Issue
Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering,
Vol.28, No.10, 2057-2063, 2011
Dynamic-mechanical behavior of polyethylenes and ethene-/α-olefin-copolymers: Part III. γ-relaxation
The temperature- and frequency-dependent dynamic-mechanical properties in the temperature regime of the γ-transition were determined for a number of polyethylenes and ethylene/α-olefin-copolymers differing in their crystallinity and crystal morphology. The temperature dependence of the γ-transition was found to obey the Arrhenius law for thermally activated processes. The γ-transition temperature determined at a frequency of 1 Hz and the corresponding activation energy were analyzed as a function of the crystallinity. As an overall trend, both quantities are found to decrease with decreasing crystallinity, which is explained by the increase in free volume due to the incorporation of short-chain branches or the thermal pretreatment (e.g., quenching). Taking into account that the crystal morphology of polyethylenes can be classified into four different groups, a more detailed picture appears. Within one type of morphology both quantities, namely the transition temperature and the activation energy, increase with decreasing crystallinity independent of the α-olefin used as the comonomer. These findings can be explained by partial orientations of the molecule segments in the interlamellar amorphous space in the case of HDPE or by the increased steric hindrance of the crankshaft motion by the short-chain branches. From the findings of this series of studies, it was concluded that the glass transition in polyethylene and polyethylene/α-olefin-copolymers is the β- and not the γ-transition.
[References]
  1. Stehling FC, Mandelkern L, Macromolecules., 3, 242, 1970
  2. Hartwig G, Polymer properties at room and cryogenic temperatures, New York, Plenum Press, 1994
  3. Illers K, Coll. Polym. Sci., 251, 394, 1973
  4. Illers K, Coll. Polym. Sci., 252, 1, 1974
  5. Khanna Y, Turi E, Taylor T, Vickroy V, Abbott R, Macromolecules., 18, 1302, 1985
  6. Matthews RG, Unwin AP, Ward IM, Capaccio G, Journal of Macromolecular Science-Physics., B38(1-2), 123, 1999
  7. Clas SD, Mcfaddin DC, Russell KE, J. Polym. Sci. Part B-Polym. Phys., 25, 5, 1057
  8. Jordens K, Wilkes GL, Janzen J, Rohlfing DC, Welch MB, Polymer., 41, 19, 7175
  9. Cerrada ML, Benavente R, Pena B, Perez E, Polymer., 41, 15, 5957
  10. Nitta KH, Tanaka A, Polymer, 42(3), 1219, 2001
  11. Shan CLP, Soares JBP, Penlidis A, Polymer, 43(3), 767, 2002
  12. Benavente R, Perez E, Yazdani-Pedram M, Quijada R, Polymer, 43(25), 6821, 2002
  13. Boyd RH, Polymer., 26, 323, 1985
  14. Ward IM, Hadley DW, The yield behaviour of polymers, In Sons, J.W., Ed., Polymer, Chichester, England, 11, 213, 1993
  15. Boyer R, Rubber Chem. Technol., 34, 1303, 1963
  16. Shatzki T, J. Polym. Sci., 57, 496, 1962
  17. Boyd RH, Polymer., 26, 1123, 1985
  18. Stadler FJ, Kaschta J, Munstedt H, Polymer, 46(23), 10311, 2005
  19. Stadler FJ, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 28(3), 954, 2011
  20. Stadler FJ, Kaschta J, Munstedt H, Macromolecules, 41(4), 1328, 2008
  21. Resch JA, Stadler FJ, Kaschta J, Munstedt H, Macromolecules, 42(15), 5676, 2009
  22. Bates FS, J. Rosedale H, Fredrickson GH, J. Chem. Phys., 92(10), 6255, 1990
  23. Almdal K, Bates FS, Mortensen K, J. Chem. Phys., 96(12), 9122, 1992
  24. Stadler FJ, Express Polym. Lett., 5(4), 327, 2011
  25. Gaur U, Wunderlich B, Macromolecules., 13(6), 1618, 1980
  26. Leibler L, Macromolecules., 13(6), 1602, 1980
  27. Laredo E, Suarez N, Bello A, Marquez L, J. Polym. Sci. B: Polym. Phys., 34(4), 641, 1996
  28. Laredo E, Suarez N, Bello A, de Gascue BR, Gomez MA, Fatou JMG, Polymer, 40(23), 6405, 1999
  29. Bensason S, Nazarenko S, Chum S, Hiltner A, Baer E, Polymer, 38(14), 3513, 1997
  30. Stadler FJ, Takahashi T, Yonetake K, e-Polymers., 40, 2009
  31. Stadler FJ, Takahashi T, Yonetake K, e-Polymers., 41, 2009
  32. Tanem BS, Stori A, Polymer, 42(15), 6609, 2001
  33. Glowinkowski S, Makrocka-Rydzyk M, Wanke S, Jurga S, European Polym. J., 38(5), 961, 2002
  34. Most of the activation energies determined were significantly larger than the value of 38 kJ/mol reported by Gl.owinkowski et al. [33] and Hartwig [2]. The reason for these differences might lie in the measurement method, as both groups determined the activation energy by NMR, which seems not to produce comparable results with dynamic- mechanical measurements due to the different length scales being analyzed (see also part II of this series [19]).
  35. Popli R, Glotin M, Mandelkern L, J. Polym. Sci. Part B: Polym.Phys., 407, 1983