Cover
Preface
Chapter 1: Tribological Assessment on Accelerated Aging Bones in Polymeric Condition
1. 1.1 Introduction
2. 1.2 Bone
3. 1.3 Methodology
4. 1.4 Results and Discussion
5. 1.5 Conclusion
6. 1.A Relative Humidity Chart
7. References
Chapter 2: Nanofracture and Wear Testing on Natural Bones
1. 2.1 Introduction
2. 2.2 Methodology
3. 2.3 Results and Discussion
4. 2.4 Conclusion
5. References
Chapter 3: Tribological Behaviors of Glass Fiber with Fillers Reinforced Hybrid Polymer Composites
1. 3.1 Introduction
2. 3.2 Wear and Mechanisms of Wear
3. 3.3 Tribo Wear Test Methods
4. 3.4 Tribo Characterization Hybrid Polymer Composites
5. 3.5 Conclusion
6. References
Chapter 4: Tribological Characterization of Jute/Glass Hybrid Composites
1. 4.1 Introduction
2. 4.2 Materials and Method
3. 4.3 Results and Discussion
4. 4.4 Micrograph Analysis
5. 4.5 Conclusions
6. References
Chapter 5: Glass Fiber Hybrid Effects in Assessing the Abrasive Wear Mechanisms of Naturally Woven Fabric/Polymer Composites Under Dry Conditions
1. 5.1 Introduction
2. 5.2 Experimental Details
3. 5.3 Results and Discussion
4. 5.4 Conclusion
5. Acknowledgement
6. References
Chapter 6: Wear Properties of Acid and Silane Modified CNT Filled Hybrid Glass/Kenaf Epoxy Composites
1. 6.1 Introduction
2. 6.2 Methodology
3. 6.3 Results and Discussion
4. 6.4 Conclusion
5. Acknowledgement
6. References
Chapter 7: Hybrid Natural Fiber Composites as a Friction Material
1. 7.1 Friction Material Components
2. 7.2 Natural Fibers Used in Friction Materials Composites
3. References
Chapter 8: Comparative Wear Model on Hybrid Natural Fiber Composites as Substitutions for UHMWPE Made Knee Implants
1. 8.1 Introduction
2. 8.2 Aims
3. 8.3 Methods
4. 8.4 Results
5. 8.5 Discussion
6. Acknowledgments
7. References
Chapter 9: Fabrication and Tribological Behavior of Epoxy Hybrid Composites
1. 9.1 Introduction
2. 9.2 Materials and Methods
3. 9.3 Results and Discussion
4. 9.4 Conclusions
5. References
Chapter 10: Dry Sliding Wear Behavior of Copper Based Hybrid Metal Matrix Composite
1. 10.1 Introduction
2. 10.2 Materials and Methods
3. 10.3 Results and Discussion
4. 10.4 Conclusion
5. References
Chapter 11: Morphological Examination of Worn out Surfaces of Basalt Fiber‐PEI Composites with Varying Loading Conditions
1. 11.1 Introduction
2. 11.2 Materials Used
3. 11.3 Fabrication of the Composite Materials
4. 11.4 Testing of Composite Materials
5. 11.5 Results and Discussion
6. 11.6 Conclusions
7. References
Index
End User License Agreement

List of Tables

Chapter 1
1. Table 1.1 Design of experiment.
2. Table 1.2 The dimension of both bovine and goat specimens.
3. Table 1.3 Bone appearance before and after removing fleshes.
4. Table 1.4 Comparison of mass loss for bovine and goat specimen.
5. Table 1.5 Comparison of maximum load withstood by bovine and goat bones at different temperatures.
6. Table 1.6 Comparison of how the bone fracture in bovine and goat bone appears.
7. Table 1.7 Mechano properties of bovine and goat bones.
8. Table 1.8 Nano‐indentation results for bovine and goat bones at different temperatures.
9. Table 1.9 Comparison between bone with resin and bone without resin.
10. Table 1.10 Comparison of porosity in bovine and goat bones.
Chapter 2
1. Table 2.1 Parameter for first test run.
2. Table 2.2 Parameter for second test run.
3. Table 2.3 General results of wear and COF tests on abrasion tribometer rig.
4. Table 2.4 Chemical composition and properties of the bone.
5. Table 2.5 Average indention depth (without resin).
6. Table 2.6 Average indention depth (with resin).
Chapter 3
1. Table 3.1 Composition details for composite preparation.
2. Table 3.2 Thermal property of the composition.
Chapter 4
1. Table 4.1 Process parameters used in this work.
Chapter 5
1. Table 5.1 Formulation of composites.
2. Table 5.2 Mechanical properties of composites.
Chapter 7
1. Table 7.1 Test materials and procedures used in [42].
2. Table 7.2 Test procedure, BEEP criteria assessment, and material types used in [36].
3. Table 7.3 Test materials and procedures used in [43].
4. Table 7.4 Test materials and procedures used in [47].
5. Table 7.5 Test materials and procedures used in Lee and Filip [10].
6. Table 7.6 Decision matrix used to select the most suitable natural fiber to be used in friction materials.
7. Table 7.7 Test materials and procedures used in [48].
8. Table 7.8 Summary of the main results on the use of natural fibers in brake materials described in this chapter.
Chapter 8
1. Table 8.1 Typical fibers for reinforcement use.
2. Table 8.2 Typical natural fibers.
3. Table 8.3 Specific wear coefficient in case of natural fibers.
4. Table 8.4 Parameters of the tibiofemoral force and ϕ function [27].
5. Table 8.5 Wear parameters.
6. Table 8.6 Wear results and comparison.
Chapter 9
1. Table 9.1 Constituents of matrix system.
2. Table 9.2 Properties of carbon fabric.
3. Table 9.3 Physical properties of the fillers.
4. Table 9.4 C‐E composites utilized in the current study.
5. Table 9.5 Particulars of the slide wear test features employed in the current study.
6. Table 9.6 Particulars of 3‐BAW test in the current discussion.
Chapter 10
1. Table 10.1 Grey relational analysis.
2. Table 10.2 Response table.
3. Table 10.3 ANOVA for various input parameters.

List of Illustrations

Chapter 1
1. Figure 1.1 Sex‐specific prevalence of doctor‐diagnosed arthritis, National Health interview, from 2007–2009 [1].
2. Figure 1.2 Projected prevalence of doctor‐diagnosed arthritis among adults 2005–2030 [1].
3. Figure 1.3 Bone processing from raw bone to boiling and de‐fleshing.
4. Figure 1.4 Cutting process: (a) manual band saw, (b) abrasive water jet, and (c) dog bone shaped specimen.
5. Figure 1.5 Temperature measurement using wet–dry bulb hygrometer concept.
6. Figure 1.6 Relative humidity versus time at different temperatures.
7. Figure 1.7 Maximum load withstood (N) versus extension (mm) for bovine bone at a temperature of 22 °C.
8. Figure 1.8 Maximum load withstood (N) versus extension (mm) for goat bone at a temperature of 22 °C.
9. Figure 1.9 Maximum load withstood (N) versus extension (mm) for bovine bone at a temperature of 55 °C.
10. Figure 1.10 Maximum load withstood (N) versus extension (mm) for goat bone at a temperature of 55 °C.
11. Figure 1.11 Maximum load withstood (N) versus extension (mm) for bovine bone at a temperature of 85 °C.
12. Figure 1.12 Maximum load withstood (N) versus extension (mm) for goat bone at a temperature of 85 °C.
13. Figure 1.13 The relationship of temperature and relative humidity (RH) to bovine and goat specimen strength.
14. Figure 1.14 Comparison of bone strength at normal and increased temperatures.
15. Figure 1.15 Stress–strain curve.
16. Figure 1.16 Load versus indentation depth graph for bovine bone specimen.
17. Figure 1.17 Comparison of minimum average hardness of bone and implant.
18. Figure 1.18 Comparison of maximum average hardness of bone and implant.
19. Figure 1.19 The fracture structure of bone.
20. Figure 1.20 Abrasive elongation of bone.
21. Figure 1.21 The abrasive wear elongation of bone.
22. Figure 1.22 Calcium composition in bone specimens at 22 °C (B1 and G1).
23. Figure 1.23 Calcium composition in bone specimens at 85 °C (B1 and G1).
24. Figure 1.24 EDAX analysis for bovine specimen for testing at 85 °C (B3).
25. Figure 1.25 EDAX analysis for goat specimen for testing at 85 °C (G3).
Chapter 2
1. Figure 2.1 Types of fracture.
2. Figure 2.2 The bone structure.
3. Figure 2.3 (a) Two body wear (b) three body wear.
4. Figure 2.4 Hooke’s law.
5. Figure 2.5 Pin‐on‐disk tribometer setup.
6. Figure 2.6 The dimensions of the specimen as specified in ASTM C565.
7. Figure 2.7 Nano‐indenter test machine and setup.
8. Figure 2.8 Variation of wear rate in time series.
9. Figure 2.9 Variation of weight loss with speed.
10. Figure 2.10 Variation of coefficient of friction (COF) with speed.
11. Figure 2.11 Variation of weight loss with load.
12. Figure 2.12 Variation of COF with load.
13. Figure 2.13 Interrelation between weight loss and COF.
14. Figure 2.14 (a–i) The image of the bone under 200× magnification.
15. Figure 2.15 The image of bone at (a) 300 rpm and 100 N (b) at 500 rpm and 150 N.
16. Figure 2.16 The composition of bone.
17. Figure 2.17 The stress versus strain graph.
18. Figure 2.18 Load versus extension graph.
19. Figure 2.19 Graph of load against indention depth (without resin coating).
20. Figure 2.20 Graph of load against indention depth (with resin coating).
Chapter 3
1. Figure 3.1 (a) Two body and (b) three body abrasive wear.
2. Figure 3.2 Schematic of the pin‐on‐disk tribo test machine.
3. Figure 3.3 Schematic of the ball‐on‐disk tribo testing machine.
4. Figure 3.4 (a) The coefficient of friction and (b) wear loss for 80 wt%/PA–20 wt% in HDPE polyblend with GF.
5. Figure 3.5 Optical micrographs of the steady‐state transfer films formed by 80 wt% PA6/20 wt% HDPE polyblend with the compositions (a) PA6 and HDPE and (b) 15% GF.
6. Figure 3.6 Friction coefficient and wear rate of GF/PA6 composite by varying (a) PTFE and (b) UHMWPE (testing parameters: 40 N and 200 rpm).
7. Figure 3.7 (a) Friction coefficient and (b) wear rate of GF/PA6 composite with both PTFE and UHMWPE (testing parameters: 40 N and 200 rpm).
8. Figure 3.8 Specific wear rate against various sliding velocity of fillers and glass fiber reinforced epoxy composites (testing parameter: 60 N and 3000 m).
9. Figure 3.9 Specific wear rate versus various applied load of fillers and glass fiber reinforced epoxy composites (testing parameter: 5.44 m s⁻¹ and at 3000 m).
10. Figure 3.10 Specific wear rate against various sliding distances of fillers and glass fiber reinforced epoxy composites (testing parameter: 5.44 m s⁻¹ and at 60 N).
11. Figure 3.11 Weight losses versus wear testing parameters: sliding velocity, applied load, and sliding distance.
12. Figure 3.12 Specific wear rates and coefficient of friction of pure and graphite filled glass fabric reinforced epoxy composites (normal applied loads 30, 60, and 90 N).
13. Figure 3.13 Worn surface morphology of 3% graphite filler containing glass fiber composites at applied loads of (a) 30 N, (b) 60 N, and (c) 90 N.
14. Figure 3.14 (a,b) Dimensions of the bearing and the counterpart.
15. Figure 3.15 Polymer journal bearing montage.
16. Figure 3.16 Plot of the friction coefficient and contact temperature versus sliding distance of journal bearing at 0.5 m s⁻¹ and 0.238 MPa.
17. Figure 3.17 Plot of the friction coefficient and contact temperature versus sliding distance of journal bearing at 1 m s⁻¹ and 0.238 MPa.
Chapter 4
1. Figure 4.1 Fabrication process.
2. Figure 4.2 Specimen used in this work.
3. Figure 4.3 Coefficient of friction of various composites.
4. Figure 4.4 Specific wear rate of various composites.
5. Figure 4.5 Frictional force of various composites.
6. Figure 4.6 SEM image of JJJ composite at 5 N and 300 rpm.
7. Figure 4.7 SEM image of JJJ Composite at 15 N and 1200 rpm.
8. Figure 4.8 SEM image of GGG composite at 15 N and 1200 rpm.
9. Figure 4.9 SEM image of GJJ composite at 15 N and 1200 rpm.
10. Figure 4.10 (a,b) SEM image of JJG composite.
Chapter 5
1. Figure 5.1 Photographs of coconut sheath (a) and glass fiber (b) used in this study.
2. Figure 5.2 Schematic diagram of dry sand rubber wheel abrasion tester.
3. Figure 5.3 Fractography of NNN‐USP composite (a) and NNG‐USP composite (b).
4. Figure 5.4 Worn surface images of composites: coconut sheath composite (a) and hybrid composite (b).
5. Figure 5.5 Volume loss of pure and hybrid composites, run at 24 N (a) and at 36 N (b).
6. Figure 5.6 Specific wear of pure and hybrid composites, run at 24 N (a) and at 36 N (b).
7. Figure 5.7 (a–f) SEM images of worn surface of N‐USP after wear (for 36 N of load and abrading distances of 250, 750, and 1000 m).
8. Figure 5.8 (a–f) SEM images of worn surface of NNG‐USP after wear (for 36 N of load and abrading distances of 250, 750, and 1000 m).
Chapter 6
1. Figure 6.1 Schematics of abrasive wear mechanisms: (a) micro‐cracking, (b) micro‐ploughing, (c) micro‐cutting, and (d) micro‐fatigue.
2. Figure 6.2 Graph of specific wear rates of different types of samples.
3. Figure 6.3 Thermal images of (a) epoxy and (b) glass composites.
4. Figure 6.4 Images from stereomicroscope for (a) epoxy, (b) kenaf composite, (c) glass composite, and (d) hybrid glass/kenaf composites, magnification 10×.
5. Figure 6.5 Surface images of (a) kenaf composite, (b) glass composite, and (c) hybrid glass/kenaf composites obtained from Alicona 3D surface metrology.
6. Figure 6.6 Effect of hybridizing PCNT into hybrid glass/kenaf composite on the wear rate.
7. Figure 6.7 Thermal images of (a) 0.5 PCNT/glass/kenaf, (b) 0.75 PCNT/glass/kenaf, (c) 1.0 PCNT/glass/kenaf, and (d) hybrid glass/kenaf composites.
8. Figure 6.8 Surface profiles for worn surfaces of (a) 0.5 PCNT/glass/kenaf, (b) 0.75 PCNT/glass/kenaf, and (c) 1.0 PCNT/glass/kenaf obtained from stereomicroscope.
9. Figure 6.9 Surface profiles for worn surfaces of (a) 0.5 PCNT/glass/kenaf, (b) 0.75 PCNT/glass/kenaf, and (c) 1.0 PCNT/glass/kenaf obtained from Alicona 3D surface metrology.
10. Figure 6.10 Effect of acid treatment on the ACNT filled glass/kenaf composites.
11. Figure 6.11 Effect of silane treatment on the SCNT filled glass/kenaf composites.
12. Figure 6.12 Thermal images captured for (a) 0.5 ACNT/glass/kenaf, (b) 0.5 SCNT/glass/kenaf, (c) 0.75 ACNT/glass/kenaf, (d) 0.75 SCNT/glass/kenaf, (e) 1.0 ACNT/glass/kenaf, and (f) 1.0 SCNT/glass/kenaf.
13. Figure 6.13 Surface profiles for (a) 0.5 ACNT/glass/kenaf, (b) 0.5 SCNT/glass/kenaf, (c) 0.75 ACNT/glass/kenaf, (d) 0.75 SCNT/glass/kenaf, (e) 1.0 ACNT/glass/kenaf, and (f) 1.0 SCNT/glass/kenaf.
Chapter 7
1. Figure 7.1 Scheme of the brake dynamometer.
2. Figure 7.2 Asbestos fibers seen through an optical microscope.
3. Figure 7.3 Six types of asbestos in its natural form.
4. Figure 7.4 Photograph of banana peel powder: uncarbonized (BUNCp, (a)) and carbonized (BCp, (b)).
5. Figure 7.5 Fibers of palm kernel used in [43].
6. Figure 7.6 Schematic drawing of the sisal fiber, showing its structure.
Chapter 8
1. Figure 8.1 The relative importance of the materials in the history.
2. Figure 8.2 Ethylene monomers before and after the reaction and their symbolic representation.
3. Figure 8.3 Structures of thermoplastics (a) and thermosets (b).
4. Figure 8.4 Structure of amorphous (a) and semi‐crystalline polymers (b).
5. Figure 8.5 Composite behavior in case of different adhesion.
6. Figure 8.6 (a–e) Different composite structures in two dimensions.
7. Figure 8.7 Simplified tribological system.
8. Figure 8.8 Classifications of tribo tests.
9. Figure 8.9 Two‐body abrasive wear between the connecting surfaces.
10. Figure 8.10 Mechanical model of squat with horizontally moving center of gravity.
11. Figure 8.11 Standard (non‐moving CoG) and non‐standard (moving CoG) squatting.
12. Figure 8.12 Summarized slide–roll ratios from different authors.
13. Figure 8.13 Wear propagation of the different models.
14. Figure 8.14 Total wear during lifetime cycle.
Chapter 9
1. Figure 9.1 Different interweave forms of fabric: (a) plain, (b) twill, (c) satin, and (d) basket.
2. Figure 9.2 Schematic representations: (a) two‐body abrasion and (b) three‐body abrasion.
3. Figure 9.3 Mechanisms involved in removal of material at microscopic level between material surface and abrasives: (a) micro‐ploughing, (b) micro‐cutting, and (c) micro‐cracking.
4. Figure 9.4 Plain woven carbon fabrics.
5. Figure 9.5 Molybdenum disulfide particulate filler.
6. Figure 9.6 Aluminum oxide particulate filler.
7. Figure 9.7 Stages in composite fabrication.
8. Figure 9.8 Pin‐on‐disk apparatus.
9. Figure 9.9 Graphic representation of pin‐on‐disk test device depicting the various elements.
10. Figure 9.10 Dry sand/rubber wheel abrasion tester.
11. Figure 9.11 Schematic diagram of the three‐body abrasive test setup.
12. Figure 9.12 Three‐body abrasion test specimen (all dimensions are in millimeter).
13. Figure 9.13 Wear volume loss of unfilled and particulate filled C‐E composites as a function of load and for different velocities: (a) 0.5 m s⁻¹, (b) 1 m s⁻¹, (c) 1.5 m s⁻¹, and (d) 2 m s⁻¹.
14. Figure 9.14 Wear volume loss of unfilled and particulate filled C‐E composites as a function of sliding velocity and for different loads: (a) 20 N, (b) 40 N, (c) 60 N, and (d) 80 N.
15. Figure 9.15 Wear volume loss of unfilled and particulate filled C‐E composites for different velocities and loads: (a) 20 N, (b) 40 N, (c) 60 N, and (d) 80 N.
16. Figure 9.16 Specific wear rate of unoccupied and particulate occupied C‐E with respect to load and for different velocities: (a) 0.5 m s⁻¹, (b) 1 m s⁻¹, (c) 1.5 m s⁻¹, and (d) 2 m s⁻¹.
17. Figure 9.17 Specific wear rate of unoccupied and particulate filled C‐E with respect to velocity, and for different loads: (a) 20 N, (b) 40 N, (c) 60 N, and (d) 80 N.
18. Figure 9.18 Friction coefficient with respect to normal load for unoccupied and particulate filled C‐E composites.
19. Figure 9.19 SEM of the worn surfaces of unoccupied C‐E samples at (a) 0.5 m s⁻¹, 20 N and (b) 2 m s⁻¹, 80 N.
20. Figure 9.20 SEM of the worn sample of MoS₂ filled C‐E samples at (a) 0.5 m s⁻¹, 20 N and (b) 2 m s⁻¹, 80 N.
21. Figure 9.21 Wear volume versus abrading distance of particulate filled C‐E composites at (a) 23 N and (b) 34 N.
22. Figure 9.22 K_s versus abrading distance of particulate filled C‐E composites at (a) 23 N and (b) 34 N.
23. Figure 9.23 Schematic representation of rolling effect of sand particles by MoS₂ microparticles.
24. Figure 9.24 Scanning electron micrograph of silica sand before abrasion.
25. Figure 9.25 Wear scar of particulate filled samples at 34 N, 1080 m: (a) Al₂O₃ filled and (b) MoS₂ filled C‐E composites.
26. Figure 9.26 Wear scar data of unoccupied C‐E and particulate C‐E samples.
27. Figure 9.27 Photomicrograph of damage surface of C‐E sample at 34 N, 1080 m.
28. Figure 9.28 Photomicrograph of worn surface of (a) MoS₂ filled C‐E sample at 34 N, 270 m and (b) MoS₂ filled C‐E sample at 34 N, 1080 m.
29. Figure 9.29 Photomicrograph of worn surface of (a) Al₂O₃ filled C‐E sample at 34 N, 270 m and (b) Al₂O₃ filled C‐E sample at 34 N, 1080 m.
Chapter 10
1. Figure 10.1 Copper powder.
2. Figure 10.2 Morphology of (a) copper powder and (b) fly ash particles.
3. Figure 10.3 Compaction process.
4. Figure 10.4 Typical specimen after compacting.
5. Figure 10.5 Pin‐on‐disk setup.
6. Figure 10.6 Typical wear specimen.
7. Figure 10.7 Microstructure of composite with 10 wt% fly ash and 1 wt% graphite.
8. Figure 10.8 Microstructure of composite with 10 wt% fly ash and 2 wt% graphite.
9. Figure 10.9 Microstructure of composite with 10 wt% fly ash and 3 wt% graphite.
10. Figure 10.10 Effect of load and sliding velocity on wear rate of the composite with (a) 10% fly ash and 1% graphite, (b) 10% fly ash and 2% graphite, and (c) 10% fly ash and 3% graphite.
11. Figure 10.11 Effect of load and sliding velocity on CoF of the composite with (a) 10% fly ash and 1% graphite, (b) 10% fly ash and 2% graphite, and (c) 10% fly ash and 3% graphite.
Chapter 11
1. Figure 11.1 Coefficient of friction of basalt/PEI.
2. Figure 11.2 Coefficient of friction of basalt/PEI/PTFE.
3. Figure 11.3 Comparison of CoF of glass/PEI and basalt/PEI.
4. Figure 11.4 Comparison of CoF of basalt/PEI/PTFE and glass/PEI/PTFE.
5. Figure 11.5 (a) SEM micrograph of basalt/PEI composite and (b) with PTFE.
6. Figure 11.6 (a) SEM micrograph of basalt/PEI composite at 70× and (b) with PTFE at 70×.
7. Figure 11.7 (a) SEM micrograph of basalt/PEI composite at 500× and (b) with PTFE at 500×.
8. Figure 11.8 (a) SEM micrograph of basalt/PEI composite and (b) with PTFE.

Copyright

Editors

Dr. Mohammad Jawaid

Universiti Putra Malaysia

Institute of Tropical Forestry and Forest Products (INTROP)

Serdang

43400 Selangor

Malaysia

Dr. Rajini Nagarajan

Kalasaingam University

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering

Anand Nagar

626126 Krishnankoil, Tamil Nadu

India

Dr. Jacob Sukumaran

Ghent University

Laboratory Soete

Technologiepark Zwijnaarde 903

9052 Zwijnaarde

Belgium

Prof. Patrick De Baets

Ghent University

Dept. Electr. Energy, Systems, Automat.

Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 25

9000 Gent

Belgium

All books published by Wiley-VCH are carefully produced. Nevertheless, authors, editors, and publisher do not warrant the information contained in these books, including this book, to be free of errors. Readers are advised to keep in mind that statements, data, illustrations, procedural details or other items may inadvertently be inaccurate.

Library of Congress Card No.: applied for

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

All rights reserved (including those of translation into other languages). No part of this book may be reproduced in any form – by photoprinting, microfilm, or any other means – nor transmitted or translated into a machine language without written permission from the publishers. Registered names, trademarks, etc. used in this book, even when not specifically marked as such, are not to be considered unprotected by law.

Print ISBN: 978-3-527-34301-0

ePDF ISBN: 978-3-527-80861-8

ePub ISBN: 978-3-527-80859-5

oBook ISBN: 978-3-527-80858-8