TY - JOUR
T1 - Borofloat and Starphire Float Glasses
T2 - A Comparison
AU - Wereszczak, Andrew A.
AU - Anderson, Charles E.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2014 The American Ceramic Society and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
PY - 2014/12/1
Y1 - 2014/12/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84913608865&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/ijag.12095
DO - 10.1111/ijag.12095
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84913608865
SN - 2041-1286
VL - 5
SP - 334
EP - 344
JO - International Journal of Applied Glass Science
JF - International Journal of Applied Glass Science
IS - 4
ER -