Powder Metallurgy

ISSN: 0032-5899 (Print) 1743-2901 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ypom20

Spark plasma sintering versus hot pressing –

densification, bending strength, microstructure,
and tribological properties of Ti5Al2.5Fe alloys

Ridvan Yamanoglu, Ismail Daoud & Eugene A. Olevsky

To cite this article: Ridvan Yamanoglu, Ismail Daoud & Eugene A. Olevsky (2018): Spark plasma
sintering versus hot pressing – densification, bending strength, microstructure, and tribological
properties of Ti5Al2.5Fe alloys, Powder Metallurgy, DOI: 10.1080/00325899.2018.1441777

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00325899.2018.1441777

Published online: 27 Feb 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ypom20
POWDER METALLURGY, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/00325899.2018.1441777

Spark plasma sintering versus hot pressing – densification, bending strength,

microstructure, and tribological properties of Ti5Al2.5Fe alloys
Ridvan Yamanoglua, Ismail Daoudb and Eugene A. Olevskyc
a
Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey; bLaboratory of Science and Materials
Engineering, University of Sciences and Technology Houari Boumediene, Algeria; cDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, San Diego State
University, San Diego, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Ti5Al2.5Fe alloys were fabricated by the spark plasma sintering (SPS) and hot pressing (HP) Received 22 August 2017
pressure-assisted sintering techniques from pre-alloyed powders with a particle size of about Accepted 12 February 2018
200 μm. The powders were sintered at 850 °C for two different holding times (5 and 8 min)
KEYWORDS
and heating rates (50 and 150°C min−1) at 25 MPa. The maximum relative densities were Ti5Al2.5Fe; spark plasma
99.70 and 98.78% for SPS and HP samples, respectively. All the alloys prepared by the SPS sintering; hot pressing;
process had significantly higher bending strengths (1825–2074 MPa) than the alloys mechanical properties
prepared by the HP process (648–1330 MPa). A decrease in the heating rate from 150 to 50°
C min−1 enhanced the wear resistance of the Ti5Al2.5Fe alloys prepared by both the SPS and
HP processes.

Introduction
There has recently been extensive interest in fast sinter-
ing techniques due to their ability to provide enhanced
mechanical properties within short soaking times in
comparison to conventional powder metallurgical
methods [1–4]. Rapid heating to the maximum sinter-
ing temperature prevents grain growth, which is critical
in shaping the mechanical properties of the materials
[5,6]. Therefore, the heating rate needs to be con-
sidered as a primary diffusion parameter, in addition
to the sintering temperature and time, due to its contri-
bution to the densification characteristics of the
materials.
Fast sintering techniques consist of applying
pressure during the sintering process, which causes a
direct increase in the driving force of densification
and an increase in the densification kinetics. The sin-
tering temperature and time are decreased by applying
an external pressure [7,8]. This external pressure is
usually applied by the uniaxial hot pressing (HP) tech-
nique, which is a conventional pressure-assisted sinter-
ing technique in powder metallurgy. A graphite die,
which is suitable for induction and resistance heating,
is used as the sintering medium. Graphite is also pre-
ferred for its high lubrication properties, such as the
easy removal of the sintered samples from the die
[9,10].
Another fast sintering method was recently
designed for powder metallurgical applications, where
an external current is used with the support of external
pressure, resulting in the enhanced consolidation
properties of the powder materials. This technique is
known as the field-assisted sintering technique
(FAST), spark plasma sintering (SPS), plasma-acti-
vated sintering (PAS), or electrical discharge compac-
tion [11]. There is enormous interest in current-
activated sintering as a pressure-assisted densification
process due to the efficiency of the process and the fab-
rication of special materials [12]. SPS has been applied
for the consolidation of many different materials,
including metals, ceramics, composites, and function-
ally graded materials, within short processing times.
This technique employs a spark discharge in the
voids between the particles that consolidates the pow-
ders to a near full density, resulting in really short pro-
cessing times. This spark effect on the surface of each
particle generates a self-heating approach, whereby
the particle surfaces are activated and purified of
oxide layers. The main advantages of the SPS process
are the lower sintering temperatures and shorter
dwell times, resulting in a finer-grained dense structure
with an improved yield strength [13].
As a pressure-assisted sintering technique, the SPS
method is similar to conventional HP. However,
there is a major difference between the heating mech-
anisms of these two pressure-assisted sintering
methods. The HP heat is produced by a radiative fur-
nace, whereas the SPS heat is obtained via the Joule
effect, consisting of a pulsed direct current (around a
few thousand amperes and a few volts). The SPS heat-
ing rate can reach 1000°C min−1. A graphite mould is
used as the die in both the HP and SPS methods.

CONTACT Ridvan Yamanoglu ryamanoglu@gmail.com

© 2018 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining Published by Taylor & Francis on behalf of the Institute
2 R. YAMANOGLU ET AL.
The applied uniaxial pressure is in the range of
10–1000 MPa. Therefore, these two effects, consisting
of a high heating rate and simultaneously applied
pressure, are the main causes of enhanced densification
in SPS [14]. Here, we compared the SPS and HP
methods as a function of their mechanical properties,
densities, and wear properties in the fabrication of a
titanium alloy. This comparison will help give
researchers a better understanding of these two
pressure-assisted sintering techniques.
Ti5Al2.5Fe was the titanium alloy selected for the SPS
and HP experiments. Pure titanium and titanium alloys
are the widely preferred materials for medical appli-
cations due to their excellent corrosion resistance,
good fatigue strength, and high strength-to-weight ratios
[15]. Among the titanium alloys, the α+β alloys are the
most commonly used, with Ti6Al4V accounting for 45%
of all the titanium mill products [16]. The Ti6Al4V alloy
is significantly stronger than pure titanium, while having
the same stiffness and thermal properties [17]. It has
become the standard alloy, and was the first titanium
alloy to be used as a biomaterial. However, recent studies
showed that vanadium can have carcinogenic and highly
cytotoxic effects on the human body. The possibility of
vanadium release, along with the increased demand
for prosthetics, has encouraged the development of
new titanium alloys without toxic elements for use in
biomedical devices [18]. The Ti5Al2.5Fe alloy has
recently been considered as an alternative, because
Ti5Al2.5Fe has similar properties and applications to
the Ti6Al4V alloy [19].
The main goal of this study is to produce Ti5Al2.5Fe
alloys by the SPS and HP techniques and compare their
resultant microstructural and mechanical properties.
Experimental
Ti5Al2.5Fe alloy powder, with an average particle size
of 150–250 μm, was used as the starting material in
Figure 1. (a) SEM micrograph of the Ti5Al2.5Fe powders and
(b) particle size distribution.
the experiments. The particles show a broad particle
size distribution and have a spherical shape. Figure 1
shows the scanning electron image and particle size
distribution of the titanium alloy powders. A broad
size distribution of particles was selected with the aim
of enhancing the densification properties by increasing
the contact points among the particles.
Loose starting powders were poured directly into a
graphite die with an inner diameter of 15.4 mm,
lined with a single wrapping of 0.2-mm-thick graphite
paper for lubrication and the ease of releasing the sin-
tered compact from the die body. Two graphite
punches, each with an outer diameter of 15 mm,
were inserted into the die body and faced with graphite
paper to supply a uniform contact resistance between
the punches and the die body. The sample and die
assembly were then placed between the graphite
spacers and SPS/HP machine electrodes, and uniaxially
sintered by either SPS (using a Dr Sinter Lab 515S
machine, SPS Sytex, Co., Japan) or HP (DIEX,
Korea). The DC pulse timing during SPS was held con-
stant at 12 pulses on and 2 pulses off, with a pulse dur-
ation of ∼3.3 ms.
The final compacts had a length of 10 mm and a
diameter of 15 mm. The compacts were consolidated
at 850°C with two different holding times (5 and 8
min) and heating rates (50 and 150°C min−1). The
pressure was kept constant at 25 MPa during the
whole process. All the tests were carried out under a
vacuum atmosphere. The density of the sintered com-
pacts was measured using Archimedes’ method at
room temperature. All specimens were polished and
etched with Kroll’s reagent for about 10 s.
The microstructure of the samples with etched sur-
faces was examined using an Olympus microscope and
Jeol 6060 scanning electron microscope (SEM). The
hardness of the samples was determined by the Vickers
hardness test. The fracture surfaces of the samples after
the bending tests were examined by SEM.
Wear tests were conducted using a Nanovea MT/60/
NI-type pin-on-disc tribometer to determine the fric-
tional properties of the produced samples. The wear
tests were conducted at room temperature under dry
sliding conditions to examine the effect of the SPS
and HP processing conditions on the tribological prop-
erties of the Ti5Al2.5Fe alloy. Dry sliding wear tests
were performed under a normal load of 30 N. The slid-
ing speed and sliding distance were kept constant at
0.06 ms−1 and 150 m, respectively, for all tests. An
alumina ball (6 mm in diameter) was used as the coun-
ter-face. The worn surfaces of the HP and SPS samples
were also characterised by SEM. Friction coefficients
were recorded continuously during the wear tests.
The specimens were thoroughly cleaned with alcohol
after the wear tests, and then dried with a hot air
blower. The weight loss of the alloys was measured
using an AND GR200-type microbalance with a

resolution of 0.1 mg. The following equation was used
to obtain the wear rate of the specimens: W = M/ρD,
where W is the wear rate (mm3 m−1), M denotes
mass loss (g), and ρ (g mm−3) and D (m) are the den-
sity and sliding distance, respectively.
Results
Here, Ti5Al2.5Fe alloy powders were selected for the
two pressure-assisted sintering processes, SPS and
HP. The parameters used for the SPS and HP methods
are given in Table 1. The table also shows the density
results as a function of the sintering parameters. The
selected pressure-assisted sintering processing methods
and parameters were chosen due to their high heating
rates. The SPS method was designed for ceramics to
inhibit grain size coarsening, thus resulting in
enhanced mechanical properties. Only the particle sur-
faces are subjected to heating during the SPS process,
whereas the whole particle bodies are subjected to heat-
ing during the HP process. The samples listed in Table
1 are labelled either S or H to identify the SPS and HP
compacts, respectively.
Density
The SPS samples consistently showed higher density
values than the HP samples. The heating rate had a
marked effect on the densification of the SPS samples,
as shown in Table 1, with a higher heating rate yielding
enhanced densification. The relative densities of the
SPS samples with heating rates of 50 and 150°
C min−1 are 99.10 and 99.55%, respectively. The densi-
fication of the SPS samples was further enhanced by
increasing the holding time for the samples sintered
at a heating rate of 150°C min−1, with an increase
from 99.55 to 99.70% for a 3 min increase in the hold-
ing time. However, the heating rate has a negative effect
on the densification of the HP samples. The relative
density values are 98.76 and 97.91% for the heating
rates of 50 and 150°C min−1, respectively. However, a
similar 3 min increase in the sintering time during
the HP process enhanced the density from 97.91 to
98.78% for the heating rate of 150°C min−1.
The differences in the densification of the two sin-
tering methods can be attributed to the heating
Table 1. Sintering parameters of the SPS and HP processed
powders.
Sintering Holding Heating rate
Samples temperature (oC) time (min) (°C/min)
SPS
S1 850 5 50
S2 850 5 150
S3 850 8 150
HP
H1 850 5 50
H2 850 5 150
H3 850 8 150
POWDER METALLURGY 3
mechanism during these processes. A pulsed DC cur-
rent is applied to the powder compacts in the graphite
die during SPS. Here, the DC pulse timing was held
constant at 12 pulses on and 2 pulses off, with a
pulse duration of ∼3.3 ms. The activation of the par-
ticles is therefore characterised by the electrical dis-
charge. For the conductive materials, Joule heating
was the main effect on the heating. Furthermore,
plasma discharge among the particles activates the den-
sification, causing the melting and evaporation of the
particle surfaces. This phenomenon induces neck for-
mation among the particles, giving enhanced density
values in short times. For the HP process, the graphite
die containing the powders is directly connected to the
electrical power. The powders are heated by the resist-
ance in the graphite die. Therefore, whole particles are
subjected to the HP heating, whereas only the particle
surfaces only are subjected to the SPS heating, giving
enhanced neck formation [20,21]. The change in den-
sity is shown in Figure 2.
Microstructure
There is a clear correlation between the density differ-
ence in the SPS and HP samples and their associated
microstructures. The microstructure of the SPS
samples did not show any porosity among the particles
due to the fast heating rate with plasma discharge,
while the HP samples showed fine porosities, especially
at the triple points of the particles. This type of porosity
is attributed to the final stage of the sintering, which is
hard to eliminate with conventional sintering tech-
niques. However, SPS provides an enhanced neck
growth and densification that does not show visible
particle borders, while the inter-particle borders are
still visible after HP, as shown in Figure 3(a,b). This
approach is also important for explaining the mechan-
ical properties of the samples. Owing to its homo-
geneous microstructure with a higher diffusion effect,
Relative
density (%)
99.10
99,55
99,70
98,76 Figure 2. Relative densities of the SPS and HP sintered
97,91 Ti5Al2.5Fe alloys as a function of different heating rates and
98,78
holding times.
4 R. YAMANOGLU ET AL.
Figure 3. Optical image of the Ti5Al2.5Fe alloys sintered with: (a) SPS process and (b) HP process.
the SPS samples possessed higher mechanical proper-
ties compared to HP samples, as explained in the fol-
lowing sections.
Bending behaviour
The bending test results of the sintered Ti5Al2.5Fe
alloys by the SPS and HP processes are given in
Table 2. The results exhibit a significant difference
between the bending strengths for Ti5Al2.5Fe alloys
prepared by the SPS and HP processes. All the alloys
prepared by the SPS process have significantly higher
bending strengths (1825–2074 MPa) than the alloys
prepared by the HP process(648–1330 MPa). The flex-
ural strain follows the same trend as that found for the
bending strength. Higher results were obtained for the
alloys prepared by the SPS process (31–39%) than for
the alloys prepared by the HP process (8–18%). It
has been reported [22] that the mechanical properties
of Ti alloys prepared by the SPS process are also higher
than as-cast or as-forged alloys.
The ductility of the alloys prepared by the SPS pro-
cess was found to increase when the heating rate was
decreased from 150 to 50°C min−1, where the flexural
strain was increased from 34 to 39%, and then
decreased to 31% for a holding time of 8 min and a
fast heating rate (150°C min−1). However, in the case
of the alloys prepared by the HP process, the ductility
increased when the heating rate was decreased (50°
C min−1), with a flexural strain of 10%, or when the
holding time was longer (8 min), which yielded the
highest flexural strain of 18% in the HP samples.
The highest bending strength for the alloys prepared
by the SPS process, 2074 MPa, was obtained with a fast
heating rate (150°C min−1) and short holding time (5
Table 2. Bending test results of the SPS and HP sintered
Ti5Al2.5Fe alloy.
Samples Bending strength (MPa) Flexural strain (%)
SPS sintered SPS 1 1872.25 39.74
SPS 2 2074.23 34.18
SPS 3 1825.28 31.67
Hot pressed HP 1 1323.57 10.80
HP 2 648.17 8.51
HP 3 1330.29 18.00
min). Decreasing the heating rate (50°C min−1) or
increasing the holding time (8 min) led to a decrease
in the bending strength of the prepared alloys. This is
probably due to the increase in the Ti5Al2.5Fe grain
size, which can affect the strength of the alloy. When
Xiao et al. [23] prepared the TiAl alloys by SPS, they
found that the increase in sintering temperature caused
a decrease in the alloy strength due to grain coarsening.
However, the lowest bending strength for the alloys
prepared by the HP process was obtained with a 5 min
holding time and a 150°C min−1 heating rate. The
results show that decreasing the heating rate (50°
C min−1) or increasing the holding time (8 min) can
improve the bending strength of the Ti5Al2.5Fe alloys.
This is probably due to the weak bonding of the micro-
structure and the presence of porosity in the alloy pre-
pared with a short holding time and fast heating rate.
The spark discharge generated between the titanium
particles during the SPS process cleaned and activated
the particle surfaces, resulting in enhanced mass trans-
port for sintering. However, HP particle deformation is
mainly responsible for the consolidation character-
istics. Therefore, HP requires higher sintering tempera-
tures or longer holding times to obtain a pore-free
structure with enhanced mechanical properties [24].
The comparison of the bending stress–deflection
curves of the Ti5Al2.5Fe alloys prepared by the SPS
and HP processes are also shown in Figure 4. The alloys
prepared by the SPS process showed ductile behaviour
with obvious plastic deformation before fracture, and a
similar behaviour was observed for a Ti–Al alloy pre-
pared by the SPS process [23]. However, the alloys pre-
pared by the HP process were characterised by a brittle
behaviour. The stress–deflection curves of the alloys
prepared by the SPS process yielded the largest deflec-
tion compared to the alloys prepared by the HP pro-
cess. The Ti5Al2.5Fe alloy prepared by the SPS
process with a short holding time (5 min) and a fast
heating rate (150°C min−1) exhibited the largest deflec-
tion of 2.25 mm. When the sintering parameters were
changed, the deflection decreased to 2.08 mm for the
longer holding time (8 min) and the same heating
rate, and to 1.69 mm for the slower heating rate (50°
C min−1) and the same holding time. The lowest

Figure 4. Bending stress–deflection curves of the Ti5Al2.5Fe alloys under different sintering parameters prepared using the SPS/HP
process.
deflection of 0.34 mm was obtained for the alloys pre-
pared by the HP process with the short holding time (5
min) and fast heating rate (150°C min−1). This value
increased to 0.71 mm for the longer holding time (8
min), and reached a maximum of 0.81 mm for the
slower heating rate (50°C min−1).The ductile behav-
iour of the alloys prepared by the SPS process may be
related to the strong bonding of the microstructure at
the interface between the particles. This brittle behav-
iour of the Ti alloys prepared by the HP process has
also been reported by previous studies [25].
SPS and HP, as pressure-assisted techniques, exhib-
ited different mechanical properties that were mainly
due to the heating mechanisms of the HP and SPS pro-
cesses. Joule heating was generated by a pulsed DC of
several thousand amperes and a few volts during the
SPS process. The spark effect of SPS is also effective
in the fast densification of particles. However, the par-
ticles subjected to HP require higher sintering tempera-
tures and longer holding times to obtain enhanced
consolidation properties when compared with the
SPS samples [14].
Fracture surfaces
Figure 5 shows the SEM micrographs of the fracture sur-
faces of the sintered Ti5Al2.5Fe alloys after the bending
tests, prepared by the SPS and HP processes for a range
of sintering parameters. As shown in Figure 5(a–c), the
fracture mode is probably transgranular and composed
of a cleavage plane and dimpled ruptures for all the
alloys prepared by the SPS process. The presence of
POWDER METALLURGY 5
dimpled ruptures corresponds to ductile fracture,
which is in good agreement with the results of the bend-
ing stress–deflection curves. Coarse cleavage planes with
inter-lamellar fractures were observed for the alloys pre-
pared with a 5 min holding time and a 150°C min−1
heating, as seen in Figure 5(a). These coarse cleavage
zones indicate the good bonding between the grains,
resulting in a high bending strength. The cleavage
plane areas become smaller and more obvious dimpled
ruptures are observed as the sintering parameters are
changed. The fracture mode is mainly ductile, with
some brittle fractures. For the alloys prepared by the
HP process (Figure 5(d–f)), the fracture surface exhibits
an intergranular fracture mode for all the sintered alloys,
which indicates a brittle behaviour. For the Ti5Al2.5Fe
alloy sintered with a short holding time and fast heating
rate, the neck growth was incomplete, resulting in weak
interlocking inner connections at the contact points that
formed between the particles. Pores were also observed,
which can strongly affect the mechanical properties of
this alloy. Increasing the holding time or decreasing
the heating rate improved the bonding of the particles,
with the decrease in porosity resulting in an increase
in alloy strength. The fracture surface shows the pres-
ence of dimples at the connected areas. The dominant
fracture mode was an intergranular fracture with low
dimpled ruptures.
Wear behaviour
Wear tests were carried out to investigate the effect
of the process type and/or the sintering parameters
6 R. YAMANOGLU ET AL.

Figure 5. SEM images of fracture surfaces of SPS and hot pressed samples prepared with different sintering parameters by SPS/HP
process. (a) SPS sintered for 5 min with 50°C/min, (b) SPS sintered for 5 min with 150°C/min, (c) SPS sintered for 8 min with 150°C/
min, (d) hot pressed for 5 min with 50°C/min, (e) hot pressed for 5 min with 150°C/min and (f) hot pressed for 8 min with 150°C/min.

on the tribological behaviour of the Ti5Al2.5Fe

Figure 6. Wear rates of Ti5Al2.5Fe alloys as a function of heat-
ing rate and sintering time prepared by the SPS/HP processes.
alloys. The wear rates of the Ti5Al2.5Fe alloys sin-
tered by the SPS and HP processes for a range of
different sintering parameters are shown in Figure
6. All the Ti5Al2.5Fe alloys sintered using the SPS
process had lower wear rate values than the HP
alloys. The alloys prepared with a short holding
time and fast heating rate presented the highest
wear rates for both the SPS and HP alloys. When
the heating rate was decreased from 150 to 50°C
min−1, the wear resistance of the sintered alloys
was also enhanced for both the SPS and HP alloys.
The Ti5Al2.5Fe alloy sintered with a holding time
of 8 min and a heating rate of 150°C min−1 yielded
the highest wear resistance among all the sintered

Figure 7. Friction coefficient of Ti5Al2.5Fe alloys prepared by SPS and HP processes: (a) average friction coefficient and (b) typical
friction coefficient for Ti5Al2.5Fe alloys prepared with 8 min holding time, 150°C/min heating rate.
 POWDER METALLURGY 7

alloys for both the SPS and HP processes. The Friction coefficient
results show that the variation in holding time has
The average friction coefficients for the Ti5Al2.5Fe
a greater effect on the wear resistance of the sintered
alloys prepared by the SPS and HP processes and the
alloys than the variation in heating rate. Since the
typical friction coefficient of the sintered alloys for a
wear is related to the mechanism of materials
holding time of 8 min and a heating rate of 150°C
removal, it is not appropriate to take into consider-
min−1 are shown in Figure 7. It can be seen from Figure
ation only one factor as the main influence on the
7(a) that the SPS alloy yielded a lower friction coeffi-
wear behaviour [26]. The SPS alloys exhibit the
cient for the fast heating rate (150°C min−1) and for
best strength results, which are attributed to the
both holding times (5 and 8 min). However, the HP
good bonding strength between the Ti5Al–2.5Fe par-
alloys yielded the highest friction coefficient for the
ticles. These properties, therefore, improved the wear
slow heating rate (50°C min−1). The typical friction
resistance of the SPS alloys.
coefficient curves for the same sintering parameters

Figure 8. Worn surfaces of the Ti5Al2.5Fe alloys prepered with SPS/ HP processes: (a, c and e) SPS process; (b, d and f) HP process
under a load of 30 N, 150 rev min−1 and after 150 m; (a–b) 5 min–150°C/min, (c–d) 5 min–50°C/min and (e–f) 8 min–150°C/min.
8 R. YAMANOGLU ET AL.
(8 min and 150°C min−1) prepared by the HP and SPS
processes (Figure 7(b)) show that the SPS alloy yields
the lowest friction coefficient, with a steady-state
value of 0.16, compared with the HP sample, which
exhibits a steady-state friction coefficient of 0.21.
Worn surface
Figure 8(a,b) presents the worn surface of the sintered
Ti5Al2.5Fe alloys prepared with a 5 min holding time
and a 150°C min−1 heating rate for the SPS and HP
processes, respectively. The worn surface exhibits the
presence of deep grooves oriented in the sliding direc-
tion for both alloys, with debris dispersed around these
grooves. For the alloy prepared by the HP process, a
wave-like pattern can also be observed along the
worn surface, indicating the presence of a plastic defor-
mation mechanism. The dominant wear mechanisms
are found to be severe abrasive wear, mild adhesive
wear, and plastic deformation.
When the heating rate was decreased to 50°C min−1,
with the same holding time (5 min), as shown in
Figure 8(c,d), the worn surface of the sintered alloys
formed by the SPS process always retained the presence
of grooves. However, these were reduced due to the
appearance of some delamination wear. The alloys sin-
tered by the HP process possessed grooves that become
deeper and wider, with a dominant wear behaviour of
abrasive wear and delamination.
The worn surface of the alloy prepared by both pro-
cesses and with a holding time of 8 min is shown in
Figure 8(e,f). Grooves and a delaminated area of the
Ti alloy are observed on the worn surfaces for both pro-
cesses. The grooves became deeper due to the longer
holding time; however, some peeling-off of the material
can be seen on the surface of the SPS-formed alloy,
which results from the severe wear on the surface of
the wear scar [27,28]. A wave-like pattern can also be
seen at the wear scar of the SPS alloy. Abrasive wear
and delamination are the dominant wear mechanisms
for the alloys prepared with these parameters.
All the alloys prepared via the HP process exhibit
some degree of wear debris, as shown in Figure 8,
which indicates the occurrence of three-body abrasive
wear. The alloys sintered via the SPS process also pre-
sent wear debris, except for those with a long holding
time, where no debris layer is observed (Figure 8).
The debris resulting from material removal during
the wear test can be situated between the sintered
alloy and the counterpart, acting as an abrasive third
body [14]. Therefore, the presence of the third body
affects the wear resistance of the sintered alloy.
Conclusion
Here, Ti5Al2.5Fe alloys were fabricated by the SPS and
HP methods and a range of different sintering
parameters. Although similar sintering parameters were
employed in both methods, the SPS samples showed
higher densifications and mechanical properties than
the HP samples. Furthermore, the heating rate had the
most critical effect on densification. The SPS sample den-
sities increased with increasing heating rates. However,
the HP heating rate had a negative effect on densification.
The densities and mechanical properties of the materials
produced by both fast sintering methods increased with
increasing holding time. As for the tribological proper-
ties, the SPS samples exhibited enhanced wear properties,
with lower wear rates and friction coefficients.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by Scientific Research Projects
Unit of Kocaeli University: [Grant Number 2015/042] and
US Department of Energy, Materials Sciences Division:
[Grant Number DE-SC0008581] through the Powder Tech-
nology Laboratory at the San Diego State University.
Notes on contributors
Ridvan Yamanoglu was born in Bilecik and he graduated
from the Kocaeli University, Izmit, Department of Metallurgi-
cal and Materials Engineering in 2002. He received his M.Sc.
degree in 2005 and his PhD in 2011 from the Kocaeli Univer-
sity. He has been working at the same university since 2002.
He was awarded by Turkish Scientific Council during his
PhD. He studied his PhD at San Diego State University with
Randall M. German and Eugene A. Olevsky. He also studied
at the same university with Dr. Eugene Olevsky in 2014. Dr.
Yamanoglu published several journal and conference papers
and attended 4 international course on powder metallurgy.
Ismail Daoud received his M. Eng. degree in Materials
Science and Engineering in 2011 from Boumerdes Univer-
sity, Boumerdes, Algeria. He is currently a PhD student in
Materials science and Engineering department, University
of Science and Technology HOUARI BOUMEDIENE,
Algiers, Algeria. His research interests are Titanium alloys,
liquid phase sintering, metal matrix composites, image
analysis, and tribology.
Eugene Olevsky is Distinguished Professor of Mechanical
Engineering and Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and
Research at the College of Engineering of the San Diego
State University, USA. Dr. Olevsky is the Director of the
San Diego State University Powder Technology Laboratory.
Eugene Olevsky is the author of over 500 scientific publi-
cations and of more than 150 plenary, keynote, and invited
presentations in the area of sintering research. Prof. Olevsky
has supervised scientific sintering studies of more than 100
post-doctoral, graduate, and undergraduate students. Prof.
Olevsky is a Fellow of the American Ceramic Society, a Fel-
low of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Hum-
boldt Fellow; he is a Full Member of the International
Institute of Science of Sintering. Dr. Olevsky’s most recent
research is focused on field-assisted sintering techniques
and sintering-assisted additive manufacturing.

References
[1] Lee C, Lu H-H, Wang C-A, et al. Effect of heating rate
on spark plasma sintering of a nanosized β-Si3N4-based
powder. J Am Ceram Soc. 2011;94(4):1182–1190.
[2] Yang Z, Wang H, Min X, et al. Effect of heating rate on
microstructure and properties of spark plasma sintered
Li-α-sialon. Ceram Int. 2011;37(7):2175–2180.
[3] Yang Q, Tang Y, Wen Y, et al. Microstructures and
properties of CoCrCuFeNiMox high-entropy alloys
fabricated by mechanical alloying and spark plasma
sintering. Powder Metall. 2017:1–8.
[4] Sadeghi B, Shamanian M, Ashrafizadeh F, et al.
Microstructural behaviour of spark plasma sintered
composites containing bimodal micro- and nano-
sized Al2O3 particles. Powder Metall. 2017;61:1–14.
[5] Garbiec D, Siwak P, Mróz A. Effect of compaction
pressure and heating rate on microstructure and mech-
anical properties of spark plasma sintered Ti6Al4V
alloy. Arch Civil Mech Eng. 2016;16(4):702–707.
[6] Liu G, Li R, Yuan T, et al. Spark plasma sintering of
pure TiCN: densification mechanism, grain growth
and mechanical properties. Int J Refract Met Hard
Mater. 2017;66:68–75.
[7] Kang S-JL. Sintering: densification, grain growth and
microstructure. Burlington: Elsevier Butterworth-
Heinemann; 2005.
[8] German RM. Sintering theory and practice. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1996.
[9] Yamanoglu R. In situ aluminum alloy coating on mag-
nesium by hot pressing. Acta Metall Sin (Eng Lett).
2015;28(8):1059–1064.
[10] Yamanoglu R. Production and characterization of Al-
xNi in situ composites using hot pressing. J Min
Metall B. 2014;50(1):45–52.
[11] Ibrahim A, Zhang F, Otterstein E, et al. Processing of
porous Ti and Ti5Mn foams by spark plasma sintering.
Mater Des. 2011;32(1):146–153.
[12] Garay JE. Current-activated, pressure-assisted densifi-
cation of materials. Annu Rev Mater Res.
2010;40:445–468.
[13] Yamanoglu R, Bradbury W, Karakulak E, et al.
Characterisation of nickel alloy powders processed by
spark plasma sintering. Powder Metall. 2014;57
(5):380–386.
[14] Antou G, Guyot P, Pradeilles N, et al. Identification of
densification mechanisms of pressure-assisted sinter-
ing: application to hot pressing and spark plasma sin-
tering of alumina. J Mater Sci. 2015;50(5):2327–2336.
POWDER METALLURGY 9
[15] Zhao D, Chang K, Ebel T, et al. Sintering behavior and
mechanical properties of a metal injection molded Ti–
Nb binary alloy as biomaterial. J Alloys Compd.
2015;640:393–400.
[16] Maya-Johnson S, López D. Effect of the cooling rate in
the corrosion behavior of a hot worked Ti-6Al-4V
extra-low interstitial alloy. Mater Des. 2014;58:175–
181.
[17] Fidan S, Avcu E, Karakulak E, et al. Effect of heat treat-
ment on erosive wear behaviour of Ti6Al4V alloy.
Mater Sci Tech. 2013;29(9):1088–1094.
[18] Niemeyer TC, Grandini CR, Pinto LMC, et al.
Corrosion behavior of Ti–13Nb–13Zr alloy used as a
biomaterial. J Alloys Compd. 2009;476(1):172–175.
[19] Migonney V. “Biomaterials”, bioengineering and
health science series. London: Wiley & Sons; 2014.
[20] Diouf S, Molinari A. Densification mechanisms in
spark plasma sintering: effect of particle size and
pressure. Powder Technol. 2012;221:220–227.
[21] Yang YF, Qian MA, Spark plasma sintering and hot
pressing of titanium and titanium alloys. Titanium
powder metallurgy: science, technology and appli-
cations. Butterworth-Heinemann; 2015.
[22] Lu X, He XB, Zhang B, et al. Microstructure and mech-
anical properties of a spark plasma sinteredTi–45Al–
8.5 Nb–0.2 W–0.2 B–0.1 Y alloy. Intermetallics.
2009;17(10):840–846.
[23] Xiao S-L, Tian J, Xu L-J, et al. Microstructures and
mechanical properties of TiAl alloy prepared by
spark plasma sintering. T Nonferr Metal Soc China.
2009;19(6):1423–1427.
[24] Qian M, Froes FH, editors. Titanium powder metal-
lurgy: science, technology and applications. Waltham,
MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2015.
[25] Bolzoni L, Ruiz-Navas EM, Neubauer E, et al.
Mechanical properties and microstructural evolution
of vacuum hot-pressed titanium and Ti–6Al–7Nb
alloy. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2012;9:91–99.
[26] Wang S, Ma Z, Liao Z, et al. Study on improved
tribological properties by alloying copper to CP-Ti
and Ti–6Al–4 V alloy. Adv Mater Sci Eng C. 2015;57:
123–132.
[27] Zhong H, Dai LY, Yue Y, et al. Friction and wear
behavior of annealed Ti-20Zr-6.5 Al-4V alloy sliding
against 440C steel in vacuum. Tribol Int.
2017;109:571–577.
[28] Barry Waterhoure R, Wharton MH. Titanium and tri-
bology. Ind Lubr Tribol. 1974;26(1):20–23.