Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 43, Issue 18, pp 6344–6352 | Cite as

Mechanical properties of single- and double-gated injection moulded short glass fibre reinforced PBT/PC composites

  • A. Khamsehnezhad
  • S. HashemiEmail author


Tensile and flexural properties of single-gated (SG) and double-gated (DG) injection moulded blend of polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) and polycarbonate (PC) and its composites containing 15, 20 and 30 wt.% short glass fibres were investigated. In the DG mouldings, a weldline was formed by direct impingement of two opposing melt fronts (i.e. cold weld). It was found that tensile modulus was not affected by the weldline but flexural modulus decreased in the presence of weldline. For both specimen types, modulus increased linearly with volume fraction of fibres (ϕf), according to the rule-of-mixtures for moduli. The weldline integrity (WIF) factor for flexural modulus decreased linearly with increasing ϕf. Results showed that tensile and flexural strengths for SG mouldings increase with increasing ϕf in a linear manner according to the “rule-of-mixtures” for strengths. The presence of weldline affected both strengths in a significant way; WIF factor decreased linearly with increasing ϕf and was independent of loading mode. It was noted also, that the overall fibre efficiency parameter for tensile modulus was independent of specimen type but for flexural modulus it was lower in the case of DG mouldings. In all cases, efficiency parameter for strength was considerably lower than for the modulus. Impact strength and fracture toughness of SG mouldings were significantly greater than for DG mouldings. Although these properties for SG mouldings increased with increasing ϕf, they decreased significantly for DG mouldings. Results showed that WIF factor for impact strength and fracture toughness decreased linearly with increasing ϕf.


Fracture Toughness Flexural Strength Impact Strength Flexural Modulus Specimen Type 


  1. 1.
    Hashemi S, Gilbride MT, Hodgkinson JM (1996) J Mater Sci 31:5017. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Din KJ, Hashemi S (1997) J Mater Sci 32:375. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chrysostomou A, Hashemi S (1998) J Mater Sci 33:1165. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chrysostomou A, Hashemi S (1998) J Mater Sci 33:4491. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nabi ZU, Hashemi S (1998) J Mater Sci 33:2985. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hashemi S (2002) J Plast Rubber Compos 31:1. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hashemi S, Lepessova Y (2007) J Mater Sci 42:2652. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Necar M, Irfan-ul-Haq M, Khan Z (2003) J Mater Process Technol 142:247. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fu SY, Lauke B, Mader E, Yue CY, Hu X (2000) Composites A 31:1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fisa B (1985) Polym Compos 6:232. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thomason JL (2002) Compos Sci Technol 62:1455. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thomason JL (2001) Compos Sci Technol 61:2007. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cox HL (1952) Br J Appl Phys 3:72. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krenchel H (1964) Fibre reinforcement. Akademisk Forlag, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Courtney TH (1990) Mechanical behaviour of materials. McGraw-Hill International EditionsGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kelly A, Tyson WR (1965) J Mech Phys Solids 13:329. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.London Metropolitan Polymer CentreLondon Metropolitan UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations