4.7 Article

Concepts for enhanced energy absorption using hollow micro-lattices

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMPACT ENGINEERING
卷 37, 期 9, 页码 947-959

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2010.03.007

关键词

Energy absorption; Impulse; Cellular medium; Micro-lattices; Finite element

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a basic analysis that establishes the metrics affecting the energy absorbed by multilayer cellular media during irreversible compaction on either a mass or volume basis. The behaviors at low and high impulse levels are distinguished through the energy dissipated in the shock. The overall mass of an energy absorbing system (comprising a cellular medium and a buffer) is minimized by maximizing the non-dimensional dissipation per unit mass parameter for the cellular medium, A equivalent to U-m rho s/sigma(gamma), where U-m is the dissipation per unit mass of the cellular medium, ascertained from the area under the quasi-static compressive stress/strain curve, ay the yield strength of the constituent material and rho(s) the density of the material used in the medium. Plots of A against the non-dimensional stress transmitted through the medium, sigma(tr)/sigma(y) demonstrate the relative energy absorbing characteristics of foams and prismatic media, such as honeycombs. Comparisons with these benchmark systems are used to demonstrate the superior performance of micro-lattices, especially those with hollow truss members. Numerical calculations demonstrate the relative densities and geometric configurations wherein the lattices offer benefit. Experimental results obtained for a Ni micro-lattice with hollow members not only affirm the benefits, but also demonstrate energy absorption levels substantially exceeding those predicted by analysis. This assessment highlights the new opportunities that tailored micro-lattices provide for unprecedented levels of energy absorption for protection from impulsive loads. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据