Result and Discussion

4.1 TENSILE STRENGTH

4.1.1 TENSILE STRENTH FOR VIRGIN PP :Sample details Specimen codePT

Ref. StandardGIVEN SAMPLE

Grip Length115Gauge Length50

Sample Width25Sample Thickness3

Speed of testing (mm/min) 3

* All dimensions are in mm.Table 4.1

Fig 4.1 Graph for Tensile strength of virgin PP.

Obtained Results

Sr. No.ResultsValue

1Area0.75cm

2Yield Force43.00Kg

3Yield Elongation4.02mm

4Break Force26.0Kg

5Break Elongation18.36mm

6Tensile Strength at Yield57.33Kg/cm

7Tensile Strength at Break34.67Kg/cm

8% Elongation15.97%

Table 4.2

4.1.2 TENSILE STRENGTH FOR PP+CaCO3 :Sample details Specimen codePT




Speed of testing (mm/min)5

*All dimension in mm

Table 4.3

Fig 4.2 Graph for Tensile strength of PP+CaCO3.

Obtained Results

Sr. No.ResultsValue

1Area0.75cm

2Yield Force30.00Kg


4Break Force30.0Kg




8% Elongation1.47%

Table 4.4

4.1.3 TENSILE STRENGTH FOR PP+TiO2 :Sample details Specimen codePT






Table 4.5

Fig 4.3 Graph for Tensile strength of PP+TiO2.

Obtained Results

Sr. No.ResultsValue

1Area0.75cm

2Yield Force40.00Kg


4Break Force39.0Kg




8% Elongation2.71%

Table 4.6

4.1.4 TENSILE STRENGTH FOR Al2SiO5 :Sample details Specimen codePT





*All dimensions are in mm.Table 4.7

Fig 4.4 Graph for Tensile strength of PP+Al2SiO5.

Obtained Results

Sr. No.ResultsValue

1Area0.75cm

2Yield Force38.00Kg


4Break Force37.0Kg




8% Elongation2.71%

Table 4.8

4.2 FLEXURAL STRENGTH

4.2.1 FLEXURAL STRENGTH FOR VIRGIN PP :Sample details 1Span Length (mm)135

2Thickness (mm)3

3Width (mm)15

4Ref. StandardGIVEN SAMPLE

Table 4.9

Fig 4.5 Graph for Flexural strength of virgin PP.

Results

1MOD 1 FORCE1.20 Kg

2MODE 1 DEFLECTION1.91mm

3MOD 2 FORCE1.00Kg

4MOD2 DEFLECTION3.64mm

5Stress 11.80

6Stress 21.50

7FLEXURAL MODULES153.01N/mm2

Table 4.10

4.2.2 FLEXURAL STRENGTH FOR PP+CaCO3 :Sample details 1Span Length (mm)135

2Thickness (mm)3

3Width (mm)15


Table 4.11

Fig 4.6 Graph for Flexural strength of PP+CaCO3.

Results

1MOD 1 FORCE1.59 Kg

2MODE 1 DEFLECTION4.06 mm

3MOD 2 FORCE1.32Kg


5Stress 12.39

6Stress 21.97


Table 4.12

4.2.3 FLEXURAL STRENGTH FOR PP+TiO2 :Sample details 1Span Length (mm)135

2Thickness (mm)3

3Width (mm)15


Table 4.13

Fig 4.7 Graph for Flexural strength of PP+TiO2.

Results

1MOD 1 FORCE1.10Kg


3MOD 2 FORCE0.70Kg

4MOD2 DEFLECTION4.74mm

5Stress 11.65

6Stress 21.05


Table 4.14

4.2.4 FLEXURAL STRENGTH FOR PP+Al2SiO5 :Sample details 1Span Length (mm)135

2Thickness (mm)3

3Width (mm)15


Table 4.15

Fig 4.8 Graph for Flexural strength of PP+Al2SiO5.

Results

1MOD 1 FORCE2.40Kg


3MOD 2 FORCE1.81Kg


5Stress 13.60

6Stress 22.72


Table 4.16

4.3 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

4.3.1 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH FOR VIRGIN PP :Sample details Specimen codePT






Table 4.17

Fig 4.9 Graph for Compressive strength of virgin PP.

Obtained Results

Sr. No.ResultsValue

1Area5.85cm

2Yield Force36.41Kg

3Maximum Force36.6Kg

5Total Deflection2.58mm

6Compre. Yield strength6.22Kg/cm

7Compressive strength6.26Kg/cm

8% Deflection3.97

24.01Mpa

Table 4.18

4.3.2 COMPRSSIVE STRENGTH FOR PP+CaCO3 :Sample details Specimen codePT





*All dimension in mm.Table 4.19

Fig 4.10 Graph for compressive strength of PP+CaCO3.

Obtained Results

Sr. No.ResultsValue

1Area7.80cm

2Yield Force119.70Kg





8% Deflection7.43

34.38Mpa

Table 4.20

4.3.3 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH FOR PP+TiO2 :Sample details Specimen codePT






Table 4.21

Fig 4.11 Graph for Compressive strength of PP+TiO2.

Obtained Results

Sr. No.ResultsValue

1Area3.90cm

2Yield Force1.10Kg





8% Deflection4.31

31.43Mpa

Table 4.22

4.3.4 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH FOR PP+Al2SiO5 :Sample details Specimen codePT






Table 4.23

Fig 4.12 Graph for Compressive strength of PP+Al2SiO5.

Obtained Results

Sr. No.ResultsValue

1Area5.85cm

2Yield Force44.79Kg





8% Deflection3.14

35.74Mpa

Table 4.24

4.4 IMPACT STRENGTHThe impact strength values were given in the following table :S.NoVirgin (PP)(Joule/cm)PP+CaCO3(Joule/cm)PP+TiO2(Joule/cm)PP+Al2 SiO5(Joule/cm)

17.621.626.401.29

28.631.957.631.51

37.122.37.621.95

47.631.737.841.21

57.822.178.121.4

Table 4.25

Fig 4.14 Graph for impact strength.

Fig 4.14 represents the impact strength values of PP and filled PP with various types of inorganic fillers. The graph also explain that impact strength of PP+TiO2 was equal to the virgin PP, when compare to other fillers. . The impact strength of PP+CaCO3, PP+Al2SiO5 was low, when compare to the virgin PP. The impact strength of PP+TiO2 was equal to the virgin PP, when compare to other fillers. The impact strength was good and material cost also reduced, by adding titanium di oxide (TiO2) with PP.

Average value for impact strength of PP and filled PP :SampleVirgin (PP)PP+CaCO3PP+TiO2PP+Al2SiO5

Impact strength (Joule/cm)7.7641.9547.5221.472

Table 4.26

Fig 4.13 Chart for Impact strength

4.5 HARDNESS MEASUREMENTThe hardness values (Shore-D) were given in the following table :S.NOVirgin (PP)PP+CaCO3PP+TiO2PP+Al2 SiO5

175826478

273836577

381796879

474826678

577816975

Table 4.27

Fig 4.16 Graph for hardness measurement.

Fig 4.16 represents the hardness values of PP and filled PP with various types of inorganic fillers. The hardness of PP+CaCO3 and PP+Al2 SiO5 was increased than hardness of virgin PP. The hardness of PP+TiO2 was slightly decreased than hardness of virgin PP.

Average value for hardness of PP and filled PP :SampleVirgin (PP)PP+CaCO3PP+TiO2PP+Al2SiO5

Hardness 7681.466.477.4

Table 4.28

Fig 4.15 Chart for hardness

4.6 WATER ABSORPTIONThe water absorption values given in the following table :SamplesConditioned weight (gm)Wet weight (gm)Increase in weight percentage (%)

Virgin (PP)1.141.140

PP+CaCO31.471.491.36

PP+TiO21.271.280.78

PP+Al2 SiO51.351.31.48

Table 4.29

Table 4.27 contains water absorption result for PP and filled PP with various types of inorganic fillers. The samples were immersed in water for 48 hours and weighed. The increase in weight percentage is to be calculated.

Fig 4.17 chart for water absorption

Fig 4.17 represents the water absorption values of PP and filled PP with various types of inorganic fillers. The virgin (PP) weight does not increase. So, it has good resistance to water. In the case of PP+CaCO3, PP+TiO2, and PP+Al2 SiO5 weight increased at 1%, this is acceptable amount of water absorption. So, the filled PP materials also have better resistance to water.

Documents

Result and Discussion