Document ZB4k1n5EnDMpZDd3ypj7mwZXd
If ------------------ k--j-- ------
f ,som itocri,M
j o-Mt . sjs
:
R' fJ-ur * 'L
./ --------- -- --------- , _ ----------------------------- ------------- -
St. Louis Research Dept, f'ebruary 23, 1965 S-l in Adhesives
B. Noi'thup - BNORT
M. W. Farrar - Res 1
J. R. Darby - Re'S 3 W. B. Hicks - WHlCK . II. S. Bergen - HBERG W. F. Waychoff - WWAYC A. W. M. Coaker - Res 3 N. W. Touchette - Res 3
Santoset 1 has been evaluated in adhesive formulations for both metal and nylon. The results obtained are tabulated below:
Meta 1_ to Metal Adhesive Formulations :
The following formulation was evaluated as an adhesive for steel cleaned with emery paper:
.
Geon 121 DIDP Reactive
Plasticizer Whiting Dythal White Lead t-butyl
perbenzoate
Reactive Plasticizer
50 15
as indicated
15 5 5
-
ifo of rea_5ctive plasticizer Adhesive Strength, ASTM D-1002-53T(Shear)
15 parts DAP 15. parts S-l 30 parts S-l (no DIDP)
1300 psi (cohesive + adhesive break)
500 psi (adhesive break)
280 psi (
"
")
The results indicate that S-l offered no improvement of adhesive strength in this formulation.
The following formulations were evaluated as adhesives for
aluminum cleaned with K2Cr207 in H2S04 and for steel cleaned
in concentrated HC1:
.
Basic Formulation:
Geon 126 DIDP HB-40 Surfex MM VMCH Dyphos
100 110
30 150
20 5
DSW 586985 STLCOPCB4092319
To: B. Northup
2- -
February 23, 1965
% 01' Plasticizer in Basic Formulation replaced by S-l
0%
10$
>0%
Adhesive Strength psl ASTM D-1002-53T (Shear)
Al = 278 Steel= 383
Al =261 Steels 408
3teel= 280
Adhesive Strength psl ASTP: D-13'4-37 .(cross lap)
Al = 130
Al = 124
No significant improvement or adhesive strength was noted by the use oi S-l in this system.
Adnesives j'or Nylon
Tnese adhesives were evaluated with the T-peel test ASTM D-i876-6lT.
S-l was evaluated against Pliabrac P-64 in the following formulations
P-1716 DIOP P-64 S-l Basic Lead Carbonate Dypnos EP-201 D-22 t-BPB Di-t-BP
1
100 30 40
-
8
-
-
0.8
-
2
100 30
-
40 .8
7 W;
-
0.8 -
3
100 30 -40 8
-
-
-
-
0.8
. -
-
4
100
-
-
60
-
3 3 .2
-
0.9
Adhesive Str,lbs/in 23 13 10 15
In these formulations S-i was not as good as P-64 as an adhesive for nylon.
S-l was evaluated against DOP in the following formulation:
Geon 121 Geon 202 Plasticizer White Lead Di-t-BP
55
45 60
3 1.5$ of S-l in plasticizer
Plasticizer
Adhesive Strength, lbs/inch '
DOP DOP + S-l (1:1) S-l
13 17 15
DSW 586986
jfM
STLCOPCB4092320
-3-
To: B. Northup
February 23, 1965
The results indicate that 3-1 is slightly better than DOP in adhesives l'or nylon.
So l'ar the use oi' S-l in adhesives does not appear too promising. However, it has only been evaluated in formula tions that are now in use or suggested by others. An attempt could be made to find a competitive formulation containing 3-1 for this application if you desire. Such a program would involve studies on the effects of curing conditions, 3-1 concentration, stabilisers, etc.
W. M. Rinehart ds
STLCOPCB4092321