The main objective of this study is to develop a CAE-based application with a convenient GUI for identification and verification of material parameters for hyperelastic models available in the current release of the FE code ANSYS Mechanical APDL. This Windows application implements a two-step procedure: (1) fitting of experimental stress–strain curves provided by the user; (2) verification of the obtained material parameters by the solution of a modified benchmark problem. The application, which was developed using the Visual Basic.NET language, implements a two-way interaction with ANSYS as a single loop using the APDL script as input and text, graphical and video files as output. With this application, nine isotropic incompressible hyperelastic material models are compared by fitting them to the conventional Treloar’s experimental dataset (1944) for vulcanised rubber. A ranking of hyperelastic models is constructed according to model efficiency, which is estimated using fitting quality criteria. The model ranking is done based upon the complexity of their mathematical formulation and their ability to accurately reproduce the test data. Recent hyperelastic models (Extended Tube and Response Function) are found to be more efficient compared to conventional ones. The verification is done by the comparison of an analytical solution to an FEA result for the benchmark problem of a rubber cylinder under compression proposed by Lindley (1967). In the application, the classical formulation of the benchmark is improved mathematically to become valid for larger deformations. The wide applicability of the proposed two-step approach is confirmed using stress–strains curves for seven different formulations of natural rubber and seven different grades of synthetic rubber.
Gorash Y, Comlekci T and Hamilton R. Material modelling and numerical simulation of elastomeric components in pumps and valves. Technical Report, University of Strathclyde, UK, 2014.
3.
MacoskoCW. Rheology: Principles, measurement and applications, New York: Wiley-VCH, 1994.
4.
OgdenRW. Nonlinear elastic deformations, New York: Dover Publications, 1997.
5.
MooneyM. A theory of large elastic deformation. J Appl Phys1940; 11(9): 582–592.
6.
RivlinRS. Large elastic deformations of isotropic materials. IV. Further developments of the general theory. Phil Trans R Soc London A1948; 241(835): 379–397.
7.
RivlinRSSaundersDW. Large elastic deformations of isotropic materials. VII. Experiments on the deformation of rubber. Phil Trans R Soc London A1951; 243(865): 251–288.
8.
OgdenRW. Large deformation isotropic elasticity: On the correlation of theory and experiment for compressible rubberlike solids. Proc R Soc London A1972; 328(1575): 567–583.
9.
ArrudaEMBoyceMC. A three-dimensional constitutive model for the large stretch behavior of rubber elastic materials. J Mech Phys Solids1993; 41(2): 389–412.
10.
GentAN. A new constitutive relation for rubber. Rubber Chem Technol1996; 69(1): 59–61.
11.
YeohOH. Some forms of the strain energy function for rubber. Rubber Chem Technol1993; 66(5): 754–771.
12.
KaliskeMHeinrichG. An extended tube-model for rubber elasticity: Statistical-mechanical theory and finite element implementation. Rubber Chem Technol1999; 72(4): 602–632.
13.
BlatzPJKoWL. Application of finite elastic theory to the deformation of rubbery materials. Trans Soc Rheol1962; 6(1): 223–252.
14.
OgdenRW. Recent advances in the phenomenological theory of rubber elasticity. Rubber Chem Technol1986; 59(3): 361–383.
15.
Marlow RS. A general first-invariant hyperelastic constitutive model. In: Busfield J and Muhr A (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd european conference on constitutive models for rubber III. London: Taylor & Francis, pp.157–160.
16.
SussmanTBatheK-J. A model of incompressible isotropic hyperelastic material behavior using spline interpolations of tension-compression test data. Commun Numer Meth Eng2009; 25(1): 53–63.
17.
GoughJGregoryIHMuhrAHThe uncertainty of implemented curve-fitting procedures in finite element software. In: BoastDCoveneyVA (eds). Finite element analysis of elastomers, London: Professional Engineering Publishing, 1999, pp. 141–151.
18.
BaumanJT. Fatigue, stress, and strain of rubber components, Munich: Carl Hanser Verlag, 2008.
19.
FinneyRHFinite element analysis. In: GentAN (ed). Engineering with rubber: How to design rubber components, 3rd ed. Munich: Carl Hanser Verlag, 2012, pp. 295–343.
20.
SeibertDJSchöcheN. Direct comparison of some recent rubber elasticity models. Rubber Chem Technol2000; 73(2): 366–384.
21.
BoyceMCArrudaEM. Constitutive models of rubber elasticity: A review. Rubber Chem Technol2000; 73(3): 504–523.
22.
TreloarLRG. Stress-strain data for vulcanised rubber under various types of deformation. Trans Faraday Soc1944; 40: 59–70.
23.
XiaYLiWXiaY. Study on the compressible hyperelastic constitutive model of tire rubber compounds under moderate finite deformation. Rubber Chem Technol2004; 77(2): 230–241.
24.
ChagnonGMarckmannGVerronE. A comparison of the Hart-Smith model with Arruda-Boyce and Gent formulations for rubber elasticity. Rubber Chem Technol2004; 77(4): 724–735.
25.
AttardMMHuntGW. Hyperelastic constitutive modeling under finite strain. Int J Solids Struct2004; 41(18–19): 5327–5350.
26.
MarckmannGVerronE. Comparison of hyperelastic models for rubber-like materials. Rubber Chem Technol2006; 79(5): 835–858.
27.
KawabataSMatsudaMTeiKet al.Experimental survey of the strain energy density function of isoprene rubber vulcanizate. Macromolecules1981; 14(1): 154–162.
28.
RuízMJGGonzálezLYS. Comparison of hyperelastic material models in the analysis of fabrics. Int J Clothing Sci Technol2006; 18(5): 314–325.
29.
VahapoğluVKaradenizS. Constitutive equations for isotropic rubber-like materials using phenomenological approach: A bibliography (1930–2003). Rubber Chem Technol2006; 79(3): 489–499.
30.
AliAHosseiniMSahariBB. A review of constitutive models for rubber-like materials. Am J Eng Appl Sci2010; 3(1): 232–239.
31.
Dimitrov S. Review of the basic hyperelastic constitutive models in ANSYS 13.0. CADFEM Infoplaner 2011; 1: 52–53.
32.
LiMHuXLuoWet al.Comparison of two hyperelastic models for carbon black filled rubber. Appl Mech Mater2013; 275–277: 28–32.
33.
SteinmannPHossainMPossartG. Hyperelastic models for rubber-like materials: consistent tangent operators and suitability for Treloar’s data. Arch Appl Mech2012; 82(9): 1183–1217.
34.
HossainMSteinmannP. More hyperelastic models for rubber-like materials: consistent tangent operators and comparative study. J Mech Behav Mater1998; 22(1–2): 27–50.
35.
BedaT. An approach for hyperelastic model-building and parameters estimation: A review of constitutive models. Eur Polym J2014; 50: 97–108.
Skacel P. Hyperfit – a fitting utility for parameter identification of hyperelastic constitutive models, http://hyperfit.wz.cz (2015, accessed 5 February 2014).
39.
WolbergJ. Data analysis using the method of least squares: Extracting the most information from experiments, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2006.
MarsWVFatemiA. Observations of the constitutive response and characterization of filled natural rubber under monotonic and cyclic multiaxial stress states. J Eng Math Technol2004; 126(1): 19–28.
42.
GoughJGregoryIHMuhrAHDetermination of constitutive equations for vulcanized rubber. In: BoastDCoveneyVA (eds). Finite element analysis of elastomers, London: Professional Engineering Publishing, 1999, pp. 5–26.
Lindley PB, Fuller KNG and Muhr AH. Engineering design with natural rubber. NR Technical Bulletin, The Malaysian Rubber Producers’ Research Association, Hertford, UK, 1992.
45.
GentANElasticity. In: GentAN (ed). Engineering with rubber: How to design rubber components, 3rd ed. Munich: Carl Hanser Verlag, 2012, pp. 37–88.
