Print 11 comment(s) - last by maugrimtr.. on Apr 2 at 9:09 AM

Porous material uses robust honeycomb-type design

Sponsored by the Army Research OfficeUniversity of California, San Diego Structural Engineering Professor Yu Qiao and his Ph.D student Cang Zhao have developed an impressive array of nanofoams that disperse the force of an impact better than previous materials.

The researchers began by creating foams with honeycomb like pores that ranged from 10 microns (micron-foams) to 10 nanometers (nano-foams).  The pours encompassed between 50 and 80 percent of the foam's total volume.  The pores were created using either combustion or acid etching, followed by dry curing.

The team discovered that the foam with the smallest pores -- the 10 nm pore-size nanofoam -- absorbed impacts the best.  Larger foams suffered so-called "damage localization" when exposed to trauma.  The energy absorbed was poorly distributed, leading to failures.  As a result, these foams would be poor candidates for body armor or building materials.

Foam pores
Smaller pore size films performed better. [Image Source: UCSD]

The work is far from over.  The current foams, which will be presented at the Research Expo April 18 on the UC San Diego campus are made of silica.  While the results are promising, the team believes polymeric or metallic nanoporous foams of similar pore composition may perform even better.

foam gun
The team used a special gun to test the impact resistance. [Image Source: UCSD]

The superfoams have a broad variety of potential applications.  They could be used in body armor for athletes to prevent traumatic injuries, be used by soldiers to prevent war wounds, and even be used to boost tall buildings' ability to withstand terrorist blasts or earthquakes.

Professor Qiao brags, "We are getting some impressive results.  People have been looking at preventing damage from impacts for more than a hundred years.  I hope this concept can provide a new solution."

Source: UCSD [press release]

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Did they buy that gun
By ClownPuncher on 3/29/2013 1:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
The high school wood shop quality sawhorses and C clamps make me laugh.

RE: Did they buy that gun
By CZroe on 3/29/2013 2:03:32 PM , Rating: 3
Then you laugh at a lot of science, engineering, and prototyping.

RE: Did they buy that gun
By ClownPuncher on 3/29/2013 3:39:00 PM , Rating: 2
Now I laugh at you!

RE: Did they buy that gun
By Pavelyoung on 3/30/2013 5:22:12 PM , Rating: 2
The simple truth is that not every researcher gets millions of dollars from the government. This is fairly normal for someone conducting research on a limited budget.

RE: Did they buy that gun
By FITCamaro on 3/31/2013 7:40:56 AM , Rating: 2
They forgot to put the "words global" warming in their application for a grant.

RE: Did they buy that gun
By half_duplex on 3/31/2013 6:15:53 PM , Rating: 1
Good point, if this was a renewable that prevented the release of our carbon foot prints or somehow harvested the natural power of algea and corn... I would be much more open to tax dollars being spent on it... but it's not, it's just some dumb material that could be used to build 300 story buildings for companies to make their profits.

RE: Did they buy that gun
By JPForums on 4/1/2013 9:47:52 AM , Rating: 2
Yup. It couldn't possibly be used for bridges, overpasses, and high rise apartment buildings. Nope. They'd never lease out floorspace of such a building to small businesses or startups either. Oh, and normal everyday non-billionaire people never work for said corporations and would never make up the vast majority of people occupying such a building at any given time either. It is simply inconceivable that anyone in the vicinity of such a building during a impact event would gain any benefit from the lack of building falling on them either. You are correct, this must be an invention that exclusively protects billionaire interests from earth quakes, bombs, tornadoes(?), and hurricanes(?). We should keep throwing our money at energy negative projects that clearly benefit the "people" and certainly don't serve the interests of the multibillion dollar agricultural industry ... Oh wait.

RE: Did they buy that gun
By maugrimtr on 4/2/2013 9:09:11 AM , Rating: 2
Global warming is a known fact, so I don't see the connection. This is far more experimental - materials testing.

Also, building apparatus out of basic materials is very common in engineering and science. There's often a template pre-published you can simply replicate with wood, plastic, some metal tubing and clamps. It's cheap, easy to do with minimal training and doesn't require hiring any expensive equipment or contractors for temporary items.

This is science, being frugal and flexible is normal behavior so long as it doesn't influence the outcome badly. What is the cost of a real rifle compared to this setup?

“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs

Latest Headlines

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki