4.7 Article

Sintering of Multilayered Porous Structures: Part II-Experiments and Model Applications

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CERAMIC SOCIETY
卷 96, 期 8, 页码 2666-2673

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jace.12374

关键词

-

资金

  1. Danish Council for Independent Research Technology and Production Sciences (FTP), Danish Agency for Science, Technology, and Innovation (FI) [09-072888]
  2. European Union [228701]
  3. US National Science Foundation Division of Civil, Mechanical Systems and Manufacturing Innovations (NSF) [CMMI 1234114]
  4. Division of Materials Research (NSF) [DMR 0705914]
  5. Ministry of Science and Education of Russian Federation [11.G34.31.0051]
  6. US Department of Energy, Division of Materials Science and Engineering (DOE) [DE-SC0008581]
  7. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
  8. Directorate For Engineering [1234114] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Experimental analyses of shrinkage and distortion kinetics during sintering of bilayered porous and dense gadolinium-doped ceria Ce0.9Gd0.1O1.95- structures are carried out, and compared with the theoretical models developed in Part I of this work. A novel approach is developed for the determination of the shear viscosities ratio of the layer fully dense materials. This original technique enables the derivation of all the input parameters for the bilayer sintering modeling from one set of optical dilatometry measurements, including the conversion between real and specific times of sintering, the layers' relative sintering intensity, and the shear viscosities ratio of the layer fully dense materials. These optical dilatometry measurements are conducted simultaneously for each individual layer and for a symmetric trilayered porous structure based on the two layers utilized in the bilayered system. The obtained modeling predictions indicate satisfactory agreement with the results of sintering of a bilayered cerium-gadolinium oxide system in terms of distortion and shrinkage kinetics.

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