Eps Mechanical Tests
Uploaded by
MAKKIEps Mechanical Tests
Uploaded by
MAKKI*Manuscript in PDF format (for reviewer) Elsevier support
Click here to view linked References
Static and Dynamic Mechanical Properties of Expanded Polystyrene
Wensu Chen†1, Hong Hao1, Dylan Hughes2, Yanchao Shi3, Jian Cui3, and Zhong-Xian Li3
1
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
2
School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, the University of Western
Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009, Australia
3
Tianjin University and Curtin University Joint Research Center of Structure Monitoring
and Protection, School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, China
Abstract: Expanded polystyrene (EPS) is commonly used in a variety of applications
because of its features of light weight, good thermal insulation, moisture resistance,
durability, acoustic absorption and low thermal conductivity. It has been increasingly
used in building constructions as core material of structural insulated 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 material properties of EPS is essential for reliable predictions of the
performances of the structural insulated panels with EPS foam core material. This paper
presents static and dynamic compressive and tensile test data of EPS with density 13.5
kg/m3 and 28 kg/m3 at different strain rates. The dynamic strength, 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
Corresponding author. E-mail: wensu.chen@curtin.edu.au ; wensu.chen@hotmail.com; Tel: +61 8 92669468
1
responses of structural insulated panels with EPS foam core subjected to impact and blast
loads.
Keywords: Expanded polystyrene; Construction material; Experimental tests; Dynamic
material properties
1. Introduction
Structural insulated panel (SIP) is a high-performance lightweight engineered building
structural component that is used in a wide range of residential, industrial and light
commercial construction. 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 efficient 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 plastics material, which has been used in a variety of applications including
impact mitigation packaging, protective helmet, structural crashworthiness, construction
material filling road embankments, insulated concrete form (ICF) structures as well as
lightweight EPS foamed concrete [3].
Structural insulated panel with EPS foam core might be subjected 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
2
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 material 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 testing facilities including
conventional servo-hydraulic system (rates between 10-4~1 1/s), high rate servo-hydraulic
system, Instron 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 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 INSTRON® VHS
8800 machine. The non-linear hyper-elastic behaviour of polyurea 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 Instron 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
3
for EPS was so significant that the strain-rate effects were masked by the size effect. Xiao
[16] conducted the dynamic tensile testing at two strain rates of 40 and 400 1/s using
Instron 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 Instron
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 modulus and yield
strength increase with the EPS density. The initial Young's modulus in the elastic range
exhibits approximately a linear relationship with EPS density. An empirical formula of
Young’s modulus versus 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 density 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 influences 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 subjected to
compressive loading, the entrapped air within the cells is compressed and viscous force is
4
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 behaviour of EPS is stiffer as
the air trapped within the cells exercises a cushioning effect from not being able to escape at
high strain rates. Chakravarty et al. [25] noted that the changing properties 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 compressive properties of EPS. Very
limited studies have examined the static tensile properties of EPS [27, 28]. Gnip et al. [27]
carried out the quasi-static tensile tests on flat specimens of EPS boards. The 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
elastic strain depend on the specimen thickness for EPS density between 13-26 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 ultimate 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
5
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 earlier than 300 1/s of low density EPS61 as shown in Figure 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 testing 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 difficulty in establishing dynamic stress
equilibrium in both the sample 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 to 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 construction 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 112 kg/m3. Therefore
more tests of EPS dynamic material properties are deemed necessary.
6
In this study, a series of quasi-static and dynamic testing in compression and tension
were carried out by using Baldwin test system and INSTRON® VHS 160/100-20 system,
respectively to investigate the EPS material properties and strain rate dependent
behaviour. The compressive and tensile strength, the Young’s modulus 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 insulated 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 prepared 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 behaviour under compressive stress due to its cellular
micro-structure. As shown in Figure 2, typical compressive 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 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 densification.
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.
7
Polymeric foam exhibits a certain degree of strain rate sensitivity 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].
nε
σ ε σ0 ε (1)
0
n ε a bε for 103 102 (2)
where and 0 are the quasi-static values. To obtain the material constants and , the
stress is plotted against strain rate for different strain levels. Di Landro et al. [20] studied
the deformation mechanisms and energy absorption of EPS and developed a constitutive
law implemented into FEM codes for impact loading analysis. Some material models are
available in LS-DYNA for modelling 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 behaviours of polymeric foams [24]. As EPS exhibits 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 modelling [24]. However, dynamic material parameters need be defined for reliably
modelling 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
8
and indicated that the lateral and axial inertia, as well as the friction 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, each specimen was
made to be 37.5mm height with 75mm diameter, as shown in Figure 3.
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 Figure 4.
To meet with the specific requirements for using the INSTRON® VHS 160/100-20
system, the dumbbell-shaped specimens were customized and the dimension was adjusted.
The specimen gauge length was shortened to allow for a longer stroke length for the
INSTRON® high speed grip. The maximum thickness (i.e. 14mm) was used in order to
minimize the effect of discontinuities and also increase the stiffness of the specimen. A
tensile mild steel bolt-nut extender assembly as shown in Figure 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 testing on the Baldwin
testing machine and INSTRON® VHS testing 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.
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 Figure 6. The Baldwin testing machine uses hydraulic pressure to deliver a
relatively constant velocity crosshead movement. During the test, the crosshead
9
displacement was controlled at a quasi-static strain rate of 0.001 1/s on the specimen. A
2000kg hollow load cell was installed as shown in Figure 6 (L) to measure the
compressive load. A 100kg Bongshin S-type load cell in Figure 6 (R) was used to
measure tensile load. The load data was logged by the DIGIDAQ acquisition system and
the displacement was measured by the Baldwin testing system.
3.2 Dynamic test
Dynamic compressive and tensile tests were carried out at Tianjin University by using
its high strain rate INSTRON® VHS 160/100-20 testing machine shown in Figure 7. The
INSTRON® 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 m/s to 25 m/s. Previous tests indicated that the
machine can achieve a maximum crosshead speed of 20 m/s while still maintaining a
satisfactory constant velocity profile. Therefore, crosshead velocity varied from 0.1
m/s~20 m/s was applied in the testing. The corresponding strain rate was expected up to
533 1/s in compression and 400 1/s in tension tests estimated based on the relation
/ , in which V is the constant velocity and L is the specimen length. The
compressive strain rates were calculated as detailed in Table 1. However, it should be
noted that the INSTRON® VHS is unable to maintain a constant velocity and hence a
strain rate for the entire duration of the test at higher strain rates. This is due to
INSTRON® crosshead requires a certain distance to decelerate to a complete stop at its
maximum stroke. For higher crosshead speeds, it requires a larger distance to stop and
hence results in non-constant velocity. Therefore the strain rate in the test is not a
constant either, which is shown in Figure 8. In the present study, the initial constant strain
rate corresponding to the constant impact velocity before decelerating is taken as the
strain rate the tested EPS material experienced. Figure 9 shows the comparison of the
10
expected and actual achieved strain rates with respect to the impact velocity. The
observed maximum compressive strain rate was approximately 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 Figure 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 separates from the specimen. When a certain
velocity is reached, the grip clamps the specimen instantaneously. The photograph of
tensile testing setup is shown in Figure 10 (R).
Other testing instruments include load cell, amplifier, NI data acquisition system and
Labview software, high speed camera, and INSTRON® VHS console software. A
Bongshin S-type load cell with testing range of 100kg was used in the dynamic tensile
testing. The load cell was connected to a high frequency data acquisition 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 INSTRON® VHS software (i.e. FastTrack™ High Rate software). Testing
Data for tensile tests was recorded using a combination of INSTRON® 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 20,000fps was used
in the testing.
11
4. Compressive testing results and discussions
4.1 Quasi-static compressive test
The quasi-static compressive stress-strain curve is shown in Figure 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
compressive stress at 10% strain for EPS13 and EPS28 are 0.089 MPa and 0.191 MPa,
respectively, which are comparable with the minimum strength of 0.07 MPa and 0.165
MPa given by the EPS supplier. The tests were in compliance to the standard [17]. The
densification strain of EPS28 is around 0.6, which is lower than 0.7 of EPS13. The
compressive Young’s modulus of EPS28 and EPS13 are 4.8 MPa and 2.7 MPa,
respectively.
Energy absorption (EA) per unit volume of EPS is calculated by the following formula,
EA f
d (3)
V 0
where V is the specimen’s volume in cubic meters; cf is the compressive failure strain;
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
represents the strain energy per unit volume absorbed by the material. As shown in Figure
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 an increase of 80.3% of EPS28 in energy absorption.
4.2 Dynamic compressive test
For dynamic compressive testing, all specimens regained their initial shape (i.e. Figure
14 left) to a certain level after releasing the loads. As shown in Figure 14, the middle
specimen EPS13 regained more of its initial deformation than the specimen EPS28 after
subjected to the same level of impact.
12
Figure 15 and Figure 16 show dynamic stress-strain curves for EPS13 and EPS28,
respectively. Quasi-static testing data is also included 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 general trends
could not be drawn for strains below 10% in their study due to the significant transient
effects in the dynamic tests. This influence is clearly more significant for EPS with less
density. In this study, no obvious trend was observed for Young’s modulus in elastic
region. With the increasing strain rate, Young’s modulus of EPS remains almost constant,
which indicates Young’s Modulus is not sensitive to strain rate in the current test range.
Di Landro et al. [20] also found a slight increase of elastic modulus of EPS with a large
increase in strain rate. However, a consistent increase in stress with strain rate is observed
at strains higher than 40% for 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 certain distance from the
large oscillations experienced immediately following yielding and from the densification
strain. Ouellet et al. [22] also used the stress at 50% strain as representative stress. It was
observed that the crush stress increased rapidly when the strain rate reached around 113 1/s
as shown in Figure 17. The crush stress values are given in Table 3. The crush stresses of
EPS13 and EPS28 at quasi-static strain rate are 0.171 MPa and 0.328 MPa, respectively.
When the strain rate reaches 280 1/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 [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
behaviour at various strain rates. Figure 18 shows the testing results compared with the
results reported by Ouellet et al. [22] at higher strain rates of EPS with different densities
13
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 testd EPS materials is independent
of its density. Therefore a density independent relationship of DIF vs strain rate can be
derived. As shown in Figure 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 equations.
CDIF 1.144 0.045log( ) when 103 113 (4)
CDIF 0.157 0.680 log( ) when 113 (5)
where 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 10-3 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 48.5 J and 82.5 J at
strain rate of 2.68 1/s, with the increase of 23.3% and 30.7% compared to those in quasi-
static testing, respectively. While energy absorption of EPS13 and EPS28 are 52.8 J and
82.3 J at strain rate of 185 1/s, with the increase of 8.2 % and 0% compared to those at
2.68 1/s, respectively. No significant further increase can be observed when strain rate
increases from 185 1/s 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 noted that EPS28
exhibits 80.3% and 55.9% higher energy absorption than EPS13 at quasi-static and strain
rate of 185 1/s, respectively, which indicates the density of the material increases the
14
energy absorption capacity. Di Landro et al. [20] and Wen et al. [6] also identified EPS
density as a crucial parameter in increasing energy absorption capability.
5. Tensile testing results and discussions
5.1 Quasi-static tensile test
The results of quasi-static tensile testing are presented in Figure 20. The data indicates
a significant increase in ultimate tensile 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
Figure 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.
5.2 Dynamic tensile test
Figure 21 shows the failure mode after dynamic tensile testing. The breakage occurred
in the central narrowed part of the specimen. Because the tensile strength is weak, the
breakage was also found in the grip area in some tests due to the stress concentration or
unavoidable loading eccentricity effect. Those data are considered not reliable therefore
the total number of data available from tensile tests is less than the compressive tests.
15
Although a large range of strain rates was tested, data acquisition 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 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 Figure 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 Figure 22, stress-strain curves of EPS28 indicate an increase in ultimate
tensile strength and failure strain. Tensile failure 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 Figure 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, Figure 24 shows the
dynamic tensile strength increment obtained in the present tests. As shown the dynamic
tensile strength increment of EPS is slightly more substantial than the compressive
strength, and is also independent of the EPS density. The relationship between tensile DIF
and strain rate can be derived as follows.
TDIF 1.010 0.005log( ) when 103 5.7 (6)
16
TDIF 0.002 1.338log( ) when 5.7 (7)
where is strain rate.
These empirical relations, i.e., Equations (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.
17
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
Design. 2014;60:409-23.
[3] Horvath J. Expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam: an introduction to material behavior.
Geotext Geomembranes. 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. 15th International Symposium on
Interaction of the Effects of Munitions with Structures (ISIEMS). Potsdam, Germany2013.
[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
18
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. Composites Part B: Engineering. 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
Design. 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: Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Conference on Experimental and Applied
Mechanics, Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series2013.
[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.
19
Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Linkoping, Sweden. 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). Materials Science (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 Geomembranes. 1997;15(1):147-81.
[24] Croop B, Lobo H. Selecting material models for the simulation of foams in LS-DYNA.
Proceedings of 7th European LS-DYNA Conference Salzburg2009.
[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 Design. 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. 2005:1-16.
[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
20
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.
21
*Manuscript in docx format (for typesetter)-Elsevier support
Click here to view linked References
Static and Dynamic Mechanical Properties of Expanded Polystyrene
Wensu Chen†∗∗1 , Hong Hao1 , Dylan Hughes2 , Yanchao Shi3, Jian Cui3, and Zhong-Xian Li3
1
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
2
School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, the University of Western
Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009, Australia
3
Tianjin University and Curtin University Joint Research Center of Structure Monitoring
and Protection, School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, China
Abstract: Expanded polystyrene (EPS) is commonly used in a variety of applications
because of its features of light weight, good thermal insulation, moisture resistance,
durability, acoustic absorption and low thermal conductivity. It has been increasingly
used in building constructions as core material of structural insulated 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 material properties of EPS is essential for reliable predictions of the
performances of the structural insulated panels with EPS foam core material. This paper
presents static and dynamic compressive and tensile test data of EPS with density 13.5
kg/m3 and 28 kg/m3 at different strain rates. The dynamic strength, 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
∗
Corresponding author. E-mail: wensu.chen@curtin.edu.au ; wensu.chen@hotmail.com; Tel: +61 8 92669468
1
responses of structural insulated panels with EPS foam core subjected to impact and blast
loads.
Keywords: Expanded polystyrene; Construction material; Experimental tests; Dynamic
material properties
1. Introduction
Structural insulated panel (SIP) is a high-performance lightweight engineered building
structural component that is used in a wide range of residential, industrial and light
commercial construction. 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 efficient 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 plastics material, which has been used in a variety of applications including
impact mitigation packaging, protective helmet, structural crashworthiness, construction
material filling road embankments, insulated concrete form (ICF) structures as well as
lightweight EPS foamed concrete [3].
Structural insulated panel with EPS foam core might be subjected 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
2
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 material 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 testing facilities including
conventional servo-hydraulic system (rates between 10-4~1 1/s), high rate servo-hydraulic
system, Instron 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 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 INSTRON® VHS
8800 machine. The non-linear hyper-elastic behaviour of polyurea 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 Instron 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
3
for EPS was so significant that the strain-rate effects were masked by the size effect. Xiao
[16] conducted the dynamic tensile testing at two strain rates of 40 and 400 1/s using
Instron 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 Instron
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 modulus and yield
strength increase with the EPS density. The initial Young's modulus in the elastic range
exhibits approximately a linear relationship with EPS density. An empirical formula of
Young’s modulus versus 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 density 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 influences 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 subjected to
compressive loading, the entrapped air within the cells is compressed and viscous force is
4
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 behaviour of EPS is stiffer as
the air trapped within the cells exercises a cushioning effect from not being able to escape at
high strain rates. Chakravarty et al. [25] noted that the changing properties 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 compressive properties of EPS. Very
limited studies have examined the static tensile properties of EPS [27, 28]. Gnip et al. [27]
carried out the quasi-static tensile tests on flat specimens of EPS boards. The 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
elastic strain depend on the specimen thickness for EPS density between 13-26 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 ultimate 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
5
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 earlier than 300 1/s of low density EPS61 as shown in Figure 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 testing 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 difficulty in establishing dynamic stress
equilibrium in both the sample 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 to 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 construction 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 112 kg/m3. Therefore
more tests of EPS dynamic material properties are deemed necessary.
6
In this study, a series of quasi-static and dynamic testing in compression and tension
were carried out by using Baldwin test system and INSTRON® VHS 160/100-20 system,
respectively to investigate the EPS material properties and strain rate dependent
behaviour. The compressive and tensile strength, the Young’s modulus 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 insulated 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 prepared 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 behaviour under compressive stress due to its cellular
micro-structure. As shown in Figure 2, typical compressive 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 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 densification.
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.
7
Polymeric foam exhibits a certain degree of strain rate sensitivity 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].
n(ε)
εɺ
σ ( ε ) = σ0 ( ε ) (1)
εɺ0
n ( ε ) = a + bε for 10−3 ≤ εɺ ≤ 102 (2)
where and εɺ0 are the quasi-static values. To obtain the material constants and , the
stress is plotted against strain rate for different strain levels. Di Landro et al. [20] studied
the deformation mechanisms and energy absorption of EPS and developed a constitutive
law implemented into FEM codes for impact loading analysis. Some material models are
available in LS-DYNA for modelling 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 behaviours of polymeric foams [24]. As EPS exhibits 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 modelling [24]. However, dynamic material parameters need be defined for reliably
modelling 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
8
and indicated that the lateral and axial inertia, as well as the friction 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, each specimen was
made to be 37.5mm height with 75mm diameter, as shown in Figure 3.
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 Figure 4.
To meet with the specific requirements for using the INSTRON® VHS 160/100-20
system, the dumbbell-shaped specimens were customized and the dimension was adjusted.
The specimen gauge length was shortened to allow for a longer stroke length for the
INSTRON® high speed grip. The maximum thickness (i.e. 14mm) was used in order to
minimize the effect of discontinuities and also increase the stiffness of the specimen. A
tensile mild steel bolt-nut extender assembly as shown in Figure 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 testing on the Baldwin
testing machine and INSTRON® VHS testing 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.
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 Figure 6. The Baldwin testing machine uses hydraulic pressure to deliver a
relatively constant velocity crosshead movement. During the test, the crosshead
9
displacement was controlled at a quasi-static strain rate of 0.001 1/s on the specimen. A
2000kg hollow load cell was installed as shown in Figure 6 (L) to measure the
compressive load. A 100kg Bongshin S-type load cell in Figure 6 (R) was used to
measure tensile load. The load data was logged by the DIGIDAQ acquisition system and
the displacement was measured by the Baldwin testing system.
3.2 Dynamic test
Dynamic compressive and tensile tests were carried out at Tianjin University by using
its high strain rate INSTRON® VHS 160/100-20 testing machine shown in Figure 7. The
INSTRON® 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 m/s to 25 m/s. Previous tests indicated that the
machine can achieve a maximum crosshead speed of 20 m/s while still maintaining a
satisfactory constant velocity profile. Therefore, crosshead velocity varied from 0.1
m/s~20 m/s was applied in the testing. The corresponding strain rate was expected up to
533 1/s in compression and 400 1/s in tension tests estimated based on the relation
/ , in which V is the constant velocity and L is the specimen length. The
compressive strain rates were calculated as detailed in Table 1. However, it should be
noted that the INSTRON® VHS is unable to maintain a constant velocity and hence a
strain rate for the entire duration of the test at higher strain rates. This is due to
INSTRON® crosshead requires a certain distance to decelerate to a complete stop at its
maximum stroke. For higher crosshead speeds, it requires a larger distance to stop and
hence results in non-constant velocity. Therefore the strain rate in the test is not a
constant either, which is shown in Figure 8. In the present study, the initial constant strain
rate corresponding to the constant impact velocity before decelerating is taken as the
strain rate the tested EPS material experienced. Figure 9 shows the comparison of the
10
expected and actual achieved strain rates with respect to the impact velocity. The
observed maximum compressive strain rate was approximately 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 Figure 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 separates from the specimen. When a certain
velocity is reached, the grip clamps the specimen instantaneously. The photograph of
tensile testing setup is shown in Figure 10 (R).
Other testing instruments include load cell, amplifier, NI data acquisition system and
Labview software, high speed camera, and INSTRON® VHS console software. A
Bongshin S-type load cell with testing range of 100kg was used in the dynamic tensile
testing. The load cell was connected to a high frequency data acquisition 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 INSTRON® VHS software (i.e. FastTrack™ High Rate software). Testing
Data for tensile tests was recorded using a combination of INSTRON® 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 20,000fps was used
in the testing.
11
4. Compressive testing results and discussions
4.1 Quasi-static compressive test
The quasi-static compressive stress-strain curve is shown in Figure 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
compressive stress at 10% strain for EPS13 and EPS28 are 0.089 MPa and 0.191 MPa,
respectively, which are comparable with the minimum strength of 0.07 MPa and 0.165
MPa given by the EPS supplier. The tests were in compliance to the standard [17]. The
densification strain of EPS28 is around 0.6, which is lower than 0.7 of EPS13. The
compressive Young’s modulus of EPS28 and EPS13 are 4.8 MPa and 2.7 MPa,
respectively.
Energy absorption (EA) per unit volume of EPS is calculated by the following formula,
EA εf
= ∫ σ dε (3)
V 0
where V is the specimen’s volume in cubic meters; ε cf is the compressive failure strain;
σ 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
represents the strain energy per unit volume absorbed by the material. As shown in Figure
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 an increase of 80.3% of EPS28 in energy absorption.
4.2 Dynamic compressive test
For dynamic compressive testing, all specimens regained their initial shape (i.e. Figure
14 left) to a certain level after releasing the loads. As shown in Figure 14, the middle
specimen EPS13 regained more of its initial deformation than the specimen EPS28 after
subjected to the same level of impact.
12
Figure 15 and Figure 16 show dynamic stress-strain curves for EPS13 and EPS28,
respectively. Quasi-static testing data is also included 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 general trends
could not be drawn for strains below 10% in their study due to the significant transient
effects in the dynamic tests. This influence is clearly more significant for EPS with less
density. In this study, no obvious trend was observed for Young’s modulus in elastic
region. With the increasing strain rate, Young’s modulus of EPS remains almost constant,
which indicates Young’s Modulus is not sensitive to strain rate in the current test range.
Di Landro et al. [20] also found a slight increase of elastic modulus of EPS with a large
increase in strain rate. However, a consistent increase in stress with strain rate is observed
at strains higher than 40% for 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 certain distance from the
large oscillations experienced immediately following yielding and from the densification
strain. Ouellet et al. [22] also used the stress at 50% strain as representative stress. It was
observed that the crush stress increased rapidly when the strain rate reached around 113 1/s
as shown in Figure 17. The crush stress values are given in Table 3. The crush stresses of
EPS13 and EPS28 at quasi-static strain rate are 0.171 MPa and 0.328 MPa, respectively.
When the strain rate reaches 280 1/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 [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
behaviour at various strain rates. Figure 18 shows the testing results compared with the
results reported by Ouellet et al. [22] at higher strain rates of EPS with different densities
13
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 testd EPS materials is independent
of its density. Therefore a density independent relationship of DIF vs strain rate can be
derived. As shown in Figure 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 equations.
CDIF = 1.144 + 0.045log(εɺ) when 10−3 < εɺ < 113 (4)
CDIF = −0.157 + 0.680 log(εɺ ) when εɺ ≥ 113 (5)
where εɺ 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 10-3 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 48.5 J and 82.5 J at
strain rate of 2.68 1/s, with the increase of 23.3% and 30.7% compared to those in quasi-
static testing, respectively. While energy absorption of EPS13 and EPS28 are 52.8 J and
82.3 J at strain rate of 185 1/s, with the increase of 8.2 % and 0% compared to those at
2.68 1/s, respectively. No significant further increase can be observed when strain rate
increases from 185 1/s 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 noted that EPS28
exhibits 80.3% and 55.9% higher energy absorption than EPS13 at quasi-static and strain
rate of 185 1/s, respectively, which indicates the density of the material increases the
14
energy absorption capacity. Di Landro et al. [20] and Wen et al. [6] also identified EPS
density as a crucial parameter in increasing energy absorption capability.
5. Tensile testing results and discussions
5.1 Quasi-static tensile test
The results of quasi-static tensile testing are presented in Figure 20. The data indicates
a significant increase in ultimate tensile 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
Figure 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.
5.2 Dynamic tensile test
Figure 21 shows the failure mode after dynamic tensile testing. The breakage occurred
in the central narrowed part of the specimen. Because the tensile strength is weak, the
breakage was also found in the grip area in some tests due to the stress concentration or
unavoidable loading eccentricity effect. Those data are considered not reliable therefore
the total number of data available from tensile tests is less than the compressive tests.
15
Although a large range of strain rates was tested, data acquisition 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 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 Figure 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 Figure 22, stress-strain curves of EPS28 indicate an increase in ultimate
tensile strength and failure strain. Tensile failure 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 Figure 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, Figure 24 shows the
dynamic tensile strength increment obtained in the present tests. As shown the dynamic
tensile strength increment of EPS is slightly more substantial than the compressive
strength, and is also independent of the EPS density. The relationship between tensile DIF
and strain rate can be derived as follows.
TDIF = 1.010 + 0.005log(εɺ) when 10−3 < εɺ < 5.7 (6)
16
TDIF = 0.002 + 1.338log(εɺ) when εɺ ≥ 5.7 (7)
where εɺ is strain rate.
These empirical relations, i.e., Equations (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.
17
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
Design. 2014;60:409-23.
[3] Horvath J. Expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam: an introduction to material behavior.
Geotext Geomembranes. 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. 15th International Symposium on
Interaction of the Effects of Munitions with Structures (ISIEMS). Potsdam, Germany2013.
[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
18
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. Composites Part B: Engineering. 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
Design. 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: Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Conference on Experimental and Applied
Mechanics, Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series2013.
[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.
19
Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Linkoping, Sweden. 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). Materials Science (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 Geomembranes. 1997;15(1):147-81.
[24] Croop B, Lobo H. Selecting material models for the simulation of foams in LS-DYNA.
Proceedings of 7th European LS-DYNA Conference Salzburg2009.
[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 Design. 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. 2005:1-16.
[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
20
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.
21
Table
List of Figures
Figure 1 Stress vs. strain rate for EPS112 and EPS61 [22]
Figure 2 Typical stress-strain curves showing linear elastic, plateau and densification
regions
Figure 3 (L) Photograph of compressive specimen; (R) Dimension of compressive
specimen
Figure 4 (A) Photo of tensile test specimen; (B) Dimension of tensile specimen (mm)
Figure 5 Tensile mild steel extender assembly
Figure 6 Quasi-static testing set up (L) Compressive test; (R) Tensile test
Figure 7 Photograph of INSTRON® VHS 160/100-20
Figure 8 Strain time history corresponding to different impact velocities (L) 2.5m/s;
(R) 10 m/s
Figure 9 Expected and measured strain rates
Figure 10 Photograph of (L) Compressive testing setup; (R) Tensile testing setup
Figure 11 Data acquisition system
Figure 12 Photograph of (A) S-type load cell; (B) Signal amplifier; (C) National
Instruments® DAQ
Figure 13 Compressive stress-strain curve of quasi-static testing
Figure 14 (L) Un-deformed specimen; (M) Compressive specimen EPS13 after
impact test; (R) Compressive specimen EPS28 after impact test
Figure 15 (A) Stress-strain curves for EPS13 dynamic compressive testing; (B)
Enlarged view
Figure 16 (A) Stress-strain curves for EPS28 dynamic compressive testing; (B)
Enlarged view
Figure 17 Dynamic compressive stress at a strain of 50% versus strain rate
Figure 18 Compressive DIF vs. strain rate
Figure 19 Dynamic increase factor of EPS compressive strength
Figure 20 Tensile stress-strain curve of quasi-static testing
Figure 21 Specimen after tensile testing
Figure 22 Stress-strain curves of EPS28 under dynamic tensile loading
Figure 23 Tensile stress vs. strain rate
Figure 24 Dynamic increase factor of EPS tensile strength
List of Tables
Table 1 Expected and measured strain rates at different crosshead speeds
Table 2 Quasi-static compressive testing results
Table 3 Crush stress and compressive DIF of EPS13 and EPS28
Table 4 Energy absorption comparison
Table 5 Quasi-static tensile testing results
Table 1 Expected and measured strain rates at different crosshead speeds
Crosshead speed Strain rate (1/s) - Compressive testing
(m/s) Expected Measured
0.1 2.7 2.68
0.5 13.3 12.2
1 26. 7 27
2.5 66.7 65
5 133.3 122
7.5 200 170
10 266.7 185
15 400 210
20 533.3 280
Table 2 Quasi-static compressive testing results
Specimen Compressive strength at 10% strain (MPa)
Test data Data from supplier [36]
EPS13 0.089 0.070 (min)
EPS28 0.191 0.165 (min)
Table 3 Crush stress and compressive DIF of EPS13 and EPS28
Crosshead speed Strain rate Crush stress at 50% strain (MPa) Compressive DIF
(m/s) (1/s) EPS 13 EPS 28 EPS 13 EPS 28
Quasi-static 0.001 0.171 0.328 1.0 1.0
0.1 2.68 0.215 0.401 1.25 1.22
0.5 12.2 0.206 0.388 1.20 1.18
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
20 280 0.252 0.468 1.47 1.43
Table 4 Energy absorption comparison
Crosshead speed Strain rate Energy Absorption (J)
(m/s) (1/s) EPS13 EPS28
Quasi-static 0.001 37.1 66.9
0.1 2.68 48.5 82.5
2.5 65 49.9 82.2
10 185 52.8 82.3
Table 5 Quasi-static tensile testing results
Specimen Tensile strength (MPa)
Test data Data from supplier
EPS13 0.276 0.200 (min)
EPS28 0.416 0.380 (min)
Figure
Figure 1 Stress vs. strain rate for EPS112 and EPS61 [22]
Figure 2 Typical stress-strain curves showing linear elastic, plateau and densification regions
Figure 3 (L) Photograph of compressive specimen; (R) Dimension of compressive specimen
Figure 4 (A) Photo of tensile test specimen; (B) Dimension of tensile specimen (mm)
Figure 5 Tensile mild steel extender assembly
Figure 6 Quasi-static testing set up (L) Compressive test; (R) Tensile test
Figure 7 Photograph of INSTRON® VHS 160/100-20
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
Figure 8 Strain time history corresponding to different impact velocities (L) 2.5m/s; (R) 10 m/s
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)
Figure 9 Expected and measured strain rates
Figure 10 Photograph of (L) Compressive testing setup; (R) Tensile testing setup
Figure 11 Data acquisition system
A B C
Figure 12 Photograph of (A) S-type load cell; (B) Signal amplifier; (C) National Instruments® DAQ
2.5
EPS13
2.0 EPS28
Stress (MPa)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Strain
Figure 13 Compressive stress-strain curve of quasi-static testing
Figure 14 (L) Un-deformed specimen; (M) Compressive specimen EPS13 after impact test; (R) Compressive specimen EPS28 after impact test
3.5
A
EPS13-Static EPS13-0.1m/s
3.0 EPS13-0.5m/s EPS13-1m/s
EPS13-2.5m/s EPS13-5m/s
2.5 EPS13-7.5m/s EPS13-10m/s
EPS13-15m/s EPS13-20m/s
Stress (MPa)
2.0
1.5
1.0
Enlarged
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Strain
B EPS13-Static EPS13-0.1m/s
0.4 EPS13-0.5m/s EPS13-1m/s
EPS13-2.5m/s EPS13-5m/s
EPS13-7.5m/s EPS13-10m/s
EPS13-15m/s EPS13-20m/s
0.3
Stress (MPa)
0.2
0.1
0.46 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.54
Strain
Figure 15 (A) Stress-strain curves for EPS13 dynamic compressive testing; (B) Enlarged view
A 6
EPS28-Static EPS28-0.1m/s
5 EPS28-0.5m/s EPS28-1m/s
EPS28-2.5m/s EPS28-5m/s
EPS28-7.5m/s EPS28-10m/s
4 EPS28-15m/s EPS28-20m/s
Stress (MPa)
3
Enlarged
1
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Strain
B EPS28-Static EPS28-0.1m/s
0.8 EPS28-0.5m/s EPS28-1m/s
EPS28-2.5m/s EPS28-5m/s
0.7 EPS28-7.5m/s EPS28-10m/s
EPS28-15m/s EPS28-20m/s
0.6
Stress (MPa)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.46 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.54
Strain
Figure 16 (A) Stress-strain curves for EPS28 dynamic compressive testing; (B) Enlarged view
0.50
0.45 EPS28
EPS13
Stress at 50% strain (MPa)
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Strain rate (/s)
Figure 17 Dynamic compressive stress at a strain of 50% versus strain rate
2.6
2.4 EPS28 (Test)
EPS13 (Test)
2.2
EPS112 (Ouelet,2006)
2.0 EPS61 (Ouelet,2006)
1.8
CDIF
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Strain Rate (1/s)
Figure 18 Compressive DIF vs. strain rate
1.6
1.4
1.2
CDIF
1.0
EPS28
0.8 EPS13
Data fitted curve
0.6
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Strain rate (/s)
Figure 19 Dynamic increase factor of EPS compressive strength
0.45
0.40
0.35
Stress (MPa)
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
EPS13
0.10
EPS28
0.05
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Strain
Figure 20 Tensile stress-strain curve of quasi-static testing
Figure 21 Specimen after tensile testing
1.0
0.9
EPS28-20/s
EPS28-30/s
0.8
0.7
Stress (MPa)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10
Strain
Figure 22 Stress-strain curves of EPS28 under dynamic tensile loading
0.9
0.8 EPS28
EPS13
0.7
0.6
Stress (MPa)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Strain rate (/s)
Figure 23 Tensile stress vs. strain rate
2.2
2.0 EPS28
EPS13
1.8 Data fitted curve
1.6
TDIF
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Strain rate (/s)
Figure 24 Dynamic increase factor of EPS tensile strength
You might also like
- Ch10 Solution Manual Soil Mechanics and Foundations0% (1)Ch10 Solution Manual Soil Mechanics and Foundations36 pages
- Development of A Hyperbolic Constitutive Model For Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) Geofoam Under Triaxial Compression TestsNo ratings yetDevelopment of A Hyperbolic Constitutive Model For Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) Geofoam Under Triaxial Compression Tests15 pages
- Static - Non Linear Analysis (SOL 106) : Prepared By: Samartha H N Reviewed By: Date:08/08/2018No ratings yetStatic - Non Linear Analysis (SOL 106) : Prepared By: Samartha H N Reviewed By: Date:08/08/201825 pages
- Analysis of The Viscoelastoplastic Behavior of Expanded Polystyrene Under Compressive Loading - Experiments and Modeling-oKKNo ratings yetAnalysis of The Viscoelastoplastic Behavior of Expanded Polystyrene Under Compressive Loading - Experiments and Modeling-oKK10 pages
- Characterization of Anisotropic Polymeric FoamNo ratings yetCharacterization of Anisotropic Polymeric Foam9 pages
- 3D Material Model For EPS Response Simulation-ok-DuskopNo ratings yet3D Material Model For EPS Response Simulation-ok-Duskop9 pages
- Modeling Large Deformation and Failure of Expanded Polystyrene Crushable Foam Using Ls DynaNo ratings yetModeling Large Deformation and Failure of Expanded Polystyrene Crushable Foam Using Ls Dyna8 pages
- Polypropylene Foam Behaviour Under Dynamic Loadings: Strain Rate, Density and Microstructure EffectsNo ratings yetPolypropylene Foam Behaviour Under Dynamic Loadings: Strain Rate, Density and Microstructure Effects16 pages
- Mechanical Properties of Polyurethane FoamsNo ratings yetMechanical Properties of Polyurethane Foams7 pages
- High-Strain-Rate Compressive Behavior of A Rigid Polyurethane Foam With Various DensitiesNo ratings yetHigh-Strain-Rate Compressive Behavior of A Rigid Polyurethane Foam With Various Densities9 pages
- Materials & Design: F.A.O. Fernandes, R.T. Jardin, A.B. Pereira, R.J. Alves de SousaNo ratings yetMaterials & Design: F.A.O. Fernandes, R.T. Jardin, A.B. Pereira, R.J. Alves de Sousa7 pages
- Tahir Hamed 2021 Effects of TemperatureNo ratings yetTahir Hamed 2021 Effects of Temperature21 pages
- Characteristics of Dynamic Shear Modulus and Damping 2023 Soil Dynamics andNo ratings yetCharacteristics of Dynamic Shear Modulus and Damping 2023 Soil Dynamics and16 pages
- From Quasi-Static To Dynamic Experimental Study of Mechanical andNo ratings yetFrom Quasi-Static To Dynamic Experimental Study of Mechanical and15 pages
- Theoretical Approach To Mechanical Properties of Resinous CompositeNo ratings yetTheoretical Approach To Mechanical Properties of Resinous Composite8 pages
- Study of Mechanical Properties of Open Cell Al6061 Alloy FoamNo ratings yetStudy of Mechanical Properties of Open Cell Al6061 Alloy Foam10 pages
- A Coupled Constitutive Relation With Impulse-MomentumNo ratings yetA Coupled Constitutive Relation With Impulse-Momentum9 pages
- Dynamic Characteristics of Expanded Polystyrene Composite Soil Under Traffic Loadings Considering Initial Consolidation StateNo ratings yetDynamic Characteristics of Expanded Polystyrene Composite Soil Under Traffic Loadings Considering Initial Consolidation State13 pages
- "Tension Test": Duhok Polytechnic University Technical College Energy DepartmentNo ratings yet"Tension Test": Duhok Polytechnic University Technical College Energy Department14 pages
- Experimental and Simulated High Strain Dynamic LoadingNo ratings yetExperimental and Simulated High Strain Dynamic Loading12 pages
- 2218-SAoE-Fatigue Behavior of Engineering Polymers and Its Numerical ImplementationNo ratings yet2218-SAoE-Fatigue Behavior of Engineering Polymers and Its Numerical Implementation15 pages
- Wu - Intelligent Model For Dynamic Shear Modulus and Damping RatioNo ratings yetWu - Intelligent Model For Dynamic Shear Modulus and Damping Ratio15 pages
- Elastic and Strength Properties of Metal Rubber MaNo ratings yetElastic and Strength Properties of Metal Rubber Ma7 pages
- MECHANICAL PROPERTIES AND and Their DeterminationNo ratings yetMECHANICAL PROPERTIES AND and Their Determination51 pages
- Mechanical Properties: Echanical RopertiesNo ratings yetMechanical Properties: Echanical Roperties14 pages
- Effects of Pre-Strain, Strain Amplitude and Frequency On Dynamic Compressive Properties of Magnetorheological Elastomeric CompositeNo ratings yetEffects of Pre-Strain, Strain Amplitude and Frequency On Dynamic Compressive Properties of Magnetorheological Elastomeric Composite8 pages
- Elastic Plastic Response Spectra For Exponential Blast LoadingNo ratings yetElastic Plastic Response Spectra For Exponential Blast Loading21 pages
- Behaviour of Circular Sandwich Panel Under Dynamic Loading: Amran - Al@fkm - Utm.myNo ratings yetBehaviour of Circular Sandwich Panel Under Dynamic Loading: Amran - Al@fkm - Utm.my16 pages
- A Simple Elastoplastic Hardening Constitutive Model For EPS GeofoamNo ratings yetA Simple Elastoplastic Hardening Constitutive Model For EPS Geofoam12 pages
- Article BlastDesign EquivalentStaticMethods Schmidt0% (1)Article BlastDesign EquivalentStaticMethods Schmidt11 pages
- Alternative Dynamic Torsion Test To Evaluate The Elastic Modulus of PolymersNo ratings yetAlternative Dynamic Torsion Test To Evaluate The Elastic Modulus of Polymers17 pages
- Sensors: Modelling The Size Effects On The Mechanical Properties of Micro/Nano StructuresNo ratings yetSensors: Modelling The Size Effects On The Mechanical Properties of Micro/Nano Structures20 pages
- Modal Testing and Modelling The Dynamic Characteristics of A Plate With Bolted JointsNo ratings yetModal Testing and Modelling The Dynamic Characteristics of A Plate With Bolted Joints10 pages
- Experimental and Numerical Analysis of Creep in EPSNo ratings yetExperimental and Numerical Analysis of Creep in EPS5 pages
- Structure Modelling of The Mechanical Behaviour of Open CellsNo ratings yetStructure Modelling of The Mechanical Behaviour of Open Cells18 pages
- Me 212 Experiment Sheet #2: 1. Introduction & Theory100% (1)Me 212 Experiment Sheet #2: 1. Introduction & Theory6 pages
- FEM Simulation of Full Scale and Laboratory Models Test of EPSNo ratings yetFEM Simulation of Full Scale and Laboratory Models Test of EPS10 pages
- 83-92p-Simulation of Shaking Table Test For EPS Embankment Model by Distinct Element MethodNo ratings yet83-92p-Simulation of Shaking Table Test For EPS Embankment Model by Distinct Element Method10 pages
- Introducing AC Servo Press H1F Series Machines (High-Speed Version of Dedicated Servo Press Controller SIT)No ratings yetIntroducing AC Servo Press H1F Series Machines (High-Speed Version of Dedicated Servo Press Controller SIT)8 pages
- The Application of Servo Press Machine To Forming of Sheet Metals With Low FormabilityNo ratings yetThe Application of Servo Press Machine To Forming of Sheet Metals With Low Formability8 pages
- Aalborg Universitet: Forouzbakhsh, Farshid Rezanejad Gatabi, Javad Rezanejad Gatabi, ImanNo ratings yetAalborg Universitet: Forouzbakhsh, Farshid Rezanejad Gatabi, Javad Rezanejad Gatabi, Iman5 pages
- 1-Deployment of Fratals Through CNC DevicesNo ratings yet1-Deployment of Fratals Through CNC Devices9 pages
- Research Article Analysis of Surface Roughness, Sound Level, Vibration and Current When Machining Aisi 1040 SteelNo ratings yetResearch Article Analysis of Surface Roughness, Sound Level, Vibration and Current When Machining Aisi 1040 Steel15 pages
- Inventions: Numerical Analysis of CNC Milling Chatter Using Embedded Miniature MEMS Microphone Array SystemNo ratings yetInventions: Numerical Analysis of CNC Milling Chatter Using Embedded Miniature MEMS Microphone Array System11 pages
- 05 Development of Fractal Pattern Making Application Using L SystemNo ratings yet05 Development of Fractal Pattern Making Application Using L System5 pages
- Optimization of Parameters in CNC Milli... Ogy and Taguchi Method - ScienceDirectNo ratings yetOptimization of Parameters in CNC Milli... Ogy and Taguchi Method - ScienceDirect4 pages
- Measurement: Sensors: Mohamed Zakaria Zahaf, Mohieddine BenghersallahNo ratings yetMeasurement: Sensors: Mohamed Zakaria Zahaf, Mohieddine Benghersallah11 pages
- 09 Fast Vectorization and Upscaling Images With Natural ObjectsNo ratings yet09 Fast Vectorization and Upscaling Images With Natural Objects5 pages
- 02 Fractal Tool Path Planning For Free Form Surface Polishing SystemNo ratings yet02 Fractal Tool Path Planning For Free Form Surface Polishing System6 pages
- punsirichaiyakul2020هااااااااااااااااااااااااامNo ratings yetpunsirichaiyakul2020هااااااااااااااااااااااااام4 pages
- Renewable and Sustainable Energy ReviewsNo ratings yetRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews18 pages
- 04 - Application of Fractal Geometry To Architectural Design100% (1)04 - Application of Fractal Geometry To Architectural Design9 pages
- Space Frame and Space Truss Idealizations For Bamboo Building'S Structural AnalysisNo ratings yetSpace Frame and Space Truss Idealizations For Bamboo Building'S Structural Analysis5 pages
- Juidco TN KMV Rec 005 r0 Integrated BuildingNo ratings yetJuidco TN KMV Rec 005 r0 Integrated Building207 pages
- Advantageous Use of Merchant's Circle DiagramNo ratings yetAdvantageous Use of Merchant's Circle Diagram16 pages
- MC-Top Flush Beam IPE360 Column HEA240 W Stiff W DPNo ratings yetMC-Top Flush Beam IPE360 Column HEA240 W Stiff W DP12 pages
- Stress Distribution Analysis by Boussinesq Equation and Westergaard's AnalysisNo ratings yetStress Distribution Analysis by Boussinesq Equation and Westergaard's Analysis26 pages
- Som Test Questions Final (06-06-2022) - 1654512636559No ratings yetSom Test Questions Final (06-06-2022) - 16545126365597 pages
- Introduction To Metal Forming: by Prof. Jigar V. Patel U V Patel College of Engineering, KhervaNo ratings yetIntroduction To Metal Forming: by Prof. Jigar V. Patel U V Patel College of Engineering, Kherva22 pages