MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382679997 · doi:10.1177/1045389x231185458

Mechanical properties and constitutive models of shape memory alloy for structural engineering: A review

2023· review· en· W4382679997 on OpenAlexafffund
Ali Mohammadgholipour, A. H. M. Muntasir Billah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicShape Memory Alloy Transformations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsShape-memory alloyPseudoelasticitySMA*Constitutive equationStructural engineeringDissipationMaterials scienceCompression (physics)Ultimate tensile strengthFinite element methodComputer scienceMechanical engineeringEngineeringComposite materialMartensite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shape Memory Alloys (SMAs) are an innovative material with the unique features of superelasticity and energy dissipation capabilities under extreme loads. Due to their unique features, they have a great potential to be employed in structural engineering applications under different conditions. However, in order to effectively use SMAs in civil engineering structures and model their behaviors accurately in Finite Element (FE) packages, it is crucial for structural engineers to comprehend the mechanical properties and cyclic behavior of different SMA compositions under varying loading conditions. While previous studies have focused mainly on the cyclic behavior of SMAs under tensile loading, it is important to evaluate their fatigue behavior under cyclic tension-compression loading for seismic applications. This literature review aims to discuss the current gaps in the existing literature on the behavior of SMA rebars under low-cycle fatigue (LCF). The review provides a comprehensive overview of the primary characteristics of SMAs, summarizes the mechanical properties of SMAs presented in the literature and the parameters that affect them, and critically evaluates the effects of cyclic loading and LCF on SMAs. The review also provides a summary of the different constitutive models of SMAs and compares their advantages and limitations, which helps structural engineers to employ an appropriate constitutive model for predicting the accurate behavior of SMAs in FE software.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.119
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intelligent Material Systems and StructuresSame topicShape Memory Alloy TransformationsFrench-language works237,207