Effect of cell-size on the energy absorption features of closed-cell aluminium foams
dc.contributor.author | Nammi, Sathish K. | * |
dc.contributor.author | Edwards, Gerard | * |
dc.contributor.author | Shirvani, Hassan | * |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-11-01T09:50:28Z | |
dc.date.available | 2016-11-01T09:50:28Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2016-07-02 | |
dc.identifier | https://chesterrep.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10034/620234/S.K.%20Nammi%20et%20al.%20Acta%20Astronautica_Post%20Print.pdf?sequence=10 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Nammi, S. K., Edwards, G., & Shirvani, H. (2016). Effect of cell-size on the energy absorption features of closed-cell aluminium foams. Acta Astronautica, 128, 243-50. | en |
dc.identifier.issn | 0094-5765 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.actaastro.2016.06.047 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10034/620234 | |
dc.description.abstract | The effect of cell-size on the compressive response and energy absorption features of closed-cell aluminium (Al) foam were investigated by finite element method. Micromechanical models were constructed with a repeating unit-cell (RUC) which was sectioned from tetrakaidecahedra structure. Using this RUC, three Al foam models with different cell-sizes (large, medium and small) and all of same density, were built. These three different cell-size pieces of foam occupy the same volume and their domains contained 8, 27 and 64 RUCs respectively. However, the smaller cell-size foam has larger surface area to volume ratio compared to other two. Mechanical behaviour was modelled under uniaxial loading. All three aggregates (3D arrays of RUCs) of different cell-sizes showed an elastic region at the initial stage, then followed by a plateau, and finally, a densification region. The smaller cell size foam exhibited a higher peak-stress and a greater densification strain comparing other two cell-sizes investigated. It was demonstrated that energy absorption capabilities of smaller cell-size foams was higher compared to the larger cell-sizes examined. | |
dc.language.iso | en | en |
dc.publisher | Elsevier | en |
dc.relation.url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576516304131 | en |
dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ | * |
dc.subject | Aluminium foam, Cell-size, Energy absorption, Repeating unit-cell, Micromechanical | en |
dc.title | Effect of cell-size on the energy absorption features of closed-cell aluminium foams | en |
dc.type | Article | en |
dc.contributor.department | Anglia Ruskin University; University of Chester | en |
dc.identifier.journal | Acta Astronautica | |
or.grant.openaccess | Yes | en |
rioxxterms.funder | Unfunded | en |
rioxxterms.identifier.project | Unfunded | en |
rioxxterms.version | AM | en |
rioxxterms.versionofrecord | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2016.06.047 | |
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate | 2017-07-02 | |
html.description.abstract | The effect of cell-size on the compressive response and energy absorption features of closed-cell aluminium (Al) foam were investigated by finite element method. Micromechanical models were constructed with a repeating unit-cell (RUC) which was sectioned from tetrakaidecahedra structure. Using this RUC, three Al foam models with different cell-sizes (large, medium and small) and all of same density, were built. These three different cell-size pieces of foam occupy the same volume and their domains contained 8, 27 and 64 RUCs respectively. However, the smaller cell-size foam has larger surface area to volume ratio compared to other two. Mechanical behaviour was modelled under uniaxial loading. All three aggregates (3D arrays of RUCs) of different cell-sizes showed an elastic region at the initial stage, then followed by a plateau, and finally, a densification region. The smaller cell size foam exhibited a higher peak-stress and a greater densification strain comparing other two cell-sizes investigated. It was demonstrated that energy absorption capabilities of smaller cell-size foams was higher compared to the larger cell-sizes examined. | |
rioxxterms.publicationdate | 2016-07-02 | |
dc.dateAccepted | 2016-06-25 | |
dc.date.deposited | 2016-11-01 |