Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:21:03.573Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

THE MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF POROUS ALUMINUM USING FINITE ELEMENT METHOD SIMULATIONS AND COMPRESSION EXPERIMENTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2013

Max Larner
Affiliation:
Materials Science and Engineering, School of Engineering, University of California Merced, 5200 N. Lake Road, Merced, CA 95343, U.S.A.
Lilian P. Dávila*
Affiliation:
Materials Science and Engineering, School of Engineering, University of California Merced, 5200 N. Lake Road, Merced, CA 95343, U.S.A.
*
*Corresponding Author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Lightweight porous metallic materials are generally created through specialized processing techniques. Their unique structure gives these materials interesting properties which allow them to be used in diverse structural and insulation applications. In particular, highly porous Al structures (Al foams) have been used in aircraft components and sound insulation; however due to the difficulty in processing and random nature of the foams, they are not well understood and thus they have not yet been utilized to their full potential. The objective of this project was to determine whether a relationship exists between the relative density (porous density/bulk density) and the mechanical properties of porous Al structures. For this purpose, a combination of computer simulations and experiments was pursued to better understand possible relationships. A Finite Element Method (FEM)-based software, COMSOL Multiphysics 4.3, was used to model the structure and to simulate the mechanical behavior of porous Al structures under compressive loads ranging from 1-100 MPa. From these simulated structures, the maximum von Mises stress, volumetric strain, and other properties were calculated. These simulation results were compared against data from compression experiments performed using the Instron Universal Testing Machine (IUTM) on porous Al specimens created via a computernumerically-controlled (CNC) mill. CES EduPack software, a materials design program, was also used to estimate the mechanical properties of porous Al and open cell foams for values not available experimentally, and for comparison purposes. This program allowed for accurate prediction of the mechanical properties for a given percent density foam, and also provided a baseline for the solid Al samples tested. The main results from experiments were that the Young’s moduli (E) for porous Al samples (55.8% relative density) were 15.9-16.6 GPa depending on pore diameter, which is in good agreement with the CES EduPack predictions; while the compressive strengths (σc) were 155-185 MPa, higher than those predicted by CES EduPack. The results from the FEM simulations using 3D models (55.8% relative density) revealed the onset of yielding at 13.5-14.0 MPa, which correlates well with CES EduPack data. Overall results indicated that a combination of experiments and FEM simulations can be used to calculate structure-property relationships and to predict yielding and failure, which may help in the pursuit of simulation-based design of metallic foams. In the future, more robust modeling and simulation techniques will be explored, as well as investigating closed cell Al foams and different porous geometries (nm to micron). This study can help to improve the current methods of characterizing porous materials and enhance knowledge about their properties for alternative energy applications, while promoting their design through integrated approaches.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ashby, M. F., Evans, A., Fleck, N. A., Gibson, L. J., Hutchinson, J. W. and Wadley, H. N. G., in Metal Foams: A Design Guide, edited by Ashby, M. F. (Elsevier Science Publisher, Burlington, MA, 2000) p. 640.Google Scholar
Handbook of Cellular Metals: Production, Processing, Applications, edited by H. P. Degischer and B. Kriszt (Wiley-VCH, Germany, 2002) p. 5–184.Google Scholar
Banhart, J., Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society 52(12), 2227 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Howard A., Uniaxial Compression Testing, ASM Handbook Online Edition, ASM International (2003), in ASM Desk Editions on the Web, <http://www.asminternational.org> ASM International (2012).+ASM+International+(2012).>Google Scholar
Öchsner, A and Lamprecht, K., Mechanics Research Communications 30 (6), 573579 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COMSOL Multiphysics 4.3. The COMSOL Group (2012). COMSOL website. March 15, 2013 from http://www.comsol.com Google Scholar
Oliveira, B., da Cunda, L. and Creus, G., Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures 16 (2), 110119 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CES EduPack, Granta’s. Granta Material Intelligence (2012). Granta website. March 15, 2013 from http://www.grantadesign.com Google Scholar
San Marchi, C. and Mortensen, A., Acta Materialia, 49(19), 39593969, (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veale, P., Thesis, MS, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2010.Google Scholar
Aurenhammer, F., ACM Computing Surveys, 23 (3), 345405 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar