International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 38 (2011) 879886

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / i c h m t

Studies on mechanical properties of dispersing intercalated silane montmorillonite in

low density polyethylene matrix
Sung-Po Liu , Liang-Chun Tu
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ching Yun University, Chung-Li 32097, Taiwan, ROC

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Available online 29 April 2011

Keywords:
Low density polyethylene
Montmorillonite
Thermoplastic polyolen elastomers
Maleic anhydride
X-ray diffraction

a b s t r a c t
In order to understand and improve these soft and weak mechanical properties of Low Density Polyethylene
(LDPE), we add a silane modier (Nanocor I.31PS) Montmorillonite (MMT) as reinforcement material,
inserted with two kinds of different surfactant (thermoplastic polyolen elastomers (TPO) or Maleic
Anhydride (MA)), the layer distance and hydrophobia are all best; to join the pieces of LDPE together, making
it possess polarization. After that, we use a Plastograph-Mixer by the twin-screw mixed method to obtain
standard shaped specimens of Polymer-Clay Nanocomposites (PCN) to prepare HDPE/MMT nanocomposite
pellets. By adding the different weight percentages (1, 3, and 5 wt.%) of MMT, and 2:1 ratio of MA (or TPO) and
MMT, the layer distance of MMT and mechanical property of nanocomposites were investigated.
The chemical structure and polymer morphology of these as-synthesized PCN specimens were characterized
by wide-angle powder X-ray diffraction (XRD) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). In addition, we
prepare these experimental specimens in order to probe into its mechanical properties. These tests used are:
layer distance of PCN, tensile, impact, shore-hardness, wearing tests, and so on.
In addition, we use XRD to make the characterization analysis, compare it to scatter and layer-distance. It is
found that when increasing the TPO into the MMT, layer-distance at 1 wt.% MMT increases from 2.11 nm to
3.14 nm.
It is found that these specimens that graft the TPO have the following results: In the tensile test, the MMT
weight percentage of 1 wt.% has the best result, increased by 3.08%. In the impact test, the MMT 3 wt.%
strengthens by 11.53%. In the hardness test, the MMT 5 wt.% strengthens the effect by 2.60%. In the wearing
tests, the MMT 5 wt.% strengthens the effect by 6.98%.
In addition, the specimens that graft the MA have the following results: In the tensile test, the MMT 1 wt.%
strengthens by 5.39%. In the impact test, the MMT 3 wt.% strengthens by 19.71%. In the hardness test, the MMT
5 wt.% strengthens by 10.85%. In the wearing tests, the MMT 5 wt.% strengthens the effect by 44.19%.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Recently, layered materials such as smectite clay (e.g., montmorillonite, MMT) have attracted intense research interests for the
preparation of polymer-clay nanocomposite (PCN) materials. PCN
materials usually demonstrate unique properties superior to traditional composites and conventional materials. In general, they
combine both the characteristics of inorganic nanollers and organic
polymers at the molecular level. Currently, the PCN material is found
to be a promising system due to the fact that the clay possesses a high
aspect ratio and a platy morphology. It can be employed to boost the
physical properties (e.g., thermal stability [1], re retardant [2], gas
barrier [3], and corrosion protection [4]) of bulk polymers), and

Communicated by W.J. Minkowycz.

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: spliu@cyu.edu.tw (S.-P. Liu).
0735-1933/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2011.04.009

mechanical properties are a particularly signicant issue to study

application and development for PCN materials. Kim and White [5]
reported a variety of organic modied MMTs to understand the
contribution of the organophilicity of organoclay on the formation of
the polymer/clay nanocomposite.
Maleic acid (MA) is an organic compound that is a dicarboxylic
acid (molecule with two carboxyl groups). Other names are malenic
acid, maleinic acid and toxilic acid. In industry, MA is derived from
maleic anhydride by hydrolysis. Maleic anhydride is produced from
benzene or butane in an oxidation process. Maleic acid is soluble in
water, has a melting point of 139140 C. Both properties of maleic
acid can be explained on account of the intramolecular hydrogen
bonding [6] that takes place at the expense of intermolecular
interactions.
Thermoplastic polyolen elastomers (TPO) are unique elastomeric
products designed to improve impact performance, melt strength, and
overall processability for a variety of markets and applications. TPO
combine highly desirable elastomeric properties in a pelletized form

880

S.-P. Liu, L.-C. Tu / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 38 (2011) 879886

and are available in a wide range of grades to meet the most demanding processing and performance needs.
LDPE is dened by a density range of 0.9100.940 g/cm3. LDPE has
a high degree of short and long chain branching, which means that the
chains do not pack into the crystal structure as well. It has, therefore,
less strong intermolecular forces as the instantaneous-dipole induced-dipole attraction is less. This results in a lower tensile strength
and increased ductility. LDPE is created by free radical polymerization.
The high degree of branching with long chains gives molten LDPE
unique and desirable ow properties. LDPE is used for both rigid
containers and plastic lm applications such as plastic bags and lm
wrap. In 2009 the global LDPE market had a volume of circa 22.2
billion US-dollars (15.9 billion Euro) [7].
Depending on the crystallinity and molecular weight, a melting
point and glass transition may or may not be observable. The
temperature at which these occur varies strongly with the type of
polyethylene. For common commercial grades of LDPE the melting
point is typically in the range 105 to 115 C (221 to 239 F) [7].
Recently, several attempts have been reported to study the
mechanical properties of LDPEclay nanocomposite materials. For
example, Lu et al. [8] reported that the effect of the amount of
crystallinity on fracture and yielding of PE as a function of temperature is reviewed. In particular, the effect of fracture toughness, at
low temperature is investigated. Gonzlez et al. [9] demonstrated that
the mechanical behavior of ve commercially available thermoplastic
olens (TPOs) and a polypropylene homopolymer during quasi-static
(1.7 10 5 m/s) and dynamic (2.2 and 8.9 m/s) three-point bend
loading at 40, 30 and 22 C. Galgali et al. [10] reported that an
experimental investigation on the creep behavior of molten polypropylene organically modied clay nanocomposites. The creep resistance of compatibilized hybrids was signicantly higher than that of
uncompatibilized hybrids and also increased with annealing time. S.C.
Tjong and S.P. Bao [11] reported that essential work of fracture (EWF)
approach under tensile and impact loadings were used to evaluate the
fracture toughness of HDPE/Org-MMT nanocomposites with and
without elastomers.
Moreover, wear resistance of PET, nylon 6 and PS nanocomposite
materials has been reported by Schadler et al. [12] and Liu et al.
[13,14], respectively. However, wear resistance of LDPEclay nanocomposite materials has seldom been mentioned.
Therefore, in this paper we present the rst evaluation of wear
resistance of LDPEclay nanocomposites and the rst to make a
comparative study on the mechanical properties of the effect of
organoclay (MMTs) on impact strength, shore hardness and tensile
strength of LDPEclay nanocomposites.
2. Experimental
2.1. Chemicals and instrumentations
Commercial LDPE (Model No. UNITHENE NA207-66, melting
point = 240 F, specic gravity = 0.915 0.930 g/cm3) were purchased
as pellets from the USI Corporation in Taiwan. The montmorillonite
clay (Model No. I.31PS) was purchased from Nanocor Company in the
USA. The surfactant of I.31PS is a derivative containing Octadecylamine modication. The maleic anhydride (MA) (molecular formula =
OCOCH:CHCO, formula weight = 98.04, melting point = 131139 C,
specic gravity = 1.48 g/cm3, assay = 99.5%) was purchased from
First Chemical Works in Taiwan. The thermoplastic polyolen
elastomers (TPO) (Model No. ENGAGE 8100, melting point= 120 C)
was purchased from Dow Chemical Company in the USA.
A wide-angle X-ray diffraction study of the samples was performed on a Rigaku D/MAX-3C OD-2988N X-ray diffractometer with a
copper target and Ni lter at a scanning rate of 4/min. The samples for
the transmission electron microscopy (TEM) study were rst
prepared by putting the membrane of PCN (Polymer-clay nano-

composites) materials into low-viscosity embedding media epoxy

resin capsules with four ingredients (ERL4206 5.0 g, DER736 3.0 g,
NSA 13.0 g, and DMAE 0.15 g) and by curing the epoxy resin at 100 C
for 24 h in a vacuum oven. Then the cured epoxy resin containing PCN
materials was microtomed with a ReichertJumg Ultracut-E into 60
90-nm slices. Subsequently, one layer of carbon about 10-nm was
deposited on these slices on mesh 100 copper nets for TEM observations on a JEOL-200FX, with an acceleration voltage of 120 kV.
Centrifugal Ball Mill (Retsch S100) was used to mill the size of
organophilic clay. Twin roll mill (Kobelco, model KXY-30) was used to
meltmix the organoclay and LDPE. A Plastograph-Mix and a Hot Press
machine manufactured by Brabender Machine Company (Germany,
Model No. PLE-331, co-rotating type, non-intermeshing, Max screw
speed is 120 rpm, L/D ratio is 32, test temperature is 20 C to 400 C,
and Chamber maximum volume is 50 g) and Long-Chang Company
(Taiwan, Model No. FC-60 TON) were used to make the as-prepared
sample in the form of an ASTM D3039 standard shape. A Scanning
Electron Microscopy (SEM) with the model Hitachi S-4100 FE-SEM
evaluates the surface morphology of as-prepared composite materials.
The tensile test of PCN membranes was carried out through a
universal testing instrument manufactured by Hung-Ta Company
(Taiwan, Model No. HT-9102). The impact strength test of PCN
membranes was carried out through an Izod Impact Tester manufactured by Hung-Ta Company (Taiwan, Model No. HT-8041B). The
shore hardness tests were run on a Shore Hardness Test Machine by
EXCELLENCE Company (Japan, Model D) for high and low hardness
samples, respectively, under an indentation time of 10 s at 25 C. The
wearing resistance tests were run on a Wearing Test Machine by the
TABER Company (Model 5130 ABRASER).
2.2. Preparation of LDPEclay nanocomposite materials by melt
intercalation
Before blending, LDPE and clay were dried at 80 C inside vacuum
oven for 1 h (Baking the universe can drop aqueous vapor to under
0.01% within 1 h). The proportion-grafting agent MA (or TPO) ratio to
MMT is 2:1. Then, we measure the weight of LDPEMAMMT and
LDPETPOMMT according to different proportions. MMT is 1, 3, and
5 wt.% respectively. LDPE, MA (or TPO) and MMT were prepared in a
Plastograph-Mixer machine separately, at a screw speed of 30 rpm
and melt temperature of 170 C, blended for 3 min, 3 min, and 3 min
respectively, for a total blending time of 9 min.
The melt-mixing procedure of LDPEMAMMT and LDPETPO
MMT composites was performed by blending samples repeatedly, at
least twice, to form products in the shape of pellets, with better
combinations. A Plastograph-Mixer machine using the twin-screw
mixing method to obtain nanocomposites with standard shaped
specimens for the following investigations subsequently mixed the
as-prepared LDPEclay composite pellets. Melt mixing is a procedure
in which the mixture's consistency is an important step in the
polymer material processing. Using mechanical force to blend is the
most convenient and practical method. It can also change the quality
of polymers through melting technology effectively. It is one of the
most frequently used methods in the industry.
2.3. Hot-press of LDPEclay composite materials
According to the test standard of the experiment project, we
designed the mold for the hot-pressing requirement, and then used
the hot-press machine after preheating it for 5 min under 170 C.
After the upper and lower templates of the hot-pressing machine are
closed for 1 min continuing at 1000 kg/cm2of pressure then pressurizing it at 2000 kg/cm2 for 1 min. We repeated this test two times, and
then took the mold out after the hot-press was nished. Lastly, we
waited for the mold to cool down, using water cooling to 70 C then
opened the mold to take out the specimen.

S.-P. Liu, L.-C. Tu / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 38 (2011) 879886

881

2.4. Test of bulk mechanical properties

2.4.1. Tensile strength test
In mechanical properties, tensile strength is one of the most
frequently used comparative standards. The denition of tensile
strength is the one that exerts tensile stress the most and try to extract
the test piece before cracking (or plastic deformation). This experiment, according to the ASTM D638 standard, shapes the material
into a dumb bell-shaped specimen rst, and then carries out the
tensile test. Examine at least ve specimens in each group, calculate
the average, and record the greatest strength of tensile tests.
2.4.2. Impact strength test
The impact test is used to exert impact power to the specimen and
to break the material by the impact of the external force. It can
determine the energy absorbed by the broken specimen, and show
the impact value of a material. So, either a brittle or ductile material
can be compared by impact strength. This experiment was used in an
Izod testing machine and made the specimens according to the ASTM
D256 standard. Before the test we made a notch on the example
specimen, and used a hammer to break up the specimen.
2.5. Test of surface mechanical properties
2.5.1. Shore hardness test
We used the Japan Shore Hardness Testing Machine as the depthdetect instrument that our nano hardness test was to be carried on,
the shore hardness experimental method of the hardness being
invented by Americans Albert F Shore in 1906, has already been used
extensively as the dynamic loading hardness. The Shore Hardness
Testing Machine type D calibrated a scale instruction type that
improves, as to large-scale specimens or large round type of diameter
specimens for ttings that can be xed and increase its scope of
application and characteristic. In addition, it is a quick operation and
can reach to 1000 or more times per hour. The machine is easy and
simple to operate; even non-technical staff can operate it smoothly. It
is also hard to damage the specimen, on the other hand, using other
machines after the indenter-hardness test; the specimen needs to
repair before the indenter can be removed. Furthermore, its assembly
cost is cheaper and it can also apply to thin specimens [15]. Through
the above-mentioned assessment, this experiment will adopt the type
D Shore Hardness Testing Machine. The experiment is completed
according to the ASTM D790 standard.
2.5.2. Wear-resistance test
The wear-resistance test is one of the most convenient and basic
properties of the material in mechanical property testing. When one
object is being used and is in contact with other objects for a long
time, it will cause wearing. So, it's necessary to perform a long period
of wearingtearing test. This experiment utilizes wearing-test
machines to determine the material's roll wearing and slip wearing,
then show this material's surface decreasing ability on wear resisting.
Also, the experiment is done according to the ASTM D4060 standard.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Characterization
Fig. 1(a) and (b) shows the wide-angle X-ray diffraction (WAXRD)
patterns of raw MMT, and a series of PCN (LDPE-MA-MMT and LDPETPO-MMT) materials. The outcome of an anneal was determined
using XRD measurements by monitoring the position, full-width-athalf-maximum (fwhm), and intensity of the (001) basal reection
of the PCN. For raw MMT, there is any diffraction peak in 2 = 4.19
(d-spacing = 2.11 nm), as opposed to the diffraction peak of with the
amount of organoclay increased to 5 wt.%, Fig. 1(a) is a small peak at

Fig. 1. (a) X-ray diffraction patterns of neat LDPE and LDPEMAMMT clay. (b) X-ray
diffraction patterns of neat LDPE and LDPETPOMMT clay.

2 = 4.85, corresponding to a d-spacing of 1.82 nm; as opposed to the

diffraction peak of with the amount of organoclay increased to 1 wt.%,
Fig. 1(b) is a small peak at 2 = 2.81, corresponding to a d-spacing of
3.14 nm. According to the structure of polymer clay nanocomposites
as shown in Fig. 2, the LDPEMAMMT nanocomposites (Fig. 1(a))
were conventional structures. On the other hand, the LDPETPO
MMT nanocomposites (Fig. 1(b)) were ordered exfoliated structures.
This implied that there was a small amount of organoclay that
could not be exfoliated in the LDPE and existed in the form of a
disordered intercalated layer structure, the nite layer expansion
associated with intercalated structures results in a new basal
reection that corresponds to the larger gallery height of the
intercalated hybrid. An increase in the degree of coherent layer
stacking (i.e. a more ordered system) results in a relative decrease in
the full-width-at-half-maximum of the basal reections upon hybrid
formation. On the other hand, a decrease in the degree of coherent
layer stacking (i.e. a more disordered system) results in peak
broadening and intensity loss [16].
Regarding the microstructure, the clay particles are dispersed in
the polymer matrix in either intercalated or exfoliated states.
Intercalated nanocomposites are in general obtained when the
polymer is located between the silicate layers; even though the
layer spacing increases, there are still attractive forces between the
silicate layers to stack the layers in uniform spacing. Exfoliated
nanocomposites are formed when the layer spacing increases to the
point where there are no longer sufcient attractions between the
silicate layers to maintain a uniform layer spacing [17].

882

S.-P. Liu, L.-C. Tu / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 38 (2011) 879886
Table 1
Material designation and compositions.

Fig. 2. XRD test disperses relatively diagrams.

Designation

Composition

Parts (wt.%)

LDPE
LMM1
LMM3
LMM5
LTM1
LTM3
LTM5

LDPE
LDPE/MA/MMT
LDPE/MA/MMT
LDPE/MA/MMT
LDPE/TPO/MMT
LDPE/TPO/MMT
LDPE/TPO/MMT

100
97/2/1
91/6/3
85/10/5
97/2/1
91/6/3
85/10/5

allowing it to absorb more elastic strain energy. When adding 1 wt.%

of MMT and 3 wt.% of MA, we can obtain the best tensile strength and
its elastic modulus is larger showing their hard and brittle property.
When increasing to 5 wt.% of MMT the phenomenon of aggregation
makes this LDPEMAMMT nanocomposites turn into a soft and
brittle property, though its hardness value increases, its yielding point
is low, its elongation is short, and it can absorb less elastic strain
energy easily cracking.
On the other hand, when adding 5 wt.% of MMT and 10 wt.% of
TPO, we can obtain the worst tensile strength and its elastic modulus
is worse showing their soft and tough properties, though its hardness
value increases, its yielding point is low, its elongation is short, and it
can absorb less elastic strain energy easily cracking. Similar trends
were also found in the impact strength of as-prepared composites.

3.2. Bulk mechanical property studies

3.2.1. Tensile strength test
Relationships between tensile properties and MMT loading as
obtained from tensile test on the standard dumbbell-shaped of LDPE
MAMMT and LDPETPOMMT nanocomposites were studied, as
shown in Fig. 3(a) and (b). For example, upon addition of MMTs into
LDPE, the tensile strength of nanocomposites increased to 9.58 MPa
for LMM1, 9.55 MPa for LMM3, and decreased to 9.07 MPa for LMM5.
Furthermore, an overdose of MMTs and MAs loading (e.g., 5 and
10 wt.% for LDPEMAMMT) in nanocomposites was found to decrease the tensile strength of as-prepared nanocomposites, as summarized in Tables 1 and 2. This indicated that the introduction of
MMTs into polymer matrix does effectively affect the tensile
properties of pristine PP. However, the decrease in tensile strength
for LMM5 may probably be resulted from the aggregation of MMTs
and MAs in nanocomposites.
Fig. 4 shows the load-displacement measurements of pure LDPE
and their corresponding LDPEMAMMT and LDPETPOMMT nanocomposites. Originally, the pure LDPE material was a hard and strong
material, adding MMTs and MAs makes LDPEMMT nanocomposites

3.2.2. Impact strength test

The impact strength test of as-prepared PCN materials was
performed according to the ASTM D256. The maximum capacity of
this impact instrument is 250 ft lb, and the maximum impact speed is
17 ft/s. It should be noted that the impact energy absorption of the
LDPEMAMMT and LDPETPOMMT nanocomposites were increasing as the organoclay loading increased in the composite, as shown in
Fig. 5. The angle of the hammer shock is increased from 142.9 to
143.3. The higher the angle of the hammer strikes, the smaller the
impact on energy-absorption, so the shock resistant intensity is found
to be relatively worse because the neat LDPE matrix is comparatively
hard and strong. Therefore, the addition of organoclay into the matrix
has already improved its bond strength and demonstrated better
scattering in the matrix. However, an addition of organoclay still
impelled the nanocomposites when struck by the external force
causing a phenomenon of stress concentration. After that the
nanocomposites turned into the macroscopic stress fractured, resulting in the course of increasing its already existing shock resistant
characteristic. That is to say if you add more organoclay, its shock
resistant intensity becomes better, so adding organoclay to shock
resistant characteristics has strengthened its function. For example,
Table 2
Relations of composition of LDPECN nanocomposites prepared by melt intercalation,
with mechanical properties.
Compound
composition

Tensile
strength
(MPa)

Impact energy
Absorption
(J/m)

Shore
hardness
(Hs)

Wear loss
(after 1000 rpm)
(mg)

LDPE
LMM1

9.09
9.58
[+ 5.39%]
9.55
[+ 5.06%]
9.07
[ 0.22%]
9.37
[+ 3.08%]
8.69
[ 4.40%]
8.56
[ 5.83%]

23.24
26.76
[+ 15.15%]
27.82
[+ 19.71%]
24.40
[+ 4.99%]
25.13
[+ 8.13%]
25.92
[+ 11.53%]
22.70
[ 2.32%]

46.10
47.50
[+ 3.04%]
49.30
[+ 6.94%]
51.10
[+ 10.85%]
46.60
[+ 1.08%]
46.90
[+ 1.74%]
47.30
[+ 2.60%]

0.43
0.47
[+ 9.30%]
0.54
[+ 25.58%]
0.62
[+ 44.19%]
0.45
[+ 4.65%]
0.45
[+ 4.65%]
0.46
[+ 6.98%]

LMM3
LMM5
LTM1
LTM3
LTM5
Fig. 3. Variation of tensile strength of LDPECN nanocomposites with clay content.

S.-P. Liu, L.-C. Tu / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 38 (2011) 879886

883

Fig. 6. The shore-hardness of LDPECN composites as a function of clay content.

MAMMT and LDPETPOMMT nanocomposites in the form of a

standard shape at various material compositions are given in Fig. 6
and Tables 1 and 2. These showed that as the MMT and MA content
increased, the corresponding shore hardness value (Hs) of composites
increased up to 5 wt.% of MMT loading in composites. For example,
the pure LDPE showed low surface hardness of 46.10 Hs. Once you add
the MMTs and TPOs into LDPE, the surface hardness is increased to
47.50 Hs for LMM1, 49.30 Hs for LMM3, and 51.10 Hs for LMM5. This
indicated that the surface hardness of the composite materials
increased with an increasing MMT and MA content. On the other
hand, the MMT and TPO content increased, and the surface hardness is
increased to 46.60 Hs for LTM1, 46.90 Hs for LTM3, and 47.30 Hs for
LTM5.
Thus, the integration of MMTs and grafting with surfactant TPOs
into the PP matrix, does indeed change the surface characteristics of
the composite materials signicantly based on the surface mechanical
property studies.
Fig. 4. (a) Variation of the load of LDPEMAMMT composites with displacement.
(b) Variation of the load of LDPETPOMMT composites with displacement.

the maximum impact energy absorption of 27.82 J/m is LMM3, and

the minimum impact energy absorption of 22.70 J/m is LTM5.
3.3. Surface mechanical property studies
3.3.1. Shore hardness test
The shore hardness is an important parameter for evaluating or
designating nanocomposite materials. The hardness data of the LDPE

Fig. 5. The impact energy absorption of LDPECN nanocomposites as a function of clay

content.

3.3.2. Wear-resistance test

Test specimens with the dimensions of 100 100 2.8 (mm) were
made. After that, we utilized wearing testing machine with a load of
1000 g, measuring wear mass-loss (the inuence factor of the wear
mass loss amount) by operating the wearing speed at 500 rpm and
1000 rpm, respectively, to probe the wear-resistance properties of asprepared composites. It has been already known that wear mass-loss
is the main impact factor in hardness of nanocomposites itself, heat
conduction characteristic, etc.
Fig. 7 shows the wearing mass-loss of as-prepared pure LDPE and
LDPEMAMMT and LDPETPOMMT composites. When operated at

Fig. 7. Wear loss versus organoclay loadings for neat LDPE, LDPEMAMMT and LDPE
TPOMMT nanocomposites.

884

S.-P. Liu, L.-C. Tu / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 38 (2011) 879886

Fig. 8. Wear SEM images of organoclay loadings for neat LDPE and LDPEMAMMT nanocomposites at 200 magnication, clay content (a) 0%, (b) 1%, (c) 3%, and (d) 5%.

higher wearing speed of 1000 rpm for as-prepared LDPEMAMMT

composites, the wear mass-loss amount was found to increase
signicantly. For example, the amount of wear mass-loss operated
at 1000 rpm for as-prepared LDPEMAMMT composites was found
to severely decrease from the original of LDPE (0.43 mg) to LMM5
(0.62 mg). It indicated that the wear mass-loss of as-prepared
composites decreased severely as the content of MMTs and MAs
existed in the composites increased at high wearing speed of
1000 rpm. On the other hand, the amount of wear mass-loss for
LDPETPOMMT composites changed from the original value of
0.43 mg (for LDPE) to 0.46 mg (for LTM5), as summarized in Tables 1
and 2. This implied that the more content of MMTs (e.g., 5 wt.%) in
composites led to an obvious decrease in wear mass-loss amount at
higher wearing speed rate, reecting that the incorporation of MMTs
into LDPE might show best wear-resisting property of as-prepared
samples.
Moreover, the wear resistance of as-prepared composites can be
further evaluated by the visual observation of the as-prepared
composites after the wearing test. Fig. 8 shows the Scanning Electron
Microscope (SEM) of pure LDPE (a), LMM1 (b), LMM3 (c) and LMM5
(d), respectively. Fig. 9 shows the SEM of pure LTM1 (e), LTM3 (f) and
LTM5 (g), respectively.
It showed that the SEM observation of pure LDPE morphology
revealed an uneven and rough surface, indicating that the pure LDPE
(wear mass-loss amount of 0.43 mg) had hard surface structures as
compared to the pure PS [18] (wear mass-loss amount of 128.74 mg),
and had hard surface structures as compared to the pure PC [19]
(wear mass-loss amount of 1.25 mg). After the wearing test, the
material structures of pure LDPE cannot be easily degraded and
removed from the surface of as-prepared sample, as shown in Fig. 8(a).
However, the surface morphology of LDPEMAMMT composites was

found to display a relatively smooth pattern as compared to the pure

LDPE, as illustrated in Fig. 8(b)(d). This implied that the incorporation
of MMTs and MAs into LDPE might effectively enhance the wear
resistance of LDPE more. Moreover, the surface morphology of LDPE
TPOMMT composites was found to display a relatively rough pattern as
compared to the pure LDPE, as illustrated in Fig. 9(e)(g). This implied
that the incorporation of MMTs and TPOs into LDPE might enhance the
wear resistance of LDPE less.
This conclusion obtained from the SEM observations is consistent
with the previous studies related to the wear mass-loss measurement
of pure LDPE and corresponding composites.

4. Conclusions
In this article, the series of PCN materials consisting of commercial
LDPE and organoclay platelets were successfully prepared through a
melt intercalation approach. The as-prepared PCN materials were
subsequently characterized by powder XRD. Furthermore, the effects
of organoclay on three different measurement types of mechanical
properties for as-prepared PCN materials such as tensile test, impact
test, and shore hardness test were performed and compared.
Generally, it showed an obvious enhancement of mechanical properties of neat polymer by an incorporated low loading of organophilic
clay platelets into an LDPE matrix based on the evaluation of
mechanical properties on as-prepared samples. The shore hardness
of LDPETPOMMT composites was found to be effectively enhanced
by the incorporation of a high loading of organophilic clay platelets.
The surface morphological image for the neat LDPE and LDPEMA
MMT and LDPETPOMMT after wear resistance test had also been
compared and identied by the SEM.

S.-P. Liu, L.-C. Tu / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 38 (2011) 879886

885

Fig. 9. Wear SEM images of organoclay loadings for neat LDPE and LDPETPOMMT nanocomposites at 200 magnication, clay content (e) 1%, (f) 3%, and (g) 5%.

We found that these specimens that graft the TPO have the
following results: In the tensile test, the MMT weight percentage
1 wt.% has the best result, increased by 3.08%. In the impact test, the
MMT 3 wt.% strengthens by 11.53%. In the hardness test, the MMT
5 wt.% strengthens the effect by 2.60%. In the wear resistance test, the
MMT 5 wt.% strengthens the effect by 6.98%. In addition, the
specimens that graft the MA have the following results: In the tensile
test, the MMT 1 wt.% strengthens by 5.39%. In the impact test the MMT
3 wt.% strengthens by 19.71%. In the hardness test, the MMT 5 wt.%
strengthens by 10.85%. In the wear resistance test, the MMT 5 wt.%
strengthens the effect by 44.19%.

Acknowledgements
The nancial support of this research by the National Science
Council, Taiwan, R.O.C. (subsidy no. NSC 97-2221-E-231-021) is
gratefully acknowledged.

References
[1] H.L. Tyan, Y.C. Liu, K.H. Wei, Effect of reactivity of organics-modied montmorillonite on the thermal and mechanical properties of montmorillonite/polyimide
nanocomposites, Chemistry of Materials 13 (1) (2001) 222226.
[2] J.W. Gilman, C.L. Jackson, A.B. Morgan, R.J. Hayis, E. Manias, E.P. Giannelis, M.
Hilton, D. Wuthenow, S.H. Phillips, Flammability properties of polymer-layeredsilicate nanocomposites. Polypropylene and polystyrene nanocomposites, Chemistry of Materials 12 (7) (2000) 18661873.

[3] T. Lan, P.D. Kaviratna, T.J. Pinnavaia, On the nature of polyimideclay hybrid
composites, Chemistry of Materials 6 (1994) 573575.
[4] Y.H. Yu, J.M. Yeh, S.J. Liou, C.L. Chen, D.J. Liaw, H.Y. Lu, Preparation and properties
of polyimideclay nanocomposite materials for anticorrosion application, Journal
of Applied Polymer Science 92 (6) (2004) 35733582.
[5] Y. Kim, J.L. White, Formation of polymer nanocomposites with various
organoclays, Journal of Applied Polymer Science 96 (2005) 18881896.
[6] M.N.G. James, G.J.B. Williams, A renement of the crystal structure of maleic acid,
Acta Crystallographica Section B 30 (5) (1974) 12491257.
[7] Market Study: Polyethylene LDPE, UC-1405, Ceresana Research 02 (April 2010)
850.
[8] X. Lu, R. Qian, N. Brown, The effect of crystallinity on fracture and yielding of
polyethylenes, Polymer 36 (22) (1995) 42394244.
[9] L. Gonzlez, T.E. Godlewski, B. Wooten, P.A. Gustafson, Mechanical Behavior of
Thermoplastic Olens (TPOs) During Three-Point Bend Impact, ANTEC, 2004,
pp. 22012205.
[10] G. Galgali, C. Ramesh, A. Lele, A rheological study on the kinetics of hybrid
formation in polypropylene nanocomposites, Macromolecules 34 (4) (2001)
852858.
[11] S.C. Tjong, S.P. Bao, Fracture toughness of high density polyethylene/SEBS-g-MA/
montmorillonite nanocomposites, Composites Science and Technology 67 (2007)
314323.
[12] P. Bhimaraj, D.L. Burris, J. Action, W.G. Sawyer, C.G. Toney, R.W. Siegel, L.S.
Schadler, Effect of matrix morphology on the wear and friction behavior of
alumina nanoparticle/poly(ethylene) terephthalate composites, Wear 258 (2005)
14371443.
[13] S.P. Liu, S.S. Hwang, J.M. Yeh, Chi-Chang Hung, Mechanical properties of
polyamide-6/montmorillonite nanocomposites prepared by twin-screw extruder mixed technique, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 38 (1)
(2011) 3743.
[14] S.P. Liu, I.J. Huang, K.C. Chang, J.M. Yeh, Mechanical properties of polystyrene
montmorillonite nanocomposites prepared by melt intercalation, Journal of
Applied Polymer Science 115 (2010) 288296.
[15] T.W. Ebbesen, H.J. Lezec, H. Hiura, J.W. Bennett, H.F. Ghaemi, T. Thio, Electrical
conductivity of individual carbon nanotubes, Nature 382 (1996) 5455.

886

S.-P. Liu, L.-C. Tu / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 38 (2011) 879886

[16] R.A. Vaia, E.P. Giannelis, Polymer melt intercalation in organically-modied

layered silicates: model predictions and experiment, Macromolecules 30 (25)
(1997) 80008009.
[17] T.H. Kim, L.W. Jang, D.C. Lee, H.J. Choi, M.S. Jhon, Synthesis and rheology of
intercalated polystyrene/Na+montmorillonite nanocomposites, Macromolecular Rapid Communications 23 (3) (2002) 191195.
[18] S.P. Liu, W.L. Hsu, K.C. Chang, J.M. Yeh, Enhancement of the surface and bulk
mechanical properties of polystyrene through the incorporation of raw multi-

walled nanotubes with the twin-screw mixing technique, Journal of Applied

Polymer Science 113 (2009) 992999.
[19] S.P. Liu, S.S. Hwang, J.M. Yeh, K.W. Pan, Enhancement of surface and bulk
mechanical properties of polycarbonate through the incorporation of raw
MWNTs using the twin-screw extruder mixed technique, International Journal
of Heat and Mass Transfer 37 (7) (2010) 809814.