Effect of Compressive Strain Rate on Auxetic Foam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Auxetic foams have previously been shown to have benefits including higher indentation resistance than their conventional counterparts, due to their negative Poisson’s ratio, making them better at resisting penetration by concentrated loads. The Poisson’s ratio and Young’s modulus of auxetic open cell foams have rarely been measured at the high compressive strain rates typical during impacts of energy absorbing material in sporting protective equipment. Auxetic closed cell foams are less common than their open cell counterparts, and only their quasi-static characteristics have been previously reported. It is, therefore, unclear how the Poisson’s ratio of auxetic foam, and associated benefits such as increased indentation resistance shown at low strain rates, would transfer to the high strain rates expected under impact. The aim of this study was to measure the effect of strain rate on the stiffness and Poisson’s ratio of auxetic and conventional foam. Auxetic open cell and closed cell polymer foams were fabricated, then compression tested to ~80% strain at applied rates up to 200 s−1, with Poisson’s ratios obtained from optical full-field strain mapping. Open cell foam quasi-static Poisson’s ratios ranged from −2.0 to 0.4, with a narrower range of −0.1 to 0.3 for closed cell foam. Poisson’s ratios of auxetic foams approximately halved in magnitude between the minimum and maximum strain rates. Open cell foam quasi-static Young’s moduli were between 0.02 and 0.09 MPa, whereas closed cell foams Young’s moduli were ~1 MPa, which is like foam in protective equipment. The Young’s moduli of the auxetic foams approximately doubled at the highest applied strain rate of 200 s−1.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".