'W

W

Li~

4‘in

k

fi‘éfié‘s

A”

., .‘u 5-; u.‘ 6 ‘. .,_
4 4E? .{irj'tfl

z - ‘
‘n. .. ."¢'O

A .fiv‘

a;

1:.1; :51 iv.
:44 9:.

.
.r
. ,3,
.\

\mfl'tw— 35%
~1¢g§§ 'r‘év-ii

~31 “fig-433E ..

‘3’".
waunp.» . ‘

37” c4
“v " "fig-4%
..$;&:m

r u-
.“I'.,
v

If?
. .-

um

‘ mutt
mi‘wwflkfmf. .
- 3“

«‘9‘
x53 F51"
L-nm‘g an} .15.:

i' E
. 5' “53%?
u

E

vlul'l‘ N“
1.1‘/.“"'.

1‘
Emsm
3 ,

3

‘ J“

. ifiH-w
“ fizz‘ifikw
1:231“ 49:11; E
l-r:53:..g E
“QT-{Via
«‘3 ‘4
5);»
3.363%?” it”

4-3:,

42:32:

3 “In?

J?”
v ‘ CH 7 M
w
74%: :3"fo
av W'ii

\a ’l‘l-‘l’u thw-flx‘

dug-hf

my.
,

 

“v “w 232.5} “gm-4‘ -- E ‘fx‘a
“m3: #3. , fig? 33%,: _ 5.337.393“

a?” ‘3
m

M;
E“ , q.
‘33‘513 - fist mfién'xhyém .‘I
n-fi 9.4.791‘1: 3:6,,“
I ,u

.... «3.227;
i‘mm “A...
o’-
u- .
., mm- ~A“"'

..

E m l , .

. é: ,. ~ . - ‘ 5“ _ 3 _

... V ‘ . A . . ‘ su‘ . u. any.»

Jfawfi'!‘ ‘ M ‘ f . u»... ”‘19:: .- wr:::.:

.. 7' ‘ , ‘1’“ ‘ 4

«#59. “-m ‘

V ‘f 1L ~

- 15v .
W33. ‘4 h
..

“W on why.
Tram-2:. - 4w
gum nu

fsa-n:‘
5321': «.1

m. Ar
3

.ur
“:‘uzigf‘fiam‘
J ivu‘J-flv «r
‘ I
'1

., . .
«5’. r.‘. I . .
I

,.
'5‘" v" h;

1‘"...
' 1r.

FHESIS

NESIVR SIIBTYL

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII

31293 00902

III:II|IIIIII

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

WOOD FIBER/HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE COMPOSITES:
ABILITY OF ADDITIVES TO ENHANCE
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

presented by
JoAnna Denise Childress

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master of Science degree in Packaging

JMMM

 

Major professor

Date June 27. 1991

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

LIBRARY

Richly” Sta te
Unlverdty

 

PLACE IN BET URN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATEij DATE DUE DATE DUE I

 

 

 

 

 

    

0Q. .-(. \
, -00 me I

MAGIC 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I
I MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
‘1 emu-autumn,

 

 

WOOD FIBER/HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE COMPOSITES: ABILITY OF
ADDITIVES TO ENHANCE MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

BY

JoAnna Denise Childress

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Packaging

1991

65%- 6.???"

ABSTRACT

WOOD FIBER/HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE COMPOSITES: ABILITY 0F
ADDITIVES TO ENHANCE MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

BY

JOANNA DENISE CHILDRESS

Improvement of mechanical properties, for a composite of Aspen
Hardwood fibers and recycled High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) ,
can be achieved by the inclusion of additives. The four
additives investigated in this study were: Ionomer Modified
Polyethylene (Surlyn) , Maleic Anhydride Modified Polypropylene
(MAPP), and two Low Molecular Weight Polypropylenes (Proflow
1000 and Proflow 3000) . Each additive was combined with
recycled HDPE and Aspen Hardwood fibers in a twin-screw
extruder to form the composite, and then compression molded.
Creep, water sorption, tensile properties and impact strength
were evaluated following'lASTMi standard. procedures. lAll
composites were approximately 40% by weight Aspen hardwood
fibers. The effects of Surlyn and MAPP were studied at 1%,
3%, and 5% weight ratios. The effects of Proflow 1000 and
Proflow 3000 were studied utilizing 5% additive. The
inclusion of MAPP in the composite improved its mechanical
properties overall. Addition of Surlyn produced some positive
effects but not at a statistically significant level. The
inclusion of Proflow 1000 and Proflow 3000 generally decreased

the mechanical properties of the composites.

to my mother and my son Lon, for inspiring me to reach for the
stars and being there if I fell short

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank God for the strength and wisdom that enabled me to

persevere and my family for always being there.

I would like to express my gratitude to my major professor,
Susan Selke, PhD. (School of Packaging, Michigan State
University) and my committee members Jack Giacin, PhD. (School
of Packaging, Michigan State University) and Otto Suchsland,
PhD. (Department of Forestry, Michigan State University), for

their guidance and assistance.

I would like to thank Mike Rich from the Composite Materials
and Structures Center for his instruction and use of the
extruder. I am grateful for the advice and support given by
Rodney Simpson and.Maria Kealc I would also like to thank Dr.
Ruby Perry for her assistance and I am especially grateful to
Benjamin Felton for his moral support and assistance, without

which I could not have completed this work.

I amialso grateful to the USDA, the State of Michigan Research
Excellence fund, and the Composite Materials and Structures
Center at Michigan State University, for their financial
support.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Composite Materials . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . .

Interface and Interphase Regions
Prediction of Properties . . . .

Prior Research . . . . . . . . . . . .

EXPERIMENTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Results and Discussion . . . . . .

Results - Tensile Properties .
Discussion - Tensile Properties
Results - Izod Impact Strength
Discussion - Izod Impact Strengt
Results - Water Absorption .
Discussion - Water Absorption
Results - Creep . . . . . . .
Discussion - Creep . . . . .

O O O O a. O O 0

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . .

RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . . . .

APPENDIX A O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX D O O O O O I O O O O I O O O O 0

REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

vi

vii

I-‘

saw
c:o<no~m<n

30

34
40
40
49
51
54
55
58
59
62

63

65

66

67

80

125

127

Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

Table

8.
9a.
9b.
10a.
10b.
11a.
11b.
12a.
12b.
13a.
13b.
14a.

14b.

LIST OF TABLES

List of Additives . . . . . . . . . . .
Results of Tensile Strength . . . . . .
Results of Modulus of Elasticity . . .
Results of % Elongation at Break . . .
Results Izod Impact Strength . . . . .
Results of Water Absorption . . . . . .
Results Creep Extension . . . . . . . .
Concentrations of Composite Components
Data Tensile Strength . . . . . . . . .
Data Tensile Strength Cont. . . . . . .
Data Modulus of Elasticity . . . . . .
Data Modulus of Elasticity Cont. . . .
Data % Elongation at Break . . . . . .
Data % Elongation at Break Cont. . . .
Data Izod Impact Strength . . . . . . .

Data Izod Impact Strength Cont. . . . .

Data Water Absorption . . . . . . . . .
Data Water Absorption Cont. . . . . . .
Data Creep Extension . . . . . . . . .
Data Creep Extension Cont. . . . . . .

vi

32

41

44

47

52

56

60

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

76

77

78

79

Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure

Figure

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Tensile Strength . . . . . . . . . .
2. Modulus of Elasticity . . . . . . .
3. % Elongation at Break . . . . . . .
4. Izod Impact Strength . . . . . . . .
5. Water Absorption . . . . . . . . . .
6. Creep Extension . . . . . . . . . .
7. Chemical Structure of HDPE . . . . .
8. Chemical Structure of Aspen Hardwood
9. Chemical Structure of Surlyn . . . .
10. Chemical Structure of MAPP . . . . .
11. Chemical Structure of Proflow Resins

vii

42

45

48

53

57

61

125

125

125

126

126

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

The solid waste disposal system has created a crisis. It was
estimated in 1988 that nearly 25% of the major cities in

the U.S., will run out of waste disposal capacity by 1993
(Thompson and Bluestone, 1987). The growth of the plastics
industry has naturally increased the amount of plastics in?) the
solid waste disposal system. In 1986, the 11.5 billion pounds
of plastics used in packaging consisted of the following:
LDPE and LLDPE 33%, HDPE 31%, PS 11%, PP 9%, PET 7%, PVC 5%,
others 4% (Modern Plastics, 1987). These plastics were used
in the following industrial, institutional and consumer
packaging applications: films 35%, bottles 27%, containers

24%, coatings 9%, and closures 5% (Modern Plastics, 1987).

The increasing' presence of plastics in. the solid. waste
disposal system.has also increased public resistance to them.
In 1987, there were several bills introduced in legislatures
across the United States, due to increased concern regarding
plastics packaging disposal. The possible ban of polyvinyl
chloride packaging was introduced in the Vermont legislature.
A bill prohibiting the sale of expanded polystyrene products
was also introduced in the Connecticut legislature. A great
deal of discussion regarding regulating the plastics packaging
industry has been focusing on requiring that plastics used for

packaging be degradable. In 1987 there was a proposal in the

2
U.S. Congress to ban non-biodegradable six-pack beverage
container bundling devices and there are also activities at

State levels to ban non-biodegradable fast-food packaging.

Plastics are not inherently degradable and their permanence is
one of their greatest assets. Some advances have been made
regarding degradable plastics, but these can in no way compete
with the growth of the plastics industry. In just the past 10
years the U.S. plastic resin industry has grown by 70%
(Resource Integration Systems Ltd., 1987). This growth has
been particularly strong in the areas of packaging,
construction and transportation. By the year 2000 it is
predicted that plastic packaging material will grow from 25%
of the total packaging market share to 50% (Resource
Integration Systems Ltd., 1987). An increase of over 3 1/2
times 1982 levels, is expected in the nations post-consumer
plastic waste from construction (Resource Integration Systems
Ltd. , 1987) . In regards to transportation, one industry
source predicted that by 1992, the typical U.S. car will
contain more than 400 lbs. of plastics and components

(Resource Integration Systems Ltd., 1987).

Government and industry alike have been seeking alternative
methods of disposal, that will deal with the problem of
plastics in the solid waste stream in a timely manner. One

method that would reduce the amount of plastics in the solid

3
waste disposal system is recycling. In the past, polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) was one of the few plastics that was
actively sought for recycling. High density polyethylene
(HDPE) generates a significantly greater amount of tonnage
yearly than PET, therefore both are now being actively sought
and recycled. HDPE is readily identified by consumers in the
form of plastic milk jugs. In the State of Michigan, for
example, over 12,000 tons of plastic milk jugs are discarded
each year (Resource Integration Systems Ltd., 1987). HDPE is
also used. as, packaging for' household chemicals, bleach,
detergent, and cosmetics. Barriers to the recovery of HDPE
include contamination and.health concerns. Recycled plastics
are generally considered unsuitable for direct food contact,

due to fear of contaminants.

An advantage in recovering HDPE is that it is relatively easy
to recycle compared with many other plastics. Products
manufactured from recycled HDPE include: signs, toys,
basecups for soft drink bottles, traffic barrier cones, pipe,
and trash cans. Although recycled HDPE is manufactured into
many different items, this investigation was concerned with
using it as a low cost matrix for structural polymer
composites. Recycled HDPE from milk bottles was chosen as a
matrix material in this investigation.because of its low cost,
abundance, ability to be easily identified and recycled, and

because it is not considered suitable for direct food contact

4
applications. Also, previous studies indicate that recycled
HDPE milk bottles have nearly the same mechanical properties
as virgin resins (Yam, et a1, 1988). HDPE by itself is
limited in its use for structural applications, due to its low
stiffness and high creep. But if it is reinforced with a
stiff and strong filler, these limitations may be overcome.
The filler being investigated in this study is Aspen Hardwood
Fibers. Advantages of wood fiber include its low density,

abundance, high strength-to-weight ratio, and low cost.

Prior studies investigating the mechanical properties of wood
fiber/HDPE composites have shown very little improvement over
unreinforced HDPE (Kalyankar, 1989). This is not surprising
since wood fibers are polar and hydrophilic, while HDPE is
nonpolar and hydrophobic. The role of the matrix material is
to bind the fibers and protect them. Although some bonding
may occur' purely by ‘the mechanical interlocking of two
surfaces, this bonding is not strong enough to prevent the
composite from having poor mechanical properties. In the
absence of a strong bond between the matrix and fibers, the

two may separate. 'This type of failure is known as debonding.

Prior research has shown that the inclusion of some additives
will enhance mechanical properties (Nieman, 1989 and Real,
1990) . Better dispersion of the fibers in the matrix will aid

in "wetting” of the fibers. This will allow the fibers to be

5
totally enclosed by the matrix, which could possibly enhance
mechanical properties. For this reason materials that are
known dispersants will be considered as possible additives.
Prior research.has also shown that coupling agents are able to
act as a bridge between the filler and.matrixu Microscopy has
revealed, by implication, that no more than the equivalent of
a monolayer of coupling agent on appropriate surfaces is
sufficient to promote good bonding (Sterman and Bradley,

1961).

The effects of the inclusion of additives on a composite of
Aspen Hardwood fibers and recycled HDPE were investigated in
this study. The four additives investigated were: Ionomer
Modified Polyethylene (Surlyn), Maleic Anhydride Modified
Polypropylene (MAPP), and. two Low' IMolecular' Weight
Polypropylenes (Proflow 1000 and Proflow 3000). The effects
of Surlyn and MAPP were studied at 1%, 3% and 5% weight
ratios. Prior research incorporating Surlyn and MAPP as
additives in a HDPE/Wood Fiber composite, showed potential for
improving the adhesion between the wood fibers and the HDPE
(Nieman, 1989 and Real, 1990). Part of this study involved
continuing to investigate these findings. It is believed that
Proflow 1000 and.Proflow 3000 provide better dispersion of the
fibers, due to decreasing the viscosity of the mix. The
effects of these additives were studied utilizing 5% additive

because this was a preliminary screening study only.

LITERATURE REVIEW

LITERATURE REVIEW

composite Materials

mm

Since the development of civilization, there have been records
of composite materials. In order to diminish shrinkage during
the drying and shattering in the firing process, crushed rock
and organic materials were mixed with pottery clay, as early
as 5000 B.C.. The history of polymer based composites is
recorded in the books of Genesis and Exodus in the Bible and
can be traced to the Babylonians around 4000 - 2000 B.C.
(Richardson, 1977). River boats were constructed at this time
in Egypt and. Mesopotamia. using bundles of papyrus reed
embedded in a matrix of bitumen. The origins of complex
materials can be traced to ancient times and are a very vital

part of civilization today.

Finding a definitive definition of a composite material is a
very difficult process and has become a very controversial
area of debateu There is an agreement among most sources that
in order for a material to be considered a composite, it must
be combined in such a way that it produces a material with a
more complex structure, but the constituents substantially
retain their uniqueness (Richardson, 1977) . In addition,
materials can be considered a composite if they are composed

of: 1)one matrix (or continuous phase) and one or more

7
disperse phases or 2 ) two or more continuous phases and one

more dispersed phase in each continuous phase.

Virtually every known commercially produced thermoset has been
used as a matrix and embedded with reinforcing agents or
fillers, at an experimental stage. Thermosets such as cross-
linked polyester resins, expoxides, phenolformaldehyde resins,
Silicones, and melamine-formaldehyde resins are among the most
commonly used as matrix materials. Silicones are used for
electrical and aerospace applications. Polyesters are used to
make corrugated sheeting, boats, tanks, and piping, to name a
few of its applications. Polyesters are often chosen as a
continuous phase because reinforcing agents can be easily

incorporated within the matrix.

As with thermosets, virtually every known commercially
produced thermoplastic could or has been utilized as a matrix
material. Thermoplastics are generally considered to have
poor mechanical properties compared to mild steel. Therefore
various studies have been conducted to try and improve its
mechanical properties, by incorporating reinforcing agents and
fillers. For example, by incorporating 20 - 40% glass fibers
into a nylon 66 matrix, properties such as modulus, tensile
strength, hardness, and creep resistance are increased
substantially (Brydson, 1975). The type of filler used as a

reinforcement is very important, since the final properties of

8
the composite are naturally controlled by the properties and
quantities of the component materials. The filler should
provide maximum improvement of desired physical properties, be
inexpensive and readily available, have good dispersion and
wetting characteristics, and be available in controlled

particle sizes, among other desired requirements.

Interface and Interphase Regions

"Within any composite material there must be at least two
discernible component phases which inevitably, by definition,
must be separated by an interface and interphase region"
(Richardson, 1977 ) . The interface and interphase regions
greatly influence the properties of the final composite
material. Mechanical strength can only be achieved by the
uniform efficient transfer of stress between matrix and
fibers, via a strong interfacial bond. The strength of the
interfacial bond. is (also .responsible for' promoting' good
environmental performance even when the composite is loaded.
As stated earlier, the role of the matrix is to bind the
fibers together and protect them from environmental
conditions. With these factors in mind, many fibers and
reinforcing' agents are jpre-treated. before ‘they are
incorporated into a composite. A common pretreatment uses a
coupling agent that acts as a bridge between the filler and
the matrix, thus creating a stronger bond between the two.

Research has shown that very small additions of a coupling

9
agent are sufficient to promote good bonding and improve

mechanical properties.

Also, it is believed that it is essential to have good
"wetting" of the fibers in order to increase adhesion and
produce a strong composite. With increased dispersion, the
fibers will be "wetted out" or totally enclosed by the matrix.
Absorption alone can produce increased adhesion between the
fibers and matrix. But, upon examining the surface
wettability of a composite, it shows that improved surface
wettability can be thought of as a secondary concern in

improving fiber/matrix bonding.

When producing a composite material it is very difficult to
simultaneously improve properties such as stiffness,
mechanical strength, and toughness. In order to achieve
mechanical strength you must obtain uniform transfer of stress
between matrix and fibers while producing a strong bond at the
interface. An entire field of research has been devoted to
understanding the mechanisms involved in resolving the tensile
strength/toughness dilemma. This can be explained in part by
the behavior and character of the interface. Controlled
debonding at the interface has been shown to promote tensile
strength while impairing toughness, in glass fiber/polyester
laminates (Richardson, 1977). Good adhesion between filler

and plastic is desirable because it improves strength, but

10
unfortunately it increases the tendency to brittle failure and
makes the material more notch sensitive (Richardson, 1977).
In addition, impact behavior can be explained by considering
the reinforcement of brittle matrices and ductile matrices.
In the case of ductile matrices (e.g., polyethylene), the
triaxial restraint of the matrix between fibers limits the
elongation of the matrix, and thus addition of rigid fibers
greatly reduces the toughness (Agarwal and Broutman, 1980).
On the other hand, addition of fibers to a brittle matrix
(e.g., polystyrene) can increase toughness because of crack
blunting, branching, and arrest effects (Agarwal and Broutman,
1980) . Although the interfacial condition significantly
influences the mechanical behavior of a composite material, it

is only one of several factors involved.

We

One of the most important factors determining the properties
of composites is the relative proportions of the matrix and
reinforcing' material (Agarwal and. Broutman, 1980). The
properties of these constituents, their distribution and
physical and chemical interactions, will be the most important
parameters controlling mechanical properties. The relative
proportions are commonly given as weight fractions or volume
fractions. Definitions of the volume fractions and weight
fractions are.as follows (throughout, the subscripts c, f, and

m are consistently used to represent the composite material,

11
fibers, and matrix material, respectively): (Agarwal and

Broutman, 1980)

 

 

 

 

Vf - vf ; Vm = vm where vc = vf + vm (1)
vc vc

Wf = wf ; Wm = wm where wc = wf + wm (2)
we WC

By incorporating density in the equations, an equation
relating volume fractions and weight fractions can be

derived: (Agarwal and Broutman, 1980)

(4)

where: p is equal to density

Due to voids in the composite, density calculated
theoretically from weight fractions may not always be
equivalent to the experimentally determined density. The
difference in densities will be the void content and the
volume fraction of voids can be calculated by: (Agarwal and

Broutman, 1980)

12

P ' 9
VV = CC 09 (5)
Pc:
where: pct = theoretically determined density
pce = experimentally determined density
Vv = volume fraction of voids

Although the properties of a composite can be determined by
experimental methods, it may not be cost effective to do so
and the process may be time consuming. Mathematical models
for studying properties such as tensile strength and modulus
of elasticity have been developed and are quite accurate.
These models can help in deciding whether or not to proceed
with fabrication of the composite. The stress at a given

strain can be calculated thus: (Agarwal and Broutman, 1980)

ac = (3th + (3me (6)

and the elastic modulus can be calculated as follows:

(Agarwal and Broutman, 1980)

13

EC = Efvf + 15'me (7)

The equations represent a relationship known as the rule of
mixtures, which implies that the contributions of the fibers
and the matrix to the composite properties are proportional to
their volume fractions. As stated earlier, the composite
properties are greatly influenced by the concentration of its
constituents. When defining short-fiber composites,
mathematical models that are based on continuous fiber
composites and/or composites where the fiber length is
significantly greater than the length of stress transfer, have
to incorporate corrections in stress or volume fraction.of the

fibers, V“.

Composites that are embedded with short fibers are often
called discontinuous fiber reinforced composites. In short
fiber composites the fibers are loaded indirectly and the
strength of the matrix and the interfacial bond determine the
mechanical properties. The mechanical properties of the
composite will only be maximized if the fibers arejparallel to
the loading direction and if the fibers are uniform in their
strength values. Also, the transfer of stress from.matrix to

fibers will be less efficient with misoriented fibers.

Internal material failure may be caused by a)microcracking of

14
the matrix, b)breaking of the fibers, and c)separation of
fibers from the matrix or debonding. Microcracking of the
matrix starts with a buildup of stress concentrations at the
fiber ends. This buildup can cause the fiber ends to become
separated from the matrix at very small loads and produce a
microcrack in the matrix. If the microcrack propagates
parallel or in.a direction normal to the fibers, it could lead
to complete composite failure. The bond between the matrix
and the fibers at the interface is an important factor, since
the interface is responsible for transmitting the load from
the matrix to the fibers. The mode of propagation of
microcracks will be controlled by the interface. If there is
a strong bond.between.the matrix and fibers, the interface may
prevent the propagation of microcracks along the fiber

lengths.

A cohesive failure can occur, which involves breaking of the
fibers. Separation of the twijhaSes can also occur, which is
referred to as debonding. This is an adhesive failure. The
bond strength is an important measurement in determining the
type of failure. Due to the inherent problems with preparing
wood fiber samples, and the high degree of precision required
for testing the bond strength, satisfactory test methods for
bond strength are not available. Fortunately, bond strength
can be determined by performing tests with single fibers.

This test can generate data on shear strength of the

15
interfacial bond. The relationship between compressive stress

and shear stress is as follows: (Hull, 1981)

= 2.50c (8)

where: compressive stress

0
II

t = shear stress

In order to determine the shear strength of the interface,
applied compressive stress at which debonding is initially
detected, can be obtained experimentally. Also, by using the
following formula a value for tensile strength of the

interface can be determined: (Hull, 1981)

(1+Vf-2Vt2) Em

 

(9)

l-

where: a stress perpendicular to the fibers

net section compressive stress (load

0
ll

divided by minimum area)

v = Poisson’s ratio of the matrix

16

Poisson's ratio of the fiber

<
H
II

I31
ll

Young’s modulus

During fabrication the composite will also undergo stresses
caused by the fabrication process. The fabrication
temperature and.the.difference in the thermal expansion of the
constituents can cause these stresses (Agarwal and Broutman,
1980). They are known as residual stresses and can aid in the

failure of the composite.

The strength of a composite is greatly influenced by the
lengths of the fibers. A long fiber has a greater chance of
having a section that is weak and therefore long fibers are
not very strong. As discussed earlier, loads are not applied
directly to the fibers, but are transferred by the matrix to
the fibers through the fiber ends and also through the
cylindrical surface of the fibers. The end effects can be
neglected when the fiber length is significantly greater than
the length over which the transfer takes place. But, when
dealing with short-fiber composites the effects of the fiber
ends become extremely important. Analyzing the stress
transfer for short-fiber composites is done by considering
the equilibrium of a small element of fiber such that:

(Agarwal and Broutman, 1980)

17

(nr2)a[ + (2nrdz)1: = (1tr2)(af + dot) (10)

which equals: ——— =‘——

where: r = fiber radius
r = shear stress on the cylindrical fiber
matrix interface
dz = infinitesimal fiber length

This equation implies that the fiber stress increases at a
rate proportional to the shear stress at the interface, for a
fiber of uniform. radius“ Therefore .by integrating the
equation, fiber stress at cross-sectional distance 2 from the
fiber end can be determined as follows: (Agarwal and Broutman,

1980)

of = 01.0 + g I: tdz (11)

where: on, = stress on fiber ends

The maximum fiber stress, which occurs at midfiber length for
short fibers can be calculated as follows: (Agarwal and

Broutman, 1980)

18

t l
(of)max = —}— (12)
where: knJmax = the maximum fiber stress

11 = the matrix yield stress in shear
r = the fiber radius
1 = the fiber length

The load transfer length (1,) , which is the smallest length the
fiber can be in order for the maximum fiber stress to occur,

is given as: (Agarwal and Broutman, 1980)

.2, _ (of)max

7? 2:1 (13)

where d (=2r) which is the fiber diameter; The critical fiber
length, 1%, is the smallest acceptable fiber length in which
the maximum allowable fiber stress can occur and is given as:

(Agarwal and Broutman, 1980)

19

1c Ofu

_ = __ 1

d 21:Y ( 4)
where: am = maximum allowable fiber stress

The load-transfer length and critical fiber length are often
referred to as the ineffective length. These lengths are
termed as ineffective because it is over these lengths that
the fiber can support stresses up to the:maximum fiber stress.
In a short-fiber composite the fiber ends lower the elastic
modulus and strength. The fiber modulus must be greater than
the matrix modulus in order to obtain high stresses in the

fibers.

20
Prior Research
Within this decade composites will become a dominant segment
of the plastics industry. The competition in high-volume
markets for moderately priced products is encouraging a search
for composites that can offer a new balance of product
quality, performance, and cost. The following is a review of

selected prior research in this area.

Nieman (1989) studied the effects of the inclusion of
additives in HDPE/wood fiber composites. The five additives
investigated were: Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE), Stearic
Acid, Chlorinated Polyethylene, Maleic Anhydride Modified
Polypropylene (MAPP), and Ionomer Modified Polyethylene
(Surlyn). The mechanical properties evaluated were tensile
properties, impact strength, water sorption, and creep. The
specimens were also analyzed using scanning electron
microscopy (SEM). Enhancement of tensile properties, creep,
and water sorption were achieved with the inclusion of MAPP,
while the inclusion of LDPE and Stearic acid were determined
ineffective. Surlyn displayed positive results in tensile
properties, creep, and water sorption, while the chlorinated
polyethylene showed little effect either way. These results
indicate that there may be an increase in interfacial bonding

due to the inclusion of MAPP and Surlyn.

Keal (1990) studied the effects of dual additive systems on

21
the mechanical properties of Aspen hardwood fiber/recycled
HDPE composites. The additives investigated were Stearic
Acid, Maleic Anhydride Modified Polypropylene, Stearic Acid,
and Ionomer Modified.Polyethylene. The mechanical properties
evaluated were impact strength, tensile properties, and creep.
Improvement in tensile strength and creep was observed for all
additives studied. Improvement in impact strength was only
noted in the Stearic acid/Ionomer Modified Polyethylene
additive system. Although the dual additive systems showed
improvement in some mechanical properties, they offered no

significant improvement over using single additives.

Raj et al (1988) studied the effects of various isocyanates as
bonding agents for composites of aspen wood fibers and linear
low density (LLDPE) and high density (HDPE) polyethylenes.
Three procedures were employed to coat the aspen fibers in a
roll mill. Procedure 1 involved.mixing aspen fibers (15.09),
isocyanate (1.359), polymer (HDPE or LLDPE, 4.59), and
maleated propylene wax (2.0g). Procedure 2 involved mixing
aspen fibers (15.09), maleic anhydride (1.09), polymer (HDPE
or LLDPE, 4.59), and an initiator di-t butyl peroxide (0.3g).
Procedure 3 involved mixing aspen fibers (15.09) , maleic
anhydride (4.59), di-t butyl peroxide (0.89), and polymer
(HDPE or LLDPE, 4.59) . The following isocyanates were used as
bonding agents: 1) Polymethylene (polyphenyl isocyanate), 2)

Tolene -2-4-diisocyanate, 3) 1-6 Hexamethylene diisocyanate,

22
and 4) Ethyl isocyanate. The bonding agents improved the
tensile properties of the composites. In regards to the two
polymers, HDPE performed better than the LLDPE composites.
Also, higher tensile strength and tensile modulus was noted in
the HDPE composite with short fibers as the reinforcement.
The effectiveness of wood fibers in terms of cost and
performance was demonstrated with the comparison of composites

of HDPE with aspen fibers, mica, and glass fibers.

Patfoort and Bucquoye (1981) studied the effect of fiber
length, fiber content, fiber coating content, number of plies,
palm-glass fiber combinations, three different types of
polymeric fiber coatings, and selected formulations of a
polyester resin on a composite material based on palm fibers.
Palm fibers ‘were found. to be equal in ‘their physical,
chemical, and tensile properties to other very well known
natural hard fibers. Even though the palm fibers were found
to be inferior in tensile strength and modulus compared to
glass fibers, reinforcing with glass was found to be twice as
expensive in relation to its strength. When the fiber length
exceeded 9 cm there was no significant improvement in tensile
properties. When poly(vinyl alcohol) was used as the
interfacial agent, it was shown that the tensile properties
for the palm fiber composites, were directly proportional to
the volumetric fiber concentration. Palm-glass fiber

combinations increased. the. flexural strength. and 'tensile

23
properties significantly. An increase in mechanical
properties was noted for the poly(vinyl acetate) and
poly(vinyl alcohol) coated composites, with poly(vinyl
acetate) exhibiting the best. The 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate
coated fibers did not seem to improve the tensile and flexural
properties. The strength/price ratio was found to be

favorable to the natural fiber composites.

Owolabi et a1 (1985) investigated the mechanical properties of
composites of coconut hair and thermosetting press materials.
The reinforcing filler in this investigation was coconut
fibers, imported in the form of coarse-fiber rope. The
bonding agents investigated were a resale-type phenol-
formaldehyde (PF) resin and a novolac-type PF resin. The
composition of the resale-type PF composite (parts by weight)
was approximately resale-type PF resin 40; chopped coconut
fiber 58; M90 1; Zn-stearate 1. The composition (parts by
weight) of the novolac-type PF composite was approximately
novolac-type PF resin 58; chopped coconut fiber 35; M90 1; Zn-
stearate 1; hexamethylene-tetramin 5. Unsaturated polyester
was also used as a bonding agent and the materials were
produced on the basis of the following (parts by weight):
unsaturated polyester binder 100; CaCo3 filler 75; M90 3;
styrene monomer 12; Zn-stearate 2.5; tert-butyl perbenzoate
1.25; and chopped fibrous reinforcement 100. The type and

quantity as well as pretreatment of the chopped fibrous

24
reinforcement was changed from glass fibers to coconut fibers.
The coconut fibers were pre-treated in some cases in order to
achieve better coupling between the fibers and the polymer.
The first method of pretreatment involved treating the fibers
with a dilute NaOH solution at lowkrfor 1.5 hrs. The second
method involved preirradiating the coconut fibers and the
third method was a combination of methods 1 8 2. As
precondensation time increased, the compressive strength
increased, the impact strength decreased and the flexural
strength remained about the same for the PF (resole)-bound
coconut fiber composite. Using NaOH as a pretreatment
enhanced the mechanical properties of almost all the
composites. A ratio of 58/42 between the matrix and fibers
was found to be the optimum mix. For the novolac-type PF
resin the only improvement. was seen in ‘the. compressive
strength of the composite. The composites using unsaturated
polyester as the binding material produced some interesting
results, in that there was not a significant decrease in
tensile strength when the composites reinforcing filler was
changed from glass fibers to coconut fibers. However, the
tensile modulus and impact strength for the unsaturated
polyester/coconut fiber composite was well below that of the
unsaturated polyester/glass fiber composite. Also, even
though the flexural strength decreased when glass fibers were
changed to coconut fibers in the composite, the pre-treated

coconut fibers increased the flexural strength significantly

25
compared to the composites with untreated coconut fibers. It
was found that in glass—fiber reinforced UP press materials,
a significant part of the glass filler can be changed to

coconut fibers.

Adams (1988) evaluated the curing, rheology, water resistance,
flame generation, smoke generation, and laminate physical
properties of a composite of unsaturated polyester and several
different brands of gypsum. The gypsum-filled systems were
compared to a composite of fiberglass, alumina trihydrate
(ATH) and calcium carbonate (CC). For the gypsum-filled
systems with about the same exotherm temperatures, the gel
times and gel-to-peak times were slightly faster. Exotherm
temperatures decreased for all systems, as filler loading
increased. The thixotropic indexes were higher for the
gypsum-filled systems than for the ATH/CC systems and
increased with filler loading in the gypsum systems, while
remaining almost constant in the ATH/CC systems. All
laminates exhibited excellent water resistance and physical-
mechanical properties. Also, the flame spread of all samples
was less than 200 and smoke generation was less than 600. The
results indicate that the composites performance is

maintained.

Maldas and Kokta (1989) evaluated under various aging

conditions the mechanical properties and dimensional stability

26
of aspen hardwood fiber/polystyrene composites. The
reinforcing filler was in the form of chemithermomechanical
pulp. The aging conditions under which the composite was
evaluated were: variations in the testing temperature,
exposure to boiling water, and heating in an oven at +105%L
Poly[methylene(polyphenyl isocyanate)] was used as a coupling
agent to overcome incompatibility of the two constituents.
Other variables investigated were the influence of the
coupling agent and treatments such as coating and grafting.
The treated composites showed superior mechanical properties
and better dimensional stability compared to the non-treated
fiber-filled composites. Also, the mechanical properties and
dimensional stability of the treated composites were better
when compared to those studied at ambient conditions. “It is
believed that the treated composites showed greater resistance
under the different aging conditions, due to an efficient and

strong interfacial bond.

Jindal (1986) investigated the mechanical behavior of
composites composed of bamboo fibers and Araldite (CIBA-CY
230). Tensile strength, tensile modulus and impact strength
were measured. The bamboo fiber obtained for this study is
known as Dendrocalamus Strictus and was procured from the
market in a semi dried condition. The results obtained showed
that the yield and ultimate tensile strengths of the

composites increased with the increasing volume fraction of

27
fibers. The experimentally determined values for tensile
strength were nearly twice the values determined
theoretically. Although the impact tests showed that notching
the samples had no effect on impact strength, the impact
strength values obtained were poor. The composites' tensile
strength was approximately equal to the tensile strength of
mild steel, although the density of the composite is only 1/8
the density of mild steel. These results are very promising,
showing that this material may eventually be useful in light

weight structural applications.

Bataille et al (1990) studied the mechanical properties of
composites of cellulose fibers and low density (LLDPE) and
high density (HDPE) polyethylenes. Benzoyl peroxide (BPO) and
dicumyl peroxide (DCP) were used as adhesion modifiers. The
LLDPE matrix was LL-3030 from Esso Chemical Canada. The HDPE
was supplied by Union Carbide and the cellulose fibers used
were a highly bleached hardwood pulp from Sigma Chemical Co.
The cellulose fibers were treated with a coupling agent using
two methods. Method 1 involved depositing the coupling agent
from methanol/water solution adjusted to Ph 3 with acetic
acid. Method 2 involved mixing the cellulosic fibers with a
silane/dichloromethane solution and evaporating the solvent.
Two methods for application of the peroxides were also used.
Method 1 (MS) involved treating the cellulosic fibers with a

methanol solution containing BPO and then removing the

28
solvent. JMethod 2 (DM) involved adding the BPO and DCP to the
polyethylene/cellulose mixture during processing. The
addition of BPO lead to a significant increase in the yield
strength compared to either the untreated material or the
silane treated composites. Adding BPO using method 1 was not
as effective as method 2. The yield strength of the
LLDPE/cellulose composite increased by 70% while the composite
with HDPE as a matrix increased by only 15%. These results
were obtained when using BPO and mixing the components at
160°C. It was found that if DCP replaces BPO the yield
strength maximizes at a lower concentration indicating that it
may be more efficient. Also, yield strength for the
cellulose/LLDPE system, pre-treated with silane, showed a
relatively small improvement as compared to the effect of the

peroxides addition.

Simpson (1991) evaluated mechanical properties of aspen
hardwood fiber/recycled polypropylene (PP) composites versus
aspen hardwood fiber/virgin PP composites. The recycled PP
matrix material consisted of reground multi-layer ketchup
bottles which were composed of: ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVAL
Solarnol DC), adhesive (Mitsui Monoply MT38), and PP (Soltex
4104). The reinforcing filler consisted of aspen hardwood
fibers in the form of thermomechanical pulp (TMP) . Aspen
fiber ratios of 30%, 40%, and 50% were incorporated in the

matrix material. The effect of fiber orientation on the

29
mechanical properties was also evaluated. Optimum tensile
strength was reached at 30% fiber loading. In regards to
orientation, tensile strength was greatest in the lengthwise
direction. The % elongation decreased as fiber loadings
increased. Both composites exhibited an increase in impact
strength and water sorption as fiber loadings increased. They
also exhibited poor dimensional stability under extreme
environmental conditions. The recycled PP/aspen fiber
composite generally displayed better mechanical properties

under normal and extreme environmental conditions.

EXPERIMENTAL

EXPERIMENTAL

Materials

High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) dairy bottles were supplied
by Peninsular Products Co. The bottles were cut into quarters
and granulated into resin using a Lowline Granulator Model 68-
913, from Polymer Machinery Corp. HDPE is fabricated at 150°C
and 30 atm with a catalyst. It has a regular structure, which
means its' chains are almost completely linear. For every 200
main chains (carbon atoms) it has less than 1 side chain or
branches. In general, a polymer must have a regular structure
in order to be crystalline. HDPE is very crystalline, being
between 65-90% crystalline. The crystallinity of a polymer
affects its properties. Usually, crystalline materials are
highly packed together and are very dense. The density of
HDPE is between 0.94-0.965 g/cc. The advantages of highly
crystalline materials are that they are stiffer, have high
tensile strengths, and have low oxygen permeability. A
disadvantage is that they tend to be brittle. HDPE has a melt
temperature between 130-135°C and a glass transition
temperature of -120°C. It is also hydrophobic and nonpolar in

nature. The structure of HDPE can be found in Appendix D.

Aspen hardwood fibers were chosen as the reinforcing filler
for this study. Four types of cells are present in most

hardwood species: fibers, vessel segments, and axial and

30

31
transverse parenchyma. ZFibers are jpolar in nature and
hydrophilic. They are crystalline and the cell walls contain
40-60% cellulose and 20-30% lignin. They are thick-walled,
elongated cells with closed pointed ends. The fibers were in
the form of thermomechanical pulp (TMP) . This mechanical
pulping process is one in which the fibers retain primarily
all of its lignin and natural waxes, because during the
pulping process a minimum amount of damage occurs to the
lignin or hemicellulose. The lignin and natural waxes in wood
fibers can. aid fiber’ dispersion. in. nonpolar lhydrocarbon
polymers (Simpson, 1991). Natural fibers are often chosen as
fillers due to ‘their low' cost (approximately $ 0.10/lb
including freight), availability, stiffness and strength. The
load will be transferred from the HDPE matrix through the
fiber ends and over the length of the fibers, which are
typically 0.7-3 mm long (Nieman, 1989). The fibers are
conditioned for at least 40 hr at 22°C and 50% RH before
combining them with HDPE. The structure of the fibers can be

found in Appendix D.

The four additives investigated in this study were: Ionomer
Modified Polyethylene (Surlyn) , Maleic Anhydride Modified
Polypropylene (MAPP) , and two low molecular weight
polypropylenes (Proflow 1000 and Proflow 3000) . Table 1 lists

the additives and gives a brief description of each.

32

Table 1. List of Additives

 

Additives

1. Ionomer Modified Polyethylene (Surlyn 1605, Du Pont);
Cost = $1.27/lb./truckload.

2. Maleic Anhydride Modified Polypropylene, MAPP
(Hercoprime, Himont); Cost = $12.00/lb.

3. Low Molecular Weight Polypropylene (Proflow 1000,
Polyvisions); Cost = $1.37/lb./truckload.

4. Low Molecular Weight Polypropylene (Proflow 3000,
Polyvisions); Cost = $1.41/lb./truckload.

 

Ionomer modified polyethylene (Surlyn) was selected because of
its.polar nature» iHDPE is nonpolar in nature and.hydrophobic,
while the wood fibers are polar and hydrophilic. The polar
nature of Surlyn and its ionic bonds may assist in producing
a strong interfacial bond. Surlyn is a thermoplastic material
that is very tough, flexible, transparent, and will adhere to
metals, polyolefins and nylons (Nieman, 1989). It also has
excellent abrasion resistance and is very compatible with the

filler. The structure of Surlyn can be found in Appendix D.

Maleic Anhydride Modified Polypropylene (MAPP) is a coupling
agent. A coupling agent is commonly used as a pretreatment
and is believed to act as a bridge between the filler and the
matrix. Very small amounts of the coupling agent are said to

produce significant improvements in mechanical properties.

33
Microscopy has revealed that only a monolayer of coupling
agent is sufficient to improve the bond between the fiber and
matrix (Sterman and Bradley, 1961) . Coupling agents also
tighten up the polymer structure at the interface while still
being involved with chemical bonding with the fibers. Without
a strong bond between the matrix and the fibers, the two can
easily be separated. A strong interfacial bond is also very
important in promoting good environmental performance and
aiding in increasing transverse strengths. The structure of

MAPP can be found in Appendix D.

Low'Molecular Weight Polypropylenes (Proflow 1000 and Proflow
3000) have the properties associated with high molecular
weight polypropylene resins, but differ in their melt flow
properties. They rapidly transform to low melt viscosity at
their melting points, which allows them. to be readily
dispersed into other plastics. It was hypothesized that the
Proflow resins would provide better dispersion of the fibers,
due to decreasing the viscosity of the mix (Bourland, 1988).
Proflow 1000 is an isotactic homopolymer with a melting point
of 161°C, while Proflow 3000 is an isotactic copolymer with a
melting point of 142°C. The Proflow resins have a narrow
molecular weight distribution centered around a peak of
40,000, which allows than to be useful as unique flow and
processing modifiers. The structure of the Proflow resins can

be found in Appendix D.

34

Methods

To form the composite each additive was first mixed with the
granulated HDPE. In order to establish a good mixture, the
bag containing the additive and HDPE was thoroughly shaken.
All composites were approximately 40% by weight Aspen hardwood
fibers. The effects of Surlyn and MAPP were studied at
approximately 1%, 3%, and 5% weight ratios. The effects of
Proflow 1000 and Proflow 3000 were studied utilizing
approximately 5% additive. Duplicate batches of each
composite concentrations were run. (See appendix A for actual
concentrations of constituents incorporated in the

composites).

The wood fibers and HDPE were combined in a co-rotating twin
screw extruder (Baker Perkin.Model MPC/V-30 DE, 38 mm, 13:1).
The extruder is heated in three sections called zones. The
left section is called zone 1, the middle section is called
zone 2, and the right section is called zone 3. The die,
which is where the material exists the extruder, is also
heated and is connected to the end of zone 3. The parameters
of the extruder were set as follows: compounder speed, 200
rpm’s; compounder’ % load, 105; discharge pressure, 900;
discharge temperature, 150°C; barrel valve, 15; feed rate, 3.
The three extruder zones including the die were all preheated
to 150°C. This temperature was maintained throughout the

extrusion process by the use of water as a coolant. After

35

thoroughly mixing the additive with HDPE, the mixture was
placed in the extruder's hopper. HDPE regrind was fed into
zone 1 of the extruder for approximately 20 minutes. This
ensured that the extruder zones did not contain any unwanted
contaminants. The polymer was then conveyed from the hopper
to the extruder and pre-melted in zone 1. The advantages of
adding the fibers to a pre-melted polymer are to reduce fiber
damage and gain better dispersion.

As the material exited the die, it was cut into approximately
12 cm lengths. The extruded material was compression molded
into sheets. The compression molding was done using a Carver
laboratory press compression molding machine, model M25 ton.
The temperature of the upper and lower platens was set to
150°C and the press was allowed to preheat for 15 minutes.
For tensile and creep testing, three lengths of material were
placed in. a 15 x 15 x 0.25 cm frame. Chrome plates
approximately 18 x 18 cm were placed underneath and over the
frame and lengths of material to form a flat sheet from the
extrudate, during compression molding. Mylar was also used
between the chrome plates and frame to minimize sticking.

This configuration was known as a "sandwich".

The ”sandwich" was placed on the lower platen and after
closing the hydraulic chamber, pressure was applied gradually

until it reached 30,000 psi. The "sandwich" was kept under

36
pressure for approximately ten minutes. The temperature was
reduced to room temperature and water was used to cool the
compression molded sheet. After fifteen minutes of cooling
the pressure was released and the "sandwich" was removed. The
same procedure was used to compression mold sheets for impact
and water sorption tests, except the "sandwich" was formed
with a 12.7 x 12.7 x 0.3175 cm frame and two lengths of
material. Approximately three sheets can be compression

molded from 300 grams of material.

Tensile properties were determined following ASTM standard P
638 -86, Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of
Plastics. The test was performed on dumbbell-shaped Type I
specimens. To achieve the dimensions specified in the
standard, the sheets were first cut into 0.75 in. (1.91 cm)
thick strips. Then a tensilkut cutting machine was employed
to achieve the dumbbell shape with a narrow section measuring
0.5 in. (1.27 cm). The specimens were conditioned at 23¢;2k:
and 50 i 5% RH for not less than 40 hrs, before being tested.
The specimens were tested on an Instron Tester Model 4201 at
ambient conditions (23°C, 50% RH). The parameters of the
Instron were set as follow: full scale load of 400 lbs.,
chart speed of 2 in./min, and crosshead speed of 2 in./min.
Sandpaper was used on the sample ends in order to avoid
slippage of the specimens in the grips. In accordance with

the standard, specimens that did not break within the narrow

37
section were discarded. Tensile strength, % elongation at
break, and modulus of elasticity were calculated using the

following formulas:

Tensile Strength =

 

Maximnn Egrge (15)

Original Minimum Cross-sectional Area

Peak Extensign X 100 (16)
Original Gage Length

% Elongation at Break

 

Modulus of Elasticity = Stress ' (17)
Strain
where: Stress = Force;
Original Minimum Cross-sectional Area
Strain = '

W
Original Gage length

Izod impact strength was determined following ASTM Standard D
256 -81, Standard. Test. Method for' Impact Resistance. of
Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials. To achieve the
dimensions specified in the standard, the sheets were cut into
0.5 x 2.5 in. (1.27 x 6.35 cm) strips. The specimens were
notched using the TMI Notching Cutter. When the specimen is
notched, it will exhibit a brittle fracture rather than a
ductile fracture. The specimens were conditioned at 23 1 2%:
and 50.: 5% RH for not less than 40 hrs., before being tested.
The specimens were tested on a TMI 43-1 Izod Impact Tester

with a 5 ft-lb pendulum load at ambient conditions. The

38
Impact Tester was calibrated, then the sample was positioned
in the clamp with a jig. The pendulum was released and the

type of break and impact strength in ft.lb./in. was recorded.

Water absorption was determined following ASTM Standard D 570
- 81, Standard Test Method for Water Absorption of Plastics.
The test specimens were in the form of disks 2 in. (5.1 cm) in
diameter and 0.125 in. (0.3175 cm) in thickness. The samples
were conditioned by drying them in an oven for 24 hr at 50 i
3°C, cooling them in a desiccator, and then immediately
weighing them to the nearest 0.001 g. The 2-hr boiling water
immersion procedure was used to determine water absorption.
The conditioned specimens were placed in a container of
boiling distilled water for 120 i 4 minutes. Throughout the
test the specimens were supported on edge and kept completely
immersed by a series of racks. After the allotted time, the
specimens were withdrawn one at a time, all surface water
removed, and weighed to the nearest 0.001 9 immediately. The

increase in weight, in %, was calculated by the following

equation:

Increase in weight, %

= W . - and 'o d wt. X 100 (18)
Conditioned wt.

CreepianalysiS‘was determined following ASTM Standard.D 2990 -

77, Standard Test Methods for Tensile, Compressive, and

39
Flexural Creep and Creep-Rupture of Plastics. The specimens
were cut identical to the specimens used to measure tensile
properties. Grips were attached to each end of the sample.
Sandpaper was used in order to avoid slippage of the
specimens. Fifty pound.wei9hts were attached to the bottomtof
the end. grips and creep extension was 'measured at set
increments specified in the standard, up to 700 hrs. The
specimens were conditioned prior to the test, at 23 -_I—_ 2°C and
50 i 5% RH for not less than 40 hrs. Creep extension was
measured by grip separation. The increase in length, in %,

was calculated by the following equation:

Increase in Length, %

= W X 100 (19)
Original Length

40

Results and Discussion

Besnlts - Tensile Properties

Results - Tensile Strength

The results of tensile strength are tabulated in Table 2 and
presented graphically in Figure 1. Statistical analysis
comparing batch 1 and batch 2 confirmed that there was not a
significant difference between the batches, therefore the
batches were combined. As can be seen from Figure 1 the
addition of MAPP increased tensile strength at all levels.
Statistical analysis resulted in a highly significant
treatment effect at all levels, with the addition of MAPP at
an alpha level of 0.05. Addition of 1% and 5% Surlyn produced
some positive results in tensile strength, but not at a
statistically significant level. Addition of Proflow 1000 had
little effect positive or negative, which was confirmed with
statistical analysis. Statistical analysis resulted in a non-
significant t value at an alpha level of 0.05. Addition of
Proflow 3000 decreased the tensile strength of the composites.
Statistical analysis confirmed that this was a significant
decrease. Compared to the composite without additives, the
highest increase in tensile strength occurred with the
inclusion of 5% MAPP and was approximately 38.9%. (See

Appendix B for data and Appendix C for statistical analysis)

41

Table 2. Results of Tensile Strength

 

TENSILE STRENGTH

(N/mz x 10”)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MATERIAL MEAN STD
60% HDPE, 40% FIBER 2.02 0.40
1% MAPP, 59% HDPE, 40% FIBER 2.91 0.30
3% MAPP, 57% HDPE, 40% FIBER 2.49 0.21
5% MAPP, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 3.30 0.48
I 1% SURLYN, 59% HDPE, 40% FIBER 2.03 0.53
3% SURLYN, 57% HDPE, 40% FIBER 1.83 0.25
5% SURLYN, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 2.08 0.25
5% PROFLOW 1000, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 1.97 0.26
5% PROFLOW 3000, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 1.68 0.27
--==-t 441- aL----

 

 

 

 

42

3 5 TENSILE STRENGTH (N/m2 x 10+7)

 

0% ADDITIVE
1% ADDITIVE
3% ADDITIVE
5% ADDITIVE

 

 

 

2.5 ........ . .................

0

60% HDPE MAPP SURLYN PFIOOO

(COMPOSITE)

Figure 1. Tensile Strength

 

PF3000

43

Results - Modulus of Elasticity

The values determined for modulus of elasticity are tabulated
in Table 3 and presented graphically in Figure 2. Statistical
analysis comparing batch 1 and batch 2 confirmed that there
was not a significant difference between the batches,
therefore the batches were combined. As can be seen from
Figure 2, inclusion of nearly all the additives produced
positive results for modulus of elasticity. For MAPP as the
level. of additive incorporated increased. the :modulus of
elasticity increased, but only addition of 5% MAPP was found
to be significantly different from the composite without
additives. For Surlyn, modulus of elasticity increased at all
levels, with the greatest increase noted at addition of 3%
additive. Also, compared to the composite without additives,
significant differences were found at inclusion of 3% and 5%
Surlyn at an alpha level of 0.05. Addition of Proflow 1000
and Proflow 3000 produced some positive results, but neither
additive was found to be significantly different from the
composite without additives. As with tensile strength,
inclusion of 5% MAPP produced the highest increase in modulus
of elasticity and was approximately 13.9%. (See Appendix B

for data and Appendix C for statistical analysis)

44

Table 3. Results of Modulus of Elasticity

 

MODULUS OF ELASTICITY

(ti/m2 x 10”)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MATERIAL MEAN STD

60% HDPE, 40% FIBER 7.91 1.05
1% MAPP, 59% HDPE, 40% FIBER 7.04 2.09
3% MAPP, 57% HDPE, 40% FIBER 7.71 0.76
5% MAPP, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 9.19 1.17
1% SURLYN, 59% HDPE, 40% FIBER 8.68 1.01
3% SURLYN, 57% HDPE, 40% FIBER 9.18 0.98
5% SURLYN, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 9.10 0.96
5% PROFLOW 1000, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 8.37 0.71
5% PROFLOW 3000, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 8.00 0.74

 

 

 

 

 

1O

0

45

MODULUS OF ELASTICITY (N/m2 x 104-8)

- 0% ADDITIVE
1s ADDITIVE
E as ADDITIVE
5s ADDITIVE

00$ HDPE MAPP SURLYN PF1000

(COMPOSITE)

Figure 2. Modulus of Elasticity

 

PF3000

46

Results - % Elongation at Break

Values determined for % elongation at break are summarized in
Table 4 and presented graphically in Figure 3. Statistical
analysis comparing batch 1 and batch 2 confirmed that there
was not a significant difference between the batches,
therefore the batches were combined. The inclusion of MAPP
resulted in an increase in % elongation at all levels. A
significant treatment effect was found with addition of 3%
MAPP, while highly significant treatment effects were found
with inclusion of 1% and 5% MAPP at an alpha level of 0.05.
As with tensile strength, incorporating 1% and 5% Surlyn
produced some positive results in % elongation, but not at a
statistically significant level. Although addition of 3%
Surlyn resulted in a significant decrease in % Elongation at
an alpha level of 0.05. Inclusion of Proflow 1000 and.Proflow
3000 had little effect on % elongation and was confirmed
through statistical analysis. The greatest increase in %
elongation for all additives occurred with.the inclusion of 5%
MAPP and was approximately 42.1%. (See Appendix B for data

and Appendix C for statistical analysis)

47

Table 4. Results of % Elongation at Break

 

ELONGATION AT BREAK

(%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MATERIAL MEAN STD

60% HDPE, 40% FIBER 3.81 0.93
1% MAPP, 59% HDPE, 40% FIBER 6.13 0.70
3% MAPP, 57% HDPE, 40% FIBER 5.06 1.02
5% MAPP, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 6.58 1.82
1% SURLYN, 59% HDPE, 40% FIBER 4.06 1.56
3% SURLYN, 57% HDPE, 40% FIBER 3.01 0.50
5% SURLYN, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 3.85 0.65
5% PROFLOW 1000, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 3.52 0.67
5% PROFLOW 3000, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 3.14 0.60

 

48

 

 

Elongation at Break (%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N\\\\N\\\N\\\
ewes W W W
m m m m _\\\\\\\\\\\.\\\\\
m m m m W
m. u w. m u .
- w m m w\\\\\\\ N\\.\m m\ :\
_ _L _I _ _ _ a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7//////// /// ///

 

 

N\N\\\\N \\_\N \\_N\.\.\ N\\_\ m. N\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F — H m —
H; L _ _ _ a L

 

 

7////// _///_/

I

 

_/ ////_ //// M0

Paws:

PFI 000

SURLYN

MAPP

 

 

7

(COMPOSITE)

% Elongation at Break

Figure 3.

49

Disgnssign - Tensile Pronegties

The tensile test has the ability to demonstrate the
composite's overall mechanical strength, which can give an
indication Of the way the composite will perform in other
tests. For these reasons the tensile test is considered the
most important test the composite material must endure. The
data Obtained from tensile tests are very useful for
qualitative characterization. There are a number of variables
that influence the properties of fibrous reinforced composite
materials and structures: (1) the interfacial bond between the
matrix and fibers, (2) the properties, size, shape, loading,
and alignment Of the fibers, and (3) processing technique
(Richardson, 1987) . The ability Of the matrix to efficiently
transfer stress to the fibers is increased with increased
adhesion between the matrix and the fibers. Using MAPP as an
additive in prior studies (Nieman, 1989 and Keal 1990) has
shown its ability to enhance tensile properties. This study
also showed MAPP's ability to enhance tensile properties.
MAPP is a coupling agent and very small amounts of coupling
agents have been shown to enhance mechanical properties
considerably. These results confirm MAPP's potential for
improving the adhesion between the recycled HDPE and wood
fibers. Dispersion Of the fibers is also a factor influencing
stress transfer, but seems to only be a secondary concern. It
is probably a secondary concern because adequate dispersion of

the fibers is achieved during processing. Also, although

50
better dispersion allows the fibers to be "wetted out" this
does not mean that it will promote good adhesion between
incompatible phases. The results Obtained from this study
seem to confirm this theory. Proflow 1000 and Proflow 3000
are dispersants but did not enhance the tensile properties Of
the composite. This may be due to achieving good dispersion,

while failing to Obtain good adhesion between the two phases.

51
Resutts - Izod Impact Strength
Results determined from Izod Impact Strength are summarized in
Table 5 and presented graphically in Figure 4. Statistical
analysis comparing batch 1 and batch 2 confirmed that there
was not a significant difference between the batches,
therefore the batches were combined. As can be seen from
Figure 4, the inclusion Of all additives decreased the impact
strength compared to the composite without additives. The
decrease in impact strength was found to be significantly
different for all additives at an alpha level Of 0.05.
Incorporating Proflow 1000 into the composite resulted in the
greatest decrease in impact strength, For MAPP and Surlyn.the
greatest decrease in impact strength was noted at 3% and 5%
levels respectively. (See Appendix B for data and.Appendix C

for statistical analysis)

52

Table 5. Results Izod Impact Strength

 

 

IZOD IMPACT STRENGTH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(J/m)
MATERIAL MEAN
60% HDPE, 40% FIBER 52.52
1% MAPP, 59% HDPE, 40% FIBER 47.83
3% MAPP, 57% HDPE, 40% FIBER 45.10
5% MAPP, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 45.69
1% SURLYN, 59% HDPE, 40% FIBER 42.97
3% SURLYN, 57% HDPE, 40% FIBER 42.61
5% SURLYN, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 42.61
5% PROFLOW 1000, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 39.96
5% PROFLOW 3000, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 42.84

 

 

 

 

53

60 IMPACT STRENGTH (J/m)

30'

20'

- oat ADDITIVE
1o - 1% ADDITIVE
E as ADDITIVE
59: ADDITIVE

 

O 60% HDPE MAPP SURLYN PF1000 PF3000

(COMPOSITE)

Figure 4. Izod Impact Strength

54
c 'On - 2 Im act ren
The impact test is the most common method of measuring
toughness Of plastics and composites in industry. The most
common test methods are Izod, Charpy, tensile impact, and
falling weight. These tests are basically qualitative in that
they allow the specimens to be graded. An Izod impact test
determines a material’s resistance to breakage by flexural
shock. The material’s toughness, breaking properties, and
defamation are measured by the energy required to rupture the
test specimen. Although the relationship between matrix,
filler, and interfacial strength.is not as yet resolved, there
are theories to explain.the:mechanisms that may be involved in
decreasing the impact strength of fibrous composites. One
source explains that while good adhesion improves strength, it
increases the tendency to brittle failure and makes the
material more notch sensitive (Richardson, 1977). Another
source explains the strength/toughness dilemma in terms of
ductile and brittle matrices. For ductile materials Agarwal
and Broutman (1980) believe that triaxial restraint of the
matrix between fiber, limits elongation of the matrix which
greatly reduces toughness. But for brittle matrices, they
believe the addition of fibers to the matrix can increase
toughness, because Of crack blunting, branching, and arrest

effects.

55

Results - Water Absorption

Water Absorption results are tabulated in Table 6 and
presented graphically in Figure 5. Statistical analysis
comparing batch 1 and batch 2 confirmed that there was not a
significant difference between the batches, therefore the
batches were combined. It can be seen from Figure 5 that the
inclusion Of MAPP and Proflow 1000 impeded water sorption of
the specimens. Statistical analysis resulted in a highly
significant treatment effect at all levels, with the addition
of MAPP at an alpha level of 0.05. The composite with Proflow
1000 was found to be significantly different from the
composite without additives. Surlyn and Proflow 3000 appeared
to promote water sorption. For Surlyn, the amount Of water
being sorbed increased as the level of additive increased» .At
1% Surlyn, 3% Surlyn, and 5% Proflow 3000, although there was
a slight increase in the amount Of water being sorbed, neither
additive was found to be significantly different from the
composite without additives. At 5% Surlyn, the increase in
the amount Of water being sorbed was found to be a highly
significant increase. All three levels Of MAPP sorbed less
water than all of the other composites, with 3% MAPP producing
the best results. The composite containing 3% MAPP sorbed
approximately 51.8% less water than the composite without
additive. (See Appendix B for data and Appendix C for

statistical analysis)

56

Table 6. Results of Water Absorption

 

WATER ABSORPTION

(% INCREASE IN WEIGHT)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MATERIAL MEAN STD
60% HDPE, 40% FIBER 2.11 0.51
1% MAPP, 59% HDPE, 40% FIBER 1.27 0.35
3% MAPP, 57% HDPE, 40% FIBER 1.02 0.11
i
5% MAPP, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 1.22 0.14
1% SURLYN, 59% HDPE, 40% FIBER 2.16 0.20
I
3% SURLYN, 57% HDPE, 40% FIBER 2.31 0.32
5% SURLYN, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 2.91 0.27
5% PROFLOW 1000, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 1.42 0.56
5% PROFLOW 3000, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 2.26 0.17

 

 

 

 

 

57

3 5 WATER ABSORPTION (% INCREASE IN WEIGHT)

 

- oat. ADDITIVE
1st. ADDITIVE
EH 3% ADDITIVE

5% ADDITIVE

 

 

 

2 5 ..... .................................................................

1.5'

0.5 '

 

0

60% HDPE MAPP SURLYN PF1000 PF3000

(COMPOSITE)

Figure 5. later Absorption

58

Qiscnssipn - Wnte; Absopption

The test for rate of water absorption has two chief functions:
first, as a guide to the proportion Of water absorbed by a
material and consequently, in those cases where the
relationship between moisture and electrical or mechanical
properties, dimensions, or appearance have been determined, as
a guide to the effects Of exposure to water or humid
conditions on such properties; and second.as aicontrol test on
the uniformity Of a product (ASTM D 570, 1987). As explained
earlier wood fibers are hydrophilic in nature which means they
attract water. The water interacts with the hydroxyl groups
present in the fibers. This can result in a decrease in
mechanical properties. Techniques can be utilized to overcome
this problem. First and foremost is good adhesion between the
matrix and filler. Good adhesion between the two phases will
decrease the amount Of available hydroxyl groups to react with
the water. ‘Use of a coupling agent has been shown.to decrease
the amount Of water sorbed due to increased adhesion between
the two phases. Secondly, chemically treating the fibers with
a water resistant coating can also help in decreasing water
absorption. MAPP resulted in the least amount of water being
sorbed, which indicates that. MAPP 'may be improving' the
adhesion between the two phases. But since water was sorbed,
there may still be some unbonded hydroxyl groups available to

sorb water molecules.

59

SW

Results Of creep extension are summarized in Table 7 and
presented graphically in Figure 6. Creep analysis was
performed on only one batch (two samples) of the composites
containing 3% MAPP and 5% Proflow 1000. One Of the samples
broke before the test was completed, for the composites
containing 1% Surlyn and 5% Proflow 3000. Due to varying
sample sizes, statistical analysis was not performed on this
data, but the data available for each composite was combined.
Therefore, the results Obtained are suggestive rather than
conclusive. As can be seen from Figure 6, although all the
composites experienced creep extension, MAPP and Surlyn at 5%
levels exhibited. the least. amount. of creep for' all the
composites. Addition Of 5% MAPP resulted in a decrease in
creep Of approximately 24.6% as compared to the composite
without additive, while the addition Of 5% Surlyn decreased
creep by approximately 27.5%. The batch Of Proflow 1000
tested also resulted in a slight decrease in creep extension.

(See appendix B for data)

60

Table 7. Results Creep Extension

CREEP

(% INCREASE IN LENGTH)

 

I MATERIAL

 

 

 

 

   
 

 

  
 

 

  

 

 
 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 

 

=1 MEAN STD I
60% HDPE, 40% FIBER 0.63 0.16I
7 1% MAPP, 59% HDPE, 40% FIBER 0.87 0.27
3% MAPP, 57% HDPE, 40% FIBER 0.69*
5% MAPP, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 0.56 0.13
1% SURLYN, 59% HDPE, 40% FIBER 0.69 0.16
SURLYN, 57% HDPE, 40% FIBER 0.63 0.32
5% SURLYN, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 0.45 0.04
5% PROFLOW 1000, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 0.59*
PROFLOW 3000, 55% HDPE, 40% FIBER 0.71 0.08

 

 

 

 

*ONLY TWO SAMPLES OF THESE COMPOSITES WERE TESTED, THEREFORE
STANDARD DEVIATION COULD NOT BE CALCULATED

61

_ 1 CREEP (96 INCREASE IN LENGTH)

 

- 0% ADDITIVE
1s ADDITIVE

E as Aoomvs
as ADDITIVE

 

 

 

o 60% HDPE MAPP SURLYN PF1000

(COMPOSITE)

Figure 6. Creep Extension

 

PF3000

62

W

The results determined from creep tests are necessary to
predict the strength and dimensional changes of materials
under loads The results Obtained can be used in the design Of
parts, tO compare materials, and to characterize the
performance of materials subjected to long term loading. By
incorporating fibers in the matrix, creep can.be reduced" The
addition of fibers reduces the amount Of matrix material
available for creep and allows the material to endure loads
for extended periods Of time. For this reason a strong
interfacial bond between matrix and fibers is needed. The
fibers in a composite with a strong interfacial bond will not
pull out very easily. MAPP and Surlyn at 5% levels exhibited
the lowest creep extension of all the composites. This
suggests as all tests have that MAPP is promoting strong

interfacial bonding.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of MAPP in the composite improved its mechanical
properties overall. Tensile strength and % elongation were
increased with the addition Of MAPP at all levels, with the
most significant increase for all additives occurring with
inclusion Of 5% MAPP. The highest increase in modulus Of
elasticity also occurred with 5% inclusion Of MAPP. Addition
of MAPP impeded water sorption at all levels, compared to any
Of the composites tested. Also, addition of 5% MAPP resulted
in a decrease in creep Of approximately 24.6%. As with all

additives inclusion Of MAPP decreased impact strength.

The inclusion of Surlyn produced some positive effects on
mechanical properties. Addition of 1% and 5% Surlyn slightly
increased tensile strength and % elongation. Modulus Of
elasticity increased at all levels of Surlyn, with the
greatest increase noted at 3% additive. Surlyn seemed to
promote water sorption, with the amount of water being sorbed
increasing with increasing level Of additive. Addition Of 5%
Surlyn decreased creep by approximately 27.5%. Again, as with

all additives inclusion of Surlyn decreased impact strength.

The inclusion of Proflow 1000 and Proflow 3000 generally
decreased the mechanical properties Of the composites. The

addition Of both additives decreased the tensile strength and

63

64
% elongation Of the composites. The addition Of both
additives slightly increased modulus Of elasticity. Proflow
1000 impeded water sorption while Proflow 3000 appeared to
promote it. Proflow 1000 slightly decreased the amount of
creep experienced by the samples, while Proflow 3000 increased
it. As stated earlier, inclusion of all additives decreased

impact strength.

The inclusion Of MAPP in the composites enhanced its
mechanical properties. This was shown not only in comparison
to the composite without additives, but also any Of the
additives utilized in this investigation. The ability Of MAPP
to enhance mechanical properties supports the theory of it
having the potential, to improve adhesion between the matrix
and fibers. A strong interfacial bond between the fibers and
matrix allows the matrix tO efficiently transfer stress to the
fibers. Also a strong interfacial bond can prevent the

propagation Of microcracks along the fiber lengths.

Although MAPP produced the best results in this study, it is
the :most expensive (see ‘table 1) Of all the additives
utilized. This may be a concern because when using recycled
materials to manufacture a product, it is important to reduce
the cost of manufacture as much as possible, in order to

compete with other recycled or virgin materials.

RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Further investigation is warranted for the Proflow resins, in
order to validate the findings Of this investigation. In
order to Obtain conclusive results for creep a more
representative sample size is recommended for this test. Upon
researching composite materials composed Of wood fibers and
polymers, it was found that multiple additives were used in
order to enhance mechanical properties. Since Surlyn and
Proflow 1000 produced some positive effects on mechanical
properties, it may be beneficial to investigate the effect Of

an additive system composed Of MAPP, Surlyn, and Proflow 1000.

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 8. Concentrations Of Composite Components

ACTUAL CONCENTRATIONS 0F COMPOSITE COMPONENTS

(%)

COMPOSITE ADDITIVE 'WOOD FIBER HDPE
60%-HDPE-BATCH l 0.00 59.23 40.77
60%-HDPE-BATCH 2 0.00 58.86 41.14 I
l%-MAPP-BATCH 1 0.98 58.00 41.02
l%-MAPP-BATCH 2 0.98 58.04 40.98
3%-MAPP-BATCH l 2.96 56.29 40.75
3%-MAPP-BATCH 2 2.95 56.10 40.95
5%-MAPP-BATCH 1 4.90 53.95 41.15
5%-MAPP-BATCH 2 4.92 54.12 40.96
1%-SURLYN-BATCH 1 0.97 57.44 41.59
l%-SURLYN-BATCH 2 0.97 57.55 41.48.l
3%-SURLYN-BATCH 1 2.93 55.70 41.37
3%-SURLYN-BATCH 2 2.93 55.58 41.49
5%-SURLYN-BATCH 1 4.91 54.03 41.06
5%-SURLYN-BATCH 2 4.86 53.48 41.66'
5%-PF1000-BATCH 1 4.91 54.00 41.09'
5%-PF1000—BATCH 2 4.88 53.67 41.45
5%-PF3000-BATCH 1 4.86 53.49 41.65
5%-PF3000-BATCH 2 u 4.86 53.44 41.70J

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

Table 9a. Data Tensile Strength

 

DATA

TENSILE STRENGTH
Pa
(N/m2 x 10”)

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@ 60%HDPE 1%MAPP 3%MAPP I 5%MAPP 1%SURLYN
BATCH 1
1 I 2.91 2.81 2.20 3.17
_ 2.27 2.80 2.60 3.17
3 ‘ 2.23 2.61 2.71 3.47
4 I 1.62 2.99 2.56 3.16
5 I 2.08 2.95 2.33 3.20
BATCH 2
1 2.07 3.67 2.43 2.69
2 1.56 3.02 2.26 4.52
3 1.68 2.85 2.45 3.44
4 1.89 2.77 2.87 3.27
5 1.87 2.67 2.44 2.93
MEAN 2.02I 2.91I 2.49I 3.30I

m 0.401 0.30 0.21 0.48

 

 

68

Table 9b. Data Tensile Strength Cont.

 

DATA

TENSILE STRENGTH
Pa
(N/m’ x 10”)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3%SURLYN 5%SURLYN 5%?31000 _ 5%PF3000

2.26 1.89 2.55 1.32

1.67 2.06 2.20 1.74
3 2.03 2.35 1.84 2.26
4 2.08 2.19 1.63 1.80
5 1.49 1.90 1.85 1.57
BATCH 2
1 1.98 2.03 2.05 1.55
2 1.66 2.52 1.81 1.53
3 1.84 1.64 1.87 1.58
4 1.72 1.98 1.90 1.52
5 1.58 2.20 2.00 1.95
MEAN I 1.83 2.08 1.97 1.68
STD 0.25 0.25 _0.26 ___9°?7.

69

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table Data Modulus of Elasticity
DATA
MODULUS OF ELASTICITY
Pa
(N/m’ x 10”)

60%HDPE 1%MAPP 3%MAPP 5%MAPP 1%SURLYN
1 9.40 4.96 6.97 7.90 8.16
2 8.15 7.44 8.02 11.67 8.14
'3 8.91 8.17 7.40 9.15 9.52
[4 6.51 7.51 6.58 9.05 10.41
[5 6.98 8.31 7.88 10.83 9.48

BATCH 2
1 7.16 9.72 6.97 8.55 7.81
2 6.84 8.78 8.22 9.00 9.77
3 7.92 6.91 9.15 8.25 7.45
4 7.92 7.82 7.65 8.62 8.10
5 9.35 6.78 8.26 8.90 7.98
MEAN 7.911 7.04I 7.71I 9.19I 8.68
STD 1.05I 2.09I 0.76I 1.17I 1.01

 

70

Table 10b. Data Modulus Of Elasticity Cont.

 

 

 

DATA

MODULUS OF ELASTICITY
Pa
(N/m2 x 10”)

,+_ ‘ ‘— __... __._ _ —

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m 3%SURLYN 5%SURLYN 5%PF1000 5%PF3 000

BATCH 1

1 8.73 9.15 9.05 7.37
2 9.01 9.98 7.94 6.81
3 7.87 10.28 7.81 7.59
4 11.04 8.98 8.73 8.68
5 9.37 7.68 7.26 7.82
BATCH 2

1 10.49 8.43 8.28 7.41
2 8.23 7.97 9.67 8.01
3 8.48 8.41 8.54 8.44
4 9.18 9.86 8.66 9.08
5 9.37 10.27 7.74 8.83‘
MEAN 9.18I 9.10I 8.37] 8.00
STD 0.98I 0.96I 0.71I 0.74

 

 

71

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 11a. Data % Elongation at Break
DATA
ELONGATION AT BREAK

_ _ M (3% ____.__ _,- ,_,_____ _______-
m 60%HDPE 1%MAPP 3%MAPP 5%MAPP 1%SURLYN ‘
BATCH 1

5.45 6.40 4.50 6.30 4.10
_ 4.40 5.35 5.40 5.85 2.85
_ 4.60 5.20 5.40 7.00 3.75
_ 3.45 7.25 6.45 5.85 4.65‘
_ 4.65 5.95 4.50 5.80 3.40
BATCH

1 3.75 6.55 5.80 4.50 3.80
_ 3.05 5.80 3.55 11.30 4.95 ,
_ 2.50 7.15 3.80 6.70 2.10
_ 3.35 5.80 6.45 6.95 3.15
5 2.90 5.85 4.70 5.55 7.80
m 3.81] 6.13I 5.06I 6.58I 4.06)
m. 0.93I 0.70I 1.02I 1.82] 1.56

 

. v

Table 11b.

72

Data % Elongation at Break Cont.

 

ELONGATION AT BREAK

DATA

(*5)

5%PF1000 15%PF3000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3%SURLYN 5%SURLYN

BATCH 1

[1 3.60 3.45 4.75 2.65
2 2.90 3.80 4.20 3.75
3 3.90 4.65 3.20 4.40|
4 2.85 4.05 2.75 3.05
5 2.30 3.60 4.00 3.05
BATCH 2
1 2.95 3.85 3.60 3.05
2 2.55 5.15 2.60 2.45
3 3.45 2.90 3.20 3.05
4 2.75 3.55 3.10 2.50
5 2.80 3.45 3.75 3.40

I

[MEAN 3.01] 3.85I 3.52I 3.141
STD 0.50] O.65| 0.67] 0.60

 

73

Table 12a. Data Izod Impact Strength

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DATA
IMPACT STRENGTH
._f,3_ , _- __ _ __ (J _ __ ,__-_________.
.i-fl- 1%MAPP —_-
BATCH 1
1 53.33 41.58 53.59 47.40 48.74‘
2 51.24 45.59 39.29 49.16 37.74;
. 3 47.08 39.55 56.69 51.78 56.53
4 80.39 51.56 39.29 55.41 47.40
5 47.08 47.56 52.42 36.46 34.11
_ 42.97 41.58 45.21 41.58 44.09
42.97 43.56 49.22 39.77 31.92
_, 47.08 43.56 47.19 52.10 46.97
9 51.24 53.59 46.12 38.06 32.77
10 49.16 47.56 44.30 35.87 45.05
11 55.41 45.59 49.22 41.26 40.25
12 42.97 47.56 40.25 55.41 40.89
49.16 39.55 44.30 51.30 52.10
47.08 51.56 42.97 49.59 42.70
‘ BATCH 2
55.41 42.97 42.97 47.83 48.36
_ 50.76 46.60 42.92 53.49 48.36
_: 56.53 41.96 45.80 37.74 42.28
_ 49.16 48.74 45.80 45.64 48.36
_ 44.84 50.39 36.78 50.44 38.22
_1 59.73 54.23 53.75 45.21 42.28
- 54.50 61.07 42.60 48.25 46.33
_ 53.17 47.88 45.80 37.21 34.16
_ 52.31 53.91 41.26 48.74 48.36

74

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DATA
IMPACT STRENGTH
_ (J/m) _
m 1m_ Hm: aw; 1.3m. _
m 52.42 46.17 45.05 48.31 44.30
61.65 52.42 45.05 44.84 34.16
63.15 54.23 43.72 44.20 42.28
52.31 48.25 41.58 44.84 42.28
14 57.49 50.44 39.82 37.42 42.28
a 52.521 47.83 45.10] 45.69I 42.97
. 7.65l» 5.15 4.77] 5.96] 6.07
Table 12b. Data Izod Impact Strength Cont.

 

  

BATCH 1

  

DATA

IMPACT STRENGTH

 

(J/m) =3

3%SURLYN I 5%SURLYN I 5%PF1000 I 5%PF3000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I 1 44.30 50.02 32.13 44.25]
2 36.73 50.02 38.22 40.19]
3 34.16 41.90 40.25 42.22

47.19 43.93 34.16 48.36
34.11 43.93 36.19 50.39

_ 49.16 41.90 40.25 44.25

7 41.96 39.93 44.30 42.22
49.16 31.87 34.16 50.39
51.24 43.93 42.28 36.19

10 46.97 33.90 44.30 44.25'

 

 

 

 

 

75

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DATA
IMPACT STRENGTH
(J/m)
3%SURLYN 5%SURLYN 5%PF1000 5%PF3000
34.75 41.90 36.19 44.25
39.82 47.99 38.22 34.16
36.89 37.90 36.19 38.17
53.33 47.99 38.22 40.19
38.38 39.82 42.97 48.36
38.86 46.17 38.86 42.28
40.89 39.82 39.18 52.42
44.30 44.09 36.78 28.08
42.97 39.82 45.05 34.16
50.39 37.74 41.58 38.22
45.05 46.17 34.75 48.36
36.78 52.58 37.74 34.16
9 49.22 48.31 41.26 48.36
10 38.86 41.96 63.15 58.56
11 46.33 44.09 34.75 38.22
12 36.99 35.60 43.72 32.13
13 44.09 41.96 41.58 48.36
14 40.19 37.74 42.33 48.36
MEAN I 42.61I 42.61I 39.96 42.84
STD I 5.61] 5.01I 5.75 7.01]

 

 

 

 

76

Table 13a. Data Water Absorption

‘ i

    
 
    
  

DATA

WATER ABSORPTION
INCREASE IN WEIGHT

(’15)

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60%HDPE 1%MAPP 1%SURLYN
2.46 1.67
1.57 1.16
1.80 1.74
2.90 0.90
1.74 1.10
2.17 1.06
2.11] 1.27]

 

0.51I 0.35]

77

Table 13b. Data Water Absorption Cont.

 

DATA

WATER ABSORPTION
INCREASE IN WEIGHT

 
 
 
   

 

 

 

  
  
  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- mt _
3%SURLYN 5%SURLYN 5%PF1000 J 5%PF3000
2.24 3.31 0.76 2.33
2 . 1.77 2.99 0.81 2.58
[3 I 2.74 2.86 1.28 2.16
IBATCH 2
1 2.27 2.58 2.03 2.17
2 2.33 3.06 1.90 2.16
3 2.51 2.66 1.75 2.16
MEAN I 2.31 2.91] 1.42] 2.26
STD 0.32 0.27] 0.56 I 0.17 I

 

78

Table 14a. Data Creep Extension

r‘

    
 
 

DATA

CREEP EXTENSION
INCREASE IN LENGTH

, (%)
60%HDPE ] 1%MAPP ] 3%MAPP

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.82] 1.12] - ] 0.67]
0.48] 0.72] - ] 0.67]
0.53] 1.07] 0.38] 0.41]
0.70] 0.56] 0.99] 0.48]
MEAN I 0.63] 0.87] 0.69] 0.56]
STD 0.16] 0.27] ] 0.13]

 

*These samples broke before completion of test

-Creep extension was measured for only one batch of these
samples

79

Table 14b. Data Creep Extension Cont.

 

DATA

CREEP EXTENSION
INCREASE IN LENGTH

_ m
5%SURLYN I 5%PF1000 I 5%PF3000

 

   

 

 

 

_,. _. ..—_____.__

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

m 3%SURLYN

BATCH 1

1 0.94] 0.46] 0.60] 0.62
2 0.55] 0.40] 0.58] 0.78'
BATCH 2

1 0.82] 0.44] - r *

2 0.22] 0.50] - ] 0.74

 

 

 

0.45]

 

*These samples broke before completion of test
-Creep extension was measured for only one batch of these
samples

APPENDIX C

81

Title: TENSILE STRENGTH

Function: T-TEST

§Afl£L§_Qfl§; 60% HDPE SAMPLE TWO: 1% MAPP

Variable 4: Tensile Strength Variable 4: Tensile Strength

Cases 1 through 10 Cases 11 through 20

Mean: 2.018 Mean: 2.914
Variance: 0.159 Variance: 0.088
Standard Deviation: 0.399 Standard Deviation: 0.296
" ' “i I!“ 2 "TH_ ”Vi; i- _ = 9.; is n

F Value: 1.8108

Numerator degrees of freedom: 9

Denominator degrees of freedom: 9

Probability: 0.3896

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

_ y S n = u
Pooled s squared: 0.1234
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.0247
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.1571
t Value: ~5.7027
Degrees of freedom: 18
Probability of t: 0.0000

Result: Significant t - Reject the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 0.896 plus or minus 0.330 (0.566 through 1.226)

82

Title: TENSILE STRENGTH

Function: T-TEST

SAHELE_QHE; 60% HDPE SAflELE TWO: 3% MAPP

Variable 4: Tensile Strength Variable 4: Tensile Strength

Cases 1 through 10 Cases 21 through 30

Mean: 2.018 Mean: 2.485

Variance: 0.159 Variance: 0.042

Standard Deviation: 0.399 Standard Deviation: 0.205
- P ” 1 = VARIANCE 2"

P Value: 3.7682

Numerator degrees of freedom: 9

Denominator degrees of freedom: 9

Probability: 0.0611

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

- PO H n = II
Pooled s squared: 0.1006
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.0201
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.1419
t Value: -3.2920
Degrees of freedom: 18
Probability of t: 0.0041

Result: Significant t - Reject the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 0.467 plus or minus 0.298 (0.169 through 0.765)

83

Title: TENSILE STRENGTH

Function: T-TEST

SAMPLE ONE: 60% HDPE SAMPLE IEO: 5% MAPP
Variable 4: Tensile Strength Variable 4: Tensile Strength

Cases 1 through 10 Cases 31 through 40

Mean: ' 2.018 Mean: 3.302
Variance: 0.159 Variance: 0.234
Standard Deviation: 0.399 Standard Deviation: 0.484
E-IESI EQR THE HYPOTHESIS "EABIANQE 1 = YARIANCB 2"

F Value: 1.4742

Numerator degrees of freedom: 9

Denominator degrees of freedom: 9

Probability: 0.5724

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

- o o s" = "
Pooled s squared: 0.1968
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.0394
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.1984
t Value: -6.4728
Degrees of freedom: 18
Probability of t: 0.0000

Result: Significant t - Reject the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 1.284 plus or minus 0.417 (0.867 through 1.701)

84

Title: TENSILE STRENGTH

Function: T-TEST

§AMELE_QEE; 50% HDPE fiAHELE_IflQ; 1% SURLYN

Variable 4: Tensile Strength Variable 4: Tensile Strength

Cases 1 through 10 Cases 41 through 50

Mean: 2.018 Mean: 2.025

Variance: 0.159 Variance: 0.281

Standard Deviation: 0.399 Standard Deviation: 0.530
- F H POTH S ”V = V C "

F Value: 1.7648

Numerator degrees of freedom: 9

Denominator degrees of freedom: 9

Probability: 0.4103

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

_ TH N = II
Pooled s squared: 0.2199
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.0440
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.2097
t Value: -0.0334
Degrees of freedom: 18
Probability of t: 0.9737

Result: Non-Significant t - Accept the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
, =0.05): 0.007 plus or minus 0.441 (-0.434 through 0.448)

85

Title: TENSILE STRENGTH

Function: T-TEST

N

60% HDPE SAMP E TWO: 3% SURLYN

Variable 4: Tensile Strength Variable 4: Tensile Strength

Cases 1 through 10 Cases 51 through 60
Mean: 2.018 Mean:

Variance: 0.159 Variance:

Standard Deviation: 0.399 Standard Deviation:
E-IESI EOE THE HXEQIHESIS "EABIAEQE 1 = EARIANCE 2"
F Value: 2.5805
Numerator degrees of freedom: 9

Denominator degrees of freedom: 9

Probability: 0.1741

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

- SS" = "

Pooled s squared:

Variance of the difference between the means:
Standard Deviation of the difference:

t Value:

Degrees of freedom:

Probability of t:

Result: Non-Significant t - Accept the Hypothesis

1.831
0.062
0.248

0.1103
0.0221
0.1486
1.2588

18

0.2242

Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
I=0.05): 0.187 plus or minus 0.312 (-0.125 through 0.499)

86

Title: TENSILE STRENGTH

Function: T-TEST

SAMPLE_QHEL 60% HDPE fibflELE_IEQi 5% SURLYN

Variable 4: Tensile Strength Variable 4: Tensile Strength

Cases 1 through 10 Cases 61 through 70

Mean: 2.018 Mean: 2.076

Variance: 0.159 Variance: 0.063
Standard Deviation: 0.399 Standard Deviation: 0.251
- 0; 91, 1 '0, _ ” .4 '1 _ = 4;,. x"

F Value: 2.5207

Numerator degrees of freedom: 9

Denominator degrees of freedom: 9

Probability: 0.1846

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

- n = u
Pooled s squared: 0.1111
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.0222
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.1490
t Value: -0.3892
Degrees of freedom: 18
Probability of t: 0.7017

Result: Non-Significant t - Accept the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 0.058 plus or minus 0.313 (-0.255 through 0.371)

87

Title: TENSILE STRENGTH

Function: T-TEST

§Afl2LE QNE: 60% HDPE SAMPLE TWO: 5% PROFLOW 1000

Variable 4: Tensile Strength Variable 4: Tensile Strength

Cases 1 through 10 Cases 71 through 80

Mean: 2.018 Mean: 1.970
Variance: 0.159 Variance: 0.065
Standard Deviation: 0.399 Standard Deviation: 0.255

E-IESI E93 THE HEEQIHESIS "VARIANCE ; = VARIANCE 2"

F Value: 2.4510
Numerator degrees of freedom: 9
Denominator degrees of freedom: 9
Probability: 0.1979

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

- FOR H POTH SIS "MEAN 1 = 2"
Pooled s squared: 0.1120
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.0224
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.1496
t Value: 0.3208
Degrees of freedom: 18
Probability of t: 0.7521

Result: Non-Significant t - Accept the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 0.048 plus or minus 0.314 (-0.266 through 0.362)

88

Title: TENSILE STRENGTH

Function: T-TEST

fiAflPLE_QN§i 60% HDPE SAMPLE IE9; 5% PROFLOW 3000
Variable 4: Tensile Strength Variable 4: Tensile Strength
Cases 1 through 10 Cases 81 through 90

Mean: 2.018 Mean: 1.682
Variance: 0.159 Variance: 0.072
Standard Deviation: 0.399 Standard Deviation: 0.267

E-IESI FOR THE HYPOTHESIS "VARIANCE 1 = VARIANCE 2"

F Value: 2.2227
Numerator degrees of freedom: 9
Denominator degrees of freedom: 9
Probability: 0.2498

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

_ n = u
Pooled s squared: 0.1153
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.0231
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.1519
t Value: 2.2127
Degrees of freedom: 18
Probability of t: 0.0401

Result: Significant t - Reject the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 0.336 plus or minus 0.319 (0.017 through 0.655)

89

Title: MODULUS OF ELASTICITY

Function: T-TEST

SAMPLE_Q!§1 BATCH 1
Variable 6: Modulus

Cases 1 through 45

LE ' BATCH 2
Variable 6: Modulus

Cases 46 through 90

Mean: 8.280 Mean: 8.427
Variance: 2.531 Variance: 0.805
Standard Deviation: 1.591 Standard Deviation: 0.897
'- ' 0; 9:, ll}. 1 7 "V4; :1, 7 = V}; :1

F Value: 3.1422

Numerator degrees of freedom: 44

Denominator degrees of freedom: 44

Probability: 0.0002

Result: Significant F - Reject the Hypothesis
I:IE§I_EQB_IHE_flIEQIflE§I§_2flEAN_1_:_H£AE_Zl

Variance of the difference between the means: 0.0741
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.2723
t Value: -0.5382
Effective degrees of freedom: 69
Probability of t: 0.5918

Result: Non-Significant t - Accept the Hypothesis

Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 0.147 plus or minus 0.543 (-0.397 through 0.690)

90

Title: MODULUS OF ELASTICITY

Function: T-TEST

NE: 60% HDPE SAMPLE TWO: 1% MAPP
Variable 6: Modulus Variable 6: Modulus
Cases 1 through 10 Cases 11 through 20
Mean: 7.914 Mean: 7.040
Variance: 1.099 Variance: 4.365
Standard Deviation: 1.048 Standard Deviation: 2.089
E-IESI POP THE HIPOTHESIS "VARIANCE ; = VARIANCE 2"
P Value: 3.9704
Numerator degrees of freedom: 9
Denominator degrees of freedom: 9
Probability: 0.0522

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

_ S I. = II
Pooled s squared: 2.7320
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.5464
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.7392
t Value: 1.1827
Degrees of freedom: 18
Probability of t: 0.2523

Result: Non-Significant t - Accept the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=I=0.05): 0.874 plus or minus 1.553 (-0.679 through 2.427)

91

Title: MODULUS OF ELASTICITY

Function: T-TEST

SAMPLE_QEE; 60% HDPE SAMPLE TKO: 3% MAPP
Variable 6: Modulus Variable 6: Modulus
Cases 1 through 10 Cases 21 through 30
Mean: 7.914 Mean:

Variance: 1.099 Variance:

Standard Deviation: 1.048 Standard Deviation:
- ".1 2" 9 '9 U1 S _ fl 4.; ii = 4.; i

F Value: 1.8906

Numerator degrees of freedom: 9

Denominator degrees of freedom: 9

Probability: 0.3566

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

WSW

Pooled s squared:

Variance of the difference between the means:
Standard Deviation of the difference:

t Value:

Degrees of freedom:

Probability of t:

Result: Non-Significant t ~ Accept the Hypothesis

7.708

0.581
0.763

0.8404
0.1681
0.4100
0.5025

18

0.6214

Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 0.206 plus or minus 0.861 (-0.655 through 1.067)

Title: MODULUS OF ELASTICITY

Function: T-TEST

SAMPLE_QHEL 50% HDPE

Variable 6: Modulus

Cases 1 through 10

92

SAMPLE TWO: 5% MAPP

Variable 6: Modulus

Cases 31 through 40

Mean: 7.914 Mean: 9.192
Variance: 1.099 Variance: 1.363
Standard Deviation: 1.048 Standard Deviation: 1.168
P-IESI POP THE EXPOIHESIS ”VAPIANCE 1 = VARIANCE 2"

F Value: 1.2400
Numerator degrees of freedom: 9
Denominator degrees of freedom: 9
Probability: 0.7539
Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

.. n = n
Pooled s squared: 1.2312
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.2462
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.4962
t Value: -2.5744
Degrees of freedom: 18
Probability of t: 0.0191
Result: Significant t - Reject the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha

=0.05):

1.278 plus or minus 1.043 (0.235 through 2.320)

93

Title: MODULUS OF ELASTICITY

Function: T-TEST

SAMPLE_QH§; 60% HDPE SAMPLE TWO; 1% SURLYN
Variable 6: Modulus Variable 6: Modulus

Cases 1 through 10 Cases 41 through 50

Mean: 7.914 Mean: 8.681
Variance: 1.099 Variance: 1.022
Standard Deviation: 1.048 Standard Deviation: 1.011

- O H POTHES S "V =

F Value: 1.0755
Numerator degrees of freedom: 9
Denominator degrees of freedom: 9
Probability: 0.9154

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

.. o 8 II = 2n

Pooled s squared:

Variance of the difference between the means:
Standard Deviation of the difference:

t Value:

Degrees of freedom:

Probability of t:

Result: Non-Significant t - Accept the Hypothesis

1.0607
0.2121
0.4606
-1.6651
18
0.1132

Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 0.767 plus or minus 0.968 (-0.201 through 1.735)

Title: MODULUS OF ELASTICITY

Function: T-TEST

SAHELE_QHE1 60% HDPE

Variable 6: Modulus

Cases 1 through 10

Mean: 7.914 Mean: 9.177
Variance: 1.099 Variance: 0.957
Standard Deviation: 1.048 Standard Deviation: 0.978
- O Y OTHESIS "VAR ANCE 1 = VARIANC 2"
F Value: 1.1493
Numerator degrees of freedom: 9
Denominator degrees of freedom: 9
Probability: 0.8392
Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis
- n = n
Pooled s squared: 1.0279
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.2056
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.4534
t Value: -2.7856
Degrees of freedom: 18
Probability of t: 0.0122

Result:

94

SAMPLE TWO: 3% SURLYN
Variable 6: Modulus

Cases 51 through 60

Significant t - Reject the Hypothesis

Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha

=0.05):

1.263 plus or minus 0.953 (0.310 through 2.216)

Title: MODULUS OF ELASTICITY

Function: T-TEST

EAHELE_QHEL 60% HDPE

Variable 6: Modulus

Cases 1 through 10

95

SAMPLE TWO: 5% SURLYN

Variable 6: Modulus

Cases 61 through 70

Mean: 7.914 Mean: 9.101
Variance: 1.099 Variance: 0.927
Standard Deviation: 1.048 Standard Deviation: 0.963
- P "V = VARIANCE "
F Value: 1.1859
Numerator degrees of freedom: 9
Denominator degrees of freedom: 9
Probability: 0.8037
Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis
- Po S N = fl
Pooled s squared: 1.0131
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.2026
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.4501
t Value: -2.6372
Degrees of freedom: 18
Probability of t: 0.0167
Result: Significant t - Reject the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha

II=0.05):

1.187 plus or minus 0.946 (0.241 through 2.133)

96

Title: MODULUS OF ELASTICITY

Function: T-TEST

SAMPL§_QN§; 60% HDPE SAMPLE TWO: 5% PROFLOW 1000

Variable 6: Modulus Variable 6: Modulus

Cases 1 through 10 Cases 71 through 80

Mean: 7.914 Mean: 8.368

Variance: 1.099 Variance: 0.502

Standard Deviation: 1.048 Standard Deviation: 0.709
- FOR H YPOTHESIS "VARIANCE = VARIANCE 2"

F Value: 2.1877

Numerator degrees of freedom: 9

Denominator degrees of freedom: 9

Probability: 0.2591

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

T-TEST 293 THE szogggsxs "MgAu 1 = MEAN 2"

Pooled s squared:

Variance of the difference between the means:
Standard Deviation of the difference:

t Value:

Degrees of freedom:

Probability of t:

Result: Non-Significant t - Accept the Hypothesis

0.8009
0.1602
0.4002
-1.1336
18
0.2718

Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 0.454 plus or minus 0.841 (-0.387 through 1.295)

97

Title: MODULUS OF ELASTICITY

Function: T-TEST

SAMPLE ONE: 60% HDPE SAMPLE TWO: 5% PROFLOW 3000

Variable 6: Modulus Variable 6: Modulus

Cases 1 through 10 Cases 71 through 80

Mean: 7.914 Mean: 8.003

Variance: 1.099 Variance: 0.542
Standard Deviation: 1.048 Standard Deviation: 0.736
- o 0 ”V = v I!

F Value: 2.0289

Numerator degrees of freedom: 9

Denominator degrees of freedom: 9

Probability: 0.3067

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

.. 0 SS" = n

Pooled s squared:

Variance of the difference between the means:
Standard Deviation of the difference:

t Value:

Degrees of freedom:

Probability of t:

Result: Non-Significant t - Accept the Hypothesis

0.8206
0.1641
0.4051
-0.2199
18
0.8284

Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 0.089 plus or minus 0.851 (-0.762 through 0.940)

98

Title: % ELONGATION AT BREAK

Function: T-TEST

EAHPLE ONE: BATCH 1 EAEPLE_TEQ; BATCH 2

Variable 5: % Elongation Variable 5: % Elongation
Cases 1 through 45 Cases 46 through 90

Mean: 4.431 Mean: 4.264

Variance: 1.557 Variance: 3.402
Standard Deviation: 1.248 Standard Deviation: 1.844
- FOR PO HES "VAR CE = AR "

F Value: 2.1843

Numerator degrees of freedom: 44

Denominator degrees of freedom: 44

Probability: 0.0109

Result: Significant F - Reject the Hypothesis

T-TEET EOE TEE HIPOTHESIE "MEAE 1 = EEAE 2"

Variance of the difference between the means: 0.1102
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.3320
t Value: 0.5021
Effective degrees of freedom: 77
Probability of t: 0.6169

Result: Non-Significant t - Accept the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 0.167 plus or minus 0.661 (-0.494 through 0.828)

99

Title: % ELONGATION AT BREAK

Function: T-TEST

fibflRLE_QEEL 60% HDPE §AMELE_IEQL 1* MAPP
Variable 5: % Elongation Variable 5: % Elongation
Cases 1 through 10 Cases 11 through 20
Mean: 3.810 Mean: 6.130
Variance: 0.870 Variance: 0.483
Standard Deviation: 0.933 Standard Deviation: 0.695

- N a: C I!
F Value: 1.8026
Numerator degrees of freedom: 9
Denominator degrees of freedom: 9
Probability: 0.3932
Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

_ E N = fl
Pooled s squared: 0.6767
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.1353
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.3679
t Value: -6.3065
Degrees of freedom: 18
Probability of t: 0.0000
Result: Significant t - Reject the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha

=0.05): 2.320 plus or minus 0.773 (1.547 through 3.093)

100

Title: % ELONGATION AT BREAK

Function: T-TEST

§AM2LE_QHE; 60% HDPE

Variable 5: % Elongation

Cases 1 through 10
Mean:

Variance:

Standard Deviation:

", , 0 H1 7! "I!

F Value:

3.810
0.870
0.933

"Vi'

Numerator degrees of freedom:
Denominator degrees of freedom:

Probability:

SAMPLE TWO: 3% MAPP
Variable 5: % Elongation

Cases 21 through 30

Mean: 5.055
Variance: 1.030
Standard Deviation: 1.015

= Li AN 1 "

1.1830
9
9
0.8065

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

Pooled s squared: 0.9501
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.1900
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.4359
t Value: -2.8561
Degrees of freedom: 18

Probability of t: 0.0105

Result: Significant t - Reject the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 1.245 plus or minus 0.916 (0.329 through 2.161)

Title:

Function: T-TEST

EAMELE_QHE1 60% HDPE
Variable 5:

Cases 1 through 10

Mean: 3.810 Mean: 6.580
Variance: 0.870 Variance: 3.305
Standard Deviation: 0.933 Standard Deviation: 1.818
'- 0; H E 1 310 2 "VA; i- = V43. 4- ,, "

F Value: 3.7970

Numerator degrees of freedom: 9

Denominator degrees of freedom: 9

Probability: 0.0597

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis
I:IEEI_EQB_IHE_HIEQIflE§I§_2HEAH_1_:_HEAH_22

Pooled s squared: 2.0878
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.4176
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.6462
t Value: -4.2867
Degrees of freedom: 18
Probability of t: 0.0004
Result: Significant t - Reject the Hypothesis

Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha

=0.05):

101

% ELONGATION AT BREAK

% Elongation

§AMELE_IEQL 5% MAPP

Variable 5: % Elongation

Cases 31 through 40

2.770 plus or minus 1.358 (1.412 through 4.128)

102

Title: % ELONGATION AT BREAK

Function: T-TEST

EAEPLE_QEE; 60% HDPE SAMPLE TWO: 1% SURLYN
Variable 5: % Elongation Variable 5: % Elongation
Cases 1 through 10 Cases 41 through 50

Mean: 3.810 Mean: 4.055
Variance: 0.870 Variance: 2.429
Standard Deviation: 0.933 Standard Deviation: 1.559
- . . K I ! '. 1 "V2-1 i- = i3. 4-1 N

F Value: 2.7907

Numerator degrees of freedom: 9

Denominator degrees of freedom: 9

Probability: 0.1423

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

T-TEET EOE THE HYPOTHESIS ”MEAN 1 = MEAN 2"

Pooled s squared: 1.6498
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.3300
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.5744
t Value: -0.4265
Degrees of freedom: 18

Probability of t: 0.6748

Result: Non-Significant t - Accept the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 0.245 plus or minus 1.207 (-0.962 through 1.452)

103

Title: % ELONGATION AT BREAK

Function: T-TEST

§AMPLE ONE: 60% HDPE

Variable 5: % Elongation

Cases 1 through 10

Mean: 3.810
Variance: 0.870
Standard Deviation: 0.933

" .3 J! . 1 O s . ”Vii i-

F Value:

Numerator degrees of freedom:
Denominator degrees of freedom:
Probability:

Result:

Pooled s squared:

Variance of the difference between the means:
Standard Deviation of the difference:

t Value:
Degrees of freedom:
Probability of t:

Result: Significant t - Reject

Confidence limits for the difference of the means
0.805 plus or minus 0.702 (0.103 through 1.507)

=0.05):

Non-Significant F - Accept

EAMPLE TWO; 3% SURLYN

Variable 5: % Elongation

Cases 51 through 60

Mean: 3.005
Variance: 0.245
Standard Deviation: 0.495
' = L; :1 ”
3.5573
9
9
0.0725
the Hypothesis
= II
0.5576
0.1115
0.3339
2.4106
18
0.0268
the Hypothesis
(for alpha

104

Title: % ELONGATION AT BREAK

Function: T—TEST

SAMPLE_QEEL 60% HDPE §AH£LE.IEQL 5% SURLYN

Variable 5: % Elongation Variable 5: % Elongation

Cases 1 through 10 Cases 61 through 70

Mean: 3.810 Mean: 3.845

Variance: 0.870 Variance: 0.416
Standard Deviation: 0.933 Standard Deviation: 0.645
- 0; 91. . f0 , . "V1: .4 = :4 - _ _"

F Value: 2.0906

Numerator degrees of freedom: 9

Denominator degrees of freedom: 9

Probability: 0.2871

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

T-TEST 293 THE EXPQTHESIS ”MEAN 1 = EEAE 2"

Pooled s squared: 0.6434
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.1287
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.3587
t Value: -0.0976
Degrees of freedom: 18
Probability of t: 0.9234

Result: Non-Significant t - Accept the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 0.035 plus or minus 0.754 (-0.719 through 0.789)

105

Title: % ELONGATION AT BREAK

Function: T-TEST

§AH£LE_QNE; 50* HDPE §AM2L£LIKQL 5% PROFLOW 1000

Variable 5: % Elongation Variable 5: % Elongation

Cases 1 through 10 Cases 71 through 80

Mean: 3.810 Mean: 3.515

Variance: 0.870 Variance: 0.454

Standard Deviation: 0.933 Standard Deviation: 0.674
- OR THE S S ” = V ANC ”

F Value: 1.9176

Numerator degrees of freedom: 9

Denominator degrees of freedom: 9

Probability: 0.3462

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

- n = n
Pooled s squared: 0.6622
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.1324
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.3639
t Value: 0.8106
Degrees of freedom: 18
Probability of t: 0.4282

Result: Non-Significant t - Accept the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 0.295 plus or minus 0.765 (-0.470 through 1.060)

106

Title: % ELONGATION AT BREAK

Function: T-TEST

SAMPLE_QHE; 60% HDPE SAMELE.IEQL 5% PROFLOW 3000

Variable 5: % Elongation Variable 5: % Elongation

Cases 1 through 10 Cases 81 through 90

Mean: 3.810 Mean: 3.135

Variance: 0.870 Variance: 0.354

Standard Deviation: 0.933 Standard Deviation: 0.595
- A 0’ r , 'Qis' " :1 4 ’ = 4; L, ’ "

F Value: 2.4595

Numerator degrees of freedom: 9

Denominator degrees of freedom: 9

Probability: 0.1962

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

- II = 2"
Pooled s squared: 0.6122
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.1224
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.3499
t Value: 1.9291
Degrees of freedom: 18
Probability of t: 0.0696

Result: Non-Significant t - Accept the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 0.675 plus or minus 0.735 (-0.060 through 1.410)

107

Title: IZOD IMPACT STRENGTH

Function: T-TEST

SAMPLE ONE: BATCH 1

Variable 5: Impact Strength

Cases 1 through 126

§AMPLE TWO: BATCH 2

Variable 5: Impact Strength

Cases 127 through 252

Mean: 44.246 Mean: 45.116
Variance: 47.217 Variance: 45.849
Standard Deviation: 6.871 Standard Deviation: 6.771
E-TEET FOR THE flYPOTHESIS ”VARIANCE 1 = VARIANCE 2"

F Value: 1.0298
Numerator degrees of freedom: 125
Denominator degrees of freedom: 125
Probability: 0.8697
Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

- n = u
Pooled s squared: 46.5330
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.7386
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.8594
t Value: -1.0123
Degrees of freedom: 250
Probability of t: 0.3124

Result:

Non-Significant t - Accept the Hypothesis

Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha

=0.05):

0.870 plus or minus 1.693 (-0.823 through 2.563)

108

Title: IZOD IMPACT STRENGTH

Function: T-TEST

EAEPLE_QHE; 60% HDPE S : 1% MAPP

Variable 5: Impact Strength Variable 5: Impact Strength

Cases 1 through 28 Cases 29 through 56

Mean: 52.521 Mean: 47.829

Variance: 58.468 Variance: 26.479
Standard Deviation: 7.646 Standard Deviation: 5.146
'3 I!" , ’O _ _ " L; i- = Li 4-1 . "

F Value: 2.2081

Numerator degrees of freedom: 27

Denominator degrees of freedom: 27

Probability: 0.0441

Result: Significant F - Reject the Hypothesis

I:IEEI_EQB_THE_HXEQIflE§I§_2MEAN_1_E_HEAN_Z£

Variance of the difference between the means: 3.0338
Standard Deviation of the difference: 1.7418
t Value: 2.6936
Effective degrees of freedom: 47
Probability of t: 0.0094

Result: Significant t - Reject the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 4.692 plus or minus 3.504 (1.188 through 8.196)

109

Title: IZOD IMPACT STRENGTH

Function: T-TEST

SAMPLE_QN§; 60% HDPE
Variable 5: Impact Strength

Cases 1 through 28

SAMPLE TWO: 3% MAPP

Variable 5: Impact Strength

Cases 57 through 84

Mean: 52.521 Mean: 45.104
Variance: 58.468 Variance: 22.747
Standard Deviation: 7.646 Standard Deviation: 4.769
E-TE§T EOE THE EXPOTHESIS ”VAEIAEQE 1 = VABTAEQE 2"

F Value: 2.5703
Numerator degrees of freedom: 27
Denominator degrees of freedom: 27
Probability: 0.0170
Result: Significant F - Reject the Hypothesis

- O POT S S " = "
Variance of the difference between the means: 2.9005
Standard Deviation of the difference: 1.7031
t Value: 4.3548
Effective degrees of freedom: 45
Probability of t: 0.0001

Result:

Significant t - Reject the Hypothesis

Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha

=0.05):

7.417 plus or minus 3.430 (3.986 through 10.847)

110

Title: IZOD IMPACT STRENGTH

Function: T-TEST

SAMPLE_QEE1 60% HDPE §AEEL§_IEQL 5% MAPP

Variable 5: Impact Strength Variable 5: Impact Strength

Cases 1 through 28 Cases 85 through 112

Mean: 52.521 Mean: 45.688

Variance: 58.468 Variance: 35.489

Standard Deviation: 7.646 Standard Deviation: 5.957
’ .1 Us 7 0 Q _ n 2: ix , = Li, LAC, N

F Value: 1.6475

Numerator degrees of freedom: 27

Denominator degrees of freedom: 27

Probability: 0.2010

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

WW

Pooled s squared: 46.9782
Variance of the difference between the means: 3.3556
Standard Deviation of the difference: 1.8318
t Value: 3.7299
Degrees of freedom: 54
Probability of t: 0.0005

Result: Significant t - Reject the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 6.833 plus or minus 3.673 (3.160 through 10.505)

111

Title: IZOD IMPACT STRENGTH

Function: T-TEST

fiAMELE_QN§1 60% HDPE

Variable 5: Impact Strength

Cases 1 through 28

SAMELE_IEQL 1% SURLYN

Variable 5: Impact Strength

Cases 113 through 140

Mean: 52.521 Mean: 42.974
Variance: 58.468 Variance: 36.846
Standard Deviation: 7.646 Standard Deviation: 6.070
- ," 2 '0“: N i.-. = x x_C_' II

F Value: 1.5868

Numerator degrees of freedom: 27

Denominator degrees of freedom: 27

Probability: 0.2367

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis
I:IESI_EQB_IHE_HXEQIflEfil§_2MEAN_1_E_MEAN_22

Pooled s squared: 47.6570
Variance of the difference between the means: 3.4041
Standard Deviation of the difference: 1.8450
t Value: 5.1746
Degrees of freedom: 54
Probability of t: 0.0000

Result:

Significant t - Reject the Hypothesis

Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha

=0.05):

9.547 plus or minus 3.699 (5.848 through 13.246)

112

Title: IZOD IMPACT STRENGTH

Function: T-TEST

§AM2LE_QNEL 60% HDPE

Variable 5: Impact Strength

Cases 1 through 28

§AMEL§_IEQL 3% SURLYN

Variable 5: Impact Strength

Cases 141 through 168

Mean: 52.521 Mean: 42.610

Variance: 58.468 Variance: 31.432
Standard Deviation: 7.646 Standard Deviation: 5.606
" 9.; H _ 2 f'l2.s n i-’ -V§_; L1 ' n

F Value: 1.8601

Numerator degrees of freedom: 27

Denominator degrees of freedom: 27

Probability: 0.1129

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

I:IE§I_EQB_IHE_H12QIEE§I§_2HEAN_1_E_MEAN_ZE

Pooled s squared: 44.9500

Variance of the difference between the means: 3.2107

Standard Deviation of the difference: 1.7918

t Value: 5.5313

Degrees of freedom: 54

Probability of t: 0.0000

Result:

Significant t - Reject the Hypothesis

Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha

=0.05):

9.911 plus or minus 3.592 (6.319 through 13.504)

113

Title: IZOD IMPACT STRENGTH

Function: T-TEST

fiAfl£L§_QNEL 60% HDPE

Variable 5: Impact Strength

Cases 1 through 28

SAMPLE TWO: 5% SURLYN

Variable 5: Impact Strength

Cases 169 through 196

Mean: 52.521 Mean: 42.606
Variance: 58.468 Variance: 25.088
Standard Deviation: 7.646 Standard Deviation: 5.009
- O OTHES S "V I CE 1 = V IANC "
P Value: 2.3305
Numerator degrees of freedom: 27
Denominator degrees of freedom: 27
Probability: 0.0318
Result: Significant F - Reject the Hypothesis
- T 0' = II
Variance of the difference between the means: 2.9841
Standard Deviation of the difference: 1.7275
t Value: 5.7397
Effective degrees of freedom: 46
Probability of t: 0.0000

Result:

Significant t - Reject the Hypothesis

Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha

=0.05):

9.915 plus or minus 3.477 (6.438 through 13.392)

114

Title: IZOD IMPACT STRENGTH

Function: T-TEST

EAMPLE_QEE; 60% HDPE EAEPLE TWO: 5% PROFLOW 1000
Variable 5: Impact Strength Variable 5: Impact Strength

Cases 1 through 28 Cases 197 through 224

Mean: 52.521 Mean: 39.956

Variance: 58.468 Variance: 33.109
Standard Deviation: 7.646 Standard Deviation: 5.754
" .; 2. 2 '. 2 _ n if 2. = 2.1,; C n

F Value: 1.7659

Numerator degrees of freedom: 27

Denominator degrees of freedom: 27

Probability: 0.1459

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

T-IEfiT £93 THE HYPOTEESIS "HEAE 1 = EEAE 2"

Pooled s squared: 45.7881
Variance of the difference between the means: 3.2706
Standard Deviation of the difference: 1.8085
t Value: 6.9478
Degrees of freedom: 54
Probability of t: 0.0000

Result: Significant t - Reject the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 12.565 plus or minus 3.626 (8.939 through 16.191)

115

Title: IZOD IMPACT STRENGTH

Function: T-TEST

SAMPLE ONE: 60% HDPE S E ' 5% PROFLOW 3000

Variable 5: Impact Strength Variable 5: Impact Strength

Cases 1 through 28 Cases 225 through 252

Mean: 52.521 Mean: 42.840

Variance: 58.468 Variance: 49.107

Standard Deviation: 7.646 Standard Deviation: 7.008
- ,OR _ H :0 _ ”VAfI' Z = V13 :_ ”

F Value: 1.1906

Numerator degrees of freedom: 27

Denominator degrees of freedom: 27

Probability: 0.6536

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

- n = n
Pooled s squared: 53.7873
Variance of the difference between the means: 3.8420
Standard Deviation of the difference: 1.9601
t Value: 4.9389
Degrees of freedom: 54
Probability of t: 0.0000

Result: Significant t - Reject the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 9.681 plus or minus 3.930 (5.751 through 13.610)

116

Title: WATER ABSORPTION

Function: T-TEST

fiAMPLE_QME; BATCH 1 SAMPLE TWO: BATCH 2

Variable 5: Water Absorption Variable 5: Water Absorption

Cases 1 through 27 Cases 28 through 54

Mean: 1.830 Mean: 1.877

Variance: 0.534 Variance: 0.406
Standard Deviation: 0.731 Standard Deviation: 0.637
- _ '0; U2 2 ,7'. 2 I! L; i- _ _ = V" i- E n

F Value: 1.3177

Numerator degrees of freedom: 26

Denominator degrees of freedom: 26

Probability: 0.4867

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

Pooled s squared: 0.4700
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.0348
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.1866
t Value: -0.2521
Degrees of freedom: 52

Probability of t: 0.8020

Result: Non-Significant t - Accept the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 0.047 plus or minus 0.374 (-0.327 through 0.421)

117

Title: WATER ABSORPTION

Function: T-TEST

§AM2L3_QNE1 50% HDPE
Variable 5: Water Absorption

Cases 1 through 6

§AMPLE TWO: 1% MAPP

Variable 5: Water Absorption

Cases 7 through 12

Mean: 2.107 Mean: 1.272
Variance: 0.255 Variance: 0.121
Standard Deviation: 0.505 Standard Deviation: 0.347
E-TEST EOR TEE MYPOTHESIS ”VARIANCE l = VAEIANCE 2"
F Value: 2.1144
Numerator degrees of freedom: 5
Denominator degrees of freedom: 5
Probability: 0.4307
Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

_ 0 II = II
Pooled s squared: 0.1878
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.0626
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.2502
t Value: 3.3377
Degrees of freedom: 10
Probability of t: 0.0075
Result: Significant t - Reject the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha

=0.05): 0.835 plus or minus 0.557 (0.278 through 1.392)

118

Title: WATER ABSORPTION

Function: T-TEST

SAMPLE ONE: 60% HDPE SAMPLE TMO; 3% MAPP
Variable 5: Water Absorption Variable 5: Water Absorption
Cases 1 through 6 Cases 13 through 18

Mean: 2.107 Mean: 1.015
Variance: 0.255 Variance: 0.013
Standard Deviation: 0.505 Standard Deviation: 0.112
'-, o; u. . '02,:, " L; 4 - 2;,11 ' "

F Value: 20.1858

Numerator degrees of freedom: 5

Denominator degrees of freedom: 5

Probability: 0.0050

Result: Significant F - Reject the Hypothesis

- o u = a
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.0446
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.2112
t Value: 5.1694
Effective degrees of freedom: 5
Probability of t: 0.0004

Result: Significant t - Reject the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 1.092 plus or minus 0.543 (0.549 through 1.635)

119

Title: WATER ABSORPTION

Function: T-TEST

§AMPLE_QME; 60% HDPE SAMPLE TMO; 5% MAPP

Variable 5: Water Absorption Variable 5: Water Absorption

Cases 1 through 6 Cases 19 through 24
Mean: 2.107 Mean:

Variance: 0.255 Variance:

Standard Deviation: 0.505 Standard Deviation:
E-TEST EOE TEE EXEQTHEEIE "VAEIANCE 1 = EAE1AECE g"
F Value: 12.8653
Numerator degrees of freedom: 5

Denominator degrees of freedom: 5

Probability: 0.0140

Result: Significant F - Reject the Hypothesis

- S II = 2 II

Variance of the difference between the means:
Standard Deviation of the difference:

t Value:

Effective degrees of freedom:

Probability of t:

Result: Significant t - Reject the Hypothesis

1.222
0.020
0.141

0.0458
0.2140
4.1356
5

0.0020

Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 0.885 plus or minus 0.550 (0.335 through 1.435)

120

Title: WATER ABSORPTION

Function: T-TEST

§AMELE_QNEL 60% HDPE §AMELE_IEQL 1% SURLYN
Variable 5: Water Absorption Variable 5: Water Absorption

Cases 1 through 6 Cases 25 through 30

Mean: 2.107 Mean:

Variance: 0.255 Variance:

Standard Deviation: 0.505 Standard Deviation:
- POTH S ” = C "

F Value: 6.2278

Numerator degrees of freedom: 5

Denominator degrees of freedom: 5

Probability: 0.0662

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

WW

Pooled s squared:

Variance of the difference between the means:
Standard Deviation of the difference:

t Value:

Degrees of freedom:

Probability of t:

Result: Non-Significant t - Accept the Hypothesis

2.162
0.041
0.202

0.1479
0.0493
0.2221
-0.2477
10
0.8094

Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 0.055 plus or minus 0.495 (-0.440 through 0.550)

121

Title: WATER ABSORPTION

Function: T-TEST

EAMPLE_QME; 60% HDPE §AMPLE TMO; 3% SURLYN
Variable 5: Water Absorption Variable 5: Water Absorption

Cases 1 through 6 Cases 31 through 36

Mean: 2.107 Mean: 2.310

Variance: 0.255 Variance: 0.105
Standard Deviation: 0.505 Standard Deviation: 0.324
' ’ I; '2. 2. "U2,, II i; i. = 4241 II

F Value: 2.4355

Numerator degrees of freedom: 5

Denominator degrees of freedom: 5

Probability: 0.3509

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

T:IEET_EQB_IHE_HXEQTEE§I§_2MEAN_1_E_MEAN_ZE

Pooled s squared: 0.1798
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.0599
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.2448
t Value: -0.8305
Degrees of freedom: 10
Probability of t: 0.4256

Result: Non-Significant t - Accept the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 0.203 plus or minus 0.545 (-0.342 through 0.749)

122

Title: WATER ABSORPTION

Function: T-TEST

SAMELE.QNEL 60% HDPE fiAMELE_IflQi 5% SURLYN
Variable 5: Water Absorption Variable 5: Water Absorption

Cases 1 through 6 Cases 37 through 42

Mean: 2.107 Mean: 2.910

Variance: 0.255 Variance: 0.073
Standard Deviation: 0.505 Standard Deviation: 0.269
- . .0; , 2 '0!21_ " L;,L _ = 41 4- _ I"

F Value: 3.5136

Numerator degrees of freedom: 5

Denominator degrees of freedom: 5

Probability: 0.1941

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

W2:

Pooled s squared: 0.1638
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.0546
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.2336
t Value: -3.4384
Degrees of freedom: 10

Probability of t: 0.0063

Result: Significant t - Reject the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 0.803 plus or minus 0.521 (0.283 through 1.324)

123

Title: WATER ABSORPTION

Function: T-TEST

EAMPLE_QME; 60% HDPE SAMPLE TWO: 5% PROFLOW 1000
Variable 5: Water Absorption Variable 5: Water Absorption

Cases 1 through 6 Cases 43 through 48

Mean: 2.107 Mean: 1.422

Variance: 0.255 Variance: 0.308
Standard Deviation: 0.505 Standard Deviation: 0.555
- '_ 0 U2 2 _'0T2_ _ II 3‘1; 21. . = Vi-’ L C II

F Value: 1.2071

Numerator degrees of freedom: 5

Denominator degrees of freedom: 5

Probability: 0.8414

Result: Non-Significant F - Accept the Hypothesis

- S u = u
Pooled s squared: 0.2813
Variance of the difference between the means: 0.0938
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.3062
t Value: 2.2368
Degrees of freedom: 10
Probability of t: 0.0493

Result: Significant t - Reject the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 0.685 plus or minus 0.682 (0.003 through 1.367)

124

Title: WATER ABSORPTION

Function: T-TEST

EAMPLE_QME; 60% HDPE §AMPLE TMQ: 5% PROFLOW 3000

Variable 5: Water Absorption Variable 5: Water Absorption

Cases 1 through 6 Cases 49 through 54

Mean: 2.107 Mean: 2.260
Variance: 0.255 Variance: 0.029
Standard Deviation: 0.505 Standard Deviation: 0.171
E-TEST FOR THE EXPOTHEEIS ”VAETAMCE 1 = VAPIAMQE 2"

F Value: 8.7671

Numerator degrees of freedom: 5

Denominator degrees of freedom: 5

Probability: 0.0325

Result: Significant F - Reject the Hypothesis

Variance of the difference between the means: 0.0473
Standard Deviation of the difference: 0.2176
t Value: -0.7047
Effective degrees of freedom: 6

Probability of t: 0.4971

Result: Non-Significant t - Accept the Hypothesis
Confidence limits for the difference of the means (for alpha
=0.05): 0.153 plus or minus 0.532 (-0.379 through 0.686)

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D

{m-cm-cm-cnz-cnz-cnz-cnz-cnz}

Figure 7. Chemical structure of HDPE

cH,0H o H 0H
0 H : H : on H o
o
H><om H H H ><H
H on 0820!! 0

Figure 8. Chemical structure of Aspen Hardwood Fibers

 

 

T“ 7"
“2:77‘3323332 " ’cnz’cnz'cnz'T'cnz
0:! C01!

Figure 9. Chemical Structure of Surlyn

125

12‘

O 0 O 0 O O
\
\f/\‘]’/ ‘5" \\?/\g/ .
a.-c—c-cm,-cH,-c-cH,-c——c':-cm,-¢i}
I l l I l I n
H H H a H a,

Figure in. Chemical Structure of IAFF

[m-cII-m-fiI-m-cf-m-T-az-cr} Q
'a. as a. a. a. I-

tFrotlow 1000 ie a polypropylene homopolymer which ie the
etructure you eee above, while Proflow 3000 ie a oomvemtioaal

ethylene/propylene copolymer.

Figure ll. Chemical Itructure of Proflow aeeiae

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Adams, Rd W., "Gypsum. Filler Lowers Cost of Reinforced
Polyester”, Plastics Engineerigg, pp 59-61, March 1988.

Agarwal, B. D. and Broutman, L. J., Analysig aAg ngfoggancg
9f Eiber Composiges, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1980.

ASTM Standard D 256 - 84, ”Standard Test Method for Impact
Resistance of Plastics and Electrical Insulating

Materials”, Agnual BQOM of ASTM Eggngaggs, Philadelphia,
P. A., pp 81-102, 1987.

ASTM Standard D 570 - 81, "Standard Test Method for Water

Absorption of Plastics", Agnual Bogk of AETM Etgnggzds,
Philadelphia, P. A., pp 187-190, 1987.

ASTM Standard D 638 - 86, "Standard Test Method for Tensile

Properties of Plastics", AAEual Egok 9f Asm Standards,
Philadelphia, p. A., pp 210-226, 1987.

ASTM Standard D 2990 - 77, "Standard Test Methods for Tensile,
Compressive, and Flexural Creep and Creep-Rupture of

Plastics", Annual Book.g§ ASTM Eggndgzds, Philadelphia, P.
A., pp 692-702, 1987.

Bataille, P., .Allard, P., Cousin, P., and Sapieha, S.,
"Interfacial Phenomena in Cellulose/Polyethylene
Composites", Pol er Co osit , Vol. 11, No. 5, pp 301-
304, Oct. 1990.

Bourland, L. G., "Crystallizable PET Resins Nucleated by Low
MW Polypropylenes", AETEQ '88, Paper #324, April 18-21,
1988.

Brydson, J. A., s c a , 3rd ed., Newnes-
Butterworth, 1975.

Harnett, D- L- and Murphy, J- L., IDLIQQBQLQI¥_§L§L1§£1211
Ang1ygig, 2nd ed., Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1980.

Hull, D., An Igtzoductiog g9 Qomposite Mategig1s, Cambridge
University Press, 1981.

Jindal, U. C., "Development and Testing of Bamboo-Fibres

Reinforced Plastic Composites", Eggggg1 o; Compositg
Mgggzig1g, Vol. 20, pp 19-29, Jan. 1986.

Kalyankar, V., ”Mechanical Characteristics of Composites Made
From Recycled HDPE Obtained From Milk Bottles", M.S.

127

128

Thesis, Michigan State University, 1989.

Real, M. D., "The Effects of Dual Additive Systems on the
Mechanical Properties of Aspen Fiber/Recycled High Density
Polyethylene Composites", M.S. Thesis, Michigan State
University, 1990.

Maldas, D. and Kokta, B. V., "The Effect of Aging Conditions
on the Mechanical Properties of Wood Fiber-Polystyrene
Composites: I. Chemithermomechanical Pulp as a Reinforcing

Filler", ngpgsites Sciegge and TecAno1ogy, Vol. 36, pp
167-182, 1989.

Mgggzn Plastigs, "Heading for 50 Billion Pounds”, pp 55-65,
January, 1987.

Mic e t tistic s n .0, Michigan
State University, 1988.

Nieman, K. A., "Mechanical Property Enhancement of Recycled
High Density Polyethylene/Wood Fiber Composites Due to the
Inclusion of Additives", M.S. Thesis, Michigan State
University, 1989.

Owolabi, O., szikovszky, T., and Kovacs, I., "Coconut-Fiber-
Reinforced Thermosetting Plastics", ,IQQEMal of A9911 Ag

Po1yger Science, Vol. 30, pp 1827-1836, 1985.

Parratt, N. J. , Eibre-Ee1' nfggced M§§QP1A1S Techno1ggy, Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company London, 1972.

Papke, C., "Getting Real with Recycling", So1id ngte ggd
nggr, pp 28-32, April 1988.

Patfoort, G. A. and Bucquoye, M. E. N., "New Composite
Materials from Natural Hard Fibers", Ind. Eng, gngm, Pgod.
Bg§1_ng1, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp 555-561, 1981.

Raj, R. G., Kokta, B. V., Maldas, D., and Daneault, C., "Use
of Wood Fibers in Thermoplastic Composites: VI. Isocyanate
as a Bonding Agent for Polyethylene-Wood Fiber Composites",

Pg1yme; Cgmpogiteg, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp 404-411, Dec. 1988.

Resource Integration Systems Ltd., "Market Study for
Recyclable Plastics”, State of Michigan, Department of
Natural Resources, 1987.

Richardson. M-O-W-. WW. Applied
Science Publishers LTD London, 1977.

Richardson. T-. Wide. Industrial Press

129

Inc. , 1987 .

Selke, S. E., Packaging and the Env1ronment: Alternatives,
WM, Technomic Publishing Co. , Inc. , 1990.

Simpson, R. J. , "Composite Materials from Recycled Multi-Layer
Polypropylene Bottles and Wood Fibers", M.S. Thesis,
Michigan State University, 1991.

Sterman, 8., Bradley, H. E.,Proc. SPI Co f. Rei . P

16 Sect. -c, M.O.W. Richardson, London: Applied
Science Publishers, Ltd., 1977.

Thompson, T. and Bluestone, M., "Garbage: It Isn’t The Other

Guy's Problem Anymore", Eggigg§§_flgg3, pp 150-154, May 25,
1987.

Yam, K., Kalyankar, V., Selke, S., Lai, C., "Mechanical

Properties of Wood Fiber/Recycled HDPE Composites", ANTEQ
LEE, 1809-1811, 1988.