ELASTOMERE UND KUNSTSTOFFE
ELASTOMERS AND PLASTICS
EPDM SBR Blend Sulfur Accelerators
Accelerators are known to function
via a complex reaction mechanism.
Understanding the role played by
accelerators in the vulcanization of
elastomer blends is further complicated by differences in their solubilities in the elastomers which makeup the blend. In this study, blend
properties were optimized by selecting accelerators with a shorter
scorch time and a faster cure rate in
the EPDM phase than in the SBR
phase. Using the techniques described in this work, sulfur vulcanizates with compound properties
comparable to those cured with a
cure system composed of peroxide
and sulfur coagent were obtained.
Einfluss von Vulkanisationsbeschleunigern auf die Eigenschaften von EPDM/SBR
Mischungen
EPDM SBR Mischung Schwefel Beschleuniger
Vulkanisationsbeschleuniger beeinflussen die Vernetzung in komplexer
Weise. Das VerstaÈndnis der Wirkung
von Beschleunigern wird weiterhin
erschwert durch eine unterschiedliche LoÈslicheit in Kautschuken, die
miteinander verschnitten werden. In
dieser Untersuchung wurden die Eigenschaften von Kautschukverschnitten dahingehend optimiert,
dass Beschleuniger, die eine kuÈrzere Scorch-Zeit und hoÈhere Vulkanisationsgeschwindigkeit fuÈr EPDM
als fuÈr SBR aufweisen, eingesetzt
wurden. Durch diese Vorgehensweise werden schwefelvernetzte Verschnittvulkanisate hergestellt, deren
Eigenschaftsbild den Systemen
gleicht, die mit Peroxid und Schwefel als Coagens vernetzt wurden.
84
Effects of Sulfur Accelerators on
the Performance of EPDM/SBR
Blends
J. Zhao, G. Ghebremeskel and J. Peasely,
Port Neches (USA)
The properties of two or more dissimilar
elastomer blends not only strongly depend on the composition, viscosity, shear
stress, interfacial tension and the compatibililzer used [1 ± 5], but also on the diffusion rate of the curatives between the
elastomers [6, 7]. The driving force for
the diffusion of curatives in a dissimilar
elastomer blend is the absence of equilibrium caused by differences in the concentration of diffusates (sulfur and accelerators). Cure incompatibility arises when
the elastomers are both vulcanized by the
action of the same curing ingredients but
at reaction rates and scorch times which
are significantly different for each of the
elastomers. Reactivity differences between the elastomers and differences between the solubilities of curatives, such
as sulfur and accelerator, in the elastomers also contribute to the incompatibility [6, 8, 9].
One of the problems associated with the
co-curing of SBR with EPDM is the fact
that sulfur diffuses at a much faster rate
from the EPDM phase to the SBR phase
than from the SBR phase to the EPDM
phase. Gardiner [6, 10] using equation
(1) determined the relative distribution
coefficient (K) of sulfur in SBR and
EPDM to be 3.6, 3.0 and 1.48 at 40,
80, and 153 8C, respectively.
K ˆ Sa =Sb
…1†
Where Sa is the solubility of sulfur in SBR
and Sb is the solubility of sulfur in the
EPDM phase. The tendency for the diffusion of sulfur from the EPDM phase to the
SBR phase or from the SBR phase to the
EPDM phase strongly depends on the
solubility of accelerator in the elastomers.
The purpose of this study is to determine the role played by accelerators in
the vulcanization of EPDM/SBR blends.
Effects of the accelerators in final compound properties including: mechanical
properties, ozone resistance, heat aging,
and compression set are presented.
Experimental section
Materials
The SBR used in this study is 1502 type
SBR from the Ameripol Synpol Corporation. EPDM elastomers with various levels
of ethylene and diene content were obtained from various suppliers. Carbon
Black (N330) was obtained from Engineered Carbons Inc., (ECI). Oil (Sunpar
2280) was obtained from Sun Company
Inc. Zinc oxide, sulfur, accelerators, and
stearic acid were of commmercial grade
and were used as received.
Sample preparation
Tab. 1 shows the general formulation
used in the study. Compounding was carried out in a small-scale laboratory mixer
(Brabender Plasti-corder) and a laboratory size Banbury mixer. Mixer rotor
speed was set at 80 rpm. The total vol-
Tab. 1. General formulation
Sample #
EPDM (phr)
EPDM/SBR
(phr)
EPDM
SBR1502
CB (N330)
Sunpar 2280
ZnO
Stearic Acid
Sulfur
Accelerators
100
±
80
50
5
1
1.5
Variable
Variable
Variable
80
50
5
1
1.5
Variable
KGK Kautschuk Gummi Kunststoffe 54. Jahrgang, Nr. 3/2001
Effects of Sulfur Accelerators . . .
KGK Kautschuk Gummi Kunststoffe 54. Jahrgang, Nr. 3/2001
85
Effects of Sulfur Accelerators . . .
ume of each mix in the Brabender was
kept constant at about 60 ml. Recipes
in the Banbury mixer were adjusted to
give equal mixing volumes of 1200 cm3
times the specific gravity for each compound. Mixing was done in two stages.
All ingredients except for curing agents
were mixed in a Banbury or Brabender
mixer. Curatives were added to the batch
on a mill. Cure characterization was carried out with a Monsanto ODR 2000E
Rheometer in accordance with ASTM
2084. Samples were compression
molded at 160 8C for an optimum curing
condition. The sample testing protocol
employed in this study was described
in earlier work [1].
Results and discussions
Figure 1. Rheometer curves of
EPDM and SBR
vulcanizates containing 1.5 phr
sulfur, 1 phr TMTD,
and 0.5 phr MBT
There are a wide range of accelerator systems available for elastomers providing a
range of cure rates, scortch times and final compound properties. The accelerators investigated in this study include a
sulfenamide-based accelerator (2) and
a system composed of a combination
of a thiuram (3) and thiazole-based (4) accelerator.
(2)
CBS: R1 ˆ H, R2 ˆ cyclohexyl; DCBS:
R1 ˆ cyclohexyl, R2 ˆ cyclohexyl
(3)
(4)
Kinetics of vulcanization
Fig. 1 shows the cure behavior of SBR/
EPDM vulcanizates cured with thiurambased accelerator in combination with a
thiazole-based accelerator. Fig. 2 shows
the cure characteristics of SBR/EPDM
vulcanizates cured with a sulfenamidebased accelerator. EPDM compounds
cured with the sulfenamide-based accelerator (DCBS) have shorter scorch time
and faster curing rate than the SBR compounds cured with the same accelerator
(Fig. 2).
Comparison of the cure properties of
EPDM and SBR compounds cured with
a combination of thiuram and thiazolebased accelerators shows that the
scorch time T2, T10, T50, and T90 for
86
Figure 2. Rheometer curves of
EPDM and SBR
vulcanizates containing 1.5 phr sulfur
and 2.65 phr DCBS
the vulcanizates of the two elastomers
are not significantly different (Fig. 3 and
4). EPDM compounds cured with the sulfenamide-based accelerators, however,
showed a shorter scorch time, T10,
and T50 than the SBR compounds cured
with the same accelerator. As a matter of
fact, the time required to reach T50 for the
EPDM compounds was found to be the
same as the scorch time of the SBR compounds (Fig. 2).
The overall cure rate and initial cure
rate of the compounds prepared with
varying ratios of EPDM and SBR are
shown in Tab. 2 and Tab. 3. The overall
cure rate and initial cure rate indices
were found to be less than 1 for the
EPDM/SBR blends cured with the thiur-
am plus thiazole-based accelerators
and greater than 1 for the compounds
cured with sulfenaimde based-accelerator. This indicates that the blend compounds cured with sulfenamide-based
accelerator have faster cure rate than
the SBR compounds cured with the
same accelerator, while the same blends
cured with the combination of thiuram
and thiazole based-accelerators have
slower cure rate than the SBR compounds cured with the same accelerator.
The cure incompatibility of EPDM and
SBR can be explained by the fact that
both elastomers though vulcanized by
the action of the same curing ingredients,
do so at significantly differing reaction
rates. Because of the differences in the
KGK Kautschuk Gummi Kunststoffe 54. Jahrgang, Nr. 3/2001
Effects of Sulfur Accelerators . . .
Figure 3. Scorch time (T2), T10, and T50 vs. the EPDM/SBR ratios in
the blend compounds
polarity of the two elastomers (Fig. 5), the
solubility parameters of the curatives in
the two elastomers are different
(Tab. 4). Optimum covulcanizate properties of EPDM/SBR blends are achieved
Figure 4. T90 vs. the EPDM/SBR ratios in the blend compounds
by using less polar accelerators which
have minimum tendency of migrating to
the more polar SBR phase. Sulfur,
MBT, and TMTD have higher solubility
in the SBR phase than in the EPDM
Tab. 2. Curing behavior of EPDM/SBR blends with thiuram and thiazole accelerators
EPDM/SBR Ratio
100/0
70/30
50/50
30/70
0/100
Max. Torque, dNm
Min. Torque, dNm
Delta Torque, dNm
T50 Torque, dNm
Scorch time, min
T10, min
T50, min
T80, min
T90, min
Cure rate, dNm/min
T50 Cure rate, dNm/min
Cure rate index
T50 Cure rate index
50.0
6.5
43.46
28.2
2.02
2.32
3.67
7.87
14.20
3.57
13.17
0.99
1.60
29.0
6.2
22.79
17.6
1.93
1.93
3.42
6.38
9.18
3.14
7.65
0.87
0.93
27.3
5.3
22.00
16.3
1.95
1.93
3.36
6.41
9.33
2.98
7.80
0.83
0.95
27.0
4.6
22.40
15.8
2.11
2.11
3.56
6.73
9.88
2.88
7.73
0.80
0.94
25.2
3.1
22.04
14.2
2.31
2.30
3.65
6.06
8.43
3.60
8.22
1.00
1.00
The compounds contain 80 phr N 330 and 50 phr Oil.
Tab. 3. Curing behavior of EPDM/SBR blends with a sulfenamide accelerator (DCBS)
EPDM/SBR Ratio
100/0
70/30
50/50
30/70
0/100
Max. Torque, dNm
Min. Torque, dNm
Delta Torque, dNm
T50 Torque, dNm
Scorch time, min
T10, min
T50, min
T80, min
T90, min
Cure rate, dNm/min
T50 Cure rate, dNm/min
Cure rate index
T50 Cure rate index
44.0
6.3
37.71
25.1
4.88
6.09
12.57
21.04
28.28
1.61
2.45
1.09
1.73
32.4
5.8
26.61
19.1
7.84
8.56
15.95
20.17
22.88
1.77
1.64
1.20
1.16
29.1
5.1
24.05
17.1
9.27
9.56
16.90
20.69
22.94
1.76
1.58
1.19
1.11
26.0
4.5
21.52
15.3
11.51
11.24
18.53
22.23
24.46
1.66
1.53
1.13
1.08
21.9
2.7
19.16
12.3
12.43
11.45
19.18
23.03
25.41
1.48
1.42
1.00
1.00
The compounds contain 80 phr N 330 and 50 phr Oil.
KGK Kautschuk Gummi Kunststoffe 54. Jahrgang, Nr. 3/2001
phase. On the other hand, sulfenamide-based accelerators (TBBS, CBS
and DCBS) have higher solubility in the
EPDM phase than in the SBR phase
[11]. As a result, the EPDM phase of
the blends cured with sulfenamide type
accelerators have shorter scorch time
and faster curing rate than the SBR
phase. Since both phases are very well
vulcanized, a significant improvement in
blend properties is observed.
Tab. 5 shows the energy of activation
of the EPDM/SBR blends cured with
the thiuram in combination with thiazole
and sulfenamide (DCBS) based accelerators. The energy of activation of the SBR/
EPDM compounds cured with the thiuram plus thiazole-based accelerators is
higher than those cured with the sulfenamide-based accelerator. This indicates
that the cure rates of SBR/EPDM blends
cured with the sulfenamide-base accelerator are less affected by the curing temperature than those cured with a combination of thiuram and thiazole based-accelerators. The energy of activation of the
SBR/EPDM blends cured with a combination of thiuram and thiazole based-accelerators is dominated by the SBR
phase. This indicates that thiuram and
thiazole-based accelerators favor the
SBR phase. The energy of activation of
the blends cured with sulfenamide accelerator was found to depend on the ratio
of the EPDM to SBR in the blend (Tab. 5).
87
Effects of Sulfur Accelerators . . .
Tab. 4. Solubility of curatives in SBR and EPDM*
Curatives
Molecular
weight
Temperature (8C)
S8
MBT
TMTD
TBBS**
CBS**
256
167
240
238
347
153
153
153
105
96
Solubility
SBR
17.3
5.2
14.3
< 0.5
< 1.0
Ratio of
solubilities
SBR/EPDM
EPDM
10.7
1.1
5
< 2.0
< 2.0
1.62
4.65
2.86
0.25
0.5
* F. X. Guillaumond, Rubber Chem. Technol. 49, 105 (1976).
** H. J. Graf and H. M. Issel, Rhein Chemie, Technical report No. 51, 4 (1995).
Tab. 5. Energy of activation*
Accelerator
EPDM/SBR
Thiuram plus thiazoles
Energy of Activation (kJ/mol)
Sulfenaminde
Energy of Activation (kJ/mol)
100/0
70/30
50/50
30/70
0/100
92
105
104
103
106
89
93
88
84
82
* Obtained from the Arrhenius plot, (lnV vs. 1/T).
Figure 5. Polarity of
various elastomers
Stress-strain curves
Fig. 6 shows the stress-strain curves of
SBR and EPDM compounds cured with
the accelerators investigated in this study.
Results of this work clearly show that
both SBR and EPDM vulcanizates cured
with sulfenamide-based accelerator give
higher tensile strength than those cured
with the combination of thiuram and thiazole-based accelerators. DCBS, a sul-
Figure 6. Stress-strain curves of EPDM and SBR vulcanizates with
different accelerators
88
fenamide-based accelerator, is known
to yield a higher percentage of polysulfidic
crosslinks than the combination of TMTD
(thiuram) and MBT (thiazole) accelerators
[12]. For fatigue resistance, a better support is provided by the most labile polysulfidic crosslinks than the stronger
monosulfide or carbon-carbon bonds.
The ability of polysulfidic crosslinks to
break before the main backbone chain
under the high stresses and reform into
crosslinks of lower sulfur rank in a more
relaxed state relieves some of the localized stresses and contributes to the overall strength. This also affects elongation
and cut growth resistance.
The SBR compounds cured with the
same cure system showed lower modulus and lower tensile strength than the
EPDM compounds (Fig. 6). Stress-strain
curves generated for the compounds
with various ratios of EPDM to SBR are
expected to fall in between the stressstrain curves for the EPDM and SBR
compounds. Fig. 7 shows that the
stress-strain curves of the EPDM/SBR
vulcanizates cured with the DCBS accelerator are close to that of an ideal system.
An ideal accelerator for the EPDM/SBR
blends needs to have higher solubility in
the EPDM phase than in the SBR phase.
This will give rise to shorter scorch time,
and a faster cure rate in the EPDM phase
than in the SBR phase. Hence, sulfenamide-based accelerators are very well
suited for curing the SBR/EPDM blends.
Figure 7. Stress-strain curves of EPDM/SBR vulcanizates with
DCBS
KGK Kautschuk Gummi Kunststoffe 54. Jahrgang, Nr. 3/2001
Effects of Sulfur Accelerators . . .
EPDM phase. Since the dispersed phase
functions as a reinforcing phase, the
modulus of the EPDM/SBR (70/30)
blends at low strain is higher than that
of the EPDM vulcanizates cured with
the same cure system. Over crosslinking
makes the SBR phase brittle; on the other
hand, the EPDM phase can not support
high stress because of the insufficient
crosslink-density.
Figure 8. Stressstrain curves of
EPDM/SBR vulcanizates with the
combination of
(TMTD) thiuram
and (MBT) thiazole
accelerators
Fig. 8 shows the stress strain curves of
the EPDM/SBR vulcanizates cured with a
combination of the thiuram and thiazole
based-accelerators. The modulus at the
low strain region (up to 100%) for the
EPDM/SBR (70/30) blends was higher
than that of the EPDM compound, while
the modulus at high strain region (beyond
180%) was lower than that of the SBR
compound. This observation can be ex-
plained using the schematic diagram
shown in Fig. 9. If the same accelerator
is added to either SBR or EPDM alone,
the accelerator is thoroughly dispersed
in the elastomer and results in a uniform
crosslink-density. On the other hand,
curatives migrate from the EPDM phase
to SBR phase (dispersed phase). Consequently, the crosslink-density in the SBR
phase is much higher than that in the
Comparison with other cure systems
Physical and mechanical properties of
the blends cured with sulfur and the sulfenamide-based accelerators were compared with blends cured with a peroxide
cure system in combination with sulfur
coagent. The mechanical properties of
the final compounds cured with the two
systems were comparable. The sulfur
cured blends showed slightly higher
modulus, hardness, ultimate elongation,
and tear strength. No significant change
in tensile strength was observed (Tab. 6).
Comparison of EPDM compounds
with EPDM/SBR blends
Tab. 6 shows the mechanical properties
of EPDM and EPDM/SBR blends cured
with an identical sulfur cure system.
The blend compounds showed a lower
tensile strength, ultimate elongation,
tear strength, Mooney viscosity and hardness than the EPDM compounds. The
modulus for the blend compounds however was slightly higher, probably due to
the fact that the crosslink-density in the
SBR phase is higher than that in the
EPDM phase. Brittleness temperature,
ozone resistance, compression set and
heat aging properties of the EPDM compounds were also compared to those of
the EPDM/SBR (70/30) blends. The results are discussed below.
Brittleness temperature and ozone
resistance
All the EPDM and EPDM/SBR specimens
tested showed no cracking at ÿ60 8C
after 12 days of dynamic and 14 days
of static ozone aging. A close examination of the ozone aged specimen by
means of optical microscope also
showed no surface cracking.
Figure 9. A shematic diagram of curing incompatibility of EPDM/SBR blend
KGK Kautschuk Gummi Kunststoffe 54. Jahrgang, Nr. 3/2001
89
Effects of Sulfur Accelerators . . .
Tab. 6. Mechanical and physical properties of the EPDM and EPDM/SBR blends
Sample #
Cure system
Tensile Strength, (MPa)
Elongation at Break, (%)
100% Modulus, (MPa)
200% Modulus, (MPa)
300% Modulus, (MPa)
Mooney (1 ‡ 4 min) 100 8C
Hardness ªShore Aº
Tear Strength, (kN/m)
Temperature, 8C
23 8C for 70 hours, %
70 8C for 70 hours, %
100 8C for 70 hours, %
EPDM
EPDM/SBR
Peroxide ‡ sulfur coagent
EPDM
Stress-Strain
18.4
443
3.04
7.49
12.6
Compound Mooney
65.4
56.8
Hardness
72
71
Die C-Tear
54.8
44.9
Brittleness Temperature
> ÿ 60*
> ÿ 60*
Compression Set Method B
42.4
37.3
20.5
22.6
30.6
27.3
22.2
529
2.54
6.34
11.6
Sulfur
EPDM/SBR
22.8
576
2.88
6.08
9.88
17.9
526
3.22
6.45
10.4
64.1
56.4
75
73
57.5
51
> ÿ 60*
> ÿ 60*
37.5
47.5
67.3
41.5
39.8
55.4
The compounds contain 80 phr N 330 and 50 phr Oil.
* At that temperature (ÿ 60 8C), zero specimen was failed.
Tab. 7. Heat aging of EPDM and EPDM/SBR blends
Sample #
Cure system
EPDM
EPDM/SBR
Peroxide ‡ sulfur coagent
Tensile Strength Retention, (%)
Strain at Break Retention, (%)
100% Modulus Retention, (%)
200% Modulus Retention, (%)
300% Modulus Retention, (%)
ÿ 5.41
4.54
ÿ 17.7
ÿ 21.8
ÿ 15.5
Hardness Retention, (%)
ÿ 1.39
EPDM
Stress-Strain
1.63
8.80
ÿ 22.0
ÿ 11.8
ÿ 10.3
Hardness
ÿ 2.82
Sulfur
ÿ 2.19
20.1
ÿ 28.8
ÿ 42.3
ÿ 40.7
0
EPDM/SBR
13.7
34.4
ÿ 61.8
ÿ 50.1
ÿ 24.0
ÿ 8.22
The compounds were aged at 100 8C for 7 days.
Compression set
At 70 and 100 8C the compression set for
the EPDM/SBR blends cured with sulfur
was 17% lower than that for the EPDM
compounds. At room temperature, the
compression set of the blend compounds was about 11% higher than for
the EPDM compounds (Tab. 6). The peroxide cured EPDM and EPDM/SBR (70/
30) compounds gave lower compression
set than the identical systems cured with
the sulfur cure.
Heat aging
100 8C heat aging studies show that sulfur cured EPDM compounds have slightly
better aging properties than EPDM/SBR
compounds cured with the same curative
(Tab. 7). EPDM and EPDM/SBR com-
90
pounds cured with the peroxide cure
showed better heat aging resistance
than those cured with the sulfur cure.
This is not unexpected, since the C±C
crosslinks formed in the compounds
cured with the peroxide are more stable
than the S±S bonds formed in the compounds cured with the sulfur curative.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to determine the role played by accelerators in
the curing and mechanical properties of
EPDM/SBR blends. It was determined
that an ideal accelerator for EPDM/SBR
blends needs to have higher solubility in
the EPDM phase than in the SBR phase.
This is necessary to obtain a shorter
scorch time and faster cure rate in the
EPDM phase than in the SBR phase.
Results of this study also show that the
mechanical properties of the blends
cured with the sulfenamide-based accelerators (TBBS, CBS, DCBS) were comparable to the properties of the blends
cured with a peroxide cure system in
combination with a sulfur coagent. The
exceptions to this generalization are
high temperature heat aging properties
and compression set.
References
[1] J. Zhao, G. N. Ghebremeskel and J. Peasley,
Rubber World, 219, No. 3 (1998) 37.
[2] L. H. Sperling, in Multicomponent Polymer Materials, D. R. Paul and L. H. Sperling Eds., Advances in Chemistry Ser. 211 American Chemical Society, Washington (1986) chap. 2.
[3] G. N. Avgeropoulos, F. C. Weissert, P. H. Biddison, and G. G. A. BoÈhm, Rubber Chem. Technol. 49 (1976) 93.
[4] Souheng Wu, Polymer Engineering and Science
27 (1987) 335.
KGK Kautschuk Gummi Kunststoffe 54. Jahrgang, Nr. 3/2001
Effects of Sulfur Accelerators . . .
[5] L. A. Utracki, ªPolymer Alloys and Blendsº, Hanser Pub., Munich (1989).
[6] J. Brooke Gardiner, Rubber Chem. Technol. 41,
1312 (1968); 42, 1058 (1969); 43 (1970) 370.
[7] A. Y. Coran, Rubber Chem. Technol. 61 (1988)
281.
[8] G. Kerrutt, H. Blumel, and H. Weber, Kautsch.
Gummi Kunsts. 22 (1969) 413.
[9] M. E. Woods and J. A. Davidson, Rubber Chem.
Technol. 49 (1976) 112.
[10] G. J. Van Amerongen, Rubber Chem. Technol.
37 (1964) 1065.
[11] V. Ricordeau and F. Katzanevas, Rev. G. Caut.
Plast. 60, No. 633 (1983) 75.
[12] F. P. Baldwin, Rubber Chem. Technol. 45 (1972)
1348.
[13] H. J. Graf, H. M. IsseI, Lecture at DKT conference, Stuttgart, June 27th ± 30th (1994).
The authors
All the authors are employees of the Ameripol Synpol
Corporation, Research & Development Department.
Dr. Zhao is a Materials Research Scientist, Dr. Ghebremeskel is the manger of the Materials and Analylical
Division, and J. Peasely is a technican in the Materials
Group.
Corresponding author
Junling Zhao
R‡D
Ameripol Synpol Corporation
P.O. Box 667
1215 Main Street
Port Neches
Texas 77651, USA
VERANSTALTUNGEN
EVENTS
20. ± 21. 03. 2001
Karlsruhe
Trainingsseminar SPC ± Statistische Prozessregelung ± Prozesse mit SPC gezielt
analysieren und beherschen
VDI-Bildungswerk GmbH, Postf. 101139, D-40002
DuÈsseldorf, Tel: 0211/6214 ± 201, Fax: 0211/6214154, E-mail: [email protected],
http://www.vdi.de/bw
21. ± 22. 03. 2001
Rheinland-Westfalen
Tagung der DKG-Bezirksgruppe RheinlandWestfalen
Deutsche Kautschuk-Gesellschaft EV, Postfach
900360, D-60443 Frankfurt, Tel: 069/7936-153,
Fax: 069/7936-155, E-mail: [email protected],
http://www.rubber-dkg.de
22. 03. 2001
Hamburg-Harburg
Tagung der DKG-Bezirksgruppe Hamburg/
Schleswig-Holstein
Deutsche Kautschuk-Gesellschaft EV, Postfach
900360, d-60443 Frankfurt, Tel: 069/7936-153,
Fax: 069/7936-155, E-mail: [email protected],
http://www.rubber-dkg.de
26. ± 27. 03. 2001
Essen
Seminar: Moderene Charakterisierung fuÈr
die Kunststoff-Praxis
Haus der Technik e.V., Hollestr. 1, D-45127 Essen,
Tel: 0201/1803 ± 1, Fax: 0201/1803-269,
E-mail: [email protected], http://www.hdt-essen.de
28. ± 29. 03. 2001
Essen
Seminar: Beitrag der Mikromechanik zur
Eigenschaftsoptimierung von Kunststoffen
Haus der Technik e.V., Hollestr. 1, D-45127 Essen,
Tel: 0201/1803-1, Fax: 0201/1803-269,
E-mail: [email protected], http://www.hdt-essen.de
Seminar: Elastomerverarbeitung
SuÈddeutsches Kunststoff-Zentrum, Frankfurter Straûe
15-17, WuÈrzburg, Tel: 0931/4104-0, Fax: 0931/4104177, E-mail: [email protected]
Seminar: Elastomere als Dichtungsmaterialien
Weiterbildungszentrum Wuppertal-Elberfeld,
Hubertusallee 18, D-42117 Wuppertal, Tel: 0202/
7495 ± 0, Fax: 0202/7495-202, E-mail: [email protected]
Fachtagung: Siliconelastomere
SuÈddeutsches Kunststoff-Zentrum, Frankfurter Straûe
15-17, D-97082 WuÈrzburg, Tel: 0931/4104-0,
Fax: 0931-4104-177, E-mail: [email protected],
http://www.skz.de
05. ± 06. 04. 2001
Altdorf
Seminar: NatuÈrliches und kuÈnstliches
Bewittern polymerer Werkstoffe
Technische Akademie Wuppertal, Hubertusallee 18,
D-42117 Wuppertal, Tel: 0202/7495-0, Fax: 0202/
7495-202, E-mail: [email protected], http://www.taw.de
19. 04. 2001
Hamburg
Tagung der DKG-Bezirksgruppe Schleswig- Deutsche Kautschuk-Gesellschaft EV, Postfach
Holstein
900360, D-60443 Frankfurt, Tel: 069/7936 ± 153,
Fax: 069/7936-155, E-mail: [email protected],
http://www.rubber-dkg.de
29. ± 30. 03. 2001
WuÈrzburg
03. ± 04. 04. 2001
Altdorf
04. ± 05. 04. 2001
WuÈrzburg
KGK Kautschuk Gummi Kunststoffe 54. Jahrgang, Nr. 3/2001
91