Vishu Shah

Handbook of Plastics Testing and Failure Analysis


Скачать книгу

Other

      a No descriptions are listed unless needed to describe a special grade under the class. All other grades are listed by requirements.

      b Flow rate: 190/2.16 (T/M).

      c Melting point rate 10 °C/min. Tm second melting curve.

      d Tensile strength shall be determined using a Type I tensile specimen as described in ISO 527. Crosshead speed shall be 50 mm/min ± 10%.

      e Flexural modulus shall be determined by specimen 80 ± 2 mm × 10 ± 0.2 mm × 4 ± 0.2 mm as described in ISO 178.

      f Izod shall be determined by specimen 80 ± 2 mm × 10 ± 0.2 mm × 4 ± 0.2 mm (Method A).

      g Deflection temperature shall be determined by specimen 120 ± 2 mm × 10 ± 0.2 mm × 4 ± 0.2 mm.

      h Data on 4‐mm test specimens are limited and the minimum values may be changed in a later revision after a statistical database of sufficient size is generated.

      1.4.3. Sampling and Conditioning

      To reproduce the test results time after time, sampling and conditioning procedures must be religiously followed. The procedures for sampling and conditioning must be clearly specified.

      1.4.4. Test Methods

      The specifications, without adequate information regarding test methods, are useless. The standard and generally accepted test methods must be specified. If no standard test methods exist, a detailed description and requirements of the test should be an integral part of the specification.

      Over the past two decades, plastics testing has changed dramatically. Significant advances in materials and the increasingly demanding nature of plastics applications have combined with global demand for uniformity to produce a requirement for data that goes beyond basic material comparison. Data today are used for design purposes and complex models for the prediction of a material’s end‐use compatibility. As a result, the testing technology that was adequate to provide data in the past has, in some cases, become obsolete and major advances in testing equipment sophistication have been developed to create a whole new environment in the plastics laboratory. One of the main areas for future advancement will be related to the use of plastics‐based composites in the Automobile Industry. Recent amendments to the United States Government Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) regulatory requirements set a national fuel economy standard of 35 mpg by 2020. One of the ways automobile manufacturers will try and meet this goal will be through “light‐weighting”—the replacement of heavy metal parts, both structural and nonstructural, with plastics and plastic‐based composites. Advanced test methods that relate specifically to these new applications will be crucial to the success of the industry to meet the challenge.

      The traditional laboratory of the past generated material data using methods that were developed from metals standards and other industries. While adequate for comparing one material to another for basic similarities and differences, the information that was generated did not reflect the variables that are specific to polymers—that is, the effect of temperature on properties and the important role that polymer structure plays on its overall performance in the end‐use application. With the complexity of the applications for polymers increasing, the need for more sophisticated testing techniques has also increased. State‐of‐the‐art polymer testing laboratories today utilize test equipment that is fully instrumented and capable of collecting data with higher accuracy that not only includes the basic properties but also the more complicated effect of external variables on those properties.

      It is important to note that as data collection accuracy has increased, so have the requirements for accuracy of test equipment and data collection methods outlined in test methods. For example, ASTM D638 and ISO 527 (International Standards Organization), both tensile property methods, require the use of extensometers to measure strain for modulus determinations. Grip separation and other methods of measuring strain have been determined to be inadequate for the measurement accuracy required at the low strains necessary for elastic modulus calculations.

      Another area that has seen a significant advancement in technology is impact testing. Historically, impact testing was limited to Izod impact, which measures the energy remaining in a test specimen under a machine in the notch (essentially a notch sensitivity test), and non‐instrumented drop dart impact tests such as mean failure height, based on qualitative events (pass or fail). While those two methods are useful for comparison purposes, information relative to the impact event itself is very limited. Today, impact equipment such as multiaxial instrumented impact is available, which not only provides data such as force in Newtons required to break a sample, but also complete load–time energy curves, which provide visual data on the impact event itself. Energy values can be chosen for any point on the load/time (or load/deflection) curve. The data along with the curves provide enough information to determine failure modes such as ductile or brittle failure and also initial fracture points.