Microstructures and mechanical properties of spark plasma sintered Al–SiC composites containing high volume fraction of SiC
Zhao-Hui Zhang,Fu-Chi Wang,Jie Luo,Shu-Kui Lee,Lu Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2010.07.043
2010-01-01
Abstract:Research highlights ▶ Al–SiC composites containing high volume fraction of SiC were synthesized by SPS. ▶ The Al–SiC composites synthesized by SPS consist of Al, SiC, Si, and Al 4 C 3 phases. ▶ The volume fraction of Al 4 C 3 and Si phases decreased with increasing temperature. ▶ The composite sintered at 1800 °C exhibits dense microstructures and good properties. ▶ The fracture toughness of the composite sintered at 1800 °C is 6.05 MPa m 1/2 . Abstract Al–SiC ceramic–matrix composites containing high volume fraction of SiC were synthesized by spark plasma sintering (SPS) technique with sintering temperatures ranging from 1500 °C to 1800 °C, a pressure of 50 MPa, and a heating rate of 150 °C/min, using Al and SiC powders. Microstructures and mechanical properties of the composites sintered at different temperatures were investigated. Results reveal that the Al–SiC composites synthesized by SPS process consist of Al, SiC, Si, and Al 4 C 3 phases. The volume fraction of Al 4 C 3 and Si phases in the composites were reduced remarkably with increasing the sintering temperature up to 1700 °C. As a result, the composite sintered at 1800 °C provides the optimal combination of dense microstructures and excellent properties, including the relative density of 99.6%, micro-hardness of 25.5 GPa, bending strength of 451 MPa, and fracture toughness of 6.05 MPa m 1/2 . Compared with the monolithic SiC ceramics, both the bending strength and the fracture toughness of the composites are improved due to the dense microstructures, fine SiC grains, and infiltration of the molten Al into the interfaces of the SiC grains. Keywords Al–SiC Ceramic–matrix composites Microstructure Mechanical properties Spark plasma sintering 1 Introduction Silicon carbide (SiC) ceramics exhibit an excellent combination of attractive physical and mechanical properties such as high melting point, low density, high hardness, high Young's modulus, and good corrosion resistance [1–5] . These characteristic properties give this material a wider application area, including its use as advanced engineering ceramics, aerospace materials, nuclear energy processing materials, high-performance semiconductor materials, ballistic protection materials, and so on [6–8] . However, the densification of monolithic SiC by common sintering techniques such as pressureless sintering, hot pressing (HP) and hot isostatic pressing (HIP) requires extremely high sintering temperature and long holding time [9,10] . In addition, the strength and toughness of the monolithic SiC ceramic is very low [11,12] . Thus, the applications of SiC ceramics are rather limited. 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 [13–17] . During SPS, the spark discharge, joule heating, and plastic deformation effects all contribute to densification of the powders [18–25] . Thus, the grain growth is hindered and the densification process is accelerated due to the rapid heating [26] . Therefore, SPS process is suitable to fabricate ceramics, metal–ceramic composites, nanocrystalline materials, and so on, which are difficult to be sintered by common methods [27–29] . Considerable investigations have been conducted on the Al–SiC composites with SiC up to about 20 wt.%, using techniques such as squeeze casting and powder metallurgy. Limited data is available on the microstructure and mechanical properties of the Al–SiC composites containing high volume fraction of SiC [30–32] . Furthermore, fabrication of the Al–SiC composites containing high volume fraction of SiC by SPS technique has not yet been reported by far. Thus, the primary goal of the present work is to synthesize a new Al–SiC ceramic–matrix composites with high volume fraction of SiC, using less expensive precursors such as Al and SiC powders by spark plasma sintering, and to investigate the microstructure and the mechanical properties of the composites. 2 Experimental procedure 2.1 Starting powders The commercially available Al powders (Yuan Yang Aluminum Industry Co., Ltd., Henan, China) and SiC powders (Ningxia Machinery Research Institute, Ningxia, China) were used in this procedure. The average particle size of Al and SiC powders is 2 μm and 0.5 μm, respectively. The chemical compositions of the starting powders are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 . Mixtures of the composite were prepared by milling 20 wt.% Al and 80 wt.% SiC powders in a high-speed planetary mill for 2 h at the milling rotation speed of 300 rpm, using ethanol and agate balls as a milling medium. The resultant slurry was dried in vacuum evaporator. Fig. 1 presents the SEM observations of the powder mixture, indicating that the spherical Al particles are uniformly distributed in the polygonal SiC particles. 2.2 Sintering parameters DR.SINTER type SPS-3.20 equipment (Sojitz Machinery Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) with pulse duration of 3.3 ms 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 mm, respectively. The temperature was measured by infrared thermometer. The applied initial and holding compressive pressure level was 1 MPa and 50 MPa, respectively. The selected sintering temperatures were 1500, 1600, 1700, and 1800 °C, with a heating rate of 150 °C/min. After soaking the powders at a desired temperature for 5 min, the applied current was reduced, the pressure was released, and the specimen was cooled down to room temperature. 2.3 Characterization tests The diameter and height of the resulting plates were about 40 mm and 10 mm, respectively. To avoid any contamination from graphite die, a layer of about 0.5 mm was removed from the surfaces of the bulk compacts before they were subjected to microstructure or property characterization. The bulk density was measured by the Archimedes method. Microstructure of the sintered materials was evaluated by SEM (Hitachi S-4800, Hitachi, Japan). Micro-hardness of the specimen was tested by micro-hardness tester (LM700AT, LECO Corporation, St. Joseph, MI) under 4.9 N. 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 samples were cut to various sizes for mechanical property tests with an electrical discharge saw. The bending strength ( σ b ) was evaluated by three-points bending method using an Instron instrument on 3 mm × 4 mm × 36 mm specimens, with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The tensile edges were beveled, and the tensile surface was polished with 1 μm diamond paste. Using the same Instron equipment, fracture toughness ( K IC ) was studied by the single-edge notched beam (SENB) method on notched 2 mm × 4 mm × 20 mm specimens, with a crosshead speed of 0.05 mm/min. At least six specimens were tested for each experimental condition. 3 Results and discussion 3.1 Reaction products The reaction products of the sintered samples were first subjected to XRD analysis to identify the reaction mechanisms. The results are shown in Fig. 2 . It is noted that the phases of the specimens are Al, SiC, Si, and Al 4 C 3 with sintering temperatures ranging from 1500 °C to 1800 °C, as observed from the diffraction peaks of Al, SiC, Si, and Al 4 C 3 indexed in all these spectra. However, the diffraction peak intensities of Al 4 C 3 and Si phases decrease obviously as the sintering temperature reaches 1700 °C and the diffraction peak intensities of Al also decrease obviously as the sintering temperature reaches 1800 °C. This trend reveals that the volume fraction of Al 4 C 3 and Si phases in the composite sintered at 1700 °C decrease and that of Al phase in the composite sintered at 1800 °C also decreases. Therefore, the above-mentioned results indicate that the chemical reactions shown in Eqs. (1) – (3) took place during the SPS process: (1) 3SiC + 4Al → Al 4 C 3 + 3Si (2) Al 4 C 3 → Al + C (3) C + Si → SiC In the initial SPS stage, because the intensity of the pulsed direct current was lower, the spark discharge effect between Al and SiC particles was weak. However, the local temperature in the particles was higher than the average sintering temperature due to the spark discharge effect. Al particles were softened and melted gradually, and then the melting metal was conglutinated on the surfaces of the SiC particles under the effect of electric field. As the sintering temperature reaches 850 °C, the chemical reaction shown in Eq. (1) took place during the sintering process [33–35] . Thus, the diffraction peaks of Al 4 C 3 and Si could be found in the XRD spectra of the composites sintered at 1500 °C, 1600 °C, 1700 °C, and 1800 °C, respectively. As SiC reacted with molten Al, elemental Si was rejected to the matrix, hence increasing the activity of Si. Continued rejection of Si could eventually drive the reaction in the opposite direction, and thus slowed the rate of formation Al 4 C 3 . Namely, the chemical reaction shown in Eq. (1) could not completely consume the reactants. Therefore, the Al phase was remained as evidenced from the Al diffraction peaks in the spectra for the composites sintered at the selected temperatures. As the sintering temperature exceeds 1600 °C, the reaction shown in Eq. (2) took place, indicating that Al 4 C 3 began to decompose. Then the decomposition C from Al 4 C 3 will react with Si to form SiC. Thus, the volume fraction of Al 4 C 3 decreased for the composites sintered at 1700 °C. Although the theoretical decomposition temperature of Al 4 C 3 is 2200 °C, Al 4 C 3 began to decompose due to the high local temperature when the sintering temperature exceeds 1600 °C. Consequently the volume fraction of Al 4 C 3 phase in the composites sintered at 1700 °C and 1800 °C showed a rapid decrease. As the sintering temperature reaches 1800 °C, Al phase began to gasify, leading to the decrease in volume fraction of Al for the sintered composite. 3.2 Relative density and microstructure characteristics Fig. 3 shows the Influence of sintering temperature on relative density of the sintered Al–SiC composites. The plot reveals that the sintering temperature has a remarkable influence on the relative density of the composites. With increasing sintering temperature from 1500 °C to 1800 °C, the relative density of the bulk compact increases from 68.6% to 99.6%, with much of the densification occurring by the time the temperature reaches 1600 °C. As the sintering temperature exceeds 1700 °C, the density continues to increase, but at a slower rate. Figs. 4 and 5 exhibit the fracture micrographs of the Al–SiC composites sintered at different temperatures. Large pores can be observed on the fracture surface of the composite sintered at 1500 °C, and the porosity of the composites decreases with increasing sintering temperature from 1600 °C to 1800 °C. Few pores can be detected on the fracture surface of the composite sintered at 1800 °C, making a nearly fully dense compact. Grain size measurement results reveal that the average grain size of SiC grains change from 1.15 μm to 2.65 μm with increasing sintering temperature from 1500 °C to 1800 °C. The main reason that the Al–SiC composites synthesized by SPS process have fine grains is that the sintering process is very fast, and the total sintering and cooling time did not exceed 18 min and 30 min, respectively. In addition, the lower sintering temperature was employed due to the special sintering technique and addition of Al into the composites as a sintering aid. Thus, the grain growth could be effectively prohibited. Therefore, the Al–SiC composites synthesized by SPS process should have good mechanical properties due to the fine SiC grain microstructure. Fig. 4 (a) and (b) indicates that fewer SiC particles were sintered when sintering temperature was below 1600 °C. However, most SiC particles were sintered and connected when the sample was sintered at 1700 °C, as shown in Fig. 4 (c) and (d). In addition, a great deal of rod-shaped Al 4 C 3 whiskers distributed on the interface of the SiC grains was observed on the fracture surface of the composites sintered at 1500 °C and 1600 °C, as shown in Fig. 5 (a) and (b). However, almost no Al 4 C 3 whiskers was found on the fracture surface of the composites sintered at 1700 °C and 1800 °C, indicating that the chemical reaction shown in Eq. (2) have taken place when the composite was sintered at 1700 °C. Fig. 5 (c) and (d) indicates that the molten aluminum was infiltrated into the interfaces of the SiC grains. As a result, the typical micro-defects such as pores and micro-cracks in the composites could be repaired by molten aluminum during the sintering process; hence the density of the composites was improved. 3.3 Mechanical properties Fig. 6 shows the influence of the sintering temperature on micro-hardness of the Al–SiC composites. Obviously, the micro-hardness increases with increasing sintering temperatures. The micro-hardness of the composites sintered at 1500 °C and 1600 °C is only 4.1 GPa and 6.5 GPa, respectively. By comparison, for the composites sintered at 1700 °C and 1800 °C, the micro-hardness reaches 20.2 GPa and 25.5 GPa, respectively, which is close to the micro-hardness of the monolithic SiC ceramic with full density. The rapid increase in micro-hardness of the composites could be explained by two facts: first, the micro-hardness increases due to a decrease in porosity with increasing sintering temperature; second, most SiC particles begin to sinter when sintering temperature exceeds 1600 °C. Fig. 7 presents the curves of sintering temperature versus bending strength and fracture toughness. It can be seen that both the bending strength and the fracture toughness increased when the sintering temperature was below 1700 °C. However, the bending strength increases at a slower rate and the fracture toughness decreases as the sintering temperature exceeded 1700 °C. Therefore, the Al–SiC composites had the highest bending strength of 451 MPa at the sintering temperature of 1800 °C, and had the highest fracture toughness of 6.45 MPa m 1/2 at the sintering temperature of 1700 °C. In ceramic materials, grain size and relative density are the main factors to affect the bending strength. In this study, the addition of Al into the Al–SiC composites and using of SPS technique largely reduced the sintering temperature and sintering time. Thus the grain growth of SiC was prohibited effectively. As a result, the average grain size of SiC ranged from 1.15 μm to 2.65 μm during the sintering process. Therefore, the bending strength of the composites was mainly determined by the relative density. Thus, rise in sintering temperature can increase bending strength remarkably due to the densification increase. Fracture toughness is a property that materials resist to the propagating of cracks. In this study, fracture toughness of the Al–SiC composites was determined by three factors: relative density, volume fraction of Al phase, and volume fraction of Al 4 C 3 phase. High relative density and high volume fraction of Al phase may lead to an increase in fracture toughness, but high volume fraction of detrimental Al 4 C 3 phase may lead to a decrease in fracture toughness due to its brittle and hydrophilic nature. When the composites were sintered below 1600 °C, the volume fractions of Al 4 C 3 and Al phases in the composites had no obvious change according to the XRD analysis. Thus, increase of sintering temperature made the composites denser and fracture toughness increased. When increasing sintering temperature from 1600 °C to 1700 °C, the volume fraction of Al phase had no obvious change, but that of Al 4 C 3 phase decreased due to the decomposition reaction, leading to a rapid increase in fracture toughness for the composite sintered at 1700 °C. As the sintering temperature exceeds 1700 °C, the high local temperature resulted from the spark discharge effect may lead to gasification of some Al. As a result, the fracture toughness of the composite sintered at 1800 °C slightly decreased due to the combined effects, i.e., a densification of composite, decrease of Al 4 C 3 phase, and gasification of Al phase. Table 3 presents a comparison of mechanical properties of Al–SiC composites determined in this study and the monolithic SiC ceramic. Both the bending strength and the fracture toughness of the Al–SiC composites synthesized by SPS technique are improved. Moreover, the hardness of the composites maintains a fairly high level. 4 Conclusions In the present study, Al–SiC composites were synthesized by SPS technique with optimized sintering parameters. XRD analysis results indicated that the phases of the composites sintered at temperatures ranging from 1500 °C to 1800 °C consist mainly of Al, SiC, Si, and Al 4 C 3 . However, the volume fraction of the detrimental Al 4 C 3 and Si phases in the composite sintered at 1700 °C decreased rapidly due to the decomposition of Al 4 C 3 and reaction of Si and the decomposition C from Al 4 C 3 , leading to a sharp increase in bending strength and fracture toughness. When the sintering temperature exceeded 1700 °C, the high local temperature resulted from the spark discharge effect led to gasification of some Al. As a result, the fracture toughness of the composite sintered at 1800 °C slightly decreased due to the combined effects, i.e., a densification of composite, decrease of Al 4 C 3 phase, and gasification of Al phase. Compared with the monolithic SiC ceramic, the Al–SiC composite sintered at 1800 °C has a higher bending strength of 451 MPa and better fracture toughness of 6.05 MPa m 1/2 . Moreover, the hardness of the composite maintains a fairly high level (25.5 GPa). The main strengthening and toughening mechanisms include the high relative density, fine SiC grains and infiltration of molten Al into the interfaces of SiC grains. Due to the good comprehensive mechanical properties, the synthesized Al–SiC composites constitute a wonderful choice for applications in high performance cutting tools and abrasives, wear resistant parts, and all kinds of armored vehicles. References [1] Y.M.Z. Ahmed S.M. El-Sheikh J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 87 2009 2724 2730 [2] A. Maître A. Vande Put J.P. Laval S. Valette G. Trolliard J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 28 2008 1881 1890 [3] T. Yamamoto H. Kitaura Y. Kodera T. Ishii M. Ohyanagi Z.A. Munir J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 87 2004 1436 1441 [4] J. Sánchez-González A.L. Ortiz F. Guiberteau C. Pascual J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 27 2007 3935 3939 [5] F.M. Varela-Feria J. Martinez-Fernández A.R. De Arellano-López M. Singh J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 22 2002 2719 2725 [6] M.F. Zawrah M. El-Gazery Mater. Chem. Phys. 106 2007 330 337 [7] P. Forquin C. Denoual C.E. Cottenot F. Hild Mech. Mater. 35 2003 987 1002 [8] R. Kobayashi J. Tatami T. Wakihara K. Komeya T. Meguro T. Goto R. Tu J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 91 2008 1548 1552 [9] M. Castillo-Rodríguez A. Muñoz A. Domíngguez-Rodríguez J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 26 2006 2397 2405 [10] J. Ihle M. Herrmann J. Adler J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 25 2005 997 1003 [11] S.H. Lee Y. Sakka T. Tanaka Y. Kagawa J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 92 2009 2888 2893 [12] D.I. Cheong J. Kim J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 22 2005 1321 1327 [13] I. Akin M. Hotta F.C. Sahin O. Yucel G. Goller T. Goto J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 29 2009 2379 2385 [14] C.Q. Hong X.H. Zhang W.J. Li J.C. Han S.H. Meng Mater. Sci. Eng. A 498 2008 437 441 [15] Z.H. Zhang F.C. Wang L. Wang S.K. Li S. Osamu Mater. Lett. 62 2008 3987 3990 [16] Z.H. Zhang F.C. Wang S.K. Li M.W. Shen S. Osamu Mater. Charact. 59 2008 329 333 [17] W. Chen U. Anselmi-Tamburini J.E. Garay J.R. Groza Z.A. Munir Mater. Sci. Eng. A 394 2005 132 138 [18] S.L. Ran L. Gao J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 91 2008 599 602 [19] S. Meir S. Kalabukhov N. Froumin M.P. Dariel N. Frage J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 92 2009 358 364 [20] R. Zhang L. Gao J.K. Guo J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 87 2004 302 304 [21] Z.H. Zhang F.C. Wang L. Wang Mater. Sci. Eng. A 476 2008 201 205 [22] C. Shearwood Y.Q. Fu L. Yu K.A. Khor Scripta Mater. 52 2005 455 460 [23] G.S. Kim D.H. Shin Y.I. Seo Y.D. Kim Mater. Charact. 59 2008 1201 1205 [24] R. Kumar K.H. Prakash P. Cheang K.A. Khor Acta. Mater. 53 2005 2327 2335 [25] U. Anselmi-Tamburini J.E. Garay Z.A. Munir Scripta Mater. 54 2006 823 828 [26] F. Guillard A. Allemand J.D. Lulewicz J. Galy J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 27 2007 2725 2728 [27] Z.H. Zhang F.C. Wang S.K. Lee Y. Liu J.W. Cheng Y. Liang Mater. Sci. Eng. A 523 2009 134 138 [28] F.C. Wang Z.H. Zhang J. Luo C.C. Huang S.K. Lee Compos. Sci. Technol. 69 2009 2682 2687 [29] J.C. Han C.Q. Hong X.H. Zhang B.L. Wang Compos. Sci. Technol. 65 2005 1711 1718 [30] S.B. Ren X.B. He X.H. Qu I.S. Humail Y. Li Mater. Sci. Eng. A 444 2007 112 119 [31] J.W. Liu Z.X. Zheng J.M. Wang Y.C. Wu W.M. Tang J. Lv J. Alloys Compd. 465 2008 239 243 [32] O. Beffort S.Y. Long C. Cayron J. Kuebler P.A. Buffat Compos. Sci. Technol. 67 2007 737 745 [33] J.C. Romero L. Wang R.J. Arsenault Mater. Sci. Eng. A 212 1996 1 5 [34] J.C. Lee J.Y. Byun S.B. Park H.I. Lee Acta Mater. 46 1998 1771 1780 [35] Y.H. Liu X.F. Liu X.F. Bian Mater. Lett. 58 2004 1282 1287 [36] Z.H. Zhang F.C. Wang J. Luo S.K. Lee L. Wang Mater. Sci. Eng. A 527 2010 2099 2103 [37] A.L. Ortiz A. Muñoz-Bernabé O. Borrero-López A. Domínguez-Rodríguez F. Guiberteau N.P. Padture J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 24 2004 3245 3249 [38] S.H. Lee H. Tanaka Y. Kagawa J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 29 2009 2087 2095