4.1 Article

Axial Crushing of Uni-Sectional Bi-Tubular Inner Tubes with Multiple Outer Cross-Sections

期刊

LATIN AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOLIDS AND STRUCTURES
卷 14, 期 12, 页码 2198-2220

出版社

LATIN AMER J SOLIDS STRUCTURES
DOI: 10.1590/1679-78254175

关键词

Uni-sectional Bi-tubular Tubes; Energy Absorption; Finite Element Modeling; Dynamic Axial Crushing; Metallic Tubes; COPRAS

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11472226, 11672248]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increase of energy absorption along with smooth load displacement curve, reduced peak force and high mean crushing force is the key in the modern dynamic design of structures. In this regard, a new metallic tubular configuration consisting of uni-sectional bi-tubular inner tubes, with outer tubes of multiple varied cross-sections is proposed and crushed under axial dynamic loading. A number of configurations are proposed ranging from simple to complex polygonal sections defined in three groups. Deformation modes and energy absorption characteristics such as peak crushing force, mean crushing force, and specific energy absorption are determined and discussed for each configuration. The proposed arrangement shows a stable crushing and higher values of crush force efficiency. In order to select the most suitable configuration, on the basis of maximum specific energy absorption, peak crushing force and minimum peak force, a robust decision making method known as Complex Proportional Assessment (COPRAS) is implemented. The optimal configuration in each group is determined on the basis of higher values of specific energy absorption, crush force efficiency and a lower value of peak crushing force, using the chosen weighting factors in COPRAS implementation. Finally, the configuration with inner and outer hexagonal tubes is found to be the best possible design concept among the top members of each group, with peak crushing force, mean crushing force and crush force efficiency values of 69.8 KN, 7.3 KJ and 0.75, respectively.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据