4.7 Article

Multi-objective optimization of energy absorbing behavior of foam-filled hybrid composite tubes

Journal

COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
Volume 279, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114771

Keywords

Smooth particle hydrodynamic; Optimization; Energy absorption; Hybrid composite tubes; Aluminum foam

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the energy-absorbing behaviors of hybrid composite tubes under static load and carries out multi-objective optimization studies. Single and double tubes made of different materials are subjected to static compression tests and modeled using the finite element method. The use of foam fillers of varying densities in single and double tubes is also explored, with multi-objective optimization studies aiming to achieve the lowest peak force and highest specific energy absorption.
The aim of this study is to investigate the energy-absorbing behaviors of hybrid composite tubes under static load and their multi-objective optimization. For this purpose, energy-absorbing behaviors of single (S_Al, S_St, S_C) and double (D_Al-St, D_Al-C, D_St-C) tubes made of Al 6063, St 52, and CFRP are numerically investigated. Static compression tests are performed for single and double tubes and modeled with the finite element method. Besides, Foam 1 (500 kg / m3), Foam 2 (750 kg / m3) and Foam 3 (1000 kg / m3) aluminum foam fillers with different densities are used in single and double tubes. In foam-filled single and double tubes, wall thicknesses were (1-4 mm) and foam densities were (500-1500 kg / m3); multi-objective optimization studies (MOO) were carried out in order to obtain the lowest peak force, highest specific energy absorption (SEA), and crash force efficiency (CFE). As a result of the optimization studies, it has been observed that it is possible to increase the absorbed energy values without sacrificing SEA values in double tubes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available