Showing posts with label plastic part failure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label plastic part failure. Show all posts

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.

Monday, 7 December 2020

Basics of Plastic Part Failure Evaluation in Injection Moulding

 In this Youtube video we cover the basics of part failure evaluation in injection moulding.


The video is divided into three parts: 1) Types of plastic part failure -Mechanical, thermal, chemical, environmental failures, combined with time 2) Areas of part failure in injection moulding -Premoulding, moulding, postmoulding, and Application (end-use) 3) Failure analysis in injection moulding In injection moulding, problems can occur in one of the four areas: - Raw materials - Additives involved in the material formulation - Injection moulding machine and tool in operation - Process control, settings, and monitoring Furthermore, there are two types of defects in injection moulding: - Moulding defects, occurring during injection moulding (short shots, air entrapment, etc) - Moulded part defects, which are identified after the part was moulded (jetting, weld lines, bubbles, etc). In conclusion, there are several root analysis tools which can be used to identify the problem and develop a solution to solve the moulding problem. Examples are the Pareto chart technique, the 5 Whys, the Fishbone diagram, and the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Important is to have a systematic approach which helps to diagnose and solve part issues of the injection molding operation. Greetings and #findoutaboutplastics Herwig

Interested in my monthly blog posts – then subscribe here and receive my high performance polymers knowledge matrix.
New to my Find Out About Plastics Blog – check out the start here section
Polymer Material Selection (PoMS) - check out my new online course

Friday, 27 November 2020

Plastic Part Failure – Part 2: The Antidote - Polymer Material Selection

 


Welcome back to the second part of the blog post series “why plastic parts fail”.

Here you can jump to the first part and here to theYouTube video.

In part 1 of this series we discussed the types of plastic part failure such as environmental, thermal, chemical, mechanical failures, as well as time overarching all previous four types. Among the causes of failure we discussed the phenomenological and human related viewpoints [1].  We learned that among the phenomenological viewpoints, environmental stress cracking (ESC) is the major reason for plastic part failure. Among the human related failures, material misselection and poor specification are the main drives for failure.

Here, we focus on one of the most effective antidotes for battling plastic part failure.

Polymer Material Selection (PoMS) as a way to reduce failure

There are almost 100 generic “families” of plastics. Blending, alloying, and modifying with additives results in 1,000 sub-generic plastic types [3, 4]. The total number of grades is not known, however estimates range between 20,000 and 30,000 named grades covered by 500 suppliers [3]. When you add up the two factors “material misselection (45%)” and the diversity of plastics, you can see that it is a challenge, even for experienced people, to find the optimal polymer material for the application.

Successful plastic material selection includes the understanding of plastic material characteristics (amorphous vs. semi-crystalline thermoplastics), the specific material limitations, and failure modes. Furthermore, the application requirements such as mechanical, thermal, environmental, chemical, electrical and optical requirements need to be taken into account.

Furthermore, production factors (selection of the most efficient method of manufacture in relation to part size and geometry), together with economics (material cost vs. density, cycle times and part price) need to be considered too.

The Polymer Selection Funnel - A Systematic Approach (POMS-Funnel-Method)

Enabling a systematic way for polymer material selection, I created the “Polymer Selection Funnel” framework (POMS-Funnel-Method).

The framework consists out of four funnel steps (Figure 1).


Figure 1: the four funnel steps for systemic polymer material selection and testing 

Let us discuss each phase briefly.

The information gathering phase:

In material selection, preparation is the be-all and end-all. In this phase it is important to collect as much information on environmental conditions (consider the trinity of thermal, chemicals and time, Figure 2), part cost estimations, agency approvals, industry specifications, just to name a few.


Figure 2: the environmental trinity

Funnel stage 1: Material selection factors

In this first stage we map out the true part functions and material requirements. After this we translate the requirements into material selection factors.

Following questions can help us with this assessment:

-What are the performance requirements (structural, etc.)?

-Do you want to combine multiple parts or functions?

-What will be the structural load of the part (static, dynamic, cycling, impact, etc.)?

-What will be the environmental impact on the part (chemical, temperature, time)?

-What is the expected lifetime of the product?

After answering the functionality questions, we continue with the, in my point of view, six essential questions on material selection factors (6 What's):

1. What is the service environment of your part?

2. What are the regulatory requirements?

3. What types of load at which service temperature and time need to be fulfilled?

4. What other things such as wear and friction, electrical properties such as CTI, electrical breakdown strength, aesthetics and colour (relevant for application with food contact, and toys), and more, need to be considered?

5. What is the processing and fabrication method?

6. What are the economic and commercial considerations?

A more detailed list can be found here (incl. download): Material Selection Requirements Checklist

This can be done with the support of questions such as what load does the plastic part need to carry? Or/and will the part be exposed to chemicals?

At the end of stage 1 you have a clear picture on the material requirements which can be summarized in a work sheet as material selection factors.

Example of a requirements overview worksheet.

Funnel stage 2: Thermoplastic vs. Thermoset

After translating the requirements into material selection factors, the first decision is made:

Which is the most suitable polymer chemistry to fulfill the listed requirements and selection factors?

In the funnel methodology, this stage is supported by a decision tree (Figure 2). It has two main paths: the thermoplastic and the thermoset path. The thermoplastic path is further split into making a decision about selection of amorphous or semi-crystalline polymers. In the end of this funnel stage, between two and three materials are obtained as input for the third funnel stage.


Figure 2: decision tree of funnel stage 2

Funnel Stage 3: selection discussion with worksheet

The third funnel stage represents a core element in the whole material selection funnel. It is a detailed selection discussion with a worksheet. I call it the decision matrix analysis and it ranks all of the pre-selected polymers. The decision matrix analysis consists of five steps. The base calculation principle is a scoring of each of the pre-selected materials for each of the material selection factors. In the end we add up all weighted scores for each material. The material with the highest score is most suitable for selection and further investigation in the fourth stage.

Figure 3: decision matrix analysis of funnel stage 3

Funnel stage 4: Testing, Material and Vendor Selection

In the last funnel stage, we would like to know in detail how the materials with the highest scores perform as a final part in a system of plastic parts or as a single plastic part alone.

For this, we can set up testing in the real (=laboratory and environmental) domain as well as in the virtual domain (processing simulation and mechanical analysis). In case of the real domain, prototyping needs to be done. There are several companies specializing in providing fast tooling and parts out of the selected materials for further tests.

In this phase, the material suppliers can be already involved. The costs of system validation are high and therefore the material from one supplier, maximal two may be evaluated.

After all the tests are done and the material has passed all tests, commercial conditions with the material supplier can be finalized and first small serial production can start.

Conclusions and Lessons for Polymer Material Selection

There are several different approaches on how to select polymeric materials for applications. On the basis of all material selection processes is a fundamental understanding between the nature of polymeric materials and traditional engineering materials such as metals.

Having a systematic approach for the polymer material selection reduces part failure. Furthermore, the time and effort of engineers and designers is limited and therefore knowledge transfer needs to be as efficient as possible. Here again, a systematic approach is useful for efficient communication within the project team and external partners such as material suppliers.

Another key element for efficient knowledge transfer is the, what I call the Polymer Product Pentagram (Figure 4): the optimal outcome occurs when part designer, material supplier, mould maker and injection moulder work together in a collaborative way.


Figure 4: overview of the Polymer Product Pentagram 


Learn more about PoMS and the Polymer Selection Funnel

If you have interest in learning the detailed execution of all the funnel steps for systematic polymer material selection, then have a look at my new book "Polymer Material Selection"

In a few hours you will learn everything you need to select the optimal polymer material for your project, will save thousands of dollars by preventing part failure, and will have fun in the process.

There are also free chapters available to start the training immediately. This allows you to get a feeling if this course is interesting for you. 

Literature: 

[1] David Wright: Failure of Plastics and Rubber Products Causes Effects and Case Studies Involving Degradation, 2001, Rapra Technology Ltd.

[2] https://www.space.com/31732-space-shuttle-challenger-disaster-explained-infographic.html

[3] Jenny Cooper et.al. : Why Plastic Products Fail, Smithers Rapra Technology Ltd. 2010

[4] Ezrin Myer: Plastics Failure Guide - Cause and Prevention, 1996, Hanser

[5] https://www.findoutaboutplastics.com/2018/03/polymeric-material-selection-critical.html