New mechanical data for many of SABIC’s healthcare materials is now available to customers in formats that can be used in #design software, such as #CATIA, #SOLIDWORKS, #ABAQUS and Ansys LS-DYNA.
To assist our customers with application development, we’ve incorporated data on tensile strength, flexural modulus, coefficient of linear thermal expansion (CLTE) and other important properties. Generated by #SABIC experts and an external lab, the data covers our most widely used #healthcare materials: ULTEM™ resin, NORYL™ resin, LNP™ compounds, and VALOX™, LEXAN™ and CYCOLOY™ flame-retardant resins.
2. 2
Classification: General Business Use
SABIC’S MATERIAL CARD AVAILABILITY
Product Family Healthcare Grade ABAQUS Ansys LS-DYNA CATIA SOLIDWORKS
ULTEMTM
resins
ULTEMTM
HU1000 resin Available Available Available Available
ULTEMTM
HU1004 resin Available Available Available Available
NORYLTM
resins
NORYLTM
HNA055 resin Available Available Available Available
NORYLTM
FNH2160 resin
Available Available Available Available
LNPTM
compounds
THERMOCOMPTM
EC006AQW compound Available Available Available Available
LUBRICOMPTM
DCI06APW compound Available Available Available Available
LUBRICOMPTM
WX12001J compound Available Available Available Available
LUBRICOMPTM
WX07423H compound Available Available Available Available
LEXANTM
HPX4 resin Available Available Available Available
FR resin
CYCOLOYTM
CX2244ME resin Available Available Available Available
LEXANTM
HP1 resin Available Available Available Available
LEXANTM
HPS2 resin Available Available Available Available
VALOXTM
364 resin Available Available Available Available
VALOXTM
357U resin Available Available Available Available
3. 3
Classification: General Business Use
DATA VALIDATION: STRATEGY
Validation at 3 different levels:
• Single element level (validate the material model)
• Specimen level (validation of material + FEA model)
• Part level (validation of material + FEA model + realistic geometry)
Validation part:
• Surgical tray
• Generic and representative healthcare part
• Subjected to mechanical loading
Surgical Tray Static bending load test
Simulates loading of tray with surgical instruments
Drop test
Simulates accidental dropping of tray
4. 4
Classification: General Business Use
Deformed shape, including buckling pattern and location of peak stresses, is well predicted with simulation.
F~D curves from simulation correlate well to experimental results.
* Force Displacement curves
DATA VALIDATION – STATIC BENDING LOAD CASE FOR UNFILLED GRADES
Experimental deformed shape
Regions of high plastic strains
Deformed shape from simulation
F~D* curves: Experiment vs simulation
Approach
Peak force (N) Z-displacement at peak force (mm)
Magnitude Closeness to experimental Magnitude Closeness to experimental
Experimental 8472.7 - 26.5 -
Simulation
Datasheet 10795.0 27.4% 26.1 -2%
Multi-point Data 7824.0 -7.7% 24.3 -8%
Comparison of predictions using different approaches
Displacement (mm)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Force(N)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Experimental
Datasheet
Multipoint data
5. 5
Classification: General Business Use
DATA VALIDATION – DROP LOAD CASE FOR UNFILLED GRADES
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 10 20 30 40
Force(N)
Displacement(mm)
Experimental
Simulation-Datasheet data
Simulation-Multipoint data
Animation from test
Animation from simulation
F~D curves: Experiment vs simulation
Approach
Peak force (N) Maximum Displacement (mm)
Magnitude Closeness to experimental Magnitude Closeness to experimental
Experimental 4119 - 35.7 -
Simulation
Datasheet 4360 5.85% 32.0 -10.4%
Multi-point Data 4030 -2.16% 33.3 -6.7%
Comparison of predictions using different approaches
6. 6
Classification: General Business Use
DATA VALIDATION – STATIC BENDING LOAD CASE FOR FILLED GRADES
Very close prediction of stiffness and strength using advanced data and modeling approach
Failure pattern - test Failure pattern - simulation
7. 7
Classification: General Business Use
COMPARISON OF PREDICTIONS USING DIFFERENT APPROACHES
Highly accurate part stiffness and strength prediction ( 10%)
Modeling Approach Peak Force (N) % Difference from
Experiment
Displacement at
Peak Force (N)
% Difference
from Experiment
Experiment 4,426 8.0
Datasheet Elastic
52,900 1095% 21.3 165%
Datasheet Elastic-
Plastic 11,600 162% 11.8 47%
Isotropic 0 9,011 104% 10.2 27%
Quasi-Isotropic
6,939 57% 11.0 37%
Anisotropic 4,228 -4% 8.31 4%
8. 8
Classification: General Business Use
DATA VALIDATION – DROP BENDING LOAD CASE FOR FILLED GRADES
Very close prediction of peak force & absorbed energy using advanced data & modeling approach
Failure pattern - test Failure pattern - simulation
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
0 2 4 6 8 10
Force(N)
Displacement(mm)
Force vs. Displacement Curve
Experiment
Datasheet Elastic
Datasheet Elastic Plastic
Isotropic 0 DEG
Quasi Isotropic
Anisotropic
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0 2 4 6
Force(N)
Displacement(mm)
Force vs. Displacement Curve
Experiment
Datasheet Elastic
Datasheet Elastic Plastic
Isotropic 0 DEG
Quasi Isotropic
Anisotropic
9. 9
Classification: General Business Use
COMPARISON OF PREDICTIONS USING DIFFERENT APPROACHES
Highly accurate peak force and absorbed energy prediction ( 10%)
Modeling
Approach
Peak Force before
Damage Initiation (N)
% Difference
from Experiment
Energy absorbed at
Damage Initiation (J)
% Difference from
Experiment
Experiment
2558 8.713
Datasheet
Elastic 13034 411% 67.095 670%
Datasheet
Elastic-Plastic 1854 28% 2.423 72%
Isotropic 0
2101 18% 2.605 70%
Quasi-Isotropic
1404 45% 2.551 71%
Anisotropic 2340 9% 8.081 7%
10. 10
Classification: General Business Use
SUMMARY
• Material mechanical data is available for SABIC’s top healthcare grades.
• This data is available in both in material engineering data formats as well as CAD/CAE formats and can be
supplied on request.
• Please contact us for further details:
• Americas: productinquiries@sabic.com
• Asia: asiaproductinquiries@sabic.com
• Europe: webinquiries@sabic.com