Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:35:33.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ferroelectric Ceramics--The Sol-Gel Method Versus Conventional Processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

Edward Wu ,
K.C. Chen  and
J.D. Mackenzie
Edward Wu
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024.
K.C. Chen
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024.
J.D. Mackenzie
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024.
Get access

Abstract

The sol-gel method for the preparation of ceramics and glasses has frequently been mentioned as more advantageous as compared to conventional methods. However, there are few known examples of a direct comparison for the same material. In the present work both the processing and resultant properties for ferroelectrics such as BaTiO3, KTaO3, KNbO3 and K(Ta,Nb)O3 made by both methods are directly compared. The uniformity is evaluated by high-angle x-ray diffraction, electron microscopy and EDAX and the dielectric properties are compared. The advantages and disadvantages of the sol-gel method are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 32: Symposium B – Better Ceramics Through Chemistry I , 1984 , 169
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1984

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. Mazdiyasni, K.S., Dolloff, R.T. and Smith, J.S., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 52, 523–526 (1969).Google Scholar
2. Graham, H.C., Tallan, N.M. and Mazdiyasni, K.S., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 54, 548–553 (1971).Google Scholar
3. Mazdiyasni, K.S., Brown, L.M., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 54, 539–543 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Kiss, K., Magder, J., Vukasovich, M.S. and Lockhart, R.J., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 49, 291–295 (1966).Google Scholar
5. Brown, L.M. and Mazdiyasni, K.S., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 55, 541–544 (1972).Google Scholar
6. Yoldas, B.E., Bull. Am. Ceram. Soc., 54, 286 (1975).Google Scholar
7. Becher, P.F., Sommers, J.H., Bender, B.A. and MacFarlane, B.A. in Materials Sci. Research, 11, Processing of Crystalline Ceramics, Palmour, H. III et al. ., ed. (Plenum Press 1978) pp. 79–86.Google Scholar
8. Schroder, H., in Physics of Thin Films 5, Hass, G. and Thun, R.E. Eds. (Academic Press 1978) pp. 87–141.Google Scholar
9. Fukushima, J., Kodaira, K. and Matsushita, T., Bull. Am. Ceram. Soc. 55, 1064 (1976).Google Scholar
10. Dislich, H., J. Non-Cryst. Solids, 48, 11 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Tao-Hung Wu, E., Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles (1983).Google Scholar
12. Garn, P.D. and Flaschen, S.S., Anal. Chem., 29, 275 (1975).Google Scholar
13. Triebwasser, S., Phys. Rev., 114 63–70 (1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Merz, W.J., Phys. Rev. 76 1221–1225 (1949).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Jonker, G.H. and Noorlander, W. in Science of Ceramics 1, 255–265, Stewart, G.H. Ed. (Academic Press, 1962) pp. 255–264.Google Scholar