Mechanical behavior

Bone samples made of neat polymers (PP and PA6) and blends with different concentrations of these
polymers were tested in traction (see Figure 3 for samples tested at speed of 1000 mm/min). Figures
1 and 2 give the aspect of stress−strain curves for each tested polymeric material, for two different
testing The tensile properties of polymeric blends, obtained from averaging at least 5 valid tests, are
summarized in Figures 4 to 7.
Figure 13 shows the typical aspect of uniaxiale tensile "stress–strain" curves of pure
POLYMERE (PP and neat PA66 ) and also of their the blend PP/PA6 with and without PP-
g-MAH. For all the formulations investigated samples were tested at speed set at 6.10-4 0.6
mm/sec and at room temperature. The PP exhibits a ductile behavior characterized by a yield
stress of around 40 MPa then a stable bearing plateau until rupture at a stress of 39 MPa and
an elongation at break of abaout 55% . The pure PA66 also shows a rigid behavior with a
stress and a strain values at break respectively 70 MPa and 31%, then a stability of the bearing
until rupture.
Because of the incompatible nature of the (PP/PA66) alloy a somewhat rigid nehaviour ids
observed with the bleend is also purely rigid AND THE ELONGATION AT BREAK
BECOMES LESS THAT THAT OF THE RESPECTIVE NEAT POLYMERS.The fracture
stress and deformation are equal to 45 MPa and 9% respectively, then the values stabilize on a
small bearing. However the compatibilized composite exhibits a ductile behavior.
The detailed tensile strength results of the different materials are presented in Table 1 ce n’st
pas la premiere .

Figure 13. Typical stress-strain curves of PP, PA66,

(PP/PA66) and (PP/PA66/PP-g-MAH)
Table 1. Tensile properties of neat PP, neat PA66, neat and compatibilized (PP/PA66)
Materials
Properties
PP PA66 PP/PA66 PP/PA66/PPA-g-MAH
Tensile strength, σ b (MPa) 37± 0.1 62±0.3 42±0.3 46±0.5

Modulus, E (MPa) 1500 ± 25 3200 ± 25 1720 ± 20 2030 ± 22

Elongation at break, ε b (%) 55 ± 5 31 ± 10 19 ± 8 32 ±10

Addition of the compatibilizer The result also revealed that tensile strength was increased with
the increasing of HDPE-g-MAH content up to 2 wt%. This means, 2 wt% of compatibilizer was enough
to link the polar polymer (PA6) with the HDPE in the blends and eventually lead to improve the struc
ead to improve the structure. However, addition of excess compatibilizer has a high potential to drag
the structure gradually weakening in the ture. However, addition of excess compatibilizer has a high
potential to drag the structure gradually weakening in the

Figure 14 shows the variation of Young's modulus of the different materials studied. We
observed that the inclusion of nano-CaCO3 increase the modulus from 1720 MPa to 1959
MPa. The addition of rigid particles to a polymer matrix can easily improve the modulus since
the rigidity of inorganic fillers is generally much higher than that of organic polymers and
may be attributed to the weakly bonded nanoparticles which promote yielding rigid
contradiction. One can also notice an increase in the moduli with increasing content of the
inclusion of nano-CaCO3 in (PP/PA66/PP-g-MAH), values go from 2030 MPa to 2069 MPa
for untreated nano-CaCO3 and to 2073 for treated nanofiller (higher stiffness) regardless of
treatment. This behavior has also been observed with micro particles of CaCO 328iin PP . The
presence of fillers in the matrix provides resistance to the segmental movement of the
polymer chains on the application of the tensile stress which can lead to enhancement in
modulus. Tabet et al.29 in their study on the PP/PAHD/micro CaCO3 composite reported an
increase in the modulus and a decrease in the elongation at break indicating a ductile to brittle
transition behavior as the PP content into the blend increases. By comparison between this
two works and our study it was concluded that the nano size shows a better improvement in
tensile properties.

Young's modulus does not have a clear tendency of depending on the treatment of the filler, but performs in a
band between 1500...1900 MPa, except for the value

Figure 14. Curves of Young's modulus of the different nanocomposites.

Young’s modulus does not spectacularly depends on blend concentration in PP and PA6, but,
unexpectedly, this characteristic is less sensitive for v=10 mm/min and v =1000 mm/min. For th
Figures 15 and 16 show the impact strength of PP, PA66 and (PP/PA66) the values are 4.11,
6.12 and 4.95 KJ/m2 respectively. The impact strength of a composite is influenced by many
factors including the toughness properties of reinforcement the nature of the interface region
and matrix is extremely important and directly related to the toughness of composite. The
introduction of the PP-g-MAH in the mixture (PP/PA6) increases the impact strength in a
remarkable way from 4.95 KJ/m2 to 24.75 KJ/m2, this improvement is a manifestation
of a better affinity between the compatibilizer and the matrix by the formation of a copolymer
at the interface able to cushion shock and leads to a more uniform distribution of impact
energy. But increment in elongation at break is marginal. However, elongation at break is more
appreciable in 9 nm size CaCO3 compared to other two sizes, i.e. 21 and 15 nm. The values of
elongati

This result is in agreement with the work of Gharehbash et al. 30 they reported an increase of
impact strength by using of 5% of PP-g-MAH in the blend PP/PA (50/50).
The presence of nano-CaCO3 affects the impact properties of the (PP/PA66) (70/30)
composite, the impact energy values are lower compared to the pure matrix, for high ratio,
there is a decrease in the impact resistance. The increase in CaCO 3 content reduces the
distance between particles, the impact applied will be absorbed by particular areas of the
material generating a localized concentration of forces phenomenon thus leading to a non-
homogeneous material from the energy point of view. These results probably reflect, on the
one hand, the state of dispersion of the charge within the matrix and, on the other hand,
interfacial adhesion, this regression could be due to a phenomenon of compatibility between
two completely dissimilar materials. These results are in agreement with morphological
observations. The strong embrittlement of nanocomposites made from CaCO 3 treated with
stearic acid is nevertheless attributed to a strong rigidification of the interfacial zone by
reaction between stearic acid carried on CaCO3 and PA66. Very average values of the impact
resistance are obtained with the untreated filler, this result has been confirmed by SEM.
Bourmel et al.31 in their study on the PP/LDPE blend, they recorded a large decrease in the
impact resistance following the addition of micro CaCO 3 resulting from the absence of
particle-filler interaction and the unavailability of many sites on the matrix following the size
of the micro-filler. An increase in the impact resistance was recorded by the use of both the
compatibilizer and the treated filler compared to the compatibilized blend with virgin filler,
and less with compatibilized blend without filler. This, is due to the affinity between the filler
modified with all the constituents of the mixture; this result is confirmed by SEM analysis.
Xia et al.32 reported in their studies that the addition of 10% PP-g-MAH improves the
adhesion between the two polymers and increases the impact resistance of the PP/PA/MMT
system. Dougu et al.33 studied the effect of incorporating the compatibilizer EVA-g-MAH in
the PP/EVA/nano-tube mixture, they showed an improvement in impact resistance following
a good dispersion of the nano-tube in the blend, the same results are found by Boufassa. 34 in
his study on the PP/PEHD /micro CaCO3 mixture.
 Figure 15. Impact Strength of (PP/PA66) with
(1%, 3%, 5% and 7%) by weight untreated and treated CaCO3.

Figure 16. Impact Strength of (PP/PA66/PP-g-MAH) with

(1%, 3%, 5% and 7%) by weight untreated and treated CaCO3