Int J Mater Form (2008) Suppl 1:779 –782

DOI 10.1007/s12289-008-0291-x
© Springer/ESAFORM 2008

Finite element analysis of the thermoforming of Polypropylene

C.P.J. O’Connor, G. Menary, P.J. Martin, E. McConville
Queen’s University Belfast – School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Ashby Building, Stranmillis
Road, Belfast, BT9 5AH
URL: www.qub.ac.uk e-mail:ciaran.oconnor@qub.ac.uk; g.menary@qub.ac.uk; p.j.martin@qub.ac.uk;
emcconville05@qub.ac.uk
ABSTRACT: Polypropylene (PP) is typically solid phase thermoformed at temperatures close to its
crystalline melting point, usually in the 150° to 160° Celsius range. In such conditions the mechanical
properties of the material rapidly decline with temperature and these large changes in properties make
Polypropylene one of the more difficult materials to process by thermoforming. This paper presents the
findings of a study into the thermoforming behaviour of an industrial thermoforming grade of Polypropylene.
Practical tests were performed using custom built thermoforming equipment at Queen's University Belfast.
Numerical simulations of these processes were similarly constructed to replicate thermoforming processes
using industry standard Finite Element Analysis software.
Key words: Thermoforming, Polypropylene, Hyperelastic, Viscoelastic, Finite Element Analysis, ABAQUS
methods to optimise their products and processes.
1 INTRODUCTION This research consisted of an experimental and
numerical test programme at conditions similar to
The wide range of mechanical and physical industrial thermoforming processes.
properties exhibited by modern plastics has seen
them deployed in a very large range of commercial
applications, for instance their use in the packaging 2 EXPERIMENTAL
industry. Properties such as low density,
transparency in some cases, high strength to weight 2.1 Materials information
ratios, good barrier resistance and their ready
manufacture using a range of processes has led to The materials used for the study were supplied in
plastics being dominant in many commercial extruded sheet form taken from industrial inline
applications. Within the plastics packaging industry thermoforming machines prior to heating and final
a sizeable proportion of the market is taken with the forming. This polymer is a blend of two materials.
production of thin-walled polymer containers, The predominant material in the blend is a nucleated
manufactured using industrial thermoforming homopolymer used for extrusion and thermoforming
equipment. Thermoforming, as the name implies, is applications. It is designed for stiffness and
the shaping of sheets of pre-extruded heated plastics enhanced transparency performance.
into products with the assistance of air pressure and Table 1. Material properties for the copolymer and
mechanical assist devices. Thermoforming has homopolymer materials, used in this research.
traditionally been used with amorphous materials
such as Polystyrene, as these can be shaped with Random Homopolymer
relative ease above their glass transition Copolymer
temperatures and exhibit quite a wide thermal Density 0.9 g/cm3 0.9 g/cm3
forming range. Polypropylenes, representing a Melt flow rate 1.8g/10min 3.2g/10min
range of semi-crystalline materials, are more (MFR) (230°C/2.16kg) (230°C/2.16kg)
difficult to thermoform. They display sharp melting Tensile 950 N/mm2 1600 N/mm2
Modulus
points, low melt strength, a greater tendency to sag
Tensile Stress 25.0 N/mm2 37.0 N/mm2
at elevated temperatures and generally have at Yield
narrower forming windows. These complexities Tensile Strain 14% >50%
present those industries thermoforming at Yield
polypropylenes with innate challenges. Commercial
pressures in the packaging industry have forced
manufacturers to turn to numerical modelling
780
This material is blended with a random copolymer
polypropylene designed for moulding and sheet and
film extrusion. It is proposed to offer low density,
stress cracking resistance and high chemical
resistance. The extruded caliper of the sheet was
1.23mm. The quoted manufacturer’s material
properties are provided in compact form in Table 1.
2.2 Establishing the thermoforming window
The thermoforming window is the temperature range
over which the polymer is sufficiently supple for
stretching and shaping into the desired form. The
region is terminated by the need for the polymer to
have sufficient structural integrity to maintain the
shape after forming. The softening range of the
material blend used in this instance was established
with the use of Dynamic Mechanical Thermal
Analysis (DMTA). A conservative thermoforming
window of 143° to 160° Celsius was estimated.
2.3 Biaxial materials testing
Biaxial tests were carried out on the custom built
flexible biaxial stretching machine constructed by
Queen’s University Belfast. This machine replicates
the deformation behaviour of polymeric materials
during thermoforming. Conditions in the machine
are readily altered to provide for different modes of
deformation, a range of rates of deformation up to
31.5s-1, a large range of temperatures, samples up to
2mm thick and stretch ratios up to 4.16. An
annotated graphic of the biaxial stretch machine and
its constituent major components is provided in
figure 1. Square material samples of dimension
76mmx76mm were extracted from extruded sheet.
These samples were placed in the scissor design
stretching frame of the biaxial testing rig. The
samples were then gripped by 24 pneumatically
controlled clamps, which hold the sheet in a square
pattern during heating and stretching. Each clamp is
provided with Nitrogen gas under a pressure of
50bar to provide for adequate grip of the sheet. The
sample clamping arrangement in the test rig is
visible in figure 1 also. The specimens were then
heated to the appropriate temperature in the range
identified. The heating is performed by two hot air
blower type heaters, fitted with diffusers, placed
vertically above and below the test specimen. This
system is capable of reaching test temperatures of up
to 700°C. The test temperatures were controlled by
an in-built closed loop control system maintained by
feedback from thermocouple units placed upon the
upper and lower surfaces of the sheet test samples.
Samples were heated for 135s prior to stretching.
Fig. 1. The Queen’s University Belfast flexible biaxial
stretching machine.
During stretching the extension and force were
recorded using two load cells placed longitudinally
and transverse to the test piece.
2.4 Biaxial deformation behaviour
Figure 2 details the influence that the deformation
temperature has on equi-biaxial stretching of the
material samples. The figures depict the true stress
versus true strain deformation history at a strain rate
of 0.5s-1 for ten different temperatures between
143°C and 160°C. It is clear that when the sheet
temperature is increased, less force is required to
stretch the sheet. The load bearing capacity of the
sheet is reduced as the temperature is increased.
True stress v True strain, Temperature sweep, extruded direction
T=143°C
T=145°C
14.00 T=147°C
T=149°C
Temperature decreasing 143°C
12.00
T=151°C
True stress, N/mm2
10.00 T=153°C
8.00
T=155°C
T=157°C
6.00
T=159°C
T=160°C
4.00
2.00
160°C
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
True strain, strain rate=0.5-1
Fig. 2. Biaxial deformation behaviour, extrusion direction,
143°C to 160°C temperature sweep.
The same behaviour is evident in both the extruded
and transverse material directions. The initial sharp
yielding performance of the material is much
reduced as the sheet temperature is increased, to
such an extent that at the highest temperatures tested
it is not discernible. The extrusion direction has an
increased load bearing capacity compared to the
transverse results. In this instance there is no readily
discernible pattern to the influence of the strain rate
upon the data as gathered. It was anticipated that an
increased strain rate would lead to an improved load
bearing capacity in the material[1].

3 THERMOFORMING SIMULATION OF A
POLYPROPYLENE CONTAINER
3.1 Finite element analysis of the plug-assisted
thermoforming process
A simulation was constructed of an industrial
thermoforming process used to create the container
detailed in figure 3. It is clear from figure 3 that the
cup has a rotational symmetry axis about its
centerline. Subsequently an axisymmetric analysis
model was constructed in ABAQUS[2]. The plug,
sheet and forming cavity are clearly detailed in
figure 3, as is the axis of symmetry for the process.
During the process the downholder clamps the
Polypropylene material, which is at a temperature in
the 150° to 160° degree range. Once clamped the
plug traverses vertically downwards 70mm
permanently deforming the heated polymer. Near
the completion of the plug stroke, pressurized air at
room temperature is introduced to expand the
polymer such that it contacts and fills the cavity.
The material cools and sets in the shape of the
cavity. Once cooled, the component is ejected. This
entire process takes 2 seconds to complete. downholder
area
plug
sheet
cavity
C
L obtained simultaneously. The thermal situation
Fig. 3. A thermoformed cup and the axisymmetric
thermoforming model of the process used to make it.
The finite element mesh of the polymer sheet was
constructed of CAX4RHT axisymmetric continuum
elements. The CAX4RHT is a 4-noded bilinear
displacement and temperature, reduced integration
hybrid element with hourglass control. The element
size, location and densities were arrived at by
assessing the mesh sensitivity to achieve a
progressive convergence of analysis results. The
mesh was constructed iteratively, such that sufficient
elements were available during the process
simulation to take account of the curvature of the
cavity, particularly in transitional areas of rapid
changes cavity geometry. The plug and cavity
materials were modeled as isothermal rigid bodies,
incapable of deformation but capable of contact and
781
[2-8]
thermal interaction with the sheet. Hyperelastic
material models, with viscous capability, were used
for the polymer sheet in the forming simulations.
The model contained information describing the
contact of the underside of the sheet with the cavity
and separate definitions of the upper sheet contact
with both the plug tool and the downholder surfaces.
Appropriate values of temperature related friction
coefficient were input for the plug-to-sheet and
sheet-to-cavity contacts respectively. Since the plug
in thermoforming situations tends to have a rather
‘sticky’ contact with the heated polymer sheet,
relatively large temperature driven values for the
friction coefficient were applied. This is consistent
with practical thermoforming experience[9]. Lower
values of friction coefficient were selected to
facilitate some sliding contact between the underside
of the sheet and the internal cavity surfaces. The
sheet material in the downholder area of the tooling
surfaces was constrained to restrict additional sheet
material from entering the mould cavity. This
material is so constrained between the mould and the
downholder during actual thermoforming processes.
An accurate plug traverse was created in the model
to displace the plug vertically downwards into the
sheet 70mm. Upon completion of the plug traverse
the thermoforming air of 5bar positive pressure is
activated. The pressure is ramped from a zero value
to the maximum 5bar magnitude rapidly, this being
consistent with industrial practice. This air-pressure
thus forms the material into the shape of the cavity.
In practice the material cools and sets rapidly upon
contact. An implicit, fully coupled thermal-stress
analysis was performed since the mechanical and
thermal solutions in this situation affect each other
considerably and therefore the solution must be
during the process has similarly to be reflected in the
model. Initial thermal conditions were set in the
history data section of the input deck. Thermal
conduction was assigned on a contact pair level
allowing for conduction in the event of contact and
even a small gap. Interfacial heat generation from
friction was also accounted for. Convection
between the hot Polypropylene sheet and the cavity
air was modelled.
4 RESULTS
4.1 Thermoforming simulation results
Thickness distributions were measured from samples
of cups taken from each of the 28 cavities of the
inline thermoforming mould. Thirty locations along
the cup profile were measured. The averaged
782
distribution taken from the many samples measured 5 CONCLUSIONS
is detailed in figure 4. This graphic additionally
illustrates the initial results of the thermoforming An increase in the sheet temperature in the
simulations for a selection of the material models thermoforming window of this material reduces the
that were utilized. A vacuum formed simulation was load bearing capacity of the material during biaxial
carried out also, i.e. a model without a plug. stretching. As the temperature of the sheet is
progressively increased the initial low strain
Thickness distribution in the thermoformed cup, input caliper=1.23mm
deformation behaviour changes markedly. The load
bearing capacity of the material in the extruded
1.40 Measured thickness distribution
direction is tangibly greater than that in the
1.20
Ogden, n=1
transverse direction. No discernible trend was
Arruda-Boyce
discovered in the strain rate effects upon the material
1.00 Reduced Polynomial, n=3
performance from the data set as gathered.
Wall thickness, mm

Van Der Waals

0.80
Vaccum formed, no-plug
Thermoforming simulation using hyperelastic
0.60 models can be simulated using implicit finite
element analysis approaches. Shortcomings in the
0.40
constitutive models chosen and difficulties in
0.20
modeling the ‘sticky’ contact between the sheet and
0.00 the plug are suggested to have contributed to a less
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
than predictive fit between the empirical
Distance from the centre of the cup base, mm
measurement and simulation results for the
thermoforming process investigated. This will form
Fig. 4. Thickness distributions; hyperelastic material model the basis of future research in this area.
simulations compared to experimental thickness measurements.

REFERENCES
It is clear that the correlation between the measured
thickness distributions and simulations is not 1. Tan C.W., Harkin-Jones E.M.A., Menary G., Martin
predictive. A major concern would be the apparent P.J., Armstrong C.G. (2005), Biaxial testing for the
inability to reflect the shape of the measured modeling of thermoforming processes. ANTEC
Conference Proceedings, Vol. 3: p. 347-352.
distribution, if not the magnitudes therein. The 1st-
2. Simulia, ABAQUS/CAE, ABAQUS/Standard (2007),
order Ogden model seems to perform the best of the Dassault Systemes: Providence, Rhode Island.
hyperelastic models used. It replicates some of the 3. Mooney M. (1940), A theory of large elastic
behaviour of the process, for instance the thickening deformation. Journal of Applied Physics, Vol.11: p. 582-
of material in the cup base centre region. However, 592.
4. Rivlin R.S., Saunders D.W. (1951), Large elastic
overall none of the models tested provide an
deformations of isotropic materials, VII, experiments on
acceptable fit to the experimental data. This is most the deformation of rubber. Transactions of the Royal
likely a result of several factors. The constitutive Society of London. Series A (Mathematical and
models used are phenomenological in their basis, Physical Sciences), Vol. 243: p. 251-288.
based on empirical fitting to the biaxial test data. 5. Arruda E.M., Boyce M.C. (1993), A three dimensional
constitutive model of large stretch behaviour of rubber
This may not be appropriate to apply to
elastic materials. Journal of Mechanics and Physics of
Polypropylene in thermoforming situations. Other Solids, Vol.41(No.2): p. 389-412.
research to tackling such problems has focused on 6. Marlow R.S. (2003), A general first-invariant
rheological[10] models of polymers which account hyperelastic constitutive model, in constitutive models
for molecular chain dynamics and construction as for rubber, Balkema.
7. Ogden R.W. (1972), Large deformation isotropic
well as elastic, plastic and viscous effects. The
elasticity on the correlation of theory and experiment for
contact of the sheet with the tooling in plug-assisted incompressible rubberlike solids, Proceedings of the
thermoforming is a dominant influence on the Royal Society of London, Series A (Mathematical and
thickness distribution of the formed component. Physical Sciences). Vol. 365: p. 565-584.
This is a ‘sticky’ contact and further work must be 8. Kilian H.G. (1981), Equation of state of real networks,
Polymer, Vol. 22: p. 209-217.
done to develop an approach to model this
9. Martin, P.J., Tan, C.W, Tshai, K.Y., McCool, R.,
effectively. Standard friction based approaches with Menary, G., Armstrong, C.G. (2005), Biaxial
thermal conduction and heat generation seem to characterization of materials for thermoforming and
have proved insufficient in capturing the complexity blow moulding. Rubber and Composites, Vol. 34: p.
of this ‘sticky’ contact during thermoforming. 276-282.
10. Sweeney J. et al. (2002), Application of a large
deformation model to unstable tensile stretching of
polyethylene, International Journal of Plasticity 18.