Get access

Elastic Indentation Response of Float Glass Surfaces


  • G. Pharr—contributing editor

  • Research was sponsored by the Army Research Laboratory and was accomplished under the Cooperative Agreement Number W911NF-0-2-000. The view and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the Army Research Laboratory or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation herein.

†Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail:


Instrumented Hertzian indentation was used to evaluate the reduced elastic modulus and cone-crack initiation forces for the as-received surfaces of commercial float glasses. Custom-built indentation equipment with the capability of acoustic emission detection was used to monitor continuously the load and depth of penetration at the microscopic scale for forces up to 1 kN. Equipment verification was performed using a reference material, GE 124. The air and tin surfaces of commercial soda–lime–silica and borosilicate float glasses were tested to determine any difference in indentation response for the elastic and fracture behavior of as-received surfaces. Information obtained from the analysis of the load–displacement curves and from the visual inspection of the indentation sites was used to determine the elastic modulus, and the conditions for the onset of cone cracking as a function of surface roughness. The reduced modulus results were verified using additional equipment that allowed the in situ observation of the contact area during loading and unloading. The results showed that there was no difference in the reduced modulus data for the air and tin surfaces for the range of surface displacements studied. The same conclusions were found for cone-cracking loads on as-received surfaces but tests on abraded surfaces showed that the tin surfaces had slightly more resistance to cone cracking than the air surfaces.