3D FEA of Interfacial Stress in Tensile

of Rubber-modified Polypropylene

JI-ZHAO LIANG* AND LI WANG

College of Industrial Equipment and Control Engineering
South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510640, China

ABSTRACT: The interfacial stress and its distribution affect directly the mechanical properties of
polymeric blends and composites. Polymers are usually modified with rubber to improve their
toughness. The three-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis (FEA) of the interfacial stress
distribution between the particulate and the matrix during tensile of a rubber-modified
polypropylene (PP) blend is made by means of an ANSYS software in this article, and the results
are compared with those of the two-dimensional (2D) FEA simulation published earlier. The results
show that the shear effect subjected in the pole zone of the rubber particle is maximal, the
equator zone of the rubber particle is strongly pressed and pulled, and the tensile stress reaches
the maximum. Comparatively, the stress distribution of 3D FEA is more gentle than that of
2D FEA.

KEY WORDS: polypropylene, rubber toughness, interfacial stress analysis, FEA simulation.

INTRODUCTION

OLYPROPYLENE (PP) HAS good performance in process and practical applications,

P and is a kind of thermoplastic used widely in industry. However, the application range
is somewhat limited to expand further because of its poor impact toughness, especially
at/under room temperature. Therefore, the toughening of PP resin has become one of the
key research focuses of the last twenty years. Polypropylene toughening with rubber or
elastomer is a familiar and effective method [1]. There have been a number of toughening
theories for rubber-modified polymeric materials since the 1970s, based on the studies of
impact tests, such as micro-crack theory, mutiple-crazing theory, shear yielding theory,
crazing–shear interaction, microvoid and cavitation theory and criterion of crazing and
shear yielding competition, etc. On the basis of these studies, some criterions of brittle–
ductile transition (BDT) have been published, such as critical matrix ligament thickness
criterion, percolation model and critical plastic area, and so on [1]. In 1999, Liang et al. [2]
proposed a new expression of critical particular volume fraction for BDT based on a
consideration of the case of non-uniform dispersion of the filler particles in the matrix
(e.g., aggregation).
Generally, the tensile and flexural strength are reduced correspondingly for polymer–
rubber blends with the addition of an elastomer [3]. Therefore, studying the internal stress

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: scutjzl@163.com

Figure 5 appears in color online: http://jrp.sagepub.com

Journal of REINFORCED PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES, Vol. 25, No. 7/2006 725
0731-6844/06/07 0725–8 $10.00/0 DOI: 10.1177/0731684406062057
ß 2006 SAGE Publications

Downloaded from jrp.sagepub.com at CICY - Parent on March 10, 2016

726 J.-Z. LIANG AND L. WANG

and its distribution in the case of specimens subjected to loading is helpful to further
understand the toughening and reinforcing mechanisms of particle-filled polymeric
materials.
As to polymeric blends or composite materials, their mechanical properties depend to
a great degree on the interfacial state (i.e., adhesion, morphological structure, and stress
distribution) between the components or the fillers and matrix [4–8]. Stress analysis is the
prevalent field for the application of the finite element method. The objective of this article
is to make a three-dimensional (3D) numerical simulation of the interfacial stress and
its distribution during tensile of rubber-modified PP blend by means of a finite element
method.

THEORY MODEL

Basic Assumptions

The theoretical analysis in this article was based on the following assumptions:
(1) rubber particles are distributed uniformly in PP matrix, which is a simple cubic
distribution; (2) the diameter of rubber particles is very small and they are regarded as
spherical particles approximately; and (3) the interaction between adjoining particles may
be neglected.

Physical Model

The situation of a PP–rubber blend with rubber particles volume fraction of 20% under
the tensile load (F ) was investigated. In order to be convenient for analysis, according
to aforementioned assumptions, a four-square element having only one spherical rubber
particle in the center was selected. It was subjected to a single-axis tensile load at both
top and bottom sides of the element. The physical model is shown as Figure 1.
Considering the symmetry of geometric shape of the spherical particle and load, only
a quarter of the element of the physical model was researched, and it was simplified as a
3D stress field, as shown in Figure 2.

PP

Rubber

Figure 1. Physical model of PP–rubber element.

Downloaded from jrp.sagepub.com at CICY - Parent on March 10, 2016

3D FEA of Interfacial Stress in Tensile of Rubber-modified Polypropylene 727

Figure 2. 3D element model of a PP–rubber blend.

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

The numerical simulation of the interfacial stress and its distribution between the grain
and the matrix during tensile of a PP–rubber blend was made by means of ANSYS
software. It is a kind of large current CAE software based on finite element analysis (FEA),
the applications of which include mechanical structure, heat transfer, fluid flow,
electromagnetism, and acoustics. It was invented by ANSYS Company whose headquarters
is located at Pigboat, Pennsylvania, USA.

Mesh

According to the volume fraction of the filler particles, the area ratio of the particle and
element in one unit was calculated, and then the length of unit was determined. The radius
of the particle and the length of unit were input to the software. Then smart meshing was
automatically adopted. The element type was 3D solid PLANE82, quadrangular element
with 8 nodes. The meshing results are showed as in Figure 3.

Parameters of Material Properties

The parameters of material properties were mainly tensile elastic modulus and Poisson’s
ratio. The material studied in this article was a PP–rubber blend. The details of property
parameters of the blend were as follows:
Component 1 was a PP resin as a continuative phase matrix with elastic modulus of
1.578 GPa and Poisson’s ratio of 0.3.
Component 2 was rubber particles as dispersion phase with elastic modulus of
0.0004 GPa and Poisson’s ratio of 0.499.

Downloaded from jrp.sagepub.com at CICY - Parent on March 10, 2016

728 J.-Z. LIANG AND L. WANG

Figure 3. Meshing of a PP–rubber blend element.

Figure 4. Loading of a PP–rubber blend element.

Loading of Model

The initial conditions were put on the model. First, the displacement conditions were
applied, the displacement of Y-direction was at the bottom and that of X-direction was
at the left. Next, the tensile load 1 kN was applied at the top of unit, as shown in Figure 4.

Downloaded from jrp.sagepub.com at CICY - Parent on March 10, 2016

3D FEA of Interfacial Stress in Tensile of Rubber-modified Polypropylene 729

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Stress Contour Graph

Using the solution of the software solves the unit stress question, and then the
postprocessor of the software plots the stress contour graph, which visually describes the
size and change of the stress. Figure 5 shows the stress contour graph of Y-direction of a
PP–rubber blend element model. It can be seen that the stress around the pole zone of the
rubber particle is minimal and negative, but the stress near the particle equator is maximal
and positive. On the other hand, the effect of the former on the resin matrix surrounding the
grain is gradually expanded (i.e., the stress is increasing), but the opposite applies in the
latter case.

The Distribution of Circumferential Stress

Figure 6 shows the distribution of the interfacial stress between the resin matrix and
the particle at Y-direction under tensile loading. It can be seen that the stress near the pole
of the rubber particle is minimal, and it gradually increases towards the equator direction
of the particle and reaches the maximum at the equator. The authors [9] studied the
distribution of the interfacial tensile stress of two-dimensional (2D) FEA model in their
previous paper. Comparatively, the tensile stress of 3D FEA at the equator is evidently
smaller than that of 2D FEA. Figure 7 displays the distribution of the interfacial stress in
X-direction between the resin matrix and particles during tensile. Analogously, the tensile
stress near the pole of the rubber particle is minimal and gradually increases towards the
equator direction. The maximum is not at the equator but between the two. The stress
concentration of soft particle-filled epoxy polymer was studied by Guild and Young [5]
who got the same result. In addition, the maximal difference of the interfacial stress
between 3D FEA and 2D FEA appears near the pole (see Figure 7).

Figure 5. Stress contour graph at Y-direction.

Downloaded from jrp.sagepub.com at CICY - Parent on March 10, 2016

730 J.-Z. LIANG AND L. WANG

3000

2500 2D
3D
2000

σy (kPa) 1500

1000

500

−500
−0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
L (µm)
Figure 6. Distribution of interfacial tensile stress (Y-direction).

400

200

−200
σx (kPa)

−400

−600

−800 2D

−1000 3D

−1200

−1400
−0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
L (µm)
Figure 7. Distribution of interfacial tensile stress (X-direction).

The Distribution of Shear Stress

Figure 8 shows the distribution of the interfacial shear stress between the PP resin
matrix and the rubber particle. It can be seen that the distributing curve of shear stress
is similar to a sinusoid. The shear stress increases with the closing of the particle towards
the pole and reaches maximum nearby; and then it decreases towards the equator,
and reaches minimum near the equator. Finally, it gradually increases along the
circle again. This means that the shear effect subjected in the pole zone of the particle
may be maximal. Comparatively, the shear stress distribution curve of 3D FEA is
relatively gentle.

Downloaded from jrp.sagepub.com at CICY - Parent on March 10, 2016

3D FEA of Interfacial Stress in Tensile of Rubber-modified Polypropylene 731

200 2D
3D

τxy (kPa)
−200

−400

−600

−0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

L (µm)
Figure 8. Distribution interfacial shear stress.

Analysis of Toughening Mechanisms

When a PP–rubber blend is subjected to a tensile load, the relevant strain is brought.
In this case, rubber particles are pressed by resin matrix at a direction vertical to tensile
loads (i.e., X-direction), resulting from the transverse and longitudinal strain. Under the
same load conditions, the strain of the rubber particles is much larger than PP because the
elastic modulus of rubber is much smaller than that of PP. Therefore, the pole zone of
rubber particles is pressed by resin matrix and the stress is negative, but the equator zone
of the grains is pulled and the stress is positive.
Furthermore, the rubber particles generate a large strain and first yield when they are
subjected to tensile, pressed, and sheared effects. In this case, the matrix around the
particles induces crazes and absorbs much strain energy owing to the stress concentration.
On the other hand, these rubber particles block crazes to extend further. Consequently, the
tensile fracture toughness of polymeric blends (or alloys) is improved effectively.

CONCLUSIONS

During tensile of a PP–rubber blend the shear effect subjected by pole and equator zone
of the rubber particles is maximal, the equator zone of the rubber particles is strongly
pressed and pulled, and the tensile stress reaches the maximum. The relative large strain
and first yielding of the rubber particles are the main reasons leading to improved fracture
toughness of the blend. Comparatively, the stress distribution of 3D FEA is more gentle
than that of 2D FEA.

REFERENCES

1. Liang, J. Z. and Li, R. K. Y. (2000). Rubber Toughening in Polypropylene: A Review, J. Appl. Polym. Sci.,
77(2): 409–417.
2. Liang, J. Z. and Li, R. K. Y. (1999). Brittle-ductile Transition in Polypropylene filled with Glass Beads,
Polymer, 40(11): 3191–3195.

Downloaded from jrp.sagepub.com at CICY - Parent on March 10, 2016

732 J.-Z. LIANG AND L. WANG

3. Liang, J. Z., Li, R. K. Y. and Tjong, S. C. (2000). Impact Fracture Behavior of PP/EPDM/Glass Bead
Ternary Composites, Polym. Eng. Sci., 40(9): 3011–3021.
4. Lu, S., Yan, L., Zhu, X. and Qi, Z. (1992). Microdamage and Interfacial Adhesion in Glass Bead-filled
High-density Polyethylene, J. Mater. Sci., 27(17): 4633–4638.
5. Guild, F. J. and Young, R. J. (1989). A Predictive Model for Particulate filled Composite Materials. Part 2
Soft Particles, J. Mater. Sci., 24(7): 2454–2460.
6. Meddad, A. and Fisa, B. (1997). A Model for Filler-matrix Debonding in Glass-bead-filled Viscoelastic
Polymer, J.Appl. Polym. Sci., 65(10): 2013–2024.
7. Hui, C. Y. and Shia, D. (1998). Simple Formulate for the Effective Moduli of Unidirectional Aligned
Composites, Polym. Eng. Sci., 38(5): 774–782.
8. Liang, J. Z. and Li, R. K. Y. (1999). Tensile Properties and Morphology of PP/EPDM/Glass Bead Ternary
Composites, Polym. Compos., 20(3): 413–422.
9. Liang, J. Z. and Wang, L. (2004). 2D FEM Simulation of Interfacial Stress in Tensile of PP–Rubber Alloy,
Elastomerics, 14(2): 49–52.

Downloaded from jrp.sagepub.com at CICY - Parent on March 10, 2016