JMEPEG (2014) 23:2403–2411 ASM International

DOI: 10.1007/s11665-014-0945-4 1059-9495/$19.00

Effects of Loading and Constraining Conditions

on the Thermomechanical Fatigue Life of NiTi Shape
Memory Wires
G. Scirè Mammano and E. Dragoni

(Submitted September 28, 2013; in revised form February 24, 2014; published online March 25, 2014)

The availability of engineering strength data on shape memory alloys (SMAs) under cyclic thermal acti-
vation (thermomechanical fatigue) is central to the rational design of smart actuators based on these
materials. Test results on SMAs under thermomechanical fatigue are scarce in the technical literature, and
even the few data that are available are mainly limited to constant-stress loading. Since the SMA elements
used within actuators are normally biased by elastic springs or by antagonist SMA elements, their stress
states are far from being constant in operation. The mismatch between actual working conditions and
laboratory settings leads to suboptimal designs and undermines the prediction of the actuator lifetime. This
paper aims at bridging the gap between experiment and reality by completing an experimental campaign
involving four fatigue test conditions, which cover most of the typical situations occurring in practice:
constant stress, constant-strain, constant stress with limited maximum strain, and linear stress-strain
variation with limited maximum strain. The results from the first three test settings, recovered from the
previously published works, are critically reviewed and compared with the outcome of the newly performed
tests under the fourth arrangement (linear stress-strain variation). General design recommendations
emerging from the experimental data are put forward for engineering use.

Keywords constant strain, constant stress, limited maximum Nomenclature

strain, linear stress-strain variation, SMA wires,
thermomechanical fatigue Af Austenite finish temperature Æ
As Austenite start temperature Æ
c Empirical constants in Coffin-Manson equation Æ
kb Spring rate of the backup spring in the test with linear stress-
strain variation Æ
1. Introduction Mf Martensite finish temperature Æ
Ms Martensite start temperature Æ
Shape memory alloys (SMAs) are increasingly employed to Nf Number of cycles to failure Æ
build solid-state actuators, characterized by sleek design and SME Shape memory effect ( ” De = eM eA) Æ
outstanding power density. For the rational design of shape S0 Initial stress level in the JSME fatigue test method Æ
memory actuators, a thorough knowledge of the fatigue e Wire strain Æ
behaviour of the alloy is needed (Ref 1-3). Since the actuation ea Amplitude of total strain cycle Æ
is always provided by thermal activation of the alloy, the eA Wire strain in the austenitic state Æ
fatigue incurred by the material is called ‘‘thermomechanical,’’ elim Maximum wire strain in the constant-stress test and in linear
implying that the material performs mechanical work against stress-strain cycle with limited maximum strain Æ
the external applied load when heated during the actuation eM Wire strain in the martensitic state Æ
cycle. The thermomechanical cycling can affect both the emax Maximum wire strain recorded in the cycle ( ” eM) Æ
structural performance of the alloy (fatigue fracture) and its emin Minimum wire strain recorded in the cycle ( ” eA) Æ
functional response (loss of strain recovery, elongation drift). De Shape memory effect ( ” SME = eM eA) Æ
Although the purely mechanical fatigue (i.e., at constant r Nominal stress applied to the wire Æ
temperature) of SMAs is well established in the technical r¢f Fatigue strength coefficient in Coffin-Manson equation Æ
rmax Maximum wire stress recorded in the cycle Æ
rp Pre-stress in the wire under the maximum strain in the linear
stress-strain cycle Æ
This article is an invited paper selected from presentations at the rw Fatigue limit
International Conference on Shape Memory and Superelastic
Technologies 2013, held May 20-24, 2013, in Prague, Czech
Republic, and has been expanded from the original presentation.
G. Scirè Mammano and E. Dragoni, Department of Engineering literature (Ref 4), only scanty data exist on the response of these
Sciences and Methods, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, materials to thermomechanical fatigue. Furthermore, the few
Reggio Emilia, Italy. Contact e-mail: eugenio.dragoni@unimore.it. papers available on thermomechanical fatigue of SMAs are

Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance Volume 23(7) July 2014—2403

limited to the constant-stress loading condition and cover a very
limited number of cycles (Ref 5-7).
Test methods different from the constant-stress concept were
carried out in (Ref 8) and (Ref 9). Mertmann et al. (Ref 8)
investigated the stability of the shape memory effect (SME)
under constant-strain conditions. They observed that memory
effect is quickly lost under these conditions accompanied by a
general elongation of the specimen. Demers et al. (Ref 9) tested
the thermomechanical fatigue of a NiTi alloy after various
thermal training processes based on three steps: ‘‘stress-free
shape recovery,’’ ‘‘constrained recovery’’ (constant-strain), and
‘‘constant-stress recovery’’ (assisted-two-way-shape-memory-
effect).
The authors have lately started a systematic test campaign
on SMA wires undergoing realistic thermomechanical fatigue
cycles (Ref 10, 11). A specific testing machine has been
designed and built to implement a variety of loading conditions
likely to be encountered in practice. Test results have been
published for three loading and constraining conditions:
constant stress, constant-strain, and constant-stress cycle with
limited maximum strain (Ref 10, 11). This paper reviews those
results and presents the results from a new experimental set-up
to test SMA wires under a linear variation of stress and strain. Fig. 1 Specific tests proposed to characterize the SMA wires under
Experimental data obtained by cycling the wire against two thermomechanical fatigue: (a) constant stress; (b) constant strain; (c)
different elastic springs (one with low stiffness and the other constant stress with limited maximum strain; and (d) linear stress-
with high stiffness) are discussed and compared with the strain cycle
outcomes of the previous tests.

constant force, works between hard stops. Given the material,

2. Materials and Methods
2.1 Characteristic Stress-Strain Tests
A typical shape memory actuator comprises an active SMA
element (e.g., a wire) and a backup element (e.g., a spring) used
to restore the reference position when the SMA element is
deactivated. The particular load acting on the active element
strongly depends on the backup element and on the external
load applied to the actuator. Figure 1 illustrates four test
conditions in which the stress and the strain in the SMA
element vary along specific paths representative of what can
occur in operation.
Figure 1(a) describes the classical constant-stress test, in
which the SMA element undergoes variable strains under a
prescribed stress, provided, for example, by an applied constant
load. This test reproduces the situation occurring in an actuator
backed up by a constant force and operated slowly (i.e., with no
inertial effects) under no external load (such as in positioning
devices). Given the material, this test is fully defined by the
stress applied to the SMA element.
Figure 1(b) describes the constant-strain test, in which the
SMA element undergoes variable stresses under prescribed
strain, provided, for example, by rigid restraints fixing the ends
of the sample. This test reproduces the situation in which the
actuator is operated in a locked position, or when the SMA
element is heated up very fast against external loads with
significant inertia. Given the material, this test is fully defined
by the strain imposed to the SMA element.
Figure 1(c) describes a constant-stress test with limited
maximum strain, in which the SMA element undergoes variable
strains under prescribed stress, but the maximum strain
achievable is limited by an external restraint. This test
reproduces the situation in which an actuator, backed up by a
this test is fully defined by two parameters: the applied stress
and the maximum strain.
Figure 1(d) describes a cyclic-stress test, in which the SMA
element undergoes a linear variation of stress and strain, with
the stress level increasing during strain recovery and the
maximum strain limited by an external restraint. This test
reproduces the situation in which the SMA element of an
actuator is backed up by a spring (or another SMA element)
and works between hard stops. Given the material, this test is
defined by three parameters: the stress-strain slope, the
maximum strain, and the initial stress at the maximum strain.
2.2 Properties of the Tested Shape Memory Alloy
With the aim of gathering fatigue data on shape memory
materials readily available to the designer, the NiTi wire,
Smartflex 150 marketed by SAES Getters, was tested in the
experimental campaign. The wire has a diameter of 0.150 mm,
a Ni content of 54% by weight, and the following transforma-
tion temperatures: As = 86 C, Af = 94 C, Ms = 65 C, and
Mf = 57 C. The entire experimental campaign described
below has been covered using two different batches of the
wire with the above properties. One batch was used to perform
the tests under constant stress, constant strain, constant stress
with limited maximum strain, and the linear stress-strain
variation with the highest slope (35 MPa per unit percent
strain). The second batch was used to carry out the tests with
linear stress-strain variation with the lowest slope (15 MPa per
unit percent strain). The strain-temperature diagram provided
by the manufacturer for both batches is shown in Fig. 2. The
stress-strain diagram measured on the second batch is reported
in Fig. 3 for the wires in martensitic and austenitic states. The
stress-strain tensile properties from Fig. 3 are very close to
those of the first batch presented in (Ref 10).

2404—Volume 23(7) July 2014 Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance

Fig. 2 Strain-temperature curves for the NiTi wire under examina-
tion (courtesy of SAES Getters)
Fig. 3 Quasi-static stress-strain curve for the NiTi wire under
examination
2.3 Experimental Equipment
The custom-built test machine used to apply the stress-strain
conditions of Fig. 1 is described in detail in (Ref 10). Basically,
the machine comprises a primary C-shaped aluminum chassis
to which a secondary plastic frame is attached. The upper part
of the plastic frame holds the primary load cell to which one
end of the SMA wire under test is attached through a rigid
clamp. According to the test to be performed, the lower end of
the SMA wire was loaded or constrained as shown in Fig. 4.
Heating of the wire was provided by electric current supplied
by an electronic power board. The supplied current and the
signals from the sensors (load cell and displacement transducer)
were picked up, processed, and controlled by a DAQ board
(National Instruments USB 6251). The operating parameters
were displayed on a custom-built graphical user interface
developed in LabView, and the sensors signals were stored
continuously on disk.
In the configuration as shown in detail in Fig. 4(a), with a
loading basket appended to the wire, the machine performs the
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
Fig. 4 Details of the apparatus used to apply the four test condi-
tions of Fig. 1: (a) constant stress; (b) constant strain; (c) constant
stress with limited maximum strain; and (d) linear stress-strain cycle
constant-stress test of Fig. 1(a). By removing the basket and
locking the bottom end of the terminal rod as in Fig. 4(b), the
constant-strain test condition of Fig. 1(b) is achieved. By
placing a polymer spacer on top of the displacement sensor to
function as a hard stop for the loading basket (Fig. 4c), the test
condition in Fig. 1(c) (constant stress with limited maximum
strain) is performed.
The implementation of the test condition ‘‘linear stress-
strain cycle’’ (Fig. 1d) is shown in Fig. 4(d). A conventional
compression spring, mounted between the frame and an
adjusting nut on the sliding rod, provides the backup force
on the wire according to a linear stress-strain variation. The
spring rate of the spring controls the slope of the stress-strain
path. The equipment accepts springs with internal diameters
from 6 mm and free lengths up to 60 mm. The limit maximum
strain is adjustable by a flange nut which functions as a hard
stop for the rod. Another nut provides the desired preload of
the spring. The exact preload of the spring is verified by the
instrumented aluminum plate, which functions as a secondary
load cell.
Volume 23(7) July 2014—2405
2.4 Tests Under ‘‘Constant stress’’ and ‘‘Constant stress
with Limited Max Strain’’
For the tests in constant stress (both free and with limited
maximum strain), the wire coupons were cut from the coil, and
electrical-type ferrules (http://www.partex.co.uk/cefs.html) were
crimped to both ends giving a net test length of 100 mm. Each
wire was loaded by filling the basket with lead beads until the
desired stress in the wire (read by the primary load cell) was
achieved. The heating of the wire was provided by sinusoidal
current oscillating from zero to a peak value capable of producing
the full transformation of the alloy under the cooling conditions
adopted. The maximum achievable frequency was limited by the
need to avoid significant force ripples in the wire due to the inertia
of the moving basket and the need to achieve full transformation
of the alloy (M fi A, A fi M). The maximum strain rate
measured during the constant-stress tests ranged between 0.150
and 0.300 s 1 during activation, and between 0.065 and
0.150 s 1 during relaxation. The tests were terminated auto-
matically at fracture of the SMA wire (which produced a sudden
interruption of the current flowing in the sample) or when the
sample survived a prescribed number of cycles (5 9 105).
The constant-stress tests with limited maximum strain were
carried out for two levels of limit strain: elim = 3, 4%. Further
information on the testing procedure is available from (Ref 11).
2.5 Tests Under ‘‘Constant strain’’
The constant-strain tests were performed on wire lengths of
100 mm cut from the same coil as that used for the constant-
stress tests and mounted on the machine using the same end-
crimping technique. The prescribed strain (read by the position
transducer in Fig. 4) was applied to the wire by lowering the
restraining cross-head in Fig. 4(b). The heating of the wire was
provided by sinusoidal current oscillating from zero to a peak
value capable of producing the full transformation of the alloy
under the cooling conditions adopted. The test was terminated
automatically at fracture of the SMA wire (no current flowing in
the sample), or when a prescribed number of cycles (5 9 105)
Fig. 5 Woehlers diagram with the fatigue results for the constant-stress tests, and the tests at constant stress with limited maximum strains
(3 and 4%)
2406—Volume 23(7) July 2014
was endured with no failure. The experimental plan adopted in
the test campaign included five strain levels (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5%)
with three samples per level. Further details on the testing
procedure are available from (Ref 11).
2.6 Tests Under ‘‘Linear Stress-Strain Variation’’
Using the set-up in Fig. 4(d), the tests under linear stress-strain
variations were carried out by choosing the following three
characteristic parameters for each test: the stress-strain slope
(controlled by the spring rate of the backup spring), the limits of
maximum strain (3 and 4% were the selected values). and the pre-
stress in the wire before start (controlled by the spring preload). The
stress-strain slope and the limit of maximum strain remained
constant for an entire test run, with each run involving a set of single
tests performed for different pre-stresses. The pre-stress in the wire
was used as control variable much in the same way as the stress
level in the constant-stress tests, or the strain level in the constant-
strain tests described above. This is not only the way to perform the
tests under linear stress-strain variations but it is also by far the
simplest choice from an experimental point of view and the most
realistic from a practical standpoint. Experimentally, this procedure
allowed the entire set of results for the given maximum strain and
given stress-strain slope (single backup spring) to be easily
collected and readily elaborated with standard statistical methods
(see section 3). In practical terms, this procedure fits well with the
normal stress-strain conditions occurring in real-life actuators
where a given backup spring with a particular spring rate fixes the
stress-strain slope in the active SMA element for its entire life.
The tests were performed using two different backup springs
(one relatively stiff and the other relatively soft) and adopting a
limit maximum strain elim = 4%. The spring rates of the springs
were 0.62 and 0.27 N/mm, giving stress-strain slopes in the
wire of 35 MPa per unit percent strain and 15 MPa per unit
percent strain, respectively. The pre-stresses were chosen so as
to coincide with the stress levels of the constant-stress tests with
the maximum strain limited to the same value: elim = 4%
(section 2.4). Starting from the maximum chosen value for the
applied stress in the first test, the stress level was lowered
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
stepwise for the subsequent tests until no fracture in the wire Fitting the fatigue data for the constant-stress tests with
was observed after a life of 5 9 105 cycles. After accomplish- Coffin-Manson equation, gives a fatigue ductility exponent
ment of the first runout, the staircase method was performed c = 0.4894. This result is very similar to that obtained by
according to the method described in (Ref 11). Lagoudas (0.47 ‚ 0.49) in (Ref 7) for an NiTiCu alloy.
Also in this test, the heating of the wire was provided by a
sinusoidal current oscillating from zero to a peak value capable 3.2 Tests Under ‘‘Constant strain’’
of producing the full transformation of the alloy under the
The strength-life (Woehlers) curve in Fig. 6 (semi-log
cooling conditions adopted and generating a test frequency of
diagram) for the constant strain tests features only the inclined
about 1 Hz as found in the other test conditions.
part (the wire failed for all strain levels tested between 1 and
5%) and there is no indication of a strain threshold (strain
fatigue limit). The slope of the interpolating line is
e/log(Nf) = 8.28 (e expressed in percent). The fatigue life can
3. Results and Discussion be as low as 7000 cycles (for applied strain of 5%) and never
exceeded 19,000 cycles (applied strain of 1%) in the strain
3.1 Tests Under ‘‘Constant stress’’ and ‘‘Constant stress range investigated. This outcome confirms that the constant-
with Limited Max Strain’’ strain loading condition is much more demanding on the
The semi-log Woehlers chart in Fig. 5 displays the data of material than the constant-stress test, even though the maxi-
applied stress (r) and cycles to failure (Nf) obtained from the mum strains induced in the alloy are of the same order of
test campaign under constant stress (circles) and constant stress magnitude in the two tests. Figure 7 shows that the stress
with limited maximum strain (triangles and diamonds for limit induced in the wire during constant-strain cycles, rmax,
strains of 3 and 4%, respectively). In the same chart, the
bilinear interpolations of the test data are also shown with solid
line, for the constant-stress test, and with dotted and dashed
lines for the constant-stress test with limit strains of 3 and 4%,
respectively. The interpolations were obtained through statis-
tical treatment of the results according to the accelerated
staircase method (Ref 12) developed by the Japanese Society of
Mechanical Engineers (JSME). Figure 5 shows that the
inclined part of the Woehlers curves is well represented by
straight lines. The slope of the interpolating line is
r/log(Nf) = 101 MPa for the constant-stress test, and higher
for the constant-stress test with limited maximum strain (the
slope in this case is r/log(Nf) = 245 MPa, regardless of the
specific strain limit). These results demonstrate that putting a
limit, however small, to the maximum strain during constant-
stress tests is extremely beneficial to the fatigue life. It is worth
noting that limiting the maximum strain to 3% instead of 4%
does not produce further advantages because the sloped legs of
the Woehlers curves in Fig. 5 for 3% (dashed line) and 4%
maximum strain (dotted line) are very close to each other. This Fig. 6 Woehlers diagram with the fatigue results for the constant-
occurrence suggests that a threshold limit strain does exist strain tests
beyond which the described life increase is definitely obtained
with respect to constant-stress tests with unlimited strain.
The distribution of the experimental points in Fig. 5 along
the horizontal part of the Woehlers curves suggests the
existence of a true fatigue limit of the material under
constant-stress conditions, both for limited and unlimited
maximum strains. This conclusion is supported by the fact
that a sample wire which had survived the staircase method
(5 9 105 cycles) was mounted on the machine and cycled again
up to one million cycles without any sign of failure.
The fatigue limit for the constant-stress tests calculated from
Fig. 5 for the chosen life (5 9 105 cycles) is rw = 101.8 MPa.
For constant-stress tests with limited maximum strain, the
fatigue limits estimated by the JSME elaboration are greater
than for those under the constant-stress conditions and takes
values for decreasing limit strains as 108.7 and 127.3 MPa for
limit strains of 4 and 3%, respectively. All these fatigue limits
are calculated with a confidence level of 50%. Quantitatively,
the difference between the fatigue limits with limited strain and
the fatigue limit at constant stress is proportional to the Fig. 7 Evolution of the maximum stress in the wire under constant-
difference in strains achieved in the tests under these stresses. strain loading

Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance Volume 23(7) July 2014—2407

decreases exponentially with the number of cycles. The residual
stress just before failure falls in the range 400-500 MPa,
irrespective of the strain applied. Dropping of the maximum
stress into this range could be adopted as a predictor of
incipient fracture of the material undergoing constant-strain
thermal cycling of whatever amplitude.
3.3 Tests Under ‘‘Linear Stress-Strain Variation’’
Tables 1 and 2 collect the results obtained from the tests under
linear stress-strain variation respectively for the stress-strain
slope of 35 MPa per unit percent strain and 15 MPa per unit
percent strain, respectively. For the sake of comparison, Table 3
shows the results for the constant-stress test with same limit strain
(4%). The lines in Tables 1, 2, and 3 correspond to the value of
applied stress, r, or pre-stress, rp. For each stress level, the tables
give the number of cycles to failure, Nf, together with the
following set of data, provided both for the second cycle after
start and for the last cycle before termination: the maximum
stress, rmax; the minimum strain (emin ” eA); the maximum
strain (emax ” eM); and the differential strain (SME ” De =
emax emin) actually measured in the wire during each test.
As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the stress increment in the
staircase method for the linear stress-strain variations tests was
19 MPa for the greatest slope (Table 1) and 11 MPa for the
lowest slope (Table 2).
The stress-life data from Tables 1, 2, and 3 are plotted in
Figure 8 as Woehlers curves. As a benchmark, the solid line in
Fig. 8 represents the data for the constant-stress test with
maximum strain limited to 4% (see dashed line in Fig. 5). The

Table 1 Fatigue results for the tests under linear stress-strain variation (35 MPa per unit per cent strain) with limited
maximum strain of 4%
Second cycle after start Last cycle before termination

emin ” eA, emax ” eM, De ” SME, rmax, emin ” eA, emax ” eM, De ” SME,
Test elim, % rp, MPa Nf rmax, MPa % % % MPa % % %

1 4.0 235 8,139 363 0.86 4.03 3.18 328 1.86 4.02 2.16
2 4.0 170 18,723 291 0.65 4.00 3.35 268 1.30 3.98 2.58
3 4.0 105 21,678 245 0.56 4.00 3.44 229 0.94 3.98 3.04
4 4.0 85 500,000* 219 0.46 3.96 3.50 196 1.08 3.95 2.87
5 4.0 300 4,728 422 1.10 4.03 2.93 370 2.62 3.97 1.35
6 4.0 300 4,597 415 1.09 3.91 2.82 359 2.54 3.92 1.38
7 4.0 170 14,673 315 0.61 4.03 3.42 288 1.42 4.02 2.60
8 4.0 235 8,000 377 0.92 4.00 3.08 339 1.91 3.99 2.08
9 4.0 105 19,399 235 0.51 4.00 3.49 218 0.99 3.99 3.00
10 4.0 104 16,817 247 0.49 3.99 3.50 228 0.98 3.98 3.01
11 4.0 85 126,850 225 0.51 3.97 3.46 205 1.03 3.95 2.92
12 4.0 66 500,000* 213 0.50 3.92 3.42 188 1.11 3.92 2.80
13 4.0 85 118,671 218 0.48 4.00 3.52 195 0.94 3.98 3.04
14 4.0 66 500,000* 204 0.46 3.92 3.46 178 1.11 4.01 2.91
*Denotes run-outs

Table 2 Fatigue results for the tests under linear stress-strain variation (15 MPa per unit per cent strain) with limited
maximum strain of 4%
Second cycle after start Last cycle before termination

elim, rp, rmax, emin ” eA, emax ” eM, De ” SME, rmax, emin ” eA, emax ” eM, De ” SME,
Test % MPa Nf MPa % % % MPa % % %

1 4.0 235 8,028 312 0.68 3.99 3.31 301 1.61 3.98 2.37
2 4.0 170 13,037 238 0.48 4.00 3.52 229 1.00 4.00 3.00
3 4.0 105 500,000* 168 0.40 4.02 3.62 160 1.02 4.01 2.99
4 4.0 300 4,240 370 0.88 4.03 3.15 349 2.15 4.02 1.87
5 4.0 365 2,379 433 1.03 3.98 2.95 404 2.67 3.97 1.31
6 4.0 170 12,471 237 0.50 4.02 3.51 227 0.98 4.00 3.03
7 4.0 235 7,158 304 0.64 3.99 3.35 286 1.50 3.98 2.48
8 4.0 300 4,762 372 0.87 3.99 3.12 352 2.13 3.97 1.84
9 4.0 365 3,092 442 1.20 3.97 2.77 416 2.84 3.95 1.11
10 4.0 116 160,171 181 0.39 4.00 3.62 173 0.89 3.99 3.10
11 4.0 105 500,000* 166 0.35 4.01 3.66 157 0.93 4.00 3.07
12 4.0 116 78,905 180 0.28 4.01 3.73 173 0.69 4.00 3.32
13 4.0 105 241,426 162 0.32 4.00 3.68 156 0.89 3.99 3.10
14 4.0 94 500,000* 162 0.34 3.99 3.66 157 0.86 3.99 3.13
*Denotes run-outs

2408—Volume 23(7) July 2014 Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance

Table 3 Fatigue results for the tests under constant stress with limited maximum strain of 4%
Second cycle after start Last cycle before termination

elim, rmax, emin ” eA, emax ” eM, De ” SME, rmax, emin ” eA, emax ” eM, De ” SME,
Test % r, MPa Nf MPa % % % MPa % % %

1 4.0 235.0 8,899 241 0.35 4.00 3.65 243 1.15 4.00 2.85
2 4.0 170.0 17,693 188 0.35 3.99 3.64 174 0.81 4.00 3.19
3 4.0 105.0 500,000* 110 0.22 4.01 3.79 109 0.70 4.00 3.30
4 4.0 300.0 3,579 311 0.57 4.10 3.53 309 2.08 4.08 2.00
5 4.0 365.0 2,790 381 0.76 3.94 3.18 374 2.86 4.08 1.22
6 4.0 170.0 15,665 177 0.28 4.04 3.75 177 0.80 4.04 3.24
7 4.0 235.0 6,972 243 0.39 4.03 3.64 244 1.24 4.05 2.81
8 4.0 300.0 3,301 313 0.53 4.05 3.52 311 1.99 4.05 2.06
9 4.0 365.0 2,977 379 0.73 4.06 3.33 371 2.92 4.06 1.14
10 4.0 127.2 36,444 133 0.16 4.02 3.87 131 0.47 4.04 3.57
11 4.0 105.0 339,280 113 0.11 4.04 3.93 110 0.57 4.04 3.47
12 4.0 82.8 500,000* 85 0.08 3.95 3.88 85 0.39 3.97 3.58
13 4.0 105.0 500,000* 110 0.12 4.06 3.94 109 0.64 4.05 3.42
14 4.0 127.2 36,458 133 0.12 4.06 3.95 131 0.44 4.07 3.63

*Denotes run-outs

Fig. 8 Woehlers diagram with the fatigue results for the tests under linear stress-strain variation (high and low stiffness) and under constant
stress all with maximum strain of 4%

dotted line and the dashed line in Fig. 8 represent the linear
interpolation of the data for the linear stress-strain variation for
the lower slope (15 MPa per unit percent strain) and for the
higher slope (35 MPa per unit percent strain). The inclined legs
of both Woehlers curves for the linear stress-strain variation
tests have the same inclination of r/log(Nf) = 289 MPa, which
is higher than for the constant-stress test with the same limit
strain (r/log(Nf) = 245 MPa, solid line in Fig. 8).
From Fig. 8, it is worth noting that the inclined leg of the
Woehlers curve for the higher stress-strain slope (35 MPa for
unit percent strain) falls to the right of the inclined leg for the
lower stress-strain slope (15 MPa per unit percent strain),
which means that the stiffer the backup spring the slightly
higher the fatigue life is. Furthermore, for applied stresses
above 250 MPa, both inclined legs for the linear stress-strain
variation tests fall to the right of the inclined leg for the pure
constant-stress test. Since in this case, the average and the
maximum stresses in the wire are much lower than for the
stress-strain variation tests (see Tables 1, 2, and 3), this
outcome suggests that at high applied stresses, the fatigue life
is conditioned more by the strain cycle than by the stress itself.
To support this conclusion, examine Fig. 9(a), which plots the
shape memory effect, SME (=difference between maximum
and minimum strain) against the number of cycles, N, for the
three tests in Tables 1, 2, and 3 under the same pre-stress of
300 MPa. Figure 9(a) shows that the higher the stress-strain

Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance Volume 23(7) July 2014—2409

Fig. 9 Evolution with the number of cycles of the shape memory effect (SME) in the wire for the linear stress-strain variation tests (low and
high stiffness) and for the constant-stress tests with limited maximum strain of 4%: (a) applied pre-stress = 300 MPa; (b) applied pre-
stress = 105 MPa

Fig. 10 Effect of applied pre-stress on the shape memory effect (SME) in the wire for the linear stress-strain variation tests(low and high stiff-
ness) and for the constant-stress tests with limited maximum strain of 4%: (a) SME in the second cycle after test start; (b) SME in the last cycle
before test termination

slope of the test, the lower the shape memory effect, and hence
the strain cycle, which apparently contributes to the longer
fatigue lives observed in Fig. 8. On the other hand, despite this
small advantage on the structural side, Fig. 9(a) and (b) indicate
the loss of performance of the wire with the accumulation of
cycles and is a manifestation of functional fatigue.
The trend of the experimental points in Fig. 8 for the linear
stress-strain variation tests with limited strain suggests the
existence, as for the regular constant-stress tests with or without
limited strain, of a genuine fatigue limit. The fatigue limit
estimated by the JSME procedure in Fig. 8 is 106.9 MPa for
the lower stress-strain slope (15 MPa per unit percent strain);
and 81.8 MPa for the higher slope (35 MPa per unit percent
strain). As expected, both these fatigue limits are lower than for
the constant-stress test with the same limit strain (108.7 MPa).
However, the measured decrease of the fatigue limit depends
nonlinearly on the increase of the stiffness of the backup
system. For the lower stress-strain slope (15 MPa per unit
percent strain), the decrease of the fatigue limit is hardly
noticeable (106.9 MPa versus 108.7 MPa), while for the higher
stress-strain slope (35 MPa per unit percent strain), the decrease
is about one-fourth of the fatigue limit for the constant-stress
test (81.8 MPa against 108.7 MPa). The same degree of
nonlinearity is confirmed by the curves of SME against the
number of cycles in Fig. 9(b). These results correspond to an
applied stress of 105 MPa, close to the fatigue limits of the
three loading conditions investigated. Figure 9(b) shows that
the curves for the constant-stress test (diamonds) and for the
linear stress-strain variation with lower slope (circles) are very
close to each other. In particular, both test conditions lead to
run-outs at 5 9 105 cycles. By contrast, the curve for the linear
stress-strain variation with higher slope (squares) decays much
more quickly and leads to fracture after a few thousand cycles.
Figure 10 presents the SME in the wire for a selection of
applied pre-stresses for the linear stress-strain variation tests (low
and high stiffness) and for the constant-stress tests with limited
maximum strain of 4%. Figure 10(a) refers to the second cycle
after beginning of the test, and Fig. 10(b) refers to the last cycle
before test termination. From Fig. 10, it is interesting to note that,
for both reference cycles, the SME has a maximum for an applied
pre-stress of about 100 MPa, regardless of the type of test.
Furthermore, the decrease of the SME from the second cycle after

2410—Volume 23(7) July 2014 Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance

beginning of the test and the last test before test termination is
very low. This result suggests that 100 MPa is the optimum level
of pre-stress to employ for this alloy in order to maximize the
functional performance of the wire, and simultaneously, mini-
mize the detrimental effects of the functional fatigue.
Figure 10 also shows that, beyond the optimum stress level
of 100 MPa, the SME decreases, both for the second cycle
(Fig. 10a) and for the last cycle (Fig. 10b), in proportion to the
applied pre-stress. At the end of the life of the wire (Fig. 10b),
the residual SME under stresses between 300 and 400 MPa is
less then one half of the initial SME (Fig. 10a) under the same
stress conditions.
4. Conclusions
This paper completes a fatigue test campaign on NiTi shape
memory wires (0.15 mm SAES Getters Smartflex) undergo-
ing four thermomechanical cyclic conditions: (1) constant-
stress test, (2) constant-strain test, (3) constant-stress test with
limited maximum strain, and (4) linear stress-strain variation
with limited maximum strain. The results from the first three
test conditions, which were presented in previous papers, are
reviewed and compared with the newly performed tests under
the fourth test condition.
For the conditions of ‘‘Constant stress’’ and ‘‘Constant stress
with limited max strain’’ the stress-life curve on a semi-log
diagram is similar to the ordinary metals,’’ with an initial
inclined line followed by a final horizontal line that identifies a
fatigue limit (at 5 9 105 cycles). In the ‘‘Constant stress with
limited maximum strain test,’’ the increase of the fatigue limit
with respect to the regular constant-stress test is proportional to
the difference between the limit strains. Exposure to constant-
strain conditions (such as those due to dynamic loading or
locking of the output port during activation) is very detrimental
to the fatigue life and should be avoided.
The new tests under linear stress-strain variation with
limited maximum strain (4%) show that the fatigue limit is
similar to the case of constant stress with the same limit strain if
the slope of the stress-strain cycle is low (tested value of
15 MPa per unit percent strain). The fatigue limit decreases
drastically if higher stress-strain slopes are adopted (tested
value of 35 MPa per unit percent strain). For applied stresses
higher than the fatigue limit (inclined part of the Woehlers
curve), the opposite is true: given the pre-stress, the fatigue life
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
increases for increasing slope of the stress-strain cycle (hence
for increasing stiffness of the backup element). This behaviour
is probably due to a decrease of the SME (net recovered strain)
with the number of cycles accompanying the tests with the
higher stress-strain slopes. The lesser recovered strain is
apparently less detrimental to the structural fatigue of the alloy,
although this advantage is more than offset by the poorer
functional performance implicit in the reduced shape memory
effect.
References
1. I. Spinella and E. Dragoni, Design Equations for Binary Shape
Memory Actuators Under Dissipative Forces, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng.
C: J. Mech. Eng. Sci., 2009, 223, p 531–543
2. A. Spaggiari, I. Spinella, and E. Dragoni, Design Equations for Binary
Shape Memory Actuators Under Arbitrary External Forces, J. Intell.
Mater. Syst. Struct., 2012, 24, p 682–694
3. A. Spaggiari, G. Scirè Mammano, and E. Dragoni, Optimum
Mechanical Design of Binary Actuators Based on Shape Memory
Alloys, Smart Actuation and Sensing Systems: Recent Advances and
Future Challenges, G. Berselli, R. Vertechy, and G. Vassura, 2012,
p 3–34
4. G. Eggeler, E. Hornbogen, A. Yawny, A. Heckmann, and M. Wagner,
Structural and Functional Fatigue of NiTi Shape Memory Alloys,
Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2004, 378, p 24–33
5. L. Fumagalli, F. Butera, and A. Coda, SmartFlex NiTi Wires for Shape
Memory Actuators, J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 2009, 18, p 691–695
6. M. Mertmann and G. Vergani, Design and Application of Shape
Memory Actuators, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top., 2008, 158, p 221–230
7. D.C. Lagoudas, D.A. Miller, L. Rong, and P.K. Kumar, Thermome-
chanical Fatigue of Shape Memory Alloys, Smart Mater. Struct., 2009,
18, p 085021
8. M. Mertmann, A. Hornbogen, and E. Bracke, Influence of the Thermal
Treatment on the Stability of Partially Constrained Recovery of NiTi
Actuator Wire, J. Phys. IV, 1995, C8, p 1259–1264
9. V. Demers, V. Brailovski, S.D. Prokoshkinb, and K.E. Inaekyana,
Thermomechanical Fatigue of Nanostructured Ti-Ni Shape Memory
Alloys, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2009, 513–514, p 185–196
10. G. Scirè Mammano and E. Dragoni, Functional Fatigue of Shape
Memory Wires Under Constant-stress and Constant-Strain Loading
Conditions, Eng. Proced., 2011, 10, p 3707–3962
11. G. Scirè Mammano and E. Dragoni, Functional Fatigue of Ni-Ti Shape
Memory Wires Under Various Loading Conditions. Int. J. fatigue,
2012. doi:10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2012.03.004
12. H. Nakazawa and S. Kodama, Statistical S-N Testing Method with 14
Specimens: JSME Standard Method for Determination of S-N Curves,
Statistical Research on Fatigue and Fracture, Elsevier Applied
Science, New York, 1987, p 59–69
Volume 23(7) July 2014—2411