4.7 Article

On the fatigue life enhancement due to periodic healing of a NiTi shape memory alloy

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2021.141272

关键词

Shape memory alloy; Martensite; Austenite; Infrared thermography; Fatigue

资金

  1. Agency for Science, Technology, and Research (A*STAR) via the Structural Metals and Alloys Programme [A18B1b0061]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrates that periodic "healing" treatment during fatigue testing of shape memory alloys can effectively extend the fatigue life of the alloy, with 20% of the life elapsed being the optimal treatment time point. Different timing of healing treatment affects the effectiveness of improving fatigue life, indicating irreversible damage has already occurred.
Fatigue failure in NiTi based shape memory alloys (SMAs) that are in the austenitic state is accelerated by the progressive accumulation of stress-induced martensite (SIM) under cyclic loading, even when the maximum stress of the fatigue cycle is well below that required for stress-induced martensitic transformation. Wagner et al. (2008) [1] have shown that periodic annealing of the fatigued specimens at temperatures well above the austenitic finish temperature, which they termed as 'healing', can enhance the fatigue life of the SMAs that are cyclically loaded in the austenitic state. In this paper, the optimum interval at which healing must be performed is investigated. Experimental results show that considerable improvement in the total life of the SMA component can be realized if the fatigued specimens are healed periodically right after 20% of their service life has lapsed. Healing later (at 40% and 60% of the fatigue life) does not lead to any significant improvement, indicating that irreversible damage has already set in. Real-time infrared thermography technique was used to study the thermal signatures during tensile and fatigue testing. Results show that it is possible to monitor the formation of SIM during cyclic loading using thermography.

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