The aim of this study is to analyze mechanical properties of a new Al sandwich structure with a foam core reinforced by 0.75 wt% silicon carbide nanoparticles. The reinforced core as the main component of the sandwich structure is examined by nanoindentation, quasi-static compression, impact and three-point bending tests. The behavior of the nanocomposite foam core sandwiched with AA3103 facing sheets is also analyzed under three-point bending test. The results showed that the silicon carbide nanoparticles play an important role in enhancing the Young’s modulus and hardness of the metallic matrix, static compressive strength, energy absorption of the foam core as well as load carrying capacity and maximum deflection of the sandwich structure. However, they have no significant influence on the morphological features, impact and bending properties of the foam core. The effectiveness of the silicon carbide nanoparticles was dependent on the dominant deformation mode and failure mechanism of specimens under the applied loadings.
García-MorenoF. Commercial applications of metal foams: their properties and production. Mater2016; 9: 1–27.
2.
DegischerH-PKrisztB. Handbook of cellular metals, Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, 2002.
3.
LiZZhengZYuJ. Low-velocity perforation behavior of composite sandwich panels with aluminum foam core. J Sandwich Struct Mater2013; 15: 92–109.
4.
XieBTangLLiuYet al.Research on the energy absorption properties of aluminum foam composite panels with enhanced ribs subjected to uniform distributed loading. J Sandwich Struct Mater2015; 17: 170–182.
5.
BonaccorsiLProverbioERaffaeleN. Effect of the interface bonding on the mechanical response of aluminium foam reinforced steel tubes. J Mater Sci2010; 45: 1514–1522.
6.
VendraLBrownJRabieiA. Effect of processing parameters on the microstructure and mechanical properties of Al–steel composite foam. J Mater Sci2011; 46: 4574–4581.
7.
ManesAGilioliASbarufattiCet al.Experimental and numerical investigations of low velocity impact on sandwich panels. Compos Struct2013; 99: 8–18.
8.
WanLHuangYLvSet al.Fabrication and interfacial characterization of aluminum foam sandwich via fluxless soldering with surface abrasion. Compos Struct2015; 123: 366–373.
9.
BanghaiJZhibinLFangyunL. Failure mechanism of sandwich beams subjected to three-point bending. Compos Struct2015; 133: 739–745.
10.
StylesMCompstonPKalyanasundaramS. Finite element modelling of core thickness effects in aluminium foam/composite sandwich structures under flexural loading. Compos Struct2008; 86: 227–232.
11.
StylesMCompstonPKalyanasundaramS. The effect of core thickness on the flexural behaviour of aluminium foam sandwich structures. Compos Struct2007; 80: 532–538.
12.
DuarteIVesenjakMKrstulović-OparaL. Dynamic and quasi-static bending behaviour of thin-walled aluminium tubes filled with aluminium foam. Compos Struct2014; 109: 48–56.
13.
DuarteIVesenjakMKrstulović-OparaLet al.Manufacturing and bending behaviour of in situ foam-filled aluminium alloy tubes. Mater Des2015; 66: 532–544.
14.
DuarteIKrstulović-OparaLVesenjakM. Characterisation of aluminium alloy tubes filled with aluminium alloy integral-skin foam under axial compressive loads. Compos Struct2015; 121: 154–162.
15.
DuarteIVesenjakMKrstulović-OparaL. Compressive behaviour of unconstrained and constrained integral-skin closed-cell aluminium foam. Compos Struct2016; 154: 231–238.
16.
ViotPShankarKBernardD. Effect of strain rate and density on dynamic behaviour of syntactic foam. Compos Struct2008; 86: 314–327.
17.
LiGMuthyalaVD. Impact characterization of sandwich structures with an integrated orthogrid stiffened syntactic foam core. Compos Sci Technol2008; 68: 2078–2084.
18.
JiGOuyangZLiG. Debonding and impact tolerant sandwich panel with hybrid foam core. Compos Struct2013; 103: 143–150.
19.
MohanKHonYTIdapalapatiSet al.Failure of sandwich beams consisting of alumina face sheet and aluminum foam core in bending. Mater Sci Eng A2005; 409: 292–301.
LiZZhengZYuJet al.Indentation of composite sandwich panels with aluminum foam core: an experimental parametric study. J Reinf Plast Compos2014; 33: 1671–1681.
22.
MartakosGAndreasenJBerggreenCet al.Experimental investigation of interfacial crack arrest in sandwich beams subjected to fatigue loading using a novel crack arresting device. J Sandwich Struct Mater2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1099636217695057.
23.
HarneRLBlancCRemillieuxMCet al.Structural-acoustic aspects in the modeling of sandwich structures and computation of equivalent elasticity parameters. Thin Wall Struct2012; 56: 1–8.
24.
HosseiniSMHabibolahzadehA. Investigation of nano-SiCp effect on microstructure and mechanical properties of Al/TiH2 foam precursor produced via ARB process. Mater Sci Eng A2015; 639: 80–88.
25.
HosseiniSMHabibolahzadehAPetráňováVet al.Influence of nano-SiCp on the foamability and microstructure of Al/TiH2 foam sheet manufactured by continual annealing and roll-bonding process. Mater Des2016; 97: 483–491.
26.
HosseiniSMHabibolahzadehAKrálíkVet al.Significant improvement in structural features, mechanical and physical properties of a novel CAR processed Al foam by nano-SiCp addition. Mater Sci Eng A2016; 670: 342–350.
27.
HosseiniSMHabibolahzadehAKrálíkVet al.Nano-SiCp effects on the production, microstructural evolution and compressive properties of highly porous Al/CaCO3 foam fabricated via continual annealing and roll-bonding process. Mater Sci Eng A2017; 680: 157–167.
28.
KoharaS. Fabrication of SiCp–Al composite materials. Mater Manuf Processes1990; 5: 51–62.
29.
KitazonoKSatoEKuribayashiK. Novel manufacturing process of closed-cell aluminum foam by accumulative roll-bonding. Scr Mater2004; 50: 495–498.
30.
Zlámal P, Fıla T, Jiroušek O, et al. Investigation of deformation behaviour of aluminum foam under high-strain rate loading and comparison with conventional energy absorbing material. In: XIIIthyouth symposium on experimental solid mechanics, Děčín, Czech Republic, 29 June–2 July 2014.
31.
KrálíkVNěmečekJ. Comparison of nanoindentation techniques for local mechanical quantification of aluminium alloy. Mater Sci Eng A2014; 618: 118–128.
32.
MukherjeeMRamamurtyUGarcia-MorenoFet al.The effect of cooling rate on the structure and properties of closed-cell aluminium foams. Acta Mater2010; 58: 5031–5042.
33.
GergelyVCurranDClyneT. The FOAMCARP process: foaming of aluminium MMCs by the chalk–aluminium reaction in precursors. Compos Sci Technol2003; 63: 2301–2310.
34.
NěmečekJKrálíkVVondřejcJ. A two-scale micromechanical model for aluminium foam based on results from nanoindentation. Comput Struct2013; 128: 136–145.
35.
NěmečekJKrálíkVVondřejcJ. Micromechanical analysis of heterogeneous structural materials. Cem Concr Compos2013; 36: 85–92.
36.
ByakovaAGnyloskurenkoSNakamuraT. The role of foaming agent and processing route in the mechanical performance of fabricated aluminum foams. Metals2012; 2: 95–112.
37.
ElbirSYilmazSToksoyAet al.SiC-particulate aluminum composite foams produced by powder compacts: foaming and compression behavior. J Mater Sci2003; 38: 4745–4755.
38.
GudenMYükselS. SiC–particulate aluminum composite foams produced from powder compacts: foaming and compression behavior. J Mater Sci2006; 41: 4075–4084.
39.
SadotORamOAntebyIet al.The trapped gas effect on the dynamic compressive strength of light aluminum foams. Mater Sci Eng A2016; 659: 278–286.
40.
LiBZhaoGLuT. Low strain rate compressive behavior of high porosity closed-cell aluminum foams. Sci China Technol Sci2012; 55: 451–463.
41.
ShenJLuGRuanD. Compressive behaviour of closed-cell aluminium foams at high strain rates. Compos B2010; 41: 678–685.
42.
KabirKVodenitcharovaTHoffmanM. Response of aluminium foam-cored sandwich panels to bending load. Compos B2014; 64: 24–32.
43.
CrupiVMontaniniR. Aluminium foam sandwiches collapse modes under static and dynamic three-point bending. Int J Impact Eng2007; 34: 509–521.
44.
YanLHanBYuBet al.Three-point bending of sandwich beams with aluminum foam-filled corrugated cores. Mater Des2014; 60: 510–519.
