| Literature DB >> 35160500 |
Zhaoyi Liu1,2, Hui Wang1,2, Yizhe Chen1,3, Guodong Kang2, Lin Hua1, Jindong Feng2.
Abstract
Ultrasonic curing is an effective way to enhance the curing extent of composite material bonding in the aerospace industry. The non-thermal effect of ultrasonic has been revealed to improve curing efficiency. However, the mechanism of the ultrasonic non-thermal effect is still not clear. In this work, a variable activation energy model of ultrasonic curing was established by utilizing the iso-conversional method, including the activation energy of the thermal effect and activation energy of the non-thermal effect. The thermal effect caused by ultrasonic was accurately peeled off. An obvious decrease in activation energy was found from 54 kJ/mol in thermal curing to 38 kJ/mol in ultrasonic curing. The activation energy of the reaction system in ultrasonic curing was substituted into the modified Kamal autocatalytic equation, and the parameters of the ultrasonic curing kinetic model were estimated by means of an ALO algorithm. Further discussion based on in situ FTIR showed that the non-thermal effect of ultrasonic can affect the vibration strength, stability, and chemical bond energy of internal groups, but cannot cause the fracture of chemical bonds. Moreover, frontier molecular orbital analysis showed that the chemical reactivity of epoxy/amine molecules increased and the HOMO-LUMO energy gap decreased from 6.511 eV to 5.617 eV under the effect of ultrasonic.Entities:
Keywords: accelerated curing mechanism; antlion optimization (ALO) algorithm; curing kinetics; epoxy adhesive; non-thermal effect; ultrasonic curing
Year: 2022 PMID: 35160500 PMCID: PMC8840220 DOI: 10.3390/polym14030512
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Flow chart of the antlion optimization algorithm.
Figure 2DSC results of 3M DP420 epoxy adhesive: (a) dynamic DSC curves of epoxy adhesive at different heating rates; (b) characteristic curing temperature; (c) curing degree as a function of temperature.
Characteristic parameters of curing process at different heating rates.
| Heating Rate (°C/min) | Δ | Δ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 38.86 | 79.41 | 115.99 | 77.13 | 285.48 |
| 10 | 44.77 | 90.54 | 135.97 | 91.2 | 328.93 |
| 15 | 52.23 | 100.85 | 142.90 | 90.67 | 232.74 |
| 20 | 54.77 | 102.84 | 152.42 | 97.65 | 296.34 |
Figure 3Ultrasonic curing results of 3M DP420 epoxy adhesive: (a) curing degree as a function of time; (b) internal temperature curve of the adhesive by utilizing ultrasonic curing.
Figure 4Estimation of the apparent activation energy: (a) constant E: Kissinger method and Ozawa method; (b) variable E: FRL method.
Figure 5Variation in the activation energy corresponding to thermal and non-thermal effects in ultrasonic curing.
Kamal autocatalytic model parameters of thermal curing.
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ln | [5, 20] | 17.607 | 17.249 | 16.957 | 17.015 | 17.207 |
|
| [0, 5] | 0.615 | 0.407 | 0.801 | 0.754 | 0.644 |
|
| [0, 5] | 1.058 | 1.949 | 1.820 | 1.930 | 1.689 |
|
| [0, 5] | 0.198 | 0.102 | 0.115 | 0.117 | 0.133 |
|
| [0, 5] | 1.374 | 1.506 | 1.248 | 1.417 | 1.386 |
|
| - | 0.9773 | 0.9792 | 0.9828 | 0.9861 | - |
|
| ||||||
|
| [−100, 100] | 16.932 | 17.510 | 16.833 | 17.012 | 17.073 |
|
| [−100, 100] | −3.860 | −5.042 | −4.060 | −2.077 | −3.759 |
|
| [−100, 100] | 0.781 | 2.891 | 0.901 | −2.572 | 0.501 |
|
| [−100, 100] | 1.009 | 0.391 | 1.893 | 3.875 | 1.792 |
|
| [0, 5] | 1 | 1.020 | 1.901 | 1.245 | 1.292 |
|
| [0, 5] | 2 | 1.861 | 1.997 | 1.063 | 1.730 |
|
| [0, 5] | 0.118 | 0.364 | 0.275 | 0.102 | 0.215 |
|
| [0, 5] | 0.786 | 1.199 | 1 | 1.149 | 1.034 |
|
| - | 0.9862 | 0.9862 | 0.9866 | 0.9870 | - |
Parameters for ln A and E(α).
| Parameters | Thermal Curing | Ultrasonic Curing |
|---|---|---|
|
| 56.417 | 47.275 |
|
| −8.111 | 1.275 |
|
| −3.139 | −114.249 |
|
| 10.016 | 109.958 |
Kamal autocatalytic model parameters of ultrasonic curing.
| Curing Kinetic Parameters Obtained with a Variable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameters | Range | 10 K/min | 20 K/min | Average Values |
|
| [−100, 100] | 19.334 | 17.374 | 18.354 |
|
| [−100, 100] | −4.494 | 0.011 | −2.241 |
|
| [−100, 100] | −35.397 | −42.287 | 38.842 |
|
| [−100, 100] | 36.727 | 41.457 | 39.092 |
| k1 | [0, 5] | 0.120 | 0.567 | 0.343 |
| k2 | [0, 5] | 1.953 | 1.967 | 1.960 |
| m | [0, 5] | 0.664 | 0.432 | 0.548 |
| n | [0, 5] | 1.029 | 1.482 | 1.256 |
| R2 | - | 0.9724 | 0.9735 | - |
Figure 6Curing rate–curing degree curves of thermal curing: heating rate of (a) 5 K/min; (b) 10 K/min; (c) 15 K/min; (d) 20 K/min.
Figure 7Curing rate versus curing degree of ultrasonic curing: heating rate of (a) 10 K/min; (b) 20 K/min.
Figure 8The relationship between Tg and by utilizing the Di-Benedetto equation.
Figure 9FTIR spectrum of: (a) thermal cured sample; (b) ultrasonic cured sample; (c) component A; (d) ultrasonic-treated component A; (e) component B; (f) ultrasonic-treated component B.
Global reactivity indices, calculated at the B3LYP/6-311G (d,p) level.
| Ethylene | Ethylene | Methyl | Methyl | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HOMO (A.U.) | −0.28082 | −0.28914 | −0.24494 | −0.21659 |
| LUMO (A.U.) | −0.0057 | −0.01018 | −0.01112 | −0.00771 |
| Electronegativity | 3.898303 | 4.072456 | 3.48387 | 3.05175 |
| Chemical hardness | 7.48639 | 7.59089 | 6.36257 | 5.68391 |
| Electron affinity | −0.1551 | −0.27701 | −0.30259 | −0.20979 |
| Ionization potential | −7.64150 | −7.86789 | −6.66516 | −5.89371 |
| Electrophilicity index | 1.01496 | 1.09242 | 0.95381 | 0.81926 |
Figure 10Optimized geometry of each molecule and HOMO/LUMO orbitals with energy levels.