This edition first published 2018
© 2018 The American Ceramic Society

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

The rights of S.K. Sundaram to be identified as the author of the editorial material in this work have been asserted in accordance with law.

Registered Office
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA

Editorial Office
111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty
In view of ongoing research, equipment modifications, changes in governmental regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to the use of experimental reagents, equipment, and devices, the reader is urged to review and evaluate the information provided in the package insert or instructions for each chemical, piece of equipment, reagent, or device for, among other things, any changes in the instructions or indication of usage and for added warnings and precautions. While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available.

ISBN: 9781119519645
ISSN: 0196-6219

Cover design by Wiley

Contents

Foreword

Preface

Acknowledgments

78th Glass Problems Conference

Modeling, Sensors, and Furnace Design

Optimization of Regenerator Design
1. Abstract
2. Impact Lownox Firing on Evaporation & Regenerator Integrity
3. Regenerator Modeling
4. Conclusions
5. References
Glass Defects Identification Using A Mass Spectrometer, Sem-Edx Microanalysis and HTO Analysis
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Bubble Analyses Using Mass Spectrometry
4. High Temperature Observation (HTO)
5. Solid Glass Defects Analyses Using Sem-Edx Microanalysis
6. Conclusions
7. References
A New Radiometric Measurement Device for the Temperature of Ribbon Zones in Tin Bath and Lehrs
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Physical Principle of A Newly Developed Device
4. Industrial Results
5. Measurement Precision
6. Implementation of the Radiometric Devices
7. Summary and Conclusions
8. Litterature
Furnace Design and Equipment for Extended Furnace Life
Use of Continuous Infrared Temperature Image to Optimize Furnace Operations
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Site Trial Findings
4. Conclusions
5. References

Refractories & Testing

Acceptance Test of Fused Cast Azs Sidewall Blocks Using Ground Penetrating Radar
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Background
4. Feasibility
5. Evaluation of Cut Blocks
6. Correlation to Corrosion
7. Algorithm Development
8. Key Findings Using GPR
9. Use of Back Surface Reflection to Gage Quality
10. Back Surface Interface
11. Scan Locations
12. Apparent Block Narrowing (ABN) Compared to Reflection Strength
13. Correction for 12 Inch Thick Blocks
14. Odd Shaped Blocks
15. Signal Collection and Processing
16. Inspections
17. Use of Inspection Data
18. Scanner Calibration
19. Equipment Repeatability
20. Multiple Melter Inspections
21. Conclusions
22. References
New Industry Standard in Furnace Inspection
1. Abstract
2. Current Needs of Industry
3. Smartmelter Radar-Based Sensors
4. Smartmelter Radar Technology Validation
5. Furnace Risk and Asset Management
6. Sidewall Thickness Monitoring
7. Other Critical Furnace Areas
8. Throat Thickness Monitoring
9. Conclusions and Future Work

Combustion

Design and Implementation of Optimelt™ Heat Recovery for An Oxy-Fuel Furnace at Libbey Leerdam
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Operation at Pavisa
4. Optimelt Design for a Commercial Tableware Furnace
5. Process Safety Approach
6. Implementation Safety
7. References
Maintaining Full Production in Furnaces With Failing Regenerators Using Oxy-Fuel Combustion
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Field Installations Two Plants With Similar Challenges
4. PLANT #1 Background
5. Discussion
6. Cfd Modeling
7. Results
8. Plant #2 Background
9. Phase I: Oxygen Lancing Discussion
10. Phase II: Thruport Oxy/Fuel Burners Discussion
11. Summary
Heat-Oxy-Combustion Bi-Fuel Burner - Heavy Fuel Oil Trials
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Experimental Setup
4. Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusion
7. References

Environmental & Safety

Glass Furnace Catalytic Ceramic Filter Installation and Operation Experience
1. Abstract
2. Project Introduction
3. The Treatment System Selection
4. The Physical Equipment Arrangement and Timeline
5. Development And Improvement of Reagent Dosing Control
6. Achievement and Running Cost
7. CCF Running Experience and Future Installation Recommendation
8. Reference
Operational Considerations and Lessons Learned For Dry Sorbent Injection Systems
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Hydrated Lime Sorbents Revisited
4. DSI System Design Considerations
5. Common DSI System Operational Issues and Lessons Learned
6. Conclusions
7. Abbreviations
8. References
Glassil Dustshield™: A Materials Engineering Solution to Meet Osha’S New Respirable Silica Regulations
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Glassil Dustshield™ Treated Sand Versus Untreated Sand
4. Acceptability For Glass Applications
5. Execution For Industry Trials
6. Conclusions
7. References
Deadly Dust: Reducing the Risks of Silica Dust in Glass Working Operations
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. What is Silica and Why is It A Problem?
4. The New Rule And Its Implementation
5. The Importance of Meeting the New Regulations
6. Steps To Take To Reduce Silica Dust Exposure
7. Conclusion: the Case For Clean Air
8. References
9. Notes
New Approach To Safety Estimation of Heat Soak Tested Thermally Toughened Safety Glass
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Impact of the Nickel Sulphide Inclusions’ Positions
4. Impact of the Nickel Sulphide Inclusions’ Sizes
5. Conclusion
6. Note
7. References

Advances in Fusion and Processing of Glass Symposium

Design of SLS Compositions For Accelerated Chemical Strengthening
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Minimum Case Depth (dmax) Considerations
4. Interdiffusion Rates in Commercial Sls Glass
5. The Role of MGO in ION-Exchange Kinetics
6. The Mixed Alkali Effect
7. Summary
8. References
Warp Reduction in Thin Chemically Strengthened Float Glasses
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Part Shape Modification Prior To Chemical Strengthening
4. Method of Heat-Treatment Prior To Chemical Strengthening
5. “Booster Shot” Method of Differential Time Chemical Strengthening
6. “Differential Chemistry” Method of Chemical Strengthening
7. “Differential Areal Density” Method of Chemical Strengthening
8. Discussion
9. Conclusions
10. Acknowledgments
11. References
Research And Development of New Energy-Saving, Environmentally Friendly Fiber Glass Technology
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Research Approach
4. Experimental
5. Result And Discussions
6. Summary
7. Acknowledgement
8. Reference
The Relation Between Furnace Efficiency And the Physics And Chemistry of the Melting Process
1. Abstract
2. Introduction – Observations in UP-Scaling Campaigns
3. Systematic Approach To the Intrinsic Processes
4. Systematic Approach To Furnace Performance
5. Conclusion
6. References
Gyrotron Based Melting
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Anylytical Basis
4. Experiments
5. Surface Melts
6. Cruched Granite Cold Crucible Melt
7. Basalt Pour
8. Nuclear Waste Glass Batch Fill Melts
9. Discussion
10. Acknowledgement
11. References
How the Industrial Revolution 4.0 Will Impact the Glass Industry Image Analysis That Is Part of Es 4.0 Is A Key Component Towards Industry 4.0
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Details And Applications
4. Future
5. References
Modification of the Glass Surface During Manufacturing
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Online Deposition Processes
4. Online Embedding Processes
5. Conclusions
6. Acknowledgement
7. References
8. Disclaimer

EULA

List of Illustration

Figure 1. Experimental set-up to study behavior of regenerator refractory material exposed to well- defined flue gas composition (i.e. the oxidation state of the flue gas (CO/O₂ content), and content of alkaline and sulfur species) as a function of temperature.

Figure 2. Schematic view of a single-pass regenerator with different zones having different requirements with respect to choice of refractory material.

Figure 3. Sodium evaporation rate for 3 similar furnaces with varying combustion conditions.

Figure 4. Examples of closed chimney blocks and chimney blocks with mouse holes

Figure 5. Outer wall temperature images at various positions of a regenerator chamber

Figure 6a and 6b: Flow of hot flue gas and cold combustion air through the regenerator chambers (the transport of flue gas and combustion air at different time intervals is shown)

Figure 1. The quadrupole mass spectrometry system intended for the bubble gas analysis equipped by single crushing chamber (left) and multiple chamber enabling the analysis of up to eight specimens by the standard fracturing procedure (right). The quadrupole analyzer chamber and the heated filament of the ion source are located in the centre.

Figure 2. Specimen for the bubble analysis – standard technique which is limited to minimum bubble sizes approx. 0.10 mm

Figure 3. Specimen placed under the tip in the crushing chamber

Figure 4. A scheme of the HTO method

Figure 5. High temperature observation of four different batch compositions at melting temperature 1,420 °C

Figure 6. Bubble growth rate measurement at melting temperature 1,420 °C

Figure 7. High temperature observation of bubbles released from two different refractories at melting temperature 1,200 °C

Figure 8. Line scan analysis of a knot containing ZrO₂_{together with Al₂O₃_{in comparison with the surrounding glass}}

Figure 9. X-ray mapping of the same knot containing ZrO₂_{together with Al₂O₃_{in comparison with the surrounding glass – higher brightness of the single color displays higher concentration of the corresponding element}}

Figure 10. Examined stones in sections viewed in electron microscope under BSE detector – Magnesia Spinel grain accompanied by small Zirconia grains (left) and cluster of Zirconia grains (right)

Figure 11. Examined knot in a section viewed in electron microscope under BSE detector

Figure 1. TC rod temperatures and pyrometer measurement along an annealing leh

Figure 2. Conventional implementation of thermocouple rods in annealing lehrsVarious attempts have been made in the past to overcome these problems by more or less simple devices.

Figure 3. Examples of various devices

Figure 4. Radiation intensity is traced in function of the width position of the ribbon band

Figure 5. Comparison of various pyrometers

Figure 6. Temperatures from three different measurement methods

Figure 7. Design for implementation of the devices

Figure 8. A complete system showing detail

Figure 1. Temperature profile regenerator (Source: Glass Service / CZ)

Figure 2. Flue gas channel situation

Figure 3. Photo flue gas channel

Figure 4. Measurement of temperatures in the regenerator

Figure 5. AFC System for flux line cooling

Figure 6. Doghouse situation real and sectional view

Figure 7. AZS throat in new condition AZS throat aged with 30 cm corrosion Chromium oxide block aged

Figure 8. System for fixing the floor insulation

Figure 9. Bracing wall

Figure 10. Longitudinal-section through the outer bottom electrode in the melting section

Figure 11. Potentially possible enlargement of the melting end up to 222 m² (2390 ft²)

Figure 1. Scanning of a block with known voids

Figure 2. Image of scan taken 3 inches from drilled face. Numbers represent size (inches) of drilled holes detected

Figure 3. Cross section of defects found by cutting sidewall block 36 along center line

Figure 4. Block 36 with machined slot for corrosion testing

Figure 5. Glass line corrosion

Figure 6. Corrosion at half the trough depth with original width lines drawn

Figure 7. Comparison between good and bad vertical scans.

Figure 8. Example graph of reflection strength vs distance from bottom of block. Areas used to calculate rating is the region below the Quality Baseline.

Figure 9. Cut sections of 9 block, top- center cut, bottom - cut at quarter width

Figure 10. Reflection Strength plots of block 9 cut in the center and quarter distance across the block

Figure 11. Block 54 with typical output showing Reflection Strength in orange and Apparent Block Narrowing in blue

Figure 12. Collecting a scan by rolling scanner up the center of the block

Figure 13. Reflection Strength and Apparent Block Narrowing plots of block 9

Figure 14. Photo of block 9 cut down the center.

Figure 15. Reflection strength scans of block 9 and its replacement

Figure 16. Scans of block 44 without calibration correction

Figure 17. Scans of block 44 after calibration correction is applied.

Figure 18. Inspection of Blocks 2 to 11, with various Operators (O), Scanners (S), and Repeats (R)

Figure 19. Plot of Reflection Deficit values for inspections of 10 and 12 inch blocks

Figure 20. Cut block with, Signal Deficit = 0.3

Figure 1. SmartMelter Solution Components

Figure 2. Example Refractory Thickness Risk View of a Furnace as Would be Integrated into the SmartMelter Solution

Figure 3. SmartMelter FTS Sensor is Used in Bottom Inspection

Figure 4. SmartMelter 3-D Visualization of Glass Penetration into Float Furnace Bottom

Figure 5 (a) Container Glass Furnace Bottom Refractory Configuration (b) SmartMelter Inspection for Mapping of Metal Infiltration

Figure 6. (a) Inspection Area in the Furnace (b) Color Mapping of Metal Infiltration with Depth

Figure 7. Mapping of Metal Infiltration in IFB Layer

Figure 8. (a) Red Rectangle Spots to Measure with Radar (b) Small Cut-outs in the Steel

Figure 9. Risk Assessment Map by SmartMelter® Inspection

Figure 10 Metal Line Measurement with SmartMelter® Sensors

Figure 11 Metal Line Thickness Map: Localized Erosion on the Right Sidewall of a Container Glass Furnace

Figure 12 High Zirconia Sidewall and SmartMelter® Sensor Measuring into High Zirconia through Direct Contact, Contact through Sillimanite and Grating on Sillimanite

Figure 13 Sidewall Erosion Profile of High Zirconia Refractory Measured on an Electric Furnace that Makes Specialty Glass

Figure 14 SmartMelter® Measurements Performed at Furnace Crowns

Figure 15 (a) Thickness Measurement on Throat Facer Block (b) Corresponding Spot Thicknesses

Figure 1. OPTIMELT TCR Process

Figure 2. Picture of Regenerator after Inspection and Debris Cleaning

Figure 3. OPTIMELT Arrangement in End-fired Configuration

Figure 4. Process Control Steps

Figure 1. ThruPort Burner

Figure 2. ThruPort Burner in Port

Figure 3. Oxygen Staging

Figure 4. Effect of Staging and Tilt Angle

Figure 5. Typical APEX Units

Figure 6. CFD Combustion Space Temperature Profiles

Figure 7. ThruPort Mock Installation

Figure 8. ThruPort Burner Installed

Figure 9. Side of Port Lancing Installation

Figure 10. Before and After Crown Temperatures

Figure 11. Before and After Bottom Temperatures

Figure 1. Air Liquide’s Glass Melting FC burner gas injections arrangement – natural gas injections are in red and oxygen injections in blue

Figure 2. Burner mounted on the furnace door, connected to O₂ and fuel input lines.

Figure 3. Flame aspect for P=1MW, T_O2=15°C and T_HFO=110°C

Figure 4. Flame aspect for P=1MW, at various conditions of T_O₂ and T_HFO

Figure 5. Picture of 1MW flame for T_O₂=550°C

Figure 6. Flame obtained at P=500 kW

Figure 7. Flames obtained at P=1500 kW for different O₂ temperatures (T_HFO~90°C)

Figure 8. Thermal profiles for 1000kW for the different O₂ temperatures and HFO temperature (see Table 1)

Figure 9. Crown temperature profile for 1000kW for the different O₂ temperatures and HFO temperature (see Table 1)

Figure 1, Libbey China Location

Figure 2, Real-time Air Quality data

Figure 3, Smog Day in Beijing

Figure 4. CCF system process flowchart

Figure 5. CCF system equipment location

Figure 6. CCF equipment arrangement

Figure 7. CCF system equipment installation1

Figure 8. CCF system equipment installation2

Figure 9. CCF system equipment installation3

Figure 10. Candle installation1

Figure 11. Candle installation2

Figure 12. CCF system view 1

Figure 13. CCF system view 2

Figure 14. NO_x chart of Urea fixed feeding rate at left/right firing

Figure 15. NO_x chart at Urea feeding rate PID control

Figure 16. NO_x chart at Libbey Urea Control Strategy

Figure 17. NO_x chart at Gas Flow fluctuating

Figure 18. Picture in Apr 8th, 2016

Figure 19. Picture in May 24th, 2017

Figure 1. Generic Schematic of Typical DSI System

Figure 2. View of DSI Silo System vs. Super-Sack System⁴

Figure 3. Summary of Physical and Chemical Properties of Various Hydrated Lime Sorbents

Figure 4. View of Two (2) 100+ Foot Tall Shop Fabricated DSI Silos

Figure 5. Real-Time Plot of Sorbent Dosage Rate from an EGU Facility⁶

Figure 6. Full Scale DSI Data Comparing 2^nd Generation EHLS vs. Standard Hydrate

Figure 7. Photo of DSI Weigh Hopper Designed with Load Cells

Figure 8. DSI Calibration Curves from a Full Scale Trial

Figure 9. Conveying Air Conditioning Equipment Impacts on Conveying Air Properties⁸

Figure 10. View of Sorbent Dispersion in Exhaust Gas Stream

Figure 11. Data Illustrating Hydrated Lime Pore Volume Impacts on SO₂ Removal

Figure 12. Comparison of DSI Performance with Varying Injection Grid Design⁴

Figure 13. Effect of Particle Size on ESP Particulate Collection Efficiency¹¹

Figure 14. Effect of Particle Size on Handling Properties⁶

Figure 15. TCLP Results from an Industrial DSI Application¹²

Figure 16. Hg Emissions as a Function of Non-Brominated PAC Injection Rate with and without Sodium DSI Sorbents³

Figure 17. Moisture Contaminated Sodium Sorbent Samples Collected during Unloading⁶

Figure 18. View of Conveying Piping Elbow Exhibiting Scaling at Discharge

Figure 19. View Partitioning Device Hose Run to Injection Lances

Figure 1. Dust chamber for testing silica sand dust generation

Figure 2. Treated versus untreated sand dust chamber test results

Figure 3. Marston Glassil 420 control (Left) and Marston proprietary treatment system #1 (right) in colored glass formulation at completion of batch free melt (120 minutes).

Figure 1. Distribution of the nickel sulphide inclusions (c) from HST(EU) (A) and Buildings (B). Simplest fitting by GAUSSIAN curve (a) and stress parabola in glass (d) are added. (b): Statistical limit from (a) where 99% of the inclusions are found.

Figure 2. Better fit using three curves Basis: GAUSSIAN; Middle: Parabola, parallel to stress parabola; Next to glass midline: 2^nd GAUSSIAN, “Spike”

Figure 3. Position of nickel sulphide inclusions relative to stress in glass. (a) Compressive stress region. Extremely seldom breakages. (b) GAUSSIAN: Breakage number increases randomly (c) Parabolic branch transforms into straight line (d) 2^nd GAUSSIAN, strongly compressed by coordinate transformation.

Figure 4. Schema of stress impact onto breakages by nickel sulphide inclusions. (a) Compressive stress region. Extremely seldom breakages. (b) GAUSSIAN increase of probability (c) Derivation of straight (Fig.03) is a constant, but level unknown (d) 2^nd GAUSSIAN, probability increases again in a very narrow range around glass midline. Endpoint on y axis: Normally not 100%, and different between A and B.

Figure 5. Nickel sulphide inclusions’ sizes measured from HST(EU) (A) and Buildings (B) Breakages in HST(EU) start at much lower sizes (41 μm / 69 μm), but, due to truncation of (B), the average size seems to be higher.

Figure 6. Truncation-undoing and estimation of relative breakage rate between datasets (A) and (B). A : Cumulative LOG-NORMAL curves (distribution functions), including curve (b) from literature = curve (a) x-shifted with constant x = - 27.9 μm; m_korr = 0.66 applied to obtain curve (c) B : Curve (a) x-shifted with size-depending parameter [Δx = (-17.3 -0.18*size) μm]; m_korr = 0.45 applied to obtain curve (c) C : Derivative (density) curves to (B) D : Compression of (C) to get a = b in tail of curves, n_korr = 0.32 applied a : Breakages from HST(EU) b = (a), but shifted to adjust with basis of (b) (different between A and B, see above) c : Breakages from buildings, un-soaked glass, compressed in y direction with m_korr to fit with (b), so undoing truncation (m_korr different in A and B, see values in diagrams). d : Breakages from HST-C/K (from other publication)

Figure 7. Consequence of estimation of unnecessary breakages in HST(EU) onto safety estimation for the HST. Data previously published in [(1)1) Kasper 2000] Total number of breakages recorded: 1462 Thereof, number during holding time: 290 (= 19.8%) A : Breakages during early heating-up are “absolutely necessary”. B : Breakages during middle heating-up are “maybe necessary”. C : Breakages during latest heating-up are “most probably irrelevant”. D : Breakages during holding time of HST ; “irrelevant”, too a : Limit of of breakages b : Limit of of breakages c : Beginning of holding phase (every pane > 280°C) Data: SG / Temperit-1996-2000.xls

Figure 1. Consumer Glass Sample – Insulated Water Bottle: Concentration profiles from EDS for K and Na after a 24 hour exchange in KNO₃ at 450 C. Data can be used to calculate the fractional molar exchange X = [K]/([K] + [Na]). The shape of the X vs. depth curve will be similar to that for the K concentration (“counts”)

Figure 2. Stress profiles for two glasses. Dashed line is for a glass with 16 % Na₂O while the solid line is for a “mixed alkali glass” in which K₂O is partially substituted for Na₂O.

Figure 3. Ionic conductivity and alkali diffusion coefficients for a mixed alkali (R1 and R2) glass. The minima in conductivity increases with increasing size/mass difference between the two alkali. Important observation are that R1 always diffuses slower in the R2 glass and R2 always diffuses slower in the R1 glass, and neither diffusion coefficient exhibits a minimum.

Figure 4. Effect of substitution of K₂O for Na₂O on ion-exchange kinetics. Glass composition: (16 – x) Na₂O x K₂O 10 MgO 75 SiO₂ . Drawn from data in reference [10]

Figure 5. Relationship between depth of exchange and chemical durability (alkali leach rates) in commercial and experimental SLS glass. Some rapid exchange experimental compositions have alkali leach rates comparable to current compositions. (11)

Figure 1. Origin of warp in float glass plate after chemical strengthening. An asymmetric stress profile having a non-zero bending moment about the mid-plane is superimposed by a bending stress profile to obtain a net near-zero bending moment.

Figure 2. Deflection in 0.4 mm thick soda-lime silicate glass coupons as a function of temperature and time after chemical strengthening in KNO₃.

Figure 3. Schematics of part shape modification (“PSM”) method.

Figure 4. Examples of deflection by part shape modification and after subsequent chemical strengthening for a soda-lime silicate 50 mm x 50 mm x 0.4 mm specimen. Shape modification done at 525 C under 55g total load; chemical strengthening in KNO₃ at 440 C for 24 hours.

Figure 5. The differential time (“Booster shot”) method.

Figure 6. Improvement in deflection using the booster shot method for a 50mm x50mm x0,4mm soda-lime silicate glass coupon.

Figure 7. The differential chemistry method.

Figure 8. Results of differential chemistry method for a 50 mm x 50 mm x 0.4 mm soda-lime silicate coupon with partial replacement of KNO3 in the paste on the air side. Chemical strengthening was conducted for 24 h at 440 °C.

Figure 9. Schematics of the differential areal density method.

Figure 10. Improvement in deflection using the differential areal density method for a 50mm x 50 mm x 0.56 mm thick sodium aluminosilicate glass coupon.

Figure 1. Mixed alkali effect on 15(Na₂O, K₂O)-10CaO-75SiO₂ glass durability in 100°C water for 12 h, illustrating local minima of leaching of (a) alkali cations, (b) Si cations, and (c) Ca cations (S/V ratio represents total surface area of glass powder over volume of water used; figure was reconstructed from Ref. [16]).

Figure 2. Fiber Glass Viscosity – Temperature Curves

Figure 3. Glass fiber relative weightloss in sulfuric acid solution at 80°C as a function of time.

Figure 4. Glass fiber yarn tensile breaking load retention data: (a) sulfuric acid - 80°C and (b) sodium hydroxide- 24.5°C (samples: El-303 Tex, E2-138 Tex, P-CRl-199 Tex, P-CR2-250 Tex, C - 127 Tex, E-CR-137 Tex)

Figure 5. Texturized glass fiber woven fabric tensile breaking load in warp and fill direction: (a) 60% sulfuric acid, room temperature and (b) 40% sodium hydroxide, room temperature

Figure 6. Accelerated fiber hydrolytic tests in 96°C DI water

Figure 7. SEM (a) and EDS analysis (b) of P-CR, E-CR, E, and C-Glass fibers after 10 days of hot water treatment.

Figure 8. Nonwoven fiber glass mat sample evaluations, comparing P-CR glass fibers (P) with various sizing chemistries with a standard E-Glass commercial product (E) for roofing application. (Numbers: sizing chemistry ID)

Figure 9. Survey of P-CR Batch Reactions at Various Heat-treatment Temperatures

Figure 10. Photomicrographs showing a continuous process of the P-CR Glass early batch-to-melt conversion characteristics (batch-free time about 20 min at approximately 1370°C).

Figure 11. Optical micrograph of P-CR glass marbles (left) and XRF composition tracking of batch melting process, covering conversion from C-Glass to P-CR glass and subsequent steady melting of P-CR glass batches (right).

Figure 12. Melt property tracking during the pilot glass melting trial

Figure 13. Glass weight change as a function of time at onset temperatures: C-Glass (left) and P-CR glass (right).

Figure 14. Optical micrographs showing DE yarn trial (left set) and J grade multi-end roving trial (right set).

Figure 1. a: Heat balance of a fossil fuel fired furnace with regenerative heat recovery; valid for specific enthalpy (kWh/t) or power (kW); in = input, fire = exchanged with the furnace body; ht = transferred to tank; ex = exploited; flue = leaving combustion space conveyed; conveyed to the environment via the stack, or the periphery (w_X = regenerator, w_L = lower structure, w_H = upper structure); b: Simple model of a hearth type heat exchanger; temperature levels by indices: ad = adiabatic flame; 0 = ambient; flue = flue gas; ex = pull; re = preheated air

Figure 2. a: So-called chiller plot showing the different operation ranges of a heat exchanger; COP is the so-called coefficient of performance and p is the mass flow of the cooling medium; for a glass furnace, COP = _ex = P_ex/P_in and p is the pull rate; b: Plot of power input P_in vs. pull rate p yielding a straight line with intercept a and slope b; c: Plot of overall specific heat demand H_in vs. pull rate showing the typical hyperbolic behavior; open square = point of maximum performance; open circle = arbitrarily chosen point of performance; enhanced batch kinetics would move the point further down the hyperbolic branch while reduced intrinsic heat demand would move the point vertically to another branch

Figure 3. Plot of powers P in kWh vs. the pull rate p, showing power input P_in, exploited power P_ex, and cumulative losses P_loss for an air-gas fired end port furnace, 97 m₂, Cr-green containers, 70 % cullet; the outer axes show the normalized (dimensionless) pull = p/p₈₆ and powers = P / (H_ex p₈₆)

Figure 4. Power vs. pull rate plot (left graph) and normalized power vs. normalized pull rate plot (right graph) of an air-gas fired end port furnace, 180 m₂, containers with frequently changed color; large variation of cullet used

Figure 5. Thermal efficiency _ex = P_ex/P_in as ratio of power drawn from the furnace to power fed into the furnace, compiled for 25 different container glass furnaces, comprising 5 air-gas fired side port, 3 oxy-fuel, and 17 air-gas fired end port furnaces

Figure 1. The heat capacity for granite (70 -77% silica).

Figure 2. CPI HeatWave Model VIA-301 10 kW, 28 GHz gyrotron heating system. The controls are on the left and the gyrotron tube is located in the lower right corner with the beam directed upward trough transmission line components above it.

Figure 3. Small test chamber a) outside view, b) inside view with aluminum waveguide launcher and granite sample.

Figure 4. Melts with 28 GHz MMW beam with slowly ramped power from about 1.0 to 4.2 kW over about 30 minutes; a) Barre granite, b) basalt, c) limestone, d) Berea sandstone.

Figure 5. Data for Barre granite surface melt.

Figure 6. Alumina crucible, 70 mm dia., with granite fragments before MMW beam exposure.

Figure 7. a) Top crucible view after MMW beam exposure up to 3.8 kW power. b) The congregate of melt and rock removed from the crucible.

Figure 8. Basalt brick below the 28 GHz waveguide after beam exposure to produce a glass melt pour into a container under the brick. Brick was previously exposed on left without a leak hole.

Figure 9. A tin cup 65 mm diameter by 30 mm deep filled with the basalt glass pour directly from a brick exposed to a 5 kW, 28 GHz MMW beam for 10 minutes.

Figure 10. Basalt cube inside the 51 mm diameter borehole in basalt resting on previously melted cubes that cooled into a black glass.

Figure 11. Three SRTC green glass spheres inside a 51 mm diameter granite borehole resting on previously melted granite still hot.

Figure 12. Sliced cross section of basalt borehole filled with MMW beam heated basalt melt. Diameter to undamaged rock boundary is 59 mm.

Figure 13. Axial slice of the top 127 mm length of a granite borehole, 22 mm off center of the 51 mm diameter borehole. Glass melts from top: Hanford #8, SRTC green, and granite.

Figure 1. Advanced Process Control for Industry 4.0.

Figure 2. Industry 4.0 [1]

Figure 3. Glass Service – Products and Services [3]

Figure 4. Glass Manufacturing Process [4]

Figure 5. Hot End IR-D Inspection (Xpar) [5]

Figure 6. XMIS – XPAR Process Data Analysis [6]

Figure 7. Heye International – Automated Swabbing Process [7]

Figure 8. Automatic Control of a Glass Furnace Melter

Figure 9. Model Predictive Control of a Glass Furnace

Figure 10. Glass Furnace Camera – Visual and Infrared System with Electronic Retraction

Figure 11. Levels of Glass Furnace Instrumentation Control

Figure 12. Glass Furnace Camera Imaging

Figure 13. Glass Furnace Firing and Batching

Figure 14. Batch Pile Imaging

Figure 15. End Fired Furnace Firing

Figure 16. Batch Pile Fragmentation

Figure 17. Glass Furnace Batch Pile History

Figure 18. Glass Furnace Infrared Temperature Imaging [8]

Figure 19. Tin Bath Infrared Temperature Imaging

Figure 20. Float Furnace Productivity Improvements

Figure 21. A Two (2) Furnace Operation with Multiple Forehearths

Figure 22. Advanced Sensors

Figure 1. Cross section transmission microscope image of fluorine doped tin oxide (FTO) TCO layer showing the classic structure for columnar grown mode. The film was grown on a sodium barrier layer (bottom striped region) which also serves to modify the transmission spectrum of the product.

Figure 2. Temperature of the gas phase flows calculated using the pro-STAR / STARCD® computational fluid dynamics software package₄. Heating of the gas phase materials due to heat transfer from the glass substrate of as much as 300 C is predicted.

Figure 3. Nomarski optical micrograph of silica (SiO₂) layers grown at growth rates sufficiently high to produce a fractal growth mode. Growth was from TEOS as the precursor and at a glass temperature approximately 40 C above that typically used for non-fractal growth mode.

Figure 4. Schematic illustration of the behavior of glass coated with a high melting point metal oxide deposited while the glass is above the working range (top). Continue strain of the glass results in fracture of the brittle film whereupon the entire stain is limited to regions without a coating (bottom).

Figure 5. Cross-section scanning electron micrographs of high-index particles with controlled depth of embedding.

Figure 6. (Top) Plan view SEM image of embedded particles showing a well dispersed distribution with no clustering on the m lengthscale; (Bottom) cross- section SEM image showing fully embedded agglomerates of primary particles.

Figure 7. Farfield transmission pattern from a normally incident 532nm high coherence light source on 1.8mm thick glass with embedded particles in the top µ0.5 m surface region. The increase in intensity along the stretch direction was reproduced at other wavelengths of coherent light as well.

Figure 8. The effectiveness of light extraction by surface modification with high index particles embedded in the top 0.5-1.0 m. A piece of clear glass (left) and embedded particle glass (right) were aligned and a HeNe (λ=632nm) incident on the left side of the clear glass.

Foreword

The 78th Glass Problems Conference (GPC) including the 11th Advances in Fusion and Processing of Glass (AFPG) Symposium is organized by the Kazuo Inamori School of Engineering, The New York State College of Ceramics, Alfred University, Alfred, NY 14802 and The Glass Manufacturing Industry Council (GMIC), Westerville, OH 43082. The Program Director was S. K. Sundaram, Inamori Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, Kazuo Inamori School of Engineering, The New York State College of Ceramics, Alfred University, Alfred, NY 14802. The Conference Director was Robert Weisenburger Lipetz, Executive Director, Glass Manufacturing Industry Council (GMIC), Westerville, OH 43082. Donna Banks of the GMIC coordinated the events and provided support. The Conference started with a half-day plenary session followed by technical sessions. The themes and chairs of four half-day technical sessions were as follows:

Modeling, Sensors, and Furnace Design

James Uhlik, Toledo Engineering Company, Inc., Toledo, OH and Michelle

Korwin-Edson, Owen Corning Composite Solutions, Granville, OH

Refractories & Testing

Laura Lowe – North American Refractory Company, Pittsburgh, PA, Larry McCloskey – Anchor Acquisition, LLC, Lancaster, OH, and Laura Lowe – North American Refractory Company, Pittsburgh, PA and Larry McCloskey – Anchor Acquisition, LLC, Lancaster, OH

Combustion

Glenn Neff, Glass Service USA, Inc., Stuart, FL and Uyi Iyoha, Praxair Inc.,

Tonawanda, NY

Environmental & Safety

Phil Tucker, Johns Manville, Denver, CO and Elmer Sperry, Libbey Glass,

Toledo, OH

In addition, there were four parallel half-day technical sessions on Modeling, Fiber Glasses, Glass Strengthening, and Melting and Characterization under the AFPG program.

Preface

This volume is a collection of papers presented at the 78th year of the Glass Problems Conference (GPC) including the 11th Advances in Fusion and Processing of Glass (AFPG) Symposium in 2017. The GPC continues the tradition of publishing the papers that goes back to 1934. The manuscripts included in this volume are reproduced as furnished by the presenting authors, but were reviewed prior to the presentation and submission by the respective session chairs. These chairs are also the members of the GPC Advisory Board. I appreciate all the assistance and support by the Board members and AFPG organizing committee members.

As the Program Director of the GPC, I am thankful to all the presenters at the 78th GPC including the 11th Advances in Fusion and Processing of Glass (AFPG) Symposium and the authors of the papers in this volume. This year’s meeting was a great success with 16% increase in attendance including 45 students. I appreciate all the support from the members of Advisory Board. Their volunteering sprit, generosity, professionalism, and commitment were critical to the high quality technical program at this Conference. I also appreciate continuing support and strong leadership from the Conference Director, Mr. Robert Weisenburger Lipetz, Executive Director of GMIC and excellent support from Ms. Donna Banks of GMIC in organizing the GPC. I look forward to continuing our work with the entire team in the future.

Please note that The American Ceramic Society and myself did minor editing and formatting of these papers. Neither Alfred University nor GMIC is responsible for the statements and opinions expressed in this volume.

S. K. SUNDARAM
Alfred, NY
February 2018

Acknowledgments

It is a great pleasure to acknowledge the dedicated service, advice, and team spirit of the members of the Glass Problems Conference (GPC) Advisory Board in planning this Conference, inviting key speakers, reviewing technical presentations, chairing technical sessions, and reviewing manuscripts for this publication:

Kenneth Bratton – Bucher Emhart Glass, Steinhausen, Switzerland
Martin Goller – Corning Incorporated, Corning, NY
Uyi Iyoha – Praxair Inc., Charlotte, NC
Michelle Korwin-Edson – Owens Corning Composite Solutions, Granville, OH
Robert Weisenburger Lipetz – Glass Manufacturing Industry Council,
Westerville, OH
Laura Lowe – HarbisonWalker International, Charlotte, NC
Larry McCloskey – Consultant, Lancaster, OH
Glenn Neff – Glass Service USA, Inc., Stuart, FL
Adam Polcyn – Vitro Architectual Glass, Cheswick, PA
Jans Schep – Owens-Illinois, Inc., Perrysburg, OH
Elmer Sperry – Libbey, Inc., Toledo, OH
Phillip J. Tucker – Johns Manville, Denver, CO
James Mark Uhlik – Toledo Engineering Co., Inc., Toledo, OH
Justin Wang – Guardian Industries Corporation, Auburn Hills, MI
Andrew Zamurs – Rio Tinto Minerals, Greenwood, CO

In addition, I appreciate the support provided by the AFPG Organizing Committee members, Dr. Hong Li (PPG Industries, Inc), Dr. Katherine R. Rossington (Corning Incorporated), Mr. Mark Mecklenborg (The American Ceramic Society), Mr. Robert Weisenburger Lipetz (GMIC), Dr. Reinhard Conradt (Rheinisch Westfalische Technisch Itochschule AAChen), and Dr. Randall E. Youngman (Corning Incorporated).

Finally, I am indebted to Donna Banks, GMIC for her patience, support, and attent- ion to detail in making this conference a big success and these Proceedings possible.

78th Conference on Glass Problems

Foreword

Modeling, Sensors, and Furnace Design

Refractories & Testing

Combustion

Environmental & Safety

Preface

Acknowledgments

78th GLASS PROBLEMS CONFERENCE

Modeling, Sensors, and Furnace Design