Microstructure and mechanical properties of TiB–TiB2 ceramic matrix composites fabricated by spark plasma sintering
Hamza Cheloui,Zhaohui Zhang,Xiangbo Shen,Fuchi Wang,Shukui Lee
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2011.01.096
2011-01-01
Abstract:Research highlights ► TiB–TiB 2 composites were prepared from powder mixtures based on different Ti content. ► The mixture with 5 wt.% Ti sintered at 1650 °C exhibit good mechanical properties. ► The flexural strength of the composite sintered at 1650 °C is 534 MPa. ► The fracture toughness of the composite sintered at 1650 °C is 6.19 MPa m 1/2 . Abstract TiB–TiB 2 ceramic matrix composites were synthesized by spark plasma sintering (SPS) process using Ti and TiB 2 powders. The microstructure, mechanical properties, and the densification behavior of the in situ synthesized TiB–TiB 2 composites were investigated. The effect of the addition of Ti on the microstructure and the reaction products of the composites were discussed. The results indicated that the composite synthesized from the mixtures containing 5 wt.% Ti and 95 wt.% TiB 2 at 1650 °C had the highest relative density of 99.4% along with flexural strength of 534 MPa and fracture toughness of 6.19 MPa m 1/2 . However, when the weight content of Ti in the mixtures exceeded 15%, the mechanical properties of the in situ synthesized TiB–TiB 2 composites decreased due to the extensive formation of the TiB secondary phase at the TiB 2 grain boundaries and the rapid grain growth of the TiB and TiB 2 phases. Keywords Sintering Ceramic matrix composites Microstructure Mechanical properties 1 Introduction Ceramic materials exhibit a combination of attractive properties such as high hardness, good erosion and corrosion resistance, and unique wear resistance. Moreover, ceramics such as nitride, carbides, and borides also achieve excellent creep resistance even at elevated temperatures due to their predominant covalent bonding. However, the inherent brittleness of the monolithic ceramics restricts their use in engineering applications. The effective method to overcome this problem is to achieve composites by adding reinforcement components such as aluminum, copper, titanium, and nickel to the monolithic ceramics [1–3] . In addition, almost all ceramics are difficult to synthesize by common sintering techniques, such as pressureless sintering, hot pressing (HP) and hot isostatic pressing (HIP). Hence, a new sintering process called spark plasma sintering (SPS) was employed. Spark plasma sintering is a comparatively novel sintering technique that allows the compacted powder to be sintered at low temperatures, with short heating, holding, and cooling time. During SPS, the spark discharge, joule heating, and plastic deformation effects all contribute to densification of the powders [4–10] . Thus, the grain growth is hindered and the densification process is accelerated due to the rapid heating. Therefore, SPS process is suitable to fabricate ceramics, ceramic matrix composites (CMC), functionally graded materials (FGM), metal matrix composite (MMC), and so on. TiB 2 presents good physical, chemical and mechanical properties such as high melting point, high hardness, high Young's modulus, good corrosion resistance and excellent electric conductivity [6,10–23] . However, TiB 2 is a compound with both ionic and covalent bonds, which demand very high sintering temperature for its densification. Moreover, TiB 2 has a low crystalline boundary diffusion coefficient, which causes the slow densification speed and long sintering time. Therefore, the TiB 2 with full density is difficult to prepare by common sintering processes. SPS should be an effective method to fabricate TiB 2 ceramic and its composites. In addition, the toughness of monolithic TiB 2 ceramic is very low, which limit its application. Hence, TiB–TiB 2 ceramic matrix composites are synthesized by SPS process to increase the toughness of the monolithic TiB 2 ceramic. 2 Experimental procedure 2.1 Raw materials Commercially available Ti powder (Mengtai Powder Business Department, Beijing, China) and TiB 2 powder (Ningxia Machinery Research Institute, Ningxia, China) were used in this investigation. The purity of the TiB 2 and Ti powders is 99.5% and 99.0%, and the average particle size of the TiB 2 and Ti powders is about 4.5 μm and 30 μm, respectively. Mixtures of the composite were prepared by milling 5, 15, 25, and 35 wt.% Ti powders with 95, 85, 75, and 65 wt.% TiB 2 powders, respectively. These mixtures were milled in an agate jar (575 mL, Nanjing, China) in a high-speed planetary mill (XQM-4L, Nanjing, China), using ethanol and agate balls (6–9 mm, Nanjing, China) as milling mediums. The rpm adopted during powder mixing is 300. The weight ratio of balls to powder was fixed to 5:1. All mixtures were milled for 2 h and dried in a vacuum evaporator. 2.2 Sintering parameters DR.SINTER type SPS-3.20 equipment (Sojitz Machinery Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) with pulse pattern of 12:2 was used to prepare the composites. The SPS process was performed using a pressing die made of graphite (Sanye Carbon Group, Beijing, China) in a 0.5 Pa vacuum chamber. The external and internal diameters of the die are 80 mm and 40 0 + 0.01 mm, respectively, and the height of the cylindrical graphite die is 80 mm. The diameter and the height of the graphite plunger (Sanye Carbon Group, Beijing, China) are 40 − 0.01 0 mm and 40 mm, respectively. The temperature was measured by infrared thermometer (Sojitz Machinery Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) though a thermometer hole with the diameter of 0.5 mm and depth of 20 mm located in the center of the die. The applied initial (to ensure that the plungers fully touch with the mixtures) and holding compressive pressure level was 1 MPa and 50 MPa, respectively. The selected sintering temperatures were 1150, 1250, 1350, 1450, 1550, and 1650 °C, and the heating rate was 100 °C/min. After soaking the mixtures at a desired temperature for 5 min, the applied current was cut off, the pressure was released, and the specimen was cooled down to room temperature. 2.3 Characterization tests The microstructure of the synthesized composites was evaluated using scanning electronic microscopy (SEM, Hitachi S-4800, Hitachi, Japan), and energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS). An X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis was performed to identify the reaction products on the fresh fracture surface of the samples using an X-ray diffractometer (X’ Pert PRO MPD, PANalytical B.V., Netherlands), with Cu Kα radiation. The bulk density was measured by the Archimedes method. Because the theoretical densities of the components of the sintered composites range from 4.50 to 4.54 g/cm 3 ( ρ Ti = 4.51; ρ TiB = 4.54; ρ TiB 2 = 4.52 ), in order to simplify the calculation, the theoretical density of the sintered composites is considered as 4.52 g/cm 3 . The flexural strength ( σ b ) was evaluated by three-points bending method using an Instron instrument on 2 mm × 4 mm × 22 mm specimens, with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Using the same Instron equipment, fracture toughness ( K IC ) was studied by the single-edge notched beam (SENB) method on notched 2 mm × 3 mm × 15 mm specimens. 3 Results and discussion 3.1 Relative density and microstructure characteristics Fig. 1 shows the relationship between the sintering temperature and relative density of the TiB–TiB 2 composites synthesized from different mixtures. Obviously, the relative density increases with increasing sintering temperature. Moreover, the content of Ti in the starting mixtures has a remarkable influence on the relative density of the sintered composites. As increasing the content of Ti, the relative density of the sintered TiB–TiB 2 composites also increases at the same sintering temperatures. However, with increasing the content of Ti, the densification temperature of the TiB–TiB 2 composites decreases. What referred above can be explained by the low hardness and relatively (compared to TiB 2 and TiB) low melting point of Ti, as well as by the fact that the creation of the second phase (TiB) enhanced the sintering kinetics and triggered grain growth during the densification process. The in situ synthesized TiB phase distributed between the TiB 2 grains eliminates the pores and increases the density. Thus, the addition of more Ti in the mixtures results in larger TiB phase in the composites, accelerating the densification process of the composites due to the TiB phase which act as a binder phase between TiB 2 grains. Fig. 2 presents the microfractograph of the TiB–TiB 2 composites synthesized from different mixtures at their maximum densification temperature. Few pores were observed on the fracture surface of the composites, indicating that the dense composites can be prepared by SPS process ever at low sintering temperature. Correspondingly, the relative densities of the four composites specimens all exceed 99%. The XRD spectra of the TiB–TiB 2 composites synthesized from the different mixtures at different temperatures are shown in Fig. 3 . Fig. 3 (a) shows that only the diffraction peaks of TiB 2 are present in the spectra for the composites synthesized from the mixtures with 5 wt.% Ti. However, when the content of Ti in the starting mixtures exceeds 5% by weight, the diffraction peaks of TiB appear in the spectra for the composites. Fig. 3 (a) also indicates that with increasing the content of Ti in the starting mixtures, the intensity of diffraction peaks of TiB in the TiB–TiB 2 composites increase. Fig. 3 (b) indicates that with increasing the sintering temperature, the intensity of diffraction peaks of TiB increase. In addition, no Ti peaks were observed in the spectra for the composite 35 wt.% Ti + 65 wt.% TiB 2 sintered at temperatures higher than 1150 °C. These results suggest that reaction between Ti and TiB 2 was completed when the sintering temperature is higher than 1150 °C, and TiB and TiB 2 are the main phases of the in situ synthesized TiB–TiB 2 composites. 3.2 Mechanical proprieties The effect of sintering temperature on flexural strength and fracture toughness of the in situ synthesized TiB–TiB 2 composites is shown in Figs. 4 and 5 , respectively. The plots reveal that the flexural strength and fracture toughness of the TiB–TiB 2 composites were proportional to the sintering temperature. In addition, the TiB–TiB 2 composite synthesized from the powders containing 5 wt.% Ti and 95 wt.% TiB 2 at 1650 °C had the highest flexural strength of 534 MPa and fracture toughness of 6.19 MPa m 1/2 , respectively. The addition of 5 wt.% Ti in the mixtures increased the strength and the toughness of the monolithic TiB 2 ceramic by more than 3/2 [11] . Because the densification temperature of the pure TiB 2 ceramic is above 1900 °C, TiB 2 grains will grow up in the sintering process. Thus, the mechanical properties of the pure TiB 2 ceramic are decreased. When 5 wt.% Ti was added in the initial TiB 2 powders, the densification temperature was decreased to 1650 °C due to Ti can react easily with TiB 2 at relatively low temperature and the production TiB act as grain-junctions ( Fig. 6 (a)–(c) ), then the TiB 2 ceramic with fine grains were obtained and the mechanical properties were improved. When the amount of Ti addition in the mixtures was increased to 15 wt.%, the densification temperature of the composites further decrease. However, the higher amount of titanium resulted in a higher amount of TiB secondary phase in the composites, which is not helpful to improve the mechanical properties of the composites due to the low strength and toughness of TiB. In addition, more content of TiB phase in the composite led TiB grains grow up ( Fig. 6 (d) and (e)), decreasing the mechanical properties of the composites [14,16] . Thus, the mechanical properties of the composites decrease at the combined action of the factors referred above. In order to clarify this question better, pure TiB 2 ceramic has been synthesized by SPS process in our laboratory. The mechanical behavior test results indicate that the relative density of the pure TiB 2 sintered at 1850 °C is 97.8%, the flexural strength of the pure TiB 2 is 506 MPa, and the fracture toughness of the pure TiB 2 is 5.12 MPa m 1/2 . The better mechanical properties of the TiB–TiB 2 composites obtained in this investigation are slightly lower than the ones of the TiB–TiB 2 composite obtained by Wang et al. [24] , i.e., 661 MPa and 6.95 MPa m 1/2 for flexural strength and fracture toughness, respectively. This difference may be caused by the different sintering and testing conditions, as well as the different starting powders. 4 Conclusion The effects of the addition of titanium and sintering temperature on the densification behavior and mechanical properties (flexural strength and fracture toughness) of the TiB–TiB 2 composites synthesized by SPS process were investigated. The results indicated that the composite synthesized from the mixtures containing 5 wt.% Ti and 95 wt.% TiB 2 at 1650 °C had the highest relative density of 99.4% along with flexural strength of 534 MPa and fracture toughness of 6.19 MPa m 1/2 . In addition, no significant grain growth was observed in the composite. However, when the weight content of Ti in the mixtures was exceeded 15%, the mechanical properties of the in situ synthesized TiB–TiB 2 composites decreased due to the extensive formation of the TiB secondary phase at the TiB 2 grain boundaries and the rapid grain growth of the two phases (TiB and TiB 2 ). References [1] A. Petterssona P. Magnussona P. Lundberga M. Nygrenb Int. J. Impact. Eng. 32 2005 387 399 [2] R. Klement S. Rolc R. Mikulikova J. Krestan J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 28 2008 1091 1095 [3] E.Y. Gutmanas I. Gotman Ceram. Int. 26 2000 699 707 [4] E. Olevsky L. Froyen Scr. Mater. 55 2006 1175 1178 [5] H.B. Feng Q.C. Meng Y. Zhou D. Jia Mater. Sci. Eng. A 397 2005 92 97 [6] M. Eriksson D. Salamon M. Nygren Z.J. Shen Mater. Sci. Eng. A 475 2008 101 104 [7] M. Kubota J. Alloys Compd. 434–435 2007 294 297 [8] Z.H. Zhang F.C. Wang J. Luo S.K. Lee L. Wang Mater. Sci. Eng. A 527 2010 2099 2103 [9] R. Chaim Mater. Sci. Eng. A 443 2007 25 32 [10] B.H. Li Y. Liu J. Li H. Cao L. He J. Mater. Process. Technol. 210 2010 91 95 [11] R.G. Munro J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 105 2000 709 720 [12] K. Morsi V.V. Patel S. Naraghi J.E. Garay J. Mater. Process. Technol. 196 2008 236 242 [13] H.B. Feng Y. Zhou D.C. Jia Q.C. Meng Scr. Mater. 55 2006 667 670 [14] J.H. Park Y.H. Koh H.E. Kim C.S. Hwang J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 82 11 1999 3037 3042 [15] A.M. Locci R. Orru‘ G. Cao J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 89 3 2006 848 855 [16] L.H. Li H.E. Kim E.S. Kang J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 22 2002 973 977 [17] T.S.R.C. Murthy B. Basu R. Balasubramaniam A.K. Suri C. Subramanian R.K. Fotedar J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 89 1 2006 131 138 [18] S. Ran L. Zhang O. Van der Biest J. Vleugels J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 30 2010 1043 1047 [19] B. Basu J. Vleugels O. Van der Biest J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 25 2005 3629 3637 [20] M. Sundheim Jensen M.A. Einarsrud T. Grande J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 90 4 2007 1339 1341 [21] J. Jaroszewicz A. Michalski J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 26 2006 2427 2430 [22] J.L. Li G.Z. Bai D.L. Jiang S.H. Tan J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 88 6 2005 1659 1661 [23] H.J. Kim H.J. Choi J.G. Lee J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 85 4 2002 1022 1024 [24] F.C. Wang Z.H. Zhang J. Luo C.C. Huang S.K. Lee Compos. Sci. Technol. 69 2009 2682 2687