See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233634125

Ceramic-Polymer Composites for Ballistic Protection

Article  in  Advances in Applied Ceramics · April 2006

DOI: 10.1179/174367606X84440

CITATIONS READS

12 1,506

3 authors, including:

Paolo Colombo Eugene Medvedovski

University of Padova Endurance Technologies
306 PUBLICATIONS   7,752 CITATIONS    85 PUBLICATIONS   576 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Advanced Bioceramics from Novel Processing and/or Raw Materials View project

Bioactive glass-ceramic scaffolds applicable to orthopedics and dentistry obtained by three-dimensional technologies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paolo Colombo on 22 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Ceramic–polymer composites for ballistic
protection
P. Colombo*1,2, F. Zordan1 and E. Medvedovski3
Armour systems require advanced solutions, relying on a combination of materials of different
natures to provide adequate ballistic protection and weight saving. For the first time in the present
study composite layered systems based on monolithic armour ceramic tiles joined with polymer
infiltrated ceramic foams have been designed and evaluated for lightweight ballistic protection.
Open cell silicon carbide foams of various cell sizes infiltrated with thermosetting or elastomeric
polyurethane were used for this design. The ballistic test results are discussed taking into account
the morphological characteristics and main physical properties of the materials used (facing
ceramic tile, ceramic foam and polymers), as well as test conditions. The proposed design may
be considered for structural and vehicular protection solutions, including blast protection.
Keywords: Armour, Ballistic protection, Ceramic foam, Composite

Introduction which are frequently used as matrixes for composites,

The development of protection for stationary and
mobile structures against ballistic impacts and explo-
sives, as well as radiation, chemical and biological
agents, is an important task in defence applications.
Ceramic composites have a variety of applications in
diverse engineering areas where they are subjected to
high mechanical and thermal loads. One of the
prospective applications of ceramic composites is as
ballistic protection structures.
Ceramic based composites with high toughness are
usually reinforced by ceramic or metallic fibres, whiskers
or particulates,1,2 or can be obtained from laminated
ceramic layers.3 Another type of composite structure,
labelled interpenetrating composites,4 consists of porous
ceramic structures infiltrated with metallic or polymeric
materials,5 in which the 3D interconnected ceramic
phase affords additional properties (for example increased
stiffness, wear resistance and creep resistance) to the
infiltrating matrix material.
Besides possessing unique properties, such as high
relative strength and stiffness, high wear resistance and
hardness, ceramic foams have potential as impact energy
absorbers owing to their cellular structure.6 Indeed, a
recent study showed that when tested as components of
shields protecting spacecraft from hypervelocity
impacts, microcellular ceramic foams displayed high
performance against small high velocity projectiles.7
Some polymeric materials (in bulk or composite form),
1 As the face component, ballistic grade high alumina
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica – Settore Materiali Università di
Padova via Marzolo, 9.35131 Padova, Italy
2
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
3
Ceramic Protection Corporation Inc., 3905 32nd St NE, Calgary, Alberta,
T1Y 7C1 Canada; now with Umicore Indium Products, 50 Sims Ave,
Providence, RI 02909, USA
*Corresponding author, email paolo.colombo@unipd.it
possess good mechanical properties and the possibility
of absorbing energy by various mechanisms under
mechanical loads.8 The synergistic combination of
positive properties of lightweight ceramic foams and
selected polymers may bring positive results in the case
of the use of these materials as components of ballistic
protection systems (see below). For instance, rubber
encapsulation of cellular ceramics has been shown to
significantly increase the amount of impact energy
absorbed.9 Layered composite designs consisting of
materials with different natures are effective for ballistic
protection applications if they contain components
possessing energy dissipation and absorption capabil-
ities. The aim of the present work was to explore the
possibility of using layered composites consisting of
materials with different characteristics, including solid
ceramics and ceramic foam–polymer structures, for
ballistic protection.
Selected composite system design
A layered composite design was selected as being
potentially effective for ballistic protection from the
performance and manufacturing standpoints. This
design included the following two major components:
a ceramic faceplate with high hardness and mechanical
properties, in order to brake and fragment the bullet and
to dissipate its impact energy; and a backing material for
impact energy absorption and for stopping the bullet
and resulting fragments.
ceramic tiles with high hardness and strength, relatively
low brittleness, optimised microstructure and ballistic
impact energy dissipation ability were used. Owing to
their high ballistic performance, tiles with limited
thickness were used. The backing material was made
of silicon carbide foams infiltrated with different

ß 2006 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining

Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute
Received 11 March 2005; accepted 9 October 2005
78 Advances in Applied Ceramics 2006 VOL 105 NO 2 DOI 10.1179/174367606X84440

1 Optical micrographs of as received (non-infiltrated) SiC foam (20 ppi): a general view, b detail of hollow strut
polymeric materials. A ceramic foam based system
would absorb impact energy by crushing the ceramic
foam and by friction of the ceramic phase with the
bullet, and the cellular ceramic structure would interfere
with the propagation of the shockwave.10,11 Two types
of polyurethane (PU), thermosetting (cross-linked) and
elastomeric, were selected in this experimental design as
the polymeric material. Thermosetting PU is stiff and
has high compression strength, while elastomeric PU has
very good damping capability and can retard the
propagation of shockwaves in the system.
In the case of polymer infiltrated ceramic foams, these
composites may be considered as ceramic reinforced
polymers possessing significantly increased mechanical
properties, especially stiffness and hardness. The pro-
posed design did not have aramid based (e.g. Kevlar,
Twaron), laminated polyethylene (e.g. Spectra, Dyneema)
or other backing materials widely used for ballistic
protection systems, i.e. the backing consisted solely of a
polymer infiltrated ceramic foam to replace the ‘tradi-
tional’ backing. This layered composite (alumina tile
bonded with foam-based 3D composite backing) can be
bonded to an aluminium or plastic sheet (board), a
‘panel’ design which can be easily installed in any mobile
or stationary structure.
Experimental procedure
Materials selection and manufacture
The ceramic tiles used as the face component of the
armour design were made from AL98.5 alumina devel-
oped and manufactured commercially by Ceramic Pro-
tection Corporation (CPC, Calgary, AB, Canada).12–14
The ceramic material has an Al2O3 content of approxi-
mately 98.5 wt-%. It has a uniform fine crystalline
microstructure consisting of corundum grains with a size
of 3–5 mm (mostly isometric) bonded by an alkali earth–
aluminosilicate glassy phase (see Fig. 1). Owing to their
microcrystalline structure, AL98.5 ceramics possess a
high level of physical properties (such as hardness,
Young’s modulus, sonic velocity) and favourable values
of some other characteristics relevant to ballistic
Table 1 Physical properties of pressed AL98.5 alumina ceramic tiles
Density
Open porosity
Vickers hardness HV10, kg mm22
Fracture toughness KIC*, MPa m21/2
Young’s modulus E, GPa
Sonic velocity c, m s21
Flexural strength, MPa
Brittleness factor B{, m21
Ballistic energy dissipation ability D{, s21
*Determined by indentation technique.
{
Calculated using the formula B5HvE/KIC2.
{
Calculated using the formula D50.366Hv6E6c/KIC2.
Colombo et al. Ceramic–polymer composites for ballistic protection
performance (see Table 1). This ceramic material has
relatively low brittleness (significantly lower than dense
carbide based ceramics), defined by combined values for
hardness, fracture toughness and Young’s modulus,
which may be considered as a positive factor for ballistic
performance of ceramics, and optimised high ballistic
energy dissipation ability. The ceramic tiles were made
by a pressing technology using in-house manufactured
spray dried powders followed by firing at relatively low
temperature (below 1550uC) without a grinding step
after firing (i.e. as fired tiles were used). Owing to the
proven high level of ballistic performance of this ceramic
material, a thickness of only 6.0–6.5 mm for the tiles was
selected for the layered composite design. Tiles with a
format of 1006100 mm were used, however tiles with
other dimensions (format up to 1506200 mm and
thickness up to 15 mm) can be manufactured.
As cellular ceramics for subsequent infiltration, open
cell silicon carbide SiC foams (manufactured by Foseco
Metallurgical Inc., Cleveland, OH, USA, for use as
molten metal filters) with two different cell sizes (10 and
20 ppi – pores per inch) were selected. Relative density
was about 0.13 for both materials. Foams with these
pore sizes were chosen to facilitate infiltration of liquid
polymers into these structures without applying external
pressure. The foam samples had dimensions of 1006
100620 mm in order to be compatible with the format
of the alumina face tiles. The ceramic foams were
manufactured by the replica technique, that is by
coating a cellular polymeric sacrificial structure with a
ceramic SiC slurry, followed by burning off the preform
during sintering of the ceramic material.15 It has to be
noted that, because of their application, the properties
of commercially available molten metal ceramic foam
filters are generally optimised for permeability and
thermal shock resistance rather than strength. Foams
produced by other technologies,16 affording different
morphology and improved mechanical properties, could
also be infiltrated and tested for ballistics related
applications.
The following materials were used for PU prepara-
tion. In the case of rigid (thermosetting) PU, isoexter
3.82–3.84
,0.1%
1320–1400 (12.9–13.7 GPa)
3.0–3.3
330–400
10200–10800
260–280
420–4606106
1.80–1.9561012
Advances in Applied Ceramics 2006 VOL 105 NO 2 79
Colombo et al. Ceramic–polymer composites for ballistic protection
2 SiC foam (20 ppi) infiltrated with thermosetting polyurethane: a general view; b detail of strut
3446 polyol (Coim, Offanengo (CR), Italy) and and MDI
Suprasec 2085 isocyanate (Huntsman Polyurethanes,
Everberg, Belgium) were used as precursors, while
Caradol 30-02 polyol (Shell Italia, Milan, Italy) and
Suprasec 2444 isocyanate (Huntsman Polyurethanes,
Everberg, Belgium) were used for the elastomeric PU
preparation. Mixing and handling of the precursors were
conducted based on the directions from the suppliers.
Infiltration of the porous ceramic foams with the
polymer materials was carried out by a vacuum
infiltration technique. The ceramic foams were held
under low vacuum (rotary pump, <1022 torr) and then
infiltrated with a liquid mixture of the desired PU
precursors (viscosity of liquids was of the order of 4 and
1 Pa s at 25uC for the thermosetting and elastomeric PU
respectively). A setting time of 10 min at ambient
temperature provided proper infiltration and curing of
the polymers. After curing, the infiltrated foams were
slightly sanded from the excess of polymer in order to
achieve flat surfaces, required for proper bonding with
face ceramic tiles. Bonding of infiltrated foams with the
ceramic tiles was carried out in an autoclave at elevated
pressure and temperature using specially selected adhe-
sives and a previously developed procedure for the
bonding of armour ceramics with backing materials. The
ceramic tiles were preliminarily wrapped with prepreg
(fibreglass) normally used for design and bonding of
various armour systems.
Mechanical testing and microstructural analysis
The crushing strength of the foams, both non-infiltrated
and infiltrated, was measured at room temperature by
compression testing, using an Instron 1121 UTM
(Instron Danvers, MA, USA) with a crosshead speed
of 0.5 mm min21, on samples of nominal size of
20620620 mm cut from larger specimens. Each data
point represents an average value of 5 to 10 individual
tests.
Elastic modulus was measured using a non-destructive
dynamic method based on the impulse excitation of
vibration (Grindosonic, J. W. Lemmens, Leuven,
Belgium), in accordance with ASTM E1876, on samples
of suitable geometry.
Ceramic foam morphology was characterised using
optical microscopy and image analysis software (Image-
Pro Plus, Media Cybernetics, Silver Spring, MD, USA).
Ballistic testing
The ballistic performance of the selected systems was
tested using a M16 weapon with 5.56645 mm SS109
ammunition with a steel tip ball, 7.62651 mm NATO
Ball Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) with a lead core, and
7.62663 mm Armour Piercing (AP) M2 FMJ with a
tungsten carbide core. Depending on the ammunition,
the bullet mass, velocity and energy were varied. The
projectile velocity was controlled using a chronograph.
80 Advances in Applied Ceramics 2006 VOL 105 NO
The projectile velocities were 990–1000, 840–890 and
845–870 m s21 respectively, i.e. the velocity values were
in accordance with values normally used for ballistic
testing and recommended by the NIJ standards. The
distance between the weapon and the target was 12 m.
Trauma after shooting was measured using a Roma
Plastilina modelling clay supporting the armour systems
on the back; the trauma in the clay duplicated the
trauma in the armour. A trauma pack (a block of Kevlar
simulating an armour vest) was placed behind the clay in
order to capture the bullet in the case of penetration.
The damage zone of the ceramics and backing, including
component fragmentation, were studied, as well as the
bullets after shooting.
Results and discussion
Microstructural study of the non-infiltrated SiC foams
(Figs. 1 and 2) showed completely open interconnected
porosity comprised of a web of ceramic hollow struts.
The holes in the struts derive from burnoff of the
polymeric sacrificial template during high temperature
sintering of the SiC powder coating. Morphological
analysis of the infiltrated foams revealed that it was
possible to completely infiltrate the ceramic foam
structures with both elastomeric and thermosetting PU
precursor solutions. However, owing to the higher
viscosity of the thermosetting PU precursor solution,
some trapped air was retained in the PU phase (see
Fig. 2a). It is worth observing that in some cases part of
the porosity inside the hollow struts was also infiltrated
by the polymeric phase, as shown in Fig. 2b. In the
present study, no specific investigation was performed
on the nature of the polymer/ceramic interface.
Ceramic foams and foams infiltrated with selected
polymers were mechanically tested in order to compare
the influence of foam macrostructure and type of
polymer on the mechanical properties of the interpene-
trating composites, and to interpret their behaviour in
ballistic testing. The mechanical test results are reported
in Table 2.
As received ceramic foams displayed limited strength,
typical of cellular ceramics produced by the replica
technique, whereas foams infiltrated with polyurethane
varied their strength according to the type of PU used.
Although the composite material produced using
elastomeric PU did not display crushing strength
significantly different from that of the non-infiltrated
ceramic cellular structure, using thermosetting PU
increased the compression strength of the foams
significantly. The difference in behaviour of infiltrated
foams under mechanical loads is attributable to the
variation in strength of the PU phase itself (see Table 2).
The decrease in strength between the 20 ppi foam
sample infiltrated with thermosetting PU and the pure
PU phase is probably related to a higher presence of
voids in the polymeric phase. This could have occurred
2
 Colombo et al. Ceramic–polymer composites for ballistic protection

3 Stress–strain curves for SiC foams (10 ppi), as

received, infiltrated with elastomeric PU and infiltrated
with thermosetting PU

as a result of the smaller cell size of the ceramic foam

with respect to the 10 ppi sample. An increase in
stiffness was observed in the composites infiltrated with
thermosetting PU, but data could not be obtained for
those infiltrated with elastomeric PU owing to its
damping effect on the vibrations generated during
measurement.
When a non-infiltrated ceramic foam is subjected to
compressive loading, it deforms elastically up to a
maximum load (usually occurring at strain of about
5%), after which brittle crushing occurs with a more or
less sudden drop in stress, and the stress enters a plateau
region before increasing rapidly owing to densification
of the crushed debris17 (Fig. 3). Typically, after reaching
the peak load, the ceramic foam is subjected to
macroscopic cracking in the direction of the applied
stress, and if the loading ram is lifted the tested sample
falls apart in several large pieces18 (Fig. 4a).
The use of the thermosetting PU phase resulted in
modification of the behaviour of the ceramic foams
under compression. The stress–strain curves for infil-
trated ceramic foams did not show a drop in stress after
reaching peak load (Fig. 3), and the samples remained in
one piece (or fragmented into a very limited number of 4 a non-infiltrated SiC foam (20 ppi) after compression
pieces) after removal of the applied load. This behaviour strength testing (test stopped at relative deformation
may be explained by the binding effect of the of around 0.3%); b SiC foam (20 ppi) infiltrated with
interconnected polymeric phase (see Fig. 4b as an thermosetting polyurethane after compression strength
example). Cracking phenomena during loading seemed testing (test stopped at relative deformation of around
to occur mainly in the brittle ceramic phase (Fig. 4c). 0.3%); c SiC foam (20 ppi) infiltrated with thermoset-
Infiltration with thermosetting PU afforded the compo- ting polyurethane during compression strength testing
site structure much higher energy absorption, i.e. work (picture taken at deformation of around 0.14%; note
of fracture (the area underneath the stress–strain curve), crack formation in SiC phase)

Table 2 Physical and mechanical properties of as received and infiltrated ceramic foams

Average cell Bulk density, Compression Elastic modulus,

SiC foam size, mm g cm23 strength, MPa GPa

10 ppi, non-infiltrated 4.46¡1.17 0.437¡0.056 1.1¡0.3 1.80¡0.14

20 ppi, non-infiltrated 3.09¡0.61 0.402¡0.024 0.8¡0.1 1.74¡0.10
10 ppi with thermosetting PU 4.46¡1.17 1.093¡0.198 71.5¡4.5 3.69¡0.30
20 ppi with thermosetting PU 3.09¡0.61 1.180¡0.049 42.0¡1.5 7.11¡1.71
10 ppi with elastomeric PU 4.46¡1.17 1.023¡0.025 1.0¡0.2 …*
20 ppi with elastomeric PU 3.09¡0.61 1.044¡0.052 1.1¡0.1 …*
Elastomeric PU … 0.942¡0.098 … …*
Thermosetting PU … 0.962¡0.129 64.7¡2.1 1.79¡0.49
*Not determined owing to damping of vibrations by the elastomeric PU phase.

Advances in Applied Ceramics 2006 VOL 105 NO 2 81

Colombo et al. Ceramic–polymer composites for ballistic protection
5 Armour system with SiC foams (20 ppi) infiltrated with
thermosetting PU after ballistic testing with 7.626
51 mm NATO round: a face view, b back view (fibre-
glass cloth prepreg wrapping was removed to expose
impact area)
in comparison with the non-infiltrated ceramic foam.
Owing to low strength and low Young’s modulus, the
elastomeric PU infiltrating phase did not much influence
the stress–strain behaviour of the interpenetrating
polymer–ceramic composite, but it helped in maintain-
ing the tested sample in a coherent piece until large
deformations (.50%) were reached.
A strong influence of the design and mechanical
properties of the composite components and, especially,
of the selected polymer nature on ballistic performance
was observed. Preliminary testing of the system based on
the SiC foam infiltrated by thermosetting PU but
without a face alumina tile showed unsatisfactory
performance against the 7.62651 mm NATO projectile
(testing of the infiltrated foam using an armour piercing
projectile, i.e. with harder core and higher energy, was
not undertaken).
In the case of the layered composite system (alumina
tilezfoam) in which SiC foams were infiltrated with
thermosetting PU, the 5.56645 mm SS109 and 7.626
51 mm NATO rounds were both stopped in the backing
(see Fig. 5 as an example), while the 7.62663 mm AP
round was stopped only in the first layers of the trauma
82 Advances in Applied Ceramics 2006 VOL 105 NO
6 Armour system with SiC foams (20 ppi) infiltrated with
thermosetting PU after ballistic testing with AP round:
a face view, b back view (fibreglass cloth prepreg
wrapping was removed to expose impact area)
pack (see Fig. 6). A similar system made from elasto-
meric PU could not stop the 7.62651 mm NATO round
or, especially, 7.62663 mm AP round (see Fig. 7 for
testing with the AP round). It can thus be noted that the
difference in ballistic protection of the composites made
with two different types of PU is in good correlation
with their mechanical properties.
For the face ceramic tile, the observed fragmentation
and crack formation from ballistic impacts of the
designed composites had a similar character to the high
alumina ceramics bonded to a Kevlar backing described
previously.12–14 The ceramic tile zone close to the impact
point consisted of chunks of various sizes and fine
powder with a locus of conoidal coaxial cracks and the
presence of radial tensile and spall cracks. The backing
material consisting of SiC foam (both 10 and 20 ppi)
infiltrated with thermosetting PU also fragmented into
pieces of different sizes, but powder formation was
minimal. The reinforcement of thermosetting PU
achieved by the use of the SiC foams promoted the
formation of large fragments upon impact. Destruction
of the components of the composites and trauma were
significantly lower in the case of the 5.56645 mm SS109
projectile owing to its lower energy than the NATO and
AP projectiles. A comparison of ballistic performance of
2

7 Armour system with SiC foam (20 ppi) infiltrated with
elastomeric PU after ballistic testing with AP round: a
face view, b back view (note no serious damage to
foam based composite backing present in this case,
owing to easy penetration of bullet)
the armour systems made using SiC foams with larger or
smaller pore sizes (10 or 20 ppi) did not indicate any
significant difference. This is probably due to the limited
difference in relative density, strength and elastic proper-
ties between the two ceramic foams. In the case of
elastomeric PU, formation of large fragments in the
backing was observed hardly at all, and trauma was
minimal owing to penetration (Fig. 7b), confirming that
infiltration with polymeric material possessing signifi-
cantly higher strength is necessary to provide ballistic
protection capability. Also in this case, a difference
between the composites made from SiC foams with
different cell sizes was not found.
Conclusions
A layer design consisting of armour ceramic tiles bonded
to ceramic foams infiltrated using two types of
View publication stats
Colombo et al. Ceramic–polymer composites for ballistic protection
polyurethane has been evaluated as an armour system
for the first time. Fully infiltrated, 3D interpenetrating
ceramic–polymer composites were manufactured using
vacuum assisted processing. The composites consisting
of SiC foams and thermosetting (cross-linked) PU
demonstrated a relatively high level of mechanical
properties. Armour systems based on only 6 mm armour
tiles bonded with SiC thermosetting PU composite
backing could stop 5.56645 mm SS109 and 7.626
51 mm NATO Ball FMJ projectiles, so these systems
may have potential for ballistic and blast protection for
vehicular and structural applications. The use of
elastomeric PU as the infiltrating phase did not afford
the composite suitable properties to make it of interest
for ballistic protection applications. The preliminary
results obtained will lead to further exploration of a new
approach to the design of armour systems with lower
weight. The use of a backing system based on ceramic
foams infiltrated with proper PU (or some other suitable
material) would allow the replacement of expensive
polyaramid or polyethylene backing and would avoid
the need for a labour intensive lamination process.
Acknowledgement
Diana Essock of Foseco Metallurgical Inc., USA is
gratefully acknowledged for providing the SiC ceramic
foam samples.
References
1. W. Krenkel: Int. J. Appl. Ceram. Technol., 2004, 1, 188–200.
2. D. J. Viechnicki, M. J. Slavin and M. I. Kliman: Bull. Am. Ceram.
Soc., 1991, 70, 1035–1039.
3. N. Orlovskaya, M. Lugovy and V. Subbotin: in ‘Ceramic armour
and armour systems’, (ed. E. Medvedovski), 59–70; 2003,
Westerville, OH, American Ceramic Society.
4. D. R. Clarke: J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 1992, 75, 739–758.
5. H. X. Peng, Z. Fan and J. R. G. Evans: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2001,
303, 37–45.
6. L. J. Gibson and M. F. Ashby: ‘Cellular solids, structure and
properties’, 2nd edn; 1999, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
7. P. Colombo, A. Arcaro, A. Francesconi, D. Pavarin, D. Rondini
and S. Debei: Adv. Eng. Mater., 2003, 5, 802–805.
8. G. C. Jacob, J. F. Fellers, S. Simunovic and J. M. Starbuck:
J. Compos. Mater., 2002, 36, 813–850.
9. V. Jain, R. Johnson, I. Ganesh, B. P. Saha and Y. R. Mahajan:
Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2003, 347, 109–122.
10. D. W. Dixon-Hardy and M. Dwomoh: Proc. Eur. Cong.
on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and
Engineering (ECCOMAS 2000), Barcelona, Spain, September
2000, 1–15.
11. A. Levy, G. Ben-Dor, B. W. Skews and S. Sorek: Exp. Fluids, 1993,
15, 183–190.
12. E. Medvedovski: Bull. Am. Ceram. Soc., 2002, 81, 27–32.
13. E. Medvedovski: Bull. Am. Ceram. Soc., 2002, 81, 45–50.
14. E. Medvedovski: in ‘Ceramic armour materials by design’, (ed.
J. W. McCauley et al.), 91–101; 2002, Westerville, OH, American
Ceramic Society.
15. K. Schwartzwalder and A. V. Somers: US Patent 3 090 094, 1963.
16. P. Sepulveda and J. G. P. Binner: J. Eur. Ceram. Soc., 1999, 19,
2059–2066.
17. M. F. Ashby: Metall. Trans. A, 1983, 14, 1755–1769.
18. Y. Yamada, K. Shimojima, M. Mabuchi, M. Nakamura,
T. Asahina, T. Mukai, H. Kanahashi and K. Higashi: Mater.
Sci. Eng. A, 2000, 277, 213–217.
Advances in Applied Ceramics 2006 VOL 105 NO 2 83