4.7 Article

Fundamental Aspects of Spark Plasma Sintering: I. Experimental Analysis of Scalability

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CERAMIC SOCIETY
卷 95, 期 8, 页码 2406-2413

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-2916.2012.05203.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal [W15QKN-09C-0128]
  2. National Science Foundation, Division of Civil, Mechanical, and Manufacturing Innovations [CMMI- 0758232]
  3. Major Instrumentation Research Program [DBI-0959908]
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences
  5. Div Of Biological Infrastructure [0959908] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Directorate For Engineering
  7. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [0758232] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Scalability experiments on the spark plasma sintering (SPS) of similarly shaped alumina specimens of the four different sizes are conducted. The utilized experimental methodology, based on the principle of rigorous proportionality of all the specimen and tooling dimensions, employs two different SPS devices of different scales. The processed specimens are characterized in terms of relative density and grain-pore structure. Overall, SPS shows good scalability potential within a single SPS device, but indicates substantial structure changes when switching between different SPS devices. Despite deviations in some cases, by and large, the experimental results obtained for different tooling sizes and temperature regimes are rather similar for specimens processed by the same SPS device. The obtained density and grain size spatial distributions are relatively uniform. High final densities with moderate grain growth are common. At the same time, due to the demonstrated possibility of a significant size impact in case of high heating rates and large specimen sizes, as well as the demonstrated differences of the processing outcomes based on different SPS devices, the predictive capability of reliable modeling approaches is of great importance for the industrial implementation of SPS techniques.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据