Chemical Properties of Real and Ideal Glass Surfaces
In general, differences in composition and structure may exist between the bulk and ‘real’ surface, or near surface region, of a multicomponent glass. These differences are due to high temperature surface chemical phenomena which occur during the formation and cooling of a melt glass surface, as well as to surface chemical reactions under ambient conditions. This is in contrast to an ‘ideal’ glass surface whose composition and structure are identical to the bulk. It is likely that ideal glass surfaces can be created only by fracturing bulk, homogeneous, microstructure-free glass in an ultra-high environment. These ideal glass surfaces are well-defined and reproducible; therefore, they are excellent precursors for fundamental glass surface studies. They can also be used as calibration standards and control specimens for the interpretation of ‘real’ glass surface analyses. The chemical properties of some ‘real’ and ‘ideal’ glass surfaces will be discussed and related to macroscopic properties including dynamic fatigue and the peel strength of laminated composites.
KeywordsGlass Surface Peel Strength Float Glass Nuclear Reaction Analysis Dynamic Fatigue
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.A. U. MacRae, “Techniques for Studying Clean Surfaces” in Surfaces and Interfaces I, Proc. 13th Sagamore Army Materials Research Conf., J. J. Burke, N. L. Reed and V. Weiss, Editors, Syracuse University Press, (1967), pp. 29 - 52.Google Scholar
- 2.K. F. J. Henrich, H. Yakowitz and D. E. Newburg, “New Techniques for the Surface Analysis of Nonmetallic Solids,” in Ceramics and Polymers, Proc. 20th Sagamore Army Materials Research Conf., J. J. Burke and V. Weiss, Editors, Syracuse University Press, (1975), pp. 73-102.Google Scholar
- 3.K. Vedam, “Characterization of Surfaces” in Ceramics and Polymers, Proc. 20th Sagamore Army Materials Research Conf., J. J. Burke and V. Weiss, Editors, Syracuse University Press, (1975), pp. 503 - 538.Google Scholar
- 4.Methods of Surface Analysis (Methods and Phenomena Series, Vol. 1), A. W. Czanderna, Editor, Elsevier, Amsterdam (1975).Google Scholar
- 5.Material Characterization Using Ion Beam, (NATO Advanced•Study Institutes, Series B, Vol. 28), J. P. Thomas and A. Cachard, Editors, Plenum, NY, (1978).Google Scholar
- 6.C. G. Pantano, “Surface and In-Depth Analysis of Glass and Ceramic Materials,” Bull. Am. Ceram. Soc., 60 (11), 1154 (1981).Google Scholar
- 7.C. G. Pantano, J. F. Kelso and M. J. Suscavage, “Surface Studies of Multicomponent Glasses: Quantitative Analysis, Sputtering Effects and the Atomic Arrangement” in Advances in Materials Characterization, D. R. Rossington, R. A. Condrate and R. L. Snyder, Editors, Plenum, NY, (1983), pp. 1 - 38.Google Scholar
- 9.R. G. Gossink, “Application of Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry to Glass Surface Problems,” Glass Techn., 2 (13), 125 (1980).Google Scholar
- 12.M. J. Suscavage and C. G. Pantano, “Tin Penetration into a Soda-Lime-Magnesia-Silica Glass,” Glass Techn. Ber., 56K, 498 (1983).Google Scholar
- 13.C. G. Pantano and T. E. Madey, “Electron Beam Damage in Auger Electron Spectroscopy,” Appl. Surf. Sci., 6, 115 (1981).Google Scholar
- 15.L. Colombin, H. Charlier, A. Jelli, G. Debras and J. Verbist, “Penetration of Tin in the Bottom Surface of Float Glass: A Synthesis,” J. Non-Crystal. Sol., 38 - 39, 551 (1980).Google Scholar
- 17.D. J. David and T. N. Wittberg, “ESCA Studies of Laminated Safety Glass and Correlations with Measured Adhesive Forces,” J. Adhesion (to appear).Google Scholar