Journal of Alloys and Compounds 541 (2012) 144–149

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Alloys and Compounds

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jalcom

Infrared normal spectral emissivity of Ti–6Al–4V alloy in the 500–1150 K

temperature range
L. González-Fernández a,b, E. Risueño c, R.B. Pérez-Sáez a,d,⇑, M.J. Tello a,d
a
Departamento de Física de la Materia Condensada, Facultad de Ciencia y Tecnología, Universidad del País Vasco, Barrio Sarriena s/n, 48940 Leioa, Bizkaia, Spain
b
Industria de Turbo Propulsores, S.A., Planta de Zamudio, Edificio 300, 48170 Zamudio, Bizkaia, Spain
c
CIC Energigune, Parque Tecnológico, Albert Einstein 48, 01510 Miñano, Álava, Spain.
d
Instituto de Síntesis y Estudio de Materiales, Universidad del País Vasco, Apdo. 644,48080 Bilbao, Spain.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Thermal radiative emissivity is related to the optical and electrical properties of materials, and it is a key
Received 23 March 2012 parameter required in a large number of industrial applications. In the case of Ti–6Al–4V, spectral emis-
Received in revised form 21 June 2012 sivity experimental data are not available for the range of temperatures between 400 and 1200 K, where
Accepted 22 June 2012
almost all industrial applications take place. The experimental results in this paper show that the normal
Available online 29 June 2012
spectral emissivity decreases with wavelength from a value of about 0.35 at 2.5 lm to about 0.10 at
22 lm. At the same time, the spectral emissivity shows a slight linear increase with temperature between
Keywords:
500 and 1150 K, with approximately the same slope for all wavelengths. Additionally, the influence of the
Titanium alloy
Infrared emissivity
samples thermal history on the emissivity is studied. A strong decrease in the emissivity values appears
Electrical resistivity due to the effect of surface stress relaxation processes. This means that the radiative properties of this
Surface stresses alloy strongly depend on the surface stress state. A thermal treatment to relieve the surface stress should
be carried out to achieve a steady state of the radiative properties. In addition, a good qualitative
agreement is found between the temperature dependence of the electrical resistivity obtained using con-
ventional measurements and the one obtained from the emissivity experimental results by using the
Hagen–Rubens equation.
Ó 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction other thermophysical properties at high temperature, for example,

The Ti–6Al–4V alloy is widely used in engineering and biomed-
ical applications because of its great combination of high strength,
low density and excellent corrosion resistance. These properties
have made it a world standard in many applications ranging from
aerospace and aircraft components to marine, power generation,
high performance automotive parts, sports and medicine [1–3].
However, there are some limitations related to its low wear perfor-
mance in abrasive and adhesive wearing conditions. A lot of work
was made in order to improve its tribological characteristics, see
for example Refs. [4–7] and references therein. Recently, several
studies have focused on the development of new Ti alloys that
could potentially be used for biomedical applications [8,9].
Knowledge of the complete set of thermophysical properties of
the Ti–6Al–4V alloy is necessary for its industrial applications.
Among the thermophysical properties, thermal radiative emissiv-
ity has special relevance. Emissivity is essential for temperature
measurements by remote sensing devices in, for example, manu-
facturing processes [10]. It is also useful in the measurements of
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 94 601 2655; fax: +34 94 601 3500.
E-mail address: raul.perez@ehu.es (R.B. Pérez-Sáez).
specific heat [11]. Emissivity is related to the optical and electrical
properties of the materials [12,13], and it is a key parameter
required in heat-transfer calculations for several industrial applica-
tions, for example, in aerospace and aircraft components [1]. It is
important to mention that emissivity is a surface property that de-
pends on temperature, wavelength, direction, surface morphology,
contamination, aging and oxidation state [14,15]. Therefore, in or-
der to compare results, the experimental data available in the liter-
ature should be taken with caution.
In spite of the importance of the emissivity data for a large
number of Ti–6Al–4V alloy applications, relatively few studies
have been reported on its normal or hemispherical emissivity. It
is difficult to find emissivity experimental data that can be used
in applied research or in engineering design related to thermal
radiation. The literature data are scarce, without surface control,
at specific wavelengths or temperatures, or for temperatures
(T > 1200 K) out of the range of most industrial applications
[16–21]. A total hemispherical emissivity of 0.47 and 0.39 at
T > 1200 K for rough and smooth surfaces respectively was
obtained by using different experimental techniques [16,17]. In
addition, using the radiance temperature, a value of 0.395 was
measured at melting (1943 K) for the normal emissivity at

0925-8388/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2012.06.117
 L. González-Fernández et al. / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 541 (2012) 144–149 145

653 nm [17]. On the other hand, Betz et al. [18] found that the nor-
mal emissivity at 665 nm shows a nearly linear temperature
dependence between 1200 and 1700 K. An extrapolation of these
experimental values to the melting point yields a value of 0.369,
which is close to those obtained using the radiance temperature
in Ref. [17]. By means of the relation between the true temperature
of the sample and the radiance temperature, a value of 0.769 was
found for the normal emissivity in the 1215–1225 K temperature
range [19]. In this case, the radiance temperature was obtained
by a modified high temperature pyrometry for a single wavelength.
The effect of the concentration of aluminum and vanadium on the
emissivity of titanium alloys was studied in Ref. [21] between 1100
and 1700 K by using electronic heating under conditions of oilless
vacuum. Finally, it must be noticed that a fast laser polarimeter
was used to determine the emissivity of liquid Ti–6Al–4V at
684.5 nm between the melting temperature and 2920 K [20].
As previously commented, taking into account the accuracy of
the measurement methods and the experimental setups used, as
well as the surface sample characterization and the environment
control, there are serious difficulties to compare the few emissivity
experimental data available. The lack of control of these parame-
ters limits the usefulness of some of the available emissivity exper-
imental data. Therefore, precise emissivity measurements for this
alloy should be carried out in the temperature range of technolog-
ical interest for a broader spectral range.
The main objective of this paper is to investigate the thermal
radiative emissivity of the Ti–6Al–4V alloy between 500 and
1150 K in the medium infrared spectral range. The influence of
both the thermal cycling and the surface roughness on the emissiv-
ity values is also studied. It should be emphasized that emissivity
experimental data are not available in the literature for this tem-
perature range, where almost all the industrial applications of this
alloy take place. The present study is done with an experimental
setup, which allows to obtain high accuracy emissivity data with
a good sample surface control during all the experiments.
2. Experimental
Nine samples of a commercial Ti–6Al–4V alloy have been used, with a disc
shape of 55 mm of diameter and 3 mm of thickness. Before the experimental emis-
sivity measurements, the samples have been characterized by X-ray diffraction
(XRD) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The XRD patterns show the peaks
corresponding to a-Ti and b-Ti phases but with a small shift in the diffraction angles
due to the inclusion of aluminum and vanadium in the alloy structure [22,23]. The
samples have been polished with SiC paper up to 320 grit, except for samples 3 and
4, which have been polished up to 4000 grit to obtain smaller roughness values. Its
roughness has been measured in two perpendicular directions with a Mitutoyo
SJ201 roughness tester. Table 1 shows the average roughness values of each sample.
It should be noted that samples 3 and 4 have a smoother surface than the others.
A high accuracy infrared radiometer (HAIRL) [24] has been used to obtain the
normal spectral emissivity of the samples between 500 and 1150 K. The three main
modules of the experimental device are a FT–IR spectrometer with a DTGLaS
pyroelectric detector, a blackbody and a sample chamber. The FT–IR spectrometer
provides a rapid accurate detection and processing of the signal. The blackbody is
used to calibrate the radiometer [25]. The thermal radiations of both sample and
blackbody follow equivalent optical paths to reach the detector. Inside the FT–IR
spectrometer, a diaphragm adjusts the sample area viewed by the detector. The
sample holder allows directional measurements and the sample chamber permits
to measure at controlled atmosphere (vacuum, gas or open atmosphere). The
sample is heated by using a resistive wire. The heating system ensures good tem-
perature homogeneity in the measured area of the sample. The sample temperature
is measured by two K-type thermocouples spot-welded to the sample surface out of
the area viewed by the detector, in this case, a 4 mm diameter circle.
The emissivity is obtained using the blacksur method [26] and the modified
two-temperature calibration method [25]. This election is supported by the analysis
of the accuracy of the methods for the direct emissivity measurements, the emissiv-
ity error due to the calibration process, and the short and long-term temporal
stability of the calibration processes. The combined standard uncertainty of this de-
vice was previously analyzed for all the uncertainty sources [27]. For the measure-
ments presented in this paper the maximum combined standard uncertainty varies
between 1 and 10% depending on wavelength and temperature, its average value
being around 4%.
All measurements were made following the same procedure. Once the sample
had been introduced into the sample chamber, a moderate vacuum was made
and, before the sample was heated up to the measurement temperatures, a slightly
reducing atmosphere (N2 + 5% H2) was introduced into the chamber in order to
prevent the oxidation of the sample.
3. Results and discussion
The first part of this paper is dedicated to study the influence of
thermal history in the emissivity of the Ti–6Al–4V alloy. The sec-
ond part focuses on presenting and analyzing the normal spectral
emissivity experimental results. Likewise, a comparison with the
few available experimental data in literature is carried out. In
addition, the Hagen–Rubens approach has allowed a comparison
between the electrical resistivity obtained using conventional
measurements and those obtained from the emissivity experimen-
tal. Each of the nine samples underwent several thermal cycles, up
to four in most cases. In each heating cycle, the emissivity was
measured at seven temperatures between 500 and 1150 K approx-
imately every 100 K, with a 20 K/min typical heating rate and a sta-
bilization time of around 20 min at each measurement
temperature. Afterwards, the sample was free-cooled to room
temperature.
As expected, very small differences in the experimental values
were found between samples with similar roughness. As an exam-

Table 1
Summary of the samples surface roughness: roughness average (Ra), average
maximum height (Rz), and maximum height of the profile (Rt).

Sample Ra (lm) Rz (lm) Rt (lm)

1 0.46 3.70 4.77
2 0.31 2.62 3.33
3 0.06 0.50 0.58
4 0.05 0.39 0.52
5 0.31 2.44 3.47
6 0.26 2.06 2.46
7 0.27 2.07 2.54
8 0.24 1.86 2.25 Fig. 1. Normal spectral emissivity (e) of the Ti–6Al–4V alloy as a function of
9 0.22 1.65 1.91 wavelength (k) for three temperatures: (a) sample 1 and (b) sample 2. Dashed and
solid lines refer to the first and fourth heating cycles respectively.
146 L. González-Fernández et al. / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 541 (2012) 144–149

ple, Fig. 1 shows the normal spectral emissivity between 2.5 and
22 lm for samples 1 (Fig. 1a) and 2 (Fig. 1b). The emissivity spectra
at three temperatures are shown for the first (dashed lines) and
fourth (solid lines) thermal cycles. The emissivity decreases with
the wavelength according to the electromagnetic theory for metal-
lic materials [12,13].

3.1. Thermal history

A careful analysis of Fig. 1 shows a decrease of the emissivity

values in all the spectral range between the first and fourth
thermal cycle, i.e. the emissivity obtained at the same temperature
is, in general, lower in the fourth cycle than in the first one. For the
sake of a better visualization of this apparently anomalous behav-
ior, the normal emissivity at 4, 12 and 20 lm as a function of the
heating cycle number is plotted in Fig. 2 for low and medium
temperatures. The significant decrease of the emissivity values
from the first to the second thermal cycle is clearly shown. How-
ever, a substantial change in the emissivity values in the following
heating cycles cannot be observed. A similar behavior was previ-
ously noticed in other metallic materials as Armco iron [15]. In or-
der to check the evolution of the emissivity during the first thermal
cycle, the normal spectral emissivity for several temperatures is
plotted in Fig. 3. It is remarkable that, between 546 and 1127 K,
the emissivity goes through a maximum at 858 K. A similar
qualitative behavior was also found in measurements of electrical
resistivity for the same temperature range [20]. This feature was
also observed during a flash heating as a function of time [17] or
enthalpy [28]. Since the alloy studied is composed mainly of Ti, it
is also interesting to mention that the electrical resistivity of Ti
exhibits the same feature just before the alpha-to-beta transforma-
tion [29].
Taking into account that thermal emissivity is a surface prop-
erty, the decrease in the value of the normal spectral emissivity be-
tween the first and the second cycle should necessarily be related
to a change in the sample surface. A possible cause for the alter-
ation of the sample surface could be an oxidation process due to
a poor atmosphere control. However, an analysis of the surface
after four heating cycles by means of XRD and SEM showed no
signs of oxidation. Furthermore, the oxidation usually produces
an emissivity increase, which is the opposite of what occurs in
our experimental results. Another possible change of the sample
surface could be a roughness decrease during the first heating
cycle. However, roughness measurements carried out before and
after the first cycle showed very small changes, which are within
the experimental uncertainty. In any case, these changes are not
enough to explain the decrease of emissivity. In addition, this
result confirms again the absence of oxidation during the heating
Fig. 2. Evolution of the normal emissivity of the sample 2 with the thermal cycle
number at three wavelengths (k = 4, 12 and 20 lm) for low and medium
temperatures.
Fig. 3. Normal spectral emissivity of the sample 2 obtained during the first heating
cycle, as a function of wavelength (a), and as a function of temperature (b).
cycle, because during thermal oxidation the oxide layer becomes
porous, and this porosity develops a stratified structure, which
produces an increase in the surface roughness [22,30–32]. On the
other hand, it is important to mention that the XRD patterns show
no change in the phase composition of the samples (a + b) before
and after the thermal cycles.
The physical surface change that can explain this apparently
anomalous behavior is the presence of surface stresses generated
during the machining and grinding of the samples. Assuming this
fact, the first heating cycle acts as an annealing process that re-
lieves the surface stresses, explaining the lower emissivity values
after the first cycle. In this case, if a new machining and/or grinding
process is performed on the sample, the emissivity value should re-
cover the preheating value. To check this point, sample 9 was grin-
ded after four thermal cycles, and then the emissivity was
measured for four cycles more. The obtained emissivity results
were similar to those in Fig. 2. This result confirms that the ob-
served behavior of the emissivity is due to the relief of the sample
surface stresses produced during the grinding.
On the other hand, it is known that annealing usually involves
thermally activated processes. An activation energy must be over-
come in order for these processes to progress. This may statistically
occur at any temperature, but when the temperature increases, so
does the system energy, and the rate of the process is higher. As it
can be seen in Fig. 3b, the emissivity increases for the first four
temperatures of the first heating cycle and then it begins to de-
crease. This seems to indicate that the relieving process is so slow
for temperatures below 858 K that the surface stresses are not re-
moved, but above this temperature the relieving process starts to
take place in a noticeable manner. To check this fact, the emissivity
of sample 7 at a constant temperature around 870 K was measured
for more than one hour during the first heating cycle. In Fig. 4, the
evolution of the emissivity during the measurement is plotted for
two wavelengths. A clear decreasing tendency is observed in both
cases. However, the decrease rate is not very high, at least not as
high as it would be expected on seeing the variation between
 L. González-Fernández et al. / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 541 (2012) 144–149
Fig. 4. Time evolution of the normal spectral emissivity at 870 K for 5 and 10 lm
(sample 7, first heating cycle).
858 and 949 K shown if the Fig. 3b for the same wavelengths.
Nevertheless, it has to be taken into account that the rate of the
thermally activated processes exponentially increases with
temperature, and that to carry out each measurement the sample
temperature is stabilized for around 20 min to ensure the thermal
stability. Therefore, each measurement involves around 20 min of
relieving process at that temperature. Thus, the emissivity change
shown in Fig. 3b between 858 and 949 K cannot be compared to
the one observed in Fig. 4. The accumulated relief at each temper-
ature is the cause for having almost completely relaxed all the
surface stresses when the sample temperature reaches 1127 K.
Above this temperature, the emissivity values are very close to
those obtained during the second cycle.
3.2. Normal emissivity and electrical resistivity
The normal spectral emissivity of the nine samples specified in
Table 1 was measured between 500 and 1150 K for several thermal
cycles. When the first cycle, which acts as an annealing process, was
not taken into account, the results were qualitatively equal for all the
samples. The observed differences were due to variations in surface
roughness. In all cases, the emissivity values obtained for the second
heating cycle and the following ones varied between 0.35 and 0.10 in
Fig. 5. Normal emissivity spectra for several temperatures, (a) for a smooth sample
(sample 4) during the second heating cycle, and (b) for a rougher sample (sample 2)
during the fourth heating cycle.
147
the studied spectral range. Fig. 5 shows the emissivity spectra at sev-
eral temperatures for a smooth sample (sample 4) and a rougher one
(sample 2). The small differences between the experimental emis-
sivity values of samples 2 and 4 are in agreement with the surface
roughness dependence of the normal spectral emissivity. The emis-
sivity increases slightly with temperature and decreases with wave-
length. The temperature dependence of the emissivity is linear with
a small slope, as shown in Fig. 6 for sample 2 (fourth heating cycle).
The same slope is approximately observed for long wavelengths
(>10 lm). Deviations from linear behavior are within the experi-
mental uncertainty.
In order to compare our results with those in the literature, it
has to be taken into account that, as it has been previously men-
tioned, the emissivity values found in the literature are scarce, usu-
ally limited to a very high temperature range, at short wavelengths
and without sample surface characterization or control. Consider-
ing the small measured temperature dependence of the emissivity
(Fig. 6), the temperature difference between results is not so
important. However, our results must be extrapolated to short
wavelengths to be compared to data obtained at around 660 nm
[17,18,20,21] and between 0.8 and 1.1 lm [19]. The emissivity
values of 0.395 [17] and 0.369 [18] at a temperature near the melt-
ing point, and between 0.23 and 0.30 in the 1100–1700 tempera-
ture range [21] are smaller than the results obtained
extrapolating the data of Fig. 5. These differences can be partially
explained because of the possible presence of an emissivity
X-point, reported for titanium at around 1.4 lm [33], which pro-
duces opposite temperature trends at visible and IR. Thus, a nega-
tive temperature coefficient will be observed in the visible,
whereas a positive temperature coefficient is observed in the IR.
On the other hand, our extrapolated data (0.50-0-55) are in rela-
tively good agreement with the values given in Ref. [20], which
vary between 0.56 and 0.60. This comparison must be made with
some caution, considering that the laser polarimeter used to obtain
emissivity in Ref. [17] was not designed for measurements in the
presence of surface roughness. A normal emissivity of 0.769
around 1 lm between 1215 and 1225 K is provided by Ref. [19].
This value is much higher than those shown in Fig. 5. These
differences can be due to a different state of the sample surface
(roughness, oxidation, etc.), together with the uncertainty associ-
ated to the measurement method based on pyrometry.
Classic electromagnetic theory allows to determine the normal
spectral emissivity from the resistivity values by means of the two-
term approximation to the Hagen–Rubens relation [12]:
rffiffiffiffi
r r
eðkÞ ¼ 36:5  e  464  e ð1Þ
k k
where k is the wavelength given in micrometer and re is the electri-
cal resistivity in ohms centimeter. This relation is valid for smooth
Fig. 6. Temperature dependence of the normal spectral emissivity of sample 2
(fourth heating cycle) at 5, 10, 15 and 20 lm.
148 L. González-Fernández et al. / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 541 (2012) 144–149
Fig. 7. Normal emissivity spectra for several temperatures, obtained experimen-
tally for the sample 2 during the fourth heating cycle (solid lines) and calculated by
means of Hagen–Rubens relation with the electrical resistivity of Ref. [35] (dashed
lines).
Fig. 8. Electrical resistivity versus temperature. Curves (1) and (2) show values
calculated from emissivity measurements for first (sample 2) and second (sample 4)
heating cycle respectively. Curves (3) and (4) show electrical resistivity data
measured in Refs. [34,35] respectively.
metallic surfaces and for wavelengths longer than 5 lm. This
equation is a good qualitative approach, and sometimes exhibits a
good quantitative agreement [14,15] for wavelengths as short as
5 lm.
Eq. (1) allows to use the available electrical resistivity data of
Ti–6Al–4V alloy [17,20,28,34,35] to obtain emissivity values.
Unfortunately, the sample conditions are not specified for the
electrical resistivity measurements. In Fig. 7, the normal spectral
emissivity of the sample 2 and the spectra obtained using the Ha-
gen–Rubens relation and the electrical resistivity data of Ref. [35]
are plotted. It is remarkable that, although the Hagen–Rubens ap-
proach is applicable for relatively long wavelengths (k >  5 lm),
the agreement is good in all the spectral range. Theoretically, the
comparison between the experimental emissivity and the one cal-
culated using the Hagen–Rubens relation should be done using the
emissivity spectra from the smoothest sample. However, the best
agreement has been obtained using a rougher sample (sample 2).
In a similar way, the electrical resistivity can be obtained by fit-
ting the experimental emissivity curves to Eq. (1). Fig. 8 shows the
electrical resistivity calculated from emissivity spectra obtained
during the first and second thermal cycle, together with the
literature data of Refs. [34,35], where the electrical resistivity is
measured for T > 1350 and T < 850 K respectively. The first cycle
data correspond to sample 2, and the second ones to sample 4.
The evolution observed in the emissivity during the first heating
cycle can also be observed in the calculated electrical resistivity
values. This feature is observed in all the samples, but it is dis-
played for sample 2 because it is more noticeable for a rougher
sample. It is important to notice that the same behavior is also
measured in some electrical resistivity data [17,20,28]. However,
for the second and the following thermal cycles the calculated
resistivity is nearly linear with the temperature. As shown in
Fig. 8, this nearly linear behavior is also observed in other direct
measurements of resistivity [34,35]. Therefore, the anomalous
behavior found in the electrical resistivity [17,20,28] could be asso-
ciated with the surface stress relieving. Instead, this seems to be
more linked to the (a + b) to b transformation, as the authors
stated, because the anomalous behavior in the electrical resistivity
was reproduced in all heating cycles. However, in these cases, it is
possible that the samples were not exposed to a high temperature
long enough to produce the stress relieving and, as a consequence,
the feature could be observed in the following heating cycles. Any-
way, the anomalous behavior shown in Fig. 8 for the calculated
resistivity is observed only during the first heating cycle and is
clearly due to the stress relieving. In order to observe the possible
change due to the (a + b) to b transformation in our measurements,
we would need to extend our measurement capabilities to higher
temperatures. In the case of titanium, a similar feature is reported
for the emissivity and the electrical resistivity [36]. The emissivity
change was only observed in the first heating and was associated
to the sublimation of the oxides and the degassing of the surface,
whereas the resistivity change was repeatable and linked to the
alpha–beta transition of titanium.
On the other hand, it must be remarked that the qualitative
agreement of Eq. (1) with the experimental data implies that the
primary contribution to the thermal radiation phenomena in this
alloy is the intraband transition of electrons [14]. Nevertheless,
the electrical resistivity values obtained from emissivity data are
slightly higher than those of direct measurements. The same
behavior was found for Armco iron [15]. If we take into account
the approximations included in the Hagen–Rubens relation, this
small difference can be related to the sample surface roughness.
More work in this direction is being carried out in our laboratory
with pure metals.
4. Conclusions
This paper presents the first experimental study on normal
spectral emissivity of the Ti–6Al–4V alloy in the temperature range
between 500 and 1150 K. The emissivity decreases with wave-
length, according to electromagnetic theory, and linearly increases
with temperature with a small slope, which is independent of the
wavelength for k > 10 lm.
The Hagen–Rubens approach allows a comparison between
experimental electrical resistivity data and those obtained from
the emissivity measured for smooth surface samples. A good qual-
itative agreement between them is found.
An important evolution in the normal spectral emissivity values
between the first and second thermal cycle has been observed. The
experimental results suggest that these changes in emissivity are
related to the relieving during the first heating of the surface stres-
ses generated during machining and grinding. In order to obtain
reproducible emissivity and electrical resistivity data, the
measurements must be carried out after several thermal cycles
or after a suitable annealing process above 1200 K. After the stress
relieving process, there are no differences between measurements
carried out for different heating cycles.
Acknowledgements
This work has been carried out with the financial support of the
SAIOTEK program (Project number S-PC08UN07) of the Basque
Government and the ‘‘Universidad-Empresa’’ program (Project
number UE06/01) of the University of the Basque Country in
 L. González-Fernández et al. / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 541 (2012) 144–149
collaboration with ‘‘Industria de Turbo Propulsores S.A.’’. L. Gon-
zález-Fernández acknowledges the Basque Government and Indu-
stria de Turbo Populsores S.A. for their support through a Ph.D.
fellowship. We thank the reviewer for his/her thorough report
and highly appreciate the insightful and constructive comments
and suggestions.
References
[1] R. Boyer, G. Welch, E.W. Collings, Materials Properties Handbook - Titanium
Alloys, ASM International, ASM International, Ohio, 1994.
[2] M.R. Winstone, Titanium Alloys at Elevated Temperature: Structural
Development and Service Behavior, IOM Comunications, London, 2001.
[3] P.A. Dearnley, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part H–J, Eng. Med. 213 (1999) 107–135.
[4] C. Boettcher, T. Bell, H. Dong, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 33A (2002) 1201–1211.
[5] J. Szewczenko, W. Walke, K. Nowinska, J. Marciniak, Mater. Werkst. 41 (2010)
360–371.
[6] S.L. R da Silva, L.O. Kerber, L. Amaral, C.A. dos Santos, Surf. Coat. Technol. 116
(1999) 342–346.
[7] V. Sreedhar, J. Das, R. Mitra, S.K. Roy, J. Alloys Compd. 519 (2012) 106–111.
[8] S.B. Gabriel, J.V.P. Panaino, I.D. Santos, L.S. Araujo, P.R. Mei, L.H. de Almeida,
C.A. Nunes, J. Alloys Compd. In Press. (2011) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jallcom.2011.11.035.
[9] C. Zhao, X. Zhang, P. Cao, J. Alloys Compd. 509 (2011) 8235–8238.
[10] J. Pujana, L. del Campo, R.B. Pérez-Sáez, M.J. Tello, I. Gallego, P.J. Arrazola, Meas.
Sci. Technol. 18 (2007) 3409–3416.
[11] J.J.Z. Li, Study of liquid metals by electrostatic levitation, Ph. D. Thesis,
California Institute of Technology (USA), 2009.
[12] R. Siegel, J. Howell, Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer, fourth ed., Taylor &
Francis, Washington, 2002.
[13] M.F. Modest, Radiative Heat Transfer, second ed., Academic Press, San Diego,
2003.
[14] G. Teodorescu, Radiative emissivity of metals and oxidized metals at high
temperature, Ph. D. Thesis, Auburn University, Alabama (USA), (2007).
149
[15] L. del Campo, R.B. Pérez-Sáez, M.J. Tello, X. Esquisabel, I. Fernández, Int. J.
Thermophys. 27 (2006) 1160–1172.
[16] H. de L’Estoile, L. Rosental, Advisory Group for Aeronautical Research and
Development, Paris, France, AGARD-211 N63-21549, (1958).
[17] A. Cezairliyan, J.L. McClure, R. Taylor, J. Res. Nat. Bur. Stand. A, Phys. Chem. 81
(1977) 251–256.
[18] H.T. Betz, O.H. Olson, B.D. Schurin, J.C. Morris, WADC-TR-56-222 (Part 2), 1957,
1-184 AD202493.
[19] P. Coppa, A. Consorti, Measurement 38 (2005) 124–131.
[20] M. Boivineau, C. Cagran, D. Doytier, V. Eyraud, M.-H. Nadal, B. Wilthan, G.
Pottlacher, Int. J. Thermophys. 27 (2006) 507–529.
[21] B.A. Shur, V.E. Peletskii, High Temp. 42 (2004) 414–420.
[22] S. Kumar, T.S.N.S. Narayanan, S.G.S. Raman, S.K. Seshadri, Mater. Chem. Phys.
119 (2010) 337–346.
[23] H. Güleryüz, H. Cimenoğlu, Biomaterials 25 (2004) 3325–3333.
[24] L. del Campo, R.B. Pérez-Sáez, X. Esquisabel, I. Fernández, M.J. Tello, Rev. Sci.
Instrum. 77 (2006) 113111.
[25] L. González-Fernández, R.B. Pérez-Sáez, L. del Campo, M.J. Tello, Appl. Opt. 49
(2010) 2728–2735.
[26] R.B. Pérez-Sáez, L. del Campo, M.J. Tello, Int. J. Thermophys. 29 (2008) 1141–
1155.
[27] L. del Campo, R.B. Pérez-Sáez, L. González-Fernández, M.J. Tello, J. Appl. Phys.
107 (2010) 113510.
[28] E. Kaschnitz, P. Reiter, J.L. McClure, Int. J. Thermophys. 23 (2002) 267–275.
[29] B. Wilthan, C. Cagran, G. Pottlacher, Int. J. Thermophys. 26 (2005) 1017–1029.
[30] H. Dong, A. Bloyce, P.H. Morton, T. Bell, Surf. Eng. 13 (1997) 402–406.
[31] G. Bertrand, K. Jarraya, J.M. Chaix, Oxid. Met. 21 (1983) 1–19.
[32] F. Borgioli, E. Galvanetto, F. Iozzelli, G. Pradelli, Mater. Lett. 59 (2005) 2159–
2162.
[33] P. Herve, A. Sadou, Infrared Phys. Technol. 51 (2008) 249–255.
[34] D. Basak, R.A. Overfelt, D. Wang, Int. J. Thermophys. 24 (2003) 1721–1733.
[35] M.W. Mote, R.B. Hooper, P.D. Frost, TML Rep. 92 (1958).
[36] G.A. Zhorov, High Temp. 5 (1967) 881-888 – translated from Teplofizika
Vysokikh Temperatur 5 (1967) 987-994.