Find out about.......Plastics, Polymer Engineering and Leadership: 2025

🔎I review your polymer material selection and plastic part design - contact me here

🔥 There is a problem keeping you awake - My personal website for Polymer Consulting

📊 Discover your Polymer Material Selection score by taking quick test here

Literature:

[1] https://www.findoutaboutplastics.com/2020/12/plastic-part-marking-overview-codes-and.html

[2] https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/63434/f460de8a1261420a92f1195a8e329213/ISO-11469-2016.pdf

Tuesday, 18 November 2025

Evaluating High-Temperature Performance: DMA Comparison of PARA-GF50 vs. PPA(4T)-GF50

Hello and welcome to a new blog post in which we evaluate the high-temperature performance of PARA (PA-MXD6) vs PPA.

When selecting materials for demanding, high-temperature applications, understanding their mechanical performance under heat is critical. Dynamic Mechanical Analysis (DMA) is a powerful tool for assessing how polymers retain their stiffness as temperatures rise. In this post, we compare the high-temperature behavior of two advanced engineering plastics: PA-MXD6-GF50 (50 wt% glass fiber reinforced Polyarylamide) and PPA(4T)-GF50 (50 wt% glass fiber reinforced Polyphthalamide). Both material fall into the category of semi-aromatic polyamides which reflect a resistance towards higher temperatures. In this post we check if this is the case for the both materials.

DMA Results: Shear Modulus vs. Temperature

Figure 1 presents the dynamic shear modulus (E') of both materials as a function of temperature. The glass transition temperature (Tg) is a key indicator of when a polymer’s mechanical properties begin to decline:

PA-MXD6-GF50 (PARA): E' drops sharply at around 85°C, marking its Tg.
PPA(4T)-GF50: E' remains stable until approximately 125°C, indicating a higher Tg.

Beyond the glass transition, the differences become even more pronounced. Between 150°C and 200°C, PARA exhibits a slight plateau in modulus before dropping to zero at 250°C. In contrast, PPA(4T)-GF50 maintains a high modulus, retaining around 5 GPa even at 250°C. This demonstrates PPA’s superior ability to withstand elevated temperatures without significant loss of stiffness.

Figure 1: Comparison Dynamic Shear Moldulus E' of PARA-GF50 and PPA(4T).

Thermal Endurance: UL 746B RTI (Strength) Comparison

To further validate these findings, we examined the Relative Thermal Index (RTI, strength at 1.5 mm thickness) according to UL 746B:

PA-MXD6-GF50: RTI (strength) = 105°C
PPA(4T)-GF50: RTI (strength) = 130°C

The higher RTI value for PPA(4T)-GF50 confirms its suitability for applications requiring long-term mechanical integrity at elevated temperatures.

Ways to increase the thermal performance of PARA / MXD6

Increasing the thermal resistance of PARA/MXD6 can be done by blending PARA with PPE (Polyphenylenether) and make a MXD6/PPE alloy which not only exhibits high temperature resistance, high strength, but also good and wear resistance.

Conclusion: Material Selection for High-Temperature Applications

DMA provides valuable insight into how materials behave under dynamic loading across a temperature range. For applications operating above 120°C, PPA(4T)-GF50 clearly outperforms PA-MXD6-GF50, maintaining higher modulus and demonstrating better thermal endurance. Alongside DMA, considering the RTI value is essential for making informed material choices in high-temperature environments.

In summary:

PPA(4T)-GF50 offers superior high-temperature performance and stability.
PA-MXD6-GF50 is suitable for applications up to its Tg and shows property loss at higher temperatures above 200°C.

Selecting the optimal material ensures reliability and safety in demanding thermal conditions.

Nevertheless, PARA is outperforming PA and PPA in terms of stiffness, combined with excellent surface aesthetics and lowest water uptake allowing for high dimensional stable parts.

Thursday, 13 November 2025

Plastic Part Failure Analysis - Example Breaking of Toy Helicopter Rotor Blades

Hello and welcome to new post in which we discuss one of my plastic part failure studies answering the question: Why did the toy helicopter rotor blades keep breaking?

Ever had a toy fail at the worst possible moment? That’s what happened with a rescue helicopter toy—kids reported the rotor blades snapping during “harder” rescue missions, always at the same spot. As someone who knows the pain of ordering spare parts, I had to dig deeper!

Here’s what I found:

Root Cause: The blades, made from ABS, consistently broke at the injection point—a natural weak spot. When force was applied (think: enthusiastic play!), stress concentrated here, causing failure.

Why Always the Same Spot? The injection point acts like a weak link in a fixed beam. Too much stress, and snap—it breaks right there (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Broken toy helicopter blade - injection molding point as root cause identified.

How to Fix It?

1. Move the Injection Point: Shift it to the blade’s center using a conical gate, ensuring even filling and less stress (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Moving the injection point to the center allowing for even filling of both blade sides.

2. Upgrade the Material: Switch to glass fiber reinforced ABS, increasing the needed force to break the rotor blade by 43% (Figure 3)!

Figure 3: Changing from ABS to ABS+GF10 increases the needed force to break the blade.

3. Combine Both Approaches: For maximum durability.

This is a great reminder: optimal injection molded parts require attention to all five points of the Polymer Product Pentagram—Part Design, Material Selection, Mold Design, Machine Selection, and Molding Process.

Have you faced similar failures? Let’s connect here and share solutions!

Thanks for reading & #findoutaboutplastics

Greetings,

🔎I review your polymer material selection and plastic part design - contact me here

🔥 There is a problem keeping you awake - My personal website for Polymer Consulting

📊 Discover your Polymer Material Selection score by taking quick test here

Tuesday, 11 November 2025

Polycarbonate Market Review 2025: Innovation, Growth, and Global Shifts

Hello and welcome to my Polycarbonate Market Review 2025, discussing innovation, growth, and global shifts

Polycarbonate (PC) remains a cornerstone material for modern industry, prized for high impact resistance, optical clarity, and versatility. From automotive and medical to digital electronics and construction, PC and its blends continue to enable the megatrends that define our time.

Why this matters: As global supply chains reset and sustainability moves center stage, the PC market is undergoing meaningful change. In 2024, global PC (including blends) surpassed 5.2 million tons for the first time, and a steady ~4% CAGR is expected— with China and India likely to outpace the global average.

A Material Built for Modern Demands

Pure Polycarbonate offers a rare combination of toughness, transparency, and heat resistance. Its versatility accelerates further through PC blends such as PC+ABS, PC+ASA, PC+PBT, and PC+PET, delivering improved impact performance, heat resistance, stiffness, and chemical durability.

Across digitalization, new mobility, and medical technology, PC and PC blends provide the reliability, design freedom, and performance required for next-generation products.

Market Overview: Recovery Amid Headwinds

Despite structural strengths, producers faced lower demand in recent years and intense competition that pressured prices and margins. European manufacturers contended with higher electricity and gas costs, further tightening profitability.

Even so, momentum is building. The market crossed the 5 million ton threshold in 2024 (5.2 Mt), and forward growth near 4% annually is expected— with faster expansion in China and India.

Global Leaders and Capacity

Two companies account for 40%+ of global PC capacity:

Covestro
Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC)

New Chinese entrants—Wanhua Chemical and Zhejiang Petroleum & Chemical (ZPC)—are scaling rapidly, while established players such as Mitsubishi Chemical and Lotte Chemical remain influential.

Capacity and Consumption Snapshot (2024)

Production capacity: Asia-Pacific 70% (5.5 Mt; China 3.5 Mt), EMEA 20% (1.4 Mt), Americas 10% (0.8 Mt).
End-market usage: Asia-Pacific (incl. China) 70%, EMEA 17%, North & South America 13%. China is the largest single market.

China: The Powerhouse of Growth

China increased PC polymerization plants from 5 (2015) to 17, with exports rising from 250,000 t/y to 500,000 t/y. Notable capacity additions:

Hainan Huasheng – 260 kt/y (2022)
Sinopec SABIC Tianjin Petrochemical (SSTPC) – 260 kt/y (2022)
Hengli Petrochemical – 260 kt/y (2024)
Zhangzhou Chimei Chemical – 180 kt/y (2024)
Pingmei Shenma – 100 kt/y, with plans to expand to 400 kt/y

Europe: Capacity Contraction and Import Reliance

Trinseo ceased PC production in Stade, Germany; SABIC closed two lines in Cartagena, Spain by end-2023 (now ~130 kt/y). Since 2023, Europe has been the largest net importer of PC, highlighting competitiveness and energy-cost challenges.

The Americas and India: Stability and Ascent

In the U.S., PC production remains stable: SABIC (Indiana, Alabama), Covestro (Texas), and Trinseo (PC compounding). India grew from 125 kt/y (2015) to 300 kt/y. A key milestone: Deepak Chem Tech (DCTL) added 165 kt/y of capacity using Trinseo technology and repurposed equipment from the closed Stade plant—an example of efficient global tech transfer.

Where Polycarbonate Shines: End-Use Segments (2024)

Electrical & Electronics (E&E): 35%
Automotive: 20%
Construction: 15%
Consumer goods: 10%
Medical, optics, sports, toys, packaging: 20%

Recycling and the Road to Circularity

Three primary routes are advancing PC circularity:

Mechanical recycling – efficient for clean, post-industrial streams.
Chemical recycling – restoring virgin-like quality; active programs at Covestro, LG Chem, Mitsubishi Chemical, and Wanhua Chemical.
Solvent-based recycling – selectively extracts PC from mixed waste; Trinseo’s Terneuzen (NL) pilot, 2023, demonstrates promising results.

Key Data of the Polycarbonate Market Review [1]

Outlook: Resilient and Essential

Despite margin pressure and regional disparities, Polycarbonate remains strategic to innovation in mobility, electronics, healthcare, and sustainable infrastructure. With ongoing capacity investments, stronger Asian supply, and accelerating recycling technologies, the PC market is positioned for steady growth and meaningful transformation in 2025 and beyond.

Thanks for reading & #findoutaboutplastics

Greetings,

🔎I review your polymer material selection and plastic part design - contact me here

🔥 There is a problem keeping you awake - My personal website for Polymer Consulting

📊 Discover your Polymer Material Selection score by taking quick test here

Literature:

[1] Plastics Insights; 10/2025

Friday, 7 November 2025

Wombat: Not Just an Animal—A Lesson for Plastics Operations

Hello and welcome to a new blogpost. When you hear “wombat,” you might picture a sturdy little marsupial from Australia. But in the world of plastics engineering, Wombat stands for something else entirely:

Waste of Money, Bandwidth, and Time.

And it’s a concept every polymer professional should keep top of mind.

Wombat in the world of plastics engineering.

Why Wombat Matters in Plastics

In our fast-paced industry, it’s easy to get sidetracked by shiny new technologies, endless data, or meetings that lead nowhere. But every minute and euro spent on non-essential activities is a minute and euro not spent on what really matters: making perfect plastic parts.

Wombat is a reminder to ask ourselves:

Are we investing in tools and processes that actually improve quality and efficiency?
Is this meeting, report, or project moving us closer to our production goals?
Are we focusing on root causes, or just treating symptoms?

Applying Wombat Thinking to the Plastics World

Let’s look at a few practical examples:

Material Selection: Don’t over-specify or under-specify. Choose the right polymer for the job, not the most expensive or the one with the flashiest datasheet.
Process Optimization: Focus on parameters that truly impact part quality—like melt temperature, cooling time, and pressure—rather than chasing every minor variable.
Troubleshooting: When defects arise, use data-driven root cause analysis. Don’t waste time on guesswork or “just try it” fixes.

The Payoff: Perfect Parts, Less Waste

By keeping Wombat in mind, you’ll streamline your operations, reduce scrap, and deliver higher-quality parts—without burning through resources. It’s about working smarter, not harder.

So next time you’re faced with a decision, ask yourself: Is this a Wombat? If it is, steer clear and refocus on what truly drives success in plastics manufacturing.

Let’s leave the wombats in the wild—and keep our operations lean, focused, and efficient!

Thanks for reading & #findoutaboutplastics

Greetings,

🔎I review your polymer material selection and plastic part design - contact me here

🔥 There is a problem keeping you awake - My personal website for Polymer Consulting

📊 Discover your Polymer Material Selection score by taking quick test here

Monday, 3 November 2025

Ratio Projects - A Story Beyond Plastic Material Prices

Hello and welcome to a new blog post in which I want to share a story that changed the way of thinking about cost-saving in manufacturing:

Ratio projects

Not long ago, I was sitting across the table from a customer who was laser-focused on one thing: lowering material costs for an injection-moulded part. He was convinced that if we could just supply a cheaper material, his problems would be solved.

But as our technical team and I examined the part and the moulding operations together, something caught our eye. The runner and sprue—the channels that guide the molten polymer into the mould—were enormous. In fact, they were much bigger than the part itself! Imagine pouring a glass of water and spilling twice as much on the table as you actually get in the glass. That’s what was happening here.

Instead of just talking about material prices, we rolled up our sleeves and worked side by side with the customer. We reimagined the entire gating system, redesigning the part and the tooling. It was a true collaboration, blending expertise and creativity.

The result? We didn’t just shave a few cents off the material cost. We cut the total cost by 50%. Half! Not by using a cheaper material, but by using our knowledge to optimize the design and the process (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Optimizing the sprue and gating of an injection mold as part of a ratio project.

The customer was amazed. He realized that the real savings came not from squeezing suppliers for lower prices, but from looking at the bigger picture—design, tooling, and production.

This experience taught us all a powerful lesson: sometimes, the answer isn’t in the price tag of the material, but in the ingenuity we bring to the table. When we focus only on material costs, we risk missing out on much greater opportunities for improvement.

So next time you’re tempted to chase the lowest material price, remember—true value comes from partnership, innovation, and seeing the whole picture.

Thanks for reading & #findoutaboutplastics

Greetings,

🔎I review your polymer material selection and plastic part design - contact me here

🔥 There is a problem keeping you awake - My personal website for Polymer Consulting

📊 Discover your Polymer Material Selection score by taking quick test here

Wednesday, 22 October 2025

Stories From The Granulatefather: The Triangle Test

Stories from the Granulatefather: The Triangle Test by Herwig Juster

The hum of machines filled the air as Anna, a young design engineer, walked briskly through the plastics manufacturing plant. She clutched a sample part in her hand—a translucent connector for a medical device. It looked perfect, but Anna’s brow was furrowed. She had just received a report: several connectors had cracked during field use.

At the conference table, Anna met with her mentor, Mr. DeWitt, a seasoned materials expert. He examined the cracked part, turning it over in his hands. “Environmental stress cracking,” he murmured, almost to himself.

Anna sighed. “I thought we picked the right material. We even checked the chemical compatibility.”

Mr. DeWitt smiled gently. “Let me tell you a rule of thumb I learned early in my career. When it comes to environmental stress cracking—ESCR—think of a triangle. Three legs: environment, stress, and chemicals. If you can remove or reduce even one, you break the triangle and prevent failure.”

Anna leaned in, intrigued. “So, where do we start?”

They walked to the design lab. Mr. DeWitt pointed to the sharp corners on Anna’s part. “Stress concentrates here. Let’s round these edges and thicken the walls. That’ll help.”

Next, they reviewed the cleaning agents used in the hospital. “Some chemicals are harsher than we realized,” Anna noted. “We can recommend alternatives.”

Finally, Mr. DeWitt pulled a datasheet for PPSU, a high-performance polymer. “This material has excellent resistance to ESCR. It might cost more, but it could save us from future failures.”

A week later, Anna watched as the new connectors passed every test—no cracks, no failures. She smiled, remembering the triangle. By tweaking the design, rethinking the chemicals, and upgrading the material, they had broken the cycle of failure.

Anna’s story spread through the company, a reminder that in plastics, success isn’t just about picking a material—it’s about understanding the whole system, and knowing which leg of the triangle to break.

I hope you enjoyed the story!

Thanks for reading & #findoutaboutplastics

Greetings,

🔎I review your polymer material selection and plastic part design - contact me here

🔥 There is a problem keeping you awake - My personal website for Polymer Consulting

📊 Discover your Polymer Material Selection score by taking quick test here

Tuesday, 21 October 2025

Don't Mix Maximum With Optimum Plastic Material Selection & Plastic Processing I Rule of Thumb

Hello and welcome to a new Rule of Thumb post discussing why mixing maximum with optimum in polymer material selection and plastics processing is not the best thing to do.

Understanding “Maximum” vs. “Optimum” in Plastic Material Selection

When selecting materials, it’s important to distinguish between “maximum” and “optimum.”

Maximum refers to the highest possible value of a single property (e.g., the highest tensile strength, the greatest heat resistance, or the lowest density).

Optimum means the best possible balance among several relevant properties for a specific application. The optimum is not always the maximum of any single property, but rather the material that meets all key requirements most effectively.

Why is this distinction important?

Choosing a material based solely on a maximum value (such as the strongest or most heat-resistant polymer) can lead to unnecessary costs, processing difficulties, or other trade-offs. The optimal choice is the one that delivers the best overall performance for your specific needs—even if it doesn’t have the highest value in every category.

Example: “Optimal vs Maximum” in Plastic Material Selection

When selecting a plastic material for a specific application, engineers often seek the “optimal vs maximum”—that is, the best possible balance between competing requirements, such as mechanical strength, cost, processability, and chemical resistance.

Case Study: Gear Wheel for Automotive Application

Requirements:

High mechanical strength and stiffness
Good wear resistance
Dimensional stability at elevated temperatures
Cost-effectiveness for mass production

Material Candidates:

Polyamide 6 (PA6)
Polyoxymethylene (POM)
Polyetheretherketone (PEEK)

Selection Process:

Define Key Properties:
The gear must withstand high loads (tensile strength), resist wear, and maintain shape at temperatures up to 120°C.
Score Materials:
Each candidate is evaluated for tensile strength, wear resistance, heat deflection temperature, and cost.

Find the “Optimal vs Maximum”:

PA6: Good strength and cost, but absorbs moisture (affecting dimensions).
POM: Excellent wear resistance and dimensional stability, moderate strength, good cost.
PEEK: Outstanding properties, but very high cost.

After scoring, POM emerges as the “optimal vs maximum”—it offers the best compromise between performance and cost for this application, even though PEEK has higher absolute properties.

The “optimal vs maximum” is not always the material with the highest individual property, but the one that best meets all critical requirements for the application. In this case, POM is the optimal choice, delivering reliable performance at a reasonable cost.

Takeaway:
When selecting plastics, always look for the “optimal vs maximum”—the material that provides the best overall fit for your application, not just the highest value in a single property.

Optimum vs Maximum in injection molding

For example, in injection molding, the optimum flow rate is not necessarily the fastest possible, but rather the rate that minimizes shear stress, ensures proper mold filling, and avoids defects like air traps or weld lines. Similarly, the optimum temperature profile for a molding process might balance melt temperature for flow with cooling time for cycle time, while minimizing residual stress.

Figure 1 presents the concept of "maximum vs optimum" for plastics processing. In essence, while maximum settings define the boundaries, optimum settings represent the sweet spot within those boundaries for achieving the best possible results in plastics processing.

Figure 1: Difference between optimum and maximum in plastics processing.

More Rule of Thumb posts can be found here.

Thanks for reading & #findoutaboutplastics

Greetings,

🔎I review your polymer material selection and plastic part design - contact me here

🔥 There is a problem keeping you awake - My personal website for Polymer Consulting

📊 Discover your Polymer Material Selection score by taking quick test here