You are on page 1of 12

Appl. Math. Mech. -Engl. Ed.

31(10), 12611272 (2010)


DOI 10.1007/s10483-010-1359-7
c Shanghai University and Springer-Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg 2010
Applied Mathematics
and Mechanics
(English Edition)
Three dimensional large deformation analysis of phase transformation
in shape memory alloys

Kai-ming XIA ()
1
, Tong-yan PAN ()
2
, Shan-hong LIU ()
3
(1. Division of Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, Golden 80401, USA;
2. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech,
Blackburg, VA 24061, USA;
3. Department of Bridge Engineering, Chongqing Jiaotong University,
Chongqing 400074, P. R. China)
(Communicated by Xing-ming GUO)
Abstract Shape memory alloys (SMAs) have been explored as smart materials and
used as dampers, actuator elements, and smart sensors. An important character of SMAs
is its ability to recover all of its large deformations in mechanical loading-unloading cy-
cles without showing permanent deformation. This paper presents a stress-induced phe-
nomenological constitutive equation for SMAs, which can be used to describe the su-
perelastic hysteresis loops and phase transformation between Martensite and Austenite.
The Martensite fraction of SMAs is assumed to be dependent on deviatoric stress tensor.
Therefore, phase transformation of SMAs is volume preserving during the phase transfor-
mation. The model is implemented in large deformation nite element code and cast in
the updated Lagrangian scheme. In order to use the Cauchy stress and the linear strain
in constitutive laws, a frame indierent stress objective rate has to be used. In this paper,
the Jaumann stress rate is used. Results of the numerical experiments conducted in this
study show that the superelastic hysteresis loops arising with the phase transformation
can be eectively captured.
Key words shape memory alloys, phase transformation, superelasticity, large defor-
mation, nite element
Chinese Library Classication TG113.26, O343.5
2000 Mathematics Subject Classication 74B20
1 Introduction
Shape memory alloys (SMAs) have emerged as fascinating materials featuring two desired
engineering properties: shape memory eect and superelasticity. When subjected to cyclic
mechanical loading-unloading, SMAs are capable of recovering all large deformations without
showing permanent deformation; in thermal cyclings, recovering residual strains. A detailed
introduction about SMAs can be found in a review by Birman
[1]
. For most shape memory ma-
terials, the maximum residual strain
[2]
can reach 8%15%. Under such large deformation, large
Received May. 17, 2010 / Revised Jul. 30, 2010
Corresponding to Kai-ming XIA, Ph. D., E-mail: kaiming.xia@gmail.com
1262 Kai-ming XIA, Tong-yan PAN, and Shan-hong LIU
rigid body motion can occur, thereby rendering small strain measure invalid and necessitating
the use of nite strain measures. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize that the deformation of
SMAs could be relatively large during a loading-unloading cycle, which in turn necessities the
clear distinguishing between the reference conguration (undeformed conguration) and the
current or deformed conguration after loading.
As a smart material, SMAs can undergo reversible changes in their crystallographic structure
and are able to recover large strains without introducing irreversible inelastic deformation. This
reversible deformation change can be interpreted as Martensite phase transformation between
Austenite and Martensite. Due to the strong interest in SMAs, some of these constitutive
models have been proposed in literatures [39] during the past two decades. Nearly all these
material models are one-dimensional (1D) phenomenological descriptions that are proposed
based on exclusively experimental observations. As a robust numerical simulation tool, nite
element method has also been used to simulate the superelastic behavior of SMAs. Several
numerical studies have been conducted on nite deformation
[1012]
and small deformation
[58,13]
.
Comparatively, not many can be found on the three-dimensional nite deformation in the open
literature. During the phase transformation, the superelastic constitutive model of SMAs can
be modeled as a J
2
-type generalized plasticity
[3]
, which will exhibit volume preserving phase
transformation. The extension of small deformation to large deformation using the updated
Lagrangian formulation for superelasticity of SMAs is the focus of these methodologies.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 briey describes a phenomenological consti-
tutive equation for superelasticity of SMAs. Section 3 presents the kinematics and weak for-
mulations in the framework of updated Lagrangian conguration. Finite element formulation
is presented in Section 4. And the integration of constitutive equation is discussed in Section
5. With some numerical examples, the performance of the large deformation superelasticity is
examined in Section 6. Concluding remarks are given in Section 7.
2 Phase transformation and superelasticity for SMAs
Among the available models, the one developed by Lubliner and Auricchio
[3]
is based on
generalized plasticity and is the most numerical-oriented one that can be easily implemented
into nonlinear nite element code. Figure 1 illustrates the general superelastic behavior of an
SMA material. The phase transformation function is expressed as an internal evolution equation
in terms of the Martensite volume fraction (0 1) and other material parameters, such as
the Martensite start S
MS
, the Martensite nish S
MF
, the Austenite start S
AS
, and the Austenite
nish S
AF
. The four corresponding axial stress parameters are shown in the left gure of Fig. 1.
Fig. 1 Superelastic behavior of SMA material
For an SMA structure loaded at a constant temperature higher than A
F
, it will deform elas-
tically until the stress state reach a transformation critical state activating the martensitic phase
transformation. Increasing the load will gradually drive the martensitic phase transformation
towards a complete phase transformation denoted by an internal parameter [0, 1], which is
Three dimensional large deformation analysis of phase transformation in shape memory alloys 1263
used to represent the Martensite fraction within the SMA. The material will be all Austenite
if the internal parameter equals zero and will be all Martensite if the internal parameter is 1.
Once the SMA has become completely martensitic, it recovers the complete elasticity like that
in its initial austenitic state. An unloading will lead to a reverse phase transformation from
Martensite to Austenite.
Figure 2 is used to describe the superelastic behavior of SMAs, which is modeled as a
generalized J
2
-type plasticity and exhibits isochoric deformation. The detailed part of this
model was introduced by Masud and Xia
[13]
. This constitutive model inherits the merit of
the generalized plasticity and describes the diusionless phase transformation as an internal-
variable model of rate-independent inelasticity. For incomplete phase transformation, we have
the corresponding partial phase transformation parameters: Martensite start V
MS
, Martensite
nish V
MF
, Austenite start V
AS
, and Austenite nish V
AF
. The present discussion is limited to
the superelastic behavior of SMAs, only isothermal process is considered here.
Fig. 2 Complete and incomplete phase transformation: AM
The phase transformation function, F (S, ), is assumed to be only dependent on the devia-
toric part of the stress tensor. A 3D nonlinear cosine SMA constitutive model is proposed here,
and the parameter S is dened as
S = s =

s
ij
: s
ij
=
_
2J
2
. (1)
The phase transformation function for a complete and incomplete AM and MA can be
given by F
AM
(, S) and F
MA
(, S), respectively, as
_
F
AM
(, S) =
1
2
[cos a
M
(S V
MF
) + 1] (V
MS
S V
MF
),
F
MA
(, S) = +
1
2
[cos a
A
(S V
AF
) 1] (V
AF
S V
AS
),
(2)
where
a
M
= / (S
MS
S
MF
) , (3)
a
A
= / (S
AS
S
AF
) . (4)
The limiting stresses for the start and the nish of the incomplete transformation are
_
V
MS
= (1
p
) S
MS
+
p
S
AS
,
V
MF
= (1 +
p
) S
AS
+ (1
p
) S
MS
S
AF

arccos (1 2
p
)
a
A
,
(5)
1264 Kai-ming XIA, Tong-yan PAN, and Shan-hong LIU
_
V
AS
= (1
p
) S
MS
+
p
S
AS
,
V
AF
= S
MS
S
MF
+ (1
p
) S
MS
+
p
S
AS

arccos (2
p
1)
a
M
.
(6)
Here,
p
is the updated Martensite fraction during the previous phase transformation MA or
AM. The activation for phase transformations is dened as
_
V
MS
S V
MF
,

S > 0, A M,
V
AF
S V
AS
,

S < 0, M A.
(7)
For a three dimensional analysis, the four parameters: S
MS
, S
MF
, S
AS
, and S
AF
are related to
the uniaxial bounds. The corresponding Kuhn-Tucker forward/reverse phase transformation
conditions are appended to the model
_

0, F
AM
(S, ) 0,

F
AM
(S, ) = 0,

0, F
MA
(S, ) 0,

F
MA
(S, ) = 0.
(8)
The developed cosine constitutive model is based on the following assumptions: the phase
transformations are induced only by the deviatoric part of the stress and aected only by the
deviatoric part of the strain. The evolutionary equation for inelastic strain is given by

I
= e
t
L
x = e
t
L
n, (9)
x =

n, (10)
where e
t
L
is the maximum residuum strain dened by e
t
L
=
_
3/2
L
, n is a unit vector normal
to the phase transformation surface (equivalent to the plastic yield surface) given by
n =
s
s
. (11)
3 Linearized weak form for the updated Lagrangian formulation
Continuum based formulations for large deformation analysis can be written either in the
reference or in the current conguration. Discretization of the formulations written in the
material/referential conguration or in the spatial/current conguration leads to the so-called
total-Lagrangian or the updated-Lagrangian method, respectively. The principle of virtual work
that leads to the energy functional consisting of internal and external work can be expressed in
the reference conguration at time t
0
as
W (u, V
0
) =
_
V0
S : EdV
_
V0
u b
0
dV
_
0
u t
0
d, (12)
where S is the second Piola-Kircho stress tensor and is related to the Cauchy stress tensor
via the standard relation = FSF
T
/J; E is the Green-Lagrange strain tensor and dened by
E
ij
= (u
i,j
+u
j,i
+u
k,i
u
k,j
) /2; b
0
and t
0
are the body force vector and the traction vector in
the reference conguration, respectively. (12) can be linearized and cast in the Newton-Raphson
framework as
W (u,
0
) + D
u
W (u,
0
) u = 0. (13)
Since (12) is linear with respect to the external work expressions, the linearization of the
external virtual work vanishes. Equation (12), however, is nonlinear with respect to the internal
Three dimensional large deformation analysis of phase transformation in shape memory alloys 1265
energy and its linearization leads to the following form:
D
int
W (u, V
0
) u =
_
V0
(E : DS +S : D(E))dV
=
_
V0
E : C : DEdV +
_
V0
S : D(E) dV . (14)
Re-writing (14) in the rate form and pushing forward (14) to the current conguration, the
updated Lagrangian formulation yields
_
Vn+1
(u) : dV +
_
Vn+1
(u) : (
n
1) : (u) dV
=
_
Vn+1
u bdV +
_
n+1
u td
_
Vn+1
(u) :
n
dV. (15)
In order to use the Cauchy stress and the linear strain in constitutive laws, a frame indierent
stress rate is used in (15). For nite deformation, the use of constitutive equations in rate form
is requested. In large-deformation analysis, equations of this type ought to be written in terms
of objective rates to maintain correct rotational transformation properties. Rate constitutive
relations can be alternatively formulated in a material or a spatial setting. The former case
involves rates of material tensors that are always objective. In a spatial formulation, however,
material rates of objective tensors are not objective and objective stress rates are commonly
used, such as the Jaumann stress rate. In a spatial setting, these equations express a relationship
between the objective rate of a spatial stress tensor such as the Cauchy or Kirchho stress
tensor and the rate of deformation. In contrast with small deformation, the strain rate for
small deformation will be replaced by the deformation rate. The Jaumann rate of the Cauchy
stress tensor is used in this study and reads
D
Dt
=
J
+ +
T
= C
J
EI
: D+ +
T
. (16)
The rate of the Cauchy stress tensor is written in terms of the spin invariant Jaumann
stress rate. The superscript J denotes the Jaumann stress rate. The material derivative of
the Cauchy stress consists of two parts: the rate of change due to material response (reected
in the objective rate), and the change of stress due to nite rotation (corresponding to the last
two terms). C
J
EI
is the tangent modulus. D is the rate of deformation and the symmetric part
of the velocity gradient L, which is given by
D =
1
2
_
v +
T
v
_
=
1
2
_
L+L
T
_
= , (17)
=
1
2
_
v
T
v
_
=
1
2
_
LL
T
_
, (18)
is the eective spin rotation with respect to the current conguration, and can be given as
= t =
1
2
_
u
T
u
_
. (19)
The incremental strain with respect to the current conguration is given by
= Dt. (20)
Therefore, the incremental stress tensor takes the form
= t = C
J
EI
: +
_

n
+
n

T
_
. (21)
1266 Kai-ming XIA, Tong-yan PAN, and Shan-hong LIU
Substituting (21) into (15), the updated Lagrangian formulation is obtained based on the Jau-
mann stress rate and reads
_
Vn+1
(u) : C : dV +
_
Vn+1
(u) :
_

n
+
n

T
_
dV
+
_
Vn+1
(u) : (
n
1) : (u) dV
=
_
Vn+1
u bdV +
_
n+1
u td
_
Vn+1
(u) :
n
dV. (22)
The use of the Jaumann stress rate allows for simplifying the stress integration algorithm
and taking the similar solution strategy of small deformation for large deformation. Based
on (22), one can see that the tangent stiness for large deformation includes two parts: the
standard material stiness and the initial stress stiness.
4 Finite element formulations
With the introduction of the nite element interpolation and the discretization of the lin-
earized weak form of (22), the incremental displacement u at any point within the element
can be expressed in terms of nodal degree of freedom as
u = (u)
T
(N)
T
, u
h
= Nu
e
, (23)

h
= Bu
e
,
h
= B
w
u
e
. (24)
Here, e denotes element, is used to denote the rotation of spin tensor and the matrix
form for the components of spin tensor . Substituting (23) through (24) into (22), we obtain
the matrix form of the updated Lagrangian formulation
(K
e
M
+K
e
G
+K
e

) u
e
= R
e
, (25)
where
K
e
M
=
_
V
e
n+1
B
T
CBdV (material stiness), (26)
K
e
G
=
_
V
e
n+1
G
T
( 1) GdV (geometric nonliear part), (27)
K
e

=
_
V
e
n+1
_
B
W
u
_
T

T
dV +
_
V
e
n+1
_
B
W
u
_
T
dV (nite rotation part), (28)
R
e
=
_
V
e
n+1
N bdV +
_

e
n+1
N td
_
V
e
n+1
B
n
dV, (29)
G =
_
N
1
N
i
N
ne

. (30)
(26) through (29) are the standard material, the geometric element stiness matrices, and
the residual vector, respectively. The global stiness matrix can be obtained by assembling the
nite element stiness and residual vector together and given by
NEL
A
e=1
(K
e
M
+K
e
G
+K
e

) u = F
nodal
+
NEL
A
e=1
(R
e
) . (31)
Three dimensional large deformation analysis of phase transformation in shape memory alloys 1267
5 Numerical integration of superelastic constitutive equation
In this numerical study, the stress components are referred to a xed coordinate basis, the
stress at the start of the increment from time t
n
to time t
n+1
must also be rotated to account for
the body rotation that occurs in the increment [1416]. In the superelastic model, the Cauchy
stress is used and expressed in terms of the Jaumann rate, which is denoted by the superscript
J. The additive decomposition of the rate of deformation tensor, D, into elastic and inelastic
parts is assumed to be
D = D
e
+D
I
. (32)
The elastic response is specied by applying the hypoelastic law to the elastic part of the
rate of deformation and reads

J
= C
J
E
: D
e
t = C
J
E
:
_
DD
I
_
t = C
J
E
:
_

I
_
. (33)
The objectivity requires that elastic modulus C
J
E
should be isotropic. Otherwise, it will
change as the material rotates due to its expression in terms of a xed coordinate system by
the push-forward. As the rate of deformation is used to calculate the incremental strain with
respect to the current conguration for large deformation, the return mapping algorithm for
the nite inelasticity is the same as the small strain formulation. A backward Euler integration
algorithm is applied to the superelastic behavior due to the SMA phase transformation. From
the converged solution at time t = t
n
, one can compute the solution at time t = t
n+1
by
integrating the rate constitutive equations. The operator-splitting, elastic-predictor, inelastic-
corrector methods
[16]
were used to integrate the constitutive equation. The two-step algorithm
for phase transformation of SMAs are summarized as follows:
(i) Elastic predictor
We assume that in the interval [t
n
, t
n+1
], no phase transformation occurs. Therefore, the
trial values are

tr
= 0, (34)

tr
n+1
=
n
+ =
n
+
n

n
+
n

T
n
+C
J
EI
: Dt. (35)
If the elastic trial state is admissible, it does not satisfy the conditions for a phase transfor-
mation. Then, it represents the new solution at t
n+1
and the second part of the algorithm is
skipped. If the elastic trial state is not admissible, a correction will be needed to determine the
real solution state.
(ii) Inelastic corrector
Enforcing the satisfaction of the phase transformation constitutive equation, the discrete
phase transformation functions for both directions are given by
_

_
F
AM
=
n
+
1
2
cos(a
M
(S
tr
2Ge
t
L
V
MF
))
1
2
= 0,
F
MA
=
n
+
1
2
cos(a
A
(S
tr
2Ge
t
L
V
0
AS
))
1
2
= 0.
(36)
The scalar parameter denotes the change of Martensite fraction and is computed using
the local Newton-Raphson in Table 1. When taking non-zero values, the incremental inelastic
strain and the Cauchy stress tensor can be updated as

I
= e
t
L
n, (37)
n =
s
s
=
s
tr
s
tr

, (38)

n+1
=
n
+
n

n
+
n

T
n
+C
J
E
:
_
e
t
L
n
_
. (39)
1268 Kai-ming XIA, Tong-yan PAN, and Shan-hong LIU
Also based on literature [14], we have the equivalent relationship as follows:

n
+
n

n
+
n

t
n
= R
n
R
T
. (40)
Therefore, the norm of deviatoric stress tensor is calculated by
S = s = S
tr
2Ge
t
L
. (41)
The tangent modulus can be obtained by taking the derivative of the incremental stress tensor
due to the Jaumann rate,
C
J
EI
=

= K1 1 + 2G
_
1
2Ge
t
L

s
tr

_
I
dev
+ 2G
_
2Ge
t
L

s
tr

e
t
L

_
n n. (42)
The parameter is dependent on the phase transformation direction from AM or MA,
which is given by
=
_

_
a
M
Gsin [a
M
(S
tr
2Ge
t
L
V
MF
)]
1 a
M
Ge
t
L
sin [a
M
(S
tr
2Ge
t
L
V
MF
)]
(for A M) ,
a
A
Gsin
_
a
A
_
S
tr
2Ge
t
L
V
0
AS
_
1 a
A
Ge
t
L
sin [a
A
(S
tr
2Ge
t
L
V
0
AS
)]
(for A M).
(43)
The fourth-order continuum tangent modulus tensor can be used in a similar way as the
conventional elasto-plastic tangent modulus. When SMA is in fully Austenite or fully Marten-
site, the change of the Martensite fraction becomes zero and the elastic material stiness is
recovered.
6 Numerical examples
6.1 Uniaxial test
The aim of this numerical example is to demonstrate large deformation analysis of volume-
preserving stress-induced phase transformation. The specimen is loaded under an axial uniform
displacement control. The geometries and dened boundary conditions of the test specimen
can be seen in Fig. 3. The material properties used for the simulation of the SMA device are
S
MS
=75 MPa, S
MF
= 90 MPa, S
AS
= 70 MPa, S
AF
= 55 MPa, E= 7 500 MPa, = 0.499 9, and
the maximum residual strain is 0.06. In this example, an incomplete and complete phase trans-
formation A M test is investigated, which will validate the eciency of the proposed stress-
induced phase transformation model for SMA. For SMA, the important mechanical behavior is
being able to recover the deformation after unloading, which should exhibit a hysteresis loop
of displacement versus load. This is applicable to incomplete and complete Martensite phase
transformation.
Figure 4 shows the superelastic hysteresis loops for stress versus elongation for incomplete
and complete phase transformation from Austenite to Martensite. Figure 5 presents the Marten-
site fraction versus device elongation. Overall, these results demonstrate the proposed large
deformation superelastic analysis can eectively capture the incomplete and complete phase
transformation and its accompanying superelastic hysteresis loop. Figure 6 shows the axial
stress versus elongation for incomplete and complete phase transformation from Austenite to
Martensite under the loading of compression and tension. Since the phase transformation func-
tion is dependent on the norm of deviatoric stress tensor, the proposed model produces the
similar hysteresis loop under the loading of both compression and tension loads. These two
results clearly verify the performance of the developed model.
Three dimensional large deformation analysis of phase transformation in shape memory alloys 1269
Fig. 3 Uniaxial test with hexahedral mesh
Fig. 4 Uniaxial stress versus elongation for
incomplete and complete Martensite
phase transformation
Fig. 5 Martensite fraction versus elongation
incomplete and complete Martensite
phase transformation
Fig. 6 Axial stress versus elongation for in-
complete and complete phase transfor-
mation from Austenite to Martensite
under the loading of compression and
tension loads
6.2 Three-dimensional cantilever beam bending
Figure 7 shows the nite element mesh of a three-dimensional beam subjected to a shear
loading at the right-front end. The beam is xed at the left-back end. The geometric size of the
beam is 40 mm in length, 4 mm in width, and 10 mm in height. The material properties used for
the simulation of the SMA device are S
MS
=110 MPa, S
MF
=140 MPa, S
AS
=100 MPa, S
AF
=70
MPa, E=7 500 MPa, = 0.35, and the maximum residual strain is 0.06. In this example, the
application of the model for three dimensional beam bending cases will be demonstrated. Both
small deformation and large deformation are investigated.
Figure 8 shows the displacement at the point of initial coordinate (40, 0, 0) with respect to the
external load. It is seen in Fig. 7 that presented large deformation formulation and the stress-
induced constitutive model can eectively predict the superelastic behavior of SMA for this three
dimensional beam bending problem. The hysteresis loop of the displacement-load response at
the node of initial coordinate (40, 0, 0) can be captured. Also, the deformation can be fully
recovered after unloading. The solutions for tip deection obtained from small deformation
formulation and large deformation formulation are shown in Fig. 8. The small deformation
produces relatively larger displacement than large deformation does. It can be easily seen that
large deformation will produce relatively smaller displacement in contrast to that produced
by small deformation. This is due to the fact that the stiness for large deformation has an
additional part of initial stress stiness with respect to the current conguration, which leads
to a relatively small deformation for large deformation analysis. This comparison clearly shows
1270 Kai-ming XIA, Tong-yan PAN, and Shan-hong LIU
the dierence between large deformation and small deformation. The hysteresis loop indicates
that the SMA has energy dissipation capacity and is crucial to its eectiveness in damping
out structural vibration. Figure 9 shows the stress
11
contour projected on the deformed
congurations along with the original conguration at the load, which is equal to 384 N and
631 N, respectively.
For the superelastic behavior of SMAs, Martensite fraction is an important index to measure
the phase transformation. We calculate the Martensite fraction during the phase transforma-
tion at the integral point within elements for post-processing. Figure 10 presents the Martensite
fraction contour projected on deformed congurations for three dierent phase states. It illus-
trates the phase state on the transformation path from Austenite to Martensite. The second
one of Fig. 10 shows the turning point corresponding to the peak loading state, which corre-
sponds to the highest volume of SMAs having phase transformation. All these gures clearly
show that phase transformation only occur in a local area of the bending beam for the ap-
plied external load level. Most of the other area of the beam deforms elastically with no phase
transformation observed. Based on the phase transformation function, this indicates that the
norm of deviatoric stress in this area is higher than S
MS
. These gures clearly show that phase
transformation produced from this superelastic model is reversible and can be fully recovered
after fully unloading.
Fig. 7 Finite element mesh for beam bending
Fig. 8 Tip deection versus load for both small and large deformation methods
Fig. 9 Stress xx contour projected on the deformed conguration
Three dimensional large deformation analysis of phase transformation in shape memory alloys 1271
Fig. 10 Martensite fraction contour projected on the deformed conguration
7 Concluding remarks
In this paper, a three dimensional nite element algorithm for both material and geometric
nonlinearity is developed for simulating the superelasticity of SMAs. An updated Lagrangian
formulation is used that allows the use of the weak forms that, involving integrals, are taken
with respect to the spatial coordinates on the current conguration. The rate of deformation
is used as the measure of strain rate for updated Lagrangian formulation. In order to keep
the principle of objectivity, an objective integration algorithm with Jaumann stress rate is
employed to account for the rotation of the stress in a superimposed rigid body. As a result, the
objective rate of stress to maintain correct rotational transformation properties is maintained,
which allows the use of Cauchy stress and the linear strain in constitutive laws. For large
deformation, two additional stiness terms relating to initial stress are added compared to that
of small deformation. Representative simulations are run for the cases of uniaxial tension and
beam bending. Numerical results show that the derived formulations for both material and
geometric nonlinearities can eectively capture the superelastic response with hysteresis loop
of SMAs.
References
[1] Birman, V. Review of mechanics of shape memory alloy structures. Applied Mechanics Reviews
50, 629645 (1998)
[2] Duerig, T. W., Melton, K. N., Stockel, D., and Wayman, C. M. Engineering Aspects of Shape
Memory Alloys, Butterworth-Heinemann, 137148 (1990)
[3] Lubliner, J. and Auricchio, F. Gerenalized plasticity and shape memory alloys. International
Journal of Solids and Structures 33, 9911003 (1996)
[4] Auricchio, F., Taylor, R. L., and Lubliner, J. Shape-memory alloys: macromodelling and numerical
simulations of the superelastic behavior. Comp. Meths. Appl. Mech. Engrg. 146, 281312 (1997)
[5] Barret, D. J. and Sullivan, B. J. A three-dimensional phase transformation model for shape
memory alloys. J. Intel. Mater. Syst. Struct. 6, 831839 (1995)
[6] Brinson, L. C. and Lammering, R. Finite-element analysis of the behavior of shape memory alloys
and their applications. International Journal of Solids and Structures 30, 32613280 (1993)
[7] Qidwai, M. A. and Lagoudas, D. C. Numerical implementation of a shape memory alloy thermome-
chanical constitutive model using return mapping algorithms. International Journal of Numerical
Methods in Engineering 47, 11231168 (2000)
[8] Rengarajan, G., Kumar, R. K., and Reddy, J. N. Numerical modeling of stress induced martensitic
phase transformations in shape memory alloys. International Journal of Solids and Structures 35,
14891513 (1998)
[9] Tanaka, K., Nishimura, F., Hayashi, T., Tobushi, H., and Lexcellent, C. Phenomenological analysis
on subloops and cyclic behavior in shape memory alloys under mechanical and/or thermal loads.
Mechnica of Materials 19, 281292 (1995)
1272 Kai-ming XIA, Tong-yan PAN, and Shan-hong LIU
[10] Masud A., Panahandeh, M., and Aurrichio, F. Finite-strain nite element model for the pseudoe-
lastic behavior of shape memory alloys. Comp. Meths. Appl. Mech. Engrg. 148, 2337 (1997)
[11] Auricchio, F. A robust integration-algorithm for a nite-strain shape memory alloy superelastic
model. International Journal of Plasticity 17, 971990 (2001)
[12] Stein, E. and Sagar, G. Theory and nite element computation of cyclic martensitic phase trans-
formation at nite strain. International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering 74, 131
(2008)
[13] Masud, A. and Xia, K. A variational multiscale method for computational inelasticity: application
to superelasticity in shape memory alloys. Comp. Meths. Appl. Mech. Engrg. 195, 45124531
(2006)
[14] Hughes, T. J. R. and Winget, J. Finite rotation eects in numerical integration of rate constitutive
equations arising in large-deformation analysis. International Journal of Numerical Methods in
Engineering 33, 14131449 (1980)
[15] Simo, J. C. and Hughes, T. J. R. Computational Inelasticity, Springer-Verlag, New York (1993)
[16] Belytschko, T., Liu, W. K., and Moran, B. Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and Structures,
John Wiley & Sons Ltd., New York (2000)