TESTING | MATERIALS
Right: LabsCubed aims to introduce a plastics-focused version of its CubeOne automated tensile testing system, which was originally designed for elastomers, early this year. A version for flexural testing is in development
new and innovative materials,” the compa- ny says in a White Paper on the study. It explains that manual material testing hinders development by limiting throughput, producing inconsistent data, and increasing costs. The study was undertaken using a mix of
materials (all elastomers) from LabsCubed clients. To ensure study accuracy, the samples were created and tested at the same time, reducing mixing and production errors.
Reproducibility is key “The results from manual vs CubeOne tests showed that, for both stress and strain, the data produced by the CubeOne is well within the compounders’ internally defined acceptable range,” says the White Paper. “This is important as data reproducibility is key to ensuring continued testing with no correlation issues. “Specifically, it was found that the average
difference for stress at break is 0.5%. The CubeOne uses an Omega load cell that is calibrated and certified to ASTM standards and therefore results in highly accurate data,” the company says. “For strain at break, compounders’ in-house data
was produced using clip-on physical extensometers, while the CubeOne uses a contactless vision extensometer. These different methods of measuring strain result in a slightly higher difference at around 2%. The vision extensometer found in the CubeOne is also calibrated and certified to ASTM standards.”
To compare data consistency, the standard deviation was calculated across five samples for each compound set. For strain at break, it was found that the consistency of the data was 40% higher using the automated system than with the manual machine. As for stress at break, it was found that the automated system increased consistency by 36%. LabsCubed says the biggest cost savings achieved when using the CubeOne derive from the technician no longer having to perform repetitive manual tasks. On average it was found that to test a single sample on a manual machine, an operator would require approximately four minutes, while the CubeOne system requires approximately 30 seconds to prepare a sample. “Total savings per year are estimated at $43,750, which is a significant and direct savings,” the White Paper claims. “This translates to a ROI of less than 1.25 years for the average customer.” The company claims the CubeOne can replace
any current manual machine without problems for both quality-control or R&D testing. It says the consistency gains that result from automation amount to up to 40%, with users also seeing savings in time and money.
Guill invests in rheology laboratory
US-based extrusion tooling company Guill Tool has established an in-house rheology laboratory in its facility at West Warwick in Rhode Island. The lab’s equipment list includes a Hybrid Rotational Rheometer, Differential Scanning Calorimeter, and Thermal Conductivity Meter. Guill says the invesment means it is now equipped to test customer’s materials and work with them to create extrusion tooling that will give them a competitive edge. Having the capability in-house also speeds up turna- round on test results, reducing delays during the tool design process and offering better control over the processes and test parameters. The rheology lab will be available for use by extrusion processors as well as material formulators. �
www.guill.com
26 COMPOUNDING WORLD | January 2021
Some of the equipment in use in Guill’s new rheology lab at its US plant in Rhode Island
�
www.compoundingworld.com
IMAGE: GUILL TOOL
IMAGE: LABSCUBED
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50
