Take a glass, preferably a cheap glass, and set it in a bowl of ice-cold water so that the water goes only half-way up the glass. Now pour boiling hot water into the glass. In a few seconds the glass will crack from thermal stress, the force caused by heat going from the inside of the glass outside to the bowl of cold water. This sort of failure is not mentioned in any of the engineering material books that I had in college, or had available for teaching engineering materials. To the extent that it is mentioned mentioned on the internet, e.g. here at wikipedia, the metric presented is not derived and (I think) wrong. Given this, I’d like to present a Buxbaum- derived metric for thermal stress-resistance and thermal stress failure. A key aspect: using a thinner glass does not help.
Before gong on to the general case of thermal stress failure, lets consider the glass, and try to compute the magnitude of the thermal stress. The glass is being torn apart and that suggests that quite a lot of stress is being generated by a ∆T of 100°C temeprarture gradient.
To calcule the thermal stress, consider the thermal expansivity of the material, α. Glass — normal cheap glass — has a thermal expansivity α = 8.5 x10-6 meters/meter °C (or 8.5 x10-6 foot/foot °C). For every degree Centigrade a meter of glass is heated, it will expand 8.5×10-6 meters, and for every degree it is cooled, it will shrink 8.5 x10-6 meters. If you consider the circumference of the glass to be L (measured in meters), then
∆L/L = α ∆T.
where ∆L is the change in length due to heating, and ∆L/L is sometimes called the “strain.”. Now, lets call the amount of stress caused by this expansion σ, sigma, measured in psi or GPa. It is proportional to the strain, ∆L/L, and to the elasticity constant, E (also called Young’s elastic constant).
σ = E ∆L/L.
For glass, Young’s elasticity constant, E = 75 GPa. Since strain was equal to α ∆T, we find that
σ =Eα ∆T
Thus, for glass and a ∆T of 100 °C, σ =100°C x 75 GPa x 8.5 x10-6 /°C = 0.064 GPa = 64MPa. This is about 640 atm, or 9500 psi.
As it happens, the ultimate tensile strength of ordinary glass is only about 40 MPa = σu. This, the maximum force per area you can put on glass before it breaks, is less than the thermal stress. You can expect a break here, and wherever σu < Eα∆T. I thus create a characteristic temperature difference for thermal stress failure:
The Buxbaum failure temperature, ß = σu/Eα
If ∆T of more than ß is applied to any material, you can expect a thermal stress failure.
The Wikipedia article referenced above provides a ratio for thermal resistance. The usits are perhaps heat load per unit area and time. How you would use this ratio I don’t quite know, it includes k, the thermal conductivity and ν, the Poisson ratio. Including the thermal conductivity here only makes sense, to me, if you think you’ll have a defined thermal load, a defined amount of heat transfer per unit area and time. I don’t think this is a normal way to look at things. As for including the Poisson ratio, this too seems misunderstanding. The assumption is that a high Poisson ratio decreases the effect of thermal stress. The thought behind this, as I understand it, is that heating one side of a curved (the inside for example) will decrease the thickness of that side, reducing the effective stress. This is a mistake, I think; heating never decreases the thickness of any part being heated, but only increases the thickness. The heated part will expand in all directions. Thus, I think my ratio is the correct one. Please find following a list of failure temperatures for various common materials.
You will notice that most materials are a lot more resistant to thermal stress than glass is and some are quite a lot less resistant. Based on the above, we can expect that ice will fracture at a temperature difference as small as 1°C. Similarly, cast iron will crack with relatively little effort, while steel is a lot more durable (I hope that so-called cast iron skillets are really steel skillets). Pyrex is a form of glass that is more resistant to thermal breakage; that’s mainly because for pyrex, α is a lot smaller than for ordinary, cheap glass. I find it interesting that diamond is the material most resistant to thermal failure, followed by invar, a low -expansion steel, and ordinary rubber.
Robert E. Buxbaum, July 3, 2019. I should note that, for several of these materials, those with very high thermal conductivities, you’d want to use a very thick sample of materials to produce a temperature difference of 100*C.
Whoops – I just noticed that several of my objections below are actually addressed by your last remark, though still contradicted by the last assertion in your first paragraph: “using a thinner glass does not help”. But I’m letting my remarks stand, with the guess that you will (for the most part) agree.
Cast iron skillets are not made of steel, and I’ve never seen one fail. I’ve been using them for at least 50 years. But in ordinary cooking, I don’t think they heat up fast enough for a large temperature differential to build up. I suppose you could try it by setting one on a flame (they’re cheap!) and then pouring in a quart of ice water.
It seems to me that thermal conductivity has to make a difference in order to account for any time dependence; but then you have to include time in the equation as well. Perhaps your equation is valid in the limit of zero thermal conductivity. Or, putting another way, perhaps it’s valid on its own terms if you really are creating your presumed delta-T across the material. But if the material is thin enough, or the thermal conductivity is high enough, temperature will equilibrate quickly enough that your claimed delta-T won’t prevail long enough for the stress to cause breakage. The process of stress propagating to strain also has to have a time dependence.
Having had the typical chemist’s training, I can say that Pyrex reaction vessels are made as thin as possible (consistent with mechanical strength) in order to minimize thermal stress, as when quenching a reaction by immersing a hot vessel in, say, an ice bath.
I also suggest you rename the Buxbaum failure temperature the “Buxbaum failure temperature difference.” It’s not a temperature!
Happy Independence Day!