| Literature DB >> 28347029 |
Abstract
Ceramic nanocomposites are attracting growing interest, thanks to new processing methods enabling these materials to go from the research laboratory scale to the commercial level. Today, many different types of nanocomposite structures are proposed in the literature; however, to fully exploit their exceptional properties, a deep understanding of the materials' behavior across length scales is necessary. In fact, knowing how the nanoscale structure influences the bulk properties enables the design of increasingly performing composite materials. A further key point is the ability of tailoring the desired nanostructured features in the sintered composites, a challenging issue requiring a careful control of all stages of manufacturing, from powder synthesis to sintering. This review is divided into four parts. In the first, classification and general issues of nanostructured ceramics are reported. The second provides basic structure-property relations, highlighting the grain-size dependence of the materials properties. The third describes the role of nanocrystalline second-phases on the mechanical properties of ordinary grain sized ceramics. Finally, the fourth part revises the mainly used synthesis routes to produce nanocomposite ceramic powders, underlining when possible the critical role of the synthesis method on the control of microstructure and properties of the sintered ceramics.Entities:
Keywords: ceramics; microstructure; nanocomposites; powder synthesis; properties
Year: 2015 PMID: 28347029 PMCID: PMC5312897 DOI: 10.3390/nano5020656
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1Schemes and images of different types of nanoreinforcements, redrafted from [2]. Surface area/volume relations for different reinforcement geometries are also displayed.
Figure 2Scheme of common (nano)composite structures for ceramic materials, redrafted from [4] and [5]. (a) Micro/nano composite, with rounded nanoparticles occupying both inter- and intra-granular positions inside a micronic matrix; (b) Micro/nano composite, with elongated nanoreinforcements embedded in a micronic matrix; (c) Micro/nano composite, with platelet-like nanoreinforcements embedded in a micronic matrix; (d) Micro/nano composite, containing both rounded and elongated nanoreinforcements, embedded in a micronic matrix; (e) Bi-phasic composite made by two immiscible ultra-fine phases; (f) Multi-phasic composite made by three (or more) immiscible nanophases; (g) Nano/nanolayer type composite; (h) Nano- or micro-fibers embedded in a fine matrix; (i) Large second-phase precipitates embedded in a fine matrix.
Figure 3Example of different kinds of developed ceramic composite/nanocomposite structures. (a) Micro/nano Al2O3/Y3Al5O12 (YAG) composite, with YAG predominantly located at Al2O3 grain boundary [18]; (b) Al2O3/ZrO2 composites, in which ZrO2 grains occupy both inter and intragranular positions [18]; (c) Ultra-fine Al2O3/50vol.%Y3Al5O12 (YAG) composite, with interpenetrating microstructure; (d) Y2O3-stabilized ZrO2 matrix containing elongated hexa-aluminate SrAl12O19 grains; (e) Triphasic composite, consisting on a ceria-zirconia matrix and containing both rounded α-Al2O grains and elongated hexa-aluminate SrAl12O19 grains [14]; (f) Ultra-fine Ultra-fine Al2O3/33vol.%Y3Al5O12/33vol.%ZrO2 composite [21].
Figure 4Linear shrinkage versus sintering temperature (during the heating step) of un-milled (black curve) and milled (red curves) AY powders. Maximum sintering temperatures were 1420 °C and 1600 °C for the milled and un-milled powders, respectively [34].
Figure 5Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) images of AY materials. (a) Un-milled powder, sintered ad 1600 °C/3 h; (b) Milled powder sintered at 1420 °C/3 h. Characters A and Y refer to α-Al2O3 (black grains) and YAG (white grains), respectively.
Figure 6Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) micrographs of Y3Al5O12 (YAG) sintered by Spark Plasma Sintering (SPS) at increasing temperatures (Hv = average Vickers hardness; GS = average grain size) [41].
Figure 7FESEM micrographs of (a) pure CeO2-stabilized ZrO2 and (b) the respective composite containing 16vol.% of α-Al2O3, both sintered at 1450 °C for 1h [70].
Figure 8Evolution of flexural strength with the flaw size in Al2O3/SiC composites [69].
Figure 9Schematic illustration of the residual stress field in (a) pure Al2O3, due to thermal expansion anisotropy during cooling and (b) Al2O3/SiC nanocomposites, due to thermal expansion coefficient mismatch between matrix and second-phase. In both figures, the preferential crack path is illustrated.
Figure 10(a) Scheme of crack growth rate-stress intensity behavior; (b) Rising toughness with increasing crack size (R-curve behavior).
Figure 11Schematic illustration of stress-induced phase transformation toughening.
Synthesis methods of nanocomposite ceramic powers and examples of developed compositions.
| Synthesis Route | Type of Composite | Composition | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mechanochemical | Oxide/oxide | HA/MgTiO3/MgO; β-CP/MgTiO3/MgO | [ |
| Oxide/non-oxide | Al2O3/ZrB2/ZrO2; Al2O3/TiB2 | [ | |
| Non-oxide/non-oxide | B4C/SiC, NbC/NbB2 | [ | |
| Polymer precursor | Oxide/non-oxide | Al2O3/SiC; Mullite/SiC | [ |
| Non-oxide/non-oxide | ZrC/SiC; Si3N4/SiC | [ | |
| Vapor Phase | Oxide/oxide | ZrO2/SiO2; TiO2/V2O5 | [ |
| Non-oxide/non-oxide | Si3N4/SiC | [ | |
| SHS | Oxide/non-oxide | Al2O3/SiC; Mullite/TiB2 | [ |
| Si3N4/TiN;Si3N4/MoSi2; Si3N4/SiC; | |||
| TiN–SiC–Si3N4; ZrB2–SiC–ZrC–ZrSi | |||
| Sol-gel | Oxide/oxide | Al2O3/ZrO2;Al2O3/Y3Al5O12; | [ |
| Mullite/ZrO2; Mullite/TiO2 | |||
| Oxide/non-oxide | Al2O3/SiC; Mullite/SiCAlN/BN | [ | |
| Non-oxide/non-oxide | Mullite/SiCAlN/BN | [ | |
| Co-precipitation | Oxide/oxide | Al2O3/ZrO2;Al2O3/Y3Al5O12; ZrO2/Gd2O3; Al2O3/LaAl11O18; Ca10(PO4)6(OH)2]/Fe2O3/Mullite/Al2O3. | [ |
| Solution combustion/ | Oxide/oxide | Al2O3/ZrO2; CeO2–MxOy; MOx–ZnO; | [ |
| Spray decomposition | γ-Fe2O3–TiO2; Al2O3/ZrO2/MgAl2O4 | ||
| Surface modification route | Oxide/oxide | Al2O3/ZrO2; Al2O3/Y3Al5O12; Al2O3/Mullite; Al2O3/SiO2; ZrO2/MgAl2O4; Al2O3/ZrO2/Y3Al5O12; ZrO2/Al2O3/SrAl12O19 | [ |
| Oxide/non-oxide | SiC/Al2O3; SiC/Y2O3 | [ |
Figure 12(a) Flexural strength and (b) fracture toughness of S3N4/SiC composite as a function of the SiC volume content. Black symbol: powder by conventional mixing and milling method [113]; red symbol: powder by polymer precursor route [114]. Redrafted from [71].
Physical and mechanical properties of sol-gel and mechanical mixing-derived composites, sintered at 1650 °C for 1 h [126].
| Synthesis Route | Bulk Density (g/cm3) | Vickers Hardness (Hv) | Bending Strength (MPa) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sol-gel | 3.90 | 1385.5 | 219.8 |
| Mechanical mixing | 3.62 | 1076.5 | 184.6 |
Mechanical properties of Al2O3/YAG powders prepared by (i) co-precipitation; (ii) precipitation of Al(OH)3 in a YAG slurry; (iii) traditional milling [139].
| Synthesis Route | Sintering Temperature (1500 °C) | Sintering Temperature (1650 °C) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bending Strength (MPa) | Fracture Toughness (MPa√m) | Bending Strength (MPa) | Fracture Toughness (MPa√m) | |
| Co-precipitation | 604 ± 25 | 5.0 ± 0.5 | 402 ± 21 | 4.1 ± 0.1 |
| Precipitation | 485 ± 28 | 4.2 ± 0.5 | 284 ± 4 | 4.0 ± 0.1 |
| Milling | 432 ± 140 | 4.2 ± 0.6 | 111 ± 14 | 3.5 ± 0.4 |
Figure 13SEM micrographs of Al2O3/50vol.%YAG sintered materials, prepared by (a) traditional mixing route and (b) co-precipitation, both sintered at 1600 °C for 3 h.
Figure 14TEM micrograph of Zr0.89Ce0.11O2/Al2O3/SrAl12O19 composite, produced by the surface modification method. Letters A, B and C denote the Ceria-stabilized ZrO2, the α-Al2O3 and the SrAl12O19 phases, respectively, as determined by EDX analysis.