Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In the analysis of most extrusion problems, the thermal diffusivity of the melt is assumed constant (2);
however, thermal diffusivity is a strong function of
temperature, and a weak function of pressure.
151
M.W. Wooetal.
of HDPE a s a function of temperature from literature
data [(14),(15) and Figs. 6-26 from (211:
1
-=
1.05exp(O.O0136T)
(TI 135C)
(2)
( T > 135C)
(3)
PP
1
_
-- 1.14 + 0.0009T
PP
(T in "C, p , in g/cm3)
Heat Capacity. Heat of Fusion, and Melting Point
of HDPE
The heat capacity ( C p ) , heat of fusion (AHf) and
melting point of the HDPE was measured by DSC
(DuPont 2000 series) according to ASTM standard
procedures [ASTM D3417-83, D3418-82 (16,17)l.The
heat of fusion was found to be 202(+4) J / g during melting, and the melting point to be 13% 5YC.
The heat capacity of HDPE is almost constant at
2.25 (J/g"C) from 50C to 200C. An effective heat
capacity ( Cp*),which includes the heat of fusion, can
be defined to assist in the numerical solution of
the energy equation. From the DSC results we fit the
following curve to describe the effective heat capacity
of HDPE.
Cp* = 2.25[ 1.0 + 5.5exp( - a(T- 135)121
-dT
=o
( T I 135C)
(T>135C)
- 1 x 10-5T
k,
= 0.25 X
lo-'
p , - 0.90)
(9)
(TI 135C)
(5)
dT
(T> 135C)
(6)
dt
at t = O
dT
Kamal, et a1 (91, show that the thermal conductivity can be different for different types of polyethylenes. Rauwendaal (2) presents the thermal
conductivity of HDPE as a function of temperature
and polymer density.
lo-' + 5 X
at r = R
dt
= 0.17 X
T= Tsurfhce
T = To
k,
at r = O
dr
(4)
where
a= 0.005
a = 0.05
1 rlT
d2T
(10)
where
kb
a* = PPCP*
(11)
recorded by computer. It was assumed that the polymer at the polymer metal interface is the same temperature as the wall, i.e., that the heat transfer is very
fast.
The HDPE powder was loaded into a mold, at room
temperature, packed around the thermocouples, and
placed under pressure. The mold was then heated to
the desired wall temperature within t l " C , except
for some overshoot during the initial heating period.
The temperatures were monitored until the center
line temperature approached the wall temperature.
x
k,
- 0.870
lop2In(T+ 273.15)
= 0.435
(TI 135C)
( T > 135C)
(W/cmC) (12)
This correlation differs in form from E q s 5 and 6 in
that we did not account for the densities of different
polyethylenes since we were using a single HDPE
type. A correction in the thermal conductivity for
each porosity was introduced to match the temperature time profile at each pressure. The temperature
profiles are shown in Figs. 2 through 6 along with
210
190
170
150
130
0.0
110
I
30
wall
70
50
0.64
1.27
1.91
90
--
model
r
0
20
40
60
minutes
80
100
120
Q. 2. Melting projle at various radial positions. 101.3 KPa pressure (gage). Points are measured temperatures, solid lines are
model predictions. The solid line for the wall temperature was not predicted but used by the model.
153
M. W. Woo et al.
210
190
170
150
130
110
90
202.6 Kpa pressure
70
50
30
10
!
0
60
80
100
120
minutes
Fig. 3. Melting projle at various radial positions. 202.6 KPa pressure (gage). Broken lines are measured temperatures, solid lines
are model predictions. The solid linefor the wall temperature w a s not predicted but used by the model.
210
20
40
190
170
150
7 30
110
90
303.9 Kpa pressure
70
-model
50
30
I
20
40
60
80
Minutes
Fig. 4. Melting projle at various radial positions. 303.9KPa pressure (gage).Broken lines are measured temperatures, solid Lines
are model predictions. he solid line for the wall temperature was not predicted but used by the model.
0
diffusivity with temperature, for the ambient pressure case. These values are in general agreement
with those published by Tan (24). From these results
one can say that the assumed thermal conductivity
equation is a reasonable one, based upon the comparison between simulation and experiment.
Using this experimental method to measure temperature profiles and comparing them to Eq 10 gives
a n estimate of the thermal diffusivity. Using the independent measurements heat capacity and density,
one can estimate the thermal conductivity. Although
this method is not a s accurate as some other method
for measuring thermal conductivity, it does give indications of the values for packed powders as a function of porosity. Moreover, these experiments show
that these equations and parameter values are appliPOLYMER ENGINEERINGAND SCIENCE, JANUARY 7995, Vol. 35, No. 2
'5
3
v)
a,
0)
a,
140
120
100
80
.........experimental data
60
-model
40
20
40
minutes
20
60
80
Flg. 5. Melting projile a t various radial positions. 2532.5 KPa pressure (gauge). Broken lines are measured temperatures, solid
lines are model predictions. The solid linefor the wall temperatures was not predicted but used by the model.
220
..,.
.. ..
200
180
0
160
-"
140
$
2?
120
.-3
100
80
60
40
20
!
0
20
40
60
80
minutes
Fig. 6. Melting proJile a t various radial positions. 5065 KPa pressure (gage). Broken lines are measured temperatures. solid lines
are model predictions. The solid line for the wall temperatures was not predicted but used by the model.
CONCLUSIONS
NOMENCLATURE
a = A coefficient in Eq 4 .
C p = Heat capacity of polymer (j/$C).
Cp*= Effective heat capacity of polymer including
heat of fusion (j/g"C).
k, = Thermal conductivity of polymer (W/cmC).
k, = Thermal conductivity of packed bed (W/crnC).
R = Radius of the cylinder (cm).
r = Radius (crn).
T = Temperature PC).
t =Time (s).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
155
M . W. Wooetal.
0.75
0.73 -
o
.-c
0.71
.g
>
0.69
0.67
0.63
0.57
.c
I-
-Equation 7
+
b
P
Observed
0.78
0.8
0.82
Density Ratio
Fg. 7. The efect of bulk density on the relative thermal
conductivity. Relative thermal conductivity is de3ned as is
the observed bulk thermal conductivity relative to the thermal
conductiviQ of the polymer.
4.OE-03
h
ln
3.OE-03
0
v
.?
.-
2.OE-03
ln
3
c
75 1.OE-03
:O.OE+OO
40
80
120
160
Degrees Celsius
200
Greek Letters
a
a*
156
=Bulk.
=Polymer.
REFERENCES
0.76
N
<
Subscripts