Comparison of steady-state and transient thermal conductivity testing methods using different industrial rubber compounds

Roman Christopher Kerschbaumer; Sebastian Stieger; Mario Gschwandl; Thomas Hutterer; Michael Fasching; Bernhard Lechner; Lisa Meinhart; Julia Hildenbrandt; Bernd Schrittesser; Peter Filipp Fuchs; Gerald Berger-Weber; Walter Friesenbichler

doi:10.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.106121

Comparison of steady-state and transient thermal conductivity testing methods using different industrial rubber compounds

Roman Christopher Kerschbaumer, Sebastian Stieger, Mario Gschwandl, Thomas Hutterer, Michael Fasching, Bernhard Lechner, Lisa Meinhart, Julia Hildenbrandt, Bernd Schrittesser, Peter Filipp Fuchs, Gerald Berger-Weber, Walter Friesenbichler

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Reliable material data, especially of the thermal conductivity as a function of temperature, are crucial for the
virtual optimization of the rubber injection molding process. Due to the low thermal conductivity of rubber
compounds, typically in the range from 0.15 to 0.4 W m 1K 1, and the fact that the molding of the rubber part
takes place in a heated mold via an energy-based crosslinking reaction, the total cycle time is in the range of
minutes. Consequently, there is a vast potential for optimization of this lengthy production cycle. To determine
the thermal conductivity of seven different rubber compounds, a stationary (Guarded Heat Flow Meter (GHF)),
and three transient methods (Plane-Source (TPS), Line-Source (TLS), and Laser Flash Analysis (LFA)) were
employed. Ancillary, the anisotropic TPS- and the LFA-method require the material parameters specific heat
capacity as well as density. The TPS method also offers the possibility to perform an isotropic and an anisotropic
measurement of the thermal conductivity. In general, filled rubber systems do not exhibit an isotropic material
behavior. Due to filler orientation or diffusion of volatile substances to the surface, the values of the thermal
conductivity obtained from TPS-method differ significantly from those of GHF or LFA. The TLS-measured
thermal conductivity coincide with the GHF results; however, TLS is limited to rubber compounds containing
no cross-linking system, and it is sensitive to emitted volatile substances. To conclude, both the GHF- and the
LFA-method provide comparable results for all seven tested rubber compounds.

Original language	English
Article number	106121
Pages (from-to)	1-8
Number of pages	8
Journal	Polymer Testing
Volume	80.2019
Issue number	December
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.106121
Publication status	E-pub ahead of print - 26 Sept 2019

Access to Document

10.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.106121

Cite this

Kerschbaumer, R. C., Stieger, S., Gschwandl, M., Hutterer, T., Fasching, M., Lechner, B., Meinhart, L., Hildenbrandt, J., Schrittesser, B., Fuchs, P. F., Berger-Weber, G., & Friesenbichler, W. (2019). Comparison of steady-state and transient thermal conductivity testing methods using different industrial rubber compounds. Polymer Testing, 80.2019(December), 1-8. Article 106121. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.106121

@article{5737d5a0bef94971a66290589ac968b2,

title = "Comparison of steady-state and transient thermal conductivity testing methods using different industrial rubber compounds",

abstract = "Reliable material data, especially of the thermal conductivity as a function of temperature, are crucial for thevirtual optimization of the rubber injection molding process. Due to the low thermal conductivity of rubbercompounds, typically in the range from 0.15 to 0.4 W m 1K 1, and the fact that the molding of the rubber parttakes place in a heated mold via an energy-based crosslinking reaction, the total cycle time is in the range ofminutes. Consequently, there is a vast potential for optimization of this lengthy production cycle. To determinethe thermal conductivity of seven different rubber compounds, a stationary (Guarded Heat Flow Meter (GHF)),and three transient methods (Plane-Source (TPS), Line-Source (TLS), and Laser Flash Analysis (LFA)) wereemployed. Ancillary, the anisotropic TPS- and the LFA-method require the material parameters specific heatcapacity as well as density. The TPS method also offers the possibility to perform an isotropic and an anisotropicmeasurement of the thermal conductivity. In general, filled rubber systems do not exhibit an isotropic materialbehavior. Due to filler orientation or diffusion of volatile substances to the surface, the values of the thermalconductivity obtained from TPS-method differ significantly from those of GHF or LFA. The TLS-measuredthermal conductivity coincide with the GHF results; however, TLS is limited to rubber compounds containingno cross-linking system, and it is sensitive to emitted volatile substances. To conclude, both the GHF- and theLFA-method provide comparable results for all seven tested rubber compounds.",

author = "Kerschbaumer, {Roman Christopher} and Sebastian Stieger and Mario Gschwandl and Thomas Hutterer and Michael Fasching and Bernhard Lechner and Lisa Meinhart and Julia Hildenbrandt and Bernd Schrittesser and Fuchs, {Peter Filipp} and Gerald Berger-Weber and Walter Friesenbichler",

year = "2019",

month = sep,

day = "26",

doi = "10.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.106121",

language = "English",

volume = "80.2019",

pages = "1--8",

journal = "Polymer Testing",

issn = "0142-9418",

publisher = "Elsevier",

number = "December",

}

Kerschbaumer, RC, Stieger, S, Gschwandl, M, Hutterer, T, Fasching, M, Lechner, B, Meinhart, L, Hildenbrandt, J, Schrittesser, B, Fuchs, PF, Berger-Weber, G & Friesenbichler, W 2019, 'Comparison of steady-state and transient thermal conductivity testing methods using different industrial rubber compounds', Polymer Testing, vol. 80.2019, no. December, 106121, pp. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.106121

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of steady-state and transient thermal conductivity testing methods using different industrial rubber compounds

AU - Kerschbaumer, Roman Christopher

AU - Stieger, Sebastian

AU - Gschwandl, Mario

AU - Hutterer, Thomas

AU - Fasching, Michael

AU - Lechner, Bernhard

AU - Meinhart, Lisa

AU - Hildenbrandt, Julia

AU - Schrittesser, Bernd

AU - Fuchs, Peter Filipp

AU - Berger-Weber, Gerald

AU - Friesenbichler, Walter

PY - 2019/9/26

Y1 - 2019/9/26

N2 - Reliable material data, especially of the thermal conductivity as a function of temperature, are crucial for thevirtual optimization of the rubber injection molding process. Due to the low thermal conductivity of rubbercompounds, typically in the range from 0.15 to 0.4 W m 1K 1, and the fact that the molding of the rubber parttakes place in a heated mold via an energy-based crosslinking reaction, the total cycle time is in the range ofminutes. Consequently, there is a vast potential for optimization of this lengthy production cycle. To determinethe thermal conductivity of seven different rubber compounds, a stationary (Guarded Heat Flow Meter (GHF)),and three transient methods (Plane-Source (TPS), Line-Source (TLS), and Laser Flash Analysis (LFA)) wereemployed. Ancillary, the anisotropic TPS- and the LFA-method require the material parameters specific heatcapacity as well as density. The TPS method also offers the possibility to perform an isotropic and an anisotropicmeasurement of the thermal conductivity. In general, filled rubber systems do not exhibit an isotropic materialbehavior. Due to filler orientation or diffusion of volatile substances to the surface, the values of the thermalconductivity obtained from TPS-method differ significantly from those of GHF or LFA. The TLS-measuredthermal conductivity coincide with the GHF results; however, TLS is limited to rubber compounds containingno cross-linking system, and it is sensitive to emitted volatile substances. To conclude, both the GHF- and theLFA-method provide comparable results for all seven tested rubber compounds.

AB - Reliable material data, especially of the thermal conductivity as a function of temperature, are crucial for thevirtual optimization of the rubber injection molding process. Due to the low thermal conductivity of rubbercompounds, typically in the range from 0.15 to 0.4 W m 1K 1, and the fact that the molding of the rubber parttakes place in a heated mold via an energy-based crosslinking reaction, the total cycle time is in the range ofminutes. Consequently, there is a vast potential for optimization of this lengthy production cycle. To determinethe thermal conductivity of seven different rubber compounds, a stationary (Guarded Heat Flow Meter (GHF)),and three transient methods (Plane-Source (TPS), Line-Source (TLS), and Laser Flash Analysis (LFA)) wereemployed. Ancillary, the anisotropic TPS- and the LFA-method require the material parameters specific heatcapacity as well as density. The TPS method also offers the possibility to perform an isotropic and an anisotropicmeasurement of the thermal conductivity. In general, filled rubber systems do not exhibit an isotropic materialbehavior. Due to filler orientation or diffusion of volatile substances to the surface, the values of the thermalconductivity obtained from TPS-method differ significantly from those of GHF or LFA. The TLS-measuredthermal conductivity coincide with the GHF results; however, TLS is limited to rubber compounds containingno cross-linking system, and it is sensitive to emitted volatile substances. To conclude, both the GHF- and theLFA-method provide comparable results for all seven tested rubber compounds.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85072698861&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.106121

DO - 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.106121

M3 - Article

SN - 0142-9418

VL - 80.2019

SP - 1

EP - 8

JO - Polymer Testing

JF - Polymer Testing

IS - December

M1 - 106121

ER -

Comparison of steady-state and transient thermal conductivity testing methods using different industrial rubber compounds

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this