2021 Sidistar Tire Tread Compounds WhitePaper

Silicon Products
Whitepaper
The influence of silica surface

properties on physical performance
of tire tread compounds
Delivering your potential

Table of
Content
01
Introduction ·········································· 4
02
Raw materials and formulations ······ 6
03
Test methods ······································· 8
04
Compounding ······································ 9
05
Cross-linking ········································ 11
06
Results ···················································13
07
Viscoelastical properties ·················· 19
08
Silica dispersion ·································· 21
09
Discussion ··········································· 23
10
Summary ············································· 26
Acknowledgments, References ····· 27
Whitepaper “The influence of silica surface properties on physical performance of tire tread compounds“, © 2021 Elkem Silicon Products 2
The influence of silica surface
properties on physical performance
of tire tread compounds
G. Schmaucks[1], C. Maczkiewitz[2]
Abstract
In efforts to improve fuel efficiency of automobiles, new types of tire

tread compounds have been designed and developed in recent years
to improve rolling resistance performance and address limitations
of the so-called ‘magic triangle’ between rolling resistance, wet
grip and abrasion. One of the strategies of tire producers has been
the replacement of plasticizers and the use of low structure, low
specific surface area silica in tire tread formulations to improve rolling
resistance performance without reduction in wet grip and abrasion
resistance.
Such new tire tread formulations were tested by tire producers and in
some cases patented.
In this study, the impact of different silica surface properties of

low structure, low specific surface area silica products on physical
properties of tire tread compounds is investigated. For that purpose,
various test compounds were prepared after a formulation published
in a patent.[3] The silica samples are different grades of our Sidistar®
product range, a silica that exactly can be characterized as low specific
surface area/low structure silica, and a reference precipitated silica.
The differences between the various Sidistar® grades are their surface
properties. The resulting physical performance of the compounds
measured with standard test methods is described in the article below.
Results show that the silica surface and silanization also play a role
and lead to significant improvements of relevant properties, for example
abrasion resistance, etc.
01
Introduction
Development of energy efficient tires has been and continues to be an

important topic for tire producers, being a contribution to the reduction
of green-house gases from the combustion of fossil fuels, not only for
the car industry but for society as a whole. These efforts have been
going on for a long time resulting for example in development of ‘green
tires’ some decades ago, tires with silica instead of the traditional
carbon black as reinforcing filler, etc. While the development is driven
by tire producers, also raw material suppliers are participating in such
development including Elkem.[5] [6]
Most of the developments are incremental improvements of one or

the other performance property without negative impact on other
important performance properties. Already in 2004, interesting
results for application of the newly developed Sidistar® R300 product,
a low specific surface area/low structure silica, in tire applications
were presented, in that case the reinforcing filler being a mixture of
precipitated silica and Sidistar®.[7] The results published there were
for the traditional tire tread recipes of the tire industry at the time.
Subsequently, results with Sidistar® R300, are shown in an earlier
patent on tire tread by Goodyear.[4]
Publications describing other advantages of Sidistar® products for

example in rubber processing, flame retardancy, electric properties,
etc, were published later. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
Sidistar® Sustain-
ability
All electricity used to produce
is an amorphous silica and is Sidistar® comes from hydro-
classified as non-hazardous power
01 Introduction
New formulation
Tire producers explored new formulation strategies in order to get a

handle on the ‘magic triangle’ challenge by using different plasticizers
and silica with different particle microstructure, and worked on
solutions for improved abrasion resistance of ‘green tires’, leading in
consequence to patents as that from Michelin.[3] The patent involves
a newly developed silica with low specific surface area/low structure
by a Japanese producer. From the data published in the patent on
that product the specific surface area and microstructure of that silica
is very similar to Sidistar® products. Aside from the new silica filler,
the tire tread formulations being patented are quite different from
traditional recipes in that the plasticizer is substituted by a resin.
Following up on early efforts, results are presented here on a recent

series of formulations produced with Sidistar® products, of which in
recent years a whole series was developed, which can be described
best in terms of variation in their surfaces. The results below show that
the nature of the silica surface can have a significant impact on various
important performance properties of tire tread. Furthermore, for the
first time, instead using Sidistar® as secondary filler in combination
with carbon blacks or precipitated silica, it was used in this study as the
primary reinforcing filler.
ESG annual report Quality
Elkem is ranking in the top 5% of the DCP A list providing The production of Sidistar® is
transparency on climate change mitigation ISO9001 and 14001 certified
02
Raw materials and
formulations
Silica surface properties
The surface properties of the silica developed for different applications

are summarized in Table 1. As a reference material serves a precipitated
silica of similar specific surface area (the most similar that was
available). An additional difference between the precipitated silica and
the Sidistar® products is of course the fractal aggregate microstructure
of the reference precipitated silica as compared to the low/no structure
of the primary spherical Sidistar® particles.
Table 1: Physico-chemical properties of the silica properties

spec.
spec. surface surface area SiOH
area, m2/g, measured, per particle
Trade name data sheet m2/g (nm)2 pH surface morphology d50, nm
10,5 from clean silica
precipitated silica ca. 35 N/A N/A data sheet surface fractal aggregates N/A
carbonaceous spherical particles,
molecular no aggregate
Sidistar® R300 ca. 18-25 24 3.6 7.2 surface layer structure 150
spherical particles,
clean silica no aggregate
Sidistar® R320U ca. 18-25 19 3.6 8.7 surface structure 150
silica surface spherical particles,
Sidistar® modified no aggregate
XP320ST69 ca. 18-25 22 N/A 8.6 with Si69® structure 150
Sidistar® is a registered trademark of Elkem

Si69® is a registered trademark of Evonik
The specific surface area and microstructure of all the Sidistar®

products in the table varies only little. The main difference between
them are the surface properties, which were developed with
proprietary surface treatment processes (not described here) including
also a process leaning on standard silanization techniques used in the
industry, so for the Si69® surface modified Sidistar® XP320ST69.
02 Raw materials and formulations
Formulations
The compound recipes were designed leaning on a US patent by

Michelin from 2019 and are listed in Table 2.[3] The main difference of
the formulations here with respect to the formulations in the patent is
the rubber polymer.
Table 2: Compound formulations

Sidistar®
R300,
precipitated double
silica silica R300 Si69® R320U XP320ST69
Mixing step Recipe ref 1 4 5 7 8
Stage 1-1 Buna SL 4525
®
[phr] 100 100 100 100 100
Stage 1-2 stearic acid [phr] 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Stage 1-2 Si69® [phr] 2 1 2 2 –
Stage 1-2 precipitated silica [phr] 100 – – – –
Stage 1-2 Sidistar R300
®
[phr] – 100 100 – –
Stage 1-2 Sidistar® R320U [phr] – – – 100 –
Stage 1-2 Sidistar XP320ST69
®
[phr] – – – – 100
Stage 1-3 plasticizing resin [phr] 45 45 45 45 45
Stage 2-2 Zinc oxide RS [phr] 3 3 3 3 3
Stage 2-2 6PPD [phr] 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Stage 2-2 HAF-N330 [phr] 5 5 5 5 5
Stage 3 (mill) Sulfur [phr] 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Stage 3 (mill) DPG-pdr-d [phr] 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4
Stage 3 (mill) CBS-grs-2mm [phr] 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Total phr [phr] 264.8 263.6 264.8 264.8 262.8
Buna® is a registered trademark of Arlanxeo
25 150
The specific surface of The mean particle size of

Sidistar® amounts 25 m2/g Sidistar® is 150 nm
03
Test methods
The physical properties of the compounds prepared were tested using

various standard test methods of the rubber industry listed in Table 3.
Table 3: Compound test methods

Trade name standard
Cure characteristics at 16°C, 30 minutes, 0.5° oscillation ISO 6502:2016
Mooney Viscosity - ML(1+4) 100°C 289-1:2015
Tensile properties ISO 37:2011
Tear strength, crescent+nick ISO 34-1:2015, Method C
Compression set, 22 hours at 70°C ISO 815-1:2014, Method A
Abrasion resistance ISO 4649:2010
Rebound resilience at 23°C (Schob, 12.5mm) ISO 4662:2009/Cor.1:2010
Temperature Sweep, 1Hz, 1% Static, 0.1% Dynamic
Si Sidistar®
Provides dynamic fatigue
improvement
• Improves rheology/pro-
cessing acts like a physical
processing aid
Silicon is the 2nd most • Provides synergistic improve-
common element on earth ments in flame retardancy
04
Compounding
Mixing steps 1 and 2 as shown in Table 2 above were performed with a

laboratory scale Banbury type internal mixer (1.6 liter), and step 3 on an
open mill. The mixing energy for stages 1 and 2 was calculated from the
mixer power used and is shown in Figure 1.
The mixing energy for the compounds with Sidistar® products is ca

10% reduced as compared to that with precipitated silica. This is
probably partially due to the slightly smaller specific surface area of
Sidistar®, but also due to the lower shear forces required to mix in
spheres as compared to fractal aggregates. This may seem a small
reduction only, but can be one of the steps in efforts going on in
the rubber industry toward development of CO2-neutral production
processes.
3500
3000
mixing energy, kJ/kg
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
precipitated silica R300 R300, double Si69® R320U XP320ST69
Stage 1 Stage 2
Figure 1: Mixing energy for all compounds
04 Compounding
40
35
ML(1+4) 100ºC
30
25
20
15
10
0
Figure 2: Mooney viscosity of the compounds, ML(1+4) at 100°C
As shown before in other publications, the Mooney viscosity of

compounds with Sidistar® products is reduced as compared to that
with precipitated silica at same loading; being a result of its special
physical properties, low specific surface area and no aggregate
structure.[7] [8]
05
Crosslinking
Cure characteristics were measured at 160° C for 30 min, 0.5°

oscillation. The resulting rheometer curves (taken with a moving die
rheometer, MDR) are shown in Figure 3 and a summary of the data in
Table 4.
Looking at the curves in Figure 3 and the numbers in Table 4, one can
observe that all Sidistar® grades increase scorch safety as compared
to precipitated silica aside from the surface modified Sidistar® product.
Furthermore, one can identify differences in the position of the torque
plateau at times larger than 15 minutes. The increase in delta torque
as a measure of crosslink density of compound 5 with Sidistar®
R300, 2phr Si69® loading as compared to compound 4 (1phr Si69®)
could be considered as an effect of the additional sulfur originating
from Si69® and gives higher reinforcement. However, the compound
with Sidistar® R320U (clean silica surface) and 2phr Si69® loading
exhibits a maximum torque even higher than that and close to that
of the reference compound 1 with precipitated silica, even though
Sidistar®R320U has a considerably lower specific surface area (only ca.
60% of that of the precipitated silica).
Interesting to note is that the surface modified Sidistar® XP320ST69

(with ca 2w% Si69® surface modification) yields higher delta torque as
compared to the simple addition with the same Si69® loading during
compounding.
05 Crosslinking
0,9
0,8
0,7
Torque (Nm)
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (min)
precipitated silica Sidistar® R300 Sidistar® R300, double Si69®
Sidistar® R320U Sidistar® XP320St69
Figure 3: Rheometer curves of all compounds up to 30 minutes
Table 4: Cure characteristics

Sidistar®
R300,
precipitated double
silica R300 Si69® R320U XP320ST69
quantity units ref 1 4 5 7 8
ts2 [min] 7.0 12.2 9.4 8.0 7.0
t5 [min] 5.6 10.3 7.9 6.9 6.0
t10 [min] 6.4 11.1 8.6 7.4 6.5
t90 [min] 12.5 16.9 14.5 12.5 11.5
t95 [min] 15.5 18.9 16.6 14.4 13.3
ML [Nm] 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
MH [Nm] 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9
Delta S [Nm] 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
06
Results – physical
properties of vulcanizates
The physical properties of the vulcanized compounds were measured
according to the standards listed in Table 3. Figure 4 shows the
hardness. The hardness of our compound series turned out to be much
lower than anticipated and typical for tire tread compounds. A typical
Shore A hardness for a SBR tire tread compound would lie around
65 +/-5. This was unintended and is probably related to the rubber
polymer used (the polymer specified in the patent was unavailable at
the time and had to be substituted; a polymer with comparable styrene
content and viscosity was selected as replacement). The polymer
specified in the patent is special and has a glass transition temperature
below -60° C. The low hardness might also have impact on various
other physical properties and limits the assessment of the compound
for tire tread applications. With regard to comparability with the data
provided in the patent, no compound hardness was specified there.
However, it is possible to observe and interpret trends for the series

of different silica surface properties, which is the focus here, and
which can be helpful in tire tread formulation design with such low/no
structure silica.
Table 3: Compound test methods

Trade name standard
Cure characteristics at 16°C, 30 minutes, 0.5° oscillation ISO 6502:2016
Mooney Viscosity - ML(1+4) 100°C 289-1:2015
Tensile properties ISO 37:2011
Tear strength, crescent+nick ISO 34-1:2015, Method C
Compression set, 22 hours at 70°C ISO 815-1:2014, Method A
Abrasion resistance ISO 4649:2010
Rebound resilience at 23°C (Schob, 12.5mm) ISO 4662:2009/Cor.1:2010
Temperature Sweep, 1Hz, 1% Static, 0.1% Dynamic
06 Results – physical properties of vulcanizates
50
45
40
35
Hardness, Shore A
30
25
20
15
10
0
Figure 4: Hardness, Shore A
As above for the crosslinking behavior, it is useful to consider the

reference compound with precipitated silica separately from the other
compounds with the Sidistar® products, for which the main difference
are the silica surface properties. The compound hardness differences
observed between the different Sidistar® grades can again be
related to their surface properties, the hardness is higher for stronger
interaction between rubber polymer and silica surface.
The somewhat larger hardness of the compound with precipitated

silica as compared to that with the Sidistar® product with the clean
silica surface might be related to the larger specific surface area.
1200 25
1000
20
Elongation at break, %
Tensile strength, MPa

800
15
600
10
400
5
200
0 0
precipitated R300 R300, double R320U XP320ST69 Michelin R300, Michelin
silica Si69® patent patent
Elongation at break Tensile strength at max
Figure 5: Tensile properties, the unfilled bars show data from the
patent of limited comparability (hardness data were not provided)
In Figure 5 the tensile properties are summarized. Here, in addition,

the data from the patent for comparable formulations are shown (one
of the compounds described in the patent was made with Sidistar®
R300). The largest difference between the compound formulations
here and those mentioned in the patent is likely the rubber polymer.
But the data are mentioned, because the tire tread compound that
is actually patented contains a silica similar to the Sidistar® R300
product, a low/no structure silica product with spherical primary
particles.
The tensile properties show what one might expect in consideration

of the hardness data. In order to set results into perspective with those
from the patent, one can try to compare the two compounds with
Sidistar® R300 with the two different polymers; observing significantly
higher elongation at break for the current compound (as compared
to that in the patent), consistent with low(er) compound hardness.
For the Sidistar® product series, the elongation at break decreases
as the interaction between silica surface and polymer increases. For
the tensile strength the differences are smaller, and one observes an
increase in tensile strength for closer silica/polymer interaction aside
for the compound with Sidistar® R300, 1 phr Si69®.
Another way of looking at the tensile properties is by calculation of

the reinforcing effect, Modulus at 300 %/Modulus at 100 %, shown in
Figure 6.
7
Reinforcing effect, M300/M100
0
Figure 6: Reinforcing effect
The reinforcing effect is lowest for the compound with precipitated

silica, and, for the Sidistar® compound series, increases with higher
silica/polymer interaction. This result is surprising and shows that the
interaction between Sidistar® and the polymer (per unit specific surface
or interfacial area) is significantly stronger as compared to that between
precipitated silica and the polymer.
Salten
Sidistar is produced at Elkems

Salten plant which is situated
inside the polar circle
40
35
Tear strength, kN/m
30
25
20
15
10
0
Figure 7: Tear strength
The tear strength in Figure 7 shows results in the same range as

compared to those obtained for precipitated silica indicating the
possibility to perhaps even increase it by using the most suitable
surface properties.
25 45
40
20 35
30
Compression set, %
Rebound resilience
15
25
20
10
15
5 10
0 0
Compression set Resilience
Figure 8: Compression set and rebound resilience at 23° C
Compression set and rebound resilience at 23° C, shown in Figure 8,

show for the Sidistar® series a reduction in compression set and an
increase in rebound resilience for higher silica/polymer interaction in
agreement with the trends observed for the other physical properties of
the vulcanizates.
250
200
Abrasion, mm3
150
100
50
0
Figure 9: Abrasion
Very interesting is the large impact of the different silica surfaces

on the abrasion performance of the compounds, shown in Figure 9.
Using Sidistar® with Si69® modified surface can lead to abrasion
performance twice as good as that obtained with precipitated silica.
Within the Sidistar® compound series, for equal Si69® loading the
difference in abrasion performance is also as large as a factor of two
emphasizing the important role of the filler/surface interaction for
abrasion performance.
> 110
The products and solutions

you get today benefit from
> 110 years of experience.
07
Viscoelastical properties
Viscoelastic behavior of the compounds as function of temperature

was measured using a Dynamic Mechanical Analyzer (DMA) from
-70 to 100° C. tanδ [or loss tangent; tangent(loss modulus/storage
modulus)] for all compounds deduced from those measurements
is shown in Figure 10. A smaller tanδ indicates smaller losses due
to friction and a larger part of the energy being transformed into
mechanical energy.
1,4
1,2
0,2
1 0,18
0,16
tan d
0,8 0,14
0,12
0,6 0,1
50 55 60 65 70
0,4
0,2
0
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 100
TºC
Figure 10: tanδ of all compounds as function of temperature between

-70° and 100° C
The differences observed in tanδ as function of temperature are very

small. Normally, tanδ at 60°C, plotted in Figure 11, is taken as an
indication for potential rolling resistance performance for a tire tread
compound. Importantly to mention here that results in this study were
obtained with a polymer higher in Tg as compared to that in the patent
with Tg below -60° C, as mentioned above.
07 Viscoelastical properties
0,160
0,140
0,120
Tan delta at 60ºC
0,100
0,080
0,060
0,040
0,020
0,000
precipitated R300 R300, R320U XP320ST69 Michelin R300,
silica double Si69® patent Michelin
patent
Figure 11: tanδ at 60° C
In Figure 11 the tanδ at 60° C values of the compounds, for which data
were published in the patent, are also shown for comparison. One
difference between the DMA measurements in this study and those
from the patent is that they were conducted with different strain, 1 %
here as compared to 8 % for the patent. We are therefore unsure, if the
data can be compared, but believe that the relations between the tanδ
data would be similar when obtained with the same strain.
Results for tanδ at 0° C (normally taken as indication for potential wet

grip performance) are not shown in separate figure, because they are
very similar to each other as can be assessed by looking at Figure 10.
08
Silica dispersion
The dispersion of the silica in the compounds was evaluated by

Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). However, no systematic study
was attempted including many images and statistical analysis thereof,
but instead just a qualitative verification on the degree of dispersion
of the various silica types. Examples of the reference compound with
precipitated silica and of that with Sidistar® are shown in Figures 12
and 13, respectively. SEM images were taken of vulcanized compound
sections prepared with a razor blade, installed on the sample holder
and gold-coated for electric contact. For direct comparison, images
of similar magnifications are shown (even though not completely
possible), starting with an overview of the section and then zooming in
further from the left to the right as indicted with the arrows.
Figure 12: SEM images of the reference compound with precipitated

silica
Figure 12 shows the typical agglomerates of precipitated silica in

the reference compound at various magnifications. The size of the
agglomerates can reach tens of microns.
08 Silica dispersion
Figure 13 shows the spherical primary particles of the Sidistar® dispersed

in the rubber matrix without agglomerates. All tested Sidistar® grades
showed a similar dispersion down to primary silica spheres with a
wide range of diameters. The wide distribution of spherical particles
below microns size has been found beneficial in polymer applications
considering dispersion (of itself and other particles) and optimized
particle packing.[15]
Figure 13: SEM images of compound 5 with Sidistar® R300
Sidistar®
can be dispersed down to

primary particles
09
Discussion
The result presented in the previous sections indicate that the silica
surface plays an important role for the performance properties of tire
tread compounds. One way to compare the different silica surfaces
listed in Table 1 is in terms of their compatibility to the SBR polymer.
Considering this, the following conclusions can be drawn:
The silica surface topped with carbonaceous surface groups has

lowest compatibility with the polymer leading to lowest reinforcement.
This result came unexpected and is counterintuitive to initial thinking.
Initial thoughts had been that the surface with carbonaceous groups
may increase compatibility to the rubber polymer. Furthermore, in the
formulations prepared here, for the first time, instead using a small
amount of Sidistar® as secondary filler in combination with carbon
blacks or precipitated silica, it was used as the primary reinforcing filler.
The details of the carbonaceous molecular top layer are not known.
Results show that the surface modification with Si69® silane added
during processing to improve compatibility of the silica surface with
the polymer is less (or not at all) efficient for Sidistar® R300, exactly
because of the presence of the carbonaceous molecular layer on its
surface. It is possible that the Sidistar® R300 product leads to better
compatibility with other rubber polymers, but not with SBR. Sidistar®
R300 may also work well in rubber formulations, where a silanization is
not required.
09 Discussion
Doubling the loading of Si69® silane improves compatibility between

the Sidistar® R300 surface and SBR, but not quite to the same level as
obtained between the clean silica surface of Sidistar® R320U and the
SBR polymer at standard Si69® loading. The application of Si69® silane
for compatibility improvement between silica surfaces and SBR has
long been known and patented and is standard for SBR compounds
with silica.[16]
For the Sidistar® R300 product it might have been interesting to have
prepared a compound without Si69® silane in order to learn more on
the nature of the carbonaceous molecular layer. Furthermore, exact
Si69® loading dependence for that product needs to be investigated
further.
Best compatibility to the SBR polymer was obtained with the Si69®
modified silica surface.
Depending on the exact performance requirements for different

types of tire tread this formulation series on compounds with silica of
different surface characteristics can help to tailor specific performance
properties. This ‘tailoring’ of properties can be extended to different
formulations, rubber polymers and other application areas.
09 Discussion
abrasion
180
160
140
120
100
80
tear strength 60 tan delta at 60ºC

40
20
0
reinforcing effect tan delta at 0ºC
Figure 14: Overview and comparison of various performance

properties, the compound with precipitated silica taken as 100 %,
all other properties are scaled to be better for larger 100 %
Figure 14 shows various relevant performance properties in a

so-called spider plot. The performance is compared with the compound
with precipitated silica, which is taken at 100 % for each property.
Even though the spider plot might not cover all important/relevant
performance properties for tire tread, it covers a good selection, and
the magnitude of the area enclosed by each curve can be taken as a
measure for expected over-all tire tread performance. Based on this,
the Sidistar® R320U and R320ST69 should be of great interest for tire
producers to be tested.
10
Summary
Results of the impact of the silica surface properties on performance of

newly developed SBR tire tread formulations with low specific surface
area/low structure silica fillers were presented.
The main results are:
1 2 3
Sidistar® products can For silica fillers with similar
exactly be characterized as specific surface area
low specific surface area/ have shown that different
low structure silica, and surface characteristics can
work as expected in the new Observed excellent dispersion have significant impact on
patented formulations without in the SBR matrix down to performance of tire tread
plasticizer primary silica spheres compounds
4 5 6
est tire tread performance
B
was obtained with modified
Si69® surface modification of Sidistar® XP320 ST69,
he surface properties
T the silica before processing which shows outstanding
are rated in terms of their works more effective as performance in the
compatibility to the SBR compared to addition of the combination of abrasion and
matrix silane during compounding viscoelastic properties
10 Summary
The results shown above may enable to formulate tire tread

compounds with low specific surface/low structure silica with a good
combination of performance properties, addressing important factors
such as the trade-off between rolling resistance and abrasion, much
favorable in comparison to those obtained with precipitated silica.
Furthermore, while Michelin worked on tire tread formulations using a

new low surface area/low structure silica that could still be protected
by patenting, the study shows that other low specific surface area/
low structure products, including Sidistar® (which are outside the silica
property range being patented) can perform equally well in the newly
developed formulations, even more so when considering benefits due
to various surface modifications.
Acknowledgements
Sincere thanks are expressed to ERT B.V. for compounding of the
formulations, measurement of the performance properties and
constructive discussions.
References
[1] gs-chemconsult, Germany
[2] Elkem ASA, Silicon Products, Germany
[3] US 20190030953A1, Michelin patent
[4] EP 2336231 A1, Goodyear patent
[5] EP 1 551 912 Cl. C08K 3/34, Elkem patent
[6] US 8 053 507 B2 Cl. C01B33/113; C08K3/36, Elkem patent
[7] G. Schmaucks, Tire Technol. Int. Annual Review, p.58f, 2004, Optimizing the
balance between processability and performance
[8] G. Schmaucks, Rubber World 241 (2010) 5, p. 27 - 30, Special low surface silica as
filler in fluoroelastomers
[9] E. Gallo, B. Schartel, G. Schmaucks, K. von der Ehe and M. Böhning; Plastics,
Rubber and Composites Vol. 42 (2013) 1, p. 34 – 42; Effect of well dispersed
amorphous silicon dioxide in flame retarded styrene butadiene Rubber
[10] G. Schmaucks, A. Aamodt, A. Freitag, K. Zoumis; Noxtite-Hochtemperatur ACM
und Spezialkieselsäure SIDISTAR R mit niedriger Oberfläche; Gummi, Fasern
Kunststoffe 4/2013, p. 229 – 232
[11] Specialty silica for processing improvement and reduction in mixing energy,
A. Freitag, G. Schmaucks, Cost reduction in rubber processing, TechnoBiz
Communications Co. LTD, p 107-129; 2014
[12] G. Schmaucks, B. Friede, H. Schreiner, J.O. Roszinski; Gummi Fasern Kunststoffe
11/2007, 719 – 724; Unkonventionelle Kieselsäure – eine neue Möglichkeit zur
Optimierung hochwertiger Gummimaterialien
[13] G. Schmaucks, B. Friede, H. Schreiner, J.O. Roszinski, R. Ristic, N. Djenadic; Tire
Technology International 2007 Annual Review, p. 90 – 92; The effect of specialty
silica on winter tread compound properties and performance
[14] Eshwaran Subramani Bhagavatheswaran, Meenali Parsekar, Amit Das, Hai Hong
Le, Sven Wiessner, Klaus Werner Stöckelhuber, Gerd Schmaucks, Gert Heinrich;
Journal of Physical Chemistry C; 2015; Construction of an Interconnected
Nanostructured Carbon Black Network: Development of Highly Stretchable and
Robust Elastomeric Conductors
[15] A. Aamodt, A. Freitag, G. Schmaucks; DKT2015 proceedings, Amorphous Silicon
Dioxide as Multifunctional Additive for High Performance Rubber Compounds
[16] EP 0501227, Michelin patent
For more information about the materials in this
whitepaper, visit www.sidistar.com or reach out to
info@sidistar.com
www.elkem.com/contact
Sidistar® is a registered trademark of Elkem ASA.

This whitepaper is property of Elkem ASA and may
not without its written permission be used, copied or
made available to others. The receiver is responsible
for any misuse. © Copyright 2021 Elkem ASA

2021 Sidistar Tire Tread Compounds WhitePaper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021 Sidistar Tire Tread Compounds WhitePaper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Silicon Products

The influence of silica surface

Delivering your potential

Acknowledgments, References ····· 27

In efforts to improve fuel efficiency of automobiles, new types of tire

In this study, the impact of different silica surface properties of

Development of energy efficient tires has been and continues to be an

Most of the developments are incremental improvements of one or

Publications describing other advantages of Sidistar® products for

Tire producers explored new formulation strategies in order to get a

Following up on early efforts, results are presented here on a recent

ESG annual report Quality

The surface properties of the silica developed for different applications

Table 1: Physico-chemical properties of the silica properties

Sidistar® is a registered trademark of Elkem

The specific surface area and microstructure of all the Sidistar®

The compound recipes were designed leaning on a US patent by

Table 2: Compound formulations

Buna® is a registered trademark of Arlanxeo

The specific surface of The mean particle size of

The physical properties of the compounds prepared were tested using

Table 3: Compound test methods

Mixing steps 1 and 2 as shown in Table 2 above were performed with a

The mixing energy for the compounds with Sidistar® products is ca

Figure 1: Mixing energy for all compounds

Figure 2: Mooney viscosity of the compounds, ML(1+4) at 100°C

As shown before in other publications, the Mooney viscosity of

Cure characteristics were measured at 160° C for 30 min, 0.5°

Interesting to note is that the surface modified Sidistar® XP320ST69

precipitated silica Sidistar® R300 Sidistar® R300, double Si69®

Sidistar® R320U Sidistar® XP320St69

Figure 3: Rheometer curves of all compounds up to 30 minutes

Table 4: Cure characteristics

However, it is possible to observe and interpret trends for the series

Table 3: Compound test methods

Figure 4: Hardness, Shore A

As above for the crosslinking behavior, it is useful to consider the

The somewhat larger hardness of the compound with precipitated

Tensile strength, MPa

Elongation at break Tensile strength at max

In Figure 5 the tensile properties are summarized. Here, in addition,

The tensile properties show what one might expect in consideration

Another way of looking at the tensile properties is by calculation of

Figure 6: Reinforcing effect

The reinforcing effect is lowest for the compound with precipitated

Sidistar is produced at Elkems

Figure 7: Tear strength

The tear strength in Figure 7 shows results in the same range as

Compression set Resilience

Figure 8: Compression set and rebound resilience at 23° C

Compression set and rebound resilience at 23° C, shown in Figure 8,

Very interesting is the large impact of the different silica surfaces

The products and solutions

Viscoelastic behavior of the compounds as function of temperature

precipitated silica Sidistar® R300 Sidistar® R300, double Si69®

Sidistar® R320U Sidistar® XP320St69

Figure 10: tanδ of all compounds as function of temperature between

The differences observed in tanδ as function of temperature are very

Figure 11: tanδ at 60° C

Results for tanδ at 0° C (normally taken as indication for potential wet

The dispersion of the silica in the compounds was evaluated by

Figure 12: SEM images of the reference compound with precipitated

Figure 12 shows the typical agglomerates of precipitated silica in