4.7 Article

Microstructure and mechanical properties of bimodal syntactic foams with different size combination and volume fraction of alumina hollow spheres

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2021.141798

关键词

Bimodal syntactic foam; Alumina hollow spheres; Microstructure; Mechanical properties; Failure

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFA0702903, 2016YFB0701204]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [DUT20GF102]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study prepared aluminum matrix bimodal syntactic foams using the stir casting method, mixing alumina hollow spheres of different size ranges. The mechanical properties of bimodal syntactic foams were found to strongly depend on the average diameter of hollow spheres when mixing hollow spheres with different size ranges in equal volume. The mechanical properties of bimodal syntactic foams with different size hollow spheres decreased linearly with the increase in content of larger hollow spheres.
In this study, the stir casting method was used to prepare aluminum matrix bimodal syntactic foams by mixing alumina hollow spheres of different size ranges. Alumina hollow spheres of 1.0-4.0 mm were divided into six size ranges. In bimodal syntactic foams, the hollow spheres of different size ranges were mixed in equal volume to ensure that their average diameter was almost the same, or the hollow spheres of 1.5-2.0 mm and 3.0-3.5 mm were mixed in different volume ratios. The bimodal syntactic foams under quasi-static compression first fractured along the small-sized hollow spheres, presenting brittle fracture characteristics. When mixing hollow spheres with different size ranges in equal volume, the mechanical properties of bimodal syntactic foams strongly depended on the average diameter of hollow spheres. The mechanical properties of bimodal syntactic foams with 1.5-2.0 mm and 3.0-3.5 mm hollow spheres decreased linearly with the increase of 3.0-3.5 mm hollow sphere content.

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