Studying the Interface region of Steel reinforcement Rubber Matrix

Dr. Harth I . Jaffer , Collage of Science , University of Baghdad Dr. Hisham M. Hassan , Collage of Science , University of Al-Qadisiya

Abstract
The interface region of steel reinforced rubber matrix was studied using microbond pull-out test and optical microscopy which shown that the crack propagation at interface is not necessary be between the steel reinforcement and the rubber matrix but also in the matrix itself this shown in the pictures from optical microscopy as a rubber fragments which still adherent on steel wire. Two steel reinforcements were used , steel cord and solid steel wire to reinforced rubber matrix the interfacial shear stress for steel cord reinforced rubber matrix where 2.325 Mpa while for solid steel wire 4.834 Mpa the difference came from the gaps between the wires in steel cord which caused a weak bond region , in this paper we also discussed the effect of the rubber fragment which adherent on steel reinforcement in both solid steel wire and steel cord on friction region , the interfacial friction for steel cord reinforced rubber matrix was (0.153 Mpa) while for solid steel reinforcement the interfacial friction was (0,0087 Mpa) this difference came from the structure of cord steel wire were the surface area larger than the solid steel wire.

Introduction
The mechanical behavior of reinforcement materials not only depends on the mechanical properties of the reinforcement and matrix but also on the adhesion between them. The adhesion often is regarded as a third phase in a composite material. It depends on the whether or not the adhesion is related to an interface which influenced by the interaction between reinforcement and matrix [1].In this paper we studied the adhesion between brass-coated steel wire or brass plated steel cord which consisting steel wires twisted together and the rubber compound which is important in governing the performance and durability of car and truck tires. It is necessary to achieve a high level of adhesion and sustain this throughout the service life of the tire. The adhesion at interface or interfacial adhesion depends on many factors such as the mechanical interlocking, adsorption interaction, electrostatic interaction and interdiffusion [2]. The interfacial adhesion [3] between fiber and matrix strongly influences the mechanical properties of composite, especially the strength or fracture toughness. There are two different methods to characterize the adhesion, one is a stress based criterion, namely the interfacial strength and the other is a fracture mechanical criterion, namely the interfacial fracture toughness or, alternatively, the energy release rate. The measurement of the adhesion as a mechanical parameter is usually performed by pull-out micromechanical test, however, the tests do not only represent methods for characterizing the adhesion, the pull-out test represents also a microscopically failure process[4]. In this paper, we will focus on the results from the pull-out test and the optical microscopy after reinforcement pulling, the output data from pull-out test which represented in the force-displacement curve characterized the main mechanical parameters governing the interface strength (and fracture toughness) which are

the adhesion and the friction, taking place after debonding (post debond). The adhesion and friction effects will be most important in systems which have stress acting across interface where at high adhesion together with low friction leads to an abrupt failure and a low rate of energy consumption. An interface with a lower adhesion and strong friction leads to a rather gradual failure with a high capacity of energy consumption. It depends on the specific requirements of the structural parts made of the respective fiber/matrix combination, which interface is a good one and which is not.

Specimen Preparation and Test

Two types of reinforcement , a solid steel wire coated by brass and zinc of diameter (0.8mm) and a steel cord coated also by brass and zinc with diameter (0.8 mm) embedded in rubber matrix fig (2) with embedded length (13 mm), the matrix materials properties described in table (1):

Fig(2): Specimens before test.

Table-1: matrix materials. Natural rubber Black carbon Start cobalt ZnO 6PPD CBS Suffer Oil process Materials SMR-20 N375 Part per hundred rubber 100 50 5 5 1 2 3 2.5

The cord steel wire embedded in the matrix with dimensions as in figure 3-a :

(a) (b) Fig-3: A schematic representation of : (a) : specimen geometry . (b) specimen before test Five specimens were prepared using steel rods with the same wire diameter through the a rectangular rubber matrix of same dimensions , figure 3-b shows the restraint plate for pull-out test on macroscopic specimens. The steel rod was threaded through a hole in a steel plate with a diameter slightly larger than the rod diameter. The specimens tested in Instron 1122 tensile tester (fig 4) using constant displacement rate (0,5 mm/min) , The steel wire was pulled while force vs. displacement were recorded , typical force-displacement plot is shown in Figure 5. The force always increased linearly at first but showed some curvature before the peak. After the peak, the force dropped to a constant value which was caused by friction as the debonded specimen slid along the steel rod.

Fig (4): Instron 1122 tensile tester

Fig(5): Typical force-displacement curve. 3

Results and Discussion

The force-displacement data from pull-out test were recorded for cord steel wire in figures 6, 7 and for solid wire in figures 8, 9. The pull-out force in force-displacement curve is a good indicator to the adhesion between the reinforcement and matrix where the maximum pull-out force for cord reinforcement rubber matrix for the five specimens and also for solid reinforcement rubber matrix for the five specimens tabulated in tables 2,3 . The average pull-out force for steel cord reinforcement rubber matrix is (76 N) while for solid steel reinforcement matrix (158 N), from the average maximum pull-out force we could evaluate the interfacial shear stress by using the equation :

ifss =

Where in figures (6,7,8,9) , rf is the reinforced radius and le is the embedded reinforced length. Physically this term is the average interfacial shear stress at the time of failure. It useful for qualitative work, from tables 2 ,3 and from the geometry of the specimen where le (13 mm ) and rf (0.4mm) , using equation (1) the interfacial shear strength for cord steel reinforced rubber equal 2.325 Mpa while for solid steel reinforced rubber equal to 4.834 Mpa this difference came from the adhesion between the reinforcement and rubber matrix where in the cord wire and because of it structure the gaps between the wires (figures 10,11) prevented the rubber to penetrate into these areas caused a less adhesion area and increase the consecration stress areas. Figures 10 and 12 showed a rubber fragments on the steel reinforced after pulling this means that the crack propagated between the reinforcement and the matrix not always extended at interface where part of it would be in the matrix this disallowed us from using the ultimate shear strength in stress criteria and energy release criteria where in both it assumed that the crack propagate at interface only [8,9,10,11], solving this problem will be in our future work. Another part in force-displacement curve after full debonding is the friction figure (5). The friction effects are the most important at interface where if the friction is too large the extent of the debond will be small and the energy dissipated due to debonding and pullout will be limited , conversely, if the level of friction is too small, the extent of the debond will tend to be large but the pullout work will also be small. The interfacial fraction could be determined from the equation :

Fp ------------------ 1 2rfle ifss is the interfacial shear stress Fp is the maximum debonded force (Mpa) in force-displacement curves as

f =

Ff 2rfle

-------------------- 2

Where f is the interfacial friction (Mpa) Ff is the friction force in force-displacement curves as in figures (6,7,8,9) , rf is the reinforced radius and le is the embedded reinforced length . The average interfacial friction force for cord steel wire figure (7) was 5 N and the interfacial friction was (0.153 Mpa) while for solid steel reinforcement the average friction force was 2N and the interfacial friction was (0,0087 Mpa) this difference came from the structure of cord steel wire were the surface area larger than the solid steel wire . Figures 10,12 show a rubber fragments adherent on the steel reinforcements after pulling which would effect the curve response at friction part (figures 6,7,8,9) because the friction would not be between the steel reinforcement and the rubber matrix only but also between rubber as fragments which adherent on steel wires and the rubber as a matrix the response of curve in friction region would not be linear .

100 90 80 70 Pull-Out Force (N) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Cross Head Displacement (mm)

Fig 6: The pull-out force (N) for cord steel wire vs. cross head displacement (mm) .

100

80

Pull-Out Force (N)

60

40

20

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Cross-Head Displacement (mm)

specimen 1 specimen 2 specimen 3 specimen 4

Fig 7: Four specimens pull-out tested for cord steel wire reinforced rubber composites .

180 160 140 Pull-Out Force (N) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Cross Head Displacement (mm)

Fig 8: Cross head displacement (mm) vs. pull-out force (N) for solid steel wire.

220 200 180 160 Pull-Out Force (N) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Cross-Head Displacement (mm) Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3 Specimen 4

Fig 9: Four specimens pull-out tested for solid steel wire reinforced rubber composites.

Table -2: cord reinforcement rubber pull-out forces: Specimen No. Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3 Specimen 4 Specimen 5 Pull-out force(N) 78 87 52 77 86

Average

76

Table-3: solid reinforcement rubber pull-out forces: Specimen No. Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3 Specimen 4 Specimen 5 Pull-out force(N) 205 180 140 135 130

Average

158

Fig 10: Cord steel wire after pulling.

Fig 11: A schematic representation of cordsteel wire structure.

Fig 12: Solid steel wire after pulling .

References:
1- Hitoshi Tashiro , Toshimi Tarul , State of the Art for High Tensile Strength Steel Cord , NIPPON STEEL TECHNICAL REPORT , No. 88, July ,2003 2-Peter Ga.O and Viera .Urivo , Influence of Production Process to Mechanical Properties of Tyre Textile Reinforcement Materials , P8 ,Chem. Listy 101, s1 s72 (2007) 3-Jozef Havajk , Miroslve Onda., and Martin Rypak, Some Aspects of Tyre Adhesion Evaluation, P10, Chem. Listy 101, s1 s72 (2007), 4- Piggott, M. R., Load bearing fibre composites, Pergamon Press (1980). 5- Kim, J.-K., Mai, Y.-W., Engineered interfaces in fiber reinforced composites, Elsevier (1998). 6- E. Pisanova,, S. Zhandarov, E. Mader, I. Ahmad, R.J. Young. , Three Techniques of Interfacial Bond Strength Estimation from Direct Observation of Crack Initiation and Propagation in PolymerFiber Systems , Composites: Part A 32 (2001) 435443. 7- Chun-Hsin Liua and John A. Nairn , Analytical and Experimental Methods for a Fracture Mechanics Interpretation of the Microbond Ttest Including the Effects Friction and Thermal Stresses , International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 19 (1999) 59{70 8-John A. Nairn , Analytical Fracture Mechanics Analysis of the Pull-Out Test Including the Effects of Friction and Thermal Stresses , Advanced Composite Letters, Vol. 9, No. 6, 373-383 (2000) 9- R. J. Scheer , J. A. Nairn , A Comparison of Several Fracture Mechanics Methods for Measuring Interfacial Toughness with Microbond Tests ,J. Adhesion, 1995, Vol. 53 pp. 45-68.