Class 3

Materials for Optical Systems

Strength of Glass

Ref: IOMA text

Section 1.3
Section 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 1

Materials for Optical Systems

Most optical structures are stiffness limited, not stress limited.

Optical elements: lenses and mirrors.

Major mechanical requirement is surface distortion limits
By the time the design satisfies the deflection (surface distortion) limits, the
stress is usually quite low in operational environment

Optical support structures: metering structures (connect optics together)

Major mechanical requirement is Line-of-Sight (LOS) error in statics
The same requirement is jitter in dynamics
Upon satisfying LOS limits, stress is quite low in operational environment

Glass fracture strength is quite low (Allow = ~1000 psi = process dependent)
Stress must still be checked! - especially non-operational (ie launch)

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 2

 Materials for Optical Systems

Materials selection is an integral part of the design process impacting thermal,

structural, & optical performance
Telescope metering structure must support and maintain alignment of the optics
over the thermal & dynamic operational environment
Optical elements must maintain surface figure during operation
Steering mirrors must be stiff & light for control performance with good
thermal characteristics
Favorable material characteristics for optical systems
Low CTE = , minimizes thermal expansion & contraction
High thermal conductivity, K, minimizes thermal gradients
High thermal diffusivity, D, minimizes the time the material takes to reach equilibrium
D = K/(Cp) where = density and Cp is the specific heat
High elastic modulus (E) and low density ()minimizes static & dynamic deformations
Inexpensive & easy to fabricate / machine
Mirrors materials must be capable of obtaining a high surface accuracy under polishing
Dimensionally stable over time

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 3

 Material Properties
Common structural figures of merit include:
Specific stiffness: E/ - characterizes the stiffness-to-weight ratio of materials
High E/ minimize self-weight deflections and maximize natural frequency
Common thermal figures of merit include:
Steady-state: high K/ minimize thermal gradients and the resulting distortion
Transient: high D/ minimize thermal gradients and the resulting distortion

Material Properties
Materials Figure of Merit
E CTE K Cp
(Gpa) (kg/m^3) (ppm/C) (W/M K) (W sec/Kg K) E/ K/ D/
Aluminum 68 2700 0.33 23.6 167 960 Aluminum 25 7.1 2.7
Beryllium I-70A 287 1850 0.08 11.3 216 1820 Beryllium 155 19.1 5.7
Titanium 114 4430 0.31 8.8 7.3 522 Titanium 26 0.8 0.4
Stainless 304 193 8000 0.27 14.7 16.2 477 Stainless 304 24 1.1 0.3
Stainless 416 200 7800 0.28 9.9 24.9 480 Stainless 416 26 2.5 0.7
Magnesium 45 1770 0.35 25.2 138 1024 Magnesium 25 5.5 3.0
Copper 117 8940 0.34 16.9 391 420 Copper 13 23.1 6.2
Invar 36 141 8050 0.29 1.4 10.4 515 Invar 18 7.4 1.8
SiC (RB 12% Si) 373 3110 0.21 2.68 147 680 SiC (RB 12%) 120 54.9 25.9
SiC (RB 30% Si) 310 2920 0.21 2.64 158 660 SiC (RB 30%) 106 59.8 31.1
SiC CVD 466 3210 0.21 2.4 146 700 SiC CVD 145 60.8 27.1
Silicon 131 2330 0.28 2.5 137 710 Silicon 56 54.8 33.1
Carbon/SiC 245 2650 2.5 135 660 Carbon/SiC 92 54.0 30.9
AlBeMet (62/38) 197 2100 0.17 13.9 212 1560 AlBeMet 94 15.3 4.7
Borosilicate 59 2180 0.2 2.8 1.1 710 Borosilicate 27 0.4 0.3
Fused Silica 73 2205 0.17 0.58 1.4 741 Fused Silica 33 2.4 1.5
ULE 67 2205 0.18 0.03 1.3 766 ULE 30 43.3 25.7
Zerodur 91 2530 0.24 0.05 1.6 821 Zerodur 36 32.0 15.4
GY-70/x30 93 1780 0.02 GY-70/x30 52

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. x 106 4

Materials for Optical Systems: Structural Figure of Merit
Specific Stiffness - Density vs. Elastic Modulus
350
Silicon
Carbide
300 Beryllium (RB 30%)
Elastic Modulus (GPa)

250 Stiff
Carbon/SiC
Materials

Stainless Steel
200 AlBeMet

Constant Specific Stiffness

150 Invar
Silicon
Titanium
Graphite Copper
Epoxy
100 Zerodur

ULE
Aluminum
50 Borosilicate
Magnesium Heavy Materials

0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5 00 0 6 000 7000 8000 9 00 0

Material Density (kg/m3)

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 5

Specific Stiffness / Self Weight deflection

Deflection of thin, flat circular plate (radius = r, thickness = h) in 1 g

(Approx: ignoring transverse shear; poor for LightWeight Mirrors)
d = CB (g)(r4/h2) (/E) (1-2) where CB depends on support condition
d~(/E) h~(/E)1/2
Example: Circular plate simply-supported on edge (no moment constraint)
dPTV = 0.828(g)(r4/h2) (/E) (1-2)
dRMS = 0.236(g)(r4/h2) (/E) (1-2) (with BFP removed)
(BFP = Best-Fit-Plane = average surface motion)

Example: Circular plate on 3 points at 0.65 R

dPTV = 0.316(g)(r4/h2) (/E) (1-2)
dRMS = 0.0740(g)(r4/h2) (/E) (1-2) (with BFP removed)

Note: material strength has NO effect (until > y or ult)

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 6

Self weight deflection equations

PeakValleydisplacementcoefficient
SupportCondition CB
3pointsat0.65R 0.316
3pointsat1.0R 1.356
6pointsat0.68R 0.041
Ringat0.68R 0.028
Simplysupportedatedge 0.828
Clampedatedge 0.187

Note: These CB coefficients are based on bending only

They ignore transverse shear effects which increase the total deflection
about 5-10% for solid mirrors, even more for lightweight mirrors.
They should be used for guidelines and comparison purposes only.

d = bending deflection + shear deflection = fB(r4) + fS(r2)

d = CB (g)(r4/h2) (/E) (1-2) + CS(g)(r2)(/E)(1+)

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 7

Specific Stiffness / Self Weight deflection

Simply-supported edge
3-point mount = knife edge support
dz=d=0 (Translations = 0,
Rotations = free)

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 8

EXAMPLE: Specific Stiffness / Self Weight deflection

Example: Circular mirror (solid, flat, Diam=1m) on 3 point support at 0.65 R

If thickness = h1 = 4 = 0.1m, mirror surface RMS deflection
FS = fused silica = 0.135 microns
SiC (30%)= silicon carbide = 0.042 microns
.135/.042 = 3.2 = (E/) Sic /(E/) FS d~(/E) h~(/E)1/2

If design requirement: surface deflection: RMS < 0.1 micron

The required thickness would be:
C = d1h12 = d2h22 => h22=h12 (d1/d2)
h2FS = 4.65 (WtFS = 458 Lb)
h2SiC = 2.59 (WtSiC = 340 Lb)
h2FS / h2SiC = 4.65/2.59 = 1.79 = 3.21/2 = [(E/) Sic /(E/) FS]1/2
WtFS / WtSiC = 458/340 = 1.34 = 1.791/2 = [(E/) Sic /(E/) FS]1/4

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 9

Natural frequency

Dynamic response of a structure is dependent on its natural frequency

Natural frequency: n = radians/s fn = cycles/s = Hz

n 2f n K M E fn~(E/)1/2

Circular plate on 3 points at 0.65 R: Df = Plate flexural rigidity

Eh 3 m mass/unit area = h
Df
12(1 2 )

1st mode: 0.662 Df 0.662 E h2

fn 2 2
r m r 12(1 2 )

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 10

E/ = specific stiffness

Specific stiffness is important parameter in selection of material under

mechanical loads = gravity & vibrations

High specific stiffness is 'good'

Note: the standard definition of specific stiffness is based on 1d properties.

When used in plate bending effects, it should be corrected for Poisson effect.
In previous equations the ratio is: E//(1-2)
Since varies from 0.2 to 0.3 for common materials this is a factor in the
range of 0.95 to 0.90 on specific stiffness and is usually ignored

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 11

Poisson Effect in Bending
X tension on top
Causes Y strain on top

X Compression on bottom
Causes +Y strain on bottom

In a plate, these are stacked side by side. Since all elements want to contract on top,
none can. Therefore this makes the plate stiffer by the (1-2) effect.
At the plate edge, this is called anticlastic curvature.

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 12

Other factors in choice of material

In choosing material for large optic (E/) is important

Mirror self-weight deflection
Mirror free-free modes
When choosing material for flexure mounts
Flexure volume is small, so density () is relatively unimportant
Flexures support large mass, (E) determines mounted natural freq & buckling
During launch, stresses are high, so yield stress (y) is importantant
For thermal loads, CTE match to optic is important
Other factors: machineability/cost/etc.

E/ is important, but
other factors must also be
considered.

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 13

Materials for Optical Systems: Structural & Thermal Figures of Merit
160
Beryllium

140
Structural
Performance
120 Silicon
Carbide (RB 30%)
Specific Stiffness, E/

100
AlBeMet
Carbon/SiC
80
Composites

60 Silicon

Borosilicate Zerodur
40 Stainless Steel
ULE
Aluminum
Magnesium
20 Invar
Copper Thermal
Titanium
Performance
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Transient Thermal Distortion, D/

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 14

Thermal distortion

Change in length due to temperature change

L=L*T*
L = change in length
L = original length
T = change in temperature = T - Tref
= coefficient of thermal expansion = CTE

Units of = in/in/F = /F or m/m/K = /K = /C

Fused Silica: = 0.58e-6 /C = 0.58 ppm/C (ppm=parts/million)
Most quoted values are room temperature values
Note: is temperature dependent
Materials with low CTE at room temp (RT), may NOT be low CTE at
cryo temperatures

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 15

Combined Delta L/L (Range 20K 300K)
L L T
L LT
T T
400

200
M55J biased
0

-200
M55J quasi-iso
-400
Secant CTE of 273 to 60
Delta L/L (ppm)

-600

-800

-1000
Tangent CTE about 60
-1200
Be
-1400

-1600
Ti
-1800
SS
-2000
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Tem pertature (K)
Be Ball Delta L/L (ppm) 440C Ball/SRI Delta L/L (ppm) Ti-6Al-4V Ball/SRI Delta L/L (ppm)
Use Secant CTE to calculate
M55J Biased (X-direction) GSFC Delta L/L (ppm)
M55J Quasi-Iso cooldown
NGST/SRI Delta L/L (ppm) RT to 60K
Use Tangent CTE to study variations about 60K
Ti = Titanium, Be = Beryllium, SS = Stainless Steel, M55J = Graphite-Epoxy

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 16

Example: Square plate with circular hole (uniform temp change)

Originial size

Note: this applies

to radius of curvature
After thermal growth of lenses and mirrors

Isothermal (=Uniform) temperature change

All dimensions grow at same rate L=L*T*
Including the hole R=R*T*

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 17

Thermal distortion (steady state)

Thermal distortion index = /K where = CTE, K = conductivity

A flat circular window or shallow curved optic

Heat flux applied to 1 side = q
Results in a temperature gradient thru the thickness = T = dT/dz
steady state heat flow: q = -K dT/dz (the direction of q is opposite sign of dT/dz)

1/RoCo 1/RoC = RoC/(RoC*RoCo)= dT/dz = -q(/K) k

q
RoCo = original radius of curvature (flat: 1/RoCo = 0)
RoC = new radius of curvature z
q = heat flux/unit area
RoC ~ (/K) for same applied load q

L

dT/dz = -q/K =(T2-T1)/L

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 18

Example: flat circular window with linear temperature gradient

Thick=4.0

= CTE = 0.5e-6 0-1/RoC = dT/dz

dT/dz = (1.0-0.0)/4.0 = +0.25 RoC = -8,000,000
Flat => 1/RoCo = 0.0 Negative RoC mean CoC on Z axis
c = curvature = 1/RoC = -0.125e-6

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 19

 Flat window (or shallow optic) with linear temperature gradient

Compare Fused Silica and SiC mirrors

For 1g surface RMS<0.1 micron, Thickness required; FS = 4.65, SiC = 2.59
Fused Silica: h = 4.65 = 0.1181m Wt = 458 Lb
SiC (30%): h = 2.59 = 0.0658m Wt = 340 Lb

Assume absorbed flux: q = 1 W/m2 at steady state

dT/dz = -q/K =(T2-T1)/L and RoC/(RoC*RoCo)= dT/dz = -q(/K)

Fused Silica: dT/dz = 0.714, T = 0.087 RoC = 0.4143e-6 RoC2

SiC (30%): dT/dz = 0.0063, T = 0.00042 RoC = 0.0167e-6 RoC2

Ratio: FS/SiC 113 205 25 (=ratio of /K ratios)

Key properties:
Fused Silica: K = 1.4 W/M-K = 0.58 ppm/C
SiC(30%): K = 158 W/M-K = 2.64 ppm/C

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 20

Thermal distortion (transient) of window of thickness (h)

Thermal diffusivity = D = K / ( cp) where cp = specific heat

Time to stabilize from sudden step increase in temperature of 1 face

Near equilibrium Notation in this plot:

Dt/h2 = 1.5 Temperature = v
t = 1.5h2/D Step in temp = V
Diffusivity=D
Time = t
Dt/h2 Thickness = h = l
Coord thru thick = x

This plot applies to

window of thick = l
with step on one face;
or thick = 2l with temp
step on both faces

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 21

Flat window (or shallow optic) with surface temperature change

Compare Fused Silica and SiC mirrors

For 1g surface RMS<0.1 micron, Thickness required; FS = 4.65, SiC = 2.59
Fused Silica: h = 4.65 = 0.1181m Wt = 458 Lb
SiC (30%): h = 2.59 = 0.0658m Wt = 340 Lb

For a sudden surface temperature jump, time to equilibrate t = 1.5h2/D

Fused silica: t = 24,050 sec = 6.68 Hr

Sic(30%): t = 79 sec = 0.022 hr
Ratio(FS/SiC) 304

Key properties:
Fused Silica: K = 1.4 W/M-K = 0.58 ppm/C D = 0.87e-6 m2/sec
SiC(30%): K = 158 W/M-K = 2.64 ppm/C D = 82.1e-6 m2/sec

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 22

CTE Uniformity Issues

CTE may be non-isotropic (different in x,y,z)

Isothermal changes cause distortion such as astigmatism

CTE may vary with thickness or radius (r,,z)

Common in large optics due to manufacturing process
Booles of glass cool with axisymmetric variation
Isothermal changes cause power (focus) changes and higher order effects

Power change from Astigmatism change from

Axisym variation of CTE Non-Axisym variation of CTE

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 23

 Material Descriptions

ULE and Zerodur have excellent thermal characteristics at Room Temperature.

ULE is fused silica doped with titanium yielding a near zero CTE. Zerodur is a
combination of two-phase materials one crystalline with a negative CTE and one
amorphous with a positive CTE - yielding a near zero net CTE. Lightweight
mirrors may be created by fusing facesheets and ribs or by water jet milling a solid
blank. Both materials may be polished with a very low micro-roughness.

Silicon carbide offers excellent thermal and structural characteristics with a low
CTE, high conductivity, high stiffness, and moderate density and are an attractive
material for mirror substrates and support structures. The material is a ceramic and
produced using several methods including CVD (chemical vapor deposition) and
reaction bonding (sintering). A drawback to silicon carbide is its inherent
brittleness and design efforts must ensure appropriate margins of safety to minimize
fracture. Silicon & Carbon/Silicon Carbide are developing materials offering high
stiffness and thermal stability.

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 24

 Material Descriptions

Beryllium is an attractive material used for mirror substrates and support structures
due to its high stiffness, low density, and high thermal conductivity. Drawbacks
include a relatively high CTE making it susceptible to thermal gradients, and high
cost. However, tangent CTE near zero over cryo range. Material fabrication and
machining processes are complex and require special facilities (dust is poisonous).

Aluminum alloys are commonly used for optical mirrors and support structures.
Characteristics of aluminum include high thermal conductivity, ease of machining,
low cost, moderate stiffness, and high CTE. Thermal gradients must be minimized
using aluminum due to its high CTE.

Borosilicate glass has primarily been replaced by use of ULE or Zerodur due to
their near zero CTE. However, advantages of this material include low cost and the
ability to cast lightweighted mirrors.

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 25

 Material Descriptions - cont

Steel is three times the stiffness and weight of aluminum with moderately high
CTE and low conductivity. Ground-based telescope structures often employ steel
for it low cost but due its weight and poor thermal metrics steel is not commonly
used as a support structure for high performance optical systems.
Copper's advantage is its high thermal conductivity and is commonly used in
optical system thermal design applications. Copper is heavy with moderate
stiffness and has a high CTE.
Magnesium offers similar characteristics to aluminum but is lighter making it an
option for relative weight-savings. It's conductivity is slightly lower and CTE
slightly higher than aluminum with a stiffness -to-weight ratio the same.
Magnesium is susceptible to corrosion and must be coated for protection.
Invar, an iron and nickel alloy with a low CTE, is commonly used to maintain
optical element stability over temperature. Disadvantages of Invar include a
relatively low specific stiffness, low conductivity, and high density.

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 26

 Material Descriptions - cont
Titanium's material properties include a CTE that is well-matched to optical glass,
moderate stiffness and density, and low thermal conductivity. Titanium is commonly
used in high performance lens assemblies to minimize CTE mismatches. It is also
commonly used to thermal isolate components and as a flexure material due to its high
strength.
The aluminum-beryllium metal matrix composite combines pure aluminum and pure
beryllium. This material offers a high specific stiffness, good thermal characteristics,
and the machinability of aluminum. However, no heritage exists as a mirror substrate.
Composite materials such as graphite epoxy represent a general class of materials
known as carbon fiber reinforced polymers (CFRP). In general, CFRP material
properties are characterized by high stiffness, low density, and low CTE. The properties
of these materials are directional dependent and stiffness and CTE may be tailored for
specific application by varying the orientation of the laminate plies. A disadvantage of
CFRP materials is dimensional instability concerns due to absorption/desorption of
moisture.
See Yoder Chapter 3 for a more complete discussion of materials with tables of
mechanical, thermal and optical propertiesmany more materials, especially optical
glasses and plastics

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 27

 Materials: Optical System Examples

Hubble: Graphite-Epoxy/ ULE JWST: Composite / Beryllium SOFIA: Carbon Fiber / Zerodur

Spitzer: Beryllium Keck: Steel / Zerodur

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 28

Glass Surrogate for vibration testing

Most glasses have E and close to aluminum (FS=fused silica)

Aluminum: E = 10.0E+6 psi FS: E = 10.6E+6 psi

Aluminum: = 0.10 Lb/in3 FS: = 0.08 Lb/in3
Aluminum: = 0.33 FS: = 0.17
Aluminum: = 13.ppm /F FS: = 0.28ppm/F

Aluminum makes a good surrogate in vibration testing

Just drill some holes into Al surrogate to lighten, and can match modes,
cg, and moments of inertia
Aluminum is a poor surrogate for thermal expansion testing

Whenever possible: use real material, not surrogate.

Can't find good surrogate for all properties: E, , , and damping

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 29

Adhesives

Used to bond optic to support structure

Design issues:
Provide stiff connection for metering to other optical elements
Provide isolation from mount distortion (protect fragile optic)

Typical materials:
Epoxy: stiff, relatively strong (possible distortion of optic)
Provides good strength and stiffness; poor isolation from mount
E = 200,000 psi (1.38 GPa), = 0.2
RTV (Silicone, rubber): soft, weak (requires special design & analysis)
Provides good isolation from mount; poor strength and stiffness
E = 500 psi (3.45MPa), => 0.5 (nearly incompressible)

Will address adhesive bonds in later class

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 30

Other Material Property Issues

See Yoder Chapter 3 for a thorough discussion

Some examples:
Stress optic coefficient (stress birefringence)
Thermal optic coefficient (dndT: OPD=optical path difference)
Corrosion resistance
Moisture absorption
Manufacturabilty
Surface roughness
Dimensional stability (thermal and stress cycling, time)
Outgassing
Yoder also includes tables of :
Optical glasses & plastics
Common metering metering & mount materials
Adhesives

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 31

 Strength of Optical Glass

Brittle materials do not possess a single strength (glasses, ceramics)

dependent on the distribution of surface flaws & the surface-area stress distribution
Theoretical strength of glass (flawless) approaches 1 million psi
As manufactured ~ 40 ksi = 40,000 psi
In the field ~ 5 ksi 1 ksi = 1000 psi
Common design allowable ~ 1 ksi
NASA typical design allowable ~ 700 psi (4.8 MPa)
compare to max principal stress (not Von Mises)

Methods to determine appropriate design strength

fracture toughness and flaw size Detailed glass strength
beyond scope of this course.
inert strength using Weibull distribution
See SPIE-5176-3.pdf
crack growth data under constant state of stress in class notes at sigmadyne.com

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 32

 Failure of Glass
Failure of glass governed by existing surface flaws & fracture mechanics
applied tensile load causes crack to grow until stress intensity at the crack tip, KI,
exceeds the critical stress intensity or fracture toughness, KIC, resulting in fracture
Stress intensity at crack tip, KI
K I Y a where Y is the
factor accounting for flaw geometry
a and location : Y range ~ 1.3 - 2.0
Flaws

Failure occurs when K I K IC

Inert strength (instantaneous strength) of the material (modulus of rupture)

stress required to cause instantaneous failure where KIC is the fracture toughness
of the material (material property)

K IC
ult If crack geometry unknown, use Y=1.26 for semi-circular penny crack
Y a

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 33

Maximize Glass Strength by Controlling Size of Surface & Edge Flaws
Maximize strength by minimizing the size of the surface flaws
Controlled grinding and polishing process
Rule-of-thumb: maximum flaw depth is ~ 3x the average grinding particle diameter
Polished glass typically has flaws 0.4 - 0.8 mils (10 - 20 um) [1 mil = 0.001"]
Controlled Grind Sequence
Average Material
Particle Size* Removal* Edge Finish
Milling 4 -----
Fine Grind1 1.2 12 a) bevel all edges
Fine Grind2 0.8 3.6 b) finish with 320 grit or finer diamond tool
Fine Grind3 0.55 2.4 c) acid wipe all edges (15-min / 40% HF Sol't)
Fine Grind4 0.47 1.65
Polish Barnsite
*mils

Controlled Grind Sequence

Glass Surface 12-mil material

removal
4-mil pit 3.6-mil material
removal
1.2-mil pit 2.4-mil material
0.8-mil pit removal 1.65-mil material
removal
12-mil flaw 0.55-mil pit
0.47-mil pit
3.6-mil flaw
2.4-mil flaw 1.65-mil flaw
1.41-mil flaw

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 34

 Determining Design Strength of Glass Based on the Inert Strength

Inert strength is the stress required to cause instantaneous failure

Also known as modulus of rupture or instantaneous strength
Assumes no stable crack growth over duration of the load

Design strength computed using Griffiths equation

Use the the fracture toughness of the material, an assumed crack size, and a factor of safety
0.47 K IC

( FS )Y a
Residual stress at the crack tip reduces strength; use factor of 0.47 with Griffiths equation

Conservative flaw sizes assumed to account for flaws

introduced during service life (handling/cleaning)
FS = 2.5
200 400 m

Common factor of safety applied (FS) ranges from 2 to 4 to

cover uncertainty and provide margin

Approach allows a glass specific strength to be obtained

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 35

Finding the Fracture Toughness
Fracture
Fracture toughness, KIC, is a material property Toughness, psi in
Fused Silica 674
resistance of the material to fracture BK7 774
SF5 519
large variation among glass types SK16 710
LaK10 865
F2 500
Values are not typically available for all glass types; SF58 346
see glass manufacturers data

Estimate KIC using manufacturers data on lapping hardness, modulus of elasticity, knoop
hardness
lapping hardness: material removal for a given pressure, velocity, coolant, abrasive
Schott: h - height reduction; Ohara: Ohara factor, Aa; Hoya: Hoya factor, FA
Aa (OHARA)

OHARA Glass: S-FPL52

E = 72.6 GPa
Aa = 395
Hk = 370
K IC 455 psi in

E 7 / 6 /( K IC H K23/12 ) [Ref. 2 Lambropoulos]

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 36

 Design Strength Based on the Inert Strength Obtained Via Testing

Statistically characterize the glass strength via testing F

No need to know flaw size and flaw geometry
Testing performed on coupons prepared exactly as component Test Specimen

Fit data to a two or three-parameter Weibull distribution

Scale coupon / specimen test data to actual component Ring-on-Ring Test

Account for differences in surface area under stress
Weibull
Method adequate for tensile loaded specimens with a single dominant principal 2-parameter Distribution
stress

m
1
o
Acomponent
m

Pf 1.0 e
m
Aeff dA ocomponent otestspecimen
max A
testspecimen
Design strength selected as the Weibull "A" basis value (99% reliability w/95% confidence)
Example scaled BK7 inert strength test data e.g. surface flaws unvarying / no crack growth during service
environment
BK7 Inert Strength (ksi)
Surface Quality Maximum Characteristic Weibull "A"
Polished 46 33 13
100 um Scratch 12 10 6

Approach allows conservatism to be quantified in the design strength selection

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 37

 Stress Corrosion / Static Fatigue

Cracks under stress grow due to the influence of moisture Crack Propagation Data

known as subcritical crack growth

Growth described by crack growth vs. stress intensity, V-K

Crack Velocity (m/s)

curve
N is known as the flaw growth susceptibility exponent

N
K Power law expression for
V V0 crack velocity vs. stress intensity:
K IC V-K curve
Stress Intensity Factor (105 N/m3/2)

Glass materials vary in their ability to resist crack growth Common Flaw Growth Exponents13
Materials N
Slower crack growth for larger flaw growth BK7 20
susceptibility exponent, n Zerodur 31
Fused Silica 35
e.g. for window materials, fused silica preferred Zinc Selenide 40
Calcium Fluoride 50
over BK7 when strength and crack growth primary Zinc Sulfide 76
concern ULE 27
Magnesium Fluoride 10

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 38

Approximate Technique to Determine a Design Strength Accounting for Crack Growth &
Residual Stress under Constant Applied Stress
Pepi, J. W., "A method to determine strength of glass, crystals, and ceramics under
sustained stress as a function of time and moisture", SPIE Vol. 5868, 2005.
Also see SPIE SC796 Allowable Stresses in Glass and Engineering Ceramics
Much simpler & practical - an excellent approximation
Accounts for residual stress in component which can significantly decrease the strength
Do not need to know KI, KIC, a, Y
Fused Silica: Time to Failure vs. Stress
4500

4000 1 Hour
Pepi Approximate
3500 Exact Method
1 day
Tensile Stress (psi)

3000

1 year
2500

2000

1500

0 2 4 6 8 10
10 10 10 10 10 10
Time to Failure (sec)

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 39

References

1) Marschall, C.W. et al., Continuation of a Study of Stability of Structural Materials for Spacecraft Applications
for the Orbiting Astronomical Observatory Project, NASA Contract NAS5-11195, October 12, 1969.
2) Lambropoulos, John C., Xu, Su, Fang, Tong, "Loose abrasive lapping hardness of optical glasses and its
interpretation", Applied Optics, Vol. 36, No. 7, March, 1997.
3) Preston, F. W., The Structual Analysis of Abraded Glass Surfaces", Trans. Opt. Soc. (London), XXIII: 141
(1921-1922)
4) Varner, J. R., Fatigue and Fracture Behavior of Glasses, Fatigue and Fracture of Composites, Ceramics,
and Glasses.
5) Wiederhorn, S. M., Roberts, D. E., Fracture Mechanics Study of Skylab Windows, National Bureau of
Standards, Rept. 10 892, May 31, 1972.
6) Roebeen, G., Steen, M., Bressers, J, Van der Biest, O., "Mechanical Fatigue in Monolithic Non-tranforming
Ceramics", Progress in Materials Science 40, 265-331, 1996.
7) Quinn, G. D., Morrell, R., Design Data for Engineering Ceramics: A Review of the Flexure Test, J. AM.
Ceram. Soc. 74(9) 2037-66 (1991).
8) Wiederhorn, S. M., "Prevention in glass by Proof-Testing", Journal of the American Ceramic Society, April,
1973.
9) Evans, A. G., Wiederhorn, S. M., Proof testing of ceramic materials - an analytical basis for failure
prediction", International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 10, No. 3, September, 1974.
10) Wiederhorn, S. M., Reliability, Life Prediction, and Proof Testing of Ceramics, NBSIR 74-486, National
Bureau of Standards, Washbington, D.C., May 1974.
11) Evans, A. G. and Fuller, E. R., Crack propagation in ceramic materials under cyclic load conditions, Met.
Trans., 5, 27-33, (1974).
12) Suresh, S., Fatigue of Materials, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
13) Jacobs, D. S., Chen, I. W., "Cyclic fatigue in ceramics: a balance between crack shielding accumulation and
degradation", J.Am. Cer. Soc. 78, 513-520, 1995.
14) Doyle, K.B., Kahan, M. A., "Design Strength of Optical Glass", SPIE Annual Meeting, August, 2003, San
Diego, CA.

2017 - class 3 Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. 40