Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 51, Issue 24, pp 10943–10948 | Cite as

Asymmetric distribution of martensitic variants in non-modulated NiMnGa single crystals

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

A strong asymmetric distribution of martensitic variants in non-modulated NiMnGa single crystals with respect to austenite is produced during martensitic transformation. A cubic-to-tetragonal transformation occurs with 24 possible variants divided into two groups. The first group with a misorientation of about 6° is composed of the so-called major variants separated by inter-plate boundaries, while the latter comprises minor variants with misorientation of 12.2°. The 6° rotation associated with major variants can also be observed at each inclination point where conjugation boundaries (CBs) occurs. The removal of CBs straightens out the inclined inter-plate boundaries confirming the Müllner–King mechanism.

Keywords

Austenite Martensite Martensitic Transformation Shape Memory Alloy Orientation Relationship 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work was carried out within the Homing Plus Program (Project 2013-8/3) of Foundation for Polish Science, co-financed from European Union, Regional Development Fund. The financial support by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland within the Project No. 0063/IP2/2015/73 is also acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Bhattacharya K (2013) Microstructure of martensite: why it forms and how it gives rise to the shape-memory effect. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bain EC (1924) The nature of martensite. Trans AIME 70:25–35Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kurdjumov G, Sachs G (1930) Über den mechanismus der stahlhärtung. Z Phys 63:225–243Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nishiyama Z (1930) X-ray investigation of the mechanism of the transfomation from faced-centered cubic lattice to body centred cubic. Sci Rep Tohoku Imp Univ 23:1934–1935Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wassermann G (1933) Archiv für das Eisenhüttenwesen 16:647–649Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pitsch W (1962) Der Orientierungszusammenhang zwischen Zementit und Ferrit im Perlit. Acta Metall 10:79–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Petch NJ (1953) The orientation relationships between cementite and α-iron. Acta Cryst 6:96–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Christian JW (1965) The theory of transformations in metals and alloys. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wayman CM (1992) Shape memory and related phenomena. Prog Mater Sci 36:203–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chulist R, Faryna M, Szczerba MJ (2016) Orientaion relationship between austenite and non-modulated martesite in NiMnGa single crystals. Acta Mater 103:836–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Muntifering B, Kovarik L, Browning ND, Pond RC, Knowlton WB, Müllner P (2016) Stress-assisted removal of conjugation boundaries in non-modulated NiMnGa by coordinated secondary twinning. J Mater Sci 51:457–466. doi: 10.1007/s10853-015-9236-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Müllner P, King AH (2010) Deformation of hierarchically twinned martensite. Acta Mater 58:5242–5261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Muntifering B, Pond RC, Kovarik L, Browning ND, Müllner P (2014) Intra-variant substructure in Ni–Mn–Ga martensite: conjugation boundaries. Acta Mater 71:255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cong DY, Zhang YD, Wang YD, Esling C, Zhao X, Zuo L (2006) Determination of microstructure and twinning relationship between martesitic variants in 53 at%Ni-25 at%Mn-22 at%Ga ferromagnetic shape memory alloys. Appl Crystal 39:723–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cong DY, Zhang YD, Esling C, Wang YD, Lecomte JS, Zhao X, Zuo L (2011) Microstructural and crystallographic characteristics of interpenetrating and non-interpenetrating multiply twinned nanostructure in a Ni–Mn–Ga ferromagnetic shape memory alloy. Acta Mater 59:7070–7081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Szczerba MJ, Chulist R (2015) Detwinning of a non-modulated Ni–Mn–Ga martensite: from self-accommodated microstructure to single crystal. Acta Mater 85:67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cong DY, Zhang YD, Wang YD, Humbert M, Zhao X, Watanabe T, Zuo L, Esling C (2007) Experiment and theoretical prediction of martensitic transformation crystallography in a Ni–Mn–Ga ferromagnetic shape memory alloy. Acta Mater 55:4731–4740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Szczerba MJ (2015) Non-modulated martesite microstructure with internal nanotwins in NiMnGa alloys. Arch Metall Mater 60:2267–2270Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chulist R, Bohm A, Oertel CG, Skrotzki W (2014) Self-accommodation in polycrystalline 10 M Ni–Mn–Ga martensite. J Mater Sci 49:3951–3955. doi: 10.1007/s10853-013-7996-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Szczerba MJ, Szczerba MS (2012) Transformation of dislocations during twin variant reorientation in Ni–Mn–Ga martensite structures. Scr Mater 66:29–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Christian JW, Mahajan S (1995) Deformation twinning. Prog Mater Sci 39:1–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Metallurgy and Materials Science of Polish Academy of SciencesKrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations