Strength vs. thickness

Figure 3.21 Dielectric strength vs. thickness at 23°C for DuPont Engineering Polymers Delrin 500 NC010—medium viscosity acetal resin [2].

Figure 3.119 Dielectric strength vs. thickness for Mitsubishi Engineering-Plastics lupiace polypropylene ether and PS blend resins.

Figure 4.26 Dielectric strength vs. thickness for SABIC Innovative Plastics Lexan PC resins [1].

Figure 5.29 Dielectric strength vs. thickness for DuPont Vespel SP1 PI [2],...

Figure 9.151 Dielectric strength vs. thickness for Solvay Solexis Solef 1010—general purpose homopolymer molding and extrusion PVDF resin [16].

Figure 2.20. (a) Disjoining pressure vs. thickness isotherm (dots, experimental data line, doublelayer fit) for an emulsion Him stabilized by 0.1% 8-casein, ionic strength of 10 mol/l NaCl, oil phase = hexadecane. (b) Comparison between the data obtained from TFB, MCT, and SFA. (Adapted from [87].)... 

Impact strength vs. time was determined on solidified samples of the formulation that had been allowed to react from 30 min to 70 days at 135 °C. The impact strengths were measured with a Gardner impact tester on 1/2 in. thick samples. Impact strength values for all samples stabilized in the range 7-9 in.-lb. Hardness of the solidified samples was about 75 Shore D after 1 hr and increased to a maximum of about 80... 

Figure 3.28. Impact strength of PVC containing Figure 3.29. Impact strength vs. concentration 8 phr acrylic impact modifier vs. shell thickness of impact modifier. [Data from Stevenson, J. C. of modifier. [Data from Lee, J.-S. Chang, F.-C., Fazey, A. C., J. Vinyl Additive TechnoL, 3,2, Polym. Eng. ScL, 44,10,1885-1889,2004.] II8-I25, 1997.]...

With the advent of nanocomposites, notions about how to cost-effectively reinforce resins may change. As with fiber-filled PP, the issues of stiffness and strength vs. weight and cost could be key questions for nanocomposites, which require only low loadings (3%-5%) of nanofillers to maximize properties. Since resin makes up most of the balance of these composite systems, a cost-conscious user of a PP nanocomposite would likely seek to minimize product thickness. Otherwise, other value-adding properties of a nanofiller (such as charge dissipation, flame retardancy, or barrier properties) may also help it to compensate for its extra material and processing costs [8-12]. 

Figure 3.83 Dielectric strength at 23°C vs. thickness for Celanese Celcon M25/M90/ M270 acetal copolymer resins [3].

Dielectric strength (Vs"iii-thick specimen), short time, v./mil D149 200-370 200-350 250-400 100-250 400 ... 

Figure 4. OLS bond strength vs. bondline thickness for a typical FRP laminate.

Consequently, work was carried out to produce data curves of strength vs. length of overlap for various metal adherend thicknesses. The stress analyst could then empirically estimate the strength of the joint. Little was learned about creep, fatigue, or environmental resistance. As will be seen, a very important door had been opened by this testing. 

Fig. 21. Measured butt-joint strength vs. bond thickness for joints with steel adherends and prediction based upon an interface comer toughness of 13.3 MPa...

If an adhesively bonded butt joint fails at a fixed Kac value, then Eq. 8 (in conjunction with Eq. 13 for plane strain and Table 2) indicates that log(joint strength) vs. log(bond thickness) is a straight line with a slope equal to the order of the stress singularity for that joint. Because of the difference in Young s modulus, the order... 

Fig. 25. Butt-joint strength vs. bond thickness. The characteristic failure stress includes both applied load and estimated residual stress.

Figure 13.79 A comparison of dielectric strength of PTFE (marked TFE) and FEP vs thickness. ...

Figure 12. Adhesive strength vs. adhesive layer thickness for the pure PCN network (A1 and Ti metal substrates). An extended scale is used in the inset...

Figure 6 Tensile Strength vs. Compression Pocket Thickness...

Centrifugal stability of protein-stabilized concentrated oil-in-water emulsions, 229-245 centrifugal acceleration, 237,238/ droplet size, 240,241/ film thickness vs. emulsion height, 237,239/240 ionic strength, 240,245/ model, 232-237 X parameters, 240,243/... 

Figure 3. The experimental data for the external pressure II vs average thickness (d) are compared to the results of the present theory, which accounts for the undulation of the interfaces combined with the traditional DLVO treatment of interactions. Different bending moduli affect not only the strength of the interactions but also its slope (traditionally related to the Debye screening length).

For samples with a broad size distribution in the micron range, it is important to avoid the transition region between the normal and the steric mode during the measurement. This can be achieved by proper adjustment of the channel thickness, channel flow and the strength of the applied field [69]. The transition region in Fig. 6 can be experimentally determined by plotting the retention ratio vs. the particle size, as illustrated in Fig. 7 for the example of flow-FFF. 

PET. The behavior of crystalline PET at plane strain can be explained if its yield locus is similar to that of PS and PMMA (9, 10) where a craze locus intercepts the shear yield locus. The transition at plane strain to a craze locus would account for the brittleness. This transition, which takes place quite sharply at W/t = 23 (W/b = 8), is probably the cause for the low impact strength (< 1 ft-lb/inch) of the Vs-inch thick notched bars. The plane strain brittleness can be avoided if the geometric constraints can be removed, such as making the notch less sharp or making the test bar thinner. In fact, unnotched bars of PET, equivalent to having an infinite notch radius, are quite tough. The notch sensitivity of PET is typical of crystalline polymers. 

---