Premium
Effects of Rare‐Earth Dopants on the Ferroelectric and Pyroelectric Properties of Strontium Barium Niobate Ceramics
Author(s) -
Yao Yingbang,
Mak Chee Leung,
Wong Kin Hung,
Lu Shengguo,
Xu Zhengkui
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
international journal of applied ceramic technology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.4
H-Index - 57
eISSN - 1744-7402
pISSN - 1546-542X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1744-7402.2008.02308.x
Subject(s) - pyroelectricity , dopant , materials science , dielectric , ferroelectricity , strontium barium niobate , figure of merit , doping , analytical chemistry (journal) , ceramic , barium , mineralogy , optoelectronics , chemistry , metallurgy , chromatography
Effects of various rare‐earth (RE) dopants (Y 3+ , La 3+ , Ce 3+ , Pr 3+ , Nd 3+ , Sm 3+ , Eu 3+ , Gd 3+ , Tm 3+ , Dy 3+ , Er 3+ , and Yb 3+ ) on the dielectric, ferroelectric, and pyroelectric properties of Sr 0.5 Ba 0.5 Nb 2 O 6 (SBN50) ceramics were investigated. In the present studies, the doping concentrations of all the RE dopants were fixed at 1 mol%. Their potential usefulness in pyroelectric applications was discussed based on their measured pyroelectric detectivity figure of merit (FOM). On the basis of our studies, for RE dopants with atomic numbers smaller than Nd, their dielectric constants were greatly increased, while for RE dopants with atomic numbers larger than Sm, their dielectric constants as well as dielectric losses became smaller. Among various dopants, Eu‐doped SBN showed the most improved ferroelectric properties. Its remnant polarization ( P r ) was increased to 4.86 μC/cm 2 as compared with 3.23 μC/cm 2 obtained in undoped SBN50. On the other hand, Gd‐doped SBN exhibited the largest pyroelectric coefficient of 168 μC/m 2 K, which was over three times of that of the undoped sample (49 μC/m 2 K). The work shows that Gd‐doped SBN exhibits the greatest potential for pyro‐applications because it bears the largest FOM of 0.45 × 10 −5 Pa −0.5 [Correction: After online publication on 11/05/2008, an error was found in this article. The original value, 1.35×10 −5 Pa −0.5 , was incorrect. The data has been replaced with the correct value.].