Kinetics of isothermal and non‐isothermal crystallization of poly(butylene terephthalate)/ liquid crystalline polymer blends

The melting behavior and isothermal and non‐isothermal crystallization kinetics of poly(butylene terephthalate) (PBT)/thermotropic liquid crystalline polymer (LCP), Vectra A950 (VA) blends were studied by using differential scanning calorimetry. Isothermal crystallization experiments were performed at crystallization temperatures (T_c), of 190, 195, 200 and 205°C from the melt (300°C) and analyzed based on the Avrami equation. The values of the Avrami exponent indicate that the PBT crystallization process in PBT/VA blends is governed by three‐dimensional morphology growth preceded by heterogeneous nucleation. The overall crystallization rate of PBT in the melt blends is enhanced by the presence of VA. However, the degree of PBT crystallinily remains almost the same. The analysis of the melting behavior of these blends indicates that the stability and the reorganization process of PBT crystals in blends are dependent on the blend compositions and the thermal history. The fold surface interfacial energy of PBT in blends is more modified than in pure PBT. Analysis of the crystallization data shows that crystallization occurs in Regime II across the temperature range 190°C‐205°C. A kinetic treatment based on the combination of Avrami and Ozawa equations, known as Liu's approach, describes the non‐isothermal crystallization. It is observed that at a given cooling rate the VA blending increases the overall crystallization rate of PBT.     

Melting and solidification behavior of blends of high density polyethylene with poly(butylene terephthalate)

This study focuses on the effect of various processing and cooling conditions upon the subsequent melting and solidification behavior of blends of poly(butylene terephthalate) (PBT) and high density polyethylene (HDPE). Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) measurements have shown that the crystallization of reprocessed PBT is different from the crystallization behavior of virgin samples. Two melting endotherms for PBT were observed for reprocessed PBT and for PBT-PE blends. The nature of each PBT peak is discussed in relation to processing history, solidification conditions, and composition. The presence of two crystallization peaks for the PE component in blends of PE and PBT are thought to be associated with the restriction of molecular motion of PE in the presence of the second component. The relative magnitudes of the two exotherms of PE vary with composition and cooling rate during solidification.     

Crystallization kinetics of poly(1,4‐butylene‐co‐ethylene terephthalate)

The crystallization kinetics of poly(butylene terephthalate) (PBT), poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET), and their copolymers poly(1,4‐butylene‐co‐ethylene terephthalate) (PBET) containing 70/30, 65/35 and 60/40 molar ratios of 1,4‐butanediol/ethylene glycol were investigated using differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) at crystallization temperatures (T_c) which were 35–90 °C below equilibrium melting temperature . Although these copolymers contain both monomers in high proportion, DSC data revealed for copolymer crystallization behaviour. The reason for such copolymers being able to crystallize could be due to the similar chemical structures of 1,4‐butanediol and ethylene glycol. DSC results for isothermal crystallization revealed that random copolymers had a lower degree of crystallinity and lower crystallite growth rate than those of homopolymers. DSC heating scans, after completion of isothermal crystallization, showed triple melting endotherms for all these polyesters, similar to those of other polymers as reported in the literature. The crystallization isotherms followed the Avrami equation with an exponent n of 2–2.5 for PET and 2.5–3.0 for PBT and PBETs. Analyses of the Lauritzen–Hoffman equation for DSC isothermal crystallization data revealed that PBT and PET had higher growth rate constant G_o, and nucleation constant K_g than those of PBET copolymers. © 2001 Society of Chemical Industry     

Nonisothermal crystallization behavior of poly (butylene terephthalate)–poly (ethylene terephthalate‐co‐isophthalate‐co‐sebacate) segmented copolyesters

In this paper, two different analytical methods were applied to investigate nonisothermal crystallization behavior of copolyesters prepared by melting transesterification processing from bulk polyesters involving poly (butylene terephthalate) (PBT) and ternary amorphous random copolyester poly(ethylene terephthalate‐co‐isophthalate‐co‐sebacate) (PETIS). The results show that the half‐time of crystallization of copolyesters depended on the reaction time and decreased with the content of ternary polyesters in the amorphous segment. The modified Avrami model describes the nonisothermal crystallization kinetics very well. The values of the Avrami exponent range from 2.2503 to 3.7632, and the crystallization kinetics constant ranges from 0.0690 to 0.9358, presenting a mechanism of three‐dimensional spherulitic growth with heterogeneous nucleation. Ozawa analysis, however, failed to describe the nonisothermal crystallization behavior of copolyesters, especially at higher cooling rate. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 87: 1232–1238, 2003     

Nonisothermal crystallization kinetics of poly(butylene terephthalate)/poly(ethylene terephthalate)/glass fiber composites

The influences of the glass fiber (GF) content and the cooling rate for nonisothermal crystallization process of poly(butylene terephthalate)/poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PBT/PET) blends were investigated. The nonisothermal crystallization kinetics of samples were detected by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) at cooling rates of 5°C/min, 10°C/min, 15°C/min, 20°C/min, 25°C/min, respectively. The Jeziony and Mozhishen methods were used to analyze the DSC data. The crystalline morphology of samples was observed with polarized light microscope. Results showed that the Jeziony and Mozhishen methods were available for the analysis of the nonisothermal crystallization process. The peaks of crystallization temperature (T_p) move to low temperature with the cooling rate increasing, crystallization half‐time (t_1/2) decrease accordingly. The crystallization rate of PBT/PET blends increase with the lower GF contents while it is baffled by higher GF contents. POLYM. COMPOS. 36:510–516, 2015. © 2014 Society of Plastics Engineers     

Poly(ethylene terephthalate)/poly(ethylene glycol‐co‐1,3/1,4‐cyclohexanedimethanol terephthalate)/clay nanocomposites: Effects of biaxial stretching

In this study, we fabricated poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET)/clay, PET/poly(ethylene glycol‐co‐1,3/1,4‐cyclohexanedimethanol terephthalate) (PETG), and PET/PETG/clay nanocomposite plates and biaxially stretched them into films by using a biaxial film stretching machine. The tensile properties, cold crystallization behavior, optical properties, and gas and water vapor barrier properties of the resulting films were estimated. The biaxial stretching process improved the dispersion of clay platelets in both the PETG and PET/PETG matrices, increased the aspect ratio of the platelets, and made the platelets more oriented. Thus, the tensile, optical, and gas‐barrier properties of the composite films were greatly enhanced. Moreover, strain‐induced crystallization occurred in the PET/PETG blend and in the amorphous PETG matrix. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2015 , 132, 42207.     

Characterization and crystallization behavior of poly(ethylene‐co‐trimethylene terephthalate) copolymers

A series of poly(ethylene‐co‐trimethylene terephthalate) (PETT) copolymers were prepared by polycondensation. The synthesized PETT are block copolymers and the content of poly(trimethylene terephthalate) (PTT) units incorporated into the copolymers are always larger than that fed in the polymerization. The nonisothermal crystallization at the different cooling rates was studied by means of differential scanning calorimetry. The copolymers develop the crystallization later and show the lower melting temperature than the corresponding enriched homopolymers. The modified Avrami analysis fit well the nonisothermal crystallization of these polymers. The overall rate of crystallization of PTT is fastest and that of PET is slowest, whereas the copolymers are between them at the same cooling rate. The minor PET units incorporated into PTT polymer chains reduce the crystallization of PTT segments, but the present minor PTT units in the PET chains seem to accelerate the crystallization of PET segments. The Avrami exponent nvaries in the range of 3 – 4, indicating that the nonisothermal crystallization follows the homogeneous nucleation and two‐ to three‐dimensional growth mechanism. Wide angle X‐ray diffraction analysis explains that the PET and PTT units do not cocrystallize and it is considered as the enriched polymer segments to crystallize during crystallization. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 2008. © 2008 Society of Plastics Engineers     

Non-isothermal Crystallization of Poly(ethylene terephthalate) with Poly(oxybenzoate-p-trimethylene terephthalate) Copolymer

The influence of a poly(oxybenzoate-p-trimethylene terephthalate) copolymer, designated T64, on the non-isothermal crystallization process of poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) was investigated. All samples were prepared by solution blending in a 60/40 by weight phenol/tetrachloroethane solvent at 50°C. The solidification process strongly depended on cooling rate and composition of system. The crystallization rate of blends was estimated by crystallization rate parameter (CRP) and crystallization rate coefficient (CRC). From these results of CRP and CRC, it was predicted that the overall non-isothermal crystallization rate of PET would be accelerated by blending with 1–15 wt% of T64. The acceleration of PET crystallization rate was most pronounced in the PET/T64 blends with 5 wt% T64. The observed changes in crystallization behavior are explained by the effect of the physical state of the copolyester during PET crystallization as well as the amount of copolymer in the blends. An Ozawa plot was used to analyze the data of non-isothermal crystallization. The obvious curvature in the plot indicated that the Ozawa model could not fit the PET/T64 blend system well, and there was an abrupt change in the slope of the Ozawa plot at a critical cooling rate.     

Phase behavior of blends containing amorphous poly(resorcinol phthalate‐block‐carbonate) and semicrystalline polyesters

The phase behavior of poly(resorcinol phthalate‐block‐carbonate) (RPC) with engineering polyesters was investigated by using differential scanning calorimeter (DSC) and dynamic mechanical analysis. RPC was found to form miscible blends with poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET), poly(butylene terephthalate) (PBT), and poly(cyclohexylmethylene terephthalate) (PCT), but was partially miscible with poly(1,4‐cyclohexanedimethylene‐1,4‐cyclohexanedicarboxylate) (PCCD) in the melt state and below the melting temperature (T_m). The degree of melting‐point depression indicates that the RPC is most miscible with PCT followed by PET and then PBT. Furthermore, with the help of empirical DSC data and the Nishi–Wang equation, the interaction parameters between RPC and PET, PBT, and PCT were quantified to be ?0.36, ?0.33, and ?0.54, respectively. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2008     

Isothermal and non‐isothermal crystallization of poly(L‐lactic acid)/poly(butylene terephthalate) blends

Isothermal and non‐isothermal crystallization kinetics of poly(l ‐lactic acid)/poly(butylene terephthalate) (PLLA/PBT) blends containing PLLA as major component is detailed in this contribution. PLLA and PBT are not miscible, but compatibility of the polymer pair is ensured by interactions between the functional groups of the two polyesters, established upon melt mixing. Crystal polymorphism of the two polyesters is not influenced by blending, as probed by wide‐angle X‐ray analysis. The addition of PLLA does not affect the temperature range of crystallization kinetics of PBT, nor the crystallinity level attained when the blends are cooled from the melt at constant rate. Conversely, PBT favors crystallization of the biodegradable polyester. The addition of PBT results in an anticipated onset of crystallization of PLLA during cooling at a fixed rate, with a sizeable enhancement of the crystal fraction. Isothermal crystallization analysis confirmed the faster crystallization rate of PLLA in the presence of PBT. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2014 , 131, 40372.     

Synthesis and properties of poly(tetramethylene terephthalate-co-ethylene terephthalate)–poly(tetramethylene ether) segmented copolymers

A series of polyether–copolyester segmented copolymers ((PBT–PET)PTMG) based on hard segments of tetramethylene terephthalate–ethylene terephthalate copolyester (PBT–PET) and soft segments of poly(tetramethylene ether)(PTMG) was synthesized. The hard : soft segment weight ratio was 30 : 70 and the mole ratio of PBT : PET was 1 : 10; 1 : 6; 1 : 1; 3 : 1, respectively. Their mechanical properties, morphology, crystallization behavior and optical transparency were investigated and compared with poly(tetramethylene terephthalate)–poly(tetramethylene ether)(PBT–PTMG), as well as with poly(ethylene terephthalate)–poly(tetramethylene ether)(PET–PTMG), consisting of the equivalent composition ratio of hard and soft segments. It was found that the transparency could be improved by introducing a small amount of PBT into PET–PTMG through copolymerization. However, a decrease was observed in the transparency if more PBT was added. This is due to the fact that the copolymerization makes both crystallinity and crystallization rate decrease.     

Effect of Blend Ratio and Draw Ratio on the Mechanical Properties of PET/PP Blended Conjugate Fibers

This study analyzes the influence of blend ratio and draw ratio on the fiber properties of blend fibers composed of poly (ethylene terephthalate), or PET, and polypropylene, or PP, (hereafter referred to as PET/PP conjugate fibers). For a comparison, PET and poly (butylene terephthalate), or PBT blends, (hereafter referred to as PET/PBT conjugate fibers) are also investigated. Various blend ratios of fibers are melt spun and drawn in a multistep drawing method. The conjugate fibers are evaluated using tenacity, Young's modulus, wide-angle X-ray diffraction, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) tests. The results show that multistep drawing using a lower first-step draw ratio provides a higher tenacity and Young's modulus. Furthermore, when the blend ratio is 75/25 in a PET/PP conjugate fiber and 50/50 in a PET/PBT conjugate fiber, the polymer components undergo a phase inversion phenomenon. A PP sub-micron (10^?1 ～ 10⁰ micron) fiber of about 0.0001 ～ 0.00017 tex in fineness, or about 0.4 ～ 0.5 micron in diameter, can be obtained when PET/PP conjugate fiber is treated with a 25% NaOH aqueous solution by weight. However, A PBT sub-micron fiber cannot be achieved using a PET/PBT conjugate fiber.     

Sequence analysis and fiber properties of a blend of poly(ethylene terephthalate) and poly(ethylene terephthalate‐co‐4,4′‐bibenzoate)

Blends of poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) and poly(ethylene terephthalate‐co‐4,4′‐ bibenzoate) (PETBB) are prepared by coextrusion. Analysis by ¹³C‐NMR spectroscopy shows that little transesterification occurs during the blending process. Additional heat treatment of the blend leads to more transesterification and a corresponding increase in the degree of randomness, R. Analysis by differential scanning calorimetry shows that the as‐extruded blend is semicrystalline, unlike PETBB15, a random copolymer with the same composition as the non‐ random blend. Additional heat treatment of the blend leads to a decrease in the melting point, T_m, and an increase in glass transition temperature, T_g. The T_m and T_g of the blend reach minimum and maximum values, respectively, after 15 min at 270°C, at which point the blend has not been fully randomized. The blend has a lower crystallization rate than PET and PETBB55 (a copolymer containing 55 mol % bibenzoate). The PET/PETBB55 (70/30 w/w) blend shows a secondary endothermic peak at 15°C above an isothermal crystallization temperature. The secondary peak was confirmed to be the melting of small and/or imperfect crystals resulting from secondary crystallization. The blend exhibits the crystal structure of PET. Tensile properties of the fibers prepared from the blend are comparable to those of PET fiber, whereas PETBB55 fibers display higher performance. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 93: 1793–1803, 2004     

Properties of glass‐filled thermoplastic polyesters

The thermal, mechanical, and rheological properties of glass‐filled poly(propylene terephthalate) (GF PPT) were compared to glass‐filled poly(butylene terephthalate) (GF PBT). The impetus for this study was the recent commercial interest in PPT as a new glass‐reinforced thermoplastic for injection‐molding applications. This article represents the first systematic comparison of the properties of GF PPT and GF PBT in which differences in properties can be attributed solely to differences in the polyester matrices, that is, glass‐fiber size and composition, polymer melt viscosity, nucleant content and composition, polymerization catalyst composition and content, and processing conditions were kept constant. Under these controlled conditions, GF PPT showed marginally higher tensile and flexural properties and significantly lower impact strength compared to GF PBT. The crystallization behavior observed by cooling from the melt at a constant rate showed that GF PBT crystallized significantly faster than did GF PPT. Nucleation of GF PPT with either talc or sodium stearate increased the rate of crystallization, but not to the level of GF PBT. The slower crystallization rate of GF PPT was found to strongly affect thermomechanical properties of injection‐molded specimens. For example, increasing the polymer molecular weight and decreasing the mold temperature significantly increased the modulus drop associated with the glass transition. In contrast, the modulus–temperature response of GF PBT was just marginally influenced by the polymer molecular weight and was essentially independent of the mold temperature. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 74: 889–899, 1999     

Rheological behavior of polyester blend and mechanical properties of the polypropylene–polyester blend fibers

The article deals with method of preparation, rheological properties, phase structure, and morphology of binary blend of poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET)/poly(butylene terephthalate) (PBT) and ternary blends of polypropylene (PP)/(PET/PBT). The ternary blend of PET/PBT (PES) containing 30 wt % of PP is used as a final polymer additive (FPA) for blending with PP and subsequent spinning. In addition commercial montane (polyester) wax Licowax E (LiE) was used as a compatibilizer for spinning process enhancement. The PP/PES blend fibers containing 8 wt % of polyester as dispersed phase were prepared in a two‐step procedure: preparation of FPA using laboratory twin‐screw extruder and spinning of the PP/PES blend fibers after blending PP and FPA, using a laboratory spinning equipment. DSC analysis was used for investigation of the phase structure of the PES components and selected blends. Finally, the mechanical properties of the blend fibers were analyzed. It has been found that viscosity of the PET/PBT blends is strongly influenced by the presence of the major component. In addition, the major component suppresses crystallinity of the minor component phase up to a concentration of 30 wt %. PBT as major component in dispersed PES phase increases viscosity of the PET/PBT blend melts and increases the tensile strength of the PP/PES blend fibers. The impact of the compatibilizer on the uniformity of phase dispersion of PP/PES blend fibers was demonstrated. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 102: 4222–4227, 2006     

Crystallization behavior and crystal structure of poly(ethylene‐co‐trimethylene terephthalate)s

A series of random copolymers were synthesized by the bulk polycondensation of dimethyl terephthalate with ethylene glycol (EG) and propane‐1,3‐diol (PDO) in various compositions. Their composition and thermal properties were investigated. The copolymers with 57.7 mol % or more PDO or 14.4 mol % or less PDO were crystallizable, but those with 36–46.2 mol % PDO were amorphous. The nonisothermal crystallization behavior was investigated with varying cooling rates by DSC. Poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) and poly(trimethylene terephthalate) (PTT) homopolymers have relatively lower activation energy than their copolymers. PET‐rich copolymers (EG > 85.9%) exhibited PET crystal structure, and exhibited no PTT crystal structure; and PTT‐rich copolymers (PDO > 41.7%) exhibited PTT crystal structure, and exhibited no PET crystal structure. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2007     

Crystallization kinetics of poly(butylene terephthalate) and its talc composites

Crystallization kinetics of poly (butylene terephthalate) (non‐talc‐PBT) and its 0.1 wt % talc composites (talc‐PBT) was determined for a wide range of cooling rates and isothermal temperatures. The critical cooling rate to suppress crystallization is 2000 K s^?1 for non‐talc‐PBT and 7000 K s^?1 for talc‐PBT. The cooling rate dependence of the total enthalpy change and heating rate dependence of enthalpy of cold crystallization are quantitatively discussed on the basis of the Ozawa's method. For isothermal crystallization, the annealing‐temperature (T _iso) dependence of crystallization half‐time (t _1/2) shows a bimodal curve with two minima. Talc shortens the t _1/2 at T _iso above 340 K and acts as a heterogeneous nucleation agent. Tammann's approach revealed that the t _1/2 is shortened by pre‐nucleation for non‐talc‐PBT but not for talc‐PBT. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2017 , 134 , 44739.     

Effect of blending sequence on the microstructure and properties of PBT/EVA‐g‐MAH/organoclay ternary nanocomposites

Ternary nanocomposites based on poly(butylene terephthalate) (PBT), maleic anhydride grafted poly(ethylene‐co‐vinyl acetate) (EVA‐g‐MAH), and organically modified montmorllonite (organoclays) were prepared through four different blending sequences in a Haake rheocord mixer: (1) To blend PBT, EVA‐g‐MAH and organoclays in one step; (2) First to prepare EVA‐g‐MAH/organoclay nanocomposite, then mix it with PBT to get the final nanocomposite; (3) To mix PBT with organoclays first, then the PBT/organoclay nanocomposite with EVA‐g‐MAH. (4) To mix organoclays with the PBT/EVA‐g‐MAH blend. The microstructure of the PBT/EVA‐g‐MAH/organoclay ternary hybrids was characterized by X‐ray diffraction (XRD) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). It was found that the blending sequence significantly influences the microstructure of PBT/EVA‐g‐MAH/organoclay ternary hybrids and the dispersion behavior of the organoclays in the polymer matrix. Tensile and impact properties of the hybrids were also studied. The results showed that the mixing sequence (2) gives the best tensile and impact strength due to its fine “sea‐island” morphology of PBT/EVA‐g‐MAH blend and good dispersion of the organoclays in the continuous PBT matrix.     

Studies on high‐speed melt spinning of noncircular cross‐ section fibers. I. Structural analysis of as‐spun fibers

Flat fibers and hollow fibers were prepared through the high‐speed melt spinning of poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET), and the structures of these fibers were compared with those of circular fibers. The cross‐sectional shape of each fiber changed to a dull shape in comparison with that of the respective spinning nozzle. The change in the cross‐sectional shape was slightly suppressed with an increase in the take‐up velocity. There was a significant development of structural variation in the cross section of flat fibers in that the molecular orientation and crystallization were enhanced at the edge. Despite the difference in the cross‐sectional shape, the structural development of flat, hollow, and circular fibers with increasing take‐up velocity showed almost similar behavior. Considering that the tensile stress at the solidification point of the spin line is known to govern the structure development of high‐speed spun PET fibers, it was speculated that the effects of the enhancement of cooling and air friction on the tensile stress at the solidification point cancel each other. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 80: 1575–1581, 2001     

Crystallization kinetics of poly(ethylene terephthalate)/poly(ethylene 2,6‐naphthalate) blends

The crystallization kinetics of poly(ethylene terephthalate)/poly(ethylene 2,6‐naphthalate) (PET/PEN) blends were investigated by DSC as functions of crystallization temperature, blend composition, and PET and PEN source. Isothermal crystallization kinetics were evaluated in terms of the Avrami equation. The Avrami exponent (n) is different for PET, PEN, and the blends, indicating different crystallization mechanisms occurring in blends than those in pure PET and PEN. Activation energies of crystallization were calculated from the rate constants, using an Arrhenius‐type expression. Regime theory was used to elucidate the crystallization course of PET/PEN blends as well as that of unblended PET and PEN. The transition from regime II to regime III was clearly observed for each blend sample as the crystallization temperature was decreased. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 81: 23–37, 2001