See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/248448530

Impact behaviour of polypropylene/polyethylene blends

Article in Polymer Testing · April 2000

DOI: 10.1016/S0142-9418(98)00080-4

CITATIONS READS

96 5,416

3 authors, including:

Robert K Y Li
City University of Hong Kong
127 PUBLICATIONS 5,434 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert K Y Li on 17 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Polymer Testing 19 (2000) 143–154

Test Method

Impact behaviour of polypropylene/polyethylene blends

C.M. Tai, Robert K.Y. Li*, C.N. Ng
Department of Physics and Materials Science, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon,
Hong Kong
Received 25 July 1998; accepted 11 September 1998

Abstract
Due to the large volume consumption of polyolefins, the treatment of the resulting solid waste is becom-
ing a major concern. One possible utilization of the polyolefin wastes is to form blends from recycled
polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE). This study is a preliminary investigation on the impact fracture
behaviour for the PP/PE blends. The impact testing method employed in this study includes the conventional
and instrumented Izod impact tests, the instrumented Charpy impact test, and the instrumented drop weight
plate impact test (IDWPIT). In both conventional and instrumented Izod impact testing, PP homopolymer
and PP/LDPE blend have similar impact strengths, while PP/HDPE blend exhibits slightly lower impact
strength. However, the instrumented Charpy impact test indicates that both PP/LDPE and PP/HDPE have
similar impact strengths, and both are slightly lower than PP homopolymer. This suggests that the type of
impact test employed is playing an important role in the impact fracture behaviour of the PP/PE blends.
The effect of temperature on the impact fracture behaviour for the PP/PE blends was evaluated by means
of the Charpy and drop weight plate impact tests. During the tests, impact strengths reduced with decreasing
testing temperature. In the Charpy impact test, the impact strength for PP homopolymer was higher than
those of the two PP/PE blends at both 20 and 0°C. The Etotal measured from the IDWPIT indicated PP/LDPE
has the highest impact strength at both 20 and 0°C.  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Polyethylene is a widely used commodity thermoplastic. It is commercially available in differ-

ent grades, such as low density polyethylene (LDPE), linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE),

* Corresponding author.

0142-9418/99/$ - see front matter  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 2 - 9 4 1 8 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 8 0 - 4
144 C.M. Tai et al. / Polymer Testing 19 (2000) 143–154

high density polyethylene (HDPE), and ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE).
Due to its high volume of consumption, the PEs, especially LDPE, LLDPE and HDPE constitute
a significant part of the municipal solid waste (MSW). Recycling provides a possible direction
to reduce the impact of plastic wastes on our environment. Bernardo et al. [1] measured the
change in properties with the number of processing cycles for LDPE, HDPE and polypropylene
(PP). Furthermore, a model has been developed to predict the experimental properties after degra-
dation.
Other than by direct recycling or by blending the recycled PE with the respective virgin PE,
an alternative approach is to blend the recycled PE with PP. Another reason for the interest in
studying PP/PE blends is due to the fact that complete separation of post-consumer PP and PE
is very difficult, it is necessary to have a good understanding of the behaviour of PP/PE blends.
Blom et al. [2] investigated the mechanical and rheological properties of PP/HDPE blends.
In this investigation the properties for two types of PP/PE blends (PP/HDPE and PP/LDPE)
were studied. The PE contents in both types of blend were kept to a low percentage—20 wt%.
In particular the impact properties at ambient and low temperatures were studied in detail.

2. Materials and experimental procedure

2.1. Materials and sample preparation

As mentioned earlier, two types of blend, PP/HDPE and PP/LDPE were used in this investi-
gation. The supplier, density, and melt flow index (MFI) for the PP, HDPE and LDPE homopoly-
mers used to prepare the blends are listed in Table 1. Designations for the different types of
specimen used in this work are given in Table 2.
In the preparation of the blends, the respective virgin pellets of the PEs and PP were manually
mixed before being loaded into a Brabender single screw extruder for melt blending. The PE
content was kept at 20 wt% for both PP/HDPE and PP/LDPE blends. The extrudate was pelletised
for subsequent injection moulding. Rectangular plates with dimensions of 150 ⫻ 80 ⫻ 6 mm3
were injection moulded using a Chen Hsong Jetmaster 4 Mark II-C injection moulding machine.
For the dumbbell shaped tensile test pieces, a Cosmo plastic injection moulding machine was
employed. Tensile tests were carried out in accordance with ASTM D638-91, using the Type I

Table 1
Information for the homopolymers used in this work

Homopolymer Supplier/grade Density (g/cm3) MFI (g/10 min)

PP Montell/Pro-fax 6331 0.900 12

HDPE Saudi Basic Industries 0.956 20
Corporation/Ladene
M200056
LDPE Polyolefin Company 0.917 35
(Singapore) Pte.
Ltd/Cosmothene G812
 C.M. Tai et al. / Polymer Testing 19 (2000) 143–154 145

Table 2
Designation, constituent compositions, and Young’s modulus for the materials used

Sample designation Composition (wt%) Young’s modulus

(GPa)

PP HDPE LDPE

PP 100 – – 1.776
PP/HDPE 80 20 – 1.728
PP/LDPE 80 – 20 1.353
HDPE – 100 – 1.490
LDPE – – 100 0.144

specimen geometry. The samples have gauge length, width, and thickness equal to 57, 13 and
3.25 mm, respectively. An Instron tensile tester (model 4206) was used to carry out the tests at
a cross-head speed of 5 mm/min under room temperature. A clip-on extensometer with a gauge
length of 12.5 mm was used to measure the tensile modulus. The results reported were the average
from five samples.

2.2. Izod and Charpy impact tests

The Izod impact test was performed by a Ceast pendulum impact tester. For the Charpy impact
test, an instrumented drop weight impact tester (Fractovis, Ceast, Italy) was used, which has an
environmental chamber attachment. The environmental chamber can be maintained at any tem-
perature between ⫺ 70 and ⫹ 150°C. Therefore, Charpy impact tests were conducted at 0 and
20°C, while Izod impact tests could only be performed at 20°C. The impact velocities used in
the Izod and Charpy impact tests were 3.4 and 2.0 m/s, respectively. In both types of impact test,
the sample dimensions were 80 ⫻ 13 ⫻ 6 mm3, and were provided with a 2-mm deep notch. All
samples were machined from the moulded rectangular plates with the long edge of the samples
parallel to the 80-mm edge of the moulded rectangular plates. The notches in the samples were
opened by using a Ceast notch opener, and were all with a notch tip radius of 0.25 mm. The
impact test results presented were the average of three tests.

2.3. Instrumented drop weight plate impact test

The instrumented drop weight plate impact test (IDWPIT) was performed by using the instru-
mented drop weight impact tester mentioned in Section 2.2. In the Charpy impact test, the instru-
mented striker has a wedge-shaped nose. In the IDWPIT, the striker has a hemispherical nose
with a radius of 20 mm. The impact velocity used was 13.5 m/s. The reason for using such a
high impact velocity was to ensure the total penetration for the LDPE and HDPE samples. During
the test, a flat specimen was held between metal clamps. The diameters of the support ring and
movable clamp were both 38.1 mm.
In obtaining the samples for IDWPIT, the moulded rectangular plates were cut into two equal
halves each having dimensions of approximately 75 ⫻ 80 ⫻ 6 mm3. It has been observed that
146 C.M. Tai et al. / Polymer Testing 19 (2000) 143–154

no differentiation can be made for the samples obtained from the upper or lower half of the
moulded plates. The results presented were the average from ten tests. As in the Charpy impact
test, IDWPIT was conducted at 0 and 20°C.

2.4. Fractography

The impact fractured surfaces of the specimens were examined using a scanning electron micro-
scope (SEM).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Tensile behaviour

Typical tensile stress–strain curves for the various types of sample are shown in Fig. 1, and
the various tested pieces are displayed in Fig. 2. For the PP, HDPE and PP/LDPE samples,
they were pulled to 200% strain without fracturing. Their stress–strain curves show the typical
characteristics for ductile polymers—a maxima in the stress–strain curve which corresponds to
the initiation of necking (yielding). This is followed by a load drop and subsequent leveling off
of the stress–strain curve, which is corresponding to the neck propagation and drawing of the
necked region. From Fig. 2, it can be seen that neck propagation has proceeded to a significant
extent for the PP, HDPE and PP/LDPE samples.
The stress–strain curve for LDPE shows that it fractured at a tensile strain of about 150%,
while the PP/HDPE blend shows a nearly brittle stress–strain curve (Fig. 1). From the fractured
sample (Fig. 2), it can be seen that necking has occurred in the LDPE tensile bar. However, the
neck did not propagate to any significant extent. For the PP/HDPE tensile bar shown in Fig. 2,
it fractured in a brittle manner, which correlates with the stress–strain curve shown in Fig. 1.
From the slope of the respective stress–strain curves, the Young’s moduli for the different types
of sample can be determined, and the average values are listed in Table 2. By using the Halpin–
Tsai equation [3], the Young’s modulus for the two types of blend can be calculated as follows:

Fig. 1. Tensile stress–strain curves for the various types of samples.

 C.M. Tai et al. / Polymer Testing 19 (2000) 143–154 147

Fig. 2. Tensile tested samples.

1 ⫹ ␰␩VPE
Eblend ⫽ ⫻ EPP (1)
1 ⫺ ␩VPE
and
(EPE/EPP) ⫺ 1
␩⫽ (2)
(EPE/EPP) ⫹ ␰
where EPP is the Young’s modulus of PP, EPE is the Young’s modulus of LDPE for PP/LDPE
blend, and equal to the Young’s modulus of HDPE for PP/HDPE blends. ␰ is equal to 2 for
spherical reinforcements. VPE is the volume fraction of PE in the blends, and is related to the
weight fraction by the following equation:
WPE
␳PE
VPE ⫽ (3)
WPE WPP
⫹
␳PE ␳PP
where WPE and WPP are the weight fraction of PE and PP, ␳PE and ␳PP are the densities of PE
and PP, respectively. Predictions on the variation of Young’s modulus with PE content for
PP/HDPE and PP/LDPE blends are shown in Fig. 3. As both HDPE and LDPE have lower
Young’s moduli than PP, the two types of PP/PE blends have decreasing Young’s moduli with
increasing PE content. It can also be seen that the Young’s modulus for the PP/LDPE blends are
always lower than the PP/HDPE blends at the same PE volume fraction. The experimental meas-
ured Young’s moduli for PP/HDPE and PP/LDPE are also shown in Fig. 3 for comparison with
the Halpin–Tsai prediction. It can be seen that the predictions obtained from Eq. (1) are in good
agreement with the measured values.
148 C.M. Tai et al. / Polymer Testing 19 (2000) 143–154

Fig. 3. Prediction of the Young’s moduli for PP/HDPE and PP/LDPE blends using the Halpin–Tsai equation.

3.2. Impact behaviour

3.2.1. Izod and Charpy impact test

Two types of Izod impact tests were conducted on the samples under room temperature con-
ditions. They were: conventional Izod impact test and instrumented Izod impact test. In the con-
ventional Izod impact test, a 2 J pendulum hammer was used in order to improve the sensitivity
of measurement. For the instrumented Izod impact testing, a 7.5 J instrumented pendulum hammer
was used as this was the only instrumented pendulum hammer available. A comparison between
the conventional Izod impact strength (SCI) and instrumented Izod impact strength (SII) are shown
in Fig. 4.
From Fig. 4, it can be seen that irrespective of the two Izod impact tests, HDPE has the highest
impact strength, PP/HDPE has the lowest impact strength, and the Izod impact strength for PP

Fig. 4. Comparison between the conventional and instrumented Izod impact tests.
 C.M. Tai et al. / Polymer Testing 19 (2000) 143–154 149

Fig. 5. Charpy impact strength at 0 and 20°C.

and PP/LDPE are about the same. It can also been seen that the instrumented Izod impact strengths
are always higher than the conventional Izod impact strengths. At this stage, it is not clear as to
the exact cause for the observed higher instrumented Izod impact strength. The different mass of
the pendulum hammer used, and the superimposed secondary oscillations on the force–time curve
[4] may be possible causes.
The instrumented Charpy impact strengths (SCI) measured at 0 and 20°C are shown in Fig. 5.
The impact strengths at 0°C for HDPE and PP/LDPE are only marginally lower than those meas-
ured at 20°C. For PP and PP/HDPE, the reduction in impact strength as the testing temperature
was lowered from 20 to 0°C was more significant.
The instrumented Charpy impact strength (SCI) values are plotted against the instrumented Izod
impact strength (SII) values in Fig. 6. It can be seen that SCI of the samples was not the same as

Fig. 6. Comparison between the instrumented Charpy impact strengths (SIC) and the instrumented Izod impact
strengths (SII) measured at 20°C.
150 C.M. Tai et al. / Polymer Testing 19 (2000) 143–154

Fig. 7. Instrumented drop weight plate impact force–time curves for the various materials. (a) Testing temperature ⫽
20°C; and (b) testing temperature ⫽ 0°C.

SII. As all the data points are below the 45° line, the instrumented Charpy impact strengths are
always lower than the corresponding instrumented Izod impact strength. While both impact tests
indicate HDPE has the highest impact resistance, the instrumented Charpy impact test results
show that the addition of 20 wt% of either HDPE or LDPE will lower the impact strength of PP.
From the instrumented Izod impact test, the addition of HDPE will lower the impact strength of
PP, while the addition of LDPE will marginally increase the impact strength of PP.

3.2.2. Instrumented drop weight plate impact test (IDWPIT)

Although the Izod and Charpy impact tests can provide information on the impact resistance
of materials during high strain rate deformation, the particular specimen geometry requirement
of both tests made the test result difficult to relate to practical situations. The specimen geometry
and the mode of loading for the drop weight plate impact test provide a much closer correlation
 C.M. Tai et al. / Polymer Testing 19 (2000) 143–154 151

with practical impact situations. It simulates the punch fracture and imposes a biaxial flexural
deformation to the material.
IDWPITs were carried out at both 0 and 20°C, and typical force–time curves for the various
materials are shown in Fig. 7(a) and (b), respectively. All the force–time curves are linear elastic
and show sudden load drop upon reaching the maximum impact load. These imply brittle fracture
of the plate specimens. The fractured fragments are shown in Fig. 8, which support the brittle
fracture assumption. It can also be observed from Fig. 7(a) and (b) that the total areas enclosed
under the force–time curves measured at 0°C are all smaller than those measured at 20°C.
The maximum impact force Fmax, initiation energy Einit, propagation energy Eprop and total

Fig. 8. Impact fracture fragments for PP, PP/HDPE and PP/LDPE specimens measured at (a) 20°C, and (b) 0°C.
152 C.M. Tai et al. / Polymer Testing 19 (2000) 143–154

energy Etotal are summarized in Fig. 9. From Fig. 9(a), it can be seen that Fmax for the materials
was not much affected by temperature. Referring to Fig. 9b, the Einit values for PP and PP/HDPE
were not affected by temperature, but the value for the PP/LDPE blend reduced dramatically
when the testing temperature was reduced from 20 to 0°C. From Fig. 9(c), it can be seen that
the propagation energies for both PP and PP/HDPE decrease with decreasing temperature. The
temperature sensitivity of Eprop for PP is much more significant than that for PP/HDPE. The Eprop
values for PP/LDPE measured at 0 and 20°C are the same.
For the PP samples, the fractured fragments were relatively free from stress-whitening (Fig.
8). Under room temperature testing condition, PP specimens remained in one piece after impact
and radial cracks could be seen to propagate from the punctured central hole (Fig. 8(a)). For PP
specimens tested at 0°C, the radial cracks were fully developed and the specimens were separated

Fig. 9. Effect of temperature on (a) maximum impact force Fmax, (b) initiation energy Einit, (c) propagation energy
Eprop and (d) total energy Etotal.
 C.M. Tai et al. / Polymer Testing 19 (2000) 143–154 153

Fig. 9. Continued

into a number of pieces (Fig. 8(b)). The lower resistance to the radial crack growth has resulted
in lower Eprop and Etotal values at 0°C.
For the PP/HDPE blend, no radial cracks can be found for samples tested at 20°C (Fig. 8(a)).
However, for samples tested at 0°C, multiple radial cracks were formed which lead to the forma-
tion of a number of fractured fragments (Fig. 8(b)).
For the PP/LDPE blend, the fractured specimens have the same appearance as the PP/HDPE
specimens when both were tested at 20°C (Fig. 8(a)). When tested at 0°C, the number of radial
cracks formed in the PP/LDPE specimens was much lower than in both PP and PP/HDPE speci-
mens. This indicates that the fracture resistance in the PP/LDPE specimens is better than that for
PP and PP/HDPE.
154 C.M. Tai et al. / Polymer Testing 19 (2000) 143–154

4. Conclusions

In both conventional and instrumented Izod impact testing, PP homopolymer and PP/LDPE
blend have similar impact strengths, while PP/HDPE blend exhibits a slightly lower impact
strength. However, the instrumented Charpy impact test indicates that both PP/LDPE and
PP/HDPE blends have similar impact strengths, and both are slightly lower than that for PP
homopolymer. This suggests that the type of impact test employed is playing an important role
in the impact fracture behaviour of the PP/PE blends.
The effect of temperature on the impact fracture behaviour for the PP/PE blends was evaluated
by means of the Charpy and drop weight plate impact tests. In all the tests, impact strengths
decreased when reducing the testing temperature. In the Charpy impact test, the impact strength
for PP homopolymer is higher than the two PP/PE blends at both 20 and 0°C. The Etotal measured
from the IDWPIT indicated PP/LDPE has the highest impact strength at both 20 and 0°C.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Centre for Environmental Science and Technology, City Uni-
versity of Hong Kong. One of the investigators, C.M. Tai, is the recipient of a Postgraduate
Studentship from the City University of Hong Kong.

References

[1] Bernardo CA, Cunha AM, Oliveira MJ. The recycling of thermoplastics: prediction of the properties of mixtures
of virgin and reprocessed polyolefins. Polym Eng Eng Sci 1996;36:511–9.
[2] Blom HP, Teh JW, Rudin A. iPP/HDPE blends: interactions at lower HDPE contents. J Appl Polym Sci
1995;58:995–1006.
[3] Agarwal BD, Lawrence LJ. Analysis and performance of fiber composites, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley-Inter-
science, 1990.
[4] Tam WY, Cheung T, Li RKY. An investigation on the impact fracture characteristics of EPR toughened poly-
propylene. Polymer Testing 1996;15:363–79.

View publication stats