User login

Navigation

You are here

Choosing a SMA constitutive model for general 3-D analysis

Donald X. Chen's picture

Three types of constitutive models have been developed during the past decades including the phenomenological model, the micromechanical model and the microscopic thermodynamical model. In these phenomenological model type, we may find the cosine model (Liang and Rogers, 1990), the modified cosine model with decomposed Martensite volume fraction for the twinned part and the detwinned part (Brinson and Lammering, 1993), the exponential model (Boyd and Lagoudas, 1994) and the polynomial model. The microscopic thermodynamical model provides a unified constitutive framework from which many models can be derived (Qidwai and Lagoudas, 2000).

Some early models were only developed for one-dimensional analysis, and a part of them may be extended to multiple dimensions.In various constitutive models, the models which don't split the Martensite volume fraction into the twinned part and the detwinned part can only simulate the pseudoelasticity, but they may not be able to model the shape memory effect as well as the strain change due to the change of Martensite variants. 

It seems that most of models more or less have some limitations, but in finite element implementations, we may always attempt to find a simple and effective model. It seems that Auricchio model has been widely accepted for 3-D analysis though it still has some limitations. 

Could someone suggest one which should suit more for 3-D SMA composites or laminates?

Subscribe to Comments for "Choosing a SMA constitutive model for general 3-D analysis"

Recent comments

More comments

Syndicate

Subscribe to Syndicate