Premium
Towards novel super‐elastic foams based on isoperene rubber: Preparation and characterization
Author(s) -
Vahidifar Ali,
Esmizadeh Elnaz,
Rodrigue Denis,
Khonakdar Hossein A.,
Wagenknecht Udo
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
polymers for advanced technologies
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.61
H-Index - 90
eISSN - 1099-1581
pISSN - 1042-7147
DOI - 10.1002/pat.4880
Subject(s) - materials science , composite material , natural rubber , deformation (meteorology) , modulus , foaming agent , hysteresis , blowing agent , elastic modulus , relative density , rubber elasticity , compression (physics) , porosity , microstructure , polyurethane , quantum mechanics , physics
A novel and conventional closed cell polyisoprene rubber (IR) foams were produced by a single step limited‐expansion and two step unlimited‐expansion foaming process, respectively. The effect of 3 to 12 part per hundred rubber (phr) of azodicarbonamide (ADC) foaming agent on their structure and properties of developed novel foams were studied. In developed novel foams, the density was strangely independent of ADC content; however, the cell sizes conversely related to ADC content and it decreased by 60% (555‐330 μm) and the internal cell pressure build up from 1 to 3.7 atm, which was related to pressure‐free foaming method. The both reasons of compressed gas trapped inside cells and constant density not only caused unique enhancement in novel foams mechanical properties as hardness and modulus but also improved their dynamic properties as hysteresis and elasticity. Results of conventional IR foams showed that, their foam density as well as dynamic and mechanical properties sharply decreased with increasing ADC content from 3 to 12 phr. For clear expression, in samples with 12 phr of ADC, novel developed foams have more foam density (180%), more hardness (240%), more modulus (290%), and smaller cell size (75%) than conventional foams. Finally, novel developed foams were super‐elastic material with no hysteresis and no plastic deformation while conventional foams had 40% hysteresis and 10% plastic deformation under the same compression conditions.