine Xplore DSM 12 cc heating chamber, model Micro 12 cc (DSM Research, Sittard, The Netherlands). The injection molding machine was set with the mold temperature at 45 °C; the molding temperature was set at 190 °C; the three-stage injection process was set with the first stage at 9 bars for 5 s, the second stage at 11 bars for 5 s, and the third stage at 11 bars for 5 s. The coupling agent (CA) concentration was set between 3 and 5% [11,15]. Our preliminary testing results found that the value of 3.5% gave good results in the tensile response. Composites with pecan flour contents of 10, 30, 40, 50 and 60% were created, and a total of 6 type-V (ASTM D638-14 ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, United States.) specimens per test condition were injection molded (see Figure 3).

2.3. Mechanical Testing

A tensile test was performed using a universal tester Instron machine, model 5882. This machine has a built-in software called Blu hill used for data collection in the CSV format. The procedure was based on the ASTM D638-14 standard method to test the tensile strength of reinforced and unreinforced polymers using the type-V specimen. The head speed was set up at 1 mm/min. The modulus of elasticity was determined from the slope of the linear portion of the stress–strain plot.

2.4. Analysis of Variance

Testing data were analyzed to determine statistical effect of the factors mentioned for the pecan waste composite. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used in order to determine the effect of each factor and their interactions. Minitab software was used for the analysis. The following results section provides more details about the resulting ANOVA.

3. Results and Discussion

Injection molded tensile samples were produced using HDPE and various concentrations of pecan wood particles. Experiments were conducted with specimens made of four mesh sizes, 10, 20, 40 and 60, and five weight contents, 10, 30, 40, 50 and 60%, which gives a total of 20 experimental runs. Polybond 3009 at a 3.5% weight was used as a coupling agent. Table 1 shows all the runs performed.

3.1. Tensile Properties

3.1.1. Tensile Strength

Pecan branches were shredded and milled with bark of 16% of the wood weight [31]. The reinforcement gave a 16 to 44% average increase in the tensile strength of the matrix. A similar tensile response was reported by Adhikary et al. [15], as the pecan wood flour acted more as a reinforcement than a filler due to the effect of Polybond 3009 as coupling among pecan flour and HDPE. In their study, they used pinewood with ratio of 60% and found tensile results lower than the results in the present article. Furthermore, the study did describe that the composite had the highest tensile at a 40–50% ratio, whereas, in our study, higher values were at 50 and 60%. In another study by Facca et al. [24], they conducted experiments with a wood weight ratio of up to 60%. However, the tensile strength data reported do not agree with the tensile strength data of this study, as their values are lower. Table 2 displays the results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) for tensile tests in all the pecan runs. Data of results in Appendix A.
Minitab® 21.1 software was used to conduct the analysis of variance and to create Table 2. A significance level p-value was compared to an α-value = 0.05. Therefore, Table 2 shows that the p-value is less than the significance level for factors such as mesh size, weight fraction and the combination of mesh size and weight, and it is concluded that the mesh size and weight fraction have a significant effect on the response and tensile strength properties. Moreover, analyzing each p-value, the weight fraction of pecan has a major effect on the tensile properties. Figure 4 complements the above statement where a machined composite sample specimen with a 60-mesh size and 40% pecan wood weight fraction shows a good mix between HDPE and pecan wood.
These results are in good agreement with those by Stark and Berger [32] and others in which tensile strength increases with an increasing wood weight ratio. Table 3 shows the results of the tensile strength of 40-mesh pecan flour at different weight ratios and a coupling agent content of 3.5%. Table 4 lists the average tensile strength values of all the mesh sizes by weight ratio and the equivalent volume fraction values that were estimated based on the density of HDPE and pecan wood. The tensile strength of the composites was increased by as much as 45%. The increase in tensile strength observed is dependent mainly on the pecan wood weight ratio. On average, the tensile values reached the maximum value at a 0.5 ratio and then decreased at a 0.6 ratio. The data related to tensile strength are shown in Figure 5 where the strength of the pecan composite increases as the weight increases until 50%. This result agrees with other studies from [11,15], where the maximum tensile strength reaches 50%. Other studies [24,26,27,32,33] observed the maximum tensile strength at 40% weight; however, Facca et al. [24] observed maximum values at 40% wood content for 40-mesh hardwood with HDPE. Furthermore, the stress values reported are lower than those reported in this article.
In addition, as observed in Figure 5, there is some variability in the tensile strength with respect to the mesh size, especially for the weight ratio at 50% and higher. For high weight ratios, WPCs produced from 10 mesh pecan flour were observed to have the lowest tensile strength; the poor bonding seems to be due to the volumetric particle size.

3.1.2. Elastic Modulus

The tensile modulus of elasticity (MOE) was estimated using the stress–strain relationship from the tensile test data. An analysis of variance was performed for MOE and is shown in Table 5. The effect of mesh size is not statistically significant, whereas the effect of weight ratio is quite significant (small p-value). Figure 6 and Table 6 show a significant increase in the MOE with respect to the pecan loading levels. The MOE values for all the mesh sizes with the same weight ratio showed an increase of 26 to 209%. This is highly significant, as other studies [33,34] reported an increase of up to 100%. The results from the MOE show inconsistent variability with respect to each mesh size.
The MOE experimental results show a similar behavior between tensile stress and weight ratio. The MOE increases as the weight increases, as described above. The incorporation of the pecan flour particles in the matrix improved the mechanical performance of the composite. Composites at high weight fractions of pecan flour were observed to have increased viscosity and volatiles, making the molding process more complex, requiring adjustments to the processing conditions.

3.2. Micromechanical Analysis

Several models have been developed to predict the mechanical properties of a composite. Some of the models proposed (e.g., [35,36]) do not consider the effect of the reinforcement particles shape and size in evaluating the composite properties shown in the following equation:
σ c = c 1 σ 1 + c 2 σ 2
where σc is the composite tensile strength, σ1 is the fiber tensile strength, σ2 is the matrix tensile strength and c1 and c2 are the volume fractions of fiber and matrix. This equation is known as the Voight equation, also called “the series model” [25]. A similar model was also proposed by the following Reuss equation. Fibers are parallel to the stress direction in this model.
σ c = σ m σ f σ m V f + σ f V m
where σc is the composite tensile strength, σf is the fiber tensile strength, σm is the matrix tensile strength and Vf and Vm are the volume fractions of fiber and matrix. Other models consider factors such as fiber geometry, distribution and loading conditions to estimate the mechanical properties of a composite. These are sown in the Halpin-Tsai Equations (3) and (4), which provide a value of E and tensile in a composite with discontinuous fibers.
σ c = σ c ( 1 + A n V f 1 n V f )
n   = ( σ f σ m ) + 1 ( σ f σ m ) + A
In Equation (3), σc is the composite tensile strength, σf is the fiber tensile strength, σm is the matrix tensile strength, Vf and Vm are the volume fractions of fiber and matrix, n is a factor for fiber orientation, and A is determined from the Einstein coefficient K. The Hirsch model in equation 5 considers a correcting factor in a model that combines series and parallel models. The correcting factor x is based on the fiber alignment, which is 0.4 for longitudinal and 0.1 for randomly oriented fibers [19].
σ c = x ( σ m V m + σ f V f ) + ( 1 x ) ( σ m σ f σ m V f + σ f V m )
The preliminary results of the experimental data indicate that there is a significant effect of fiber size on mechanical properties. In this article, we used a modified micro mechanical model from Rosler, Harders and Baeker [37]. Figure 7 depicts the micromechanical model used in this study. In Figure 7, a fiber element dx with an ellipse shape is proposed, the tensile stress σ f acts along the x axis and shear stress τ i in the surface; this analysis was used to determine a correction factor for shape and size on fiber stress.
The correction factor for fiber normal stress was determined from the differential equation of stress equilibrium shown in Figure 7 and in the stress fiber Equation (6). In this equation, σf is the tensile stress of fiber and τ i is the interfacial shear stress of fiber, a is the major axis and b is the minor axis of fiber, and l is the fiber length. Combining this factor and using the equation from [24], a micromechanical model was developed considering elliptical fibers.
σ f = τ i 1 2 a 2 + b 2 a b l
The equation proposed to calculate the tensile stress in a composite containing fibers with ellipse cross-sections is the following:
σ c = τ V f ( 1 2 ( a 2 + b 2 ) ) l a b + σ m ( 1 V f )  
where σc, τ, σm, Vf, l, a and b are the tensile of the composite, the shear stress of the fiber, the tensile of the matrix, volume fraction of fiber, the length of the fiber and the major axis of the ellipse and the minor axis, respectively. This equation is the series or Voight equation modified by using a correction factor, which will adjust the response based on the elliptical shape while varying the length of the fiber. The parameters a and b in the equation represent a theoretical size of each particle and these approximate values were used to fit the mesh size. The tensile stresses were estimated using Equation (7). The results predicted by Equation (7) were more accurate than those obtained by the Vought, Reuss, Halpin-Tsai and Hirsch equations (see Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11) for 10, 20 40 and 60 meshes.
Furthermore, the results from Vought, Reuss, Halpin-Tsai and Hirsch have a minimum difference in all the experimental runs since there is no correction factor for the fiber size and shape; the predicted results from the proposed micromechanical model are more consistent with the experimental data. Each set of experimental data with different mesh sizes shows non-monotonic behavior.
It was observed from three of four data sets that tensile strength increases as the weight ratio increases; then it decreases at the 50% weight ratio. The micromechanical models do not follow a similar trend in the experiment, i.e., the strength decreases at the 50% weight ratio. Moreover, as is observed, the models such as Halpin-Tsai or Hirsch do not fit the experimental data very well in all the weight ratios. The proposed micromechanical model, however, fits well in general and approximates the data near the 50% and 60% weight ratios.

4. Conclusions

Wood plastic composites were successfully produced from HDPE and milled pecan pruning waste flour. The tensile strength of the sample specimens obtained from this process were up to 46% higher than that of the HDPE matrix. The WPCs were fabricated using a 10 to 60% weight ratio of pecan flour and a coupling agent at 3.5%. The mesh sizes analyzed were 10, 20, 40 and 60 mesh. On each of the mesh sizes, the tensile strength was observed to increase with an increase in weight. These results are in agreement with those of other studies that use different waste sources. The data presented in this study clearly demonstrate that the WPCs produced with pecan pruning waste possess good mechanical properties. The Modulus of Elasticity values increased up to 200% compared to the matrix base value. The WPCs analyzed show that pecan wood acted not just as a filler, but also as a reinforcement; thus, the mechanical behavior was significantly improved.
A micromechanical model was proposed for predicting the mechanical properties of wood flour and fiber-reinforced composites. Some micromechanical models by Halpin Tsai, Voight, Reuss and Hirsch were also used to estimate tensile strength, and the difference in accuracy between these models and the proposed model was studied in comparison with the experimental data. The micromechanical model proposed uses the correction factor for elliptical fibers of varied sizes and shapes and provided a good fit to experimental the data obtained from the composite in all mesh sizes.
The tensile strength results for the WPCs material using pruned waste from pecan orchards indicates that it can be suitable for various applications that need to be further studied, such as in construction materials or interior automotive panels. Further efforts will be made to better asses the suitability of the WPC composite material in diverse applications and environments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing and editing, J.M.D.-M.; Supervision and resources, D.J.V.-R.; Supervision, validation, writing and editing, Y.H.P.; planning, resources, review, writing and editing, R.C.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under the “USDA WHEELS OF CHANGE” Award number 2015-38422-24112 USDA and the APC was funded in part by Universidad Autonoma de Ciudad Juarez Mexico.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data used in this study are within the article.

Acknowledgments

This study is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture “ALFA-LoT-Alliance for Smart Agriculture in the Internet of Things Era” Award Number 2018-38422-28564. This study was also supported in part by the U.S.D.A. Forest Service Forest Products Laboratory. This study is also supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative-Agricultural Studyforce Training Priority Area [grant no. 2021-67037-10692/project accession no. 1025548], from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture. We thank the U.S.D.A. Forest Products Laboratory for their support on all experimentation. The NMSU engineering testing materials laboratory. The chemical structures of PP and PE were sketched using the software Marvin JS as test from the ChemAxon web page. The chemical structure of cellobiose was obtained from the database of Moloview which web site is Molviw.org (accessed on 30 December 2021).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Data of the Study from Excel Format

Pecan Waste Stress Data
MeshWeight(%)Tensile (MPa)
101021.278
101021.499
101022.735
101020.523
101023.982
101024.616
103032.119
103027.018
103029.187
103025.849
103025.986
103026.761
104026.097
104028.236
104027.889
104031.306
104031.196
104028.624
105033.003
105033.940
105033.527
105034.417
105033.259
105033.380
106022.703
106027.681
106034.677
106027.512
106035.691
106033.429
201023.687
201021.485
201023.083
201024.590
201023.142
201024.292
203026.173
203025.883
203027.679
203026.054
203024.199
203026.076
204029.720
204030.501
204029.349
204030.977
204030.103
204030.696
205031.618
205037.457
205031.536
205035.139
205036.394
205033.753
206037.505
206034.012
206040.334
206040.303
206040.657
206037.903
401022.865
401024.936
401025.435
401024.640
401024.236
401024.908
403032.880
403031.346
403032.696
403033.782
403030.238
403033.369
404036.338
404034.491
404036.383
404037.522
404034.345
404033.819
405040.644
405040.156
405036.398
405040.570
405033.350
405038.242
406034.302
406038.961
406034.907
406038.401
406040.588
406033.118
601023.665
601024.488
601024.174
601023.863
601024.411
601025.130
603031.768
603027.668
603028.188
603027.362
603029.310
603023.615
604039.040
604036.378
604038.624
604037.550
604035.671
604037.830
605037.126
605038.760
605036.135
605038.641
605034.714
605036.205
606035.448
606035.381
606039.456
606034.553
606040.417
606033.938

References

  1. Saha, P.; Chowdhury, S.; Roy, D.; Adhikari, B.; Kim, J.K.; Thomas, S. A brief review on the chemical modifications of lignocellulosic fibers for durable engineering composites. Polym. Bull. 2016, 73, 587–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ashori, A.; Nourbakhsh, A. Reinforced polypropylene composites: Effects of chemical compositions and particle size. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 2515–2519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Abba, H.A.; Nur, I.Z.; Salit, S.M. Review of Agro Waste Plastic Composites Production. J. Miner. Mater. Charact. Eng. 2013, 1, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Väisänen, T.; Haapala, A.; Lappalainen, R.; Tomppo, L. Utilization of agricultural and forest industry waste and residues in natural fiber-polymer composites: A review. Waste Manag. 2016, 54, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Oksman, K.; Skrifvars, M.; Selin, J.F. Natural fibres as reinforcement in polylactic acid (PLA) composites. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2003, 63, 1317–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gurunathan, T.; Mohanty, S.; Nayak, S.K. A review of the recent developments in biocomposites based on natural fibres and their application perspectives. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2015, 77, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ferrández-García, C.E.; Ferrández-García, A.; Ferrández-Villena, M.; Hidalgo-Cordero, J.F.; García-Ortuño, T.; Ferrández-García, M.T. Physical and mechanical properties of particleboard made from palm tree prunings. Forests 2018, 9, 755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Cruz-Estrada, R.H.; Guillén-Mallette, J.; Cupul-Manzano, C.V.; Balam-Hernández, J.I. Potential use of waste from tree pruning and recovered plastic to obtain a building material: Case study of Merida, Mexico. Waste Manag. Res. 2020, 38, 1222–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Moreno, D.D.P.; Saron, C. Low-density polyethylene waste/recycled wood composites. Compos. Struct. 2017, 176, 1152–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Valles-Rosales, D.J.; Rodríguez-Picón, L.A.; Méndez-González, L.C.; del Valle-Carrasco, A.; Alodan, H. Analysis of the mechanical properties of wood-plastic composites based on agriculture chili pepper waste. Maderas Cienc. Y Tecnol. 2016, 18, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Oliver-Ortega, H.; Chamorro-Trenado, M.À.; Soler, J.; Mutjé, P.; Vilaseca, F.; Espinach, F.X. Macro and micromechanical preliminary assessment of the tensile strength of particulate rapeseed sawdust reinforced polypropylene copolymer biocomposites for its use as building material. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 168, 422–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sutivisedsak, N.; Cheng, H.N.; Burks, C.S.; Johnson, J.A.; Siegel, J.P.; Civerolo, E.L.; Biswas, A. Use of Nutshells as Fillers in Polymer Composites. J. Polym. Environ. 2012, 20, 305–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jorda-Reolid, M.; Gomez-Caturla, J.; Ivorra-Martinez, J.; Stefani, P.M.; Rojas-Lema, S.; Quiles-Carrillo, L. Upgrading argan shell wastes in wood plastic composites with biobased polyethylene matrix and different compatibilizers. Polymers 2021, 13, 922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Maldas, D.; Nizio, J.; Kokta, B.V. Performance of surface modified nutshell flour in hdpe compositest. Int. J. Polym. Mater. Polym. Biomater. 1992, 17, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Adhikary, K.B.; Pang, S.; Staiger, M.P. Dimensional stability and mechanical behaviour of wood-plastic composites based on recycled and virgin high-density polyethylene (HDPE). Compos. Part B Eng. 2008, 39, 807–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gallagher, L.W.; McDonald, A.G. The effect of micron sized wood fibers in wood plastic composites. Maderas Cienc. Y Tecnol. 2013, 15, 357–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Chemaxon. Chemicalize. Available online: https://chemaxon.com (accessed on 29 December 2021).
  18. Available online: https://molview.org/?cid=8252 (accessed on 29 December 2021).
  19. Rowell, R.; Pettersen, R.; Tshabalala, M. Handbook of Wood Chemistry and Wood Composites: Cell Wall Chemistry; CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  20. Gołofit, T.; Zielenkiewicz, T.; Gawron, J.; Cieślak, K.; Tomaszewski, W.; Chmielarek, M.; Maksimowski, P.; Pawłowski, W. Examination of chemical composition of wood-plastic composites by differential scanning calorimetry and infrared spectroscopy. Polim. Polym. 2019, 64, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Mandal, M.; Maji, T.K. Comparative study on the properties of wood polymer composites based on different modified soybean oils. J. Wood Chem. Technol. 2017, 37, 124–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lu, J.Z.; Duan, X.; Wu, Q.; Lian, K. Chelating efficiency and thermal, mechanical and decay resistance performances of chitosan copper complex in wood-polymer composites. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 5906–5914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Elloumi, I.; Koubaa, A.; Kharrat, W.; Bradai, C.; Elloumi, A. Dielectric properties of wood-polymer composites: Effects of frequency, fiber nature, proportion, and chemical composition. J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Facca, A.G.; Kortschot, M.T.; Yan, N. Predicting the tensile strength of natural fibre reinforced thermoplastics. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2007, 67, 2454–2466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kalaprasad, G.; Joseph, K.; Thomas, S.; Pavithran, C. Theoretical modelling of tensile properties of short sisal fibre-reinforced low-density polyethylene composites. J. Mater. Sci. 1997, 32, 4261–4267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Munde, Y.S.; Ingle, R.B. Theoretical Modeling and Experimental Verification of Mechanical Properties of Natural Fiber Reinforced Thermoplastics. Procedia Technol. 2015, 19, 320–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Palsule, S.; Ogunsile, B.O.; Singh, P.; Singh, A.A. Natural hardwood fiber reinforced chemically functionlized polyethylene composites with in-situ fiber/matrix interfacial adhesion. Appl. Polym. Compos. 2013, 1, 57. [Google Scholar]
  28. Subramaniam, S.; Anbalagan, K.; Jeyaraj, S.; Murugan, S. Stochastic numerical simulation for the evaluation of mechanical properties of filled polymer composites. Medziagotyra 2017, 23, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Essabir, H.; Achaby, M.E.I.; Hilali, E.M.; Bouhfid, R.; Qaiss, A.E. Morphological, Structural, Thermal and Tensile Properties of High Density Polyethylene Composites Reinforced with Treated Argan Nut Shell Particles. J. Bionic Eng. 2015, 12, 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Raj, R.G.; Kokta, B.V.; Nizio, J.D. Studies on mechanical properties of polyethylene–organic fiber composites. I. Nut shell flour. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 1992, 45, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Miles, P.D.; Smith, W.B. Specific Gravity and Other Properties of Wood and Bark for 156 Tree Species Found in North America; Note. NRS-38; US Deparment of Agriculture: Newtown, PA, USA, 2009; Volume 38.
  32. Stark, N.M.; Berger, M.J. Effect of particle size on properties of wood-flour reinforced polypropylene composites. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Woodfiber-Plastic Composites, Madison, WI, USA, 12–14 May 1997. [Google Scholar]
  33. Mijiyawa, F.; Koffi, D.; Kokta, B.V.; Erchiqui, F. Formulation and tensile characterization of wood-plastic composites: Polypropylene reinforced by birch and aspen fibers for gear applications. J. Thermoplast. Compos. Mater. 2015, 28, 1675–1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Stark, N.M.; Rowlands, R.E. Effects of wood fiber characteristics on mechanical properties of wood/polypropylene composites. Wood Fiber Sci. 2003, 35, 173–174. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hill, R. Elastic properties of reinforced solids: Some theoretical principles. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 1963, 11, 357–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mori, T.; Tanaka, K. Average stress in matrix and average elastic energy of materials with misfitting inclusions. Acta Metall. 1973, 21, 571–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rösler, J.; Harders, H.; Bäker, M. Mechanical Behaviour of Engineering Materials: Metals, Ceramics, Polymers, and Composites; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. (a) Polyethylene, (b) Polypropylene [17].
Figure 1. (a) Polyethylene, (b) Polypropylene [17].
Polymers 14 00504 g001
Figure 2. Cellolobiose [18].
Figure 2. Cellolobiose [18].
Polymers 14 00504 g002
Figure 3. ASTM D638-14 Type V.
Figure 3. ASTM D638-14 Type V.
Polymers 14 00504 g003
Figure 4. Machined sample of 60 Mesh (40% weight) shows composite mix.
Figure 4. Machined sample of 60 Mesh (40% weight) shows composite mix.
Polymers 14 00504 g004
Figure 5. Tensile strength of pecan based on weight ratio and mesh size.
Figure 5. Tensile strength of pecan based on weight ratio and mesh size.
Polymers 14 00504 g005
Figure 6. Modulus of Elasticity of Pecan composite.
Figure 6. Modulus of Elasticity of Pecan composite.
Polymers 14 00504 g006
Figure 7. Stress elements in a fiber with ellipse element.
Figure 7. Stress elements in a fiber with ellipse element.
Polymers 14 00504 g007
Figure 8. Micromechanical Tensile data with proposed model for 10 mesh.
Figure 8. Micromechanical Tensile data with proposed model for 10 mesh.
Polymers 14 00504 g008
Figure 9. Micromechanical Tensile data with proposed model for 20 Mesh.
Figure 9. Micromechanical Tensile data with proposed model for 20 Mesh.
Polymers 14 00504 g009
Figure 10. Micromechanical Tensile data with proposed model for 40 Mesh.
Figure 10. Micromechanical Tensile data with proposed model for 40 Mesh.
Polymers 14 00504 g010
Figure 11. Micromechanical Tensile data with proposed model for 60 Mesh.
Figure 11. Micromechanical Tensile data with proposed model for 60 Mesh.
Polymers 14 00504 g011
Table 1. Wood plastic composite experimental test runs (Weight percent).
Table 1. Wood plastic composite experimental test runs (Weight percent).
Composite CodeMeshHdpePecan WoodPolybond
3009
HDPE010000
HDPE90P101086.5103.5
HDPE70P301066.5303.5
HDPE60P401056.5403.5
HDPE50P501046.5503.5
HDPE40P601036.5603.5
HDPE90P102086.5103.5
HDPE70P302066.5303.5
HDPE60P402056.5403.5
HDPE50P502046.5503.5
HDPE40P602036.5603.5
HDPE90P104086.5103.5
HDPE70P304066.5303.5
HDPE60P404056.5403.5
HDPE50P504046.5503.5
HDPE40P604036.5603.5
HDPE90P106086.5103.5
HDPE70P306066.5303.5
HDPE60P406056.5403.5
HDPE50P506046.5503.5
HDPE40P606036.5603.5
Table 2. Resulted Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) analysis of tensile strength of Pecan wood plastic Composites (WPCs) from Minitab® 21.1 Software.
Table 2. Resulted Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) analysis of tensile strength of Pecan wood plastic Composites (WPCs) from Minitab® 21.1 Software.
Source of VariationDegrees of FreedomSeq Sum of SquaresContribution Adjusted Sums of Squares Adjusted Mean Squares Test Statistic F-Value for the Model Significance Level p-Value
Mesh size3433.311.39%433.3144.44830.285.18 × 10−16
Weight fraction42557.667.20%2557.6639.395134.041.1 × 10−18
Mesh size * Weight12338.08.88%338.028.1665.901.15 × 10−7
Error100477.012.53%477.04.770
Total1193805.9100.00%
* The asterisk meaning is interaction effect between the two factors.
Table 3. Average tensile strength of pecan WPCs for 40 mesh.
Table 3. Average tensile strength of pecan WPCs for 40 mesh.
Pecan Weight RatioVolume FractionTensile (MPa)Std DeviationTensile% Increase
0024.5000
0.10.13424.5030.8930.010
0.30.37432.3801.33732.160
0.40.48235.4801.46644.820
0.50.58238.2202.95056.000
0.60.67636.7102.99049.840
Table 4. Tensile strength average values for all mesh sizes.
Table 4. Tensile strength average values for all mesh sizes.
WeightVolume FractionTensile (MPa)Tensile% Increase
0024.5000
0.10.13424.5050.0
0.30.37428.59016.7
0.40.48233.05034.9
0.50.58235.67045.5
0.60.67635.44044.5
Table 5. ANOVA analysis of Elastic Modulus of pecan WPCs.
Table 5. ANOVA analysis of Elastic Modulus of pecan WPCs.
Source of VariationSSDFMSFp-ValueF Crit
Mesh Size0.1189930.0396650.5375740.6654213.490295
Weight Ratio5.9130641.47826720.034923.03 × 10−53.259167
Error0.88541120.073785
Total6.9174719
Table 6. Elastic modulus results for pecan wood composite (average).
Table 6. Elastic modulus results for pecan wood composite (average).
WeightVolume FractionElastic Modulus (E) (GPa)Standard DeviationE% Increase
000.7500
0.10.13430.9460.09626.2
0.30.37451.4750.32196.7
0.40.48222.0540.183173.8
0.50.58282.3620.284214.9
0.60.67692.3180.152209.1
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Díaz-Mendoza, J.M.; Valles-Rosales, D.J.; Park, Y.H.; Sabo, R.C. Micromechanical Modeling for Tensile Properties of Wood Plastic Composites: Use of Pruned Waste from Pecan Orchards as Sustainable Material for Reinforcement of Thermoplastic Composite. Polymers 2022, 14, 504. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14030504

AMA Style

Díaz-Mendoza JM, Valles-Rosales DJ, Park YH, Sabo RC. Micromechanical Modeling for Tensile Properties of Wood Plastic Composites: Use of Pruned Waste from Pecan Orchards as Sustainable Material for Reinforcement of Thermoplastic Composite. Polymers. 2022; 14(3):504. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14030504

Chicago/Turabian Style

Díaz-Mendoza, Juan Miguel, Delia J. Valles-Rosales, Young H. Park, and Ronald C. Sabo. 2022. "Micromechanical Modeling for Tensile Properties of Wood Plastic Composites: Use of Pruned Waste from Pecan Orchards as Sustainable Material for Reinforcement of Thermoplastic Composite" Polymers 14, no. 3: 504. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14030504

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop