Effects of Parameter Changes on the Structure and
Properties of Low-Density Polyethylene Foam
Z. Zakaria,1 Z.M. Ariff,1 C.S. Sipaut2
1
School of Materials and Mineral Resources Engineering, Engineering Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia,
14300 Nibong Tebal, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
2
School of Chemical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
Several parameters, such as crosslinking agent con-
centration, blowing agent concentration, and tempera-
ture, were varied to evaluate their effects on the struc-
ture and mechanical properties of low-density polyeth-
ylene (LDPE) foams. Dicumyl peroxide (DCP) was used
as crosslinking agent, while azodicarbonamide (ADC)
was utilized as the blowing agent at different levels.
The formulations were prepared by using a thermo-
statically controlled heated two-roll mill and foamed by
using a compression molding technique via a single-
stage foaming process at three foaming temperatures
(165, 175, and 1858C). The resultant LDPE foams were
characterized and found to have a closed cell struc-
ture. The density and gel content increased proportion-
ally with crosslinking level, whereas density decreased
when ADC level and foaming temperature were
increased. Another characteristic evaluated was the
foam cell size decreased when the crosslinking level
and foaming temperature were increased. In contrast,
increasing the ADC concentration only gave a maxi-
mum cell size increase up to 6 phr that decreased
when 8 phr of ADC was used. Results also indicated
that compression stress increased proportionally with
DCP level and decreased when ADC concentration and
foaming temperature were increased. Impact studies
on the prepared foams showed that their ability to
absorb impact energy decreased with increasing
crosslinking level, foaming temperature, and blowing
agent concentration. J. VINYL ADDIT. TECHNOL., 15:120–
128, 2009. ª 2009 Society of Plastics Engineers
INTRODUCTION
Polyethylene (PE) foam is one of several polymeric
foams that have been extensively used in many applica-
tions, such as construction, sport and leisure, automotive,
Contract grant sponsor: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation,
Malaysia, and Universiti Sains Malaysia; contract grant number: 03-01-
05-SF0096.
Correspondence to: Zulkifli Ariff; e-mail: zulariff@eng.usm.my
DOI 10.1002/vnl.20177
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
Ó 2009 Society of Plastics Engineers
JOURNAL OF VINYL & ADDITIVE TECHNOLOGY—
—2009
agriculture, and packaging [1, 2]. Most of the PE foams
have a closed-cell structure and do not have sufficient melt
viscosity and elasticity above the melting point to experi-
ence large deformation during expansion [3]. Therefore, to
achieve suitable melt strength and foamability, a crosslink-
ing agent is used to tailor the melt viscosity and elasticity
to a desired level. This approach will contribute to a uni-
form cellular structure during expansion, good final proper-
ties, and an increased life cycle for polymer foams. Apart
from this, crosslinking agents are also used to stabilize bub-
ble formation during expansion and to enhance the
resistance of the cellular product to thermal collapse. They
are also widely used in the modification of PE [4, 5]. The
modification of PE molecular architecture through cross-
linking generally can be achieved either by chemical means
(i.e., by using an organic peroxide such as dicumyl perox-
ide (DCP), a multifunctional azide, or an organofunctional
silane) or by radiation [6–8]. From these techniques, the
peroxide crosslinking method was chosen in this study
because of its economic factor. Generally, the peroxide is
selected on the basis of its decomposition temperature rela-
tive to the melting point of the polymer, its rate of decom-
position, and its crosslinking efficiency [7]. Liu et al. [4]
reported that DCP should be processed at a temperature as
low as possible to reduce the possibility of its decomposi-
tion by its long half-life time at this temperature. The selec-
tion of foaming temperature could have a large impact on
matrix viscosity, and it also depends on the type of blowing
agent that is used. In this study, azodicarbonamide (ADC)
was chosen as the blowing agent, since it had proven to be
suitable for PE foaming because of its high decomposition
temperature. This factor would prevent it from decompos-
ing and initiating foaming during the compounding proce-
dure. In melt compounding, all of these compounding addi-
tives are normally incorporated into the polymer matrix
through the utilization of an inert carrier, to improve disper-
sion and facilitate handling during this process.
In most of the previous research on PE foams, the
researchers concentrated only on the characterization or test-
ing of foams, while their samples were obtained com-
mercially from established industries [9–11]. Bearing this
scenario in mind, this work presents a study that includes
the in-house production of tailored PE foams through the
manipulation of processing parameters (foaming tempera-
ture) and expandable polymer compound formulation (cross-
linking agent and blowing agent), as well as the response of
the foams toward mechanical and impact deformation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Ingredients and Formulations
PE with a grade of low-density polyethylene (LDPE)
PETLINTM LD (melt index 5 g/10 min, density 0.921 g/
cm3), manufactured by PETLIN (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., was
used as the base matrix. DCP manufactured by Bayer was
used as a crosslinking agent, while ADC was used as a
chemical blowing agent. This blowing agent was supplied
by Sin Rubtech Consultancy Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia. In this
study, zinc oxide was used in combination with ADC to
reduce the decomposition temperature of the blowing agent.
All formulations were prepared relative to 100 parts by
weight of the LDPE resin (phr) and are tabulated in Table 1.
Compounding
Compounding was carried out by melt-mixing all the
ingredients with a thermostatically controlled heated two-
roll mill. To facilitate mixing, the roller temperatures
were initially set just 58C above the melting point of the
base polymer. The melting temperature for the LDPE
used in this study is
1408C. The granules of polymer
were loaded and banded by adjusting the nip gap to give
a rolling band. Zinc oxide was then added and followed
by the blowing agent, which was added gradually with
continuous cutting and folding to ensure an intimate mix.
Finally, the crosslinking agent was added to the formula-
tion to impart crosslinking to the foam. The maximum
time allowed after this step was 3 min, with continuous
cutting and folding to ensure homogeneous mixing and
prevent premature crosslinking prior to molding. The for-
mulation was then removed from the mill and stored for
24 h at room temperature before the foaming process.
Foaming Process
Foamed PE was prepared by compression molding
(Gotech Testing Machine GT-7041-A30C) via a single-
TABLE 1. Formulations.
Base polymer DCP (phr) ADC (phr) Zinc oxide (phr)
0.5
1.0 4 4
LDPE 1.5
4
1.0 6 4
8
DOI 10.1002/vnl
stage foaming process at three different temperatures (165,
175, and 1858C). A polymer compound with a mass varia-
tion of 65% was used to fill the preheated mold, which
was then placed on the hot press platen and subjected to
1400 kPa of pressure for 20 min. Pressure was then
released to allow immediate expansion of the PE foam
Physical Properties
Density. Density was measured by using the Archi-
medes principle, which is based on water displacement.
The water does not penetrate the sample, since the sample
has a closed-cell structure. When the sample is submerged
in water, an equivalent volume of water is displaced that
is believed to be equal to the volume of the sample. The
weight of this volume of water can be measured and then
used to determine the specific gravity (SG) of the sample
according to the following equation,
W1
SG ¼ (1)
W2  ðW3  W1 Þ
where W1 is the weight of the foamed or unfoamed sam-
ple, W2 is the weight of the pycnometer bottle filled with
water, and W3 is the weight of the pycnometer bottle and
water containing the foamable and unfoamed matrix sam-
ple totally immersed in water (i.e., after water displace-
ment). This method was applied to both foamed and
unfoamed samples. The relative density of the foam was
then measured by using Eq. 2 in accordance with ASTM
D3575, as follows,
qf
q ¼ (2)
qs
where q* is the relative density of the foam, qf is PE
foam density, and qs is PE matrix density.
Gel Content. The level of crosslinking was assessed by
gel content measurement. Gel content of the matrix was
measured by heating foam samples contained in steel
cages under reflux in p-xylene for 6 h with a Soxhlet
apparatus. The samples were then removed from the
reflux flask and left at ambient temperature for 24 h. A
vacuum oven was used to remove the residual solvent,
and the mass of the dried insoluble fraction, also known
as gel, was then calculated from the equation
W3  W1
Gel contentð%Þ ¼ 3 100 (3)
W2  W1
where W1 is the weight of the steel cage; W2 is the weight
of the steel cage and sample before reflux; and W3 is the
weight of the steel cage and sample after reflux and dry-
ing. The mean of five determinations was used to obtain
accurate results.
Cell Structure. Cell structure was observed by using
scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and image analysis
JOURNAL OF VINYL & ADDITIVE TECHNOLOGY—
—2009 121

FIG. 1. Effects of DCP concentration on gel content and relative den-
sity of foam.
was assisted by Image Pro-Plus Software, which enabled
cell diameter and cell wall thickness to be measured. The
cell diameter was taken from 30 readings, whereas cell wall
thickness was obtained from 50 readings to ensure a better
representation of the overall foam cell characteristics.
Mechanical Properties
Compression Load-Deflection Test. Samples were pre-
pared by cutting the foam into 50 3 50 3 20 mm3
dimensions. Four samples were tested for each specimen
by using an Instron universal testing machine. A cross-
head speed of 25 mm/min was used according to ASTM
D3575. Samples were deflected to a maximum strain to
produce compression strains of up to 80% between two
parallel flat plates.
Impact Energy Absorption. Impact energy absorption
was measured with a customized instrumented falling
weight impact tester. The striker had a hemispherical
headstock that was 51 mm in diameter, which is in
accordance with ASTM D1707 (headstock used in Dart
Drop Impact for film). Samples used for this test were cut
into dimensions of 50 3 50 3 20 mm3. All impact tests
were carried out in the direction of foam rise and con-
ducted by using a weight of 1652 g and a drop height of
940 mm. Data acquisitions for the experiments were car-
ried out through a 12-bit PC acquisition data card and
specifically designed software. The data were used to
measure the velocity, kinetic energy, toughness, and
energy absorbed, as given by the equations
x
v¼
t
1
Ek ¼ mv2
2
Eabs ¼ Ek  Etrans
where v, x, t, m, Ek, Eabs, and Etrans represent the velocity,
distance (obtained from predetermined locations on the
122 JOURNAL OF VINYL & ADDITIVE TECHNOLOGY—
—2009
impact tester), time, mass, kinetic energy, absorbed energy,
and energy recorded by the transducer, respectively.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 1 shows the effects of DCP concentration on the
relative density and gel content of foam produced at 1758C
when blowing agent concentration and foaming tempera-
ture were fixed. It can be seen that the relative density and
gel content increased proportionally when DCP concentra-
tion increased from 0.5 to 1.5 phr, and this observation is
in agreement with the findings by Sipaut [8] in his study of
polyolefin foams. As DCP concentration was increased, the
degree of cure also increased, thus increasing the melt vis-
cosity. This characteristic will eventually restrict the
expansion of polymer foams. A higher restriction towards
expansion will result in a higher volume fraction of the
solid phase than of the gas phase and subsequently increase
the relative density. However, the growth of foam cells is
not significantly obstructed if DCP concentration is rela-
tively low (0.5 phr), and this situation gave more freedom
of expansion thus producing low-density foams. Gel con-
tent is the most important parameter that can be used
to measure the crosslinking level of the formulation.
Mahapatro et al. [12] reported that gel content is dependent
only on the crosslinking agent concentration and thus is
independent of the processing conditions and the blowing
agent concentration. However, Manley and Qayyum [13]
reported a rather complementary statement, which deduced
that the degree of crosslinking is not only affected by the
amount of peroxide but also by the base polymer and the
processing conditions. Although these statements carry
slightly different views, they both support the finding of
this study that percentage of gel and relative density
increase with the increment of DCP concentration owing to
the higher degree of cure that is present at higher concen-
trations of DCP.
Figure 2 shows the effect of increasing blowing agent
concentration on the relative density while maintaining the
DCP concentration, at a foaming temperature of 1758C.
The greater the amount of blowing agent, the greater the
(4)
(5)
(6)
FIG. 2. Effect of ADC concentration on relative density of foam.
DOI 10.1002/vnl
 linking in the formulation allows the cell to grow more
easily and thus results in larger cells, as shown in Fig. 4a.
The distribution of the cell structure at 1.5 phr of DCP
(Fig. 4c) was more uniform than that at 0.5 (Fig. 4a) and
1.0 phr (Fig. 4b) because of a higher degree of cure. This
result indicates that a more stable foaming system exists
at a relatively high DCP concentration.
It is also suggested that the presence of crosslinking at
PE branching points leads to smaller and more uniform

FIG. 3. Effect of foaming temperature on relative density (at 1.0 phr of

DCP and 6 phr of ADC).

available gas volume, a situation that results in decreased

foam density [14]. Higher ADC concentration will signifi-
cantly shorten the foam growth time. The shorter growth
time allows less time for gas to escape through the foam
surface, thus making the expansion to increase. Therefore,
the final density decreases as the ADC increases, as shown
in Fig. 2. At 8 phr of blowing agent, relative density is
lower because more gas is generated in the formulation.
The foaming temperature is an important parameter
that would affect the final structure and subsequently
affects the foam properties. It was suggested that the tem-
perature should give a sufficiently low viscosity of the
melt to allow cell formation and expansion as well as a
sufficiently high viscosity of the melt to prevent cell col-
lapse. In this study, three foaming temperatures were used
to investigate the final properties of several formulated
PE foams. Figure 3 shows the effect of foaming tempera-
ture on the relative density of the LDPE foam. The results
indicate that relative density decreased with increasing
temperature. This dependence was due to lower viscosity
of the polymer matrix that simultaneously gave expansion
and a high curing rate, as shown in Fig. 3.

Morphology and Structure

Morphology is an important criterion that is used to
vindicate the value of relative density. Figure 4a–4c
shows the effect of DCP concentration on the cell mor-
phology of LDPE foam at a foaming temperature of
1758C. It can be observed that a concentration of DCP as
small as 0.5 phr could significantly affect the cell size of
the LDPE foam, and it was shown that the cell size
decreases with increasing DCP concentration. The pres-
ence of more crosslinking (at higher DCP concentration)
will restrict and obstruct cell growth and thus result in the
formation of smaller cells, as shown in Fig. 4c. In addi-
tion, decomposition gas from the blowing agent can be
projected to be insufficient to expand the cell wall as a
result of a high degree of crosslinking. However, when a FIG. 4. SEM micrograph at 340 magnification of LDPE foam obtained
low amount of DCP is used, the lower level of the cross- from (a) 0.5 phr of DCP, (b) 1.0 phr of DCP, and (c) 1.5 phr of DCP.

DOI 10.1002/vnl JOURNAL OF VINYL & ADDITIVE TECHNOLOGY—

—2009 123
 with fewer large cells rather than several smaller cells [16].
As expected, the dimensions of the cells in the foam were
a strong function of the blowing agent concentration.
Increasing this concentration had a large effect on cell size
and cell wall thickness.
Figure 7 shows the variation of the cell size and cell
wall thickness with ADC concentration. When the concen-
tration of ADC is increased, more gas is generated, and the
cell size becomes larger because of the gas pressure. Con-

FIG. 5. Effect of DCP concentration on cell size and cell wall thick-
ness.

cells. This statement is supported by Khunniteekool et al.

[14] who reported that gel content increases with increasing
chain branching in PE. Park [15] reported that excessive
crosslinking will restrict foam expansion, whereas insuffi-
cient crosslinking will result in bubble rupture. He also
found that higher bubble initiation pressure is required for
the more highly crosslinked material, an observation that
explains why the cell size of crosslinked PE foams decreases
as the degree of cure increases. From this result, what can
be said is that an overall bimodal cell structures distribution
exists at all levels of crosslinking, and this conclusion was
supported by the presence of a few larger cells among many
smaller cells. The distribution of these cells becomes nar-
rower when the DCP concentration is increased and would
have a major influence on the mechanical properties.
Figure 5 shows an inverse relationship between cell
size and cell wall thickness of LDPE foam when the DCP
concentration is varied. It has been discussed earlier that
the cell size decreases with increases in DCP concentra-
tion that concurrently increase the cell wall thickness.
This result is due to a high degree of crosslinking that
subsequently results in a high melt viscosity which
restricts the expansion of the polymer matrix, thus giving
a thicker cell wall. In contrast, a low degree of crosslink-
ing will contribute to low melt viscosity and subsequently
allow progressive cell growth. In addition, the gases
inside the cells will try to expand each wall outward and
consequently produce thinner cell walls.
Figure 6a–6c shows the dependence of the cell morphol-
ogy of LDPE foams on ADC concentration. As the concen-
tration of ADC increases, the degree of foaming increases.
In this case, the number of gas bubbles increases with ini-
tial nucleation. Therefore, the final cell size for foams with
8 phr of ADC is more uniform. At 4 phr of ADC (Fig. 6a),
the distribution of small cells is higher than that of larger
cells and the cell size increases with an increase in the con-
centration of ADC up to 6 phr (Fig. 6b). A small amount of
ADC is able to influence the cell morphology and, there-
fore, could be affecting the mechanical properties of the FIG. 6. SEM micrograph at 340 magnification of LDPE foam obtained
foam. For a given volume, the system will be more stable from (a) 4 phr of ADC, (b) 6 phr of ADC, and (c) 8 phr of ADC.

124 JOURNAL OF VINYL & ADDITIVE TECHNOLOGY—

—2009 DOI 10.1002/vnl
 cosity, significantly higher diffusivity, and rapid cell
growth that cause the cell wall to become thinner. In addi-
tion, the smaller cells of the foam produced at 1858C were
due to the high crosslinking rate that restricted free expan-
sion. At the same time, foam produced at this temperature
had a more uniform cell distribution. Zhang et al. [16]
explained that at high foaming temperature, the cells are
smaller because of the limited gas solubility in the poly-

FIG. 7. Effects of ADC concentration on cell size and cell wall thick-
ness.

sequently, the cell walls become thinner and this change

will affect the mechanical properties. Even though the cell
size at 6 phr of ADC is larger than that at 8 phr, it can be
clearly seen from Fig. 6b that at 6 phr there are more num-
ber of small cells than large cells. The cells at 8 phr of
ADC exhibit a uniform size compared to those at 4 and
6 phr, which is indicated by their small standard deviation
shown in Fig. 7. However, the cell wall thickness decreases
with increasing ADC concentration. As noted earlier, a
small amount of ADC affects the cell wall thickness signif-
icantly and therefore influences the mechanical properties.
Figure 8a–8c shows the micrographs of LDPE foam
made at three foaming temperatures (165, 175, and 1858C).
The micrographs show that the cell size slightly decreased
when the foaming temperature was increased. Upon
increasing the foaming temperature, the viscosity of the
polymer melt becomes lower and subsequently causes a
higher crosslinking rate. At a low foaming temperature,
when one cell becomes bigger, the neighboring cells are
unable to expand freely owing to high viscosity, and there-
fore the kind of cell morphology, shown in Fig. 8a, is
observed. Ariff [17] reported similarly that cells are diffi-
cult to expand when viscosity is high. However, the num-
ber of small cells starts to deplete, as shown in Fig. 8b and
8c, because the blowing agent has a higher expansion capa-
bility when the foaming temperature is increased. There-
fore, the cells grow similarly and are seen to be uniform in
distribution because of the simultaneous expansion and
high crosslinking rate (Fig. 8c). Naguib [18] also reported
that when the polymer viscosity decreases via a tempera-
ture increase, the rate of cell growth increases because of
the decrease in resistance against it.
Figure 9 shows the effect of foaming temperature on
cell size and cell wall thickness. Cell size of the foam made
at 1658C is slightly higher than that made at 175 and
1858C, and the cell wall thickness also is slightly increased
at this temperature, as is clearly seen from the figure.
Fewer bubbles were detected at the low foaming tempera-
ture. Even though the cell size is lower at 1858C, the cell FIG. 8. SEM micrograph at 340 magnification of LDPE foam obtained
wall thickness obtained at this temperature is lower than at three foaming temperatures (a) 1658C (b) 1758C and (c) 1858C (at 1.0
that at 1658C. This difference is due to the reduction in vis- phr of DCP and 6 phr of ADC).

DOI 10.1002/vnl JOURNAL OF VINYL & ADDITIVE TECHNOLOGY—

—2009 125

FIG. 9. Effects of foaming temperature on cell size and cell wall thick-
ness (at 1.0 phr of DCP and 6 phr of ADC).
mer. It can be seen in Fig. 9 that cell size at 1858C is
slightly smaller than that at 165 and 1758C.
Compression Load-Deflection Test
Figure 10 presents a comparison of the compressive
stress–strain curves of foams made at different DCP con-
centrations. As the DCP concentration increased, signifi-
cant changes were seen in the stress–strain curve. When
the level of peroxide increased, the initial slope (i.e., the
elastic modulus (below 10%)) increased, and the stress
increase was proportional to the strain. At this point, the
cell wall was starting to be stretched as the force was
applied, and this situation was reported by Iannace et al.
[19] where closed-cell foams such as those in LDPE are
more complex, and the plastic collapse may be affected
by cell wall stretching. Low stress is required to compress
the low-relative density material compared with a high-
relative density foam at constant load. This difference is
due to the high tendency of the former material to
undergo cell bending and buckling at low compressive
stress. Therefore, when the cells have almost completely
collapsed and the opposing cell walls eventually touch
each other, a further compression load will give a final
region of drastic increase in stress.
FIG. 10. Effect of DCP concentration on stress–strain characteristics.
126 JOURNAL OF VINYL & ADDITIVE TECHNOLOGY—
—2009
Increase in degree of cure will increase the stiffness of
the matrix and allow the foam to experience higher stress.
However, this kind of foam will have difficulty in experi-
encing collapses by cell wall bending because of the
thicker cell walls Therefore, it will produce stronger cells
and high stress at all compressive strains It can be clearly
seen that the foam with 0.5 phr of DCP showed a long
plateau regime that indicates a high capability to absorb
energy. This regime is attributed to compression of air
because more gases are trapped in the foam, thus stretch-
ing the cell faces [20]. Iannace et al. [19] and Landro
et al. [21] reported that the long plateau allows a large
energy absorption at nearly constant load, whereas less
energy is absorbed in the short linear elastic regime.
Figure 11 shows that the compression stress decreased
with increasing blowing agent concentration (i.e., with
decreasing relative density). It also shows that foam pro-
duced with 8 phr of ADC had a longer stress plateau than
those produced with 4 and 6 phr of ADC because of the
higher extent of air compression. Bear in mind that the
low-relative density (8 phr of ADC) foam had larger dis-
tributed cells and thinner cell walls than high-density
foam. Therefore, this kind of foam tends to buckle easily
at low compressive stress. Subhash et al. [22] reported
that low-density foam with a large cell size has the poten-
tial to fail prematurely with a sudden collapse through
cell wall bending and will exhibit low ductility. On the
other hand, high-density foams have small distributed
cells, and therefore the specimen continues to accumulate
strain uniformly and resist loads for a longer duration.
Figure 12 shows that the compressive stress of foam
produced at low temperature (1658C) is higher than that
of foams produced at high temperatures (175 and 1858C).
It was projected that the compression modulus of this
foam would be higher owing to thicker cell walls that
would be able to prevent cell bending more effectively.
However, the modulus tended to decrease with increasing
temperature. This decrease resulted from thinning of the
cell walls that promoted more cell bending and collapse
as deformation progressed. Overall, the results show that
the foaming temperature did not have a significant impact
FIG. 11. Effect of ADC concentration on stress–strain characteristics.
DOI 10.1002/vnl

FIG. 12. Effect of foaming temperature on stress–strain characteristics.
on compression stress, as is indicated by the similarity of
the curves obtained at all of the foaming temperatures.
Energy Absorption
Polymer foams are widely applied as mechanical energy
absorbers, because they can be subjected to enormous
impact energy or force without generating high stress.
They are extensively used in energy absorption applica-
tions such as automotive crash safety systems, in sports
and leisure for body protection, and in packaging. To study
the energy absorbed by the polymer foams, impact testing
was carried out by using a customized instrumented fall-
ing-weight impact tester. Figure 13 shows the effect of
DCP concentration on impact properties. Results showed
that the energy absorbed decreased with an increase in the
degree of cure. Energy absorbed was obtained through fall-
ing weight at a velocity in the range of 5 m/s and above.
The energy absorbed was calculated using Eq. 6.
From Fig. 13 it was observed that foams with different
relative densities will have different energy absorption
capabilities such that the percentage of energy absorbed
increases with a decrease in the degree of cure. Low-den-
sity foamed PE has a larger cell size (i.e., a thinner cell
wall) with much air inside. Therefore, this thinner cell
wall can transfer more energy via cell edges to neighbor-
ing cell edges, a process that triggers a distributed cooper-
ation in absorbing energy [21]. In addition, this energy
transfer is supported by compression of air within the cell.
The mechanism of strut buckling or cell wall bending
during impact also contributes to high energy absorption.
Harte et al. [23] reported that the best choice of foam is
the one which has the longest plateau (i.e., in the com-
pression test) and therefore absorbs the most energy, a
conclusion also supported by Thomas et al. [24].
The mechanism of energy absorption in flexible foams
can be divided into two parts, which are plastic bending
at the edges and plastic stretching. LDPE foams can be
considered as flexible foams that have thinner cell walls
and are able to experience larger deformation through
bending and buckling of the cell walls and edges, a situa-
DOI 10.1002/vnl
tion valid for low stress [25]. The energy absorbed would
be dominated by plastic bending at the edges when thin-
ner cell walls exist. In this study, a low stress was applied
to the sample compared to that used by the other
researchers [10, 22, 26], so it was expected that deforma-
tion of the foam cells would by dominated by cell wall
bending and buckling. In addition, because the produced
foam had a closed-cell structure, gas compression could
take place, thereby providing pneumatic cushioning as an
additional energy absorption mechanism [27]. The easiest
way to describe this phenomenon is by using an analogy
of punching flexible and rigid foamed materials, where
less injury is anticipated when punching the flexible foam
because of its high capability for absorbing energy com-
pared to that of rigid foams. The flexible foams are able
to absorb most of the impact energy, minimizing the load
transmitted to the body [21], and add more crushing
effect. There is no gas diffusion during this kind of
impact. Consequently, the gas inside the cells plays an
important role in the recovery of LDPE foams after
impact testing. For such applications, substantial reduc-
tions in density and material cost are possible without
sacrificing the performance under impact loads [26].
However, the results exhibit a different trend when
varying the ADC concentration (DCP concentration was
fixed), as in Fig. 13. The results show that the energy
absorbed decreased with increasing ADC concentration
(i.e., decreasing relative density). In this case, the energy
absorbed suddenly increased slightly at 8 phr of ADC. At
4 phr of ADC, more energy was absorbed because 4 phr
gave a thicker cell wall. Barlow et al. [28] reported that the
effective resistance to collapse of the thinner cell wall is
less than that of the thicker cell wall. Therefore, the thicker
cell wall would give high energy absorption. However,
foam with 6 phr of ADC showed a lower energy absorp-
tion, and to explain this occurrence, it is proposed that the
energy absorbed was consumed by cell wall bending and
collapse of the thinner cell wall that existed in this foam.
As for the effect of foaming temperature, results in
Fig. 13 show that the energy absorbed decreased with an
FIG. 13. Effects of DCP concentration, ADC concentration, and foam-
ing temperature on energy absorbed.
JOURNAL OF VINYL & ADDITIVE TECHNOLOGY—
—2009 127
increase in this temperature. This effect occurred because
larger cells were produced at low foaming temperature,
and they contained a higher amount of gas. The nature of
this gas could influence the value of the energy absorbed
when the compression of gas within the cell could signifi-
cantly resist the applied load. The mechanism of strut
buckling or cell wall bending during the impact testing
can also contribute to higher energy absorption. This
effect can be observed at low foaming temperature, where
the thicker strut or thicker cell walls are produced, and
the effect of these features on energy absorption has been
discussed previously As noted earlier, because the pro-
duced foams had a closed-cell structure, gas compression
could provide pneumatic cushioning as an additional
energy absorption mechanism [27]. Even though the flexi-
ble foam could absorb more impact energy, sometimes
the cell-size factor also need to be considered, and in this
case, the small cell size with a thinner cell wall that was
produced at high foaming temperature was not able to
support the applied load.
CONCLUSIONS
It can be concluded that an increase in crosslinking
agent concentration produced a higher degree of cure that
resulted in higher resistance to foam expansion, and that
this effect contributed to a high relative density that was
indicated by the formation of smaller cells with a thicker
cell wall. It was also observed that gel content (i.e., degree
of cure) increased with increasing amount of crosslinking
agent and that this factor resulted in higher compression
stress at all strains. In a contrasting trend, increasing the
degree of cure caused a reduction in energy absorption.
Furthermore, when blowing agent concentration and foam-
ing temperature were increased, they contributed to a
decrease in relative density that resulted in lower compres-
sion stress. The energy absorption decreased as foaming
temperature was increased but slightly increased at a high
concentration of blowing agent.
REFERENCES
1. D. Eaves, Polymer Foams Trends in Use and Technology,
Rapra Technology Ltd, Shawbury, UK (2001).
2. M.A. Rodrı́guez-Pérez, Adv. Polym. Sci., 184, 97 (2005).
3. C.J. Benning, J. Cell. Plast., 3, 62 (1967).
4. M. Liu, W. Yu, C. Zhou, and J. Yin, Polymer, 46, 7605
(2005).
128 JOURNAL OF VINYL & ADDITIVE TECHNOLOGY—
—2009
5. S. Anbarasan, O. Babot, and B. Maillard, J. Appl. Polym.
Sci., 93, 75 (2004).
6. P. Kurian, K.E. George, and D.J. Francis, J. Elastomers
Plast., 25, 12 (1993).
7. C.P. Park, ‘‘Polyolefin Foam,’’ in Handbook of Polymeric
Foams and Foam Technology, D. Klempner and K.C.
Frisch, Eds., Hanser, Munich, Chapter 9, 187–242 (1991)
8. C.S. Sipaut, Crosslinking Level Assessments in Polyolefin
System, Bulletin Kimia USM, 4, 7–8 (2005).
9. J.A. Medding and B.J. Love, Polym. Eng. Sci., 36, 1286 (1996).
10. J.I. Velasco, A.B. Martinez, D. Arencon, M.A. Rodrı́guez-
Pérez, and J.A. De Saja, J. Mater Sci., 34, 431 (1999).
11. R.P. Juntunen, V. Kumar, and J.E. Weller, J. Vinyl Addit.
Technol., 6, 93 (2000).
12. A. Mahapatro, N.J. Mills, and G.L.A. Sims, Cell Polym., 17,
252 (1998).
13. T.R. Manley and M.M. Qayyum, Polym., 12, 176 (1971).
14. C. Khunniteekool, G.L.A. Sims, and E.F.T. White, Cell
Microcell. Mater., 53, 53 (1994).
15. C.P. Park, ‘‘Characterization of Cross-Linked Polyethylene
for Foam Expansion Using a Bubble Machine,’’ in
ANTEC’97 Dow Deutschland Inc., 2000–2002 (1997).
16. Y. Zhang, D. Rodrigue, and A.A. Kadi, J. Appl. Polym. Sci.,
90, 2111 (2003).
17. Z.M. Ariff, ‘‘Foaming Behaviour Dependence on Base Poly-
mer Parameters,’’ M. Sc. Thesis, University of Manchester
Institute of Science and Technology (1998).
18. H.E. Naguib, ‘‘Extrusion Processing for Manufacture of
Low-Density, Fine-Celled Polypropylene Foams,’’ Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Toronto (2001).
19. F. Iannace, S. Iannace, G. Caprino, and L. Nicolais, Polym.
Test., 20, 643 (2001).
20. N.J. Mills and H.X. Zhu, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 47, 669 (1999).
21. L.C. Landro, G. Sala, and D. Olivieri, Polym. Test., 21, 217
(2002).
22. G. Subhash, Q. Liu, and X.L. Gao, Int. J. Impact Eng., 32,
1113 (2006).
23. A.M. Harte, N.A. Fleck, and M.F. Ashby, Eur. J. Mech. A/
Solids, 19, 31 (2000).
24. T. Thomas, H. Mahfuz, K. Kanny, and S. Jeelani, J. Com-
pos. Mater., 38, 641 (2004).
25. B. Wang, Z. Peng, Y. Zhang, and Y. Zhang, J. Appl. Polym.
Sci., 105, 3462 (2007).
26. E. Solorzano, M.A. Rodriguez-Perez, E. Valtuille, and J.A.
De Saja, Polym. Test., 26, 846 (2007).
27. V. Kumar, R.P. Juntunen, and C. Barlow, Cell. Polym., 19,
25 (2000).
28. C. Barlow, V. Kumar, B. Flinn, R.K. Bordia, and J. Weller,
J. Eng. Mater. Technol., 123, 229 (2001).
DOI 10.1002/vnl