Author:
Bourne N. K.,Mirihanage W. U.,Olbinado M. P.,Rack A.,Rau C.
Abstract
AbstractTo travel safely behind screens that can protect us from stones and hail, we must understand the response of glass to impact. However, without a means to observe the mechanisms that fail different silicate architectures, engineering has relied on external sensors, post-impact examination and best-guess to glaze our vehicles. We have used single and multi-bunch, X-ray imaging to differentiate distinct phases of failure in two silicates. We identified distinct micromechanisms, operating in tandem and leading to failure in borosilicate glass and Z-cut quartz. A surface zone in the amorphous glass densifies before bulk fracture occurs and then fails the block, whilst in quartz, fast cracks, driven down cleavage planes, fails the bulk. Varying the rate at which ejecta escapes by using different indenter tip geometries controls the failed target’s bulk strength. This opens the way to more physically based constitutive descriptions for the glasses allowing design of safer, composite panels by controlling the impulses felt by protective screens.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference54 articles.
1. Hertz, H. On the contact of elastic solids. J. Für Die Reine Und Angew. Math. 92, 156–171 (1881).
2. Griffith, A. A. The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London A. 221, 163–198 (1921).
3. Lawn, B. R. Fracture of brittle solids. Second edition, Cambridge University Press, (1993).
4. Freund, L. B. Dynamic fracture mechanics, Cambridge monographs on mechanics and applied mathematics. Cambridge University Press (1990).
5. Cox, B. N., Gao, H., Gross, D. & Rittel, D. Modern topics and challenges in dynamic fracture. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 53, 565–596 (2005).
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献