Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T13:46:54.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thermoelastic Martensitic Transformations and the Nature of the Shape Memory Effect

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2011

C. M. Wayman
C. M. Wayman*
Affiliation:
Department of Metallurgy and Mining Engineering and Materials Research Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Urbana, Illinois 61801
Get access

Abstract

Investigations of the shape memory effect in alloys forming thermoelastic martensites with various crystal structures (2H, 3R, 9R and 18R) reveal that universal behavior exists. A unified explanation of the martensite deformation processes and subsequent shape recovery is now in hand, even though the various martensites are both internally twinned and internally faulted and, in addition, have different crystal structures. In cases studied to date, an initial parent phase single crystal transforms into self-accommodating arrangements of martensite variants (plates) which are characterized by “plate groups.” Each group consists of four variants. The average shape deformation in a plate group is essentially zero.

Upon stressing below the Mf temperature the martensite undergoes deformation by detwinning (2H and 3R only), variant-variant coalescence and twinning processes, and further group-to-group coalescence. The deformed specimen eventually becomes a single crystal of martensite consisting of that particular habit plane variant whose shape deformation permits maximum extension in the direction of the applied stress. The deformed martensite persists after unloading has occurred; reverse rearrangements of twins and variants do not occur. Specimens deformed below Mf regain their initial shape characteristic of the initial parent phase upon heating from As to Af, during which the single crystal of martensite obtained by stressing the 24-variant configuration transforms back to the original parent phase single crystal in a unique manner, which is basically a simple “unshearing” process. The unshearing is the essence of the memory.

The two-way shape memory effect results after the initial martensitic transformation upon cooling is preprogrammed by the introduction of stresses which preferentially bias the transformation so that only a single variant of martensite forms upon cooling. The shape change of this single variant causes the characteristic spontaneous “bending” upon cooling. The characteristic “unbending upon heating is as with the conventional “one-way” shape memory effect.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 21: Symposium GREECE – Phase Transformations in Solids , 1983 , 657
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Jackson, C. M., Wagner, H. J., and Wasilewski, R. J., NASA Report SP-5100 (1972).Google Scholar
2. Shimizu, K. and Wayman, C. M., Metal Science Journal 6, 175 (1972).Google Scholar
3. Delaey, L., Krishnan, R. V., Tas, H., and Warlimont, H., J. Mat. Sci. 9, 1521, 1536, 1545 (1974).Google Scholar
4. Perkins, J. (ed.), Shape Memory Effects in Alloys (Plenum Press, New York 1976).Google Scholar
5. Raychem Corporation, Menlo Park, CA, Advertising Brochures ME-002 and ME-008, and other leaflets.Google Scholar
6. Schetky, L. M., Proc. Intl. Conf. on Martensitic Transformations, ICOMAT-79 Cambridge, MA 693 (June 24–29, 1979).Google Scholar
7. Foxboro Company Foxboro, MA, Technical Information Sheet TI 220–160 (December 1973).Google Scholar
8. Buehler, W. J. and Cross, W. B., Wire Journal 2, 41 (1969).Google Scholar
9. Tong, H. C. and Wayman, C. M., Met. Trans. 6A, 29 (1975).Google Scholar
10. Sawyer, P. N., Page, M., Baseliust, L., McCool, C., Lester, E., Stanczewski, B., Srinivasan, S., and Ramasamy, N., Bull. of Texas Heart Inst. 3, No 1, 65 (1976).Google Scholar
11. Simon, N., Kaplow, R., Salzman., E. and Freiman, D., Radiology 125, No. 1, 89 (1977).Google Scholar
12. Netsu., N. Iwabuchi, T. and Honma, T., Bull. Res. Inst. of Mineral Dressing and Metallurgy, Tohoku University 34 (1978), 62 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
13. Schmerling, M. A. Wilkov, M. A., Sanders, A. E., and Woosley, J. E. in: Shape Memory Effects in Alloys (Plenum Press, New York 1975), p. 563.Google Scholar
14. Hughes, J., Orthopedics Department, University of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, private communication (1979).Google Scholar
15. Andreasen, G. F. and Morros., R. E. American Journal of Orthodontics 73, No.2, 142 (1978).Google Scholar
16. Unitek Corporation, Monrovia, CA, Nitinol “Activ-Arch,” Brochure 16–373 (1979).Google Scholar
17. Schroeder, T. A., Cornelis, I., and Wayman, C. M., Met. Trans. 7A, 535 (1976).Google Scholar
18. Schroeder, T. A. and Wayman, C. M., Acta Met 25, 1375 (1977).Google Scholar
19. Delaey, L. and Warlimont, H., Progress in Matls. Sci. Vol. 18 (Pergamon Press, Oxford 1974).Google Scholar
20. Saburi, T. and Wayman, C. M., Acta Met. 27, 979 (1979).Google Scholar
21. Saburi, T., Wayman, C. M., Takata, T. and Nenno, S., Acta Met. 28, 15 (1980).Google Scholar
22. Saburi, T. and Wayman, C. M., Acta Met. 28, 1 (1980).Google Scholar
23. Otsuka, K. and Shimizu, K., Trans. JIM 15, 109 (1974).Google Scholar
24. Otsuka, K. and Shimizu, K., Scripta Met. 11, 757 (1977).Google Scholar
25. Schroeder, T. A. and Wayman, C. M., Scripta Met. 11, 225 (1977).Google Scholar