Optimization of the 3-Point Bending Failure of Anodized Aluminum Formed in Tartaric/Sulphuric Acid Using Doehlert Design

Bensalah, W.; Feki, M.; Wéry, M.; Ayedi, H.F.

doi:10.1007/s11665-014-1358-0

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on Eq. (14)- (16) and Eq. (12), the modified strength value was 58.81 MPa, which was nearly access to the results measured by "3" method (58.51 MPa).…”

Section: Low-stiffness Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The methods for evaluating elastic modulus can be generalized in two categories: static methods (bending method [9] , tensile method [10] and indentation method [11] ) and dynamic methods (impulse excited technique [12][13] and ultrasonic technique [14][15] ). Meanwhile, three-point bending or four-point bending methods [9,16] are two most common approaches to estimate bending strength. However, most of these methods have the limitation of sample shape (rectangular beam) which are difficult and inconvenient for tube materials, especially for those with small or thin walls.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Investigation on Two Methods for Evaluating Mechanical Properties of Tube Materials

Liu¹,

Yi-wang²,

Wan³

et al. 2016

Journal of Inorganic Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Elastic modulus and bending strength of tube materials were evaluated via compressing a split ring sample or a closed ring sample for different materials. Elastic modulus was estimated from the load-displacement relationship and sample dimensions in the range of elasticity, while bending strength was derived through the critical load at fracture. In this work, four tube materials were divided in two groups to research the applicable scopes of two methods. The results indicate that the split ring is suitable for materials with high brittleness and low limit strain, while the closed ring is available for low-stiffness materials. Comparison with the three-point bending data demonstrated the validity and convenience of two methods with the respective applicable range.

show abstract

“…Based on Eq. (14)- (16) and Eq. (12), the modified strength value was 58.81 MPa, which was nearly access to the results measured by "3" method (58.51 MPa).…”

Section: Low-stiffness Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%