ROHSTOFFE UND ANWENDUNGEN RAW MATERIALS AND APPLICATIONS Polymer blends Mechanical properties Dynamic mechanical thermal analysis Partition of additives Natural rubber and butadiene rubber NR/BR blends (50/50) were prepared by using four different sequences to incorporate the additives. After curing under constant conditions the vulcanizates demonstrate sequence-dependent mechanical properties. Based on dynamic mechanical thermal analysis and scanning electron microscopy a correlation between the mechanical performance and the blend morphology can be established. The effects are caused by the selective partition of the additives in each rubber phase. Einfluss der Mischreihenfolge auf die Eigenschaften von NR/ BR Verschnitten Polymerverschnitte mechanische Eigenschaften dynamisch-mechanische thermische Analyse Verteilung von Additiven NR/BR-Verschnitte NR/BR-Blends (50/50) denen die Additive nach vier unterschiedlichen Mischreihenfolgen zugemischt wurden, weisen Unterschiede in ihren mechanischen Eigenschaften auf, die von der Reihenfolge der Zugabe gepraÈgt sind. Mit Hilfe von dynamisch-mechanischer Thermoanalyse sowie Rasterelektronenmikroskopie konnte gezeigt werden, dass die Unterschiede in den mechanischen Eigenschaften von den entstandenen Morphologien abhaÈngen. Diese sind von der selektiven Verteilung der Additive in den jeweiligen Kautschukphasen gegeben. Influence of Additives Incorporation Sequence on NR/BR Blend Properties D. Freitas de Castro, A. F. Martins, J. C. M. Suarez, R. C. Reis Nunes, L. L. Y. Visconte, Rio de Janeiro (Brasil) Rubber formulations are developed to meet specific requirements. Thus, each one of the various components taking part in a particular formulation has an important role as to give its contribution to the final properties [1]. However, even with the wide choice of ingredients available, the whole set of characteristics may still not be reached and many times a combination of two or more rubbers has to be used in the preparation of compounds for special properties. So, generally speaking, elastomeric materials are blended for properties improvement, better processing or lower cost [1 ± 7]. Natural rubber (NR) is the adequate choice when good tensile and tear strengths are demanded, since these characteristics can be developed due to the capability this rubber has to crystallize under stress [8 ± 13]. Polybutadiene rubber (BR) is characterized by its superior abrasion resistance, so that blends of NR and BR that combine the excellent processing and physical properties of the former with the superior abrasion resistance of the latter are largely used in the industry in the production of tyre treads and conveyor belts [1 ± 6, 14]. However, the rubber performance is determined not only by the right choice of the formulation components but also by such design factors as constituents patterns and fabrication process parameters. The final properties will be strongly influenced by the additive distribution in each elastomeric phase and by the interfacial compatibility between the components. As the rubbers mixtures are usually multiphase systems, according to the used compounding mode, different distributions of the additives in each rubber phase can be KGK Kautschuk Gummi Kunststoffe 56. Jahrgang, Nr. 1-2/2003 achieved, depending on the degree of affinity that each additive has towards each rubber. In general, competitive vulcanization occurs due to different rates of vulcanization and/or rates of diffusion of the additives (including sulfur, accelerator and other compounds) in each of the elastomeric phases [15 ± 17]. In the present work, which is part of a general investigation on compounding modes in the preparation of rubber materials, the influence of four preparation modes on the properties of 1:1 (w/w) NR/BR mixture is investigated. The behavior of each compound mixture was evaluated by tensile and tear tests, dynamic mechanical thermolanalysis and scanning electron microscopy. Experimental The formulation used to prepare the mixtures is shown in Table 1. Curing parameters as determined on an oscillating disk rheometer, model TI-100 from TecnologõÂa Industrial, operating at 160 8C in a 38 arc, are given in Table 2 [18-a]. The mixtures were prepared in a Berstorff two rolls mill, operating at 50 8C. Vulcanization was carried out at 160 8C on an electrically heated press. The mixtures were compounded according to the following four procedures: M1: the additives except the accelerator were introduced into NR. The BR was added to this previous mixture. The accelerator was added after the homogenization of the new mixture; M2: the additives except the accelerator were introduced into BR. The NR was added to this previous mixture. The ac- 49 Influence of Additives Incorporation Sequence on NR/BR Blend Properties Table 1. Formulation used to prepare the compositions Component phr Natural rubber (NR) a Polybutadiene rubber (BR) Zinc oxide Stearic acid Aminox c PVI d Sulfur TBBS e 50 50 3.0 2.5 2.0 0.3 2.5 0.6 b Mooney viscosity, ML(1 4) at 100 8C 102.6; b Mooney viscosity, ML(1 4) at 100 8C 41.7; c Reaction product between diphenylamine and acetone, obtained at low temperature; d N-cyclohexylthiophthalimide; e T-butyl-2-benzothiazolsulfenamide. a celerator was added after the homogenization of the new mixture; M3: the two rubbers were previously mixed before the addition of the additives; M4: each rubber was initially compounded with half amount of each additive, except the accelerator that was the last ingredient to be incorporated. The effects of compounding mode on the polymer behavior were evaluated by mechanical (tensile, tear and hardness) tests, dynamic mechanical thermolanalysis as well as scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Tensile and tear tests were carried out at room temperature in a model 1101 Instron universal testing machine with a cross-head speed of 500 mm/min, according, respectively, to ASTM D 412 [18-b] and D 624 [18-c]. The tensile specimens were die cut from vulcanized rubber plates. For each compounding mode at least 5 specimens were tested and the stress and strain at break determined. Hardness measurements were performed according to ASTM D 2240 [18d] on a Shore A hardness tester. Dynamic mechanical thermolanalysis was performed on a Rheometric Scientific DMTA analyzer, model MK III, under the following conditions: frequency 1 Hz, heating rate 2 8C/min, single cantilever bending mode; temperature ranging from ÿ 1308 to 20 8C. A JEOL scanning electron microscope model JSM 5800LV was used to analyze the fracture aspects of the rubber compounds. The study of the failure mechanisms was carried out by direct observation of the sample topography of samples 50 Table 2. Curing characteristics of the rubber compounds Characteristics NR BR M1 M2 M3 M4 Optimum cure time ± t90 (min) Minimum torque ± ML (dN.m) Maximum torque ± MH (dN.m) Scorch time ± ts2 (min) Cure rate index ± CRI 10.59 9.32 56.44 5.94 20.61 35.50 14.35 55.76 13.50 4.50 14.59 7.45 59.77 6.81 12.85 11.29 8.70 61.69 6.66 21.59 11.00 9.04 62.03 6.04 20.20 13.41 8.53 51.98 7.11 15.87 cryofractured after being immersed for at least 10 min in liquid nitrogen. All samples were sputter-coated with gold in a vacuum chambre before examination. Results and Discussion Rheometric and mechanical properties Table 2 shows rheometric parameters for the compositions with the isolated rubbers and the four rubber blends. Concerning the isolated rubbers compositions, it can be seen that NR has higher reactivity in comparison to BR, given by the shorter value of t90 and the higher value of CRI. Among the rubber blends, a few differences in rheometric parameters can be observed as a function of the preparative mode. Table 3 presents rate constants for the rubber compounds, estimated according to the first order kinetics. When two or more rubbers are blended, one of the problems one must be concerned with is the difference in vulcanization rate each rubber presents towards the particular vulcanizing system used. If the rates are very different care must be emphasized as vulcanization of the blend as a whole may induce over or undercuring of the rubber phases. Figure 1 presents the rheografic curves for the mixtures under investigation. It can be seen that NR vulcanizes much faster than BR so the values of t90 measured for the blends, lying in between those for the isolated rubbers, may be leading to an overcured NR phase and/or an undercured BR phase. NR is known to have a strong tendency to undergo reversion as the result of thermo oxidative degradation brought about by long heating times [19]. Upon thermo oxidative degradation, with normally occurs via scission or depolymerization of the polymer molecules, NR gradually becomes softer and sticky and as a consequence, the maximum torque, which is the parameter related to the number of crosslinks, decreases. This is shown in Figure 1 for the curve corresponding to this rubber. Thus long vulcanization times Fig. 1. Rheographic curves for NR/BR mixtures KGK Kautschuk Gummi Kunststoffe 56. Jahrgang, Nr. 1-2/2003 Influence of Additives Incorporation Sequence on NR/BR Blend Properties Fig. 2. Mechanical properties of NR/BR mixtures are not advisable if the good characteristics of NR are to be preserved. On the other hand, if t90 is not long enough, the BR phase will not be fully vulcanized, so that many of the features developed in the blends will be dependent of an adequate balance of these two factors. Among the blends investigated M2 and M3 are the ones with t90 more similar to NR compound (Table 2). Concerning maximum torque, the compositions NR or BR present similar values while the blends, except for M4, have higher values, which are not very different from each other. Figure 1 also shows that analogously to NR the rheometric curves for M1, M2 and M3, go through a maximum and then start to decrease, indicating that a reversion process is taking place, characteristic of NR degradation. The close behavior of M2 and M3 towards vulcanization, given by the similarity of their rheometric parameters, suggests that although being prepared ac- Table 3. Rate constant of rubber compounds Sample k (10 k,minÿ1) NR BR M1 M2 M3 M4 5.3 0.86 2.4 1.6 3.1 2.4 Fig. 3. Tear strength and shore A hardness values for the rubber compounds cording to distinct preparative modes, these two blends have similar susceptibility to undergo vulcanization, which allows us to presume that the additives might be distributed very much in the same way within these two mixes. This pressuposes a preferential migration of the additives towards one rubber phase. In Figures 2 and 3 the results of mechanical properties for the isolated rubber compounds as well as for the four blends are presented. As seen in Figure 2, the mechanical performance for NR compound is much superior than for BR one. As for the blends, intermediate values were found, which were dependent on the preparation mode. In blend M2, vulcanization of the BR phase was stimulated since the additives were all incorporated into this phase. A comparatively low value of t90 and a relative protection of the other phase against excessive cure resulting in a good mechanical response was achieved. In opposition to this, the incorporation of the additives into the NR phase in M1 allowed an excessive cure of this phase giving rise to a significant degradation of the rubber. At the same time, BR may have not been sufficiently vulcanized and the net result was the poorest mechanical performance showed by this blend. With regard to tear strength, Figure 3 shows that this property is not as dependent on the preparation mode as the tensile strength. The blend M2 is again KGK Kautschuk Gummi Kunststoffe 56. Jahrgang, Nr. 1-2/2003 superior compared to the others. The same trend is found for the strain at break. The figure shows that this property is much higher for NR than for BR. As for the blends, as expected, intermediate values were found, with M2 having the best performance which may be the result of the short time used to vulcanize this mixture, then contributing to a lower level of NR degradation. Figure 3 also presents the values of shore hardness. The results are very close to each other and do not vary signicatively with the preparation mode. It has been already stressed the superior properties of NR composition in comparison to BR. One of the reasons to blend BR to other elastomers is the difficulty this rubber presents concerning processability. By blending these two rubbers, BR and NR, the properties obtained were inferior to those for NR but, in comparison to BR, there have been improvements in performance as well as in processability. The lower price of NR is also a positive factor in favour of these blends. Scanning electron microscopy Micrographs of the fracture surfaces of cryofractured samples at low magnification scanning electron microscopy (SEM) are presented in Figure 4. The materials show fracture surfaces with different topographic aspects. The characteristic features related to each compound- 51 Influence of Additives Incorporation Sequence on NR/BR Blend Properties Fig. 4. SEM photomicrographs of NR/BR mixtures ing mode indicate that the fracture behavior of these blends can be affected by the processing conditions. High magnification microfractographs are shown in Figure 5. The blend M1 presents characteristic elements of a mixed fracture mechanism, with flat regions associated to localized plastic strain areas and tearing patterns (Figure 4a). At higher magnification, the flat regions show the existence of parallel cracks (Figure 5a), characterizing a material with lower plasticity. The fracture surfaces of M2 and M3 samples present similar microscopic features (Figures 4b and 4c), with low surface roughness and the presence of striations, characterizing a more ductile fracture mechanism. The M2 mixture presents an increase in the striations amount (Figures 5b and 5c) showing a better plastic deformation capability than M3. Concerning M4, a partially ductile fracture with tearing regions near the edges and a coarse roughness region in the central area (Figure 4d) is seen. At higher magnification it is observed facets in the central region (Figure 5d), indicating the occurrence of a discontinuous fracture process. These SEM features are in agreement with the mechanical test results and support the measured tensile strength values. Dynamic mechanical thermolanalysis Fig. 5. SEM photomicrographs of NR/BR mixtures 52 Dynamic mechanical thermolanalysis was also carried out on these materials. Figures 6a and 6b shows the variation of tan d with temperature. The measured glass transition temperature, Tg, for BR and NR compositions (Figure 6a) are ÿ 89 8C and ÿ 45 8C, respectively. For the blends, each one of them shows two peaks in the curve of tan d versus temperature (Figure 6b). The temperature at which these peaks appear are closely related to the glass transition temperature of BR and NR, indicating that these blends are incompatible. However, the temperature at which the peaks show up depends on the blend preparation mode. Blend M1 was found to present the worst result of tensile strength which was credited to the high value of t90. This long vulcanization time would cause KGK Kautschuk Gummi Kunststoffe 56. Jahrgang, Nr. 1-2/2003 Influence of Additives Incorporation Sequence on NR/BR Blend Properties they would preferentially migrate to BR, they still are present in the NR phase in amounts that are higher in this blend than in any of the others. The highest values of Tg for the NR phase were measured for M2 and M3, suggesting that the mixing sequence used to prepare these blends caused less deterioration of this phase, in agreement with the better mechanical properties shown by these two blends. The observation of DMTA curves also gives information on material homogeneity. From Figure 6b, the width of the tan d peak for the NR phase in M1 is the largest, which means that this blend is the least homogeneous. In the region corresponding to BR, it is observed that Tg for M2 and M4 is very close as well as the values of tan d (Figure 6b), which suggests that by adding the whole amount of additives or half that much, the degree of vulcanization is not affected. It is known that polybutadiene, due to its structure, can form ¹spontaneous crosslinksª during vulcanization so that even small amounts of sulfur would be enough to provide appropriate levels of crosslinking, differently from other diene rubbers [19]. In comparison to the other two blends, the glass transition temperatures for M2 and M4 are higher, which may be related to a larger amount of crosslinks formed in these blends because of the higher concentration of curatives in the BR phase. The peaks are narrower in these blends, suggesting a higher degree of homogeneity as compared to M1 or M3. Conclusions Fig. 6. Tan d as a function of temperature of the rubber compounds degradation of NR phase, resulting in scission of the macromolecular chains, and affecting Tg. This can be seen in Figure 6b as the value of Tg for the NR phase in this blend is shifted to a lower temperature. It is known from literature [7] that overcure also affects tan d since the higher the degree of vulcanization, the lower will be the magnitude of tan d, which is also seen in Figure 6b for M1. These results show that when the additives are all incorporated into NR, even though KGK Kautschuk Gummi Kunststoffe 56. Jahrgang, Nr. 1-2/2003 In the preparation of rubber blends, the addition sequence with which the components of the formulation are mixed does have influence on the behavior of the final material. This allows the adjustment of certain properties without changing the formulation. These differences in properties result from different morphologies which are developed, caused mainly by differences in curative contents present in each rubber, this affecting the rate of crosslinks formation. In the case of the NR/BR blends investigated, better mechanical performance is achieved when vulcanization of BR is favoured while, at the same time, NR is preserved from an excessive cure. 53 Influence of Additives Incorporation Sequence on NR/BR Blend Properties Acknowledgements The authors are indebted to Petroflex InduÂstria e ComeÂrcio S.A. for the polybutadiene sample and to Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento CientõÂfico e TecnoloÂgico (CNPq) for financial support. References [1] A.S. Siqueira Filho and M. C. BoÂ: ¹Controle de Qualidade na InduÂstria de Artefatos de Borrachaª, Manuais CNI (1985). [2] B . Klei and J.L. Koenig, Rubber Chem. Technol 70 (1997) 231. [3] R. Joseph, K.E. George, D.J. Francis and K.T. Thomas, Int. J. Polym. Mater. 12 (1987) 53. [4] R. Joseph, K.E. George and D.J. Francis, Int. J. Polym. Mater. 12 (1988) 111. [5] R. Joseph, K.E. George, D.J. Francis and K.T. Thomas, Int. J. Polym. Mater. 12 (1987) 29. [6] D.J. Hurston and M. Song, J. of Appl. Polym. Sci. 76 (2000) 1791. [7] M.G. Huson, W.J. McGill and P.J. Swart, J. Polym. Sci. Polym. Lett. Ed. 22 (1984) 143. [8] A.N. Gent and L.Q. Zhang, J. Polym. Sci.: Part B: Polymer Physics 39 (2001) 811. [9] V.G. Costa and R.C. Nunes, Eur. Polym. J. 30 (1994) 1025. [10] L.A. Ultracki: ¹Polymer Alloys and Blends: Thermodynamic and Rheologyª, Hanser Publishes, New York (1990). [11] A.D. Thorn and R.A. Robinson: ¹Compound Designª in: Rubber Products Manufacturing Technology, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York (1994) Ch 1,1. [12] J.A. Brydson: ¹Natural Rubberª in: Rubber Materials and Their Compounds, Elsevier Science Publishers LTD, New York (1988) Ch 4, 69. [13] P. Boochathum and S. Chiewnawin, Eur. Polym. J. 37 (2001) 429. [14] C.L. Leutewiler, Borracha Atual 32 (2001) 34. [15] B.L. Lee, Polym. Eng. Sci. 21 (1981) 294. [16] S.A. Groves and A.J. Tinker, J. of Natural Rubber Res. 11 (1996) 125. [17] P. Boochathum and W. Prajudtake, Eur. Polym. J. 37 (2001) 417. [18] American Society for Testing and Materials, section 9, vol. 9.01, Philadelphia, 1986. a. ASTM D 2084-81, ¹Standard test method for rubber property ± Vulcanization characteristics using oscillating disk cure meterª. b. ASTM D 41287, ¹Standard test method for rubber properties in tensionª. c. ASTM D 624-86, ¹Standard test method for rubber property ± Tear resistanceª. d. ASTM D 2240-86, ¹Standard test method for rubber property ± Durometer hardnessª. [19] G.F. Bloomfield ¹Raw Polymeric Materialsª in: Rubber Technology and Manufacture, C. M. Blow, C. Hepburn, London (1982) Ch 4, 77. The authors Daniele Freitas de Castro, Ms. C. student at the Instituto de MacromoleÂculas Prof. Eloisa Mano, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Agnes FrancËa Martins, Ph. D. student at the Instituto de Macromole¬'culas Prof. Eloisa Mano, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, JoaÄo Carlos M. Suarez, Professor at Departamento de Engenharia MecaÃnica e de Materiais, Instituto Militar de Engenharia, Regina CeÂlia Reis Nunes and Leila LeÂa Yuan Visconte Associate Professors at Instituto de MacromoleÂculas Professora Eloisa Mano, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Corresponding author Leila LeÂa Yuan Visconte, Centro de Tecnologia, Bloco J , P. O. Box 6 85 25, 21945-970 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil, e-mail: [email protected]; VERANSTALTUNGEN EVENTS 11. 03. ± 12. 03. 2003 WuÈrzburg Fachtagung: Technische Kunststoffe mit hochwertigen Eigenschaften SKZ Frankfurter Str. 15-17 97082 WuÈrzburg Tel. 0931/4104-123 Fax 0931/4104-177 19. 03. ± 20. 03. 2003 Stuttgart Kolloquium: Innovationen in der Kunststofftechnik Institut fuÈr Kunststofftechnologie BoÈblinger Str. 70 70199 Stuttgart Tel. 0711/641-2344 Fax 0711/641-2335 26. 03. ± 27. 03. 2003 Altdorf bei NuÈrnberg Seminar: Elastomere als Dichtungsmaterialien Technische Akademie Wuppertal Hubertusallee 18 42117 Wuppertal Tel. 0202/7495-0 Fax 0202/7495-202 26. 03. ± 27. 03. 2003 WuÈrzburg Fachtagung: PolymerschaÈume SKZ Frankfurter Str. 15-17 97082 WuÈrzburg Tel. 0931/4104-136 Fax 0931/4104-177 24. 03. ± 28. 03. 2003 Hannover Fortbildungsseminare: Extrusion von Kautschukmischungen DIK Eupener Str. 33 30519 Hannover Tel. 0511/84201-10 Fax 0511/8386826 Vulkanisation Thermoplastische Elastomere 54 KGK Kautschuk Gummi Kunststoffe 56. Jahrgang, Nr. 1-2/2003
© Copyright 2024