See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229876026

Simulation of Heat Transfer during Rotational Molding

Article  in  Advances in Polymer Technology · October 2003

DOI: 10.1002/adv.10055

CITATIONS READS
48 1,866

3 authors:

Antonio Greco Alfonso Maffezzoli

Università del Salento Università del Salento
126 PUBLICATIONS   2,453 CITATIONS    300 PUBLICATIONS   9,894 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

John Vlachopoulos
McMaster University
188 PUBLICATIONS   4,147 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Bistable materials for aircraft morphing and power harvesting View project

matreco View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John Vlachopoulos on 13 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Simulation of Heat Transfer
During Rotational Molding
A. GRECO, A. MAFFEZZOLI
Dipartimento Ingegneria dell’Innovazione, Università di Lecce, Via per Arnesano, 73100 Lecce, Italy

J. VLACHOPOULOS
Department of Chemical Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Received: January 14, 2003
Accepted: March 27, 2003

ABSTRACT: In rotational molding, polymer powders are subjected to heating,

melting, cooling, and subsequent solidification in biaxially rotating molds. Heat
transfer phenomena during rotational molding are significantly affected by the
presence of endothermic and exothermic transitions. In this paper instead of
using the traditional moving interface method, a new approach is presented
which is applicable to semicrystalline materials like linear low-density
polyethylene. Melting is described by a statistical model and crystallization by a
kinetic model. The model parameters are determined from differential scanning
calorimetry measurements. The one-dimensional unsteady heat conduction
equation is solved by a finite difference method. The numerical predictions are in
good agreement with experimental data. The overall heat transfer model can be
used for process optimization purposes.  C 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Adv

Polym Techn 22: 271–279, 2003; Published online in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/adv.10055

KEY WORDS: Computer modeling, DSC, Polyethylene, Rotational molding,

Thermal properties

Introduction
Correspondence to: A. Maffezzoli; e-mail: alfonso.maffezzoli
@unile.it.
Contract grant sponsor: CETMA. R otational molding is a unique technology for
the production of hollow or double-wall parts,

Advances in Polymer Technology, Vol. 22, No. 4, 271–279 (2003)


C 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
SIMULATION OF HEAT TRANSFER DURING ROTATIONAL MOLDING

usually of large dimensions.1 The process involves melting temperatures.22,23 This method has been
rotation of a mold filled with polymeric powders in proved to be very useful to study melting behav-
a heating oven, where the polymer reaches its melt- ior of metallic materials,24 but it is not suitable for
ing temperature. A sintering-like process in the melt polymeric materials, which are characterized by an
state promotes densification of polymer powders,2 interval of temperatures where transition occurs.25,26
through a double-stage mechanism, involving pow- Further, the numerical solution of the energy balance
der coalescence3–5 and bubble removal.6 Once a fully with this approach generates a constant tempera-
dense product is obtained, the mold is moved to ture plateau at each node in the solid phase close to
a cooling stage, where as a consequence of tem- the melting front.15,24 This is not a realistic represen-
perature reduction, solidification of the polymer is tation of the phenomena occurring during melting
achieved. During the cycle only gravity acts on the of polymers, as evidenced by experimental obser-
material, while pressure and shear force are not vation during rotational molding, where the inter-
applied. As a consequence of this, the efficiency nal air temperature continuously increases during
of the densification stage, and thus the final qual- heating.2 The same problem has also been observed
ity of the product, is mainly determined by the when the moving interface method has been used
heating time and temperature reached inside the to model polymer crystallization during rotational
mold.7 It is generally accepted, and experimentally molding.18,20,22,27,28
observed, that rotational molding of semicrystalline A different kind of approach is used for melt-
polymers can be divided into six stages, each char- ing and crystallization simulation during rotational
acterized by different variation rates of the mold in- molding, which better represents the nature of these
ternal air temperature as reported, for example, in transitions in polymers, by considering the latent
Refs. [2,7]. heat resulting from a specific heat dependence on
A peculiar characteristic of the rotational molding temperature in the transition interval.15,20,29 Al-
process is given by the melting and crystallization though this approach represents melting and crystal-
behavior of the polymeric materials, significantly af- lization as continuous processes, it does not develop
fecting the heat transfer phenomena during the cy- a proper modeling of the transition phenomena af-
cle and the final product quality. The time depen- fected by the interaction of temperature changes and
dence of the heating and cooling rates of the mold kinetic effects.
internal air suggests that a heat exchange mechanism Furthermore, unsteady one-dimensional heat ex-
with phase transition is involved during the process. change models have been usually adopted, in planar,
Therefore, modeling of the heat exchange process cylindrical, or spherical geometries.18,19 This is a rea-
during rotational molding must account for these sonable assumption for most of the mold geometries,
phase changes. Whereas the melting process de- where the dimension perpendicular to the mold wall
pends mainly on thermodynamic equilibrium, and is is much smaller than the others.
not significantly affected by kinetics,8 polymer crys- The aim of this paper is the investigation of heat
tallization is a time-governed process where the need transfer mechanisms involved in rotational mold-
for stable nuclei to be formed also requires a finite ing of semicrystalline polymers, introducing proper
induction time.9–13 models for melting and crystallization. A new ap-
Heat exchange involving a melting front is usually proach based on enthalpy methods24,30 is also pro-
described by the so-called moving interface method, posed for the solution of the energy balance during
derived from the Stefan problem.14,15 According to rotational molding of linear low-density polyethy-
this approach, the material portion undergoing a lene (LLDPE). The symbols used in the text, for both
transition can be divided into two regions separated energy balance and polymer transitions, are listed in
by an interface. In the case of rotational molding, the the nomenclature section.
phase nearest to the mold wall is the one which has
already melted or crystallized, for the heating and
cooling stages respectively. The interface advance-
ment, at each time step, is achieved through a heat
flux discontinuity. The moving interface method has
Energy Balance
been the most widespread model used for simulating
polymer melting during rotational molding, assum- The starting equation used to model the one-
ing that melting occurs at a single temperature,16–21 dimensional heat exchange through the mold and
or, in improved models, at a discrete number of polymer thickness, is the classical Fourier equation

272 VOL. 22, NO. 4

 SIMULATION OF HEAT TRANSFER DURING ROTATIONAL MOLDING

in one-dimensional Cartesian geometry [31]: undergoes transition to the end of the process, M T .
With the help of Eq. (4), Eq. (2) becomes
 
∂ ∂T d
k = (ρc p T) + q̇ (1)
∂z ∂z dt Ht (t) = c p T(t) + Hm Xm (t, T) − Hc Xc (t, T) (5)

During rotational molding, or any other process in-

volving phase transition of materials, the q̇ term With the total enthalpy being defined by Eq. (5)
takes into account the latent heat of transition of the Fourier equation can be rewritten as
material. The q̇ term takes positive values during
 
melting, and negative values during crystallization. ∂ ∂T d(c p T) dXm dXc
By introducing the total enthalpy: k =ρ + ρHm − ρHc (6)
∂z ∂z dt dt dt
q
Ht (t) = c p T + (2) Rotational molding can be modeled through a
ρ
continuous mathematical model using Eq. (6), with-
where q is a function whose time derivative is q̇ , out accounting for different phases and regimes dur-
Eq. (1) can be rewritten as ing the process.17,21 The energy balance in the mold,
which does not experience phase transition during
  the process, is given by Eq. (6), setting Hm and Hc
∂ ∂T d(ρHt )
k = (3) equal to 0.
∂z ∂z dt

In Eq. (2) the total enthalpy is divided into two terms,

the first taking into account the temperature varia-
tions, the second the enthalpy of transition. The prob-
lem is now redefined, and it can be properly solved
Boundary and Initial Conditions
once a relation between the enthalpy of transition
and time, or temperature, is introduced in Eq. (3). Once the problem has been defined through the
Using this approach, there is no more distinction be- enthalpy method, the different boundary conditions
tween powder and molten polymer and hence the (BC) at the interface of regions characterized by dif-
solid–liquid interface is avoided. The use of this ap- ferent material properties need to be written. The
proach presents a series of advantages for the nu- BC at the external mold surface, in contact with the
merical solution: heating gases into the oven, has been assumed to be
governed by convection21,22,28 :
a. there are no boundary conditions to satisfy at

the powder–melt interface; ∂ Ts 
−ks = h o (To − T|os ) (7)
b. there is no need to follow the movement of the ∂z os
interface during time;
c. there is no need to consider two distinct phases; The BC at the internal mold surface has been as-
and sumed to be controlled by conduction.33 However,
d. it better complies with melting and crystalliza- recently proposed models assume that polymer
tion models. powders are subjected to a continuous turbulent stir-
ring, thus allowing the powder temperature to be
In this study, the enthalpy associated with phase uniform, and the heat exchange at the interface to be
transition has been expressed as a function of the de- governed by convection.18,19 In any case, it must be
gree of melting Xm and the degree of crystallization considered that, during the cycle, the time for pow-
Xc , as32 der consumption is small when compared to the total
process time.7 Thus for most of the process the poly-
q (t, T) = ρ(Hm Xm (t, T) − Hc Xc (t, T)) (4) mer in contact with mold forms a film at the mold
surface.7,16 In these conditions the very high melt vis-
where the degree of transition is defined as the cosity in practice prevents any relative motion of the
ratio between the mass which has already under- material on the mold wall, thus avoiding convective
gone transition at time t, and the total mass which heat transfer. The BC at the mold–polymer interface

ADVANCES IN POLYMER TECHNOLOGY 273

SIMULATION OF HEAT TRANSFER DURING ROTATIONAL MOLDING

can then be written as probable melting temperature, kmb is an intensity fac-

  tor, related to the sharpness of the distribution, and
∂ T  ∂ T  d is the shape factor. The melting temperature distri-
−ks = −k
∂z sp ∂z ps
p
(8) bution dXm /dT can be obtained from DSC heat flux
T|sp = T|ps experimental data according to Eq. (12):

dXm dXm dt 1 dXm

At the polymer–air interface (the internal side of (T) = = (t) (12)
dT dt dT β dt
the mold) heat exchange has been assumed to be
convection-controlled18,20,22 : For crystallization modeling, an Avrami-derived9
 equation has been used, holding for t > tind , the in-
∂ T 
h a (Tp |pa − Ta ) = −kp (9) duction time. The differential approach proposed in
∂z pa this work is obtained modifying the equation pro-
posed by Kamal and Chu,12,40 by introducing the
Finally, following the approach of Crawford,20,28 as- temperature derivative of kc :
suming that no air exchange is possible with the ex-  
terior of the mold, and that temperature gradients dXc dkc dT
(t) = nc kc + t (kc (t − tind )nc −1 )
can be neglected within the air mass, a global energy dt dT dt
balance for the internal air is given by
× exp(−kc (t − tind ))nc (13)
h a (Tp |pa − Ta )Apa dt = ma c pa dTa (10) where tind is the induction time,41 kc is a temperature-
dependent kinetic parameter, and nc is the so-
Following the same assumptions mentioned above, called Avrami index, which is not temperature
the heat flux only at the polymer–air interface is con- dependent9,12 and defines the growth geometry of
sidered in this balance.7 As the initial condition of crystallites. The temperature dependence of induc-
Eq. (6) it has been assumed that mold, polymer, and tion time and kinetic parameter has been derived
air are at room temperature, 300 K. from the model proposed by Torre et al.,40 keeping
only the term accounting for the increase of the rate
of nucleation and growth with undercooling:
Parameter Determination  
E t1
tind (T) = tind exp −  0
0
 (14)
R Tm − T
The proposed heat transfer model given in Eq. (6)  
requires the use of proper equations to model the E k1
phase transitions of a rotational molding grade kc (T) = kc0 exp −  0  (15)
R Tm − T
LLDPE. Melting and crystallization of LLDPE were
studied through differential scanning calorimetry
where Tm0 is the theoretical melting temperature of
(DSC).
crystallites. In order to define the initial conditions
For melting modeling, a statistical approach is
for the integration of Eq. (13) the nonisothermal in-
used, based on the assumption that the DSC melt-
duction time has been evaluated as the time t ∗ that
ing peak can be regarded as a distribution of melting
satisfies the following condition41 :
temperatures resulting from a distribution of lamel-
lar thickness in crystalline regions.8,34,35 The melt- t∗
ing endotherm is represented as the derivative of dt
Q= =1 (16)
a sigmoidal growth curve36,37 known as SRichards tind
0
function38,39 :
where tind is the induction time given by Eq. (14), and
dXm
(T) = kmb (exp(−kmb (T − Tc )))(1 + (d − 1) t = 0 is taken at T = Tm0 , the temperature at which
dT crystallization becomes possible.
× exp(−kmb (T − Tc )))d/(1−d) (11) The parameter values used in Eqs. (11)–(16), as
determined by nonlinear regression of experimen-
where Tc is the temperature corresponding to the tal DSC curves in isothermal conditions and at dif-
peak of the signal, which is regarded as the most ferent scanning rates, are reported in Table I. The

274 VOL. 22, NO. 4

 SIMULATION OF HEAT TRANSFER DURING ROTATIONAL MOLDING

TABLE I
Numerical Values of Parameters Used in Eqs. (6)–(20)
Parameter Numerical value

k s [18] 56 W/(m K)
k p∞ [18] 0.2 W/(m K)
ρs [18] 7850 kg/m3
ρ powder [42] 350 kg/m3
ρ m [42] 900 kg/m3
ρ c [43] 950 kg/m3
ρ a [19] 0.95 kg/m3
cps [18] 490 J/(kg K)
Acp [40] 1279 J/(kg K) FIGURE 2. Comparison between dynamic experimental
B cp [40] 3.08 J/(kg K2 ) data for crystallization at 10◦ C/min (
), at 20◦ C/min (◦),
cpa [19] 1010 J/(kg K) at 30◦ C/min (), and model prediction (—–) according to
Eqs. (13)–(16).
Hc 160000 J/kg
Hm 124000 J/kg
h 0 [18] 20 W/(m2 K) Variations of physical and thermal properties
h a [18] 5 W/(m2 K) with temperature in Eq. (6) for LLDPE must be
k mb 2.24902 K−1 considered. The temperature dependence of specific
d 22.70037
heat has been considered for the polymer40 :
Tc 394.962 K
c pp = Acp + Bcp T (17)
ln(t 0ind ) 1.19 s
E t1 /R 14.6 K where Acp and Bcp have been determined from linear
ln(kc0 ) −1.75 s −1 regression of experimental data reported in.40
E k1 /R 21.9 K The density has been considered to be a function
T 0m 402.2 K of the degree of melting during heating and of the de-
nc 2 gree of crystallization during cooling, using a simple
linear mixing rule:
comparison between experimental and model pre- ρ = Xm ρm + (1 − Xm )ρpowder (heating) (18)
diction curves for LLDPE melting and crystallization
are reported in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. Further, the ρ = (1 − Xc )ρm + Xc ρc (cooling) (19)
enthalpies of melting and crystallization have been
determined from nonisothermal DSC scans. The thermal conductivity of powders has been
evaluated by means of the mixing rule, as the ther-
mal conductivity of a polymer–air composite, and is
a function of density. Since the thermal conductivity
of air is negligible compared to that of polymer, the
expression for thermal conductivity of the system
becomes44
ρ
kp = kp∞ (20)
ρc
No variation of thermal properties has been assumed
for the mold material. The geometry of the system
has been assumed to be constant, even if during
the process the polymer experiences a continuous
specific volume decrease as a consequence of sin-
FIGURE 1. Averaged experimental melting curve (◦) tering phenomena22,45,46 during melting and crys-
and model prediction (—–) according to Eq. (11). tallization effects during cooling.7,47,48

ADVANCES IN POLYMER TECHNOLOGY 275

SIMULATION OF HEAT TRANSFER DURING ROTATIONAL MOLDING

The numerical values of parameters listed in generated on temperatures is reduced by reduc-

Eqs. (6)–(20) are shown in Table I. ing the time step, until this convergence criterion is
satisfied.

Numerical Solution
Simulation Results
A Crank–Nicholson method has been used for
derivative discretization49 of Eqs. (6)–(16). The po- In Fig. 3, the temperature profiles derived from
sition of each node is characterized through the sub- the solution of differential equations is compared
script j, while the time is indicated by the superscript with experimental data reported by Crawford.27 The
i. model developed is able to provide good agreement
Since recrystallization effects can be neglected with experimental data. In particular, regions cor-
during melting of LLDPE,42 the enthalpy terms ac- responding to both melting and crystallization are
counting for crystallization in Eq. (6) are equal to evident. The small differences between model pre-
0 during the heating stage. Conversely the rate of diction and experimental data can be attributed to
melting is 0 during the cooling stage. the different enthalpies of melting and crystalliza-
As a consequence of the complex form of math- tion arising from different LLDPE grades used by
ematical models used for the phase transitions, Crawford.27 Nevertheless, the powder end time and
Eqs. (6)–(11) represent a nonlinear system of differ- the total process time are in very good agreement.
ential equations. During heating, using the statisti- The results obtained during the heating stage ac-
cal melting model, the degree of melting has been cording to the statistical model are shown in Fig. 4,
expanded in a Taylor series to the first order49 at for a hypothetical 3-mm thick LLDPE film, with an
Tji . This results in the modification of Eq. (6), which oven temperature of 300◦ C. While at the beginning
becomes an almost constant heating rate is observed, when
melting starts, the heating rate suddenly decreases,
    in particular at the polymer–air interface, as a conse-
∂ ∂T dXm dT
k = ρc p + ρHm (21) quence of the energy absorbed to promote crystal
∂z ∂z dT dt
melting. Consequently, the molten polymer thick-
When the crystallization kinetic is used, the rate of ness (here defined as the fraction of polymer having
crystallization calculated at time step i has been used a degree of melting higher than 0.9) increases, as also
directly in Eq. (6). In both cases the error is due to reported in Fig. 4. After melting is complete, the melt
the assumption of a constant value of dX/dt, during thickness equals the total thickness, and the temper-
the time step from i to i + 1. The error of lineariza- ature increases again at higher rates. This behavior
tion increases with increasing the discretization time
interval. In order to limit this error, at each time
step unknown trial temperatures at time i + 1 can
be calculated, starting from known temperatures at
time i directly from Eq. (6) during the cooling stage,
or from Eq. (21) during the heating stage. Once the
trial temperatures at time i + 1 have been calculated,
the degree of transition can be calculated at time
i + 1 according to the chosen statistical model, or
through numerical integration using a Runge–Kutta
algorithm49 when using a kinetic model. Using an
average value for the rate of transition between the
values calculated at i and i + 1, a new temperature
profile can be calculated in a second iteration at the
same time step. If the normalized temperature differ-
ence between the first and second iterations is lower FIGURE 3. Comparison between experimental data
than 10−4 the solution is used as initial value for the from Ref. [27] (◦) (
) and model prediction (—–) (- - -) for
following time step. On the other hand the error external mold and internal air temperature, respectively.

276 VOL. 22, NO. 4

 SIMULATION OF HEAT TRANSFER DURING ROTATIONAL MOLDING

decreases. This can be attributed to the higher en-

ergy adsorption, restricted in a narrower tempera-
ture range. As a limit case, when a moving interface
method is adopted, the energy adsorption is located
at a single temperature, and a perfectly horizontal
plateau is observed, corresponding to the melting
temperature.
The results of the simulation of the overall pro-
cess are reported in Fig. 6. Here it can be observed
that there are two distinct regions where the rates of
heating and cooling suddenly decrease, correspond-
ing to polymer melting and crystallization, respec-
FIGURE 4. Simulated time variations of temperatures tively. This behavior of polymer temperature during
and molten thickness during the heating stage of rotational molding is confirmed from experimental
rotational molding: temperature at the oven–mold observations.2,7 For the polymer material, the slope
interface ( –
–) and at the polymer–air interface ( –◦–) of transition regions is lower at the internal (air)
and the molten thickness (––). surface with respect to the external (mold) surface.
The rates of transition (crystallization or melting) re-
ported in Fig. 6 are characterized by a significant
is in qualitative agreement with the experimental delay moving from the polymer–mold interface to
data, where the decreased rate of heating is usu- the polymer–air interface. Correspondingly, when
ally attributed to polymer melting,2,7 as is the case of the polymer in contact with the mold has completely
Fig. 4. undergone the transition, the degree of conversion
In Fig. 5 simulation results are reported that have for the polymer on the air side is still low. As reported
been obtained by changing the melting tempera- by Crawford for experimental air temperatures, the
tures distribution. The simulation results reported maximum temperature at the polymer–air interface
in Fig. 5 have been obtained changing the parame- is achieved when the mold is already in the cooling
ters of the melting model. As the distribution of melt- stage (Fig. 6).
ing temperatures becomes narrower and sharper the The effect of oven temperature on the tempera-
melting region becomes more evident, and its slope tures of the mold external surface and polymer–air
interface as predicted from the model is shown in
Fig. 7. As expected, increasing the oven temperature
causes process time to decrease, although there is
no strict correspondence between oven temperature

FIGURE 5. Effect of melting temperature distribution on

temperature and molten thickness profile during the
heating stage of rotational molding: temperature (—–) and
molten thickness ( –
–) obtained with the experimental
melting distribution of LLDPE; temperature (- - -) and FIGURE 6. Temperatures at the mold–polymer interface
molten thickness ( –◦–) obtained using a narrower ( –
–) and at the polymer–air interface ( –◦–), and rate of
melting temperature distribution with parameters transition (— and - - - respectively) for the model of the
kmb = 4.98 K−1 , d = 6.68, Tc = 390 K. overall process.

ADVANCES IN POLYMER TECHNOLOGY 277

SIMULATION OF HEAT TRANSFER DURING ROTATIONAL MOLDING

ness, and in particular the increase of the process

time.

Conclusions

In this paper, a new approach to the simulation of

heat transfer phenomena during the rotational mold-
ing cycle has been presented. The energy balance has
been coupled with statistical and kinetic equations
which are able to predict melting and crystalliza-
tion of the polymer during the cycle. In particular,
FIGURE 7. Effect of oven temperature Tov on the statistical approach followed to model LLDPE
polymer–air interface temperature: Tov = 270◦ C ( –
–),
melting is well suited to represent the lack of ki-
Tov = 300◦ C (◦), Tov = 330◦ C (––).
netic effects and the direct correlation between tem-
perature and degree of melting. On the other hand,
an Avrami-derived equation allowed the represen-
and powder end time (increasing temperature from tation of LLDPE crystallization, which is dependent
270◦ C to 300◦ C has a stronger influence than increas- on both time and temperature. The enthalpy balance
ing from 300◦ C to 330◦ C). associated with the transition models allow predic-
In Fig. 8 the influence of the polymer thickness tion of the temperature across the polymer thickness
on the temperature profile is shown. The results ob- during a rotational molding cycle. A good compar-
tained from simulation are compared with experi- ison between the experimental and calculated tem-
mental data reported by Xu and Crawford.20 From peratures of the outer mold and internal air has been
experimental data it can be observed that with in- presented. The advantage of the proposed enthalpy
creasing polymer thickness the heating and cool- method is to allow the solution of the energy bal-
ing rates of the internal air decrease. In particular, ance in conjunction with a proper equation for the
both regions, corresponding to melting and crys- modeling of the transition behavior of the polymer.
tallization, become broader because of the higher Further, the model can be used to study the influence
enthalpies associated with the polymer transitions. of the distribution of the melting temperature on the
The mathematical model is able to predict the varia- temperature profiles and to predict partial melting
tions of temperature profiles with the polymer thick- during heating. Finally, the influence of oven tem-
perature or cooling environment can be conveniently
optimized through the developed model.

Nomenclature
k Thermal conductivity, W/(m K)
T Temperature, K
t Time, s
z Direction of heat exchange, m
ρ Density, kg/m3
cp Specific heat capacity at constant
pressure, J/(kg K)
q̇ Heat source, W/m3
FIGURE 8. Effect of polymer film thickness on Ht Total enthalpy, J/kg
polymer–air interface temperature: experimental data Hm Heat of fusion, J/kg
from Ref. [20]: l p = 4 mm (
), l p = 6 mm (◦), l p = 8 mm Hc Heat of crystallization, J/kg
(), and model prediction (—–). Xm Degree of melting

278 VOL. 22, NO. 4

 SIMULATION OF HEAT TRANSFER DURING ROTATIONAL MOLDING

Xc Degree of crystallization 17. Crawford, R. J.; Scott, J. A. Plast Rubber Process Appl 1985,
h Convective coefficient, W/(m2 K) 5, 239–248.
d Shape factor 18. Gogos, G.; Olson, L. G.; Liu, X.; Pasham, V. R. Polym Eng Sci
1998, 38(9), 1387–1398.
kmb Intensity factor, K−1
19. Gogos, G.; Liu, X.; Olson, G. Polym Eng Sci 1999, 39(4), 617–
Tc Melting temperatures distribution peak, K 629.
nc Kinetic order of crystallization process 20. Xu, L.; Crawford, R. J. Plast Rubber Compos Process Appl
kc0 Pre-exponential factor for the kinetic, s−1 1994, 21(5), 257–272.
E k1 Activation energy for the crystallization 21. Bawiskar, S.; White, J. L. Int Polym Proc 1995, 10, 62–67.
process, J/kg 22. Crawford, R. J.; Nugent, P. Plast Rubber Process Appl 1989,
Tm0 Equilibrium melting temperature, K 11(2), 107–124.
0
tind Pre-exponential factor, s 23. Crawford, R. J.; Nugent, P. J. Plast Rubber Compos Process
E t1 Activation energy for the crystallization Appl 1992, 17(1), 23–31.
process, J/kg 24. Griffith, R.; Nassersharif, B. Numer Heat Transf B 1990, 18,
169–187.
25. Zhou, H.; Wilkes, G. L. Polymer 1997, 38(23), 5735–5747.
SUBSCRIPTS 26. Wlochowicz, A.; Eder, M. Polymer 1984, 25, 1268–1270.
27. Nugent, P. J.; Crawford, R. J.; Xu, L. Adv Polym Technol 1992,
o Oven 11(3), 181–191.
s Mold 28. Sun, D. W.; Crawford, R. J. Plast Rubber Compos Process Appl
p Polymer 1993, 19(1), 47–53.
a Internal air 29. Pham, Q. T. Int J Heat Mass Transf 1985, 28(11), 2079–2084.
os Oven–mold interface 30. Shamsundar, N.; Sparrow, E. M. J Heat Transf (Trans ASME)
sp Mold–polymer interface Aug. 1975, 333–340.
pa Polymer–internal air interface 31. Kreith, F. Principles of Heat Transfer; Dun-Donnelley
Publishing Corporation: New York, 1973.
32. Benard, A.; Advani, G. Int J Heat Mass Transf 1995, 38(5),
819–832.
References 33. Throne, J. L. Polym Eng Sci 1976, 16(4), 257–273.
34. Lu, L.; Alamo, R. G.; Mandelkern, L. Macromolecules 1994,
27, 6571–6576.
1. Beall, G. L. Plast Eng Feb. 1998, 33–35. 35. Nichols, M. E.; Robertson, R. E. J Polym Sci B, Polym Phys
2. Bisaria, M. K.; Takacs, E.; Bellehumeur, C. T.; Vlachopoulos, 1992, 30, 755–768.
J. Rotation Winter 1994, 12–18. 36. Drakopoulos, J. A. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1995, 76, 349–363.
3. Bellehumeur, C. T.; Bisaria, M. K.; Vlachopoulos, J. Polym Eng 37. Drakopoulos, J. A. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1998, 99, 57–72.
Sci 1996, 36(17), 2198–2207. 38. Tsoularis, A. Res Lett Inf Math Sci 2001, 2, 23–46.
4. Kandis, M.; Bergman, T. L. J Heat Transf (Trans ASME) Nov. 39. Seber, G. A. F.; Wild, C. J. Nonlinear Regression; John Wiley
1997, 119, 824–831. & Sons: New York, 1989.
5. Liu, S. J. Int Polym Process 1998, 13, 88–90. 40. Pan, R.; Cao, M.Y.; Wunderlich, B. In Polymer Handbook;
6. Kontopoulou, M.; Vlachopoulos, J. Polym Eng Sci 1999, 39(7), John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1989.
1189–1198. 41. Torre, L.; Maffezzoli, A.; Kenny, J. M. J Appl Polym Sci 1995,
7. Crawford, R. J. Rotational Moulding of Plastics; Research 56, 985–993.
Studies Press: Taunton, England, 1992. 42. Greco, A. Doctoral Thesis, Università degli Studi di Lecce,
8. Mallapragada, S. K.; Peppas, N. A. Proceedings of the 2002.
American Chemical Society, Fall meeting, 1995. 43. Brandup, J.; Immergut, E. H. Polymer Handbook, 3rd ed.;
9. Wunderlich, B. Macromolecular Physics; Academic Press: John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1989.
New York, 1976; Vol. 2. 44. Tavman, I. H. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 1996, 23(2), 169–
10. Ergoz, E.; Fatou, J. G.; Mandelkern, L. Macromolecules 1972, 176.
5(2), 147–158. 45. Narkis, M.; Rosenzweig, N. Polymer Powder Technology;
11. Hay, J. N.; Mills, P. J. Polymer 1982, 23, 1380–1384. John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1995; pp. 138–140.
12. Kamal, M. R.; Chu, E. Polym Eng Sci 1983, 23(1), 27–31. 46. Sun, D. W.; Crawford, R. J. Polym Eng Sci 1993, 33(3), 132–139.
13. Chew, S.; Griffiths, J. R.; Stachurski, Z. H. Polymer 1989, 30, 47. Bawiskar, S.; White, J. L. Polym Eng Sci 1994, 34(10), 815–820.
874–881. 48. Chen, C. H.; White, J. L.; Ohta, Y. Polym Eng Sci 1990, 30(23),
14. Crank, J. The Mathematics of Diffusion; Oxford University 1523–1528.
Press Inc.: New York, 1956. 49. Carnahan, B.; Luther, H. A.; Wilkes, J. O. Applied Numerical
15. Voller, V.; Cross, M. Int J Heat Mass Transf 1981, 24, 545–556. Methods; Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company: Malabar,
16. Rao, M. A.; Throne, J. L. Polym Eng Sci 1972, 12(4), 237–264. FL, 1990.

ADVANCES IN POLYMER TECHNOLOGY 279

View publication stats