Chemistry Reference
In-Depth Information
matrix-nanofiller boundary. The measurements of 34 such steps (interfa-
cial layers) width on the processed in SPIP images of interfacial layer
various section gave the mean experimental value
l
if
=8.7 nm. Besides, na-
noindentation results (Fig. 6.1, figures on the right) showed, that interfa-
cial layers elasticity modulus was only by 23-45% lower than nanofiller
elasticity modulus, but it was higher than the corresponding parameter of
polymer matrix in 6.0-8.5 times. These experimental data confirm, that
for the studied nanocomposite interfacial layer is a reinforcing element to
the same extent, as nanofiller actually [1, 3, 12].
FIGURE 6.1
The processed in SPIP image of nanocomposite butadiene-styrene rubber/
nanoshungite, obtained by force modulation method, and mechanical characteristics of
structural components according to the data of nano-indentation (strain 150 nm).
Let us fulfill further the value
l
if
theoretical estimation according to the
two methods and compare these results with the ones obtained experimen-
tally. The first method simulates interfacial layer in polymer composites
as a result of interaction of two fractals polymer matrix and nanofiller sur-
face [19, 20]. In this case there is a sole linear scale
l
, which defines these
fractals interpenetration distance [21]. Since nanofiller elasticity modulus
is essentially higher, than the corresponding parameter for rubber (in the
considered case in 11 times, see Fig. 6.1), then the indicated interaction
