Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T09:49:54.496Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optically Transparent Polymethyl Methacrylate Composites made with Glass Fibers of Varying Refractive Index

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Seunggu Kang ,
Hongy Lin ,
Delbert E. Day  and
James O. Stoffer
Seunggu Kang
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Engineering, Kyonggi University, Suwon, Kyonggi-Do, 442–760, Korea
Hongy Lin
Affiliation:
Graduate Center for Materials Research, University of Missouri–Rolla, Rolla, Missouri 65401–0249
Delbert E. Day
Affiliation:
Graduate Center for Materials Research, University of Missouri–Rolla, Rolla, Missouri 65401–0249
James O. Stoffer
Affiliation:
Graduate Center for Materials Research, University of Missouri–Rolla, Rolla, Missouri 65401–0249
Get access

Abstract

The dependence of the optical and mechanical properties of optically transparent polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) composites on the annealing temperature of BK10 glass fibers was investigated. Annealing was used to modify the refractive index (R.I.) of the glass fiber so that it would more closely match that of PMMA. Annealing increased the refractive index of the fibers and narrowed the distribution of refractive index of the fibers, but lowered their mechanical strength so the mechanical properties of composites reinforced with annealed fibers were not as good as for composites containing as-pulled (chilled) glass fibers. The refractive index of as-pulled 17.1 μm diameter fibers (R.I. = 1.4907) increased to 1.4918 and 1.4948 after annealing at 350 °C to 500 °C for 1 h or 0.5 h, respectively. The refractive index of glass fibers annealed at 400 °C/1 h best matched that of PMMA at 589.3 nm and 25 °C, so the composite reinforced with those fibers had the highest optical transmission. Because annealed glass fibers had a more uniform refractive index than unannealed fibers, the composites made with annealed fibers had a higher optical transmission. The mechanical strength of annealed fiber/PMMA composites decreased as the fiber annealing temperature increased. A composite containing fibers annealed at 450 °C/1 h had a tensile strength 26% lower than that of a composite made with as-pulled fibers, but 73% higher than that for unreinforced PMMA. This decrease was avoided by treating annealed fibers with HF. Composites made with annealed and HF (10 vol. %)-treated (for 30 s) glass fibers had a tensile strength (∼200 MPa) equivalent to that of the composites made with as-pulled fibers. However, as the treatment time in HF increased, the tensile strength of the composites decreased because of a significant reduction in diameter of the glass fiber which reduced the volume percent fiber in the composite.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , April 1997 , pp. 1091 - 1101
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Gwynne, D. G., Jr., Code One 2 (2), 26–27 (1987).Google Scholar
2.Pope, E. J. A., Asami, M., and Mackenzie, J. D., J. Mater. Res. 4, 1018–1026 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Kang, S., Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Missouri–Rolla, Rolla, MO (1992).Google Scholar
4.Watt, W. and Perov, B. V., Strong Fibers (North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, 1985), Vol. 1.Google Scholar
5.Shelyubskii, V. I., Steklo Keram. 17 (8), 17–22 (1960).Google Scholar
6.Christiansen, C., Ann der Physik und Chemie 23 (10), 298–306 (1884).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Laser Liquid, R. P. Cargille Laboratories, Inc., Cedar Grove, NJ (1988).Google Scholar
8.Liva, M., The Microscope 29 (2), 93–101 (1981).Google Scholar
9.Tattersall, H. G. and Tappin, G., J. Mater. Sci. 1, 296–301 (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Optical Glass, Schott Glass Technologies, Inc., Duryea, PA (1982).Google Scholar
11.Imagawa, H., Glass Technol. 14 (13), 85–88 (1973).Google Scholar
12.Cable, M. and Bower, C., Glass Technol. 6 (6), 197–205 (1965).Google Scholar
13.Cable, M. and Walters, S. D., Glass Technol. 21 (6), 279–283 (1980).Google Scholar
14.Afghan, M. and Cable, M., J. Non-Cryst. Solids 38–39, 3–8 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Waxler, R. M., Horowitz, D., and Feldman, A., Appl. Opt. 18 (1), 101–104 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Proctor, B., Physics Chem. Glasses 3, 7–28 (1962).Google Scholar
17.Olson, J., Master's Thesis, University of Missouri–Rolla, Rolla, MO (1988).Google Scholar