Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 42, Issue 18, pp 7708–7715 | Cite as

Evolution of elastic mechanical properties during pressureless sintering of powder-processed metals and ceramics

  • Hugh Alan BruckEmail author
  • Yasser M. Shabana
  • Buli Xu
  • JonPaul Laskis


Metal and ceramic structures are being fabricated by pressureless sintering of compacted powders. As the powdered compacts are sintered, the pore volume fraction, generally referred to as porosity, decreases while the elastic mechanical properties increase. In this investigation, a new relationship is drawn between porosity and the evolution of elastic mechanical properties in pure ceramic and metal specimens. To develop this relationship, disk specimens are prepared from Nickel and Alumina powders, then sintered to different temperatures. The evolution of porosity is then evaluated from density measurements, while the corresponding elastic mechanical properties are measured using the ultrasonic wave propagation technique. These experimental measurements are compared with several different descriptions: (1) a conventional power law formula, (2) a quadratic formula, (3) a numerical micromechanical porosity simulation, and (4) a new empirical formula that combines the effects of evolving particle cohesion on the elastic properties of the matrix material and the reduction of these properties due to porosity. For the Young’s modulus, the new empirical formula provides a better description than the alternative formulas. In the case of Poisson’s ratio, similar conclusions could be made. However, the Poisson’s ratio exhibited a different sensitivity to particle cohesion that was more directly related to the evolution of particle cohesion.


Relative Density Pressureless Sinter Empirical Description Pore Volume Fraction Wave Velocity Measurement 


  1. 1.
    Winter AN, Corff BA, Reimanis IE, Rabin BH (2000) J Am Ceram Soc 83:2147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    German RM (1996) Sintering theory and practice. John Wiley and SonsGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shinagawa K (2003) JSME Int J Ser A 46:378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shinagawa K (1999) Comp Mater Sci 13:276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang B, Gasik M (2002) Comp Mater Sci 25:264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jagota A, Scherer GW (1995) J Am Ceram Soc 78:521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Larsson PL, Biwa S, Storakers B (1996) Acta Mater 44:3655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Storakers B, Fleck NA, McMeeking RM (1999) J Mech Phys Solids 47:785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bruck HA, Rabin BH (1999) J Mater Sci 34:2241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ronald Munro G (1997) J Am Ceram Soc 80:1919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pabst W, Gregorova E (2003) J Mater Sci Lett 22:959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Phani KK, Niyogi SK (1987) J Mater Sci 22:257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roberts AP, Garboczi EJ (2002) Proc Roy Soc Lond 458:1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hugh Alan Bruck
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yasser M. Shabana
    • 1
    • 3
  • Buli Xu
    • 2
  • JonPaul Laskis
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  3. 3.Mechanical Design Department, Faculty of EngineeringHelwan UniversityCairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations