EXPERIMENT 2

Impact Test

1. OBJECTVE
1.1 To know how the Izod and Charpy methods work in order to measuring impact
strength of polymer materials.
1.2 To differentiate the impact strength amount between Polystyrene and ABS.
1.3 To distinguish samples with notch and without notch

2. INTRODUCTION
An impact test usually used to evaluate the brittleness of a material under high
strain rates. While tensile stress is normally performed at low strain rate, which can be
define that the specimen is very slowly elongated [1]. On the other hand, impact test is
subjected material to a sudden, intense blow, in which the strain rate extremely rapid,
hence the material may behave in a much more brittle manner than is observed in tensile
stress. Whereas, energy required to break the samples per original cross section area is
impact strength.
Several methods are developed to measure the impact resistance of polymers ,
there are Izod, Charpy, Gardner, tensile impact, falling weight and etc. Izod (figure 2.1)
and Charpy (figure 2.2) are often used on plactics [1]. The test specimens may be either
notched (figure 2.3) or unnotched (figure 2.4). Notch specimen is better measure the
resistance of the material to crack propagation [1]. Notch specimen is usually formed as
V-notch (figure 2.5), with 45o on its V shape. It refer to ASTM 256 (Izod) and D 6110
(Charpy). In spite of it all, the notch geometry, the speed of the test, and the temperature
all has an important connection on whether the failure is brittle.
The simply difference between Izod and Charpy test is where the specimen is
placed, Izod placed vertically, while the charpy placed horizontally. but both have
similarities in its application, both are using a pendulum that will hit the specimen and
will give readings after the specimen fractures. The results of the readings are the amount
of energy that can be absorbed in the test specimen. Thus, from the readings it can be
seen how strong the specimen is able to absorb energy that is transferred from the
pendulum to the specimen.

IMPACT TEST Page 1

Figure 2.1 : Izod Impact Test Figure 2.2: Charpy Impact Test

Figure 2.3: Notched Specimen Figure 2.4: Unnotched

Figure 2.5: V-notced

IMPACT TEST Page 2

3. COMPONENT AND EQUIPMENT
1. Pendulum impact tester (Izod and Charpy)
2. Vernier caliper (figure 3.2)
3. Thickness gauge

Figure 3.2: Vernier Caliper

Figure 3.3: Thickness gauge

IMPACT TEST Page 3

4. METHODOLOGY

Sample sheets were prepared into strips or bars at dimension 55 mm x

10 mm x10 mm

With dial thickness gauge and vernier caliper, width, length, and
thickness of every sample were measured

Brooks Pendulum Impact tester were confirmed in good condition,

clean, and safe

Sample was attached to the machine tightly one by one

Sample was clamped into the pendulum impact test fixture

Pendulum was released and allowed to strike through the sample that
was clamped

Pendulum was stopped and readings were taken

Second until seventh steps were repeated for Izod impact test

Using image analyzer, the surface of the samples were sketched

IMPACT TEST Page 4

5. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

TABLE 5.1: Comparison between Polystyrene and ABS specimens

Samples Notched (kJ/m2) Un notched (kJ/m2)

Polystryrene 1.06 12.1
ABS 37.6 140

CHART 5.1 : Comparison between Polystyrene and ABS specimens

kJ/m2
160

140

120

100

80 Notched
Un notched
60

40

20

0
Polystryrene ABS

Table 5.1 and chart 5.1 were showing the comparison between polystyrene and ABS
and also two conditions of specimen, which was notched and unnotched. From the result, it
can be seen that there was a difference value between two polymers (polystyrene and ABS)
and value between two conditions on each materials (notched and un-notched). Refer to the
table 5.1, it showed in general, that the result of impact test for ABS is greater than
polystyrene. On the other hand, also it showed that there was a great difference result for
notched and un-notched condition for each polymers.

Since the impact test gave a reading of the measurement of how much amount that
polymers could absorbed the energy, it indicates the difference between polystyrene and ABS
fracture whether they were more ductile or more brittle. The character of brittle fracture is
little plastic deformation and low energy absorption before fracture [3]. On the other hand,

IMPACT TEST Page 5

ductile fracture has an extensive energy absorption and plastic deformation (figure 5.1) [2].
Thus, if we refer to the table 5.1, it can be seen that ABS is more ductile than polystyrene.

Figure 5.1: Relationship between stress-strain curve and area under the curve
However, the difference in reading was not only on sample of polymers difference but
also on the conditions of polymers itself (notched and un-notched). A greater peak had shown
on both sample, which means the notched condition made significant impact to the samples.
Notched condition was designed to reduce the toughness of materials. In the other words, the
notched condition gives much lower absorbed energy to the samples [1]. Hence, Notch
specimen is better measure the resistance of the polymer to crack propagation and we could
predict the lifespan of the polymer if we give some amount of energy. Besides, these two
condition which we had compared (notched and un-notched) can evaluate the notch
sensitivity of the samples.

Nevertheless, both the sample are

the thermoplastic polymers which do not
have any crosslinking (figure 5.2) in their
chains and type of polymers that can be
recycle [4].
Figure 5.2 : Uncrosslink in thermoplastics

However, the major factor that made a great difference is on their structure and
properties. Homopolymer polystyrene is a clear, odorless, and tasteless that is relatively

IMPACT TEST Page 6

brittle [2]. Rigidity, sparking clarity, and ease of processibility but tends to brittle is
characterization of the homopolymer [2]. The impact properties of polystyrene can be
exceeded by copolymerization with the polybutadiene elastomer (figure5. 4). Polystyrenes
have good dimensional stability and low-mold shrinkage and are easily process at low cost
[2]. Their typical applications are automobile interior parts, appliance housing, dials and
knobs, and housewares [4].

Figure 5.3 : Styrene Figure 5.4: Butadiene

On the other hand, ABS is an acronym of acrylonitrile (figure 5.5), butadiene (figure
5.4), and styrene (figure 5.3) [2]. Acrylonitrile gives heat and chemical resistance and
toughness, butadiene contributes impact strength and low-property retention, and styrene
lends surface gloss, rigidity, and ease of processing [2]. The structure of ABS is not that of a
random terpolymer. ABS can be considered a blend of a glassy copolymer (styrene-
acrylonitrile) and rubbery domains (primarily a butadiene polymer or copolymer), simply
blending rubber with the glassy copolymer does not produce optimal impact properties [2].
The major applications of ABS are for pipe and fittings, particularly drain-waste-and-vent
pipe in building [4]. Other uses for ABS are for automotive parts, appliance parts such as
refrigerator door liners and inner liners, computer housing and covers, electrical conduit,
electromagnetic interference-radio-frequency shielding applications [2].

Figure 5.5: Acrylonitrile

IMPACT TEST Page 7

6. CONCLUSSION
From the experiment that we had conducted, it can be conclude that ABS is
more ductile than Polystyrene, and polystyrene is more brittle than ABS. The structure
of ABS which is contain acrylonitrile and butadiene give ABS more abilities in impact
strength and toughness than Polystyrene, moreover the characteristic of polystyrene is
rigid and relatively brittle.
Besides of that, notched condition of specimen also gave great impact on the
ability of absorbing energy of each specimen. Each polymers specimen tend to have
lower ability to absorb energy while they were notched. However, notch condition was
deliberately given to the specimen, so that we can determine how resistant the specimen
absorbs energy when given some defects on it.

7. REFERENCES

[1] D. R. Askeland, The Science and Engineering of Materials, 2nd SI, ed. UK:
Chapman and Hall, 1995, pp. 162-173

[2] W. F. Smith and J. Hashemi. Foundation of Materials Science and

Engineering, 5th. ed. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, 2011, pp.
283-288 and 513-514

[3] M2090 (2009, June.). Introduction to Materials Science, chapter 8, fracture

[online]. Available: http://www.people.virginia.edu [accessed October. 20,
2014]

[4] W. D. Callister and D. G. Rethwisch. Materials Science and Engineering, 8th,

ed. Asia: Jonh Wiley & Sons Pte Ltd, 2011, pp. 537-545

IMPACT TEST Page 8