3.9 Article

A comparative study on curing characteristics, mechanical properties, swelling behavior, thermal stability, and morphology of feldspar and silica in SMR L vulcanizates

期刊

POLYMER-PLASTICS TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING
卷 43, 期 5, 页码 1323-1344

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1081/PPT-200030163

关键词

feldspar; silica; curing characteristics; mechanical properties; swelling behavior; thermal analysis; morphology; SMR L vulcanizates

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Comparison studies on effects of feldspar and silica (Vulcasil Q as a tiller in (SMR L grade natural rubber) vulcanizates on curing characteristics, mechanical properties, swelling behavior, thermal analysis, and morphology were examined. The incorporation of both fillers increases the scorch time, t(2), and cure time, t(90), of SMR L vulcanizates. At a similar filler loading, feldspar exhibited longer t(2) and t(90) but lower values of maximum torque, M-HR, and torque difference, M-HR-M-L than did silica-filled SMR L vulcanizates. For mechanical properties, both fillers were found to be effective in enhancing the tensile strength (up to 10 phr), tensile modulus, and hardness of the vulcanizates. However, feldspar-filled SMR L vulcanizates showed lower values of mechanical properties than did silica-tilled SMR L vulcanizates. Swelling measurement indicates that swelling percentages of both fillers-filled SMR L vulcanizates decrease with increasing filler loading whereas silica shows a lower swelling percentage than feldspar-filled SMR L vulcanizates. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) on fracture surface of tensile samples showed poor filler-matrix adhesion for both fillers with increasing filler loading in the vulcanizates. However, feldspar-filled SMR L vulcanizates showed poorer filler-matrix adhesion than did silica-filled SMR L vulcanizates. Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) results indicate that the feldspar-filled SMR L vulcanizates have higher thermal stability than do silica-filled SMR L vulcanizates.

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

3.9
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