journal article·2010-11

Deformation mechanisms and the yield surface of low-density, closed-cell polymer foams

N. J. Mills

Journal of Materials Science· Volume 45· Issue 21
Publisher page

Abstract

The geometry of low-density, closed-cell, polyethylene and polystyrene foams was modelled with a Kelvin foam having uniform-thickness cell faces; finite element analysis (FEA) considered interactions between cell pressures and face deformation. Periodic boundary conditions were applied to a small representative volume element. In uniaxial, biaxial and triaxial tensile stress states, the dominant high-strain deformation mechanism was predicted to be tensile yield across nearly flat faces. In uniaxial and biaxial compression stress states, pairs of parallel plastic hinges were predicted to form across some faces, allowing them to concertina. In hydrostatic compression, face bowing was predicted. The rate of post-yield hardening changed if new deformation mechanisms became active as the foam strain increased. The effects of foam density and polymer type on the foam yield surface were investigated. Improvements were suggested for foam material models in the FEA package ABAQUS.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Cellular and Composite Structures · Polymer Foaming and Composites · Polymer composites and self-healing

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (22)

Show source-provided references
1. Mills NJ (2007) Polymer foams handbook—engineering and biomechanics applications and design guide. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford
2. Viot P, Plougonven E, Bernard D (2008) Compos Part A 39:126610.1016/j.compositesa.2007.11.014 ↗
3. Mills NJ, Gilchrist A (2007) J Mater Sci 42:3177. doi: 10.1007/s10853-006-1357-0s10.1007/s10853-006-1357-0 ↗
4. Kraynik AD, Reinelt DA, van Swol F (2003) Phys Rev E67:031403
5. Kraynik AD, Warren WE (1994) In: Hilyard NC, Cunningham A (eds) Chapter 7 in Low density cellular plastics. Chapman and Hall, London
6. Weaire D, Phelan R (1994) Phil Mag Lett 69:10710.1080/09500839408241577 ↗
7. Thomson W (1887) Phil Mag 24:503, reproduced in The Kelvin problem, D Weaire (ed), Taylor and Francis, 1996
8. Kraynik AM, Neilsen MK, Reinelt DA, Warren WE (1999) In: Sadoc J, Rivier N (eds) Foams and emulsions. Kluwer, Dordrecht, p 25910.1007/978-94-015-9157-7_15 ↗
9. Mills NJ, Stämpfli R, Marone F, Brühwiler P (2009) Int J Solids Struct 46:67710.1016/j.ijsolstr.2008.09.012 ↗
10. Mills NJ (2010) Int J Solids Struct, submitted
11. Di Landro LL, Sala G, Olivieri D (2002) Poly Test 21:21710.1016/S0142-9418(01)00073-3 ↗
12. Gibson LJ, Ashby MF, Zhang J et al (1989) Int J Mech Sci 31:63510.1016/S0020-7403(89)80001-3 ↗
13. Daxner T, Bitsche RD, Böhm HJ (2006) Mater Trans 47:221310.2320/matertrans.47.2213 ↗
14. Hanssen AG, Hopperstad OS, Langseth M et al (2003) Int J Mech Sci 44:35910.1016/S0020-7403(01)00091-1 ↗
15. Deshpande VS, Fleck N (2001) Acta Mater 49:185910.1016/S1359-6454(01)00058-1 ↗
16. Leo CJ, Kumruzzaman M, Wong H, Ying JH (2008) Geotext Geomembr 26:17510.1016/j.geotexmem.2007.10.005 ↗
17. Mills NJ, Gilchrist A (2008) Int J Impact Eng 35:108710.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.05.006 ↗
18. Mills NJ, Wilkes S, Derler S, Flisch A (2009) Int J Impact Eng 36:91310.1016/j.ijimpeng.2008.12.011 ↗
19. ABAQUS 6.8 (2008) Hibbert, Karlson and Sorenson, Inc., Pawtucket, RI
20. Gilchrist A, Mills NJ (2001) Int J Impact Eng 25:76710.1016/S0734-743X(01)00009-4 ↗
21. Surface Evolver (2004) at www.susqu.edu/facstaff/b/brakke/evolver/
22. Viot P (2009) Int J Impact Eng 36:97510.1016/j.ijimpeng.2008.11.010 ↗