Advertisement

Journal of Porous Materials

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 233–248 | Cite as

A Parametric Study on Crushability of Open-Cell Structural Polymeric Foams

  • Qunli Liu
  • Ghatu Subhash
  • Xin-Lin Gao
Article

Abstract

A five-parameter nonlinear phenomenological constitutive model, capable of capturing the entire stress-strain response of crushable polymeric foams, is presented. The functional form of each parameter in the model was determined using uniaxial-strain compression experiments on cylindrical foam specimens of different initial bulk densities (or porosities). Two-step and multistep loading procedures were employed during the uniaxial-strain compression experiments to investigate crushability and residual crushability of foams and to generate additional data at different porosity levels that were not originally available. Thus, specimens with certain initial low densities were repeatedly used to obtain stress-strain curves at increasingly high densities. Based on the experimental data, each parameter of the model was expressed in terms of initial bulk density (or porosity). Such relationships were shown to be useful in generating ‘crushability-maps’ that could be utilized to evaluate the residual crushability and/or for selection of a suitable density of foam for a given application.

Keywords

structural foam crushability behavior constitutive model axial compression parametric study 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    L.J. Gibson and M.F. Ashby, Cellular Solids, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Q. Liu and G. Subhash, Polymer Engineering and Science 44(3), 463–473 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Subhash and Q. Liu, Experimental Mechanics 44(3), 289–294 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    W.E. Warren and A.M. Kraynik, Journal of Applied Mechanics, Transactions of the ASME 64, 787–795 (1997).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H.X. Zhu, J.F. Knott, and N.J. Mills, Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids 45(3), 319–343 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R.K. McFarland Jr., AIAA Journal 1(6), 1380–1385 (1963).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Wu and W.-S. Jiang, International Journal of Impact Engineering 19(5/6), 439–456 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    K.C. Rusch, Journal of Applied Polymer Science 13, 2297–2311 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    E.A. Meinecke and D.M. Schwaber, Journal of Applied Polymer Science 14, 2239–2248 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Nagy, W.L. Ko and U.S. Lindholm, Journal of Cellar Plastics 10, 127–134 (1974).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.A. Sherwood and C.C. Frost, Polymer Engineering and Science 32(16), 1138–1146 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    C.C. Chou, Y. Zhao, G.G. Lim, and G.S. Song, SAE Technical Paper 980967 (1998).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    O. Faruque, N. Liu, and C.C. Chou, SAE Paper No. 971076 (1997).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Zhang, N. Kikuchi, V. Li, A. Yee, and G. Nusholtz, International Journal of Impact Engineering 21(5), 369–386 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M.A. Puso and S. Govindjee, Mechanics of Plastics and Plastic Composites, MD-Vol 68/AMD-215, (ASME, New York, 1995) pp. 159–176.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Nevada Las VegasLas VegasUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical Engineering-Engineering MechanicsMichigan Technological UniversityHoughtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical EngineeringTexas A &M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations