Tensile properties of composite metal foam and composite metal foam core sandwich panels
Source abstract
Abstract
Steel-steel composite metal foam (SS-CMF) and composite metal foam core sandwich panels (SS-CMF-CSP) were manufactured and tested under quasi-static tension. The SS-CMF-CSP were manufactured by attaching stainless steel face sheets to a SS-CMF core using solid-state diffusion bonding. SEM imaging was used to inspect the microstructure of SS-CMF and compare it to that of SS-CMF-CSP. The results indicate a cohesive bond line at the interface of the core and the face sheets. The bare SS-CMF samples had an ultimate tensile strength between 75–85 MPa and a failure strain between 7.5–8%. The normalized tensile strength of the SS-CMF was approximately 24 MPa/(g/cm 3 ), 410% higher than other comparable metal foams, with a specific energy absorption of 0.95 J/g under tension. The uniform porosities and strong bonding between the sphere wall and matrix seem to be the strengthening factor of SS-CMF under tension when compared to other metal foams. The ultimate tensile strength of the SS-CMF-CSP was 115% stronger than the bare SS-CMF at 165 MPa with an average failure strain of 23%. The normalized strength of the SS-CMF-CSP was 52% higher than the bare SS-CMF. The modulus of elasticity was approximated using the rule of mixtures for the SS-CMF and the SS-CMF-CSP and the experimental results were found to lie within the calculated upper and lower bounds.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Cellular and Composite Structures · Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Polymer composites and self-healing
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Advanced Materials Research Lab, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA
Funding
U.S. Department of Transportation
References (53)
Show source-provided references
1. Ashby M · 2000
2. 10.1016/S0079-6425(00)00002-510.1016/S0079-6425(00)00002-5 ↗
3. 10.1016/S0921-5093(99)00170-710.1016/S0921-5093(99)00170-7 ↗
4. 10.1016/S1359-6454(01)00152-510.1016/S1359-6454(01)00152-5 ↗
5. 10.1016/S0921-5093(00)00954-010.1016/S0921-5093(00)00954-0 ↗
6. 10.3390/met204039910.3390/met2040399 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.matdes.2013.08.04510.1016/j.matdes.2013.08.045 ↗
8. 10.1002/adem.20160077610.1002/adem.201600776 ↗
9. Banhart BJ. Metal foams: production and stability. Adv Eng Mater 2006; 9: 781–794.10.1002/adem.200600071 ↗
10. 10.1002/adem.20080009110.1002/adem.200800091 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2020.10633610.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2020.106336 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2016.03.00510.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2016.03.005 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2015.07.00310.1016/j.radphyschem.2015.07.003 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2004.09.00410.1016/j.ijimpeng.2004.09.004 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2016.09.00410.1016/j.ijimpeng.2016.09.004 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.09.01510.1016/j.compstruct.2017.09.015 ↗
17. Banhart J, García-Moreno F, Heim K, et al. Light-Weighting in Transportation and Defence Using Aluminium Foam Sandwich Structures. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2019.10.1007/978-981-15-1263-6_5 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2019.10332710.1016/j.ijimpeng.2019.103327 ↗
19. 10.1177/109963621772525010.1177/1099636217725250 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.matdes.2015.07.12710.1016/j.matdes.2015.07.127 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11217510.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112175 ↗
22. 10.1016/S0020-7683(00)00327-910.1016/S0020-7683(00)00327-9 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.msea.2017.03.00910.1016/j.msea.2017.03.009 ↗
24. 10.1016/0025-5416(87)90496-410.1016/0025-5416(87)90496-4 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2004.04.00310.1016/j.ijmecsci.2004.04.003 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.cirp.2012.03.11610.1016/j.cirp.2012.03.116 ↗
27. 10.2320/matertrans.ME20110710.2320/matertrans.ME201107 ↗
28. 10.1088/1757-899X/290/1/01208310.1088/1757-899X/290/1/012083 ↗
29. Ibrahim NA · Int J Eng Mater Manuf · 2017 · 2 · 25
30. 10.1016/j.matlet.2008.11.00210.1016/j.matlet.2008.11.002 ↗
31. 10.2320/matertrans.47.214810.2320/matertrans.47.2148 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.msea.2015.02.02710.1016/j.msea.2015.02.027 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.msea.2012.11.10810.1016/j.msea.2012.11.108 ↗
34. 10.1002/sia.316410.1002/sia.3164 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.10.03410.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.10.034 ↗
36. 10.1080/10426914.2015.103790010.1080/10426914.2015.1037900 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.04.01010.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.04.010 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.12.05510.1016/j.compstruct.2014.12.055 ↗
39. 10.1016/S0921-5093(01)01766-X10.1016/S0921-5093(01)01766-X ↗
40. 10.1177/109963621037427010.1177/1099636210374270 ↗
41. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.933.8610.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.933.86 ↗
42. Rabiei A. Composite metal foam and methods of preparation thereof. US9208912 B2, 2012, issued 2015.
43. 10.1016/j.matdes.2007.01.02610.1016/j.matdes.2007.01.026 ↗
44. ASTM E8 / E8M-16ae1, Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials, West Conshohocken: ASTM International, 2016.
45. ASM handbook: Metallography and microstructures . Volume 9. Materials Park: ASM International, 2004.
46. 10.1016/0025-5416(83)90191-X10.1016/0025-5416(83)90191-X ↗
47. 10.1016/S0921-5093(99)00170-710.1016/S0921-5093(99)00170-7 ↗
48. von Hagen H, Bleck W. Compressive, tensile and shear testing of melt-foamed aluminium. In: Materials research society symposium – proceedings , 1998; 521: 59–64.10.1557/PROC-521-59 ↗
49. 10.1007/s11661-010-0343-y10.1007/s11661-010-0343-y ↗
50. Rabiei A, O’Neill AT, Neville BP. Processing and development of a new high strength metal foam. Materials Research Society Symposium-Proceedings , 2005; 841: 517–526.
51. 10.1016/j.msea.2009.11.00410.1016/j.msea.2009.11.004 ↗
52. 10.1002/(SICI)1527-2648(200004)2:4<192::AID-ADEM192>3.0.CO;2-#10.1002/(SICI)1527-2648(200004)2:4<192::AID-ADEM192>3.0.CO;2-# ↗
53. 10.1007/s11003-015-9829-510.1007/s11003-015-9829-5 ↗