Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T04:46:56.954Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mechanical Property-Microstructural Relationships in Abalone Shell

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2011

M. Sarikaya,
K. E. Gunnison,
M. Yasrebi and
I. A. Aksay
M. Sarikaya
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, and Advanced Materials Technology Program, The Washington Technology Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
K. E. Gunnison
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, and Advanced Materials Technology Program, The Washington Technology Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
M. Yasrebi
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, and Advanced Materials Technology Program, The Washington Technology Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
I. A. Aksay
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, and Advanced Materials Technology Program, The Washington Technology Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
Get access

Extract

The microstructure and mechanical properties of abalone shell were studied. It was found that fracture strength, αf, is 180 MPa, and fracture toughness, KIC, is 7 ± 3 MPa-m1/2; these values are comparable with or better than most “high technology” ceramic materials. The microarchitecture of the nacre section of the red abalone shell is similar to a “brick and mortar” structure, where CaCO3 is the brick and organic matter is the mortar, constituting 95% and 5% of the microstructure by volume, respectively. This impressive combination of af and KIc values is attributed to the laminated structure of the shell with hard and thick (0.25±0.5 μm) CaCO3 and superplastic and thin (20–30 nm) organic components. Although there are several toughening mechanisms operating in the shell, fractographic studies identified sliding of CaCO3 layers and bridging by the organic layers to be the most effective ones. These phases also have a strong interface. The results of our experiments are discussed in the context of using abalone shell as a model for the design of synthetic laminates such as cermet (ceramic-metal) and cerpoly (ceramic-polymer) composites.

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Sarikaya, M., Gunnison, K. E., and Aksay, I. A., ”Sea-Shells as a Natural Model to Study Laminated Materials,” to be submitted to J. Mater. Res. (1990).Google Scholar
2. Spaen, F., ”The Art and Science of Microstructural Control,” Science, 235, 1010 (1987).Google Scholar
3. Cammarata, R. C., ”The Supermodulus Effect in Composition Modulated Thin Films,” Scripta Met., 20, 883 (1980).Google Scholar
4. Dresselhaus, M. S., ”Intercalation of Layered Materials,” Mater. Res. Bull., 12 [3] 24 (1987).Google Scholar
5. Metallic Superlattices: Artificially Strong Materials, edited by T., Sinjo and T., Takada (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1987).Google Scholar
6. See, for instance, Jorgensen, J. D. et al., “Structural and Superconducting Properties of Orthorhombic and Tetragonal YBa2 Cu3O7−x: The Effect of Oxygen Stoichiometry and Ordering on Superconductivity,” Phys. Rev. B, 36, 5731 (1987).Google Scholar
7. Kelly, A. and Nicholson, R. L., Strengthening Methods in Crystals (Wiley, New York, 1971).Google Scholar
8. a. Lowenstam, H. A., ”Minerals Formed by Organisms,” Science, 211, 1126 (1981); b. H. A. Lowenstam and S. Weiner, On Biomineralization (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989).Google Scholar
9. a.Mann, S., ”Mineralization in Biological Systems,” Structure and Bonding, 54, 124 (1983); b. Biomineralization: Chemical and Biochemical Perspectives, edited by S. Mann, J. Webb, and R. J. Williams (VCH Publishers, Weinheim, 1989).Google Scholar
10. Weiner, S., ”Organization of Extracellularly Mineralized Tissues: A Comparative Study of Biological Crystal Growth,” CRC Critical Reviews in Biochemistry, 20 [4] 365 (1986).Google Scholar
11. a. The Mechanical Properties of Biological Materials, edited by Currey, J. A. and Vincent, J. F. V. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1980); b. J. D. Currey, “Biological Composites”, J. Materials Educ., 9 [1–2] 118 (1987).Google Scholar
12. Blakemore, R. P. D. and Wolfe, R. S., ”Isolation and Fine Culture of a Freshwater Magnetic Spirillum in Chemically Defined Medium,” J. Bacteriol., 140, 720 (1979).Google Scholar
13. Jacobs, I. S. and Bean, C. P., ”An Approach to Elongated Fine Particle Magnets,” Phys. Rev., 100, 1060 (1955).Google Scholar
14. Deformation of Ceramic Materials II, edited by Tressler, R. C. and Bradt, R. C. (Plenum, New York, 1984).Google Scholar
15. Yasrebi, M. and Aksay, I. A., ”Processing of Laminated B4C-A1 Cermets,” unpublished results, University of Washington, Seattle (1989).Google Scholar