Search results

Material mix ratio was shown in Table 1.
Table 1.
Bending test results Group Cracking load[N] Cracking strength [MPa] Average [MPa] Ultimate load[N] Ultimate strength [MPa] Average [MPa] M0-1 — — — 511 9.58 8.70 M0-2 — — 417 7.82 MGS0-1 479 8.98 10.66 685 12.84 14.40 MGS0-2 621 11.64 846 15.86 MGS0-3 606 11.36 773 14.49 M2-1 529 9.92 9.09 959 17.93 22.24 M2-2 440 8.25 1416 26.55 MG2-1 522 9.79 10.12 1337 25.07 25.03 MG2-2 516 9.68 1354 25.39 MG2-3 581 10.89 1313 24.62 MS2-1 598 11.21 10.99 1621 30.39 29.17 MS2-2 620 11.63 1336 25.05 MS2-3 541 10.14 1702 31.91 MGS2-1 635 11.91 11.79 1727 32.38 33.77 MGS2-2 680 12.75 1906 35.73 MGS2-3 572 10.72 1770 33.19 MGS1.02-1 524 9.83 11.73 1498 28.09 32.82 MGS1.02-2 629 11.79 1932 36.23 MGS1.02-3 723 13.56 1821 34.14 Analysis of test results.
The load deflection curves of specimens with different mix ratios were given in Fig. 1.
References [1] Shen Rong-xi, Wang Zhang-shui, Cui Yu-zhong.

Two limiting cases can be distinguished in this approach: 1.
Table 1.
GB I GB II GB III ∆T, °C Нb, eV A0b, m 2/s Нtj, eV A0tj, m 2/s № 1 21°<111> 18°<111> 3°<111> 398 - 479 1,0 0,03 1,8 4,5·10 4 № 2 20°<111> 25°<111> 5°<111> 380 - 420 2,0 1,8·10 6 № 3 20°<111> 10°<111> 30°<111> 470 - 510 0,4 3,9·10 -6 № 4 22°<100> 28°<100> 6°<100> 460 - 495 3,3 1,8·10 13 № 5 12°<100> 25°<100> 37°<100> 590 - 620 1,3 0,5 № 6 37°<100> 25°<100> 12°<100> 500 - 550 3,6 9,8·10 14 № 7 12°<100> 37°<100> 25°<100> 520 - 570 0,9 4,7·10 -4 4,4 1,8·1019 № 8 27°<110> 22°<110> 5°<110> 469 - 591 1,4 2,3 2,7 1,3·10 9 № 9 44°<110> 29°<110> 15°<110> 530 - 591 1,3 0,4 For each temperature the velocity V, the angle θ, and the width of the shrinking grain a were determined.
The compensation effect is the linear dependence between the activation enthalpy and logarithm of the pre - exponential factor: H=αlnA0 +β, (4) where α and β are constants, H the activation enthalpy, A0 the pre-exponential factor in the mobility equation A=A0 exp(-H/kT). 1,28 1,36 1,44 1,52 10-9 10-8 а) 510 385 T, o C420 460 Н1=1,8 eV Н1=1,0 eV H2= 2,0eV H3=0,4eV A, m 2 /s 1/Т, 103 /K 1,16 1,20 1,24 1,28 1,32 1,36 10 -9 10 -8 b) 570 550 470490 T, o С 530 510 Н9=1,3eV Н8=1,4eV Н8=2,7eV A, m2/s 1/Т, 10 3 /K 1,15 1,20 1,25 1,30 10 -10 10 -9 10 -8 c) 525 595 490 T, oC 560 Н7=0,9 eV Н7=4,3 eV A, m 2 /s 1/Т, 10 3 /K 1,14 1,16 1,28 1,36 10-9 10-8 d) 510 610 460 T, oC 590 Н5=1,3 eV Н6=3,6 eV Н4=3,3 eV A, m 2 /s 1/Т, 10 3 /K Fig.4.
References [1] A.V.

Basic characteristics of used AAC are shown in table 1, typical phase composition in figure 1.
Table 1 Basic characteristics of used AAC Bulk density in dry state ρv [kg.m-3] 420 480 520 560 610 Compressive strength fc [MPa] 2,4 3,2 3,8 5,0 5,5 Figure 1 Typical X-Ray difractograph of AAC (bulk density 480 kg/m3) Measurement methods Compressive strength of AAC was determined using the standard method (by hydraulic testing apparatus) (STN EN 772-1:2001 Methods of test for masonry units – Part 1: Determination of compressive strength).
Table 2 Thermal characteristics of AAC Bulk density in dry state ρv [kg/m3] Mass moisture content Vhm [%] Coefficient of thermal conductivity λ [W/m.K] Specific volume thermal capacity c.ρ [J/m3.K] Thermal diffusivity a [m2/s] 420 0 0,084 4,16 . 105 2,04 . 10-7 5 0,105 5,45 . 105 1,93 . 10-7 10 0,133 6,87 . 105 1,97 . 10-7 20 0,196 9,75 . 105 2,01 . 10-7 480 0 0,090 4,54 . 105 1,91 . 10-7 5 0,107 5,75 . 105 1,87 . 10-7 10 0,136 7,54 . 105 1,80 . 10-7 20 0,205 10,82 . 105 1,90 . 10-7 520 0 0,098 4,75 . 105 2,06 . 10-7 5 0,121 6,19 . 105 1,86 . 10-7 10 0,145 7,41 . 105 1,89 . 10-7 20 0,227 11,54 . 105 1,98 . 10-7 560 0 0,117 5,82 . 105 2,01 . 10-7 5 0,136 7,39 . 105 1,75 . 10-7 10 0,164 9,06 . 105 1,81 . 10-7 20 0,227 12,60 . 105 1,83 . 10-7 610 0 0,122 6,20 . 105 1,90 . 10-7 5 0,148 7,95 . 105 1,86 . 10-7 10 0,172 9,61 . 105 1,81 . 10-7 20 0,237 12,72 . 105 1,88 . 10-7 Figure
References [1] M.
Volume 216, March 2011, pp. 479-484, [4] Beťko B., Tomašovič P.: Stavebná tepelná technika, Stavebná akustika.

Optimal Analysis and Application in the Design of Ultra-light Truss-core Structures Bin Wang 1，a, Y.
Gu 1, Hai-Cheng Guo 1, Ai-Kah Soh 2,Dai-Ning Fang1，b 1 Department of Engineering Mechanics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China 2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong a bin-wang02@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn， b fangdn@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn Key-words: truss-core; actuator; ultra-light; optimal analysis, cylinder Abstract.
Thus, the mathematical description of a detailed optimal problem Eq.(16) is given in terms of Eq.(1)-Eq.(15). 2 3 2 0 0 Find make min 1 2 s.t. 1 ( ) 0 2 3 3 1 0 2 6 ( c f T c f f f f Y f c f Y dd L L E L L L N L H E BL hH HG EN L L E BL H d EN E BL ε δ δ σ π σ , Ψ → + ≤ − ≤ － ＋ 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 ) ( ) 1 0 24(1 ) 1 8 c f c c c b c L d L N HL E BL k d Ed l λ υ π π σ σ              − ≤   −  ≤    ≤ =   (16) As an example of the optimal problem, a cylinder truss structure is considered firstly.
[5] Paul D , Kelly L , Venkayya V , Hess T: Journal of Aircraft, 2002, 39 (1): 18 - 29
Solids Struc., 2003 [10] Lu, T.J.: Acta Mechanica Sinica 18(5), 457-479, 2002 [11] Lu, T.J., Hutchinson, J.W. & Evans, A.G.: J.

The rice husk is placed in the hot air oven for drying at 110℃ for 1.5h.
Their range and levels are given in Table 1.
Following the calculation of the regression coefficients, the models for prediction of SiO2 extracting rate is determined as: Y=0.69-2.792×10-3×X1-1.305×10-3×X2-3.974×10-3×X3+0.013×X1×X2-0.019×X1×X3-1.479×10-3×X2×X3+0.012×X12 +0.012×X22 +0.013X32
Table3 Variance AONVA table for the response Source Sum of squares Degree of freedom Mean square F value Prob（p）>F Significant Model 4.148×10-3 9 4.609×10-4 5.87 0.0216 ** X1 6.238×10-5 1 6.238×10-5 0.79 0.4071 X2 1.363×10-5 1 1.363×10-5 0.17 0.6914 X3 1.264×10-4 1 1.264×10-4 1.61 0.2516 X1 X2 7.103×10-4 1 7.103×10-4 9.04 0.0238 ** X1X3 1.404×10-3 1 1.404×10-3 17.87 0.0555 X2X3 8.746×10-6 1 8.746×10-6 0.11 0.7500 X12 5.772×10-4 1 5.772×10-4 7.35 0.0351 ** X22 6.142×10-4 1 6.142×10-4 7.82 0.0313 ** X32 6.313×10-4 1 6.313×10-4 8.04 0.0298 ** Residual 4.712×10-4 6 7.854×10-5 Lack of Fit 3.151×10-4 3 1.050×10-4 2.02 0.2895 not significant Pure Error 1.562×10-4 3 5.205×10-4 Analysis of Response Surface.
References [1] A.Muthadhi, S.Kothandaraman.

Demyanenko 1, a, I.P.
Popov 1, b 1 Samara University, Samara 443086, Russian Federation ae-dem@mail.ru, bigr_popov@mail.ru Keywords: microstructure, alloy, aluminum, corrosion resistance, grain, phase composition.
Summary 1.
References [1] I.N.
Vyalov, Multi-phases and multi-components materials under dynamic loading: Materials of 10th European Mechanics of Materials Conference, Kazimierz Dolny, Poland, 2007, pp. 479-485

Fig 1.
Table 1.
Experimental data and data calculated using the JC model: a) initial parameter set at 1600s-1, b) optimized parameter set at 1600s-1, c) initial parameter set at 2800s-1, and d) optimized parameter set at 2800s-1.
References [1] E.O.
Phys E: Scientific instruments, 16 (1983), 477-479 [4] G.R.

First, a sample was made as shown in Fig. 1 (b).
The 2θ of each of (220), (311) and (400) reflections, peak separation, α, 1/α and the average twin spacing (λ) of the alloy were summarized in Table 1.
∑ ±+ =°Δ b L buh 0 22 )( )( 2tan390 )2( π θα θ (1) we obtain directly the twinning probability α, since all the other quantities in Eq. (1) are readily evaluated.
References [1] L.F.
Forum Vols. 475-479 (2005), 409

Table 1 Average charging power of each section Section(h) 1 2 3 4 Power(kw) 19.34 18.52 7.54 2.6 Daily load of the micro grid.
References [1] Y.
Vol. 32 (2012), P. 1-10
Vol. 33 (2013), P. 1-10
Vol. 28 (2013), P. 1-14

Song 1,2,a , Q.L.
Deng 1, C.Y.
Chen 1 and D.J.
References [1] K.I.
Liu: Chinese Journal of Lasers, Vol.29 (2002) No.5, pp.475-479