4.7 Article

Flash microwave sintering of zirconia by multiple susceptors cascade strategy

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN CERAMIC SOCIETY
Volume 43, Issue 11, Pages 4896-4905

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2023.04.004

Keywords

Flash sintering; Zirconia; Simulation; Microwave Sintering; Sintering Mechanism

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the field of flash sintering, microwave energy is used for densifying ceramics complex shapes through contactless volumetric heating. A novel multiple susceptors cascade strategy is developed using both SiC and 3D-printed ZrO2 susceptors, allowing for a fast and homogeneous flash hybrid heating. This study highlights the sintering behavior of zirconia and the temperature distribution during flash microwave sintering through comprehensive simulations, in situ dilatometry measurements, kinetics method analysis, and microstructural characterizations.
In the field of flash sintering, microwave energy represents an interesting way to densify ceramics complex shapes, thanks to a contactless volumetric heating. Attaining a fast and homogeneous heating is a critical parameter and hybrid heating, using silicon carbide susceptors, is generally used. In this study, an original multiple susceptors cascade strategy is developed, using both SiC and 3D-printed ZrO2 susceptors. This novel configuration follows perfectly the flash heating scheme, even for high heating rates up to 1000 K.min-1 and leads to a high stability of the flash hybrid heating. Flash microwave sintering produced dense (97 % relative density) microstructures within 45 s. Based on comprehensive multiphysics simulations of the overall process, insitu dilatometry measurements, kinetics method analysis and microstructural characterizations, this work highlights the sintering behavior of zirconia and the temperature distribution during flash microwave sintering.

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