Prediction of surface instabilities for polyethylene extrusion and film blowing

 

R.P.G. Rutgers1, M.R. Mackley2, J. Husny3, N Clemeur1

 

1Dep. of Chemical Engineering

University of Queensland

St Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia

 

2Dep. of Chemical Engineering

University of Cambridge

Cambridge, CB2 3RA

U.K.

3Dep. of Chemical Engineering

University of Melbourne

Melbourne, VIC

Australia.

 

             We study the onset and development of surface instabilities (also referred to as sharkskin) during slit die extrusion and film blowing of linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE). The experimentally observed amplitude of the surface instability is dependent on die gap, exit geometry and wall boundary condition. Through flow birefringence measurements and numerical simulations with a K-BKZ constitutive equation, high stress levels are demonstrated at the surface at the exit of the die. Rheotens data demonstrates that the numerically predicted stress peak at the die exit reaches levels characteristic for extensional melt rupture. It is demonstrated that this stress peak follows the same die geometry dependence as the amplitude of the instability. Preliminary results using a “pom-pom” constitutive equation indicate that low exit stress levels may account for the absence of surface instabilities for branched low density polyethylene extrusion. LLDPE film blowing experiments show that the surface instability only occurs on the inside of the film. Numerical simulation of annular extrusion is used to demonstrate that this is due to higher extensional stresses at the inside die lip than at the outside die lip.

Background and approach

It is believed that surface instability during linear polyethylene extrusion may occur due to critical extensional stress levels at the exit of the die1, 2, 3. The extensional stress results from an abrupt change in flow field at the exit boundary. Other mechanisms have been proposed such as instability of the boundary condition at the wall near the exit3, 4 or constitutive instabilities5. In this paper we discuss the role of a local rupturing mechanism, however we do not eliminate the possibility of aggravating effects of unstable boundary-conditions3 although these were not experimentally observed in this work, nor the presence of a critical extensional deformation rate1.

In order to investigate the flow close to the wall near the exit of the die the flow is simulated using Polyflow and a K-BKZ constitutive equation with a Wagner damping function, which has previously been shown to predict global planar contraction flow fields quite accurately for LLDPE6. For low density polyethylene (LDPE), which typically shows no surface instabilities except at very low temperatures6, we attempt to predict the absence and onset of surface instabilities using the pom-pom model developed by McLeish and Larson7.

The materials studied are BP Amoco LLDPE grades  (LL05 and LL09) and an LDPE (LD10). The rheological characterisation, extrusion conditions, flow birefringence set-up and numerical simulation method where described elsewhere6, 8 The extrudate surface distortion was characterised through scanning electron microscopy and surface profile measurements6, 8. Rheotens measurements were carried out according to a modified version of the methodology described by Wagner et al.9. Preliminary one-dimensional simulations of the LDPE using a differential Pom-Pom model developed by McLeish and Larson7 were carried out for streamlines close to the wall. The model parameters were obtained from simple shear and Rheotens measurements using methods described by Inkson et al.10 and Wagner et al.9.

Extensional stress levels at exit of planar slit die

The onset and development of the instability was investigated for two grades of LLDPE of different average molecular mass and compared to the behaviour of low density polyethylene. It was reported previously that the surface instability for the two linear materials shows a comparable shear stress dependence8, and that die length did not affect the instability, increasing the die gap shifts the instability to lower wall shear stresses11. A rounded die exit decreases the instability amplitude at comparable wall shear stress, and a PTFE insert that induces a slip boundary condition along the die land, wholly eliminates the instability11.

Confirming global experimental birefringence data for flow through a planar contraction, numerical simulations show that the extensional stress level is highest at the surface at the exit of the die6, 8. Numerical simulation of stress peaks at the exit along the streamline 50 mm from the wall in the different dies shows that the magnitude of the exit stress peak follows the same trends as the experimentally observed instability amplitude. The instability amplitude correlates to the magnitude of the extensional stress peak.

Comparison with Rheotens critical extensional stresses

Comparison of the simulations with Rheotens experimental data demonstrates that the stress in the material close to the surface may reach levels characteristic for melt rupture in extension: Surface instability is observed as the predicted extensional stress peak reaches values of order 0.7 MPa, which is the extensional stress at which melt rupture occurs for these materials in Rheotens experiments.

LDPE stresses in planar slit die compared to Rheotens

LDPE exhibits no surface instability at ordinary processing temperatures (e.g. 180oC). If the occurrence of critical stress levels for local melt rupture is to explain the onset of instabilities, the absence of surface instabilities must signify that such stress levels are not achieved for LDPE at 180oC. Rheotens melt rupture stress levels for LD10 are indeed significantly higher than for LL09. In order to predict the extensional stress levels near the die exit we attempt to use a multi-mode differential constitutive equation based on the "pom-pom" model. A centreline comparison of the multimode pom-pom model with planar contraction flow birefringence data is presented. A rough estimate of the extensional stresss levels near the die exit is obtained from a preliminary one-dimensional prediction of the pom-pom model response to a simulated deformation rate profile along the streamline at 50 mm from the wall. Full pom-pom model simulation of the flow field will be useful to confirm that extensional stress levels at the exit are insufficiently high in LDPE to cause extrusion surface instabilities.

Film blowing

Films were produced on a Kiefel extruder at BP Chemicals, Meyrin, Switzerland. Either the set temperature or the throughput was varied in the different trials. It was found that the instability only occurred on the inside of the film. Numerical simulation of the converging annular extrusion die is used to investigate the difference in extensional stress level at the internal and external die lip.

Conclusions

For the LLDPE grades studied here, it is found that extensional stress levels at the surface of the extrudate near the die exit reach critical levels that are comparable to independently determined melt failure stresses in Rheotens experiments. This correlation can be used to predict the onset and development of the instability for film blowing and other extrusion processes on the basis of the rheological parameters and the characteristic melt rupture stress of the material. Early results indicate that this correlation between exit stresses and melt strength may also explain the absence of extrusion surface instabilities for LDPE.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to BP-Amoco and the EPSRC for funding significant parts of this work.

References

1. Cogswell F.N., J. Non-Newton. Fl. Mech. 2 (1977) 37-47.

2. El Kissi N., Piau J.-M., Toussaint F., J. Non-Newton. Fl. Mech. 68 (2/3) (1997) 271-290.

3. Kurtz S.J., SPE Antec '95 (1995).

4. Wang S.-Q., Drda P.A., Rheol. Acta 36 (2) (1997) 128-134.

5. Koopmans R.J, Molenaar J., SPE Antec, Indianapolis, May 6-9 (1996).

6. Mackley  M.R., Rutgers R.P.G., Gilbert D.G., J. Non-Newton. Fl. Mech., 76 (1998) 281-297.

7. McLeish T.C.B., Larson R.G., J. Rheol. 42 (1) (1998) 81-110.

8. Rutgers R.P.G., Mackley M.R., J. Rheol, 44 (6) (2000) 1319-1334.

9. Wagner M.H., Bernnat A., Schultze V., J. Rheol. 42 (4) 917-928.

10. Inkson N.J., McLeish T.C.B., Harlen O.G., J. Rheol, 43 (4) (1999) 873-896.

11. Rutgers R.P.G., Mackley M.R., J. Non-Newton. Fl. Mech, Subm. Oct (2000).