A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
What about the Yield Transformation Surface Determination (Austenite → Martensite) with The Measurement of Austenite and Martensite Lattice Parameters for some Shape Memory Alloys?
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.
What about the Yield Transformation Surface Determination (Austenite → Martensite) with The Measurement of Austenite and Martensite Lattice Parameters for some Shape Memory Alloys?
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.
What about the Yield Transformation Surface Determination (Austenite → Martensite) with The Measurement of Austenite and Martensite Lattice Parameters for some Shape Memory Alloys?
Lexcellent, C. (author) / Blanc, P. (author) / Bouvet, C. (author)
2004-01-01
8 pages
Article/Chapter (Book)
Electronic Resource
English
Stress-induced martensite to austenite phase transformation in Ni2MnGa magnetic shape memory alloys
| British Library Online Contents | 2012
Martensite transformation in bulk and polycrystalline austenite
| British Library Online Contents | 2014
Magnetic Emission During Austenite-Martensite Transformation in Ni~2MnGa Shape Memory Alloy
| British Library Online Contents | 2006
Structural Vibration Control of Shape Memory Alloy in Martensite-Austenite Coexisting
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2013
Nanostructured martensite-austenite dual phase steels
| British Library Online Contents | 2012