Sort by:
Publication Type:
Open access:
Publication Date:
Periodicals:
Search results
Online since: December 2013
Authors: S.P. Zhuravkov, Evgeniy A. Zernin, D.E. Kolmogorov, M.A. Kuznetsov, Nikolay A. Yavorovsky
Experimental procedure
To produce Al and W nanopowders we used aluminum and tungsten wires with 99.5% Al and 99.95% W content respectively.
The Al nanopowder was passivated in air, keeping the metal Al content not less than 91 mass percent.
Kurkin, E.L.
Lysak et al.
Troshkov et al.
The Al nanopowder was passivated in air, keeping the metal Al content not less than 91 mass percent.
Kurkin, E.L.
Lysak et al.
Troshkov et al.
Online since: September 2016
Authors: Mohammed Hadj Meliani, Abdallah El Azzizi, Lahouari Fodil
Estimation of Mixed-Mode Stress Intensity Factors with Presence of the Confinement Parameters T-Stress and A3
Lahouari Fodil1, a *, Abdallah El Azzizi2, b, Mohammed Hadj Meliani2, c
1,2 Mechanics Department, USTOran, 31000, Algeria
3 LPTPM, FS, Hassiba Benbouali University of Chlef, 02000, Algeria
a fodilhouari@gmail.com, b elazzizi@yahoo.fr, c hadjmeliani@yahoo.fr
Keywords: Constraint parameters, Mixed Mode, CTS specimen, Stress intensity factor.
[5] Vratnica M, Pluvinage G, Jodin P, Cvijovic Z, Rakin M, Burzic Z, 2010 , Influence of notch radius and microstructure on the fracture behavior of Al–Zn–Mg–Cu alloys of different purity’.
[5] Vratnica M, Pluvinage G, Jodin P, Cvijovic Z, Rakin M, Burzic Z, 2010 , Influence of notch radius and microstructure on the fracture behavior of Al–Zn–Mg–Cu alloys of different purity’.
Online since: February 2026
Authors: D. Jeyasimman, R Suresh
Tensile test values of the tested specimen
Specimens
Fmax
(kN)
UTS
(MPa)
%EL
(%)
Young's modulus
(MPa)
Yield stress
(MPa)
Bare Al
2.22
17.83
2.16
883.31
39.98
Al + 5% Si3N4
18.91
168.39
2.55
7181.87
136.81
The next mechanical test for composite specimen is impact test to analyse the impact strength of the material under the sudden loading condition.
Compared to bare Aluminium the composite specimens (Al + 5% Si3N4) having high impact strength.
Hot Deformation Response of Al 6061-MWCNTs Alloy Composites.
Szabolcs, luay S. al Ansari, and H.
[13] K.Shirvanimoghaddam et al.
Compared to bare Aluminium the composite specimens (Al + 5% Si3N4) having high impact strength.
Hot Deformation Response of Al 6061-MWCNTs Alloy Composites.
Szabolcs, luay S. al Ansari, and H.
[13] K.Shirvanimoghaddam et al.
Online since: July 2011
Authors: Yu Can Fu, Jiu Hua Xu, Ying Fei Ge
Using ultra-fine-grain carbide tools, Wu Zhenyu et al. [10] investigated the milling forces, machined surface roughness, tool wear on wt.15%SiCp/Al composite in the milling speed range of 10-180m/min.
Suresh Kumar Reddy et al. [12] conducted the milling experiments on wt.20%SiCp/Al composites using TiAlN coated carbides to study the machined surface quality and machined induced defects.
The milling speed used was in the low or moderate level and never exceeded 300/min for SiCp/Al composites.
In addition to the defects mentioned above, when high-speed milling SiCp/Al composites, there also existed some depth of deformation layer on the machined surface.
El-Gallab and M.
Suresh Kumar Reddy et al. [12] conducted the milling experiments on wt.20%SiCp/Al composites using TiAlN coated carbides to study the machined surface quality and machined induced defects.
The milling speed used was in the low or moderate level and never exceeded 300/min for SiCp/Al composites.
In addition to the defects mentioned above, when high-speed milling SiCp/Al composites, there also existed some depth of deformation layer on the machined surface.
El-Gallab and M.
Online since: September 2011
Authors: Jing Bo Liu, Dong Dong Zhao, Wen Hui Wang
The calculation selected three recorded motions: El Centro motion, Turkey motion and Loma Prieta motion.
Correlation of PGRAD and PGA Wave motions El Centro Turkey Loma Prieta PGA/g 0.2 0.2 0.2 PGRD/mm 64.18 59.45 64.58 PGA/g 0.4 0.4 0.4 PGRD/mm 137.12 95.54 156.5 PGA/g 0.55 0.55 0.55 PGRD/mm 192.25 156.72 220.77 Fig. 4 presents curve of stress as function of PGRD at A-A part and B-B part of the column in the upper and bottom stories of Section Ⅰ.
[8] Hashash Y M A, Hook J J, Schmidt B, et al.
Correlation of PGRAD and PGA Wave motions El Centro Turkey Loma Prieta PGA/g 0.2 0.2 0.2 PGRD/mm 64.18 59.45 64.58 PGA/g 0.4 0.4 0.4 PGRD/mm 137.12 95.54 156.5 PGA/g 0.55 0.55 0.55 PGRD/mm 192.25 156.72 220.77 Fig. 4 presents curve of stress as function of PGRD at A-A part and B-B part of the column in the upper and bottom stories of Section Ⅰ.
[8] Hashash Y M A, Hook J J, Schmidt B, et al.
Online since: October 2011
Authors: Qin Sun, Xue Ling Fan
Although the attractive features of S-FEM were previously discussed by applying to crack problems by Fish [3-5], Nakasumi [6] and Okada et al.[7], there are few research about its effectiveness on analysis of the composite delamination problems.
Properties of the HTA-1200 Carbon/epoxy prepreg EL (GPa) ET (GPa) vLT (GPa) GLT (GPa) 134 9.46 0.31 3.57 TABLE II.
Properties of the T-400 Carbon/epoxy prepreg EL (GPa) ET (GPa) vLT (GPa) GLT (GPa) 74.1 74.1 0.054 4.27 Figure 4.
Properties of the HTA-1200 Carbon/epoxy prepreg EL (GPa) ET (GPa) vLT (GPa) GLT (GPa) 134 9.46 0.31 3.57 TABLE II.
Properties of the T-400 Carbon/epoxy prepreg EL (GPa) ET (GPa) vLT (GPa) GLT (GPa) 74.1 74.1 0.054 4.27 Figure 4.
Online since: August 2017
Authors: Panpailin Seeharaj, Kittisak Choojun, Naratip Vittayakorn, Patchara Pasupong
Since the crystallite size of nanocrystalline CoFe2O4 obtained from this study (12-13 nm) was much smaller than that of the critical single domain size of CoFe2O4 nanoparticles reported by Qu et al. [14], at
34 nm, therefore, the magnetic property of the nanocrystalline CoFe2O4 in this study was probably controlled by the numbers of magnetic moments containing in the small nanocrystal (single domain) and the high spin canting and spin disorder occurring at the nanocrystal surface.
El-Okr, M.A.
El-Okr, M.
El-Okr, M.A.
El-Okr, M.
Online since: August 2013
Authors: Wen Xin Hu, Jun Zheng, Xia Yu Hua, Ya Qian Yang
The regulation function of choosing resource and its limitation conditions are as follow:
res(e) = A ∗ time cost(e) + C ∗ delay(e) (1)
B ∗ delay(e)
time_cost(e)EL (2)
delay(e)
- TL EL and DL are their boundary regulation conditions and will have different value in different environments.
Stutzle, The ant colony optimization metaheuristic: Al gorithms, applications, and advances, International Series in Operations Research and Management Science , 2003, pp.251–286