Characterization of Acrylonitrile–Butadiene–Styrene (ABS)
Copolymer Blends With Foreign Polymers Using Fracture
Mechanism Maps
Jihun An,1 Chulhong Kim,2 Byoung-Ho Choi,1 Jeong-Moo Lee3
1
School of Mechanical Engineering, Korea University, 1 5-ga, Anam-dong, Sungbuk-gu, Seoul 136–701,
Republic of Korea
2
Monitor R&D Lab., LG Electronics Inc., 19-1 Cheongho-ri, Jinwi-myeon, Pyeongtaek-si, Gyeonggi-do 451–713,
Republic of Korea
3
Tech Center, LG Chem Ltd., 84 Jang-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305–343, Republic of Korea
To commercially produce consumer products using engi-
neering polymers, it is very important to control the physi-
cal properties of the material. However, quality control of
the material is not easy because of many reasons such as
cost reduction, cleaning issues, the use of scraps, etc. In
many cases, even a small amount of foreign polymers can
lead to product failures; however, analyzing such foreign
polymers is difficult by using conventional analytical tech-
niques. This article introduces a methodology to evaluate
the durability of acrylonitrile–butadiene–styrene copoly-
mers containing foreign polymers by using fracture mech-
anism maps (FMMs). In addition, the importance of the
ductile-to-brittle transition temperature (DBTT) as a quan-
titative tool is discussed. In this article, the measurement
of DBTT was proposed as a direct tool of characterizing
polymer blends with similar chemical structure, and the
concept of a FMM was applied as a qualitative tool to initi-
ate the detailed investigation of fractures, as well as a
quality control tool to sustain the fracture toughness of
the final products. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 54:2791–2798, 2014.
C 2013 Society of Plastics Engineers
V
INTRODUCTION
The use of engineering polymers has now become very popu-
lar. Therefore, quality control has become an important issue.
Because of a number of reasons such as the use of scraps,
improper cleaning processes, inattentive product management,
etc., foreign polymers get mixed with new polymers during the
molding of a product. Such mixing can lead to unexpected prod-
uct failures, which can be disastrous for the product. In many
cases, even a small amount of foreign polymers can lead to
product failures; however, analyzing such foreign polymers is
difficult by using conventional analytical techniques.
In particular, the use of scraps make the quality control very
complicated because of the unknown history of the scrap mate-
rial and difficulties in the complete separation of the scrap from
the contaminants [1]. The Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries
(ISRI) Scrap Specifications Circular strictly prescribes that no
more than 2% of the total contaminants from non-plastic or
Correspondence to: B.-H. Choi; e-mail: cqbiho@hanmail.net or
bhchoi@korea.ac.kr
Contract grant sponsor: National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant
funded by the Korea government; contract grant number: NRF-2012-047585.
DOI 10.1002/pen.23836
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
C 2013 Society of Plastics Engineers
V qualitative tool to understand the non-linear or discontinuous
POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—2014
non-identified plastic in the grade be allowed per bale [2]. How-
ever, the criteria regarding the physical properties of polymers
added with scraps vary according to the end users. Therefore,
many physical properties, such as solid and volatile contami-
nants, odor, moisture content, color/clarity, bulk density, flam-
mability, melt index, intrinsic viscosity, and basic mechanical
properties have to be measured as per the internal regulations of
the end users. However, because the recycled scrap is usually
mixed up with new polymer, it is very important that the chemi-
cal composition of the scraps is similar to that of the polymer to
be mixed with. However, conventional analytical approaches are
not very effective to analyze the polymer blending with scraps.
Acrylonitrile–butadiene–styrene (ABS) copolymer is one of
the common engineering plastics used in many consumer elec-
tronics, such as televisions and monitors, because of its balanced
mechanical and physical properties. In addition, the use of ABS
blended with poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA/ABS) (MABS)
copolymers is also common in the world of engineering plastic
markets [3]. ABS is a highly functional terpolymer of acryloni-
trile, styrene, and rubber-like butadiene. Therefore, unless large
stress is given in a short time, unexpected failures such as dis-
coloration, cracking, and distortions do not occur easily [4].
However, it is also common that the original mechanical proper-
ties get changed in case the selected ABS is blended with addi-
tional resins, which is usually done to reduce costs [4].
Moreover, such ABS blends frequently become less tough so
that the consumer product made from such blends can fail unex-
pectedly, as shown in Fig. 1. Moreover, in case of glossy ABS
resins, the gloss level of the product can be affected by adding
foreign polymers. Compatibility between different engineering
polymers is very important to maintain the physical properties
of the blended polymers [5]. In case of ABS, it is generally
accepted to blend polycarbonate (PC), PMMA, poly(butylene
terephthalate) (PBT), styrene–acrylonitrile (SAN), and poly(vi-
nyl chloride) (PVC). Although these polymers can be blended
within a certain compatibility range, it is not possible to achieve
a perfect blending because of many technical issues. Moreover,
it is sometimes not easy to identify the foreign polymers if their
amount is small or their chemical structure is similar to that of
the base ABS material.
The fracture mechanism map (FMM) is a unique tool to map
the variation of fracture mechanisms as a function of appropriate
parameters. FMM is successfully applied to metals [6], and fail-
ure mechanisms of some engineering polymers can also be ana-
lyzed by evaluating FMM [7]. Hence, FMM can be used as a
 formed to confirm the dispersion of samples. TEM samples
were prepared by cryo-polishing at 280 C using a Leica C
Ultramicrotome/FC cryo-chamber using a diamond knife, and
the samples were dried at 40 C for 10–20 min. In Table 1, key
physical properties of blend components in this study are
shown.
After performing an impact test, the morphology of the frac-
ture surfaces was observed using optical microscopy (OM) and
scanning electron microscopy (SEM, model Hitachi S-400). The
morphology of the fracture surfaces was used as an indication
of the ductility of the material. OM was used to analyze the
macroscopic failure patterns of the sample as an initial screening
for the failure mechanisms. SEM was used to study the mor-
phologies more precisely and clarify the details of the failure
mechanisms of the fractured specimens.
FIG. 1. Example of unexpected failed frame of LCD monitor. [Color figure
The understanding of the thermal history can be important
can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.] for the initial investigation of the blends by simulating the
actual physical properties of product. In order to test the blends
by DSC, the samples were prepared initially by injection mold-
variation of mechanical properties because of the change in the ing and were powdered (0.5–100 mg), instead of making their
fracture mechanism. pellets. DSC measurements were made using the DSC-2010
In this study, three types of ABS-based blends were pre- model from TA instruments and the measurement temperature
pared: ABS with ABS 1 PMMA, ABS with other ABS, and was varied from 40 C to 250 C with a heating rate of 10 C/
ABS with high-impact polystyrene (HIPS). The article discusses min.
the variations in their physical properties by using various con- Pellets with diameter of 2 mm and height of 2.5 mm were
ventional analytical techniques. It also discusses the advantages used for torsional measurements. The rheological characteristics
and disadvantages of conventional analytical techniques, such as of the blends were analyzed by using a torsional rheometer
differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), torsional rheometry, model Rheometrics Mechanical Spectrometer (RMS) 800 from
Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, on the basis of Rheometrics. The measurements were made in the 40 C–130 C
the composition of the blends to identify the samples. In particu- range at 10 Hz torsional frequency.
lar, the origin of unexpected failures, as shown in Fig. 1, is ana- The chemical structure of the blends was determined by
lyzed by focusing on the variation in the toughness of the measuring the wave numbers of the corresponding molecular
blends. The failure mechanisms of the blends are qualitatively vibrations. FTIR spectroscopy was conducted using a Spectrum-
analyzed within the framework of FMM, and the quantitative GX model from Perkin Elmer. The same blends that were used
characteristics of the impact toughness of the blends are investi- in the powder form for the DSC measurements were used to
gated by observing the corresponding ductile-to-brittle transition observe the variations in the chemical structures. FTIR scans
temperatures (DBTT). Based on FMM and DBTT, a new meth- were measured 32 times and the final results were constructed
odological approach to estimate the probability of unacceptable by adding all the scans.
and unexpected failures of the blends in advance is also
discussed.
TABLE 2. Composition of test blends with the tensile tests at 100 mm/
min.
MATERIALS AND EXPERIMENTS
Yield Yield Tensile
In this study, 16 ABS-based samples were prepared by mix- strain strength toughness
ing three types of foreign polymers: ABS, ABS blended with Blends (mm/mm) (MPa) (kN mm)
PMMA, and HIPS. A commercial grade ABS (ABS1), com-
monly used as chassis or frame material for televisions and ABS1 100% 0.370 32.47 18.45
monitors, was blended with another commercial grade ABS ABS1 90% 1 MABS 10% 0.311 34.22 19.20
ABS1 80% 1 MABS 20% 0.296 34.61 21.11
(ABS2), MABS, and HIPS in the range of 10–100 wt%. Trans-
ABS1 70% 1 MABS 30% 0.281 34.94 19.29
mission electron microscopy (TEM) observations were per- ABS1 60% 1 MABS 40% 0.309 39.19 17.11
MABS 100% 0.263 44.07 17.84
TABLE 1. Key physical properties of blend components. ABS1 90% 1 ABS2 10% 0.321 34.25 22.49
ABS1 80% 1 ABS2 20% 0.341 35.16 21.04
Heat deflection ABS1 70% 1 ABS2 30% 0.371 34.81 18.13
Density Melt flow index temperature Rockwell ABS1 60% 1 ABS2 40% 0.306 34.34 20.40
(g/cm3) (g/10 min) ( C) hardness ABS2 100% 0.315 35.92 25.17
ABS1 90% 1 HIPS 10% 0.389 30.88 25.17
ABS1 1.40 45.0 86.0 109.0 ABS1 80% 1 HIPS 20% 0.242 26.92 13.32
ABS2 1.40 33.6 89.3 111.7 ABS1 70% 1 HIPS 30% 0.204 26.52 11.75
MABS 1.11 11.5 88.0 116.0 ABS1 60% 1 HIPS 40% 0.188 24.74 13.61
HIPS 1.04 6.4 79.0 82.3 HIPS 100% 0.691 16.15 24.38

2792 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—2014 DOI 10.1002/pen

 FIG. 2. Morphology observed by transmission electron microscope (TEM): (a) ABS1 100%, (b) ABS1
(70%) 1 MABS (30%), (c) MABS 100%, (d) ABS1 (70%) 1 ABS2 (30%), (e) ABS2 100%, (f) ABS1 (70%) 1 HIPS
(30%) with large scale, (g) ABS (70%) 1 HIPS (30%) with small scale, and (h) HIPS.

Tensile tests were performed on all the 16 blends to investi- specimens were fabricated according to the standard ASTM
gate changes in the tensile properties of the materials as the per- D638. The tensile tests were carried out at room temperature by
centage of the additional blends was increased. The tensile means of an MTS 810 servo-hydraulic test machine at a

FIG. 3. Observation of glass transition temperatures using torsional rheometer: (a) ABS1 1 MABS,
(b) ABS1 1 ABS2, (c) ABS1 1 HIPS, and (d) glass transition temperature as a function of blend compositions.
[Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

DOI 10.1002/pen POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—2014 2793


FIG. 4. Variation of Fourier-transform infrared spectra: (a) ABS1 1 MABS
and (b) ABS1 1 HIPS. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue,
which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
crosshead speed of 50 mm/min. Table 2 shows the tensile test
results of all the tested samples.
Notched Izod impact tests based on ASTM D256 were per-
formed to evaluate variations in the impact toughness of the
blends for a wide range of temperatures from 240 C to 25 C.
Samples for the notched Izod impact tests were prepared by
injection molding with thickness of 2.5 mm and 3.2 mm to eval-
uate variations in the stress condition ranging from plane stress
to plane strain [8]. Notched Izod impact tests were performed
on three specimens to optimize the test procedures and sample
conditions. Preliminary tests for the conditioning of the speci-
mens were performed to ensure the reproducibility of the result
for tests at low temperatures. After freezing the specimens for
24 hr, all tests at low temperatures were completed within
7 sec. An Izod impact tester, TO-700DC from HY Science, with
digital indicator was used for these tests.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Characterization of Samples by Various Conventional
Characterization Analyses
In Fig. 2, the morphology of the selected blends observed by
TEM is shown. In general, the dispersion of the fillers for all
blends is good, thus confirming that there is no specific problem
with the preparation of the test blends.
2794 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—2014
DSC curves were analyzed for all samples. The glass transi-
tion temperature, Tg, of ABS1 was observed at 103.4 C. How-
ever, Tg of the PMMA phase of MABS and the PS phase of
HIPS is similar and, therefore, the discrimination of MABS and
HIPS from ABS1 is very difficult. Of course, ABS1 and ABS2
show almost identical DSC curves. Therefore, DSC may not be
a suitable tool to identify such blends. It is well known that tor-
sional rheometer is more sensitive in measuring Tg than DSC.
The variation of tan d as a function of temperature is shown in
Fig. 3a–c for all samples, while in Fig. 3d, the measured Tg are
plotted as a function of the weight percentage of the blends. Tg
measured by the torsional rheometer is higher than that meas-
ured by DSC. The ABS1 1 MABS blends show almost the same
Tg of 110 C, regardless of the blend composition. The glass
transition of ABS1 and ABS2 is found to occur at similar tem-
peratures of 110 C and 107 C, and the variation of Tg is a linear
function of the blend composition. In case of ABS1 1 HIPS
blends, Tg of HIPS is 105 C and is mixed up with that of ABS1
at 110 C. The peak at 110 C is dominant up to 40% of HIPS.
The miscibility of amorphous polymers can be inferred by
changes in Tg [9]. However, this can only be done in cases
where the polymers show different Tg. In the present case, the
measurement of Tg for characterizing the polymer blends is not
recommended.
The FTIR spectrum of pure ABS shows the characteristic
absorption band of aromatic CAH stretching at 3028 cm21 and
a band of aliphatic CAH stretching located at 2926 cm21. A
band of CBN stretching appears at 2237 cm21 and a band at
1602 cm21 is related to aromatic ring stretching. The peaks
identified in the spectra at 1030 cm21 and 700 cm21 correspond
to the aromatic CAH in-plane and out-of-plane bending, respec-
tively [10]. The bands of the C@C bonds from styrene are
located between 1400 cm21 and 1600 cm21 [11], and the peak
of unsaturated trans C@C (vinyl) stretching in polybutadiene at
969 cm21 are also observed [12–14]. The absorbance band cor-
responding to the 1,2-butadiene terminal vinyl CAH band in
polybutadiene appeared at 911 cm21 [12, 15]. There are bands
of styrene, nitrile, and butadiene in the FTIR spectrum of ABS,
because ABS consists of a continuous phase of styrene/acryloni-
trile partially grafted into a dispersed butadiene phase [16].
The blends with ABS1 1 ABS2 show no changes in the
FTIR spectra, because the chemical composition of the two
materials is identical. However, in case of ABS1 1 MABS, as
shown in Fig. 4a, on increasing the weight percentage of
MABS, two typical FTIR peaks at 1146 cm21 (CAO stretching
vibration) and 1731 cm21 (C@O carbonyl stretching vibration)
increase due to the larger proportion of PMMA elements in
MABS. In addition, some peaks can be attributed to PMMA ele-
ments in the ABS phase: two peaks at 810 cm21 and 750 cm21,
respectively, represent CH2 rocking vibrations [17]. Symmetrical
bending vibration (dS) of ACH3 appears at 1387 cm21 [18].
Several peaks, especially the symmetrical stretching mode CAH
at 2950 cm21 and the asymmetrical stretching mode CAH at
2993 cm21, are observed, originating from methyl groups [18,
19]. In case of ABS1 1 HIPS blends, on increasing the weight
percentage of HIPS, the typical peak of ABS1 at 2237 cm21
(CBN nitrile stretching vibration) decreases, as shown in Fig.
4b. Many peaks of HIPS elements overlap with those of ABS,
so the characteristic peaks of ABS should be traced to analyze
ABS 1 HIPS blends. In summary, FTIR can be a good screening
DOI 10.1002/pen
 FIG. 5. Variation of Izod impact toughness for specimens with a thickness of 3.2 mm: (a) ABS1 1 MABS,
(b) ABS1 1 ABS2, and (c) ABS1 1 HIPS. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at
wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
tool for polymer blends if there are unusual peaks, but this
method may not be appropriate for some practical cases such as
blending with foreign polymers having a similar chemical
structure.
DBTT
The failure, as shown Fig. 1, is mainly caused by a reduction
in the fracture toughness. Conventional analytical tools do not
directly explain the variations in the fracture toughness of the
blends. Moreover, in case of polymer blends that have similar
chemical structures and physical properties, it is very difficult to
identify them. Therefore, we measured variations in the fracture
toughness by the Izod impact test in a wide range of temperatures
to observe the variation of the DBTT of the blends. Figure 5
shows the Izod impact test results of all blends with a thickness
of 3.2 mm. In case of ABS1 1 MABS blends (Fig. 5a), the Izod
impact toughness of MABS is much lower than that of ABS1;
therefore, the Izod impact toughness curve falls continuously as
the weight percentage of MABS increases. In case of
ABS1 1 ABS2 (Fig. 5b), although the impact toughness of
ABS1 and ABS2 at 25 C and 240 C is almost identical, the
variation in the Izod impact toughness is different. At lower
temperatures of around 220 C to 10 C, which may be common
DOI 10.1002/pen
temperature ranges for consumer products, ABS1 becomes
tougher than ABS2; thus, ABS2 may be fractured easily. The
ABS1 1 ABS2 blends show an intermediate Izod impact tough-
ness, depending on the blend composition. In case of
ABS1 1 HIPS blends (Fig. 5c), the variation of the Izod impact
toughness is more complicated. Due to the incompatibility of
the two polymers, though the Izod impact toughness of HIPS is
not extremely bad, the resulting Izod impact toughness of
ABS1 1 HIPS blends is even lower than that of HIPS. The Izod
impact toughness of ABS1 1 HIPS blends starts to significantly
decrease as soon as a small amount of HIPS is blended and
drops further as the weight percentage of HIPS increases. The
blending of such incompatible polymers, thus, causes a signifi-
cant product failure even if only a small weight fraction of the
foreign polymer is present. Therefore, it can be concluded that
the measurement of the DBTT is very effective to quantify the
variation in the fracture toughness [20, 21] of the blends, regard-
less of the chemical structure of the blend components.
In addition, the thickness of the specimen can be another
important factor to control the Izod impact toughness. In Fig. 6,
the Izod impact test results are shown for all the blends with a
thickness of 2.5 mm. The general trend of the test results shown
in Figs. 5 and 6 is similar, but the fracture toughness of
the samples with a thickness of 3.2 mm is higher than that with
POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—2014 2795
 FIG. 6. Variation of Izod impact toughness for specimens with a thickness of 2.5 mm: (a) ABS1 1 MABS,
(b) ABS1 1 ABS2, and (c) ABS1 1 HIPS. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at
wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

FIG. 7. Fracture surfaces of selected samples observed by scanning electron microscope (SEM). [Color figure can
be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

2796 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—2014 DOI 10.1002/pen

 FIG. 8. Fracture mechanism maps for all blends: (a) ABS1 1 MABS, (b) ABS1 1 ABS2, and (c) ABS1 1 HIPS.
[Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
2.5 mm thickness. Thus, the DBTT of the thinner samples is
higher than that of the thicker samples. The ductility increases
as the thickness of a specimen decreases, because the stress con-
dition in front of the notch tip changes more likely to plane
stress condition [7, 22].
Application of FMMs
In addition to the measurement of the DBTT, the understand-
ing of the fracture mechanisms is very important in the design
process of products to avoid any unexpected failures. Figure 7
shows the fracture surfaces of some typical blends. The micro-
graphs of the fractured surfaces of ABS show largely deformed
zones with shear yielding and plastic deformation up to 220 C,
which are common characteristics of a ductile failure [23, 24].
However, the fracture mechanism changes from ductile to brittle
fracture because of the presence of foreign polymers. The frac-
ture toughness is mainly controlled by the temperature and the
compatibility of the polymer blend components. In case of
ABS1 1 ABS2 blends, the fracture mechanism is similar to
ABS1 because of the excellent compatibility between ABS1 and
ABS2. However, the fracture mechanisms of ABS1 1 HIPS
blends is dramatically changed from ductile to brittle even by
the presence of a small amount of HIPS because of the poor
DOI 10.1002/pen
compatibility between the two polymers. Therefore, mapping of
fracture mechanisms can be very useful to qualitatively evaluate
the variation in the fracture toughness.
Four distinct fracture mechanisms: ductile, cooperative ductile
(shear lips with limited dimples), cooperative brittle (brittle sur-
face with limited shear lips), and brittle are classified, based on
thorough observations of the fracture surfaces of all specimens
tested by Izod impact tests. In Fig. 8, FMM of all blends are
shown with typical fracture surfaces as a function of temperature
and weight percentage of foreign polymers. In case of
ABS1 1 MABS (Fig. 8a), an increase in the ductility is observed
upon increasing the temperature and lowering the weight percent-
age of MABS, but the changeover of the fracture mechanism with
changing temperature is more dramatic. In case of ABS1 1 ABS2
(Fig. 8b), the transition of the fracture mechanism is not very dis-
tinctive as the weight percentage of ABS2 varies, but a meaning-
ful variation of the fracture mechanism is observed at
temperatures of 220 C to 10 C. In case of ABS1 1 HIPS (Fig.
8c), a dramatic changeover of the fracture mechanism is observed
at a low weight fraction of HIPS. For a wide range of temperature,
the blend becomes brittle by adding a small amount of HIPS due
to the incompatibility of ABS1 and HIPS.
FMM is a qualitative tool to initiate the detailed investigation
of fractures, as well as a quality control tool to sustain the
POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—2014 2797
fracture toughness of the final products. So, once FMMs are
composed based on various possible scenarios, it can be used as
a practical tool to prescreen possible failure mechanisms during
perform the failure analysis. Moreover, FMM is a tool based on
the variation of failure mechanisms, so the key fracture charac-
teristic like DBTT can be easily related with FMM.
CONCLUSIONS
In this article, the methodology of evaluating the impact
property of ABS copolymers containing foreign polymers using
FMM is introduced. In addition, as a quantitative tool, the
importance of the DBTT is discussed with conventional charac-
terization analyses.
Conventional characterization techniques, such as DSC, tor-
sional rheometry, and FTIR, may represent a good screening
tool if there are distinctive differences in the chemical/molecular
structure of the polymers, or if they are incompatible. However,
these methods may not be appropriate as quantitative tools to
investigate failure mechanisms in case of blending with some
foreign polymers with similar chemical structures.
The measurement of the DBTT is very effective to quantify
the variation in the fracture toughness of the blends in compari-
son to conventional characterization techniques, regardless of
the chemical structure of the blend components.
The application of FMM is successfully introduced to evalu-
ate the variation in the fracture mechanism of the blends added
with foreign polymers. FFM may be used as a qualitative tool
to initiate the detailed investigation of fractures, as well as a
quality control tool to sustain the fracture toughness of the final
products. Moreover, FMM is a tool based on the variation of
failure mechanisms, so the key fracture characteristic like
DBTT can be easily related with FMM.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge LG Electronics for
their financial support on this work.
REFERENCES
1. A.C. Kasper, A.M. Bernaedesm, and H.M. Veit, Waste Manage.
Res., 29, 714 (2011).
2. ISRI, Scrap Specifications Circular 2012, Institute of Scrap
Recycling Industries, Inc., Washington, 37 (2012).
3. B.C. Kim, H.J. Kim, B.-H. Choi, and H.S. Lee, Tribol. Int., 44,
2035 (2011).
2798 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—2014
4. M.G. Wygoski, Polym. Eng. Sci., 16, 265 (1976).
5. J. Scheirs, Compositional and Failure Analysis of Polymers: A
Practical Approach, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., New York
(2000).
6. M.F. Ashby, C. Gandhi, and D.M.R. Taplin, Acta. Metall., 27,
699 (1979).
7. T.-J. Chen, C.P. Bosnyak, C.-I. Kao, and A. Chudnovsky,
J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 49, 1909 (1993).
8. F.-C. Chang and L.-H. Chu, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 44, 1615
(1992).
9. E. Fekete, E. Foldes, and B. Pukanszky, Eur. Polym. J., 41, 727
(2005).
10. M. Yousefi, N. Salavati-Niasari, F. Gholamian, D. Ghanbari,
and A. Aminifazi, Inorg. Chim. Acta., 371, 1 (2011).
11. J. Abenojar, R. Torregrosa-Coque, M.A. Martinez, and J.M.
Martin-Martinez, Surf. Coat. Technol., 203, 2173 (2009).
12. B.E. Tiganis, L.S. Burn, P. Davis, and A.J. Hill, Polym.
Degrad. Stab., 76, 425 (2002).
13. S. Chakraborty, S. Bandyopadhyay, R. Ameta, R.
Mukhopadhyay, and A.S. Deuri, Polym. Test., 26, 38 (2007).
14. L. Jie, L. Hongyan, and W. Shujun, Mater. Lett., 65, 2696
(2011).
15. P. Davis, B.E. Tiganis, and L.S. Burn, Polym. Degrad. Stab.,
84, 244 (2004).
16. H. Blom, R. Yeh, R. Wojnarowski, and M. Ling, Thermochim.
Acta, 442, 64 (2006).
17. C.-C. Tseng, C.-P. Chang, Y. Sung, J.-L. Ou, and M.-D. Ger,
Colloid. Surf. A, 333, 138 (2009).
18. T.-L. Tsai, C.-C. Lin, G.-L. Guo, and T.-C. Chu, Mater. Chem.
Phys., 108, 382 (2008).
19. S. Ramesh, K.H. Leen, K. Kumutha, and A.K. Arof, Spectro-
chim. Acta A, 66, 1237 (2007).
20. A. Chudnovsky, Z. Zhou, H. Zhang, and K. Sehanobish, Proc.
Eng., 10, 1473 (2011).
21. J.-S. Wu, S.-C. Shen, and F.-C. Chang, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 50,
1379 (1993).
22. K. Sehanobish, D.H. Bank, and C.P. Bosnyak, Effect of geomet-
ric constraints on toughness of polycarbonate, in Advances in
Fracture Research, 4th ed., K. Salama et al., Eds., Pergamon
Press, New York (1989).
23. S. Balakrihnan, N.R. Neelakantan, and D.N. Saheb, J.P. Jog,
Polymer, 39, 5765 (1998).
24. C.R. Bernal, P.M. Frontini, M. Sforza, and M.A. Bibbo,
J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 58, 1 (1995).
DOI 10.1002/pen