SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES

Special Concerns in High Strain Rate

Tensile Testing of Polymers
Margaret Pinnell
University of Dayton

Susan Hill and Adam Minch

University of Dayton Research lnstitute

Reprinted From: Modeling Testing & üesign of Materials Dummks & Structures
for Crash Safety Applications
(SP-2037)

ISBN 0-7bA0-lib34-7

2006 SAE World Congress

-1- Detroit, ~ i c h i ~ a n
~ r International"
r Apri13-6,2006
400 Commonwealth Drlve, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tei: (724) T76-4841 Fax: (724) 7766760 Web: www.sae.org
The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed
SAE's peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. This process requires a
minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Tel: 724-i72-4028
F ~ x : 724-776-3036

Al1 SAE papem, standards, and selecled

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global MobiIity Database.

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fa: 724-776-0790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright Q 2006 SAE lnternatlonal
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of CAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process ¡Savailable by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in CAE Transactions.

Percons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript o r a 300 word abstract to Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 Special Concerns in High Strain Rate
Tensile Testing of Polymers
Copyright O 2006 SAE Intemational
ABSTRACT
Recently the University of Dayton Research lnstitute
(UDRI), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and
the High Strain Rate Plastics Committee (HSRPC),
conducted an interlaboratory test program (ITP) to
assess the precision of the Practice Guide for High
Strain Rate Testing of Polymers. In addition to
generating precision statistics, the intent of this ITP was
to develop the Practice Guide to a level of maturity
where it could be released as an SAEJ Standard in
2005. The ITP was conducted at 12 laboratories using
five polymers: high density polyethylene (HDPE, Dow
Chemical Co.); polycarbonatelacrylonitrile-butadiene
styrene terpolymer (PCIABS, LG Chem, Ltd.);
thermoplastic elastomer-olefinic (TPO, Solvay
Engineered Polymers); long glass (11 mm) fiber 40%
filled polypropylene (GF PP, LNP Engineering Plastics);
and short glass (2-3mm) fiber 30% filled polyamide 66
(GF PA, Bayer Polymers LLC) and two nominal plastic
strain rates, 401s and 4001s. lnformation generated from
the ITP testing identified several special concerns
associated with high strain rate testing that were not
obvious from the data provided by the individual
laboratories or through the statistical analysis used to
generate the precision statistics for the Practice Guide.
This paper will discuss one of these concerns and
present the effects that modifying the ITP data set had
on the precision statistics.
There is an increasing need for reliable and repeatable
high strain rate tensile data for polymeric materials.
Currently, there is no standardized method for
mnducting high strain rate tensile tests on polymers or
for reducing the data generated from these tests.
Because of this, there is very little consistency in the
methods used to generate high strain rate tensile test
data between laboratories and companies and within
laboratories and companies. This problem is further
compounded by the fact that data generated from high
strain rate tensile testing is very sensitive to specimen
geometry and conditioning and test and analysis
techniques. It is for these reasons that a standard
Margaret Pinnell
University of Dayton
Susan Hill and Adam Minch
University of Dayton Research lnstitute
method for conducting high strain rate tensile tests
needs to be developed. Such a standard would enable
data comparison both within and amongst companies,
facilitate the development of analytical models, and
eliminate the need for repetitive testing within
companies.
In response to this need, the University of Dayton
Research Institute (UDRI), in conjunction with the
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the High
Strain Rate Plastics Committee (HSRPC), a s u b
committee of SAE, developed a Practice Guide for High
Rate Testing of Automotive Polymeric Materials
(Practice Guide) which will eventually become an SAEJ
Standard.
As part of the Practice Guide development process, an
interlaboratory test program (ITP) was conducted to
determine the repeatability (within laboratory precision),
and reproducibility (between laboratory precision) of the
data generated in accordance with the Practice Guide. A
thorough examination of the inforrnation generated from
the ITP identified some concerns associated with high
strain rate testing that were not apparent from the data
provided by the individual laboratories or through the
statistical analysis used to generate the precision
statistics. Among the concerns identified in this study
was the need to quantify acceptable limits of system
response or resonant ringing.
RlNGlNG IN THE SYSTEM RESPONSE DURING
HlGH STRAIN RATE TESTING
One experimental challenge that exists for dynamic
tensile tests that does not exist for quasi-static tensile
tests is ringing in the system response. Since the
potential for and problems associated with ringing in the
system response increases with the rate of testing,
ringing becomes a significant concern in high rate
testing. System ringing occurs as discreet waves in the
elastic or plastic portion of the resultant stress versus
time curve as shown in Figure 1. The relative amplitude
and frequency of the ringing can vary with material,
fixturing, and test equipment. The Practice Guide
provides the following recommendations to minimize
ringing in the system response during high strain rate Currently, no quantitative method exists to define
tensile testing: unacceptable system ringing. A qualitative description of
unacceptable ringing is provided in the Practice Guide
Use a damping method for strain rates above 101s. as shown in Figure 3.
Use lightweight grips to minimize inertial effects.
Minimize the length of the load train.
Measure load with a high frequency response
device.
Select a specimen that has a small enough gage
area to ensure that at least 10 or 15 stress waves
propagate through the gage section before yielding
occurs.

FIGURE 2. ILLUSTRATION OF RlNGlNG IN VARIOUS

MATERIALS AND THE DlFFlCULTY IN IDENTIFYING
FAILURE OR PEAK STRESS UNDER SUCH
CONDITIONS.

N E
FIGURE 1. DATA OBTAlNED FROM A TEST
EXHlBlTlNG MINIMAL SYSTEM RlNGlNG AND
SlGNlFlCANT SYSTEM RINGING. l- Unacceptable
response I
When significant system ringing occurs, the wave
amplitude may be relatively large in comparison with the
peak stress, making data interpretation difficult.
Depending on the data reduction scheme, the ultimate
value of stress may be interpreted to be either the peak
stress on the curve or the midpoint of the peak and
valley of the stress waves associated with the system
response ringing.

Analysis of high strain rate tensile data is further

complicated for low elongation materials where system
ringing may not be obvious from the resultant curve. In
Figure 2, five stress versus time curves generated by
one laboratory are provided on a single plot. For the
high elongation materials such as HDPE and TPO,
system ringing is obvious in the plastic portion of the
curve. However, for the lower elongation materials such
as the SF GF PA, the presence of ringing is not obvious.
When the curves for both the high and low elongation

-
materials are plotted on the same graph, it is apparent
that the portion of the SF FP PA curve that might be
interpreted as the ultimate stress actualiy represents a
peak portion of the second wave associated with system
ringing. If the data redudion scheme for determining TIME
ultimate stress is determining the midpoint value
between the peak and valley of the waves, then failure FIGURE 3. QUALITATIVE METHOD USED TO
to identify the presence of ringing in the data could lead IDENTIFY UNACCEPTABLE RlNGlNG IN THE
to nonconservative data reduction SYSTEM RESPONSE.
INTERLABORTORY TEST PROGRAM RESULTS OF THE STATlSTlCAL ANALYSIS

The interlaboratory test program (ITP) conducted to
assess the precision of the Practice Guide was done in
accordance with ASTM E691-99, Standard Practice for
Conducting an lnterlaboratory Test Progym to
Detennine the Precision of a Test Method. The
laboratories that participated in the ITP were Air Force
Research Laboratory (AFRUMLQF) at Tyndall AFB
(USA), Axel Products (USA), BASF Aktiengesellschaft
(Germany), Bayer Polymers LLC (USA), Dow Chemical
Co. (USA), Ford Research Laboratory (USA), General
Motors Research Laboratory (USA), Imperial College
(England), LG Chem, Ltd. (Korea), Saginomiya
Seisakusho (Japan), Stuttgart University (Germany), and
the University of Dayton Research lnstitute (USA).
The materials used in the ITP were chosen by the
HSRPC because they represent polymers commonly
used for automotive applications as well as a few
emergent materials. The polymers included in this ITP
were high density polyethylene (HDPE, Dow Chemical
Co.), polycarbonate/acrylonitrile-butadiene styrene
terpolymer (PCIABS, LG Chem, Ltd.), thermoplastic
elastomer-olefinic (TPO, Solvay Engineered Polymers),
long glass (11 mm) fiber 40% filled polypropylene (GF
PP, LNP Engineering Plastics), and short glass (2-3mm)
fiber 30% filled polyamide 66 (GF PA, Bayer Polymers
LLC).
The raw data set generated from the ITP was thoroughly
examined. The data set was censored by eliminating
data generated for samples that had unacceptable
failure modes, were tested at the wrong rate, had
instrumentation problems, or were otherwise tested in a
manner not consistent with the method described in the
Practice Guide or test protocol. Since many of the long
fiber filled (PP) test samples failed in an unacceptable
manner when tested at the higher rate, the
corresponding data set had to be wmpletely eliminated
from the ITP since the minimum number of six
laboratories as prescribed in the ASTM ~691-99'were
not able to provide data for this material. The precision
statistics generated from the censored data set is
provided in Table 1. The values of S,iX and S&
represent the repeatability and the reproducibility
coefficients of variation, respectively. These values
provide a relative comparison of the repeatability (within
laboratory precision) and reproducibility (between
laboratory precision) of the test method described in the
Practice Guide. The ASTM ~691-99'standard provides
a detailed explanation of these terms.
TABLE 1. PREClSlON STATlSTlCS FOR CENSORED
ITP DATA SET

Test samples injection molded to the ASTM ~638-03'

Type V configuration were donated by the suppliers. The
specimen gage length and width were 9.53 mm by 3.18
mm, respectively and the overall specimen length was
60.3 mm. A material code, laboratory code number,
nominal strain rate, and replicate number identified each
specimen. Participating laboratories were instructed to
keep the GF PA specimens in a desiccator until they
were tested to minimize water absorption.

The test specimens were randomized and distributed to

the participating test laboratories. Each test laboratory
was provided with ITP insbuctions and test protocol,
relevant documents including the Practice Guide and
ASTM D638-03 Standard2, test equipment information
sheet, summary material testing sheets and a CD-RW
Repeatability coefficients of variation generated by the
for submission of the raw and analyzed test data,
statistical analysis conducted on the censored data set
summary sheets, and digital images of the test setup were found to be rather small for many of the materials
and gripping mechanism. The test laboratories were
tested at both rates. However, reproducibility
required to check and provide information regarding the
coefficients of variation were found to be relatively large
frequency characteristics of each component of the test
for many of the materials tested at the 4001s rate. High
system including transducers, signal conditioners, signal
values of reproducibility wefficient of variatin suggest
amplifiers and recorders as well as the whole test
inconsistencies in testing or data analysis between
system. The test laboratories were instructed to use the
laboratories. Closer examination of the individual stress
appropriate test speed prescribed for the ASTM D638-
versus time cuwes revealed a significant amount of pre-
03 Type v2 specimen configuration for the associated
and post-yield ringing in some of the stress versus time
nominal strain rate in the Practice Guide.
cuwes associated with the ITP data set. Problems
associated with system ringing were particularly evident
presence of ringing most likely produced the high values
of reproducibility coefíicient of variation.
This result is likely due to the fact that the Practice
Guide neither provides a quantitative method to identify
unacceptable ringing nor a method to analyze data that
has marginally acceptable ringing. Therefore, it is
apparent that a quantitative method needs to be
developed which will allow for improved consistency in
data analysis and the treatment of data for high strain
rate testing. Until a quantitative method has been
developed identifying "acceptable versus unacceptable"
ringing and a method for analyzing the data, the end-
user needs to'be cautious when using the data.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the support of SAE and the
HSRPC members, BASF Corporation, Bayer
Corporation, Delphi Automotive Systems, Dow
Automotive, DSM Engineering Plastics, Ford Motor
Company, GE Plastics, General Motors Corp, LNP
Engineering Plastics Corporation, Montell USA Inc,
Solvay Engineered Polymers, Toyota Technical Center
and Visteon. Additionally, the authors acknowledge the
polymer suppliers and test laboratories listed in this
report who donated materials and time to complete this
ITP.
REFERENCES
l. ASTM E691-99, Standard Practice for Conducting
an lnterlaboratory Test Program to Determine the
Precision of a Test Method, ASTM International,
West Coonshohocken, PA, 1999.
2. ASTM 063803 Standard Test Method for Tensile
Properties of Plastics, ASTM International, West
Coonshohocken, PA, 2003.