Journal of Reinforced Plastics and

Composites
http://jrp.sagepub.com

Influence of the Stacking Sequence on the Mechanical Properties of Glass/Sisal

Hybrid Composites
S.C. Amico, C.C. Angrizani and M.L. Drummond
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 2010; 29; 179 originally published online Nov 11,
2008;
DOI: 10.1177/0731684408096430
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jrp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/2/179

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jrp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jrp.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://jrp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/29/2/179

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com at CAPES on February 16, 2010

Influence of the Stacking Sequence on the

Mechanical Properties of Glass/Sisal
Hybrid Composites
S. C. AMICO*
PPGEM, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
Porto Alegre/RS, Brazil
C. C. ANGRIZANI AND M. L. DRUMMOND
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
Porto Alegre/RS, Brazil
ABSTRACT: This study focused on the mechanical properties of pure sisal, pure glass, and hybrid
sisal/glass compression-molded composites, in which various stacking sequences of fiber mat layers
were used. It is shown that hybridization originated a material with general intermediate properties
between pure glass and pure sisal. However, the importance of controlling the stacking sequence to
enhance properties was evident. For instance, to optimize flexural behavior, there must be glass fibers
mainly on the top and bottom surfaces. Furthermore, depending on the type of loading and stacking
sequence, some hybrid composites may show properties very close to those of pure glass.
KEY WORDS: hybrid, laminates, mechanical properties, compression molding.

INTRODUCTION
UE TO THE limited mechanical properties of polymeric resins, the search for stronger
materials has led to the development of polymer composites, where one (or more)
constituent is the reinforcement and the other is the matrix.
Among the candidate materials to be used as reinforcement, vegetable fibers such as
jute, coir, pineapple, and sisal have recently been regaining much attention. These fibers
present advantages related to their low density, availability from renewable sources,
low cost, and non-abrasive processing characteristics when compared with glass fibers, but
the latter undoubtedly show superior mechanical properties (e.g., strength and stiffness)
and lower moisture absorption.
The major concerns when dealing with vegetable fibers are relatively poor moisture
resistance, fiber wetting, and its adhesion to the matrix [1], all affecting mechanical
properties. Chemical surface modification of various vegetable fibers has been carried out
to improve adhesion and can be easily found in the literature (e.g., [2]).

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: amico@ufrgs.br

Figures 16 appear in color online: http://jrp.sagepub.com

Journal of REINFORCED PLASTICS

AND

COMPOSITES, Vol. 29, No. 2/2010

0731-6844/10/02 017911 $10.00/0

DOI: 10.1177/0731684408096430
SAGE Publications 2010
Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore
Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com at CAPES on February 16, 2010

179

180

S.C. AMICO

ET AL.

A more efficient way to enhance properties of these composites is to combine

distinct fibers, i.e., to produce a hybrid composite, so that their individual characteristics
may be transferred to the final composite, originating a material with intermediate
properties and with potential increase in the range of applications. In this case, the
properties of the hybrid composites are controlled by factors such as matrix type, fibers
used, fiber length, the relative content of each fiber, along with fibermatrix interface and
how they are distributed in the composite (i.e., hybrid design) [3].
The fiber pairs ramie/cotton [4], banana/sisal [5,6], silk/sisal [7], pineapple/glass [3],
oil palm/glass [8], ridge gourd/glass [9] and jute/glass [1013] may be found in the
literature as hybrid mats, hybrid fabrics, or as a stack of mats or fabrics.
Sisal fiber is one of the most commonly used vegetable fibers, representing half the
total production of textile fibers [14]. The sisal/glass combination has been studied by
Mishra et al. [3] and John and Naidu [1518]; nevertheless, more research is necessary on
the role of the various fiber layers regarding the performance of these composites.
In this context, the aim of this study is to produce glass-sisal/polyester hybrid
composites with different stacks of fiber layers and to characterize their behavior on
flexural, tensile, impact, hardness and short-beam tests, investigating the role of the
different layers on the mechanical response of the composite.

EXPERIMENTAL
Materials
The following materials were used:
. E-glass fiber mats (areal density 300 g/m2) from Owens Corning, with fiber density of
2.52 g/cm3.
. Sisal fibers from the Northeast region of Brazil, with fiber density around 1.12 g/cm3.
. Isophtalic unsaturated polyester resin, UP Uceflex from Elekeiroz.
. Initiator methyl-ethyl-ketone peroxide (P-MEK) from Akzo Nobel.

Composite Lay-Up
Three different groups of composites were studied:
1. Glass/polyester composites: Pure glass composites, called glass. The mats were cut from
the rolls on the required dimensions (150  150 mm) and used as received.
2. Sisal/polyester composites: The sisal fibers were used to produce weight-controlled
mats. For that, the fibers were cut (40 mm long) and manually and randomly
distributed and oriented. These composites, here called sisal, were further divided into
three types:
. Untreated sisal: The sisal fibers were used as received.
. Dried sisal: The fibers were dried in an air-circulation oven at 1058C for 2 h prior to use.
. Washed sisal: The sisal fibers were submersed in distilled water for 1 h to
remove impurities and, after that, they were dried at 1058C for 2 h in an air-circulation
oven prior to use.

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com at CAPES on February 16, 2010

Mechanical Properties of Glass/Sisal Hybrid Composites

181

3. Glass/sisal hybrid composites: The hybrid composites were molded using various layer
stacking sequences of washed sisal fiber (s) mats and glass fiber (g) mats, as described
below:
.
.
.
.
.
.

[g4, s4], called ggggssss.

[(g, s)4], called gsgsgsgs.
[g2, s2]s, called ggssssgg.
[s2, g2]s, called ssggggss.
[(s, g)2]s, called sgsggsgs.
[(g, s)2]s, called gsgssgsg.
Other special stacking sequences, with higher thickness, were studied:

. [(g2, s4)]s, called gg8sgg.

. [(g2, s6)]s, called gg12sgg.
. [(g2, s5, g)]s, called gg5sgg5sgg.

Composite Molding
A release agent, carnauba wax, was applied to the surface of a square steel mold (inner
cavity: 150  150 mm). The isophtalic polyester resin was mixed with 2 wt% of the
peroxide, degassed with sonication for 5 min and then cast on the mats within the mold.
The fibrous reinforcements were varied as shown before and the assembly was
compression molded at 858C under 3 ton of load for 70 min. After curing, the composite
was removed from the mold and a few specimens were cut from it and polished in a
Polipan-U Pantec machine.
The thickness of most composites was around 3 mm and the total fiber weight fraction
of the hybrid composites was 44% (between 41.846.4%), typically 30.5% glass and
13.5% sisal. The mean equivalent overall fiber volume fraction was 29.7% (between 28.7
29.9%), divided into glass (around 15.8%) and sisal (around 13.9%). The glass and sisal
volume fractions varied slightly because the actual weight of the commercial glass mat
used varied in the 270330 g/m2 range.
For the gg8sgg, gg12sgg and gg5sgg5sgg composites (second group of hybrids), the final
thickness was around 4.3, 5.5, and 5.5 mm, respectively. The overall fiber weight fraction
of these composites was kept nearly constant, varying within 41.142.3%, whereas the
equivalent total fiber volume fraction varied accordingly, between 24.230.1%.
Mechanical Characterization
Tensile testing: These tests were carried out using an Emic DL2000 universal testing
machine with a 2000 kgf load cell. The specimens were prepared according to ASTMD3039-00, with dimensions of 150  25 mm. A 25 mm gauge length extensometer
was mounted on the specimens, which were loaded under tension at a constant speed of
2 mm/min. Six samples were tested for each type of composite.
Flexural testing: Three-point flexural testing was carried out using the same equipment
described above and according to ASTM D790-03. The 16 : 1 span to depth ratio was used.
Test speed varied according to each specimen thickness (mostly around 3 mm). About six
specimens (dimensions: 127  12.7 mm) were tested for each type of composite.

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com at CAPES on February 16, 2010

182

S.C. AMICO

ET AL.

Short-beam testing: This test determines the interlaminar strength of fiber-reinforced

composites and is applied to symmetrical laminates only. The test was carried out
following ASTM D2344-00 and in the same equipment described above. The width and
length of the specimens were dependent on their thickness. Tests were conducted at a
constant speed of 1.0 mm/min and around 10 specimens were tested for each type of
composite.
Impact testing: Impact tests on un-notched specimens were performed following ASTM
D256-00 using an impactometer (Ceast Italy) and a hammer of 5.5 J, which impacted at
3.46 m/s. Six specimens (dimensions: 60  11 mm) were tested for each type of composite.
Hardness testing: Shore D hardness tests were done using a Woltesd indenter (Woltesd
300). For each type of composite, around 15 readings were taken on the upper surface of
the laminates, unless otherwise stated.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Sisal Composites
Table 1 shows the results of the various tests for the untreated, dried, and washed sisal
composites. The drying and the washing/drying sisal procedures significantly increased
flexural strength and flexural modulus and slightly increased tensile strength, apparently to
a similar extent, meaning that the moisture is especially deleterious to the mechanical
performance of the sisal composites. Fiber thermal treatment, i.e., drying, may also
increase fiber crystallinity, as reported by Tsang et al. [1], and this could translate into
better composite properties.
The strain at break results, in general, followed those of the modulus in the way that the
higher the modulus, the lower the strain at break. Regarding impact strength, all sisal
composites produced similar results and the small variations may be due to fiber
heterogeneity or slightly different fiber content.
It was also noticed that the sisal fiber treatment modified the hardness of the composites
and the highest results were again found for the dried and washed/dried condition,
possibly because the treatment may have led to better quality composites, i.e., with lower
void content and improved fiber/matrix adhesion.
Hybrid and Glass Composites
TENSILE STRENGTH
Figure 1 shows that, as expected [16], tensile strength of the sisal composite was lower
than the hybrids, which was lower than that of the pure glass one. The tensile strength of
Table 1. Mechanical properties of the pure sisal composites.

Flexural modulus (MPa)

Strain at break (%)
Flexural strength (MPa)
Tensile strength (MPa)
Impact strength (kJ/m2)
Hardness (Shore D)

Untreated

Dried

Washed

2285  189
4.0  0.4
47.0  4.6
32.3  2.5
37.5  6.3
71  4

3999  518
3.2  0.4
66.2  3.8
37.8  2.5
31.9  5.8
80  1

4031  594
3.3  0.4
68.3  11.2
35.0  2.8
38.5  7.8
80  3

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com at CAPES on February 16, 2010

183

Mechanical Properties of Glass/Sisal Hybrid Composites

the hybrids varied within the 7895 MPa range and did not show a clear trend regarding
the optimum stacking sequence. Since all composites were built with the same number of
glass and sisal layers, and all layers are subjected to the same deformation during testing,
the various layers in each composite appeared to share the total applied load in a similar
way, and not even the asymmetrical ones were particularly less efficient. This may indicate
that the four glass layers were predominantly responsible for the overall strength of these
composites.
As glass fibers have a lower strain at break than sisal fibers, the breaking of the former
fibers must be determining the failure of the composite. Glass fiber failure transferred high
stress to the less strong sisal fibers and this ultimately led to the failure of the composite.
No clear trend was noticed on tensile strength regarding the reported positive effect of
having the high-strength fiber, i.e., glass, as the outer layer skin [5] and the small variation
observed in tensile strength may have been a consequence of some variation in fiber
content.
IMPACT STRENGTH
The fracture of the composites is affected by interlaminar and interfacial parameters.
The fibers play an important role on the impact resistance of the composites as they
interact with the crack formation in the matrix [3].
Figure 2 shows the impact strength of the studied composites. When glass fibers were
used along with sisal fibers, the impact strength was considerably improved for all
composites. The composites with four glass fiber layers together showed the highest impact
strength. However, due to the scatter of the results, it is difficult to draw further
conclusions from them. Nevertheless, it is clear that the impact strength of the best hybrids
was reasonably close to that of the pure glass fibers, reaching more than 80% of that value.
HARDNESS
Hardness is a surface measurement since the indenter evaluates mainly the first few fiber
layers next to the surface. In this study, the measurements were taken on the composite
upper-side surface, i.e., that of the first letter of the sequence.
The mean hardness results are shown in Table 2 and it is noticable that the composites
with one or more glass fiber layers on the tested surface present the highest values.

Tensile strength (MPa)

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Washed ggggssss gsgsgsgs ggssssgg ssggggss sgsggsgs gsgssgsg
sisal
Figure 1. Variation of tensile strength with the fiber layer stacking sequence.

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com at CAPES on February 16, 2010

Glass

184

S.C. AMICO

ET AL.

Impact strength (kJ/m2)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Washed ggggssss gsgsgsgs ggssssgg ssggggss sgsggsgs gsgssgsg
sisal

Glass

Figure 2. Variation of impact strength with the fiber layer stacking sequence.

Table 2. Mean Shore D hardness values and standard deviations obtained for the
various composites.
Reinforcement

Hardness

Reinforcement

Hardness

Washed sisal
Glass
ggggssss

80  3
88  1
87  2

sgsggsgs
gsgssgsg
ssggssgg

gsgsgsgs
ggssssgg
ssggggss

84  1
86  3
82  1

gg8sgg
gg12sgg
gg5sgg5sgg

82  2
87  1
82  1 (sisal side)
89  2 (glass side)
87  2
89  2
91  1

An extra stacking sequence was prepared and analyzed to clearly show this effect. The
ssggssgg composite was evaluated on both top and bottom surfaces and, as expected,
the surface containing glass fibers showed higher hardness than the opposite one (Table 2).
Hardness does not continuously increase with more glass layers at the surface,
because this is primarily a surface measurement. Besides, when there is only one glass
surface layer, the effect on hardness appears less pronounced than that for two layers.
However, for the gg5sgg5sgg special composite, which is thicker, with two extra glass inner
layers and overall higher structural integrity, hardness was slightly superior.
FLEXURAL PROPERTIES
Figure 3 shows typical stressstrain curves for different composites. This figure clearly
shows that the glass composites were much more rigid, and stronger, than the sisal fiber
ones and that the latter allowed a higher strain before breakage.
The hybrid composites showed, indeed, an intermediate behavior between the glass-only
and sisal-only composites. However, it can be inferred that the stacking sequence
decisively affected the stressstrain response of the hybrid composites, and, depending on
the stacking used, the composite may quite accurately resemble the behavior of the pure
sisal, i.e., the potentially greater reinforcing effect of the glass is not being used. Besides,
the ggssssgg stacking also showed a modulus very close to that of the pure glass one,
although in the former, half the overall fiber volume content is sisal.

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com at CAPES on February 16, 2010

185

Mechanical Properties of Glass/Sisal Hybrid Composites

280
Washed sisal
ggggssss
gsgsgsgs
ggssssgg
sgsggsgs
Glass

240

Stress (MPa)

200
160
120
80
40
0
0

Strain (%)
Figure 3. Typical stressstrain flexural curves for different composites.

Figure 4 shows the mean flexural modulus, strength, and strain at break values for the
various composites. It can be seen that the sisal composites presented the lowest flexural
strength and modulus, the pure glass composites showed the highest results and, as
expected, the hybrid composites presented intermediate properties.
An interesting finding was that the hybrid composites with preferential glass fibers on
both extremities showed superior performance. For instance, comparing the ggssssgg and
ssggggss sequences, the former showed a much better behavior. In fact, under flexural
loading, the upper and lower surfaces of the specimens are subjected to a much higher
deformation than the mid-plane. Hence, flexural stiffness and strength are indeed quite
dependent on the properties of the surface layers [19], as long as delamination is not
observed. Another example is the stacking sequence gsgssgsg, which also presented higher
performance than the sgsggsgs one.
It is, however, worth mentioning that it also appears to be important to have some glass
layers near the center, otherwise a weak thick block is present in the composite, and this
could explain why the ggssssgg composite is not better than the gsgssgsg one.
The behavior of the flexural modulus resembled that of the flexural strength, and the
same general findings applied. The strain at break results, in general, followed those of the
modulus in the way that the higher the modulus, the lower the strain at break. It is also
worth mentioning that optimized hybrid sequences showed a flexural modulus much closer
to that of the pure glass composites, in comparison with flexural strength.
To further explore the influence of the inner layers on the flexural properties, some
hybrid composites were produced with the same two glass layers on each surface (i.e., the
same glass content on the faces of all composites), but with a varied amount of sisal in
the core (different overall thickness).
Figure 5 shows the results of the flexural properties for these composites and it can be
seen that the higher the sisal content at the core, the lower the modulus and the strength of
the composites. However, the response of the gg12sgg may be greatly improved by

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com at CAPES on February 16, 2010

186

S.C. AMICO

ET AL.

Flexural modulus (MPa)

14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Washed
sisal

ggggssss

gsgsgsgs

ggssssgg

ssggggss

sgsggsgs

gsgssgsg

Glass

Flexural strength (MPa)

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Washed
sisal

ggggssss

gsgsgsgs

ggssssgg

ssggggss

sgsggsgs

gsgssgsg

Glass

Washed
sisal

ggggssss

gsgsgsgs

ggssssgg

ssggggss

sgsggsgs

gsgssgsg

Glass

Strain at break (%)

4
3
2
1
0

Figure 4. Flexural properties of the composites: modulus, strain at break, and strength.

substituting part of the sisal with two glass fiber layers at the mid-plane (i.e., the
gg5sgg5sgg). This happened even though the total fiber weight fraction was still 40% and
in fact the original ggssssgg had a slightly higher glass fiber volume fraction than the
gg5sgg5sgg (15.8% and 12.0%, respectively). To further investigate this finding, shortbeam testing followed, since in this test the possibility of failure in the mid-plane of the
sample by interlaminar forces is magnified.

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com at CAPES on February 16, 2010

187

Mechanical Properties of Glass/Sisal Hybrid Composites

(b)

14000
12000

Strain at break (%)

Flexural modulus (MPa)

(a)

10000
8000
6000
4000
2000

4
3
2
1
0

0
ggssssgg

gg8sgg

gg12sgg gg5sgg5sgg

ggssssgg

gg8sgg

gg12sgg

gg5sgg5sgg

Flexural strength (MPa)

(c) 160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
ggssssgg

gg8sgg

gg12sgg gg5sgg5sgg

Figure 5. Flexural properties of the second group of hybrid composites.

Short-beam strength (MPa)

30
Hybrids

Second group

25
20
15
10
5

as

he

G
la
ss

si
sa
l
gg
ss
ss
gg
ss
gg
gg
ss
sg
sg
gs
gs
gs
gs
sg
sg
gg
8s
gg
gg
12
sg
g
gg
5s
gg
5s
gg

Figure 6. Short-beam strength of the symmetrical composites.

SHORT-BEAM STRENGTH
The mean short-beam strength results for the various composites are shown in Figure 6
and a higher scatter may be noticed in comparison with the flexural testing. Nevertheless,
these results were in quantitative agreement with those of Tsang et al. [1] for sisal/glass
polyester composites.
The pure glass fiber composite presented the highest short-beam strength, whereas the
pure sisal fiber composite presented the lowest, and hybridization originated a material
with intermediate properties. This was expected since glass/polyester adhesion is stronger

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com at CAPES on February 16, 2010

188

S.C. AMICO

ET AL.

than sisal/polyester and the latter may also have a higher void content than the former,
which is expected to further decrease short-beam strength [1,20].
In the first group of hybrids, composites with glass fiber at the extremities showed the
highest results, similar to what was found for flexural strength. This may have happened
because the samples were thin, with a very short length and span, and possibly due to some
interference of flexural characteristics on the results. Similar difficulties have been reported
by Gowda et al. [21].
Regarding the second group of hybrids, obtained from thicker samples with different
amounts of sisal in the core, it can be seen that the gg8sgg and the gg12sgg showed similar
short-beam strength. Furthermore, the gg5sgg5sgg composite showed a clear recovery of
strength in comparison with the gg12sgg, again indicating the importance of also
reinforcing the mid-plane of the composite.
CONCLUSIONS
This study focused on the evaluation of pure sisal, pure glass, and different hybrid
composites in which the sequence of layers was varied. The simple treatment of drying
or washing/drying sisal fibers improved the tensile and flexural properties of the sisal
composites, and because of that the hybrid composites were made with washed sisal fibers.
The performance of the sisal composites was inferior to the glass ones, which was
expected due to the poorer properties of the sisal fibers, the stronger glass/polyester
adhesion compared to sisal/polyester, which improves the efficiency of the stress
transfer mechanism, and also because a higher void content may be present on the sisal
composites.
The response of the hybrid composites to the various types of loadings (e.g., tensile and
flexural) was affected differently by the stacking sequence, and the importance of controlling the stacking sequence to optimize the desired property was evident. To maximize
flexural behavior, there must be glass fibers on the top and bottom surfaces, but keeping
some glass fibers at the mid-plane was also shown to be important. This was not found
relevant for the tensile response of the composites.
Regarding the impact results, the highest strength was found for the hybrid composites
with four contiguous glass layers. Hardness, on the other hand, is basically influenced by
the presence of glass fibers at the testing surface.
In all, it was shown that the hybridization of sisal fibers with glass fibers originated
a material with general intermediate properties and, depending on the type of loading and
stacking sequence, it may show properties very close to those of pure glass fiber
composites, especially regarding flexural modulus, hardness, and to a lesser extent, impact
strength. If the properties are compared considering that the hybrid composites are lighter
than the pure glass ones, i.e., using specific properties, the benefits of the hybrid
composites would be even more evident.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are thankful to CAPES/PROCAD, CNPq, and FAPERGS for the
financial support, to UCS (Prof. A. Zattera) and CEFET-RS/Sapucaia do Sul (Prof. Cleia
Salles) for the mechanical tests, and to Heitor Ornaghi and Thiago Goss.

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com at CAPES on February 16, 2010

Mechanical Properties of Glass/Sisal Hybrid Composites

189

REFERENCES
1. Tsang, F. F. Y., Jin, Y. Z., Yu, K. N., Wu, C. M. L. and Li, R. K. Y. (2000). Effect of Gamma-Irradiation on
the Short Beam Shear Behavior of Pultruded Sisal-Fiber/Glass-Fiber/Polyester Hybrid Composites, J.
Mater. Sci. Lett., 19(13): 11551157.
2. Li, X., Tabil, L. G. and Panigrahi, S. J. (2007). Chemical Treatments of Natural Fiber for Use in Natural
Fiber-Reinforced Composites: A Review, J. Polym. Environ., 15(1): 2533.
3. Mishra, S., Mohanty, A. K., Drzal, L. T., Misra, M., Parija, S., Nayak, S. K. and Tripathy, S. S. (2003).
Studies on Mechanical Performance of Biofibre/Glass Reinforced Polyester Hybrid Composites, Compos.
Sci. Technol., 63(10): 13771385.
4. Junior, C. Z. P., de Carvalho, L. H., Fonseca, V. M., Monteiro, S. N. and dAlmeida, J. R. M. (2004).
Analysis of the Tensile Strength of Polyester/Hybrid Ramie-Cotton Fabric Composites, Polym. Test., 23(2):
131135.
5. Idicula, M., Neelakantan, N. R., Oommen, Z., Joseph, K. and Thomas, S. (2005). A Study of the Mechanical
Properties of Randomly Oriented Short Banana and Sisal Hybrid Fiber Reinforced Polyester Composites,
J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 96(5): 16991709.
6. Idicula, M., Malhotra, S. K., Joseph, K. and Thomas, S. (2005). Dynamic Mechanical Analysis of Randomly
Oriented Intimately Mixed Short Banana/Sisal Hybrid Fibre Reinforced Polyester Composites, Compos. Sci.
Technol., 65(78): 10771087.
7. Khanam, P. N., Reddy, M. M., Raghu, K., John, K. and Naidu, S. V. (2007). Tensile, Flexural and
Compressive Properties of Sisal/Silk Hybrid Composites, J. Reinf. Plast. Comp., 26(10): 10651070.
8. Khalil, H. P. S. A., Hanida, S., Kang, C. W. and Fuaad, N. A. N. (2007). Agro-Hybrid Composite:
The Effects on Mechanical and Physical Properties of Oil Palm Fiber (EFB)/Glass Hybrid Reinforced
Polyester Composites, J. Reinf. Plast. Comp., 26(2): 203218.
9. Rajulu, A. V. and Devi, R. R. (2007). Tensile Properties of Ridge Gourd/Phenolic Composites and
Glass/Ridge Gourd/Phenolic Hybrid Composites, J. Reinf. Plast. Comp., 26(6): 629638.
10. Ahmed, K. S., Vijayarangan, S. and Kumar, A. (2007a). Low Velocity Impact Damage Characterization of
Woven Jute-Glass Fabric Reinforced Isothalic Polyester Hybrid Composites, J. Reinf. Plast. Comp., 26(10):
959976.
11. Ahmed, K. S., Vijayarangan, S. and Naidu, A. C. B. (2007b). Elastic Properties, Notched Strength
and Fracture Criterion in Untreated Woven Jute-Glass Fabric Reinforced Polyester Hybrid Composites,
Mater Design, 28(8): 22872294.
12. Aquino, E. M. F., Sarmento, L. P. S., Oliveira, W. and Silva, R. V. (2007). Moisture Effect on Degradation
of Jute/Glass Hybrid Composites, J. Reinf. Plast. Comp., 26(2): 219233.
13. Srivastav, A. K., Behera, M. K. and Ray, B. C. (2007). Loading Rate Sensitivity of Jute/Glass Hybrid
Reinforced Epoxy Composites: Effect of Surface Modifications, J. Reinf. Plast. Comp., 26(9): 851860.
14. Satyanarayana, K. G., Guilmaraes, J. L. and Wypych, F. (2007). Studies on Lignocellulosic Fibers of Brazil.
Part I: Source, Production, Morphology, Properties and Applications, Compos: Part A Appl. S, 38(7):
16941709.
15. John, K. and Naidu, S. V. (2007). Chemical Resistance of Sisal/Glass Reinforced Unsaturated Polyester
Hybrid Composites, J. Reinf. Plast. Comp., 26(4): 373376.
16. John, K. and Naidu, S. V. (2004a). Tensile Properties of Unsaturated Polyester-Based Sisal Fiber-Glass
Fiber Hybrid Composites, J. Reinf. Plast. Comp., 23(17): 18151819.
17. John, K. and Naidu, S. V. (2004b). Effect of Fiber Content and Fiber Treatment on Flexural Properties of
Sisal Fiber/Glass Fiber Hybrid Composites, J. Reinf. Plast. Comp., 23(15): 16011605.
18. John, K. and Naidu, S. V. (2004c). Sisal Fiber/Glass Fiber Hybrid Composites: The Impact and Compressive
Properties, J. Reinf. Plast. Comp., 23(12): 12531258.
19. Ahmed, K. S., Vijayarangan, S. and Rajput, C. (2006). Mechanical Behavior of Isothalic Polyester-Based
Untreated Woven Jute and Glass Fabric Hybrid Composites, J. Reinf. Plast. Comp., 25(15): 15491569.
20. St John, N. A. and Brown, J. R. (1998). Flexural and Interlaminar Shear Properties of Glass-Reinforced
Phenolic Composites, Compos: Part A Appl. S, 29(8): 939946.
21. Gowda, T. M., Naidu, A. C. B. and Chhaya, R. (1999). Some Mechanical Properties of Untreated Jute
Fabric-Reinforced Polyester Composites, Compos: Part A Appl. S, 30(3): 277284.

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com at CAPES on February 16, 2010