Materials and Design 69 (2015) 170–180

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes

Static and dynamic mechanical properties of expanded polystyrene

Wensu Chen a,⇑, Hong Hao a, Dylan Hughes b, Yanchao Shi c, Jian Cui c, Zhong-Xian Li c
a
Tianjin University and Curtin University Joint Research Center of Structure Monitoring and Protection, School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University,
Kent Street, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
b
School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
c
Tianjin University and Curtin University Joint Research Center of Structure Monitoring and Protection, School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Expanded polystyrene (EPS) is commonly used in a variety of applications because of its features of light
Received 12 August 2014 weight, good thermal insulation, moisture resistance, durability, acoustic absorption and low thermal
Accepted 8 December 2014 conductivity. It has been increasingly used in building constructions as core material of structural insu-
Available online 5 January 2015
lated panels (SIP). Some of those structures during their service life may be subjected to dynamic loads
such as accidental or hostile explosion loads and windborne debris impacts. Understanding the dynamic
Keywords: material properties of EPS is essential for reliable predictions of the performances of the structural insu-
Expanded polystyrene
lated panels with EPS foam core material. This paper presents static and dynamic compressive and tensile
Construction material
Experimental tests
test data of EPS with density 13.5 kg/m3 and 28 kg/m3 at different strain rates. The dynamic strength,
Dynamic material properties Young’s modulus and energy absorption capacities of the two EPS foams at different strain rates are
obtained and presented in the paper. Based on the testing data, some empirical relations are derived,
which can be used to model EPS properties in numerical simulations of dynamic responses of structural
insulated panels with EPS foam core subjected to impact and blast loads.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction ments, insulated concrete form (ICF) structures as well as

Structural insulated panel (SIP) is a high-performance light-
weight engineered building structural component that is used in
a wide range of residential, industrial and light commercial con-
struction. It can be used in the building envelopes as a principal
load bearing component such as exterior wall, framing, partition
wall, roof, floor and structural framing. SIP is recognized as an effi-
cient panel in the construction industry due to its advantages of
being environmentally sustainable, economical, easy to install,
ultra-lightweight, high strength to weight ratio, thermal insulated,
moisture resistant, acoustic insulated, termite resistance, and
flame retardant. Structural insulated panel consists of insulating
polymer foam sandwiched by two layers of structural skins [1,2].
Expanded polystyrene (EPS), as the most common polymeric foam,
is widely used as the insulation core in the structural insulated
panels. EPS is a rigid and tough, recyclable, closed-cell cellular plas-
tics material, which has been used in a variety of applications
including impact mitigation packaging, protective helmet, struc-
tural crashworthiness, construction material filling road embank-
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 8 92669468.
E-mail addresses: wensu.chen@curtin.edu.au, wensu.chen@hotmail.com (W.
Chen).
lightweight EPS foamed concrete [3].
Structural insulated panel with EPS foam core might be sub-
jected to dynamic loads such as accidental or hostile explosion
loads and windborne debris impact during its service life [4]. Some
researchers have conducted experimental tests of sandwich panels
subjected to dynamic loads. Mines et al. [5] found that increasing
energy absorption capacity of the core material leads to the
increased capacity of the sandwich panel. Wen et al. [6] found that
the core material does not increase energy absorption significantly
within a certain strain rate while the core material with higher
density increases energy absorption. These experimental tests
clearly demonstrate the significant influence of core material on
sandwich panel responses. Therefore, it is essential to understand
the material mechanical properties, especially the dynamic mate-
rial properties of EPS for reliable predictions of the performances
of the structural insulated panels subjected to the loads from low
velocity impact to blast loading.
The dynamic properties can be obtained by using various test-
ing facilities including conventional servo-hydraulic system (rates
between 104 and 1 1/s), high rate servo-hydraulic system,
INSTRONÒ machine, Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) or Kolsky
bars, drop weight impact machine, gas gun and pendulum impact
system, etc [7–10]. Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) has been
used to investigate the rate-dependent properties of foams with

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.12.024
0261-3069/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 W. Chen et al. / Materials and Design 69 (2015) 170–180
strain rates up to 3000 1/s [11]. Song et al. [12] studied quasi-static
and dynamic properties of a polystyrene foam using a hydraulic
test machine and a SHPB apparatus. The trends of elastic modulus
and yield stress were observed. Mohotti et al. [13] conducted high
strain rate tensile tests on polyurea samples by using a INSTRONÒ
VHS 8800 machine. The non-linear hyper-elastic behavior of poly-
urea was predicted by the Mooney Rivlin constitutive material
with strain rate dependency. Wood et al. [14] investigated the
effect of specimen geometry and boundary conditions on the
dynamic mechanical properties of steel sheet by using INSTRONÒ
servo-hydraulic test machine. An improved specimen design was
proposed to generate reliable data at high strain rates. Ouellet
et al. [15] studied the effect of sample size of two polymeric foams
in high rate tests by using polymeric compressive Hopkinson bar. It
was found that sample size effect for EPS was so significant that the
strain-rate effects were masked by the size effect. Xiao [16] con-
ducted the dynamic tensile testing at two strain rates of 40 and
400 1/s using INSTRONÒ servo-hydraulic machine on four plastics,
i.e. HDPE, PC-ABS, TPO and PA nylon. The dynamic tensile testing
technique was evaluated by considering the issues of dynamic
stress equilibrium and system ringing. In general both SHPB and
INSTRONÒ machine are the two common facilities that have been
used to perform dynamic tests on foam materials.
Extensive studies have been conducted to determine the static
mechanical properties of EPS foam in recent years. In those tests,
the compressive stress at 10% relative deformation and cross-
breaking strength of rigid cellular plastics are determined by using
the methods specified in the standards [17,18]. The cross-breaking
is the maximum stress at fracture when the specimen is subjected
to bending. It was found that the mechanical properties of EPS are
greatly affected by the material density. Compressive elastic mod-
ulus and yield strength increase with the EPS density. The initial
Young’s modulus in the elastic range exhibits approximately a lin-
ear relationship with EPS density. An empirical formula of Young’s
modulus vs. density was proposed by Eriksson and Trank [19]. EPS
density was also found as a crucial parameter in increasing energy
absorption capability by Di Landro et al. [20]. They found low den-
sity EPS absorbs energy in a distributed co-operation way while
high density EPS absorbs larger amounts of energy through the
failure of cells but induces higher forces localized at the impact
point. Vėjelis et al. [21] found the thickness of EPS specimen influ-
ences shear strength and shear modulus of elasticity significantly.
Some testing results of EPS foam under dynamic compressive
loading have also been reported in the literature [22,23]. Strain
rate sensitivity of elastic modulus, plateau stress and densification
strain was found in the previous studies. When EPS foam is sub-
jected to compressive loading, the entrapped air within the cells
is compressed and viscous force is generated. Viscous forces
increase with the loading rate, which results in the increase of
strain rate sensitivity [22]. Croop and Lobo [24] found that the
behavior of EPS is stiffer as the air trapped within the cells exer-
cises a cushioning effect from not being able to escape at high
strain rates. Chakravarty et al. [25] noted that the changing prop-
erties of cellular foams at high strain rates are due to the changing
nature of gas compression. Di Landro et al. [20] found a large
increase in strain rate produced a slight increase in the elastic
modulus of EPS. The yield and plateau stresses of EPS increase with
increasing strain rate [11]. Song et al. [12] reported an increasing
trend of elastic modulus with the increment of strain rate. Avalle
et al. [26] found EPS could dissipate kinetic energy upon impact
whilst reduce force transfer through the EPS. All the above studies
demonstrate that EPS material is rate dependent.
Most of the previous studies focus on evaluating the compres-
sive properties of EPS. Very limited studies have examined the sta-
tic tensile properties of EPS [27,28]. Gnip et al. [27] carried out the
quasi-static tensile tests on flat specimens of EPS boards. The
171
tested specimens were attached to two rigid metal plates with
epoxy resin. The tensile force was applied perpendicularly to the
plates. The results show the elastic modulus and the ultimate elas-
tic strain depend on the specimen thickness for EPS density
between 13 and 26 kg/m3. The ultimate tensile strength reduced
to some extent of 0–11% when the thickness of specimen increased
from 50 to 150 mm. The ultimate strain corresponding to the ulti-
mate tensile strength was 2.8%. Smakosz and Tejchman [28] also
conducted flatwise quasi-static compressive and tensile testing
on cubic EPS specimens with size of 100 mm by 100 mm by
152 mm. Brittle failure was found in the mid-region during tensile
testing and the failure strain was recorded as 3.5%. No dynamic
tensile test on EPS material properties can be found in literature
yet.
Among all the previous studies, the most comprehensive test on
EPS compressive properties was carried out by Ouellet et al. [22]. In
the latter study, based on the SHPB tests of EPS with density
112 kg/m3 and 61 kg/m3, Ouellet et al. [22] reported the strain rate
dependency of EPS was substantial when a critical strain rate of
1000 1/s was reached. It was also found that densification strain
of high density EPS112 appeared at around 100 1/s, which was ear-
lier than 300 1/s of low density EPS61 as shown in Fig. 1. In their
study, the dynamic EPS compressive properties was investigated
by using a polymeric Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) to
achieve high strain rates ranging from 500 to 2500 1/s and a drop
weight impact method for strain rates less than 0.1 1/s. It should be
noted that a gap exists in the current literature in the range of
strain rate between 0.1 and 500 1/s due to the lack of capable test-
ing methods used in the previous studies. Boyce and Crenshaw [29]
reported that there was no well-defined technique for testing in
the intermediate strain rates. Difficulties in testing at these strain
rates are due to the possibility of elastic wave reflections and dif-
ficulty in establishing dynamic stress equilibrium in both the sam-
ple and load sensors. Currently there is no testing data on dynamic
compressive properties of EPS at strain rate between 0.1 and 500 1/
s. In addition, no dynamic tensile testing on EPS can be found in the
literature yet as reviewed above. As the strain rates of EPS core in a
sandwich panel subjected to windborne debris impact and blast
loadings are very likely within the range of 0.1–500 1/s, and tensile
response is most likely to govern the failure mode, it is important
to better understand the dynamic material properties of EPS under
both compression and tension, and to fill the gap of the available
testing data in the range of strain rate between 0.1 and 500 1/s.
Moreover, low density EPS foam, i.e. EPS of density less than
30 kg/m3 are more commonly used in SIP for normal building con-
struction owing to its light weight, as compared to the testing data
reported in Ouellet et al. [22] for EPS with density 61 kg/m3 and
Fig. 1. Stress vs. strain rate for EPS112 and EPS61 [22].
172 W. Chen et al. / Materials and Design 69 (2015) 170–180
Fig. 2. Typical stress–strain curves showing linear elastic, plateau and densification
regions.
112 kg/m3. Therefore more tests of EPS dynamic material proper-
ties are deemed necessary.
In this study, a series of quasi-static and dynamic testing in
compression and tension were carried out by using Baldwin test
system and INSTRONÒ VHS 160/100-20 system, respectively to
investigate the EPS material properties and strain rate dependent
behavior. The compressive and tensile strength, the Young’s mod-
ulus and the energy absorption capacities of two EPS foams with
different densities at different strain rates were obtained from
the tests. Some empirical formulas of dynamic increase factor
(DIF) for the EPS compressive and tensile material properties are
derived and presented in this paper.
2. Testing specimens
Two grades of EPS foams, which are commonly used in insu-
lated structural panels, were tested in this study. They are grade
SL with density 13.5 kg/m3 (named as ‘‘EPS13’’) and grade SL with
density 28 kg/m3 (named as ‘‘EPS28’’). 40 specimens were pre-
pared for each type of EPS for compression and tension tests,
respectively, giving a total of 160 specimens.
2.1. Material properties
EPS foam exhibits complex behavior under compressive stress
due to its cellular micro-structure. As shown in Fig. 2, typical com-
pressive stress–strain curve for EPS consists of three regions, i.e.
linear elastic, plateau and densification region. The linear elastic
region terminates when the plateau stress is reached. In the
Fig. 3. (L) Photograph of compressive specimen and (R) dimension of compressive specimen.
plateau region, the plateau stress remains almost constant over
the range. When the densification strain is reached, the stress
increases sharply with strain due to cell compactions or densifica-
tion. Large amount of energy is dissipated through the plateau
region and the densification region [30,31]. EPS has a very low
apparent Poisson’s ratio as there is low lateral elongation until full
densification.
Polymeric foam exhibits a certain degree of strain rate sensitiv-
ity through increased elastic modulus, plateau stress and
decreased densification strain [20,22]. The rate dependency of
material properties can be considered in the material model. The
stress at a given strain can be expressed as a function of strain rate,
given as follows [32,33].
 nðeÞ
e_
rðeÞ ¼ r0 ðeÞ _ ð1Þ
e0
nðeÞ ¼ a þ be for 103  e_  102 ð2Þ
where r0 and e_ 0 are the quasi-static values. To obtain the material
constants a and b, the stress is plotted against strain rate for differ-
ent strain levels. Di Landro et al. [20] studied the deformation
mechanisms and energy absorption of EPS and developed a consti-
tutive law implemented into FEM codes for impact loading analysis.
Some material models are available in LS-DYNA for modeling a wide
variety of polymer foams. The material model including ⁄Mat Low
Density Foam (57#), ⁄Mat Crushable Foam (63#), ⁄Mat Fu Chang
(83#), ⁄Mat Modified Crushable Foam (163#) were used to calibrate
and reproduce the behaviors of polymeric foams [24]. As EPS exhib-
its rate dependency in testing, the material model ⁄Mat Modified
Crushable Foam (163#), which incorporates the strain rate effect
into the material model ⁄Mat Crushable Foam, was used for EPS core
modeling [24]. However, dynamic material parameters need be
defined for reliably modeling the EPS performance under dynamic
loadings.
2.2. Compressive specimens
For quasi-static testing, ASTM: D695 stipulates a cylindrical
specimen with height (L) equal to twice the diameter (D) for use
in compressive tests. However, as discussed by Bischoff and Perry
[34] for high strain rate impact tests, inertia effects can be
neglected in both the axial and lateral directions when an ideal
aspect ratio (i.e. L/D) of approximately 0.43 is used. In another
study, Bertholf and Karnes [35] performed numerical simulations
and indicated that the lateral and axial inertia, as well as the fric-
tion could produce additional constraints and result in multi-axial
stress states. They suggested an optimal aspect ratio for specimen
with L/D (length to diameter) of 0.5 for SHPB tests. In this study,
compressive specimens adopt an aspect ratio of 0.5. Therefore,
 W. Chen et al. / Materials and Design 69 (2015) 170–180 173

Fig. 4. (A) Photo of tensile test specimen and (B) dimension of tensile specimen (mm).

Fig. 5. Tensile mild steel extender assembly.

Fig. 6. Quasi-static testing set up (L) compressive test and (R) tensile test.

each specimen was made to be 37.5 mm height with 75 mm diam- ing on the Baldwin testing machine and INSTRONÒ VHS testing
eter, as shown in Fig. 3. machine. This, as will be discussed later, generates large inertia
forces under high-speed impact tests, which make the testing data
with high-velocity tensile tests unreliable.
2.3. Tensile specimens

The tensile specimens were designed based on the guidelines
given in ASTM: D638, which stipulates the requirements for the
tensile testing of plastics as shown in Fig. 4. To meet with the spe-
cific requirements for using the INSTRONÒ VHS 160/100-20 sys-
tem, the dumbbell-shaped specimens were customized and the
dimension was adjusted. The specimen gauge length was short-
ened to allow for a longer stroke length for the INSTRONÒ high
speed grip. The maximum thickness (i.e. 14 mm) was used in order
to minimize the effect of discontinuities and also increase the stiff-
ness of the specimen. A tensile mild steel bolt–nut extender assem-
bly as shown in Fig. 5 was fabricated to have two plates at each end
of the specimen, bolted twice into the grip area to maximize the
grip between the rig and the tensile specimens for the tensile test-
3. Testing facilities and setup
3.1. Quasi-static test
Quasi-static compressive and tensile tests were conducted at
the University of Western Australia by using a Baldwin testing
machine with capability of loads up to 400 kN, as shown in
Fig. 6. The Baldwin testing machine uses hydraulic pressure to deli-
ver a relatively constant velocity crosshead movement. During the
test, the crosshead displacement was controlled at a quasi-static
strain rate of 0.001 1/s on the specimen. A 2000 kg hollow load cell
was installed as shown in Fig. 6 (L) to measure the compressive
load. A 100 kg Bongshin S-type load cell in Fig. 6 (R) was used to
174 W. Chen et al. / Materials and Design 69 (2015) 170–180

600

Expected Strain Rate

500 Measured Strain Rate

Strain Rate (s-1)

400

300

200

100

0
0 5 10 15 20
Speed (m/s)

Fig. 9. Expected and measured strain rates.

3.2. Dynamic test

Dynamic compressive and tensile tests were carried out at Tian-

jin University by using its high strain rate INSTRONÒ VHS 160/100-
20 testing machine shown in Fig. 7. The INSTRONÒ machine uses
servo-hydraulic and control technologies to provide constant
strain rate at high velocities for both compressive and tensile tests.
It is capable of controlled velocity in the range of 0.1–25 m/s. Pre-
vious tests indicated that the machine can achieve a maximum
Fig. 7. Photograph of INSTRONÒ VHS 160/100-20.
crosshead speed of 20 m/s while still maintaining a satisfactory
constant velocity profile. Therefore, crosshead velocity varied from
Table 1 0.1 m/s to 20 m/s was applied in the testing. The corresponding
Expected and measured strain rates at different crosshead speeds. strain rate was expected up to 533 1/s in compression and 400 1/
s in tension tests estimated based on the relation e_ ¼ V=L, in which
Crosshead speed (m/s) Strain rate (1/s) – Compressive testing
V is the constant velocity and L is the specimen length. The com-
Expected Measured
pressive strain rates were calculated as detailed in Table 1. How-
0.1 2.7 2.68 ever, it should be noted that the INSTRONÒ VHS is unable to
0.5 13.3 12.2 maintain a constant velocity and hence a strain rate for the entire
1 26.7 27
2.5 66.7 65
duration of the test at higher strain rates. This is due to INSTRONÒ
5 133.3 122 crosshead requires a certain distance to decelerate to a complete
7.5 200 170 stop at its maximum stroke. For higher crosshead speeds, it
10 266.7 185 requires a larger distance to stop and hence results in non-constant
15 400 210
velocity. Therefore the strain rate in the test is not a constant
20 533.3 280
either, which is shown in Fig. 8. In the present study, the initial
constant strain rate corresponding to the constant impact velocity
measure tensile load. The load data was logged by the DIGIDAQ before decelerating is taken as the strain rate the tested EPS mate-
acquisition system and the displacement was measured by the rial experienced. Fig. 9 shows the comparison of the expected and
Baldwin testing system. actual achieved strain rates with respect to the impact velocity.

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
Strain

Strain

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
2.5m/s 10m/s

0.0 0.0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02
Time Time

Fig. 8. Strain time history corresponding to different impact velocities (L) 2.5 m/s; (R) 10 m/s.
 W. Chen et al. / Materials and Design 69 (2015) 170–180 175

Fig. 10. Photograph of (L) compressive testing setup and (R) tensile testing setup.

Fig. 11. Data acquisition system.

The observed maximum compressive strain rate was approxi-
mately 280 1/s, not 533 1/s as expected. Table 1 gives the expected
and measured compressive strain rates under various crosshead
speeds.
In the dynamic compressive testing, the crosshead accelerates a
certain distance to achieve the desired velocity before impact
occurs. The compressive testing setup is shown in Fig. 10 (L). In
the tensile testing, a constant profile with a desired velocity can
be achieved through a dynamic grip, which is located above the
specimen. The grip accelerates over a defined length whilst sepa-
rates from the specimen. When a certain velocity is reached, the
grip clamps the specimen instantaneously. The photograph of ten-
sile testing setup is shown in Fig. 10 (R).
Other testing instruments include load cell, amplifier, NI data
acquisition system and Labview software, high speed camera,
and INSTRONÒ VHS console software. A Bongshin S-type load cell
with testing range of 100 kg was used in the dynamic tensile test-
ing. The load cell was connected to a high frequency data acquisi-
tion system composed of a fast-response A/D conversion card, a
fast-response amplifier and a graphical programming Labview
package. Data acquisition for compressive test was through the
INSTRONÒ VHS software (i.e. FastTrack™ High Rate software). Test-
ing Data for tensile tests was recorded using a combination of
INSTRONÒ VHS software and Labview software. The data logger
comprised NI BNC-2110 Shielded Connector Block and NI USB-
6251 Mass Term Multifunction DAQ. A high speed camera Fastcam
APX RS along with two halogen lights was positioned in front of the
INSTRON testing machine to capture the failure process of each
test. The frame rate of 20,000 fps was used in the testing (see
Figs. 11 and 12).
4. Compressive testing results and discussions
4.1. Quasi-static compressive test
The quasi-static compressive stress–strain curve is shown in
Fig. 13. It is observed that the compressive stress and the Young’s
modulus increase while the densification strain decreases with the
increasing density of EPS specimen. As given in Table 2, the com-
pressive stress at 10% strain for EPS13 and EPS28 are 0.089 MPa
and 0.191 MPa, respectively, which are comparable with the min-
176 W. Chen et al. / Materials and Design 69 (2015) 170–180

Fig. 12. Photograph of (A) S-type load cell; (B) signal amplifier and (C) national InstrumentsÒ DAQ.

2.5 EPS13. The compressive Young’s modulus of EPS28 and EPS13 are
4.8 MPa and 2.7 MPa, respectively.
EPS13 Energy absorption (EA) per unit volume of EPS is calculated by
2.0 EPS28 the following formula,
Z ef
EA
¼ rde ð3Þ
Stress (MPa)

1.5 V 0

where V is the specimen’s volume in cubic meters; ecf is the com-

1.0 pressive failure strain; r is the stress. The energy absorption can
be also obtained from the compressive stress–strain curve. The area
under the compressive stress–strain curve up to a certain strain
0.5 represents the strain energy per unit volume absorbed by the mate-
rial. As shown in Fig. 13, the energy absorption based on a volume of
165.7 cm3 is 37.1 J for EPS13 and 66.9 J for EPS28, which indicates
0.0 an increase of 80.3% of EPS28 in energy absorption.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Strain
4.2. Dynamic compressive test
Fig. 13. Compressive stress–strain curve of quasi-static testing.
For dynamic compressive testing, all specimens regained their
initial shape (i.e. Fig. 14 left) to a certain level after releasing the
Table 2 loads. As shown in Fig. 14, the middle specimen EPS13 regained
Quasi-static compressive testing results.
more of its initial deformation than the specimen EPS28 after sub-
Specimen Compressive strength at 10% strain (MPa) jected to the same level of impact.
Test data Data from supplier (min) [36] Figs. 15 and 16 show dynamic stress–strain curves for EPS13
and EPS28, respectively. Quasi-static testing data is also included
EPS13 0.089 0.070
EPS28 0.191 0.165 in the figures to show the strength increment with increasing
strain rate. As shown, there is not a general trend at strain less than
30% for EPS13 and 10% for EPS28. Ouellet et al. [22] also found that
imum strength of 0.07 MPa and 0.165 MPa given by the EPS sup- general trends could not be drawn for strains below 10% in their
plier. The tests were in compliance to the standard [17]. The den- study due to the significant transient effects in the dynamic tests.
sification strain of EPS28 is around 0.6, which is lower than 0.7 of This influence is clearly more significant for EPS with less density.

Fig. 14. (L) Un-deformed specimen; (M) compressive specimen EPS13 after impact test and (R) compressive specimen EPS28 after impact test.
 W. Chen et al. / Materials and Design 69 (2015) 170–180 177

A 3.5 A 6
EPS13-Static EPS13-0.1m/s EPS28-Static EPS28-0.1m/s
3.0 EPS13-0.5m/s EPS13-1m/s EPS28-0.5m/s EPS28-1m/s
5
EPS13-2.5m/s EPS13-5m/s EPS28-2.5m/s EPS28-5m/s
2.5 EPS13-7.5m/s EPS13-10m/s EPS28-7.5m/s EPS28-10m/s
EPS13-15m/s EPS13-20m/s 4 EPS28-15m/s EPS28-20m/s
Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)
2.0
3
1.5
2
1.0
Enlarged Enlarged
0.5 1

0.0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Strain Strain

B EPS13-Static EPS13-0.1m/s B EPS28-Static EPS28-0.1m/s

0.4 EPS13-0.5m/s EPS13-1m/s 0.8 EPS28-0.5m/s EPS28-1m/s
EPS13-2.5m/s EPS13-5m/s EPS28-2.5m/s EPS28-5m/s
EPS13-7.5m/s EPS13-10m/s 0.7 EPS28-7.5m/s EPS28-10m/s
EPS13-15m/s EPS13-20m/s EPS28-15m/s EPS28-20m/s
Stress (MPa)

0.3 0.6

Stress (MPa)
0.5

0.2 0.4

0.3

0.2
0.1
0.1

0.46 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.46 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.54
Strain
Strain
Fig. 15. (A) Stress–strain curves for EPS13 dynamic compressive testing and (B)
enlarged view. Fig. 16. (A) Stress–strain curves for EPS28 dynamic compressive testing and (B)
enlarged view.

In this study, no obvious trend was observed for Young’s modulus 0.50
in elastic region. With the increasing strain rate, Young’s modulus
of EPS remains almost constant, which indicates Young’s Modulus 0.45 EPS28
Stress at 50% strain (MPa)

is not sensitive to strain rate in the current test range. Di Landro EPS13
et al. [20] also found a slight increase of elastic modulus of EPS 0.40
with a large increase in strain rate. However, a consistent increase
in stress with strain rate is observed at strains higher than 40% for 0.35
both tested EPS materials as shown in the zoomed in views.
Crush stress at 50% strain in the plateau region is used as it has a 0.30
certain distance from the large oscillations experienced immedi-
ately following yielding and from the densification strain. Ouellet 0.25
et al. [22] also used the stress at 50% strain as representative stress.
It was observed that the crush stress increased rapidly when the 0.20
strain rate reached around 113 1/s as shown in Fig. 17. The crush
stress values are given in Table 3. The crush stresses of EPS13 0.15
and EPS28 at quasi-static strain rate are 0.171 MPa and 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
0.328 MPa, respectively. When the strain rate reaches 280 1/s, Strain rate (/s)
the crush stresses of EPS13 and EPS28 increase to 0.252 MPa and
0.468 MPa, with the increase of 47% and 43%, respectively. Tedesco Fig. 17. Dynamic compressive stress at a strain of 50% vs. strain rate.

[11] also reported the yield and plateau stresses of EPS increase
with increasing strain rate.
Dynamic increase factor (DIF), as a ratio of dynamic stress to
quasi-static stress, represents the increase in stress under high
strain rate. It can be used to predict material behavior at various
strain rates. Fig. 18 shows the testing results compared with the
results reported by Ouellet et al. [22] at higher strain rates of EPS
with different densities from those tested in the present study.
They show similar trend of dynamic increase factor although the
tested EPS in the two studies have different densities. As shown,
the DIF of EPS foams obtained in the present study and those by
Ouellet et al. [22] with density 112 kg/m3 are slightly larger than
those with density 61 kg/m3. The exact reason for this is not
known. Nevertheless, the compressive DIF for the two tested EPS
materials is independent of its density. Therefore a density inde-
pendent relationship of DIF vs. strain rate can be derived. As shown
178 W. Chen et al. / Materials and Design 69 (2015) 170–180

Table 3 Table 4
Crush stress and compressive DIF of EPS13 and EPS28. Energy absorption comparison.

Crosshead speed Strain rate Crush stress at 50% strain Compressive DIF Crosshead speed (m/s) Strain rate (1/s) Energy absorption (J)
(m/s) (1/s) (MPa)
EPS13 EPS28
EPS 13 EPS 28 EPS 13 EPS 28
Quasi-static 0.001 37.1 66.9
Quasi-static 0.001 0.171 0.328 1.0 1.0 0.1 2.68 48.5 82.5
0.1 2.68 0.215 0.401 1.25 1.22 2.5 65 49.9 82.2
0.5 12.2 0.206 0.388 1.20 1.18 10 185 52.8 82.3
1 27 0.216 0.403 1.26 1.23
2.5 65 0.218 0.398 1.27 1.21
5 122 0.219 0.458 1.28 1.40
7.5 170 0.202 0.446 1.18 1.36
10 185 0.208 0.379 1.21 1.16
15 210 0.226 0.478 1.32 1.46 0.45
20 280 0.252 0.468 1.47 1.43
0.40

0.35

Stress (MPa)
2.6 0.30

2.4 EPS28 (Test) 0.25

EPS13 (Test)
2.2 EPS112 (Ouelet,2006) 0.20
2.0 EPS61 (Ouelet,2006)
0.15
1.8
EPS13
CDIF

0.10
1.6 EPS28

1.4 0.05
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
1.2
Strain
1.0
Fig. 20. Tensile stress–strain curve of quasi-static testing.
0.8

0.6
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Table 5
Strain Rate (1/s) Quasi-static tensile testing results.

Specimen Tensile strength (MPa)

Fig. 18. Compressive DIF vs. strain rate.
Test data Data from supplier (min)
EPS13 0.276 0.200
EPS28 0.416 0.380
1.6
where e_ is the strain rate. It should be noted that most of the tested
strain rates fell in the range between 1 1/s and 300 1/s. DIF between
1.4 103 1/s and 1 1/s is assumed to be proportional to strain rate with
a logarithmic linear relation.
As given in Table 4, energy absorption of EPS13 and EPS28 are
1.2 48.5 J and 82.5 J at strain rate of 2.68 1/s, with the increase of
CDIF

23.3% and 30.7% compared to those in quasi-static testing, respec-

tively. While energy absorption of EPS13 and EPS28 are 52.8 J and
1.0
82.3 J at strain rate of 185 1/s, with the increase of 8.2% and 0%
EPS28
compared to those at 2.68 1/s, respectively. No significant further
EPS13 increase can be observed when strain rate increases from 185 1/s
0.8
Data fitted curve to 280 1/s, which means it will not absorb increased amounts of
energy at higher strain rates up to 280 1/s. However, it should be
0.6 noted that EPS28 exhibits 80.3% and 55.9% higher energy absorp-
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 tion than EPS13 at quasi-static and strain rate of 185 1/s, respec-
Strain rate (/s) tively, which indicates the density of the material increases the
energy absorption capacity. Di Landro et al. [20] and Wen et al.
Fig. 19. Dynamic increase factor of EPS compressive strength. [6] also identified EPS density as a crucial parameter in increasing
energy absorption capability.
in Fig. 19, there exists a bi-linear relationship between the stress
and strain rate. The relationship between the compressive DIF
and strain rate can be expressed by the following empirical 5. Tensile testing results and discussions
equations.
5.1. Quasi-static tensile test
CDIF ¼ 1:144 þ 0:045 logðe_ Þ when 103 < e_ < 113 ð4Þ
The results of quasi-static tensile testing are presented in
CDIF ¼ 0:157 þ 0:680 logðe_ Þ when < e_  113 ð5Þ Fig. 20. The data indicates a significant increase in ultimate tensile
 W. Chen et al. / Materials and Design 69 (2015) 170–180 179

Fig. 21. Specimen after tensile testing.

1.0 2.2

0.9 EPS28-20/s
2.0 EPS28
EPS28-30/s
0.8 EPS13
1.8 Data fitted curve
0.7
Stress (MPa)

0.6 1.6

TDIF
0.5 1.4
0.4
1.2
0.3
1.0
0.2

0.1 0.8

0.0 0.6
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Strain Strain rate (/s)
Fig. 22. Stress–strain curves of EPS28 under dynamic tensile loading. Fig. 24. Dynamic increase factor of EPS tensile strength.

0.9
5.2. Dynamic tensile test
0.8 EPS28
EPS13 Fig. 21 shows the failure mode after dynamic tensile testing.
0.7
The breakage occurred in the central narrowed part of the speci-
0.6 men. Because the tensile strength is weak, the breakage was also
Stress (MPa)

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10
Strain rate (/s)
Fig. 23. Tensile stress vs. strain rate.
strength with increasing density. The ultimate tensile strength of
EPS13 and EPS28 are 0.276 MPa and 0.416 MPa, respectively as
given in Table 5. It is due to the greater number of foam cells at
the cross section contributing to the strength of the material. The
results are comparable with their corresponding minimum
strength of 0.20 MPa and 0.38 MPa given by the EPS supplier. The
EPS tensile strength with density 20 kg/m3 was tested as
0.22 MPa by Fatt and Park [37]. The tensile Young’s modulus of
EPS28 and EPS13 are 7.2 MPa and 5.0 MPa, respectively, which
are larger than their compressive Young’s modulus of 4.8 MPa
and 2.7 MPa, respectively. Tensile failure strain also increases with
the increasing density of EPS. As shown in Fig. 20, there is an initial
strain because the weight of the steel assembly pre-loaded the
specimen, which resulted in a starting point of approximately
0.07 MPa and therefore generated an initial strain. Tensile failure
strains of EPS13 and EPS28 are 5.1% and 4.9%, respectively.
found in the grip area in some tests due to the stress concentration
or unavoidable loading eccentricity effect. Those data are consid-
ered not reliable therefore the total number of data available from
tensile tests is less than the compressive tests.
Although a large range of strain rates was tested, data acquisi-
tion proved difficult and the testing data was valid up to a rate
of 30 1/s only due to a high degree of oscillation experienced with
high strain rate, which has also been found in another study [16].
In addition, inertial effect influences testing results at high strain
100 rates. This is because in high-speed testing, a large acceleration is
induced which results in a relatively large inertia force associated
to the mass of the mild steel bolt–nut extender assembly as shown
in Fig. 5. Since the tensile strength of the EPS foam is rather low,
this inertia force could be comparable to or even larger than the
tensile resistance of the testing specimen, making the load cell
recorded data not the true EPS tensile resistance force. As a result,
reliable data at high strain rates was not able to be obtained in the
current tests. Some modifications on the extender assembly should
be undertaken for further tensile testing.
As shown in Fig. 22, stress–strain curves of EPS28 indicate an
increase in ultimate tensile strength and failure strain. Tensile fail-
ure strains are observed to be around 8%, indicating an increase on
the dynamic failure strain as compared to the quasi-static failure
strain around 5%. As shown in Fig. 23, the ultimate tensile strength
increases rapidly with strain rate, especially when the strain rate is
over 10 1/s. The quasi-static ultimate tensile strength of EPS28 is
around 0.416 MPa and the ultimate tensile strength is 0.810 MPa
at strain rate 30 1/s. The limited testing data show that tensile
strength of EPS increases with strain rate.
Defining the tensile DIF based on the ultimate tensile strength,
Fig. 24 shows the dynamic tensile strength increment obtained in
the present tests. As shown the dynamic tensile strength incre-
180 W. Chen et al. / Materials and Design 69 (2015) 170–180
ment of EPS is slightly more substantial than the compressive
strength, and is also independent of the EPS density. The relation-
ship between tensile DIF and strain rate can be derived as follows.
TDIF ¼ 1:010 þ 0:005 logðe_ Þ when 103 < e_ < 5:7 ð6Þ
TDIF ¼ 0:002 þ 1:338 logðe_ Þ when < e_  5:7 ð7Þ
where e_ is strain rate.
These empirical relations, i.e. Eqs. (4)–(7), can be used to model
dynamic strength increment of EPS foams. However, it should be
noted that further tests, especially dynamic tensile tests, are
needed to better define EPS dynamic tensile strength increment.
6. Conclusions
In this study, laboratory tests were carried out to investigate the
quasi-static and dynamic properties of both EPS13 and EPS28. It
was found that the EPS static strength and Young’s modulus
increase with its density. High density EPS also has higher energy
absorption capacity than low density ones. The EPS compressive
strength increases rapidly with the strain rate when the strain rate
is over 113 1/s, but the densification strain decreases slightly with
the strain rate. Young’s modulus does not exhibit obvious strain
rate dependency over the range of strain rates tested in the current
study, i.e. 1–280 1/s. As this is the first study to conduct the EPS
dynamic tensile tests, only limited success was achieved. Therefore
conclusions regarding the EPS dynamic material properties can
only be drawn based on the limited testing data. It was found that
both the dynamic tensile strength and failure strain increase with
strain rate. The strain rate dependency of EPS material in tension is
more substantial than that in compression. Empirical formulae of
DIFs for compressive and tensile strength with respect to the strain
rate were derived from the testing data, which could be used to
model EPS material under dynamic loading in numerical
simulations.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the financial support from Australian
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
(CSIRO) through the project ‘‘Climate Adaptation Engineering for
Extreme Events Cluster’’.
References
[1] Manalo A. Structural behaviour of a prefabricated composite wall system made
from rigid polyurethane foam and magnesium oxide board. Constr Build Mater
2013;41:642–53.
[2] Chen W, Hao H. Experimental and numerical study of composite lightweight
structural insulated panel with expanded polystyrene core against windborne
debris impacts. Mater Des 2014;60:409–23.
[3] Horvath J. Expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam: an introduction to material
behavior. Geotext Geomembr 1994;13(4):263–80.
[4] Nickerson J, Trasborg P, Newberry C, Naito C, Davidson J. Use of Foam-
Insulated Concrete Sandwich Panels for blast protection applications. In: 15th
International symposium on interaction of the effects of munitions with
structures (ISIEMS), Potsdam, Germany; 2013.
[5] Mines R, Worrall C, Gibson A. Low velocity perforation behaviour of polymer
composite sandwich panels. Int J Impact Eng 1998;21(10):855–79.
[6] Wen HM, Reddy TY, Reid SR, Soden PD. Indentation, penetration and
perforation of composite laminates and sandwich panels under quasi-static
and projectile loading. Key Eng Mater 1998;141–143:501–52.
[7] Shen J, Xie YM, Huang X, Zhou S, Ruan D. Behaviour of luffa sponge material
under dynamic loading. Int J Impact Eng 2013;57:17–26.
[8] Chen W, Hao H. Experimental investigations and numerical simulations of
multi-arch double-layered panels under uniform impulsive loadings. Int J
Impact Eng 2014;63:140–57.
[9] Chen W, Hao H. A study of corrolink structural insulated panel (SIP) to
windborne debris impacts. Key Eng Mater 2015:68–73.
[10] Shen J, Lu G, Ruan D. Compressive behaviour of closed-cell aluminium foams at
high strain rates. Compos Part B: Eng 2010;41:678–85.
[11] Tedesco J, Ross C, Kuennen S. Strain rate effects on the compressive strength of
shock-mitigating foams. J Sound Vibrat 1993;165(2):376–84.
[12] Song B, Chen WW, Dou S, Winfree NA, Kang JH. Strain-rate effects on elastic
and early cell-collapse responses of a polystyrene foam. Int J Impact Eng
2005;31(5):509–21.
[13] Mohotti D, Ali M, Ngo T, Lu J, Mendis P. Strain rate dependent constitutive
model for predicting the material behaviour of polyurea under high strain rate
tensile loading. Mater Des 2014;53:830–7.
[14] Wood P, Schley C, Buckley M, Smith J. An improved test procedure for
measurement of dynamic tensile mechanical properties of automotive sheet
steels. SAE technical paper; 2007.
[15] Ouellet S, Cronin D, Moulton J, Petel O. High rate characterization of polymeric
closed-cell foams: challenges related to size effects. dynamic behavior of
materials, volume 1, In: Proceedings of the 2012 annual conference on
experimental and applied mechanics, conference proceedings of the society
for experimental mechanics series; 2013.
[16] Xiao X. Dynamic tensile testing of plastic materials. Polym Test
2008;27(2):164–78.
[17] AS 2498.3-1993. Methods of testing rigid cellular plastics: determination of
compressive stress. Standard Australian.
[18] AS 2498.4-1993. Methods of testing rigid cellular plastics: determination of
cross-breaking strength. Standard Australian.
[19] Eriksson L, Trank R. Properties of expanded polystyrene, laboratory
experiments. Linkoping, Sweden: Swedish Geotechnical Institute; 1991.
[20] Di Landro L, Sala G, Olivieri D. Deformation mechanisms and energy
absorption of polystyrene foams for protective helmets. Polym Test
2002;21(2):217–28.
[21] Vėjelis S, Gnip I, Vaitkus S, Keršulis V. Shear strength and modulus of elasticity
of expanded polystyrene (EPS). Mater Sci (Medžiagotyra) 2008;14(3).
[22] Ouellet S, Cronin D, Worswick M. Compressive response of polymeric foams
under quasi-static, medium and high strain rate conditions. Polym Test
2006;25(6):731–43.
[23] Duškov M. Materials research on EPS20 and EPS15 under representative
conditions in pavement structures. Geotext Geomembr 1997;15(1):147–81.
[24] Croop B, Lobo H. Selecting material models for the simulation of foams in LS-
DYNA. In: Proceedings of 7th European LS-DYNA conference, Salzburg; 2009.
[25] Chakravarty U, Mahfuz H, Saha M, Jeelani S. Strain rate effects on sandwich
core materials: an experimental and analytical investigation. Acta Mater
2003;51(5):1469–79.
[26] Avalle M, Belingardi G, Montanini R. Characterization of polymeric structural
foams under compressive impact loading by means of energy-absorption
diagram. Int J Impact Eng 2001;25(5):455–72.
[27] Gnip I, Veyelis S, Kersulis V, Vaitkus S. Deformability and strength of expanded
polystyrene (EPS) under short-term shear loading. Mech Compos Mater
2007;43(1):85–94.
[28] Smakosz Ł, Tejchman J. Evaluation of strength, deformability and failure mode
of composite structural insulated panels. Mater Des 2014;54:1068–82.
[29] Boyce BL, Crenshaw TB. Servohydraulic methods for mechanical testing in the
Sub-Hopkinson rate regime up to strain rates of 500 1/s. Sandia National
Laboratories Report, SAND2005-5678; 2005. p. 1–16.
[30] Lu G, Yu T. Energy absorption of structures and materials. Woodhead
Publishing; 2003.
[31] Gibson L, Ashby M. Cellular solids: structure and
properties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997.
[32] Nagy A, Ko W, Lindholm US. Mechanical behavior of foamed materials under
dynamic compression. DTIC document; 1973.
[33] Zhang J, Kikuchi N, Li V, Yee A, Nusholtz G. Constitutive modeling of polymeric
foam material subjected to dynamic crash loading. Int J Impact Eng
1998;21(5):369–86.
[34] Bischoff P, Perry S. Compressive behaviour of concrete at high strain rates.
Mater Struct 1991;24(6):425–50.
[35] Bertholf L, Karnes C. Two-dimensional analysis of the split hopkinson pressure
bar system. J Mech Phys Solids 1975;23(1):1–19.
[36] Properties, performance and design fundamentals of expanded polystyrene
packaging. Alliance of foam packaging recyclers; 2000.
[37] Fatt MSH, Park KS. Dynamic models for low-velocity impact damage of
composite sandwich panels – Part A: Deformation. Compos Struct
2001;52:335–51.