Low Velocity Sphere Impact of a Borosilicate Glass

Morrissey, Timothy G ; Ferber, Mattison K ; Wereszczak, Andrew A ; Fox, Ethan E

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

关键词: Aluminium;    Carbon Steels;    Testing;    Silicon Nitrides;    Probability;   

DOI  :  10.2172/1039240
RP-ID  :  ORNL/TM-2012/60
RP-ID  :  DE-AC05-00OR22725
RP-ID  :  1039240

美国|英语

来源: UNT Digital Library

【 摘 要 】

This report summarizes US Army TARDEC sponsored work at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) involving low velocity (< 30 m/s or < 65 mph) ball impact testing of Borofloat borosilicate glass, and is a follow-up to a similar study completed by the authors on Starphire soda-lime silicate glass last year. The response of the borosilicate glass to impact testing at different angles was also studied. The Borofloat glass was supplied by the US Army Research Laboratory and its tin-side was impacted or indented. The intent was to better understand low velocity impact response in the Borofloat. Seven sphere materials were used whose densities bracket that of rock: borosilicate glass, soda-lime silicate glass, silicon nitride, aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, carbon steel, and a chrome steel. A gas gun or a ball-drop test setup was used to produce controlled velocity delivery of the spheres against the glass tile targets. Minimum impact velocities to initiate fracture in the Borofloat were measured and interpreted in context to the kinetic energy of impact and the elastic property mismatch between the seven sphere-Borofloat-target combinations. The primary observations from this low velocity (< 30 m/s or < 65 mph) testing were: (1) BS glass responded similarly to soda-lime silicate glass when spherically indented but quite differently under sphere impact conditions; (2) Frictional effects contributed to fracture initiation in BS glass when it spherically indented. This effect was also observed with soda-lime silicate glass; (3) The force necessary to initiate fracture in BS glass under spherical impact decreases with increasing elastic modulus of the sphere material. This trend is opposite to what was observed with soda-lime silicate glass. Friction cannot explain this trend and the authors do not have a legitimate explanation for it yet; (4) The force necessary to initiate contact-induced fracture is higher under dynamic conditions than under quasi-static conditions. That difference decreases with increasing elastic modulus mismatch between the sphere material and borosilicate This trend was opposite in soda-lime silicate glass; (5) Fracture in borosilicate glass occurs at lower velocities (i.e., easier) at 24{sup o} than at 0{sup o} (orthogonal) and 46{sup o} of impact for the same probability of failure. Though not analyzed yet, this suggests that a convolution of kinetic energy and friction is contributing to that trend; (6) There is a subtle indication there was intra-tile differences in spherical indentation RCIF. This likely is not a material property nor exclusive to borosilicate glass, rather, it is a statistical response of a combination of local, surface-located flaw and imposed tensile stress. Understanding of the surface flaw population and flaw positioning can likely enable prediction of spherical indentation RCIF; and (7) Contact-induced fracture did not initiate in the Borofloat BS for impact kinetic energies up to {approx} 20 mJ. For kinetic energies between {approx} 20-150 mJ, fracture sometimes initiated. Contact-induced fracture would always occur for impact energies > 150 mJ. The energy values, and their boundaries, were much lower for BS glass than they were for soda-lime silicate glass.