Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Pressure Effects on the Compressive Response of Confined Intact and Damaged Soda-Lime Glass

  • Published:
Experimental Mechanics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article describes two techniques used to characterize intact and damaged soda-lime glass at pressures up to ∼2 GPa: triaxial compression and confined sleeve. The results of the characterization experiments are described for intact and damaged glass as a function of confinement pressure and interpreted in terms of two pressure-dependent constitutive models, Drucker-Prager and Mohr-Coulomb. An observation is that the slopes of the two models appear to be independent of the degree of damage (intact, predamaged and severely damaged specimens). It is also observed that there is a maximum strength for the damaged glass, i.e., there is a cap on the strength. The compressive response of soda-lime glass is compared to that of a borosilicate glass, and to flyer-plate impact data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A piece of tape is visible in Fig. 4(b), but is not readily apparent in the photo of Fig. 4(a). The tape was used to hold the thin brass foil in place as it was wrapped around the glass specimen.

  2. Technically, the specimens that were initially intact and then failed could also carry a load, but failure is so catastrophic that the plastic sleeve is ripped apart and the comminuted specimen is dispersed in the hydraulic fluid.

  3. Many of the analysis procedures, particularly for the confined sleeve test, were developed during characterization of the Borofloat glass. Analysis of the Starphire data used a refined procedure.

  4. The hydrostatic pressure is larger than the confinement pressure since the hydrostatic pressure is a combination of the confinement pressure and the axial load.

  5. Bourne et al. , show uncertainty (“error”) bars of approximately 0.5 GPa centered on their data values. For clarity, we have omitted these error bars.

  6. For convenience, for this discussion of flyer-plate impact, we assume that the stress is positive in compression.

  7. Presumably, the glass remains elastic below the HEL, but fails upon reaching the HEL.

References

  1. Chocron S, Anderson CE Jr, Nicholls A, Dannemann K (2010) Characterization of confined intact and damaged borosilicate glass. J Am Ceram Soc 93(10):3390–3398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chocron S, Anderson CE Jr (2009) Predictive modeling of dynamic processes: a tribute to Klaus Thoma, chapter 10, Numerical simulations of the penetration of glass using two pressure-dependent constitutive models. Springer Science+Business Media LLC, New York, pp 167–187

    Google Scholar 

  3. Behner Th, Anderson CE Jr, Orphal DL, Hohler V, Moll M, Templeton DW (2008) Penetration and failure of lead and borosilicate glass against rod impact. Int J Impact Eng 35(6):447–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Patel P, Matoya M (2005) US Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen, MD, personal communication

  5. Desai CS, Siriwardane HJ (1984) Constitutive laws for engineering materials with emphasis on geologic materials. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632

  6. Dannemann KA, Chocron S, Nicholls AE, Anderson CE Jr (2008) Compressive damage development in confined borosilicate glass. Mater Sci Eng A Struct 478:340–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dannemann KA, Jr. Anderson CE, Chocron S, Spencer JF (2011) Damage development in confined borosilicate and soda-lime glasses. J A Ceram Soc 1–9

  8. Chocron S, Walker JD, Nicholls AE, Dannemann KA, Anderson CE Jr (2008) Analytical model of the confined compression test used to characterize brittle materials. J Appl Mech Trans ASME 75:021006–1–021006–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chocron S, Dannemann KA, Walker JD, Nicholls AE, Anderson CE Jr (2007) Constitutive model for damaged borosilicate glass under confinement. J Am Ceram Soc 90(8):2549–2555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Timoshenko S, Goodier JN (1951) Theory of elasticity. Mc. Graw-Hill, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Curran DR, Shockey DA, Simons JW (2008) Mesomechanical constitutive relations for glass and ceramic armor. In 32nd Int. Conf. on Advanced Ceramics and Composites, Daytona Beach, January 2008

  12. Peter KW (1970) Densification and flow phenomena of glass in indentation experiments. J Non-Cryst Solids 5:103–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ernsberger FM (1977) Mechanical properties of glasses. J Non-Cryst Solids 25:293–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lankford J, Anderson CE Jr, Nagy AJ, Walker JD, Nicholls AE, Page RA (1998) Inelastic response of confined aluminum oxide under dynamic loading conditions. J Mat Sci 33:1619–1625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Holmquist TJ, Johnson GR (2005) Characterization and evaluation of silicon carbide for high velocity impact. J Appl Phys 97:093502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Holmquist TJ, Johnson GR (2008) The failed strength of ceramics subjected to high-velocity impact. J Appl Phys 104(013533):013533–1–013533–11

    Google Scholar 

  17. Drucker DC, Prager W (1952) Soil mechanics and plastic analysis of limit design. Q Appl Math 10(2):157–175

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Nedderman RM (1992) Statics and kinematics of granular materials. Cambridge University Press, The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Beissel SR, Holmquist TJ, Johnson GR (2012) Influence of the third invariant in the ballistic impact of silicon carbide. International Journal of Impact Engineering 45:52–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jaeger JC, Cook NGW (1969) Fundamentals of rock mechanics. Chapman and Hall, Ltd. and Science Paperbacks

  21. Anderson CE Jr, Chocron S, Bigger RP (2011) Time-resolved penetration into glass: experiments and computations. Int J Impact Eng 38(8–9):723–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Brar NS, Bless SJ, Rosenberg Z (1991) Impact-induced failure waves in glass bars and plates. J Appl Phys 59(26):3396–3398

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bourne N, Millett J, Rosenbergand Z, Murray N (1998) On the shock induced failure of brittle solids. J Mech Phys Solid 46(10):1887–1908

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Bourne NK, Millet JCF, Field JE (1999) On the strength of shocked glasses. Proc R Soc Lond A 455:1275–1282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Alexander CS, Chhabildas LC, Templeton DW (2007) The hugoniot elastic limit of soda-lime glass. In CP955, Shock Compression of Condensed Matter-2007, pp 733–738. American Institute of Physics

  26. Alexander CS, Chhabildas LC, Reinhart WD, Templeton DW (2008) Changes to the shock response of fused quartz due to glass modification. In press, Int J Impact Eng doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2008.07.019

  27. Rosorenov SV, Kanel GI, Fortov VE (1991) The fracture of glass under high pressure impulsive loading. High Press Res 6:225–232

  28. Holmquist TJ, Johnson GR, Grady DE, Lopatin CM, Jr Hertel ES (1995) High strain rate properties and constitutive modeling of glass. In Proceedings 15th International Symposium on Ballistics, Jerusalem, Israel, pp 237–244

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Doug Templeton from TARDEC for funding this work, and Mr. Rick Rickert of TARDEC for the administrative support provided during this program. The authors are also grateful to Parimal Patel and colleagues at the Army Research Laboratory for ultrasonic modulus measurements of intact samples. Mr. Jim Spencer (SwRI) is acknowledged for his skillful assistance in sectioning and evaluation of glass specimens following testing. Appreciation is also extended to Mr. Bill Livermore for assistance with schematics and figures.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Engineering Dynamics Department, Southwest Research Institute, P. O. Drawer 28510, San Antonio, TX, 78228-0510, USA

    S. Chocron, C. E. Anderson Jr., K. A. Dannemann & A. E. Nicholls

Authors
  1. S. Chocron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. E. Anderson Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. A. Dannemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. E. Nicholls
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Chocron.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chocron, S., Anderson, C.E., Dannemann, K.A. et al. Pressure Effects on the Compressive Response of Confined Intact and Damaged Soda-Lime Glass. Exp Mech 53, 77–89 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-012-9632-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-012-9632-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation