Polypropylene

Tensile testing

Student Name
Contents

Contents ...................................................................................................................................... i

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ ii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ iii

Summary .................................................................................................................................... 4

1 Introduction polypropylene................................................................................................ 5
1.1 Structure and properties of polypropylene .......................................................................................... 5
1.2 Applications.......................................................................................................................................... 6
2 Theory ................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Glass temperature and the effect of operating temperature ............................................................... 8
2.2 Strain rate (extension speed) effect ..................................................................................................... 8
3 Description of Apparatus ...................................................................................................... 9

4 Test procedure .................................................................................................................... 10

5 Results ................................................................................................................................. 11
5.1 Results accuracy and error estimation .............................................................................................. 13
6 Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 15

7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 15

8 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 16

i
List of Figures

Figure 1. Dependency of Young's modulus E on temperature for a fixed loading time (linear polymer) ...... 7

Figure 2. Zwick AllroundLine tensile testing machine ..................................................................................... 9

Figure 3. Relevant specimen dimensions......................................................................................................... 11

Figure 4. Specimen #1 load (N) vs. extension (mm) graph .......................................................................... 12

Figure 5. Specimen #2 load (N) vs. extension (mm) graph .......................................................................... 12

Figure 6. Specimen #3 load (N) vs. extension (mm) graph .......................................................................... 12

ii
List of Tables

Table 1. Specimen measurements and initial calculations ............................................................................. 11

Table 2. Results of experimental tensile testing for 3 specimens of polypropylene ....................................... 13

iii
 Summary

Tensile testing was performed on three specimens of polypropylene at different rates of

strain (extension speed). Initial cross section measurements were provided in order to

calculate the cross sectional area needed for other calculated quantities. Tensile testing

was done on a Zwick/Roell AllroundLine tensile testing machine and force vs.

elongation diagram for each sample was obtained. From these diagrams values of

quantities such as load at high yield, fracture load and extension at fracture were

determined to the best of ability. Other quantities were calculated using these values

and the results were presented in tabular form. Good agreement was observed between

the expected trends and the calculated results.

4
 1 Introduction polypropylene

It wasnt until the mid-1950s that polypropylene came into existence. Before 1954 the only commercially

used polyolefins were polyethylene, polyisobutylene and butyl rubbers (isobutylene-isoprene copolymers). It

was in 1954 that Giulio Natta of Itally following the work of Karl Ziegler of Germany, used certain Ziegler-

type catalysts for the production of high molecular weight polymers from propylene (and other olefins). By

trying different variations of the catalysts, Natta was able to produce a number of high molecular weight

polypropylenes which had varying properties. This discovery of titanium based catalysts by Ziegler and

their use by Natta in the production of polypropylene earned both men a Nobels Prize in Chemistry in

1963, while the Ziegler-Natta catalysts have been used in co-ordination polymerisation of various

commercial polyolefins since 1956 (isotactic polypropylene was marketed as Moplen by the Montecatini

Company in 1957). From that time onward, the consumption of polypropylene rose drastically with the

material becoming widely used for fibres, films and injection mouldings. However, the biggest surge in

production occurred in the 1970s as most basic patents expired which in turn led to a situation in which

the material became available at staggeringly low prices, which lead to an even larger growth in usage.

Ever since then the production rates for polypropylene have been generally higher than for other major

tonnage polymers, and in the mid-1980s PP claimed the third place after PE and PVC in the plastics

production industry. In 2013, the global polypropylene market was about 55 million tonnes making it the

worlds second most widely produced synthetic plastic, after PE.

1.1 Structure and properties of polypropylene

Polypropylene is a linear hydrocarbon polymer (thermoplastic) that is mouldable above a certain

temperature and solidifies upon cooling. Its very similar to polyethylene in regards to their properties;

however, the presence of a methyl group attached to the alternate carbon atoms on the chains backbone

ensures its increase in the crystalline melting point which is some 50C higher than that of most

polyethylenes. The most significant influence of the aforementioned methyl group is that it leads to

products of different tacticity, and while the range includes structures from completely isotactic to

syndiotactic and atactic molecules, most polypropylenes are of isotactic and syndiotactic structure

(commercial polymers are 90-95% isotactic). This ensures that polypropylene is lighter than PE, but at the

same time has better mechanical properties such as higher module of elasticity and tensile strength, higher

resistance to UV radiation (some types), no environmental stress cracking problems and a higher

maximum service temperature (articles withstood boiling water and steam sterilising operations for over

5
1000 hours at 135C without severe damage). However, exact mechanical properties of a polymer depend

mainly on the type of polymer in question (homopolymer or a block copolymer), molecular weight and its

distribution, morphology (crystalline structure), additives and fillers and production parameters. In

general, homopolymers are stiff and resistant to deformation, with a higher tensile strength, penetration

resistance and ductility at room temperatures but theyre also less resistant to aging, they exhibit

asymmetric shrinking in the mould cavity and are harder to glue, while copolymers are mostly known for

their better ductility.

One unfortunate property that is characteristic of polypropylene is the glass temperature transition point

which occurs at about 0 to 5C and results in the polymer becoming brittle as this temperature is

approached. Even at standard room temperature the impact strength of some PP grades leaves much to be

desired. This brittleness can be improved by block copolymerisation of PP with small amounts of ethylene

(4-15%). Such materials are widely used in injection moulding and bottle blowing applications and are

known as propylene copolymers or polyallomers.

1.2 Applications

Polypropylene homopolymers and copolymers found applications in mouldings where properties such as

good appearance, environmental stress cracking resistance, heat resistance and low-density sterilisability

are important. Typical mouldings include hospital sterilisable equipment, luggage, washing machine parts,

stacking chairs, portable toilets and various car parts (door frame parts, accelerator pedals, battery cases,

dome lights). Due to excellent resistance of thin PP sections to continued flexing one particular growth

area for PP mouldings has been thin-wall packaging such as mayonnaise tubs.

Even though injection moulding markets for HD-PE and PP are very similar, the main reasons for

selecting PP have been given above; in favour of HD-PE is its inherently better oxidation and UV

resistance and the fact that using additives in the production of PP for improved properties is somewhat

economically unattractive.

With the invention of improved clarity grades of PP in the 90s, there has been interest in replacing PVC

for blow moulded water bottles and similar containers. One other area where oriented PP film found its

application is food wrapping, where the greater clarity, impact strength and barrier property are used for

packing of fish and meat products, along with coated grades used for bread and biscuit wrapping.

PP has also been uniquely successful as a fibre. Its relatively low cost and excellent wear characteristics

(especially when cold-drawn) together with resistance to staining were made use of in the carpet industry

6
as a tuftting material and in the production
p off blankets. PP
P monofilameents also founnd applicatio
ons in the

productioon of ropes and netting du

ue to their higgh tensile strength and ab
brasion resistaance.

Other arreas of use in

nclude sheet,, pipe and w
wire coating although
a in these areas cconsumption of PP is

dependen
nt on finding an applicatio
on for which PP is the opttimal materia
al.

2 Theory

Polymerss, just like metals

m and ceeramics, havee a range of mechanical behaviour
b whhich dependss on their

moleculaar weight and

d on the tem
mperature; m
more precisely
y, how close the temperaature is to th
heir glass

temperatture Tg . Unliike metals an

nd ceramics, whose stiffneess and stren
ngth at room
m temperaturees can be

treated as constant due to theirr high meltin

ng points, polymers can pass througgh all the mechanical
m

ur states (from
behaviou m brittle to plastic
p to viscoelastic to rubbery
r and finally viscouus) between -20C and

200C. T
This is an imp
portant consideration wheen designing with
w polymerrs since their modulus and
d strength

can chan
nge by three orders
o of mag
gnitude or moore in this ra
ather narrow temperature range. Figuree 1 shows

each mecchanical statee over a rang

ge of normaliized temperatture T / Tg . Properties aare plotted ag
gainst Tg

instead oof T since th

hat is really what
w determ
mines the mecchanical statee because glaass temperatu
ure varies

from poly
ymer to polymer and som
me can be britttle at room temperature while
w others aare leathery.

Figure 1. Dependency of Young''s modulus E on tempera

ature for a fix
xed loading t ime (linear polymer)
p

When deesigning with

h polymers itts importantt to distinguiish between stiffness
s and strength. Th
he former

describess the resistan

nce to elastic deformation
n while the la
atter describees the resistannce to failuree through

plastic d
deformation (yielding)
( or fracture. Wh
hen designing based on stiffness, thee material property of

importan
nce is Younggs modulus, E. Unlike m
metals and cerramics which
h have a neaar-constant E at room

7
temperatures, when a polymer is loaded it deflects by an amount which varies both with loading time and

with temperature so the modulus E is usually spoken of as time- and temperature-dependent modulus

E (t ,T ) . Modulus of a linear-amorphous polymer like PS can be around 3 GPa in the glassy regime, then

drop from 3 GPa to around 3 MPa in the glass-transition regime and sustain that value in the rubbery

regime (~3 MPa) and once the polymer enters viscous regime it starts to flow and then chemically

breakdown in the decomposition regime.

2.1 Glass temperature and the effect of operating temperature

Polymers feature two types of chemical bonds: stronger primary inter-atom covalent bonds which from the

long chain backbone, and the weak secondary inter-molecular bonds which bond the long chains together.

Glass temperature Tg , which is always near room temperature, is the temperature at which the secondary

bonds start to melt, leaving only the primary covalent bonds. Modulus of a polymer reflects this as is

shown in Figure 1. In general terms, as temperature declines, polymers become stiffer and stronger at the

expense of impact resistance. Opposite holds true for a rising temperature scenario. Above Tg the

secondary bonds melt away completely and the modulus falls drastically (from 3 GPa to less than 3 MPa)

while homopolymers become very viscous fluids and copolymers become rubbers.

2.2 Strain rate (extension speed) effect

The rate of loading a polymer plays a crucial role on its performance. High strain rates (shorter time

period) favour the materials elastic properties, while low strain rates (longer time period) favour the

viscous damping properties of the material. This can be interpreted as another manifestation of the time

and temperature dependency. As was mentioned in 2.1 as temperature declines the material becomes stiffer

and stronger but its impact resistance is reduced, while increasing temperature has an opposite effect. This

suggests that a similar relationship between the material properties will be observed with varying strain

rate, which turns out to be the case. Tensile tests, such as ones performed in this lab exercise, apply stress

over a longer time scale than for example an Izod or Charpy impact tests. Test times are measured in

seconds (up to 300 depending on the relevant standard) when compared to milliseconds in impact strength

testing. An increase in strain rate shows a proportional increase in yield stress and tensile modulus, and an

inversely proportional decrease in ultimate elongation values (fracture lengths).

8
 3 Descrip
ption of Appara
atus

pecimen initiial gauge length, width w and thickneess t were prrovided a

Since the measuremeents of the sp

priori, th
he instrumentt used to gatther these meeasurements can only be speculated oon. A reasona
able guess

would bee a mechanical or a digita

al Vernier callliper of sufficcient accuracy
y, although, tthe uncertain
nty of the

gathered
d data will be discussed in a later chaptter.

Tensile ttesting was performed on a Zwick/Roeell AllroundLiine tensile tessting machinee. Zwick is th
he worlds

leading ssupplier of maaterials testin

ng machines. The compan
ny was foundeed in 1920 unnder the name Roell &

Korthauss and has beeen involved in

n materials teesting ever since then. In 1937 they beggan building machines

and instrrumentation for mechaniccal material ttesting. At th

he same time, a company founded by Professor

Seger in
n 1876 evolveed into the present-day concern Ton
ni Technik, leading speciialists in thee field of

constructtion materialls testing sysstems. From 1992 Roell and

a Korthousse, along withh Toni Technik, have

compriseed the the Zw

wick Roell Group,
G which became a co
orporation un
nder the nam
me Zwick Roeell AG in

July of 22001.

Allround
dLine tensile testing
t machine features a drive system
m which usess an adaptivee AC servo-m
motor with

Hz cycle timee and a posittioning accurracy of 2 m . Force measurement

a 1000 H m iis provided through
t a

load celll with a 0.5 / 1 grade accuracy

a accoording to DIIN EN ISO 7500-1, withh a 24 bits calculated
c

resolution while the internal data

a acquisition
n rate is 400 kHz. The machine
m also features a zero-point
z

correctioon which is performed

p au
utomatically aat the start of the measu
urement andd a real-time Ethernet

connectioon interface to
t the PC. AllroundLine lload frame su
upports a max
ximal tensile//compression direction

test load
ding from 1000 to 250 kN depending
d on the exact mo
odel and prov
vides test load
ad speeds from
m 0.00005

to 1000 m
mm/min with
h a travel resolution betweeen 0.2 and 0.32
0 nm also depending
d onn the model.

Figure 2.
2 Zwick AllrroundLine tensile testing machine

9
4 Test procedure

Since students did not perform any of the steps in the experimental procedure other than reading the

force-elongation diagrams from the programme, the proper experimental procedure can only be assumed.

As such, specimen preparation assumes that the measures were taken correctly and with proper handling

of the Vernier calliper (avoiding extreme pressures that could cause the elastic deformation of the

specimens, ensuring the calliper was completely perpendicular to the specimen and the measuring tongs

sitting completely on the surfaces being measured etc.). Since there was no mention of any specimen

defects such as impurities, air bubbles or scratches/abrasions; it is assumed that the specimens were in

optimal condition.

Proper setup of the measuring software and the machine itself is also assumed. This might include the

following steps:

input of specimen dimensions and parameters (width, thickness, gauge length)

rate of extension inputs

end of test criteria (at which percentage of peak load is the test interrupted)

specific data for acquisition

display of results and graphs

proper load cell installation depending on the load range and sensitivity

load cell calibration

installation of correct clamp types for testing and subsequent zeroing

proper placement, positioning and gripping of the polymer specimen (vertically aligned, as

symmetrically as possible)

cleanup, exiting an shutting down at the end of test procedure.

10
5 Results

Before the tensile testing, measurements of each specimen were provided according to Figure 3. Three

measurements were taken for each of the values and an average value was determined. Subsequently, the

average cross sectional area (CSA) for each of the specimens was calculated. Values are presented in the

following table.

gauge length 33 mm

Figure 3. Relevant specimen dimensions

Table 1. Specimen measurements and initial calculations

measurement measurement measurement average average CSA

#1 (mm) #2 (mm) #3 (mm) value (mm) (t*w) (mm2)
t 2.18 2.13 2.10 2.136
Specimen 1 10.05
w 4.68 4.72 4.71 4.703
t 2.11 2.10 2.10 2.103
Specimen 2 9.89
w 4.68 4.73 4.71 4.706
t 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.13
Specimen 3 10.05
w 4.68 4.74 4.73 4.72

It should be noted that all specimens were tested above the glass temperature of polypropylene. Graphs of

load vs. extension were obtained for each of the specimens (Figures 4, 5 and 6) and subsequently used to

estimate the relevant values which were then used in the sample calculation given below.

<you should put a sample calculation here, I guess>

11
Figure 4. Specimen #1 load (N) vs. extension (mm) graph

Figure 5. Specimen #2 load (N) vs. extension (mm) graph

Figure 6. Specimen #3 load (N) vs. extension (mm) graph

12
A complete set of results for all three specimens in a tabular form is given in the following table.
Table 2. Results of experimental tensile testing for 3 specimens of polypropylene

Quantity Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3

Extension rate (mm/min) 100 50 12.5
Gauge length (mm) 33 33 33
Initial CSA (mm2) 10.05 9.89 10.05
Extension at High Yield (mm) 1.5 3 3
Fracture length (mm) 15 163 212
t, at fracture (mm) 0.93 0.89 0.75
w, at fracture (mm) 2.69 2.46 2.04
CSA at Fracture (mm2) 2.5017 2.1894 1.53
Load at yield (N) 265 255 238
Load at Fracture (N) 190 204 251
Nominal Yield Stress (N/mm2) 26.37 25.78 23.86
Youngs Modulus (N/mm2) 580.14 1063.425 260.48
Nominal Fracture Stress (N/mm2) 18.91 20.63 24.96
True Fracture stress (N/mm2) 75.95 93.18 164.05
Tensile ductility (dimensionless) 0.251 1.31 1.21

5.1 Results accuracy and error estimation

There are always errors in any measurement and no physical quantity can be measured with perfect

certainty. The most common way of measuring is to show the range of values using a best estimate and

uncertainty. For example, initial measurements of the specimens #1 thickness vary from 2.10 mm to 2.18

mm; it is very likely that the true thickness is somewhere between 2.10 and 2.18, but statistics are

required to get a more sophisticated estimate of uncertainty. When dealing with repeated measurements

there are usually three important statistical quantities: average (or mean), standard deviation and

standard error. Average ( x avg ) is the central value, standard deviation (s) is a measure of the spread in the

data and the standard error is (SE) an estimate in the uncertainty in the average of the measurements.

For the specimen #1 thickness, the average value is x avg = 2.136 mm, the standard deviation

s = 0.04 mm and the standard error SE = 0.023 mm. It is pretty clear what the average means, its just

an arithmetic middle of three values. The standard deviation says that if the specimen #1 thickness was to

be measured once more, theres about 70% chance that the calliper would read a value within one standard

deviation of the average, meaning 2.136 0.04 mm. On the other hand, the standard error says the

following: if the specimen #1 thickness was to re-measured three times all over again, theres about a 70%

13
chance that the average of those three new measurements would be within one standard error of the

current average, meaning 2.136 0.023 mm.

If one needs to calculate the uncertainty for a quantity that was calculated from one or more

measurements there are several methods with different levels of complexity at their disposal. To illustrate

a point, a simple method such as the upper-lower bounds method can be used. The basic idea behind this

method is to use the uncertainty ranges of each variable to calculate the maximum and minimum values of

the quantity. If we continue with specimen #1 example, and say that the measurement of thickness using

the standard deviation was t = 2.136 0.04 mm, and the measurement of width using the same method

was w = 4.703 0.02 mm then the upper-lower bounds method could be used to determine the

uncertainty in the cross sectional area (CSA). As a first step, we would take the minimum measurements

of both t and w to calculate the CSA:

CSAmin = tmin w min = 2.096 4.683 = 9.816 mm2 . (0.1)

Then wed calculate the CSA using the maximal measurements of t and w:

CSAmax = tmin w min = 2.176 4.723 = 10.277 mm2 . (0.2)

The CSA calculated using the average values was CSAavg = 10.05 mm2 , and the difference between

CSAmax and CSAmin is 0.461 mm2, which needs to be divided by two to get the range of 0.23 mm2. So, in

the end we can say that the CSA is 10.05 0.23 mm2 . Even though the relative error in the thickness and

width measurements was 1.87% and 0.42%, respectively, for the calculated quantity of CSA relative error

is 2.3%. It is easy to see how an uncertainty in the measurements can propagate and grow in subsequent

calculated quantities, making the error and uncertainty analysis and integral part of any experiment.

<if youd like, you can take any of the values from the sample calculation and follow this same procedure

to add an extra layer to this example>

14
 6 Discussion

Tensile testing was performed on three polypropylene specimens above glass temperature and a high

degree of agreement was found between the expected trends and the observed results. As the strain rate

increases the results show a higher yield stress and tensile modulus, along with a decrease in final

elongation before fracture. For example, specimen #1 which was measured at the highest extension rate of

100 mm/min fractured after achieving an elongation of only 15 mm which is roughly 45% of the initial

gauge length, while specimen #3 which had an extension rate of just 12.5 mm/min applied to it achieved

an elongation of 212 mm (almost 650% of the initial gauge length). Also, the time each of the specimens

endured before fracture varies accordingly, with specimen #3 fracturing at 16.96 seconds while specimen

#1 only endured 0.15 seconds. Higher ultimate elongation values are also associated with an increase in

toughness due to cold-drawing effects taking place (Figure 6), so this provides another example of the

trade-off between long-term load bearing properties and short-term impact resistance. These

observations also underscore the importance of declaring the specific strain rates at which the tensile tests

were performed when reporting the results of such tests. Even though most of the calculated quantities fell

well within the expected trend, the Youngs modulus for specimen #2 was unexpectedly high for unknown

reasons. The expected value was somewhere between the 580 MPa of specimen #1 and 260 MPa of

specimen #2, however, the calculation resulted in ~1060 MPa modulus for specimen #2 which falls well

outside the expected trend.

7 Conclusion

Data gathered through simplified experimental testing such as this should be used with circumspection

because in engineering applications the stress-states are rarely just tension or compression, most of the

time theyre multi-axial and combined with environmental factors such as different operating atmospheres

and even sunlight.

15
 8 Bibliography

[1] J. A. Brydson, Plastic Materials, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999.

[2] M. F. Ashby and D. R. Jones, Engineering Materials 2: An Introduction to Microstructures, Processing

and Design, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1998.

[3] ISO, ISO 7500-1 Tension/Compression testing machines - Verification and calibration of the force-

measuring system, Geneva: ISO, 2004.

[4] ISO, ISO 899-1 Plastics - Determination of creep behaviour - Tensile creep, Geneva: ISO, 2003.

[5] Zwick/Roell, AllroundLine Z100 up to Z250 product information, Ulm: Zwick/Roell, 2017.

[6] Uncertainty, Measurments and Error Analysis, Johns Hophins Whitning school of engineering,

Baltimore, 2016.

16