This article was downloaded by: [North West University]

On: 21 December 2014, At: 09:40

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical

Engineering
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcmb20

Determination of elastomeric foam parameters for

simulations of complex loading
a b b a b c
M.T. Petre , A. Erdemir & P.R. Cavanagh
a
Department of Biomedical Engineering , Case Western Reserve University , Cleveland, OH,
44106, USA
b
Department of Biomedical Engineering , Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic
Foundation , Cleveland , OH, 44195, USA
c
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and the Orthopaedic Research Center , Cleveland
Clinic Foundation , Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA
Published online: 07 Dec 2006.

To cite this article: M.T. Petre , A. Erdemir & P.R. Cavanagh (2006) Determination of elastomeric foam parameters for
simulations of complex loading, Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 9:4, 231-242, DOI:
10.1080/10255840600747620

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10255840600747620

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering,
Vol. 9, NO. 4, August 2006, pp. 231–242

Determination of elastomeric foam parameters for simulations

of complex loading
M. T. PETRE†‡*, A. ERDEMIR‡ and P. R. CAVANAGH†‡¶

†Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA
‡Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA
¶Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and the Orthopaedic Research Center, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA

(Received 6 April 2005; revised 21 February 2006; accepted 21 February 2006)

Background: Finite element (FE) analysis has shown promise for the evaluation of elastomeric foam
Downloaded by [North West University] at 09:40 21 December 2014

personal protection devices. Although appropriate representation of foam materials is necessary in

order to obtain realistic simulation results, material definitions used in the literature vary widely and
often fail to account for the multi-mode loading experienced by these devices. This study aims to
provide a library of elastomeric foam material parameters that can be used in FE simulations of
complex loading scenarios.
Method of Approach: Twelve foam materials used in footwear were tested in uni-axial compression,
simple shear and volumetric compression. For each material, parameters for a common compressible
hyperelastic material model used in FE analysis were determined using: (a) compression; (b)
compression and shear data; and (c) data from all three tests.
Results: Material parameters and Drucker stability limits for the best fits are provided with their
associated errors. The material model was able to reproduce deformation modes for which data was
provided during parameter determination but was unable to predict behavior in other deformation
modes.
Conclusions: Simulation results were found to be highly dependent on the extent of the test data used
to determine the parameters in the material definition. This finding calls into question the many
published results of simulations of complex loading that use foam material parameters obtained from a
single mode of testing. The library of foam parameters developed here presents associated errors in
three deformation modes that should provide for a more informed selection of material parameters.

Keywords: Hyperfoam; Constitutive; Compressible; Finite element method

1. Introduction Footwear design is often based more on experience

Elastomeric foams are low-cost, lightweight, have the
ability to conform to complex contours and can recover
large deformations. These properties have led to their
therapeutic use in applications in which the human body
experiences damaging stress including seating, bedding,
helmets, crash mats, prosthetic sockets and footwear
(Mills et al. 2003). Footwear deserves particular attention
due to the high loads repetitively carried by the feet.
Therapeutic footwear becomes an especially important
protective tool when common diseases such as diabetes
diminish natural protective mechanisms (Bowker and
Pfeifer 2001).
than on scientific evidence (Jeffcoate and Harding 2003)
but this process could be improved through compu-
tational modeling of the foot–shoe interface. Such
models allow for large-scale parametric analyses that
may not be feasible with human subjects and also
provide information about quantities such as internal
stresses or shear stresses at the foot–shoe interface that
cannot be measured in vivo. Past investigations have
used finite element (FE) analysis to look at the
interaction between the foot and shoe (table 1). The
solutions obtained by this method are only as accurate
as the model inputs: geometry; boundary conditions; and
material definitions. Solution accuracy suffers whenever

*Corresponding author. Email: petrem@ccf.org. Web: http://www.lerner.ccf.org/bme/cavanagh/lab

Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering

ISSN 1025-5842 print/ISSN 1476-8259 online q 2006 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/10255840600747620
 232 M. T. Petre et al.

Table 1. Examples of elastomeric foam modeling literature. Note that parameters are seldom determined from more than uni-axial compression test
data. The ABAQUSw hyperfoam model is the most common nonlinear model. Linear model parameters vary even for the same material. NAZNot
available.

Model description

Investigator [ref] Application Material(s) FE package Type Parameters Test data

Lyn and Mills Crash mat Remolded poly- ABAQUSw Hyperfoam 2nd order High strain uni-
(2002) urethane axial compression
Mills and Gilchrist Cushion Polyurethane foam ABAQUSw Hyperfoam 2nd order Compression and
(2000) shear
Sanders and Daly Prosthetic socket Pelitew ANSYSw Linear elastic EZ1.8 MPa, Uni-axial
(1993) nZ0.39 compression
Silver-Thorn and Prosthetic socket Pelitew MARCw Linear elastic EZ380 kPa, NA
Childress (1996) nZ0.49
Zhang et al. (1995) Prosthetic socket Pelitew ABAQUSw Linear elastic EZ380 kPa, nZ0.3 NA
and Zhang and
Roberts (2000)
Chen et al. (2003) Shoe insole PPTw, Plastazotew, MARCw Rubber foam 1st and 2nd order Uni-axial
Microcelw Puff, compression
Downloaded by [North West University] at 09:40 21 December 2014

Thermocork
Erdemir et al. Shoe insole Microcelw Puff, ABAQUSw Hyperfoam 2nd order Uni-axial
(2005) Microcelw Puff compression
Lite, Poronw
Lemmon et al. Shoe insole PPTw, Crepe ABAQUSw Hyperfoam 3rd order Uni-axial
(1997) (EVA/SBR blend) compression
Lewis (2003) Shoe PPTw, Plastazotew, Algorw Linear elastic EZ25 MPa, NA
Aliplast, XPE, nZ0.42
Spencow, Ucolin
Thomson et al. Shoe midsole Ethylene-vinyl- ABAQUSw Hyperfoam 1st order Uni-axial
(1999) acetate (EVA) compression
Verdejo and Mills Shoe midsole Ethylene-vinyl- ABAQUSw Hyperfoam 1st order High strain uni-
(2002) acetate(EVA) axial compression
Dionne et al. (1998) Wheelchair cushion Polyurethane foam ANSYSw Linear elastic NA Uni-axial
compression
Ragan et al. (2002) Wheelchair cushion Open-cell urethane ANSYSw Linear elastic EZ22 kPa, nZ0.1 Uni-axial
foam compression

any one of these inputs fails to represent its real world
counterpart.
Foam material representation is accomplished through
the use of constitutive models containing one or more
material specific parameters. When mixed loading is
likely to occur, it is crucial that the model be able to
accurately predict all components of that loading. For
example, material definitions used in footwear modeling
must be able to predict the combination of compression
and shear created underneath the plantar surface of the
foot (Perry et al. 2002).
Although the mechanical behavior of foams is known
(Gibson and Ashby 1988, Sanders et al. 1998), there is no
source for well-defined material model parameters. Foam
behavior is controlled by differing mechanisms under
different modes of deformation and the technical literature
from FE analysis software developers strongly rec-
ommends using data from multiple tests to accurately
define foam parameters (Nonlinear Finite Element Ana-
lysis of Elastomers 2001, ABAQUS 6.4 Theory Manual
2004). Higher order equations with more parameters and
therefore degrees of freedom, may also be needed to
describe the non-linear elastic behavior and multiple modes
of deformation. However, increases in model order may
have an associated increase in computational cost.
Past footwear modeling studies have used material
definitions ranging from linear estimates to third order
hyperelastic to model foam materials that have highly
non-linear large strain behavior (table 1). Most investi-
gators have obtained material parameters from com-
pression tests only and then used the derived material
models in mixed loading simulations. This trend is also
seen in studies modeling other personal protection devices
(table 1) (Zhang et al. 1995, Silver-Thorn and Childress
1996, Zhang et al. 1998a, Zhang and Roberts 2000, Lyn
and Mills 2002, Ragan et al. 2002). This investigation will
highlight the importance of multi-mode testing, briefly
investigate the effects of increasing material model order
and provide model parameters and their associated fit
errors for some common footwear materials.
2. Methods
2.1. Foam testing
Testing for this study concentrated on elastomeric foams
used in therapeutic footwear. Twelve foams were selected
based on common usage and availability (table 2).
Multiple grades of each material were selected when
available. Cylindrical samples were punched from sheet
 Determination of elastomeric foam parameters 233

Table 2. Manufacturer supplied information for foams used in this study along with their typical clinical use.

Trade name Grade Description Durometer (shore A) Common usage Thickness (mm)
w
Microcel Puff Regular Closed-cell (EVA) 35 Midsole, insole base 12.7
Microcel Puffw Lite Closed-cell (EVA) 25 Insole base, top layer 12.7
Poronw 4708: Cushioning Open-cell polyurethane 12 Shore 00 O 00 Top layer, cushioning 12.7
Poronw 4708: Firm Open-cell polyurethane 20 Shore 00 O 00 Top layer, cushioning 12.7
PPTw Regular Open-cell polyurethane 20 Asker Top layer, cushioning 9.53
Crepe Cloud Closed-cell EVA/SBR 35 Midsole, posting 12.7
blend
Crepe Regular Closed-cell EVA/SBR 55 Midsole, outsole 12.7
blend
Crepe Firm Closed-cell EVA/SBR 60 Midsole, outsole 12.7
blend
Cork Lightweight Natural cellulose 55 Midsole, posting 6.35
P-Cellw Regular Closed-cell x-linked 20 Top layer, conforming 12.7
polyethylene
Plastazotew Medium (pink) Closed-cell x-linked 20 Top layer, conforming 12.7
polyethylene
Downloaded by [North West University] at 09:40 21 December 2014

Plastazotew Firm (white) Closed-cell x-linked 35 Top, mid, or base layer 12.7
polyethylene

stock using a 25.4 mm circular punch. Five samples of
each material were tested in each loading state. Data used
in parameter determination reflect the average of these
five trials. All tests were performed at room temperature
(w23 8C).
Compressive and shear tests employed an actuator
driven 8511 Instrone test machine (Instron Corp.)
controlled by a custom Labview interface (National
Instruments, Inc.) with a 1 kN (G10 N) load cell.
Compressive and shear samples were preconditioned by
simulating 15 walking steps prior to final data collection.
Each simulated step consisted of deforming the sample at
200% sample thickness/sec to the test strain, releasing and
allowing the sample to relax for 1 s (approx. time from
heel-strike to heel-strike during walking). The final data
were collected one second after preconditioning by
displacing to test strain and holding for 1.5 min.
Although stress-relaxation data were collected for use
in future studies, viscoelasticity is not addressed here. The
parameters obtained are intended for use in quasi-static
modeling of footwear in walking or running conditions.
Pilot tests conducted on Microcel Puffw showed that pre-
loading the samples 10 times sufficiently attenuated
transient effects. There was also little difference between
tests conducted at 200% strain rate (simulating walking)
and 300% strain rate (simulating running) (De Clercq
et al. 1994), suggesting that the deformation rates present
in walking are already faster than those to which the
viscous component of the foam can respond.
For uni-axial compression tests, samples were pressed
between two parallel Teflonw lined platens to 50% of their
original thickness (figure 1a). Lateral strain was not
collected but information about compressibility was
obtained from volumetric testing. To test in simple shear,
two pieces of foam were glued to either side of a center
platen and then to equally spaced outside vertical platens
(figure 1b). The center platen was displaced vertically by
25% of the sample thickness to obtain a maximum shear
strain of 0.25. Trials with failure at the glued interface were
repeated.
Volumetric compression testing was performed in a
custom-made hydrostatic chamber (figure 1c). Following
sample submersion, the water filled compression chamber
was purged of air. Volume changes were applied via
an actuator driven syringe (10 ml (G.1 ml)) and chamber
pressure was read using an analog gauge (690 kPa
(G3.5 kPa)). The volumetric strain rate was approxi-
mately 100% sample volume/sec. This was the fastest
volumetric strain rate achievable with the experimental
set-up and pilot studies showed that volumetric testing was
not as sensitive to strain rate as other tests.
Volumetric testing was straight-forward in the case of
closed-cell foams; however, volumetric compression of
open-cell foams using water was a more complex problem.
If the sample was simply submerged, some uncontrolled
amount of air would be trapped within the open pore
structure. If the sample was first encapsulated in a flexible
barrier such as latex (Zhang et al. 1998b), all air would be
retained and the foam would be effectively converted to a
closed-cell foam. Submerging the sample and removing all
air (if possible) would lead to water filled pores exerting a
uniform pressure on the incompressible polymeric struts.
Some air probably does escape from open-cell foams
within the shoe, although to our knowledge, this has not
been quantified. In the absence of such information, it is
necessary to assume a testing condition, that is either sealed
with air, sealed with no air, or somewhere in between. The
solution used here was to seal samples in a flexible plastic
bag and forcibly remove air until the bag was pulled as tight
as possible against the sample without causing any visible
deformation. Air was removed using a 60 ml syringe
capable of producing a vacuum of 600 mm Hg. Any air left
inside the barrier, such as the air in closed-cells or small
amounts of residual air within open-cells, was considered
intrinsic to the structure. The low-vacuum method
described here was a compromise that allowed for uniform
 234
Figure 1. Experimental apparatus with arrows showing the direction of applied displacement. (a) Uni-axial compression test set-up with foam sample
in place. (b) Simple shear test designed to eliminate bending. (c) Volumetric compression chamber. A fast moving hydraulic actuator drove the syringe
plunger.
testing of all samples in a probable in-shoe condition—
some air escapes the foam during compression and some
Downloaded by [North West University] at 09:40 21 December 2014
small amount of residual air is trapped inside. Pilot tests of
closed-cell foams with and without the barrier provided
similar results and inter-sample correlation was good for all
materials, implying that the method of encapsulation was
consistent and did not artificially stiffen the samples. Both
open and closed-cell foams were encapsulated prior to
testing.
The loading portion of the force–displacement data for
each sample was converted into nominal stress–strain data
by normalizing with respect to original sample dimen-
sions. Grouped samples were then averaged to obtain one
stress–strain data set for each material in each of the three
testing modes.
2.2. Material model
Test data were fit to a common compressible hyperelastic
material model (Storakers 1986). The specific implemen-
tation of this model was the hyperfoam model embedded
into ABAQUSw FE software (ABAQUS, Inc.) (ABAQUS
6.4 Theory Manual 2004). Similar models exist in other
FE packages, such as ANSYSw (ANSYS, Inc.) and Marcw
(MSC Software). The ABAQUSw hyperfoam strain
energy potential is given by equation (1).
 
X N
2mi ai ai ai 1
Kai bi
UZ l1 C l2 C l3 K3 C J K1
a2i bi el
iZ1
where li are the principal stretches, N is the order, Jel is the
volume ratio and m, a and b are material specific
parameters. mis carry the units of stress, but ai and bi are
both dimensionless. Comparison of this model to small-
strain elastic theory provides insight into each parameter’s
implications. The foam’s initial shear modulus is related to
mi by equation (2).
X
N When multiple tests were fit simultaneously the objective
G0 Z mi
iZ1
The strain hardening/softening behavior is determined
by the selection of ais. Material compressibility is
M. T. Petre et al.
described by bi, which is related directly to Poisson’s
ratio, vi, by equation (3). The most meaning is derived in
the case where all bis are identical and an effective initial
Poisson’s ratio is prescribed.
bi
vi Z (3)
1 C 2bi
Although some meaning can be assigned to the
parameters at the beginning of the deformation, the
parameters are not related to physical quantities (density,
cell size, etc.).
2.3. Parameter determination
Hyperfoam stress–strain relationships were derived for
each loading state by taking partial derivatives of the strain
energy density function (Appendix A). These relationships
were then incorporated into custom Matlabw (Mathworks,
Inc.) scripts that read in the test data, used the test strain and
derived relationship to calculate model predicted stresses
and then determined the error between experimental and
model predicted stresses. In the case of uni-axial testing,
since lateral stretches were not measured during the test and
uni-axial stress is a function of the volume ratio, JZl1l2l3,
the zero lateral stress constraint was used to compute lateral
strain as a function of the material parameters (see
Appendix A). Root mean square errors as a percentage of
maximum stress were produced for each test (equation (4)).
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
(1) Pn
2
ðsmodKsexp Þ
1
RMS Z 100 !
n
(4)
jsmax j
where n is the number of data points provided for the test,
smod is the model predicted stress, sexp is the experimental
stress and smax is the maximum experimental stress. This
error measure eliminates the effects of number of data
points and data magnitude when comparing multiple tests.
(2) function was the sum of the RMS errors from individual
tests.
Matlabw was used to simultaneously solve for all
parameters by minimizing the error between experimental
 Determination of elastomeric foam parameters
data and model predictions for all test data provided.
Numerous local minima made the problem very sensitive to
initial values. To increase the likelihood of finding the
global minimum, a gradient-based optimization was
completed with at least 50 different starting points. m and
a parameter values were bound to [K10, 10] MPa
and [K50, 50] (unitless), respectively such that the optimal
parameter values were unlikely to occur at the boundaries of
the design space. a was not permitted to be equal to zero for
numerical stability. b parameter values were bound to
[K0.3, 1] (unitless) to reflect the highly compressible nature
of the foams (Storakers 1986). b values were additionally
restricted by the constraint that all lateral stretches in the uni-
axial compression test should be greater than one.
Material stability was evaluated for the parameter set
with the lowest error using the ABAQUS Drucker stability
test, which ensures a positive definite material stiffness
Downloaded by [North West University] at 09:40 21 December 2014
matrix (ABAQUS 6.4 Theory Manual 2004). Any material
stability warnings reported by ABAQUS were recorded. If
a parameter set was not stable over the strains supplied for
each of the three tests, the parameter set with the next
lowest error was selected. The final parameter sets
selected for each material represent the lowest possible
error achieved while still preserving stability over the
range of supplied strains.
2.4. Validation and application
Matlabw generated Poronw material parameters were
applied to a single element ABAQUSw model to evaluate
their predictive ability under compressive, shear and
volumetric deformations. The single element model also
served as a validation of the derived Matlab stress–strain
formulations. A single element simulation was used rather
than a multi-element recreation of the test because the
constitutive model operates at the material (stress/strain)
level independent of sample geometry.
Computational cost was investigated by solving a 3000
foam element plane-strain mat indentation simulation with
1st, 2nd and 3rd order hyperfoam materials on a 2.8 GHz
Pentium 4 processor with 512 MB of RAM dedicated to
the solver. Although mesh convergence occurred around
1000 elements, more elements were used to exaggerate
time differences between simulations. The foam mat was
75 mm wide by 10 mm thick. The parabolic indenter was
60 mm wide, 10 mm thick and considered rigid to isolate
the effects of foam properties. The interaction between the
indenter and the foam consisted of penalty friction with
coefficient of friction equal to 0.75 (Sanders et al. 1993).
The plane-strain indentation simulation was also used to
evaluate the effect of multi-mode parameter determination
on predicted shear and compressive stresses at the
indenter/foam interface.
3. Results
The hyperfoam model was capable of fitting any one of the
individual Poronw deformation modes with an RMS fit
235
error less than 1% of max (see shaded area in table 3). The
resulting parameters reproduced the test results when
applied to a simple, single element FE model of the test.
However, in cases where parameters were determined by
data from a single test mode, the predictive capability of
the model for other deformation modes was often poor
(figure 2). Simultaneous fitting of two deformation modes
was more difficult, but was possible in most cases with
RMS fit errors !10% of max. In cases where two modes
were fit, there was often substantial error in the prediction
of the third mode. Fits which considered data from all
three-deformation modes had the highest fit error, but
generally the lowest total error, as all deformation modes
were reasonably represented over the strains encountered
in the test data. The best fits for all 12 materials and their
associated errors are reported in Appendix B.
There was some computational cost to increasing the
order and the increased number of parameters failed to
decrease fit errors substantially. For the plane-strain
indentation model with 3000 foam elements, use of first
order foam properties resulted in a three trial average of
64 s of CPU time, second order 70 s of CPU time and third
order 90 s of CPU time. Differences in peak pressure
between the models were small and could be attributed to
differences in nodal alignment at the indenter/foam
interface (1st order: 1.83 MPa, 2nd order: 1.92 MPa, 3rd
order: 1.83 MPa).
Using different material parameters can have large
effects on simulation results, particularly during complex
loading scenarios (figure 3). During a simulated 50%
compression, both sets of material parameters predicted
the compressive and shear stresses well. When a small
shear strain was added by displacing the indenter
horizontally by one-fifth of the foam block height, the
parameters determined without the benefit of shear data
predicted a peak shear stress twice that of the parameters
determined with shear data. Additional indentation to 70%
compression and a final horizontal displacement of 0.3
times the block height (physically realizable in footwear)
created large discrepancies in both compressive and shear
predicted stresses.
4. Discussion
Our experience with the intrinsic ABAQUSw fitting
algorithm suggested that it is less flexible than the one
developed here. Mills and Gilchrist (2000) have also
reported difficulty in obtaining parameters from ABA-
QUSw when supplying data from multiple tests. Deter-
mining parameters outside of the FE analysis software
provides control over parameter limits and allows the
compressibility parameter, b, to be determined rather than
specified beforehand via lateral strain (which is difficult to
measure for highly compressible materials) or direct input
of an effective Poisson’s ratio. The optimization approach
used here is time consuming, but provides high confidence
that the best possible fit has been achieved. All parameter
 236 M. T. Petre et al.

Table 3. Complete fit results for Poron Cushioning. The objective errors for each fit are shown in bold italics. The sum of these bolded numbers
represents the fit error. Truncated fit results for all materials tested are given in Appendix B.

Uni-axial error Shear error Volumetric error Fit error Total error
Data used for fit Order (RMS %max) (RMS %max) (RMS %max) (RMS %max) (RMS %max)

Uni-axial 1 0.67 1344512 58.50 0.67 1.34!106

compression 2 0.57 8469118 45.34 0.57 8.47!106
Shear 1 15.69 0.77 9.97 0.77 26.43
2 16.84 0.34 62.38 0.34 79.56
Volumetric 1 13.6 3579 0.55 0.55 3593
2 11.12 8247 0.53 0.53 8259
Uni-axialCshear 1 5.3 1.78 8.15 7.08 15.23
2 4.54 2.27 32.44 6.81 39.25
3 2.57 1.60 222.5 4.17 226.67
Uni-axialC 1 6.21 684.40 3.10 9.31 693.71
volumetric
2 2.54 118097 0.46 3.00 118100
3 0.96 12986 0.39 1.35 12987
Uni-axialCshearC 1 5.40 1.80 6.87 14.07 14.07
Downloaded by [North West University] at 09:40 21 December 2014

volumetric
2 5.30 2.58 2.83 10.71 10.71
3 4.24 1.30 2.04 7.58 7.58

sets reported were found to be stable over the range of
strains in the provided test data although other limitations
may be present (Appendix B). It should be noted that
stability in a deformation mode does not imply that the
model prediction is correct. For example, in many cases,
the parameters determined from uni-axial compression
data alone are stable in simple shear, but poorly predict
shear behavior.
The hyperfoam model did converge as order was
increased, but gains in fit were generally small.
Computational time was affected by order. Once para-
meters have been determined, the stress–strain
relationship is purely analytic but increases in order still
require some additional computations. Although simu-
lation time increased by 40% when using third order
material properties rather than first, this increase was
negligible in practice, at less than 30 s of CPU time for a
model with 3000 foam elements. The real detraction from
increasing order to improve fit is the increased likelihood
of bad predictions of other deformation modes, i.e.
increasing total error. Although fit error consistently
decreased with increasing order, the only case where
total error regularly decreased with order was when all
deformation modes were fit (table 3).

Figure 2. First order fits for Poronw Cushioning. The first row shows results when only compression data were fit and the second row shows results
when all tests were fit. When only compression data is used, the shear prediction of the model varies greatly from the experimental results. Fitting to all
deformation modes sacrifices some agreement in the compression test, especially at low and high strains. Some degree of improvement can be obtained
by increasing the model order (see table 3).
 Determination of elastomeric foam parameters 237
Downloaded by [North West University] at 09:40 21 December 2014

Figure 3. A simple plane-strain indentation model used to visualize the effects of material parameters on model predictions. Three steps were
simulated: Step 1. A vertical displacement of one half the indenter height, h, is applied. Step 2. An additional horizontal displacement is applied to
the indenter to induce shear loading. Step 3. Additional vertical and horizontal displacements strain the foam block beyond the test data that was
provided during parameter determination. Deformed model geometries are displayed above the resulting stress distributions at the indenter/foam
interfaces (dark: parameters determined with compression only; light: parameters determined with compression, shear and volumetric). Results are
nearly identical when only compression is present (column 1), but when a small shear strain is applied (column 2), differences between the two
material definitions are apparent. Additional compression and shear beyond the strains of the test data (column 3) create even larger discrepancies
between the two simulations.

Foams do not meet the criteria for continuous media even
at relatively large-scale (w0.01 mm) and are therefore
inherently difficult to model using continuum theory. The
ABAQUSw hyperfoam model is quite capable of reprodu-
cing any single deformation mode, however, it is clear from
the present results that a good fit in one deformation mode
does not imply a good prediction of other deformation
modes (figure 2). The shear prediction is particularly poor
when shear data is not included during parameter
determination. This is because the shear behavior at low-
strains is nearly linear and difficult to represent with a
model based on powers of stretches. Simultaneous fits of
compression and shear data are possible as are simul-
taneous fits of uni-axial and volumetric data, yet, when
multiple test modes are fit simultaneously, the errors for
each test are never as small as if that test were fit alone. This
seems to be due to the common sensitivities of each mode to
m, a and b (Appendix A). It is possible that a more general
model may be able to better predict all deformation modes
simultaneously at the cost of an increased number of purely
phenomenological parameters.
When data from multiple tests are fit simultaneously,
the problem becomes one of multi-objective optimization
where the individual objectives (errors from each test) are
competitive rather than cooperative. Multiple solutions
with the same total error are possible because gains in fit
for one mode of deformation are achieved only through
loss of fit in another mode. A Pareto optimality analysis
(Belegundu and Chandrupatta 1999) may be able to find
the fit with the lowest overall error, but this fit may not be
of practical interest. It is more important to know which
deformation modes are the most active in the FE
simulation and choose a material model that is weighted
in favor of these common modes. To this end, Appendix B
provides not only the overall fit error, but also fit errors for
each testing mode.
The prediction discrepancies seen in figure 3 have at
least three origins. In column two, shear stresses in the
single-test-fit simulation (dashed line) are likely over-
estimated because the lack of shear data results in a poor
shear prediction (figure 2). Small differences in the
compressive prediction are due to the dependence of the
 238 M. T. Petre et al.
compressive stress on not only normal strains, but also
the poorly predicted lateral strains (Appendix A). When
the foam is strained beyond the limits of the provided
test data, as in column three, extrapolation error can
occur. The compressive prediction of the multi-test-fit
simulation is nearly linear (figure 2). This creates a
reasonable prediction within the bounds of the data
provided, but at larger strains the actual foam behavior
increases exponentially and an extrapolation of the
linear prediction greatly underestimates compressive
stress. Differences in final predicted geometry are also
present.
Although it is clear that large discrepancies exist
between the models used in figure 3, it is difficult to
assign one or the other as “correct” because no multi-axial
experiments were performed here. Future work should
include validation of the material model with a combined
Downloaded by [North West University] at 09:40 21 December 2014
loading experiment. Determining parameters with all
three data sets appears to provide the best general fit
within the range of test strains, but the compression
prediction beyond this limit is poor. If a simulation will
not produce significant shear strains, but will produce
compressive strains beyond those provided in the
experimental data, parameters determined without the
influence of shear data may be superior.
Consideration has only been given to the three most
common modes of foam deformation in footwear and
prosthetic applications: uni-axial compression; simple
shear; and volumetric compression. A more general
representation of material behavior can be obtained by
including test data from other modes, e.g. uni-axial
tension. However, increased generality comes at the cost
of increased prediction errors for individual deformation
modes including those more important under end use
loading conditions. It seems that any additional test data
will compete with existing data during parameter
identification (table 3). This is probably related to different
deformation mechanisms, e.g. dependence of shear
properties on cell wall alignment and stretching in
comparison to compression properties dictated by cell
wall buckling and stacking.
Information about foam compressibility can be
obtained from both volumetric testing and lateral strain
measurements during uni-axial testing. In both cases, the
structural nature of foams leads to directional dependence.
When compressive stresses are expected to dominate,
material compressibility should be evaluated using
compressive deformation modes that cause cell wall
buckling and compaction. When tensile stresses are
expected to dominate, material compressibility should be
evaluated using tensile modes that result in cell wall
stretching and alignment. We chose to characterize
material compaction using volumetric compression rather
than uni-axial compression due the difficulty in measuring
the small lateral strains associated with highly compres-
sible materials. Inclusion of this information in future
work may further improve predictions of material
compressibility under complex loading.
This study focused on foam footwear materials but the
principles shown here also apply to other biomedical
modeling problems, which typically involve non-linear
materials and geometry. For example, the realistic
prediction of a shear stress distribution at the foot/shoe
interface requires not only knowledge of foam shear
behavior, but also that of the mating soft tissue. It is
presently unknown how well current soft tissue models
represent shear because the model parameters have
generally been determined via compression testing alone
(Morag et al. 1997, Miller-Young et al. 2002).
It is clear that even “good” material definitions can
result in poor simulation predictions, but it is difficult to
specify fixed requirements or criteria that will always
result in the best parameter determination. The needs of
each simulation are different and varying degrees of
complexity are required.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the advice and guidance of
Alan Freed, PhD, Vassilis Panoskaltsis, PhD and
Raymond Ogden, PhD during the development of this
manuscript. This work was supported by US National
Institutes of Health Grant # 5R01 HD037433 and Marc
Petre was supported by US National Institutes of Health
Grant # T32 EB04314.
References
ABAQUS 6.4 Theory Manual. ABAQUS, Inc., Providence, RI.
A.D. Belegundu and T.R. Chandrupatla, “Pareto optimality”. Optimiz-
ation Concepts and Applications in Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
New Jersey, (1999), pp. 373–384.
J.H. Bowker and M.A. Pfeifer, Levin and O’Neal’s The Diabetic Foot,
St. Louis, MO, Mosby, 2001.
W.P. Chen, C.W. Ju and F.T. Tang, “Effects of total contact insoles on the
plantar stress redistribution: a finite element analysis”, Clin.
Biomech., 18, pp. S17–S24, 2003.
D. De Clercq, P. Aerts and M. Kunnen, “The mechanical
characteristics of the human heel pad during foot strike in
running: an in vivo cineradiographic study”, J. Biomech., 27(10),
pp. 1213–1222, 1994.
M.J. Dionne, C.E. Aubin, J. Dansereau and R. Aissaoui, “Finite element
modeling of a wheelchair seat cushion”, 11th Conference of the ESB,
Toulouse, France, 1998.
A. Erdemir, J.J. Saucerman, D. Lemmon, B. Loppnow, B. Turso,
J.S. Ulbrect and P.R. Cavanagh, “Local plantar pressure relief in
therapeutic footwear: design guidelines from finite element models”,
J. Biomech., 38(9), pp. 1798–1806, 2005.
L.J. Gibson and M.F. Ashby, Cellular Solids: Structure & Properties,
Elmsford, NY, Pergamon Press, 1988.
W.J. Jeffcoate and K.G. Harding, “Diabetic foot ulcers”, Lancet,
361(9368), pp. 1545–1551, 2003.
D. Lemmon, T.Y. Shiang, A. Hashmi, J.S. Ulbrecht and P.R. Cavanagh,
“The effect of insoles in therapeutic footwear—a finite element
approach”, J. Biomech., 30(6), pp. 615–620, 1997.
G. Lewis, “Finite element analysis of a model of a therapeutic shoe: effect
of material selection for the outsole”, Biomed. Mater. Eng., 13, pp.
75–81, 2003.
G. Lyn and N.J. Mills, “Design of Foam Crash Mats for Head Impact
Protection”, The Engineering of Sport, Oxford, UK, Blackwell
Publishing, 2002, pp. 153–163.
J.E. Miller-Young, N.A. Duncan and G. Baroud, “Material properties of
the human calcaneal fat pad in compression: experiment and theory”,
J. Biomech., 35(12), pp. 1523–1531, 2002.
 Determination of elastomeric foam parameters 239

N.J. Mills and A. Gilchrist, “Modelling the indentation of low density

vU 2 X N
m i  ai 
polymer foams”, Cell Polym., 19, pp. 389–412, 2000. s1 Z Z l1 KJKai bi (7)
N.J. Mills, C. Fitzgerald, A. Gilchrist and R. Verdejo, “Polymer foams for vl1 l1 iZ1 ai
personal protection: cushions shoes and helmets”, Compos. Sci.
Technol., 63, pp. 2389–2400, 2003.
E. Morag, D. Lemmon, and P.R. Cavanagh, “An in vivo method to study
the properties of the human heel pad”, Conference Proceedings of the
21st Annual Meeting of the American Society of Biomechanics, vs1 2 X N
1  ai 
pp. 136–137 (1997). Z l1 KJKai bi (8)
Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Elastomers. MSC Software, Santa vmi l1 iZ1 ai
Ana, CA (2001).
J.E. Perry, J.O. Hall and B.L. Davis, “Simultaneous measurement of
plantar pressure and shear forces in diabetic individuals”, Gait 
Posture, 15(1), pp. 101–107, 2002. vs1 2 X N
mi JKai bi Kla1 i
R. Ragan, T.W. Kernozek, M. Bidar and J.W. Matheson, “Seat-interface Z C bi JKai bi logðJÞ
pressures on various thicknesses of foam wheelchair cushions”, Arch. vai l1 iZ1 ai ai
Phys. Med. Rehabil., 83, pp. 872–875, 2002.  (9)
J.E. Sanders and C.H. Daly, “Normal and shear stresses on a residual limb C la1 i logðl1 Þ
in a prosthetic socket during ambulation: comparison of finite element
results with experimental measurements”, J. Rehabil. Res. Dev.,
30(2), pp. 191–204, 1993.
J.E. Sanders, J.M. Greve, S.B. Mitchell and S.G. Zachariah, “Material
2 X
Downloaded by [North West University] at 09:40 21 December 2014

properties of commonly-used interface materials and their static N

vs1
coefficients of friction with skin and socks”, J. Rehabil. Res. Dev., Z m JKai bi logðJÞ (10)
35(2), pp. 161–176, 1998. vbi l1 iZ1 i
B. Silver-Thorn and D. Childress, “Parametric analysis using the finite
element method to investigate prosthetic interface stresses for persons
with trans-tibial amputation”, J. Rehabil. Res. Dev., 33(3), pp. 227–
238, 1996. Where l1 is the stretch in the direction of deformation,
B. Storakers, “On material representation and constitutive branching in equation (6) gives the transverse stretch in the case of an
finite compressible elasticity”, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 34(2), pp. 125– effective Poisson’s ratio (first order or all b’s equal).
145, 1986.
R.D. Thomson, A.E. Birkbeck, W.L. Tan, L.F. McCafferty, S. Grant and Parameter sensitivities are provided by equations
J. Wilson, “The modelling and performance of training shoe (8)–(10).
cushioning systems”, Sports Eng., 2, pp. 109–120, 1999.
R. Verdejo and N. Mills, “Performance of EVA foam in running Simple shear:
shoes”. The Engineering of Sport, Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 2002,
pp. 580–587.
M. Zhang and V.C. Roberts, “Comparison of computational analysis with sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
clinical measurement of stresses on below-knee residual limb in a g2 g2
prosthetic socket”, Med. Eng. Phys., 22, pp. 607–612, 2000. l3 Z 1; l1;2 Z 1 C Gg 1 C (11)
M. Zhang, M. Lord, A.R. Turner-Smith and V.C. Roberts, “Development 2 4
of a non-linear finite element modelling of the below-knee prosthetic
socket interface”, Med. Eng. Phys., 17(8), pp. 559–566, 1995.
M. Zhang, A. Mak and V.C. Roberts, “Finite element modeling of a
residual lower-limb in a prosthetic socket: a survey of the " #
development on the first decade”, Med. Eng. Phys., 20, pp. 360– vU X 2
2g X
N
m i
ai 
373, 1998a. tZ Z  2 2
lj K1 (12)
J. Zhang, N. Kikuchi, V. Li, A. Yee and G. Nusholtz, “Constitutive vg a
jZ1 2 lj K1 Kg iZ1 i
modeling of polymeric foam material subjected to dynamic crash
loading”, Int. J. Impact Eng., 21(5), pp. 369–386, 1998b.

2
3
ai
vt X
2 XN l
4  2g
j K1
Z 5 (13)
vmi jZ1 2 l2j K1 Kg2 iZ1 ai

Appendix A. Derived stress–strain relationships and

parameter sensitivities
2 2
 33
w
vt X
2 X
N
mi laj i K1
ABAQUS hyperfoam strain energy potential:
Z 4  2g 4lai logðlj ÞK 55
vai jZ1 2 l2j K1 Kg2 iZ1 ai j ai
 
XN
2mi ai ai ai 1
Kai bi (14)
UZ l 1 C l2 C l 3 K3 C J K1
iZ1
a2i bi el
(5)
vt
Z0 (15)
Uni-axial deformation: vbi

Kb Where l1 and l2 are stretches in the plane of shear,

l2 Z l3 Z lT Z l11C2b (6) equation (11) gives l1,2 in terms of the measured quantity,
 240 M. T. Petre et al.

g. Note that the simple shear mode has no sensitivity to 

vP 2X N
mi 1 1=3ai
changes in b. Z J logðJÞ C bi JKai bi logðJÞ
vai J iZ1 ai 3
Volumetric:  1=3a # (19)
J i KJKai bi
l1 Z l2 Z l3 (16) K
ai

vU 2X N
mi  1=3ai
PZ Z J KJKai ;bi (17) vP 2X N
vJ J iZ1 ai Z m JKai bi logðJÞ (20)
vbi J iZ1 i

vP 2X N
J 1=3ai KJKai bi
Z (18) Where all stretches are equal and, in the case of
vmi J iZ1 ai volumetric compression, less than one.
Downloaded by [North West University] at 09:40 21 December 2014
 Appendix B: Material parameters

Table B.1. Hyperfoam material parameters for Microcelw Puff, Microcelw Puff Lite, Poronw Cushioning, Poronw Firm, PPTw and Crepe Cloud. UC, uni-axial compression; SS, simple shear; and VC, volumetric
compression. Lower or upper stability limits were generated by the ABAQUS Drucker stability test. If no limit is reported, no stability warning was returned by the Drucker stability test.

Fit errors for individual tests Material parameters Stability limits

Downloaded by [North West University] at 09:40 21 December 2014

Total
Data error UC SS VC
used for (RMS (RMS % (RMS % (RMS m1 m2 m3 UC SS VC
Material fit Order %max) max) max) %max) (MPa) a1 b1 (Mpa) a2 b2 (MPa) a3 b3 (strain!) (strainO) (volume ratio!)

Microcel UC 1 6.55 E4 0.46 65225 229 1.340 28.07 0.060 0.125

Puffw

Determination of elastomeric foam parameters

UCC 1 145 3.99 4.30 137 0.490 7.240 0.154 2.7EK3
SS
UCC 3 7.08 5.77 0.48 0.83 0.160 K0.012 K0.196 1.350 5.930 K0.160 K1.137 5.410 K0.254
SSC
VC
Microcel UC 1 5.23 E4 0.66 52018 306 0.717 27.37 0.053 0.104
Puffw
Lite UCC 1 525 4.02 2.42 121 0.265 7.090 0.114 1 EK3
SS
UCC 3 6.06 3.95 1.36 0.75 0.076 1.239 K0.159 0.588 13.83 K0.034 K0.343 15.492 K0.167 K0.79 3.46 0.030
SSC
VC
Poronw UC 1 1.34 E6 0.67 134451- 58.5 0.620 34.46 0.040 0.176
2
Cushioning UCC 1 15.2 5.30 1.78 8.15 0.144 4.013 0.057
SS
UCC 3 9.81 5.30 1.95 2.56 0.147 4.613 K0.029 0.233 4.916 K0.056 K0.260 4.528 K0.30 K0.55 1.68 0.176
SSC
VC
Poronw UC 1 6.65 E5 1.08 665173 127 0.952 32.52 0.028 0.149
Firm UCC 1 33.4 7.65 3.33 22.4 0.229 4.510 0.010
SS
UCC 3 10.85 6.32 2.32 2.21 0.589 9.824 0.025 K0.182 13.58 0.059 K0.031 7.287 0.025 0.001
SSC
VC
PPTw UC 1 3.35 E5 0.64 334707 68.0 0.799 30.49 0.045 0.149
UCC 1 17.4 5.35 2.64 9.38 0.205 4.167 0.085
SS
(continued)

241
 242
Table B.2. Hyperfoam material parameters for Crepe Regular, Crepe Firm, Cork, P-Cellw, Plastazotew Medium (pink plastazote) and Plastazotew Firm. UC, uni-axial compression; SS, simple shear; and VC, volumetric
compression. Lower or upper stability limits were generated by the ABAQUS Drucker stability test. If no limit is reported, no stability warning was returned by the Drucker stability test.

Fit errors for individual tests Material parameters Stability limits

Downloaded by [North West University] at 09:40 21 December 2014

Total
error UC SS VC
Data used (RMS (RMS (RMS (RMS m1 m2 m3 UC SS VC
Material for fit Order %max) % max) % max) %max) (MPa) a1 b1 (MPa) a2 b2 (MPa) a3 b3 (strain!) (strainO) (volume ratio!)

Crepe UC 1 2.81 E5 1.51 280891 42.4 3.946 32.30 0.062 0.185

Regular UCCSS 1 34.2 4.55 5.34 24.3 1.290 7.300 0.195
UCC 3 11.0 6.00 0.385 4.57 0.432 K0.093 K0.200 K0.70 1.74 0.696 1.410 5.478 0.408
SSCVC
Crepe UC 1 8982 1.44 48949 31.8 1.086 27.62 0.091 0.167
Firm UCCSS 1 29.42 3.92 5.37 20.1 1.588 7.708 0.292 1.38 EK2

M. T. Petre et al.
UCC 3 9.38 5.48 0.46 3.44 2.300 5.301 0.680 K1.63 1.792 1.00 0.738 K0.01 0.077 2.44 EK2
SSCVC
Cork UC 1 5933 1.34 5706 226 2.043 21.83 0.170 0.149
UCCSS 1 1000 2.52 6.92 991 0.936 8.428 0.680 0.104
UCC 3 9.56 4.32 2.72 2.52 1.158 0.232 0.080 K0.70 2.293 0.102 0.238 6.786 K0.089
SSCVC
P-Cellw UC 1 3.45 E4 0.46 34126 408 0.659 26.52 0.0498 0.111
UCCSS 1 235 3.52 5.31 226 0.253 7.886 0.120 2.74 EK3
UCC 3 8.40 3.55 2.86 1.99 0.070 0.045 K0.258 0.814 5.350 K0.162 K0.634 4.010 K0.291
SSCVC
Plastazotew UC 1 2.95 E4 1.07 28417 1081 0.488 26.09 0.070 0.133
Medium UCCSS 1 450 3.29 0.86 446 0.198 7.549 0.169 2.20 EK3
UCC 3 9.43 3.77 0.48 5.18 0.560 6.009 0.100 K0.424 5.042 0.134 0.073 0.942 0.039
SSCVC
Plastazotew UA 1 5.39 E4 0.18 53532 330 0.941 25.91 0.067 0.125
Firm UACSS 1 42.3 5.07 6.60 30.6 0.356 4.604 0.033
UAC 3 12.16 7.59 0.74 3.83 0.038 K0.383 0.380 0.333 3.364 0.058 K0.102 2.746 0.273
SSCVC