|
|
||
|
|
|
|
Fig. 4. Comparison of experimental and numerical results: (a) Comparison of deformation mode, actual deformation [22] (b) Comparison of crushing force curves.
[22] M. Guden, H. Kavi, “Quasi-static axial compression behavior of constraint hexagonal and square-packed empty and aluminum foam-filled aluminum multi-tubes”, Thin-Walled Struct., 44 (2006), pp. 739-750
THIS IMAGE IS FROM:
Ning Gan, Song Yao, Haipeng Dong, Yulin Xiong, Dongrun Liu and Dong Pu (Primarily from: Key Laboratory of Traffic Safety on Track of Ministry of Education, School of Traffic & Transportation Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China),
“Energy absorption characteristics of multi-frusta configurations under axial impact loading”, Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 122, pp 147-157, January 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2017.10.011
ABSTRACT: In this study, the behavior of multi-frusta configurations under axial loading was analyzed, the effect of column spacing, number of tubes, shells, and cone combinations investigated, and multi-objective optimization applied to obtain optimal multi-frusta configurations. The results obtained indicate that the interaction between multi-frusta configurations without shell improves the system's specific energy absorption (SEA), the SEA of multi-frusta tubes can be improved by the rigid outer shell, and the overall energy absorption of restricted size structures benefit from having an appropriate number of multi-frusta configurations. They also show that cross-arranged tapers offer better energy absorption characteristics than other arrangements.
Page 8 / 77