Dates of experiments - 16/11/2022

Experiment number - 05 & 06

Title: -

1). Blending Elastomers, Determination of Cure

characteristics, and Physico -Mechanical
Properties by the Preparation of None Marking
Tread Compound.

2). Non- black Synthetic Rubber Compound with

Mineral Fillers. (Door Stopper)

Name : - MEESARA N.D.S

Index Number : - EGT20508
Submission Date:- 23/11/2022
Summery

Aim of this experiment blending elastomers, determine of cure characteristics, and physico-

mechanical properties by the preparation of none marking tread compound. Aim of this

experiment 06 is non – black synthetic rubber compound with mineral fillers. This compound can

be used as door stopper.

Firstly, these wo compound were mixed using two roll mill. In this experiment 05, hydrated silica

was used as a reinforcing filler. SI69 was used as silicon coupling agent. Polyethylene Glycol

(PEG 4000) was used as non-reinforcing fillers. RSS rubber was blended with SBR 1502. Many

tests were done using these two samples.

After mastication process, MDR test were done using testing machine. Then using compression

molding press tensile sheets were made. Vulcanization time was 20 minutes and temperature was

150 ℃. Then samples were cut using PVS 3000 machine. Thereafter, Tensile test was done.

According to that test none marking tire tread compound higher strength. Then shore A test and

IRHD hardness tests were done. According to both of tests door stopper compound has higher

hardness. After that abrasion tests were done using Din Abrader machine. According to that door

stopper compound has higher abrasion loss. Therefore, it has low wear resistance. Finally,

rebound resilience tests were done using rebound resilience tester. According to that results, none

marking tire tread compound has higher rebound resilience value.

Introduction

A tire's distinctive black color comes from a substance called carbon black, which is also a

component of the composition that gives tires their durability and traction. However, as is the

case with any tire on the market, conventional black solid tires occasionally produce black dust

and black stains on the surface being utilized. Companies will desire to uphold particular

standards in specific industries and warehouse circumstances. Whether they are buying tires for

industrial uses like the production of glass or for food processing, making sure there is no carbon

black contamination can be crucial. In order to prevent dirt, residue, and stains from appearing on

warehouse floors, non-marking forklift tires are white.

Rubber mats, bumpers, door stoppers, flooring, etc. are only a few examples of the wide range of

low-cost non-black rubber compounds used by the manufacturing industries for rubber products.

In order to make these compounds affordable and the goods cost-competitive, a variety of

inexpensive fillers were chosen. Kaolin, ground calcium carbonate, recycled products, aluminum

silicate, calcium silicate, precipitated calcium carbonate, recycled product waste, industrial waste,

etc. are some examples of inexpensive fillers.

Experiment
Rubber Chemicals and Ingredients

Figure 22 – SI69 Figure 16 – Lovinox CPL

(Antioxidant)

This is use as Coupling agent This is an antioxidant. It is use for protect

the compound from ozone and oxygen.

This is use as a reinforcing filler

Figure 20 – Ground Calcium Carbonate
Figure 21 – Silica Filler
This is use as a filler.
 Figure 25 – Polythene Glycol (PEG 4000)

Figure 26 – Blue Color Pigment

This is use as Processing aid.
This is a pigment. Use for color the compound

Testing MDR Test – Moving

Die Rheometer Moving Die Rheometer is the standard testing method for characterization of rubber
curing. MDR Test was done according to ASTM D 5289.
Rubber vulcanizing
This test was done according to the ASTM D3182
Tensile test
Tensile test was done according to the ASTM D3039
Tear test
This test done according to the ASTM D624
Hardness test
Shore A hardness tester Shore A hardness test was done according to the ASTM D2240.
IRHD hardness tester
Test was done according to the D1415
Rebound resilience test
Test was done according to the DIN 53512
Density Test
This test was done according to the ASTM D792
Abrasion resistance test
Test was done according to the ASTM D5963-22
 Procedure

Mastication Process

1. Firstly, RSS 25.7 g and SBR 1502 102.8 g was cut using digital weighting scale.

2. Secondly, the weight of rubber and other ingredients according to the formulation was calculated.

3. Thirdly, Above Rubber ingredients were measured using digital scale.

4. The mill machine's rollers and surroundings were properly checked and cleaned.

5. The nip was made sure that free of objectives and other kind of obstruction.

6. The mill rolls and mill tray should be clean and free of dirt and other impurities.

7. The mill's lubricant and water circulation are working properly was checked.

8. The mill's nip was appropriately adjusted to zero adjustment and alignment was checked.

9. The safety devices were checked in good working order.

10. Oil Grease was Checked.

11. The water tap was closed and used cleaning rubber to warm up the mill rolls to around 60 degree

Celsius.

12. Raw RSS tackiness was checked.

13. Then RSS was cut into small pieces.

14. Nip size was adjusted to 1 mm.

15. RSS was put into the Mill

16. After RSS was masticated, Nip size was adjusted to 0.6 mm

17. Then Guider plates were adjusted.

18. SBR was added and masticated.

19. Then SBR was put in the RSS and RSS was rolled like sandwich.

20. Then it put into the mill.

21. Compound was masticated.

22. Nip size was adjusted to 0.7 mm.

23. While two rubbers were masticating Dispergum was added.

24. Then Compound was masticated.

25. Then ZnO and Stearic acid was added.

26. Again, Compound was mixed as distributive mixing.

27. Then Lovinox CPL (Antioxidants) was added.

28. After compound was mixed well, 1⁄2 of Kaolin and Naphthalic oil was added into compound.

29. Then Rubber was masticated.

30. 1⁄2 of CaCO3 was added into the compound.

31. Again, excess kaolin and excess naphthalic oil was added into compound.

32. After that compound was mixed well a distributive mixing.

33. Excess CaCO3 was added.

34. Then rubber was masticated well.

35. 1⁄2 amount of Petroleum resin was added and mixed.

36. Then excess Petroleum resin was added and mixed well.

37. Blue color pigments were added.

38. Guider plates were adjusted.

39. Titanium Dioxide was added.

40. Then rubber was cooled.

41. MBTS and CBS (Accelerators) were added.

42. Rubber was mixed.

43. Sulfur was added.

44. Again, rubber was mixed well.

45. Then compound was masticated.

46. Rubber was got out from mill and labelled.

Results And Observations

Table 1 – Average thickness All tests in Tire Tread Compound

Specimen Thicknesses (mm)

Sample Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 Average
Flow Direction
Tensile 1 2.256 2.246 2.224 2.242
Tensile 2 2.222 2.216 2.213 2.217
Tensile 3 2.218 2.218 2.238 2.225
Tear 1 2.296 2.249 2.27 2.272
Tear 2 2.251 2.301 2.26 2.271
Opposite Direction
Tensile 1 2.156 2.155 2.128 2.146
Tensile 2 2.143 2.162 2.158 2.154
Tensile 3 2.207 2.181 2.189 2.192
Tear 1 2.249 2.228 2.259 2.245
Tear 2 2.28 2.339 2.28 2.300
Hardness Buttons
HButton 1 11.8 11.884 11.857 11.847
HButton 2 11.984 12.021 11.983 11.996
HButton 3 11.963 11.922 11.947 11.944
HButton 4 11.842 11.867 11.862 11.857
 Table 2 – Average thickness All tests in Door Stopper

Specimen Thicknesses (mm)

Sample Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 Average
Flow Direction
Tensile 1 2.336 2.348 2.321 2.335
Tensile 2 2.221 2.215 2.246 2.227
Tensile 3 2.186 2.171 2.265 2.207
Tear 1 2.234 2.187 2.185 2.202
Tear 2 2.28 2.234 2.28 2.265
Opposite Direction
Tensile 1 2.321 2.354 2.355 2.343
Tensile 2 2.152 2.21 2.234 2.199
Tensile 3 2.165 2.185 2.235 2.195
Tear 1 2.295 2.193 2.117 2.202
Tear 2 2.345 2.22 2.147 2.237
Hardness Buttons
HButton 1 11.86 11.83 11.84 11.843
HButton 2 11.870 11.83 11.89 11.863
HButton 3 11.79 11.88 11.87 11.847
HButton 4 11.85 11.84 11.87 11.853
 Table 3 – Abrasion Test Results

After the After the Abrasion

Compound Sample Mass in air Density Abrasion Abrasion loss

(g) (gcm-3) test mass in test Density (cm3)

air (g) (gcm-3)

Non-marking 1 2.8790 1.306 2.0600 1.306 0.627

tire tread 2 2.8790 1.308 2.1125 1.308 0.584

compound 3 2.8760 1.307 2.1327 1.307 0.568

4 2.8640 1.308 2.0829 1.308 0.597

1 3.1159 1.4078 2.21 1.4078 0.710

Door stopper 2 3.1105 1.4103 2.28 1.4103 0.639

3 3.1104 1.4049 2.12 1.4049 0.542

4 3.1009 1.4601 2.19 1.4061 0.626

Table 4 – Rebound Resilience Test Tire Tread Compound

Rebound Resilience (%)

Sample Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 Average
HButton 1 71 73 68 70.67
HButton 2 69 68 72 69.67
HButton 3 74 73 68 71.67
HButton 4 67 66 68 67.00
 Table 5 – Rebound Resilience Test Door Stopper
Rebound Resilience (%)
Sample Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 Average
HButton 1 62 57 59 59.33
HButton 2 53 50 57 53.33
HButton 3 52 51 55 52.67
HButton 4 55 54 48 52.33

Table 6 – Hardness Test Tire Tread

Hardness Test(mm)
Sample Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 Average
IRHD Hardness
HButton 1 43.00 45.40 45.20 44.533
HButton 2 45.00 44.30 44.50 44.600
HButton 3 43.90 44.50 44.70 44.367
HButton 4 42.00 43.90 47.60 44.500
Shore Hardness (Shore A)
HButton 1 35.80 35.40 40.20 37.00
HButton 2 34.80 38.80 33.00 35.53
HButton 3 36.00 37.30 35.00 36.10
HButton 4 37.50 36.70 35.80 36.67

Table 7 – Hardness Test Door Stopper

Hardness Test (mm)
Sample Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 Average
IRHD Hardness
HButton 1 63.80 63.40 63.80 63.667
HButton 2 62.80 61.30 63.10 62.400
HButton 3 63.60 63.5 61.5 62.867
HButton 4 62.3 62.3 62.4 62.333
Shore Hardness (Shore A)
HButton 1 55.6 57.8 57.1 56.833
HButton 2 55.8 55.4 54.4 55.200
HButton 3 54.9 55 52.1 54.000
HButton 4 57 57.4 57.7 57.367
 Table 8 – Density Test Tire Tread Compound

Density Test
Density Average
Sample
(gcm-3) (gcm-3)
Abutton 1 1.306

Abutton 2 1.308
1.30725
Abutton 3 1.307

Abutton 4 1.308

Table 9 – Density Test Door Stopper

Density Test
Density Average
Sample
(gcm-3) (gcm-3)
Abutton 1 1.4078

Abutton 2 1.4103
1.4072
Abutton 3 1.4049

Abutton 4 1.4061
 Table 10 – Tensile Test Results

Tensile Strength
Elongation Force @ Strain @ Stress @ Young
Compound Cure Sample @ Brake Break Break Break Modulus
System (mm) (N) (%) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)

1 420.24 95.03 840.48 7.064 0.83

FD 2 458.42 118.91
118.910 916.84 8.939 0.89
3 436.87 111.30 873.74 8.337 0.89
Tire Tread
1 475.73 113.15 951.46 8.79 0.85
Compound
OD 2 452.96 113.53 905.92 8.63 0.88
3 446.15 105.88 892.30 8.05 0.83
1 302.74 27.47 605.48 1.961 0.40

Door FD 2 321.47 25.84 642.94 1.934 0.37

3 387.76 36.48 774.22 2.775 0.43
Stopper
1 374.03 33.14 748.06 2.35 0.37
Compound
OD 2 453.64 33.930 907.88 2.57 0.40
3 397.80 31.07 795.60 2.35 0.36

Table 11 – Tear Test Results

Tear Test
Compound Direction Sample Thickness (mm) Force @ peak
(N)
FD 1 2.272 49.69
Tire Tread 2 2.271 47.38
OD 1 2.300 48.78
2 2.245 50.87
FD 1 2.202 23.92
Door Stopper 2 2.265 27.71
OD 1 2.202 27.97
2 2.237 26.46
Figure 25 –Tensile Test of Tire Tread Compound Opposite Direction

Figure 26 - Tensile Test of Tire Tread Compound Flow Direction

 Figure 27 – Tensile Test of Door Stopper Compound Flow Direction

Figure 28 - Tensile Test of Door Stopper Compound Opposite Direction

 Figure 29 – Tear Test of Tire Tread Compound Flow Direction

Figure 30 – Tear Test of Tire Tread Compound Opposite Direction

 Figure 31 – Tear Test of the Door Stopper Flow Direction

Figure 32 – Tear Test of The Door Compound Opposite Direction

 TC90 MH

Figure 33 – MDR Report of Tire Tread Compound

ML
MI TS2

TC90
MH

Figure 34 – MDR Report of Door Stopper

MI ML TS2
 Calculations

Calculations for ingredients for technical compounds.

• Fill Factor = 300 g / 233.5 g = 1.28 g

Table 124 – Tire Tread Formulation

Formulation
Material For the batch (g)
(phr)
RSS Grade 1/2/3 70.00 98.04
SBR 1502 30.00 42.02
Zinc Oxide 5.00 7.00
Stearic Acid 2.00 2.80
Kaolin 30.00 42.02
Ground CCO3 30.00 42.02
Hydrated Silica 30.00 42.02
Polyethylene Glycol 3.00 4.20
SI69 3.00 4.20
Naphthenic Oil 6.00 8.40
TBBS 1.40 1.96
TMTM 0.30 0.42
Sulfur 2.50 3.50
Non-staining
1.00 1.40
Antioxidants
TiO2 0.00
Color Pigment 0.00
Total 214.20 300.00
 Table 135 – Door Stopper Weight Calculation
Formulation
Material For the batch (g)
(phr)
RSS Grade 4/5 20.00 25.70
SBR 1502 80.00 102.78
Zinc Oxide 4.00 5.14
Stearic Acid 2.00 2.57
Kaolin 60.00 77.09
Ground CCO3 50.00 64.24
Naphthenic Oil 10.00 12.85
Petroleum Resin 3.00 3.85
MBTS 1.00 1.28
CBS 0.5(TMTM 0.2) 0.50 0.64
Sulfur 2.00 2.57
Non-staining
1.00 1.28
Antioxidants
Total 233.50 300.00

Abrasion loss calculation

AA = ∆𝑚𝑡 . 𝑆0 / d𝑡 . 𝑆

AA = Abrasion loss

∆𝑚𝑡 = mass loss of test piece

𝑆0 = Normal abrasiveness

d𝑡 = density of the rubber

𝑆0 = Abrasiveness

𝐴A of BR sample 1= (0.33∗0.2) /( 1.122∗0.2)

= 0.066 / 0.2244
= 0.29
Curing rate calculation:

Curing rate of non-marking tire tread compound = 100 / (Tc90-Ts2)

= 100 / (4.53-2.25)

= 43.86 min-1

Curing rate of door stopper compound = 100 / (Tc90-Ts2)

= 100 / (7.24-3.24)

= 25 min-1

Thermoelectricity calculations:

Thermoelectricity non-marking tire tread compound = MI-ML

= 1.7-1.36

= 0.34 dNm

Thermoelectricity of door stopper = MI-ML

= 1.7-0.5

= 1.2 dNm

Tensile strength calculation

Tensile strength = Force@ Break / Area

Elastic modulus calculation

Elastic modulus = stress / strain

Discussion

In this experiment, two compounds were prepared. They are none marking tire tread compounds

and Non-black synthetic rubber compounds with mineral fillers. This synthetic compound is used

as a doorstopper.

Hydrated silica was used as a reinforcing filler in this none marking tire tread compound. SI69

was used as a coupling agent to enhance the compatibility of silicon and rubbers. Titanium

dioxide was used for set shining and whitening the compound.

In non-black synthetic rubber compounds, kaolin and calcium carbonate (Ground) were used as

non-reinforcing fillers. Naphthalic oil was used as the plasticizer. CBS was used as cheaper

chemicals were used because this compound is a highly valuable chemical and raw material.

There are different chemical and mechanical properties in these two compounds. Experiment 04

was also a tire tread compound. This experiment 04 and 05 also have different properties.

According to experiments 04 and 05, Results can be discussed.

According to the IRHD Hardness test SBR tire tread compound has higher hardness than the none

marking tire tread compound value is 71.045 mm. None marking tire tread compound average

value is 62.816 mm.

According to the shore A hardness test, the SBR tire tread compound has higher hardness than

none marking tire tread compound. SBR compound average value 92.68 shore A. Nona marking

tire tread compound average value is 55.85 Shore A.

According to tear test results, SBR tire tread compound has high tear resistance than the none

marking tire tread compound. SBR tire tread compound value is 174.05 N. None marking tire

tread compound value is 49.18 N. none marking tire tread compound has low tear resistance.

According to abrasion test results, none marking tire tread compound has a higher abrasion value

than the SBR tire tread compound. None marking tire tread abrasion value is 0.7775. SBR tire

tread compound abrasion value is 2.22. It means toughness and abrasion resistance are high in

none marking tire tread compound.

According to rebound resilience test results, none marking tire tread compound has a higher

rebound resilience value than the SBR tire tread compound. None marking tire tread compound

value is 69.75 %. SBR tire tread compound value is 59.9175%.

According to tensile test results, the SBR tire tread compound has higher tensile strength than the

none marking tire tread compound. SBR tire tread compound tensile strength value is

16.36 Nmm-2 . None marking tire tread compound tensile strength value is 8.3 Nmm-2.

Table 03 shows that abrasion test results. According to the results door stopper has higher average

abrasion loss than the none marking tire tread compound. Its value is 0.629. It means door stopper

has low wear resistance.

Table 06 and 07 shows that IRHD hardness test results and shore a Hardness test results in none

marking tire tread compound and door stopper compound. According to the tables, door stopper

compound has higher hardness value than the other. Its IRHD average value is 62.816 mm.
Door stopper compound has higher shore A hardness value. it is average is 55.85 shore A.

according to both table results, door stopper compound has high hardness.

According to table 08 and 09, door stopper compound has high density.

According to table 10 tensile results table, none marking tire tread compound has higher tensile

strength than the door stopper compound. It is value is 8.3 Nmm-2. None marking tire tread

compound has higher elongation @break value. Its value is 448.4 mm.

Table 04, 05 shows rebound resilience test results. According to that table, none marking tire tread

compound has higher rebound resilience value than the door stopper compound. Door stopper

compound rebound resilience average value is 42.66.

Conclusion
The results show that door stopper compound has the poorest mechanical qualities, making it

unable to support heavy loads. The door stopper compound doesn't contain any fillers that act as

reinforcement. Because it can be used when a low cost and minimal qualities are needed, the

compound is less expensive. The cost of the unit price can be reduced and the compound's

qualities can also be reduced when non-reinforcing fillers are utilized.

Comparatively to the door stopper compound, the non-marking tire tread compound has better

mechanical properties.

References
• www.polymax.co.uk
• www.sentrytire.com
• www.google.com