Modeling and prediction of compressive creep of silane-treated TiO2/high-density polyethylene
Abstract
Silane-treated TiO2/high-density polyethylene (silane-TiO2/HDPE) is a potential bone substitute material with good bioactivity and mechanical properties. In this composite, 40 vol.% TiO2 particles were connected chemically with HDPE (high-density polyethylene) by silane-coupling agent. The intensive silane connection was believed to play very important role in compressive creep behavior of silane-TiO2/HDPE in our previous study. In order to deeply understand the relationship between the special structure and creep behavior, both a viscoelastic creep model named Burgers, and an empirical model called Findley power law were applied to simulate and predict the creep curves obtained in both air and saline solution. The results showed that Burgers model succeeded in simulating the creep curves but failed in long-term prediction for all dry samples, while Findley power law failed in simulating the creep curves in air but succeeded in saline solution. By analyzing the parameters obtained from Burgers model, it was believed that the structure of intense connection by silane chains resulted in the very big and gradually increased permanent viscous flow of this material with creep time. The big permanent viscous flow brought on the failure in simulating creep curves using Findley power law, and the improved permanent viscous flow during creep conduced to the positive deviation between the prediction and practical creep curve using Burgers model. The effect of saline solution around sample could not only decrease the permanent viscous flow but also stabilize it gradually, which resulted in the success in the prediction and simulation of creep curve in saline solution by the two models.
Keywords
TiO2 Creep Rate HDPE Creep Behavior Creep CurveReferences
- 1.Sheng N, Boyce MC, Parks DM, Rutledge GC, Abes JI, Cohen RE (2004) Polymer 45:487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Saeed MB, Zhan M (2007) Int J Adhes Adhes 27:306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Fu SY, Feng XQ, Lauke B, Ma YW (2008) Compos B 39:933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Yang J-L, Zhang Z, Schlarb AK, Friedrich K (2006) Polymer 47:2791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Zhou TH, Ruan WH, Yang JL, Rong MZ, Zhang MQ, Zhang Z (2007) Compos Sci Technol 7:2297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Tee DI, Mariatti M, Azizan A, See CH, Chong KF (2007) Compos Sci Technol 67:2584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Othman N, Ismail H, Mariatti M (2006) Polym Degrad Stab 91:1761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Zhang SM, Liu J, Zhou W, Cheng L, Guo XD (2005) Curr Appl Phys 5:516CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 9.Yang J-L, Zhang Z, Schlarb AK, Friedrich K (2006) Polymer 47:6745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Lietz S, Yang J, Bosch E, Sandler JKW, Zhang Z, Altstädt V (2007) Macromol Mater Eng 292:23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Wang ZD, Zha XX (2008) Mater Sci Eng A 486:517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Hashimoto M, Takadama H, Mizuno M, Kokubo T (2006) Mater Res Bull 41:515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Dong CX, Zhu SJ, Mizuno M, Hashimoto M (2010) J Mater Sci 45:1796. doi: 10.1007/s10853-009-4161-9 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 14.Ward IM (1983) Mechanical properties of solid polymers. Wiley, ChichersterGoogle Scholar
- 15.Burns ML, Kaleps I, Kazarian LE (1984) J Biomech 17:113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Li SP, Patwardhan AG, Amirouche FML, Havey R, Meade KP (1995) J Biomech 28(7):779CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Bowman SM, Keaveny TM, Gibson LJ, Hayes WC, McMahon TA (1994) J Biomech 27:301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Goldstein SA (1987) J Biomech 20:1055CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Yerramshetty JS, Akkus O (2008) Bone 42:476CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar