1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction………………………………………………………………………..2

Materials & Methods…………………………………………………………….. 2

Testing Materials…………………………………………………………. 2

Standard Procedures
Durability Testing Methods
Ease of Use Testing Methods

Results…………………………………………………………………………….. 4

Durability Results………………………………………………………... 4
Ease of Use Results………………………………………………………..5

Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………5

Recommendations………………………………………………………………….5

Appendixes

Appendix A: Technical Description 7

Appendix B: List of Polyester Body Fillers 11
Appendix C: Polyester Formulations & Mixing Ratios 12
Appendix D: Zephyr Automotive Field Test Questionnaire 13
Appendix E: Table of Results 14

INTRODUCTION
 2

Polyester Body Fillers, also known as PBFs, were a synthetic chemical brought to major acclaim
and widespread use in the era of the 1950s of America (Appendix A). According to Duffy et. al.
(2004), “The first successful body filler was named “Bondo”, and many technicians still refer to
body fillers as Bondo” (p. 316). Polyester was originally constructed for uses in fabrics but found
its place in the auto industry for both cosmetic and industrial applications. At the request of Jack
Knapp the purpose of this study is to determine the durability and ease of use of twelve marketed
Polyester Body Fillers (Appendix B).

MATERIALS & METHODS

Twelve marketed PBFs were tested against each other. A total of six tests were performed, three
measuring durability and three measuring ease of use. For durability the following tests were
conducted: the Cold Reverse-Impact Resistance (CRIR) Test, Tensile Shear Strength (TSS) Test,
and Weathering Test. The durability tests were selected taken from a previous investigation,
Strength & Structural Integrity of Production-Line Solders (Dover, 2005). The ease of use tests
consisted of the Gel Time Test, Feathering Test and Field Test.

Testing Materials

When testing the Polyester Body

Fillers, an E-joint panel was created
and used in these tests.

A standard panel measuring 6” x 6” x

0.036” was cut in half and attached at
the 3” ends of the standard panel with
a 0.05” seam between the two.

The E-joint measuring 3” x 12” x

0.072”, was spot-welded to the back
of the standard panel; the seam (or
joint) is then filled with plastic solder,
allowed to dry, and metal-finished.

The entire E-joint panel in Figure 1,

measured 3” x 12” with 0.108
thickness, as a result of the standard
panel that is 3” x 12” with 0.036
thickness, and an E-joint measuring 3”
x 12” x 0.072”.

Figure 1: E-joint Panel

Standards Procedures
 3

The PBFs were mixed accordingly to the manufacturer’s specs (Appendix C). The application of
the fillers was made with a three inch glazing knife at a room temperature of 73°F.
Manufacturers did not give a certain mixing time so it was set at a standard one minute.

All metal finishing was performed with the Klystron technique using the same 12 inch disc
grinders for all fillers and tests.

All panels were degreased using the degreasing agent DH 1300, manufactured by Kenner
Chemicals. DH 1300 is composed of diethylene glycol butyl ether (15% by weight), potassium
ortho phosphate (6 parts by weight) used for brightening, nonylphenol ethoxylate (7 parts by
weight) as a surficant, boric acid (1% by weight) to reduce corrosion, and potassium hydroxide
(8%) as an alkalinizing agent. The degreasing agent was sprayed on the panels at room
temperature (73°F) and then left to set for two minutes. Then the surface was continuously
flushed with deionized water at ambient temperature (up to 76°F) for another two minutes. After
that, the panels were rinsed with cold deionized water (48°F) for at least thirty seconds.

All panels were sandblasted using a round, 45-grit, silica sand, which reduced the potential for
pitting. The panels were blasted at a rate of 50 lbs per minute and 3000 pounds per square inch
(psi). The gun tip used was equipped with a #6 nozzle and a 20/40 mesh. Spraying was
completed from a 30° angle approximately 18'' inches from the panel.

Durability Testing Methods

The CRIR Test was conducted to determine the fillers’ ability to resist impact in cold weather
when PBFs are in their most brittle state. Standard panels were dented with spherical depressions
measuring 3/16” deep and two inches wide. The panels were degreased and sandblasted, and the
dents were filled with PBFs, which were allowed to set. The panels were then metal finished and
refrigerated at -10°F for two hours. Immediately after the panels were removed from the
refrigerator, a 2 ½” steel ball was dropped on the reverse side of the dent from heights of one
foot and two feet. The PBFs were observed for damage. Two panels were tested per filler.
Standard: no damage.

The TSS Test was executed to determine the fillers' force resistance to extreme forces before
shearing. Three E-joint panels were created per filler. The panels were degreased and
sandblasted and the joints were filled with PBFs, which were allowed to set. The panels were
then metal finished, primed, painted and then tested in the standard tensile shear testing machine.
The averages of the three tests were recorded. The PBFs were observed for comparison purposes
of cosmetic and structural repair. Standard: resist 250psi.

The Weathering Test was completed to determine whether any weather damage was directly
related to the application of the filler, rather than to some weakness within the paint itself. One
standard panel without filler and two E-joint test panels with filler were prepared per body filler.
All panels, standard and E-joint were degreased and sandblasted. Both sets of panels were
properly metal finished, and painted with a prime coat and color coat. Next all panels were put
 4

into the weathering machine for 250 hours where they were exposed to various environment
changes such as ultra violet light, temperatures ranging from below 32°F to 110°F, and variable
humidity from 0% to 100%. The panels were then observed for damage to the prime and/or color
coat each hour, from 50 to 250 hours. Standard: no damage at 250 hours.

Ease of Use Testing Methods

The Gel Time Test was performed to establish how long it took for PBFs to set after being mixed
and applied. E-joint panels were degreased and sandblasted. The PBFs were mixed according to
the manufacturers’ specifications. The joints were then filled and allowed to dry at room
temperature (74°F). The PBFs were then observed. One panel was tested per filler. Standard:
three to five minutes.

The Feathering Test was performed to assess how smoothly the PBFs would sand or metal finish
for painting. The panels were degreased and sandblasted. The joints of the E-joint panels were
filled with PBFs and left to dry. Once the fillers dried, they were allowed to set for an additional
15 minutes and the panels were metal finished for two minutes. The joints were observed for
damage. Only one panel was tested per filler. Standard: Damage to fillers.

The Field Test was performed on the PBFs that where able to endure the above mentioned series
of testing. A questionnaire (Appendix D) was distributed to Zephyr's employees. The
questionnaire was divided into three sections: ten questions related to overall satisfaction, five
yes or no questions, and a section for the employees to provide feedback. The questionnaire
covered the products’ main categories: ease of mixing, gel time, sanding, and ease of application.
Standard: 40 to 60 points.

RESULTS

During the evaluation, four fillers were discontinued because they failed more than 50% of
testing: SurFill, QuickFix, PatchQuick, and SuperPatch. For detailed results of all twelve PBFs,
see Appendix E.

Durability Results

In the one-foot drop of the CRIR Test, seven of the eight PBFs exhibited no damage. Only Easy
Fill failed to meet the standard, cracking completely. In the two-foot drop, all eight PBFs
sustained damage, failing to meet the standard. Seven PBFs cracked completely while Polymeer
exhibited the least amount of damage with a one-inch crack.

Seven of eight PBFs passed the TSS test. Only Polymeer failed to meet the standard. Monkey
Fix and Easy Fill averaged more than triple the standard strength. Monkey Fix has more strength
resistance than all others PBFs having the most stable force resistance.

The Weathering Test results were deemed inconclusive due to a 50% failure rate in the control
test.

Ease of Use Results

 5

In the Gel Time Test, five out of eight PBFs passed. PuttyFix, PolyFill, and FillRite failed the
three to five minute standard dry time with PolyFill having a drying time twice that of the
extreme of the standard. Easy Fill exhibited the least amount of time needed with a three minute
dry time.

In the Feathering Test, six out of eight PBFs sustained no damage. Easy Fill and Monkey Fix
failed to meet the standard. Easy Fill exhibited a gummy surface and Monkey Fix revealed a
slightly flakey surface after metal finishing.

At this time the Field Test is in progress and results are pending.

CONCLUSIONS

This is a preliminary conclusion because only 66% of the tests are complete. The Weathering
Test was inconclusive and will be replicated because there was a 50% failure rate in the control
test. Also the Field Test evaluation is pending. The current conclusion is based off of the four
PBFs: Polymeer, Superfiller, Bondeaux and Monkey Fix that are viable for marketing.

Polymeer is a resilient product and it performs well in cold weather, making it a good choice for
marketing because almost all the U.S. experiences cold weather. This appeals to the consumers
needs and shows the benefits of obtaining this product. The strength of the product was under
that of the other fillers but it is suitable for cosmetic use. Polymeer’s usability is a one time
application with a stable result. It is reliable for an average consumer, which customers will
appreciate.

Due to similar characteristics, Superfiller and Bondeaux have demonstrated that they are viable
products for use in low temperatures like the cold weather in most parts of the U.S. These
products are second best in strength next to Monkey Fix, making them an ideal choice for small
auto repair application. Neither Superfiller nor Bondeaux require extra coats or an extended
waiting time before paint can be applied making them user-friendly. Both of these products
would create a market for PBFs in the cosmetic auto repair industry.

Monkey Fix is comparable to other PBFs in cold weather and it's a strong enough that it can be
applied at high stress points on the automotive body, such as doors, trunks, hoods, and other high
stress points. It is a good product for those interested in doing their own automotive cosmetic or
structural repairs. It is not as consumer friendly as the other fillers due to the fact that it doesn't
sand as easily and it could require more than one application. Monkey Fix is the strongest one
out of the fillers that were tested.

RECOMMENDATIONS

I recommend that no decisions be made regarding PBFs until testing has been completed. An
addendum containing final results, conclusions and recommendations will be submitted within
the next seven weeks.

REFERENCES
 6

Dover, B. (2005). Strength & structural integrity of production-line solders. Technical Solutions,
18, 205-228.

Sapiro, V., Duffy, J. & Scharff, R. (2003). Body filler history. Auto Body Repair Technology.
Florence, KY: Cengage Learning.
 7

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A: Technical Description

 8

Technical Description of Polyester Body Fillers

Ben Dover

December 3, 2008

Product Development Department

Manufacturing and Engineering Development Office

Zephyr Corporation 11000 Body Filler Lane Filler, MI 12345

 9

Introduction

The purpose for the invention of the polyester body fillers was to mold a compound that would
simulate metal that could be used to repair surfaces that have dents, cracks or holes such as
automobile bodies and household applications. Polyester became popular because its predecessor
material lead, which was used for the same purpose was deemed toxic. PBF contains: polyester
resin, an accelerator, asbestos fiber, soybean meal and metallic powder. The invention of PBFs
has impacted the market for metal repairs due to its long-lasting, exceptional adhesion to metal
surfaces and resistance to impact.

History

Ever since cars have existed, people have needed to repair them. According to Duffy, Sapiro and
Scharff, the authors of Auto Body Repair Technology, in the early days of auto body repair,
blemishes on the sheet metal surfaces of the automobiles were corrected by using a lead based
filler (made from an aloe of lead and tin). With the use of a welding torch, the lead filler was
softened and bonded to the blemished sheet metal. During the economic boom that occurred in
World War II people started demanding better, larger and fancier cars. Car bodies in those times
were made out of tin, and with this new demand, thinner and lighter metals needed to be used.
When the lead filler was welded to these new metals, the rest of the body would become warped
and the overall look of the piece would be compromised. Because of this, lead based fillers
became obsolete and there was a demand to create a better way to repair auto bodies.

In the early 1950s, the first epoxy-based filler was invented, but it was very unpractical due to
the fact that it took a very long time to cure, and often, if applied too heavily it wouldn’t dry at
all. In the mid 1950’s a polyester resin-based filler was developed but it was found to be very
brittle and hard, so the search for better body fillers had not ended. According to Sapiro et. al.
(2003), “The first successful body filler was named “Bondo”, and many technicians still refer to
body fillers as Bondo” (p. 316). Bondo was initially composed of a mix of approximately 40%
polyester and 60% talc. Since the initial days of “Bondo”, Polyester body fillers have been an
integral part of auto body repair.

Uses

Polyester body filler is a gel for auto body repair that chemically binds itself to metal. According
to secondchancegarage.com, “Body fillers are thermal-set plastics. That is, they cure with heat

Figure 1: Application of Body Filler Figure 2: Sanding of Body Filler

 10

(created by the chemical reaction between the filler and the catalyst) and become hard and stable,
usually within a few minutes” (“What exactly is body filler?” 2008). After adding a hardening
agent, this gel is spread over scuffed areas. The gel then solidifies, and is vigorously hand-sanded
until the filled area is flush with the surrounding contour. Polyester has other industrial
applications such as PET, a derivative of polyester used to create durable plastics such as
tableware and bottles. Polyester is also used for the composition of high strength rope, hoses, and
various industrial products.

Conclusion

Polyester is very established and used in contemporary American culture. Its utilization has
become common place and critical for certain industries such as soft drink companies and
consumers in the form of fabrics. Its binding property can be very useful for cosmetic based car
repairs. The use of polyester body fillers is widespread within the auto industry which would
make it advantageous for hobbyist and the development of accessories.

References

Sapiro, V., Duffy, J. & Scharff, R. (2003). Body filler history. Auto Body Technology. Florence,
KY: Cengage Learning.

UV CURE Glazing Fillers (2006). Radtech: The Association For UV & EB Technology.
Retrieved from http:// www.radtech.org/Industry/Collision/refinish/html/100.html

What exactly is body filler? (2008). Second Chance Garage: An Easy Way to Learn About
Restoring Cars. Retrieved from http://www.secondchancegarage.com/public/555.cfm
 11

APPENDIX B: List of Polyester Body Fillers

Polymeer Ferrous Chemicals

Grenville, Ontario, Canada 0244

Superfiller JD Corporation
Dallas, TX 01999

PuttyFix Petrolatum, Inc.

Houma, LA 78655

Super Patch Chem Labs, Inc.

Dallas, TX 67768

PolyFill Kalamooza Chemicals

Timbuktu, MI 84576

PatchQuick Jones & Davis Chemical Co.

Miami, OH 50923

Easy Fill Mainland Chemicals, Inc.

Atlanta, GA 40927

Bondeaux Thibodeeaux Limited

Lafayette, LA 75779

FillRite DJS Plastics

Miami, FL 33999

QuickFix Plastics Laboratories

Raleigh, NC 21145

Monkey Fix Monkey Fix, Inc.

Santa Barbara, CA 68334

SurFill Plastic Processing, Inc.

Detroit, MI 85477
 12

APPENDIX C: Polyester Formulations & Mixing Ratios

FILLERS* FORMULATION MIXING RATIO: Base/Hardener

Polymeer Liquid 80 grams / 2 drops

Superfiller Paste 110 grams / 1.5 grams

PuttyFix Liquid 110 grams / 3 drops

Super Patch Powder 65 grams / 2 grams

PolyFill Liquid 95 grams / 3 drops

PatchQuick Paste 200 grams / 4 grams

Easy Fill Liquid 140 grams / 15 drops

Bondeaux Liquid 115 grams / 3 drops

FillRite Liquid 92 grams / 5 drops

QuickFix Liquid 320 grams / 45 drops

Monkey Fix Liquid 80 grams / 2 drops

SurFill Paste 150 grams / 10 grams

* Some fillers were discontinued from testing due to excessive failures in initial tests.
 13

APPENDIX D: Zephyr Automotive Field Test Questionnaire

Zephyr Automotive Field Test Questionnaire

Name: ____________________________________Employee ID: _________________
Car Model:_________________ Year:________ Color:________________________
Instructions:
Please rate the following questions from 1 – 5 (with 1 being very dissatisfied, 3 being average, 5 being very
satisfied)
1) Ease of mixing of the PBF 1 2 3 4 5

2) Quick gel drying time 1 2 3 4 5

3) Thickness of solution 1 2 3 4 5

4) Ease of filler application 1 2 3 4 5

5) Ease of sanding 1 2 3 4 5

6) Ease of paint application 1 2 3 4 5

7) Blending of product and surface 1 2 3 4 5

8) Amount of time needed to complete job 1 2 3 4 5

9) Product design/presentation 1 2 3 4 5

10) Resistance to weathering 1 2 3 4 5

Instructions:
Please circle either Yes or No for the following questions:
1) Did you notice any strong odors from the product? YES / NO
2) Did any skin irritation occur due to use of the product? YES / NO
3) Did the product perform up to your expectations? YES / NO
4) Would you recommend the product to others? YES / NO
5) Were the manufacturer's instructions easy to read and comprehend? YES / NO

Additional Comments:

Zephyr Corporation 11000 North Body Lane Filler, MI 12345

 14

APPENDIX E: Table of Results

FILLERS* GEL IMPACT WEATHERING TENSILE STRENGTH
TIME RESISTANCE FEATHERING
1' drop 2' drop Control Panel Test Panel 1 Test Panel 2 #1 #2 #3 Avg.
OK
Polymeer 4 min OK 1'' Crack OK OK Cracked in Prime 238 260 251 243

1 crack in Color Cracks in Colors OK

Superfiller 4 min OK Cracked OK 440 402 453 432
(148 hrs) (160 hrs)
OK
Cracked in Fine Cracks in Fine Cracks in
PuttyFix 7 min OK Cracked 280 271 292 281
Color Color (210 hrs) Color (211 hrs)

Cracked & OK
Super Patch 8 min Cracked ------------ ------------ ------------ ---- ---- ---- ----
Popped Out
Cracked in Cracked in Cracked in Color OK
PolyFill 14 min OK Cracked 302 296 318 305
Prime Prime (215 hrs)
OK
PatchQuick 11 min OK Cracked ------------ ------------ ------------ 142 125 148 138

Cracked in Cracked in
Easy Fill 3 min Cracked Cracked OK 642 688 681 670 Gummy
Prime Prime
Cracked in Cracks in Color Cracks in Color
Bondeaux 5 min OK Cracked 465 430 457 451 OK
Prime (80 hrs) (125 hrs)
Fine Cracks in
FillRite 9 min OK Cracked OK OK 298 315 302 305 OK
Color (117 hrs)
QuickFix 26 min --- --- ------------ ------------ ------------ --- --- --- --- Pitting
Cracked in
Monkey Fix 5 min OK Cracked OK OK 703 710 697 703 Slight Flake
Prime

SurFill 180 min --- --- ------------ ------------ ------------ --- --- --- --- ----
Investigation of Polyester Body Fillers for Marketing Purposes

Ben Dover

Product Development Department

Manufacturing and Engineering Development Office

Zephyr Corporation 11000 North Body Lane Filler, MI 12345