Dynamic Crushing Behavior of Ethylene Vinyl Acetate Copolymer Foam Based on Energy Method

• Published in: Polymers Vol. 15; no. 14; p. 3016
• Main Authors: Xing, Yueqing, Guo, Xiya, Shu, Guowei, He, Xiaolong
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 12.07.2023; MDPI
• Subjects: Aluminum; Analysis; Compression tests; Contact force; Copolymers; Crushing; Density; Design optimization; dynamic crushing; Energy; Energy absorption; Energy methods; Ethylene; ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA); Ethylene vinyl acetates; Foams; impact energy-to-thickness ratio; Impact tests; Mechanical properties; Methods; SEA; Sensors; Specific energy; Strain; thickness; Thickness ratio; Velocity; China; ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA); density; impact energy-to-thickness ratio; thickness; dynamic crushing; SEA
• ISSN: 2073-4360; 2073-4360
• DOI: 10.3390/polym15143016

This paper aimed to experimentally clarify the dynamic crushing mechanism and performance of ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) and analyze the influence of density and thickness on its mechanical behavior and energy absorption properties under dynamic impact loadings. Hence, a series of dynamic compression tests were carried out on EVA foams with different densities and thicknesses. When the impact energy is 66.64 J, for foam with a density of 150 kg/m , the maximum contact force, maximum displacement, maximum strain, absorbed energy, and specific energy absorption ( ) increased by 20 ± 2%, -38.5 ± 2%, -38.5 ± 2%, 4 ± 2%, and 105 ± 2%, respectively, compared to foam with a density of 70 kg/m . The ratios of absorbed energy to impact energy for different thickness specimens are almost equal. The specimen density has no effect on the efficiency of energy absorption and has a greater effect on the . Meanwhile, when the impact energy-to-thickness ratio is 1680 J/m, compared to foam with a thickness of 30 mm, the maximum contact force, maximum displacement, maximum strain, absorbed energy, and for foam with a thickness of 60 mm increased by 28.5 ± 2%, 211.3 ± 2%, 56.6 ± 2%, 100.8 ± 2%, and 0.4 ± 0.5%, respectively. When the impact energy is 66.64 J, compared to foam with a thickness of 30 mm, the maximum contact force, maximum displacement, maximum stain, absorbed energy, and for foam with a thickness of 60 mm increased by -42.5 ± 2%, 163.5 ± 2%, 31.7 ± 2%, 4.1 ± 2%, and 4.1 ± 2%, respectively. The of two different-thickness EVA specimens is almost equal, about 2.8 J/g. The ratios of absorbed energy to impact energy for different thickness specimens are almost equal, both at 72%. The specimen thickness has no effect on the efficiency of energy absorption and has a greater effect on the maximum contact force. In the range of impact energy, thickness, and density studied, the absorbed energy and are not affected by the thickness of EVA specimens and are determined by the impact energy. The density has no significant effect on the absorbed energy but has a greater effect on the . However, for EVA foams, the greater the density, the greater the mass, and the higher the cost. Taking into account lightweight and cost factors, when optimizing cushioning design within a safe range, we can choose EVA foams with a smaller density and thickness.