JOM, Vol. 65, No.

2, 2013
DOI: 10.1007/s11837-012-0512-0
2012 TMS

A Review of Thermal Conductivity of Polymer Matrix Syntactic

FoamsEffect of Hollow Particle Wall Thickness and Volume
Fraction

NIKHIL GUPTA1,2 and DINESH PINISETTY1

1.Composite Materials and Mechanics Laboratory, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

Department, Polytechnic Institute of New York University, 6 MetroTech Center, Brooklyn,
NY 11201, USA. 2.e-mail: ngupta@poly.edu

Hollow-particle-filled composites called syntactic foams are lightweight

particulate composites that are useful in weight-sensitive applications such as
aerospace and marine structures. Extensive literature is now available on the
mechanical properties of syntactic foams. The upcoming applications for
syntactic foams in aerospace structures require understanding of their ther-
mal properties, such as the thermal conductivity. The present review article
summarizes the available experimental results and theoretical models related
to the thermal conductivity of syntactic foams. Experimental results are
available for only a few compositions of syntactic foams. Basic understating of
the relationship between thermal conductivity of syntactic foams and the
material parameters, such as hollow particle volume fraction and wall thick-
ness, is not available through experimental results at this point. Four theo-
retical models are tested with the experimental data and found to provide
close predictions. These models are used to conduct parametric studies. It is
observed that the thermal conductivity of syntactic foams decreases as the
volume fraction of thin-walled particles is increased. An inverse relationship is
observed for thick-walled, hollow-particle-filled syntactic foams. These models
can help in designing syntactic foams with required thermal conductivity.

composites requires matching of the coefficient of

INTRODUCTION
Hollow-particle-filled polymer matrix composites,
called syntactic foams, are used in weight-sensitive
applications. Syntactic foams are now used in a
number of applications, including in underwater
vehicles, boat structures, and aircraft structures.
Extensive literature is available on the mechanical
properties of syntactic foams.13 Recent efforts have
been focused on developing correlations between the
mechanical properties of syntactic foams and the
wall thickness and volume fraction of hollow parti-
cles used in their structure.4,5
Applications of syntactic foams are increasing
where their thermal properties are of interest. Their
use in deep sea oil pipelines as insulation material
requires control over their thermal conductivity and
thermal expansion.6,7 Use of syntactic foams in
aircraft structures as core materials in sandwich
thermal expansion (CTE) of the core and skins to
minimize interfacial stresses, which has motivated
characterization of their CTE.8,9 Four parameters
are important in tailoring the thermal properties of
syntactic foams: matrix resin material, hollow par-
ticle material, ratio of wall thickness to radius of
hollow particles, and particle volume fraction.
Available results show that several compositions of
syntactic foams can have the same CTE value.8 This
finding enables the possibility of selecting a com-
position that also has the required mechanical
properties suitable for the application.
Temperature and frequency dependence of
mechanical behavior of syntactic foams is also found
studied.1012 Storage modulus, loss modulus, and
loss tangent have been characterized with respect
to temperature in these studies, and structure
property correlations have been developed. Such

234 (Published online December 8, 2012)

A Review of Thermal Conductivity of Polymer Matrix Syntactic FoamsEffect of Hollow Particle 235
Wall Thickness and Volume Fraction

information is useful for a wide range of applica-

tions where complex environmental and loading
conditions are encountered.
Use of syntactic foams as insulation material is
now increasing, which requires understanding of
their structureproperty relations for thermal con-
ductivity. The present review summarizes the avail-
able experimental results and theoretical models for
thermal conductivity of syntactic foams. Extensive
literature is available on thermal conductivity of
solid-particle-filled composites.1315 The models
applicable to solid-particle-filled composites require
modification to account for the void present inside the
hollow particle filler. Models are also available for
foams containing closed-cell gas porosity. Application
of these models to syntactic foams requires account- (a)
ing for the hollow particle that reinforces each pore of
the foam. Five models capable of estimating the
thermal conductivity of syntactic foams are dis-
cussed. Four of these models are selected for experi-
mental validation and parametric studies.

MICROSTRUCTURAL ASPECTS
Schematic representation of a syntactic foam
microstructure is shown in Fig. 1a. It mainly con-
sists of three phases: matrix resin, hollow particles,
and porosity. A typical syntactic foam microstruc-
ture is shown in Fig. 1b. In this figure, a glass hol-
low-particle-filled vinyl ester matrix syntactic foam
is shown.16 Some air voids may be present in the
matrix. However, the presence of these voids is
neglected in the present discussion. Most available
references classify syntactic foams as two-phase
microstructures comprising matrix resin and hollow
particles. Studies related to thermal conductivity
may benefit from classifying them as three-phase
material, where hollow particles themselves are
considered two-phase materials comprising the
particle shell and the gas inside the particle.
Hollow particles, also called microballoons or
microspheres in various references, may have a
large distribution in diameter and wall thickness.
Figure 2a shows a scanning electron micrograph of
a batch of widely used glass particles that are
commercially available. The diameter of particles is
observed to vary in the range of 1250 lm.
Figure 2b schematically illustrates the possible distri-
bution in the particle size, which can be determined
using a particle size analyzer. Narrow size ranges can
be separated using a sieve shaker. Since these parti-
cles are hollow, their wall thickness may also show
variation within one batch of particles. Figure 2c
illustrates the possibility that even the particles of the
same diameter may have different wall thick-
nesses.1720 Therefore, only size analysis is not enough
to characterize their geometrical properties. The wall
thickness makes a difference in the true particle den-
sity of the same size particles. The particles of different
wall thicknesses can be separated by density-based
classification methods.
(b)
Fig. 1. (a) Schematic representation of the microstructure of syn-
tactic foam and (b) micrograph of a vinyl ester-glass hollow particle
syntactic foam.
Thin-walled particles are used in synthesizing
syntactic foams to obtain benefit of weight saving.
Figure 3 shows a typical glass hollow particle,
where more than 90% volume is the void. The
present review will focus on analyzing the available
theoretical models to understand the effect of par-
ticle wall thickness and volume fraction on the
thermal conductivity of syntactic foams.
Particle size is another important parameter in
particulate composites. The effect of particle size is
not straightforward to understand. Several theo-
retical models are based on the unit cell approach,
which takes a single particle in a unit cell of the
matrix. Change in the size is associated with change
in the particle volume fraction (U) in these models
so these parameters are not independent in these
models. In reality, the change in the particle size at
the same volume fraction level is associated with
two parameters: (I) particlematrix interfacial area
and (II) curvature effects leading to stress concen-
tration. The effect of particle size and interfacial
236
Fig. 2. (a) A sample of widely used glass hollow particles. (b) Illus-
tration of possible distribution in the (b) diameter and (c) wall thick-
ness of the same diameter hollow particles used in syntactic foams.
Fig. 3. A broken hollow particle showing thin wall and the void space
that was enclosed inside the glass shell..
bonding are also modeled in several studies.2123 In
the case of syntactic foams, the ratio of particle wall
thickness to radius is an important parameter that
Gupta and Pinisetty
Table I. Properties of glass hollow particles used in
Ref. 9
Hollow True Particle Diameter
Particle Type Density (g/cc) (lm) g d (lm)
TK35 0.68 35 0.885 2.02
TK70 0.21 70 0.967 1.15
has been widely studied. The ratio of internal (ri) to
outer (ro) radius of particle is termed the radius
ratio g. The particle wall thickness is defined as
d = ro(1  g). The thermal conductivity of syntactic
foams will be analyzed with respect to g and U.
EXPERIMENTAL TRENDS
Polypropylene Matrix Glass Hollow Particle
Syntactic Foams
The thermal conductivity of polypropylene-glass
syntactic foams was found to decrease with
increasing particle volume fraction.9 The thermal
conductivity of the neat resin (0.24 W/m K) was
higher than any composition of the syntactic foam.
This study tested syntactic foams containing up to
20 vol.% of two types of hollow particles. These
particles, designated as TK35 and TK70, had aver-
age sizes of 35 lm and 70 lm and true particle
densities of 0.68 g/cc and 0.21 g/cc, respectively. The
characteristics of these particles are presented in
Table I, considering the glass density of 2.21 g/cc.
Both types of hollow particle have values of g over
0.88.
Within this range of compositions, the decrease in
thermal conductivity of syntactic foams with respect
to particle volume fraction is nearly linear and the
foam containing 20 vol.% particles had thermal
conductivity of 0.191 W/m K.
APO-Bismaleimide Matrix Carbon Hollow
Particle Syntactic Foams
APO-bismaleimide (APO-BMI) resin is taken as
the matrix material and carbon hollow particles are
taken as filler.24 The thermal conductivity of APO-
BMI and carbon are given as 0.307 W/m K and
4.6 W/m K, respectively. The particles have ther-
mal conductivity 15 times higher than that of the
matrix. In this case, it is expected that incorpora-
tion of carbon particles in the APO-BMI matrix will
result in syntactic foams with thermal conductivity
higher than that of the matrix resin. However, the
contribution of particlematrix interfacial bonding
on the effective thermal conductivity of syntactic
foam is also important and poor bonding will result
in lower thermal conductivity than the expected
value.
The experimental results of this study show that
the room temperature thermal conductivity of syn-
tactic foams containing 5970 vol.% carbon particles
A Review of Thermal Conductivity of Polymer Matrix Syntactic FoamsEffect of Hollow Particle 237
Wall Thickness and Volume Fraction

ranges from 0.137 W/m K to 0.284 W/m K. The

thermal conductivity of all compositions is found to
be lower than that of the resin, despite having
higher thermal conductivity filler particles. This
reinforces the importance of particlematrix inter-
facial bonding. This study also found that the
thermal conductivity increases with temperature.

MODELING
To model the thermal conductivity, syntactic
foams must be considered to have a three-phase
microstructure comprising the matrix resin, hollow
particle shell, and the gas inside the hollow particle. Fig. 4. Unit cell geometry and notations used in Refs. 26 and 28.
Composite sphere or coreshell sphere based models
developed for particulate composites can be easily
applied to syntactic foams.25 The gas-filled void and
to estimate the thermal conductivity of syntactic
the hollow particle shell can be considered as two
foams.26,28 This model is based on rule of mixtures
concentric spheres, and most of the available models
approach. As a result of the linear distribution of
can be modified to suit syntactic foams. Before dis-
temperature, the average thermal conductivity of
cussing the analytical approaches, a preliminary
two regions of only the matrix, marked as Zone 1 in
inquiry can be conducted in the thermal conductiv-
Fig. 4, is given as
ity of syntactic foams based on the properties of the
constituting materials.
k1 kp (1)
A primary insight into the potential trends can be
obtained by evaluating the typical values of thermal where kp is the thermal conductivity of the matrix
conductivities as 0.2 W/m K, 0.179 W/m K, and polymer. The average thermal conductivity of Zone
0.022 W/m K for polypropylene resin, glass particle 2, where matrix, particle shell, and gas are present,
shell, and the gas inside the particles, respec- can be given as
tively.26 In this case, the thermal conductivity of the
particle material is lower than that of the resin, but 1  
the difference is very small. On the contrary, the k2 kp Vp kg Vg ka Va (2)
h2 S
thermal conductivity values for vinyl ester, glass
material, and gas are reported as 0.25 W/m K, where Vp, Vg, and Va are the volumes of the polymer
1.1 W/m K, and 0.01 W/m K, respectively, where matrix, hollow particle shell, and gas void, respec-
the thermal conductivity of glass is 4.4 times that of tively, and S is the surface area of the entire cross
the resin.27 In these two cases, the mechanism of section. In addition, kg and ka are the thermal con-
heat transfer inside the syntactic foam microstruc- ductivities of the hollow particle shell material and
ture will be different because the particles will form gas phase, respectively. The thermal conductivities
a preferred path when their thermal conductivity is for Zones 1 and 2 can be used in rule of mixtures to
higher than that of the matrix. It is also previously obtain the effective thermal conductivity of syntac-
reported that the convection effects within the tic foams as28

2 !!1 31
 1=3 !  1=3  1=3 ! !
1 6U 4p 2U q  q qg  qs
k4 1 2 kp p kg s a
ka  kp 5 (3)
kp p 3U 9p qg  qa qg  qa

hollow particles are expected to be negligible
because of their small size.28
Available Theoretical Models for Thermal
Conductivity
Liang Model
Liang proposed a unit-cellbased model (Fig. 4)
containing a single particle embedded in the resin
where qg , qa , and qs are the effective densities of the
hollow particle shell, gas phase, and hollow particle,
respectively. The single particle models in a cubic
unit cell suffer from the disadvantage that the
maximum possible particle volume fraction is about
0.52. Also, the predictions start to deviate from
the experimental values at high particle volume
fractions. In syntactic foams, the weight-saving
consideration commonly leads to particle volume
238 Gupta and Pinisetty

contact at the interface, the term b2 ! 1 and the

z equations can be further simplified. Since the ther-
mal conductivity of air is much lower than that of the
particle material (glass or carbon), further simplifi-
1: Matrix
cation of Eq. 4 can be conducted by considering
2: Particle shell kg  ka and kp  ka. In this case, we can assume
1 3: Gas void
2 ka ka
0 (8)
r1 kg kp
y
3 The modified form of Eq. 4 with these conditions is
r2  
1 2XU
k kp (9)
1  XU
r3 
where parameters X and c are defined as X c1 c2
and
Fig. 5. Unit cell geometry and notations used in Ref. 29.   
kg 1  g3
c2 (10)
kp 2 g3
fractions in the range of 4065%, and the utility of Equation 9 has a simple form and can be applied to
such models may be limited without their further syntactic foams. This model can provide reasonable
extension. predictions for syntactic foams containing a low-
volume fraction of hollow particles.
Felske Model As the volume fraction of particles in syntactic
foam increases, the particle-to-particle contact and
Models based on a self-consistent approach are creation of a preferred path for heat conduction may
also available.29 In this approach, two concentric become a significant issue, especially if the thermal
particles, corresponding to the hollow particle shell conductivity of particle material is higher than that
and gas void, are assumed to be embedded in the of the matrix. This is where the model predictions
matrix resin. A temperature difference is imposed start to deviate from the experimental results.
across the composite slab. The ratio of the average
flux to the average temperature gradient in the unit
cell defines the effective thermal conductivity of the
homogeneous medium. Considering the unit cell Pal Model
and the notations shown in Fig. 5, the effective Application of differential schemes can be useful
thermal conductivity of syntactic foam is found as29 in developing approaches that can predict the
  thermal conductivity of syntactic foams containing
21  UF  3b2 n
k kp (4) high-volume fractions of hollow particles. The
2 UF  3b2 n differential effective medium approach iteratively
where functions F, n, and b2 are given as adds a small volume fraction of hollow particles in
      the matrix, finds the effective thermal conductivity
ka kg ka of the solution, and then uses this value as the
F  1 2  b2 2 1 2 property of the matrix in the next iteration.25 The
kg kp kg
   3 (5) iterations can be continued until the desired volume
kg 1 fraction of hollow particles is reached in the struc-
1  b2 2  1
kp g ture. This approach provides two important benefits
for modeling syntactic foams: (I) the maximum
allowed particle volume fraction can be built in the
      model and (II) hollow particles of different size and
1 kg 1 ka
n2 1 3  2 3 (6) wall thickness can be incorporated in different
g kp g kp iterations. The second advantage is particularly
important for syntactic foams where polydispersion
in the particle size and wall thickness are routinely
k21 r2 observed and need to be accounted for in order to
b2 (7) obtain realistic model predictions.17 The polydis-
kg
persivity in the properties of commercially available
hollow particles that have been widely used in
The term k21 is defined as contact conductance at manufacturing syntactic foams have been studied
the particlematrix interface. For ideal thermal previously and experimental data are available.16
A Review of Thermal Conductivity of Polymer Matrix Syntactic FoamsEffect of Hollow Particle 239
Wall Thickness and Volume Fraction

A significant issue in particulate composites is the Park Model

packing factor. Generally, the spheres of the same
size in an ideal packing arrangement can have vol-
umetric packing efficiency as high as 74%. In ran-
domly arranged particles of the same size, the
packing efficiency is close to 64%.30,31 The models
discussed earlier are not able to place a limit auto-
matically on the particle volume fraction.
The model presented by Eq. 4 was modified by Pal
to apply the differential scheme and introduce the
maximum particle packing factor Umax.25 In this
scheme, Eq. 4 was converted to a differential equa-
tion assuming that the existing hollow particle vol-
ume fraction in the matrix is U and the incremental

increase in the volume fraction in each iteration is
dU
1U=Umax . Upon integration with the limits k ! km
and U ! 0, the final form is obtained as
 1=3 " #   equivalent solid particles. Thus, the problem
k b1 U Umax

 1 (11)
kp b  k kp Umax
where function b is defined as
   
kg 2g3 1 ka  2 g3  1 kg
b (12)
kp g3 2  g3  1ka
Estimation of effective thermal conductivity of
hollow particles is useful for syntactic foams.
Equations developed for coated solid particles can
be used for hollow particles.32 Based on this
approach, the thermal conductivity of a hollow
particle can be determined by33
 
21  g3 kg 1 2g3 ka
kmb kg (14)
2 g3 kg 1  g3 ka
The prediction of Eq. 14 can be very useful in
simplifying the computation of thermal conductivity
of syntactic foams. In this case, once the effective
thermal conductivity of hollow particles is deter-
mined, they can be replaced in the matrix by
reduces to having solid particles in a polymeric
matrix. Numerous theoretical models are available
for solving the problem of solid-particle-filled com-
posites. The thermal conductivity of syntactic foams
using Eshelbys method can be given as33
 
21  Ukp 1 2Ukmb
k kp (15)
2 Ukp 1  Ukmb

This modified model successfully captured the Equation 14 is used to determine the effective
experimental trends observed in solid-particle-filled thermal conductivity with respect to the radius ratio
composites at high-volume fractions.15,25 Experi- for hollow glass particles in Fig. 6. The parameters
mental data on thermal conductivity of syntactic used in calculation of kmb are kg = 1.1 W/m K and
foams are very limited; hence, detailed validation of ka = 0.1 W/m K. Thin-walled particles are widely
this model is not yet conducted. It should also be used in manufacturing syntactic foams. It can be
noted that this model presents an implicit rela- observed in the figure that the thermal conductivity
tionship and that it needs to be solved numerically. of thin-walled hollow particles changes rapidly with
g. The effective thermal conductivity of hollow par-
Porfiri Model ticles can be as low as 10% of the thermal conduc-
tivity of the glass material.
Homogenization techniques are attractive in find-
ing the effective properties of composite materials.
A closed-form solution based on homogenization
techniques is available for syntactic foams containing
thin-walled particles in low-volume fractions.27 The
same three-phase microstructure is assumed in this
model with hollow particles modeled as coreshell
particles. The thermal conductivity of syntactic
foams is given as
 
k 3U kp  ka
1   
kp 2kp ka  U ka  kp
(13)
kp 2k2g  ka kg  k2a
9U   1  g
kg 2kp Ukp ka 1  U 2

The first two summands in Eq. 13 correspond to the

MaxwellGarnett formula to calculate the thermal
conductivity of a two-phase composite with solid
particle inclusions, and the last summand is the
correction term to account for the presence of a thin Fig. 6. Prediction of relative thermal conductivity of glass hollow
particle shell. particles
240 Gupta and Pinisetty

Model Validation with Experimental Data Table II. The experimental values of thermal con-
ductivities of eight compositions of syntactic foams
Experimental values of the thermal conductivity
and theoretical predictions obtained from the four
of syntactic foams are available in the published
models are presented in Table III. The difference
literature.9 Available experimental data on poly-
between experimental results and theoretical pre-
propylene-glass syntactic foams are used to validate
dictions is presented in Table IV. It can be noted
the predictions obtained from Liang, Felske, Porfiri,
that predictions obtained from all models are close.
and Park models. The experimental data are avail-
Except for Liangs model for one composition, theo-
able on syntactic foams containing two types of
retical predictions of all models show less than 10%
particles, the details of which are presented in
difference from the experimental values. The limi-
Table I and other input parameters are listed in
tation of this validation scheme is that the experi-
mental data are available only for one matrix and
particle material. Although it is desirable to vali-
Table II. Input parameters used for the validation date the models for data from thick-walled particles,
of theoretical models and for the parametric study such data are not available in the literature because
the weight-saving benefit is lost due to the high
Validation with density of the thick-walled particles. Most available
Parameter Liang and Li Data9 Parametric Study studies have used hollow particles in the range
0.85 < g < 1.3436
kg (W/m K) 0.179 1.1
ka (W/m K) 0.0228 0.1
kp (W/m K) 0.24 0.25
qa (kg/m3) 0.09 1.2 Parametric Studies on Thermal Conductivity
qg (kg/m3) 2210 2540
qs (kg/m3) 680 qg (1  g3 ) A general trend in the thermal conductivity
with respect to g and U can be observed through

Table III. Comparison of experimental values of thermal conductivity with theoretical predictions
k (W/m K)

Syntactic Foam U (%) (Liang and Li)a9 Liang Model Felske Model Porfiri Model Park Model

PP 0 0.24
PP/TK35 5 0.23 0.231 0.227 0.229 0.228
10 0.23 0.222 0.214 0.217 0.217
15 0.21 0.213 0.201 0.207 0.206
20 0.18 0.204 0.189 0.196 0.195
PP/TK70 5 0.22 0.229 0.224 0.226 0.226
10 0.21 0.218 0.208 0.212 0.212
15 0.21 0.208 0.193 0.199 0.199
20 0.19 0.197 0.179 0.187 0.186
a
Experimental values.

Table IV. Difference between experimental values of thermal conductivity with theoretical predictions
Syntactic foam U (%) Liang Model (%) Felske Model (%) Porfiri Model (%) Park Model (%)

PP 0
PP/TK35 5 0 1 0 1
10 4 7 6 6
15 1 4 1 2
20 13 5 9 8
PP/TK70 5 4 2 3 3
10 4 1 1 1
15 1 8 5 5
20 4 6 2 2
A Review of Thermal Conductivity of Polymer Matrix Syntactic FoamsEffect of Hollow Particle
Wall Thickness and Volume Fraction
Fig. 7. Variation of normalized thermal conductivity of syntactic foams as a function of hollow particle volume fraction at various radius ratios
obtained from (a) Liang, (b) Felske, (c) Porfiri, and (d) Park models.
parametric studies. Liang, Felske, Porfiri, and Park
models are used to plot the thermal conductivity
values with respect to g and U, as shown in Figs. 7
and 8, respectively. These graphs are plotted for
vinyl ester matrix-glass hollow particle syntactic
foams. The input parameters for this study are
given in Table II.27 The theoretical values are plotted
up to U = 0.5 because some of the models use a par-
ticle inside a cubic unit cell.
It can be noted in Fig. 7 that the trends obtained
from the Liang, Felske, and Park models are very
similar. Note that the y-axis is different in each part
of this figure. The Porfiri model shows notably dif-
ferent trends, especially for thick-walled, particle-
filled syntactic foams. The thermal conductivity
values predicted from this model are significantly
higher compared with the other three models for
such syntactic foams. However, neither experimen-
tal results are available for syntactic foams
241
containing such particles, nor is there interest in
such syntactic foams due to their heavy weight.
Therefore, these differences have only a little prac-
tical significance. It can also be noted in Fig. 7 that
the thermal conductivity of syntactic foams con-
taining solid glass particles can be 2.57 times
higher than that of the matrix resin.
It can also be observed in Fig. 7 that the thermal
conductivity increases with volume fraction of thick-
walled particles. However, the thermal conductivity
of syntactic foams containing thin-walled particles
decreases with increasing U because the volume of
gas is sufficiently high in their structure. The trends
of decrease and increase in the thermal conductivity
of syntactic foams with respect to U for thin- and
thick-walled hollow particles are well captured by
all models.
The thermal conductivity data are plotted in
Fig. 8 to clearly observe the relation with respect to
242
Fig. 8. Variation of normalized thermal conductivity of syntactic foams as a function of hollow particle radius ratio at various volume fractions
obtained from (a) Liang, (b) Felske, (c) Porfiri, and (d) Park models.
g. Apart from the observations already made in
Fig. 7, it is interesting to note that the thermal
conductivity versus g graphs show that the curves
for various U values cross over. It should be noted
that the crossover does not happen at a single g
value but over a narrow range. The approximate g
values (gc) for crossover are:
Liang model: gc: 0.946
Felske model: gc: 0.883
Porfiri model: gc: 0.935
Park model: gc: 0.925
The gc values predicted by the Liang, Porfiri,
and Park models are close to each other. Fig-
ure 9 shows a close-up of the region g = 0.85  1,
which belongs to thin-walled particles commonly
used in syntactic foams. In the region g < gc, the
thermal conductivity of syntactic foams in-
creases with U. This behavior reverses in the
region g > gc, and syntactic foams with lower U
Gupta and Pinisetty
have higher thermal conductivity. Knowing this
kind of behavior is important because if the U is
monotonically increased to lower the syntactic
foam density, then the thermal conductivity of
thin- and thick-walled particle reinforced syn-
tactic foams will first become equal and then
reverse the trend, which may be undesired by
the application.
Weight saving is the most important consideration
in using syntactic foams. Figure 10 shows the profile
of specific thermal conductivity of syntactic foams
with respect to g and U obtained from the four
selected theoretical models. The figure is plotted in
the region g = 0.8  1 to show the range relevant to
the syntactic foams parameters used in actual
applications. It can be observed that the profiles
predicted by various models are different. Validation
of these profiles with experimental results can
further help in selecting the model that is the best in
A Review of Thermal Conductivity of Polymer Matrix Syntactic FoamsEffect of Hollow Particle 243
Wall Thickness and Volume Fraction

Fig. 9. The region 0.85< g< 1 magnified from Fig. 8 for (a) Liang, (b) Felske, (c) Porfiri, and (d) Park models.

describing the thermal conductivity of syntactic
foams.
SUMMARY
Five existing theoretical models that can predict
the thermal conductivity of syntactic foams are
reviewed. The basic assumptions, applicability, and
limitations of these models are discussed. Four of
these models are validated with available experi-
mental results on polypropylene matrix glass hollow
particle syntactic foams. The predictions of all
models for this available data set are in close
agreement. The models are further analyzed by
conducting parametric studies on vinyl ester-glass
syntactic foams to determine thermal conductivity
trends with respect to hollow particle wall thickness
and volume fraction. The following trends are
identified from the results:
 The thermal conductivity of syntactic foams
decreases with
Increasing volume fraction of thin-walled par-
ticles
Decreasing volume fraction of thick-walled
particles
 A critical radius ratio of hollow particles can be
found where the thermal conductivity of syntactic
foams is nearly the same as that of the matrix at
all volume fraction levels
The availability of these models can help in
designing syntactic foams with a desired set of
thermal and mechanical properties.
244
Fig. 10. Thermal conductivity normalized with respect to the syntactic foam density as a function of hollow particle radius ratio at various volume
fractions obtained from (a) Liang, (b) Felske, (c) Porfiri, and (d) Park models.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work is supported by the Office of Naval
Research grant N00014-10-1-0988 and the U.S.
Army Research Laboratory Cooperative Working
Agreement W911NF-11-2-0096 with NYU-Poly. The
views and conclusions are those of the authors and
should not be interpreted as presenting the official
policies or position, either expressed or implied, of
the ONR, the ARL, or the U.S. Government unless
so designated by other authorized documents. Ron-
ald L. Poveda is thanked for preparing solid models
and illustrations, and Vasanth Chakravarthy
Shunmugasamy is thanked for help with figure
preparation.
REFERENCES
1. N. Gupta, E. Kishore, S. Sankaran, and E. Woldesenbet,
J. Mater. Sci. 36, 4485 (2001).
2. N. Gupta and R. Nagorny, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 102, 1254
(2006).
3. P. Bunn and J.T. Mottram, Composites 24, 565 (1993).
Gupta and Pinisetty
4. N. Gupta, S. Priya, R. Islam, and W. Ricci, Ferroelectrics
345, 1 (2006).
5. N. Gupta and E. Woldesenbet, J. Cell. Plast. 40, 461 (2004).
6. F. Grosjean, N. Bouchonneau, D. Choqueuse, and V. Sau-
vant-Moynot, J. Mater. Sci. 44, 1462 (2009).
7. N. Bouchonneau, V. Sauvant-Moynot, D. Choqueuse, F. Gros-
jean, E. Poncet, and D. Perreux, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 73, 1 (2010).
8. V. Shunmugasamy, D. Pinisetty, and N. Gupta, J. Mater.
Sci. 47, 5596 (2012).
9. J.Z. Liang and F.H. Li, Polym. Test. 25, 527 (2006).
10. V. Shunmugasamy, D. Pinisetty, and N. Gupta, J. Mater.
Sci. 47, 5596 (2012).
11. G. Hu and D. Yu, Mater. Sci. Eng., A 528, 5177 (2011).
12. C. Capela, J.A.M. Ferreira, and J.D. Costa, Mater. Sci.
Forum 636637, 280 (2010).
13. C.-W. Nan, R. Birringer, D.R. Clarke, and H. Gleiter, J.
Appl. Phys. 81, 6692 (1997).
14. J. Ordonez-Miranda, R. Yang, and J.J. Alvarado-Gil, J.
Appl. Phys. 111, 044319 (2012).
15. R. Pal, J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 26, 643 (2007).
16. N. Gupta, R. Ye, and M. Porfiri, Compos. Part B 41, 236
(2010).
17. M. Aureli, M. Porfiri, and N. Gupta, Mech. Mater. 42, 726
(2010).
18. L. Bardella, A. Sfreddo, C. Ventura, M. Porfiri, and N.
Gupta, Mech. Mater. 50, 53 (2012).
A Review of Thermal Conductivity of Polymer Matrix Syntactic FoamsEffect of Hollow Particle
Wall Thickness and Volume Fraction
19. K. Carlisle, M. Koopman, K. Chawla, R. Kulkarni, G. Gla-
dysz, and M. Lewis, J. Mater. Sci. 41, 3987 (2006).
20. M. Koopman, G. Gouadec, K.B. Carlisle, K.K. Chawla, and
G.M. Gladysz, Scripta Mater. 50, 593 (2004).
21. H.J. Bohm and S. Nogales, Compos. Sci. Technol. 68, 1181
(2008).
22. W. Jiajun and Y. Xiao-Su, Compos. Sci. Technol. 64, 1623 (2004).
23. F.C. Chen, C.L. Choy, and K. Young, J. Phys. D Appl. Phys.
10, 571 (1977).
24. V. Shabde, K. Hoo, and G.M. Gladysz, J. Mater. Sci. 41,
4061 (2006).
25. R. Pal, Mater. Sci. Eng., A 498, 135 (2008).
26. J.Z. Liang and F.H. Li, Polym. Test. 26, 419 (2007).
27. M. Porfiri, N. Nguyen, and N. Gupta, J. Mater. Sci. 44, 1540
(2009).
245
chsner
28. J.Z. Liang, Heat Transfer in Multi-Phase Materials, ed. A. O
and G.E. Murch (Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2011), p. 163.
29. J.D. Felske, Int. J. Heat Mass Trans. 47, 3453 (2004).
30. R.S. Farr and R.D. Groot, J. Chem. Phys. 131, 244104 (2009).
31. C.S. OHern, S.A. Langer, A.J. Liu, and S.R. Nagel, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 88, 075507, 075501 (2002).
32. Y. Benveniste and T. Miloh, J. Appl. Phys. 69, 1337 (1991).
33. Y.K. Park, J.-G. Kim, and J.-K. Lee, Mater. Trans. Jpn. Inst.
Met. 49, 2781 (2008).
34. N. Gupta, E. Woldesenbet, and P. Mensah, Compos. Part A
35, 103 (2004).
35. G.M. Gladysz, B. Perry, G. McEachen, and J. Lula, J. Mater.
Sci. 41, 4085 (2006).
36. C.S. Karthikeyan, Kishore, and S. Sankaran, J. Reinf. Plast.
Compos. 19, 732 (2000).