MCET 211 Group 2 Tuesday 11 AM

Section: 01 Impact Testing

MCET 211

Materials in Engineering Design Lab

Impact Testing

By

Dustyn Crowley

Matt Eckert

Patricia Delph

For

Prof. Michael J. Parthum Jr.

Group 2
Date Performed: 2/21/17
Date Submitted: 2/28/17

Dustyn Crowley, Matt Eckert, Patricia Delph 2/17/17

Rochester Institute of Technology Page 1 of 13
MCET 211 Group 2 Tuesday 11 AM
Section: 01 Impact Testing

Table of Contents

1.0 ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………... 3
2.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Background………………………………………………………………………... 3
2.1.1 Test………………………………………………………………………...... 3
2.1.2 Materials……………………………………………………………………. 3
2.1.3 Structure - Property Relationship (theory)........................................... 4
2.2 Goals and Objectives………………………………………………………..….... 4
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF TEST…………………………………………………………… 5
3.1 Procedure………………………………………………………………………….. 5
3.2 Apparatus………………………………………………………………………...... 5
4.0 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS………………………………………………………….7
4.3 Data Products……………………………………………………………………....8
5.0 DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………………….9
6.0 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………….. 10
7.0 APPENDIX……………………………………………………………………………. 12
Raw Data…...…………..…………………………………………………………….... 12
Reference…….………..……………………...……………………………………….. 12
Group Activity Report….…………………………………………………………….... 13

Dustyn Crowley, Matt Eckert, Patricia Delph 2/17/17

Rochester Institute of Technology Page 2 of 13
MCET 211 Group 2 Tuesday 11 AM
Section: 01 Impact Testing

1.0 ABSTRACT
Abstract
Charpy Impact testing (ASTM D 6110) was done on three materials (polypropylene,
Nylon 6 6, and high impact polystyrene) at room temperature and after an ice bath for about 30
minutes. Three samples of each material at both temperatures were tested for more conclusive
data analysis. According to the structure-property relationship, it was expected that the
materials would exhibit ductile properties at the higher temperature, and more brittle properties
at the lower temperature. This meant that the impact toughness should have decreased as the
temperature decreased. After collecting and analyzing the results of the experiment, it was
determined that all materials decreased in impact strength when cooled except for HIPS which
stayed almost constant. This could have been from one outlier in the data which caused the
data to skew toward the same, or from discrepancies in testing methods (ice bath was too
short).

2.0 INTRODUCTION:
2.1 Background
2.1.1 Test
Impact toughness is measured by calculating the amount of energy a material can
absorb before breaking1. The two methods for testing materials impact strength are the IZOD
impact tester and the Charpy Impact tester. For this experiment the Charpy impact tester was
used. The IZOD Impact tester was initially going to be used in addition to the Charpy, but due to
operating difficulties it was disregarded. The Charpy Impact tester uses ASTM D 6110.
Three materials were tested at two different temperatures. Nylon, Polypropylene (PP), and HIPS
were tested at room temperature and after being placed in an ice bath for about 30 minutes.
Three samples of each were evaluated at each temperature for more conclusive data.
Comparisons were done for each material at different temperatures as well as to published data
(for room temperature samples).

2.1.2 Materials
The materials used for Impact Testing were Nylon 6 6, PP (Polypropylene), and HIPS
(High impact polystyrene). The nylon plastic is a synthetic thermoplastic polymer which is made
of polyamide that is linked by peptide bonds. It has high mold resistance, fungi resistance, and
sunlight resistance, weather resistance, wearproof, and waterproof, also strong, tough, and
durable. It is widely used for stocking, machine gears, tennis rackets, parachutes and
toothbrush.

Figure 1: Chemical Structure of Nylon 6 64

Dustyn Crowley, Matt Eckert, Patricia Delph 2/17/17

Rochester Institute of Technology Page 3 of 13
MCET 211 Group 2 Tuesday 11 AM
Section: 01 Impact Testing

The PP plastic is a linear hydrocarbon polymer which is a polyolefin. It has good

chemical resistance, good fatigue resistance, good heat resistance, tough, low density,
excellent electrical resistance. It is widely used for buckets, bowls, toys, medical components,
washing machine drum, battery cases, crates, bumpers, jug kettles, packages for biscuits, crisp,
etc., carpets and sport clothing.

Figure 2: Chemical Structure of PP (Polypropylene)2

The HIPS plastic is a polystyrene thermoplastic that is made of rubber and general
purpose polystyrene (GPPS). It has high impact resistance, and low strength. It is widely used
for television, appliance parts, bicycle trailer, hot and cold drink cups, instruments panels and
gasoline tanks.

Figure 3: Chemical Structure of HIPS (High impact polystyrene)3

2.1.3 Structure –Property relationship (theory)

The impact toughness of a polymer directly correlates to the temperature of the
material1. At a higher temperature, the material exhibits ductile properties and, as a result, a
higher impact toughness. As expected, at lower temperatures, the material exhibits brittle
(glassy) properties and the impact toughness decreases. Different materials will experience
different degrees of decreasing toughness with lower temperature, but in general, all polymers
will decrease in toughness as temperature decreases.

2.2 Goals and Objectives:

The goal of this experiment was to determine the effect temperature has on polymers
through Charpy impact testing per ASTM D 6110. Three different materials were tested; Nylon,
Polypropylene, and HIPS. All three polymers were tested both at room temperature and below
room temperature (Ice bath). The results of the room temperature and the ice bath were
compared to determine what effect temperature had, and if it was the same throughout all three
materials.

Dustyn Crowley, Matt Eckert, Patricia Delph 2/17/17

Rochester Institute of Technology Page 4 of 13
MCET 211 Group 2 Tuesday 11 AM
Section: 01 Impact Testing

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF TEST

3.1 Procedure
Three samples of each material, Nylon, PP, and HIPS were kept at room temperature
and three more of each were placed in an ice bath. Before testing, each sample was notched
roughly in the middle of the specimen. Each sample was then loaded into the Charpy Impact
tester per ASTM D 6110. The hammer of the impact tester was then released and the output
was recorded for later data analysis. After samples were broken, pictures were taken and the
samples were then discarded. The same process was done for the samples in the ice bath.
The IZOD Impact tester, ASTM D256-00 was also supposed to be used after the Charpy
test. Due to issues with the machine, testing could not be conducted. Some results may have
been collected, but the accuracy of those results could have been very low. Per the instructor's
directions, we disregarded the test and just used the data from the Charpy test. Though not as
much data was collected for the samples, enough was to make some conclusions about the
relationship between temperature and impact strength.

3.2 Apparatus

Figure 4: Notch maker machine

This machine is being used to making notch in the middle of the bars of any
specimens such as HDPE, LDPE, HIPS, PP, and more. You put any polymers specimen in the
vise and pull the wheel that control the blades for making notch. Then you need to make sure
the specimen doesn’t have any leftover “skin” on the notch.

Dustyn Crowley, Matt Eckert, Patricia Delph 2/17/17

Rochester Institute of Technology Page 5 of 13
MCET 211 Group 2 Tuesday 11 AM
Section: 01 Impact Testing

Figure 5: Charpy Impact testing machine

Charpy Impact testing machine measures the toughness which is measurement of the
ability of energy absorbed before fracture or break. You put the specimen on the holder in
horizontal direction and hang up the swinger. Then you pull the lock for swing to go swing and it
hit the specimen. The computer measure the toughness and inform us the energy absorbed
before break.

Figure 6: IZOD Impact testing machine

IZOD impact testing machine also measure the toughness, but with different method and
different units used for it. You put the specimen in holder in vertical direction and lift the hammer
up and let it go. The hammer will hit the specimen and it will show the energy absorbed before
the specimen fractured.

Dustyn Crowley, Matt Eckert, Patricia Delph 2/17/17

Rochester Institute of Technology Page 6 of 13
MCET 211 Group 2 Tuesday 11 AM
Section: 01 Impact Testing

4.0 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Table 1: Experimental Charpy Impact Value Averages

Experimental data was collected in sets of three for the room temperature and ice bath
data. The average of these values was calculated, resulting in the values listed in Table 1. The
average impact value for HIPS at room temperature was 6.22 kJ/m2, while the average impact
value for the chilled HIPS was 6.78 kJ/m2. The average impact value for the Nylon at room
temperature was 8.92 kJ/m2, while the average impact value for the chilled specimens was 6.92
kJ/m2. Lastly, the average impact value for the polypropylene at room temperature was 2.88
kJ/m2, while the average impact value for the chilled specimens was 1.56 kJ/m2.

Table 2: Comparison of Impact Values Between Samples at Room Temperature and Ice Bath Temperature

As displayed in Table 2, there were significant differences between the Charpy impact
values for specimens at room temperature as compared to specimens chilled before testing. For
HIPS, the impacting rating actually went up when chilled, at increase of 8.3%. For Nylon and
PP, however, the chilled samples had significantly reduced impact ratings, with -28.9% for
Nylon and -84.0% for PP.

Dustyn Crowley, Matt Eckert, Patricia Delph 2/17/17

Rochester Institute of Technology Page 7 of 13
MCET 211 Group 2 Tuesday 11 AM
Section: 01 Impact Testing

Table 3: Experimental vs. Published Data

In order to compare the test data with published data, the average values for the three
specimens tested for each type of plastic was calculated. Then, the median value for the range
of published data values was determined, and the difference calculated. The nylon samples
displayed the smallest difference between published data values, 18.91%, while PP showed the
greatest difference, coming in at 63.82% difference. The difference for HIPS was between the
values for the other two plastics, at 30.93%.

4.3 Data Products

Graph 1: Comparison of Experimental Data Ranges to Published Data Ranges for Room Temperature
Notched Charpy Impact

Dustyn Crowley, Matt Eckert, Patricia Delph 2/17/17

Rochester Institute of Technology Page 8 of 13
MCET 211 Group 2 Tuesday 11 AM
Section: 01 Impact Testing

Graph 1 shows a comparison of experimental and published data ranges for Charpy
impact tests. The published data collected all stated Charpy impact values in terms of possible
value ranges as opposed to an actual value, so the ranges of the experimental to published
data values are compared in the boxplot.

The experimental range for HIPS at room temperature was between 5.39 and 6.68
kJ/m , the range for nylon was 4.38 to 12.28 kJ/m2, and the range for PP was 2.03 to 3.93
2

kJ/m2. The published range for HIPS at room temperature is 4.8 to 11.1 kJ/m2, the range for
nylon is 10 to 12 kJ/m2, and the range for PP is 1 to 17 kJ/m2. For all the materials tested, the
experimental range fell within the published range.

5.0 DISCUSSION
Charpy impact testing was performed to compare three different plastics at two different
temperatures. The plastic types tested were high density polyethylene (HIPS), Nylon 6,6, and
polypropylene. Three samples of each plastic type were tested first at room temperature and
then after being allowed to soak in an ice bath. Charpy impact testing was performed per ASTM
D 6110 standards.

Of the three materials tested, nylon had the highest toughness at room temperature,
8.92 kJ/m2, and after being chilled, 6.92 kJ/m2. The next toughest plastic was HIPS, which had
an average impact value of 6.22 kJ/m2 at room temperature, and 6.78 kJ/m2. It was the only
plastic which exhibited higher toughness after being soaked in the ice bath. Finally, PP had by
far the lowest toughness values, coming in at 2.88 kJ/m2 when at room temperature and 1.56
kJ/m2 after being chilled. The reason for chilling the specimens as opposed to heating them was
that the oven was being used by another group, so chilling was the only option.

In regards to polymer structure, PP was the only plastic tested this lab which had a linear
polymer structure. The structure, however, can be either isotactic or syndiotactic, due to the
pendent group on the propylene structure, which grants significant stiffness compared to simple
linear chains. Additionally, the pendent groups in PP can crystallize, giving it even greater
stiffness, due to the polymer chains becoming more closely packed. This increased stiffness,
however, resulted in very low impact values, due to toughness being a measurement of the
ductility of a material. The specimen also became stiffer when chilled, resulting in even lower
impact values.

Both HIPS and Nylon 6,6 are copolymers which have the grafted polymer structure.
Because of the branched structure imbued through the grafting process, they both have
relatively high impact resistance, although in the experiments performed in this lab, Nylon 6,6
proved to be the tougher material. Additionally, Nylon displayed higher toughness values when
cold, whereas HIPS had slightly lower toughness when chilled.

Dustyn Crowley, Matt Eckert, Patricia Delph 2/17/17

Rochester Institute of Technology Page 9 of 13
MCET 211 Group 2 Tuesday 11 AM
Section: 01 Impact Testing

All of the plastics were tested while their temperatures were well within the glass
temperature (Tg) range. Therefore, they all behaved as should be expecting from relatively
hard, stiff materials. In the case of the HIPS and PP, these brittle characteristics were increased
when the plastics were chilled. This increased stiffness was a result of molecular bonding
distances being reduced by the drop-in temperature. This writer is unsure, however, how it is
that the impact strength of Nylon increased as the specimen temperature decreased. As
requested, the melting point (Tm) of HIPS is roughly 232°C, the melting point of Nylon 6,6 is
264°C, and the melting point of PP is roughly 250°C.

Large differences were noted between the experimental and published data. It is
important to note, however, that finding Charpy data which matched these tests was
challenging, due to no two plastic samples being exactly the same. Instead, possible value
ranges were found from published data and then compared with experimental data. Comparing
average published data values with average experimental values, the plastic whose values
showed the greatest difference from published data was PP, which displayed a difference of
63.82%. The smallest difference was that of Nylon, which had a 18.91% difference between
experimental and published data.

There were many potential sources of error for this lab. One of them was the lack of the
IZOD impacting testing results, due to mechanical failure of the tester. Without another method
to compare the plastic samples tested, there’s no way to know if the results collected from the
Charpy tester were accurate. Another source of error was the temperature of the samples
placed within the ice bath. No measurements were taken to ensure that the samples were
tested at the same temperature, therefore allowing significant amounts of error into the chilled
specimen impact measurements. Another source of error is the small sample size. PP and
Nylon showed significant fluctuations in impact values, which are not a considerable source of
error when a large sample size is used, but can badly skew the data when the sample size is
small.

6.0 CONCLUSION

In this lab, Charpy impact testing was performed to determine the material impact
properties of high density polystyrene (HIPS), Nylon 6,6, and polypropylene (PP). Three
separate specimens of each material type were tested at two temperatures, room temperature
and after being chilled in an ice water bath.

In general, the plastics tested had higher impact values at room temperature as
compared to those soaked in the ice-water bath. Nylon 6,6 displayed the highest impact values
in both room temperature and when chilled, HIPS displayed the next highest values, and PP
had by far the lowest measured toughness.

The toughness characteristics of these three plastics was directly correlated with the
chain structures of the polymers tested. PP was the only polymer tested which has linear
Dustyn Crowley, Matt Eckert, Patricia Delph 2/17/17
Rochester Institute of Technology Page 10 of 13
MCET 211 Group 2 Tuesday 11 AM
Section: 01 Impact Testing

polymer chains, and although linear structures usually stretch well, the propylene monomer has
a pendent group which reduces the chain’s ability to stretch while also increasing the stiffness of
the polymer structure. Additionally, this pendent group is oriented iso- or syndiotactically, which
allows for some crystallization within the polymer. All these factors lead to a polymer with good
stiffness but poor ductility, as is witnessed by the impact test results.

The other two copolymers tested, HIPS and Nylon 6,6, are grafted polymers with
branched chain structures. This allows for some flexibility while also increasing the overall
stiffness of the polymer structure. These characteristics were witnessed in this lab, as both the
HIPS and Nylon plastic samples had significantly higher toughness values than the PP. In the
case of the chilled specimen testing, the chilled HIPS and PP samples had lower toughness
values as compared to the room temperature specimens. This is due to the increased stiffness
imbued to the polymers when temperature is reduced, due to the chain structures drawing
closer together.

Error was an important factor in this lab report, originating from many potential sources.
One possible source of error was not being able to compare the Charpy test results with the
IZOD test results, due to the IZOD tester being broken. Another possible source of error comes
from the lack of temperature measurement of the chilled specimens. Without ensuring that all
the specimens were tested at the same temperature, significant error in the test data is possible.
A third potential source of error was the small sample size, which is too small to allow for
number smoothing if some anomalies are present within the data collected. Concerning the
published data, significant differences are not unexpected due to the large range of plastic
alloys and minimal differences in processing between facilities.

Dustyn Crowley, Matt Eckert, Patricia Delph 2/17/17

Rochester Institute of Technology Page 11 of 13
MCET 211 Group 2 Tuesday 11 AM
Section: 01 Impact Testing

7.0 APPENDIX
Raw Data

Figure 7: Raw Data

Reference
1. Impact Toughness, Accessed Feb. 23, 2017
https://www.nde-
ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Mechanical/ImpactToughness.
htm
2. Chemical Structure of Polypropylene, Accessed Feb 23, 2017
http://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=7%2bI7XznY&id=9D9E4137B

Dustyn Crowley, Matt Eckert, Patricia Delph 2/17/17

Rochester Institute of Technology Page 12 of 13
MCET 211 Group 2 Tuesday 11 AM
Section: 01 Impact Testing

EAF1CF88699D2BCF6A8C7E846AE4144&q=chemical+structure+of+pp&simid=608024
378131547135&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0
3. Chemical Structure of HIPS, Accessed Feb 23, 2017
http://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=c27He1cy&id=477A10DE1F51
C425C18204449F94805C43CC803A&q=chemical+structure+of+high+impact+polystyre
ne&simid=608046492924907436&selectedIndex=1&ajaxhist=0
4. Chemical Structure of Nylon, Accessed Feb 23, 2017
http://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=WWXFfg7t&id=472671DED86
BA80A1B82637954DADAFB084C78B0&q=chemical+structure+of+nylon+6+6&simid=60
8050637567296417&selectedindex=26&mode=overlay&first=1&thid=OIP.WWXFfg7t8fz-
ErHWSZdrDgEsBd
5. Information about Nylon, Accessed Feb 23, 2017
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/nylon.html
6. Information about PP, Accessed Feb 23, 2017
http://www.bpf.co.uk/Plastipedia/Polymers/PP.aspx
7. Material Properties of Polypropylene, Accessed, Feb 24, 2017
http://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=0b9e41983fd54215971bcaabb
7111300
8. Material Properties for HIPS, Accessed Feb 24, 2017
https://plastics.ulprospector.com/generics/43/c/t/polystyrene-ps-properties-
processing/sp/4
9. Material Properties Nylon, 6 6, Accessed Feb 24, 2017
http://www.pentagonplastics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Nylon-GF.pdf

Group Activity Report

Dustyn Crowley did Table of Contents, Abstract, Test, Structure, Goals and Objectives,
Discussion and Reference. Matt Eckert did Results and Analysis, Data Products, Discussion,
Conclusion, and References. Patricia Delph did the first page of lab report, Table of Contents,
Materials and Procedure, Apparatus, Discussion, References, Raw Data and Group Activities
Report

Dustyn Crowley, Matt Eckert, Patricia Delph 2/17/17

Rochester Institute of Technology Page 13 of 13