Foam Core Density

For discussions related to ski/snowboard construction/design methods and techniques.

Moderators: Head Monkey, kelvin, bigKam, skidesmond, chrismp

Post Reply
Thelongride
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:53 am
Location: Washington

Foam Core Density

Post by Thelongride »

I'm wondering if others have used foam as a core material, and what density they used with good results.

Specifically I'm looking at Rohacell 51 IG which bonds well and has beyond adequate compression strength. What I'm really worried about is peel strength in low density foams, as this is critical to ski failure. It seems (from previous posts) that people have had the same internal laminar failure that flat grain balsa exhibits. I'm almost positive this is due to a low shear modulus, but my lack of engineering experience may not be serving me well here.

In other words the ski delaminates, but it is an internal failure of the core, not a failure of the bond line of between composite and core.
JSquare
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:59 pm
Location: NH

Re: Foam Core Density

Post by JSquare »

Seems like a good place to start: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4942&hilit=FOAM+CORE
SleepingAwake
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Foam Core Density

Post by SleepingAwake »

I just finished a pair of super light freetouring skis with balsa in the center and rohacell in tip and tail. The loading should be less there, but the shear loading is big as the core is so thin. I honestly don't know if they will hold up but i will let you know. planned on writing something about them anyway as i tried a bunch of stuff with them. I just hope they don't break before i know if the shape works or not :D
Thelongride
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:53 am
Location: Washington

Re: Foam Core Density

Post by Thelongride »

Yes! let me know how they work out. Really curious how it holds up.

What kind of Rohacell or you using?
SleepingAwake
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Foam Core Density

Post by SleepingAwake »

51kg/m³
Post Reply