4.6 Article

High strain response in ternary Bi0.5Na0.5TiO3-BaTiO3-Bi(Mn0.5Ti0.5)O3 solid solutions

期刊

RSC ADVANCES
卷 6, 期 68, 页码 63915-63921

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c6ra08240h

关键词

-

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education [2014R1A1A4A01004404, 2015R1D1A3A01019470]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2015R1D1A3A01019470, 2014R1A1A4A01004404, 21A20131100002] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a ternary solid solution (0.935 - x) BNT-0.065BT-xBi(Mn0.5Ti0.5)O-3 (BNT-BT-BMnT; x = 0-0.030) was designed and fabricated by means of a conventional fabrication process. The composition and temperature dependencies of this material's dielectric, ferroelectric and strain behavior were systematically investigated. XRD patterns of the BNT-BT-BMnT ceramics showed a single perovskite phase with pseudocubic symmetry for all investigated compositions. The substitution of BMnT into BNT-BT was found to induce a transition from the ferroelectric to the ergodic relaxor phase, resulting in significant disruption of the ferroelectric order along with a downward shift of the ferroelectric-relaxor transition temperature TF-R to below room temperature. Accordingly, at a critical composition (2 mol% of BMnT), a high field-induced nonlinear strain of 0.45% was induced, with the normalized strain of 818 pm V-1. Furthermore, the field-induced strain of the critical composition was stable at temperatures up to 100 degrees C owing to its stable nonpolar phase, suggesting that the developed material may be very attractive due to its temperature stability in the range of 30-100 degrees C. The high strain response in the critical composition was attributed to the reversible transformation between the ergodic relaxor and ferroelectric phases under the applied electric field.

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

4.6
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