Composites: Part B 48 (2013) 1–9

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Composites: Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

Mechanical property evaluation of sisal–jute–glass fiber reinforced

polyester composites
M. Ramesh a, K. Palanikumar b,⇑, K. Hemachandra Reddy c
a
Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh, India
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sri Sai Ram Institute of Technology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh, India

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

Article history: The composite materials are replacing the traditional materials, because of its superior properties such as
Received 6 September 2012 high tensile strength, low thermal expansion, high strength to weight ratio. The developments of new
Accepted 13 December 2012 materials are on the anvil and are growing day by day. Natural fiber composites such as sisal and jute
Available online 20 December 2012
polymer composites became more attractive due to their high specific strength, lightweight and biode-
gradability. Mixing of natural fiber with Glass-Fiber Reinforced Polymers (GFRPs) are finding increased
Keywords: applications. In this study, sisal–jute–glass fiber reinforced polyester composites is developed and their
A. Hybrid
mechanical properties such as tensile strength, flexural strength and impact strength are evaluated.
A. Polymer–matrix composites (PMCs)
B. Mechanical properties
The interfacial properties, internal cracks and internal structure of the fractured surfaces are evaluated
D. Mechanical testing by using Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). The results indicated that the incorporation of sisal–jute
Jute–sisal–glass fiber-reinforced polyester fiber with GFRP can improve the properties and used as a alternate material for glass fiber reinforced
composite polymer composites.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Idicula et al. [5]. They have indicated that the natural fiber with
glass allows a significantly better heat transport ability for the
Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymers (GFRPs) is a fiber reinforced composites. Cicala et al. [6] have studied the properties and perfor-
polymer made of a plastic matrix reinforced by fine fibers of glass. mance of various hybrid glass/natural fiber composites for the
Fiber glass is a lightweight, strong, and robust material used in dif- applications in curved pipes. Natural fibers are lighter and cheaper,
ferent industries due to their excellent properties. Although but they have low mechanical properties than glass fibers. The use
strength properties are somewhat lower than carbon fiber and it of hybrid fibers may solve this issue.
is less stiff, the material is typically far less brittle, and the raw Most of the studies on natural fibers are concerned with single
materials are much less expensive [1]. Its bulk strength and weight reinforcement. The addition of natural fiber to the glass fiber can
properties are very favorable when compared to metals, and it can make the composite hybrid which is comparatively cheaper and
be easily formed using molding processes [2]. Now a days natural easy to use.
fibers such as sisal and jute fiber composite materials are replacing Panthapulakkal and Sain [7] studied the mechanical and ther-
the glass and carbon fibers owing to their easy availability and cost mal properties of hemp/glass fiber–polypropylene (PP) composite
[3]. The use of natural fibers is improved remarkably due to the fact materials. They have observed that the use of hybrid composite
that the field of application is improved day by day especially in material enhance the flexural and impact properties. In addition
automotive industries. Several researches have been taken place they have observed that the addition of glass fiber into hemp–PP
in this direction. Silva et al. [4] have developed the natural composites resulted in improved thermal properties as well as
fibers/castor oil polyurethane composites and tested the fracture the water resistance of the composites.
toughness. They have achieved the best fracture toughness perfor- Arbelaiz et al. [8] have developed flax fiber/polypropylene com-
mance for sisal fiber composites. The thermophysical properties of posites and studied the influence of fiber/matrix modification and
natural fiber reinforced polyester composites is carried out by glass fiber hybridization. They have reported that the tensile
strength and modulus of hybrid glass/flax–PP composites depend
on the glass/flax ratio. Thwe and Liao [9] have studied the durabil-
⇑ Corresponding author.
ity of bamboo/glass fiber reinforced polymer matrix hybrid com-
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Ramesh), palanikumar_k@yahoo.
posites. They have studied the properties such as tensile strength
com, [email protected] (K. Palanikumar), [email protected] (K.H.
Reddy). and elastic modulus of bamboo fiber reinforced polypropylene

1359-8368/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.12.004
2 M. Ramesh et al. / Composites: Part B 48 (2013) 1–9

(BFRP) and bamboo glass fiber reinforced polypropylene hybrid 2.1.2. Sisal fiber
composites. They have indicated that the tensile strength and elas- Sisal fibers are extracted from the leaves of sisal plant. The fi-
tic modulus decreased after ageing. The tensile strength of the jute bers are extracted through hand extraction machine composed of
fiber is directly proportional to the cross sectional area of the fiber either serrated or non serrated knives. The peel is clamped be-
[10] and delamination of layer is possible [11]. Sisal–jute–GFRP hy- tween the wood plank and knife and hand-pulled through, remov-
brid composites are environment friendly and user friendly mate- ing the resinous material. The extracted fibers are sun-dried which
rials [12] and has very good elastic properties [13]. The method of whitens the fiber. Once dried, the fibers are ready for knotting.
disposal of GFRP and their recycling have been the serious issue A bunch of fibers are mounted or clamped on a stick to facilitate
[14,15] and the natural fiber composites plays very important role segregation. Each fiber is separated according to fiber sizes and
in the environmental situation and variety of applications [16]. The grouped accordingly. To knot the fiber, each fiber is separated
incorporation of natural fiber with GFRP improves the tensile, flex- and knotted to the end of another fiber manually. The separation
ural and impact strength of the materials [17] and placing the GFRP and knotting is repeated until bunches of unknotted fibers are fin-
layers at the ends possess good mechanical strength [18]. Natural ished to form a long continuous strand. This Sisal fiber can be used
fibers are chosen as reinforcement because they can reduce the for making variety of products.
tool wear when processing, respiratory irritation and serving as
alternatives for artificial fiber composites in the increasing global 2.1.3. Jute fiber
energy crisis and ecological risks [19]. In the present study the Jute take nearly 3 months, to grow to a height of 12–15 ft, dur-
mechanical properties of sisal–jute–glass fiber reinforced compos- ing season and then cut & bundled and kept immersed in water for
ite materials is studied. The sisal–jute–GFRP composite materials ‘‘Retting’’ process, where the inner stem and outer, gets separated
are manufactured by hand lay-up process. The properties such as and the outer plant gets ‘individualized’, to form a Fiber. Then the
tensile, flexural and impact are studied and presented in detail. plant get separated and washed to remove dust from the plant.
The results indicated that the addition of sisal and jute in the glass The fiber after drying is taken to Jute mills, for getting converted
fiber composite materials make the composite hybrid and it im- to Jute yarn and Hessian. From the Jute, various lifestyle products
proves the properties. are being produced and diversified into various forms, due to
R&D support and also due the support by Government
Organizations.
2. Experimental

2.1.4. Glass-fiber reinforced polymer

2.1. Materials
Glass-fiber reinforced plastic, or GFRP is a fiber reinforced poly-
mer made of a plastic matrix reinforced by fine fibers of glass.
In this present investigation Sisal (Agave sisalana), Jute (Corcho-
Fiberglass is a lightweight, extremely strong, and robust material.
rus oliotorus) and GFRP fibers are used for fabricating the compos-
Although strength properties are somewhat lower than carbon fi-
ite specimen. The sisal and jute fibers are obtained from
ber and it is less stiff, the material is typically far less brittle, and
Dharmapuri District, Tamil Nadu, India. Isothalic polyester resin
the raw materials are much less expensive. Its bulk strength and
and the catalyst Methyl Ethyl Ketone Peroxide (MEKP) are obtained
weight properties are also very favorable when compared to met-
from M/s. Sakthi fibre glass Ltd., Chennai, India. The accelerator
als, and it can be easily formed using molding processes. The plas-
used for the investigation is Cobalt Napthanate and is added as
tic matrix may be epoxy, a thermosetting plastic (most often
1% with the resin and the catalyst. The Glass-Fiber Reinforced Poly-
polyester or vinylester) or thermoplastic. Common uses of fiber-
mers (GFRPs) used for the fabrication is of unidirectional mat hav-
glass include boats, automobiles, baths, hot tubs, water tanks, roof-
ing 300gsm.
ing, pipes, and external door skins.

2.1.1. Natural fiber 2.2. Preparation of composite specimen

In the last two decades, there has been a dramatic increase in
the use of natural fibers such as fiber extraction from sisal, jute, The composite materials used for the present investigation is
coir, flax, hemp, pineapple and banana for making a new environ- fabricated by hand layup process. Chopped sisal and jute fibers of
ment friendly and biodegradable composite materials (somehow 30 mm length were used to prepare the specimen. The composite
these composites are called ‘‘Green Composites’’). Recent studies specimen consists of total five layers in which glass fiber layers
in natural fiber composites offer significant improvement in mate- are fixed in top middle and bottom of the specimen. Second and
rials from renewable sources with enhanced support for global fourth layers are filled by natural fibers such as sisal and jute.
sustainability. These natural fiber composites possess high/moder- The layers of fibers are fabricated by adding the required amount
ate strength, thermal stability when they are recyclable, but the of polyester resin. Initially the glass fibers polymer, jute fiber, sisal
problems of using pure biodegradable polymers are their low fiber are dried in sun light to remove the moisture. The glass fiber
strength and transition temperature. Table 1 shows the physical is mounted on the table. The glass fiber reinforced polymer is then
properties of sisal and jute fibers. completely filled with polyester resin. The resin got mixed with
glass fiber reinforced polymer, which may tend to dry up within
Table 1
15–20 min. Before the resin gets dried, the second layer of natural
Physical properties of sisal and jute fiber. fiber is mounted over the glass fiber reinforced polymer. The pro-
cess is repeated for jute fiber also. The polyester resin applied is
Physical property Sisal fiber Jute fiber
distributed to the entire surface by means of a roller. The air gaps
Density (g/cm3) 1.41 1.4 formed between the layers during the processing are gently
Elongation at break (%) 6–7 1.8
Cellulose content (%) 60–65 50–57
squeezed out. The processed composite is pressed hard and the ex-
Lignin content (%) 10–14 8–10 cess resin is removed and dried. Finally these specimens are taken
Tensile strength (MPa) 350–370 400–800 to the hydraulic press to force the air gap to remove any excess air
Young’s modulus (GPa) 12.8 30-Oct present in between the fibers and resin, and then kept for several
Diameter (lm) 205–230 160–185
hours to get the perfect samples. After the composite material
Lumen size (lm) 11 12
get hardened completely, the composite material is taken out from
 M. Ramesh et al. / Composites: Part B 48 (2013) 1–9 3

the hydraulic press and rough edges are neatly cut and removed as
per the required dimensions.
Sisal-Jute GFRP

2.3. Mechanical testing

2.3.1. Tensile test Sisal-GFRP

The hybrid composite material fabricated is cut into required
dimension using a saw cutter and the edges finished by using em-
ery paper for mechanical testing. The tensile test specimen is pre-
pared according to the ASTM D638 standard. The dimensions, Jute-GFRP
gauge length and cross-head speeds are chosen according to the
ASTM D638 standard. A tensile test involves mounting the speci-
Fig. 2. Flexural test specimen.
men in a machine and subjecting it to the tension. The testing pro-
cess involves placing the test specimen in the testing machine and
applying tension to it until it fractures. The tensile force is recorded 3. Results and discussion
as a function of the increase in gauge length. During the application
of tension, the elongation of the gauge section is recorded against The use of composite materials in the different fields is increas-
the applied force. ing day by day due to their improved properties. Engineers and Sci-
The tensile test is performed on the Universal Testing Machine entists are working together for number of years for finding the
(UTM) Make FIE (Model: UTN 40, S.No. 11/98-2450). There are alternative solution for the high solution materials. In the present
three different kind of specimen are prepared according to the fi- study natural fibers are added to the glass fiber reinforced compos-
bers used. The first specimen consists of sisal–jute–GFRP fibers. ite materials and their effect on mechanical properties is evaluated
The second specimen consists of sisal–GFRP and the third speci- and their properties are compared. The test results for the Tensile,
men consists of jute–GFRP fibers. The fabricated specimen for ten- Flexural and Impact testing for the three varieties of the hybrid
sile test is presented in Fig. 1. The experiments are repeated for composite samples are presented in Table 2.
several times and the average values are used for discussion.
3.1. Tensile properties

2.3.2. Flexural test The different composite specimen samples are tested in the uni-
The flexural specimens are prepared as per the ASTM D790 versal testing machine (UTM) and the samples are left to break till
standards. The 3-point flexure test is the most common flexural the ultimate tensile strength occurs. Stress–strain curve is plotted
test for composite materials. Specimen deflection is measured by for the determination of ultimate tensile strength and elastic mod-
the crosshead position. Test results include flexural strength and ulus. The sample graph generated directly from the machine for
displacement. The testing process involves placing the test speci- tensile test with respect to load and displacement for sisal–jute–
men in the universal testing machine and applying force to it until GFRP is presented in Fig. 4.
it fractures and breaks. The specimen used for conducting the flex- The load with respect to the displacement for different combi-
ural test is presented in Fig. 2. The tests are carried out at a condi- nation of composite specimen is presented in Fig. 5. The results
tion of 23 ± 2 °C and an average relative humidity of 50%. indicated that jute–GFRP specimen gives better tensile strength
then the other two types of composites considered. The addition
of sisal fibers shows comparatively low tensile strength than the
2.3.3. Impact test
other composites considered. The sisal–jute–GFRP hybrid compos-
The impact test specimens are prepared according to the re-
ites perform better than the sisal fibers. The comparative results of
quired dimension following the ASTM-A370 standard. During the
the different composite specimen tested are presented in Fig. 6.
testing process, the specimen must be loaded in the testing ma-
The ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of the sisal–GFRP composite,
chine and allows the pendulum until it fractures or breaks. Using
jute–GFRP composite and sisal–jute–GFRP composite are in the
the impact test, the energy needed to break the material can be
range of 176.20 MPa, 229.54 MPa and 200 MPa respectively. The
measured easily and can be used to measure the toughness of
results indicated that the jute–GFRP composites outperformed
the material and the yield strength. The effect of strain rate on frac-
the other types of composites tested.
ture and ductility of the material can be analyzed by using the im-
Fig. 7 shows the sample stress–strain curve obtained from the
pact test.
universal testing machine when the samples are tested and Fig. 8
The different specimens used for impact testing is presented in
gives the stress–strain curve for the different composite materials
Fig. 3.
tested. The results indicate the same trend as that of the load vs
displacement curve.
From the results, it can be asserted that the jute–GFRP compos-
Sisal-Jute- GFRP ites are performing well compared to the other type of fibers used.

3.2. Flexural properties

Sisal-GFRP Fig. 9 shows the sample graph of flexural strength observed for
the sisal–jute–GFRP composites. The result indicated that the dis-
placement increases with the increase of applied load up to around
Jute-GFRP 3000 N, after that, it tends to decrease, i.e., breaking takes place.
The maximum displacement observed is 14.2 mm. Fig. 10 shows
the load vs the displacement graph for different composites tested.
Fig. 1. Tensile test specimen. The results indicated that the displacement increases with the
4 M. Ramesh et al. / Composites: Part B 48 (2013) 1–9

Jute-GFRP Sisal-GFRP Sisal-Jute-GFRP

Fig. 3. Impact test specimen.

Table 2
Mechanical properties of different composite samples.

Sample Tensile strength (Mpa) Flexural load (kN) Displacement, (mm) Impact strength (Joules)
Glass fiber + sisal fiber composite 176.20 2.3 11.2 18
Glass fiber + jute fiber composite 229.54 2.1 12.3 10
Glass fiber + jute fiber + sisal fiber composite 200.00 3.0 14.2 12

Fig. 4. Sample graph generated from the machine for load vs displacement for tensile test of sisal–jute–GFRP composite.

Fig. 5. Load vs displacement curve for tensile test.

 M. Ramesh et al. / Composites: Part B 48 (2013) 1–9 5

compared to other types composites tested followed by jute–GFRP

composites.
The average values observed for different composites is pre-
sented in Fig. 13. From the figure, it is asserted that the sisal–
jute–GFRP composites flexural load carrying capacity is better than
other composites tested. Sisal–jute–GFRP composites are capable
of taking of the flexural loan up to 3 kN whereas jute–GFRP com-
posites are capable of taking only 2.1 kN. The sisal–GFRP compos-
ites shows the performance in between jute–GFRP composites and
sisal–jute–GFRP composites and are capable of taking the flexural
load up to 2.3 kN.

Fig. 6. Tensile load comparison of different composite materials. 3.3. Impact properties

increase of load. After the 14.2 mm displacement, there is a break- For analyzing the impact capability of the different specimens
ing exist. The results indicated that sisal–jute–GFRP shows better an impact test is carried out. The impact test carried out for the
result than the other type of composites tested. present investigation is Charpy impact test. The energy loss is
The stress strain curve observed for sisal–jute–GFRP composites found out on the reading obtained from the Charpy impact ma-
specimen is shown if Fig. 11. The result indicated that the strain in- chine. The impact response in jute–GFRP composites reflects a fail-
creases proportional up to 13 N/mm2 after that it tends to reduce. ure process involving crack initiation and growth in the resin
The breaking occur after the strain rate of 35.8. The comparative matrix, fiber breakage and pullout, delaminating and disbanding.
evaluation of the stress strain rate observed for flexural/compres- The results of Charpy impact test is presented in Fig. 14. The results
sion test is presented in Fig. 12. From the graph, it has been indicated that the maximum impact strength is obtained for
noticed that sisal–jute–GFRP composites is performing well when sisal–GFRP composites followed by sisal–jute–GFRP composites.

Fig. 7. Sample graph generated from the machine for stress vs strain for tensile test of sisal–jute–GFRP composite.

Fig. 8. Stress vs strain curve for tensile test.

6 M. Ramesh et al. / Composites: Part B 48 (2013) 1–9

Fig. 9. Sample graph generated from the machine for load vs displacement for flexural test of sisal–jute–GFRP composite.

Fig. 10. Load vs displacement curve for compression test.

Fig. 11. Sample graph generated from the machine for stress vs strain for flexural test of sisal–jute–GFRP composite.
 M. Ramesh et al. / Composites: Part B 48 (2013) 1–9 7

Fig. 12. Stress vs strain curve for compression test.

Fig. 13. Flexural load comparison of different composite materials.

Jute–GFRP composites does not perform well when compared to observed for the sisal–jute–GFRP composite material subjected to
the other composites specimen tested. tensile test is presented in Fig. 16.
Fig. 16 shows the fractured surface, void formed and disconti-
3.4. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis nuity in the specimen. Fig. 17 shows the SEM image for the si-
sal–jute–GFRP composite material which subjected to flexural
The surface characteristics of the composite material used for test. The figure shows the fracture in the fiber bundle and incom-
the investigation is studied through scanning electron microscopy. plete distribution of the fiber and matrix in the composite material.
The cross sectional view of the fabricated composite material con- The SEM image for the Jute–GFRP composites material which
sisting of sisal + jute + GFRP is presented in Fig. 15. subjected to tensile load is presented in Fig. 18. Figure clearly
The Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) images are taken to shows the breakage of fibers in the composite materials.
observe the interfacial properties, internal cracks and internal The SEM image for the sisal–jute–GFRP composite material
structure of the fractured surfaces of the composite materials. All which subjected to impact test is presented in Fig. 19. During the
the specimens are coated with conducting material before observ- impact of the specimen, the composite material is disintegrated
ing the surfaces through SEM. The scanning electron image in the breaking point and is shown in figure.

Fig. 14. Impact load comparison of different composite materials.

8 M. Ramesh et al. / Composites: Part B 48 (2013) 1–9

Glass fibers

Fractured surface of
jute fiber

Fig. 15. SEM image of sisal–jute–GFRP composite material (cross sectional view).
Fig. 18. SEM image of jute–GFRP composite material after tensile test.

Fractured surface after impact test

Fractured surface

Void formed in the

fractured surface
Fiber breakage

Fig. 16. SEM image of sisal–jute–GFRP composite material after tensile test.
Fig. 19. SEM image of sisal–GFRP composite material after impact test.

 The jute and sisal mixture composite sample is capable having

Fractured surface maximum flexural strength with a 14.2 mm displacement and
3.00 kN load.
 The maximum impact strength is obtained for the sisal fiber
composite and has the value of 18.67 joules.
 The internal structure and internal cracks and breaks are
observed for the broken surfaces of the tested composite sam-
ples using Scanning Electron Microscope.

Incomplete
distribution of
fiber and matrix References

[1] Jarukumjorn Kasama, Suppakarn Nitinat. Effect of glass fiber hybridization on

properties of sisal fiber polypropylene composites. Compos: Part B
2009;40:623–7.
[2] Dwivedi UK, chand Navin. Influence of MA-g-PP on abrasive wear behaviour of
Fig. 17. SEM image of sisal–jute–GFRP composite material after flexural test. chopped fiber reinforced polypropylene composites. J Mater Process Technol
2009;209:5371–5.
4. Conclusions [3] Silva Flavio de Andrade, Filho Romildo Dias Toledo, Filho Joao de Almeida
Melo, Fairbairn Eduardo de Moraes rego. Physical and mechanical properties of
durable sisal fiber–cement composites. Construct Build Mater
The sisal/GFRP, jute/GFRP, sisal/jute/GFRP composite samples 2010;24:777–85.
are fabricated. The hybrids composite are subjected to mechanical [4] Silva RV, Spinelli D, Bose Filho WW, Claro Neto S, Chierice GO, Tarpani JR.
testing such as tensile, flexural and impact test. Based on the re- Fracture toughness of natural fibers/castor oil polyurethane composites.
Compos Sci Technol 2006;66:1328–35.
sults, the following conclusions are drawn: [5] Idicula Maries, Boudenne Abderrahim, Umadevi L, Ibos Laurent, Candau Yvess,
Thomas Sabu. Thermophysical properties of natural fibre reinforced polyester
 The results indicated that the jute composite material shows composites. Compos Sci Technol 2006;66:2719–25.
[6] Cicala G, Cristaldi G, Recca G, Ziegmann G, El-Sabbagh A, Dickert M, et al.
maximum tensile strength and can hold the strength up to
Properties and performances of various hybrid glass/natural fibre composites
229.54 MPa. for curved pipes. Mater Des 2009;30:2538–42.
 M. Ramesh et al. / Composites: Part B 48 (2013) 1–9 9

[7] Panthapulakkal S, Sain M. Injection-molded short hemp fiber/glass fiber [13] Sabeel Ahmed K, Vijayarangan S, Naidu ACB. Elastic properties, notched
reinforced polypropylene hybrid composites – mechanical, water absorption strength and fracture criterion in untreated woven jute-glass fabric reinforced
and thermal properties. J Appl Polym Sci 2007;103:2432–41. polyester hybrid composites. Mater Des 2007;28:2287–94.
[8] Arbelaiz A, Fernandez B, Cantero G, Llano-Ponte R, Valea A, Mondragon I. [14] Xua Xun, Jayaramana Krishnan, Morinb Caroline, Pecqueuxb Nicolas. Life cycle
Mechanical properties of flax fibre/polypropylene composites. Influence of assessment of wood–fiber–reinforced polypropylene composites. J Mater
fibre/matrix modification and glass fibre hybridization. Compos A Process Technol 2008;198:168–77.
2005;36:1637–44. [15] John K, Venkata Naidu S. Sisal fiber/glass fiber hybrid composites: impact and
[9] Thwe MM, Liao. Durability of bamboo–glass fiber reinforced polymer matrix compressive properties. J Reinf Plas Compos 2004;23(12):1253–8.
hybrid composites. Compos Sci Technol 2003;63:375–87. [16] Kishore, Mohan R. Compressive strength of jute–glass hybrid fiber composites.
[10] Thi-Thu Loan Doan, Shang-Lin Gao, Edith Mader. Jute/polypropylene J Mater Sci 1983;2:99–102.
composites I. Effect of matrix modification. Compos Sci Technol [17] Mishra S, Mohanty AK, Drzal LT, Misra M, Parija S, Nayak SK, et al. Studies on
2006;66:952–63. mechanical performance of biofiber/glass reinforced polyester hybrid
[11] Chandramohan D, Marimuthu K. Thrust force and torque in drilling the natural composites. Compos Sci Technol 2003;63:1377–85.
fiber reinforced polymer composite materials and evaluation of delamination [18] Sabeel Ahmed K, Vijayarangan S. Tensile, flexural and interlaminar shear
factor for bone graft substitutes – a work of fiction approach. Int J Eng Sci properties of woven jute and jute-glass fabric reinforced polyester composites.
Technol 2010;2(10):6437–51. J Mater Process Technol 2008;207:330–5.
[12] Idicula Maries, Malhotra SK, Kuruvilla Joseph, Sabu Thomas. Dynamic [19] Cheung Hoi-yan, Ho Mei-po, Lau Kin-tak, Cardona Francisco, Hui David.
mechanical analysis of randomly oriented intimately mixed short banana/ Natural fiber ireinforced composites for bioengineering and environmental
sisal hybrid fiber reinforced polyester composites. Compos Sci Technol engineering applications. J Compos: Part B 2009;40:655–63.
2005;65:1077–87.