X hits on this document





11 / 25

Comparing Mixing Methods

  • 2+1


    • Energy-680WH

      • JV 46F 630WH

    • Time-17min

    • Temperature

      • 160-140C

  • 1+1

    • TESPD, NXT

    • Energy-650WH

      • JV 46F 590WH

        • 430WH

    • Time-10.5min

        • 6.0min

    • Temperature

      • 180-160C

The comparisons between the two methods of mixing show why there is an interest in decreasing the handling steps. In addition to the added costs of each handling step the increased output and reduced energy to obtain an equal degree of mixing can result in significant cost savings.

The 2+1 mix is close to that of the 1990’s Michelin patent, however, there have been several modifications and addition point changes made over the years and it is hard to generalize on what each manufacture is doing. The 1+1 mix is based on the recommendations of using NXT. Because of the high temperatures of this mixing crosslinking has been seen with TESPT. The work we are doing shows that TESPD can also be used in this more productive procedure. References exist for 3+1 and 4+1 mixing process for extremely tough to process compounds.

We have not seen major differences in processing properties between the mixing styles when comparing equal formula’s. However, the lower temperature mix procedures have been shown to introduce some porosity during extreme extrusion stages caused probably by residue water on the silica. Some of the cured physical properties suggests better coupling reactions when the TESPD is used with JV 46F in the 1+1 procedure. And maximum physicals were obtained with a 6 min mix with a 40% reduction in work compared to the standard 2+1 mix. The JV 46F data shown here is for 3 phr. At 5 phr the work input was another 50WH lower.


Page 11 of 25

Document info
Document views43
Page views43
Page last viewedWed Oct 26 14:00:50 UTC 2016