Mechanical Properties and Morphology of PA6/EVA Blends

ARUP R. BHATTACHARYYA,1 S. N. MAITI,1 ASHOK MISRA2

1
Centre for Polymer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India, 110016

2
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India, 400076

Received 26 February 2001; accepted 29 October 2001

Published online 6 June 2002 in Wiley InterScience ([Link]). DOI 10.1002/app.10686

ABSTRACT: The mechanical properties of blends of polyamide6 (PA6) and ethylene

vinyl acetate (EVA) at a blending composition of 0 –50 wt % EVA were studied. The
notched Izod impact strength of PA6 increased with the incorporation of EVA, the
increase being more than 100% compared to PA6 at 10% EVA. The tensile strength and
the tensile modulus of the blends decreased steadily as the weight percent of EVA
increased. Analysis of the tensile data using predictive theories indicated the extent of
the interaction of the dispersed phase and the matrix up to 20 wt % EVA. SEM studies
of the cryogenically fractured surfaces indicated increase in the dispersed phase domain
size with EVA concentrations. On the other hand, impact fractured surfaces of PA6/
EVA blends indicated debonding of EVA particles, leaving hemispherical bumps, indi-
cating inadequate interfacial adhesion between PA6 and EVA. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals,
Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 85: 1593–1606, 2002

Key words: polyamide 6/ethylene vinyl acetate blends; impact toughening; mechan-
ical properties; phase morphology

INTRODUCTION could be toughened with a dispersed rubber hav-

ing a particle size of 0.1–2 ␮m.7 The effect of the
Polyamide6 (PA6) is a versatile engineering plas- concentration and the particle size of the rubber
tic with a wide range of useful properties.1 How- on the brittle–tough transition temperature of
ever, the most glaring limitation of the polymer is PA6/ethylene propylene diene copolymer (EPDM)
its low impact strength below the glass transition blends was investigated by Borggreve et al.8 The
temperature.2 Melt blending with a large variety brittle–tough transition temperature shifted to
of rubbery polymers is widely used to improve the lower values when the rubber content was in-
impact strength of PA6, particularly at low tem- creased or the rubber particle size decreased. A
peratures.2– 4 It is reported that the tensile correlation was found between the brittle–tough
strength and tensile modulus decrease approxi- transition temperature and the interparticle dis-
mately proportionally to the rubber concentration tance. The deformation mechanism during frac-
in the rubber-toughened PA6 systems.5,6 The im- ture in PA6/rubber blends was investigated by
pact strength of PA6/rubber blends depends on several workers.9 –11 The molecular architecture
the rubber concentration, rubber particle size, and morphological aspects on the plastic deforma-
particle-size distribution, and the adhesion be- tion mechanism of rubber-toughened thermoplas-
tween the two phases.4 It was shown that PA6 tic polymers were reviewed by Groeninckx and
Dompas.12 In a correlation study between the me-
chanical properties of the elastomer and the im-
Correspondence to: A. Misra (amisra@[Link]).
Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 85, 1593–1606 (2002)
pact behavior of the elastomer-modified PA6, the
© 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. type of the impact modifier influenced the impact
1593
 10974628, 2002, 8, Downloaded from [Link] by Indian Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1594 BHATTACHARYYA, MAITI, AND MISRA

behavior of the blend.13 The effect of the rubber ASTM D-638, type 1, procedure at an extension
type and morphology on the impact property of rate of 50 mm/min. Notched izod impact strength
PA6-based blends was investigated by several au- was measured on a CEAST impact tester (Model
thors.14 –16 Resil 25) following ASTM D-256 test procedures.
In the present article, the effects of the ethyl- All impact strength measurements were made at
ene vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer on the me- five different temperatures (⫺25, 0, 23, 40, and
chanical and morphological properties of PA6/ 800C). Each of the samples was kept in a vacuum
EVA blends are reported. Mechanical properties oven at each test temperature for 4 h prior to
such as impact strength, tensile behavior, and impact testing. The test results reported are the
flexural properties were studied as a function of average values of at least five specimens tested in
EVA concentrations. Morphological analysis of each case to obtain a reliable value. The deviation
the blends was carried out by scanning electron of the data around the mean value was less than
microscopic (SEM) studies. 5%. Morphological studies were conducted by
SEM using a Cambridge Stereoscan microscope
(Model S4-10). For morphological analysis, cryo-
EXPERIMENTAL genically fractured tensile specimens etched by
o-xylene to remove EVA and impact-fractured
Materials specimens were used. For each blend, different
Polyamide6 (PA6) was obtained from M/s Gujarat micrographs with a total amount of around 200
State Fertilizer Corp. (Baroda, India; GUJLON particles were made. These micrographs were an-
M28RC, relative viscosity 2.8). EVA with a vinyl alyzed using a camera attached with image anal-
acetate (VA) content of 18 wt % and an MFI of 2 ysis software and the diameter of the particles
g/10 min (EVA 1802) from M/s National Organic was determined. Number-average diameter (Dn)
Chemical Industries Ltd. (Mumbai, India) was and weight-average diameter (Dw) of the domain
used as the blending polymer. The polymers were were determined according to the following rela-
dried in a vacuum oven at 800C for over 24 h. tionships:

Blending Dn ⫽ 冘N D / 冘N
i i i (1)

⫽ 冘N D / 冘N D
The granules were dry-mixed in appropriate ra-
2
tios, and blends of PA6 and EVA were prepared Dw i i i i (2)
using a corotating, intermeshing twin-screw ex-
truder (ZSK25, L/D ⫽ 46) at 2300C and a screw The interfacial area (A3D) per unit volume of the
speed of 150 rpm. The time for blending was ap- dispersed phase (V3D) was calculated from the
proximately 2 min. The EVA level was varied total perimeter of the particles (P2D) divided by
from 0 to 50 wt % (0 – 0.548 vol %) in the binary the total area of the particles (A2D) as obtained
blends of PA6/EVA. The extruded strands were from the micrographs:
quenched immediately after extrusion in a water
bath kept at room temperature. The extrudates A i共 ␮ m2/␮m3) ⫽ P2D/A2D ⫽ A3D/V3D (3)
were then chopped into granules and finally dried
at 800C for over 24 h before molding. Individual The critical interparticle distance (IPDC) was cal-
polymers were also extruded under identical con- culated from Wu’s equation:7
ditions to ensure the same thermal history as that
of the blend compositions. IPDC ⫽ d关共3.14/6␸r 兲1/3 ⫺ 1兴 (4)

Preparation of Test Specimens where d is the average diameter of the domain

and ␾r is the volume fraction of the dispersed
Test specimens used for mechanical properties phase.
investigation were prepared by injection molding
at 2300C and at a screw speed of 80 rpm with a
cooling time of 60 s. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Measurements Impact Properties

Tensile properties were measured on an Instron The plots of the notched Izod impact strength for
Universal Tester (Model 4301) according to the PA6/EVA binary blends as functions of weight
 10974628, 2002, 8, Downloaded from [Link] by Indian Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES/MORPHOLOGY OF PA6/EVA BLENDS 1595

Figure 1 Plot of notched impact strength versus blend compositions at different

temperatures.

percent EVA and temperature are presented in strength, in agreement with the reported litera-
Figures 1 and 2, respectively. All the blend com- ture that most crystalline polymers show greater
positions together with pure PA6 exhibited the impact strength in the neighborhood of the Tg.
lowest value at ⫺250C. The impact strength val- This is attributed to the fact that at temperatures
ues increased with increasing temperature (Fig. around or above the Tg the molecular motions are
1). On addition of EVA, the notched impact significantly high to relieve stress concentra-
strength of the blends increased at all levels. The tions.8 At this temperature, the notched Izod im-
increase in impact strength at 230C was maxi- pact strength of these blends increased signifi-
mum for a 90/10 combination of PA6/EVA, the cantly, indicating tough behavior. It has been re-
value being about twice higher than that of pure ported that for a series of PA6/EPDM blends the
PA6. The variation in the notched impact observed impact behavior at 230C was poor since
strength of the blends with the EVA level was the brittle-to-tough transition temperature was
generally similar at all the test temperatures. On around 450C.8 This behavior was explained on the
increasing the test temperature, all the composi- basis of a relatively large particle size, or due to
tions showed higher values as compared to the low interfacial adhesion, or the combined effect of
values obtained at lower temperature. At 230C, both of the parameters, as has been shown in
the notched impact strength of PA6 increased at morphological analysis. In PA6/EVA blends, the
all levels of EVA, the value being 1.2–2.1 times interfacial adhesion between the two phases is
that of pure PA6 depending on the blend compo- believed to be the predominant factor in enhanc-
sition. As seen in Figure 2, the brittle-to-tough ing the impact strength. It is also reported that
transition temperature (Tbt) values of all the the brittle-to-tough transition temperature is no
blend compositions were around 400C, which is longer induced by rubber particles if the temper-
very near the Tg of PA6: 480C. At this tempera- ature approaches the Tg value of PA6 and a crit-
ture, PA6 also exhibited the highest impact ical interparticle distance has little significance.8
 10974628, 2002, 8, Downloaded from [Link] by Indian Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1596 BHATTACHARYYA, MAITI, AND MISRA

Figure 2 Plot of notched impact strength versus temperature at 0 –50 wt % EVA

level.

In the PA6/EVA blends, increase in the notched PA6. Beyond 20 wt % EVA, the blends exhibited
impact strength can be attributed to EVA parti- even lower yield stress with decreased rubbery
cles acting as stress concentrators, thus exploit- deformation, but the mode of failure remained
ing the rubbery nature of EVA. The deformation ductile. It was found from the stress–strain
process in pure PA6 is by shear yielding. In PA6/ curves that the work of rupture of PA6 increased
EVA blends, during impact, the deformation is on incorporation of EVA to 20 wt % in the PA6/
triggered (initiated) by yielding of the PA6 matrix EVA binary blends. The higher values of tough-
where the EVA phase also participated via an ness in the blends may be correlated with the
energy-absorption process caused by the EVA increased value of elongation at break of the
particles. blends up to a 20 wt % EVA level.
It can be seen from Table I and Figures 4 and
Tensile Properties 5 that the stress at peak, stress at break, and
Tensile stress–strain curves are shown in Figure tensile modulus of the binary blends decrease
3. Various tensile properties such as stress at with incorporation of EVA. The decrease of tensile
peak, stress at break, tensile modulus, and elon- strength [stress at peak, Fig. 4(a)] is negligible at
gation at break determined from these curves are the 5 wt % EVA level and the decrease in tensile
presented in Table I. It is observed from Figure 3 strength is 22– 64% as the EVA content increases
that both pure PA6 and EVA show ductile failure from 20 to 50 wt %, depending on the blend com-
in tension. PA6 exhibits a prominent yield point, position. In a similar way, the decrease in tensile
whereas, in the case of EVA, the stress–strain modulus (Fig. 5) is 30 – 64% as the EVA content
curve is typical of that of a rubbery polymer, varies from 20 to 50 wt %. The lowering of the
having no yield point with 400% elongation at tensile strength in the PA6/EVA blends may be
break. On incorporation of EVA up to 20 wt %, the attributed to the presence of rubbery EVA parti-
binary blends showed lower yield stress with cles acting as stress concentrators, which result
broadening of the yield peak, accompanied by in yielding at an overall stress lower than that for
higher elongation at break as compared to pure pure PA6. The decrease in the tensile modulus in
 10974628, 2002, 8, Downloaded from [Link] by Indian Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES/MORPHOLOGY OF PA6/EVA BLENDS 1597

Figure 4 (a) Plot of stress at peak versus weight

percent EVA; (b) plot of stress at break versus weight
percent EVA.
Figure 3 Stress–strain curves of PA6/EVA blends.

used such models to analyze blends of polycarbon-

the blends may be accounted for by the softening ate and high-density polyethylene as well as the
effect of the EVA copolymer, since the tensile blends of polycarbonate and polystyrene. Other
modulus of EVA is considerably lower than that of reported studies also used similar models in poly-
pure PA6. The introduction of EVA, a low modu- mer blends and composites.18 –20 Three models
lus material, in the PA6 matrix causes an overall used to analyze the tensile strength results ob-
lowering in the tensile modulus of the blends. The tained in this study are as follows:
low interfacial adhesion between the two mix-
tures also contributes to this. Model 1: Neilsen’s first power-law model21:

Theoretical Analysis of Tensile Strength ␴b

(Stress at Peak) ⫽ 共1 ⫺ ␾ 1兲S (5)
␴p
Predictive models were used to analyze the ten-
sile strength data of polymer blends to assess the Model 2: Neilsen’s two-third power-law mod-
level of interfacial interaction. Kunori and Geil17 el21:

Table I Mechanical Properties of PA6/EVA Blends

Composition Stress at Stress at Strain at Tensile Flexural Flexural

Sample PA6/EVA Peak Break Break Modulus Strength Modulus
Code (wt %) (MPa) (MPa) (%) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)

N100 100/0 50 43 273 1176 42 1092

N5 95/5 49 36 282 1103 34 920
N10 90/10 43 38 305 975 29 895
N20 80/20 39 37 290 820 26 790
N30 70/30 29 27 255 636 22 685
N40 60/40 23 20 245 521 22 685
N50 50/50 18 11 225 422 16 584
 10974628, 2002, 8, Downloaded from [Link] by Indian Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1598 BHATTACHARYYA, MAITI, AND MISRA

Figure 5 Plot of tensile modulus versus weight percent EVA.

␴b value of S and S⬘ is unity for no stress concentra-

⫽ 共1 ⫺ ␾ 2/31兲S⬘ (6) tion effect. Kb in eq. (7) is an adhesion parameter;
␴p
the maximum value of Kb is 1.21 for spherical
Model 3: Nicolais and Narkis model22: inclusion of the minor phase having no adhe-
sion.22 The three models described above were
␴b employed to analyze the tensile strength results
⫽ 共1 ⫺ K b␾ 12/3兲 (7) in order to evaluate interfacial adhesion, if any,
␴p
by comparing the experimental values with those
where ␴b and ␴p represent the tensile strength of predicted by the models. The values of S, S⬘, and
the blend and PA6, respectively, and ␾1, the vol- Kb are listed in Table II, giving a comparison
ume fraction of EVA in the blends. S and S⬘ are between the experimental data and theoretical
the Neilsen parameters in the first and two third models. Plots of relative tensile strength (␴b/␴p)
power-law models, respectively, which account for versus ␾1 of the blends predicted using these
the weakness in the structure brought about by models are presented in Figures 6 – 8.
the discontinuity in stress transfer and genera- In Figure 6, ␴b/␴p values predicted from model
tion of stress concentration at the interfaces in 1 with S ⫽ 1, S ⫽ 0.94, and experimental results
case of composites and blends. The maximum are plotted as a function of ␾1. The line with S ⫽ 1

Table II Values of Stress-concentration Parameters (S, Sⴕ, and Kb) in PA6/EVA Blends

Volume Fraction
Sample Code Wt % EVA of EVA (⌽) S S⬘ Kb

N100 0 0 0 0 0
N5 5 0.06 1.04 1.15 0.137
N10 10 0.119 0.97 1.13 0.586
N20 20 0.233 1.01 1.25 0.589
N30 30 0.342 0.92 1.19 0.797
N40 40 0.456 0.85 1.14 0.902
N50 50 0.548 0.84 1.12 0.938

Mean — — 0.94 1.16 0.66

 10974628, 2002, 8, Downloaded from [Link] by Indian Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES/MORPHOLOGY OF PA6/EVA BLENDS 1599

Figure 6 Plot of relative tensile strength versus vol- Figure 8 Plot of relative tensile strength versus vol-
ume fraction of EVA using Model 1. ume fraction of EVA using Model 3.

represents perfect adhesion. The experimental seems, therefore, that the blend is converted from
values are slightly higher than those predicted a no-stress concentration system to a structure
from the above equations with S ⫽ 1 and 0.94 up with significant stress concentration around the
to ␾1 ⫽ 0.23, being closer to the line S ⫽ 1. For EVA level of 0.23– 0.3. This shows that at an EVA
higher EVA content, the ␴b/␴p values are lower content higher than 0.23 the blends cannot take
than the predicted curves, but closer to the line S excessive stress since the interfacial adhesion is
⫽ 0.94. The experimental data exhibit a reason- lowered.
ably good fit with the predictive model with S ⫽ 1 In Figure 7, the relative tensile strength values
up to ␾1 ⫽ 0.23, whereas for ␾1 ⬎ 0.3, the data predicted from Model 2 with S⬘ ⫽ 1, S⬘ ⫽ 1.16,
deviate and lie around the curve with S ⫽ 0.94. It and experimental results are plotted versus ␾1.
The experimental data were around the line with
S⬘ ⫽ 1 up to ␾1 ⫽ 0.23, but the values decrease at
␾1 ⬎ 0.3. The experimental data are considerably
below the line with S⬘ ⫽ 1.16. This is again in
favor of adequate interfacial adhesion in the
blends up to an EVA level of 0.23. Thus, by com-
paring the values of Neilsen’s parameters (S & S⬘)
of the two power laws, it is found that the extent
of deviation of the S value from 1 is less than that
of the S⬘ value, which implies that the first power-
law model is more suitable than is the fractional
power-law model in describing the tensile stress
data.
The third model has a weightage factor Kb that
represents the dispersed phase as spherical inclu-
sions. When there is no adhesion of the inclusions
to the matrix, Kb ⫽ 1.21. The analysis shows an
average value of Kb to be 0.66, which is much less
than 1.21. This implies an extent of enhanced
interaction between the phases up to ␾1 ⫽ 0.23. In
Figure 8, the relative tensile strength values pre-
Figure 7 Plot of relative tensile strength versus vol- dicted from model 3 with Kb ⫽ 1.21, Kb ⫽ 0.66,
ume fraction of EVA using Model 2. and the experimental results are plotted as a
10974628, 2002, 8, Downloaded from [Link] by Indian Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Figure 9 SEM photomicrographs of cryogenically fractured etched surfaces of PA6/

BHATTACHARYYA, MAITI, AND MISRA

EVA blends.
1600
 10974628, 2002, 8, Downloaded from [Link] by Indian Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES/MORPHOLOGY OF PA6/EVA BLENDS 1601

Table III Morphological Parameters from SEM Analysis

Sample Composition, Ai
Code PA6/EVA, (wt %) Dn (␮m) Dw (␮m) Dw/Dn (␮m2/␮m3) IPDC (␮m)

N5 95/5 1.24 1.73 1.39 0.14 1.29

N10 90/10 1.43 2.05 1.43 0.24 0.90
N20 80/20 1.80 2.70 1.50 0.38 0.55
N30 70/30 2.70 7.28 2.69 0.38 0.40

function of ␾1. Beyond ␾1 ⫽ 0.23, the data deviate EVA are presented in Figures 11 and 12, respec-
from the model with Kb ⫽ 0.66 and lie closer to tively.
the line with Kb ⫽ 1.21. This indicates the reduc- The parameters Dn, Dw, Ai, and IPDC are given
tion of interphase interaction, probably due to the in Table III. The Dn of EVA increased in the PA6
coalescence and sequential larger domain forma- matrix with the EVA level. The value of Dn in-
tion of the EVA phase (shown later). creased from 1.24 ␮m at 5 wt % EVA to 2.70 ␮m
at 30 wt % of EVA. It is also evident from Figure
Flexural Properties 10 that the domain size distribution of the EVA
phase increases monotonically at a higher EVA
The flexural strength and modulus of PA6 de-
content in the PA6/EVA blends, probably due to
creased on incorporation of EVA in the PA6/EVA
coalescence of the EVA particles and high inter-
binary blends, as presented in Table I. The trend
facial tension between PA6 and EVA. Further-
is along similar lines as that of the decrease of the
more, Figure 11 shows an increase in Dw with the
tensile strength and modulus in the binary
EVA concentration, being highest for the 70/30
blends. The decrease of the flexural modulus and
PA6/EVA blend, which is much higher than is the
strength is about 29 – 60% and 50 – 66%, respec-
corresponding Dn. This indicates a wider domain
tively, as the EVA content varies from 20 to 50 wt
size distribution at this composition, probably due
%. Deterioration of the flexural properties may be
to a greater degree of coalescence, similar to those
attributed to the incorporation of the rubbery
reported for other blends.23,24
EVA phase to the hard-plastic phase PA6, in-
The parameter Ai increased marginally with
creasing the deformability of the latter.
the incorporation of EVA to 20 wt %, as seen in
Figure 12. It is reported that Ai is a measure of
Phase Morphology
the interfacial thickness in the multiphase poly-
This section deals with the morphological studies mer systems.25 PA6/EVA blends form a narrow
carried out on the PA6/EVA binary blend systems interface due to the incompatibility between the
with the EVA level varying from 0 to 50 wt %. The components, which is reflected in the lower values
scanning electron micrographs of the cryogeni- of Ai (Table III).
cally fractured etched surfaces of PA6/EVA According to Wu’s theory, the brittle-to-tough
blends are presented in Figure 9. The SEM anal- transition temperature of the blends depends on
ysis of cryogenically fractured etched surfaces the critical matrix ligament thickness (IPDC). If
show two different types of morphology in these the matrix ligament thickness value is lower than
blends. A particle-dispersed morphology was ob- is the critical value, the blends would be tough,
served in blends with EVA levels from 5 to 30 wt while if it is above the critical value, the blend
%, as seen in Figure 9(a– d). On the other hand, a would be brittle. It has also been reported that the
cocontinuous morphology was observed at an critical value of the ligament thickness of PA66/
EVA level of 40 –50 wt % [Fig. 9(e,f)]. The mor- rubber blends is about 0.3 ␮m.7 It is observed
phological parameters obtained from SEM analy- from Table III that the IPDC for the PA6/EVA
sis of cryogenically fractured etched surfaces are blends is higher than 0.3 ␮m. To make the blends
presented in Table III. The EVA domain size dis- tough, the ligament thickness should be reduced
tribution in the blends of PA6/EVA at different to below 0.3 ␮m. Thus, the blends of PA6/EVA
levels of EVA was determined and is presented in would show brittle behavior. It may also be noted
Figure 10. The variations of the average domain that if the interfacial adhesion between the two
size and interfacial area with varying levels of phases is low enough then the critical ligament
10974628, 2002, 8, Downloaded from [Link] by Indian Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Figure 10 Average domain size distribution of PA6/EVA blends: (a) 95/5; (b) 90/10;
BHATTACHARYYA, MAITI, AND MISRA

(c) 80/20; (d) 70/30.

1602
 10974628, 2002, 8, Downloaded from [Link] by Indian Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES/MORPHOLOGY OF PA6/EVA BLENDS 1603

presented in Figure 13. Pure PA6 exhibits ductile

fracture while PA6/EVA blends show debonding
of EVA particles with hemispherical bumps, indi-
cating little adhesion between PA6 and EVA. This
observation is found up to an EVA level of 30 wt %
[Fig. 13(a– e)]. The impact fractured topology of
the PA6/EVA blends at an EVA level higher than
30 wt % show a different perspective, indicating
rod-shaped particles protruding from the surface
or lump of debonded EVA along with some spher-
ical debonded EVA particles. This behavior may
be due to the cocontinuous nature of the dispersed
phase in these blends. This kind of morphological
observation was also seen in PC/HDPE blends,
suggesting a brittle, low-energy fracture.17 It is
also evident from the micrographs that the defor-
Figure 11 Plot of average domain size versus weight mation pattern during impact testing in PA6/
percent EVA. EVA blends up to a 20 wt % EVA level is of similar
type as that of pure PA6. On the other hand, the
deformation pattern has changed considerably at
thickness parameter value may not explain the
EVA levels of more than 20 wt % and is charac-
brittle/tough behavior in the PA6/rubber blends.
terized by brittle fracture. There is little sign of
The occurrence of cocontinuous morphology at the
plastic deformation or cavitation of the EVA par-
EVA level of 30 –50 wt % is believed to be due to
ticles.
a higher rate of coalescence with increase in the
EVA level. The morphological parameters of the
blends of an EVA level higher than 30 wt % could
CONCLUSIONS
not be calculated due to the cocontinuous nature
of the blends.
The major conclusions of the present study are as
follows:
Fracture Surface Analysis
SEM photomicrographs of notched impact frac- 1. In the PA6/EVA blends, the notched Izod
tured surfaces at 230C of the PA6/EVA blends are impact strength of PA6 increased on the

Figure 12 Plot of interfacial area versus weight percent EVA.

 10974628, 2002, 8, Downloaded from [Link] by Indian Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1604 BHATTACHARYYA, MAITI, AND MISRA

Figure 13 SEM photomicrographs of impact fractured surfaces of PA6/EVA blends.

addition of the EVA copolymer accompa- interfacial adhesion decreased at an EVA

nied by a steady decrease of tensile and level of more than 20 wt %.
flexural properties. 4. The morphological study as revealed by
2. The maximum impact strength was found SEM showed a two-phase morphology, the
at a 90/10 combination of PA6/EVA, being nature of which is dependent on the com-
about twice higher than that of pure PA6. position. In the case of a particle-dispersed
The brittle-to-tough transition tempera- morphology, the average domain size of
ture was about 400C for the PA6/EVA EVA increased with an increasing EVA
blends. The increase in impact strength in level. This indicates the pronounced effect
PA6 is explained on the basis of better of coalescence, which is also evident from a
stress transfer in the presence of a rubbery wider domain size distribution at a higher
polymer like EVA. EVA content.
3. The theoretical analysis of tensile proper-
ties suggests that there is an extent of in- Thus, it may be concluded that the EVA copol-
teraction between PA6 and EVA up to ymer increased the notched impact strength;
about a 20 wt % EVA level, whereas the however, the extent of impact modification is min-
 10974628, 2002, 8, Downloaded from [Link] by Indian Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES/MORPHOLOGY OF PA6/EVA BLENDS 1605

Figure 13 (Continued from the previous page)

imal due to its immiscibility/incompatibility with 4. Gaymans, R. J. In Rubber Toughened Engineering

PA6 accompanied by a reduction of tensile and Plastics; Collyer, A. A., Ed.; Chapman and Hall:
flexural properties. To obtain higher impact London, 1994.
strength, the blends of PA6 and EVA need to be 5. Flexman, E. A. Kunststoffe 1979, 69, 172.
6. Epstein, B. N.; Adams, G. C. A. In PRI Conference
compatibilized, which forms part of a continua-
on Toughening of Plastics, London, 1985; Paper 10.
tion of this study and has been published else-
7. Wu, S. Polymer 1985, 26, 1855.
where.26, 27 8. Borggreve, R. J. M.; Gaymans, R. J.; Schuijer, J.;
Ingen Housz, J. F. Polymer 1987, 28, 1489.
9. Majumdar, B.; Keskkula, H.; Paul, D. R. J Polym
REFERENCES Sci Polym Phys 1994, 32, 2127.
10. Wu, S. J Polym Sci Polym Phys 1983, 21, 699.
1. Kohan, M. I. Nylon Plastics; SPE Monograph; 11. Speroni, F.; Castoldi, E.; Fabbri, P.; Casiraghi, T. J
Wiley: New York, 1973. Mater Sci 1989, 24, 2165.
2. Paul, D. R.; Newman, S. Polymer Blends; Academ- 12. Groeninckx, G.; Dompas, D. In Structure and Prop-
ic: New York, 1978; Vol. 1. erties of Multiphase Polymeric Materials; Araki,
3. Oshinski, A. J.; Keskkulla, H.; Paul, D. R. Polymer T.; Cong, Q. T.; Shibayama, M., Eds.; Marcel Dek-
1996, 37, 4909. ker: New York, 1998.
 10974628, 2002, 8, Downloaded from [Link] by Indian Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [20/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1606 BHATTACHARYYA, MAITI, AND MISRA

13. Borggreve, R. J. M.; Gaymans, R. J.; Schuijer, J. 19. Maiti, S. N.; Lopez, B. H. J Appl Polym Sci 1992,
Polymer 1989, 30, 71. 44, 353.
14. Oshinski, A. J.; Keskkulla, H.; Paul, D. R. Polymer 20. Maiti, S. N.; Sharma, K. J Mater Sci 1992, 27,
1996, 37, 4919. 4605.
15. Misra, A.; Sawhney, G.; Ananda Kumar, R. A. 21. Neilsen, L. E. J Appl Polym Sci 1966, 10, 97.
J Appl Polym Sci 1993, 50, 1179. 22. Nicolais, L.; Narkis, M. Polym Eng Sci 1971, 11, 194.
16. D’Orazio, L.; Mancarella, C.; Martuscelli, E.; 23. Lee, J. K.; Han, C. D. Polymer 1999, 40, 6277.
Casale, A.; Filippi, A.; Speroni, F. J Mater Sci 1986, 24. Lee, J. K.; Han, C. D. Polymer 2000, 41, 1799.
21, 989. 25. Dedecker, K.; Groeninckx, G. Macromolecules
17. Kunori, T.; Geil, P. H. J Macromol Sci Phys B 1980, 1999, 32, 2472.
18, 135. 26. Bhattacharyya, A. R.; Ghosh, A. K.; Misra, A. Poly-
18. Gupta, A. K.; Purwar, S. N. J Appl Polym Sci 1984, mer 2001, 42, 9143.
29, 3513. 27. Bhattacharyya, A. R. Ph.D. Thesis, IIT Delhi, 2000.