Monday, 14 July 2025

Choosing the Right Polymer: Why the Cheapest Isn’t Always the Best (Example Rib Plate)

Hello and welcome to a new blog post. When it comes to creating a successful product, the material you choose can make or break your design—literally! Imagine you’re building a plate that needs to be stiff enough to withstand bending (Figure 1). You have a few plastics in mind: unreinforced Polyamide 6.6 (PA 6.6), Polypropylene (PP), and High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE). Which one should you pick? If you’re thinking, “Easy! Just go for the cheapest per kilogram,” think again.

Let’s dive into the fascinating world of material selection, where things aren’t always as simple as they seem.

The Price Tag Trap

At first glance, HDPE looks like a winner. It’s often the least expensive plastic by weight. But here’s the twist: not all plastics are created equal when it comes to stiffness. To achieve the same bending stiffness as PA 6.6 or PP, you’d need to make your HDPE plate much thicker. Why? Because HDPE has a lower modulus of elasticity—it’s just not as stiff.

Figure 1: Example material selection of rib plate - HDPE vs PP vs PA 6.6 [1]. 

The Domino Effect of Thickness

Making the plate thicker doesn’t just mean using more material (and thus, more cost). In injection molding, thicker parts take longer to cool. In fact, the cooling time increases with the square of the wall thickness! That means your production slows down, your output drops, and your costs go up. Suddenly, that “cheap” HDPE isn’t looking so cheap after all.

The Surprising Winner

In our example, the most expensive material per kilogram—Polyamide 6.6—turned out to be the most cost-effective overall. Its higher stiffness meant we could use less material and keep production fast and efficient. Sometimes, paying more upfront saves you money in the long run. Also, you can decrease the wall thickness even more, by using a PolyArylAmide (PARA; MXD6) instead a PA 6.6. 

Beyond the Numbers

Of course, cost isn’t the only factor. When choosing a material, you also need to consider physical, chemical, and thermal properties, as well as how easy it is to process. The “right” material is the one that balances all these needs for your specific application.

The Takeaway

Next time you’re selecting a material, remember: the cheapest option per kilogram might not be the cheapest solution for your product. Think about requirements such as stiffness, processing time, and all the other requirements (chemical resistance) your product needs to meet. A little extra thought at the beginning can save a lot of headaches—and money—down the line.

Let’s Talk About Your Design!

Do you have a plastic part design or a material selection challenge? I’d love to hear about it! Share your project or questions with me here, and I’ll be happy to provide feedback and help you find the best solution for your needs. Let’s make your next product a success—together!

Thanks for reading and #findoutaboutplastics

Greetings, 


Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, 9 July 2025

Plastic Part Failure Analysis - Using Thermal Analysis (DSC) to Estimate the Anti-Oxidant Level in Polymers

Hello and welcome to a new blog post. Let me start today with the following question: How do you ensure the long-term performance of polyolefin materials in demanding applications?

Understanding and measuring oxidative stability is key. The following post explores why oxidative stability matters for polyolefins like polypropylene, and how Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) provides valuable insights into material durability, processing effects, antioxidant performance, and ultimately prevent plastic part failure. Dive in to learn how this classic yet often overlooked test method can help you make informed decisions about material selection and process optimization.

DSC Testing for Oxidative Stability

DSC measures the heat absorbed or released by a material as temperature or time changes. While commonly used for phase transitions (melting, recrystallization, glass transition), it is also effective for detecting exothermic events like oxidation.

How does a typical test procedure for oxidative stability look like?

  • A sample (raw material or molded part) is placed in the DSC.
  • The sample is heated in a nitrogen atmosphere to a set temperature (commonly 200°C/392°F, which melts PE or PP).
  • After reaching the target temperature, air or oxygen is introduced.
  • The antioxidant in the polymer protects it until it is depleted; then, oxidation occurs, shown by a sharp increase in the DSC baseline.
  • The time from oxygen introduction to oxidation onset is called the Oxidation Induction Time (OIT).
  • Also, the test can be used to access the oxidation onset temperature (OOT).
Example PP raw material with standard antioxidant package vs. PP raw material with improved antioxidant package

Figure 1 shows the result for a tested polypropylene (PP) raw material and the OIT was measured at 2.29 minutes. A second PP raw material, which contains an improved antioxidant package, showed a higher OIT (6.42 minutes), indicating better resistance to oxidation under the same test conditions [1].

Figure 1: Using DSC to estimate the anti-oxidant level in Polyolefins - Example PP [1].

Interpreting OIT Results

The OIT value alone is not meaningful, but comparing OITs of materials with similar antioxidant chemistries provides a relative measure of oxidative stability. AS a rule of thumb, higher OIT indicates better oxidative stability and, typically, higher antioxidant content.
DSC offers a quick and practical way to assess oxidative stability compared to more complex antioxidant quantification methods.

Applications of OIT measurements

Raw Material vs. Molded Part:
  • Processing (molding) consumes some antioxidants, so molded parts usually have a lower OIT than raw materials. 
  • Changes in processing conditions (temperature, screw speed, backpressure) affect OIT and thus the remaining antioxidant content.
Post-Processing and Environmental Effects:
  • Sterilization (gamma or E-beam) can significantly reduce OIT, leading to loss of material toughness.
  • Long-term heat aging also reduces OIT over time.
Conclusion
DSC-based OIT testing, despite its limitations in perfectly simulating real-world conditions, remains a valuable and practical method for comparing the oxidative stability of polyolefins. It is particularly useful for evaluating the impact of processing and post-processing on antioxidant depletion and for comparing materials with similar stabilizer chemistries.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, 1 July 2025

The Melting Point Mystery: Identifying Polyamide 6.6 & 6 with DSC (thermal analysis)

Hello and welcome to a new blog post. Today we are diving into a powerful technique for polymer identification: Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC). Specifically, we will explore how DSC can help you distinguish between two common polyamides, Polyamide 6.6 (PA 6.6) and Polyamide 6 (PA 6).

What is DSC?

Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) is a thermal analysis technique used to observe thermal transitions in polymers. This includes identifying key characteristics such as:

  • Glass Transition Temperature (Tg): The temperature at which an amorphous polymer transitions from a rigid, glassy state to a more flexible, rubbery state.
  • Melting Points (Tm): The temperature at which crystalline regions of a semi-crystalline polymer melt.
  • Crystallization and Crystallization Rate: For semi-crystalline polymers, DSC can also reveal information about how they crystallize upon cooling.

The Polyamide Puzzle: PA 6.6 vs. PA 6

Imagine you have a failed injection molded part made of polyamide, but you are unsure if it is PA 6.6 or PA 6. As part of your failure analysis you need to identify the polyamide type. This is where DSC becomes incredibly handy. You can take a small piece of the part, perform a DSC analysis, and the results will provide a clear answer.

Looking at a typical DSC diagram, which plots heat flow over temperature, we can observe distinct differences between PA 6.6 and PA 6 (Figure 1):

Polyamide 6.6 (PA 6.6): This polymer typically exhibits a melting point around 268°C (approximately 270 °C). On the DSC curve, this appears as a clear, sharp peak in the higher temperature range.

Polyamide 6 (PA 6): In contrast, Polyamide 6 has a lower melting point, typically around 220 °C. Its peak will appear distinctly at this lower temperature on the DSC curve.

While both PA 6.6 and PA 6 have similar glass transition temperatures (around 50°C to 70 °C), making them less ideal for differentiation, their melting points provide a robust and clear identification.

Figure 1: Material identification using DSC - Example PA 6.6 vs PA6.

Conclusion

Using DSC to identify PA 6.6 and PA 6 by their distinct melting points is a very practical and effective method. While it requires a laboratory equipped with a DSC instrument, the clarity it provides in material identification can be invaluable for quality control, material verification, and troubleshooting in the plastics industry.

Thanks for reading & #findoutaboutplastics

Greetings, 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Sunday, 22 June 2025

Polymers and the Lindy Effect (Rule of Thumb Plastic Selection and Part Design)

Hello and welcome to a new Rule of Thumb post with focus on the Lindy Effect.

What is the Lindy Effect?

The Lindy Effect, when applied to polymers, suggests that the longer a polymer material or its application has been in use, the longer it is likely to continue to be used in the future. This effect highlights the idea that longevity in the face of time and competition implies robustness and adaptability, making older technologies or materials potentially more durable and relevant than newer, less tested alternatives. 

Examples - Polymers and the Lindy Effect

1. Established Polymer Applications: Consider the long-standing use of polyethylene (PE) in packaging or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in construction as flame retardant flooring material as well as window frame polymer. The Lindy Effect would imply that these established uses are likely to continue for many years to come, as they have already demonstrated their longevity and reliability (Figure 1). 

Figure 1: Polymers and the Lindy Effect - Examples PVC and PE.

2. Mature Polymer Materials: Similarly, materials like natural rubber or certain types of thermosetting plastics, which have been used for a considerable time, are likely to remain relevant due to their proven track record. 

In essence, the Lindy Effect in the context of polymers suggests that the longer a polymer or its application has been around, the more likely it is to persist into the future. This is because its longevity indicates a degree of robustness and adaptability that makes it a reliable choice in the face of new innovations and changing needs. This brings me to one of my top 10 rules for plastic part design and selection (Rule Nr. 10): Past performance can be guarantee of future results. It can pay of to revisit past application designs to understand what worked in the past (materials selection and design).

Check out more Rules of Thumb in the "Start Here" section.

Thanks for reading & #findoutaboutplastics

Greetings, 
Herwig Juster

[1]  Nassim Nicholas Taleb (2012). Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder


Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)