| Literature DB >> 34883718 |
Gamze Cakir Kabakci1,2, Ozgur Aslan1, Emin Bayraktar2.
Abstract
Recycling of materials attracts considerable attention around the world due to environmental and economic concerns. Recycled rubber is one of the most commonly used recyclable materials in a number of industries, including automotive and aeronautic because of their low weight and cost efficiency. In this research, devulcanized recycled rubber-based composites are designed with glass bubble microsphere, short glass fiber, aluminum chip and fine gamma alumina fiber (γ-Al2O3) reinforcements. After the determination of the reinforcements with matrix, bending strength and fracture characteristics of the composite are investigated by three-point bending (3PB) tests. Halpin-Tsai homogenization model is adapted to the rubber-based composites to estimate the moduli of the composites. Furthermore, the relevant toughening mechanisms for the most suitable reinforcements are analyzed and stress intensity factor, KIc and critical energy release rate, GIc in mode I are determined by 3PB test with single edge notch specimens. In addition, 3PB tests are simulated by finite element analysis and the results are compared with the experimental results. Microstructural and fracture surfaces analysis are carried out by means of scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Mechanical test results show that the reinforcement with glass bubbles, aluminum oxide ceramic fibers and aluminum chips generally increase the fracture toughness of the composites.Entities:
Keywords: Halpin-Tsai; glass bubble microspheres; recycled rubber; scanning electron microscopy; toughening mechanisms
Year: 2021 PMID: 34883718 PMCID: PMC8659724 DOI: 10.3390/polym13234215
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Chemical compositions of the composites studied in this work (wt%).
| Composite No | Matrix (Rubber/Epoxy) | Glass Bubble | Glass Fiber | γ-Al2O3 Fiber | γ-Al2O3 Sphere | Al-Chips | Nano | BN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 95 (80/20) | 5 | ||||||
| 2 | 90 (80/20) | 10 | ||||||
| 3 | 80 (80/20) | 20 | ||||||
| 4 | 90 (80/20) | 5 | 5 | |||||
| 5 | 75 (80/20) | 10 | 10 | 5 | ||||
| 6 | 85 (80/20) | 10 | 5 | |||||
| 7 | 75 (80/20) | 15 | 10 |
Figure 1Three-Point single edge notch bending (SENB) test for fracture toughness, KIC and fracture energy, GIC characterization.
Shore D hardness measurements of the composites.
| Composite Number | SHORE-D TEST ASTM 2240 |
|---|---|
| 1 | 68 ± 2 |
| 2 | 72 ± 2 |
| 3 | 80 ± 3 |
| 4 | 81 ± 2 |
| 5 | 80 ± 3 |
| 6 | 79 ± 2 |
| 7 | 80 ± 3 |
Figure 2Microstructures of the composites studied here from the composite (1–7), respectively, after sectioning and polishing.
Figure 3Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) Chemical and Mapping for Specimen 6.
Figure 4(a) Final milling mixture of recycled rubber and reinforcements and hot compaction of the specimens and (b) Three-Point single edge notch bending test results (3PB-SENB) for the different compositions.
Dimensions of the specimens.
| Composition Number | Span Length | Width | Thickness | Total Notch Length |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L (mm) | W (mm) | B (mm) | a (mm) | |
| 1 | 32 | 8 | 15 | 1.25 |
| 2 | 32 | 7.87 | 9.12 | 1.25 |
| 3 | 32 | 7.18 | 20.8 | 1.25 |
| 4 | 32 | 7 | 19 | 1.25 |
| 5 | 32 | 6.45 | 18 | 1.25 |
| 6 | 32 | 7.66 | 17.33 | 1.25 |
| 7 | 32 | 6.31 | 19 | 1.25 |
Comparison of mechanical properties of the specimens.
| Composition Number | Ultimate Flexural Stress (MPa) | Strain at Break | Modulus of Elasticity (MPa) | Geometry Correction Factor | Critical Stress Intensity Factor | Critical Strain Energy Release Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| f (a/W) |
|
| ||
| 1 | 12.55 | 0.0357 | 940.0 | 4.15 | 0.78 | 0.64 |
| 2 | 29.19 | 0.0226 | 1214.0 | 4.18 | 1.77 | 2.59 |
| 3 | 44.27 | 0.0237 | 1903.0 | 4.37 | 2.45 | 3.16 |
| 4 | 34.97 | 0.0618 | 1914.0 | 4.43 | 1.89 | 1.87 |
| 5 | 59.93 | 0.0149 | 2784.0 | 4.62 | 2.99 | 3.21 |
| 6 | 28.99 | 0.0142 | 1289.5 | 4.24 | 1.71 | 2.28 |
| 7 | 17.56 | 1.1923 | 1827.0 | 4.68 | 0.86 | 0.40 |
The effect of speed on and (kJ/ ) values.
| Composition Number | Crosshead Speed | Geometry Correction Factor | Critical Stress Intensity Factor | Critical Strain Energy Release Rate | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| v (mm/min) | a/W | f (a/W) |
|
| |
| 3-1 | 1.5 | 0.17 | 4.38 | 2.45 | 3.16 |
| 3-2 | 2 | 0.17 | 4.38 | 2.85 | 4.27 |
Modulus of elasticity obtained by Halpin–Tsai Homogenization.
| Composite Number | Density of the Composite ( | Halpin–Tsai Modulus | Experimental Modulus |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.118 | 710.70 | 940.00 |
| 2 | 1.151 | 754.26 | 1214.00 |
| 3 | 1.225 | 857.47 | 1903.00 |
| 4 | 0.990 | 1219.16 | 1914.00 |
| 5 | 0.932 | 1717.83 | 2784.00 |
| 6 | 1.149 | 977.17 | 1289.50 |
| 7 | 1.260 | 1057.01 | 1827.00 |
Figure 5Numerical Model for 3P single edge notch bending (SENB) test for composite 4.
Figure 6Finite element mesh according to the geometry given in the Figure 5.
Critical Stress Intensity Factors obtained by Numerical Analysis.
| Composition Number | Ultimate Flexural Stress (MPa) | Maximum Deflection at Center | Modulus of Elasticity | Crack Length/Width | Experimental | Numerical Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| σfB | D (mm) | E (MPa) | a/W |
|
| |
| 2 | 29.19 | 0.49 | 1214 | 0.16 | 1.77 | 1.96 |
| 3 | 44.27 | 0.56 | 1903 | 0.17 | 2.45 | 2.21 |
| 4 | 34.97 | 1.51 | 1914 | 0.18 | 1.89 | 1.88 |
Figure 7(1–7) Fracture Surfaces of the seven Composites failed after 3PB–SENB Tests.