| Literature DB >> 30966692 |
Byungwoo Moon1, Jongmin Lee2, Soo Park3, Chang-Sung Seok4.
Abstract
Natural rubber/butadiene rubber (NR/BR) blends are widely used in industrial areas for absorbing vibrations and shocks because of their excellent elastic stability. However, when an industrial-equipment surface is exposed to sunlight and oxygen over a long period of time, the rubber hardens. As a result, the tensile properties of the rubber material and the behavior of the strain-energy density function are changed, greatly reducing the performance of the rubber product. However, only a few experimental studies on the aging characteristics of NR/BR blends are available, and it is difficult to find a study that analyzes the organic relationship of the changes in the mechanical (stress⁻strain curves, strain-energy density, etc.) and chemical (cross-linked structure, crosslink density, etc.) properties. In this study, a swelling test was performed on an aged rubber compound, and the result was substituted into the Flory⁻Rehner equation to obtain the quantitative crosslink density. The results revealed a linear relationship between the strain-energy density (SED) and the crosslink density (CLD) when the cross-linked structure increase was represented by a parallel spring model. Finally, the relationship between the strain-energy density and the crosslink density was summarized as a formula, and a method for predicting the aging behavior of NR/BR blends using the crosslink density was proposed.Entities:
Keywords: NR/BR blends; aging behavior; crosslink density (CLD); prediction equation; strain-energy density (SED); swelling test
Year: 2018 PMID: 30966692 PMCID: PMC6404147 DOI: 10.3390/polym10060658
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Accelerated aging conditions of swelling specimens.
| Aging Condition | Temperature, °C | Time, Days |
|---|---|---|
| Case 1 | 23 | - |
| Case 2 | 70 | 17 |
| Case 3 | 70 | 35 |
| Case 4 | 80 | 17 |
| Case 5 | 80 | 35 |
| Case 6 | 90 | 17 |
| Case 7 | 100 | 17 |
Interaction coefficient of the polymer-solvent.
| NR/BR Blend Ratio, phr | 100/0 | 80/20 | 60/40 | 50/50 | 40/60 | 20/80 | 0/100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.393 | 0.382 | 0.372 | 0.367 | 0.361 | 0.351 | 0.340 |
* Parts per hundred rubber.
Crosslink density (CLD) value according to the aging conditions.
| Aging Conditions | #1 | #2 | #3 | Average | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crosslink density (10−5 mol/cm3) | Unaged | 4.3 | 4.6 | 4.4 | 4.4 |
| 70 °C, 17 days | 6.5 | 6.5 | 6.3 | 6.4 | |
| 70 °C, 35 days | 8.3 | 8.3 | |||
| 80 °C, 17 days | 8.8 | 8.5 | 8.8 | 8.7 | |
| 80 °C, 35 days | 12.1 | 12.1 | |||
| 90 °C, 17 days | 11.2 | 11.1 | 12.5 | 11.6 | |
| 100 °C, 17 days | 14.7 | 14.4 | 14.3 | 14.5 | |
Change of SED function coefficient with aging.
| Aging (°C, Days) | Normal | 70, 17 | 80, 17 | 90, 17 | 100, 17 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient number ( | 0.80 | 1.09 | 1.24 | 1.53 | 1.64 |
| Exponential term ( | 1.65 | 1.69 | 1.71 | 1.71 | 1.70 |
Figure 1(a) Crosslink density expressed as a parallel spring model; (b) SED function expressed as a parallel spring model.
Figure 2Relationship between CLD and SED function with constant (k).
Crosslink density for room temperature–aged specimens.
| Aging Condition | #1 | #2 | #3 | Average | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLD (10−5 mol/cm3) | Unaged | 4.3 | 4.6 | 4.4 | 4.5 |
| RT, 2 years | 6.1 | 6.0 | 5.8 | 6.0 | |
Figure 3Comparison of crosslink density between aged and RT specimens.
Comparison of SED values according to experimental and aged master curves.
| Aging Condition | Strain | Predicted SED | Test SED | Error, % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaged | 0.69 | 0.43 | 0.44 | 2.7 |
| 0.93 | 0.69 | 0.70 | 1.3 | |
| 1.16 | 1.07 | 1.03 | 2.7 | |
| 1.39 | 1.37 | 1.38 | 0.9 | |
| 17 °C, 365 days | 0.69 | 0.51 | 0.50 | 1.3 |
| 0.93 | 0.84 | 0.83 | 1.9 | |
| 1.16 | 1.22 | 1.22 | 0.7 | |
| 1.39 | 1.66 | 1.67 | 0.4 | |
| 17 °C, 730 days | 0.69 | 0.53 | 0.53 | 2.6 |
| 0.93 | 0.89 | 0.84 | 5.5 | |
| 1.16 | 1.30 | 1.23 | 5.2 | |
| 1.39 | 1.76 | 1.72 | 2.3 | |
| Standard error | 2.3 | |||
Comparison of SED values according to experimental and crosslink master curves.
| Aging Condition | Strain | Predicted SED | Test SED | Error, % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaged | 0.69 | 0.47 | 0.44 | 6.2 |
| 0.93 | 0.77 | 0.70 | 9.1 | |
| 1.16 | 1.13 | 1.03 | 8.4 | |
| 1.39 | 1.53 | 1.38 | 9.8 | |
| 17 °C, 730 days | 0.69 | 0.54 | 0.53 | 1.9 |
| 0.93 | 0.89 | 0.84 | 4.7 | |
| 1.16 | 1.29 | 1.23 | 4.5 | |
| 1.39 | 1.75 | 1.72 | 1.5 | |
| Standard error | 5.8 | |||
Figure 4Master curve and validation.