Computational Analysis of Advanced Shape-Memory Alloy Devices Through a Robust Modeling Framework

Scalet, Giulia; Conti, Michele; Auricchio, Ferdinando

doi:10.1007/s40830-017-0102-7

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[29][30][31]. It makes them also popular objects of benchmark simulations manifesting the reliability and robustness of the finite element (FE) implementation of proposed constitutive models [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]. However, hardly ever does the experimental characterization go beyond the macroscopic response in terms of force-stroke (load-deflection) dependence, which provides a reasonable global estimate of their performance, but it is insufficient for assessing the plausibility of the chosen modeling description with respect to the physical reality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconstruction of phase distributions in NiTi helical spring: comparison of diffraction/scattering computed tomography and computational modeling

Frost

Ševčík

Kadeřávek

et al. 2020

Smart Mater. Struct.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We successfully reconstructed spatial phase distributions within a cross-section of a stretched NiTi helical spring via x-ray diffraction/scattering computed tomography (DSCT) and compared them with predictions obtained from a finite element simulation; the simulation employed an established phenomenological constitutive model tailored for NiTi shape memory alloys. The comparison corroborated the direct correspondence between the internal variables representing (volume fraction of) phases in the constitutive model and their experimental counterparts. This case study also showed that because of the distinct diffraction contrast between austenite and martensite, DSCT allows visualization of phase gradients within the material.

show abstract