4.7 Review

Sintering additives for SiC based on the reactivity: A review

期刊

CERAMICS INTERNATIONAL
卷 42, 期 16, 页码 17947-17962

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.09.022

关键词

SiC; Sintering; Densification; Gibbs free energy

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program - Ministry of Education [NRF-2015R1D1A1A09056751]
  2. National R&D Program - Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning [2014M1A7A1A02029408]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2015R1D1A1A09056751, 22A20130000202] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Silicon carbide (SiC) is one of the most attractive materials for high temperature applications, being used in many areas, such as gas turbines, heat exchangers, and space shuttles, because of its excellent strength, oxidation resistance and chemical stability at high temperatures. Moreover, SiC and its composites are being considered as structural materials for advanced fission reactors and future fusion reactors owing to its additional low induced radioactivity under neutron irradiation conditions. On the other hand, pure SiC can only be densified by sintering at high temperatures and pressures because of its high covalent bonding nature and low self-diffusivity. Therefore, the addition of sintering additives is essential for enhancing the densification of SiC. This paper reviews the criteria for the selection of effective SiC sintering additives based on the Gibbs free energy to predict the reactivity between the sintering additive and SiC, particularly for liquid phase sintering at 1700-1900 degrees C. The thermodynamic simulation was verified by offering the experimental results for various types of sintering additives, such as main group metals, metal oxides, and rare earth elements. This review suggests a guideline for the selection of sintering additives for SiC. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd and Techna Group S.r.l. All rights reserved.

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