Dynamic mechanical analysis and creep-recovery behavior of agglomerated cork

Author

• D. Paiva
• F. D. Magalhães

DOI: 10.1007/s00107-017-1158-y

Cite this article as: 

Paiva, D. & Magalhães, F.D. Eur. J. Wood Prod. (2017). doi:10.1007/s00107-017-1158-y

Abstract

The mechanical behavior of agglomerated cork, made of cork granules bound with polyurethane moisture-cured adhesive is investigated and compared to natural cork in the small strain regime (strain <5%). Dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) of the agglomerated material revealed two distinct thermal transitions, one at −45 °C, related to the glass transition of polyurethane, and one at 3 °C, associated with melting of suberin, a natural polyester that is the main component of cork’s cell walls. Natural cork showed the latter transition to occur at a higher temperature range, between 10 and 25 °C, probably due to a different crystalline arrangement being formed upon cooling the cork granules under pressure in the mold. The storage modulus of agglomerated cork was found to be similar to that of natural cork. Creep and recovery experiments were well described by Burgers model and Weibull distribution function, respectively. Agglomerated cork showed higher instantaneous creep strain and viscous flow than natural cork, probably due to relative displacement and slippage of the granules being allowed by the binder. In all cork materials, not all the instantaneous creep strain was instantaneously recovered. A fraction underwent delayed recovery and another turned into permanent strain. This behavior was associated with the deformation of corrugations in the cork cell walls. Cyclic creep-recovery tests showed for all cork materials recoveries above 90%, except for the first cycle.

References

1. Adalja SB, Otaigbe JU (2002) Creep and recovery behavior of novel organic-inorganic polymer hybrids. Polym Compos 23:171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Anjos O, Pereira H, Rosa ME (2011) Characterization of radial bending properties of cork. Eur J Wood Prod 69:557–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Anjos O, Rodrigues C, Morais J, Pereira H (2014) Effect of density on the compression behaviour of cork. Mater Des 53:1089–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Cordeiro N, Belgacem MN, Gandini A, Pascoal Neto C (1998a) Cork suberin as a new source of chemicals: 2. Crystallinity, thermal and rheological properties. Bioresour Technol 63:153–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Cordeiro N, Belgacem MN, Silvestre AJD, Pascoal Neto C, Gandini A (1998b) Cork suberin as a new source of chemicals. 1. Isolation and chemical characterization of its composition. Int J Biol Macromol 22:71–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
6. Cordeiro N, Belgacem MN, Gandini A, Pascoal Neto C (1999) Urethanes and polyurethanes from suberin 2: synthesis and characterization. Ind Crops Prod 10:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Dart SL, Guth E (1946) Elastic properties of cork. I. Stress relaxation of compressed cork. J Appl Phys 17:314–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Dionísio MC, Correia N, Mano J, Moura Ramos J, Fernandes A, Saramago B (1995) Absorbed water in the cork structure. A study by thermally stimulated currents, dielectric relaxation spectroscopy, isothermal depolarization experiments and differential scanning calorimetry. J Mater Sci 30:4394–4400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Fancey KS (2001) A Latch-Based Weibull Model for Polymerie Creep and Recovery. J Polym Eng 21:489–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Fancey K (2005) A mechanical model for creep, recovery and stress relaxation in polymeric materials. J Mater Sci 40:4827–4831 (d) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Faraz MI, Besseling NAM, Korobko AV, Picken SJ (2015) Characterization and modeling of creep behavior of a thermoset nanocomposite. Polym Compos 36:322–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Findley WN, Lai JS, Onaran K (1976) Creep and relaxation of nonlinear viscoelastic materials—with an introduction to linear viscoelasticity. Dover Publications, New York, pp 50–107Google Scholar
13. Gandini A, Pascoal Neto C, Silvestre AJD (2006) Suberin: a promising renewable resource for novel macromolecular materials. Prog Polym Sci 31:878–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Gibson LJ, Easterling KE, Ashby MF (1981) The structure and mechanics of Cork. Proc R Soc Lond A 377:99–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Graça J, Santos S (2007) Suberin: a biopolyester of plants’ skin. Macromol Biosci 7:128–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
16. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1998) Multivariate data analysis, 5th edn. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, pp 141–156Google Scholar
17. Hooke R (1665) Micrographia. Royal society, London, pp 113–115Google Scholar
18. Irvine GM (1985) The significance of the glass transition of lignin in thermomechanical pulping. Wood Sci Technol 19:139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Jia Y, Peng K, Gong X-l, Zhang Z (2011) Creep and recovery of polypropylene/carbon nanotube composites. Int J Plasticity 27:1239–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Knapic S, Oliveira V, Machado JS, Pereira H (2016) Cork as a building material: a review. Eur J Wood Prod 74:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Li W, Sun N, Stoner B, Jiang X, Lu X, Rogers RD (2011) Rapid dissolution of lignocellulosic biomass in ionic liquids using temperatures above the glass transition of lignin. Green Chem 13:2038–2047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Liu X, Zhang S, Xu Xj, Zhang Z, Zhou L, Zhang G (2013) Study on the creep and recovery behaviors of UHMWPE/CNTs composite fiber. Fiber Polym 14:1635–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Mano JF (2002) The viscoelastic properties of cork. J Mater Sci 37:257–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Mano JF (2007) Creep-recovery behaviour of cork. Mater Lett 61:2473–2477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Mano JF, Correia NT, Moura Ramos JJ, Saramago B (1995) The molecular relaxation mechanisms in cork as studied by thermally stimulated discharge currents. J Mater Sci 30:2035–2041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Pereira H (1988) Chemical composition and variability of cork from Quercus suber L. Wood Sci Technol 22:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Pereira H (2007) Cork: biology, production and uses. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 33–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Pereira H (2013) Variability of the chemical composition of cork. BioResour 8:2246–2256Google Scholar
29. Pereira H (2015) The rationale behind cork properties: a review of structure and chemistry. BioResour 10:6207–6229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Pereira H, Rosa ME, Fortes MA (1987) The cellular structure of cork from Quercus suber L. IAWA Bul 8:213–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Ren D, Frazier CE (2012) Wood/adhesive interactions and the phase morphology of moisture-cure polyurethane wood adhesives. Int J Adhes Adhes 34:55–61 dCrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Rosa ME, Fortes MA (1988a) Rate effects on the compression and recovery of dimensions of cork. J Mater Sci 23:879–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Rosa ME, Fortes MA (1988b) Stress relaxation and creep of cork. J Mater Sci 23:35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Rosa ME, Fortes MA (1991) Deformation and fracture of cork in tension. J Mater Sci 26:341–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Silva SP, Sabino MA, Fernandes EM, Correlo VM, Boesel LF, Reis RL (2005) Cork: properties, capabilities and applications. Int Mater Rev 50:345–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36. Vithanage CR, Grimson MJ, Smith BG, Wills PR (2011) Creep test observation of viscoelastic failure of edible fats. J Phys Conf Ser 286:012008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37. Xia H, Song M, Zhang Z, Richardson M (2007) Microphase separation, stress relaxation, and creep behavior of polyurethane nanocomposites. J Appl Polym Sci 103:2992–3002CrossRefGoogle Scholar

For further details log on website :
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00107-017-1158-y