4.6 Article

Study on the Cell Magnification Equivalent Method in Out-of-Plane Compression Simulations of Aluminum Honeycomb

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su15031882

关键词

aluminum honeycomb; cell magnification equivalent method; dynamic compression; prediction function; mechanical behavior

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study establishes and validates equivalent finite element models of honeycomb structures with the same thickness-to-length ratios, and finds that they have the same mechanical properties and energy absorption characteristics. Moreover, the magnification time is determined through CORA analysis and drop-weight impact tests, and an exponential function for predicting the magnification time is obtained.
The large scale and long calculation times are unavoidable problems in modeling honeycomb structures with large sizes and dense cells. The cell magnification equivalent is the main method to solve those problems. This study finds that honeycomb structures with the same thickness-to-length ratios have the same mechanical properties and energy absorption characteristics. The improved equivalent finite element models of honeycomb structures with the same thickness-to-length ratios were established and validated by experiments. Based on the validated finite element model of the equivalent honeycomb structures, the out-of-plane compression behaviors of honeycomb structures were analyzed by LS-DYNA software. The results show that the performance of honeycomb structures is not equivalent before and after cell magnification. Thus, the cell magnification results were further subjected to CORA (correlation analysis) to determine the magnification time and prove the accuracy of the cell magnification time through drop-weight impact tests. In addition, a first-order decay exponential function (ExpDec1) for predicting cell magnification time was obtained by analyzing the relationship between the cell wall length and the cell magnification time.

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

4.6
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