eXpert 5000

Our Culture

The importance of customer service dominates the workplace culture at ADMET. Starting with the marketing department and the Account Directors on our sales team and moving through the engineering and technical support staff, customer service shines through. Our internal language and philosophy are centered around improving the life of our customers. Long before you become a customer of ADMET, you will experience a service mentality before hearing sales language.

A review of our marketing collateral reveals a focus on deliverables, improvements, applied technology and how customers will use our systems. Our web site is rich in videos because we believe that people learn more from seeing something in action instead of reading the manual. We try to take the perspective of our customers. We try to look down their end of the lens.

Our sales team doesn’t sound like a traditional sales team. Our Account Directors define themselves by the questions they ask, not by repeating features and benefits of our systems. We want to start a conversation with you. Our initial objective in sales is not to sell but to serve. Serve first, sell second. We diagnose your situation and therefore we gain insight into your needs. We help you prioritize those needs and we clarify if we can help. You are more likely to hear project management language from our sales team than sales moves! If we can help, we want to talk about configured solutions around your needs, and about operational dates including training.

And even if we can’t help because you require a testing laboratory not a manufacturer, or you require a system outside of our expertise, we will point you in the right direction. It’s just the right thing to do.

We Tailor Systems Based on Customers’ Needs

Our customer-centricity is best seen in our ability to configure systems to your needs. We manufacture a great family of products covering a plethora of applications but we find each case requires a specific configuration. Each potential customer has their own success criteria related to their industry, application and material. Each prospect does something their own specific way. For example, if a quality control team has already developed grips or is planning to build their own fixtures, we will accommodate by creating a machine that can incorporate these tools.

 

Click Here to open this article in a new window

Check out our latest page on ASTM D1708 here

Summary:

Historically, test method ASTM D1708 has been used to measure the tensile and elongation properties of plastics that have little amount of material available. There are also many other ASTM test methods for specific materials (FEP, ETFE, PTFE) that reference the same test method a list of which is referenced below. A change has been made to the ASTM D1708 tensile specimen shape so that it now is the same as the shape found in ISO 12086-2. ASTM D1708 is no longer the preferred plastic microtensile method as ASTM recommends the much more common ASTM D638 tensile test using the very small type V specimen shape. If interested, another ADMET page discusses ASTM D638 here.

The convenient feature of D1708 is that the specimen shape is such that an extensometer is not required to perform the test. Rather, the universal testing machine’s built in jaw separation position is sufficient to measure elongation. It becomes critical however that you have a very accurate initial jaw separation which happens to be less than an inch.

Equipment Required:

1. Universal Testing Machine (UTM) of the constant-rate-of-crosshead-movement variety. I’m not aware of any manufacturer that makes anything but this type anymore. However, the UTM should be servo-controlled to maintain the set speed throughout the test.
2. Load Cell accurate to at least 1% of the reading. Also, the breaking strength of the material should be between 1/100th and the full capacity of the load cell. For example, a 100 lbf load cell should be used to measure from 1 – 100 lbf.
3. Tensile Grips of the “vise” or “side action” variety so as not to interfere with the elongation measurement. Serrated, plain, and rubber coated jaw faces can be used. Pneumatic grips of the “side action” type can also be used. Self-tightening grips such as eccentric roller and wedge styles are not good for this test. Eccentric roller grips are hard to set the jaw separation properly and wedge grips have the same problem but can also add an undesirable compressive load on the sample. Systems that adjust grip separation automatically to accommodate a compressive load then adjust the gauge length. It’s not tricky as it sounds if you use a simple pair of manual tensile vise grips.

The cost for a system that meets the accuracy requirements of the specification and include all the items above generally start at around $ 8,000 USD. Depending on vendor and options chosen, typical 1kN – 50 kN systems range in price from $8,000 – $ 40,000 USD. The major cost driver with these systems is the maximum force capacity of the system. 1 kN & 5 kN single column systems are sufficient for many materials when testing to a microtensile method and are the most cost effective. Larger capacity 10, 25, 50, 100 kN and higher dual column systems are also available that can perform this test as well and performing other high capacity tests.

Other Microtensile Test Methods:

1. ASTM D2166 Section 11.4 – Tensile Properties of FEP Fluorocarbon Molding and Extrusion Materials
2. ASTM D3159 Section 11.4 – Tensile Properties of Modified ETFE-Fluoropolymer Molding and Extrusion Materials
3. ASTM D4745 Section 12.4 – Tensile Properies of Filled Compounds of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Molding and Extrusion Materials
4. ASTM D4894 Section 10.7 – Tensile Properties of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Granular Molding and Ram Extrusion Materials
5. ASTM D4895 Section 10.7 – Tensile Properties of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin Produced From Dispersion

Video of a Micro tensile test:

Click Here to open this article in a new window

Click Here to open this article in a new window

Click Here to open this article in a new window

X-spine Systems, Inc. is a next-generation spinal implant company dedicated to advancing spinal implant technologies that improve surgery outcomes and optimize surgeon experience.

An FDA registered and ISO 13485 compliant organization, X-spine performs biomechanical testing of all of its components to ASTM F1717 and/or F1798 standards. Explained David Kirschman, X-spine President, “We conduct biomechanical testing for both quality control and product development, looking for peak load, yield, yield load, percent of elongation and elasticity.”

Initially, X-spine outsourced all of its biomechanical testing. As production ramped up, however, it was cumbersome and inefficient to rely on outside services, especially for ad hoc testing. Kirschman decided to bring some testing in-house.

After determining that electromechanical screw based machines were appropriate for his needs, he looked at a number of different brands online. He selected the ADMET eXpert 5601 tabletop machine with an eP2 Digital Controller, a standalone touch panel controller that offers a balance between performance and simplicity, a 1.1kN load cell and GaugeSafe Data Exchange software.

The setup is simple and quick, and it is readily available for the ad hoc testing that Kirschman was looking for. “The nice thing about the ADMET is it’s a very simple machine with the computer/controller built in. So, a quality control inspector can come in and operate it efficiently and easily to run an individual part for a static test.”

Click Here to open this article in a new window

The Department of Mechanical Engineering at McMaster University of Hamilton, Ontario recently began conducting biomechanical research. The projects, under the direction of Assistant Professor Greg Wohl, PhD, studies the effects of mechanical loading on bone through compression and flexure testing. The University had not conducted this type of research and, although well-equipped for mechanical testing, some new equipment was required.

The study looks at the structural and material properties of bone and includes the effects of diet, nutraceuticals, osteoporosis and aging. “We’re looking at preventative measures for bone-related disorders and/or therapies for treatment of bone-related disorders. We know that mechanical loading triggers new bone formation. However, what causes the bone formation to occur and how to maintain bone mass differ and are not as immediately apparent. So, we’re starting to look at gene expression, and what the cells does when they’re loaded,” said Wohl.

The research required a universal testing machine to perform bend and cyclical flexure tests. The tests had to be tightly monitored and controlled in order to stress specimens to pre-determined levels. The lab had an older Instron that required a new load cell, as well as likely electrical upgrades.

After contacting ADMET, Wohl discovered that he could purchase a new eXpert 5601 tabletop system an eP2 Digital Controller and the required load cell for approximately US$6,500 – about US$1,500 more than a new Instron load cell.

He and his graduate assistant were able to develop profiles under which they could conduct bend and cyclic flexure tests to predetermined percentages of failure and record deformation over hundreds or thousands of cycles. Wohl sees additional applications for ADMET systems. A new project will require that he conduct pull-out tests of screws for spinal reconstruction and Orthopaedic applications.

Researchers at Sandia National Laboratory investigated the fracture resistance of a simulant polymer bonded explosive (PBX) through the design of a new multiaxial testing method using three dimensional (3D) digital image correlation (DIC).

Mechanical testing was conducted using an ADMET expert 5603 Table-Top universal test system equipped with a 4.5kN load cell and the MTESTQuattro controller. During the test, the specimen is mounted in a three-point bend fixture and subjected to compression as illustrated according to the AASHTO TP 105-13 standard. Teflon tape and lubricate is applied to the compression platens to minimize friction. The distance between the support anvils, L is 23.4mm. The diameter of the load and support anvils is 5 mm. An initial seating load of 80 N is imposed on the specimen. The SCB tests are executed under displacement control at a rate of 0.5 mm/min. Fracture energy, work of fracture, fracture toughness, and other mechanical properties are calculated and, amongst other properties, the stress-strain response of PBX simulant is studied.

Click Here to open this article in a new window

To date, there have been several key findings that point to plated contacts performing equal to or better than the current state of the art silver paste contacts. The goal of this project is to provide a commercially viable Ag-free metallization technology that will both reduce cost and increase efficiency of standard silicon solar cells.  

Peel testing was performed on both silver paste controls and plated solar cells in order to generate confidence in the test procedure. Ribbon similar to what is used in industry is first hand soldered onto the busbars. A 180 pull angle is used with a pulling speed of 200 mm/min using the ADMET eXpert 5600 Series Universal Testing System. This force tester gage has a load limit of 2.2 lbf (9.786 N) ~ 4.893 N/mm. The samples are secured to a vacuum plate for peel testing and the force required to pull the ribbon away from the cell is measured. The adhesion strength is the force per unit width of the ribbon. Quantitative peel testing was performed on 10 cells with plated Ni/Cu/Sn front grid (27 bus bars) and 5 cells with Ag paste front grid (15 bus bars). 

Both plated cells and Ag paste cells demonstrate passing average adhesion strength of >1.2 N/mm:  Average for 10 plated cells (27 bus bars) = 2.0 ± 1.2 N/mm Average for 5 Ag paste cells (15 bus bars) = 1.7 ± 0.9 N/mm Figure 1 shows the high level quantitative results of this experiment. There is a tester limitation ~ 5 N/mm at which the pull tester abruptly stops. To continue testing, the sample was adjusted and the tester restarted. The overall data in Figure 1 refers to the measurements including the tool stopping & being restarted. The 1st pull data is only measurements until the tool stops. The data between the overall & 1st pull is fairly similar but included for completeness. 

Click Here to open this article in a new window