Research on Impact Resistance of Aluminum Alloy New Rotating Thin-Walled Structures

Abstract

Honeycomb structures are widely used in the field of impact resistance and are constantly being developed and updated. In this paper, the design of three new aluminum alloy rotating thin-walled structures (NRTS) are examined. These structures combine common concave structures and rotating, rigid-body structures. The purpose of this study is to solve the problem of the poor energy absorption capacity of rotating, rigid-body structure due to small deformation and to provide a reference for honeycomb mechanism designs. The Young’s modulus, the critical velocity, and the platform stress of the NRTS structure are derived from theoretical analysis. The dynamic response of the NRTS structure at different impact velocities is investigated using finite element simulation software. The results show that the rotating, thin-walled recessed honeycomb (RTRH) increases the plateau stress by 124% and 51% as compared to rotating, thin-walled square tubes (RTSTs) and the re-entrant hexagonal structure (RH), respectively; the rotating, thin-walled quadruple-arc honeycomb structure (RTQH) increases the SEA by 21% and 20% as compared to the RTST and RH, respectively; and the rotating thin-walled double-arc honeycomb structure (RTDH) increases the CEF by 54% and 51% as compared to the RTST and RH, respectively. During the study, it was demonstrated that NTRS also exhibits good energy absorption capacity. Then, the effect of rotation angle on the energy absorption performance was analyzed. The cell and wall thickness of the NTRS structure were optimized according to the gradient theory. It was proved that the gradient optimized structure has better energy absorption performance as compared to the uniform structure.

Mechanical Behavior of 3D-Printed Thickness Gradient Honeycomb Structures

“…Among the four thickness gradient honeycomb structures, the type IV structure has good energy absorption. This result is consistent with the research findings of Shu Cai Xu et al [ 43 ]. Compared to similar structures, the energy absorption of the H IV type is 137.5% higher than that of the H I type, the energy absorption of the S IV type is 8.51% higher than that of the S I type, the energy absorption of the Q IV type is 135.71% higher than that of the Q I type, and the energy absorption of the R IV type is 100%higher than that of the R I type.…”