Advertisement

What about the Yield Transformation Surface Determination (Austenite → Martensite) with The Measurement of Austenite and Martensite Lattice Parameters for some Shape Memory Alloys?

  • C. Lexcellent
  • P. Blanc
  • C. Bouvet
Conference paper
Part of the Solid Mechanics and Its Applications book series (SMIA, volume 114)

Abstract

Like in the plasticity theory, the prediction of phase transformation yield surfaces constitutes a key point in the modeling of polycrystalline shape memory alloys thermomechanical behavior. Generally in some micro-macro integration, the nature of the interface between austenite and twinned or untwinned martensite under stress free state and the choice of correspondance variants (CV) or habit plane variant (HPV) are determining for the explicit expression of the yield criterion. If the prediction of some copper-based alloys (interface between austenite and one single variant of martensite) and the Cu-Al-Ni for cubic to orthorhombic phase transformation (interface between austenite and twinned martensite) is fairly good, the prediction is not efficient for the important case of Ti-Ni (interface between austenite and twinned martensite with stress free state). The usual hypothesis consisting in neglecting the effect of stress on the interface geometrical configuration must be revisited.

Key words

shape memory alloys phase transformation interface yield surface 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    K.F. Hane, T.W. Shield, “Microstructure in the cubic to monoclinic transition in Titanium-Nickel shape memory alloys”, Acta Mater., 47, 9, pp. 2603–2617,1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    M.S. Wechsler, D.S. Lieberman and T.A. Read, “On the theory of the formation of martensite”, Trans. AIME 197, pp. 1503–1515,1953.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    J.M. Ball and R.D. James, “Fine phase mixtures as minimizers of energy”, Archs Ration Mech. Analysis, 100, pp. 13–50, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    J.M. Ball and R.D. James, “Proposed experimental tests of a theory of fine microstructure, and the two-well problem”, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond A, 338–389,1992.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    K. Bhattacharya, “Wedge-like microstructures in martensite”, Acta Metall. ater., 39 (10), pp. 2431–2444, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    K.F. Hane, “Bulk and thin film microstructures in untwinned martensite”, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 47, pp. 1917–1939, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    H. Funakubo (Ed.), “Shape Memory Alloys”, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    T.W. Shield, “Orientation dependence of the pseudoelastic behavior of single crystals of Cu-Al-Ni in tension”, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 43, pp. 869–895, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    J. Ball, C. Chu and R.D. James, “Hysteresis during stress-induced variant rearrangement”, J. de Physique IV, C8:245–251, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    S. Stupkiewicz, H. Petryk, “Modelling of laminated microstructures in stress-induced martensite transformations”, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, Vol 50, pp. 2329–2357,2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    R. D. James and K. F. Hane, “Martensitic transformations and shape memory materials”, Acta mater., 48, pp. 197–222, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    C. Lexcellent, A. Vivet, C. Bouvet, S. Calloch and P. Blanc, “Experimental and numerical determination of the initial surface of phase transformation under biaxial loading in some polycrystalline shape memory alloys”, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, vol 50, pp 2717–2735, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    K. Otsuka, K. Shimizu, “Morphology and crystallography of thermoelastic Cu-Al-Ni martensite analyzed by the phenomenological theory”, Trans. J.I.M., 15, pp. 103–108,1975.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    B. Raniecki, K. Tanaka, A. Ziolkowski, “Testing and modeling of Ni-Ti SMA at complex state Selected results of Polish-Japanese Research Cooperation”, Material Science Research International Special Technical Publication, 2, pp. 327–334, 2001.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Gillet Y., Patoor E. and M. Berveiller, “Calculation of pseudoelastic elements using a nonsymetrical thermomechanical transformation criterion and associated rule”, Journal of intelligent material systems and structures, 9, 366–378,1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    B. Raniecki and Ch. Lexcellent, “Thermodynamics of isotropic pseudoelasticity in shape memory alloys”, Eur. J. Mech., A/Solids, 17, n° 2,185–205, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    L. Orgeas, D. Favier, “Stress-induced martensitic transformation of a Ni-Ti alloy in isothermal shear, tension and compression”, Acta Materialia, 46 (15), pp. 5579–5591, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    E. Patoor, C. Niclaeys, S. Arbab Chirani and T. Ben Zineb, “Influence of microstructural parameters on shape memory alloys behavior”, IUTAM Symposium on Mechanics of Martensite Phase Transformation in Solids, pp. 131–138, Q.P. Sun (Ed.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Lexcellent
    • 1
  • P. Blanc
    • 1
  • C. Bouvet
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Mécanique Appliquée R. Chaléat, UMR 6604CNRS-Université de Franche-ComtéBesançonFrance

Personalised recommendations