Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 53, Issue 14, pp 10479–10498 | Cite as

A multiscale study of damage in elastomeric syntactic foams

  • J. A. Brown
  • J. D. Carroll
  • B. Huddleston
  • Z. Casias
  • K. N. Long


Damage mechanisms in elastomeric syntactic foams filled with glass microballoons (GMB) and resulting effects on the macroscale elastic constants have been investigated. Direct numerical simulations of the material microstructure, composite theory analyses, and uniaxial compression tests across a range of filler volume fractions were conducted. The room temperature and elastic behavior of composites with undamaged, fully debonded, and fully crushed GMBs were investigated for syntactic foams with a polydimethylsiloxane matrix. Good agreement was obtained between numerical studies, composite theory, and experiments. Debonding was studied via finite element models due to the difficulty of isolating this damage mechanism experimentally. The predictions indicate that the bulk modulus is insensitive to the state of debonding at low-GMB-volume fractions but is dramatically reduced if GMBs are crushed. The shear behavior is affected by both debonding and crush damage mechanisms. The acute sensitivity of the bulk modulus to crushed GMBs is further studied in simulations in which only a fraction of GMBs are crushed. We find that the composite bulk modulus drops severely even when just a small fraction of GMBs are crushed. Various material parameters such as GMB wall thickness, volume fraction, and minimum balloon spacing are also investigated, and they show that the results presented here are general and apply to a wide range of microstructure and GMB filler properties.



Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC., a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration Under Contract DE-NA0003525.


  1. 1.
    Product information: 3m glass bubbles floated product series. 3M Energy and Advanced Materials Division (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adolf DB (2014) Polymer properties database, Sandia national laboratories. of polymers.html
  3. 3.
    Adolf DB, Chambers RS, Neidigk MA (2009) A simplified potential energy clock model for glassy polymers. Polymer 50:4257–4269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bardella L, Genna F (2001) On the elastic behavior of syntactic foams. Int J Solids Struct 38:7235–7260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bardella L, Sfreddo A, Ventura C, Porfiri M, Gupta N (2012) A critical evaluation of micromechanical models for syntactic foams. Mech Mater 50:53–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benveniste Y (1987) A new approach to the application of mori-tanaka’s theory in composite materials. Mech Mater 6:147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cho Y, Kang Y, Lee Y, Park Y, Lee W (2017) Influence of partially debonded interface on elasticity of syntactic foam: a numerical study. Materials 10:911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chocron S, Dannemann K, Walker J, Nicholls A, Anderson C Jr (2007) Constitutive model for damaged borosilicate glass under confinement. J Am Ceram Soc 90(8):2549–2555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Christensen RM (2005) Mechanics of composite materials, edition edn. Dover Publications Inc, Mineola, NYGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Danielsson M, Parks D, Boyce M (2004) Constitutive modeling of porous hyperelastic materials. Mech Mater 36(4):347–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Diani J, Fayolle B, Gilormini P (2009) A review on the mullins effect. Eur Polymer J 45:601–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gilormini P, Toulemonde PA, Diani J, Gardere A (2017) Stress–strain response and volume change of a highly filled rubbery composite: experimental measurements and numerical simulations. Mech Mater 111:57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gupta N, Zeltmann SE, Shunmugasamy VC, Pinisetty D (2014) Applications of polymer matrix syntactic foams. JOM 66(2):245–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gusev AA (2016) Controlled accuracy finite element estimates for the effective stiffness of composites with spherical inclusions. Int J Solids Struct 80:227–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huang J, Gibson L (1993) Elastic moduli of a composite of hollow spheres in a matrix. J Mech Phys Solids 41:55–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huang R, Li P (2015) Elastic behavior and failure mechanisms in epoxy syntactic foams: the effect of glass microballoon volume fractions. Compos B 78:401–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    John B, Nair C (2010) Update on syntactic foams. Smithers Rapra, ShawburyGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kanit T, Forest S, Galliet I, Mounoury V, Jeulin D (2003) Determination of the size of the representative volume element for random composites: statistical and numerical approach. Int J Solids Struct 40:3647–3679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee K, Westmann R (1970) Elastic properties of hollow-sphere-reinforced composites. J Compos Mater 4:242–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lewis M (2016) A robust, compressible, hyperelastic constitutive model for the mechanical response of foamed rubber. Technische Mechanik 36(1–2):88–101Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lewis M, Cohenour R, Stephens T (2007) Viscoelastic properties of three sylgard 184 formulations from torsional dynamic modulus testing. Tech. Rep. LA-UR 07-0298, Los Alamos National LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Llorca J, Segurado J (2004) Three-dimensional multiparticle cell simulations of deformation and damage in sphere-reinforced composites. Mater Sci Eng A 365:267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Long KN, Brown JA (2017) A linear viscoelastic model calibration for sylgard 184. MEMO SAND2017-4555 R UUR, Sandia National LaboratoriesGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marur P (2005) Effective elastic moduli of syntactic foams. Mater Lett 59:1954–1957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Matous K, Geers M, Kouznetsova V, Gillman A (2017) A review of predictive nonlinear theories for multiscale modeling of heterogeneous materials. J Comput Phys 330:192–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mullins L (1948) Effect of stretching on the properties of rubber. Rubber Chem Technol 21(2):281–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nie X, Chen WW, Sun X, Templeton DW (2007) Dynamic failure of borosilicate glass under compression/shear loading experiments. J Am Ceram Soc 90(8):2556–2562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nielsen L, Landel R (1994) Mechanical properties of polymers and composites. Marcel Dekker, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Owen S, Staten M, Sorensen M (2011) Parallel hex meshing from volume fractions. In: Proceedings 20th international meshing roundtable, pp 161–178Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Owen SJ, Brown JA, Ernst CD, Lim H, Long KN (2017) Hexahedral mesh generation for computational materials modeling. Proced Eng 203:167–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pal R (2005) New models for effective young’s modulus of particulate composites. Compos B 36:513–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Panteghini A, Bardella L (2015) On the compressive strength of glass microballoons-based syntactic foams. Mech Mater 82:63–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Patterson B, Cordes N, Henderson K, Williams J, Stannard T, Singh S, Ovejero A, Xiao X, Robinson M, Chawla N (2015) In situ x-ray synchrotron tomographic imaging during the compression fo hyper-elastic polymeric materials. J Mater Sci 51:171–187. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Porfiri M, Gupta N (2009) Effect of volume fraction and wall thickness on the elastic properties of hollow particle filled composites. Compos Part B 40:166–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rand P (1978) Elastomeric syntactic foams for stress-relief of electronic components. J Cell Plast 14(5):277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Romanova V, Balokhonov R, Schmauder S (2009) The influence of the reinforcing particle shape and interface strength on the fracture behavior o a metal matrix composite. Acta Mater 57:97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Roth CB (2016) Polymer glasses. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Segurado J, Llorca J (2002) A numerical approximation to the elastic properties of sphere-reinforced composites. J Mech Phys Solids 50:2017–2121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shams A, Porfiri M (2014) Analysis of particle-matrix interfacial debonding using the proper generalized decomposition. Compos Struct 111:602–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sokolnikoff I (1956) Mathematical theory of elasticity, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Spring DW, Paulino GH (2015) Computational homogenization of the debonding of particle reinforced composites: the role of interphases in interfaces. Comput Mater Sci 109:209–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Storakers B (1986) On material representation and constitutive branching in finite compressible elasticity. J Mech Phys Solids 34(2):125–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Takahashi K, Chou TW (1988) Transverse elastic moduli of unidirectional fiber composites with interfacial debonding. Metall Trans A 19A:129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Team SSM (2016) Sierra/solid mechanics 4.44 user’s guide. Computational Solid Mechanics and Structural Dynamics Department, Engineering Sciences Center, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NMGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Teng H (2010) Stiffness properties of particulate composites containing debonded particles. Int J Solids Struct 47:2191–2200CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. government work and its text is not subject to copyright protection in the United States; however, its text may be subject to foreign copyright protection  2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Center for Advanced Vehicular SystemsMississippi State UniversityStarkvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations