effect of water immersion on mechanical properties of polyurethane
Post on 05-Apr-2018
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 Effect of Water Immersion on Mechanical Properties of Polyurethane ...
1/8
COMPOSITES & POLYCON 2009
1
COMPOSITES & POLYCON 2009American Composites Manufacturers AssociationJanuary 15-17, 2009Tampa, FL USA
Effect of Water Immersion on
Mechanical Properties of PolyurethanePultruded Composites
by
James G. Vaughan, The University of Mississippi
Mahesh Akula, The University of Mississippi
Ellen Lackey, The University of Mississippi
Abstract
Polyurethane resins are being considered in a large num-
ber of new pultrusion applications, with many involving
some type of environmental exposure. However, envi-
ronmental data for thermoset polyurethane pultruded
composites is not as widely available as it is for more
common pultrusion resins such as polyester. This study
examines three different formulations of polyurethane
pultruded samples immersed in 150oF water over a 30-33
day period. Three-point flexural tests, short-beam tests,
and compression tests were conducted over the 30 days
of water immersion. These data were compared with a
large database of properties for common pultruded com-
posites using other resins exposed to similar environmen-tal conditions. These comparisons show that the polyu-
rethane composites offer better mechanical performance
compared with pultruded composites produced from
more commonly used resin systems.
Introduction
Based on the unique combination of properties of-
fered by polyurethane resin systems and the demonstra-
tion of the processability of these materials with the pul-
trusion process, interest in polyurethane pultruded com-
posites continues to increase. As use of these composites
increases, the need to more fully characterize the me-chanical and physical properties becomes even more im-
portant. Initial research in this area focused on
processing methods and basic mechanical properties as-
sociated with pultrusion of polyurethane matrix compo-
sites [1-7]. Today, research is expanding to more fully
characterize the pultruded polyurethane composites.
Research has been published related to properties of
pultruded polyurethane (PU) composites under various
loading conditions and environmental exposure condi-
tions. Connolly, et al reported that PU pultruded com-
posites exhibited substantially lower water absorption
than identically constructed composites with matrix ma-
terials of PU-unsaturated polyester hybrid, vinyl ester,
and unsaturated polyester [8, 9]. Grami, et al examined
the effect of salt water and distilled water exposure on
unidirectional glass fiber reinforced thermoplastic polyu-
rethane composite rods; however, no comparison to simi-
lar composites with different matrix materials was pro-vided. Grami attributed the moisture degradation of
these composites to a breakdown of fiber/matrix adhe-
sion [10].
Generally, polyurethane composites are considered
to be tougher, stronger, and more environmentally resis-
tant than comparable polyester composites [11]. How-
ever, as this portion of the industry matures, more tho-
rough understanding of the factors influencing property
data of pultruded polyurethane composites is desirable.
It is known that formulation variables in polyurethane-
based systems can affect processing and performance of
the polyurethane system. Today, a variety of polyure-thane matrix formulations are commercially available for
pultrusion, and understanding the differences associated
with composites fabricated using specific constituent ma-
terials is necessary. Differences in polyurethane matrix
materials can range from basic differences such as
whether the polyurethane is a thermoplastic or a thermo-
set to more subtle differences such as the specific polyol
and isocyanate chemistries. The research objective of
this study is to characterize the effect of water immersion
for thermoset polyurethane pultruded composites fabri-
cated using three different resin formulations.
Experimental Procedure
Resin Formulation: The polyurethane resins uti-lized were two-component 100% solids systems com-
prised of a polyol blend and an isocyanate. The first re-
sin (PU1) was a commercially available Baydur PUL
2500 system. The second resin system (PU2) was a
modified Baydur 2500 system, while the third system
(PU3) was similar to PU1 but with 10% added calcium
carbonate.
Pultrusion Processing: Three different polyure-
thane resin formulations were examined. A nominal 1 x
1/8 (25.4 mm x 3.2 mm) rectangular profile reinforced
with 68% unidirectional E-glass by volume (32 ends of
type 30 113 yield roving) was pultruded for all of the en-
vironmental studies. All of the pultrusion processing ex-
periments were conducted at the University of Mississip-
pi using commercial pultrusion equipment with a resin
injection chamber in front of the die. The front of the die
was water cooled, and three-zones of platen heat were
used to cure the composite. The pultruded product was
produced at a pull speed of 36 in/min. Processing data
including measured line speed, pull load, and die tem-
-
7/31/2019 Effect of Water Immersion on Mechanical Properties of Polyurethane ...
2/8
-
7/31/2019 Effect of Water Immersion on Mechanical Properties of Polyurethane ...
3/8
COMPOSITES & POLYCON 2009
3
sion resistance, just as polyester or vinylester resins are
not all the same.
The flexural modulus determined for the three po-
lyurethane composites is shown in Figures 3a, b, and c,
respectively. Again there is a small expected scatter of
the data as shown by the variation between the mini-
mum, maximum, and average values. In fact, the scatter
within the data for PU1 and PU2 samples is greater thanthe change of the flexural modulus over the time period
of water immersion. Figure 4 plots the three polyure-
thane samples on the same axis, and again as was ob-
served with the flexural strength data of Figure 2, the
flexural modulus of PU1 and PU2 samples are very simi-
lar but are slightly better than the PU3 samples. This
highlights the fact that polyurethane pultruded compo-
sites are not all the same.
Short-Beam Strength: Figures 5a, b, and c show
the maximum, minimum, and average values for the
measured short-beam strength. The observed variation
from the maximum to the minimum short-beam strengthis quite low. Figure 6 shows a plot of the average short-
beam strength of the three polyurethane samples as a
function of water immersion time. This plot shows that
PU2 samples fare better in this test compared to PU1 and
PU2 samples which are quite similar. In general, the
short-beam test is more of a reflection of the resins
properties and the resin/matrix adhesion properties than
the flexural test which is more influenced by the fiber
properties. Also plotted in Figure 6 is a series of water
immersion data for a typical polyester pultruded compo-
site measured in a manner similar to the present study.
As can be seen, similar to the results shown in Figure 2,
the polyurethane samples have a higher initial strengthand retain that higher strength over the immersion time
measured; however, the rate of decrease in short-beam
strength is similar for all of the samples plotted.
Compressive Strength and Modulus: Figures 7a,
b, and c plot the compressive strength and modulus as a
function of a 30 day immersion period. The compressive
strength is plotted for three test times on the left-and y-
axis, while the compressive modulus is plotted against
the right-hand side y-axis. The modulus was only meas-
ured at the start and the end of the test period due to the
complexity of making these measurements. As can be
seen in Figures 7a, b, and c there is considerable scatter
in both the compressive strength and modulus data. This
is not totally unexpected due to the difficulties in making
a proper measurement of these particular mechanical
properties. Based on the scatter and the actual increase
in the measured modulus for the two time periods, it is
difficult to state the exact effect of water immersion on
the compressive modulus of these samples, but the effect
does not appear to be more significant than the normal
scatter typically seen in this type of data. Figure 8 plots
the compressive strength data of all three polyurethanes.
In this plot, it is difficult to state that there is a change in
the compressive strength of PU1 and PU2 samples over
the measured immersion time, although a small decrease
in compressive strength is probable for PU3 samples.
Summary and Recommendations
It is apparent that all three of the polyurethane pul-
truded composites perform better under conditions of
150oF water immersion exposure than do the selected
polyester and vinlyester composites for which direct
comparison data was available. However, it is also ap-
parent that not all polyurethane composites are equal in
their mechanical property response. For the polyure-
thanes examined in this study, PU2 had a better short-
beam response than the other two systems, although PU1
and PU2 were similar in flexural strength and modulus
and also compressive strength and modulus. The PU3
samples were of lower property values for all measured
properties of this study with the one exception of initial
compressive strength.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Mr. Albert Magnotta and
Dr. John Hayes from Bayer Material-Science for their
assistance in preparing the pultruded parts.
Authors Biographies
James Vaughan: Dr. Vaughan is a Barnard Professor of
Mechanical Engineering at the University of Mississippi.
He is the Director of the Composite Materials Research
Group at the University.
Mahesh Akula: Mr. Akula is a M.S. student at the Uni-
versity of Mississippi. His thesis research is related to
the mechanical properties of polyurethane composites
after environmental exposure.
Ellen Lackey: Dr. Lackey, CCT-I, is an associate profes-
sor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at the
University of Mississippi. Her research areas focus on
the manufacturing and testing of polymeric composites.
References:
1. Chen, Chin-Hsing and Chen-Chi M. Ma, Pul-truded Fiber Reinforced Blocked Polyurethane
(PU) Composites. I. Processability And Mechani-
cal Properties, Journal of Applied Polymer
Science, v 46, n 6, Oct 25, 1992, p 937-947.
2. Joshi, R.R., E.H. Cheloas, R. Stapleton, A. DeLi-ma, Polyurethanes in Pultrusion II: Comparative
Study with Conventional Resin Systems Used in
the Industry, Proceedings of Composites 2000-
CFA, September 2000.
-
7/31/2019 Effect of Water Immersion on Mechanical Properties of Polyurethane ...
4/8
COMPOSITES & POLYCON 2009
4
3. Joshi, R.R., E.H. Cheolas, E.F. Cassidy, W.J. Karo-ly, and H. D. Coffee, Polyurethane Based Pul-
truded Resins Improve the Environmental Image of
Composite Materials, Proceedings of Composites
2001, Composites Fabricators Association, October
2001.
4. Coffee, Harry D. and M. J. Perry, ProcessingTechniques for Reinforced Thermosetting Ure-
thane Composites, Proceedings of Composites2001, Composites Fabricators Association, October
2001.
5. Vaughn, J.G., E. Lackey, H.D. Coffee, N. Barksby,and J.L. Lambach, Pultrusion of Fast-Gel Ther-
moset Polyurethanes: Processing Considerations
and Mechanical Properties, Proceedings of Com-
posites 2003, Composites Fabricators Association,
October 2003.
6. Sumerak, Joseph E., Pultrusion Gets Tough: Po-lyurethane Resin Offers New Growth, Proceed-
ings of Composites 2004, American Composites
Manufactures Association, February 2004.
7. Connolly, M., J.P King, T.A. Shidaker, A.C. Dun-can, Pultruding Polyurethane Composite Profiles:Practical Guidelines for Injection Box Design,
Component Metering Equipment and Processing
Proceedings of Composites 2005, American Com-
posites Manufacturers Association, Sept. 2005.
8. Connolly, M., J. King, T. Shidaker, and A. Duncan,Characterization of Pultruded Polyurethane Com-
posites: Environmental Exposure and Component
Assembly Testing, Proceedings of Composites
2006, Oct. 18-20, 2006, 1-10.
9. Connolly, M., J. King, T. Shidaker, and A. Duncan,Processing and Characterization of Pultruded Po-
lyurethane Composites, EPTA, March 2006, 1-18.10. Grami, M.E., M.J. Moilanen, and M. W.K. Ro-seow, Environmental Degradation of Glass Fibers
in Polyurethane Matrix Composites, Proceedings
of ICCM-10, 1995, VI:207-214.
11. Sherman, Lilli M., Polyurethane Composites:New Alternatives to Polyester and Vinyl Ester,
PlasticsTechnology, March 2006.
12. McClurg, J.A., J.G. Vaughan, and E. Lackey,"Combined Effects of Moisture, Temperature, and
Load on Pultruded Composites," Proceedings of
CFA Composites 2002 - Technical Papers,
CDROM, September, 1 - 11, 2002.
13. Meda, Chaitali, "Moisture Durability Study of Pul-truded AOC P920 / Glass Polyester Composite Ma-
terials," Masters Thesis, University of Mississippi,
December, 1-120, 2003.
-
7/31/2019 Effect of Water Immersion on Mechanical Properties of Polyurethane ...
5/8
COMPOSITES & POLYCON 2009
5
Figure 2. Plot of the average flexural strength of PU1, PU2, and PU3 samples exposed to 150oF water immersion for 33
days. Shown for comparison are similar exposure flexural strength data for a generic polyester and vinylester product. All
test data is the average of five tests.
Figure 1a, b, c. Plots of the flexural strength of PU1,
PU2, and PU3 samples exposed to 150oF water immer-
sion for 33 days. Each time period shows the data for
five test samples. Data makers show the maximum and
minimum values determined, while the line shows the
average value tested.
-
7/31/2019 Effect of Water Immersion on Mechanical Properties of Polyurethane ...
6/8
COMPOSITES & POLYCON 2009
6
Figure 4. Plot of the flexural modulus of PU1, PU2, and PU3 samples exposed to 150oF water immersion for 33 days.
Each time period shows the average data for five test samples.
Figure 3a, b, c. Plots of the flexural modulus of PU1,
PU2, and PU3 samples exposed to 150oF water im-
mersion for 33 days. Each time period shows the data
for five test samples. Data makers show the maxi-
mum and minimum values determined, while the line
shows the average value tested.
-
7/31/2019 Effect of Water Immersion on Mechanical Properties of Polyurethane ...
7/8
-
7/31/2019 Effect of Water Immersion on Mechanical Properties of Polyurethane ...
8/8
COMPOSITES & POLYCON 2009
8
Figure 8. Plot of the compressive strengths of PU1, PU2, and PU3 samples exposed to 150oF water immersion for 30 days.
Each time period shows the average data for five test samples.
Figure 7a, b, c. Plot of compressive strength and mod-
ulus of the PU1, PU2, and PU3 samples exposed to
150oF water immersion for 33 days. Each time period
shows the data for five test samples. Data makers show
the maximum and minimum values determined, while
the line shows the average value tested.
top related