High Pressure Response of Siliceous Materials

Wereszczak, Andrew A.; Morrissey, Timothy G.; Ferber, Mattison K.; Bortle, K. P.; Rodgers, E. A.; Tsoi, G. M.; Montgomery, Jeffrey; Vohra, Yogesh K.; Toller, Simone

doi:10.2172/1062614

Cited by 4 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As μ 1 > 0, K 1 > 0, and Γ 1 > 0, K , μ, and Γ in the regions with nonzero η are larger than those with η = 0. Note again that the observed peak formation under diamond anvil cell test reported for borosilicate glass and MD simulation of high‐pressure‐induced phase transformations in soda‐lime glass confirms the formation of some heterogeneities in the amorphous glass matrix. These heterogeneities could be a reorganization of the atomic network or phase transformation, and their actual structure is upon further investigation and characterization.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 66%

“…Diamond anvil cell testing on different glasses with Raman spectra showed evidence that possible long‐range ordering could be induced in all tested glasses under a pressure of ~10 GPa or above . Molecular dynamics simulations also found that high pressure (3–5 GPa level) may induce a reorganization of the atomic network (phase change) in soda‐lime glass .…”

Section: Phase Field Model For Glass Systemsmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Both techniques of “hydraulic bomb” and “confined sleeve” have been utilized to obtain desired confinement pressure. In addition to the pressure‐dependent strength, another important finding from these tests is that the compressive strength of the borosilicate is higher than that of the soda‐lime glass although the soda‐lime has higher bulk and shear moduli as well as apparent yield strength than the borosilicate . But the underlying mechanism for this is still unclear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to chemical compositions, mechanically (i.e., high pressure) induced phase transformation has been observed, both with experimental diamond anvil cell measurement and with molecular dynamics (MD) simulations . For example, a considerable amount of recent work on soda‐lime glass has been reported by Grujicic et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, similar phase transformation and irreversible densification were not predicted in borosilicate glass with the same MD simulation framework. On the other hand, diamond anvil cell experiments have been performed for various glass materials by Wereszczak et al ., and a reversible peak formation (with Raman frequency of ~550 cm −1 ) was observed for borosilicate at around 10 GPa confinement pressure, while no clear corresponding peak was observed for soda‐lime glass.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Phase Field Model For Glass Systemsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

show abstract

Responses of Siliceous Materials to High Pressure

Wereszczak¹,

Morrissey²,

Ferber³

et al. 2013

Advances in Ceramic Armor IX

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

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

High Pressure Response of Siliceous Materials

Cited by 4 publications

References 11 publications

Mesoscale Phase Field Modeling of Glass Strengthening Under Triaxial Compression

Mesoscale Phase Field Modeling of Glass Strengthening Under Triaxial Compression

Responses of Siliceous Materials to High Pressure

Borofloat and Starphire Float Glasses: A Comparison^,

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

High Pressure Response of Siliceous Materials

Cited by 4 publications

References 11 publications

Mesoscale Phase Field Modeling of Glass Strengthening Under Triaxial Compression

Mesoscale Phase Field Modeling of Glass Strengthening Under Triaxial Compression

Responses of Siliceous Materials to High Pressure

Borofloat and Starphire Float Glasses: A Comparison,

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Borofloat and Starphire Float Glasses: A Comparison^,