Morphology, Dynamic Mechanical and Mechanical Properties of...
Transcript of Morphology, Dynamic Mechanical and Mechanical Properties of...
Chapter 3
Morphology, Dynamic Mechanical and Mechanical Properties of Latex Blends
Summary: Chapter 3 outlines the morphology, dynamic mechanical and
mechanical properties ot' natural rubber (NR), carboxylated styrene butadiene
rubber and their blends with special reference to blend ratio. Morphology of the
blends has been analysed from scanning electron micrographs (SEM). These
blends system exhibited heterogeneous phase morphology, which indicated the
immiscibility of two phases. The loss tangent curves of NRIXSBR blend system
exhibited two transition peaks corresponding to the glass transition temperature
(T,) of the individual components. The tensile strength of NRIXSBR blend system
is found to be lower than the virgin polymers owing to the immiscibility of two
phases. The variation in crosslink density with blend ratio has been estimated by
different methods such as equilibrium swelling and stress- strain measurements.
A par1 ?/the resulrs ofthi.! chnprt,r /iove heen submitted ro Jonrnid ofNofarrrl Ruhher Research. .&lrrlcr.v~irr and anofher parr hal,e hccri ptrhlished in Jorrr,ml of,lpp/ied I'c,(vnter Science
92 Chapter 3
3.1 Introduction
The blending of polymers has provided an easy and efficient way to generate new
types of high performance materials'? Latex stage blending of polymers will
result in a finer scale of dispersion and there is no contamination by solvents.
Thomas and c o - ~ o r k e r s ~ ' ~ have investigated the mechanical, rheological,
viscoelastic, and thermal properties of NRI SBR and NR/ XSBR latex blends with
reference to various parameters such as blend ratio, shear rate etc.
The control of the phase morphology during blend processing is a key issue for the
production of new materials with improved properties. The shape, size and spatial
distribution of the phases depend on the viscosity of the phases, interfacial
properties, blend composition and processing conditions9. The impact of
morphology on the end use application of polymer blends has been reported by 15-17 . many researchers'"''. Thomas and co-workers mvestigated the dependence of
phase morphology on the properties of several polymer blends. The authors found
that the mechanical and dynamic mechanical properties of polymer blends could
only be explained in terms of their morphology.
The importance of dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) in understanding the
behaviour of rubber blends is widely accepted. DMA is a reliable technique for
evaluating the dynamic glass transitions and rubber plateaus unambiguously'x.
Many researchersI9'" have carried out both theoretical and experimental
approaches to these properties of blends.
In the present chapter the morphology. dynamic mechanical and mechanical
properties of NRIXSBR latex blends have been analysed and discussed with
special reference to blend ratio.
Morphology, dynamic mecltonienl .... 93
3.2 Results and discussion
3.2.1 Morphology of blends
The morphology of blends has obtained from SEM of cryogenically fractured
surfaces. It is unequivocally established that the morphology is the principal
deciding factor of ultimate properties of a heterogeneous blend. In the present
case, NR is non-polar and XSBR is polar in behaviour. They are highly
immiscible owing to the polarity difference and exhibit independent
characteristics. The establishment of blend morphology is usually determined by
factors related to material parameters such as blend ratio, viscosity of the phases,
interfacial tension, reactive functionalities and the presence of ingredients and the
processing conditionsz2. Many researchers studied the effect of mixing time on the
morphology of melt-mixed elastomer b ~ e n d s ~ ' - ~ ~ . Thomas and c o - w ~ r k e r s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
extensively investigated the effect of blend ratio, viscosity difference between the
phases and the presence of reactive functionalities in the morphology of various
polymer blends.
The SEM micrographs given in Figure 3.1 demonstrate the phase morphology of
fractured surfaces of NWXSBR blends. One can distinguish two types of
morphology from the figure: (a) dispersed droplet type morphology in 70130
blends (Figure 3. [(a)) where XSBR forms the dispersed phase in continuous NR
matrix and in 30/70 blends (Figure 3.1(c)) NR dispersed in the continuous XSBR
matrix and (b) a co-continuous phase qtructure in 50150 blend (Figure 3.l(b)).
(c)
Figure 3.1 SEM of (a) N,,, (b) NS0 and (c) Njo
The average size of the domains present in N7* and N3u polyrner blends arc given
in Table 3.1. The number average ( fi,,) and weight average ( 6,,) diameter of
dispersed pl~ases are calculated using the t.elationship,
wherc n, is the number o f parlicles with diameter- D,.
Morphology, dynamic mechanicnl.. .. 95
The domain size ofNzo blend has been found to be higher than that of N,,, system.
The domain size largely depends on the viscosity of the continuous phase. Usually
the less viscous component (XSBR) forms smaller dispersed particles in more
viscous matrix (NR) due to relatively restricted difTusion effects on coalescence of
particles. As the concentration of dispersed phase increases particle size increases
and beyond a particular limit of composition both the components form a bi-
continuous phase structure (co-continuous) as evident from SEM micrograph of
NSO blend.
Table 3.1 Domain diameter of dispersed phases in N,o and N,, blends
3.2.2 Dynamic mechanical properties
Properties such as storage modulus (E'), loss modulus (E") and damping (tan 6 ) of
unvulcanised NRIXSBR blends have been evaluated over a wide range of
temperatures and frequencies. Investigations for the temperature- dependence of
viscoelasticity have considerable practical importance and provide evidence
toward a molecular interpretation of viscoelastic behavior as the material changes
from a glassy to a rubbely state. NR latex possesses higher damping values than
XSBR latex. The blends exhibited lesser damping than the individual components
at both phases. Hence it will he useful for the manufacture of low damping
materials. The NRIXSBR blends are immiscible and show two T,s corresponding
to NR and XSBR phases.
The tan 6 versus temperature curves of NW XSBR blends is shown in Figure 3.2.
These curves show two peaks typical of two-phase systems; each peak is
characteristic of the glass transition of each of the component'". which indicates
96 Chapter 3
that the system is immiscible. The T, values are taken from the corresponding
temperature of the peak value of tan 6 for each phase. The transition temperatures
of virgin components are -52 and 23°C respectively. Compared to SBR, XSBR
shows higher T, due to its polarity and self-crosslinking nature. The T, of NR
phase in Nm blend is -59°C at 1 Hz, while that of XSBR phase is 15°C. In blends
the difference in T, is higher due to the immiscibility of two phases. The T,'s of
blends at different frequencies are given in Table 3.2. In all cases the tan IS values
and T,'s increases with frequency.
Figure 3.2 Damping curves of latex blends
The peak areas ofthe tan 6 curves are given in Table 3.3. There is a drastic change
in the peak area of NR phase on blending as compared to that of the XSBR phase.
This is an indication of the extent of mobility of the macromolecular chain
segments at the transition temperature3'. Any restriction in the main chain mobility
in the polymer is expected to decrease the area under the curve. The drastic
decrease in peak area is due to the self- curing behaviour of XSBR latex, which
form networks within the system. Thus the molecular mobility of the polymer
chain segments is restricted at the Tg
Morphology, dynamic mechanical .... - -- 97
Table 3.2 Damping and glass transition values of latex blends
T, from E" peak darnping euwe temperature (OC)
Sample
98 Chapter 3
Table 3.3 Peak area from damping curves
Peak area (em2) Sample
Figure 3.3 shows the tan S,,, values o f NRI XSBR blends with weight % o f NR.
From the curve it i s observed that the tan S,,, values o f NR phase decreases with
increase in XSBR content in blends. NR shows highest damping value and the
decrease is sharper when the XSBR content i s 50 % or more. This can he
explained in temis o f the high segmental mobility o f NR as compared to XSBR. A
sharp decrease in damping value in Nso blend i s due to its co-continuous
morphology. For N7" blend it shows a minimum, and then it decreases for NS0 and
Njg blend with increase in XSBR content. That is, the tan S,,, values o f XSBR
phase increase with decrease in NR content.
Morphology, dynamic mechanical.. .. -- -. -- - 99
Figure 3.3 Variation in damping values with blend ratio
The E' for various blends over a wide range of temperature is shown in Figure 3.4.
The two steps seen in the modulus- temperature curve are characteristic of
immiscible two- phase systems. The two regions in the E' curves shown for blend
system is corresponding to the T, of the two components. The E' of the blends
decreases with increase in N R content. Compared to other blends NSO blend
exhibit highest E' due to the co-continuous nature of the two phases. The value of
E' has been found to decrease with rise in temperature owing to the decrease in
stiffness of the sample
The main chain mobility in the polymer can be understood from the area under the
E" vs temperature curve". The E of NR/ XSBR unvulcanised latex blends are
shown in Figure 3.5. As might be expected, the E" increases sharply up to the
transition zone until they attain maxima and then decreases with temperature. This
curve shows the same trend as that of tan 6 versus temperature curve. The E" peak
temperature is more or less same as that of the T, obtained from the tan 6 versus
temperature curve. The sharp loss peaks indicate that the system components are
immiscible. The T, obtained from E" curves of blends at different frequencies are
shown in Table 3.2.
100 Chapter 3
Figure 3.4 Storage modulus vs temperature curves of latex blends
- 2 o x l O " ~ . , , . 8 , . 8 . % . , . I -80 6 0 -40 -10 0 20 40 60 Xll
Temperature ((Ic)
Figure 3.5 Loss modulus vs temperature curves of latex blends
3.2.3 Time-temperature superposition
The two experimental variables available i n the measurement o f viscoelastic
properties are time and temperaturex~i2. From the master curve, one can easily
understand the complete modulus- time behaviour o f a polymeric material. The
construction o f master curve is based on the time-temperature correspondence
principle. The data collected at one temperature can be superimposed upon data
taken at a different temperature by horizontal shiftsi5.
Morphology, dynamic mechanical.. .. 101
For constructing a master curve one has to pick one teniperature. suppose T, as the
reference temperature. The shift factor is a function of temperature and hence
designated as ar. All other experimental curves. each at a particular temperature
are then shifted horizontally, i.e, along the time axis until it overlaps the curve
with reference temperature T,. The shift factor characterises the rate of the
relaxation mechanism at temperature T, in comparison with the rate at a higher
temperature T,,,. From this the log ar values for all temperatures can be
determined.
The viscoelastic properties at a given frequency fare quantitatively equivalent to
those of an experiment carried out over a time t= 1/(2nt). Figure 3.6 shows the log
E' vs log t curves of NSo blends at different temperatures. The temperature 273K,
was taken as a reference temperature in NSo blends. The master curve was
constructed by plotting log (ETdT) vs log (t/ar) (Figure 3.7), where E is the
storage modulus at a particular temperature, To is the reference temperature on the
Kelvin scale and T is the temperature of the experiment. The master curve depicts
the change in modulus with time over a wide range.
Figure 3.6 log t vs log E' curves of N50 blend
Chapter 3 102 --
Figure 3.7 Master cuwe of Nso blend
3.2.4 Theoretical modeling of dynamic meehanieal properties
The theoretical modeling of polymer blends will help in designing materials for
engineering applications. The objective of the comparison of theoretical and
experimental values is to understand and predict the mechanical properties and
morphology of the
The applicability of Kerner and Halpin-'I'sai models has been discussed in the case
of NIU XSBR latex blends. These models can be used to predict the viscoelastic
behaviour of rubber- rubber b ~ e n d s ~ ~ . ' ~ .
Kerner 39 equation is given by,
where Eb is the modulus of the blend, Em is the ~nodulus of the matrix, E d is the
modulus of the dispersed phase, 4 1 ~ is the volume fraction of the dispersed phase,
@,, is the volume fraction of the matrix, and v,,, is the Poissoll ratio, for rubber zone
the value of Poisson ratio is usually considered as 0.5.
Morphology, dynamic mechanical ....
According to Halpin-~sai~' model,
where,
A, = 0.66, M is the modulus and I$ is the volume fraction, the subscripts 1 and 2
denote the components 1 and 2 respectively.
Figure 3.8 gives the comparison of theoretical and experimental values of N311 and
NjO latex blends. The theoretical values obtained are lower than the experimental
values at low temperature while at higher temperature there is a good agreement
between experimental and theoretical values. Due to the higher storage modulus of
XSBR, the N,o blend shows higher values compared to N,' blend. As the XSBR
content increases the system shows more elastic behavior because of the self-
curing nature of XSBR. The morphology of the blends (Figure 3.1 (a &c)) also
supports the theoretical modeling since the system is considered as a phase
dispersed in a continuous matrix. In both NjO and Nm blends one phase is
dispersed in another continuous matrix. At low temperature Halpin-Tsai model fits
more with the experimental curve of N30 and N,o than Kerner. But at higher
temperature both models matches well with the experimental results.
104 Chapter 3
L , I 4 4 . a D O 20 40 M
rarcpraueh
Figure 3.8 Theoretical modeling of N,, and NTO blend
3.2.5 Mechanical properties
Figure 3.9 gives the stress- strain behaviour of latex blends. It can be seen that as
the weight percentage of NR increases the strain induced crystallization behaviour
also increases. The deformation behaviour of various blends under an applied load
is obtained from stress- strain measurements. NR shows strain induced
crystallisation nature, which is the reason for better mechanical properties than
other synthetic rubbers. The strain- induced crystallisation of NR has been
extensively studied by X-ray diffraction technique since 1940s"-'~. However, the
vulcanized synthetic rubbers are considerably weaker than the NR because of the
lack of crystallisation under stretching at room temperature. Recently, Toki et a/.
4446 found that under high strains (>600 %) a very large fraction of unoriented
amorphous (- 75 wt%) phase still remained in the stretched sample in addition to
-20 wt% strain- induced crystals along with -5 wt% oriented amorphous chains.
According to their investigations due to the non-homogeneous distribution of
crosslinked network only a small fraction of crosslinked chains are responsible for
the entire mechanical performance of the NR. The non-homogeneous network
topology is due to the presence of chemically reactive center, unsaturated bond
and the average chain length between two ad.jacent reactive points. The ~nolcculcs
Morphology. dynamic mechanical.. ..
o f small chain length between the densely packed networks can he oriented and
form crystallites where as the molecules o f much longer chain lengths would
remain in the random coil state under stretching. In conventionally vulcanized
rubber the network formed is composed o f molecules with a broad distribution o f
chain lengths between the network points and hence i t cannot create a
homogeneous network distribution. From Figure 3.9 i t is clear that the strain-
induced crystallisation is predominant i n N R and NTO blend, in which XSBR
dispersed in the N R continuous matrix. As the weight percentage o f XSBR
increases the crystallisation behaviour decreases.
Figure 3.9 Stress- strain curves of latex blends
The variation in tensile strength with blend ratio is shown in Figure 3.10. I t i s
obvious from the figure that the blend system shows negative deviation from the
additivity line. Since N R i s non-polar and XSBR is polar, their blends are
thermodynamically immiscible due to the lack o f favourable interaction between
the components at the interface due to the polarity difference. Therefore, the
blends exhibit inferior mechanical properties to its individual component.
However, N 7 ~ blend has tensile strength higher than XSBR due to the nature of
continuous N R matrix. The i~iferior properties o f N5,, and N;,, blends a!-e due to the
106 Chapter 3
difference in affinity of curing agents by two phases. This can be further explained
by the fact that since NR has higher degree of unsaturation than XSBR the NR
phase gets overcured. The uneven distribution of networks within the phases
worsens the tensile properties. The reduced strain induced clystallisation with the
increasing concentration of XSBR, the uneven distribution of curing agents and
poor interfacial adhesion between the polar XSBR and non-polar NR phases
account for the reduced mechanical properties of blend system.
b , 8 . 8 ' 1
0 20 40 60 80 IW
Weight %. of NK
Figure3.10 Variation in tensile strength with blend ratio
Figure 3.1 1 displays the elongation at break and modulus at 300 % elongation as
a function of blend ratio. The modulus of the blend decreases and the values of
elongation at break increase with increase in the weight % of NR. It is evident
from the figure that as the weight percentage of NR increases the elongation at
break of blends also increases. The values are intermediate between the virgin
polymers. The N7,, blend shows abrupt increase in the value due to the continuous
nature of NR phase. Figure 3.12 presents the tear strength values of latex blends. It
is found that the tear strength increases gradually as a function of concentration of
NR latex. It exhibits a negative deviation from the additivity line.
Morpholngv, dynamic mechanical .... 107 .
0 M 40 M 80 IM
Weight %of NR
Figure 3.1 1 Variation in elongation at break and modulus with blend ratio
Figure 3.12 Variation in tear strength with blend ratio
3.2.6 Crosslink density
Crosslinking o f polymers can be carried out to improve a wide variety of
properties including strengh, heat resistance and recovery from deformation.
Generally, in blend systems, uneven distribution o f crosslinks call be observed due
to the difference in affinity o f the two phases towards curatives. I ' l ie ~nigration of
vulcanising agents depends on the blend ratio, degree o f chemical reactive center
108 Chapter 3
(unsaturation or double bond), polarity etc. Even rather a small change in relative
polarity of the rubbers in a blend will affect the crosslink distribution4'. A plot of
crosslink density values of NRIXSBR latex blends obtained from equilibrium
swelling method and stress- strain measurements is shown in Figure 3.13. The
values obtained from stress- strain measurements are higher since it contains a
contribution due to the chain entanglements. Due to the self-crosslinking nature of
XSBR, it possesses higher crosslink density values than NR. Crosslink density
values of blends determined by both methods are lower than virgin polymers. This
is associated with the uneven distribution of curing agents in the two phases
resulting in the formation of nonhomogeneous networks. The solvent resistance
properties of blends are obtained from the swelling ratio. The values are given in
Table 3.4 and it is observed that blends are less resistant to solvent due to the non-
uniform migration of vulcanizing agents.
t from stress-stram
Figure 3.13 Variation in crosslink density with blend ratio
Morphology, dynamic mechczniral.. .. - - 109
Table 3.4 Swell ratio values of latex blends
Sample Swell ratio
3.2.7 Theoretical modeling of mechanical properties
The theoretical correlation of experimentally determined mechanical properties is
relevant for predicting the nature of the blend systems. Various composite models
have been applied to relate the experimental results with theoretical predictions.
The structure and properties of the interface can be understood from these models.
Different models have been applied for predicting the mechanical property of
NRIXSBR latex blends. These include parallel, series and Kunori models. The
upper bound parallel model is given by the rule of mixtures",
M = MI$, + M2$2
where M is the mechanical property of blend
M I is the mechanical property of component 1
M2 is the mechanical property of component 2
$, is the volume ti-action of component I
is the volume fraction of component 2
This equation is suitable for models in which the components are connected
parallel to each other and the applied stress elongates each component by the same
amount. In the lowel. bound model the components are perpendicular to the
applied force. The equation is given by,
110 -- Chapter .Z
Nielsen4%nd Kunori and ~ e i l ' ~ stated that tensile failure of a blend is due to the
lack of interfacial adhesion. According to them, the tensile strength of a blend in
the absence of adhesion between components may be written as,
where a, is the tensile strength of blend
5 , is the tensile strength of the matrix and
Ad represents the area of fraction occupied by the dispersed phase in
transverse cross section
Kunori and ~ e i 1 ' ~ assumed that if there is a strong adhesive force between blend
components, the dispersed phase would also contribute to the strength of the
blend. Based on this they modified equation (3.8),
If the fracture propagates mainly through the interface, equation (3.9) becomes,
If the fmcture propagates through the matrix, then the equation (3.9) may written as,
From Figure 3.14 if is clear that N,Q blend fits more to parallel and Kunori-2
models. This indicates that the two phases are imlniscible and the fracture
propagates through the matrix. The morphology studies disclose that in N ~ Q blend
NR is dispersed in the continuous XSBR matrix. Due to the co-continuous
morphology of NSQ blend it deviates from all theoretical predictions. The N,,, blend
Morphology, dynnmic mechanicrrl.. .. -- 1 I I
agrees well with theoretical values of series model, in which XSBR is dispersed in
the continuous NR matrix.
Figure 3.14 Theoretical modeling of modulus of blends
3.3 Conclusion
.:. NWXSBR latex blends exhibited heterogeneous morphology. The 50150
blend system exhibited co-conlinuous morphology.
.:+ Damping curves of NWXSBR blend showed two transition peaks
corresponding to individual components, indicating the immiscibility of two
components.
.:* Damping decreased with increase in concentration of XSBR.
.:. Tensile and tear strength of NWXSBR latex blends exhibited negative
deviation from the additivity line due to the immiscibility of two phases.
The modulus of the blend system increased with increase in concentration of
112 Chapter 3
3.4 References
1. L. A. Utracki. Polymer Alloys and Blends: Therlnodynamics and Rheology, Hanser Publishers, Munich, Vienna, New York, 1989
2. N. G. Gaylord, in Copolymers, Polyblends and Composites, Adv. Chem. Ser., ed., N. A. J. Platzer, American Chemical Society, Washington D.C., Vol. 142, 1975
3. D. R. Paul, in Polymer Blends, ed., I>. R. Paul, S. Newman, Academic Press, New York, Vol. 2. 1978
4. J . T. Varkey, S. Thomas, S. S. Rao, .I. Appl. Polym. Sci., 56,451, 1995
5. J. T. Varkey, S. Thomas, S. S. Rao, Polym. Plast. Technol. Eng., 35, I , 1996
6. J . T. Varkey, S. S. Rao, S. Thomas, Plast. Rubb. Comp. Proc. Appl., 24, 249, 1995
7. J . T. Varkey, P. R. Chatterji, S. S. Rao, S. Thomas, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 68, 1473, 1998
8. R. Stephen, S. V. Nair, K. V. S. N. Raju, S. Varghese, Z. Oommen, S Thomas, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 88, 2640, 2003
9. C. Koning, M. V. Duin, C. Pagnoulle, R. Jerome, Prog. Polym. Sci., 23, 707, 1998
K. C. Dao, Polymer, 25, 1527, 1984
M. Baer, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 16, 1 109, 1972
X. Wang, X. Luo, Eur. Polym. J., 40,2391,2004
C. Nakason, W. Pechurai, K. Sahakaro, A. Kaesaman, Polym. Adv. Technol., 16, 592,2005
I. A. Hussein, R. A. Chaudhry, B. F. A. Sharkh, Polym. Eng. Sci., 44,2346, 2004
H. Varughese, S. S. Bhagavan, S. S. Rao. S. Thomas, Eur. Polym. J., 3 1 , 957, 1995
A. 'T. Koshy, B. Kuriakose , S. Thomas, S. Varughese, Polymer, 34, 1993
S. George, N. R. Neelakantan, K. T. Varughese. S. Thomas. J . Appl. Polym. Sci. Part B: Polym. Physi., 35, 2309. 1997
Morphology, dynamic mechnnical .... -- 113
18. C. Neumann, D. R. Loveday. V. Abetz, R. Stadler, Macromolecules, 31 2493, 1998
19. A. Sanchis, M. G. Prolongo. R. M. Masegosa: R. G. Rubio, Macromolecules, 28,2693, 1995
20. H. Watnnabe, Chemtracts- Macromol. Chemi., 2, 139,1991
21. S. S. Bhagawan, G. G. Bkandyopadhyay, J.Natu. Rubber Research, 9, 100, 1996
22. D. R. Paul, J. W. Barlow, J. Macromol. Sci. Rev., Macromol. Chem., 18, 109, 1980
23. G. N. Avgeropoulos, F. C. Weissert, P. H. Biddison, G. G. A. Bohm, Rubber Chem. Technol., 49,93, 1976
24. G. R. Hamed, RubberChenl. Technol., 55, 151, 1982
25. J. George, R. Joseph, S. Thomas, K. T. Varghese, J . Appl. Polym. Sci., 57, 449, 1995
26. H. Varghese, S. S. Bhagawan, S. Thomas, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 71,2335, 1999
27. A. P. Mathew, S. Packirisamy, S. Thomas, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 78,2327,2000
28. 1. Aravind, P. Albert, C. Ranganathaiah, J . V. Kurian, S. Thomas, Polymer, 45,4925,2004
29. D. J . Walsh, J . S. Higgins, Polymer, 23,336,1982
30. M. C. S. Perera, U. S. Ishiaku, Z. A. M. Ishak, Eur. Polym. J., 37, 167,2001
3 1. M. C. S Perera, U. S. Ishiaku, Z. A. M. Ishak, Polym. Deg. Stabi., 68,393,2000
32. J. J. Aklonis, W. J. Macknight, M. Shen, Introduction to Polymer Viscoelasticity, John Wiley & Sons, 1972
33. D. Porter, Group Interaction Modelling of Polymer l'roperties. Marcel Dekker. New York, 1995
34. R. E. Bernstein. D. R. Paul, J . W. Barlow, Polym. Eng. Sci., 16, 593,1976
35. J . M. Whitney, R. I,. Mc Cullough, " Micreomechanical Modelling, " in " Delaware composites Design Encyclopedia, "Vo1.2. Technomic Publishing Co, Inc., Lancaster- Hasel, 1990
36. R. A. Shick, H. Ishida, " Elastic and Viscoelastic Behavior of Cotnposites", in " Characterisation of Cotnposite Materials." Ed., H. Ishida, Butteworth- Heinemanne, London, Chap. 8, p. 148, 1994
37. K. A. Mazich, P. C. Killogoar. Jr., J. A. ingram, Rubber Chem. Technol., 62,305, 1989
38. K. A. Mazich, H. K. Plummer, Jr., M. A . Samus, P. C. Killogoar, Jr., J Appl. Polym. Sci., 37, 1877,1989
39. E. H. Kerner, Proc. of Phys. Soc., London, Sec. B, 869,808, 1956
40. J. C. Halpin, J. Compos. Mater., 3, 732, 1970
41. S. D. Gehman, J. E. Field, J. Appl. Phys., 10,564, 1939
42. C. W. Bunn, Proc. R. Soc. London A, 180,40, I942
43. S. Toki, T. Fujimaki, M. Okuyama, Polymer, 41, 5423, 2000
44. S. Toki, I. Sics, S. Ran, L. Liu, 6. S. Hsiao, S. Murakami, K. Senoo, S. Kohjiya, Macromolecules, 35,6578,2002
45. S. Murakami, K. Senoo, S. Toki, S. Kohjiya, Polymer, 43,2117,2002
46. S. Toki, B. S. Hsiao, Macromolecules, 36,5915,2003
47. L. E. Nielsen, Mechanical properties of polymers and composites, Vo1.2, New York, 1994
48. L. E. Nielsen, Rheol. Acta, 13, 86, 1974
49. T. Kunori, P. H. Geil, J. Macrornol., 36, 218, 1960