ELSEVIER

WEAR
Wear 203-204 ( 1997) 267-277
Influence of whisker reinforcement on the abrasive wear behavior of
silicon nitride- and alumina-based composites
C.P. Dogan, J.A. Hawk
Albany Research Cenrrr. Deportmmr of Energy Albany. OR 97321. USA
The abrasive wear of brittle materials, while not a tme property of materials, is generally modeled as an inverse limction of both the bulk
hardness and frashue toughness. According to these models. an increase in the hardness and/or fmcture tott@ of a material will thereforr
enhance its wear resistance. In ceramic mat&Is, the addition of whisker reinforcement is a pmven method ofe&ancing long-crack fmcmm
toughness via such mechanisms as crack bridging attd wbiskerdcbondittg. However, less is known about bow wbiskerreinforcementingtzmes
the properties that arc dependent upon the shott-ctack oughttess. such as abrasive wear. The results of this study indicate th8t while the
addition of randomly oriented SE whiskers can dramatically improve the abrasive wear resistance of an abmdna-based ceramic. the arkiition
of Sic reinforcement to silicon nitride ceramics does not always result in improved wear resistance. This wtriation in the intluence of whisker
ninforcetnent on wear behavior is attributed to the residual stress state created in the composites as a result of the addition of the second phase
whiskers.
Keywordc Composites; Abrasive wear. Silicon nitride; Alumina; Micmsmxture
1. lntroductioa
Because of the complexity of wear processes, a detailed
understanding of how ceramic materials react in trihological
environments continues to elude both materials and design
engineers. For the abrasive wear of brittle materials. mathe-
matical models generally express volume wear as an inverse
function of the hardness and the fracture toughness of the
material [ 1,2]. However, these. models fail to adequately
describe the abrasive wear behavior of most advanced
ceramic materials in at least one important way: they assume
that bulk hardness and fracture toughness measurements are
sufficient to describe the deformation and fracturecharacter-
istics of the test material in an abrasive wear environment. A
number of studies on a wide variety of ceramic materials have
indicated that this is not the case [3-S]. In particular, it has
been noted that in ceramic materials which exhibit increasing
fracture toughness with increasing crack length (called R-
curve or T-curve behavior), such as alumina and zirconia
ceramics and many ceramic-based composites, the measured
bulk fracture toughness may not describe the fracture tougb-
ness of the ceramic at the micmstructural scale where abrasive
wearmechanismsareactive [6-g].
Ceramic-reinforced ceramic composites represent one of
the best developments so far in the race to produce tough, yet
0043.1648/97/$17.OO Q 1997 Elsevier Science .%A AU tights reserved
PllSOO43.1648(96)07348-6
mechanically reliable, ceramic materials for advanced sttttc-
turalapplications,andp~cular)yforapplicationsatelevated
temperatures. Over the course of the last decade, much
research has gone into the tmderstandhtg of precisely how
the addition of reinforcement phases can intloence the
strength and toughness of the bulk ceramic material. For
whisker-reinforced ceramic materials, enhanced toughness
can occur through any one. or several, of the followhtgmech-
anisms: whisker &bonding, whii pullout, crack bridging.
and/or crack deflection [S-14]. However, in almost eveq
case, :arge-scaie toughening requires that these mechanisms
be activated over some distance behind the tip of a propagat-
ing crack. Thus, while the long-crack toughness of the bulk
material may be enhanced by the pmsence of the whisker
reinforcement, the short-crack toughness of the bulk material
may remain ttnchanged, or even ba degraded, by the preaenca
of these whiskers. Studies of how the preseneo of whisker
reinforcement influences the ttibological pmpetties of
ceramic materials are largely absent, although sevaral studies
have addressed the nlative performance of whiia-rein-
forced ceramic matrix composites in sling and abrasive
wear environments [45.15-111. In thii study. we begin to
examine how randomly oriented SE whiskers ittflucnce the
abrasive wear behavior of several silicon nitride- and aht-
mina-based ceramic materials by comparing the micmsbuc-
268 C.P. Do&m. J .A. Hawk/ Wear 203-204 (1997) 267-277
mres, hardness, fracture toughness and wear behavior of both
the reinforced and unreinforced materials.
2. Experimental
Three commercially available, Sic-whisker reinforced
composite materials were selected for this study, along with
several chemically similar but unreinforced matix materials
for comparison. The first pair of silicon nitride-based mate-
rials, S&N,-A and S&N,-A + SIC,, were processed in an
identical manner, except for the addition of 15 vol.% SIC
whiskers to the composite material. The second series of
silimn nrAA^-5ised ceramics, S&N.-B and S&N.,-B +SiC,, _..L...C Y
were processed somewhat differently than the hrst, in order
to produce a different matrix microstructure; the composite
material also contained i5 vol.% SE whiskers. For the alu-
mina-based materials, the composite, A120~+SiC,,., con-
sisted of 34 vol.% SE whiskers in a high-purity alumina
matrix. Because no similarly processed monolithic alumina
was available, two high purity ahuninas-a 99.8% AlzO, of
relatively high hardness, and a 99.5% A1203 of intermediate
hardness-were selected for comparison with tbe composite.
Microstructural characterization of these materials was
accomplished primarily by transmission electron microscopy
(TEM), in combination with chemical analysis by X-ray
energy dispersive spectroscopy (XBDS). Analysis of the
materials microstructural response to the various abrasive
wear tests was by scanning electron microscopy (SBM) in
secondary electron imaging mode. Sample preparation for
TBM analysis followed traditional ceramographic tech-
niques, including ion milling to electron transparency. Sam-
ple preparation for SEM analysis was limited to ultrasonic
removal of the wear debris from the wear surfaces, followed
by coating with u Au-Pd alloy to prevent charging in the
microscope
Hardness and fracture toughness were measured for each
material on surfaces mechanically polished to a 1 km dia-
mond 8nish. Vickers hardness was determined under a load
of 1 kg, with a dwell time of 15 s. Ten separate hardness
measurements were taken for each material, with the results
averaged. Fracture toughness was measured utilizing the
indentation technique described by Anstis et al. [ 191 with
the indenting load varied between 10 and 20 kg. depending
on what was required to develop a well-defined crack pattern
with a measured crack length that was at least three times the
diagonal diameter. A minimum of five fracture toughness
measurements were made for each material and the results
averaged.
Material response to two-body abrasive wear was meas-
ured utilizing a pin abrasion test designed at me Albany
Research Center to simulate abrasion mat occurs during
crushing and grinding operations. This test is described in
detail elsewhere [ 201, and will not be discussed here-; how-
ever, it is important to recognize that during this test the
sample was continually exposed to fresh abrasive. Theceram-
3. Results
3.1. Microstructure
Micrographs illustrating the general microstructural fea-
tures of the three composite materials, and &he monolithic
99.8% A&O,, can be found in Fig. 1, and an outline of the
microstructural characteristics of all of the ceramics exam-
ined in this study can be. found in Table I. With the exception
of the 99.8% Al,O,, all ceramics and ceramic composites are
liquid-phase sintered materials in which the matrix grams are
bonded by a continuous crystalline and/or amorphous grain
boundary phase. The composition and nature of these gram
boundary phases depend upon the additives and impurities
Fig. I. General microruuetunl features oE (a) the Si,N,-A+SiCL eompositc; (b) dae Si,N,-B +Si composk: (c) the 99.11% Al&; aad (d) tbz
AI,O, + SiC, compxite.
Table I
Microstructural characteristics of the ceramics and ceramic composites
Material primary mabix phare Primwy grain boundary phase
Si,N.-A . %Si,N.
Si,N,-A + SiC, /3-SijNI
S&N.-B p&N,
S&N,-B + Sic,
PW%
99.8% AlzO, a-AlzO,
99.5% Al,03 a!-ALO,
AI,O, + Sic, a-AlrO,
Ciyst;llline a-Y&%
Crysclllii a-Y&O,
Amor@ous Y. Al silicate
Amqhous Y. Al silicate
Graphite. (3+&O,
Amorphous Ca. Al sdicate
Amorphous Mg. Al silicate
introducedintothematerialsduringprocessing,andtheirtotal
thermal history. ;n the S&N,-A ceramic, this ,&n boundary
phase is primarily crystalline a-Y&O,; however, a narrow
amorphous phase is also observed at all home- and hetero-
phase boundaries, and is expected 10 be a continuous phase
in these materials. The Si,N,-A +SiC, composite
[Fig. 1 (a) ] is microstructurally identical except for the dis-
tribution of randomly oriented, intergranular SIC whiskers,
which are. large relative to the matrix grains. Although not
apparent at the magnification of the micrograph in Fig. 1 (a),
a thin amorphous phase also wets all Sic, -S&N4 and SE,-
Y&O, boundaries, and likely plays a key role in determin-
ing the fracture characteristics of the whisker-matrix
interface in this composite.
The matrix microstructure of the second series of silicon
nitride ceramics, Si,N,-B, consists of a distrktion of SiaNa
grains which are larger than those in the A-series (average
matrix grain size is 0.75 Frn as opposed to 0.4 pm in S&N,-
A), bonded by an amorphous yttrium atuminosilicate phase
that is also believed to be continuous in these materials. This
amorphous phase is obscrvcd at all home- and hetcrophase
interfaces (Including all whisker-matrix interfaces) in both
270 C.P. Do&n, J.A. Hawk/ Wear203-204 (1997) 267-277
the monolithic and composite Si,N,-B ceramics The micro-
structure of the composite is similar [Fig. 1 (b) 1, except for
the presence of randomly oriented Sic whiskers. which have
an average diameter of 0.75 pm and a variable aspect ratio.
In this case, the whiskers are locatedboth intra8ranuldy (i.e.
either partially orcntrrely encapse!a~~withinasihcon nitride
grain) and inrergranularly within the microstructure.
For the alumina-based ceramics, the microstructums vary
quite a lot between the two monolithic materials and between
the monolithic and composite materials. 99.8% AlsOs
[Fig. 1 (c) ] is carbon bonded, with graphite detected at most
alumina-aluminaboundarics. Inaddition,elongated whisk-
ers of a potassium-modified &Also, phase are also occa-
sionally observed at the grain boundaries. Significant stresses
are apparent at the a-AlsO&AlsOs interfaces; however,
because the population of such interfaces is relatively small
within this material, the presence of this stress is unlikely to
influence the tribological properties of the bulk material. The
alumina grain size in this material averages around 2 pm,
although there arc pockets of much smaller. sub-micron,
grains within the microstructure. In monolithic 99.5% AlsOs,
on the other hand, tha microstructum is typical of that of a
liquid-phase sintered ceramic, with the alumina grains
bonded by an amorphous calcium aluminosilicate phase that
is continuous in this material. The average alumina grabt size
in this 99.5% material is 3 p.m. but the grain sire distribution
is much wider than in 99.8% A120sr and grains as large as
10 Pm are not unusual.
The alumina-based composite, AlsOs+SiC,, is also a
glass-bonded ceramic [Fig. l(d)], containirtg approxi-
mately 2 vol.% of an amorphous magnesium altinosilicate
phase that is located at all three- and four-grain junctions and
along most two-gram boundaries. This amorphous phase is
also observed as a thin layer ( <SO nm) at whisker-matrix
interfaces. The Sic whiskers. with an average diameter of
0.75 pm and a vartablc aspect ratio, are distributed randomly
throughout the alumina matrix and occur both inter- and
intragranularly. In amorphous pockets adjacent to the SE
whiskers, small crystals of graphite and an iron-nickel inter-
metallic are often observed [as in Fig. 1 (d) 1. Alumina grain
size within this composite averages around 4 pm.
3.2. Hardness and fiactam toughness
Measured values for hardness and fracture toughness,
along withreportedvaluesforYoungsmodulus (asprovided
by the manufacturers), are listed in Table 2 for all of the
ceramic materials examined in this study. The alumina-based
materials, Also, + SiC, and 99.8% Also,, tend to have the
highest hardness, with values of 23.8 and 19.2 GPa, respec-
tively: whereas unreinforced S&N.-B and 99.5% AlsOs have
the lowest hardness, with values of 15.0 and 15.2GPa,
respectively. As expected, the addition of silicon carbide
whiskers to the silicon nitride and alumina matrices results
in an increase in the hardness of the composite in all cases.
Indentation fracture toughness measurements do not
always provide the most accurate measure of the bulk fracture
toughness of a ceramic, often resulting in values lower than
those obtained by other measurement ~&uilques 1 i9 ] ; how-
ewr, the indentation technique is selected here because it is
believed to provide the value most representative of the near-
surface regions of a material exposed to an abrasive wear
environment. As predicted, the measured values for fracture
toughness obtained in this study are somewhat lower than
thosa provided by the manufacturer for identical materials,
or quoted in the literature for similar materials (theexception
being the 99.5% A1203). Nonetheless, it is apparent from
Table 2 that as a class of materials, the alumina-based ceram-
ics are not as tough as the silicon nitride.-based ceramics, and
that 99.8% AlsOs has the lowest toughness of all of the matc-
vials tested in this study. The addition of SE whiskers to
S&N.-A results in a 29% increase in toughness, making
S&N.-A + SE, the highest toughness material of this study,
whemas the addition of SE whiskers results in no teal change
in the toughness of S&N.-B.
3.3. Abrasive wear behavior
The measured specific wear rates and wear constants for
all of the ceramics and ceramic composites tested against
alumina and silicon carbide abrasives are listed in Table 3.
and the wear constants for the Si&A and S&N.-A + Sic,
materials tested against ISO-grit SE as a function of load are
listed in Table 4. As expected from its relatively lower hard-
ness, the 150-grit alumbra abrasive is the least aggressive for
all of the ceramics tested except for the finest SE abrasive
against the 99.5% Also,. Similarly. the expected increase in
abrasive wear rate with increase in Sic abrasive particle size
[ 231 is observed for all of tha ceramics and ceramic com-
posites over the abrasive size range of 37-100 pm (Fig. 2).
An interesting aspect of Lis data is the large increase ( lSO-
388%) in wear rate with increase in abrasive particle size
from 37 pm (400-g&) to 58 pm (240-g&). Such a large
difference in wear rate over a relatively small change in abra-
sive particle size suggests a change in wear mechanisms, and
in fact such a change is observed. Following wear against the
4OOgrit Sic abrasive, examination of the wear surfaces indi-
cates that the response of these materials is primarily ona of
plastic deformation, with only minimal fracture observed.
Bxamination of the wear surfaces following the test against
the 24~grit Sic, on the other hand, indicates that fracture is
now a signi8cant material response to the wear environment.
Under the various abrasive wear conditions of thls study,
monolithic SisN,-A is consistently a better performer than is
monolithic SisN,-B, particularly against the softer alu-
mina abrasive. This result is interesting since examination of
the wear surfaces of these materials after abrasion against
15Ogrit alumina suggests that both materials are in the mild
wear regime 1241, where fracture toughness is expected to
dominate wear behavior. Yet there is no real difference in the
fracture toughness of the two monolithic SisN, materials
C.P. Do&m. JA. Hawk/ Wear203-204 (1997) 267- 277
Youngs modulus (GPa) Hardners (GPa)
Sifl.-A 310 15.6 5.4
SiIN.-A +SiC. 335 19.0 6.4
S&N,-B 303 15.0 5.5
Si,N,-B + SiC, 335 16.5 5.4
99.8% ~~0~ 400 19.3 3.4
99.5% Ai@> 386 15.2 3.9
AlzO, + SiC. 395 23.8 4.6
Dntn provided by the rcspcaive manufactums.
TPble 3
Abrasive war rawa for ceramics and ceramic composites (66.7 N nomnl load; 16.0 m sliding distance)
100 pm SIC 58 pm Sic 37pmsiC
SisN.-A 0.9 (1.8) 9.1 (19.1) 6.6 (13.9) 2.5 (5.2)
Si,N,-A + SiC, 1.0 (2.2) 9.9 (20.8) 6.8 (142) 1.8 (3.9)
Z&N.-B 1.7 (3.7) 12.4 (26.1) 8.8 (18.6) 2.9 (6.2)
Si3N.-B + SiC, 1.9 (4.0) 14.0 (Z9.4) 9.6 (20.2) 3.4 (7.1)
99.8% Al,o, 1.5 (3.2) 8.6 (18.0) 5.9 (i2.4) 2.1 (4.5)
99.5% Al,o, 6.4 (13.4) 23.6 (49.7) 22.1 (46.6) 5.3 (11.2)
Al,O,+SiC_ 0.7 (0.9) 4.8(101) 3.3 (6.9) 0.9 (1.8)
(Table 2). For the monolithic aluminas, 99.8% A&O, is
much more V.VP -&ant than is the !XW& A!$, urder all
conditions tested. This large variation in abrasive wearbehav-
ior between the two high purity ahuninas is most likely the
result of the difference in grain size and grain s&distribution
between the two materials (a smaller grain size and narrower
grain sizedistribution is known to enhance wear performance
in alumina ceramics [ 25-291). although the difference in
grain boundary microstructure also plays a contributing role
by influencing the residual stress state of Ihe ceramic [ 6,301.
A comparison of the top performing silicon nitride (S&N.-
A) with the top performing alumina (99.8% A&O,), shows
that the alumina, with the higher ha&e88 but lower fracture
tOughIh?SS, possesses a lower wear rate for all SIC abrasive
environments. Against the softer alumina abrasive, however,
Si,N4-A has a 75% lower wear rate than the 99.8% A1203.
thanks to its higher fracture toughness.
Perhaps the most interesting result of this study is the
observation that tbe addition of 15 vol.% SE whiskers to a
silicon nitride matrix either does not affect the abrasive wear
behavior of the bulk material, or degrades it slightly in some
instances (Figs. 2 and 3). This cccur8 in spite of the fact that
the addition of SiC whiskers increases the hardness of both
Si,N,materials and increases the fracture toughness of S&N,-
A. The only exception to this rule is in the SisN,-A ceramics
tested against 400-grit Sic, where the composite outperforms
the monolith In the alumina-based ceramics, on the other
hand, the addition of Sic whiskers leads to a dramatic
improvement io the abrasive wear resistance under all test
conditions of this study. III fact, with it8 high ha&e88 and
respectable fracture toughness, A&O, + Sii is by far the
most wear resistant material examined in thii study. This is
in stark contrast to the 99.5% A1203 which, with it8 low
hardness and propensity for fracture in all abrasive wearenvi-
ronments. is clearly the worst performer.
3.4. Microstructural response to the wear environment
In addition to the measured response to various abrasive
wear environmenta listed in Tablea 3 and 4. examination of
the wear sorf8ces immediately following the wear tests can
give clues to the influence of micro8hucture and whisker
reinforcement on the wear behavior of a ceramic material. A8
an example, micrograph of the wear surface8 following abra-
sion against tbe h8rder U&grit SE are provided in Pig. 4,
and examples of wear surfaces produced by tests against tbe
softer HO-grit Al,Os arc given in Fig. 5. Comparison of tbe
micrograpbs in Figs. 4 and 5 clearly indicate varhtions in the
microstructural response ofthedifferentccram&totheabra-
sive wear environments.
For the A-silicon nitride materials, the principal re8ponse
to the Sic wear en vironment [Fig. 4(a) and (b)] is plastic
deformation, although fmcture at wear groove peripheries
and delamination within the grooves is also rexlily rppraent
Because of its relatively lower hardness. tbe Sii abrasive
particles can penetrate more deeply into the surfa~x of the
272
Table 4
C.P. Do&n, J.A. Hawk/ Wear 203-204 (1997) 267-277
Influence of applied load on abrasive wear t 100 pm Sic: 16.0 m sliding distance)
MathI Wesrconstsnt()rmm-)
103 N 91 N 19 N 67 N 54N 42 N 30N
Si,N,-A 25.5 23.6 21.6
Si,N.-A + Sic, 26.6 24.4 22.3
19.1 16.1 13.0 9.4
20.8 16.9 13.8 10.4
i 40-
g 30-
I
8 20 -
3
10 -
0-r
Fig. 2 Plot of the wear EcmsliUI? VI. Sic abrasive panicle size.
Abrasive Particle Size (pm)
Applied Load (fin?)
Fig. 3. Plot of tk wear cOnSrant
mhuerials against 150~grit Sic.
the applied load for tb-. S&N,-A ceramic
Si3NrA monolith than into that of the composite, leaving
deeper grooves in the wear surface of the monolithic material.
However, in spite of the signbicant increase in both the hard-
ness and toughness of the Si,N.-A + Sic, composite. there
are no obvious differences in tb- wear mechanisms in the
two materials. In fact, the wear surface of the comnosite
[Fig. 4(b)] showsmoreevidenceoffracture,consistentwith
its higher measured wear rate. Against the softer I50-grit
alumina abrasive [Fig. S(a) and (b) 1, plastic deformation is
again the primary microstructural wear mechanism, although
in this case it is deformation created as the sample surface
and drum surface move across one another, with only minimal
grooving caused by abrasive particles. In the monolithic
Si3N4-A, fracture occurs primarily within the wear sheet (i.e.
the damaged surface layer created primarily by plastic defor-
mation during the wear process), with little subsurface mate-
rial removal. In the A-silicon nitride composite, fracture
penetrates the wear sheet, leading to more subsurface material
removal.
In the B-silicon nitride materials, plastic deformation is
again tbe primary response to the UO-grit SE wear envlron-
ment [Fig. 4(c) and (d)], although therelativelylowerhard-
ness of this SisN, series results in deeper penetration by the
abrasive particles, zud t!rercforti. a deeper surface damage
layer. Although delamination fracture is not as obvious within
the wear grooves created in these materials, subsurface frac-
ture at the groove peripheries is more extensive, leading to
relatively more material removal than in tbe series A silicon
nitrides. In S&N*-B + SE,, evidence of whisker debonding
and removal is apparent within the fractured regions.
Response to tbe 150-grit alumina environment [Fig. 5(c)
and (d)] is similar to that described for the first series of
silicon nitride ceramics, except that there are more grooves
(a result of the lower hardness) and there is more fracture,
particularly at the surface of the S&N.-B composite.
For the alumina-based ceramics worn against the l50-grit
SIC [Fig. 4(e)-(g) 1, plastic deformation plays much less of
a role in the materials response to the wear environment.
Because of their relatively high hardness, the wear sheets
(primarily due to plastic deformation) produced at the sur-
faces of 99.8% Al203 and the alumina composite are rela-
tively thin, and the grooves created by the abrasive particles
are correspondingly shallow. Delamination fracture of the
wear sheet extends into the bulk of the material, resulting in
subsurface material removal. The mode of subsurface fracture
in both ceramics is almost entirely intergranular. In the lower
hardness 99.5% AlrOB [Fig. 4(g)], intergranular fracture
dominates the wear response, and any plastic wear sheet
produced at the surface is removed almost as soon as it forms.
Against the softer ISO-grit alumina abrasive, the response of
the 99.8% Al,O, and Al,O, + SiC, materials [Fig. S(e) and
(f)] is again primarily plastic deformation, although almost
no wear grooves are produced at the surface of the harder
composite. However, fracture initiated atmicrostructural het-
erogencities is the dominant mode of material removal. In the
C.P. Do&m. J .A. Hawk/ Wear203-204 119547) 267-277 213
fig. 4. Wear surfaces following abrasion against 100 tmt Sii patticks: (a) Si,N& (b) Si,N,-A + Sic; (c) S&N.-B; (d) S&N,-B + Sii; (e) 99.8%40,:
(f) A1203 + SC,,; and (g) 99.5% A1203.
C.P. Do&n. LA. Hawk/ Wear 203-204 (1997) 267-277
Fig. 5. Wear surfaces following abrasion agains4
ALO,: (0 Al,O, + SiC.; and (g) 99.5% AI,O,.
Si,N.-a: (b) Si,N,-A+SiC: (c, Si,N.-9: (d) Si,N.-B + Sic,:
C.P. Uo&n, J .A. Hawk/ Wear 203-204 (I 997) 267-277
99.5% AIrOr [Fig. 5(g) 1, fracture continues to be the prin-
cipal microstructural response to the wear environment.
4. Discussion
It is clear from the results of this study that a simple increase
in the hardness and/or toughness of aceramic-basedmaterial
through the addition of randomly oriented whiskerreinforcc-
ment does not necessarily translate into improved perfonn-
ante in an abrasive wear environment. For example, the
addition of IS vol.% silicon carbide whiskers to the S&N.,-A
matrix results in a 22% increase in the hardness of the material
and a 20% increase in the fracture toughness. Yet, for the
most part, the abrasive wear behavior is degraded by the
presence of these whiskers. On the other hand, the addition
of SIC whiskers to a high-Al,O, matrix resuhs in a 23%
increase in the hardness and a 35% increase in the fracture
toughness (in comparison to the 99.8% AI*O,) In this case,
the addition of SIC whiskers provides a dramatic improve-
ment in the abrasive wear resistance of the ceramic. A clue
to this variation in the effect of whisker reinforcement on the
wear behavior of ceramic-based comeosites resides in the
micr~structures of these materials, and in the residual stresses
created by the addition of second phases to the ceramic. A
second important aspect is the influence that the variabics of
the wear environment have on the wear behavior of the
composite.
4. I. hjluence of microstructure
Variations in the microstructures of the monolithic mate-
rials. as well as in the microstructures of the composites, can
be directly linked to variations in the abrasive wear behavior,
primarily through their role in the creation of internal stress.
In ceramics it is well known that differences in the thermal
expansion between phases of a multiphase material, as well
as anisotropic thermal expansion in a single phase material,
can result in the creation of residual tensile and compressive
stresses at hetero- and homophase boundaries. The magnitude
of such residual stresses, which are proportional to both the
expansion mismatch (A a) and the temperature range over
which the stresses develop (AT). can be sufficient todirectly
influence the tribological performance of the bulk ceramic
[6-8,25-291. In the unreinforced silicon nitrides of this
study, a difference in the grain boundary microstructures
leads to a difference in the residual stress state at the grain
boundaries of the two materials, and therefore, to a difference
in abrasive wear behavior. In S&N,-A, the grain boundary
regions have nearly completely crystallized to a-Y,SizO,.
whereas in S&X.+-B the grain noundary regions consist of an
amorphous yttrium aluminosilicate phase. Although the ther-
mal expansion coefficients of the boundary phases have not
heen measured, it is believed that ctystallizationofa-Y&O,
results in an increase in the coefficient of thermal expansion
of the boundary regions, leading to a concomitant increase in
the local fracture toughness [ 311. As a result, the abrasive
wear behavior of S&N.-A is improved relative to that of
Si3N4-B. The addition of SIC whiskers to these matrices
results in an increase in the hardness of the composites and,
in the case of Si$$-A, au increase m bulk fracture toughness.
However, the narrow glass phase which wets the SE whisk-
ers creates a relatively weak whisker-matrix interface that
leads to easy debonding of the whisker during fracturetype
events (the origin of enhanced long-crack fracture toughness
m this composite). As a result of this debonding, the SIC
whiskers are easily pulled from the surface of the composite
in an abrasive wear environment, leading to enhanced mab-
rial removal, and degradation of the wear properties when
compared to the monolithic SiJ$. Regions of whisker
debonding are apparent at the wear surfaces of both S&N,-
based composite materials.
In the alumina-baaed ceramics, matrix gram size plays a
decisive role in determining the abrasive wear behavior [6-
8.25-291. Thus, the 99.8% AlaOs. with a smaller gram size
and narrower grain size distribution, has a much lower wear
rate than does the 99.5% AlaOs. Enhancing the grain size
effectistheinRuenceofgrainbcumdaryphasesontheresidual
stress state of the alumina ceramics [6,7] _ In the composite
material, tbe addition of the relatively lower expansion Sic
whiskers to the alumina matrix creates residual compressive
stresses at the whisker-matrix interfaces. As a result, the
whisker-matrix interfaces are locally tougher, resisting the
debonding and pullout of the SE whiskets in the ahtasive
wearenvironmentunderalltestconditionsofthisstudy.Thus
retained, the Sic whiskers with their higher hardness are
avai!abb at me surtace to enhance the wear resistance. of the
composite material.
4.2. Injluence of the wear environment
Variables in the wear environment combine with variables
in the material properties to determine the wear resistance of
a composite material. Under the relatively softer abrasive
wearconditionsofthealuminaabrasive,theprimaryresponse
of all composites is plastic deformation with only limited
fracture. However, the presence of whisker reinforcement in
the silicon nitrides tends to increase the amount of fracture
observed at the wear surface relative to that of the monolithic
materials. This results in a higher measured wear rate and
suggests that the relatively weaker SisN&iC interfaces are
the origin of this increased surface hnchtre. Under the more
aggressive condttions of the harder SE abrasive, SIC whisker
debonding and pullout in the S&N.+ composites results in a
higher wear rate, as described in the previous w&m. Bccatts~
of tbc stronger matrix-whisker interfaces in the AlaO, + SIC,
composite, this material performs equally well under both
soft and hard abrasive conditions.
While abrasive particle size does influence the measured
wear rate of both the monolithic ceramics and the ceramic
composites (increasing the abrasive wear rate withincreasing
particle size, see Fig. 2), it is only when the abrasive particle
C.P. Do&n. J .A. Hawk/ Weor203-204 11997) 267-277
size approaches that of the reinforcement phase in the silicon
nitride-based materials that the composite becomes more
wear resistant than the matrix material. In this study, this
phenomenon is observed only for the S&N.,-A materials in
wear tests against 400-grit SIC. where the composite is 25%
more wear resistant than the monolithic material. Under these
conditions, the Sic abrasive particles arc no longer large
enough to fracture and/or scoop the Sic whiskers from the
surface of the composite, and the wear rate is correspondingly
reduced. Because the SE whiskers in the S&N.,-B composite
are smaller, a similar effect is not observed in that material
for the range of abrasive sizes used.
4.3. Effect of load on ceramic and ceramic composite wear
The S&N.,-A and the Si,N,-A + Sic, materials wereexam-
ined to determine the dependency of wear on load. The wear
was measured against 150-g& SIC for applied loads per unit
area (u) of between 0.93 and 3.27 MN m-* (see Table 4).
The graph of the wear constant (w) vs. applied load per unit
area is shown in Fig. 3. For the two A-silicon nihide mate-
rials, there is very little difference between the absolute value
of rhe w for the monolith and the composite. It is also observed
that the value- of w for S&N,-A at each load increment is
slightly less than that of the composite. In performing a
regression analysis of the combined datacontained in Fig. 3,
the calculated wear constant (w) as a function of applied load
per unit are resulted in the power law miationship:
w= 10.72~~
(3)
The relationship derived for the A-silicon nitride materials is
similar to that found by Moore and King [ I ] in their analysis
of 97.5% A&O3 alumina abraded on 60- and HO-grit SIC. In
the Moore and King investigation, the exponent for the
applied load per unit area varied from 0.61 for abrasion on
the I SO-grit SE to 1.04 for abrasion on the 60-g& Sic. The
value obtained in this study for silicon nitride abr; -ad on
IX-grit Sic falls between those obtained by Moore and King
for 97.5% A1203.
5. Conclusions
A detailed study of the influence of randomly oriented Sic
whisker reinforcement on the abrasive wear behavior of sil-
icon nitride- and alumina-based ceramicr suggests that it is
the residual stress state of the whisker-matiix inretiace that
determmes the wear r&stance of the composite material. The
addition of SIC whiskers to a S&N4 matrix sets up tensile
stresses at the whisker-matrix interfaces, enhancing the bulk
toughness of the composite, but degrading the abrasive wear
properties by promoting easier whisker debonding and
removal by the abrasive particles. The addition of Sic whisk-
err to an alumina matrix, on the other hand, results in the
creation of compressive stresses at the whisker-matrix inter-
face, producing a relatively stronger bond that can better
withstand the rigors of an abrasive wear environment. As a
result, the Al,03 + SE, composite is consistently a more
wear resistant material than are the S&N, + Sic, composites.
Acknowledgements
The 99.5% A1203 was provided by the Coors Ceramic
Company. All other ceramic and ceramic composites were
p:ovidcd by Cercom Inc. We greatly appreciate the provision
of these materials by the aforementioned companies.
References
[II MA. Moore and F.S. King. Abrasive weat of brittle solids, Wear. 60
(1980) 123-140.
I21 A.G. Evansand D.B. Marshall. in D.A. Rigoey fed.). Fun&men&&
of Friction and Wear of Maferials, ASM, Metals Park. OH, 1980. pp.
439-452.
[31 T.A. Libsch. P.C. Becker and SK. Rbee. Dry friction and wear of
toughened zircottiar end toughened alumhw against steel. Wear. 111
( 1986) 263-268.
141 J.A. Hawk and C.P. Do&o. in H.M. Hawthorne and T. Tmczyoskt
(cd%). Advanced Ceramics for Strucmral and Trib&gical
Apphfions. CIM. Monaal. Qwhec. 1995. pp. 139-150.
[S] T. Yamamoto. M. Olsson and S. Hogmark. Three-body nh&v::eacai
of ceramic !!tzte?ids. Tear. ii4 (1994) 21-31.
161 C.P.Do@mndJ.A. Hawk.Effe~ofgrainbound~glasseomposition
end devittilication on tile e%esive wear of AIzO,, Wear, 181-183
(1995) 129-137.
171C.P. Do&o and J.A. Hawk. in H.M. Hwthome ettd T. Ttoczynski
(e&h Advanced Ceramics for Shucnwal and Tribological
Apph?ions. CIM. Montreal. Qoebec. 1995. pp. 181-192.
[S] S-J. Cho. B.J. Hockey, B.R. Lawn end S.J. Bermsion. Chain size attd
R-curve effects in the abrasive wear of elomhw 1. Am Ceram. Sot.,
72 (1989) 1249-1252.
[91 M. RUhle. B.J. Dalgkish and A.G. &tts. On tbc touglwting of
ceramics by whiskers, kripfa Metoll.. 21 ( 1987) 681486.
[ 101 PP. Becher. C-H. Hseuh. P. Angeiini and T.N. Tiegs. Toughening
behavior in whisker-reinforced caamic matrix composites. _I. Am
Cerom. Sot.. 71(1988) 1050-1061.
[II] P.G. Chamlambides and A.G. Evans, Debonding pmpetties of
residually sttessed btitt&nattix composites. 1. Am. Ccranr. Sot.. 72
( 1989) 746-753.
[I21 G.H. Campbell, M. RUhle. 8.1. Delgleish and A.G. Evens. Whisker
toughening: a comparison b&vex% ahnmna oxide and silicon nitride
toughened with silicon carbide. 1. Am Cerom. Sot.. 73 (1990) 521-
530.
[ I31 M. Bengisu. O.T. lnel and 0. Tosyeli. Oo w!ttker tougixoing to
e+voic zxwiais. Acta Met&. Mater, 39 (1991) 2sO9-2517.
!I41 P. &tjgaiik. J. Dosw and M.J. Hoffman. Relationship between
micfostmcture. tooghentng mechattisrr~. attd ftactuve toughness of
ninforccd silicon nitride ceramics. 1. Am. Gram. Sot.. 78 (1595)
2619-26240.
II51 C.S.Yost.J.M.L&ttakereedC.E.Devote.Wearofattalumine-silicon
carbide whiskercomposits. Wear. 122 (1988) 151-164.
[ 161 SC. Farmer. C. Dcllacortc and P.O. Book, Sliding wear of self-mated
Al,O,-SIC whisker-reinforced composites at 23-1200 C, 1. Mater.
Sci.. 28 (1993) 1147-l 154.
1171 H. Liu. ME. Fine end H.S. Chettg. Ttibological behavior of Sic
whisker/&O, composites against catburized 8620 steel in lubricated
sliding, 1. Am. Ceram. Sot.. 74 (1991) 2224-2233.
C.P. Do&n. IA. Hawk/ Wear 203-204 (1997) 267-277 211
[IS] D. Wang and Z. Mao. Sludies of abrasive wear of monolithic silicon
nitride and a silicon carbide whisker-reinforced silicon &ride
composile. 1. Am. Ccrom. Sot., 78 ( 1995) 2705-2708.
[ 191 G.R. Anstis, P. Chantikul. B.R. Lawn, and D.B. Marshall. A critical
evaluation of indentation techniques for measuring ftactue Rn@ness:
1. direct crack measunment~. 1. Am. Ccram. Sot , 64 (1981) 533-
538.
(201 R. Blickmsderfer and G. Laird II. A pin-on-drum abrasive wear test
and comparison with other pin tests. 1. Test. Evol.. 16 (1988) 516
526.
[21] DIN 50 321. Verschlciss-Mrssgrocssen. Beuth. Berlin. 1979.
(221 A.M. H8ger and M. Davies. in K. Friedrich (4.). Advances m
Composire Tribology. Elwvier. Amsterdam. 1993. pp. I IS-I 16.
1231 H. Sin, N. Saks and N.P. Sub, Abrasive wu mecnanisms and the grit
sizeeffecfeer. Wear, 55 (1979) 163-190.
(2411. Larsen-Basse and 8. Premualne. in KC. L&ma (ed.). Wear of
Mofcria/s. ASME. New York. 1983. pp. 161-166.
[25] C. Cm. Wu. R.W. Rice. D. Johnson and B.A. Platt. Grain size
dependence of wear in ceramics. Cerumic En.5 Sci Proc.. 6 ( 1985)
995-1011.
[26] H.H.K. Xu. S. Jabanmir and Y. Yang. Effect ot grain size on scrach
interactions and material removal m alumina, J . Am Ceram. Sot.. 78
(1995) 881-891.
[27] C.He.Y.S.Wang.J.S.Wallacear~dS.M. ~su.Effec~ofmicrosuwture
on the wear transition of zirconia-Rwgbened aluti~na, Wear. 162-164
(1993) 314-321.
[28] 0.0. Ajayi and K.C. Ludema, in KC. Ludema and R.G. Bayer (eds. ).
WeorofMarerioIs. Vol. I. ASMB. New York. 1991. pp. 307-318.
1291 R.M. Anderson. T.A. Adler and J.A. Hawk. Scale of micnxt~ctw
effects on the impact resistance of AI+?;. !+cu-_;. X2-iM (1w3)
XX?-iO%U.
[30] C.A. Powell ~&an and A.H. Hew. Micmsuucrure of %% alumina
ceramics: 111. Crystallization of high-ealeia boundary glass, 1. Am.
Ceram. Sot., 73 (1990) 3684-3691.
[3l] I.M. Peterson and T-Y. Tien. Effect of the grain boundary lhennal
expansion coefficient on the fracwe tx@mesr of silicon nitride. 1.
Am. Ceram. Sot.. 78 (1995) 23452352.
Biographies
Cynthia Powell Do&t: Currently a materials engineer in the
Materials Conservation Divisiou of the US Department of
Energys Albany l&search Center in Albany, Oregon, USA
(formerly the US Bureau of Mines Albany ResearchCenter).
She received her Ph.D. in Materials Science from Case West-
ern Reserve University in 1989. preceded by an M.S. and
B.S. in ceramic engineering from Clemson University, in
1985 and 1983, respectively. Her research has addressed
microstructure/propertyandmicrostructure/processingrela-
tionships in a wide range of ceramic, intermetallic. metallic
and composite materials, and is currently focussed on under-
standing the influence of microstructure on the tribological
performance of ceramics and ceramic-based composites.
Jeffrey A. Hawk: Currently Chief of the Materials Conscr-
vation Division of the US Department of Energys Albany
Research Center in Albany, Oregon, USA (formerly the US
Bureau of Mines Albany Research Center). He graduated in
Civil Engineering in 1979 at the University of Virginia, and
subsequently received an M.S. (1983) and Ph.D. (1986) in
Materials Science at the University of Viiginia, Charloats-
ville, VA. Subsequent to arriving at the Albany Research
Center, he worked as a Senior Scientist (19864989) at the
Light Metals Center, University of Virginia. on microstruc-
turai stability and mechanical behaviorofdiiinnsti2gth-
end dnmixm iiiuys for elevated tempemture applications.
Hc was an Assistant Professor (19904991) in dx Depart-
ment of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering at the Univer-
sity of Alabama, Tuscaluosa, AL, evahmtingtheperformance
characteristics of light a!loys and composites. In 199i he was
awarded a NASA Summer Faculty Fellowship, Metallic
Materials Branch, Langley Research Center. Hampton, VA,
for assessing candidate alloys and composites for use in the
high-speed civilian transpntt. His current research focuses on
understanding the relationship between nticrostntcture and
impact-fracture-wear behavior of metals, alloys, ceramics
and composites as the.y pertain to aggressive tribo-environ-
ments, and the processing of materials for wear applications.