4.7 Article

Simulation of densification behavior of nano-powder in final sintering stage: Effect of pore-size distribution

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN CERAMIC SOCIETY
卷 41, 期 1, 页码 625-634

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2020.08.046

关键词

Sintering; Porosity; Simulation; Densification kinetics: pore-size distribution

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan [C -20K05082]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study modeled and simulated the densification behavior of nano-sized powder in the final sintering stage, showing that the densification rate for size-distributed pores is lower than for single-sized ones. By choosing appropriate pore-size distributions, the experimental relationship between densification rate and porosity can be reproduced effectively. Additionally, the simulation revealed that the sintering stress with densification may increase or decrease depending on the pore size distribution, but is significantly lower than for single-sized pores.
In the final sintering stage, nano-sized powder frequently forms a pore structure where most pores are surrounded by more than 5 grains. The pore structure is different from that of coarse powder. In this study, the densification behavior of nano-sized powder is modelled and simulated in the final sintering stage. The porous body has the initial size distribution of pores, represented as a Weibull function. The mechanical interaction between pores is analyzed to simulate the evolution of porosity characteristics as well as densification kinetics. The densification rate for the size-distributed pores is lower than that for single-sized ones. The experimental relationship between the densification rate and the porosity could well be reproduced by choosing appropriate pore-size distributions. The simulation also shows that the sintering stress with densification may increase or decrease depending on the size distribution, but is remarkably lower than that for single-sized pores.

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