Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.

org/ on September 25, 2018

Micromechanics of fracturing
in nanoceramics
rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org
I. A. Ovid’ko1,2,3
1 Research Laboratory for Mechanics of New Nanomaterials,

St Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St Petersburg

Review 195251, Russia
2 Institute of Problems of Mechanical Engineering, Russian Academy
Cite this article: Ovid’ko IA. 2015
Micromechanics of fracturing in nanoceramics. of Sciences, Bolshoj 61, Vasil. Ostrov, St Petersburg 199178, Russia
3 Department of Mathematics and Mechanics, St Petersburg State
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373: 20140129.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0129 University, Universitetskii pr. 28, Staryi Petergof, St Petersburg
198504, Russia
One contribution of 19 to a theme issue
An overview of key experimental data and theoretical
‘Fracturing across the multi-scales of diverse
representations on fracture processes in nanoceramics
materials’. is presented. The focuses are placed on crack
growth in nanoceramics and their toughening
micromechanics. Conventional toughening
Subject Areas: micromechanisms are discussed which effectively
materials science operate in both microcrystalline-matrix ceramics
containing nanoinclusions and nanocrystalline-matrix
ceramics. Particular attention is devoted to description
Keywords:
of special (new) toughening micromechanisms related
nanoceramics, nanocomposites, graphene, to nanoscale deformation occurring near crack tips in
cracks, toughness nanocrystalline-matrix ceramics. In addition, a new
strategy for pronounced improvement of fracture
Author for correspondence: toughness of ceramic materials through fabrication
of ceramic–graphene nanocomposites is considered.
I. A. Ovid’ko
Toughening micromechanisms are discussed which
e-mail: [email protected] operate in such nanocomposites containing graphene
platelets and/or few-layer sheets.

1. Introduction
Nanoceramics represent ceramic materials consisting of
structural units (grains/crystallites) and/or at least one
phase component (say, inclusions of the second phase)
with sizes in the nanometre range (less than 100 nm).
Nanoceramics show excellent physical, chemical and
mechanical properties that are highly desired for a
wide range of technologies. For instance, nanoceramics
often are specified by such outstanding mechanical
characteristics as superior strength, superior hardness

2015 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.
 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on September 25, 2018

and good fatigue resistance [1–4]. However, the practical use of nanoceramics is limited by both
2
the low fracture toughness and poor ductility/machinability that most exhibit [1–4]. In particular,
the low fracture toughness of nanoceramics (as with their conventional microcrystalline

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373: 20140129

.........................................................
counterparts) is viewed as the bottleneck for their wide commercial applications.
At the same time, several research groups reported on enhanced fracture toughness and/or
good ductility (or even superplasticity) of high-strength nanoceramics at comparatively low
homologous temperatures (e.g. reviews [1,2,4], book [3] and original papers [5–19]). With these
experimental data on fabrication of some special, high-strength nanoceramics with enhanced
fracture toughness and/or good ductility, one hopes to achieve dramatic progress in systematic
fabrication/synthesis of such nanoceramics in the future. In order to systematically fabricate new
nanoceramics having unique mechanical properties, the relationships between the fabrication,
structure and enhanced fracture toughness must be understood. This is, however, a formidable
challenge because it requires a detailed knowledge of many technological and structural
parameters as well as how this information is coupled to the fracture processes occurring in
nanoceramics. In the context discussed, of crucial interest is the state-of-art in micromechanics
of fracturing in nanoceramics, because this scientific discipline, first of all, is focused on the
relationships between the specific structural features of nanoceramics and the specific features
of fracturing in these materials. The main aim of this paper is to provide an overview of key
experimental data and theoretical concepts concerning fracture processes in nanoceramics. A
particular attention is devoted to discussion of both new toughening micromechanisms related
to nanoscale deformation modes in nanocrystalline-matrix ceramics and a new strategy for
improvement of fracture toughness in ceramic materials through fabrication of ceramic–graphene
nanocomposites.

2. Specific structural features of nanoceramics

Fracture processes in nanoceramics are crucially influenced by their structural features. In this
section, we briefly describe the specific structural features of nanoceramics with focuses placed on
microcrystalline-matrix ceramics containing nanoinclusions and nanocrystalline-matrix ceramics.
First, let us consider the structural features of microcrystalline-matrix ceramics containing
nanoinclusions. Typical examples of such nanoceramics are as follows [1,20]: a microcrystalline-
matrix nanocomposite consisting of microscale grains of one phase with nanoscale spherical
particles of the second phase located at grain boundaries (GBs) between microscale grains
(figure 1a); a microcrystalline-matrix nanocomposite containing spherical nanocrystallites of the
second phase, embedded into microscale grains in the matrix (figure 1b); a microcrystalline-matrix
nanocomposite containing nanoscale fibres of the second phase located at GBs and/or within
microscale grain interiors (figure 1c). In doing so, the second-phase nanoparticles (figure 1a,b)
serve as either ductile inclusions or (as with fibres; figure 1c) reinforcing structural elements. In
addition, such ceramic nanocomposites can contain three or more phases.
We now consider the structural features of single- and multi-phase nanocrystalline ceramics
that represent solids consisting of nanoscale grains (nanocrystallites of sizes d < 100 nm) divided
by GBs. In most cases, nanocrystalline ceramics consist of approximately equiaxed grains
with a narrow grain size distribution (figure 1d,e, f ). At the same time, there are other
examples of grain geometry (say, elongated grains) in nanocrystalline ceramics [16]. Single-
phase nanocrystalline ceramics are schematically presented in figure 1d. Typical multi-phase
or, in other words, composite nanocrystalline ceramics consist of either equiaxed nanoscale
grains of different phases (figure 1e) or grains (the first phase) divided by GBs with a different
chemical composition (the second phase). In addition, nanocrystalline-matrix ceramics can
contain comparatively large, second-phase inclusions (grains, fibres) embedded into the matrix
(figure 1f ). These and other typical classes of nanoceramics are discussed in detail by Kuntz
et al. [1].
 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on September 25, 2018

(a) (b)
3

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373: 20140129

.........................................................
(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Figure 1. Typical structures of nanoceramics. (a) Microcrystalline-matrix ceramic nanocomposite consists of microscale
grains of one phase with nanoscale particles of the second phase located at grain boundaries between microscale grains.
(b) Microcrystalline-matrix ceramic nanocomposite contains spherical nanocrystallites of second phase, embedded into
microscale grains. (c) Microcrystalline-matrix ceramic nanocomposite contains fibres of the second phase located at grain
boundaries and within microscale grain interiors. (d) Single-phase nanocrystalline ceramic consists of approximately equiaxed
nanoscale grains with a narrow grain size distribution. (e) Nanocrystalline-matrix ceramic composite consists of tentatively
equiaxed nanoscale grains of different phases with a narrow grain size distribution. (f ) Nanocrystalline-matrix ceramic
composite contains fibres of the second phase. (Online version in colour.)

The most effective way to fabricate ceramic nanocomposites having simultaneously

high strength, enhanced fracture toughness and high elastic moduli is to insert carbon
nanostructures—carbon nanotubes (CNTs) or graphene nanoinclusions characterized by
extremely high values of strength and Young modulus—into ceramic matrixes (e.g. reviews
[21–24] and original research papers [5–7,12]). Such nanocomposites typically (but not always)
contain carbon nanoinclusions at GBs (figure 2) [21–25].
It is difficult to identify the generic structural features of ceramic nanocomposites, because of
their variety (figures 1 and 2). In many cases, however, grain and interphase boundaries occupy
large volume fractions in nanoceramics, and thereby strongly affect the fracture processes in these
materials. In the context discussed, micromechanics of fracturing in nanoceramics devote a special
attention to the role of interfaces in generation and growth of cracks.
Note that nanoceramics are commonly synthesized at highly non-equilibrium conditions.
As a corollary, imperfections (voids, contaminations) typically exist in nanoceramics where
these imperfections tend to be located at grain and interphase boundaries as well as their
triple junctions.
 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on September 25, 2018

(a) (b) 4

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373: 20140129

.........................................................
50 nm 5 nm

Figure 2. Transmission electron microscopy (a) and high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (b) images of few-layer
graphene/Al2 O3 nanocomposite sintered at 1573 K with graphene content of 1.2 vol%; all the arrows denote few-layer graphene
sheets. Panel (b) is the same position as the square in panel (a). Reprinted from [25]. Copyright 
c 2014, with permission from
Elsevier. (Online version in colour.)

Thus, nanoceramics have specific structural features, depending on their design and
fabrication conditions. The specific structural features of nanoceramics exert significant effects
on their strength characteristics and fracture toughness (see §§3–5).

3. Fracture processes in nanoceramics: general aspects and key

experimental data
In general, fracture processes involve generation, growth and coalescence of cracks/voids in a
solid, resulting in its separation into two or more pieces under the action of mechanical stress.
Brittle fracture occurs without apparent plastic deformation, in a dramatic way involving fast
growth of a large crack and/or convergence of several cracks. The brittle behaviour significantly
limits structural and other applications of materials. Ductile fracture is preceded by essential
plastic deformation and typically occurs through a relatively slow nucleation, growth and
coalescence of voids. The ductile behaviour of materials is highly desired for a wide range
of technologies.
Nanoceramics are commonly brittle at room temperature [1–4], as with their coarse-grained
counterparts. Brittle fracture dominates in ceramic materials, first of all, because lattice dislocation
slip (the key deformation mechanism responsible for ductile behaviour exhibited by most metallic
solids) is suppressed in ceramics at room temperature.
Fracture processes in nanoceramics are crucially influenced by grain and interphase
boundaries whose amounts are very large in these materials [1–4]. So, grain and interphase
boundaries serve as preferable places for nanocrack nucleation and growth, because the atomic
density is low, and interatomic bonds are weak at boundaries compared with the bulk phase.
Besides, the extra energy of grain and interphase boundaries contributes to the driving force for
intergranular fracture with cracks propagating along boundaries and releasing the extra energy,
compared with intragranular fracture with cracks propagating through grain interiors. At the
same time, grain and interphase boundaries are short and curved at numerous triple junctions in
nanocrystalline ceramics. Therefore, if cracks tend to nucleate and grow along such boundaries,
geometry of grain and interphase boundary ensembles forces cracks to have curved geometry
that hampers intergranular fracture processes.
With the aforementioned factors operating in nanoceramics, there is a competition between
intergranular and intragranular fracture processes. Either one of these processes dominates or
they occur in a concurrent way in nanoceramics, depending on their material and structure
 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on September 25, 2018

parameters as well as on the conditions of loading. So, in nanocrystalline ceramics with narrow
5
grain size distributions, cracks tend to propagate along GBs. For instance, TiN ceramics with
nanoscale grains (specified by a size of 18 nm) exhibit an intergranular fracture [4]. At the same

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373: 20140129

.........................................................
time, in the case of nanoceramics with bimodal nanostructures containing both nanoscale (with a
size of around 80 nm) and microscale (with a size of around 2 µm) grains, cracks propagate along
the boundaries of smaller grains and penetrate interior regions of larger grains [4].
With large amounts of grain and interphase boundaries in nanoceramics, fracture processes in
them are sensitive to the strength of these interfaces. In particular, the mode of crack growth
depends on the strength of different boundaries in a nanoceramic specimen. For example, in
Al2 O3 –SiC ceramic nanocomposites, the interfacial fracture energy between Al2 O3 and SiC
is twice that of the alumina GB fracture energy [26]. Besides, in such nanocomposites, the
compressive stresses generated by SiC nanoparticles located within matrix grains may reinforce
the Al2 O3 /Al2 O3 GBs [13]. Therefore, the fracture toughness can be significantly improved,
and the strong boundary may force the crack to deflect into the Al2 O3 grain, thus forming the
intragranular fracture mode, as was observed by Liu et al. [13].
In many cases, nanocrystalline ceramics (having typical grain sizes d < 100 nm) and ultrafine-
grained ceramics (with d < 500 nm) exhibit enhancement in toughness and strength, when
compared with their conventional microcrystalline counterparts (e.g. pioneering papers [21,27,28]
and reviews [1,2]). In particular, values of strength for ultrafine-grained and nanocrystalline
ceramics at room temperature can be two to five times higher than those of microcrystalline
ceramics [1,2,21,27,28]. Such high values of strength of nanoceramics are considered to occur
owing to the combined effects of several factors, such as reduction in flaw sizes (close to nanoscale
grain sizes in nanocrystalline structures) and structural homogenization (resulting in a partial
release of residual stresses resulted from the sintering process). The role of flaw sizes is described
in a first approximation by the following Griffith formula for strength σc (d) of a solid containing
flaw(s) of typical length d [29]:
 
γ E 1/2
σc (d) = k , (3.1)
d

where γ denotes the specific surface energy of the solid, E is the Young modulus and k is the
geometrical factor. (Here, for the sake of simplicity, one considers the only normal fracture mode
I, neglecting the shear fracture mode II.) The flaw size d in a nanocrystalline or ultrafine-grained
ceramic solid is assumed to be close to the grain size, in which case one concludes that the strength
and hardness of such solids increase with diminishing the grain size (≈d).
Although high-strength nanoceramics are commonly brittle, there are experimental data
indicative of enhanced fracture toughness exhibited by several special nanocrystalline ceramics
at comparatively low homologous or moderate temperatures (e.g. reviews [1,2,4], book [3] and
original papers [8–13,19]). These experimental data are logically explained within the concept
that (i) conventional toughening micromechanisms (that dominate in microcrystalline-matrix
ceramics) operate in specific, inherent to nanostructures, ways in nanocrystalline ceramics
where they effectively hamper crack growth and (ii) new, special (inherent to nanocrystallinity)
toughening micromechanisms come into play in nanocrystalline ceramics [30–43]. The new
toughening micromechanisms are often related to specific deformation modes that operate in
nanomaterials (e.g. experimental data [13,16,44,45]), but typically are not effective enough in
conventional coarse-grained polycrystalline ceramics. In particular, these specific deformation
modes represent deformation by nanoscale twinning [13], grain boundary sliding [44] (which
is the dominant mechanism of superplastic deformation occurring in nanocrystalline ceramics
at lower temperatures [2], when compared with microcrystalline ceramics), and Coble creep
controlled by grain boundary diffusion [45]. In addition, Xu et al. [16] experimentally
observed concurrent superplastic deformation (having grain boundary sliding as its dominant
mechanism) and grain growth resulting in formation of elongated grains. The new toughening
micromechanisms and specific deformation modes operating in nanocrystalline ceramics are
discussed in detail in §4.
 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on September 25, 2018

In order to enhance mechanical properties of ceramic materials, it is very effective to exploit

6
graphene platelets/sheets as reinforcing structural elements in ceramic-matrix nanocomposites
[24,25,46–52]. This new approach is based on the unique mechanical characteristics (e.g. superior

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373: 20140129

.........................................................
values of strength and Young modulus) of graphene as well as its geometrical features that are
very suitable for use of graphene platelets/sheets as inclusions in nanocomposites. In §5, we
discuss this approach with particular attention being paid to micromechanics of crack growth in
ceramic–graphene nanocomposites.

4. Conventional and specific toughening micromechanisms in nanoceramics

Conventional toughening micromechanisms that operate in microcrystalline-matrix ceramics
are as follows: fibre toughening, ductile-phase toughening, transformation toughening and
microcrack toughening (e.g. reviews [1,2]). The fibre toughening is realized through the so-called
crack-bridging and -deflection effects of second-phase fibres incorporated in a ceramic matrix.
The bridging effect occurs when a crack propagates and leaves behind its tip fibres that bridge
opposite crack surfaces (figure 3a). In this case, there are three behaviour types exhibited by fibres
that bridge a crack wake (figure 3a). The fibres either shed load from the crack tip while remaining
intact or dissipate the elastic energy when they break and pull out or debond from the ceramic
matrix and pull out (figure 3a). The crack deflection effect occurs when a crack tip meets with
a fibre that forces the crack to change direction of its growth (figure 3a). In doing so, the crack
changes its growth direction away from the axis of highest stress to a less-efficient one (figure 3a).
Both the crack-bridging and -deflection effects hinder crack growth [1,2].
The ductile-phase toughening comes into play owing to incorporation of ductile (metallic)
inclusions in a microcrystalline ceramic matrix (figure 3b). Such ductile inclusions provide the
following factors that hinder crack growth: blunting of crack tips when they reach ductile
inclusions, stress-releasing plastic deformation of ductile particles in the process zones of growing
cracks and bridging effect by ductile-phase particles [1,2] (figure 3b). The latter effect occurs when
a crack propagates and leaves behind its tip a ductile-phase grain that bridges opposite crack
surfaces (figure 3b). In doing so, the ductile grain can be plastically deformed, or break or debond
from the ceramic matrix and pull out (figure 3b). All these processes dissipate the elastic energy
in the vicinity of the crack and thereby hinder crack growth.
The transformation toughening typically occurs in ceramics containing zirconia inclusions
and is associated with transformations of zirconia from the tetragonal to the monoclinic phase
in vicinities of growing cracks [1,2]. These transformations are driven by external stresses
concentrated near crack tips. The resultant inclusions of the zirconia monoclinic phase create
internal stresses that compensate for in part the external stresses (figure 3c). Because the external
stresses drive crack growth, their partial compensation (release) hampers crack growth.
The microcrack toughening occurs through formation of numerous microcracks near growing
large cracks (figure 3d). Microcracks are commonly initiated by the superposition of residual
thermal stresses (often generated at inclusions of the second phase; figure 3d) and the external
stresses concentrated near crack tips [1,2]. The formation of microcracks dissipates the elastic
energy in the vicinity of a large crack and thereby hinders its growth.
The conventional toughening micromechanisms are considered in detail in [1,2]. As noted
by Kuntz et al. [1], the conventional toughening micromechanisms operate not only in
microcrystalline ceramics, but also in nanocrystalline-matrix ceramics. In doing so, these
micromechanisms provide moderate toughness enhancement of nanocrystalline ceramics and
have some specific features owing to the nanoscale and interface effects.
We now discuss new, specific toughening micromechanisms that operate in nanocrystalline
ceramics, but are not effective in conventional microcrystalline ceramics. These micromechanisms
typically involve plastic deformation processes mediated by grain and interphase boundaries
[30–43]. Such interfacial deformation processes are dominant in nanocrystalline ceramics, for two
reasons. First, the lattice dislocation slip—the main mode of plastic flow in metals—is suppressed
in both microcrystalline and nanocrystalline ceramics at ambient temperatures (owing to high
 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on September 25, 2018

(a) (b)
7

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373: 20140129

.........................................................
(B)
(D) (B)
(A)
(C) (B) (A) (E) (C)
(D)
(B)
(B)

(c) (d)

Figure 3. Conventional toughening micromechanisms in composite nanoceramics. (a) Fibre toughening is realized through
the crack-bridging (A–C) and crack-deflection (D) effects of second-phase fibres incorporated in a ceramic matrix. The bridging
effect occurs when the fibres either shed load from the crack tip while remaining intact (A) or dissipate the elastic energy when
they break (B) or debond from the ceramic matrix and pull out (C). The crack deflection effect occurs when a crack tip meets with a
fibre that forces the crack to change direction of its growth (D). (b) Ductile-phase toughening. Ductile inclusions provide blunting
of crack tips when they reach ductile inclusions (A), stress-releasing plastic deformation of ductile particles in the process zones
of growing cracks (B), and bridging effect by ductile-phase particles. In doing so, the ductile grain can be plastically deformed
(C), or break and pull out (D) or debond from the ceramic matrix and pull out (E). (c) Transformation toughening occurs through
transformations of zirconia particles from the tetragonal to the monoclinic phase in vicinities of growing cracks. (d) Microcrack
toughening occurs through formation of numerous microcracks at second-phase nanoparticles in the vicinity of a growing large
crack. (Online version in colour.)

Peierls barriers for lattice dislocation slip). Second, large amounts of grain and interphase
boundaries are present in nanocrystalline ceramics where they can serve as effective carriers of
plastic flow. In contrast, in microcrystalline ceramics, the role of interfaces in plastic deformation
is limited, because amounts of grain and interphase boundaries in them are low. (Note that
the lattice dislocation slip effectively operates in conventional microcrystalline ceramics at high
homologous temperatures (more than 0.5Tm , where Tm is the melting temperature). At the
same time, owing to nanoscale and interface effects, the lattice dislocation slip is hampered or
completely suppressed in nanocrystalline ceramics even at high homologous temperatures.)
With the specific peculiarities of plastic deformation in nanocrystalline ceramics, several
specific toughening micromechanisms were proposed as those related to nanoscale plastic flow.
Their generic features are as follows: nanoscale plastic deformation is carried by grain and
interphase boundaries; and this plastic deformation results in creation of nanoscale defect
 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on September 25, 2018

configurations whose stress fields compensate for in part the external stresses concentrated near
8
crack tips and thereby hamper crack growth.
The specific toughening micromechanisms related to nanoscale plastic flow operate in both

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373: 20140129

.........................................................
nanocrystalline ceramics and metals, because interfacial deformation modes dominate in both
these nanocrystalline materials. The specific toughening micromechanisms include the GB sliding
[30], the stress-driven migration of GBs [36,43], the nanoscale twin deformation carried by
partials emitted from GBs [31], the creep deformation conducted by GB processes (Ashby–Verall
creep carried by GB sliding accommodated by GB diffusion and grain rotations [32,33]), the
cooperative GB sliding and migration process [36,37], stress-driven GB rotations [39,41], slow
and fast nanoscale rotational deformation modes [35,38,40].
Note that the nanoscale deformation modes (GB sliding, GB diffusional creep and others)
are not conventional in nanocrystalline and microcrystalline ceramics at low homologous
temperatures. In most cases, however, these deformation modes effectively operate in
nanocrystalline ceramics at moderate and elevated temperatures. Therefore, their consideration is
relevant for understanding the mechanical behaviour of ceramics exploited at high-temperature
conditions which are very interesting for a rather wide range of applications of ceramic materials
(e.g. in heat engine components, thermal protection systems, high-temperature structural (load-
bearing) elements in space and aviation systems, etc.).
Besides, there are computer simulations indicating that grain-boundary sliding and grain
rotations significantly contribute to plastic flow of ceramics even at room temperature [53]. In
the context discussed, these nanoscale deformation modes are worth being considered as those
influencing crack growth in nanocrystalline materials even at low homologous temperatures.
For illustrative purposes, let us briefly consider the most effective toughening micro-
mechanisms related to nanoscale plastic flow, namely the cooperative GB sliding and migration
process [36,37]. The geometry of this process is schematically presented in figure 4. Figure 4a
shows a two-dimensional section of a deformed nanocrystalline specimen containing a crack.
Within the approach [36,37], GB sliding occurs under the applied shear stress and transforms
the initial configuration I of GBs (figure 4b) into configuration II (figure 4c). In doing so,
according to [36,37], GB sliding results in the formation of a dipole of wedge disclinations
(rotational defects) A and C in configuration II (figure 4c) characterized by strengths ±ω,
whose magnitude ω is equal to the tilt misorientation of the GB AB. The distance between
the disclinations A and C is equal to the magnitude x of the relative displacement of grains
(figure 4c).
Following [36,37], in parallel with GB sliding, stress-driven GB migration often occurs as well,
so that the stress fields of defects created by GB sliding are, in part, accommodated by those of the
defects created by GB migration. This cooperative GB sliding and migration process transforms
the initial configuration I (figure 4b) into the final configuration III (figure 4d) containing two
disclination dipoles CD and BE (figure 4d).
The effect of the cooperative GB sliding and migration on the fracture toughness of
nanocrystalline solids was calculated and analysed in the exemplary case of nanocrystalline
3C–SiC (the cubic phase of silicon carbide) specified by the grain size d = 15 nm [37]. The effect in
question is characterized by the ratio KIC /KICσ , where K is the fracture toughness in the situation
IC
when the cooperative GB sliding and migration process occurs, and KIC σ is the fracture toughness

for brittle fracture occurring without this process. Following estimates given in [37], the ratio
σ at ω = 45◦ , 30◦ and 15◦ is equal to 1.68, 1.96 and 3.40, respectively, for a crack growing
KIC /KIC
within grain interiors, and to 1.63, 1.90 and 3.65, respectively, for a crack growing along GBs. With
these estimates, one concludes that the toughening micromechanism related to the cooperative
GB sliding and migration process (figure 4) [37] can essentially increase the fracture toughness of
nanocrystalline ceramics. At the same time, the discussed level of toughening is not sufficient for
engineering applications of ceramic materials. In particular, significantly larger values of fracture
toughness (close to those of metals) are desired for exploitation of ceramics in medical implants.
In this context, further research searching for new nanoceramics with enhanced toughness is
highly desirable.
 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on September 25, 2018

s0
(a) (b) 9

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373: 20140129

.........................................................
crack
p A2
crack A1
j A

B j

B1 B2

s0
(c) (d)
crack crack
II III
A2 A1 A2
A1
w w
A C A C
x y D
–w d –w

B B
E
B1 w
B1 B2 –w B2

Figure 4. Cooperative grain boundary sliding and migration process in nanocrystalline ceramic specimen near a crack tip.
(a) General view. (b) Initial configuration I of grain boundaries. (c) Configuration II results from grain boundary sliding. Dipole
of disclinations AC is generated owing to grain boundary sliding. (d) Configuration III results from cooperative grain boundary
sliding and migration process. Two disclination dipoles CD and BE are generated due to this cooperative process. (Online version
in colour.)

Besides, Ovid’ko et al. [37] have calculated dependences KIC /KIC σ on grain size d, for

nanocrystalline ceramic 3C–SiC. In particular, in the case of the disclination strength of ω = 30◦ ,
an increase in grain size from 10 to 100 nm leads to a decrease of the ratio KIC /KIC σ from 1.99 to

1.64. With this trend, one concludes that the cooperative GB sliding and migration process is most
effective in fracture toughness enhancement in nanocrystalline ceramics with finest grains.
To summarize, conventional toughening micromechanisms (fibre toughening, ductile-phase
toughening, transformation toughening, and microcrack toughening) effectively operate in
microcrystalline-matrix ceramics (figure 3). Along with these conventional micromechanisms,
specific toughening micromechanisms (associated with nanoscale plastic deformation) come into
play in nanocrystalline ceramics and can increase their fracture toughness via a decrease of
local stresses near crack tips. The micromechanisms associated with GB deformation modes are
expected to be effective in fracture toughness enhancement in nanocrystalline ceramics.
Also, note that the defect configurations associated with both nanoscale deformation modes
and corresponding toughening mechanisms are stable in high stresses existing near crack tips.
(It is strictly demonstrated in the theoretical models discussed in this review.) However, after
passage of a crack to a new position, the defect configurations stop being stable and thereby are
typically destroyed. As a corollary, it is very difficult to identify these defect configurations in
conventional, post-deformation experiments.
Finally, note that grain growth can occur and destroy the nanocrystalline state in nanoceramics
during deformation especially at elevated temperatures. In this context, it is important
that the multi-phase structures in nanocrystalline- and microcrystalline-matrix nanoceramics
 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on September 25, 2018

(e.g. figure 1a–c,e,f ) retard grain growth and thereby contribute to the structure stability in these
10
materials during deformation.

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373: 20140129

.........................................................
5. Fracture behaviour of ceramic–graphene nanocomposites
Pristine graphene—a carbon monolayer with a hexagonal covalently bonded crystal structure—
is specified by highest ever measured tensile strength of ≈130 GPa and extremely high
Young modulus (in-plane stiffness) of ≈1.0 TPa [54,55]. With these unique mechanical
characteristics, graphene inclusions have a great potential to be used in improvement of
strength, fracture toughness and elastic properties in ceramic-, metal- and polymer-matrix
nanocomposites [24,56–58]. In particular, in order to enhance strength and fracture toughness of
ceramic materials, several research groups fabricated ceramic-matrix nanocomposites containing
graphene inclusions in the form of multilayer graphene or graphene oxide (GO) platelets/sheets
[24,25,46–52]. Although the mechanical characteristics of these multilayer inclusions are
lower than those of pristine graphene monolayer, insertion of multilayered graphene or GO
platelets/sheets leads to a dramatic improvement of the fracture behaviour exhibited by
ceramic–graphene nanocomposites, when compared with monolithic ceramics and other ceramic
nanocomposites [24].
Note that CNTs are characterized by similar superior values of strength and elastic moduli,
as with pristine graphene [21–23]. With these remarkable mechanical characteristics of CNTs,
ceramic–CNTs nanocomposites show excellent mechanical properties [21–23]. More than that,
in the first decade of the twenty-first century, ceramic–CNTs nanocomposites were viewed as the
most promising ceramic materials for structural applications [21–23]. In recent years, however,
graphene inclusions in the forms of multilayer graphene and GO platelets/sheets have been
recognized as the most effective reinforcing fillers that dramatically enhance fracture toughness
(and moderately improve strength) of ceramic-matrix composites [2,25,46–52]. For instance, in
one experiment [46], the mechanical characteristics (Young modulus, bending strength, hardness,
fracture toughness) of silicon nitride reinforced by few-layer graphene sheets showed 10–50%
enhancement when compared with those of silicon nitride reinforced by CNTs. In this section,
we briefly consider the mechanical properties of ceramic–graphene nanocomposites with focuses
placed on toughening micromechanisms operating in these nanocomposites.
Walker et al. [47] exploited spark plasma sintering to fabricate silicon nitride–graphene
nanocomposites. With homogeneously dispersed graphene sheets having thickness of 2 nm
or lower (≈3–4 carbon atomic layers), the nanocomposite exhibited remarkable mechanical
characteristics. In particular, a silicon nitride nanocomposite containing 1.5 vol% graphene
inclusions shows ≈235% increase in the fracture toughness (from ≈2.8 to ≈6.6 MPa m1/2 ), when
compared with monolithic Si3 N4 material. From a micromechanical viewpoint, toughening of
the nanocomposite occurs through crack deflection, crack bridging by graphene sheets, their
pull-out and necking (figure 5) [47]. It is important to note that cracks do not penetrate across
graphene sheets which in fact form curved two-dimensional structures/surfaces along GBs.
Instead, when a growing crack meets with a graphene sheet, it grows along the sheet and thereby
follows curved path along GB surfaces. This crack deflection effectively hinders crack growth in
the nanocomposites.
Tantalum carbide–graphene nanocomposites were produced by spark plasma sintering and
showed high mechanical characteristics [51]. In particular, these nanocomposites exhibited 99%
increase in the fracture toughness, when compared with their TaC counterparts free from
graphene. The key toughening micromechanisms are experimentally revealed to be bending and
kinking of graphene platelets, sliding of graphene platelets, grain wrapping by graphene, crack
bridging, graphene sheet pull-out and crack deflection [51]. In addition, during the sintering
process, graphene sheets are sheared off graphene platelets in TaC–graphene nanocomposites
[51]. As a corollary, an averaged thickness of graphene inclusions decreases, and their aspect
ratio increases. The latter geometrical factor contributes to an extra enhancement of mechanical
characteristics of the nanocomposites.
 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on September 25, 2018

(a) (b) 11

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373: 20140129

.........................................................
3 mm 1 mm

Figure 5. Toughening mechanisms in graphene platelet–Si3 N4 nanocompostes. (a) Microhardness testing resulting in the
creation of radial cracks stemming from the microhardness indent (inset). Close examination of the radial cracks reveals
graphene platelets bridging the crack at several locations, two of which are shown in this high-resolution scanning electron
microscope image. (b) Further examination of the radial cracks indicates that they follow a tortuous crack propagation path.
Reprinted with permission from Walker et al. [47]. Copyright c 2011 American Chemical Society.

To summarize, although key toughening micromechanisms in ceramic–graphene nano-

composites—crack bridging, crack deflection and crack branching—are conventional, they have
the specific features responsible for remarkable enhancement in fracture toughness owing to
incorporation of graphene platelets/sheets in ceramic matrixes. First of all, graphene inclusions
are superstrong and have large width and length. With these characteristics, cracks typically
do not penetrate graphene platelets/sheets. That is, in ceramic–graphene nanocomposites
containing cracks, it is hardly possible to fracture bridging graphene inclusions. In addition,
graphene platelets/sheets are bent, anchored and wrapped around ceramic grains at GBs. As a
corollary, graphene inclusions have large contact area with a ceramic matrix and their geometry
strongly prevents their pull-out, leading to pronounced toughening effects. Pull-out processes are
accompanied by elastic straining and plastic deformation of graphene inclusions. The straining
and deformation in a nanocomposite effectively dissipate its elastic energy (driving crack growth)
and thereby contribute to a toughening effect.
Values of aspect ratio are very large for graphene inclusions. The geometrical factors in
question contribute to an extra improvement of mechanical characteristics of the nanocomposites.
In addition, during the sintering process, graphene sheets are sheared off graphene platelets in
ceramic–graphene nanocomposites (in particular, in TaC–graphene nanocomposites [51]). As a
corollary, an averaged thickness of graphene inclusions decreases, and their aspect ratio increases.
Finally, note that graphene inclusions are typically located at GBs, in which case they hinder
grain growth during the sintering process. (For instance, the introduction of graphene nanosheets
into alumina results in a reduction of grain size down to 500 nm after hot pressing, as compared
to pure alumina specified by a grain size of 1000 nm after the same treatment [59].) This factor
leads to comparatively small grain sizes in final ceramics and thereby contributes to their strength
enhancement, compared with ceramics free from graphene.

6. Concluding remarks
In this paper, key experimental data and theoretical representations concerning both crack growth
processes and toughening mechanisms/strategies in nanoceramics have been reviewed. The
main conclusions are as follows. The structural features and phase content crucially affect crack
growth in nanoceramics. The toughening mechanisms in nanocrystalline ceramics comprise
both the conventional micromechanisms (fibre toughening, ductile phase toughening, microcrack
toughening and transformation toughening) typical for ceramics with various grain sizes and
the mechanisms characteristic for precisely nanocrystalline ceramics. The specific toughening
micromechanisms are based on nanoscale plastic flow modes specific for nanocrystalline
materials and include, in particular, GB sliding, rotational deformation mode, GB rotations, GB
 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on September 25, 2018

migration, cooperative GB sliding and migration process as well as GB diffusion. These plastic
12
deformation modes operating near crack tips can increase the fracture toughness of nanoceramics
by a factor of ≈1.1–3, compared with the toughness of brittle fracture.

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373: 20140129

.........................................................
The newest and most effective approach to create ceramic materials with high fracture
toughness is to implant graphene platelets and few-layer sheets in ceramic matrixes. Ceramic–
graphene nanocomposites exhibit significantly enhanced (by a factor of ≈1.3–3.35) fracture
toughness owing to crack bridging, crack deflection and crack branching effects. These
effects have their specific features related to extraordinarily high strength of graphene and
its specific geometry (curved shape, large values of aspect ratio, large width and length
of graphene platelets/sheets) in ceramic–graphene nanocomposites. Fabrication of ceramic–
graphene nanocomposites for high toughness and strength is in its infancy. In the near future,
one expects explosive progress in fundamental science, fabrication and applications of such
nanocomposites whose potential to transform so many technologies is huge.
Funding statement. This work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (Research Project 14-29-00199).

References
1. Kuntz JD, Zhan G-D, Mukherjee AK. 2004 Nanocrystalline-matrix ceramic composites for
improved fracture toughness. MRS Bull. 29, 22–27. (doi:10.1557/mrs2004.12)
2. Mukhopadhyay A, Basu B. 2007 Consolidation–structure–property relationships in bulk
nanoceramics and ceramic nanocomposites: a review. Int. Mater. Rev. 52, 257–288.
(doi:10.1179/174328007X160281)
3. Koch CC, Ovid’ko IA, Seal S, Veprek S. 2007 Structural nanocrystalline materials: fundamentals
and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4. Andrievski RA, Glezer AM. 2009 Strength of nanostructures. Physics—Uspekhi 52, 315–334.
(doi:10.3367/UFNe.0179.200904a.0337)
5. Zhan G-D, Kuntz JD, Wan J, Mukherjee AK. 2003 Single-wall carbon nanotubes as
attractive toughening agents in alumina-based nanocomposites. Nat. Mater. 2, 38–42.
(doi:10.1038/nmat793)
6. Zhan G-D, Mukherjee AK. 2004 Carbon nanotube reinforced alumina-based ceramics with
novel mechanical, electrical, and thermal properties. Int. J. Appl. Ceram. Technol. 1, 161–171.
(doi:10.1111/j.1744-7402.2004.tb00166.x)
7. Xia Z, Riester L, Curtin WA, Li H, Sheldon BW, Liang J, Chang B, Xu JM. 2004 Direct
observation of toughening mechanisms in carbon nanotube ceramic matrix composites. Acta
Mater. 52, 931–944. (doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2003.10.050)
8. Bhaduri S, Bhaduri SB. 1997 Enhanced low temperature toughness of Al2 O3 -ZrO2 nano/nano
composites. Nanostruct. Mater. 8, 755–763. (doi:10.1016/S0965-9773(97)00215-8)
9. Kaminskii AA, Akchurin MSH, Gainutdinov RV, Takaichi K, Shirakava A, Yagi H, Yanagitani
T, Ueda K. 2005 Microhardness and fracture toughness of Y2 O3 - and Y2 Al5 O12 -based
nanocrystalline laser ceramics. Crystallogr. Rep. 50, 869–939. (doi:10.1134/1.2049410)
10. Zhao Y, Qian J, Daemen LL, Pantea C, Zhang J, Voronin GA, Zerda TW. 2004 Enhancement of
fracture toughness in nanostructured diamond-SiC composites. Appl. Phys. Lett. 84, 1356–1358.
(doi:10.1063/1.1650556)
11. Pei YT, Galvan D, De Hosson JThM. 2005 Nanostructure and properties of TiC/a-C:H
composite coatings. Acta Mater. 53, 4505–4521. (doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2005.05.045)
12. Siegel RW, Chang SK, Ash BJ, Stone J, Ajayan PM, Doremus RW, Schadler LS. 2001
Mechanical behavior of polymer and ceramic matrix nanocomposites. Scr. Mater. 44, 2061–
2064. (doi:10.1016/S1359-6462(01)00892-2)
13. Liu H, Huang C, Teng X, Wang H. 2008 Effect of special microstructure on the mechanical
properties of composite. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 487, 258–263. (doi:10.1016/j.msea.2007.10.072)
14. Zhou X, Hulbert DM, Kuntz J-D, Sadangi RK, Shukla V, Kear BH, Mukherjee AK. 2005
Superplasticity of zirconia–alumina–spinel ceramic composite by spark plasma sintering of
plasma sprayed powders. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 394, 353–359. (doi:10.1016/j.msea.2004.11.037)
15. Zhan G-D, Garay JE, Mukherjee AK. 2005 Ultralow-temperature superplasticity of ceramic
nanocomposites. Nano Lett. 5, 2593–2597. (doi:10.1021/nl0520314)
 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on September 25, 2018

16. Xu X, Nishimura T, Hirosaki N, Xie R-J, Yamamoto Y, Tanaka H. 2006 Superplastic

13
deformation of nano-sized silicon nitride ceramics. Acta Mater. 54, 255–262. (doi:10.1016/j.
actamat.2005.09.005)

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373: 20140129

.........................................................
17. Hulbert DM, Jiang D, Kuntz JD, Kodera Y, Mukherjee AK. 2007 A low-temperature
high-strain-rate formable nanocrystalline superplastic ceramic. Scr. Mater. 56, 1103–1106.
(doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2007.02.003)
18. Dominguez-Rodriguez A, Gomez-Garcia D, Zapata-Solvez E, Chen JZ, Chaim R. 2007
Making nanoceramics ductile at low homologous temperatures. Scr. Mater. 56, 89–91.
(doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2006.09.024)
19. Li CH et al. 2012 Indentation deformation and microcracking in beta-Si3 N4 nanoceramic.
J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 95, 1421–1428. (doi:10.1111/j.1551-2916.2012.05080.x)
20. Niihara K, Nakahira A, Sekino T. 1993 New nanocomposite structural ceramics. MRS Proc.
286, 405–412. (doi:10.1557/PROC-286-405)
21. Curtin WA, Sheldon BW. 2004 CNT-reinforced ceramics and metals. Mater. Today 7, 44–49.
(doi:10.1016/S1369-7021(04)00508-5)
22. Harris PJF. 2004 Carbon nanotube composites. Int. Mater. Rev. 49, 31–43. (doi:10.1179/
095066004225010505)
23. Cho J, Boccaccini AR, Shaffer MSP. 2009 Ceramic matrix composites containing carbon
nanotubes. J. Mater. Sci. 44, 1934–1951. (doi:10.1007/s10853-009-3262-9)
24. Porwal H, Gresso S, Reece MJ. 2013 Review of graphene ceramic-matrix composites. Adv.
Appl. Ceram. 112, 443–454. (doi:10.1179/174367613X13764308970581)
25. Fan Y, Estili M, Igarashi G, Jiang W, Kawasaki A. 2014 The effect of homogeneously dispersed
few-layer graphene on microstructure and mechanical properties of Al2 O3 nanocomposites.
J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 34, 443–451. (doi:10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2013.08.035)
26. Jiao S, Jenkins ML, Davidge RW. 1997 Interfacial fracture energy-mechanical behaviour
relationship in Al2 O3 -SiC and Al2 O3 -TiN nanocomposites. Acta Mater. 5, 149–156.
(doi:10.1016/S1359-6454(96)00168-1)
27. Niihara K. 1991 New design concept for structural ceramics—ceramic nanocomposites.
J. Ceram. Soc. Jpn 99, 974–982. (doi:10.2109/jcersj.99.974)
28. Niihara K, Nakahira A. 1991 Particulate strengthened oxide ceramics-nanocomposites. In
Advanced structural inorganic composites (ed. P Vincenzini), pp. 637–644. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Elsevier.
29. Veprek S, Argon AS. 2002 Towards the understanding of mechanical properties of super- and
ultrahard nanocomposites. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 20, 650–664. (doi:10.1116/1.1459722)
30. Ovid’ko IA, Sheinerman AG, Aifantis EC. 2008 Stress-driven migration of grain boundaries
and fracture processes in nanocrystalline ceramics and metals. Acta Mater. 56, 2718–2727.
(doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2008.02.004)
31. Gutkin MYu, Ovid’ko IA, Skiba NV. 2008 Crack-stimulated generation of deformation
twins in nanocrystalline metals and ceramics. Philos. Mag. 88, 1137–1151. (doi:10.1080/
14786430802070813)
32. Yang W, Wang HT. 2008 Brittle versus ductile transition in nanocrystalline metals. Int. J. Solids
Struct. 45, 3897–3907. (doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2007.12.018)
33. Yang F, Yang W. 2009 Crack blunting versus blunting in nanocrystalline metals with extremely
small grain size. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 57, 305–324. (doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2008.10.011)
34. Bobylev SV, Mukherjee AK, Ovid’ko IA, Sheinerman AG. 2010 Effect of intergrain sliding
on crack growth in nanocrystalline materials. Int. J. Plast. 26, 1629–1644. (doi:10.1016/
j.ijplas.2010.03.001)
35. Morozov NF, Ovid’ko IA, Sheinerman AG, Aifantis EC. 2010 Special rotational deformation
as a toughening mechanism in nanocrystalline solids. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 58, 1088–1099.
(doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2010.04.003)
36. Bobylev SV, Morozov NV, Ovid’ko IA. 2010 Cooperative grain boundary sliding and
migration process in nanocrystalline solids. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 055504. (doi:10.1103/
PhysRevLett.105.055504)
37. Ovid’ko IA, Sheinerman AG, Aifantis EC. 2011 Effect of cooperative grain boundary
sliding and migration on crack growth in nanocrystalline solids. Acta Mater. 59, 5023–5031.
(doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2011.04.056)
38. Ovid’ko IA, Sheinerman AG. 2012 Nanoscale rotational deformation near crack tips
in nanocrystalline solids. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 45, 335301. (doi:10.1088/0022-3727/
45/33/335301)
 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on September 25, 2018

39. Bobylev SV, Ovid’ko IA. 2012 Grain boundary rotations in solids. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 175501.
14
(doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.175501)
40. Feng H, Fang QH, Zhang LC, Liu YW. 2013 Special rotational deformation and grain

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373: 20140129

.........................................................
size effect on fracture toughness of nanocrystalline materials. Int. J. Plast. 42, 50–64.
(doi:10.1016/j.ijplas.2012.09.015)
41. Ovid’ko IA, Sheinerman AG. 2014 Grain boundary rotations near crack tips in deformed
nanomaterials. Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci. 37, 97–104.
42. Yu M, Fang QH, Feng H, Liu YW. 2014 Effect of cooperative grain boundary sliding and
migration on dislocation emitting from a semi-elliptical blunt crack tip in nanocrystalline
solids. Acta Mech. 225, 2005–2019. (doi:10.1007/s00707-013-1039-3)
43. Li JJ, Chen SH, Wu XL, Soh AK. 2014 Strong crack blunting by shear-coupled
migration of grain boundaries in nanocrystalline materials. Scr. Mater. 84–85, 51–54.
(doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2014.04.020)
44. Pelleg J. 2014 Mechanical properties of ceramics. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
45. Ghosh S, Kilo M, Borchardt G, Chokshi AH. 2009 Diffusion and creep in silica-doped zirconia.
J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 92, 3004–3013. (doi:10.1111/j.1551-2916.2009.03321.x)
46. Tapaszto O, Tapaszto L, Marko M, Kern F, Gadow R, Balazsi C. 2011 Dispersion patterns of
graphene and carbon nanotubes in ceramic matrix composites. Chem. Phys. Lett. 511, 340–343.
(doi:10.1016/j.cplett.2011.06.047)
47. Walker LS, Marroto VR, Rafiee MA, Koratkar N, Corral EL. 2011 Toughening in graphene
ceramic composites. ACS Nano 5, 3182–3190. (doi:10.1021/nn200319d)
48. Kvetkova L, Duszova A, Hvizdos P, Dusza J, Kun P, Balazsi C. 2012 Fracture toughness and
toughening mechanisms in graphene platelet reinforced Si3 N4 composites. Scr. Mater. 66,
793–796. (doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2012.02.009)
49. Centeno A, Rocha VG, Alonso B, Fernandez A, Gutierres-Gonzalez CF, Torrecillas R, Zurutuza
A. 2013 Graphene for tough and electroconductive alumina ceramics. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 33,
3201–3210. (doi:10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2013.07.007)
50. Lui J, Yan H, Jiang K. 2013 Mechanical properties of graphene platelet-reinforced alumina
ceramic composites. Ceram. Int. 39, 6215–6221. (doi:10.1016/j.ceramint.2013.01.041)
51. Nieto A, Lahiri D, Agarwal A. 2013 Graphene nanoplatelets reinforced tantalum carbide
consolidated by spark plasma sintering. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 582, 338–346. (doi:10.1016/
j.msea.2013.06.006)
52. Ramirez C, Miranzo P, Belmonte M, Osendi MI, Poza P, Vega-Diaz SM, Terronez M. 2014
Extraordinary toughening enhancement and flexural strength in S3 N4 composites using
graphene sheets. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 34, 161–169. (doi:10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2013.08.039)
53. Szlufarska I, Nakano A, Vashishta P. 2005 A crossover in the mechanical response of
nanocrystalline ceramics. Science 309, 911–914. (doi:10.1126/science.1114411)
54. Lee C, Wei X, Kysar JW, Hone J. 2008 Measurement of the elastic properties and intrinsic
strength of monolayer graphene. Science 321, 385–388. (doi:10.1126/science.1157996)
55. Ovid’ko IA. 2013 Mechanical properties of graphene. Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci. 34, 1–11.
56. Ovid’ko IA. 2014 Metal-graphene nanocomposites with enhanced mechanical properties: a
review. Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci. 38, 190–200.
57. Kuilla T, Bhadha S, Yao D, Kim NH, Bose S, Lee JH. 2010 Recent advances in graphene
based polymer composites. Prog. Polym. Sci. 35, 1350–1375. (doi:10.1016/j.progpolymsci.
2010.07.005)
58. Ovid’ko IA. 2013 Enhanced mechanical properties of polymer-matrix reinforced by graphene
inclusions: a review. Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci. 34, 19–25.
59. Wang K, Wang Y, Fan Z, Yan J, Wei T. 2011 Preparation of graphene nanosheets/alumina
composites by spark plasma sintering. Mater. Res. Bull. 46, 315–318. (doi:10.1016/
j.materresbull.2010.11.005)