Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:15:16.134Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Microstructural variations in mullite ceramics derived from diphasic sols using different forming techniques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

C. Kaya  and
A. R. Boccaccini
C. Kaya*
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Research Centre (IRC) in Materials Processing & School of Metallurgy and Material, The University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom
A. R. Boccaccini
Affiliation:
Department of Materials, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Prince Consort Road, London, SW7 2BP, United Kingdom
*
a)Address all correspondence to this author.c.kaya@bham.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

Mullite ceramics with controlled microstructure in terms of residual glassy phase and density were produced from diphasic silica/boehmite sols using pressure filtration, die-pressing, and extrusion techniques. The effect of the compaction process on the green and sintered densities and on the final mullite microstructure was investigated. It is shown that glassy-phase-free mullite with high green and sintered densities can be produced from engineered diphasic colloidal suspensions using pressure filtration. The results show that the green body formation technique strongly determines the final sintered density, but it has no effect on the final phase composition of diphasic sol-derived sintered mullites.

Type
Rapid Communications
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 17 , Issue 12 , December 2002 , pp. 3000 - 3003
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Aksay, I., Dabbs, D.M., and Sarikaya, M., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 74, 2343 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Kanzaki, S., Tabata, H., Kumuzava, T., and Ohta, S., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 68, C6–C7 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Jeng, D. and Rahaman, M.N., J. Mater. Sci. 28, 4904 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Yoldas, B.E., J. Mater. Sci. 27, 6667 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Wei, W-C. and Halloran, J.W., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 71, 581 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Hoffman, D.W., Roy, R., and Komarneni, S., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 67, 468 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Boccaccini, A.R., Trusty, P.A., and Telle, R., Mat. Lett. 29, 171 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Kaya, C., Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Birmingham, Birmingham, U.K. (June 1999).Google Scholar
9.Kaya, C., Trusty, P.A., and Ponton, C.B., Brit. Ceram. Trans. 97, 48 (1998).Google Scholar
10.Kaya, C., Kaya, F., and Boccaccini, A.R., Adv. Eng. Mater. 4, 24 (2002).3.0.CO;2-O>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Wang, J.G., Ponton, C.B., and Marquis, P.M., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 75, 3457 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Bartsch, M., Saruhan, B., Schmücker, M., and Schneider, H., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 82, 1388 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Bocaccini, A.R. and Ponton, C.B., J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 19, 1687 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Kleebe, H.J., Hilz, G., and Ziegler, G., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 79, 2592 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar