Thermoplastic Elastomers—Three Decades of Progress

1989 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 529-547 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. R. Legge

Abstract In these three decades of progress, thermoplastic elastomers have risen in 1987 to a position of tenth in the order of commercial thermoplastic sales in the U.S.A., with a growth rate, 1986–1987, of 9.7%. It is very probable that the quantity shown for 1987 sales, 441 million pounds, is low, since it is well known that the largest producer of styrenic TPEs does not report offtake data. Much of the styrenic TPE goes to the adhesive industry, which also is very secretive in regard to materials consumption information. Thus, the 1986–1987 reported growth rate of 9.7% is on the low side. Another indicator of progress in the growth of TPEs has been illustrated by the number of product introductions from January 1986 to June 1987. During that period, TPEs led the major thermoplastics with the introduction of 270 new product types, and the nylons were a close second with 250. A third estimate of the explosive growth in TPEs may be seen in Table V which lists the number of manufacturers of TPEs in 1975, 1985, and 1987, increasing from 10 to 28 to 50. To summarize, the present thermoplastic elastomers, now high-volume commercial products, had roots in the chemistry and technology of polymers in the 1920's. Throughout the history of the “Roots” period one can detect precursor events from which several TPEs could have been foreseen. In each of the three decades of progress, major advances were made in the technology, physical properties, availability, and utilization of TPEs. The numbers of these increased in each succeeding period. Several paradigms appear in this review, for example: 1. The triblock styrene-diene A-B-A copolymers, morphology, and elastomeric character, in the first decade. 2. The copolyesters with (A−B)n morphology and greatly enhanced physical properties in the second decade. 3. The dynamically-vulcanized blends of EPDM and PP, followed in time by the concept of compatibilization to permit practical blends of NBR and PP in the third decade. Throughout these periods, growth was catalyzed by the favorable economics of manufacturing finished elastomeric products via low-cost thermoplastic processing techniques as compared with thermoset rubber processes. The reuse of scrap also provided a major incentive. In addition to these, the concept of component integration is now showing a path toward even more cost reduction incentives. New applicational areas continue to appear. One of these, blending relatively small amounts of TPEs with existing large volume thermoplastics, promises to provide extremely large offtakes of TPEs in the next decade. I am sure that the numbers of papers presented in symposia at meetings of the Rubber Division of the American Chemical Society confirm the continued explosive growth of TPEs we have seen in these past three decades.

1987 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 83-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman R. Legge

Abstract It is a great pleasure to return to Montreal to receive the Charles Goodyear Medal at this joint meeting of the American Chemical Society, Rubber Division, and the Rubber Chemistry Division, Chemical Institute of Canada. This occasion has given me a delightful opportunity to renew old friendships in both organizations and to visit again my graduate school at McGill. First of all, I thank the Awards Committee and the Executive Committee of the Rubber Division for electing me to this high honor which I share with my many collaborators who were with me during those exciting years, and with the Shell Companies. The subject of the lecture is “Thermoplastic Elastomers,” specifically the triblock copolymers based on styrene and dienes, or hydrogenated dienes. Previously I have used the subtitle, “A Successful Innovation,” where I have defined “innovation” as the successful commercialization of a new technology, process, or product. In this lecture, I shall discuss the background of the innovation, the impact of it upon the thermoplastic elastomer field, and some of the early history of thermoplastic elastomers, which I believe you will find interesting.


1928 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 515-594
Author(s):  
J. E. Partenheimer ◽  
E. R. Bridgwater ◽  
D. F. Cranor ◽  
E. B. Curtis ◽  
J. W. Schade ◽  
...  

Abstract IN OCTOBER, 1926, R. P. Dinsmore, chairman of the Rubber Division of the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, appointed a Physical Testing Committee to investigate the effect of variables such as temperature and relative humidity upon the physical properties of rubber. This committee was continued by Harry L. Fisher, present chairman of the Rubber Division. The committee chose the problem of determining the importance of controlling atmospheric temperature and relative humidity while conditioning rubber test samples at various stages of preparation and testing. This report deals with the first study made—that of the effect of the above two variables on the stress-strain and tensile properties of rubber. In reading this report it should be kept in mind that the problem of this committee is to determine the effect of variables on the physical properties of rubber so that we may know the relative importance of controlling the factors involved. It was not intended to make this work include the relative value of specific tests for particular purposes or to become a research directed towards the development of new tests. It has been the intent to limit the work of the committee to the refinement of tests widely used and considered as routine and standard, and not to include development of new tests or work concerning broader lines of research. It is, however, hoped that in the future the work of this or another committee can be broadened to include fundamental research problems as well as specific work such as the present committee has undertaken. We believe that the work done demonstrates the desirability of carrying on cooperative investigations of this nature and hope that this committee is made a permanent institution of the Rubber Division with such changes in personnel as are necessary continually to broaden and improve the work. This report will raise many questions and point out several possible lines of research, but the committee has tried to stick to its job of determining the relative importance of controlling temperature and relative humidity in relation to stress-strain and tensile properties. The work has been carried out at the Bureau of Standards at Washington by F. E. Rupert as a research associate under the direction of the committee. The Bureau of Standards has contributed its facilities and to cover the expenditures of the committee for the first year each company represented by the members of the committee contributed $650. The Rubber Association of America is handling the finances of the committee for the present year, which amounts to $6000 and includes the appropriation of the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. As the committee has needed special apparatus different companies have loaned machines, which have included a Scott tensile tester and U. S. abrasion machine from the Henry L. Scott Company, and a Grasselli abrader from the Grasselli Chemical Company.


2020 ◽  
Vol 85 (24) ◽  
pp. 15778-15779
Author(s):  
Todd L. Lowary ◽  
Nicola L. Pohl

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document