Effects of Rheological Properties and

Processing Parameters on ABS Thermoforming

J E KYUN LEE1, TERRY L. VIFGUER2, and CHRIS E. SCOTT1*

'Deparhnent of Materials Science and Engineering

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, IMA 02139
2PolymersDivision of Bayer Corporation
Springfield, MA 01 151

Understanding effects of material and processing parameters on the thermoform-

ing process is critical to the optimization of processing conditions and the develop-
ment of better materials for high quality products. In this study we investigated the
influence of both rheological properties and processing parameters on the part
thickness distribution of a vacuum snap-back forming process. Rheological proper-
ties included uniaxial and biaxial elongational viscosity and strain hardening and/or
softening while processing parameters included friction coefficient, heat transfer
coefficient, and sheet and mold temperatures. The Wagner two parameter nonlinear
viscoelastic constitutive model was used to describe rheological behavior and was
fit to shear and elongational experimental data. The linear viscoelastic properties
along with the Wagner model were utilized for numerical simulation of the thermo-
forming operation. Simulations of pre-stretched vacuum thennoforming with a rela-
tively complex mold for a commercial refrigerator liner were conducted. The effects
of nonlinear rheological behavior were determined by arbitrarily changing model
parameters. This allows determination of which rheological features (i-e., elonga-
tional mode, viscosity, and strain hardening and/or softeningl are most critical to
the vacuum snap-back thermoforming operation. We found that rheological and
friction properties showed a predominant role over other processing parameters for
uniform thickness distribution.

INTRODUCTION and the incidence of webs which are caused by the

gathering of excess material. Heterogeneous polymeric
T hermofonning is a processing method in which a
heated thermoplastic sheet is deformed and shaped
over a mold geometry by mechanical, air, or vacuum
systems and specifically rubber modified polymeric
materials such as acrylonitrile-butadiene-styreneco-
polymers (ASS) are of particular interest since they
pressure. There are many kinds of thennoforming tech-
possess excellent properties for consumer goods (tough-
niques, ranging from simple vacuum or drape form-
ness, durability, chemical and heat resistance to name
ing, in which the softened polymer sheet is simply
a few) and can be produced over a wide range of proc-
draped over a male or female mold to more complex
essing temperature.
processes in which a pre-stretching stage of the poly-
The primary objectives of the present study are to
mer sheet is included before contacting the mold (1-3).
investigate the effects of rheological properties and
Pre-stretching techniques such as plug assist and
processing parameters on thermoforming behavior,
snap-back forming are used to obtain more accurate
thus providing fundamental information for process
and uniform thickness distribution of parts thermo-
improvement. Understanding the effects of material
formed in complex geometries. Uniform thickness dis-
and processing parameters on polymer processing is
tribution and optimum average thickness are very im-
very important to establish optimum processing con-
portant properties for manufacturing high quality parts
ditions and develop better materials for high quality
economically. Some of the main processing problems in
products. There are a number of experimental (4-13)
thermoformed parts include uneven thickness distri-
and simulation (14-32) efforts devoted to establishing
bution, excess thinning in certain locations of the parts,
optimum processing conditions such as temperatures,
pressure, and friction coefficient and to investigating
'corresponding author the effects of material variables such as elongational

240 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, FEBRUARY 2001, Vol. 41, No. 2

Effects of Rheological Properties and Processing Parameters on ABS Thennofonning
viscosity behavior or melt strength on thermoforming
performance. Despite these investigations, the effects
of material and processing parameters on the per-
formance of thermoforming operations are not well
understood. Also, little work has been devoted to un-
derstanding the basic relation between melt failure
(i.e., necking, melt or brittle rupture), strain harden-
ing and/or softening and thermoforming operation of
heterogeneous polymeric systems like ABS polymer
(30, 31, 33-37). Investigation of rheological behavior
during uniaxial and biaxial stretching is necessary for
prediction of material performance in a variety of com-
mercial applications such as thermoforming and blow
molding, and it is also fundamental for polymer rheol-
ogy and processing.
It is well known that a good thermoforming material
must have enough viscous character to provide flow
under the applied stress and sufficient elastic char-
acter to avoid excessive thinning. Viscoelastic consti-
tutive models are required to describe both viscous
and elastic property of polymer. However, many previ-
ous investigators (14-25) used the hyperelastic model
to describe the rheological properties, after assuming
that the polymer follows elastic behavior under the
conditions of relatively high strain rate in the thermo-
forming process. They reported that this assumption
may be quite sufficient for predicting the thickness
distribution. However, most of these works have con-
cerned simple vacuum or drape forming techniques
and molds of simple geometry. Several investigators
(26-3 1)reported in their recent studies that viscoelas-
tic constitutive models were more proper for describ-
ing rheological properties during thermoforming op-
erations. On the other hand, Laroche and Erchiqui
(32) compared the predictability of both hyperelastic
and viscoelastic constitutive models for vacuum ther-
moforming process and concluded that both models
gave similar results and over-predicted the thickness
distribution of thermoformed parts. Generally, the vis-
coelastic constitutive models are required to accurately
predict the elongational behavior including elonga-
tionai viscosity and strain hardening and/or softening
by fitting of experimental data as a function of strain
rate and time. Based on a previous study, we used the
Wagner model (38), which is a K-BKZ type (39,40) sin-
gle integral nonlinear viscoelastic constitutive model,
in this study. The fitting and rheological properties of
ABS polymer by viscoelastic constitutive models were
summarized more detail in our previous study (41).
Several works (19, 20, 26, 29-31, 33) devoted to
understanding the effect of friction between the sheet
and mold on thermoforming performance concluded
that friction between the sheet and mold played a very
important role in determining the thickness distribu-
tion of thermoformed parts, especially in pre-stretch-
ing techniques such as plug assist thermoforming.
Almost all recent studies used the coulomb friction
model to describe the partial slip condition between
the sheet and polymer. However, they did not show
quantitatively the effect of different friction coefficients
POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, FEBRUARY 2001, Vol. 41, No. 2
15482634, 2001, 2, Downloaded from https://4spepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pen.10725 by Saechsische Landesbibliothek, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
on performance of the thermoforming operation. The
methods of obtaining friction coefficients and their tem-
perature dependence are not clearly explained. Tsai
(33)reported that the friction between a sheet and a
moid is a function of temperature in which the friction
increased dramatically near the glass transition tem-
perature of polystyrene. He pointed out that because of
friction, the thickness distribution of a thermoformed
part can be manipulated by mold temperature with
vacuum and/or pressure assistance. However, he did
not show the effect of the friction coefficient on the
thickness distribution of thermoformed parts quanti-
tatively. It is expected that if both the sheet and mold
temperatures are very high, the friction force would be
extremely high in the area where contact first oc-
curred. As a result, the thickness distribution of ther-
moformed parts becomes nonuniform.
The primary reason for computer simulation of
thermoforming is to provide hndamental information
concerning the effects of design variables (i.e., thermo-
forming technique, the shape and curvature of plug
and/or mold), processing variables (i.e., mold speed,
pressure, temperature, and friction property between
sheet and mold), and material variables (i.e., sheet
thickness, rheological properties, and thermal stabil-
ity) on the important properties of final thermoformed
parts. Because there are many parameters, which af-
fect the performance of a thermoforming operation, it
is very difficult to design the process and optimize
processing conditions and material properties by trial
and error without the basic information obtained from
computer simulation.
In this study simulations of the thermoforming proc-
ess were conducted using commercial software (T-SIM@,
T-SIM CZ Ltd.). By arbitrarily changing the parame-
ters in the constitutive equation (a and p parameters
of Wagner model) we have constructed variations in
the rheological behavior in terms of the nonlinear vis-
coelastic regime, strain hardening and/or softening,
and the temperature sensitivity of elongational behav-
ior. This allowed us to determine which processing and
rheological features are most critical for the thermo-
forming operation.
EXPERIMENTAL
Material
We studied a commercial ABS copolymer from Bayer
Corporation widely used in thermoforming of large
parts. The copolymer matrix (styrene-acrylonitrile (SAN)
copolymer, M , = 70,000) consisted of 30 wt% acry-
lonitrile and 70 wt% styrene. The glass transition
temperature of the copolymer was Tg = 125°C. The
grafted rubber phase is primarily a narrow distribu-
tion with weight average diameter of 0.2 p,m constitut-
ing about 13wtYo rubber in the total composition. The
AI3S density at 25°C. thermal conductivity, and heat
capacity, which were provided by Bayer Corporation,
are 1050 Kg/cm2, 0.105 W/m K, and 2093 J/kg K,
respectively. The material was extruded into 2.5 or
241
 15482634, 2001, 2, Downloaded from https://4spepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pen.10725 by Saechsische Landesbibliothek, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Je Kyun Lee, Terry L. Virkler, and Chris E. Scott

3 mm thick sheets for thermofonning experiments and

the shrinkage of sheet in extrusion direction and cross
direction were 15% and - 5%. respectively. Based on
transmission electron micrographs of the materials,
the rubber particles were well-dispersed with no ob-
servable particle agglomeration.
The usual Lodge network model (43) was used to de-
Rheological Measurements scribe the memory function:
Tensile stress growth coefficients in uniaxial elonga-
tion were measured on a Meissner-type extensional
rheometer (Rheometrics RME) for the melt ternpera-
tures from 140-200°C and constant elongation rates The following Arrhenius relation was used to de-
E = 0.01-1.0 s-l which are typical for processing op- scribe the temperature dependence of material rheo-
erations. The basic operating principle and detailed logical behavior during thermoforming simulation.
description of Meissner’s extensional rheometer can
be found in (42)and Rheometrics literature. Yo (T)= Yo, (To) eXP[-A(T-TlJl (51
Shear measurements were performed on the ARES where q: (To)is the zero shear viscosity at reference
mechanical spectrometer by Rheometric Scientific (Pis- temperature To, q0 (T) is the zero shear viscosity at
cataway, N.J.). The shear experiments were conducted temperature T, and A is a fitted constant.
on 8 and 25 mm diameter samples cut from the 3 mm
thick extruded ABS sheet using parallel plate and cone- Measurement of Friction Coefficients
and-plate geometries. Small strain oscillatory shear
The dynamic friction coefficients at different temper-
measurements were used to determine linear visco-
atures were obtained using the parallel plate fixtures
elastic spectra of the material in the frequency range
of Rheometric Mechanical Spectrometer (RMS-800EH)
from 10-2-102 s-l and in the temperature range from
with the 200 gm-cm transducer. Disc specimens of
140-200°C. The shear stress growth coefficient meas-
25-33 mm diameter and 2 mm thickness were com-
urements for the start-up of steady shear were per-
pression molded after drying the polymer sheet at 65°C
formed for the shear rates = 0.001-10.0 s-l at 170°C.
under vacuum for 16 hours. A disposable flat alumi-
The samples were examined after the experiment to
num disc plate of either 25 or 50 mm diameter was
ensure their uniformity and the absence of the edge
used as an actual friction surface. Between each run
instability. Details of the rheological measurements
the aluminum plate was washed with acetone to re-
can be found in (411.
move any residual polymer or additives. The instru-
ment was operated in steady shear where a lower
Viscoelastic Constitutive Model
parallel plate fixture was rotated at a continuous rate
In this study the Wagner model, which is a K-BKZ of 1 rpm. The specimen assemblies were loaded and
type single integral nonlinear viscoelastic constitutive brought to 90°C without making any contact with the
model, was fit to shear and eiongational experimental aluminum friction surface. The transducer was zeroed
data to obtain 01 and p parameters. K-BKZ type single for both torque and normal force and then, the run
integral models have the following general form: started. Measurements were made in temperature
steps of either 5 or lO”C, depending on the tempera-
T = - P& + & ture region, and the time required for temperature
changes was 5- 10 minutes. All runswere made under

[=7 1
= q~-~‘)[d4~1.z2&
-m
Yt’)+ 4 ) 2 ( Z l J 2 ) 5 ( ~ ’ ) I d ~ ’
(1) N, atmosphere to prevent from oxidative degradation.
A thermocouple inside the lower tool contacted the
bottom friction surface and was used to indicate the
temperature of the sliding surfaces. The dynamic fric-
where G;l(t’) and C&(t’)are the Finger strain tensor tion coefficient was calculated using the relationship
and Cauchy strain tensor respectively, M(t - t‘) is the between torque and normal force measured as follows:
memory function, ll(t,t’) and I,(t,t’) are the first two
invariants of the Finger tensor (the third invariant f=-(’) 3
I, = 1 for incompressible fluids), and damping func- 2R FN
tions +1 (I1. 12), +2 (I1. I,) are defined as follows: where, R = sample radius, r = torque, F, is the nor-
Wagner model: mal force. The results obtained below 140°Cwere very
reproducible. However, the accuracy of the experi-
= exp(-p[d, + (1- u)Z, - 3]0.5), & = 0 (2) mental friction coefficients measured at higher tem-
peratures over 140°C is questionable due to low vis-
Also, the first two invariants of the Finger tensor, cosity of polymer (the friction force exceeded the melt
Il(t,t’) and 12(t,t’)for uniaxial and biaxial elongational strength) and sticking of the polymer to the fixture
flow are as follows: surface. Figure I provides a schematic illustration of

242 POLYMER ENGINEERINGAND SCIENCE, FEBRUARY 2001, Vol. 41, No. 2

 15482634, 2001, 2, Downloaded from https://4spepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pen.10725 by Saechsische Landesbibliothek, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Effects of Rheological Properties and Processing Parameters on ABS Thermoforming

2.5 I

80 100 120 140 160 I80

Temperature ("C)

Fig. 1 . (a) Schematic illustration of friction coefficient measurement using RMS, (b) Friction cwfficient us. temperature used in
this study.

the equipment as well as the experimental data. In
the thermoforming process, the mold and sheet tem-
peratures are different. Therefore, in the numerical
simulation the temperature used for the friction coeffi-
cient was the average of the sheet and mold tempera-
tures.
Thermoforming
The method of thermoforming used in this study is
referred to as vacuum snap-back forming, a sche-
matic of which is shown in Fig. 2. Immediately after
completion of the heating cycle, the sheet undergoes a
pre-stretching, which is implemented by moving the
top vacuum box down over the sheet and pulling a
vacuum. Both the bubble height and the rate at which
the vacuum is pulled can be varied. Calculations have
shown that maximum strainsfor the part studied here
in the pre-stretched bubble approach 230%. Follow-
ing pre-stretching is a delay time until the rising mold
contacts the deformed sheet. Forming is completed
by continued upward motion of the mold, and fmal
application of vacuum to pull in the remaining non-
contacting regions. The relatively complex mold of a
commercial refrigerator liner was used, as detailed in
Fig. 3. Experiments were run using a Drypoll thermo-
former.

POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, FEBRUARY 2001, Vol. 41, No. 2 243
 15482634, 2001, 2, Downloaded from https://4spepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pen.10725 by Saechsische Landesbibliothek, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Je Kyun Lee, Terry L. Virkler, and Chris E. Scott

I "
1 1 II vacL

iv'
Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of the vacuum snapback thermoforming operation: (a) The heated polymer sheet is loaded under
the vacuum box (b) The bubble formation stage by vacuum, (c) The male mold approaches and vacuum is drawn through sheet,
(d) Thermoformedpart.

Thermoforming Simulations of Tsheet= 170°C Tmold= 90°C. f = 0.25, bubble

The commercial simulation program T-SIM@ (version
3.4, T-SIM CZ Ltd.) was used to predict the effect of
material and processing parameters on the thickness
distribution. This software uses K-BKZ type single in-
tegral nonlinear viscoelastic constitutive models to de-
scribe viscoelasticity and large deformation of mate-
rial. Coulombs law of friction was enforced at areas of
contact between sheet and mold. The sheet was spa-
tially divided into 3626 elements with 1913 nodes in
order to provide a balance of simulation time and ac-
curacy. It is common practice in the industry for proc-
esses with these types of molds to be run by control-
ling the bubble height. Thus, a constant bubble height
of approximately 390 mm was used for our simulation.
Five relaxation times were used to describe linear vis-
coelastic behavior and the time step was 0.05s. The
heat transfer was calculated after the time step and the
temperature field in the elements was modified on this
basis. More detailed features and descriptions of T-SIM@
simulation software can be found in (44). The effects
of material shrinkage and sagging of the sheet on the
thickness distribution were not simulated. A recent
study of shrinkage and sagging effects can be found
in (45) and (46), respectively. Unless otherwise noted,
the simulations were run under standard conditions
height = 390 mm, a = 0.2893, p = 0.25, and sheet
thickness = 3.05 mm.
Evaluation of Thermoforming Performance
In order to compare the thermoforming performance
in terms of part thickness distribution quantitatively,
we used the Coefficient of Variation (COV), which is
the standard deviation normalized by average thick-
ness (e.g., STDEV/average thickness (mm)*100). The
standard deviation (STDEV)measures how widely val-
ues are dispersed from the average value (the mean),
using following equation:
STDEV = (71
n(n - 1)
where n is the number of points at which the thick-
ness was measured and {xi}is the set of thickness
values. All measurement was made along the center
line illustrated in Fig. 3. Note that the average part
thickness is constant because of conservation of mass,
but the average thickness along the measuring line
may vary as a result of movement of materid in or out.
of that area. Management of the COV value is com-
monly used in the thermoforming industry for quality

244 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, FEBRUARY 2001, Vol. 41, No. 2

Effects of Rheological Properties and Processing Parameters on ABS Thennoforming
i..............
I I'
10.5
rl1
*
50.2
...
Bottom
X=170 ern
Fig. 3. (a)Mold geometry for reSngerator liner (dimension in centimeters).(bl The part thickness measurement path (.+lfrom
across the back and then the boteom
control. A smaller COV indicates a more uniform and
thus better quality part. Also, when the effects of ma-
terial and processing parameters on the average thick-
ness along line of symmetry are significant, the values
of thickness are included with COV values for better
understanding.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Elongational Viscosities and
the Constitutive Model
The measured uniaxial elongational viscosities for
the ABS at d = 1.0 s- along with the best fit by Wag-
ner model are provided in F@. 4 . Considerable strain
hardening behavior is exhibited a t lower tempera-
tures, but at higher temperature strain hardening is
reduced primarily due to increasing mobility of the co-
polymer matrix. The experimental elongational viscos-
ity curve has a maximum followed by a sudden drop
associated melt failure due to necking or other insta-
bility. The maximum is an artifact of nonuniform defor-
mation and melt failure which occur during the strain
softening phase (41). The apparent Hencky strain-
to-neck (strain at visually observed neck) is roughly
POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, FEBRUARY 2001, Vol. 41, No. 2
15482634, 2001, 2, Downloaded from https://4spepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pen.10725 by Saechsische Landesbibliothek, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Undercut
X=50.1em
"..........
" " ......
"
i
4.
X=O cm
top,
constant (2.76 t 0.20) within experimental error and
independent of temperature and elongation rate for
this material.
The Wagner model parameter values obtained by
data fitting at different temperatures are given in
Table 1. Note that the model parameter values vary
substantially with temperature. The temperature-spe-
cific model parameter values rather than the averages
were used. Although the Wagner model predicts a
steady-state elongational viscosity that is not observed
experimentally owing to sample failure, it simulates
more accurately the experimentally observed maximum
in elongational viscosity (41).Since some part of ther-
moforming may proceed beyond the melt failure point,
it is important to have an accurate model prediction
for maximum elongation viscosity. The study of a vis-
coelastic constitutive model to predict the melt failure
behavior is separate topic, requiring hrther investiga-
tion.
Comparison of Simulation
With Experimental Results
Comparison of the simulation and experimental re-
sults is not emphasized in this paper, but instead in a
245
 15482634, 2001, 2, Downloaded from https://4spepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pen.10725 by Saechsische Landesbibliothek, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Je Kyun Lee, Terry L. Virkler, and Chris E. Scott

1 o8

n
fn
cir
a, 10’

1o6

1 o5

1 o4
lo-’ 1 oo 10’
Time (s)
Fig. 4. Measured transient uniaxial elongational viscosity and the best f i t by the Wagner model at different temperatures,
t = 1 .O s-I. Symbols are experimental data, lines are modelfit.

separate study. However, one example is presented
here to support the validity of the simulations. Figure 5
presents the comparison for a typical set of conditions
for this combination of material and process in terms
of the thickness distribution along the measuring line
shown in Fig. 3. The COV was 22.8 for simulation,
compared with 25.5 in the experiment. Also, the aver-
age thickness along the measuring line was 0.85 mm
for simulation, compared with 0.87 mm in the experi-
ment. Considering the complexity of the mold and
process in this example, agreement is excellent. In
particular, the simulated thickness distribution in the
bottom area is very consistent with experimental re-
sults. Several investigators (22, 24, 32) reported large
differences between experimental and simulated thick-
ness distributions when molds with relatively complex
geometries were used.
The back area is where the pole of bubble contacts
the mold. The bubble formation is primarily a biaxial
deformation, especially near the top of bubble. Variation
of the flow mode over the surface of the part will be
discussed systematically in a later section. The differ-
ences between the experimental and simulation results
are partially due to the use of rheological parameters
obtained from shear and uniaxial elongation experi-
ments to predict biaxial behavior. As Treloar (47) and
Koziey et al. (15) pointed out, biaxial elongational be-
havior calculated by using model parameters obtained
from uniaxial viscosity data may give erroneous re-
sults. In addition, shrinkage (45). sagging (46) and
nonuniform temperature profile over the sheet (48) oc-
curred during the heating stage in the experimental
thermoforming operation. These are not considered in
this study and may play important roles in the differ-
ences between the experimental and simulation results.

Table 1. Temperature Dependence of Best Fit Effects of the Nonlinear Rheological

Wagner Model Parameters, (Y and p, Calculated From
Specific Temperature Relaxation Spectra.
Model Parameters

Temperature (“C) Q P Modification of the a and p parameters of the consti-

tutive equation provides for changes in the nonlinear
140 0.3202 0.1036 rheological behavior. Subsequent numerical simula-
150 0.2678 0.2012
170 0.2893 0.2500 tion of the thermoforming behavior of these variations
185 0.2542 0.2825 yields important information concerning rheologically
200 0.2781 0.2757 desirable behavior. Figure 6 illustrates the depend-
Average 0.2819 0.2226
ence of the uniaxial elokgational viscosity of ABS poly-
mer on the 01 and p parameters. As the value of either

246 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, FEBRUARY 2001, Vol. 41, No. 2

Effects of Rheological Properties und Processing Parameters on ABS Thennoforming
Distance along line of symmetry (mm)
Fig. 5. Comparison of simulation and experimental thickness distribution along line of symmetry.
CY or p increases, the uniaxial elongational viscosity is
decreased and the maximum is observed at earlier
times. As expected from Eq 2, the effect of the p para-
meter is stronger than that of the CY parameter. Note
that the best fit values of the CY and p parameters to
the experimental measurement were CY = 0.2893 and
p = 0.25 at 170°C (see Table I ) , which are located in
the middle of Rg. 6a and b.
We also predicted the biaxial elongational viscosity
behavior using the Wagner model. Since the CY and p
parameters were obtained by fitting of experimental
data in startup of steady shear and uniaxial elonga-
tion, the accuracy of extrapolation to biaxial elongation
is questionable. However, the simulation software uses
these parameters for all types of deformation. The re-
sults are shown in Fig. 7. The dependence of biaxial
elongational viscosity on the model parameter (Y is dif-
ferent from that of uniaxial elongational viscosity. As
the CY value increases, biaxial elongational viscosity is
also increased. From comparison of Fig. 7 with FXg. 6
it is clear that the model predicts a maximum viscos-
ity in the biaxial elongational viscosity at earlier times
than in the uniaxial extension.
First we investigated the effect of rheological prop-
erties on the bubble shape and subsequently, the ther-
moforming performance. Formation of the bubble is
primarily a biaxial deformation, particularly near the
pole. The influences of CY and p on the bubble shapes
are summarized in Fig. 8. As the value of model param-
eter CY decreases, the bubble shapes become narrower
POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, FEBRUARY 2001, Vol. 41, No. 2
15482634, 2001, 2, Downloaded from https://4spepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pen.10725 by Saechsische Landesbibliothek, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
with a sharp pole. This is due to the lower biaxial elon-
gational viscosity and less strain hardening (see Fig. 7u).
Similar changes in bubble shape occur as the p pa-
rameter is increased. The effect of the p parameter is
more conspicuous than that of the CY parameter, as we
expected from the biaxial elongational viscosity behav-
ior. In the case of CY = 0.05, p = 0.4, and p = 0.9, the
narrowness of the bubble at its base resulted in its
touching the mold in the bubble blowing stage.
Note that in each case the blowing pressure profile
was adjusted to obtain similar bubble heights of ap-
proximately 390 111111. We monitored the vacuum pres-
sure required to obtain this bubble height during the
inflation stage of polymer sheet at each different com-
bination of the model parameters, CY and p. I t is well
known that the pressure applied to polymer sheet
during bubble inflation stage can be related to the
rheological properties of polymer, especially biaxial
elongational viscosity. The dependence of the required
pressure on the model parameter CY and p is shown in
Fg. 9. As the CY value increases and the p value de-
creases, the pressure required increases, consistent
with the biaxial elongational viscosities given in Fig. 7.
The nonlinear rheoiogical parameters have a signifi-
cant influence on the part thickness distribution and
COV. The simulated results of the effect of a parameter
on the thickness distribution and COV are provided in
Fig. 10. From Fg. IOa we observe that the thickness
of the back and top areas is increased as a parameter
of Wagner model increases, but the thickness of the
247
 15482634, 2001, 2, Downloaded from https://4spepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pen.10725 by Saechsische Landesbibliothek, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
J e Kyun Lee, Teny L. Virkler, and Chris E. Scott

lo8t

I- a: 0 . 0 5
a : 0.1
*
- a :0 . 2 8 9 3
a:0.7
a: 0.9

Time (s)

IU
1 o-2 1 0-1 1 oo 1 o1 1 o2
Time (s)

Fig. 6. Dependence of uniaxial elongational viscosity on the Wagner model parameters at T = 170°C. B = 1 .O s-I: (a)ci parameter.
[b) p parameter. The asterisk indicates the actual valuefor the material under study.

248 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, FEBRUARY 2001, Vol. 41, No. 2
 15482634, 2001, 2, Downloaded from https://4spepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pen.10725 by Saechsische Landesbibliothek, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Effects of Rheological Properties and Processing Parameters on ABS Thermoforming

t I- a:0.05
I

1 o5

/
t /

I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I l l l l I I , 1 1 1 1 ,
I W

1 o-2 1 0-1 1 oo 10'

Time (s)

- R. n nc I

1 ° i

1 o4
1 o-2 10-l 1 oo 10'
Time (s)

Flg. 7 . Dependence of biaxial elongational viscosity on the Wagner model parameters at T = 170°C.P = 1 .O s - l : (a)a parameter,
fb) p parameter. The asterisk indicates the actual value for the material under study.

POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, FEBRUARY 2001, Vol. 41, No. 2 249
 15482634, 2001, 2, Downloaded from https://4spepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pen.10725 by Saechsische Landesbibliothek, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Je Kyun Lee, Ternj L. Virkler, and Chris E. Scott

Rg. 8. Effects of Wagner model parameters on the bubble shape. Lines at right, lest, and upper side of bubbles indicate the upper
tool of thermofonner.

bottom side is decreased. Also, 3.l o b shows that as
a parameter increases, the thickness distribution be-
come more uniform. Figures 6a, 7a,and 8 demon-
strate that the thickness distributions on the back
and top areas depend on the bubble shape but that of
the bottom side depends primarily on the extension of
sheet after contact with mold. Based on the biaxial
elongational viscosity behavior in Fig. 7a,polymers
with higher elongational viscosity, more strain hard-
ening, and later maximum peak show better thick-
ness distributions. Note that severe strain softening is
predicted by the model after the maximum viscosity
peak. Our results are consistent with the previous
work of several investigators (30,31, 36,37),in which
the polymer with more strain hardening behavior
shows better thickness distribution than that with
strain softening behavior. We may conclude that the
biaxial elongational viscosity behavior is more im-
portant than uniaxial for most of the measurement
line used here. However, the thickness distribution of
the bottom side determined generally after contact-
ing the mold shows a close relationship with uniaxial

250 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, FEBRUARY 2001, Vol. 41, No. 2
 15482634, 2001, 2, Downloaded from https://4spepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pen.10725 by Saechsische Landesbibliothek, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Effects of Rheological Properties and Processing Parameters on ABS Thennoforming

2.10

2.08

2.06

2.04

2.02

2.00

1.%

Rg.9. Pressure required for a con- 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.o
stant bubble height of 390 mm at
different Wagner model pararne- AlphavalueofdampingfunctionofWagwmodel
ters: (a)Pressure us. 01 value at
fued p = 0.25. lb) Pressure us. p
value at&ed 01 = 0.2893.
260

2.40

220

200

1.80

1.60

1.40
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Bdavdue d darrpingfunctiond W w model

elongational viscosity behavior. This is consistent with
Throne’s study (l),in which the uniaxial elongational
viscosity had a significant influence on the part thick-
ness after the sheet contacts with the mold.
Figure 11 shows the simulated results of the effect
of the p parameter on the thickness distribution and
COV. As p increases, the thickness distribution be-
comes less uniform. Values of p above 0.5 could not be
simulated accurately due to excessive thinning of the
sheet during the inflation stage. As with Rg. 10, Rg. I 1
indicates very clearly that the polymer with strain hard-
ening and higher elongational viscosity shows more
uniform thickness distribution.
The Effect of Bubble Height
A previous experimental study (4) has shown that
the quality of this part is sensitive to the initial bubble
height and there is clearly an optimum bubble height
range, bounded by extremely small average thickness
for larger bubbles and poor thickness distribution for
small bubbles. Rgure 12 presents the simulated re-
sults for the effect of bubble height on part thickness
distribution. Simulation with bubble heights smaller
than 300 mm and larger than 410 mm could not be
completed because of excessive deformation after
contact with mold and during the inflation stage, re-
spectively. Figure 12 shows that as the bubble height
increases, the thickness of back area is decreased and
the thickness of bottom and top areas are increased.
A larger bubble height means more deformation and
less material in back side. Figure 12b shows that gen-
erally, as the bubble height increases up to 405 mm,
a more uniform thickness distribution along the sym-
metry line is observed.
These results show an optimum bubble height range
for the uniform part thickness distribution. If the bub-
ble height is too large, some areas become exces-
sively thin during bubble inflation. Also, if the bubble
height is too small, there exist two areas with different
thickness in thermoformed parts. Since the back area

POLYMER ENGINEERINGAND SCIENCE, FEBRUARY 2001, Vol. 41, No. 2 251

 15482634, 2001, 2, Downloaded from https://4spepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pen.10725 by Saechsische Landesbibliothek, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Je Kyun Lee, Terry L. Virkler, and Chris E. Scott

2.0

1.5
-

TOP Back Bottom

--- < >
I I I I
0.0
..-

0 40 0 800 1200 1600

Distance along line of symmetry (mm)

0.28 1
-
0.27

K
.-0 -
2
.-L
0.26
R1
>
.c
0
0.25 -
c
.-0
-g
Q)

.-
+
-
0.24
u

0.23 -

0.22
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 .o

Alpha value of Wagner model

Fig. 10. EBect of model parameter cy on the thickness distribution a t f i e d p = 0.25: (a)Thickness along line of symmetry. [b)Co&-
cient of Variation us. cy values.

252 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, FEBRUARY 2001, Vol. 41, No. 2
 15482634, 2001, 2, Downloaded from https://4spepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pen.10725 by Saechsische Landesbibliothek, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Effects of Rheological Properties and Processing Parameters on ABS Thennoforming

20

I
1.5

0.5 . I -
\ '*
.-•
Back Bottom
>
0 400 800 1200 1600
Distance along line d symnetry (m

0'40 -$
0.35 -

0.30 -

0.25 -

0.20 -

0.0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

Beta value of Wagner model

Flg. 1 1 . Effect of model parameter p on the thickness distributionatfived (Y Thickness abng

= 0.2893: (a) line of symmetry, (bl Coef-
jkient of Variation us. p values.

POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, FEBRUARY 2001, Vol. 41, No. 2 253
 15482634, 2001, 2, Downloaded from https://4spepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pen.10725 by Saechsische Landesbibliothek, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Je Kyun Lee,Terry L. Virkler, and Chris E. Scott

2.5
Height = 279 mm
(a) - - Height = 354 mm
- - - -Height
. = 314 mm
- - -- Height = 401 mm

A -..___.--

0
0 400 800 1200 1600

Distance along line of symmetry (mm)

0.75 I , 1.4
f-; <-'L1___)
imperfect Perfect Forming 4 Imperfect Forming
Forming I I
0.65 - I

0.55 -
c
.-
c I .2
.-m
2
2 0.45 -
c

-.-8
L
01
.-
0

0.35 -
1.1

I .o
0.25 -

0.9
250 300 350 400 450 500
Bubble Height (mm)

Rig. 12. Effect of bubble height on the thickness distribution: (a] Thickness along tine of symmetry, @I Coefficient of Variation and
average thickness us. bubble height.

254 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, FEBRUARY 2001, Vol. 41, No. 2

Effects of Rheological Properties and Processing Parameters O R ABS Thennoforming
primarily depends on the bubble thickness, it becomes
too thick owing to less deformation of the polymer
sheet during bubble growth stage. However, polymer
at the back area may not easily move to the top and
bottom areas after contact with the mold owing to
high friction at the contacting area. Therefore, these
areas become too thin owing to excess extension of a
relatively small sheet by the mold, resulting in a non-
uniform thickness distribution. The simulation indi-
cated on an optimum bubble height in the range of
380-405 mm. Based on these results, we selected
the bubble height of 390 mm for further study. The
experimental investigation of this system (4) yielded
an optimum bubble height of 380? 20 mm, in excel-
lent agreement with the simulation results.
The Effect of Friction CoefEicient
The thermofoxming simulation software utilized Cou-
lombs law of friction for contact between the sheet and
the mold. If f.FN is larger than FT then the node is
fixed to the wall (nonslip),wherefis the friction coeffi-
cient, FNis the normal force, and FT is the tangential
force. Iff. FN is less than FT. the node is allowed to
slide on the mold surface with FT appropriately re-
duced due to friction. As Tsai reported [33), we also
observed experimentally that the friction between a
sheet and a mold is a function of temperature and in-
creases approximately exponentially at higher temper-
ature above Tg (see Fig. 1).
Simulations were run with the friction coefficient
varying from zero (no friction, perfect slip) to much
larger values than our measured values. The depend-
ence of the thickness distribution. COV, and average
thickness along a symmetry line on the friction coeffi-
cient at 170°C are provided in Fig. 1 3 . The thickness
distribution simulated with the perfect slip condition
is significantly different from that with frictional char-
acter, especially in the top area and comers. The larger
thickness in the top and back areas and the smaller
thickness in the bottom and comers may occur be-
cause of faster movement of more materials to the top
areas, resulting from the lower friction coefficient. Note
that the first contact area with the sheet is the comer
between the top and back areas and the final contact
occurs at the comer in the bottom area (see Rg. 3).As
we expected, the average thickness along the measur-
ing line was increased when a larger value of friction
coefficient was used and this result for the average
thickness is consistent with previous studies of sev-
eral investigators (19, 20, 26, 29-31, 33).A more uni-
form thickness distribution was observed for a friction
coefficient in the range of 0.05-0.2. Overall, the fric-
tion properties between polymer sheet and mold exert
a great influence on the average thickness and thick-
ness distribution. It is important to recognize this when
considering the effects of other process variables which
may influence the friction coefficient, such as sheet
temperature and mold temperature. Observation of
an optimal friction coefficient has important implica-
tions for mold design. However, in practice, transfer of
POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, FEBRUARY2001, Vol. 41, No. 2
15482634, 2001, 2, Downloaded from https://4spepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pen.10725 by Saechsische Landesbibliothek, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
material from the sheet to the mold surface and oxi-
dation of the mold surface may change the friction co-
efficient over time. The mold surface may be modified
in order to provide a desirable friction coefficient.
The Effect of Sheet Temperature
The dependencies of the thickness distribution, COV,
and the average thickness of the finished part on the
sheet temperature are provided in Rg. 1 4 . Note that
since the friction coefficient was based on the average
of the sheet and mold temperatures, the friction co-
efficient ranged from 0.15 to 0.35 as the sheet tem-
perature changed from 140°C to 200°C. In Fig. 14%
the thickness distribution of the top and back regions
shows a similar trend in which the part thickness along
the measuring line decreases as the sheet temperature
increases from 140°C to 170°C; however, it is increased
as the sheet temperature increases from 170°C to
200°C. This is consistent with the previous discussion
of the influence of biaxial elongational viscosity and
bubble shape on the thickness distribution. Interest-
ingly enough, Fig. 14b clearly shows that at 170°C.
the worst thickness distribution and the thinnest
average part thickness along the measuring line were
obtained. The most uniform thickness distributions
were observed at 140°C and next, 200°C. The thick-
ness distribution effects in the bottom area shown in
Fig. 1 4 are controlled by two primary influences of ir-
creasing the sheet temperature: a decrease in uniaxial
viscosity and strain-hardening character as well as an
increase in the friction coefficient. If we consider the
parabolic shape effect of the friction coefficient on
the thickness in Rg. 1 3 , it leads us to conclude that
the higher average thickness at 185°C and 200°C com-
pared to that of 170°C may occur as a result of the ef-
fect of higher friction coefficients. From comparison of
FLg. 1 3 b with the temperature dependence of uniaxial
viscosity of Rg. 6, the effect of the temperature depend-
ence of friction coefficient on the average thickness
seems to be more significant than the effect of the
temperature dependence of elongational viscosity.
The Effect of Mold Temperature
The effect of mold temperature on the thickness dis-
tribution is potentially quite complex. The mold tem-
perature influences the friction coefficient as well as
heat transfer between the mold and sheet. Note that
-
the range of friction coefficient of 0.15 0.3 was used
as the mold temperature changes from 25°C to 110°C.
In addition heat transfer between the sheet and the
mold changes the polymer viscosity. The effect of the
mold temperature on the thickness distribution is
shown in Fig. 15. The effect of mold temperature on
the thickness distribution is very similar to that of the
friction coefficient [see Fig. 13a).There is an optimum
mold temperature of approximately 90°C. which pro-
vides uniform thickness distribution, consistent with
the effect of friction Coefficient. Also, note that as the
mold temperature increases, the average thickness
255
 15482634, 2001, 2, Downloaded from https://4spepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pen.10725 by Saechsische Landesbibliothek, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Je Kyun Lee, Terry L. Virkler, and Chris E. Scott

2.5

>
I 1 I I I I I I I I I I
0.0
0 400 800 1200 1600
Distance a l o n g line of symmetry ( m m )

FQ. 13. Effect of thefriction coeflcient on the thickness distributiox [a)Thickness along line of symmetry. (b) Cwflcient of Variation
and average thickness us. friction coeflcient.

256 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, FEBRUARY 2007, Vol. 41, No. 2
 15482634, 2001, 2, Downloaded from https://4spepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pen.10725 by Saechsische Landesbibliothek, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Effects of Rheological Properties and Processing Parameters on ABS Thermoforming

1.5
-

0.5
-
Back Bottom

I I I I I
0'
0 400 800 1200 1600
Distance from frange along line of symmetry (mm)

0.30 I 1 1.09
t 1

0.27 - - 1.08

- -
-
c 0.23
.-0
.-m
L
1.07

m
> -
0.20 - 1.06
c
c

-.-.-
a,
0

0.17 - - 1.05
0

0.10 " ' 1 " " ' 1 " " " " ' 1 " 1 ' ' " 1 ' " ' 1 ' 1 ' ' 1.03
130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
Sheet Temperature ( C )

Fig. 14. Effect of the sheet temperature on the thickness distribution: [a)Thickness along line of symmetry. @)I Coefficient of Variation
and average thickness us. sheet temperature.

POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, FEBRUARY 2001, Vol. 41, No. 2 257
 15482634, 2001, 2, Downloaded from https://4spepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pen.10725 by Saechsische Landesbibliothek, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Je K y m Lee, Teny L. Virkler, and Chris E. Scott

2.0 I 1

1.5

u)
1 .o
u)
b)

0.5
TOP Back Bottom
-c-<>
I I I I
0.o
0 400 800 1200 1600
Distance along line of symmetry ( m m )

0.30

0.29

C 0.28
.-0 I

-a ,’ -
c

L
m I
> 0.27 I

E
c
0
c
c

0
0
0.26

0.25
E,-===- _w
] 1.02

0.24 1 .oo
20 40 60 80 100 120

Mold Temperature (“C)

Fig. 15. Effect of the mold temperature on the thickness distribution: (a)Thickness along line of symmetry, Coemient of Variation
and average thickness us. mold temperature.

258 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, FEBRUARY 2001, Vol. 41, No. 2
 15482634, 2001, 2, Downloaded from https://4spepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pen.10725 by Saechsische Landesbibliothek, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Effects of Rheological Properties and Processing Parameters on ABS Thennoforming

2.0 I I b

1.5

E
E
Y

2
0,
1.0
C
Y
.-0
r
I-

0.5
TOP Back Bottom
- c - I r / >
I I 1 I

-
0 0.20
-

0.10
1 10 100 1000

Heat Transfer Coefficient (W/m2 K )

Q. 16. Effect of the heat transfer coemient between sheet and air on the thickness distributiorx [a)Thickness along line of sym-
metry, (b)Coeficient of Variation and average thickness us. heat transfer coeflcient.

POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, FEBRUARY2001, Vol. 41, No. 2 259


Je Kyun Lee, Terry L. Virkler, and Chris E. Scott
along the measuring line also increases, mainly be-
cause of the higher friction coefficient. This indicates
that more material is retained along the centerline of
the part at the expense of other regions. Changes in
the thermal conductivity of polymer have little effect
on the thickness distribution. This reinforces the con-
clusion that the primary influence of the mold tem-
perature is through the friction coefficient. Overall,
the mold and sheet temperatures play less important
roles in determining uniform thickness distribution
than the friction coefficient itself. However, it should be
mentioned from our experimental study (4)that higher
sheet and mold temperatures resulted in fewer special
defects such as webbing.
The Effect of Heat Transfer
(Between Sheet and Air or Cooling Media)
The effect of heat transfer between sheet and air on
the thickness distribution is provided in FYg. 16. When
the heat transfer coefficient increases, sheet tem-
perature will be decreased. and as a result, the rheo-
logical properties and the friction coefficient also will
be changed. From Fig. 16, we clearly see that as the
heat transfer coeficient increases, more uniform thick-
ness distribution and larger average part thickness
are observed. These results may be attributed to the
higher uniaxial elongational viscosity and strain hard-
ening (see Fig. 6). According to Throne (11, if forced
cooling equipment is used, the heat transfer coefficient
is increased to 100 W/m2K. Recently, it was reported
that thermoforming process cooled by spray water
equipment was developed (49).Our simulation results
indicate that the thermoforming process with forced
cooling equipment will provide more uniform thickness
distribution.
CONCLUSIONS
In the vacuum snap back thermoforming process
investigated here, the initial bubble shape and height
were much influenced by the rheological properties of
the polymer and played an important role in determin-
ing the thickness distribution of the thermoformed
part. The dominant flow mode, uniaxial or biaxial elon-
gation, varied signficantly over the surface of the part.
The biaxial elongational viscosity behavior plays a
critical role in the back region of this particular part.
In the bottom region, the uniaxial elongational vis-
cosity becomes important in determining the thick-
ness distribution due to stretching of the sheet after
contact with the mold. Nonlinear rheological material
parameters substantially influence the thickness dis-
tribution. Optimum bubble heights and friction coeffi-
cients were determined for this process. The effects of
sheet temperature and mold temperature are complex
because of their influence on the friction coefficient as
well as the material rheolo@. Overall, rheological prop-
erties and the friction coefficient played a predomi-
nant role in determining the thermoforming perform-
ance compared to other processing parameters such
as sheet and mold temperature.
260 POLYMER ENGINEERINGAND SCIENCE, FEBRUARY 2001, Vol. 41, No. 2
15482634, 2001, 2, Downloaded from https://4spepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pen.10725 by Saechsische Landesbibliothek, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are grateful to the Bayer Corporation
for the support of this work. We appreciate the work
of Mr. Don Williams of Solutia for his measurements
of friction coefficients and the thermoforming experi-
ments done by Mr. Mike Nikolakopoulous and Mr.
Jim Deary. We also appreciate the efforts of T-SIM CZ
Ltd. for their helpful and responsive assistance with
software.
REFERENCES
1. J. L. Throne, in ThemJorrning, Hanser Verlag, Munich
(1987).
2. J. Florin, in Practical TherrnoJorrning. Principles and Ap-
plications, Marcel Dekker, New York (1987).
3. T. L. Richardson, in Industrial Plastics. Delmar Publish-
ers, New York (1987).
4. C. M. Bordonaro, T. L. Virkler, P. A. Galante, B. Pineo,
and C. E. Scott, SPE ANTEC Tech. Papers, 44, 696
(1998).
5. H. C. Lau, S. N. Bhattachqa, and G. J. Field, Polym
Eng. Sci, 38,1915 (1998).
6. N. J. Macauley, E. M. A. Harkin-Jones, and W. R. Mur-
phy, Polym Eng. Sci. 38,516 (1998).
7. M. Mogilevsky. A. Siegmann, and S. Kenig, Polym Eng.
Sci, 38,322 (1998).
8. M. J. Stephenson and M. E. Ryan, Polym Eng. Sci.. 37,
450 (1997).
9. M. 0. Lai and D. L. Holt, J. Appl. Polym Sci, 19. 1805
(1975).
10. M. J. Paris, M. E. Ryan, and J.-M. Chanier, Polym Eng.
Sci., 34, 102 (1994).
11. A. Aroujalian. M. 0. Ngadi, and J.-P. Emond, Adu. in
Polym Technol.. 16, 129 (1997).
12. A. Pegoretti, A. Marchi, and T. Ricco, Polym Eng. Sci,
37,1045 (1997).
13. M. E. Ryan, M. J. Stephenson, K. Grosser, L. J. Kara-
din, and P. Kaknes, Polym Eng. Sci,36, 2432 (1996).
14. G. J. N a m , K. H. Ahn, and J. W. Lee, SPE ANTEC Tech
Papers, 45, 836 (1999).
15. B. Koziey, J. Pocher. J.J. Tian, and J. Vlachopoulos,
SPEANTEC Tech Papers, 43, 714 (1997).
16. P. Bourgin, I. Cormeau, and T. Saint-Matin,J . Material
Processing Technology, 54, 1 (1995).
17. F. D o n a , P. Bourgin, and L. Coincenot, Adu. Polyrn.
Technol., 14, 291 (1995).
18. S. Shrivastara and J. Tang, J. Strain Analysis. 28,31
( 1993).
19. C. A. Taylor, H. G. Delorenzi, and D. 0. Karmer, Polym
Eng. Sci., 32.1163 (1992).
20. K. Kouba, 0. Bartos, and J. Vlachopoulos, Polym Eng.
Sci., 32,699 (1992).
21. W.N. Song, F. A. Mirza, and J. Vlachopoulos, J.RheoL,
35,93 (1991).
22. H. F. Nied, C. A. Taylor, and H. G. Delorenzi, Polyrn.
Eng. Sci., 30, 1314 (1990).
23. R. Allard, J.-M.Charrier,A. Ghosh, M. Marangou, M. E.
Ryan, S. Shrivastava. and R. Wu, J. Polym Eng.. 6 , 355
i 19861.
24. H-F. Nied and H. G. de Lorenzi, in Modeling ofPolyrner
Processing, Ch. 5, A. I. Isayev. ed., Hanser Verlag, Mu-
nich (1991).
25. N. Rosennveig, M. Narkis, and 2. Tadmor, Polym Eng.
Sci, 22,265 (1982).
26. J . F. Lappin, E. M. A. Harkin-Jones, and P. J. Martin,
SPEANTEC Tech Papers, 45, 826 (1999).
27. M. Rachik and J. M. Roelandt, SPE ANTEC Tech. Pa-
pers, 45, 831 (1999).
28. P. Nobotny, P. Saha. and K. Kouba, SPE ANTEC Tech
Papers, 45, 841 (1999).

Effects of Rheological Properties and Processing Parameters on ABS Thennoforming
29. R. D. DiRrado, D. Laroche, A. Bendada, and T. Ots. SPE
ANTEC Tech Papers, 45, 844 (1999).
30. K. Kouba and P. Novotny, TAermoforming Quarterly, 13
(Fall 1998).
31. K. Kouba and P. Novotny, T-SIM workshop, Nashville,
Tenn. (1998).
32. D. Laroche and F. Erchiqui, SPE ANTEC T e c h Papers,
44, 676 (1998).
33. J. T. Tsai,Polyrn Eng. Sci., 22, 265 (1982).
34. R. Pan and D. F. Watt, Plastic Rubber and Composition
Processing and Application, 25, 20 (1996).
35. V. E. Malpass and J. T. Kempthorn, Plastic Engineering,
July 1996, p. 53.
36. R. P. Nimmer, Polym Eng. S c i , 27, 16 (1987).
37. H. F. Nied, V. K. Stokes, and D. A. Ysseldyke, Poltjrn
Eng. Sci,27. 101 (1987).
38. M. H. Wagner, J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech., 2, 353-
365 (1977).
39. B. Bernstein, E. A. Kearsley, and L. J. Zapas, Trans.
Soc. RheoL, 7, 391 (1963).
40. B. A. Kaye, Non-Newtonian Fluid Flow Incompressible
Fluids, p. 134, College of Aeronautics, Cranfield (1962).
POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, FEBRUARY 2001, Vol. 41, No. 2
15482634, 2001, 2, Downloaded from https://4spepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pen.10725 by Saechsische Landesbibliothek, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
41. S. E. Solovyov, T. L. Virkler, and C. E. Scott, J . RheoL,
43,977 (1999).
42. J. Meissner, Rheometry of Polymer Melts, Annu. Rev.
Fluid Mech., 17, 45-64 (1985).
43. A. S. Lodge, Elastic Liquids,Academic Press, New York
( 1964).
44. T-SIM Inc. CZ. T-SIM, Computer Simulation of T h e m -
forming, manual (1998).
45. H. Xu, J. Wysocki, D. Kazmer, P. Bristow, B. Landa, J.
Riello, C. Messina, and R. Marrey, SPE AhTEC Tech. Pa-
pers, 45, 872 (1999).
46. M. J. Stephenson, G . F. Dargush, and M. E. Ryan,
Poltjm Eng. Sci, 39, 2199 (1999).
47. L. R. G. Treloar, in The Physics of Rubber Elasticity, p.
170, in Monographs on the Physics and Chemistry, W.
Jackson et al., eds.. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, Eng-
land (1958).
48. S. Wang, A. Makinouchi, M. Okamoto, T. Kotaka, and T.
Nakawa, J. Mater. Process. TechnoL, 91, 219 (1999).
49. M. Tabrizi, Plastic Engineering, Feb. 1999, p. 3 1.
261