Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Expanded polystyrene (EPS) is commonly used in a variety of applications because of its features of light
Received 12 August 2014 weight, good thermal insulation, moisture resistance, durability, acoustic absorption and low thermal
Accepted 8 December 2014 conductivity. It has been increasingly used in building constructions as core material of structural insu-
Available online 5 January 2015
lated panels (SIP). Some of those structures during their service life may be subjected to dynamic loads
such as accidental or hostile explosion loads and windborne debris impacts. Understanding the dynamic
Keywords: material properties of EPS is essential for reliable predictions of the performances of the structural insu-
Expanded polystyrene
lated panels with EPS foam core material. This paper presents static and dynamic compressive and tensile
Construction material
Experimental tests
test data of EPS with density 13.5 kg/m3 and 28 kg/m3 at different strain rates. The dynamic strength,
Dynamic material properties Young’s modulus and energy absorption capacities of the two EPS foams at different strain rates are
obtained and presented in the paper. Based on the testing data, some empirical relations are derived,
which can be used to model EPS properties in numerical simulations of dynamic responses of structural
insulated panels with EPS foam core subjected to impact and blast loads.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.12.024
0261-3069/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W. Chen et al. / Materials and Design 69 (2015) 170–180 171
strain rates up to 3000 1/s [11]. Song et al. [12] studied quasi-static tested specimens were attached to two rigid metal plates with
and dynamic properties of a polystyrene foam using a hydraulic epoxy resin. The tensile force was applied perpendicularly to the
test machine and a SHPB apparatus. The trends of elastic modulus plates. The results show the elastic modulus and the ultimate elas-
and yield stress were observed. Mohotti et al. [13] conducted high tic strain depend on the specimen thickness for EPS density
strain rate tensile tests on polyurea samples by using a INSTRONÒ between 13 and 26 kg/m3. The ultimate tensile strength reduced
VHS 8800 machine. The non-linear hyper-elastic behavior of poly- to some extent of 0–11% when the thickness of specimen increased
urea was predicted by the Mooney Rivlin constitutive material from 50 to 150 mm. The ultimate strain corresponding to the ulti-
with strain rate dependency. Wood et al. [14] investigated the mate tensile strength was 2.8%. Smakosz and Tejchman [28] also
effect of specimen geometry and boundary conditions on the conducted flatwise quasi-static compressive and tensile testing
dynamic mechanical properties of steel sheet by using INSTRONÒ on cubic EPS specimens with size of 100 mm by 100 mm by
servo-hydraulic test machine. An improved specimen design was 152 mm. Brittle failure was found in the mid-region during tensile
proposed to generate reliable data at high strain rates. Ouellet testing and the failure strain was recorded as 3.5%. No dynamic
et al. [15] studied the effect of sample size of two polymeric foams tensile test on EPS material properties can be found in literature
in high rate tests by using polymeric compressive Hopkinson bar. It yet.
was found that sample size effect for EPS was so significant that the Among all the previous studies, the most comprehensive test on
strain-rate effects were masked by the size effect. Xiao [16] con- EPS compressive properties was carried out by Ouellet et al. [22]. In
ducted the dynamic tensile testing at two strain rates of 40 and the latter study, based on the SHPB tests of EPS with density
400 1/s using INSTRONÒ servo-hydraulic machine on four plastics, 112 kg/m3 and 61 kg/m3, Ouellet et al. [22] reported the strain rate
i.e. HDPE, PC-ABS, TPO and PA nylon. The dynamic tensile testing dependency of EPS was substantial when a critical strain rate of
technique was evaluated by considering the issues of dynamic 1000 1/s was reached. It was also found that densification strain
stress equilibrium and system ringing. In general both SHPB and of high density EPS112 appeared at around 100 1/s, which was ear-
INSTRONÒ machine are the two common facilities that have been lier than 300 1/s of low density EPS61 as shown in Fig. 1. In their
used to perform dynamic tests on foam materials. study, the dynamic EPS compressive properties was investigated
Extensive studies have been conducted to determine the static by using a polymeric Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) to
mechanical properties of EPS foam in recent years. In those tests, achieve high strain rates ranging from 500 to 2500 1/s and a drop
the compressive stress at 10% relative deformation and cross- weight impact method for strain rates less than 0.1 1/s. It should be
breaking strength of rigid cellular plastics are determined by using noted that a gap exists in the current literature in the range of
the methods specified in the standards [17,18]. The cross-breaking strain rate between 0.1 and 500 1/s due to the lack of capable test-
is the maximum stress at fracture when the specimen is subjected ing methods used in the previous studies. Boyce and Crenshaw [29]
to bending. It was found that the mechanical properties of EPS are reported that there was no well-defined technique for testing in
greatly affected by the material density. Compressive elastic mod- the intermediate strain rates. Difficulties in testing at these strain
ulus and yield strength increase with the EPS density. The initial rates are due to the possibility of elastic wave reflections and dif-
Young’s modulus in the elastic range exhibits approximately a lin- ficulty in establishing dynamic stress equilibrium in both the sam-
ear relationship with EPS density. An empirical formula of Young’s ple and load sensors. Currently there is no testing data on dynamic
modulus vs. density was proposed by Eriksson and Trank [19]. EPS compressive properties of EPS at strain rate between 0.1 and 500 1/
density was also found as a crucial parameter in increasing energy s. In addition, no dynamic tensile testing on EPS can be found in the
absorption capability by Di Landro et al. [20]. They found low den- literature yet as reviewed above. As the strain rates of EPS core in a
sity EPS absorbs energy in a distributed co-operation way while sandwich panel subjected to windborne debris impact and blast
high density EPS absorbs larger amounts of energy through the loadings are very likely within the range of 0.1–500 1/s, and tensile
failure of cells but induces higher forces localized at the impact response is most likely to govern the failure mode, it is important
point. Vėjelis et al. [21] found the thickness of EPS specimen influ- to better understand the dynamic material properties of EPS under
ences shear strength and shear modulus of elasticity significantly. both compression and tension, and to fill the gap of the available
Some testing results of EPS foam under dynamic compressive testing data in the range of strain rate between 0.1 and 500 1/s.
loading have also been reported in the literature [22,23]. Strain Moreover, low density EPS foam, i.e. EPS of density less than
rate sensitivity of elastic modulus, plateau stress and densification 30 kg/m3 are more commonly used in SIP for normal building con-
strain was found in the previous studies. When EPS foam is sub- struction owing to its light weight, as compared to the testing data
jected to compressive loading, the entrapped air within the cells reported in Ouellet et al. [22] for EPS with density 61 kg/m3 and
is compressed and viscous force is generated. Viscous forces
increase with the loading rate, which results in the increase of
strain rate sensitivity [22]. Croop and Lobo [24] found that the
behavior of EPS is stiffer as the air trapped within the cells exer-
cises a cushioning effect from not being able to escape at high
strain rates. Chakravarty et al. [25] noted that the changing prop-
erties of cellular foams at high strain rates are due to the changing
nature of gas compression. Di Landro et al. [20] found a large
increase in strain rate produced a slight increase in the elastic
modulus of EPS. The yield and plateau stresses of EPS increase with
increasing strain rate [11]. Song et al. [12] reported an increasing
trend of elastic modulus with the increment of strain rate. Avalle
et al. [26] found EPS could dissipate kinetic energy upon impact
whilst reduce force transfer through the EPS. All the above studies
demonstrate that EPS material is rate dependent.
Most of the previous studies focus on evaluating the compres-
sive properties of EPS. Very limited studies have examined the sta-
tic tensile properties of EPS [27,28]. Gnip et al. [27] carried out the
quasi-static tensile tests on flat specimens of EPS boards. The Fig. 1. Stress vs. strain rate for EPS112 and EPS61 [22].
172 W. Chen et al. / Materials and Design 69 (2015) 170–180
Two grades of EPS foams, which are commonly used in insu- 2.2. Compressive specimens
lated structural panels, were tested in this study. They are grade
SL with density 13.5 kg/m3 (named as ‘‘EPS13’’) and grade SL with For quasi-static testing, ASTM: D695 stipulates a cylindrical
density 28 kg/m3 (named as ‘‘EPS28’’). 40 specimens were pre- specimen with height (L) equal to twice the diameter (D) for use
pared for each type of EPS for compression and tension tests, in compressive tests. However, as discussed by Bischoff and Perry
respectively, giving a total of 160 specimens. [34] for high strain rate impact tests, inertia effects can be
neglected in both the axial and lateral directions when an ideal
2.1. Material properties aspect ratio (i.e. L/D) of approximately 0.43 is used. In another
study, Bertholf and Karnes [35] performed numerical simulations
EPS foam exhibits complex behavior under compressive stress and indicated that the lateral and axial inertia, as well as the fric-
due to its cellular micro-structure. As shown in Fig. 2, typical com- tion could produce additional constraints and result in multi-axial
pressive stress–strain curve for EPS consists of three regions, i.e. stress states. They suggested an optimal aspect ratio for specimen
linear elastic, plateau and densification region. The linear elastic with L/D (length to diameter) of 0.5 for SHPB tests. In this study,
region terminates when the plateau stress is reached. In the compressive specimens adopt an aspect ratio of 0.5. Therefore,
Fig. 3. (L) Photograph of compressive specimen and (R) dimension of compressive specimen.
W. Chen et al. / Materials and Design 69 (2015) 170–180 173
Fig. 4. (A) Photo of tensile test specimen and (B) dimension of tensile specimen (mm).
Fig. 6. Quasi-static testing set up (L) compressive test and (R) tensile test.
each specimen was made to be 37.5 mm height with 75 mm diam- ing on the Baldwin testing machine and INSTRONÒ VHS testing
eter, as shown in Fig. 3. machine. This, as will be discussed later, generates large inertia
forces under high-speed impact tests, which make the testing data
with high-velocity tensile tests unreliable.
2.3. Tensile specimens
The tensile specimens were designed based on the guidelines 3. Testing facilities and setup
given in ASTM: D638, which stipulates the requirements for the
tensile testing of plastics as shown in Fig. 4. To meet with the spe- 3.1. Quasi-static test
cific requirements for using the INSTRONÒ VHS 160/100-20 sys-
tem, the dumbbell-shaped specimens were customized and the Quasi-static compressive and tensile tests were conducted at
dimension was adjusted. The specimen gauge length was short- the University of Western Australia by using a Baldwin testing
ened to allow for a longer stroke length for the INSTRONÒ high machine with capability of loads up to 400 kN, as shown in
speed grip. The maximum thickness (i.e. 14 mm) was used in order Fig. 6. The Baldwin testing machine uses hydraulic pressure to deli-
to minimize the effect of discontinuities and also increase the stiff- ver a relatively constant velocity crosshead movement. During the
ness of the specimen. A tensile mild steel bolt–nut extender assem- test, the crosshead displacement was controlled at a quasi-static
bly as shown in Fig. 5 was fabricated to have two plates at each end strain rate of 0.001 1/s on the specimen. A 2000 kg hollow load cell
of the specimen, bolted twice into the grip area to maximize the was installed as shown in Fig. 6 (L) to measure the compressive
grip between the rig and the tensile specimens for the tensile test- load. A 100 kg Bongshin S-type load cell in Fig. 6 (R) was used to
174 W. Chen et al. / Materials and Design 69 (2015) 170–180
600
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20
Speed (m/s)
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
Strain
Strain
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
2.5m/s 10m/s
0.0 0.0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02
Time Time
Fig. 8. Strain time history corresponding to different impact velocities (L) 2.5 m/s; (R) 10 m/s.
W. Chen et al. / Materials and Design 69 (2015) 170–180 175
Fig. 10. Photograph of (L) compressive testing setup and (R) tensile testing setup.
The observed maximum compressive strain rate was approxi- INSTRONÒ VHS software (i.e. FastTrack™ High Rate software). Test-
mately 280 1/s, not 533 1/s as expected. Table 1 gives the expected ing Data for tensile tests was recorded using a combination of
and measured compressive strain rates under various crosshead INSTRONÒ VHS software and Labview software. The data logger
speeds. comprised NI BNC-2110 Shielded Connector Block and NI USB-
In the dynamic compressive testing, the crosshead accelerates a 6251 Mass Term Multifunction DAQ. A high speed camera Fastcam
certain distance to achieve the desired velocity before impact APX RS along with two halogen lights was positioned in front of the
occurs. The compressive testing setup is shown in Fig. 10 (L). In INSTRON testing machine to capture the failure process of each
the tensile testing, a constant profile with a desired velocity can test. The frame rate of 20,000 fps was used in the testing (see
be achieved through a dynamic grip, which is located above the Figs. 11 and 12).
specimen. The grip accelerates over a defined length whilst sepa-
rates from the specimen. When a certain velocity is reached, the
grip clamps the specimen instantaneously. The photograph of ten- 4. Compressive testing results and discussions
sile testing setup is shown in Fig. 10 (R).
Other testing instruments include load cell, amplifier, NI data 4.1. Quasi-static compressive test
acquisition system and Labview software, high speed camera,
and INSTRONÒ VHS console software. A Bongshin S-type load cell The quasi-static compressive stress–strain curve is shown in
with testing range of 100 kg was used in the dynamic tensile test- Fig. 13. It is observed that the compressive stress and the Young’s
ing. The load cell was connected to a high frequency data acquisi- modulus increase while the densification strain decreases with the
tion system composed of a fast-response A/D conversion card, a increasing density of EPS specimen. As given in Table 2, the com-
fast-response amplifier and a graphical programming Labview pressive stress at 10% strain for EPS13 and EPS28 are 0.089 MPa
package. Data acquisition for compressive test was through the and 0.191 MPa, respectively, which are comparable with the min-
176 W. Chen et al. / Materials and Design 69 (2015) 170–180
Fig. 12. Photograph of (A) S-type load cell; (B) signal amplifier and (C) national InstrumentsÒ DAQ.
2.5 EPS13. The compressive Young’s modulus of EPS28 and EPS13 are
4.8 MPa and 2.7 MPa, respectively.
EPS13 Energy absorption (EA) per unit volume of EPS is calculated by
2.0 EPS28 the following formula,
Z ef
EA
¼ rde ð3Þ
Stress (MPa)
1.5 V 0
Fig. 14. (L) Un-deformed specimen; (M) compressive specimen EPS13 after impact test and (R) compressive specimen EPS28 after impact test.
W. Chen et al. / Materials and Design 69 (2015) 170–180 177
A 3.5 A 6
EPS13-Static EPS13-0.1m/s EPS28-Static EPS28-0.1m/s
3.0 EPS13-0.5m/s EPS13-1m/s EPS28-0.5m/s EPS28-1m/s
5
EPS13-2.5m/s EPS13-5m/s EPS28-2.5m/s EPS28-5m/s
2.5 EPS13-7.5m/s EPS13-10m/s EPS28-7.5m/s EPS28-10m/s
EPS13-15m/s EPS13-20m/s 4 EPS28-15m/s EPS28-20m/s
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
2.0
3
1.5
2
1.0
Enlarged Enlarged
0.5 1
0.0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Strain Strain
0.3 0.6
Stress (MPa)
0.5
0.2 0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.46 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.46 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.54
Strain
Strain
Fig. 15. (A) Stress–strain curves for EPS13 dynamic compressive testing and (B)
enlarged view. Fig. 16. (A) Stress–strain curves for EPS28 dynamic compressive testing and (B)
enlarged view.
In this study, no obvious trend was observed for Young’s modulus 0.50
in elastic region. With the increasing strain rate, Young’s modulus
of EPS remains almost constant, which indicates Young’s Modulus 0.45 EPS28
Stress at 50% strain (MPa)
is not sensitive to strain rate in the current test range. Di Landro EPS13
et al. [20] also found a slight increase of elastic modulus of EPS 0.40
with a large increase in strain rate. However, a consistent increase
in stress with strain rate is observed at strains higher than 40% for 0.35
both tested EPS materials as shown in the zoomed in views.
Crush stress at 50% strain in the plateau region is used as it has a 0.30
certain distance from the large oscillations experienced immedi-
ately following yielding and from the densification strain. Ouellet 0.25
et al. [22] also used the stress at 50% strain as representative stress.
It was observed that the crush stress increased rapidly when the 0.20
strain rate reached around 113 1/s as shown in Fig. 17. The crush
stress values are given in Table 3. The crush stresses of EPS13 0.15
and EPS28 at quasi-static strain rate are 0.171 MPa and 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
0.328 MPa, respectively. When the strain rate reaches 280 1/s, Strain rate (/s)
the crush stresses of EPS13 and EPS28 increase to 0.252 MPa and
0.468 MPa, with the increase of 47% and 43%, respectively. Tedesco Fig. 17. Dynamic compressive stress at a strain of 50% vs. strain rate.
[11] also reported the yield and plateau stresses of EPS increase
with increasing strain rate.
Dynamic increase factor (DIF), as a ratio of dynamic stress to tested EPS in the two studies have different densities. As shown,
quasi-static stress, represents the increase in stress under high the DIF of EPS foams obtained in the present study and those by
strain rate. It can be used to predict material behavior at various Ouellet et al. [22] with density 112 kg/m3 are slightly larger than
strain rates. Fig. 18 shows the testing results compared with the those with density 61 kg/m3. The exact reason for this is not
results reported by Ouellet et al. [22] at higher strain rates of EPS known. Nevertheless, the compressive DIF for the two tested EPS
with different densities from those tested in the present study. materials is independent of its density. Therefore a density inde-
They show similar trend of dynamic increase factor although the pendent relationship of DIF vs. strain rate can be derived. As shown
178 W. Chen et al. / Materials and Design 69 (2015) 170–180
Table 3 Table 4
Crush stress and compressive DIF of EPS13 and EPS28. Energy absorption comparison.
Crosshead speed Strain rate Crush stress at 50% strain Compressive DIF Crosshead speed (m/s) Strain rate (1/s) Energy absorption (J)
(m/s) (1/s) (MPa)
EPS13 EPS28
EPS 13 EPS 28 EPS 13 EPS 28
Quasi-static 0.001 37.1 66.9
Quasi-static 0.001 0.171 0.328 1.0 1.0 0.1 2.68 48.5 82.5
0.1 2.68 0.215 0.401 1.25 1.22 2.5 65 49.9 82.2
0.5 12.2 0.206 0.388 1.20 1.18 10 185 52.8 82.3
1 27 0.216 0.403 1.26 1.23
2.5 65 0.218 0.398 1.27 1.21
5 122 0.219 0.458 1.28 1.40
7.5 170 0.202 0.446 1.18 1.36
10 185 0.208 0.379 1.21 1.16
15 210 0.226 0.478 1.32 1.46 0.45
20 280 0.252 0.468 1.47 1.43
0.40
0.35
Stress (MPa)
2.6 0.30
0.10
1.6 EPS28
1.4 0.05
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
1.2
Strain
1.0
Fig. 20. Tensile stress–strain curve of quasi-static testing.
0.8
0.6
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Table 5
Strain Rate (1/s) Quasi-static tensile testing results.
1.0 2.2
0.9 EPS28-20/s
2.0 EPS28
EPS28-30/s
0.8 EPS13
1.8 Data fitted curve
0.7
Stress (MPa)
0.6 1.6
TDIF
0.5 1.4
0.4
1.2
0.3
1.0
0.2
0.1 0.8
0.0 0.6
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Strain Strain rate (/s)
Fig. 22. Stress–strain curves of EPS28 under dynamic tensile loading. Fig. 24. Dynamic increase factor of EPS tensile strength.
0.9
5.2. Dynamic tensile test
0.8 EPS28
EPS13 Fig. 21 shows the failure mode after dynamic tensile testing.
0.7
The breakage occurred in the central narrowed part of the speci-
0.6 men. Because the tensile strength is weak, the breakage was also
Stress (MPa)
found in the grip area in some tests due to the stress concentration
0.5
or unavoidable loading eccentricity effect. Those data are consid-
0.4 ered not reliable therefore the total number of data available from
tensile tests is less than the compressive tests.
0.3 Although a large range of strain rates was tested, data acquisi-
0.2 tion proved difficult and the testing data was valid up to a rate
of 30 1/s only due to a high degree of oscillation experienced with
0.1 high strain rate, which has also been found in another study [16].
In addition, inertial effect influences testing results at high strain
0.0
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 rates. This is because in high-speed testing, a large acceleration is
induced which results in a relatively large inertia force associated
Strain rate (/s)
to the mass of the mild steel bolt–nut extender assembly as shown
Fig. 23. Tensile stress vs. strain rate. in Fig. 5. Since the tensile strength of the EPS foam is rather low,
this inertia force could be comparable to or even larger than the
tensile resistance of the testing specimen, making the load cell
recorded data not the true EPS tensile resistance force. As a result,
strength with increasing density. The ultimate tensile strength of reliable data at high strain rates was not able to be obtained in the
EPS13 and EPS28 are 0.276 MPa and 0.416 MPa, respectively as current tests. Some modifications on the extender assembly should
given in Table 5. It is due to the greater number of foam cells at be undertaken for further tensile testing.
the cross section contributing to the strength of the material. The As shown in Fig. 22, stress–strain curves of EPS28 indicate an
results are comparable with their corresponding minimum increase in ultimate tensile strength and failure strain. Tensile fail-
strength of 0.20 MPa and 0.38 MPa given by the EPS supplier. The ure strains are observed to be around 8%, indicating an increase on
EPS tensile strength with density 20 kg/m3 was tested as the dynamic failure strain as compared to the quasi-static failure
0.22 MPa by Fatt and Park [37]. The tensile Young’s modulus of strain around 5%. As shown in Fig. 23, the ultimate tensile strength
EPS28 and EPS13 are 7.2 MPa and 5.0 MPa, respectively, which increases rapidly with strain rate, especially when the strain rate is
are larger than their compressive Young’s modulus of 4.8 MPa over 10 1/s. The quasi-static ultimate tensile strength of EPS28 is
and 2.7 MPa, respectively. Tensile failure strain also increases with around 0.416 MPa and the ultimate tensile strength is 0.810 MPa
the increasing density of EPS. As shown in Fig. 20, there is an initial at strain rate 30 1/s. The limited testing data show that tensile
strain because the weight of the steel assembly pre-loaded the strength of EPS increases with strain rate.
specimen, which resulted in a starting point of approximately Defining the tensile DIF based on the ultimate tensile strength,
0.07 MPa and therefore generated an initial strain. Tensile failure Fig. 24 shows the dynamic tensile strength increment obtained in
strains of EPS13 and EPS28 are 5.1% and 4.9%, respectively. the present tests. As shown the dynamic tensile strength incre-
180 W. Chen et al. / Materials and Design 69 (2015) 170–180
ment of EPS is slightly more substantial than the compressive [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.
strength, and is also independent of the EPS density. The relation-
[8] Chen W, Hao H. Experimental investigations and numerical simulations of
ship between tensile DIF and strain rate can be derived as follows. multi-arch double-layered panels under uniform impulsive loadings. Int J
Impact Eng 2014;63:140–57.
TDIF ¼ 1:010 þ 0:005 logðe_ Þ when 103 < e_ < 5:7 ð6Þ [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
TDIF ¼ 0:002 þ 1:338 logðe_ Þ when < e_ 5:7 ð7Þ high strain rates. Compos Part B: Eng 2010;41:678–85.
[11] Tedesco J, Ross C, Kuennen S. Strain rate effects on the compressive strength of
where e_ is strain rate. shock-mitigating foams. J Sound Vibrat 1993;165(2):376–84.
These empirical relations, i.e. Eqs. (4)–(7), can be used to model [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
dynamic strength increment of EPS foams. However, it should be
2005;31(5):509–21.
noted that further tests, especially dynamic tensile tests, are [13] Mohotti D, Ali M, Ngo T, Lu J, Mendis P. Strain rate dependent constitutive
needed to better define EPS dynamic tensile strength increment. model for predicting the material behaviour of polyurea under high strain rate
tensile loading. Mater Des 2014;53:830–7.
[14] Wood P, Schley C, Buckley M, Smith J. An improved test procedure for
6. Conclusions 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
In this study, laboratory tests were carried out to investigate the closed-cell foams: challenges related to size effects. dynamic behavior of
quasi-static and dynamic properties of both EPS13 and EPS28. It materials, volume 1, In: Proceedings of the 2012 annual conference on
experimental and applied mechanics, conference proceedings of the society
was found that the EPS static strength and Young’s modulus
for experimental mechanics series; 2013.
increase with its density. High density EPS also has higher energy [16] Xiao X. Dynamic tensile testing of plastic materials. Polym Test
absorption capacity than low density ones. The EPS compressive 2008;27(2):164–78.
strength increases rapidly with the strain rate when the strain rate [17] AS 2498.3-1993. Methods of testing rigid cellular plastics: determination of
compressive stress. Standard Australian.
is over 113 1/s, but the densification strain decreases slightly with [18] AS 2498.4-1993. Methods of testing rigid cellular plastics: determination of
the strain rate. Young’s modulus does not exhibit obvious strain cross-breaking strength. Standard Australian.
rate dependency over the range of strain rates tested in the current [19] Eriksson L, Trank R. Properties of expanded polystyrene, laboratory
experiments. Linkoping, Sweden: Swedish Geotechnical Institute; 1991.
study, i.e. 1–280 1/s. As this is the first study to conduct the EPS [20] Di Landro L, Sala G, Olivieri D. Deformation mechanisms and energy
dynamic tensile tests, only limited success was achieved. Therefore absorption of polystyrene foams for protective helmets. Polym Test
conclusions regarding the EPS dynamic material properties can 2002;21(2):217–28.
[21] Vėjelis S, Gnip I, Vaitkus S, Keršulis V. Shear strength and modulus of elasticity
only be drawn based on the limited testing data. It was found that of expanded polystyrene (EPS). Mater Sci (Medžiagotyra) 2008;14(3).
both the dynamic tensile strength and failure strain increase with [22] Ouellet S, Cronin D, Worswick M. Compressive response of polymeric foams
strain rate. The strain rate dependency of EPS material in tension is under quasi-static, medium and high strain rate conditions. Polym Test
2006;25(6):731–43.
more substantial than that in compression. Empirical formulae of
[23] Duškov M. Materials research on EPS20 and EPS15 under representative
DIFs for compressive and tensile strength with respect to the strain conditions in pavement structures. Geotext Geomembr 1997;15(1):147–81.
rate were derived from the testing data, which could be used to [24] Croop B, Lobo H. Selecting material models for the simulation of foams in LS-
DYNA. In: Proceedings of 7th European LS-DYNA conference, Salzburg; 2009.
model EPS material under dynamic loading in numerical
[25] Chakravarty U, Mahfuz H, Saha M, Jeelani S. Strain rate effects on sandwich
simulations. 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
Acknowledgments foams under compressive impact loading by means of energy-absorption
diagram. Int J Impact Eng 2001;25(5):455–72.
The authors acknowledge the financial support from Australian [27] Gnip I, Veyelis S, Kersulis V, Vaitkus S. Deformability and strength of expanded
polystyrene (EPS) under short-term shear loading. Mech Compos Mater
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
2007;43(1):85–94.
(CSIRO) through the project ‘‘Climate Adaptation Engineering for [28] Smakosz Ł, Tejchman J. Evaluation of strength, deformability and failure mode
Extreme Events Cluster’’. of composite structural insulated panels. Mater Des 2014;54:1068–82.
[29] Boyce BL, Crenshaw TB. Servohydraulic methods for mechanical testing in the
Sub-Hopkinson rate regime up to strain rates of 500 1/s. Sandia National
References Laboratories Report, SAND2005-5678; 2005. p. 1–16.
[30] Lu G, Yu T. Energy absorption of structures and materials. Woodhead
[1] Manalo A. Structural behaviour of a prefabricated composite wall system made Publishing; 2003.
from rigid polyurethane foam and magnesium oxide board. Constr Build Mater [31] Gibson L, Ashby M. Cellular solids: structure and
2013;41:642–53. properties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997.
[2] Chen W, Hao H. Experimental and numerical study of composite lightweight [32] Nagy A, Ko W, Lindholm US. Mechanical behavior of foamed materials under
structural insulated panel with expanded polystyrene core against windborne dynamic compression. DTIC document; 1973.
debris impacts. Mater Des 2014;60:409–23. [33] Zhang J, Kikuchi N, Li V, Yee A, Nusholtz G. Constitutive modeling of polymeric
[3] Horvath J. Expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam: an introduction to material foam material subjected to dynamic crash loading. Int J Impact Eng
behavior. Geotext Geomembr 1994;13(4):263–80. 1998;21(5):369–86.
[4] Nickerson J, Trasborg P, Newberry C, Naito C, Davidson J. Use of Foam- [34] Bischoff P, Perry S. Compressive behaviour of concrete at high strain rates.
Insulated Concrete Sandwich Panels for blast protection applications. In: 15th Mater Struct 1991;24(6):425–50.
International symposium on interaction of the effects of munitions with [35] Bertholf L, Karnes C. Two-dimensional analysis of the split hopkinson pressure
structures (ISIEMS), Potsdam, Germany; 2013. bar system. J Mech Phys Solids 1975;23(1):1–19.
[5] Mines R, Worrall C, Gibson A. Low velocity perforation behaviour of polymer [36] Properties, performance and design fundamentals of expanded polystyrene
composite sandwich panels. Int J Impact Eng 1998;21(10):855–79. packaging. Alliance of foam packaging recyclers; 2000.
[6] Wen HM, Reddy TY, Reid SR, Soden PD. Indentation, penetration and [37] Fatt MSH, Park KS. Dynamic models for low-velocity impact damage of
perforation of composite laminates and sandwich panels under quasi-static composite sandwich panels – Part A: Deformation. Compos Struct
and projectile loading. Key Eng Mater 1998;141–143:501–52. 2001;52:335–51.