Mar 103 Experimental Elastomer Analysis

Experimental Elastomer Analysis
MSC.Software Corporation
MA*V2005r2*Z*Z*Z*SM-MAR103-NT1 1
Copyright  2010 MSC.Software Corporation
All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A.
Corporate Europe
MSC.Software Corporation MSC.Software GmbH
2 MacArthur Place Am Moosfeld
Santa Ana, CA 92707 81829 München, GERMANY
Telephone: (714) 540-8900 Telephone: (49) (89) 431 987 0
Fax: (714) 784-4056 Fax: (49) (89) 436 1716
Asia Pacific Worldwide Web

MSC Japan Ltd. www.mscsoftware.com
Entsuji-Gadelius Building
2-39, Akasaka 5-chome
Minato-ku, Tokyo 107-0052, JAPAN
Telephone: (81) (3) 3505 0266
Fax: (81) (3) 3505 0914
Part Number: MA*V2005r2*Z*Z*Z*SM-MAR103-NT1
Disclaimer
THE CONCEPTS, METHODS, AND EXAMPLES PRESENTED IN THE DOCUMENTATION ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE AND
EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE EXHAUSTIVE OR TO APPLY TO ANY PARTICULAR
ENGINEERING PROBLEM OR DESIGN. USER ASSUMES ALL RISKS AND LIABILITY FOR RESULTS OBTAINED BY THE USE OF THE
COMPUTER PROGRAMS DESCRIBED HEREIN. IN NO EVENT SHALL MSC.SOFTWARE CORPORATION BE LIABLE TO ANYONE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, COLLATERAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF, RESULTING FROM, OR
IN CONNECTION WITH USE OF THE CONTENTS OR INFORMATION IN THE DOCUMENTATION.
MSC.SOFTWARE CORPORATION ASSUMES NO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY ERRORS THAT MAY APPEAR IN THE
DOCUMENTATION. THE DOCUMENTATION IS PROVIDED ON AN “AS-IS” BASIS AND ALL EXPRESS AND IMPLIED CONDITIONS,
REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ARE DISCLAIMED, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH DISCLAIMERS ARE HELD TO BE LEGALLY
INVALID.
MSC.SOFTWARE CORPORATION RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE CHANGES IN SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER INFORMATION
CONTAINED IN THE DOCUMENTATION WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE.
Trademarks
MSC, Dytran, MARC, and Patran are registered trademarks of MSC.Software Corporation or its subsidiaries in the United States and/or other
countries. MSC., MSC.Dytran, MSC.Marc, and MSC.Patran are trademarks of MSC.Software Corporation.
NASTRAN is a registered trademark of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. MSC.Nastran is an enhanced proprietary version
developed and maintained by MSC.Software Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
Third Party Software Program Credits

METIS is copyrighted by the regents of the University of Minnesota.
NT-MPICH is developed by Lehrstuhl für Betriebssysteme der RWTH Aachen. Copyright  1992-2003 Lehrstuhl für
Betriebssysteme der RWTH Aachen.
Government Use
Use, duplication, or disclosure by the U.S. Government is subject to restrictions as set forth in FAR 12.212 (Commercial Computer Software) and
DFARS 227.7202 (Commercial Computer Software and Commercial Computer Software Documentation), as applicable.
MA*V2005r2*Z*Z*Z*SM-MAR103-NT1 Experimental Elastomer Analysis

Table of Contents Contents
Experimental Elastomer Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
CHAPTER 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Course Objective: FEA & Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Course Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
About MSC.Marc Products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
About Axel Products, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Data Measurement and Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Typical Properties of Rubber Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Important Application Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
CHAPTER 2 The Macroscopic Behavior of Elastomers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Microscopic Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Temperature Effects, Tg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Time Effects, Viscoelasticity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Curing Effects (Vulcanization) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Damage, Early Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Damage, Fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Damage, Chemical Causes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Deformation States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
CHAPTER 3 Material Models, Historical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Engineering Materials and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Neo-Hookean Material Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Neo-Hookean Material Extension Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Neo-Hookean Material Shear Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Neo-Hookean Material Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
A Word About Simple Shear. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2-Constant Mooney Extensional Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Other Mooney-Rivlin Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Ogden Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Foam Models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Model Limitations and Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Viscoelastic Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Determining Model Coefficients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
CHAPTER 4 Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Lab Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Experimental Elastomer Analysis 3

Contents
Basic Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Measuring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
What about Shore Hardness? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Testing the Correct Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Tensile Testing in the Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Compression Testing in the Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Equal Biaxial Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Compression and Equal Biaxial Strain States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Volumetric Compression Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Planar Tension Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Viscoelastic Stress Relaxation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Dynamic Behavior – Testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Friction Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Data Reduction in the Lab. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Model Verification Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Testing at Non-ambient Temperatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Loading/Unloading Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Test Specimen Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Fatigue Crack Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Experimental and Analysis Road Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
CHAPTER 5 Material Test Data Fitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Major Modes of Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Confined Compression Test (UniVolumetric). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Hydrostatic Compression Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Summary of All Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Mooney, Ogden Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Visual Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Material Stability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Future Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Adjusting Raw Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Consider All Modes of Deformation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
The Three Basic Strain States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Curve Fitting with MSC.Marc Mentat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
CHAPTER 6 Workshop Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Some MSC.Marc Mentat Hints and Shortcuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Model 1: Uniaxial Stress Specimen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4 Experimental Elastomer Analysis

Contents
Model 1: Uniaxial Curve Fit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Model 1C: Tensile Specimen with Continuous Damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Model 1: Realistic Uniaxial Stress Specimen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Model 2: Equi-Biaxial Stress Specimen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Model 2: Equi-Biaxial Curve Fit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Model 2: Realistic Equal-Biaxial Stress Specimen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Model 3: Simple Compression, Button Comp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Model 4: Planar Shear Specimen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Model 4: Planar Shear Curve Fit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Model 4: Realistic Planar Shear Specimen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Model 5: Viscoelastic Specimen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Model 5: Viscoelastic Curve Fit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Model 6: Volumetric Fit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
CHAPTER 7 Contact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Definition of Contact Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Control of Rigid Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Contact Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Bias Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Deformable-to-Deformable Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Potential Errors due to Piecewise Linear Description: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
Analytical Deformable Contact Bodies: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
Contact Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Symmetry Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Rigid with Heat Transfer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Contact Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Contact Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Exclude Segments During Contact Detection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Effect Of Exclude Option:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Contacting Nodes and Contacted Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Friction Model Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Coulomb ArcTangent Friction Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Coulomb Bilinear Friction Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Stick-Slip Friction Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Glued Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Release Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Interference Check / Interference Closure Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Forces on Rigid Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

Contents
APPENDIX A The Mechanics of Elastomers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

Deformation States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
General Formulation of Elastomers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
Finite Element Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Large Strain Viscoelasticity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Large Strain Viscoelasticity based on Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Illustration of Large Strain Viscoelastic Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
APPENDIX B Elastomeric Damage Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
Discontinuous Damage Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
Continuous Damage Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
APPENDIX C Aspects of Rubber Foam Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
Measuring Material Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
APPENDIX D Biaxial & Compression Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Overall Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
The Experimental Apparatus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
Analytical Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Attachment A: Compression Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
APPENDIX E Xmgr – a 2D Plotting Tool. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
Features of ACE/gr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
Using ACE/gr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
ACE/gr Miscellaneous Plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
APPENDIX F .............................................. 303
APPENDIX F Notes and Course Critique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Course Critique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308

CHAPTER 1 Introduction
This course is to provide a fundamental

understanding of how material testing and
finite element analysis are combined to
improve your design of rubber and
elastomeric products. Most courses in
elastomeric analysis stop with finite
element modeling, and leave you searching
for material data. This experimental
elastomer analysis course combines
performing the analysis and the material
testing. It shows how the material testing
has a critical effect upon the accuracy of
the analysis.

Chapter 1: Introduction Course Objective: FEA & Laboratory
Course Objective: FEA & Laboratory
Left Brain Right Brain

Computer Laboratory
Analytical Experimental
Objective Subjective
Logical Intuitive
W = NkT  I 1 – 3   2
W = C1  I1 – 3  + C2  I2 – 3 
N
   
W =  -----n-    1 n +  2 n +  3 n  – 3 
n
n=1
1 1 2 2
W = G ---  I 1 – 3  + ----------  I 1 – 3  + 
2 20N

Course Objective: FEA & Laboratory Chapter 1: Introduction
Course Objective
Discuss the TEST
CURVE FIT
ANALYSIS
cycle specific to rubber and elastomers.
Limit scope to material models such as Mooney-Rivlin and Ogden
form strain energy models.
Material Model
(curve fit)
Analyze
Test Specimen
Material
Specimen ?
n
Correlatio Analyze
?
Part
Test
Part

Chapter 1: Introduction Course Objective: FEA & Laboratory
Course Objective (cont.)
Some important topics covered are:
• What tests are preferred and why?
• Why aren’t ASTM specs always the answer?
• What should I do about pre-conditioning?
• Why are multiple deformation mode tests

important?
• How can I judge the accuracy of different

material models?
• How do I double check my model against

the test data?

Course Schedule Chapter 1: Introduction
Course Schedule
DAY 1
Begin End Topic Chap.
9:00 10:15 Introduction, 1, 2, 3
Macroscopic Behavior of Elastomers
10:30 12:00 Laboratory Orientation 4
12:00 1:00 Lunch
1:00 3:00 Tensile Testing
3:15 5:00 Tensile Test Data Fitting 5
FEA of Tensile Test Specimen 6
5:00 Adjourn
DAY 2 - Chapter 6 + Lab

Begin End Topic
9:00 10:30 Equal Biaxial Testing, Compression, Volumetric
Equi-Biaxial Test Data Fitting, Comp., Volumetric
10:45 12:00 FEA of Biaxial Specimen, Comp., Volumetric
12:00 1:00 Lunch
1:00 3:00 Planar Shear Testing
3:15 5:00 Planar Shear Test Data Fitting
Data Fitting with All Test Modes
FEA of Planar Test Specimen
5:00 Adjourn

Chapter 1: Introduction Course Schedule
Course Schedule (cont.)
DAY 3
Begin End Topic Chap.
9:00 10:30 Viscoelastic Testing
Viscoelastic Data Fitting 6
10:45 12:00 FEA of Viscoelastic Test Specimen
12:00 1:00 Lunch
1:00 3:00 Contact and Case Studies 7
Specimen Test, FEA,
Part Test Correlation
3:15 5:00 Concluding Remarks
5:00 Adjourn
•Keep Involved:
Tell Me and I’ll Forget
Show Me and I’ll Remember
Involve Me and I’ll Understand

About MSC.Marc Products Chapter 1: Introduction
About MSC.Marc Products

MSC.Marc Products are in use at thousands of sites around the world to
analyze and optimize designs in the aerospace, automotive, biomedical,
chemical, consumer, construction, electronics, energy, and manufacturing
industries. MSC.Marc Products offer automated nonlinear analysis of
contact problems commonly found in rubber and metal forming and many
other applications. For more information see:
http://www.mscsoftware.com/products/products_detail.cfm?PI=1

Chapter 1: Introduction About Axel Products, Inc.
About Axel Products, Inc.

Axel Products is an independent testing laboratory, providing physical
testing services for materials characterization of elastomers and plastics.
See www.axelproducts.com.

Data Measurement and Analysis Chapter 1: Introduction
Data Measurement and Analysis

Experiment
In 1927, Werner Heisenberg first noticed that the act of measurement
introduces an uncertainty in the momentum of an electron, and that an
electron cannot possess a definite position and momentum at any instant.
This simply means that:
Test Results depend upon the measurement
Analysis
Analysis of continuum mechanics using FEA techniques introduces
certain assumptions and approximations that lead to uncertainties in the
interpretation of the results. This simply means that:
FEA Results depend upon the approximations
Together
This course combines performing the material testing and the analysis to
understand how to eliminate uncertainties in the material testing and the
finite element modeling to achieve superior product design.

Chapter 1: Introduction Data Measurement and Analysis
Data Measurement and Analysis (cont.)

Linear Material, How is Young’s modulus, E, measured?
Tension/Compression
PA P L
E =  -------------------
  L   L
Torsion
Tc  J T 
E = 2  1 +    -------------
  
Bending
3
P 
E = PL
---------
3I
Wave Speed
2
E = c 
Do you expect all of these E’s to be the same for the

same material?

Typical Properties of Rubber Materials Chapter 1: Introduction
Typical Properties of Rubber Materials

Properties:
•It can undergo large deformations (possible strains up to
500%) yet remain elastic.
•The load-extension behavior is markedly nonlinear.
•Due to viscoelasticity, there are specific damping properties.
•It is nearly incompressible.
•It is very temperature dependent.
Loading:
1. The stress strain function for the 1st time an elastomer is
strained is never again repeated. It is a unique event.
2. The stress strain function does stabilize after between 3 and
20 repetitions for most elastomers.
3. The stress strain function will again change significantly if
the material experiences strains greater than the previous
stabilized level. In general, the stress strain function is
sensitive to the maximum strain ever experienced.
4. The stress strain function of the material while increasing
strain is different than the stress strain function of the material
while decreasing strain.
5. After the initial straining, the material does not return to
zero strain at zero stress. There is some degree of permanent
deformation.

Chapter 1: Introduction Typical Properties of Rubber Materials
Typical Loading of Rubber Materials (cont.)
6.0
Experiment
Engineering Stress [MPa]
4.0
Theory
2.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Engineering Strain
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Engineering Strain

Important Application Areas Chapter 1: Introduction
Important Application Areas

– Car industry (tires, seals, belts, hoses, etc.)
– Biomechanics (tubes, pumps, valves, implants, etc.)
– Packaging industry
– Sports and consumer industries

Chapter 1: Introduction Important Application Areas

CHAPTER 2 The Macroscopic Behavior of
Elastomers
Elastomers (natural & synthetic rubbers)

are amorphous polymers, random
orientations of long chain molecules.
The macroscopic behavior of elastomers
is rather complex and typically depends
upon:
– Time (strain-rate)
– Temperature
– Cure History (cross-link density)
– Load History (damage & fatigue)
– Deformation State

Chapter 2: The Macroscopic Behavior of Elastomers Microscopic Structure
Microscopic Structure
• Long coiled molecules, with points of entanglement.

Behaves like a viscous fluid.
• Vulcanization creates chemical bonds (cross-links) at
these entanglement points.
Now behavior is that of a rubbery viscous solid.
• Initial orientation of molecules is random.
Behavior is initially isotropic.
• Fillers, such as carbon black, change the behavior.

Temperature Effects, Tg Chapter 2: The Macroscopic Behavior of Elastomers
Temperature Effects, Tg
• All polymers have a spectrum of mechanical behavior, from
brittle, or glassy, at low temperatures, to rubbery at
high temperatures.
• The properties change abruptly in the glass transition region.
• The center of this region is known as the Tg, the

glass transition temperature.
• Typical values of Tg (in oC) are: -70 for natural rubber, -55
for EPDM, and -130 for silicone rubber.

Chapter 2: The Macroscopic Behavior of Elastomers Time Effects, Viscoelasticity
Time Effects, Viscoelasticity

• Temp. & Time effects derive from long molecules sliding
along and around each other during deformation.
• A plot of shear modulus vs. test time:
• Material behavior related to molecule sliding (friction):

• strain-rate effects
creep, stress-relaxation
hysteresis
damping

Time Effects, Viscoelasticity Chapter 2: The Macroscopic Behavior of Elastomers
Time Effects, Viscoelasticity (cont.)

• Different types of tests can be used to evaluate the
short-time and long-time stress-strain behavior.
• Our current favorite, the Stress-relaxation test:
• Gather data of strain, short-time stress, long-time stress.

Chapter 2: The Macroscopic Behavior of Elastomers Curing Effects (Vulcanization)
Curing Effects (Vulcanization)

• Curing creates chemical bonds – cross-linking.
• Cross-link density directly affects the stiffness.
• Cross-link density effect for Natural Rubber:
• Be careful that real parts and test specimens share the same
curing history, thus same stiffness.

Damage, Early Time Chapter 2: The Macroscopic Behavior of Elastomers
Damage, Early Time

• Straining may break a fraction of the cross-links,
reduces the overall stiffness and may cause plasticity.
• Low cycle damage is very evident in filled elastomers,
due to breakdown of filler structure and changes in the
conformation of molecular networks.
• Mullin’s Effect in carbon black filled NR:
This is a textbook
idealization. Real material
behavior looks like:
“Progressively Increasing
Load History…” on
page 60
(The loading curve and
unloading curve are not
coincident).
• Be careful that real parts and test specimens share the same
load history, Preconditioning.

Chapter 2: The Macroscopic Behavior of Elastomers Damage, Fatigue
Damage, Fatigue
• Very early stages of understanding, see Gent’s Engineering
with Rubber, Chapter 6, Mechanical Fatigue.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1569902992/ref%3Ded%5Foe%5Fh/002-1221807-2520837
• Beyond scope of this course.
Damage, Chemical Causes

• Many other chemicals are known to damage elastomers
and degrade the mechanical behavior:
Ozone Brake Fluid
Oxidation Hydraulic Fluid
Ultraviolet Radiation
Oil, Gasoline
• Sometimes preconditioning of test specimens can be
helpful in gauging these effects.
• Typically, however, these are longer time effects.

Deformation States Chapter 2: The Macroscopic Behavior of Elastomers
Deformation States
• Shearing vs. Bulk Compression
• Shearing Modulus, G , typical ~ 1 - 10 MPa
p
• Bulk Modulus, K = ----------------- , typical ~ 2 GPa
V  V 0
K 3
• hence ----  10  
G
1
• and   ---
2
• Ordinary solid (e.g., steel): K and G are the same order of

magnitude. Whereas, in rubber the ratio of K to G is of the
3
order 10 ; hence the response to a stress is effectively
determined solely by the shear modulus G when the material
can shear.
• We say rubber is (nearly) incompressible in those cases
when it is not highly confined.

Chapter 2: The Macroscopic Behavior of Elastomers Deformation States
Deformation States (cont.)

• FEA Material Model calibration requires certain
types of tests.
• They require states of “pure” stress and strain, that is
that the stress/strain state be homogeneous.
• homogeneous = uniform throughout
(isotropic = identical in all directions)
• Or at least homogeneous throughout a large area/volume
of the test specimen (minimize end effects).
• It is good practice to model and analyze the test specimen
itself to prove homogeneity.
• The “button compression” test is notoriously bad from
this perspective.
• Keep in mind that many ASTM test standards are
defined for characterization, or process control purposes.
Many ASTM specs are NOT suitable for material model
calibration.

CHAPTER 3 Material Models, Historical
Perspective
It is useful to know the historical evolution

of rubber material models. We will cover
Neo-Hookean, Mooney, Mooney-Rivlin,
and Ogden material models. Each model is
based on the concept of strain energy
functions, which guarantees elasticity.

Chapter 3: Material Models, Historical Perspective Engineering Materials and Analysis
Engineering Materials and Analysis

Clearly metals have been with us for a long time, unfortunately elastomers
(natural and synthetic rubber) have just arrived relative to metals some 160
years ago. The study of elastomers has only spanned the last 60 years as
shown in Table 1. If elastomers are to attain the position they seem to
deserve in engineering applications, they must be studied comprehensively
as have, for example, steel and other commonly used metals.
TABLE 1. History of Metals, Elastomers, and Analysis
Date Metal Elastomer Analysis
-4000 Copper, Gold
-3500 Bronze Casting
-1400 Iron Age
-1 Damascus Steel
1660 Hookean Materials
1800 Titanium 3D Elasticity
1840 Aluminum Vulcanization
1850 Parkesine
1879 Rare earth metals Colloids
1929 Aminoplastics
1933 Polyethylene
1933 PMMA
1939 Nylon
1940 Neo-Hookean
1940 PVC
1941 Polyurethanes
1943 PTFE
1949 Mooney-Rivlin
1950 Hill’s Plasticity
1955 Polyester
1965 FEA Software
1970 Foams
1975 Treloar
1980 > 200 Polymer compounds
1990 Recycle

Neo-Hookean Material Model Chapter 3: Material Models, Historical Perspective
Neo-Hookean Material Model

Definitions, Stretch ratios, Engineering Strain:
L i + L i
 i = -------------------
- = 1 + i eng. strain,  i =  L i  L i 
Li
L1 t3
t2
L3
1 L1
t1 3 L3 2 L2
t1
L2
t2
t3
Incompressibility:
1 2 3 = 1
From Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics,

First order approximation (neo-Hookean):
1 2 2 2
W = --- G   1 +  2 +  3 – 3 
2

Chapter 3: Material Models, Historical Perspective Neo-Hookean Material Model
Neo-Hookean Material Model (cont.)

Experimental Verification using Simple Extension
1 =  2 = 3 = 1  
Hence: NeoHookean Behavior

Tension and Compression very Different
5.0
W = --- G   + --2- – 3
1 2
2   
Engineering Stress/(Shear Modulus)

5.0
Engineering Stress: Hookean (nu=.45)

NeoHookean
 = dW  d = G   – ----
1- =
15.0
 2

= G  1 +  – -------------------
1 25.0
0.8 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8
 2
Engineering Strain
1 + 
-
=  = G   – ---
2 1
True Stress: t = --------- 
1 
Simple, one parameter material model

Positive G guarantees material model stability

Neo-Hookean Material Extension Deformation Chapter 3: Material Models, Historical Perspective
Neo-Hookean Material Extension Deformation

Theory versus experiments:
6.0
Experiment
4.0
Theory
2.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Engineering Strain

Chapter 3: Material Models, Historical Perspective Neo-Hookean Material Planar Shear Deformation
Neo-Hookean Material Planar Shear Deformation

Intrepretation of Planar Shear
:
tan ( θ ) = 1 / λ
θ φ/2
λ 1 π
--- γ ps = tan ( φ ) = tan ( --- – 2θ)
2 2
Y, λ2
X, λ1 1 1γ 1 1 – tan 2 θ
Z, λ3 --- ps = ------------------- = -------------------------------
2 tan ( 2 θ ) 2 tan (θ )
1
γps = ( λ – --- )
λ
If  1 = 1 , then  2 =  and  3 = --1-


Define a planar shear strain  ps :
1
 ps = 2 tan    =  – ---

Strain energy function:
W = --- G   + ----- – 2 = --- G ps

1 2 1 1 2
2  
2  2
Shear stress  ps depends linearly on this planar shear strain  ps
dW =
 ps = --------- G ps
d ps

Neo-Hookean Material Planar Shear Deformation Chapter 3: Material Models, Historical Perspective
Neo-Hookean Material Shear Deformation (cont.)

Theory versus experiments:
1.6
Theory
Shear Stress [N/mm 2 ]
1.2
Experiment
0.8
0.4
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 6
Shear Strain

Chapter 3: Material Models, Historical Perspective Neo-Hookean Material Summary
Neo-Hookean Material Summary

TABLE 2. Basic Deformation Modes
Mode 1 2 3
Biaxial   
–2
–1
Planar Shear 1  
–1  2 –1  2
Uniaxial   
2 2 2 2
Simple Shear     1
1 + ----- +  1 + ----- 1 + ----- –  1 + -----
2 4 2 4
Neo Hookean
1 2 2 2
W = --- G   1 +  2 +  3 – 3 
2
W
 = =  direct stresses

 = W = G shear stress

Note: Shear Stress-Strain Relation is the same for Hookean

and Neo Hookean.

Neo-Hookean Material Summary Chapter 3: Material Models, Historical Perspective
Neo-Hookean Material Summary (cont.)

TABLE 3. Hookean versus Neo Hookean Values of   G
Hookean Hookean as Neo Hookean

Mode
G= 0 G=
21 – 
Biaxial --------------------  2 21 +  – 1 +  
–5
 1 – 2 
2
1 –  –  
2------------------------------- –3
Planar Shear  2 1 +  – 1 +  
 1 – 2 
–2
Uniaxial 2  1 +   2 1 +  – 1 +  
Hookean and Neo Hookean Material Models

Poisson’ Ratio = 0.45
10.0
Hookean Biaxial
Hookean Planar Shear
Hookean Uniaxial
New Hookean Biaxial
Engineering Stress/Shear Modulus
5.0 Neo Hookean Planar Shear

Neo Hookean Uniaxial
0.0
-5.0
-10.0
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Engineering Strain

Chapter 3: Material Models, Historical Perspective A Word About Simple Shear
A Word About Simple Shear

The simple shear mode of deformation is called simple shear because of
two reasons: first it renders the stress strain relation linear for a Neo-
Hookean material; secondly it is simple to draw.
Linear Stress Strain Relation comes from substituting the simple
shear deformations modes of:
 2 = 
2
 
2
1 + ----- +  1 + -----
 2 = 
2
 
2
1 + ----- –  1 + -----
2
 3 = 1
 1 2 4  2 2 4
into
1 2 2 2 1 2
W = --- G   1 +  2 +  3 – 3  = --- G
2 2
and then
W
 = = G

Secondly the mode is simple to draw.


atan 

2-Constant Mooney Extensional Deformation Chapter 3: Material Models, Historical Perspective
2-Constant Mooney Extensional Deformation

Basic assumptions:
(1) The rubber is incompressible and isotropic
(2) Hooke’s law is obeyed in simple shear
Strain energy function with two constants:
2 2 2 1 1 1 
W = C1  1 + 2 + 3 – 3  + C 2  ----- + ----- + ----- – 3
  21  22  23 
Simple shear:
 2 1  2
W =  C 1 + C 2    1 + ----
- – 2 =  C 1 + C 2 
 1 
2
 = dW  d = 2  C 1 + C 2 
Hence G = 2  C 1 + C 2 
1-  + C
 = 2   – ----  C
C 1 -----2- or ------------------------------ = C 1 + -----2-
 2   2 
 2 – 1   

Chapter 3: Material Models, Historical Perspective 2-Constant Mooney Extensional Deformation
2-Constant Mooney Extensional Deformation (cont)
Theory versus experiments
0.4 G
F
(N/mm2) )
0.3
2
σ/2(λ−1/λ2) (N/mm
E
D
2
C
/2(–1/
A
0.2 B
0.1
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
1/
1/λ

Other Mooney-Rivlin Models Chapter 3: Material Models, Historical Perspective
Other Mooney-Rivlin Models

Basic assumptions:
(1) The rubber is incompressible and isotropic in the
unstrained state
(2) The strain energy function must depend on even
powers of  i
The three simplest possible even-powered functions (invariants):

2 2 2
I1 = 1 + 2 + 3
2 2 2 2 2 2
I2 = 1 2 + 2 3 + 3 1
2 2 2
I3 = 1 2 3
Incompressibility implies that I 3 = 1, so that:
W = W  I 1 I 2 
Mooney material in terms of invariants:
W = C1  I1 – 3  + C2  I2 – 3  (Mooney’s original notation)
W = C 10  I 1 – 3  + C 01  I 2 – 3  (Mooney-Rivlin notation)

Chapter 3: Material Models, Historical Perspective Other Mooney-Rivlin Models
Other Mooney-Rivlin Models (cont)

Some other proposed energy functions:
The Signiorini form:
2
W = C 10  I 1 – 3  + C 01  I 2 – 3  + C 20  I 1 – 3 
The Yeoh form:

2 3
W = C 10  I 1 – 3  + C 20  I 1 – 3  + C 30  I 1 – 3 
Third order Deformation Form

(James, Green, and Simpson):
W = C 10  I 1 – 3  + C 01  I 2 – 3  + C 11  I 1 – 3   I 2 – 3  +
2 3
C 20  I 1 – 3  + C 30  I 1 – 3 

Ogden Models Chapter 3: Material Models, Historical Perspective
Ogden Models
Slightly compressible rubber:
N –n 1 2
 n --------
-
n n n  --3- 

3
W = ------ J   1 +  2 +  3  – 3 + 4.5K  J – 1
n  
n=1
 n and  n are material constants,
K is the initial bulk modulus, and
J is the volumetric ratio, defined by
J = 1 2 3
The order of magnitude of the volumetric changes per unit

volume should be 0.01
Usually, the number of terms taken into account in
the Ogden models is N = 2 or N = 3 .
The initial bulk modulus is usually estimated instead of being
measured in a volumetric test.

Chapter 3: Material Models, Historical Perspective Ogden Models
Ogden Models
Let’s suppose we want to fit a 1-term Ogden for tension.
1.) Assume incompressible (J=1) then
   
W = ---    1 +  2 +  3  – 3 

2.) Strain mode is tension, thus  1 =   2 =  3 = 1   and

  
– ---
2
W = -   + 2
-- – 3
 
 – 
--- + 1 
 
3.) Compute engineering stress,  = dW  d =     – 1 –  ,
2

 
 – 
--- + 1 
 

or  = dW  d =    1 +   –1
– 1 + 
2  =      

 
4.) Fit data, say to st_18.data that has 60 stress-strain points. Find
 and  such that  i =      i  i = 1 60 , has the “best fit.”
5.) Panic  i =      i  is nonlinear. Ok, use program and

 = 25.78
 = 0.05298
....but other values are possible and perhaps unstable...visualize...

Ogden Models Chapter 3: Material Models, Historical Perspective
Ogden Models
 –  0.05298
------------------- + 1 
 

6.) Plot  = 25.78   1 +   0.05298 – 1
– 1 + 
2 .

 
7.) Repeat plot of engineering stress versus engineering strain for

biaxial and planar shear where:
TABLE 4. Basic Deformation Modes
Mode 1 2 3
Biaxial   
–2
Planar Shear  1 
–1
1.357
0
0 8.894
(x.1)
uniaxial/experiment uniaxial/ogden
biaxial/ogden planar_shear/ogden
1
8. Estimate K = 2500(25.78)0.05298 = 3414.

Chapter 3: Material Models, Historical Perspective Foam Models
Foam Models
Elastomer foams:
N N
     
W =  -----n-   1 n +  2 n +  3 n – 3  +
n  -----n  1 – J n 
n
n=1 n=1
 n ,  n and  n are material constants

Model Limitations and Assumptions Chapter 3: Material Models, Historical Perspective
Model Limitations and Assumptions

This material model assumes that the rate of relaxation is independent
of the load magnitude. For instance, for relaxation tests at 20%, 50%,
and 100% strain, the percent reduction in stress at any time point
should be the same.
The relaxation is purely deviatoric, there is no relaxation associated
with the dilatational (bulk) behavior.
When used with a Mooney-Rivlin form model, the material is
assumed to be incompressible. In MSC.Marc some small
compressibility is introduced for better numerical behavior, namely
if no bulk modulus is specified, then MSC.Marc computes the
following for the bulk modulus:
K = 10000  C 10 + C 01 
When used with an Ogden model, the material may be slightly

compressible, and if a bulk modulus is not supplied, it is estimated
as:
N
K = 2500  n n
n=1

Chapter 3: Material Models, Historical Perspective Viscoelastic Models
Viscoelastic Models
MSC.Marc has the capability to perform both small strain and large
strain viscoelastic analysis. The focus here will be on the use of the
large strain viscoelastic material model.
MSC.Marc’s large strain viscoelastic material model is based on
a multiplicative decomposition of the strain energy function
W  E ij t  = W  E ij   R  t 
where W  E ij  is a standard Mooney-Rivlin or Ogden form strain

energy function for the instantaneous deformation.
And R  t  is a relaxation function in Prony series form:
N

n n
Rt = 1 –   1 – exp  – t    
n=1
n n
where  is a nondimensional multiplier and  is the associated
time constant.

Determining Model Coefficients Chapter 3: Material Models, Historical Perspective
Determining Model Coefficients

This material model requires two different types of tests be
conducted and two separate curve fits be performed.
The time-independent function, W  E ij  , is determined from
standard uniaxial, biaxial, etc., stress-strain tests. These tests
are covered in more detail in Chapter 5 and demonstrated in
Chapter 6.
The time-dependent function, R  t  , is determined from one
or more stress relaxation tests. This is a test at constant strain,
where one measures the stress over a period of time. For example,
R  t  is determined in “Model 5: Viscoelastic Curve Fit” on page 200.

Chapter 3: Material Models, Historical Perspective Reading
Reading
If you read anything about rubber, make sure to read the 17 pages of
Chapter 4: The Molecular Network in Introduction to Polymer
Science by Treloar, L. R. G., London, Wykeham Publications, New
York, Springer-Verlag, c1974, pp 44-60.

CHAPTER 4 Laboratory
Need to know:
What are the actual tests used to measure
elastomeric properties.
The limitations of common laboratory
tests.
How to specify a laboratory experiment as
required by your product requirements.
Let’s understand the specimen testing
better to achieve better correlation and
confidence in our component analysis.

Chapter 4: Laboratory Lab Orientation
Lab Orientation
Safety
Tour of Lab
Laboratory Dangers
High Pressure Hydraulics
Class II Lasers
Instrument Crushing
Wear Safety Glasses

Don’t Look Into Lasers
Don’t Touch Specimens or Fixtures When Testing

Basic Instrumentation Chapter 4: Laboratory
Basic Instrumentation
Electromechanical Tensile Testers
Servo-hydraulic Testers

Chapter 4: Laboratory Basic Instrumentation
Basic Instrumentation (cont.)

Wave Propagation Instrument
Automated Crack Growth System
Aging Instrumentation

Measuring Chapter 4: Laboratory
Measuring
Force
Strain Gage Load Cells
Position
Encoders and LVDT’s
Strain
Clip-on Strain Gages
Video Extensometers
Laser Extensometers
Temperature
Thermocouples

Chapter 4: Laboratory Measurements
Measurements
Force, Position, Strain, Time, Temperature
Testing Instrument Transducers
Load Cell (0.5% - 1% of Reading Accuracy in Range)
Position Encoder (Approximately +/- 0.02 mm at
the Device)
Position LVDT (Between +/- 0.5 to +/- 1.0% of
Full Scale)
Video Extensiometer (Function of the FOV)
Laser Extensiometer (+/- 001 mm)
Time (Measured in the Instrument or at the Computer)
Thermocouple

What about Shore Hardness? Chapter 4: Laboratory
What about Shore Hardness?

Perhaps the Most Common Rubber Test
Useful in General
Easy to Perform at the Plant
Generally Useless for Analysis!
“The Shore Round Style Durometer was introduced in 1944. It is a

general purpose device that is considered the most widely used
instrument throughout the world for the hardness testing of cellular,
soft and hard rubber, and plastic material.” http://www.instron.com

Chapter 4: Laboratory Testing the Correct Material
Testing the Correct Material

Consistent within The Experimental Cut Specimens from Same Material
Data Set 150mm x 150mm x 2mm Sheet
Cut All Specimens from the Same Slab

Verify that The Tested Material is the
Same as the Part
Processing
Color
Cure
Progressively Increasing Load History…
All Are Same Compound

Tensile Testing in the Lab Chapter 4: Laboratory
Tensile Testing in the Lab

What is Simple Tension?
Uniaxial Loading
Free of Lateral Constraint
Gage Section: Length: Width >10:1
Measure Strain only in the Region where a Uniform State
of Strain Exists
No Contact


Cut Specimens from Same Material

150mm x 150mm x 2mm Sheet

Chapter 4: Laboratory Tensile Testing in the Lab
Tensile Testing in the Lab (cont.)

Some Common Elastomers Exhibit Dramatic Strain Amplitude and
Cycling Effects at Moderate Strain Levels.
Conclusions:
Test to Realistic Strain Levels
Use Application Specific Loadings to Generate Material Data

Compression Testing in the Lab Chapter 4: Laboratory
Compression Testing in the Lab

It is Experimentally Difficult to
Minimize Lateral Constraint due to
Friction at the Specimen Loading
Platen Interface 
Friction Effects Alter the Stress-

strain Curves 

The Friction is Not Known and
Cannot be Accurately Corrected
Even Very Small Friction Levels
have a Significant Effect at Very
Small Strains

Chapter 4: Laboratory Compression Testing in the Lab
Compression Testing in the Lab (cont.)

Friction Effects on Compression Data
Analysis by Jim Day, GM Powertrain

Equal Biaxial Testing Chapter 4: Laboratory
Equal Biaxial Testing

Why?
Same Strain State as Compression
Cannot Do Pure Compression
Can Do Pure Biaxial
Analysis of the Specimen justifies Geometry



Chapter 4: Laboratory Compression and Equal Biaxial Strain States
Compression and Equal Biaxial Strain States

There is also no ASTM Specification for equal biaxial strain tests. None
the less, in common practice either square or circular frames shown below
are used. The equal biaxial strain state is identical to the compression
button’s strain state, simply substitute  =  –2 .
–2
 = 
3 = 
–1  2 –1  2
2 =  1 = 
1 = 
–2 2 = 
3 = 

Volumetric Compression Test Chapter 4: Laboratory
Volumetric Compression Test

Direct Measure of the Stress
Required to Change the Volume of
an Elastomer
Requires Resolute Displacement
Measurement at the Fixture
Initial Slope = Bulk Modulus
Typically, only highly constrained
applications require an accurate
measure of the entire Pressure-
Volume relationship.
Base Data Set
300
VOLCOMP_B
250
200
Pressure (MPa)
150 
100 Bulk Modulus = 2.1 GPa
50


0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10

Volumetric Strain

Chapter 4: Laboratory Planar Tension Test
Planar Tension Test

Uniaxial Loading
Perfect Lateral Constraint
All Thinning Occurs in One Direction
Strain Measurement is Particularly
Critical
Some Material Flows from the Grips
The Effective Height is Smaller than
Starting Height so >10:1 Width:Height
is Needed 
Similar Stress-strain Shape to Simple

Tension and Biaxial Extension

Match Loadings between Strain States 
Base Data Set
0.6
PT23C_B
0.5
Engineering Stress (MPa)
Planar Tension
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Engineering Strain

Planar Tension Test Chapter 4: Laboratory
Planar Tension Test (cont.)

A Small but Significant amount of Material will Flow From the Planar
Tension Grips.

Chapter 4: Laboratory Viscoelastic Stress Relaxation
Viscoelastic Stress Relaxation

Viscoelastic Behavior
Can be Assumed to Reasonably
Follow Linear Viscoelastic Behavior
in Many Cases
Is not the same as aging!
Describes the short term reversible
behavior of elastomers.
Tensile, shear and biax have similar
viscoelastic properties!
A totally “relaxed” Stress-strain Curve
can be Constructed. Decades of data in
time are equally valuable for fitting
purposes.
Stress
7
0.8
6 0.7
Strain Strain = 50 %
0.6
5
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
0.5
4 0.4
Strain = 30 %
0.3
3 0.2
0.1
2
0.0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
1 Time (s)
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (Seconds)

Dynamic Behavior – Testing Chapter 4: Laboratory
Dynamic Behavior – Testing

Types of Dynamic Behavior
Large strains at high velocity
Small sinusoidal strains superimposed on large mean strains

Chapter 4: Laboratory Dynamic Behavior – Testing
Dynamic Behavior – Testing (cont.)

Mean Strain and Amplitude Effects are Significant

Friction Test Chapter 4: Laboratory
Friction Test
Friction is the force that resists the sliding of
two materials relative to each other. The
friction force is:
(1) approximately independent of the area
of contact over a wide limit and
(2) is proportional to the normal force
Friction Test
between the two materials.
These two laws of friction were discovered
Friction Force
Increasing Normal Force

experimentally by Leonardo da Vinci in the
13th century, and latter refined by Charles
Coulomb in the 16th century.
Position
Coulomb performed many experiments on
friction and pointed out the difference
between static and dynamic friction. This
type of friction is referred to as Coulomb friction today.
In order to model friction in finite element analysis, one needs to
measure the aforementioned proportionally factor or coefficient of
friction,  . The measurement of  is depicted here where a sled with
a rubber bottom is pulled along a glass surface. The normal force is
known and the friction force is measured. Various lubricants are
placed between the two surfaces which greatly influence the friction
forces measured.

Chapter 4: Laboratory Data Reduction in the Lab
Data Reduction in the Lab

The stress strain response of a typical
test are shown at the right as taken from
the laboratory equipment. In its raw
form, it is not ready to be fit to a
hyperelastic material model. It needs to
be adjusted.
The raw data is adjusted as shown below Raw Data
by taking a stable upload cycle. In doing
this, Mullins effect and hysteresis are
ignored. This upload cycle then needs to
be shifted such that the curve passes
through the origin. Remember
hyperelastic models must be elastic and
have their stress vanish to zero when the
strain is zero.This shift changes the
Adjusted Data
apparent gauge length and original cross
sectional area.
There is nothing special about using the
upload curve, the entire stable cycle can
be entered for the curve fit once shifted
to zero stress for zero strain. Fitting a
single cycle gives an average
hyperelastic behavior to the hysteresis in
that cycle. Also one may enter more data Fit for Arruda-Boyce
points in important strain regions than
other regions. The curve fit will give a
closer fit were there are more points.

Data Reduction in the Lab Chapter 4: Laboratory
Data Reduction in the Lab (cont.)

Data Reduction Considerations for Data Generated
using Cyclic Loading
1. Slice out the selected loading path.
2. Subtract and note the offset strain.
3. Divide all strain values by (1 + Offset Strain) to account
for the “new” larger stabilized gage length.
4. Multiply all stress values by (1+ Offset Strain) to
account for “new” smaller stabilized cross sectional area.
5. The first stress value should be very near zero but shift
the stress values this small amount so that zero strain has
exactly zero stress.
6. Decimate the file by evenly eliminating points so that
the total file size is manageable by the particular curve
fitting software.

Chapter 4: Laboratory Model Verification Experiments
Model Verification Experiments

Attributes of a Good Model Verification Experiment
The geometry is realistic.
All Relevant Constraints are Measurable.
The Analytical Model is Well Understood

Model Verification Experiments Chapter 4: Laboratory
Model Verification Experiments (cont.)

The Contribution of the Flashing on the Part was Unexpected, Initially
Not Modeled, But Very Significant to the Actual Load Deflection.

Chapter 4: Laboratory Testing at Non-ambient Temperatures
Testing at Non-ambient Temperatures

Testing at the Application Temperature
Measure Strain at the Right Location
Perform Realistic Loadings
Elastomers Properties
Can Change by Orders
of Magnitude in the
Application Temperature
Range.

Loading/Unloading Comparison Chapter 4: Laboratory
Loading/Unloading Comparison

Chapter 4: Laboratory Test Specimen Requirements
Test Specimen Requirements

Where do these specimen shapes come from?
1. The states of strain imposed have an analytical solution.
2. A significantly large known strain condition exists free of
gradients such that strain can be measured.
3. The state of strain is homogeneous for homogeneous materials.
4. The specimen shapes are such that different states of strain can
be measured under similar loading conditions.
5. The specimen shapes are such that different states of strain can
be measured with the same material.

Fatigue Crack Growth Chapter 4: Laboratory
Fatigue Crack Growth

Provides Great Potential.
Not well understood.

Chapter 4: Laboratory Experimental and Analysis Road Map
Experimental and Analysis Road Map

TABLE 5. Experimental Tests
Test Description Notes
1 Uniaxial
1a Uniaxial - Rate Effects
2 Biaxial
2a Biaxial - Temperature Effects
3 Planar Shear
4 Compression Button
5 Viscoelastic
6 Volumetric Compression
7 Friction Sled
8 Viscoelastic Damper Planned
9 Foam Planned
TABLE 6. Analysis Workshop Models
Model Description Notes
1 Uniaxial
2 Biaxial
3 Planar Shear
4 Compression Button
5 Viscoelastic
6 Volumetric Compression
7 Friction Sled Planned
8 Viscoelastic Damper Planned
9 Foam Planned
10 Damage Planned

CHAPTER 5 Material Test Data Fitting
The experimental determination of

elastomeric material constants depends
greatly on the deformation state, specimen
geometry, and what is measured.

Chapter 5: Material Test Data Fitting Major Modes of Deformation
Major Modes of Deformation

Uniaxial Tension
2
1 = 2 =  2 = 3 = 1  
1 3
Biaxial Tension (equivalent strain as uniaxial compression)

2
1 = 2 =  3 = 1  
1 2

Major Modes of Deformation Chapter 5: Material Test Data Fitting
Major Modes of Deformation (cont.)

Planar Shear or Planar Tension
1 =  2 = 1 3 = 1  
1 3
Simple Shear

Chapter 5: Material Test Data Fitting Major Modes of Deformation
Major Modes of Deformation (cont.)

Volumetric (aka Hydrostatic, Bulk Compression)
Confined Hydrostatic
Compression Compression
F F

Confined Compression Test (UniVolumetric) Chapter 5: Material Test Data Fitting
Confined Compression Test (UniVolumetric)

Strain State: F L
1 = 1 2 = 1 3 = L  L0
Stress State:
1 = 2 = 3 = – F  Ao = p
For this deformation state we have

1 2 3 = V  V0 = L  L0 ,
and the uniaxial strain is equal to the volumetric

strain or
L  L 0 = V  V 0 . Volumetric Data
For Mentat Curve Fitting
400.0
The bulk modulus becomes

300.0
p
p p
Pressure [Mpa]
K = -----------------
- = -----------------
V  V 0 L  L 0 200.0
MSC.Marc Mentat uses the pressure, 100.0
1--- V  V
p , versus a “uniaxial equivalent” of  3 0
the volumetric strain namely, 0.0

0.000 0.010 0.020
Equivalent Uniaxial Strain [1]
0.030 0.040
1--- V  V , to determine the bulk

 3 0
modulus as shown on the right. Take care to divide the volumetric strain
by 3, because V  V 0 = L  L 0 you may forget.

Chapter 5: Material Test Data Fitting Hydrostatic Compression Test
Hydrostatic Compression Test

Strain State:
F L
13
1 = 2 = 3 =  =  V  V0 
Stress State:
1 = 2 = 3 = – F  Ao = p
For this strain state we have

13
 =  1 + V  V 0   1 +  1--3- V  V 0
and since
 = 1 + L  L 0
the uniaxial strain becomes one third the volumetric strain or
L  L 0 = 1--- V
 3
 V0 .
The bulk modulus becomes

p
K = ----------------- p
- = --------------------------
V  V 0 3  L  L 0 
Again MSC.Marc Mentat uses the pressure, p , versus a “uniaxial

equivalent” of the volumetric strain namely,  1--3- V  V 0 , to determine the
bulk modulus.

Summary of All Modes Chapter 5: Material Test Data Fitting
Summary of All Modes

Mode: Uniaxial Biaxial Planar Simple Shear UniVolumetric Volumetric
Maping λX 1
λX 1 λX 1
x1 X2 X1 + γ X2 X1 λX 1
------- λX 2 X2
X = x2 λ ------ X2 X2 λX 2
X3 λ
x3 X3 -----2- X3 λX 3 λX 3
------- λ X3
λ
Deformation λ 0 0
Gradient λ 0 0 λ 0 0
1 1γ 0 1 0 0 λ 0 0
0 ------- 0 0 λ 0 1
F = λ 0 --- 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 λ 0
1 λ
1 0 0 ----2- 0 0 1 0 0 λ 0 0 λ
0 0 ------- λ 0 0 1
λ
Figer 2
λ 0 0 λ
2
0 0 λ
2
0 0 2 2
Tensor 1+γ γ 0 1 0 0 λ 0 0
1 2
0 --- 0 0 λ 0 1
b = F FT γ 2
λ 0 ----2- 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 λ 0
1 λ 0 01 2
1 0 0 ----4- 0 0 λ
2
0 0 λ
0 0 --- λ 0 0 1
λ
2 2
Principal γ γ
λ λ 1 + ---- + γ 1 + ----
Stretch Ratios λ 2 4 1 λ
λ i , i = 1, 2, 3 1/ λ λ 1/λ 2 2 1 λ
γ γ
2 1/ λ 1 /λ
2
1 1 + ---- – γ 1 + ---- λ λ
b– λi1 = 0 2 4
1
γ τ
Shape

Chapter 5: Material Test Data Fitting General Guidelines
General Guidelines
Its just curve fitting!

No Polymer physics as basis
Don’t use too high order fit
Remember polynomial fit lessons (high school?)
Number of Data Points

Don’t use too many Regularize if needed
Add/Subtract points if needed
Weighting of Points
Range and Scope of Data

Check fit outside range of data
Check fit in other modes of deformation – scope

Mooney, Ogden Limitations Chapter 5: Material Test Data Fitting
Mooney, Ogden Limitations
Phenomenological models – not material “law”

These models are mathematical forms, nothing more
Summary of phenomenological models given by

Yeoh (1995)
“Rivlin and Saunders (1951) have pointed out that the agreement
between experimental tensile data and the Mooney-Rivlin
equation is somewhat fortuitous. The Mooney-Rivlin model
obtained by fitting tensile data is quite inadequate in other modes
of deformation, especially compression.”
Using only uniaxial tension data is dangerous!
Mooney model in MSC.Marc allows no

compressibility
Ogden model does allow compressibility

Chapter 5: Material Test Data Fitting Visual Checks
Visual Checks
Extrapolations can be dangerous
Always visually check your model’s predicted

response
Check it outside of the data’s range (see below)
Check it outside the test’s scope
d  d  0
 Real Material
Predicted
Response
Predicted
Response
d  d  0
DATA 
Real Material

Material Stability Chapter 5: Material Test Data Fitting
Material Stability
Unstable material model -> numerical difficulties

in FEA
Druckers stability postulate, d  d  0
Graphically:
 d 11  d 11  0 d 11  d 11  0
Remember effects of Newton-Raphson and

strain range

Chapter 5: Material Test Data Fitting Future Trends
Future Trends
Statistical Mechanics Models

Based on single-chain polymer chain physics
Build up to network level using non-gaussian statistics
8 Chain model by Arruda-Boyce (1993)

2 parameter model, can be expressed in terms of I1
Paper: “A three-dimensional constitutive model for the large

stretch behavior of rubber elastic materials”, J. Mech. Phys.
Solids, V41 N2, pp 389-412.
Also similar is the Gent model (1996)

Paper: “A new Constitutive Relation for Rubber”,
Rubber Chem. and Technology, v. 69, pp 59-61.
Claim: alleviates need to gather test data from

multiple modes

Adjusting Raw Data Chapter 5: Material Test Data Fitting
Adjusting Raw Data

The stress strain response of the three modes of deformation are shown
below as taken from the laboratory equipment. In its raw form
The Raw Data (4 points/sec)

2.0
Equal Biaxial
Planar Shear
1.5
Tension
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Engineering Strain [1]
it is not ready to be fit to a hyperelastic material model. It needs to

be adjusted.

Chapter 5: Material Test Data Fitting Adjusting Raw Data
Adjusting Raw Data (cont.)

The raw data is adjusted as shown below by taking the 18th upload cycle.
In doing this Mullins effect is ignored. This 18th upload cycle
Adjusting The Raw Data

Shift to the Origin
2.0
Equal Biaxial Shifted
Equal Biaxial
Planar Shear Shifted
Planar Shear
Tension Shifted
1.5
Tension
Engineering Stress [Mpa]
ε = (ε '− εp ) /(1 + ε p )
σ = (σ '− σp ) × (1 + ε p )
1.0 (σ ' , ε ' ) = R a w D a ta
(σ p , ε p ) = M in (σ ' , ε ' )
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(σ p , ε p ) Engineering Strain [1]
then needs to be shifted such that the curve passes through the origin.
Remember hyperelastic models must be elastic and have their stress
vanish to zero when the strain is zero.
This shift changes the apparent gauge length and original cross
sectional area.

Adjusting Raw Data Chapter 5: Material Test Data Fitting
Adjusting Raw Data (cont.)

There is nothing special about taking the upload cycle, for instance the
curve fitting may be done on the download path or both upload and
download paths as shown below. The intended application can help you
1
Fit to upload
Fit to upload
& download
0 1
uniaxial/experiment uniaxial/neo_hookean
1
decide upon the most appropriate way to adjust the data prior to fitting the
hyperelastic material models.

Chapter 5: Material Test Data Fitting Consider All Modes of Deformation
Consider All Modes of Deformation

The plot below illustrates the danger in curve fitting only the tensile data,
namely the other modes may become too stiff. This is why MSC.Marc
Mentat always draws the other modes even when no experimental data
is present.
Below, a 3-term Ogden provides a great fit to the tensile data, but spoils
the other modes. This can be avoided by looking for a balance between the
various deformation modes.

The Three Basic Strain States Chapter 5: Material Test Data Fitting
The Three Basic Strain States

After shifting each mode to pass through the origin, the final curves are
shown below. Very many elastomeric materials have this basic shape of
the three modes, with uniaxial, shear, and biaxial having
The Three Basic Strain States

General Elastomer Trends
2.0
Equal Biaxial
Pure Shear
1.5 Tension
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
increasing stress for the same strain, respectively. Knowledge of this and
the actual shape above where say at a strain of 80%, the ratio of equal
biaxial to uniaxial stress is about 2 (i.e., 1.3/0.75 = 1.73) will become very
important as we fit this data with hyperelastic material models.
Furthermore, this fit reduces the 10,000 data points taken from the
laboratory to just a few constants.

Chapter 5: Material Test Data Fitting Curve Fitting with MSC.Marc Mentat
Curve Fitting with MSC.Marc Mentat

Objective: Fit experimental data of Mooney or Ogden materials with
MSC.Marc Mentat. Begin at the main menu.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
TABLES
READ
RAW
(name of file)
TABLE TYPE
experimental_data
OK
RETURN
EXPERIMENTAL DATA FITTING

UNIAXIAL
(pick table1)
OK
ELASTOMERS
NEO-HOOKEAN
UNIAXIAL
COMPUTE
APPLY
OK
SCALE AXES

Curve Fitting with MSC.Marc Mentat Chapter 5: Material Test Data Fitting
Curve Fitting with MSC.Marc Mentat (cont)

The resulting display of the
material model is similar to this.
The numerical coefficients for
the model are shown in the pop-
up menu. Use the APPLY button
to copy these coefficients to
your material model.
Notice that the uniaxial, biaxial,

planar shear and simple shear
modes are shown, where the
uniaxial mode matches the
material input. To turn some modes off, or make other display
modifications go to PLOT OPTIONS.
PLOT OPTIONS
SIMPLE SHEAR (this toggles it off)
PLANAR SHEAR (this toggles it off)
RETURN
SCALE AXES


Objective: Fit experimental data of Viscoelastic materials with
MSC.Marc Mentat. Begin at the main menu.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
TABLES
READ
RAW
(name of file)
TABLE TYPE
experimental_data
OK
RETURN
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
FITTING
ENERGY RELAX
(pick table1),OK
ELASTOMERS
ENERGY RELAX
RELAXATION
# OF TERMS 3
COMPUTE
APPLY, OK
SCALE AXES

Mooney-Rivlin fitting is linear, uses least

squares fitting
The least squares error is given by either:

Ndata i 2
  calc 
 or
R
error =  1 – -----------------------
-
  measured
i
i
Ndata
2

A i i
error =   measured –  calc 
i
The error R and error A are relative or absolute respectively

Ndata is the total number of data points
i
 calc is the calculated stress
i
 measured is the measured engineering stress
Relative error is the default

Engineering judgement is best to determine the best fit
based upon physical not mathematical reasons.

Ogden fitting is nonlinear, uses downhill-simplex

method
Downhill-simplex method is an iterative method

Uses a number of start points
abs  error max – error min  tol
Continues until: -  -------
---------------------------------------------------------------
abs  error max + error min  2
tol is set using CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE
error min can be set with the ERROR LIMIT button

Viscoelastic fitting is linear, uses least

squares fitting
A Prony series (exponential decay) is fit to the

test data
The least squares error is given by:

Ndata i 2
  calc 

R
error =  1 – -----------------------
-
  measured
i
i
For a good fit, the number of Prony series terms

should equal the number of time decades in the
test data


CHAPTER 6 Workshop Problems
These problems are to provide self paced

examples to develop skills in performing
elastomer material curve fitting and finite
element analysis using MSC.Marc and
MSC.Marc Mentat.
Workshop data files are in the product directory
..mentat2005/examples/training/mar103 and
usually coppied to your working directory eea/
wkshops_A/ or eea/wkshops_B/. Subfolders
are:
uniaxial
biaxial
planar
comp
visco
volume
test_data (raw data)

Chapter 6: Workshop Problems Some MSC.Marc Mentat Hints and Shortcuts
Some MSC.Marc Mentat Hints and Shortcuts

1. Enter MSC.Marc Mentat to begin, Quit to stop
2. Mouse in Graphics: Left to pick, Right to accept pick
3. Mouse in Menu: Left to pick another menu or function,
Middle for help, Right to return to previous menu.
<cr> means keyboard return.
4. Save your work frequently. Go to FILES and select SAVE AS
and specify a file name. Use SAVE from then on.
This will save the current MENTAT database to disk.
5. Dialog region at the lower left of screen displays current
activity and prompts for input. Check this region
frequently to see if input is required.
6. Dynamic Viewing can be used to position the model in the
graphics area. When activated, the mouse buttons:
Left – translates the model
Right – zooms in/out
Middle – rotates in 3D
Use RESET VIEW and FILL to return to original view.
Be sure to turn off DYNAMIC VIEW before picking
in the graphics area.
7. CTRL P/N recall Previous/Next commands entered.

Model 1: Uniaxial Stress Specimen Chapter 6: Workshop Problems
Model 1: Uniaxial Stress Specimen

Objective: To model an elastomeric material under a uniaxial stress
deformation mode.
To focus on curve fitting elastomeric test data, a fully runnable procedure
file is provided that will build and (and run) an initial model. However, the
model contains only a trivial neo-Hookean material model with C10 = 0.5.
It will be your job to modify the model by reading in the test data and
curve fitting it using various material models.
In a terminal window, use the cd command to move to the
wkshops_A/uniaxial or the wkshops_B/uniaxial directory.
Type “mentat” to start the MSC.Marc Mentat program, then starting from
the main menu proceed as follows:
UTILS
PROCEDURES
EXECUTE
pick the file named uni_neo05.proc
OK
OK
This will produce and run a uniaxial stress model. Please familiarize
yourself with this model. Look at the BC’s, the material specification, the
contact bodies and contact table, and the loadcase.

Chapter 6: Workshop Problems Model 1: Uniaxial Stress Specimen
After the procedure file is finished

the final picture on your screen will
look like this.
Here is a brief summary of the
uniaxial model we have created:
• A single brick element, full
integration, Herrmann.
• Boundary conditions on
x=0 & y=0 faces to prevent free
translation in space.
• Material model is neo-Hookean with C10 = 0.5
• Rigid contact surfaces are used to impose deformation.

lower rigid body, cbody2, is stationary.
upper rigid body, cbody3, is moved so as to first push, then pull,
the brick element.
• Loading is performed in 40 equal time increments. Increment 10 is
full compression of 50%, increment 30 is full extension of 200%,
increment 40 returns the brick to it’s original configuration.
Now let’s look at the results of this analysis before curve fitting our
uniaxial test data.

Model 1: Uniaxial Stress Specimen Chapter 6: Workshop Problems
All of the postprocessing functions are accessed from RESULTS, which is

located on the topmost MAIN menu. We are especially interested in
deformed shape plots and XY plots of stress vs. strain.
MAIN
RESULTS
OPEN DEFAULT
DEF & ORIG
SKIP TO INC
10 <cr>
PLOT
SURFACES WIREFRAME
REGEN
RETURN
CONTOUR BAND
SCALAR
Displacement Z, OK
SCALAR PLOT SETTINGS
#LEVELS
5 <cr>, RETURN
SKIP TO INC
30 <cr>
FILL
REWIND
MONITOR

Chapter 6: Workshop Problems Model 1: Uniaxial Stress Specimen
Now let’s generate the stress-strain plot that the MSC.Marc analysis has
calculated. When we curve fit the actual test data, this analysis stress-
strain curve should match the curve fit response exactly.
HISTORY PLOT
COLLECT GLOBAL DATA

NODE/VARIABLES
ADD GLOBAL CRV.
Pos Z cbody3
Force Z cbody2
FIT, RETURN
Since the original area is one, and

since the original length in the
z-direction is one, the above plot is the engineering stress versus the
engineering strain for a uniaxial stress specimen with neo-Hookean
behavior. We use the Body 2 force just to get the sign correct.
Another way of getting engineering stress-strain output is to use the user
subroutine PRINCA.F. This is a plotv routine that calculates principal
values of engineering stress & strain as well as principal stretch ratio. If
available try re-running this analysis with the princa.f routine.
Q: Why is it ok to use a one element model for this problem?
A: ____________________________________________________
RETURN, CLOSE, SHORTCUTS SHOW MODEL
OK, MAIN

Model 1: Uniaxial Curve Fit Chapter 6: Workshop Problems
Model 1: Uniaxial Curve Fit

Using this model file, go to the material definition stage and redefine the
material by reading the uniaxial data, filename st_18.data, and proceed to
re-run the problem using neo-Hookean, Mooney 2-term, Mooney 3-term,
and Ogden 2-term fits.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
TABLES
READ
RAW
FILTER: type *.data
pick file st_18.data, OK

Chapter 6: Workshop Problems Model 1: Uniaxial Curve Fit
Make the table type experimental_data, and associate this data with the
uniaxial button. Your screen should look similar to the one below, and
we are ready to start curve fitting the data.
TABLE TYPE
experimental_data, OK, RETURN
UNIAXIAL
table2

Choose the neo-Hookean curve fitting routine and base the curve fit on
just uniaxial data. The compute button will compute the model
coefficients. By default, responses for many modes are plotted. The
single neo-Hookean coefficient, C10, is 0.265.
ELASTOMERS
NEO-HOOKEAN
UNIAXIAL
COMPUTE, OK
SCALE AXES
PLOT OPTIONS
SIMPLE SHEAR, RETURN (this turns off simple shear)

Comments:
We have just fit a neo-Hookean model using only uniaxial data.
MSC.Marc Mentat by default shows the model’s response in all major
modes of deformation. This is very important. You should always know
your model’s response to each mode of deformation.
Look again at the previous stress-strain plot. Notice the relative magnitude
of the responses. Uniaxial is the lowest magnitude, the planar shear is
higher, and the biaxial response is the highest. This is typical of most
elastomers. See, for example, the stress-strain plot on the front cover of
these notes.
Always start fitting with simple models first. If a simple model captures
the curvature of the test data, use it! Proceed to higher order and more
complex models only as needed.
Go back and use the EXTRAPOLATION feature and replot the neo-
Hookean results from -0.5 to 2.0 strain. It is very important to look at the
model’s response over a wide range of strain, including both tension and
compression. We are looking for stability limits (maxima in the stress-
strain curve). Mooney form models with all positive coefficients
guarantee stability in all modes, for all strain. The simpler the material
model, the higher probability it will be stable over a wider strain range.
Later, after curve fitting several choices of models and selecting the best
one, we will re-run our simple analysis.

Here’s how to use the extrapolation feature to extend the strain range over
which we plot the model’s response. We see that our neo-Hookean model
is stable for all deformation modes.
NEO-HOOKEAN
EXTRAPOLATION
EXTRAPOLATE
LEFT BOUND, enter -0.5, <cr>
RIGHT BOUND, enter 2.0, <cr>, OK
COMPUTE, OK
SCALE AXES

Now fit a Mooney 2-term material model. Turn the extrapolation feature
off for now. The Mooney coefficients are C10 = 0.074 and C01 = 0.280.
Positive coefficients guarantee stability. Notice the relative magnitudes
now – the biaxial stiffness is about 4 times the earlier material model. Of
course, the fit to the uniaxial data is better, with more terms this model can
capture a higher curvature in the stress-strain data.
MOONEY(2)
EXTRAPOLATION
EXTRAPOLATE, OK (we want to turn it off)
COMPUTE, OK
SCALE AXES

Now fit a Mooney 3-term material model. The Mooney coefficients are
C10 = -0.735, C01 = 1.21, and C11 = 0.194. The uniaxial response is
fantastic! The presence of a negative coefficient means that the material
model might be unstable. We need to visually determine the stability range
of the model. Note that the peak stress for the biaxial response has gone
from 1.0 (neo-Hookean), to 4.5 (Mooney 2-term), to 36 (Mooney 3-term).
Which one is correct?
MOONEY(3)
COMPUTE, OK
SCALE AXES
MOONEY(3), EXTRAPOLATION
EXTRAPOLATE, OK
COMPUTE, OK
SCALE AXES (after viewing this turn extrapolate back off)

Comments:
Which biaxial fit is correct? Well, we don’t know because we haven’t
(yet) performed a biaxial test. This is the great difficulty with the Mooney
form and Ogden form material models – they are just curve fits. There is
no “rubber physics” embedded in these equations. As we see here, a curve
fit to uniaxial data will have a good response for that mode of
deformation. But the responses for the other modes of deformation are all
over the map. A rule of thumb based on observations of natural rubber and
some other elastomers is that the tensile equi-biaxial response should be
about 1.5 to 2.5 times the uniaxial tension response. We have seen many
instances of higher order Mooney and Ogden models (using only uniaxial
data) returning biaxial responses that are far too high. These are clearly
bad material models.
Try playing with the POSITIVE COEFFICIENTS option to see how much
the responses change.
For the curve fitting examples, you may need to toggle certain things
on & off to better view and understand the computed fit. Keep these
features in mind throughout all of these exercises:
• EXTRAPOLATION on/off
• PLOT OPTIONS, PREDICTED MODES
(select subsets of UNIAXIAL, BIAXIAL, PLANAR SHEAR)
• PLOT OPTIONS, LIMITS, YMAX, etc.
(you may need to set plot limits by hand for better viewing)

Now fit an Ogden 2-term material model. The uniaxial response is very
good, but the biaxial response is now even higher than the Mooney
3-term. Ogden coefficients come in pairs, the moduli are i and the
exponents are i . If each i and i have the same sign then stability is
guaranteed. If a i is positive and its corresponding i is negative
(or vice versa) then the material model might be unstable. Thus we
may need to visually determine the stability range of the model.
OGDEN
COMPUTE, OK
This plot is to the same scale (ymax) as the Mooney 2-term plot.

Comments:
We are now finished with the curve fitting portion of this uniaxial
exercise. We see that the Mooney 3-term and Ogden 2-term fit the
uniaxial test data very well. However, we are concerned (or should be!)
that the equi-biaxial response for some models (M 3-term, O 2-term) are
too high and could make the material model overly stiff if that mode of
deformation exists in our analysis. We need equi-biaxial test data to get a
better fit to that mode.
Let’s run this uniaxial analysis with the Ogden 3-term model.
We select the curve fit model by pressing the APPLY button. Now go back
and view the material model. Submit the analysis, then we will post-
process and show the analysis calculated stress-strain curve.
OGDEN
# OF TERMS = 3, OK
COMPUTE, APPLY, OK
PLOT OPTIONS (turn off all – leave uniaxial only)
COPY TO GEN. XY PLOTTER
RETURN (thrice)
MECH. MATERIALS TYPE, MORE
OGDEN (look at the material properties)
OK
FILES
SAVE AS ogden3, OK
MAIN
JOBS
RUN
SUBMIT1
MONITOR

Now go to postprocessing and generate the engineering stress-strain

curve (we did this earlier with the original model). We will also save the
analysis generated stress-strain curve to an external file for comparison
to the test data.
MAIN
RESULTS
OPEN DEFAULT
HISTORY PLOT
COLLECT DATA
14 30 1 <cr> (this collects just the tensile part)
NODE/VARIABLES
ADD GLOBAL VAR.
Pos Z cbody3
Force Z cbody2
FIT, RETURN
SAVE type ogden3.tab
This last command saves the table to an external file named ogden3.tab
(.tab is just to remind us that it is table data).

To compare the two stress-strain curves, we will use MSC.Marc Mentat’s

generalized plotter feature.
UTILS
GENERALIZED XY PLOT
FIT
SHOW IDS = 0

Zoom in and tilt the plot and you will notice three curves:
the data, the fit, and the response of our model.
Note that the model must follow the hyperelastic material model
(Ogden(3)) exactly.
tress
Engineering S
e
ns
it
po
)f
es
(3
R
en
gd
O
a
at
D
Stra in
i n g
eer
Engin

One may also use xmgr to read the file ogden3.tab that was generated in
MSC.Marc Mentat. From a terminal window type:
xmgr st_18.data ogden3.tab
A graphics screen will appear in which the experimental data is shown in
black and the analysis generated stress-strain curve is shown in red. Of
course, the test data only extends to about 100% strain whereas we
performed our analysis out to 200% strain.

Stress and Strain Measures

In order to plot the engineering stress and strain measures in this example,
we plotted “Pos Z cbody3” versus “Force Z cbody2” and because the
original length and cross-sectional area are unity, “Pos Z cbody3” versus
“Force Z cbody2” is the engineering strain versus the engineering stress.
Since a total Lagrangian formulation is being used, the stress and strain
measures (or Lagrangian measures) on the post file are Cauchy stress and
Green-Lagrange strain which are different than the engineering measures.
In this section, we shall convert the Lagrangian measures to engineering
measures using the copy to clipboard feature available on the PC version
of Mentat.
MAIN
RESULTS
OPEN DEFAULT
HISTORY PLOT
SET NODES
8 # (pick node 8)
COLLECT GLOBAL DATA (this collects all the data)
NODE/VARIABLES
ADD GLOBAL VAR.
Pos Z cbody3
Force Z cbody2
FIT, RETURN
COPY TO CLIPBOARD
With the plotted values stored in the clipboard, open Excel and paste the
clipboard into the worksheet.


Now we shall repeat the above for the stress and strain values on the post
file (Lagrangian measures).
NODE/VARIABLES
CLEAR CURVES
ADD VARIABLE
Comp 33 of Total Strain
Comp 33 of Cauchy Stress
FIT, RETURN
COPY TO CLIPBOARD
With the plotted values stored in the clipboard, paste the clipboard into the
worksheet starting in column, the top of the worksheet should look like:
Pos Z cbody3 Force Z cbody2 Comp 33 of Total Strain Node 8 Comp 33 of Cauchy Stress Node 8
0 0 0 0
-0.05 -0.158024 -0.04875 -0.150124
-0.1 -0.334548 -0.095 -0.3011
-0.15 -0.534053 -0.13875 -0.453959
-0.2 -0.762458 -0.18 -0.609991
-0.25 -1.02772 -0.21875 -0.770832
-0.3 -1.34074 -0.255 -0.938581
-0.35 -1.71677 -0.28875 -1.11599
-0.4 -2.17766 -0.32 -1.30671
-0.45 -2.75563 -0.34875 -1.51575
-0.5 -3.4998 -0.375 -1.75011
-0.375 -1.9349 -0.304688 -1.20941
Save this Excel file as neohookean05_job1.t16.xls.


Now we can plot the two different strain and stress measures in Excel as:
Strain and Stress Measures
10
Engineering Strain Versus Engineering Stress [MPa]

8 Green Lagrange Strain Versus Cauchy Stress [MPa]
4
Stress
0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
-2
-4
-6
Strain
This plot allows us to clearly see the difference between the two measures
and notice that for small values of strain, the difference becomes very
small.


All of these measures are related, and we now will show how to convert
from the Green-Lagrange strain and Cauchy stress to engineering values
for this particular problem. The uniaxial direction in the model is in the
“z” or direction so we will use the 33 component of stress and strain.
Letting E33 and t 33 be the 33 component of Green-Lagrange strain and
Cauchy stress 33 and 33 be the engineering measures, respectively, we
have for this deformation mode the following relations:
 33 = 2E 33 + 1 – 1
and
t 33
 33 = ---------------------
-
 1 +  33 
The above formulas come from the definition of Green-Lagrange strain,

1 T
E ij = ---   F   F  –  ij  (see Appendix A on page 250) where F is the
2
deformation gradient that is determined from the stretch ratios (see
“Summary of All Modes” on page 89)
From incompressibility we have A 0 L 0 = AL and then
F 33 F 33 L t 33 t 33
 33 = --------- =  - ------ = ------
-------- - = ---------------------
-
A0  A L   1 +  33 
0


The Excel file can be used to verify the conversion as:
A B C D =SQRT(2*C3+1) - 1 =D3/(1+E3)
Pos Z cbody3 Force Z cbody2 Comp 33 of Total Strain NComp 33 of Cauchy Stres Convert E33 to 33 Convert t33 to 33
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
-0.05 -0.16 -0.05 -0.15 -0.05 -0.16
-0.10 -0.33 -0.10 -0.30 -0.10 -0.33
-0.15 -0.53 -0.14 -0.45 -0.15 -0.53
-0.20 -0.76 -0.18 -0.61 -0.20 -0.76
-0.25 -1.03 -0.22 -0.77 -0.25 -1.03
-0.30 -1.34 -0.26 -0.94 -0.30 -1.34
-0.35 -1.72 -0.29 -1.12 -0.35 -1.72
-0.40 -2.18 -0.32 -1.31 -0.40 -2.18
-0.45 -2.76 -0.35 -1.52 -0.45 -2.76
-0.50 -3.50 -0.38 -1.75 -0.50 -3.50
-0.38 -1.93 -0.30 -1.21 -0.38 -1.94
-0.25 -1.03 -0.22 -0.77 -0.25 -1.03
-0.13 -0.43 -0.12 -0.38 -0.13 -0.43
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.13 0.33 0.13 0.38 0.13 0.33
0.25 0.61 0.28 0.76 0.25 0.61
0.38 0.85 0.45 1.16 0.38 0.85
0.50 1.06 0.63 1.58 0.50 1.06
0.63 1.25 0.82 2.02 0.63 1.25
0.75 1.42 1.03 2.49 0.75 1.42
0.88 1.59 1.26 2.98 0.87 1.59
1.00 1.75 1.50 3.50 1.00 1.75
1.13 1.90 1.76 4.04 1.12 1.90
1.25 2.05 2.03 4.62 1.25 2.05
1.38 2.20 2.32 5.22 1.37 2.20
1.50 2.34 2.63 5.85 1.50 2.34
1.63 2.48 2.95 6.50 1.62 2.48
1.75 2.62 3.28 7.19 1.75 2.62
1.88 2.75 3.63 7.91 1.87 2.75
2.00 2.89 4.00 8.66 2.00 2.89
1.80 2.67 3.42 7.48 1.80 2.67
1.60 2.45 2.88 6.37 1.60 2.45
1.40 2.23 2.38 5.34 1.40 2.22
1.20 1.99 1.92 4.38 1.20 1.99
1.00 1.75 1.50 3.50 1.00 1.75
0.80 1.49 1.12 2.68 0.80 1.49
0.60 1.21 0.78 1.93 0.60 1.21
0.40 0.89 0.48 1.25 0.40 0.89
0.20 0.51 0.22 0.61 0.20 0.51
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Where columns E and F show the formulas to convert from the total
Lagrangian to engineering measures of stress and strain, and columns E
and F are identical to columns A and B, respectively. This file,
neohookean05_job1.t16.xls, is also available in the uniaxial directory.
Finally, although all of the examples in this workshop are in a total
Lagrange framework, the stress and strain measures for the updated
Lagrange framework are Cauchy stress and Logarithmic strain, Eij , where
E 33 = ln  1 +  33  .


Summarizing the various stress and strain measures used we have:

Stress Measure Strain Measure
Curve Fitting Engineering Engineering
Analysis
Total Lagrange Cauchy Green-Lagrange
Updated Lagrange Cauchy Logarithmic
In our uniaxial example, these measures are related as:

Stress Measure Strain Measure
Curve Fitting  33  33
Analysis
Total Lagrange t 33 =  1 +  33  33 2
E 33 =  1 +  33  – 1
Updated Lagrange t 33 =  1 +  33  33 E 33 = ln  1 +  33 

Model 1C: Tensile Specimen with Continuous Damage Chapter 6: Workshop Problems
Model 1C: Tensile Specimen with Continuous

Damage
Objective: To model an elastomeric material under a cyclical uniaxial
deformation mode subjected to damage accumulated from continuously
varying strain cycles. For instance, looking at the test data below, we
notice that upon repeated cycling the peak stress decays.
Tensile Data
Continuous Damage
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
This damage can be due to polymer chain breakage, multi-chain damage,

and detachment of filler particles from the network entanglement.

Chapter 6: Workshop Problems Model 1C: Tensile Specimen with Continuous Damage
In this workshop problem, we will simulate this behavior using the

continuous damage model discussed in Appendix B. To clarify the
behavior let’s plot the peak stress versus the cycle number as shown
below.
Tensile Data
Continuous Damage for Engineering Strain = 1.00
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Cycle Number
If our application experiences, this kind of behavior then we may wish to

simulate this continuous damage. We would start by doing any normal
hyperelastic curve fit. However, we would use the 1st cycle of the stress
strain curve, not the steady state behavior in the file st_18.data which was
for the 10th cycle shown above. We are now ready to begin modeling this
continuous damage. In a terminal window, use the cd command to move
to the wkshops_A/uniaxial or the wkshops_B/uniaxial directory.

From NT (Windows 2000) just click on the uni_neo05.proc file or from

unix Type “mentat” to start the MSC.Marc Mentat program, then starting
from the main menu proceed as follows:
UTILS
PROCEDURES
EXECUTE
pick the file named uni_neo05.proc
OK
MAIN
This will produce and run a uniaxial stress model. Using this model file,
we will go to the material definition stage and redefine the material by
reading the uniaxial data, filename st_1st.tab, damage data, st_cont.tab,
loading data st_load.tab and proceed to re-run the problem using an
Ogden 1-term fit with continuous damage.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
TABLES
READ
NORMAL
FILTER: type st*
pick file st_1st.tab, OK (different data from st_18.data)

Your screen should look similar to the one below
While we are here let’s read some more tables.

READ
NORMAL
FILTER: type st*
pick file st_cont.tab
pick file st_load.tab
RETURN
Now we are ready to start curve fitting the data.

UNIAXIAL
table2
CONSTANT
pick st_const table

ELASTOMERS
MORE
CONTINUOUS DAMAGE
CONSTANT
NUMBER OF TERMS = 2
FREE ENERGY = 1.07 (this is just the 1st peak stress)
COMPUTE
APPLY, OK, RETURN
OGDEN
UNIAXIAL
NUMBER OF TERMS = 1
COMPUTE, APPLY, OK
SCALE AXES
PLOT OPTIONS
SIMPLE SHEAR (this turns off simple shear)

RETURN (twice)
Let’s review the material properties to check that the curve fit has been
properly applied to the selected material.
MAIN
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
MORE
OGDEN, DAMAGE EFFECTS - RUBBER, OK
OK

Now we can complete the model and run the analysis. The remaining item
to finish is to attach a table to the contact body to cycle the loading several
times from a strain of 0 to a strain of 1.
MAIN
CONTACT
CONTACT BODIES
EDIT (pick cbody3)
RIGID
POSITION
(Z) TABLE (pick table st_load)
OK (twice)
MAIN
LOADCASE
MECHANICAL

STATIC
TOTAL LOADCASE TIME = 940
# STEPS = 20
OK
MAIN
FILES
SAVE AS ogden_damage OK
MAIN
JOBS
RUN, SUBMIT1, MONITOR, OK
MAIN
RESULTS
OPEN DEFAULT
HISTORY PLOT
COLLECT DATA
1 19 2
NODE/VARIABLES
ADD GLOBAL VAR.
Time
Force Z cbody2
FIT, RETURN
SAVE type ogden_damage.tab

Here we see the peak engineering stress drop upon subsequent applications
of the prescribed displacements. Let’s run this same example but increase
the number of load cycles by using the BEGIN/END SEQUENCE feature
of MSC.Marc. This can be done by closing the post file, going to jobs,
editing the input file to MSC.Marc then executing the edited input file.
MAIN
RESULTS
CLOSE
MAIN
JOBS
RUN
ADVANCED JOB SUBMISSION
EDIT INPUT
Here we need to locate the first occurrence of the “auto load” keyword.

Before this keyword, we need to enter the following:

begin sequence, 100,
Now locate the second occurrence of the keyword continue and insert
after it the following:
end sequence
Now delete all input records after the end sequence record inserted.
The tail end of the input data set will look like:
begin sequence,100,
auto load
1 0 10
time step
4.700000000000000+1
motion change
2
2 0
0.000000000000000+0 0.000000000000000+0 0.000000000000000+0 0.000000000000000+0
3 -1
0.000000000000000+0 0.000000000000000+0 1.000000000000000+0 0.000000000000000+0
continue
auto load
1 0 10
time step
4.700000000000000+1
motion change
2
2 0
0.000000000000000+0 0.000000000000000+0 0.000000000000000+0 0.000000000000000+0
3 -1
0.000000000000000+0 0.000000000000000+0 0.000000000000000+0 0.000000000000000+0
continue
end sequence
This change to the input file will run with 100 repetitions of the load
sequence above.

Save the input file and run the job by selecting the execute button, namely:
OK
RUN, EXECUTE1, MONITOR, OK
MAIN
RESULTS
OPEN DEFAULT
HISTORY PLOT
COLLECT DATA
1 1999 2
NODE/VARIABLES
ADD GLOBAL VAR.
Time
Force Z cbody2
FIT, RETURN

We now see that the engineering stress asymptotically approaches a value

of 0.972 [Mpa] from its initial value of 1.114 [Mpa].
As shown below, the peak stress drops by about 13% from the initial load
to an infinite number of repeated loadings. Although this drop may not
appear to be large, other materials may demonstrate larger drops in peak
stress upon repeated loadings and be more worthy of damage modeling.
Tensile Simulation - Continuous Damage

1-Term Ogden and Original Data
1.0 1-Term Ogden

Original Data
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Should one desire to use a Mooney material model, the model would have
to be converted to an updated Lagrangian formulation, by changing to
element type 7, and choosing the “LARGE STRAIN-UPDATED
LAGRANGE” rubber elasticity procedure.
Finally, the hyperelastic fit above can be made better by simultaneously
using other deformation modes as we shall see in subsequent exercises.

Model 1: Realistic Uniaxial Stress Specimen Chapter 6: Workshop Problems
Model 1: Realistic Uniaxial Stress Specimen

Extra Credit Problem Statement:
This problem is in the subdirectory named ./uniaxial/big.

Geometry is 45.5 L x 4 H x 2 W (mm) between grips, 10 mm length
under grip. The x and z planes of symmetry are used.
Read model from file uniaxial_specimen.mud.
Grips are modeled as discrete rigid surfaces that squeeze then pull. The
friction of the grip pulls the specimen.
Run analysis with Mooney 1-term model (C = 0.265) and plot engineering
stress-strain, compare with original test data. Use princa.f usersub if
possible.

Chapter 6: Workshop Problems Model 1: Realistic Uniaxial Stress Specimen
Results: uniaxial_specimen.mud
X
Z 4
Results from uniaxial_specimen.mud

1.0
0.8
0.6
Curve Fit
0.4 Model
0.2
Engineering Strain
-0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
-0.2 Grip Squeeze Causes
Specimen Buckling
(Compression)

Model 1: Realistic Uniaxial Stress Specimen Chapter 6: Workshop Problems
Results: uniaxial_specimen.mud
The engineering stress and strain are extracted from the post file from a
history plot of Displacement X Node 628 vs. Force X Force X left_grip.
The data is copied into the clip board and placed in Excel. Node 628 is on
the far side of one of the elements attached to the symmetry plane called
left_grip. The length of the element is 1, so the engineering strain is just
the displacement of this node. Since the cross-sectional area of the model
is 4.0, the engineering stress is simply the x component of force on the
wall (Force X Force X left_grip) divided by 4. This is plotted over all of
the increments and compared to the curve fit which is
 1  1 
 = dW  d = G   – ------ = 2  0.265    1 +   – -------------------
  
2  1 +  
2
Of course the curves agree identically as they should. The more important
issue is with the grips. As the grips are squeezed onto the specimen by
displacement control, the material flows out of the grip and puts the
specimen in compression. Although this is not too noticeable on the
tension specimen it is very noticeable on the planar specimen; care must
be taken not to prestress the specimen before the testing begins by
expanding the distance between the grips to account for the longer
specimen. This will be seen as you perform the planar tension test later.

Chapter 6: Workshop Problems Model 1: Realistic Uniaxial Stress Specimen
Model 1: Realistic Uniaxial Stress Specimen (cont.)

What happened to our specimen model with 600 elements?
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
How does the specimen model compare to the one element test case?
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
How would we convert measured force versus stroke to engineering

stress versus engineering strain? How realistic is this?
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
Where is the actual gauge length in the specimen model?

____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________

Model 2: Equi-Biaxial Stress Specimen Chapter 6: Workshop Problems
Model 2: Equi-Biaxial Stress Specimen

Objective: To model an elastomeric material under a equi-biaxial stress
deformation mode.
It will be your job to modify the model by reading in the test data and
wkshops_A/biaxial or the wkshops_B/biaxial directory.
UTILS
PROCEDURES
EXECUTE
pick the file named eb_neo05.proc
OK
OK
This will produce and run a biaxial stress model. Please familiarize
yourself with this model. Look at the BC’s, the material specification,
the contact bodies and contact table, and the loadcase.

Chapter 6: Workshop Problems Model 2: Equi-Biaxial Stress Specimen

look like this.
biaxial model we have created:
• Boundary conditions on y=0
face to prevent free translation
in space.

cbody2 & cbody5 are stationary.
cbody3 & cbody4 are moved so as to impose displacements in the
Z & X directions respectively.
biaxial compression of 50% (compression in X & Z), increment 30 is
biaxial extension of 200%(extension in X & Z).
Now let’s look at the results of this analysis before curve fitting our
biaxial test data.

Model 2: Equi-Biaxial Stress Specimen Chapter 6: Workshop Problems

MAIN
RESULTS
OPEN DEFAULT
DEF & ORIG
SKIP TO INC
10 <cr>
CONTOUR BAND
SCALAR
Displacement Z, OK
SCALAR PLOT SETTINGS

#LEVELS
5 <cr>, RETURN
SKIP TO INC
30 <cr>
REWIND
MONITOR

Chapter 6: Workshop Problems Model 2: Equi-Biaxial Stress Specimen
HISTORY PLOT
SET NODES
(pick node 8 shown)
Pick
END LIST
COLLECT DATA
0 30 1 <cr>
NODE/VARIABLES
ADD VARIABLE
Displacement Z
Force Z cbody2
FIT, RETURN
RETURN
CLOSE, MAIN

since the original length in the z-
direction is one, this plot is the
engineering stress versus the
engineering strain. We use the Body 2
force just to get the sign correct.
Notice how much different compression is for biaxial than uniaxial
behavior. Of course, biaxial compression is very hard to simulate with
a physical test, and only tension is usually done.

Model 2: Equi-Biaxial Curve Fit Chapter 6: Workshop Problems
Model 2: Equi-Biaxial Curve Fit

Now we will read in both the uniaxial and biaxial test data and simply
repeat fitting the four material models. The difference is that we will now
use both sets of data. Start from the MAIN menu.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
TABLES
READ
RAW
FILTER: type *.data

Chapter 6: Workshop Problems Model 2: Equi-Biaxial Curve Fit
Since we will be reading more than one set of test data, let’s name the
datasets. Then make the table type experimental_data, and associate this
data with the uniaxial button.
NAME
uniaxial
TABLE TYPE
UNIAXIAL
uniaxial
Repeat the above sequence to read in the file eb_18.data and name this
dataset biaxial. Associate this dataset with the biaxial button. Your screen
should look similar to the one below and we are ready to start curve fitting
the data.

all the data. The compute button will compute the model coefficients.
By default, responses for many modes are plotted. Turn off the plotting
of simple shear.
ELASTOMERS
NEO-HOOKEAN
USE ALL DATA
COMPUTE, OK
SCALE AXES
PLOT OPTIONS

Comments:
We have just fit a neo-Hookean model using both uniaxial and biaxial
data. MSC.Marc Mentat by default shows the model’s response in all
major modes of deformation. This is very important. You should always
know your model’s response to each mode of deformation.
Compare this plot with the uniaxial only stress-strain plot on (page 115).
Both plots are very similar. The uniaxial only C10 was 0.265, while the
new material model based on both uniaxial and biaxial data gives
C10 = 0.280. These neo-Hookean coefficients are quite close, telling us
that the earlier model was pretty good. We would prefer to use the latest
model since it is based on more information and gives a better fit to the
biaxial test data.
If you can accept the differences between the test data and fitted response,
this material model is quite adequate (and stability is guaranteed because
the coefficient is positive). For scoping analysis and the initial stage of an
analysis, this model is sufficient.

Now fit a Mooney 2-term material model. Make sure extrapolation is off.
The Mooney coefficients are C10 = 0.247 and C01 = 0.0270. Notice the
relative magnitudes now – the biaxial response is much different than
before (page 118) and the coefficients are much different as well.
(Uniaxial coeff’s were C10 = 0.074 and C01 = 0.280). This confirms our
suspicion that the earlier Mooney 2-term model based on only uniaxial
data misrepresented the biaxial behavior.
MOONEY(2)
COMPUTE, OK
SCALE AXES

To see the old (uniaxial data only) fit response plotted along with the new
data, use the EVALUATE feature.
MOONEY(2)
EVALUATE
type in the old coeff’s as prompted at the command line
ENTER C10: 0.074 <cr>
ENTER C01: 0.280 <cr>
All coefficients entered. Continue? y <cr>
So this is the uniaxial only model response. Notice how overly stiff the
biaxial model response (yellow/light grey line) is compared to the actual
biaxial test data (yellow/light grey line with squares).

C10 = 0.246, C01 = 0.029, and C11 = -0.0004. This is essentially the same
as the Mooney 2-term material model from the previous page. The biaxial
data is adding additional constraint to the fit. The third term is almost
zero, thus the fit has not changed. One would not choose this model over
the Mooney 2-term fit.
MOONEY(3)
COMPUTE, OK
SCALE AXES

Now fit an Ogden 2-term material model. The uniaxial and biaxial model
responses are slightly better than the Mooney models. However, the first
pair of coefficients (modulus term of -2.55E-6 and exponent of -10.5)
only contribute to the response at high strains. Set the NUMBER OF
TERMS to 1 and re-fit the data.
OGDEN
COMPUTE, OK

Comments:
We are now finished with the curve fitting portion of this uniaxial and
biaxial data exercise. As you saw, the addition of biaxial information was
very valuable. The earlier Mooney and Ogden uniaxial only fits were way
off base! However, it is interesting to note that the earlier neo-Hookean fit
was pretty decent. This gives more merit to keeping the material as simple
as possible.
Let’s run this biaxial analysis with the Mooney 2-term model.
Go back to MOONEY(2) and fit it again, press the APPLY button. Submit
the analysis, then we will postprocess and show the analysis calculated
stress-strain curve.
MOONEY(2)
COMPUTE
APPLY, OK
PLOT OPTIONS
COPY TO GEN. XY PLOTTER, RETURN
RETURN (twice)
MECHANICAL MATERIALS TYPE, MORE
MOONEY look at the material properties
OK
FILES
SAVE AS moon2, OK
RETURN (twice)
JOBS
RUN
SUBMIT1
MONITOR

Now go to postprocessing and generate the engineering stress-strain

curve (we did this earlier with the original model). We will also save the
analysis generated stress-strain curve to an external file for comparison
to the test data.
MAIN
RESULTS
Pick
OPEN DEFAULT
HISTORY PLOT
SET NODES
(pick node 8 shown)
END LIST
COLLECT DATA
14 30 1 <cr>
NODE/VARIABLES
ADD VARIABLE
Displacement Z
Force Z cbody2
FIT, RETURN
SAVE type moon2.tab
This last command saves the table to

an external file named moon2.tab
(.tab is just to remind us that it is
table data).

To compare the two stress-strain curves we will use MSC.Marc Mentat’s

generalized plotter feature.
UTILS
GENERALIZED XY PLOT
FIT
SHOW IDS = 0
Biaxial Response
Biaxial Data
Uniaxial Data
Biaxial Fit
Uniaxial Fit
Engineering Strain

To compare the two stress-strain curves we will use XMGR.

From a terminal window type:
xmgr eb_18.data moon2.tab
A graphics screen will appear in which the experimental data is shown
in black and the analysis generated stress-strain curve is shown in red.
Of course, the test data only extends to about 100% strain whereas we

Model 2: Realistic Equal-Biaxial Stress Specimen Chapter 6: Workshop Problems
Model 2: Realistic Equal-Biaxial Stress Specimen

This problem is in the subdirectory named ./biaxial/big.

Geometry is 86 Dia x 2 Thick (mm), 16 Grips around full circumference
(22.5 deg). Mesh uses symmetry at X=0, Y=0, and Z=0.
Read model from file bi_glue.mud.
Grips are modeled as discrete rigid surface, Grips are 10 mm in dia.,
placed on a 71 mm dia., friction coefficient is infinite.
Run analysis with Ogden 3-term model and plot engineering stress-strain,
compare with original test data. Use princa.f usersub if possible.

Chapter 6: Workshop Problems Model 2: Realistic Equal-Biaxial Stress Specimen
Results: bi_glue.mud
Model 2 Equal-Biaxial
Specimen Model versus Data
2.0
Specimen Data
Specimen Model
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Engineering Strain

Model 2: Realistic Equal-Biaxial Stress Specimen Chapter 6: Workshop Problems
Model 2: Realistic Equal-Biaxial Stress Specimen (cont.)

____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
How does the specimen model compare to the test data?

____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
How would we convert measured force versus stroke to engineering

stress versus engineering strain? How realistic is this?
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________

Chapter 6: Workshop Problems Model 3: Simple Compression, Button Comp.
Model 3: Simple Compression, Button Comp.

Objective: To model a neo-Hookean elastomeric material under a
compressive deformation mode with and w/o friction.
In a terminal window use the cd command to move to the
wkshops_A/comp or the wkshops_B/comp directory.
In MSC.Marc Mentat, go to FILES and read in the comp_start.mud file.
This file contains two separate models.
We will call the top model the “uniaxial” model, meaning that its end
conditions are free of friction and the specimen will not barrel.
The bottom model (lower in Z) we will call the “button” compression
model, meaning that its ends are glued to the platens simulating a high
friction condition, or actual bonding.
Both models already have boundary conditions and material properties
assigned.
OPEN choose file comp_start, OK
SAVE AS type in comp, OK
PLOT
ELEMENTS SOLID
REGEN, RETURN
VIEW
LOAD VIEW
(select file OBL.VIEW from list), OK
RETURN
MAIN

Model 3: Simple Compression, Button Comp. Chapter 6: Workshop Problems
CONTACT
CONTACT BODIES
DEFORMABLE, OK
ELEMENTS ADD z=43
(pick top elements)
NAME, uniaxial
NEW z=30
DEFORMABLE, OK
ELEMENTS ADD
(pick bottom elems) z=13
NAME, button
NEW
z=0
RIGID
DISCRETE, OK
SURFACES ADD
(pick z=30 surface)
NAME, uni_bot
NEW
RIGID
DISCRETE, OK
SURFACES ADD
(pick z=43 surface)
NAME, uni_top
ID BACKFACES
(Make sure gold side of surfaces touch the deformable brick. If not flip
surfaces until this happens, otherwise, continue.)
SAVE

CONTACT (cont’d)
NEW
RIGID
DISCRETE, OK
SURFACES ADD
(pick z=0 surface)
NAME, but_bot
NEW
RIGID
DISCRETE, OK
SURFACES ADD
(pick z=13 surface)
NAME, but_top
(Make sure gold side of surfaces touch the deformable brick. If not flip
surfaces until this happens, otherwise, continue.)
EDIT
uni_top, OK
RIGID
VELOCITY PARAMETERS
VELOCITY Z=-6
OK (twice)
(repeat the above sequence for the but_top contact surface)

SAVE, RETURN

Construct your contact table to look like the one below.

Notice that the elements “uniaxial” touch uni_bot and uni_top,
while elements “button” are glued to but_bot and but_top.
All separation forces are zero. Return to the MAIN menu.
CONTACT TABLE
NEW
PROPERTIES
Make elements “uniaxial” touch uni_bot and uni_top, while elements

“button” are glued to but_bot and but_top.
OK, MAIN

LOADCASES
MECHANICAL
STATIC
STEPPING PROCEDURE FIXED PARAMETNERS
# OF STEPS=12 <cr>, OK (twice), MAIN
JOBS
MECHANICAL
lcase1
ANALYSIS OPTIONS
LARGE DISPLACEMENT, OK
JOB RESULTS
CAUCHY STRESS
TOTAL STRAIN, OK
OK
INITIAL LOADS
xsym
ysym
CONTACT CONTROL
INITIAL CONTACT
CONTACT TABLE
ctable1
OK (3 times)
JOBS
SAVE
RUN
SUBMIT1
MONITOR
OK, MAIN

RESULTS
OPEN DEFAULT
DEF & ORIG
SKIP TO INC
12 <cr>
PLOT
SURFACES WIREFRAME
REGEN
RETURN

POST PROCESSING
HISTORY PLOT
Construct time history of Pos Z uni_top vs. Force Z uni_top. This is the
true uniaxial response.
Construct the same for Pos Z but_top vs. Force Z but_top.
This is response that mixes shearing and bulk compression (remember
bulk, or hydrostatic, compressive stiffness is many times higher than the
shear stiffness)

POST PROCESSING
HISTORY PLOT
COLLECT GLOBAL DATA
NODES/VARIABLES
ADD GLOBAL CURVE
POS Z UNI_TOP
FORCE Z UNI_TOP
ADD GLOBAL CURVE
POS Z BUT_TOP
FORCE Z BUT_TOP

Chapter 6: Workshop Problems Model 4: Planar Shear Specimen
Model 4: Planar Shear Specimen

also known as Planar Tension
Objective: To model an elastomeric material under a planar shear stress

deformation mode.
It will be your job to modify the model by reading in the test data, and
wkshops_A/planar or the wkshops_B/planar directory.
UTILS
PROCEDURES
EXECUTE
pick the file named ps_neo05.proc
OK
OK
This will produce and run a planar shear stress model. Please familiarize
yourself with this model. Look at the BC’s, the material specification, the
contact bodies and contact table, and the loadcase.

Model 4: Planar Shear Specimen Chapter 6: Workshop Problems
After the procedure file is finished,

the final picture on your screen
will look like this.
planar shear model we have
created:
• Boundary conditions on y=0
face to prevent free translation
in space.

cbody2, cbody4 & cbody5 are stationary.
cbody3 is moved so as to impose displacement in the Z direction.
compression of 50% (compression in Z), increment 30 is extension of
200% (extension in Z).
Now let’s look at the results of this analysis before curve fitting our planar
shear test data.

Chapter 6: Workshop Problems Model 4: Planar Shear Specimen

MAIN
RESULTS
OPEN DEFAULT
DEF & ORIG
SKIP TO INC
10 <cr>
CONTOUR BAND
SCALAR
Displacement Z, OK
SETTINGS
#LEVELS
5 <cr>, RETURN
SKIP TO INC
30 <cr>
REWIND
MONITOR

Model 4: Planar Shear Specimen Chapter 6: Workshop Problems
HISTORY PLOT
SET NODES Pick
(pick node 8 shown)
END LIST
COLLECT DATA
0 30 1 <cr>
NODE/VARIABLES
ADD VARIABLE
Displacement Z
Force Z cbody2
FIT, RETURN
RETURN

since the original length in the z-
direction is one, this plot is the
engineering stress versus the
engineering strain. We use the Body
2 force just to get the sign correct.
You will usually see this test
performed only in tension, but some
labs will perform a plane strain compression test.
CLOSE, MAIN

Chapter 6: Workshop Problems Model 4: Planar Shear Curve Fit
Model 4: Planar Shear Curve Fit

Now we will read in both the uniaxial, biaxial, and planar shear test data
and repeat fitting the four material models. The difference is that we will
now use all sets of data. Start from the MAIN menu.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
TABLES
READ
RAW
FILTER: type *.data

Model 4: Planar Shear Curve Fit Chapter 6: Workshop Problems
Since we will be reading more than one set of test data, let’s name the
datasets. Then make the table type experimental_data, and associate this
data with the uniaxial button.
NAME
uniaxial
TABLE TYPE
UNIAXIAL
uniaxial
Repeat the above sequence to read in the file eb_18.data and name this
dataset biaxial. Associate this dataset with the biaxial button. Repeat
again to read in the file ps_18.data and name this dataset planar.
Associate this dataset with the planar shear button.

all the data. The compute button will compute the model coefficients.
By default, responses for many modes are plotted. Turn off the plotting
of simple shear.
ELASTOMERS
NEO-HOOKEAN
USE ALL DATA
COMPUTE, OK
SCALE AXES
PLOT OPTIONS

Summary of neo-Hookean fits:

We have just fit a neo-Hookean model using three sets of data, uniaxial,
biaxial, and planar shear. MSC.Marc Mentat by default shows the model’s
response in all major modes of deformation. This is very important. You
should always know your model’s response to each mode of deformation.
Compare this plot with the uniaxial only stress-strain plot on (page 115),
and the uniaxial+biaxial fit on (page 155). All the plots are very similar.
The uniaxial only C10 was 0.265, the uniaxial and biaxial data gives
C10 = 0.280, and the fit of all three sets of data simultaneously gives
C10 = 0.276. These neo-Hookean coefficients are quite close, telling us
that all of the neo-Hookean models are pretty good. We would prefer to
use the latest model since it is based on more information and gives a
better fit to all the test data.
If you can accept the differences between the test data and fitted response,
this material model is quite adequate (and stability is guaranteed because
the coefficient is positive). For scoping analysis and the initial stage of an
analysis, this model is sufficient.

Now fit a Mooney 2-term material model. Make sure extrapolation is off.
The Mooney coefficients are C10 = 0.244 and C01 = 0.0270. Compare
these results to those of the uniaxial+biaxial fit on page 157. There is very
little difference in the fit and the coefficients have changed only slightly.
MOONEY(2)
COMPUTE, OK
SCALE AXES

Summary of Mooney 2-term fits:

We have now completed a series of Mooney 2-term fits that used
progressively more information as the basis for the curve fitting. The table
below summarizes the coefficients calculated in each case.
The conclusion is that adding biaxial data had a big influence on the
quality of the fit and changed the coefficients greatly. Adding the planar
shear data did not cause further big changes.
Mooney 2-term Fitting Summary
Uniaxial Uniaxial + Biaxial Uniaxial+Biaxial+Planar

Data Data Shear Data
C10 0.074 0.247 0.244
C01 0.280 0.027 0.027

C10 = 0.239, C01 = 0.035, and C11 = -0.0015. This is essentially the same
as the Mooney 2-term material model from the previous page. The third
term is almost zero, thus the fit has not changed. One would not choose
this model over the Mooney 2-term fit.
MOONEY(3)
COMPUTE, OK
SCALE AXES

Summary of Mooney 3-term fits:

We have now completed a series of Mooney 3-term fits that used
The conclusion is that adding biaxial data had a big influence on the
quality of the fit and changed the coefficients greatly. Adding the planar
shear data did not cause further big changes.

C10 -0.735 0.246 0.239
C01 1.21 0.029 0.035
C11 0.194 -0.0004 -0.0015

C10 0.074 0.247 0.244
C01 0.280 0.027 0.027

Now fit an Ogden 2-term material model. The fit is similar to the earlier
one based on just uniaxial and biaxial data. Indeed, adding the planar
shear data has caused the biaxial fit to be worse.
OGDEN
COMPUTE, OK

Just for fun, try fitting an Ogden 3-term material model to just the uniaxial
and planar shear data. You will have to clear the table associated with the
biaxial button to do this. The results should look like the figure below.
Removing the biaxial data is like removing a constraint. The uniaxial and
planar shear response improve quite a bit. However, the biaxial fit
response is very bad, with a stability point at about 30% strain.

Summary of Ogden 2-term fits:

We have now completed a series of Ogden 2-term fits that used
We know the uniaxial only data fit had too little information as its basis,
and it’s biaxial response was very bad. The last two fits, however, were
relatively similar and yet their coefficients are markedly different. We see
this in many Ogden fits and it is attributed to the many local minima that
exist in the Ogden equation set.
Ogden 2-term Fitting Summary

1 -3.01 -2.55E-6 -0.353
1 0.733 -10.5 -.582
2 -0.861 1.00 0.592
2 -4.91 1.18 1.60

Comments:
We are now finished with the curve fitting portion of this exercise.
The further addition of planar shear data did not change the material
models very much.
Let’s run this planar shear analysis with the Mooney 2-term model.
Go back to MOONEY(2) and fit it again, press the APPLY button. Submit
the analysis, then we will postprocess and show the analysis calculated
stress-strain curve.
MOONEY(2)
COMPUTE
APPLY, OK
RETURN (twice)
MECHANICAL MATERIALS TYPE, MORE
MOONEY (look at the material properties)
OK
FILES
SAVE AS moon2, OK
RETURN (twice)
JOBS
RUN
SUBMIT1
MONITOR, OK

Now go to postprocessing and generate the engineering stress-strain curve

(we did this earlier with the original model). We will also save the analysis
generated stress-strain curve to an external file for comparison to the
planar shear test data.
MAIN
RESULTS Pick
OPEN DEFAULT
HISTORY PLOT
SET NODES
(pick node 8 shown)
END LIST
COLLECT DATA
14 30 1 <cr>
NODE/VARIABLES
ADD VARIABLE
Displacement Z
Force Z cbody2
FIT, RETURN
SAVE type moon2.tab
This last command saves the table to

an external file named moon2.tab
(.tab is just to remind us that it is
table data).

For the moment, we shall use the generalized xy plotter to compare the
response of the model to the curve fit.
MAIN
RESULTS
CLOSE, RETURN
UTILS
GENERALIZED XY PLOT
DATA FIT
FIT, FILL
Planar Shear Response
Planar Shear Data
Planar Shear Curve Fit

To compare the two stress-strain curves we will use XMGR.

xmgr ps_18.data moon2.tab
A graphics screen will appear in which the experimental data is shown in
black and the analysis generated stress-strain curve is shown in red. Of
course, the test data only extends to about 100% strain whereas, we
Planar Shear Response
Planar Shear Data

Model 4: Realistic Planar Shear Specimen Chapter 6: Workshop Problems
Model 4: Realistic Planar Shear Specimen

This problem is in the subdirectory named ./planar/big.

Geometry is 75 L x 12 H x 2 W (mm) between grips.
Read model from file pt_45.mud.
Grips are modeled as discrete rigid surfaces, with glue.
Run analysis with Mooney 1-term model and plot engineering stress-
strain, compare with original test data. Use princa.f usersub if possible.

Chapter 6: Workshop Problems Model 4: Realistic Planar Shear Specimen
Results: pt_45.mud
Model 4: Planar Shear (pt_45.mud)

Neo Hookean: G = 2(2.71964-1)
1.5
G(1+x-(1+x)^-3)
max princ engg. stress l [124]
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Engineering Strain

Model 4: Realistic Planar Shear Specimen Chapter 6: Workshop Problems
Model 4: Realistic Planar Stress Specimen (cont.)

____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
How does the specimen model compare to the test data?
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
How would we convert measured force versus stroke to engineering stress
versus engineering strain? How realistic is this?
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________

Chapter 6: Workshop Problems Model 5: Viscoelastic Specimen
Model 5: Viscoelastic Specimen

Objective: To model a viscoelastic neo-Hookean elastomeric material
under a uniaxial stress deformation mode with a load to 50% strain and
hold for 7200 seconds. Begin at the main menu.
file is provided that will build an initial model. However, the model
contains only a trivial neo-Hookean material model with
C10 = 0.5. It will be your job to modify the model by reading in the test
data, and curve fitting it to add viscoelastic effects.
wkshops_A/visco or the wkshops_B/visco directory.
UTILS
PROCEDURES
EXECUTE
pick the file named visco.proc
OK
OK
This will produce a uniaxial stress model. Please familiarize yourself with
this model. Look at the BC’s, the material specification, the contact bodies
and contact table, and the loadcase.

Model 5: Viscoelastic Specimen Chapter 6: Workshop Problems

look like this.
uniaxial model we have created:
• Boundary conditions on
x=0 & y=0
faces to prevent free
translation in space.
• Material model is neo-Hookean with C10 = 0.5, no viscoelastic
properties are included.
lower rigid body, cbody2, is stationary.
upper rigid body, cbody3, is position controlled and moves +0.5 in
the Z direction at time zero to achieve 50% strain.
• Seven loadcases are used to mirror the test data sampling times.
This problem is not run in this trivial form since no viscoelastic properties
have been added yet. We will now read in the material data and perform
the curve fit(s).

Chapter 6: Workshop Problems Model 5: Viscoelastic Curve Fit
Model 5: Viscoelastic Curve Fit

For curve fitting, we need two different types of test data. First we need to
create a table of instantaneous strain, stress data to fit a standard Mooney
or Ogden model. Then we need to read a file of time, stress information
that will be used to curve fit a relaxation function.
We will create the instantaneous table from our viscoelastic test data.
For this exercise, we have 30% strain and 50% strain visco tests. Look
at the first line from each data file – named 30percent.data and
50percent.data. We will take the first stress point from each file as the
instantaneous stress. These first stress points are 0.7524 and 1.1695
respectively.
Go to the material definition stage and create the following table of
instantaneous strain, stress data.
MAIN
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
TABLES
NEW
1 INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
ADD POINT
0, 0 <cr>
0.30, 0.7524 <cr>
0.50, 1.1695 <cr>
SAVE

Model 5: Viscoelastic Curve Fit Chapter 6: Workshop Problems
Make the table type experimental_data, and associate this data with the
uniaxial button. Your screen should look similar to the one below, and we
are ready to start curve fitting the data.
TABLE TYPE
UNIAXIAL
table2

just uniaxial data. The compute button will compute the model
coefficients. By default, responses for many modes are plotted. The single
neo-Hookean coefficient, C10, is 0.542. Notice that the model’s uniaxial
response does not exactly match the data.
ELASTOMERS
NEO-HOOKEAN
UNIAXIAL
COMPUTE, APPLY, OK
SCALE AXES

Comments:
For simplicity, we have fit a neo-Hookean model using only uniaxial data.
All of the previously discussed issues regarding using only one mode of
deformation still apply here! We are simply ignoring them for purposes of
this exercise.
We have used the first data point from the stress relaxation test to define
our “instantaneous” or short time behavior. We could have used data from
a separate simple tension test (non-relaxation), but this would add to our
uncertainty. Test sample differences (cure, preconditioning, etc.), test
strain-rate differences, and other such influences may cause correlation
difficulties.
We have based our neo-Hookean model on both 30% and 50% strain data.
If we wanted near perfect correlation between one test and one analysis,
we could have based the neo-Hookean model on just the 50% strain test.
Now we are ready to read in one set of relaxation test data, curve fit, and
run our uniaxial stress relaxation analysis.

For the 50 durometer silicone rubber we have been using in this class, we
will perform 2 stress relaxation tests – one at 30% strain and at 50%
strain. For completeness, we show these two sets of data below.

Remember, that a key limitation of this large strain viscoelastic material

model is that it assumes the relaxation rate (and thus overall stress
relaxation at any time) is independent of the imposed strain. It would be
reasonable to check our test data to see if this material satisfies this
assumption. We do so by normalizing each dataset (the 30% and 50%
strain stress relaxation datasets) and plotting both. This has been done and
is shown below. Our 50 durometer silicone rubber satifies this assumption
nicely within this range of strain.
Q: What to do if your material shows markedly different relaxation rates
at different strain levels?

Continuing from our previous location in the menu hierarchy, we will

now read in one set of stress relaxation data. Choose the 50% strain data
(we have set up the analysis for 50% strain loading).
RETURN
TABLES
READ
RAW
FILTER: type *.data
pick file 50percent.data
COPY TO GEN. XY PLOTTER, RETURN (twice)
TABLE TYPE
ENERGY RELAX.
table3
ELASTOMERS
ENERGY RELAXATION
RELAXATION (on)
COMPUTE, OK
SCALE AXES
We have done this initial fit with the default of two terms in the prony
series. This is a pretty crude fit. A rule of thumb is to use as many terms
as there are time decades of data. We have 5 decades of data. Re-fit the
data using 3, then 4, then 5 terms and watch especially the relaxation
time values. Notice that finally you will have a relaxation time value in
each decade.

The final 5 term prony series fit will look like this. Note the coefficients
in the upper right portion of the screen. We are happy with this fit and are
ready to APPLY it to the current material definition.
From the menu shown below, do the following:
APPLY, OK

Comments:
We are now finished with the curve fitting portion of this viscoelastic
exercise. Let’s save our changes to the model and run the analysis.
SAVE
MAIN
JOBS
RUN
SUBMIT1
MONITOR
OK (when finished)

Now go to postprocessing and generate the engineering stress-time

relaxation curve. We will also save the analysis generated stress-time
curve to an external file for comparison to the test data.
MAIN
RESULTS
OPEN DEFAULT
HISTORY PLOT
COLLECT DATA
1 60 1 <cr>
NODE/VARIABLES
ADD GLOBAL CRV
Time
Force Z cbody2
FIT, RETURN
RETURN
SAVE type visco50.tab
This last command saves the table to an external file named visco50.tab
(.tab is just to remind us that it is table data).

We can now use the GENERALIZED XY PLOTTER to compare the

response with the data.
CLOSE
UTILS
GENERALIZED XY PLOT
DATA FIT (this get the data fit curves)

Instead of using the GENERALIZED XY PLOTTER, the two stress-

strain curves can be compared by using XMGR.
xmgr 50percent.data visco50.tab
A graphics screen will appear in which the experimental data is shown
in black and the analysis generated stress-time curve is shown in red
(and dashed). You will not see all the text labels.
Q: Why is there a difference between the two lines?

Q: Why is there a difference between the two lines?

A: Recall from (page 207) that the 5 term prony series fit the data
extremely well, the fit and data lines were virtually indistinguishable.
So why does the MSC.Marc result also not lie directly on top of the test
data? The difference is caused by the error in the instantaneous neo-
Hookean model. Remember (page 202) that the neo-Hookean model with
C10 = 0.542 did not pass exactly through the 50% strain point.
This error causes all the difference in the stress-time plot shown on the
previous page. To achieve a better correlation of MSC.Marc result to the
50% strain test data, base the neo-Hookean fit on just the 50% strain data.
Doing so gives a C10 = 0.554 and the MSC.Marc results will now match
the relaxation test data very closely.

Model 6: Volumetric Fit Chapter 6: Workshop Problems
Model 6: Volumetric Fit

Although the curve fit of this deformation mode ultimately establishes the
bulk modulus, it is the least significant test regarding the material
behavior since the estimated bulk modulus in Ogden fits is quite adequate.
The value of this workshop exercise is just knowing how to perform the fit
if required.
For historical reasons, the curve fitting in Mentat is based upon the
hydrostatic compression test (Chapter 5 on page 88) yet the actual test
performed is the confined compression test or univolumetric test
(Chapter 5 on page 87). Hence we will find that we need to adjust the
data to accommodate for this. The balance of the fitting is similar to all of
the other modes we have already performed; so let’s begin.
FILES
volumetric.mfd
OK
MAIN
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
UNIAXIAL
st (pick table st)
BIAXIAL
eb (pick table eb)
PLANAR SHEAR
ps (pick table ps)
ELASTOMERS
OGDEN
USE ALL DATA
COMPUTE, OK

Chapter 6: Workshop Problems Model 6: Volumetric Fit

SCALE AXES
DATA FIT PLOT
COPY TO GENERALIZED XY PLOTTER
RETURN (thrice)
1.571
0
0 9.1
(x.1)
uniaxial/experiment uniaxial/ogden
biaxial/experimen
t biaxial/ogden
planar_shear/experiment planar_shear/ogden
simple_shear/ogden
So far we have just fit the first three modes (uniaxial, biaxial and planar
shear) and now we will add the univolumetric data and fit. For your
convenience, the data tables are already in the model file and the
univolumetric data is contained in volume. Furthermore the “x axis” of
this table has been scaled by 1/3 and is in table eq_uni_volume. It is this
last table that we will use for the volumetric fit.

Model 6: Volumetric Fit Chapter 6: Workshop Problems

MATERIAL PROPERTIES
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
VOLUMETRIC
eq_uni_volume (pick table eq_uni_volume)
ELASTOMERS
OGDEN
USE ALL DATA
COMPUTE, OK
At this point it is worth mentioning that there is very little difference

between the two fits, with and without the volumetric data. Collecting the
Ogden coefficients for the two fits we have:
Without Volume Data With Volume Data
K 2999.9 2927.0
1, 1 -0.3819 -0.4784 -0.2004 -0.7464
2, 2 0.6830 1.4894 0.7043 1.4862
Remember that without the volume data, the bulk modulus, K, is

2
estimated as K = 2500  n n , which is very close to the measured

n=1
value using the volume data. Let’s see how the other modes are affected.
SCALE AXES
DATA FIT PLOT
COPY TO GENERALIZED XY PLOTTER

Chapter 6: Workshop Problems Model 6: Volumetric Fit

Removing all the experimental, simple shear, and volumetric curves from
the XY plotter we have:
1.097
0
0 9.1
X (x.1)
uniaxial/ogden biaxial/ogden
planar_shear/ogden uniaxial/ogden
biaxial/ogden planar_shear/ogden
that shows extremely little difference in the three basic strain states.

CHAPTER 7 Contact Analysis
This features allows for the automated

solution of problems where contact occurs
between deformable and rigid bodies. It
does not require special elements to be
placed at the points of contact. This contact
algorithm automatically detects nodes
entering contact and generates the
appropriate constraints to insure no
penetration occurs and maintains
compatibility of displacements across
touching surfaces.

Chapter 7: Contact Analysis Definition of Contact Bodies
Definition of Contact Bodies

Contact Body - Any group of
elements or geometric entities
that may contact themselves
or others.
Types of Contact Bodies:
Deformable – Collection of
elements. Rigid – Collection of
geometric entities or heat transfer
elements
Add elements to contact body,

here 90 elements are added to
contact body, cbody1.
Analytic contact may be used to
smooth facets of element edges
or faces.
By default Rigid bodies are
controlled with displacement,
unless specified here.
Geometric curves/surfaces have

to be properly oriented.

Definition of Contact Bodies Chapter 7: Contact Analysis
Definition of Contact Bodies (cont)

Contact Body – Any group of
elements or geometric entities that
may contact themselves or others.
Types of Contact Bodies:
Deformable – Collection of
elements. Rigid – Collection of
geometric entities or heat transfer
elements
Add elements to contact body, here 1
surface is added to body, cbody2.
This bodies position is controlled by
a table.

Chapter 7: Contact Analysis Control of Rigid Bodies
Control of Rigid Bodies

Rigid bodies can be controlled by their velocity, position, or load.
Prescribe translational and/or rotational velocity as a function

of time using a time table.
Prescribe position/rotation as a function of time.
Prescribe force on rigid body as a function of time:
define force on additional node
connect node to rigid contact body
motion of rigid contact body is in direction of applied force;
motion in perpendicular direction is constrained

Contact Procedure Chapter 7: Contact Analysis
Contact Procedure
Deformable to Rigid Body Contact
Case 1: Contact not detected when
Rigid Body
u A  n  D – d
(set of curves
Cases 2, 3: Contact detected when or surfaces)
u A  n – d  D
n
Case 4: Penetration detected when u A
u A  n  D + d
A D D
Deformable Body Case 1 2 3 4

(set of elements)
d
with:
u A :incremental displacement vector of node A
n : unit normal vector with proper orientation
D :contact distance (Default = h/20 or t/4)
F s :separation force (Default = Maximum Residual)
Case 1:Node A does not touch, no constraint applied.
Case 2:Node A is near rigid body within tolerance, contact constraint
pulls node to contact surface if F  F s .
Case 3:Node A penetrates within tolerance, contact constrain pushes
node to contact surface.
Case 4:Node A penetrates out of tolerance and increment gets split
(loads reduced) until no penetration.

Chapter 7: Contact Analysis Bias Factor
Bias Factor
By default, the contact tolerance is equally applied to both sides of a
segment; this can be changed by introducing a bias factor B ( 0  B  1 ):
D contact  1 – B 
D contact
D contact D contact  1 + B 
default with bias factor
Choosing B  0 may be useful to

• reduce increment splitting, since the distance to cause
penetration is increased
• improve accuracy, since the distance below which a
node comes into contact is reduced:
default with bias factor

Deformable-to-Deformable Contact Chapter 7: Contact Analysis
Deformable-to-Deformable Contact
Discrete deformable contact (default) is based on piecewise linear
geometry description of either 2-node edges in 2 dimensions or 4-node
faces in 3 dimensions on the outer surface of all contacting meshes.
actual geometry
finite element approximation
contacting body
contact tolerance
y A
x
contacted body
Then the contact constraint:

[ defines tying relation for displacement component of contacting
node in local y -direction
[ applies correction on position in local y -direction

Chapter 7: Contact Analysis Potential Errors due to Piecewise Linear Description:
Potential Errors due to Piecewise Linear

Description:
Tying relation may be not completely correct due to the assumption
that the normal direction is constant for a complete segment.
If contacting node slides from one segment to another, a
discontinuity in the normal direction may occur.
The correction on the position of the contacting node may be not
completely correct.
Analytical Deformable Contact Bodies:

Replace 2-node linear edges by cubic splines (2D) or 4-node
bi-linear patches by bi-cubic Coons surfaces (3D).
You must take care of nodes (2D) and edges (3D) where the outer
normal vector is discontinuous.
You may wish to use extended precision.
Advantages are smoother contact where in 2D, C 1-continuity is obtained,

and in 3D, at least pointwise C 1-continuity is obtained. Analytical
deformable contact must be turned on, whereas, rigid bodies default to
analytic contact where the curves or surfaces are represented as NURBS
during contact.

Contact Flowchart Chapter 7: Contact Analysis
Contact Flowchart
Input
Initial set up of contact bodies
Incremental data input
Check on contact
Set up of contact constraints

begin increment
Apply distributed loads

begin iteration
Assemble stiffness matrix; include friction
Apply contact constraints
Change Solve set of equations

contact
constraints Recover stresses
Update contact constraints

Split
increment No
“Converged” solution?
Yes
Yes
Separation?
No
Yes Penetration?
No
No
Last increment?
Yes
Stop

Chapter 7: Contact Analysis Symmetry Body
Symmetry Body
Symmetry bodies often provide an easy way to impose symmetry
conditions; they may be used instead of the TRANSFORMATION and
SERVO LINK options. A symmetry plane is characterized by a very high
separation force, so that only a movement tangential to the contact
segment is possible The symmetry plane option can only be invoked for
rigid surfaces
deformable_body
symmetry_plane_1
symmetry_plane_2
none

Rigid with Heat Transfer Chapter 7: Contact Analysis
Rigid with Heat Transfer

50
20o
R=6
billet 20
4.75 4
35 25
channel
Model 1: Deformable-rigid (stress or coupled analysis)
billet
channel
none
geometrical entities
(straight lines and a
circular arc)
MARC element 10 deformable-rigid (stress or coupled analysis)

Chapter 7: Contact Analysis Rigid with Heat Transfer
Model 2: Deformable-rigid (coupled analysis)
billet
channel Rigid w Heat Transfer

none
MARC element 40
MARC element 10 deformable-rigid (coupled a
Model 3: Deformable-deformable (stress or coupled analysis)
billet
channel
MARC element 10
none
MARC element 10 deformable-deformable (stress or coupled analysis)

Contact Table Chapter 7: Contact Analysis
Contact Table
3 2
Contact Table Properties:
Single-sided Contact:
Only body 2 may contact itself

Chapter 7: Contact Analysis Contact Table
Contact Table (cont)

Very useful for specifying parameters between contacting bodies.
Contact tables must be turned on initially in contact control, or during any

loadcase to become active. With no contact tables active, all bodies can
come into contact including self contact.

Contact Areas Chapter 7: Contact Analysis
Contact Areas
Very useful for defining certain nodes of a body that may enter contact.
Like contact tables, contact areas must be turned on initially in contact

control, or during any loadcase to become active. With no contact areas
active, all nodes of all bodies can come into contact.
Both contact table and contact areas can reduce the amount of node to
segment checking and can save compute time.

Chapter 7: Contact Analysis Exclude Segments During Contact Detection
Exclude Segments During Contact Detection

Exclude segment will influence the searching done for nodes detected in
the contact zone during self contact.
Contact table, contact

node and exclude affect
the initial search for
contact; once a node is in
contact, this is not undone
by these options.
Options to influence search for contact include:

Contact table: define which bodies can potentially come into
contact (defined per loadcase)
Contact node: define which nodes of a body can potentially come
into contact (defined per loadcase)
Single-sided contact: searching for contact is not done with
respect to bodies with a lower body number (defined for the
whole analysis)
Exclude: define which segments of a body can never be contacted
(defined per loadcase)

Effect Of Exclude Option: Chapter 7: Contact Analysis
Effect Of Exclude Option:
Standard contact
excluded segments
With exclude option

Chapter 7: Contact Analysis Contacting Nodes and Contacted Segments
Contacting Nodes and Contacted Segments

For 3D continua, an automatic check on the direction of the normal
vectors is included:
Contacting body nodes Contacted body patches
Contact will not be accepted if n node  n patch  0.05
Shell Thickness is taken into account

according to:
2D: one fourth of the shell thickness only if the body
is contacted.
3D: one fourth of the shell thickness for both the contacting
and the contacted body.

Friction Model Types Chapter 7: Contact Analysis
Friction Model Types

Friction coefficient is specified in contact body or contact table. Although,
the coefficient is entered a specific friction model type must be selected
for friction to be active.
.

Chapter 7: Contact Analysis Coulomb ArcTangent Friction Model
Coulomb ArcTangent Friction Model

Implementation of this friction model has been done using nonlinear
dashpots whose stiffness depend on the relative sliding velocity as:
slip Ft
stick
C vr
MARC approximation
slip
MSC.Marc approximation:
vr
F t  F n --- atan  ----
2
  C
with:
C :“relative sliding velocity below which sticking is simulated”
(Default = 1.0! is rarely correct)

Coulomb Bilinear Friction Model Chapter 7: Contact Analysis
Coulomb Bilinear Friction Model

Implementation of this friction model has been done using nonlinear
dashpots whose stiffness depend on the relative sliding velocity as:
slip Ft
stick
 ur
MARC approximation
slip
MSC.Marc approximation:
with:
 : slip threshold automatically set.
Friction force tolerance has a default value of 0.05.

Chapter 7: Contact Analysis Stick-Slip Friction Model
Stick-Slip Friction Model

Discovered by Leonardo da Vinci in the 15th century and verified by
experiments by Charles A. Coulomb in the 18th century, this stick-slip
friction model uses a penalty method to describe the step function of
Columb’s Law.
Ft
F n
F n
2
2
u t
with:
F t  F n static , F t  F n kinetic
u t :incremental tangential displacement
–6
 : slip to stick transition region (default 1 10
 : coefficient multiplier (default 1.05)
e : friction force tolerance (default 0.05)
–6
 : small constant, so that   0 (fixed at 1 10 )

Glued Contact Chapter 7: Contact Analysis
Glued Contact
Sometimes a complex body can be split up into parts which can be
meshed relatively easy:
* define each part as a contact body
* invoke the glue option (CONTACT TABLE) to obtain tying
equations not only normal but also tangential to contact segments
* enter a large separation force
cbody 1
cbody 2
none
X Y
4

Chapter 7: Contact Analysis Glued Contact
Glued Contact (cont)

Gluing rigid to deformable bodies can help simulate testing because
testing of materials generally involves measuring the force and
displacement of the rigid grips. Here is an example of a planar tension
(planar shear) rubber specimen being pulled by two grips. The grip force
versus displacement curve is directly available on the post file and can be
compared directly to the force and displacement measured.

Release Option Chapter 7: Contact Analysis
Release Option
The release option provides the possibility to deactivate a contact body:
upon entering a body to be released, all nodes being in contact with
this body will be released. Using the release option e.g., a spring-
back effect can be simulated. Releasing nodes occurs at the
beginning of an increment. Make sure that the released body moves
away to avoid recontacting.
Interference Check / Interference Closure Amount

By means of the interference check, an initial overlap will be
removed at the beginning of increment 1.
By means of an interference closure amount, an overlap or a gap
between contacting bodies can be defined per increment:
* positive value: overlap
* negative value: gap

Chapter 7: Contact Analysis Forces on Rigid Bodies
Forces on Rigid Bodies

During the analysis rigid bodies have all forces and moments resolved to
a single point which is the centroid shown below.
This makes rigid bodies useful to monitor the force versus displacement
behavior as shown at the right.
Body 3 Force Y

Forces on Rigid Bodies Chapter 7: Contact Analysis
Forces on Rigid Bodies (cont)

Vector plotting External Force will show the forces at each node resulting
from the contact constraints.

Chapter 7: Contact Analysis Forces on Rigid Bodies

APPENDIX A The Mechanics of Elastomers
The macroscopic behavior of elastomers

depends greatly upon the deformation
states because the material is nearly
incompressible.

Appendix A: The Mechanics of Elastomers Deformation States
Deformation States
L1 t3
t2
L3
1 L1
t1 3 L3 t1
L2 2 L2
t2
t3
Stretch ratios:
L i + L i
 i = -------------------
- = 1+ engineering strain =  L i  L i  = 
Li
Incompressibility:
1 2 3 = 1
First order approximation (Neo-Hookean):

1 2 2 2
W = --- G   1 +  2 +  3 – 3 
2
Eliminate  3 :
1  2 2 1 
W = --- G   1 +  2 + ----------- – 3
2   
2 2

1 2

Deformation States Appendix A: The Mechanics of Elastomers
Two-dimensional extension:
F2
F1 dL 2
L2 F1
L1 dL 1
F2
dW = F 1 dL 1 + F 2 dL 2 =  1 d 1 +  2 d 2
W W
dW = --------- d 1 + --------- d 2
 1  2
 1   1 
Hence:  1 = G   1 – ----------- ,  2 = G   2 – ----------- ,
 3 2
 1  2   1  2
2 3
3 = 0
Engineering stresses  i : forces per unit undeformed area
True stresses t i : forces per unit deformed area

Appendix A: The Mechanics of Elastomers Deformation States
Two-dimensional extension:
t1 = 1   2 3  = 1 1
or:
2 2
t1 = G  1 – 3 
and:
2 2
t2 = G  2 – 3 
t3 = 0
Constant volume implies that a hydrostatic pressure p cannot have

an effect on the state of strain, so that the stresses are
indeterminate to the extent of the hydrostatic pressure

Deformation States Appendix A: The Mechanics of Elastomers
(Nearly) incompressible material:
Bulk Modulus K 21 + 

------------------------------------------ = ------------------------
Shear Modulus G 3  1 – 2 
1 K
  --- , hence ----  
2 G
Ordinary solid (e.g. steel): G and K are the same order of

magnitude. Whereas, in rubber the ratio of G to K is of the order
–4
10 ; hence the response to a stress is effectively determined
solely by the shear modulus G

Appendix A: The Mechanics of Elastomers General Formulation of Elastomers
General Formulation of Elastomers

Material points in undeformed configuration: X i ; material points
in deformed configuration: x i
Lagrange description:
xi = xi  Xj 
x
dx i = F ij dX j with F ij = --------i
X j
F ij is the deformation gradient tensor
Green-Lagrange strain tensor:

2 2
 dx  –  dX  = 2E ij dX i dX j
Right Cauchy-Green strain tensor:

2
 dx  = C ij dX i dX j
Some additional relations:

C ij =  ij + 2E ij
x k x k
C ij = -------- -------- = F ki F kj
X i X j
x k x k
1--- -------
E ij = - -------- –  ij = 1
---  F ki F kj –  ij 
2 X i X j 2

General Formulation of Elastomers Appendix A: The Mechanics of Elastomers
Introduce displacement vector u i :
xi = Xi + ui
1
E ij = ---  u i j + u j i + u k i u k j 
2
C ij =   ki + u k i    kj + u k j 
With respect to principal directions:
2
1 0 0
2
C i'j' = 0 2 0
2
0 0 3
Invariants of C ij :
I 1 = C ii
1
I 2 = ---  C ii C jj – C ij C ij 
2
I 3 = det C ij
Strain energy function:

*
W = W  I 1 I 2  + h  I 3 – 1 

Appendix A: The Mechanics of Elastomers General Formulation of Elastomers
Second-Piola Kirchhoff stresses:
W W I 3
S ij = 2 --------  ij + 2 --------   ij C kk – C ij  + 2h ----------
I 1 I 2 C ij
True or Cauchy stresses:


t ij = -----   ik + u i k S kl   jl + u j l 
0
Zero deformation:
W W
S ij =  2 -------- + 2h  ij
0 0 0
+ 4 --------
 I 1 I 2 
hence:
W 0 W 0
p = – 2 -------- –4 -------
- – 2h
I 1 I 2
so that the stresses can be expressed in terms of displacements

and the hydrostatic pressure

Finite Element Formulation Appendix A: The Mechanics of Elastomers
Finite Element Formulation

Modified virtual work equation:
 Sij Eij dV –  Qi ui dV – - Ti ui dA +    I3 – 1  dV = 0

V V A V
In addition to the displacements, within an element we need to

interpolate the pressure:
 
ui  Xi  =  N  Xi ui and p  Xi  =  h  Xi p
 
The incremental stresses are related to the linear strain

n - n –1
increment by: S ij = D ijkl E kl – p  C ij 
The incremental set of equations to be solved reads:
0 1  
K +K  –  H  u = P–R
T  
– H  0 p g
with:
0
K  : the linear stiffness matrix
1
K  : the geometric stiffness matrix
 H  : the nodal pressure coupling matrix
P : nodal load vector
R : internal stress vector
g : vector quantity representing the incompressibility constraint

Appendix A: The Mechanics of Elastomers Large Strain Viscoelasticity
Large Strain Viscoelasticity

The behavior of rubber is in most cases considered to be time independent
elastic. This approximation is no longer valid, if specific hysteresis effects
need to be taken into account. The theory of linear visco-elasticity cannot
be applied directly since there is no linear relation between the applied
strain and the resulting stress. Various forms are proposed in literature to
describe nonlinear visco-elasticity.
In MSC.Marc, a rather simple form, based on an extension of the elastic
energy function as proposed by Simo, is used. The model is based in the
observation that for short time loading more energy is required then in a
long term loading. Also if one loads at a high rate and keeps the
deformation constant for a specific period of time, part of the elastic
energy is released.
Large Strain Viscoelasticity based on Energy

For an elastomeric time independent material the constitutive equation is
expressed in terms of an energy function W. For a large strain visco-elastic
material Simo generalized the small strain visco-elasticity material
behavior to a large strain visco-elastic material using the energy function.
The energy functional is now a time dependent function and is written in
the following form:
N

n 0 n
W  E ij ,Q ij  = W  E ij  – Q ij E ij
n=1

Large Strain Viscoelasticity based on Energy Appendix A: The Mechanics of Elastomers
n
where E ij are the components of the Green-Lagrange strain tensor, Q ij
0
internal variables and W the elastic strain energy density for
instantaneous deformation.
0
In MSC.Marc, it is assumed that W is the energy density for
instantaneous deformations is given by the third order James Green and
Simpson form, or the energy function as defined by Ogden.
The components of the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress then follow from:
N
0
W = W
 Qij
n
S ij = --------- ---------- –
E ij E ij
n=1
The energy function can also be written in terms of the long term moduli
n
resulting in a different set of internal variables T ij :
N


n n
W  E ij T ij  = W  E ij  + T ij E ij
n=1

where W is the elastic strain energy for long term deformations. Using
this energy definition the stresses are obtained from:
N

W  E 
 Tij
n
S ij = -------------------- +
E ij
n=1

Appendix A: The Mechanics of Elastomers Large Strain Viscoelasticity based on Energy
Observing the similarity with the equations for small strain visco-
elasticity the internal variables can be obtained from a convolution
expression:
t
n .
 ij
n n
T ij = S    exp  –  t –      d
0
where S nij are internal stresses following from the time dependent part of
the energy functions.
n
= W
n
S ij ----------
E ij
Let the total strain energy be expressed as a Prony series expansion:

N


n n
W = W + W exp  – t   
n=1
Observing the difficulty in finding accurate expressions for the multiaxial

aspect of the elastic energy in time independent rubber a further
simplification is used. We assume that the energy expression for each term
0
is of similar form to the short time elastic energy W and only different by
n 0
a scalar multiplier W = W .
This equation can now be rewritten as:

N


n 0 n
W = W + W exp  – t   
n=1

Large Strain Viscoelasticity based on Energy Appendix A: The Mechanics of Elastomers
where  n is a scalar multiplier for the energy function based on the short
term values.
The stress strain relation is now given by:
N


n
S ij  t  = S ij  t  + T ij  t 
n=1
  N  0
 W  n W
S ij = ----------- = 1 –   ----------
E ij   E ij
 n=1 
t
n 0 .

n n
T ij =  S ij  t  exp  –  t –      d
0
Analogue to the derivation for small strain visco-elasticity, a recurrent

relation can be derived expressing the stress increment as a function of the
strain increment and the internal stresses at the start of the increment:
N


n
S ij  t m  = S ij  t m  + S ij  t m 
n=1
  
S ij  t m  = S ij  t m  – S ij  t m 
N

n n n n n n
S ij  t m  =   h   S ij  t m  – S ij  t m – h   –  h S ij  t m – h 
n=1

Appendix A: The Mechanics of Elastomers Large Strain Viscoelasticity based on Energy
The functions  and  are a function of the time step h in the time
interval t m – 1 t m  :
n n
  h  = 1 – exp  – h   
n
n 
n
  h  =   h   -----
h
The equations above are based on the long term moduli. Since in the
MSC.Marc program always the instantaneous values of the energy
function are given on the MOONEY option, the equations are reformulated
in terms of the short time values of the energy function:
N

n n 0 0
S ij  t m  = 1 –  1 –   h   S ij  t m  – S ij  t m – h 
n=1

n n
–  S ij  t m – h 
n=1
n n n 0 n
S ij  t m  =   h   S ij  t m  – S ij  t m – h  
n n
–   h S ij  t m – h 
It is assumed that the visco-elastic behavior in MSC.Marc acts only on the

deviatoric behavior. The incompressible behavior is taken into account
using special Herrmann elements.

Illustration of Large Strain Viscoelastic Behavior Appendix A: The Mechanics of Elastomers
Illustration of Large Strain Viscoelastic Behavior

A large strain visco-elastic material is characterized by the following time
dependent elastic energy function:
N


n n
Wt = W + W exp  – t   
n=1
 n
where W is the energy function for very slow processes. W is an extra
amount of energy necessary for time dependent processes. To each
amount W n , a characteristic time is associated.
At time zero (or for time processes: t   n ), the elastic energy reduces to:
N

W
0 n
W0 = W = W +
n=1
If we assume that the energy function for each time dependent part is
different only by a scalar constant:
n n 0
W =  W
the equations reduce to:

N  N 
= 1 –    W
 

0 0 n n 0
W = W +W  or W
 
n=1  n=1 

Appendix A: The Mechanics of Elastomers Illustration of Large Strain Viscoelastic Behavior
The time dependent energy is then given by:

N N
 
0 0 n 0 n n
Wt = W – W +W exp  – t   
n=1 n=1
N

0 n n
= W 1–   1 – exp  – t    
n=1
If we restrict ourselves for simplicity of the discussion to the case N = 1

we have:
 0
W =  1 –  W
0 n
W  t  = W  1 –   1 – exp  – t     

APPENDIX B Elastomeric Damage Models
Under repeated application of loads,

elastomers undergo damage by
mechanisms involving chain breakage,
multi-chain damage, micro-void formation,
and micro-structural degradation due to
detachment of filler particles from the
network entanglement. Two types of
phenomenological models namely,
discontinuous and continuous, exists to
simulate the phenomenon of damage.

Appendix B: Elastomeric Damage Models Discontinuous Damage Model
Discontinuous Damage Model

Discontinuous damage denotes the phenomenon where progressively
increasing strain levels, the material regains its original stiffness (as in
a single pull) until subsequent reloading as shown in the stress-strain
plot below.
Strain History
For Discontinuous Damage
1.0
0.8
Engineering Strain
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0
Time
The higher the maximum attained strain, the larger is the loss of stiffness
upon reloading. Hence, there is a progressive stiffness loss with increasing
maximum strain amplitude. Also, most of the stiffness loss takes place in
the few earliest cycles provided the maximum strain level is not increased.
This phenomenon is found in both filled as well as natural rubber although
the higher levels of carbon black particles increase the hysteresis and the
loss of stiffness.

Discontinuous Damage Model Appendix B: Elastomeric Damage Models
The free energy, W, can be written as

0
W = K    W
0
where W is the nominal (undamaged) strain energy function, and
0
 = max  W 
determines the evolution of the discontinuous damage. The reduced

form of Clausius-Duhem dissipation inequality yields the stress as:
0
W
S = 2K   ,  ----------
C
Mathematically, the discontinuous damage model has a structure very
similar to that of strain space plasticity. Hence, if a damage surface is
defined as:
 = W–0
The loading condition for damage can be expressed in terms of the Kuhn-
Tucker conditions:
· ·
0 0  = 0
The consistent tangent can be derived as:

2 0 0 0
 W K W W
C = 4 K --------------- + ---------0- ----------  ----------
CC W C C

The parameters required for the damage model can be obtained using the
experimental data fitting option MSC.Marc Mentat. To calibrate the
Kachanov factor for the discontinuous damage mode, one measures at a
stretch amplitude  0 , the stress level. A loading history is thus:
 



 
 
 
time 

The model is hyperelastic and assumes that unloading from say state 2 to
the undeformed state, and subsequent reloading, occur along the same
path. Viscoelastic effects tend to cause the reloading path to reside above
the unloading path. Secondary damage effects tend to cause the reloading
path to reside below the unloading path. We will now examine the stress-
strain plot closely.

Discontinuous Damage Model Appendix B: Elastomeric Damage Models
A procedure to get the discontinuous damage increasing strain table is

shown below. The bottom curve is used to compute the damage
parameters in MSC.Marc Mentat using a Prony series.

na

3a

2a
1
2

n

1
1 = ---
- 1 = 
 1
1a
w
ia
 1
---   ,S i =
2 ia ia
1 2 3n

----2 w
ia
 1--2- ia ia ,S i = 1 2 3n

1

n
----

1
 w1 a   w 2a   wn a 
 --------- – 1  ---------- – 1  ---------- – 1
 w1   w2   wn 

The results from the analysis show how the damage model works below.
0.4165
0
0.6
0

Continuous Damage Model Appendix B: Elastomeric Damage Models
Continuous Damage Model

The continuous damage model can simulate the damage accumulation for
strain cycles for which the values of effective energy is below the
maximum attained value of the past history as shown below:
Tensile Data
Continuous Damage
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
This model can be used to simulate fatigue behavior. More realistic

modeling of fatigue would require a departure from the phenomenological
approach to damage. The evolution of continuous damage parameter is
governed by the arc length of the effective strain energy as:
t
- 0
 =  ------
s
W  s  ds
0

Appendix B: Elastomeric Damage Models Continuous Damage Model
Hence,  accumulates continuously within the deformation process. The

Kachanov factor K     is implemented in MSC.Marc through both an
additive as well as a multiplicative decomposition of these two effects as:
2 2
 
exp  – ------ + d m exp  – ------
  
K     = d +  dn   n    m
n=1 m=1
2
   +  n 
K     = d +  d n exp – -------------------
 n 
n=1
You specify the phenomenological parameters d n  d n  n  m d m  n , while


d is enforced to be such that at zero damage, K assumes a value of 1.
To calibrate the Kachanov factor for the continuous damage mode, one
applies the following loading history to get the input file shown.

1 2 3 4  1
 W1
2

time
For the MSC.Marc

Mentat implementation,

the user needs to know 1 
the value of the Free
Energy Function at 2 
point 1, W1.

Continuous Damage Model Appendix B: Elastomeric Damage Models
Below is a sample of the continuous damage simulation using a 1-term

Ogden model superimposed onto the original data.
Tensile Simulation - Continuous Damage

1-Term Ogden and Original Data
1.0 1-Term Ogden

Original Data
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
The above damage model is available for deviatoric behavior and is

flagged by means of the OGDEN and DAMAGE model definition options.
If, in addition, viscoelastic behavior is desired, the VISCELOGDEN option
can be included. Finally, a user subroutine UELDAM can be used to
define damage functions different from the above.

Appendix B: Elastomeric Damage Models Continuous Damage Model

APPENDIX C Aspects of Rubber Foam Models
Elastomeric foams (e.g., rubber foam) are

widely used in industry. They exhibit linear
elasticity at low stress followed by a long
collapse plateau, truncated by a regime of
densification in which the stress rises
steeply. Furthermore, when loading is
compressive, the plateau is associated with
the collapse of the cells by elastic buckling.
Unlike conventional rubber, foam can
undertake large amounts of volumetric
compression.

Appendix C: Aspects of Rubber Foam Models Theoretical Background
Theoretical Background
Foams and convention rubber behave differently in tension and
compression, with foams have a much larger difference as shown in
the figure below:
Cell Wall Alignment
 cr
Plateau
(Elastic Buckling)
Densification
Elastomer foams are modeled as a compressible Ogden Model with

the strain energy density of:
N N
     
W =  -----n-   1 n +  2 n +  3 n – 3  +
n  -----n  1 – J n 
n
n=1 n=1
 i ,  i and  i are material constants and J is defined as
J = 1 2 3 .

Theoretical Background Appendix C: Aspects of Rubber Foam Models
The last term of the strain energy equation is the volumetric change,
which can be as high as 90% engineering strain for foams in compression.
For  i = 0 , there are no lateral effects. For the general theory of isotropic
elasticity to be consistent with the classical theory in the linear
approximation, the strain-energy function W = W   1 , 2 , 3  must satisfy:
W  1 ,1 ,1  = 0
W
 1 ,1 ,1  = 0 ,i = 1 2 3
 i
2
W
 1 ,1 ,1  =  + 2 ij , i j  = 1 2 3
  i  j
Where  , and  are Lame’s constants. The initial bulk modulus K and
the shear modulus G can be derived from the above as:
1 1
K = ---   i   i – 3 i  G = ---   i  i
3 2
i i
The initial Poisson’s ratio can be derived from above as:

–i
 =   i – 2i -
-----------------------
i

Appendix C: Aspects of Rubber Foam Models Theoretical Background
Blatz and Ko proposed a material model for rubber foams with the strain
energy function defined as:
– 2
1 – 2  1 – 2 
---------------
f
W = ----- I 1 – 3 + ---------------  I 3 – 1 +
2   
– 2
 1 – f 1 – 2  --------------
1 – 2
-  
 ------------------
- I – 3 + --------------
-  I – 1 
 2
2   3  
where:
2 2 2
I1 = 1 + 2 + 3
–2 –2 –2
I2 = 1 + 2 + 3
2 2 2
I3 = 1 2 3
By using the two-term MSC.Marc foam model, the generalized

compressible Ogden model can be reduced to the Blatz-Ko model.
For temperature effects, the thermal principal stretches follow the
temperature and the isotropic thermal expansion coefficient.
The thermal principal stretches are defined as:
T
 = 1 + T ,i = 1 2 3
i

Theoretical Background Appendix C: Aspects of Rubber Foam Models
The total Lagrange method with conventional elements is used in

MSC.Marc for the foam model. The virtual work equation can be
formulated as:
 Sij Eij dV –  Qi ui dV – - Ti ui dA = 0

V V A
where S ij , is the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor, E ij is the Green-

Lagrange strain tensor, Q i is the body force per unit undeformed volume,
and T i is the prescribed surface tractions per unit undeformed area. All
elements in MSC.Marc except Herrmann elements and be used in the
foam model.

Appendix C: Aspects of Rubber Foam Models Measuring Material Constants
Measuring Material Constants

Currently, only uniaxial testing is available in the experimental curve
fitting option in MSC.Marc Mentat. An engineering stress,  1 , and
engineering strain with corresponding stretch,  1 , table can then be
constructed from specimen measurements. The material constants are
found to satisfy the following two equations:
i  i  
1 =  1-   1 – J i
----
i
1---  – 1---
 – 1 1---
2 i   2
 ----
J-
 i
i 2
0 = –J 1
  1
i
The specimen should be measured at different load levels. This makes a

table of stress, strain, and cross sectional area for these load levels.

APPENDIX D Biaxial & Compression Testing
Equibiaxial Stretching of Elastomeric

Sheets, An Analytical Verification of
Experimental Technique
by:
Jim Day, GM Powertrain
Kurt Miller, Axel Products, Inc.

Appendix D: Biaxial & Compression Testing Abstract
Abstract
Constitutive models for hyperelastic materials may require multiple
complimentary strain states to get an accurate representation of the
material. One of these strain states is pure compression. Uniaxial
compression testing in the laboratory is inaccurate because small amounts
of friction between the specimen and the loading fixture cause a mixed
state of compressive, shear, and tensile strain.
Since uniaxial compression can also be represented by equibiaxial
tension, a test fixture was developed to obtain compressive strain by
applying equibiaxial tensile loads to circular sheets while eliminating the
errors due to friction. This paper outlines an equibiaxial experiment of
elastomeric sheets while providing analytical verification of its accuracy.
Figure 1. Biaxial Stretching Apparatus

Introduction Appendix D: Biaxial & Compression Testing
Introduction
Constitutive models for hyperelastic materials are developed from strain
energy functions and require nominal stress vs. nominal strain data to fit
most models available. In general, it is desirable to represent the three
major strain states which are:
uniaxial tension, uniaxial compression, and planar shear.
If compressibility is a concern, then bulk compressibility information is
also recommended. The uniaxial tension strain state is easily obtained and
the planar shear test can be performed using a planar tension test with
excellent, repeatable accuracy.
However, the uniaxial compression test is difficult to perform without
introducing other strain states that will affect the accuracy. The main
cause of the inaccuracy is the friction between the specimen and the
loading platens. The friction can also vary as the compressive load
(normal force) increases.
To characterize the friction effect, an analysis of a standard ASTM D395,
type 1 button under uniaxial compression loading was performed. A plot
of compressive stress vs. compressive strain with varying coefficients of
friction shows the variation caused by friction (see “Attachment A:
Compression Analysis” on page 292).
The analysis of the standard button indicates that for small levels of
friction the deviation from the pure uniaxial compressive strain state
causes significant errors. An equibiaxial testing fixture is examined to
determine if a pure compressive strain could be obtained accurately
because an equibiaxial tension state of strain is equivalent to an uniaxial
compressive strain.

Appendix D: Biaxial & Compression Testing Introduction
The equibiaxial straining apparatus described in this paper also has other
advantages with respect to specimen availability and load control. These
advantages include:
1. Achieving a strain condition equivalent to simple compression
while avoiding the inherent experimental errors associated with
compression.
2. Being able to perform strain and load control experiments as
well as look at equilibrium behavior.
3. Testing on readily available test slabs.
4. Performing a test at the loading rates equivalent to tension and
shear loading rates.
Several other experimental approaches to the biaxial straining of

elastomers have been developed. In general, two approaches have
been used.
The first involves the expansion of a thin elastomer membrane using
air pressure. Strain control is difficult to obtain with this procedure
making it difficult to create conditions that compliment the other
strains states required to get a full set of data for fitting hyperelastic
constitutive equations. The other problem is that the thickness of the
sheets needs to be much thinner than the typical sheet thickness that
is created.
The second approach involves the gripping of a rectangular
specimen around the perimeter and stretching the specimen with
multiple arms or cable bearing systems. This approach has been
used with great success by several investigators. Difficulties arise
with the measurement of strain and the calculation of stress. The
advantage of this approach is that while somewhat complex, it

Overall Approach Appendix D: Biaxial & Compression Testing
allows the investigator to examine elastomer deformation in

unequal biaxial deformation states. Since the objectives herein do
not involve the need for unequal biaxial straining, the mechanical
aspects of the experimental approach can be greatly simplified and
the relations between forces and stresses in the specimen can be
ascertained with greater certainty by restricting the apparatus to
equal biaxial straining.
Overall Approach
The overall approach is to strain a circular specimen radially.
Constant stress and strain around the periphery of the disk will create an
equibiaxial state of stress and strain in the disk independent of thickness
or radial position.

Appendix D: Biaxial & Compression Testing The Experimental Apparatus
The Experimental Apparatus

Applying Radial Forces
In the apparatus, 16 small grips mechanically attach to the perimeter of an

elastomer disk using spring force attachment. The grips are moved
radially outward by pulling with thin flexible cables which are redirected
around pulleys to a common loading plate (Figure 1 on page 278). When
the loading plate is moved all of the attachment points move equally in a
radial direction and a state of equal biaxial strain is developed in the
center of the disk shaped specimen, Figure 2.
Figure 2. Biaxial Apparatus Schematic

The Experimental Apparatus Appendix D: Biaxial & Compression Testing
The Specimen
The actual shape of the specimen is not a simple disk as shown in

Figure 3. There are radial cuts introduced into the disc specimen so that
there are no tangential forces between the grips. This is necessary because
the grips are not attached to the outer edge of the specimen. They are
attached to the top and bottom surfaces of the specimen which does not
allow material to flow within the grip. Small holes are introduced at the
ends of the radial cuts so that the specimen is less likely to tear.
Figure 3. Biaxial Test Specimen Outline

Appendix D: Biaxial & Compression Testing The Experimental Apparatus
Strain Measurement
The relationship between grip travel and actual straining in the center area
of the specimen is not known with certainty because of the unknown
strain field around the grips and the compliance that may exist in the
loading cables and the material flowing from the grips. To determine the
strain, a laser non contacting extensometer is used to measure the strain on
the surface of the specimen away from the grips.
Force Measurement
The total force transmitted by the 16 grips to the common loading plate is
measured using a strain gage load cell.
Relating Force Measured to Stress: The nominal equibiaxial stress
contained inside the specimen inner diameter (Di) is calculated as follows:
 = F   D i t 
where: Di = Diameter as measured between punched holes

F = Sum of radial forces
t = Original thickness
 = Engineering stress

Analytical Verification Appendix D: Biaxial & Compression Testing
Analytical Verification
Once the closed form solution has shown that a circular disk pulled with a
uniform circumferential load produces a biaxial stress and strain field we
then need to verify that pulling the disk from 16 discrete grip locations is
an acceptable approximation.
The following analytical procedure will examine the effects of the
boundary conditions imposed by the experimental approach on the ideal
closed form solution. The experimental aspects of concern are:
A. The specimen is not gripped continually around the
circumference.
B. Cuts are introduced between the grips that alter the strain field.
C. The relationship between force and stress is based on the
“inside” diameter indicated in Figure 3.
First finite element analysis is used to verify the closed form solution on a
representative specimen model. The following steps will show how the
proposed specimen will be compared to the closed form solution.

Appendix D: Biaxial & Compression Testing Analytical Verification
Closed Form Solution Comparison
The disk specimen finite element model used to verify the closed form
solution is shown in Figure 4. Radial loads are applied at every node
around the perimeter.
Figure 4. FEA model of uncut specimen with radial loads applied at

every perimeter node.
The nominal finite element stress calculated within each element was
compared to the stress calculated with the formula below and found to be
equivalent.
 = F   Dt 
where: D = Original outside diameter

F = Sum of radial forces
t = Original thickness
 = Engineering stress
This formula can now be used in a testing environment since all the
parameters are known.

Analysis of the Experimental Condition
The next step needs to show that using a cut specimen with 16 grips (FEA
model shown in Figure 5) will accurately represent the “ideal” loading
condition of the previous finite element analysis.
Figure 5. FEA model of specimen with slits and punched holes,

radial loads applied at 16 grip locations.
The original outside diameter used in the above stress formula will be
equal to the diameter measured at the inside edges of the punched holes at
the ends of the radial slits between the grips. For the proposed
configuration, this dimension is 50 mm.

A deformed shape sequence of this configuration under loads is shown

in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Specimen Deformed Shape
A nominal stress vs. nominal strain comparison of this configuration vs.

FEA “closed form” results is shown for two hyperelastic material
representations.

The first (Figure 7) represents a simple 2nd order polynomial

approximation and the second (Figure 8) represents an Ogden 5-term
approximation. Both show excellent correlation between the proposed test
configuration and the theoretical results.
Figure 7. 2nd Order Polynomial Fit
Figure 8. 5-term Ogden Fit

Summary
The equibiaxial experiment as proposed in this paper does an excellent job

of obtaining the pure strain state required for hyperelastic constitutive
models. The error due to the boundary condition approximations are small
but consistent as opposed to the uniaxial compression test where the
experimental error depends on friction which is unknown and varies as a
function of the test material and the normal force. The testing done in this
manner can provide excellent consistent and accurate compression strain
states while using standard ASTM slabs and a minor amount of specimen
preparation to perform.

References Appendix D: Biaxial & Compression Testing
References
1. Kao, B. G. and Razgunas, L.,”On the Determination of Strain Energy
Functions of Rubbers”, SAE Paper 860816, (1986)
2. Treloar, L. R. G., “Stresses and Birefringence in Rubber Subjected to
General Homogeneous Strain,” Proc. Phys. Soc., London, 60, 135-144
(1948)
3. Rivlin, R. S. and Saunders, D. W., “Large Elastic Deformations of Isotropic
Materials, VII, Experiments on the Deformation of Rubber,” Phil. Trans.
Roy. Soc., London, 243 (Pt. A), 251-288 (1951)
4. Zapas, L. J., “Viscoelastic Behaviour Under Large Deformations,” J. Res.
Natl. Bureau of Standards, 70A (6), 525-532 (1966)
5. Blatz, P. J. and Ko, W. L., “Application of Finite Elastic Theory to the
Deformation of Rubbery Materials,” Trans. Soc. Rheol., 6, 223-251 (1962)
6. Ko, W. L., “Application of Finite Elastic Theory to the Behavior of
Rubberlike Materials.” PhD Thesis, California Ins. Tech., Pasadena,
California (1963)
7. Hutchinson, W. D., Becker, G. W. and Landel, R. F., “Determination of the
Strain Energy Function of Rubberlike Materials,” Space Prams Summary
No. 37-31, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, IV, 34-38
(Feb. 1965)
8. Becker, G. W., “On the Phenomenological Description of the Nonlinear
Deformation Behavior of Rubber-like High Poymers,” Jnl Polymer Sci.,
Part C (16), 2893-2903 (1967)
9. Obata, Y., Kawabata, S. and Kawai, H., “Mechanical Properties of Natural
Rubber Vulcanizates in Finite Deformation,” J. Polymer Sci. (Part A-2), 8,
903-919 (1970)
10. Burr, A., Mechanical Analysis and Design, Elsevier, New York, 1981, p.315
11. Timoshinko, S.P., Goodier, J.N., Theroy of Elasticity, p 69, 3rd Ed, McGraw
hill, New York, 1951
12. ABAQUS v5.8 User’s Manual Vol. 1, Section10.5.1

Appendix D: Biaxial & Compression Testing Attachment A: Compression Analysis
Attachment A: Compression Analysis

The effect of friction between the compression loading platens and the
specimen under test is examined analytically. The ASTM D395, type 1
button which is used in ASTM 575 Standard Test Methods for Rubber
Properties in Compression was modeled and analytically strained. The
coefficient of friction was altered to see the effect of friction on the
resulting stress-strain data.

Attachment A: Compression Analysis Appendix D: Biaxial & Compression Testing
A coefficient of friction value of zero corresponds to a perfect state of

simple uniaxial compression (Figures A1 and A2). From the analysis, one
can conclude even very small levels of friction significantly effect the
measured stiffness and this effect is apparent at both low and high strains.
Figures A1 and A2 Friction Effects on Stress

Appendix D: Biaxial & Compression Testing Attachment A: Compression Analysis

APPENDIX E Xmgr – a 2D Plotting Tool
ACE/gr is a 2D plotting tool for X Window

System. It uses an Motif based user
interface, which is the reason why it’s also
known as Xmgr.
For more detail see:
http://plasma-gate.weizmann.ac.il/Xmgr/

Appendix E: Xmgr – a 2D Plotting Tool Features of ACE/gr
Features of ACE/gr
• User defined scaling, tick marks, labels, symbols, line styles, colors.
• Batch mode for unattended plotting.
• Read and write parameters used during a session.
• Regressions, splines, running averages, DFT/FFT, cross/auto-
correlation, . . .
• Support for dynamic module loading.
• Hardcopy support for PostScript, HP-GL, FrameMaker, and
InterLeaf formats.
An example of ACE/gr is shown below:

Using ACE/gr Appendix E: Xmgr – a 2D Plotting Tool
Using ACE/gr
The use of ACE/gr or xmgr will be to read in from a file existing xy data
(Block Data) and overlay plots. To read in block data click on File, and
select Read, then Block Data. This brings up the file browser below:
Here you can select the data you have stored from test data or MSC.Marc
Mentat history plots. Let’s suppose that we have two Block Data files that
look like:
file1 file2
0 1 0 1.1382
1.66667 3.77778 1.66667 3.39864
3.33333 12.1111 3.33333 10.1483
5 26 5 30.3025

Appendix E: Xmgr – a 2D Plotting Tool Using ACE/gr
Using the file browser, select file1 and identify from which column you
want x and y to come from in the menu below:
Pick x column
Pick y column
Clicking Accept will bring in the first curve then autoscale by picking the
icon below:
Pick this to Auto

Scale the plot.

Using ACE/gr Appendix E: Xmgr – a 2D Plotting Tool
Here is the resulting plot:
Title Area
Y-Axis Area
X-Axis Area
To place symbols on the plot, simply click on a curve and select a symbol
desired. To place a Title or Axis Labels, click in the Title area or Axis
area and fill in the menu.

Appendix E: Xmgr – a 2D Plotting Tool ACE/gr Miscellaneous Plots
ACE/gr Miscellaneous Plots

Multiple Graphs:
Menus:

ACE/gr Miscellaneous Plots Appendix E: Xmgr – a 2D Plotting Tool
Axis Summary:
Symbol Summary:

Appendix E: Xmgr – a 2D Plotting Tool ACE/gr Miscellaneous Plots
Log Plots:
Bar Charts:

APPENDIX F Notes and Course Critique
The purpose of this appendix is to provide

blank pages for notes and a course critique.

Appendix F: Notes and Course Critique Notes
Notes

Notes Appendix F: Notes and Course Critique
Notes

Appendix F: Notes and Course Critique Notes
Notes

Notes Appendix F: Notes and Course Critique
Notes

Appendix F: Notes and Course Critique Course Critique
Course Critique
Please use this form to provide feedback on your training program. Your comments will be reviewed,
and when possible included in the remainder of your course.
Lecture Materials excellent average poor

Is the level of technical detail appropriate? _ _ _
Are the format and presentation correctly paced? _ _ _
Are the discussions clear and easy to follow? _ _ _
What changes do you suggest?
What additional information would you like?

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Workshop excellent average poor

Are the available problems relevant? _ _ _
Was the technical assistance prompt and clear? _ _ _
Was the equipment satisfactory? _ _ _

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Laboratory excellent average poor

Are the available specimens relevant? _ _ _
Was the technical assistance prompt and clear? _ _ _
Was the equipment satisfactory? _ _ _

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
General
How would you change the balance of time spent on theory, workshop, and laboratory
_ no change _ more theory _ more workshop _ more laboratory
Your Name:______________________________________ Date: ___________________
Instructor(s):_____________________________________

Mar 103 Experimental Elastomer Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mar 103 Experimental Elastomer Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Experimental Elastomer Analysis

Asia Pacific Worldwide Web

Part Number: MA*V2005r2*Z*Z*Z*SM-MAR103-NT1

Third Party Software Program Credits

MA*V2005r2*Z*Z*Z*SM-MAR103-NT1 Experimental Elastomer Analysis

Experimental Elastomer Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CHAPTER 2 The Macroscopic Behavior of Elastomers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Experimental Elastomer Analysis 3

4 Experimental Elastomer Analysis

Model 1: Uniaxial Curve Fit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Experimental Elastomer Analysis 5

APPENDIX A The Mechanics of Elastomers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

6 Experimental Elastomer Analysis

This course is to provide a fundamental

Experimental Elastomer Analysis 7

Course Objective: FEA & Laboratory

Left Brain Right Brain

8 Experimental Elastomer Analysis

Experimental Elastomer Analysis 9

Course Objective (cont.)

Some important topics covered are:

• What tests are preferred and why?

• Why aren’t ASTM specs always the answer?

• What should I do about pre-conditioning?

• Why are multiple deformation mode tests

• How can I judge the accuracy of different

• How do I double check my model against

10 Experimental Elastomer Analysis

DAY 2 - Chapter 6 + Lab

Experimental Elastomer Analysis 11

Course Schedule (cont.)

12 Experimental Elastomer Analysis

About MSC.Marc Products

Experimental Elastomer Analysis 13

About Axel Products, Inc.

14 Experimental Elastomer Analysis

Data Measurement and Analysis

Experimental Elastomer Analysis 15

Data Measurement and Analysis (cont.)

Do you expect all of these E’s to be the same for the

16 Experimental Elastomer Analysis

Typical Properties of Rubber Materials

Experimental Elastomer Analysis 17

Typical Loading of Rubber Materials (cont.)

18 Experimental Elastomer Analysis

Important Application Areas

Experimental Elastomer Analysis 19

20 Experimental Elastomer Analysis

Elastomers (natural & synthetic rubbers)

Experimental Elastomer Analysis 21

• Long coiled molecules, with points of entanglement.

22 Experimental Elastomer Analysis

• The center of this region is known as the Tg, the

Experimental Elastomer Analysis 23

Time Effects, Viscoelasticity

• Material behavior related to molecule sliding (friction):

24 Experimental Elastomer Analysis

Time Effects, Viscoelasticity (cont.)

• Gather data of strain, short-time stress, long-time stress.

Experimental Elastomer Analysis 25

Curing Effects (Vulcanization)

26 Experimental Elastomer Analysis

Damage, Early Time

Experimental Elastomer Analysis 27

Part Number: MAV2005r2Z*ZZSM-MAR103-NT1

MAV2005r2Z*ZZSM-MAR103-NT1 Experimental Elastomer Analysis