Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:32:21.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

X-ray computed micro tomography as complementary method for the characterization of activated porous ceramic preforms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2011

S. Vasić ,
B. Grobéty ,
J. Kuebler ,
T. Graule  and
L. Baumgartner
S. Vasić
Affiliation:
Technical Mineralogy Group, Institute of Mineralogy and Petrography, University of Fribourg, CH-1700 Fribourg, Switzerland; and EMPA, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research, Laboratory for High Performance Ceramics, CH-8600 Duebendorf, Switzerland
B. Grobéty
Affiliation:
Technical Mineralogy Group, Institute of Mineralogy and Petrography, University of Fribourg, CH-1700 Fribourg, Switzerland
J. Kuebler*
Affiliation:
EMPA, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research, Laboratory for High Performance Ceramics, CH-8600 Duebendorf, Switzerland
T. Graule
Affiliation:
EMPA, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research, Laboratory for High Performance Ceramics, CH-8600 Duebendorf, Switzerland
L. Baumgartner
Affiliation:
Institute of Mineralogy and Petrography, Earth Science, University of Lausanne, CH-1100 Lausanne, Switzerland
*
a) Address all correspondence to this author. e-mail: jakob.kuebler@empa.ch
Get access

Abstract

X-ray computed micro tomography (CT) is an alternative technique to the classical methods such as mercury intrusion (MIP) and gas pycnometry (HP) to obtain the porosity, pore-size distribution, and density of porous materials. Besides the advantage of being a nondestructive method, it gives not only bulk properties, but also spatially resolved information. In the present work, uniaxially pressed porous alumina performs activated by titanium were analyzed with both the classical techniques and CT. The benefits and disadvantages of the applied measurement techniques were pointed out and discussed. With the generated data, development was proposed for an infiltration model under ideal conditions for the production of metal matrix composites (MMC) by pressureless melt infiltration of porous ceramic preforms. Therefore, the reliability of the results, received from different investigation techniques, was proved statistically and stereologically.

Keywords

Grain sizePorosityX-ray tomography
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 22 , Issue 5 , May 2007 , pp. 1414 - 1424
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2007

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

REFERENCES

1Miracle, D.B.: Metal matrix composites—From science to technological significance. Comp. Sci. Technol. 65, 2526 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Rittner, M.N.: Metal Matrix Composites in the 21st Century: Markets and Opportunities (GB-108R, BCC, Inc., Brownfield, TX, 2000), p. 184.Google Scholar
3Evans, A., Marchi, C. San, and Mortensen, A.: Metal Matrix Composites in Industry—An Introduction and a Survey (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2003), p. 423.Google Scholar
4Eustathopoulos, N. and Mortensen, A.: Capillary phenomena, interfacial bonding and reactivity, inFundamentals of Metal Matrix Composites edited by Suresh, S., Mortensen, A. and Needleman, A. (Butterworth-Heinemann, Stoneham, UK, 1993), p. 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Rosso, M.: Ceramic and metal matrix composites: Routes and properties. J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 175, 364 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Matthews, F.L. and Rawlings, R.D.: Composite Materials: Engineering and Science, 4th ed. (Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, UK, 2003), p. 470.Google Scholar
7Lemster, K., Klotz, U.E., Fischer, S., Gasser, P., and Kübler, J.: Titanium as an activator material for producing metal matrix composites (MMC) by melt infiltration (Ti-2003, Proc. Conf. Titan.10, Wiley VCH, Hamburg, Germany, 2003), pp. 2515–2522.Google Scholar
8Kübler, J., Lemster, K., Gasser, P., Klotz, U.E., and Graule, T.: MMCs by activated melt infiltration: High-melting alloys and oxide ceramics, presented at the 28th International Cocoa Beach Conference and Exposition on Advanced Ceramics & Composites (Cocoa Beach, FL, 2004; unpublished).Google Scholar
9Lemster, K., Graule, T., and Kübler, J.: Processing and microstructure of metal matrix composites prepared by pressureless Ti-activated infiltration using Fe-base and Ni-base alloys. Mater. Sci. Eng., A 393, 229 (2005).Google Scholar
10Eustathopoulos, N. and Drevet, B.: Determination of the nature of metal–oxide interfacial interactions from sessile drop data. Mater. Sci. Eng., A 249, 176 (1998).Google Scholar
11Eustathopoulos, N., Nicholas, M.G., and Drevet, B.: Wettability at High Temperatures, Pergamon Material Series, Vol. 3, edited by Cahn, R.W. (Pergamon, Oxford, UK, 1999), p. 106.Google Scholar
12Saiz, E., Cannon, R.M., and Tomsia, A.P.: Reactive spreading: Adsorption, ridging and compound formation. Acta Mater. 48, 4449 (2000).Google Scholar
13Wan, C., Kristalis, P., Drevet, B., and Eustathopoulos, N.: Optimization of wettability and adhesion in reactive nickel-based alloys/alumina systems by a thermodynamic approach. Mater. Sci. Eng., A 207, 181 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Moura, M.J., Ferreira, P.J., and Figueiro, M.M.: Mercury intrusion porosimetry in pulp and paper technology. Powder Technol. 160, 61 (2005).Google Scholar
15Carlos, A. and Léon, Léon y: New perspectives in mercury porosimetry. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 76–77, 341 (1998).Google Scholar
16Palacio, L., Pradanos, P., and Calvo, J.I.: Porosity measurements by a gas penetration method and other techniques applied to membrane characterization. Thin Solid Films 348, 22 (1999).Google Scholar
17Karageorgiou, V. and Kaplan, D.: Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials 26, 5474 (2005).Google Scholar
18Cook, R.A. and Hover, K.C.: Mercury porosimetry of hardened cement pastes. Cem. Concr. Res. 29, 933 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19de With, G. and Glass, H.J.: Reliability and reproducibility of mercury intrusion porosimetry. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 17, 753 (1997).Google Scholar
20Chiang, Y.M., Birnie, D.P. III, and Kingery, W.D.: Principles for ceramic science and engineering, inPhysical Ceramics, edited by Robichaud, C. (John Wiley & Sons, Brisbane, Australia 1997) p. 263.Google Scholar
21Wu, Y., Castle, G.S.P., and Inculet, I.I.: Particle size analysis in the study of induction charging of granular materials. J. Electrost. 63, 189 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Gauthier, O., Mueller, R., von Stechow, D., Lamy, B., Weiss, P., Bouler, J.M., Aguado, E., and Daculsi, G.: In vivo bone regeneration with injectable calcium phosphate biomaterial: A three-dimensional micro-computed tomographic, biomechanical and SEM study. Biomaterials 26, 5444 (2005).Google Scholar
23Belaroui, K., Pons, M.N., and Vivier, H.: Morphological characterization of gibbsite and alumina. Powder Technol. 127, 246 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Xu, R. and di Guida, O.A.: Comparison of sizing small particles using different technologies. Powder Technol. 132, 145 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Schiavon, M.A., Radovanovic, E., and Yoshida, I.V.P.: Microstructural characterization of monolithic ceramic-matrix composites from polysiloxane SiC powder. Powder Technol. 123, 232 (2002).Google Scholar
26Ma, Z., Merkus, H.G., de Smet, J.G.A.E., Heffels, C., and Scarlett, B.: New developments in particle characterization by laser diffraction: Size and shape. Powder Technol. 111, 66 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Igarashi, S., Watanabe, A., and Kawamura, M.: Evaluation of capillary pore size characteristics in high-strength concrete at early ages. Cem. Concr. Res. 35, 513 (2005).Google Scholar
28Brunauer, S., Emmett, Ph., and Teller, E.: Adsorption of gases in multimolecular layers. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 60, 309 (1938).Google Scholar
29Langmuir, I.: Vapor pressures, evaporation, condensation and adsorption. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 54, 2798 (1932).Google Scholar
30Yang, R. and Buenfeld, N.R.: Binary segmentation of aggregate in SEM image analysis of concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 31, 437 (2001).Google Scholar
31Ho, S.T. and Hutmacher, W.A.: A comparison of micro CT with other techniques used in the characterization of scaffolds. Biomaterials 27, 1362 (2006).Google Scholar
32Matejicek, J., Kolman, B., Dubsky, J., Neufuss, K., Hopkins, N., and Zwick, J.: Alternative methods for determination of composition and porosity in abradable materials. Mater. Charact. 57, 17 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Farber, L., Tardos, G., and Michaels, J.N.: Use of x-ray tomography to study the porosity and morphology of granules. Powder Technol. 132, 57 (2003).Google Scholar
34Blacher, S., Leonard, A., Heinrichs, B., Tcherkassova, N., Ferauche, F., Crine, M., Marchot, P., Loukine, E., and Pirard, J.P.: Image analysis of x-ray microtomograms of Pd–Ag/SiO2 xerogel catalysts supported on Al2O3 foams. Colloid Surf. A-Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 241, 201 (2004).Google Scholar
35Watson, I.G., Forster, M.F., Lee, P.D., Dashwood, R.J., Hamilton, R.W., and Chrazi, A.: Investigation of the clustering behaviour of titanium diboride particles in aluminium. Compos. Pt. A-Appl. Sci. Manuf. Investigation 26, 1177 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36Velhinho, A., Sequeira, P.D., Martins, R., Vignoles, G., Fernandes, F.B., Botas, J.D., and Rocha, L.A.: X-ray tomographic imaging of Al/SiCp functionally graded composites fabricated by centrifugal casting. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B-Beam Interact Mater. Atoms 200, 295 (2003).Google Scholar
37Borbély, A., Csikor, F.F., Zabler, S., Cloetens, P., and Biermann, H.: Three-dimensional characterization of the microstructure of a metal-matrix composite by holotomography. Mater. Sci. Eng., A 367, 40 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38Ketcham, R.A. and Carlson, W.D.: Acquisition, optimization and interpretation of x-ray computed tomographic imaginery: Applications to the geosciences. Comput. Geosci. 27, 381 (2001).Google Scholar
39Lin, C.L. and Miller, J.D.: Pore structure and network analysis of filter cake. Powder Technol. 154, 61 (2005).Google Scholar
40Masad, E., Saadeh, S., Al-Rousan, T., Garboczi, T.E., and Little, D.: Computations of particle surface characteristics using optical and x-ray CT images. Comput. Mater. Sci. 34, 406 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41Maire, E., Fazekas, A., Salvo, L., Dendievel, R., Youssef, S., Cloetens, P., and Letang, J.M.: X-ray tomography applied to the characterization of cellular materials: Related finite element modelling problems. Compos. Sci. Technol. 63, 2431 (2003).Google Scholar
42Proussevitch, A.A. and Saghagian, D.L.: Recognition and separation of dicrete objects within complex 3D voxelized structures. Comput. Geosci. 27, 441 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43Coster, M. and Chermant, J.L.: Image analysis and mathematical morphology for civil engineering materials. Cem. Concr. Compos. 23, 133 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44Natterer, F.: Numerical methods in tomography. Acta Numerica 8, 107 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45Salvo, L., Cloetens, P., Maire, E., Zabler, S., Blandin, J.J., Buffière, J.Y., Ludwig, W., Boller, E., Bellet, D., and Josserond, C.: X-ray micro-tomography an attractive characterization technique in material science. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B–Beam Interact. Mater. Atoms 200, 273 (2003).Google Scholar
46Underwood, E.E.: Quantitative Stereology (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1970).Google Scholar
47Saotome, A., Yoshinaka, R., Osada, M., and Sugiyama, H.: Constituent material properties and clast-size distribution of volcanic breccia. Eng. Geol. 64, 1 (2002).Google Scholar
48Feldkamp, L.A., Davis, L.C., and Kress, J.W.: Practical cone-beam algorithm. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 1, 612 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49Xu, Y.H. and Pitot, H.C.: An improved stereologic method for three-dimensional estimation of particle size distribution from observations in two dimensions and its application. Comp. Meth. 72, 1 (2003).Google Scholar