4.5 Article

Tensile properties and fire residue morphology of flame-retarded-polypropylene composites

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0892705720925127

关键词

Polymer composites; nanoparticles; strength; combustion; morphology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the properties of polypropylene composites filled with different flame retardants. The results showed that the tensile strength and Young's modulus increased with increasing flame-retardant volume fraction, while the tensile yield strength and elongation at break decreased. Among the composites with the same flame-retardant content, the one loaded with polyolefin elastomer and nanometer calcium carbonate exhibited the highest elongation at break. The addition of flame retardants, especially at low concentrations, increased the fire residue in the pyrolysis zone of the specimens.
The polypropylene (PP) composites filled with flame retardants (including aluminum hydroxide (Al(OH)(3)), magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)(2)), and zinc borate (ZB)) were prepared, and the composites were separately loaded with polyolefin elastomer (POE) and nanometer calcium carbonate (nano-CaCO3). The tensile properties and the fire residue morphology of the specimens after burning for these three groups of composites were measured. The results were shown that the tensile fracture strength and the Young's modulus increased while the tensile yield strength and the tensile elongation at break (delta (b)) decreased with increasing flame-retardant volume fraction. At the same flame-retardant content, the delta (b) values of the PP/Al(OH)(3)/Mg(OH)(2)/ZB/nano-CaCO3/POE composite were the highest in the three groups of composites. The fire residue in the pyrolysis zone of the specimens increased corresponding to the increased flame-retardant volume fraction and with loading the nano-CaCO3 and POE, especially at low-flame-retardant concentration. The reinforcing and the flame-retarded mechanisms of the composites were discussed.

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

4.5
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