3. Abstract
The GP Beverage Company has requested a new design for the bottle the
company is currently using to protect their product. The objective is to discover the
most cost effective material within the Polymer family to fulfill this need. The
material we chose has to be strong, cost efficient, and easy to manufacture. The
experiments will show how the material reacts with the series of optical, mechanical,
thermal, chemical, magnetic, and electrical tests. These results will provide further
information about the final selection of one material within the polymer family. The
material selection and material properties research yields vital information about
which materials will satisfy the objective of the project. The three materials that were
chosen include: Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), Polypropylene (PP), and
Polyvinylchloride (PVC). The experiments still need to be conducted in order to fully
analyze and select a final polymer for the GP Beverage Company.
3
4. Introduction
The GP beverage company has requested the investigation of the various
materials within the assigned family in order to provide them with the best option in
protecting their product throughout its life cycle. The life cycle of a bottle used to
protect the product will be clearly outlined in this report. The objective is to find the
best polymer to utilize in the protecting of the liquid inside the GP beverage
container. The container that GP eventually uses to protect its product will be made
from one of the polymers suggested in this report. The overall goal of the report is to
maximize toughness and minimize cost. By doing so, GP beverage company will
receive the greatest quality polymer. We will provide vast scientific data depicting
why the specific polymers in that family of materials were chosen. The initial
constraints of the project include, but are not limited to: a 5 Liter bottle, must
withstand a fall from 5ft, and must be able to manufacture at least 100,000 bottles.
All of these initial constraints will have environmental, social, technical, and
economic impacts. Balancing these impacts will be a challenge in itself.
Polymers have been around in a natural form of science since life began and
naturally occurring biological polymers play an extremely important role in plant and
animal life (Young, 1). A polymer is a long molecule, which contains a chain of
atoms held together by covalent bonds. A covalent bond is a chemical bond that
involves the sharing of electron pairs between atoms. Polymers are produced
through a process known as polymerization whereby monomer molecules react
together chemically to form either linear chains or a threedimensional network of
polymer chains (Young, 2). These can be classified into three groups, which
include: thermoplastics, elastics, and thermosets. Currently, the specific polymer
used to protect carbonated products as well as water is PET (polyethylene
terephthalate)(Ophardt, 1). With that said, this report will mainly be concerned with
thermoplastics because they are low in cost, easy to mold and shape, and possess
mechanical and chemical properties that will enhance the protection of the GP
beverage product. FDA has approved plastic beverage containers made from
polyethylene terephthalate, PET. Several companies are using this polyester as a
material for lightweight, energyefficient, breakageresistant containers (Beverage
Container Deposit Legislation, 57).
One main problem that polymers have had in the past with beverage
containment has been the fact that they are harmful to the environment because
some of them are not recyclable. Some technical questions that we must ask
ourselves include:
● What is the life cycle of each polymer we are considering?
● How much CO2 admission does each polymer exert within the way we will be
utilizing it?
● How much raw polymer material will be needed to produce the amount of
bottles the GP Company has requested (100,000 bottles)?
● What are the dimensions of the bottle?
4
5. Apparatus
A series of different apparatuses will be used during the testing of the three
polymers. The apparatuses used are included in the table below, separated by the
test in which each one will be used for.
Figure 1: Apparatus
Note: In Figure 1, the * symbolizes the length of the material being used. All other
dimensions are assumed to be a portion of the sheet for the respective material.
The estimated costs for the three materials chosen are listed below. The costs
come straight from the manufactures’ websites. US Plastics will be the sole provider
of the three materials that were chosen for this project. US Plastics have been
recommended by John Wild and various other sources. US Plastics have great
prices, quality products, and fast delivery time.
5
6. Procedures
A series of six different tests will be run in order to validate the design,
innovation, and modification. The six tests include, but are not limited to: optical,
electrical, thermal, chemical, mechanical, and magnetic. Please note that each
procedure will be conducted within the physics, chemistry, and engineering labs of
James Madison University. The procedures are based off of what equipment is
readily available to the team. Further tests may be conducted to learn more about
each polymer. These tests are not to be considered limited factors during the
research of these materials and may be subject to change.
Optical
Test Method 1 (UV Radiation)
Tensile portion
1. Turn on Instron Machine
2. Start up Blue Hill Software located on the desktop
3. Login to Blue Hill by using “DUKES” as both the password and username (if
using this machine at James Madison University, home of the Dukes).
4. Make sure the crossheads are in the correct position, 2 inches apart from
each other. If not, hit the “Return” button on the pendant of the machine.
5. Place material sample in the top grip and make it as vertical as possible.
6. Tare the machine by hitting the soft key and then hit “balance load”. This
ensures that the force recorded is due to the tensile force on the sample,
rather than the weight of the sample or the crossheads.
7. Tighten the lower grip on the machine
8. After logging into Blue Hill, click the correct dimensions, and saving
mechanism.
9. Start the test by hitting “play” on the software and wait until material plastically
deforms. The machine will stop pulling at this point.
10. Export data using USB device and import into excel on personal computer
11. Analysis data by creating stress vs. strain graphs in excel.
12. Repeat steps 411 for all three polymer samples
UV portion
1. Place all three samples of polymers in separate containers
2. Obtain three UV lights and place them directly over the samples
3. Turn on the UV lights and let them run for a week straight, check up on
samples twice a day to ensure the lights have not burnt out and samples
are still there.
4. After a week, turn off the UV lights and remove samples from their
respective containers.
5. Take the samples and run the Instron tensile test for all three
6. Repeat steps 112 in the tensile testing portion of this test.
6
7. Purpose: The purpose of this test is to see if long exposure to UV light affects the
strength of the material in anyway. UV radiation could degrade the material and
cause structural damage.
Validate – ASTM D4329 – 13 Standard Practice for Fluorescent Ultraviolet (UV)
Lamp Apparatus Exposure of Plastics
Electrical
Test Method 1 (Resistivity)
1. Gather Digital Multimeter (DMM), 3 doublesided wire sets, and a power
source.
2. Connect the wires to the DMM, power source, and the polymer material
3. Make sure that all items are in series with each other and that it is a closed
circuit
4. DO NOT turn on power supply until you check to see if step 3 is complete
5. Turn on power supply
6. Using the DMM, measure the current running through the wires before the
polymer material and then again after the polymer material
7. Repeat steps 36 for all three polymer samples
Purpose: The purpose of this test is to find out how much resistivity each polymer
has. Knowing that polymers are insulators, results may be minimal and could
possibly tell us nothing.
Validate – ASTM D257 –07, “Standard Test Methods for DC Resistance or
Conductance of Insulating Materials” The resistance of a material Is determined
from a measurement of current and voltage drop under certain conditions. Using
the appropriate electrode system can provide values that can be used to calculate
resistivity and conductivity.
Thermal
Test Method 1 (Melting Point)
1. Set up the hot plate on the table
2. Cover the hot plate with Aluminum foil
3. Record the temperature of the aluminum foil on the hot plate
4. Record the room temperature
5. Place the tested material on the aluminum foil
6. Record the temperature of the material on the hot plate
7. Turn on the hot plate to the highest setting
8. Watch the material very closely to ensure that when it starts to plastically
deform in any way you are ready to record the temperature. Note that the
temperature of the melting point will not change during the melting process.
9. Record the temperature at the melting point
10. Repeat steps 29 for all three polymer samples
Purpose: The purpose of this test is to explore the experimental melting point of the
specific material. The melting point will show what temperature the material begins
to melt, which will inform the manufacturer of where not to place the material in the
7
8. factory. If the factory can get up to these temperatures, the company will risk plastic
deformation of the bottles. This same concept applies to shipping across the world.
If the company is shipping the material to an area of the world with known higher
temperatures, than the melting point should be a concern.
Validate – ASTM D3045 – 92(2010) Standard Practice for Heat Aging of Plastics
Without Load
Test Method 2 (Thermal Conductivity)
1. Turn on computer and open up LabView. Set up the DAQ to thermocouples
2. Obtain polymer rod sample (10 inches in length)
3. Drill one hole at the end of the rod
4. Attach thermocouples to rod and LabView dock. Measure the distance from
the top of the rod to the thermocouples
5. Place cartridge heater in drilled hole
6. Attach cartridge heater to power supply
7. Place other the other end of rod in ice
8. Make sure everything is connected properly and turn on the power supply
(Note that power supply output reading should be somewhere between
030V)
9. Allow LabView to collect data until temperatures reach a steady state, or the
slope of the line on the graph is zero.
10. Repeat steps 29 for all three polymer samples
Purpose: The purpose of this lab is to determine the thermal conductivity of each
material tested. The thermal conductivity will allow the GP Beverage Company to
see how long it takes for the bottle to become cold after being placed in the
refrigerator of the customer. This should allow the company to market this result if it
turns out to benefit the product.
Validate – ASTM C177 – 10 Standard Test Method for SteadyState Heat Flux
Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the
GuardedHotPlate Apparatus
Chemical
Test Method 1 (Material Degradation)
1. Obtain nine separate containers with sealable tops. Make sure that the
containers are at least 2 inches in height.
2. Pour phosphorous, carbonic acid, and citric acid into the nine containers.
Make sure that three containers contain phosphorous, three contain carbonic
acid, and three contain citric acid. Make sure that the containers are at least
5 inches apart.
3. Place a 2inch sample of each material into each one of the chemicals.
4. Let the material samples sit in the chemicals for a week total, untouched.
This ensures that the chemicals will soak into the materials being tested.
5. Move into the tensile testing portion to test the tensile strength of the material
after soaking in the chemicals. Refer to the tensile results in the tensile test
towards the bottom of this procedure and the found tensile strengths in CES
8
9. to compare.
Tensile portion
1. Turn on Instron Machine
2. Start up Blue Hill Software located on the desktop
3. Login to Blue Hill by using “DUKES” as both the password and username (if
using this machine at James Madison University, home of the Dukes).
4. Make sure the crossheads are in the correct position, 2 inches apart from
each other. If not, hit the “Return” button on the pendant of the machine.
5. Place material sample in the top grip and make it as vertical as possible.
6. Tare the machine by hitting the soft key and then hit “balance load”. This
ensures that the force recorded is due to the tensile force on the sample,
rather than the weight of the sample or the crossheads.
7. Tighten the lower grip on the machine
8. After logging into Blue Hill, click the correct dimensions, and saving
mechanism.
9. Start the test by hitting “play” on the software and wait until material plastically
deforms. The machine will stop pulling at this point.
10. Export data using USB device and import into excel on personal computer
11. Analysis data by creating stress vs. strain graphs in excel.
Repeat steps 411 for all three polymer samples
Purpose: The chemicals used in this test are chosen because they are the main
three acids found in common soda. This test will ensure that if the materials are
sitting in these chemicals for a long period of time, they will not be affected in terms
of the strength of the material.
Validate – ASTM D543 – 06 Standard Practices for Evaluating the Resistance of
Plastics to Chemical Reagents
Test Method 2 (Material Degradation)
1. Place eight containers on a table that will remain in the same location for at
least three weeks. Ensure that the containers have sealable caps and they
are at room temperature. Also make sure to record what the room
temperature is.
2. Fill one container with water, and one with CocaCola. Fill the next three with
water and the different materials in each one, and three with CocaCola and
the materials in each one.
3. Record the pH of all the containers right after the materials are placed in the
said containers.
4. Let the containers sit for three weeks and take pH samples every week.
5. After the three weeks, take a pH sample again and compare it to the first pH
samples taken.
Purpose: The purpose of this test is to discover whether the degradation, if any, of
the materials are affecting the contents of the containers. The contents of the
container will act as the product GP Beverage Company produces and provides to
its customers. Please note that the lifecycle of a bottle far exceeds the testing
9
10. duration. This is because the testing duration is limited.
Validate ASTM D5226 98(2010)e1, Standard Practice for Dissolving Polymer
Materials
Mechanical
Test Method (Tensile Test)
1. Turn on Instron Machine
2. Start up Blue Hill Software located on the desktop
3. Login to Blue Hill by using “DUKES” as both the password and username (if
using this machine at James Madison University, home of the Dukes).
4. Make sure the crossheads are in the correct position, 2 inches apart from
each other. If not, hit the “Return” button on the pendant of the machine.
5. Place material sample in the top grip and make it as vertical as possible.
6. Tare the machine by hitting the soft key and then hit “balance load”. This
ensures that the force recorded is due to the tensile force on the sample,
rather than the weight of the sample or the crossheads.
7. Tighten the lower grip on the machine
8. After logging into Blue Hill, click the correct dimensions, and saving
mechanism.
9. Start the test by hitting “play” on the software and wait until material plastically
deforms. The machine will stop pulling at this point.
10. Export data using USB device and import into excel on personal computer
11. Analysis data by creating stress vs. strain graphs in excel.
12. Repeat steps 411 for all three material samples
Purpose: The purpose of this lab is to test the strength of the material to see how it
will hold up under strenuous conditions. The strength of every material will vary
based on how it was made and where it is from, so conducting this test is a
necessity. The yield strength and Young’s Modulus can be found by conducting this
experiment which will relate back to the stiffness and strength values in terms of
compression.
Validate – ASTM D63810 Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of
Plastics
Magnetic
Test Method 1 (Gauss Meter)
1. Gather three samples of the different materials.
2. Tie a string to each of the materials
3. One at a time, hold the material away from your body (full arms length)
4. Place the metal node of the Gauss meter on the material and record the
reading displayed on the screen
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 for the remaining two polymers
Purpose: The purpose of this test was to test the magnetic field generated from
each material. Magnetic field can create an electric field which can then create the
possibility of shocking. It is important for the GP Beverage Company to know if the
10
11. materials will magnetically react with the different materials that may be placed
around them. Validate ASTM E1444 Standard Practice for Magnetic Particle
Testing
Material Selection
There are many standardized methods for material selection within industry.
The methods are divided between the design led approach and the science led
approach. The team decided to use the design led process illustrated in Materials:
engineering, science, processing and design by Michael Ashby, Hugh Shercliff,
and David Cebon for the familiarity and ease of access with the team. The process
is made up of four steps, translation, screening, ranking, and documentation.
Translation is organizing the team’s objectives and customer needs into constraints
or must be met criteria. Screening is eliminating materials that do not meet the
constraints. Ranking is using material indices, which are based on what the
designer wants to maximize, to rank the screened material. Documentation is using
known literature to assist in deciding on a material. This report will fully dive into the
first two steps of the design led process and partially into the latter two. The time
between this report and the next report will be dedicated to fully completing the
design material selection process.(Ashby)
The team first identified a list of customer needs based on the customers
criteria as well research into the industry of bottle containers.
Table 1: Customer Needs
The customer needs are then translated into the function, the constraints, the
objective, and free variables. The function is the purpose of the design. The
constraints are the must be met criteria. The objective is what needs to be
maximized or minimized. The free variables are variables that designers are
permitted to change to any value that the designers see as beneficial towards the
design. The four designations can be seen in Table 1.
11
12. Table 2: Design Variables
In order to narrow down the choice of materials to those that fit the design criteria,
simulated values for the constraints must be calculated or found through available
literature. Many of the constraints are dependent on the shape and dimensions of
the container.
Workable Dimensions
In order to create dimensions that could be used to calculate estimated
constraint values, many assumptions had to be made as well as research on how
the container will interact with the end user. It is assumed that the container will act
as a pressure vessel since it will contain a carbonated beverage. The optimum
shape for a pressure vessel is a sphere but a sphere is relatively difficult to produce
compared to a cylinder so the team has decided to model the container after a
cylinder. (Pressure Vessels Ensure Safety). Ergonomics is the use of introducing
the human psyche into the design process. More ergonomic designs have a track
record of selling more inventory (Ergonomics 101). It is assumed by the design
team that a container that can be easily carried or grasped by the average person
will be more enticing to a consumer then a container that is not easily grasped or
carried. The average person’s hand has the length of 180.5 mm (Hand Grip
Strength). The estimated circular cross section of the simulated cylindrical container
will be a function of the average hand length. Appendix Figure 1 demonstrates how
the length of the hand is curved around the cross section. It is assumed that a hand
that is able to cover at least half of the bottle in order to satisfy the comfortable
grasp for a human. With a hand wrapped around half of the cross section (π in
12
13. radians), an estimated radius can be calculated. It is also assumed that the
thickness negligible compared to the radius.
Table 3: List of the constraint values calculated above.
Figure 2 shows the polymers that are left when the constraint values are placed in
the limits of the CES software. The values entered can be seen in the material
selection appendix.
Figure 2: Polymers passing constraints
The objective of the material selection process was to minimize cost. The
cost limited design of the stiffness design in chapter 5 of the Materials:
engineering, science, processing and design by Michael Ashby, Hugh Shercliff,
13
14. and David Cebon, was selected because the flat plate material indices was
deemed close enough to what needs to be optimized for the container to be used.
(Eq. 11)M = E3
1
ρC
The material indices graphed with CES is seen in figure 3. The slope of the indices
is in a unique spot where it cannot be limited to three. The selection jumps from two
to four materials.
Figure 3: Material index Graph
The four materials that were left from the material indices are PET, PP, PLA, and
tpPVC. The team then used documentation from known literature and research in
how easily available the remaining materials are to narrow the choice down to three.
The three materials remaining after documentation is PP, PET, and tpPVC.
14
15. Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed to determine if the material we selected
was significantly different from a material of another material group for a specific
property. We chose to use the hardness test to compare PET and low carbon steel.
The first equation below was used to determine the pooled standard deviation.
Next, the t actual was determined by the second equation.
Once we knew t actual we could determine with what degree of certainty we
could say that the materials were different. We found t actual to be 643.5159. This
an unusually high number for t actual could be explained because we used 30
samples for each material and the materials we projected to have large differences
in hardness. Then it was determined that we could could say with a confidence level
of 99.9% and using a critical value for our degrees of freedom determined by the
third and last equation above. The critical value was 3.2368 which is much smaller
than the t actual which means we can statistically say with at least 99.9% certainty
that the two materials are different.
Material Properties
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
Almost all soda and water bottles in the U.S. are made from PET. PET is a synthetic
fiber that is clear, strong, light, and stiff. PET is in the thermoplastic family and the
polyester family. Water or carbon dioxide cannot pass through PET, but small
amounts of oxygen can pass through. It can be recycled into carpet and clothing and
the recycle number is one. PET is produced by using a process called
polymerization (Polyethylene). The two ingredients in the process are ethylene glycol
and terephthalic acid. This process also produces water (PET Resin). J.Rex
Whinfield and James T. Dickson first patented the material in England in 1941 and
production did not begin until 1952 by a USA company called Du Pont (John Rex).
Polypropylene (PP)
This material is very similar to PET. It is also a synthetic polymer fiber and part of
15
16. the thermoplastic family. PP is tough, lightweight, heat resistant, and flexible. It also
is flammable and degrades in UV rays. PP can be recycled and the recycle number
is 5. Polypropylene is often used for ropes, crates, and insulation (Polypropylene).
Giulio Natta discovered PP in 1954 and commercial production began in 1957.
Polyvinylchloride (tpPVC/PVC)
PVC is lightweight and rigid, but can become more flexible by adding chemicals
like phthalates. It is used for many things including plumbing, insulation, siding,
signs, windows, and healthcare products. PVC is recyclable but is difficult to do so
and the production process creates a very toxic chemical called dioxin (Polyvinyl).
PVC was discovered in 1872 by Eugen Baumann but did not appear in commercial
products until Waldo Semon developed a way to use additives to plasticize the
chemical and make it more flexible and easily processed.
General properties
The tables show that PET and PP are similar in price but PVC is usually
much cheaper by the pound. The tables also show that if we had the same weight of
each material PET and PVC would be similar in volume but PP would be much
larger in volume. PET PVC and PP would all be lighter compared to soda lime
glass (152155 Lb/ft^3) which could reduce transportation costs and may improve
stacking ability. The prices of these polymers are slightly less expensive than the
price of aluminum alloys which is 1.08 to 1.18 USD/lb. The main difference in the
chemical composition is that PET is a much larger molecule than PP or PVC and
PVC has a chlorine atom in its chemical composition.
Table 4: PET
Property Lower limit Upper limit Units
Density 80.5 87.4 Lb/ft^3
Price .939 1.03 USD/lb
Molecular
composition
C10H8O4
Table 5: PP
Property Lower limit Upper limit Units
Density 55.6 56.8 Lb/ft^3
Price .871 1 USD/lb
Molecular
composition
C3H6
Table 6: PVC
Property Lower limit Upper limit Units
Density 81.2 98.6 Lb/ft^3
Price .64 .703 USD/lb
Molecular
composition
C2H3Cl
16
17. Mechanical properties
Mechanical properties are important to determine if a structure will fail when a load
is applied. The loads that may be applied to the beverage may include the pressure
inside the bottle, a person twisting the cap off the bottle, and any stacking bottles
during transportation or storage. Yield strength, tensile strength, and compressive
strength are important to determining if the bottle can withstand the applied loads.
The bottle must also withstand an impact when dropped from 5 feet. The property
most related to the impact test would be the fracture toughness. Fracture toughness
determines if a material would fracture when a load is applied. These polymers
would perform better than soda lime glass which has a fracture toughness of around
0.5 to 0.6 ksi in^0.5. PET does best with regards to fracture toughness follow by
PVC then PP. Young’s modulus is a measure of stress divided by strain.
Table 7: PET
Property Lower limit Upper limit Units
Youngs modulus 0.4 0.6 10^6 psi
Shear modulus 0.144 0.216 10^6 psi
Bulk modulus 0.718 0.754 10^6 psi
Yield strength 8.19 9.04 Ksi
Tensile strength 7.01 10.5 Ksi
Compressive
strength
9.01 9.94 ksi
elongation 30 300 % strain
Fracture toughness 4.1 5.01 Ksi in^0.5
Hardness (Vickers) 17 18.7 HV
Table 8: PP
Property Lower limit Upper limit Units
Youngs modulus 0.13 0.225 10^6 psi
Shear modulus 0.0458 0.0795 10^6 psi
Bulk modulus 0.363 0.377 10^6 psi
Yield strength 3 5.4 Ksi
Tensile strength 4 6 Ksi
Compressive
strength
3.64 8.01 ksi
elongation 100 600 % strain
Fracture toughness 2.73 4.1 Ksi in^0.5
Hardness (Vickers) 6.2 11.2 HV
Table 9: PVC
Property Lower limit Upper limit Units
Youngs modulus 0.31 0.6 10^6 psi
Shear modulus 0.111 0.216 10^6 psi
Bulk modulus 0.682 0.711 10^6 psi
17
18. Yield strength 5.13 7.56 Ksi
Tensile strength 5.9 9.45 Ksi
Compressive
strength
6.16 13 ksi
elongation 11.9 80 % strain
Fracture toughness 1.33 4.66 Ksi in^0.5
Hardness (Vickers) 10.6 15.6 HV
Thermal properties
Thermal properties are important in order to find out the best process to use to
shape the material into a product. It is also important to determine if the
temperatures the material might experience will cause the material to deform.
Thermal conductivity determines how good the material is at conducting heat. The
low thermal conductivity means that all three materials are very good insulators. It is
important that these materials be insulators so that a person’s hand does not get
cold if someone is drinking a cold drink. The materials here are much better than
both soda lime glass(0.4040.751 BTU ft/(h*ft^2* °F)) and aluminum alloys
(68.8139 BTU ft/(h*ft^2* °F)) when it comes to insulating. The specific heat is the
amount of energy required to heat one pound of material.
Table 10: PET
Property Lower limit Upper limit Units
Melting point 413 509 Degrees Fahrenheit
(°F)
Maximum service
temp
152 188 Degrees Fahrenheit
(°F)
Minimum service
temp
190 99.7 Degrees Fahrenheit
( °F)
Thermal conductivity 0.0797 0.0872 BTU ft/(h*ft^2* °F)
Specific heat 0.339 0.352 BTU/lb*°F
Table 11: PP
Property Lower limit Upper limit Units
Melting point 302 347 Degrees Fahrenheit
(°F)
Maximum service
temp
212 239 Degrees Fahrenheit
(°F)
Minimum service
temp
190 99.7 Degrees Fahrenheit
(°F)
Thermal conductivity 0.0653 0.0965 BTU ft/(h*ft^2*°F)
Specific heat 0.447 0.467 BTU/lb*°F
Table 12: PVC
Property Lower limit Upper limit Units
Melting point 413 509 Degrees Fahrenheit
18
19. (°F)
Maximum service
temp
140 158 Degrees Fahrenheit
(°F)
Minimum service
temp
190 99.7 Degrees Fahrenheit
(°F)
Thermal conductivity 0.0849 0.169 BTU ft/(h*ft^2*°F)
Specific heat 0.324 0.345 BTU/lb*°F
Electrical properties
Electrical properties determine whether a material is a conductor, semiconductor,
or insulator. The high resistance in these polymers means that they are all good
insulators. Good insulators can often be used in capacitors to increase
capacitance. The dielectric constant determines the amount that capacitance is
increased if put in the middle of the capacitor.
Table 13: PET
Property Lower limit Upper limit Units
Electrical resistivity 3.3e20 3e21 Micro ohms cm
Dielectric constant 3.5 3.7 none
Table 14: PP
Property Lower limit Upper limit Units
Electrical resistivity 3.3e22 3e23 Micro ohms cm
Dielectric constant 2.1 2.3 none
Table 15: PVC
Property Lower limit Upper limit Units
Electrical resistivity 1e20 1e22 Micro ohms cm
Dielectric constant 3.1 4.4 none
Optical properties
Refractive index is the ratio of the velocity of light in a vacuum to that in the material.
This change of speeds causes the light to bend or refract. Transparent means that
the materials is clear and all light is let through the material, while a translucent
material only allows some light to travel through the material, and finally opaque
materials don’t allow any light though the material.
Table 16: PET
Property Lower limit Upper limit Units
Refractive index 1.57 1.58 none
Transparency Transparent
Table 17: PP
Property Lower limit Upper limit Units
19
20. Refractive index 1.48 1.5 none
Transparency Translucent
Table 18: PVC
Property Lower limit Upper limit Units
Refractive index 1.54 1.56 none
Transparency Translucent
Chemical properties
Chemical properties describe weather or not a stimulus could change the chemical
composition of the material. Stimuli include UV rays, solutions, or chemicals. We
have chosen citric acid and phosphoric acid because these are chemicals that are
often in sodas (Verhoff). The CES software says that all three materials perform
very well in citric acid and phosphoric acid. The software also shows us that PP
does not become very chemically stable when exposed to sunlight.
Table 19: PET
Durability citric acid 10% Excellent
Durability phosphoric acid 10% Excellent
Durability UV radiation good
Table 20: PP
Property Lower limit Upper limit Units
Durability citric acid
10%
Excellent
Durability
phosphoric acid
10%
Excellent
Durability UV
radiation
Poor
Table 21: PVC
Durability citric acid 10% Excellent
Durability phosphoric acid 10% Excellent
Durability UV radiation good
Magnetic properties
When applying magnetic fields to our materials, they do not respond in a
diamagnetic, paramagnetic, or ferromagnetic way. These polymers therefore do not
have any magnetic properties.
Processability
The processability ratings indicate that these polymers should not use any type of
cast molding where the material is melted down and poured into a mold and
20
21. allowed to re solidify. The high scores in moldability show that the materials can
easily be shaped using injection molding, blow molding, or compression molding.
They can also easily be welded and joint together very easily. The polymers may
also experience good machinability, meaning that they may be effectively cut into
shape and have a good finish.
Table 22: PET
Process Scale from 1 to 5 where one is not recommended and five
is excellent
Castability 1/2
Moldability 4/5
Machinability 3/4
Weldability 5
Table 23: PP
Process Scale from 1 to 5 where one is not recommended and five
is excellent
Castability 1/2
Moldability 4/5
Machinability 3/4
Weldability 5
Table 24: PVC
Process Scale from 1 to 5 where one is not recommended and five
is excellent
Castability 1/2
Moldability 4/5
Machinability 3/4
Weldability 5
Eco properties
All three polymers can be recycled but it is significantly more difficult to
recycle PVC. Pure PVC is easily recyclable but because there are many different
chemicals and treatments that are usually performed on PVC, it becomes either non
recyclable or only recyclable with PVC with similar treatments. The other materials
also may undergo treatments, but there are not as many different types of treatment
as PVC and they are also less common than in PVC. Therefore, it is important to
consider whether the plastic should undergo treatment that might make it more
difficult to recycle. The process that creates PVC also creates a powerful toxin
known as dioxin, which is an environmental concern. There has been a considerable
movement to avoid using PVC and instead use a different plastic for this reason.
The carbon footprint of all three is significantly lower than Aluminum alloys, which is
12.5 to 13.8 lb/lb. The carbon footprint for a recycled version of the material is
21
22. significantly lower for PET and PP so recycling should be encouraged.
Table 25: PET
Property Lower limit Upper limit Units
Embodied energy 8.76e3 9.7e3 Kcal/lb
CO2 Footprint 3.76 4.15 Lb/lb
Water usage 15.1 16.8 Gal/lb
Recycle Yes
Table 26: PP
Property Lower limit Upper limit Units
Embodied energy 8.2e3 9.07e3 Kcal/lb
CO2 Footprint 2.96 3.27 Lb/lb
Water usage 15.46 4.94 Gal/lb
Recycle Yes
Table 27: PVC
Property Lower limit Upper limit Units
Embodied energy 6e3 6.63e3 Kcal/lb
CO2 Footprint 2.37 2.62 Lb/lb
Water usage 23.6 26.1 Gal/lb
Recycle Yes
Summary of design guidelines, technical notes, and typical
uses:
PET
Limits of permeability to oxygen are overcome by having a layer of
polyethylvinylidenealcohol between two layers of PET. This can still be blow
molded. Made by using a condensation reaction with an alcohol and an acid
creating the polymer and water. Typical uses include electrical fittings; blow molded
bottles, films, magnetic tape, fibers, and credit cards.
PP
Stiffness and strength can be improved by reinforcing with glass chalk or talc. It is
very resistant to water and can be colored many different colors. There are three
basic groups of PP: homopolymers (pure PP), copolymers (PP made with another
polymer), and composites. Typical uses include ropes, garden furniture, washing
22
23. machine tank, cable insulation, capacitor dielectrics, car bumpers, shatterproof
glass, crates, and artificial turf.
PVC
Plasticizers can make it into a softer material, which could then be used as a
substitute to leather. It is also used for transparent disposable containers because it
was so cheap. It can be join very easily. PVC may be a thermoplastic or thermoset
depending on the process used to make it. Types of PVC include type I, type II,
CPVC, acrylic/PVC blend, and clear PVC. Typical uses include pipes, fittings, road
signs, canoes, garden hoses, vinyl flooring, medical tubes, artificial leather, wire
insulation, and fabric.
Eco Audit and Sustainability
After researching possible materials and deciding on the materials that
would perform best for the project an Eco Audit had to be done using the CES
software. To do this the three materials, polyethylene terephthalate (PET),
polypropylene (PP), and polyvinylchloride (tpPVC), were placed into the Eco Audit
Project Table. Once this was done the correct material was chosen. Once the
material was put into the table the mass, primary process, end life, and quantity of
each material was entered. The mass of the material was discussed in the Material
Selection section. The primary process was chosen between polymer molding and
polymer extrusion. After doing research it was found that the capital cost of polymer
molding averaged to be $27,060 and the capital cost of polymer extrusion averaged
to be $738,000 (CES). This was backed up by further research done that found that
polymer molding had recently become much cheaper due to recent changes made
in machines that perform polymer molding (AlHelou). The end of life of each
polymer was chosen based on the fact that PET, PP, and tpPVC are all recyclable
materials. The quantity of the material was known from the customer, GP Beverage,
and how many bottles they are expecting.
Table 28: Material, Manufacture, End of Life (PET) (CES)
The next step of the Eco Audit was the transport type. The type of transport
chosen for the beverage containers was Truck Delivery. This would be done on a
32ton truck and the trucks would have to drive an average of 1000 miles to deliver
the containers to their destination (CES).
Table 29: Transport (CES)
23
24. After the transport analysis was done the next step was to look into the use of
the containers. The product life was determined to be one half of a year and only
used in North America. The product life was determined by analyzing the life cycle
of a beverage container. After a beverage container is produced it spends time in
storage, and then is shipped. This could take anywhere from one week to one
month. Once the containers are shipped it arrives at retailers that sell the
containers. The container could sit on the shelf of a retailer from one day to one
month. Once the container is bought it is taken off of the shelf and is put to use. The
actual use of the container could last as long as three months. Once the container is
done being used it is recycled, and that process takes around a month. So from
manufacturing to recycling, a container could be in use for up to six months. The
location was chosen because GP Beverage is located in North America and keeps
all business on the continent (CES). The table below shows how the values were
plugged into the CES software.
Table 30: Use (CES)
Once the values were put in for a material the report tab showed the effects
of material, manufacturing, end of life, transport, and use in greater detail. The
report tab provides graphs and charts for both energy use and CO2 footprint. The
charts and graphs can be analyzed to show the benefits and downfalls of each
material (CES).
Figure 4: Energy Summary (PET) (CES)
24
25. The graph above shows that the material gathering and production has the
greatest energy usage out of all of the categories. Manufacturing has the second
highest energy usage, and transport, use, and disposal are very small in
comparison to material and manufacture. The EoL, or end of life potential shows
that by recycling PET it saves around 4e+8 kcal of energy. This is significant
because that is more than half of the energy used to gather and produce the
material. Therefore by recycling PET the total energy consumption can be cut nearly
in half. The report also shows a graph displaying the CO2 footprint (CES).
Figure 5: CO2 Footprint Summary (PET) (CES)
The CO2 Footprint Summary shows similar findings to the Energy Usage
Summary. The material gathering and production has the greatest impact on CO2
footprint followed by manufacturing. Transport, use, and disposal have a very small
effect on CO2 footprint when compared to material and manufacture. The EoL
potential shows that recycling PET will reduce the overall CO2 footprint of using PET
(CES).
The report tab also provides the information in a table.
Table 31: Energy and CO2 Summary (PET) (CES)
The table above shows the same information presented in the graphs above
just in a different form. The table does show some extra information that is
beneficial. The percentage of energy usage and CO2 footprint show exactly how
25
26. much each phase is responsible for. CES software also states that any phase with
a percent fewer than twenty is usually not significant. The table also does a good
job representing the “Total for first life” and then the end of life potential. It shows
that by recycling the material and having a high end of life potential it decreases the
total used in the first life (CES).
The report tab also provides more in depth information about the energy use
and CO2 footprint during each phase of the materials life (CES).
Table 32: Detailed Energy Use (PET) (CES)
26
27. The tables above show each subcategory of the different phases of a
material’s life. It then totals up the total energy used during each phase of a
materials life. These tables can be used to see which phase has the greatest
energy consumption and what is causing the phase to have the highest energy
consumption. These tables are useful because they provide enough detail that the
main energy consumer can be located and possibly altered if necessary or feasible.
For PET the area that has the highest energy use is the material stage (CES).
Below are tables showing the carbon footprint of PET.
Table 33: Detailed CO2 Footprint (PET) (CES)
27
28. The tables above are similar to the tables for Detailed Energy Use and show
the CO2 footprint in each phase of a materials life. The tables can be used to find
the phase that has the greatest CO2 footprint. For PET the material phase has the
greatest CO2 footprint (CES).
(Tables and graphs for PP and tpPVC can be found in the Appendix (Eco Audit))
28
29. Another feature from CES is the summary chart. The summary chart
compares the chosen materials to one another. This allows the user to look at the
energy use and CO2 footprint of each material and compare them to one another
(CES).
Figure 6: Summary Chart (Energy) (CES)
The figure above compares PP, tpPVC, and PET and their energy use.
Looking at the material phase PP uses much more energy than the other two;
tpPVC and PET have very similar energy usage in the material phase. In the
manufacture phase of the materials life PET has the lowest energy consumption. In
the transport, use, and disposal phases none of the polymers have enough energy
consumption to consider when compared to the material and manufacture phases.
In the end of life potential phase PET has the highest negative energy, which says
that PET returns the most energy after being recycled. Since PET has the lowest
total energy consumption and the highest end of life potential PET has the lowest
total energy consumption over the life cycle of the polymers (CES).
CES also provides a summary chart based on CO2 footprint.
29
30. Figure 7: Summary Chart (CO2 footprint) (CES)
The figure above compares PP, tpPVC, and PET and the CO2 footprint of
each polymer in the different life phases. In the material phase of the polymers life
tpPVC has the lowest CO2 footprint followed by PET and PP has the highest CO2
footprint. In the manufacturing phase PET has the lowest CO2 footprint followed by
tpPVC, and PP has the highest. The transport, use, and disposal phases are small
enough to be disregarded when compared to the CO2 footprint during the material
and manufacturing phases. In the end of life potential phase PET is the only
polymer that has a negative CO2 footprint, which shows that recycling PET lessens
the CO2 footprint for the total life of the polymer. Both tpPVC and PP increase the
CO2 footprint for the total life of the material (CES).
CES also allows the user to compare polymers to any other material, which
is beneficial because it shows the benefits and downfalls of polymers. This was
done by using the Eco Audit feature and putting the materials in a summary chart to
compare the energy use and CO2 footprint of the different materials. The following
figures are the summary charts comparing the three polymers and non
agehardening wrought Alalloys, which is commonly used to make aluminum cans
for beverages (CES).
30
32. The figures above show that the non agehardening wrought Alalloy has a
much higher total for energy use and a much higher total CO2 footprint than the three
polymers compared earlier in the Eco Audit. This shows that the non agehardening
wrought Alalloy will be much more detrimental to the environment and also cost
more money during the material phase of the material. Non agehardening wrought
Alalloy consumes less energy and has a smaller CO2 footprint in the manufacturing
stage but it does not make up for the difference seen in the material phase (CES).
The Eco Audit is very beneficial in investigating the environmental impacts
that each material has but does not return much information about the other pillars of
sustainability. The information given has to be interpreted in order to gather
information for economic, technical, and social sustainability.
The graphs give useful information when looking at economic sustainability.
Energy has a cost to it so the graphs of energy use can be directly linked to the
economics of the material. The higher the energy consumption is the higher the
total cost will be. Looking at the graphs it is obvious that the two phases that will
cost the most money are material and manufacturing. The other phases are
insignificant when compared to material and manufacturing. The end of life
potential also has an impact on the economics of the material. If a material is taken
to a landfill then the cost will be very low but if the material is recycled at a plant it will
cost much more money and this will have to be taken into account for the company.
Each phase of the life cycle requires workers so the entire life cycle provides jobs
for people, which will affect the economy.
Social sustainability is less obvious when using the Eco Audits and the end
results of the Eco Audit. Each phase in the life cycle of the materials will provide
jobs for people, which affects social sustainability.
Technical sustainability can affect each phase of the life cycle. If the
technology used during each phase is efficient and up to date then the phases will
be operating at minimum cost and maximum efficiency. If new technology comes
out that will change a certain phase of the life cycle then the graphs and charts
above will be altered. If a new low energy process is developed to produce the
material then the energy consumption during the material phase will be decreased
greatly.
The Eco Audit can be linked back to all four pillars of sustainability but is
much more useful for environmental sustainability.
32
33. Physical Testing
Tensile Testing
Tensile testing was performed using the instron machine in the mechanics
lab. The yield strength and Young’s modulus was calculated for each material using
the following equations:
/Aσ = F
L/Lε = Δ
/εE = σ
Where is the stress, F is the force, A is the cross sectional area, is theσ ε
strain, is the change in length, L is the initial length, and E is Young’s modulus.LΔ
Three trials were conducted for each of the three sample materials, and the average
values for stress, strain, and young’s modulus were taken between the three trials.
Graphs depicting stress vs. strain are shown in figure A16 in the appendix. The yield
strength was found using these graphs, and are shown in table 34 below, along with
the young’s modulus of each material.
Table 34: Tensile Test Results
Material Yield Strength (psi) Young’s Modulus (psi)
PET 10350.537 478,372.978
PP 5104.352 191,231.867
PVC 9362.543 463,356.735
These results show that PET has the highest yield strength, and from the
graph it is also seen that PET is much more ductile than PVC, which breaks almost
immediately after yielding. PP is quite ductile but has a much lower yield strength
than the other two. This indicates that based on the requirements provided for the
beverage container to withstand a five foot freefall, PET is the best choice.
Optical Testing
The optical test conducted in order to determine if material properties were
affected by extended exposure to UV radiation. The sun provides the Earth’s
surface with roughly 4.7 kwh/day of sunlight to the Harrisonburg area on a sunny
day(GW Solar Institute). Converting this to kJ/week gives a value of 118440
kJ/week.
Three samples of each material were placed under a 120W UV light for one
week. This converts to approximately 72576 kJ/week. Upon comparison of the two,
the material samples were exposed to UV radiation equivalent to roughly 4 days of
sunlight in Harrisonburg, VA. This was chosen as gauge based on the example of a
33
34. beverage bottle accidentally being left in a car and exposed to sunlight for several
days. It is necessary to ensure that any material selected would not be noticeably
impacted by the UV exposure and have any effect on the structural integrity of the
container.
All three samples of each material were then put through the same tensile
testing process as their nonUV exposed counterpart. Using this data, stress, strain,
young’s modulus, and yield strength values were again calculated and averaged
across the three trials. Yield strength and young’s modulus values are shown in table
35, located below, and a graph of stress vs. strain for each material is shown in
figure A19 of the appendix.
Table 35: Results of UV Exposed Tensile Testing
Material Yield Strength (psi) Young’s Modulus (psi)
PET 9735.475 487,352.978
PP 4933.892 196,731.327
PVC 8955.436 463,364.757
The results of this test show that there was a very minimal impact on any of
the three materials caused by UV exposure. This test does not affect final material
selection because all three materials responded in roughly the same manner.
However, it does ensure that all three materials can withstand at least moderate UV
exposure and do not need to be ruled out of consideration.
Chemical Testing
Tensile:
The acid test was performed by soaking the materials in soda instead of
acid. This decision was reached because we did not have enough money in the
budget to buy the acids separately. we used RC Cola as our soda because that is
the most acidic soda with a pH of 2.387.
We then performed tensile test to determine if the acid in soda (citric,
phosphoric, and carbonic) had deteriorated the physical properties of the material.
The results are summarized in the table below.
34
35. Table 36: Results of Chemical Tensile Testing
The data collected was analyzed with statistics and was not found to be
statistically different than the trials conducted for the initial tensile test. Although this
shows that the chemicals did not affect the properties of the materials, not enough
tests were done to prove this statistically.
Material Degradation:
The material degradation test was simplified because we spent almost all of
our money on the materials and did not have enough money to buy all of the
containers. Instead we had one container with just soda (RC Cola was used again
for the soda in this experiment because we had it available form the first chemical
test) and three other containers with soda with one material submerged in each. We
did not fill any containers with water and used the container with just soda as our
control. Our results our shown in the table below.
Table 37: pH Change of Chemical Test
The change in pH from day one to day seven in the control solution was
0.0333, the change in pH from day one to day seven of the solution with PP was
0.030, the change in pH from day one to day seven of the solution with PET was
0.0267, and the change in pH from day one to day seven of the solution with PVC
was 0.0333.
All solutions had an increase in pH. This could be explained by the loss of
carbonation of the soda over time which would lead to a decrease in the carbonic
acid levels in the solution. Another possible explanation for the increase in pH is that
the same pH meter was not used for both trials.
Magnetic Testing
The magnetic testing for each material was done using a gaussmeter and a
35
36. magnet as seen in figures 10 and 11.
Figure 10: Gauss Meter
Figure 11: Ferrous Magnet
The test was set up to examine the change in magnetic flux associated with
introducing the polymer material to the testing environment. The test was initiated by
recording the measurement of the ferrous magnet with the Gauss meter without any
polymer material added as a control to other trials. Each polymer material was
oriented on top of the magnet in a way that would optimize the change in flux across
the gauss meter. Each polymer was put through thirty trials of this. The data for each
trial can be seen in appendix under magnetic testing and the averages of each trial
set seen in table 38, below.
Table 38: Magnetic Properties Comparison
The comparison of the polymer samples to that of the control sample was done by
statistical analysis of the two means. Since the values of the actual t values are less
than the critical t values, it can be said that the average values of the polymers are
not statistically different from that of the control average with 95% confidence.
Calculations for the values in table 38 can be seen the appendix under magnetic
testing.
36
37. Electrical Testing
We determined that our electrical test would not be possible because of the
extremely high resistivity of our material. Not only would it require a high voltage that
is not obtainable in our labs, but it would also be extremely dangerous to be working
with such high voltages without more advanced protection. This can be explained by
ohms law.
RV = I
V is the voltage, I is the current and R is the resistance. We would need an
extremely high voltage to get any significant amount of electrical current running the
polymers because the resistance is so high. The safety problem is because the
resistance of the human body is much less than that of the polymers. According to
the NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), the resistance of
the human body under the best conditions is 100,000 ohms. The resistance of a
tenth of a millimeter of our least resistive material is 1,000,000,000,000 ohms. If we
were to accidently touch the wires connecting to oppositely charged wires the
current running through the body would be 10,000,000 times greater than the current
running through the polymer. High voltage may breakdown the skin, which would
lower the resistance of the body and increases current flow even more. According to
the NIOSH the current, duration, and path of the electricity impacts weather or not an
electric shock is lethal. The possibility of an extremely high current running through
the body makes this test too dangerous to conduct.
Thermal Testing
Thermal Conductivity
The thermal test was done as proposed in the procedures section of the
report. Rods were obtained of each material and were cut to ten inches and holes
were drilled into the top of each rod. A cartridge heat was connected to a power
supply supplying 1.35 amps to the cartridge heater. The cartridge heater was then
put in the hole that was drilled in the top of the rod. Next, thermocouples were
attached to the rod at 3 inches and 7 inches from the top (side with the cartridge
heater). The other end of the thermocouples was then put into LabView that
collected the data for the lab. The other side of the rod was placed in a cup of ice to
try and get the maximum amount of heat transfer through the rod. The power supply
was then turned on and heated up the cartridge heater. The experiment ran for 30
minutes. The experiment was ran for all three materials, PET, PP, and tpPVC. The
figure below illustrates the set up of the experiment.
37
38. Figure 12: Thermal Conductivity Experiment
The figure above shows the rod in the cup with ice that has thermocouples
attached to it as well as the cartridge heater in the top of it. The figure shows the
power supply as well as the LabView equipment used to collect data.
After collecting and analyzing the data there was no significant temperature
change throughout the rod. There were only small fluctuations which were most
likely caused by temperature changes in the room or air flow through the room.
Since there was no temperature change the thermal conductivity value must be very
close to zero. This can be shown by using the equation, . It is A(dT/dx)Q = k
obvious to see that if the temperature change in the system is zero then the heat
transfer is going to zero. Ultimately, showing that the thermal conductivity value is
going to be zero as well. This held true with our hypothesis that the thermal
conductivity would be very low. Since our experiment did not yield any good data
we decided to research the thermal conductivity values of our materials for
comparison sake. The following table shows the thermal conductivity values for the
three materials tested.
Table 39: Thermal Conductivities of Materials (CES)
Material Thermal Conductivity (W/m*C)
PP 0.140
PET 0.145
tpPVC 0.220
The table above shows that the thermal conductivities of PP and PET are
very similar but tpPVC has a much higher value. This suggests that PP and PET
would be the first choices when selecting a material in terms of its thermal
38
39. properties. A low thermal conductivity will both keep heat out and keep the
coolness of the drink in. In comparison to other materials, like metals and ceramics,
all of these values are very small. This means that the three materials we have
selected would do fine if used to make a beverage container. Since, we have a
choice though PP would be our first choice followed closely by PET because their
values are so close.
Melting Point
Before starting the melting point test discussed in the procedure section of
the report the team talked to Scott Padgett to ensure that the test was safe to run.
He said the test was not safe to run without the proper equipment. The team
decided to air on the side of safety and instead of doing the experiment rely on the
values that were found during the research stage earlier in the project. Tables that
show the melting points for the three materials are found in the material properties
section of the report.
Impact Test Procedure
1. Introduction
The accuracy of the results of the test are dependent on the liquid in the
plastic container. In order for the results of the test to be useable by the individual
running the test, only containers with the same liquid can be compared to one
another. The individual running the test should use the same liquid that the container
is designed to carry. This test is not intended for containers that will contain
hazardous materials.
2. Scope
2.1This test method is used to determine the ability of a plastic container full of
liquid to survive an impact of “standardized” pendulum type hammers, mounted in a
“standardized” manner, in one pendulum swing. The results of the test method are
reported in terms of pass and fail depending on if the container has been ruptured.
2.2The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard.
2.3 Reference Documents
ASTM Standards
∙ D618 Practice for conditioning plastics for testing
∙ D883 Terminology related to plastics
∙ D25610 Standard test methods for determining the Izod pendulum impact
resistance of plastics
2.4 Terminology
∙ Definitions – For definitions related to plastics see terminology D883
39
40. 3. Summary of Test Method
3.1This test method operates by clamping a container at each of its ends so its
center is exposed to a strike from the pendulum. The container should be aligned in
the clamps so that the center of the container is in the path of the pendulum.
4. Significance and Use
4.1Tests made on the conditions of this standard have value in comparing a
containers ability to survive impact.
4.2 The impact of the pendulum test indicates the energy needed to break
containers, and are influence by the parameters, specimen mounting, container
dimensions, expansion properties of the liquid, and pendulum velocity at impact.
4.3 The energy lost by the pendulum during the breakage of the specimen is the
sum of the following.
∙ 4.3.1Energy to initiate fracture of the container
∙ 4.3.2Energy to bend the container
∙ 4.3.3Energy to create vibration in pendulum arm
∙ 4.3.4Energy to indent the container
∙ 4.3.5Energy to overcome friction caused by pendulum striker
∙ 4.3.5Energy to overcome friction in pendulum arm bearing.
4.4 The results of the test should be recorded as follows
∙ CRComplete Rupturecontainer splits into two pieces
∙ PRPartial Rupturecontainer splits and the inside liquid is leaking but the
container is still one piece.
∙ DDentedThe container has been permanently deformed but has none of its
content leaking.
∙ NNNot Noticeable The container has no noticeable effect from the pendulum.
o CR and PR will be categorized as a failure to withstand impact. D and NN will
be labeled as passing the impact test.
4.5 The value of the impact container method is mainly in the areas of quality
control, materials specification, and container specifications.
5. Apparatus
5.1 The machine which will hold the container shall have a wide base that is
mounted and rooted to a rigid frame. The machine must also have a holding and
releasing mechanism for the pendulum.
5.2 The pendulum will consist of a single arm with a bearing on one end and a head
at the other. The arm must be sufficiently rigid to withstand the energy of the impact.
5.3 The head of the pendulum will made of hardened steel with a radius of curvature
of 0.8±0.20 mm. The contact between the container and the pendulum will occur no
farther than ±2.54 mm from the measured center of the container.
5.4 The position of the pendulum in the holding and releasing mechanism will be
raised to a vertical height of 610±2 mm which should produce a velocity of 3.5 m/s.
5.5 The length of the pendulum arm shall be 0.4 mm.
5.6 The machine shall come with a vice that is made up of two clamps. Each clamp
secures each side of the container being tested.
40
42. dimensions of the container must be ± 0.005 inches from each other, if the result of
the container is to be compared to the other materials.
6.3Calculate the energy needed to test and select a pendulum of suitable energy.
6.4Place the container in a clamped vice so that the center of the bottle is in line
with the pendulum.
6.5If windage and friction energy is given make appropriate adjustments to the
pendulum so that the needed energy is delivered to the container.
Final Material Selection
The team decided to use a decision matrix to select the final material. The
selection criteria was chosen by the experiments that were done as well as what the
team decided was most important to the attributes of the bottle. Below is the
decision matrix.
Table 40: Decision Matrix
The decision matrix shows the selection criteria as well as what material
performed the best in the certain criteria. The selection criteria is weighted so the
most important criteria have a bigger impact on the final score of the selection
process. The decision matrix shows that PET was the best choice for our project
followed by tpPVC, and PP was the last choice.
42
43. Conceptual Prototype
The conceptual prototype was designed in SolidWorks. The design was
made by using the dimensions that were given in the Material Selection section of
the report. The design used the radius, height, and thickness that were decided in
the materials selection section and the volume, found by SolidWorks, was just over
five liters. The drawing was then presented to Dr. Nagel who said that the drawing
could be printed using the 3D printer but that it must be scaled down. The printers
that JMU has can only print at a certain size and also since the prototype has no real
use it would be a waste of material. Scaling the drawing down also meant that the
prototype must be made solid because the thickness of the scale would not be
strong enough to support the shape.
After the material was scaled down the team took the design to the printing
room and with the help of Fletcher Grow, the TA for the solid modeling class, and
sent the drawing to the 3D printer. The printer then began the process that took
three hours. The final product was a scaled down version of the drawing found in
the figure below.
SolidWorks
43
44. Figure 15: Beverage Container Prototype
The scaled down version was approximately three and a half inches tall, and
the rest of the dimensions were scaled down the same. This gave the team an
actual hard part that could be presented to the customer. GP Beverage could now
have something to hold and see if it looked like something they would use and
market. After feedback is received the team will make changes to the alpha
prototype and then present the next stage of the prototype.
Economic Feasibility
The first thing that was done to see if the material being used would be
economically feasible was the initial mass of the container. This was done by using
the value previously found for the volume of the container itself and the density of the
material. The mass of the PET container was found the be 0.367 kg. The next thing
that was done was finding the cost of a single container. This was done by
multiplying the cost of PET, $2.18/kg (CES), by the mass of a single container.
Doing this gave the cost of one container to be $0.80.
GP Beverage wants 50,000 of these bottles so the next thing that had to be
done was to find the cost of 50,000 containers. This came out to be $39911.25.
This is the initial invest for GP Beverage. The cash flow depends on the amount that
the GP is going to charge for the bottle. Assuming, that GP will charge at least one
dollar per bottle and that the discount rate for the first year will be 5 percent. The net
present value of the project can be found by using the equation,
. Using this equation with the values mentioned above thePV − o C/1 )N = C + ( + r
NPV for the first year of the project will be $7707. 79.
Seeing that the NPV for the project is positive I would recommend that GP
Beverage continue with the material chosen. Having an NPV that is positive gives a
positive outlook on the project for the years to come because, if the project does
well, the company will sell more bottles the next year which will return even more
money. Also, if the beverage container becomes popular with the customers the
company can start charging more per bottle which will also increase their profit.
Conclusion
Research suggests that using Polyethylene terephthalate (PET),
Polypropylene (PP), and Polyvinylchloride (PVC) from the polymer family would be
the most cost efficient way to protect the product of the GP Beverage Company.
These materials meet the criteria listed above. The material properties process
shows a comparison of the three materials. This process compares the properties
44
45. of each material, which can highlight the strengths, and weaknesses of each
material. The material selection process depicts which materials out of the polymer
family would best be suited for the project. The designlead method of defining
functions, constraints, objectives, and free variables is how each material was
selected. Through estimations and research, the team was able to simulate values
for defining the constraints of the bottle design. The team used material indices to
figure out the top four materials within the polymer family that would satisfy the
project objectives. Documentation is responsible for narrowing those four down to
the three stated throughout this report. The ecoaudit analyzed the life phases of
each material and the energy use and CO2 footprint during each life phase. The
energy use and CO2 footprint of each material allows the GP Beverage Company to
see which material is most environmentally sustainable. The ecoaudit also provides
enough information for the team to explore the economic, social, and technical
sustainability of each material. The manufacturers, chemical properties, and
chemical structures of each material are depicted below.
b. c.
a.
Figure 16:
Polypropylene (PP) (a.), Polyvinylchloride (PVC) (b.), Polyethylene
terephthalate (PET)(c.)
45
46. Figure 17: Polymers Utilized (Note that the location is for the Manufacturer)
After the preliminary work was done for the project more research had to be
done to decide on a final material that would be used. This was first done by doing
the tests that were planned before the preliminary report. A test was run for thermal,
optical, mechanical, magnetic, electrical, and optical. One of the major findings
from running these tests is that the three polymers that were selected for testing
were not impacted during the thermal, magnetic, or electrical tests. This was shown
by running the experiments and not getting any noticeable results. Also, the
chemical and optical tests did not have any majorly defining results. The chemicals
did not have any major affect any properties of the polymers and the UV light did not
affect the properties of the polymers.
The test that had the most impact on the project was the mechanical test.
The mechanical test was a tensile test and from that the team gathered information
about both the Young’s Modulus and the tensile strength of the three different
materials. This was beneficial because the project calls for a material that is tough
enough to survive a fall without breaking or cracking.
The final material was selected by using a decision matrix. Using this the
team was able to rank the selection criteria and compare the materials to one
another. After the team had finished the decision matrix it was decided that PET
was going to be the material of choice. After PET was chosen there were other
things that had to be done.
The team designed a bottle using SolidWorks. This was done by using the
dimensions that were found in the material selection section of the report. The team
drew the bottle and had to discuss the bottle with someone that was familiar with 3D
printing. After doing this it was decided that the container needed to be scaled
down before printing. The container was scaled down and then printed, giving the
team an alpha prototype.
Lastly, the team analyzed the economical side of the project. The project
was found to have a positive NPV for the first year which means the project has a
bright future. The team believes that GP Beverage should continue with the project
and with the material that the team has chosen for them.
Overall, the material we selected is the best material for the GP beverage
bottle in both the material family of polymers, and compared to other material
46
47. families. PET is proved to be the best polymer for the project by our research,
properties that we validated with physical tests, and decision matrix based upon
customer needs. When compared with the other material families the polymer family
makes the best sense for a bottle based upon the properties of cost, weight,
performance and processability. Therefore we can conclude that, because PET is
the best polymer and polymers are the best family group to construct the five liter
bottle, PET is the best material to construct the five liter bottle out of all available
materials according to our research.
References (MLA Format)
1. "3. PRESSURE SAFETY PRACTICES." MN471000. N.p., n.d. Web. 24
Oct. 2013.
2. AlHelou, Bassam A. "Modification And Development Of A Blow Molding .
Machine." Engineering 4.4 (2012): 188197. Academic Search .
Complete. Web. 23 Oct. 2013.
3. Ashby, M. F., Hugh Shercliff, and David Cebon. Materials: Engineering, .
Science, .Processing and Design. Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann, .2010.
Print.
4. "Average Hand." Size. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2013.
47
