Paper detail

Failure of classical elasticity in auxetic foams

A recent derivation [P.H. Mott and C.M. Roland, Phys. Rev. B 80, 132104 (2009).] of the bounds on Poisson's ratio, v, for linearly elastic materials showed that the conventional lower limit, -1, is wrong, and that v cannot be less than 0.2 for classical elasticity to be valid. This is a significant result, since it is precisely for materials having small values of v that direct measurements are not feasible, so that v must be calculated from other elastic constants. Herein we measure directly Poisson's ratio for four materials, two for which the more restrictive bounds on v apply, and two having values below this limit of 0.2. We find that while the measured v for the former are equivalent to values calculated from the shear and tensile moduli, for two auxetic materials (v < 0), the equations of classical elasticity give inaccurate values of v. This is experimental corroboration that the correct lower limit on Poisson's ratio is 0.2 in order for classical elasticity to apply.

preprint2012arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.