Microstructure
Cube specimens (\(20\times 20\times 20\) mm) with five different added porosity levels have been characterised by X-ray computed tomography. Three typical reconstructed images are shown in Fig. 4 with 12.9, 22.6 and 30.4 vol%, respectively. In particular, for the zero added porosity, the cube is not pore-free since 0.5 vol% porosity was measured. The micro-metre scale air bubbles contained in the zero-EPS porosity specimen and this could not be avoided after several attempts of varying the manufacture procedures.
The pores are quantified in terms of the equivalent radius, by converting the 3D volume to a sphere radius. Histogram distribution of the radii in four specimens are shown in Fig. 5. Two groups of pores can be clearly observed in the material. The first group consists of pores with a radius smaller than 0.5 mm, and these are considered to be air bubbles introduced during mixing or the curing process. The second group are the spherical expanded polystyrene beads added to the mixture with a radius ranging from 0.75 mm to 1.0 mm. For both group of pores, a log-normal function was found to best describe the size distribution - the fitting parameters for this relation between x (radius) and y (frequency) are listed in Table 1, where A is the area and w the standard deviation:
$$\begin{aligned} y=y_0 +\frac{A}{\sqrt{2\pi }wx}\cdot \frac{e^{\left( {-\ln \frac{x}{x_c }} \right) ^{2}}}{2w^{2}} \end{aligned}$$
(4)
Table 1 Fitting parameters for the log-normal distribution of the pores measured by tomography in the five specimens (Gyspum_1 to Gypsum_5)
Table 2 The total number and volume percentages of the air bubbles (AB) and added polystyrene beads (EPS)
The volume percentage of all the pores has been calculated from the tomography analysis to be 0.5, 12.9, 22.6, 30.4 and 30.0 vol%, respectively, for the five specimens tested (Table 2). The air bubbles (AB) usually have a radius less than 0.5 mm, Fig. 5a, as evident in the specimen with no added EPS. Radii of these air bubbles follow a log-normal distribution when no expanded polystyrene beads (EPS) are added to the mixture, Fig. 5. For specimens with added EPS, the number of the air bubbles and their volume have been calculated and listed in Table 2. The number of air bubbles is nearly constant for all specimens tested, except an increase in one specimen. However, regardless of the large number of air bubbles, their total volume accounts for less than 5% of the total porosity (Table 2). The EPS, on the other hand, form the main constituent of the total porosity, contributing more than 95% of pores in all the specimens measured. The modelling of the fracture characteristics of these materials focused mainly on the content of the added EPS.
The cubes (\(20\times 20\times 20\) mm) used for X-ray tomography analyses are cut from the cast cube (\(150\times 150\times 150\) mm) so the sides of the small cubes contain incomplete EPS pores. During the conversion from the 3D volume to the equivalent diameters for the measured pores, these incomplete EPS will show a smaller diameter compared to the intact EPS (Russ 2012). Therefore, it is possible that some of the small radius pores plotted in the histogram come from these ‘incomplete’ EPS. However, in Fig. 4 the range between the two main distributions are very low numbers, and this will not influence the calculation of the total porosity.
In addition to the 3D tomography characterisation, 2D pore areas have been calculated. Optical imaging of the surface was undertaken (Fig. 6) and the area ratio of the pores have been manually picked and calculated using DpxViewPro software. By summing all pore areas for each surface and calculating the total surface area, a 2D porosity value is calculated to be 14.0, 28.8, 34.5 and 37.7%, for the cubes extracted from large samples with a 3D volume porosities of 12.9, 22.6, 30.4 and 31.7% respectively.
Mechanical properties
For the four-point bend tests, two typical load-displacement curves are shown in Fig. 7a. When the porosity is below 22.5 vol%, specimens show a ‘brittle’ fracture; whereas for specimens with a higher porosity, \(\sim \)30 vol%, a post-peak progressive failure was observed. Therefore, porosity promotes quasi-brittle behaviour. There is usually a bedding-in stage in the load-displacement curve, therefore, as shown in Fig. 7a, the elastic modulus was calculated using the linear gradient after this initial stage where the error introduced by the roller-specimen contact was considered minimum. Post-test examination demonstrated that no obvious crushing was observed for all the specimens tested. Therefore, it was considered that the roller-specimen contact has little influence on the modulus determination. The flexural strength and elastic modulus of the material was plotted as a function of the porosity in Fig. 7b, c, respectively. In general, there is a decrease from \(\sim \)29 to \(\sim \)7.3 MPa in the flexural strength as the porosity increases from 0.5 to 30.0 vol.%; the elastic modulus showed a similar reduction from 14.7 to 6.2 GPa.
Examination of the tensile surface of the fractured specimens showed that the cracks follow a path linking the added pores, Fig. 7d. Some of the specimens were loaded until the macro-crack propagated through the whole cross-section. An image of these fractured surfaces is shown in Fig. 7e also demonstrates that the fracture path followed the added porosity across the complete cross-section of the specimen. Some of the EPS remained attached to one of the fractured sections and were pulled out from the other half. This indicates that the interface between the EPS and the matrix was weak. An image with a higher magnification extracted from one part of the fractured surface, Fig. 7e, showed that there are clusters of small air bubbles attached to the interfaces between some of the EPS and the gypsum plaster.
Modelling results
As stated previously, synthetic microstructures presented in Sect. 2.2.1 were sliced into \(4\times 4\times 30\) small cubes (480 in total), each with a size of \(5\times 5\times 5\) mm\(^{3}\). Each small cube consisted of \(20\times 20\times 20\) voxels, with a voxel size of 0.25 mm. As described in Sect. 2.2.2, these small cubes were then subjected to simulated uniaxial tensile testing. Depending on the porosity and pore size distribution within each small cube, the load displacement curve was determined. Clearly, these factors have an effect also on the uniaxial tensile strength of each small cube. Distributions of simulated uniaxial tensile strengths of small cubes for all simulated microstructures (i.e. porosity levels) are shown in Fig. 8.
As described above, outputs of small-scale simulations were used as input for full-scale simulations. Use of numerical simulation has an advantage compared to experiments: in simulations, “specimens” can be tested multiple times. In order to investigate the scatter in simulated results, each microstructure was tested four times by loading it in four different ways. This was achieved by rotating the beam specimens around their longitudinal axis. In Table 3, all simulation results are summarized. Figure 9 shows a deformed mesh resulting from a full-scale simulation. Simulated stress-displacement curves for different levels of porosity are shown in Fig. 10.
Table 3 Summary of all simulation results (E—elastic modulus; \(\hbox {f}_\mathrm{b}\)—bending strength)
Apart from changing the global mechanical properties, increasing porosity also changes the fracture path, with cracking becoming more distributed as the porosity increases, Fig. 11. As stated previously, brittle fracture is characterized by a single crack, while quasi-brittle behaviour shows more distributed microcracks accompanying the “main” crack. A transition from brittle to more quasi-brittle behaviour is seen as the porosity levels increase, Fig. 11a, e.
In Fig. 12, simulated results are compared with the experimental values for flexural strength and the elastic modulus. Similar to the experiments, flexural strength decreases exponentially with increasing porosity. On the other hand, elastic modulus shows a linear decrease. Furthermore, the calculated values are quite close to the experimental values, i.e. within the experimental scatter.