j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l .

2 0 1 7;6(2):136–146

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.jmrt.com.br

Original Article

Phase characterisation and mechanical behaviour

of Fe–B modified Cu–Zn–Al shape memory alloys

Kenneth Kanayo Alaneme a,∗ , Eloho Anita Okotete a , Nthabiseng Maledi b

a Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria
b School of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The microstructures, phase characteristics and mechanical behaviour of Cu–Zn–Al alloys
Received 18 June 2016 modified with Fe, B, and Fe–B mixed micro-alloying additions has been investigated.
Accepted 13 October 2016 Cu–Zn–Al alloys were produced by casting with and without the addition of the microele-
Available online 23 January 2017 ments (Fe, B and Fe–B). The alloys were subjected to a homogenisation – cold rolling –
annealing treatment schedule, before the alloys were machined to specifications for tensile
Keywords: test, fracture toughness, and hardness measurement. Optical, scanning electron microscopy
Cu–Zn–Al alloy and X-ray diffraction analysis were utilised for microstructural and phase characterisation
Shape memory effect of the alloys. A distinct difference in grain morphology was observed in the alloys produced
Lath martensite – the unmodified alloy had predominantly needle-like lath martensite structure with sharp
Micro-alloying grain edges while significantly larger transverse grain size and curve edged/near elliptical
Mechanical behaviour grain shape was observed for the modified Cu–Zn–Al alloys. Cu–Zn with fcc structure was
Phase analysis the predominant phase identified in the alloys while Cu–Al with bcc structure was the sec-
ondary phase observed. The hardness of the unmodified Cu–Zn–Al alloy was higher than
that of the modified alloys with reductions in hardness ranging between 32.4 and 51.5%.
However, the tensile strength was significantly lower than that of the modified alloy grades
(28.37–52.74% increase in tensile strength was achieved with the addition of micro-alloying
elements). Similarly, the percent elongation and fracture toughness (10–23% increase) of
the modified alloy was higher than that of the unmodified alloy grade. The modified alloy
compositions mostly exhibited fracture features indicative of a fibrous micro-mechanism
to crack initiation and propagation, characterised by the prevalence of dimpled rupture.
© 2016 Brazilian Metallurgical, Materials and Mining Association. Published by Elsevier
Editora Ltda. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

sensing, medical, commercial and other industrial applica-

1. Introduction tions [1–3]. The current limitation to the of SMAs is that
commercially available SMAs are principally made out of Ni-
The attractive properties of shape memory alloys (SMAs) have
Ti alloys which are expensive and also have a huge processing
been explored for a wide range of applications such as in
cost and facility burden [4]. This has made the search for more

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail: [email protected] (K.K. Alaneme).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2016.10.003
2238-7854/© 2016 Brazilian Metallurgical, Materials and Mining Association. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda. This is an open access
article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 7;6(2):136–146 137

cost-effective SMAs an ongoing pursuit by researchers. Cu- base composition containing two different weight percent
based and Fe-based SMAs have been identified as the most each (0.05 wt.% and 0.1 wt.%) of Fe and B. Two other com-
promising low cost alternatives to Ni-Ti alloys. The lower positions containing mixtures of Fe and B (0.05 wt.% B and
strain recoveries of Cu (∼5%) and Fe (<5%) compared to that of 0.05 wt.% Fe) (0.025 wt.% Fe and 0.075 wt.% B) were equally
NiTi alloy (8%) is compensated for by lower processing cost and produced. The Fe and B weight percent selected are within
amenability to fabrication routes and facilities utilised for con- the range reported in literature [22–24]. The charge for
ventional metal processing [5–7]. Cu-based SMAs are of special Cu–18Zn–6Al alloy without the addition of micro-alloying ele-
interest because of its modest recoverable strain (∼5%) which ments was also prepared as the control composition. The
is closest to that of NiTi alloy, cheaper production cost, and alloys were prepared via liquid metallurgy route, melted in
ease of fabrication, and high thermal and electrical conduc- a crucible furnace and cast into sand moulds inserted with
tivity [8–10]. Regrettably, these Cu-based alloys are associated metallic chills. The chemical composition of the Cu–Zn–Al
with brittleness induced by coarse grain structure, high elastic shape memory alloys determined by EDS analysis is pre-
anisotropy and high degree of order which reduces the cold sented in Table 1. After casting, the alloys were subjected to
workability of the alloys [10]. Furthermore, Cu-based alloys homogenisation treatment at 800 ◦ C for 4 h and cooled in air in
are susceptible to ageing which could lead to phase (martens- accordance with Alaneme [25]. The alloys were then subjected
ite) stabilisation and change in transformation temperatures to 10% cold rolling using a miniature cold rolling machine;
which affects its shape memory capacity [3,11,12]. after which the samples were annealed at 450 ◦ C for 1 h and
Cu–Zn–Al alloys are the most studied Cu-based alloys and cooled in air to remove internal stresses developed in the sam-
have been explored for use in applications such as fasten- ples during the cold deformation process. The samples for
ers, springs, couplings and thermal actuators where the use mechanical test, microstructural and phase characterisation
of other alloys would be technically and economically inef- were machined to prescribed test specifications. The samples
fective [13,14]. Cu–Zn–Al alloys have relatively higher strain were finally annealed at 400 ◦ C for 2 h then water quenched at
recovery compared to other Cu-based alloys. However, simi- room temperature to eliminate stresses generated during the
lar to other Cu-based alloy grades, Cu–Zn–Al alloys are prone machining process.
to brittle failure, and have low fracture and fatigue strength,
and low workability [15]. Grain refinement has been proffered 2.2. Microstructural characterisation
as a technique for the improvement of mechanical and shape
memory properties of Cu-based SMAs [3,15]. In this regard, the 2.2.1. Optical microscopy
use of micro-alloying elements [16], mechanical and thermo- A Zeiss optical microscope was used for microstructural inves-
mechanical processing [17–19]; have been explored to achieve tigation of the alloys produced to assess the grain structure
grain refinement in Cu-based SMAs. The use of micro-alloying and phase distribution. The specimens for microstructural
elements such as B, Ti, V, Ce, Fe, Co, Be, Zr have been the most examination were metallographically prepared following a
reported of these approaches; and many of the investigations series of grinding and polishing process. Subsequently the
show that their presence has influence on the microstructure, specimens were etched in a solution of 5 g ferric chloride,
transformation and shape memory properties of Cu-based 10 ml HCl, and 95 ml ethanol, swabbing for 10–20 s; after which
SMAs [5,16,20]. B and Fe are the least expensive of these micro- microstructural analysis was performed.
alloying elements and have been reported to be very efficient
grain modifiers [5,21]. However there have been divergent
opinions on the optimum concentrations of these micro- 2.2.2. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
alloying elements and the mechanisms for effecting grain Detailed microstructural characterisation and compositional
modification in Cu-based SMAs in general and Cu–Zn–Al SMAs analysis was carried out using a Zeiss high resolution field
in particular. For instance, Wang et al. [22] reported that 0.01% emission gun scanning electron microscope (Zeiss FESEM)
B was the optimum concentration required to achieve grain to complement the optical microscopy analysis. Back scat-
refinement in Cu–Zn–Al alloy but Ferreira et al. [23] stated that tered electron (BSE) mode, secondary electron imaging and
B concentration within the range of 0.05–0.08% was sufficient energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) were used for micro-
for effective grain refinement. Fe concentration for effective structural and fractographic analysis of the Cu–Zn–Al alloys
grain modification and enhanced mechanical properties has produced.
also been subject of research discuss recently [24]. The present
work, investigates the phase characteristics and microstruc-
ture of Fe, B, and Fe–B modified Cu–Zn–Al SMAs in details and
its effect on the mechanical behaviour.
Table 1 – Chemical composition of the Cu–Zn–Al alloys.
Sample designation Cu Zn Al B Fe
2. Materials and method
A 76 17.90 6.10 – –
B 75.95 18.02 5.98 0.05 –
2.1. Alloy and sample preparation C 75.90 17.50 6.50 0.1 –
D 75.95 18.40 5.60 – 0.05
The Cu–18Zn–6Al based alloys were produced in accordance E 75.90 17.33 6.67 – 0.1
with Alaneme [25]. Charge calculation was used to determine F 75.90 18.05 5.95 0.05 0.05
G 75.90 18.09 5.91 0.075 0.025
the amount of Cu, Zn and Al required to produce Cu–18Zn–6Al
138 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 7;6(2):136–146

2.3. X-ray diffraction analysis

The analysis of the crystalline phases present and their

intensity was carried out on the Cu–Zn–Al alloys using X-
ray diffractometry (XRD). The samples were prepared for
XRD analysis following standard procedures. A PANalytical
Empyrean diffractometer with PIXcel detector and Fe filtered
Co-K␣ as source of radiation, was used for the analysis. The
analysis was performed from angle 2 spectral range of 0◦ to
120◦ . The phases were identified using X’Pert Highscore plus
software.

2.4. Mechanical properties

2.4.1. Hardness measurement

Fig. 1 – Optical micrograph of the unmodified Cu–Zn–Al
The hardness values of the alloys were evaluated on a hard-
alloy.
ness testing machine using a Digital Rockwell hardness tester
adopting a HRA (60 kgf) scale. The sample preparation and
testing procedure was performed in accordance with ASTM
obtained was determined using the relations in accordance
E18-16 standard [26]. Five hardness indents were made on
with Nath and Das [30]:
each specimen and readings within the margin of ±2% were
taken for the computation of the average hardness values of  K 2
1C
the specimens. D≥ (2.2)
y

2.4.2. Tensile testing Three repeat tests were performed for each Cu–Zn–Al alloy
The tensile properties of the produced alloys were evaluated composition to ensure repeatability and reliability of the data
by tensile testing using a universal testing machine. Speci- generated.
mens for the test were machined to tensile test specifications
of 5 mm diameter and 30 mm gauge length. The specimens
3. Results and discussion
were mounted on the testing platform and pulled monoton-
ically at a strain rate of 10−3 /s until fracture. The specimen
3.1. Microstructures of the Cu–Zn–Al alloys
preparation and testing procedure were in accordance with
ASTM E8/E8M-15a standard [27]. For each alloy composition,
3.1.1. Optical microscopy
three repeat tensile tests were performed to guarantee the
Optical micrographs of the unmodified and modified alloys are
reliability of the data generated. The tensile properties eval-
presented in Figs. 1–4. Fig. 1 shows the optical micrograph of
uated from the test are the ultimate tensile strength and %
the unmodified alloy, characterised by needle-like lath struc-
elongation.
ture which was acknowledged to be lath martensite structure.
The lath structure observed in Fig. 1 is similar to the lath mar-
2.4.3. Fracture toughness tensite structures in Cu–Zn–Al alloys reported in the works by
The fracture toughness of the alloys was determined using cir- Xu [31] and Dasgupta [32]. The alloys with B additions (Fig. 2)
cumferential notch tensile (CNT) testing in accordance with were observed to have undergone a change in the martens-
Alaneme [28] The specimens for the test were machined to ite morphology from sharp edged needle-like lath structure to
gauge length of 27 mm, gauge diameter of 6 mm (D), notch curve edged rod like structure with the grains relatively larger
diameter of 4.2 mm (d), and notch angle of 60◦ . The specimens than the unmodified Cu–Zn–Al alloy (Fig. 1). There also is a
were then subjected to tensile loading to fracture at room tem- slight increase in grain size with increase in B composition
perature using an Instron universal testing machine operated (from 0.05 to 0.1 wt.%) if Fig. 2(b) is compared with Fig. 2(a).
at a quasi-static strain rate of 10−3 /s. The fracture load (Pf ) This implies that nucleation and growth condition in the alloy
obtained from the CNT specimens’ load–extension plots was is influenced by the B concentration. The addition of Fe to
used to evaluate the fracture toughness using the empirical the Cu–Zn–Al alloys (Fig. 3) show a structure with near ellip-
relation [29]: tical phase morphology and significantly reduced needle-like
martensite appearance. The grain size did not appear to be
 D  sensitive to Fe concentration (Fig. 3a and b) as with the case of
Pf B addition (Fig. 2). The mixed (Fe–B) composition (Fig. 4) was
K1C = 1.72 − 1.27 (2.1)
D3/2 d observed to have a combination of near elliptical grain shape
with curve edged needle like lath martensite structure. The
where D and d are the specimen diameter and the diameter of observations made are clear indicators that the micro-alloying
the notched section respectively. Plane strain conditions and, elements (Fe, B, and Fe–B) actually modify the grain size and
by extension, the validity of the fracture toughness values morphology of Cu–Zn–Al alloys.
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 7;6(2):136–146 139

Fig. 2 – Optical micrographs of (a) 0.05B modified Cu–Zn–Al Fig. 3 – Optical micrographs of (a) 0.05Fe modified Cu–Zn–Al
alloy and (b) 0.1B modified Cu–Zn–Al alloy. alloy and (b) 0.1Fe modified Cu–Zn–Al alloy.

modified Cu–Zn–Al alloy (Fig. 7) was quite significant, evolv-

3.1.2. SEM observations ing towards an elliptical grain shape. The near-elliptical grain
The scanning electron microscopy images of the unmodi-
morphology observed is in agreement with results from pre-
fied and modified Cu–Zn–Al alloys (Figs. 5–8) show structural
vious studies [23,24] on Fe modified Cu–Zn–Al alloys. Also, it
features which are completely in conformity with the observa-
can be seen from Table 2 that although grain size increase
tions made from those of the optical micrographs of the alloys
occurs with the addition of Fe as micro-alloying element in
(Figs. 1–4). It is observed from Fig. 5(a) that the unmodified
Cu–Zn–Al alloy, the grain size increase was invariant to the Fe
alloy microstructure consists of predominantly lath martens-
concentrations used as grain modifiers (that is 0.05 wt.% Fe
ite structure. Fig. 6 which presents the BSE images of the
and 0.1 wt.% Fe had similar grain size). Fig. 7(c) shows a rep-
boron modified Cu–Zn–Al alloy, is generally characterised
resentative EDS profile for the Fe modified Cu–Zn–Al alloy
by large grain size and a change in grain edge morphol-
showing peaks of CuZn and the presence of Fe in the alloy.
ogy from sharp to round/rod-like (that is compared with
Fig. 5). Table 2 presents the change in transverse lath/grain
thickness for the unmodified and modified Cu–Zn–Al alloys
produced. Table 2 shows that the grain size increases with Table 2 – Average martensite lath thickness in Cu–Zn–Al
B addition from 13 ␮m for the unmodified composition to alloys.
about 28–38 ␮m for the B modified composition. Also grain Sample designation Average
size is confirmed to be sensitive to the concentration of B, martensite lath
as the average transverse grain size increased from 28 ␮m thickness (␮m)
for the 0.05 wt.% B modified Cu–Zn–Al alloy composition to
A (Cu–Zn–Al) 13 ± 0.17
38 ␮m for the 0.1 wt.% B modified Cu–Zn–Al alloy grade. This B (Cu–Zn–Al–0.05B) 28 ± 0.01
suggests that nucleation and grain growth is influenced by C (Cu–Zn–Al–0.1B) 38 ± 0.06
the presence and concentration of B in the Cu–Zn–Al alloy. D (Cu–Zn–Al–0.05Fe) 29 ± 0.22
Similar grain morphologies are observed for the Fe modi- E (Cu–Zn–Al–0.1Fe) 28 ± 0.10
fied (Fig. 7) and the Fe–B modified Cu–Zn–Al alloys (Fig. 8). F (Cu–Zn–Al–0.05B–0.05Fe) 27 ± 1.23
G (Cu–Zn–Al–0.025B–0.075Fe) 26 ± 0.04
The change in the grain morphology observed on the Fe
140 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 7;6(2):136–146

Fig. 4 – Optical micrographs of (a) 0.05Fe–0.05Fe modified Fig. 6 – Back scattered electron images of (a) 0.05B modified
Cu–Zn–Al alloy and (b) −0.025Fe – 0.075B modified Cu–Zn–Al alloy and (b) 0.1B modified Cu–Zn–Al alloy.
Cu–Zn–Al alloy.

The micrographs suggest that although same cooling rate

was adopted for all alloy compositions produced, the nuclea-
It was also observed that grain size increase and substan-
tion and grain growth rates were altered by the presence of
tially modified grain edges (to near elliptical grain shape)
the micro-alloying elements. The increase in grain size char-
occurred with the addition of Fe–B as micro-alloying additions
acteristic of the Fe, B, and Fe–B modified Cu–Zn–Al alloys
in Cu–Zn–Al alloy. However, similar to the Fe micro-alloying
investigated differs from the observations made in similar
additions, the grain size increase was invariant to the Fe–B
studies [5,23,24] wherein additions of Fe and B were observed
concentrations used.
to cause grain refinement. Grain refinement observed in Cu-
based alloys has been attributed to changes in solidification
conditions of the material as a result of micro-alloying ele-
ments addition reducing the coarseness of the microstructure
[31,33]. The grain size increase observed in this study can be
related to results observed elsewhere. Some micro-alloying
elements such as Ti-B have been reported to delay nucleation
of certain phases while enhancing grain growth simulta-
neously [34]. The formation of martensite in the forward
transformation has been reported to be as a result of nuclea-
tion and grain growth in the parent phase; hence the rate of
nucleation influences the type and morphology of martensite
formed [35].

3.2. Analysis of X-ray diffraction

The X-ray diffraction analysis of selected alloy compositions

Fig. 5 – Back scattered electron images of the unmodified is presented in Fig. 9. Cu–Zn and Cu–Al were identified as the
Cu–Zn–Al alloy. crystalline phases present in the alloy. The Cu–Zn phase was
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 7;6(2):136–146 141

Fig. 7 – Back scattered electron images of (a) 0.05Fe modified Cu–Zn–Al alloy, (b) 0.1Fe modified Cu–Zn–Al alloy, and (c)
representative EDS profile of the 0.1Fe modified Cu–Zn–Al alloy.

determined to be fcc structure from analysing the pattern alloys modified with Fe–B had the highest hardness values in
of the diffracting crystal planes for the entire 2 diffraction comparison with other modified Cu–Zn–Al alloy compositions.
angles [36]. The Cu–Al phase was determined to have bcc The variation in hardness can be attributed to the variation
structure following similar basis. The predominance of Cu–Zn in grain size and morphology of the alloys as observed from
peaks in the alloys analysed was in agreement with EDS Figs. 1 to 8. The hardness trend is also observed to corre-
results (Fig. 7c), and XRD patterns of Cu–Zn–Al alloys reported late well with the transverse grain size determined for all the
in literature [37]. The crystalline phases identified are typical Cu–Zn–Al alloy grades produced. In this regards, the hardness
of Cu–Zn–Al alloys with shape memory capacity. Guerioune increase with decrease in the grain size determined (Table 2).
et al. [9] reported that the Cu–Zn phase in Cu–Zn–Al alloy is The fine lath martensite structure is principally responsible
a metastable phase which exhibits shape memory effect and for the high hardness of the unmodified alloys as indentation
the Cu–Al forms as a result of the affinity of Cu for Al. The resistance improves with finer grain size [25].
micro-alloying elements had no effect on the XRD peaks as
diffractions by the same crystal planes are observed to occur 3.3.2. Ultimate tensile strength
with the same intensity and diffraction angles (2). The ultimate tensile strength results of the unmodified and
modified Cu–Zn–Al alloys are presented in Fig. 11. The tensile
3.3. Mechanical behaviour of the Cu–Zn–Al alloys strength of the unmodified alloy is observed to be significantly
lower than that of the modified alloy grades. Tensile strength
3.3.1. Hardness increase within the range of 28.37–52.74% was observed with
The hardness values of the unmodified and modified the use of Fe, B and Fe–B as micro-alloying elements for the
Cu–Zn–Al alloys are presented in Fig. 10. It is observed that the Cu–Zn–Al alloy. The low tensile strength of the unmodified
hardness of the unmodified Cu–Zn–Al alloy is higher than that alloy is attributed to the fine lath martensite structure. The
of the modified alloys with reductions in hardness ranging edges of the needle like lath structure serve as sites for stress
between 32.4 and 51.5%. The modified Cu–Zn–Al alloy compo- concentration and triaxial stress state in the microstructure.
sitions, is observed to have a significant decrease in hardness Stress concentration and triaxial stress state constrains yield-
with increase in B concentration. However, the Fe modified ing of the material and facilitates micro-crack nucleation and
Cu–Zn–Al alloy grade had marginal increase in hardness with propagation which culminates in fracture even when the nom-
increase in Fe concentration. It is also noted that the Cu–Zn–Al inal applied stress on the material is relatively low [31]. The
142 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 7;6(2):136–146

where higher stress concentration occurs at the lath edges

(tips).

3.3.3. Percent elongation

The percent elongation of the Cu–Zn–Al alloys was observed
to increase with the addition of the micro-alloying ele-
ments (Fig. 12). This implies that the ductility of the alloys
improved with B, Fe, and Fe–B addition. The elongation
is also observed to be sensitive to the concentration of
the microelement as reduction in percentage elongation
occurred with increase in the concentration of the respec-
tive micro-alloying elements (B, Fe and Fe–B). The Fe and
Fe–B modified Cu–Zn–Al alloy compositions were observed
to have higher elongation values. The unmodified alloy
had the lowest elongation (6.7%) compared to 12.6% and
11.7% for 0.05Fe and 0.05Fe–0.05B modified alloys, respec-
tively. Improvement in ductility due to additions of Fe and
B to Cu–Zn–Al alloys has been reported by Alaneme [25]
and Ferreira et al. [23]. This improvement is an indicator of
improved plasticity and hence the workability of the Cu–Zn–Al
alloy.

3.3.4. Fracture toughness

The fracture toughness values of the unmodified and mod-
ified Cu–Zn–Al alloys are presented in Fig. 13. It is observed
that the fracture toughness of the Cu–Zn–Al alloy increased
within the range of 10–23% with the use of Fe, B, and Fe–B
as micro-alloying additions. The Fe modified Cu–Zn–Al alloy
compositions were observed to have the highest improvement
(∼23% increase) of all the modified Cu–Zn–Al alloys produced.
Fig. 8 – Back scattered electron images of (a) 0.05Fe–0.05B In essence, this implies that the resistance of Cu–Zn–Al alloys
modified Cu–Zn–Al alloy, and (b) 0.025Fe–0.075B modified to crack propagation is improved. The grain modification from
Cu–Zn–Al alloy. lath martensite (needle-like) grain edges to round/elliptical
grain edge morphology for the modified Cu–Zn–Al alloys is
responsible for the improved fracture toughness. The ellipti-
improved tensile strength in the modified compositions is as cal grain edge morphology helps reduce stress concentration
a result of the change in the grain morphology despite the which reduces tendency for crack nucleation and propagation
obvious increase in grain size. The round/elliptical grain edges [38].
reduces the tendency to act as stress concentrators, and thus
necessitate the application of a relatively higher stress to facil- 3.3.5. Fracture surface observation
itate yielding and increase maximum stress bearing capacity. Fig. 14 shows representative secondary electron images of
This implies that the stress applied to the modified alloy is the tensile fracture surfaces of the unmodified and modi-
more uniformly distributed in contrast to the unmodified alloy fied Cu–Zn–Al alloys investigated. The fracture features are

Fig. 9 – X-ray diffraction analysis of the unmodified alloy (A) and three modified alloy compositions (0.05B modified
Cu–Zn–Al alloy) (B), (0.05Fe modified Cu–Zn–Al
alloy) (D) and (0.05Fe–0.05B modified Cu–Zn–Al alloy) (F).
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 7;6(2):136–146 143

Fig. 10 – Hardness values of the unmodified and modified Cu–Zn–Al alloys.

Fig. 11 – Ultimate tensile strength of unmodified and modified Cu–Zn–Al alloys.

indicative of a fibrous micro-mechanism to crack initiation, the unmodified Cu–Zn–Al alloy, indicating mixed fracture
propagation and fracture characterised by the prevalence of modes. The fractographic features observed are in agree-
dimpled rupture particularly for the modified alloy composi- ment with fracture surface characteristics of Cu–Zn–Al alloys
tions (Fig. 14(b) and (c)). A combination of spherical dimples modified with micro-alloying elements reported by other
and grain facets were observed on the fracture surface of authors [24,33].

Fig. 12 – Percentage elongation of the unmodified and modified Cu–Zn–Al alloys.

144 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 7;6(2):136–146

Fig. 13 – Fracture toughness of the unmodified and modified Cu–Zn–Al alloys.

Fig. 14 – Representative secondary electron images of the tensile fracture surfaces of the Cu–Zn–Alloys (a) unmodified
Cu–Zn–Al alloy, (b) 0.05B modified Cu–Zn–Al alloy, and (c) 0.05Fe–0.05B modified Cu–Zn–Al alloy.

1. Needle-like lath martensite structure with sharp grain

4. Conclusion
edges observed for the unmodified Cu–Zn–Al alloy was
transformed to grains with significantly larger trans-
The microstructure, phase characteristics and mechanical
verse grain size and curve edged/near elliptical grain
behaviour of Cu–18Zn–6Al alloys containing two different
shape for the Fe, B, and Fe–B modified Cu–Zn–Al
weight percent each (0.05 wt.% and 0.1 wt.%) of Fe and B, and
alloys.
two other compositions which have mixtures of Fe and B
2. Cu–Zn with fcc structure was the predominant crystalline
(0.05 wt.% B and 0.05 wt.% Fe) (0.025 wt.% Fe and 0.075 wt.% B)
phase identified in the alloys while Cu–Al with bcc struc-
were investigated. The results show that:
ture was the second phase observed.
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 7;6(2):136–146 145

3. The crystalline phases identified are typical of Cu–Zn–Al [13] Asanovic V, Delijic K, Jaukovic N. A study of transformations
alloys with shape memory capacity. of ␤-phase in Cu–Zn–Al shape memory alloys. Scr Mater
4. The hardness of the unmodified Cu–Zn–Al alloy was higher 2008;58:599–601.
[14] Bujoreanu LG, Lohan NM, Pricop B, Cimpoesu N. Thermal
than that of the modified alloys with reductions in hard-
memory degradation in a Cu–Zn–Al shape memory alloy
ness ranging between 32.4 and 51.5%. during thermal cycling with free air cooling. J Mater Eng
5. The tensile strength of the unmodified Cu–Zn–Al alloy was Perform 2011;20(3):468–75.
significantly lower than that of the modified alloy grades. [15] Liu J, Huang H, Xie J. The roles of grain orientation and grain
The percent elongation and fracture toughness of the mod- boundary characteristics in the enhanced superelasticity of
ified alloy were higher than that of the unmodified alloy Cu71.8Al17.8Mn10.4 shape memory alloys. Mater Des
grade. 2014;64:427–33.
[16] Kumar P, Jaina K, Hussain S, Pandey A, Dasgupta R. Changes
6. The modified Cu–Zn–Al alloys mostly exhibited fracture
in the properties of Cu–Al–Mn shape memory alloy due to
features indicative of a fibrous micro-mechanism of crack quaternary addition of different elements. Rev Matér
initiation and propagation characterised by the prevalence 2015;20(1):284–92.
of dimpled rupture. [17] Wei W, Wang SL, Wei KX, Alexandrov IV, Du QB, Hu J.
Microstructure and tensile properties of Cu–Al alloys
processed by ECAP and rolling at cryogenic temperature. J
Alloys Compd 2016;678(5):506–10.
Conflicts of interest [18] Zhou S, Lv W, Li P, Gong Y, Tao J, Cheng L, et al. Mechanical
properties and deformation kinetics of bulk Cu–Al–Zn alloy
subjected to rolling and annealing. Mater Sci Eng A
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
2014;609(15):217–21.
[19] Gong YL, Ren SY, Zeng SD, Zhu XK. Unusual hardening
behaviour in heavily cryo-rolled Cu–Al–Zn alloys during
references annealing treatment. Mater Sci Eng A 2016;659(April):
165–71.
[20] Lanzini F, Romero R. Thermodynamics of atomic ordering in
Cu–Zn–Al: a Monte Carlo study. Comput Mater Sci
[1] Darjan C [Master thesis] Shape memory alloys. University of 2015;96(Part A):20–7.
Ljubljana; 2007. [21] Rocha Lima EP, Botelho de Araújo PC, de Quadros NF,
[2] Barbarino S, Saavedra F, Ajaj RM, Dayyani I, Friswell MI. A Sanguinetti Ferreira RA. Proceedings of 5th north-northeast
review on shape memory alloys with applications to congress of mechanical engineering. Fortaleza-CE; 1998.
morphing aircraft. Smart Mater Struct 2014;23:19. [22] Wang FT, Chen FX, Wei ZG, Yang DZ. The effect of
[3] Dar RD, Yan H, Chen Y. Grain boundary engineering of microelements on the grain refining and grain growth
Co–Ni–Al, Cu–Zn–Al, and Cu–Al–Ni shape memory alloys by behaviour of CuZnAl shape memory alloys. Scr Metall Mater
intergranular precipitation of a ductile solid solution phase. 1991;25:2565–70.
Scr Mater 2016;115:113–7. [23] Ferreira SR, Rocha LE, Quino FA, Quadros NF, Olimpio AO,
[4] Alaneme KK, Okotete EA. Reconciling viability and Yadava YP. Microstructural evolution in a CuZnAl shape
cost-effective shape memory alloy options – a review of memory alloy: kinetics and morphological aspects. Mater
copper and iron based shape memory metallic systems. Eng Res 2000;3(4):119–23.
Sci Technol Int J 2016;19:1582–92. [24] Alaneme KK, Sulaimon AA, Olubambi PA. Mechanical and
[5] Dasgupta R, Jain AK, Kumar P, Hussain S, Pandey A. Role of corrosion behaviour of iron modified Cu–Zn–Al alloys. Acta
alloying additions on the properties of Cu–Al–Mn shape Metall Slov 2013;19(4):292–301.
memory alloys. J Alloys Compd 2015;620:60–6. [25] Alaneme KK. Indentation resistance and corrosion behaviour
[6] Cladera A, Weber B, Leinenbach C, Czaderski C, Shahverdi M, of Fe–Mn modified Cu–Al alloys in selected industrial and
Motavalli M. Iron based shape memory alloys for civil biological fluids. Acta Metall Slov 2014;20(4):366–74.
engineering structures: an overview. Constr Build Mater [26] ASTM E18-16. Standard test methods for Rockwell hardness
2014;63:281–93. of metallic materials. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
[7] Evirgen A, Ma J, Karaman I, Luo ZP, Chumlyakov YI. Effect of International; 2016. http://www.astm.org.
aging on the superelastic response of a single crystalline [27] ASTM E8/E8M-15a. Standard test methods for tension testing
FeNiCoAlTa shape memory alloy. Scr Mater 2012;67:475–8. of metallic materials. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
[8] Gómez de Salazar JM, Soria A, BArrena MI. Corrosion International; 2015. http://www.astm.org.
behaviour of Cu-based shape memory alloys diffusion [28] Alaneme KK. Fracture toughness (K1C) evaluation for dual
bonded. J Alloys Compd 2005;387:109–14. phase medium carbon low alloy steels using circumferential
[9] Guerioune M, Amiour Y, Bounour W, Guellati O, Benaldjia A, notched tensile (CNT) specimens. Mater Res
Amara A, et al. SHS of shape memory CuZnAl alloys. Int J 2011;14(2):155–60.
Self Propag High Temp Synth 2008;17(1):41–8. [29] Dieter GE. Mechanical metallurgy. Singapore: McGraw-Hill;
[10] Amini R, Mousavizad SM, Abdollahpour H, Ghaffari M, 1988.
Alizadeh M, Okyay AK. Structural and microstructural phase [30] Nath SK, Das UK. Effect of microstructure and notches on
evolution during mechano-synthesis of the fracture toughness of medium carbon steel’. J Naval Arch
nanocrystalline/amorphous CuAlMn alloy powders. Adv Mar Eng 2006;3:15–22.
Powder Technol 2013;24:1048–53. [31] Xu JW. Effects of Gd addition on microstructure and shape
[11] Diánez MJ, Donoso E, Criado JM, Sayagués MJ, Díaz G, Olivares memory effect of Cu–Zn–Al alloy. J Alloys Compds
L. Study by DSC and HRTEM of the aging strengthening of 2008;448:331–5.
Cu–Ni–Zn–Al alloys. Mater Des 2016;92:184–8. [32] Dasgupta R. A look into Cu-based shape memory alloys:
[12] Zengin R, Kayal N. Structural and morphological present scenario and future prospects. J Mater Res
investigations on shape, memory CuZnAl alloys. Acta Phys 2014;29(16):1681–98.
Pol A 2010;118(4):619–22.
146 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 7;6(2):136–146

[33] Yang G, Lee J, Jang W. Effect of grain refinement on phase polycrystalline shape memory alloys. Thermochim Acta
transformation behavior and mechanical properties of 2006;448:69–72.
Cu-based alloy. Trans Nonferrous Met Soc China [36] Richard Brundle C, Evans Charles A Jr, Wilson S.
2009;19:979–83. Encyclopedia of materials characterization: surfaces,
[34] Furlani AM, Stipcich M, Romero R. Phase decomposition in a interfaces, thin films. USA: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1992.
Cu–Zn–Al–Ti–B shape memory alloy. Mater Sci Eng A [37] Barnes C. Shape memory and superelastic alloys. In: Copper
2005;392:386–93. applications in innovation technology; 1999.
[35] Wang ZG, Zu XT, Yu HJ, He X, Peng C, Huo Y. Temperature [38] Dowling NE. Mechanical behaviour of materials. 4th ed.
memory effect in CuAlNi single crystalline and CuZnAl Prentice Hall; 2012.