See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323203919

Rubber bushing hyperelastic behavior based on shore hardness and uniaxial

extension

Conference Paper · January 2018

DOI: 10.26678/ABCM.COBEM2017.COB17-5280

CITATIONS READS

4 7,617

2 authors:

Debora Lalo Marcelo Greco

Federal University of Minas Gerais Federal University of Minas Gerais
15 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS    114 PUBLICATIONS   429 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

RELIABILITY-BASED TOPOLOGY OPTIMIZATION FOR 3D STRUCTURE ANALYSIS View project

Dynamic Instability in Shallow Arches under Transversal Forces and Plane Frames with Semirigid Connections View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marcelo Greco on 08 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 24th ABCM International Congress of Mechanical Engineering
December 3-8, 2017, Curitiba, PR, Brazil

COBEM-2017-5280
RUBBER BUSHING HYPERELASTIC BEHAVIOR BASED ON SHORE
HARDNESS AND UNIAXIAL EXTENSION

Debora Francisco Lalo

Marcelo Greco
Federal University of Minas Gerais
6627 Antônio Carlos Ave, building 1, Department of Structural Engineering - 4th floor, Belo Horizonte, MG 31270-901, Brazil
[email protected]
[email protected]

Abstract. The elastomeric bushings are essential in the engineering field once they isolate vibration, reduce noise,
accommodate oscillatory motions and allow axes misalignments. As the bushings are rubber-like materials, their
constitutive relations are highly nonlinear and characterized by strain energy functions that need to be identified. Most
of these models are referred as hyperelastic material models. In the present paper, an elastomeric bushing manufactured
by Vibtech company is evaluated, and its stiffness response in a certain working load condition is determined through
an uniaxial tensile test in which the parameters of Marlow model are defined by fitting the experimental tensile stress–
strain data with the Finite Element Analysis. It is investigated the correlation between the identified results obtained
from the prototype test and the virtual model obtained from uniaxial tensile experimental data. The final results are also
compared with the Mooney-Rivlin constitutive model response based on the parameters extract from literature that can
be ranged according to the rubber shore hardness.

Keywords: Rubber-like materials, Hyperelastic constitutive models, Uniaxial tensile test, Finite Element Analysis

1. INTRODUCTION

Rubber-like materials are widely used in industry to manufacture tires, seals, belts, engine mounts and many other
devices. To enhance the design of these products for a given working load condition, in general, numerical methods are
used in addition with accurate constitutive laws.
Elastomers, which is a more descriptive name for rubbers, present a very complex mechanical behavior that exceed
the linear elastic theory, exhibiting large deformations and viscoelastic properties such as stress softening (Naser et al.,
2005). For this reason, in the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of rubbers some experiments should be performed in order
to assess the material constitutive law (Drozdov, 2007).
To define the hyperelastic material behavior, a stress-strain response is required to determine the material parameters
in the strain energy potential. The Mooney-Rivlin model is very popular in the modeling of large strain nonlinear behavior
of incompressible materials, i.e. rubber and it can be viewed as a particular case of the polynomial model (Beda, 2013).
Its correlation with Shore hardness can be found in the work of Lindley (1974) and Gobel (1974).
Once the stress-strain behavior of the engineering bushing was tested only based on the uniaxial extension, which is
easily accessible, it was used the Marlow form, because in this case a strain energy potential is constructed so as to
reproduce the test data exactly, with a reasonable behavior in other deformation modes (Simulia, 2013).
Rubber bushings can be manufactured from natural rubber, synthetic rubber, and even thermoplastics. The hardness
of these materials is between 30 and 98 IHRD (International Rubber Hardness) measure equivalent to Shore hardness.
According to Gobel (1974) the natural rubber is the one which has the best elastic properties.

2. HYPERELASTIC CONSTITUTIVE MODELS

Hyperelastic material models are used to define the mechanical behavior of elastomers, foams and many biological
tissues. Once elastomers are materials that exhibit nearly incompressible behavior and often experience high strains in
service, its strain states are usually complex. They are a mixture of tension, compression and shear with a very small
amount of volume change.
For incompressible elastomers, the Poisson’s ratio is nearly 0.5 and the main strain states are simple tension, pure
shear and simple compression, which is generally represented by the biaxial extension (Miller, 2004).
Lalo, D.F. Greco, M.
Rubber Bushing Hyperelastic Behavior Based on Shore Hardness and Uniaxial Extension

Several mathematical constitutive theories of hyperelastic large-strain response in quasi-static conditions and without
irreversible strain phenomena have been extensively researched since the works of Mooney (1940) and Rivlin (1948).
The authors’ approach is based on the strain invariants and in the concept of the material to be isotropic and
incompressible. Additional documentation on this research topic including other theories and conditions can also be found
in Valanis and Landel (1967), Treloar (1975), Ogden (1972; 1984), Gent (1992), Arruda and Boyce (1993), Drozdov and
Dorfmann (2003) and Drozdov (2007).
The hyperelastic constitutive models are able to describe the behavior of nearly incompressible materials that exhibit
instantaneous elastic response up to large strains. They are expressed in terms of a strain energy density function (𝑊)
which defines the strain energy stored in the material per unit of reference volume. This function depends on the principal
stretches or invariants of the strain tensor and is directly linked to the material’s stress-strain relationship, which depends
on a series of parameters (material constants). In order to determine these constants, it is required the nominal stress
versus nominal strain data obtained from experimental tests to fit most models theoretical behavior available (Bortoli et
al., 2011).
For an isotropic and incompressible material, 𝑊 can be expressed as a function of the strain tensor invariants or
principal stretches:

𝑊 = 𝑊(𝐼̅1 , 𝐼̅2 , 𝐼̅3 ) = 𝑊(𝜆1 , 𝜆2 , 𝜆3 ) (1)

where, the three invariants (𝐼̅1 , 𝐼̅2 , 𝐼̅3 ) of the Green strain tensor are given in terms of the principle extension ratios 𝜆1 , 𝜆2
and 𝜆3 by:

𝐼̅1 = 𝜆1 2 + 𝜆2 2 + 𝜆3 2 (2)

𝐼̅2 = 𝜆1 2 . 𝜆2 2 + 𝜆2 2 . 𝜆3 2 + 𝜆3 2 . 𝜆1 2 (3)

𝐼̅3 = 𝜆1 2 . 𝜆2 2 . 𝜆3 2 (4)

2.1 Polynomial model

The polynomial strain energy function of a hyperelastic material can be expanded as an infinite series of the first and
the second deviatoric principal invariants 𝐼̅1 and 𝐼̅2 . The polynomial form of strain energy function is a phenomenological
model and it is given as follows (Shahzad et al., 2015):
𝑁 𝑁
1
𝑊 = ∑ 𝐶𝑖𝑗 . (𝐼̅1 − 3)𝑖 . (𝐼̅2 − 3)𝑗 + ∑ (𝐽 − 1)2𝑘 (5)
𝐷𝑘
𝑖+𝑗=1 𝑘=1

where 𝐶𝑖𝑗 are the material constants for a “𝑁” number of terms, 𝐽 is the total volume ratio and 𝐷𝑘 relates the material
incompressibility parameters.
A higher number of 𝑁 may provide a better fit to the exact solution. However, on the other hand, it may cause
numerical difficulty in fitting the material constants and requires enough data to cover the entire range of the aimed
deformation. Therefore a very higher 𝑁 value is not usually recommended.
The initial shear modulus “𝜇0 ” and bulk modulus “𝐾0 ” are given by:

𝜇0 = 2. (𝐶10 + 𝐶01 ) ; 𝐾0 = 2/𝐷1 (6)

For cases where the nominal strains are small or only moderately large (< 100%), the first terms in the polynomial
series usually provide a sufficiently accurate model. Some particular material models (Mooney-Rivlin, neo-Hookean, and
Yeoh forms) are obtained for special choices of 𝐶𝑖𝑗 (Simulia, 2016).

2.2 Mooney-rivlin model

The Mooney-Rivlin models are very popular to model large strain nonlinear behavior of incompressible materials. It
is a phenomenological model and works well for moderately large stains in uniaxial elongation and shear deformation
(Shahzad et al., 2015).
It was proposed by Rivlin and Saunders (1951) and can also be viewed as a particular case of the polynomial form.
The original first order Mooney-Rivlin model is equivalent to the polynomial form with 𝑁 = 1 and it is represented by
the following equation:
 24th ABCM International Congress of Mechanical Engineering
December 3-8, 2017, Curitiba, PR, Brazil

1
𝑊 = 𝐶10 . (𝐼̅1 − 3) + 𝐶01 . (𝐼̅2 − 3) + (𝐽 − 1)2 (7)
𝐷1

Extending Eq. (7) to the second order, the five-term Mooney-Rivlin model is similar to the polynomial form when
𝑁 = 2:
1
𝑊 = 𝐶10 . (𝐼̅1 − 3) + 𝐶01 . (𝐼̅2 − 3) + 𝐶20 . (𝐼̅1 − 3)2 + 𝐶11 . (𝐼̅1 − 3). (𝐼̅2 − 3) + 𝐶02 . (𝐼̅2 − 3)2 + (𝐽 − 1)2 (8)
𝐷1

The parameters 𝐶𝑖𝑗 are generally determined from experimental data and they can be related to 𝜇0 in the same way as
in the polynomial form.
More terms can be added to Eq. (8) to obtain a 𝑁 𝑡ℎ order polynomial form, but usually they do not produce appreciable
improvements (Sasso et al., 2008).

2.3 Marlow model

The Marlow form is a general first-invariant constitutive model proposed by Marlow (2003). It assumes that the strain
energy potential is independent of the second deviatoric invariant 𝐼̅2 . This model is only supported by Abaqus®
commercial software and can be defined by providing test data which defines the deviatoric behavior by 𝑊𝑑𝑒𝑣 , and
optionally, the volumetric behavior by 𝑊𝑣𝑜𝑙 if compressibility must be taken into account (Simulia, 2016), as it follows
by Eq. (9).

𝑊 = 𝑊𝑑𝑒𝑣 . (𝐼̅1 ) + 𝑊𝑣𝑜𝑙 (𝐽𝑒𝑙 ) (9)

where 𝐽𝑒𝑙 is the elastic volume ratio obtained by an isotropic thermal expansion:

𝐽
𝐽𝑒𝑙 =
(1 + 𝜀 𝑡ℎ )3 (10)

where 𝜀 𝑡ℎ is the linear thermal expansion strain that is obtained from the temperature and the isotropic thermal expansion
coefficient.
The interpolation and extrapolation of stress-strain data with the Marlow model is approximately linear for small and
large strains. For intermediate strains in the range of 0.1 to 1.0 a considerable degree of nonlinearity may be observed. To
minimize undesirable nonlinearity, the data points needs to be specified in the intermediate strain range (Simulia, 2016).
The model allows an exact matching of experimental data in such defined mode, which can be uniaxial, biaxial or
planar. Therefore, once uniaxial stress-strain data for a material have been acquired, the response in the other strain modes
is reasonable. If the volumetric behavior is a concern, it can be defined by specifying the lateral strains or providing the
volumetric test data, in the same way that the effective Poisson's ratio can be imputed (Marlow, 2003).

2.4 Other classical constitutive models

Other classical constitutive models have been tested and compared with the previous ones. Their final equations are
given below:

 Neo-Hooke model (Treloar, 1946)

1
𝑊 = 𝐶10 . (𝐼̅1 − 3) + (𝐽 − 1)2 (11)
𝐷1

The neo-Hookean form can be thought of as a subset of the polynomial form for 𝑁 = 1 and 𝐶01 = 0. Thus, 𝜇0 and 𝐾0
are given by:

𝜇0 = 2. 𝐶10 ; 𝐾0 = 2/𝐷1 (12)

 Ogden model (Ogden, 1972)

𝑁 𝑁
𝜇𝑖 𝛼 𝛼 𝛼 1
𝑊=∑ . (𝜆1̅ 𝑖 + 𝜆̅2 𝑖 + 𝜆̅3 𝑖 − 3) + ∑ (𝐽 − 1)2𝑘 (13)
𝛼𝑖 𝐷𝑘
𝑖=1 𝑘=1
Lalo, D.F. Greco, M.
Rubber Bushing Hyperelastic Behavior Based on Shore Hardness and Uniaxial Extension

where 𝜇𝑖 and 𝛼𝑖 are real material parameters, being positive or negative and satisfying the condition for 𝜇0 and 𝐾0 given
by:
𝑁
1
𝜇 0 = ∑ 𝜇 𝑖 . 𝛼𝑖 ; 𝐾0 = 2/𝐷1 (14)
2
𝑖=1

 Yeoh model (Yeoh, 1993)

𝑁 𝑁
1
𝑊 = ∑ 𝐶𝑖0 . (𝐼̅1 − 3)𝑖 + ∑ (𝐽 − 1)2𝑘 (15)
𝐷𝑘
𝑖=1 𝑘=1

The Yeoh model is commonly considered with 𝑁 = 3. Thus, 𝜇0 and 𝐾0 are given by:

𝜇0 = 2. (𝐶10 ) ; 𝐾0 = 2/𝐷1 (16)

 Arruda Boyce model (Arruda and Boyce, 1993)

5
𝐶𝑖 𝑖̅ 𝑖
1 𝐽2 − 1
𝑊 = 𝜇∑ . (𝐼1 − 3 ) + ( − 𝑙𝑛 𝐽) (17)
𝜆2𝑖−2
𝐿 𝐷 2
𝑖=1

where 𝜆𝐿 is the limiting network stretch, and the constants 𝐶𝑖 are defined as:

1 1 11 19 519
𝐶1 = ; 𝐶2 = ; 𝐶3 = ; 𝐶4 = ; 𝐶5 = (18)
2 20 1050 7000 673750

 Gent model (Gent, 1996)

𝐸𝐼𝑚 𝐼̅1 − 3 1 𝐽2 − 1
𝑊=− . 𝑙𝑛 (1 − )+ ( − 𝑙𝑛 𝐽) (19)
6 𝐼𝑚 𝐷 2

where the constant “𝐸” is the initial elastic modulus, which for incompressible materials, is 3𝜇0 , and 𝐼𝑚 is the limiting
value of (𝐼̅1 − 3), analogous to 𝜆𝐿 for Arruda-Boyce.

3. UNIAXIAL STRETCHING TESTS

Simple tension experiments are widely used for elastomers. It corresponds to an elongation in one direction
accompanied by free contraction in the other two Cartesian directions. To achieve a pure strain state, the specimen must
be much longer in the stretching direction than in the other dimensions (Miller, 2004).
According to ASTM D412 (2013) measurements for tensile stress, tensile strength and ultimate elongation should be
made on specimens that have not been pre-stressed, and rubbers should be compared only when tested under the same
conditions. The periods of extension and recovery must be controlled in order to avoid residual deformation and obtain
comparable results.
The experimental uniaxial tests have been performed at Vibtech based on the standard ASTM D412 (2013). The
rubber hardness, which makes up the bushing component, is 55 SH. The specimens analyzed were submitted to three
mechanical traction tests in an electromechanical machine Kratos K-500S MP, under a 500 mm/min deformation rate up
to a load of 500 kgf.
The samples adopted in the experimental tests have been cut from a 2mm thick flat sheet, with a width of 6mm on
the reduced section where the distance between each clamp is 25.4mm. The standard tensile testing machine with the
dumbbell specimen connect by the grips is illustrated as in Fig. 1.
 24th ABCM International Congress of Mechanical Engineering
December 3-8, 2017, Curitiba, PR, Brazil

Figure 1: Rubber tensile strength test performed at Kratos K-500S MP

In this experimental test the length was comprised between the instrument clamps. Once the pure tension strain state
occurs away from the clamps, the specimen straining cannot be measured close to them. The uniaxial stress-strain curve
obtained from the test data is depicted in Fig. 2.

Figure 2: Uniaxial stress-strain curve for material data fitting obtained by test data performed at Vibtech
Lalo, D.F. Greco, M.
Rubber Bushing Hyperelastic Behavior Based on Shore Hardness and Uniaxial Extension

4. COMPUTATIONAL PROCEDURE AND RESULTS

The finite element method is a popular tool for designing elastomeric components. This numerical method is able to
approximate the stress-strain behavior of rubber components based on a theoretical material model.
The component geometry was imported from the Computer Aided Design (CAD) system. Due to the rotational
symmetry of the model it was considered the axisymmetric modeling. Axisymmetric elements convert a 3-D problem
into a 2-D problem, making it a smaller model with faster execution and easier post-processing.
The FEA was performed using the commercial software Abaqus®. The metal parts were modeled by using the 3-node
linear triangle axisymmetric elements (CAX3) and the rubber pad by using the 4-node bilinear quadrilateral axisymmetric
elements with the hybrid formulation and constant pressure (CAX4H). The basis of the hybrid elements is that the purely
hydrostatic stress component can be treated as an independent variable; otherwise very small change in displacement
generates large changes in hydrostatic stress.
The implementation assume that the elements are located exclusively in 𝑥, 𝑦 plane, where the 𝑥-axis relates to the
radial direction, and the 2-D model will be rotated around the 𝑦-axis always considering the 𝑥 = 0 position. The final
model with its refined mesh and boundary conditions is shown in Fig. 3. A surface-to-surface contact algorithm was used
to enforce the contact between the elastomer and metal parts. The normal behavior was modeled as hard-contact by the
direct method, while linear friction behavior was assumed for the tangential behavior, using the pure penalty method.

Figure 3: Rubber spring finite element model (axial section)

The relationship between the Shore-Hardness of rubber and the related first order Mooney-Rivlin with two coefficients
is listed according to Tab. 1. These values do not cover all types of rubber, they are just a more or less matching based on
uniaxial tension test for some rubbers with Poisson’ ratio very close to 0.5, that is, nearly incompressible. For this reason,
it can be used as a reference (Altidis and Warner, 2005).

Table 1: Mooney-Rivlin model with two coefficients. Adapted from Altidis and Warner (2005).

Shore-A Young’s Modulus (E) Shear Modulus (G) C10 C01

[º] [N/mm2] [N/mm2] [N/mm2] [N/mm2]
55 3.207 0.956 0.382 0.096
58 3.811 1.089 0.436 0.109
60 4.268 1.185 0.474 0.118
65 5.616 1.465 0.586 0.147
70 7.289 1.839 0.736 0.184

The correlation between uniaxial test data and theoretical curve fitted for Mooney-Rivlin and Marlow models is shown
in Fig. 4. Since the Marlow model best fit the curve, it was used in the component simulation through FEA, then the
material behavior could be defined based on experimental data. The biaxial and planar shear behaviors could also be
estimated, and they are described according to Fig. 5.
 24th ABCM International Congress of Mechanical Engineering
December 3-8, 2017, Curitiba, PR, Brazil

Figure 4: Material curve fitting based on uniaxial experimental data

Figure 5: Estimated behavior for biaxial and planar shear deformation modes – Marlow model

The final results showed that the rubber section undergoes large strains but it still keeps the reasonable shape.
According to Fig. 6 it is possible to compare the undeformed (a) and deformed shape (b). The maximum displacement
value occurs around the metal axle, more exactly in the point where the concentrated load is applied.
Lalo, D.F. Greco, M.
Rubber Bushing Hyperelastic Behavior Based on Shore Hardness and Uniaxial Extension

(a) (b)

Figure 6: Deformation under axial load (a) undeformed shape; (b) deformed shape.

Figures 7 and 8 show the bushing stiffness comparison with the prototype experimental data and finite element models
obtained according to Mooney-Rivlin constants for different shore hardness and Marlow model which was constructed
by uniaxial strength test.

Figure 7: Bushing behavior comparison with experimental data and Mooney-Rivlin models based on shore hardness.

Figure 8: Bushing behavior comparison with experimental data and Marlow model based on uniaxial extension.
 24th ABCM International Congress of Mechanical Engineering
December 3-8, 2017, Curitiba, PR, Brazil

The prediction of the axial stiffness for most industrial applications is a key design parameter in the mechanical
behavior calibration of the component. In this case, the axial stiffness is calculated in a determined range in which the
bushing is more requested during the working-load conditions. Taking into account the minimum and the maximum
ranges established for the stiffness calculation, it is possible to verify and compare the results obtained for each model
through Tab. 2.
The studies proposed in the present paper are good for estimated approximations for performance and are generally
adequate for design purposes. If more complex geometry effects must be considered, the basic equations relating only
forces and deflections must be modified.

Table 2 – Bushing stiffness response for experimental data and finite element models.

Model Axial Static Stiffness

Experimental Test 86.75
MR – 55 SH 80.56
MR – 58 SH 145.52
MR – 60 SH 150.37
MR – 65 SH 214.82
MR – 70 SH 265.36
Marlow 45.57

5. CONCLUSIONS

Through the results presentation it is possible to verify that the model which presented the best approximation in terms
of experimental stiffness corresponds to Mooney Rivlin with a shore hardness of 55, which refers exactly to the rubber
hardness used in the evaluated bushing. On the other hand, despite the curves show almost parallel inclinations, they do
not overlap, what differentiates the behavior response of each one of them. In this case, the Marlow model obtained by
the uniaxial test presented values closer to the experimental prototype curve, but with a certain difference in the slope,
which distances its response with respect to stiffness. It is noted that as the hardness increases the stiffness response for
the Mooney Rivlin model also increases. Once the evaluated component has different deformation modes other than
uniaxial, more experimental tests considering more states of strain should be executed, such as planar shear and
equibiaxial stretching, thus a more accurate calibration can be obtained.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico
e Tecnológico), CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior), FAPEMIG (Fundação de
Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais) and UFMG (Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais).

7. REFERENCES

Altidis, P. A.; Warner, B. V., 2005. “Analyzing hyperelastic materials w/some practical considerations”. Midwest
ANSYS Users Group.
Arruda, E.M.; Boyce, M.C., 1993. “A three-dimensional constitutive model for the large stretch behaviour of rubber
elastic materials”. Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, v. 41, p. 389–412.
ASTM D412-06a, 2013. “Standard Test Methods for Vulcanized Rubber and Thermoplastic Elastomers-Tension”. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA.
Beda, T., 2013. “An approach for hyperelastic model-building and parameters estimation a review of constitutive
models”. European Polymer Journal, v.50, p. 97–108.
Bortoli, D.; Wrubleski, E.G.M.; Marczak, R. J.; Gheller Jr., J., 2011. “Hyperfit – curve fitting software for incompressible
hyperelastic material models”. In: 21st Brazilian Congress of Mechanical Engineering, Natal, October.
Drozdov, A.D., 2007. “Constitutive equations in finite elasticity of rubbers”. International Journal of Solids and
Structures, v. 44, p. 272–297.
Drozdov, A. D., Dorfmann, A., 2003. “A micro-mechanical model for the response of filled elastomers at finite strains”.
Int. J. Plasticity, v. 19 (7), p. 1037–1067.
Gent, A. N., 1996. “A new constitutive relation for rubber”. Rubber Chem. Technol., v. 69 (1), p. 59–61.
Gobel, E. F., 1978. “Rubber Springs Design”. John Wiley, New York.
 Lalo, D.F. Greco, M.
Rubber Bushing Hyperelastic Behavior Based on Shore Hardness and Uniaxial Extension

Lindley, P. B., 1974. “Engineering design with natural rubber”. Malaysian Rubber Producers’ Research Association,
Brickendonbury, UK.
Marlow, R. S., 2003. “A general first-invariant hyperelastic constitutive model”. Constitutive Models for Rubber, p. 157–
160.
Miller, K., 2004. “Testing Elastomers for Hyperelastic Material Models in Finite Element Analysis”. Testing and
Analysis, Axel Products.
Mooney, M., 1940. “A theory of large elastic deformation”. Journal of Applied Physics, v. 11, p. 582–592.
Naser, B.; Kaliske, M.; Andre, M., 2005. “Durability simulations of elastomeric structures”. In: Constitutive models for
rubber-proceedings IV, Balkema, June.
Ogden, R.W., 1972. “Large deformation isotropic elasticity. On the correlation of theory and experiment for
incompressible rubber-like solids”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London – Series A, v. 326
(1567), p. 565–584.
Ogden, R.W., 1984. “Non-Linear Elastic Deformations”. Eds. Harwood Series Mathematics and its Applications,
Chichester.
Rivlin, R.S., 1948. “Large elastic deformations of isotropic materials IV. Further developments of the general theory”.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London – Series A, v. 241 (835), p. 379–397.
Rivlin, R. S.; Saunders, D. W., 1951. “Large elastic deformations of Isotropic Materials VII. Experiments on the
deformation of rubber”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and
Engineering Sciences, v. 243 (865), p. 251–288.
Sasso, M.; Palmieri, G.; Chiappini, G.; Amodio, D., 2008. “Characterization of hyperelastic rubber-like materials by
biaxial and uniaxial stretching tests based on optical methods”. Polymer Testing, v. 27 (8), p. 995–1004.
Shahzad, M.; Kamran, A.; Siddiqui, M. Z.; Farhan, M., 2015. “Mechanical Characterization and FE Modelling of a
Hyperelastic Material”. Materials Research, v. 18 (5), p. 918–924.
Simulia, 2016. Abaqus analysis user's manual, Version 6.13, Dassault Systems.
Treloar, L.R.G., 1946. “The elasticity of a network of long-chain molecules III”. T. Faraday Soc., v. 42, p. 83–94.
Treloar, L.R.G., 1975. “The Physics of Rubber Elasticity”. Oxford University Press, London.
Valanis, K. C.; Landel, R. F., 1967. “Strain-energy function of a hyper-elastic material in terms of the extension ratios”.
J. Appl. Phys., v. 38, p. 2997–3002.
Yeoh, O. H., 1993. “Some forms of the strain energy function for rubber”. Rubber Chem. Technol., v. 66 (5), p. 754–771.

8. RESPONSIBILITY NOTICE

The authors are the only responsible for the printed material included in this paper.

View publication stats