MSC.Software Corporation
MA*V2005r2*Z*Z*Z*SMMAR103NT1 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) 5408900 Telephone: (49) (89) 431 987 0
Fax: (714) 7844056 Fax: (49) (89) 436 1716
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 “ASIS” 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.
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.
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 Nonambient 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
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
Discuss the TEST
CURVE FIT
ANALYSIS
cycle specific to rubber and elastomers.
Limit scope to material models such as MooneyRivlin and Ogden
form strain energy models.
Material Model
(curve fit)
Analyze
Test Specimen
Material
Specimen ?
n
Correlatio Analyze
?
Part
Test
Part
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 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
Tension/Compression
PA P L
E = 
L L
Torsion
Tc J T
E = 2 1 + 
Bending
3
P
E = PL

3I
Wave Speed
2
E = c
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
Engineering Stress [MPa]
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Engineering Strain
Microscopic Structure
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.
• Typical values of Tg (in oC) are: 70 for natural rubber, 55
for EPDM, and 130 for silicone rubber.
• Be careful that real parts and test specimens share the same
curing history, thus same stiffness.
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.
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/00212218072520837
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
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
1 2 2 2
W =  G 1 + 2 + 3 – 3
2
1 = 2 = 3 = 1
W =  G + 2 – 3
1 2
2
= 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
6.0
Experiment
Engineering Stress [MPa]
4.0
Theory
2.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Engineering Strain
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
1
ps = 2 tan = – 
dW =
ps =  G ps
d ps
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
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
21 –
Biaxial  2 21 + – 1 +
–5
1 – 2
2
1 – –
2 –3
Planar Shear 2 1 + – 1 +
1 – 2
–2
Uniaxial 2 1 + 2 1 + – 1 +
0.0
5.0
10.0
1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Engineering Strain
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
atan
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
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
W = W I 1 I 2
W = C 10 I 1 – 3 + C 01 I 2 – 3 (MooneyRivlin notation)
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
J = 1 2 3
Ogden Models
Let’s suppose we want to fit a 1term Ogden for tension.
1.) Assume incompressible (J=1) then
W =  1 + 2 + 3 – 3
– 
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 stressstrain points. Find
and such that i = i i = 1 60 , has the “best fit.”
Ogden Models
– 0.05298
 + 1
6.) Plot = 25.78 1 + 0.05298 – 1
– 1 +
2 .
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
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
K = 2500 n n
n=1
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
n n
Rt = 1 – 1 – exp – t
n=1
n n
where is a nondimensional multiplier and is the associated
time constant.
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, SpringerVerlag, c1974, pp 4460.
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.
Lab Orientation
Safety
Tour of Lab
Laboratory Dangers
High Pressure Hydraulics
Class II Lasers
Instrument Crushing
Basic Instrumentation
Electromechanical Tensile Testers
Servohydraulic Testers
Aging Instrumentation
Measuring
Force
Strain Gage Load Cells
Position
Encoders and LVDT’s
Strain
Clipon Strain Gages
Video Extensometers
Laser Extensometers
Temperature
Thermocouples
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
–2
=
3 =
–1 2 –1 2
2 = 1 =
1 =
–2 2 =
3 =
300
VOLCOMP_B
250
200
Pressure (MPa)
150
50
0
0.6
PT23C_B
0.5
Engineering Stress (MPa)
Planar Tension
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
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)
Time (Seconds)
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.
Friction Force
Elastomers Properties
Can Change by Orders
of Magnitude in the
Application Temperature
Range.
Loading/Unloading Comparison
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
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
1 3
1 2
1 3
Simple Shear
Confined Hydrostatic
Compression Compression
F F
1 = 1 2 = 1 3 = L L0
Stress State:
1 = 2 = 3 = – F Ao = p
p p
Pressure [Mpa]
K = 
 = 
V V 0 L L 0 200.0
1 V V
p , versus a “uniaxial equivalent” of 3 0
Stress State:
1 = 2 = 3 = – F Ao = p
and since
= 1 + L L 0
L L 0 = 1 V
3
V0 .
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
General Guidelines
Weighting of Points
Visual Checks
d d 0
Real Material
Predicted
Response
Predicted
Response
d d 0
DATA
Real Material
Material Stability
Graphically:
d 11 d 11 0 d 11 d 11 0
Future Trends
Planar Shear
Engineering Stress [MPa]
1.5
Tension
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Engineering Strain [1]
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.
Fit to upload
Engineering Stress [Mpa]
Fit to upload
& download
0 1
Engineering Strain [1]
uniaxial/experiment uniaxial/neo_hookean
1
decide upon the most appropriate way to adjust the data prior to fitting the
hyperelastic material models.
Equal Biaxial
Pure Shear
1.5 Tension
Engineering Stress [Mpa]
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Engineering Strain [1]
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.
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
FITTING
ENERGY RELAX
(pick table1),OK
ELASTOMERS
ENERGY RELAX
RELAXATION
# OF TERMS 3
COMPUTE
APPLY, OK
SCALE AXES
Ndata
2
A i i
error = measured – calc
i
i
calc is the calculated stress
i
measured is the measured engineering stress
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.
Now let’s look at the results of this analysis before curve fitting our
uniaxial test data.
SKIP TO INC
30 <cr>
FILL
REWIND
MONITOR
Now let’s generate the stressstrain 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
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 neoHookean 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 neoHookean coefficient, C10, is 0.265.
ELASTOMERS
NEOHOOKEAN
UNIAXIAL
COMPUTE, OK
SCALE AXES
PLOT OPTIONS
SIMPLE SHEAR, RETURN (this turns off simple shear)
Comments:
We have just fit a neoHookean 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 stressstrain 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 stressstrain 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 rerun 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 neoHookean model
is stable for all deformation modes.
NEOHOOKEAN
EXTRAPOLATION
EXTRAPOLATE
LEFT BOUND, enter 0.5, <cr>
RIGHT BOUND, enter 2.0, <cr>, OK
COMPUTE, OK
SCALE AXES
Now fit a Mooney 2term 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 stressstrain data.
MOONEY(2)
EXTRAPOLATION
EXTRAPOLATE, OK (we want to turn it off)
COMPUTE, OK
SCALE AXES
Now fit a Mooney 3term 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 (neoHookean), to 4.5 (Mooney 2term), to 36 (Mooney 3term).
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 equibiaxial 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 2term material model. The uniaxial response is very
good, but the biaxial response is now even higher than the Mooney
3term. 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 2term plot.
Comments:
We are now finished with the curve fitting portion of this uniaxial
exercise. We see that the Mooney 3term and Ogden 2term fit the
uniaxial test data very well. However, we are concerned (or should be!)
that the equibiaxial response for some models (M 3term, O 2term) are
too high and could make the material model overly stiff if that mode of
deformation exists in our analysis. We need equibiaxial test data to get a
better fit to that mode.
Let’s run this uniaxial analysis with the Ogden 3term 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 stressstrain 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
This last command saves the table to an external file named ogden3.tab
(.tab is just to remind us that it is table data).
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 stressstrain 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.
With the plotted values stored in the clipboard, open Excel and paste the
clipboard into the worksheet.
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
10
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.
and
t 33
33 = 

1 + 33
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 .
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
Tensile Data
Continuous Damage
1.0
Engineering Stress [Mpa]
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Engineering Strain [1]
Tensile Data
Continuous Damage for Engineering Strain = 1.00
1.10
1.05
Engineering Stress [Mpa]
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Cycle Number
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 rerun the problem using an
Ogden 1term fit with continuous damage.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
EXPERIMENTAL DATA FITTING
TABLES
READ
NORMAL
FILTER: type st*
pick file st_1st.tab, OK (different data from st_18.data)
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
COPY TO GEN. XY PLOTTER
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.
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
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Engineering Strain [1]
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 STRAINUPDATED
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.
Results: uniaxial_specimen.mud
X
Z 4
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)
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 crosssectional 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.
How does the specimen model compare to the one element test case?
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
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.
Now let’s look at the results of this analysis before curve fitting our
biaxial test data.
SKIP TO INC
30 <cr>
REWIND
MONITOR
Now let’s generate the stressstrain 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
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 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
experimental_data, OK, RETURN
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.
Choose the neoHookean curve fitting routine and base the curve fit on
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
NEOHOOKEAN
USE ALL DATA
COMPUTE, OK
SCALE AXES
PLOT OPTIONS
SIMPLE SHEAR, RETURN (this turns off simple shear)
Comments:
We have just fit a neoHookean 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 stressstrain 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 neoHookean 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 2term 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 2term 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).
Now fit a Mooney 3term material model. The Mooney coefficients are
C10 = 0.246, C01 = 0.029, and C11 = 0.0004. This is essentially the same
as the Mooney 2term 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 2term fit.
MOONEY(3)
COMPUTE, OK
SCALE AXES
Now fit an Ogden 2term material model. The uniaxial and biaxial model
responses are slightly better than the Mooney models. However, the first
pair of coefficients (modulus term of 2.55E6 and exponent of 10.5)
only contribute to the response at high strains. Set the NUMBER OF
TERMS to 1 and refit 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 neoHookean 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 2term 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
stressstrain 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
Biaxial Response
Engineering Stress [Mpa]
Biaxial Data
Uniaxial Data
Biaxial Fit
Uniaxial Fit
Engineering Strain
Results: bi_glue.mud
Model 2 EqualBiaxial
Specimen Model versus Data
2.0
Specimen Data
Specimen Model
1.5
Engineering Stress [Mpa]
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Engineering Strain
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)
CONTACT TABLE
NEW
PROPERTIES
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
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.
Now let’s look at the results of this analysis before curve fitting our planar
shear test data.
SETTINGS
#LEVELS
5 <cr>, RETURN
SKIP TO INC
30 <cr>
REWIND
MONITOR
Now let’s generate the stressstrain 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
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 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
experimental_data, OK, RETURN
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.
Choose the neoHookean curve fitting routine and base the curve fit on
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
NEOHOOKEAN
USE ALL DATA
COMPUTE, OK
SCALE AXES
PLOT OPTIONS
SIMPLE SHEAR, RETURN (this turns off simple shear)
Now fit a Mooney 2term 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
Now fit a Mooney 3term material model. The Mooney coefficients are
C10 = 0.239, C01 = 0.035, and C11 = 0.0015. This is essentially the same
as the Mooney 2term 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 2term fit.
MOONEY(3)
COMPUTE, OK
SCALE AXES
Now fit an Ogden 2term 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 3term 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.
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 2term 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
stressstrain 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
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
Results: pt_45.mud
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Engineering Strain
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.
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).
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 neoHookean 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
neoHookean coefficient, C10, is 0.542. Notice that the model’s uniaxial
response does not exactly match the data.
ELASTOMERS
NEOHOOKEAN
UNIAXIAL
COMPUTE, APPLY, OK
SCALE AXES
Comments:
For simplicity, we have fit a neoHookean 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 (nonrelaxation), but this would add to our
uncertainty. Test sample differences (cure, preconditioning, etc.), test
strainrate differences, and other such influences may cause correlation
difficulties.
We have based our neoHookean 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 neoHookean 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.
TABLE TYPE
experimental_data, OK, RETURN
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. Refit 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)
RETURN
This last command saves the table to an external file named visco50.tab
(.tab is just to remind us that it is table data).
This error causes all the difference in the stresstime plot shown on the
previous page. To achieve a better correlation of MSC.Marc result to the
50% strain test data, base the neoHookean 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
DeformabletoDeformable Contact
Discrete deformable contact (default) is based on piecewise linear
geometry description of either 2node edges in 2 dimensions or 4node
faces in 3 dimensions on the outer surface of all contacting meshes.
actual geometry
contacting body
contact tolerance
y A
x
contacted body
Contact Flowchart
Input
Check on contact
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
20o
R=6
billet 20
4.75 4
35 25
channel
billet
channel
none
geometrical entities
(straight lines and a
circular arc)
billet
billet
channel
MARC element 10
none
Contact Table
3 2
Singlesided Contact:
Contact Areas
Very useful for defining certain nodes of a body that may enter contact.
Standard contact
excluded segments
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)
slip Ft
stick
ur
MARC approximation
slip
MSC.Marc approximation:
with:
: slip threshold automatically set.
Ft
F n
F n
2
2
u t
with:
F t F n static , F t F n kinetic
–6
: slip to stick transition region (default 1 10
–6
: small constant, so that 0 (fixed at 1 10 )
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
(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
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.
This makes rigid bodies useful to monitor the force versus displacement
behavior as shown at the right.
Body 3 Force Y
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
Eliminate 3 :
1 2 2 1
W =  G 1 + 2 +  – 3
2
2 2
1 2
Twodimensional 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
Twodimensional extension:
t1 = 1 2 3 = 1 1
or:
2 2
t1 = G 1 – 3
and:
2 2
t2 = G 2 – 3
t3 = 0
1 K
 , hence 
2 G
Lagrange description:
xi = xi Xj
x
dx i = F ij dX j with F ij = i
X j
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
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
W W I 3
S ij = 2  ij + 2  ij C kk – C ij + 2h 
I 1 I 2 C ij
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
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
n 0 n
W E ij ,Q ij = W E ij – Q ij E ij
n=1
n
where E ij are the components of the GreenLagrange 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 PiolaKirchhoff 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
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
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
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
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
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
W0 = 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
0 0 n 0 n n
Wt = W – W +W exp – t
n=1 n=1
N
0 n n
= W 1– 1 – exp – t
n=1
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.
0
where W is the nominal (undamaged) strain energy function, and
0
= max W
The loading condition for damage can be expressed in terms of the Kuhn
Tucker conditions:
· ·
0 0 = 0
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.
2a
1
2
n
1
1 = 
 1 =
1
1a
w
ia
1
 ,S i =
2 ia ia
1 2 3n
2 w
ia
12 ia ia ,S i = 1 2 3n
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
Engineering Stress [Mpa]
0
0.6
0
Engineering Strain [1]
1.0
Engineering Stress [Mpa]
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Engineering Strain [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
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Engineering Strain [1]
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:
cr
Plateau
(Elastic Buckling)
Densification
J = 1 2 3 .
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 strainenergy 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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Specimen
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
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.
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.
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
This formula can now be used in a testing environment since all the
parameters are known.
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.
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.
Summary
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, 135144
(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), 251288 (1951)
4. Zapas, L. J., “Viscoelastic Behaviour Under Large Deformations,” J. Res.
Natl. Bureau of Standards, 70A (6), 525532 (1966)
5. Blatz, P. J. and Ko, W. L., “Application of Finite Elastic Theory to the
Deformation of Rubbery Materials,” Trans. Soc. Rheol., 6, 223251 (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. 3731, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, IV, 3438
(Feb. 1965)
8. Becker, G. W., “On the Phenomenological Description of the Nonlinear
Deformation Behavior of Rubberlike High Poymers,” Jnl Polymer Sci.,
Part C (16), 28932903 (1967)
9. Obata, Y., Kawabata, S. and Kawai, H., “Mechanical Properties of Natural
Rubber Vulcanizates in Finite Deformation,” J. Polymer Sci. (Part A2), 8,
903919 (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
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, HPGL, FrameMaker, and
InterLeaf formats.
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
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:
Title Area
YAxis Area
XAxis 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.
Menus:
Axis Summary:
Symbol Summary:
Log Plots:
Bar Charts:
Notes
Notes
Notes
Notes
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.
General
How would you change the balance of time spent on theory, workshop, and laboratory
Instructor(s):_____________________________________