Mechanical Properties and Corrosion Behavior of a Beta Titanium Alloy

Abstract:

Recently, people devote to the development of beta titanium alloys which have better biocompatibility because of the addition of Mo, Nb, Ta, Zr, Sn, et al. In this paper, the effects of heat treatment and cold roll deformation on the mechanical properties of the Ti-11.3Mo-6.6Zr-4.3Sn alloy (TMZS) are investigated by tensile test. The results show that the excellent combination of strength and ductility can be obtained by heat treatment or cold deformation. The TMZS alloy can obtain intermediate modulus, stronger than nickel titanium, weaker than stainless steel. The corrosion resistance of this alloy in the Hank's solution, 0.9% NaCl physiological solution and artificial saliva with different pH values at 37
are investigated by means of open-circuit potential (OCP), Tafel and potentiodynamic anodic polarization techniques. All the test results suggest that the TMZS alloy has excellent corrosion resistance in the three simulated solutions especially in the artificial saliva and has a large potential for biomedical application. In addition, the pH value and simulated solutions have some influence on the corrosion resistance of the TMZS alloy.

• Periodical: Key Engineering Materials (Volumes 324-325)
• Pages: 695-698
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.324-325.695
• Online since: November 2006
• Authors: Yu Feng Zheng, Bao Lai Wang
• Keywords: Beta Titanium Alloy, Corrosion Behaviour, Mechanical Property, Ti-Mo-Zr-Sn Alloy

References

[1] M. Niinomi: Met. Mat. Trans. Vol. 33A(3) (2002), pp.477-486.

[2] S. Rao, T. Ushida, T. Tateishi, et al.: Biomed. Mater. Eng. Vol. 6 (1996), pp.79-86.

[3] P.R. Walker, J. Leblanc and M. Sikorska: Biochemistry. Vol. 28 (1989), pp.3911-3915.

[4] R. Köter, D. Vieluf, M. Kiehn, et al.: the Lancet. Vol. 356 (2000), pp.1895-1897.

[5] C.C. Shih, S.J. Lin, Y.L. Chen, et al.: J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Vol. 52 (2000), p.359.

[6] Information on http: /www. ormco. com.

[7] M.F. Lopez, A. Gutierrez and J.A. Jimenez: Electrochimical Acta. Vol. 47 (2002), p.1359.

[8] L. El. Medawar, P. Rocher, et al.: Biomolecular Engineering. Vol. 19 (2002), pp.153-160.

[9] G.J. Ewers and E.H. Greener: J Oral Rehabil. Vol. 12 (1985), pp.469-0. 5.

0.

5.

[1] 0.

[1] 5.

[2] 0 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 pH=7. 4(NiTi) pH=7. 4(TMZS) pH=5. 4(TMZS) (a) Hank's Log[i/(Acm -2)] Potential vs. SCE /V pH=2. 4(TMZS) -0. 5.

0.

5.

[1] 0.

[1] 5.

[2] 0 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 pH=2. 4(TMZS) pH=7. 4(NiTi) pH=7. 4(TMZS) pH=5. 4(TMZS) (c) Saliva Log[i/(Acm -2 )] Potential vs. SCE /V -0. 5.

0.

5.

[1] 0.

[1] 5.

[2] 0 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 pH=7. 4(NiTi) pH=7. 4(TMZS) pH=5. 4(TMZS) (b) NaCl Log[i/(Acm -2)] Potential vs. SCE /V pH=2. 4(TMZS) -0. 5.

0.

5.

[1] 0.

[1] 5.

[2] 0 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 Log[i/(Acm -2 )] Potential vs. SCE /V (d) pH=7. 4 Saliva NaCl Hank's.