0
Research Papers

Structure and Deformation of Gradient Metal Foams Produced by Machining

[+] Author and Article Information
Haipeng Qiao

George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30318
e-mail: qiaohaipeng014@gmail.com

Tejas G. Murthy

Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore 560012, India
e-mail: tejas@iisc.ac.in

Christopher Saldana

George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30318
e-mail: christopher.saldana@me.gatech.edu

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received May 7, 2019; final manuscript received May 11, 2019; published online May 23, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Y. Lawrence Yao.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 141(7), 071009 (May 23, 2019) (7 pages) Paper No: MANU-19-1273; doi: 10.1115/1.4043768 History: Received May 07, 2019; Accepted May 12, 2019

The effects of surface structure on mechanical performance for open-cell aluminum foam specimens were investigated in the present study. A surface gradient for pore structure and diameter was introduced into open-cell aluminum foams by machining-based processing. The structure changes in the strut and pore network were evaluated by computed tomography characterization. The role of structure gradients in affecting mechanical performance was determined using digital volume correlation and in situ compression within the computed tomographic scanner. These preliminary results show that the strength of these materials may be enhanced through surface structural gradients.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Tutunea-Fatan, O. R., Fakhri, M. A., and Bordatchev, E. V., 2011, “Porosity and Cutting Forces: From Macroscale to Microscale Machining Correlations,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B, 225(5), pp. 619–630. [CrossRef]
Schoop, J., Jawahir, I. S., Balk, T. J., and Busbaher, D., 2014, “High Performance Infiltrant-Free Cryogenic Machining of 82% Density Porous Tungsten Under Computer Numerical Control,” 15th IEEE International Vacuum Electronics Conference, Monterey, CA, Apr. 22–24, pp. 167–188.
Pusavec, F., 2012, “Porous Tungsten Machining Under Cryogenic Conditions,” Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater., 35, pp. 84–89. [CrossRef]
Fakhri, M. A., Bordatchev, E. V., and Tutunea-Fatan, O. R., 2013, “Framework for Evaluation of the Relative Contribution of the Process on Porosity-Cutting Force Dependence in Micromilling of Titanium Foams,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B, 227(11), pp. 1635–1650. [CrossRef]
Fakhri, M. A., Bordatchev, E. V., and Tutunea-Fatan, O. R., 2012, “An Image-Based Methodology to Establish Correlations Between Porosity and Cutting Force in Micromilling of Porous Titanium Foams,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 60(9–12), pp. 841–851. [CrossRef]
Deglurkar, M., Davy, D. T., Stewart, M., Goldberg, V. M., and Welter, J. F., 2007, “Evaluation of Machining Methods for Trabecular Metal Implants in a Rabbit Intramedullary Osseointegration Model,” J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B, 80B(2), pp. 528–540. [CrossRef]
Chen, S., Head, D., Effgen, M., and Jawahir, I. S., 2005, “An Investigation of Sustained Machining Performance for Controlled Surface Quality Requirements in Porous Tungsten,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, 52(5), pp. 903–908. [CrossRef]
Bram, M., Kempmann, C., Laptev, A., Stover, D., and Weinert, K., 2003, “Investigations on the Machining of Sintered Titanium Foams Utilizing Face Milling and Peripheral Grinding,” Adv. Eng. Mater., 5(6), pp. 441–447. [CrossRef]
Silva, R. G., Teicher, U., Nestler, A., and Brosius, A., 2015, “Finite Element Modeling of Chip Separation in Machining Cellular Metals,” Adv. Manuf., 3(1), pp. 54–62. [CrossRef]
Schoop, J., Effgen, M., Balk, T. J., and Jawahir, I. S., 2013, “The Effects of Depth of Cut and Pre-Cooling on Surface Porosity in Cryogenic Machining of Porous Tungsten,” Procedia CIRP, 8, pp. 357–362. [CrossRef]
Schoop, J., Effgen, M., Balk, T. J., and Jawahir, I. S., 2013, “Improved Product Quality and Resource Efficiency in Porous Tungsten Machining for Dispenser Cathode Application by Elimination of the Infiltration Process,” Re-Engineering Manufacturing for Sustainability, A. Nee, B. Song, and S. K. Ong, eds., Springer, Singapore, pp. 241–244.
Teicher, U., and Nestler, A., 2013, “A Method to Simulate Structural Properties of Cellular Materials for Machining Processes,” Proceedia CIRP, 8, pp. 100–104. [CrossRef]
Nebosky, P. S., Schmid, S. R., and Sellés, M. A., 2011, “The Springback Characteristics of a Porous Tantalum Sheet-Metal,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 133(6), p. 061022. [CrossRef]
Qiao, H., Basu, S., Kumara, S., and Saldana, C., 2017, “Subsurface Damage in Milling of Lightweight Open-Cell Aluminum Foams,” CIRP Ann., 66(1), pp. 125–128. [CrossRef]
Qiao, H., Basu, S., and Saldana, C., 2016, “Surface and Subsurface Microstructural Damage in Machining of Porous Metallic Foams,” Procedia CIRP, 45, pp. 335–338. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Simulated displacement/compression of test spheres: (a) mean bias of various displacements and (b) mean bias of strain levels under different grid and subvolume settings on artificial 3D images

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Simulated displacement/compression of a metal foam: (a) mean bias of various displacements and (b) mean bias of strain levels under different grid and subvolume settings on artificial 3D images

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Pore diameter and surface area versus subsurface machined depth for (a) test 1, (b) test 2, and (c) test 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Pore diameter and surface area versus subsurface machined depth for (a) test 2, (b) test 4, and (c) test 5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Pore diameter and surface area versus subsurface machined depth for (a) test 2, (b) test 6, and (c) test 7

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Specific strut surface area versus subsurface machined depth for (a) test 1, (b) test 2, and (c) test 3 with corresponding strut branch orientation density variations in original samples (upper) and machined samples (lower)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Specific strut surface area versus subsurface machined depth for (a) test 2, (b) test 4, and (c) test 5 with corresponding strut branch orientation density variations in original samples (upper) and machined samples (lower)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Incremental strain fields from in situ compression tests on (a)–(d) bulk foam and (e)–(h) machined foam samples. Sample width was 10 mm.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Stress–strain curves in compressions of tests. CT scans from compression on (a)–(d) bulk and (e)–(h) machined foam samples. Sample width was 10 mm and images shown is taken at the midplane.

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In