Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Materials Science 3 (2014) 1342 – 1352

20th European Conference on Fracture (ECF20)

Evaluation of mixed mode fracture for PUR foams

Liviu Marsavinaa*, Dan Mihai Constantinescub, Emanoil Linula, Tudor Voiconia,
Dragos Alexandru Apostolb, Tomasz Sadowskic
a
Politehnica University of Timisoara, Blvd. M. Viteazu, No. 1, Timisoara 300222, Romania
b
Politehnica University of Bucharest, Splaiul Independentei, No. 313, Bucharest 060042, Romania
c
Lublin University of Technology, Nadbystrzycka 48 str., Lublin 20-618, Poland

Abstract

Polyurethane foams crush in compression and have a brittle fracture in tension, so their failure could be evaluated based on
Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics. Fracture toughness in mixed mode loading is of particular interest because foam cracking
weakens the structure's capacity for carrying loads. Four fracture criteria (Maximum circumferential tensile stress, Minimum
strain energy density, Maximum energy release rate, Equivalent stress intensity factor) were considered for evaluation of mixed
mode fracture of three closed cell rigid polyurethane foams with densities: 100, 145 and 300 kg/m3. Mixed mode fracture tests
were performed using asymmetric semi-circular specimen. The equivalent stress intensity factor criterion looks to give the better
prediction of mixed mode fracture. Also the effect of cell orientation and the crack propagation angle were investigated.
© 2014
© 2014Published
The Authors. Published
by Elsevier by Elsevier
Ltd. Open Ltd.CC BY-NC-ND license.
access under
Selectionand
Selection andpeer-review
peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility ofNorwegian
of the the Norwegian University
University of Science
of Science and Technology
and Technology (NTNU), (NTNU),
DepartmentDepartment of
Structural
of StructuralEngineering.
Engineering

Keywords: mixed mode fracture; polyurethane foams; fracture toughness; asymmetric semi-circular bend specimen

1. Introduction

The properties of foams are influenced by the properties of solid material (polymers, metals, ceramics), by the
cellular structure topology (open or closed cells) and relative density U*U s, withU* density of cellular material and U s

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +40-256-403577; fax: +40-256-403523.

E-mail address: msvina@mec.upt.ro

2211-8128 © 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Department of Structural Engineering
doi:10.1016/j.mspro.2014.06.217
 Liviu Marsavina et al. / Procedia Materials Science 3 (2014) 1342 – 1352 1343

the density of the solid material, Ashby (2005). The main characteristics of PUR foams are lightweight, high
porosity and good energy absorption capacity, Gibson and Ashby (1997). Foam materials crush in compression, but
show a brittle fracture in tension, Marsavina (2010). So, it is important to know the fracture properties. Sandwich
structures with foam cores are usually loaded in bending, and crack in the foam core can initiate in mode I, mode II
or mixed mode. The knowledge of the fracture properties of foam core becomes an important requirement for the
design of such structures. Up to now most results are related to fracture toughness in mode I. A linear correlation
between Mode I fracture toughness KIc and relative foam density U Us was observed by Danielsson (1996) on PVC
Divinycell foams, and by Viana and Carlsson (2002) on Diab H foams. Brittle fracture without yielding and
produced in Mode I was observed in experiments. Kabir et al. (2006) used the procedure described by ASTM D5045
(1996) for determining the fracture toughness of PVC and PUR foams. They investigated the effect of density, effect
of specimen size, effect of loading rate and effect of cell orientation. Density has a significant effect on fracture
toughness, which increases more than 7 times when the foam density increases 3.5 times. Burman (1998) presented
fracture toughness results for two commercial foams Rohacell WF51 (density 52 kg/m 3) and Divinycell H100
(density 100 kg/m3). The mode I fracture toughness KIc was obtained on Single Edge Notch Bending specimens and
has values 0.08 MPa m0.5 for WF51, respectively 0.21 MPa m0.5 for H100. Burman (1998) also determined the Mode
II fracture toughness using an End-Notch Flexure (ENF) specimen with values of 0.13 MPa m0.5 for WF51,
respectively 0.21 MPa m0.5 for H100. Static and dynamic evaluation of mode I fracture toughness of PUR foams was
presented by Marsavina and Sadowski (2008), Marsavina et al. (2013), and the increase of fracture toughness with
density was also highlighted, Marsavina et al. (2014). Poapongsakorn and Carlsson (2013) presented the influence of
loading configuration and cell size on fracture toughness of closed-cell PVC foams. Their results show that the
fracture toughness obtained using four point bend specimens is significantly higher than that measured on three point
bend specimens.

Nomenclature

a crack length
E Young's modulus
G energy release rate
KI mode I stress intensity factor
KII mode II stress intensity factor
KIc mode I fracture toughness
KIIc mode II fracture toughness
Keff effective stress intensity factor
Keq equivalent stress intensity factor
Me mode mixity
r polar radius
R ASCB specimen radius
S strain energy density factor
S1, S2 support distances
t ASCB specimen thickness
W strain energy density
YI, YII non-dimensional stress intensity factors
D ratio between mode I and mode II fracture toughness
P shear modulus
T polar angle
Tc crack propagation angle
Vrr radial stress
VTT circumferential stress
WrT tangential stress
1344 Liviu Marsavina et al. / Procedia Materials Science 3 (2014) 1342 – 1352

Only few studies present the mixed mode fracture of polymeric foams, and only for PVC foams. Hallsttröm and
Grenestedt (1997) investigated mixed mode fracture of cracks and wedge shaped notches in expanded PVC foams.
Different types of specimens made of Divinycell H100 were investigated and the non singular T-stress was
considered in formulation of fracture criteria. It was concluded that for predominantly mode II the use of T-stress
improved the facture predictions. Three different densities of PVC foams were investigated using a Compact Tensile
Specimen with Arcan fixtures to produce mixed mode conditions, Noury (1998). The ratio between mode II and
mode I fracture toughness KIIc/KIc was found to be between 0.4 and 0.65 depending on foam density. For mixed
mode loading the Richard fracture criterion gives better predictions of fracture limit and crack initiation angle.
Present study assessed the theoretical fracture criteria for PUR foam materials under mixed mode loading, using
an asymmetric semi-circular bend (ASCB) specimen. Also the influence of density and cell orientation is
investigated.

2. Review of mixed mode fracture criteria

2.1. Introductory remarks

For the in-plane mixed mode a fracture criterion should provide:

x The angle of crack initiation Tc,

x A critical combination of stress intensity factors (KI and KII) and fracture toughness (KIc) in the form:

F K I , K II , K Ic  0 (1)

The singular stress field around a crack under mixed mode loading can be written in polar coordinates (r, T) as:

1 ª § T 3T · § T 3T ·º
V rr « K I ¨ 5 cos  cos ¸  K II ¨  5 sin  3 sin ¸»;
4 2S r ¬ © 2 2 ¹ © 2 2 ¹¼
1 ª § T 3T · § T 3T ·º
V TT « K I ¨ 3 cos 2  cos 2 ¸  K II ¨  3 sin 2  3 sin 2 ¸»; (2)
4 2S r ¬ © ¹ © ¹¼
1 ª § T 3T · § T T ·º
W rT « K I ¨ sin 2  sin 2 ¸  K II ¨ cos 2  3 cos 2 ¸».
4 2S r ¬ © ¹ © ¹¼

2.2. Maximum tensile stress (MTS) criterion

According to Erdogan and Sih (1963) criterion, based on VTT stress from eq. (2), the crack growth starts radially
from the crack tip at an angle T=Tc perpendicular to the maximum tensile circumferential tensile stress VTT,max. The
crack propagation becomes unstable when VTT,max reaches a critical value Vcr, which is a material parameter. The
crack propagation angle can be found from:

wV TT w 2V TT
0 and 0 (3)
wT T Tc wT 2 T Tc

leading to:

K I sin Tc  K II 3 cosTc  1 0 . (4)

 Liviu Marsavina et al. / Procedia Materials Science 3 (2014) 1342 – 1352 1345

Solving eq. (4) the crack propagation angle results:

§ 3K 2  K K 2  8 K 2 ·
Tc  arccos ¨ II I I II ¸, (5)
¨ K I  9 K II
2 2
¸
© ¹

and the fracture criterion from eq. (1) could be expressed:

Tc § 2T 3 ·
cos ¨ K I cos c  K II sin Tc ¸ K Ic . (6)
2© 2 2 ¹

2.3. Minimum strain energy density (SED) criterion

Sih (1974) postulated that the fracture occurs in the direction where the strain energy density is minimum, at a
critical distance r0. For mixed mode loading the strain energy density W, can be expressed:

S
W , (7)
r0

where S represents the strain energy density factor:

1
S >1  cos T N  cos T K I2  2 sin T 2 cos T  N  1K I K II 
16SP (8)
 N  11  cos T   1  cos T 3 cos T  1K 2
II @,
with P the shear modulus, N Q for plane strain, N QQfor plane stress, and Q is the Poisson's ratio.
According to this criterion the crack propagates when:

dS w2S
0 and !0 (9)
wT T Tc wT 2 T Tc

respectively, the fracture initiates when S reaches a critical value Scr:

N 1 2
Scr K Ic . (10)
8SP

2.4. Maximum energy release rate criterion (Gmax)

Hussain et al. (1974) investigates the infinitesimal kink of a crack at an angle T, and expressed the energy release
rate in terms of stress intensity factors of initial crack:
1346 Liviu Marsavina et al. / Procedia Materials Science 3 (2014) 1342 – 1352

GT 
1 2
E'
 
K I T   K II2 T  , (11)

where:

T
§ T · 2S ­ 3 ½
­ K I T ½ § 4 ·¨1  S ¸ ° K I cos T   K II sin T °
® ¾ ¨¨ ¸¸ ¨ ¸ ® 2 ¾, (12)
¯ K II T ¿ © 3  cos T  ¹ ¨¨ 1  T ¸ ° K cos T   1 K sin T °
2
¸ II I
© S ¹ ¯ 2 ¿

resulting:

T
§ T
2¨1
·S
¸
G T 
4§
¨¨
1 ·
¸¸ ¨ S
E ' © 3  cos T  ¹ ¨ 1  T
2
>    @
¸ 1  3 cos 2 T  K I2  8 sin T cosT K I K II  9  5 cos 2 T  K II2 (13)
¸
¨ ¸
© S ¹

with E’=E Young's modulus for plane stress, and E'=E/(1-Q2) for plane strain.
The angle of crack propagation Tc is found by maximizing G(T):

dG w 2G
0 and  0. (14)
wT T Tc wT 2 T Tc

Crack extension occurs when G(Tc) reaches the critical value GIc:

K Ic2
G T c  , (15)
E

resulting:

Tc
§ T
2 1 c
·S
§ · ¨ ¸ ª §K ·
2
§K K ·
4¨¨
1
¸
¸ ¨ S ¸  
˜ « 1  3 cos 2 T c  ¨¨ I ¸¸  8 sin T c cosT c ¨¨ I 2 II ¸¸ 
© 3  cos T c  ¹ ¨¨ 1  T c
2
¸ «¬ © K Ic ¹ © K Ic ¹
¸ (16)
© S ¹
§K · º
2

 
 9  5 cos 2 T c  ¨¨ II ¸¸ » 1
© K Ic ¹ »¼

A similar criterion was proposed by Chang et al. (2006) for generalized mixed mode loading (KI, KII and KIII).
 Liviu Marsavina et al. / Procedia Materials Science 3 (2014) 1342 – 1352 1347

2.5. Equivalent stress intensity factor (ESIF) criterion

Richard (1985, 2005) proposed a generalized fracture criterion, based on the equivalent stress intensity factor Keq,
which is defined similar to maximum principal stress Veq, as:

KI 1
K I2  4 DK II  d K Ic ,
2
K eq  (17)
2 2

with D=KIc/KIIc. Crack starts to propagate when Keq reaches the fracture toughness of the material KIc. For the crack
initiation angle Richard proposed an empirical expression:

2
§ K II · § K II ·
Tc B¨¨155.50 ¸  83.40 ¨
¸ ¨K K
¸ ,
¸ (18)
© K I  K II ¹ © I II ¹

which represents a correlation with a considerable number of experiments.

3. Materials and method

Closed cell solid polyurethane (PUR) foams of three different densities (Necuron 100, 160 and 301),
manufactured by NECUMER GbmH (Germany), were used in experiments. The main properties of the investigated
foams are provided by the manufacturer and presented in Table 1. The microstructures of the investigated foams
were obtained using QUANTATM FEG 250 SEM, and are presented at 500x magnification in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. SEM microstructures for investigated PUR foams (magnification 500x):

(a) density 100 kg/m3, (b) density 145 kg/m3, (c) density 300 kg/m3.

Table 1. Main properties of the investigated PUR foams.

Property Necuron
100 160 301
Density, [kg/m3] 100 145 300
0
Temperature resistance, [ C] 120 120 65
Compressive strength, [MPa] 2 3 5
Flexural strength, [MPa] 1.5 2.5 6
1348 Liviu Marsavina et al. / Procedia Materials Science 3 (2014) 1342 – 1352

Statistical analysis of the microstructure provide the mean and standard deviation of cell size on the rise direction
(named ''in plane'') and flow direction (named ''out of plane'') and the cell thickness, Table 2.

Table 2. Main properties of the investigated PUR foams.

Necuron
Cellular structure property
100 160 301
Cell length in plane, [Pm] 104.5±9.4* 83.8±9.6* 68.5±33.9*
Cell length out of plane, [Pm] 120.2±14.5* 88.1±11.2* 67.8±32.1*
Cell wall thickness, [Pm] 2.9-5.8 5.1-13.1 3.8-21.8
3
Density (determined), [kg/m ] 100.35±0.25* 145.53±0.22* 300.28±1.38*

* standard deviation

The density of the foams was determined according with ASTM D 1622-08, using cubic specimens of 15x15x15
mm, an electronic balance Sartorius LA230S for weighting and a digital caliper Mytotoyo for dimension
determination. The mean values of density are also presented in Table 2.
The asymmetric semi-circular bend (ASCB) specimen, Fig. 2 was adapted to perform mixed mode fracture
toughness tests. This semi-circular specimen with radius R, which contains an edge crack of length a oriented
normal to the specimen edge, loaded with a three point bend fixture, was proved to give a wide range of mixed
modes from pure mode I (S1=S2) to pure mode II, only by changing the position of one support, Ayatollahi et al.
(2011), Negru et al. (2013). The considered geometry of the specimen has: R=40 mm, a=20 mm, t=10 mm, S1=30
mm and S2=30, 12, 8, 6, 4, 2.6 mm. The Stress Intensity Factors (SIFs) of the ASCB specimen are expressed in the
form, Ayatollahi et al. (2011):

F
Ki S a Yi a R , S1 R, S2 R , i I , II , (19)
2 Rt

where the non-dimensional SIFs Yi (a/R, S1/R, S2/R) were determined by finite element analysis, and are plotted in
Fig. 3.

Fig. 2. The geometry of ASCB specimen. Fig. 3. Variations of the non-dimensional SIFs YI, and YII.

The tests were performed on a Zwick/Roell of 5 kN testing machine at room temperature with a loading rate of 2
mm/min. Support rollers of diameter 20 mm were used for the bending fixture. For each position of support S2 four
specimens were tested. Typical load - displacement curves for the foam with 300 kg/m3 and different S2 positions
are shown in Fig. 4. Brittle fracture was observed for all tested specimens with an abrupt drop of load to zero after
 Liviu Marsavina et al. / Procedia Materials Science 3 (2014) 1342 – 1352 1349

reaching the maximum load. The linear elastic behavior was confirmed during the tests when no cushioning and
plastic deformations remain after finishing the test.

Fig. 4. Typical load – displacement curves for foam Fig. 5. Out of plane and in plane position of the ASCB specimens.
with density 300 kg/m3 and different support distances S2.

4. Results and discussions

The mode I fracture toughness KIc was determined for the case of symmetric loading (S1 = S2 = 30 mm) on an
ASCB specimen - mean values are given in Table 3 together with the mode I fracture toughness determined for the
same foams using Single Edge Notched Bend (SENB) specimen according to ASTM D 5045-99, as presented by
Marsavina et al. (2010, 2013), together with the mode II fracture toughness KIIc for S2 = 2.6 mm. From Table 3 it
could be observed that both mode I and mode II fracture toughness increases with density. Similar results of Mode I
fracture toughness were obtained on both types of specimens SENB and ASCB. Maximum relative difference
between KIc was 8.2 % for 145 kg/m3 density and minimum value was 0.8 % for 300 kg/m3 density. Also the
fracture toughness KIc and KIIc values determined out of plane (direction 3 in Fig. 5) are higher than those in plane
results (direction 1 in Fig. 5), indicating anisotropic behavior of investigated foams. This is also confirmed in Fig. 6,
which presents the corresponding values of effective stress intensity factors Keff=[(KIc)2+(KIIc)2]0.5 corresponding to
fracture load versus the mode mixity Me=Arctg(KII/KI). It could be observed that for both densities (100 and 145
kg/m3) the out of plane effective SIF values are higher than those in plane. For the foam of density 300 kg/m3 the
out of plane fracture toughness could not be determined because the specimen radius was higher than the PUR plate
thickness 25 mm.

Table 3. Fracture toughness results for the investigated PUR foams.

Fracture Loading Necuron

Specimen
toughness direction 100 160 301
KIc, [MPa m0.5] In plane 0.089±0.003* 0.121±0.003* 0.369±0.030*
SENB 0.5
KIc, [MPa m ] Out of plane 0.103±0.005* 0.126±0.002* 0.339±0.020*
KIc, [MPa m0.5] In plane 0.087±0.003* 0.131±0.003* 0.372±0.014*
KIc, [MPa m0.5] Out of plane 0.106±0.007* 0.143±0.003* not available
ASCB 0.5
KIIc, [MPa m ] In plane 0.050±0.002* 0.079±0.004* 0.374±0.013*
KIIc, [MPa m0.5] Out of plane 0.064±0.002* 0.090±0.006* not available
* standard deviation

On ASCB specimens the mode II fracture toughness is lower than the mode I fracture toughness for low density
foams and almost equal for 300 kg/m3 density.
1350 Liviu Marsavina et al. / Procedia Materials Science 3 (2014) 1342 – 1352

(a) foam density 100 kg/m3 (b) foam density 145 kg/m3
Fig. 6. Effect of loading plane on fracture toughness.

Figs. 7 (a)-(c) present the experimental results together with the fracture limit curves predicted by the four
fracture criteria considered. It can be observed that for low density foams (100 and 145 kg/m3 densities) the
experimental results fall between the Gmax and ESIF criteria. While for the foam with 300 kg/m3 the experimental
data are more scattered and close to SED and ESIF criteria. Based on these results it could be concluded that for
rigid PUR foams the Richard’s ESIF criterion is most reliable to predict mixed mode fracture. This could be also
explained by the fact that it takes into account the ratio between mode I and mode II fracture toughness D=KIc/KIIc.
The ratio D decreases with increasing relative density. Noury et al. (1998) found same results investigating mixed
mode fracture of PVC foams.

(a) foam density 100 kg/m3 (b) foam density 145 kg/m3 (c) foam density 300 kg/m3
Fig. 7. Effect of loading plane on fracture toughness.

Fig. 8 presents the crack path for four applied mixed modes Me (a. mode I, b. predominantly mode I, c.
predominantly mode II, d. mode II). Except for the mode I case, when the crack propagates like a straight line, all
other cases show curvilinear crack paths. Crack propagation angle was measured on each specimen, Fig. 9. Fig. 10
presents the mean values of the crack propagation angle Tc measured on the specimens versus applied mixed mode
loading Me, side by side with the predicted crack propagation angles by theoretical criteria. It could be observed that
for predominantly mode I loadings Me<450 the measured values are in good agreement with the predicted ones. For
predominantly mode II loading (Me>450) the experimental crack propagation angles differ from the predicted values.
It can be also observed that the foam with density 300 kg/m3, with a microstructure close to a porous solid gives
closer propagation angles to theoretical predictions, developed for brittle solid materials.
 Liviu Marsavina et al. / Procedia Materials Science 3 (2014) 1342 – 1352 1351

Fig. 8. Crack paths for different positions of S2 support.

Fig. 9. Measuring the crack propagation angle. Fig. 10. Crack propagation angle versus mode mixity.

5. Conclusions

The main conclusions of this study are:

x The asymmetric semi-circular bend specimen was adopted to determine the fracture toughness of polyurethane
rigid foams under mixed mode loading. The advantages of this specimen are the simple geometry, the use of
classic bending fixtures for loading the specimens and the ability to produce full range of mixed modes, from
pure mode I to pure mode II, only by changing the position of one support.
x The density of foams is the most important parameter influencing the fracture toughness. The order of magnitude
for mode I fracture toughness of PUR foams is between 0.087 MPa m0.5 for density of 100 kg/m3 to 0.372 MPa
m0.5 for density of 300 kg/m3. These results are in agreement with those obtained on Single Edge Notched
specimens (Table 2). The mode II fracture toughness ranges between 0.050 MPa m0.5 for density of 100 kg/m3 to
0.374 MPa m0.5 for density of 300 kg/m3.
x The anisotropy of the foams is highlighted by the determination of fracture toughness on two planes: in plane and
out of plane directions (Fig. 6).
x Four theoretical fracture criteria were assessed to characterize the failure of rigid PUR foams. The experimental
results proof that the equivalent stress intensity factor criterion of Richard is most suitable for this type of plastic
1352 Liviu Marsavina et al. / Procedia Materials Science 3 (2014) 1342 – 1352

foams (Fig. 9). This is the only criterion which takes into account the ratio between mode I and mode II fracture
toughness, D=KIc/KIIc. This parameter decreases with increasing the relative density of the foam. However, some
previous experimental results have shown that the conventional fracture criteria fail to provide reliable estimates
for experimental results if different test specimens are used, revealing that the T-stress plays an important role in
mixed mode brittle fracture, Smith et al. (2006), Aliha and Ayatollahi (2010).
x Experimental crack propagation angles are compared with theoretical estimates. Good agreement was obtained
for predominantly mode I loading Me<450 (Fig. 10).

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS –
UEFISCDI, project PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-0456, contract number 172/2011.

References

Aliha, M.R.M, Ayatollahi, M.R., 2010. Geometry effects on fracture behaviour of polymetyl mechacrylate, Materials Science and Engineering A
527, 526-530.
Ayatollahi, M.R., Aliha, M.R.M., Aghafi, H., 2011. An improved semi-circular bend specimen for investigating mixed mode brittle fracture,
Engineering Fracture Mechanics 78, 110-123.
Ashby, M.F., 2005. Cellular Solids - Scaling of Proprieties. In (Edts) Scheffler, M., Colombo P., Cellular Ceramics, Structure, Manufacturing,
Properties and Applications, Wiley-VCH Verlag Gmbh & Co.
Burman, M., 1998. Fatigue crack initiation and propagation in sandwich structures, Report No.98-29, Stockholm.
Chang, J, Xu, J-q, Mutoh, Y., 2006. A general mixed-mode brittle fracture criterion for cracked materials, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 73
1249-1263.
Danielsson, M., 1996. Toughened rigid foam core material for use in sandwich construction, Cellular Polymers 15, 417-435.
Erdogan, F., Sih, G. C., 1963. On the crack extension in plates under plane loading and transverse shear, Journal of Basic Engineering, 85, 519-
525.
Gibson, L.J., Ashby, M.F., 1997. Cellular solids, Structure and properties, Second edition, Cambridge University Press.
Hallstrom, S., Grenestedt, J.L., 1997. Mixed mode fracture of cracks and wedge shaped notches in expanded PVC foam, International Journal of
Fracture 88, 343-358.
Hong, C.S., Jeong, K.Y., 1985. Stress intensity factors in anisotropic sandwich plate with a part-through crack under mixed mode deformation,
Engineering Fracture Mechanics 21(2), 285- 292.
Hussain, M.A., Pu, S.L., Underwood, J., 1974 Strain energy release rate for a crack under combined mode I and mode II. In: Fracture analysis,
(Edts) Paris P.C., Irwin G.R., ASTM STP560, 2-28.
Kabir, M.E., Saha, M.C., Jeelani, S., 2006. Tensile and fracture behavior of polymer foams, Materials Science Enginering: A 429, 225-235.
Marsavina, L., Linul, E., 2010. Fracture toughness of polyurethane foams. Experiments versus micromechanical models, Proceedings of ECF18,
Dresden.
Marsavina, L., 2010. Fracture Mechanics of Foams in: Cellular and porous materials in structures and processes, (Eds.) Altenbach H., A. Ochsner
A., Springer.
Marsavina, L, Constantinescu D.M., Linul, E., Apostol D. A., Voiconi, T., Sadowski, T., 2014. Refinements on fracture toughness of PUR foams,
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2013.12.006.
Marsavina, L, Linul, E., Voiconi, T., Sadowski, T., 2013. A comparison between dynamic and static fracture toughness of polyurethane foams,
Polymer Testing 32, 673-680.
Marsavina, L, Sadowski, T., 2013. Dynamic fracture toughness of polyurethane foams, Polymer Testing 27(8), 941-944.
Mills, N.J., 2007. Polymer Foams Handbook: Engineering and Biomechanics Applications and Design Guide, Elsevier.
Negru, R. Marsavina, L., Filipescu, H., Pasca, N., 2013. Investigation of mixed mode I/II brittle fracture using ASCB specimen, International
Journal of Fracture 181, 155-161.
Noury, P.M., Shenoi, R.A., Sinclair I., 1998. On mixed-mode fracture of PVC foam, International Journal of Fracture 92, 131-151.
Poapongsakorn, P., Carlsson L.A., 2013. Fracture toughness of closed-cell PVC foams: Effects of loading configuration and cell size, Composite
Structures 102, 1-8
Richard, H. A., 1985. Bruchvorhersagen bei uberlagreter normal- und schubbeanspruchung von rissen, VDI-Verlag.
Richard, H. A., Fulland, M., Sander, M., 2005. Theoretical crack path prediction, Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures
28, 3-12.
Sih, G. C., 1974. Strain-energy-density factor applied to mixed mode crack problems, International Journal of Fracture 10, 305-321.
Smith, D.J., Ayatollahi, M.R., Pavier, M.J., 2006. On the Consequences of T-stress in Elastic Brittle Fracture", Proceedings of the Royal Society
A 462, 2415-2437.
Viana, G.M., Carlsson, L.A., 2002. Mechanical properties and fracture characterisation of cross-linked PVC foams, Journal of Sandwich
Structures and Materials, 4, 91-113.
ASTM D 5045-99: Standard Test Methods for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness and Strain Energy Release Rate of Plastic Materials.
ASTM D 1622-08: Standard Test Method for Apparent Density of Rigid Cellular Plastics.
http://necumer.com/index.php/en/produkte-2/board-materials/modelling.