journal article·2012-09

Evaluation of fracture toughness of ABS polymers via the essential work of fracture (EWF) method

M. Mehrabi Mazidi, M. K. Razavi Aghjeh, F. Abbasi

Journal of Materials Science· Volume 47· Issue 17
Publisher page

Abstract

The essential work of fracture (EWF) method was employed to determine the fracture toughness of SAN/PB-g-SAN blends with the compositions of 65/35–0/100. It was found that the plane stress EWF approach is applicable for different SAN/PB-g-SAN blends. During EWF tests, three different types of load–displacement curves were recorded, depending on the blend composition. For the samples containing rubbery phase of 35–65 wt% crack growth occurred immediately after full ligament yielding. Further increase in rubber content and for the samples with 75 and 85 wt% of rubbery phase, the onset of crack growth was preceded by the formation of necking zone in the form of a sharp load drop after full ligament yielding. For the sample with the composition of 0/100, strain hardening behavior was observed without any sign of neck formation. The specific essential work of fracture (EWF) we increased at first with the increase of PB-g-SAN wt% and then decreased with further increasing amount of rubbery phase. The maximum value of we was observed for the blend with 75 wt% of PB-g-SAN. The specific non-essential work of fracture βWp increased with increasing of rubbery phase concentration. The analyzing of yielding and necking/tearing components of essential and non-essential parameters showed that for the samples containing 55 wt% and higher of rubbery phase, \( w_{\text{e,nt}} \succ w_{\text{e,y}} \)and\( \beta_{\text{nt}} w_{\text{p,nt}} \succ \beta_{\text{y}} w_{\text{p,y}} \), indicating that a majority of fracture energy was dissipated in the necking and tearing stages of fracture process. Finally, it is shown that we values can be predicted via COD values.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Corrosion Behavior and Inhibition · Fatigue and fracture mechanics

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (32)

Show source-provided references
1. Kinloch AJ, Young RJ (1983) Fracture behavior of polymers. Applied Science, London
2. Bucknall CB (1977) Toughened plastics. Applied Science, London10.1007/978-94-017-5349-4 ↗
3. Arkhireyeva A, Hashemi S, O’brien M (1999) J Mater Sci 34:5961. doi: 10.1023/A:100477662738910.1023/A:1004776627389 ↗
4. Karger-Kocsis J, Czigany T (1996) Polymer 37:243310.1016/0032-3861(96)85355-9 ↗
5. Arkhireyeva A, Hashemi S (2004) Eng Fracture Mech 71:78910.1016/S0013-7944(03)00010-9 ↗
6. Khodabandelou M, Razavi Aghjeh MK, Rezaei M (2009) Eng Fracture Mech 76:285610.1016/j.engfracmech.2009.07.024 ↗
7. Hashemi S (2003) J Mater Sci 38:3055. doi: 10.1023/A:102475250845810.1023/A:1024752508458 ↗
8. Mehrabi Mazidi M, Razavi Aghjeh MK, Abbasi F J Macromol Sci Part B Phys (submitted)
9. Mehrabi Mazidi M, Razavi Aghjeh MK, Abbasi F J Polym Res (submitted)
10. Broberg KB (1968) Int J Fracture 4(1):1110.1007/BF00189139 ↗
11. Cotterell B, Reddel JK (1977) Int J Fracture 13(3):26710.1007/BF00040143 ↗
12. Karger-Kocsis J, Moskala EJ (1997) Polym Bull 39(4):50310.1007/s002890050179 ↗
13. Karger-Kocsis J, czigany T, Moskala EJ (1997) Polymer 38(18):458710.1016/S0032-3861(96)01061-0 ↗
14. Karger-Kocsis J (1996) Polym Bull 37(1):11910.1007/BF00313827 ↗
15. Barany T, Karger-Kocsis J, Czigany T (2003) J Polym Degrad Stab 82(2):27110.1016/S0141-3910(03)00221-0 ↗
16. Clutton E (2001) Fracture mechanics testing method for polymers, adhesive and composites. In: Moore DR, Pavan A, Williams JG (eds) Elsevier Science Ltd, pp 177–195
17. Maspoch ML, Gamez-Perez J, Gordillo A (2002) Polymer 43:417710.1016/S0032-3861(02)00259-8 ↗
18. Li ZM, Yang W (2004) Macromol Mater Eng 289:42610.1002/mame.200300397 ↗
19. Gong G et al (2005) Polym Test 24:41010.1016/j.polymertesting.2005.02.004 ↗
20. Bucknall CB (1977) Toughened plastics, applied science. Materials Science Series, London10.1007/978-94-017-5349-4 ↗
21. Bucknall CB, Clayton D, Keast W (1984) J Mater Sci 19:2064. doi: 10.1007/BF0055027410.1007/BF00550274 ↗
22. Donald AM, Kramer EJ (1982) J Mater Sci 17:1871. doi: 10.1007/BF0054040210.1007/BF00540402 ↗
23. Donald AM, Kramer EJ (1982) J Mater Sci 17:1765. doi: 10.1007/BF0054080510.1007/BF00540805 ↗
24. Mouzakis DE, Karger-Kocsis J, Moskala EJ (2000) J Mater Sci Lett 19(18):161510.1023/A:1006797522901 ↗
25. Karger-Kocsis J, Ferrer-Balas D (2001) Polym Bull 46(6):50710.1007/s002890170039 ↗
26. Williams JG, Rink M (2007) Eng Fracture Mech 74:100910.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.12.017 ↗
27. Hashemi S, Williams JG (2000) Plast Rubber Compos 29:29410.1179/146580100101541102 ↗
28. Hashemi S (2000) Polym Eng Sci 40:13210.1002/pen.11146 ↗
29. Ching ECY, LI RKY, Mai YW (2000) ibid 40: 31010.1002/pen.11164 ↗
30. Arkhireyeva A, Hashemi S (2002) J Mater Sci 37:3675. doi: 10.1023/A:101656122528110.1023/A:1016561225281 ↗
31. Hashemi S (1997) J Mater Sci 32:1573. doi: 10.1023/A:1018582707419
32. Hill RH (1952) J Mech Phys Solids 1:1910.1016/0022-5096(52)90003-3 ↗