Volume fraction effect on high strain rate properties of syntactic foam composites
- 260 Downloads
The volume fraction effect on the high strain rate compressive properties of syntactic foams is characterized using a pulse-shaped Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) technique. Eighteen different types of syntactic foams are fabricated with the same matrix resin system but six different microballoon volume fractions and three different size microballoons. The volume fractions of the microballoons in the syntactic foams are maintained at 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, and 0.6. The microballoons have the same mean outer radius of 40 μm, but different internal radii leading to a difference in their density. Analysis is carried out on the effect of microballoon volume fractions on the high strain rate properties for each type of syntactic foam. This approach is helpful in understanding the effect of microballoon reinforcement at different volume fractions on the dynamic compressive properties of syntactic foams. The results at high strain rates are compared to quasi-static strain rate compressive properties of the same material. The results show that there is a decrease in both compressive strength and modulus as the microballoon volume fraction increases for the same type of syntactic foam at all strain rates. However, at strain rates of quasi-static and 450/s, the decrease tends to be gradual across all volume fractions, while for strain rates of 800/s, there is a dramatic decrease from 10 to 20% followed by a gradual decline for most specimens. The fracture mode plays a major role in the dynamic behavior of syntactic foams.
KeywordsHigh Strain Rate Peak Stress Syntactic Foam Strain Rate Effect Glycidyl Ether
This work was supported by DOW Chemical Company, 3M, and National Science Foundation (Grant No. HRD-0734845).
- 1.Gibson LJ, Ashby MF (1997) Cellular solids, structures and properties. Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
- 2.Ashida K (1995) Handbook of plastic foams: types, properties, manufacture and applications. New JerseyGoogle Scholar
- 3.Karthikeyan CS, Kishor, Sankaran S (2001) J Reinf Plast Comp 20(11):982Google Scholar
- 7.Smiley LH (1986) Mater Eng 103:27Google Scholar
- 16.Progelhof RC. In Proceedings of Instrumented Impact Testing of Plastics and Composite Materials, Houston, March (ASTM), p 105Google Scholar
- 17.Sounik DF, Gansen P, Clemons JL et al (1997) J Mater Manuf 106(5):211Google Scholar
- 24.Cohen A, Yalvac S, Wetters DG (1992) In: 37th International SAMPE Symposium and Exhibition, Anaheim, CA, March 1992, (SAMPE), p 641Google Scholar
- 29.Kaiser MA, Wicks A, Wilson et al (1998) Thesis Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, p 1Google Scholar
- 35.Woldesenbet E, Peters S (2007) In: the Proceedings of the 22nd American Society for Composites Conference, Seattle, WashingtonGoogle Scholar