PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2016; 29: 337–349

Published online 20 April 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/pts.2216

Modified Method for Dynamic Stress-Strain Curve Determination

of Closed-Cell Foams

By T. Piatkowski* and P. Osowski

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, UTP University of Science and Technology, Al. Prof. S. Kaliskiego 7, 85-796,
Bydgoszcz, Poland

The paper presents a modified method for the non-linear dynamic stress-strain curve determination with the
use of cushion curves provided by the manufacturers of closed-cell foams. This method consists of two main
stages: stage 1 – the cushion curves transformation to the coordinate system of dynamic stress-energy den-
sity, combined with the cubic b-spline curve approximation, and stage 2 – development of the dynamic
stress-strain curve considering that the area under the curve is equal to the energy density of a collision.
The stress-strain curves are one of the basic parameters of the foam material models used to describe the
collision process, in the modelling environments of finite element method (FEM), e.g. LS-DYNA.
Performed verification consisting in the reconstruction of cushion curves using LS-DYNA showed that
the proposed method of the dynamic stress-strain curves determination is efficient and effective. Taking into
account that access to the stress-strain curves is hindered (cushioning material manufacturers do not publish
them), and the access to charts of cushion curves is easier, the proposed method for determining the stress-
strain curves can relevantly shorten the process of preparing the input data, which are required during
modelling of spatial structures using FEM. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 11 November 2015; Revised 9 January 2016; Accepted 21 March 2016

KEY WORDS: collision; cushion curves; drop test; finite element method (FEM); impact; shock

INTRODUCTION

One of the basic tasks of packaging is to protect the products against the effects of an impact. In the
transportation process, the packaging is vulnerable to a collision caused during, e.g. fall on the ground,
contact with other packages or working joints of manipulators while unloading, loading and automatic
sorting.1–4 During collision, accelerations appear, causing the dynamic reactions that can lead to
mechanical damage. The task of the packaging designer is to select the cushion structures (both the
material and geometry), capable to reduce the accelerations transmitted to the product below its sus-
ceptibility to damage. Impact energy dissipation is achieved as a result of cushion buffer deformation.
The energy that is consumed to deform the cushion material is no longer transmitted to the product.
The result of the proper operation of the cushioning structures (recorded by acceleration sensors) is
extending the duration of a collision and reducing extreme accelerations.
In a traditional designing process of packaging, the basic characteristics of the material used for the
structure of the cushioning buffers are the graphs of cushion curves. They are developed on the basis of
drop tests (Figure 1), as recommended by the ASTM D1596.5 The cushion curves set development for
selected discrete free fall height h and thickness d, and static stress σ s for one material with a given
density is very laborious and time-consuming; it is required to perform approx. 10 500 tests in
175 h.6 The same traditional designing process is also laborious. It involves a trial-and-error method,

* Correspondence to: T. Piatkowski, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, UTP University of Science and Technology,
Al. Prof. S. Kaliskiego 7, 85-796 Bydgoszcz, Poland.
E-mail: topiat@utp.edu.pl

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

338 T. PIATKOWSKI AND P. OSOWSKI

Figure 1. Shock cushioning test: 1, platen; 2, cushion material; 3, undeformable base; 4, accelerom-
eter; h, drop height; d, thickness; σ s = mg/A, static stress; m, platen mass; g, gravity acceleration; A,
contact area.

i.e. multiple prototypes preparation, verified based on experimental test results7 until the expected goal
is obtained. The need to increase certainty in achieving the assumptions in the packaging design pro-
cess (the accepted level of products protection from damage and minimizing packaging mass) and, si-
multaneously, striving to the workload reduction on experimental research and a better use of
information acquired is an inspiration for scientists for an intensive search for effective analytical
and numerical solutions. The presentation of achievements and needs in this field of knowledge is
provided in the next section.

METHODS OF ELASTIC-DAMPING PROPERTIES DESCRIPTION OF THE CUSHION

MATERIALS

The collision process between platen and cushioning material is usually modelled as the mechanical
system with one degree of freedom. The platen (Figure 1) is treated as a point mass and the cushioning
material as a massless body with elastic-damping properties.8
The papers9–12 present a dynamic stress-energy density method that requires only 10 drop tests to
determine any set of cushion curves (for the material made of closed-cell foam). The tests are selected
in a way to ensure a uniform coverage of the accepted range of energy absorbed by the cushioning
material: Ed∈hEd min; Ed maxi, where: Ed = σ sh/d. Then parameters σ s, h and d applied during the expe-
rimental tests and impact factor G determined by measuring the platen accelerations (G = a/g, where: a
– maximum acceleration recorded by the sensor) are used for the plot determination of the stress versus
dynamic energy density (σ d = Gσ s versus Ed = σ sh/d). This graph is approximated by an exponential
function, called the stress-energy equation:

σ d ¼ p1 expðp2 E d Þ (1)

Coefficients p1 and p2 determined for this function are the springboard for the calculation of the
cushion curve of any configuration h, d and σ s.


p1 exp p2dσ s h
G¼ (2)
σs

In another work,13 to determine the cushion curve, the non-linear elastic-damping impact model
with one degree of freedom is proposed. It is assumed that the impact force consists of two

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2016; 29: 337–349
DOI: 10.1002/pts
 DYNAMIC STRESS-STRAIN CURVE DETERMINATION OF CLOSED-CELL FOAMS 339

components: the first one is determined based on the static compression tests of cushion material, and
the second one – on the drop test, to take into account dynamic effects, e.g. structural damping, buck-
ling, resistance of compression and gas flow and stress wave propagation. The model input data are
static stress-strain curve and the set of the acceleration waveforms recorded during the impact tests.
The cushion curve can also be estimated from single impact data; however, the result is strongly
dependent on the quality of that single data.
In yet another publication,14 the non-linear elastic properties of cushion material (represented by the
static stress-strain curve) are locally linearized in the working point; the non-linear system is divided
into a series of linear stages, then each stage is treated as a locally linearized working point. The model
proposed enables to predict the maximum acceleration, which is traced in the global non-linear system
(yet without the determination ability of the acceleration course as a function of time)

rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi !
2σ max hA ξ ð0:5π  φÞ
a¼g exp pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (3)
εmax dW t  ξ2
where

d – cushion thickness
A – contact area
W = mg – weight of package component
σ max, εmax – stress and strain at the instant of maximum acceleration determined on the basis of static
stress-strain curve σ s(ε), assuming that the integral of the curve σ s(ε) stands for energy density
Ed = σ sh/d
 
ξ
ϕ ¼ arctg pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2 – phase angle
tξ

ξ¼ pbffiffiffiffi
– damping ratio
2 cm
b, c – damping and stiffness coefficients.

An impact model of the platen against the cushion material of open-cell foam is presented in another
work,6 in which the cushion curves and the shock pulse shapes are determined numerically. The non-
linear stress-strain behaviour of the foam is described with the use of hyperelastic model15,16 and
hysteretic properties – using the linear viscoelasticity.17
Common availability of modern computational techniques triggers an increased interest in the use of
computer-aided design tools. The finite element method technique enables to research the cushioning
systems of packaging as a structure of complex geometry.18–20 This facilitates designing the ribbed
systems with a minimalized mass of cushion materials, which not only work on the compression (as
in the conventional solutions) but also on the bending, torsion or shear. The problem of the optimal
solution determination can be realized through numerical simulations (e.g. in LS-DYNA21), limiting
the number of tedious and costly experimental tests of packaging prototypes.
In the LS-DYNA environment (designed for dynamic processes modelling, including the impact
phenomenon), one of the most important parameters in the model of cushion material is stress-strain
curves, determined applying the testing machines, at a constant and low compression speed (quasi-
static compression). The data are devoid of the influence of dynamic effects occurring in the real
impact process. A better solution is to use the dynamic stress-strain curves from experimental impact
tests. The curves are available neither from the manufacturers of cushion materials nor from the appli-
cable literature. The solution to this problem is a self-reliant development of such curves by performing
earlier adequately planned experiments. The drawback of this solution is laboriousness and the need of
access to specialized laboratory stands. Own research (inspired by work of Burgess9), however,
demonstrates that the dynamic stress-strain curves can be also developed by relying only on cushion
curves graphs22,23 determined based on repeatedly performed drop tests (DIN 55471-1,24 ASTM
D15965), provided by manufacturers.
The proposal of the modified method for the dynamic stress-strain curve determination based on
cushion curves is shown in the following part of the paper.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2016; 29: 337–349
DOI: 10.1002/pts
340 T. PIATKOWSKI AND P. OSOWSKI

MODIFIED METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE DYNAMIC STRESS-STRAIN CURVES

BASED ON CUSHION CURVES

The dynamic stress-strain curve is determined in two stages: the graph development of dynamic stress-
energy density curve (using the cushion curves, e.g. Figure 2a22,23) combined with the data approxi-
mation by cubic b-spline curve (Figure 2b) and the determination of the dynamic stress-strain curve
(Figure 2c).
The chart of dynamic stress-energy density curve (Figure 2b) can be obtained (according to the
authors9–11), based on all the cushion curves available in the chart (Figures 2a and 5a), or by using only
two curves: with the lowest and the highest energy density Ed (Figure 4a). Then the data from the chart
of dynamic stress-energy density curve should be approximated, for example, by cubic b-spline curve.
In the optimization task, the Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) method was applied with the
objective function represented by equation
n 2
minQðX Þ ¼ ∑ ðŷi  yi Þ (4)
i¼1
where

X = [y2, y3,…, ynP; x2, x3,…, xnP-1] – decision variables

nP – the number of control points (assumed: nP = 7)
ŷi, yi – i-th coordinate of the dynamic stress-energy density curve determined on the basis of
b-spline curve and the experimental tests, respectively.

It is assumed that the total curve σ d = f(Εd) is determined by the nP = 7 control points (Figure 3), of
which 11 coordinates are decision variables and the remaining three are fixed values:
x1 ¼ 0; y1 ¼ 0; xnP ¼ E d max (5)

The following limitations of the optimization task have been adopted:

• linear
(
xi  xi1 < 0 when i ¼ 2; 3; …; nP
yi  yi1 < 0 (6)
x3 < Ed min
• non-linear

αi  αi1 < 0 when i ¼ 2; 3
(7)
αi1  αi < 0 when i ¼ 4; …; nP  1
where
 
yiþ1  yi
αi ¼ arctg when i ¼ 1; …; nP  1 (8)
xiþ1  xi

Figure 2. Stages of modified method for dynamic stress-strain curve determination: (a) Cushion
curves,23 (b) dynamic stress-energy density curve, and (c) dynamic stress-strain curve; i = 1,2,3…n,
indexes; n, index of last point in the chart; ΔEd(i) = Ed(i)Ed(i1), i-th energy density increment.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2016; 29: 337–349
DOI: 10.1002/pts
 DYNAMIC STRESS-STRAIN CURVE DETERMINATION OF CLOSED-CELL FOAMS 341

Figure 3. Diagram of b-spline curve. P, control points; i = 1,2,3,…,7, index of control points; αi, angle
of broken line of b-spline curve at point Pi; Ed min and Ed max, minimum and maximum abscissa of
experimental data.

The number of control points and accepted limits is chosen in a way to obtain the non-decreasing
curve course with one inflection causing a convexity at the beginning of the curve and concavity at
its end. The data approximation using the exponential function was given up (proposed in9–11) because
it cannot model the curve σ d = f(Ed) starting from point (0,0), as e.g. in Figures 4c and 5c – the dashed
curve.
The last stage is to convert the curve σ d = f(Εd) to the curve σ d = f(ε). To solve this problem, there
was used the property according to which the area under the curve σ d = f(ε) is equal to the energy
density Εd9 (magnified detail in Figure 2c).

Ed ¼ ∫σ d dε (9)

Using the trapezoidal method for numerical integration of curve σ d = f(ε), the strain ε (abscissa on
the graph in Figure 2c) can be determined according to dependence:

i
εðiÞ ¼ ∑ Δεk (10)
k¼1

where

Δεi – i-th increment of the strain

8 
< 2 EdðiÞ  E dði1Þ (11)
ΔεðiÞ ¼ when i > 1
: σ dðiÞ þ σ dði1Þ
0 otherwise

A new element of the presented procedure (relative to the published literature) is to obtain the dynamic
stress-strain curve, which at the origin of coordinates has zero value (stage 2). This effect is achieved
by forcing the stress-energy curve course (using the b-spline curve, in stage 1) so it also has a zero
value at the coordinate origin.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2016; 29: 337–349
DOI: 10.1002/pts
342 T. PIATKOWSKI AND P. OSOWSKI

Figure 4. Stages of determination of dynamic stress-strain curve for expanded polystyrene: (a) Cushion
curves,22 (b) dynamic stress-energy density curve, (c) magnified detail A in Figure 4b, and (d) dynamic
stress-strain curve; P = [0 0; 0.273 15.899; 0.344 20.061; 4.391 20.106; 15.833 33.925; 28.978 104.571;
29.595 114.642]×104, p1 = 15.75, p2 = 0.06598.

NUMERICAL EXAMPLES

The dynamic stress-strain curve determination

In Figures 4 and 5, results are shown from each of the stages of the curve σ d = f(ε) determination for
two materials: expanded polystyrene (EPS) (20 kg/m22) and E-por® (20 kg/m23).
As for the EPS material, curve σ d = f(Εd) (Figure 4b) was determined only based on two cushion
curves: Figure 4a, h/d = 2 and h/d = 40 – representing the range of the lowest and highest energy density
(the data placed on the left and right to the graph in Figure 4b). A better fit was obtained in the case of the
approximation with the use of the b-spline curve (R2 = 0.9995) than the exponential curve (R2 = 0.9881).
The initial curve b-spline course (Figure 4c) is determined by three control points. An increased number
of control points in this place is associated with the need to lead the b-spline curve precisely – despite a
dearth of experimental data in this part of the chart. The dynamic stress-strain curve σ d = f(ε) determined
with cushion curves (bold line in Figure 4d) is above the curve obtained during quasi-static compression
test.22 This relationship is logical, assuming that the dynamic stress-strain curve takes into account not
only the reaction forces of elastic-plastic character but also damping. The chart (Figure 4d) also shows
the range of optimum operating conditions of cushion material corresponding to the minimum values of
acceleration for each cushion curves (shown in Figure 4a).
Figure 5b shows curve σ d = f(Εd), which is determined based on all the cushion curves of Figure 5a.
In the present case, both approximations of the experimental data for b-spline curve as well as

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2016; 29: 337–349
DOI: 10.1002/pts
 DYNAMIC STRESS-STRAIN CURVE DETERMINATION OF CLOSED-CELL FOAMS 343

Figure 5. Stages of determination of dynamic stress-strain curve for E-por®: (a) Cushion curves,23 (b)
dynamic stress-energy density curve, (c) magnified detail A in Figure 5b, and (d) dynamic stress-strain
curve; P = [0 0; 0.285 11.662; 0.681 11.707; 11.300 27.010;22.553 86.323; 31.730 229.232; 35.132
350.469]×104, p1 = 10.46, p2 = 0.09991.

exponent curve show a very good fit (R2 = 0.999). The other properties of the charts in Figure 5 are the
same as for the charts discussed in the previous figure – Figure 4.

Verification of the method proposed

To verify the modified method of curves σ d = f(ε) determination proposed in the preceding paragraph,
in Figures 7 and 8, results are shown of the numerical simulations leading to a reproduction of the
cushion curves (for EPS and E-por®) using an impact models designated as model I, model II,
LS-DYNA, and in Figure 7 – also model III.
Model I (based on our own development) represents the impact process as a system with one degree
of freedom

1 F d when y_ < 0
€y ¼ (12)
m F d  b_y otherwise

where

Fd = σ d(ε)sgn(y)A – dynamic force applied to the cushion buffer during deformation stage
ε = |y|/d – strain

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2016; 29: 337–349
DOI: 10.1002/pts
344 T. PIATKOWSKI AND P. OSOWSKI

y – cushion deformation
d – cushion thickness
b – damping coefficient
A – contact area
σ d(ε) – dynamic stress-strain curve.

The first line in Equation (12) describes the reaction forces of an impact in the first phase (deforma-
tion phase) computed directly from the curve σ d(ε), and the second line – the forces of reaction in the
second phase (restitution phase), additionally taking into account viscous damping. This damping pro-
vides an easy way to model the dissipation of energy at the unloading phase (coefficient of restitution)
without affecting the maximum reaction force of an impact.
Model II relates to a dynamic stress-energy density method9–11 based on the curve of Figures 4b and
5b approximated by the exponential function of Equation (1). The maximum accelerations occurring
during a collision are determined according to the following relationship:


p1 exp p2dσs h
a¼g (13)
σs

Model III is represented by Equation (3) proposed in the work of Wang and Low.14
During the simulation in the LS-DYNA environment, a material model, LOW_DENSITY_FOAM
(057), designed for the description of foam properties, was used. The main parameter of this model
is the curve σ d(ε). It should include stress range, reaching up to 200 MPa, i.e. comparable with the yield
strength of materials that interact with the test specimen (according to the LS-DYNA Aerospace
Working Group21). During the numerical simulations, locally very high stresses can appear, much big-
ger than recorded during the experimental tests. Therefore, the curves from Figures 4d and 5d were
subjected to extrapolation, the results of which are shown in Figure 6. Hyperbolic interpolation was
used according to the following equation25:
! 
∂σ d 1  εð1Þ n 
σ d ðiþ1Þ ¼ σ d ðiÞ þ εðiþ1Þ  εðiÞ (14)
∂ε εð1Þ 1  εðiÞ

where

ε(1) – the value of strain from which the extrapolation starts

N – exponent, usually chosen between 2 and 325 (assumed, n = 3).

Figure 6. Extrapolation of the stress-strain curve with the use of hyperbolic function (when n = 3): (a)
For expanded polystyrene (EPS) and (b) for E-por®; ε(1), start of extrapolation.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2016; 29: 337–349
DOI: 10.1002/pts
 DYNAMIC STRESS-STRAIN CURVE DETERMINATION OF CLOSED-CELL FOAMS 345

From the analysis of the data shown in Figure 7 (on EPS22), it follows that the best fit between
the accelerations from experimental and simulations studies concerns model I and LS-DYNA.
Smaller matching is demonstrated by model II and model III, especially near the minimum values
of cushion curves that represent a high energy density (h/d = 40 and h/d = 28). In addition, model
III, not enough expressively identifies bottoming out effect that should occur at big compressive
strains.
Figure 8 shows the experimental and numerical test results carried out for E-por®.23 In this case, a
very good fit is reported for two models: model I as well model II (Figure 8a). The LS-DYNA model
well reproduces cushion curves with high energy density (h/d = 20 and h/d = 15) and correctly deter-
mines the minima for all the curves. Besides, the overestimation of accelerations at high static stresses
is visible, for the curves of low values of quotients h/d. A significant improvement in the effectiveness
of the LS-DYNA model (in the whole range of courses of cushion curves) was obtained in Figure 8b –

Figure 7. Cushioning diagram for expanded polystyrene (EPS) at 20 kg/m3 BASF.

Figure 8. Cushioning diagram for E-por® at 20 kg/m3 BASF: (a) For DAMP = const = 0.07 and (b) for
DAMP = f(σ s,h/d), according to Figure 9.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2016; 29: 337–349
DOI: 10.1002/pts
346 T. PIATKOWSKI AND P. OSOWSKI

by an appropriate selection of the damping factor (DAMP – in the material model). The chart for this
coefficient is found in Figure 9. It was determined by numerical optimization, and then presented as a
surface, using approximation of a cubic polynomial of two variables.
Figure 9 has been worked out in the coordinate system σ s and h/d to unambiguously show the rela-
tionships between the data depicted in Figure 8 and parameters required in the material model
LOW_DENSITY_FOAM (057). In addition, from an analysis of the Figure 9 results that the damping
coefficient depends not only on the strain rate (as commonly known from literature) but also on the
static stress, the initial impact velocity and the thickness of cushion material.
Earlier simulations carried out in the LS-DYNA environment (except Figure 8b) were performed for
constant value of factor DAMP = 0.07, adopted from the range recommended: DAMP = 0.05 ÷ 0.5.26
Figure 10 shows acceleration waveforms I, II and III determined using the LS-DYNA model, for
the impact process parameters, as a result of which there arise maximum deformations of the spe-
cimen: εmax I = 0.08, εmax II = 0.6 and εmax III = 0.93. Designations I, II and III concern three work

Figure 9. Chart of damping coefficient; R2 = 0.987.

Figure 10. Accelerations I, II, III in the function of time obtained for the impact process parameters
causing cushioning material deformation: εmax I = 0.08; εmax II = 0.6; εmax III = 0.93; h/d = 10; h = 0.42 m;
A = 400 × 104 m2; σ s I = 610.4 Pa; σ s II = 9684.3 Pa; σ s III = 35 185.9 Pa.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2016; 29: 337–349
DOI: 10.1002/pts
 DYNAMIC STRESS-STRAIN CURVE DETERMINATION OF CLOSED-CELL FOAMS 347

zones of cushion material.6 In zone I (ε < 0.08, Figure 6) the cushioning material is only subjected
to elastic deformations. This zone corresponds to the initial courses of the cushion curves (Figures 7
and 8) relating to the small static stresses σ s. The impact process in this case is of short duration,
and very big accelerations are reported. Zone II, in stress-strain diagrams, covers the plateau region
(ε = 0.1 ÷ 0.6, Figure 6). The cell walls of the material are buckling, causing large deformations at a
small load increase. Furthermore, the impact process duration increases. In the charts of cushion
curves, the minimal acceleration values are recorded. The optimum efficiency of material is
achieved at a strain ε ~ 0.6. In the zone III (ε > 0.6, Figure 6) intensive material compaction is
reported, joined with the bottoming effect. At the phase of maximum deflection, a rapid increase
of acceleration appears.
Figure 11 shows the results of inelastic impact process simulation using model I and LS-DYNA.
Charts were determined assuming restitution coefficient e = 0.31. To obtain it, in model I, damping
coefficient b = 8500 Ns/m was introduced, and in LS-DYNA – hysteretic unloading factor HU = 0.01
and shape factor for unloading SHAPE = 20. In none of the models, the parameters responsible for
the energy dissipation affect the impact course at the deformation phase. At this phase, copying of
the curve σ d(ε) occurs (Figure 11d): accurate for model I and slightly less accurate for LS-DYNA
model. The phase of the restitution of impact process for model I takes a little shorter than for LS-
DYNA model – Figure 11a–c.
The analyses show that the proposed method of determining curve σ d(ε) based on the cushion curves
and using the modelling in the LS-DYNA environment facilitate the reproduction of the essential fea-
tures of the impact process (e.g. maximum acceleration, restitution coefficient and the impact duration)
over a broad range of parameters (h/d, σ s) for closed-cell foams.

Figure 11. Inelastic impact (restitution coefficient e = 0.31, remaining parameters as for the graph II
in Figure 10): (a) Acceleration, (b) velocity, (c) deformation, and (d) dynamic compression; 1, dy-
namic stress-strain curve (according to Figure 6b); 2, model I (b = 8500 Ns/m); 3, LS-DYNA model
(HU = 0.01, SHAPE = 20).

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2016; 29: 337–349
DOI: 10.1002/pts
348 T. PIATKOWSKI AND P. OSOWSKI

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, the dynamic stress-strain curve was determined performing the pattern of transforma-
tions: cushion curves → dynamic stress-energy density curve → dynamic stress-strain curve → extrap-
olation of dynamic stress-strain curve. An intermediate step, the dynamic stress-energy density curve is
designed to place the data received from multiple cushion curves with different ranges of energy
absorbed by the cushioning material in order. The complementation of this stage is the data approxi-
mation with the use of cubic b-spline curve, which should have its beginning in the origin of the co-
ordinate system and have a non-decreasing course with one inflection. This curve has a direct
influence on the final result of the whole patter of the transformation process and, finally, on the dy-
namic stress-strain curve, which is determined taking into consideration that the area under the curve
is equal to the energy density of an impact. In the final data processing, the dynamic stress-strain curve
is subject to extrapolation of hyperbolic function, carried out until the stress reaches the values com-
parable with the yield strength of the materials interacting with the test specimen. The extrapolation
is performed because of the requirements of the LS-DYNA environment; it improves the stability of
the impact process simulations. In the range of high energy density Ed, the convergence between the
simulation and experimental test results can be increased applying (in the LS-DYNA model) the
damping coefficient DAMP determined in the function of two variables (σ s and h/d).
The method of the dynamic stress-strain curve determination has been verified in LS-DYNA envi-
ronment, only in relation to the material model LOW_DENSITY_FOAM (057) and in the reconstruc-
tion of the cushion curves set for the closed-cell foams. The shock pulse shapes obtained by means of
simulation (Figure 10) achieve correct extreme values of accelerations and present the trends consis-
tent with the generally available literature data.
Because of the positive results of the simulation, it could be considered that the procedure of the
dynamic stress-strain curve determination and its use in the material model LOW_DENSITY_FOAM
(057) should also be effective during the computation of the maximum acceleration in case of impact
tests of packaging, when the cushioning structure is subjected to a uniaxial compression stress.
The proposed procedure has not been verified yet, with respect to the cushioning structures of com-
plex geometry (e.g. ribbed) where a complex state of stress appears. In this case, it must be considered
that the dynamic stress-strain curve determination is a preliminary stage, preceding the need for
execution of detailed numerical and experimental tests leading to the extended calibration of the model
in the FEM environment.

REFERENCES
1. Piatkowski T. Active fence with flexible link. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics 2010; 1(48): 87–109.
2. Piatkowski T. Model and analysis of the process of unit-load stream sorting by manipulator with torsional disks. Journal of
Theoretical and Applied Mechanics 2009; 4(47): 871–896.
3. Piatkowski T, Sempruch J. Model of the process of load unit stream sorting by means of flexible active fence. Mechanism
and Machine Theory 2008; 5(43): 549–564.
4. Piatkowski T. Analysis of translational positioning of unit loads by directionally-oriented friction force fields. Mechanism
and Machine Theory, Elsevier 2011; 2(46): 201–217.
5. ASTM D1596-14, Standard test method for dynamic cushion shock cushioning characteristics of packaging material.
6. Gibert JM, Batt GS. Impact oscillator model for the prediction of dynamic cushion curves of open cell foams. Packaging
Technology and Science 2015; 28(3): 227–239.
7. ISO 2248,1985, Packaging – complete, filled transport packages. Vertical impact test by dropping.
8. Piatkowski T, Sempruch J. Model of inelastic impact of unit loads. Packaging Technology and Science 2009; 1(22): 39–51.
9. Burgess G. Consolidation of cushion curves. Packaging Technology and Science 1990; 3(4): 189–194.
10. Burgess G. Generation of cushion curves from one shock pulse. Packaging Technology and Science 1994; 7(4): 169–173.
11. Daum M., A simplified process for determining cushion curves, the stress-energy method, In Proceedings from Dimensions,
San Antonio, 2006, 15.
12. Navarro-Javierre P, Garcia-Romeu-Martinez MA, Cloquell-Ballester VA, de-la-Cruz-Navarro E. Evaluation of two simpli-
fied methods for determining cushion curves of closed cell foams. Packaging Technology and Science 2012; 25(4):
217–231.
13. Sek MA, Minett M, Rouillard V, Bruscella B. A new method for the determination of cushion curves. Packaging Techno-
logy and Science 2000; 13(6): 249–255.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2016; 29: 337–349
DOI: 10.1002/pts
 DYNAMIC STRESS-STRAIN CURVE DETERMINATION OF CLOSED-CELL FOAMS 349

14. Wang Y, Low KH. Damped response analysis of nonlinear cushion systems by a linearization method. Computers and
Structures 2005; 83: 1584–1594.
15. Maiti SK, Gibson LJ, Ashby MF. Deformation and energy absorption diagram for cellular solids. Acta Metallurgica 1984;
11(32): 1963–1975.
16. Ogden RW, Roxburg DG. A pseudo-elastic model for the mullins effect in filled rubber. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London-Series A 1999; 455: 2861–2877.
17. Widdle RW, Bajaj AK, Davies P. Measurement of the Poisson’s ratio of flexible polyurethane foam and its influence on a
uniaxial compression model. International Journal of Engineering Science 2008; 1(46): 31–49.
18. Masso-Moreu Y, Mills NJ. Impact compression of polystyrene foam pyramids. International Journal of Impact Engineering
2003; 28: 653–676.
19. Mills NJ, Masso-Moreu Y. Finite element analysis (FEA) applied to polyethylene foam cushion in package drop tests.
Packaging Technology7 and Science 2005; 18(1): 29–38.
20. Ozturk UM, Gunlay A. Finite element analysis of expanded polystyrene foam under multiple compressive loading and
unloading. Materials and Design 2011; 32(2): 773–780.
21. LS-DYNA Aerospace Working Group, Modeling guidelines document, version 14-1, 2014.
22. Styropor, expanded polystyrene (EPS), packaging with styropor, BASF, http//styropor.basf.us/files/pdf/
Packaging_with_Styropor.pdf, 2003, accessed 10 April 2015.
23. E-por®, cushion curves, BASF, www.e-por.basf.com 2011, accessed 10 April 2015.
24. DIN 55471-1,1989-09, Cellular polystyrene for packaging; requirements and testing, German National Standard.
25. Dylan T. Modelling Carpet for Use in Occupant Crash Simulations, 6th European LS-DYNA Users’ Conference.
Gothenburg: Sweden, 2007; 36–46.
26. LS-DYNA keyword user manual volume I and II, Livermore software technology corporation, 2015.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2016; 29: 337–349
DOI: 10.1002/pts