Slide 1

Damage Characterisation and Modelling in Rigid Polyurethane Foam Lewys Jones 16 th June 2009 1

Slide 2

Background CMC Turbine Blades 2 Image credit: Toshihiko Sato/Associated Press High melting point run engine hotter without melting (or creep), Oxide ceramics need no oxidation protection, Possibility to eliminate wasteful air cooling systems. Ceramics are brittle more susceptibe to foreign object damage (FOD) and catastrophic failure.

Slide 3

Background CMC Turbine Blades Crack face debonding offers a means to increase toughness. Porous matrix CMCs being investigated to facilitate novell processing routes not requireing fibre coatings. Modelling of porous ceramics not yet fully understood. 3 Image credit: Developments in Oxide Fibre Composites, Zok, J. Am, Ceram. Soc. 89 ( [11]

Slide 4

Project Objectives 1.Evaluate the experiments needed to find the input parameters for finite element (FE) modelling of a porous solid. 2.Identify unnecessary experiments and other ways to reduce material wastage during testing. 3.Design the required experiments. 4.Calibrate the instruments involved in such experiments. 4

Slide 5

Test Material Density of 107 kgm -3. Supplied in 5 colours, in blocks 25 x 50 x 100 mm. Out of plane In plane short axis In plane long axis 5

Slide 6

Simulation Parameters Bulk density, Elastic stiffness, Yield stress (quasi-static value), Rate-dependant yield stress, Crushable foam model constants k & k t, (see later), Foam hardening profile (post-yield), Poissons ratio, Coefficient of friction. 6

Slide 7

CF Model Constants Yield surface (ellipse) defined in the hydrostatic-deviatoric stress space by two constants k and k t. k = c 0 /p c 0 and k t = p t /p c 0 Hardening shifts p c but not p t. 7 Image redrawn from: Abaqus TM Theory Manual

Slide 8

Experimental Methods Quasi-static: 1.Uniaxial compression (& )*, 2.Uniaxial tension*, 3.Hydrostatic compression, 4.Push-in, 5.Unconstrained shear-punch, 6.Constrained shear-punch, Dynamic: 7.Small gas-gun. *including strain rate sensitivity analysis. 8

Slide 9

Experimental Results - Uniaxial Compression 9

Slide 10

Experimental Results - Compressive Strain Rate Analysis 10

Slide 11

All blocks compressed to = 0.9. Black and blue orientations show barrelling / crumpling. Red orientation remains cuboidal. 11 Experimental Results - Anisotropic Deformation

Slide 12

Average Stiffness = 27.09 Mpa, Average = 14.30 Mpa, n = 16n = 6 n = 3n = 20 Experimental Results - Anisotropic Stiffness 12

Slide 13

n = 16n = 6 n = 3n = 20 Experimental Results - Anisotropic Stiffness 13

Slide 14

Experimental Results - Uniaxial Tension Clear values of E, y, y and failure identifiable. 14

Slide 15

Experimental Results - Hydrostatic Compression 19 tests performed. 9 tests successful. Failure reasons include: Leakage, Rupture, Yield stress range 625 - 775 kPa. Average y = 702 55 kPa. Result fed into yield surface evaluation. 15

Slide 16

Experimental Results - Yield Ellipse Plotting Three unique points now known: Uniaxial compression (18 unique readings static extrapolation) Uniaxial tension (20 unique values, averaged) Hydrostatic compression (9 unique values, averaged) k = 0.93 0.08 and k t = 0.098 0.008 16

Slide 17

Experimental Results - Dynamic Impacts 3 damage types identified, dent, bounce-off and stay-in. Penetration depth to projectile KE relationship investigated. 17

Slide 18

Comparison used to determine the volumetric foam hardening profile. Profile adjusted until results match. FH profile then fed into all future simulations. Simulation Results - Foam Hardening Profile U 1 plot, 2 75% 18

Slide 19

Experiment / Simulation Comparison Verify the crushable foam model. Allows direct visualisation of sub-surface damage development / processes. Allows for individual system energies to be evaluated and dominant processes identified. 19

Slide 20

Side Profile (PE - all)Top Appearance (PE - all) Region I v = -3.69 ms -1 (RP 23 psi) Pi 1.59 mm Region II v = -7.23 ms -1 (RP 45psi) Pi 3.22 mm Region III v = -15.26 ms -1 (RP 95 psi) Pi 7.53 mm (All images are at 2s) 20

Slide 21

Dynamic Impact Simulation 21

Slide 22

Simulation Results - Push-in Plug Height = 20.1 mm Shaft Diameter = 12.3 mm Push-in = 28.1 mm Base Diameter = 6.0 mm 22 QS Push-in FE Push-in

Slide 23

6.2 mm ( 98% r b ) Tearing start and end Growth of push-in plug 0.6 mm Yield start Experimental Results - QS Push-in Divergence of push-in plug 23

Slide 24

Plastic Strain (PE - all) Axisymm. (swept 180) 3D - 90 (YZ plane mirrored) 3D - 180 (native) 24 Increasing computaional time 3D (90 mirrored) simulation is a good compramise between realistic failure modelling and computational time.

Slide 25

25 Experimental Results - QS Push-in

Slide 26

Future Work Refine FE models. Include strain-rate dependent data, Reduce mesh size Discuss results with Dr. Deshpande, University of Cambridge currently developing anisotropic CF FE model. Testing of porous ceramics. 26

Slide 27

Conclusions Key experiments / techniques were identified with unsuccessful experiments now not needing to be repeated by others. Equipment was calibrated for the successful experiments. Data analysis practices were developed to extract simulation input constants from experimental data. FE modelling techniques were learnt and several types of practical experiment modelled, results were compared with experimental observations. Simulations were generally in agreement with experimental findings, with key areas for ongoing work identified. Characterisation and modelling task timeline reduced from ~8 months to ~2 months. 27

Slide 28

Acknowledgements Dr. Richard Todd Dr. Ian Stone Dr. Adrian Taylor 28 Dr. Frank Zok Kirk Fields Brett Compton Nell Gamble