Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T23:20:51.551Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Glassy materials with enhanced thermal stability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2017

P. Boolchand
Affiliation:
Department of ECS, College of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Cincinnati, USA; boolchp@ucmail.uc.edu
B. Goodman
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Cincinnati, USA; goodman.bernard@gmail.com

Abstract

The nature of glass transitions in chalcogenides and modified oxides depends on the network mean coordination number $\langle r\rangle$ . These display systematic trends when spanning across the three topological phases: flexible, intermediate, and stressed-rigid. Trends in the glass-transition temperature T g( $\langle r\rangle$ ) show a monotonic increase with $\langle r\rangle$ , but the nonreversing enthalpy of relaxation at T g, ΔH nr( $\langle r\rangle$ ), shows a deep- and square-well-like minimum with the walls representing the rigidity and stress transitions with increasing $\langle r\rangle$ , respectively. In the well, the ΔH nr( $\langle r\rangle$ ) term remains minuscule (∼0) corresponding to the isostatically rigid intermediate phase (IP). The melt fragility index (m) shows rather low values, m( $\langle r\rangle$ ) < 20 for IP compositions, but increases outside the IP. Glass compositions in the IP show absence of network stress, form compacted networks, possess thermally reversing glass transitions, and display high glass-forming tendency—functionalities that have attracted widespread interest in understanding the physics of glasses and applications of the new IP formed.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2017 
Figure 0

Figure 1. Modulated differential scanning calorimetry (MDSC) scan of Ge10Se90 glass showing the total, reversing, and nonreversing signals in the heating cycle.7

Figure 1

Figure 2. Trends in Tg(x) and nonreversing enthalpy of relaxation in SixSe100–x glasses, showing variation of Tg(x) and ΔHnr(x). The square-well like variation of ΔHnr(x) shows walls at xc(1) and xc(2) representing the rigidity and stress transition.4

Figure 2

Figure 3. FT-Raman profile of a Ge19Se81 quenched melt taken (a) after 96 h (where x = Ge content) and (b) 168 h of reaction of Ge with Se.7,15 Note: CS, corner-sharing mode of GeSe4 tetrahedra; ES, edge-sharing mode of GeSe4 tetrahedra; CM, chain mode of Sen chains.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Variations in (a) estimated viscosity η(x) at 950°C, (b) measured fragility index, and (c) enthalpy of relaxation of homogeneous GexSe100–x glasses in left panel. (d–f) Corresponding data on GexS100–x glasses appear in the right panel.10,16 Note: IP, intermediate phase.