4.4 Article

Adhesion Between Rubber Compounds Containing Various Adhesion Promoters and Brass-Plated Steel Cords. Part I. Effect of Sulfur Loading in Rubber Compounds

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 22, 期 12, 页码 1223-1253

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1163/156856108X319926

关键词

Brass-plated steel cord; rubber compound; adhesion promoter; cobalt salt; zinc borate; resorcinol formaldehyde resin; methylene donor; sulfur; rubber-to-brass adhesion; adhesion interphase; AES; depth profile; adhesion retention; dezincification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The adhesion property between rubber compounds containing different types of adhesion promoters (resinous adhesion promoter (containing both methylene donor and methylene acceptor), cobalt salt and zinc borate) and different loading amounts of sulfur and brass-plated steel cords was investigated to understand the effect of sulfur loading in the rubber compounds on their adhesion characteristics to the brass-plated steel cords. The adhesion property of the rubber compounds to brass-plated steel cords was largely dependent on both the type of adhesion promoter and the loading amount of sulfur in the rubber compounds. The pull-out force of adhesion samples increased significantly with increasing loading amount of sulfur in the rubber compounds containing resinous adhesion promoter, whereas it decreased slightly with increasing loading amount of sulfur in rubber compounds containing cobalt salt or zinc borate. In humidity aging, the best adhesion retention was observed in the rubber compound containing zinc borate and low loading of sulfur. Regardless of the type of adhesion promoter, adhesion retention after thermal aging treatments improved with increasing loading amount of sulfur in the rubber compounds. The adhesion property was interpreted in terms of the interphases formed between the rubber compounds and the brass-plated steel cords as studied using Auger electron spectroscopy. (c) Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据