EVALUATION OF HOT- GAS AND HEATED TOOL WELDMENTS OF POLYPROPYLENE/BONE PARTICULATE COMPOSITES

Download the complete engineering project topic and material (chapter 1-5) titled EVALUATION OF HOT- GAS AND HEATED TOOL WELDMENTS OF POLYPROPYLENE/BONE PARTICULATE COMPOSITES here on PROJECTS.ng. See below for the abstract, table of contents, list of figures, list of tables, list of appendices, list of abbreviations and chapter one. Click the DOWNLOAD NOW button to get the complete project work instantly.

PROJECT TOPIC AND MATERIAL ON EVALUATION OF HOT- GAS AND HEATED TOOL WELDMENTS OF POLYPROPYLENE/BONE PARTICULATE COMPOSITES

The Project File Details

• Name: EVALUATION OF HOT- GAS AND HEATED TOOL WELDMENTS OF POLYPROPYLENE/BONE PARTICULATE COMPOSITES
• Type: PDF and MS Word (DOC)
• Size: [1142KB]
• Length: [75] Pages

ABSTRACT

The evaluation of Hot-Gas and Heated-Tool weldments of Polypropylene/Bone composite was conducted. The composites were formulated by incorporating up to 30% by weight of calcined cow bone powder at an interval of 5% and -75μmsieved size was used as reinforcing phase during compounding process. The polypropylene materials (in unreinforced state) and various polypropylene/bone composites were welded, using hot-gas and heated-tool welding processes. Mechanical properties (tensile strength, flexural strength, impact strength and hardness) and physical properties (density, water absorption, degradability and morphology) of polypropylene and polypropylene/bone composite in both unwelded and welded conditions were examined. Results obtained showed increase in density (by 40% at 30% reinforcement); the amount of water absorbed increased as the time of immersion increased. Although the unreinforced polypropylene was saturated after 192 hrs of immersion in water, the reinforced composite’s water uptake continued beyond 192 hrs in proportion of filler amount. Similarly, there were marked improvements in mechanical properties in the Unwelded Composite (UWC), which was attributed to the reinforcing ability of the bone. However, relatively lower values were recorded when welded samples were examined. More so, there were drops in tensile strength after 15% (40.91MPa) and 20% (41.54 MPa) in Heated Tool Weldments (HTW) and Hot Gas Weldments (HGW) respectively. On the basis of comparison, these values showed that at 15% reinforcement addition, HTW has strength value 16.70% lower than UWC of the same composition (15% bone), while in composite with 20% of reinforcement, the strength value of HGW was found to be 23.23% lower than UWC of the same composition. Furthermore, flexural strength and hardness witnessed increase as more of polypropylene was replaced by bone powder. Impact energy decreased and then increased; after 10% of reinforcement addition, all but UWC set of samples witnessed drop in their ability to absorb energy on impact as a result of bone additions. These behaviours have been explained in terms of strengthening effect and volume fraction of the reinforcement as well as the effect of welding processes.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page – – – – – – – – – – iii
Declaration – – – – – – – – – – iv
Certification – – – – – – – – – – v
Dedication – – – – – – – – – – vi
Acknowledgement- – – – – – – – vii
Abstract – – – – – – – – – – viii
Table of Content – – – – – – – – – ix
List of Figures – – – – – – – – – – – xii
List of Tables – – – – – – – – – xiii
List of Plates- – – – – – – – – – – xiv
List of Abbreviations – – – – – – – – – xv

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Statement of the Problem- – – – – – – – – 3
1.2 Aim and Objectives of the Study – – – – – – 4
1.3 Significance of the Study – – – – – – – 4
1.4 Scope and Limitation of the Research- – — – – – 5

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Polymers and Polymer Composites` – – – – – – 6
2.1.1 Classification of polymers – – – – – – – 6
2.2.1. Polypropylene – – – — – – – – 7
2.2.2. Chemical and physical properties of polypropylene – – – – 8
2.2.3. Polymer additives – – – – – – – – 8
2.2.4. Bone particles – – – – – – – – – 10
2.2.5. Composite materials – – – – – – – – 11
2.2.6. Classification of composites – – – – – – – 12
2.2.7. Classification based on reinforcement – – – – – – 12
2.2.8. Classification based on matrix – – – – – 13
2.2.9. Design considerations in composites – – – – – – 15
2.2.10. Properties and testing of composites – – – – – – 16
2.2.11. Applications of polymer composites – – – – – – 17
2.3 Welding of Plastics and Plastic Composites – – – – – – 18
2.3.1. Fusion bonding – – – – – – – – – 20
2.3.2. Thermal welding – — – – – – – 21
2.3.3. Friction welding – – – – – – – – 28
2.3.4. Electromagnetic welding – – – – – – – 28
2.4.0. Review of the previous literatures – – – – – – – 29

CHAPTER THREE:MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1. Materials – – – – – – – – – – 33
3.2. Equipment – – – – – – – – – 33
3.3. Experimental Methods – – – – – – – – 34
3.3.1. Bone procurement and treatment – – – – – – 34
3.3.2. Bone degreasing – – – – – – – – 35
3.3.3.Sieving of bone – – – – – – – – 35
3.3.4. Compounding of mix – – – – – – – – 35
3.3.5. Cutting – – – – – – – – – – 36
3.4. Welding of Composite – – – – – – – – 36
3.4.1. Hot gas welding – – – – – – – – 36
3.4.2. Heated tool welding – – – – – – – – 37
3.5. Testing of Composites – – – – – – – – 37
3.5.1. Density determination – – – – – – – – 38
3.5.2. Water absorption test – – – – – – – 38
3.5.3. Tensile test – – – – – – – – – 38
3.5.4. Flexural/bend test – – – – – – – – 39
3.5.5. Hardness test – – – – – – – – – 39
3.5.6. Impact test – – – – – – – – – – 39
3.5.7. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) – – – – – – 40
3.5.8. Soil burial test – – – – – – – – – 41

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Introduction- – – – – – – – – – 42
4.2 Result of Density Test- – – – – – – – – 42
4.3 Result of Water Absorption Test- – – – – – – 43
4.4 Result of Tensile Strength Test – – – – – – – 44
4.5 Percentage Elongation – – – – – – – – – 50
4.6 Result of Flexural Strength Test – – – – – – 51
4.7 Result of Impact Energy Test – – – – – – – 52
4.8 Result of Hardness Test – – – – – – – – 53
4.9 Result of Soil Burial Test – – – – – – – 54
4.10 Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) Images – – – – – 55
i
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions – – – – – – – – – 59
5.2 Recommendations – – – – – – – – 59
5.3 Contributions to Knowledge – – – – – – – 61

REFERENCES – – – – – – – – – 62
APPENDIX — – – – – – – – – 67

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1: Classification of fusion bonding – – – – – – -21
Figure 2.2: Schematic of the hot-tool welding– – – – – – – 22
Figure 2.3: Schematic diagram showing different method of heating in hot tool welding – 23
Figure 2.4: Schematic diagram of hot gas welding process – – – – 25
Figure 2.5: A schematic diagram of infrared welding process – – – – 26
Figure 2.6: A schematic diagram showing laser welding of thermoplastic materials– – 27
Figure 4.1: Variation of composites’ densities with increasing percentage of reinforcement- 42
Figure 4.2a: Variation of water absorbed with time of immersion of PP/0% bone composite- 43
Figure 4.2b: Variation of water absorbed with time of immersion of PP/5% bone composite- 44
Figure 4.2c: Variation of water absorbed with time of immersion of PP/10% bone composite- 44
Figure 4.2d: Variation of water absorbed with time of immersion of PP/15% bone composite- 45
Figure 4.2e: Variation of water absorbed with time of immersion of PP/20% bone composite- 45
Figure 4.2f: Variation of water absorbed with time of immersion of PP/25% bone composite- 46
Figure 4.2g: Variation of Water Absorbed with time of immersion of PP/30% bone composite- 46
Figure 4.3: Variation of tensile strength with increasing percentage of reinforcement- – 48
Figure 4.4: Variation of % elongation with increasing percentage of reinforcement- – 50
Figure 4.5: Variation of flexural strength with percentage of reinforcement- – – 51
Figure 4.6: Variation of impact energy with increasing percentage of reinforcement.- – 52
Figure 4.7: Variation of shore hardness value with increasing percentage of reinforcement- 53
Figure 4.8: Variation of weight loss in soil burial with increasing percentage of reinforcement-54

LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 1: Result of Density determination- – – – – – – 66
TABLE 2: Result of water absorption test – – – – – – – 67
TABLE 3: Result of tensile test- – – – – – – 68
TABLE 4: % Elongation at yield- – – – – – – – 68
TABLE 5: Result of Flexural strength test- – – — – – 68
TABLE 3: Result of tensile test – – – – – – – – 69
TABLE 4: % Elongation – – – – – – – – – – 69
TABLE 5: Result of Flexural strength test- – – – – – – 69
xiv
LIST OF PLATES
Page
Plate 1: SEM micrographofPP with no reinforcement – – – – – 55
Plate 2: SEM micrographofPP with 15% reinforcement- – – – – – -56
Plate 3: SEM micrograph PP with 30% reinforcement- – – – – – – – 57

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
IWE – International Welding Engineers
UWC – Unwelded Composite
HTW – Heated Tool Weldment
HGW – Hot Gas Weldment
PP – Polypropylene
w – Weight of sample
ρ -Density of sample
v – Volume of sample

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The development of many technologies that make our existence so comfortable depends largely on the availability of suitable materials (Callister, 2007). However, most of these technologies require a material with unusual combination of properties (e.g. high specific strength, magnetic–transparent, conductive–transparent, catalytic–magnetic, huge yet invisible to human eye and so on), which indeed exceed the domain of our conventional metal alloys, ceramics, polymers, heat treatments etc (Luigi and Gianfranco, 2005;Hanemann and Vinga 2010).Nevertheless, the use of compositesas another class of engineering materials has proven to be vital and a promising candidate in the areas of these advanced technologies. Other answers to these contemporary developments include bio-technology, nanotechnology to mention a few. Composites were developed to improve on the properties (strength to weight ratio, good corrosion resistance, thermal stability etc) of a monolithic material so that it could be used in sophisticated areas such as aviation (where high specific strength is desired), marine (where low weight and high corrosion resistance guaranty safety), sporting equipment (where less weight is appreciated), and many other applications which include high performance rocket-motor and pressure vessels (Harris, 1999). Composites are made up of primarily two major individual materials referred to as constituent materials. These constituent materials are termed as matrix and reinforcement. At least one portion of each type is required. The matrix material surrounds and supports the reinforcement materials by maintaining their relative positions; while the reinforcements impart their special mechanical and physical properties to enhance the matrix properties. The net effect is thus an attainment of a material with a unique combination of properties not common to either the matrix or the reinforcement (Matthews and Rawlings, 2005; Callister 2007). The common matrices used include metals/alloys, ceramics and polymers while the reinforcement can be in form of fibre (short or continuous) or particulate reinforcement (Hull and Clyne, 1981).
Depending on the matrix and the reinforcement used in composite formulation, properties of the composite are indeed direct interpolation of its constituents’ properties. As a consequence,thermoplastic composites display appreciable properties which are known to be inherent features of their matrices (Matthews and Rawlings, 2005). In line with this, thermoplastic reinforced composites enjoy high demand with increased interest to developing technologies that transform these classes of composites into a form most suitable for practical applications (Yousefpour et al., 2004). Fortunately, thermoplastic composites (owing to the inherent matrix’s properties) offer some degrees of post manufacturing processing; hence they can be reheated and remoulded as infinitely as desired. To this effect, welding of thermoplastic composites becomes feasible as a significant number of this specie have since been welded in the course of repair or fabrication into desired configuration (Buxton, 2002). Today, the use of welding to join thermoplastic composite structures is becoming more important since thermoplastic composite materials are increasingly being used to replace their metallic or thermoset composite counterparts. This is in line with their superior static and fatigue load bearing capacities in aerospace, automobile, and marine industries (Yousefpour et al., 2004). While the requirements of polymeric composites increase, so do the requirements for joining especially in structural application (Sercer and Raos, 2011). The use of traditional joining methods such as mechanical fastening, adhesives etc to join thermoplastic composites is difficult, labour and cost intensive (Matthews and Rawlings, 2005; Winkler, 2009); hence the development of welding techniques suitable for welding both un-reinforced and reinforced thermoplastic polymers. However, most of the techniques used are still at a state of intense research. Hence the present study (aimed at welding polypropylene/bone composite into butt joint) will determine the extent to which reinforcement be added in as much as welding (hot gas or heated tool) is desired along the lifecycle of the polypropylene/bone composite (in particular) and composites race in general.

1.1 Statement of the Problem
When Polymersare used as matrices (reinforced with fibres or particles), some properties are effectively tailored at the expense of others; to this effect, challenges during the life cycle of compositeare often encountered (Harris, 1999). Considering the fact that composites are fabricated into real engineering component using various joining processes such as welding (Sercer and Raos, 2011);however, weldability reduces as discontinuities (reinforcing phase) increase. For example, a highly reinforced polymer was found to be brittle and difficult to be welded; on the other hand, low reinforced polymer behaves synonymous to the parent material (Buxton, 2002).In line with this, polymer reinforcement reduces their fabricability especially by welding. Hence the present research is geared at providing the optimum level of bone particulate (powder) addition to polypropylene without appreciable compromises to its weldability and other properties of engineering interest.

1.2.Aim and Objectives The aim of this work is to evaluate the possibility of welding polypropylene/bone composites using hot-gas and heated tool welding techniques. The specific objectives include the following:
– To procure cow’s limb bone from nearby abattoir; subsequently, wash (degrease) the bone with detergent to good physical condition.
– To produce calcined bone powder of -75μm particle size.
– To use various amounts of calcined bone powder as reinforcement in the production of polypropylene/ bone composites.
– To use both hot- gas and heated tool welding techniques to join the various composites into butt welded structure.
– To evaluate the physical and mechanical integrity of the produced composites and also when they have been welded.

1.3. Significance of the Research This research is intended at providing a unique combination and wide range of both physical and mechanical properties of polypropylene (light, cheap and readily available thermoplastic) without much sacrifice to its light weight through reinforcement with bone (often considered as waste in most parts of Nigeria), which is light in weight, yet hard and strong (Rauf, 2014); hence providing improved specific properties. Subsequent welding and testing is intended at providing a guide to processability and fabricability of the composite. This has provided another yardstick not only to fabrication technique(s) but also an ease of repair in case of breakage or damage in the race of polymeric composites dynasty and specifically to polypropylene/bone composite. 1.4. Scope and Limitation of the Research This work utilized the concept of fusion welding process to study the effect of animal bone particles addition on the weldability of polypropylene reinforced composite. Moreover, the research was however limited to:-4
– The use of hot gas welding and heated tool welding techniques in welding polypropylene and polypropylene/bone composites.
– Welding both reinforced and unreinforced polypropylene into butt jointed structure.
– The use of calcined bone particles as reinforcement.

GET THE FULL WORK

DISCLAIMER:
All project works, files and documents posted on this website, projects.ng are the property/copyright of their respective owners. They are for research reference/guidance purposes only and the works are crowd-sourced. Please don’t submit someone’s work as your own to avoid plagiarism and its consequences. Use it as a guidance purpose only and not copy the work word for word (verbatim). Projects.ng is a repository of research works just like academia.edu, researchgate.net, scribd.com, docsity.com, coursehero and many other platforms where users upload works. The paid subscription on projects.ng is a means by which the website is maintained to support Open Education. If you see your work posted here, and you want it to be removed/credited, please call us on +2348159154070 or send us a mail together with the web address link to the work, to hello@projects.ng. We will reply to and honor every request. Please notice it may take up to 24 - 48 hours to process your request.