S. Bueno et al. /Journal of the European Ceramic Sociery 25(2005)847-856 Table 1 Viscosity of suspensions and relative density (percent of theoretical) of monolithic samples Alumina AIO(A+T) 30(A+T) A40(A+T) Viscosity(mPas, 500s-) p(green) 64.2±0.5 63.9±0.3 63.3±0.5 12 5±0.3 (sintered) 98.2±0.5 976±04 97.8±0.5 97.1士04 sions of laminated architectures, bars of 25 mm x 5.5mm were performed lished and chemically etched (HF x 3.5 mm for bend strength tests were obtained and tested 10 vol % I min) surfaces of the a 10A40 laminates under the same conditions as those described above. Bars of monolithic materials with the same dimensions than those of laminates were prepared for comparison. These are referred 3. Results to as large bars Scanning electron microscopy (SEM, Carl Zeiss, 3. 1. Monoliths DSM-950, Germany was performed on the fracture surfaces and the width of the layers in the laminates was measured The rheological properties of the studied suspensions were directly in the microscope. Additional SEM observations reported elsewhere. All the suspensions used in this study -0,04 Alumin 0,08 800 1000 00 120 1600 T°c] 0.000 -0,0001 A30(A+T) A40(A+T) -0,0005 -0.0006 1000 Fig. 1. Dynamic sintering curves of the monoliths. (a) Linear shrinkage, AL/Lo, vS. temperature.(b) Linear shrinkage rate d(Allo dT, vs temperatureS. Bueno et al. / Journal of the European Ceramic Society 25 (2005) 847–856 849 Table 1 Viscosity of suspensions and relative density (percent of theoretical) of monolithic samples Alumina A10(A+T) A30(A+T) A40(A+T) Viscosity (mPa s, 500 s−1) 34 43 44 51 ρ (green) 64.2 ± 0.5 63.9 ± 0.3 63.3 ± 0.5 62.5 ± 0.3 ρ (sintered) 98.2 ± 0.5 97.6 ± 0.4 97.8 ± 0.5 97.1 ± 0.4 sions of laminated architectures, bars of 25 mm × 5.5 mm × 3.5 mm for bend strength tests were obtained and tested under the same conditions as those described above. Bars of monolithic materials with the same dimensions than those of laminates were prepared for comparison. These are referred to as large bars. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM, Carl Zeiss, DSM-950, Germany) was performed on the fracture surfaces and the width of the layers in the laminates was measured directly in the microscope. Additional SEM observations Fig. 1. Dynamic sintering curves of the monoliths. (a) Linear shrinkage, L/L0, vs. temperature. (b) Linear shrinkage rate, d(L/L0)/dT, vs. temperature. were performed on polished and chemically etched (HF 10 vol.%, 1 min) surfaces of the A10A40 laminates. 3. Results 3.1. Monoliths The rheological properties of the studied suspensions were reported elsewhere.11 All the suspensions used in this study