Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T21:38:42.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hydrostatic and triaxial compression experiments on unpoled PZT 95/5–2Nb ceramic: The effects of shear stress on the FR1 → AO polymorphic phase transformation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

David H. Zeuch ,
Stephen T. Montgomery  and
Jeffrey D. Keck
David H. Zeuch
Affiliation:
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185
Stephen T. Montgomery
Affiliation:
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185
Jeffrey D. Keck
Affiliation:
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185
Get access

Abstract

We conducted a series of hydrostatic and constant shear stress experiments at room temperature on three different sintering runs of unpoled, niobium-doped lead-zirconate-titanate ceramic (PZT 95/5–2Nb) in order to quantify the influence of shear stress on the displacive (possibly martensitic), first-order, rhombohedral → orthorhombic phase transformation. Inter- and intra-batch variations were detected, but some generalizations can be made. In hydrostatic compression at room temperature, the transformation began at approximately 260 MPa, and was usually incompletely reversed upon return to ambient conditions. Strains associated with the transformation were isotropic, both on the first and subsequent hydrostatic cycles. Results for the constant shear stress tests were very different. First, the confining pressure and mean stress at which the transition begins decreased systematically with increasing shear stress. Second, we observed that the rate of transformation decreased with increasing shear stress and the associated elastic shear strain. This result contrasts with the typical observation that shear stresses increase reaction and transformation kinetics. Third, strain was not isotropic during the transformation: axial strains were greater and lateral strains smaller than for the hydrostatic case, though volumetric strain behavior was comparable for the two types of tests. However, this effect does not appear to be an example of transformational plasticity: no additional unexpected strains accumulated during subsequent cycles through the transition under deviatoric loading. If subsequent hydrostatic cycles were performed on samples previously subjected to shear stress, strain anisotropy was again observed, indicating that the earlier superimposed shear stress produced a permanent mechanical anisotropy in the material. The mechanical anisotropy probably resulted from a crystallographic preferred orientation that developed during the transformation under shear stress. Finally, in a few experiments on specimens from one particular sintering run, volume strain was often completely recovered and sporadic evidence for a shape memory effect was observed.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 7 , Issue 12 , December 1992 , pp. 3314 - 3332
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1992

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

1Newnham, R. E., in Perovskite: A Structure of Great Interest to Geophysics and Materials Science, edited by Navrotsky, A. and Weidner, D.J. (American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 1989), p. 91.Google Scholar
2Haun, M. J., Furman, E., Jang, S. J., and Cross, L. E., Ferroelectrics 99, 13 (1989).Google Scholar
3Fritz, I. J. and Keck, J.D., J. Phys. Chem. Solids 39, 1163 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Coe, R. S. and Paterson, M. S., J. Geophys. Res. 74, 4921 (1969).Google Scholar
5Spry, A., Metamorphic Textures (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1969).Google Scholar
6Rubie, D. C. and Thompson, A. B., Adv. Phys. Geochemistry 4, 27 (1985), (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985).Google Scholar
7Nishiyama, Z., Martensitic Transformation (Academic Press, New York, 1978).Google Scholar
8Otsuka, K. and Shimizu, K., Int. Met. Rev. 31, 93 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Kimura, T., Newnham, R. E., and Cross, L. E., Phase Trans. 2, 113 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Glazer, A. M., Mabud, S. A., and Clarke, R., Acta Crystallogr. B34, 1060 (1978).Google Scholar
11Paterson, M.S., Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 11, 355 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Wayman, C. M., in Physical Metallurgy, edited by Cahn, R. W. and Haasen, P. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1983), 3rd ed., p. 1031.Google Scholar
13Rao, C. N. R. and Rao, K. J., Phase Transitions in Solids (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978).Google Scholar
14Porter, D. A. and Easterling, K. E., Phase Transformations in Metals andAlloys (Van Nostrand Reinhold International, Wokingham, U.K., 1981).Google Scholar
15Fesenko, E. G., Gavrilyatchenko, V. G., and Semenchev, A. F., Ferroelectrics 100, 195 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Mendelson, S., Ferroelectrics 37, 519 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Mendelson, S., Ferroelectrics 55, 270c (1984).Google Scholar
18Chang, Y. -J., Appl. Phys. A29, 237 (1982).Google Scholar
19Gillet, P. and Madon, M., Bull. Mineral. 105, 590 (1982).Google Scholar
20Michel, C., Moreau, J -M., Achenbach, G. D., Gerson, R., and James, W. J., Solid State Commun. 7, 865 (1969).Google Scholar
21Lines, M.E. and Glass, A.M., Principles and Applications of Ferroelectrics and Related Materials (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1977).Google Scholar
22Fritz, I.J., J. Appl. Phys. 49, 4922 (1978).Google Scholar
23Fritz, I.J., J. Appl. Phys. 50, 5265 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Esaklul, K. A., Gerberich, W. W., and Koepke, B. G., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 63, 25 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Berlincourt, D., Krueger, H.H.A., and Jaffe, B., J. Phys. Chem. Solids 25, 659 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Dungan, R. H. and Storz, L. J., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 68, 530 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Ujma, Z., Handerek, J., and Pisarski, M., Ferroelectrics 64, 237 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Chhabildas, L. C., Dynamic Shock Studies of PZT 95/5 Ferro-electric Ceramic (Report No. SAND84-1729, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, 1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Zeuch, D. H., Montgomery, S. T., Keck, J. D., and Zimmerer, D. J., Hydrostatic and Triaxial Compression Experiments on Unpoled - PZT 95/5 2Nb Ceramic: The Effects ofShear Stress on the FRl →Ao Polymorphic Transformation (Report No. SAND92-0484, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, 1992).Google Scholar
30Larche, F. C., Ann. Rev. Mater. Sci. 20, 83 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Shimizu, I., J. Geophys. Res. 97, 4587 (1992).Google Scholar
32Haun, M. J., Furman, E., McKinstry, H. A., and Cross, L. E., Ferro-electrics 99, 27 (1989).Google Scholar
33Haun, M.J., Zhuang, Z. Q., Furman, E., Jang, S. J., and Cross, L.E., Ferroelectrics 99, 45 (1989).Google Scholar
34Haun, M. J., Furman, E., Halemane, T. R., and Cross, L. E., Ferro-electrics 99, 55 (1989).Google Scholar
35Haun, M. J., Furman, E., Jang, S. J., and Cross, L. E., Ferroelectrics 99, 63 (1989).Google Scholar
36Burkart, M.W. and Read, T.A., J. Metals 5, 1516 (1953).Google Scholar
37Patel, J.R. and Cohen, M., Acta Metall. 1, 531 (1953).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38Kirby, S. H., J. Geophys. Res. 92, 13, 789 (1987).Google Scholar
39Poirier, J. P., J. Geophys. Res. 87, 6791 (1982).Google Scholar
40Maehara, Y. and Langdon, T. G., J. Mater. Sci. 25, 2275 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41Chaklader, A. CD., Nature 197, 791 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42Schmidt, G. and Boczek, I., Phys. Status Solidi (a) 50, K109 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43Wadhawan, V. K., Kernion, M. C., Kimura, T., and Newnham, R. E., Ferroelectrics 37, 575 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44Tiwari, R. and Wadhawan, V.K., Phase Trans. 35, 47 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar