Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 26, Issue 23, pp 6249–6259 | Cite as

Modes of deformation in rubber-modified thermoplastics during tensile impact

  • R. A. Bubeck
  • D. J. BuckleyJr.
  • E. J. Kramer
  • H. R. Brown


Real-time small-angle X-ray scattering (RTSAXS) studies were performed on a series of rubber-modified thermoplastics. Scattering patterns were measured at successive time intervals as short as 1.8 ms and were analysed to determine the plastic strain due to crazing. Simultaneous measurements of the absorption of the primary beam by the sample allowed the total plastic strain to be computed. The plastic strain due to other deformation mechanisms, e.g. particle cavitation and macroscopic shear deformation was determined by the difference. Samples of commercial thicknesses can be studied at high rates of deformation without the inherent limitations of microscopy and its requirement of thin samples (i.e., plane strain constraint is maintained on sample morphology).

Contrary to the conclusions drawn from many previous dilatation-based studies, it has been demonstrated that the strain due to non-crazing mechanisms, such as rubber particle cavitation, and deformation of the glassy ligaments between rubber particles, occurs before that due to crazing mechanisms. Crazing accounts for at most only half of the total plastic strain in HIPS (high impact polystyrene) and ABS (rubber-modified styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer) materials. The proportion of strain attributable to crazing can be much less than half the total in thermoplastic systems with considerable shear yield during plastic deformation.

The predominant deformation mechanism in polycarbonate-ABS blends is shear in the PC (polycarbonate) with associated rubber gel particle cavitation in the ABS. This cavitation means that there appears to be a direct relationship between gel particle rubber content in the ABS and toughness of the blend. The mechanism is the same whether the tensile stress is in the direction parallel or perpendicular to the injection-moulded orientation, with simply less total strain being reached before fracture in the weaker perpendicular direction. Crazing, although the precursor to final fracture, occurs after the predominant mechanism and contributes only a few per cent to the total plastic deformation.


Cavitation Rubber Particle Rubber Content Tensile Impact High Impact Polystyrene 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R. A. Bubeck, J. A. Blazy, E. J. Kramer, D.J. Buckley Jr., and H. R. Brown, Polym. Commun. 27 (1986) 357.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Idem., Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 79 (1987) 293.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. B. Bucknall and D. Clayton, J. Mater. Sci. 7 (1972) 202.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. B. Bucknall, D. Clayton and W. E. Keast, ibid. 7 (1972) 1443.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Idem., ibid. 8 (1973) 514.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. B. Bucknall and I. C. Drinkwater, ibid. 8 (1973) 1800.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. B. Bucknall and W. W. Stevens, ibid. 15 (1980) 2950.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. B. Bucknall and C. J. Page, J. Mater. Sci. 17 (1982) 808.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. B. Bucknall, I. K. Partridge and M. V. Ward, ibid. 19 (1984) 2064.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. B. Bucknall and S. E. Reddock, ibid. 20 (1985) 1434.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. B. Bucknall, F. F. P. Cote and I. K. Partridge, ibid. 21 (1986) 301.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. B. Bucknall, P. Davies and I. K. Partridge, ibid. 21 (1986) 307.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Idem, ibid. 22 (1987) 1341.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. B. Bucknall, “Toughened Plastics” (Applied Science, London (1977), Ch. 7 and 8.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. B. Bucknall, C. J. Page and V. O. Young, in “Toughness and Brittleness of Plastics”, edited by R. D. Deanin and A. M. Crugnola Adv. Chem. 154) (American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, (1976) Ch. 15.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. A. Maxwell and A. F. Yee, Polym. Engng Sci. 21 (1981) 205.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    P. J. Fenelon and J. R. Wilson, ibid. 15, Ch. 20.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    E. Parades and E. W. Fischer, Makromol. Chem. 180 (1979) 2707.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    H. R. Brown and E. J. Kramer, J. Macromol. Sci.-Phys., 19B (1981) 487.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. J. Buckley, Jr., E. J. Kramer, R. A. Bubeck and H. R. Brown, to be submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    E. R. Moore, ed., in “Encyclopedia of Polymer Engineering and Science”, 2nd Edn, Vol. 16 (John Wiley, Chichester, 1989) pp. 1–246.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    H.-J. Sue and A. F. Yee, J. Mater. Sci. 24 (1989) 1447.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    P. J. Mills, H. R. Brown and E. J. Kramer, ibid. 20 (1985) 4413.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. M. Donald and E. J. Kramer, ibid. 17 (1982) 1871.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    H. Breuer, J. Stabenow and F. Haaf, International Conference on Toughened Plastics (Plastics and Rubber Institute, London, 1978) Paper 13.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    R. A. Bubeck and D. J. Moll, Unpublished results.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    D. G. Gilbert and A. M. Donald, J. Mater. Sci. 21 (1986) 1819.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. A. Bubeck
    • 1
  • D. J. BuckleyJr.
    • 2
  • E. J. Kramer
    • 2
  • H. R. Brown
    • 3
  1. 1.Materials Science and Development LaboratoryThe Dow Chemical CompanyMidlandUSA
  2. 2.Department of Materials Science and Engineering and the Materials Science Center, Bard HallCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  3. 3.IBM Research DivisionAlmaden Research CenterSan JoseUSA

Personalised recommendations