4.7 Article

A comparative study of a NiTi alloy subjected to uniaxial monotonic and cyclic loading-unloading in tension using digital image correlation: The grain size effect

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALLOYS AND COMPOUNDS
卷 777, 期 -, 页码 723-735

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2018.11.050

关键词

NiTi; Shape memory alloys; Digital image correlation; Martensite; Electron back-scattering diffraction; Grain size effect

资金

  1. Australian Research Council Discovery Project [DP130101883]
  2. ARC Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities grant [LE0882613]
  3. China Scholarship Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present digital image correlation study characterised the local axial and shear strain fields of a 56Ni-44Ti wt.% shape memory alloy with an average grain size of 100 mu m, under uniaxial monotonic and cyclic loading-unloading in tension. To elucidate the grain size effect, the results were compared with a previous investigation of the same alloy with an average grain size of 10 mu m. The maximum local axial strain rate signified the direction and extent of the localised transformation. The widened single inclined transformation band and multiple criss-crossing patterns assist in straightening the sample edge by releasing an in-plane moment instigated by local shear strains. Electron back-scattering diffraction analyses showed that the plastic strain within the B2 grains and the remnant B19' variants account for the residual strains after unloading. Smaller grain sizes correspond to greater constraint from grain boundaries, higher interfacial energy and higher elastic strain energy barrier for transformation, and smaller intragranular heterogeneity of plastic deformation. This is reflected in the increases to the transformation start stress, stress level and stress-strain slope within the macroscopic stress plateau region and smaller complete transformation strain, super-elastic and residual strains upon unloading. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据