| METALS AND METAL MATRIX COMPOSITES |
|
|
|
|
|
| Differences in the Characterization of Aluminum Foam Structures Based on 2D Images and 3D Models |
| CHEN Xin1, LUO Hongjie1,*, WANG Li1, WU Linli1, BAI Tianshu2, LIAN Deliang2
|
1 Engineering Research Center of Ministry of Education for Advance Materials Preparation Technology, School of Metallurgy of Northeastern University, Shenyang 110819, China
2 Analysis and Testing Center, Institute of Metal Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenyang 110179, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Aluminum foam, with the advantages of light weight and high energy absorption, has a broad application prospect in the automotive industry, aerospace, construction industry and environmental protection. The randomness of the mesostructure of metal foam has a profound impact on its compressive mechanical properties, especially deformation and failure, so it is important to quantitatively characterize the structure of aluminum foam. In this work, a portable desktop scanner and computed tomography (CT) were used to characterize the microstructure of closed-cell aluminum foam, and the structural parameters such as pore size, porosity, and wall thickness in aluminum foam were quantitatively discussed from two-dimensional and three-dimensional perspectives, and the differences in structural parameters of aluminum foam were compared between two-dimensional images and three-dimensional models, as well as the differences between global and local structural parameters of aluminum foam. The results showed that the structural parameters measured by 2D images are basically consistent with which by 3D model except for porosity and roundness. The structural parameters of the cross-sections in each direction measured by 3D model are slightly different, but they are closer to the specimen. Overall, the measurement results of 3D model are more accurate, while 2D image measurement is more advantageous in terms of time and cost. This work provides a useful reference for the quantitative characterization of the structural parameters of porous mate-rials, especially macroporous materials.
|
|
Published: 25 April 2025
Online: 2025-04-18
|
|
|
|
|
1 Rodinger T, Ć orić D, Alar Ž. Metals, 2023, 13(6), 1146.
2 Gibson L J, Ashby M F. Cellular solids:structure and properties, Cambridge University Press, UK, 1997, pp. 316.
3 Yong-phil, Chunggil G K, Sangmae L. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 2009, 209(1), 435.
4 Zou Y, He D P, Jiang J Q. Science in China Series B:Chemistry, 2004, 47, 407.
5 Lázaro J, Solórzano E, Rodríguez-Pérez M A. Advanced Engineering Materials, 2017, 19(11), 1600496.
6 Rouquerol J, Baron G, Denoyel R, et al. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 2011, 84(1), 107.
7 Maire É, Adrien J, Petit C. Comptes Rendus Physique, 2014, 15, 674.
8 Islam M A, Kader M A, Hazell P J, et al. Materials and Design, 2020, 191, 108599.
9 Wang N Z, Chen X, Maire E, et al. Advanced Engineering Materials, 2020, 22(10), 2000264.
10 Wang Y, Chen F X, Wang X, et al. Materials Today Communications, 2023, 37, 106962.
11 Saleem F, Li S, Cui S T, et al. Materials Science and Engineering:A. 2023, 884, 145568.
12 Chen Y M, Das R, Battley M. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2015, 52, 150.
13 Verma K S, Muchhala D, Panthi S K, et al. International Journal of Metalcasting, 2021, 16, 798.
14 Babcsan N, Beke S, Szamel G. Procedia Materials Science, 2014, 4, 69.
15 Zhu X C, Cheng Z K, Chen Y M. Journal of Microscopy, 2023, 291(2), 145.
16 Mukherjee M, García-Moreno F, Jiménez C, et al. Acta Materialia, 2017, 131, 156.
17 Wang D Q, Xue W W, Meng X J, et al. Journal of Materials Science, 2005, 40, 3475.
18 Gergely V, Clyne T W. Acta Materialia, 2004, 52(10), 3047.
19 Song Z L, Zhu J S, Ma L Q, et al. Materials Science and Engineering:A, 2001, 298(1-2), 137. |
|
|
|
渝公网安备50019002502923号 © Editorial Office of Materials Reports.
2025, Vol. 39 
