Mechanical Properties of Structural Foams for
Vehicle Door Intrusion Beams
Thong Quang Nguyen
Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
9519173@student.swin.edu.au
Abstract—The efficient utilization of structural foams in intrusion
beams could help to reduce the weight of vehicles which translate
into better performance. This could lead to wider utilization of
structural components in the automotive industry.
This paper experimentally examines the mechanical properties of
polyurethane foams to be used as the core material in intrusion beams
in vehicle doors. Polyurethane foams have been considered as the
potential candidate for this purpose for their high strength-to-weight
ratio and good energy absorption. Their mechanical behaviors were
investigated under compression at quasi-static and low strain rates to
determine their mechanical properties. The strain rate of compressive
tests conducted range from 1 x 10-3 to 1 s-1. The mechanical
properties studied includes plateau stress, densification strain, energy
absorption and specific energy absorption. An energy efficiency
method was adopted to calculate their densification strain and plateau
stress. Results and analysis indicate that the highest density
polyurethane foam performed the best among all other candidates
based on energy absorbed, specific energy absorbed, and plateau
stress.
Keywords—structural foams; densification; plateau stress;
energy dissipation efficiency; polyurethane foam
I. INTRODUCTION
Structural foams have been widely used in many different
applications for high strength-to-weight ratio and good energy
absorption [2-6]. However, they have not been widely adapted
in the automotive industry. Polyurethane foam (PUF) was
selected as a potential candidate as it is currently commercially
available in multiple densities with high compressive strength.
The density of a foam is known to have significant impact on
its mechanical properties [6] and comparing multiple densities
may be useful.
The PUF is proposed to be used as the core material of an
intrusion beam in a hybrid tube configuration, which would
consist of an outer aluminium tube; a secondary internal
aluminium tube and the foam filling the intermediate space
between the two tubes, leaving the remainder empty. As
intrusion beams are a safety component, it is important to
ensure that the PUF can dissipate sufficient amounts of energy
during collision to help protect occupants. This can be
determined from the stress-strain values and curves of the
material, but stress-strain graphs of materials are generally not
provided by suppliers or manufacturers.
Sponsors: Swinburne University of Technology, AutoCRC & GM Holden
Jia Jun Qin
Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
9519688@student.swin.edu.au
The stress-strain curve for structural foams consists of three
regions: the linear-elastic region, the plateau-collapse region
and densification region [1]. The linear-elastic region is where
the material deforms, but is still to return to its original
dimensions; the plateau-collapse region is where permanent
deformation occurs, and is where the bulk of the energy is
absorbed [6]; and the densification region is where the cell
walls or struts begin to collapse and are crushed together, as
this happens the force quickly increases. Also, as the force
increases dramatically in the densification region which means
possible damage towards occupants. The area under the stress-
strain curve indicates the energy absorbed by the material,
hence, it is vital that the foams have a large plateau-collapse
region. Therefore, it is important to ensure that selected
candidates can withstand great amounts force but have lowest
possible density, these requirements typically lead to a
compromise between strength and weight.
Previous research from Ph.D. candidate Rathnaweera
concluded that using a structural foam, Terocore 1030HX, in a
hybrid tube configuration of intrusion beams could achieve a
weight reduction of up to 14% for this component [7].
Extensive research has been done on structural foams [1-6, 8,
9]. However, not much previous research has not been done on
foams of densities above 400 kg/m3, on PUF, or with a focus
on the mechanical properties of energy absorption
characteristics, densification strain and plateau stress.
This research paper focuses on experimentally investigating
the mechanical properties of polyurethane foams, with nominal
densities of 480, 640 and 800 kg/m3 (respectively labelled as
PUF – L, PUF – M and PUF – H) and compressive strengths of
18, 31 and 48 MPa, respectively. They will be investigated
with compressive tests under quasi-static (1 x 10-3 or 0.001 s-1)
and low (0.1 and 1 s-1) strain rates to determine if they should
be investigated further for the purpose of being the core
material in a hybrid tube configuration intrusion beam.
Additionally and prior to the quasi-static and low strain rate
testing, the PUF – M density foam was selected to be examined
with compression tests in the three different directions to
determine if it was isotropic. This testing was done under
quasi-static (0.001 s-1) conditions as well.
 II. METHODOLOGY
The PUF blocks were purchased from Pacific Research
Laboratories, Inc. The PUF blocks were waterjet cut and
machined, by University technical staff, to size 40 x 40 x 20
mm (L x W x H) (as shown in Fig. 1), and then labelled. The
specimens were numbered and separated by nominal density,
with L, M and H which correspond to 480, 640, 800 kg/m3
respectively. Each dimension was then measured with Vernier
calipers (± 0.01 mm) three times at three locations e.g. the
height was measured at the left-, middle and right-hand side of
the block, and the mean taken. Each specimen was then
weighed on scales (± 0.1 g) and finally, photographed.
Fig. 1 Dimensioned foam block (PUF – H) in millimeters.
The universal testing machines used for the testing of these
foams are: a 100 kN Instron 8801 (for isotropy testing) and a 1
MN MTS 311.31S (for all other testing). The machines were
set to collect data on: time, force and displacement and the
machine parameters were set as indicated in Table I.
TABLE I. TESTING MACHINE PARAMETERS
Strain Data Collection Maximum
Rate Crosshead velocity Frequency Deflection
(s-1) (mm/min) (Hz) (mm)
0.001 1.2 5 16
0.1 120 512
1 1200 1024
Before the specimens were loaded onto the testing platen,
they were cleaned by spraying PTFE lubricant on a tissue and
wiped down. The PTFE lubricant is used to reduce friction
between the platens and foam blocks which may influence the
results.
The blocks are then placed in the center of the bottom
platen, the top platen is then manually moved as close as
possible to the top of the block. After double checking all
parameters and positioning of the block and platens, the
Direction of force
Top platen
Specimen
Bottom platen
Fig. 2 Test setup on the 1 MN MTS 311.31S
compression test was initiated.
III. RESULTS
From the machines’ data logs of force and displacement,
the stress-strain curves for each specimen was constructed and
can be seen in Figs. 3 - 5.
Then, graphically approximated the yield strain, εy, from
the stress-strain curves by redrawing the stress-strain curve up
to 0.1 strain, then drawing a tangential line to the linear elastic
region and finally drew a vertical line from the end of the
linear-elastic region to approximate the yield strain value.
The energy dissipation efficiency, Ed, of a foam at a
particular strain, εa, is:
(1)
The densification strain, εd, of the foam is defined as the
maximum value of Ed [7, 8]. This method of determining the
densification strain is used because it gives consistent results
[7].
The amount of energy the foam has absorbed is defined as
the amount of energy it has absorbed between the yield and
the densification strains. This is done to remove the
recoverable energy.
(2)
The specific energy absorbed, Es, by the foam is the
previously calculated EΑ, divided by the specimen’s mass, m:
(3)
The plateau stress, σpl, is calculated as follows [7]:
16
(4)
16
Shown in Figs. 3 - 5 are the stress-strain curves for each
density of PUF tested at the three different strain rates. The
curves show little variation per density and shows that both the
materials’ quality and testing methodology was quite
consistent, at least before the densification strain.
The linear-elastic region of the specimens generally ends at
0.05 strain and the densification region starts between
approximately 0.43 and 0.53 strain, inversely dependent on the
density i.e. the highest density PUF’s εd was lower than that of
the lowest density. A short distance after each specimen’s
calculated densification strains, the materials began to crumble
and is where the curves cease to be smooth and start to become
wavy or jagged.
Specimen PUF – H2 from Fig. 5 has a very large, sudden
decrease in stress at approximately 0.65 strain, this coincided
with a very loud, sudden ‘boom’ sound during testing, as the
specimen broke apart.
Specimen PUF – M7 (Fig. 4) behaved unusually up to
approximately 0.10 strain where its stress-strain response
appears more similar to that of the L7 and L8 specimens. From
0.1 to 0.15 strain the specimen’s stress-strain curve slowly
increased to be more like the M8 specimen. The cause of this
anomaly is uncertain.
 Fig. 3 Stress-strain graphs for PUF with strain rate of 0.001 s-1 (Quasi-static Fig. 4 Stress-strain graphs for PUF with strain rate of 0.1 s-1.
conditions).

Fig. 5 Stress-strain graphs for PUF with strain rate of 1 s-1.

TABLE II. CALCULATED MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF PUF AT VARIOUS STRAIN RATES

Strain Rate ρ εd EA ES σpl

(s-1) Foam (kg/m3) (mm/mm) (J) (J/kg) (MPa)
PUF – H 810.94 0.433 990.90 37628.81 76.87

0.001 PUF – M 599.73 0.454 530.53 27249.86 38.55

PUF – L 485.94 0.462 315.82 20118.98 23.43

PUF – H 812.92 0.476 1253.99 47498.34 90.13

0.1 PUF – M 598.01 0.513 679.32 35109.83 44.42

PUF – L 483.68 0.525 406.09 25943.67 25.64

PUF – H 801.25 0.434 954.14 36256.73 75.18

1 PUF – M 599.20 0.498 611.25 31457.28 41.10

PUF – L 485.98 0.504 374.05 23774.93 24.79

blocks were cut out from the 130 x 40 mm (Front), 180 x 40

IV. DISCUSSION
A. Effect of loading direction in PUF
PUF – M was the selected foam for isotropy testing and
was tested on the 100 kN Instron 8801. This testing was
performed prior to the other tests. The specimens for these
tests were cut out of the larger block (130 x 180 x 40 mm)
they were supplied as and the 40 x 40 mm faces were rotated
according to the desired direction of the tests, i.e. the 40 x 40
(Side) mm and 130 x 180 mm (Top) faces.
Based on the stress-strain curves of Fig. 6, it was
concluded that the tested PUF blocks were isotropic. This
information allowed for more economical cutting of the
specimens from the supplied blocks, for the other mechanical
tests. The isotropic properties were assumed to extend to the
other densities of the PUF as they were all purchased from the
same supplier.
 0.001 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

PUF – L
0.1 113.64% 128.58% 128.95% 109.43%
1 109.09% 118.44% 118.17% 105.80%
B.
Values were normalized against the quasi-static results for each density.

V. CONCLUSIONS
The mechanical properties of various densities of polyurethane
foam were investigated experimentally via compression testing.
Polyurethane foam was determined to behave isotropically
under compressive testing. The compressive tests were
Fig. 6 Stress-strain curves of the PUF – M foam in the three directions, under conducted over the strain rates of 1 x 10-3 to 1 s-1 and showed
quasi-static conditions. very consistent results with the exception of one specimen. The
εd, EA, ES and σpl for each of the foams were determined for
B. Effect of density variation in PUF each strain rate and the effects of density and strain rate
From Tables II and III, it can be seen that as the density variation were discussed. It was found that as the density
increases, so do most of the mechanical properties, however, increased, the material become more efficient at energy
the increases are not proportional to the density increase. The absorbing and thus conclude that the highest density
EA and σpl nearly triples while the ES increases by 74% from a polyurethane foam, PUF – H, performed the best of the tested
67% increase in density. Conversely, the densification strain foams.
decreases by 10% as the density increased by 67%. This means
that as the density of the foam is increased, the mechanical ACKNOWLEDGMENT
properties (with the exception of the densification strain) This research was funded by Swinburne University of
greatly increases and thus becomes a more efficient energy Technology, AutoCRC and GM Holden. We would like to
absorbing material. However, as the foam is proposed to be thank Dr. Dong Ruan, David Bilston, Artur Candido, and the
used to create a more lightweight structure, using a higher Swinburne technical staff for their help throughout the project.
density PUF would have to be compensated with using less
material. REFERENCES
A [1] Meng, Y. & Xia, Y., 2014. Experimental study on energy absorption and
TABLE III. EFFECT OF DENSITY VARIATION IN PUF
plastic deformation of polymer foams. Beijing Ligong Daxue
Xuebao/Transaction of Beijing Institute of Technology, Volume 34, pp.
ρ εd EA ES σpl 10-13.
Foam
(kg/m3) (mm/mm) (J) (J/kg) (MPa) [2] Mohamed, M. et al., 2015. Manufacturing and characterization of
polyurethane based sandwich composite structures. Composite
PUF – L 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Structures, Volume 123, pp. 169-79.
PUF – M 123.45% 98.26% 166.23% 134.36% 167.86% [3] Nar, M., Webber, C. & D'Souza, N., 2015. Rigid Polyurethane And
Kenaf Core Composite Foams. Polymer Engineering and Science,
PUF – H 166.61% 90.17% 292.54% 174.20% 327.62% Volume 55, pp. 132-144.
A.
Values are the average of the results of all three strain rates and were normalized against [4] Victor, W., 1985. Structural Foam's Future: Not To Be Taken Lightly.
PUF – L. Plastics Engineering.
C. Effect of strain rate variation in PUF [5] Yan, R. et al., 2015. Quasi-static and dynamic mechanical responses of
From Tables II and IV, an increase in the mechanical hybrid laminated composites based on high-density flexible
polyurethane foam. Composites Part B: Engineering, Volume 83, pp.
properties from 0.001 to 0.1 s-1 then decrease from 0.1 to 1 s-1 253-263.
was observed. The percentage change from increasing the
[6] S. Ouellet, D. Cronin and M. Worswick, 'Compressive response of
strain rate for each density are comparable to one another, as polymeric foams under quasi-static, medium and high strain rate
seen in Table IV. However, PUF – H’s changes from 0.1 to 1 s- conditions', Polymer Testing, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 731-743, 2006.
1 shows a much larger discrepancy than the changes in the [7] Rathnaweera, G. 2013. Hybrid Structures. Melbourne, Australia:
other densities. This could indicate that it is more strain rate Swinburne Univeristy of Technology.
sensitive than lower densities of PUF, however, more [8] Q. Li, 'Compressive Strain at the Onset of Densification of Cellular
investigation is required. Solids', Journal of Cellular Plastics, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 371-392, 2006
[9] J. Shen, G. Lu and D. Ruan, 'Compressive behaviour of closed-cell
TABLE IV. EFFECT OF STRAIN RATE VARIATION IN PUFB
aluminium foams at high strain rates', Composites Part B: Engineering,
Strain Rate εd EA ES σpl vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 678-685, 2010.
Foam (s-1) (mm/mm) (J) (J/kg) (MPa)
0.001 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
PUF – H

0.1 109.93% 126.55% 126.23% 117.25%

1 100.23% 96.29% 96.35% 97.80%
0.001 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
PUF – M

0.1 113.00% 128.05% 128.84% 115.23%

1 109.69% 115.21% 115.44% 106.61%