Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

Materials Science & Engineering A 689 (2017) 17–24

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Science & Engineering A


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/msea

Effect of relative density on the dynamic compressive behavior of carbon MARK


nanotube reinforced aluminum foam

Abdelhakim Aldoshan, Sanjeev Khanna
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: Closed-cell aluminum foams represent a unique class of solid cellular light metals that are made by deliberately
CNT reinforced Aluminum foam introducing voids or pores during fabrication. This lightweight material is able to undergo large deformation at a
Liquid metallurgy nearly constant stress known as Plateau Stress because of which aluminum foams are good energy absorbers
Quasi-static and dynamic compression under dynamic loads such as an impact. In this investigation, carbon nanotubes (CNT) reinforced closed-cell
Plateau stress
aluminum foams were fabricated using the liquid metallurgy route through the dissociation of a foaming agent
Energy absorption
Relative density
within the liquid metal. Four different relative densities of CNT reinforced Al-foam were used: 0.16, 0.20, 0.26
and 0.30, to study the effect of strain rate on the mechanical properties. The compressive mechanical behavior
of CNT reinforced Al-foam has been studied under quasi-static and dynamic loading conditions. The high strain
rate compressive response was investigated using a Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) over a range of strain
rates up to 2750 s−1. Mechanical properties such as peak stress, plateau stress and energy absorption increased
with the increase in relative density; however, the densification strain decreased with the increase in relative
density. Dynamic compressive properties improved as the strain rate increased indicating that this material is
strain rate dependent. Among all the foams, the 0.30 relative density exhibited the highest mechanical
properties whereas the 0.20 relative density foam displayed the highest strain rate sensitivity.

1. Introduction property imparted by the aluminum foam. Therefore, the energy


absorption per unit volume (Wv) is given as the area under stress-
Aluminum foams are becoming a potential material for lightweight strain curve up to the onset of densification (shaded region in Fig. 1).
multifunctional applications due to the excellent physical and mechan- Among different metallic foams, majority of the work has been done
ical properties [1]. Because of the cellular structure, closed cell on aluminum foams. Many researchers have investigated the mechan-
aluminum foams exhibit excellent damping capacity, sound and noise ical properties of closed cell aluminum foams under high strain rate
isolation, and energy absorption [2,3]. For example, in structural impact loading, but there exist contradictory opinions. Compressive
applications there is potential use of closed-cell aluminum foams as strength of closed cell aluminum foams is strain rate dependent over
the core in sandwich panels, foam filled tubes, among others [4]. Also, varying strain rates [8–11]. Also, Raj et al. [12] reported the effect of
these materials are good replacement for existing polymeric foams used strain rate on mechanical properties under quasi-static (0.001 s−1) and
in automobiles and trains, etc [5,6]. dynamic compressive loadings (750 s−1) over a wide range of relative
Metal foams have been found to contain porosity ranging from 70% density (0.062–0.373). Plateau stress exhibited relative density and
to 95%. Because of this, metal foams display a unique mechanical strain rate dependence, and the strain rate sensitively is apparently
behavior under compressive loading. The material can undergo large significant for relative density > 0.15. On the other hand, other
deformation under relatively constant strength. Fig. 1 presents the researchers showed that the compressive strength of aluminum foams
typical stress-strain response of closed cell aluminum foam under is apparently insensitive to strain rate (0.001–5000 s−1) [13–15]. This
compression [7]. It can be seen that the foam exhibits linear elastic arises mainly because of their different foam structure (cell shape and
behavior up to a peak stress at low strain ( < 3%). This is followed by a size), relative density, homogeneity of cell walls and defects in the cell
plateau region, in which stress remains relatively constant up to nearly walls, and fabrication method of foam (liquid metallurgy vs powder
60–70% strain. After that, material reaches densification stage in which metallurgy route). It's interesting to note that homogeneity of foam
stress increases significantly with strain. Among various mechanical structure such as pore size and cell walls thickness is directly influenced
properties, energy absorption capacity appears to be an important by the viscosity of the liquid melt. The presence of defective cell


Corresponding author.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2017.01.100
Received 10 November 2016; Received in revised form 23 January 2017; Accepted 28 January 2017
Available online 31 January 2017
0921-5093/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Aldoshan, S. Khanna Materials Science & Engineering A 689 (2017) 17–24

2. Experimental procedures

2.1. Materials

Closed cell CNTs aluminum alloy composite foam was produced by


melt route using a process being developed by CSIR-AMPRI Bhopal
[18]. In particular, aluminum alloy 5083 (AA 5083) was used as the
base metal. At the first instance, Al alloy-SiC particle (size: 10–30 µm)
composite was prepared by melt stirring process. The steps used for
synthesizing the Al alloy-composite closed cell foam were (i) melting of
Al alloy in a graphite crucible (ii) stirring the melt with the help of a
mechanical stirrer at a stirring speed of 700 RPM (iii) addition of SiC
Fig. 1. A schematic of the compression stress-strain behavior of Al foam (Adapted from particles (8 wt%) to the melt during stirring (melt temperature: 800 °C)
[7]). (iii) once the Al-SiC composite was ready, multi-walled carbon
nanotubes (CNT powder was compressed in the form of solid tablet
structure leads to stress concentration points along the weakest struts, and added in the melt) was added into the melt. In this process, SiC
and drastically decreases the strength of the closed cell foam. particle was added in the melt as thickening agent (iv) after complete
It has been shown that using carbon based reinforcements (e.g. SiC, addition of CNT, calcium hydride was added in the melt as foaming
fly ash etc.) helps to increase the viscosity and, hence produce favorable agent. After completion of foaming, the metallic die with foam, was
uniform microstructure [16]. Moreover, using nanomaterials such as taken out from the furnace and cooled with compressed air. The
carbon nanotubes (CNTs) to reinforce the Al-foam matrix has been foaming temperature was kept constant. The mold was of a relatively
shown to enhance the strength of the foam composite [17–19]. The large size and was not thermally controlled during foaming. Thus there
effect of relative density (density of foam divided by density of solid were temperature gradients with faster cooling near the mold walls
aluminum alloy) on the mechanical behavior of closed cell aluminum resulting in smaller pores (or higher relative density), while the central
foams has been studied by few researchers. Mondal et al. [20] studied region of the mold resulted in larger pores (or lower relative density).
the compressive response of closed cell aluminum-fly ash foam over a Thus, samples from different regions provided the relative density
range of relative densities (0.08–0.13) and quasi-static compression variation. The average cell size of RD=0.20 was 1.3 ± 0.3 mm and the
loading (0.01–10 s−1). Their investigation revealed that plateau stress cell wall thickness was 230 µm ± 50 µm, whereas the average cell size
increased with an increase in relative density, but plateau stress is and cell wall thickness of RD=0.30 were 0.8 ± 0.2 mm and 170 µm ±
insensitive to strain rate. 30 µm, respectively. The foam block prepared by this way was removed
Limited work was found on the effect of relative density on the from the die and then cut into pieces conforming to the exact size for
dynamic mechanical behavior of closed cell reinforced aluminum testing. The foam block prepared by this way was removed from the die
foams. Therefore, further investigations are needed to examine the and then cut into pieces conforming to the exact size for testing.
combined effect of strain rate and relative density on the mechanical Fig. 2 shows a cross-sectional view of closed-cell 2 wt% CNTs Al-
properties of aluminum foams, i.e. strength and energy absorption foam sample obtained using scanning electron microscope (SEM,
capacity. In this current investigation, 2 wt% CNTs Al composite foam magnification 28-100x and voltage 10 kV). The cell size of the foam
(AA 5083) produced through liquid melt route is studied under was measured along different sides of the specimen using the ASTM
dynamic compression loading. The 2 wt% CNTs concentration has E112-10 [21] method for measuring diameter of grains in polycrystal-
been chosen for this investigation based on the results obtained in an line materials (at least 100 measurements were carried out using ImagJ
earlier study [18,19] on the effect of CNTs concentration in Al-foam on software). The average cell size in the respective foams of different
the dynamic compressive response. It was determined that 2 wt% relative density varies in the range of 1.0–1.7 mm. Following the work
concentration produces the highest peak stress, plateau stress and of Muaki et al. [8,22], Raj et al. [12], and Hamada et al. [23], cubical
energy absorption among 1–3 wt% CNT reinforced Al-foams. In this specimens with 7.5 mm side length were used for high strain rate
study, Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) apparatus was used to compression testing, which is ~80% of the SHPB bar diameter of
study the dynamic stress-strain response over a varying range of strain 12.7 mm. Specimens for quasi-static compression were cut into
rates (1300 s−1 to 2750 s−1) and relative densities (0.16–0.30). For rectangular prisms of 10 mm×10 mm×15 mm. All foam specimens
comparison, quasi-static compression tests were carried out over the were cut using a low speed diamond wafering cutter. To determine the
same range of relative densities.

Fig. 2. Closed cell CNT reinforced Al-foam composite for RD=0.20.

18
A. Aldoshan, S. Khanna Materials Science & Engineering A 689 (2017) 17–24

Fig. 3. A schematic description of the in-house SHPB.

was developed by Kolsky in 1949 to determine the high strain rate


properties of materials (up to 10,000 s−1) [24]. Fig. 3 shows a typical
SHPB system, which consists of three bars: a striker, an incident bar
and a transmitter bar. SHPB was utilized to investigate the dynamic
mechanical properties of 2 wt% CNTs Al foams at high strain rate (up
to 2750 s−1). SHPB is made of 7075 aluminum bars of 12.7 mm
diameter. The lengths of striker, incident, and transmitted bars are
457.2 mm, 1820 mm and 1370 mm, respectively. To assure validity of
the recorded signals from strain gages, calibration of incident and
transmitted bars was carried out [25]. The specimen is sandwiched
between the end of incident bar and front of transmitted bar. To
minimize friction, a very thin layer of molybdenum grease was applied
on both specimen-bar interfaces. After that, the striker bar is launched
using pressurized nitrogen gas through the gas barrel. When the striker
bar impacts the front end of incident bar, a compressive wave travels in
the incident bar until it reaches the interface between back end of
incident bar and the specimen, when part of that wave reflects back as a
tensile wave and a part is transmitted through the specimen as a
Fig. 4. Stress equilibrium in SHPB. compressive wave and into the transmitted bar. Strain gages record
three waves: incident (I), reflected (R) and transmitted (T). The
recorded strain gage signals are used to determine the incident strain
(εI), reflected strain (εR) and transmitted strain (εT).
The theory behind SHPB is based on one dimensional elastic wave
propagation theory. The expressions for average strain rate, engineer-
ing stress and strain in specimen are given in Eqs. (1), (2) and (3)
respectively [25,26].
2COB εR
εṡ =
Hs0 (1)

⎛A E ⎞
σs (t )=⎜ B B ⎟ εT (t )
⎝ As0 ⎠ (2)

⎛ 2C ⎞ t
εs (t )=⎜ OB ⎟
⎝ Hs0 ⎠
∫ εR (t ) dt
(3)
Fig. 5. Stress-strain response of 2 wt% CNT Al-foams with different relative densities
under quasi-static compression (0.001 s−1). where CoB, AB and EB are the wave speed, cross-sectional area and
elastic Young's modulus of SHPB bars, respectively. HS0 and AS0 are the
density of the foam, the dimensions of the specimen were accurately length, and the cross-sectional area of the specimen, respectively.
measured and weighed using a digital caliper and digital balance. The forces in incident and transmitted bars are given by Eqs. (4)
Relative density was estimated as density of foam/density of base and (5), respectively. To satisfy the 1-D assumption in SHPB, specimen
aluminum alloy. must be under dynamic stress equilibrium and deform under constant
strain rate [25,26]. Stress equilibrium is achieved when the forces on
front (F1) and rear (F2) surfaces of specimen are nearly equal, which
2.2. Mechanical characterization results in expression (6). This assumption is satisfied when long bars
(incident and transmitted) have uniform elastic, homogeneous, iso-
The conventional split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) apparatus tropic characteristics across its cross-section and along its length; such

19
A. Aldoshan, S. Khanna Materials Science & Engineering A 689 (2017) 17–24

Fig. 6. Compressive stress-strain response of 2 wt% CNT Al-foams with different relative densities at a strain rate of (a) 1300 s−1, (b) 1800 s−1, (c) 2300 s−1 and (d) 2750 s−1.

Table 1
Peak stress (σPeak), plateau stress (σPl) and densification strain (εD) as a function of strain rate and relative density.

Relative Density Strain Rate (s−1) Strain Rate (s−1) Strain Rate (s−1) Strain Rate (s−1) Strain Rate (s−1)
0.001 1300 1800 2300 2750

σPeak (MPa) σPl (MPa) εD σPeak (MPa) σPl (MPa) σPeak (MPa) σPl (MPa) σPeak (MPa) σPl (MPa) σPeak (MPa) σPl (MPa)

0.16 3.51 4.23 0.71 6.21 4.22 6.53 5.54 7.13 4.82 7.5 5.76
0.20 8.15 7.52 0.59 7.53 6.71 9.15 8.52 12.04 12.24 13.1 13.67
0.26 12.03 10.54 0.55 11.12 11.54 11.85 12.11 14.33 13.56 15.2 15.8
0.30 18.06 16.60 0.46 17.57 17.14 18.66 18.13 20.54 21.14 21 21.4

Fig. 7. Dynamic compressive stress-strain response of 2 wt% CNT Al-foams of RD=0.20 Fig. 8. Dynamic compressive stress-strain response of 2 wt% CNT Al-foams of RD=0.30
as a function of strain rate. as a function of strain rate.

as EB, AB and COB. is achieved in the specimen. The stress equilibrium in the specimen
takes less than 40 μs to be achieved. In every test we ensured that a
F1=AB EB (εI +εR ) (4)
fairly constant strain rate was achieved over the duration of the test.
F2=AB EB εT (5) Quasi-static compression testing was carried out at strain rate of
1×10−3 s−1 using ADMET material testing machine.
εI +εR=εT (6)
To assure the 1-D wave theory assumption of SHPB holds, the 3. Results and discussion
specimen aspect ratio (length/width) is selected to be 1, and a copper
(C14500) pulse shaper was used for this work, which helped to achieve The stress-strain response of 2 wt% CNT reinforced foam under
stress equilibrium in the specimens [27]. The detailed process for quasi-static compression is shown in Fig. 5, which is similar in nature
selecting specimen aspect ratio and pulse shaper are reported else- to a typical compression behavior shown in Fig. 1. Peak stress is
where [18]. Fig. 4 shows that the stress equilibrium condition of Eq. (6) reported as the maximum stress value attained just before the start of

20
A. Aldoshan, S. Khanna Materials Science & Engineering A 689 (2017) 17–24

Fig. 12. Peak stress against strain rate at different relative densities.
Fig. 9. Peak stress as a function of relative density at different strain rates.

Fig. 13. Plateau stress against strain rate at different relative densities.
Fig. 10. Plateau stress as a function of relative density at different strain rates.

Table 3
Table 2 Variation of “m” with relative density.
Variation of “A” and “b” with strain rate.
# Relative Density mPeak mPlateau
# Strain Rate (s−1) Peak Stress Plateau Stress
1 0.16 0.24 0.40
A b A b 2 0.20 0.65 0.69
3 0.26 0.45 0.45
1 1300 104.80 1.58 208.8 2.13 4 0.30 0.26 0.37
2 1800 133.02 1.61 216.2 2.04
3 2300 135.50 1.55 261.8 2.12
4 2750 131.10 1.53 284.6 2.07
density varies from 0.16 to 0.30.
Fig. 6a-d show engineering stress-strain plots under dynamic
compression at different strain rates and relative densities. At
1300 s−1, it is found that compressive stress significantly increases as
the relative density increases. Hence, the highest peak stress and
plateau stress of 17.5 MPa and 17.0 MPa, respectively, are observed for
the relative density of 0.30. For RD=0.16 foam, the peak stress and
plateau stress increase up to a strain rate of 1800 s−1 and no further
increase with strain rate is observed. The higher relative density foams
(0.20, 0.26 and 0.30) exhibit an increase in peak and plateau stresses
with strain rate up to 2300 s−1 with nearly no gain beyond this strain
rate. It should be noted that higher relative density foam is stiffer due
to the effect of having thicker cell walls, which in turn increases the
stress levels. To better visualize the combined effect of strain rate and
relative density, a summary of the compressive stresses of this
investigation is presented in Table 1.
Fig. 11. Ln‘Apl’ vs. Ln'Strain Rate’. It is observed that compressive stresses at any fixed relative density
increase with strain rate. In a broad prospective, higher increase in
plateau region. Plateau stress is reported as the average stress plateau stress is observed for higher relative densities as the strain rate
throughout the plateau region (see Fig. 1). It is observed that stress- increases. This shows an agreement with the reported results of Raj
strain curves show small oscillations in the plateau region. This is et al. [12] that higher density foam, RD > 0.15, exhibits significant
attributed to the localized cell deformation and sequential compaction increase in compressive stress under dynamic compression. The
of layers throughout the plateau region [9,12]. It should be noted that compressive stress–strain curves of foam at various strain rates for
peak stress and plateau stress significantly increase as the relative relative density of 0.20 and 0.30 are shown in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8,

21
A. Aldoshan, S. Khanna Materials Science & Engineering A 689 (2017) 17–24

Fig. 14. Cross-sectional view of closed cell Al-foam composite with different relative densities (a) 0.15, (b) 0.20, (c) 0.26, and (d) 0.30.

Fig. 15. Variations of densification strain as a function of relative density at strain rate Fig. 16. Energy absorption as a function of strain rate and relative density.
of 0.001 s−1.

respectively. For the relative density of 0.20, peak and plateau stresses Table 4
displayed significant increases as the strain rate increased, whereas Energy absorption (WV) as a function of strain rate and relative density.
those with relative density of 0.30 exhibited smaller increase with the
Relative Strain Strain Strain Strain Strain
increase in strain rate. Hence, this indicates that foam with relative Density Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate
density of 0.20 is more sensitive to strain rate. (s−1) (s−1) (s−1) (s−1) (s−1)
In this study, peak stress (σPeak) also termed as the elastic collapse 0.001 1300 1800 2300 2750
stress (σel) is shown in Fig. 1. Generally, the variation of peak stress WV (MJ/ WV (MJ/ WV (MJ/ WV (MJ/ WV (MJ/
m3) m3) m3) m3) m3)
(σPeak) and plateau stress (σPl) with relative density follow a power
law relationship presented in Eqs. (7) and (8) [1]. 0.16 0.52 1.26 1.37 1.41 1.62
0.20 2.34 2.42 2.54 3.39 3.64
⎛ ρ ⎞bP 0.26 3.02 3.32 3.66 4.28 4.39
σPeak =AP ⎜ f ⎟ 0.30 4.87 5.24 5.78 6.35 6.27
⎝ ρs ⎠ (7)

22
A. Aldoshan, S. Khanna Materials Science & Engineering A 689 (2017) 17–24

Fig. 17. Deformation of closed cell Al-foam (RD=0.20) at different strain (a) 0%, (b) 5%, (c) 10%, and (d) 20%.

⎛ ρ ⎞bPl sensitivity observed in 0.20 relative density foam. For foam with
σPl =APl ⎜ f ⎟ RD=0.26, more small size pores appeared leading to less uniform cell
⎝ ρs ⎠ (8)
size. As the relative density increased to 0.30, cell size becomes smaller
where ‘Ap’ and ‘Apl’ are the respective strengthening coefficient, ρf is with an average cell size of 0.8 ± 0.2 mm and the foam has more solid
the density of foam, ρs is the density of solid metal and ‘bp’ and ‘bpl’ are areas.
the respective exponent to relative density. Fig. 9 shows the variation of Fig. 15 shows the variations of densification strain as a function of
peak stress as a function of relative density at different strain rates. The relative density of specimens tested under quasi-static compression
variation of plateau stress as a function of relative density at different (strain rate of 0.001 s−1). The densification strain is considered as the
strain rates is shown in Fig. 10. The data for peak stress and plateau strain corresponding to the intersection of tangents drawn on the
stress as a function of relative density were curve fitted using a power densified and the plateau regions. It is noted that densification strain
low relationship y=Axb. The values of ‘A’ and ‘b’ are presented in decreases as the relative density increase. The curve fit line follows the
Table 2. The value of ‘b’ in this present study shows a good agreement equation of a linear line, y=mx+b in which m equals −1.5 and b equals
with the reported values (1.5–3.0) for aluminum foams [1]. Fig. 11 0.94. The constants of this straight-line equation are within ± 6% of the
presents a the variation of Ln‘Apl’ with Ln'Strain Rate’. constants in Eq. (9) provided by Gibson et al. [1]. It may be noted that
Peak stress and plateau stress are plotted against strain rate for as the relative density varies from 0.16 to 0.30 the corresponding
different relative densities on a log-log plot (see Figs. 12 and 13) to densification strain varies from 0.71 to 0.46. For RD less than 0.16, we
estimate the strain rate sensitivity. The strain rate sensitivity ‘m’ is hypothesize that the densification strain would be invariant to the
calculated as the slope of each line (in Figs. 12 and 13) for each relative change in relative density, following the study by Mondal et al. [3] even
density presented in Table 3. It is noted that peak stress for relative though their foam system had a different reinforcement, namely fly-
densities 0.2 and 0.26 show stronger strain rate sensitivity as compared ash. The densification strain cannot be determined for dynamic tests as
to others. For plateau stress, the strain rate sensitivity of relative the impact pulse duration is not long enough to produce sufficient
densities 0.16, 0.26 and 0.30 varies in the range 0.37–0.45, while a densification.
relative density of 0.20 displays the highest strain rate sensitivity of ⎛ρ ⎞
0.69. Fig. 14a-d show the cross-sectional view of closed cell Al-foam εD=1 − 1.4 ⎜ f ⎟
⎝ ρs ⎠ (9)
composite with different relative densities 0.16, 0.20, 0.26, and 0.30,
respectively. Foam with RD=0.16 has irregular cell size and shape The energy needed under compression to deform any foam speci-
whereas foam with RD=0.20 has more uniform cell size, cell wall men up to particular strain is defined as the energy absorption capacity.
thickness and cell distribution an average cell size of 1.3 ± 0.3 mm. Under uniaxial compressive loading, energy absorption, WV, per unit
Therefore, this might be the plausible reason for the higher strain rate volume is given as the area under stress-strain curve up to a specific

23
A. Aldoshan, S. Khanna Materials Science & Engineering A 689 (2017) 17–24

strain εo, and evaluated using the following expression: Acknowledgement


εo
WV= ∫0 σ(ε)dε
(10) The authors wish to thank Dr. D.P. Mondal and Dr. S. Das of the
Advance Materials and Processes Research Institute (AMPRI), CSIR,
The energy absorption of 2 wt% CNTs foams has been evaluated for Bhopal, India for providing foam samples. Abdelhakim Aldoshan
different strain rates and relative density. Fig. 16 shows the energy would like to acknowledge King Abdulaziz City for Science and
absorption up to 30% strain of 2 wt% CNTs foams plotted against Technology (KACST), Riyadh, for the scholarship.
strain rate in the range 0.001 s−1–2750 s−1 for different relative
densities. It can be seen that the energy absorption is strongly References
influenced by strain rate. The increase in energy absorption with strain
rate is nearly the same for all foams of relative density of 0.20, 0.26 and [1] L.J. Gibson, M.F. Ashby, Cellular Solids: Structure and Properties, 2nd ed, UK
0.30, though the total energy absorption is higher for higher relative Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997.
density due to the higher associated plateau stress. To visualize the [2] T.J. Lu, A. Hess, M.F. Ashby, Sound absorption in metallic foams, J. Appl. Phys. 85
(11) (1999) 7528–7539.
combined effect of high strain rate as well as relative density, Table 4 [3] D.P. Mondal, M.D. Goel, S. Das, Compressive deformation and energy absorption
summaries the energy absorption of 2 wt% CNTs foam. characteristics of closed cell aluminum-fly ash particle composite foam, Mater. Sci.
To study the deformation mechanisms in the CNT reinforced Eng. A 507 (1–2) (2009) 102–109.
[4] J. Banhart, H.W. Seeliger, Aluminium foam sandwich panels: manufacture,
closed-cell Al-foam under quasi-static loading, images were captured metallurgy and applications, Adv. Eng. Mater. 10 (9) (2008) 793–802.
for RD=0.20 at different strain 0%, 5%, 10% and 20%, as shown in [5] G. Srinath, A. Vadiraj, G. Balachandran, S.N. Sahu, A.A. Gokhale, Characteristics of
Fig. 17a-d. In the undeformed image (Fig. 17a), eight cells were aluminium metal foam for automotive applications, Trans. Indian Inst. Met. 63 (5)
(2010) 765–772.
selected and then labeled with upper case letters ‘A’ to ‘H’. The labeled
[6] GDA, A high-speed train made of aluminium foam [Online]. Available: 〈http://
cells were then evaluated at higher strains based on the change in their www.aluinfo.de/index.php/gda-news-en/items/a-high-speed-train-made-of-
shape and size. At 5% strain (Fig. 17b), cell ‘A’ showed plastic bending. aluminium-foam.html〉, 2014.
[7] L.J. Gibson, Mechanical behavior of metallic foams, Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 30 (1)
The upper cell wall of ‘B’ experienced bending whereas the lower cell
(2000) 191–227.
wall displayed plastic buckling. Cell C was mostly crushed (Closed). [8] T. Mukai, H. Kanahashi, T. Miyoshi, M. Mabuchi, T.G. Nieh, K. Higashi,
Also, the upper cell wall of ‘D’ exhibited plastic buckling whereas left Experimental study of energy absorption in a close-celled aluminum foam under
cell wall remained undeformed. Moreover, the presence of defects in dynamic loading, Scr. Mater. 40 (8) (1999) 921–927.
[9] K.A. Dannemann, J. Lankford, High strain rate compression of closed-cell
the cell wall such as uneven wall thickness could further lead to aluminium foams, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 293 (1–2) (2000) 157–164.
fracture, as shown in the right side cell wall of ‘H’. Also, a rapture in the [10] H. Zhao, I. Elnasri, S. Abdennadher, An experimental study on the behaviour under
cell membrane of ‘H’ was observed and a white arrow points at the impact loading of metallic cellular materials, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 47 (2005) 757–774.
[11] P. Wang, S. Xu, Z. Li, J. Yang, H. Zheng, S. Hu, Temperature effects on the
location of the burst. This may be attributed to the release of the mechanical behavior of aluminum foam under dynamic loading, Mater. Sci. Eng. A
compressed gas inside the cell. It should be noted that other cells 599 (2014) 174–179.
remain undeformed (such as E, G and F). At higher strain of 10% [12] R. Edwin Raj, V. Parameswaran, B.S.S. Daniel, Comparison of quasi-static and
dynamic compression behavior of closed-cell aluminum foam, Mater. Sci. Eng. A
(Fig. 17c), plastic deformation progresses around the area of cells A, B, 526 (1–2) (2009) 11–15.
C and D while cells E, F and G maintained their original shape and size. [13] L. Kenny, Aluminium alloys - ICAA5, Mater. Sci. Forum 222 (1996) 1883–1890.
As the strain increased to 20% (Fig. 17d), plastic collapse spreads [14] V.S. Deshpande, N.A. Fleck, High strain rate compressive behaviour of aluminium
alloy foams, Int. J. Impact Eng. 24 (3) (2000) 277–298.
further to the adjacent cells.
[15] D. Ruan, G. Lu, F.L. Chen, E. Siores, Compressive behaviour of aluminium foams at
low and medium strain rates, Compos. Struct. 57 (1–4) (2002) 331–336.
4. Conclusions [16] D.P. Mondal, S. Das, Effect of thickening agent and foaming agent on the micro-
architecture and deformation response of closed cell aluminum foam, Materwiss
Werksttech. 41 (5) (2010) 276–282.
Compressive mechanical properties of closed-cell CNT reinforced [17] I. Duarte, E. Ventura, S. Olhero, J.M. Ferreira, A novel approach to prepare
Al-foams have been investigated under quasi-static and dynamic aluminium-alloy foams reinforced by carbon-nanotubes, Mater. Lett. 160 (2015)
loading with different relative densities of 0.16, 0.20, 0.26 and 0.30. 162–166.
[18] A. Aldoshan, S.K. Khanna, Unpublished Results, High strain rate behavior of
Split Hopkinson pressure bar was used for studying the dynamic carbon nanotubes reinforced aluminum foams, J. Eng. Mater. Technol., In
compression behavior. The salient observations of this work are listed preperation.
below. [19] A. Aldoshan, S. Khanna, Dynamic high temperature compression of carbon
nanotubes reinforced aluminum foams, J. Dyn. Behav. Mater. (2016) 1–11.


[20] D.P. Mondal, M.D. Goel, S. Das, Effect of strain rate and relative density on
At all applied strain rates, mechanical properties significantly compressive deformation behaviour of closed cell aluminum-fly ash composite
increase as the relative density increases in terms of peak stress, foam, Mater. Des. 30 (4) (2009) 1268–1274.
[21] ASTM, Standard test methods for determining average grain size, ASTMP, E112-
plateau stress and energy absorption.

10, p. Pennsylvania, 2011.
For similar strain rates, plateau stress is approximately 230–300% [22] T. Mukai, T. Miyoshi, S. Nakano, H. Somekawa, K. Higashi, Compressive response
higher for relative density of 0.30 compared to the low relative of a closed-cell aluminum foam at high strain rate, Scr. Mater. 54 (2006) 533–537.
[23] T. Hamada, H. Kanahashi, T. Miyoshi, N. Kanetake, Effects of the strain rate and
density foam (RD=0.16). Energy absorption in the foam of RD=0.30
alloying on the compression characteristics of closed cell aluminum foams, Mater.
is also 240–270% higher than low relative density foam RD=0.16. Trans. 50 (6) (2009) 1418–1425.
• For all relative densities, compressive stresses and energy absorp- [24] H. Kolsky, An investigation of the mechanical properties of materials at very high
rates of loading, Proc. Phys. Soc.: Sect. B,1949, pp. 676–700.
tion displayed a strain rate dependence.

[25] B.A. Gama, S.L. Lopatnikov, J.W. Gillespie, Hopkinson bar experimental techni-
The CNT foam of RD=0.20 exhibits the highest strain rate sensitivity que: A critical review, Appl. Mech. Rev. 57 (4) (2004) 223–250.
among all the foams studied. It is postulated that this behavior [26] W.W. Chen, B. Song, Spilt Hopkinson (Kolsky)Bar: Design, Testing and
relates to the more uniform cell structure in the 0.20 relative density Applications, Springer, New York, 2011.
[27] K.S. Vecchio, F. Jiang, Improved pulse shaping to achieve constant strain rate and
foam. stress equilibrium in split-hopkinson pressure bar testing, Metall. Mater. Trans. A
38 (11) (2007) 2655–2665.

24

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi