International Journal of Applied Glass Science, 1–9 (2014)

DOI:10.1111/ijag.12094

Equibiaxial Flexure Strength of Glass: Influence of Glass

Plate Size and Equibiaxial Ring Ratio
Jeffrey J. Swab,†,‡, Parimal J. Patel, Xuan Tran,1 Luke Gilde,2 Ernest Luoto,3
Mariel H. Gaviola,1 Ashley Gott,4 Blake Paulson,5 and Steven Kilczewski†,6
US Army Research Laboratory, Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, Aberdeen Proving
Ground, Maryland

Glass plays an important role in many engineering applications including transparent armor. Determining the actual
strength of a glass is problematic because typical glass strength numbers are presented in the literature as ranges. Minor
changes in surface finish, composition, test method employed, and processing all influence the mechanical strength of glass. A
standardized method needs to be utilized to ensure that strength data can be compared universally. The use of a standard
methodology is vital when comparing glass compositions or multiple sample lots of the same composition in order to attri-
bute any real strength variations to the glass itself. While the procedures established in ASTM C1499 provide a good frame-
work for glass strength measurement, flexibility in the experimental parameters of the standard allow for substantial strength
variations when testing glass materials. The ratio between the load and support ring diameters, as well as the specimen dimen-
sions, is shown to lead to variations in both the measured strength, as well as the number of valid/invalid tests based on
where fracture initiates. The goal of this study is to quantify these effects in order to establish optimized testing conditions
for determining the strength of float glass.

Background optical windows, filters and mirrors, and as a compo-

nent in bulletproof glass systems. This glass has a wide
Float glass is a commercial product used in a vari- range of uses because the float process produces large,
ety of structural applications including architectural and flat pieces of glass cheaply, and in large quantities.

†
Members, The American Ceramic Society.
‡
jeffrey.j.swab.civ@mail.mil
© 2014 The American Ceramic Society and Wiley Periodicals, Inc
1
Work performed as part of the Senior Capstone Project for the Science and Mathematics Academy at Aberdeen High School, Aberdeen, MD.
2
Work performed through support by an appointment to the Research Participation Program at the US Army Research Laboratory (USARL) administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science
and Education through an interagency agreement between USARL and the US Department of Energy.
3
Work performed while an undergraduate student at Cecil County Community College and with support by an appointment to the Research Participation Program at the US Army Research Labo-
ratory (USARL) administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an interagency agreement between USARL and the US Department of Energy.
4
Work performed while an undergraduate student at the University of Maryland and with support by an appointment to the Research Participation Program at the US Army Research Laboratory
(USARL) administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an interagency agreement between USARL and the US Department of Energy.
5
Work performed while an undergraduate student at Harford Community College and with support by an appointment to the Research Participation Program at the US Army Research Laboratory
(USARL) administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an interagency agreement between USARL and the US Department of Energy.
6
Work performed while on contract with Bowhead Science and Technology, LLC, Belcamp, MD.
2 International Journal of Applied Glass Science—Swab, et al. 2014

These pieces can quickly and easily be cut to the neces-
sary shape and size for the respective application. Float
glass can be strengthened through thermal tempering or
chemical processes1–3 which in turn expands the range
of applications.
As float glass is flat and can be easily cut, it would
appear that the equibiaxial flexure strength test method,
where a thin plate is placed between two concentric
rings of different diameters and subjected to an increas-
ing load until fracture occurs, would be a convenient
means of determining its strength or the effect of a
strengthening process. This does not appear to be the
case. An examination of the standards for glass available
through the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) reveals only one standard for strength testing,
and this standard uses flat beam specimens subjected to
four-point flexural loading.4 Additionally, most of the
literature shows that rods and fibers are the most com-
monly used test specimens for determining the strength
of glass or the effect of different treatments investigated
to increase glass strength.5–7
The equibiaxial flexure method is finding favor in
the advanced ceramics community over four-point flex-
ure because of the equibiaxial stress state that is created,
the large amount of material that is examined and
because the influence of the specimen edges, specifically
the quality of the edges, on the strength is minimized. A
standard test methodology (ASTM C1499) has been
developed and approved by ASTM specifically for
advanced ceramics based on studies that addressed issues
related to mid-point deflection of the specimen, edge
fractures, the ratio of the load ring-to-support ring diam-
eter, and the testing of either circular or square plates.8
The foundation for this standard was a paper by Salem
and Powers9 that delved into many of the issues and gen-
erated the equations for Weibull effective area that
enables the comparison of strength data generated using
specimens of different sizes. A review of the available
international standards found a German standard (DIN
52-292 part 1, “Testing of Glass and Glass Ceramics –
Determination of Bending Strength – Coaxial Double
Ring Bending Test on Flat Specimens with Small Test
Area”) was available in the early 1980’s for testing glass
plates under equibiaxial loading conditions. This has
since been replaced by European Standard EN 1288
which is virtually identical to DIN 52-292.10
While developed respectively to determine the
equibiaxial flexure strength of different classes of mate-
rials, a review of ASTM C1499 and EN 1288 reveals
many similarities. Both standards prescribe the use of
essentially the same formula for calculating the
strength of a circular plate, Table I, with the only dif-
ference that C1499 uses ring and specimen diameters
while EN 1288 uses radii. These equations can be
modified to determine the strength of a square or
rectangular specimen by calculating the diameter or
radius of a circle that expresses the characteristic size
of the plate and then inserting this value into the
strength equation.
Both standards also provide similar requirements
and information related to the loading machine, allow-
able specimen deflection, specimen alignment, type of

Table I. Comparison of ASTM C1499 and EN1288

Parameter ASTM C1499 (Advanced ceramics) EN 1288 (Glass)
h i h i
Ds2 Dl2 ð1lÞr22 r12 F
Strength rf ¼ 2ph
3F
2 ð 1  l Þ 2D 2 þ ð 1 þ l Þ ln Ds
Dl rT ¼ 3ð1þlÞ
2p ln r2
r1 þ ð1þlÞ2r 2 h2
3
calculation
Specimen type Circular or square plates
Specimen size Dimensions determined using equations to ensure Diameter or side length of 66 or 100 mm
response follows simple plate theory
Load/support 0.2–0.5 except for a material with E ≤ 100 GPa Fixed at 0.2 for both sizes
ring ratio and r ≥ 1 GPa then the ratio is 0.2
Plate overhang (D  Ds)/h ≥ 2, h = plate thickness Fixed
Plate edges Provides some edge preparation guidelines + schematic No details provided
of valid and invalid fracture patterns
F, fracture load; h, plate thickness; , Poisson’s ratio; Ds, diameter of the support ring; Dl, diameter of the load ring; D, diameter of the circular
specimen or the diameter of a circle that expresses the characteristic size of a square plate; r2, radius of support ring; r1, radius of load ring; r3,
radius of the circular specimen or the radius of a circle that expresses the characteristic size of a square plate.
www.ceramics.org/IJAGS Equibiaxial Flexure Strength of Glass
load, and support ring material, the use of thin layers
of material between the specimen and ring contact
areas to minimize stress concentrations and friction, as
well as a number of other related issues. Although there
are many similarities between the two standards, there
are a number of items which are addressed differently.
These similarities and differences are summarized below
and in Table I, and they may have an impact on deter-
mining the strength of float glass.
Specimen Size
ASTM C1499 does not specify the size of the test
specimen, instead the standard provides equations that
can be used to calculate the plate dimensions, based on
specimens thickness, to ensure that the plate response
to the applied load is described by simple plate theory.
EN 1288, on the other hand, specifies a plate diameter
or side length of 66 or 100 mm depending on the ring
ratio employed.
Load and Support Ring Sizes (i.e., load-to-support
ring ratio)
ASTM C1499 does not provide specifications but
an equation to determine the support ring diameter
based on the test specimen size. It also states that the
ratio of the load-to-support ring diameter must be
between 0.2 and 0.5, but in the case of a material with
an elastic modulus <100 GPa and fracture strength
above 1000 MPa, the ratio should be 0.2. EN 1288
specifies a load/support ring ratio of 0.2 with load and
support ring diameters respectively of 18 and 90 mm
for the larger test specimen and 12 and 60 mm for the
smaller test specimen.
Plate Overhang
The amount of material that extends beyond the
edge of the support ring is known to have an influ-
ence on the strength. Powers et al.11 showed that the
stress at the edge of a plate decreased with increasing
overhang and increasing support ring to plate thick-
ness ratio. As the amount of overhang is reduced, the
stress at the plate edges increases and, depending on
the quality of the edges, can lead to plates where frac-
ture commences at the edge. The data from a plate
that fractures in such a fashion is considered invalid.
Alternatively, too much overhang alters the stress dis-
3
tribution and can result in substantially different
strength values compared to tests performed with sig-
nificantly less overhang. The amount of overhang is
specified in EN 1288 since the test plate and support
ring diameters are fixed. In ASTM C1499, an over-
hang of (D  Ds)/h = 2, where h is the plate thick-
ness, is considered sufficient but it is noted that if the
plates have poor edge finishes or are cut from larger
plates, a value of 12 may be required. It also states
that a larger value may be necessary when testing opti-
cal materials.
Plate Edges
One of the advantages of the equibiaxial flexure
test is that the plate edges are not exposed to the maxi-
mum stress and therefore, the likelihood of fracture ini-
tiating at the edge is reduced. The stresses at the edge
are circumferential, hoop stresses that are only a small
fraction of the stresses in the center of the plate, but if
flaws are sufficiently large on the edge, they can initiate
fracture. ASTM C1499 devotes a section to edge prepa-
ration for advanced ceramics and provides a schematic
of valid and invalid (edge-initiated fracture) fracture
patterns. EN 1288 Part 110 does not discuss edge issues
other than to state in section 6.1.1 “The effect of the
specimen edge condition is for the most part sup-
pressed.”
A review of the literature located several studies
that determined the strength of float glass using ASTM
C149912–15 even though this standard was specifically
designed for structural ceramics and possibly optical
ceramics which are typically tougher than glass. In all
of these instances, the load-to-support ring ratios were
0.4–0.5. The only paper that referenced the German or
European standard was reference 16, but they did not
follow the specified plate size or ring ratio instead using
plates with 50 mm edge lengths and a ring ratio
of 0.5.
The information that follows summarizes an
effort to examine the influence of the glass test speci-
men size and the load-to-support ring ratio on the
measured strength of float glass. Results will be dis-
cussed in relation to minimizing the percentage of
invalid strength tests (edge-initiated fracture) and the
consistency of the average strength to identify an opti-
mum combination of glass test specimens size and
load-to-support ring ratio to determine the strength of
float glass.
4 International Journal of Applied Glass Science—Swab, et al.
Materials
Three commercial float glass materials were part of
this study: a soda-lime-silicate (SLS) from Guardian
(Guardian Industries, Auburn Hills, MI), a borosilicate
(BF) from Schott (BOROFLOAT 33â Schott North
America, Duryea, PA) and a low-iron soda-lime-silicate
from PPG (Starphireâ PPG Industries, Inc, Pittsburgh,
PA). The nominal thickness of both soda-lime glasses
was 5.6 mm while the BoroFloat had a thickness around
6.6 mm. Plates 100-mm, 125-mm or 150-mm square
were obtained from the heart of the respective sheet of
glass by scoring and bending (Swift Glass Co., Elmira,
NY). All scoring was done on the air side of the glass
sheet, and all specimen edges were then swiped by hand
using a 100-grit SiC grinding belt to reduce the edge
sharpness for increased safety during handling. No lubri-
cant was used during the cutting and swiping operation.
Each piece of glass was then individually wrapped in
craft paper to minimize any damage during shipping.
The surface condition of the glass was considered
“as-received,” and no coatings or special treatments were
performed on the glass plates prior to testing. No
attempt was made to reduce the number of processing
or handling flaws present on the glass surface.
Experimental Procedure
Ring-on-ring equibiaxial flexure testing was per-
formed on a Zwick/RoellTM Z030 (Zwick USA, Kennesaw,
GA) test frame following the general guidelines of
ASTM C1499.8 Two steel load/support ring ratios
were used: A 0.5 ratio which consisted of a 42.5-mm
diameter load ring, and a 85-mm diameter support
ring, and a 0.2 ratio with a 18-mm diameter load ring,
and a 90-mm diameter support ring. Prior to flexure
strength testing the air and tin sides of each glass plate
were identified using a tin detector (Model TS2300;
EDTM, Inc, Toledo, OH). Strength data sets were
generated for the air and tin side of each of the three
glasses using both ring ratios. In most cases, a mini-
mum of 25 plates were tested for each data set. Plate
thickness was determined by measuring the thickness
near the four corners of each plate with a micrometer,
and the average plate thickness was calculated for use
in the subsequent strength calculation. A thin
(0.05 mm) low-tack adhesive plastic, nominally the
same size as the glass plate, was then affixed to one side
2014
of each plate to prevent glass fragments from flying
around and to assist with fractography. The side with
the low-tack adhesive layer was then deemed the com-
pression surface. A compliant layer (standard manila file
folder) was placed between load ring and the adhesive
plastic to reduce point contact and frictional stresses.
Plates were subjected to a stressing rate of 30–35 MPa/
s (crosshead displacement rate of 7.6 mm/min for the
0.5 ring ratio and 9.6 mm/min for the 0.2 ratio) until
fracture occurred. After fracture, the fracture initiation
location was identified, and each datum classified as a
valid—fracture initiated inside or near the load ring
area, or as invalid—fracture initiated outside the sup-
port ring diameter typically at the edge of the plate. A
Poisson’s ratio of 0.2 was used for all three glasses to
calculate the strength according to the equation in
ASTM C1499 (Table II).
Results
The strength testing data, as well as the number of
valid test results, are summarized in Table II for all
three glasses examined. All strength data shown is only
for test plates that fractured in a valid fashion, and all
data was generated by multiple investigators over sev-
eral years. Even with multiple investigators and slight
variations in test temperature and humidity, all data
converged within an individual data set.
Some general observations
(1). BF glass is weaker than the SLS or low-iron SLS,
while the SLS and low-iron SLS have similar
strength values,
(2). A significant amount of scatter exists in the
strength values highlighted by standard deviations
that were, in many cases, 20–40% of the average
strength. There is no trend relating these high
standard deviations to glass type, air or tin side,
plate size or ring ratio,
(3). Strength determined with the 0.2 ring ratio was
always higher than the value obtained with the
0.5 ratio for all conditions,
(4). The number of valid strength tests tended to
increase with increasing plate size and/or a
decrease in the ring ratio. Examples of valid and
invalid fracture patterns in these glasses are shown
in Fig. 1.
www.ceramics.org/IJAGS Equibiaxial Flexure Strength of Glass 5

Table II. Summary of Equibiaxial Flexure Strength Data

SLS Low-Iron SLS BF

0.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.2

100 mm 9 100 mm plates
TIN
r (MPa) 106.2 153.2 132.7 160.1 93.6 133.8
StD 14.3 29.5 24.0 56.3 19.1 19.5
Valid 30 30 27 25 6 14
Edge-invalid 10 0 11 5 24 14
T (°C) — 23 23 25 23 26
%H — 50 42–52 43 26 43
AIR
r (MPa) 114.3 180.8 — 174.6 — 177.6
StD 44.7 21.6 — 45.5 — 19.1
Valid 4 15 0 10 0 8
Edge-invalid 26 10 15 20 15 20
T (°C) — 23 23 24 23 23–24
%H — 36 47 32 22 26–28
125 mm 9 125 mm plates
TIN
r (MPa) 154.4 185.9 111.8 145.8 113.2 151.6
StD 30.6 51.2 28.7 35.4 18.3 32.7
Valid 24 25 30 30 29 27
Edge-invalid 1 0 0 0 1 3
T (°C) 23 23 23 23 23 22–23
%H 45 46 47 32 45–52 55–31
AIR
r (MPa) 193.8 267.0 171.3 295.7 141.9 189.6
StD 23.0 57.9 31.2 44.1 29.0 46.4
Valid 15 20 18 20 23 24
Edge-invalid 10 5 12 9 7 5
T (°C) 23 23 23 23 23 22–23
%H 49 41 47 27 50–42 38–47
150 mm 9 150 mm plates
TIN
r (MPa) 150.1 199.4 142.7 147.3 124.6 166.7
StD 53.3 34.1 30.6 44.6 38.1 41.4
Valid 18 19 30 30 30 28
Edge-invalid 0 0 0 0 0 2
T (°C) 22 21 23 23 23–25 23
%H 41 62 21–27 31 48–28 23–29
AIR
r (MPa) 203.4 250.5 249.1 319.4 164.0 237.5
StD 42.2 42.9 58.4 56.0 36.5 58.2
Valid 17 20 28 21 29 30
Edge-invalid 1 0 1 8 2 0
T (°C) 22 21 23 23 23–25 23
%H 46 51 21 22 23–54 34–26
StD is the standard deviation associated with each strength value.
6 International Journal of Applied Glass Science—Swab, et al.
Fig. 1. Examples of valid (left) and invalid (right) fracture patterns observed. Arrow in the invalid image on the right shows that frac-
ture initiated at the edge of the plate.
Initial testing conducted on the air and tin sides of
100-mm plates of the SLS glass with a 0.5 ring ratio
showed virtually no strength difference between these
sides which was unexpected as previous studies have
shown that the air side of float glass is consistently
stronger.14–18 None of the 100-mm low-iron SLS or
BF plates, with the air side in tension, yielded valid test
data, so no comparison to the tin side strength could
be made for these two glasses using this plate size/ring
ratio combination. When the ring ratio was 0.2, valid
strength data were collected for the air side of the SLS
and BF glasses and the air/tin side strength difference
became apparent in BF glass, but this difference was
not as apparent in the low-iron SLS due the extremely
high standard deviations associated with the average
strength. In general, decreasing the ring ratio to 0.2 for
the 100-mm plates improved the percentage of valid
tests for both the air and tin sides, but the percentage
of valid test data on the air side was at best slightly bet-
ter than 50%. Strength data collected using the 0.2
ring ratio is expected to be higher than the strength
collected with the 0.5 ratio because the effective area
with the 0.2 ratio is smaller and with that comes a
reduced likelihood of largest flaw on the surface
exposed to the maximum stress. While the strength is a
function of the effective area (ring ratio), strength val-
ues from different ring ratios can be compared using
the Weibull effective area equations in Reference 9.
Increasing the plate edge length to 125 or
150 mm had a positive effect on the reproducibility of
the average strength and the percentage of plates that
exhibited a valid fracture pattern. The effect on
2014
strength was especially noted in the SLS where irrespec-
tive of which side was tested or which ring ratio was
used, the strength data generated using the 125-mm
plates was essentially the same as the data from the
150-mm plates. The data from the 100-mm plates was
consistently lower. This is also the case for the air side
of the low-iron SLS tested with the 0.2 ring ratio. A
definitive reason for this difference is unknown. How-
ever, the SLS 100-mm plates tested using the 0.5 ring
ratio were purchased at a different time that than all
the rest of the SLS glass plates that were tested. It is
possible that there are subtle compositional differences
between these different glass batches or that the scoring
and handling was done differently leading to larger
flaws on these initial plates. Even though the average
strength was reproducible with the larger plates, the
standard deviations remained quite high for all condi-
tions making a statistical comparison of the strength of
the different sides difficult.
The percentage of valid strength data for the tin
side increased dramatically for all three glasses when
the plate size was increased to plates with 125 or
150 mm edge lengths. The percentage of valid fractures
on the tin side jumped to at least 90% when the 125-
mm square plates were tested and to 100%, for all
150 mm plates, except the BF with the 0.2 ring ratio
but even then, 93% of the plates exhibited a valid frac-
ture pattern. This improvement in the percentage of
valid tests occurred for both ring ratios with both plate
sizes. The percentage of plates that exhibited a valid
fracture pattern also increased with increasing plate size
for the air side of all glasses; however, the increase was
www.ceramics.org/IJAGS Equibiaxial Flexure Strength of Glass
not as substantial as what was observed on the tin side,
but it was more substantial for the 150-mm square
plates than the 125-mm square plates.
Discussion
It is clear from the strength data that the plate
edge length coupled with the size of the equibiaxial
ring configuration has an effect on the measured equi-
biaxial flexure strength of glass and the occurrence of
edge-initiated fractures in the test plate. As the stress at
the edge is much lower than the maximum stress at the
surface, a plate that has an edge-initiated fracture is an
indication that the edge damage is larger and more det-
rimental that any of the inherent damage on the glass
surface. A recent publication15 showed a similar low
percentage of valid test data for the air side of large
soda-lime-silicate glass when a 0.5 ring ratio was used.
None of the other publications containing equibiaxial
flexure strength data report the number of specimens
that had edge-initiated fracture. Reducing the ring ratio
to 0.2 improved the percentage of valid test data, but
this improvement was not significant for the 125-mm
and 150-mm plates. The data from the 100-mm plates
raises concerns about the appropriateness of the plates
and ring sizes specified in EN 1288 for determining
flexure strength of glass. (It should be noted that the
thickness of the plate can also influence the test. These
float glasses had a nominal thickness of 6 mm. This is
in the middle of the thickness range recommended by
C1499, but it is about twice as thick as the minimum
thickness recommended by EN1288).
Modifying the cutting and swiping procedure to
minimize edge damage may mitigate some of these
issues for glass strength testing, but it might not be suf-
ficient for transparent armor applications. To examine
the influence of the edge damage, three additional sets
of strength tests were conducted with twenty-five 100-
mm square plates of SLS glass in each set. The differ-
ence between each set was the edge treatment. The first
two sets were swiped by hand with a 100-grit or 400-
grit SiC belt sander running parallel to the plate edges
with water as a lubricant. The third set had a c-bevel
r (MPa)
(rounded edge) placed on all four sides using a 400-grit
StD
tool bit. All specimens were tested with the tin side in
Valid
tension using the 0.5 ring ratio configuration. Reducing
Edge
the SiC grit size of the belt yields an average strength
value very similar to the average strength obtained
7
using the 125- and 150-mm plates and the 0.5 ring
ratio, see Table III, but this value is not statistically dif-
ferent than the average obtained with the 100-grit SiC.
Placing a c-bevel on the edges appears to lead to a
higher strength compared to the value obtained with
the 400-grit SiC belt, but again these values are not sta-
tistically different. However, the strength for the plates
with c-bevels is statistically different than the strength
obtain when the edges were treated with the 100-grit
SiC belt. The reasons for the difference are unknown,
but a plausible explanation could be how the plates
were held during the edge treatment process. Plates
with the c-bevel were held by a vacuum chuck while
the edge was prepared; however, the 100-grit edge
treatment was carried out by hand. It is possible, that
in the latter case, larger strength-limiting flaws were
introduced on the 100-mm square surfaces. Irrespective
of how the edge was treated there was essentially no
reduction in the percentage of invalid edge fractures.
In a majority of cases (8 of 12 combinations),
increasing the edge length and keeping the ring ratios
fixed yielded strength data that were essentially the
same for the 125- and 150-mm plates. It also increased
the likelihood that the plate would fracture in a valid
manner. These plates are much larger than the support
ring diameter, so there is a fair amount of material over-
hang. ASTM C1499 recommends an overhang of <12 to
avoid altering the stress distribution in the plate during
testing, but it also states that an overhang up to 24 is
allowed. The overhang of the 150-mm plates with the
0.2 ring ratio is exactly (D  Ds)/h = 12, and it is
almost 13 when the 0.5 ring ratio is used. In fact, these
results validate the note in ASTM C1499 that an over-
hang in excess of 12 may be needed for optical materials.
The high standard deviations associated with all of
the valid strength data collected in this effort was a
Table III. Strength Data for 100-mm Square Plates
with Tin Side in Tension Using the 0.5 Ring Ration
after Various Edge Treatments
100-SiC 400-SiC 400-grit
grit w/H2O grit w/H2O c-bevel
105.5 141.2 178.9
15.4 31.5 28.5
10 13 7
15 11 18
StD is the standard deviation associated with each strength value.
8 International Journal of Applied Glass Science—Swab, et al.
surprise. As flaw size and distribution control strength,
the high scatter indicates a wide distribution of flaw
sizes on the plate surface. Weibull statistics were not
applied to these data sets as the high standard devia-
tions would result in extremely low Weibull values ren-
dering the analysis meaningless. Recent work by
Wereszczak et al.19 used a nondestructive technique to
map and indentify the flaw sizes and distributions on
the surface of the same low-iron SLS and BF glasses
examined in this effort. Their results showed a signifi-
cant number of potential flaws on the glass surface.
The flaw density (number of large flaws per square
centimeter) was significantly higher for the BF (>7)
compared to low-iron SLS (<3) and that the flaws on
the BF surfaces tended to be larger. This difference in
flaw size and density accounts for the lower strength of
the BF and the large amount of scatter in the strength
data.
Finally, the air side consistently had a higher per-
centage of invalid edge fractures than the associated tin
side. This can be attributed to the fact that all plates
were scored on the air side which introduced larger
flaws on these edges. This coupled with the higher flex-
ure strength and hence higher stress at the plate edge,
increased the likelihood that edge fractures would
occur.
The results of this effort indicate that the proce-
dures and specifications outlined in ASTM C1499 are
more appropriate for determining the flexure strength
of float glass than those in EN 1288. Based on these
results, it is proposed that for float glass plates approxi-
mately 6 mm thick, the edge length should be no
<150 mm, the ring ratio shall be 0.5 or less, and the
amount of overhang, as calculated in C1499, shall
be at least 12. However, these requirements may not be
appropriate should there be a significant increase in
plate thickness or glass strength due to a strengthening
treatment. It is also recommended that edge prepara-
tion procedures be identified as well as a minimum
plate size/ring ratio combinations to ensure that valid
strength data are generated, and the number of invalid
tests is minimized.
Summary
This study indicates that the equibiaxial flexure test
can be a valid means of determining the flexure
strength of large plates of float glass. Of the two equi-
2014
biaxial flexure standards that exist, ASTM C1499 seems
to be the more appropriate than EN 1288 as the proce-
dures and requirements in the former are flexible to
accommodate issues related to glass, specifically plate
size, load/support ring ratio, and the amount of mate-
rial overhang. It was determined that an increased plate
size improved the number of valid fractures but did
not improve the standard deviation associated with each
strength value. An investigation to improve the edges
during plate fabrication, using finer grit abrasives, was
unsuccessful in reducing the frequency of invalid frac-
tures. However, edge preparation procedures for glass
might need to be developed as edge quality has a sig-
nificant influence on the validity of the resulting
strength data.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge George
Quinn from the National Institute of Standards and
Technology for providing background information and
valuable discussions on equibiaxial flexure testing. Jared
Wright from Army Research Laboratory is also acknowl-
edged for training the students on the equibiaxial flexure
testing procedure and the load frame operation.
References
1. H. P. Kirchner, Strengthening of Ceramics. Treatment, Tests and Design
Applications, Marcel-Dekker, New York, NY, 1979.
2. M. E. Nordberg, E. L. Mochel, H. M. Garfinkel, and J. S. Olcott,
“Strengthening by Ion Exchange,” J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 47 [5] 215–219
(1964).
3. M. B. Abrams, D. J. Green, and S. J. Glass, “Fracture Behavior of Engi-
neered Stress Profile Soda Lime Silicate Glass,” J. Non. Cryst. Solids, 321
10–19 (2003).
4. ASTM C158-02, “Standard Test Methods for Strength of Glass by Flexure
(Determination of Modulus of Rupture),” ASTM Annual Book of Stan-
dards, Vol. 15.01, 2012.
5. P. F. James, M. Chem, and F. R. Jones, “Strengthening of Soda Lime Sil-
ica Glass by Sol Gel and Melt-Derived Coatings,” J. Non. Cryst. Solids,
155 99–109 (1993).
6. B. D. Fabes, W. F. Doyle, B. J. J. Zelinski, L. A. Silverman, and D. R.
Uhlmann, “Strengthening of Silica Glass by Gel-Derived Coatings,”
J. Non. Cryst. Solids, 82 349–355 (1985).
7. L. Y. L. Wu, G. H. Tan, M. Qian, and T. H. Li, “Formulation of Trans-
parent Hydrophobic Sol-Gel Hard Coatings,” SIMTech Tech. Rep., 6 [2]
1–4 (2005).
8. ASTM C1499-09, “Standard Test Method for Monotonic Equibiaxial
Flexural Strength of Advanced Ceramics at Ambient Temperature,” ASTM
Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 15.01, 2009.
9. J. A. Salem and L. M. Powers, “Guidelines for the Testing of Plates,”
Proceedings of the 27th International Cocoa Beach Conference on
Advanced Ceramics and Composites: B, Ceramic Engineering and Science
www.ceramics.org/IJAGS Equibiaxial Flexure Strength of Glass
Proceedings, Vol. 24, No. 4, eds., W. M. Kriven and H. T. Lin, 357–364,
2003.
10. EN 1288 “Glass in Building – Determination of the Bending Strength of
Glass, Part 1, Fundamentals of Testing Glass and Part 5, Coaxial Double
Ring Test on Flat Specimens with Small Test Surface Areas,” European
Committee for Standardization, 1991.
11. L. M. Powers, J. A. Salem, and A. S. Weaver, “Stresses in Ceramic Plates
Subjected to Loading between Concentric Rings,” Fracture Resistance
Testing of Monolithic and Composite Brittle Materials, ASTM STP1409,
30–45, 2002.
12. M. H. Krohn, J. R. Hellmann, D. L. Shellman, D. J. Green, G. E.
Sakoske, and J. A. Salem, “Test Methodology for Strength Testing of
Soda-Lime-Silica Float Glass Before and After Enameling,” J. Test. Eval.,
30 [6] 1–8 (2002).
13. M. H. Krohn, J. R. Hellmann, D. L. Shellman, C. G. Pantano, and G. E.
Sakoske, “Biaxial Flexure Strength and Dynamic Fatigue of Soda-Lime-Sil-
ica Float Glass,” J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 85 [7] 1777–1782 (2002).
9
14. A. A. Wereszczak, T. P. Kirkland, K. T. Strong Jr, and T. J. Holmquist,
“ORNL Quasi-Static Mechanical Characterization and Analysis: FY09
Annual Report to TARDEC,” ORNL/TM-2009/234, 2009.
15. A. A. Wereszczak, T. P. Kirkland, M. E. Ragan, K. T. Strong Jr, H. T.
Lin, and P. Patel, “Size Scaling of Tensile Failure Stress in a Float Soad-
Lime-Silicate Glass,” Int. J. Appl. Glass Sci., 1 [2] 143–150 (2010).
16. S. T. Gulati, R. Akcakaya, and J. R. Varner, “Fracture Behavior of Tin vs.
Air Side of Float Glass,” Fractography of Glasses and Ceramics IV, eds.,
J. R. Varner and G. D. Quinn. Ceramic Transactions Vol. 122, The
American Ceramic Society, Westerville, OH, 2001.
17. R. R. Tummala and B. J. Foster, “Strength and Dynamic Fatigue of Float
Glass Surfaces,” J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 58 [3–4] 156–157 (1975).
18. K. M. Entwistle, “The Fracture Stress of Float Glass,” J. Mater. Sci., 28
2007–2012 (1993).
19. A. A. Wereszczak, M. K. Ferber, and W. Musselwhite, “Method for Identi-
fying and Mapping Flaw Size Distribution on Glass Surface for Predicting
Mechanical Response,” Int. J. Appl. Glass Sci., 5 [1] 16–21 (2014).