Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings 24 (2020) 1670–1679 www.materialstoday.com/proceedings

IConAMMA 2018

Characterization of Hyperelastic Material by Experimental Tests

and Curve Fitting

Shaik Shabbir1, B.Satyanarayana2, K.Sreeramulu3

1,2
VNR VJIET, Bachupally, Hyderabad-500090, India
3
DOFS, DRDL, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad-500058, India

Abstract

Structural integrity of propellant grain is investigated by carrying out numerical simulations of rocket motor for various loading
conditions like pressure, temperature etc. To carry out these numerical simulations, one must have material properties of each
component of rocket motor. Propellant material behaves like a rubber material. It may be characterized using hyperelasticity. The
strain energy function will be used to describe the material model. Mooney Rivlin material model will be used and material
coefficients are estimated using the test results by curve fitting. Later, these coefficients will be used to study the structural
integrity of propellant grain.

© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Advances in Materials and
Manufacturing Applications, IConAMMA 2018.

Keywords:Rubber;Hyperelasticity; Strain Energy Function; Mooney Rivlin Material Model; ANSYS Software and Curve Fitting.

1. Introduction
Rocket motors are used to power most of the aerospace vehicles. The thrust from the rocket motor is generated by
burning propellant grain and pushing away the burnt gases through a nozzle. One of the most important design
elements of a rocket motor is to ensure structural integrity of propellant grain during power generation. Solid
propellant material is a highly flammable material that cannot be characterize directly. Instead of propellant material
rubber-like material is assumes as a propellant material. Which is similar to the mechanical properties of propellant.
A rubber is a solid elastic material that can regain its original position or will quickly return to its original shape
after the removal of the external forces and cannot undergo the permanent deformation. Propellant is a substance,

2214-7853© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Advances in Materials and
Manufacturing Applications, IConAMMA 2018.
 S. Shabbir et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 24 (2020) 1670–1679 1671

which is used as a fuel in aerospace vehicles. It produces thrust from the nozzle to accelerate the motion of the
aerospace vehicles.

2. Hyperelasticity

Hyperelasticity of any material describes mainly about the stress strain behaviour of any material. By using
hyperelasticity we can derive the material behaviour of any material. For example stress strain behaviour of the
rubber material is elastic, isotropic and incompressible. We can derive this material behaviour using hyperelasticity.
∂W ∂W ∂W
P= =F = 2F (1)
∂F ∂E ∂C

∂W ∂W ∂W
S = F −1 = =2 (2)
∂F ∂E ∂C

C = F T F ; B = FF T
 λ1 0 0  λ12 0 0
   
F =  0 λ2 0 F T F = FF T =  0 λ22 0
0 0 λ3   0 0 λ32 
 

2.1 Strain Energy Function for Mooney Rivlin Model

The strain energy function of Mooney Rivlin material model is expressed in the terms of strain invariants are
W = ( I1 , I 2 , I3 )
Where I1, I2 and I3 are the first order, second order and third order strain invariables respectively. I1, I2 and I3 can be
calculated from the principal stretch ratios λ1, λ2 and λ3.
I1 = λ12 + λ22 + λ32 (3)
I 2 = λ12 λ22 + λ22 λ32 + λ32 λ12 (4)
I 3 = λ12 λ22 λ32 (5)

The General strain energy potential of the Mooney-Rivlin model is

∞

 C (I − 3) ( I 2 − 3)
i j
W= ij 1 (6)
i , j =0

For incompressible material, I3 = 1

Where 𝑪𝒊𝒋 is a material parameter determine by the experimental tests.
The expanded form of Mooney-Rivlin Model for 2-Parameter is
∴W = C10 ( I1 − 3) + C01 ( I 2 − 3) (7)

2.2 Incompressible Isotropic Hyperelastic Material

For isotropic hyperelastic materials, the strain energy equation is taken as

W =W (F) − p
1672 S. Shabbir et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 24 (2020) 1670–1679

𝜕𝑊
𝑃 = −𝑝𝐹 + 2𝐹 (8)
𝜕𝐶

The Cauchy stress for incompressible material is

𝜎 = 𝑃𝐹
Substituting equation(8) in above terms, we get
𝜕𝑊
∴ 𝜎 = −𝑝1 + 2𝐹 𝐹 (9)
𝜕𝐶
𝜕𝑊 𝜕𝑊 𝜕𝐼 𝜕𝑊 𝜕𝐼
= +
𝜕𝐶 𝜕𝐼 𝜕𝐶 𝜕𝐼 𝜕𝐶
The above expression followed by Chain rule
𝜕𝑊 𝜕𝑊 𝜕𝑊
= 1+ 𝐼 1−𝐹 𝐹
𝜕𝐶 𝜕𝐼 𝜕𝐼
𝜕𝑊 𝜕𝑊
𝜎 = −𝑝1 + 2𝐹 1+ 𝐼 1−𝐹 𝐹 𝐹
𝜕𝐼 𝜕𝐼
𝜕𝑊 𝜕𝑊
𝜎 = −𝑝1 + 2 𝐹𝐹 + 𝐼 𝐹𝐹 − 𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹
𝜕𝐼 𝜕𝐼
𝜕𝑊 𝜕𝑊
𝜎 = −𝑝1 + 2 𝐵+ 𝐼 𝐵 − 𝐵. 𝐵
𝜕𝐼 𝜕𝐼
𝜕𝑊 𝜕𝑊 𝜕𝑊
𝜎 = −𝑝1 + 2 𝐵+𝐼 𝐵 − 𝐵. 𝐵
𝜕𝐼 𝜕𝐼 𝜕𝐼
𝜕𝑊 𝜕𝑊 𝜕𝑊
𝜎 = −𝑝1 + 2 +𝐼 𝐵− 𝐵. 𝐵
𝜕𝐼 𝜕𝐼 𝜕𝐼

𝜕𝑊 𝜕𝑊 𝜕𝑊
∴𝜎=2 +𝐼 𝐵− 𝐵. 𝐵 − 𝑝1 (10)
𝜕𝐼 𝜕𝐼 𝜕𝐼

2.3 Stress-Strain Derivation of Cauchy Stress

2.3.1 Uniaxial

For uniaxial test the stretch ratios are

1
λ =λ, λ =λ =
√λ
2
I =λ +
λ
λ 0 0 λ 0 0
0 1 0
B= 0 λ 0 = λ
0 0 λ 0 0 1λ
λ 0 0
⎡ 1 ⎤
B. B = ⎢ 0 0 ⎥
λ
⎢ 1 ⎥
⎣0 0
λ ⎦

Substituting the above terms in equation (10)

2
σ = 2 C + λ + C B − C 𝐵. 𝐵 − p1
λ
 S. Shabbir et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 24 (2020) 1670–1679 1673

2
σ =2 C + λ + C λ −C λ − p1
λ
2 1 1
σ =2 C + λ + C λ −C − p1
λ λ
2 1 1
σ =2 C + λ + C λ −C − p1
λ λ
subtracting σ − σ , We get
C C
= 2 C λ + 2λC − λ − λC − λ
C C
= 2 C λ + λC − λ−λ
1 1
=2 C λ − +C λ−
λ λ
1 1
∴σ = 2C λ − + 2C λ − (11)
λ λ
σ
∴σ =
λ
1 1
∴σ = 2C λ− + 2C 1− (12)
λ λ

Similarly, it can be derive the biaxial and planar Cauchy stress equation by changing the stretch ratios values and
substituting in the Cauchy stress equation.

2.3.2 Biaxial

For biaxial test the stretch ratios are

1
λ =λ =λ, λ =
λ
1
I = 2λ +
λ
1 1
∴σ = 2C λ− + 2C λ − (13)
λ λ
2.3.3 Planar

For planar test the stretch ratios are

1
λ = λ, λ =1, λ =
λ
1
I =λ +1+
λ
1 1
∴σ = 2C λ− + 2C λ− (14)
λ λ

3. Experimental Tests

3.1. Uniaxial Tension

Uniaxial tensile test is carried out using a dumb-bell [1] specimen as per ISO 37 of type 1 as shown in figure 3.1.1,
figure 3.1.2 and figure 3.1.3. This test was performed on universal testing machine. The dumb-bell specimen is
gripped from each end and one of them is connected to the movable head, which is connected to load cell. This test
1674 S. Shabbir et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 24 (2020) 1670–1679

is conducted at three different loading conditions. A type of contact extensometer is used to measure strain within
the specimen during loading.

Figure 3.1.1 Dumb-Bell Type 1 Dimension [1]

Figure 3.1.2 Dumb-Bell Specimens [1]

Figure 3.1.3 Specimen with Fixture [1]

3.2. Biaxial Tension

There is no standard test method for this experiment and biaxial tension machine setup. The test is conducted on
universal testing machine by using fixture. It is adopted from the NPL Report CMMT (A) 226 October 1999. The
test specimen, which it would be gripped, is 28 mm. for measuring strain, video extensometer is used. At diagonal
length of 20 mm is marked on the specimen [2] as shown in the below figures 3.2.1 to figure 3.2.3.
 S. Shabbir et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 24 (2020) 1670–1679 1675

Figure 3.2.1. Biaxial Specimen Dimension [2] Figure 3.2.2. Biaxial Specimen [2]

Figure 3.2.3. Biaxial Fixture [2]

3.3. Planar Tension

A rectangular specimen is cut out of a 2 mm thick sheet of rubber. The specimen is clamped such that the free length
(in the stretching direction) is much smaller than the width, so that the thinning occurs only in the thickness
direction. A test piece of 200 mm in width and 50 mm in length leaving 20 mm for the test-section (30 mm
clamped) as shown in the figure [3.3.1-3.3.3]. For measuring strain, video extensometer is used [3].

Figure 3.3.1 Planar Specimen Dimension [3]

1676 S. Shabbir et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 24 (2020) 1670–1679

Figure 3.3.2. Planar Test Specimen [3]

Figure 3.3.3 Planar Test Fixture [3]

4. Curve Fitting

Just like "Young's modulus" in linear elasticity is said to be a material property, the coefficients of a given
hyperelastic model will also become, in some way, the material properties defining a rubber-like material. These
coefficients are not measured directly but rather fitted to experimental characterization data as shown in figures 4.1,
figure 4.2, figure 4.3 and figure 4.4.

4.1. Uniaxial Curve Fitting

Figure 4.1 Uniaxial Curve Fitting at 50 % of Strain Rate [4]

 S. Shabbir et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 24 (2020) 1670–1679 1677

4.2 Biaxial Curve Fitting

Figure 4.2 Biaxial Curve Fitting at 50 % of Strain Rate [4]

4.3 Planar Test Curve Fitting

Figure 4.3 Planar Test Curve Fitting at 50 % of Strain Rate [4]

1678 S. Shabbir et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 24 (2020) 1670–1679

4.4 All 3-Tests Curve Fitting In ANSYS Software

Figure 4.4 All 3-Tests Curve Fitting at 50% of Strain Rate [4]

Table 1.1 Calculated Constants for ANSYS and LSF

Material model Mooney Rivlin

Type of fit ANSYS LSF

s.no Tests/constants C10 C01 C10 C01

1. Uniaxial 0.366 1.417 0.85 1.09

2. Biaxial 1.372 0.179 1.461 0.129

3. Planar - - 1.576 0

4. 3-tests 1.34 0.21 - -

Conclusion

Characterization of hyperelastic material is done by curve fitting module and calculated the Mooney Rivlin
parameters from the experimental tests using uniaxial, biaxial and pure shear test data. Also calculated the
individual test parameters to analyse the fit except planar test by using ANSYS Software. The above table 1.1 shows
the results for ANSYS and Least Square Fitting. Here, attempted to calculate the constants from least square
method. Hence, the propellant material behaves like as a rubber material. So it is characterized by hyperelastic
material model. From all three-test curve fitting, the calculated constants are used to characterize the solid motor
rocket propellant.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to acknowledge Sri. A. Prasad Goud, Sc’G’ in Structural Division of DRDL, for providing
necessary facilities to carry out this work.
 S. Shabbir et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 24 (2020) 1670–1679 1679

References

[1] Kumar, Nomesh, and V. Venkateswara Rao. Parameters 2, no. 10 (2016): 01.

[2] Duncan, B. C. National Physical Laboratory. Great Britain, Centre for Materials Measurement and Technology, 1999.

[3] Xu, Bing, Qin Shu He, and Shao Rong Yu. In Applied Mechanics and Materials, vol. 44, pp. 1487-1491. Trans Tech Publications, 2011.

[4] Venkatesh, K., and P. L. Srinivasa Murthy. Int J MechIndEng 2, no. 4 (2012): 72-76.

[5] Shahzad, Majid, Ali Kamran, Muhammad Zeeshan Siddiqui, and Muhammad Farhan. Materials Research 18, no. 5 (2015): 918-924.

[6] Liu, I-Shih. Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics (2012): 1-8.

[7] Mohan, CHV Ram, J. Ramanathan, Satish Kumar, and A. V. S. S. K. S. Gupta. Defence science journal 61, no. 3 (2011): 264.

[8] Abubakar, Ismail J., Peter Myler, and Erping Zhou. Modeling and Numerical Simulation of Material Science 6, no. 02 (2016): 28.

[9] Brieu, M., J. Diani, and N. Bhatnagar. Journal of Testing and Evaluation 35, no. 4 (2006): 364-372.

[10] Wadham-Gagnon, Matthew, Pascal Hubert, Christian Semler, Michael P. Païdoussis, Martin Vézina, and Denys Lavoie. (2006).

[11] Moreira, D. C., and L. C. S. Nunes. Polymer Testing 32, no. 2 (2013): 240-248.

[12] A.N Jadhav, Dr. S.R Bahulikar and N.H Sapate. Vol -2 issue-4 2016, IJARIIE-ISSN(0)-2395-4396.

[13] Khajehsaeid, H., J. Arghavani, and R. Naghdabadi. European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solids 38 (2013): 144-151.