High Pressure Response of Siliceous Materials

Wereszczak, A. A.; Morrissey, Timothy G.; Ferber, M. K.; Bortle, K. P.; Rodgers, E. A.; Tsoi, G.; Montgomery, Janelle; Vohra, Y. K.; Toller, S.

doi:10.21236/ada582604

Cited by 4 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…High-pressure diamond anvil cell testing showed peaks in the Raman spectra tended to form for all the glasses and glass ceramics by the time a stress of 10 GPa was applied indicating long-range ordering was being induced while under pressure. 14,15 This is illustrated in Fig. 9.…”

Section: Comparisons Of Measured Properties and Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Comparison of average apparent yield stress for two glasses for both their air-and tin sides. 14,15 Estimated using spherical indentation.…”

Section: Comparisons Of Measured Properties and Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…11); and differences in ball impact resistance. 14,15,19,20 These distributions, concentrations, and their differences among the two glasses will also affect strength-size scaling 21 . But due to the nature of these flaws, this trend or difference cannot be assumed to always exist for all Borofloat and Starphire surfaces.…”

Section: Comparisons Of Measured Properties and Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Manifestations of the flaw distributions for the two glasses illustrated in Fig 10 show up in Borofloat as laser shock damage initiating at lower pressures and lower forces required to initiate ring cracking in spherical indentation. 14,15 and Starphire, so comparisons cannot be drawn, but such studies will occur in future work.…”

Section: Comparisons Of Measured Properties and Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Borofloat and Starphire Float Glasses: A Comparison^,

Wereszczak

Anderson

2014

Int J of Appl Glass Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Borofloat® borosilicate float glass and Starphire® soda‐lime silicate float glass are used in transparent protective systems. They are known to respond differently in some ballistic and triaxial loading conditions, and efforts are underway to understand the causes of those differences. Toward that, a suite of test and material characterizations were completed in this study on both glasses so to identify what differences exist among them. Compositional, physical properties, elastic properties, flaw size distributions and concentrations, tensile/flexure strength, fracture toughness, spherical indentation and hardness, transmission electron microscopy, striae, high‐pressure responses via diamond anvil cell testing, laser shock differences, and internal porosity were examined. Differences between these two float glasses were identified for many of these properties and characteristics, and the role of three (striae, high pressures where permanent densification can initiate, and submicrometer‐sized porosity) lack understanding and deserve further attention. The contributing roles of any of those properties or characteristics to triaxial or ballistic loading responses are not definitive; however, they provide potential correlations that may lead to improved understanding and management of loading responses in glasses used in transparent protective systems.

show abstract

Section: Comparisons Of Measured Properties and Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Comparison of average apparent yield stress for two glasses for both their air-and tin sides. 14,15 Estimated using spherical indentation.…”

Section: Comparisons Of Measured Properties and Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparisons Of Measured Properties and Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparisons Of Measured Properties and Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Borofloat and Starphire Float Glasses: A Comparison^,

Wereszczak

Anderson

2014

Int J of Appl Glass Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This proceedings paper is a condensed version of a more comprehensive report published by the authors [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responses of Siliceous Materials to High Pressure

Wereszczak¹,

Morrissey²,

Ferber³

et al. 2013

Advances in Ceramic Armor IX

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several silicate-based materials were subjected to high pressure loading using spherical indentation, diamond anvil cell (DAC) testing, and laser shock impact. The test methods were chosen because they can apply many gigapascal (GPa) of pressure, are relatively quick and inexpensive to experimentally conduct, produce repeatable results, induce a bulk material response, and enable in-situ or postmortem material analysis. Differences in apparent yield stress, hydrostatic pressure, and laser shock responses were observed among the materials and are described herein.

show abstract

Mesoscale Phase Field Modeling of Glass Strengthening Under Triaxial Compression

Sun

2015

Int J of Appl Glass Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent “hydraulic bomb” and “confined sleeve” tests on transparent armor glass materials such as borosilicate glass and soda‐lime glass showed that the glass strength was a function of confinement pressure. The measured stress–strain relation is not a straight line as most brittle materials behave under little or no confinement. Moreover, borosilicate glass exhibited a stronger compressive strength when compared to soda‐lime glass, even though soda‐lime has higher bulk and shear moduli as well as apparent yield strength. To better understand these experimental findings, a mesoscale phase field model is developed to simulate the nonlinear stress versus strain behaviors under confinement by considering heterogeneity formation — under triaxial compression and the energy barrier of a micro shear banding event (referred to as pseudo‐slip hereafter) in the amorphous glass. With calibrated modeling parameters, the simulation results demonstrate that the developed phase field model can quantitatively predict the pressure‐dependent strength, and it can also explain the difference between the two types of glasses from the perspective of energy barrier associated with a pseudo‐slip event.

show abstract

High Pressure Response of Siliceous Materials

Cited by 4 publications

References 8 publications

Borofloat and Starphire Float Glasses: A Comparison^,

Borofloat and Starphire Float Glasses: A Comparison^,

Responses of Siliceous Materials to High Pressure

Mesoscale Phase Field Modeling of Glass Strengthening Under Triaxial Compression

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

High Pressure Response of Siliceous Materials

Cited by 4 publications

References 8 publications

Borofloat and Starphire Float Glasses: A Comparison,

Borofloat and Starphire Float Glasses: A Comparison,

Responses of Siliceous Materials to High Pressure

Mesoscale Phase Field Modeling of Glass Strengthening Under Triaxial Compression

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Borofloat and Starphire Float Glasses: A Comparison^,

Borofloat and Starphire Float Glasses: A Comparison^,