The document reports on research analyzing Corevo foam and Perlite Composite Material (PCM) through experimental and numerical methods. It describes testing of Corevo foam samples with two different average pore sizes that found a significant difference in plateau stress between the groups. Material properties for PCM with varying average particle sizes were determined using reverse engineering, finding they differ significantly in hardening modulus. In conclusions, the mechanical behavior of Corevo foams and development of material models for PCM capturing effects of particle size were summarized.

1. Group Seminar 2014
Progress on Experimental and Numerical
analysis with a special focus on Corevo
Foam and Perlite Composite Material
(PMC)
2nd October 2014
By: Mohd Ayub Sulong

2. Supervisors:
 Dr. Thomas Fiedler*
 Prof. Dr. Irina Belova
 Prof. Dr. Graeme Murch
 Prof. Dr. Andreas Oechsner
*Principal supervisor
1

3. Introduction
Fig. 1: Metal foam made of Zinc and bread roll
(Banhart J., 2002)
2

4. Stochastic
3

5. Introduction
Corevo foam
Perlite composite
material (PCM)
Sintered Titania Scaffold
4

6. Computed tomography method
Fig. 2: Computed tomography method from raw image to
3D model.
5

7. Introduction
Fig. 3: Corevo or salt foam
Average pore size,
d=5.6 mm
Average pore size,
d=1.9 mm
6

8. Base Material Properties Corevo Foam:
 Aluminium alloy - AS7G06 (Al, 7 wt%Si, 0.6 wt% Mg)
 Density = 2675kg/m3
 Young’s modulus = 74 GPa
 Poisson’s ratio = 0.33
 Yield stress = 241 MPa
7

9. Experimental analysis
Fig. 4: Equivalent plastic strain distribution for (a) d=5.6 mm,
sample S#2 (b) d=1.9 mm), sample A (Fiedler et. al, 2014).
ISO 13314
standard
8

10. Failure Analysis
Fig. 5: 0.2% offset yield stress result of sample S#1 and S#2.
9

11. Failure Analysis
Fig. 6: Equivalent plastic strain distribution for (a) d=5.6 mm,
sample S#2 (b) d=1.9 mm), sample A (Fiedler et. al, 2014).
10

12. Failure Analysis
Fig. 7: Uni-axial compression test done on Sample S#1
11

13. Failure Analysis
Fig. 8: Experimental compression test snapshots of (a) Corevo® foam
samples with an average pore size (d=5.6 mm) , sample S#2 (b) Corevo®
foam samples with an average pore size (d=1.9 mm), sample B.
12

14. Introduction
Perlite Composite Material (PCM)
13

15. PMC base material:
 Aluminium alloy - A356 (7.2 wt% Si, 0.4 wt% Mg, 0.1 wt% Ti, 0.12 wt% Fe)
 Density = 2.675 g/cm3
 Young’s modulus = 75 GPa
 Poisson’s ratio = 0.33
 Expanded perlite (EP) particles
 Density ≈ 0.1 g/cm3
 Young’s modulus = less than 5GPa
 Composition: 75 wt% SiO2, 14 wt% Al2O3, 3 wt% Na2O, 4 wt% K2O, 1.3 wt%
CaO, 1 wt% Fe2O3, 0.3 wt% MgO, 0.2 wt% TiO2 with traces of heavy metal
oxides.
14

16. Sample S 3D view on BoneJ
Fig. 9: Sample S visualised by BoneJ software
15

17. PCM with 3 particle sizes
Fig. 10: Strut’s local thickness distribution for PCM
materials.
16

18. Boundary Conditions-PCM
Fig. 11: Mesh sensitivity analysis and boundary conditions used for PCM
17

19. Collapse Mechanism- Treated
Fig. 12: Failure mechanism observed for treated PCM samples
18

20. 19
Fig. 13: Failure mechanism observed for untreated PCM samples
Collapse Mechanism- Untreated

21. Sample#10
Failure Analysis
Fig. 14: Equivalent plastic strain prediction for PCM with average EP
particle size of 3-4 mm (Group M)
Sample#13
20

22. Average stress-strain curves from
experiments
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Stress(MPa)
Strain ( - )
Stress_S
Stress_M
Stress_L
Fig. 15: Experimental average stress-strain data for three groups of EP
particle size sample
21

23. Material Properties-Solid samples
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Stress(MPa)
Strain ( - )
HT3 Initial YS E_Low E_Literature
Fig. 16: Experimental average stress-strain data for three groups of EP
particle size sample
22

24. Material Properties
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Stress,MPa
Strain, -
Piece-wise hardening modulus model
UT_solid_sample
HT3_exp
E_Exp = 9.8 Gpa
Equivalent E = 9.8 GPa
E_literature = 75 GPa
Fig. 17: Experimental average stress-strain data for three groups of EP
particle size sample
23

25. Material Properties
Fig. 18: Experimental average stress-strain data for three groups of EP
particle size sample
Numerical result without
hardening modulus defined
24

26. Material Properties
Item S M L
Young’s modulus, E (GPa) 12 14 14
Yield Stress 230 230 250
Hardening Modulus, HM y = 10x2 – 3x +1 y = 0.2x +1 y=1
Poisson’s ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33
Fig. 19: Experimental average stress-strain data for three groups of EP
25

27. y = 10x2 – 3x +1
y = 0.2x +1
y=1

28. Conclusions
 Corevo foam with two different average pore sizes have
been mechanically characterised.
 A significant change in plateau stress is observed between
these two group of Corevo foam.
 Material properties for perlite composite material are
developed using ‘reverse engineering’ method.
 PCM with different average particle sizes differ
significantly in hardening modulus.
27

29. Q & A Session
28

30. Thanks for your attention
29