Author’s Accepted Manuscript

Fracture Mechanics analysis of buckling of a

ceramic foam coating from elastic substrates

Y.J. Cui, B.L. Wang, K.F. Wang, J.E. Li

www.elsevier.com/locate/ceri

PII: S0272-8842(18)31719-X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2018.06.276
Reference: CERI18720
To appear in: Ceramics International
Received date: 4 June 2018
Revised date: 29 June 2018
Accepted date: 30 June 2018
Cite this article as: Y.J. Cui, B.L. Wang, K.F. Wang and J.E. Li, Fracture
Mechanics analysis of buckling of a ceramic foam coating from elastic substrates,
Ceramics International, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2018.06.276
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for
publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of
the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Fracture Mechanics analysis of buckling of a ceramic foam coating from elastic

substrates

Y.J. Cui 1, B.L. Wang 1, 2, , K.F. Wang 1, J.E. Li 3,

1
Graduate School at Shenzhen, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, PR China
2
Centre for Infrastructure Engineering, School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, Western

Sydney University, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia

3
Architectural Engineering Institute, Jinling Institute of Technology, Nanjing 211169, P.R. China

Abstract: Ceramic foams are ideal materials for thermal protection systems such as those
used as a thermal shield on the space shuttle. The working temperature difference between the
outer and inner surfaces of the ceramic foam is extremely high. Under this adverse condition,
the ceramic foam coating could buckle from its underneath structures. Therefore, the general
problem of damage due to buckling delamination of a ceramic coating on an elastic substrate
is investigated in this paper. The delamination buckling amplitude and the stress intensity
factor at the tip of buckling region are derived in closed form in terms of the porosity of the
ceramic foam. Based on the maximum amplitude and the critical stress intensity factor criteria,
critical temperatures of coating buckling from the substrate are established. A fitting formula
of maximum buckling amplitude as a function of outer surface temperature is given. It is
found that higher porosity and length-to-thickness ratio of the coating will result in a smaller
stress intensity factor. However, it seems that the buckling amplitude is independent of the
porosity of ceramic foams.

Keywords: ceramic foam; thermal shield; buckling; stress intensity factor; amplitude


Corresponding author email: wangbl2001@hotmail.com
1
1. Introduction
Ceramic foams are a specific class of porous material with numerous advantages, such as
low thermal conductivity, high porosity and large specific surface area et al. [1]. They have
attached considerable interest in engineering applications, including catalyst supports [2],
molecular separation [3], bioreactors and bone substitutes [4], especially serving as thermal
shielding on the space shuttle [5].
In 1960s, the spray-on ceramic foam is first used as the insulation material on space
shuttle [6]. The space shuttle contains a mass of external tanks which storing the liquid
oxygen (90K) and liquid hydrogen (20K) used as propellant [7]. During the ascent and reentry
stages, the space shuttle suffers extremely high aerodynamic heating. Thus, the thermal
protection system must be employed to ensure the surface temperature of the space shuttle
within the boiling point of the propellant. The surface temperature of space shuttle can even
reach 1922K [8]. The maximum operation temperature of traditional metal thermal protection
system cannot exceed 1273K considering metallic shell will soften at so high temperature [9].
Therefore, the traditional metal thermal protection system is not suitable for the space shuttle.
The melting point of ceramic foam Al2O3 is 2345K [10], this means the ceramic foam can be
used as high-temperature thermal shielding on the space shuttle. Therefore, ceramic foam
becomes a research interest in the thermal protection system on the space shuttle. For example,
American NASA proposed a lightweight thermal protection system made up of sandwich
structured ceramic composites [11]. The thermo-mechanical performance [12] and the thermal
shock performance [13] of ceramic composites using as thermal protection structure for
re-entry applications were studied. An active cooling thermal protection system with a gas
flowing into the cores of sandwich ceramic composites was investigated to optimize the
configuration of the thermal protection system [14]. A lightweight thermal insulation material
(ABOw)/Al2O3-SiO2 aerogel composite was prepared [15]. The compressive strength of this
aerogel composite is five times than that of pure Al2O3-SiO2 aerogels. The non-steady
cracking stress [16] and thermal shock resistance [17] of the temperature-dependent ceramic
composites were studied. The thermal and mechanical properties of fibrous porous mullite
ceramics were analyzed [18]. Therefore, the analysis of material and mechanical properties is
significant for the application of ceramic foam on the space shuttle.
2
 The total porosity defined as ϕ=(1-ρe/ρd) [19] is a significant parameter for ceramic foams,
in which, ρe and ρd are the effective density and dense density of ceramic foams. Subscripts e
and d, respectively, denote the effective and dense material property of ceramic foams in this
paper. The material properties of ceramic foams are closely related to its total porosity. To
calculate the effective Young’s modulus and thermal conductivity of ceramic foam, the
empirical formulas Wiener-Paul cross-property relations (CPRs), Hashin-Shtrikman CPRs,
linear CPRs and Pabst-Gregorova CPRs et al can be used for different levels of porosity [20].
The Pabst-Gregorova CPRs was found the best method to predict Young’s modulus [21]. It is
noteworthy that the Poisson’s ratio μ and coefficient of thermal expansion α are inherent
properties of ceramic foams and do not affected by its porosity [22-23], namely, μe=μd and
αe=αd. A higher porosity of the barium strontium titanate ceramic foams resulted in a lower
dielectric constant [24]. Furthermore, the porosity of ceramic foam has decisive influence on
its compressive strength [25]. The compressive strength of ceramic foam was found rapidly
decreasing to 30.3MPa with the high porosity 79.8% [26]. It was found that Rice model [27]
can perfectly estimate the compressive strength of ceramic foam with porosity ranging from
79% to 94%. The compressive strength is proportional to the porosity when the porosity
beyond 95% [28]. The Yttria-Stabilized Ziraconia fiber reinforced porous gamma-Y2Si2O7
ceramic composite was developed to be a promising high-temperature thermal insulator. The
compressive strength and porosity of the reported ceramic composite are 1.35MPa and 92.9%
[29]. Since the ceramic foams are porous structure, monolithic ceramic foams are brittle in
nature and prone to damage by thermal shock. For example, thermal shock resistance and
crack growth of a semi-infinite ceramic foam contain an edge crack [30] or a finite ceramic
foam with edge and center cracks [31] had been discussed theoretically. They found the
pre-existing crack in ceramic foam will grow at the beginning of the ceramic foam subjected
to a thermal shock. The initial crack will propagate until the stress intensity factor (SIF)
equals the fracture toughness of the ceramic foam. With the time increase, the SIF gradually
increases and the crack will continue to propagate when the SIF is bigger than fracture
toughness. Undoubtedly, the increase of crack length will result in the structure lose its
stability and finally buckle if the thermal stress applying on the structure is big enough [32].
The external surface of the buckled ceramic foam is in the tensile stress state. This will lead to
3
the buckled ceramic foam fracture. On the other hand, crack propagation will further
aggravate the buckling of ceramic foam from the substrate. Therefore, it is essential to carry
out the fracture mechanics analysis on the buckled ceramic foam.
The paper is organized as follows. The temperature field of the buckled ceramic foam is
derived firstly. Next, the arc-length of the buckled ceramic foam is solved based on the
compatibility of deformation at the buckling segment. The shear stress at the interface
between the ceramic foam and the semi-infinite substrate is given by using the strain
compatibility equation at the bonding part. Then, solution of the stress intensity factor at the
tip of buckling region is obtained by employing the singular integral equation method. Finally,
some numerical results are presented and the corresponding concluding remarks are made.

2. Statement of the problem

Shown in Fig. 1 is the geometrical model of the ceramic foam coating central buckling

from the semi-infinite elastic substrate. The whole coating is assumed perfectly mounted onto

the substrate except the buckling region. Length of the buckling segment is 2a with its middle

point located at the origin of the rectangular coordinate system o-x-y. The thickness and

length of the coating are denoted by h and 2L, respectively. The deflection at the centroidal

axis of the buckled coating is v. Temperature at the upper surface (y=h) of the coating is

denoted as T1. Except for the buckling region y=0, a≤|x|≤L, the substrate and the lower

surface (y=0) of the coating are subjected to the same temperature load T0. The surfaces of the

buckling segment are regarded as thermally insulated. Therefore, the thermal boundary

conditions on the supper and lower surfaces for the coating of Fig. 1 are T=T0 at y=0, a≤|x|≤L;

∂T/∂y=0 at y=0, -a≤x≤a and T=T1 at y=h. On account of the system is symmetry with respect

to y-axis and the planes at x=L are free from horizontal thermal fluxes. The thermal

boundary conditions of the coating along x-axis must hold ∂T/∂x=0 at x=0 and x=L.

4
 Since the maximum deflection of coating is much smaller than its length, it is assumed

that the centroidal axis of the coating is still perpendicular to its cross area after buckling. The

coating deforms in the x-y plane and distributes uniformly along the width direction

(perpendicular to the x-y plane). The axial force in the buckling part is same everywhere, thus

the buckling segment can be treated as a fixed-fixed plate. Since the thickness of the ceramic

foam coating is much smaller than its length, the coating is treated as a thin plate. For this

case, the equivalent force moment can be ignored [40]. Therefore, the effect of buckling

segment on the bonded parts can be replaced by an equivalent axial pressure N0 per unit width,

as illustrated in Fig. 2. Since the thickness of coating is very small comparing to its length, the

coating is modeled as a thin plate. Therefore, the equivalent axial pressure is treated as acting

at the centroidal axis of the plate.

3. Solution for the buckling

3.1 Temperature field

As described above, the temperature field of the ceramic foam coating is a function of

space coordinates x and y. Thus, the temperature field of the coating is expressed as T(x, y).

There is no internal heat source inside the system, the governing equation of temperature for

the ceramic foam is [33]

 2T  2T
 0 (1)
x 2 y 2

Eq. (1) is a two-dimensional Laplace equation whose solution can be derived by the
technique of separation of variable [34]. By assuming the expression of temperature field is
T(x, y)=X(x)Y(y) and substituting it into Eq. (1), ones can obtain

5
 1 d 2 X ( x) 1 d 2Y ( y)
  (2)
X ( x) dx 2 Y ( y) dy 2

Functions X(x) and Y(y) are only with respect to x and y, respectively. Two sides of Eq. (2)
must be equal to the same constant to satisfy this equality. Setting the constant be equal to -γ2,
Eq. (2) reduces to d2X/dx2+γ2X=0 and d2Y/dy2-γ2Y=0. The general solutions of X(x) is

X ( x)  D1 cos( x)  D2 sin( x) (3)

together with thermal boundary conditions corresponding to free horizontal thermal fluxes
∂X/∂x=0 at x=0 and x=L. The unknown coefficients D1 and D2 can be determined by the
thermal boundary conditions. With the substitution of ∂X/∂x=0 at x=0 into Eq. (3), ones can
obtain D2=0. To simultaneously satisfy ∂X/∂x=0 at x=L and D1≠0, the constant γ must hold
γ=π/L.
Similarly, the general solution of Y(y) can be expressed as

Y ( y)  D3 exp( y)  D4 exp( y) (4)

where D3 and D4 are unknown coefficients needed to be determined. The thermal boundary
conditions at the lower and supper surfaces of the coating are Y=T0 at y=0, a≤|x|≤L; ∂Y/∂y=0
at y=0, -a≤x≤a and Y=T1 at y=h. Applying the thermal boundary conditions related to Y(y)
into Eq. (4) gives D3=D4=T1/2/cosh(γh) at -a≤x≤a and D3=[T0exp(γh)-T1]/2/sinh(γh),
D4=[T1-T0exp(-γh)]/2/sinh(γh) at a≤|x|≤L. Therefore, the temperature field of the coating is
 T1
 cos   x  cosh( y ),  a  x  a
 cosh( h)
T ( x, y )   (5)
  sinh( y ) T  sinh   (h  y )  T  cos   x  , a  x  L
  0
  sinh( h) sinh( h)
1


3.2 Buckling
The ceramic foam coating will lose its stability if the in-plane compressive loading
applied on the coating beyond its critical load. This static instability problem is so called
buckling, which is significant problem for the thin-plate structure subjected to axial thermal
stress [35-36]. The characteristic equation used to describe the buckling deflection is only
governed by the geometrical constraints of the coating at the buckling part [37]. A brief
review of the buckling characteristic equation for the fixe-fixed thin plate is given as follows.
6
Considering the condition of mechanical equilibrium, the governing equation of deflection for

the plate is v ''''  2v ''  0 , where the superscript ' denotes the differentiation with respect to x,

κ is a parameter defined as

12  Ee h a  v  
2

4a  a  x 
  2
 N    d x  (6)
Ee h3 
0

where Ee is the effective Young’s modulus of the ceramic foam. The relationship between Ee
and the porosity ϕ is Ee=0.5Ed(1-ϕ)2 [30], in which Ed is the Young’s modulus of dense
ceramic foam. For the case of first order buckling, κ equals π divided by a.
With the substitution of the displacement boundary conditions v=0, v'=0 at x=a into

v ''''  2v ''  0 , ones can obtain the following deflection of the first order buckling for the

fixed-fixed plate

v( x )   [1  cos( x )],0  x  2 (7)

where δ is the buckling amplitude need to be determined, x is the normalized space

coordinate which is defined as x  1  x / a , -a≤x≤a.
Taking a small differential element with length dx at arbitrary location x from the buckling

part, the arc length of the differential element can be expressed as dLb  1  (dv / dx) 2 . The

subscript b denotes the state of buckling. Then, the whole arc length of the buckling part is
a 2
Lb   1  (dv / dx) 2 dx  a  1   2 2 sin 2 ( x )dx (8)
a 0

where  is the normalized buckling amplitude defined as    / a .

The deformation of the buckling part caused by the equivalent axial pressure is
LN=2N0a/Ee/h. At the buckling segment, the elongation of coating at the centroidal axis
a
resulted from the temperature load is LT=∫-a αe[T(x, h/2)-T0]dx. Since the buckling part of Fig.

1 can be seen as entirely fixed at both sides (x=a), the total deformation at the bucking part
is zero. This means the deformations caused by temperature, equivalent axial pressure and
buckling must hold LT=LN+Lb, namely

N0 2  T cosh( h / 2)
   1   2 2 sin 2 ( x )dx  1  e 1 sin( a )   eT0 (9)
Ee h 0  a cosh( h )

7
in which, h and a are normalized thickness and buckling length, respectively, defined as

h  h / L and a  a / L .

Eq. (9) clearly shows that the equivalent axial pressure is coupled with the normalized

buckling amplitude. To obtain the expressions of N0 and  . A new equation as the function

of N0 and  should be given. For the case of first order buckling, applying Eq. (7) to Eq. (6)

gives

N 0 Ee 2 2  2 Ee h 2
    (10)
h 4 12a 2

Theoretically, solutions of the normalized buckling amplitude  and the equivalent axial

pressure N0 can be directly obtained by solving Eqs. (9) and (10). However, the integral
equation given in Eq. (9) is hard to solve in analytical solution. Thus numerical method is
employed to get the approximate solutions. Mathematically, one can use Eqs. (9) and (10),

respectively, to plot two curves for the relation of between N0 and  . The intersection points

between curve from Eq. (9) and curve from Eq. (10) are the solutions for N0 and  . With this

numerical method, the approximate solutions of every equivalent axial pressure N0 can be

obtained for each specified buckling amplitude  .

3.3 Stress intensity factor

The junction points (x=a) of the bonding part and buckling part move toward the two
ends (x=L) of the ceramic foam coating will certainly lead to the increase of buckling length.
This process can be regarded as crack propagation. Therefore, treating the junction points at
x=a as the two tips of the crack. The stress intensity factor is an essential fracture mechanics
parameter. By analyzing the stress intensity factors at the crack tips, the critical temperature
load corresponding to the buckling can be obtained. Thus, it is essential to analyze the stress
intensity factor at the crack tip. Since the system given in Fig. 2 is symmetric with respect to
the y-axis. Only half structure at the right hand (a≤x≤L) will be employed to derive the stress
intensity factor at the location x=a.
8
 At the bonding part, the whole strain of the coating caused by axial stress σ(x) and
temperature load is ε(x)|coating=σ(x)(1-μe2)/Ee+(1+μe)αe[T(x, h/2)-T0], a≤x≤L. In addition, the
x
axial stress in the coating at arbitrary location x can be expressed as σ(x)h=∫a τ(ξ)dξ-N0 as

illustrated in Fig. 2. Therefore, the axial strain of the coating can be rewritten as

 ( x) coating 
1  e2
Ee h    ( )d  N   1   T (x, h / 2)  T  , a  x  L
x

a
0 e e 0 (11)

For the semi-infinite elastic substrate subjected to a concentrated horizontal shear stress,
Muskhelishvili [38] gave the following strain

2(1  s2 ) L  ( )
 Es a x  
 ( x) host  d , a  x  L (12)

The coating is perfectly mounted onto the substrate at the region a≤x≤L, y=0, the
compatibility condition of deformation indicates ε(x)|coating=ε(x)|host. Applying Eqs. (11) and
(12) into the compatibility equation of deformation gives

1  ( )  x  Ee N
 fT cos( x)  T0   0 , a  x  L
L

 
d   ( )d  (13)
a x  2h a 2(1  e ) 2h

in which, f(x) is an equivalent stress defined as fT=sinh(γh/2)/sinh(γh)(T1+T0),

ψ=Es(1-μe2)/Ee/(1-μs2). The substrate s presents the semi-infinite elastic substrate.
Now, introducing the following two transformations ξ=η(L-a)/2+(L+a)/2, -1≤η≤1 and
x=ζ(L-a)/2+(L+a)/2, -1≤ζ≤1, Eq. (13) can be written as

1  ( ) g   Ee  N0
 fT  ( )  T0  
1


d    ( )d  , 1    1 (14)
1    4 1 2(1  e ) 2h

where g=ψ(L-a)/h is the effective length-to-thickness ratio of coating at the bonding part,

 ( )  cos{[(1 a ) / 2 (1 a ) / 2] }. The shear stress at the crack tips (x=a) exhibit

inverse square-root singularity [39]. Since the equivalent axial pressure N0 will not change the
singular behavior of the shear stress at the crack tip [40]. The general solution of shear stress
is expressed in terms of the following expansion of the Chebyshev polynomials

1
 ( )   A T ( ) j j (15)
1  2 j 0

where Aj are unknown parameters needed to be determined, Tj are Chebyshev polynomials of

9
the first kind. With the substitution of Eq. (15) into Eq. (14), ones can obtain

A0 1 g  1  A T j ( )
d   
1 j 1

     
1
1  2
d 
4
A0 
1
1  2 j 1 
1
     1   2
d
(16)
g   T j ( )  Ee N
  Aj  d   fT  ( )  T0   0 ,  1    1
4 j 0  1
1  2 2(1  e ) 2h

Based on the force equilibrium condition of the coating at the region a≤x≤L, the shear
L
stress and the equivalent axial pressure must hold ∫a τ(x)dx=N0. By using the transformation

x=ζ(L-a)/2+(L+a)/2 and Eq. (15), the above force balance equation can be rewritten as

La M 1 T j ( )
 Aj  d  N 0 (17)
2 j 0 1
1  2

Multiplying Eq. (17) by T0(ζ) at both sides and utilizing the orthogonality of the first kind

Chebyshev polynomials, ones can obtain A0=2N0 h /h/π/( 1  a ). The relationships between the

first kind and the second kind Chebyshev polynomials are

1
 U i 1 ( )   Ti ( ) /(   ) / 1  2 , i≥1. Furthermore, the Chebyshev polynomials of the
1

second kind can be expressed with the following trigonometric function

U i 1 ( )  sin  i arccos   / sin  arccos   . By utilizing the transformation η=cos(β), 0≤β≤π, Eq.

(16) reduces to
A0  1 
sin  j arccos    g 
 d   A j 1  sin  arccos   
 0   cos  j 1 sin  arccos    4 j 
(18)
g  Ee N
 A0  arccos       fT  ( )  T0   0 ,  1    1
4 2(1  e ) 2h

Eq. (18) can be solved by selecting appropriate values of ζ. In this section, the collocation
points of ζ are chosen as ζ=cosφ, in which φ=(2m-1)π/(2M), m=1, 2, … , M. The constant M
is the total terms of the truncated Chebyshev polynomial expansions. In this way, Eq. (18) can
be equivalently expressed as

g M
sin  j   g   Ee N
A0       Aj 1  sin     fT  (cos( ))  T0   0 (19)
4 j 1 sin   4 j  2(1  e ) 2h

The unknown coefficients Aj can be obtained by solving Eq. (19). Then, the shear stress
given in Eq. (15) is directly determined. According to the fracture mechanics, the stress
10
intensity factor at the crack tip resulted from the shear stress is S   lim
x a
 
2 ( x  a) ( x) .

By making use of the transformation x=ζ(L-a)/2+(L+a)/2 and Eq. (15), the stress intensity
factor can be expressed in terms of Aj as follows

 L(1  a ) M
S 
2
 (1)
j 0
j
Aj , j  0,1,..., M (20)

To this end, the stress intensity factor at the crack tip is obtained entirely. The numerical
results will be presented subsequently.

4. Numerical examples and discussions

For the purpose of numerical demonstration, the ceramic foam coating and the substrate

are selected as Al2O3 and copper, respectively. The Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of

the copper are Es=115GPa and μs=0.31 [41]. The average material properties of dense Al2O3

are [42] αd=8.8×10-6/K, Ed=420GPa and μd=0.25 texted at the temperature between 873K

and 1673K. The temperature at the inner surface of the coating is T0=300K. Unless other

specified, the length-to-thickness ratio and the porosity of the ceramic foam are L/h=1000 and

ϕ=0.8. The truncated terms of Chebyshev polynomial expansions is chosen as M=100. Since

the coefficients Aj determined by Eq. (19) are proportional to ψ. The reference stress intensity

factor S0   L / 2 Ee is employed to normalize the stress intensity factor S at the tip of

buckling region.

The temperature at the outer surface of the ceramic foam coating is set as T1=1600K. For
the typical porosity ϕ=0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8, distributions of the normalized stress intensity
factor at the tip of the buckling region are shown in Fig. 3. It can be seen that the stress
intensity factor increases with the buckling length to the peak value and then decreases if the
buckling length continues to increase. A smaller porosity will result in a bigger stress intensity
factor. Since the effective Young’s modulus of coating is larger if it has a smaller porosity. For
the case of the substrate is relatively soft than the coating, the coating with bigger Young’s
11
modulus will be easier bucking from the elastic substrate. It can also found that there is no
stress intensity factor if the normalized buckling length is big enough (e.g. the normalized
buckling length a/L≥0.55 for the case of coating with porosity ϕ=0.8). The equivalent axial
pressure N0 applying on both sides of the buckling segment becomes smaller with the increase
of the buckling length, as illustrated in Fig. 4. The length-to-thickness ratio of the buckling
segment becomes bigger if the coating has larger buckling length. But the equivalent axial
pressure N0 is not big enough to buckle the coating. Therefore, there is no stress intensity
factor for the buckled model with sufficiently large buckling length.
The length-to-thickness ratio and working temperature are important parameters for
analyzing the buckling problem for structure subjected to thermal load. For this, the influence
of length-to-thickness ratio and temperature T1 on the distribution of stress intensity factor is
examined. As shown in Fig. 5, a larger length-to-thickness ratio of coating results in a smaller
stress intensity factor. This indicates that the coating used as thermal shielding on the space
shuttle should be as thin as possible. Distributions of the stress intensity factor for different
values of the outer surface temperature of coating are presented in Fig. 6. As expected, a
higher temperature T1 will result in a bigger stress intensity factor and larger buckling length.
The critical stress intensity factor SIC of the bonding layer between the coating and the
substrate can be used as a criterion for the buckling. Value of the SIC can be determined by
experiments. Let the stress intensity factor given by Eq. (20) equals SIC, the critical
temperature of buckling can be obtained. For typical critical stress intensity factor SIC=0.5S0,
1.0S0 and 1.5S0, Fig. 7 presents the distributions of the critical temperature of buckling. It is
found that the buckling length increases with the outer surface temperature T1 of the coating.
This means more thermal energy will be needed to overcome the material resistance so that
the coating can further buckle form the substrate. In addition, the maximum amplitude can be
used as another criterion of buckling design. Distribution of the normalized maximum
buckling amplitude with respect to the outer surface temperature T1 is illustrated in Fig. 8. Eqs.
(9-10) show that the buckling amplitude is independent of the effective Young’s modulus
which is a function of porosity. This has been verified with graph shown in Fig. 4.
Furthermore, Fig. 8 clearly shows that the length-to-thickness ratio of the coating has little
influence on the maximum normalized buckling amplitude. Thus, distribution of the
12
maximum normalized buckling amplitude can be expressed in terms of temperature T1 at the
outer surface of the coating. Utilizing the commercial numerical software Matlab and the least
square method gives the following fitting formula

( / L) max   8.879  T10.2777  43.14   10 3 (21)

this formula is exact for ceramic foam Al2O3 under the condition T0=300 K and valid for T1
no more than 1700 K.

Conclusion
The general problem of ceramic foam coating buckling from an elastic substrate is studied
in this paper. Expressions of the buckling amplitude and the stress intensity factor at the tip of
buckling region are obtained as a function of the porosity of the ceramic foam. Influence of
the porosity of ceramic foam on the stress intensity factor and the buckling amplitude are
discussed. Employing two criterions of the maximum amplitude and the critical stress
intensity factor, respectively, gives the critical temperatures of coating buckling from the
substrate. A fitting formula of maximum buckling amplitude with respect to the outer surface
temperature is obtained. It is found that the equivalent axial pressure applying on both sides of
the buckling segment becomes smaller with the increase of the buckling length. A bigger
porosity and length-to-thickness of the coating will result in a smaller stress intensity factor.
The buckling amplitude is independent of the porosity of ceramic foam.

Acknowledgements: This research was supported by Research Innovation Fund of Shenzhen

City of China (project Nos. JCYJ20170413104256729, JCYJ20170811160538023), the
Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province of China (project Nos. 2016A030311006,
2016A030310367) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (project Nos.
11672084,11602072, 11502101,11372086).

References
1. P. Colombo, J.R. Hellmann, Ceramic foams from preceramic polymers, Materials
Research Innovations 6 (2002) 260-272.

13
2. C.R. Thompson, P. Marin et al., Evaluation of the use of ceramic foams as catalyst
supports for reverse-flow combustors, Chemical Engineering Journal 221 (2013) 44-54.
3. T. Tsuru, Nano/subnano-tuning of porous ceramic membranes for molecular separation,
Journal of Sol-Gel Science and Technology 46 (2008) 349-361.
4. M.V. Twigg, J.T. Richardson, Fundamentals and applications of structured ceramic foam
catalysts, Industrial Engineering Chemistry Research 46 (2007) 4166-4177.
5. L. Montanaro, Y. Jorand et al., Ceramic foams by powder processing, Journal of
European Ceramic Society 18 (1998) 1339-1350.
6. P.E. Glaser, D. Arthur, Thermal insulation systems, Technical report NASA SP-5027
(1967) 82-83.
7. J.E. Fesmire, B.E. Coffman et al., Spray-on foam insulations for launch vehicle
cryogenic tanks, Cryogenics 52 (2012) 251-261.
8. D.E. Glass, Ceramic matrix composite (CMC) thermal protection systems (TPS) and hot
structures for hypersonic vehicles, 15th AIAA space planes and hypersonic systems and
technologies conference 28 (2008) 1-36.
9. Y. Wang, Z.F. Chen et al., Improved sandwich structured ceramic matrix composites with
excellent thermal insulation, Composites Part B: Engineering 129 (2017) 180-186.
10. P. Patnaik, Handbook of inorganic chemicals, McGraw-Hill ISBN 0-07-049439-8.
11. H.E. Yalkin, B.M. Icten, T. Alpyildiz, Enhanced mechanical performance of foam core
sandwich composites with through the thickness reinforced core, Composites Part B:
Engineering 79 (2015) 383-391.
12. K. Triantou, K. Mergia et al., Thermo-mechanical performance of an ablative/ceramic
composite hybrid thermal protection structure for re-entry applications, Composites Part
B 82 (2015) 159-165.
13. K.I. Triantou, K. Mergia et al, Thermal shock performance of carbon-bonded carbon
fiber composite and ceramic matrix composite joints for thermal protection re-entry
applications, Composites Part B 111 (2017) 270-278.
14. L. Ferrari, M. Barbato et al., Sandwich structured ceramic matrix composites with
periodic cellular ceramic cores: an active cooled thermal protection for space vehicles,
Composite Structures 154 (2016) 61-68.
14
15. X.B. Hou, R.B. Zhang et al., Novel whisker-reinforced Al2O3-SiO2 aerogel composites
with ultra-low thermal conductivity, Ceramics International 43 (2017) 9547-9551.
16. Y. Deng, W.G. Li et al., Modeling the temperature-dependent non-steady state first
matrix cracking stress for fiber ceramic matrix composites, Journal of Alloys and
Compounds 740 (2018) 987-996.
17. Y. Deng, W.G. Li et al., Characterization model of thermal shock resistance for fiber
reinforced brittle matrix composites over a wide range of cooling environment
temperatures, Ceramics International 44 (2018) 5518-5523.
18. R.B. Zhang, C.S. Ye et al., Microstructure and properties of lightweight fibrous porous
mullite ceramics prepared by vacuum squeeze moulding technique, Ceramics
International 42 (2016) 14843-14848.
19. W.L. Huo, X.Y. Zhang et al., Novel mullite ceramic foams with high porosity and
strength using only fly ash hollow spheres as raw material, Journal of European Ceramic
Society 38 (2018) 2035-2042.
20. T. Uhlirova, V. Necina et al., Modeling of Young’s modulus and thermal conductivity
evolution of partially sintered alumina ceramics with pore shape changes from concave
to convex, Journal of European Ceramic Society 38 (2018) 3004-3011.
21. W. Pabst, T. Uhlirova et al., Young’s modulus and thermal conductivity of closed-cell,
open-cell and inverse ceramic foams model-based predictions, cross-property predictions
and numerical calculations, Journal of the European Ceramic Society 38 (2018)
2570-2578.
22. T.J. Lu, N.A. Fleck, The thermal shock resistance of solids, Acta Materialia 46 (1998)
4755-4768.
23. V. R. Vedula, D. J. Green et al., Thermal shock resistance of ceramic foams, Journal of
American Ceramic Society 82 (1999) 649-656.
24. W.L. Huo, Y.G. Chen et al., Highly porous barium strontium titanate (BST) ceramic
foams with low dielectric constant from particle-stabilized foams, Journal of the
American Ceramic Society 101 (2018) 1737-1746.
25. M.A.A.M. Nor, L.C. Hong et al., Preparation and characterization of ceramic foam
produced via polymeric foam replication method, Journal of Materials Processing
15
 Technology 207 (2008) 235-239.
26. J. Zhao, S. Shimai et al., Ceramic foams shaped by oppositely charged dispersant and
surfactant, Colloids and Surfaces A 537 (2018) 210-216.
27. E. Ryshkewitch, Compression strength of porous sintered alumina and zirconia, Journal
of the American Ceramic Society 36 (1953) 65-68.
28. W.L. Huo, X.Y. Zhang et al., Mechanical strength of highly porous ceramic foams with
thin and lamellate cell wall from particle-stabilized foams, Ceramics International 44
(2018) 5780-5784.
29. Z. Wu, L.C. Sun et al., Fiber reinforced highly porous gamma-Y2Si2O7 ceramic
fabricated by foam-gelcasting-freeze drying method, Scripta Materialia 146 (2018)
331-334.
30. Y.X. Zhang, B.L. Wang, Thermal shock resistance analysis of a semi-infinite ceramic
foam, International Journal of Engineering Science 62 (2013) 22-30.
31. Y.X. Zhang, B.L. Wang, J.E. Li, The thermal shock resistance analysis of ceramic foam,
Journal of the American Ceramic Society 96 (2013) 2615-2622.
32. Y.J. Cui, B.L. Wang, P. Wang, Analysis of thermally induced delamination and buckling
of thin-film thermoelectric generators made up of pn-junctions, International Journal of
Mechanical Science (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2017.10.049.
33. B.L. Wang, J.E. Li, Hyperbolic heat conduction and associated transient thermal fracture
for a piezoelectric material layer, International Journal of Solids and Structures 50 (2013)
1415-1424.
34. B.L. Wang, Y.J. Cui, Transient interlaminar thermal stress in multi-layered thermoelectric
materials, Applied Thermal Engineering 119 (2017) 207-214.
35. J. Lou, L.W. He et al., Buckling and post-buckling analyses of piezoelectric hybrid
microplates subject to thermo–electro-mechanical loads based on the modified couple
stress theory, Composite Structures 153 (2016) 332-344.
36. J. Lou, L.W. He et al., Pre-buckling and buckling analyses of functionally graded
microshells under axial and radial loads based on the modified couple stress theory,
Composite Structures 142 (2016) 226-237.
37. B. Li, C.X. Li, C.L. Wei, Surface effects on the posting of nanowires, Chinese Physics
16
 Letters 28 (2011) 046202.
38. N.I. Muskhelishvili, Some basic problems of the mathematical theory of elasticity,
Noordhoff, Groningen (1953).
39. A.B. Zhang, B.L. Wang, Explicit solutions of an elliptic hole or a crack problem in
thermoelectric materials, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 151 (2016) 11-21.
40. X.D. Wang, S.A. Meguid, On the electroelastic behavior of a thin piezoelectric actuator
attached to an infinite host structure, International Journal of Solids and Structures 37
(2000) 3231-3251.
41. J.L. Gao, Q.G. Du et al., Thermal stress analysis and structure parameter selection for a
Bi2Te3-based thermoelectric module, Journal of Electronic Materials 40 (2011) 884-888.
42. A.G. Evans, E.A. Charles, Structural integrity in severe thermal environments, Journal of
the American Ceramic Society 60 (1977) 22-28.

17
 List of figure captions

Fig. 1 Partially buckling model of the coating/substrate system

Fig. 2 Equivalent model of partially buckling

Fig. 3 Distributions of the normalized stress intensity factor as a function of buckling length

Fig. 4 Distributions of equivalent axial stress for different porosities

Fig. 5 Effect of length-to-thickness ratio of the ceramic foam on the stress intensity factor

Fig. 6 Distributions of the normalized stress intensity factor for different values of the outer
surface temperature T1

Fig. 7 Critical temperatures of the buckling as a function of buckling length

Fig. 8 Distribution of the maximum buckling amplitude with respect to the buckling length

18
 T1
y ceramic foam
h v x
substrate 2a T0
2L
Fig. 1

ceramic foam
T1 y N0 σ
h N0 τ x
substrate 2a T0
2L

Fig. 2

19
 
12 

10 
T1=1600K
8
T0=300K
S / S0

6 L/h=1000

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/L
Fig. 3

20
 3.3  = 0.8
3.0  = 0.6 25

2.7  = 0.4 20

 / L (10 )
 = 0.2

-3
2.4 15
L/h=1000
N0 / h (GPa)

2.1 10
T1=1600K
1.8 5
T0=300K
1.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-1
1.2 a / L (10 )
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/L
Fig. 4

21
 9
L/h=500
8 L/h=1000
L/h=1500
7
L/h=2000
6 T1=1600K
5 T0=300K
S / S0

4  = 0.8

3
2
1
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/L
Fig. 5

22
 T1=600K
6
T1=1000K
T1=1600K

T0=300K
4
 = 0.8
S / S0

L/h=1000

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
a/L
Fig. 6

23
 1.6
SIC=0.5S0
1.4 SIC=1.0S0
SIC=1.5S0
1.2
T1 (10 K)

T0=300K
3

1.0 L/h=1000
=0.8
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50

a/L
Fig. 7

24
 0.025 L/h=500
L/h=1000
L/h=1500
0.020
T0=300K -3
10
/L

0.015 7.6
7.2
/L

6.8
0.010
6.4

500 520 540

0.005
T 1( K )

400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

T1( K )
Fig. 8

25