N.J.

Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________

Finite Element Models for the viscoelasticity of open-cell

polyurethane foam

N.J. Mills

Metallurgy and Materials, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

Received: 17 May 2006 Accepted: 28 July 2006

ABSTRACT
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was used to model viscoelastic effects in the
compression of polyurethane (PU) foam. Modelling of the impact compression of
foam cubes predicted that a compressed region propagated through the sample,
causing step increases in the stress traces. Modelling of head impacts on gymnastic
‘crash’ mats, made of PU chip foam, revealed that the majority, but not all, of the
energy losses could be attributed to the polymer viscoelasticity.

The Gibson-Ashby micromechanics model was used to show that the hysteresis in a
viscoelastic foam could be higher than in the parent polymer. A wet Kelvin foam,
with a better foam geometry, was then used for viscoelastic analysis. The lattice of
uniform-sized cells, in a Body Centred Cubic array, were compressed in the [111]
direction. With the PU treated as a linear viscoelastic material, the predicted
hysteresis in the cyclic stress-strain curve was slightly smaller than that measured
for a PU flexible foam.

INTRODUCTION
Polyurethane (PU) foams exhibit many types of viscoelastic phenomena, such as energy
losses in cyclic loading and creep in static loading(1). These are important in automotive
seating applications, since foam damping reduces the amplitude of resonant vibrations,
while excessive creep causes the driver’s position to drop relative to mirrors etc. Low-
resilience or ‘viscoelastic’ PU foams have been profitable additions to the bedding foam
market. The viscoelasticity of solid PU (2) fits into the pattern of polymer behaviour,
with a loss maximum near the glass transition temperature of the amorphous phase.

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 293
N.J. Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________

This paper attempts viscoelastic modelling on both the microscopic and macroscopic
levels. The viscoelasticity option in dynamic FEA is used to revisit the modelling of
impacts on foam products (3), which assumed a hyperelastic foam material. This, while
explaining several features of the foam response, failed to simulate any loss processes.
One aim of the research was to see whether large foam strains and a complex stress
field, for a head impact on a large foam mat, produce more complex viscoelastic effects
than small uniform strains in a compressed foam cube, in particular whether hysteresis
is predicted to increase with the impact speed. A comparison of the predicted responses
of a foam cube and a mat with experimental data should identify sound wave effects and
show whether air-flow losses are important. Mills and Lyn (4) used an axisymmetric
finite-difference method to model the air flow losses in PU chip foam, under uniform
compressive strain. It is not currently possible to implement such a model in FEA.

There are only a few micromechanics models for the viscoelasticity of open-cell PU
foams. Huang and Gibson (5) used a simple cubic cell model to suggest that the foam
creep compliance is a scaled version of the polymer creep compliance. Zhu and Mills (6)
considered creep in a Kelvin foam model with uniform edge cross-sections, compressed
in the [001] direction, and came to a similar conclusion. Recent micromechanics
modelling (7), using a linear elastic material, predicted a plateau in the compressive
stress-strain curve of PU foam. The implicit FEA solution method, used for solving
static problems, sought convergence to an equilibrium state at every increment of model
deformation. The Kelvin foam model was used with geometry created by Surface
Evolver (8) software. The model for compression in the [111] direction, which causes the
cell edges to both twist and bend, was preferred to that for [001] direction compression,
which only causes edge bending. The viscoelastic modelling here aims to simulate the
hysteresis in compressive loading/unloading cycles on PU foam.

Dynamic FEA of the impact compression of closed-cell (metal) foams (9), using a
Kelvin foam with a representative unit cell (RUC) two cells high, predicted that the
upper impacted cell collapsed before the lower cell, i.e. that there was inhomogeneous
strain in the model. Such strain inhomogeneity is sometimes reported for PU foams (10).
A stress plateau or a fall in the compressive stress-strain curve makes strain
inhomogeneity likely. Consequently, attempts were made to predict strain
inhomogeneity in an open cell foam model. It would cause the cell strain histories to
differ, hence produce a complex viscoelastic response.

Therefore this paper explores whether cell micromechanics phenomena amplify the
viscoelasticity of the solid PU, and how the viscoelasticity of PU foam products can be
treated during large deformations.

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 294
N.J. Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________
Viscoelastic model

Polymer stress relaxation data can be approximated by a set of Maxwell viscoelastic

elements (a spring and a dashpot in series) in parallel, plus a single elastic element G∞
for the long-time response (Figure 1). This linear viscoelastic model is described in the
FEA program ABAQUS (11) by a shear relaxation modulus given by

 n 
G (t ) = G0 1 − ∑ gi exp(− t τ i )  (1)
 i =1 

where G0 is the instantaneous shear modulus, and the gi are dimensionless shear
relaxation moduli associated with relaxation times τi related to the viscosities ηi by

ηi
τi ≡ (2)
Gi

The sum of the gi cannot exceed 1.0 since the long term modulus G∞, defined by

 n 
G∞ = G0 1 − ∑ gi  (3)
 i =1 

must be positive. G0 is calculated from the Young’s modulus E0 and Poisson ratio ν0
using G0 = E0/2(1+ν0). In ABAQUS this model is referred to as a Prony series, due to
its mathematical form. There is a similar expression to equation (1) for the relaxation of
the material bulk modulus. If the Poisson’s ratio of the material is 0.5, the bulk modulus
is effectively infinite. If the dimensionless bulk moduli in the Prony series are set at
zero, then the instantaneous and long term bulk moduli are equal.

Zhu and Mills (6) carried out stress relaxation measurements on solid PU moulded from
PU foam. The relaxation Young’s modulus E(t) of the solid Bulpren PU at 19 oC, when
plotted against log t, was nearly a straight line. This was approximated by the Young’s
modulus equivalent of equation (1), with relaxation times of 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, ... 105 s
and moduli Ei = 9.3 MPa for i = 1 to 8, plus E∞ = 28 MPa. At time zero, the sum of the
moduli is E0= 102.4 MPa. Such data was approximated to simulate solid PU in FEA;
two relaxation times were used per decade of time to smooth the transition between the
Maxwell element relaxation responses, so gi = 0.05 for the 7 relaxation times given in
set 1 of Table 1, plus the instantaneous value, calculated from E0 = 100 MPa and ν =
0.45, of G0 = 34.5 MPa.

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 295
N.J. Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 1. Maxwell viscoelastic elements (a spring and a dashpot in series) in parallel.

No stress relaxation data has been reported for virgin or remoulded PU foam. However
creep compliance data for virgin PU foam at low compressive stresses can be predicted
from the stress relaxation data for solid PU (6); consequently the same values of gi were
used for the foam. The values of gi were empirically increased for rebonded PU foam,
for which no creep data is available. The micromechanics modelling in section 4
suggests that the hysteresis in PU foams can be considerably higher than that in solid
PU.

Table 1 shows four sets of normalized shear moduli used to characterize the foam. For
cyclic compression tests lasting the order of 1 s, there is no need for τi greater than 10s
or less than 0.01 s, since such Maxwell elements either flow freely or respond
elastically, so sets 1 or 3 were used. For simulation of impacts on a time scale of 10 ms,
sets 2 or 4 were used.

Hyperfoam model

The Hyperfoam model in ABAQUS FEA is based on the theory of compressible

hyperelastic solids (12). The Ogden strain energy function is expressed as

U=∑
N
2
(
2µi  α i

i =1 α i 
λ1 + λαi
2 + λαi
3 − 3 +)βi
J (
1 −α i β i
− 1

 )
 (4)

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 296
N.J. Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________

Table 1. Prony series of shear moduli for PU viscoelasticity modelling

Set times τi (s) 0.001 0.003 0.01 0.03 0.1 0.3 1 3 10
1 Dimension 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
-less shear
2 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
modulus
3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
gi
4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

where λI are the principal extension ratios, J = λ1λ2λ3 is a measure of the relative
volume, the µi are shear moduli, N is an integer, and αi and βi curve-fitting non-integral
exponents. The latter are related to Poisson’s ratio νi by

νi
βi =
1 − 2ν i . (5)

A N = 2 model, that matched the experimental data, was used (3) with the parameters in
Table 2 to simulate remoulded PU foam. The shapes of the tensile loading curves were
matched, but not the initial peak in the compressive loading curve. There was a
reasonable match to the lateral strain response in tension. The elastic anisotropy of the
foams was checked and found to be the order of 10%. The hyperfoam model acts as a
numerical approximation for the PU foam response. Eventually micromechanics
modelling will provide the parameters directly as functions of the foam density and the
solid PU mechanical properties.

Table 2. Parameters for the hyperelastic model of remoulded PU foam

N shear modulus exponent Poisson’s ratio
µ kPa α ν
1 18 8 0
2 1.2 -2 0.45

Approaches to viscoelasticity in ABAQUS FEA

There are two main methods of considering viscoelasticity in ABAQUS, the current
version of which is 6.5. The first is recommended when the simulation of sound waves
in the material is not required. A ‘visco’ step replaces a ‘static-general’ step in Standard
(implicit) FEA, with a Prony series of relaxation times in the material model.

The second method, in Dynamic FEA, is recommended when sound wave effects are
important. It also uses a Prony series of relaxation times. The density of the
polyurethane controls the speed of sound in the material, and consequently the time

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 297
N.J. Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________
interval ∆t between the FEA explicit computations. The explicit method makes a single
estimate of the stress state at the next time interval. ∆t must be smaller than the time for
a sound wave to cross the smallest element. In the simulation of impact tests on large
foam blocks, the overall simulation time is the order of 20 ms, and the ∆t values for the
relative large elements are reasonable. The sound waves in these simulations are
relevant to interpreting foam impact tests.

In standard FEA, the displacement of the top of the foam is linearly ramped during a
step to create a series of foam strains, hence the strain rate is constant during loading or
unloading. In dynamic FEA, a rigid mass can be used to impact the top surface of the
foam. The mass is sufficient to cause a high compressive strain in the foam, while its
initial velocity determines the initial strain rate for loading. As the mass decelerates to
zero then rebounds, the foam is subjected to a compressive loading and unloading cycle,
and the strain rate varies with time, in contrast with the standard FEA simulation.

For micromechanics analysis of foams with cell sizes less than 1 mm, using fine
meshing of the cell geometry, the time interval ∆t can be extremely small, making the
computation unacceptably slow. Elastic modelling (7) revealed that cell size does not
affect the predicted compressive stress-strain response. As only the foam viscoelastic
response is of interest, the diameter D of the foam cells can be increased; ∆t is directly
proportional to D if the mesh is kept the same. The initial velocity of a rigid striker is
increased in proportion to D, so that the strain rate in the foam is the same. However, if
D > 10 m for the wet Kelvin model, the deformation is predicted to be limited to a small
region near the striker.

Cyclic compression data for virgin and remoulded PU foam

A virgin block of PU foam of density 25.8 kg m-3, previously tested in (13) had a typical
open cell microstructure. As the solid PU density is 1200 kg m-3, the foam relative
density is 0.0215. A remoulded PU foam (4) of density 72 kg m-3 contains a range of
densities of chips of size circa 8 mm, uniaxially compressed by varying amounts in the
moulding process, and bonded together. An Instron compression testing machine was
used on 50 mm cubes of foam, with the compression direction being the rise direction
of the PU foam or the moulding compression direction of the remoulded foam. A
constant slow compression rate of 20 mm/min meant that there was no gas flow
contribution to the stress.

The compression cycles were taken to 25%, 50% or 75% compression, with a recovery
period of 1 hour for the virgin foam, and 5 minutes for the remoulded foam. Figure 2
shows that there is an initial stress peak for the virgin foam, with some memory of the
initial loading cycle in the 2nd cycle. The stress-strain graph

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 298
N.J. Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 2. Cyclic stress strain graphs for: a) virgin, b) remoulded PU foam.

of the remoulded foam is more linear, and the hysteresis smaller, than for the virgin
foam. The hysteresis, defined as the energy lost in a cycle (or in the loading and
unloading of an impact) divided by the energy input, increases with the compressive
strain (Table 3).

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 299
N.J. Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________

Table 3. Hysteresis measured on foam cubes compressed slowly in an Instron

Foam and density max strain 25% max strain 50% max strain 75%

Virgin 27 kg m-3 53 56 60

Chip 72 kg m-3 35 43 49

2 UNIAXIAL IMPACT COMPRESSION OF FOAM

Previous test conditions (3) were replicated, with the aim of interpreting the stress-strain
data. The model consisted of one quarter of a foam cube of side 100 mm, with two
vertical symmetry planes running through the centre point, supported on a rigid flat
surface, and impacted by one quarter of a rigid flat-faced striker of total mass 2 kg
(Figure 3). The initial impact velocity of 3.5 ms-1 caused an initial strain rate for

Fig. 3. Model of one quarter of a foam cube, after 2.4 ms, with contours of the vertical
compressive stress component (kPa).

loading of 35 s-1. The foam was meshed at 10, 5 or 2.5 mm intervals, to check the effect
of mesh size. The predictions for mesh sizes of 5 and 2.5 mm were identical, and only
slightly different from the prediction for a mesh size of 10 mm. Therefore a 5 mm mesh
size was used for further simulations. There were frictionless ‘hard’ contact boundary

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 300
N.J. Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________
conditions on the support table and the flat striker/foam top interface. The hyperfoam
data of Table 2, with the two moduli empirically increased by 20%, were used as
instantaneous moduli, and the Prony series set 4 of Table 1 used as the viscoelastic data,
for both this and the head impact simulations described in the next section. The ‘table
stress’ was computed from both the reaction force on the support table and the ‘striker
stress’ from the striker acceleration. The impact was predicted to last about 40 ms.

Figure 4 shows the striker and table stresses versus strain, predicted by dynamic FEA.
The initial striker-to-foam-top impact creates a pressure pulse which travels down
through the foam. Figure 3 shows that, after 2.4 ms, the upper part of the specimen is
under a nearly uniform stress of 6 kPa, while the lower surface is almost stress free.
With increasing time, the higher stress region propagates to the lower surface of the

Fig. 4. Predicted compressive stress-strain curves for a cube of foam: solid curves for
standard FEA, dashed curves for the table stress and striker stress in dynamic FEA.

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 301
N.J. Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________

specimen, then a new, yet higher stress region forms near this surface and propagates
upwards through the foam. This phenomenon is due to the inertia of the relatively dense
foam, the low sound wave velocity, and the relatively low elastic modulus of the foam.
The pulses appear as steps on the loading part of the stress strain curve. They have
effectively disappeared by the time the foam is at maximum strain. This appears to be
the first prediction of such an effect in open-cell PU foam. A initial step of 5 kPa height,
with some small oscillations, was observed in the striker stress vs. foam strain graphs
derived from impacts on 100 mm thick blocks of PU chip foam (3). In another
simulation with a 5 kg striker and a lower impact velocity, there were many more,
smaller steps on the stress-strain curve. Hence there are advantages in using a heavier
striker, but as the magnitude of the striker acceleration is reduced, the initial impact can
be difficult to detect.

A compression/extension cycle was also simulated using the viscoelastic option in

Standard FEA, with a maximum strain of 65% reached in 20 ms, approximately the
conditions in the dynamic simulation. Figure 4 shows a smoothly increasing stress-
strain curve, which is close to the experimental data for the foam (3). The 22% hysteresis
in the standard FEA prediction is less than the 35% in the dynamic FEA, due to the
constancy of the strain rate in former simulation.

3 HEAD IMPACT ON A LARGE FOAM MAT

Large blocks of PU chip foam, of typical density 72 kg m-3, are used for fall protection
in sport applications. An athlete’s head was simulated falling vertically onto the top
surface of the PU mat. The headform was modelled as a rigid sphere of radius 87 mm
(the mean radius of curvature of the headform at the crown impact site used in
experiments) and mass 4.1 kg, while the foam was a cylindrical block of radius 600 mm
and thickness 100 or 400 mm. The foam was supported by a rigid flat table, but able to
move away from it (Figure 5). An axisymmetric 2-Dimensional rather than a 3-
Dimensional problem was considered, since this reduced the computation time by more
than an order of magnitude.

A coefficient of friction of 0.75 was used between the foam and both the headform and
the table. The undeformed FEA mesh for the foam consisted of horizontal and vertical
straight lines, with spacing biased towards the initial impact point, providing greater
detail of the strain field in that region. The foam elements used were CAX4, 4-node
bilinear axisymmetric quadrilaterals.

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 302
N.J. Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 5. Axisymmetric model of head impact on a mat, with predicted mat shape just as
the head rebounds at 102 ms, with principal compressive stress contours (kPa) in the
foam.

The predicted headform force (head acceleration multiplied by its mass) versus the
central mat deflection graphs in figure 6 show hysteresis that is almost constant when
the headform drop distance (hence initial impact velocity) is varied. The values of the
energy in, energy out and % energy lost are given in Table 4. For the 400 mm thick mat,
the shape of the predicted loading response (Fig. 6b) is approximately the same as for
the experimental data in figure 7. The model is more successful than that using a
hyperelastic foam material (3). For the 100 mm thick mat, a head impact velocity of 4.43
ms-1 (a drop from 1.0 m) causes the foam to almost bottom out. Figure 5 shows the
temporary residual dent in the upper surface of the foam as the headform rebounds, and
the small temporary residual stresses in the mat.

However, as the impact velocity (drop height) increases, the experimental graphs show
increased hysteresis, and the unloading curves fall below the predicted responses. Hence
linear viscoelasticity cannot completely explain the foam mat response. Non-linear
viscoelasticity in the foam is the most likely cause of the extra hysteresis. There is also
possibly a contribution from air flow through the foam, modelled by Mills and Lyn (4).
The hysteresis in the simulations is the same or slightly higher than the 35% for the
dynamic FEA simulation of the cube impact.

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 303
N.J. Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 6. Predicted headform force versus central mat deflection graphs for the marked
drop heights in metres: a) 100 mm, b) 400 mm thick mats.

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 304
N.J. Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 7. Experimental headform force versus central mat deflection graphs for the
marked drop heights in metres: a) 100 mm, b) 400 mm thick mats. The dashed curves
are hyperelastic FEA predictions [3].

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 305
N.J. Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________
Table 4. Energy flows and hysteresis predicted for head impacts on foam blocks
Mat thickness Drop height Maximum energy input Hysteresis
m m deflection mm Ein J %
0.1 0.25 63.9 10.0 35
0.1 0.5 77.7 20.1 35
0.1 1.0 88.8 40.3 35
0.4 0.25 77.0 10.0 39
0.4 0.5 101.0 20.1 40
0.4 1.0 131.3 40.2 42

4 MICROMECHANICS OF A FOAM COMPRESSION CYCLE

Initial analysis of a Gibson-Ashby model

When standard (implicit) FEA models of PU foam were converted to dynamic FEA, a
number of changes were made. The introduction of viscoelasticity slows the
computation and may cause artefacts. Gibson and Ashby’s (14) model (Figure 8) was
initially used because the circa 2 minute computation times allowed experimentation
with the model parameters. However, the weakly supported edges labelled A are almost
free to vibrate in bending, which is not the case in real PU foams. Consequently, such
vibrations may affect the dynamic FEA simulations.

Using an elastic model with quadratic-order elements, the predicted stress-strain curve
reduces in slope as the edges marked B and V in figure 8a buckle. The unloading curve
is identical with the loading curve (Figure 9a). Although its geometry is inappropriate
for PU foams, its predicted compressive stress-strain curve is a reasonable first
approximation for that of PU foam. The square cross-section edges have a width that is
0.10 of their length, so the relative density is 0.023 if the structure is repeated in the
direction into the paper (Figure 8). Relatively large elements were used, with only two
elements across each edge. In the dynamic FEA for a cell size D = 1 mm, ABAQUS
CAE did not allow meshing with hexahedral elements. Consequently quadratic-order
tetrahedral elements (C3D10M) were used for all the simulations, to avoid errors from
changes of meshing.

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 306
N.J. Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 8. Gibson and Ashby’s micromechanics model: a) initial shape, b) half model after
0.04 s, c) after 0.4 s.

First, a viscoelastic step was used in ABAQUS Standard to study the effect of
viscoelasticity alone. Using Prony coefficient set 1 or 3 and an instantaneous Young’s
modulus of E0 = 100 MPa, additional negative curvature was predicted to occur in the
loading part of the stress-strain curve, compared with the purely elastic simulation,
causing the stress to nearly reach a maximum during loading. In simulations of cyclic
loading to various maximum strains, the strain rate was kept constant at 0.5 s-1. The
predicted loading curves (Figure 9a) follow the same path, but the unloading curves are
separate, as expected. Table 5 shows that the hysteresis is almost proportional to the gi

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 307
N.J. Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 9. Compressive stress-strain curves predicted for the viscoelastic Gibson-Ashby

model: a) viscoelastic standard analysis for loading to 3 maximum strains, compared
with the elastic solution, b) dynamic FEA prediction of the striker and table stresses for
cell diameter D = 1 m.

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 308
N.J. Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________

values of the viscoelastic model, and increases slightly with the maximum strain in the
simulation.

Table 5. Hysteresis values for various micromechanics simulations

Test type model gi maximum Energy input hysteresis
strain % kJ m -3 %

Constant Gibson 0.10 10 0.23 28

Ashby
strain rate 30 1.63 35
50 3.30 39
70 5.03 41
0.05 60 5.23 18
Impact Gibson 0.05 45.3 3.56 22
Ashby
Constant strain wet Kelvin 0.05 74 2.91 17
rate
0.10 74 2.91 40

Second, dynamic FEA was used with the same E0 = 100 MPa, and Prony coefficient set
3 of Table 1. In dynamic FEA the elements cannot be quadratic-order, so linear-order
elements were used. Initially the cell diameter was 1 m, which allowed a reasonable ∆t
= 5 x 10-5 s. The impact of a 4000 kg rigid cube, initially travelling at 2 ms-1, provided
an initial strain rate of 1 s-1 and a maximum compressive strain of 45%. The predicted
striker-stress curve (Figure 9b) has several sub-maxima associated with bending
vibrations of the edge A1 in figure 8, running into a stress plateau when the edges B and
V parallel to the compression direction buckle (the phenomenon predicted in the elastic
analysis). The table-stress curve also shows maxima during loading, out of phase with
the striker-stress maxima. The edge-vibration effects die away by the start of the
unloading curve. Compared with figure 9a, it is difficult to see the onset of non-linearity
in the loading response.

When the cell size was reduced to 10 mm, both the striker mass and its initial velocity
were reduced by a factor of 100, to keep the initial strain rate and the input energy
density constant. Mass scaling of the polyurethane kept the ∆t at the previous level. The
effect of the bending vibration of edge A1 in the predicted stress-strain curves was
larger, making it difficult to interpret. When the cell was scaled down to D = 1 mm, the
edge vibration effect remains large. The edge bending vibrations are an artefact of the
regular lattice, and the unrealistic model geometry. In a larger model, with irregular
cells, the vibrations of a number of edges would be averaged, so the effect would be

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 309
N.J. Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________
minimal. The hysteresis (Table 5) predicted by the dynamic FEA model, for the same gi
= 0.05, is slightly higher than for the standard model.

Viscoelastic analysis of the Wet Kelvin model

The evolved wet Kelvin foam has edges that vary in width, along their length. Figure
10a shows one complete cell of the foam; the [111] direction runs from the centre of one
hexagonal face to the centre of the opposite hexagonal face. The relative density (Table
6) is typical of PU foams. The mid-edge width is given, as is the diameter of the holes
in the hexagonal faces. The edge width parameter S is for the ‘initial’ Kelvin foam
structure that has its surface energy minimized by the Surface Evolver program.

Table 6. Parameters of evolved wet Kelvin foam cells (Cell diameter D = 1 unit)
Edge width Edge width at Relative hexagonal face
mid length density R hole diameter
S
0.2 0.1072 0.0276 0.478

The RUC for [111] direction compression is a prism with an equilateral triangle cross-
section (Figure 10b), and a three-fold screw symmetry axis along its axis. Zhu et al. (15)
showed that the vertices move directly towards the screw axis by equal amounts,
maintaining their 120° angular separation when viewed along the screw axis. The angles
between the boundary planes at the sides of the prism remain at 120°. Modelling was
performed for a complete repeat unit of the helix of edges, having ‘cut’ half-edges at
each end. The boundary conditions on the cut lateral cell-edges at the sides of the prism
were achieved by using frictionless contact (which cannot break if tension is applied)
between the element faces and a discrete-rigid plane. Three such planes have a single
degree of freedom; to move (by equal amounts) directly towards the prism axis.

The cross-sectional area A of the prism is 0.5 D2/√3, where D is the cell diameter.
Hence the compressive engineering stress on the top surface of the foam can be
calculated from the compressive force on the edge that meets that surface. The lateral
strain in the foam is 6U1 where U1 is the lattice 1 axis displacement component of one
bounding rigid plane. The initial length of the RUC is √(3/4)D, hence the compressive
strain can be evaluated. To evaluate the edge ending and torsional stiffness to within 5%
of the analytical values, 10-node quadratic tetrahedral elements C3D10M were used,

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 310
N.J. Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 10. Wet Kelvin foam model a) One complete cell, b) end view of RUC for [111]
direction compression, containing a helix of edges.

with typically 21 triangular element faces across the cut-edge ends. There were typically
8000 elements in the models.

The large deformation option was used with ABAQUS 6.5 standard. The periodic
boundary conditions from the elastic analysis (7) were used in the ‘visco’ step. It is
difficult to simulate contact between foam edges, due to the ‘orphan mesh’ used.
Therefore the maximum compressive strain in the simulation was chosen to be 74%,
before edge contact occurs. The PU material properties were a combination of

a) density 1200 kg m-3

b) elasticity, with short time Young’s modulus E0 = 50 MPa and Poisson’s ratio
ν0 = 0.45.

c) viscoelasticity, with a Prony series of shear moduli of data set 1 or 3 in Table

1.

Figure 11 shows the bent and twisted edges at 74% strain, with two edges approaching
but not touching. Figure 12 shows the predicted compressive stress-strain curve of the
foam, for a strain cycle to 74% compressive strain in 1 s. As with the Gibson-Ashby
model, the addition of viscoelasticity increases the negative curvature of the stress-strain
graph during loading, and causes the unloading response to fall below the loading
response. When the model was reloaded, the second loading curve falls below the initial
one, a phenomenon noted with PU foams.

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 311
N.J. Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 11. Predicted shape of Kelvin foam model at 74% compressive strain in the [111]
direction.

Fig. 12. Predicted stress-strain curves of Kelvin foam for compression in the [111]
direction. Solid graph for gi = 0.1 (set 3 of table 1) dashed graphs for 1.5 cycles for gi =
0.05 (set 1 of table 1)

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 312
N.J. Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________

These predictions for a model relative density R = 0.0276 can be compared with the
experimental data in figure 1a for virgin foam with R = 0.0215. Since the stresses (7)
should be proportional to R2, the predicted stresses should be 65% higher than the
experimental ones for the same strain. The initial stress plateau of the virgin foam of 3.3
kPa, if increased by 65%, is 5.4 kPa. This compares well with the prediction of 5.7 kPa
for the Prony set 3 of Table 1. The predicted unloading curve for gi = 0.1 is closer to
the experimental data than that for gi = 0.05, in spite of the latter being a better
representation of the solid PU viscoelasticity. In neither case is the predicted hysteresis
(Table 5) as high as the experimental values (Table 3).

Dynamic FEA of the wet Kelvin model

It was unclear how to implement periodic boundary conditions in dynamic FEA, so

these were not used. It is not possible to impose a non-zero displacement of a dummy
point, used in standard FEA (7) to create the deformation, nor can the striker mass be
easily linked to the forces on further dummy points. However, dynamic FEA could be
better for modelling non-uniform strain in the compressed foam; the RUC could be
made two or three times as long in the compression direction as that used in the
standard FEA, and self contact conditions can be easily applied to the foam structure.

The end boundary conditions affect the model response. ‘Encastre’ support of the cut
lower end of the helix of edges is too rigid compared with the conditions in a larger
block of foam. However if the cut edge is allowed to rotate freely, this is too flexible.
The same applies to the impacted upper end of the helix of edges. Such distinctions
would be unimportant if the model size exceeded 10 cell diameters in length, but in the
small models that are possible to analyse in a reasonable time, they have a critical effect
on the predictions.

When a realistically small cell diameter of D = 1 mm was used, ∆t = 1 x 10-11 s, which

made the computation unacceptably slow. Hence the foam cell size was chosen as D = 1
m, causing ∆t = 5.3 x 10-7. Mass scaling was then used to further speed up the
calculations; to increase ∆t to 1 x 10-5 s. There is a limit to the mass scaling, when the
deformation speed exceeds the wave speed in an element during the analysis, so the
analysis ceases. When simulations were attempted, stability and contact problems
prevented success. Nevertheless, further attempts will be made to solve these problems.

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 313
N.J. Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________
DISCUSSION
Dynamic FEA, considering the polymer viscoelasticity, confirms that it is reasonable to
interpret drop impact tests on PU foam blocks in terms of the foam stress-strain curve
(3)
. The small step at the start of the curve is due to a pressure (or densification) pulse
which propagates through the foam; the step should be ignored in extracting the foam
response. This makes the hyperelastic model of Table 2 a better fit to the data for
remoulded PU foams than previously assumed (3).

The predictions from the viscoelastic analysis of head impacts on large blocks of
remoulded PU foams are improvements on the previous hyperelastic analysis, both in
terms of the shapes of the force vs. deflection curves and the hysteresis. However non-
linear viscoelasticity in the foam probably causes the hysteresis to increase with the
impact velocity in experimental data. Air flow also contributes to losses, when large
foam blocks are impacted at velocities in excess of 5 m s-1, make the analysis of such
systems complex. Viscoelasticity could be added to previous elastic analyses of PU
foam responses during the Indentation Force Deflection test (13).

There are limitations in modelling foam micromechanics using FEA. Only a small
amount of the foam structure can be considered, because the computation time must not
be excessive. This necessitates the use of a small RUC from a regularly-repeating foam
structure. The dynamic FEA stress-strain predictions for the Gibson Ashby model were
noisy, due to the bending vibration of edges close to the striker surface. In real foams,
with random rather than a regular cell structures, the vibrations of individual edges will
not be in phase, so will cancel out. The time interval in dynamic FEA is small due both
to the small cell size and the fine mesh required to capture the edge geometry.

The use of viscoelasticity in standard FEA was more successful. Simulations with the
Gibson Ashby model, which predicts stress-strain non-linearity due to large foam
geometry changes, indicated that the foam hysteresis is almost proportional to the
polymer damping (measured by the Prony coefficients gi), as expected. It also increases
slightly with the maximum compressive strain in the foam. Hysteresis is predicted to be
slightly greater in PU foams impacted in compression than in those cyclically
compressed in a testing machine; the reduction in the strain rate, towards the maximum
strain in the impact test, allows more time for the effective modulus to drop. Since the
hysteresis of virgin PU foam is higher than that predicted by the linear viscoelastic
models, the viscoelastic response of the foam is probably non-linear.

A small stress drop was predicted during the [111] direction compression of a
viscoelastic, wet Kelvin model. This might cause strain localisation in a larger model, in
which a highly deformed band of foam forms and propagates while the compressive
stress remains constant. In spite of the stress relaxation data for solid PU being best

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 314
N.J. Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________
fitted by the generalised Maxwell model, with parameter set 1 in Table 1, it appears that
the hysteresis in a compression cycle on virgin PU foam is best matched by a model
with at least double the damping (double the gi values). This model can now predict the
main features of PU foam compression responses, via quantitative relationships with the
polymer properties and foam density. However, the influences of anisotropic cell
shapes, and of variable cell diameters and packing, remain to be incorporated in a more
complex model. A micromechanics model for remoulded PU foam is still remote, given
the complexity of the microstructure. Such a model would consider the material as a
composite, with a statistical distribution of foam density and a distribution of pre-
compression of the chips.

REFERENCES
1. Davies O.L. & Mills N.J., The rate dependence of Confor PU foams, Cell. Polym.,
18, (1999) 117-136.

2. Mott, P.H., Roland, C.M. and Corsaro R.D., Acoustic and dynamic mechanical
properties of a polyurethane rubber, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 111 (2002) 1782-1790.

3. Lyn G. & Mills N.J., Design of foam crash mats for head impact protection, Sports
Engng., 4, (2001) 153-163.

4. Mills N.J. & Lyn G., Modelling of air flow in impacted flexible polyurethane
foams, Cell. Polym., 21, (2002) 343-367.

5. Huang J.S. & Gibson L.J., Creep of polymer foams, J. Mater. Sci. 26, (1991) 637-
647.

6. Zhu H.X. & Mills N.J., Modelling the creep in open cell foams, J. Mech. Phys.
Solids, 47, (1999) 1437-1457.

7. Mills N.J., The high strain mechanical response of wet Kelvin foams open cell
foams, Int. J. Solids Struct., accepted. (2006)

8. Surface Evolver (2004) at //www.susqu.edu/facstaff/b/brakke/evolver/

9. McKown S., Ph D thesis, University of Liverpool, (2005)

10. Elliott J.A., Windle A.H. et al., In-situ deformation of an open cell flexible
polyurethane foam, J. Mater. Sci., 37 (2002) 1547-1555.

11. ABAQUS 6.5 manuals, Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen Inc. Pawtucket, R.I., USA
(2005).

12. Ogden R.W., Large deformation isotropic elasticity: on the correlation of theory and
experiment for compressible rubberlike solids, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 328, (1972)
567-583.

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 315
N.J. Mills Finite Element Models for the Viscoelasticity of Open-Cell Polyurethane foam

___________________________________________________________________________________
13. Mills N.J. & Gilchrist A., Modelling the indentation of low density polymer foams,
Cell. Polym. 19, (2000) 389-412.

14. Gibson L.J. & Ashby M, Cellular Solids, 2nd Ed., Cambridge University Press (1998)

15. Zhu H.X., Mills N.J. & Knott J.F., Analysis of the high strain compression of open-
cell foams, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 45, (1997) 1875-1904.

____________________________________________________________________________________
As in Cellular Polymers, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2006 316