0
Research Papers

A Unified Phenomenological Model for Tensile and Compressive Response of Polymeric Foams

[+] Author and Article Information
Timothy R. Walter

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611

Andrew W. Richards

Mechanical Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125

Ghatu Subhash1

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611subhash@ufl.edu

1

Corresponding author.

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 131(1), 011009 (Dec 18, 2008) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3026556 History: Received January 25, 2008; Revised July 01, 2008; Published December 18, 2008

Tensile and compressive stress-strain responses were obtained for various densities of polymer foams. These experimental data were used to determine relevant engineering parameters (such as elastic moduli in tension and compression, ultimate tensile strength, etc.) as a function of foam density. A phenomenological model applicable for both compressive and tensile responses of polymeric foams is validated by comparing the model to the experimentally obtained compression and tensile responses. The model parameters were analyzed to determine the effect of each parameter on the mechanical response of the foam. The engineering parameters were later compared to the appropriate model parameters and a good correlation was obtained. It was shown that the model indeed captures the entire compressive and tensile response of polymeric foams effectively.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2009 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Typical compressive stress-strain response of a polymer foam. (i) Elastic region, (ii) collapse region, and (iii) densification region. Note the effect of each term in the LS model used to fit the data.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Optical images of the cellular structure of Divinycell® foam of different densities

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Comparison between confined and unconfined compression of Divinycell® H45 foam

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

(a) Test fixture for confined compression of cellular specimen and (b) snapshots of a deformed specimen at selected intervals

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

(a) Tensile test fixture in UTM with test specimen bonded between two aluminum tabs, and (b) fractured foam specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Tensile and compressive responses of Divinycell® PVC foam specimens of different densities. Note the change in scale for the tension response.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Trends in compression modulus and collapse stress as a function of foam density

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Trends in the measured tensile engineering parameters as a function of foam density

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

(a) LS model fit using average parameter values and a single representative test data, and (b) an expanded view of the model fit in the elastic region

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Trends in the LS model parameters as functions of foam density

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Grouped LS model parameters representing common engineering parameters versus foam density. Note the trends are similar to those seen in curves of engineering parameters versus foam density. Open symbols represent model parameters and filled symbols represent experimental values.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In