Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-7r68w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-04T11:14:52.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Electrical behavior of oxidized metal powders during and after compaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Terry J. Garino
Terry J. Garino
Affiliation:
Ceramic Materials Department, Sandia National Laboratories, P.O. Box 5800, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185–1411
Get access

Abstract

The electrical behavior during compaction of tantalum and aluminum powders was characterized before and after thermal oxidation. The resistivity of unoxidized powders decreased by >106 over a narrow range of stress between 1 and 10 MPa. Thermal oxidation of the powders to produce submicrometer thick oxide layers on the particles increased the precompaction electric breakdown strength from <0.2 to >5 kV/cm but did not have a significant effect on the low field resistivity of the powders during compaction. At higher fields, the decrease in resistivity during compaction occurred at lower stresses and over a much narrower stress range since catastrophic electrical breakdown occurred once a certain level of stress was reached. The breakdown field at constant stress also decreased as the stress was increased for the oxidized powders. These effects are caused by the cracking of the brittle oxide coatings at the contact points between the particles during compaction.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 17 , Issue 10 , October 2002 , pp. 2691 - 2697
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

REFERENCES

1.Euler, K-J., Herger, P., Metzendorf, H., Sperlich, B., Powder Technol. 27, 53 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Kirchhof, R., Mater. Chem. 6, 209 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Yanagisawa, O., Kazuhiro, K., and Hatayama, T., Mater. Trans. JIM 38, 240 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Euler, K.J., Fromm, R., and Sperlich, B., Planseeber. Pulvermetall. 28, 127 (1980).Google Scholar
5.Sperlich, B., Mater. Chem. 5, 169 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Garino, T.J., Oxidized Metal Powders for Mechanical Shock and Crush Safety Enhancers, Sandia Laboratories Report SAND20020159, Jan. 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Kim, J.Y., Nielsen, M.C., Rymaszewski, E.J., and Lu, T.M., J. Appl. Phys. 87, 1448 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Anderson, R.A., in Electrorheological Fluids: Mechanisms, Properties, Structures, Technology and Applications, edited by Tao, R. (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992), pp. 81–92.Google Scholar
9.Magtoto, N.P., Niu, C., Ekstrom, B.M., Addepalli, S., and Kelber, J.A., Appl. Phys. Lett. 77, 2228 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Rhee, Y-W., Kim, H-W., Deng, Y., Lawn, B., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 84, 1066 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Radjai, F., Jean, M., Moreau, J.J., and Roux, S., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 274 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Drescher, A. and Jong, G. de Josselin de, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 20, 337 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Kuhn, L., McMeeking, R., and Lange, F., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 74, 682 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Lawn, B.R. and Wilshaw, T.R., Fracture of Brittle Solids, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1975), pp. 19–20.Google Scholar
15.Hertz, H., Hertz’s Miscellaneous Papers (MacMillan, London, U.K., 1896), chap. 5–6.Google Scholar
16.Goodfellow Corp. Catalog, Berwyn, PA, 2000.Google Scholar
17.Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1980).Google Scholar