journal article·1989-10

Injection molding of glass flake reinforced polypropylene: Flake orientation and stiffness

A. Bouti, T. Vu‐Khanh, B. Fisa

Polymer Composites· Volume 10· Issue 5
Publisher page

Abstract

Abstract Three samples of silane treated glass flakes of different diameters were dry blended with polypropylene powder and injection molded into rectangular (32 mm × 127 mm) plaques using an edge‐gated mold cavity. The thicknesses of plaques were 1.6 mm, 3.2 mm, and 6.4 mm. Tensile and flexural specimens were machined from these plaques. Average flake diameters and thicknesses were determined. It was found that aspect ratios in finished moldings are quite similar, despite the initial (before processing) differences. The flake orientation varies across the thickness; it is parallel to the plane of the molding in the outer skin layer, changing gradually to perpendicular in the core. The relative thickness of the skin where the flake orientation is parallel increases with the decreasing thickness and flake concentration. It represents about 85% of the overall thickness in 1.6 mm moldings, between 70% and 85% when the plaque thickness is 3.2 mm, and between 50% and 60% in the thickest (6.4 mm) molding. Elastic properties can be interpreted using the modified rule of mixtures. Tensile moduli depends strongly on the flake orientation in the core and on the flake concentration, whereas the influence of the core on flexural moduli is insignificant. The flake orientation coefficients determined from micrographs are in good agreement with those calcuated from mechanical test. The coefficient accounting for finite flake aspect ratio, ηL was found to be about 0.3.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Composite Material Mechanics · Polymer crystallization and properties

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (22)

Show source-provided references
1. Modern Plastics · 1988 · 65 · 95
2. Woodhams R. T. · 1978
3. 10.1002/pen.76015041310.1002/pen.760150413 ↗
4. 10.1002/pen.76010031010.1002/pen.760100310 ↗
5. 10.1002/pen.76013021010.1002/pen.760130210 ↗
6. 10.1295/koron.37.78910.1295/koron.37.789 ↗
7. 10.1002/pc.75007051510.1002/pc.750070515 ↗
8. 10.1002/pc.75009050910.1002/pc.750090509 ↗
9. Lunt J. M. · Plast. Rubber. Process. · 1979 · 4 · 108
10. 10.1002/pc.75006040810.1002/pc.750060408 ↗
11. 10.1002/pc.75005040610.1002/pc.750050406 ↗
12. 10.1002/app.1980.07025062310.1002/app.1980.070250623 ↗
13. Hegler R. P. · Kunstst. Ger. Plast. · 1984 · 74 · 271
14. 10.1295/polymj.17.86310.1295/polymj.17.863 ↗
15. 10.1007/978-94-009-4193-9_610.1007/978-94-009-4193-9_6 ↗
16. 10.1002/app.1987.07034010110.1002/app.1987.070340101 ↗
17. Bataille F. · SPE ANTEC Tech. Papers · 1985 · 31 · 1174
18. Sanchagrin B. · SPE ANTEC Tech. Papers · 1984 · 30 · 683
19. 10.1002/pc.75007051710.1002/pc.750070517 ↗
20. 10.1088/0508-3443/3/3/30210.1088/0508-3443/3/3/302 ↗
21. Krenchel H. · 1964
22. 10.1002/pen.76025070410.1002/pen.760250704 ↗