Thermally and Electrically Conductive Polypropylene
Based Resins for Fuel Cell Bipolar Plates
By
Beth A. Johnson
A THESIS
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Science in Chemical Engineering
MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
2009
Copyright© Beth A. Johnson 2009
This thesis, “Thermally and Electrically Conductive Polypropylene Based Resins for
Fuel Cell Bipolar Plates,” is hereby approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in the field of Chemical Engineering.
DEPARTMENT – Chemical Engineering
Signatures:
Thesis Advisor
_______________________
Dr. Julia A. King
Department Chair
_______________________
Dr. S. Komar Kawatra
Date: ______________________________
Abstract
“Thermally and Electrically Conductive Polypropylene Based Resins for Fuel Cell
Bipolar Plates”
Adding different conductive carbon fillers to insulating thermoplastic resins
increases the composite electrical and thermal conductivity. One potential market for
these thermally and electrically conductive resins is for fuel cell bipolar plates. These
bipolar plates are used in the fuel cell to transfer oxygen and hydrogen that are used to in
the reaction, remove excess heat and water produced in the reaction, and to provide
electrical contact between the cells.
In this study, varying amounts of three different carbon fillers (carbon black,
synthetic graphite particles, and carbon nanotubes) were added to polypropylene. The
maximum single filler amounts that that could be extruded and injection molded were 15
wt% for carbon black, 80 wt% for synthetic graphite, and 15 wt% for FibrilTM carbon
nanotubes. The in-plane and through plane thermal conductivity and the electrical
resistivity (1/electrical conductivity) was measured for each polymer composites. The
effects of single fillers and combinations of the different fillers were studied via a
factorial design.
From the thermal conductivity results, it was determined that each single filler
caused a statistically significant increase in composite through-plane thermal
conductivity, with synthetic graphite causing the largest increase. All of the composites
containing combinations of the different fillers also caused a statistically significant
increase in composite through-plane thermal conductivity. Composites containing 80
wt% synthetic graphite and the three fillers (2.5 wt% carbon black, 65 wt% synthetic
graphite, and 6 wt% carbon nanotubes) had an in-plane thermal conductivity of
28.0 W/m K and 24.0 W/m K, both values are above 20 W/m.K which is the desired
target for bipolar plates.
From the electrical conductivity results the percolation thresholds for each filler
was determined. The percolation threshold was 1.4 vol % for the composites containing
only carbon black, 2.1 vol% for those containing only carbon nanotubes, and 13 vol %
for those containing only synthetic graphite particles. The factorial results indicated that,
for the composites containing only single fillers, synthetic graphite, followed closely by
carbon nanotubes, and then carbon black, cause a statistically significant decrease in
composite electrical resistivity. All composites containing combinations of different
fillers had a statistically significant effect which increased the electrical resistivity. The
composite closest to the US Department of Energy target of 100 S/cm is the 2.5 wt%
carbon black, 65 wt% synthetic graphite, and 6 wt% carbon nanotubes formulation
compression molded with an electrical conductivity result of 91 S/cm.
i
Acknowledgements
First I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Julie King for all of her guidance and
support throughout my time and Michigan Technological University. I would also like to
thank Dr. Jason Keith, Dr. Tony Rogers, and Dr. Ibrahim Miskioglu for taking time out
of their busy schedules to be on my committee.
I would like to acknowledge the Department of Energy (Award Number DEFG36-08GO88104) and the National Science Foundation (DMI-0456537) for funding
this project. I would also like to acknowledge Asbury Carbons and Akzo Nobel for
providing carbon fillers and the Dow Chemical Company for providing the
polypropylene polymer. I would like to thank all the undergraduate students at Michigan
Technological University that helped me with this project. I would especially like to
thank Michael Via, Charlie Ciarkowski, and Daniel R. Woldring for all their hard work
and for starting the project while I was finishing up my bachelor’s degree. Without them
I would not have been able to finish most of my research in the summer.
Finally, I would like to thank my family for all their support throughout my entire
college career. They helped me through tough decisions and supported me when I
needed help. They are a large part of my success and without them this wouldn’t have
been possible.
ii
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures .................................................................................................................. vii
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... x
Nomenclature .............................................................................................................. xxvii
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................... 1
1.1: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2: Motivation ................................................................................................................ 2
1.3: Objectives ................................................................................................................. 4
1.4: References ................................................................................................................ 5
Chapter 2: Background .................................................................................................... 9
2.1: Fuel Cells ................................................................................................................. 9
2.1.1: Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells ......................................................... 10
2.1.1.1: Proton Exchange Membrane/Catalyst Assembly .................................... 12
2.1.1.2: Bipolar Plates ........................................................................................... 14
2.1.1.3: The Backing Layers or Gas Diffusion Layers ......................................... 16
2.1.2: Thermal and Electrical Management in the Fuel Cell .................................... 17
2.2: Thermal Conductivity ............................................................................................ 17
2.3: Electrical Conductivity .......................................................................................... 20
2.4: References .............................................................................................................. 24
Chapter 3: Materials....................................................................................................... 28
3.1: Materials ................................................................................................................. 28
3.2: Matrix Material ...................................................................................................... 28
3.2.1: Semi-Crystalline Homopolymer Polypropylene Resin H7012-35RN ............ 28
3.3: Filler Materials ....................................................................................................... 29
3.3.1: Carbon Black .................................................................................................. 29
3.3.2: Synthetic Graphite .......................................................................................... 32
3.3.3: Hyperion Fibril Carbon Nanotubes................................................................. 34
3.4: Formulation Naming Convention ......................................................................... 36
3.5: References ............................................................................................................. 39
iii
Chapter 4: Fabrication and Experimental Methods ................................................... 41
4.1: Fabrication Methods............................................................................................... 41
4.1.1: Extrusion ......................................................................................................... 41
4.1.2: Drying ............................................................................................................. 44
4.1.3: Injection Molding ........................................................................................... 45
4.1.4: Compression Molding..................................................................................... 47
4.2:Experimental Test Methods .................................................................................... 50
4.2.1: Through-Plane Electrical Resistivity Test Method ......................................... 50
4.2.2: In-Plane Electrical Resistivity Test Method ................................................... 51
4.2.3: Through-Plane Electrical Resistivity (US Fuel Cell Council) Test Method .. 53
4.2.4: Thermal Conductivity: Guarded Heat Flow Meter Test Method ................... 56
4.2.5: Thermal Conductivity: Transient Plane Source Test Method ........................ 58
4.2.6: HotDisk Analyser: Specific Heat .................................................................... 62
4.2.7 Density: ASTM D792-66 ................................................................................. 64
4.2.8: Solvent Digestion – ASTM D5226-98 ........................................................... 65
4.2.9: Filler Length and Aspect Ratio ....................................................................... 67
4.2.10: Determination of Filler Orientation in a Polymer Composite ...................... 70
4.2.10.1: Sample Preparation and Polishing ......................................................... 70
4.2.10.2: Optical Imaging Methods ...................................................................... 76
4.2.10.3: Image Processing and Analysis ............................................................. 78
4.2.10.4 Microtoming ........................................................................................... 80
4.2-11: Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope (FESEM) Test Method ...... 81
4.3: References ............................................................................................................. 81
Chapter 5: Miscellaneous Results.................................................................................. 84
5.1: Density Results....................................................................................................... 84
5.2: Solvent Digestion Results ...................................................................................... 85
5.3: Filler Length and Aspect Ratio Results ................................................................. 86
5.4: Orientation Results ................................................................................................. 87
5.5: Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope (FESEM) Results ........................ 90
5.6: Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 91
5.7: References .............................................................................................................. 92
iv
Chapter 6: Electrical Resistivity Results and Design of Experiment Analysis ......... 93
6.1: Single Filler Electrical Resistivity Results ............................................................. 93
6.2: Electrical Resistivity Factorial Design Results ...................................................... 99
6.3: Through-Plane Electrical Resistivity (US Fuel Cell Council) Results ................ 104
6.4: Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 107
6.5: References ............................................................................................................ 108
Chapter 7: Thermal Conductivity Results and Design of Experiment Analysis .... 110
7.1: Through Plane Thermal Conductivity Results ..................................................... 110
7.2: Through Plane Thermal Conductivity Factorial Design Results ......................... 116
7.3: In-Plane Thermal Conductivity Results ............................................................... 121
7.4: Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 124
7.5: References ............................................................................................................ 125
Chapter 8: Summary, Conclusions, and Future Work ............................................. 126
8.1: Summary .............................................................................................................. 126
8.1.1: Effects of Single Conductive Fillers on Electrical Resistivity ..................... 126
8.1.2: Effects of Multiple Conductive Fillers on Electrical Resistivity .................. 127
8.1.3: Effects of Single Conductive Fillers on Thermal Conductivity ................... 129
8.1.4: Effects of Multiple Conductive Fillers on Through-Plane Thermal
Conductivity............................................................................................................ 130
8.1.5: Miscellaneous Results................................................................................... 131
8.2: Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 131
8.3: Recommendations for Future Work ..................................................................... 133
8.4: References ............................................................................................................ 135
Appendix A: Screw Design and Extrusion Run Conditions ..................................... 136
Appendix B: Injection Mold Run Conditions ............................................................ 147
Appendix C: Electrical Resistivity .............................................................................. 156
Appendix D: US Fuel Cell Council Through Plane Electrical Resistivity Results . 195
Appendix E: TCA 300 Through-Plane Thermal Conductivity Results at 55°C ..... 298
Appendix F: Heat Capacity.......................................................................................... 321
Appendix G: Hot Disk Thermal Conductivity at 23°C ............................................. 329
Appendix H: Density..................................................................................................... 337
v
Appendix I: Solvent Digestion Results ........................................................................ 355
Appendix J: Filler Length and Aspect Ratio Results ................................................ 356
Appendix K: Orientation Results and Photomicrographs ........................................ 357
Appendix L: Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope Photomicrographs ... 366
Appendix M: Permission Letters ................................................................................. 369
vi
List of Figures
Figure 2.1-1: Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Schematic ..................................... 12
Figure 2.2-1: Two-Dimensional Array of Atoms in a Crystalline Structure .................... 18
Figure 2.3-1: Dependence of Electrical Conductivity on Filler Volume Fraction ........... 21
Figure 2.3-2: Definition of Percolation Theory in a Square Lattice ................................. 22
Figure 3.2-1: Chemical Structure for Polypropylene ........................................................ 29
Figure 3.3-1: Ketjenblack EC-600 JD Primary Aggregate ............................................... 31
Figure 3.3-2: Photomicrograph of Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic Graphite ................... 34
Figure 4.1-1: American Leistritz Extruder Corporation Model ZSE 27 ........................... 42
Figure 4.1-2: Schenck AccuRate Flexwall Feeder ........................................................... 43
Figure 4.1-3: Schenck AccuRate Conisteel Feeder .......................................................... 43
Figure 4.1-4: Picture showing the Water Bath and Pelletizer........................................... 44
Figure 4.1-5: Bry Air Drying Oven System...................................................................... 45
Figure 4.1-6: Niigata Injection Molding Machine Model NE85UA4 ............................... 46
Figure 4.1-7: Four-Cavity Mold Used in Injection Molding ............................................ 47
Figure 4.1-8: Wabash Model V75H-18-CLX Compression Molding Press..................... 50
Figure 4.2-1: Diagram of Through Plane Electrical Resistivity Test ............................... 51
Figure 4.2-2: (A) Experimental Set-up for Four-Probe Test Method (B) Sample
Dimensions ............................................................................................... 52
Figure 4.2-3: Setup for Through-Plane (US Fuel Cell Council) Electrical Resistivity Test
Method ...................................................................................................... 53
Figure 4.2-4: Schematic of Through-Plane (US Fuel Cell Council) Electrical Resistivity
Test Method .............................................................................................. 56
Figure 4.2-5: Holometrix Model TCA-300 Thermal Conductivity Analyzer .................. 57
Figure 4.2-6: Schematic of Through-Plane Thermal Conductivity Test Method ............. 58
Figure 4.2-7: Mathis Instruments Hot Disk Thermal Constants Analyzer ....................... 59
Figure 4.2-8: Schematic of Samples and Sensor for the Hot Disk. The insert at the lower
left shows the double spiral heating element. ........................................... 60
Figure 4.2-9: Hot Disk Inc. Heat Capacity Cell................................................................ 63
Figure 4.2-10: Solvent Digestion Filtration Apparatus..................................................... 67
Figure 4.2-11: Filler Dispersion Apparatus ...................................................................... 68
Figure 4.2-12: Microscope Setup for Filler Length/Aspect Ratio Analysis ..................... 68
Figure 4.2-13: “Through Plane” and “XY Plane” Surface Samples Studied from Injection
Molded Disk.............................................................................................. 70
Figure 4.2-14: “In Plane” Surface Samples Studied from Tensile Bar............................. 71
Figure 4.2-15: Top View of Epoxy Pucks “Through Plane” Sample (left) and “In Plane”
Sample (right) ........................................................................................... 72
Figure 4.2-16: Oval Shaped Ground Epoxy Pucks ........................................................... 72
Figure 4.2-17: Prepared Puck with Both Slides Attached ................................................ 73
Figure 4.2-18: Cut-off Saw Used to Cut Samples to 0.2 mm ........................................... 74
Figure 4.2-19: 0.2 mm Thin Composite Samples Ready to be Polished .......................... 74
Figure 4.2-20: Buehler Ecomet 4 Grinder/Polisher .......................................................... 75
Figure 4.2-21: Olympus BX60 Reflected Light Microscope............................................ 77
vii
Figure 4.2-22: Diagram of Images Taken on “In Plane” and “Through Plane” Surfaces 77
Figure 5.4-1: In-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 65 wt% Synthetic Graphite
in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification .................................................. 89
Figure 5.4-2: Through-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 65 wt% Synthetic
Graphite in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification ................................... 89
Figure 5.5-1: Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope Photomicrograph of 2.5% wt
Carbon Black, 65% wt Synthetic Graphite, and 6% wt Hyperion
FIBRILTM Carbon Nanotubes in Polypropylene Composit ...................... 90
Figure 6.1-1: Single Filler Electrical Resistivity Results for FibrilTM Carbon Nanotubes
and Carbon Black in Polypropylene and Carbon Black in Vectra............ 97
Figure 6.1-2: Single Filler Electrical Resistivity Results for Synthetic Graphite in
Polypropylene and in Vectra ..................................................................... 98
Figure 7.1-1: Single Filler Through-Plane Thermal Conductivity Results for FibrilTM
carbon nanotubes and Carbon Black in Polypropylene and Carbon Black
in Vectra .................................................................................................. 114
Figure 7.1-2: Single Filler Through-Plane Thermal Conductivity Results for Synthetic
Graphite in Polypropylene and in Vectra................................................ 115
Figure 7.3-1: In-Plane Thermal Conductivity Results for Synthetic Graphite in
Polypropylene Composites ..................................................................... 123
Figure A.1: 5-14-2005 Extruder Screw Design .............................................................. 136
Figure K.1: In-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 30 wt% Thermocarb TC-300
in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification ................................................ 358
Figure K.2: Through-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 20 wt% Thermocarb
TC-300 in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification .................................. 358
Figure K.3: In-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 45 wt% Thermocarb TC-300
in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification ................................................ 359
Figure K.4: Through-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 45 wt% Thermocarb
TC-300 in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification .................................. 359
Figure K.5: In-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300
in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification ................................................ 360
Figure K.6: Through-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 65 wt% Thermocarb
TC-300 in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification .................................. 360
Figure K.7: XY-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 65 wt% Thermocarb TC300 in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification ......................................... 361
Figure K.8: In-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes, and 65 wt% Thermocarb
TC-300 in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification .................................. 362
Figure K.9: Through-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack
EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes, and 65 wt%
Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification .............. 362
Figure K.10: XY-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes, and 65 wt% Thermocarb
TC-300 in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification .................................. 363
viii
Figure K.11: In-Plane Photomicrograph for Compression Molded 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack
EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes, and 65 wt%
Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification .............. 364
Figure K.12: Through-Plane Photomicrograph for Compression Molded 2.5 wt%
Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes, and 65
wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification ..... 364
Figure K.13: XY-Plane Photomicrograph for Compression Molded 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack
EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes, and 65 wt%
Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification .............. 365
Figure L.1: Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope Photomicrograph of 15% wt
Carbon Black in Polypropylene Composite............................................ 366
Figure L.2: Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope Photomicrograph of 15% wt
Hyperion Fibrils Carbon Nanotubes in Polypropylene Composite ........ 367
Figure L.3: Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope Photomicrograph of 2.5% wt
Carbon Black, 65% wt Synthetic Graphite, and 6% wt Hyperion Fibrils
Carbon Nanotubes in Polypropylene Composite .................................... 367
Figure L.4: Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope Photomicrograph of 2.5% wt
Carbon Black, 65% wt Synthetic Graphite, and 6% wt Hyperion Fibrils
Carbon Nanotubes in Polypropylene Composite .................................... 368
Figure M.1: Email from Matt Clingerman for Figures 4.2-1 and 4.2-2.......................... 369
Figure M.2: Email from Rebecca Hauser for Figures 2.1-1 ........................................... 369
Figure M.3: Email from Rebecca Hauser for Figures 4.2-4 and 4.2-11 ......................... 370
Figure M.4: Email from Asbury Carbon for Figures 3.3-2............................................. 370
ix
List of Tables
Table 1.1-1: Thermal Conductivity for Common Materials [1] ......................................... 2
Table 1.1-2: Electrical Conductivity for Common Materials [2] ....................................... 2
Table 1.1-3: Desired Bipolar Plate Properties .................................................................... 4
Table 2.1-1: Summary of the Different Types of Fuel Cells ............................................ 10
Table 2.1.-2: Desired Bipolar Plate Properties ................................................................. 14
Table 3.2-1: Properties of Dow H7012-35RN Polypropylene Resin/Molded Parts ........ 29
Table 3.3-1: Properties of Akzo Nobel Ketjenblack EC-600 JD ...................................... 31
Table 3.3-2: Properties of Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic Graphite ................................ 33
Table 3.3-3: Properties of FIBRILTM Carbon Nanotubes ............................................... 36
Table 3.4-1: Single Filler Loading Levels ........................................................................ 38
Table 4.2-1: Buehler Polishing Procedure for Polypropylene .......................................... 76
Table 5.1-1: Density Results for Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN ................................................................................................ 85
Table 5.1-2: Density Results for 30 wt% Synthetic Graphite in Polypropylene Semi
Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................... 85
Table 5.2-1: Solvent Digestion Results for 45% wt Synthetic Graphite in Polypropylene
Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN.................................. 86
Table 5.3-1: Mean Length and Aspect Ratio Results for Single Filler Synthetic Graphite
Formulations ................................................................................................ 87
Table 5.4-1: Orientation Results for a Formulation Containing 65 wt% Synthetic Graphite
in Polypropylene .......................................................................................... 88
Table 6.1-1: Electrical Resistivity Results for Carbon Black in Polypropylene .............. 94
Table 6.1-2: Electrical Resistivity Results for FibrilTM Carbon Nanotubes in
Polypropylene .............................................................................................. 95
Table 6.1-3: Electrical Resistivity Results for Synthetic Graphite in Polypropylene ...... 96
Table 6.2-1: Filler Loadings in Factorial Design Formulations ..................................... 100
Table 6.2-2: Filler Loadings in Factorial Design Formulation and Electrical Resistivity
Results (IM= Injection Molded, CM=Compression Molded) ................... 102
Table 6.2-3: Factorial Design Analysis for Log (Electrical Resistivity, ohm-cm) ......... 103
Table 6.3-1: Single Filler Through-Plane Electrical Resistivity (US Fuel Cell Council)
Results ........................................................................................................ 105
Table 6.3-2: Multiple Filler Through-Plane Electrical Resistivity (US Fuel Cell Council)
Results ........................................................................................................ 106
Table 6.3-3: Through-Plane Electrical Resistivity (US Fuel Cell Council) Results from
Dana Corporation [12] ............................................................................... 106
Table 7.1-1: Through Plane Thermal Conductivity at 55º C for Carbon Black in
Polypropylene ............................................................................................ 111
Table 7.1-2: Through Plane Thermal Conductivity at 55º C for FibrilTM carbon nanotubes
in Polypropylene ........................................................................................ 112
Table 7.1-3: Through Plane Thermal Conductivity at 55º C for Synthetic Graphite in
Polypropylene ............................................................................................ 113
Table 7.2-1: Filler Loadings in Factorial Design Formulations ..................................... 117
x
Table 7.2-2: Filler Loadings in Factorial Design Formulations and Through-Plane
Thermal Conductivity Results ................................................................... 119
Table 7.2-3: Factorial Design Analysis for Through-Plane Thermal Conductivity ....... 120
Table 7.3-1: In-Plane Thermal Conductivity Results for Synthetic Graphite in
Polypropylene Composites ........................................................................ 122
Table 7.3-2: In-Plane Thermal Conductivity Results for Composites Containing
Combinations of Different Fillers in Polypropylene ................................. 123
Table 8.1-1: Filler Loadings in Factorial Design Formulations ..................................... 127
Table A.1: Purge Conditions Using Dow H7012-35RN Polypropylene Homopolymer
Only............................................................................................................ 137
Table A.2: Ketjenblack EC-600 JD Carbon Black Formulations ................................... 138
Table A.3a: Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic Graphite Formulations .............................. 139
Table A.3b: Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic Graphite Formulations .............................. 140
Table A.4a: Hyperion Fibril Carbon Nanotube Formulations ........................................ 141
Table A.4b: Hyperion Fibril Carbon Nanotube Formulations ........................................ 142
Table A.5: Ketjenblack EC-600 JD Carbon Black/Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic
Graphite Combinations .............................................................................. 143
Table A.6: Ketjenblack EC-600 JD Carbon Black/Hyperion Fibril Carbon Nanotube
Combinations ............................................................................................. 144
Table A.7: Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic Graphite/ Hyperion Fibril Carbon Nanotube
Combinations ............................................................................................. 145
Table A.8: Ketjenblack EC-600 JD Carbon Black/Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic
Graphite/ Hyperion Fibril Carbon Nanotube Combinations ...................... 146
Table B.1: Ketjenblack EC-600 JD Carbon Black Formulations ................................... 147
Table B.2a: Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic Graphite Formulations .............................. 148
Table B.2b: Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic Graphite Formulations .............................. 149
Table B.3a: Hyperion Fibril Carbon Nanotube Formulations ........................................ 150
Table B.3b: Hyperion Fibril Carbon Nanotube Formulations ........................................ 151
Table B.4: Ketjenblack EC-600 JD Carbon Black/Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic
Graphite Combinations .............................................................................. 152
Table B.5: Ketjenblack EC-600 JD Carbon Black/Hyperion Fibril Carbon Nanotube
Combinations ............................................................................................. 153
Table B.6: Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic Graphite/ Hyperion Fibril Carbon Nanotube
Combinations ............................................................................................. 154
Table B.7:Ketjenblack EC-600 JD Carbon Black/Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic
Graphite/ Hyperion Fibril Carbon Nanotube Combinations ...................... 155
Table C.1: Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN .......... 156
Table C.2:Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
.................................................................................................................... 156
Table C.3: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 157
Table C.4: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate ........................................... 157
xi
Table C.5: 10 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 158
Table C.6: 15 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 158
Table C.7: 20 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 159
Table C.8: 25 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 159
Table C.9: 30 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 160
Table C.10: 1.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 161
Table C.11: 2.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 161
Table C.12: 4 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 162
Table C.13: 5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 162
Table C.14: 10 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 164
Table C.15: 15 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 165
Table C.16: 35 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 166
Table C.17: 40 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 167
Table C.18: 45 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 168
Table C.19: 50 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 169
Table C.20: 55 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 170
Table C.21: 60 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 171
Table C.22: 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 172
Table C.23: 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate ........................................... 173
Table C.24: 70 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 174
Table C.25: 75 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 175
Table C.26: 80 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 176
xii
Table C.27: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 178
Table C.28: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate ........................................... 179
Table C.29: 7.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 180
Table C.30: 7.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate ........................................... 181
Table C.31: 10 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 182
Table C.32: 15 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 183
Table C.33: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes
in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ... 184
Table C.34: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes
in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Replicate .................................................................................................... 185
Table C.35: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ....... 186
Table C.36: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Replicate .................................................................................................... 187
Table C.37: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ....... 188
Table C.38a: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Replicate .................................................................................................... 189
Table C.38b: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Replicate .................................................................................................... 190
Table C.39: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes,
and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN .......................................................... 191
Table C.40: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes,
and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate ........................................... 192
Table C.41a: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes,
and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Compression Molded ....................... 193
Table C.41b: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes,
and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Compression Molded ........................ 194
Table D.1: Poco Reference June 23, 2008 ...................................................................... 195
xiii
Table D.2: 4 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 18 Results ................................. 195
Table D.3: EA4P Disk 10 Results .................................................................................. 196
Table D.4: EA4P Disk 5 Results .................................................................................... 196
Table D.5: EA4P Disk 25 Results .................................................................................. 197
Table D.6: EA4P Disk 6 Results .................................................................................... 197
Table D.7: Overall Results for 4 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi
Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ......................................... 198
Table D.8: Poco Reference June 23, 2008 ...................................................................... 199
Table D.9: 5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 18 Results ................................. 199
Table D.10: EA5P Disk 23 Results ................................................................................ 200
Table D.11: EA5P Disk 5 Results .................................................................................. 200
Table D.12: EA5P Disk 6 Results .................................................................................. 201
Table D.13: EA5P Disk 13 Results ................................................................................ 201
Table D.14: Overall Results for 5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi
Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ......................................... 202
Table D.15: Poco Reference 6-23-08.............................................................................. 203
Table D.16: 6 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 22 Results ................................. 203
Table D.17: EA6P Disk 8 Results .................................................................................. 204
Table D.18: EA6P Disk 33 Results ................................................................................ 204
Table D.19: EA6P Disk 23 Results ................................................................................ 205
Table D.20: EA6P Disk 12 Results ................................................................................ 205
Table D.21: Overall Results for 6 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi
Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ......................................... 206
Table D.22: Poco Reference 6-25-08.............................................................................. 207
Table D.23: 7.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 8 Results ................................... 207
Table D.24: EA7.5P Disk 27 Results ............................................................................. 208
Table D.25: EA7.5P Disk 26 Results ............................................................................. 208
Table D.26: EA7.5P Disk 6 Results ............................................................................... 209
Table D.27: EA7.5P Disk 5 Results ............................................................................... 209
Table D.28: Overall Results for 7.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi
Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ......................................... 210
Table D.29: Poco Reference 6/26/08 .............................................................................. 211
Table D.30: 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 20 Results ................................. 211
Table D.31: EB65P Disk 30 Results ............................................................................... 212
Table D.32: EB65P Disk 6 Results ................................................................................. 212
Table D.33: EB65P Disk 19 Results ............................................................................... 213
Table D.34: EB65P Disk 21 Results ............................................................................... 213
Table D.35: Poco Reference 6/27/08 .............................................................................. 214
Table D.36: EB65P Disk 7 Results ................................................................................. 214
xiv
Table D.37: Overall Results for 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi
Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ......................................... 215
Table D.38: Poco Reference 6/26/08 .............................................................................. 216
Table D.39: 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate Disk 24 Results ................. 216
Table D.40: EB65PR Disk 30 Results ............................................................................ 217
Table D.41: EB65PR Disk 23 Results ............................................................................ 217
Table D.42: EB65PR Disk 13 Results ............................................................................ 218
Table D.43: EB65PR Disk 19 Results ............................................................................ 218
Table D.44: Overall Results for 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi
Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate......................... 219
Table D.45: Poco Reference 6/26/08 .............................................................................. 220
Table D.46: 70 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 7 Results ................................... 220
Table D.47: EB70P Disk 6 Results ................................................................................. 221
Table D.48: EB70P Disk 18 Results ............................................................................... 221
Table D.49: EB70P Disk 15 Results ............................................................................... 222
Table D.50: EB70P Disk 30 Results ............................................................................... 222
Table D.51: Overall Results for 70 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi
Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ......................................... 223
Table D.52: Poco Reference 6/26/08 .............................................................................. 224
Table D.53: 75 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 19 Results ................................. 224
Table D.54: EB75P Disk 8 Results ................................................................................. 225
Table D.55: EB75P Disk 14 Results ............................................................................... 225
Table D.56: EB75P Disk 15 Results ............................................................................... 226
Table D.57: EB75P Disk 18 Results ............................................................................... 226
Table D.58: Poco Reference 7/1/08 ................................................................................ 227
Table D.59: EB75P Disk 7 Results ................................................................................. 227
Table D.60: EB75P Disk 25 Results ............................................................................... 228
Table D.61: EB75P Disk 14 Results ............................................................................... 228
Table D.62: Overall Results for 75 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi
Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ......................................... 229
Table D.63: Poco Reference 7/2/08 ............................................................................... 230
Table D.64: 80 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 15 Results ................................. 230
Table D.65: EB80P Disk 18 Results ............................................................................... 231
Table D.66: EB80P Disk 24 Results ............................................................................... 231
Table D.67: EB80P Disk 12 Results ............................................................................... 232
Table D.68: EB80P Disk 30 Results ............................................................................... 232
Table D.69: Overall Results for 80 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi
Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ......................................... 233
Table D.70: Poco Reference 6/30/08 .............................................................................. 234
xv
Table D.71: 7.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 19 Results ................................. 234
Table D.72: EQ7.5P Disk 32 Results ............................................................................. 235
Table D.73: Poco Reference 7/11/08 .............................................................................. 235
Table D.74: EQ7.5P Disk 20 Results ............................................................................. 236
Table D.75: EQ7.5P Disk 24 Results ............................................................................. 236
Table D.76: EQ7.5P Disk 13 Results ............................................................................. 237
Table D.77: EQ7.5P Disk 17 Results ............................................................................. 237
Table D.78: EQ7.5P Disk 15 Results ............................................................................. 238
Table D.79: EQ7.5P Disk 12 Results ............................................................................. 238
Table D.80: Overall Results for 7.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ....... 239
Table D.81: Poco Reference 6/30/08 .............................................................................. 240
Table D.82: 7.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate Disk 29 Results ................. 240
Table D.83: EQ7.5PR Disk 6 Results ............................................................................. 241
Table D.84: EQ7.5PR Disk 17 Results ........................................................................... 241
Table D.85: Poco Reference 7/11/08 .............................................................................. 242
Table D.86: EQ7.5PR Disk 22 Results ........................................................................... 242
Table D.87: EQ7.5PR Disk 17 Results ........................................................................... 243
Table D.88: EQ7.5PR Disk 32 Results ........................................................................... 243
Table D.89: EQ7.5PR Disk 27 Results ........................................................................... 244
Table D.90: EQ7.5PR Disk 24 Results ........................................................................... 244
Table D.91: Overall Results for 7.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Replicate .................................................................................................... 245
Table D.92: Poco Reference 7/1/08 ................................................................................ 246
Table D.93: 10 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 11 Results ................................. 246
Table D.94: EQ10P Disk 12 Results .............................................................................. 247
Table D.95: EQ10P Disk 18 Results .............................................................................. 247
Table D.96: EQ10P Disk 24 Results .............................................................................. 248
Table D.97: EQ10P Disk 16 Results .............................................................................. 248
Table D.98: EQ10P Disk 23 Results .............................................................................. 249
Table D.99: Overall Results for 10 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ....... 249
Table D.100: Poco Reference 6/26/08 ............................................................................ 250
Table D.101: 15 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 32 Results ................................. 250
Table D.102: EQ15P Disk 34 Results ............................................................................ 251
Table D.103: EQ15P Disk 23 Results ............................................................................ 251
Table D.104: EQ15P Disk 29 Results ............................................................................ 252
Table D.105: EQ15P Disk 19 Results ............................................................................ 252
xvi
Table D.106: Overall Results for 15 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ....... 253
Table D.107: Poco Reference 6/27/08 ............................................................................ 254
Table D.108: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 15
Results ........................................................................................................ 254
Table D.109: EA2.5B65P Disk 31 Results ..................................................................... 255
Table D.110: EA2.5B65P Disk 36 Results ..................................................................... 255
Table D.111: EA2.5B65P Disk 30 Results ..................................................................... 256
Table D.112: EA2.5B65P Disk 17 Results ..................................................................... 256
Table D.113: Overall Results for 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 65 wt%
Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer
Resin H7012-35RN.................................................................................... 257
Table D.114: Poco Reference 6/27/08 ............................................................................ 258
Table D.115: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Replicate Disk 10 Results .......................................................................... 258
Table D.116: Poco Reference 6/26/08 ............................................................................ 259
Table D.117: EA2.5B65PR Disk 7 Results .................................................................... 259
Table D.118: EA2.5B65PR Disk 17 Results .................................................................. 260
Table D.119: EA2.5B65PR Disk 30 Results .................................................................. 260
Table D.120: EA2.5B65PR Disk 19 Results .................................................................. 261
Table D.121: EA2.5B65PR Disk 16 Results .................................................................. 261
Table D.122: Overall Results for 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 65 wt%
Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer
Resin H7012-35RN Replicate.................................................................... 262
Table D.123: Poco Reference 7/3/08 .............................................................................. 263
Table D.124: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM
Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H701235RN Disk 29 Results............................................................................... 263
Table D.125: EA2.5Q6P Disk 17 Results....................................................................... 264
Table D.126: EA2.5Q6P Disk 32 Results....................................................................... 264
Table D.127: EA2.5Q6P Disk 39 Results....................................................................... 265
Table D.128: EA2.5Q6P Disk 34 Results....................................................................... 265
Table D.129: EA2.5Q6P Disk 26 Results....................................................................... 266
Table D.130: Overall Results for 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 6 wt% Hyperion
FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer
Resin H7012-35RN.................................................................................... 266
Table D.131: Poco Reference 7/7/08 .............................................................................. 267
Table D.132: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM
Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H701235RN Replicate Disk 20 Results................................................................ 267
Table D.133: EA2.5Q6PR Disk 27 Results .................................................................... 268
Table D.134: EA2.5Q6PR Disk 31 Results .................................................................... 268
xvii
Table D.135: EA2.5Q6PR Disk 22 Results .................................................................... 269
Table D.136: EA2.5Q6PR Disk 18 Results .................................................................... 269
Table D.137: EA2.5Q6PR Disk 26 Results .................................................................... 270
Table D.138: Overall Results for 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 6 wt% Hyperion
FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer
Resin H7012-35RN Replicate.................................................................... 270
Table D.139: Poco Reference 7/7/08 .............................................................................. 271
Table D.140: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 18
Results ........................................................................................................ 271
Table D.141: EB65Q6P Disk 16 Results ........................................................................ 272
Table D.142: EB65Q6P Disk 17 Results ........................................................................ 272
Table D.143: Overall Results for 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes and 65 wt%
Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer
Resin H7012-35RN.................................................................................... 273
Table D.144: Dana Corporation Poco Reference 7/18/08 .............................................. 274
Table D.145: Dana Results for 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes and 65 wt%
Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer
Resin H7012-35RN Disk 16 ...................................................................... 274
Table D.146: Dana Results for EB65Q6P Disk 17 ......................................................... 275
Table D.147: Dana Results for EB65Q6P Disk 18 ......................................................... 275
Table D.148: Overall Results for 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes and 65 wt%
Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer
Resin H7012-35RN from Dana Corporation ............................................. 276
Table D.149: Poco Reference 7/8/08 .............................................................................. 277
Table D.150: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Replicate Disk 25 Results .......................................................................... 277
Table D.151: EB65Q6PR Disk 15 Results ..................................................................... 278
Table D.152: EB65Q6PR Disk 38 Results ..................................................................... 278
Table D.153: Overall Results for 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes and 65 wt%
Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer
Resin H7012-35RN Replicate.................................................................... 279
Table D.154: Poco Reference 7/7/08 .............................................................................. 280
Table D.155: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes,
and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Injection Molded Disk 40 Results .... 280
Table D.156: Poco Reference 7/21/08 ............................................................................ 281
Table D.157: EA2.5B65Q6P Disk 25 Results ................................................................ 281
Table D.158: EA2.5B65Q6P Disk 46 Results ................................................................ 282
Table D.159: EA2.5B65Q6P Disk 43 Results ................................................................ 282
Table D.160: EA2.5B65Q6P Disk 16 Results ................................................................ 283
xviii
Table D.161: Overall Results for 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion
FIBRILTM Nanotubes, and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene
Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Injection Molded ... 283
Table D.162: Dana Corporation Poco Reference 7/18/08 .............................................. 284
Table D.163: Dana Results for 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion
FIBRILTM Nanotubes, and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene
Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Injection Molded Disk
14................................................................................................................ 284
Table D.164: Dana Results for EA2.5B65Q6P Injection Molded Disk 36 .................... 285
Table D.165: Dana Results for EA2.5B65Q6P Injection Molded Disk 57 .................... 285
Table D.166: Overall Results for 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion
FIBRILTM Nanotubes, and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene
Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Injection Molded from
Dana Corporation ....................................................................................... 286
Table D.167: Poco Reference 7/8/08 .............................................................................. 287
Table D.168: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes,
and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate Injection Molded Disk 47
Results ........................................................................................................ 287
Table D.169: EA2.5B65Q6PR Disk 16 Results ............................................................. 288
Table D.170: EA2.5B65Q6PR Disk 41 Results ............................................................. 288
Table D.171: EA2.5B65Q6PR Disk 12 Results ............................................................. 289
Table D.172: EA2.5B65Q6PR Disk 19 Results ............................................................. 289
Table D.173: EA2.5B65Q6PR Disk 22 Results ............................................................. 290
Table D.174: EA2.5B65Q6PR Disk 41 Results ............................................................. 290
Table D.175: Overall Results for 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion
FIBRILTM Nanotubes, and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene
Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate Injection
Molded ....................................................................................................... 291
Table D.176: Poco Reference 7/21/08 ............................................................................ 292
Table D.177: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes,
and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Compression Molded Disk 8C Results
.................................................................................................................... 292
Table D.178: Poco Reference 7/9/08 .............................................................................. 293
Table D.179: EA2.5B65Q6P Disk 1C Results ............................................................... 293
Table D.180: EA2.5B65Q6P Disk 3C Results ............................................................... 294
Table D.181: Overall Results for 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion
FIBRILTM Nanotubes, and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene
Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Compression Molded
.................................................................................................................... 294
Table D.182: Dana Corporation Poco Reference 7/18/08 .............................................. 295
Table D.183: Dana Results for 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion
FIBRILTM Nanotubes, and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene
xix
Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Compression Molded
Disk 1C ...................................................................................................... 295
Table D.184: Dana Results for EA2.5B65Q6P Disk 2C ................................................ 296
Table D.185: Dana Results for EA2.5B65Q6P Disk 3C ................................................ 296
Table D.186: Overall Results for 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion
FIBRILTM Nanotubes, and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene
Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Compression Molded
from Dana Corporation .............................................................................. 297
Table E.1: Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN........... 298
Table E.2: Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN........... 298
Table E.3: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 299
Table E.4: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate ........................................... 299
Table E.5: 4 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 300
Table E.6: 5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 300
Table E.7: 6 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 301
Table E.8: 7.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 301
Table E.9: 10 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 301
Table E.10: 15 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 302
Table E.11: 10 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 303
Table E.12: 15 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 303
Table E.13: 20 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 304
Table E.14: 25 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 304
Table E.15: 30 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 305
Table E.16: 35 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 305
Table E.17: 40 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 306
Table E.18: 45 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 306
Table E.19: 50 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 307
xx
Table E.20: 55 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 307
Table E.21: 60 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 308
Table E.22: 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 308
Table E.23: 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate ........................................... 309
Table E.24: 70 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 309
Table E.25: 75 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 310
Table E.26: 80 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 310
Table E.27: 1.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 311
Table E.28: 2.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 311
Table E.29: 4 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 312
Table E.30: 5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 312
Table E.31: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 313
Table E.32: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate ........................................... 313
Table E.33: 7.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 314
Table E.34: 7.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate ........................................... 314
Table E.35: 10 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 315
Table E.36: 15 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 315
Table E.37: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ....... 316
Table E.38: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Replicate .................................................................................................... 316
Table E.39: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes
in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ... 317
Table E.40: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes
in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Replicate .................................................................................................... 317
xxi
Table E.41: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ....... 318
Table E.42: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Replicate .................................................................................................... 318
Table E.43: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes, and
65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Injection Molded ............................... 319
Table E.44: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes, and
65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate Injection Molded............... 319
Table E.45: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes, and
65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Compression Molded ........................ 320
Table F.1: Density and Specific Heat Values for Each Component Used [1] ................ 321
Table F.2: Theoretical Specific Heat, Density, and Volumetric Specific Heat for
Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic Graphite, Ketjenblack EC-600 JD Carbon
Black, and Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes Formulations ........................ 323
Table F.3: Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........... 324
Table F.4: 10 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 325
Table F.5: 20 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 326
Table F.6: 80 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 326
Table F.7: 7.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 327
Table F.8: 10 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 327
Table F.9: 15 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 327
Table G.1: 30 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 329
Table G.2: 35 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 329
Table G.3: 40 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 330
Table G.4: 45 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 330
Table G.5: 50 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 331
Table G.6: 55 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 331
xxii
Table G.7: 60 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 332
Table G.8: 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 332
Table G.9: 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate ........................................... 333
Table G.10: 70 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 333
Table G.11: 75 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 334
Table G.12: 80 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 334
Table G.13: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ....... 335
Table G.14: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ....... 335
Table G.15: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes, and
65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Injection Molded ............................... 336
Table G.16: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes, and
65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Compression Molded ........................ 336
Table H.1: Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN .......... 337
Table H.2: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 338
Table H.3: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate ........................................... 338
Table H.4: 4 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 339
Table H.5: 5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 339
Table H.6: 6 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 340
Table H.7: 7.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 340
Table H.8: 10 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 341
Table H.9: 15 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 341
Table H.10: 10 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 342
Table H.11: 15 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 342
xxiii
Table H.12: 20 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 342
Table H.13: 25 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 343
Table H.14: 30 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 343
Table H.15: 35 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 343
Table H.16: 40 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 344
Table H.17: 45 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 344
Table H.19: 55 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 345
Table H.20: 60 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 345
Table H.21: 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 346
Table H.221: 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate ........................................... 346
Table H.23: 70 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 347
Table H.24: 75 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 347
Table H.25: 80 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 347
Table H.26: 1.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 348
Table H.27: 2.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 348
Table H.28: 4 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 349
Table H.29: 5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 349
Table H.30: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 349
Table H.31: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate ........................................... 350
Table H.32: 7.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 350
Table H.33: 7.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate ........................................... 350
Table H.34: 10 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 351
xxiv
Table H.35: 15 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 351
Table H.36: 20 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Masterbatch
MB3020-01 ................................................................................................ 351
Table H.37: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ....... 352
Table H.38: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Replicate .................................................................................................... 352
Table H.39: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes
in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ... 352
Table H.40: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes
in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Replicate .................................................................................................... 353
Table H.41: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ....... 353
Table H.42: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Replicate .................................................................................................... 353
Table H.43: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes, and
65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ........................................................... 354
Table H.44: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes, and
65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate ........................................... 354
Table I.1: Solvent Digestion Results for 25 wt% and 45 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN ....... 355
Table J.1: Filler Length and Aspect Ratio Results for Single Filler Thermocarb TC-300
Formulations .............................................................................................. 356
Table K.1: Orientation Results – Single Filler Thermocarb TC-300 Formulations and
Three Filler Formulation ............................................................................ 357
xxv
xxvi
Nomenclature
A
ASample
Cp
Cpc
Cpi
c
D
ER
ERpoco
ERsample
i
K
k
kc
kin
kthru
L
l
m
mi
P
p
Q
Qr
q
R
RCircuit
RContact
RMeasured
RPOCO
RSample
Rn
Rno
r'
T
t
u
V
w
wcomposite
wfilter
Area (cm2)
Area of sample (cm2)
Heat capacity (J/kg·K)
Heat capacity of individual formulation (J/kg·K)
Heat capacity of individual component (J/kg·K)
Volumetric heat capacity (J/m3·K)
Sample diameter (cm)
Electrical resistivity (ohm-cm)
Electrical resistivity of POCO graphite (mΩ-cm)
Electrical resistivity of sample (mΩ-cm)
Current (A)
Thermal conductivity of composite (W/m·K)
Thermal conductivity (W/m·K)
Thermal conductivity of composite (W/m·K)
In-plane thermal conductivity (W/m·K)
Through-plane thermal conductivity (W/m·K)
Length over which change in volts measured (cm)
Ring number
Number of rings
Mass of component (kg)
Power (W)
Mean free path (m)
Total power (W)
Power per unit length (W/m)
Heat flux (W/m2)
Radius of outermost ring source (m)
Circuit resistance (mΩ)
Contact resistance (mΩ)
Resistance measured by the test (mΩ)
Resistance of POCO graphite (mΩ)
Resistance of test sample (mΩ)
Resistance at time n (Ω)
Resistance at time 0 (Ω)
Radius of sensor ‘ring’ (m)
Temperature (K)
Time (s)
Velocity of molecules (m/s)
Voltage (V)
Sample width (cm)
Original composite sample weight (g)
Filter paper weight (g)
xxvii
wfinal
wPetridish
x
xpoco
xi
yi
Final weight (g)
Petri dish weight (g)
Sample thickness (cm)
Poco thickness (cm)
Particle count parameter
Particle count parameter
α
β
∆T
δ
δΤ/δxi
φi
ρ
ρι
ρtheo
ρfluid
σ
τ
Θ
Thermal diffusivity (m2/s)
Temperature coefficient of resistance (1/K)
Change in temperature (K)
Dirac delta function
Temperature gradient (K/m)
Weight fraction of component
Density (kg/m3)
Density of component (g/cm3)
Theoretical density of composite (g/cm3)
Density of fluid (g/cm3)
Integration variable
Hot Disk equation parameter
Moment angle
xxviii
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1: Introduction
Most polymer resins are thermally and electrically insulating. Increasing the
thermal and electrical conductivity of these resins allows them to be used in other
applications. Over the past 20 year thermoplastics have been replacing metal parts in
many different applications [1].
Thermoplastics have high impact resistance, are non
corrosive, are lighter, and are often more cost effective than metals [2]. Thermoplastics
can be tailored for specific applications and properties depending on what resin and
additives are used in the material. One example for using conductive thermoplastics is in
computer chips, where thousands of circuits are placed onto one chip. The conductive
thermoplastic resin can be used to help protect the circuits on the chip from electrostatic
discharge and from overheating [1-2].
Typical thermal conductivity values (W/m•K) are listed in Table 1.1-1 [1] and
electrical conductivity values (S-cm) are listed in Table 1.1-2 [2] for some common
materials. One way to increase the thermal and electrical conductivity of thermoplastics
is to add fillers to the polymer resin. There are three main categories of fillers; carbon
(carbon black, carbon nanotubes, graphite, or carbon fibers), ceramics (aluminum boride,
aluminum nitride, boron nitride), and metals (copper flakes and fibers, silver flakes,
stainless steel fibers, aluminum fibers, flakes, and powder); that are added to
thermoplastics to increase the conductivity of the material [1-16].
1
Table 1.1-1: Thermal Conductivity for Common Materials [1]
Materials
Thermal Conductivity
(W/m·K)
0.2 to 0.3
400
225
60
105
45
Polymers
Copper
Aluminum (extruded)
Aluminum (cast)
Brass
Steel
Table 1.1-2: Electrical Conductivity for Common Materials [2]
Materials
Electrical Conductivity
(S-cm)
10-7 to 10-14
5.9 x 105
6.3 x 105
3.6 x 105
1.5 x 105
300
Polymers
Copper
Silver
Aluminum
Nickel
Carbon (amphorous)
1.2: Motivation
One emerging market for thermally conductive resins is for bipolar plates for use
in Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells. The proton membrane fuel cell is one of
the most promising fuel cells being looked at for uses in transportation, distributed
power, and portable electrical devices [17]. The PEM fuel cell creates DC electricity
from the reaction between hydrogen and oxygen, which can be used to power a motor.
The byproducts produced from a PEM fuel cell is water and heat, which is much more
2
environmentally friendly compared to byproducts produced from the standard internal
combustion engine [17-19].
Currently, the cost of a PEM fuel cell is the limiting factor for fuel cells being
used in automobiles. So many researchers are trying to develop new materials that are
less expensive to reduce the fuel cell costs. The bipolar plates used in a PEM fuel cell
account for approximately 80% of the total weight and 45% of the total cost [20]. The
bipolar plates are used to distribute the oxygen to the cathode and the hydrogen to the
anode, remove water and heat from the reaction, provide electrical contact between the
plates to carry the current from cell to cell, and to keep the reactants separated [17,20].
To meet all of these functions bipolar plates need to be thermal and electrically
conductive, be made of a gas impermeable material, need to be resistant to corrosion in
acidic conditions, and need to have high structural strength [18, 21-22]. Bipolar plates
also need to be light weight and need to be produced using low cost materials and
manufacturing techniques [21, 22].
Traditional bipolar plates have been made from metal alloys and graphite. More
recently researchers have been looking into conductive composites because they are
lighter, cheaper, and easier to manufacture [17, 22]. Because of this trend in bipolar plate
research, this project’s focuses will be on adding different carbon fillers to a
thermoplastic matrix in order to obtain high electrical and thermal conductivities, as well
to reduce the volume and the weight of a fuel cell. Table 1.1-3 shows some of the
properties desired for bipolar plates used in PEM Fuel Cells.
3
Along with these
properties, bipolar plates need have to have good thermal and dimensional stability at the
typical fuel cell operating temperature of 80ºC [19, 25-26].
Table 1.1-3: Desired Bipolar Plate Properties [23-24]
Property
Cost
Weight
Thermal Conductivity
Electrical Conductivity
Hydrogen Permeation Rate
Flexural Strength
Corrosion Resistance
Units
$/kW
kg/kW
W/m·K
S/cm
cm3/sec·cm2
MPa
µA/cm2
Target
5
< 0.4
> 20
> 100
< 2 x 10-6
> 25
<1
1.3: Objectives
The goal of this M.S. research was to determine the effects and interactions of the
carbon fillers on a composite’s electrical and thermal conductivity. These composite
formulations could then potentially be used in bipolar plates for fuel cells. This project
will involve fabricating the carbon/polymer composites, performing thermal and
electrical conductivity tests, and analyzing the data to determine the effect and interaction
of the fillers. Often, bipolar plates are being produced using a single type of graphite
powder in a thermosetting resin (often a vinyl ester) [27-30]. Carbon filled thermoplastic
resins (i.e., polypropylene, liquid crystalline polymer, polyphenylene sulfide,
polyethylene, etc.) are currently being considered for fuel cell bipolar plates because the
polymer can be remelted [20, 31-34]. In this research a thermoplastic resin
(polypropylene) was used as the polymer matrix and the three carbon fillers investigated
were synthetic graphite, carbon black, and carbon nanotubes. Other work has been done
4
in thermoplastic resins using some of the same fillers [35-37], so it may be possible to
develop a new material for bipolar plates that can meet the desired bipolar plate
properties (see Table 1.1-2).
1.4: References
1. J. M. Finan, Proceedings of the Society of Plastics Engineers Annual Technical
Conference, May 2-6 1999, 1547-1550.
2. W.M. Wright, G.W. Woodham, Conductive Polymers and Plastics, J.M. Margolis
(Ed), Chapman and Hall, New York, NY, 1989, 118-174.
3. Taipalus, T. Harmia, M. Q. Zhang, and K. Friedrich, Composite Science and
Technology, 61, 801-814 (2001).
4. Y. Agari and T. Uno, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 30, 2225-2236 (1985).
5. D. M. Bigg, Polymer Engineering and Science, 17, 842-847 (1977).
6.
D. M. Bigg, Advanced Polymer Technology., 4, 255-266 (1984).
7. M. Narkis, G. Lidor, A. Vaxman, and L. Zuri, Journal of Electrostatics, 47, 201214 (1999).
8. K. Nagata, H. Iwabuki, and H. Nigo, Composite Interfaces, 6, 483-495 (1999).
9. A. Demain, “Thermal Conductivity of Polymer-Chopped Carbon Fibre
Composites”, Ph.D.
Dissertation, Universite Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-
la-Neuve, Belgium (1994).
5
10. J. A. King, K. W. Tucker, J. D. Meyers, E. H. Weber, M. L. Clingerman, and K.
R. Ambrosius, Polymer Composites., 22, 142-154 (2001).
11. M. V. Murthy, Proceedings of the Society of Plastics Engineers Annual Technical
Conference, 1396-1400 (1994).
12. R.M. Simon, Polymer News, 11, 102-108 (1985).
13. P. Mapleston, Modern Plastics, 69, 80-83 (1992).
14. J.-B. Donnet, R. C. Bansal, and M.-J. Wang, Carbon Black, 2nd edition, Marcel
Dekker, Inc, New York, 1993.
15. J.-C. Huang, Advanced Polymer Technology, 21, 299-313 (2002).
16. D. M. Bigg, Polymer Composites, 8, 1-7 (1987).
17. D.G. Baird, J. Huang, and J.E. McGrath, Plastics Engineering, 59, 46-55 (2003).
18. S. Thomas and M. Zalbowitz, Fuel Cells: Green Power, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, LA-UR-99-3231, 1999.
19. L.E. Nunnery, Jr., Fuel Cell Technology, Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
Conference, 1998.
20. A. Hermann, T. Chaudhuri, and P. Spagnol, International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy, 30, 1297-1302 (2005).
21. G.O. Mepsted, and J.M. Moore, Handbook of Fuel Cells- Fundamentals,
Technology, and Applications Vol. 3: Fuel Cell Technology and Applications,
6
W. Vielstick, H. A. Gasteiger and A. Lamm (Eds.), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.,
West Sussex, England, 2003,286-293.
22. M.J. Ajersch, M.W. Fowler, K. Karan, B.A. Peppley, Fuel Cell Science,
Engineering and Technology, Rochester, NY, April 2003: 253-260.
23. “2007 Technical Plan-Fuel Cells” United States Department of Energy, MultiYear
Research,
Development,
and
Demonstration
Plan
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/mypp/pdfs/fuel_cells.pdf
(accessed November 2008).
24. J. Larminie, and A. Dicks, Fuel Cell Systems Explained, 2nd Edition, John Wiley
& Sons, West Sussex, England, 2003, 1-119.
25. R. Leaversuch, “Fuel Cells Jolt Plastics Innovation”, Plastics Technology Online,
November 2001, www.plasticstechnology.com/articles/200111fa2.html., accessed
December 23, 2003.
26. N.
Garland,
“Materials
for
Bipolar
www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells /pdfs/nn0123s.pdf,
Plates”,
Department of
Energy sponsored research presented May 9-10, 2002 in Golden, CO, accessed January
15, 2004.
27. M. S. Wilson and D. N. Busick, U.S. Patent Number 6,248,467: “Composite
Bipolar Plate for Electrochemical Cells”, June 19, 2001.
28. R. O. Loutfy and M. Hecht, U.S. Patent Number 6,511,766: “Low Cost Molded
Plastic Fuel Cell Separator Plate with Conductive Elements”, January 28, 2003.
7
29. J. C. Braun, J. E. Zabriskie, Jr., J. K. Neutzler, M. Fuchs, and R. C. Gustafson,
U. S. Patent Number 6,180,275: “Fuel Cell Collector Plate and Method of
Fabrication”, January 30, 2001.
30. V. Mehta and J. S. Cooper, Journal of Power Sources, 114, 32-53 (2003).
31. F. Migri, M. A. Huneault, and M. F. Champagne, Polymer Engineering Science,
44, 1755-1765 (2004).
32. J. Huang, D. G. Baird, and J. E. McGrath, Journal of Power Sources, 150, 110119 (2005).
33. H. Wolf, and M. Willert-Porada, Journal of Power Sources, 153, 41-46 (2006).
34. K. Robberg and V. Trapp, Handbook of Fuel Cells- Fundamentals, Technology,
and Applications Vol. 3: Fuel Cell Technology and Applications, W. Vielstick,
H. A. Gasteiger and A. Lamm (Eds.), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., West Sussex,
England, 2003, 308-314.
35. J. A. Heiser, J. A. King, J. P. Konell, I. Miskioglu, and L. L. Sutter, Advances in
Polymer Technology, 23, 135-146 (2004).
36. J. A. King, R. L. Barton, R. A. Hauser, and J. M. Keith, Polymer Composites, 29,
421-428 (2008).
37. R. A. Hauser, J. A. King, R. M. Pagel, and J. M. Keith, Journal of Applied
Polymer Science, 109, 2145-2155 (2008).
8
Chapter 2: Background
2.1: Fuel Cells
The concept of fuel cells was first invented by William Grove, a lawyer/scientist
in 1839. He set up a simple experiment where first an electric current is passed through
water in order to electrolyze the water into hydrogen and oxygen. Once the hydrogen and
oxygen are separated then the power source was replaced with an ammeter.
This
ammeter showed a current which means that the hydrogen and water were recombining
to form water, thus reversing the electrolysis [1].
In a fuel cell, hydrogen gas is
combined with oxygen to form water in the reaction is shown below.
2H2 + O2 → 2H2O
There are six different types of fuel cells that have emerged as viable systems for
the present and in the future. Usually each fuel cell type is distinguished by the electrode
used with some other important differences used to classify them. Each fuel cell type
runs best at different temperatures and is suited for specific applications.
Proton
exchange membrane fuel cells will be discussed further in later sections, because the
research was conducted on materials that can be used in one component of the PEM fuel
cell.
9
Table 2.1-1: Summary of the Different Types of Fuel Cells [1]
Fuel Cell Type
Mobile Ion
Proton Exchange
Membrane
(PEMFC)
Alkaline (AFC)
H+
Operating
Temperature
30 – 100ºC
OH-
50 – 200ºC
Direct Methanol
(DMFC)
H+
20 – 90ºC
Phosphoric Acid
(PAFC)
Molten Carbonate
(MCFC)
H+
~220ºC
CO32-
~650ºC
O2-
500 – 1000ºC
Solid Oxide
(SOFC)
Applications
Vehicles and mobile
applications and low
power CHP* systems.
Used in space vehicles,
e.g. Apollo, Shuttle
Suitable for portable
electronic systems of
low power, running for
long times.
Large number of 200kW
CHP systems in use.
Suitable for medium- to
large-scale CHP
systems, up to MW
capacity.
Suitable for all sizes of
CHP systems, 2kW to
multi-MW.
*CHP – Combined Heat and Power
2.1.1: Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells
Proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell, also known as solid polymer fuel
cells (SPFC), were first invented by General Electric in the 1960’s to be used by NASA
in the first manned space vehicle [1]. PEM fuel cells have shown the most promise as a
versatile, portable, and environmentally friendly alternative fuel technology, especially in
the transportation sector [2]. This is because they can operate at low temperatures and be
configured to provide different combinations of voltage and current depending on the
application [3]. In a PEM fuel cell hydrogen (fuel) reacts with oxygen to create DC
10
electricity, which can be used to power a motor. The byproducts produced from a PEM
fuel cell is water and heat and they have no emissions while idling. They are also very
simple and quiet because there are no moving parts. PEM fuel cells are also more
efficient compared to an internal combustion engine [1, 3-5].
A schematic of a PEM fuel cell is shown in Figure 2-1.1 [6] (Permission letter
shown in Appendix M). There are three main components of a fuel cell: the proton
exchange membrane/electrode assembly, the bipolar plates, and the gas diffusion layer
(discussed in more detail in later sections). In a fuel cell, hydrogen flows into the anode
side, where it comes in contact with a platinum catalyst that helps the hydrogen separate
into protons and electrons. Once the hydrogen is ionized, the protons go through the
proton exchange membrane and the electrons go through an external circuit, creating the
electricity needed to power a motor. Once the protons are in the proton exchange
membrane, they react with oxygen that is coming in on the cathode side of the fuel cells
and electrons, from the external circuit, to form water. To help the reaction in the proton
exchange membrane a platinum catalyst is used. From each cell typically 0.7 volts is
produced, so to get the power necessary to run a motor hundreds of fuel cells are stacked
together. For example, a car motor will need 430 fuel cells stacked together to achieve
300 volts required to run the motor [4-5].
11
Figure 2.1-1: Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Schematic (Reproduced with
permission from Rebecca Hauser, Permission letter shown in Appendix M)
2.1.1.1: Proton Exchange Membrane/Catalyst Assembly
The proton exchange membrane is made from a solid organic polymer usually a
poly(perflourosulfonic) acid. A proton exchange membrane consists of three different
regions:
1. A Teflon-like, fluorocarbon backbone consisting of hundreds of repeating
–CF2-CF-CF2- units in length
2. Side chains consisting of –O- CF2-CF-O-CF2 -CF2- that connect the first
region to the third region
3. Ion clusters consisting of sulfonic acid ions, SO3-, H+
In the membrane structure, when water is absorbed, the SO3- become attached
permanently to the side chain and is unable to move. Instead only the positive, hydrogen
ions, are free to move around inside the membrane between different SO3- locations.
Thus, making a solid hydrated membrane that is an excellent conductor of hydrogen ions.
12
These hydrogen ions can only move in one direction through the membrane, anode to
cathode, and this movement is essential to the operation of a fuel cell. While proton
exchange membranes do conduct protons they do not conduct electrons. So since the
electrons cannot pass through the membrane, in order for them to reach the other side of
the fuel cell they need to go through an external wire. This movement of electrons
through the external wire is what creates the electricity necessary to run a motor [5].
In a fuel cell, there is an electrochemical reaction occurring with two separate
half-reactions, an oxidation and reduction reaction. Because these half reactions usually
happen very slowly at 80ºC, the normal operating temperature of a fuel cell, catalyst is
used at the anode and cathode to increase the rate of the half reactions. The catalyst that
is found to work best in fuel cells is platinum. The two platinum catalysts are located on
both sides of the proton exchange membrane in a fuel cell [5].
The reduction half reaction is occurring at the cathode catalyst and the oxidation
half reaction at the anode catalyst. In the oxidation half reaction, hydrogen gas separates
into hydrogen ions and electrons with the help of the platinum catalyst. The hydrogen
ions separated travel through the proton exchange membrane and the electrons go
through an external wire to the cathode catalyst. In the reduction half reaction, oxygen is
reduced with the help of the platinum before reacting with electrons and hydrogen ions to
form heat and water. Both half reactions and the overall reaction are shown below [5].
2H2
→ 4H+ + 4e-
Oxidation half reaction occurring at anode
O2 + 4H+ + 4e- → 2H2O
Reduction half reaction occurring at cathode
2H2 + O2
Overall cell reaction
→ 2H2O
13
2.1.1.2: Bipolar Plates
Bipolar plates are a very important component of a fuel cell. They can account
for 70-80% of the stack weight and up to 45% of the costs [7-8]. Bipolar plates have
multiple functions in a fuel cell. They are used to distribute the oxygen to the cathode
and the hydrogen to the anode, to manage water and heat from the reaction by removing
them, provide electrical contact between the plates to carry the current from cell to cell,
and to keep the reactants separated [4,7]. Bipolar plates also need to be made from
lightweight, inexpensive materials that can be easily processed when producing bipolar
plates [2, 9].
Materials for bipolar plates need meet certain property requirements. Table 2.1-2
shows some of the properties desired for bipolar plates used in PEM Fuel Cells. Along
with these properties, bipolar plates need have to have good thermal and dimensional
stability at the typical fuel cell operating temperature of 80ºC [3, 10-11].
Table 2.1.-2: Desired Bipolar Plate Properties [1, 12]
Property
Cost
Weight
Thermal Conductivity
Electrical Conductivity
Hydrogen Permeation Rate
Flexural Strength
Corrosion Resistance
Units
$/kW
kg/kW
W/m·K
S/cm
3
cm /sec·cm2
MPa
µA/cm2
Target
5
< 0.4
> 20
> 100
< 2 x 10-6
> 25
<1
Bipolar plates can be made from many different materials, such as graphite,
metal, or polymer composites with carbon or metal conductive fillers. Graphite is one of
the more traditional materials used to produce bipolar plates. The graphite bipolar plates
14
have very good thermal and electrical conductivity, excellent chemical compatibility, and
are corrosion resistant. Some problems with graphite bipolar plates are the cost, from
machining the gas flow channels into the plate and making the raw graphite, and that
graphite has low mechanical strength properties [4,7].
Metal bipolar plates have very good electrical and thermal conductivity, good
mechanical stability, and can be easily made. The main problem is they are not very
resistant to corrosion in the acidic conditions of a fuel cell. Aluminum, titanium, and
nickel bipolar plates need to be coated with a protective layer to resist corrosion.
Stainless steel is the only metal that has been studied that has the chemical stability to
resist corrosion [4, 7].
Polymer composites are made from both thermosetting (phenolics, vinyl esters,
and epoxies) or thermoplastic (polypropylene, polyethylene) resins with different carbon
and metals conductive fillers [4, 13]. They are then compression or injection molded to
create bipolar plates with the gas flow channels, thus reducing the costs associated with
machining and other processing steps [4]. Compression molding is the method of choice
for the production of bipolar plates because it has better precision, produces better
electrical and thermal conductivities, and is able to handle compounds with higher filler
loadings. However, bipolar plate production may eventually shift to injection molding
because it is one of the fastest and least expensive ways to produce plastics [10].
Currently, bipolar plates used commercially are produced from a polymer
composite comprised of a thermosetting resin and a single type of graphite.
Two
companies, BMCI and Quantum, have developed bipolar plates made from polymer
15
composites with 70-90 wt% graphite in a vinyl ester [10]. However, many different
carbon filled thermoplastic resins are currently being studied by researchers for use in
fuel cell bipolar plates [7-8, 14-16].
When comparing the two types of resins there are some advantages to
thermoplastic resins. One is that they can be re-melted and used in other applications,
while thermosetting resins cannot be reused. A second advantage is thermoplastics have
better chemical stability compared to thermosetting resins [14].
2.1.1.3: The Backing Layers or Gas Diffusion Layers
The backing layers or gas diffusion layers are in between the bipolar plate and the
catalyst on both the anode and cathode side of a fuel cell. The backing layer needs to be
made of a material that has good conduction of electrons, so they are usually made from
porous carbon cloth or carbon paper that is 100 to 300 microns thick. The backing layer
is porous to ensure that the hydrogen gas will spread out as the gas goes from higher
concentrated areas to lower concentration areas, thus insuring that the gas makes contact
with the entire surface of the catalyst [5].
The backing layer also helps to manage the amount of water that is in a fuel. The
backing material needs to retain the enough water vapor to keep the proton exchange
membrane humidified. But it also needs to allow water created at the cathode to leave
the cell, thus reducing the risk of the fuel cell flooding. To keep the water from clogging
the pores in the carbon cloth or paper and preventing gas diffusion, the backing layer
material is often wet-proofed with Teflon [5].
16
2.1.2: Thermal and Electrical Management in the Fuel Cell
One anode-cathode cell with an area of 100 cm2 operating at 80ºC and 1 atm of
pressure produces 0.7 volts, and generates 1.7 kJ/min of excess heat and 2.5 kJ/min of
electric energy. Because of the electric and heat output the bipolar plates need to be
made of materials that have good electrical conductivity to allow the conduction of
electricity and good thermal conductivity to remove the excess heat. These desired
properties (from Table 2.1-2) for thermal conductivity are greater than 20 W/m K and for
electrical conductivity greater than 100 S/cm.
2.2: Thermal Conductivity
Heat is described as a change in energy (temperature) between two substances or
within a substance. There are three ways to transfer heat convection, radiation, and
conduction [17]. In solids, the main mechanism for heat transfer is through conduction,
which is described using Fourier’s Law shown in Equation 2.1 [18].
q = −k
∂T
∂x
(2.1)
In Equation 2.1, q is the heat flux (the heat flow per unit area in units of W/m2) which is
dependent on the k the thermal conductivity (W/m•K) and the temperature gradient
(K/m) [18]. The negative sign in Equation 2.1 comes from the fact that heat will always
flow from a hotter to a colder region [19]. Heat is transported through a material using
free electrons or phonons.
In metals, the heat is transported primarily using free
electrons. In non-metals, such as polymers, heat is transported using phonons [20].
17
A phonon is a quanta of thermal vibrational energy. Phonons transport energy by
interacting with electrons, protons, neutrons, and other phonons present in the material
[17].
In a two dimensional diagram, the atoms of a crystalline structure can be
represented using balls and springs, as shown in Figure 2.2-1. So when there is a
vibration at one end of the structure, the energy is transmitted through the springs to the
other side of the structure [6].
Figure 2.2-1: Two-Dimensional Array of Atoms in a Crystalline Structure
Phonon interactions are a very efficient way of transporting heat through a
material. The scattering of these phonons as they move through a material greatly
decreases the amount of heat transferred, thus increasing the thermal resistance of the
material [17]. Phonons can be scattered when there are changes in the arrangement or the
size of the atoms in a crystalline structure. The amount of scattering depends on the
distances between the defects in the crystal structure. If there is a large distance between
the defects then the phonons will continue through the material and not be scattered, thus
increasing the thermal conductivity. If the distance is short between the defects the
18
phonons will be scattered more frequently, causing a higher thermal resistance and a
lower thermal conductivity [6, 20-21].
The Debye model, shown in Equation 2.2,
illustrates how heat is conducted in materials using phonons [19].
1
k = ⋅c ⋅u ⋅ p
3
(2.2)
In Equation 2.2, k is the thermal conductivity (W/m•K), c is the volumetric heat capacity
(J/m3•K), u is the velocity of the molecules (m/s), and p is the mean free path (m), which
is the rate energy is exchanged between phonons [19, 20]. For the materials being used
in this study, polymers and carbon fillers, heat is primarily transferred using phonons.
The thermal conductivity for the carbon fillers, polymers, and composites will follow the
Debye model. Many carbon fillers have an electrical conductivity that comes from the
transportation of electrons like metals but, because of their crystalline structure their
thermal conductivity is from phonon interactions [20-22].
The thermal conductivity of a material is a bulk property compared to electrical
conductivity which is path selective [17]. Previous work with carbon filler and polymer
composites has shown that the thermal conductivity will increase as the filler
concentration increases, compared to the electrical conductivity which will increase
rapidly at the percolation threshold and stay near this value as the amount of filler is
increases. This shows that thermal conductivity is not dependent on the where the fillers
are located and if they are in contact with other filler particles [23, 24].
19
2.3: Electrical Conductivity
The electrical conductivity of a composite is dependent on the amount of filler
used in the composite and is given in units of S/cm. There are three stages of electrical
conductivity, illustrated in Figure 2.3-1.
At low filler concentrations the electrical
conductivity is close to the electrical conductivity of the polymer used in the composite.
Polymers usually have electrical conductivities of 10-14 to 10-17 S/cm, making them very
electrically resistant.
At a critical volume concentration, known as the percolation
threshold, the electrical conductivity of the composite will increase rapidly with only a
small change in the amount of filler. After the percolation threshold has been reached the
electrical conductivity will flatten and approach the electrical conductivity of the fillers
used in the composite. Carbon fillers usually have electrical conductivities in the range
102 to 105 S/cm. The percolation threshold is the point where there is enough filler in the
composite to start forming conductive networks. These conductive networks form a
continuous path that allows electricity to pass easily through a composite, thus increasing
the electrical conductivity.
The formation of conductive networks is known as
percolation theory [22, 25].
20
Figure 2.3-1: Dependence of Electrical Conductivity on Filler Volume Fraction
Percolation theory has its origins in World War II, where Flory and Stockmayer
used it to describe why smaller branching molecules form larger macromolecules.
However, the start of percolation theory is attributed to Broadbent and Hammersley, who
in a 1957 paper gave the theory a name and explained it using geometry and probablilty.
Stauffer explains percolation theory using a large array of squares also known as a square
lattice, shown in Figure 2.3-2A. Figure 2.3-2B shows a square lattice with some squares
filled with large dots while others are left blank and Figure 2.3-2C shows clusters, which
are a group of squares that all have dots in them.
Percolation theory deals with how
many clusters are in a lattice and the properties of these clusters. Throughout the lattice
dots are randomly distributed, with each square having a probability (p) of obtaining a
dot. When the probablility of a square being occupied is large enough, then there are
enough dots to create a cluster that entends through the entire square lattice from top to
21
bottom and from left to right. This cluster is known to be percolating through the system
[26].
Figure 2.3-2: Definition of Percolation Theory in a Square Lattice
Stauffer then used the idea of a forest fire to explain percolation theory. Stauffer
used a square lattice like Figure 2.3-2 to represent the forest. There is a probability of p if
there is a tree in a square and a probability of (1-p) if the square is empty. The fire can
only spread if there is a tree next to the one that is burning and the fire will be
extinguished if there is not another tree. If the trees on the left side of square lattice are
allowed to burn, we need to determine if the fire can spread to the right side of the lattice.
When at the percolation threshold, there are enough neighboring trees that the fire will
spread through the lattice from left to right igniting the entire forest [26].
The properties of the fillers used in the composite are a major factor when
determining the electrical conductivity. Fillers can come in many different forms and
each form can have a different electrical conductivity. One example is carbon, it can be
in a small particle, fibers, or as a nanotube. Some typical electrical conductivities for
22
different carbon fillers are: carbon black 102 S/cm, graphite 105 S/cm, and pitch based
carbon fibers 103 S/cm [27-29].
The properties of the fillers can also affect the electrical conductivity of a
composite. The electrical conductivity can be affected by fillers particle size and the
morphology. In one study it was found that decreasing the particle size also decreased
the electrical conductivity of the composite when using flake or spherical graphite
particles, so particle size does affect the electrical conductivity of a composite. This
study also showed that spherical graphite increased the electrical conductivity of the
composite compared to flake graphite [30]. In another study it was found that a larger
aspect ratio (length to width ratio) reduces the critical volume concentration in a polymer
composite, thus allowing the composite to reach the percolation threshold using less filler
in the composite [31].
The filler properties allow researchers to predict the electrical conductivity of the
polymer composites, but other factors can cause the actual electrical conductivity to be
different than the predicted values. Filler particles with high aspect ratios tend to align in
the direction of the flow when compression and injection molded.
So polymer
composites manufactured using these techniques have an increased electrical
conductivity along the axis of alignment [32]. Another factor that can affect the electrical
conductivity is how well the polymer bonds with the fillers surface. If there is poor
bonding between the filler surface and the polymer then the filler distribution will be
segregated in the polymer composite [33]. In one study by Mamunya, he found that if the
surface tensions of the polymer and filler are lower than there is less interface tension and
23
the polymer is able to form a bond with the fillers surface, thus increasing the electrical
conductivity [34].
2.4: References
1. J. Larminie, and A. Dicks, Fuel Cell Systems Explained, 2nd Edition, John Wiley
& Sons, West Sussex, England, 2003, 1-119.
2. M.J. Ajersch, M.W. Fowler, K. Karan, B.A. Peppley, Fuel Cell Science,
Engineering and Technology, Rochester, NY, April 2003: 253-260.
3. L.E. Nunnery, Jr., Fuel Cell Technology, Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
Conference, 1998.
4. D.G. Baird, J. Huang, and J.E. McGrath, Plastics Engineering, 59, 46-55 (2003).
5. S. Thomas and M. Zalbowitz, Fuel Cells: Green Power, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, LA-UR-99-3231, 1999.
6. R. A. Hauser, “Synergistic Effects and Modeling of Thermally Conductive Resins
for Fuel Cell Bipolar Plate Applications.” PhD Dissertation. Michigan
Technological University: US, 2008.
7. A. Hermann, T. Chaudhuri, and P. Spagnol, International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy, 30, 1297-1302 (2005).
8. H. Wolf and M. Willert-Porada, Journal of Power Sources, 153, 41-46 (2006).
9. G.O. Mepsted, and J.M. Moore, Handbook of Fuel Cells- Fundamentals,
Technology, and Applications Vol. 3: Fuel Cell Technology and Applications,
24
W. Vielstick, H. A. Gasteiger and A. Lamm (Eds.), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.,
West Sussex, England, 2003,286-293.
10. R. Leaversuch, “Fuel Cells Jolt Plastics Innovation”, Plastics Technology Online,
November 2001, www.plasticstechnology.com/articles/200111fa2.html., accessed
December 23, 2003.
11. N.
Garland,
“Materials
for
Bipolar
www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells /pdfs/nn0123s.pdf,
Plates”,
Department of
Energy sponsored research presented May 9-10, 2002 in Golden, CO, accessed
January 15, 2004.
12. “2007 Technical Plan-Fuel Cells” United States Department of Energy, MultiYear
Research,
Development,
and
Demonstration
Plan
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/mypp/pdfs/fuel_cells.pdf,
accessed November 2008.
13. V. Mehta and J. S. Cooper, Journal of Power Sources, 114, 32-53 (2003).
14. F. Migri, M. A. Huneault, and M. F. Champagne, Polymer Engineering Science,
44, 1755-1765 (2004).
15. J. Huang, D. G. Baird, and J. E. McGrath, Journal of Power Sources, 150, 110119 (2005).
16. K. Robberg and V. Trapp, Handbook of Fuel Cells- Fundamentals, Technology,
and Applications Vol. 3: Fuel Cell Technology and Applications, W. Vielstick,
25
H. A. Gasteiger and A. Lamm (Eds.), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., West Sussex,
England, 2003, 308-314.
17. D. M. Bigg. Polymer Composites, 7, 125-139 (1986).
18. R. B. Bird, W.E. Stewart, and E.N. Lightfoot, Transport Phenomena, 2nd Edition,
Wiley, New York, NY, 2002.
19. J. E. Parrott and A. D. Stuckes. Thermal Conductivity of Solids, Pion Limited,
London, England, 1975.
20. R. Berman, Thermal Conduction in Solids, Clarendon Press, Oxford, NY, 1976.
21. E. H. Weber, “Development and Modeling of Thermally Conductive
Polymer/Carbon Composites”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan Technological
University, Houghton, MI, 2001.
22. D. Bigg, Metal Filler Polymers: Properties and Applications, S. K. Bhattacharya
(Ed), Marcel Dekker Inc, New York, 1986, 165-226.
23. Y. Agari, and T. Uno, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 30, 2225-2236 (1985).
24. Y. Agari, A. Ueda, and S. Nagai, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 42, 16551669 (1991).
25. M. L. Clingerman, E. H. Weber, J. A. King, K. H. Schulz. Journal of Applied
Polymer Science, 88, 2280-2299 (2003).
26. D. Stauffer and A. Aharony, Introduction to Percolation Theory, 2nd Edition,
Taylor and Francis Inc., Philadelphia, PA, 1994, 1-56.
26
27. M. L. Clingerman, “Development and Modeling of Electrically Conductive
Composite Materials”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan Technological University,
Houghton, MI, 2001.
28. A. Demain and J-P. Issi, Journal of Composite Materials, 27, 668-683 (1993).
29. J.-B. Donnet, R. C. Bansal, and M.-J. Wang, Carbon Black, 2nd edition, Marcel
Dekker, Inc, New York, 1993.
30. J. Zhang, Y. Zou, and J. He, Journal of Zhejiang University Science, 6A, 10801083 (2005).
31. J. Yi and G. Choi, Journal of Electroceramics, 3:4, 361-369 (1999).
32. R. H. Blunk, D. J. Lisi, Y. Yoo, and C, L, Tucker III, AIChE Journal, 49, 18-29
(2003).
33. G. R. Ruschau and R. E. Newnham, Journal of Composite Materials, 26, 27272735 (1992).
34. E. P. Mamunya, V. V. Davidenko, and E. V. Lebedev, Composite Interfaces, 4,
169-176 (1997).
27
Chapter 3: Materials
3.1: Materials
For this study three different carbon fillers and one polymer matrix were used.
The polymer matrix used was Dow’s Semi-Crystalline Homopolymer Polypropylene
Resin H7012-35RN. The three different carbon fillers studied were Ketjenblack EC-600
JD carbon black from Akzo Nobel, Inc., Asbury Carbons’ Thermocarb TC-300 synthetic
graphite, and Hyperion Catalysis International’s Fibril
TM
nanotubes. The following
sections will discuss each material in more detail.
3.2: Matrix Material
3.2.1: Semi-Crystalline Homopolymer Polypropylene Resin H7012-35RN
The polymer matrix used for this project was Dow’s Semi-Crystalline
Homopolymer Polypropylene Resin H7012-35RN. This polypropylene resin is very
good for injection molding because it has good process ability and mold filling, as well as
containing a nucleating agent giving the polymer a short molding time. Polypropylene is
a thermoplastic material that can be re-melted for other uses which is way it has been
looked at in other research for use in bipolar plates [2-3]. Figure 3.2-1 shows the
chemical structure of polypropylene and Table 3.2-1 [1] shows the properties for the
polypropylene used in this project.
28
CH3
H3C
n
CH3
Figure 3.2-1: Chemical Structure for Polypropylene
Table 3.2-1: Properties of Dow H7012-35RN Polypropylene Resin/Molded Parts[1]
Resin Properties
Density (g/cc)
Melt Flow Rate (g/10 min)
Melting Point (ºC)
0.9
35
163
Glass Transition Temperature (ºC)
Crystalline Temperature (ºC)
-6.6
127
Molded Parts Properties
Tensile Strength at Yield, (MPa)
Tensile Elongation at Yield, (%)
Flexural Modulus, 1% Secant, (MPa)
Notched Izod Impact@ 23°C , (J/m)
Deflection Temperature Under Load @ 0.45
MPa, unannealed, (°C)
34
7
1,420
25
110
3.3: Filler Materials
3.3.1: Carbon Black
Carbon black is a particulate form of carbon that is produced in industry using
thermal cracking or thermal decomposition [5]. Carbon black is used in elastomers
(rubber), plastics, inks, and paint, with the majority of the carbon black produced being
used in tires. In plastics carbon black is used as a colorant, as a stabilizer to protect the
polymer from UV radiation, reinforcement, and to improve the electrical conductivity of
29
the material [4]. Carbon black is produced using one of five different processes: furnace,
thermal, impingement, lampblack, and acetylene. Today the majority of the world’s
carbon black is produced using the furnace process.
In the furnace method a feedstock, usually oil containing a large concentration of
aromatic hydrocarbons, is preheated to 200 to 250 degrees Celsius [6].
After the
feedstock is preheated it is then injected into a hot-flame zone, created by burning a fuel
which is usually natural gas [4]. In the hot-flame zone the oil is vaporized and undergoes
thermal decomposition to form the carbon. To stop the reaction water is applied in the
reactor and then the gas stream is sent to filters, where the carbon is separated from the
gas used in the reactor. To increase the bulk density of the carbon it is either mixed in
pin machines with more water or tumbled in horizontal drums, where it forms small
pellets before being dried in a rotary kiln dryer [4,7]. Carbon black can be sold as pellets
or as a powder depending on the end use application [7]. The structure and size of the
carbon black produced depends on many factors. Some of these factors are type and
concentration of raw material, temperature in the reactor, and residence time in the
reactor [6]. Carbon blacks that are have smaller aggregates, higher structures, and low
concentrations of volatiles increase the conductivity in a polymer composite [6].
In this project the carbon black was Ketjenblack EC-600 JD from Akzo Nobel
Inc. This particular carbon black has a high electrical conductivity even at low filler
loading levels, which is why it was chosen for the project. In this carbon black, the
reasoning behind this attribute is because the particle has a large surface area and is
highly branched allowing it to contact a larger amount of polymer, thus increasing the
30
electrical conductivity. The carbon black comes in the form of pellets that range in size
from 100 microns to 2 mm in size [8]. A small amount of force applied to the pellets
causes the pellets to separate into agglomerates, ranging in size from 10 to 100
micrometers long [8]. If the agglomerates are exposed to a high shear force, when mixed
in with the polymer, then they separate even further to form primary aggregates that
range in size from 30 to 100 nanometers [8]. The properties of Ketjenblack EC-600 JD
are in Table 3.3-1 [8] and Figure 3.3-1 is a picture of a carbon black aggregate.
Table 3.3-1: Properties of Akzo Nobel Ketjenblack EC-600 JD [8]
Electrical
Resistivity
Aggregate Size
Specific Gravity
Apparent Bulk
Density max
Ash Content,
Moisture, max.
BET Surface Area
Pore Volume
0.01-0.1 Ohm-cm
30-100 nm
1.8 g/cm3
100-120 kg/m3
0.1wt%
0.5 wt%
1250 m2/g
480-510 cm3/100g
Figure 3.3-1: Ketjenblack EC-600 JD Primary Aggregate
31
3.3.2: Synthetic Graphite
Synthetic graphite is produced using a high temperature treatment on carbon
materials, which contain highly graphitizable forms of carbon. The primary feedstock for
producing synthetic graphite is calcined petroleum coke and coal tar pitches.
To
manufacture synthetic graphite it involves many different mixing, molding, and baking
operations before being heat-treated at temperatures between 2500 and 3000 degrees
Celsius. The high temperature treatment reduces the concentration of impurities in the
synthetic graphite compared to the original carbon used in production, giving the
synthetic graphite products a high purity of 99% or more. The reason for the reduction in
impurities is because the high temperature vaporizes the volatile impurities. At these
high temperatures impurities that are removed include sulfur, nitrogen, hydrogen, all the
organic compounds in the original feedstock, and most metal oxides. Synthetic graphite
has many uses in multiple applications of industry. Some examples of applications that
use synthetic graphite are conductive fillers, rubber and plastic compounds, drilling,
coatings, foundry, and fuel cell bipolar plates [9].
The synthetic graphite used for this project is Asbusy Carbons’ Thermocarb TC300, which is a primary synthetic graphite previously sold by Conoco [10, 11].
Thermocarb TC-300 is produced from a thermally treated highly aromatic petroleum
feedstock and contains very few impurities. This synthetic graphite was chosen for this
project because of its high thermal conductivity and low electrical resistivity. Table 3.3-2
shows the properties of Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic Graphite [10, 11] and Figure 3.3-2
shows a photomicrograph of Thermocarb TC-300.
32
Table 3.3-2: Properties of Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic Graphite [10, 11]
Filler
Thermocarb
TC-300 Synthetic
Graphite
99.91
<0.1
0.004
2.24
1.4
600. in “a”
crystallographic
direction
0.020
Carbon Content, wt%
Ash, wt%
Sulfur, wt%
Density, g/cc
BET Surface Area, m2/g
Thermal Conductivity at
23oC, W/m.K
Electrical Resistivity of
bulk carbon powder at
150 psi, 23oC, parallel to
pressing axis, ohm-cm
Particle Shape
Particle Aspect Ratio
Acicular
1.7
Sieve Analysis
+600 microns
+ 500 microns
+300 microns
+ 212 microns
+180 microns
+150 microns
+75 microns
+44 microns
-44 microns
wt %
0.19
0.36
5.24
12.04
8.25
12.44
34.89
16.17
10.42
33
Figure 3.3-2: Photomicrograph of Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic Graphite (Reproduced
with permission from Asbury Carbon Permission letter shown in Appendix M)
3.3.3: Hyperion Fibril Carbon Nanotubes
Carbon nanotubes are hollow tubes made from sheets of graphite. There are two
types of nanotubes single walled and multi-walled.
There are four ways to synthesis
carbon nanotubes; arc discharge, laser ablation, floating methods, and chemical vapor
disposition (CVD). The chemical vapor disposition method has been in use since 1959,
and was used to produce carbon filaments and fibers. In the CVD method to grow a
carbon nanotube a hydrocarbon vapor, one example benzene, is passed over a catalyst at
a temperature around 1100 degrees Celsius.
Changing the type of hydrocarbon vapor,
type of catalyst and particle size, as well as the temperature allows different carbon
nanotubes to be grown that vary in size, morphology, and quality. The elements usually
used as catalysts are 3d transition elements; iron, cobalt, and nickel. The CVD process
has a very high yield but the carbon purity is low compared with other methods.
34
In an industrial CVD operation the reaction takes place in a fluidized bed reactor.
In the reactor the hydrocarbon comes in contact with the catalyst where it splits into
carbon and hydrogen. The carbon attaches to the catalyst and a nanotube starts to grow.
As the nanotube grows, it causes the catalyst to disintegrate and then be distributed over
the carbon nanotube agglomerate coming out of the reactor. This carbon nanotube
agglomerate contains more than 95 wt% carbon and has a high bulk density, making the
material easier to handle [12, 13].
Carbon nanotubes can be used in multiple applications. In polymers they are used
to increase electrical conductivity and improve the mechanical properties.
Carbon
nanotubes are better than conventional fillers in polymer composites because they
improve electrical conductivity with a lower amount of filler and they do not degrade the
mechanical properties of the composite. The disadvantage is that the carbon nanotubes
have a higher cost compared to conventional fillers [13]. Some other applications of
nanotubes are as field emitters for high power microwave transmitters, as nanoscale
probe tips, in the electrostatic application of paints, and as low voltage electromechanical
actuators [12].
In this study the carbon nanotubes used were Hyperion Catalysis International’s
FIBRILTM nanotubes. This is a conductive, vapor grown, multi-walled carbon nanotube.
They are produced from a high purity, low molecular weight hydrocarbons in a
proprietary, continuous, gas phase, catalyzed reaction. The outside diameter of the tube is
10 nm and the length is 10 µm, which gives an aspect ratio (length/diameter) of 1000.
Due to this high aspect ratio, very low concentrations of nanotubes are needed to produce
35
an electrically conductive composite. This material was provided by Hyperion Catalysis
International in a 20 wt% FIBRILTM masterbatch MB3020-01. Table 3.3-3 shows the
properties of this carbon filler [14].
Table 3.3-3: Properties of FIBRILTM Carbon Nanotubes [14]
Composition
Diameter
Length
Morphology
Density
Pure carbon with trace residual of metal oxide
catalyst
0.01 µm
10 µm
8 graphitic sheets wrapped around a hollow
0.005 µm core
2.0 g/cc
3.4: Formulation Naming Convention
In this project to be able to identify the test specimens easily and quickly all of the
samples have a unique identification name and number assigned. Because all of the
polymer composite look similar it is crucial that the samples be labeled properly so that it
is known which formulation is being tested. Each sample had a label allowing that
specified what filler is used, the weight percent of the filler, and the order that the sample
was injection molded. The naming convention shown below was used for all the samples
in this project.
E w x P y – z – ##
Where,
E = project description (started as a Department of Energy project)
w = filler type (A = carbon black, B = synthetic graphite, and Q=Carbon Nanotubes)
x = weight percent of conductive filler in composite
36
P = polymer matrix (P for H7012-35RN Polypropylene)
y = indicates replicate number (none for original, R for first replicate)
z = specimen type (F for flex bar, T for tensile bar, and TC for thermal conductivity
disks)
## = specimen number (indicative of the order it was injection molded)
An example of the naming convention is EB10P-TC-12. This means the sample is a
thermal conductivity disk containing 10 wt% synthetic graphite and was the 12th sample
injection molded for this formulation.
For a formulation that contains multiple
conductive fillers an example of the label under the naming convention is EB65Q6P-TC-1.
This label indicates that the sample is a thermal conductivity disk containing 65 wt%
synthetic graphite and 10 wt% carbon nanotubes in polypropylene and was the 15th
sample from the injection molding machine for this formulation.
The concentrations (shown in wt% and the corresponding vol %) for all the single
filler composites tested in this research are shown in Table 3.4-1. The concentrations for
the multiple filler composites will be shown and discussed in later chapters.
Some of the conductivity samples tested came from compression molded plates.
These samples are labeled the same as the injection molded samples except the letter ‘C’
is added after the specimen number. This extra ‘C’ allows the compression molded
samples to be distinguished from the injection molded samples.
An example is shown below:
EA2.5B65Q6P- 1C
37
This label indicates that this sample contains 2.5 wt% carbon black, 65 wt% synthetic
graphite and 6 wt% carbon nanotubes and that it was the first conductivity disk cut from a
compression molded plate.
Table 3.4-1: Single Filler Loading Levels
Filler
wt %
5
Carbon
Black
Vol %
N/A
1.3
2.0
2.6
Synthetic
Graphite
Vol %
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Carbon
Nanotubes
Vol %
0.68
1.1
1.8
2.3
6
3.1
N/A
2.8
7.5
3.9
N/A
3.52
10
5.3
4.3
4.8
15
8.1
6.6
7.4
20
N/A
9.1
N/A
25
N/A
11.8
N/A
30
N/A
14.7
N/A
35
N/A
17.8
N/A
40
N/A
21.1
N/A
45
N/A
24.7
N/A
50
N/A
28.7
N/A
55
N/A
32.9
N/A
60
N/A
37.6
N/A
65
N/A
42.7
N/A
70
N/A
48.4
N/A
75
N/A
54.7
N/A
80
N/A
61.6
N/A
1.5
2.5
4
38
3.5: References
1. Technical Information Dow H7012-35RN Polypropylene Resin, Dow, Midland,
MI, 2005.
2. F. Migri, M. A. Huneault, and M. F. Champagne, Polymer Engineering Science,
44, 1755-1765 (2004).
3. Y. Wang, “Conductive Thermoplastic Composite Blends for Flow Field Plates for
Use in Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Cells (PEMFC)”, M.S. Thesis, University
of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2006.
4. J.-B. Donnet, R. C. Bansal, and M.-J. Wang, Carbon Black, 2nd edition, Marcel
Dekker, Inc, New York, 1993.
5. J. Accorsi, E. Romero. Plastics Engineering, 51, 29 (1995).
6. F. Spinelli, Plastics, Additives, and Modifiers Handbook. J. Edenbaum (Ed.)
Chapman and Hall, New York, NY, 1996, 615-643.
7. K.A. Burgess and F. Lyon, Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology 2nd
Edition, H.F. Mark, N.M Bikales, C. G. Overberger, G. Menges (Eds), John
Wiley and Sons Inc, New York, NY, 1985, 623-640.
8. Akzo Nobel Electrically Conductive Ketjenblack Product Literature, 300. S.
Riverside Plaza, Chicago, IL, 1999.
9. http://www.asbury.com/Graphite.html#synthetic - Accessed October 5, 2008.
10. Asbury Carbons Product Information, Asbury, NJ, 2004.
11. Conoco Carbons Products Literature, Conoco, Inc., P.O. Box 2197, Houston, TX,
1999.
39
12. A. Ramirez, Bells Lab Technical Journal, 10, 171 (2005).
13. M. Bierdel, S.Buchholz, V. Michele, L. Mleczko, R. Rudolf, M. Voetz, and A.
Wolf, Physica Status Solidi B, 244, 3939-3943 (2007).
14. Hyperion Catalysis International Fibril Product Literature, Hyperion Catalysis
International, 38 Smith Place, Cambridge, MA, 2008.
40
Chapter 4: Fabrication and Experimental Methods
4.1: Fabrication Methods
This section will discuss the details of test specimen fabrication.
Specific
information on conditions and screw design can be found in the Appendices.
4.1.1: Extrusion
For this entire project, the fillers and polypropylene were used as received. The
extruder used was an American Leistritz Extruder Corporation Model ZSE 27. A picture
of the extruder is shown in Figure 4.1-1. This extruder has a 27 mm co-rotating
intermeshing twin screw with 10 zones and a length/diameter ratio of 40. The screw
design, shown in Appendix A, was chosen to obtain a minimum amount of filler
degradation, while still dispersing the fillers well in the polymer.
The pure polypropylene pellets and the Hyperion FIBRILTM masterbatch
MB3020-01 (containing 20 wt% carbon nanotubes) were introduced in Zone 1, which is
water cooled. For all the composites containing single fillers, synthetic graphite and
carbon black were added into the polymer melt at Zone 5. For the composites containing
combinations of fillers, carbon black was added into the polymer melt at Zone 7;
synthetic graphite was added to the polymer melt at Zone 5. Fillers were added at two
different zones in order to adequately mix the large amount of fillers. Schenck AccuRate
gravimetric feeders were used to accurately control the amount of each material added to
the extruder. A Schenck AccuRate Flexwall gravimetric feeder was used in Zone 1,
41
shown in Figure 4.1-2, and Schenck AccuRate Conisteel feeders were used in Zones 5
and 7, shown in Figure 4.1-3.
After passing through the extruder, the polymer strands (3 mm in diameter) enter
a water bath and then a ConAir Model 20402HP-14A pelletizer that produced nominally
3 mm long pellets. Figure 4.1-4 shows a picture of the water bath and the pelletizer.
Typically for each formulation ten pounds of pellets were produced. Appendix A shows
the extrusion run condition for the all the composite formulations.
Figure 4.1-1: American Leistritz Extruder Corporation Model ZSE 27
42
Figure 4.1-2: Schenck AccuRate Flexwall Feeder
Figure 4.1-3: Schenck AccuRate Conisteel Feeder
43
Figure 4.1-4: Picture showing the Water Bath and Pelletizer
4.1.2: Drying
After extrusion, the polypropylene based composites were dried in a Bry Air
System indirect heated dehumidifying drying oven at 80oC for 4 hours. Figure 4.1-5
shows a picture of the Bry air dryer. The polymer is dried to remove water that it may
have acquired while in the water bath. Once the polymer is dry, it is stored in moisture
barrier bags before being injection molded.
44
Figure 4.1-5: Bry Air Drying Oven System
4.1.3: Injection Molding
A Niigata injection molding machine, model NE85UA4, was used to produce test
specimens [1]. This machine has a 40 mm diameter single screw with a length/diameter
ratio of 18. It also has a maximum injection pressure of 22,610 psi, a maximum screw
speed of 320 rpm, and a maximum clamping force of 82.50 US tons The lengths of the
feed, compression, and metering sections of the single screw are 396 mm, 180 mm, and
144 mm respectively [1] . Figure 4.1-6 shows a picture of the Niigata injection molding
machine.
A four-cavity mold was used to produce 3.2 mm thick 16.5 cm long ASTM
Type I tensile bars (end gated), 3.2 mm thick 6.4 cm diameter disks (end gated) and 3.2
mm thick 12.7 cm long by 1.27 cm wide flex bars (end-gated) [2]. Figure 4.1-7 shows a
picture of the four-cavity mold. Appendix B shows the conditions used to injection mold
each composite formulation.
45
Figure 4.1-6: Niigata Injection Molding Machine Model NE85UA4
To begin the injection molding process the machine was first heated to the operating
temperature. After the operating temperature is reached, then the machine is purged
using Dow’s semi crystalline homopolymer polypropylene resin H7012-35RN to remove
any contaminants. About four pounds of material is used to create 25-30 flex bars, 6.4
mm disks, and tensile bars for each composite formulation. For some formulations, more
disks had to be made because the tensile and flex bars would not mold because of the
high resin viscosity (highly filled materials). The conditions for each formulation were
kept constant as long as the samples could be molded. Typically, the only parameters to
change in between formulations were the temperatures, shot size, and the injection
pressure. As the samples were injection molded they were labeled according to the
labeling system outline in Chapter 3.4 and stored in Ziploc bags.
46
Figure 4.1-7: Four-Cavity Mold Used in Injection Molding
When the required number of samples for a formulation is reached, then the next
formulation was added to the hopper.
The five samples produced in between
formulations are discarded because they are transition material contaminated with the
previous formulation. After all the formulations have been molded into specimens, the
machine is purged with Dow’s semi crystalline homopolymer polypropylene resin
H7012-35RN to remove all the contaminants. When the polymer melt is free from any
black material the injection molding machine is clean and the machine is shut down.
4.1.4: Compression Molding
The only composite formulation that was compression molded is the three filler
formulation containing, 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM
47
nanotubes, and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN. This formulation is compression molded because of
the high viscosity and other researchers have shown that composites produced by
compression molding, as opposed to injection molding, have produced materials with
higher conductivities [3]. The compression molding press used to produce 8.5 inches
long, 7 inches wide, and 3.2 mm thick plates is the Wabash Model V75H-18-CLX,
shown in Figure 4.1-8. The procedure for fabricating plates is discussed below.
1. The pellets made from the extruder are ground up using a coffee grinder.
Once the grinding is complete the pellets are sifted use a size #65 Taylor mesh
shifting tray to collect 222 grams of material with a particle size of 208
microns or less.
2. The press platen set point temperature is set to 230º C and then the platens are
closed to heat to the set point.
3. The 7 inch by 8.5 inch mold is coated with Slide Biodegradable Mold
Release, as well as the four shims used to get the desired plate thickness. The
top and bottom caul plates were coated with 10% wt Dynamar 9316 (mold
release) from 3M in an acetone solution.
4. To make up the mold, place the picture frame mold on top of the protective
sheet metal. Then place the thinner caul plate with the smooth side up into the
picture frame mold. After the caul plate is in the mold spread the 222 grams
of material evenly over the plate in the mold. Once the material is in the
48
mold, place the thicker caul plate on top and then the second piece of
protective sheet metal on top of that.
5. After the platen set point is reached, then the platens are opened and the mold
prepared in step four is slid into the press. The guard door is then closed to
protect the operators.
6. The platens are closed and 1 ton (34 psi) of force is applied to the mold for 25
minutes at 230º C.
7. After the 25 minutes, the force is increased from 1 ton to 30 tons (1008 psi).
This new force is applied for 25 minutes at 230º C.
8. The mold is cooled until the platen temperature is 25º C at 30 tons of force.
Air is used to cool the platens to 343º C, water/air is used to cool the platens
to 177º C., and just water is used to cool the plate to 25º C.
9. The mold is removed from the press and the mold placed on the mold opening
device with a piece of metal placed on top of the mold. Then the mold is
placed back in the press where 1 ton of force is applied. This causes the
compression molded plate to fall out of the picture frame. Everything is
removed from the press and cleaned for next use.
10. After the plates are produced, then composite thermal and electrical
conductivity samples are cut out of the compression molded plates.
49
Figure 4.1-8: Wabash Model V75H-18-CLX Compression Molding Press
4.2:Experimental Test Methods
4.2.1: Through-Plane Electrical Resistivity Test Method
For samples with an electrical resistivity > 104 ohm-cm, through-plane (also
called transverse), volumetric electrical conductivity test was conducted. In this method,
a constant voltage (typically 100V) was applied to the as-molded test specimen, and the
resistivity was measured according to ASTM D257 using a Keithley 6517A
Electrometer/High Resistance Meter and an 8009 Resistivity Test Fixture [4].
The
Keithley 6524 High Resistance Measurement Software was used to automate the
50
conductivity measurement. For each formulation, a minimum of six specimens were
tested. Each test specimen was an injection molded disk that was 6.4 cm in diameter and
3.2 mm thick. Figure 4.2-1 shows a picture illustrating this apparatus [5] (Permission
letter shown in Appendix M). All the results from this test are shown in Appendix C.
Sample
Current
Meter
Voltage
Source
Figure 4.2-1: Diagram of Through Plane Electrical Resistivity Test (Reproduced with
permission from Matthew Clingerman, Permission letter shown in Appendix M)
4.2.2: In-Plane Electrical Resistivity Test Method
The volumetric in-plane (also called longitudinal) electrical resistivity was
measured on all samples with an electrical resistivity < 104 ohm-cm. Test specimens cut
from the center gauge portion of a tensile bar were surface ground on all sides and then
cut into sticks 1.8 mm wide by 1.8 mm thick by 25.4 mm long, Figure 4.2-2b shows a
diagram of the sample size [5] (Permission letter shown in Appendix M). Typically for
each formulation, a total of six specimens were cut from a single tensile bar, and three
tensile bars were used to obtain a total of eighteen test specimens [6]. These samples
were then tested using the four-probe technique. This technique measures resistivity by
applying a constant current (typically 5 to 10 mA) and measuring the voltage drop over
51
the center 6 mm of the sample [7], Figure 4.2-2a shows a schematic of this test [5]. A
Keithley 224 Programmable Current Source and Keithley 182 Digital Sensitive
Voltmeter were used.
Equation 4.1 below is then used to calculate the electrical
resistivity. All the results from this test are shown in Appendix C.
ER =
( ∆V )( w)( x )
( i )( L )
(4.1)
where:
ER = Electrical Resistivity, ohm-cm
∆V = Voltage drop over center 0.6 cm of sample, volts
w = sample width, cm
x
= sample thickness, cm
i
= current, amps
L = length over which ∆V is measured (0.6 cm)
Constant
current out of
sample
25mm
Current
Source
∆V from
center 6mm
2mm
Sample
Volt
Meter
Constant current
in through sample
(A)
2mm
(B)
Figure 4.2-2: (A) Experimental Set-up for Four-Probe Test Method (B) Sample
Dimensions (Reproduced with permission from Matthew Clingerman, Permission letter
shown in Appendix M)
52
4.2.3: Through-Plane Electrical Resistivity (US Fuel Cell Council) Test
Method
The transverse (through-plane) volumetric electrical resistivity of the 63.5 mm
diameter injection molded disks was determined according to the US Fuel Cell Council
[8]. In this test gold-plated copper electrodes are attached to the platens of a hydraulic
press. Wires connect the electrodes to a Keithley 2400 Source Meter that provides the
current to the sample and a Keithley 2182A Nano Voltmeter that reads the change in
voltage.
The setup is shown in Figure 4.2-3. For each formulation, at least 3 samples
were tested.
Figure 4.2-3: Setup for Through-Plane (US Fuel Cell Council) Electrical Resistivity Test
Method
53
Before the samples are run, a reference material the same size as the unknown
sample is run to determine the resistance of the circuit and the contact. The reference
material used was POCO graphite DFP-1. Two different disk sizes, 2.5” or 2” inch
diameter with a thickness of 3.25 mm, were used depending on the sample size being
tested. The POCO graphite DFP-1 has an electrical resistivity of 1.500 mΩ·cm [9].
Using Equations 4.2 and 4.3 the resistance of the circuit and the contact may be measured
[8]. In Equation 4.2 ERPOCO is the electrical resistivity (mΩ·cm) of the POCO reference,
xpoco is the thickness (cm), A is the area (cm2), and RPOCO is the resistance of the POCO
reference (mΩ). In Equation 4.3 the Rmeasured is the resistance of the sample measured in
the test, Rcircuit is the resistance of the circuit, and Rcontact is the resistance of the contact
with all the resistances being in mΩ.
ERPOCO ⋅ xPOCO
A
(4.2)
Rmeasured − RPOCO = Rcircuit + Rcontact
(4.3)
RPOCO =
Equations 4.4 and 4.5 are used to calculate the electrical resistivity of the composite
sample [7]. Equation 4.4 is very similar to Equation 4.3 except that the RSample, resistance
of the sample (mΩ), is used instead of RPOCO. In Equation 4.5 ERSample is the electrical
resistivity (mΩ·cm), Asample is the area of the composite sample (cm2) and x is the
thickness of the composite sample (cm).
Rmeasured = Rsample + Rcircuit + Rcontact
ERSample =
54
RSample ⋅ ASample
x
(4.4)
(4.5)
Each test is done at 1000 psi to simulate actual conditions in a fuel cell. Equation
4.6 is used to calculate the amount of force that needs to be applied to the sample to
achieve 1000 psi, with Asample being the area of the sample (cm2)
Re quired Force (lb f ) = ASample ⋅1000 psi
(4.6)
The pounds force is applied to the sample by using the hydraulic press and taking a
reading from pressure transducer attached to the hydraulic press.
The procedure below is used to measure the electrical resistivity of a composite
sample.
1. Two pieces of Toray carbon paper cut to the size of the sample are placed on
each side of the reference material.
2. The sample is then placed in between the electrodes. The hydraulic press is
pumped until the pressure transducer reaches 4900 lbsf (1000 psi) to
precondition the material. The paper is preconditioned every time new sheets
are used.
3. The hydraulic press is released and then the sample is rotated 30 degrees. The
pressure is reapplied until it gets to 4900 lbsf (1000 psi). Then the current is
applied
and
the
voltage
change
recorded.
Using
Ohms
Law,
Resistance=Voltage/Current, then the resistance is calculated for the sample.
4. Step three is repeated 10 times for the reference material. After the sample is
removed the electrodes are cleaned with alcohol and compressed air.
5. The composite samples are sanded before being tested to remove the resin rich
layer.
55
6. Steps 1 and 3 are repeated on the composite sample. For each sample 5
measurements are taken.
Figure 4.2-4 shows a schematic for the US Fuel Cell Council through plane electrical
resistivity test method [20] (Permission letter shown in Appendix M). The results from
this test are shown in Appendix D.
Figure 4.2-4: Schematic of Through-Plane (US Fuel Cell Council) Electrical Resistivity
Test Method (Reproduced with permission from Rebecca Hauser, Permission letter
shown in Appendix M)
4.2.4: Thermal Conductivity: Guarded Heat Flow Meter Test Method
The through-plane thermal conductivity of a 3.2 mm thick, 5 cm diameter disk
shaped test specimen was measured at 55oC using a Holometrix Model TCA-300
Thermal Conductivity Analyzer, Figure 4.2-5, which uses the ASTM F433 guarded heat
flow meter method [10]. The thermal conductivity was measured at 55°C because this
56
was as close to ambient temperature as could be measured, while still maintaining a
temperature gradient in the apparatus. Figure 4.2-6 shows a schematic of the test method
used to measure through plane thermal conductivity [11]. The samples used for this test
were 5 cm diameter disks cut from the 6.4 cm diameter injection molded disks or from
the compression molded plates using a hole saw. For each formulation, at least four
samples were tested. The results from this test are seen in Appendix E.
Figure 4.2-5: Holometrix Model TCA-300 Thermal Conductivity Analyzer
57
Figure 4.2-6: Schematic of Through-Plane Thermal Conductivity Test Method
4.2.5: Thermal Conductivity: Transient Plane Source Test Method
The Mathis Instruments Hot Disk Thermal Constants Analyzer is an emerging
technology that uses the transient plane source technique to measure the in-plane and
through-plane thermal conductivity of an anisotropic material in the same test [12-16].
Figure 4.2-7 is a picture of the Hot Disk Thermal Constants Analyzer. The sensors used
in this test method consisted of a 10µm thick nickel foil embedded between two 25.4 µm
thick layers of Kapton polyimide film. The nickel foil was wound in a double spiral
pattern and had a radius, R, of either 3.189 mm or 6.403 mm. For the more conductive
samples the sensor with the larger radius was used. The thermal conductivities were
measured at 23oC. Since the test specimens are anisotropic, this test method is useful for
this project.
58
Figure 4.2-7: Mathis Instruments Hot Disk Thermal Constants Analyzer
Figure 4.2-8 shows how the sensor is positioned between two samples of
composite material. In this experiment, the samples tested were composite disks with a
diameter, D of 6.4 cm and a thickness, x of 3.2 mm. To help ensure that the assumption
of an infinite sample domain was met and that heat was not penetrating completely
through the sample in the axial direction, two of these composite disks were stacked
together above the sensor and two more stacked below it, giving us a double thickness of
sample. This stacking of disks allowed the generation of more reproducible data. For
each formulation, typically 5 different sets of 4 disks (a total of 20 disks) were tested.
The sensor then had a constant electrical current (variable by sample from 0.08W
– 1W) over a short period of time (variable by sample from 2.5s – 10s) passed through it.
The generated heat dissipated within the double spiral was conducted through the Kapton
59
insulating layer and into the surrounding sample, causing a rise in the temperature of the
sensor and the sample.
Figure 4.2-8: Schematic of Samples and Sensor for the Hot Disk. The insert at the lower
left shows the double spiral heating element.
From a theoretical standpoint, the double spiral pattern can be approximated by a series
of concentric, equally spaced ring sources. The characteristic heat conduction Equation,
assuming radial symmetry in the sample, is then given as [12-16]:
(ρC p ) ∂T = k in 1  ∂  r ∂T
∂t
r  ∂r  ∂r
∂ 2T

  + k thru 2 + ∑ Qr δ (r − r ' )δ ( z )
∂z

rings
60
(4.7)
where ρ is the density of the sample (kg/m3), Cp is the heat capacity of the sample
(J/(kg·K)), T is the temperature of the sample (K), t is the time of the measurement (s), kin
and kthru are the in-plane and through-plane thermal conductivities of the sample
(W/m·K), δ is the Dirac delta function, r ' is the radius of one of the ring sources, and Qr
is the power supplied to that ring per unit length of the ring (W/m). The total power for
each ring is proportional to the circumference of the ring 2π r ' , such that the total power
supplied for all of the rings is Q (W). This total power Q is an input parameter to the Hot
Disk Thermal Constants Analyzer. The first term in Equation 4.7 represents accumulation
of thermal energy, the second term radial (referred to as in-plane in our experiments) heat
conduction, the third term axial (referred to as through-plane in our experiments) heat
conduction, and the final term is a heat source.
The sample can be approximated as an infinite domain if the experimental time is
much less than the characteristic thermal diffusion time. For an anisotropic material in a
cylindrical geometry, the experimental time must meet the following two criteria:
t << (D / 2) / (α in ) and t << x 2 / (α thru ) , where x is the sample thickness and D is the
2
sample diameter. In these formulas, α = k /( ρC p ) , which is the thermal diffusivity of the
composite material.
The average transient temperature increase of the sensor is simultaneously
measured by recording the change in electrical resistance of the nickel sensor [12-16]
according to:
61
∆T =

1  Rn

− 1
β  Rno 
(4.8)
where ∆T is the change in temperature at time t (K), β is the temperature coefficient of
resistance (TCR) of the material (1/K), Rn is the electrical resistance of the nickel at time
t (Ω), and Rno is the electrical resistance of the nickel at time 0 (Ω). The temperature rise
in Equation 4.8 is correlated with the in-plane and through-plane thermal conductivities
through the solution of Equation 4.7 as:
∆T =
P
π
3/ 2
R k in k thru
F (τ )
(4.9)
where P is the power dissipation in the probe and F (τ ) is a dimensionless time dependent
function of τ = α in t / R 2 given by an integral of a double series over the number of rings
m:
τ
m m
 l2 + k2
F (τ ) = [m(m + 1)]− 2 ∫ σ − 2 ∑ l ∑ k exp −
2 2
 4m σ
0
 l =1 k =1
  lk 
 I 0 
dσ
2 2 
  2m σ  
(4.10)
A more detailed derivation of Equations 4.9 and 4.10 are given by He [17]. Equations
4.7 through 4.10 are used to determine the in-plane and through-plane thermal
conductivity of the composite being tested. The results for the in-plane and throughplane thermal conductivity from the Hot Disk Thermal Constants Analyzer are shown in
Appendix G.
4.2.6: Hot Disk Analyser: Specific Heat
The specific heat of polymer composites was measured using the Hot Disk Inc.
Heat Capacity Cell, shown in Figure 4.2-9. In this method, three 25 mm diameter disks
are stacked in the heat capacity cell. The heat capacity cell has a copper cup surrounded
62
by polystyrene insulation with a stainless steel shell around the insulation [15]. A nickel
sensor is attached to the bottom of the copper cup and with an adaptor that attaches to the
Hot Disk Thermal Constants Analyzer. The 25 mm diameter disks are 3.2 mm thick and
are cut from the 64 mm in diameter injection molded disks. Two samples are cut out of
each injection molded disk. Before starting the test with a sample the copper cup is run
empty to obtain a reference. Once the samples are in the cell, then a constant supply of
power is applied to the sample over a specific time period. As the power is applied to the
copper cup and composite sample, the rise in temperature is recorded by measuring the
increase in the resistance of the sensor. The specific heat is calculated for a polymer
composite by comparing the rise temperature of the reference to the rise in temperature of
the copper cup with the composite sample. For each formulation at least three samples
were tested. Specific heat results for composites and the individual components are
shown in Appendix F.
Figure 4.2-9: Hot Disk Inc. Heat Capacity Cell
63
4.2.7 Density: ASTM D792-66
The density of the polymer composites was found by using the ASTM D792-66
test method, Specific Gravity and Density of Plastics by Displacement [18]. In this test
the samples that were tested are the 6.4 cm diameter injection molded disks. The samples
are first weighed dry and then weighed when submerged in water or Isopar M, a high
purity isoparaffinic solvent available with an initial boiling point of 223 º C from Exxon.
Some of the samples had to be tested in Isopar M, density of 0.7859 g/ml, because
polypropylene has a density of 0.9 g/ml which is less than water. So the samples with
low filler loadings, densities less than 1g/ml, could not be tested in water.
The
water/Isopar M used was allowed to sit open overnight to remove an air bubbles and
come to equilibrium with the room. Once the weights are known then the density is
calculated using Equation 4.11, where ρfluid is the density of water or Isopar M. Equation
4.12 is used to calculate the theoretical density for each polymer composite formulation.
In Equation 4.12, ρi is the density of each individual component, Фi is the weight fraction
of each individual component, and ρtheo is the theoretical density. The complete density
results are found in Appendix H.
ρ=
DryWeight
⋅ ρ Fluid (T )
DryWeight − WetWeight
ρTheo =
1
(4.11)
(4.12)
φ
∑i ρi
i
64
4.2.8: Solvent Digestion – ASTM D5226-98
In order to determine the length and aspect ratio (length/diameter) of the fillers in the
injection molded test specimens, solvent digestion was used to dissolve the polymer
matrix.
The solvent digestion follows the ASTM D5226-98 method for digesting
polymers [19]. In this test 0.2 g of a sample obtained from a flex bar is used for the
digestion. For each polymer composite formulation, three samples underwent solvent
digestion.
Only samples containing synthetic graphite underwent solvent digestion
because these particles are large enough not clog the filer.
The procedure for the solvent digestion is outlined below. The results from the solvent
digestion are shown in Appendix I.
1. After the 0.2 g sample is weighed it is placed in a labeled sample tube without
the top. Then add between 20 and 25 ml of xylene to each tube. There needs
to be enough solvent to completely dissolve the polymer matrix.
2.
Place the test tube on a hot plate in a holding rack. Turn on the hotplate and
increase the temperature until the xylene is boiling. Also place a beaker of
approximately 30 extra ml of xylene on a second hot plate. This xylene will
be used later when filtering the samples.
3. Allow the samples to dissolve for three to six hours at a minimum temperature
of 120oC.
4. While the samples are dissolving, petri dishes for each sample are labeled and
a Millipore .45 µm filter paper is placed on the bottom. Using a four-place
Denver Instruments A-250 scale the weights of the Petri dishes and filter
65
paper are measured and recorded. Also set up the vacuum filtration apparatus,
shown in Figure 4.2-10. The vacuum filtration apparatus has a vacuum flask,
vacuum pump, and Fisher Brand 47 mm microanalysis filter assembly
5.
After the polymer is completely dissolved, place the filter from the Petri dish
in the vacuum filtration apparatus and turn on the vacuum. Pour solution over
the filter. Wash the sample tube with 5-10 ml of hot xylene, around 120 º C,
and pour liquid into the funnel. The hot xylene dissolves any polypropylene
that came out of solution, thus keeping the filter from being clogged.
6. The vacuum is kept on until there is no liquid left on the filter paper.
A
spatula is used to remove the filter paper with the filler and place it in the
corresponding Petri dish. The Petri dish is placed in the fume hood with the
lid half on to allow air to circulate. This removes any remaining liquid.
7. Repeat steps 5 and 6 for all the samples. Allow the samples to dry for 48
hours. If samples appear clumpy or have curled sections this means there is
still some polymer left in the sample. These samples need to be washed with
hot xylene, around 120 º C, at least twice in the vacuum filtration apparatus.
8. After the samples are dry, weigh the Petri dish, filter paper, and filler to get a
final weight. The weight percent is calculated using Equation 4.13.
66
Figure 4.2-10: Solvent Digestion Filtration Apparatus
wt % =
WFinal − WFilter ( s ) − WPetriDish
WComposite
(4.13)
4.2.9: Filler Length and Aspect Ratio
In order to determine the length and aspect ratio (length/diameter) of the synthetic
graphite in the injection molded test specimens, solvent digestion is used to dissolve the
polymer matrix and liberate the fillers. The fillers are then dispersed onto a glass slide.
Figure 4.2-11 shows the apparatus that is used to disperse the fillers onto the slide [20]
(Permission letter shown in Appendix M). From the Petri dish, a small amount of filler
(0.01 g or less) is removed with a micro spatula. Only a small amount is used so that
there is no overlap of the fillers when the pictures are taken. The filler is placed in the
crucible and the rubber stopper is put back in place. Then the flask is placed over a glass
slide on a piece of paper. Then with a compressed air canister, a small amount of air is
blown above the crucible causing the filler to disperse onto the slide below. After each
run the devise is cleaned so there is no contamination and the paper is thrown away.
67
Compressed Gas
One Hole
Stopper
Filler in
Crucible
Plastic Vacuum
Flask with
Bottom Removed
Glass Slide
Figure 4.2-11: Filler Dispersion Apparatus (Reproduced with permission from Rebecca
Hauser, Permission letter shown in Appendix M)
Once the glass slide had the fillers on it then it is placed on a Prior automatic stage for the
microscope setup. Figure 4.2-12 shows a picture of this setup. The microscope used was
an Olympus SZH10 optical microscope with an Optronics Engineering LX-750 video
camera. The filler images (at 70X magnification) were collected using Scion Image
Version 1.62 software. The macro used to take pictures was originally written by Dr.
Larry Sutter of Michigan Technological University and was modified when used for this
project.
Figure 4.2-12: Microscope Setup for Filler Length/Aspect Ratio Analysis
68
The images were then processed using Adobe Photoshop 5.0 and the Image Processing
Tool Kit version 3.0. Because between 50 and 100 pictures were collected for each
sample a batch operation was used to determine the filler length and aspect ratio. For
each formulation, approximately 1,000 particles were measured. The batch operation
contained the following steps [21]:
1.
Convert image from RGB to grayscale
2. Fit and remove the background to remove the uneven lighting of the image
3. Automatic leveling of the image, which standardizes the contrast of the image
4. Threshold, this converts the image to a binary image in which all the fillers are in
black
5. Feature cutoff and threshold, this removed all the features that came in contact
with the edge of image
6. Calibrate, this loaded a predetermined calibration based on the magnification and
resolution of the image
7. Measure all, this measured 26 different items of each feature in the image and
stored them in a text file that was appended to for each new image.
To measure the length and aspect ratio an algorithm was used that measures the minimum
and maximum thickness of each feature. Also the length and height of each feature is
measured every 11.25°. From these measurements the maximum and minimum distance
are calculated. The maximum is the length and the minimum is the breadth. The aspect
69
ratio is calculated by dividing the length by the breadth [21]. The filler length and aspect
ratio results are shown in Appendix J.
4.2.10: Determination of Filler Orientation in a Polymer Composite
4.2.10.1: Sample Preparation and Polishing
Samples are cut from two injection molded pieces. First, from the center of a 6.4
cm diameter four ½ inch square pieces are cut out using the scroll saw. These samples
show the “through-plane” and the “xy plane” surfaces. Figure 4.2-13 shows a figure of
how the samples are cut from the disk. The three samples with the zigzag line are the
“through-plane” surfaces studied and the “xy plane” surface is the shown with the
diagonal lines.
Figure 4.2-13: “Through Plane” and “XY Plane” Surface Samples Studied from
Injection Molded Disk
70
For the “in plane” surface samples three parts of the middle portion of a tensile bar were
cut up or a matchstick was cut into three pieces. Figure 4.2-14 shows a picture of a
tensile bar and shows the middle portion where the samples were cut from.
Figure 4.2-14: “In Plane” Surface Samples Studied from Tensile Bar
Once the samples were cut they were then placed in labeled mold cups that had
been sprayed with mold release. Then an epoxy from MSI Mager Scientific was made by
mixing Epoxide Cold Mounting Resin and Hardener. The epoxy was made up by weight
with a ratio of 5 parts resin to 1 part hardener. After the epoxy is mixed, it was poured
into the mold cup until the samples were covered. The samples are then allowed to dry
for 48 hours before being removed from the mold cups.
Figure 4.2-15 below shows a
picture of the top view of the epoxy pucks with the “through plane” and “in plane”
sample.
71
Figure 4.2-15: Top View of Epoxy Pucks “Through Plane” Sample (left) and “In Plane”
Sample (right)
After the epoxy samples are cured they need to be polished so that the fillers can
be seen for image analysis. First the pucks are ground on both sides using a 12” abrasive
pad that is 60 grit. Figure 4.2-16 shows a picture of what the pucks look like after the
sides have been removed. Once the pucks are in the oval shape then they are attached to
glass microscope slides using JB Kwik Weld and labeled.
Figure 4.2-16: Oval Shaped Ground Epoxy Pucks
After the JB Kwik Weld is dry, then a diamond surface grinder is used to remove the
epoxy covering the sample’s surface. In the diamond surface grinder the sample is
attached to a plate and secured using a vacuum, before being passed over a diamond
72
grinding wheel. Once the sample puck is flat and the surface’s exposed then the puck is
washed with soap and water. Then another slide, with one slide frosted and one side
clear is attached to the other side of the puck. The frosted side of slide is attached to the
puck using Epotech 301 epoxy. Figure 4.2-17 shows a polymer puck with both slides
attached.
Figure 4.2-17: Prepared Puck with Both Slides Attached
After the epoxy is dry, the slide frosted side of the slide is numbered with a roman
number. The sample is then placed frosted side down in the cut off saw’s vacuum chuck
and secured using a vacuum. The cut off saw then cuts the samples so they are 0.2 mm
thick. Figure 4.2-18 shows the cut-off saw used to make the 0.2 mm samples. After the
samples are cut they are ground again using the diamond surface grinder to make sure
that the surfaces of the samples are flat. Figure 4.2-19 shows what the samples look like
after being cut and ground again.
73
Figure 4.2-18: Cut-off Saw Used to Cut Samples to 0.2 mm
Figure 4.2-19: 0.2 mm Thin Composite Samples Ready to be Polished
Before polishing, the samples are placed in an ultrasonic bath for 5 minutes. This
step is needed to remove any grit on the sample because the polypropylene scratches
easily. All the polishing is done by hand using the Buehler Ecomet 4 Grinder/Polisher,
shown in Figure 4.2-20.
First the samples are polished on a Texmet P polishing cloth
(PSA 12” diameter) with the 3 µm Metadi Supreme Polycrystalline Diamond suspension
at 190 rpm for 2-3 minutes. Then the samples are washed and looked at under the
microscope to see if all the scratches are gone and the filler visible. If there are still
scratches the polishing is continued using 3 µm diamond suspension until they are
removed.
74
Figure 4.2-20: Buehler Ecomet 4 Grinder/Polisher
Once the scratches are gone, then the samples are polished with Master-Tex
Master
polishing cloth (PSA 12” diameter) with the Masterprep 0.05 µm polishing suspension at
190 rpm.. The sample is then viewed under the microscope aft
after
er a few minutes of
polishing to see if the fillers can be seen clearly. The slide will continue to be polished
with the Masterprep 0.05 µm polishing suspension until the fillers look clear. Once the
polishing is complete then pictures of the surfaces ar
aree ready to be taken to be used later in
filler orientation analysis.
Samples were sent to Buehler so that they could develop a preparation procedure.
This was done because the polypropylene had a tendency to develop scratches very easily
75
that hindered the imaging process. The procedure developed by Buehler is shown in
Table 4.2-1 for polypropylene composites [22].
All the samples prepared by Buehler
had images taken under a microscope and the fillers were analyzed for filler orientation.
Table 4.2-1: Buehler Polishing Procedure for Polypropylene
Surface
Lubricant
Abrasive
Time
(Minutes)
Force
(lbs)
RPM
Direction
CARBIMET®
Water
SiC - 320 grit
Till plane
5
230
Contra
CARBIMET®
Water
SiC - 600 grit
2:00
5
230
Contra
CARBIMET®
Water
SiC - 800 grit
2:00
5
230
Contra
METADI®
Supreme - 3 µm
MASTERPREP
®
5:00
5
130
Contra
3:00
5
130
Contra
TEXMET® 1500
MICROCLOTH
®
4.2.10.2: Optical Imaging Methods
After polishing the samples are viewed using an Olympus BX60 reflected light
microscope at a magnification of 200x. Figure 4.2-21 shows an image of the microscope
used. To collect images of the filler the program Scion Image Version 1.62 was used.
For the “in plane” surface images were taken in the direction of conduction. For the
“through plane” surface images were taken perpendicular to the direction of conduction.
Figure 4.2-22 shows a diagram of where the images were taken for the “in plane” and
“through plane” surfaces. Usually, 9-16 images were taken for each surface depending
on how good the polishing job was. These images were then pieced together to form a
large composite image that was then used for the filler orientation analysis.
76
Figure 4.2-21: Olympus BX60 Reflected Light Microscope
Figure 4.2-22: Diagram of Images Taken on “In Plane” and “Through Plane” Surfaces
77
4.2.10.3: Image Processing and Analysis
After the images are taken they are then processed using Adobe Photoshop 5.0
and the Image Processing Tool Kit version 3.0. First each individual image has the color
and any background variation removed. This turns the image into an 8 bit gray scale
image and also leveled out any uneven lighting. Next each image was pasted onto a new
canvas where the images are placed together to form one composite image.
The
composite image then has brightness threshold run to turn the fillers black and the
background white.
Next, a Euclidean distance map (EDM) open operation was
performed to remove any small particles in the picture and to help separate the fillers
image from the polymer matrix image. What the EDM open operation does is shrink
each feature a certain number of pixels and expands them by the same number of pixels.
Compared to the standard morphological open, the EDM version of “open” command
does a better job of keeping the shape of the particle. After the EDM, a cutoff operation
is used to remove any features that are touching the edge of the picture and any features
that are smaller than 50 pixels.
For each filler particle the moment angle was measured, as a measure of the
orientation. This angle measurement gives some indication of the filler’s orientation in
the composites and is measured from the direction of conduction. To get the angle of
each particle, a method similar to fitting a line to a set of data is used [23]. The angle is
calculated using Equations 4.14-4.22 [23]. Equations 4.14-4.18 are summations that
calculate the location of each pixel in each particle. The moment around the x and y axes
78
are calculated in Equations 4.19-4.21. Equation 4.22 calculates the angle of minimum
momentum or the moment angle.
S x = ∑ xi
(4.14)
S y = ∑ yi
(4.15)
S xx = ∑ xi2
(4.16)
S yy = ∑ yi2
(4.17)
S xy = ∑ xi ⋅ yi
(4.18)
M xx = S xx −
M yy = S yy −
M xy = S xy −
S x2
Area
S y2
(4.19)
(4.20)
Area
Sx ⋅ S y
(4.21)
Area
M − M +
yy
 xx
θ = tan 

−1
2
− M yy ) + 4 ⋅ M xy2 

2 ⋅ M xy

(M
xx
(4.22)
The method used to calculate the moment angle is a robust method. This is
because it uses the main axes to calculate the angle and it does not fit an ellipse to the
outside of the particle. When an ellipse method is used, one pixel sticking out on a
feature can cause the calculated angle to be dramatically different from the actual angle.
Compared to the moment angle method, where one or two pixels sticking out on a feature
does not cause the angle be changed significantly [21]. Adobe Photoshop 5.0 and the
Image Processing Tool Kit version 3.0 were used to determine the moment angle of each
particle. Appendix K shows the orientation results as well as photomicrographs of the
through-plane and in-plane surfaces.
79
4.2.10.4 Microtoming
Microtoming was used as an alternative to polishing because at low filler
concentrations the polypropylene was scratched very easily.
This procedure was
developed with the help of Owen Mills (Electron Optics Engineer at Michigan
Technological University). For microtoming the samples need to be no longer than 1 cm
and the surface needs to be no larger than 2 mm by 2mm, so matchsticks were used. The
samples are placed in flexible silicone side molds and then epoxy is poured in. The
samples need 24 hours to dry and then they are removed from the mold. The samples do
not need labels since the molds have labels that will be embedded into the epoxy. After
the samples are removed, choose the samples with the sample closest to the front surface
of the mold and then trim the epoxy until the polymer is exposed.
Then have a
Microtome technician mount the sample and begin the microtoming. A diamond blade is
used to remove 2 micron thick sections from the sample until the surface is completely
smooth.
Once the microtoming is complete, polish the sample using Master-Tex polishing
cloth (PSA 12” diameter) with the Masterprep 0.05 µm polishing suspension for 15 to 20
seconds at 190 rpm. Then place the sample on a piece of glass and use the Olympus
BX60 reflected light microscope at a magnification of 200x to take images of the filler.
Once the images are taken follow the same procedure discussed in the previous section.
Appendix K shows the orientation results as well as photomicrographs of the throughplane and in-plane surfaces.
80
4.2-11: Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope (FESEM) Test Method
A Hitachi Cold Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope (FESEM) was used
to view the fracture surface polymer composites at 5kV. This method was used to view
the smaller fillers, (carbon black and carbon nanotubes) that could not be seen in the
optical microscope. The photomicrographs from the FESEM can be seen in Appendix L.
4.3: References
1. Niigata Engineering Co. Ltd., Nagaoka Works, Model NE85UA4, Machine No.
50031F. Nagaoka Works, Niigata, Japan.
2. Four Cavity Mold, Master Precision Molds, Inc., Greenville, MI, Phone No. 800632-8912.
3. R. Leaversuch, “Fuel Cells Jolt Plastics Innovation”, Plastics Technology Online,
November 2001, www.plasticstechnology.com/articles/200111fa2.html., accessed
December 23, 2003.
4.
“Standard Test Methods for DC Resistance or Conductance of Insulating
Materials”, ASTM Standard D257-91, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1998.
5. Clingerman, M.L., "Development and Modeling of Electrically Conductive
Composite Materials", Ph.D. dissertation in Chemical Engineering, Michigan
Technological University, December 2001.
6. J. A. Heiser, J. A. King, J. P. Konell, I. Miskioglu, and L. L. Sutter, Advances in
Polymer Technology, 23, 135-146 (2004).
81
7. J. A. King, K. W. Tucker, J. D. Meyers, E. H. Weber, M. L. Clingerman, and K.
R. Ambrosius, Polymer Composites, 22, 142-154 (2001).
8. “Through-Plane Electrical Conductivity Testing Protocol for Composite
Materials”, Document No. 05-160, US Fuel Cell Council, 1100 H. Street, NW,
Suite 800, Washington, DC, 2004.
9. “Poco Graphite-Graphite Materials- DFP-1”
http://www.poco.com/us/Graphite/dfp.asp-Accessed July 2007
10. “Evaluating Thermal Conductivity of Gasket Materials”, ASTM Standard D43377 (Reapproved 1993), American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
1996.
11. Holometrix Model TCA - 300 Thermal Conductivity Analyzer using Guarded
Heat Flow Meter Method, 25 Wiggins Avenue, Bedford, Massachusetts.
12. M. Gustavsson, E. Karawacki, and S.E. Gustafsson, Review of Scientific
Instruments, 65, 3856-3859 (1994).
13. T. Log and S.E. Gustafsson, Fire and Materials, 19, 43-49 (1995).
14. V. Bohac, M.K. Gustafsson, L. Kubicar, and S.E. Gustafsson, Review of Scientific
Instruments, 71, 2452-2455 (2000).
15. Hot Disk Thermal Constants Analyzer Instruction Manual, Mathis Instruments,
Ltd., Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, 2001.
82
16. Transient Plane Source-Gustafsson Hot Disk Technique, standards for Contact
Transient Measurements of Thermal Properties. National Physical Laboratory,
United Kingdom, http://www.npl.co.uk/thermal/ctm, accessed February 2006
17. Y. He, Thermochimica Acta, 436, 122-129 (2005).
18. “Specific Gravity and Density of Plastics by Displacement”, ASTM Standard
D792 - 66 (Re-approved 1975), American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1986.
19. “Standard Practice for Dissolving Polymer Materials”, ASTM Standard D5226 98, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
1998.
20. R. A. Hauser (2008). “Synergistic Effects and Modeling of Thermally Conductive
Resins for Fuel Cell Bipolar Plate Applications.” PhD Dissertation. Michigan
Technological University.
21. Weber,
E.H.,
“Development
and
Modeling
of
Thermally
Conductive
Polymer/Carbon Composites”, PhD Dissertation, Michigan Technological
University, 2001.
22. N. Vahora “Lab Report LB0807020” Email to Julie King. 30 July 2008.
23. Russ, J.C., The Image Processing Handbook, 3rd ed. CRC and IEEE Press, Boca
Raton, 1999.
83
Chapter 5: Miscellaneous Results
5.1: Density Results
The densities for each individual injection molded formulation were measured
and then compared to the theoretical density. The densities were compared to verify that
the amount of filler in each compound matched the formulation target value used in the
extrusion process. The theoretical density was calculated using Equation 5.1 shown
below.
In the Equation the symbol ρTheo represents the theoretical density with ρi
representing the density of the individual components and Фi the weight fraction of each
component used for each formulation.
ρTheo =
1
Φi
∑ρ
i
(5.1)
i
Table 5.1-1 shows the density results for the polypropylene semi crystalline
homopolymer resin H7012-35RN. Table 5.1-2 shows the density results for a single
filler formulation, 30 wt% synthetic graphite in polypropylene. At least three samples for
each formulation were tested for their density, and from these samples an average and the
standard deviation were calculated. After looking at all the comparisons between the
theoretical and the actual density for all of the formulations it can be concluded that the
gravimetric feeders used to feed the extruder are accurately putting in the amount of filler
specified for each compound. The density results for all the formulations are shown in
Appendix H.
84
Table 5.1-1: Density Results for Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample
Theoretical
Actual
Number
Density (g/ml)
Density
(g/ml)
6/2/2008
EP-TC-12
0.9000
0.9079
EP-TC-16
0.9000
0.9092
EP-TC-23
0.9000
0.9100
EP-TC-27
0.9000
0.9096
EP-TC-37
0.9000
0.9087
Average
0.9091
Standard Deviation
0.0008
Number of Samples
5
Table 5.1-2: Density Results for 30 wt% Synthetic Graphite in Polypropylene Semi
Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample
Theoretical
Actual
Number
Density (g/ml)
Density
(g/ml)
5/30/2008
EB30P-TC-7
1.0968
1.0958
EB30P-TC-11
1.0968
1.0960
EB30P-TC-15
1.0968
1.0960
EB30P-TC-20
1.0968
1.0956
EB30P-TC-23
1.0968
1.0966
Average
1.0960
Standard Deviation
0.0004
Number of Samples
5
5.2: Solvent Digestion Results
Solvent digestion was performed on injection molded samples containing
synthetic graphite as described in Chapter 4.2-8. Solvent digestion was only performed
85
on composites containing synthetic graphite because the particles are large enough not to
clog the filter. The weight percent of the synthetic graphite is calculated using Equation
4.13 in Chapter 4.2-8. These results are also used to verify that the gravimetric feeders
used in the extrusion process are accurately controlling the amount of filler being added
for each polymer formulation. Table 5.2-1 shows the results for the polymer composite
containing 45 wt % synthetic graphite. These results confirm that the gravimetric feeders
are accurately feeding the filler into the polymer composite. Complete solvent digestion
results are shown in Appendix I.
Table 5.2-1: Solvent Digestion Results for 45% wt Synthetic Graphite in Polypropylene
Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Date
Formulation Actual Weight Target Weight
Fraction
Fraction
6/3/2008
EB45P-1
0.47
0.45
6/3/2008
EB45P-3
0.49
0.45
5.3: Filler Length and Aspect Ratio Results
The mean filler length and aspect ratio was determined for the synthetic graphite
using the particles removed from the polymer using the solvent digestion process
described in Chapter 4.2-8. The carbon black and Fibril carbon nanotubes were not
tested because of their small size, carbon black being 30-100 nm and the Fibril carbon
nanotubes having a diameter of 0.01 µm.
The results for the three synthetic graphite samples that were analyzed as well as
the “as received” results from Rebecca Hauser’s previous work are shown in Table 5.3-1
[1]. The “as received particles had a mean aspect ratio of 1.757 and mean length of 67
86
µm compared to the injection molded fillers that had a mean aspect ratio of
approximately 1.67 and mean length of approximately 40 µm. The values reported in
this analysis agree with previous studies values, and the similarity between the “as
received” values and the values after the synthetic graphite is put into the polymer, also
agrees with previous studies done on the material [2,3, 4]. The results are also shown in
Appendix J.
Table 5.3-1: Mean Length and Aspect Ratio Results for Single Filler Synthetic Graphite
Formulations [1]
Formulation
Filler
Fabrication
Method
As Received
Thermocarb
EB25P
Thermocarb
EB45P
Thermocarb
EB65P
Thermocarb
Injection
Molded
Injection
Molded
Injection
Molded
Injection
Molded
Mean
Length
(mm)
0.0670
Standard
Deviation
(mm)
0.0590
Mean
Aspect
Ratio
1.757
Standard
Deviation
n
0.412
3533
0.0411
0.0302
1.671
0.372
855
0.0379
0.0520
1.660
0.355
412
0.0379
0.0560
1.652
0.037
830
5.4: Orientation Results
The orientation angle for the synthetic graphite in polypropylene was measured
using the procedure described in Chapter 4.2-10. Table 5.4-1 shows the orientation
results (average, standard deviation, and number of fillers included) for the formulation
65 wt% synthetic graphite in polypropylene. The in-plane and the XY plane surfaces
have an orientation angle around 30 degrees compared to the through-plane surface
having an orientation angle around 60 degrees. On surfaces with orientation angles
closer to 0 degrees this indicates that the fillers are primarily oriented in the direction of
conduction, the in-plane and xy-plane surfaces in this study. On surfaces with orientation
87
angles closer to 90 degrees this indicates that the fillers are primarily oriented
perpendicular to the direction of conduction, the through-plane surface in this study.
Table 5.4-1: Orientation Results for a Formulation Containing 65 wt% Synthetic
Graphite in Polypropylene
Formulation
Fabrication
Method
Surface
Studied
EB65P
Injection
Molded
Injection
Molded
Injection
Molded
In Plane
EB65P
EB65P
XY Plane
Through Plane
Angle Mean ±
Stdev
(Degrees)
27.49±
25.7
29.17±
23.36
60.70±
27.1
n
609
1438
1438
Figure 5.4-1 is a photomicrograph showing an in-plane surface for the formulation
containing 65 wt% synthetic graphite in polypropylene. This figure shows that most of
the fillers are orientated with the direction of conduction.
Figure 5.4-2 is a
photomicrograph showing a through-plane surface for the formulation containing 65 wt%
synthetic graphite in polypropylene.
This figure shows that most of the fillers are
orientated perpendicular to the direction of conduction. Both figures orientation results
coincide with the results found for the through plane and in-plane surface in Table 5.4-1.
These results are the same for all the injection molded and compression molded samples
looked at in this study, and the results agree with other previous studies [3-7]. All the
filler orientation results and photomicrographs are shown in Appendix K.
88
Figure 5.4-1: In-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 65 wt% Synthetic
Graphite in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification
Figure 5.4-2: Through-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 65 wt% Synthetic
Graphite in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification
89
5.5: Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope (FESEM) Results
FESEM pictures were taken for to see all of the fillers but especially to see the carbon
black and the Fibril carbon nanotubes because of their small size.
Chapter 4.2-11
discusses the procedure for taking FESEM pictures. Multiple pictures were taken on
three different samples. One with 15% wt carbon black in polypropylene, another with
15% wt Hyperion FIBRILTM Carbon Nanotubes in polypropylene, and a third containing
all three fillers, 2.5% wt carbon black, 65% wt synthetic graphite, and 6% wt Hyperion
FIBRILTM Carbon Nanotubes in polypropylene.
In Figure 5.5-1, the carbon black is
shown as the white spheres and the FIBRILTM Carbon Nanotubes are shown as the white
fibers. This picture shows that the FIBRILTM Carbon Nanotubes are forming networks
that could increase the conduction of the material. The remaining pictures taken with the
FESEM are in Appendix L.
Figure 5.5-1: Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope Photomicrograph of 2.5%
wt Carbon Black, 65% wt Synthetic Graphite, and 6% wt Hyperion FIBRILTM Carbon
Nanotubes in Polypropylene Composit
90
5.6: Conclusions
From the results above multiple conclusions can be drawn.
•
From the density and solvent digestion measurements it was concluded that the
gravimetric feeders are accurately feeding the required amount of filler for each
specific formulation into the polymer during the extrusion process.
•
The mean length and the mean aspect ratio for the synthetic graphite stayed the
same even after being extruded and injection molded into samples and that these
results agree with other studies.
•
From the orientation results on the synthetic graphite it can be concluded that,
when looking at the in-plane surface, the fillers are primarily aligned in the
conductivity measurement direction and when looking at the through plane
surface, the fillers are primarily aligned perpendicular to the conductivity
measurement direction. These results agree with other studies that have looked at
the synthetic graphite as well as other types of carbon.
•
From the FESEM pictures it was concluded that the Fibrils Carbon Nanotubes are
forming networks, and these networks could help to increase the conductivity of
the material.
91
5.7: References
1. R. A. Hauser (2008). “Synergistic Effects and Modeling of Thermally Conductive
2. Resins for Fuel Cell Bipolar Plate Applications.” PhD Dissertation. Michigan
Technological University: US.
3. J. A. King, R. L. Barton, R. A. Hauser, and J. M. Keith, Polymer Composites, 29,
421-428 (2008).
4. J. A. Heiser, J. A. King, J. P. Konell, I. Miskioglu, and L. L. Sutter, Journal of
Applied Polymer Science, 91, 2881-2893 (2004).
5. J. P. Konell, J. A. King, and I. Miskioglu, Polymer Composites, 25, 172-185
(2004).
6. J. A. King, M. G. Miller, R. L. Barton, J. M, Keith, R. A. Hauser, K. R. Peterson,
and L. L. Sutter, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 99, 1552-1558 (2006).
7. J. M. Keith, J. A. King, P. W. Grant, A. J. Cole, B. M. Klett, and I. Miskioglu,
Polymer Composites, 29, 15-21 (2008).
8. J. A. King, F. A. Morrison, J. M. Keith, M. G. Miller, R. C. Smith, M. Cruz, A.
M. Neuhalfen, and R. L. Barton, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 101,
2680-2688 (2006).
92
Chapter 6: Electrical Resistivity Results and Design of
Experiment Analysis
6.1: Single Filler Electrical Resistivity Results
Electrical resistivity tests were performed on all the formulations created. The
electrical resistivity was tested using the procedures described in Chapter 4.2-1 to 4.2-3.
Each formulation had different concentrations of Ketjenblack EC-600 JD carbon black
(CB), Thermocarb TC-300 synthetic graphite (SG), and Hyperion FIBRILSTM nanotubes
(CNT) in polypropylene semi crystalline homopolymer resin H7012-35RN.
For
polypropylene formulations it is noted that increasing the filler amount will also increase
the composite’s melt viscosity. Because of the large increases in composite melt viscosity
for carbon black and FibrilTM carbon nanotubes, these fillers are only used at low loading
levels [1, 2]. The maximum single filler amounts that that could be extruded and injection
molded were 15 wt% for carbon black, 80 wt% for synthetic graphite, and 15 wt% for
FibrilTM carbon nanotubes.
The mean, standard deviation, and number of samples test for each formulation
containing varying amounts of single fillers are shown in Tables 6.1-1, 6.1-2 and 6.1-3.
Figures 6.1-1 and 6.1-2 show the log (electrical resistivity in ohm-cm) for composites
containing varying amounts of single fillers as a function of filler volume fraction. In
these figures, all the data points have been plotted. Appendix C has the all the electrical
resistivity results for the single filler polymer composites. Figures 6.1-1 and 6.1-2 follow
the typical electrical resistivity curve. At low filler loadings, the electrical resistivity
remains similar to that of the pure polymer. Then at a point called the percolation
threshold, the resistivity decreases dramatically over a very narrow range of filler
93
concentrations. At higher filler loadings, the electrical resistivity begins to level out again
at a value many orders of magnitude lower than that of the pure polymer [3, 4].
Table 6.1-1: Electrical Resistivity Results for Carbon Black in Polypropylene
Formulation
Filler wt %
Filler vol%
Electrical Resistivity (ohm-cm)
Polypropylene (PP)
0.0
0.0
1.65 x 1017 ± 5.54 x 1016 n = 8
PP Replicate
0.0
0.0
1.42 x 1017 ± 3.30 x 1016 n = 6
2.5CB
2.5
1.27
1.10 x 1016 ± 4.53 x 1015 n = 9
2.5CB Replicate
2.5
1.27
1.31 x 1016 ± 3.93 x 1015 n = 6
4CB
4.0
2.04
6811.72 ± 828.53 n = 5
5CB
5.0
2.56
641.35 ± 50.96 n = 5
6CB
6.0
3.09
192.30 ± 31.33 n = 5
7.5CB
7.5
3.90
11.66 ± 0.43 n = 5
10CB
10.0
5.26
2.93 ± 0.16 n = 26
15CB
15.0
8.11
1.15 ± 0.03 n = 24
94
Table 6.1-2: Electrical Resistivity Results for FibrilTM Carbon Nanotubes in
Polypropylene
Formulation
Filler wt %
Filler vol%
Electrical Resistivity (ohm-cm)
Polypropylene (PP)
0.0
0.0
1.65 x 1017 ± 5.54 x 1016 n = 8
PP Replicate
0.0
0.0
1.42 x 1017 ± 3.30 x 1016 n = 6
1.5CNT
1.5
0.68
9.90 x 1016 ± 3.66 x 1015 n = 6
2.5CNT
2.5
1.14
1.36 x 1016 ± 5.02 x 1015 n = 9
4CNT
4.0
1.84
2.71 x 1015 ± 3.22 x 1014 n = 6
5CNT
5.0
2.31
5.22 x 107 ± 6.42 x 107 n = 6
6CNT
6.0
2.79
15.86 ± 1.65 n = 29
6CNT Replicate
6.0
2.79
18.29 ± 1.31 n = 29
7.5CNT
7.5
3.52
5.09 ± 0.37 n = 29
10CNT
10.0
4.76
1.56 ± 0.08 n = 30
15CNT
15.0
7.36
0.40 ± 0.02 n = 30
95
Table 6.1-3: Electrical Resistivity Results for Synthetic Graphite in Polypropylene
Formulation
Filler wt %
Filler vol%
Electrical Resistivity (ohm-cm)
Polypropylene (PP)
0.0
0.0
1.65 x 1017 ± 5.54 x 1016 n = 8
PP Replicate
0.0
0.0
1.42 x 1017 ± 3.30 x 1016 n = 6
10SG
10.0
4.27
1.39 x 1017 ± 2.92 x 1016 n = 8
15SG
15.0
6.62
9.42 x 1016 ± 1.15 x 1016 n = 6
20SG
20.0
9.13
6.19 x 1016 ± 1.29 x 1016 n = 6
25SG
25.0
11.81
3.33 x 1016 ± 4.75 x 1015 n =6
30SG
30.0
14.69
1.07 x 108 ± 2.72 x 107 n = 6
35SG
35.0
17.79
5484.40 ± 1411.30 n = 15
40SG
40.0
21.13
394.12 ± 68.46 n = 19
45SG
45.0
24.74
98.89 ± 11.11 n = 27
50SG
50.0
28.66
39.18 ± 4.59 n = 22
55SG
55.0
32.93
17.89 ± 2.61 n = 24
60SG
60.0
37.60
8.40 ± 0.75 n = 21
65SG
65.0
42.70
3.43 ± 0.68 n = 27
65SG Replicate
65.0
42.70
3.34 ± 0.73 n = 30
70SG
70.0
48.40
1.31 ± 0.22 n = 29
75SG
75.0
54.66
0.38 ± 0.06 n = 22
80SG
80.0
61.64
0.09 ± 0.01 n = 20
96
Figure 6.1-1: Single Filler Electrical Resistivity Results for FibrilTM Carbon Nanotubes
and Carbon Black in Polypropylene and Carbon Black in Vectra
97
Figure 6.1-2: Single Filler Electrical Resistivity Results for Synthetic Graphite in
Polypropylene and in Vectra
Figure 6.1-1 illustrates that the carbon black and carbon nanotubes are effective at
decreasing the electrical resistivity (1/electrical conductivity) at low filler loadings. The
pure polypropylene has a mean electrical resistivity of 1.5 x 1017 ohm-cm. The
percolation threshold occurs at 1.4 vol% for carbon black and 2.1 vol% for carbon
nanotubes.
At the highest filler concentration, the carbon black produced a mean
composite resistivity of 1 ohm-cm (15 wt%= 8.1 vol%), compared to 0.4 ohm-cm for the
carbon nanotube composite (15 wt% = 7.4 vol). The percolation threshold is likely low
for the carbon black composites due to the highly branched, high surface area carbon
black structure, and for the carbon nanotube composites due to the filler high aspect ratio
98
of 1000. The electrical resistivity results for carbon black in Ticona’s Vectra A950 Liquid
Crystal Polymer are also shown in Figure 6.1-1, which was previously reported by this
research group [5]. For the carbon black/Vectra composites the percolation threshold is
3.7 vol% and the lowest electrical resistivity is 2 ohm-cm (15 wt%= 12.1 vol%). Other
researchers have noted that carbon black/PP composites often have a lower percolation
threshold [6, 7].
Figure 6.1-2 shows that the percolation threshold for Thermocarb synthetic
graphite/PP composites occurs at 13 vol%. The reason why a higher filler amount is
needed for the percolation threshold for composites containing Thermocarb is due to the
different particle shape/structure and properties of synthetic graphite particles as
compared to carbon black and carbon nanotubes (see Tables 3.3-1, 3.3-2, and 3.3-3 in
Chapter 3). Thermocarb has a much smaller aspect ratio (1.7) compared to 1000 for
carbon nanotubes and the highly branched carbon black structure. Thermocarb also has a
much smaller surface area of 1.4 m2/g, compared to 1250 m2/g for carbon black and 250
m2/g for carbon nanotubes. The composites containing 80 wt% (61.6 vol%) Thermocarb
had a mean electrical resistivity of 0.09 ohm-cm. Figure 6.1-2 also shows for the
Thermocarb synthetic graphite/Vectra composites, the percolation threshold is 15 vol%
and the lowest electrical resistivity for the 80 wt% (71.4 vol%) composite is 0.08 ohm-cm
[5].
6.2: Electrical Resistivity Factorial Design Results
For this project the most efficient type of experiment that can be used to determine
what effect an individual filler will have on the electrical resistivity and the possible
99
interactions between the fillers is a factorial design. A factorial design can determine
what effect each filler has on the system by calculating a single value to quantify the
change in electrical resistivity relative to the increases in the weight percent of the filler
in a polymer composite. Once the effects are known they can be ranked to determine
what fillers and combinations of fillers produce the greatest change in electrical
resistivity [8].
For all three fillers the lowest loading was zero wt% but the high loading level
varied depending on the filler. The high loading for carbon black was 2.5% wt, for
synthetic graphite 65% wt, and for the FibrilTM carbon nanotubes 6 wt %. Table 6.2-1
shows the different filler loading for the factorial design. The loading levels were chosen
so that the composite would be conductive as well as have a low enough viscosity so that
it could be extruded and injection molded into samples for testing.
Table 6.2-1: Filler Loadings in Factorial Design Formulations
Formulations
No filler
2.5CB
65SG
6CNT
2.5CB*65SG
2.5CB*6CNT
65SG*6CNT
2.5CB*65SG*6CNT
Ketjenblack
wt%
0
2.5
0
0
2.5
2.5
0
2.5
Thermocarb
wt%
0
0
65
0
65
0
65
65
FIBRILTM
wt%
0
0
0
6
0
6
6
6
Table 6.2-2 shows the mean, standard deviation, and number of specimens tested
for the factorial design formulations (original and replicate). The complete results for the
electrical resistivity values for the combinations are in Appendix C. Using these results,
100
an analysis of the factorial design was conducted using the log (mean electrical
resistivity, ohm-cm) as the response for all of the injection molded samples (one
formulation 2.5 wt% carbon black, 65 wt% synthetic graphite, and 6 wt% carbon
nanotubes was also compression molded and these results will be discussed later). This
analysis was performed using the Minitab version 13 Statistical Software package. For
this analysis, the effects and P (sometimes designated as p) values for the electrical
resistivity results were calculated. Small p values indicate that a factor (filler in this case)
may have a significant effect on the composite electrical resistivity [8]. For all statistical
calculations, the 95% confidence level was used.
The effects and P values are given in Table 6.2-3, showing the values for all of the
filler combinations.
Further investigation of Table 6.2-3 yields some important
information regarding the effects that fillers have on electrical resistivity. For the
composites containing only single fillers, synthetic graphite, followed by carbon
nanotubes, and then carbon black, cause a statistically significant decrease (negative
effect term) in composite electrical resistivity (P< 0.05). Synthetic graphite causes the
largest decrease in electrical resistivity (largest effect term), followed closely by carbon
nanotubes. Synthetic graphite likely causes the largest decrease in electrical resistivity
since it was added at the highest filler amount (65wt%= 42.7 vol%). Carbon nanotubes
were added at 6 wt% (2.79 vol%) and these composites had almost as much of a
reduction in electrical resistivity likely due to the high aspect ratio (1000), high surface
area (250 m2/g), and conductive networks that carbon nanotubes are known to form [2].
101
The composites containing 2.5 wt% (1.27 vol%) carbon black likely had the least
reduction in electrical resistivity due to the small amount of carbon black used.
Table 6.2-2: Filler Loadings in Factorial Design Formulation and Electrical Resistivity
Results (IM= Injection Molded, CM=Compression Molded)
Formulations
Constituents
Electrical Resistivity (ohm-cm)
No filler (PP)
Original
Replicate
2.5CB
Original
Replicate
65SG
Original
Replicate
6CNT
Original
Replicate
2.5CB*65SG
Original
Replicate
PP
Wt%
100
Wt%
CB 2.5
PP
97.5
Wt%
SG 65
PP 35
Wt%
CNT 6.0
PP
94.0
Wt%
CB
2.5
SG 65
PP 32.5
2.5CB*6CNT
Wt%
Original
CB
2.5
Replicate
CNT 6
PP
91.5
65SG*6CNT
Wt%
Original
SG
65
Replicate
CNT 6
PP
29
2.5CB*65SG*6CNT
Wt%
Original
CB 2.5
Replicate
SG 65
CNT 6
PP 26.5
Vol%
100
Vol%
1.3
98.7
Vol%
42.7
57.3
Vol%
2.8
97.2
Vol%
2.1
43.6
54.3
Vol%
1.3
2.8
95.9
Vol%
45.2
4.7
50.1
Vol%
2.2
46.2
4.8
46.8
102
1.65 x 1017 ± 5.54 x 1016 n = 8
1.42 x 1017 ± 3.30 x 1016 n = 6
1.10 x 1016 ± 4.53 x 1015 n = 9
1.31 x 1016 ± 3.93 x 1015 n = 6
3.43 ± 0.68 n = 27
3.34 ± 0.73 n = 30
15.86 ± 1.65 n = 29
18.29 ± 1.31 n = 29
0.356 ± 0.026 n = 18
0.358 ± 0.031 n = 15
2.19 ± 0.18 n = 26
2.16 ± 0.12 n = 27
0.0559 ± 0.0098 n = 16
0.0558 ± 0.0090 n = 33
0.0261 ± 0.004 n = 21 IM
0.0268 ± 0.004 n = 19 IM
0.011 ± 0.0009 n = 34 CM
Table 6.2-3: Factorial Design Analysis for Log (Electrical Resistivity, ohm-cm)
Term
Constant
2.5CB
65SG
6CNT
2.5CB*65SG
2.5CB*6CNT
65SG*6CNT
2.5CB*65SG*6CN
Effect
-0. 825
-9.396
-8.652
0.174
0.216
7.196
0.110
P
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
All the combinations of different fillers had a statistically significant effect on
electrical resistivity (P<0.05). In every case, the effect term is positive, which means that
the composite electrical resistivity increases when these two or three different fillers are
used together. For example, when synthetic graphite and carbon nanotubes are combined
into a composite, the composite electrical resistivity is higher than what would be
expected from the additive effect of each single filler [8]. This statistically significant
effect and positive effect term for different carbon fillers has been noted previously in
nylon 6,6 based resins [9] and in Vectra based resins [5].
Table 6.2-2 shows that the electrical resistivity for the composite containing 2.5
wt% carbon black, 65 wt% synthetic graphite, and 6 wt% carbon nanotubes (designated
2.5CB/65SG/6CNT) in polypropylene (PP) is 0.0264 ohm-cm, which corresponds to an
electrical conductivity (1/electrical resistivity) of 38 S/cm. The US Department of Energy
electrical conductivity target for bipolar plates is 100 S/cm [10]. Other researchers have
shown that composites produced by compression molding (CM), as opposed to injection
molding (IM), have produced materials with higher electrical conductivity [11]. Hence,
this three filler combination (2.5CB/65SG/6CNT in PP) was compression molded at 6.9
103
MPa at 230oC and tested. The mean electrical resistivity of these composites is 0.011
ohm-cm (standard deviation = 0.0009 ohm-cm for 34 samples tested), which gives an
electrical conductivity result of 91 S/cm. This is near the target value. The higher
electrical conductivity for compression molding, as compared to injection molding, is
likely due to the fillers being more oriented in the ‘in-plane’ direction of measurement
that is induced in the manufacturing process. Hence, further optimization of this
CB/SG/CNT/PP material system will be the subject of future work and could achieve the
electrical conductivity goal for bipolar plates.
6.3: Through-Plane Electrical Resistivity (US Fuel Cell Council)
Results
The through plane electrical resistivity was tested on all of the multi-filler
composites and on the single filler composites with lower electrical resistivity. These
samples were tested using the test method that follows the US Fuel Cell Council’s
guidelines to simulate actual conditions in a fuel cell. This test method is discussed in
more detail in Chapter 4.4-3. Table 6.3-1 shows the through plane electrical resistivity
results from the polymer composites with single fillers. The 80% wt synthetic graphite
composite has the smallest electrical resistivity, 0.4276 ohm-cm, of the single filler
polymer composites. The through plane electrical resistivity results are all higher than
the in-plane electrical resistivity results, shown in Table 6.1-2 and 6.1-3. This difference
is likely due to the filler being more oriented in the in-plane direction opposed to the
through plane direction.
104
Table 6.3-1: Single Filler Through-Plane Electrical Resistivity (US Fuel Cell Council)
Results
Formulation
Filler wt %
Filler vol%
Electrical Resistivity (ohm-cm)
65SG
65.0
42.70
28.194 ± 5.56 n = 6
65SG Replicate
65.0
42.70
23.300 ± 2.390 n =5
70SG
70.0
48.40
13.440 ± 0.951 n = 5
75SG
75.0
54.66
5.377 ± 0.629 n = 8
80SG
80.0
61.64
0.428 ± 0.024 n = 5
7.5CNT
7.5
3.52
252.47 ± 32.65 n = 8
7.5CNT Replicate
7.5
3.52
271.46 ± 48.18 n = 8
10CNT
10.0
4.76
47.27 ± 7.47 n = 6
15CNT
15.0
7.36
8.588 ± 1.039 n = 5
Table 6.3-2 shows the through plane electrical resistivity (US Fuel Cell Council)
results for the polymer composites with multiple fillers. Table 6.3-3 shows the through
plane electrical resistivity results for samples sent to Dana Corporation for testing [12].
The results that were collected at Michigan Technological University and at Dana
Corporation are similar, proving that our test results are accurate. These through plane
electrical resistivity results are again higher than the in plane electrical resistivity results
in Table 6.2-2, once again likely due to the filler orientation discussed in the paragraph
above.
Appendix D shows the complete results from the through plane electrical
resistivity test.
105
Table 6.3-2: Multiple Filler Through-Plane Electrical Resistivity (US Fuel Cell Council)
Results
Formulations
No filler (PP)
Original
Replicate
2.5CB*65SG
Original
Replicate
Constituents
Electrical Resistivity (ohm-cm)
Wt%
100
Vol%
100
Wt%
2.5
65
32.5
2.5CB*6CNT
Wt%
Original
CB
2.5
Replicate
CNT 6
PP
91.5
65SG*6CNT
Wt%
Original
SG
65
Replicate
CNT 6
PP
29
2.5CB*65SG*6CNT
Wt%
Original
CB 2.5
Replicate
SG 65
CNT 6
PP 26.5
Vol%
2.1
43.6
54.3
Vol%
1.3
2.8
95.9
Vol%
45.2
4.7
50.1
Vol%
2.2
46.2
4.8
46.8
PP
CB
SG
PP
1.65 x 1017 ± 5.54 x 1016 n = 8
1.42 x 1017 ± 3.30 x 1016 n = 6
0.708 ± 0.06 n = 5
0.559 ± 0.04 n = 6
58.09 ± 18.17 n = 6
46.85 ± 12.75 n = 6
0.0797 ± 0.0183 n = 3
0.0653 ± 0.0035 n = 3
0.0459 ± 0.0066 n = 5 IM
0.0395 ± 0.0097 n = 7 IM
0.0524 ± 0.0075 n = 3 CM
Table 6.3-3: Through-Plane Electrical Resistivity (US Fuel Cell Council) Results from
Dana Corporation [12]
Formulations
Constituents
Electrical Resistivity (ohm-cm)
65SG*6CNT
Original
Wt%
SG
65
CNT 6
PP
29
2.5CB*65SG*6CNT
Wt%
Original
CB 2.5
SG 65
CNT 6
PP 26.5
Vol%
45.2
4.7
50.1
Vol%
2.2
46.2
4.8
46.8
106
0.0747 ± 0.0029 n = 3
0.0444 ± 0.0026 n = 3 IM
0.0467 ± 0.0052 n = 3 CM
6.4: Conclusions
The object of this research was to determine the effects and interactions of each
filler on composite electrical resistivity. For the composites containing single fillers, the
percolation threshold was 1.4 vol% for carbon black/PP composites, 2.1 vol% for carbon
nanotube/PP composites, and 13 vol% for synthetic graphite/PP composites. Hence,
small amounts of carbon black and carbon nanotubes need to be added to dramatically
reduce composite electrical resistivity. The lowest electrical resistivity for the composites
containing single fillers is 1 ohm-cm for 15 wt% carbon black/PP, 0.4 ohm-cm for 15
wt% carbon nanotubes/PP, and 0.09 ohm-cm for 80 wt% synthetic graphite/PP.
Several observations were made from the electrical resistivity factorial design
analysis. First, for the composites containing only single fillers, synthetic graphite,
followed closely by carbon nanotubes, and then carbon black, cause a statistically
significant decrease (negative effect term) in composite electrical resistivity. Thus,
adding these single fillers to polypropylene causes a statistically significant decrease in
composite electrical resistivity. Second, all composites containing combinations of
different fillers, had a statistically significant effect on electrical resistivity. This effect
term is positive, which means that the composite electrical resistivity is higher than what
would be expected from the additive effect of each single filler.
After looking at the results from the through plane electrical resistivity (US Fuel
Cell Council) test method, several observations were made. First, the results from the
through plane electrical resistivity (US Fuel Cell Council) test method are higher than the
results from in plane electrical resistivity test method. This is likely because the filler are
107
oriented more in the in-plane direction compared to the through plane direction. Second
the results from Dana Corporation are similar to the results collected at Michigan
Technological University, showing that the results are accurate.
6.5: References
1. J. A. King, F. A. Morrison, J. M. Keith, M. G. Miller, R. C. Smith, M. Cruz, A.
M. Neuhalfen, and R. L. Barton, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 101,
2680-2688 (2006).
2. Hyperion Catalysis International Fibril Product Literature, Hyperion Catalysis
International, 38 Smith Place, Cambridge, MA, 2008.
3. M. Narkis, G. Lidor, A. Vaxman, and L. Zuri, Journal of Electrostatics, 47, 201214 (1999).
4. M. Weber and M. R. Kamal, Polymer Composites, 18, 711-725 (1997).
5. J. A. King, R. L. Barton, R. A. Hauser, and J. M. Keith, Polymer Composites, 29,
421-428 (2008).
6. J.-B. Donnet, R. C. Bansal, and M.-J. Wang, Carbon Black, 2nd edition, Marcel
Dekker, Inc, New York, 1993.
7. Akzo Nobel Electrically Conductive Ketjenblack Product Literature, 300. S.
Riverside Plaza, Chicago, IL, 1999.
8. Montgomery, D. C., Design and Analysis of Experiments 5th Edition, John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 2001.
108
9. J. A. Heiser, J. A. King, J. P. Konell, I. Miskioglu, and L. L. Sutter, Advances in
Polymer Technology, 23, 135-146 (2004).
10. K. Robberg and V. Trapp, Handbook of Fuel Cells- Fundamentals, Technology,
and Applications Vol. 3: Fuel Cell Technology and Applications, W. Vielstick,
H. A. Gasteiger and A. Lamm (Eds.), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., West Sussex,
England, 2003, 308-314.
11. R. Leaversuch, “Fuel Cells Jolt Plastics Innovation”, Plastics Technology Online,
November 2001, www.plasticstechnology.com/articles/200111fa2.html., accessed
December 23, 2003.
12. E. Steigerwalt. “Re: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn” Email to Julie King. 18
July 2008.
109
Chapter 7: Thermal Conductivity Results and Design of
Experiment Analysis
7.1: Through Plane Thermal Conductivity Results
Through-plane thermal conductivity tests were performed on all the formulations
created. The through-plane conductivity was tested using the procedure described in
Chapter 4.2-4. Each formulation had different concentrations of Ketjenblack EC-600 JD
carbon black, Thermocarb TC-300 synthetic graphite, and Hyperion FIBRILSTM
Nanotubes in polypropylene semi crystalline homopolymer resin H7012-35RN.
For
polypropylene formulations it is noted that increasing the filler amount will also increase
the composite’s melt viscosity. Because of the large increases in composite melt viscosity
for carbon black and FibrilTM carbon nanotubes, these fillers are only used at low loading
levels [1, 2]. The maximum single filler amounts that that could be extruded and injection
molded were 15 wt% for carbon black, 80 wt% for synthetic graphite, and 15 wt% for
FibrilTM carbon nanotubes.
Tables 7.1-1, 7.1-2, and 7.1-3 show the through plane thermal conductivities
results using the guarded heat flow meter method for the polymer composites with a
single filler, as well as the weight and volume percent of the filler in each formulation.
Figures 7.1-1 and 7.1-2 show the mean values for the single filler polymer composites as
a function of the filler volume fraction as measured using the guarded heat flow method.
These figures correspond with the values shown in Tables 7.1-1, 7.1-2, and 7.1-3. The
standard deviation for all the single filler formulations was typically less than 5% of the
110
mean.
Appendix E shows the complete results for the through-plane thermal
conductivities obtained from the guarded heat flow meter.
Table 7.1-1: Through Plane Thermal Conductivity at 55º C for Carbon Black in
Polypropylene
Formulation
Filler wt %
Filler vol%
Through-Plane Thermal
Conductivity (W/m. K)
Polypropylene H7012-35RN
0.0
0.0
0.206 ± 0.002 n = 4
Polypropylene Replicate
0.0
0.0
0.203 ± 0.002 n = 4
EA2.5P
2.5
1.27
0.221± 0.004 n = 5
EA2.5PR
2.5
1.27
0.225 ± 0.002 n = 5
EA4P
4.0
2.04
0.240 ± 0.006 n = 4
EA5P
5.0
2.56
0.251 ± 0.003 n = 5
EA6P
6.0
3.09
0.261 ± 0.004 n = 4
EA7.5P
7.5
3.90
0.276 ± 0.007 n = 4
EA10P
10.0
5.26
0.298± 0.002 n = 5
EA15P
15.0
8.11
0.337 ± 0.001 n = 5
111
Table 7.1-2: Through Plane Thermal Conductivity at 55º C for FibrilTM carbon nanotubes
in Polypropylene
Formulation
Filler wt %
Filler vol%
Through-Plane Thermal
Conductivity (W/m. K)
Polypropylene H7012-35RN
0.0
0.0
0.206 ± 0.002 n = 4
Polypropylene Replicate
0.0
0.0
0.203 ± 0.002 n = 4
EQ1.5P
1.5
0.68
0.215 ± 0.001 n = 5
EQ2.5P
2.5
1.14
0.229 ± 0.002 n = 5
EQ4P
4.0
1.84
0.258 ± 0.002 n = 4
EQ5P
5.0
2.31
0.281 ± 0.002 n = 4
EQ6P
6.0
2.79
0.302 ± 0.003 n = 4
EQ6PR
6.0
2.79
0.297 ± 0.001 n = 4
EQ7.5P
7.5
3.52
0.328 ± 0.002 n = 4
EQ10P
10.0
4.76
0.371 ± 0.004 n = 4
EQ15P
15.0
7.36
0.467 ± 0.004 n = 4
112
Table 7.1-3: Through Plane Thermal Conductivity at 55º C for Synthetic Graphite in
Polypropylene
Formulation
Filler wt %
Filler vol%
Through-Plane Thermal
Conductivity (W/m. K)
Polypropylene H7012-35RN
0.0
0.0
0.206 ± 0.002 n = 4
Polypropylene Replicate
0.0
0.0
0.203 ± 0.002 n = 4
EB10P
10.0
4.27
0.234 ± 0.005 n = 5
EB15P
15.0
6.62
0.266 ± 0.003 n = 4
EB20P
20.0
9.13
0.292 ± 0.005 n = 4
EB25P
25.0
11.81
0.352 ± 0.004 n =4
EB30P
30.0
14.69
0.438 ± 0.001 n = 4
EB35P
35.0
17.79
0.503 ± 0.005 n = 4
EB40P
40.0
21.13
0.628 ± 0.008 n = 4
EB45P
45.0
24.74
0.741 ± 0.018 n = 4
EB50P
50.0
28.66
0.896 ± 0.006 n = 4
EB55P
55.0
32.93
1.150 ± 0.005 n = 4
EB60P
60.0
37.60
1.494 ± 0.022 n = 4
EB65P
65.0
42.70
1.971 ± 0.088 n = 4
EB65PR
65.0
42.70
1.987 ± 0.060 n = 4
EB70P
70.0
48.40
2.712 ± 0.049 n = 4
EB75P
75.0
54.66
3.641 ± 0.036 n = 5
EB80P
80.0
61.64
6.042 ± 0.098 n = 5
113
Figure 7.1-1: Single Filler Through-Plane Thermal Conductivity Results for FibrilTM
carbon nanotubes and Carbon Black in Polypropylene and Carbon Black in Vectra
114
Figure 7.1-2: Single Filler Through-Plane Thermal Conductivity Results for Synthetic
Graphite in Polypropylene and in Vectra
Figure 7.1-1 shows that the carbon black does increase the through-plane thermal
conductivity. It causes the thermal conductivity to increase from 0.20 W/m•K for pure
polypropylene to 0.34 W/m•K for polypropylene composites containing 15 wt % (8.1 vol
%) carbon black. These values are very similar to those previously reported for this same
carbon black in Vectra A950RX Liquid Crystal Polymer. Figure 7.1-1 shows the results
for composites containing Vectra and carbon black [3]. Figure 7.1-1 also shows the
through-plane thermal conductivity for composites containing FibrilTM carbon nanotubes
and polypropylene. These composites have a higher thermal conductivity compared to
115
the carbon black at the same volume percent. Composites with 15 wt % (7.4 vol %)
FibrilTM carbon nanotubes had a thermal conductivity of 0.47 W/m K.
Figure 7.1-2 shows the through plane thermal conductivity results for synthetic
graphite in polypropylene and previous results for the same filler in Vectra [3]. Synthetic
graphite composites had the highest through plane thermal conductivity values with the
composite containing 80 wt % synthetic graphite in polypropylene having the highest
value at 6.04 W/m K. Figure 7.1-2 also illustrates the similarity between the through
plane thermal conductivity values found for synthetic graphite in polypropylene and
Vectra.
One possible reason why synthetic graphite had the highest through-plane
thermal conductivity compared to carbon black and the FibrilTM carbon nanotubes, is
because of the high thermal conductivity of synthetic graphite at 600 W/m K. Another
reason for the difference is because not all the filler loadings are the same. When
comparing all the fillers at 15 wt %, the data shows that the highest through plane thermal
conductivity is FibrilTM carbon nanotubes composite. This implies that the FibrilTM
carbon nanotubes form more thermal conductive networks at lower filler levels compared
to carbon black and synthetic graphite. However, more fibrils can not be added because
of the increase in viscosity at higher filler loadings, making the resin difficult to process.
7.2: Through Plane Thermal Conductivity Factorial Design Results
For this project the most efficient type of experiment that can be used to
determine what effect an individual filler will have on the thermal conductivity and the
possible interactions between the fillers is a factorial design. A factorial design can
determine what effect each filler has on the system by calculating a single value to
116
quantify the change in thermal conductivity relative to the increases in the weight percent
of the filler in a polymer composite. Once the effects are known they can be ranked to
determine what fillers and combinations of fillers produce the greatest change in thermal
conductivity [4].
For all three fillers the lowest loading was zero wt% but the high loading level
varied depending on the filler. The high loading for carbon black was 2.5% wt, for
synthetic graphite 65% wt, and for the FibrilTM carbon nanotubes 6 wt %. Table 7.2-1
shows the different filler loading for the factorial design. The loading levels were chosen
so that the composite would be conductive as well as have a low enough viscosity so that
it could be extruded and injection molded into samples for testing.
Table 7.2-1: Filler Loadings in Factorial Design Formulations
Formulations
No filler
2.5CB
65SG
6CNT
2.5CB*65SG
2.5CB*6CNT
65SG*6CNT
2.5CB*65SG*6CNT
Ketjenblack
wt%
0
2.5
0
0
2.5
2.5
0
2.5
Thermocarb
wt%
0
0
65
0
65
0
65
65
FIBRILTM
wt%
0
0
0
6
0
6
6
6
Table 7.2-2 shows the through-plane thermal conductivity results determined using the
guarded heat flow meter (mean, standard deviation, and number of samples tested) for the
factorial design formulations (original and replicate).
The complete results for the
through-plane thermal conductivities values for the combinations obtained from the
guarded heat flow meter are in Appendix E. The highest thermal conductivity from the
117
combinations was for the formulation containing three fillers with a result of 5.8 W/m•K
when injection molded (IM) and 6.57 W/m•K when compression molded (CM). The
compression molded results are slightly higher than the injection molded sample results.
An analysis of the factorial design was conducted using the mean thermal conductivity
results from Table 7.2-2 in units of W/m•K as the response. Minitab version 13, the
statistical software package was used for the factorial design analysis. The two values of
interest and that were calculated in this analysis was the effect and P values for the
thermal conductivity results. Small P values show that the filler may have a significant
effect on the composites thermal conductivity. A confidence level of 95% was used for
all of the statistical calculations.
Table 7.2-3 the effect and the P-values results for all the filler combinations from
the factorial analysis. From the results it can be seen that all of the single fillers cause a
statistically significant increase, having a positive effect term and having a P-value of less
than 0.05, in the through plane thermal conductivity of the single filler polymer
composites. Synthetic graphite had the largest effect term which means it causes the
largest increase in a composites thermal conductivity.
The carbon nanotubes had the
second largest effect on thermal conductivity followed by carbon black having the lowest
effect of the three fillers.
118
Table 7.2-2: Filler Loadings in Factorial Design Formulations and Through-Plane
Thermal Conductivity Results
Formulations
No filler (PP)
Original
Replicate
2.5CB
Original
Replicate
65SG
Original
Replicate
6CNT
Original
Replicate
2.5CB*65SG
Original
Replicate
Constituents
PP
Wt%
100
Through-Plane Thermal
Conductivity (W/m.K)
Vol%
100
Wt% Vol%
CB
2.5
1.3
PP
97.5
98.7
Wt% Vol%
SG 65
42.7
PP 35
57.3
Wt% Vol%
CNT 6.0
2.8
PP 94.0
97.2
Wt% Vol%
CB
2.5
2.1
SG 65
43.6
PP 32.5
54.3
2.5CB*6CNT
Wt% Vol%
Original
CB
2.5
1.3
Replicate
CNT 6
2.8
PP
91.5
95.9
65SG*6CNT
Wt% Vol%
Original
SG
65
45.2
Replicate
CNT 6
4.7
PP
29
50.1
2.5CB*65SG*6CNT
Wt% Vol%
Original
CB 2.5
2.2
Replicate
SG 65
46.2
CNT 6
4.8
PP 26.5
46.8
119
0.206 ± 0.002 n = 4
0.203 ± 0.002 n = 4
0.221± 0.004 n = 5
0.225 ± 0.002 n = 5
1.971 ± 0.088 n = 4
1.987 ± 0.060 n = 4
0.302 ± 0.003 n = 4
0.297 ± 0.001 n = 4
2.777 ± 0.080 n = 4
2.737 ± 0.084 n = 4
0.333± 0.007 n = 4
0.339 ± 0.003 n = 5
4.752 ± 0.042 n = 4
4.720 ± 0.074 n = 4
5.836 ± 0.095 n = 5 IM
5.818 ± 0.073 n = 4 IM
6.570 ± 0.060 n = 4 CM
Table 7.2-3: Factorial Design Analysis for Through-Plane Thermal Conductivity
Term
Constant
CB
SG
CNT
CB*SG
CB*CNT
SG*CNT
CB*SG*CNT
Effect
0.481
3.559
1.509
0.454
0.083
1.405
0.074
P
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
The results show that all the combinations cause a statistically significant increase
in a composites thermal conductivity, having a P value less than 0.05. The composite
that had the greatest increase in thermal conductivity was the synthetic graphite and
carbon nanotubes combination. The synthetic graphite and carbon black combination had
the next largest effect followed by the combination with the carbon black and carbon
nanotubes. The three filler combination had the lowest effect term of the four different
combinations. All of the effects for the multiple filler combinations are positive meaning
that the thermal conductivity will increase if different fillers are used together in a
composite. This means that when two fillers are combined in a composite, that the new
composites thermal conductivity will be higher than the combined individual thermal
conductivities of the two fillers.
For example, when synthetic graphite and carbon
nanotubes are combined into a composite, the composite thermal conductivity is higher
than what would be expected from the additive effect of each single filler [4]. This result
could be because thermally conductive pathways are formed that ‘link’ the carbon fillers
120
and results in a larger composite thermal conductivity. These thermally conductive
pathways can be seen in the photos Chapter 5 or in Appendix L. Prior work done with
the same carbon black and synthetic graphite in Vectra also showed statically significant
effect and positive effect terms for combinations of these fillers [3].
7.3: In-Plane Thermal Conductivity Results
Table 7.3-1 and Table 7.3-2 show the in-plane thermal conductivity results (mean,
standard deviation, and number of samples tested) for the most thermally conductive
composites. The in-plane thermal conductivity was tested using the Hot Disk Thermal
Constants Analyser, the procedure is described in Chapter 4.2-5. The Hot Disk Thermal
Constants Analyser also measures through-plane thermal conductivity but because these
results were the same as the results found using the guarded heat flow method they are
not reported in the tables. Figure 7.3-1 shows the in-plane thermal conductivity for
composites containing different amounts of synthetic graphite in polypropylene.
Appendix G shows the thermal conductivity results from the Hot Disk Thermal Constants
Analyser for all the composites analyzed.
The in-plane thermal conductivity for the injection molded composite with 80
wt% (61.6 vol %) synthetic graphite had a result of 28.0 W/m K, which is higher than the
minimum desired bipolar plate thermal conductivity of 20.0 W/m K. The 80% wt (61.64
vol %) results are very similar to results found in previous work using the same synthetic
graphite in Vectra. The in-plane values for synthetic graphite in Vectra at 59.3 vol% was
21.1 W/m•K and at 65.2 vol% was 28.5 W/m•K [3].
The composite with all three fillers
had in-plane thermal conductivity of 17.6 W/m•K when injection molded.
121
Since
compression molded samples were made for the three filler composite for electrical
resistivity tests, these samples were also tested for thermal conductivities. The in-plane
thermal conductivity was 24.0 W/m K, which is above the minimum desired bipolar plate
thermal conductivity of 20.0 W/m K. For the one composite the compression molded
samples had a slightly higher thermal conductivity compared to the injection molded
samples.
Table 7.3-1: In-Plane Thermal Conductivity Results for Synthetic Graphite in
Polypropylene Composites
Formulation
Filler wt %
Filler vol%
In-Plane Thermal Conductivity
(W/m. K)
30SG
30.0
14.69
1.387 ± 0.042 n = 6
35SG
35.0
17.79
1.971 ± 0.060 n = 5
40SG
40.0
21.13
2.573 ± 0.107 n = 6
45SG
45.0
24.74
3.390 ± 0.141 n = 5
50SG
50.0
28.66
4.373 ± 0.028 n = 5
55SG
55.0
32.93
5.306 ± 0.126 n = 5
60SG
60.0
37.60
7.235 ± 0.113 n = 5
65SG
65.0
42.70
9.349 ± 0.040 n = 5
70SG
70.0
48.40
12.316 ± 0.210 n = 5
75SG
75.0
54.66
18.142 ± 0.402 n = 5
80SG
80.0
61.64
28.004 ± 1.518 n = 5
122
Figure 7.3-1: In-Plane Thermal Conductivity Results for Synthetic Graphite in
Polypropylene Composites
Table 7.3-2: In-Plane Thermal Conductivity Results for Composites Containing
Combinations of Different Fillers in Polypropylene
Formulations
2.5CB*65SG
Constituents
Wt%
CB
2.5
SG 65
PP 32.5
65SG*6CNT
Wt%
SG
65
CNT 6
PP 29
2.5CB*65SG*6CNT
Wt%
CB 2.5
SG 65
CNT 6
PP 26.5
In-Plane Thermal Conductivity
(W/m.K)
Vol%
2.1
43.6
54.3
Vol%
45.2
4.7
50.1
Vol%
2.2
46.2
4.8
46.8
123
8.754 ± 0.265 n = 5
15.632 ± 0.269 n = 5
17.570 ± 0.394 n = 5 IM
23.960 ± 0.534 n = 6 CM
7.4: Conclusions
One objective of this research was to determine the effects and interactions of the
three fillers on composite thermal conductivity. For the single filler composites it was
shown that synthetic graphite had caused the greatest increase in thermal conductivity.
All of the combinations of the three different fillers did cause a statistically significant
increase in the through plane thermal conductivity in the composite.
The filler
combination of synthetic graphite and carbon nanotubes increased the through plane
thermal conductivity the most compared to the other filler combinations. The next largest
increase in through-plane thermal conductivity was the carbon black and synthetic
graphite combination, followed by the carbon black and carbon nanotube combination,
and last the three filler combination.
When multiple fillers are combined into a
composite, the composite thermal conductivity is higher than what would be expected
from the additive effect of each single filler. One possible reason for this result is that
thermally conductive pathways may be formed to link the different carbon fillers,
resulting in a larger composite thermal conductivity.
The in-plane thermal conductivity results for two composites were above the
minimum desired bipolar plate thermal conductivity of 20.0 W/m•K.
The 80 wt%
synthetic graphite in polypropylene composite got a result of 28.0 W/m•K and the three
filler combination composite that was compression molded got a result of 24.0 W/m• K.
Because of these results, future research may be performed to determine if these
composites are variable in creating bipolar plates for fuel cells.
124
7.5: References
1. J. A. King, F. A. Morrison, J. M. Keith, M. G. Miller, R. C. Smith, M. Cruz, A.
M. Neuhalfen, and R. L. Barton, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 101,
2680-2688 (2006).
2. Hyperion Catalysis International Fibril Product Literature, Hyperion Catalysis
International, 38 Smith Place, Cambridge, MA, 2008.
3. R. A. Hauser, J. A. King, R. M. Pagel, and J. M. Keith, Journal of Applied
Polymer Science, 109, 2145-2155 (2008).
4. Montgomery, D. C., Design and Analysis of Experiments 5th Edition, John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 2001.
125
Chapter 8: Summary, Conclusions, and Future Work
8.1: Summary
8.1.1: Effects of Single Conductive Fillers on Electrical Resistivity
Electrical resistivity tests were performed on all the formulations each containing
different concentrations of Ketjenblack EC-600 JD carbon black, Thermocarb TC-300
synthetic graphite, and Hyperion FIBRILSTM Nanotubes in polypropylene semi
crystalline homopolymer resin H7012-35RN.
The maximum single filler amounts that
that could be extruded and injection molded were 15 wt% for carbon black, 80 wt% for
synthetic graphite, and 15 wt% for FibrilTM carbon nanotubes. The electrical resistivity
was measured using one of three test methods; the in-plane electrical resistivity test
method, the through-plane electrical resistivity test method, or the through-plane
electrical resistivity (US Fuel Cell Council) test method; depending on the resistivity of
the sample.
In summary for the single fillers, the percolation threshold occurs at 1.4 vol% for
carbon black, 2.1 vol% for carbon nanotubes, and 13 vol% for synthetic graphite. At the
highest filler concentration, the carbon black produced a mean composite resistivity of 1
ohm-cm (15 wt%= 8.1 vol %), the carbon nanotubes produced a mean composite
resistivity of 0.4 ohm-cm (15 wt% = 7.4 vol), and the synthetic graphite produced a mean
composite resistivity of 0.09 ohm-cm (80 wt% =61.6 vol %). The electrical resistivity
results for carbon black and synthetic graphite in Ticona’s Vectra A950 Liquid Crystal
Polymer done in a previous study are very similar to the results obtained in this study [1].
For the Vectra composites the percolation threshold is 3.7 vol% for carbon black and 15
126
vol % for synthetic graphite. The lowest electrical resistivity for carbon black in Vectra
is 2 ohm-cm (15 wt%= 12.1 vol %) and for the synthetic graphite in Vectra the lowest
electrical resistivity for the 80 wt% (71.4 vol %) composite is 0.08 ohm-cm [1]. The full
results are discussed in Chapter 6.
8.1.2: Effects of Multiple Conductive Fillers on Electrical Resistivity
A factorial design was used to determine which filler had the greatest effect and to
determine the interactions between the fillers, in the injection molded samples. For all
three fillers the lowest loading was zero wt% but the high loading level varied depending
on the filler. The high loading for carbon black was 2.5% wt, for synthetic graphite 65%
wt, and for the FibrilTM carbon nanotubes 6 wt %. Table 8.1 -1 shows the different filler
loading for the factorial design. The loading levels were chosen so that the composite
would be conductive as well as have a low enough viscosity so that it could be extruded
and injection molded into samples for testing.
Table 8.1-1: Filler Loadings in Factorial Design Formulations
Formulations
No filler
2.5CB
65SG
6CNT
2.5CB*65SG
2.5CB*6CNT
65SG*6CNT
2.5CB*65SG*6CNT
Ketjenblack
wt%
0
2.5
0
0
2.5
2.5
0
2.5
Thermocarb
wt%
0
0
65
0
65
0
65
65
127
FIBRILTM
wt%
0
0
0
6
0
6
6
6
For the composites containing only single fillers, synthetic graphite, followed by
carbon nanotubes, and then carbon black, cause a statistically significant decrease
(negative effect term) in composite electrical resistivity. Synthetic graphite causes the
largest decrease in electrical resistivity, followed closely by the carbon nanotubes. All the
combinations of different fillers had a statistically significant effect on electrical
resistivity. In every case, the effect is positive, which means that the composite electrical
resistivity increases when these two or three different fillers are used together. This
statistically significant effect and positive effect term for different carbon fillers has been
noted previously in studies [1-2]. The full results are discussed in Chapter 6.
The US Department of Energy electrical conductivity target for bipolar plates is
100 S/cm [3]. The composite with a value nearest to the US Department of Energy target
is the 2.5 wt% carbon black, 65 wt% synthetic graphite, and 6 wt% carbon nanotubes
formulation compression molded with a mean electrical resistivity of 0.011 ohm-cm,
which gives an electrical conductivity result of 91 S/cm.
The through-plane electrical resistivity (US Fuel Cell Council) test method was
conducted on all of the multi-filler composites. This test simulates actual conditions in a
fuel cell. Two observations were made. First the results from the through plane
electrical resistivity (US Fuel Cell Council) test method are higher than the results from
in plane electrical resistivity test method, likely due to filler are orientation. Second, the
results collected at Michigan Technological University are similar to the results collected
by Dana Corporation The full results and discussion are in Chapter 6.
128
8.1.3: Effects of Single Conductive Fillers on Thermal Conductivity
Thermal conductivity tests were performed on all the formulations each
containing different concentrations of Ketjenblack EC-600 JD carbon black, Thermocarb
TC-300 synthetic graphite, and Hyperion FIBRILSTM nanotubes in polypropylene semi
crystalline homopolymer resin H7012-35RN.
The through plane thermal conductivity
for all of the formulations was measured using the guarded heat flow meter method at
55ºC. The in-plane thermal conductivity was also measured using the transient plane
source method at 23oC for composites that contained more than 30 weight percent
synthetic graphite and all the multiple filler combinations (discussed in the next section).
For the single filler composites it was shown that synthetic graphite caused the
greatest increase in through plane thermal conductivity. Composites containing 80 wt%
(61.6 vol%) synthetic graphite increased the through plane thermal conductivity from
0.20 W/m•K to 6.04 W/m•K.
Composites containing 15 wt% (7.4 vol %) carbon
nanotubes increases the through plane thermal conductivity to 0.47 W/ m•K and
composites containing 15 wt% (8.1 vol %) carbon black increases the through plane
thermal conductivity to 0.34 W/m•K. These values are very similar to those previously
reported for this same carbon black and synthetic graphite in Vectra A950RX Liquid
Crystal Polymer [4].
For the in-plane thermal conductivity, the composite containing 80 wt% (61.6 vol
%) synthetic graphite had a result of 28.0 W/ m•K. The 80 wt% synthetic graphite
composite had in plane thermal conductivity results higher than the desired bipolar plate
129
thermal conductivity target of at least 20.0 W/ m•K. All results are discussed in Chapter
7.
8.1.4: Effects of Multiple Conductive Fillers on Through-Plane Thermal
Conductivity
A factorial design was used to determine which filler had the greatest effect and to
determine the interactions between the fillers, in the injection molded samples. For all
three fillers the lowest loading was zero wt% but the high loading level varied depending
on the filler. The high loading for carbon black was 2.5% wt, for synthetic graphite 65%
wt, and for the FibrilTM carbon nanotubes 6 wt %. Table 8.1 -1 shows the different filler
loading for the factorial design.
For the composites containing only single fillers, synthetic graphite, followed by
carbon nanotubes and then carbon black, cause a statistically significant increase in
composite through-plane thermal conductivity. Synthetic graphite causes the largest
increase in composite thermal conductivity. All of the combinations of the different
fillers did cause a statistically significant increase in the through plane thermal
conductivity in the composite. When multiple fillers are combined into a composite, the
composite thermal conductivity is higher than what would be expected from the additive
effect of each single filler.
The composite containing all three fillers; the 2.5 wt% carbon black, 65 wt%
synthetic graphite, and 6 wt% carbon nanotubes in polypropylene; had an in-plane
thermal conductivity of 17.6 W/m•K when injection molded and a result of 24.0 W/ m•K
when compression molded. The three filler compression molded composite had in plane
130
thermal conductivity results higher than the desired bipolar plate thermal conductivity
target of at least 20.0 W/ m•K. Complete results are discussed in Chapter 7.
8.1.5: Miscellaneous Results
Comparisons between the theoretical and the actual density for all of the formulations
and the solvent digestion results showed that the gravimetric feeders used to feed the
extruder are accurately putting in the amount of filler specified for each compound.
The mean length and the mean aspect ratio results for the synthetic graphite showed that
the length and aspect ratio stayed approximately the same even after being extruded and
injection molded into samples. The length of the graphite went from 0.067 to on average
and the aspect ratio went from 1.757 to on average 1.66. The orientation results on the
synthetic graphite showed that when looking at the in-plane surface, the fillers are
primarily aligned in the conductivity measurement direction and when looking at the
through plane surface, the fillers are primarily aligned perpendicular to the conductivity
measurement direction.
The FESEM pictures show that the carbon nanotubes are
forming networks, and these networks could help to increase the conductivity of the
material. The complete results are discussed in Chapter 5.
8.2: Conclusions
Below is a listing of some of the significant conclusions and contributions from this
work.
131
•
The carbon black had the lowest percolation point of the three fillers. Synthetic
graphite at 80 wt% has the lowest electrical resistivity of the single fillers
composites. The compression molded composite containing all three fillers had
the electrical conductivity of 91 S/cm which is nearest to the target of 100 S/cm
for fuel cell bipolar plates.
•
All the combinations of different fillers had a statistically significant effect on
electrical resistivity. In each case, the effect term is positive meaning that the
composite electrical resistivity increases when two or three different fillers are
used together.
•
Thermocarb TC-300 synthetic graphite had the greatest impact on composite
through-plane thermal conductivity, when compared to the carbon black and
carbon nanotubes.
•
The in-plane thermal conductivity for the 80 wt% synthetic graphite injection
molded composite (28.0 W/ m•K) and the three filler compression molded
composite (24.0 W/ m•K) had results greater than 20 W/m·K, which is the target
for fuel cell bipolar plates.
•
All the combinations of fillers increased the thermal conductivity of the
composite. When multiple fillers were combined into a composite, the composite
thermal conductivity is higher than what would be expected from the additive
effect of each single filler.
132
•
The thermal and electrical conductivity values found in this study using the
polypropylene were very similar to values that had been previously reported for
the same carbon black and synthetic graphite used in Vectra A950RX Liquid
Crystal Polymer.
8.3: Recommendations for Future Work
This study looked at the effect of three fillers had on electrical and thermal
conductivity, as well as the interaction between these fillers in composites containing
combinations of fillers. The electrical conductivity target for bipolar plates in fuel cells is
100 S/cm or higher and the thermal conductivity target is 20 W/m·K or higher. In our
research, the three filler composite had an electrical conductivity near the target and a
thermal conductivity above the target. Further optimization could be achieved by having
a higher loading of the carbon nanotubes and synthetic graphite in the polypropylene
since they caused largest decrease in electrical resistivity and the largest increase in
thermal conductivity. This optimization could be the subject of future work and from this
work polymer composites could be created that meet the electrical conductivity goal for
bipolar plates and produce thermal conductivity values that are higher than those reported
in this study.
The process ability of the polymer composite is also a concern when making
bipolar plates. If the material cannot be extruded or injection molded easily then the cost
for producing bipolar plates will be higher. Increases in the carbon black and the carbon
nanotubes in the composites create higher viscosities [5-6], which leads to processing
issues. Looking at all these factors, the optimization of the three filler polypropylene
133
composite not only needs to meet the thermal and electrical conductivity targets but it
also needs to be easy to work with when injection molding, compression molding, and
extruding. Future work regarding the processablitiy of the three filler polypropylene
composite should also be considered.
Some possible formulations that could be
examined are:
•
70 wt% Synthetic Graphite, 6 wt% Carbon Nanotubes, 2 wt% Carbon Black
•
70 wt% Synthetic Graphite, 7 wt% Carbon Nanotubes, 2 wt% Carbon Black
•
65 wt% Synthetic Graphite, 7 wt% Carbon Nanotubes, 2 wt% Carbon Black
•
65 wt% Synthetic Graphite, 8 wt% Carbon Nanotubes, 2 wt% Carbon Black
Another factor that could be considered is the extruder conditions and screw
design. When extruding the RPM and the temperature can make a difference on how
well the polymer and carbon fillers mix together. If the screw is not turning fast enough
or if the polymer is not melted, then the fillers could not be distributed evenly throughout
the polymer matrix.
This can lead to lower thermal and electrical conductivity results
because the conductive networks will not be uniform. The screw design could also be
changed to increase mixing. This could be done by changing the type of elements
(kneading disks, kneading blocks, or screw elements) or by changing the position of the
elements. Future work could be done to optimize the RPM, the temperature, and the
screw design so that mixing with distribute the carbon fillers evenly throughout the
polymer matrix and form uniform conductive networks that could achieve the thermal
and electrical conductivity goals for bipolar plates.
134
8.4: References
1. J. A. King, R. L. Barton, R. A. Hauser, and J. M. Keith, Polymer Composites, 29,
421-428 (2008).
2. J. A. Heiser, J. A. King, J. P. Konell, I. Miskioglu, and L. L. Sutter, Advances in
Polymer Technology, 23, 135-146 (2004).
3. K. Robberg and V. Trapp, Handbook of Fuel Cells- Fundamentals, Technology,
and Applications Vol. 3: Fuel Cell Technology and Applications, W. Vielstick,
H. A. Gasteiger and A. Lamm (Eds.), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., West Sussex,
England, 2003, 308-314.
4. R. A. Hauser, J. A. King, R. M. Pagel, and J. M. Keith, Journal of Applied
Polymer Science, 109, 2145-2155 (2008).
5. J. A. King, F. A. Morrison, J. M. Keith, M. G. Miller, R. C. Smith, M. Cruz, A.
M. Neuhalfen, and R. L. Barton, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 101,
2680-2688 (2006).
6. Hyperion Catalysis International Fibril Product Literature, Hyperion Catalysis
International,
38
Smith
Place,
135
Cambridge,
MA,
2008
Appendix A: Screw Design and Extrusion Run Conditions
For Screw Type Elements
GFA-d-ee-ff
G = co-rotating
F = conveying
A = Free-Meshing
d = number of threads
ee = pitch (length in millimeters for one complete rotation)
ff = length of screw elements in millimeters
Kneading disks
KS1-d-hh-i
KS1 = Kneading disc
d = number of threads
h = length of kneading disc in millimeters
i = A for initial disc and E for end disc
Zones
0D to 4D is Zone 1 (water cooled, not heated)
4D to 8D is Zone 2 and Heating Zone 1
8D to 12D is Zone 3 and Heating Zone 2
12D to 16D is Zone 4 and Heating Zone 3
16D to 20D is Zone 5 and Heating Zone 4
20D to 24D is Zone 6 and Heating Zone 5
24D to 28D is Zone 7 and Heating Zone 6
28D to 32D is Zone 8 and Heating Zone 7
32D to 36D is Zone 9 and Heating Zone 8
36D to 40D is Zone 10 and Heating Zone 9
Nozzle is Heating
Kneading disks
KBj-d-kk-ll
KB = kneading block
j = number of kneading segments
d = number of threads
k = length of kneading block in millimeters
l = twisting angle of the individual kneading segments
Figure A.1: 5-14-2005 Extruder Screw Design
136
Table A.1: Purge Conditions Using Dow H7012-35RN Polypropylene Homopolymer Only
Material Number
Extrusion Date
Extruder RPM
Motor Amperage, %
Melt Temperature, °C
Melt Pressure, psig
#3 Feeder Setting, lb/hr
Material in Feeder #3
#4 Feeder Setting, lb/hr
Material in Feeder #4
Vacuum Port
Zone 5 Side Stuffer Setting, rpm
Feeder at Zone 5
Zone 7 Side Stuffer setting, RPM
Feeder at Zone 7
Feed Section Temperature
Zone 1 Temperature, °C
Zone 2 Temperature, °C
Zone 3 Temperature, °C
Zone 4 Temperature, °C
Zone 5 Temperature, °C
Zone 6 Temperature, °C
Zone 7 Temperature, °C
Zone 8 Temperature, °C
Zone 9 Temperature, °C
Zone 10 Temperature, °C
Die Type and Gap
Pelletizer Setting
Output Rate, lbs/hr
purge
5-20-08
250
30
260
0
20
Dow H7012-35RN
-----1 atm
300
-300
-H2O cooled
150
180
195
210
220
220
220
215
215
210
3x3 mm
H20 bath
20
Feeder 3= As Received Dow H7012-35RN Polypropylene
0.5 inch open helix with end stub, 0.75 inch nozzle side discharge
IBM laptop, feeder3_VectraA950RX0.5in open0.75in side discharge jak.par
137
Table A.2: Ketjenblack EC-600 JD Carbon Black Formulations
Material Number
EA2.5P
EA2.5PR
EA4P
EA5P
EA6P
EA7.5P
EA10P
EA15P
Extrusion Date
5/20/2008
5/20/2008
5/20/2008
5/20/2008
5/21/2008
5/21/2008
5/21/2008
5/21/2008
Extruder RPM
250
250
275
275
275
275
275
275
Motor Amperage, %
24
23
24
24
25
26
28
34
Melt Temperature, °C
242
240
240
241
241
240
242
242
160 to 340
Melt Pressure, psig
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 to 30
#3 Feeder Setting, lb/hr
9.75
9.75
9.6
9.5
9.4
9.25
9
8.5
Material in Feeder #3
H7012-35RN
H7012-35RN
H7012-35RN
H7012-35RN
H7012-35RN
H7012-35RN
H7012-35RN
H7012-35RN
#4 Feeder Setting, lb/hr
0.25
0.25
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.75
1
1.5
Material in Feeder #4
EC600JD
EC600JD
EC600JD
EC600JD
EC600JD
EC600JD
EC600JD
EC600JD
Vacuum Port
1 atm
1 atm
1 atm
1 atm
1 atm
1 atm
1 atm
1 atm
Zone 5 Side Stuffer Setting, rpm
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
Feeder at Zone 5
EC600JD
EC600JD
EC600JD
EC600JD
EC600JD
EC600JD
EC600JD
EC600JD
Zone 7 Side Stuffer setting, RPM
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
Feeder at Zone 7
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Feed Section Temperature
H2O Cooled
H2O Cooled
H2O Cooled
H2O Cooled
H2O Cooled
H2O Cooled
H2O Cooled
H2O Cooled
Zone 1 Temperature, °C
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
Zone 2 Temperature, °C
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
Zone 3 Temperature, °C
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
Zone 4 Temperature, °C
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
Zone 5 Temperature, °C
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
Zone 6 Temperature, °C
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
Zone 7 Temperature, °C
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
Zone 8 Temperature, °C
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
Zone 9 Temperature, °C
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
Zone 10 Temperature, °C
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
Die Type and Gap
3 x 3 mm
3 x 3 mm
3 x 3 mm
3 x 3 mm
3 x 3 mm
3 x 3 mm
3 x 3 mm
3 x 3 mm
Pelletizer Setting
H2O bath
H2O Bath
H2O Bath
H2O Bath
H2O Bath
H2O Bath
H2O Bath
H2O Bath
Output Rate, lbs/hr
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Feeder 4= As Received Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, ran on manual, 40:1 gear ratio, 0.5 inch helix with 0.75 inch vinyl nozzle and support
Toshiba laptop, feeder4_0.5in open 0.75 in nozzle ketjen ec 600 jd jak.par
138
Table A.3a: Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic Graphite Formulations
Material Number
EB10P
EB15P
EB20P
EB25P
EB30P
EB35P
EB40P
EB45P
Extrusion Date
5/13/2008
5/13/2008
5/13/2008
5/13/2008
5/13/2008
5/13/2008
5/13/2008
5/13/2008
Extruder RPM
250
250
250
300
300
300
300
300
Motor Amperage, %
51
36
32
40
35
35
32
32
Melt Temperature, °C
240
241
241
245
245
245
244
244
Melt Pressure, psig
0
0
0
60-70
70-80
90
50
100-110
#2 Feeder Setting, lb/hr
4.3
4.3
5
10
10
12
12
15
Material in Feeder #2
TC300
TC300
TC300
TC300
TC300
TC300
TC300
TC300
#3 Feeder Setting, lb/hr
38.7
24.4
20
30
23.3
22.3
18
18.3
Material in Feeder #3
H7012-35RN H7012-35RN H7012-35RN H7012-35RN H7012-35RN H7012-35RN H7012-35RN H7012-35RN
Vacuum Port
1 atm
1 atm
1 atm
1 atm
1 atm
1 atm
1 atm
1 atm
Zone 5 Side Stuffer Setting, rpm
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
Feeder at Zone 5
TC300
TC300
TC300
TC300
TC300
TC300
TC300
TC300
Zone 7 Side Stuffer setting, RPM
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
Feeder at Zone 7
--------Feed Section Temperature
H2O Cooled H2O Cooled H2O Cooled H2O Cooled H2O Cooled H2O Cooled H2O Cooled H2O Cooled
Zone 1 Temperature, °C
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
Zone 2 Temperature, °C
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
Zone 3 Temperature, °C
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
Zone 4 Temperature, °C
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
Zone 5 Temperature, °C
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
Zone 6 Temperature, °C
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
Zone 7 Temperature, °C
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
Zone 8 Temperature, °C
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
Zone 9 Temperature, °C
220
220
220
225
225
225
225
225
Zone 10 Temperature, °C
220
220
220
225
225
225
225
225
Die Type and Gap
3x3 mm
3x3 mm
3x3 mm
3x3 mm
3x3 mm
3x3 mm
3x3 mm
3x3 mm
Pelletizer Setting
H2O bath
H2O bath
H2O bath
H2O bath
H2O bath
H2O bath
H2O bath
H2O bath
Output Rate, lbs/hr
43
28.7
25
40
33.3
34.3
30
33.3
Feeder 2, As Received Thermocarb TC-300, 0.75inch open helix with 0.75 inch ID 1.38inch OD polyliner with cross hairs NEC laptop, feeder2_0.75inopen0.75inliner_thermocarb.par
139
Table A.3b: Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic Graphite Formulations
Material Number
EB50P
EB55P
EB60P
EB65P
EB65PR
EB70P
EB75P
EB80P
Extrusion Date
5/13/2008
5/19/2008
5/19/2008
5/19/2008
5/19/2008
5/19/2008
5/19/2008
5/19/2008
Extruder RPM
325
325
350
400
400
400
425
450
Motor Amperage, %
29
30
28
22
22
18
20
18
Melt Temperature, °C
240
241
243
245
240
244
240-250
240
Melt Pressure, psig
120-130
0
0
0
10
0-100
0-230
0-600
#2 Feeder Setting, lb/hr
15
16
18
16
16
11
14
16
Material in Feeder #2
TC300
TC300
TC300
TC300
TC300
TC300
TC300
TC300
#3 Feeder Setting, lb/hr
15
13.1
12
8.6
8.6
4.7
4.7
4
Material in Feeder #3
H7012-35RN
H7012-35RN
H7012-35RN
H7012-35RN
H7012-35RN
H7012-35RN
H7012-35RN
H7012-35RN
Vacuum Port
1 atm
1 atm
1 atm
1 atm
1 atm
1 atm
1 atm
1 atm
Zone 5 Side Stuffer Setting, rpm
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
Feeder at Zone 5
TC300
TC300
TC300
TC300
TC300
TC300
TC300
TC300
Zone 7 Side Stuffer setting, RPM
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
Feeder at Zone 7
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Feed Section Temperature
H2O Cooled
H2O Cooled
H2O Cooled
H2O Cooled
H2O Cooled
H2O Cooled
H2O Cooled
H2O Cooled
Zone 1 Temperature, °C
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
Zone 2 Temperature, °C
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
Zone 3 Temperature, °C
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
Zone 4 Temperature, °C
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
Zone 5 Temperature, °C
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
Zone 6 Temperature, °C
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
Zone 7 Temperature, °C
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
Zone 8 Temperature, °C
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
Zone 9 Temperature, °C
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
Zone 10 Temperature, °C
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
Die Type and Gap
Pelletizer Setting
3x3 mm
H2O bath
3x3 mm
H2O bath
3x3 mm
H2O bath
3x3 mm
H2O bath
3x3 mm
H2O bath
3x3 mm
H2O bath
3x3 mm
H2O bath
3x3 mm
H2O bath
Output Rate, lbs/hr
30
29.1
30
24.6
24.6
15.7
18.7
Feeder 2, As Received Thermocarb TC-300, 0.75inch open helix with 0.75 inch ID 1.38inch OD polyliner with cross hairs NEC laptop, feeder2_0.75inopen0.75inliner_thermocarb.pa
140
20
Table A.4a: Hyperion Fibril Carbon Nanotube Formulations
Material Number
Extrusion Date
Extruder RPM
Motor Amperage, %
Melt Temperature, °C
Melt Pressure, psig
#3 Feeder Setting, lb/hr
Material in Feeder #3
Vacuum Port
Zone 5 Side Stuffer Setting, rpm
Feeder at Zone 5
Zone 7 Side Stuffer setting, RPM
Feeder at Zone 7
Feed Section Temperature
Zone 1 Temperature, °C
Zone 2 Temperature, °C
Zone 3 Temperature, °C
Zone 4 Temperature, °C
Zone 5 Temperature, °C
Zone 6 Temperature, °C
Zone 7 Temperature, °C
Zone 8 Temperature, °C
Zone 9 Temperature, °C
Zone 10 Temperature, °C
Die Type and Gap
Pelletizer Setting
Output Rate, lbs/hr
EQ1.5P
5/27/2008
250
43
243
0
30
H7012-35RN &
MB3020-01
1 atm
300
none
300
none
H2O Cooled
150
180
195
210
220
220
220
215
215
200
3x3 mm
H2O bath
30
EQ2.5P
5/12/2008
250
34
241
0
20
H7012-35RN &
MB3020-01
1 atm
300
none
300
none
H2O Cooled
150
180
195
210
220
220
220
215
215
200
3x3 mm
H2O bath
20
EQ2.5PR
(Went to Dana)
5/27/2008
250
45
240
0
30
H7012-35RN &
MB3020-01
1 atm
300
none
300
none
H2O Cooled
150
180
195
210
220
220
220
215
215
200
3x3 mm
H2O bath
30
EQ4P
EQ5P
EQ6P
EQ6PR
5/12/2008
5/12/2008
5/12/2008
5/21/2008
250
250
250
250
34
35
35
36
255
256
263
240
50-90
50-80
80-120
70-80
20
20
20
20
H7012-35RN & H7012-35RN & H7012-35RN & H7012-35RN &
MB3020-01
MB3020-01
MB3020-01
MB3020-01
1 atm
1 atm
1 atm
1 atm
300
300
300
300
none
none
none
none
300
300
300
300
none
none
none
none
H2O Cooled
H2O Cooled
H2O Cooled
H2O Cooled
150
150
150
150
180
180
180
180
195
195
195
195
210
210
210
210
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
215
215
215
220
215
215
215
215
215
215
215
215
3x3 mm
3x3 mm
3x3 mm
3x3 mm
H2O bath
H2O bath
H2O bath
H2O bath
20
20
20
20
Mixed Hyperion MB3020-01 (20% wt fibrils in 80% wt polypropylene with MFI = 30g/10 min) in V Cone blender for 4 min (3lbs/batch) with Dow H7012-35RN prior to adding to Feeder 3 hopper.
141
Table A.4b: Hyperion Fibril Carbon Nanotube Formulations
Material Number
Extrusion Date
Extruder RPM
Motor Amperage, %
Melt Temperature, °C
Melt Pressure, psig
#3 Feeder Setting, lb/hr
Material in Feeder #3
Vacuum Port
Zone 5 Side Stuffer Setting, rpm
Feeder at Zone 5
Zone 7 Side Stuffer setting, RPM
Feeder at Zone 7
Feed Section Temperature
Zone 1 Temperature, °C
Zone 2 Temperature, °C
Zone 3 Temperature, °C
Zone 4 Temperature, °C
Zone 5 Temperature, °C
Zone 6 Temperature, °C
Zone 7 Temperature, °C
Zone 8 Temperature, °C
Zone 9 Temperature, °C
Zone 10 Temperature, °C
Die Type and Gap
Pelletizer Setting
Output Rate, lbs/hr
EQ7.5P
5/12/2008
250
37
255
90-150
20
H7012-35RN &
MB3020-01
1 atm
300
none
300
none
H2O Cooled
150
180
195
210
220
220
220
215
215
215
3x3 mm
H2O bath
20
EQ7.5PR
5/13/2008
250
38
238
0
20
H7012-35RN &
MB3020-01
1 atm
300
none
300
none
H2O Cooled
150
180
195
210
220
220
220
220
220
220
3x3 mm
H2O bath
20
EQ10P
5/12/2008
250
40
262
100-220
20
H7012-35RN &
MB3020-01
1 atm
300
none
300
none
H2O Cooled
150
180
195
210
220
220
220
215
215
220
3x3 mm
H2O bath
20
142
EQ15P
5/13/2008
250
49
230
0
20
H7012-35RN &
MB3020-01
1 atm
300
none
300
none
H2O Cooled
150
180
195
210
220
220
220
220
220
220
3x3 mm
H2O bath
20
Table A.5: Ketjenblack EC-600 JD Carbon Black/Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic Graphite Combinations
Material Number
Extrusion Date
EA2.5B65P
5/22/2008
EA2.5B65PR
5/22/2008
250
Extruder RPM
250
Motor Amperage, %
18
19
Melt Temperature, °C
263
262
200 to 400
Melt Pressure, psig
0 to 200
#2 Feeder Setting, lb/hr
6.5
6.5
Material in Feeder #2
TC300
TC300
#3 Feeder Setting, lb/hr
3.25
3.25
Material in Feeder #3
#4 Feeder Setting, lb/hr
H7012-35RN
0.25
H7012-35RN
0.25
Material in Feeder #4
Vacuum Port
EC600JD
1 atm
EC600JD
1 atm
Zone 5 Side Stuffer Setting, rpm
Feeder at Zone 5
Zone 7 Side Stuffer setting, RPM
Feeder at Zone 7
300
TC300
300
EC600JD
300
TC300
300
EC600JD
Feed Section Temperature
H2O Cooled
H2O Cooled
Zone 1 Temperature, °C
150
150
Zone 2 Temperature, °C
180
180
Zone 3 Temperature, °C
195
195
Zone 4 Temperature, °C
210
210
Zone 5 Temperature, °C
220
220
Zone 6 Temperature, °C
220
220
Zone 7 Temperature, °C
220
220
Zone 8 Temperature, °C
220
220
Zone 9 Temperature, °C
Zone 10 Temperature, °C
Die Type and Gap
225
225
3x3 mm
225
225
3x3 mm
Pelletizer Setting
H2O bath
H2O bath
Output Rate, lbs/hr
10
10
143
Table A.6: Ketjenblack EC-600 JD Carbon Black/Hyperion Fibril Carbon Nanotube Combinations
Material Number
EA2.5Q6P
EA2.5Q6PR
Extrusion Date
5/21/2008
5/22/2008
250
Extruder RPM
250
Motor Amperage, %
27
28
Melt Temperature, °C
245
240
Melt Pressure, psig
80-120
0
#3 Feeder Setting, lb/hr
Material in Feeder #3
9.75
H7012-35RN &
MB3020-01
9.75
H7012-35RN &
MB3020-01
#4 Feeder Setting, lb/hr
Material in Feeder #4
0.25
EC600JD
0.25
EC600JD
Vacuum Port
1 atm
1 atm
Zone 5 Side Stuffer Setting, rpm
300
300
Feeder at Zone 5
EC600JD
EC600JD
Zone 7 Side Stuffer setting, RPM
300
300
Feeder at Zone 7
--
--
Feed Section Temperature
H2O Cooled
H2O Cooled
Zone 1 Temperature, °C
150
150
Zone 2 Temperature, °C
180
180
Zone 3 Temperature, °C
195
195
Zone 4 Temperature, °C
210
210
Zone 5 Temperature, °C
220
220
Zone 6 Temperature, °C
220
220
Zone 7 Temperature, °C
220
220
Zone 8 Temperature, °C
220
220
Zone 9 Temperature, °C
220
220
Zone 10 Temperature, °C
220
220
Die Type and Gap
3x3 mm
3x3 mm
Pelletizer Setting
H2O bath
H2O bath
Output Rate, lbs/hr
10
10
144
Table A.7: Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic Graphite/ Hyperion Fibril Carbon Nanotube Combinations
Material Number
EB65Q6P
EB65Q6PR
Extrusion Date
5/27/2008
5/27/2008
250
Extruder RPM
250
Motor Amperage, %
29
29
Melt Temperature, °C
260
261
60 to 800
Melt Pressure, psig
0 to 60
#2 Feeder Setting, lb/hr
6.5
6.5
Material in Feeder #2
TC300
TC300
#3 Feeder Setting, lb/hr
Material in Feeder #3
3.5
H7012-35RN &
MB3020-01
3.5
H7012-35RN &
MB3020-01
1 atm
Vacuum Port
1 atm
Zone 5 Side Stuffer Setting, rpm
300
300
Feeder at Zone 5
TC300
TC300
Zone 7 Side Stuffer setting, RPM
Feeder at Zone 7
300
--
300
--
Feed Section Temperature
H2O Cooled
H2O Cooled
Zone 1 Temperature, °C
150
150
Zone 2 Temperature, °C
180
180
Zone 3 Temperature, °C
195
195
Zone 4 Temperature, °C
210
210
Zone 5 Temperature, °C
220
220
Zone 6 Temperature, °C
220
220
Zone 7 Temperature, °C
220
220
Zone 8 Temperature, °C
220
220
Zone 9 Temperature, °C
225
225
Zone 10 Temperature, °C
225
225
Die Type and Gap
3x3 mm
3x3 mm
Pelletizer Setting
H2O bath
H2O bath
Output Rate, lbs/hr
10
10
145
Table A.8: Ketjenblack EC-600 JD Carbon Black/Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic Graphite/ Hyperion Fibril Carbon Nanotube Combinations
Material Number
Extrusion Date
EA2.5B65Q6P
5/22/2008
EA2.5B65Q6PR
5/22/2008
Extruder RPM
250
250
Motor Amperage, %
33
33
Melt Temperature, °C
Melt Pressure, psig
274
0 to 900
270
10 to 1100
#2 Feeder Setting, lb/hr
6.5
6.5
Material in Feeder #2
TC300
TC300
#3 Feeder Setting, lb/hr
Material in Feeder #3
3.25
H7012-35RN & MB3020-01
3.25
H7012-35RN & MB3020-01
#4 Feeder Setting, lb/hr
Material in Feeder #4
Vacuum Port
0.25
EC600JD
1 atm
0.25
EC600JD
1 atm
Zone 5 Side Stuffer Setting, rpm
300
300
TC300
Feeder at Zone 5
TC300
Zone 7 Side Stuffer setting, RPM
300
300
Feeder at Zone 7
Feed Section Temperature
EC600JD
H2O Cooled
EC600JD
H2O Cooled
Zone 1 Temperature, °C
150
150
Zone 2 Temperature, °C
180
180
Zone 3 Temperature, °C
195
195
Zone 4 Temperature, °C
210
210
Zone 5 Temperature, °C
220
220
Zone 6 Temperature, °C
220
220
Zone 7 Temperature, °C
220
220
Zone 8 Temperature, °C
220
220
Zone 9 Temperature, °C
215
215
Zone 10 Temperature, °C
Die Type and Gap
215
3x3 mm
215
3x3 mm
Pelletizer Setting
H2O bath
H2O bath
Output Rate, lbs/hr
10
10
146
Appendix B: Injection Mold Run Conditions
Table B.1: Ketjenblack EC-600 JD Carbon Black Formulations
Notation
Tmold
Injection Molding Conditions
Mold Temperature (F)
EA2.5P
6-3-08
100
EA2.5PR
6-3-08
100
EA4P
6-3-08
100
EA5P
6-3-08
100
EA6P
6-3-08
100
EA7.5P
6-3-08
100
EA10P
6-3-08
100
EA15P
6-3-08
100
E1
Zone 1 Temperature (F) (nozzle)
540
540
540
540
540
580
590
600
E2
E3
Zone 2 Temperature (F)
Zone 3 Temperature (F)
530
480
530
480
530
480
530
480
530
480
570
560
580
570
590
580
E4
Zone 4 Temperature (F) (feed zone)
300
300
300
300
300
325
325
325
P1
P2
Injection pressure (psi)
Hold Pressure (psi)
4522
4522
4522
4522
4522
4522
4522
4522
4522
4522
4522
4522
3391.5
3391.5
9044
9044
P7
Back Pressure (psi)
22.61
22.61
22.61
22.61
22.61
22.61
22.61
22.61
S1
Shot size (mm)
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
S2
Pullback before (mm)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S3
Pullback after (mm)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S6
Width of mold (mm)
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
S8
Screw Position to Switch from P1 to P2 (mm)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
T1
Injection Time (s)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
T2
Cool Time (s)
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
8
T3
Interval Time (s)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
T6
Retraction Time (s)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T7
Nozzle Retraction Delay Time (s)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T8
Injection Delay Time (s)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T9
V1
Charge Delay Time (s)
Injection Velocity (mm3/s)
0
100907.7
0
100907.7
0
100907.7
0
100907.7
0
100907.7
0
100907.7
0
100907.7
0
100907.7
128
V6
Screw Rotation (rpm)
128
128
128
128
128
128
128
V9
Retraction Velocity (rpm)
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
V10
Advance Velocity (rpm)
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
V11
Retraction Velocity (rpm)
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
CF
Clamp Force (US tons)
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
147
Table B.2a: Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic Graphite Formulations
Notation
Injection Molding Conditions
EP
5-29-08
EB10P
5-29-08
EB15P
5-29-08
EB20P
5-29-08
EB25P
5-29-08
EB30P
5-29-08
EB35P
5-29-08
EB40P
5-29-08
EB45P
5-29-08
Tmold
Mold Temperature (F)
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
E1
Zone 1 Temperature (F) (nozzle)
430
440
440
440
440
440
440
440
440
E2
Zone 2 Temperature (F)
400
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
E3
Zone 3 Temperature (F)
350
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
E4
Zone 4 Temperature (F) (feed zone)
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
P1
Injection pressure (psi)
9044
9044
9044
9044
9044
9044
9044
9044
9044
P2
Hold Pressure (psi)
9044
9044
9044
9044
9044
9044
9044
9044
9044
P7
Back Pressure (psi)
22.61
22.61
22.61
22.61
22.61
22.61
22.61
22.61
22.61
S1
Shot size (mm)
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
S2
Pullback before (mm)
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S3
Pullback after (mm)
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S6
Width of mold (mm)
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
S8
Screw Position to Switch from P1 to P2 (mm)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
T1
Injection Time (s)
15
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
T2
Cool Time (s)
15
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
T3
Interval Time (s)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
T6
Retraction Time (s)
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T7
Nozzle Retraction Delay Time (s)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T8
Injection Delay Time (s)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T9
Charge Delay Time (s)
V1
Injection Velocity (mm /s)
40770.8
V6
Screw Rotation (rpm)
128
128
V9
Retraction Velocity (rpm)
128
288
V10
Advance Velocity (rpm)
288
V11
Retraction Velocity (rpm)
288
CF
Clamp Force (US tons)
80
3
2
0
0
0
0
100907.7
100907.7
100907.7
100907.7
128
128
128
128
128
128
128
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
100907.7 100907.7
148
100907.7 100907.7
Table B.2b: Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic Graphite Formulations
Notation
Injection Molding Conditions
EB45P
5-29-08
EB50P
5-29-08
EB55P
5-29-08
EB60P
5-29-08
EB65P
5-29-08
EB65PR
5-29-08
EB70P
5-29-08
EB75P
5-29-08
EB80P
5-29-08
Tmold
Mold Temperature (F)
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
200
E1
Zone 1 Temperature (F) (nozzle)
440
440
440
440
440
440
440
460
590
E2
Zone 2 Temperature (F)
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
440
570
E3
Zone 3 Temperature (F)
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
420
520
E4
Zone 4 Temperature (F) (feed zone)
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
P1
P2
Injection pressure (psi)
Hold Pressure (psi)
9044
9044
9044
9044
9044
9044
9044
9044
12435.5
12435.5
12435.5
12435.5
14696.5
14696.5
21479.5
21479.5
20349
20349
P7
Back Pressure (psi)
22.61
22.61
22.61
22.61
22.61
22.61
22.61
22.61
22.61
S1
Shot size (mm)
40
40
40
40
42
42
44
44
44
S2
Pullback before (mm)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S3
S6
Pullback after (mm)
Width of mold (mm)
0
196
0
196
0
196
0
196
0
196
0
196
0
196
0
196
0
196
S8
Screw Position to Switch from P1 to P2 (mm)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
T1
Injection Time (s)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
T2
Cool Time (s)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
T3
Interval Time (s)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
T6
Retraction Time (s)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T7
Nozzle Retraction Delay Time (s)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T8
Injection Delay Time (s)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T9
Charge Delay Time (s)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
V1
Injection Velocity (mm /s)
100907.7
100907.7
100907.7
100907.7
100907.7
100907.7
V6
Screw Rotation (rpm)
128
128
128
128
128
128
100907.7 100907.7 100907.7
128
128
128
V9
Retraction Velocity (rpm)
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
V10
Advance Velocity (rpm)
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
V11
Retraction Velocity (rpm)
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
CF
Clamp Force (US tons)
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
149
Table B.3a: Hyperion Fibril Carbon Nanotube Formulations
Notation
Injection Molding Conditions
EQ1.5P
6-4-08
EQ2.5P
6-4-08
EQ4P
6-4-08
EQ5P
6-4-08
EQ6P
6-4-08
EQ6PR
6-4-08
EQ7.5P
6-4-08
Tmold
Mold Temperature (F)
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
E1
Zone 1 Temperature (F) (nozzle)
460
470
490
500
500
500
510
E2
Zone 2 Temperature (F)
440
450
470
480
480
480
490
E3
Zone 3 Temperature (F)
420
430
450
450
450
450
470
E4
Zone 4 Temperature (F) (feed zone)
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
P1
P2
P7
Injection pressure (psi)
Hold Pressure (psi)
Back Pressure (psi)
4522
4522
22.61
4522
4522
22.61
4522
4522
22.61
4522
4522
22.61
4522
4522
22.61
4522
4522
22.61
4522
4522
22.61
S1
Shot size (mm)
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
S2
Pullback before (mm)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S3
Pullback after (mm)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S6
Width of mold (mm)
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
S8
Screw Position to Switch from P1 to P2 (mm)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
T1
Injection Time (s)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
T2
T3
Cool Time (s)
Interval Time (s)
8
2
8
2
8
2
8
2
8
2
8
2
8
2
T6
Retraction Time (s)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T7
Nozzle Retraction Delay Time (s)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T8
Injection Delay Time (s)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T9
Charge Delay Time (s)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
V1
Injection Velocity (mm3/s)
100907.7
100907.7
100907.7
100907.7
100907.7
100907.7
100907.7
V6
Screw Rotation (rpm)
128
128
128
128
128
128
128
V9
Retraction Velocity (rpm)
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
V10
Advance Velocity (rpm)
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
V11
Retraction Velocity (rpm)
288
288
288
288
288
288
288
CF
Clamp Force (US tons)
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
150
Table B.3b: Hyperion Fibril Carbon Nanotube Formulations
Notation
Tmold
Injection Molding Conditions
Mold Temperature (F)
EQ7.5PR
6-4-08
100
EQ10P
6-4-08
100
EQ15P
6-4-08
100
EQ20P
6-4-08
100
E1
Zone 1 Temperature (F) (nozzle)
510
520
530
560
E2
Zone 2 Temperature (F)
490
500
510
540
E3
Zone 3 Temperature (F)
470
480
490
520
E4
Zone 4 Temperature (F) (feed zone)
300
300
300
300
P1
Injection pressure (psi)
4522
4522
7913.5
11305
P2
Hold Pressure (psi)
4522
4522
7913.5
11305
P7
Back Pressure (psi)
22.61
22.61
22.61
22.61
S1
Shot size (mm)
40
40
40
42
S2
Pullback before (mm)
0
0
0
0
S3
Pullback after (mm)
0
0
0
0
S6
S8
Width of mold (mm)
Screw Position to Switch from P1 to P2 (mm)
196
15
196
15
196
15
196
15
T1
Injection Time (s)
10
10
10
10
T2
Cool Time (s)
8
8
8
8
T3
Interval Time (s)
2
2
2
2
T6
T7
Retraction Time (s)
Nozzle Retraction Delay Time (s)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T8
Injection Delay Time (s)
0
0
0
0
T9
V1
Charge Delay Time (s)
Injection Velocity (mm3/s)
0
100907.7
0
100907.7
0
100907.7
0
100907.7
V6
Screw Rotation (rpm)
128
128
128
128
V9
Retraction Velocity (rpm)
288
288
288
288
V10
Advance Velocity (rpm)
288
288
288
288
V11
Retraction Velocity (rpm)
288
288
288
288
CF
Clamp Force (US tons)
80
80
80
80
151
Table B.4: Ketjenblack EC-600 JD Carbon Black/Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic Graphite Combinations
Notation
Tmold
Injection Molding Conditions
Mold Temperature (F)
EA2.5B65P 6-4-08
250
EA2.5B65PR 6-4-08
250
E1
Zone 1 Temperature (F) (nozzle)
640
640
E2
Zone 2 Temperature (F)
620
620
E3
Zone 3 Temperature (F)
590
590
E4
Zone 4 Temperature (F) (feed zone)
300
300
P1
Injection pressure (psi)
11305
11305
P2
Hold Pressure (psi)
11305
11305
P7
Back Pressure (psi)
22.61
22.61
S1
Shot size (mm)
20
20
S2
Pullback before (mm)
0
0
S3
Pullback after (mm)
0
0
S6
Width of mold (mm)
196
196
S8
Screw Position to Switch from P1 to P2 (mm)
15
15
T1
T2
Injection Time (s)
Cool Time (s)
10
10
10
10
T3
Interval Time (s)
2
2
T6
Retraction Time (s)
0
0
T7
Nozzle Retraction Delay Time (s)
0
0
T8
Injection Delay Time (s)
0
0
T9
Charge Delay Time (s)
0
0
100907.73
100907.73
V1
3
Injection Velocity (in /s)
V6
Screw Rotation (rpm)
128
128
V9
Retraction Velocity (rpm)
288
288
V10
Advance Velocity (rpm)
288
288
V11
Retraction Velocity (rpm)
288
288
CF
Clamp Force (US tons)
80
80
152
Table B.5: Ketjenblack EC-600 JD Carbon Black/Hyperion Fibril Carbon Nanotube Combinations
Notation
Injection Molding Conditions
EA2.5Q6P 6-5-08
EA2.5Q6PR 6-5-08
Tmold
Mold Temperature (F)
100
250
E1
Zone 1 Temperature (F) (nozzle)
570
570
E2
Zone 2 Temperature (F)
560
560
E3
Zone 3 Temperature (F)
520
520
E4
Zone 4 Temperature (F) (feed zone)
300
300
P1
Injection pressure (psi)
5652.5
5652.5
P2
P7
Hold Pressure (psi)
Back Pressure (psi)
5652.5
22.61
5652.5
22.61
S1
Shot size (mm)
40
40
S2
Pullback before (mm)
0
0
S3
Pullback after (mm)
0
0
S6
Width of mold (mm)
196
196
S8
Screw Position to Switch from P1 to P2 (mm)
15
15
T1
Injection Time (s)
10
10
T2
Cool Time (s)
20
20
T3
Interval Time (s)
2
2
T6
Retraction Time (s)
0
0
T7
Nozzle Retraction Delay Time (s)
0
0
T8
Injection Delay Time (s)
0
0
T9
Charge Delay Time (s)
0
0
V1
Injection Velocity (in3/s)
100907.73
100907.73
V6
Screw Rotation (rpm)
128
128
V9
Retraction Velocity (rpm)
288
288
V10
Advance Velocity (rpm)
288
288
V11
Retraction Velocity (rpm)
288
288
CF
Clamp Force (US tons)
80
80
153
Table B.6: Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic Graphite/ Hyperion Fibril Carbon Nanotube Combinations
Notation
Injection Molding Conditions
EB65Q6P 6-4-08
EB65Q6PR 6-4-08
Tmold
Mold Temperature (F)
250
250
E1
Zone 1 Temperature (F) (nozzle)
640
640
E2
Zone 2 Temperature (F)
620
620
E3
Zone 3 Temperature (F)
590
590
E4
Zone 4 Temperature (F) (feed zone)
300
300
P1
Injection pressure (psi)
11305
11305
P2
Hold Pressure (psi)
11305
11305
P7
Back Pressure (psi)
22.61
22.61
S1
Shot size (mm)
20
20
S2
Pullback before (mm)
0
0
S3
Pullback after (mm)
0
0
S6
Width of mold (mm)
196
196
S8
Screw Position to Switch from P1 to P2 (mm)
15
15
T1
Injection Time (s)
10
10
T2
Cool Time (s)
10
10
T3
Interval Time (s)
2
2
T6
Retraction Time (s)
0
0
T7
Nozzle Retraction Delay Time (s)
0
0
T8
Injection Delay Time (s)
0
0
T9
Charge Delay Time (s)
0
0
3
V1
Injection Velocity (mm /s)
100907.7
100907.73
V6
Screw Rotation (rpm)
128
128
V9
Retraction Velocity (rpm)
288
288
V10
Advance Velocity (rpm)
288
288
V11
Retraction Velocity (rpm)
288
288
CF
Clamp Force (US tons)
80
80
154
Table B.7:Ketjenblack EC-600 JD Carbon Black/Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic Graphite/ Hyperion Fibril Carbon Nanotube Combinations
Notation
Injection Molding Conditions
EA2.5B65Q6P 6-5-08
EA2.5B65Q6P 6-5-08
Tmold
Mold Temperature (F)
250
250
E1
Zone 1 Temperature (F) (nozzle)
680
680
E2
Zone 2 Temperature (F)
680
680
E3
Zone 3 Temperature (F)
670
670
E4
Zone 4 Temperature (F) (feed zone)
300
300
P1
Injection pressure (psi)
22383.9
22383.9
P2
Hold Pressure (psi)
22383.9
22383.9
P7
Back Pressure (psi)
22.61
22.61
S1
Shot size (mm)
30
30
S2
Pullback before (mm)
0
0
S3
Pullback after (mm)
0
0
S6
Width of mold (mm)
196
196
S8
Screw Position to Switch from P1 to P2 (mm)
15
15
T1
Injection Time (s)
10
10
T2
Cool Time (s)
20
20
T3
Interval Time (s)
2
2
T6
Retraction Time (s)
0
0
T7
Nozzle Retraction Delay Time (s)
0
0
T8
Injection Delay Time (s)
0
0
T9
Charge Delay Time (s)
0
0
100907.73
100907.73
V1
3
Injection Velocity (in /s)
V6
Screw Rotation (rpm)
128
128
V9
Retraction Velocity (rpm)
288
288
V10
Advance Velocity (rpm)
288
288
V11
Retraction Velocity (rpm)
288
288
CF
Clamp Force (US tons)
80
80
155
Appendix C: Electrical Resistivity
Through Plane Electrical Resistivity ASTM D257
EP
Table C.1: Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/9/2008
6/9/2008
6/9/2008
6/9/2008
6/10/2008
6/10/2008
6/10/2008
6/10/2008
Sample Number
EP-TC-34
EP-TC-29
EP-TC-42
EP-TC-31
EP-TC-30
EP-TC-40
EP-TC-38
EP-TC-36
Applied Voltage (V)
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through-Plane
Surface
Electrical
Resistivity
(Ω/square)
3.4485E+17
2.6769E+16
6.6064E+16
2.4065E+17
1.1465E+17
4.0826E+17
7.0552E+16
5.3541E+16
1.6567E+17
1.4639E+17
8
Through-Plane
Volume
Electrical
Resistivity
(Ω-cm)
1.2778E+17
9.6452E+16
1.5180E+17
1.6797E+17
1.7246E+17
1.5169E+17
2.8755E+17
1.6753E+17
1.6540E+17
5.5451E+16
8
Table C.2:Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date Sample Number
6/26/2008
EPR-TC-21
6/26/2008
EPR-TC-14
6/26/2008
EPR-TC-18
6/26/2008
EPR-TC-37
6/26/2008
EPR-TC-19
6/27/2008
EPR-TC-32
Applied Voltage (V)
100
100
100
100
100
100
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
156
Through-Plane
Volume Electrical
Resistivity (Ω-cm)
1.4809E+17
1.0799E+17
1.1145E+17
1.6488E+17
1.9246E+17
1.2581E+17
1.4178E+17
3.3041E+16
6
EAP’s
Table C.3: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date Sample Number
6/22/2008 EA2.5P-TC-15
6/23/2008 EA2.5P-TC-21
6/24/2008 EA2.5P-TC-27
6/25/2008 EA2.5P-TC-10
6/26/2008 EA2.5P-TC-11
6/27/2008 EA2.5P-TC-16
6/28/2008
EA2.5P-TC-8
6/29/2008
EA2.5P-TC-7
6/30/2008
EA2.5P-TC-6
Applied Voltage (V)
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through-Plane
Surface
Electrical
Resistivity
(Ω/square)
8.4963E+16
2.9833E+16
1.6643E+16
6.0122E+15
2.1159E+16
2.0637E+16
3.4423E+15
1.1126E+16
5.9666E+16
2.8165E+16
2.7046E+16
9
Through-Plane
Volume Electrical
Resistivity
(Ω-cm)
7.2907E+15
1.1291E+16
6.1948E+15
1.2104E+16
1.1254E+16
1.0822E+16
2.1485E+16
7.0309E+15
1.1572E+16
1.1005E+16
4.5313E+15
9
Table C.4: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date Sample Number
6/23/2008 EA2.5PR-TC-23
6/23/2008 EA2.5PR-TC-27
6/23/2008 EA2.5PR-TC-3
6/25/2008 EA2.5PR-TC-28
6/25/2008 EA2.5PR-TC-17
6/25/2008 EA2.5PR-TC-13
Applied Voltage (V)
100
100
100
100
100
100
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
157
Through-Plane
Through-Plane
Surface Electrical Volume Electrical
Resistivity
Resistivity
(Ω/square)
(Ω-cm)
3.6056E+15
9.9202E+15
2.8088E+15
1.1018E+16
1.3384E+15
1.6600E+16
2.8593E+15
1.9300E+16
5.5352E+15
1.2312E+16
5.0930E+15
9.7245E+15
3.5401E+15
1.3146E+16
1.5647E+15
3.9278E+15
6
6
EBP’s
Table C.5: 10 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/9/2008
6/9/2008
6/9/2008
6/9/2008
6/10/2008
6/10/2008
6/10/2008
6/10/2008
Through-Plane
Through-Plane
Surface Electrical Volume Electrical
Resistivity
Resistivity
Sample Number Applied Voltage (V)
(Ω/square)
(Ω-cm)
EB10P-TC-14
100
2.1659E+17
1.1045E+17
EB10P-TC-21
100
4.0659E+17
1.2347E+17
EB10P-TC-15
100
1.9818E+17
1.1974E+17
EB10P-TC-22
100
4.9996E+16
1.8176E+17
EB10P-TC-20
100
2.2019E+17
1.8084E+17
EB10P-TC-37
100
4.1565E+17
1.2439E+17
EB10P-TC-30
100
1.5417E+17
1.5417E+17
EB10P-TC-31
100
1.1639E+17
1.1639E+17
Average
2.2222E+17
1.3890E+17
Standard Deviation
1.2957E+17
2.9182E+16
Number of Samples
8
8
Table C.6: 15 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/9/2008
6/9/2008
6/9/2008
6/9/2008
6/11/2008
6/11/2008
Sample Number
EB15P-TC-32
EB15P-TC-26
EB15P-TC-29
EB15P-TC-24
EB15P-TC-31
EB15P-TC-25
Applied Voltage (V)
100
100
100
100
100
100
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
158
Through-Plane
Surface
Through-Plane
Electrical
Volume Electrical
Resistivity
Resistivity
(Ω/square)
(Ω-cm)
5.2021E+17
8.7512E+16
7.8426E+16
8.8833E+16
1.6663E+17
9.5645E+16
1.9415E+14
9.5948E+16
8.0739E+16
1.1524E+17
5.6607E+15
8.2221E+16
1.4198E+17
9.4233E+16
1.9501E+17
1.1531E+16
6
6
Table C.7: 20 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/10/2008
6/10/2008
6/13/2008
6/13/2008
6/13/2008
6/13/2008
Sample Number
EB20P-TC-28
EB20P-TC-25
EB20P-TC-32
EB20P-TC-33
EB20P-TC-21
EB20P-TC-22
Through-Plane
Surface Electrical
Resistivity
(Ω/square)
Applied Voltage (V)
100
3.5911E+17
100
5.6122E+17
100
4.6663E+17
100
1.4002E+17
100
1.2464E+17
100
1.9275E+17
Average
3.0740E+17
Standard Deviation
1.8276E+17
Number of Samples
6
Through-Plane
Volume
Electrical
Resistivity
(Ω-cm)
6.5416E+16
6.9713E+16
3.9997E+16
6.9254E+16
7.4065E+16
5.2983E+16
6.1905E+16
1.2921E+16
6
Table C.8: 25 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/10/2008
6/10/2008
6/13/2008
6/13/2008
6/13/2008
6/13/2008
Sample Number
EB25P-TC-22
EB25P-TC-30
EB25P-TC-27
EB25P-TC-21
EB25P-TC-24
EB25P-TC-25
Through-Plane
Surface
Through-Plane
Electrical
Volume Electrical
Resistivity
Resistivity
(Ω-cm)
Applied Voltage (V)
(Ω/square)
100
3.7318E+16
2.7989E+16
100
1.8916E+16
3.8646E+16
100
6.2911E+16
3.8805E+16
100
3.0026E+16
3.0026E+16
100
2.9757E+16
2.9757E+16
100
2.2309E+16
3.4860E+16
Average
3.3540E+16
3.3347E+16
Standard Deviation 1.5771E+16
4.7494E+15
Number of Samples
6
6
159
Table C.9: 30 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/25/2008
6/13/2008
6/13/2008
6/13/2008
6/16/2008
6/16/2008
Sample Number
EB30P-TC-15
EB30P-TC-23
EB30P-TC-29
EB30P-TC-24
EB30P-TC-26
EB30P-TC-28
Through-Plane Through-Plane
Surface
Volume
Electrical
Electrical
Resistivity
Resistivity
Applied Voltage (V)
(Ω/square)
(Ω-cm)
10
1.9360E+08
1.4528E+08
10
3.7185E+07
8.8690E+07
10
3.2852E+08
1.0053E+08
10
9.0414E+08
1.3546E+08
10
1.6717E+08
7.5678E+07
10
1.2344E+08
9.7935E+07
Average
2.9234E+08
1.0726E+08
Standard Deviation
3.1453E+08
2.7259E+07
Number of Samples
6
6
160
EQP’s
Table C.10: 1.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/18/2008
6/18/2008
6/18/2008
6/18/2008
6/18/2008
6/18/2008
Sample Number
EQ1.5P-TC-22
EQ1.5P-TC-25
EQ1.5P-TC-28
EQ1.5P-TC-12
EQ1.5P-TC-34
EQ1.5P-TC-20
Through-Plane
Surface Electrical
Resistivity
Applied Voltage (V)
(Ω/square)
100
3.9428E+17
100
6.3633E+16
100
2.5774E+17
100
4.2213E+17
100
3.2529E+17
100
3.8497E+17
Average
3.0801E+17
Standard Deviation
1.3337E+17
Number of Samples
6
Through-Plane
Volume
Electrical
Resistivity
(Ω-cm)
9.9821E+16
1.0361E+17
1.0210E+17
9.3794E+16
9.6150E+16
9.8689E+16
9.9027E+16
3.6566E+15
6
Table C.11: 2.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/19/2008
6/19/2008
6/19/2008
6/19/2008
6/19/2008
6/19/2008
6/19/2008
6/19/2008
6/19/2008
Sample Number
EQ2.5P-TC-25
EQ2.5P-TC-30
EQ2.5P-TC-19
EQ2.5P-TC-12
EQ2.5P-TC-22
EQ2.5P-TC-17
EQ2.5P-TC-31
EQ2.5P-TC-27
EQ2.5P-TC-16
Through-Plane Through-Plane
Surface
Volume
Electrical
Electrical
Resistivity
Resistivity
(Ω/square)
(Ω-cm)
Applied Voltage (V)
100
8.8323E+15
2.4614E+16
100
2.3801E+15
1.4223E+16
100
1.2076E+16
1.6333E+16
100
3.8142E+16
1.1546E+16
100
4.7513E+15
1.4296E+16
100
2.9664E+16
7.8107E+15
100
1.1756E+16
1.4512E+16
100
1.3312E+16
1.0702E+16
100
4.1869E+16
8.6357E+15
Average
1.8087E+16
1.3630E+16
Standard Deviation
1.4625E+16
5.0156E+15
Number of Samples
9
9
161
Table C.12: 4 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/17/2008
6/17/2008
6/17/2008
6/17/2008
6/17/2008
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EQ4P-TC-16
EQ4P-TC-28
EQ4P-TC-21
EQ4P-TC-26
EQ4P-TC-10
EQ4P-TC-31
Through-Plane Through-Plane
Surface
Volume
Electrical
Electrical
Resistivity
Resistivity
Applied Voltage (V)
(Ω/square)
(Ω-cm)
100
2.7264E+16
2.3197E+15
1
3.3201E+15
3.1579E+15
10
3.4009E+15
2.8855E+15
10
4.1535E+16
2.8807E+15
10
2.4869E+16
2.4076E+15
100
4.0697E+17
2.5928E+15
Average
8.4560E+16
2.7074E+15
Standard Deviation
1.5864E+17
3.2188E+14
Number of Samples
6
6
Table C.13: 5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/19/2008
6/19/2008
6/19/2008
6/19/2008
6/20/2008
6/20/2008
Sample Number
EQ5P-TC-24
EQ5P-TC-14
EQ5P-TC-23
EQ5P-TC-13
EQ5P-TC-9
EQ5P-TC-15
Through- Through-Plane
Volume
Plane Surface
Electrical
Electrical
Resistivity
Resistivity
Applied Voltage (V) (Ω/square)
(Ω-cm)
10
1.2527E+07 9.0142E+06
10
5.0093E+10 5.6735E+07
10
1.0334E+10 1.7431E+08
10
2.1893E+11 3.7837E+06
10
8.4092E+08 5.5229E+07
10
1.3138E+09 1.4064E+07
Average
4.6921E+10 5.2189E+07
Standard Deviation 8.6417E+10 6.4194E+07
Number of Samples
6
6
162
In Plane Electrical Conductivity
EAP’s
163
Table C.14: 10 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/18/2008
Test Date
6/18/2008
Test Date
6/18/2008
Test Date
6/18/2008
Test Date
6/18/2008
Sample Number
EA10P-T-26
Sample Number
EA10P-T-20
Sample Number
EA10P-T-28
Sample Number
EA10P-T-22
Sample Number
EA10P-T-25
Dot
1
2
4
5
Dot
1
2
3
4
5
6
Dot
1
2
3
4
5
6
Dot
1
2
3
4
5
6
Dot
1
2
3
4
Thickness(mm)
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.64
Thickness(mm)
1.62
1.63
1.62
1.6
1.62
1.62
Thickness(mm)
1.64
1.63
1.62
1.65
1.64
1.64
Thickness(mm)
1.65
1.65
1.62
1.61
1.62
1.63
Thickness(mm)
1.66
1.6
1.09
1.6
Width (mm)
2.01
2.02
2.05
2.1
Width (mm)
2.07
2.09
2.13
2.08
2.09
2.2
Width (mm)
2.01
1.99
2.01
2.19
2.25
2.26
Width (mm)
1.98
2.01
2.01
2.04
2.1
2.24
Width (mm)
2.33
2.14
1.51
2.28
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
4.00E-05
2.150
4.00E-05
2.060
4.00E-05
1.770
4.00E-05
1.840
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
3.036
2.924
2.549
2.731
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
4.00E-05
1.990
4.00E-05
1.990
4.00E-05
2.000
4.00E-05
2.040
4.00E-05
2.000
4.00E-05
1.900
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
2.876
2.922
2.975
2.926
2.919
2.919
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
4.00E-05
1.900
1.00E-05
0.530
1.00E-05
0.520
1.00E-05
0.462
1.00E-05
0.468
1.00E-05
0.472
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
2.700
2.964
2.919
2.878
2.977
3.016
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.00E-05
0.499
1.00E-05
0.514
1.00E-05
0.519
1.00E-05
0.530
1.00E-05
0.510
1.00E-05
0.481
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
2.811
2.939
2.914
3.001
2.991
3.028
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.00E-05
0.440
2.00E-05
0.990
2.00E-05
2.490
4.00E-05
1.870
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
2.934
2.922
3.533
2.940
Overall Average
Overall Std Deviation
Number of Samples
164
2.810
0.215
4
2.923
0.031
6
2.909
0.113
6
2.947
0.079
6
3.082
0.300
4
2.933
0.163
26
Table C.15: 15 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Dot
Thickness(mm)
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
ER (ohm-cm)
6/18/2008
EA15P-T-27
1
1.58
2.2
1.00E-03
19.21
1.151
2
1.59
2.05
1.00E-03
21.01
1.181
3
1.59
2.03
1.00E-03
20.65
1.149
4
1.57
2.2
1.00E-03
19.19
1.143
5
1.58
2.18
1.00E-03
19.49
1.157
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
1.156
0.015
5
Test Date
Sample Number
Dot
Thickness(mm)
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
ER (ohm-cm)
6/18/2008
EA15P-T-21
1
1.61
2.22
1.00E-03
19.10
1.177
3
1.61
2.15
1.00E-03
18.58
1.109
6
1.61
2.11
1.00E-03
18.51
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
1.084
1.123
0.048
3
Test Date
Sample Number
Dot
Thickness(mm)
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
ER (ohm-cm)
6/18/2008
EA15P-T-29
1
1.59
2.02
1.00E-03
20.44
1.132
2
1.55
1.99
1.00E-03
21.64
1.151
3
1.55
1.88
1.00E-03
22.76
1.143
4
1.58
2.04
1.00E-03
20.08
1.116
5
1.57
2.15
1.00E-03
19.90
1.158
6
1.57
2.2
1.00E-03
19.50
1.161
Average
1.144
Standard Deviation
0.017
Number of Samples
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
6
Test Date
Sample Number
Dot
Thickness(mm)
ER (ohm-cm)
6/17/2008
EA15P-T-25
1
1.57
2.1
1.00E-03
20.54
1.168
2
1.59
1.97
1.00E-03
22.26
1.202
3
1.56
2.01
1.00E-03
22.14
1.197
4
1.53
2.43
1.00E-03
17.60
1.128
5
1.57
2.06
1.00E-03
20.02
1.116
Average
1.162
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
0.039
5
Test Date
Sample Number
Dot
Thickness(mm)
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
ER (ohm-cm)
6/17/2008
EA15P-T-23
1
1.55
2.04
1.00E-03
20.63
1.125
2
1.59
2.1
1.00E-03
20.73
1.193
3
1.6
2.05
1.00E-03
20.05
1.134
4
1.62
2.07
1.00E-03
19.39
1.121
6
1.63
2.21
1.00E-03
18.31
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
1.137
1.142
0.029
5
Overall Average
1.147
Overall Standard Deviation
0.029
Number of Samples
165
24
EBP’s
Table C.16: 35 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Dot
Thickness(mm)
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
6/14/2008
EB35P-T-23
2
1.63
2.2
5.00E-07
49.0
6059.103
4
5
1.63
1.62
2.17
2.17
5.00E-07
5.00E-07
49.0
39.0
5976.479
4727.607
6
1.61
2.12
5.00E-07
34.2
4025.222
Test Date
Sample Number
Average
5197.103
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
990.657
Sample Number
6/14/2008
EB35P-T-28
Thickness(mm)
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
4
1.65
1.91
5.00E-07
36.5
3966.543
5
1.64
1.9
5.00E-07
32.5
Average
3492.069
3729.306
Standard Deviation
335.504
Dot
Thickness(mm)
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
Sample Number
6/14/2008
EB35P-T-21
ER (ohm-cm)
2
ER (ohm-cm)
1
1.61
2.14
5.00E-07
56.0
6653.186
2
1.58
2.14
5.00E-07
37.0
4313.945
3
1.58
2.12
5.00E-07
47.5
5486.414
6
1.62
2.13
5.00E-07
66.0
Average
7853.090
6076.659
Standard Deviation
1521.363
Number of Samples
Test Date
4
Dot
Number of Samples
Test Date
ER (ohm-cm)
Dot
Thickness(mm)
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
4
ER (ohm-cm)
1
1.59
2.11
5.00E-07
35.7
4124.213
2
1.61
2.17
5.00E-07
44.0
5300.786
3
1.59
2.13
5.00E-07
46.0
5372.007
5
1.64
2.1
5.00E-07
59.5
Average
7066.138
5465.786
Standard Deviation
1210.642
Number of Samples
Test Date
Sample Number
Dot
Thickness(mm)
Width (mm)
6/14/2008
EB35P-T-22
4
1.59
2.09
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
5.00E-07
68.5
Average
Number of Samples
166
4
ER (ohm-cm)
7849.391
7849.391
1
Overall Average
5484.413
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
1411.329
15
Table C.17: 40 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Dot
Thickness(mm)
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
ER (ohm-cm)
6/14/2008
EB40P-T-22
1
2
1.57
1.61
2.08
2.1
5.00E-06
5.00E-06
27.1
35.1
305.165
409.218
4
1.66
2.12
5.00E-06
29.0
351.920
6
1.69
2.12
5.00E-06
39.0
481.825
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
387.032
76.186
4
Test Date
Sample Number
Dot
Thickness(mm)
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
ER (ohm-cm)
6/14/2008
EB40P-T-24
1
2
1.6
1.6
2.15
2.13
5.00E-06
5.00E-06
36.9
32.9
437.710
386.632
4
1.6
2.16
5.00E-06
37.0
440.938
5
1.67
2.13
5.00E-06
40.9
501.674
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
441.738
47.067
4
Test Date
Sample Number
Dot
Thickness(mm)
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
ER (ohm-cm)
6/14/2000
EB40P-T-25
2
3
1.72
1.71
2.16
2.15
5.00E-06
5.00E-06
29.4
34.9
376.644
442.448
5
1.66
2.18
5.00E-06
30.5
380.598
Test Date
Sample Number
6/14/2008
EB40P-T-27
Dot
Average
399.897
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
36.903
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
Width (mm)
2
1.65
2.08
5.00E-06
23.6
278.702
3
4
1.65
1.74
2.1
2.12
5.00E-06
5.00E-06
35.7
40.0
426.553
508.800
Sample Number
6/14/2008
EB40P-T-29
Dot
Thickness(mm)
Width (mm)
ER (ohm-cm)
Average
404.685
Standard Deviation
116.597
Number of Samples
Test Date
3
Thickness(mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
3
ER (ohm-cm)
1
2.08
1.67
5.00E-06
27.6
330.591
2
1.66
2.05
5.00E-06
23.8
279.281
3
4
2.01
2.02
1.67
1.64
5.00E-06
5.00E-06
32.0
37.4
370.742
427.237
5
1.61
2.03
5.00E-06
31.2
351.624
Average
351.895
Standard Deviation
54.218
Number of Samples
167
5
Overall Average
394.121
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
68.456
19
Table C.18: 45 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Dot
Thickness(mm)
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
ER (ohm-cm)
6/16/2008
EB45P-T-20
1
2
1.68
1.68
2.21
2.18
1.00E-05
1.00E-05
14.35
15.76
91.860
99.516
3
1.68
2.17
1.00E-05
18.91
118.859
4
1.63
2.15
1.00E-05
18.12
109.485
5
1.64
2.15
1.00E-05
15.53
94.412
6
1.64
2.15
1.00E-05
15.29
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
92.953
101.181
10.814
6
Test Date
Sample Number
Dot
Thickness(mm)
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
ER (ohm-cm)
6/16/2008
EB45P-T-24
1
1.63
2.12
1.00E-05
17.58
104.740
2
1.62
2.13
1.00E-05
14.90
88.645
3
1.67
2.1
1.00E-05
18.75
113.373
4
5
1.68
1.69
2.09
2.11
1.00E-05
1.00E-05
15.75
17.14
95.347
105.378
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
101.497
9.613
5
Test Date
Sample Number
Dot
Thickness(mm)
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
ER (ohm-cm)
6/16/2008
EB45P-T-23
1
2
1.68
1.7
2.11
2.09
1.00E-05
1.00E-05
14.28
17.32
87.275
106.100
3
1.68
2.27
1.00E-05
16.08
105.729
4
1.64
2.09
1.00E-05
17.39
102.769
5
1.64
2.08
1.00E-05
19.36
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
113.864
103.147
9.776
5
Test Date
Sample Number
Dot
Thickness(mm)
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
6/16/2008
EB45P-T-27
1
1.68
2.1
1.00E-05
14.00
85.159
2
1.58
2.14
1.00E-05
19.88
115.894
3
1.53
2.08
1.00E-05
20.70
113.579
4
5
1.62
1.59
2.04
1.98
1.00E-05
1.00E-05
14.05
16.67
80.056
90.484
6
1.56
2.02
1.00E-05
17.53
Average
Standard Deviation
95.242
96.735
14.861
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
6
Test Date
Sample Number
Dot
Thickness(mm)
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
ER (ohm-cm)
6/16/2008
EB45P-T-29
2
3
1.64
1.65
2.06
2.13
1.00E-05
1.00E-05
14.90
13.93
86.790
84.409
4
1.63
2.04
1.00E-05
15.58
89.322
5
1.61
2.03
1.00E-05
19.10
107.629
6
1.65
2.07
168
1.00E-05
15.50
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
91.276
91.885
9.174
5
98.894
11.106
27
Table C.19: 50 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm) Amps (A)
EB50P-T-23
2
1.67
2.14
3.00E-05
3
1.68
2.16
3.00E-05
4
1.63
2.11
3.00E-05
5
1.63
2.11
3.00E-05
6
1.66
2.14
3.00E-05
Volts(mV)
22.07
17.00
17.69
17.98
19.01
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm) Amps (A)
EB50P-T-25
1
1.65
2.13
3.00E-05
2
1.63
2.13
3.00E-05
3
1.53
2.12
3.00E-05
4
1.73
2.18
3.00E-05
5
1.74
2.17
3.00E-05
6
1.74
2.18
3.00E-05
Volts(mV)
20.97
21.65
18.92
15.54
18.11
17.02
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm) Amps (A)
EB50P-T-28
1
1.61
2.15
3.00E-05
2
1.6
2.14
3.00E-05
3
1.6
2.12
3.00E-05
4
1.52
2.14
3.00E-05
5
1.53
2.15
3.00E-05
6
1.58
2.13
3.00E-05
Volts(mV)
20.71
20.41
17.97
22.21
17.27
18.56
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm) Amps (A)
EB50P-T-29
1
1.72
2.1
3.00E-05
2
1.72
2.1
3.00E-05
4
2.1
1.68
3.00E-05
5
1.69
2.09
3.00E-05
6
1.69
2.11
3.00E-05
169
Volts(mV)
20.85
22.26
21.54
23.71
16.23
ER (ohm-cm)
45.330
35.454
34.966
35.539
38.811
38.020
4.362
5
ER (ohm-cm)
42.356
43.199
35.269
33.683
39.299
37.104
38.485
3.826
6
ER (ohm-cm)
41.200
40.163
35.031
41.520
32.649
35.898
37.743
3.709
6
ER (ohm-cm)
43.282
46.209
43.674
48.130
33.261
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
42.911
5.743
5
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
39.183
4.586
22
Table C.20: 55 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
EB55P-T-21
1
1.66
2.18
2
1.64
2.15
3
1.65
2.19
4
1.59
2.16
6
1.59
2.13
Amps (A)
6.00E-05
6.00E-05
6.00E-05
6.00E-05
6.00E-05
Volts(mV)
12.68
18.82
16.62
19.30
18.50
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
EB55P-T-24
1
1.63
2.19
3
1.61
2.16
4
1.59
2.13
5
1.58
2.14
6
1.6
2.13
Amps (A)
6.00E-05
6.00E-05
6.00E-05
6.00E-05
6.00E-05
Volts(mV)
13.49
20.35
14.84
19.33
20.64
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
EB55P-T-25
1
1.68
2.09
3
1.62
2.09
4
1.61
2.05
5
1.61
2.06
6
1.6
2.08
Amps (A)
6.00E-05
6.00E-05
6.00E-05
6.00E-05
6.00E-05
Volts(mV)
14.25
21.50
14.49
22.70
18.49
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
EB55P-T-27
1
1.63
2.11
2
1.62
2.1
3
1.62
2.13
4
1.56
2.05
Amps (A)
6.00E-05
6.00E-05
6.00E-05
6.00E-05
Volts(mV)
15.78
19.18
20.01
17.89
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
EB55P-T-29
1
1.59
2.13
2
1.57
2.1
3
1.56
2.13
4
1.57
2.08
6
1.55
2.16
170
Amps (A)
6.00E-05
6.00E-05
6.00E-05
6.00E-05
6.00E-05
Volts(mV)
18.62
23.61
18.19
21.58
18.82
ER (ohm-cm)
13.186
19.069
17.258
19.047
18.004
17.313
2.429
5
ER (ohm-cm)
13.838
20.336
14.442
18.781
20.213
17.522
3.155
5
ER (ohm-cm)
14.378
20.918
13.743
21.634
17.682
17.671
3.624
5
ER (ohm-cm)
15.595
18.750
19.841
16.440
17.657
1.974
4
ER (ohm-cm)
18.121
22.368
17.368
20.250
18.106
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
19.243
2.052
5
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
17.890
2.608
24
Table C.21: 60 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EB60P-T-20
1
1.66
3
1.65
4
1.68
5
1.68
6
1.72
Width
(mm)
2.13
2.11
2.16
2.15
2.14
Amps (A)
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
Volts(mV)
12.67
15.94
12.35
15.55
13.04
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EB60P-T-22
1
1.8
2
1.7
5
1.7
6
1.7
Width
(mm)
2.15
2.15
2.15
2.15
Amps (A)
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
Volts(mV)
11.71
12.23
14.19
11.99
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EB60P-T-25
3
1.5
4
1.6
6
1.55
Width
(mm)
2.15
2.1
2.15
Amps (A)
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
Volts(mV)
15.28
13.92
13.45
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EB60P-T-29
1
1.45
3
1.44
4
1.48
5
1.48
6
1.47
Width
(mm)
2.15
2.1
2.07
2.1
2.08
Amps (A)
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
Volts(mV)
14.63
18.00
14.18
15.74
17.93
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EB60P-T-27
1
1.47
3
1.42
5
1.51
6
1.54
Width
(mm)
2.09
2.12
2.09
2.1
171
Amps (A)
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
Volts(mV)
16.41
15.02
17.52
15.32
ER (ohm-cm)
7.724
9.568
7.727
9.684
8.275
8.596
0.968
5
ER (ohm-cm)
7.813
7.707
8.942
7.556
8.005
0.634
4
ER (ohm-cm)
8.496
8.064
7.728
8.096
0.385
3
ER (ohm-cm)
7.864
9.385
7.490
8.434
9.452
8.525
0.883
5
ER (ohm-cm)
8.692
7.796
9.533
8.542
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
8.641
0.712
4
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
8.403
0.751
21
Table C.22: 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EB65P-T-21
1
1.4
3
1.4
4
1.41
5
1.41
6
1.4
Width (mm)
2.08
2.1
2.1
2.12
2.11
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.50E-04
15.59
2.50E-04
16.07
2.50E-04
16.07
2.50E-04
22.29
2.50E-04
16.17
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
3.131
3.258
3.282
4.595
3.294
3.512
0.609
5
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EB65P-T-23
1
1.36
3
1.34
4
1.36
5
1.37
6
1.36
Width (mm)
2.09
2.06
2.08
2.05
2.02
Amps (A)
2.50E-04
2.50E-04
2.50E-04
2.50E-04
2.50E-04
ER (ohm-cm)
2.750
3.175
2.796
4.556
3.607
Volts(mV)
14.03
16.68
14.33
23.52
19.04
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EB65P-T-24
1
1.54
2
1.55
3
1.54
4
1.52
5
1.52
6
1.53
Width (mm)
2.24
2.19
2.15
2.22
2.15
2.11
Amps (A)
2.50E-04
2.50E-04
2.50E-04
2.50E-04
2.50E-04
2.50E-04
Volts(mV)
15.53
19.25
10.85
11.36
19.45
14.21
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EB65P-T-27
1
1.55
2
1.55
3
1.53
4
1.56
6
1.55
Width (mm)
2.1
2.06
2.07
2.12
2.08
Amps (A)
2.50E-04
2.50E-04
2.50E-04
2.50E-04
2.50E-04
Volts(mV)
12.55
20.41
16.30
13.27
17.05
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EB65P-T-29
1
1.55
2
1.55
3
1.55
4
1.55
5
1.55
6
1.55
Width (mm)
2.25
2.2
2.25
2.2
2.15
2.15
172
Amps (A)
2.50E-04
2.50E-04
2.50E-04
2.50E-04
2.50E-04
2.50E-04
Volts(mV)
9.88
16.74
13.79
10.46
17.50
15.72
3.377
0.744
5
ER (ohm-cm)
3.695
4.506
2.478
2.644
4.384
3.164
3.478
0.863
6
ER (ohm-cm)
2.817
4.494
3.560
3.027
3.791
3.538
0.663
5
ER (ohm-cm)
2.376
3.937
3.317
2.460
4.022
3.613
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
3.287
0.719
6
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
3.434
0.679
27
Table C.23: 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number
EB65PR-T-24
Dot
1
2
3
4
5
6
Thickness(mm)
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.6
1.6
1.6
Width (mm)
2.15
2.15
2.15
2.15
2.15
2.2
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number
EB65PR-T-25
Dot
1
2
3
4
5
6
Thickness(mm)
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.5
1.5
1.6
Width (mm)
2.15
2.15
2.2
2.15
2.1
2.15
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number
EB65PR-T-20
Dot
1
2
3
4
5
6
Thickness(mm)
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.55
Width (mm)
2.2
2.15
2.15
2.15
2.15
2.15
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number
EB65PR-23
Dot
1
2
3
4
5
6
Thickness(mm)
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.6
1.5
1.55
Width (mm)
2.1
2.05
2.15
2.1
2.1
2.1
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number
EB65PR-29
Dot
1
2
3
4
5
6
Thickness(mm)
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.55
Width (mm)
2.2
2.1
2.15
2.1
2.05
2.05
173
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.50E-04
13.04
2.50E-04
16.54
2.50E-04
9.68
2.50E-04
15.82
2.50E-04
16.98
2.50E-04
9.81
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.50E-04
11.80
2.50E-04
20.78
2.50E-04
12.64
2.50E-04
11.11
2.50E-04
18.88
2.50E-04
15.17
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.50E-04
12.46
2.50E-04
18.76
2.50E-04
11.57
2.50E-04
11.44
2.50E-04
17.13
2.50E-04
11.55
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.50E-04
12.64
2.50E-04
19.29
2.50E-04
13.99
2.50E-04
14.68
2.50E-04
19.20
2.50E-04
12.03
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.50E-04
13.72
2.50E-04
20.60
2.50E-04
12.34
2.50E-04
11.78
2.50E-04
14.44
2.50E-04
19.45
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
2.997
3.801
2.225
3.753
4.028
2.381
3.198
0.777
6
ER (ohm-cm)
2.712
4.776
2.973
2.471
4.102
3.599
3.439
0.887
6
ER (ohm-cm)
2.930
4.312
2.659
2.629
3.937
2.655
3.187
0.744
6
ER (ohm-cm)
2.837
4.227
3.215
3.402
4.171
2.701
3.426
0.650
6
ER (ohm-cm)
3.227
4.624
2.836
2.644
3.164
4.262
3.460
0.799
6
3.342
0.731
30
Table C.24: 70 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number
EB70P-T-21
Dot
1
2
3
4
5
6
Thickness(mm)
1.6
1.65
1.6
1.6
1.65
1.65
Width (mm)
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.00E-03
18.42
1.00E-03
25.90
1.00E-03
22.53
1.00E-03
17.44
1.00E-03
25.10
1.00E-03
20.52
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
1.118
1.547
1.305
1.010
1.500
1.226
1.284
0.211
6
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number
EB70P-T-20
Dot
1
2
3
4
5
6
Thickness(mm)
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.55
1.55
1.55
Width (mm)
2.15
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.00E-03
24.01
1.00E-03
26.13
1.00E-03
17.17
1.00E-03
23.25
1.00E-03
26.59
1.00E-03
18.90
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
1.424
1.514
0.995
1.305
1.492
1.061
1.298
0.223
6
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number
EB70P-T-25
Dot
1
2
3
4
5
6
Thickness(mm)
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.65
1.65
1.6
Width (mm)
2.1
2.1
2.15
2.1
2.15
2.1
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.00E-03
17.90
1.00E-03
23.37
1.00E-03
22.61
1.00E-03
16.99
1.00E-03
24.80
1.00E-03
22.05
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
1.102
1.438
1.425
1.015
1.517
1.277
1.296
0.201
6
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number
EB70P-T-28
Dot
1
2
3
4
5
6
Thickness(mm)
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
Width (mm)
2.05
2
2.05
2.1
2.1
2.1
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.00E-03
20.30
1.00E-03
29.76
1.00E-03
20.92
1.00E-03
18.87
1.00E-03
27.64
1.00E-03
17.16
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
1.220
1.745
1.257
1.161
1.701
1.056
1.357
0.292
6
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number
EB70P-T-26
Dot
1
3
4
5
6
Thickness(mm)
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
Width (mm)
2.1
2.1
2
2
2.1
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.00E-03
18.95
1.00E-03
22.30
1.00E-03
18.20
1.00E-03
28.84
1.00E-03
22.71
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
1.166
1.373
1.067
1.691
1.398
1.339
0.241
5
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
1.314
0.220
29
174
Table C.25: 75 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
EB75P-T-20
1
1.57
2.07
2
1.55
2.04
3
1.56
2.05
4
1.55
2.05
5
1.55
2.06
6
1.54
2.07
Amps (A)
ER (ohm-cm)
3.00E-03
0.32854
3.00E-03
0.48193
3.00E-03
0.35803
3.00E-03
0.33400
3.00E-03
0.44041
3.00E-03
0.36641
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.32854
0.48193
0.35803
0.33400
0.44041
0.36641
0.38489
0.06217
6
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
EB75P-T-24
1
1.56
2.04
2
1.54
2.05
3
1.53
2.06
4
1.53
2.12
6
1.53
2.11
Amps (A)
ER (ohm-cm)
3.00E-03
0.35098
3.00E-03
0.46012
3.00E-03
0.30467
3.00E-03
0.35736
3.00E-03
0.32561
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.35098
0.46012
0.30467
0.35736
0.32561
Amps (A)
ER (ohm-cm)
3.00E-03
0.33028
3.00E-03
0.43751
3.00E-03
0.34649
3.00E-03
0.33539
3.00E-03
0.43670
3.00E-03
0.35094
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.33028
0.43751
0.34649
0.33539
0.43670
0.35094
Amps (A)
ER (ohm-cm)
3.00E-03
0.38225
3.00E-03
0.37881
3.00E-03
0.35647
3.00E-03
0.50296
3.00E-03
0.34037
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.38225
0.37881
0.35647
0.50296
0.34037
Test Date
6/16/2008
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
EB75P-T-26
1
1.54
2.1
2
1.53
2.12
3
1.53
2.13
4
1.52
2.12
5
1.52
2.14
6
1.5
2.17
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
EB75P-T-29
1
1.52
2.04
3
1.5
2.04
4
1.49
2.07
5
1.5
2.05
6
1.48
2.05
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
175
0.35975
0.05991
5
0.37289
0.05030
6
0.39217
0.06424
5
0.37756
0.05604
22
Table C.26: 80 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/16/2008
Test Date
6/16/2008
Test Date
6/16/2008
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EB80P-T-25
1
1.43
2
1.42
3
1.42
4
1.47
6
1.46
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EB80P-T-26
1
1.39
2
1.4
3
1.41
4
1.41
5
1.43
6
1.43
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EB60P-T-28
1
1.38
2
1.38
3
1.4
4
1.26
6
1.27
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EB80P-29
1
1.29
3
1.32
4
1.32
6
1.35
Width (mm)
2.11
2.1
2.12
2.09
2.09
Width (mm)
2.11
2.09
2.11
2.08
2.06
2.07
Width (mm)
2
1.99
1.97
2.01
1.99
Width (mm)
2.03
2.06
1.98
2
176
Amps (A) Volts(mV)
1.00E-02
15.25
1.00E-02
22.00
1.00E-02
16.96
1.00E-02
15.01
1.00E-02
15.79
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.07933
0.11311
0.08803
0.07951
0.08307
Amps (A) Volts(mV)
1.00E-02
16.05
1.00E-02
22.29
1.00E-02
15.44
1.00E-02
16.62
1.00E-02
23.60
1.00E-02
18.03
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.08116
0.11245
0.07920
0.08404
0.11986
0.09202
Amps (A) Volts(mV)
1.00E-02
17.59
1.00E-02
25.09
1.00E-02
18.30
1.00E-02
19.22
1.00E-02
22.03
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.08370
0.11880
0.08702
0.08393
0.09599
Amps (A)
1.00E-02
1.00E-02
1.00E-02
1.00E-02
ER (ohm-cm)
0.08958
0.07679
0.08454
0.08002
Volts(mV)
19.84
16.38
18.76
17.19
0.08861
0.01414
5
0.09479
0.01728
6
0.09389
0.01479
5
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
0.08273
0.00556
4
Overall Average
Overall Std Deviation
Number of Samples
0.09061
0.01393
20
EQP’s
177
Table C.27: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EQ6P-T-25
1
1.53
2
1.59
3
1.61
4
1.68
5
1.68
6
1.68
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EQ6P-T-20
1
1.68
3
1.67
4
1.59
5
1.56
6
1.57
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EQ6PR-T-23
1
1.61
2
1.54
3
1.55
4
1.68
5
1.68
6
1.69
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EQ6P-T-29
1
1.62
2
1.51
3
1.61
4
1.65
5
1.66
6
1.66
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EQ6P-T-27
1
1.52
2
1.54
3
1.51
4
1.68
5
1.68
6
1.67
Width (mm)
1.98
2
2.03
1.96
1.98
2
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.00E-04
29.59
1.00E-04
31.55
1.00E-04
27.06
1.00E-04
32.39
1.00E-04
31.98
1.00E-04
27.99
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.22
1.00E-04
27.82
2.04
1.00E-04
27.63
2.07
1.00E-04
30.73
2.03
1.00E-04
31.73
2.01
1.00E-04
32.15
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.04
4.00E-05
11.91
2
4.00E-05
11.44
2
4.00E-05
11.59
2.37
1.00E-04
26.83
2.06
1.00E-04
29.24
2.04
1.00E-04
28.47
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.95
1.00E-04
27.71
1.9
1.00E-04
25.45
1.95
1.00E-04
24.04
1.97
1.00E-04
27.30
1.95
1.00E-04
25.25
1.96
1.00E-04
24.37
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
15.455
17.298
15.248
18.389
18.341
16.215
16.824
1.393
6
ER (ohm-cm)
17.889
16.229
17.438
17.325
17.492
17.275
0.622
5
ER (ohm-cm)
16.861
15.188
15.487
18.418
17.447
16.923
16.721
1.212
6
ER (ohm-cm)
15.092
12.589
13.013
15.300
14.092
13.671
13.959
1.091
6
Width (mm)
1.95
1.88
1.88
2
2
1.93
ER (ohm-cm)
14.467
14.656
14.586
15.682
16.730
18.155
15.713
1.479
6
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.00E-04
28.31
1.00E-04
29.36
1.00E-06
0.298
1.00E-04
27.07
1.00E-04
28.88
1.00E-04
32.67
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
178
15.858
1.650
29
Table C.28: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EQ6PR-T-25
1
1.49
2
1.53
3
1.5
4
1.59
5
1.6
6
1.58
Width (mm)
2.09
2.05
2.1
2.08
2.1
2.08
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.00E-04
33.47
1.00E-04
35.04
1.00E-04
36.62
1.00E-04
30.97
1.00E-04
31.79
1.00E-04
33.05
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
17.971
18.949
19.888
17.659
18.416
18.727
18.602
0.789
6
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EQ6PR-T-20
1
1.63
2
1.66
3
1.64
4
1.63
5
1.56
6
1.52
Width (mm)
2.13
2.05
2.07
2.11
2.09
2.09
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.00E-04
29.53
1.00E-04
29.71
1.00E-04
29.19
1.00E-04
33.12
1.00E-04
31.62
1.00E-04
30.09
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
17.677
17.432
17.085
19.640
17.775
16.481
17.681
1.068
6
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EQ6PR-T-28
1
1.55
2
1.54
3
1.56
4
1.48
5
1.49
6
1.45
Width (mm)
2.1
2.04
2.08
2.19
2.07
2.16
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.00E-05
3.51
1.00E-05
3.40
1.00E-05
3.16
1.00E-05
3.13
1.00E-05
3.13
1.00E-05
3.09
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
19.698
18.416
17.679
17.491
16.645
16.686
17.769
1.154
6
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EQ6PR-T-21
1
1.66
2
1.66
3
1.98
5
1.55
6
1.56
Width (mm)
2.06
2.04
2.12
2.06
2.16
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.00E-05
2.88
1.00E-05
3.37
1.00E-05
3.09
1.00E-05
3.41
1.00E-05
3.47
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
16.980
19.676
22.363
18.773
20.160
19.590
1.969
5
Test Date
6/16/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EQ6PR-T-24
1
1.59
2
1.58
3
1.58
4
1.49
5
1.49
6
1.5
Width (mm)
2.08
2.08
2.05
2.04
2.06
2.03
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
5.00E-05
16.32
5.00E-05
16.26
1.00E-05
3.19
1.00E-05
3.56
1.00E-05
3.41
1.00E-05
3.12
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
18.612
18.427
17.815
18.657
18.046
16.380
17.989
0.854
6
Overall Average
Overall Std Deviation
Number of Samples
179
18.283
1.310
29
Table C.29: 7.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/17/2008
Test Date
6/17/2008
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EQ7.5P-T-29
Sample Number
EQ7.5-T-20
Sample Number
EQ7.5-T-21
Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
1
1.3
1.94
2
1.31
1.99
3
1.3
2.01
4
1.39
1.99
6
1.39
1.95
Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
1
1.51
2.06
2
1.53
2.04
3
1.57
2.03
4
1.46
2.1
5
1.48
2.04
6
1.48
2.03
Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
1
1.3
2.02
2
1.29
1.98
4
1.41
2.04
5
1.39
2.04
6
1.39
2.1
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.00E-04
10.51
1.00E-04
10.77
1.00E-04
9.62
1.00E-04
12.50
1.00E-04
12.81
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
4.570
4.841
4.334
5.961
5.986
1.00E-04
Volts(mV)
1.00E-04
9.16
1.00E-04
8.96
1.00E-04
9.39
1.00E-04
8.96
1.00E-04
9.21
1.00E-04
8.92
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
4.913
4.822
5.160
4.736
4.794
4.621
1.00E-04
Volts(mV)
1.00E-04
11.08
1.00E-04
11.74
1.00E-04
10.64
1.00E-04
10.66
1.00E-04
9.70
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
5.017
5.170
5.277
5.212
4.882
5.139
0.783
5
4.841
0.184
6
5.111
0.160
5
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EQ7.5P-T-23
Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
1
1.41
2.06
2
1.39
2.03
3
1.4
2.08
4
1.31
2.02
5
1.3
2.02
6
1.3
1.99
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.00E-04
10.30
1.00E-04
10.50
1.00E-04
9.92
1.00E-04
11.84
1.00E-04
11.77
1.00E-04
11.37
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
5.158
5.108
4.981
5.402
5.329
5.071
5.175
0.160
6
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EQ7.5P-T-26
Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
1
1.42
1.99
2
1.43
1.97
4
1.32
2.05
5
1.3
1.98
6
1.28
2.1
1.00E-04
Volts(mV)
1.00E-04
10.40
1.00E-04
11.49
1.00E-04
11.12
1.00E-04
11.73
1.00E-04
10.93
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
5.067
5.581
5.188
5.206
5.065
5.221
0.211
5
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
180
5.091
0.369
27
Table C.30: 7.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EQ7.5PR-T-29
1
1.27
2
1.25
3
1.25
4
1.36
5
1.35
6
1.39
Width (mm)
2.01
1.88
1.96
2.02
1.96
1.95
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EQ7.5PR-T-21
1
1.34
2
1.38
3
1.39
4
1.28
5
1.29
6
1.27
Width (mm)
2.06
1.96
2.04
2.02
2.02
2.07
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EQ7.5PR-T-25
1
1.3
2
1.26
3
1.27
4
1.36
5
1.36
6
1.35
Width (mm)
1.97
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.93
1.95
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EQ7.5PR-T-24
1
1.32
2
1.32
3
1.34
4
1.48
5
1.32
6
1.44
Width (mm)
2.08
2.08
2.05
2.08
2.06
2.08
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EQ7.5PR-T-27
1
1.38
2
1.42
3
1.39
4
1.28
5
1.29
6
1.27
Width (mm)
2
1.95
1.96
2
1.98
2.08
181
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-04
22.25
1.00E-04
11.61
1.00E-04
11.89
1.00E-04
10.04
1.00E-04
11.08
1.00E-04
10.71
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.00E-04
10.06
1.00E-04
10.53
1.00E-04
10.11
1.00E-04
10.04
1.00E-04
10.71
1.00E-04
10.78
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.00E-04
11.80
1.00E-04
12.19
1.00E-04
11.96
1.00E-04
11.07
1.00E-04
11.51
1.00E-04
11.34
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
4.896
4.704
5.023
4.755
5.055
5.005
4.906
0.148
6
ER (ohm-cm)
4.788
4.911
4.943
4.476
4.812
4.886
4.802
0.171
6
ER (ohm-cm)
5.210
5.190
5.133
5.088
5.209
5.147
5.163
0.049
6
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
ER (ohm-cm)
1.00E-04
10.90
5.160
1.00E-04
11.40
5.397
1.00E-04
11.30
5.352
1.00E-04
9.96
5.286
1.00E-04
10.03
4.702
1.00E-04
10.32
5.329
Average
5.204
Standard Deviation
0.259
Number of Samples
6
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
ER (ohm-cm)
1.00E-04
10.71
5.096
1.00E-04
10.40
4.965
1.00E-04
11.04
5.186
1.00E-04
11.32
4.996
1.00E-04
12.37
5.447
1.00E-04
11.85
5.397
Average
5.181
Standard Deviation
0.203
Number of Samples
6
Overall Average
5.051
Overall Standard Deviation
0.236
Number of Samples
30
Table C.31: 10 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number Dot
EQ10P-T-20
1
2
3
4
5
6
Thickness(mm)
1.91
1.91
1.99
1.9
1.9
1.95
Width (mm)
1.38
1.42
1.38
1.28
1.42
1.31
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number Dot
EQ10P-T-28
1
2
3
4
5
6
Thickness(mm)
1.23
1.25
1.26
1.33
1.39
1.35
Width (mm)
1.92
1.99
1.98
1.97
1.98
2.03
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number Dot
EQ10P-T-25
1
2
3
4
5
6
Thickness(mm)
1.29
1.25
1.25
1.35
1.34
1.32
Width (mm)
2.06
2.06
2.03
2.02
2.02
2.04
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number Dot
EQ10P-T-23
1
2
3
4
5
6
Thickness(mm)
1.33
1.27
1.3
1.39
1.39
1.42
Width (mm)
1.99
2.03
2.03
2.02
2.01
2
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number Dot
EQ10P-T-26
1
2
3
4
5
6
Thickness(mm)
1.34
1.32
1.35
1.44
1.41
1.46
Width (mm)
1.93
1.88
2.07
2.2
1.9
2.07
182
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
5.00E-04
15.92
5.00E-04
15.88
5.00E-04
14.91
5.00E-04
18.49
5.00E-04
17.41
5.00E-04
16.67
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
5.00E-04
18.39
5.00E-04
15.93
5.00E-04
18.70
5.00E-04
15.95
5.00E-04
15.87
5.00E-04
17.06
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
5.00E-04
17.51
5.00E-04
17.60
5.00E-04
17.39
5.00E-04
16.55
5.00E-04
16.11
5.00E-04
17.96
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
2.00E-03
Volts(mV)
5.00E-04
18.07
5.00E-04
16.28
5.00E-04
17.60
5.00E-04
17.51
5.00E-04
15.95
5.00E-04
15.95
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
2.00E-03
Volts(mV)
5.00E-04
18.82
5.00E-04
19.10
5.00E-04
16.69
5.00E-04
15.10
5.00E-04
17.34
5.00E-04
15.13
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
1.447
1.485
1.412
1.551
1.620
1.468
1.497
0.076
6
ER (ohm-cm)
1.498
1.366
1.609
1.441
1.506
1.612
1.505
0.095
6
ER (ohm-cm)
1.605
1.563
1.522
1.556
1.504
1.668
1.569
0.060
6
ER (ohm-cm)
1.649
1.447
1.602
1.695
1.537
1.562
1.582
0.088
6
ER (ohm-cm)
1.678
1.634
1.608
1.650
1.602
1.577
1.625
0.037
6
1.556
0.084
30
Table C.32: 15 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EQ15P-T-29
1
1.68
2
1.64
3
1.62
4
1.57
5
1.54
6
1.53
Width (mm)
2.06
2.08
2.02
2.05
2.02
2.03
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EQ15P-T-23
1
1.18
2
1.21
3
1.24
4
1.29
5
1.27
6
1.33
Width (mm)
2
2
2.05
2.06
2.04
2.31
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EQ15P-T-21
1
1.25
2
1.24
3
1.23
4
1.31
5
1.34
6
1.3
Width (mm)
2.08
2.08
2.01
2.09
2.1
2.12
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EQ15P-T-25
1
1.18
2
1.18
3
1.2
4
1.28
5
1.26
6
1.28
Width (mm)
1.94
2.04
2.1
1.77
2.25
2.02
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number Dot Thickness(mm)
EQ15P-T-27
1
1.62
2
1.67
3
1.62
4
1.71
5
1.74
6
1.81
Width (mm)
2.01
2.02
2.02
2
2
2.05
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-03
12.64
2.00E-03
14.49
2.00E-03
13.39
2.00E-03
14.07
2.00E-03
15.68
2.00E-03
14.21
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-03
18.46
2.00E-03
21.41
2.00E-03
19.34
2.00E-03
16.04
2.00E-03
18.47
2.00E-03
15.11
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
183
ER (ohm-cm)
0.37711
0.42611
0.37774
0.39038
0.42049
0.38047
0.39538
0.02221
6
ER (ohm-cm)
0.37557
0.44666
0.42381
0.36745
0.41252
0.40019
0.40437
0.02981
6
Amps (A)
Volts(mV) ER (ohm-cm)
2.00E-03
17.73
0.39740
2.00E-03
18.96
0.42157
2.00E-03
19.73
0.42050
2.00E-03
16.71
0.39440
2.00E-03
17.06
0.41385
2.00E-03
15.15
0.35994
Average
0.40128
Standard Deviation
0.02328
Number of Samples
6
Amps (A)
Volts(mV) ER (ohm-cm)
2.00E-03
19.48
0.38443
2.00E-03
20.79
0.43143
2.00E-03
18.27
0.39690
2.00E-03
20.53
0.40097
2.00E-03
16.07
0.39275
2.00E-03
17.40
0.38784
Average
0.39905
Standard Deviation
0.01695
Number of Samples
6
Amps (A)
Volts(mV) ER (ohm-cm)
2.00E-03
13.61
0.38204
2.00E-03
14.66
0.42633
2.00E-03
12.88
0.36335
2.00E-03
12.86
0.37915
2.00E-03
13.72
0.41160
2.00E-03
12.64
0.40432
Average
0.39446
Standard Deviation
0.02351
Number of Samples
6
Overall Average
0.39891
Overall Standard Deviation
0.02215
Number of Samples
30
Combinations
Table C.33: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes
in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5Q6P-T-27
Dot Thickness(mm)
1
1.3
2
1.31
3
1.35
4
1.42
5
1.41
6
1.43
Width (mm)
1.98
1.95
1.96
2.04
1.95
2
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
5.00E-04
22.44
5.00E-04
23.11
2.00E-04
8.39
2.00E-04
8.38
2.00E-04
8.53
2.00E-04
8.20
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
1.992
2.036
1.914
2.093
2.022
2.022
2.013
0.059
6
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5Q6P-T-28
Dot Thickness(mm)
1
1.48
2
1.44
3
1.44
4
1.18
5
1.49
6
1.5
Width (mm)
2.02
2
2.06
2.02
2.03
2.19
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-04
9.00
2.00E-04
9.87
5.00E-05
2.45
5.00E-04
21.26
2.00E-04
8.91
2.00E-04
8.42
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
2.320
2.450
2.506
1.747
2.323
2.384
2.289
0.275
6
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5Q6P-T-26
Dot Thickness(mm)
1
1.46
2
1.45
3
1.49
4
1.47
5
1.42
6
1.4
Width (mm)
2.05
2.02
2.08
2.08
2.03
2.07
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-04
7.97
2.00E-04
9.09
2.00E-04
9.00
2.00E-04
8.31
2.00E-04
8.59
2.00E-04
9.04
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
2.056
2.295
2.405
2.190
2.135
2.258
2.223
0.123
6
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5Q6P-T-20
Dot Thickness(mm)
2
1.4
4
1.43
Width (mm)
2.06
2.06
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-04
9.19
2.00E-04
8.56
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
2.285
2.174
2.229
0.079
2
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5Q6P-T-24
Dot Thickness(mm)
1
1.41
2
1.39
3
1.4
4
1.44
5
1.45
6
1.44
Width (mm)
2.06
2.08
2.05
2.18
2.06
2.06
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-04
8.59
2.00E-04
8.62
1.00E-05
0.48
2.00E-04
7.86
2.00E-05
0.90
2.00E-04
9.20
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
2.151
2.148
2.375
2.127
2.318
2.353
2.245
0.115
6
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
184
2.195
0.181
26
Table C.34: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes
in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5Q6PR-T-20
Dot
1
2
3
4
5
6
Thickness(mm)
1.57
2.17
1.55
1.56
1.51
1.51
Width (mm)
2.19
1.56
2.1
2.24
2.14
2.13
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-04
7.13
2.00E-04
7.42
2.00E-06
0.0748
2.00E-04
7.217
2.00E-04
8.00
1.00E-04
3.92
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
2.113
2.165
2.099
2.174
2.229
2.174
2.159
0.047
6
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5Q6PR-T-24
Dot
1
2
4
5
6
Thickness(mm)
1.59
1.59
1.61
1.62
1.68
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.11
2.00E-04
8.34
2.17
2.00E-04
7.76
2.1
2.00E-04
7.80
2.14
2.00E-04
7.47
2.3
2.00E-04
6.29
Average
.
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
2.412
2.308
2.273
2.232
2.095
2.264
0.116
5
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5Q6PR-T-23
Dot
1
2
3
4
5
Thickness(mm)
1.63
1.66
1.67
1.6
1.62
Width (mm)
2.13
2.09
2.33
2.21
2.15
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-04
7.19
2.00E-04
7.38
2.00E-04
7.09
2.00E-04
6.89
2.00E-04
7.45
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
2.152
2.207
2.378
2.100
2.237
2.215
0.105
5
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5Q6PR-T-26
Dot
1
2
3
4
5
6
Thickness(mm)
1.48
1.48
1.45
1.51
1.5
1.51
Width (mm)
2.08
2.1
2.11
2.12
2.14
2.32
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-04
7.42
2.00E-04
7.51
2.00E-04
7.57
2.00E-04
7.23
2.00E-04
7.13
2.00E-04
6.64
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
1.969
2.012
1.997
1.995
1.973
2.005
1.992
0.017
6
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5Q6PR-T-29
Dot
1
2
3
5
6
Thickness(mm)
1.71
1.67
1.65
1.74
1.76
Width (mm)
2.17
2.18
2.21
2.26
2.3
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-04
6.82
2.00E-04
7.00
2.00E-04
6.89
2.00E-04
6.56
2.00E-04
6.33
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
2.182
2.197
2.166
2.146
2.209
2.180
0.025
5
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
185
2.156
0.117
27
Table C.35: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
6/17/2008
EA2.5B65P-TC-22
Test Date
Sample Number
6/17/2008
EA2.5B65P-TC-24
Test Date
Sample Number
6/17/2008
EA2.5B65P-TC-27
Dot Thickness(mm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.86
1.79
1.76
1.74
1.69
1.71
Dot Thickness(mm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.72
1.68
1.65
1.62
1.57
1.56
Dot Thickness(mm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.41
1.4
1.43
1.47
1.5
1.52
Width
(mm)
2.15
2.17
2.2
2.4
2.32
2.24
Width
(mm)
2.21
2.25
2.14
2.38
2.61
2.22
Width
(mm)
2.05
2.05
2.09
2.14
2.16
2.26
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-03
9.66
2.00E-03
10.07
2.00E-03
10.78
2.00E-03
9.33
2.00E-03
9.67
2.00E-03
10.25
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-03
10.9
2.00E-03
11.21
2.00E-03
12.64
2.00E-03
9.24
2.00E-03
10.04
2.00E-03
11.24
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
0.33302
0.33720
0.35983
0.33588
0.32685
0.33846
0.33854
0.01122
6
ER (ohm-cm)
0.35718
0.36529
0.38476
0.30712
0.35466
0.33557
0.35076
0.02668
6
ER (ohm-cm)
2.00E-03
15.12
2.00E-03
14.27
2.00E-03
14.82
2.00E-03
15.29
2.00E-03
13.65
2.00E-03
12.46
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
0.37676
0.35306
0.38183
0.41465
0.38126
0.36899
0.37942
0.02030
6
Overall Average
0.35624
Overall Standard Deviation
0.02605
Number of Samples
186
ER (ohm-cm)
18
Table C.36: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65PR-TC-26
Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
4
1.32
2.07
5
1.32
2.06
6
1.32
2.07
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-03
15.10
2.00E-03
14.01
2.00E-03
14.75
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.35568
0.32841
0.34744
0.34385
0.01399
3
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65PR-TC-23
Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
1
1.36
2.21
4
1.33
2.12
6
1.36
2.37
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-03
15.56
2.00E-03
16.37
2.00E-03
13.16
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.40316
0.39790
0.36567
0.38891
0.02030
3
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65PR-T-22
Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
5
1.42
2.25
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-03
13.98
Average
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.38505
0.38505
1
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65PR-T-29
Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
3
1.33
1.99
Amps (A)
2.00E-03
16.69
Average
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.38081
0.38081
1
Test Date
7/8/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65PR-T-17
Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
1
1.42
1.85
2
1.41
1.84
3
1.44
1.9
Amps (A)
0.005
38.03
0.005
36.14
0.005
39.22
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.34450
0.32332
0.37002
0.34595
0.02339
3
Test Date
7/8/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65PR-T-30
Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
1
1.36
1.9
2
1.36
1.85
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
0.005
43.98
0.005
40.12
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.39188
0.34808
0.36998
0.03097
2
Test Date
7/8/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65PR-T-7
Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
4
1.48
1.87
5
1.52
1.88
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
0.005
30.86
0.005
33.69
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.29451
0.33197
0.31324
0.02649
2
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
187
0.35789
0.03096
15
Table C.37: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number Dot
EB6Q6P-T-28
Thickness(mm)
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1
1.46
2.05
1.00E-02
10.23
0.05279
2
1.46
2.02
1.00E-02
11.57
0.05883
3
1.45
2.08
1.00E-02
11.93
0.06204
4
1.5
2.09
1.00E-02
11.89
0.06427
5
1.47
2.1
1.00E-02
11.40
0.06068
6
1.48
2.14
1.00E-02
Average
11.41
0.06231
0.06015
Standard Deviation
0.00403
Number of Samples
Test Date
7/8/2008
Sample Number Dot
EB65Q6P-T-36
6
Thickness(mm)
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
ER (ohm-cm)
1
1.69
1.86
0.01
8.16
0.04422
2
1.66
1.84
0.01
7.76
0.04087
3
1.68
1.86
0.01
8.85
0.04768
4
1.63
1.85
0.01
7.68
0.03993
6
1.63
1.81
0.01
Average
9.59
0.04878
0.04430
Standard Deviation
0.00395
Number of Samples
Test Date
7/8/2008
Sample Number Dot
EB65Q6P-T-14
Thickness(mm)
Width (mm)
5
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
4
1.89
1.67
0.01
11.20
0.06095
1.75
1.93
0.01
9.33
0.05433
6
1.72
2.09
0.01
Average
8.65
0.05361
0.05630
0.00404
Number of Samples
7/8/2008
Sample Number Dot
EB65Q6P-T-9
ER (ohm-cm)
5
Standard Deviation
Test Date
ER (ohm-cm)
Amps (A)
3
Thickness(mm)
Width (mm)
Volts(mV)
1
1.75
1.85
0.01
12.96
0.07234
3
1.63
1.9
0.01
Average
13.13
0.07011
0.07123
Standard Deviation
Number of
Samples
0.00158
Overall Average
0.05586
Overall Standard Deviation
0.00977
Number of Samples
188
ER (ohm-cm)
2
16
Table C.38a: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EB65Q6PR-T-29
Dot
1
2
3
Thickness(mm)
1.73
1.75
1.69
Width (mm)
2.14
2
1.42
Amps (A)
Volts(mV) ER (ohm-cm)
1.00E-02
7.91
0.05049
1.00E-02
11.69
0.07054
1.00E-02
17.09
0.07071
Average
0.06391
Standard Deviation
0.01163
Number of Samples
3
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EB65Q6PR-T-27
Dot
1
2
Thickness(mm)
1.72
1.72
Width (mm)
2.1
2.18
Amps (A)
Volts(mV) ER (ohm-cm)
1.00E-02
7.64
0.04758
1.00E-02
6.71
0.04338
Average
0.04548
Standard Deviation
0.00297
Number of Samples
2
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EB65Q6PR-T-25
Dot
1
2
3
4
5
6
Thickness(mm)
1.72
1.74
1.74
1.7
1.72
1.73
Width (mm)
2.15
2.13
2.11
2.14
2.14
2.12
Amps (A)
Volts(mV) ER (ohm-cm)
1.00E-02
8.43
0.05375
1.00E-02
8.94
0.05713
1.00E-02
9.93
0.06286
1.00E-02
7.90
0.04955
1.00E-02
7.85
0.04982
1.00E-02
8.07
0.05103
Average
0.05402
Standard Deviation
0.00518
Number of Samples
6
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65PR-T-23
Dot
1
2
3
4
5
6
Thickness(mm)
1.6
1.58
1.57
1.66
1.63
1.61
Width (mm)
2.17
2.17
2.17
2.35
2.17
2.21
Amps (A)
Volts(mV) ER (ohm-cm)
1.00E-02
11.39
0.06818
1.00E-02
10.87
0.06426
1.00E-02
11.19
0.06573
1.00E-02
7.51
0.05051
1.00E-02
8.47
0.05165
1.00E-02
7.93
0.04865
Average
0.05816
Standard Deviation
0.00879
Number of Samples
6
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65PR-T-21
Dot
1
2
3
4
Thickness(mm)
1.58
1.54
1.56
1.53
Width (mm)
2.05
1.8
1.81
2.05
Amps (A)
Volts(mV) ER (ohm-cm)
1.00E-02
10.34
0.05774
1.00E-02
10.26
0.04904
1.00E-02
10.36
0.05044
1.00E-02
12.32
0.06662
Average
0.05596
Standard Deviation
0.00807
Number of Samples
4
Test Date
7/8/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65PR-T-35
Dot
1
2
3
4
Thickness(mm)
1.68
1.61
1.61
1.63
Width (mm)
1.82
1.87
1.96
1.85
Amps (A)
Volts(mV) ER (ohm-cm)
0.01
8.03
0.04233
0.01
13.10
0.06800
0.01
10.87
0.05914
0.01
10.60
0.05511
Average
0.05615
Standard Deviation
0.01067
Number of Samples
4
189
Table C.38b: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date
7/8/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65PR-T-24
Dot
2
4
6
Thickness(mm)
1.83
1.85
1.66
Width (mm)
1.63
1.66
1.87
Amps (A)
0.01
0.01
0.01
Average
Volts(mV)
12.04
10.44
10.70
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Test Date
Sample Number
7/8/2008
EA2.5B65PR-T-28
Dot
Thickness(mm)
Width (mm)
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
ER (ohm-cm)
0.06192
0.05528
0.05727
0.05816
0.00341
3
ER (ohm-cm)
1
1.61
1.85
0.01
7.51
0.03857
2
1.61
1.89
0.01
7.65
0.04013
4
1.66
1.86
0.01
10.47
0.05574
5
1.66
1.9
0.01
11.33
0.06161
6
1.28
1.66
0.01
18.55
0.06796
Average
0.05280
Standard Deviation
0.01303
Number of Samples
5
Overall Average
0.05584
Overall Standard Deviation
0.00895
Number of Samples
190
33
Table C.39: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes,
and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65Q6P-35
Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
1
1.69
2.1
2
1.69
2.1
3
1.69
2.17
4
1.7
2.08
5
1.69
2.08
6
1.69
2.27
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-02
10.31
2.00E-02
9.51
2.00E-02
9.40
2.00E-02
8.22
2.00E-02
7.82
2.00E-02
7.55
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.03154
0.02910
0.02972
0.02506
0.02370
0.02497
0.02735
0.00318
6
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65Q6P-34
Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
1
1.71
2.04
2
1.7
2.17
4
1.71
2.24
5
1.71
2.1
6
1.71
2.12
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-02
10.63
2.00E-02
9.49
2.00E-02
7.48
2.00E-02
8.61
2.00E-02
8.68
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.03197
0.03018
0.02470
0.02665
0.02713
0.02813
0.00291
5
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65Q6P-22
Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
1
1.09
1.74
2
1.74
2.11
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-02
13.25
2.00E-02
6.77
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.02166
0.02143
0.02155
0.00017
2
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65Q6P-T-23
Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
2
1.73
2.1
4
1.74
2.11
5
1.74
2.21
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-02
7.24
2.00E-02
6.67
2.00E-02
7.09
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.02267
0.021111
0.02350
0.02243
0.00122
3
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65Q6P-27
Dot Thickness(mm) Width (mm)
1
1.72
2.04
2
1.71
2.1
3
1.71
2.07
5
1.72
2.1
6
1.72
2.09
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-02
8.37
2.00E-02
7.16
2.00E-02
6.51
2.00E-02
10.69
2.00E-02
10.25
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.02532
0.02217
0.01987
0.03329
0.03176
0.02648
0.00587
5
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
0.02607
0.00411
21
191
Table C.40: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes,
and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date
6/17/2008
Test Date
6/17/2008
Test Date
6/17/2008
Test Date
7/8/2008
Test Date
6/17/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65Q6PR-T-27
Sample Number
EA2.5B65Q6PR-T-35
Sample Number
EA2.5B65Q6PR-T-33
Sample Number
EA2.5B65QPR-T-39
Sample Number
EA2.5B65Q6PR-40
Dot
1
2
4
5
6
Dot
1
2
3
Dot
4
5
6
Dot
2
3
Dot
1
2
3
4
5
6
Thickness(mm)
1.66
1.65
1.43
1.65
1.65
Thickness(mm)
1.59
1.59
1.6
Thickness(mm)
1.62
1.62
1.61
Thickness(mm)
1.86
1.8
Thickness(mm)
1.56
1.56
1.56
1.57
1.56
1.56
Width (mm)
1.78
1.98
1.66
2.29
2
Width (mm)
1.96
2.15
2.29
Width (mm)
2.18
2.45
2.48
Width (mm)
1.57
1.52
Width (mm)
2.13
2.12
2.12
2.12
2.09
2.09
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-02
12.88
2.00E-02
11.12
2.00E-02
15.59
2.00E-02
7.84
2.00E-02
9.37
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.03281
0.03132
0.03190
0.02554
0.02666
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-02
8.76
2.00E-02
7.89
2.00E-02
7.67
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.02353
0.02325
0.02423
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-02
6.49
2.00E-02
6.02
2.00E-02
6.43
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.01976
0.02060
0.02213
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.00E-02
6.82
1.00E-02
7.15
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.03434
0.03373
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
2.00E-02
8.95
2.00E-02
9.11
2.00E-02
9.28
2.00E-02
9.42
2.00E-02
9.14
2.00E-02
10.34
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.02564
0.02597
0.02646
0.02703
0.02569
0.02906
0.02664
0.00130
6
Overall Average
Overall Std Deviation
Number of Samples
192
0.02964
0.00331
5
0.02367
0.00050
3
0.02083
0.00120
3
0.03403
0.00043
2
0.02682
0.00433
19
Table C.41a: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes,
and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN Compression Molded
Test Date
7/10/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65Q6P-1C
Dot
1
2
3
4
5
7
Thickness(mm)
1.77
1.63
1.63
1.77
1.32
1.78
Test Date Sample Number
7/10/2008
EA2.5B65Q6P-2C
Dot Thickness(mm)
1
1.7
2
1.71
3
1.67
4
1.35
5
1.44
6
1.54
Test Date
7/10/2008
Dot
1
4
5
6
Test Date
7/10/2008
Test Date
7/10/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65Q6P-3C
Sample Number
EA2.5B65Q6P-4C
Sample Number
EA2.5B65Q6P-5C
Dot
1
2
3
4
5
6
Dot
1
6
Thickness(mm)
1.61
1.74
1.68
1.74
Thickness(mm)
1.76
1.75
1.76
1.69
1.8
1.69
Thickness(mm)
1.79
1.75
Width (mm)
1.6
1.81
1.87
1.56
1.74
1.67
Width (mm)
1.8
1.8
1.79
1.76
1.79
1.79
Width (mm)
1.81
1.66
1.73
1.68
Width (mm)
1.75
1.75
1.73
1.79
1.71
1.79
Width (mm)
1.61
1.36
193
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.00E-01
22.53
1.00E-01
21.18
1.00E-01
19.18
1.00E-01
25.40
1.00E-01
22.00
1.00E-01
19.86
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.00E-01
18.85
1.00E-01
20.70
1.00E-01
21.71
1.00E-01
28.68
1.00E-01
26.92
1.00E-01
24.35
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.01100
0.01077
0.01008
0.01209
0.00871
0.01018
0.01047
0.00113
6
ER (ohm-cm)
0.00995
0.01099
0.01119
0.01175
0.01196
0.01157
0.01123
0.00073
6
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.00E-01
24.65
1.00E-01
19.87
1.00E-01
21.91
1.00E-01
18.52
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.01238
0.00990
0.01098
0.00933
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.00E-01
21.39
1.00E-01
22.99
1.00E-01
20.99
1.00E-01
18.65
1.00E-01
20.03
1.00E-01
20.59
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.01136
0.01214
0.01102
0.00973
0.01063
0.01074
Amps (A)
Volts(mV)
1.00E-01
22.15
1.00E-01
30.89
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
ER (ohm-cm)
0.01101
0.01268
0.01065
0.00134
4
0.01094
0.00080
6
0.01184
0.00118
2
Table C.41b: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes,
and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN Compression Molded
Test Date
7/10/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65Q6P-6C
Dot
1
2
3
4
5
6
Thickness(mm)
1.68
1.68
1.68
1.76
1.76
1.74
Width (mm)
1.78
1.76
1.77
1.6
1.49
1.45
Amps (A)
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
0.1
0.1
0.1
Volts(mV)
20.47
20.77
19.76
23.42
26.02
27.92
Average
0.01109
Standard Deviation
0.00079
Number of Samples
Test Date
7/10/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65Q6P-7C
Dot
1
2
4
5
Thickness(mm)
1.77
1.78
1.77
1.77
Width (mm)
1.68
1.7
1.68
1.68
Amps (A)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Volts(mV)
19.58
21.33
19.28
20.08
6
ER (ohm-cm)
0.01004
0.01113
0.00988
0.01029
Average
0.01034
Standard Deviation
0.00055
Number of Samples
4
Overall Average
0.01088
Overall Standard Deviation
0.00093
Number of Samples
194
ER (ohm-cm)
0.01055
0.01059
0.01013
0.01137
0.01176
0.01214
34
Appendix D: US Fuel Cell Council Through Plane Electrical Resistivity Results
EAP’s
Table D.1: Poco Reference June 23, 2008
POCO Reference Data
Carbon Paper
Thickness
Area
Resistivity
6/23/2008
0.325
31.669
1.5
R (mohm)
11.8
11.9
12.03
12.26
12.12
12.14
12.13
12.25
12.17
12.29
Average
12.109
Stand. Dev.
0.158
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
Rpoco + lead resistance =
12.109
lead resistance (mohm)
12.094
Table D.2: 4 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene
Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 18
Results
tested
Sample Number
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
cm
cm2
mohm cm
mohm
mohm
mohm
195
inj mold
6/23/2008
tested
cm
2
Area
Diameter
29.94
6.174
cm
cm
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
6
R (mohm)
82400
83100
82100
79100
76000
84000
Average
Std. Dev.
n
R corrected
(mohm)
82387.91
83087.91
82087.91
79087.91
75987.91
83987.91
81104.57
3003.61
6
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
EA4P-TC-18
Resistivity Conductivity
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
7474.34
1.34E-04
7537.84
1.33E-04
7447.12
1.34E-04
7174.96
1.39E-04
6893.72
1.45E-04
7619.49
1.31E-04
7357.91
1.36E-04
272.49
5.20E-06
6
6
Table D.4: EA4P Disk 5 Results
Table D.3: EA4P Disk 10 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
EA4P-TC-10
inj mold
6/23/2008
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.336
tested
cm
2
Area
Diameter
29.94
6.174
cm
cm
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
70000
71600
71400
67800
69000
Average
Std. Dev.
n
R corrected
(mohm)
69987.91
71587.91
71387.91
67787.91
68987.91
69947.91
1608.73
5
Resistivity Conductivity
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
6349.39
1.57E-04
6494.55
1.54E-04
6476.40
1.54E-04
6149.81
1.63E-04
6258.67
1.60E-04
6345.76
1.58E-04
145.95
3.65E-06
5
5
196
EA4P-TC-5
inj mold
6/23/2008
tested
cm
2
Area
Diameter
29.86
6.166
cm
cm
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
69000
71000
68000
67000
66000
Average
Std. Dev.
n
R corrected
(mohm)
68987.91
70987.91
67987.91
66987.91
65987.91
68187.91
1923.54
5
Resistivity Conductivity
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
6258.67
1.60E-04
6440.11
1.55E-04
6167.95
1.62E-04
6077.23
1.65E-04
5986.51
1.67E-04
6186.09
1.62E-04
174.51
4.52E-06
5
5
Table D.6: EA4P Disk 6 Results
Table D.5: EA4P Disk 25 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.336
EA4P-TC-25
inj mold
6/23/2008
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.336
tested
cm
2
Area
Diameter
29.89
6.169
cm
cm
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
91000
82000
89000
89000
88000
Average
Std. Dev.
n
R corrected
(mohm)
90987.91
81987.91
88987.91
88987.91
87987.91
87787.91
3420.53
5
Resistivity Conductivity
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
8254.54
1.21E-04
7438.05
1.34E-04
8073.10
1.24E-04
8073.10
1.24E-04
7982.38
1.25E-04
7964.23
1.26E-04
310.31
5.10E-06
5
5
197
Area
Diameter
29.89
6.169
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
67000
70000
67000
64000
68000
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA4P-TC-6
inj mold
6/23/2008
tested
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity Conductivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
66987.91
6077.23
1.65E-04
69987.91
6349.39
1.57E-04
66987.91
6077.23
1.65E-04
63987.91
5805.07
1.72E-04
67987.91
6167.95
1.62E-04
67187.91
6095.37
1.64E-04
2167.95
196.68
5.35E-06
5
5
5
Table D.7: Overall Results for 4 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD
in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN
Date
Sample Number
6/23/2008
EA4P-TC-18
6/23/2008
EA4P-TC-10
6/23/2008
EA4P-TC-5
6/23/2008
EA4P-TC-25
6/23/2008
EA4P-TC-6
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Average
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
7357.911
6345.764
6186.094
7964.232
6095.373
6811.722
828.537
5
198
Table D.8: Poco Reference June 23, 2008
POCO Reference Data
Carbon Paper
Thickness
Area
Resistivity
6/23/2008
tested
0.325
cm
31.669
1.5
cm
mohm cm
R (mohm)
11.8
11.9
12.03
12.26
12.12
12.14
12.13
12.25
12.17
12.29
Average
12.109
Stand. Dev.
0.158
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
Rpoco + lead resistance =
12.109
lead resistance (mohm)
12.094
Table D.9: 5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene
Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 18
Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
2
EA5P-TC-18 inj mold
6/23/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
tested
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
mohm
mohm
mohm
199
R (mohm)
7700
7510
7100
6800
6700
Average
Std. Dev.
n
R corrected Resistivity Conductivity
(S/cm)
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
7687.91
697.46
1.43E-03
7497.91
680.22
1.47E-03
7087.91
643.02
1.56E-03
6787.91
615.81
1.62E-03
6687.91
606.74
1.65E-03
7149.91
648.65
1.55E-03
435.57
39.52
9.35E-05
5
5
5
Table D.11: EA5P Disk 5 Results
Table D.10: EA5P Disk 23 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
8050
7220
7450
7920
7610
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA5P-TC-23
inj mold
6/23/2008
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
tested
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
8037.91
7207.91
7437.91
7907.91
7597.91
7637.91
338.90
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
729.21
653.91
674.78
717.42
689.29
692.92
30.75
5
Conductivity
(S/cm)
1.37E-03
1.53E-03
1.48E-03
1.39E-03
1.45E-03
1.45E-03
6.43E-05
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
200
R (mohm)
7650
7460
7700
7310
7760
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA5P-TC-5
inj mold
6/23/2008
tested
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity Conductivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
7637.91
692.92
1.44E-03
7447.91
675.68
1.48E-03
7687.91
697.46
1.43E-03
7297.91
662.08
1.51E-03
7747.91
702.90
1.42E-03
7563.91
686.21
1.46E-03
186.36
16.91
3.63E-05
5
5
5
Table D.13: EA5P Disk 13 Results
Table D.12: EA5P Disk 6 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.336
Area
29.86
Diameter
6.166
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
6440
6400
6400
6400
6250
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA5P-TC-6
inj mold
6/23/2008
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.336
Area
29.89
Diameter
6.169
tested
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
6427.91
583.15
6387.91
579.52
6387.91
579.52
6387.91
579.52
6237.91
565.91
6365.91
577.52
73.62
6.68
5
5
Conductivity
(S/cm)
1.71E-03
1.73E-03
1.73E-03
1.73E-03
1.77E-03
1.73E-03
2.03E-05
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
201
R (mohm)
7210
6740
6800
6250
6210
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA5P-TC-13
inj mold
6/23/2008
tested
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
7197.91
6727.91
6787.91
6237.91
6197.91
6629.91
417.58
5
Resistivity Conductivity
(S/cm)
(ohm cm)
653.00
1.53E-03
610.36
1.64E-03
615.81
1.62E-03
565.91
1.77E-03
562.28
1.78E-03
601.47
1.67E-03
37.88
1.04E-04
5
5
Table D.14: Overall Results for 5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD
in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN
Average
Sample
Resistivity
Date
Number
(ohm cm)
6/23/2008 EA5P-TC-18
648.65
6/23/2008 EA5P-TC-23
692.92
6/23/2008
EA5P-TC-5
686.21
6/23/2008
EA5P-TC-6
577.52
6/23/2008 EA5P-TC-13
601.47
Overall Average
641.35
Overall Standard Deviation
50.96
Number of Samples
5
202
Table D.15: Poco Reference 6-23-08
POCO Reference Data
Carbon Paper
Thickness
Area
Resistivity
6/23/2008
Table D.16: 6 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene
Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 22
Results
tested
0.325
cm
31.669
1.5
cm
mohm cm
R (mohm)
11.80
11.90
12.03
12.26
12.12
12.14
12.13
12.25
12.17
12.29
Average
12.11
Stand. Dev.
0.158
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
Rpoco + lead resistance =
12.109
lead resistance (mohm)
12.094
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
2
EA6P-TC-22
inj mold
6/23/2008
tested
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
218.45
201.66
190.32
201.21
187.60
199.85
12.16
5
Conductivity
(S/cm)
4.58E-03
4.96E-03
5.25E-03
4.97E-03
5.33E-03
5.02E-03
2.97E-04
5
cm
2
cm
cm
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
mohm
mohm
mohm
203
R (mohm)
2420
2235
2110
2230
2080
Average
Std. Dev.
n
R corrected
(mohm)
2407.91
2222.91
2097.91
2217.91
2067.91
2202.91
134.07
5
Table D.18: EA6P Disk 33 Results
Table D.17: EA6P Disk 8 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
1860
1760
1700
1830
1650
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA6P-TC-8
inj mold
6/23/2008
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.336
Area
29.86
Diameter
6.166
tested
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
1847.91
1747.91
1687.91
1817.91
1637.91
1747.91
87.46
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
167.64
158.57
153.13
164.92
148.59
158.57
7.93
5
Conductivity
(S/cm)
5.97E-03
6.31E-03
6.53E-03
6.06E-03
6.73E-03
6.32E-03
3.18E-04
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
204
R (mohm)
2600
2550
2530
2470
2380
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA6P-TC-33
inj mold
6/23/2008
tested
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
234.78
230.24
228.43
222.98
214.82
226.25
7.66
5
Conductivity
(S/cm)
4.26E-03
4.34E-03
4.38E-03
4.48E-03
4.66E-03
4.42E-03
1.52E-04
5
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
2587.91
2537.91
2517.91
2457.91
2367.91
2493.91
84.44
5
Table D.20: EA6P Disk 12 Results
Table D.19: EA6P Disk 23 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.336
Area
29.89
Diameter
6.169
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
1860
1830
1750
1700
1770
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA6P-TC-23
inj mold
6/23/2008
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.336
Area
29.89
Diameter
6.169
tested
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
1847.91
1817.91
1737.91
1687.91
1757.91
1769.91
63.80
5
Resistivity Conductivity
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
167.64
5.97E-03
164.92
6.06E-03
157.67
6.34E-03
153.13
6.53E-03
159.48
6.27E-03
160.57
6.23E-03
5.79
2.25E-04
5
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
205
R (mohm)
2550
2460
2460
2200
2310
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA6P-TC-12
inj mold
6/23/2008
tested
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
2537.91
2447.91
2447.91
2187.91
2297.91
2383.91
139.39
5
Resistivity Conductivity
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
230.24
4.34E-03
222.08
4.50E-03
222.08
4.50E-03
198.49
5.04E-03
208.47
4.80E-03
216.27
4.64E-03
12.65
2.78E-04
5
5
Table D.21: Overall Results for 6 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD
in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN
Sample
Date
Number
6/23/2008
EA6P-TC-22
6/23/2008
EA6P-TC-8
6/23/2008
EA6P-TC-33
6/23/2008
EA6P-TC-23
6/23/2008
EA6P-TC-12
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Average
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
199.85
158.57
226.25
160.57
216.27
192.30
31.34
5
206
Table D.23: 7.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene
Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 8
Results
Table D.22: Poco Reference 6-25-08
POCO Reference Data
Carbon Paper
Thickness
Area
Resistivity
6/25/2008
tested
0.325
31.669
1.5
cm
2
cm
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
13.20
2
13.30
3
13.30
4
13.20
5
13.20
6
13.00
7
13.10
8
13.30
9
13.20
10
13.30
Average
13.21
Stand. Dev.
0.099
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
Rpoco + lead resistance = 13.210
lead resistance (mohm)
13.195
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
mohm
mohm
mohm
207
R (mohm)
141
142
141
141
141
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA7.5P-TC-8
inj mold
6/25/2008
tested
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
11.595
11.685
11.595
11.595
11.595
11.613
0.041
5
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0862
0.0856
0.0862
0.0862
0.0862
0.0861
2.99E-04
5
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
127.81
128.81
127.81
127.81
127.81
128.01
0.45
5
Table D.25: EA7.5P Disk 26 Results
Table D.24: EA7.5P Disk 27 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
EA7.5P-TC-27 inj mold
6/25/2008
tested
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity Conductivity
R (mohm)
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
146
132.81
12.048
0.0830
144
130.81
11.867
0.0843
142
128.81
11.685
0.0856
143
129.81
11.776
0.0849
140
126.81
11.504
0.0869
Average
129.81
11.776
0.0849
Std. Dev.
2.24
0.203
1.46E-03
n
5
5
5
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
208
R (mohm)
142
143
146
143
143
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA7.5P-TC-26
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
128.81
129.81
132.81
129.81
129.81
130.21
1.52
5
inj mold
6/25/2008
tested
Resistivity Conductivity
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
11.685
0.0856
11.776
0.0849
12.048
0.0830
11.776
0.0849
11.776
0.0849
11.812
0.0847
0.138
9.74E-04
5
5
Table D.27: EA7.5P Disk 5 Results
Table D.26: EA7.5P Disk 6 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
130
134
133
135
139
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA7.5P-TC-6
inj mold
6/25/2008
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
tested
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
116.81
120.81
119.81
121.81
125.81
121.01
3.27
5
Resistivity Conductivity
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
10.597
0.0944
10.960
0.0912
10.869
0.0920
11.050
0.0905
11.413
0.0876
10.978
0.0911
0.297
2.45E-03
5
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
209
R (mohm)
143
150
149
148
145
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA7.5P-TC-5 inj mold
6/25/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
129.81
136.81
135.81
134.81
131.81
133.81
2.92
5
tested
Resistivity Conductivity
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
11.776
0.0849
12.411
0.0806
12.320
0.0812
12.230
0.0818
11.958
0.0836
12.139
0.0824
0.264
1.81E-03
5
5
Table D.28: Overall Results for 7.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600
JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN
Average
Resistivity
Date
Sample Number (ohm cm)
6/25/2008 EA7.5P-TC-8
11.613
6/25/2008 EA7.5P-TC-27
11.776
6/25/2008 EA7.5P-TC-26
11.812
6/25/2008 EA7.5P-TC-6
10.978
6/25/2008 EA7.5P-TC-5
12.139
Overall Average
11.664
Overall Standard Deviation
0.428
Number of Samples
5
210
EBP’s
Table D.30: 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene
Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 20
Results
Table D.29: Poco Reference 6/26/08
POCO Reference Data
Carbon Paper
Thickness
Area
Resistivity
6/26/2008
tested
0.325
31.669
1.5
cm
2
cm
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
13
2
13.2
3
13
4
12.9
5
12.9
6
12.9
7
13
8
13
9
13.1
10
13.1
Average
13.010
Stand. Dev.
0.099
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
Rpoco + lead resistance = 13.010
lead resistance (mohm)
12.995
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.34
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
mohm
mohm
mohm
211
R (mohm)
373
370
363
362
357
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB65P-TC-20
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
360.005
357.005
350.005
349.005
344.005
352.005
6.442
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
31.700
31.435
30.819
30.731
30.291
30.995
0.567
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0315
0.0318
0.0324
0.0325
0.0330
0.0323
0.0006
5
Table D.32: EB65P Disk 6 Results
Table D.31: EB65P Disk 30 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
356
350
346
348
339
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB65P-TC-30
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
343.005
337.005
333.005
335.005
326.005
334.805
6.181
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
31.118
30.574
30.211
30.392
29.576
30.374
0.561
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0321
0.0327
0.0331
0.0329
0.0338
0.0329
0.0006
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
212
R (mohm)
391
396
396
391
398
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB65P-TC-6
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
378.005
34.293
383.005
34.747
383.005
34.747
378.005
34.293
385.005
34.928
381.405
34.602
3.209
0.291
5
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0292
0.0288
0.0288
0.0292
0.0286
0.0289
0.0002
5
Table D.34: EB65P Disk 21 Results
Table D.33: EB65P Disk 19 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
350
342
351
352
351
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB65P-TC-19
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
337.005
30.574
329.005
29.848
338.005
30.664
339.005
30.755
338.005
30.664
336.205
30.501
4.087
0.371
5
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0327
0.0335
0.0326
0.0325
0.0326
0.0328
0.0004
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
213
R (mohm)
242
239
239
234
231
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB65P-TC-21
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
229.005
20.776
226.005
20.503
226.005
20.503
221.005
20.050
218.005
19.778
224.005
20.322
4.416
0.401
5
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0481
0.0488
0.0488
0.0499
0.0506
0.0492
0.0010
5
Table D.36: EB65P Disk 7 Results
Table D.35: Poco Reference 6/27/08
POCO Reference Data 6/27/2008 tested
Carbon Paper
Thickness
0.325
cm
Area
31.669
cm2
Resistivity
1.5
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
12.77
2
12.57
3
12.46
4
12.6
5
12.44
6
12.51
7
12.46
8
12.87
9
12.39
10
12.49
Average
12.556
Stand. Dev.
0.154
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
mohm
Rpoco + lead resistance = 12.556
mohm
lead resistance (mohm)
12.541
mohm
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.34
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
214
R (mohm)
270
269
266
264
264
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB65P-TC-7
6/27/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
257.459
256.459
253.459
251.459
251.459
254.059
2.793
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
22.670
22.582
22.318
22.142
22.142
22.371
0.246
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0441
0.0443
0.0448
0.0452
0.0452
0.0447
0.0005
5
Table D.37: Overall Results for 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300
in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN
Date
Sample Number
6/26/2008
EB65P-TC-20
6/26/2008
EB65P-TC-30
6/26/2008
EB65P-TC-6
6/26/2008
EB65P-TC-19
6/26/2008
EB65P-TC-21
6/27/2008
EB65P-TC-7
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Average
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
30.995
30.374
34.602
30.501
20.322
22.371
28.194
5.565
6
215
Table D.39: 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene
Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Disk 24 Results
Table D.38: Poco Reference 6/26/08
POCO Reference Data
Carbon Paper
Thickness
Area
Resistivity
6/26/2008
tested
0.325
31.669
1.5
cm
2
cm
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
13
2
13.2
3
13
4
12.9
5
12.9
6
12.9
7
13
8
13
9
13.1
10
13.1
Average
13.010
Stand. Dev.
0.099
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
Rpoco + lead resistance = 13.010
lead resistance (mohm)
12.995
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.34
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
mohm
mohm
mohm
216
R (mohm)
236
238
234
230
225
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB65PR-TC-24
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
223.005
19.636
225.005
19.812
221.005
19.460
217.005
19.108
212.005
18.668
219.605
19.337
5.177
0.456
5
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0509
0.0505
0.0514
0.0523
0.0536
0.0517
0.0012
5
Table D.41: EB65PR Disk 23 Results
Table D.40: EB65PR Disk 30 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
276
273
268
276
270
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB65PR-TC-30
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
263.005
260.005
255.005
263.005
257.005
259.605
3.578
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
23.860
23.588
23.134
23.860
23.316
23.552
0.325
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0419
0.0424
0.0432
0.0419
0.0429
0.0425
0.0006
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
217
R (mohm)
279
273
272
268
265
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB65PR-TC-23
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
266.005
260.005
259.005
255.005
252.005
258.405
5.320
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
24.132
23.588
23.497
23.134
22.862
23.443
0.483
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0414
0.0424
0.0426
0.0432
0.0437
0.0427
0.0009
5
Table D.43: EB65PR Disk 19 Results
Table D.42: EB65PR Disk 13 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
293
287
279
279
277
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB65PR-TC-13
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
280.005
274.005
266.005
266.005
264.005
270.005
6.782
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
25.402
24.858
24.132
24.132
23.951
24.495
0.615
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0394
0.0402
0.0414
0.0414
0.0418
0.0408
0.0010
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
218
R (mohm)
296
295
294
291
304
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB65PR-TC-19
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
283.005
25.675
282.005
25.584
281.005
25.493
278.005
25.221
291.005
26.400
283.005
25.675
4.848
0.440
5
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0389
0.0391
0.0392
0.0396
0.0379
0.0390
0.0007
5
Table D.44: Overall Results for 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300
in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN Replicate
Date
Sample Number
6/26/2008 EB65PR-TC-24
6/26/2008 EB65PR-TC-30
6/26/2008 EB65PR-TC-23
6/26/2008 EB65PR-TC-13
6/26/2008 EB65PR-TC-19
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Average
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
19.337
23.552
23.443
24.495
25.675
23.300
2.390
5
219
Table D.46: 70 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene
Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 7
Results
Table D.45: Poco Reference 6/26/08
POCO Reference Data
Carbon Paper
Thickness
Area
Resistivity
6/26/2008
tested
0.325
31.669
1.5
cm
2
cm
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
13
2
13.2
3
13
4
12.9
5
12.9
6
12.9
7
13
8
13
9
13.1
10
13.1
Average
13.010
Stand. Dev.
0.099
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
Rpoco + lead resistance = 13.010
lead resistance (mohm)
12.995
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.34
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
mohm
mohm
mohm
220
R (mohm)
161
157
156
159
160
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB70P-TC-7
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
148.005
144.005
143.005
146.005
147.005
145.605
2.074
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
13.032
12.680
12.592
12.856
12.944
12.821
0.183
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0767
0.0789
0.0794
0.0778
0.0773
0.0780
0.0011
5
Table D.48: EB70P Disk 18 Results
Table D.47: EB70P Disk 6 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
172
168
173
164
163
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB70P-TC-6
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
159.005
14.425
155.005
14.062
160.005
14.516
151.005
13.699
150.005
13.609
155.005
14.062
4.528
0.411
5
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0693
0.0711
0.0689
0.0730
0.0735
0.0712
0.0021
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
221
R (mohm)
156
154
151
147
144
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB70P-TC-18
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
143.005
12.974
141.005
12.792
138.005
12.520
134.005
12.157
131.005
11.885
137.405
12.466
4.930
0.447
5
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0771
0.0782
0.0799
0.0823
0.0841
0.0803
0.0029
5
Table D.50: EB70P Disk 30 Results
Table D.49: EB70P Disk 15 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
178
179
179
175
168
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB70P-TC-15
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
165.005
14.970
166.005
15.060
166.005
15.060
162.005
14.697
155.005
14.062
162.805
14.770
4.658
0.423
5
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0668
0.0664
0.0664
0.0680
0.0711
0.0678
0.0020
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
222
R (mohm)
160
159
158
156
153
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB70P-TC-30
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
147.005
13.337
146.005
13.246
145.005
13.155
143.005
12.974
140.005
12.701
144.205
13.082
2.775
0.252
5
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0750
0.0755
0.0760
0.0771
0.0787
0.0765
0.0015
5
Table D.51: Overall Results for 70 wt% Thermocarb TC-300
in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN
Date
Sample Number
6/26/2008
EB70P-TC-7
6/26/2008
EB70P-TC-6
6/26/2008
EB70P-TC-18
6/26/2008
EB70P-TC-15
6/26/2008
EB70P-TC-30
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Average
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
12.821
14.062
12.466
14.770
13.082
13.440
0.951
5
223
Table D.53: 75 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene
Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 19
Results
Table D.52: Poco Reference 6/26/08
POCO Reference Data
Carbon Paper
Thickness
Area
Resistivity
6/26/2008
tested
0.325
31.669
1.5
cm
2
cm
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
13
2
13.2
3
13
4
12.9
5
12.9
6
12.9
7
13
8
13
9
13.1
10
13.1
Average
13.010
Stand. Dev.
0.099
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
Rpoco + lead resistance = 13.010
lead resistance (mohm)
12.995
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.34
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
mohm
mohm
mohm
224
R (mohm)
83.1
86.5
85.5
83.6
81.8
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB75P-TC-19
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
70.105
6.173
73.505
6.472
72.505
6.384
70.605
6.217
68.805
6.059
71.105
6.261
1.888
0.166
5
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.1620
0.1545
0.1566
0.1608
0.1651
0.1598
0.0042
5
Table D.55: EB75P Disk 14 Results
Table D.54: EB75P Disk 8 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
81
80.5
80.2
80.2
80.2
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB75P-TC-8
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
68.005
6.170
67.505
6.124
67.205
6.097
67.205
6.097
67.205
6.097
67.425
6.117
0.349
0.032
5
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.1621
0.1633
0.1640
0.1640
0.1640
0.1635
0.0008
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
225
R (mohm)
75.7
76.9
79.1
77.3
77
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB75P-TC-14
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
62.705
63.905
66.105
64.305
64.005
64.205
1.225
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
5.689
5.798
5.997
5.834
5.807
5.825
0.111
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.1758
0.1725
0.1667
0.1714
0.1722
0.1717
0.0032
5
Table D.57: EB75P Disk 18 Results
Table D.56: EB75P Disk 15 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
70.3
69.7
72.8
73.1
72.3
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB75P-TC-15
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
57.305
5.199
56.705
5.144
59.805
5.426
60.105
5.453
59.305
5.380
58.645
5.320
1.539
0.140
5
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.1924
0.1944
0.1843
0.1834
0.1859
0.1881
0.0050
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
226
R (mohm)
70.5
71.3
71.9
69.9
71.2
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB75P-TC-18
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
57.505
5.217
58.305
5.290
58.905
5.344
56.905
5.163
58.205
5.280
57.965
5.259
0.773
0.070
5
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.1917
0.1891
0.1871
0.1937
0.1894
0.1902
0.0025
5
Table D.58: Poco Reference 7/1/08
Table D.59: EB75P Disk 7 Results
POCO Reference Data
7/1/2008
tested
Carbon Paper
Thickness
0.325
cm
Area
31.669
cm2
Resistivity
1.5
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
14.1
2
14.2
3
14.1
4
14.1
5
14.1
6
13.9
7
14.1
8
13.8
9
13.6
10
13.6
Average
13.960
Stand. Dev.
0.222
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
mohm
Rpoco + lead resistance = 13.960
mohm
lead resistance (mohm)
13.945
mohm
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.36
Area
31.47
Diameter
6.33
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
227
R (mohm)
69.7
70.3
69.6
69.2
69.1
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB75P-TC-7
7/1/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
55.755
56.355
55.655
55.255
55.155
55.635
0.476
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
4.874
4.926
4.865
4.830
4.822
4.863
0.042
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.2052
0.2030
0.2055
0.2070
0.2074
0.2056
0.0018
5
Table D.61: EB75P Disk 14 Results
Table D.60: EB75P Disk 25 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness 0.359
Area
31.47
Diameter
6.33
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
EB75P-TC-25
7/1/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
R (mohm)
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
67.7
53.755
4.712
67.6
53.655
4.703
67.1
53.155
4.660
67.2
53.255
4.668
67.4
53.455
4.686
Average
53.455
4.686
Std. Dev.
0.255
0.022
n
5
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness 0.357
Area
31.50
Diameter
6.333
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.2122
0.2126
0.2146
0.2142
0.2134
0.2134
0.0010
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
228
EB75P-TC-14
7/1/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
R (mohm) (mohm)
(ohm cm)
67.75
53.805
4.748
67.4
53.455
4.717
66.9
52.955
4.673
66.8
52.855
4.664
66.4
52.455
4.628
Average
53.105
4.686
Std. Dev.
0.529
0.047
n
5
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.2106
0.2120
0.2140
0.2144
0.2161
0.2134
0.0021
5
Table D.62: Overall Results for 75 wt% Thermocarb TC-300
in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN
Sample
Date
Number
6/26/2008 EB75P-TC-19
6/26/2008
EB75P-TC-8
6/26/2008 EB75P-TC-14
6/26/2008 EB75P-TC-15
6/26/2008 EB75P-TC-18
7/1/2008
EB75P-TC-7
7/1/2008
EB75P-TC-25
7/1/2008
EB75P-TC-14
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Average
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
6.261
6.117
5.825
5.320
5.259
4.863
4.686
4.686
5.377
0.629
8
229
Table D.64: 80 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene
Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 15
Results
Table D.63: Poco Reference 7/2/08
POCO Reference Data
7/2/2008
tested
Carbon Paper
Thickness
0.325
cm
2
Area
31.669
cm
Resistivity
1.5
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
14.1
2
14.1
3
14.1
4
13.8
5
14.1
6
14
7
14
8
13.8
9
14
10
14
Average
14.000
Stand. Dev.
0.115
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
mohm
Rpoco + lead resistance = 14.000
mohm
lead resistance (mohm)
13.985
mohm
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness 0.354
Area
30.04
Diameter
6.184
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
230
R (mohm)
18.7
18.6
18.8
18.8
19
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB80P-TC-15
7/2/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
4.715
0.4001
4.615
0.3916
4.815
0.4086
4.815
0.4086
5.015
0.4255
4.795
0.4069
0.148
0.0126
5
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
2.500
2.554
2.448
2.448
2.350
2.460
0.075
5
Table D.66: EB80P Disk 24 Results
Table D.65: EB80P Disk 18 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.35
Area
31.40
Diameter
6.323
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
EB80P-TC-18
7/2/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
R (mohm)
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
18.99
5.005
0.4491
18.97
4.985
0.4473
18.93
4.945
0.4437
18.93
4.945
0.4437
19.42
5.435
0.4876
Average
5.063
0.4543
Std. Dev.
0.210
0.0188
n
5
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness 0.351
Area
31.42
Diameter
6.325
Conductivity
(S/cm)
2.227
2.236
2.254
2.254
2.051
2.204
0.087
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
231
EB80P-TC-24
7/2/2008
.
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
R (mohm)
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
18.9
4.915
0.4400
18.8
4.815
0.4311
18.7
4.715
0.4221
18.9
4.915
0.4400
19
5.015
0.4490
Average
4.875
0.4364
Std. Dev.
0.114
0.0102
n
5
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
2.273
2.320
2.369
2.273
2.227
2.292
0.054
5
Table D.68: EB80P Disk 30 Results
Table D.67: EB80P Disk 12 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness 0.353
Area
31.44
Diameter
6.327
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
EB80P-TC-12
7/2/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
R (mohm) (mohm)
(ohm cm)
19
5.015
0.4467
19.1
5.115
0.4556
18.9
4.915
0.4378
18.8
4.815
0.4289
19
5.015
0.4467
Average
4.975
0.4431
Std. Dev.
0.114
0.0102
n
5
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness 0.353
Area
31.47
Diameter
6.33
Conductivity
(S/cm)
2.239
2.195
2.284
2.332
2.239
2.258
0.052
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
232
EB80P-TC-30
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
R (mohm) (mohm) (ohm cm)
18.5
4.515
0.4025
18.6
4.615
0.4115
18.4
4.415
0.3936
18.3
4.315
0.3847
18.4
4.415
0.3936
Average
4.455
0.3972
Std. Dev.
0.114
0.0102
n
5
5
inj mold
39631
Conductivity
(S/cm)
2.484
2.430
2.540
2.599
2.540
2.519
0.064
5
Table D.69: Overall Results for 80 wt% Thermocarb TC-300
in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN
Date
Sample Number
Average
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
7/2/2008
EB80P-TC-15
0.4069
7/2/2008
EB80P-TC-18
0.4543
7/2/2008
EB80P-TC-24
0.4364
7/2/2008
EB80P-TC-12
0.4431
7/2/2008
EB80P-TC-30
0.3972
Overall Average
0.4276
Overall Standard Deviation
0.0244
Number of Samples
5
233
EQP’s
Table D.71: 7.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H701235RN Disk 19 Results
Table D.70: Poco Reference 6/30/08
POCO Reference Data 6/30/2008 tested
Carbon Paper
Thickness
0.325
cm
2
Area
31.669
cm
Resistivity
1.5
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
12.11
2
12.02
3
11.97
4
12.16
5
12
6
12.09
7
12.01
8
12.13
9
12.1
10
11.98
Average
12.057
Stand. Dev.
0.068
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
mohm
Rpoco + lead resistance = 12.057
mohm
lead resistance (mohm)
12.042
mohm
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness 0.335
Area
30.09
Diameter
6.19
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
234
R (mohm)
2490
2430
2450
2360
2550
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ7.5P-TC-19
6/30/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
2477.96
2417.96
2437.96
2347.96
2537.96
2443.96
70.57
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
222.60
217.21
219.00
210.92
227.99
219.54
6.34
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
4.49E-03
4.60E-03
4.57E-03
4.74E-03
4.39E-03
4.56E-03
1.32E-04
5
Table D.73: Poco Reference 7/11/08
Table D.72: EQ7.5P Disk 32 Results
POCO Reference Data
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
3010
2960
2860
2860
3020
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ7.5P-TC-32
6/30/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
2997.96
271.98
2947.96
267.44
2847.96
258.37
2847.96
258.37
3007.96
272.89
2929.96
265.81
78.23
7.10
5
5
inj mold
tested
7/11/2008
tested
Carbon Paper
Thickness
0.325
cm
2
Area
31.669
cm
Resistivity
1.5
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
10.46
2
10.39
3
10.35
4
10.33
5
10.28
6
10.46
7
10.39
8
10.32
9
10.41
10
10.36
Average
10.375
Stand. Dev.
0.059
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
mohm
Rpoco + lead resistance = 10.375
mohm
lead resistance (mohm)
10.360
mohm
Conductivity
(S/cm)
3.68E-03
3.74E-03
3.87E-03
3.87E-03
3.66E-03
3.76E-03
1.01E-04
5
235
Table D.75: EQ7.5P Disk 24 Results
Table D.74: EQ7.5P Disk 20 Results
Sample Data
as molded
Thickness 0.333
Area
30.14
Diameter
6.195
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
3120
3120
3070
3060
3080
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ7.5P-TC-20
7/11/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
3109.64
3109.64
3059.64
3049.64
3069.64
3079.64
28.28
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
281.47
281.47
276.95
276.04
277.85
278.76
2.56
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
as molded
Thickness 0.335
Area
30.09
Diameter
6.19
Conductivity
(S/cm)
3.55E-03
3.55E-03
3.61E-03
3.62E-03
3.60E-03
3.59E-03
3.29E-05
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
236
R (mohm)
2550
2520
2550
2500
2450
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ7.5P-TC-24
7/11/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
2539.64
228.14
2509.64
225.44
2539.64
228.14
2489.64
223.65
2439.64
219.16
2503.64
224.90
41.59
3.74
5
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
4.38E-03
4.44E-03
4.38E-03
4.47E-03
4.56E-03
4.45E-03
7.46E-05
5
Table D.77: EQ7.5P Disk 17 Results
Table D.76: EQ7.5P Disk 13 Results
Sample Data
as molded
Thickness
0.34
Area
30.12
Diameter
6.193
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
2520
2460
2480
2400
2400
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ7.5P-TC-13
7/11/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
2509.64
222.34
2449.64
217.03
2469.64
218.80
2389.64
211.71
2389.64
211.71
2441.64
216.32
52.15
4.62
5
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
as molded
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Conductivity
(S/cm)
4.50E-03
4.61E-03
4.57E-03
4.72E-03
4.72E-03
4.62E-03
9.86E-05
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
237
R (mohm)
3320
3350
3300
3280
3240
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ7.5P-TC-17
7/11/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
3309.64
300.25
3339.64
302.98
3289.64
298.44
3269.64
296.63
3229.64
293.00
3287.64
298.26
41.47
3.76
5
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
3.33E-03
3.30E-03
3.35E-03
3.37E-03
3.41E-03
3.35E-03
4.24E-05
5
Table D.79: EQ7.5P Disk 12 Results
Table D.78: EQ7.5P Disk 15 Results
Sample Data
as molded
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
3080
3110
3120
3170
3190
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ7.5P-TC-15
7/11/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
as molded
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
R corrected Resistivity Conductivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
3069.64
278.48
3.59E-03
3099.64
281.20
3.56E-03
3109.64
282.11
3.54E-03
3159.64
286.65
3.49E-03
3179.64
288.46
3.47E-03
3123.64
283.38
3.53E-03
45.06
4.09
5.08E-05
5
5
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
238
R (mohm)
2590
2530
2550
2570
2640
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ7.5P-TC-12
7/11/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
inj mold
tested
R corrected Resistivity Conductivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
2579.64
234.03
4.27E-03
2519.64
228.59
4.37E-03
2539.64
230.40
4.34E-03
2559.64
232.21
4.31E-03
2629.64
238.56
4.19E-03
2565.64
232.76
4.30E-03
42.19
3.83
7.01E-05
5
5
5
Table D.80: Overall Results for 7.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM
Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer
Resin H7012-35RN
Date
Sample Number
6/30/2008 EQ7.5P-TC-19
6/30/2008 EQ7.5P-TC-32
7/11/2008 EQ7.5P-TC-20
7/11/2008 EQ7.5P-TC-24
7/11/2008 EQ7.5P-TC-13
7/11/2008 EQ7.5P-TC-17
7/11/2008 EQ7.5P-TC-15
7/11/2008 EQ7.5P-TC-12
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Average
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
219.54
265.81
278.76
224.90
216.32
298.26
283.38
232.76
252.47
32.65
8
239
Table D.82: 7.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H701235RN Replicate Disk 29 Results
Table D.81: Poco Reference 6/30/08
POCO Reference Data 6/30/2008 tested
Carbon Paper
Thickness
0.325
cm
2
Area
31.669
cm
Resistivity
1.5
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
12.11
2
12.02
3
11.97
4
12.16
5
12
6
12.09
7
12.01
8
12.13
9
12.1
10
11.98
Average
12.057
Stand. Dev.
0.068
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
mohm
Rpoco + lead resistance = 12.057
mohm
lead resistance (mohm)
12.042
mohm
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness 0.336
Area
30.11
Diameter
6.192
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
240
R (mohm)
2570
2690
2550
2660
2550
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ7.5PR-TC-29
6/30/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
2557.96
229.25
2677.96
240.00
2537.96
227.46
2647.96
237.31
2537.96
227.46
2591.96
232.30
66.18
5.93
5
5
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
4.36E-03
4.17E-03
4.40E-03
4.21E-03
4.40E-03
4.31E-03
1.09E-04
5
Table D.84: EQ7.5PR Disk 17 Results
Table D.83: EQ7.5PR Disk 6 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness 0.338
Area
30.17
Diameter
6.198
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
EQ7.5PR-TC-6
6/30/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
R (mohm) (mohm)
(ohm cm)
2480
2467.96
220.30
2390
2377.96
212.27
2450
2437.96
217.62
2470
2457.96
219.41
2540
2527.96
225.66
Average
2453.96
219.05
Std. Dev.
54.13
4.83
n
5
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness 0.338
Area
30.11
Diameter
6.192
Conductivity
(S/cm)
4.54E-03
4.71E-03
4.60E-03
4.56E-03
4.43E-03
4.57E-03
1.01E-04
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
241
EQ7.5PR-TC-17
6/30/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
R (mohm)
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
2400
2387.96
212.75
2280
2267.96
202.06
2380
2367.96
210.96
2250
2237.96
199.38
2290
2277.96
202.95
Average
2307.96
205.62
Std. Dev.
65.95
5.88
n
5
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
4.70E-03
4.95E-03
4.74E-03
5.02E-03
4.93E-03
4.87E-03
1.38E-04
5
Table D.86: EQ7.5PR Disk 22 Results
Table D.85: Poco Reference 7/11/08
POCO Reference Data 7/11/2008 tested
Carbon Paper
Thickness
0.325
cm
2
Area
31.669
cm
Resistivity
1.5
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
10.46
2
10.39
3
10.35
4
10.33
5
10.28
6
10.46
7
10.39
8
10.32
9
10.41
10
10.36
Average
10.375
Stand. Dev.
0.059
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
mohm
Rpoco + lead resistance = 10.375
mohm
lead resistance (mohm)
10.360
mohm
Sample Data
as molded
Thickness
0.34
Area
30.13
Diameter
6.194
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
242
R (mohm)
3730
3710
3790
3710
3670
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ7.5PR-TC-22
7/11/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
3719.64
329.65
3699.64
327.88
3779.64
334.97
3699.64
327.88
3659.64
324.33
3711.64
328.94
43.82
3.88
5
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
3.03E-03
3.05E-03
2.99E-03
3.05E-03
3.08E-03
3.04E-03
3.57E-05
5
Table D.88: EQ7.5PR Disk 32 Results
Table D.87: EQ7.5PR Disk 17 Results
Sample Data
as molded
Thickness 0.335
Area
30.17
Diameter
6.198
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
3680
3600
3590
3640
3690
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ7.5PR-TC-17
7/11/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
3669.64
330.50
3589.64
323.30
3579.64
322.39
3629.64
326.90
3679.64
331.40
3629.64
326.90
45.28
4.08
5
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
as molded
Thickness 0.338
Area
30.11
Diameter
6.192
Conductivity
(S/cm)
3.03E-03
3.09E-03
3.10E-03
3.06E-03
3.02E-03
3.06E-03
3.82E-05
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
243
R (mohm)
3470
3420
3350
3400
3370
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ7.5PR-TC-32
7/11/2008
.
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
3459.64
308.22
3409.64
303.77
3339.64
297.53
3389.64
301.99
3359.64
299.31
3391.64
302.17
46.58
4.15
5
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
3.24E-03
3.29E-03
3.36E-03
3.31E-03
3.34E-03
3.31E-03
4.52E-05
5
Table D.90: EQ7.5PR Disk 24 Results
Table D.89: EQ7.5PR Disk 27 Results
Sample Data
as molded
Thickness
0.34
Area
30.12
Diameter
6.193
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
3290
3020
2980
2960
2920
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ7.5PR-TC-27
7/11/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
3279.64
290.56
3009.64
266.64
2969.64
263.10
2949.64
261.33
2909.64
257.78
3023.64
267.88
147.58
13.08
5
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
as molded
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Conductivity
(S/cm)
3.44E-03
3.75E-03
3.80E-03
3.83E-03
3.88E-03
3.74E-03
1.73E-04
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
244
R (mohm)
3230
3210
3210
3190
3130
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ7.5PR-TC-24
7/11/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
3219.64
3199.64
3199.64
3179.64
3119.64
3183.64
38.47
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
292.09
290.28
290.28
288.46
283.02
288.82
3.49
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
3.42E-03
3.45E-03
3.45E-03
3.47E-03
3.53E-03
3.46E-03
4.23E-05
5
Table D.91: Overall Results for 7.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM
Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer
Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Average
Sample
Resistivity
Date
Number
(ohm cm)
6/30/2008 EQ7.5PR-TC-29
232.30
6/30/2008
EQ7.5PR-TC-6
219.05
6/30/2008 EQ7.5PR-TC-17
205.62
7/11/2008 EQ7.5PR-TC-22
328.94
7/11/2008 EQ7.5PR-TC-17
326.90
7/11/2008 EQ7.5PR-TC-32
302.17
7/11/2008 EQ7.5PR-TC-27
267.88
7/11/2008 EQ7.5PR-TC-24
288.82
Overall Average
271.46
Overall Standard Deviation
48.18
Number of Samples
8
245
Table D.93: 10 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H701235RN Disk 11 Results
Table D.92: Poco Reference 7/1/08
POCO Reference Data
7/1/2008
tested
Carbon Paper
Thickness
0.325
cm
2
Area
31.669
cm
Resistivity
1.5
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
14.1
2
14.2
3
14.1
4
14.1
5
14.1
6
13.9
7
14.1
8
13.8
9
13.6
10
13.6
Average
13.960
Stand. Dev.
0.222
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
mohm
Rpoco + lead resistance = 13.960
mohm
lead resistance (mohm)
13.945
mohm
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness 0.336
Area
30.13
Diameter
6.194
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
246
R (mohm)
510
500
470
480
470
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ10P-TC-11
7/1/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
496.06
486.06
456.06
466.06
456.06
472.06
18.17
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
44.486
43.589
40.899
41.796
40.899
42.334
1.629
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0225
0.0229
0.0245
0.0239
0.0245
0.0236
0.0009
5
Table D.95: EQ10P Disk 18 Results
Table D.94: EQ10P Disk 12 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness 0.335
Area
30.17
Diameter
6.198
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
530
530
510
510
490
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ10P-TC-12
7/1/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
516.06
46.478
516.06
46.478
496.06
44.676
496.06
44.676
476.06
42.875
500.06
45.037
16.73
1.507
5
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness 0.335
Area
30.21
Diameter
6.202
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0215
0.0215
0.0224
0.0224
0.0233
0.0222
0.0008
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
247
R (mohm)
560
560
540
540
520
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ10P-TC-18
7/1/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
546.06
546.06
526.06
526.06
506.06
530.06
16.73
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
49.243
49.243
47.439
47.439
45.636
47.800
1.509
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0203
0.0203
0.0211
0.0211
0.0219
0.0209
0.0007
5
Table D.97: EQ10P Disk 16 Results
Table D.96: EQ10P Disk 24 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness 0.335
Area
30.16
Diameter
6.197
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
700
700
660
660
650
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ10P-TC-24
7/1/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
686.06
686.06
646.06
646.06
636.06
660.06
24.08
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
61.769
61.769
58.167
58.167
57.267
59.428
2.168
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness 0.333
Area
30.19
Diameter
6.2
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0162
0.0162
0.0172
0.0172
0.0175
0.0168
0.0006
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
248
R (mohm)
460
440
430
420
410
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ10P-TC-16
7/1/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
446.06
40.441
426.06
38.627
416.06
37.721
406.06
36.814
396.06
35.907
418.06
37.902
19.24
1.744
5
5
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0247
0.0259
0.0265
0.0272
0.0278
0.0264
0.0012
5
Table D.99: Overall Results for 10 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM
Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer
Resin H7012-35RN
Table D.98: EQ10P Disk 23 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness 0.334
Area
30.13
Diameter
6.194
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
580
580
580
560
580
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ10P-TC-23
7/1/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
inj mold
tested
Average
Sample
Resistivity
Date
Number
(ohm cm)
7/1/2008
EQ10P-TC-11
42.33
7/1/2008
EQ10P-TC-12
45.04
7/1/2008
EQ10P-TC-18
47.80
7/1/2008
EQ10P-TC-24
59.43
7/1/2008
EQ10P-TC-16
37.90
7/1/2008
EQ10P-TC-23
50.96
Overall Average
47.24
Overall Standard Deviation
7.47
Number of Samples
6
R corrected Resistivity Conductivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
566.06
51.320
0.0195
566.06
51.320
0.0195
566.06
51.320
0.0195
546.06
49.507
0.0202
566.06
51.320
0.0195
562.06
50.958
0.0196
8.94
0.811
0.0003
5
5
5
249
Table D.101: 15 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H701235RN Disk 32 Results
Table D.100: Poco Reference 6/26/08
POCO Reference Data
Carbon Paper
Thickness
Area
Resistivity
6/26/2008
tested
0.325
31.669
1.5
cm
2
cm
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
13
2
13.2
3
13
4
12.9
5
12.9
6
12.9
7
13
8
13
9
13.1
10
13.1
Average
13.010
Stand. Dev.
0.099
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
Rpoco + lead resistance = 13.010
lead resistance (mohm)
12.995
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.34
Area
29.93802
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
mohm
mohm
mohm
250
R (mohm)
113
124
122
117
116
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ15P-TC-32
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
100.005
111.005
109.005
104.005
103.005
105.405
4.506
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
8.806
9.774
9.598
9.158
9.070
9.281
0.397
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.1136
0.1023
0.1042
0.1092
0.1103
0.1079
0.0046
5
Table D.103: EQ15P Disk 23 Results
Table D.102: EQ15P Disk 34 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.93802
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
110
105
102
96
95
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ15P-TC-34
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
97.005
92.005
89.005
83.005
82.005
88.605
6.269
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
8.800
8.347
8.075
7.530
7.440
8.038
0.569
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.93802
Diameter
6.174
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.1136
0.1198
0.1238
0.1328
0.1344
0.1249
0.0088
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
251
R (mohm)
103
98
98
94
95
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ15P-TC-23
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
90.005
85.005
85.005
81.005
82.005
84.605
3.507
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
8.165
7.712
7.712
7.349
7.440
7.676
0.318
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.1225
0.1297
0.1297
0.1361
0.1344
0.1305
0.0053
5
Table D.105: EQ15P Disk 19 Results
Table D.104: EQ15P Disk 29 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.93802
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
132
126
123
121
118
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ15P-TC-29
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
119.005
10.796
113.005
10.252
110.005
9.980
108.005
9.798
105.005
9.526
111.005
10.071
5.339
0.484
5
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.93802
Diameter
6.174
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0926
0.0975
0.1002
0.1021
0.1050
0.0995
0.0047
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
252
R (mohm)
107
102
102
94
94
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EQ15P-TC-19
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
94.005
8.528
89.005
8.075
89.005
8.075
81.005
7.349
81.005
7.349
86.805
7.875
5.675
0.515
5
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.1173
0.1238
0.1238
0.1361
0.1361
0.1274
0.0083
5
Table D.106: Overall Results for 15 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM
Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer
Resin H7012-35RN
Date
Sample Number
Average
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
6/26/2008
EQ15P-TC-32
9.281
6/26/2008
EQ15P-TC-34
8.038
6/26/2008
EQ15P-TC-23
7.676
6/26/2008
EQ15P-TC-29
10.071
6/26/2008
EQ15P-TC-19
7.875
Overall Average
8.588
Overall Standard Deviation
1.039
Number of Samples
5
253
Combinations
Table D.107: Poco Reference 6/27/08
Table D.108: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 65 wt%
Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 15 Results
POCO Reference Data 6/27/2008 tested
Carbon Paper
Thickness
0.325
cm
2
Area
31.669
cm
Resistivity
1.5
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
12.77
2
12.57
3
12.46
4
12.30
5
12.44
6
12.51
7
12.46
8
12.87
9
12.39
10
12.49
Average
12.53
Stand. Dev.
0.172
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
mohm
Rpoco + lead resistance = 12.526
mohm
lead resistance (mohm)
12.511
mohm
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.34
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
254
R (mohm)
19.9
19.81
19.72
19.79
19.77
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5B65P-TC-15
6/27/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
7.389
7.299
7.209
7.279
7.259
7.287
0.066
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
0.6507
0.6427
0.6348
0.6410
0.6392
0.6417
0.0058
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
1.5369
1.5559
1.5753
1.5601
1.5644
1.5585
0.0141
5
Table D.110: EA2.5B65P Disk 36 Results
Table D.109: EA2.5B65P Disk 31 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
20.8
20.7
20.6
20.8
20.8
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5B65P-TC-31
6/27/2008
.
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
8.289
8.189
8.089
8.289
8.289
8.229
0.089
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
0.7520
0.7430
0.7339
0.7520
0.7520
0.7466
0.0081
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Conductivity
(S/cm)
1.3297
1.3460
1.3626
1.3297
1.3297
1.3396
0.0147
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
255
R (mohm)
21.6
21.2
21.3
21.3
21.2
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5B65P-TC-36
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
9.089
0.8246
8.689
0.7883
8.789
0.7974
8.789
0.7974
8.689
0.7883
8.809
0.7992
0.164
0.0149
5
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
1.2127
1.2685
1.2541
1.2541
1.2685
1.2516
0.0229
5
Table D.112: EA2.5B65P Disk 17 Results
Table D.111: EA2.5B65P Disk 30 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
19.8
19.82
19.91
19.88
19.78
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5B65P-TC-30
6/27/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
R corrected Resistivity Conductivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
7.289
0.6613
1.5122
7.309
0.6631
1.5080
7.399
0.6713
1.4897
7.369
0.6686
1.4958
7.269
0.6595
1.5163
7.327
0.6648
1.5044
0.055
0.0050
0.0113
5
5
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
256
R (mohm)
20.1
20.02
20.08
20.18
20.11
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5B65P-TC-17
6/27/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
inj mold
tested
R corrected Resistivity Conductivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
7.589
0.6885
1.4524
7.509
0.6813
1.4679
7.569
0.6867
1.4562
7.669
0.6958
1.4372
7.599
0.6894
1.4505
7.587
0.6883
1.4528
0.058
0.0052
0.0110
5
5
5
Table D.113: Overall Results for 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600
JD and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi
Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Date
Sample Number
6/27/2008
EA2.5B65P-TC-15
6/27/2008
EA2.5B65P-TC-31
6/27/2008
EA2.5B65P-TC-36
6/27/2008
EA2.5B65P-TC-30
6/27/2008
EA2.5B65P-TC-17
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Average
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
0.6417
0.7466
0.7992
0.6648
0.6883
0.7081
0.0642
5
257
Table D.115: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 65 wt%
Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate Disk 10 Results
Table D.114: Poco Reference 6/27/08
POCO Reference Data
Carbon Paper
Thickness
Area
Resistivity
6/27/2008
tested
0.325
31.669
1.5
cm
2
cm
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
12.77
2
12.57
3
12.46
4
12.30
5
12.44
6
12.51
7
12.46
8
12.87
9
12.39
10
12.49
Average
12.53
Stand. Dev.
0.172
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
Rpoco + lead resistance = 12.526
lead resistance (mohm)
12.511
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
mohm
mohm
mohm
258
EA2.5B65PR-TC-10
inj mold
6/27/2008
tested
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity Conductivity
R (mohm)
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
18.89
6.379
0.5787
1.7279
18.75
6.239
0.5660
1.7666
18.83
6.319
0.5733
1.7443
18.68
6.169
0.5597
1.7867
18.72
6.209
0.5633
1.7752
Average
6.263
0.5682
1.7601
Std. Dev.
0.085
0.0077
0.0238
n
5
5
5
Table D.117: EA2.5B65PR Disk 7 Results
Table D.116: Poco Reference 6/26/08
POCO Reference Data
Carbon Paper
Thickness
Area
Resistivity
6/26/2008
0.325
31.669
1.5
Test #
R (mohm)
1
13
2
13.2
3
13
4
12.9
5
12.9
6
12.9
7
13
8
13
9
13.1
10
13.1
Average
13.010
Stand. Dev.
0.099
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
Rpoco + lead resistance = 13.010
lead resistance (mohm)
12.995
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.34
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
cm
2
cm
mohm cm
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
mohm
mohm
mohm
259
R (mohm)
19.02
18.86
18.89
18.68
18.76
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5B65PR-TC-7
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
inj mold
tested
R corrected Resistivity Conductivity
(mohm) (ohm cm)
(S/cm)
6.025
0.5306
1.8848
5.865
0.5165
1.9362
5.895
0.5191
1.9264
5.685
0.5006
1.9975
5.765
0.5077
1.9698
5.847
0.5149
1.9430
0.130
0.0114
0.0430
5
5
5
Table D.119: EA2.5B65PR Disk 30 Results
Table D.118: EA2.5B65PR Disk 17 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
18.99
18.89
18.9
18.84
18.97
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5B65PR-TC-17
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
5.995
5.895
5.905
5.845
5.975
5.923
0.061
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
0.5439
0.5348
0.5357
0.5303
0.5421
0.5374
0.0056
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Conductivity
(S/cm)
1.8385
1.8697
1.8666
1.8857
1.8447
1.8610
0.0193
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
260
EA2.5B65PR-TC-30
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
inj mold
tested
R
R corrected Resistivity Conductivity
(mohm)
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
19.01
6.015
0.5457
1.8324
18.91
5.915
0.5367
1.8634
18.92
5.925
0.5376
1.8603
18.98
5.985
0.5430
1.8416
18.98
5.985
0.5430
1.8416
Average
5.965
0.5412
1.8479
Std. Dev.
0.043
0.0039
0.0133
n
5
5
5
Table D.121: EA2.5B65PR Disk 16 Results
Table D.120: EA2.5B65PR Disk 19 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
EA2.5B65PR-TC-19
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
R (mohm)
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
19.26
6.265
0.5684
19.21
6.215
0.5639
19.13
6.135
0.5566
19.16
6.165
0.5593
19.23
6.235
0.5657
Average
6.203
0.5628
Std. Dev.
0.053
0.0048
n
5
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
29.94
Diameter
6.174
Conductivity
(S/cm)
1.7593
1.7735
1.7966
1.7878
1.7678
1.7770
0.0151
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
261
EA2.5B65PR-TC-16
6/26/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
R (mohm) (mohm)
(ohm cm)
19.94
6.945
0.6301
19.93
6.935
0.6292
19.92
6.925
0.6283
20.04
7.045
0.6392
19.85
6.855
0.6219
Average
6.941
0.6297
Std. Dev.
0.068
0.0062
n
5
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
1.5871
1.5894
1.5916
1.5645
1.6079
1.5881
0.0155
5
Table D.122: Overall Results for 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600
JD and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi
Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Date
Sample Number
Average
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
6/26/2008
EA2.5B65PR-TC-7
0.5149
6/26/2008
EA2.5B65PR-TC-17
0.5374
6/26/2008
EA2.5B65PR-TC-30
0.5412
6/26/2008
EA2.5B65PR-TC-19
0.5628
6/26/2008
EA2.5B65PR-TC-16
0.6297
6/27/2008
EA2.5B65PR-TC-10
0.5682
Overall Average
0.5590
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
0.0396
6
262
Table D.124: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 6 wt%
Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi
Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 29
Results
Table D.123: Poco Reference 7/3/08
POCO Reference Data
Carbon Paper
Thickness
Area
Resistivity
7/3/2008
tested
0.325
31.669
1.5
cm
2
cm
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
14.5
2
14.2
3
14.2
4
14.1
5
14
6
13.9
7
13.9
8
13.8
9
13.8
10
13.6
Average
14.000
Stand. Dev.
0.258
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
Rpoco + lead resistance = 14.000
lead resistance (mohm)
13.985
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.335
Area
30.09339
Diameter
6.19
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
mohm
mohm
mohm
263
R (mohm)
528
514
506
475
481
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5Q6P-TC-29
7/3/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
514.02
46.17
500.02
44.92
492.02
44.20
461.02
41.41
467.02
41.95
486.82
43.73
22.35
2.01
5
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0217
0.0223
0.0226
0.0241
0.0238
0.0229
0.0011
5
Table D.126: EA2.5Q6P Disk 32 Results
Table D.125: EA2.5Q6P Disk 17 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.3334
Area
30.00595
Diameter
6.181
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
407
412
394
389
387
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5Q6P-TC-17
7/3/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
393.02
35.37
398.02
35.82
380.02
34.20
375.02
33.75
373.02
33.57
383.82
34.54
11.12
1.00
5
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.334
Area
30.09339
Diameter
6.19
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0283
0.0279
0.0292
0.0296
0.0298
0.0290
0.0008
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
264
R (mohm)
1020
970
970
940
890
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5Q6P-TC-32
7/3/2008
.
cm
2
cm
cm
inj mold
tested
R corrected Resistivity Conductivity
(mohm) (ohm cm)
(S/cm)
1006.02
90.64
0.0110
956.02
86.14
0.0116
956.02
86.14
0.0116
926.02
83.43
0.0120
876.02
78.93
0.0127
944.02
85.06
0.0118
47.64
4.29
0.0006
5
5
5
Table D.128: EA2.5Q6P Disk 34 Results
Table D.127: EA2.5Q6P Disk 39 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.335
Area
30.00595
Diameter
6.181
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
720
700
670
650
630
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5Q6P-TC-39
7/3/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
706.02
63.24
686.02
61.45
656.02
58.76
636.02
56.97
616.02
55.18
660.02
59.12
36.47
3.27
5
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.338
Area
29.96713
Diameter
6.177
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0158
0.0163
0.0170
0.0176
0.0181
0.0170
0.0009
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
265
R (mohm)
890
840
800
780
740
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5Q6P-TC-34
7/3/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
inj mold
tested
R corrected Resistivity Conductivity
(mohm) (ohm cm)
(S/cm)
876.02
77.67
0.0129
826.02
73.23
0.0137
786.02
69.69
0.0143
766.02
67.92
0.0147
726.02
64.37
0.0155
796.02
70.57
0.0142
57.45
5.09
0.0010
5
5
5
Table D.130: Overall Results for 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600
JD and 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H701235RN
Table D.129: EA2.5Q6P Disk 26 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.335
Area
30.08367
Diameter
6.189
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
670
660
640
630
600
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5Q6P-TC-26
7/3/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
656.02
646.02
626.02
616.02
586.02
626.02
27.39
5
inj mold
tested
Date
Sample Number
7/3/2008 EA2.5Q6P-TC-29
7/3/2008 EA2.5Q6P-TC-17
7/3/2008 EA2.5Q6P-TC-32
7/3/2008 EA2.5Q6P-TC-39
7/3/2008 EA2.5Q6P-TC-34
7/3/2008 EA2.5Q6P-TC-26
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Resistivity Conductivity
(S/cm)
(ohm cm)
58.16
0.0172
57.28
0.0175
55.50
0.0180
54.62
0.0183
51.96
0.0192
55.50
0.0180
2.43
0.0008
5
5
266
Average
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
43.731
34.543
85.056
59.118
70.575
55.503
58.088
18.174
6
Table D.132: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 6 wt%
Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi
Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate Disk
20 Results
Table D.131: Poco Reference 7/7/08
POCO Reference Data
7/7/2008
tested
Carbon Paper
Thickness
0.325
cm
2
Area
31.669
cm
Resistivity
1.5
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
14.3
2
14.3
3
14.2
4
13.8
5
13.9
6
13.8
7
13.8
8
13.8
9
13.9
10
13.7
Average
13.950
Stand. Dev.
0.227
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
mohm
Rpoco + lead resistance = 13.950
mohm
lead resistance (mohm)
13.935
mohm
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.333
Area
29.95
Diameter
6.175
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
267
R (mohm)
303
328
316
318
304
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5Q6PR-TC-20
7/7/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
289.07
314.07
302.07
304.07
290.07
299.87
10.45
5
inj mold
tested
Resistivity Conductivity
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
26.00
0.0385
28.24
0.0354
27.17
0.0368
27.35
0.0366
26.09
0.0383
26.97
0.0371
0.94
0.0013
5
5
Table D.134: EA2.5Q6PR Disk 31 Results
Table D.133: EA2.5Q6PR Disk 27 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.33
Area
30.02
Diameter
6.182
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
608
622
618
608
566
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5Q6PR-TC-27
7/7/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
594.07
54.03
608.07
55.31
604.07
54.94
594.07
54.03
552.07
50.21
590.47
53.71
22.33
2.03
5
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.334
Area
30.02
Diameter
6.182
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0185
0.0181
0.0182
0.0185
0.0199
0.0186
0.0007
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
268
R (mohm)
461
454
443
442
435
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5Q6PR-TC-31
7/7/2008
.
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
447.07
440.07
429.07
428.07
421.07
433.07
10.37
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
40.18
39.55
38.56
38.47
37.84
38.92
0.93
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0249
0.0253
0.0259
0.0260
0.0264
0.0257
0.0006
5
Table D.136: EA2.5Q6PR Disk 18 Results
Table D.135: EA2.5Q6PR Disk 22 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.331
Area
30.00
Diameter
6.18
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
730
732
707
681
667
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5Q6PR-TC-22
7/7/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
716.07
64.89
718.07
65.07
693.07
62.81
667.07
60.45
653.07
59.18
689.47
62.48
29.01
2.63
5
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.332
Area
30.01
Diameter
6.181
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0154
0.0154
0.0159
0.0165
0.0169
0.0160
0.0007
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
269
EA2.5Q6PR-TC-18
7/7/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
R (mohm) (mohm)
(ohm cm)
525
511.07
46.19
519
505.07
45.65
503
489.07
44.20
503
489.07
44.20
485
471.07
42.57
Average
493.07
44.56
Std. Dev.
15.68
1.42
n
5
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
0.0216
0.0219
0.0226
0.0226
0.0235
0.0225
0.0007
5
Table D.138: Overall Results for 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600
JD and 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H701235RN Replicate
Table D.137: EA2.5Q6PR Disk 26 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.337
Area
30.00
Diameter
6.18
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
637
628
614
601
601
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5Q6PR-TC-26
7/7/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
inj mold
tested
Date
Sample Number
7/7/2008 EA2.5Q6PR-TC-20
7/7/2008 EA2.5Q6PR-TC-27
7/7/2008 EA2.5Q6PR-TC-31
7/7/2008 EA2.5Q6PR-TC-22
7/7/2008 EA2.5Q6PR-TC-18
7/7/2008 EA2.5Q6PR-TC-26
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
R corrected Resistivity Conductivity
(mohm) (ohm cm)
(S/cm)
623.07
56.31
0.0178
614.07
55.50
0.0180
600.07
54.23
0.0184
587.07
53.06
0.0188
587.07
53.06
0.0188
602.27
54.43
0.0184
16.12
1.46
0.0005
5
5
5
270
Average
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
26.968
53.707
38.918
62.481
44.563
54.432
46.845
12.746
6
Table D.140: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes and 65
wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 18 Results
Table D.139: Poco Reference 7/7/08
POCO Reference Data
7/7/2008
tested
Carbon Paper
Thickness
0.325
cm
2
Area
31.669
cm
Resistivity
1.5
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
14.3
2
14.3
3
14.2
4
13.8
5
13.9
6
13.8
7
13.8
8
13.8
9
13.9
10
13.7
Average
13.950
Stand. Dev.
0.227
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
mohm
Rpoco + lead resistance = 13.950
mohm
lead resistance (mohm)
13.935
mohm
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.335
Area
30.97
Diameter
6.28
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
271
R (mohm)
10.88
10.9
10.85
10.9
10.87
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB65Q6P-TC-18
7/7/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
inj mold
tested
R corrected Resistivity Conductivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
0.6914
0.0639
15.643
0.7114
0.0658
15.203
0.6614
0.0612
16.352
0.7114
0.0658
15.203
0.6814
0.0630
15.872
0.6914
0.0639
15.655
0.0212
0.0020
0.485
5
5
5
Table D.142: EB65Q6P Disk 17 Results
Table D.141: EB65Q6P Disk 16 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.335
Area
30.97
Diameter
6.28
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
10.96
10.99
11.06
11
11.01
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB65Q6P-TC-16
7/7/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.335
Area
30.97
Diameter
6.28
R corrected Resistivity Conductivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
0.7714
0.0713
14.020
0.8014
0.0741
13.496
0.8714
0.0806
12.411
0.8114
0.0750
13.329
0.8214
0.0759
13.167
0.8154
0.0754
13.285
0.0365
0.0034
0.584
5
5
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
272
R (mohm)
11.24
11.34
11.21
11.35
11.2
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB65Q6P-TC-17
7/7/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
1.0514
1.1514
1.0214
1.1614
1.0114
1.0794
0.0719
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
0.0972
0.1065
0.0944
0.1074
0.0935
0.0998
0.0066
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
10.287
9.393
10.589
9.312
10.693
10.055
0.659
5
Table D.143: Overall Results for 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM
Nanotubes and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene
Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Date
Sample Number
7/7/2008
EB65Q6P-TC-18
7/7/2008
EB65Q6P-TC-16
7/7/2008
EB65Q6P-TC-17
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Average
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
0.0639
0.0754
0.0998
0.0797
0.0183
3
273
Table D.145: Dana Results for 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM
Nanotubes and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene
Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Disk 16
Table D.144: Dana Corporation Poco Reference 7/18/08
POCO Reference Data
7/18/2008
Thickness
0.3047
cm
Area
12
cm
Resistivity
1.5
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Average
R Poco = p t / A
Rpoco + lead resistance =
lead resistance (mohm)
0.3763
0.3741
0.3787
0.3765
0.3735
0.3746
0.3753
0.3697
0.3658
0.3623
0.3727
0.0381
0.3727
0.3346
tested
Sample Data
Sanded
Thickness
Area
2
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
mohm
mohm
274
EB65Q6P-TC-16
inj mold
0.3666
cm
2
12.00
cm
R (mohm)
2.511
2.494
2.492
2.478
2.476
Average
Std. Dev.
n
R corrected
(mohm)
2.176
2.159
2.157
2.143
2.141
2.156
0.0141
5
7/18/2008
tested
Thickness (mm)
3.666
3.52
3.783
3.88
3.537
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
0.0769
0.0763
0.0762
0.0757
0.0756
0.0761
5.00E-04
5
Conductivity
(S/cm)
13.007
13.109
13.121
13.207
13.219
13.133
0.0860
5
Table D.147: Dana Results for EB65Q6P Disk 18
Table D.146: Dana Results for EB65Q6P Disk 17
Sample Data
Sanded
Thickness
Area
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
EB65Q6P-TC-17
inj mold
0.3426
cm
2
12.00
cm
R (mohm)
2.527
2.508
2.485
2.48
2.47
Average
Std. Dev.
n
R corrected
(mohm)
2.192
2.173
2.150
2.145
2.135
2.159
0.0231
5
Sample Data
Sanded
Thickness
Area
7/18/08
tested
Thickness (mm)
3.424
3.443
3.418
3.451
3.426
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
0.0777
0.0770
0.0762
0.0760
0.0757
0.0765
8.19E-04
5
Conductivity
(S/cm)
12.870
12.983
13.122
13.152
13.214
13.068
0.1393
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
275
EB65Q6P-TC-18
inj mold
0.3403
cm
2
12.00
cm
R (mohm)
2.421
2.37
2.352
2.328
2.32
Average
Std. Dev.
n
7/18/2008
tested
Thickness (mm)
3.4
3.374
3.483
3.403
3.404
R corrected Resistivity Conductivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
2.086
0.0736
13.592
2.035
0.0718
13.933
2.017
0.0711
14.057
1.993
0.0703
14.226
1.985
0.0700
14.283
2.024
0.0714
14.018
0.0403
1.42E-03
0.2757
5
5
5
Table D.148: Overall Results for 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM
Nanotubes and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene
Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN from
Dana Corporation
Date
Sample Number
7/18/2008
EB65Q6P-TC-16
7/18/2008
EB65Q6P-TC-17
7/18/2008
EB65Q6P-TC-18
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Average
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
0.0761
0.0765
0.0714
0.0747
0.0029
3
276
Table D.150: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes and 65
wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate Disk 25 Results
Table D.149: Poco Reference 7/8/08
POCO Reference Data
Carbon Paper
Thickness
Area
Resistivity
7/8/2008
tested
0.325
31.669
1.5
cm
2
cm
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
10.27
2
10.24
3
10.26
4
10.29
5
10.23
6
10.22
7
10.26
8
10.29
9
10.27
10
10.22
Average
10.255
Stand. Dev.
0.026
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
Rpoco + lead resistance = 10.255
lead resistance (mohm)
10.240
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.333
Area
30.63
Diameter
6.245
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
mohm
mohm
mohm
277
R (mohm)
10.87
10.95
10.92
10.89
10.92
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB65Q6PR-TC-25
7/8/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
0.6304
0.0580
0.7104
0.0653
0.6804
0.0626
0.6504
0.0598
0.6804
0.0626
0.6704
0.0617
0.0308
0.0028
5
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
17.246
15.303
15.978
16.715
15.978
16.244
0.750
5
Table D.152: EB65Q6PR Disk 38 Results
Table D.151: EB65Q6PR Disk 15 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.334
Area
30.78
Diameter
6.26
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
10.93
10.98
10.93
10.98
10.93
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB65Q6PR-TC-15
7/8/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
0.6904
0.0636
0.7404
0.0682
0.6904
0.0636
0.7404
0.0682
0.6904
0.0636
0.7104
0.0655
0.0274
0.0025
5
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.335
Area
30.78
Diameter
6.26
Conductivity
(S/cm)
15.719
14.657
15.719
14.657
15.719
15.294
0.581
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
278
R (mohm)
11.04
11.01
10.98
10.94
10.97
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EB65Q6PR-TC-38
7/8/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
0.8004
0.7704
0.7404
0.7004
0.7304
0.7484
0.0383
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
0.0735
0.0708
0.0680
0.0643
0.0671
0.0688
0.0035
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
13.599
14.128
14.701
15.540
14.902
14.574
0.743
5
Table D.153: Overall Results for 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM
Nanotubes and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene
Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Date
Sample Number
7/8/2008 EB65Q6PR-TC-25
7/8/2008 EB65Q6PR-TC-15
7/8/2008 EB65Q6PR-TC-38
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Average
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
0.0617
0.0655
0.0688
0.0653
0.0035
3
279
Table D.155: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt%
Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes, and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN Injection Molded Disk 40 Results
Table D.154: Poco Reference 7/7/08
POCO Reference Data
7/7/2008
tested
Carbon Paper
Thickness
0.325
cm
2
Area
31.669
cm
Resistivity
1.5
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
14.3
2
14.3
3
14.2
4
13.8
5
13.9
6
13.8
7
13.8
8
13.8
9
13.9
10
13.7
Average
13.950
Stand. Dev.
0.227
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
mohm
Rpoco + lead resistance = 13.950
mohm
lead resistance (mohm)
13.935
mohm
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.335
Area
31.00445
Diameter
6.283
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
280
R (mohm)
10.64
10.59
10.61
10.61
10.63
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-40
7/7/2008
.
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
0.4514
0.0418
0.4014
0.0371
0.4214
0.0390
0.4214
0.0390
0.4414
0.0409
0.4274
0.0396
0.0195
0.0018
5
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
23.937
26.918
25.641
25.641
24.479
25.323
1.160
5
Table D.157: EA2.5B65Q6P Disk 25 Results
Table D.156: Poco Reference 7/21/08
POCO Reference Data
Carbon Paper
Thickness
Area
Resistivity
7/21/2008
0.325
31.669
1.5
Test #
R (mohm)
1
11.01
2
10.91
3
10.9
4
10.88
5
10.84
6
10.84
7
10.99
8
10.85
9
11.02
10
10.85
Average
10.909
Stand. Dev.
0.072
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
Rpoco + lead resistance = 10.909
lead resistance (mohm)
10.894
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.336
Area
30.97485
Diameter
6.28
cm
2
cm
mohm cm
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
mohm
mohm
mohm
281
R (mohm)
11.48
11.5
11.51
11.43
11.45
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-25
7/21/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
0.5864
0.6064
0.6164
0.5364
0.5564
0.5804
0.0336
5
inj mold
tested
Resistivity Conductivity
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
0.0541
18.499
0.0559
17.889
0.0568
17.598
0.0494
20.223
0.0513
19.496
0.0535
18.741
0.0031
1.102
5
5
Table D.159: EA2.5B65Q6P Disk 43 Results
Table D.158: EA2.5B65Q6P Disk 46 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.337
Area
30.87628
Diameter
6.27
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
11.38
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.39
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-46
7/21/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
0.4864
0.5064
0.5064
0.5064
0.4964
0.5004
0.0089
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.336
Area
30.97485
Diameter
6.28
Resistivity Conductivity
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
0.0446
22.440
0.0464
21.553
0.0464
21.553
0.0464
21.553
0.0455
21.988
0.0458
21.818
0.0008
0.395
5
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
282
R (mohm)
11.47
11.46
11.46
11.45
11.42
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-43
7/21/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
0.5764
0.5664
0.5664
0.5564
0.5264
0.5584
0.0192
5
inj mold
tested
Resistivity Conductivity
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
0.0531
18.820
0.0522
19.152
0.0522
19.152
0.0513
19.496
0.0485
20.607
0.0515
19.445
0.0018
0.692
5
5
Table D.161: Overall Results for 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600
JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes, and 65 wt%
Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Injection Molded
Table D.160: EA2.5B65Q6P Disk 16 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.336
Area
30.97485
Diameter
6.28
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
11.31
11.32
11.31
11.34
11.31
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-16
7/21/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
inj mold
tested
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm) (ohm cm)
0.4164
0.0384
0.4264
0.0393
0.4164
0.0384
0.4464
0.0412
0.4164
0.0384
0.4244
0.0391
0.0130
0.0012
5
5
Conductivity
(S/cm)
26.051
25.440
26.051
24.300
26.051
25.579
0.762
5
283
Date
Sample Number
7/7/2008
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-40
7/21/2008
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-25
7/21/2008
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-46
7/21/2008
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-43
7/21/2008
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-16
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Average
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
0.0396
0.0535
0.0458
0.0515
0.0391
0.0459
0.0066
Number of Samples
5
Table D.163: Dana Results for 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600
JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes, and 65 wt%
Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Injection Molded Disk 14
Table D.162: Dana Corporation Poco Reference 7/18/08
POCO Reference Data
7/18/2008
Thickness
0.3047
cm
Area
12
cm
Resistivity
1.5
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Average
R Poco = p t / A
Rpoco + lead resistance =
lead resistance (mohm)
0.3763
0.3741
0.3787
0.3765
0.3735
0.3746
0.3753
0.3697
0.3658
0.3623
0.3727
0.0381
0.3727
0.3346
tested
2
Sample Data
EA2.5B65Q6P- TC-14
inj mold
Sanded
Thickness
0.3397
cm
2
Area
12.00
cm
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
mohm
mohm
284
R (mohm)
1.5466
1.5148
1.5016
1.4956
1.4895
Average
Std. Dev.
n
R corrected
(mohm)
1.212
1.180
1.167
1.161
1.155
1.175
0.0227
5
7/18/2008
tested
Thickness (mm)
3.388
3.4
3.413
3.384
3.397
Resistivity Conductivity
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
0.0428
23.357
0.0417
23.986
0.0412
24.257
0.0410
24.383
0.0408
24.511
0.0415
24.099
8.02E-04
0.4581
5
5
Table D.165: Dana Results for EA2.5B65Q6P Injection
Molded Disk 57
Table D.164: Dana Results for EA2.5B65Q6P Injection
Molded Disk 36
Sample Data
Sanded
Thickness
Area
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
EA2.5B65Q6P- TC-36
inj mold
0.3386
cm
2
12.00
cm
R (mohm)
1.6383
1.619
1.5994
1.5954
1.5918
Average
Std. Dev.
n
R corrected
(mohm)
1.304
1.284
1.265
1.261
1.257
1.274
0.0196
5
Sample Data
Sanded
Thickness
Area
7/18/2008
tested
Thickness (mm)
3.346
3.389
3.415
3.38
3.386
Resistivity Conductivity
(S/cm)
(ohm cm)
0.0462
21.643
0.0455
21.969
0.0448
22.309
0.0447
22.380
0.0446
22.444
0.0452
22.149
6.93E-04
0.3369
5
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
285
EA2.5B65Q6P- TC-57
inj mold
0.3403
cm
2
12.00
cm
R (mohm)
1.6765
1.6589
1.6654
1.6451
1.6389
Average
Std. Dev.
n
R corrected
(mohm)
1.342
1.324
1.331
1.311
1.304
1.322
0.0152
5
7/18/2008
tested
Thickness (mm)
3.387
3.434
3.403
3.429
3.391
Resistivity Conductivity
(S/cm)
(ohm cm)
0.0473
21.133
0.0467
21.414
0.0469
21.309
0.0462
21.639
0.0460
21.742
0.0466
21.447
5.36E-04
0.2464
5
5
Table D.166: Overall Results for 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600
JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes, and 65 wt%
Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Injection Molded from
Dana Corporation
Date
Sample Number
7/18/2008
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-14
7/18/2008
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-36
7/18/2008
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-57
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Average
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
0.0415
0.0452
0.0466
0.0444
0.0026
3
286
Table D.168: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt%
Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes, and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN Replicate Injection Molded Disk 47 Results
Table D.167: Poco Reference 7/8/08
POCO Reference Data
Carbon Paper
Thickness
Area
Resistivity
7/8/2008
tested
0.325
31.669
1.5
cm
2
cm
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
10.27
2
10.24
3
10.26
4
10.29
5
10.23
6
10.22
7
10.26
8
10.29
9
10.27
10
10.22
Average
10.255
Stand. Dev.
0.026
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
Rpoco + lead resistance = 10.255
lead resistance (mohm)
10.240
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.331
Area
30.87
Diameter
6.269
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
mohm
mohm
mohm
287
R (mohm)
10.66
10.59
10.59
10.59
10.64
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5B65Q6PR-TC-47
7/8/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
0.4204
0.3504
0.3504
0.3504
0.4004
0.3744
0.0336
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
0.0392
0.0327
0.0327
0.0327
0.0373
0.0349
0.0031
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
25.509
30.605
30.605
30.605
26.783
28.821
2.483
5
Table D.170: EA2.5B65Q6PR Disk 41 Results
Table D.169: EA2.5B65Q6PR Disk 16 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.34
Area
30.19
Diameter
6.2
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
10.72
10.7
10.72
10.7
10.74
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5B65Q6PR-TC-16
7/8/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
0.4804
0.4604
0.4804
0.4604
0.5004
0.4764
0.0167
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
0.0427
0.0409
0.0427
0.0409
0.0444
0.0423
0.0015
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.34
Area
30.19
Diameter
6.2
Conductivity
(S/cm)
23.443
24.461
23.443
24.461
22.506
23.663
0.823
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
288
R (mohm)
10.85
10.86
10.83
10.81
10.81
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5B65Q6PR-TC-41
7/8/2008
.
cm
2
cm
cm
inj mold
tested
R corrected Resistivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
0.6104
0.0542
0.6204
0.0551
0.5904
0.0524
0.5704
0.0506
0.5704
0.0506
0.5924
0.0526
0.0228
0.0020
5
5
Conductivity
(S/cm)
18.450
18.153
19.075
19.744
19.744
19.033
0.729
5
Table D.172: EA2.5B65Q6PR Disk 19 Results
Table D.171: EA2.5B65Q6PR Disk 12 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.339
Area
30.89
Diameter
6.271
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
11.46
11.32
11.31
11.42
11.22
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5B65Q6PR-TC-12
7/8/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
0.4834
0.3434
0.3334
0.4434
0.2434
0.3694
0.0953
5
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.335
Area
31.00
Diameter
6.283
Resistivity Conductivity
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
0.0440
22.706
0.0313
31.963
0.0304
32.921
0.0404
24.754
0.0222
45.095
0.0337
31.488
0.0087
8.802
5
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
289
R (mohm)
11.36
11.36
11.36
11.33
11.28
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5B65Q6PR-TC-19
7/8/2008
.
cm
2
cm
cm
inj mold
tested
R corrected Resistivity Conductivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
0.3834
0.0355
28.182
0.3834
0.0355
28.182
0.3834
0.0355
28.182
0.3534
0.0327
30.575
0.3034
0.0281
35.613
0.3614
0.0334
30.147
0.0349
0.0032
3.227
5
5
5
Table D.174: EA2.5B65Q6PR Disk 41 Results
Table D.173: EA2.5B65Q6PR Disk 22 Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.337
Area
30.88
Diameter
6.27
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
11.31
11.27
11.31
11.27
11.24
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5B65Q6PR-TC-22
7/8/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
inj mold
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.331
Area
30.87
Diameter
6.269
R corrected Resistivity Conductivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
0.3334
0.0305
32.738
0.2934
0.0269
37.201
0.3334
0.0305
32.738
0.2934
0.0269
37.201
0.2634
0.0241
41.438
0.3034
0.0278
36.263
0.0300
0.0027
3.654
5
5
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
290
R (mohm)
11.67
11.57
11.56
11.45
11.42
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5B65Q6PR-TC-41
7/8/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
0.6934
0.5934
0.5834
0.4734
0.4434
0.5574
0.1006
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
0.0647
0.0553
0.0544
0.0441
0.0413
0.0520
0.0094
5
inj mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
15.465
18.072
18.381
22.653
24.185
19.751
3.576
5
Table D.175: Overall Results for 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600
JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes, and 65 wt%
Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate Injection Molded
Date
7/8/2008
7/8/2008
7/8/2008
7/8/2008
7/8/2008
7/8/2008
7/8/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65Q6PR-TC-47
EA2.5B65Q6PR-TC-16
EA2.5B65Q6PR-TC-41
EA2.5B65Q6PR-TC-12
EA2.5B65Q6PR-TC-19
EA2.5B65Q6PR-TC-22
EA2.5B65Q6PR-TC-41
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Average
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
0.0349
0.0423
0.0526
0.0337
0.0334
0.0278
0.0520
0.0395
0.0097
7
291
Table D.177: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt%
Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes, and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN Compression Molded Disk 8C Results
Table D.176: Poco Reference 7/21/08
POCO Reference Data
Carbon Paper
Thickness
Area
Resistivity
7/21/2008
tested
0.325
31.669
1.5
cm
2
cm
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
11.01
2
10.91
3
10.9
4
10.88
5
10.84
6
10.84
7
10.99
8
10.85
9
11.02
10
10.85
Average
10.909
Stand. Dev.
0.072
R Poco = p t / A
0.015
Rpoco + lead resistance = 10.909
lead resistance (mohm)
10.894
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.336
Area
30.97
Diameter
6.28
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
mohm
mohm
mohm
292
R (mohm)
11.6
11.57
11.59
11.56
11.53
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5B65Q6PR-8C
comp mold
7/21/2008
tested
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
0.6521
0.6221
0.6421
0.6121
0.5821
0.6221
0.0274
5
Resistivity Conductivity
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
0.0601
16.634
0.0574
17.436
0.0592
16.893
0.0564
17.721
0.0537
18.634
0.0574
17.464
0.0025
0.783
5
5
Table D.179: EA2.5B65Q6P Disk 1C Results
Table D.178: Poco Reference 7/9/08
POCO Reference Data
Carbon Paper
Thickness
Area
Resistivity
7/9/2008
0.326
20.2683
1.5
Test #
R (mohm)
1
10.87
2
10.91
3
10.88
4
10.83
5
10.71
6
10.85
7
10.72
8
10.76
9
10.69
10
10.73
Average
10.795
Stand. Dev.
0.081
R Poco = p t / A
0.024
Rpoco + lead resistance = 10.795
lead resistance (mohm)
10.771
tested
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness
0.336
Area
19.62
Diameter
4.998
cm
2
cm
mohm cm
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
mohm
mohm
mohm
293
R (mohm)
11.69
11.69
11.88
11.66
11.73
Average
Std. Dev.
n
EA2.5B65Q6PR-1C
7/9/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected
(mohm)
0.9191
0.9191
1.1091
0.8891
0.9591
0.9591
0.0875
5
comp mold
tested
Resistivity Conductivity
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
0.0537
18.633
0.0537
18.633
0.0648
15.441
0.0519
19.262
0.0560
17.856
0.0560
17.965
0.0051
1.496
5
5
Table D.181: Overall Results for 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600
JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes, and 65 wt%
Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Compression Molded
Table D.180: EA2.5B65Q6P Disk 3C Results
Sample Data
sanded by hand
Thickness 0.328
Area
19.59
Diameter
4.994
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
EA2.5B65Q6PR-3C
7/9/2008
cm
2
cm
cm
R corrected Resistivity
R (mohm) (mohm)
(ohm cm)
11.55
0.7791
0.0465
11.55
0.7791
0.0465
11.44
0.6691
0.0400
11.45
0.6791
0.0406
11.53
0.7591
0.0453
Average
0.7331
0.0438
Std. Dev.
0.0546
0.0033
n
5
5
comp mold
tested
Conductivity
(S/cm)
21.492
21.492
25.025
24.657
22.058
22.945
1.751
5
294
Date
Sample Number
Average
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
7/21/2008
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-8C
0.0574
7/9/2008
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-1C
0.0560
7/9/2008
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-3C
0.0438
Overall Average
0.0524
Overall Standard Deviation
0.0075
Number of Samples
5
Table D.183: Dana Results for 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600
JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes, and 65 wt%
Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Compression Molded Disk
1C
Table D.182: Dana Corporation Poco Reference 7/18/08
POCO Reference Data
7/18/2008
Thickness
0.3047
cm
Area
12
cm
Resistivity
1.5
mohm cm
Test #
R (mohm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Average
R Poco = p t / A
Rpoco + lead resistance =
lead resistance (mohm)
0.3763
0.3741
0.3787
0.3765
0.3735
0.3746
0.3753
0.3697
0.3658
0.3623
0.3727
0.0381
0.3727
0.3346
tested
2
Sample Data
EA2.5B65Q6P- 1C
comp mold
Sanded
Thickness
Area
0.3393
12.00
cm
cm
2
7/18/2008
tested
Thickness (mm)
3.402
3.393
3.388
3.38
3.394
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
mohm
mohm
295
R (mohm)
1.8063
1.7957
1.7913
1.7875
1.7791
Average
Std. Dev.
n
R corrected
(mohm)
1.472
1.461
1.457
1.453
1.445
1.457
0.0101
5
Resistivity Conductivity
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
0.0520
19.212
0.0517
19.352
0.0515
19.410
0.0514
19.461
0.0511
19.574
0.0515
19.402
3.56E-04
0.1338
5
5
Table D.185: Dana Results for EA2.5B65Q6P Disk 3C
Table D.184: Dana Results for EA2.5B65Q6P Disk 2C
Sample Data
EA2.5B65Q6P- 2C
comp mold
Sanded
Thickness
0.3383
cm
Area
12.00
cm
2
7/18/2008
Sample Data
tested
Thickness (mm)
EA2.5B65Q6P- 3C
comp mold
Sanded
3.395
3.383
Thickness
0.3304
cm
3.387
3.344
Area
12.00
cm
2
3.372
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
R (mohm)
1.5111
1.5038
1.4933
1.4877
1.4848
Average
Std. Dev.
n
7/18/2008
tested
Thickness (mm)
3.312
3.28
3.273
3.336
3.304
R corrected Resistivity Conductivity
(mohm)
(ohm cm)
(S/cm)
1.177
0.0417
23.962
1.169
0.0415
24.112
1.159
0.0411
24.330
1.153
0.0409
24.448
1.150
0.0408
24.510
1.162
0.0412
24.273
0.0111
3.93E-04
0.2307
5
5
5
Test #
1
2
3
4
5
296
R (mohm)
1.6561
1.6365
1.6444
1.6237
1.6158
Average
Std. Dev.
n
R corrected
(mohm)
1.322
1.302
1.310
1.289
1.281
1.301
0.0161
5
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
0.0480
0.0473
0.0476
0.0468
0.0465
0.0472
5.83E-04
5
Conductivity
(S/cm)
20.835
21.148
21.021
21.358
21.490
21.171
0.2613
5
Table D.186: Overall Results for 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600
JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes, and 65 wt%
Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Compression Molded from
Dana Corporation
Date
Sample Number
7/18/2008
EA2.5B65Q6P-1C
7/18/2008
EA2.5B65Q6P-2C
7/18/2008
EA2.5B65Q6P-3C
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Average
Resistivity
(ohm cm)
0.0515
0.0412
0.0472
0.0467
0.0052
3
297
Appendix E: TCA 300 Through-Plane Thermal Conductivity
Results at 55°C
EP
Table E.1: Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/9/2008
6/9/2008
6/9/2008
6/9/2008
Sample Number
EP-TC-13
EP-TC-17
EP-TC-22
EP-TC-20
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.2049
0.2045
0.2077
0.2083
0.2063
0.0019
4
Table E.2: Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
8/25/2008
8/25/2008
8/25/2008
8/25/2008
Sample Number
EPR-TC-21
EPR-TC-29
EPR-TC-33
EPR-TC-37
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
298
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.2019
0.2051
0.2029
0.2054
0.2038
0.0017
4
EAP’s
Table E.3: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/9/2008
6/9/2008
6/9/2008
6/10/2008
6/10/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5P-TC-14
EA2.5P-TC-25
EA2.5P-TC-19
EA2.5P-TC-28
EA2.5P-TC-30
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.2176
0.2235
0.2166
0.2212
0.2252
0.2208
0.0037
5
Table E.4: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date
6/10/2008
6/10/2008
6/10/2008
6/10/2008
6/10/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5PR-TC-14
EA2.5PR-TC-19
EA2.5PR-TC-22
EA2.5PR-TC-24
EA2.5PR-TC-30
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
299
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.2210
0.2270
0.2266
0.2244
0.2249
0.2248
0.0024
5
Table E.5: 4 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/11/2008
6/12/2008
6/11/2008
6/11/2008
Sample Number
EA4P-TC-17
EA4P-TC-24
EA4P-TC-34
EA4P-TC-30
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.2464
0.2381
0.2325
0.2441
0.2403
0.0062
4
Table E.6: 5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/13/2008
6/13/2008
6/13/2008
6/13/2008
6/13/2008
Sample Number
EA5P-TC-21
EA5P-TC-22
EA5P-TC-24
EA5P-TC-25
EA5P-TC-26
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
300
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.2536
0.2525
0.2530
0.2486
0.2470
0.2509
0.0029
5
Table E.7: 6 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
7/11/2008
7/15/2008
7/15/2008
7/11/2008
Sample Number
EA6P-TC-24
EA6P-TC-27
EA6P-TC-28
EA6P-TC-29
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane Thermal
Conductivity (W/m•K)
0.2665
0.2569
0.2612
0.2589
0.2608
0.0041
4
Table E.8: 7.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
7/21/2008
7/21/2008
7/21/2008
7/21/2008
Sample Number
EA7.5P-TC-20
EA7.5P-TC-23
EA7.5P-TC-24
EA7.5P-TC-25
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane Thermal
Conductivity (W/m•K)
0.2846
0.2667
0.2780
0.2780
0.2768
0.0074
4
Table E.9: 10 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
7/21/2008
7/22/2008
7/22/2008
7/22/2008
7/22/2008
Through Plane
Thermal Conductivity
Sample Number
(W/m•K)
EA10P-TC-24
0.3000
EA10P-TC-34
0.3003
EA10P-TC-23
0.2960
EA10P-TC-25
0.2960
EA10P-TC-32
0.2990
Average
0.2983
Standard Deviation
0.0021
Number of Samples
5
301
Table E.10: 15 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
7/15/2008
7/15/2008
7/15/2008
7/15/2008
7/15/2008
Through Plane
Thermal Conductivity
Sample Number
(W/m•K)
EA15P-TC-21
0.3363
EA15P-TC-22
0.3369
EA15P-TC-30
0.3380
EA15P-TC-31
0.3380
EA15P-TC-35
0.3380
Average
0.3374
Standard Deviation
0.0008
Number of Samples
5
302
EBP’s
Table E.11: 10 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/23/2008
6/23/2008
6/23/2008
6/23/2008
6/23/2008
Sample Number
EB10P-TC-12
EB10P-TC-19
EB10P-TC-35
EB10P-TC-27
EB10P-TC-23
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.2325
0.2269
0.2373
0.2326
0.2385
0.2335
0.0046
5
Table E.12: 15 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/23/2008
6/23/2008
6/24/2008
6/24/2008
Sample Number
EB15P-TC-17
EB15P-TC-20
EB15P-TC-22
EB15P-TC-23
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
303
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.2645
0.2692
0.2683
0.2628
0.2662
0.0030
4
Table E.13: 20 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/24/2008
6/24/2008
6/24/2008
6/24/2008
Sample Number
EB20P-TC-13
EB20P-TC-15
EB20P-TC-20
EB20P-TC-31
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.2993
0.2879
0.2929
0.2885
0.2922
0.0053
4
Table E.14: 25 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/24/2008
6/24/2008
6/24/2008
6/24/2008
Sample Number
EB25P-TC-8
EB25P-TC-9
EB25P-TC-11
EB25P-TC-33
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
304
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.3529
0.3520
0.3573
0.3485
0.3527
0.0036
4
Table E.15: 30 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/25/2008
6/25/2008
6/25/2008
6/25/2008
Sample Number
EB30P-TC-17
EB30P-TC-20
EB30P-TC-25
EB30P-TC-30
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.4391
0.4384
0.4381
0.4392
0.4387
0.0005
4
Table E.16: 35 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/26/2008
6/26/2008
6/26/2008
6/26/2008
Sample Number
EB35P-TC-22
EB35P-TC-26
EB35P-TC-31
EB35P-TC-32
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
305
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.5033
0.4958
0.5066
0.5082
0.5034
0.0055
4
Table E.17: 40 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/27/2008
6/26/2008
6/26/2008
6/26/2008
Sample Number
EB40P-TC-10
EB40P-TC-16
EB40P-TC-32
EB40P-TC-34
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.6200
0.6361
0.6348
0.6218
0.6282
0.0084
4
Table E.18: 45 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/27/2008
6/27/2008
6/27/2008
6/27/2008
Sample Number
EB45P-TC-8
EB45P-TC-17
EB45P-TC-26
EB45P-TC-31
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
306
Through Plane
Thermal Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.7557
0.7553
0.7350
0.7183
0.7411
0.0180
4
Table E.19: 50 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/30/2008
6/30/2008
6/30/2008
6/30/2008
Sample Number
EB50P-TC-29
EB50P-TC-26
EB50P-TC-25
EB50P-TC-24
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
Thermal Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.8958
0.8966
0.8896
0.9038
0.8964
0.0058
4
Table E.20: 55 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
7/22/2008
7/1/2008
7/1/2008
7/2/2008
Sample Number
EB55P-TC-28
EB55P-TC-28
EB55P-TC-26
EB55P-TC-27
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
307
Through Plane Thermal
Conductivity (W/m•K)
1.154
1.149
1.156
1.144
1.151
0.005
4
Table E.21: 60 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
7/2/2008
7/2/2008
7/2/2008
8/18/2008
Sample Number
EB60P-TC-22
EB60P-TC-24
EB60P-TC-27
EB60P-TC-21
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
1.487
1.474
1.526
1.490
1.494
0.022
4
Table E.22: 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
7/3/2008
7/3/2008
7/3/2008
7/3/2008
Sample Number
EB65P-TC-22
EB65P-TC-25
EB65P-TC-27
EB65P-TC-29
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
308
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
1.889
1.903
2.035
2.060
1.972
0.088
4
Table E.23: 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date
7/3/2008
7/3/2008
7/7/2008
7/7/2008
Sample Number
EB65PR-TC-22
EB65PR-TC-20
EB65PR-TC-21
EB65PR-TC-29
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
Thermal Conductivity
(W/m•K)
2.028
2.049
1.926
1.946
1.987
0.060
4
Table E.24: 70 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
7/8/2008
7/9/2008
7/9/2008
8/18/2008
Sample Number
EB70P-TC-29/21
EB70P-TC-25/27
EB70P-TC-28/29
EB70P-TC-21/25
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
309
Through Plane
Thermal Conductivity
(W/m•K)
2.733
2.766
2.701
2.650
2.713
0.049
4
Table E.25: 75 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
7/18/2008
7/8/2008
7/18/2008
7/8/2008
7/23/2008
Sample Number
EB75P-TC-24/28
EB75P-TC-24/23
EB75P-TC-29/28
EB75P-TC-27/28
EB75P-TC-21/17
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
3.603
3.655
3.614
3.693
3.640
3.641
0.036
5
Table E.26: 80 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
7/9/2008
7/9/2008
7/10/2008
7/10/2008
7/10/2008
Sample Number
EB80P-TC-23,20
EB80P-TC-23/25
EB80P-TC-20/27
EB80P-TC-20/27/23
EB80P-TC-29/23
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
310
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
6.118
6.101
5.911
6.119
5.962
6.042
0.098
5
EQP’s
Table E.27: 1.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
7/15/2008
7/15/2008
7/15/2008
7/15/2008
7/15/2008
Sample Number
EQ1.5P-TC-21
EQ1.5P-TC-24
EQ1.5P-TC-30
EQ1.5P-TC-27
EQ1.5P-TC-33
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.2156
0.2144
0.2155
0.2138
0.2162
0.2151
0.0010
5
Table E.28: 2.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
7/16/2008
7/16/2008
7/16/2008
7/16/2008
7/16/2008
Sample Number
EQ2.5P-TC-23
EQ2.5P-TC-26
EQ2.5P-TC-20
EQ2.5P-TC-29
EQ2.5P-TC-21
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
311
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.2295
0.2250
0.2287
0.2310
0.2308
0.2290
0.0024
5
Table E.29: 4 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/17/2008
6/17/2008
6/18/2008
6/18/2008
Sample Number
EQ4P-TC-20
EQ4P-TC-22
EQ4P-TC-24
EQ4P-TC-30
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.2581
0.2561
0.2611
0.2583
0.2584
0.0021
4
Table E.30: 5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/18/2008
6/18/2008
6/18/2008
6/19/2008
Sample Number
EQ5P-TC-20
EQ5P-TC-31
EQ5P-TC-22
EQ5P-TC-26
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
312
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.2833
0.2803
0.2791
0.2837
0.2816
0.0023
4
Table E.31: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
7/16/2008
7/16/2008
7/16/2008
7/16/2008
Sample Number
EQ6P-TC-22
EQ6P-TC-24
EQ6P-TC-29
EQ6P-TC-30
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.3000
0.3060
0.3030
0.2997
0.3022
0.0030
4
Table E.32: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date
6/19/2008
6/19/2008
6/19/2008
6/19/2008
Sample Number
EQ6PR-TC-22
EQ6PR-TC-24
EQ6PR-TC-27
EQ6PR-TC-28
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
313
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.2983
0.2965
0.2992
0.2965
0.2976
0.0014
4
Table E.33: 7.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
6/19/2008
6/19/2008
6/19/2008
8/15/2008
Sample Number
EQ7.5P-TC-23
EQ7.5P-TC-25
EQ7.5P-TC-34
EQ7.5P-TC-28
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.3268
0.3317
0.3283
0.3287
0.3288
0.0021
4
Table E.34: 7.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date
6/20/2008
6/20/2008
6/20/2008
8/15/2008
Sample Number
EQ7.5PR-TC-23
EQ7.5PR-TC-25
EQ7.5PR-TC-33
EQ7.5PR-TC-30
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
314
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.3277
0.3225
0.3229
0.3190
0.3230
0.0036
4
Table E.35: 10 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
7/21/2008
7/21/2008
7/21/2008
7/21/2008
Sample Number
EQ10P-TC-22
EQ10P-TC-26
EQ10P-TC-29
EQ10P-TC-31
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.3670
0.3703
0.3745
0.3761
0.3720
0.0041
4
Table E.36: 15 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
7/17/2008
7/17/2008
7/17/2008
7/17/2008
Sample Number
EQ15P-TC-24
EQ15P-TC-26
EQ15P-TC-30
EQ15P-TC-33
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
315
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.4624
0.4716
0.4651
0.4677
0.4667
0.0039
4
Combinations
Table E.37: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
7/25/2008
7/25/2008
7/31/2008
8/18/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65P-TC-26
EA2.5B65P-TC-21
EA2.5B65P-TC-29
EA2.5B65P-TC-14
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
2.880
2.730
2.799
2.700
2.777
0.080
4
Table E.38: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date
7/31/2008
7/25/2008
7/28/2008
7/31/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65PR-TC-35
EA2.5B65PR-TC-19
EA2.5B65PR-TC-13
EA2.5B65PR-TC-29
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
316
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
2.700
2.640
2.780
2.830
2.738
0.084
4
Table E.39: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes
in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
7/11/2008
7/11/2008
7/11/2008
8/15/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5Q6P-TC-22
EA2.5Q6P-TC-30
EA2.5Q6P-TC-37
EA2.5Q6P-TC-21
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.3426
0.3277
0.3350
0.3280
0.3333
0.0070
4
Table E.40: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes
in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date
7/24/2008
7/24/2008
7/24/2008
7/24/2008
7/24/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5Q6PR-TC-24
EA2.5Q6PR-TC-19
EA2.5Q6PR-TC-26
EA2.5Q6PR-TC-30
EA2.5Q6PR-TC-32
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
317
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
0.3368
0.3416
0.3384
0.3361
0.3437
0.3393
0.0032
5
Table E.41: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
8/7/2008
8/7/2008
7/29/2008
8/7/2008
Sample Number
EB65Q6P-TC-31,34,19
EB65Q6P-TC-24,31,19
EB65Q6P-TC-31,34
EB65Q6P-TC-34,31,28
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
4.780
4.770
4.770
4.690
4.753
0.042
4
Table E.42: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date
7/30/2008
7/30/2008
7/30/2008
8/6/2008
Sample Number
EB65Q6PR-TC-11,20
EB65Q6PR-TC-37,26
EB65Q6PR-TC-11,30
EB65Q6PR-TC-37,20,26
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
318
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
4.632
4.690
4.800
4.760
4.721
0.074
4
Table E.43: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes,
and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN Injection Molded
Test Date
8/5/2008
8/5/2008
8/5/2008
8/5/2008
8/5/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-29,37
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-54,50
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-37,17
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-29,54
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-54,37
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
5.812
5.810
5.980
5.860
5.720
5.836
0.095
5
Table E.44: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes,
and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN Replicate Injection Molded
Test Date
8/8/2008
8/14/2008
8/13/2008
8/13/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65Q6PR-TC-7,31
EA2.5B65Q6PR-TC-35,24
EA2.5B65Q6PR-TC-46,7
EA2.5B65Q6PR-TC-7,26
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
319
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
5.844
5.750
5.770
5.910
5.819
0.073
4
Table E.45: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes,
and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN Compression Molded
Test Date
9/4/2008
9/4/2008
9/4/2008
9/5/2008
Sample Number
EA2.5B65Q6P-1,2,3C
EA2.5B65Q6P-5,3,1C
EA2.5B65Q6P-7,6,2C
EA2.5B65Q6P-6,7,1C
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
320
Through Plane
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m•K)
6.610
6.620
6.489
6.560
6.570
0.060
6.610
Appendix F: Heat Capacity
Table F.1: Density and Specific Heat Values for Each Component Used [1]
Component
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Specific Heat (J/kg•K)
Density (Kg/m3)
1390
900
Thermocarb TC-300 (B)
720
2240
Ketjenblack EC-600 JD (A)
900
1800
Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes (Q)
650
2000
The theoretical specific heat for each formulation of polypropylene and
components A, B, and Q was calculated using Equation 1 below. Equation 1 uses
individual components weight fraction is Фi
and the specific heat of the individual
component Cpi (J/kg·K) to calculate the specific heat, Cpc (J/kg·K), for each individual
formulation.
To calculate the theoretical density for each individual formulation
Equation 2, shown below, was used where ρtheo is the density (g/cm3) of the formulation,
3
Фi is the weight fraction of component and ρi is the density (g/cm ) of the individual
component. From the theoretical density and specific heat we could use Equation 3
shown on the next page to calculate the theoretical volumetric specific heat c (MJ/m3·K)
for all the formulations. This value is necessary when using the HotDisk to determine the
through-plane and in-plane thermal conductivity of a formulation
n
C pc = ∑ Φi ⋅ C pi
i =1
321
(1)
1
ρTheo =
c=
(C
(2)
φ
∑i ρi
i
pc
⋅ ρtheo
)
3
10
322
(3)
Table F.2: Theoretical Specific Heat, Density, and Volumetric Specific Heat for
Thermocarb TC-300 Synthetic Graphite, Ketjenblack EC-600 JD Carbon Black, and
Hyperion FIBRILTM Nanotubes Formulations
Formulation
EP
EB10P
EB15P
EB20P
EB25P
EB30P
EB35P
EB40P
EB45P
EB50P
EB55P
EB60P
EB65P
EB70P
EB75P
EB80P
EA2.5P
EA4P
EA5P
EA6P
EA7.5P
EA10P
EA15P
EQ1.5P
EQ2.5P
EQ4P
EQ5P
EQ6P
EQ7.5P
EQ10P
EQ15P
EQ20P
EA2.5Q6P
EA2.5B65P
EB65Q6P
EA2.5B65Q6P
Weight
Fraction of
Filler
0.000
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.550
0.600
0.650
0.700
0.750
0.800
0.025
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.075
0.100
0.150
0.015
0.025
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.075
0.100
0.150
0.200
Weight
Fraction of
Polymer
1.000
0.900
0.850
0.800
0.750
0.700
0.650
0.600
0.550
0.500
0.450
0.400
0.350
0.300
0.250
0.200
0.975
0.960
0.950
0.940
0.925
0.900
0.850
0.985
0.975
0.960
0.950
0.940
0.925
0.900
0.850
0.800
Theoretical
Volumetric
Theoretical
Specific Heat
Specific
3
Heat (J/kg•K)
(MJ/m K)
1390
1.2510
1323
1.2665
1290
1.2750
1256
1.2840
1223
1.2937
1189
1.3041
1156
1.3154
1122
1.3274
1089
1.3405
1055
1.3547
1022
1.3702
988
1.3871
955
1.4056
921
1.4261
888
1.4487
854
1.4740
1378
1.2557
1370
1.2585
1366
1.2605
1361
1.2624
1353
1.2654
1341
1.2704
1317
1.2809
1379
1.2513
1372
1.2516
1360
1.2519
1353
1.2521
1346
1.2524
1335
1.2527
1316
1.2533
1279
1.2546
1242
1.2560
1333
1.2572
942
1.4165
910
1.4167
898
1.4285
323
Theoretical
Density
3
(g/cm )
0.9000
0.9573
0.9887
1.0223
1.0583
1.0968
1.1383
1.1831
1.2315
1.2841
1.3413
1.4039
1.4726
1.5484
1.6324
1.7260
0.9114
0.9184
0.9231
0.9278
0.9351
0.9474
0.9730
0.9075
0.9125
0.9202
0.9254
0.9307
0.9387
0.9524
0.9809
1.0112
0.9429
1.5034
1.5567
1.5911
EP
Table F.3: Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Sample
EP-2
EP-3
EP-4
EP-5
EP-6
EP-7
Disks
Used
Average
Stdev
Specific Heat
(J/kgK)
1409.4
1396.7
1391.6
1379.2
1386.9
1377.1
1390.15
11.97
324
Volumetric
Specific Heat
3
(MJ/m K)
1.26
1.257
1.252
1.241
1.248
1.239
1.25
0.01
Points
160-200
160-200
160-200
170-200
160-200
160-200
EAP’s
Table F.4: 10 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Disks
Specific Heat
Used
(J/kgK)
Sample
EA10P-1 25,22,28
1386
EA10P-2 25,22,28
1314
EA10P-3 25,22,28
1303
Average
1335
Stdev
45
325
Volumetric
Specific Heat
3
(MJ/m K)
1.313
1.244
1.234
1.264
0.043
Points
80-200
100-200
120-200
EBP’s
Table F.5: 20 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Sample
EB20P-1
EB20P-2
EB20P-3
Specific
Disks Used Heat (J/kgK)
18,16,23
1257
18,16,23
1265
18,16,23
1265
Average
1262
Stdev
5
Volumetric
Specific Heat
3
(MJ/m K)
1.131
1.293
1.293
1.239
0.094
Points
100-200
100-200
100-200
Table F.6: 80 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Sample
EB80P-1
EB80P-2
EB80P-3
Specific
Disks Used Heat (J/kgK)
14,26,27
825
14,26,27
845
14,26,27
868
Average
846
Stdev
22
326
Volumetric
Specific Heat
3
(MJ/m K)
1.424
1.458
1.498
1.460
0.037
Points
160-200
100-200
150-200
EQP’s
Table F.7: 7.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Sample Disks Used
EQ7.5P-1 27,29,32
EQ7.5P-2 27,29,32
EQ7.5P-3 27,29,32
Average
Stdev
Specific Heat
(J/kgK)
1320
1357
1294
1324
32
Volumetric
Specific Heat
3
(MJ/m K)
1.239
1.274
1.215
1.243
0.030
Points
160-200
160-200
70-200
Table F.8: 10 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Sample Disks Used
EQ10P-1
21,10,14
EQ10P-2
21,10,14
EQ10P-3
21,10,14
Average
Stdev
Specific Heat
(J/kgK)
1320
1297
1297
1304
13
Volumetric
Specific Heat
3
(MJ/m K)
1.256
1.234
1.234
1.241
0.013
Points
150-200
160-200
160-200
Table F.9: 15 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Sample Disks Used
EQ15P-2
20,27,36
EQ15P-3
20,27,36
Average
Stdev
Specific Heat
(J/kgK)
1250
1280
1265
21
327
Volumetric
Specific Heat
3
(MJ/m K)
1.226
1.256
1.241
0.021
Points
150-200
140-200
Appendix F References:
1. J. Hone, M.C. Llaguno, M.J. Biercuk, A.T. Johnson, B. Batlogg, Z. Benes, J.E.
Fischer, Applied Physics 74, 339-343, (2002).
328
Appendix G: Hot Disk Thermal Conductivity at 23°C
EBP’s
Table G.1: 30 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
8/4/2008
Disks
Used
26,28
22,31
27,29
32,21
18,23
16,12
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
In Plane
Thermal
Thermal
Conductivity Conductivity
(W/m•K)
(W/m•K)
0.4426
1.377
0.4458
1.430
0.4430
0.4371
0.4450
0.4421
0.4426
0.0031
6
1.375
1.320
1.432
1.388
1.387
0.041
6
Power
(W)
0.08
0.08
Time
(sec)
10
10
Points
17-200
12-200
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
10
10
10
10
12-200
5-175
5-140
10-200
Sensor
C5465
r = 3.189 mm
Table G.2: 35 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Through Plane
In Plane
Thermal
Thermal
Disks
Conductivity Conductivity
(W/m•K)
Test Date Used
(W/m•K)
8/5/2008 21,19
0.5018
1.973
28,33
0.4947
1.993
23,18
0.4922
2.057
27,29
0.5040
1.931
24,30
0.5043
1.902
Average
0.4994
1.971
Standard Deviation
0.0056
0.060
Number of Samples
5
5
329
Power
(W)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Time
(sec)
5
5
5
5
5
Points
5-150
5-150
6-186
15-150
10-200
Sensor
C5465
r = 3.189 mm
Table G.3: 40 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Through Plane
In Plane
Thermal
Thermal
Disks
Conductivity Conductivity
(W/m•K)
Test Date Used
(W/m•K)
8/5/2008 31,33
0.6271
2.566
22,25
0.6273
2.376
20,26
0.6220
2.576
17,21
0.6301
2.666
24,19
0.6249
2.583
27,29
0.6345
2.670
Average
0.6277
2.572
Standard Deviation
0.0043
0.107
Number of Samples
6
6
Power
(W)
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Time
(sec)
5
5
5
5
5
5
Points
12-200
10-150
7-120
8-140
10-180
7-150
Sensor
C5465
r = 3.189 mm
Table G.4: 45 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Through Plane
In Plane
Thermal
Thermal
Disks
Conductivity Conductivity
Test Date Used
(W/m•K)
(W/m•K)
8/6/2008 21,24
0.7265
3.491
29,27
0.7279
3.221
28,23
0.7276
3.419
16,19
0.7262
3.270
11,15
0.7231
3.548
Average
0.7263
3.390
Standard Deviation
0.0019
0.141
Number of Samples
5
5
330
Power
(W)
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Time
(sec)
5
5
5
5
5
Points
5-175
8-115
6-165
6-150
6-175
Sensor
C5465
r = 3.189 mm
Table G.5: 50 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
In Plane
Through Plane
Thermal
Thermal
Disks
Conductivity Conductivity
Test Date Used
(W/m•K)
(W/m•K)
8/6/2008 21,23
0.9020
4.371
16,14
0.8861
4.414
28,30
0.8959
4.383
17,20
0.8922
4.352
31,32
0.8953
4.344
Average
0.8943
4.373
Standard Deviation
0.0058
0.028
Number of Samples
5
5
Power
(W)
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Time
(sec)
5
5
5
5
5
Points
9-120
9-111
9-120
12-115
9-135
Sensor
C5465
r = 3.189 mm
Table G.6: 55 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Through Plane
In Plane
Thermal
Thermal
Disks
Conductivity Conductivity
Test Date Used
(W/m•K)
(W/m•K)
8/6/2008 21,20
1.168
5.132
23,19
1.105
5.478
8/7/2008 29,30
1.157
5.281
15,16
1.133
5.280
18,24
1.290
5.358
Average
1.171
5.306
Standard Deviation
0.071
0.126
Number of Samples
5
5
331
Power
(W)
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Time
(sec)
5
5
5
5
5
Points
9-60
10-115
10-100
10-100
10-100
Sensor
C5465
r = 3.189 mm
Table G.7: 60 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date Disks Used
8/12/2008 28,30,19,15
8/13/2008 18,31,32,23
13,10,17,16
9,11,12,29
16,28,13,32
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
In Plane
Thermal
Thermal
Conductivity Conductivity
(W/m•K)
(W/m•K)
1.507
7.373
1.501
7.086
1.495
7.184
1.501
7.316
1.508
7.218
1.502
7.235
0.005
0.113
5
5
Power
(W)
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Time
(sec)
5
5
5
5
5
Points
8-100
7-115
8-104
7-125
8-115
Sensor
C5501
r=6.403
Table G.8: 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
In Plane
Through Plane
Thermal
Thermal
Conductivity Conductivity
Test Date Disks Used
(W/m•K)
(W/m•K)
8/13/2008 10,11,26,14
2.021
9.354
5,6,10,11
2.013
9.365
26,14,5,6
1.973
9.282
6,11,14,4
1.999
9.390
6,10,26,4
2.021
9.354
Average
2.005
9.349
Standard Deviation
0.020
0.040
Number of Samples
5
5
332
Power
(W)
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
Time
(sec)
5
5
5
5
5
Points
7-109
7-102
6-129
7-98
7-109
Sensor
C5501
r=6.403
Table G.9: 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date Disks Used
8/13/2008 15,20,27,31
17,25,16,12
14,9,11,15
8/14/2008 16,12,8,20
9,14,11,10
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
In Plane
Through Plane
Thermal
Thermal
Conductivity Conductivity
(W/m•K)
(W/m•K)
1.977
9.090
1.987
9.285
2.022
9.370
2.102
9.466
2.030
9.417
2.024
9.326
0.049
0.148
5
5
Power
(W)
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
Time
(sec)
5
5
5
5
5
Points
5-138
6-129
6-115
7-90
6-129
Sensor
C5501
r=6.403
Table G.10: 70 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date Disks Used
8/14/2008 17,29,28,24
12,13,14,16
19,20,10,11
14,16,24,28
12,20,13,29
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
In Plane
Thermal
Thermal
Conductivity Conductivity
(W/m•K)
(W/m•K)
2.739
12.450
2.737
12.200
2.733
12.000
2.725
12.470
2.736
12.460
2.734
12.316
0.005
0.210
5
5
333
Power
(W)
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
Time
(sec)
5
5
5
5
5
Points
7-88
7-93
7-87
7-96
7-85
Sensor
C5501
r=6.403
Table G.11: 75 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date Disks Used
8/14/2008 6,26,16,22
10,22,26,12
16,6,11,9
8/15/2008 9,22,26,111
10,6,16,12
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
In Plane
Thermal
Thermal
Conductivity Conductivity
(W/m•K)
(W/m•K)
3.608
18.020
3.611
18.850
3.632
18.050
3.652
17.880
3.659
17.910
3.632
18.142
0.023
0.402
5
5
Power
(W)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Time
(sec)
5
5
5
5
5
Points
10-47
10-47
9-54
9-57
10-50
Sensor
C5501
r=6.403
Table G.12: 80 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Through Plane
In Plane
Thermal
Thermal
Conductivity Conductivity
Test Date Disks Used
(W/m•K)
(W/m•K)
8/15/2008 8,9,18,6
6.021
30.680
9,18,8,16
6.056
27.620
8/18/2008 8,28,9,18
6.128
27.560
8,17,6,10
6.072
27.040
28,16,8,9
6.040
27.120
Average
6.063
28.004
Standard Deviation
0.041
1.518
Number of Samples
5
5
334
Power
(W)
0.9
0.5
1
1
1
Time
(sec)
1.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Points
12-137
20-74
30-86
33-79
11-122
Sensor
C5501
r=6.403
Combinations
Table G.13: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date Disks Used
8/25/2008 23,9,16,13
18,11,19,33
12,7,16,23
13,18,19,33
33,23,19,12
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
In Plane
Through Plane
Thermal
Thermal
Conductivity Conductivity
(W/m•K)
(W/m•K)
2.750
8.490
2.791
8.965
2.787
8.871
2.727
8.998
2.774
8.448
2.766
8.754
0.027
0.265
5
5
Power
(W)
0.45
0.65
0.5
0.65
0.045
Time
(sec)
5
5
4
5
5
Points
8-87
8-84
8-110
8-87
8-91
Sensor
C5501
r=6.403
Table G.14: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date Disks Used
8/26/2008 14,34,17,18
9,32,28,19
12,18,39,32
7,12,13,10
7,31,28,10
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
In Plane
Thermal
Thermal
Conductivity Conductivity
(W/m•K)
(W/m•K)
4.622
15.160
4.681
15.670
4.685
15.740
4.666
15.810
4.791
15.780
4.689
15.632
0.062
0.269
5
5
335
Power
(W)
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
Time
(sec)
5
5
5
5
5
Points
6-79
6-73
7-67
7-70
7-72
Sensor
C5501
r=6.403
Table G.15: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes,
and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN Injection Molded
Test Date Disks Used
8/28/2008 20,32,18,17 R
37,34,29,32 R
8/26/2008 21,41,47,32
8/27/2008 49,32,18,21
55,56,41,48
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
In Plane
Thermal
Thermal
Conductivity Conductivity
(W/m•K)
(W/m•K)
5.757
16.910
5.832
17.560
5.810
17.680
5.790
17.940
5.822
17.760
5.802
17.570
0.030
0.394
5
5
Power
(W)
1
1
1
1
1
Time
(sec)
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Points
11-49
10-88
24-79
18-91
17-71
Sensor
C5501
r=6.403
Table G.16: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes,
and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN Compression Molded
Test Date Disks Used
9/4/2008 10,11,12,13 C
9/5/2008 19,12,20,15 C
14,19,20,18 C
13,11,19,15 C
18,17,12,13 C
Average
Standard Deviation
Number of Samples
Through Plane
In Plane
Thermal
Thermal
Conductivity Conductivity
(W/m•K)
(W/m•K)
6.5930
23.910
6.5520
24.190
6.521
24.54
6.5360
24.060
6.5500
23.100
6.550
23.960
0.027
0.534
5
5
336
Power
(W)
1
1
1
1
1
Time
(sec)
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Points
9-51
9-49
14-47
9-49
15-43
Sensor
C5501
r=6.403
Appendix H: Density
EP
Table H.1: Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/2/2008
EP-TC-12
0.9000
0.9079
EP-TC-16
0.9000
0.9092
EP-TC-23
0.9000
0.9100
EP-TC-27
0.9000
0.9096
EP-TC-37
0.9000
0.9087
Average
0.9091
Standard Deviation
0.0008
Number of Samples
5
337
EAP’s
Table H.2: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/3/2008
EA2.5P-TC-9
0.9114
0.9208
EA2.5P-TC-15
0.9114
0.9211
EA2.5P-TC-21
0.9114
0.9218
EA2.5P-TC-26
0.9114
0.9216
EA2.5P-TC-30
0.9114
0.9215
Average
0.9214
Standard Deviation
0.0004
Number of Samples
5
Table H.3: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/3/2008 EA2.5PR-TC-10
0.9114
0.9218
EA2.5PR-TC-17
0.9114
0.9217
EA2.5PR-TC-20
0.9114
0.9221
EA2.5PR-TC-24
0.9114
0.9221
EA2.5PR-TC-30
0.9114
0.9221
Average
0.9220
Standard Deviation
0.0002
Number of Samples
338
5
Table H.4: 4 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/3/2008
EA4P-TC-9
0.9184
0.9316
EA4P-TC-13
0.9184
0.9316
EA4P-TC-17
0.9184
0.9314
EA4P-TC-32
0.9184
0.9316
Average
0.9316
Standard Deviation
0.0001
Number of Samples
4
Table H.5: 5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/3/2008
EA5P-TC-9
0.9231
0.9357
EA5P-TC-12
0.9231
0.9359
EA5P-TC-19
0.9231
0.9361
EA5P-TC-25
0.9231
0.9361
EA5P-TC-31
0.9231
0.9346
Average
0.9357
Standard Deviation
0.0006
Number of Samples
5
339
Table H.6: 6 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/3/2008
EA6P-TC-7
0.9278
0.9387
EA6P-TC-11
0.9278
0.9388
EA6P-TC-16
0.9278
0.9386
EA6P-TC-20
0.9278
0.9391
EA6P-TC-31
0.9278
0.9388
Average
0.9388
Standard Deviation
0.0002
Number of Samples
5
Table H.7: 7.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/3/2008
EA7.5P-TC-7
0.9351
0.9454
EA7.5P-TC-10
0.9351
0.9452
EA7.5P-TC-14
0.9351
0.9435
EA7.5P-TC-18
0.9351
0.9455
EA7.5P-TC-28
0.9351
0.9458
Average
0.9451
Standard Deviation
0.0009
Number of Samples
5
340
Table H.8: 10 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/3/2008
EA10P-TC-6
0.9474
0.9600
EA10P-TC-10
0.9474
0.9603
EA10P-TC-16
0.9474
0.9595
EA10P-TC-19
0.9474
0.9601
EA10P-TC-33
0.9474
0.9602
Average
0.9600
Standard Deviation
0.0003
Number of Samples
5
Table H.9: 15 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/3/2008
EA15P-TC-9
0.9730
0.9833
EA15P-TC-12
0.9730
0.9836
EA15P-TC-18
0.9730
0.9833
EA15P-TC-20
0.9730
0.9840
EA15P-TC-32
0.9730
0.9834
Average
0.9835
Standard Deviation
0.0003
Number of Samples
5
341
EBP’s
Table H.10: 10 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/2/2008
EB10P-TC-8
0.9573
0.9666
EB10P-TC-14
0.9573
0.9679
EB10P-TC-30
0.9573
0.9667
Average
0.9671
Standard Deviation
0.0007
Number of Samples
3
Table H.11: 15 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/2/2008
EB15P-TC-7
0.9887
0.9971
EB15P-TC-14
0.9887
0.9961
EB15P-TC-19
0.9887
0.9985
EB15P-TC-27
0.9887
0.9979
Average
0.9974
Standard Deviation
0.0010
Number of Samples
4
Table H.12: 20 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
5/30/2008
EB20P-TC-19
1.0223
1.0268
EB20P-TC-30
1.0223
1.0252
EB20P-TC-25
1.0223
1.0257
EB20P-TC-32
1.0223
1.0240
EB20P-TC-17
1.0223
1.0246
Average
1.0252
Standard Deviation
0.0011
Number of Samples
5
342
Table H.13: 25 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
5/30/2008
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
EB25P-TC-7
1.0583
1.0597
EB25P-TC-23
1.0583
1.0593
EB25P-TC-28
1.0583
1.0620
Average
1.0603
Standard Deviation
0.0014
Number of Samples
3
Table H.14: 30 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
5/30/2008
EB30P-TC-7
1.0968
1.0958
EB30P-TC-11
1.0968
1.0960
EB30P-TC-15
1.0968
1.0960
EB30P-TC-20
1.0968
1.0956
EB30P-TC-23
1.0968
1.0966
Average
1.0960
Standard Deviation
0.0004
Number of Samples
5
Table H.15: 35 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
5/30/2008
EB35P-TC-8
1.1383
1.1375
EB35P-TC-22
1.1383
1.1377
EB35P-TC-25
1.1383
1.1389
EB35P-TC-34
1.1383
1.1367
Average
1.1377
Standard Deviation
0.0009
Number of Samples
4
343
Table H.16: 40 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
5/30/2008
EB40P-TC-9
1.1831
1.1816
EB40P-TC-10
1.1831
1.1807
EB40P-TC-13
1.1831
1.1809
EB40P-TC-16
1.1831
1.1811
EB40P-TC-34
1.1831
1.1807
Average
1.1810
Standard Deviation
0.0004
Number of Samples
5
Table H.17: 45 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
5/30/2008
EB45P-TC-11
1.2315
1.2279
EB45P-TC-18
1.2315
1.2282
EB45P-TC-19
1.2315
1.2296
EB45P-TC-21
1.2315
1.2288
EB45P-TC-32
1.2315
1.2283
Average
1.2286
Standard Deviation
0.0006
Number of Samples
5
344
Table H.18: 50 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
5/30/2008
EB50P-TC-6
1.2841
1.2792
EB50P-TC-14
1.2841
1.2792
EB50P-TC-19
1.2841
1.2787
EB50P-TC-30
1.2841
1.2795
EB50P-TC-33
1.2841
1.2800
Average
1.2793
Standard Deviation
0.0005
Number of Samples
5
Table H.19: 55 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
5/30/2008
EB55P-TC-12
1.3413
1.3336
EB55P-TC-13
1.3413
1.3342
EB55P-TC-22
1.3413
1.3335
EB55P-TC-32
1.3413
1.3354
Average
1.3342
Standard Deviation
0.0009
Number of Samples
4
Table H.20: 60 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
5/30/2008
EB60P-TC-11
1.4039
1.3920
EB60P-TC-19
1.4039
1.3926
EB60P-TC-21
1.4039
1.3920
EB60P-TC-28
1.4039
1.3927
EB60P-TC-30
1.4039
1.3926
Average
1.3924
Standard Deviation
0.0003
Number of Samples
5
345
Table H.21: 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
5/30/2008
EB65P-TC-8
1.4726
1.4662
EB65P-TC-12
1.4726
1.4644
EB65P-TC-13
1.4726
1.4646
EB65P-TC-22
1.4726
1.4660
Average
1.4653
Standard Deviation
0.0009
Number of Samples
4
Table H.221: 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
5/30/2008
EB65PR-TC-8
1.4726
1.4649
EB65PR-TC-12
1.4726
1.4649
EB65PR-TC-22
1.4726
1.4642
EB65PR-TC-25
1.4726
1.4651
EB65PR-TC-31
1.4726
1.4660
Average
1.4650
Standard Deviation
0.0006
Number of Samples
5
346
Table H.23: 70 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
5/30/2008
EB70P-TC-6
1.5484
1.5430
EB70P-TC-13
1.5484
1.5428
EB70P-TC-14
1.5484
1.5438
EB70P-TC-16
1.5484
1.5432
EB70P-TC-26
1.5484
1.5440
Average
1.5433
Standard Deviation
0.0005
Number of Samples
5
Table H.24: 75 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
5/30/2008
EB75P-TC-8
1.6324
1.6274
EB75P-TC-14
1.6324
1.6267
EB75P-TC-17
1.6324
1.6274
EB75P-TC-24
1.6324
1.6263
EB75P-TC-29
1.6324
1.6273
Average
1.6270
Standard Deviation
0.0005
Number of Samples
5
Table H.25: 80 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
5/30/2008
EB80P-TC-13
1.7260
1.7207
EB80P-TC-17
1.7260
1.7202
EB80P-TC-23
1.7260
1.7193
EB80P-TC-30
1.7260
1.7199
Average
1.7200
Standard Deviation
0.0006
Number of Samples
4
347
EQP’s
Table H.26: 1.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/5/2008
EQ1.5P-TC-7
0.9075
0.9172
EQ1.5P-TC-11
0.9075
0.9170
EQ1.5P-TC-16
0.9075
0.9172
EQ1.5P-TC-19
0.9075
0.9169
EQ1.5P-TC-31
0.9075
0.9172
Average
0.9171
Standard Deviation
0.0001
Number of Samples
5
Table H.27: 2.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/5/2008
EQ2.5P-TC-8
0.9125
0.9212
EQ2.5P-TC-12
0.9125
0.9225
EQ2.5P-TC-18
0.9125
0.9213
EQ2.5P-TC-25
0.9125
0.9219
EQ2.5P-TC-31
0.9125
0.9221
Average
0.9218
Standard Deviation
0.0006
Number of Samples
5
348
Table H.28: 4 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/5/2008
EQ4P-TC-9
0.9202
0.9302
EQ4P-TC-16
0.9202
0.9295
EQ4P-TC-19
0.9202
0.9295
EQ4P-TC-28
0.9202
0.9298
EQ4P-TC-31
0.9202
0.9285
Average
0.9295
Standard Deviation
0.0006
Number of Samples
5
Table H.29: 5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/5/2008
EQ5P-TC-9
0.9254
0.9354
EQ5P-TC-19
0.9254
0.9352
EQ5P-TC-23
0.9254
0.9346
EQ5P-TC-33
0.9254
0.9345
Average
0.9349
Standard Deviation
0.0005
Number of Samples
4
Table H.30: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/5/2008
EQ6P-TC-6
0.9307
0.9387
EQ6P-TC-9
0.9307
0.9397
EQ6P-TC-14
0.9307
0.9400
EQ6P-TC-18
0.9307
0.9399
EQ6P-TC-23
0.9307
0.9401
Average
0.9397
Standard Deviation
0.0006
Number of Samples
5
349
Table H.31: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/5/2008
EQ6PR-TC-8
0.9307
0.9400
EQ6PR-TC-11
0.9307
0.9402
EQ6PR-TC-13
0.9307
0.9404
EQ6PR-TC-18
0.9307
0.9402
EQ6PR-TC-29
0.9307
0.9398
Average
0.9401
Standard Deviation
0.0002
Number of Samples
5
Table H.32: 7.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/5/2008
EQ7.5P-TC-9
0.9387
0.9475
EQ7.5P-TC-14
0.9387
0.9474
EQ7.5P-TC-18
0.9387
0.9475
EQ7.5P-TC-26
0.9387
0.9471
Average
0.9474
Standard Deviation
0.0002
Number of Samples
4
Table H.33: 7.5 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/5/2008
EQ7.5PR-TC-6
0.9387
0.9481
EQ7.5PR-TC-10
0.9387
0.9480
EQ7.5PR-TC-19
0.9387
0.9481
EQ7.5PR-TC-22
0.9387
0.9482
EQ7.5PR-TC-31
0.9387
0.9478
Average
0.9481
Standard Deviation
0.0002
Number of Samples
5
350
Table H.34: 10 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/5/2008
EQ10P-TC-9
0.9524
0.9607
EQ10P-TC-13
0.9524
0.9611
EQ10P-TC-19
0.9524
0.9606
EQ10P-TC-27
0.9524
0.9603
EQ10P-TC-30
0.9524
0.9608
Average
0.9607
Standard Deviation
0.0003
Number of Samples
5
Table H.35: 15 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline
Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/5/2008
EQ15P-TC-17
0.9809
0.9887
EQ15P-TC-21
0.9809
0.9908
EQ15P-TC-31
0.9809
0.9890
Average
0.9895
Standard Deviation
0.0011
Number of Samples
3
Table H.36: 20 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes in Polypropylene Masterbatch
MB3020-01
Test Date
6/5/2008
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
EQ20P-TC-6
≈1.0112
1.0035
EQ20P-TC-19
1.0112
1.0064
EQ20P-TC-25
1.0112
1.0043
EQ20P-TC-30
1.0112
1.0030
Average
1.0043
Standard Deviation
0.0015
Number of Samples
4
351
Combinations
Table H.37: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/8/2008
EA2.5B65P-7
1.5034
1.4822
EA2.5B65P-13
1.5034
1.4796
EA2.5B65P-33
1.5034
1.4809
Average
1.4809
Standard Deviation
0.0013
Number of Samples
3
Table H.38: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/6/2008
EA2.5B65PR-7
1.5034
1.4780
EA2.5B65PR-15
1.5034
1.4799
EA2.5B65PR-16
1.5034
1.4805
Average
1.4795
Standard Deviation
0.0013
Number of Samples
3
Table H.39: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes
in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/5/2008
EA2.5Q6P-TC-16
0.9429
0.9541
EA2.5Q6P-TC-24
0.9429
0.9530
EA2.5Q6P-TC-28
0.9429
0.9527
EA2.5Q6P-TC-34
0.9429
0.9529
EA2.5Q6P-TC-39
0.9429
0.9537
Average
0.9533
Standard Deviation
0.0006
Number of Samples
5
352
Table H.40: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD and 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes
in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Theoretical Density Actual Density
(g/ml)
(g/ml)
Test Date
Sample Number
6/5/2008
EA2.5Q6PR-TC-7
0.9429
0.9511
EA2.5Q6PR-TC-12
0.9429
0.9520
EA2.5Q6PR-TC-15
0.9429
0.9524
EA2.5Q6PR-TC-23
0.9429
0.9525
EA2.5Q6PR-TC-30
0.9429
0.9523
Average
0.9521
Standard Deviation
0.0006
Number of Samples
5
Table H.41: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/6/2008
EB65Q6P-TC-11
1.5567
1.5370
EB65Q6P-TC-14
1.5567
1.5385
EB65Q6P-TC-36
1.5567
1.5360
Average
1.5371
Standard Deviation
0.0012
Number of Samples
3
Table H.42: 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/8/2008
EB65Q6PR-TC-18
1.5567
1.5396
EB65Q6PR-TC-31
1.5567
1.5383
EB65Q6PR-TC-39
1.5567
1.5410
Average
1.5397
Standard Deviation
0.0014
Number of Samples
3
353
Table H.43: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes,
and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/8/2008
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-14
1.5911
1.5750
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-25
1.5911
1.5757
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-36
1.5911
1.5768
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-46
1.5911
1.5747
EA2.5B65Q6P-TC-52
1.5911
1.5744
Average
1.5753
Standard Deviation
0.0009
Number of Samples
5
Table H.44: 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes,
and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer Resin
H7012-35RN Replicate
Test Date
Sample Number
Theoretical Density
(g/ml)
Actual Density
(g/ml)
6/8/2008
EA2.5B65Q6PR-TC-11
1.5911
1.5750
EA2.5B65Q6PR-TC-28
1.5911
1.5780
EA2.5B65Q6PR-TC-39
1.5911
1.5784
EA2.5B65Q6PR-TC-45
1.5911
1.5775
EA2.5B65Q6PR-TC-50
1.5911
1.5766
Average
1.5771
Standard Deviation
0.0014
Number of Samples
5
354
Appendix I: Solvent Digestion Results
Table I.1: Solvent Digestion Results for 25 wt% and 45 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in Polypropylene Semi Crystalline Homopolymer
Resin H7012-35RN
DATE FORMULATION
6/3/2008
6/3/2008
6/3/2008
6/5/2008
6/3/2008
6/3/2008
6/3/2008
6/3/2008
6/3/2008
EP-1
EP-2
EP-3
EP-5
EB25P-1
EB25P-2
EB25P-3
EB45P-1
EB45P-3
FILTER + FILLER + FILTER +
COMPOSITE
PETRI DISH
PETRI DISH
WEIGHT (g)
BOTTOM (g)
BOTTOM (g)
0.1916
0.1744
0.1810
0.2058
0.1973
0.2350
0.1963
0.2094
0.1786
4.1320
4.1294
4.1958
4.1584
4.1942
4.1990
4.1570
4.1208
4.1112
4.2531
4.2659
4.2141
4.2185
4.1992
355
ACTUAL
WEIGHT
FRACTION
TARGET
WEIGHT
FRACTION
0.30
0.28
0.29
0.47
0.49
0
0
0
0
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.45
0.45
Appendix J: Filler Length and Aspect Ratio Results
Table J.1: Filler Length and Aspect Ratio Results for Single Filler Thermocarb TC-300 Formulations
Fabrication
Mean Length
Standard
Mean Aspect
Formulation
Filler
Method
(mm)
Deviation (mm)
Ratio
As Received Thermocarb Injection Molded
0.0670
0.0590
1.757
EB25P
Thermocarb Injection Molded
0.0411
0.0302
1.671
EB45P
Thermocarb Injection Molded
0.0379
0.0520
1.660
EB65P
Thermocarb Injection Molded
0.0379
0.0560
356
1.652
Standard
Deviation
0.412
0.372
0.355
n
3533
855
412
0.037
830
Appendix K: Orientation Results and Photomicrographs
Table K.1: Orientation Results – Single Filler Thermocarb TC-300 Formulations and
Three Filler Formulation
Formulation
Fabrication Method
Surface
Studied
EB30P
Injection Molded
In Plane
EB20P
Injection Molded
Through Plane
EB45P
Injection Molded
In Plane
EB45P
Injection Molded
XY Plane
EB45P
Injection Molded
Through Plane
EB65P
Injection Molded
In Plane
EB65P
Injection Molded
XY Plane
EB65P
Injection Molded
Through Plane
EA2.5B65Q6P
Injection Molded
In Plane
EA2.5B65Q6P
Injection Molded
XY Plane
EA2.5B65Q6P
Injection Molded
Through Plane
EA2.5B65Q6P
Compression Molded
In Plane
EA2.5B65Q6P
Compression Molded
XY Plane
EA2.5B65Q6P
Compression Molded Through Plane
357
Angle
Mean ±
Stdev
(Degrees)
33.71±
25.4
58.35±
24.25
26.05±
22.58
30.82±
25.3
51.27±
27.59
27.49±
25.7
29.17±
23.36
60.70±
27.1
26.03±
23.87
26.3±
23.11
67.85±
21.45
23.92±
24.25
24.13±
23.63
65.3±
23.65
n
175
489
1249
1466
1608
609
1438
1438
841
362
805
331
808
789
Figure K.1: In-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 30 wt% Thermocarb TC300 in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification
Figure K.2: Through-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 20 wt% Thermocarb
TC-300 in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification
358
Figure K.3: In-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 45 wt% Thermocarb TC300 in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification
Figure K.4: Through-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 45 wt% Thermocarb
TC-300 in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification
359
Figure K.5: In-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 65 wt% Thermocarb TC300 in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification
Figure K.6: Through-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 65 wt% Thermocarb
TC-300 in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification
360
Figure K.7: XY-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 65 wt% Thermocarb TC300 in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification
361
Figure K.8: In-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes, and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene at 200X Magnification
Figure K.9: Through-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack
EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes, and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene at 200X Magnification
362
Figure K.10: XY-Plane Photomicrograph for Injection Molded 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack EC600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes, and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene at 200X Magnification
363
Figure K.11: In-Plane Photomicrograph for Compression Molded 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack
EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes, and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene at 200X Magnification
Figure K.12: Through-Plane Photomicrograph for Compression Molded 2.5 wt%
Ketjenblack EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes, and 65 wt% Thermocarb
TC-300 in Polypropylene at 200X Magnification
364
Figure K.13: XY-Plane Photomicrograph for Compression Molded 2.5 wt% Ketjenblack
EC-600 JD, 6 wt% Hyperion FIBRILTM nanotubes, and 65 wt% Thermocarb TC-300 in
Polypropylene at 200X Magnification
365
Appendix L: Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope
Photomicrographs
Carbon
Black
Figure L.1: Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope Photomicrograph of 15% wt
Carbon Black in Polypropylene Composite
366
Nanotube
Figure L.2: Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope Photomicrograph of 15% wt
Hyperion Fibrils Carbon Nanotubes in Polypropylene Composite
Figure L.3: Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope Photomicrograph of 2.5% wt
Carbon Black, 65% wt Synthetic Graphite, and 6% wt Hyperion Fibrils Carbon
Nanotubes in Polypropylene Composite
367
Thermocarb
Figure L.4: Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope Photomicrograph of 2.5% wt
Carbon Black, 65% wt Synthetic Graphite, and 6% wt Hyperion Fibrils Carbon
Nanotubes in Polypropylene Composite
368
Appendix M: Permission Letters
Figure M.1: Email from Matt Clingerman for Figures 4.2-1 and 4.2-2
Figure M.2: Email from Rebecca Hauser for Figures 2.1-1
369
Figure M.3: Email from Rebecca Hauser for Figures 4.2-4 and 4.2-11
Figure M.4: Email from Asbury Carbon for Figures 3.3-2
370