5.3 Progress in the Modeling of Rubber Reinforcement …
87
Fig. 5.1 Heterogeneous
structure model of carbon
black-loaded rubber
vulcanizate (from Fig. 19 in
Ref. [15])
Fig. 5.2 Schematic diagram
showing three chains
attached to the filler particles
(from Fig. 1 in Ref. [16])
by the additional bonding due to CB networks as shown plus chemical cross-links by
vulcanization [17, 18]. This figure was much misleading, since it seemed to suggest
that the CB aggregation was by chemical bonding via rubber chains, not by the
physical aggregation of CB due to the van der Waals forces. However, this possible
mistake was not materialized due to transition of CB from channel black to furnace
black in the rubber industry in the 1960s. Namely, because of the transition of CB,
the idea of chemical bonding between CB and rubber (an extreme of filler-to-rubber
interaction) lost its applicability due to the less presence of chemically active groups
on the surface of furnace black (see Sect. 2.4.2).
In the meantime, the spread of Ref. [9] gave rise to the step-by-step acceptance
of the idea of bound rubber, among the worldwide rubber researchers who were
interested in reinforcement mechanism [9, 19–25]. Also, an excellent schematic
modeling depicted in Refs. [26] and [27] (see Fig. 2.3 in Sect. 2.5.2of the present
book, which is reproduced from Ref. [26]) accelerated theoretical acceptance of
bound rubber, which represented it as an immobilized layer encircling the CB surface
and was reasonably expected to assist wetting by rubber. Bound rubber has been
understood as the less mobile rubber chains than those in the rubber matrix, but some
87
Fig. 5.1 Heterogeneous
structure model of carbon
black-loaded rubber
vulcanizate (from Fig. 19 in
Ref. [15])
Fig. 5.2 Schematic diagram
showing three chains
attached to the filler particles
(from Fig. 1 in Ref. [16])
by the additional bonding due to CB networks as shown plus chemical cross-links by
vulcanization [17, 18]. This figure was much misleading, since it seemed to suggest
that the CB aggregation was by chemical bonding via rubber chains, not by the
physical aggregation of CB due to the van der Waals forces. However, this possible
mistake was not materialized due to transition of CB from channel black to furnace
black in the rubber industry in the 1960s. Namely, because of the transition of CB,
the idea of chemical bonding between CB and rubber (an extreme of filler-to-rubber
interaction) lost its applicability due to the less presence of chemically active groups
on the surface of furnace black (see Sect. 2.4.2).
In the meantime, the spread of Ref. [9] gave rise to the step-by-step acceptance
of the idea of bound rubber, among the worldwide rubber researchers who were
interested in reinforcement mechanism [9, 19–25]. Also, an excellent schematic
modeling depicted in Refs. [26] and [27] (see Fig. 2.3 in Sect. 2.5.2of the present
book, which is reproduced from Ref. [26]) accelerated theoretical acceptance of
bound rubber, which represented it as an immobilized layer encircling the CB surface
and was reasonably expected to assist wetting by rubber. Bound rubber has been
understood as the less mobile rubber chains than those in the rubber matrix, but some