A FORMULATION STUDY OF LONG FIBER … 1 a formulation study of long fiber thermoplastic...

A FORMULATION STUDY OF LONG FIBER THERMOPLASTIC POLYPROPYLENE (PART 3): MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF PP DLFT

COMPOSITES

Creig Bowland, Brad Busche, J. vd. Woude

PPG Industries, Fiber Glass Science and Technology

Abstract

In part three of this multiyear study the properties and performance of PP DLFT are explored using a Coperion based DLFT compression molding system. An extensive formulation DOE was initiated to determine the performance of PP DLFT and to compare and contrast this work with the prior work done on PP GLFT. The results of this ongoing research are reported.

Background

Long Fiber Thermoplastics (LFT) have enjoyed a long run of double digit growth and have found general acceptance as structural materials. Polypropylene (PP) LFT materials offer strength and stiffness and are recyclable having a long shelf life. Consequently, their introduction has led to an increased penetration of the automotive market for structural thermoplastic composites. These applications typically are metal replacement and facilitate both part weight reduction and part consolidation. PP LFTs are the largest segment of this market and are also experiencing the largest growth. Within the PP LFT segment there are three distinct methods of making and using these materials. The classic method is the pultrusion impregnation and/or cross head extrusion method of generating LFT pellets that are subsequently injection molded. For the purpose of this paper this type of material is labeled Granulate Long Fiber Thermoplastics (GLFT). The second main method of producing LFT is In Line Compounding(IC). Within the IC segment there are two distinct methods of producing parts. In one method, the IC material is compression molded into parts in a process similar to that used for the manufacture of Glass Mat Thermoplastics and thermoset parts. In the second method the IC material is fed directly into an injection molding machine for either standard Injection molding or Injection compression molding. For the purpose of this paper both are labeled as Direct Long Fiber Thermoplastics (DLFT) and are differentiated as compression and injection DLFT.

PP LFT materials exhibit their best performance when the polypropylene resin has maleic anhydride grafted polypropylene added to the matrix. The amount and characteristics of this additive are well documented in short glass polypropylene compounds [6-9] but are not well reported for PP LFT materials [1-2]. There are a number of factors that affect the performance of the coupling agent in PP LFT parts.

Coupling Agent concentration

Maleic Anhydride (MAH) grafting levels in the coupling agent

Melt Flow (MFI) of the Coupling agent.

Fiber glass content and sizing

Polypropylene properties such as MFI, molecular weight and crystallinity.

Mold Design and temperature

Method of making PP LFT: GLFT vs. IC DLFT. The DLFT and GLFT processes are distinct and can lead to different part performance based upon the heat history,

ultimate fiber length retention, fiber orientation in the part and time at temperature to allow effective coupling.

In previous studies [1-2] the results of injection molded (IM) PP GLFT parts were studied. The coupling agent melt flow and maleic anhydride loading were found to be important to obtaining optimum properties.

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

100

150

200

250

300

0.60.7

0.80.9

1.0

Fle

xu

ral S

tren

gth

(M

Pa)

MFI o

f C

ouplin

g A

gen

t% MAH in Coupling Agent

0.5% Coupling Agent in Composite

Figure 1: Flexural Strength versus Coupling Agent MFI and MAH Loading In 60% PP GLFT with TufRov® 4575 Fiber Glass

Figure 1 shows the response of flexural strength in 60% glass filled PP GLFT versus the percent of MAH and the MFI of the coupling agent. The percent of MAH is reported as % MAH in the coupling agent. There are a number of trends that can be extracted from Figure 1. First: The maximum flexural strength obtained is almost 280 MPa. This is phenomenally high flex strength for a PP based composite. Second: The higher the MFI of the coupling agent, the higher the flex strength. Third: The higher the MAH loading, the higher the flex strength. The trends break down slightly at low coupling agent loadings but this may be because of an incomplete coverage of the fiber glass with coupling agent.

The amount of coupling agent needed to obtain the maximum flexural strength in a 60%

(w/w) LFT part is also low at 1% MAH with TufRov® 4575 fiber glass. TufRov 4575 has a highly reactive sizing system that enhances the coupling agent performance. With other less reactive sizing systems a large dose of coupling agent is needed to obtain equivalent properties.

Surface Area of Fiberglass in 1 Kg of Composite (m2)

25 30 35 40 45 50

Co

up

lin

g A

gen

t L

oad

ing

(%

w/w

)

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

Figure 2: Correlation between Surface Area of Fiber Glass and amount of Coupling

Agent needed in PP GLFT

In Figure 2 the coupling agent loading is plotted against the surface area of the TufRov 4575 in the composite. The amount of coupling agent needed for optimal properties in GLFT is proportional to the surface area of fiber glass in the composite. This type of curve can be generated for each fiber glass type and for each coupling agent used in PP GLFT. The response curve generated is specific to the fiber glass sizing and may be differ with changes in other additives

The purpose of this work is to complete these studies on DLFT compression molded

materials and to determine the optimum properties and performance. The goal is to obtain technical data similar to that seen in Figure 2 showing the correlation between the glass surface area and the amount of optimum loading of materials in the PP DLFT composite.

Experimental

PPG TufRov 4575, TufRov 4599, TufRov 4588 (all three 206 yield 17 micron diameter) and PPG LFT 4000 113 yield 24 micron fiber glass rovings were processed through a Coperion ZSK 40mm twin screw extruder to produce DLFT plaques impregnated with PP resin. Marlex® HGZ-1200 homopolymer (120MFI) was used as the main constituent in each trial set with a heat stabilizer package, carbon black, and coupling agent. A blended masterbatch containing a heat stabilizer package and carbon black remained constant at 5% (w/w). An extensive Design of Experiment (DOE) set was run. The variables included in the DOE were:

1. Coupling agent utilized

2. Coupling agent loading in the composite

3. Amount of fiber glass in the composite by weight

4. Polypropylene polymer type (homopolymer versus copolymer).

5. Fiber Glass Type (sizing composition change)

6. Extruder revolutions per minute (RPM)

Samples are produced by introducing a resin mixture into the twin screw extruder and

allowing the resin to melt before directly introducing fiber glass rovings into the extruder at a later point. The heat profile of the twin screw extruder is listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Molding Thermal Profile of ZSK 40mm Twin Screw Extruder

The speed of the extruder varied from 60 rpm to 120 rpm while varying the amount of PP resin mixture being fed into the extruder to control the glass content of the samples. Figure 3 illustrates a curve produced to correlate rpm versus lb/hr PP resin to control the percent by weight of fiber glass in the samples.

Figure 3. Correlation of Screw Speed versus Resin Lbs/Hr to control glass content

18

28

38

48

58

50 70 90 110 130

Re

sin

Lb

s/ H

r

Screw Speed (RPM)

Screw Speed vs. Lbs/ Hr

40% Glass Content

30% Glass Content

Molding Profile

Zone 1 170°C

Zone 2 190°C

Zone 3 190°C

Zone 4 220°C

Zone 5 240°C

Table 2. Collection Time of Charge for Screw Speed of Extruder

To ensure uniform thickness and consistency in the DLFT produced samples, the amount of extrudate was collected for equal amounts of time depending on the screw speed of the extruder. Table 2 lists the collection times for the different screw speeds.

To complete the sample the “charge” coming out of the extruder was compression molded. A 40 cm by 40 cm plaque tool was installed in a St. Lawrence 150 Ton Hydraulic Press. The charge was pressed at 450 psi for 40 seconds with a mold temperature of 140°F. The plaques produced were cut using an O-MAX 2626 water jet cutter to make the final test specimens for mechanical analysis.

Unless otherwise stated, all mechanical property testing was performed at 23⁰C and at a

relative humidity of 50%. All testing was done in the PPG Fiber Glass Science and Technology Laboratory in Hoogezand, The Netherlands. Tensile properties were tested according to ISO 527-2 using 10 specimens and a crosshead rate of 5 mm/min (0.2 in/min) with an extensometer gauge length of 50 mm (2 in). Flex properties were tested according to ISO 14125 using 10 specimens and a crosshead rate of 2.0 mm/min (0.8 in/min) and a span of 64 mm (2.56 in). Charpy notched impact properties were tested according to ISO 179-1 with 10 specimens and a Type A notch. Charpy UnNotched impact properties were tested according to ISO 179-1.

Single Fiber Pull Out Testing

Single Fiber Pull out testing was performed by The University of Strathclyde. Fully compounded polypropylene resin with heat stabilizers, carbon black and coupling agent were produced on the Shelby ZSK 40 mm extruder and pelletized. This pelletized PP compound was then used to produce single fiber pull out samples. Two separate formulations were produced: one with 0.5% and one with 2.0% by weight BondyRam® 1001 coupling agent. Marlex HGZ1200 Homopolymer PP resin and the standard heat stabilizer/black masterbatch. TufRov 4599 206 yield, 17 micron fiber glass and TufRov 4575 206 yield, 17 micron fiber glass were evaluated with the two different resin formulations.

Table 3:Typical Conditions of Single Fiber Pull-out Test

Conditions for sample Heated at 240°C for 4 minutes followed by

Collection Times

Screw Speed Glass Content

40% 30%

90 rpm 2min 1min 30sec

60 rpm 2min 40sec 2min

120rpm 1min 30sec 1min 10sec

preparation cooling at ambient temperature

Test Rate 0.1 mm/min

Test temperature 24°C

Relative humidity 45%

Results

Figure 4: Representative curve for TufRov® 4599 with 2% BondyRam 1001

Figure 4: The 4599 single fiber pull out curve follows a classic slip/stick failure mode and is further evidence that the primary mechanism of failure is fiber pull out. Friction is responsible for holding the fiber in the resin. When the load rises to a critical level the fiber slips until the load is alleviated. The cycle then starts again. There is good wetting of the resin onto the fiber surface, but little actual adhesion between the resin and glass.

Figure 5: Representative curve for TufRov® 4575 with 2% BondyRam 1001

Figure 5: The 4575 single fiber pull out test show excellent adhesion between the fiber and polypropylene matrix. The fiber does not slip from the resin but continues to hold until the load reaches a critical level and complete failure occurs. The interface between resin and fiber does not fail and is indicative of a high level of bonding between the fiber glass and resin. The maximum load is also significantly higher and indicative of better tensile and flexural strength in the composite.

Table 4: IFSS for TufRov® 4599 and TufRov® 4575

Interfacial Shear Stress (IFSS)

Comparison of Fiber Pull Out IFSS at 240⁰C for 4 minutes

4599 (0.5% CA)

4599 (2% CA)

4575 (0.5% CA)

4575 (2% CA)

Sample size 14 24 16 35 Mean IFSS (MPa) 6.5 9.7 9.1 17.3 Standard Deviation 2.1 4.1 4.6 6.6 Confidence Level (95%) 1.08 1.66 2.27 2.2

Table 4 shows the mean IFSS strength from the single fiber pull out tests. TufRov 4575 shows higher IFSS values compared to 4599 and is further confirmation of the improved interfacial adhesion offered with this fiber glass. The 0.5% coupling agent loading levels show a significant drop off in properties in the study for both the 4599 and 4575 fibers and indicate that 0.5% coupling agent loading is not sufficient for optimal mechanical properties with BondyRam 1001 coupling agent. BondyRam 1001 has 0.9%-1% MAH loading and has a 100 MFI. Other work done [1-2] indicates that a loading of 0.5% to 1% coupling agent with these base properties is sufficient in GLFT. The data indicates a slightly higher loading is required for DLFT.

SEM fracture surface analysis

Broken tensile specimens were potted in epoxy resin and cut to size for insertion into a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The fracture surface was left as is (not polished) and a survey of the fracture surface was done to determine the primary mechanism of failure using a Tescan VEGA TS 5130LS Scanning Electron Microscope.

Figure 6: TufRov® 4575 PP DLFT Fracture Surface

In Figure 6, the PP DLFT samples reinforced with TufRov 4575 fiber glass show a distinct failure mode of crack propagation through the fiber glass instead of the classic fiber pull out

mechanism of failure. There is also a lot of resin evident on the fiber surfaces indicating good wet out and excellent adhesion between resin and fiber glass. The tracks where the glass was removed during the failure are not clean and indicate failure in the resin and not at the interface with the glass.


In Figure 7, a higher magnification on the TufRov 4575 fracture surface shows the degree of wet out and adhesion to the PP resin that this reactive sizing imparts to the composite. The fiber pull out tracks are rough and “orange peeled” indicating a good adhesion between the fiber and resin. The crack propagation was through the resin and through the fiber but not along the interface between the glass and resin.


In Figure 8, the PP DLFT samples reinforced with TufRov 4588 fiber glass show a combination of fiber pull out and some crack propagation through the fibers at the failure surface. The fiber pull out mechanism appears to be the primary mechanism of failure. Note the tracks in the resin where the fibers once imbedded in the resin. The fiber glass surfaces are fairly clean of PP resin and indicate that the primary failure was at the interface.


In Figure 9, the PP DLFT samples reinforced with TufRov 4599 fiber glass show fiber pull out failure as the primary mechanism. Note the tracks in the resin where the fibers once were and the clean fiber surface indicating low adhesion to the resin.

Figure 10: LFT® 4000 PP DLFT Fracture Surface

In Figure 10, the PP DLFT samples reinforced with LFT® 4000 fiber glass indicate a majority of the failure was from crack propagation through the fiber glass. There is very little indication of fiber pull out and there are significant amounts of resin still present on the glass. The debris indicates a brittle failure as part of the process with lots of small shards of resin left in the system. Also of interest: there are few tracks where the fiber was pulled out and those you see are not a clean surface and indicate resin failure and not interface failure.

Mechanical Properties

Figure 11: Coupling Agent Type and Loading versus Tensile Strength

Figure 12: Coupling Agent Type and Loading versus Unnotched Charpy Impact

Me

an(T

ensile

stre

ngth

(M

Pa

))

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

test direction *

0.25 0.5 1 1.25 1.5 2 0.25 0.5 1 1.25 1.5 2 0.25 0.5 1 1.25 1.5 2 coupling agent content

Bondyram 1001 Polybond 3200 Priex 20097 coupling agent

90 Extruder speed

4575-17mu glass type

Marlex 120 MFI homo-PP polymer type

30

40

glass contentM

ea

n(C

ha

rpy im

pa

ct s

tre

ng

th u

nn

otc

he

d (

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

test direction *



90 Extruder speed



30

40

glass content

Figure 13: Coupling Agent Type and Loading versus Flexural Strength

Effect of coupling agent on DLFT mechanical properties

The data generated to date (Figures 11-13) does not show significant response of coupling agent loading to the performance of the DLFT part with the exception of very low loadings. At low coupling agent loadings there is not enough coupling agent present to obtain acceptable properties. However; once that loading of 0.5% to 1.0% is achieved there is little effect in varying the coupling agent loading or type. This is different than the results found in GLFT and may indicate that a different process is controlling the mechanical properties in DLFT. All this data was generated using 120 MFI homopolymer PP resin with TufRov 4575 fiber glass.

Figure 14: DLFT Tensile Strength

Fiber Glass Response to Polymer change Changing the polymer type from homopolymer PP to copolymer PP resin (Figures 14-15)

Me

an(F

lexura

l stre

ngth

(M

Pa

))

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

cro

ss-flo

w

flow

test direction *



90 Extruder speed



30

40

glass content

Te

ns

ile

str

en

gth

(M

Pa

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

cro

ss

-flo

w

flo

w

cro

ss

-flo

w

flo

w

cro

ss

-flo

w

flo

w

cro

ss

-flo

w

flo

w direction

4575-17mu LFT4000-24mu 4575-17mu LFT4000-24mu glass

Lyondell Basell 100 MFI Copolymer Marlex 120 MFI homo-PP polymer

33

40

% glass

has little effect on the tensile strength of the composite. Both 33% and 40% glass loadings have the same response. It is interesting that in homopolymer PP the LFT 4000 fiber has improved flow versus cross flow homogeneity. The same trend may be present in the copolymer product, but the statistical data does not yet support this observation.

The LFT 4000 fiber glass is 24 micron in diameter while the TufRov 4575 is a 17 micron product. The introduction of the larger diameter fiber does not have a detrimental effect on the performance of the composite.

Figure 15 DLFT Flexural Strength Fiber Glass Response to Polymer Change

The flexural strength again shows that the 24 micron fiber gives the same performance in the DLFT part as the 17 micron product with a significant reduction in anisotropic properties.

Effect of Change in Fiber Glass on Properties in PP DLFT

Fle

xu

ral s

tre

ng

th (

MP

a)

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

cro

ss

-flo

w

flo

w

cro

ss

-flo

w

flo

w

cro

ss

-flo

w

flo

w

cro

ss

-flo

w

flo

w direction

4575-17mu LFT4000-24mu 4575-17mu LFT4000-24mu glass

Lyondell Basell 100 MFI Copolymer Marlex 120 MFI homo-PP polymer

33

40

% glass

Figure 16:UnNotched Charpy Impact versus Fiber Glass Type in DLFT

Figure 17: Tensile Strength versus Fiber Glass Type in DLFT

Un

no

tch

ed

Ch

arp

y im

pa

ct

str

en

gth

(k

J/m

²

0

10

20

30

40

50

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w Flow/Cross-flow

30 40 30 40 30 40 30 40 Glass content (wt%)

4575 4588 4599 LFT4000 Roving type

Te

ns

ile

str

en

gth

(M

Pa

)

20

40

60

80

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w Flow/Cross-flow

30 40 30 40 30 40 30 40 Glass content (wt%)

4575 4588 4599 LFT4000 Roving type

Figure 18: Flexural Strength versus Fiber Glass Type in DLFT

Figure 19: Flexural Modulus versus Fiber Glass Type in DLFT

TufRov 4575 has the highest flow properties in the laminates. However, there is little change in mechanical properties in the DLFT part. Even though the failure mode of the

Fle

xu

ral s

tren

gth

(M

Pa)

60

80

100

120

140

160

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w Flow/Cross-flow

30 40 30 40 30 40 30 40 Glass content (wt%)

4575 4588 4599 LFT4000 Roving type

Fle

xu

ral m

od

ulu

s (

MP

a)

3000

4000

5000

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w

Cro

ss

-flo

w

Flo

w Flow/Cross-flow

30 40 30 40 30 40 30 40 Glass content (wt%)

4575 4588 4599 LFT4000 Roving type

laminate is different the mechanical properties are very similar. In this third study, we again observe that the LFT 4000 product has a more isotropic fiber distribution and more uniform mechanical properties. The data presented in Figures 16-19 confirm the SEM fracture surface analysis.

Discussion and Next Steps

Comparing the data generated in this study on DLFT compression molded PP LFT parts to that generated using injection molded GLFT parts is interesting. Significant care must be taken in such comparisons as the differences in molding and sample preparation are so large as to make direct comparisons of mechanical properties open to interpretation and thus outside the realm of scientific methodology. The EATC method of preparing both GLFT and DLFT samples has some merit in that the data is much closer in numerical value.

The effect of Fiber Glass Sizing on the performance of PP DLFT

The single fiber testing and the SEM fracture surface analysis confirms the significant improvement offered by the LFT 4000 and TufRov 4575 fiber glass sized systems. Even though the mechanical properties of the PP DLFT composites are not drastically improved by the use of these reinforcements there are other positive attributes that can be obtained such as improved heat stability, improved moisture retention and improved long term property retention.

DLFT Properties and Performance: Formulation Change responses in PP DLFT:

1. The differences between flow and cross flow tensile, flex and impact properties increase with the addition of more coupling agent. This is indicative of a lack of coupling agent in the low loadings. For most of the coupling agents studied a 1% loading in the composite is required for good performance in 40% glass loaded DLFT. For the 30% glass loaded DLFT between 0.5% and 1% is required. This loading is higher than what is required in comparable GLFT parts as reported in previous work [1-2]

2. The PP DLFT properties are unresponsive to most changes in formulation once an adequate loading of coupling agent is present.

3. The change from homopolymer to copolymer has little effect on properties.

4. The use of LFT 4000 reduces the difference between flow and cross flow tensile, flex and impact properties. The flow values are lowered while the cross flow values are increased. The composite is more isotropic. Furthermore, there is some evidence that the modulus values are slightly increased with the LFT 4000 fiber glass.

The DLFT data generated so far has not shown the strong response to formulation changes we have seen in GLFT. The reasons for this are still unclear but a few points are obvious in the data.

1. The mechanical properties of PP DLFT composites are not greatly affected by major changes in the formulation of the system. Changes in resin type, coupling agent type, coupling agent loading and fiber glass type do not significantly change the properties of the end product. For the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) this is good news and indicates that the data used for design will remain valid even if raw

materials used change in the course of a program life.

2. DLFT is a much lower temperature process compared to GLFT. In GLFT processing the melt temperature can be 60⁰C higher than DLFT. Furthermore, the resin is at

temperature for a longer period of time and then goes through a second heat history in the injection molding machine barrel for a further period of 3 to 5 minutes. This combined time at high temperature difference is significant and may account for the higher response to formulation changes in GLFT compared to DLFT. We have some information beginning to come out of our fiber pull out studies that seems to confirm this. However; further work must be done to understand the ramifications of this difference.

3. One significant issue for DLFT is the differences between the flow and cross flow mechanical properties. These differences are caused by the alignment of the fiber during the molding process. The cross flow tensile, flex and impact properties are always lower than the flow properties. The differences can be reduced by using the reactive sizing and large diameter fiber offered with LFT 4000 fiber glass. This product shows a greatly improved flow versus cross flow difference with increased cross flow values.

Future Work:

Since it is believed that the time temperature aspect of D-LFT allows for less opportunity for

reactants to interact our future work will focus on improving the system conditions for maximal reactivity and properties with a focus on the kinetics of the process.

References

1. Bowland, C.D., “A formulation study of Long Fiber Thermoplastic Polypropylene (Part One: The effects of coupling agent, glass content and resin properties on the mechanical properties,” ACCE Conference Proceedings (2008).

2. Bowland, C.D., “A formulation study of Long Fiber Thermoplastic Polypropylene (Part Two: The Effects of Coupling Agent Type and Properties,” ACCE Conference Proceedings (2009).

3. Allred, R.E., and Wesson, S.P. “Surface Characterization of Sized and Desized Toray M40J Carbon Fibers,” SAMPE Conference Proceedings, (2002).

4. Thomason, J.L., “The influence of fibre length and concentration on the properties of glass fiber reinforced polypropylene: 5. Injection moulded long and short fibre PP,” Composites: Part A 33 (2002) pp. 1641-1652.

5. Lee, J.S and Lee, J.W., “Melt Impregnation Behavior and Mechanical Properties of Long Fiber Thermoplastics Composites through Pultrusion Process,” ANTEC Conference Proceedings, (1996) pp. 2536-2540.

6. Azari, A.D., ”The Influence of the Pultrusion Line Speed on the Mechanical Properties of the Thermoplastic Rovings Impregnated Long Fiber”, ANTEC Conference Proceedings, (1996) pp. 2526-2530.

7. Thomason, J.L., “The influence of fibre length and concentration on the properties of glass fibre reinforced polypropylene: 7: Interface strength and fibre strain in injection moulded long fibre PP at high fibre content,” Composites: Part A 38 (2007) pp. 210-216.

8. Kumar, K.S., Naresh, B., Anup, K.G., ”Mechanical Properties of Injection Molded Long Fiber Polypropylene Composites, Part 2: Impact and Fracture Toughness”, Polymer Composites (2008) pp.525-533.

9. Hong, C.H., Lee, Y.B., Bae, J.W., Jho, J.Y., Nam, B.U., Hwang, T.W., “Molecular Weight Effect of Compatibilizer on Mechanical Properties of Polypropylene/Clay Nanocomposites”, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. Vol. 11, No.2, (2005) pp. 293-296.

10. Cantwell, W.J., Tato, W., Kausch, H.H., “The Influence of a Fiber-Matrix Coupling Agent on the Properties of a Glass Fiber/Polypropylene GMT”, J Thermoplastic Composites Materials, Vol.5, Oct 1992, pp.304-317.

11. Bailey, R.S., Lehr, W., Moore, D.R., Robinson, I.M., Rutter, P.M., “Long Fibre Reinforced Thermoplastics for Injection Moulding: The Relationship between Impregnation and Properties”, Dev. Sci. Technol. Compos. Matter, Eur. Conf. Compos. Mater., 4th (1990), pp.1037-42

12. Bailey, R.S., Moore, D.R., Robinson, I.M., Rutter, P.M., “The effect of impregnation on the microstructure of long fiber-reinforced thermoplastic composites and their consequence on deformation and toughness”, Science and Engineering of Composite Materials (1993), 2(3), pp.171-94.

13. Kim, H.C., “Toughening mechanisms of Long-Fiber-Reinforced Thermoplastics”, Society of Automotive Engineers, [Special Publication] SP (1998), SP-1340(Plastics: Components, Processes, and Technology), pp.167-171.

14. Grove, D.A., Kim, H.C., “Effect of Constituents on the Fatigue Behavior of Long Fiber Reinforced Thermoplastics”, ANTEC Conference Proceedings, (1995), pp. 3003-3007.

15. Thomason, J.L., Schoolenberg, G.E., “An investigation of glass fibre/polypropylene interface strength and its effect on composite properties”. Composites Vol. 25, No 3, (1994), pp.197-203.

16. Thomason, J.L., Groenewoud, W.M., “The influence of fibre length and concentration on the properties of glass fibre reinforced polypropylene: 2. Thermal Properties”, Composites Part A, 27A, (1996), pp. 555-565.

17. Thomason, J.L., Vlug, M.A., “Influence of fibre length and concentration on the properties of glass fibre-reinforced polypropylene: 1: Tensile and flexural modulus”, Composites: Part A 27A, (1996), pp. 477-484.

18. Thomason, J.L., Vlug, M.A., “Influence of fibre length and concentration on the properties of glass fibre-reinforced polypropylene: 4: Impact properties”, Composites: Part A 28A, (1997), pp.277-288.

A FORMULATION STUDY OF LONG FIBER … 1 a formulation study of long fiber thermoplastic...

Documents

Transcript of A FORMULATION STUDY OF LONG FIBER … 1 a formulation study of long fiber thermoplastic...