4.7 Article

Processing and characterization of SiB0.5C1.5N0.5 produced by mechanical alloying and subsequent spark plasma sintering

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2007.11.012

Keywords

SiB0.5C1.5N0.5 ceramics; spark plasma sintering; mechanical properties; microstructure; mechanical alloying

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [90505011]
  2. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-04-0327]
  3. Key Laboratory of Advanced Functional Materials
  4. Ministry of Education of China (Beijing University of Technology, China)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

SiB0.5C1.5N0.5 nanopowders were synthesized by mechanical alloying method, and a predominantly amorphous with a small volume fraction of nanocrystalline phase was formed in the powders. The results showed that the crystallites were SiC, and the polytype of SiC were 3C and 6H. SiB0.5C1.5N0.5 powders were consolidated by spark plasma sintering (SPS) technique at 1800 degrees C under different sintering pressure. The grain boundaries of SiC and BCN phase could not be clearly distinguished for the ceramics sintered under 25 MPa. When the pressure increased to 40MPa, SiC phase almost completely crystallized, and its grain size was less than 1 mu m. BCN phase were mainly distributed at boundary of SiC grain. Some amorphous structures were found in the sintered ceramics. Relative densities of the ceramics increased from 76.6% to 92.4%, and mechanical property values increased two or three times with the increase of sintering pressure. For the ceramics sintered under a pressure of 40 MPa, flexural strength, fracture toughness, elastic modulus and Vickers' hardness attained to 311.5 MPa, 3.45 MPa m(1/2), 133.0 GPa and 3.68 GPa, respectively. The mass of the SiBCN ceramics lose by several percent below 930 degrees C in air, and then keep unchanged above 1100 degrees C. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available