~ ,-'~--x-mq

Polymer Testing 11 (1992) 13-21

A Comparison of Charpy and Izod Test Modes for

Polystyrene
M. G. R o g e r s

Plastics R&D, Dow Chemical Canada Inc., PO Box 1012 Sarnia, Ontario, Canada
N7T 7K7
&
A. Plumtree

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universityof Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario,

Canada N2L 3G1

(Received 23 April 1991; accepted 12 June 1991)

ABSTRACT

A number ofpolystyrenes and rubber-modified polystyrenes were tested

in an instrumented impact machine which could be set to either the
Charpy or the Izod test configuration. Using simple beant
considerations, the stress intensity factor, K¢ calculated in either test
mode was adequate to describe the fracture behaviour. The fracture
toughness values were found to be in the range quoted in the literature.
This work showed that Charpy and Izod test results may be directly
compared independent of fracture mode.

INTRODUCTION

The impact properties of polymeric materials are directly related to the

ability of the polymer to absorb applied energy. Traditional methods to
measure polymer impact performance generally use an Izod or Charpy
apparatus device 1 with a preference in the USA for the former.
Recently, the concepts of fracture mechanics have been employed to
quantify fracture processes in many plastics. The fundamental principle
of the approach is that all materials contain flaws or microcracks and
that these act as initiation sites for failure. 2 The resistance to crack
extension (Kc) and the energy required to extend cracks (Go) are the
13
Polymer Testing 0142-9418/92/$05.00 © 1992 Elsevier SciencePublishers Ltd, England.
Printed in Northern Ireland
14 M. G. Rogers, A. Plumtree

basic parameters measured, which are formulated from a specific

analysis of the fracture process and are intrinsic material properties.
Recently, Cawood and Williams3 published a recommended protocol
for calculating Kc and Gc for the case of three-point bending using the
Charpy configuration. However, both the Charpy and the cantilever
Izod configuration are useful for correlating the toughness of a polymer
with micro-structural and morphological differences. Obviously the
main difference between the two methods is the manner in which the
specimen is held; clamped at its lower end in the Izod, and supported at
each end yet not clamped in the Charpy test.
In this paper it is shown that the results from both test procedures
may be rationalized, eliminating any ambiguities and facilitating direct
comparison of the toughness of a number of well characterized
polystyrenes and rubber-modified polystyrenes.

EXPERIMENTAL

A series of polystyrene and rubber-modified polystyrenes were used in

this work. Their properties are given in Table 1. The specimens were
compression moulded, having essentially twice the width of an ASTM
Izod bar (63 mm x 12.6 mm x 6.2 mm). Notches were cut to various
depths with a Black's cutting machine having a specially designed
multi-toothed broach which was drawn across the narrowest face of
specimen. A razor-like notch, with a 5-mm tip radius and 30° included
angle, was obtained. For each polymer sample, a minimum of 4 notch
depths and 3 replicates at each notch depth were used. More often, 6
notch depths and 5 replicates were used.
Evaluation of these specimens was carded out using an instrumented
Dynatup (Model 8250) high speed impact tester which is a gravity
driven drop weight testing machine capable of velocities ranging from
1-4ms -1, and weight combinations of 2-4-45 kg. The total impact
energy available was 1-300 J. Optimum reproducibility was obtained by
using a large weight (22.9 kg), falling a short distance (4 cm) rather than
a lighter weight falling a greater distance. This was due, in part, to a
slower moving cross-head invoking less vibration in the sample and
sample holder. Further noise reduction was obtained by coating the
sample holder and instrumented tup with a thin film of petroleum jelly.
Samples were tested with the impact tester set in both the cantilever
Izod and the three-point Charpy configuration. Before each set of tests,
a standard sample was run to ensure reproducibility. Control charts
 A comparison o f Charpy and lzod test modes f o r polystyrene 15

TABLE 1
Properties of Polystyrenes

Sample MFR ~ /14w x 10-3b MWD c

Homopolymer
1 2-1 289 2.35
2 2-0 285 2.50
3 2-4 280 2.40
4 7-5 195 2-50
5 10.6 245 2.60
6 2.5 325 2-30
7 3.6 270 2-40
8 4.5 275 3-42
Sample MFR IZOD d Ty ~ Et

Rubber modified
9 2.80 119-5 26-3 50-0
10 3.08 54.4 25.4 33-0
11 3.60 73.7 23.9 33.7
12 2.97 123.8 22-7 30-6
13 3.03 132-4 21.8 37.0
14 3.04 116.9 22.9 28.9
15 2-79 69-4 24.9 35.1
16 3.03 126.5 20.7 32.4
17 2-35 127.0 21.3 34.2
18 2.59 45-4 20.8 41-1
19 2-95 91.8 22.4 43.5
20 3-06 115-8 23-0 39.2
21 2.80 80.6 24-0 42.8
22 2.76 68-3 24-9 34-5
23 2-74 119.0 22.3 41.9
24 3.01 127-0 20-3 35.1

a Melt flow rate (g/10 m) (condition G, ASTM D1238).

b Molecular weight determined by size-exclusion chro-
matography.
c Molecular weight distribution (l~lw/l~ln).
d Notched Izod at 23 °C, J/M, ASTM D256.
e Tensile yield (MPa) ASTM D-638.
I Per cent elongation at break, ASTM D-638.

w e r e c o n s t r u c t e d w i t h 2 - s i g m a limits. T h e r e p r o d u c i b i l i t y w a s d e t e r -
mined to be +8% for both Izod and Charpy test modes.
T h e i m p a c t t e s t e r w a s e q u i p p e d w i t h a digital s t o r a g e o s c i l l o s c o p e
a n d a p h o t o - o p t i c a l s e n s o r u s e d to t r i g g e r t h e o s c i l l o s c o p e p r i o r t o t h e
impact event. A software package transferred the data from the
o s c i l l o s c o p e to a p r i n t file w h i c h w a s r e a d a b l e b y t h e L o t u s 1-2-3
16 M. G. Rogers, A. Plumtree

spreadsheet program. Data and graphical presentation were performed

by a macro-driven spreadsheet program.

RESULTS

Whereas the conventional Charpy and Izod pendulum tests give a single
value for the energy required to break a specimen, the instrumented
impact tester records a number of interesting data points. Figure 1
shows a typical force-time plot for the same material (Sample 9) in the
notched Charpy and Izod configurations. The peak force, peak energy
and total energy may be recorded.
Additionally, the initial slope of the curve allows the stiffness to be
determined. The maximum of the curve indicates the force required to
initiate crack growth and the total area under the curve (or total
energy) is the summation of all the energy required to fracture the
specimen including that which resists crack propagation. Before cal-
culating any fracture mechanics parameter the raw data were generally
examined for significant differences to ensure the validity of the results.
In can be seen from Fig. 1 that the Izod trace showed more noise than
that of the Charpy trace. This is typical of all Izod tests.
Typical values for the force required for crack initiation are pre-
sented in Table 2. It is apparent that the force required to break a

Sample ID: IZOD Sample ID: CHARPY

200 320
190 300
180
280
170
160 260
150 240
140 220
130
200
120
Z 110 Z 18o
16o
o
~ 120
7o

2o
2O
10
0 0
-10 I I I -10
0.01 0.02 0 0.01

Time (sec) Time (sec)

][~. 1. Force-displacement curves for failure in notched Charpy and Izod tests,
Sample 9.
 A comparison of Charpy and Izod test modes for polystyrene 17

TABLE 2
Example Peak Force Versus Notch Depth Values in Both Charpy and
Izod Test Modes a

Sample Charpy Izod

a Peak force a Peak force

(mm) (N) (mm) (N)
Polystyrene, homopolymer
1 5-16 160-2 5.14 84.6
4.18 208.6 4.2 123-5
3-64 233.0 3.63 137.4
3.16 269.2 3.18 142-5
2.4 284.3 2.4 151.8
1.38 342.6 1.42 163.3
2 5.12 116-8 5-16 80.5
4-26 180.6 4.24 101.0
3-76 249-7 3-74 112.8
3.3 273.0 3-3 124.4
2.6 317-0 2-6 129-6
1-38 351.3 1.38 145-4

Rubber-modified polystyrene
9 1.3 545.3 1-3 298.1
2-5 432-5 2.5 237-5
3.3 366.9 3-3 212.6
5.2 271.0 5-2 149-9
10 1.26 629.1 1.3 338.7
2-53 509.1 2.5 272-2
3.36 418.3 3.36 232-1
5-16 290.6 5-2 159.0

a Specimen dimensions: width (D) = 12.62 mm; thickness (B) =

6.20mm; notch depth (a) = variable; span (Charpy)=50mm; span
(Izod) = 25 mm.

Charpy sample is approximately twice that to fracture a corresponding

sample of the same notch depth tested in the Izod mode. Regression
analysis of 52 pairs of polystyrene and 30 pairs of rubber-modified
polystyrenes (HIPS) tested in both Charpy and Izod modes for various
notch depths gave a linear regression slope equal to 2-01 for poly-
styrene and 1.92 for the HIPS. Some individual, highly ductile HIPS
had a regression slope as low as 1.87.
If both test configurations are considered as simply supported beams,
and that crack initiation occurs at the same point of maximum
18 M. G. Rogers, A. Plumtree

deflection, 6, then
PcL3 101l3
= 4 8 E ~ - 3El (1)
where Pc and P~ are the loads for crack initiation in the Charpy and Izod
modes, respectively; L is the span between supports for the Charpy and
I is the distance between the clamped notch and the point of impact for
the Izod specimen (21 = L). E and I are the modulus of elasticity and
moment of inertia, respectively.
Simplifying gives
Pc = 2P, (2)
The experimental values given in Table 2 are then very reasonable,
particularly when it is realized that the specimens were notched to
different depths resulting in varying degrees of stiffness. However,
brittle specimens displaying elastic behaviour to fracture would be
expected to satisfy eqn (2) explicitly.
The digital storage oscilloscope recorded the maximum force on the
deflection trace rather than the force at the point of non-linearity,
which corresponded to craze initiation. This was regarded as acceptable
since it fell within the guidelines of the testing protocol? In fact, if the
force for craze initiation were used rather than the maximum force, the
ratio of Pc/P~ becomes close to 2: 1 for the more ductile polymers.
The question arises as to whether the notch had a significant effect on
the results. Figure 2 shows typical deflection curves for un-notched

1.2

1.1

"0
~" 0.9
th o.e
0 0.7
0.6
"~ 0.5
Z
q)
i~
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
0
| i
0.002
i i
0.004
jfff
i i
0.00e
i ,
0,008
i ,
0.01
i t
0.012
i i
0.014
i
i

0.016
! t i
0.018
i i
0.02

Time (sec)
Fig. 2. F o r c e - t i m e trace for u n - n o t c h e d H I P S samples. The higher, narrower trace is
the Charpy test, Sample 9.
 A comparisonof Charpy and Izod test modesfor polystyrene 19
HIPS samples from the same batch. Similar curves were obtained with
homopolymer polystyrene. The ratio of P¢/P~ is 2:1 at the point of
non-linearity, and 2.2 : 1 at the point of complete failure.

DISCUSSION

For brittle failure the theory of linear elastic fracture mechanics may be
employed to determine the critical stress intensity value, Kc. This is
considered to be a material parameter and gives a measure of crack
resistance. In the simplest case, Kc can be derived from the fracture
load, P, the specimen dimensions of width, W, thickness, B and crack
length, a
P
K~, = f ~ (3)
BW½
where f is a correction factor accounting for crack shape and specimen
geometry. 3 The value o f f for the case of a Charpy specimen is given by

1 [1"99- a(1- a)(2-15- 3-93(a)+ 2.7(a)2)]

6(a) •

Considering the Izod test specimen the additional factor of 2 must be

introduced to account for the difference in clamping test mode. Typical
Kc values are given in Table 3 for a number of polystyrenes with
variation in molecular weights and distributions, together with rubber-
modified polystyrenes with different rubber morphologies. Statistically
there were no differences between the two sets of impact data for the
same material. These values were within the range 1-4 M P a ~ m quoted
in the literature. 2"*-6It is interesting to note that the range is covered by
the change in material composition.
Cawood and Williams3 recommended that Kc, (Kc for opening Mode
I) be regarded as a value Ko until some size criteria be met, namely:
K 2
B , a , ( W - a ) > 2 . 5 [ "'°] (4)
/ O'y_]

where Oy is the uniaxial tensile yield stress, determined at the same

strain rate as the impact test. In the present case, Or was determined by
notching tensile bars to various depths and carrying out a tensile test to
fracture on a high speed tensile test machine. 4 The stress where crazing
was first observed is regarded as the critical yield stress. On average
this value was 53 MPa for unmodified polystyrene and 33 MPa for
20 M. G. Rogers, A. Plumtree
TABLE 3
Stress Intensity Factors, Calculated in Charpy
and Izod Modes
Sample Charpy Izod
K~ (MPaX/m) K~ (nPa~/m)
Polystyrene
1 1.79 1.84
2 1.70 1-64
3 1.77 1.61
4 1.25 1-49
5 1-42 1.53
6 1-67 1.52
7 1.43 1-52
8 1.61 1.68
HIPS
9 3-09 3.10
10 2.64 2.67
11 2-71 2.77
12 3.16 3.18
13 3.11 3.18
14 3-16 3-17
15 2-95 2.86
16 3.20 3.18
17 3.13 3.21
18 2.75 2.77
19 3-04 3.06
20 3.14 3.12
21 3-13 2.97
22 2-80 2.75
23 3.09 3-05
24 3.25 3.14

HIPS. Substitution in eqn (4), shows that for the polystyrene, failure
occurred under plain-strain conditions (B calculated < B actual),
whereas for the HIPS, plain-stress fracture took pace (B calculated > B
actual). H e n c e , in spite of the difference in fracture conditions, a direct
correlation b e t w e e n Izod and Charpy results m a y be made. F r o m a
practical point of view, however, the Charpy test m o d e is preferred
since the three-point bending configuration experiences less resonance,
giving better and unambiguous f o r c e - d i s p l a c e m e n t traces.

CONCLUSION
The instrumented impact tester has shown the ability to distinguish
between the fracture behaviour of different types of polystyrenes.
 A comparison of Charpy and Izod test modes for polystyrene 21

Simple beam theory was found to be adequate to explain the

differences in failure load observed between samples from the same
polystyrene batch tested in three-point bending (Charpy) and cantilever
(Izod) test configurations.
Values found for the critical stress intensity factor were within the
range quoted in the literature. This work showed that the range of
fracture toughness values could be attributed to the differences in
material properties and the same results are obtained from the Charpy
and Izod impact test mode, regardless of fracture conditions.

REFERENCES

1. ASTM, Standard Test Methods for Impact Resistance of Plastics and

Electrical Insulating Materials. Method D256-87 (1987).
2. Williams, J. G., Fracture Mechanics of Polymers, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 1984.
3. Cawood, M. J. & Williams, J. G., Poly. Testing, 9 (1990) 15-26.
4. Cook, D. G., Plumtree, A. & Rudin, A., Poly. Eng. Sci., 30 (1990)
596-802.
5. Kim, B. H., Joe, C. R. & Otterson, D. M., Poly. Testing, 8 (1989) 119-30.
6. Lee, L. H., Mandell, J. F. & McGarry, F. J., Poly, Eng. Sci., 27 (1987)
1128-36.