Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 41, Issue 15, pp 5021–5024 | Cite as

Nanoscale Pseudoelasticity of Single-crystal Cu–Al–Ni shape-memory Alloy Induced by Cyclic Nanoindentation

  • H.-S. Zhang
  • K. Komvopoulos

Shape-memory alloys (SMA) have become important structural materials of dynamic microsystems and bioimplants because of their ability to undergo large reversible strains (typically ∼8%) by shear dominated, thermoelastic, displacive phase transformations and crystallographic twinning processes. Advances in nanotechnology and microelectromechanical devices have turned the research attention to nanoscale material behavior. Single-crystal Cu–Al–Ni alloy exhibits the largest reversible strain (e.g., 17%) among SMA as well as high thermal and electrical conductivity [1, 2, 3]. In addition to the common type of pseudoelasticity associated with phase transformation from the high-temperature austenite (parent) phase to the low-temperature martensite (derivative) phase and vice versa, Cu–Al–Ni demonstrate another type of pseudoelastic behavior involving only martensitic transformations without the formation of austenite.

Previous studies have provided valuable information about phase...


Austenite Martensite Phase Transformation Contact Depth Nanoindentation Experiment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr. A. D. Johnson for helpful discussions and Professor N. Balsara at the University of California at Berkeley for the use of the differential scanning calorimetry equipment.


  1. 1.
    Fremont M, Miyazaki S (1996) Shape memory alloys Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Funakubo, H (1987) Shape memory alloys, translated from the Japanese by J. B. Kennedy. Gordon and Breach Science, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duerig TW, Melton KN, Stöckel D, Wayman CM (1990) Engineering aspects of shape memory alloys. Butterworth-Heinemann, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Otsuka K, Shimizu K (1979) Acta Metall 27:585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Šittner P, Hashimoto K, Kato M, Tokuda M (2003) Scripta Mater 48:1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Šittner P, Novák V (2000) Int J Plast 16:1243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ni W, Cheng Y-T, Grummon DS (2002) Appl Phys Lett 80:3310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ma X-G, Komvopoulos K (2003) Appl Phys Lett 83:3773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shaw GA, Stone DS, Johnson AD, Ellis AB, Crone WC (2003) Appl Phys Lett 83:257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ma X-G, Komvopoulos K (2004) Appl Phys Lett 84:4274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Komvopoulos K, Ma X-G (2005) Appl Phys Lett 87:263108Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ma X-G, Komvopoulos K (2005) J Mater Res 20:1808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Picornell C, Pons J, Cesari E (2001) Acta Mater 49:4221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thurn J, Cook RF (2002) J Mater Res 17:1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnson KL (1985) Contact mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu Y, Xie Z, van Humbeeck J (1999) Mater Sci Eng A 273–275:673Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations