Characterization of surface damage via contact probes

Warren, P.D.; Kolosov, Oleg; Roberts, Steve; Briggs, G. Andrew D.

doi:10.1088/0957-4484/7/3/019

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They found that the tin-side shows a lower stiffness than the air-side and they hypothesized that this was because the tin-side showed an increased level of damage. This was supported by a further study [10] using Hertzian indentation that measured a significantly greater defect density on the tin-side when compared with the air-side.…”

Section: Properties Of Float Glass Surfacesmentioning

confidence: 64%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The mechanical properties of float glass surfaces measured by nanoindentation and acoustic microscopy

Goodman¹,

Derby²

2011

Acta Materialia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have combined nanoindentation with measurements of Rayleigh wave velocity to determine the elastic properties of the surfaces of a commercial soda-lime float glass and found significant differences between the mechanical behaviour of the side in contact with the air and that in contact with tin. By using two measurement methods we have obtained the two independent elastic constants of glass (assuming surface isotropy and homogeneity). The air-side has a Young's modulus E = 81.3 ± 0.5 GPa and Poisson's ratio m = 0.22 ± 0.01, which is significantly different from the tin-side values of E = 79.6 ± 1.0 GPa and m = 0.187 ± 0.015. The Young's modulus of both surfaces is significantly greater than the bulk value reported by the manufacturer of 73 GPa and Poisson's ratio smaller than the reported value of 0.23. The tin-side, having a lower Young's modulus than the air-side, is in the opposite sense to the reported increase in stiffness of bulk float glass with increasing levels of tin doping. We critically review the possible mechanisms for the difference in mechanical properties between the tin-and air-sides of a float glass sheet and produce quantified predictions of likely changes from each mechanism. From this we conclude that no individual mechanism can account for the magnitude of the difference we have measured.

show abstract

Section: Properties Of Float Glass Surfacesmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…Warren et al [10] measured defect densities on float glass surfaces using a Hertzian indentation technique. They reported a distribution of defect densities for different sizes of defect on the surface in the range of 10 6 -10 7 m À2 , as shown in Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The mechanical properties of float glass surfaces measured by nanoindentation and acoustic microscopy

Goodman¹,

Derby²

2011

Acta Materialia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, the tinside SAW velocity is slightly lower than that of the airside, by approximately 10 m s −1 . We believe that the difference in the velocities between the two surfaces is due to the difference in crack densities between the two sides [21], although it is possible that there is a denser surface layer present in the tinside; such a layer might also lead to a reduction in Rayleigh wave velocity. Quantitative analysis of the difference in SAW velocities between the two surfaces using the data from [21] is in progress.…”

Section: Line-focus Acoustic Microscopymentioning

confidence: 97%

Characterization of surface damage via surface acoustic waves

Warren¹,

Pecorari²,

Kolosov³

et al. 1996

Nanotechnology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The damage introduced by polishing and machining of brittle materials has been evaluated by two techniques: quantitative acoustic microscopy (QAM) and surface Brillouin scattering (SBS). Both methods rely on the generation and detection of surface acoustic waves (SAW), also known as Rayleigh waves. The difference between the two techniques lies in the frequency of the wave generated and hence in the depth of the near-surface region sampled. Results are presented for (i) GaAs samples, polished using a variety of chemical and chemo-mechanical treatments, (ii) float-glass specimens with different levels of tin-contamination in either side, and (iii) alumina samples that have been variously ground and polished. It is shown that both BS and QAM can be used to evaluate the state of damage in a surface and that the varying contributions to the differences in SAW velocity between damaged and undamaged surfaces (viz surface roughness, surface microcracking and residual stresses) can be quantitatively modelled.

show abstract

AFM and UFM surface characterization of rubber‐toughened poly(methyl methacrylate) samples

Porfyrakis

Kolosov

Assender

2001

J of Applied Polymer Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:The microstructure of a series of injection-molded and extruded rubbertoughened poly(methyl methacrylate) (RTPMMA) samples was investigated. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) and ultrasonic force microscopy (UFM) were used to study surface topography and local elastic properties. AFM topography measurements combined with UFM can reveal the distribution and orientation of the rubber particles in the PMMA matrix. UFM, in particular, reveals the core-shell structure of the particles as well as the presence of particles immediately under the surface, otherwise invisible. In some cases the particles appear to be covered by a thin PMMA layer, whereas in other cases they appear to have broken, thereby exposing parts of their internal structure. Generally, the particles are elongated in the skin region of the injectionmolded samples. On the other hand, the particles in the surface region of the extruded samples appear to be almost spherical. The observed difference is attributed to the fountain flow phenomenon, which takes place during injection molding.

show abstract

Characterization of surface damage via contact probes

Cited by 10 publications

References 49 publications

The mechanical properties of float glass surfaces measured by nanoindentation and acoustic microscopy

The mechanical properties of float glass surfaces measured by nanoindentation and acoustic microscopy

Characterization of surface damage via surface acoustic waves

AFM and UFM surface characterization of rubber‐toughened poly(methyl methacrylate) samples

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About