Polymer Bulletin

, Volume 67, Issue 9, pp 1893–1906 | Cite as

Measuring the Young’s modulus of polystyrene-based composites by tensile test and pulse-echo method

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

In this study, the pure polystyrenes (PS) with different molecular weights (3.5 × 105 and 5.0 × 105) have been modified by the chemical modification with succinic anhydride (SA), maleic anhydride (MA), and phthalic anhydride (PhA). The modified polystyrenes (MPS) have been mixed with the pure PS with the molecular weight of 2.3 × 105 in weight % ratio 90:10, 80:20, and 70:30. Young’s modulus of obtained composites has been measured mechanically by the tensile test and ultrasonic method at frequency of 5 MHz. Further, the values of Young’s modulus measured by both methods have been compared with each other. From the results, a significant difference has not been found between the values of Young’s modulus of both methods. As a result it can be stated that measuring the Young’s modulus of these materials by the ultrasonic methods is more sensitive and economical than the mechanical methods.

Keywords

Polystyrene Composite Tensile test Ultrasound 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Scientific Research Projects (BAP) Coordinating Office of Selcuk University by the project number of 08101027. The authors are grateful for the support that provided by Selcuk University, Turkey.

References

  1. 1.
    Akkurt S (1991) Plastic material knowledge. Birsen Publishing House, Istanbul, p 138Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sacak M (2005) Polymer technology. Gazi Bookhome, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Onaran K (2006) Material science, Bilim Teknik Publishing House, 10. Publish, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Savaşkan T (1999) Material knowledge and evaluation. University of Karadeniz Teknik, Derya Publishing House, TrabzonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Truell R, Elbaum C, Chick BB (1969) Ultrasonic methods in solid state physics. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mason TJ (1990) Chemistry with ultrasound. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gendron R, Dumoulin M, Piche L (1995) Ultrasound as a monitoring tool for polymer processing. Polym Mater Sci Eng 72:23–24Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alig I, Lellinger D, Johari G (1992) Relaxations in thermosets. XVIII. Ultrasonic studies of curing kinetics of ethylene-diamine-cured epoxide. J Polym Sci 30:791–799Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parthun M, Johari G (1995) Dynamics of a molecule’s growth: ultrasonic relaxation studies. J Chem Phys 102:6301–6307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alig I, Tadjbakhsch S, Zosel A (1998) Comparison of ultrasonic shear wave and dynamic-mechanical measurements in acrylic-type copolymers. J Polym Sci 36:1703–1711Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alig I, Tadjbakhsch S (1998) Film foration and crystallization kinetics of polychloroprene studied by an ultrasonic shear wave reflection method. J Polym Sci 36:2949–2959Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alig I, Tadjbakhsch S, Floudas G, Tsitsilianis C (1998) Viscoelastic contrast and kinetic frustration during poly(ethylene oxide) crystallization in a homopolymer and a triblock copolymer. Comparison of ultrasonic and low-frequency rheology. Macromolecules 31:6917–6925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krause S (1978) Polymer-polymer compatibility. In: Paul DR, Newman S (eds) Polymer blends, vol 1. Academic press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sidkey MA, Abd El Fattah AM, Abd El All NS (1992) Compatibility studies on some solutions of rubber blends by ultrasonic techniques. J Appl Polym Sci 46:581–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sidkey M, Abd El Fattah AM, Abd El All NS (1991) Ultrasonic investigation of some rubber blends. J Appl Polym Sci 43:1441–1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    El-Sayed AM, Afifi H (2002) Improvement of the compatibility of natural rubber/ethylene-propylene diene monomer rubber blends via natural rubber epoxidation. J Appl Polym Sci 86:2816–2819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Afifi H, El-Sayed AM (2003) Ultrasonic properties of ENR-EPDM rubber blends. Polym Bull 50(1–2):115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rajendran V, Palanivelu N, Chaudhuri BK, Goswami K (2003) Characterisation of semiconducting V2O5–BiO3–TeO2 glasses through ultrasonic measurements. J Non-Cryst Solids 320:195–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ferry JD (1961) Viscoelastic properties of polymers. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Richard C, James L (1993) Polymer engineering principles. Carl Hanser Verlag, MunichGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Skinner SJ, Baxter S, Grey PJ (1964) Trans Plast Inst 32:180Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rajendran V, Bera AK, Modak DK, Chaudhuri BK (1997) Ultrasonic study of bioactive Na-Ca-B-Al-Si-P-O glasses. Acoust Lett 20(8):168–172Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nagarajan A (1971) Ulrasonic study of elasticity porosity relationship in polycrystalline alumina. J Appl Phys 42(10):3693–3696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    American Society for Testing and Materials (1993) D638M-91a standard test method for tensile properties of plastics. Annual book of ASTM standards, vol 08.01. Plastics (1). ASTM International, Philadelphia, pp 174–82Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Perepechko II (1975) Acoustic methods of investigating polymers (translated from Russian by G. Leib). Mir Publishers, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Landau LD, Lifshitz EM (1986) Theory of elasticity, third edn. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Muthupari S, Raghavan SL, Rao KJ (1996) Elastic properties of binary AO3–P2O5 and ternary Na2O–AO3–P2O5 (A = Mo, W) glasses. Mater Sci Eng B 38:237–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chattopadhyay S (2000) Compatibility studies on solution of polymer blends by viscometric and phase-separation technique. J Appl Polym Sci 77(4):880–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Severe G, White L (2000) Physical properties and blend miscibility of hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber. J Appl Polym Sci 78(8):1521–1529Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hourston DJ, Hughes ID (1978) Dynamic mechanical and sonic velocity behaviour of polystyrene-poly(vinyl methyl ether) blends. Polymer 19(10):1181–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Singh YP, Das S, Matti S, Singh RP (1981) Miscibility of poly (vinyl chloride)/poly (vinyl acetate) blend in chlorobenzene. J Pure Appl Ultrason 3(1):1–3Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Singh YP, Singh RP (1983) Compatibility studies on solid polyblends of poly(methyl methacrylate) with poly(vinyl acetate) and polystyrene by ultrasonic technique. Eur Polym J 19(6):529–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Singh YP, Singh RP (1983) Compatibility studies on solutions of polymer blends by viscometric and ultrasonic techniques. Eur Polym J 19(6):535–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Singh YP, Singh RP (1984) Compatibility studies on polyblends of PVC with chlororubber-20 and its graft polyblends by ultrasonics. Eur Polym J 20(2):201–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bagchi S, Nema SK, Singh RP (1986) Ultrasonic and viscometric investigation of isro polyol in various solvents and its compatibility with polypropylene glycol. Eur Polym J 22(10):851–857Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Seshadri AT, Narasimham AV, Subramanyam B (1986) J Pure Appl Ultrason 9:54Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shaw S, Singh RP (1987) Study of compatibility of polystyrene with ethylene-propylene-diene rubber. Eur Polym J 23(7):547–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Krause A, Lange A, Ezrin M (1983) Plastics analysis guide. Chemical and instrumental methods. Harver, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Crompton TR (1984) The analysis of plastics. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Brown RP (1979) Physical testing of rubbers. Applied Science, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ghosh P (1982) Polymer science and technology of plastics and rubbers. Tata McGraw-Hill, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sethuraman S, Nair LS, El-Amin S, Nguyen MT, Singh A, Krogman N, Greish YE, Allcock HR, Brown PW, Laurencin CT (2010) Mechanical properties and osteocompatibility of novel biodegradable alanine based polyphosphazenes: side group effects. Acta Biomater 6:1931–1937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    James E, Brady JE, Dürig T, Shang SS (2008) In: Qui Y (ed) Theories and techniques in the characterization of drug substances and excipients. Academic Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ahmetli G, Kaya A, Ozkececi A (2008) Adhesion and corrosion resistance properties of modified polystyrenes. J Appl Pol Sci 107(3):1373–1377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Deveci H (2008) Synthesis of modified polystyrenes and styrene copolymers having carboxyl group and investigation of their properties. Dissertation, Selcuk UniversityGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physics Education, Ahmet Kelesoglu Faculty of EducationSelcuk UniversityKonyaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and ArchitectureSelcuk UniversityKonyaTurkey

Personalised recommendations