Received: 18 August 2018

| Revised: 12 November 2018

| Accepted: 25 November 2018

DOI: 10.1111/ijac.13151

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Dry‐sliding wear behavior of 3Y‐TZP/Al2O3‐NbC

nanocomposites produced by conventional sintering
and spark plasma sintering

Raphael E. P. Salem1 | Carlos F. Guitérrez-González2 | Amparo Borrell3 |

3 4
Maria Dolores Salvador | Adilson L. Chinelatto | Adriana S. A. Chinelatto4 |
5
Eliria M. J. A. Pallone

1
Departamento Acadêmico de Engenharia
de Materiais, Universidade Tecnológica Abstract
Federal do Paraná, Londrina, PR, Brazil This work presents the initial results of the dry‐sliding wear behavior of 3 mol%
2
Nanoker Research S.L., Oviedo, Spain yttria‐stabilized zirconia reinforced with 5 vol% alumina‐niobium carbide
3
Instituto de Tecnología de Materiales (3Y‐TZP/5 vol% Al2O3‐NbC) nanocomposites sintered by conventional sintering
(ITM), Universitat Politècnica de
València, Valencia, Spain
and spark plasma sintering methods in the temperature range of 1350‐1450°C.
4
Departamento de Engenharia de The reinforcement of 3Y‐TZP matrix with hard nanoparticles aimed to improve
Materiais, Universidade Estadual de wear strength of the composites. Wear tests were performed by the ball‐on‐disc
Ponta Grossa, Ponta Grossa, PR, Brazil
method using alumina (Al2O3) and tungsten carbide with 6 wt% cobalt cermet
5
Faculdade de Zootecnia e Engenharia de
(WC‐6%Co) balls as counter‐materials, a load of 15 N, a sliding distance of
Alimentos, Universidade de São Paulo,
Pirassununga, SP, Brazil 2000 m, and a sliding speed of 0.1 m/s. Wear behavior was evaluated in terms of
wear rate and FE‐SEM micrograph analysis of the wear tracks. The nanocompos-
Correspondence
Raphael E. Salem, Departamento ite sintered at 1450°C by conventional sintering exhibited the least wear when
Acadêmico de Engenharia de Materiais, tested with the WC‐6%Co ball. Generally, the wear mechanism showed evidence
Universidade Tecnológica Federal do
of severe wear regime with both counter‐materials.
Paraná, Londrina, Paraná, Brazil.
Email: raphaelprestes@gmail.com
KEYWORDS
Funding information ceramic-matrix composite, sliding wear, surface analysis, wear testing
Erasmus Mundus - Program EBW+ for
student mobility, Grant/Award Number:
EB15DM1542; Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Científicas, Grant/Award
Number: RYC-2016-20915; Fundação de
Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São
Paulo, Grant/Award Number: 2015/07319-
8; Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de
Pessoal de Nível Superior, Grant/Award
Number: 23038.009604/2013-12;
Fundação Araucária, Grant/Award
Number: 810/2014

1 | INTRODUCTION monolithic structural ceramics.1–3 However, 3Y‐TZP has a mod-

erate hardness compared to other structural ceramics, such as
Structural ceramics combining high mechanical properties are alumina and cermets.2–5 Recent advances in ceramic matrix
an interesting choice for engineering applications. 3Y‐TZP is composites reinforced with a second phase have shown potential
such a material, exhibiting the highest fracture toughness among in improving the properties of monolithic ceramics by increasing

Int J Appl Ceram Technol. 2018;1–9. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ijac © 2018 The American Ceramic Society | 1
2
| SALEM
their hardness, fracture toughness, and wear strength.3,6–10
Among the materials used for the reinforcement of ceramic
matrices, nanocrystalline alumina (Al2O3) and metallic carbides
(such as TiC, SiC, WC, NbC, TaC, HfC, and ZrC) are promis-
ing.3,4,6–9,11–14 These materials have high hardness, elastic mod-
ulus, and melting point and thus play an important role in the
wear performance of 3Y‐TZP‐based composites in applications
such as bearings, cutting tools, and punching and stamping dies.
In particular, 3Y‐TZP reinforced with Al2O3 and NbC nanopar-
ticles have been recently investigated, with promising
results.9,12,15–17 The mechanical properties of a composite are
strongly dependent on its microstructure, which are a result of
the raw materials used and the processing technique.6,13,14,18
Spark plasma sintering (SPS), also known as field‐assisted sin-
tering technique (FAST), is an interesting sintering technique
based on the application of an on‐off direct current (DC) electric
pulse under uniaxial pressure. The SPS technique has been suc-
cessfully used to obtain high‐performance nanocrystalline
ceramics.19–21 The heating rates used in SPS can reach hundreds
of degrees per minute, providing highly dense materials with
refined microstructures after cycles of only few minutes.6,19–23
The wear behavior of many ceramic matrix composites has
been widely investigated in situ and under laboratory conditions,
with different tribosystem configurations.7,8,24–28 The wear of
the materials can be improved by minimizing the residual stress
during sintering, lowering the wear rate by microstructural
refinement, and increasing the toughness at the grain bound-
ary.7,8,19,29 The aim of the present investigation was to produce
a novel nanocomposite consisting of a 3Y‐TZP‐matrix rein-
forced with Al2O3‐NbC nanoparticles synthesized by reactive
high‐energy ball milling. The nanopowders were sintered by the
conventional technique at 1400 and 1450°C and by SPS at
1350 and 1400°C and the wear behavior was evaluated under
dry‐sliding conditions using the ball‐on‐disc method with Al2O3
and WC‐6%Co as counter‐materials.
2 | EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
In this study, nanocrystalline Al2O3‐NbC powders were syn-
thesized by reactive high‐energy milling as described in pre-
vious reports.6,15,30,31 To produce the 3Y‐TZP/Al2O3‐NbC
nanocomposites, 5 vol% Al2O3‐NbC powder was added to
commercial 3Y‐TZP powder (TZ‐3Y‐E; Tosoh, Tokyo,
Japan), with mean particle size of 40 nm, using ball milling,
according to our previously published paper.15 The compos-
ite mixtures were obtained in a conventional ball mill in an
alcoholic suspension of 0.2 wt% para‐aminobenzoic acid
(PABA) and 0.5 wt% oleic acid. The samples to be sintered
conventionally were pressed isostatically under 200 MPa
after uniaxial pressing at 80 MPa into 20 mm‐diameter
cylinders prior to sintering. A high‐temperature furnace
(EDG1800; EDG Equipments, São Carlos, Brazil) was used
ET AL.
to perform conventional sintering at 1400 and 1450°C at a
heating rate of 10°C/min with a dwell time of 120 min-
utes. A dwell time of 60 minutes at 600°C was also incor-
porated within the sintering cycle, in order to guarantee
the elimination of organic materials. The samples were
embedded in graphite powder in an alumina crucible prior
to sintering, to minimize the inherent oxidation of NbC
and to promote a reducing environment within the furnace,
which did not have a controlled atmosphere. Spark plasma
sintering (SPS) of the same composite powder was per-
formed under vacuum (HPD25; FCT Systeme, Effelder‐
Rauenstein, Germany) as follows: the powders were
pressed inside a 20‐mm diameter cylindrical graphite die,
heated to 600°C at a heating rate of 200°C/min under a
pressure of 10 MPa, then heated from 600 to 1350°C and
1400°C at a heating rate of 100°C/min under a pressure of
80 MPa with a dwell time of 5 minutes. The SPS cycles
were performed under vacuum conditions. The microstruc-
tural characterization of the fracture surfaces of sintered
nanocomposites was performed using a field emission gun
scanning electron microscope (FE‐SEM Ultra55; Zeiss,
Jena, Germany). Measurements of physical and mechanical
properties of the sintered materials, such as density,
Young's modulus, microhardness, and toughness were also
performed and published in our previous work.15
The wear tests of the 3Y‐TZP/Al2O3‐NbC composite
materials were carried out using the ball‐on‐disc configura-
tion, following the ASTM wear testing standard G99‐03,32
in a tribometer (MT2/60/SCM/T; Microtest, Madrid, Spain).
The tests were performed with Al2O3 and WC 6%Co cemen-
ted carbide balls as counter‐materials, produced by Fritsch
(Germany), with 5 mm diameter and hardness of 19.7 and
16.8 GPa respectively. The contact load was 15 N, with a
sliding speed of 0.1 m/s, sliding distance of 2000 m and
wear track radius of 3 mm. To achieve a representative value
for each response parameter, a series of three tests was car-
ried out for each material, under controlled room temperature
and relative humidity conditions (23 ± 2°C and 60% ± 2%
respectively). Before the tests, the sample surfaces were pol-
ished and cleaned, achieving a surface roughness of 0.5 μm,
measured and confirmed by surface roughness testing
(Perthometer M2; Mahr, Göttingen, Germany).
Continuous measuring of the friction force during the
tests were performed using a load cell equipped with a
piezoelectric transducer in the loading arm. The wear rate
was determined using Equation 17,33,34:
V
w¼ ; ((1))
L:P
where V is the volume loss [mm³], which was defined from
the quotient between the mass loss and the density of each
sample; L is the total sliding distance [m] and P is the
applied contact load [N]. The mass loss of each tested
SALEM ET AL.
sample was obtained by calculating the difference in mass
before and after the test.
After testing, the morphological characterization of the
wear surfaces was performed using a field emission gun
scanning electron microscope (FE‐SEM Ultra55; Zeiss,
Oberkochen, Germany). The wear surface of the counter‐
materials was analysed by optical microscopy, using an
optical microscope (Eclipse LV100; Nikon, Tokyo, Japan).
3 | RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3Y‐TZP/Al2O3‐NbC nanocomposites sintered by SPS at
1350 and 1400°C exhibited relative densities of 98.1 and
98.7% TD, respectively, and the samples conventionally
sintered at 1400 and 1450°C exhibited lower relative densi-
ties of 95.8 and 97.4% TD respectively.
Figure 1 presents the FE‐SEM micrographs of the fracture
surface of the nanocomposites produced by conventional sin-
tering and SPS at 1400°C. The mean grain size of the matrix
was below 400 nm for both materials, although it was smal-
ler in the conventionally sintered nanocomposites. Mostly in
the conventionally sintered nanocomposite (Figure 1A),
small amounts of porosity are visible. Small NbC particles
and agglomerates, with an approximate mean diameter of
50 nm, were found to be dispersed in the microstructure of
spark plasma sintered nanocomposite (Figure 1B). Pull‐out
of the NbC particles was also observed at a few grain corners.
The microstructure of both materials was narrow and dense,
with mixed inter‐ and intragranular fracture of the grains.
The hardness of the samples sintered by SPS at 1350
and 1400°C were very similar, with values of 12.7 ± 0.2
and 12.1 ± 0.6 GPa, respectively, considering the standard
deviation. The conventionally sintered samples, however,
showed significantly lower hardness values (9.8 ± 0.3 and
10.8 ± 0.3 GPa for 1400 and 1450°C, respectively) due to
their lower densities.
Figure 2 shows the average friction coefficients of the
wear‐tested 3Y‐TZP/Al2O3‐NbC materials sintered conven-
tionally and by SPS with Al2O3 and WC‐6%Co counter‐
(A)
F I G U R E 1 SEM micrographs of the
fracture surface of the 3Y‐TZP/Al2O3‐NbC
nanocomposites sintered at 1400°C by (A)
conventional sintering; (B) spark plasma
sintering
| 3
materials. In general, the friction coefficients significantly
varied with the counter‐material and the sintering tech-
niques and conditions. An accurate relationship between
the tribosystems and the measured friction coefficients was
not determined.
The friction coefficients were generally higher in the
tests performed with WC‐6%Co cemented carbide ball as
counter‐material, attaining values higher than 0.8. On the
other hand, Al2O3 ball as counter‐material led to lower fric-
tion coefficients for the materials sintered at 1400°C by
both techniques. Considering the density and hardness mea-
sured for the materials presented above, Bundschuh and
Zum‐Gahr35 showed that enhanced porosity results in a
greater amount of loose wear particles in the contact area
and, consequently, in greater roughness during dry sinter-
ing. Also, besides hardness and density of the tested mate-
rials, friction coefficients are strongly dependent on the
load and the speed of the test.36,37
Both counter‐materials used are harder than the 3Y‐TZP/
Al2O3‐NbC nanocomposites. As stated above, the measured
hardness for the counter‐materials were 19.7 GPa for the
Al2O3 ball and 16.80 GPa for the WC‐6%Co ball. The
greater the hardness of the counter‐material with respect to
the material tested, the higher the coefficient of friction and
the wear of the counter‐material.37 However, comparing both
counter‐materials, the friction coefficients were generally
higher in the tests with the WC‐6%Co ball, while the wear
rate was lower in the tests performed with the Al2O3 ball. In
the case of the nanocomposites sintered by SPS at 1350°C,
the toughness measured was significantly lower
(6.3 ± 1.0 MPa.m1/2)15 than the other tested temperatures.
Thus, despite higher hardness and density, this led to the for-
mation of more debris, especially during the test with the
Al2O3 counter‐material, which can be the reason for such
higher friction coefficients. This was not observed in the
samples sintered at 1400 and 1450°C and tested with Al2O3
counter‐materials, which presented toughness above
8.0 MPa.m1/2.15 Also, the formation of protective layers and
the predominance of less aggressive wear mechanisms could
have prevented higher friction coefficients for these samples,
(B)
4
| SALEM
F I G U R E 2 Average friction coefficient of 3Y‐TZP/Al2O3‐NbC
nanocomposites with different counter‐materials
while this was not observed during the tests with WC‐6%Co
counter‐materials.
Table 1 presents the average volumetric wear rates of
the 3Y‐TZP/Al2O3‐NbC nanocomposites calculated by
Equation 1 and the wear rate loss for each nanocomposite
and the corresponding wear regime. The standard deviation
for all tests was <5%. The calculated values do not involve
the wear of the counter‐material. The test conditions
strongly influence the wear mechanism and wear rate.8,26,27
The lowest wear rate was obtained for the nanocompos-
ite sintered conventionally at 1450°C and tested with the
WC‐6%Co ball (0.05 × 10−6 mm3(N.m)−1). The boundary
condition between the moderate and severe wear regimes is
not exactly defined and is characterized by the roughness
and other characteristics of the worn surface. The critical
condition for the transition between the two regimes is the
fragile fracture, which is due to mechanical and technical
aspects. To achieve the tribological application of ceramic
materials, it is essential that resistance to wear and smooth
surfaces be maintained throughout use. It is believed that
this is the condition of moderate wear.38,39 In terms of
wear rate, wear rates not exceeding 10−6 mm3(N.m)−1 are
considered as moderate wear, whereas higher wear rates
are classified as severe wear. Moreover, some authors have
reported that the wear rate for the transition regime is
T A B L E 1 Average wear rates for the 3Y‐TZP/Al2O3‐NbC nanocomposites tested with Al2O3 and WC‐6%Co counter‐materials
Wear rate (Al2O3 ball)
Sintering temperature (°C) ×10−6 [mm3.(N.m)−1]
SPS/1350°C 42.2
SPS/1400°C 54.9
Conventional/1400°C 1.33
Conventional/1450°C 1.82
SPS, spark plasma sintering.
ET AL.
between 10−4 and 10−6 mm3(N.m)−1, but there is no con-
sensus regarding the wear surface for this regime.39 There-
fore, for the correct determination of the wear regime
under the analyzed conditions, the calculated wear rate and
the micrographs of the wear surfaces must be compared to
identify and confirm whether the prevailing and acting
mechanisms correspond to the wear regime determined by
the wear rate and thus evaluate the wear behavior
with higher precision.8 The wear regimes for each sample,
determined on the basis of the calculated wear rate, are
presented in Table 1. At the beginning, for classification
of the attrition regime, wear rates lower than 10−6
mm3(N.m)−1 were considered as a moderate regime; the
wear rates >10−6 and <10−5 mm3(N.m)−1 corresponded to
the transition regime; and wear rates >10−5 mm3(N.m)−1
corresponded to the severe regime.
The calculated wear rates were significantly higher in
the SPS nanocomposites than in the conventionally sintered
nanocomposites in the case of the Al2O3 ball testing. On
the other hand, only the sample sintered by SPS at 1400°C
showed a wear regime classified as severe in the WC‐6%Co
ball testing. This behavior opposes what might have been
expected based on the density and hardness of the
nanocomposites, as the nanocomposites sintered by SPS
have a higher density and hardness than the conventionally
sintered nanocomposites. However, it is important to note
that the conventionally sintered nanocomposites presented
higher fracture toughness, which may have had greater
interference than the density and hardness per se, depending
on the most active wear mechanisms. The lower fracture
toughness of the nanocomposites sintered by SPS can be
explained by the presence of thermal stresses in the surface
caused by the high cooling rate during SPS. Some authors
who have reported results on the SPS of nonconductive
high‐temperature ceramic materials, such as Al2O3,40,41 3Y‐
TZP,41 and AlN,42 showed that materials sintered by this
technique present microstructure inhomogeneity, related to
the rapid cooling process. The work of Wang et al40
showed that the rapid cooling caused microcracks on the
surface of Al2O3 samples. These defects on the surface were
ascribed as a consequence of thermal shock. This occurs
especially in nonconduitve materials, because the current
Wear rate (WC‐6%Co ball)
Wear regime ×10−6 [mm3.(N.m)−1] Wear regime
Severe 1.19 Transitional
Severe 19.2 Severe
Transitional 2.43 Transitional
Transitional 0.05 Moderate
SALEM ET AL.
from SPS equipment passes only through the surface of
mold and punches that are in contact with the sample. Thus,
the parts closer to the heating elements absorb higher
energy and promote better densification of some regions of
the samples which were in contact with the mold.42
Based on these results, it may be suggested that the
inhomogeneous stress distribution was one of the reasons
for better densification and higher hardness of the surface
of spark plasma sintered nanocomposites, in comparison
with the conventionally sintered samples. On the other
hand, the stress gradients formed due to high cooling rate
contributed to the lower wear rate showed by the nanocom-
posites produced by SPS.
Another factor that influenced wear rates shows a
significant difference between the wear rates for spark
plasma sintered nanocomposites tested with WC‐6%Co
counter‐material. The severe wear regime found for the
nanocomposites produced by SPS at 1400°C compared
with 1350°C is also related to the oxidation of NbC in the
surface of the sample. According to our previous work,15
FTIR analysis of the surfaces of the samples has shown a
higher level NbC oxidation in the samples sintered above
1400°C, becoming critical in the temperature of 1500°C.
The oxidation at 1500°C caused a perceptible loss of frac-
ture toughness in the sintered nanocomposites, which led
to a significant cracking of the surface.
(A)
(C)
F I G U R E 3 SEM micrographs of the
wear tracks of 3Y‐TZP/Al2O3‐NbC
nanocomposites sintered by: (A) spark
plasma sintering (SPS)/1350°C; (B) SPS/
1400°C; (C) Conventional sintering/
1400°C; (D) Conventional sintering/1450°C
and tested with Al2O3 as the counter‐
material
| 5
To investigate the wear mechanism occurring on the
surface of the nanocomposites after the wear test, FE‐SEM
micrographs of the worn tracks were acquired. Figure 3
shows the FE‐SEM micrographs of the 3Y‐TZP/Al2O3‐
NbC nanocomposites sintered by SPS and by conventional
techniques and tested with Al2O3 balls.
The wear trail analysis shows that the characteristics of
the surfaces vary. In the nanocomposite sintered by SPS at
1350°C, shown in Figure 3A, an aggressive combination of
mechanisms is observed, causing the formation of a partially
scratched surface with regions of pulling of the upper layer
and formation of debris, corresponding to adhesion and
delamination mechanisms. A similar behavior was observed
in the nanocomposite sintered at 1400°C (shown in Fig-
ure 3B), where regions of surface layer picking, fragile frac-
ture, and cracking of the compacted layer were identified.
These characteristics indicated the occurrence of adhesion,
delamination, and superficial fatigue mechanisms, which are
a consequence of severe wear by abrasion of the tribocompo-
nents. For the nanocomposites sintered conventionally (Fig-
ure 3C,D), different wear mechanisms were also observed
albeit with a lower degree of severity when compared to the
SPS‐sintered nanocomposites. In the nanocomposite sintered
conventionally at 1400°C (shown in Figure 3C), a superficial
scratching was identified, keeping much of the original sur-
face intact. In some regions, the existence of a compacted
(B)
(D)
6
| SALEM
layer of fine debris was observed combined with pulling of a
superficial layer. These characteristics denote the occurrence
of grooving and plastic deformation of the test surface. In the
nanocomposite sintered at 1450°C (Figure 3D), the forma-
tion of microcracks was observed on part of the surface,
combined with the compaction of the surface layer, and in
the lighter regions the formation of a tribofilm was observed.
However, as seen in Figure 3C, no formation of debris is
observed, nor the removal of the surface layer. It is important
to note that, although the micrographs show regions with dif-
ferent wear mechanisms, the conventionally sintered
nanocomposites had a smaller number of regions where the
most aggressive wear occurred, and the depth of the wear
tracks was noticeably smaller. This may be one of the rea-
sons why the conventionally sintered nanocomposites exhib-
ited the lowest wear rates when tested with Al2O3 balls.
Figure 4 shows the micrographs of the wear trails of the
sintered nanocomposites tested with WC‐6%Co balls.
The highlighted regions in Figures 4A,B, corresponding to
the nanocomposites sintered by SPS at 1350 and 1400°C,
respectively, indicate pulling of the superficial layer and
intergranular fractures. The debris formed was pressed
inside these regions, indicating that grooving, delamination,
and plastic deformation occurred.
When compared to conventionally sintered nanocom-
posites, SPS‐sintered nanocomposites, as well as in the
(A) (B)
(C) (D)
ET AL.
case of the test results with Al2O3 balls, also showed
higher wear rates, although relatively lower than in the
Al2O3 ball tests. This behavior may be associated with the
lower hardness of the WC‐6%Co sphere and the intrinsic
characteristics of this material, which did not promote sig-
nificant debris formation during the test.
An analysis of the surfaces of the nanocomposites sin-
tered conventionally (Figure 4C,D) shows that, in general,
wear is caused by grooving and compaction of a more uni-
form wear layer without the occurrence of severe wear,
especially in the nanocomposite sintered at 1400°C (Fig-
ure 4C). The nanocomposite sintered at 1450°C (Fig-
ure 4D) presented a nearly zero wear rate
(0.05 × 10−6 mm³(N.m)−1), evidenced by surface analysis,
which indicated no marked signs of wear except for a
slight scratching on the test surface. This nanocomposite
presented the lowest rate of wear although its coefficient of
friction was among the highest.
Comparison of the calculated wear rates for each sin-
tering parameter and counter‐material with the wear
mechanisms identified by FE‐SEM analysis showed that
the mechanism corresponds to the wear regime estimated
by the wear rates for all samples. This confrontation
aims to maintain the fundamental characteristics of the
wear surfaces after the prolonged use of the materials to
be applied.
F I G U R E 4 SEM micrographs of the
wear tracks of 3Y‐TZP/Al2O3‐NbC
nanocomposites sintered by: (A) spark
plasma sintering (SPS)/1350°C; (B) SPS/
1400°C; (C) Conventional sintering/
1400°C; (D) Conventional sintering/1450°C
and tested with WC‐6%Co as the counter‐
material
SALEM ET AL. | 7

(A) (B)

F I G U R E 5 Optical micrographs of the

wear surface of the counter‐materials tested
with 3Y‐TZP/Al2O3‐NbC nanocomposites
sintered at 1400°C by SPS: (A) Al2O3; (B)
WC‐6%Co

Figure 5 shows the optical micrographs of wear surface corresponding to the severe and transitional regime with a
of Al2O3 and WC‐6%Co counter‐materials used on testing process controlled by adhesion, grain fracture, and grain
the nanocomposites sintered at 1400°C. pull‐out of the worn surfaces. The highest wear rate was
As shown in Figure 5, the surface of Al2O3 counter‐mate- identified for the nanocomposite sintered at 1400°C by
rials (Figure 5A) shows many regions of grain pullout, SPS and tested with the Al2O3 ball, while the lowest wear
which was expected due to the inherent fragility of this mate- rate was found for the nanocomposite sintered convention-
rial compared with WC‐6%Co cermet (Figure 5B). In gen- ally at 1450°C and tested with the WC‐6%Co ball, which
eral, the use of Al2O3 as counter‐material formed more presented almost no wear.
debris than in the case of WC‐6%Co counter‐material, conse-
quently having higher wear rates especially in the case of
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
spark plasma sintered samples. In the case of WC‐6%Co
counter‐material, the pullout of grains was less noticeable The authors acknowledge the Brazilian institutions CAPES‐
than scratching, thus leading to relatively smooth wear tracks PVE (grant number 23038.009604/2013‐12), FAPESP (grant
and the presence of less severe wear mechanisms. This can number 2015/07319‐8), Fundação Araucária (grant number
be related to the presence of the binder phase, which makes 810/2014), European Union/Erasmus Mundus for doctorate
WC‐6%Co counter‐material to be less fragile than Al2O3 mobility (grant number EB15DM1542), and the Spanish
counter‐material. Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (RYC‐2016‐
The results demonstrate that the criterion used to classify 20915).
the wear regime based on the wear rate was reasonably accu-
rate. However, changes in the wear surface of the samples ORCID
whose regime was reclassified showed the importance of
thoroughly analyzing the wear surfaces to more accurately Raphael E. P. Salem https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6091-
predict the behavior of the material against wear. The 3651
analysis of the results of the wear tests allows concluding Amparo Borrell https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4292-4538
that the conventionally sintered nanocomposites presented, Maria Dolores Salvador https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
in general, a more satisfactory behavior with respect to wear. 4242-478X
This difference, contrary with what was predicted based on Adilson L. Chinelatto https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2390-
the hardness and density of the materials, may be related to 3344
the higher fracture toughness exhibited by the conventionally Adriana S. A. Chinelatto https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
sintered nanocomposites, which had a mixed fracture mode 4688-5903
(intergranular and intragranular). Eliria M. J. A. Pallone https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
6727-0545

4 | CONCLUSIONS
The 3Y‐TZP/Al2O3‐NbC nanocomposites sintered by con-
ventional and SPS techniques in different temperatures and
tested with Al2O3 and WC‐6%Co as counter‐materials
showed generally high friction coefficients and wear rates,
especially with WC‐6%Co balls. Different wear mecha-
nisms were exhibited by the nanocomposites, mostly
REFERENCES
1. Liu H, Zhao W, Ji Y, Cui J, Chu Y, Rao P. Determination of
fracture toughness of zirconia ceramics with different yttria con-
centrations by SEVNB method. Ceram Int. 2017;43:10572–5.
2. Ćorić V, Renjo MM, Ćurković L. Vickers indentation fracture
toughness of Y‐TZP dental ceramics. Int J Refract Met Hard
Mater. 2017;64:14–9.
8
| SALEM
3. De Aza AH, Chevalier J, Fantozzi G, Schehl M, Torrecillas R.
Crack growth resistance of alumina, zirconia and zirconia tough-
ened alumina ceramics for joint prostheses. Biomaterials.
2002;3:937–45.
4. Aragón-Duarte MC, Nevárez-Rascón A, Esparza-Ponce HE,
Nevárez-Rascón MM, Talamantes RP, Ornelas C, et al. Nanome-
chanical properties of zirconia‐yttria and alumina zirconia‐yttria
biomedical ceramics, subjected to low temperature aging. Ceram
Int. 2017;43:3931–9.
5. Balko J, Csanádi T, Sedlák R, Vojtko M, Kovalčíková A, Koval
K, et al. Nanoindentation and tribology of VC, NbC and ZrC
refractory carbides. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2017;37:4371–7.
6. Alecrim LRR, Ferreira JA, Gutiérrez-González CF, Salvador MD,
Borrell A, Pallone EMJA. Effect of reinforcement NbC phase on
the mechanical properties of Al2O3‐NbC nanocomposites obtained
by spark plasma sintering. Int J Refract Met Hard Mater.
2017;64:255–60.
7. Alecrim LRR, Ferreira JA, Gutiérrez-González CF, Salvador MD,
Borrell A, Pallone EMJA. Sliding wear behavior of Al2O3‐NbC
composites obtained by conventional and nonconventional tech-
niques. Tribol Int. 2017;110:216–21.
8. Alecrim L, Ferreira J, Salvador MD, Borrell A, Pallone E. Wear
behavior of conventional and spark plasma sintered Al2O3‐NbC
composites. Int J Appl Ceram Technol. 2017;15:1–8.
9. Santos C, Maeda LD, Cairo CAA, Acchar W. Mechanical proper-
ties of hot‐pressed ZrO2‐NbC ceramic composites. Int J Refract
Met Hard Mater. 2008;26:14–8.
10. Ünal N, Kern F, Öveçoğlu ML, Gadow R. Influence of WC par-
ticles on the microstructural and mechanical properties of 3% mol
Y2O3 stabilized ZrO2 matrix composites produced by hot press-
ing. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2011;31:2267–75.
11. Sequeira S, Fernandes MH, Neves N, Almeida MM. Develop-
ment and characterization of zirconia‐alumina composites for
orthopaedic implants. Ceram Int. 2017;43:693–703.
12. Schmitt-Radloff U, Kern F, Gadow R. Wire‐electrical discharge
machinable alumina zirconia niobium carbide composites—influ-
ence of NbC content. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2017;37:4861–7.
13. Akatsu T, Nakanishi S, Tanabe Y, Wakai F, Yasuda E. Toughen-
ing enhanced at elevated temperatures in an alumina/zirconia
dual‐phase matrix composite reinforced with silicon carbide whis-
kers. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2013;33:3157–63.
14. Lee DJ, Choi HS, Jin FL, Park SJ. A study on mechanical prop-
erties and microstructure of tetragonal zirconia‐based composites.
J Ind Eng Chem. 2015;27:322–8.
15. Salem REP, Monteiro FR, Gutiérrez-González CF, Borrell A,
Salvador MD, Chinelatto ASA, et al. Effect of Al2O3‐NbC
nanopowder incorporation on the mechanical properties of 3Y‐
TZP/Al2O3‐NbC nanocomposites obtained by conventional and
spark plasma sintering. Ceram Int. 2018;44:2504–9.
16. Schmitt-Radloff U, Kern F, Gadow R. Spark plasma sintering and
hot pressing of ZTA‐NbC materials—a comparison of mechanical
and electrical properties. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2018;38:4003–13.
17. Pędzich Z, Haberko K, Faryna M, Sztwiertnia K. Interphase
boundary in zirconia‐carbide particulate composites. Key Eng
Mater. 2002;223:221–6.
18. Acchar W, Zollfrank C, Greil P. Microstructure and mechanical prop-
erties of WC‐Co reinforced with NbC. Mater Res. 2004;7:445–50.
19. Guillon O, Gonzalez-Julian J, Dargatz B, Kessel T, Schierning G,
Räthel J, et al. Field‐assisted sintering technology/Spark plasma
ET AL.
sintering: mechanisms, materials, and technology developments.
Adv Eng Mater. 2014;16:830–49.
20. Munir Z, Anselmi-Tamburini U, Ohyanagi M. The effect of elec-
tric field and pressure on the synthesis and consolidation of mate-
rials: a review of the spark plasma sintering method. J Mater Sci.
2006;41:763–77.
21. Lu K. Sintering of nanoceramics. Int Mater Rev. 2008;53:21–38.
22. Borrell A, Fernandez A, Torrecillas R, Cordoba JM, Aviles MA,
Gotor FJ. Spark plasma sintering of ultrafine TiCxN1−x powders
synthesized by a mechanically induced self‐sustaining reaction. J
Am Ceram Soc. 2010;93:2252–6.
23. Bonache V, Salvador MD, Fernández A, Borrell A. Fabrication
of full density near‐nanostructured cemented carbides by com-
bi nation of VC/Cr3C2 addition and consolidation by SPS and
HIP technologies. Int J Refract Met Hard Mater. 2011;29:202–8.
24. Gutiérrez-Mora F, Cano-Crespo R, Rincón A, Moreno R, Domín-
guez-Rodríguez A. Friction and wear behavior of alumina‐based
graphene and CNFs composites. J Eur Ceram Soc.
2017;37:3805–12.
25. Wei J, Lin B, Wang H, Sui T, Yan S, Zhao F, et al. Friction and
wear characteristics of carbon fiber reinforced silicon carbide
ceramic matrix (Cf/SiC) composite and zirconia (ZrO2) ceramic
under dry condition. Tribol Int. 2018;119:45–54.
26. Fan H, Hu T, Zhang Y, Fang Y, Song J, Hu L. Tribological
properties of micro‐textured surfaces of ZTA ceramic nanocom-
posites under the combined effect of test conditions and environ-
ments. Tribol Int. 2014;78:134–41.
27. Gee M, Nunn J. Real time measurement of wear and surface dam-
age in the sliding wear of alumina. Wear. 2017;376–7:1866–76.
28. Wang Y, Yang Y, Zhao Y, Tian W, Bian H, He J. Sliding wear
behaviors of in situ alumina/aluminum titanate ceramic compos-
ites. Wear. 2009;11–12:1051–7.
29. Krell A. Improved hardness and hierarchic influences on wear in
submicron sintered alumina. Mater Sci Eng, A. 1996;209:156–63.
30. Botta FWJ, Tomasi R, Pallone EMJA, Yavari AR. Nanostruc-
tured composites obtained by reactive milling. Scr Mater.
2001;44:1735–40.
31. Pallone EMJA, Trombini V, Botta FWJ, Tomasi R. Synthesis of
Al2O3‐NbC by reactive milling and production of nanocomposite.
J Mater Process Technol. 2003;143:185–90.
32. ASTM G99-03, Standard test method for wear testing with a pin-
on-disc apparatus, ASTM Annual Book of Standards, vol. 03.
West Conshohocken, PA; 2003.
33. Chen WH, Lin HT, Chen J, Nayak PK, Lee AC, Lu HH, et al.
Microstructure and wear behavior of spark plasma sintering sin-
tered Al2O3/WC‐based composite. Int J Refract Met Hard Mater.
2016;54:279–83.
34. Espinoza-Fernández L, Borrell A, Salvador MD, Gutierrez-Gon-
zalez CF. Sliding wear behavior of WC‐Co‐Cr3C2‐VC composites
fabricated by conventional and nonconventional techniques.
Wear. 2013;307:60–7.
35. Bundschuh W, Zum Gahr K-H. Influence of porosity on friction
and sliding wear of tetragonal zirconia polycrystal. Wear.
1991;151:175–91.
36. Bayer RG. Mechanical Wear Fundamentals and Testing, 2nd
edn. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2004.
37. Zum Gahr KH. Sliding wear of ceramic‐ceramic, ceramic‐steel
and steel‐steel pairs in lubricated and unlubricated contact. Wear.
1989;133:1–22.
SALEM ET AL. | 9

38. Kato K, Adachi K. Wear of advanced ceramics. Wear.

2002;253:1097–104.
How to cite this article: Salem REP, Guitérrez-
39. Pasaribu HR, Sloetjes JW, Schipper DJ. The transition of mild to
González CF, Borrell A, et al. Dry‐sliding wear
severe wear of ceramics. Wear. 2004;256:585–91.
40. Wang SW, Chen LD, Hirai T. Microstructure inhomogeneity in behavior of 3Y‐TZP/Al2O3‐NbC nanocomposites
Al2O3 sintered bodies formed during the plasma‐activated sinter- produced by conventional sintering and spark plasma
ing process. J Mater Sci Lett. 1999;18:1119–21. sintering. Int J Appl Ceram Technol. 2018;00:1–9.
41. Muñoz S, Anselmi-Tamburini U. Parametric investigation of tem- https://doi.org/10.1111/ijac.13151
perature distribution in field activated sintering apparatus. Int J
Adv Manuf Technol. 2013;65:127–40.
42. Xiong Y, Fu ZY, Wang H, Wang YC, Zhang QJ. Microstructure
and IR transmittance of spark plasma sintering translucent AlN
ceramics with CaF2 additive. Mater Sci Eng, B. 2005;123:57–62.