A hyperelastic constitutive model for rubber-like materials

H. Khajehsaeid
a
, J. Arghavani
a
, R. Naghdabadi
a, b,
*
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
b
Institute for Nano-Science and Technology, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 15 March 2012
Accepted 23 September 2012
Available online 17 October 2012
Keywords:
Hyperelasticity
Rubber-like materials
Strain energy function
a b s t r a c t
Hyperelastic behavior of isotropic incompressible rubbers is studied to develop a strain energy function
which satisfies all the necessary characteristic properties of an efficient hyperelastic model. The proposed
strain energy function includes only three material parameters which are somehowrelated to the physical
quantities of the material molecular network. Moreover, the model benefits frommathematical simplicity,
well suitting in all ranges of stretch and possessing the property of deformation-mode-independency.
This reduces the required number of experimental tests for parameter calibration of the model. Results
of the proposed model are compared with results of some available models as well as experimental data.
Moreover, complete analysis of the Mooney plot over a wide range of stretch in extensionecompression is
carried out. It is found that the proposed model gives reasonable predictions in comparison with those of
experiments.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Rubber-like materials consist of randomly oriented long
molecular chains with cross-linking at junctions called points in
a network configuration (Fig. 1). The term elastomer (combination
of elastic and polymer) is also used instead of rubber (Smith et al.,
1993). The most outstanding property of elastomers is their ability
to undergo large deformations under relatively small stresses and
to retain initial configuration without considerable permanent
deformation after stress removal. This behavior is mostly governed
by changes of network entropy as the orientation of chains alters
with deformation. These materials have been used in numerous
applications such as structural bearings, tires, medical devices and
vibration isolators due to their peculiar properties (Brinson and
Brinson, 2008).
Elastomers exhibit a complicated nonlinear behavior including
hysteresis, viscoelasticity and stress softening phenomenon. The
latter case called Mullins effect, occurs in first cycles of loading and
have been studied extensively (Bueche, 1960; Marckmann et al.,
2002; Chagnon et al., 2006; Diani et al., 2006). Hysteresis and
viscoelastic behavior take place due to deviation from static
deformation, in which the effects of time and deformation rate
must be taken into account (Bergstrom and Boyce, 1998; Reese,
2003; Amin et al., 2006; Li and Lua, 2009). In the case of static
deformations, rubbers exhibit hyperelastic behavior; Thus, a strain
energy density function, W, can be attributed. We highlight that,
the present work focuses on the hyperelastic behavior, knowing
that, other phenomena can be considered in the proposed model by
means of appropriate modifications.
For isotropic materials (e.g., rubbers), strain energy function
(SEF) can be represented in terms of right (or left) CauchyeGreen
tensor C (or B) invariants (I
1
, I
2
, I
3
) or eigen values of deformation
gradient tensor F, called principal stretches (l
1
, l
2
, l
3
). i.e.,
W ¼ WðI
1
; I
2
; I
3
Þ or W ¼ Wðl
1
; l
2
; l
3
Þ (1)
where
I
1
¼ trðCÞ
I
2
¼
1
2
_
I
2
1
Àtr
_
C
2
__
I
3
¼ detðCÞ
(2)
tr and det demonstrate trace and determinant of a tensor. The form
of strain energy density function depends on symmetry, thermo-
dynamic, energetic and entropic considerations. For example, in the
case of rubber-like materials, due to the negligible compressibility
under conventional pressures, incompressibility assumption is
often used (I
3
¼ 1). Therefore, we conclude that:
W ¼ WðI
1
; I
2
Þ (3)
* Corresponding author. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif Univer-
sity of Technology, Tehran, Iran. Tel.: þ98 21 6616 5546; fax: þ98 21 6600 0021.
E-mail address: naghdabd@sharif.edu (R. Naghdabadi).
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
European Journal of Mechanics A/Solids
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ ej msol
0997-7538/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechsol.2012.09.010
European Journal of Mechanics A/Solids 38 (2013) 144e151
The choice of appropriate SEF depends on its application, cor-
responding variables and available data for material parameters
identification. An efficient hyperelastic model can be defined by
four main qualities (Chagnon et al., 2004):
It should have the ability to exactly reproduce the whole
S shaped response of rubbers.
The change of deformation modes should not be problematic,
i.e., if the model operates satisfactorily in uniaxial tension, it
must also be satisfactory in equibiaxial extension.
The number of material parameters should be as small as
possible, in order to decrease the number of experimental tests
needed for their determination.
The mathematical formulation should be quite simple to
render possible the numerical implementation of the model.
A considerable amount of work has been done on modeling the
rubbery behavior. Agreat category of proposed models are empirical
and are based on continuum mechanics (Varga, 1966; Hoger, 1999;
Lambert-Diani and Rey, 1999; Kakavas, 2000; Sussman and Bathe,
2009). In the empirical models, an increasing number of material
parameters are associated and often more than one test is needed
for material parameters identification. Furthermore, the physical
context of parameters is often unclear (see e.g., Yeoh and Fleming,
1997; Boyce and Arruda, 2000; Beda, 2007). Also, there are a few
models based on kinetic theory and statistics of molecular chains
network (Arruda and Boyce, 1993; Lion, 1997). These models make
idealized assumptions and the material parameters often have
physical meaning (e.g., material chain density, chain length and
chain stretch). Another scheme has been proposed which utilizes
linear relationshipbetweenstrainenergydensityfunctionandstrain
invariants. In this case, the nonlinearity of model is reflected in the
definition of strain measure (Bechir et al., 2006; Darijani et al., 2010).
In this paper, we propose a strain energy density function for
isotropic rubber-like materials as a great category of hyperelastic
materials. It uses exponential and logarithmic functions, where
it can be interpreted as a particular form of Rivlin’s expansion
(if expanded to polynomial form). Furthermore, we attempt to
relate the parameters of the model to physical quantities as much
as possible.
In addition, the constitutive relation is used to predict the
material behavior after model calibration. Two sets of experimental
data are analyzed and material parameters are determined from
uniaxial extension data for each set. The results of the proposed
model in several modes of deformation are compared with some
available models such as ArrudaeBoyce eight-chain (Arruda and
Boyce, 1993), Gent (Gent, 1996), MooneyeRivlin (Mooney, 1940),
PuccieSaccomandi (Pucci and Saccomandi, 2002) and Gao (Gao,
1997) models as well as experiments.
2. Constitutive model development
2.1. Preliminaries
For an invariant-based strain energy density function, the true
stress tensor s is interpreted by the differentiation of W with
respect to B or equivalently with respect to its invariants (Rivlin and
Saunders, 1951):
s ¼ 2I
À
1
2
3
B
vW
vB
¼ 2I
À
1
2
3
B
_
vW
vI
1
vI
1
vB
þ
vW
vI
2
vI
2
vB
þ
vW
vI
3
vI
3
vB
_
(4)
The derivatives of invariants are:
vI
1
vB
¼ I (5)
vI
2
vB
¼ I
1
I ÀB (6)
vI
3
vB
¼ I
2
I À I
1
B þB
2
(7)
So, considering the conventional assumption of incompressi-
bility for rubber-like materials (I
3
¼ 1) and replacing (5)e(7) into
(4), we obtain:
s ¼ ÀpI þ2
_
vW
vI
1
þ I
1
vW
vI
2
_
B À2
vW
vI
2
B
2
(8)
where I is the identity tensor and p is the hydrostatic pressure
which is determined fromboundary conditions. The true stress can
then be converted to the first PiolaeKirchhoff stress tensor f as:
f ¼ sF
ÀT
(9)
2.2. The proposed strain energy function
Exponential SEFs possess interesting properties in predicting
rubber-like behavior (Hart-Smith, 1966). They can reproduce the ‘S’
shaped behavior of these materials. The proposed strain energy
function W (also the resulted stressestrain relation) consists of two
separate terms; a positive exponential term W
1
and a negative
logarithmic one W
2
as shown in Fig. 2. These parts can manifest two
different and even competitive physical phenomena. We call the
proposed SEF “Exp-Ln” and introduce it in the following form:
W ¼ A½W
1
þ W
2
Š ¼ A
_
1
a
expðaðI
1
À3ÞÞ þ bðI
1
À2Þ
 ð1 ÀlnðI
1
À2ÞÞ À
1
a
À b
_ (10)
This function satisfies the necessary conditions (Darijani and
Naghdabadi, 2010), say:
i) Vanishes in the undeformed configuration.
W
ðI1 ¼3Þ
¼ 0 (11)
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of rubber molecular network.
H. Khajehsaeid et al. / European Journal of Mechanics A/Solids 38 (2013) 144e151 145
ii) Both W and resulted stress approach infinity for very large
deformations.
lim
l
i
/0
W ¼ þN; lim
l
i
/þN
W ¼ þN
lim
l
i
/0
vW
vl
i
¼ ÀN; lim
l
i
/þN
vW
vl
i
¼ þN
(12)
iii) Gives no stress in the undeformed configuration and is
minimum in this state.
vW
vl
i
¸
¸
¸
¸
l
1¼l
2¼l
3¼1
¼ 0;
v
2
W
vl
2
i
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
l
1¼l
2¼l
3¼1
> 0
det
_
H
ij
¸
> 0; H
ij
¼
v
2
W
vl
i
vl
j
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
l
1¼l
2¼l
3¼1
; i; j ¼ 1; 2; 3
(13)
where H
ij
are components of the Hessian matrix of the SEF at the
undeformed state. Expanding W to polynomial form, it is seen that,
this SEF uses higher orders of I
1
to predict the mechanical behavior
of material (similar to ArrudaeBoyce, Hart-smith and Gent models).
W ¼ A
_
ðI
1
À3Þ þ
_
a À b
2
_
ðI
1
À3Þ
2
þ
a
2
þ b
6
ðI
1
À3Þ
3
þ
a
3
À2b
24
ðI
1
À3Þ
4
þ.
_
(14)
Equation (14) can be simplified as:
W ¼ AðI
1
À3Þ þ A

i ¼2
a
iÀ1
þ ðÀ1Þ
iÀ1
ði À2Þ!b
i!
ðI
1
À3Þ
i
(15)
which is a particular case of the general Rivlin’s expansion (Rivlin
and Saunders, 1951):
W ¼

i ¼0

j ¼0
C
ij
ðI
1
À3Þ
i
ðI
2
À3Þ
j
(16)
As discussed in Section 1, an appropriate model is the one whose
parameters denote physical quantities. Hence, we consider the
proposed model under small deformations. Considering (14), we
will have:
W
small strain
¼ AðI
1
À3Þ (17)
Equation (17) is in the form of the neo-Hookean expression.
Comparison of (17) with the neo-Hookean model, results in:
A ¼
1
2
G ¼
1
2
nkT (18)
In Equation (18) G (or m), n, k and T are the shear modulus,
material chain density, boltzman’s constant and absolute temper-
ature, respectively. As a consequence, ‘A’ is related to physical
quantities, i.e., it resembles the half of material chain density
multiplied by kT and it should be determined from small strain
region data. Consequently, we will have:
W ¼
nkT
2
_
1
a
expðaðI
1
À3ÞÞ þbðI
1
À2Þð1ÀlnðI
1
À2ÞÞ À
1
a
Àb
_
(19)
The behavior of the proposed model at large deformations (as l
approaches more and more to the limiting chain extensibility l
max
)
is dominantly guided by the parameter ‘a’. So, this parameter is
related to limiting chain extensibility
ffiffiffiffi
N
p
where N is the average
number of monomers in polymeric chains. This relation can not be
interpreted in explicit form because it is deformation dependent
(for more details see Chagnon (2004)).
On the other hand, the logarithmic term in the strain energy
function has a significant effect in the middle section of the stresse
strain curve, while its effect in the small deformations is negligible.
By increasing the coefficient of this negative term i.e., ‘b’, the
resulted curve approaches more and more to the behavior of
porous rubbers (foams). By rather increasing this coefficient one
can observe a thermoplastic-like behavior where the competition
between the orientational hardening and strain softening occurs
(Fig. 3). The resistance to plastic flow due to the molecular align-
ment (i.e., the third part of the lower curve in Fig. 3) has already
been described using the 8-chain ArrudaeBoyce model (Richeton
et al., 2007). While the proposed model is capable to describe the
entire parts of the curve. Thus, it is interestingly observed that the
proposed model is applicable for a wide range of polymeric mate-
rials by appropriate adjustment of the parameters.
The logarithmic term may represent the effect of material
porosity, microvoids, molecular chains breakage, strength of
intermolecular forces or such a phenomenon. Investigation on this
aspect which may lead to a better realization of the behavior of
rubber-like and even other polymeric materials is a subject of the
authors’ future works.
Therefore, parameters ‘A’, ‘b’ and ‘a’ adjust small, moderate and
large stretch regimes in a rubber-like material, respectively.
It is noted that, disappearing I
2
in the strain energy function can
lead to some limitations such as not reflecting poynting-type effect
in simple shear and underestimating the axial force in pure torsion
(Horgan and Saccomandi, 2006; Horgan and Smayda, 2012).
By some modifications one can add I
2
to the proposed model
and forestall these shortcomings, like that Vito (Vito, 1973) did on
the FungeDemiray model (Demiray, 1972).
2.3. Standard tests
Standard tests are used for parameter calibration purposes as
well as to evaluate if the model is deformation mode independent.
Fig. 2. Different parts of the proposed strain energy function.
H. Khajehsaeid et al. / European Journal of Mechanics A/Solids 38 (2013) 144e151 146
In these tests, it is convenient to consider a framework whose
directions are in principal stretch space while deformation occurs.
Consequently, the right (or left) CauchyeGreen tensor C (or B) is
a diagonal tensor.
2.3.1. Uniaxial extension
In this test, the material is stretched in one direction (s
11
¼ s)
while is stress-free in other directions (s
22
¼ s
33
¼ 0). Exertion of
incompressibility condition leads to:
½FŠ ¼
_
¸
¸
_
l 0 0
0 l
À
1
2
0
0 0 l
À
1
2
_
¸
¸
_
(20)
I
1
¼ l
2
þ2l
À1
; I
2
¼ 2l þ l
À2
; I
3
¼ 1 (21)
Consequently, the nominal stress can be obtained from (8) and
(9) as:
f
11
¼
1
l
s
11
¼ 2AðexpðaðI
1
À3ÞÞ À b lnðI
1
À2ÞÞ
_
l À
1
l
2
_
(22)
2.3.2. Pure shear test
In this case, the material is stretched in one direction (s
11
> 0)
while it is constrained in another direction (s
22
> 0, l
2
¼ 1). The
third direction is stress-free (s
33
¼ 0).
½FŠ ¼
_
_
l 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 l
À1
_
_
(23)
I
1
¼ l
2
þ1 þ l
À2
; I
2
¼ l
2
þl
À2
þ1; I
3
¼ 1 (24)
The nominal stress can be then obtained as:
f
11
¼
1
l
s
11
¼ 2AðexpðaðI
1
À3ÞÞ À b lnðI
1
À2ÞÞ
_
l À
1
l
3
_
(25)
2.3.3. Equibiaxial extension
In this test, the material is stretched equally in two directions
(s
11
¼ s
22
¼ s) while is stress-free in the third direction (s
33
¼ 0).
Again, imposing the incompressibility condition, we obtain:
½FŠ ¼
_
_
l 0 0
0 l 0
0 0 l
À2
_
_
(26)
I
1
¼ 2l
2
þl
À4
; I
2
¼ l
4
þ2l
À2
; I
3
¼ 1 (27)
So, the nominal stress is obtained as:
f
11
¼
1
l
s
11
¼ 2AðexpðaðI
1
À3ÞÞ À b lnðI
1
À2ÞÞ
_
l À
1
l
5
_
(28)
3. Material parameters identification and results
In this section, results of the proposed constitutive model are
compared with the experimental data as well as some available
models to evaluate how it works in material behavior prediction.
3.1. Experimental data reported by Treloar
Treloar’s data (Treloar, 1975) on natural rubber are the most
known and reliable data which have been done in different modes
of deformation in broad range of stretches. It is a common practice
to verify the results of models with these data to examine howthey
work in different regions of stressestrain curve and if they are well
defined in different modes of deformation (Beda, 2007). We first
attempt to determine the parameters of the proposed model. The
results will be then compared with the results of ArrudaeBoyce
eight-chain model (AB) as a molecular model which uses the
following strain energy function (Arruda and Boyce, 1993):
W
8Àchain
¼ nkT
ffiffiffiffi
N
p
_
bl
chain
þ
ffiffiffiffi
N
p
ln
_
b
sinhb
__
(29)
In (29), l
chain
¼
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
I
1
=3
_
and b ¼ L
À1
ðl
chain
=
ffiffiffiffi
N
p
Þ where LðbÞ ¼
coth b À1=b. Moreover, the comparison will be done with
MooneyeRivlin (Mooney, 1940) and PuccieSaccomandi models
(Pucci and Saccomandi, 2002). The MooneyeRivlin model is widely
used for industrial purposes due to its mathematical simplicity and
relatively good predictions in small and moderate stretches.
W
MooneyeRivlin
¼ C
10
ðI
1
À3Þ þ C
01
ðI
2
À3Þ (30)
where C
10
and C
01
are material parameters. Also, the Puccie
Saccomandi model (GenteGent or GG model) is in the form of:
W
GG
¼ À
m
2
J
m
log
_
1 À
I
1
À3
J
m
_
þ C
2
log
_
I
2
3
_
(31)
where J
m
is a material constant identifying the upper limit of I
1
while C
2
is another material constant.
Fig. 4 presents a comparison among Treloar’s experimental data
in uniaxial extension and above mentioned constitutive models.
Material parameters of all models are reported in Table 1. There are
some problems in fitting such models to experimental data (Ogden
et al., 2004). Therefore, the fitting has been performed by using
several algorithms; start points and different levels of accuracy to
investigate whether there are other optimal sets or not. Doing this
investigation, no other optimal set was found. It is to be noted that,
the proposed model includes only three material parameters,
which reduces the possibility of the existence of several optimal
Fig. 3. Effect of the logarithmic term in the stressestrain curve.
H. Khajehsaeid et al. / European Journal of Mechanics A/Solids 38 (2013) 144e151 147
sets. On the other hand, the roles of parameters are completely
separate from each other, i.e., parameter ‘A’ mainly governs the
small stretch region (1 < l < 2) and it resembles m/2. So, it is an
intrinsic property of the problem and can be set out of the fitting
procedure. Parameter ‘b’ adjusts the moderate stretch region, and
parameter ‘a’ governs the upturn of the curve in large stretches.
The proposed model as well as the AB and GG models well
predict the Treloar’s data in uniaxial extension, but it is not so for
MooneyeRivlin model which fails to predict the material behavior
in large extensions. As shown in Fig. 5, in small strain region, Exp-
Ln model gives more reliable results than AB and GG models
which underestimate the data. In fact, for AB and GG models, in
order to have a good prediction in all regions of the curve, we
should underestimate the shear modulus. This shows a limitation
of these models in reproducing the rubber-like behavior at small
strains (Marckmann et al., 2002). Furthermore, the large strain
behavior of Exp-Ln model is governed by exponential function
which makes it possible to always obtain the tangent stiffness,
despite of AB, Gent and GG models which behave asymptotically
as the stretch approaches the chain extensibility limit.
We nowuse the same parameters to examine the models inpure
shear and equibiaxial extension. Fig. 6 presents the behavior of the
models in shear and equibiaxial tests. As shown, in pure shear test
theresults of Exp-Ln, ABandGGmodels are againingoodagreement
withtheexperiment. Like uniaxial extension, MooneyeRivlinmodel
fails in large extensions and is not capable to predict the upturn of
the curve in large strain region. For equibiaxial test, predictions of
Exp-Ln, AB and GG models are qualitatively acceptable demon-
strating that, these models are deformation mode independent. it is
noted that, similar to uniaxial extension, the Exp-Ln model shows
better performance than others in small strain region.
As shown by Han et al. (1999), the plot of reduced stress versus
reciprocal stretch in extensionecompression, which is called the
Mooney plot, is of great importance in assessing the validity of SEF.
The reduced stress is defined as:
f ¼
f
l Àl
À2
(32)
The Mooney plots of the discussed models are shown in Fig. 7
and compared with Treloar’s data. It is to be noted that, the plots
are sketched using the material parameters obtained from uniaxial
extension test.
1
The compression data is extracted from equibiaxial
extension data considering the incompressibility condition (Treloar,
1975). As shown in Fig. 7 the Exp-Ln, AB and GGmodels exhibit good
descriptions of extension in moderate to large deformations where
it is not the case for MooneyeRivlin model. In small extensions,
the proposed model is more accurate than the others and well
predicts the characteristic behavior of the material in transition
from extension to compression.
3.2. Experimental data reported by Meunier et al.
To further verify the proposed model, we use experimental data
reported by Meunier et al. (2008) for unfilled silicone rubber
including uniaxial extension and compression, biaxial extension
and plane compression tests. These data are fitted by Exp-Ln model
and Gent model (Gent, 1996) which is an equivalent form of AB
model (Boyce, 1996).
W
Gent
¼ À
m
2
J
m
log
_
1 À
I
1
À3
J
m
_
(33)
Furthermore, the comparison will be done to Gao model (Gao,
1997) which uses negative powers of stretches in addition to
positive ones.
W
Gao
¼ a
0
_
I
n
1
þ I
n
À1
_
(34)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Stretch
N
o
m
i
n
a
l

S
t
r
e
s
s

[
M
P
a
]
Experiment
This Work
AB Model
Mooney−Rivlin Model
Pucci−Saccomandi Model
Fig. 4. Comparison of the proposed model with AB, MooneyeRivlin, PuccieSacco-
mandi models and Treloar’s uniaxial extension data.
Table 1
Material parameters of Exp-Ln, AB, MooneyeRivlin and PuccieSaccomandi models
for Treloar’s data.
Constitutive model Material parameters
Exp-Ln model A ¼ 0.195, a ¼ 0.018, b ¼ 0.22
AB model nkT ¼ 0.27, N ¼ 26.7
MooneyeRivlin model C
10
¼ 0.142, C
01
¼ 0.011
PuccieSaccomandi model m ¼ 0.2373, J
m
¼ 77.931, C
2
¼ 0.10038
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Stretch
N
o
m
i
n
a
l

S
t
r
e
s
s

[
M
P
a
]
Experiment
This Work
AB Model
Pucci−Saccomandi Model
Fig. 5. Comparison of the proposed model with AB model, PuccieSaccomandi model
and Treloar’s uniaxial extension data in small strains.
1
Fig. 7 exhibits the experimental data of Treloar except the undeformed state
ðl ¼ 1; f ¼ f =l À l
À2
¼ 0=0Þ. To investigate whether singularity occurs in this
point, more data is required in the neighborhood of l ¼ 1. Mathematically speaking,
we have: f ¼ f =l À l
À2
j
l¼1
¼ 0=0 ðindeterminateÞ Utilizing the L’Hopital’s rule,
we have: f ¼ f =l À l
À2
j
l¼1
H
¼vf =vl=1 þ2l
À3
j
l¼1
¼ vf =vlj
l¼1
=3 which is equal to
one-third of the slope of f at l ¼ 1. Obviously, it should be a finite value. Most of the
proposed models do not show any singularity. For example, the Exp-Ln model
gives: f ¼ f =l À l
À2
j
l¼1
H
¼vf =vl=1 þ2l
À3
j
l¼1
¼ 2AðexpðaðI
1
À3ÞÞ À b lnðI
1
À2ÞÞ
j
l¼1
¼ 2A.
H. Khajehsaeid et al. / European Journal of Mechanics A/Solids 38 (2013) 144e151 148
In (34), I
À1
is defined as:
I
À1
¼ l
À2
1
þ l
À2
2
þ l
À2
3
(35)
It is to be noted that, in the presence of incompressibility
condition, I
À1
is equal to I
2
. Fig. 8 presents the comparison of the
models with Meunier et al.’s data in uniaxial extension. As shown,
the proposed model as well as Gent model shows good correlation
with the data. But for the Gao model, the results at large strain
region are not so reliable. Material parameters of these models are
indicated in Table 2.
The results of the foregoing models are compared with
remaining data in Fig. 9 (using the parameters obtained from
uniaxial extension test). Fig. 9a shows the results of the models in
predicting pure shear data. It is seen that, the Exp-Ln and Gent
models are quite accurate where Gao model has deviation in
moderate and large stretches. The results of the models for equi-
biaxial data are plotted in Fig. 9b which exhibits again good
performance of Exp-Ln and Gent models while Gao model is shown
to be accurate only in small stretch region and fails with increasing
the stretch. Fig. 9c gives a comparison among the discussed models
and experimental data in uniaxial compression test. It is shown
that, the Exp-Ln and Gent models are in good agreement with the
experiment in whole range of compression while Gao model is not
reliable in large compressions. Finally, in Fig. 9d, the results of the
models are shown in comparison with plane compression data. In
this case, all models show good correlation with experiment.
Fig. 10 presents the Mooney plots of the discussed models in
comparison with the experimental data in uniaxial extensione
compression. As shown, the proposed model is in good agree-
ment with the data in whole ranges of extension and its prediction
in compression is qualitatively compatible with characteristic
1 2 3 4 5 6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Stretch
N
o
m
i
n
a
l

S
t
r
e
s
s

[
M
P
a
]
Experiment
This Work
AB Model
Mooney−Rivlin Model
Pucci−Saccomandi Model
a
1 2 3 4 5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Stretch
N
o
m
i
n
a
l

S
t
r
e
s
s

[
M
P
a
]
Experiment
This Work
AB Model
Mooney−Rivlin Model
Pucci−Saccomandi Model
b
Fig. 6. Comparison of the proposed model with AB, MooneyeRivlin, PuccieSaccomandi models and Treloar’s data (a) pure shear, (b) Equibiaxial extension (The material parameters
are those determined from uniaxial extension).
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Reciprocal Stretch
R
e
d
u
c
e
d

s
t
r
e
s
s

[
M
P
a
]
Experiment
This Work
AB Model
Mooney−Rivlin Model
Pucci−Saccomandi Model
Fig. 7. Mooney plot of the proposed model in comparison with AB, MooneyeRivlin,
PuccieSaccomandi models and Treloar’s data (The material parameters are those
determined from uniaxial extension).
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Stretch
N
o
m
i
n
a
l

S
t
r
e
s
s

[

M
P
a

]
Experiment
This Work
Gent Model
Gao Model
Fig. 8. Comparison of the proposed model with Gent model, Gao model and Meunier
et al.’s uniaxial extension data.
Table 2
Material parameters of Exp-Ln, Gent and Gao models for Meunier et al.’s data.
Constitutive model Material parameters
Exp-Ln model A ¼ 0.166, a ¼ 0.202, b ¼ 0.386
Gent model m ¼ 0.273, J
m
¼ 8.4
Gao model a
0
¼ 0.0116, n ¼ 2.04
H. Khajehsaeid et al. / European Journal of Mechanics A/Solids 38 (2013) 144e151 149
behavior of the material. The Gent model is only good in large
deformations while the Gao model gives acceptable correlation
with the experiment only in moderate extensions and fails in other
regions of the plot.
4. Summary and conclusions
In the present paper, we introduce a constitutive model for large
stretch deformation of isotropic incompressible rubber-like mate-
rials. The presented model possesses the capability of gradual
evolution and improvement. Thus, it can open a new door in the
future because it comprises the entire prerequisite conditions which
a general and efficient model must have. The proposed model inte-
grates the advantages of the existing models as much as possible:
The model presents good agreement with experimental data
by using relatively small number of material parameters.
The introduced parameters have physical descriptions and only
one simple test (uniaxial tension) is sufficient to determine
them.
The parameters can be determined independently. So, there
always exists only one optimal set of the parameters.
The model has a simple mathematical formulation.
Numerical implementation of the model would be straight
forward without any particular difficulty.
No restriction is needed on the parameters to reach numerical
stability.
The model can be improved to include viscoelasticity and
Mullins effects due to its well-deficiency.
It well predicts the characteristic behavior of the material in
transition fromextension to compression (i.e., the Mooney plot).
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Stretch
N
o
m
i
n
a
l

S
t
r
e
s
s

[

M
P
a

]
Experiment
This Work
Gent Model
Gao Model
a
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Stretch
N
o
m
i
n
a
l

S
t
r
e
s
s

[

M
P
a

]
Experiment
This Work
Gent Model
Gao Model
b
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
−3
−2.5
−2
−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
Stretch
N
o
m
i
n
a
l

S
t
r
e
s
s

[

M
P
a

]
Experiment
This Work
Gent Model
Gao Model
c
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
Stretch
N
o
m
i
n
a
l

S
t
r
e
s
s

[

M
P
a

]
Experiment
This Work
Gent Model
Gao Model
d
Fig. 9. Comparison of the proposed model with Gent model, Gao model and Meunier et al.’s data (a) pure shear, (b) Equibiaxial extension, (c) Uniaxial compression and (d) plane
compression (The material parameters are those determined from uniaxial extension).
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
Reciprocal Stretch
R
e
d
u
c
e
d

S
t
r
e
s
s

[

M
P
a

]
Experiment
This Work
Gent Model
Gao Model
Fig. 10. Mooney plot of the proposed model in comparison with Gent model, Gao
model and Meunier et al.’s data (The material parameters are those determined from
uniaxial extension).
H. Khajehsaeid et al. / European Journal of Mechanics A/Solids 38 (2013) 144e151 150
Consequently, it is interestingly observed that, the proposed
model enjoys all the main qualities of an efficient hyperelastic
model and integrates the advantages of the previous works.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Professor R. W. Odgen for providing
the Treloar’s data in tabulated form.
References
Amin, A.F.M.S., Lion, A., Sekita, S., Okui, Y., 2006. Nonlinear dependence of viscosity
in modeling the rate-dependent response of natural and high damping rubbers
in compression and shear: experimental identification and numerical verifi-
cation. International Journal of Plasticity 22, 1610e1657.
Arruda, E.M., Boyce, M.C., 1993. A three-dimensional constitutive model for the
large stretch behavior of rubber elastic materials. Journal of the Mechanics and
Physics of Solids 41, 389e412.
Bechir, H., Chevalier, L., Chaouche, M., Boufala, K., 2006. Hyperelastic constitutive
model for rubber-like materials based on the first seth strain measures
invariant. European Journal of Mechanics e A/Solids 25, 110e124.
Beda, T., 2007. Modeling hyperelastic behavior of rubber: a novel invariant-based
and a review of constitutive models. Journal of Polymer Science Part B: Poly-
mer Physics 45, 1713e1732.
Bergstrom, J.S., Boyce, M.C., 1998. Constitutive modeling of the large strain time-
dependent behavior of elastomers. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of
Solids 46, 931e954.
Boyce, M., 1996. Direct comparison of the gent and the arruda-boyce constitutive
models of rubber elasticity. Rubber Chemistry and Technology 69, 781e785.
Boyce, M., Arruda, E., 2000. Constitutive models of rubber elasticity: a review.
Rubber Chemistry and Technology 73, 505e523.
Brinson, H., Brinson, L., 2008. Polymer Engineering Science and Viscoelasticity: an
Introduction. Springer Verlag.
Bueche, F., 1960. Molecular basis for the Mullins effect. Journal of Applied Polymer
Science 4, 107e114.
Chagnon, G., 2004. A comparison of the hart-smith model with arruda-boyce and
gent formulations for rubber elasticity. Rubber Chemistry and Technology 77,
724e735.
Chagnon, G., Verron, E., Gornet, L., Marckmann, G., Charrier, P., 2004. On the rele-
vance of continuum damage mechanics as applied to the Mullins effect in
elastomers. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 52, 1627e1650.
Chagnon, G., Verron, E., Marckmann, G., Gornet, L., 2006. Development of new
constitutive equations for the Mullins effect in rubber using the network
alteration theory. International Journal of Solids and Structures 43, 6817e6831.
Darijani, H., Naghdabadi, R., 2010. Hyperelastic materials behavior modeling using
consistent strain energy density functions. Acta Mechanica 213, 235e254.
Darijani, H., Naghdabadi, R., Kargarnovin, M., 2010. Hyperelastic materials model-
ling using a strain measure consistent with the strain energy postulates.
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of
Mechanical Engineering Science 224, 591e602.
Demiray, H., 1972. A note on the elasticity of soft biological tissues. Journal of
Biomechanics 5, 309e311.
Diani, J., Brieu, M., Vacherand, J.M., 2006. A damage directional constitutive model
for Mullins effect with permanent set and induced anisotropy. European Journal
of Mechanics e A/Solids 25, 483e496.
Gao, Y., 1997. Large deformation field near a crack tip in rubber-like material.
Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 26, 155e162.
Gent, A., 1996. A new constitutive relation for rubber. Rubber Chemistry and
Technology 69, 59e61.
Han, W., Horka, F., Mckenna, G., 1999. Mechanical and swelling behaviors of rubber:
a comparison of some molecular models with experiment. Mathematics and
Mechanics of Solids 4, 139e167.
Hart-Smith, L.J., 1966. Elasticity parameters for finite deformations of rubber-like
materials. Zeitschrift fr Angewandte Mathematik und Physik (ZAMP) 17, 608e
626.
Hoger, A., 1999. A second order constitutive theory for hyperelastic materials.
International Journal of Solids and Structures 36, 847e868.
Horgan, C., Saccomandi, G., 2006. Phenomenological hyperelastic strain-stiffening
constitutive models for rubber. Rubber Chemistry and Technology 79, 152e
169.
Horgan, C.O., Smayda, M.G., 2012. The importance of the second strain invariant in
the constitutive modeling of elastomers and soft biomaterials. Mechanics of
Materials 51, 43e52.
Kakavas, P.A., 2000. A new development of the strain energy function for hypere-
lastic materials using a logarithmic strain approach. Journal of Applied Polymer
Science 77, 660e672.
Lambert-Diani, J., Rey, C., 1999. New phenomenological behavior laws for rubbers
and thermoplastic elastomers. European Journal of Mechanics e A/Solids 18,
1027e1043.
Li, C., Lua, J., 2009. A hyper-viscoelastic constitutive model for polyurea. Materials
Letters 63, 877e880.
Lion, A., 1997. A physically based method to represent the thermo-mechanical
behaviour of elastomers. Acta Mechanica 123, 1e25.
Marckmann, G., Verron, E., Gornet, L., Chagnon, G., Charrier, P., Fort, P., 2002.
A theory of network alteration for the Mullins effect. Journal of the Mechanics
and Physics of Solids 50, 2011e2028.
Meunier, L., Chagnon, G., Favier, D., Orgas, L., Vacher, P., 2008. Mechanical experi-
mental characterisation and numerical modelling of an unfilled silicone rubber.
Polymer Testing 27, 765e777.
Mooney, M., 1940. A theory of large elastic deformation. Journal of Applied Physics
11, 582e592.
Ogden, R., Saccomandi, G., Sgura, I., 2004. Fitting hyperelastic models to experi-
mental data. Computational Mechanics 34, 484e502.
Pucci, E., Saccomandi, G., 2002. A note on the gent model for rubber-like materials.
Rubber Chemistry and Technology 75, 839e851.
Reese, S., 2003. A micromechanically motivated material model for the thermo-
viscoelastic material behaviour of rubber-like polymers. International Journal
of Plasticity 19, 909e940.
Richeton, J., Ahzi, S., Vecchio, K., Jiang, F., Makradi, A., 2007. Modeling and validation
of the large deformation inelastic response of amorphous polymers over a wide
range of temperatures and strain rates. International Journal of Solids and
Structures 44, 7938e7954.
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. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 243,
251e288.
Smith, L., Nemours, E.d.P.d., et al., 1993. The Language of Rubber: an Introduction to
the Specification and Testing of Elastomers. Boston.
Sussman, T., Bathe, K.J., 2009. A model of incompressible isotropic hyperelastic
material behavior using spline interpolations of tension compression test data.
Communications in Numerical Methods in Engineering 25, 53e63.
Treloar, L., 1975. The Physics of Rubber Elasticity, third ed. Clarendon, Oxford.
Varga, O., 1966. Stress-strain Behavior of Elastic Materials: Selected Problems of
Large Deformations, vol. 15. Interscience Publishers.
Vito, R., 1973. A note on arterial elasticity. Journal of Biomechanics 6, 561e564.
Yeoh, O.H., Fleming, P.D., 1997. A new attempt to reconcile the statistical and
phenomenological theories of rubber elasticity. Journal of Polymer Science Part
B: Polymer Physics 35, 1919e1931.
H. Khajehsaeid et al. / European Journal of Mechanics A/Solids 38 (2013) 144e151 151