Crushable Foam Material Model
Theory and Physics
Mechanics of Foam Materials
Professor, how does the mechanics of foam materials differ from metals?
Foam materials (EPS, PU foam, metal foam) exhibit significant volume reduction under compression. Metals are incompressible plastic ($\Delta V = 0$), but foams are compressible plastic ($\Delta V \neq 0$). They absorb energy through buckling and crushing of cell walls.
Compressive Stress-Strain Curve
Typical compression curve for foam:
1. Elastic Region — Elastic deformation of cell walls
2. Plateau Region — Buckling/crushing of cell walls. Nearly constant stress with large deformation
3. Densification Region — Cell walls compact. Stress rises sharply
Modeling in FEM
Summary
Motivation Behind the Foam Model's Creation
The paper "Isotropic constitutive models for metallic foams" published by Deshpande & Fleck (University of Cambridge) in 2000 was developed to quantify the impact absorption of aluminum foam metals (Alporas, Cymat). Prior von Mises models could not represent the large deformation due to isotropic compression in foams at all, necessitating a new yield surface that allowed volumetric plastic strain. This paper became the theoretical foundation for the Abaqus "Crushable Foam" model.
Physical Meaning of Each Term
- Inertia Term (Mass Term): $\rho \ddot{u}$, i.e., "mass × acceleration". Have you ever experienced being thrown forward when slamming on the brakes? That "feeling of being carried away" is precisely the inertial force. Heavier objects are harder to set in motion and harder to stop once moving. Buildings shake during earthquakes because the ground moves suddenly while the building's mass "gets left behind". In static analysis, this term is set to zero, which assumes "forces are applied slowly enough that acceleration can be ignored". It absolutely cannot be omitted for impact loads or vibration problems.
- Stiffness Term (Elastic Restoring Force): $Ku$ or $\nabla \cdot \sigma$. When you stretch a spring, you feel a "force trying to return it", right? That's Hooke's law $F=kx$, the essence of the stiffness term. Now a question——an iron rod and a rubber band, which stretches more under the same force? Obviously the rubber. This "resistance to stretching" is the Young's modulus $E$, which determines stiffness. A common misconception: "High stiffness ≠ strong". Stiffness is "resistance to deformation", strength is "resistance to failure"—they are different concepts.
- External Force Term (Load Term): Body forces $f_b$ (gravity, etc.) and surface forces $f_s$ (pressure, contact forces, etc.). Think of it this way——the weight of a truck on a bridge is a "force acting on the entire volume" (body force), while the force of the tires pushing on the road surface is a "force acting only on the surface" (surface force). Wind pressure, water pressure, bolt tightening force... all are external forces. A common mistake here: getting the load direction wrong. Intending "tension" but ending up with "compression"—sounds like a joke, but it actually happens when coordinate systems are rotated in 3D space.
- Damping Term: Rayleigh damping $C\dot{u} = (\alpha M + \beta K)\dot{u}$. Try plucking a guitar string. Does the sound continue forever? No, it gradually fades away. That's because vibrational energy is converted to heat by air resistance and internal friction in the string. Car shock absorbers work on the same principle—they deliberately absorb vibrational energy to improve ride comfort. What if damping were zero? Buildings would continue swaying forever after an earthquake. Since that doesn't happen in reality, setting appropriate damping is crucial.
Assumptions and Applicability Limits
- Continuum Assumption: Treats material as a continuous medium, ignoring microscopic heterogeneity
- Small Deformation Assumption (for linear analysis): Deformation is sufficiently small compared to initial dimensions, and stress-strain relationship is linear
- Isotropic Material (unless otherwise specified): Material properties are independent of direction (anisotropic materials require separate tensor definitions)
- Quasi-Static Assumption (for static analysis): Ignores inertial and damping forces, considering only equilibrium between external and internal forces
- Non-Applicable Cases: For large deformation/large rotation problems, geometric nonlinearity is required. For plasticity, creep, and other nonlinear material behaviors, constitutive law extensions are needed
Dimensional Analysis and Unit Systems
| Variable | SI Unit | Notes / Conversion Memo |
|---|---|---|
| Displacement $u$ | m (meter) | When inputting in mm, ensure loads and elastic moduli are also unified in MPa/N system |
| Stress $\sigma$ | Pa (Pascal) = N/m² | MPa = 10⁶ Pa. Be careful of unit inconsistency when comparing with yield stress |
| Strain $\varepsilon$ | Dimensionless (m/m) | Note the distinction between engineering strain and logarithmic strain (for large deformations) |
| Elastic Modulus $E$ | Pa | Steel: ~210 GPa, Aluminum: ~70 GPa. Note temperature dependence |
| Density $\rho$ | kg/m³ | In mm system: tonne/mm³ (= 10⁻⁹ tonne/mm³ for steel) |
| Force $F$ | N (Newton) | Unify as N in mm system, N in m system |
Numerical Methods and Implementation
FEM Settings for Foam
```
*MAT_LOW_DENSITY_FOAM
$ Compressive stress-strain table
*DEFINE_CURVE
0., 0.
0.1, 0.5
0.5, 0.6
0.8, 5.0
```
Abaqus: *CRUSHABLE FOAM + table input.
Summary
Experimental Measurement Method for Stress Ratio Parameter k₀
The parameter k₀ (initial hydrostatic yield stress ratio) that determines the yield surface shape of Crushable Foam is determined from two types of experiments: uniaxial compression tests and hydrostatic compression tests. For Alporas (Sumitomo Electric's aluminum foam, density 0.25 g/cm³), Deshpande's own experiments report that from a uniaxial compressive yield stress ≈1.6 MPa and a hydrostatic yield ≈1.9 MPa, k₀≈1.19 is obtained. In practice, it is customary to first try k₀=1.1~1.3 when k₀ is unknown.
Linear Elements (1st Order Elements)
Linear interpolation between nodes. Low computational cost but lower stress accuracy. Beware of shear locking (mitigated by reduced integration or B-bar method).
Quadratic Elements (with Mid-Side Nodes)
Can represent curved deformation. Stress accuracy improves significantly, but degrees of freedom increase by about 2-3 times. Recommended: when stress evaluation is critical.
Full Integration vs Reduced Integration
Full Integration: Risk of over-constraint (locking). Reduced Integration: Risk of hourglass modes (zero-energy modes). Choose appropriately for the situation.
Adaptive Mesh
Automatic refinement based on error indicators (e.g., ZZ estimator). Efficiently improves accuracy in stress concentration areas. Includes h-method (element subdivision) and p-method (order increase).
Newton-Raphson Method
Standard method for nonlinear analysis. Updates tangent stiffness matrix each iteration. Exhibits quadratic convergence within convergence radius, but high computational cost.
Modified Newton-Raphson Method
Updates tangent stiffness matrix using initial value or every few iterations. Lower cost per iteration, but convergence is linear.
Convergence Criteria
Force residual norm: $||R|| / ||F_{ext}|| < \epsilon$ (typically $\epsilon = 10^{-3}$ to $10^{-6}$). Displacement increment norm: $||\Delta u|| / ||u|| < \epsilon$. Energy norm: $\Delta u \cdot R < \epsilon$
Load Increment Method
Instead of applying full load at once, applies in small increments. The arc-length method (Riks method) can trace beyond extremum points in the load-displacement relationship.
Analogy: Direct Method vs Iterative Method
The direct method is like "solving simultaneous equations accurately with pen and paper"—reliable but takes too long for large-scale problems. The iterative method is like "repeatedly guessing to approach the correct answer"—starts with a rough answer but improves accuracy with each iteration. It's the same principle as looking up a word in a dictionary: opening to an estimated page and adjusting forward/backward (iterative) is more efficient than searching sequentially from the first page (direct).
Relationship Between Mesh Order and Accuracy
1st order elements are like "approximating a curve with a ruler"—represented by straight line segments, so accuracy is limited. 2nd order elements are like a "flexible curve"—can represent curved changes, dramatically improving accuracy even at the same mesh density. However, computational cost per element increases, so judgment should be based on total cost-effectiveness.
Practical Guide
Foam in Practice
Packaging (cushioning for electronic devices), automotive bumper foam, EPS liners for helmets.
Practical Checklist
Automotive Seat Cushion Impact Absorption
Polypropylene (PP) foam (density 30-60 kg/m³) is used in occupant protection components like headrests and knee pads. Since the 2010s, Toyota, Honda, and Volkswagen have utilized Abaqus's Crushable Foam model for virtual testing to comply with FMVSS201U (passenger car interior impact standards). Manufacturers report that by inputting only the compression-densification curve (stress ~100% strain) of resin foam, impact acceleration-time histories can be reproduced within ±10%.
Analogy for Analysis Flow
The analysis flow is actually very similar to cooking. First, buy ingredients (prepare CAD model), do prep work (mesh generation), apply heat (solver execution), and finally plate it (post-processing visualization). Here's an important question——which step in cooking is most prone to failure? Actually, it's the "prep work". If mesh quality is poor, results will be a mess no matter how good the solver is.
Pitfalls Beginners Often Fall Into
Are you checking mesh convergence? Do you think "calculation ran = results are correct"? This is actually the most common trap for CAE beginners. The solver will always return "some answer" for the given mesh. But if the mesh is too coarse, that answer can be far from reality. Confirm that results stabilize across at least three mesh densities—neglecting this leads to the dangerous assumption that "the computer gave the answer, so it must be correct".
Thinking About Boundary Conditions
Setting boundary conditions is like "writing the problem statement" for an exam. If the problem statement is wrong? No matter how accurately you calculate, the answer will be wrong. "Is this surface truly fully fixed?" "Is this load truly uniformly distributed?"—Correctly modeling real-world constraint conditions is often the most critical step in the entire analysis.
Software Comparison
Tools for Foam
Differences in Foam Implementation Between LS-DYNA and Abaqus
LS-DYNA's representative foam model is MAT_LOW_DENSITY_FOAM (#57), a semi-physical model where strain-rate dependent loading-unloading curves can be input directly. On the other hand, Abaqus's Crushable Foam is based on mathematical formulation of the yield surface, requiring inverse analysis to identify parameters like k₀ and α from experimental curves. In practice, there is industry consensus on usage: LS-DYNA MAT57 for high-speed phenomena like drop impact or explosion, and Abaqus CDP series for creep deformation or long-term fatigue.
Three Most Important Questions for Selection
- "What are you solving?": Does the required physical model/element type for the crushable foam material model have support? For example, presence of LES support for fluids, or contact/large deformation capability for structures can make a difference.
- "Who will use it?": Tools with rich GUI for beginner teams, flexible script-driven tools for experienced users. Similar to the difference between automatic (GUI) and manual (script) transmission cars.
- "How far will it expand?": Selection considering future expansion of analysis scale (HPC support), deployment to other departments, and integration with other tools leads to long-term cost reduction.
Advanced Technology
Advanced Foam Topics
Related Topics
なった
詳しく
報告