journal article·2005-11

Size effects in the mechanical behavior of cellular materials

C. Tekoglu, P. R. Onck

Journal of Materials Science· Volume 40· Issue 22
Publisher page

Abstract

Effective mechanical properties of cellular materials depend strongly on the specimen size to the cell size ratio. Experimental studies performed on aluminium foams show that under uniaxial compression, the stiffness of these materials falls below the corresponding bulk value, when the ratio of the specimen size to the cell size is small. Conversely, in the case of simple shear and indentation, the overall stiffness rises above the bulk value. Classical continuum theory, lacking a length scale, cannot explain this size dependent mechanical behaviour. One way to account for these size effects is to explicitly model the discrete cellular morphology. We performed shear, compression and bending tests using discrete models, for hexagonal (regular and irregular) microstructures. Even though discrete models give a very good agreement with the experiments, they are computationally expensive for complex microstructures, especially in three dimensions. To overcome this, one can use a generalized continuum theory, such as Cosserat continuum theory, which incorporates a material length scale. We fit the Cosserat elastic constants of the models by comparing the discrete calculations with the analytical Cosserat continuum solutions in terms of macroscopic properties. We critically address the limitations of the Cosserat continuum theory. (c) 2005 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Cellular and Composite Structures · Nonlocal and gradient elasticity in micro/nano structures · Pickering emulsions and particle stabilization

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (13)

Show source-provided references
1. E. W. ANDREWS, G. GIOUX, P. ONCK and L. J. GIBSON, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 43 (2001) 701.10.1016/S0020-7403(00)00043-6 ↗
2. P. R. ONCK, E. W. ANDREWS and L. J. GIBSON, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 43 (2001) 681.10.1016/S0020-7403(00)00042-4 ↗
3. C. CHEN and N. A. FLECK, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 50 (2002) 955.10.1016/S0022-5096(01)00128-4 ↗
4. L. J. GIBSON and M. F. ASHBY, “Cellular Solids” (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1997).10.1017/CBO9781139878326 ↗
5. G. GIOUX, T. M. McCORMACK and L. J. Gibson, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 42 (2000) 1097.10.1016/S0020-7403(99)00043-0 ↗
6. V. S. DESHPANDE and N. A. FLECK, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 48 (2000) 1253.10.1016/S0022-5096(99)00082-4 ↗
7. C. CHEN, T. J. LU and N. A. FLECK, Ibid. 47 (1999) 2235.10.1016/S0022-5096(99)00030-7 ↗
8. S. DIEBELS and H. STEEB, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lon. Series A 458 (2002): 2869.10.1098/rspa.2002.0991 ↗
9. C. TEKOGLU, P. R. ONCK, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Mechanical Behaviour of Materials (ICM9), Geneva, Switzerland [CD_ROM], (2003).
10. R. D. GAUTHIER and W. E. JASHMAN, J. Appl. Mech. Trans. ASME 43 (1976) 502.10.1115/1.3423899 ↗
11. F. Y. HUANG, B. H. YAN, J. L. YAN and D. U. YANG, Int. J. Engng. Sci. 38 (2000) 275.10.1016/S0020-7225(99)00041-5 ↗
12. X. L. WANG and W. J. STRONGE, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999) 455, 2091.10.1098/rspa.1999.0394 ↗
13. M. E. GURTIN and A. I. MURDOCH, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 57 (1975) 291.10.1007/BF00261375 ↗