PSI - Issue 48

Ilham Bagus Wiranto et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 48 (2023) 65–72 Wiranto et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2023) 000 – 000

69

5

have compared the energy-absorbing characteristics of various cross-sections and configurations of axially loaded components, and a comprehensive summary of these comparisons can be found in Table 3.

Table 3. Order of cross-section from best to worst (left to right) in respect to SEA capacity.

Geometry

Shape

Name

Circular

Hexagon

Quadrilateral

Triangular

Huang et al. [2019] presented the experimental and numerical investigations into the axial crushing of Al, CFRP, and Al/CFRP hybrid square tubes with sing-cell and multi-cell sections. The Al tubes have three different sectional shapes: single-cell, double-cell, and quadruple-cell sections. These are commercial products made through the extrusion process. The single-cell and mAulti-cell (double-cell and quadruple-cell) sections have outside dimensions (length x width x height) of 150 x 30 x 30 mm and 120 x 32 x 32 mm, respectively. Nia and Hamedani [2010] conducted experimental and numerical tests of energy absorption capacity regarding variations in the cross-sectional shape of thin-walled tubes, including circular, square, rectangular, hexagonal, triangular, pyramidal, and conical. The material of thin-walled tubes is made from aluminum alloys with 1- and 1.5 mm thicknesses Al 3003 H12 plates. Among all the sections under investigation, the circular tube had the highest average force and energy absorption capability. The order of their energy absorption, maximum load, and average load is unaffected by the change in tube thickness from 1 to 1.5 mm.

Table 4. Failure mode of composite structure classification from previous studies.

Authors

Geometry

Various forms of failures

1. Stable progressive end-crushing 2. Unstable local buckling 3. Mid-length collapse 1. Splaying and pull out 2. Pull-out and fracturing 3. Splaying and fragmentation

Liu et al., 2015

Square

Mahdi et al., 2019

Rectangle

1. Unstable local buckling 2. Large fragmentation

Zhu et al., 2017

Cylinder

1. Progressive, splaying 2. Progressive failure (shear fragmentation and lateral matrix) and local buckling 3. Symmetric collapse mode (radial length displacement)

Alkateb et al., 2018

Cone

1. Progressive end crushing 2. Unstable local buckling 3. Mid-length collapse

Liu et al., 2014

Double hat

1. Stable crushing modes: (a) fiber splaying, (b) fragmentation, and (c) brittle fracture 2. Unstable crushing

Hosseini et al., 2018

Cylindrical shell

Acar et al. [2019] aimed to enhance the crash performance of thin-walled aluminum tubes through the assessment of different multi-cell design concepts. Utilized two metrics, Crash Force Efficiency (CFE) and Specific Energy Absorption (SEA), to evaluate the crash performances of these tubes. To predict the CFE and SEA values, LS-DYNA FEA software was employed. In addition, an experimental study was conducted to validate the finite element models. Thirty multi-cell design concepts based on their CFE and SEA values were assessed, and subsequently identified the most favorable design for further evaluation. In crashworthiness studies, researchers have identified various failure modes that occur during a crash. These failure modes have been classified into different modes based on their characteristics. Mode classification allows for a better understanding of the behavior of the structure during the crash and helps in the development of effective crashworthiness strategies. Table 4 summarizes the typical failure modes of energy absorption composite structure observed by researchers in crashworthiness studies.