Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T21:32:15.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Void distribution and susceptibility differences in ceramic materials using MRI

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Anton S. Wallner  and
William M. Ritchey
Anton S. Wallner
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, Missouri Western State College, St. Joseph, Missouri 64507
William M. Ritchey
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7078
Get access

Abstract

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is applied to porous ceramic materials to study structural properties. In ceramics, processing differences create inhomogeneous binder distribution in the materials which can cause the formation of regions with differing densities and voids. These defects can be observed with MRI using solvent permeation. Fractional porosity obtained by using image intensity measurements and weight gain due to solvent permeation can be correlated. Dark regions in the image are due to defects such as closed voids, pockets of binder, or agglomerates. Defects such as voids or agglomerates usually have different magnetic susceptibilities. This difference causes artifacts in the image. By exploiting the increase in signal loss using a gradient-echo sequence, apparent enhancement of voids in ceramics is achieved.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , March 1993 , pp. 655 - 661
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1993

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

1Mansfield, P. and Morris, P. G.Adv. Magn. Reson. Suppl. 2 (1982).Google Scholar
2Chang, C. and Komoroski, R. A.Macromolecules 22, 600 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Hoff, W. D.Hall, C.Gummerson, R. J.Hawkes, R.Holland, G. N. and Moore, W.S.Nature 281, 56 (1979).Google Scholar
4Baldwin, B. A.Yamanashi, W. S. and Lester, P. D.Magn. Reson. Imag. 3, 180 (1985).Google Scholar
5Wang, P.C. and Chang, S.J.Wood Fiber Sci. 308 (1986).Google Scholar
6Cory, D. G.deBoer, J. C. and Veeman, W. S.Macromolecules 22, 1618 (1989).Google Scholar
7Garroway, A.N.Cory, D.G.Miller, J.B. and Turner, R.Mol. Phys. 70 (2), 331 (1990).Google Scholar
8Ludecke, K. M.Roschmann, P. and Tischler, R.Magn. Reson. Imag. 3, 329 (1985).Google Scholar
9Ericsson, A.Hemmingsson, A.Jung, B. and Sperber, G. O.Phys. Med. Biol. 33, 1103 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Posse, S. and Aue, W. P.J. Magn. Res. 88, 473 (1990).Google Scholar
11Kapadia, R.D. Ph.D. Thesis (1990).Google Scholar
12Haacke, E. M.Radiology 170, 457 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Czervionke, L.F.Daniels, D.L.Wehrli, F.W.Mark, L.P.Hendrix, L.E., Strandt, J. A.Williams, A. L. and Haughton, V. M.AJNR 9, 1149 (November/December 1988).Google Scholar
14Frahm, J.Merbodldt, K. D. and Hanicke, W.Magn. Reson. Med. 6, 474 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Ackerman, J.L.Ellingson, W.A.Weyand, J.D.Dimilia, R.A. and Garrido, L. “Characterization of Porosity in Green State and Partially Densified A12O3 by NMRI”, Ceramic Engineering and Science Proc. 11th Ann. Conf. January 18–21, 1987.Google Scholar
16Bellon, E.M.Haacke, E.M.Coleman, P.E.Sacco, D.C.Steiger, D.A., and Gangarosa, R.E.AJR 147, 1271 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar