The six finalists for the 19th Annual Robert J. Melosh Medal Competition for the Best Student Paper in Finite Element Analysis were announced last Friday. They are
Baskar Ganapathysubramanian, Cornell University
Hi All, Simulations and experimental results show the wide range of values for Young’s modulus (0.5 to 5.5 TPa) and wall thickness (0.066 to 0.34 nm) of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) in literature. Most of the published results say that the set of values (Young’s modulus and wall thickness of CNT) are 1 TPa and 0.34 nm, and the product is around 0.34 TPa-nm. In my point of view this set of values may be appropriate for multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Can we use the same set of values for analysis of single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs)? The interlayer distance between the graphene layers is 0.34 nm. Can we use this value as wall thickness of SWCNT or do we need to use atomic thickness instead of 0.34 nm?
A free surface in a multi-layer can experience an undulation due to surface diffusion during fabrication or etching process. In order to analyze the undulation, the elasticity solution for the undulating film is needed. Considering the undulation as a perturbation of a flat surface, a boundary value problem for 2D elasticity is formulated. The solution procedure is straightforward, but very lengthy especially for a multi-layer.
Calculating stresses in MD simulations is a controversial topic. There are two different schools of thought about the equivalence of the virial stress to the continuum Cauchy stress; for and against. Some argue based on momentum balance, that only the potential contribution to the virial stress should be considered as the continuum Cauchy stress. However, others assert that the total virial stress that contains both the kinetic and potential parts is indeed the quantity that corresponds to the Cauchy stress in continuum mechanics. We used a simple thermo-elastic analysis to verify the validity of using the total virial stress as the continuum Cauchy stress and found that the total virial stress is indeed the continuum Cauchy stress.
Greetings co-researchers,
I am currently designing a full-scale Impulse turbine (2 to 3 m diameter, 0.5 hub to tip ratio) for extracting of energy from waves.The turbine will be connected to a shore based device oscillating water column (OWC), so the airflow through the turbine is bidirectional (i.e. reverses as the wave enters and recedes in the OWC). This means we have to use symmetrical entry and exit guide vanes. These vanes are fixed, not movable.· The guide vanes are slender, approximately; height 700mm, chord length 600mm and thickness 2 to 5mm. Their role is to redirect the air flow from the axial direction to an angle of 60o · The rotor rotation speed is low (100 RPM to 1000 RPM). · The airflow is incompressible (Mach number < 0.3) and unsteady as it is related to the wave energy, which means the mass flow inlet to the turbine changes randomly (from zero to a maximum value say 10kg/s). One of the good approximations to this airflow is a sinusoid, but even this is extremely difficult to simulate in Fluent 6.2 CFD.I have done some preliminary forced vibration response analysis of the guide vanes. As far as I can see, the main cause of any vibration of the guide vanes would be the changes on pressure caused by the chopping of the flow by the rotor (i.e. the passing frequency of the rotor/guide vanes assembly). I plan to measure these pressure variations using pressure tapings on an experimental turbine test rig.
Please could you comment whether in your experience the main source of guide vane vibration would be the chopping of the fluid flow by the rotor. Also I would appreciate it if you have done any experimental or analytical data on this problem.
Hi
I have an investigation on Crack Propagation.
How can i predict the path of a crack.
Please help me!
Here you find a preprint version of a paper published in PRL 95, 114301 (2005) [also see Eur. Phys. J. E. 17, 261-281 (2005)] where the authors present a theory to explain why instabilities, e.g. stick-slip motion, is observed when cracks propagate in rubber materials.
Based on some recent results by Anders Klabring, myself and Jim Barber, showing rigorously that Melan’s theorem only works for a very restricted class of frictional problems, we suggest possible ave
Are not as high as we expected although very stiff and strong nanotubes or nanofibers (Young’s modulus E~1000GPa) are added into soft polymer matrices like epoxy (E~4GPa). In our early investigation on the systematic mechanical property characterizations of nanocomposites (Xu et al., Journal of Composite Materials, 2004--among top 5 in 2005;and top 10 in 2006 of the Most-Frequently-Read Articles in Journal of Composite Materials.) have shown that there was a very small increase (sometimes even decrease) of critical ultimate tensile/bending strengths, and mode-I fracture toughnesses in spite of complete chemical treatments of the interfacial bonding area, and uniform dispersions of nanofibers (click to view a TEM image). Similar experimental results were often reported in recent years. Therefore, mechanics analysis is extremely valuable before we make these “expensive” nanocomposite materials. Our goal is to provide in-depth mechanics insight, and future directions for nanocomposite development. Till now, nanocomposite materials are promising as multi-functional materials, rather than structural materials. Here we mainly focus on two critical parameters for structural materials: tensile strength and fracture toughness. We notice that other mechanical parameters such as compressive strengths and Young’s moduli of nanocomposite materials have slight increase over their matrices.
