Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A

, Volume 38, Issue 6, pp 1351–1357 | Cite as

The Effect of Particle Shape on the Sintering of Aluminum



The effect of particle size and shape on the sintering response of aluminum powder has been examined. Spherical 3-, 5-, and 15-μm powders and irregularly shaped 6-, 7-, and 15-μm powders from two manufacturers were mixed with 4 wt pct Sn, poured into a crucible, and sintered for 2 hours under argon at 620 °C. The particle shape appears to be a critical characteristic governing the sintering characteristics. The particle size and size distribution, the tap density, the oxide film thickness, the surface chemistry, and the impurity concentration had little influence. The irregular particles sintered to a final density of 88 to 91 pct, whereas the spherical particles reached a density of only 65 to 73 pct. It is suggested that the differential thermal expansion between the aluminum particle and its oxide film may cause the oxide to fracture and that the fracture characteristics are different between the two powder morphologies.



Financial support from the Australian Research Council, the Aluminum Powder Company, and Cooltemp Pty Ltd is gratefully acknowledged. The XPS data were collected and analyzed by Dr. Barry Wood, Brisbane Surface Analysis Facility, The University of Queensland.


  1. 1.
    C. Lall: Int. J. Powder Metall., 1991, 27: 315–18Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L.S. Darken, R.W. Gurry: Physical Chemistry of Metals, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1953Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S.W. Ip, M. Kucharski, J.M. Toguri: J. Mater. Sci. Lett., 1993, 12: 1699–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Y. Liu, Z. He, G. Dong, Q. Li: J. Mater. Sci. Lett., 1992, 11: 896–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D.T. Livey and P. Murray: Paper presented at the 2nd Plansee Seminar, Reutte/Tirol, 1955Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.-G. Li: Ceram. Int., 1994, 20: 391–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Z.A. Munir: J. Mater. Sci., 1979, 17: 2733–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Z.A. Munir: Powder Metall., 1981, 24: 177–80Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Lumley, T.B. Sercombe, G.B. Schaffer: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 1999, 30A: 457–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    T. Pieczonka, T. Schubert, S. Baunack, and B. Kieback: Paper presented at Sintering 05, Grenoble, France, 2005Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G.B. Schaffer, B.J. Hall, S.J. Bonner, S.H. Huo, T.B. Sercombe: Acta Mater., 2006, 54: 131–38Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G.B. Schaffer, B.J. Hall: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 2002, 33A: 3279–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    I. E. Anderson, J.C. Foley: Surf. Interface Analysis, 2001, 31: 599–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alloy Phase Diagrams, ASM Handbook, ASM International, Materials Park, OH, 1992, vol. 3Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C.A. Harper: Handbook of Ceramics, Glasses and Diamond, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 2001Google Scholar

Copyright information


Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ARC Centre of Excellence for Design in Light Metals, Division of Materials, School of EngineeringThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Mechanical EngineeringThe University of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations