Anti Glare Coatings explained

Anti-glare coatings are different to anti-reflective coatings.  Anti-glare coatings are generally produced using an abrasion resistant hard coat with small particles in the coating to give a matte surface.  This matte surface stops light being reflected from the sheet surface back to the viewer so that the user's view is not obscured by glare from lighting or the sun.

One down side to the matte surface is that the light transmission of the sheet is lowered and the view through the sheet is hazy.  The more of the matte agent that is put into the sheet the more the glare is reduce, but also the sheet becomes more hazy and the view more obstructed.

To illustrate the effect of an anti-glare coating we have taken three pictures of an anti-glare sheet with a 40% gloss level.  The 40% gloss is quite a high level of matte agent - we commonly supply product with gloss levels of 60% and as high as 80%.  The 80% gloss level is much more transparent but does not reduce the glare as much as the 40% gloss level material.

We are often asked how much does the reduction in gloss level obscure the view through the sheet?  The answer depends on what you are trying to view.  If you are trying to view something that is a long way away through the sheet, the object is still able to be seen but the view is very blurred.  To show this effect, we positioned a typed page only 15" behind the anti-glare sheet.  The page is visible but the details are not.

We then moved the page to 5" behind the sheet.  Again the page is visible and you can even start to make out the detail of some of the larger font.  48 Point font is clearly legible, even 28 Point font is just visible, while smaller font can be seen but not read.

We then moved the typed page to immediately behind the sheet and the page was even touching the sheet.  Nearly all of the font, even the smallest can be clearly read.  

When choosing an anti-glare gloss level it is important to test it in your application.  The questions that need to be answered are how much do you need to reduce glare and how much haze can you accept.  The answers to these questions depend on what environment you are you using the sheet in and what do you need to see through the sheet.    

 

 Photo 1 - Typed page 15" behind the anti-glare sheet

 Photo 2 - Typed page 5" behind the anti-glare sheet

Photo 3 - Typed page immediately behind the anti-glare sheet (touching)

Clearfix - Repairing Polycarbonate sheet scratches

The above video shows how scratches in both uncoated and abrasion resistant Polycarbonate sheet can be easily repaired using a product developed by 3M and Clearfix Aerospace.  The product was initially developed to repair military helicopter windows; however, HighLine Polycarbonate has worked with 3M and Clearfix Aerospace to evaluate and test the product on Polycarbonate sheet used on transparent armor laminates as well as other applications.

The product works equally well on repairing scratches and other damage on both coated and uncoated Polycarbonate sheet.  Not only can the product be used to repair scratches on in service vehicles but it can also be used to repair scratches on production damaged laminates.  Laminates that would otherwise need to be scrapped can now be repaired allowing manufacturers and users to significantly reduce costs.

The product can be purchased from HighLine Polycarbonate LLC as we are now a primary distributor of Clearfix.  Potential users should contact us to schedule a demonstration at their facility.

How thick does Transparent Armor need to be?

A question that we are frequently asked is how thick is transparent armor made from glass and polycarbonate?

The answer to the question depends on what level of threat the armor needs to stop. As we discussed in a recent post, the Kinetic energy of a bullet can be calculated if the weight of the bullet and the speed of the bullet are known using the following formula:

Kinetic Energy (Joules) = 1/2 x Mass of bullet (grams) x [Velocity of bullet (m/s)]^2

The more Kinetic Energy the bullet has, the thicker and heavier the transparent armor needs to be. Of course there are many manufacturers of bullet resistant glass and transparent armor. Each of these manufacturers have their own knowledge of how to produce the lightest and thinest armor to stop a specific threat. However, if we look at the top military transparent armor producers, there is only limited variation in the performance of the products.

We recently compared data published on the internet from the top laminators to see how thick and how heavy their products are to stop a given threat. We compared products that were designed to stop rounds with between 650 Joules and 3500 Joules of Energy. Many of the manufacturers do not publish the data for rounds with Energy above 3500 Joules as much of the information is classified.

Within the energy range considered there was surprisingly little variation in the thickness and weight of products. We analyzed the data and carried out some linear regression and were able to obtain the following equations:

Thickness (mm) = [0.0085 x Energy (Joules)] + 10

Weight (kg/m^2) = [0.02 x Energy (Joules)] +20

Using these equations we can calculate that to stop a bullet weighing 9.45 g and traveling at 830 m/s the energy would be about 3255 Joules.

This would give a thickness of about 38 mm and a weight of about 85 kg/m2.

Of course, just making some transparent armor of this thickness and weight does not guarantee that it will stop this level of threat. The armor has to be properly designed and tested by a certified testing company. The figures do show what the main manufacturers are able to achieve.

It should also be remembered that the Kinetic Energy is not the only factor that needs to be considered - other factors such as the shape of the bullet need to be taken into account.

The above figures are based upon transparent armor solutions using Glass and Polycarbonate. A more expensive option is to use advanced materials in the construction such as transparent ceramics. The performance of these ceramics, while not available in detail, is discussed on some of the manufacturers websites and claims of 20% weight reduction and 10% thickness reduction are listed.

Birefringence, Photoelasticity, Anisotropic Materials, Iridescence and the Rainbow Effect - Part 1

One question that we are often asked about Polycarbonate is what causes the rainbow like patterns on coated sheet and how can they be eliminated.

The answer is not simple and we will need to answer the question over two or three posts. There is also a lot of confusion in the industry about what causes the effect. Often people try to explain the effect using the wrong terms.

Birefringence and anisotropic materials

The first term that we will discuss is Birefringence or the double refraction of light when it passes through an Anisotropic material. At this stage, don't worry too much about these terms, we will explain them as we go. Birefringence is often the term that is incorrectly used to explain the rainbow patterns seen on the surface of some coated Polycarbonate sheet. As we will explain, Birefringence can allow us to see stresses in the sheet using polarizing filters - they allow us to see the stresses which will appear as rainbow like effects. However, birefringence is not the cause of the rainbow like effect which can be seen with the eye on the surface of hard coated Polycarbonate sheet.

To explain birefringence and anisotropic materials we will start with a discussion about the structure of Polycarbonate. Polycarbonate is a long molecule containing Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms. A simple web search can give details of the chemical formula. When Polycarbonate is heated and allowed to cool without being subject to any stresses, these molecules will be arranged randomly.

During the production of extruded sheet, the Polycarbonate is melted and then extruded through a wide die into a sheet format. The sheet is then pulled out of the die by some pull rollers through some chrome polishing rolls to create a smooth surface on the sheet. The pull rolls create some stress in the sheet in the direction of extrusion, but not in the direction perpendicular to the extrusion. The sheet is cooled and allowed to "set" while still being pulled by these rolls. This difference in stress in the sheet between the extrusion direction and the direction perpendicular to extrusion is commonly referred to as shrinkage. We have discussed shrinkage in more detail in previous blog posts; shrinkage is able to be controlled below 1%, although often it is possible to find sheet with high levels of shrinkage of 10% or more.

The stresses in the Polycarbonate can be eliminate by annealing the sheet - heating it above its glass transition temperature and then allowing it to cool. Also stresses can often be added to the sheet by some fabrication methods.

The more shrinkage that the Polycarbonate sheet has, the more stress it has in the extrusion direction and the more the Polycarbonate molecules are aligned in the extrusion direction. This alignment of the Polycarbonate molecule chains causes the Refractive Index of the Polycarbonate in the direction of the extrusion to be different than the Refractive Index in the direction perpendicular to the extrusion. As explained in previous blog posts, the refractive index is a measure of how fast light travels in a material. The difference of refractive index in the two directions causes extruded Polycarbonate to become what is known as an Anisotropic Material - where the speed of light traveling through the material is dependent upon the direction of the material.

If a Polycarbonate sheet is produced without any stress or 0% shrinkage, it would not be Anisotropic.

The difference in the Refractive Index between the two directions can be calculated using the Stress Optics Law:

(RI1 - RI2) = C x (Stress1 - Stress2)

Where:

RI1 = Refractive Index in extrusion direction

RI2 = Refractive Index in direction perpendicular to extrusion

C = Stress Optic Constant

Stress1 = Stress in extrusion direction

Stress2 = Stress in direction perpendicular to extrusion.

If the Refractive Index in one direction is different than the Refractive Index in the other direction, the components of the waves of light moving through the Polycarbonate in one direction will travel at a different speed than the light in another direction. The more Polycarbonate that the waves travel through, the more the one wave will lag behind the other. This effect is known as Retardation of the wave.

The retardation of the wave can be calculated using the following formula:

Retardation = C x thickness of Polycarbonate x (Stress1 - Stress2)

The amount of retardation of the wave is therefore proportional to both the thickness of the sheet and the differences in the stresses in the two directions. The retardation will be much lower on thin sheet with low shrinkage.

When the components of the light in the two directions emerge from the sheet they will recombine. However, how they recombine will be a function of the phase difference caused by the retardation of the light. There could be constructive or destructive recombining of the waves at different wavelengths.

In the next post on this subject we will look at how these waves combine. We will also look at how we can use a polarizer to look at the stresses in the sheet using an experimental method known as Photoelasticity.

Bonding Polycarbonate Sheet

One question that we are often asked is how can two Polycarbonate sheets be bonded together?

At HighLine Polycarbonate we are mainly involved in producing Polycarbonate sheets with a wide range of high tech properties. We only engage in a limited amount of fabrication which includes routing of the sheets into finished part shapes.

We do not engage in fabrication that requires bonding of two sheets together. Some of our customers do engage in this type of fabrication and we will list some of the methods that we know about for joining two sheets of Polycarbonate together. We would be very interested to hear from our readers about other methods that they know about so that we can update the post with additional information.

We do not plan to cover physical methods of joining sheets together such as rivets, screws and tapes.

- The first method that we know about is using Methylene Chloride or a 60%/40% mixture of Methylene Chloride and Ethylene DiChloride. This solvent bonding technique is known to give a good bond strength and excellent optical clarity along with low capital investment. The mixture of Methylene Chloride and Ethylene DiChloride gives a slightly longer curing time than neat Methylene Chloride allowing more time to get the parts in the correct position; this is particularly important for larger parts. Suppliers of these chemicals can be found on Google. We recommend reading the Material Safety Data Sheet for information on safe handling and disposal before using any chemicals. We also recommend that you test any method on a small part before using on critical parts.

Before starting the solvent bonding process, both surfaces should be cleaned with warm water. If there are greasy areas, IsoPropanol (IPA) should be used to wipe the surfaces clean. Some fabricators recommend dissolving between 2% and 5% Polycarbonate saw dust in the Methylene Chloride or Methylene Chloride/Ethylene DiChloride solvents before use in order to give a stronger bond strength. We have yet to see any evidence that the saw dust improves the bond strength. In any case, if you choose to try this method, make sure that all of the saw dust is fully dissolved before use, because otherwise lumps of saw dust may prevent good surface contact between the two parts. Another recommendation that we have heard from fabricators is that in order to prevent whitening of the joint occurring, 10% Glacial Acetic Acid should be added to the solvents. Whitening does not always occur, so we would only recommend that you try this solution if you are having problems with whitening on your particular parts.

Having made up the solution, the solvent should be applied to one of the clean parts. The two parts should then be clamped together with several hundred psi pressure for about 5 minutes. The parts should then be allowed to cure in a well ventilated area at room temperature for between two and five days.

- The second method is to use an adhesive; this is a cheaper solution than solvent bonding but we believe that the bond strength and the optical clarity are not as good. Many customers have had excellent results with products such as "Weld-on". These products can easily be found using Google.

- Other methods such as vibration welding and ultrasonic welding have had varying degrees of success depending on the part shape and thickness. We would suggest that you contact manufacturers of the equipment to see if these options are suitable for your needs. These methods would require capital investment.

- The final option that we know about is to laminate the two parts together using an interlayer material such as transparent Polyurethane. This method is often used to manufacturer ballistics laminates where Polycarbonate layers are bonded to glass. This method requires a lot of specialist knowledge and equipment, such as an autoclave so it is unlikely to be viable for the majority of applications.

We look forward to hearing about more bonding methods from our readers.

Variable Message Signs (VMS) and Polycarbonate

Over recent months we have had a large number of customer contact us regarding Variable Message Signs (VMS), also known as Dynamic Message Signs (DMS), and the use of Polycarbonate for these signs. These signs are often used as traffic signs to warn drivers or give special information.

The signs often consist of a bank of either yellow or red LEDs behind a protective Polycarbonate front shield. The Polycarbonate is used to protect the sign against impact damage and environmental conditions.

Most of the questions that we get asked relate to a technical standard such as the European Standard EN.12966 for VMS. The main concern relates to the test, which simulates reflection of sunlight when the sun is at a low angle in the sky (5 or 10 degrees). In this situation, the sun is reflected off the Polycarbonate shield to the driver and partially obscures the light coming from the LEDs, making the sign difficult to read.

The sign can be made easier to read by either reducing the reflection of the sunlight or increasing the amount of LED light transmitted through the sheet – either by increasing the LED brightness or increasing the light transmission of the Polycarbonate sheet.

The test apparatus used for EN.12966 is shown in the picture accompanying this blog post [Please click on the picture to enlarge]. The principal of reducing reflection and increasing transmission is the same as that discussed in our previous blog posts with the exception that we are not concerned with the entire visible spectrum. We are specifically concerned with how the Polycarbonate interacts with the Yellow LEDS (wavelength 635 nm) and the Red LEDs (wavelength 590-595 nm) for the vast majority of VMS.

The problem that most VMS manufacturers have experienced is that they frequently buy general purpose Polycarbonate sheet, that has not been optimized for VMS, from distributors or manufacturers that are not aware of the options available. Much of this material has been produced with the idea of minimizing the production cost; as a result there is often large amounts of second grade (regrind) material in the product. As discussed in our previous blog posts, this regrind has the effect of lowering the transmission across the visible spectrum and in particular in the yellow region of the spectrum used by the yellow LEDs of VMS.

The first method improving the visibility of VMS signs in low sunlight is therefore to use an optical grade of Polycarbonate that has been design for VMS use, such as grades offered by HighLine Polycarbonate. The next method is to reduce the reflection and increase the transmission by the use of specially designed coatings. The added advantage of these coatings is that they improve the UV and weather resistant performance of the Polycarbonate, preventing the material from yellowing over time, which would also reduce the transmission in the yellow part of the spectrum. The coatings also add scratch resistance to the sheet, which is important in a road traffic environment.

The following table shows the effect of using a high quality VMS Polycarbonate and using an anti-reflective hard coat. The sheet used is 3mm / 0.118” thick.

Yellow LED Transmission

Uncoated GP Polycarbonate (*) 83.8%

Uncoated VMS Polycarbonate 89.0%

VMS Polycarbonate with anti-reflective hard coat 91.0%

VMS Polycarbonate with anti-reflective hard coat outside and optical coating inside 93.6%

Red LED Transmission

Uncoated GP Polycarbonate (*) 86.0%

Uncoated VMS Polycarbonate 89.7%

VMS Polycarbonate with anti-reflective hard coat 92.0%

VMS Polycarbonate with anti-reflective hard coat outside and optical coating inside 95.5%

[* the GP Polycarbonate was purchased from a distributor and was produced by a major manufacturer as their standard product].

For Yellow LEDs it is therefore possible to increase the transmission by 8.6% [91.0/83.8 = 8.6% increase] by using a properly designed Polycarbonate with an anti-reflective hard coat, for Red LEDs the increase is 7.0% [92.0/86.0 = 7.0% increase].

For both color LEDs the anti-reflective hard coat is also able to reduce the reflection by 25%.

The combination of the increase in transmission and the reduction in reflection significantly increases the readability of the signs in sunlight.

A further option to improve the performance is to use an advanced optical anti-reflective on the inside surface. The use of the advanced optical coatings is not recommended for the outside surface, as they are not suited to use in a dusty and dirty roadside environment. By using these materials on the inside surface the transmission for yellow LEDs rises to 93.6% and the transmission for red LEDs rises to 95.5%.

These figures give an increase in transmission of 11.6% for yellow LEDs and 11.0% for Red LEDs. They also reduce the reflection by 56%. One question that has not yet been completely answered is whether the additional cost of an optical grade anti-reflective is justified by the performance advantage over an anti-reflective hard coat.

The other option for VMS is to use an anti-glare hard coat. At the moment we are investigating the performance of these materials in this application. Anti-glare materials are different from anti-reflective materials in that they scatter the light to reduce reflection; so while you can reduce reflection you also significantly lower the transmission and the clarity of the sign. It remains to be determined whether the loss in transmission is acceptable. At the moment we are very reluctant to recommend anti-glare coatings for VMS applications even though we are able to provide anti-glare coatings.

To summarize, for VMS signs it is important to use a Polycarbonate sheet that has been designed for VMS applications rather than use general purpose Polycarbonate sheet. With an anti-reflective hard coat the transmission can be increased 7.0% for red LEDs and 8.5% for yellow LEDs and the reflection can also be reduced 25%.