4.3 Article

Investigation of the Mechanical Properties of GdBa2Cu3O7-δ Added with Nanosized Ferrites ZnFe2O4 and CoFe2O4 Using Ultrasonic Measurement

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10948-016-3863-x

关键词

Superconducting GdBa2Cu3O7-delta; Nanoferrite particles; Ultrasonic technique; Vickers microhardness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently, there is much interest in studying the effect of nanosized ferrites addition on high- T (c) superconductors. However, little information is available on the mechanical properties. We have investigated the effect of (CoFe2O4) (x) and (ZnFe2O4) (x) nanosized ferrites with 0.01 ae x ae 0.40 on the mechanical properties of the high- T (c) superconducting compound GdBa2Cu3O7-delta (Gd-123) prepared by the conventional solid-state reaction technique. Elastic parameters including shear modulus (G), bulk modulus (B), and Young's modulus (E) of all samples were inspected using ultrasonic measurements and compared with Vickers microhardness results. Furthermore, the porosity of the samples was investigated and correlated to Young's modulus, which was corrected to zero porosity using different models. The corrected values were correlated with Vickers microhardness. Moreover, the Debye temperature (theta (D)) and the electron-phonon coupling factor (lambda) were also determined as a function of x. We observed that the different nanoparticles addition has influenced the Gd-123 compound differently. For (ZnFe2O4) (x) added samples, the mechanical properties and Debye temperature improved up to x = 0.06, then deteriorated with further addition. However, (CoFe2O4) (x) addition improved the mechanical properties for all samples with x up to 0.40. We found that the proportionality constant between the corrected values of E and H (v) and G and H (v) are strongly dependent on the porosity corrections and the kind of superconducting material. This indicates that the widely used formula E = 81.96 H (v) may not be valid for all types of superconducting materials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据