Journal of Electroceramics

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 123–132 | Cite as

The Similar Defect Chemistry of Highly-Doped SrBi2Ta2O9 and SrBi2Nb2O9

Article
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

The equilibrium electrical conductivities of undoped SrBi2Ta2O9 (SBT) and SrBi2Nb2O9 (SBN) have been shown to behave quite differently. SBT has the behavior expected for a 1% acceptor-doped oxide, while SBN behaves like a 1% donor-doped oxide. This difference has been related to the substantial cation place exchange that occurs between the Bi+ 3 and Sr+ 2 ions in the alternating layers of the structure. It was proposed that this place exchange is not entirely self-compensating, as would be expected for a simple, isotropic oxide, but that there is some local compensation within each layer by lattice and/or electronic defects. It is now shown that the equilibrium conductivity of 3% donor-doped SBT is similar to that of undoped SBN, while the equilibrium conductivity of 3% acceptor-doped SBN resembles that of undoped SBT. Thus the defect chemistrys of the two compounds are quite similar, but the equilibrium conductivities are displaced along a doping axis.

Keywords

defects doping acceptor dopants donor dopants place exchange equilibrium conductivity seebeck conductivity jump SBT SBN 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J.F. Scott and C.A. Paz de Araujo, Science, 246, 1400 (1989).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    O. Auciello, J.F. Scott, and R. Ramesh, Physics Today, 51, 22 (1998).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    W.L. Warren, B.A. Tuttle, and D. Dimos, Appl. Phys. Lett., 67, 1426 (1995).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W.Y. Pan, C.F. Yue, and B.A. Tuttle, Ceram. Trans., 25, 385 (1992).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B.M. Melnick, J. Gregory, and C.A. Paz de Araujo, Integrated Ferroelectrics, 11, 145 (1995).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A.C. Palanduz and D.M. Smyth, J. Euro. Ceram. Soc., 19, 731 (1999).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A.C. Palanduz and D.M. Smyth, J. Electroceram., 5(1), 21 (2000).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A.C. Palanduz and D.M. Smyth, J. Electroceram, 11, 191 (2003).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A.D. Rae, J.G. Thompson, and R.L. Withers, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. B, 48, 418 (1992).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S.M. Blake, M.J. Falconer, M. McCready, and P. Lightfoot, J. Mater. Chem., 7(8), 1609 (1997).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P.C. Eklund and A.K. Matabah, Rev. Sci. Instrum., 48, 775 (1977).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Cabuk and A. Mamedov. J. Opt. A: Pure Appl. Opt., 1, 424 (1999).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D.M. Smyth, Prog. Solid St. Chem., 15, 145 (1984).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Materials Research CenterLehigh UniversityBethlehemUSA
  2. 2.Intel CorporationChandlerUSA

Personalised recommendations