LUFFA ACUTANGULA (SPONGE GOURD) FIBER

REINFORCED COMPOSITE AS AN
ALTERNATIVE WOOD VENEER

Researchers:
TEEJIE G. BENAVIDES
JOYCE ANN MARIE T. FLORES
ALLAIZA ROSE D. MAG-ASO

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

Adviser:
ENGR. SHIELA A. SORIO, MEE-CE
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH/ STATEMENT
OF THE PROBLEM
SCOPE AND DELIMITATIONS
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH
The study determined if the Luffa Acutangula Fiber
Reinforced Composite (LAFRC) can be an
acceptable alternative to wood veneer.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
1. Determined the flexural strengths of Luffa
Acutangula Fiber Reinforced Composite (LAFRC)
flat-shaped sample with a dimension of 180mm x
15mm x 7mm with Fiber Resin and Hardener
ratio of:
i. 10:1;
ii. 10:2;
iii. 10:3.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
2. Determined if there was a significant difference in
the flexural strengths of LAFRC with different mix
ratios.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
3. Determined the tensile strengths of Luffa
Acutangula Fiber Reinforced Composite (LAFRC)
dog-bone shaped sample with a dimension of
180mm x 12.5mm x 7mm with Fiber Resin and
Hardener ratio of:
i. 10:1;
ii. 10:2;
iii. 10:3.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

4. Determined if there was a significant difference in

the tensile strengths of LAFRC with different mix
ratios

5. Determined the acceptability of Luffa Acutangula

Fiber Reinforced Composite (LAFRC) as an
alternative wood veneer.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

6. Determined if there was a significant difference

in the strengths of LAFRC with that of the
standard wood veneer.
SCOPE AND DELIMITATIONS

The study was limited to the determination of the

flexural and tensile strengths of the subject with
varying fiber resin and hardener ratios in a given
duration of time.

The cost analysis and chemical effects of the

subject were not included in the study.
METHODS

Cutting of Mechanical
Laminates into Testing of
Sample Samples of
Preparation Sample
Desired Flexural Test
Dimensions
Tensile Test
FINDINGS
1. Flexural Strengths of LAFRC Flat Shaped Samples

Flexural Strength (MPa)

Fiber
Resin- Average
Hardener S1 S2 S3 (MPa)
Ratio

10:1 22.449 0 18.367 20.408

10:2 28.57 18.3667 0 23.469
10:3 10.204 18.367 36.735 21.769
FINDINGS
2. There is no significant difference in the flexural
strengths of LAFRC with different mix ratios.

The three ratios of LARFC have flexural strengths

higher than that of the medium density fiberboard
even though it has no significant difference
among groups in its flexural strength.
FINDINGS
3. Tensile Strengths of LAFRC Flat Shaped Samples

Tensile Test (MPa)

Fiber
Resin- Average
Hardener S1 S2 S3 (MPa)
Ratio

10:1 1.058 1.48 1.913 1.484

10:2 0.952 0 1.913 1.433
10:3 0.952 1.48 0.952 1.128
FINDINGS
3. Tensile Strengths of LAFRC Flat Shaped Samples

To determine if there is significant

difference in the tensile strengths of
LAFRC using different mixed ratios,
One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
was used to test if the null hypothesis
is acceptable or not.
 Flexural (MPa)
Ratio Remarks
Actual ASTM D 1037-06a

10:1 20.408 21.80 Not Acceptable

10:2 23.4685 21.80 Acceptable

10:3 21.789 21.80 Acceptable