Microstructure evolution and mechanical behavior of Ni-rich Ni-Mn-Ga alloys under compressive and tensile stresses

doi:10.1016/j.jmst.2021.04.040

Abstract

Abstract:

The microstructure evolution and mechanical behavior in directionally solidified Ni-rich Ni-Mn-Ga alloys with nominal compositions of Ni₅₈Mn₂₅Ga₁₇ and Ni₆₀Mn₂₅Ga₁₅ under compressive and tensile stresses have been investigated. The composition distribution shows the element Ni segregates in gamma phase, while elements Mn and Ga segregate in martensite phase. Furthermore, the microstructure orientation examined by electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) indicates that beta phase has a preferred growth orientation of (001)_A in Ni₅₈Mn₂₅Ga₁₇ alloys, while gamma phase has a preferred growth orientation of (001)_γ in Ni₆₀Mn₂₅Ga₁₅ alloys. The fracture morphology suggests that the existence of ductile γ phase can reduce the crack propagation and promote fracture strain, particularly in the Ni₆₀Mn₂₅Ga₁₅ alloys. Finally, Schmid factor and deformation gradient tensor were calculated to well explain the crystallographic evolution during the detwinning under compressive and tensile stresses. The present findings not only elucidate the mechanism of γ phase on the mechanical behavior of Ni-rich Ni-Mn-Ga alloys, but also shed light on the composition design of high temperature Ni-Mn-Ga shape memory alloys.

Key words: Ni-Mn-Ga, Gamma phase, id="cetext0005">Tensile, Compressive, EBSD

Yue Wang, Siyuan Yang, Ting Zhou, Long Hou, Lansong Ba, Yves Fautrelle, Zhongming Ren, Yanyan Zhu, Zongbin Li, Xi Li. Microstructure evolution and mechanical behavior of Ni-rich Ni-Mn-Ga alloys under compressive and tensile stresses[J]. J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2022, 97: 113-122.

Figures/Tables 12

Fig. 1. Optical metallography of cross-section in the directionally solidified Ni-rich Ni-Mn-Ga alloys: (a1-a2) Ni58Mn25Ga17 alloys; and (b1-b2) Ni60Mn25Ga15 alloys. (c) Powder X-ray diffraction patterns and (d) DSC curves of Ni58Mn25Ga17 and Ni60Mn25Ga15 alloys.

Table 1 Compositions distribution of the martensite phase and gamma phase in the Ni-rich Ni58Mn25Ga17 and Ni60Mn25Ga15 alloys (at.%).

Type	Element	Phase (at.%)		Average composition (at.%)
Type	Element	Martensite	Gamma	Average composition (at.%)
Ni₅₈Mn₂₅Ga₁₇	Ni	56.33	61.05	57.13
	Mn	27.47	26.26	27.17
	Ga	16.20	12.69	15.70
Ni₆₀Mn₂₅Ga₁₅	Ni	56.24	62.79	59.02
	Mn	27.85	25.84	27.42
	Ga	15.91	11.37	13.56

Fig. 2. Composition distributions maps of elements Ni, Mn and Ga in 200 μm × 200 μm selected regions of (a1-a3) Ni58Mn25Ga17 and (b1-b3) Ni60Mn25Ga15 alloys, and (c and d) corresponding compositional profiles for these two Ni-rich Ni-Mn-Ga alloys.

Fig. 3. The orientation imaging maps (IPF mode), phase maps and pole figures of (001)NM and (001)γ of the selected transverse section for the directionally solidified (a and b) Ni58Mn25Ga17 and (c and d) Ni60Mn25Ga15 alloys.

Fig. 4. Stress-strain curves of Ni58Mn25Ga17, Ni60Mn25Ga15 and Ni54Mn25Ga21 (NM martensite) alloys compressed to different pre-strains. The dashed lines represent the shape-memory strain when heated to 600 °C and cooled down to room temperature.

Fig. 5. (a) Tensile and (b) compressive stress-strain curves of Ni58Mn25Ga17, Ni60Mn25Ga15 and Ni54Mn25Ga21 (NM martensite) alloys, respectively.

Fig. 6. The fracture morphology (a) and corresponding magnified images (b-d) of Ni58Mn25Ga17 alloys after tensile tests.

Fig. 7. The tensile fracture morphology (a) and corresponding magnified images (b-f) of Ni60Mn25Ga15 alloys. The areas marked by dash boxes in (c) and (e) are shown in (d) and (f), respectively. It is noteworthy that both dendritic and lamellar gamma phases show plastic feature of fracture.

Fig. 8. Orientation evolution of martensite variants in the (a) Ni58Mn25Ga17 and (b) Ni60Mn25Ga15 alloys (a1 and b1) before and (a2 and b2) after tensile tests. The insets show pole figures of (001)NM.

Fig. 9. Orientation evolution of martensite variants in (a) Ni58Mn25Ga17 and (b) Ni60Mn25Ga15 alloys (a1 and b1) before and (a2 and b2) after compression tests. The insets show pole figures of (001)NM.

Table 2 Deformation gradient tensors G of typical martensite variant pairs shown in Fig. 8 presented in the sample coordinate system. The tensile loading is along Y0 axis.

Type	Variant	Deformation gradient tensor, ε_ij			Schmid factor
Ni₅₈Mn₂₅Ga₁₇(before tension)	Variant 1	0.9671	-0.0022	-0.0669	0.0832
		-0.0221	0.9505	0.0463
		-0.0669	0.0463	1.0756
	Variant 2	1.0639	-0.0682	0.0542	-0.0696
		-0.0682	0.9713	-0.0287
		0.0542	-0.0287	0.9580
Ni₅₈Mn₂₅Ga₁₇(after tension)	Variant 3	0.9736	0.0754	-0.0065	/
		0.0754	1.0833	-0.0128
		-0.0065	-0.0128	0.9363
Ni₆₀Mn₂₅Ga₁₅ (before tension)	Variant 4	0.9631	-0.0628	-0.0229	/
		-0.0628	1.0762	0.0513
		-0.0229	0.0513	0.9539
	Variant 5	0.9858	-0.0240	0.0797
		-0.0240	0.9466	-0.0379	0.3224
		0.0797	-0.0379	1.0608
	Variant 6	1.0306	0.0835	-0.0427	0.0079
		0.0835	1.0083	-0.0374
		-0.0427	-0.0374	0.9543
Ni₆₀Mn₂₅Ga₁₅ (after tension)	Variant 7	1.0784	-0.0720	-0.0344	0.3102
		-0.0720	0.9714	0.0173
		-0.0344	0.0173	0.9434
	Variant 8	0.9386	0.0222	-0.0112	/
		0.0222	1.0818	-0.0743
		-0.0112	-0.0743	0.9728
	Variant 9	0.9575	0.0299	0.0528	0.2953
		0.0299	0.9753	0.0708
		0.0528	0.0708	1.0605

Table 3 Deformation gradient tensors G of typical martensite variant pairs shown in Fig. 9 presented in the sample coordinate system. The compressive loading is along the X0 axis.

Type	Variant	Deformation gradient tensor, ε_ij			Schmid factor
Ni₅₈Mn₂₅Ga₁₇(before compression)	Variant Ⅰ	0.9894	0.0098	-0.0845	-0.1391
		0.0098	0.9370	-0.0152
		-0.0845	-0.0152	1.0669
	Variant Ⅱ	0.9578	0.0610	0.0012	0.0017
		0.0610	1.1002	0.0034
		0.0012	0.0034	0.9353
Ni₅₈Mn₂₅Ga₁₇(after compression)	Variant Ⅲ	0.9473	-0.0018	-0.0461	-0.0258
		-0.0018	0.9355	0.0070
		-0.0461	0.0070	1.1104
	Variant Ⅳ	0.9492	0.0487	-0.0072	-0.0155
		0.0487	1.1051	-0.0252
		-0.0072	-0.0252	0.9389
Ni₆₀Mn₂₅Ga₁₅(before compression)	Variant Ⅴ	1.0624	-0.0120	-0.0868	-0.0867
		-0.0120	0.9363	0.0082
		-0.0868	0.0082	0.9945
	Variant Ⅵ	1.0263	0.0101	0.0932	0.1064
		0.0101	0.9363	0.0103
		0.0932	0.0103	1.0306
Ni₆₀Mn₂₅Ga₁₅(after compression)	Variant Ⅶ	0.9353	0.0036	-0.0011	/
		0.0036	1.1076	-0.0511
		-0.0011	-0.0511	0.9503

References 27

[1]	D.C. Dunand, P. Müllner, Adv. Mater. 23 (2011) 216-232. DOI URL
[2]	M. Chmielus, X.X. Zhang, C. Witherspoon, D.C. Dunand, P. Müllner, Nat. Mater. 8 (2009) 863-866. DOI PMID
[3]	P. Müllner, V.A. Chernenko, G. Kostorz, Scr. Mater. 49 (2003) 129-133. DOI URL
[4]	K. Ullakko, J.K. Huang, C. Kantner, R.C. O’Handley, V.V. Kokorin, Appl. Phys. Lett. 69 (1996) 1966-1968. DOI URL
[5]	H.B. Xu, J.M. Wang, C.B. Jiang, Y. Li, Curr. Opin. Solid St.M. 9 (2005) 319-325.
[6]	H.E. Karaca, I. Karaman, B. Basaran, Y. Ren, Y.I. Chumlyakov, H.J. Maier, Adv. Funct. Mater. 19 (2009) 983-998. DOI URL
[7]	M.A. Marioni, R.C. O’Handley, S.M. Allen, Appl. Phys. Lett. 83 (2003) 3966-3968. DOI URL
[8]	Y. Li, Y. Xin, C.B. Jiang, H.B. Xu, Scr. Mater. 51 (2004) 849-852. DOI URL
[9]	C.B. Jiang, J.H. Liu, J.M. Wang, L.H. Xu, H.B. Xu, Acta Mater. 53 (2005) 1111-1120. DOI URL
[10]	R. Chulist, W. Skrotzki, C.G. Oertel, A. Böhm, M. Pötschke, Scr. Mater. 63 (2010) 548-551. DOI URL
[11]	L. Hou, H. Tong, Y.C. Dai, Y. Fautrelle, R. Moreau, Z.M. Ren, X. Li, Mater. Sci. Technol. 34 (2018) 712-717. DOI URL
[12]	R.F. Hamilton, H. Sehitoglu, K. Aslantas, C. Efstathiou, H.J. Maier, Acta Mater. 56 (2008) 2231-2236. DOI URL
[13]	Z.L. Wang, P. Zheng, Z.H. Nie, Y. Ren, Y.D. Wang, P. Müllner, D.C. Dunand, Acta Mater. 99 (2015) 373-381. DOI URL
[14]	M.A. Marioni, R.C. O’Handley, S.M. Allen, S.R. Hall, D.I. Paul, M.L. Richard, J. Feuchtwanger, B.W. Peterson, J.M. Chambers, R. Techapiesancharoenkij, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 290- 291 (2005) 35-41.
[15]	S.J. Murray, M. Marioni, S. Allen, R. O’Handley, T. Lograsso, Appl. Phys. Lett. 77 (2000) 886-888. DOI URL
[16]	A. Sozinov, A.A. Likhachev, N. Lanska, K. Ullakko, Appl. Phys. Lett. 80 (2002) 1746-1748. DOI URL
[17]	A. Sozinov, N. Lanska, A. Soroka, W. Zou, Appl. Phys. Lett. 102 (2013) 021902. DOI URL
[18]	S. Fabbrici, J. Kamarad, Z. Arnold, F. Casoli, A. Paoluzi, F. Bolzoni, R. Cabassi, M. Solzi, G. Porcari, C. Pernechele, F. Albertini, Acta Mater. 59 (2011) 412-419. DOI URL
[19]	G.F. Dong, Z.Y. Gao, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 25 (2016) 3566-3572. DOI URL
[20]	M. Chmielus, V.A. Chernenko, W.B. Knowlton, G. Kostorz, P. Müllner, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 158 (2008) 79-85. DOI URL
[21]	K. Ishida, R. Kainuma, N. Ueno, T. Nishizawa, Met. Trans. A 22 (1991) 441-446. DOI URL
[22]	Y.Q. Ma, C.B. Jiang, Y. Li, H.B. Xu, C.P. Wang, X.J. Liu, Acta Mater. 55 (2007) 1533-1541. DOI URL
[23]	Y. Xin, Y. Li, L. Chai, H.B. Xu, Scr. Mater. 57 (2007) 599-601. DOI URL
[24]	L. Hou, Y.C. Dai, Y. Fautrelle, Z.B. Li, Z.M. Ren, X. Li, Acta Mater. 199 (2020) 383-396. DOI URL
[25]	M.N. Gungor, Metall. Trans. A 20 (1989) 2529-2533. DOI URL
[26]	M. Ganesan, D. Dye, P.D. Lee, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 36 (2005) 2191-2204. DOI URL
[27]	H.L. Yan, B. Yang, Y.D. Zhang, Z.B. Li, C. Esling, X. Zhao, L. Zuo, Acta Mater. 111 (2016) 75-84. DOI URL