Browsing by Author "Hu, LL"
Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Web of Science Cushioning Capability Analysis of Seat Foundations Considering the Sitter's Anthropometric Dimensions(2020.01.01) Hu, LL; Tor, O; Shen, LM; Zhang, JL; Quin, F; Yu, XHWeb of Science Effect of Body Mass Index on Sitting Pressure Distribution on Seat Cushion(2019.01.01) Hu, LL; Tor, O; Duan, PZ; Zhang, JL; Yu, XHWeb of Science Effects of Driving Torques on Direct Screw Withdrawal Resistance in OSB(2016.01.01) Tor, O; Demirel, S; Hu, LL; Zhang, JLWeb of Science Effects of Pilot Hole Diameter and Depth on Screw Driving Torques in Plywood(2020.01.01) Tor, O; Birinci, E; Hu, LL; Chen, CWeb of Science Ergonomics of a Chinese Folk Bamboo Lounge Chair(2020.01.01) Cheng, YF; Tor, O; Hu, LL; Zheng, W; Yu, YMWeb of Science Factors Affecting Critical Screw-Driving Torques in Particleboard(2019.01.01) Tor, O; Yu, XH; Demirel, S; Hu, LL; Zhang, JLWeb of Science Finite Element Analysis of Compressive Stress-Strain Relations in Elastic Materials for Seat Foundation(2023.01.01) Li, WK; Yu, XH; Hu, XY; Tor, O; Zhang, JL; Zhang, T; Qi, W; Hu, LLElastic materials for seat foundations come in a variety of materials, shapes, and dimensions. However, it is difficult to measure the stress -strain relationships of many elastic material combinations by conventional uniaxial compression tests. This study investigated the stress-strain relations of elastic material combinations for foam foundations using finite element analysis (FEA). First, the stress-strain relations of single-layer polymer foams and a combination of double-layer polymer foams with covering were quantified by uniaxial compression tests, and axial tensile tests quantified the properties of the covering material of the fabric. Then, based on the Ogden foam and Ogden constitutive equation of Ansys Workbench 19.2, the test data of single-layer polymer foams and covering were fitted by a non-linear least square method, and a combination of double-layer polymer foams with the covering is predicted by FEA. When the strain was 10% to 65%, the stress error between FEA and test results dropped from 95.68% to-5.08%.