862927

*-
I-
SAND86-2927 * UC-71
Unlimited Rel ease
Printed April 1987
c
?
A Phenomenological Constitutive
Model for Low Density
Polyurethane Foams
Michael K. Neilsen, Harold S. Morgan, Raymond D. Krieg
Prepared by
Sandia National Laboratories
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87 185 and Livermore, California 94550
for the United States Department of Energy
under Contract DE-AC04-76DP00789
a
P
Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United States
Department of Energy by Sandia Corporation.
NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an
agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Govern-
ment nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their
contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express
or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or pro-
cess disclosed, or represents that ita usewould not infringe privately owned
rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or
service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not
necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring
by the United States Government, any agency thereof or any of their
contractors or subcontractors. The views and opinions expressed herein do
not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government, any
agency thereof or any of their contractors or subcontractors.
Printed in the United States of America
Available from
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
NTIS price codes
Printed copy: A05
Microfiche copy: A01
?

Di s tr i buti on
Category UC-71
SAND86-2927
Unl i mi ted Release
P ri nted A pr i l 1987
A Phenomenological Cons ti tuti ve Model f o r Low Densi ty P olyurethane Foams"
Michael K. Nei l sen, Harold S . Morgan, and Raymond 0. K ri eg
Appl i ed Mechanics Di vi s i on I
Sandia Nati onal Laboratori es
A1 buquerque, NM 87185
ABSTRACT
Resul ts from a seri es of hydrostati c and t r i a xi a l compression tes ts
which were performed on polyurethane foams are presented i n t hi s report.
These tes ts i ndi cate that the vol umetri c and devi atori c parts of the foam
behavior are s trongl y coupled.
wi th any of several commonly used pl as ti c i ty models. Thus, a new
cons ti tuti ve model was developed. This new model was based on a
decomposition of the foam response i nto two parts : (1) response of the
polymer skel eton, and ( 2) response o f the a i r i nsi de the cel l s . The a i r
contri buti on was completely vol umetri c. The new cons ti tuti ve model was
implemented i n two f i n i t e element codes, SANCHO and PRONTO. Results from a
seri es of analyses completed wi th these codes i ndi cated that the new
cons ti tuti ve model captured a l l of the foam behaviors that had been observed
i n the experiments. F i nal l y, a typi cal dynamic problem was analyzed usi ng
the new cons ti tuti ve model and other cons ti tuti ve models t o demonstrate
di fferences between the models. Results from t hi s seri es of analyses
i ndi cated that the new cons ti tuti ve model generated displacement and
accel erati on predi cti ons that were between predi cti ons obtained usi ng the
other models. Thi s r es ul t was expected.
This coupl i ng behavior coul d not be captured
*This work performed at Sandia Nati onal Laboratori es supported by the U.S.
Department of Energy under contract number DE-AC04-76DP00789.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the earl y contri buti ons o f Richard Yoshimura,
6323, Rod May, 7544 and Karl Schuler, 1522, who defi ned the tests. Karl
Schuler al so parti ci pated i n the earl y model development stages. The
NMERI/CERF tes ts were completed by Debbie Hamberg at the Uni vers i ty o f New
Mexico. During the implementation o f the cons ti tuti ve model i n the f i n i t e
element codes, val uabl e assi stance was provi ded by Mike Stone, 1521, and
Lee Taylor, 1523. The ef f or ts o f the above researchers are gr atef ul l y
acknowledged.
4
CONTENTS
Page
.
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
F i gures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix F i gures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1 . I ntroducti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2 . Test Descri pti on and Resul ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3 . Appl i cati on of E xi s ti ng C ons ti tuti ve Models t o Low-Density
P olyurethane Foams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4 . New C ons ti tuti ve Model f o r Low-Density P olyurethane Foams . . . . . 29
5 . S ol uti on o f a Typi cal Dynamic Problem usi ng the New C ons ti tuti ve
Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6 . Conclusions and F uture Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
7 . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5
.._. 1- - 1 - 1 " ; " " - .... _ * .. ___l___ll__.l_ ....... ......
FIGURES
Page
F i gure 2. l a. Volumetric Responses from A l l Tests on Foam 6602 . . . . 18
F i gure 2.lb. Axi al Responses from A l l Tests on Foam 6602 . . . . . . . 18
F i gure 2.2a. Volumetric Responses from A l l Tests on Foam 6703 . . . . . 19
F i gure 2.2b. Axi al Responses from A l l Tests on Foam 6703 . . . . . . . 19
F i gure 2.5. Hydrostati c Test Resul ts f o r Foam 6704 . . . . . . . . . . 22
F i gure 3.1. Y i el d Surface i n P ri nci pal Stress Space [7] . . . . . . . 27
F i gure 4. 1 A i r Contri buti on f o r 9505 Foam ($I = 0.09) . . . . . . . . 32
F i gure 4.2a. Skeleton Volumetric Responses from A l l Tests on
Foam6602 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
F i gure 4.2b. Skeleton Axi al Responses from A l l Tests on Foam 6602 . . . 34
Foam6703 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Foam9703 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Foam9503 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
F i gure 4.6. Skeleton Volumetric Responses f o r Foam 6704 . . . . . . . 38
6
FIGURES CONTINUED
F i gure 4.7a.
F i gure 4.7b.
F i gure 4.8a.
F i gure 4.8b.
F i gure 4. 8~.
F i gure 4.8d.
F i gure 4.9.
F i gure 4.10.
F i gure 4.11a.
F i gure 4.11b.
F i gure 4.12a.
F i gure 4.12b.
F i gure 4.13a.
F i gure 4.13b.
F i gure 4.14a.
F i gure 4.14b.
F i gure 4.15a.
Page
Skeleton Vol umetri c Responses from A l l Tests on
F oam9505. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Skel eton Axi al Responses from A l l Tests on Foam 9505. . . 39
Foam Parameter A as a F uncti on of Densi ty Rati o . . . . . 42
Foam Parameter B as a F uncti on o f Densi ty Rati o . . . . . 42
Foam Parameter C as a F uncti on o f Densi ty Rati o . . . . . 43
Foam E l as ti c Modulus E as a F uncti on o f Densi ty Rati o . . 43
F l owchart o f New C ons ti tuti ve Model . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Modi f i cati on t o Step F uncti on i n Y i el d Equation . . . . . 46
Comparison o f Anal yti cal and Experimental Resul ts -
Vol umetri c Responses from Hydrostati c Tests on
F oam6602. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Axi al Responses from Hydrostati c Tests on Foam 6602 . . . 48
Comparison of Anal yti cal and Experimental Resul ts -
Vol umetri c Response from Uni axi al Test on Foam 6602 . . . 49
Axi al Response from Uni axi al Test on Foam 6602. . . . . . 49
Vol umetri c Response from T r i axi al Test on Foam 6602
(P=10 ps i ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Axi al Response from T r i axi al Test on Foam 6602
(P=10 ps i ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
(P=15 ps i ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Axi al Response from T r i axi al Test on Foam 6602
(P=15 ps i ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
(P=20 ps i ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
7
FIGURES CONTINUED
Page
F i gure 4.15b. Comparison o f Anal yti cal and Experimental Resul ts -
Axi al ResDonse from T r i axi al Test on Foam 6602
F i gure 5.1.
F i gure 5.2.
F i gure 5.3.
F i gure 5.4.
F i gure 5.5.
(P=20 ps i ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
F i ni te Element Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Displaced Shapes o f F i ni te Element Model at
Maximum Crush-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Close-up of Displaced Foam Layer i n F i ni te Element Model
at Maximum Crush-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Displacement o f Steel Cyl i nder . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Accel erati on o f Steel Cyl i nder . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
8
APPENDIX FIGURES
Page
F i gure A. l a.
F i gure A.lb.
F i gure A.2a.
F i gure A.2b.
F i gure A.3a.
F i gure A.3b.
F i gure A.4a.
F i gure A.4b.
F i gure A.5a.
F i gure A.5b.
F i gure A.6a.
F i gure A.6b.
F i gure A.7a.
F i gure A.7b.
F oam6703. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Axi al Responses from Hydrostati c Tests on Foam 6703 . . . 64
Comparison o f Anal yti cal and Experimental Resu
Vol umetri c Response from T r i axi al Test on Foam
(P =15psi ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison o f Anal yti cal and Experimental Resu
Response from T r i axi al Test on Foam 6703 (P=15
t s -
6703
. . . . . 65
t s - Axi al
ps i ) . . . 65
(P=20 ps i ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Comparison o f Anal yti cal and Experimental Resul ts - Axi al
Response from T r i axi al Test on Foam 6703 (P=20 ps i ) . . . 66
Volumetric Responses from Hydrostati c Tests on
F oam9703. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Responses from Hydrostati c Tests on Foam 9703 . . . . . . 67
Vol umetri c Response from Uni axi al Test on Foam 9703 . . , 68
Response from Uni axi al Test on Foam 9703. . . . . . . . . 68
( P =6ps i ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Response from T r i axi al Test on Foam 9703 (P=6 ps i ) . . . . 69
( P =l O ps i ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
9
APPENDIX FIGURES CONTINUED
Page
F i gure A.8a. Comparison o f Anal yti cal and Experimental Resu
Vol umetri c Response from T r i axi al Test on Foam
( P 4 5 ps i ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
t s -
9703
. . . . . 71
F i gure A.8b. Comparison o f Anal yti cal and Experimental Resul ts - Axi al
F i gure A.9a. Comparison o f Anal yti cal and Experimental Resul ts -
F oam9503. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
F i gure A.lOa. Comparison o f Anal yti cal and Experimental Resul ts -
Volumetric Response from T r i axi al Test on Foam 9503
(P=10 ps i ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
F i gure A.lOb. Comparison o f Anal yti cal and Experimental Resul ts - Axi al
F i gure A. l l a. Comparison of Anal yti cal and Experimental Resul ts -
(P=20 ps i ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
F i gure A. l l b. Comparison o f Anal yti cal and Experimental Resul ts - Axi al
(P=31 ps i ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
F i gure A. 12b. Comparison o f Anal yti cal and Experimental Resul ts - Axi al
F oam6704. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
F i gure A. 14a. Comparison o f Anal yti cal and Experimental Resul ts -
F oam9505. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Volumetric Response from Uni axi al Test on Foam 9505 . . . 78
10
APPENDIX FIGURES CONTINUED
Page
Response from Uni axi al Test on Foam 9505. . . . . . . . . 78
( P =6ps i ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Response from T r i axi al Test on Foam 9505 (P=6 ps i ) . . . . 79
(P=20 ps i ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
F i gure A.18a. Comparison of Anal yti cal and Experimental Resul ts -
(P=30 ps i ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
11
TABLES
Page
Tabl e 2.1. Tests Performed on Low Densi ty Polyurethane Foams . . . 16
Tabl e 4.1. Materi al P roperti es f o r NMERI/CERF Foams . . . . . . . 40
Tabl e 5.1. Materi al P roperti es Used i n Dynamic Analyses . . . . . 55
Tabl e 5.2. Resul ts from Dynamic Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
12
L
1. INTRODUCTION
Ri gi d, cl osed- cel l , pol yurethane foams are used i n a vari ety of
app i cati ons as house i ns ul ati on, f i l l e r s and r i gi di z er s i n ai rpl ane w ngs,
f o r materi al packaging, and i n impact l i mi ter s f o r shi ppi ng contai ners [l].
Low dens i ty pol yurethane foam i s used i n impact l i mi ter s i n a vari ety o f
nucl ear waste shi ppi ng contai ners [2,3]. During a hypotheti cal nucl ear
waste shi ppi ng acci dent, the foam i s expected t o absorb a s i gni f i cant amount
o f impact energy by undergoing l arge i nel as ti c volume reducti ons.
Consequently, the crushi ng o f pol yurethane foams must be wel l characteri zed
if the overal l response o f a shi ppi ng contai ner i s t o be properl y predi cted
f o r vari ous acci dent scenarios.
Unfortunatel y, tes t data on the crushi ng o f low dens i ty foams are qui te
Manufacturers o f pol yurethane foams us ual l y provi de mechanical l i mi ted.
properti es f o r t hei r products based on res ul ts from unconfined, uni axi al ,
compressive tests. The uni axi al s tres s - s trai n responses are easy t o
measure, but they provi de minimal i nformati on on the vol umetri c response o f
foam and no i nformati on on the i nteracti ons between the vol umetri c and
devi atori c (shear) responses. I n response t o t hi s need f o r experimental
data, Sandia Nati onal Laboratori es decided i n 1979 t o perform extensi ve
l aboratory tes ts t o characteri ze the behavi or o f low dens i ty pol yurethane
foams. A t the request o f the Transportati on System Development Department,
now 6320, members o f the Engi neeri ng Anal ysi s Department, now 1520, defi ned
a s eri es o f hydros tati c and t r i a xi a l compression tes ts t o be performed on
foams suppl i ed by General P l as ti cs Manufacturi ng Company. The tes ts were
performed by the New Mexico Engineering Research I ns t i t ut e (NMERI) a t t hei r
C i vi l Engi neeri ng Research F ac i l i t y (CERF) i n 1979 and 1980. The tes t
procedures and res ul ts were never f ormal l y documented but were reported i n a
l e t t e r from NMERI/CERF t o Sandia Nati onal Laboratori es [ 4] .
A vari ety o f
behavi or o f foams
el as t i c cons ti tut
and Warren [5] a t
descri bes the beh
cons ti tuti ve models have been developed t o predi ct the
wi thi n a vari ety o f l oad ranges. For example, a l i near
ve model f o r foams has recentl y been developed by Krayni k
Sandia Nati onal Laboratori es. Thi s model accuratel y
vi o r o f foams i n the l i near el as ti c regime. I n t hi s
13
report, a phenomenological cons ti tuti ve model that accuratel y predi cts the
l i near and pos t- yi el d behavi or o f low-density, polyurethane foams i s
presented.
The purpose o f t hi s report i s t o provi de formal documentation o f the
res ul ts from the NMERI/CERF tes ts and t o present a cons ti tuti ve model which
captures the foam behavi or exhi bi ted i n the tests. F i r s t, the NMERI/CERF
tes ts are descri bed and the measured foam responses are presented. Next,
three di f f er ent cons ti tuti ve models that have been used i n the past t o model
foam behavi or are shown t o have shortcomings when appl i ed t o the foam
behavi or observed i n the experimental NMERI/CERF tests. Thi s i s fol l owed by
the presentati on o f a new cons ti tuti ve model which accounts f o r foam
behavi or observed i n the experiments. Numerical implementation o f the new
model i s al so described. Then, a hypotheti cal impact problem i s analyzed
with the new model, and the res ul ts are compared t o res ul ts obtai ned wi th
(1) a conventi onal devi atori c pl as t i c i t y model and (2) a combined vol umetri c
pl a s t i c i t y wi th pressure dependent devi atori c pl as t i c i t y model. Thi s report
ends wi th a few concl usi ons about the use o f the new model and a di scussi on
o f model l i mi tati ons and f uture work.
14
2. TEST DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS
.
S i x di f f er ent General P l as ti cs foams wi th i denti f i c at on numbers (ID'S)
o f 6602, 6703, 9503, 9703, 6704, and 9505 were used i n the NMERI/CERF tests.
The dens i ti es of these foams, as i ndi cated by the l as t di g t o f t hei r ID'S,
ranged from 2 l b/ f t3 t o 5 l b/ f t3.
taken from a s i ngl e bl ock. The samples were ori ented such that the axes o f
the cyl i nders were i n the "r i s e" di r ecti on o f the foam. The edges o f the
bl ocks were avoided i n order t o i nsure homogeneity. Hydrostati c tes ts were
performed on a l l s i x foams. Also, several t r i axi al compression tes ts were
performed on a l l foams except 6704.
Table 2.1. The numbers i n the tabl e represent the number o f tes ts performed
f o r a gi ven tes t condi ti on.
A l l samples from each foam type were
A matri x o f the tes ts i s shown i n
I n the hydros tati c tes ts , cyl i ndr i cal tes t samples wi th nominal hei ghts
and diameters o f 5.60 i n. and 2.73 in., respecti vel y, were j acketed wi th a
very t hi n l atex j acket and placed i n a 2000 ps i t r i axi al pressure chamber
typi c al l y used f o r s oi l tests. The c el l was then f i l l e d wi th water and
sealed. The samples were allowed t o f l o at f r eel y i n the pressure c el l . A
4 i n. di ameter pi s ton di s pl aci ng a t a r ate o f approximately 0.002 i n/ sec was
then used t o i ncrease the pressure wi thi n the c el l . Cel l pressure was
measured wi th a 200 ps i pressure gage, and volume changes o f the samples
were determined from pi s ton displacement measurements. The volume
measurements were corrected f o r expansion o f the pressure c el l and
compres s i bi l i ty o f the water.
t o be negl i gi bl e compared wi th volume changes o f the samples.
Volume changes from these sources were shown
The t r i a xi a l tes ts were performed i n another pressure vessel typi c al l y
used f or tes ti ng s oi l s . I n these tests, j acketed samples were loaded
hydros tati cal l y t o a prescri bed confi ni ng pressure. Then, addi ti onal axi al
displacement was appl i ed a t a rate o f 0.9 i n/ sec i n the r i s e di r ecti on o f
the foam. The axi al l oad and displacement were measured and converted t o
axi al s tres s and s trai n. Measurements o f the change i n volume o f the water
surroundi ng the samples were used t o determine changes i n sample volume.
Standard uni axi al compression tes ts were performed on unjacketed samples o f
three o f the foams.
15
I n a l l hydros tati c tes ts and i n a l l t r i a xi a l tests, except the uni axi al
tests, the samples were j acketed so a i r coul d not escape. A l l tes ts were
performed a t room temperature and a t very low s tr ai n rates.
no data on temperature o r s tr ai n rate ef f ects were obtained.
Consequently,
Table 2.1. Tests Performed on Low Densi ty Polyurethane Foams
I
NUMBER OF TESTS
FOAM HYDROSTATIC TRIAXIAL CONFINING PRESSURE (PSI )
I D O* 6 10 15 20 30 31
6602
6703
9703
9503
6704
9505
1 0 1 2 1 0 0
0 0 0 1 1 0 0
1 1 1 1 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 1 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 0 0 1 1 0
~~~
* Uni axi al tes t
The combination o f hydros tati c and t r i axi al tes ts i n Table 2.1 was
chosen t o provi de s uf f i c i ent data t o descri be both the vol umetri c and
devi atori c (shear) behavi ors o f the foams and the coupl i ng between the two
responses. The vol umetri c response i s defi ned as the rel ati ons hi p between
pressure, p, and volume s trai n, 7 , where
p = - -*kk
3
16
2. 1
and
2. 2
uij and ci j are the foam stress and s tr ai n components i n an orthonormal
basi s. Conventional summation notati on i s used throughout t hi s enti r e
report.
components, eij, are defi ned as
The devi atori c stress components, Sij, and the devi atori c s tr ai n
-
sij - uij + psij
and
i j - ^= sij
2. 3
2.4
Resul t from the vari o s tes ts performed on the General P l as ti cs foams
are presented i n F i gures 2.1 - 2.6. Both the vol umetri c and axi al stress-
axi al s tr ai n responses are shown f o r each tes t. The onl y excepti on i s f o r
6704 Foam i n F i gure 2.5.
foam. The foam axi al stress- axi al s tr ai n responses are presented f o r use i n
the development o f the new cons ti tuti ve model presented i n a l at er secti on.
The t r i a xi a l tes ts consi sted o f two phases: an i n i t i a l hydrostati c l oadi ng
phase fol l owed by a t r i axi al l oadi ng phase. The t r i axi al tes t res ul ts i n
F i gures 2.1 - 2.6 do not s tar t a t zero stress and s tr ai n because the
response from the i n i t i a l hydros tati c l oadi ng phase was measured onl y at the
end o f the hydros tati c phase o f these tests. The vol umetri c and axi al
s tr ai ns presented i n these f i gures are compressive and are defi ned by
( Vo - V ) / V o and (Lo - L)/Lo, respecti vel y, where V i s the volume o f the
sample, L i s the sample hei ght, and the subscri pt 0 i ndi cates the i n i t i a l
val ue o f the quanti ty. The stresses are al s o compressive. The hydrostati c
r es ul ts were pl otted on the axi al stress- axi al s tr ai n pl ots by assuming that
the axi al s tres s was equal i n magnitude t o the pressure and the s tr ai n was
i s otr opi c such that the axi al s tr ai n was gi ven by the f ol l owi ng equation
Only hydros tati c tes ts were performed on thi s
1 / 3
(vO vO - "'1
(Lo - L) = 1 - [ 1 -
LO
17
2.5
- HYDROSTATIC TESTS
0 UNIAXIAL TEST
A TRIAXIAL TEST. P = 18 PSI
0 8 TRIAXIAL TEST. P = 15 PSI
0 TRIAXIAL TEST, P = 20 PSI
.2 . 4 .6
0 .
.1 .3 . 5
UOLUME STRAIN ( ( U0-U )AJQ 1
FIGURE 2.la. Volumetric Responses from All Tests on Foam
6602
- HYDROSTATIC TESTS
0 UNIAXIAL TEST
0 TRIAXIAL TEST. P = 15 PSI
0 TRIAXIQL TEST. P = 20 PSI
fa. .1
.2 .3
.05 .ls .25
QX I AL STRAIN ( ( Lo-L )/La )
Figure 2.lb. Axial Responses from All Tests on Foam 6602
18
50
- HYDROSTATIC TESTS
40
P
R
E
S 30
s
U
R
E
20
P
i
S
1 0
0
0 TRIFIXIAL TEST. P = 15 PSI
A TRI AXI AL TEST. P = 20 PSI
0.
1
.2
.3
.6
5
UOLUHE STRAI N ( ( UQ-U )/U0 1
FIGURE 2.2a. Volumetric Responses from All Tests on Foam 6703
80
A
X
I
A
L
S
T
R
E
S
60
40
P
5
I
20
0
0. . 1 .2 . 3
. Q5 . 1 5 .25
AXIFl L STRAI N ( (Lo-L )/Lo 1
FIGURE 2. 2b. Axial Responses from All Tests on Foam 6703
19
- HYDROSTATIC TESTS
0 UNIAXIAL TEST
0 TRIAXIAL TEST. P = 10 PSI -
0. .2 . 4 .6
. 1 .3 .5
OOLUWE STRAIN ( ( Ug-U )/UQ 1
FIGURE 2.3a. Volumetric Responses from All Tests on Foam 9703
- HYDROSTATIC TESTS
0 UNIAXIQL TEST
-
-
0 TRIAxIAL TEST. P = 15 PSI
0. . 1 .2 .3
. 05 . 15 . 25
AXIAL STRAIN ( ( La-L )/La)
20
50
40
P
R
E
s 30
S
U
R
E
20
s - HYDROSTQTIC TESTS
P
I
0 TRIQXIAL TEST. P = 10 PSI
io A TRIAXIAL TEST. P = 28 PSI
.6
0
.2 . 4
UOLUME STRAIN ( ( UQ-U )/Ug 1
. 5
0.
. 1 .3
FIGURE 2.4a.
Volumetric Responses from All Tests on Foam 9503
- HYDROSTATIC TESTS
A TRIQXIQL TEST. P = 20 PSI
0 TRIQXIQL TEST. P = 31 PSI
. 25
0.
. a5 .15
FIXIAL STRAIN ( ( La-L )/La 1
FIGURE 2.4b.
Axial Responses from All Tests on Foam 9503
21
100
80
P
R
E
s 60
S
U
R
E
4 Q
5
I
P
20
FIGURE 2. 5. Hydrostatic Test Results f or Foam 6 7 0 4
, , , ,
1 . . . . I . I
0
no
0 A
-
-
A
0 0
O O A
0 O O A
Do 0 A
-
-
UQ 00 OO A
A
A A A A A ~ ~
A
- 00
-
A
O SAMP LE A
0 A SAMP LE 6
0 SAMP LE C
- 0
- A
-
22
P
S
I
FIGUR
1
.E
,00 E
60 801
- HYDROSTATIC TESTS
0 UNIFIXIAL TEST
20 L h- 0 TRIAXIAL TEST. P = 20 PSI
' . - I s . . I I . I . I I , . . . I , . , . , , . ,
0. .2 . 4
. 1 .3 . 5
UOLUHE STRAIN ( C U0-U )/Ua )
2 . 6 a . Volumetric Responses from All Tests on
.6
Foam 9505
2 3
The res ul ts i n F i gures 2.1 - 2.6 i ndi cate onl y a small amount of
s catter between the three hydrostati c tes ts performed on each foam. The
volume s tr ai ns measured a t the ends o f the hydrostati c l oadi ng phases of the
t r i a xi a l tes ts are al so consi stent wi th the vol umetri c s trai ns measured i n
the hydros tati c tests. However, the pressure a t which vol umetri c yi el di ng
occurs i s hi ghl y dependent on the tes t condi ti ons. For 6602 foam, the
pressure a t yi el d under hydrostati c l oadi ng i s approximately 15 ps i whereas
the pressure a t yi el d under uni axi al l oadi ng i s about 8 ps i and f o r the
t r i a xi a l tes t wi th a confi ni ng pressure o f 10 ps i i s approximately 15 ps i .
I n the t r i axi al tes ts wi th confi ni ng pressures of 15 ps i and 20 ps i , the
foam actual l y yi el ds twice, once a t 15 ps i duri ng the hydrostati c phase o f
the tes ts and then again a t 19.5 ps i f o r the tes t wi th 15 ps i confi ni ng
pressure and a t 25 ps i f o r the tes t wi th 20 ps i confi ni ng pressure. For
these two t r i axi al tests, the data i ndi cate that when the addi ti onal axi al
l oads are f i na l l y appl i ed, the foam has hi gher resi stance t o the axi al loads
than t o continued hydrostati c loading. Thi s type o f behavior i s not
commonly observed f or most materi al s and i s an i ndi cati on o f the unusual
coupl i ng between the vol umetri c and shear responses of the foam. Thi s
coupl i ng can al s o be seen i n the axi al stress- axi al s tr ai n curves i n
F i gures 2.lb - 2.6b.
2 4
3. APPLICATION OF EXI STI NG CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
TO LOW-DENSITY POLYURETHANE FOAMS
The l ogi cal f i r s t step i n the development of a cons ti tuti ve model f o r
low dens i ty pol yurethane foams i s t o try t o fit exi s ti ng cons ti tuti ve models
t o the t es t data. I n t hi s secti on, three types o f models which have been
used i n the past t o model low densi ty foam behavi or [SI are eval uated wi th
respect t o the NMERI/CERF data. The three types of models considered i n
t hi s secti on i ncl ude: (1) a uni axi al crush model, ( 2 ) a conventional
devi ator i c pl a s t i c i t y model which i s commonly used t o descri be the behavior
o f metals, and (3) a "s oi l s " model which combines vol umetri c pl as t i c i t y wi th
pressure dependent devi atori c pl as ti c i ty.
3.1. Uni axi al Crush Model
The usual method o f tes ti ng foam i s i n a conventional uni axi al
compression tes t. Thi s i s a convenient method because the most common
appl i cati on f o r foam crushi ng i nvol ves a uni axi al crush. The uni axi al
s tres s - s trai n curve can be di r ec tl y used t o compute displacements from loads
o r vi ce versa. Thi s simple uni axi al model has a severe l i mi tati on, however,
whenever the foam i s used i n a mul ti axi al crush mode. The uni axi al behavior
cannot be appl i ed by si mpl y i gnori ng stresses i n the other di recti ons . Thi s
i s seen i n F i gure 2.lb. where the axi al stress- axi al s tr ai n curve i s shown
t o be not unique but i nstead very s ens i ti ve t o the appl i ed pressure. I t i s
obvious that a mul ti axi al model i s necessary i f mul ti axi al l oadi ng i s
i nvol ved.
3.2. Conventional Devi atori c P l as ti c i ty Model
A second method o f modeling foam i s t o use a conventional pl as t i c i t y
model, which i s the si mpl est mul ti axi al model. Uni axi al yi el d strengths can
be measured and general i zed t o mul ti axi al condi ti ons usi ng conventional
devi ator i c pl a s t i c i t y assumptions. One o f the assumptions which must be
evaluated, however, i s that a model o f t hi s type al l ows onl y el as ti c volume
25
s trai ns . The hydros tati c data i n Figures 2.la t o 2.6a i ndi cate that the
foams undergo l arge pl as ti c volume s trai ns when subjected t o s uf f i ci ent
load. Thus, conventional devi atori c pl as t i c i t y models are unable t o capture
the pl as ti c vol umetri c behavior o f polyurethane foams. Another assumption
made i n conventional pl as t i c i t y models i s that the vol umetri c and devi atori c
responses are not coupled. That i s , devi atori c l oadi ng i s assumed t o have
no ef f ec t on vol umetri c behavior, and devi atori c yi el d i s not affected by
the pressure. I f a devi atori c vol umetri c decomposition were val i d, a l l o f
the vol umetri c responses i n F i gures 2.la t o 2.6a would be the same
regardl ess o f the l oad hi story. The curves i n F i gures 2.la t o 2.6a i ndi cate
that the vol umetri c response i s cl earl y dependent on l oad hi s tory and the
occurrence o f devi atori c loading. Thus, conventional devi atori c pl as ti c i ty
models f a i l t o capture two i mportant features of polyurethane foam behavior,
vol umetri c pl a s t i c i t y and vol umetri c- devi atori c coupling.
3. 3. Combined Volumetric P l as ti c i ty wi th P ressure Dependent Devi atori c
P l as ti c i ty Model
Another cl ass o f rnultiaxia1,models which combine vol umetri c pl as ti c i ty
wi th pressure dependent devi atori c pl as ti c i ty were examined next. These
models were attr ac ti ve because they have features which devi atori c
pl a s t i c i t y models do not; namely, capabi l i ti es f o r vol umetri c pl as ti c i ty and
coupl i ng between the vol umetri c and devi atori c responses. A par ti cul ar
model o f t h i s type, developed by Kri eg [7] f o r s oi l and concrete, was
examined i n detai l f o r i t s appl i c abi l i ty t o foam. I n t hi s model, the yi el d
f uncti on i s assumed t o be separable i nto the product o f devi atori c and
vol umetri c parts. The vol umetri c yi el d functi on i s independent of the
devi atori c stresses, but the devi atori c porti on o f the yi el d functi on i s
dependent on the pressure. The shape of the devi atori c yi el d surface i s a
parabol oi d o f revol uti on about the pressure axi s as shown i n F i gure 3.1.
The vol umetri c, eV, and devi atori c, eS, yi el d functi ons are gi ven by the
f ol l owi ng equations
ev = P - f(d
3.1
26
HVDROSTAT
F I GURE 3.1. Y i el d Sur f ace i n P r i nci pal Stress Space [7]
2 7
= J~ - (ao +alp + a2p 2 1 3.2
Os
where p i s the pressure (defi ned i n Equation 2. 1) , f i s a functi on o f the
vol umetri c s tr ai n and defi nes the materi al s vol umetri c s tres s - s trai n
behavi or, J2 i s the second i nvari ant of the devi atori c stresses, and ao, al
and a2 are materi al constants.
vol umetri c s tres s - s trai n data, t hi s model captures the vol umetri c pl as ti c i ty
o f pol yurethane foam. However, i n t hi s model, the vol umetri c response i s
considered t o be independent o f the devi atori c response. Thi s assumption i s
obvi ousl y not val i d f o r the data presented i n Figures 2.la t o 2.6a.
Since f i n Equation 3.1 i s defi ned from
Nei ther uni axi al models, conventional devi atori c pl as t i c i t y models, nor
models which combine vol umetri c pl as t i c i t y wi th pressure dependent
devi atori c pl a s t i c i t y are appropri ate f or low densi ty polyurethane foams.
Therefore, a new cons ti tuti ve model was developed and i s presented i n the
next secti on.
28
4. NEW CONSTITUTIVE MODEL FOR LOW DENSITY POLYURETHANE FOAMS
The f i r s t step i n the development o f a new cons ti tuti ve model f or low
dens i ty pol yurethane foams was t o examine the i ndi vi dual components o f the
foam structure. Each o f the foams used i n the NMERI/CERF tes ts was a closed
c e l l foam wi th a i r i ns i de the cel l s . Therefore, each foam consi sted o f two
s tr uctur al components: (1) the polymer s tructure or skel eton and (2) the
a i r i ns i de the foam. I n appl i cati ons where the a i r coul d not escape from
the skel eton duri ng l oadi ng, the a i r coul d carry a substanti al par t o f the
load. I n a l l o f the NMERI /CERF tes ts , except the uni axi al tes ts , the
samples were j acketed and a i r coul d not escape.
considered the contri buti on o f the a i r t o the overal l s tructural response o f
the foams was appropri ate f o r the foam behavi or exhi bi ted i n the NMERI/CERF
tes ts .
Thus, a model which
Total foam response can be decomposed i nt o the response o f the skel eton
and the response o f the a i r i n the f ol l owi ng manner. Since, the a i r does
not r es i s t any shear deformation, the a i r contri buti on i s completely
vol umetri c. F or convenience, the skel eton i s assumed t o occupy the same
space as the foam. Thi s i mpl i es that the skel eton s tr ai n components are
equal t o the foam s tr ai n components.
are gi ven by the f ol l owi ng equati on
Also, the foam stress components, uij,
a i r
(7 i j = u;; +u
'i j
4.1
represents the a i r
a i r6
i j
where u;; are the skel eton stress components and u
contri buti on t o the normal stress components. To better understand t hi s
equati on, consi der a hydros tati c compression tes t i n which the foam sample
i s j acketed and the a i r i s not al l owed t o escape.
s tructured so that i t coul d not carry any load, then the external pressure
I f the skel eton was
aPP
the
wou
the
the
i ed t o the foam would equal the i nternal a i r pressure. I n other words,
foam s tres s components would equal the a i r contri buti on. Thi s foam
d not be abl e t o r es i s t any devi atori c l oadi ng. I n most foams, however,
skel eton i s s tructured s o that i t can carry l oad and the contri buti on o f
skel eton must be added t o the a i r contri buti on t o determine how much
2 9
l oad the foam can carry.
contri buti on as a functi on o f foam s tr ai n components i s deri ved.
I n the next secti on, an expression f o r the a i r
The i deal gas law was used t o deri ve an expression f o r the a i r
a i r
contri buti on, u
f i na l volume o f VI, the volume s trai n, y , can be expressed as
. I f the foam i s compressed from i n i t i a l volume Vo t o a
4. 2
The volume o f the foam i s equal t o the sum o f volume o f the polymer from
which it i s made, Vp, and the volume o f the a i r trapped i nsi de, Vair.
volume o f the polymer i s f i xed when the foam i s manufactured and merely
changes i t s pos i ti on as the foam deforms. Thus, the volume s tr ai n becomes
The
o r
Y =(- - l ) , ( +e)
The denominator o f Equation 4.4 can be expressed as
( I +$) = 1 - 9 1
4. 3
4.4
4. 5
where i s the volume f r acti on o f s ol i d materi al . I f the i deal gas law i s
expressed as
a i r V a i r = -,-
P
3 0
4. 6
i s the a i r volume, n i s the mole
"ai r
where pair i s the a i r pressure,
f r ac ti on o f ai r , R i s the uni versal gas constant, and T i s the absol ute
temperature, Equation 4.4 can be rewri tten as
and rearranged t o gi ve
4. 7
4 .a
The pressure p:i r i s the i nternal a i r pressure when no l oad i s appl i ed t o
the foam. Thus, pyir can be expressed as
a i r a i r a i r
P1 = Po - (7
4.9
The negati ve si gn i s needed i n f r ont o f uair because po a i r and p;ir are
pos i ti ve i n compression whereas uair i s pos i ti ve i n tension.
of Equation 4. 9 i nto Equation 4.8 leads t o an expression f o r the a i r
contri buti on, u .
S ubs ti tuti on
a i r
4. 10
F or a prescri bed foam volume s trai n, 7 , Equation 4. 10 descri bes the stress
car r i ed by the ai r . Note that f o r i sothermal condi ti ons when the foam
volume s tr ai n i s equal t o zero the a i r contri buti on i s al s o equal t o zero.
A l s o , the a i r contri buti on approaches i n f i n i t y as the foam volume s tr ai n
approaches 6 - 1 o r i n other words as the foam volume approaches the polymer
volume. A pl o t o f the a i r contri buti on as a f uncti on o f volume s tr ai n i s
shown i n F i gure 4. 1. For appl i cati ons i n which the a i r can escape from the
foam, the stress carri ed by the a i r can be neglected by s etti ng p; i r equal
t o zero.
5Q0
400
P
R
E
s 300
S
U
R
E
200
P
5
I
10Q
0
0. . 2 . 4 .6 . 8 1.
. 1 . 3 .5 . 7 . 9
UOLUME STRRIN ( ( UQ-U )/U0 )
F I GURE 4.1 Air Contribution f or 9505 Foam ( 4 = 0 . 0 9 )
32
The response o f the skel eton can now be determined from the NMERI /CERF
tes ts . Since the foam and the skel eton occupy the same volume, the foam and
skel eton s tr ai ns are the same. Also, the skel eton stress components can be
deri ved from Equation 4. 1 wr i tten i n the f ol l owi ng form
a i r6
i j
= (7 - u
sk
'i j i j
4. 11
The skel eton s tres s components are determined by subtracti ng the expression
gi ven by Equation 4. 10 f o r the stress carri ed by the a i r from the foam
normal s tres s components. The skel eton responses have been found i n t hi s
way usi ng the data pl otted i n F i gures 2.1 - 2.6 and are shown i n F i gures
4. 2 - 4. 7.
and F i gures 4. 2 - 4. 7 descri be the skel eton behavior.
Equation 4. 10 should rather accuratel y descri be the a i r behavi or
The vol umetri c responses f o r hydros tati c l oadi ng i ndi cate that the
skel eton may soften or harden s l i ght l y af t er yi el d.
vol umetri c skel eton responses are affected by the devi atori c l oadi ng
condi ti ons. Furthermore, the l ater al s trai ns are zero f o r the uni axi al
tes ts . Thi s i mpl i es that P oi sson's r a t i o f o r the skel eton i s equal t o zero.
That i s , the skel eton response i n a pr i nci pal stress di r ecti on i s not
af f ected by the other pri nci pal skel eton stresses. The skel eton responses
f o r 6602 Foam i n F i gure 4. 2 i ndi cate that f o r hydros tati c l oadi ng the yi e l d
s tres s can be expressed as a f uncti on o f the volume strai n, 7.
l oadi ng i s devi atori c, the axi al yi e l d stress appears t o be equal t o the
axi al yi e l d s tres s f o r hydros tati c l oadi ng pl us a constant. Thus, the yi e l d
s tres s i n each pri nci pal s tres s di r ecti on can be expressed as
I n addi ti on, the
I f the
g = A < I I ' > + B ( 1 +C y ) 4. 12
where 11' i s the second i nvari ant o f the devi atori c s trai ns , < > i s the
heavyside step functi on, 7 i s the volume s tr ai n or f i r s t i nvari ant o f the
foam s trai ns , and A, B, and C are constants. Constant B i s the yi e l d stress
o f the skel eton f o r purel y hydros tati c l oadi ng, and the product of B and C
i s the sl ope o f the skel eton vol umetri c response af t er yi el di ng f o r purel y
hydros tati c l obdi ng. Constant A i s equal t o the di f f erence between the
axi al yi e l d s tres s f o r hydros tati c l oadi ng and the axi al yi el d s tres s f o r
3 3
5
I
A
I
A
L
S
T
R
E
S
S
X
P
s
30
P 25
R
E
S
-
-
- HYDROSTATIC TESTS
0 UNIAXIAL TEST -
0 8 TRIAXIAL TEST, P = 15 PSI
-
.ti
5
4 0. .2
. I .3
UOLUME STRA I N ( ( UQ-U )/UQ 1
F I GU R E 4 . 2 a . Skel et on Vol umet r i c Responses f r om
A l l Test s on F oam 6 6 0 2
- HYDROSTATIC TESTS
0 UNIAXIAL TEST
A TRIAXIRL TEST. P = 1Q PSI
0 TRIAXIAL TEST. P = 20 PSI .
0
0
0 -
0
AXIAL STRQIN c ( L ~ - L )/L~ )
F I GU R E 4 . 2 b . Skel et on A x i a l Responses f r omAl l
Test s on F oam 6 6 0 2
34
50
- HYDROSTATIC TESTS
0 TRIQXIQL TEST. P 15 PSI
A TRIAXIAL TEST. P = za PSI
40
P
R
E
S 30
s
U
R
E
20
P
S
I
10
0
0. .2 . 4 .6
. 1 .3 .5
UOLUHE STRA I N ( ( UQ-U )/U0 >
F I GU R E 4.3a. Skel eton V ol umetr i c Responses f r om
A l l Tests on F o am 6 7 0 3
8Q
A
X
I
FI
L
s
T
R
E
S
60
40
P
S
I
20
I
100 , , , , I . ' . , I . . . . , . . . . I . . , . l . , . .
L
-
-
-
-
- HYDROSTATIC TESTS
I:
0. . l .2 . 3
. . 05 . 15 . 25
AXIAL STRAIN ( ( La-L )/Lo 1
F I GU R E 4 . 3 b . Skel eton A xi al Responses f r o m A l l
T es t s on F o am 6 7 0 3
35
- HYDROSTATIC TESTS
0 UNIAXIAL TEST
b TRIAXIQL TEST. P = 6 PSI
o TRIAXIAL TEST. P = 10 PSI
. 2 . 4 .6
0.
. 1 . 3 .5
UOLUHE STRA IN ( ( UQ-U )/U0 1
FI GURE 4 . 4 a . Skel et on Vol umet r i c Responses f r om
A l l Test s on F o a m 9 7 0 3
l . ' . I I . ' . . l . . . . l . . . .
- HYDROSTATIC TESTS
0 UNIAXIAL TEST
-
I
A
L
S T E30
i 0
A 3 0
X
I
A
L
S
T
R 20
a--
A TRIAXIAL TEST. P = 6 PSI -1
- 0 TRIAXIAL TEST. P = 10 PSI
0 TRIAXIQL TEST, P = 15 PSI
-
- 0
A
-
0 TRIAXIQL TEST, P = 15 PSI
acP003000a30ooaoo-
E
S
s
10 O 0 J
0
-
0
I
FI GURE 4 . 4 b . Skel et on A x i a l Responses f r om A l l
Test s on Foam 9 7 0 3
36
s0 , . l . , . . . . l , . . . l . . . . l . . . . , . . . . ,
- HYDROSTATIC TESTS
0 TRIAXIAL TEST. P = 10 PSI'
P
R
- HYDROSTATIC TESTS
i
0 TRIAXIAL TEST, P = 10 PSI
A TRIAXIAL TEST. P - 20 PSI
E
S 30
S
U
R
E
20
P
5
I
10
0
0. . 2 . 4 .6
.1 .3 . 5
UOLUME STRAIN ( ( Ug-U )/UQ )
FIGURE 4.5a. Skel eton Volumetric Responses from
All T ests on Foam 9503
D m - 0 TRIAXIAL TEST. P = 31 PSI
A*
A 60
X
I
FI
L
S
T
R 4 0
E
S
S
0
P
s 20
I
0
0.
. 05
1
. 15
.2
.25
3
FlXIAL STRAIN ( ( Lo-L )/La )
FIGURE 4 . 5 b . Skel eton A xi al Responses from A l l
T es t s on Foam 9503
37
FIGURE 4 . 6 . Skeleton Volumetric Responses for Foam 6 7 0 4
38
1
140
1 ' * " 1 ~ " ' 1 " ~ ' 1 " ' ~ 1 " "
120 -
A
X
A
L
S 80
T
R
E
I 100
-
60 -
- HYDROSTATIC TESTS
P 40
5 0 UNIAXIAL TEST
-
I
20 0 TRIAXIAL TEST. P = 20 PSI -
0 TRIAXIQL TEST. P = 30 PSI
0
1 , , , . 1 . . . . 1 1 1 1 , 1 * 1 . 1
0. . 1 . 2
1
. 3
P
S
I
20
00
80
60
40
- HYDROSTATIC TESTS
0 UNIAXIAL TEST
20 -
0
0. . 2 . 4 c
. 1 .3 .5
UOLUHE STRAIN ( ( UQ-U )/U0 1
FIGURE 4 . 7 a . Skeleton Volumetric Responses from
All Tests on Foam 9505
3 9
devi atori c l oadi ng.
l oadi ng i s devi atori c. The pri nci pal skel eton stresses must be l es s than or
equal t o the yi el d f uncti on g. I f the pri nci pal skel eton stresses are l ess
than g , the behavi or i s el as ti c. I f the pri nci pal skel eton stresses are
equal t o g, the behavi or may be pl as ti c. Constants B and C are determined
from a hydros tati c tes t, and constant A i s determined from a t r i axi al or
uni axi al tes t, Thus, a t l eas t one hydros tati c tes t and one t r i a xi a l or
uni axi al tes t are needed t o characteri ze the foam behavior. Materi al
properti es f or the vari ous foams (Tabl e 4.1) were determined from the
hydros tati c and uni axi al skel eton data. The foam el as ti c modulus, E, was
taken as the sl ope o f a best fi t curve through the data i n the el as ti c
regime.
fit curve through the data i n the pl as ti c regime o f the hydrostati c tests.
The f i r s t term i n Equation 4.12 i s acti ve onl y i f the
Y i el d functi on parameter C was determined from the slope o f a best
Table 4.1. Materi al P roperti es f or NMERI /CERF Foams
FOAM E A B C
4
6602
6703
9703
9503
6704
9505
462 9.5 15.5 0.738
644 37.0 21.3 0.218
344 19.5 11.8 1.590
650 36.0 24.5 0.511
2050 49.8 48.8 -0.613
3010 49.2 60.8 -0.517
0.035
0.050
0.050
0.060
0.080
0.090
E - YOUNG'S MODULUS, ps i
A - YIELD FUNCTI ON PARAMETER, ps i
B - YIELD FUNCTI ON PARAMETER, ps i
C - YIELD FUNCTI ON PARAMETER
4 - VOLUME FRACTION OF SOLID MATERI AL
4 0
The next step i n the model bui l di ng process was t o express the
characteri zi ng parameters i n terms o f volume f racti on. A consi derati on o f
the physi cal meaning o f the constants showed that parameters A, B and E
should approach zero as volume f r ac ti on goes t o zero. For t hi s reason these
parameters were f i t t e d wi th a power functi on. Parameter C was f i t t e d wi th a
l i near f uncti on o f volume f r acti on. Thi s l eas t squares f i t t i n g process
produced the val ues gi ven i n Equations 4.13 - 4.16. The f i t t e d curves and
supporti ng data are shown i n F i gure 4.8.
1.676
A = 3440 4
1.645
B = 2780 4
C 2.21 - 31.1 4
2.20
E = 454000 4
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
Equati on 4.16 i ndi cates a t$ dependence f o r Youngs Modulus.
Warren [5] have reported a t$2o dependence f o r Youngs Modulus f o r low
dens i ty foams. Equations 4.13 t o 4.16 coul d be used t o esti mate i nput
parameters f o r the new c ons ti tuti ve model i f the onl y data avai l abl e f o r the
foam was i t s volume f racti on. However, f ur ther experimental tes ti ng should
be completed t o improve our confi dence i n Equations 4.13 t o 4.16.
Krayni k and
The cons ti tuti ve model i s summarized i n the f l owchart shown i n
F i gure 4.9. F or a gi ven i n i t i a l stress and s tr ai n s tate, the foam stress
components can be determined from the expressions f o r the stress carri ed by
the a i r and by the skel eton. I n i t i a l foam stress components and a i r
pressure are used t o compute the i n i t i a l skel eton s tres s components. Foam
s tr ai ns are updated usi ng the s tr ai n r ate and ti me step si ze. T r i al
skel eton s tres s components are computed by assuming that the skel eton
behavi or remains el as ti c over the ti me step. The t r i a l skel eton stress
components are then rotated t o pr i nci pal stress di recti ons , and each
pr i nci pal t r i a l stress i s compared wi th the yi el d stress. I f a pri nci pal
41
P
i
5
104
I
3
FI
100 I
10-2 10-1 100
UOLUME FRFICTION
FIGURE 4.8a. Foam Parameter A as a Function o f Densitv Ratio
6
P
S
I
104
103
102
101
1 00
10-2
10-1
UOLUME FRQCTION
100
FIGURE 4.8b. Foam Parameter B as a Function of Density Ratio
4 2
2.
1.5
1.
c e . 5
0.
-. 5
-1.
0. .04
.02 .06
UOLUHE FRFICTION
.08
. l
FIGURE 4 . 8 ~. Foam Par ameter C as a F uncti on of Densi ty
10-2 10-1
UOLUHE FRFICTION
100
R a t i o
FIGURE 4 . 8 d . Foam El asti c Modul us E as a F uncti on of
Densi ty R at i o
7- -- --- - i---
I COMF'UTE: Initial Skeleton Stress I
I UPDATE: Strain Components
I c 1
COMPUTE: Principal Skeleton Stress
ow, and directions
COMPUTE: Yield Stress
=A(I[>+ B (1 +Cy)
NOTE: Since Poisson's Ratio
for the Skeletorl =0.
COMPUTE: New acir arid Foarri Sires5
oii =& $1 +6.. 'I (p
FIGURE 4 . 9 . Fl owchart of N e w Constitutive Model
4 4
t r i a l skel eton s tres s i s smal l er i n magnitude than the yi el d stress, i t
becomes the actual pr i nci pal skel eton stress a t the end o f the ti me step.
P ri nci pal skel eton stresses wi th magnitudes that are equal t o or greater
than the yi e l d s tres s are s et equal i n magnitude t o the yi el d stress.
the pr i nci pal skel eton stresses are determined, they are rotated back t o the
gl obal coordi nate system. The stress carri ed by the a i r i s then computed
usi ng the updated volume s tr ai n. F i nal l y, foam s tres s components f o r t hi s
ti me step are computed by adding the stress carri ed by the a i r t o the normal
skel eton s tres s components.
Once
The next step i n the development o f the new cons ti tuti ve model was i t s
i mpl ementati on i n f i n i t e element computer codes. The model was i ncorporated
i n SANCHO [8], a quas i s tati c dynamic rel axati on code, and i n PRONTO [ 9] , a
trans i ent dynamics code. The implementation i n both codes was r el ati vel y
s trai ghtf orward and fol l owed the f l ow chart i n F i gure 4.9. However, there
were two mi nor modi f i cati ons made t o the cons ti tuti ve model duri ng the
i mpl ementati on phase. The f i r s t modi f i cati on i nvol ved the step f uncti on
used i n the yi el d c r i ter i on f o r the skel eton (Equati on 4.12). The step
f uncti on acts as an "on- off" swi tch wi th values o f ei ther 0 or 1. The
di sconti nuous jumps between the values o f 0 and 1 caused some convergence
di f f i c ul t i e s , but these di f f i c ul t i e s were eas i l y sol ved by repl aci ng the
step f uncti on wi th a steep si ne f uncti on which al l owed a continuous
var i ati on between 0 and 1 (F i gure 4.10). The second modi f i cati on af f ected
the a i r pressure contri buti on and yi el d stress equations. These equations
were wr i tten as functi ons o f engi neeri ng volume s tr ai n but the computer
codes i n whi ch t hi s model was implemented used l ogari thmi c s tr ai n i n t hei r
c ons ti tuti ve model routi nes. The engi neeri ng volume s trai n, 7, can be
expressed as a f uncti on o f the current l ogari thmi c s tr ai n components as
f o l 1 ows
- 1
'kk
y = e 4.17
where lij are the l ogari thmi c s tr ai n components, and e i s the base o f the
natural l ogari thm system. Equation 4.17 was used i n the implementation o f
the model i n the computer codes t o express the a i r pressure contri buti on and
the yi e l d s tres s as functi ons o f the l ogari thmi c s tr ai n components.
45
( 1 1 '
2.
1.s
1 .
>
. 5
0.
-.s
- 1.
I - . ' . . I . . , . I , . , , ,
1 ' 1 . 1
-
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
-
-
I - STEP FUNCTION
I - - - - SINE FUNCTION
I
-
-
-
' 1 . . " ~ . 1 . . . . 1 . , . . 1 . . . . 1 I , , , I . , , , , -
FIGURE 4.10. Modification to Step Function in Y i el d Equation
4 6
The l a s t step i n the development o f t hi s new cons ti tuti ve model was t o
ver i f y that the model accuratel y represented the polyurethane foam behavior.
To ver i f y the model, a seri es o f analyses was completed usi ng the new
cons ti tuti ve model i n SANCHO and PRONTO. Thi s seri es o f analyses was
completed usi ng an axisyrrrnetric, one element model o f a NMERI/CERF tes t
sample. Boundary condi ti ons on the model were vari ed t o represent the
vari ous NMERI/CERF tests. Experimental foam behavior and cons ti tuti ve model
behavi or from a hydros tati c tes t f o r 6602 Foam are shown i n F i gures 4.11a
and 4.11b. The new cons ti tuti ve model accuratel y modeled t hi s hydrostati c
tes t. Thi s r es ul t was expected because parameters f o r the cons ti tuti ve
model were sel ected based on res ul ts from the experimental hydrostati c and
uni axi al tes ts . Experimental foam behavi or and cons ti tuti ve model behavior
from a uni axi al tes t f o r 6602 Foam are shown i n F i gures 4.12a and 4.12b.
Again, the cons ti tuti ve model accuratel y represented the experimental foam
behavi or. Experimental foam behavi or and cons ti tuti ve model behavior from
t r i a xi a l tes ts f o r 6602 Foam are shown i n F i gures 4.13 - 4.15. The new
c ons ti tuti ve model accuratel y represented the foam behavior f o r a l l of the
t r i a xi a l tes ts . Also, there was no s i gni f i c ant di f f erence between ras ul ts
obtai ned usi ng SANCHO and res ul ts obtai ned usi ng PRONTO. Comparisons
between experi mental res ul ts and model behavi or f o r other foams are shown i n
Appendix A.
P
R
E
S
S
U
2 20
P
S
I
O O A NMERI KERF TESTS
- FINITE ELEMENT ANaLYsI s
10
0
0 . .2 . 4 .6
. 1 .3 .5
UOLUHE STRAIN ( ( UQ-U )/Ug )
FIGURE 4.11a. Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Results -
Volumetric Responses from Hydrostatic Tests on
Foam 6602
A 30 -
X
I
R
L
s
T
E
S
S
R 20 -
/
0 0 A NMERI XERF TESTS
- FI NI TE ELEMENT FINQLYSIS
AXIQL STRAIN ( ( Lo-L )/La )
FIGURE 4. 11b. Comparison of Analytical and Experimental
Axial Responses from Hydrostatic Tests on
3
Results -
Foam 6602
4 8
20
A Nf l ERI/CERF TESTS
15 - FI NI TE ELEfl ENT QNALYSIS
P
R
E
S
S
U
; 10
P
S
I
5
0
0. .2 . 4
. 1 .3 . 5
Volumetric Response from Uniaxial Test on Foam 6602
UOLUHE STRAIN ( ( UQ-U )/UQ )
A 30
X
I
A
-
!
I
AXIAL STRAIN ( ( La-L )/La )
FIGURE 4.12b. Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Results -
Axial Response from Uniaxial Test on Foam 6602
49
4 0
A NHERI/CERF TESTS
- FINITE ELEMENT a Na L w I s
30
P
R
E
s
s
U
g 2 0
P
S
I
10
0
0. . z . 4 .6
. 1 . 3 . 5
UOLUtlE STRAIN ( ( U0-U )/U0 1
Volumetric Response from Triaxial Test o n Foam 6602
(P=10 psi)
A 3 0 -
X
I
A
L
S
T
E
S
S
R Z 0 -
P
s 1 0 -
I
J
A NMERI 4ERF TESTS
1
- FINITE ELEMENT a Na L w I s
0. . 1 .2 .3
. 0 5 .I5 .25
AXIAL STRAIN ( ( La-L )/ Lg 1
FIGURE 4 . 1 3 b . Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Results
Axial Response from Triaxial Test on Foam 6602
(P=10 psi)
5 0
0 A NMERI KERF TESTS
- F I NI T E ELEMENT QNFILYSIS
Gl 30
X
F1 I
P
S
I
10
A in
-
A
A a - -
0
. 4 .6
.5
. z
. I .3
0.
UOLUHE STRAIN ( ( UQ-U )/Ug )
Volumetric Response from Triaxial Test on Foam 6602
(P=15 psi)
-
-
" ~ ' ~ ~ " ' " ~ ~ ' ~ " ' " " ' '
0 A NMERI KERF TESTS
- F I NI T E ELEMENT QNFILYSIS
(P=15 psi)
51
P
R
E
S
S
U
P
i r
S
10
P
R
E
S
S
U
E 2 0
P
i
S
10
A NMERIICERF TESTS
- FI NI TE ELEnENT CINALYSIS
0
0. .2 . 4
UOLUME STRAIN ( ( U0-U )NUB )
. 1 . 3 . 5
A NMERIICERF TESTS
- FI NI TE ELEnENT CINALYSIS
3
(P-20 psi)
fi 30 -
I
A
L
S
T
2 20
-
S
S
P
5 10 -
I
A
A
-
A NMERIICERF TESTS
-
- F I NI T E ELEMENT ANALYSIS
0 . . 1 . z . .?
. 0 5 . 1 5 .25
A X I A L STRAIN ( ( La-L ) / La )
(P=20 psi)
52
5. SOLUTION OF A TYPICAL DYNAMIC PROBLEM USING THE NEW CONSTITUTIVE MODEL
A typi cal dynamic problem was analyzed usi ng the new foam cons ti tuti ve
model and PRONTO. Thi s problem was chosen t o demonstrate the capabi l i ti es
o f the model f o r handl i ng complex stress states. Resul ts from t hi s anal ysi s
were compared wi th res ul ts obtai ned usi ng a conventional devi atori c
pl a s t i c i t y model and a combined vol umetri c pl as t i c i t y wi th pressure
dependent devi atori c pl a s t i c i t y model t o demonstrate the ef f ects o f usi ng
the vari ous models f o r the foam materi al .
Thi s problem consi sted o f an i nf i ni t e l y l ong steel cyl i nder surrounded
by a foam l ayer that was covered wi th a t hi n aluminum s hel l . The two-
dimensional, pl ane s tr ai n f i n i t e element model shown i n F i gure 5.1 was used
i n these analyses. The cyl i nder was dropped onto a r i g i d surface a t an
i n i t i a l vel oci ty o f 528 inches per second, and the res ul ti ng deformations
and accel erati ons were computed. Materi al properti es used f o r t hi s seri es
o f analyses are gi ven i n Table 5.1. The foam l ayer was assumed t o be
9505 Foam and was modeled wi th the three di f f er ent cons ti tuti ve models
discussed above. Materi al properti es f o r the devi atori c pl a s t i c i t y model
were based on r es ul ts from the uni axi al NMERI/CERF tes t on 9505 Foam. For
t hi s model the materi al was assumed t o be el as ti c per f ectl y pl as ti c.
Resul ts from both the uni axi al and the hydros tati c NMERI/CERF tes ts on 9505
Foam were used t o determine materi al properti es f o r the combined vol umetri c
and pressure dependent devi atori c pl a s t i c i t y model. The vol umetri c response
f o r t hi s model was based on res ul ts from the hydros tati c tes ts and the
devi atori c response f o r t hi s model was based on res ul ts from the uni axi al
tes t. Materi al properti es f o r the new cons ti tuti ve model were al s o based on
r es ul ts from both the uni axi al and the hydros tati c NMERI/CERF tes ts on
9505 Foam.
Resul ts from t hi s seri es o f analyses are summarized i n Table 5.2.
Resul ts obtai ned usi ng the new cons ti tuti ve model are between r es ul ts
obtai ned usi ng the conventional devi atori c pl a s t i c i t y model and the combined
vol umetri c pl a s t i c i t y wi th pressure dependent devi atori c pl as t i c i t y model.
The conventional devi atori c pl as t i c i t y model does not al l ow f o r any
vol umetri c pl a s t i c i t y and i s s t i f f e r than the other two models. The
5 3
F I GU RE 5. 1. F i ni t e E l e me n t Y odel
5 4
Tabl e 5.1. Materi al P roperti es Used i n Dynamic Analyses
Aluminum ( E l as ti c ) YOUNG'S MODULUS = lO.E+06 ps i
2 4
POISSON'S RATI O =0.30
DENSI TY =2.5E-04 l b s / i n
S teel ( E l as ti c ) YOUNG'S MODULUS =29.E+06 ps i
2 . 4
P OI SSON'S R AT I O =0.30
DENSI TY = 7.OE-04 l b s / i n
Foam (Conventi onal Devi atori c P l a s t i c i t y Model)
YOUNG'S MODULUS =3010. ps i
YIELD STRENGTH =110. ps i
HARDENING MODULUS = 0. ps i
2 . 4
P OI SSON'S RATI O =0.00
BETA = 0.
Foam (Combined Vol umetri c and Devi atori c P l a s t i c i t y Model)
SHEAR MODULUS = 1505. ps i
P si 2 4
BULK MODULUS = 1003.
110.
0.
0.
YIELD FUNCTION CONSTANT - a. =
YIELD FUNCTION CONSTANT - al =
YIELD FUNCTION CONSTANT - a2 =
Foam (New C ons ti tuti ve Model)
Y OUNG'S MODULUS =3010. P si 2 4
DENSI TY = 7.5E-06 l b s / i n
OLUME FRACTION OF SOLID MATERIAL - 9 =0.090
I NI TI AL A I R PRESSURE - p = 14.7 ps i
YIELD FUNCTION CONSTANT - =49.2 psi
YIELD FUNCTION CONSTANT - B =60.8 ps i
YIELD FUNCTION CONSTANT - C =-0.517
55
L
Tabl e 5.2. Resul ts from Dynamic Analyses
1
CONS TI TUTI VE
MODEL USED
-
MAX I MUM MAXIMUM STEEL BODY
CRUSH-U P ACCELERATION
( i n. ) (9)
CONVENTIONAL DEVI ATORI C
PLASTICITY MODEL 1.93
NEW FOAM MODEL 2.57
COMBI NED VOLUMETRIC AND
DEVIATORIC PLASTICITY MODEL 2.84
399
275
208
combined vol umetri c pl as t i c i t y wi th pressure dependent devi atori c pl as ti c i ty
model does not al l ow f o r any change i n vol umetri c response due t o the
occurrence o f devi atori c l oadi ng. Experimental res ul ts i ndi cated that the
occurrence o f devi atori c l oadi ng would s ti f f en the vol umetri c response. The
combined vol umetri c pl as t i c i t y wi th pressure dependent devi atori c pl as ti c i ty
model i s s of ter than the other two models. The new cons ti tuti ve model
captures both vol umetri c pl as ti c i ty and changes i n the vol umetri c response
due t o the occurrence o f devi atori c l oadi ng. Di spl aced shapes o f the f i n i t e
element model a t maximum crush-up are shown i n F i gures 5.2 and 5.3. P l ots
of displacement and accel erati on o f the steel cyl i nder as a f uncti on o f ti me
are shown i n F i gures 5.4 and 5.5, respecti vel y. The accel erati on pl ots were
f i l ter ed wi th a lowpass f i l t e r wi th a cut- off frequency o f 1000 Hz.
5 6
c o n u e n t i o n a l d e u i u t o r i c p l u s t i c ~ t y model
new f o am mode I
c ombi ned u o l u me t r i c and d e u i a t o r i c p l u s t i c i t y model
F I GU RE 5. 2. Di spl aced Shapes of F i ni t e El ement Model
at Maximum Crush- up
57
-' c o n u e n t i o n u l d e u i u t o r i c p l u s t i c i t y model
new f oam mode I
c o mb i n ed u o l u m e t r i c und d e u i ' u t o r i c p l u s t i c i t y model
F I GURE 5.3. Close-up of Di spl aced Foam L ayer i n F i ni t e
El ement Model at Plaximum Crush- up
5 8
.
& -A CONUENTIONAL DEUIATORIC
PLASTICITY MODEL
W NEU FOAM MODEL
Q- I COMGINED UOLUMETRIC AND
D DEUIATORIC PLASTICITY MODEL /
I
s -1. -
P
L
A
C
M
E
N
T
/
E - 1. 5 -
/
/
/
,
I
n
- 2. 5 -
.
.
.
.
- - _ _ e-- - - - - =I
- _
0. .004 .008 .01Z
. OQZ .006 . O 1
TIME s e c o n d s
FI GURE 5 . 4 . Di spl acement of S t eel Cyl i nder
E 400 300 i
A
E
L
E
R
A
T
I
0
N
9
200
100
0
Q- I COMGINED UOLUMETRIC AND
t DEUIATORIC PLASTICITY MODEL
- 1SEi I ' 1 ' I " ' I " ' I " ' I " ' I " "
.004 . 008 , 012
0.
. 002 .006 . O1
TIME s ec o n d s
FIGURE 5. 5. A ccel er at i on of S t eel Cyl i nder
59
6. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
The behavi or o f r i gi d, cl osed- cel l , polyurethane foam was
experi mental l y i nvesti gated. I t was found that these foams undergo l arge
pl as ti c vol umetri c s trai ns when subjected t o s uf f i c i ent l oad and that the
devi atori c and vol umetri c behaviors f or these foams are coupled.
A conventional devi atori c pl as ti c i ty model and a combined vol umetri c
pl a s t i c i t y wi th pressure dependent devi atori c pl as ti c i ty model di d not
capture the coupl i ng that occurred between the devi atori c and vol umetri c
behavi ors i n the NMERI/CERF tes ts . Therefore, a new cons ti tuti ve model f o r
low densi ty polyurethane foams was developed. Thi s new cons ti tuti ve model
captured a l l foam behaviors that were observed i n the NMERI/CERF tests.
Thi s model was implemented i n two f i n i t e element codes, SANCHO and PRONTO.
A typi cal problem was analyzed usi ng t hi s new cons ti tuti ve model and two
other cons ti tuti ve models t o demonstrate di fferences between the vari ous
models. Resul ts from t hi s seri es of analyses i ndi cated that the new
cons ti tuti ve model generated displacement and accel erati on predi cti ons that
were between predi cti ons obtai ned using the other two models. Thi s r es ul t
was expected.
Because the experimental NMERIKERF tes ts were a l l s tati c tes ts there
was no way t o determine i f r ate ef f ects were important; therefore, no rate
ef f ects were i ncl uded i n the new cons ti tuti ve model. I n the future, dynamic
tes ts should be completed t o determine the ef f ects of s tr ai n rates. The
ef f ects o f temperature changes were al so not i nvesti gated as par t o f the
NMERI/CERF tes ts . I n the new cons ti tuti ve model i t was assumed that the a i r
behaves as an i deal gas and that temperature changes have no ef f ec t on the
polymer skel eton. P olyurethane i s expected t o have a strong temperature
dependence above the glassy tr ans i ti on temperature, but the res ul ti ng ef f ec t
upon c el l wal l col l apse i s unknown. Thi s should be i nvesti gated i n
l aboratory tests. Once the new cons ti tuti ve model has been modi fi ed t o
i ncl ude any i mportant rate o r temperature ef f ects , i t could then be used
wi th confidence t o analyze dynamic events. F uture comparisons between
experimental res ul ts and analyses wi th t hi s cons ti tuti ve model would f ur ther
i ncrease confidence i n i t s accuracy.
60
F i nal l y, most shi ppi ng contai ners that use polyurethane foam impact
l i mi t er s have a t hi n l ayer o f some metal around the impact l i mi ter .
Accurate analyses o f such shi ppi ng contai ners w i l l requi re the
implementation of elements that accuratel y and ef f i c i ent l y model t hi n Sayers
i n the f i n i t e element codes i n which the foam model i s used.
61
7. REFERENCES
1. Doyle, E. N., "The Development and Use of Polyurethane Products,"
2.
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971, pp. 256-263.
"Safety Anal ysi s Report f o r the NUPAC 125-B Fuel Shipping Cask,"
Document Number 71-9200, Nuclear Packaging, Inc., Federal Way,
Washington, May 1985.
3. "Transuranic Package Transporter TRUPACT Safety Anal ysi s Report f o r
Packaging," SAND 83-7077, Sandia Nati onal Laboratori es, Albuquerque,
New Mexico, May 1986.
4. Hamberg, D., NMERI /CERF, l e t t e r t o R. May, K. Schuler, and R. Yoshimura,
Sandia Nati onal Laboratori es, Albuquerque, New Mexico, February 29,
1980.
5. Krayni k, A. W. and Warren, W. E., "The Li near E l as ti c P roperti es o f
Foams," Presented a t Winter Meeting, Soci ety o f Rheology, Santa Monica,
CA, J anuary 1987.
6. Wellman, G. W., "Transportati on System Impact L i mi ter Design Using Ri gi d
P olyurethane Foam," SAND84-2271, Sandia Nati onal Laboratories,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1985.
7. Kri eg, R. D., "A Simple Cons ti tuti ve Descri pti on f or S oi l s and Crushable
Foams," SC-DR-72-0883, Sandia Nati onal Laboratori es, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, 1972.
8. Stone, C. M., Kri eg, R. D., and Bei si nger, Z . E., "SANCHO - A F i ni te
Element Computer Program f o r the Quas i s tati c, Large Deformation,
I nel as ti c Response of Two-Dimensional Sol i ds, " SAND84-2618, Sandia
Nati onal Laboratori es, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1985.
9. Tayl or, L. M. and Flanagan, D. P., "A Two-Dimensional Transi ent S ol i d
Dynamics Program," SAND86-0594, Sandia Nati onal Laboratori es,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1986.
6 2
APPENDIX A
To ver i f y that the new cons ti tuti ve model captured the foam behavi or
observed duri ng the NMERI/CERF tes ts , a seri es o f analyses was completed
usi ng the new model i n SANCHO and PRONTO. Thi s seri es o f analyses was
completed usi ng an axisymmetric, one element model o f a NMERI /CERF tes t
sample. Boundary condi ti ons on the model were vari ed t o represent the
vari ous NMERI/CERF tests.
wi th res ul ts from the NMERI /CERF tes ts i n t hi s appendix. These res ul ts
i ndi cate that the new cons ti tuti ve model does capture the foam behavi or
observed duri ng the NMERI/CERF tests.
Resul ts from t hi s seri es o f analyses are compared
.
60
, . , ,
50 -
P
R 4 0 -
E
s
S
U
R 3 0 -
E
, 20 :
I
c
D 0 A NflER I K ERF TESTS
- FI NI TE ELEfl ENT QNALYSIS
~ . . l l . . . l , . . . I , . , . I , I , , . ,
. 1 . 3 c
. 4 .6
0. .2
FIGURE A.la. Comparison of Analvtical and Experimental Results
Volumetric Responses from Hvdrostatic Tests on
Foam 6703
6 0
5Q
FI
X
I
A 4 0
L
S
T
30
s
s
20
P
5
I
10
0. . 1
.2 . 3
.05 . l s .25
Fl XI A L STRAIN ( ( Lo-L )/Lo )
FIGURE A.lb. Comparison o f Analytical and Experimental Results -
Axial Responses from Hydrostatic Tests on Foam 6703
64
.
c
( r " ' l " " I " "
60
A NHERI KERF TESTS
Sb3
- FI NI TE ELEMENT FINFILYSIS
P
R 4 0
E
S
S
U
E
3 0
P
5 z0
I
10
.6
0
. 2 . 4
UOLUME STRA I N ( ( Ug-U )/U0 )
. s
0.
. 1 . 3
FIGURE A.2a. Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Results -
(P=15 psi)
1 zE3 - . , . , , , l . l l l , l l l l l . . ~ '
A NMERI/CERF TESTS
- FI NI TE ELEMENT FINALYSIS
FI FI L ylOOr I 8 0
AXIAL STRAIN ( ( La-L )/ La )
FIGURE A.2b. Comparison o f Analytical and Experimental Results -
Axial Response from Triaxial Test o n Foam 6703
( P=15 psi)
65
60
a NMERI K ERF TESTS
50
- F I N I T E ELEMENT CINQLYSIS
P
R 4 0
E
5
s
U
E 30
E 20
I
1 0
0
.2 . 4 .6
0.
. 1 .3 .5
UOLUME STRAI N ( ( U0-U ) / \ l o )
FI GURE A.3a. Compari son of A nal yti cal and Experi mental Resul ts -
Vol umetri c Response f rom T r i axi al Test on Foam 6703
( P=20 psi )
1 2 0
a NMERI XERF TESTS
1 0 0
- FI NI TE ELEMENT CINQLYSIS
F1
X
I
A 80
L
5
T
E
5
S
60
4 0
P
S
I
20
Q
0. . 1
.2 . 3
. 05
. 1 5 . 25
QXI AL STRA I N ( ( Lo-L )/Lo )
FI GURE A . 3 b . Compari son of A nal yti cal and Experi mental Resul ts -
A xi al Response from T r i axi al T es t on Foam 6703
( P=20 psi )
66
30
O O A NMERI XERF TESTS
25
- F I NI T E ELEMENT QNALYSIS
P
R 20
E
S
S
U
E
R 15
P
s l 0
t
5
0
0 . .2 . 4 .6
. 1 .3 . 5
lJ OLUME STRAIN ( ( Ug-lJ )/U0 )
Foam 9703
O O A NMERI AERF TESTS
- F I NI T E ELEMENT QNALYSIS
0
30 , , , , ( . , . , 1 " . . , . ' . " ' " ' " ' - / '
25 -
-
A
X
I
A 20 -
L
s
T
E
S
S
-
15 -
-
10 ,-
-
P
S
I
AX I AL STRAIN ( ( LQ-L )/LQ )
FIGURE A.4b. Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Results -
Axial Responses from Hydrostatic Tests on Foam 9703
6 7
30
A 30
25
l . ' , . I " ' . , . . ' . . I . ' . '
-
P
-
a NNERINCERF TESTS
- FINITE ELENENT ANALYSIS
-
I . 1 I I I . . . I I , * I . , I . . , , ,
k 20
E
s
S
FIGURE A . 5 a . Compari son of A nal yt i cal and Experi mental R esul t s -
V ol umetri c Response f rom Uni axi al T es t Qn Foam 9703
6 8
A NMERIKERF TESTS
- FI NI TE ELEMENT FINALVSIS
0. .2 . 4 .6
. 1 .3 .5
UOLUHE STRA I N ( ( U0-U )/Ug )
FIGURE A.6a. Compari son of A nal yti cal and Experi mental Resul ts -
V ol umetri c Response f rom T r i axi al T es t on Foam 9703
(P=6 psi )
A 1
I
A 40
30
E
S
S
20
P
5
I
10
0
A NMERI/CERF TESTS
- FI NI TE ELEMENT FINALYSIS
0 . . 1 .2 . 3
. 05 . 15 .25
AXIAL STRAIN ( ( La-L )/La )
FIGURE A.6b. Compari son of A nal yti cal and Experi mental Resul ts -
Axi al Response f rom T ri axi al T es t on Foam 9703
(P=6 ps i )
69
L
25 -
P
R 20 -
E
s
s
U
E
R 15 -
A NMERIlCERF TESTS
- FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
(P=10 psi)
60
50
A
X
I
A 40
L
S
T
; 30
S
s
20
P
5
I
10
A NMERIXERF TESTS
- FINITE ELEMENT QNALYSIS
0
0 . . 1 .2 .3
.Os .ls . 25
AX I AL STRAIN ( ( Lo-L )/La )
('=l o psi)
70
30
25
P
R 20
E
S
S
U
E
R 15
P
5 l 0
I
5
0
(P=15 psi)
40 , , , , , . . . . l . . . , l . . . . , . . . . l . , . .
A 30
X
I
A
L
S
T
g 20
S
S
P
s 10
i
0
A NHERI KERF TESTS
- F I NI T E ELEMENT ANALYSIS
0 . . 1 .2 . 3
. 05 .15 . 25
A X I AL STRAIN ( ( Lo-L )/ La )
(P=15 psi)
71
.2 . 4 .6
0.
. 1 .3 .5
UOLUME STRAI N ( ( UQ-U )/UQ 1
Foam 9503
60
O O A NMERIKERF TESTS
- FINITE ELEMENT aNaL y s I s
50 +
/' .
a
a 40
X
I
L
S
T
30
s
S
20
P
5
I
18
0 I . . . . , , , . . , , . . ,
0. . 1 . 2 . 3
. a5 . 15 . 25
A XI FI L STRAIN ( ( La-L >/LB)
Axial Responses from Hydrostatic Tests o n Foam 9503
72
60
50
P
R 40
E
s
s
U
E 30
g 20
I
10
0
1 0 0
a
X
I
A 80
0. .L . 4 .t
. 1 . 3 .5
-
UOLUPIE ST RA I N ( ( U0-U ) / U0 1
-
-
FIGURE A.lOa. Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Results -
(P=10 psi)
1213, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 1
!
A NMERI XERF TESTS
- FI NI TE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
A Y
A
/
a
A
" " " ' " " " " " " " '
0. . 1 .2 . 3
. a5 . 15 . 25
A XI A L ST RA I N ( ( La-L )/Lo )
0. . 1 .2 . 3
. a5 . 15 . 25
A XI A L ST RA I N ( ( La-L )/Lo )
FIGURE A.lOb. Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Results -
(P=10 psi)
73
60
120 , , , , l , . , . l . . , , ( . , , l l l , l l ( l l . I -
100 -
-
A
X
I
A 80 -
L
S
T
E
S
S
-
60 -
-
-
P
5
I A NMERI KERF TESTS
- F I NI T E ELEMENT FINALYSIS
-
a ' ~ l " ' " " ' '
50
P
R 4 0
E
S
S
U
30
E 20
I
1 0
0
A NMERI/CERF TESTS
- F I N I T E ELEMENT FINALYSIS
7 4
60 , . . ,
I - . r - 1 ' . . . I . . . . , . . . ,
A NMERI / CERF TESTS
- FI Nl TE EL EMENT A NA L YSI S
50
P
R 40
E
S
S
U
E
30
g 20
I
10
0
0 . . 2
. 4 . E
. 1 .3 .5
UOLUHE ST RA I N ( ( U0-U )/IJg )
FIGURE A.12a. Compari son of A nal yti cal and Experi mental Resul ts -
V ol umetri c Response f rom Tri axi al T es t on Foam 9503
(P=31 psi )
120
1 0 0
n
I
A 80
L
S
T
E
S
S
X
60
4 0
P
i
5
20
-----
I
N M E R I K E R F TESTS
- FI NI TE EL EMENT A NA L YSI S
I_
0
0.
. 1 . 2
. 05
. 15
QXIAL ST RA I N ( ( La-L )/LQ
. 3
25
FIGURE A . 1 2 b . Compari son of A nal yti cal and Experi mental Resul ts -
A xi al Response f rom T r i axi al T es t on Foam 9503
(P=31 psi )
75
D O & NHERI/CERF TESTS
- FI NI TE ELEMENT ANQLYSIS
0. . 2 . 4 .6
. 1 .3 . 5
UOLUHE STRQ I N ( ( Ua-U )/UQ 1
Foam 6704
O O A NMERI XERF TESTS
c
100 1
Q
X
I
L
S
T
E
S
S
60
P
5
I
- FI NI TE ELEMENT QNQLYSIS A
-l
A
A
A n
QX I QL STPAIN ( ( Lg-L )/La )
Axial Responses from Hydrostatic Tests on Foam 6 7 0 4
76
0 0 0 N M E R I X E R F TESTS
- F I N I T E ELEMENT A NA L YSI S
FIGURE A.14a. Comparison o f Analytical and Experimental Results -
Foam 9505
1
1
A
X
I
A
L
S
T
R
E
S
S
P
5
I
0 0 0 N M E R I K E R F TESTS
-
- F I N I T E EL EMENT A NA L YSI S
~ ' ~ " ' ' ~ l ~ . ~ . l . ~ . . l ~ . . , I , . . .
0. . 1 .2 .3
. 05 . 15 . 25
A X I A L ST RA I N ( ( La-L )/LQ )
Axial Responses from Hydrostatic Tests o n Foam 9505
77
A NMERI/CERF TESTS
. 5
Volumetric Response from Uniaxial Test on Foam 9505
140
120
FI
x
A
L
S 80
T
R
E
I 100
60
P 40 A NMERI/CERF TESTS
I - FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
5
20
0
0. .1 .2 . 3
.05 . 15 . 25
AXIAL STRAIN ( ( Lo-L )/La )
Axial Response from Uniaxial Test on Foam 9505
78
.
100
L
I . . - 1 , . . " , . . . , , . . . .
A NMERIKERF TESTS
-
-
P
R 80 1
E
s
S
U
E
60
'"E
20 t l na
0. . 2
. 4 .6
1 .3 .5
UOLUME STRAIN ( ( UQ-U )/U0 1
(P=6 psi)
X
A
L I 100 E
s 80
T
R
E
A
20
A NHERIlCERF TESTS
- FINITE ELEHENT aNaLYsIs
A
, . . . I . . . . 1 . . . . 1 . . , . I . . . , l r . . ,
0 .
. 1 .2 .3
. 05 . 1 5 . 25
FIX I AL STRA IN ( ( La-L )/LQ )
(P=6 psi)
79
100
P
5
I
A NMERI XERF TESTS
- -
60 80 i
- F I N I T E ELEMENT QNFl CYSIS
-
-
4 0
20
0
0. .2 . 4 .6
. 1 .3 .5
UOLUME STRAI N C ( U0-U ) / U0 j
(P=20 psi)
1 4 0 7 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . ' . ' ' . ' '
1 2 0
A
; 100
A
L
S 80
T
R
E
60
0
0 . . 1 .2 . 3
. 05 . 15 .25
FIXIAL STRAI N ( ( LB-L )/Lo )
(P=20 psi)
80
120
100
P
R 80
E
S
S
U
E
60
," 40
I
A NIYERI/CERF TESTS
- FI NI TE ELEIYENT FINQLYSIS
20
0
. z . 4 .6
0 .
. 1 .3 . 5
UOLUPlE STRAIN ( ( UQ-LJ )/U0 )
120
S
S
U
E
60
," 40
I
A NIYERI/CERF TESTS
- FI NI TE ELEIYENT FINQLYSIS
20
0
- A & A - -
. z . 4 .6
0 .
. 1 .3 . 5
1413 . , -r------, * ' I " ' 1 I " 8 ' r ' ' 1
-
-
-
-
A NHERI KERF TESTS
- FI NI TE ELEMENT QNQLYSIS
-
I * 8 1 . 1 I I I I I L I * . I . . . . I . . , ,
0. . 1 .2
UOLUPlE STRAIN ( ( UQ-LJ )/U0 )
.3
(P=30 psi)
AXIAL STRRIN ( ( L ~ - L P L ~ )
FIGURE A . 1 8 b . Comparison o f Analytical and Experimental Results -
(P=30 psi)
Di s tr i buti on:
U. S. Department o f Energy
Of f i ce of S c i enti f i c & Technical I nformati on (226)
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
Attn: DOE/OSTI-4500-R74 UC-71
U. S . Department o f Energy
Routi ng RW-33
1000 Independence SW
Washington, DC 20585
Attn: L. Bar r ett
E. W i lmot
G. Cal l ahan
S . Denny
L. Marks
R . P hi l pott
Routi ng DP 123
Attn: J . L ytl e
L . Harmon
F. F al ci
Of f i ce o f S ecuri ty Eval uati ons
Defense Programs - DP-4, GTN
Attn: Dr . J ul i o L . Torres
Albuquerque Operations Of f i ce
4308 C ar l i s l e, NE
Albuquerque, NM 87107
Attn: J . McGough
K . Gol l i her
U. S. Department of Energy
Chicago Operations Of f i ce
9800 S . Cass Avenue, Bldg. 350
Argonne, I L 60439
Attn: S . Mann
C . Boggs-Mayes
U. S . Department of Energy
I daho Operations Of f i ce
550 Second S treet
I daho F al l s , I D 83401
Attn: C . P . Gertz
W. W. Bi xby
82
L
J oi nt I ntegrati on Of f i ce
4308 C arl i s l e, NE
Albuquerque, NM 87107
Attn: J . R ol l , Westinghouse
K . McKinley, Rockwell
R . M. J efferson
SANDIA INTERNAL:
1510
1511
1511
1520
1521
1521
1521
1521
1521
1522
1522
1522
1523
1523
1524
1524
1530
1540
1550
1810
1813
1813
3141
3151
3310
6000
6300
6320
3154-1
6320
6321
6322
6323
6323
7 544
8024
8240
8242
8243
J . W. Nunziato
D. K . Gartl i ng
A. M. Kraynik
W. Herrrnann ( a
R . D. Kri eq (10)
ti
M. K .
H. S .
C . M.
G. W.
R . C .
E. D.
K . W.
J . H.
L . M.
A. K .
K . W.
L . w.
w. c.
Attn:
R . C .
R . G .
J . G .
W. E .
S. A.
w. L .
Nei l sen (15)
Morgan ( 5 )
Stone
We1 lman
Reuter
Reedy
Schu l er
B i f f l e
Taylor
M i 1 l er
Gwinn
Dav i son
Luth
W. R . Wawersik
Maydew
Kep l er
Curro
Warren ( 5)
Landenberger ( 5)
Garner ( 3)
C . H. Dal i n, F oi DOE / OS TI ( 28)
W. D. Burnett
D. L . Hartl ey
R . W. Lynch
J . E . S ti egl er
Attn: T T C Master F i l e
T T C L i brary (25)
R . E . Luna
J . M. Freedman
G. C . Al l en, J r.
R . H . Yoshimura ( 5)
R . A. May
P . W. Dean
C . W. Robinson
L . I . Weingarten
M. 1. Cal l abresi

862927

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

862927

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

*-

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen