Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A

, Volume 34, Issue 11, pp 2527–2539 | Cite as

The effect of severe marforming on shape memory characteristics of a Ti-rich NiTi alloy processed using equal channel angular extrusion

  • I. Karaman
  • H. Ersin Karaca
  • Z. P. Luo
  • H. J. Maier
Article

Abstract

A Ti-49.8 at. pct Ni alloy was severely deformed at three different temperatures using equal-channel angular extrusion (ECAE). Three deformation temperatures—room temperature (below the martensite finish temperature), 50 °C (below the austenite start temperature), and 150 °C (above the austenite finish temperature)—were selected such that the initial deforming phase (B2 austenite or B19’ martensite) and the initial governing deformation mechanism (martensite reorientation, stress-induced martensitic transformation, or dislocation slip in martensite) would be different. The X-ray analysis results revealed that all processed samples mostly contained a deformed martensitic phase, regardless of the initial deforming phase and the deformation mechanism. Although the martensite start temperature did not change, the austenite start temperature decreased significantly in all deformation conditions, probably because of the effect of the internal stress field caused by the deformed microstructure. All deformation conditions led to an increase in the strength levels and some deterioration of shape-memory characteristics. However, a subsequent low-temperature annealing treatment significantly improved pseudoelastic strain levels while preserving the ultrahigh strength levels. The sample deformed at room temperature followed by the low-temperature annealing resulted in the most promising strength and shape-memory characteristics under compression, such that a 5.3 pct shape-memory strain at a 2200 MPa strength level and a 3.3 pct pseudoelastic strain at a 1900 MPa strength level were achieved. The differences between the strength levels and the shape-memory characteristics after severe deformation at different temperatures were attributed to the different amounts of plastic deformation and the resulting deformation textures, since at each deformation temperature the deformation mechanism was different. It is concluded that the severe marforming using ECAE could easily improve strength levels of NiTi alloys while preserving the shape-memory and pseudoelasticity (PE) characteristics and, thus, improve the thermomechanical fatigue behavior. However, lower deformation temperatures are necessary to hinder formation of macroshear bands, and ECAE angles larger than 90 deg should be used to reduce the amount of strain applied in one pass.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    K. Otsuka and C.M. Wayman: Shape Memory Materials, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Wurzel: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 1999, vols. 273–275, p. 634.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Hornbogen, V. Mertinger, and D. Wurzel: Scripta Mater., 2001, vol. 44, p. 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D.A. Miller and D.C. Lagoudas: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2001, vol. 308, p. 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Hornbogen: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 1999, vols. 273–275, p. 630.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.C. Ewert, I. Bohm, R. Peter, and F. Haider: Acta Mater., 1997, vol. 45, p. 2197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Y. Liu: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 1999, vols. 273–275, p. 668.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H.C. Lin and S.K. Wu: Acta Metall. Mater., 1994, vol. 42, p. 1623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Y. Liu and D. Favier: Acta Mater., 2000, vol. 48, p. 3489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Nakayama, K. Tsuchiya, Z.G. Liu, M. Umemoto, K. Morii, and T. Shimizu: Mater. Trans. JIM, 2001, vol. 42, p. 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Y. Liu and S.P. Galvin: Acta Mater., 1997, vol. 45, p. 4431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Nakayama, K. Tsuchiya, and M. Umemoto: Scripta Mater., 2001, vol. 44, p. 1781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. Hornbogen: J. Mater. Sci., 1999, vol. 34, p. 599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    H.C. Lin, S.K. Wu, T.S. Chou, and H.P. Kao: Acta Metall. Mater., 1991, vol. 39, p. 2069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    L.M. Schetky: Robotics Age, 1984, vol. 14, p. 13.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C.M. Wayman: in Phase Transformations, Physical Metallurgy, R.W. Cahn and O. Haasen, eds., Elsevier, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    B.J. deBlonk and D.C. Lagoudas: Smart Mater. Struct., 1998, vol. 7, p. 771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    R.Z. Valiev, R.K. Islamgaliev, and I.V. Alexandrov: Prog. Mater. Sci., 2000, vol. 45, p. 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    L.R. Cornwell, K.T. Hartwig, R.E. Goforth, and S.L. Semiatin: Mater. Characterization, 1997, vol. 38, p. 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Robertson, J.-T. Im, I. Karaman, K.T. Hartwig, and I.E. Anderson: J. Non-Crystalline Solids, 2003, vol. 317, pp. 144–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. Sitepu, W.W. Schmahl, J.K. Allafi, G. Eggeler, A. Dlouhy, D.M. Toebbens, and M. Tovar: Scripta Mater., 2002, vol. 46, p. 543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    H.F. Lopez: Mater. Lett., 2001, vol. 51, p. 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    A.A. Bulbich and P. Toledano: Phys. Rev. Lett., 1998, vol. 81, p. 838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Y.F. Zheng, J.X. Xhang, L.C. Zhao, and H.Q. Ye: Mater. Lett., 1999, vol. 41, p. 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. Piao, K. Otsuka, S. Miyazaki, and H. Horikawa: Mater. Trans. JIM, 1993, vol. 34, p. 919.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Y. Liu and G.S. Tan: Intermetallics, 2000, vol. 8, p. 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    H. Sehitoglu, I. Karaman, R. Anderson, X.Y. Zhang, K. Gall, H.J. Maier, and Y.I. Chumlyakov: Acta Mater., 2000, vol. 48, p. 3311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    F. Khelfaoui, G. Thollet, and G. Guenin: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2002, vol. 338, p. 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    H. Sehitoglu, J. Jun, X. Zhang, I. Karaman, Y. Chumlyakov, H.J. Maier, and K. Gall: Acta Mater., 2001, vol. 49, p. 3609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    K. Gall, T.J. Lim, D.L. McDowell, H. Sehitoglu, and Y.I. Chumlyakov: Int. J. Plast., 2000, vol. 16, p. 1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    V.M. Segal: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 1999, vol. 271, p. 322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    H.J. Bunge, Y. Perlovich, M. Isaenkova, V. Fesenko, and R. Rustamov: Text. Microstr., 1998, vol. 31, p. 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Y. Perlovich, H.J. Bunge, M. Isaenkova, and V. Fesenko: Mater. Sci. Forum, 2002, vols. 408 (4), p. 1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    T.H. Nam, T. Saburi, Y. Nakata, and K. Shimizu: Mater. Trans. JIM, 1990, vol. 31, p. 1050.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    K. Otsuka, T. Sawamura, and K. Shimizu: Phys. Sta. Sol. (a), 1971, vol. 5, p. 457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International & TMS-The Minerals, Metals and Materials Society 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Karaman
    • 1
  • H. Ersin Karaca
    • 1
  • Z. P. Luo
    • 2
  • H. J. Maier
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station
  2. 2.Microscopy and Imaging CenterTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station
  3. 3.Lehrstuhl f. WerkstoffkundeUniversity of PaderbornPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations