J. Am. Ceram. Soc.
, 93 [10] 3390–3398 (2010)
Journal
Characterization of Confined Intact and Damaged Borosilicate Glass
Sidney Chocronw, Charles E. Anderson Jr., Arthur E. Nicholls, and Kathryn A. Dannemann
Engineering Dynamics Department, Southwest Research Institute, P.O. Drawer 28510, San Antonio, Texas 78228-0510
This article describes two different techniques utilized to char-
acterize intact and damaged borosilicate glass at pressures up to
B2 GPa: triaxial compression and confined sleeve. The results
of the characterization experiments—for intact and damaged
glass as a function of confinement pressure—are described; the
results are interpreted in terms of two pressure-dependent con-
stitutive models: Drucker–Prager and Mohr–Coulomb (MC).
The MC model is successful at predicting the damage pattern.
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). Lastly, these data are compared
with flyer-plate impact data of intact and damaged glass.
I. Introduction
1
S HOCKEY et al. described the physics of penetration into
glass under consecutive tensile, shear, and compressive stress
states. Mathematical descriptions, that is, constitutive relations
of the strength of glass are required to describe the strength of
glass as a function of the stress state for intact and comminuted
materials. Curran et al.2 are developing mesomechanical consti-
tutive relationships for glass that describe microdamage evolu-
tion—the nucleation, growth, and coalescence of microcracks—
and the subsequent granular flow of comminuted material. An
alternative approach, and the one used here, is to conduct lab-
oratory characterization experiments and interpret the results of
these experiments using continuum descriptions. Because the
strength of glass is pressure dependent, the focus of the work
reported here is the characterization and description of the
strength of glass as a function of confining pressure and dam-
age using two different but complementary experimental tech-
niques: triaxial compression and confining sleeve.
Triaxial compression (or confined compression) is a fairly
well-established technique to characterize, for example, geologic
materials, see Desai and Siriwardane.3 This technique allows a
straightforward determination of Drucker–Prager (DP) or
Mohr–Coulomb (MC) plasticity models. This is the first time,
to the authors’ knowledge, that the methods have been used to
characterize borosilicate glass at high pressures.
The sleeve technique, i.e., confining the specimen with a thick
steel sleeve, has also been used in the past to determine pressure
dependence of the yield strength. For example, Chen and Ravic-
handran4,5 characterized ceramics at high strain rates and high
pressures by confining them in metallic sleeves. Also, Ma and
Ravi-Chandar,6 and Lu and Ravichandran,7 characterized alu-
minum and a metallic glass, respectively, at slow strain rates.
Chen and Luo8 characterized intact and damaged ceramics un-
der low confinement pressures at high strain rates. A confine-
ment sleeve was also used by Forquin et al.,9 in combination
with numerical simulations, to characterize concrete at high
pressures. Other work, all with ceramics are described in Chen
and Ravichandran,10 Chen and Luo,11 Luo et al.,12 and
G. Subhash—contributing editor
Manuscript No. 27277. Received January 5, 2010; approved April 17, 2010.
w
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: schocron@swri.edu
3390
DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-2916.2010.03863.x
r 2010 The American Ceramic Society
Dannemann et al.13 In general, the above references confine
the specimens at low to moderate pressures (100–300 MPa). In
the present work, the pressures achieved—on the order of
2 GPa—are significantly higher. We also performed a limited
number of tests at high strain rates.
Triaxial compression and confined sleeve techniques are com-
plementary because one explores lower pressures than the other.
The fact that they overlap at confining pressures of 300–400
MPa increases the confidence in the interpretation of the con-
fined sleeve technique. The high pressures achieved in the tests
also can be compared with results obtained using flyer-plate
impact tests, which interrogate material response at very high
strain rates. This will be done near the end of the article.
II. Experimental Technique
(1) Materials
The characterization tests discussed below were performed on
both intact and predamaged sspecimens of borosilicate glass.
The brand name is Borofloat 33, which is manufactured by
Schott Glass (Louisville, KY) using a float process. The X-ray
fluorescence analysis performed on the test samples (P. Patel and
M. Matoya, personal communication) indicates an approximate
composition (by weight) of: 80.5 SiO2, 12.7 B2O3, 2.5 Al2O3, 3.5
Na2O,s
and 0.64 K2O. The elastic mechanical properties of Boro-
float 33 were determined by ultrasound measurements (P. Patel
and M. Matoya, personal communication) and are shown in
Table I. In Table I, the symbols denote, respectively, density r,
elastic modulus E, elastic shear modulus G, Poisson’s ratio n, the
longitudinal sound speed cL, and the shear wave speed cs.
(2) ‘‘Hydraulic Bomb’’ Technique
The triaxial compression test is a ‘‘classic’’ test used to charac-
terize pressure-dependent materials such as sands or concrete;
for example, see Desai and Siriwardane.3 A specimen is placed
inside a thick-wall steel pressure vessel (the pressure ‘‘bomb’’).
The pressure bomb is placed in an MTS machine. A steel piston
runs from the loading platen of the MTS machine to the spec-
imen through an alumina-loading anvil. A hydraulic fluid, con-
trolled by a pump, is used to load the specimen at different
constant fluid pressures. An axial load is applied from the MTS
machine. For simplicity, this test will be referred as ‘‘the bomb
technique,’’ or ‘‘hydraulic bomb,’’ in the text.
Both intact and predamaged specimens were tested in com-
pression inside the pressure vessel. The intact glass specimen was a
cylinder with a radius of 3.175 mm and a length of 12 mm. The
predamaged specimen was obtained by exposing the intact spec-
imen to two cycles of 5001C in a furnace and suddenly placing the
specimen in ice water. The predamaged specimens have noncon-
tiguous cracks, but have strength (structural integrity) and can be
handled readily without disintegrating into pieces. Dimensions
(measured using a caliper) remain unchanged for the intact spec-
imen. More details about the physical characteristics of the pre-
damaged specimens are described in Dannemann et al.14
The bomb setup is illustrated in Fig. 1. The intact or
predamaged specimens are introduced in a pressure vessel
where they are loaded by a piston through two alumina anvils.
The specimen is placed inside a pliable plastic (shrink tubing)
October 2010 Characterization of Borosilicate Glass
s
Table I. Mechanical Properties for Borofloat 33
3
r (g/cm ) E (GPa) G (GPa) n (—) cL (km/s) cs (km/s)
2.22 62.3 26.0 0.20 5.61 3.41
sleeve to protect the specimen from the hydraulic fluid. The load
is measured by a load cell placed inside the pressure vessel and
wired directly to provide the equivalent stress acting on the
specimen. For this simple load configuration with cylindrical
symmetry, the equivalent stress is
seq ¼ jsz  sr j ¼ s
~z  s
~r (1)
where sz is the axial load applied through the piston and sr is
the fluid pressure (so0 in compression, s ~ > 0 in compression).
The maximum pressure reachable in the vessel is 400 MPa
due to limitations of the hydraulic pump. In theory, there is no
limitation on the use of the ‘‘bomb’’ technique; however, in
practice, leakage of hydraulic fluid around the feed-through
gaskets limits the maximum pressure (B500 MPa). Tests were
performed at fluid pressures of 25, 50, 100, 250, and 400 MPa.
During a preload phase, the specimen axial stress and the fluid
pressure are kept equal (hydrostatic stress in the specimen) to
avoid premature failure. When the desired confinement pressure
is attained, the test starts by increasing the axial load while
leaving the fluid pressure constant. The nominal strain rate in
this test is 0.001 s1. The axial strain of the specimen is measured
during the test using a calibrated clip gage.
(3) ‘‘Confined Sleeve’’ Technique
A second testing technique consists of placing the specimens in-
side a confinement sleeve. The experimental technique is de-
scribed in Dannemann et al.13, but is briefly presented here for
completeness. The specimen is inserted into a cylindrical Vasco-
max steel sleeve that is honed to fit the specimen. The sleeve
outer diameter is 12.70 mm. An axial compressive stress is ap-
plied to the specimen with an MTS servohydraulic machine by
means of two tungsten carbide (or SiC-N) platens.
The variables recorded during the test are the axial stress in
the specimen, measured by a load cell in the MTS machine; the
axial strain in the specimen, measured by a clip gage placed on
the top and bottom platens; and axial and hoop strains in the
sleeve, measured by vertical and annular strain gages, respec-
tively, on the sleeve. The hoop strain is used to infer the ‘‘inter-
nal pressure’’ of the sleeve, i.e., the radial stress that the
specimen exerts on the sleeve, which is also the confinement
pressure of the specimen. It is important to point out that the
confinement pressure increases during the test. Acoustic emis-
sion was independently recorded to assist in the determination
of ‘‘events’’ that occur within the specimen during the test. The
confined sleeve test is limited by the yield strength of the steel
sleeve as the analysis assumes that the sleeve remains elastic. An
extensive discussion of the interpretation and results of this
technique can be found in Chocron and colleagues14–16;
however, a modification to the former analysis procedure is
described in Section III(2).
Load Cell
Predamaged specimen
σ
Piston
Fluid at Pressure P
Plastic sleeve
Alumina anvils
Fig. 1. Schematic of the hydraulic bomb experiment.
3391
III. Results and Interpretation
(1) Interpretation of the Hydraulic Bomb Experiments
The bomb tests are involved, but their interpretation is, in prin-
ciple, unambiguous. The axial stress is derived directly from
the load measured with the load cell, and the hydrostatic pres-
sure on the specimen is inferred from P ¼ ð~ sz þ 2~sr Þ=3, so that
the P is a combination of the stresses generated by the axial
loads and the confining stresses.
The primary objective of this work is to evaluate how the
failure stress of intact and damaged glass varies with pressure.
As it will be discussed in Section IV, two well-known constitu-
tive models—the DP and the MC models—can be used to in-
terpret the data. For the DP model, the failure stress of the
different specimens is plotted in a seq vs P graph. For the MC
model, following Desai and Siriwardane’s3 recommendation,
the failure points are plotted on a (s1s3)/2 vs (s1+s3)/2
graph, where s1 and s3 are the maximum and minimum prin-
cipal stress, respectively.
A total of 22 tests were performed on borosilicate glass in the
pressure bomb. Six of the tests were performed on intact spec-
imens; the other 16 were performed on predamaged glass. The
results of four typical tests are shown in Fig. 2. Tests BF-63 and
BF-61 were performed on intact specimens at confinement pres-
sures of 250 and 400 MPa, respectively. The dashed double-
dotted lines are straight reference lines that help determine when
the measurements deviate from linearity. The exact cause of the
nonlinearity is unknown (densification?), but this nonlinearity is
not thought to be related to the propagation of cracks, as failure
for these specimens is ‘‘catastrophic.’’ Failure occurs suddenly
(denoted by the vertical arrows), and after failure, the load-
carrying capability is zero because the specimens ‘‘exploded’’ in
compression, i.e., the specimen is totally comminuted and the
plastic sleeve is ruptured.
Failure of predamaged specimens is very different, as shown
in Fig. 2, for tests BF-49 and BF-53. Upon reaching some max-
imum axial stress, the load declines, but the specimen still sup-
ports a significant amount of load for large strains. The initial
decline in the load-carrying capability (at 2%–4% axial strain)
results from the formation of a shear plane. The stress–strain
curve after this initial failure has a sawtooth shape, probably
because the failure surfaces of the shear plane slide over each
other, occasionally ‘‘catching’’ and then releasing, creating the
sawtooth pattern. The residual load is not a uniquely defined
quantity; instead, the residual load is represented by the ‘‘peaks
and valleys’’ of the sawtooth response.
(2) Interpretation of the Confined Sleeve Experiments
A total of 27 specimens were tested in the sleeve; nine were ini-
tially intact, and 18 were predamaged. A typical example of a
test with monotonic load of the specimen inside the steel sleeve is
shown in Fig. 3, which was a test conducted on a predamaged
4000
BF-61
400 MPa
3000
Axial Stress (MPa)
BF-63
250 MPa
2000 400 MPa
BF-53
1000 250 MPa BF-49
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
Axial Strain (%)
Fig. 2. Two intact specimens (BF-61 and BF-63) and two predamaged
specimens (BF-49 and BF-53) tested in the bomb at 250 and 400 MPa
nominal confinement pressures.
3392 Journal of the American Ceramic Society—Chocron et al. Vol. 93, No. 10

2000
Hoop Strain (%)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
3500

3000

1500
Axial Stress (MPa)

2500

Hydrostatic Pressure (MPa)

2000

1500

1000
1000
Axial Strain
500 Hoop Strain

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

500
Axial Strain (%)
Fig. 3. Stress versus axial and hoop strain for a predamage specimen in
a confined sleeve test under monotonic load (test BF-17).

specimen. In this case there is no absolute maximum, but jumps

0
or ‘‘failure avalanches’’2 occur (the maximum load attained in a

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
test is controlled by the operator, not specimen strength). The
jumps probably indicate the formation of a shear plane that is
suddenly propagated. The planes slide against each other, but Equivalent Stress (MPa)
after a few microns of motion, the propagation is stopped by the
sleeve. Slip planes are apparent in the posttest analysis of the
specimens as described in Dannemann et al.13 The hoop strain in

2000
the sleeve is very sensitive to specimen motion; therefore, when
failure occurs in the specimen and two planes slide, the relative
change in the hoop strain is large, as shown in Fig. 3.
Confined sleeve experiments were conducted on 18 predam-
aged specimens that were subjected to a maximum of 10 load

1500
cycles. An example with nine load cycles is shown in Fig. 4(a),

Hydrostatic Pressure (MPa)

which plots the data in terms of equivalent stress versus hydro-
static pressure. The equivalent stress is again seq ¼ s~z  s~ r , but
now the confinement pressure s ~ r varies during the test. If the
sleeve deforms elastically and uniformly, s ~ r can be calculated
from the elastic solution17

1000
Esl b2  a2
~r ¼
s ey (2)
2 a2

500
where Esl is the elastic modulus of the sleeve, a and b are the
internal and external radii, respectively, and ey is the hoop strain
of the sleeve. The elastic constants of the specimens can also be
determined but a more elaborate analysis is required; this was
done for the predamaged specimens in Chocron et al.15 showing
that if the material is well confined, a severely cracked specimen
0
2500

2000

1500

1000

500

has elastic constants that are the same, within measurement un-
certainties, as an intact specimen.
The interpretation of the jumps observed in Fig. 4(a) and how
these jumps are ‘‘translated’’ to a constitutive model is also shown
in Fig. 4. A jump is a sudden discontinuity in the pressure applied
to the specimen, probably due to the creation and slippage of an
internal shear plane. Jumps occur while the applied axial load is
increasing. It is thought that jumps provide fundamental infor-
mation regarding how the specimen fails at different confinement
pressures. Consequently, all the jumps recorded in each of the
tests—four jumps in the one shown in Fig. 4(a) for test BF-21—
are placed on an equivalent stress versus pressure graph. The
equivalent stress is computed from Eq. (1) once the radial stress is
calculated from the hoop strain gage. The stress–pressure jumps
recorded in all the experiments conducted on predamaged speci-
mens in the confined-sleeve tests are shown in Fig. 4(b).
IV. Constitutive Model Parameters
(1) Constitutive Models
It is known that some glasses or ceramics under confinement can
flow plastically. For example, Peter18 mentions that not all the
Equivalent Stress (MPa)
Fig. 4. Interpretation of the sleeve tests with predamaged specimens.
(a) Test BF-21, (b) Jumps recorded for all the tests performed.
flow phenomena in glasses can be explained as densification and
argues that some glasses show properties compatible with classic
plasticity. Other arguments for plastic flow can be found in
Ernsberger,19 and Lankford et al.20 Here, whenever DP or MC
models are discussed here, it is understood that they represent a
surface that, when used in numerical simulations, are used to
limit material strength. For intact material, this might be
thought of as a failure surface; for predamaged material, it
might be a flow surface. We use the term ‘‘failure’’ to signify a
change in the load-carrying capability of the material. We do
not provide a prescription for how the strength might change as
a function of damage, as done by others, e.g., Holmquist and
colleagues.21,22 Rather, the data will be analyzed to determine
the constants that describe the limits in the load-carrying capa-
bility of intact glass and damaged glass.
October 2010 Characterization of Borosilicate Glass
4000
Equivalent Stress (MPa)
3000 Y = 1588 + 1.20P
Y = 423 + 1.22P
2000
Y = 140 + 1.3P
1000
BF-57
0
0 500 1000 1500
Hydrostatic Pressure (MPa)
Fig. 5. Equivalent stress at failure for specimens tested in the hydraulic
bomb.
The DP model23 has the following form:


Y0 þ bP P < Ycap  Y0
=b
Y¼
Ycap P  Ycap  Y0 =b
where Y0 is the zero-pressure strength, b is the slope of Y vs P, P
is the hydrostatic pressure (negative of the mean stress), and
Ycap is the limiting flow stress.
Predamaged specimens tested in the bomb systematically
showed a shear plane at an angle between 551 and 701. The an-
gle seems to be independent of the applied confinement pressure.
The DP model is based on the first invariant of the stress tensor,
I1, and the second invariant of the stress deviator tensor, J2. The
flow surface in the p-plane is a circle, and thus, the DP model
can never have a characteristic failure angle. Incorporating the
third invariant J3 into the description of failure results in the
flow surface on the p-plane being a polygon, which then has a
characteristic failure angle. The MC model incorporates J3, and
has a characteristic failure angle independent of the confinement
pressure24; thus, it was felt that the MC model could be an ap-
propriate candidate for describing the response of glass.
The data from the hydraulic bomb and confined sleeve tests
were reanalyzed from the perspective of an MC model. The MC
model gives the maximum shear stress, t, that the glass can
support on any plane:
t ¼ c þ m~
sn
where c is the cohesion, mtan(f) is the friction coefficient (f is
~ n is the normal stress (positive in com-
the friction angle), and s
pression).
(2) Hydraulic Bomb Tests Results
(A) DP Analysis: Failure data obtained from tests like
the ones shown in Fig. 2 were plotted in an equivalent stress
versus hydrostatic pressure graph, as shown in Fig. 5. The open
triangles indicate intact unconfined tests, i.e., uniaxial stress
tests, for which the load path is a straight line with a slope of
3. For unconfined specimens, the scatter in equivalent stress is
very large, ranging roughly from 1.4 to 2.6 GPa. This scatter is
inherent to brittle materials like glass, but the scatter seems to
decrease when the specimen is confined. The results of a linear
regression for the intact confined specimens (solid triangles) are
shown in Fig. 5.
Predamaged specimens show a very different behavior, be-
cause after failing, the specimen is still able to carry load,z as
shown in Fig. 2. The peak load of the 16 tests performed is
designated with the solid inverted triangles in Fig. 5. Three un-
confined tests (open inverted triangles) performed on predam-
z
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.
3393
aged specimens are also included in the plot. A linear regression
fit performed using only the confined data is shown in Fig. 5.
The unconfined data were not included in the linear fit as a very
small confinement pressure, like the one used for test BF-57 (25
MPa), significantly increases the strength of the specimen from
approximately 150–600 MPa.
The residual strength constants for the hydraulic bomb tests
were obtained from the same tests that were used to estimate the
predamaged constants, but using the sawtooth portions of the
response. It was decided to select three ‘‘characteristic’’ points
along the curve: a local maximum, a local minimum, and an
average. These points are plotted as seq vs P in Fig. 5. The
scatter is very large due to the oscillatory nature of the test re-
2000 sults. The linear regression performed did not force the intercept
to the (0,0) point, although it would be reasonable to think that
at zero pressure, these specimens have a very small strength.
(B) MC Analysis: Predamaged specimens tested in the
bomb systematically showed a shear plane at an angle between
551 and 701; see Fig. 6. The angle appeared to be independent of
the confinement pressure applied to the specimen. A character-
istic angle can arise only if the flow surface on the p-plane is not
a circle but a polygon, i.e., the third invariant J3 enters in the
(3) flow surface equation. The MC model includes J3, and a char-
acteristic failure angle independent of the confinement pressure
arises naturally from the model.24
The same intact data shown in Fig. 5 are now analyzed and
plotted from an MC perspective in Fig. 7. The MC model gives
the maximum shear stress t a solid can support on any plane,
Eq. (4). A linear least-squares regressiony in the (s1s3)/2 vs
(s1+s3)/2 representation was performed to the intact test data
to obtain an intercept of a 5 651 MPa and the slope b 5 0.506.
The relation between these curve-fit constants and MC param-
eters, Eq. (4), is given by
ðfÞ ¼ arcsinðbÞ m ¼ tanðfÞ c ¼ a=cosðfÞ (5)
and so for the intact specimens, an MC model can be written as
t ¼ 0:755 þ 0:587~sn ðGPaÞ. Similarly, linear regressions were
conducted on the predamaged response and the sawtooth
portions of Fig. 3. The fits are shown in Fig. 7; using Eq. (5),
the MC constants for predamaged specimens is t ¼ 0:201þ
0:594~sn ðGPaÞ, and that for the residual damaged specimens
is t ¼ 0:063 þ 0:66~sn ðGPaÞ.
(3) Confined Sleeve Test Results
(4) Sleeve test results were presented in Chocron et al.16 However,
because more experimental data are now available, resulting
in a refinement of the previous analyses, the data will be briefly
revisited.
(A) DP Analysis: As described in Section IV(2), all the
jumps recorded in the confined sleeve tests were transferred to
an equivalent stress versus pressure plot. Results for intact and
predamaged specimens confined in the sleeve are shown in
Fig. 8. The unconfined specimens are also included in the graph.
The scatter in results for the intact and predamaged confined
sleeve tests is much larger than in the hydraulic bomb, and
so the linear fits through the data have smaller correlation
coefficients.
The intact data should be used with care because testing in-
tact specimens inside the sleeve was very challenging. Even
though the sleeve was honed to fit the specimens, any small
gap, misalignment, or eccentricity affects the results of the intact
specimens significantly. Three of the four confined sleeve exper-
iments with intact specimens fail at a seq considerably less than
the intact specimens in the hydraulic bomb. Nevertheless,
the slope of the seqP response is essentially the same. The
resultant regression analyses for the intact and predamaged
responses are shown in Fig. 8.
It can also be observed that, for the predamaged material, the
strength (equivalent stress) appears to have reached a plateau at
y
Regression fits are done in the form of y 5 a1bx.
3394 Journal of the American Ceramic Society—Chocron et al. Vol. 93, No. 10

250 MPa 395 MPa

Fig. 6. Two predamaged specimens that were tested in the bomb at 250 and 400 MPa confinement pressures. Shear angles of approximately 551–701
were very similar for the entire range of confinement pressures, from 25 to 400 MPa.

2500 1600
Confined Intact 1400
2000 Unconfined Intact
Predamaged Bomb 1200
(1–3)/2 (MPa)

(1–3) /2 (MPa)
Predamaged Unconfined
1500 Residual Bomb 1000
y = 651 + 0.506x
800
1000 y = 172.7 + 0.511x
600
y = 52.8 + 0.552x 400 y = 210 + 0.520x
500
200
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
(1+3)/2 (MPa)
(1+3) /2 (MPa)
Fig. 7. Mohr–Coulomb failure points for specimens tested in the
hydraulic bomb. s1 and s3 are the maximum and the minimum prin- Fig. 9. Mohr–Coulomb constitutive models inferred for intact and
cipal stresses, respectively. predamaged specimens, confined sleeve tests.

(4) Summary of Constitutive Model Results

a pressure of approximately 1.3 GPa, after which the strength is
independent of the pressure, i.e., there is a cap, Ycap, on the
strength of the damaged glass. There is scatter in the data, but
this cap has a value of about 2.170.2 GPa. This will be dis-
cussed in more detail in Section V.
(B) MC Analysis: Figure 9 shows the same data pre-
sented in the previous subsection, but analyzed from the
MC perspective. The regression fits are shown in Fig. 9. Again,
using Eq. (5), the intact strength is given by t ¼ 0:583þ
0:553~sn ðGPaÞ, and that of the predamaged specimens is given
by t ¼ 0:246 þ 0:609~ sn ðGPaÞ. The shear stress appears to
achieve a maximum value (a cap, tcap) in Fig. 9 of approxi-
mately 1.05 GPa at a maximum normal stress of approximately
1.3 GPa—or 1/2(s11s3) 5 1.65 GPa.
4000
Equivalent Stress (MPa)
The constitutive parameters for the DP model and the MC
model are summarized for intact, predamaged, and residual
strength borosilicate glass in Tables II and III, respectively. A
few observations can be made. First, the parameters were de-
termined by least-squares regression fits to the experimental
data. Although three significant figures are given for the various
parameters, the parameters should only be considered to be ac-
curate to—at best—two significant figures. Additionally, as is
evident from Figs. 5 and 7, the parameters for the residual
strength should be considered as average values that are repre-
sentative of highly damaged material.
It is remarkable that b for the DP model and m for the MC
model (i.e., the slopes) appear to be relatively independent of the
damage, whereas Y0 and c decrease with increasing damage. It
should be noted that a similar behavior has been observed in
intact and damaged marble.25
It is quite satisfying that the two experimental methods (the
bomb tests and the confined sleeve tests) yield comparable val-
ues for the constitutive parameters. This lends confidence in the

Y = 1280 + 1.10P results of the confined sleeve experimental procedures and in-
3000
terpretation; the advantage of the confined sleeve test is that
higher confinement pressures can be achieved.
2000
Table II. Drucker–Prager Parameters for Intact and
Predamaged Borosilicate Glass (Y 5 Y01bP)
1000
Y = 535 + 1.23P Bomb tests Sleeve tests

0 Specimen Y0 (GPa) b Y0 (GPa) b

0 500 1000 1500 2000
Hydrostatic Pressure (MPa) Intact 1.59 1.20 1.28 1.10
Predamaged 0.423 1.22 0.535 1.23
Fig. 8. Drucker–Prager constitutive models inferred for intact and Residual 0.140 1.3 — —
predamaged specimens, confined sleeve tests.
October 2010 Characterization of Borosilicate Glass
Table III. Mohr–Coulomb Parameters for Intact and
Predamaged Specimens ðs ¼ c þ l~
rn Þ
Bomb tests Sleeve tests
Specimen c (GPa) m c (GPa) m
Intact 0.755 0.587 0.583 0.553
Predamaged 0.201 0.594 0.246 0.609
Residual 0.063 0.66 — —
(5) High Strain Rate Effects
Data on strain-rate effects on damaged glass or damaged brittle
materials are scarce in the literature. It was demonstrated indi-
rectly that there was no strengthening of the damaged glass at
high strain rates.26 A limited number of tests were conducted on
predamaged borosilicate glass, confined in the steel sleeve, at
1 and 1000 s1. Because it was difficult to determine when failure
occurs, particularly for the split-Hopkinson bar experiments be-
cause of the oscillations inherent in a dynamic test, it was decided
to simulate the experiments using the constitutive model devel-
oped from static tests. The simulations were shown to reproduce
numerically the waves observed during the tests in the split-Hop-
kinson pressure bar. Further evidence for the lack of strain rate
strengthening for damaged glass will be discussed in Section V.
(6) Numerical Simulations of Impact and Penetration
The results of the characterization experiments were used to
simulate long gold rods impacting borosilicate glass cylinders
over a range of impact velocities (0.8–2.8 km/s),27 based on ex-
periments in Behner et al.28 It was assumed that the projectile
penetrated failed material; thus, details of the transition of intact
glass to failed glass were avoided. The rationale for this ap-
proach was that the failure front propagates much more rapidly
than the projectile penetrates28; thus, the projectile penetrates
failed material.
Previous work29 demonstrated that the cap controls the pen-
etration velocity at high impact velocities, therefore, parametric
simulations were conducted to investigate the dependence of the
penetration velocity on the cap (Ycap and tcap). The parametric
studies showed that the penetration velocity of an Au rod into
borosilicate glass is relatively insensitive to quite large variations
in the value of the cap. An B40% increase in the cap resulted in
only an B3% decrease in the penetration velocity. Nevertheless,
the value deduced for the cap from numerical simulations was in
agreement with the experimental characterization results for the
damaged glass (Figs. 8 and 9).
Parametric studies were required to deduce the zero-pressure
strength (Y0) and the cohesion (c) for the DP and MC models to
reproduce the penetration velocities of the gold rod at lower
impact velocities (npo1.5 km/s). The values deduced from the
simulations were significantly lower than those obtained from
the characterization experiments.27 It was concluded that the
material beneath the penetrator is more highly damaged (co-
mminuted) than the damaged glass characterized in the labora-
tory experiments. This highly comminuted region corresponds
to the Mescall zone, as described by Shockey et al.1 The DP and
MC constitutive constants for failed borosilicate glass that
matched the position-time data are as follows:
 Fig. 10 is seq 5 1.85 GPa, an average of the strength of the
0:038 þ 1:2P P  1:72 GPa
DruckerPrager: Y ¼
2:1 GPa P > 1:72 GPa
(6)
 B5.2 GPa (P 5 B4.0 GPa). It should be noted that this value
0:012 þ 0:6~ sn s ~ n 1:65 GPa
MohrCoulomb: t ¼
1:0 GPa ~ n >1:65 GPa
s of Bourne et al.34
(7)
It was also observed at the lowest impact velocities, the con-
stitutive model underestimates the penetration resistance of the
glass at early penetration times; however, the simulations repro-
3395
duce the later time penetration velocities.28 This suggests that
details of the transition of intact to damaged glass are important
at lower impact velocities, and that a more comprehensive glass
model (intact, damage initiation, damage propagation) is re-
quired in order to model projectile penetration over the full
range of impact velocities.
V. Characterization Data and Flyer-Plate Impact Data
(1) Introduction
The characterization experiments described in the previous sec-
tions were performed at quasi-static strain rates (except for the
limited strain-rate investigation discussed in Section IV(5)). It is
interesting to compare the results from these quasi-static exper-
iments with flyer-plate impact experiments, where strain rates
are on the order of 105 s1. Borosilicate and soda–lime glass
have been the object of extensive plate impact characterization
since the pioneering work by Cagnoux,30 Rasorenov et al.,31 and
Rosenberg et al.32 Of particular interest for our discussion are
the papers where the strength of both intact and damaged glass
under confinement is presented. Brar et al.,33 as early as in 1991,
estimated  2 GPa as the strength of damaged soda–lime glass
at pressures of 4–6 GPa. Bourne et al.34,35 showed tests with
strength values of  1.8 GPa for damaged borosilicate and
soda–lime for pressures from 4 to 8 GPa. Recently, Alexander
et al.,36 presented hugoniot elastic limit (HEL) and equation of
state data for borosilicate and soda–lime glass. The flyer-plate
impact data considerably extends the confining pressures that
can be achieved using the hydraulic bomb and confining sleeve
techniques. Therefore, we will summarize the results of Bourne
and colleagues and Alexander and colleagues and then provide
comparisons between these data and our data.
(2) Plate-Impact Experiments
The flyer-plate data from Bourne et al.34,35 and the HEL from
Alexander et al.36 are shown in Fig. 10. In this figure, the black
squares denote soda–lime glass, the white triangles denote boro-
silicate
s
(Pyrex) glass, and the circle shows borosilicate (Boro-
float 33) glass. Some explanation of the Bourne and colleagues,
data is required.z Bourne and colleagues used lateral and lon-
gitudinal gauges to measure the stresses in the glass specimens.
As they increased the impact velocity, the lateral stress showed a
second increase, which is interpreted as the arrival of a failure
front,34,35 which lowers the strength. The arrival of the second
increase in the lateral stress corresponds to the arrival of a lon-
gitudinal recompression wave observed in a VISAR signal in the
experiments by Rasorenov et al.31
The equivalent stress, for uniaxial strain conditions, is
seq 5 sxsy, where sx is the longitudinal stress and sy is
the lateral stress. The pressure (P), for these uniaxial strain
experiments, is given byJ (sx12sy)/3, and the lateral stress is
related to the longitudinal stress through Poisson’s ratio, n, by
sy 5 nsx/(1n). Thus, seq 5 (12n)sx/(1n).
Bourne et al.35 use the lowest value of sx (the longitudinal
stress) where there is a jump in the lateral stress gage (the arrival
of the failure wave) to obtain an estimate of the HEL.ww The
long dashed horizontal line through the damaged material in
damaged glass. Letting the symbol sfail represent the dashed line
(i.e., 1.85 GPa), then the longitudinal stress at failure is given by
sx 5 P12sfail/3. Therefore, the estimate for the HEL of soda–
lime glass is B4.5 GPa (P 5 B3.25 GPa) and that for Pyrex is
for the HEL for Pyrex is less than the 8 GPa reported in Table I
z
Bourne et al.,34,35 show uncertainty (‘‘error’’) bars of approximately 0.5 GPa centered
on their data values, for clarity, we have omitted these error bars.
J
For convenience, for this discussion of flyer-plate impact, we assume that the stress is
positive in compression.
ww
Presumably, the glass remains elastic below the HEL, but fails upon reaching the
HEL.
3396
7.0
Bomb Intact
6.0 Bomb Predamaged
Sleeve Predamaged
Equivalent Stress (GPa)
Unconfined Intact
5.0
4.0 Bomb
Intact
Bourne Intact
3.0
2.0
1.0 Sleeve Predamaged
Bomb Predamaged
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Hydrostatic Pressure (GPa)
Fig. 10. Comparison of characterization data with flyer-plate impact
data.
The slope of the elastic response in a seq–P graph is
seq 5 3(12n)P/(11n). Bourne and colleagues report that
n for soda–lime glass is 0.23, giving a slope of 1.32, which is
plotted as the medium-length dashed line in Fig. 10. Bourne and
colleagues soda–lime glass data fall on this line up to seq of ap-
proximately 3 GPa, at which point the data begin to deviate
from the line. The first Pyrex datum also lies on the medium-
length dashed line, and not on the solid line (described in the
next paragraph), even though Bourne and colleagues, report
that n 5 0.20 for Pyrex.35 We will return to this observation
later.
Alexander et al.,36 determined that the HEL for Borofloat
33—defined as the point where the stress-particle velocity load-
ing path is no longer linear, i.e., the elastic limit—to be 8.7 GPa.
This gives a value of 6.5 GPa for the equivalent stress (with
n 5 0.20, from Table I). The corresponding pressure of 4.35 GPa
is calculated from P 5 (11n)sHEL/[3(1n)]. This point is plotted
as the open circle in Fig. 10, with the callout ‘‘Alexander.’’ The
elastic slope is 1.5, denoted by the solid line
s
in Fig. 10. The solid
line goes through the HEL for Borofloat 33; i.e., the load path
is elastic until the HEL. However, an elastic analysis has been
assumed, i.e., the bulk modulus and shear modulus—and equiv-
alently, Poisson’s ratio—are assumed to be constant. That is, the
fact that the solid line goes through the data point is a state-
ment of self-consistency of the assumption of a perfectly elastic
response.
A couple of interpretations will be explored in the paragraphs
below. As already indicated, Bourne and colleagues data lie on
the dashed line (n 5 0.23) until approximately seq 5 3.0 GPa
(P 5 B2.5 GPa), and above this stress, the data lie below the
dashed line. This suggests that soda–lime glass is no longer
responding elastically. Additionally, the Pyrex data deviate con-
siderably from the n 5 0.23 line (and lie below the n 5 0.20 line),
also suggesting that the Pyrex is not responding elastically. This
could, perhaps, mean that the glass Bourne and colleagues were
testing had some predamage, caused by the placement of the
lateral stress gages. This could also explain why a value of the
Pyrex HEL, which Bourne and colleagues inferred from their
data, is substantially lower than that determined by Alexander
et al.36
However, there is another possible explanation/interpretation
of the intact flyer-plate data. The data in Fig. 10 Alexander and
colleagues data point has been adjusted to reflect a softening of
the bulk and shear moduli, as determined by Holmquist (T. J.
Holmquist, private communication). This softening is based on
the volumetric strain data from Alexander (C. S. Alexander,
private communication), and a hydrostat for borosilicate glass
by Holmquist (T. J. Holmquist, private communication) using
data from Cagnoux.30 This point is denoted as ‘‘Alexander ad-
justed.’’ The hydrostat indicates that there is a softening of the
bulk modulus and the shear modulus. This ‘‘adjusted’’ data
point is more in line with a nonlinear envelope that passes
Journal of the American Ceramic Society—Chocron et al. Vol. 93, No. 10
through the Bourne data. But, as will be discussed in the next
section, this does not satisfactorily explain the inconsistencies
Alexander between the Bourne data and the characterization data that
Alexander have been reported here.
Adjusted
(3) Comparison of Characterization Experiments with
Flyer-Plate Impact Experiments
(A) Confined Compression Tests on Intact Borosilicate
Glass: The confined compression tests from the hydraulic
bomb (open diamonds) as well as the unconfined compression
tests (open hexagons) are also plotted in Fig. 10. An important
Bourne Damaged
distinction between these data and the flyer-plate data is that the
characterization tests are used to define a failure surface,
4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
whereas some of the responses of the flyer-plate experiments
(particularly at the lower pressures) appear to be elastic. None of
the intact confined sleeve tests are plotted in Fig. 10 because a
small gap between the intact specimen and the sleeve can make a
large difference in the confinement pressure and hence strength,
and the glass can fail before it contacts the confining sleeve.
A dash-dot line, with a slope of 3, designates the elastic re-
sponse of an unconfined uniaxial stress specimen, because for
uniaxial stress, P 5 sx/3. The three hexagon data points fall on
this curve. These points are plotted where the specimens failed.
As mentioned previously, unconfined tests on brittle materials
have large scatter in their compressive strengths.
The hydraulic bomb tests (open diamonds) provide very re-
liable failure data as a function of hydrostatic pressure. The long
dashed line through the data is given by the fit in Fig. 5; also see
Table II. Note that as the failure envelope is extrapolated to
s
high pressures, it runs almost through the ‘‘elastic’’ datum from
Alexander et al.,36 but not the adjusted datum point. With re-
spect to the hydraulic bomb data, there is no requirement for the
extrapolation of the failure surface to be linear with pressure.
This failure surface could easily have some curvature and go
through Alexander’s adjusted point; however, much of Bourne
and colleagues data lie below the strengths determined form the
hydraulic bomb tests, and thus lie below a smooth envelope that
would pass through the hydraulic bomb data and the adjusted
Alexander data point.
(B) Predamaged Compression Tests on Borosilicate
Glass: The ambiguities that exist in the interpretation of the
intact flyer-plate data do not seem to be evident in a comparison
of the predamaged compression data and damaged flyer-plate
data. The characterization data from the hydraulic bomb (open
squares) and the confined sleeve experiments (open very small
squares) are plotted with the other data in Fig. 10. The hydraulic
bomb and confined sleeve data are triaxial tests; thus, the data
fall between the uniaxial stress loading path (the dash-dot line)
and the uniaxial strain line (the solid line).
The hydraulic bomb data and the confined sleeve data are
seen to overlap in pressure, and where they overlap, the equiv-
alent stresses as a function of pressure are in agreement. As al-
ready stated, much higher confining pressures, and hence
hydrostatic pressures, can be achieved using the confined sleeve
experimental technique. As observed in Fig. 8, the confining
pressures achieved were sufficiently high to observe a maximum
stress that can be carried by the damaged material. This is de-
noted by the short horizontal dashed line in Fig. 10. This cap is
in very good agreement with the cap observed in the Bourne and
colleagues data. The two lines differ by only B12% (1.85 vs
2.1 GPa). The difference between these two values lies within the
scatter of the experimental data.
There are several significant conclusions resulting from a
comparison of the data in Fig. 10: (1) there exists a maximum
load-carrying capability, i.e., a cap, for the damaged glass; (2)
the failure surface for the damaged glass is independent of strain
rate; and (3) there is not any significant decrease in the value of
the cap as a function of damage. This last conclusion results
from the observation that a cap generated from the quasi-
static laboratory experiments does not decrease as a result of
further load–reload cycling (and hence, comminution) of the
October 2010 Characterization of Borosilicate Glass
glass during testing, and from the flyer-plate experiments, which
presumably result in a very high degree of damage.
(C) MC Representation: The data in Fig. 10 are plotted
in as seq vs P, which is convenient for representing the exper-
imental results in terms of a DP model. These data can
be readily converted to a MC representation by the following
expressions:
ðs1 þ s3 Þ seq
¼Pþ (8)
2 6
ðs1  s3 Þ seq
¼ (9)
2 2
The graph is not shown as it looks similar to Fig. 10.
VI. Summary
Laboratory characterization experiments were conducted to
gather experimental data that could be used for developing a
numerical constitutive model for borosilicate glass that was ap-
plicable to ballistic experiments. The strength of glass is pressure
dependent; therefore, the characterization experiments were de-
vised to explore the strength of the glass as a function of con-
fining pressure. Interest was in both intact and damaged glass
because simulations require a description of both intact and
failed material. Three types of characterization experiments
were conducted:
(1) Unconfined compression on intact specimens (uniaxial
stress experiments).
(2) Hydraulic compression using the hydraulic bomb appa-
ratus (triaxial compression, giving equivalent stress versus con-
finement or hydrostatic pressure) on intact and predamaged
specimens.
(3) Confined sleeve compression experiments (triaxial com-
pression, where the confining pressure increases with axial load)
on intact and predamaged specimens.
The focus of the characterization experiments was largely on
the latter two test procedures, with the objective of developing
failure maps, as a function of pressure, for intact and predam-
aged material. The confined sleeve test, in principle, can explore
higher pressures than possible with the hydraulic bomb test.
However, for intact material, small gaps and/or misalignment of
the specimen with the sleeve typically resulted in glass failure
before full potential confinement could be exerted by the steel
sleeve. However, the confined sleeve test worked very well for
predamaged specimens, and higher confinement pressures were
achieved. The results for the hydraulic bomb and the confined
sleeve overlapped at pressures of about 350 MPa, providing
increased confidence in the results.
The experimental data were interpreted in terms of two pres-
sure-dependent constitutive models, the DP model and the MC
model. Constitutive parameters were determined from the char-
acterization experiments. The slope (b) for the DP model and
the friction angle (f) for the MC model, determined from the
characterization experiments, were found to be nominally inde-
pendent of the degree of damage to the glass (intact, predam-
aged, residual damage). However, the zero-pressure strength
(Y0) and the cohesion (c) for the DP and MC models, respec-
tively, depended upon the degree of damage, with these param-
eters decreasing as damage increased. Additionally, the
confining pressures in the confined sleeve experiments were suffi-
ciently high to achieve a saturation of the load-carrying ability
of the damaged glass, i.e., a cap.
The data from the characterization experiments were
compared with flyer-plate impact experiments conducted on
borosilicate and soda–lime glass. There appear to be some in-
consistencies between the results of the characterization exper-
iments and the flyer-plate impact experiments for intact
material. However, the equivalent stress derived for failed glass
from the flyer-plate impact experiments is in very good agree-
3397
ment with the cap determined for damaged glass from the char-
acterization experiments. This agreement over many orders of
magnitude in strain rate shows that a cap exists for damaged
(failed) glass, and that this cap is strain rate independent.
At this point, the DP and MC constitutive models do equally
well in predicting the penetration response of a gold rod into
damaged borosilicate glass. Two of the three constitutive con-
stants (the slope and the cap) required for each model were de-
rived from laboratory characterization experiments, but a third
parameter—one that appears to be associated with the degree of
damage—had to be inferred from matching simulations to bal-
listic experiments.24 These observations could potentially sim-
plify a more comprehensive glass model: damage seems to affect
only the zero-pressure intercept (DP model) or cohesion (MC
model) of the glass. A potential advantage of the MC model,
which may be more relevant for the intact material, is that the
MC model provides a characteristic failure angle due to the third
invarient, whereas for the DP model, damage is isotropic.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dr. Doug Templeton from TARDEC for
funding this work, and the administrative support provided by Mr. Rick Rickert
of TARDEC. Thanks are also due to the ARL for providing ultrasonic modulus
measurements of intact samples. Additionally, the authors thank Mr. Tim Holm-
quist (Southwest Research Institute) and Mr. Dennis Orphal (International
Research Associates) for their review of early versions of this article. In particu-
lar, we thank Dennis for his very careful reading and his many helpful comments
and suggestions.
References
1
D. A. Shockey, D. Bergmannshoff, D. R. Curran, and J. W. Simons, ‘‘Physics
of Glass Failure During Rod Penetration’’; pp. 23–32 in Advances in Ceramic
Armor IV: Ceramic Engineering and Science Proceedings, Vol. 29(6), Edited by
L. P. Franks. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, 2008.
2
D. R. Curran, D. A. Shockey, and J. W. Simons, ‘‘Mesomechanical Consti-
tutive Relations for Glass and Ceramic Armor’’; pp. 3–14 in Advances in Ceramic
Armor IV: Ceramic Engineering and Science Proceedings, Vol. 29(6), Edited by
L. P. Franks. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, 2008.
3
C. S. Desai and H. J. Siriwardane, Constitutive Laws for Engineering Materials
with Emphasis on Geologic Materials. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984.
4
W. Chen and G. Ravichandran, ‘‘Static and Dynamic Compressive Behavior of
Aluminum Nitride Under Moderate Confinement,’’ J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 79, 579–
84 (1996).
5
W. Chen and G. Ravichandran, ‘‘Dynamic Compressive Failure of a Glass
Ceramic Under Lateral Confinement,’’ J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 45, 1303–28 (1997).
6
Z. Ma and K. Ravi-Chandar, ‘‘Confined Compression: A Stable Homogeneous
Deformation for Constitutive Characterization,’’ Exp. Mech., 40 [38] 38–45 (2000).
7
J. Lu and G. Ravichandran, ‘‘Pressure-Dependent Behavior of Zr41.2Ti13.8
Cu12.5Ni10Be22.5 Bulk Metallic Glasses,’’ J. Mater. Res., 18, 2039–49 (2003).
8
W. Chen and H. Luo, ‘‘Dynamic Compressive Responses of Intact and Dam-
aged Ceramics from a Single Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar Experiment,’’ Exp.
Mech., 44 [3] 295–9 (2004).
9
P. Forquin, A. Árias, and R. Zaera, ‘‘An Experimental Method of Measuring
the Confined Compression Strength of High-Performance Concretes to Analyse
Their Ballistic Behaviour,’’ J. Phys. IV, 134, 629–34 (2006).
10
W. Chen and G. Ravichandran, ‘‘Failure Mode Transition in Ceramics Under
Dynamic Loading,’’ Int. J. Fract., 101, 141–59 (2000).
11
W. Chen and H. Luo, ‘‘Dynamic Compressive Responses of Intact and Dam-
aged Ceramics from a Single Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar Experiment,’’ Exp.
Mech., 44, 295–9 (2004).
12
H. Luo, W. Chen, and A. M. Rajendran, ‘‘Dynamic Compressive Response of
Damaged and Interlocked SiC–N Ceramics,’’ J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 89, 266–73 (2005).
13
K. A. Dannemann, S. Chocron, A. E. Nicholls, J. D. Walker, and C. E.
Anderson Jr., ‘‘Compression Testing and Response of SiC–N Ceramics: Intact,
Damaged and Powder’’; pp. 109–16 in Ceramic Engineering and Science Proc.,
Advances in Ceramic Armor, 29th International Conference on Advanced Ceramics
and Composites, Vol. 26, Edited by J. J. Swab. American Ceramic Society,
Westerville, OH, 2005.
14
K. A. Dannemann, S. Chocron, A. E. Nicholls, and C. E. Anderson Jr.,
‘‘Compressive Damage Development in Confined Borosilicate Glass,’’ Mater. Sci.
Eng. A, 478, 340–50 (2008).
15
S. Chocron, J. D. Walker, A. E. Nicholls, K. A. Dannemann, and C. E.
Anderson Jr., ‘‘Analytical Model of the Confined Compression Test Used to
Characterize Brittle Materials,’’ J. Appl. Mech., 75, 021006, 7pp (2008).
16
S. Chocron, K. A. Dannemann, J. D. Walker, A. E. Nicholls, and C. E.
Anderson Jr., ‘‘Constitutive Model for Damaged Borosilicate Glass Under Con-
finement,’’ J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 90 [8] 2549–55 (2007).
17
S. Timoshenko and J. N. Goodier, Theory of Elasticity, 1st edition, McGraw-
Hill, New York, 1951.
18
K. W. Peter, ‘‘Densification and Flow Phenomena of Glass in Indentation
Experiments,’’ J. Non-Cryst. Solids, 5, 103–15 (1970).
3398 Journal of the American Ceramic Society—Chocron et al.
19
F. M. Ernsberger, ‘‘Mechanical Properties of Glasses,’’ J. Non-Cryst. Solids,
25, 293–321 (1977).
20
J. Lankford, C. E. Anderson Jr., A. J. Nagy, J. D. Walker, A. E. Nicholls, and
R. A. Page, ‘‘Inelastic Response of Confined Aluminum Oxide Under Dynamic
Loading Conditions,’’ J. Mater. Sci., 33 [6] 1619–25 (1998).
21
T. J. Holmquist, G. R. Johnson, D. E. Grady, C. M. Lopatin, and E. S. Jr.
Hertel, ‘‘High Strain Rate Properties and Constitutive Modeling of Glass’’; pp.
237–244, in Proceedings of 15th International Symposium, Ballistics, Jerusalem, Is-
rael, 1995.
22
T. J. Holmquist and G. R. Johnson, ‘‘The Failed Strength of Ceramics Sub-
jected to High-Velocity Impact,’’ J. Appl. Phys., 104, 013533, 11pp (2008).
23
D. C. Drucker and W. Prager, ‘‘Soil Mechanics and Plastic Analysis of Limit
Design,’’ Q. Appl. Math., 10 [2] 157–75 (1952).
24
R. M. Nedderman, Statics and Kinematics of Granular Materials. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1992.
25
J. C. Jaeger and N. G. W. Cook, Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics. Chapman
and Hall Ltd. and Science Paperbacks, London, 1969.
26
S. Chocron, K. A. Dannemann, J. D. Walker, A. E. Nicholls, and C. E.
Anderson Jr., ‘‘Static and Dynamic Confined Compression of Borosilicate Glass’’;
pp. 67–72, in DYMAT 2009, 9th International Conference Mechanical and Physical
Behaviour of Materials under Dynamic Loading, EDP Sciences, PA de Court-
aboeuf, France, 2009.
27
S. Chocron and C. E. Anderson Jr., ‘‘Numerical Simulations of the Penetra-
tion of Glass Using Two Pressure-Dependent Constitutive Models’’; pp. 167–87 in
Vol. 93, No. 10
Predictive Modeling of Dynamic Processes: A Tribute to Klaus Thoma, Edited by S.
Hiermaier. Springer Science1Business Media LLC, NY, 2009.
28
Th. Behner, C. E. Anderson Jr., D. L. Orphal, V. Hohler, M. Moll, and D. W.
Templeton, ‘‘Penetration and Failure of Lead and Borosilicate Glass Against Rod
Impact,’’ Int. J. Impact Eng., 35 [6] 447–56 (2008).
29
C. E. Anderson Jr., S. Chocron, and T. Behner, ‘‘A Constitutive Model
for In-Situ Comminuted Silicon Carbide,’’ J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 93 [6] 1280–6
(2009).
30
J. Cagnoux, ‘‘Shock-Wave Compression of a Borosilicate Glass up to 170
kbar’’; pp. 392–6 in Shock Waves in Condensed Matter—1981, AIP Conf. Proc. 78,
Edited by W. J. Nellis, L. Seaman, and R. A. Graham. AIP, NY, 1982.
31
S. V. Rasorenov, G. I. Kanel, and V. E. Fortov, ‘‘The Fracture of Glass Under
High Pressure Impulsive Loading,’’ High Press. Res., 6, 225–32 (1991).
32
Z. Rosenberg, D. Yaziv, and S. Bless, ‘‘Spall Strength of the Shock-Loaded
Glass,’’ J. Appl. Phys., 59 [8] 3249–51 (1985).
33
N. S. Brar, S. J. Bless, and Z. Rosenberg, ‘‘Impact-Induced Failure Waves in
Glass Bars and Plates,’’ J. Appl. Phys., 59 [26] 3396–8 (1991).
34
N. Bourne, J. Millett, Z. Rosenberg, and N. Murray, ‘‘On the Shock Induced
Failure of Brittle Solids,’’ J. Mech. Phys. Solid, 46 [10] 1887–908 (1998).
35
N. K. Bourne, J. C. F. Millet, and J. E. Field, ‘‘On the Strength of Shocked
Glasses,’’ Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 455, 1275–82 (1999).
36
C. S. Alexander, L. C. Chhabildas, W. D. Reinhart, and D. W. Templeton,
‘‘Changes to the Shock Response of Fused Quartz Due to Glass Modification,’’
Int. J. Impact Eng., 35 [12] 1376–85 (2008). &