Structure and shape memory effect in a Ni54Mn25Ga20Gd1 alloy with a high transformation temperature
Xin Zhang,Jiehe Sui,Zhiliang Yu,Wei Cai
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2011.04.144
IF: 6.2
2011-01-01
Journal of Alloys and Compounds
Abstract:Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 (at.%) alloy with a high transformation temperature has been obtained by substituting 1 at.% Gd for Ga in a ternary Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 shape memory alloy. The microstructure and phase transformations in the Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy have been investigated by SEM, TEM, XRD and DSC. The results show that the microstructure of the Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy consists of matrix and hexagonal Gd (Ni,Mn) 4 Ga phase, and martensitic transformation start temperature ( M s ) is 491 K. The compressive strength and the compressive strain are about 958 MPa and 16%, respectively. The complete recovery is obtained from the Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy as the pre-strains are no more than 3%. The maximum shape memory strain is achieved in Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy with pre-strain of 4%, and the shape memory strain and recovery ratio are 1.9% and 87.5%, respectively. The two-way shape memory effect is also observed in Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy. Keywords Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy Martensitic transformation Two-way shape memory effect 1 Introduction High-temperature shape memory alloys (HTSMAs) have attracted much attention in high-temperature filed, such as aerospace, nuclear power, fire, oil and gas exploration, etc. Current HTSMAs systems include Cu-based alloys, NiAl, NiTi-based alloys (NiTiHf, NiTiZr, NiTiPd, etc.) [1–7] , but until now some problems have remain unresolved. The brittleness of NiTiZr and NiTiHf limits their practical use [1,2] . NiAl and Cu-based HTSMAs are considered unstable [4,5] because of precipitate phase formed at high temperature, which are detrimental to the shape memory effect. As for the NiTiPd alloys, their full recovery strains have been increased to 5.5% by proper thermomechanical treatment [6] , but the high cost of precious metal Pd hinders its application. In recent years, Ni–Mn–Ga shape memory alloy receives more and more interests for its large magnetic field-induced strain and high response frequency [8] . It is also expected to become an excellent candidate of the high-temperature shape memory alloys by adjusting the composition [9] . Xu et al. reported that a HTSMA was developed, and a SME of 6.1% was observed in Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 single crystal with martensitic transformation temperature higher than 250 °C [10] . This SME remains almost unchanged even after 1000 thermal cycles. Unfortunately, the extreme brittleness of the polycrystalline Ni–Mn–Ga alloys limits their practical applications. There has been growing interest in improving the ductility of Ni–Mn–Ga alloys by adding the fourth element. Zhao et al. reported that by adding rare earth Tb or Sm elements, the bending strength of NiMnGa alloys could be increased to some extent [11,12] . Ma et al. found out that the addition of Cu and Cr significantly improved the compressive ductility of the alloy [13,14] . Gao et al. discovered that the addition of Gd, Dy and Y substituting Ga significantly improved the compressive ductility and martensitic transformation temperature of the Ni 50 Mn 29 Ga 21 alloy [15–18] . The fact that has been confirmed rare earth addition can toughen Ni–Mn–Ga shape memory alloys. In the present paper, the rare earth Gd was added into the Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 high-temperature shape memory alloy to improve its mechanical properties. The microstructure, crystal structure, phase transformation behavior, and SME of the Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy have been investigated. 2 Experimental The nominal compositions of the alloys studied were Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 and Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 (at.%). High-purity starting element nickel (99.99%), manganese (99.95%), gallium (99.99%) and gadolinium (99.95%) were melted in a non-consumed vacuum arc furnace under argon atmosphere for preparation of Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 and Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloys. The ingots were remelted six times to ensure homogeneity. The samples were annealed in vacuum quartz tubes at 1073 K for 24 h, and then quenched into ice water. The phase transformation temperatures were determined by Perkin-Elmer diamond differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) with heating and cooling rate of 20 K/min. The phase structure of the alloys was identified by an X’Pert PRO MPD diffractometer with CuKα radiation (XRD). The microstructures of the alloys were examined using an XJP-6A optical micrographs and a MX2600FE scanning electron microscope (SEM) equipped with an energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) analysis system and a FEI TECNAI G2 20 STWIN 200 kV transmission electron microscope equipped with a double-tilt cooling stage (TEM). Thin-foil specimens for TEM characterization were mechanically polished to about 80 μm and twinjet electropolished with an electrolyte of nitric acid and methanol (3:7 in volume) at around 258 K. The mechanical properties and shape memory effect were studied by compressive tests in an Instron-5569 universal mechanical testing machine. The sample dimensions are Φ 4 mm × 6 mm and deformation rate is 0.2 mm/min. 3 Results and discussion Fig. 1 shows the optical micrographs of solution treated Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 and Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloys. It is evident that the crystal sizes of Ni–Mn–Ga–Gd alloys are refined from 90 μm to 15 μm by adding rare earth Gd. Fig. 2 shows the backscattered electron images of the Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 and Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloys. It can be seen that the Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 alloy exhibits a single-phase structure, whereas the Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy contains a brightly imaging second phase along the grain boundaries. The compositions of the matrix and second phase of the experimental alloys measured by EDS are listed in Table 1 . It can be seen that only 0.2 at.% Gd is detected in the matrix, which means the solid solubility of Gd in the matrix is very low. The Gd addition results in the formation of the Gd-rich phase along the grain boundaries. As shown in Table 1 , the Mn content in the matrix of Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy is increased, and the Ga content is decreased. The Gd-rich phase consists of Ni, Mn, Ga and Gd. Compared with the composition of the matrix, the Mn content in Gd-rich phase is obviously decreased whereas the Gd content is increased. Fig. 3 shows the X-ray diffraction patterns of Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 and Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloys at room temperature. All diffraction peaks of Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 alloy can be indexed with the non-modulated tetragonal-structured martensite as shown in Fig. 3 (a). This agrees well with previously reported results [19] . Compared with Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 alloy, the positions of six diffraction peaks of martensite in Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy remain unchanged, while several additional peaks appeared as shown in Fig. 3 (b). It can be concluded the second-phase is occurred, and the extra peaks are rather similar to that of GdNi 4 Ga reported by Joshi et al. [20] , and the lattice constants calculated from the XRD pattern is a s = b s = 0.4955 nm, c s = 0.4056 nm, which is similar to the reported lattice constants ( a r = b r = 0.4961 nm, c r = 0.4038 nm). It can be deduced that the second-phase is hexagonal Gd(Ni,Mn) 4 Ga according to the results’ reported by Gao et al. [17] . Fig. 4 shows the TEM images and selected area electron diffraction (SAED) patterns of Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 alloy. The bright field image exhibits large stripe-like martensitic plates with 1–2 μm in width ( Fig. 4 (a)), and the hair-like stripes can be seen in big plate. It can be found from SAED pattern that when the incident electron beam was tilted to [0 1 1], the hair-like stripes inside each big martensitic plate exhibit (1 1 1) twins, and the matrix of alloy can be indexed as non-modulated tetragonal martensite. Fig. 5 shows TEM image of the Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy and the corresponding diffraction pattern. It can be observed that the second phase is embedded in the martensitic plates, and the width of the martensitic plates become narrower compared with Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 alloy. Compared Fig. 4 (b) with Fig. 5 (b), it can be confirmed that the structure of matrix in Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy is the same as Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 alloy. The diffraction pattern of the second-phase is shown in Fig. 5 (c), and according to the X-ray diffraction patterns and compositions of the second-phase, it can be indexed as hexagonal Gd(Ni,Mn) 4 Ga [17] . In order to investigate the effect of rare earth Gd on the mechanical properties, compression tests were carried out at room temperature. Both samples were compressed to fracture. Fig. 6 shows the compressive stress–strain curves of Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 and Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloys at room temperature. It can be seen that the compressive strength of NiMnGa alloy is obviously enhanced by addition of Gd. The compressive strength in Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 is about 958 MPa, around 570 MPa higher than that of Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 alloy. Furthermore, the compressive strain is increased from 9% to 16%. The increase in the strength is mainly due to the refinement of the grains and the presence of the Gd-rich phase along the grain boundaries. Rare earth Gd distributing along the grain boundaries easily reacts with impurity elements, such as O and S, and restrains the segregation of the impure elements at grain boundaries. Thus, the grain boundaries are strengthened due to reduction of the damage from impurity elements, leading to the improvement in the mechanical properties. Fig. 7 shows the DSC curves for Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 and Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloys. The results show that there is only one endothermic and exothermic peak during the heating and cooling process, indicating that one-step phase transformation appears in Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy. This reveals that the Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy maintain the typical one-step thermoelastic martensitic transformation of the ternary Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 alloy. The transformation temperatures of the Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 alloy are M s = 465 K, M f = 450 K, A s = 472 K and A f = 490 K. In the case of the Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy, the transformation temperatures are M s = 491 K, M f = 481 K, A s = 497 K and A f = 509 K. The transformation temperature of Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy is increased compared with Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 alloy. The increase of transformation temperature is attributed to the increase of Mn content in the matrix by the Gd addition as shown in Table 1 . Figs. 8 and 9 show the compressive stress–strain curves of the Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 alloy with 4% of pre-strain and Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy with different pre-strains, respectively. The dotted lines represent the recovery strain after heating to 300 °C for 5 min. The shape memory strain and recovery ratio of the Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 and Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloys with pre-strain of 4% are 0.6%, 75% and 1.9%, 87.5%, respectively. The improvement in the SME of Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy is attributed to the enhancement of matrix strength caused by the solid solution strengthening of rare earth, consequently leading to that the ability to resist irreversible deformation is increased. The shape-memory behavior of Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy at different pre-strains is listed in Table 2 . The complete shape recovery is achieved in Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy when the pre-strain is less than 3%. The maximum of shape memory strain is achieved in Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy with pre-strain of 4%. Irreversible deformations occur when the pre-strain is higher than 3%, so the sample cannot recover completely. Furthermore, an interesting phenomenon that all the samples recover to the original size when the temperature dropped to room temperature again. Obviously, this is the two-way shape memory effect. The two-way reversible strain of the Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 alloy with pre-strain of 4% is 0.6%, and the two-way reversible strain of the Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy with different pre-strain of 2%, 3%, 4%, 5% and 7% are 0.6%, 1.8%, 1.9%, 1.4% and 1.3%, respectively. 4 Conclusions The effect of Gd addition on the microstructure, martensitic transformation behavior, mechanical properties and shape memory effect of a Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 high temperature shape memory alloy has been investigated. The results demonstrated that the grain size of Ni–Mn–Ga alloys can be apparently refined by Gd addition The microstructure of the Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy consisted of the non-modulated tetragonal martensite and the hexagonal Gd (Ni,Mn) 4 Ga phase. One-step thermoelastic martensitic transformation occurs in this quaternary alloy. The transformation temperatures of the Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy are M s = 491 K, M f = 481 K, A s = 497 K and A f = 509 K. 100% shape memory recovery ratio is achieved in Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy when the pre-strain is less than 3%, and the SME strain is 1.8% when the pre-strain is 3%. The maximum value of recoverable shape memory strain is achieved in Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy with pre-strain of 4%, and the shape memory strain and recovery ratio are 1.9% and 87.5%, respectively. Two-way shape memory effect was observed in both Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 21 and Ni 54 Mn 25 Ga 20 Gd 1 alloy. Acknowledgement The study was supported by Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 51071059 and no. 50801018 ) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (no. HIT.KLOF.2010005 ). References [1] A. Terayama K. Nagai H. Kyogoku Mater. Trans. 10 2009 2446 [2] C.C. Wojcik J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 18 2009 511 [3] M.B. Cortie C.S. Kealley V. Bhatia J. Alloys Compd. 509 2011 3502 [4] G.S. Firstov Humbeeck.J. Van Y.N. Koval J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 17 2006 1041 [5] Y.Q. Ma C.B. Jiang L.F. Deng H.B. Xu J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 19 2003 431 [6] D. Golberg Y. Xu Y. Murakami S. Morito K. Otsuka Scr. Metall. Mater. 30 1994 1349 [7] X.L. Meng M. Sato A. Ishida Acta Mater. 59 2011 2535 [8] K. Ullkko J.K. Huang V.V. Kokorin Scr. Mater. 36 1997 1133 [9] Y. Xin Y. Li Z.D. Liu Scr. Mater. 63 2010 35 [10] H.B. Xu Y.Q. Ma C.B. Jiang Appl. Phys. Lett. 82 2003 3206 [11] Z.Q. Zhao W. Xiong S.X. Wu X.L. Wang J. Iron. Steel Res. Int. 111 2004 55 [12] S.H. Guo Y.H. Zhang Z.Q. Zhao J.L. Li X.L. Wang J. Rare Earths 22 2004 632 [13] Y.Q. Ma S.Y. Yang W.J. Jin J. Alloys Compd. 471 2009 570 [14] Y.Q. Ma S.L. Lai S.Y. Yang Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. 21 2011 96 [15] L. Gao W. Cai A.L. Liu L.C. Zhao J. Alloys Compd. 425 2006 314 [16] Wei. Cai Li. Gao Z.Y. Gao J. Mater. Sci. 42 2007 9216 [17] L. Gao Z.Y. Gao W. Cai L.C. Zhao Mater. Sci. Eng. A 438 2006 1077 [18] L. Gao J.H. Sui W. Cai Z.Y. Gao Solid. State. Commun. 149 2009 257 [19] Y.Q. Ma C.B. Jiang Y. Li H.B. Xu C.P. Wang X.J. Liu Acta Mater. 55 2007 1533 [20] D.A. Joshi C.V. Tomy D.S. Rana R. Nagajan S.K. Malik Solid. State. Commun. 137 2006 225