Pergamon

Int. J. Impact Engn9 Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 369 386. 1998
c. 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
PII: S0734-743X(97)00087-0
0734-743X/98 $19.00 + 0.00

CONSTITUTIVE MODELING OF POLYMERIC FOAM

MATERIAL SUBJECTED TO DYNAMIC CRASH LOADING
JUN ZHANG*'y, NOBORU KIKUCHIt, VICTOR LI++,
ALBERT YEE and GUY NUSHOLTZI
tDepartment of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, +Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Department of Material Science and Engineering, The University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, U.S.A.; and Chrysler Motor Corporation, Auburn Hills,
MI 48326, U.S.A.
(Received 19 July 1996; in revised form 5 December 1997)
Summary--This paper describes detail work on constitutive law modeling of low-density polymeric
foam materials. Selected experimental results on low-density polyurethane (PU), polypropylene
(PP), and polystyrene (PS) foams are presented. A rate-dependent hydrodynamic constitutive
equation is presented for rigid polymeric foams. Focus has been placed on modeling of strain rate
dependency and temperature effect on polymeric foams subjected to high rate impact loading.
Numerical implementation procedure for the constitutive model is described. The constitutive
model has been implemented into finite-element program as a user-defined material subroutine.
Numerical examples are provided to validate the model under simple and complex loading
conditions. 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

NOTATION
a,b
a (~vv), b (e~.p)
C1, C2
Dijlm
F
Fo
g(6, )
G,K
L(T)
n(e)
P
Pc0
q, w
P,
Pn+ 1
trial

Pn+ 1

Sn+ 1

At
Tg
Tr
O~

~o
8dp

strain rate dependency coefficients

volumetric strain-hardening parameters
WLF function coefficients
elasto-plastic stiffness tensor
yield function at an arbitrary strain rate
yield function at quasi-static strain rate
plastic flow potential function
elastic shear and bulk moduli for isotropic foams
WLF shifting factor
power coefficient for power law rate dependency
hydrostatic pressure
initial hydrodynamic compressive strength
stress correction factors
hydrostatic pressure from previous time step
updated hydrostatic pressure
trial hydrostatic pressure
deviatoric stress tensor
deviatoric stress tensor from previous time step
updated deviatoric stress
trial deviatoric stress
time step increment
polymer glass transition temperature
reference temperature
yield ellipsoid center
volumetric plastic flow coefficient
longitudinal strain rate
quasi-static longitudinal strain rate
deviatoric strain rate
plastic deviatoric strain rate
volumetric strain rate
plastic volumetric strain rate
plastic flow rate tensor

*Corresponding author.
369

370

~zzp
~xxp ~yyp
~d.n+ 1/2
~v,n+ 1/2
1!
Vp

a(~.)
o-0(e)
(~n+ 1
^trial
0"n+ 1
Gy0
o-vm

~o

d~

J. Zhang et al.
longitudinal strain under uniaxial compression
transverse strain under uniaxial compression
effectiveplastic strain rate
deviatoric strain rate tensor at half time step
volumetric strain rate at half time step
plastic flow consistencyparameter
elastic Poisson's ratio
plastic Poisson's ratio
nominal stress response at an arbitrary strain rate
nominal stress response at a quasi-static strain rate
updated stress
trial stress
initial uniaxial compressivestrength
von Mises effectivestress
Jaumann objectivestress rate
internal state variable
initial shear strength
coefficientsfor rate-dependent plasticity
spin tensor

INTRODUCTION
Low-density polymeric foams have found use in a wide range of engineering applications
due to their excellent impact energy-absorbing capability. In the automobile industry, for
example, the new provisions in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)
require the use of polymeric foam materials inside motor vehicles to protect the passengers
during traffic accidents. In this application, foams are subjected to high-speed large
deformations. On the other hand, vehicle design requires repetitive numerical simulation
using a finite element program such as LS-DYNA3D [1] for cost-effective crashworthiness
evaluation. The designing of the polymeric foam cushion system requires the knowledge of
the constitutive behavior of the material under various deformation rates and temperatures.
Eventually, the material constitutive must be coded into finite-element programs such as
LS-DYNA3D for crashworthiness analysis.
Polymeric foam is composed of a large amount of microscopic polymer cellular structures. Figures 1 and 2 show scanning electron microscopes (SEM) of a closed-cell polystyrene foam (density 1.6 kg m/m 3) and a open-cell polyurethane foam (density 6.9 kg m/m3).
Polymers are very temperature-sensitive materials. Based on the post loading behavior at
room temperature (20C), polymeric foams are catalogued as rigid (elasto-plastic) and
flexible (elastic) foams.
Mechanism-based constitutive models for polymeric foams have been well documented
by Gibson and Ashby [2]. The failure envelope of low-density rigid foam under multi-axial
loading conditions has been studied by Gibson e t al. [3] and Triantafillou et al. [4].
Puso and Govindjee [5] presented an orthotropic rate-independent plasticity and a viscoplasticity model by extending the work by Gibson e t al. [3] for rigid polymeric foams. They
further implemented the constitutive model in the computer code DYNA3D. Other researchers have taken the phenomenological modeling approach which only describes the
inelastic response of foams under uniaxial compression conditions [-6 8]. This approach is
not generally applicable for multi-axial loading conditions. Constitutive equations based on
continuum constitutive theories have also been investigated. Roscoe's critical state theory
[9] has found successful applications for porous materials. Krieg [10] developed a plasticity
theory for soils and crushable foams. This plasticity theory has a yield surface which is
a parabola of revolution about the hydrostatic axis with a planar cap on the normally open
end. Neilsen et al. [-11] developed a plasticity theory for a semi-rigid polyurethane foams
which has six intersecting planar yield surfaces forming a cubic shape in the principal stress
space.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, the experimental
program and selected testing results are presented; in Section 3, a rate-dependent

Constitutive modeling of polymeric foam material

371

Fig. 1. SEM of closed-cell polystyrene foam (density 1.6 kgm/m3).

Fig. 2. SEM of open-cell polyurethane foam (density 6.9 kgm/m3}.

hydrodynamic rigid foam constitutive model is presented; the numerical implementation

procedure for the constitutive model is outlined in Section 4; model verification and
numerical examples are shown in Section 5; conclusions from this study are summarized in
Section 6.

372

J. Z h a n g et al.

2. E X P E R I M E N T A L I N V E S T I G A T I O N
2.1. Testin 9 equipment
In order to cover a wide range of loading speeds, material tests were conducted on two
types of testing machines: (1) an electro-hydraulic Instron 1331 machine equipped with
a temperature chamber for low rate tests and (2) a pneumatically driven ICI impact machine
for high-rate impact tests. The Instron 1331 machine can obtain a loading speed from quasistatic (0.08 mm/s, ASTM Standard D1621) to intermediate rate at 250 mm/s with a closedloop servo-controlled system. Higher loading rate from 3 to 10 m/s can be obtained by ICI
impact machine. For tests on ICI machine, stress-strain history is recorded from an
accelerometer and a quartz load cell (22,240 N force capacity) through a transient data
recorder. Although the open-loop ICI machine does not provide a constant load rate in the
entire impact process, the recorded velocity history showed a broad plateau which was
taken to compute the average strain rate.
2.2. Experimental program
Table 1 summarizes the entire experimental program. F o a m material used for automobile padding applications is mainly subjected to compressive loads. Under impact, the
stress state of the foam is dominated by compression and shear. Tensile properties becomes
less relevant. Focus is placed on material stress strain behaviors under (1) uniaxial compression, (2) shear, and (3) hydrostatic compression. According to ASTM Standard D1621,
foam specimens were cut in dimensions of 50 x 50 x 50 mm 3 for compression and tension
tests and 50 x 50 x 100mm 3 for simple shear tests. Four different cross-head rates of
8.0 x 10 -5, 4.0 x 10 -3, 0.229, and 4.45 m/s (corresponding to strain rates 1.6 x 10 -3, 0.08,
4.6, and 88 l/s) were used in uniaxial compression tests. All specimens were loaded with up
to 80% volumetric strain in compression tests and loaded until fracture, in tension and
simple shear tests. For simple shear tests, foam specimens were glued in-between two
L-shaped loading fixtures made of steel. For hydrostatic compression tests, foam specimens
were wrapped by latex rubber and immersed into a specially designed hydrostatic

T a b l e 1. S u m m a r y of e x p e r i m e n t p r o g r a m
Test M o d e

Foam Type
D e n s i t y ( k g / m 3)

P P foam

PS foam

P U foam

3.0
Rigid

4.9
Rigid

1.6
Rigid

6.4
Rigid

6.9
Flexible

9.6
Flexible

1.60 10 3
8.00 10-1
4.60
8.80 101

Hydrostatic
compression

4.00 x 10- 3
2.00 x 10 1
1.15 x 101

Uniaxial
tension

1.60 x 10- 3
8.00 10- 1
4.60
8.80 x 101

Simple
shear

1.60 x 10 3
8.00 x 10- t
4.60
8.80 x 101

Strain rate (s -1)

Uniaxial
compression

Constitutivemodelingof polymericfoammaterial

373

Fig. 3. Hydrostaticcompressiondevice.

compression chamber filled with water. Air is allowed to escape from the specimens through
an air vent on the lid of the chamber. Figure 3 shows the cylindrical device designed for the
hydrostatic compression test.

2.3. Experimental result

Experimental work reveals that, at room temperature (20C), the polypropylene
foams are semi-rigid foam with only 20% permanent strain after being unloaded from
80% applied strain. The polystyrene foams are rigid (crushable) foams with no resilience
while polyurethane foams are flexible with full but retardative resilience. Every test
was repeated twice for data repeatability. Under compression, foam specimens showed
macroscopically uniform deformation without noticeable bulging and distortion. A typical
foam stress- strain response under uniaxial compression exhibits three regimes: (1) a roughly linear elastic regime at low stress due to cellular wall elastic bending, (2) a plateau regime
corresponding to cell wall buckling (for flexible PU foams) or plastic yielding (for rigid PP
and PS foams), and (3) a steeply rising hardening regime due to consolidation of the foam.
Figure 4 shows the PP foam (4.9 kg m/m 3) specimen sequentially deformed with negligible
Poisson's effect under uniaxial compression. Figures 5 7 show the stress-strain responses
of PU foam (6.9 kgm/m3), PP foam (4.9 kgm/m3), and PS foam (1.6 kgm/m 3) under
compression with varying loading rate. The stress-strain curve of foam under hydrostatic
compression is similar to that under uniaxial compression. Figures 8 and 9 depict
the hydrostatic compressive stress-strain response of the PU foam (6.9 kg m/m 3) and the
PP foam (4.9 kgm/m3). As we can see, foam mechanical properties are extremely rate
sensitive. The broad stress plateau is believed to be caused by cellular wall buckling. The
stress rises sharply as a result of material consolidation (Figs 10 and !1). The failure
mechanism under tension and shear is different from that under compression. Under
tension and shear, the cellular wall will align towards the maximum principal stress
direction. The foam will eventually tear apart as a result of cell fracture for rigid foams or
plastic necking for flexible foams. Figure 12 depicts the tensile stress strain response of the
PU foam (6.9 kgm/m3). Figure 13 shows shear stress-strain response of the PS foam
(1.6 kg m/m3).

374

J. Zhang et al.

"iF- -

i!

Fig. 4. Deformation uniformity of polypropylene foam (density 4.9 kgm/m 3) with near zero plastic
Poisson's ratio under uniaxial compression.

0.12

+2.29

0.10

10-1 m/s

4.00 10`3 m/s

---o-- 8.00 104 m/s

0.07

oo

0.05

. . . . . . . . . . . i.

0.00
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.5
0.6
Strain

0.7

0.8

0.9

Fig. 5. Stress strain response of polyurethane foam (density 6.9 kg m/m 3) under uniaxial compression.

2.00

1.50

1.00
r.~

0.50

0.00
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.5
0.6
Strain

0.7

0.8

0.9

Fig. 6. Stress-strain response of polypropylene foam (density 4.9 kgm/m 3) under uniaxial compression.

Constitutive modeling of polymeric foam material

375

0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.1

0.0
Fig.

7. Stress strain

response

0.2

0.3

0.5
Strain

of polystyrene foam
compression.

1.00

0.6

0.7

(density

0.8

1.6 k g m / m 3) under

T- - - 7

"

1 o _"

------z" v = 1.15 101 sec -I

~"

0.80

.t Eov=2.0010-1sec-11 ..........................

uniaxial

i ~ ......................1

+ 'v--40010 sec-1 . . . . . . .

0.60

0.9

0.40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.20

.........

0.00
0.0

0.2
0.4
0.6
Volumetric Strain -- dV / V 0

0.8

1.0

Fig. 8. Stress strain response of polyurethane foam (density 6.9 k g m / m 3) under hydrostatic
compression.

1.20
+e"

= 1.15 101 sec -1

v

1.00

~'v = 2.00 10-1 sec -l

0.80

+e"

v = 4.00 10-3 sec -1

0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.0

0.1

0.2
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.7
Volumetric Strain -- dV / V 0

0.8

0.9

Fig. 9. Stress-strain response of polypropylene foam (density 4.9 k g m / m 3) under hydrostatic

compression.

376

J. Zhang et al.

Fig. 10. SEM of consolidated polypropylene foam (4.9 kgm/m3).

Fig. 11. SEM of consolidated polyurethane foam (6.9 kgm/m3).

2.4. Strain rate sensitivity characterization

The experimental results have shown that stress-strain response of polymeric foam
materials are dependent on the strain rate. Motivated by the work of N a g y et al. [12] the
rate sensitivity is assumed by the power law:

\~o)

Constitutive modeling of polymeric foam material

0.30

0.25

,- :

377

T---

:/

-+-229101 m s]
4.oo lo-3m,s I

........

020

0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00

0.10

0.20
Strain

0.30

0.40

Fig. 12. Stress strain response of polyurethane foam (density 6.9 k g m / m 3) under uniaxial tensions.

0.12

0.08
0.06 L
0.04

+2.29
10q rrds [
A 4.00 10 .3 m]s [

0.02

---o-- 8.00 10 -5 m/s [

0.00
0.00

0.05

0.10
Shear Strain

0.15

0.20

Fig. 13. Stress-strain response of polystyrene foam (density 1.6 k g m / m 3) under simple shear.

where a0(e) represents the nominal stress response at a constant quasi-static strain rate; ~,0,
and n(~) = a + be is the power coefficient for rate dependency. In this case, ~o is assumed to
be the lowest strain rate 1.60 x 10- 3 1/s. a and b are material constants. To obtain material
constants, stress cr is plotted against the strain rate ~ on the log-log scale for different strain
levels. For selected foams, it is noticed that the data form a family of straight lines with
tangent n that is approximately a linear function of strain ~,. Figure 14 illustrated this
phenomenon by polypropylene foam (density 4.9 kgm/m3). Using the linear-regression
program, n(e.) is fitted as a linear form of e. Table 2 shows the calculated n(~) for selected
polymeric foam materials.
2.5. Temperature effect characterization
Experimental results also show that temperature has major effects on the constitutive
behavior of the polymeric foam material. Figure 15 shows the stress-strain response of
polypropylene foam (4.9 k g m / m 3) at various temperatures under uniaxial compressive
strain rate 4.6 1/s. As we can see, polymeric foam becomes softer as temperature rises. This
implies that the energy-absorbing capability is reduced as temperature rises. According to
WLF equation [13], the following phenomenological constitutive equation is taken to
describe the time-temperature effects. This allows the modulus in very short-time or
extremely long-time tests at one temperature to be obtained at a more reasonable time at

J. Zhang et al.

378
101

e 5%Strain
- - ~ - - 10% Strain
20% Strain
~- 30% Strain
- . u . - 40% Strain

10

r~

~- 50%StrainI

- ~ .- 60% Strain |
- . v . - 7 0 % Strain |
- - v - 80% Strain |
[

,,- . . . . . . . . . .

--,, . . . . . . . . . . .

fi}

_ .....

e--

- -

~.

~_..~--

1 0 -1

~- . . . . . .

_-121 . . . . . .

o.

, , , , , J

10-3

. . . . .

10.2

, , , , , I

10 l

, , ,

100

101

Strain Rate (1/sec)

Fig. 14. Power law strain rate sensitivity of polypropylene foam (density 4.9 kgm/m3).

Table 2. Power law rate sensitivity power coefficient for selected foams
Type of foam

n(~)

Polypropylene foam (4.9 kg m/m 3)

Polyurethane foam (9.6 kgm/m 3)
Polystyrene foam (1.6 kgm/m 3)

3.00

'

'

'

'

-200C I

2.50

---o--

OC

2.00

--e--

50oc

---"--

80

0.037 + 0.0136e
0.307 + 0.105%
0.016 + 0.0833e

'

'

b '

lftli

'I ................ ....

lift

25 C
~"

1.50

................ .............

.......................................

1.00 L............................. ...........................................i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

......

0.50

..........

0.00
0.0

0.2

0.4
0.6
Strain (mm/mm)

0.8

Fig. 15. Temperature effect on polypropylene foam (density 4.9 kg m/m 3) stress-strain response at
4.6 1/s.
o t h e r t e m p e r a t u r e s . T h e t e m p e r a t u r e - d e p e n d e n t f u n c t i o n L(T) is d e f i n e d b y the W L F
shifting factor
L(T) = exp[

(T---~--Tr)

C2+ T -

.]

TJ'

(2)

w h e r e C1 a n d C2 are m a t e r i a l c o n s t a n t s to be d e t e r m i n e d f r o m t e m p e r a t u r e effect experim e n t s . T , is the reference t e m p e r a t u r e (often selected as p o l y m e r glass t r a n s i t i o n t e m p e r a t u r e Tg). W h e n T e q u a l s to Tr, L(T) b e c o m e s u n i t y . T h e n the c o m b i n e d rate a n d
temperature phenomenological constitutive equation becomes

\~o1

Constitutive modeling of polymeric foam material

3.00

KI- -

-20c

~ "20 C' test I

. L

oc

OC, test I

25 c, test |

2.50 H

25 c
~l ....... 50C

O.O0 ~o,

0.1

0.2

0 ,tost I

,:

/~

[~iiit

O 50C test I

2.o0 L I -

379

0.6

0.7

i .....

0.3
0.4
0.5
Nominal Strain

/~

/ 4

[]

i ....

0.8

Fig. 16. Comparison of model prediction and experimental result of polypropylene foam (density
4.9 kgm/m 3) at strain rate 4.6 l/s.

To examine the validity of Eqn (3), the P P foam (4.9 kg m/m 3) was used as an example. The
material parameters C1 and Cz were determined from the quasi-static (1.60 x 10 -3 l/s)
curves at - 20C and 80C. The calculated values are: C~ = 6.52C and C2 = 468.T'C.
Figure 16 shows the comparison between model predictions and experimental results at
a strain rate of 4.6 1/s.

3. C O N S T I T U T I V E M O D E L I N G
Experimental results show that all polymeric foam materials in this study are all
isotropic. In this section, a rate-dependent isotropic foam constitutive model is presented.

3.1. Elastic response

The initial deformation stage of a rigid foam is roughly linear elastic. Using the objective
stress rate in a co-rotational reference system, the constitute law is expressed in terms of an
objective stress rate 6 v,
6 v

(4a)

=- D i j l m ~ l m ,

where Dij~,, is the elasto-plastic stiffness tensor and ~m is the strain rate tensor. This relation
is decomposed into deviatoric and volumetric components:
b~j) = 2G(~a -/,Up) - K(i:,.

~':vp)I,

(4b)

where ~d, ~dp, ~'v, and ~,.p, are the rates of deviatoric strain, plastic deviatoric strain,
volumetric strain and plastic volumetric strain tensors, respectively. In this study, for
frame-indifference reason, ~v(d}, is the Jaumann stress rate tensor defined by
b v = arij + alkCOkj-- COik%,

(5)

where d) is the spin tensor, aij is the Cauchy stress rate and a~j is the Cauchy stress.
3.2. Yield locus
For porous material, polymeric foam yield function should include a hydrostatic stress
term due to compressibility. Experimental work shows that the initial yield envelope is
approximately a quadratic surface elongated along the hydrostatic axis truncated on
compression and tension directions in the stress space. This assumption is confirmed by

380

J. Zhang et

al.

many other experimental studies [10, 2, 4]. In this study, the yield locus is defined by
a single ellipse spanned on the plane of effective stress O-vmand hydrostatic pressure p:
[p -- x0(e.~p)]2 O'vm
2
4
a(c~.p)
b(e,,p)

F-Fo-

1 =0,

(6)

where Xo(~p), a(e~p) and b(e,.p) are three material parameters that define the center and the
lengths of the major and minor axes of the yield ellipse. These parameters are variables
which are functions of total plastic volumetric strain t~,,p that describes the so-called
consolidation phenomenon. Therefore, the yield ellipse is extendible in the a,m - p stress
space as a porous material becomes consolidated under compression. The three consolidation variables can be uniquely defined by a combination of any three testing modes. In our
study, these tests include (1) uniaxial compression, (2) hydrostatic compression, and (3)
simple shear. The initial yield ellipse and evolution of the yield locus of the PP foam
(4.9 kgm/m 3, 5% relative density) are plotted in Fig. 17. The variable material constants
allow us to incorporate volumetric strain-hardening property as the foam is being
compressed.
3.3. Plastic flow law
Low-density foam materials usually exhibit negligible lateral bulging or near zero
Poisson's ratio under simple compression. This indicates that foam materials, unlike metals
or other J2-type plastic materials, possess both volumetric plastic flow and shear flow when
plasticity is initiated. In the present study, the flow rule is defined by a non-associative flow
potential in terms of hydrostatic and effective stresses
2 '
+ O.vm

g(~., (~) = j ~ p 2

(7)

where ~ is a material parameter that controls volumetric plastic flow. ~b is a general internal
state variable, which is defined as the plastic volumetric strain in this case. The plastic strain
rate tensor obeys the consistency condition
% =/"

1.4

0~

'

(8)

1.2-

.......

/:

.... ]

UniaxialCgmpression

$ i ~
1

~~ 0'6
0.4 ~ T i o n ~
e
Lrni en~

o
-0.1

0.1

0.2
Hydrostatic

0.3
Pressure

0.4

0.5

0.6

P (MPa)

Fig. 17. Yieldlocus evolution as polypropylenefoam(density4.9 kgm/m3)consolidated.

Constitutive modelingof polymericfoam material

381

where ~p is the plastic flow rate tensor and )~ is the plasticity consistency parameter. The
plasticity theory requires the stress state to be either inside or on the yield surface and )~can
grow only when the stress state is on the yield surface. This allows us to solve ). by invoking
the consistency condition Eqn (8) and the yield criterion Eqn (6).
For uniaxial compression in the z-direction, the plastic Poisson's ratio Vp is defined as
~xxp = i~')'yp =

(9)

- - Vp~zzp

and the plastic volumetric strain rate is written as

~.p = (1 - 2Vp)~_,zv.

(10)

Substituting Eqn (7) into Eqn (8), we have

~,p = A L [-

(~O'vm

~P]

29 L2a,,m~-a + 2 ~ p ~

(11)

This can be rewritten as

~p=)t 3 I
2~
29 s - - 9 P

T-J"]

(12)

For the uniaxial deformation case, the longitudinal and volumetric plastic strains are found
by decomposition of Eqn (12):

~zzp = ).

Szz --~-9 p

~p

i:~.p = - z - - .
g

(13)
(14)

The value of the longitudinal deviator s~z is - 2p. Substituting Eqns (13) and (14) into Eqn
(10), we have
-

9(1 - 2vv)
2(1 + Vp)

(15)

If ~. = 9, there will be no lateral plastic deformation resulting from uniaxial compression. In

this case, the measured engineering stress is identical to true stress. To be physically
admissible, the values of hydrostatic pressure multiplier should be limited within the range
of 0 ~< ~ ~<9. The upper limit corresponds to zero Poisson's ratio. The lower limit corresponds to incompressible J2 plasticity. For crushable foams with zero plastic Poisson's
ratio, the flow potential can be written as [14]

2
g(6, c~) = x/gp 2 + a,.m.

(16)

It should be noted that plastic flow potential g(&, ~) is also the function of total volumetric
plastic strain or relative density of the foam.

3.4. Volumetric hardenin 9 and strain rate dependence

Polymeric foams become consolidated under hydrostatic compression. The volumetric
hardening properties can be defined by varying material parameters Xo (gyp),a(evp) and b(~:vp)
to expand the yield envelope with increasing volumetric plastic strain. These three variables
are calculated from stress-strain curves from three different testing modes.

382

J. Zhang et al.

The phenomenological model with combined strain-rate hardening and temperature

softening effects is given by Eqn (3). In the numerical implementation, by ignoring the
temperature factor, the power-law Eqn (3) can be rewritten as
~p

Foo - 1)

(17)

where ~k and q are material parameters for strain rate sensitivity, F and F0 are yield
functions under an arbitrary plastic strain rate and a reference quasi-static plastic strain
rate, respectively, and ~p is the effective plastic strain rate defined by ~,p = N~ 3 c'ij c'ij"
4. N U M E R I C A L I M P L E M E N T A T I O N
The constitutive equation derived in the previous section has been implemented into
explicit finite-element program LS-DYNA3D. This program allows the user to add a user
material subroutine to define new material constitutive models.

4.1. Elastic trial stress

First, the decomposed objective elastic trial stresses are calculated as
^trial

(18)

trial

(19)

Sn+l = S,, + 2 G ~ d , , + I / 2 A t ,
P,+ 1 = P, - K ~ , , + 1~2At.

4.2. P l a s t i c correctin 9 stress

The trial elastic stresses and strains keep increasing until initial yielding occurs. By using
the one-step Euler backward return mapping algorithm [15], the plastic consistency
parameter is calculated. After each time step, the new yield surface is updated according to
the total plastic volumetric strain. Due to the adoption of the non-associative flow law, the
return mapping path is not radial. The one-step Euler backward return mapping is of
first-order accuracy. For infinitesimal strain increment, the numerical error can be very
small [16, 17]. The allowable post-yielding stresses are determined by
O.
1n^+

an+l~trial-- 2G~dv, n+ l / z A t + Ksvp, n+ l/2AtI

(20)

By splitting Eqn (20) into deviatoric and volumetric components, it becomes

~+~ =(1-2G)~--~At)gtf2~
(1

x^trial

--

W)Sn+

rl ~ ~ A_~

Pn+l =

(21)

I ,

trial

1 -- l ~ / ~ L x ~ ) p n + 1

(1
-

K~\ trial
2cx 3AtTd)p.+l

fl

K~

~ trial

(22)

where the coefficients before the trial stresses are the plastic stress correcting factors. These
equations represent a stress projection from the elastic trial stress back onto the yield
surface. The only unknown is the plastic flow multiplier ),.

C o n s t i t u t i v e m o d e l i n g of p o l y m e r i c f o a m m a t e r i a l

383

The plastic flow multiplier can be calculated by invoking the consistency condition [Eqn
(8)] and the yield criterion [-Eqn (6)]. In this study, the elastic Poisson's ratio is nearly zero
according to experimental measurement. For a crushable foam with zero elastic Poisson's
ratio, the stress correcting factors for the pressure and deviator are identical when ~ 92
since
_

3G 9(1 - 2v)
- K - 2(1 + v~'

(23)

By inserting Eqns (21) and (22) into the yield criterion (6), we obtain a quadratic equation in
terms of plastic stress correcting factor q
c l q 2 + c 2 q + C 3 = O,

(24)

where
cl -

trial 2
O'vm

(25)

2Xo ptrial
- - ,

(26)

c2 -

C3 --

ptrial 2

+ --,
a

1.

(27)

Consequently, there are two real roots

- - C 2 -'}- x / C 2 - - 4 C l C 3
ql,2

2cl

(28)

The stress correcting factor should be a positive one.

In a general case when the material elastic Poisson's ratio is not zero, from Eqns (29), (30)
and (6), two roots wl.2 for the resulted quadratic equation can be obtained. It should be
noticed that the introduction of a non-associative flow law may cause the non-uniqueness of
the solution. Since the return path is no longer radial, the return path may not intersect the
yield ellipse. Therefore, a non-associative flow law does not guarantee a physically admissible solution.

5. M O D E L VALIDATION
The constitutive equations derived have been implemented into LS-DYNA3D using
a user-defined material subroutine. Numerical simulations are conducted to validate the
constitutive model under different loading conditions. The material parameters are calibrated from the experimental program. The initial yield locus at quasi-static rate can be
obtained from (1) uniaxial compressive strength aro, (2) hydrostatic compressive strength
Pco and (3) simple shear strength to. For the polypropylene foam (density 4.9 kg m/m3), these
parameters are ayo = 0.15 MPa, Pco = 0.074 MPa, and ro = 0.058 MPa. The post-yielding
volumetric-hardening behavior is defined by three load curves, Xo(g,,p), a(gvp) and b(g~,p) in
LS-DYNA3D. The strain rate dependence is defined by Eqn (17).
Numerical simulations were performed under various loading conditions. Figure 18
shows the comparison of stress-strain responses of the polypropylene foam (4.9 kg m/m 3)
under uniaxial compression at three different rates. A deformed configuration without
lateral expansion is also shown in the inset of Fig. 18. Figure 19 shows shear stress responses
of polystyrene foam (1.6 k g m / m 3) under different rates. The after-yielding behavior is
perfectly plastic because there is no volumetric strain hardening during the deformation.
High-speed hemispheric tests have also been performed to validate the foam model under
more general loading conditions. In the test, a rigid hemispheric (q5127 mm, 22.2 kg m, steel)
impactor is dropped onto a polypropylene foam (density 4 . 9 k g m / m 3) block

384

J. Zhang et al.
2.00

O Numerical Result (1.6E-3 l/see)

1.50

r~
~
0

Experimental Result (1.6E-3 l/sec)

o Numerical Result (8.0E-2 l/sec)
Experimental Result (8.0E-2 l/sec)
zx Numerical Result (4.6 l/sec)
Experimental Result (4.6 1/sec)

1.oo L
i

0.50 ~

. . . . . . . .

0.00 ~
0.0

.
0.2

.
0.6

0.4

1
0.8

Nominal Strain
Fig. 18. Model uniaxial compressive responses for polypropylene foam (4.9 kgm/m3).
0.12

....

/
0.10

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
,

"

0.08

0.06

~ n

~o

0,

u]

/# Po . . . . .

~oo

...............

, N

;. . . . . . . . . . . .

.................................................................................
/'~c-,~

I o Test Result (0.0016 l/sec,

I : Test Result (0,08 l/sec)

/v o

~o

i ,~ TestResult(4.6 ,/s~)

/~

I ---

0.04

Numerical Result (0,00161/see) I

[
N u m e r i c a l Result (0.08 l/sec) I
I --Numerical Result (4.6 l/sec)
I

0.02

~
o

o.oo

. . . . . . .

0.00

I
I

....

0.05

i ....

0.10

:, . . . .

0.15

],

0.20

~ 2

0.25

Shear Strain
Fig. 19. Model shear responses of polystyrene foam (1.6 kg m/m3).
Trinse

levels

0.000E+~0

7.417E+02

1.483E-+93
2.225E+S3
2.967E+03
B.788E+83
4.45BE+83

Fig. 20. Finite element mesh of P P foam (4.9 k g m / m 3) in an indentation test.

Constitutive modeling of polymeric foam material

385
fPinge levels
-B.971E+02
4.10BE+02
1.219E+03
~.026E+03

E.SBaE+~3
3.642E+03
4.458E+SB

Fig. 21. Deformed configuration of polypropylene foam (4.9 kgm/m 3) and velocity field under
indentation at time t = 0.02 s.

16 103
14 103

12 103
10 103
8 103
6 103

4 103
2 103
0 10
0

20

40

60

80

1O0

Penetration (mm)

Fig. 22. Contact force deflection responses of polypropylene foam (4.9 kgm/m 3) in an indentation
test.

(203 x 203 x 101 mm 3) with an initial speed of 4.45 m/s (10 mh). Figure 20 shows the finiteelement mesh for the indentation test. Figure 21 depicts the deformed configuration of the
foam block. The resultant force-deflection curves are plotted in Fig. 22. As we can see,
numerical simulation predicts force-deflection response quite closely in the loading stage
but not in the unloading phase. As we mentioned before, polypropylene foam (density
4.9 kg m/m 3) is a semi-rigid foam which has only 20% permanent deformation after impact.
The excessive residual plastic deformation predicted by the model is mainly due to the
assumption that polymeric foam plasticity initiates at the beginning of the stress plateau.
According to the preliminary study on foam microscopic deformation mechanism, we
understand that the initiation of the stress plateau is actually caused by microscopic elastic
buckling of cellular struts. Future investigation should look into polymeric foam cell level
and take sub-cellular level deformation mechanism into account.

386

J. Zhang et al.
6. C O N C L U S I O N

Based o n previous discussions, we draw the following conclusions:

(1) P o l y m e r i c foam constitutive b e h a v i o r is extremely strain rate a n d t e m p e r a t u r e
dependent. Cellular b u c k l i n g u n d e r c o m p r e s s i o n initiates a long stress plateau. F u r t h e r
c o m p r e s s i o n causes stress b o t t o m up due to foam consolidation.
(2) T r a n s i t i o n s of d e f o r m a t i o n a n d failure m o d e are observed as the l o a d i n g c o n d i t i o n
changes. F o a m s b e h a v i n g ductile u n d e r c o m p r e s s i o n m a y fail as being brittle materials
u n d e r shear a n d tension.
(3) A r a t e - d e p e n d e n t elasto-plastic foam constitutive m o d e l has been developed. A
h y d r o d y n a m i c constitutive model that features a single-surface yield criterion, a n o n associated plastic flow law a n d a power-type strain-rate d e p e n d e n c e showed r e a s o n a b l y
good prediction for the responses of rigid polymeric foams u n d e r simple a n d complex
l o a d i n g conditions.
(4) Besides p h e n o m e n o l o g i c a l approach, future work on foam constitutive m o d e l i n g
should take sub-cellular level d e f o r m a t i o n m e c h a n i s m into account.
Acknowledgements--This research has been supported by a grant from the American Automobile Manufacturers
Association. Special thanks to Livermore Software Technology Corporation for the use of LS-DYNA3D software
in numerical investigations presented in this study.

REFERENCES
1. J. O. Hallquist, LS-DYNA3D Theoretical Manual. LSTC Report 1018, 1994.
2. L. J. Gibson and M. F. Ashby, Cellular Solids-Structural and Properties. Pergamon Press, New York (1988).
3. L. J. Gibson, J. Zhang, T. L. Shercliff, L. J. Gibson and M. F. Ashby, Failure surface for cellular materials
under multiaxial loads I. Modeling. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 31(9), 635-663 (1989).
4. T. C. Triantafillou, J. Zhang, T. L. Shercliff, L. J. Gibson and M. F. Ashby, Failure surfaces for cellular
materials under multiaxial loads--II. Comparisons of models with experiment. Int. J. Mech. Sci., 31(9),
665-678 (1989).
5. M. A. Puso and Govindjee, A phenomenological constitutive model for polymeric foam. In Mechanics of
Plastics and Plastic Composites, MD-Vol 68/AMD-215, pp. 159 176, ASME, New York (1995).
6. K. C. Rush, Load-compression behavior of flexible foams. J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 13, 2297 2311 (1969).
7. O. Ramon, S. Mirahi and J. Miltz, Mechanical properties and behavior of open cell foams used as cushioning
materials. Polymer Engng Sci. 30, 197 201 (1990).
8. J. A. Sherwood and C. C. Frost, Constitutive modeling and simulation of energy absorbing polyurethane
foam under impact loading, Polymer Engng Sci., 32(16), 1138-1146 (1992).
9. A. Schofield and C. P. Worth, Critical State Soil Mechanics. McGraw-Hill, New York (1968).
10. R. D. Krieg, A simple constitutive description for soils and crushable foam. SCDR-72-0883, Sandia National
Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, 1972.
11. M. K. Neilsen, R. D. Krieg and H. L. Schreyer, A constitutive theory for rigid polyurethane foam. Polymer
Engng Sci. 35, 387-394 (1995).
12. A. Nagy, W. L. Ko and U. S. Lindholm, Mechanical behavior of foamed materials under dynamic compression. J. Cellular Plastics 10, 127 134 (1964).
13. M. L Williams, R. L. Landel and J. D. Ferry, The Temperature Dependence of Relaxation Mechanisms
Amorphous Polymers and Other Glass-forming Liquids. J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 77, 3701 (1955).
14. S. S. Bilkhu, M. Founnas and G. S. Nusholtz, Material modeling of structure foams in finite element analysis
using compressive uniaxial and triaxial data. SAE Technical Paper Series 930434, International Congress and
Exposition, Detroit, Michigan, 1993.
15. J. R. Hughes, Numerical implementation of constitutive models: rate-independent deviatoric plasticity.
Workshop on the Theoretical Foundation for Large-Scale Computations of Nonlinear Material Behavior,
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, October (1983).
16. H. L. Schreyer, R. F. Kulak and J. M. Kramer, Accurate numerical solutions for elasti~plastic models. J.
Pressure Vessel Technol. 101, 226-234 (1979).
17. M. Ortiz and J. C. Simo, An analysis of a new class of integration algorithms for constitutive relations. Int. J.
Numer. Methods Engng, 23, 353 366 (1986).