Evaluation of micromechanical methods to determine stiffness and strength properties of foams
Source abstract
Abstract
The stiffness and strength properties of foams with tetrakaidecahedral unit cells are evaluated using both finite element-based micromechanics and analytical methods. The finite element analysis models the varying cross section of the struts exactly. The analytical methods assume the struts have constant cross section along the length. Equivalent constant cross section of the strut can be obtained by either matching the densities or by using harmonic averaging of the stiffness properties. A method in which the moment of inertia of the cross section is averaged is also considered. The comparison of properties obtained for the different equivalent constant cross-section foams shows the inability of the various averaging schemes to match the shear modulus and the strength properties, while the Young’s modulus matches to some extent. The failure of the weakest cross section in the varying cross-section strut of the unit cell leads to a lower tensile strength in the actual foam compared to the uniform cross-section foams. The results suggest that although the use of simple analytical models for foam properties are attractive, they often lead to erroneous results, and hence exact modeling of the strut geometry is key to estimating the stiffness and strength properties of foams and other cellular solids.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Cellular and Composite Structures · Polymer composites and self-healing · Polymer Foaming and Composites
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
References (14)
Show source-provided references
1. Sullivan RM, Ghosn LJ and Lerch BA. An elongated tetrakaidecahedron model for open celled foams . NASA Technical Memorandum 214931, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio 44135, USA, 2007.
2. Blosser ML. Advanced metallic thermal protection systems for reusable launch vehicles . Doctoral Dissertation, Department of mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA, 2000.
3. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2005.07.00510.1016/j.compstruct.2005.07.005 ↗
4. Martinez OA, Sankar BV, Haftka RT, et al. Micromechanical analysis of composite corrugated-core sandwich panels for integral thermal protection systems. AIAA J 2007; 49: 2323–2336.10.2514/1.26779 ↗
5. Ricciardo M. Comparison of a lattice structure cylindrical heat exchanger relative to an equivalent tubular heat exchanger . Master’s Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA, 2005.
6. 10.2514/1.J05002210.2514/1.J050022 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2011.01.00310.1016/j.engfracmech.2011.01.003 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2005.05.01810.1016/j.compscitech.2005.05.018 ↗
9. Thiyagasundaram P. Material characterization of open-cell foams by finite element based micromechanics methods . Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA, 2010.
10. Chung J and Waas AM. In-plane biaxial crush response of polycarbonate honeycombs. J Eng Mech 2001; 127: 180–193.10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2001)127:2(180) ↗
11. 10.1016/S0022-5096(96)00090-710.1016/S0022-5096(96)00090-7 ↗
12. 10.1016/S0266-3538(03)00117-910.1016/S0266-3538(03)00117-9 ↗
13. 10.1016/S0022-5096(03)00072-310.1016/S0022-5096(03)00072-3 ↗
14. Gong L, Kyriakides S and Jang WY. Compressive response of open-cell foams. Part I: morphology and elastic properties. Int J Solids Struct 2005; 42: 1355–1379.10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2004.07.023 ↗