ADVANCED MATERIALS & PROCESSES | MARCH 2025 32 DECODING THE COMPLEX MAZE OF STANDARDIZED SHAPE MEMORY ALLOY SPECS AND TEST METHODS P icture this: A catalog of more than 60 years of shape memory material offerings, all distilled into a six-page so called “standard” that everyone is expected to follow. Sounds impossible? Perhaps. What is even more unfeasible? Getting a room full of experts to agree on the same test variables, or even the names of those variables. And yet, that is the reality of collective efforts by volunteers working under some standards development organizations (SDOs) or consortia from around the world, all in pursuit of the elusive standard. If you have had the experience of working to develop standards, you likely know exactly what I am referring to. Terminology often serves as a unifying factor among professionals within the same discipline. While these terms are typically established swiftly, they are frequently revised and redefined in subsequent discussions. Consider, for instance, the initial nickel-titanium standard terminologies outlined in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F2005, the Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS) H 7001:2009, or the Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI) specification in VDI 2248 Blatt 2. Each of these standards ultimately defines the same fundamental concepts, such as the terminology for martensite and austenite, as well as the labeling of transformation temperatures, but with differences in their scope and applicability. Some standards omit the R-phase entirely, while others focus exclusively on binary NiTi alloys. The question arises: Are these standards applicable to both medical devices and actuators? And, do they extend to emerging areas such as elastocaloric and structural superelastic applications? Or, for example, are the inclusion limits in the medical practice acceptable for actuator practice? For those unfamiliar with the landscape, navigating the multitude of standards and selecting the right one for a specific need can be a daunting task. Additionally, as new developments occur, existing standards may need to be updated to reflect emerging technologies or details that were either unknown or not common practice in previous editions of such standards. Luckily for those of us in the world of shape memory alloys (SMAs), standards can be counted on two hands, let’s just hope they are enough to cover the full spectrum of SMA practices. Organizations such as Shape Memory and Superelastic Technologies (SMST), the Consortium for the Advancement of Shape Memory Alloy Research and Technology (CASMART), and a few others offer valuable platforms for experts to network, collaborate, and engage in thoughtful debates that shape the future of industry standards. In this edition of the SMST NewsWire, we offer an insightful look into how these SMA standards interact and converge, all in the interest of fostering standardized practices within the shape memory community across all tiers, from producers to end users. One of the featured articles offers a review of existing standards and specifi- cations, newly drafted ones, and those set for future development. Speaking of new standards, the other featured article delves into the emerging field of Nitinol pediatric stents and therapies for infants with congenital heart disease. With these innovative treatments in mind, the question arises: Do we need new standards to accommodate smaller bodies, and are there any new requirements from the FDA? Be part of the conversation, join the SDO groups, come to SMST, and let’s work together to standardize the playing field. Othmane Benafan, FASM Immediate Past President, International Organization on Shape Memory and Superelastic Technologies GUEST EDITORIAL 2 Benafan
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTYyMzk3NQ==