Loading…

An Analysis of Four Different Approaches to Predict and Control Sintering

Understanding and predicting sintering, which have been goals since the first attempts to mathematically describe the sintering process in the 1950s, are necessary to eliminate machining after sintering and to reliably predict and control the sintered microstructure and the resultant mechanical and...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of the American Ceramic Society 2009-07, Vol.92 (7), p.1419-1427
Main Authors: Reiterer, Markus W., Ewsuk, Kevin G.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5099-2adb8b3010821e5b0d7ee2fbfdf0a507cfcdb59e7f7d8c4217739cdbe18f7dd43
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5099-2adb8b3010821e5b0d7ee2fbfdf0a507cfcdb59e7f7d8c4217739cdbe18f7dd43
container_end_page 1427
container_issue 7
container_start_page 1419
container_title Journal of the American Ceramic Society
container_volume 92
creator Reiterer, Markus W.
Ewsuk, Kevin G.
description Understanding and predicting sintering, which have been goals since the first attempts to mathematically describe the sintering process in the 1950s, are necessary to eliminate machining after sintering and to reliably predict and control the sintered microstructure and the resultant mechanical and other desired properties. In this study, four different sintering models are evaluated relative to one another and the experimental data, revealing their attributes, deficiencies, and modifications/improvements in order to facilitate their application, including the following: (i) a microstructure‐based model for solid state sintering, mainly developed by Riedel and Svoboda (RS); (ii) a viscous sintering (SOVS) model developed by Skorohod and advanced by Olevsky; (iii) a Kinetic Monte Carlo (KMC) model provided by Tikare; and (iv) the master sintering curve (MSC) approach introduced by Johnson et al. For different reasons, all four models have deficiencies that preclude achieving the most challenging goal of being able to comprehensively understand and predict sintering behavior: (i) the RS and the KMC models are complicated and difficult to use; (ii) the SOVS model cannot predict microstructure evolution; and (iii) the KMC model and the MSC have no stresses in their mathematical description, so they cannot simulate the effects of external forces. Each model also has attributes: (i) the KMC model allows one to follow the evolution of mesostructure; (ii) the MSC concept and the RS model are suitable for predicting densification curves for a wide variety of temperature–time profiles; and (iii) the SOVS and the RS models, which are implemented into finite element codes, can be used to predict density gradients and the warping of complex shape parts. Individually and together, the MSC, KMC, SOVS, and RS models can be useful tools to advance the fundamental understanding and improve the control of sintering.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1551-2916.2009.03009.x
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_743709429</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>743709429</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5099-2adb8b3010821e5b0d7ee2fbfdf0a507cfcdb59e7f7d8c4217739cdbe18f7dd43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkUtv1DAUha0KpA6F_2B1AasM13YyjldVNPSpClpRRHdXTnJdPE2Twc6ImX-P00FdsEB44cf1d46tcxnjAuYijY-ruSgKkUkjFnMJYOagpnl7wGYvF6_YDABkpksJh-xNjKt0FKbMZ-yy6nnV224XfeSD42fDJvBP3jkK1I-8Wq_DYJsfFPk48JtArW9GbvuWL4d-DEPHv_p-pOD7h7fstbNdpHd_1iP27ez0bnmRXX85v1xW11lTgDGZtG1d1goElFJQUUOriaSrXevAFqAb17R1YUg73ZZNLoXWyqQSiTJV2lwdsQ973_SznxuKIz752FDX2Z6GTUSdKw0mlyaR7_9JqnyhTK5UAo__AlcphpRKxPR-aTRomaByDzVhiDGQw3XwTzbsUABOrcAVTonjlDhOrcDnVuA2SU_20l--o91_6_CqWp4-75NDtnfwcaTti4MNj7jQShf4_fM55leLi9v7u3s06jcBd55E</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>217897072</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An Analysis of Four Different Approaches to Predict and Control Sintering</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read &amp; Publish Collection</source><creator>Reiterer, Markus W. ; Ewsuk, Kevin G.</creator><creatorcontrib>Reiterer, Markus W. ; Ewsuk, Kevin G.</creatorcontrib><description>Understanding and predicting sintering, which have been goals since the first attempts to mathematically describe the sintering process in the 1950s, are necessary to eliminate machining after sintering and to reliably predict and control the sintered microstructure and the resultant mechanical and other desired properties. In this study, four different sintering models are evaluated relative to one another and the experimental data, revealing their attributes, deficiencies, and modifications/improvements in order to facilitate their application, including the following: (i) a microstructure‐based model for solid state sintering, mainly developed by Riedel and Svoboda (RS); (ii) a viscous sintering (SOVS) model developed by Skorohod and advanced by Olevsky; (iii) a Kinetic Monte Carlo (KMC) model provided by Tikare; and (iv) the master sintering curve (MSC) approach introduced by Johnson et al. For different reasons, all four models have deficiencies that preclude achieving the most challenging goal of being able to comprehensively understand and predict sintering behavior: (i) the RS and the KMC models are complicated and difficult to use; (ii) the SOVS model cannot predict microstructure evolution; and (iii) the KMC model and the MSC have no stresses in their mathematical description, so they cannot simulate the effects of external forces. Each model also has attributes: (i) the KMC model allows one to follow the evolution of mesostructure; (ii) the MSC concept and the RS model are suitable for predicting densification curves for a wide variety of temperature–time profiles; and (iii) the SOVS and the RS models, which are implemented into finite element codes, can be used to predict density gradients and the warping of complex shape parts. Individually and together, the MSC, KMC, SOVS, and RS models can be useful tools to advance the fundamental understanding and improve the control of sintering.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-7820</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1551-2916</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-2916.2009.03009.x</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JACTAW</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing Inc</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Ceramic sintering ; Ceramics ; Materials science ; Mechanical properties ; Microstructure ; Predictions</subject><ispartof>Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 2009-07, Vol.92 (7), p.1419-1427</ispartof><rights>2009 The American Ceramic Society</rights><rights>Copyright American Ceramic Society Jul 2009</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5099-2adb8b3010821e5b0d7ee2fbfdf0a507cfcdb59e7f7d8c4217739cdbe18f7dd43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5099-2adb8b3010821e5b0d7ee2fbfdf0a507cfcdb59e7f7d8c4217739cdbe18f7dd43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Reiterer, Markus W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ewsuk, Kevin G.</creatorcontrib><title>An Analysis of Four Different Approaches to Predict and Control Sintering</title><title>Journal of the American Ceramic Society</title><description>Understanding and predicting sintering, which have been goals since the first attempts to mathematically describe the sintering process in the 1950s, are necessary to eliminate machining after sintering and to reliably predict and control the sintered microstructure and the resultant mechanical and other desired properties. In this study, four different sintering models are evaluated relative to one another and the experimental data, revealing their attributes, deficiencies, and modifications/improvements in order to facilitate their application, including the following: (i) a microstructure‐based model for solid state sintering, mainly developed by Riedel and Svoboda (RS); (ii) a viscous sintering (SOVS) model developed by Skorohod and advanced by Olevsky; (iii) a Kinetic Monte Carlo (KMC) model provided by Tikare; and (iv) the master sintering curve (MSC) approach introduced by Johnson et al. For different reasons, all four models have deficiencies that preclude achieving the most challenging goal of being able to comprehensively understand and predict sintering behavior: (i) the RS and the KMC models are complicated and difficult to use; (ii) the SOVS model cannot predict microstructure evolution; and (iii) the KMC model and the MSC have no stresses in their mathematical description, so they cannot simulate the effects of external forces. Each model also has attributes: (i) the KMC model allows one to follow the evolution of mesostructure; (ii) the MSC concept and the RS model are suitable for predicting densification curves for a wide variety of temperature–time profiles; and (iii) the SOVS and the RS models, which are implemented into finite element codes, can be used to predict density gradients and the warping of complex shape parts. Individually and together, the MSC, KMC, SOVS, and RS models can be useful tools to advance the fundamental understanding and improve the control of sintering.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Ceramic sintering</subject><subject>Ceramics</subject><subject>Materials science</subject><subject>Mechanical properties</subject><subject>Microstructure</subject><subject>Predictions</subject><issn>0002-7820</issn><issn>1551-2916</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkUtv1DAUha0KpA6F_2B1AasM13YyjldVNPSpClpRRHdXTnJdPE2Twc6ImX-P00FdsEB44cf1d46tcxnjAuYijY-ruSgKkUkjFnMJYOagpnl7wGYvF6_YDABkpksJh-xNjKt0FKbMZ-yy6nnV224XfeSD42fDJvBP3jkK1I-8Wq_DYJsfFPk48JtArW9GbvuWL4d-DEPHv_p-pOD7h7fstbNdpHd_1iP27ez0bnmRXX85v1xW11lTgDGZtG1d1goElFJQUUOriaSrXevAFqAb17R1YUg73ZZNLoXWyqQSiTJV2lwdsQ973_SznxuKIz752FDX2Z6GTUSdKw0mlyaR7_9JqnyhTK5UAo__AlcphpRKxPR-aTRomaByDzVhiDGQw3XwTzbsUABOrcAVTonjlDhOrcDnVuA2SU_20l--o91_6_CqWp4-75NDtnfwcaTti4MNj7jQShf4_fM55leLi9v7u3s06jcBd55E</recordid><startdate>200907</startdate><enddate>200907</enddate><creator>Reiterer, Markus W.</creator><creator>Ewsuk, Kevin G.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Inc</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JG9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200907</creationdate><title>An Analysis of Four Different Approaches to Predict and Control Sintering</title><author>Reiterer, Markus W. ; Ewsuk, Kevin G.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5099-2adb8b3010821e5b0d7ee2fbfdf0a507cfcdb59e7f7d8c4217739cdbe18f7dd43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Ceramic sintering</topic><topic>Ceramics</topic><topic>Materials science</topic><topic>Mechanical properties</topic><topic>Microstructure</topic><topic>Predictions</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Reiterer, Markus W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ewsuk, Kevin G.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><jtitle>Journal of the American Ceramic Society</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Reiterer, Markus W.</au><au>Ewsuk, Kevin G.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An Analysis of Four Different Approaches to Predict and Control Sintering</atitle><jtitle>Journal of the American Ceramic Society</jtitle><date>2009-07</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>92</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>1419</spage><epage>1427</epage><pages>1419-1427</pages><issn>0002-7820</issn><eissn>1551-2916</eissn><coden>JACTAW</coden><abstract>Understanding and predicting sintering, which have been goals since the first attempts to mathematically describe the sintering process in the 1950s, are necessary to eliminate machining after sintering and to reliably predict and control the sintered microstructure and the resultant mechanical and other desired properties. In this study, four different sintering models are evaluated relative to one another and the experimental data, revealing their attributes, deficiencies, and modifications/improvements in order to facilitate their application, including the following: (i) a microstructure‐based model for solid state sintering, mainly developed by Riedel and Svoboda (RS); (ii) a viscous sintering (SOVS) model developed by Skorohod and advanced by Olevsky; (iii) a Kinetic Monte Carlo (KMC) model provided by Tikare; and (iv) the master sintering curve (MSC) approach introduced by Johnson et al. For different reasons, all four models have deficiencies that preclude achieving the most challenging goal of being able to comprehensively understand and predict sintering behavior: (i) the RS and the KMC models are complicated and difficult to use; (ii) the SOVS model cannot predict microstructure evolution; and (iii) the KMC model and the MSC have no stresses in their mathematical description, so they cannot simulate the effects of external forces. Each model also has attributes: (i) the KMC model allows one to follow the evolution of mesostructure; (ii) the MSC concept and the RS model are suitable for predicting densification curves for a wide variety of temperature–time profiles; and (iii) the SOVS and the RS models, which are implemented into finite element codes, can be used to predict density gradients and the warping of complex shape parts. Individually and together, the MSC, KMC, SOVS, and RS models can be useful tools to advance the fundamental understanding and improve the control of sintering.</abstract><cop>Malden, USA</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1551-2916.2009.03009.x</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0002-7820
ispartof Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 2009-07, Vol.92 (7), p.1419-1427
issn 0002-7820
1551-2916
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_743709429
source Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection
subjects Analysis
Ceramic sintering
Ceramics
Materials science
Mechanical properties
Microstructure
Predictions
title An Analysis of Four Different Approaches to Predict and Control Sintering
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T18%3A55%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20Analysis%20of%20Four%20Different%20Approaches%20to%20Predict%20and%20Control%20Sintering&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20the%20American%20Ceramic%20Society&rft.au=Reiterer,%20Markus%20W.&rft.date=2009-07&rft.volume=92&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1419&rft.epage=1427&rft.pages=1419-1427&rft.issn=0002-7820&rft.eissn=1551-2916&rft.coden=JACTAW&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2009.03009.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E743709429%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5099-2adb8b3010821e5b0d7ee2fbfdf0a507cfcdb59e7f7d8c4217739cdbe18f7dd43%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=217897072&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true