You are on page 1of 5

PROCEDURE

All the samples for test The average thickness


specimen are and width of the overall
observed to be free samples for each
from any defects which material is measured
may affect the results by using vernier
during test. caliper.

Switch on the main Mark and notch every


power, computer and samples with the
the Ray Ran pendulum length of 2mm.
impact tester. (All the
equipment is being
setup for the test)

Clamp the specimen to The steps is repeated


the specimen holder. with other specimens.
The results is analyzed
Release the pendulum
using table and/or
hammer to allow it to
graph obtained.
strike the specimen.
RESULT
Table 1 & 2: Singular specimen of ABS and HDPE
ABS HDPE
Specimen (kJ/m2) Specimen (kJ/m2)
1 14.1193 1 9.1723
2 16.2368 2 8.4657
3 14.1183 3 8.4657
4 15.1783 4 8.1124
5 13.0599 5 9.1723

Table 3: Mean Loss and Standard Deviation of ABS and HDPE.

ABS HDPE
2
Mean Loss (kJ/m ) 14.5427 8.6777
Standard Deviation (kJ/m2) 1.2074 0.4739

Impact Test
18

16

14

12

10

0
ABS HDPE

Figure 1: Comparison between ABS and HDPE


DISCUSSION
Impact testing is used to determine the material behavior to resist breaking under a shock
load and ability to resist fracture at higher deformation speeds. Pendulum impact testers (Izod
and Charpy), drop weight testers, and high-speed testing machines are used to characterize the
behavior of plastics subjected to impact loading. The test specimens may be either notched or
unnotched. Notch specimen is better measure the resistance of the material to crack propagation.
In this experiment, Ray Ran Pendulum is used with hammer weight and impact velocity of 1.189kg
and 2.9m/s respectively. The specimens were prepared according to ASTM D256 that measures
55x10x10mm and have a V-notch with 2mm depth at 45° angle each. Based on Table 3, its clearly
shown that the result of impact test obtained for ABS is greater than HDPE with the value of
14.5427 and 8.6777 (kJ/m2) respectively. On the other hand, also showed in Figure 1 that there
was a great difference result for each polymer. Since the impact test gave a reading of the
measurement of how much amount that polymers could absorbed the energy, it indicates the
differences between HDPE and ABS fracture whether they were more ductile or more brittle. The
character of brittle fracture is little plastic deformation and low energy absorption before fracture
(M2090, 2009).

On the other hand, ductile fracture has an extensive energy absorption and plastic
deformation (Smith et al., 2011). Thus by referring to the results, it can be seen that ABS is more
ductile than HDPE. The notched condition also made a significant impact to the samples where
basically notched was designed to reduce the toughness of materials which gives lower absorbed
energy to the samples (Askeland, 1995). Hence, Notch specimen is better measure the resistance
of the polymer to crack propagation and the lifespan of the polymer can be predicted when be
given a certain amount of energy. However, the major factor that made a great difference between
these polymers is on their structure and properties. ABS is an acronym of acrylonitrile, butadiene
and styrene. Acrylonitrile gives heat and chemical resistance and toughness, butadiene
contributes impact strength and low-property retention, and styrene lends surface gloss, rigidity,
and ease of processing (Smith et al., 2011). The chemical stability of ABS lies in the strong
chemical bonding as apparent in its structure: the polar attraction between nitrile groups, the
aromatic chains in the styrene group, and the hydrocarbon backbone (F. Joseph, 2017).
HDPE on the other hand is a semi-crystalline polymer that consist of linear structure that
are pack closer together which results in greater intermolecular forces. Thus making HDPE more
flexibility polymer. The properties of semicrystalline polymers are dependent on microstructure,
on molecular weight, and on crystallization conditions. Theoretically, semicrystalline polymers are
not constant in shape due to the complex viscoelastic behaviour of these materials and the
different regions in them, as it has been demonstrated in previous works (Lorenzo et al, 1987).
Lastly, from the observation all of the ABS specimens is completely break after being load while
all of the HDPE specimens is partially break except for one specimens. Craze propagation also
has been observed to appear on HDPE materials where they contain oriented polymer chains
(craze matter) aligned in the direction of the stress applied (Sauer et al., 1949).

CONCLUSION

To be concluded, an impact test usually used to evaluate the brittleness of a material


under high strain rates. Since the impact test gave a reading of the measurement of how much
amount that polymers could absorbed the energy, it indicates the differences between HDPE and
ABS fracture whether they were more ductile or more brittle. Thus by referring to the results, it
can be seen that ABS is more ductile than HDPE. Craze propagation also has been observed to
appear on HDPE materials where they contain oriented polymer chains (craze matter) aligned in
the direction of the stress applied.

ANALYSIS QUESTION

1. Will Izod and Charpy impact strength test resulted in similar trend?
 Both the Izod and Charpy methods measure similar properties, the specimen
design and testing configuration are different enough that care should be taken
when choosing with method to perform.

2. Suggest 3 factors that influence the results.


 Yield strength and ductility
 Notches
 Temperature and strain rates
 Fracture mechanism
REFERENCES

M2090 (2009, June.). Introduction to Materials Science, chapter 8, fracture

D. R. Askeland, The Science and Engineering of Materials, 2nd SI, ed. UK: Chapman and Hall,
1995, pp. 162-173

W. F. Smith and J. Hashemi. Foundation of Materials Science and Engineering, 5th. ed. New
York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, 2011, pp. 283-288 and 513-514

Flynt, Joseph. “Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS): A Tough and Diverse Plastic”. 3DINSIDER
November 10, 2017.

Sauer, J. A., Marin, J. and Hsiao, C. C. J. appl. Phys. 1949, 20, 507