A cracked housing, a delaminated laminate, a bond that let go — plastics and composites fail in ways that look identical on the surface and are not. We determine the actual mechanism from the physical evidence.
Start a conversation with our AI Research Concierge, already scoped to polymers, plastics & composites. Select a specialization to prompt it, or describe your situation directly.
Polymers behave unlike metals, and that difference is exactly where an investigation goes wrong when it is handled by someone trained on the wrong material. A thermoplastic housing can craze and fracture at a fraction of its rated strength if the wrong chemical touches it while it is under stress; a composite laminate can look pristine on the surface while harboring a delamination that guts its compression strength; an adhesive bond can fail cohesively through the glue line or adhesively at the interface, and those two outcomes point to entirely different root causes. This department covers the failure modes specific to polymers, plastics, and fiber-reinforced composites — from a single cracked part to a delaminated structural laminate — using the spectroscopy, thermal analysis, and fractography that actually distinguish one mechanism from another.
Each specialization area covers a distinct failure mechanism with its own physics, examination protocol, and governing standards. Start with the one that matches your incident.
Adhesive bond failures — cohesive, adhesive, and substrate failure modes in structural and semi-structural joints.
investigateSolvent, oxidative, and hydrolytic chemical attack on polymers — swelling, extraction, and chain scission.
investigateInterlaminar failures in fiber-reinforced composites — impact damage, fatigue, and manufacturing defects.
investigateCraze and crack formation from the combination of sustained stress and a surface-active chemical agent.
investigateMechanical, thermal, and processing-driven cracking in molded and extruded plastic parts.
investigatePhotooxidative degradation from UV exposure and outdoor weathering — chalking, embrittlement, and color loss.
investigatePolymer and composite investigations depend on sequencing chemical, thermal, and mechanical analysis so that each step preserves the evidence the next one depends on.
Technical briefings and case analyses on polymer, plastic, and composite failures — written by the people who investigate them.
A split in a polyethylene pipe is read as a pressure event far more often than the evidence supports. The brittle-like slit is a years-long mechanism, and it looks nothing like a burst.
readA dropped tool can cost a laminate a large fraction of its compression strength and leave almost nothing on the surface. Why BVID defeats visual inspection, and what actually finds it.
readA joint that met every acceptance test and released after years in service points to durability rather than initial strength. How moisture works into a bondline, and what distinguishes aging from a latent defect.
readWhere a bonded joint separates is the first and most consequential observation in the investigation. ASTM D5573 gives the vocabulary, and the percentages usually decide which party the inquiry moves toward.
readA part can be measurably brittle while the resin certificate reads entirely normal. Thermal history in the barrel, moisture at the hopper and regrind content all degrade material before the tool sees it.
readA defect built into the geometry appears in every part from the tool. A process defect varies between lots and cavities. How failures distribute across a production population separates the two.
readThe physical evidence usually separates the two. Defects tend to be intrinsic and geometric — a weld line, a void, an under-cured bondline, a manufacturing-induced delamination — and show up as as-molded or as-laid-up conditions under microscopy, independent of what the part was exposed to in service. Environmental causes leave their own chemical or physical fingerprint: measurable oxidation from UV, chain scission or swelling from a chemical agent, or the specific craze morphology of environmental stress cracking. Reading which signature is present, and comparing failed parts against unused ones from the same production run, is how the distinction gets made.
Environmental stress cracking requires a sustained tensile stress plus a surface-active agent, and it proceeds with almost no measurable chemical change to the polymer. Chemical attack changes the polymer’s chemistry directly — measurable chain scission, swelling, or a new chemical species detectable by FTIR and GPC — and can occur with or without significant applied stress. The two are easy to confuse visually and straightforward to separate analytically, and the distinction routinely decides where liability falls.
Usually, yes. Manufacturing-induced delamination is typically associated with elevated void content and a distribution that follows the ply layup and process, not an impact site. Service-induced delamination from impact typically shows a localized, roughly conical damage pattern centered on an identifiable impact location. Non-destructive imaging — CT and ultrasonic C-scan — followed by cross-section microscopy is what distinguishes the two reliably.
It depends on the failure. Mechanical property work commonly references ASTM D638 for tensile properties and D256 for impact resistance. Environmental stress cracking is evaluated under ASTM D1693 and related bent-strip protocols. Chemical resistance follows ASTM D543. Adhesive bond testing references ASTM D1002 for lap-shear strength and D5573 for classifying fracture-surface failure modes. Composite delamination work references ASTM D5528 and D7905 for Mode I and Mode II interlaminar fracture toughness. UV and weathering work references ASTM G154 and G155 for accelerated exposure. The applicable set is chosen based on the specific mechanism in question.
Describe the incident. We will scope it and connect you with the right expert — usually within one business day.