MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

In situ tensile testing of silica glass membranes in the TEM

2016· other· en· W4245026076 on OpenAlexaff
Mirza Mačković, Hana Stará, Thomas Przybilla, C. Dieker, Florian Niekiel, Patrick Herre, Stefan Romeis, Nadine J. Schrenker, Wolfgang Peukert, Erdmann Spiecker

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Microscopy Congress 2016: Proceedings · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGlass properties and applications
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceUltimate tensile strengthFocused ion beamMembraneComposite materialTransmission electron microscopyRaman spectroscopyTensile testingAnisotropyDuctility (Earth science)Nanoscopic scaleNanotechnologyOpticsIonChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing research on strength of glasses, which was greatly influenced by Griffith [1], has spawn strengthening strategies such as topological engineering [2]. Pioneering works by Takamori and Tomozawa [3], and Brückner [4] on cooling of glass melts under load and introducing structural anisotropy into the glass structure have been followed by strengthening of glasses by targeted mechanically‐induced structural anisotropy [5]. Moderate electron beam (e‐beam) irradiation has been exploited to induce enormous ductility and superplasticity into nanoscale silica spheres and wires, and was shown to affect their mechanical response [6‐8]. It is, however, not yet known whether e‐beam irradiation in combination with tensile loading can lead to anisotropic glasses, and how this affects their mechanical properties. Recently we have reported that e‐beam‐assisted quenching under load inside the transmission electron microscope (TEM) alters the mechanical properties of nanoscale silica spheres and attributed this to compression‐induced structural anisotropy [9]. Here we transfer this approach to tensile loading of nanoscale silica membranes. Tensile specimens are prepared with the focused ion beam (FIB) from commercially available silica membranes (Plano GmbH) on push‐to‐pull (PTP) devices (Fig. 1). Raman spectroscopy was performed to investigate the structure of silica membranes and damage induced by FIB (Fig. 2). Raman spectra show that as‐received membranes exhibit a structure of vitreous silica [10,11]. After Ga‐irradiation in the FIB densification of the membranes occurs, while the membranes still maintain the character of vitreous silica. In situ tensile experiments are carried out with the Hysitron PI95 TEM Picoindenter TM inside of a Titan 3 Themis 300. To achieve mechanical quenching inside the TEM moderate e‐beam irradiation is used to mimic temperature, while the e‐beam is switched off during elongation of the silica membrane. While the deformation of silica under e‐beam irradiation is superplastic [6], the sudden absence of the e‐beam during tension (quenching point) translates the deformation from superplastic to elastic (see Fig. 3a)), and finally leads to fracture. The Young's modulus E = 73 GPa of the membrane drawn at beam‐off conditions (Fig. 3b)) almost matches the value known for bulk fused silica [12], while the value of the membrane quenched under load ( E = 78 GPa) is slightly increased. The tensile strength is in the range of values known from silica glass fibers with comparable dimensions [13], but clearly exceeds values known for microscale silica glass fibers [5]. Finally, we demonstrate how to directly track structural changes in silica glass during in situ tensile experiments in TEM by in situ electron diffraction. The unique combination of in situ electron diffraction with tensile experiments in TEM enables direct relation of structural changes in silica glass to quantitative nanomechanical data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Microscopy Congress 2016: ProceedingsSame topicGlass properties and applicationsFrench-language works237,207