Strength and Dynamic Fatigue of Float Glass Surfaces

Tummala, Rao; Foster, Betty J.

doi:10.1111/j.1151-2916.1975.tb19593.x

Cited by 18 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 and the results are listed in Table II. The greater failure stress of the air side in float glasses is well documented in the literature, 5,20–23 but it has not been reported previously that the air‐ and tin‐side failure stresses can become equivalent as the Weibull effective size sufficiently decreases.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 74%

Size Scaling of Tensile Failure Stress in a Float Soda–Lime–Silicate Glass

Wereszczak

Kirkland

Ragan

et al. 2010

Int J of Appl Glass Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The (tensile) strength–size scaling of a float soda–lime–silicate glass was studied using biaxial flexure and Hertzian ring crack initiation testing. The examined Weibull effective areas spanned ∼0.4–48,000 mm2. Both the air and tin sides were tested. The air side was stronger than the tin side as others have observed; however, the differences in their characteristic strengths decreased with a decreasing effective area, and their strengths converged for effective areas smaller than ∼100 mm2. The failure stress at the smallest effective area examined for the tin side was ∼500% greater than that at the largest effective area, while that difference was ∼250% for the air side. A Weibull modulus change at ∼100 mm2 suggests different strength‐limiting flaw types were dominant below and above this effective area. These results reinforce the importance of the interpretation and use of the tensile strength of glass in context to how much of its area is being subjected to tensile stress.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 74%

Size Scaling of Tensile Failure Stress in a Float Soda–Lime–Silicate Glass

Wereszczak

Kirkland

Ragan

et al. 2010

Int J of Appl Glass Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Initial testing conducted on the air and tin sides of 100‐mm plates of the SLS glass with a 0.5 ring ratio showed virtually no strength difference between these sides which was unexpected as previous studies have shown that the air side of float glass is consistently stronger . None of the 100‐mm low‐iron SLS or BF plates, with the air side in tension, yielded valid test data, so no comparison to the tin side strength could be made for these two glasses using this plate size/ring ratio combination.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…Initial testing conducted on the air and tin sides of 100-mm plates of the SLS glass with a 0.5 ring ratio showed virtually no strength difference between these sides which was unexpected as previous studies have shown that the air side of float glass is consistently stronger. [14][15][16][17][18] None of the 100-mm low-iron SLS or BF plates, with the air side in tension, yielded valid test data, so no comparison to the tin side strength could be made for these two glasses using this plate size/ring ratio combination. When the ring ratio was 0.2, valid strength data were collected for the air side of the SLS and BF glasses and the air/tin side strength difference became apparent in BF glass, but this difference was not as apparent in the low-iron SLS due the extremely high standard deviations associated with the average strength.…”

Section: Some General Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Equibiaxial Flexure Strength of Glass: Influence of Glass Plate Size and Equibiaxial Ring Ratio

Swab

Patel

Tran

et al. 2014

Int J of Appl Glass Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Glass plays an important role in many engineering applications including transparent armor. Determining the actual strength of a glass is problematic because typical glass strength numbers are presented in the literature as ranges. Minor changes in surface finish, composition, test method employed, and processing all influence the mechanical strength of glass. A standardized method needs to be utilized to ensure that strength data can be compared universally. The use of a standard methodology is vital when comparing glass compositions or multiple sample lots of the same composition in order to attribute any real strength variations to the glass itself. While the procedures established in ASTM C1499 provide a good framework for glass strength measurement, flexibility in the experimental parameters of the standard allow for substantial strength variations when testing glass materials. The ratio between the load and support ring diameters, as well as the specimen dimensions, is shown to lead to variations in both the measured strength, as well as the number of valid/invalid tests based on where fracture initiates. The goal of this study is to quantify these effects in order to establish optimized testing conditions for determining the strength of float glass.

show abstract

“…Due to the higher amount of tin in the tin side of the glass, and to contact of the tin side with the rollers in the annealing lehr, the two sides of the float glass often exhibit different properties. First of all, the tin side has lower strength and larger flaws than the air side [3][4][5][6][7]. Krohn et al [4] determined that the average size of the flaws for the tin side of a commercial float glass was 28.9 lm, in comparison to 13.0 lm for the air side.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%