_
o
(T T
o
)
_
2
+C
v
_
(T T
o
) T ln
T
T
o
_
+
(, T ), (1)
where
=u
(1)
o
T s
(1)
o
f
o
(T ) +(1 )
it
(T ), (2)
and with the following denitions:
is the axial strain, u
()
o
and s
()
o
are the internal energy and entropy of the phase respectively ( = 1
for austenite, = 2 for martensite),
f
o
(T ) represents the driving force associated with the temperatureinduced martensite transformation of
the stress free state:
f
o
(T ) =u
T s
,
u
=u
(1)
o
u
(2)
o
, s
=s
(1)
o
s
(2)
o
, (3)
the Young modulus E, the heat capacity C
v
, the mass density and the thermal expansion
o
are chosen
to be the same whatever the phase state of the material,
it
represents the coefcient of internal interaction between the martensite platelets and the mother phase:
it
= u
o
T s
o
. (4)
Analysis of the behavior of a Shape Memory Alloy beam under dynamical loading 617
In a classical way, the stress can be obtained as:
=
=E
_
o
(T T
o
)
_
, (5)
where the term represents the deformation
pt
associated with the phase transformation and
o
(T T
o
) the
thermal deformation
t
. The specic entropy of the system can be evaluated by:
s =
T
. (6)
The driving force of phase transformation under mechanical loading is
f
(, , T ) =
=
E(
o
(T T
o
))
+
f
o
(T ) (1 2 )
it
. (7)
In order to establish the Clausius Duhem inequality, let us recall the rst and second law of thermodynamics
specied for an innitesimal homogeneous process:
du =dq +
d
, (8)
ds
dq
T
=
dD
T
0, (9)
where
u = +T s (10)
is the specic internal energy, dq represents the heat exchange and dD is the increment of the energy dissipation
which cannot be negative. In a routine way, the form of the incremental energy dissipation is written as:
dD =
f
d 0. (11)
Thus, the ClausiusDuhem inequality precludes the parentmartensite transformation (A M) at states
where
f
< 0 and prevents the reverse transformation (M A) when
f
> 0. Note that
f
= 0 implies the
equilibrium condition. To specify the kinetic equations of phase transformations, we presume that there exist
two functions
(
f
, ) ( = 1, 2) such that an active process of parent phase decomposition (d > 0 the
forward transformation) can only proceed when
(1)
= const (d
(1)
= 0) and an active process of martensite
decomposition (d < 0 the reverse transformation) can only proceed if
(2)
= const (d
(2)
= 0). These
functions are given by:
(1)
=
f
k
(1)
( ),
(2)
=
f
+k
(2)
( ). (12)
In order to be in agreement with the kinetic phase transformation given by previous authors like (Koistinen and
Marburger, 1959), the previous functions k
()
( ) can be written as:
k( )
(1)
= (A
1
+B
1
) ln(1 ), k( )
(2)
=
_
A
2
B
2
(1 )
_
ln( ), (13)
with
A
1
=
s
s
o
a
1
, A
2
=
s
+ s
o
a
2
, B
1
=
2 s
o
a
1
, B
2
=
2 s
o
a
2
. (14)
618 M. Collet et al.
Coefcients a
1
, a
2
can be obtained with the conditions
()
= 0 for stress free state. This implies the required
exponential laws:
AM = 1 e
a
1
(M
o
s
T )
,
M A = e
a
2
(T A
o
s
)
,
(15)
then
a
1
=
ln(1
M
f
)
M
o
s
M
o
f
, a
2
=
ln(
A
f
)
A
o
f
A
o
s
. (16)
Commonly used values for the forward and reverse transformations are respectively
M
f
= 0.99 and
A
f
= 0.01.
In order to be self consistent, the heat equation corresponding to the energy conservation of the two phases
system must be given. Remembering equations (9) and (11):
dD =T ds dq =
f
d, (17)
with s =
T
(, , T ), the explicit form nally becomes:
C
v
dT dq
_
+T
o
E +
_
u
(1 2 ) u
o
_
d +T
o
Ed = 0, (18)
C
v
dT dq
_
f
(, , T ) +T (
o
E +s
d +T
o
Ed =0. (19)
This last equation will now be simplied in the particular case of a vibrating beam.
3. Dynamical model of the cantilever beam
We consider a bending cantilever beam as shown in gure 1. In order to obtain a reliable and efcient nite
element formulation, the following steps are needed:
the thermomechanical model previously described is simplied by dening the specic assumptions
related to that particular case;
an equivalent complex Young modulus taking into account the phase tranformation is dened;
the vibrating equations of the bending beam are written by using the complex Young modulus;
a nite element formulation based on an iterative computation procedure is built up.
3.1. Simplied thermomechanical model
The dynamical analysis of a system described by the previous thermomechanical model is very intricate if
we try to solve it without any physical considerations. A simpler model usable in a numerical application can
be obtained by considering the following assumptions:
Figure 1. SMA cantilever beam.
Analysis of the behavior of a Shape Memory Alloy beam under dynamical loading 619
The term s
o
in equation (4) is neglected. That means that the coefcient of internal interaction between
the martensite platelets and the mother phase is not temperature dependent, implying:
it
= u
o
, B
1
=B
2
= 0.
The coefcients a
1
and a
2
are supposed to be equal, which implies that A
1
=A
2
.
No asymmetrical behaviour of the phase transition in tensioncompression is taken into account. This
hypothesis is classical in dynamical analysis where we know that this kind of behaviour which is important
from a static point of view is smoothed in the frequency domain.
The coefcient
o
is neglected.
The phase transformation which occurs during a period of vibration is supposed to be adiabatic: dq = 0.
Putting all these assumptions in (19) and writing that d
()
= 0 (12) for both forward ( = 1) and reverse
( = 2) transformations leads to the systems given in (20) and (21).
forward transformation (AM):
f
>0, d 0
_
_
T
o
E
E
_d =
_
_
C
v
f
(, , T ) +T (
o
E +s
)
s
+
o
E
2
E
2
it
+
A
1
_
_
_
_
dT
d
_
_
; (20)
reverse transformation (M A):
f
<0, d 0
_
_
T
o
E
E
_d =
_
_
C
v
f
(, , T ) +T (
o
E +s
)
s
+
o
E
2
E
2
it
+
A
_
_
_
dT
d
_
_
. (21)
In the both cases, if [0, 1] then
f
(, , T ) becomes independent of , so
f
(, T ), T and are constant
along all the specied phase transformation. The gures 2, 3 and 4 show respectively the adiabatic evolution of
, T and versus . We immediately underline that this complex behaviour can be simplied by considering
some pieces of afne functions as shown in gure 5. All characteristical points explicitely depend on the mean
temperature T
o
, the maximal strain
m
and the mechanical constants. They are calculated by using equations
(20) and (21). This description can be completed for compression by using symmetrical properties of the
transformation.
3.2. Equivalent complex Young modulus
Looking at the simplied model of gure 5, it appears clearly that a phase transformation will induce a local
stiffness reduction. Moreover, the hysteresis phenomenon will increase the damping effect. If we consider a
given vibrating state, the equivalent stiffness and damping can be modelised by a complex Young modulus:
E =E
(1 +i). (22)
Dening the strain energy densities W
1
, W
1/4
over one period of vibration and one quarter of period
respectively:
W
1
=
_
T
0
: d, W
1/4
=
_
T/4
0
: d,
620 M. Collet et al.
Figure 2. vs diagrams for different values of
m
:
m
=0.018 (.),
m
= 0.035 ( ),
m
=0.009 ().
Figure 3. T vs diagrams for different values of
m
:
m
= 0.018 (.),
m
= 0.035 ( ),
m
= 0.009 ().
Analysis of the behavior of a Shape Memory Alloy beam under dynamical loading 621
Figure 4. vs diagrams for different values of
m
:
m
= 0.018 (.),
m
= 0.035 ( ),
m
= 0.009 ().
Figure 5. Simplied model of the non linear adiabatical phase transition.
it can be shown that these quantities are related to E
2
m
, W
1/4
=
E
2
_
1 +
2
_
2
m
, (23)
with
m
the maximal strain reached during one cycle as shown in gure 5. Two different cases need to be
distinguished: a partial transformation (
m
2
) ( 1) and a complete transformation (
m
>
2
) ( = 1).
622 M. Collet et al.
Finally, for a given thermomechanical behaviour dened by (
1
,
2
,
3
,
4
,
1
,
2
,
3
,
4
) and a given vibrating
state characterised by
m
, the complex Youngs modulus is obtained as follows:
partial transformation (
m
2
)
E
=
E
2
1
+(
2
+
1
)(
m
1
)
2
m
_
(
m
1
)
2
+(
2
1
)
2
_
(
1
4
)
2
+(
1
4
)
2
sin( )
2
m
, (24)
=
2
_
(
m
1
)
2
+(
2
1
)
2
E
2
1
+(
2
+
1
)(
m
1
)
_
(
1
4
)
2
+(
1
4
)
2
sin( )
_
(
m
1
)
2
+(
2
1
)
2
_
(
1
4
)
2
+(
1
4
)
2
sin( )
; (25)
complete transformation (
m
>
2
)
E
=
E
2
1
+(
2
+
1
)(
2
1
) +(
2
+
m
)(
m
2
)
2
m
_
(
2
1
)
2
+(
2
1
)
2
_
(
1
4
)
2
+(
1
4
)
2
sin( )
2
m
, (26)
=
2
_
(
m
1
)
2
+(
2
1
)
2
E
2
1
+(
2
+
1
)(
m
2
1
)+(
2
+
m
)(
m
m
2
)
_
(
1
4
)
2
+(
1
4
)
2
sin( )
_
(
m
1
)
2
+(
2
1
)
2
_
(
1
4
)
2
+(
1
4
)
2
sin( )
, (27)
where and are characteristic angles of the stressstrain diagram given by
tan() =
2
1
m
1
, tan() =E. (28)
These expressions can be even more simplied by considering that the stiffness of the transition period is very
small compared to E. This implies
2
3
and
1
4
, leading to:
partial transformation (
m
2
)
E
=
E
2
1
+(
m
1
)(E(
1
m
+
3
) +
2
)
2
m
, (29)
=
2
E(
m
1
)(
m
3
)
E
2
1
+(
m
1
)(E(
1
m
+
3
) +
2
)
; (30)
complete transformation (
m
>
2
)
E
=
E
2
1
+(
m
1
)(E(
1
m
+
3
) +
2
) +(
m
m
2
)(2
2
+E(
m
2
))
2
m
, (31)
=
2
E(
m
2
1
)(
m
2
1
))
E
2
1
+(
m
1
)(E(
1
m
+
3
) +
2
) +(
m
m
2
)(2
2
+E(
m
2
))
, (32)
where
3
is linearly dependent on
m
and T
o
. Figures 6 and 7 show an example of the evolution of E
and
versus the maximal strain
m
.
Analysis of the behavior of a Shape Memory Alloy beam under dynamical loading 623
Figure 6. E
versus
m
.
Figure 7. versus
m
.
624 M. Collet et al.
3.3. Nonlinear equations of the vibrating beam
By considering a beam as described in gure 1 with the SaintVenant assumptions, the governing equations
can be written as follows:
2
w(x, t )
t
2
2
M(x, t )
x
2
=f (x, t ) x ]0, L[, (33)
w(0, t ) =0,
w(0, t )
x
= 0, (34)
M(L, t ) =0, T (L, t ) =0, (35)
where M =
_
S
xx
y dy is the bending moment, T =
M
x
the shear force, f the external force density applied
onto the beam. The internal strain is assumed to be linear inside the beam thickness and can be written according
to Euler Bernoulli approach:
= y
2
w
x
2
. (36)
Let us now consider a harmonic vibration at frequency and introduce the complex Youngs modulus
previously dened:
=E
(1 +i), (37)
the beam equation becomes:
2
w(x, ) +l
_
e/2
e/2
E
_
y,
2
w
x
2
__
1 +i
_
y,
2
w
x
2
__
y
2
dy
4
w(x, )
x
4
=F, (38)
where l is the beam span and e its thickness. We have dened an explicit nonlinear problem where the complex
stiffness operator depends on
2
w
x
2
in each section of the beam. The integral operator can nally be transformed
as an integration on variable . The maximal strain being
m
=
e
2

2
w
x
2
, it becomes:
2
w(x, ) +2l
_
m
0
E
()
_
1 +i()
_
2

2
w
x
2

3
d
4
w(x, )
x
4
=F, (39)
with the following boundary conditions:
w(0, ) =
w(0, )
x
= 0, (40)
2
w(L, )
x
2
=
3
w(L, )
x
3
= 0. (41)
3.4. Finite element computation procedure
To discretise the problem given by equations (39), (40) and (41), we introduce a nite element model with
classical P2 elements. In this case, the integral term in equation (39) is constant on each element. The discretised
weak solution is thus given by:
W
T
K(W)W
2
W
T
MW W
T
F = 0, W H
2
0
, (42)
Analysis of the behavior of a Shape Memory Alloy beam under dynamical loading 625
where H
2
0
is the functional space generated by the nite element functions verifying W(0, ) =
W(0,)
x
= 0.
Note that the K matrix is complex. This nonlinear problem can be solved for each excitation frequency by an
iterative procedure which tracks a stationary solution. The existence and uniqueness questions are not discussed
here. The initial value W
0
is the elastic solution of the homogeneous problem. Let us consider a given iteration
k and the corresponding value W
k
.
The function Z(W
k
) is computed as shown in (43),
2
W
x
2
i
being the value of
2
w
x
2
in element i. We can
underline that the computation of K(W) directly depends on this vector:
Z(W
k
) =
_
2
W
x
2
1
.
.
.
2
W
x
2
N
_
_
=D W
k
. (43)
Dening the testing function Y by:
Y(W) =Z
__
K(W)
2
M
_
1
F
_
Z(W), (44)
the stationary solution must verify:
Y(W) = 0. (45)
W
k+1
is thus given by Newton iterative steps:
W
k+1
=W
k
_
Y(W
k
)
W
_
1
Y(W
k
), (46)
where the Jacobian matrix (
Y(W
k
)
W
)
1
is estimated by a simple approximation around W
k
.
3.5. Numerical results
The composition of the SMA used in the numerical applications is Cu 11.7 Al, 0.6 Be (W
t
%). Its
characteristic phase transformation temperatures measured by electrical resistance evolution are M
o
F
= 191 K,
M
o
S
= 213 K, A
o
S
= 205 K, A
o
F
= 221 K. The material parameters are: E = 7.5e + 10 Pa m
2
, =
8129 kg m
3
, u
= 2871.6 J m
3
, s
= 11 J m
3
K
1
, u
o
= 100.3 J m
3
, = 0.0295, a = 0.055,
C
v
= 490 J kg
1
,
o
= 17.e 6 K
1
. These parameters have been identied by performing classical tensile
tests at different temperatures in the range of pseudoelasticity, as described in (Raniecki and Lexcellent, 1998)
and (Lexcellent et al., 1992). The dimensions of the cantilever beam are: L = 170 mm, l = 40 mm and
e = 2.4 mm. The external temperature is T
o
= 293 K. The force is applied at x = 25 mm.
Different tests have been carried out. Figure 8 shows the magnitude of the displacement at x = L for
increasingdecreasing frequency sweeping from 40 to 41 Hz and for different force levels. It must be noted
that the jump phenomenon occurs at different frequencies depending on the frequency sweeping order: for the
increasing tests, the jump frequency is greater than for the decreasing ones. Furthermore, we observe an increase
of the maximum amplitude and a decrease of the corresponding frequency as the force level is increased.
Figure 9 shows the position of the point y
o
corresponding to
f
= 0 in each element during each frequency
step for an applied force of 1.7 N. One can observe that the phase transformation occurs only near the
embedding (elements 1 to 5) and that the transformation thickness is not so deep (about 1/4 of the total
thickness).
626 M. Collet et al.
Figure 8. Amplitude Magnitude at x =L for ascendingdescending sweep frequency sinusoidal force.
Figure 9. Coordinates of the point y
o
during the computation with F = 1.7 N.
Analysis of the behavior of a Shape Memory Alloy beam under dynamical loading 627
Figure 10. First natural frequency of the beam.
Figure 10 describes how the rst natural frequency of the corresponding linear system changes when the
transition occurs. This frequency decreases when martensite appears in the beam skin. This phenomenon
corresponds to the evolution of Re(E) (gure 6).
4. Experiment
Classical dynamical measurements have been performed around the rst exion mode of the cantilever beam.
We rst describe the experimental setup and the measurement procedures. The results are then presented and
commented on.
4.1. Experimental setup
As it is shown in gure 11, the beam size is 170 40 2.4 mm. The composition of the SMA and
its characteristic temperatures are those given in 3.5. An electromagnetic exciter and an accelerometer are
respectively located at 13.5 and 160 mm of the embedding. The exciter consists of a light coil attached to the
beam and placed inside the induction eld of a magnet xed to the ground. A piezoelectric transducer between
the coil and the structure allows the applied force to be measured.
4.2. Measurements
As the dynamical behaviour of the beam is signicantly nonlinear, stepped sine technique has been used. 19
different force amplitudes between 0.01 and 1 Newton have been applied. After having determined the adapted
628 M. Collet et al.
Figure 11. Experimental setup.
Figure 12. Frequency response functions for 19 different force amplitudes.
bandwidth by a quick random excitation, stepped sine acquisitions have been performed with 41 excitation
frequencies.
4.3. Results
The Bode plot of the obtained Frequency Response Functions (FRF) is given in gure 12. It clearly appears
that the behaviour of the beam is nonlinear. The lower peak looks like a classical linear mode, it corresponds
to the lower force amplitude (0.01 Newton). As this amplitude increases, it can be seen that the maximum
amplitude rst increases and that the corresponding frequency decreases. Figure 13 shows the superposition of
the Nyquist diagrams for three force amplitudes: 0.25, 0.5 and 1 Newton. The fact that the shape of these
diagrams remains circular indicates that the damping nonlinearity effect is weak. On the other hand, the
Analysis of the behavior of a Shape Memory Alloy beam under dynamical loading 629
Figure 13. Nyquist diagrams for three force amplitudes: 0.25 (o), 0.5 () and 1 Newton ().
Figure 14. FRF for ascending () and descending ( ) frequency.
630 M. Collet et al.
dramatic phase shift (which is related to the jump phenomenon on the Bode plot) is typical of a stiffness
nonlinearity.
Finally, gure 14 shows the FRF obtained for a force amplitude of 0.8 Newton with ascending (continuous
line) and decreasing frequency (broken line). The observed phenomenon is similar to the prediction which was
made using the nite element model of the beam.
5. Conclusion
The dynamical behaviour of a CuAlBe beam has been studied. A simplied thermomechanical model has
been setup, leading to a nonlinear nite element model of the bending beam. Experimental measurements
have been performed around the rst bending mode. The numerical results are in very good agreement with the
experimental ones: the FE model is able to simulate the jump phenomenon, depending on the force amplitude
and the frequency sweeping order. It appears that the stress induced phase transformation mainly affects the
beam stiffness causing an increase of resonance peak magnitude, whereas the hysteresis phenomenon does not
change the damping signicantly. One can conclude that this SMA may not be a good candidate for a controlled
bending damper. Nevertheless, this study gives us a nice understanding of the dynamic phase transformation,
and will allow us to study various types of SMAs in order to optimise their use for structural active control.
References
Abeyaratne, R., Knowles, J.K., 1999. On a shockinduced martensitic phase transition. J. Appl. Phys. 87 (3), 11231134.
Chen, Y.C., Lagoudas, D.C., 2000. Impact induced transformation in shape memory alloys. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 48, 275300.
Feng, Z.C., Li, D.Z., 1996. Dynamics of mechanical system with a shape memory alloy bar. J. Intell. Mater., Systems and Structures 7, 399409.
Keith, W., Chiu, G., Bernhard, R., 1999. Passiveadaptative vibration absorbers using shape memory alloys, in: SPIE Conference on Smart Structures
and Integrated Systems, Newport Beach, California, pp. 630641.
Koistinen, D.P., Marburger, R.E., 1959. A general equation prescribing the extent of the austenitemartensite transformation in pure noncarbon
alloys and plain carbon steels. Acta Met. 7, 5569.
Lexcellent, C., Raniecki, B., Berriet, C., 1992. Pseudoelastic behavior modelling of shape memory alloys CuZnSn and CuZnAl monocrystals, in:
13th RFSO International Symposium on Material Science, Roskilde, Denmark, pp. 343348.
Ostachowicz, W., Krawczuk, M., Zak, A., 1998. Buckling of a multilayer composite plate with embedded shape memory alloy bers, in: ICCE/5,
Las Vegas, Nevada, July 511.
Raniecki, B., Lexcellent, C., 1998. Thermodynamics of isotropic pseudoelasticity in shape memory alloys. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 17 (2), 185205.
Raniecki, B., Lexcellent, C., Tanaka, K., 1992. Thermomechanical models of pseudoelastic behaviour of shape memory alloys. Archives
Mech. 44 (3), 261284.
Saadat, S., Saliche, J., Noori, M., Hou, Z., Davoodi, H., 1999. Promises for structural vibration control (SVC) using shape memory alloys, in: Trochu,
F., Brailovski, V., Galibois, A. (Eds.), Met. Soc. Shape Memory Alloys: Fundamentals, Modeling and Industrial Applications, pp. 487502.
Much more than documents.
Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.
Cancel anytime.