Materials and Design 53 (2014) 457–465

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes

Technical Report

Parameter determination and experimental verification of

Bergström–Boyce hysteresis model for rubber compounds
reinforced by carbon black blends
M.H.R. Ghoreishy ⇑, M. Firouzbakht, G. Naderi
Iran Polymer and Petrochemical Institute, PO Box 14965/115, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This research work is devoted to the modeling of the hyper-viscoelastic behavior of rubber compounds
Received 21 May 2013 using Bergström–Boyce hysteresis model. Two series of rubber compounds reinforced by different carbon
Accepted 11 July 2013 black types and amounts were prepared. In the first series single type filler was used while in the second
Available online 24 July 2013
series the blend of two carbon black types was employed. The mechanical behaviors of these samples
were studied using a hyper-viscoelastic model which was based on the combination of Yeoh hyperelastic
model and Bergström–Boyce hysteresis model implemented in the Abaqus software. A hybrid numerical/
experimental technique developed in our previous works was employed to determine the parameters of
the Bergström–Boyce model for the mentioned samples. In this technique uniaxial tests were carried out
on three rubber strips specimens and the data of force vs. extension were recorded. These data were used
in three finite element models to calibrate the material parameters for the aforementioned model and the
relationship between particle size and structural measure of the carbon black with parameters of the
Bergström–Boyce model were completely discussed.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction mechanical loads. Their main focus was on the hyperelasticity

It is generally known that the mechanical behaviors of elasto-
meric materials especially those are reinforced by particulate
fillers (e.g. carbon black) are too complex to be described by a
simple mathematical model. The most significant characteristics
are (1) nonlinearity in stress–strain relationship, (2) incompress-
ibility which means that the Poisson’s ratio (m) is equal to 0.5, (3)
large strain and deformation under normal loads and (4) hysteresis
and softening during cyclic loadings. Consequently, many
researchers have tried to propose a suitable model to accurately
describe the response of a compound rubber subjected to static
and dynamic loads. Several studies investigating the relation
between stress and strain in elastomeric materials have been car-
ried out and a large number of equations known as hyperelastic
models were proposed. Morman and Pan [1] have studied the the-
ory of the rubber deformations under mechanical loads using both
analytical (closed-form) and numerical (finite element method)
techniques in conjunction with some case studies to show the
capabilities of the reviewed methods for engineering applications.
Nicholson et al. [2,3] have reviewed the mathematical background
and the theoretical base of the rubber deformations under
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 48662434; fax: +98 21 44580021.
E-mail addresses: M.H.R.Ghoreishy@ippi.ac.ir (M.H.R. Ghoreishy), M.Firouzbakh-
t@ippi.ac.ir (M. Firouzbakht), G.Naderi@ippi.ac.ir (G. Naderi).
and the developed constitutive equations for implementation in
finite element software. They have thoroughly studied both phe-
nomenological and mechanistic hyperelastic constitutive equa-
tions. In a more recent review, Muhr [4] investigated this subject
and presented a comprehensive review on stress–strain behavior
of rubber including hyperelasticity, interaction between filler and
polymer network, finite strain behavior of rubber, inelastic effects
such as viscoelasticity, Mullin and Payne effecst and energy dissi-
pation in cyclic loadings. Beda [5] was also reviewed constitutive
laws introduced for modeling of the rubbery materials and also
presented a new phenomenological hyperelastic model. Wang
and Lu [6] presented a method for the determination of the param-
eters of the hyperelastic materials models using uniaxial tension
and compression experimental data. They have also presented a
procedure for the modeling of an anti-vibration rubber component
using finite element method. The effect of a nano-filler on the
hyperelasticity and the parameters of strain energy density func-
tions were investigated by Ghasemi et al. [7]. They have showed
that there is some measure of dependency between morphology
of the polymer-filler and parameters of constitutive equations.
The applicability and accuracy of the predicted results by finite ele-
ment method using different hyperelastic models was numerically
studied by Ghoreishy [8]. Having compared the computed results
with experimental data, it was shown that different constitutive
models give rise results with different accuracy even for a simple

0261-3069/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.07.040
458 M.H.R. Ghoreishy et al. / Materials and Design 53 (2014) 457–465

sample under uniaxial loads. Development of more sophisticated effect of the use of different carbon black and their blends on the
strain energy density functions which either needs less experimen- time-dependent mechanical behavior of a typical rubber com-
tal data or predicts the stress and strain with higher accuracy were pounds used in the tread of passenger car tire. We have investi-
the main motivation in this field. Arruda and Boyce [9] introduced gated this effect via determination of the parameters of the
a mechanistic model based on an 8-chain model. The model is be- Bergström–Boyce model and correlated them with molecular
lieved to be an extension of the Neo-Hookean model for large structures of the prepared compounds. In the following sections,
deformations. Ogden [10] developed a phenomenological model the constitutive equations used in this work including hyperelastic
which is a stretch-ratio based model. This means that the strain en- model and the Bergström–Boyce are briefly discussed. Then, the
ergy density is a function of principal stretches rather than the experimental procedures and tests carried out on the samples are
invariants of the strain tensor. The main feature of this model is presented. The finite element models developed in this work are
that it can gives highly accurate results if the data used for material described in the subsequent section. The results and discussion
model calibration are comprised of uniaxial, bi-axial and planer are then presented and finally conclusions are drawn.
tests. In contrast to Ogden model, Yeoh [11] and Marlow [12]
models need minimum experimental data (normally uniaxial) to
2. Constitutive equations
accurately model the mechanical behavior of hyperelastic materi-
als. Some of these models are presented with their corresponding
2.1. Hyperelastic models
references in the next sections. On the other hand due to the time
dependent characteristics of the mechanical behaviors of rubbers,
The mechanical behavior of elastomeric materials is generally
hyper-viscoelastic models based on the combination a hyperelastic
described by hyperelastic models in which the strain energy
model and a strain rate dependent equation are proposed. The
density (stored energy per unit volume) is correlated to strain
simplest form of such models is based on the use of linear visco-
invariants (I1, I2, I3) or principle stretch ratios (k1, k2, k3). Several
elasticity or Prony series, which was shown to precisely predict
models have been proposed so far. Table 1 lists the most com-
the deformation of a rubber specimen under tension mode at lower
monly used strain energy density functions in computational
strains [13]. However, the use of reinforcing fillers and the other
mechanics for the description of the deformational behavior of
compounding ingredients especially in industrial articles requires
rubbers. The equations given in this table only describes the
a nonlinear strain rate dependent model is combined with hyper-
deviatoric part of the strain energy function which means that
elastic model for proper description of the time dependent or
the compressibility has been ignored. As it can be seen, there are
hyper-viscoelasticity. Shim et al. [14] developed a hyper-viscoelas-
a number of parameters associated with each model so that the
tic model in which they used a three-parameter polynomial hyper-
accurate determination of them for every rubber compound is of
elastic model in conjunction with a rate-dependent model derived
prime importance. To achieve this task, the nominal stresses and
from BKZ equation. In another work, Vandenbroucke et al. [15]
strains obtained from testing of rubber samples under simple
applied a HVM (Hyperelasto-Visco-Hysteresis) model for the
deformational modes such as uniaxial tension (or compression),
investigation of the mechanical behavior of a fluoro-elastomer.
bi-axial tension, planner and shear are used for calibration of the
Gracia et al. [16] has performed a series of finite element analyses
material parameters. There is always a trade-off between the accu-
for an industrial rubber component using Abaqus code. Their main
racy of the calculated material parameters, number of experiments
purpose was to show the capability of the overlay model which
and types of rubber specimen used during testing of samples. It is
was originally developed for the prediction of the hysteretic behav-
generally found that the computed parameters from simple uniax-
ior of rubbers. Bergström and Boyce [17–19] developed and
ial tests for models that depend on first invariant of strain tensor
presented a strong nonlinear model which we have also used it
i.e. I1 (like Yeoh and Marlow), are more accurate than those which
in our previous work for silica filled rubber compounds [20].
are based on I1 and I2 (I3 = 0 due to incompressibility condition) or
Recently, the numerical implementation of this model in finite
principle stretch ratio (such as Ogden) [23]. Consequently, in this
element algorithms was also investigated (see for example Dal
work we have adopted the Yeoh model in which the strain energy
and Kaliske [21]; and Areias and Matous [22]). We have also
density is not only a function of first invariant of strain tensor but
employed this model in the current work which its details will
also the higher order terms in it (compared to simple Neo-Hookean
be presented in the next section.
model) makes it an appropriate equation for the description of the
In our earlier work [13] it was shown that the use of hyperelas-
rubber at higher strain values.
tic model with Prony series equations for the representation of
hyper-viscoelasticity leads to relatively significant errors at higher
strains especially for highly filled (high hardness) compounds. 2.2. Bergström–Boyce model
Therefore in the present work our focus was to use of Bergs-
tröm–Boyce equation for the description of the hyper-viscoelastic- Rubbery materials like other polymers show a degree of visco-
ity. In addition, the main novelty of this research was to study the elasticity when undergoing deformations within a reasonable time

Table 1
Commonly used hyperelastic models.

Model name Refs. Type Function

Neo-Hookean [1–4] Mechanistic W ¼ C 10 ðI1  3Þ
Mooney–Rivlin [1–4] Phenomenological W ¼ C 1 ðI1  3Þ þ C 2 ðI2  3Þ
Arruda–Boyce [9] Mechanistic P
W ¼ l 5i¼1 k2iC2
i
ðIi1  3i Þ
m

C 1 ¼ 12 1
C 2 ¼ 20 11
C 3 ¼ 1050
19 5196
C 4 ¼ 7000 C 5 ¼ 673750
Ogden [10] Phenomenological PN 2li ai
W ¼ i¼1 a2 ðk1 þ k2ai þ ka3i  3Þ
i

Polynomial [1–4] Phenomenological P

W¼ N i
iþj¼1 C ij ðI1  3Þ ðI 2  3Þ
j

Yeoh [11] Phenomenological W ¼ C 10 ðI1  3Þ þ C 20 ðI1  3Þ2 þ C 30 ðI1  3Þ3

Marlow [12] Phenomenological R kðI Þ1
W ¼ WðI1 Þ ¼ 0 1 rðÞd
 M.H.R. Ghoreishy et al. / Materials and Design 53 (2014) 457–465 459

scale. This means that a time-independent hyperplastic model Table 3

such as those introduced in Table 1, is not enough to precisely Formulation of the compounds.

describe the mechanical behavior. Therefore, the combination of Ingredient Sample code
hyper-elastic model and a suitable viscoelastic model are used S1 S2 S3 S4 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6
for this purpose. Among the different linear and nonlinear models
SBR 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
developed in this context, the Bergström–Boyce material model BR 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
[17–19] which is implemented in Abaqus code was selected in this CB (N220) 60 – – – – – – – 30 40
work. In this model, the mechanical response of the rubber to CB (N330) – 60 – – 30 40 – – – –
applied loads can be attributed to two networks within the molec- CB (N375) – – 60 – – – 30 40 – –
CB (N550) – – – 60 30 20 30 20 30 20
ular structure of the material. The first one is an equilibrium
Aromatic oil 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
network (A) that corresponds to time-independent behavior of Wax 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
the rubber and the second network (B) is responsible for the non- 6PPD 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
linear rate-dependent part of the response. It is also assumed that ZnO 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Stearic acid 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
the total response is the sum of the response of each network. The
Sulfur 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
mechanical behavior of the first network (A) is described by the CBS 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
hyperelastic models such as Yeoh, while the strain-rate in network TMTD 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
(B) is given by the following equation:

_ B ¼ A½kB  1c ðrB Þm ð1Þ

where _ B is the effective creep strain rate, A is a material constant,
kB  1 is the nominal creep strain, rB is the effective stress, m is a
positive value greater than 1 representing the effective stress
dependence of the effective creep strain rate and c is a value
between 1 and 0 representing the dependency of creep strain to
effective creep strain rate. In order to complete the Bergström–Boy-
ce model, a stress scaling factor, S is also required which defines the
ratio of the stress carried by network B to the stress carried by
network A under instantaneous loading [24]. It should be noted that
all of these values are defined over network B.
3. Experimental details
3.1. Materials
The compounding ingredients used in this work along with
their chemical names and suppliers are listed in Table 2. Based
on these initial materials 10 compound formulations were
designed as recorded in Table 3. The base of these formulations
is a typical non-silica tread of a passenger car tire. This is because
that the viscoelastic properties of the materials used in the tread is
directly related to the rolling resistance and fuel efficiency of the
tire. As can be seen in Table 3, the differences in the selected
formulas are in types and amounts of the carbon blacks used for
compounding. We have selected four carbon black types with dif-
ferent particle size and structures including N220 (lowest particle
size), N330, N375 and N550 (highest particle size). The total of car-
bon black volumes in all compounds were kept constant and equal
to 60 phr. Rubber compounds with code names S1, S2, S3 and S4
consist of only one type of carbon black while blends of two carbon
black types were used in the rest of compounds i.e. B1 to B6.
3.2. Sample preparation and tests
Using the conventional laboratory mixing and compounding
machineries (two-roll mill and Banbury internal mixer) the men-
tioned compounds were prepared. They are then shaped and vulca-
nized into 10 rubber sheets and rubber cylinders with height and
diameter of 12.5 mm and 29 mm, respectively. Four test specimens
were cut from each sheet including a dumbbell sample for the
ASTM: D412-C uniaxial tension test and three rubber strips with
11 cm length and 1 cm, 2 cm and 3 cm widths, respectively (see
Fig. 1). In order to check the repeatability of the selected method
and calculated parameters, three samples with different widths
were chosen in this work.
All of these samples were tested using a universal testing
machine in tension mode with a uniform rate of 500 mm/min. In
addition, to check the reproducibility of the results, extra tests on
1 cm specimen with S1 compound were carried out at two more
extension rates of 50 and 250 mm/min. In addition, compressive
tests were performed on rubber cylinders based on ISO7743 [25]
test procedure in which the compressive force was applied on each
rubber cylinder and vertical deformation at a compression rate of
10 mm/min was recorded. The data obtained from ASTM: D-412C
test (i.e. nominal stress and strain) were used for the calibration
of the material parameters of the Yeoh hyperelastic model. On
the other hand, the force and extension measured from the tension
tests on the three rubber strips were used for the description of the
hyper-viscoelasticity behavior using the Bergström–Boyce equa-
tion. In addition to the above mentioned static tests, the build-up
and temperature rise behavior of these compounds were also eval-
uated using the Goodrich Flexometer according to ISO 4666 [26]
standard. These values were used to evaluate the dissipation
effects of the rubber compounds under cyclic loadings.

Table 2
The compounding ingredients of passenger tire tread.

Ingredient Chemical name Supplier

SBR Styrene Butadiene Rubber 1502 Arak Petrochemical Co.
BR Butadiene Rubber 1220 Bandar Imam Petrochemical Co.
CB Carbon Black Iran Carbon Co.
Oil 250 Aromatic Oil Behran Oil Company
Wax Paraffin Wax Rheinchemie
6PPD N-(1,3-Dimethylbutyl)-Ń-phenyl-1,4-phenylenediamine (Dusantox) Duslo Co.
ZnO Zinc Oxide Pars Oxide Co.
St.A Stearic Acid (octadecanoic acid) G&N SDN. BHD.
Sulfur Sulfur Rheinchemie
CBS N-Cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazole sulfenamide Lanxess
TMTD Tetramethylthiuram Disulfide Nurchem
460 M.H.R. Ghoreishy et al. / Materials and Design 53 (2014) 457–465

Fig. 1. ASTM: D412-C and three specimens cut from rubber sheet.

4. Finite element model Fig. 2b. Finite element mesh of the 2  11 cm sample.

In order to determine the parameters of the Bergström–Boyce

equation, the tension of the three rubber strips and compression
of the rubber cylinder were simulated using the Abaqus/Standard
code [17–19]. For rubber strips, the analyses were displacement
controlled and the force required to achieve a fixed amount of
extension at a pre-specified rate was computed. This extension
was applied on one side of the model and the other side was com-
pletely fixed. The geometries of the three rubber strips were dis-
cretized into 10-nodded tetrahedral hybrid elements (C3D10H)
as shown in Figs. 2a–c, respectively. The adaptive mesh technique
implemented in the Abaqus code has been used in conjunction
with the algorithm described in our previous work [13] to find
convergent and accurate mesh. Similar approach was adopted for
rubber cylinder specimens. An axisymmetric finite element model

Fig. 2c. Finite element mesh of the 3  11 cm sample.

was created in which a section of the cylinder was discretized into

Fig. 2a. Finite element mesh of the 1  11 cm sample.
8-noded quadrilateral hybrid elements (CAX8H) as shown in Fig. 3.
As it can be seen, two surfaces with frictional contacts were de-
fined at the upper and lower parts of the sample. It will be shown
in the results and discussion part that although a normal force is
applied on the sample, the resulting deformations are a combina-
tion of compression, shear and even tension modes. Details of
the finite element modeling technique and numerical procedures
are described in our previous publications [13,20] and thus not re-
peated here.
The main finite element calculations were carried out in two
steps. In the first step, hyperelastic models without time effects
were considered and thus analyses were carried out using a gen-
eral nonlinear static assumption. The Yeoh hyperelastic model
was selected to describe the mechanical behavior of rubbers. The
parameters of this model were also determined using the nonlin-
ear curve fitting on stress–strain data obtained from uniaxial
 M.H.R. Ghoreishy et al. / Materials and Design 53 (2014) 457–465 461

Fig. 5. Force vs. extension (numerically predicted and experimentally measured)

Fig. 3. Finite element mesh of the rubber cylinder. with the Yeoh hyperelastic model for B1 specimen.

tension tests. In the second step, the analyses were assumed to be

Table 4
time dependent and Yeoh model was used in conjunction with the
Calculated parameters of Yeoh model.
Bergström–Boyce material model to resemble the hyper-viscoelas-
tic behavior. In the latter case, analyses were considered to be time Sample code Parameters of Yeoh model (MPa)
dependent. The time period of each analysis was set to 24 s which C10 C20 C30
corresponds to a maximum 200 mm extension based on the exten- S1 0.7568 0.0861 0.0018
sion rate of 500 mm/min (8.3333 mm/s). S2 0.6706 0.0925 0.0023
S3 0.7442 0.0792 0.0015
S4 0.7212 0.0770 0.0013
B1 0.8216 0.1115 0.0036
5. Results and discussion B2 0.6405 0.1250 0.0041
B3 0.7074 0.1123 0.0030
Figs. 4 and 5 show the variation of the calculated and experi- B4 0.7517 0.1134 0.0035
mentally measured force vs. extension for test samples S1 and B5 0.7548 0.1129 0.0034
B6 0.6278 0.0900 0.0023
B1, respectively. The calculated results shown in these Figs. corre-
spond to the first finite element analyses in which Yeoh model was
only used for the description of the material behavior. Table 4 gives
the parameters of the Yeoh model. As can be seen, although a geo- eling factors, the reasons that can describe these deviations are
metrically and material nonlinear finite element formulation was relaxation of the material molecules and filler–filler and filler-poly-
adopted in this analysis, the difference between experimentally mer bonding/de-bonding phenomena. This means that the time
determined data and numerically obtained results are relatively effects and energy dissipation cannot be ignored during the finite
high which means that the selected material model cannot cope element analysis. Consequently, simulations were repeated with
with actual behavior of the rubber compounds. The results for taking the inelastic effect into consideration using the combination
other test samples showed similar trends and thus they are not of the hyperelastic model and Bergström–Boyce hysteresis equa-
presented here. Having checked several numerical and other mod- tion as described in previous section. The basic question in this
step is how to determine the four parameters of the Bergström–
Boyce equation including, S, c, A and m (see Eq. 1). We started from
some initial guess for these values and the error or difference be-
tween experimental data and numerically obtained data was cal-
culated. The initially selected parameters were then modified
based on the calculated error and the analysis was repeated until
the error becomes small. Any optimization method such as Nel-
der–Mead simplex algorithm [13] can be used for the minimization
of the error and calculation of the model parameters that give the
best fitted curve. The force versus extension curves obtained from
this technique for samples S1, S4, B1 and B4 are shown with their
corresponding experimentally measured data in Figs. 6–9, respec-
tively. The comparisons show that the discrepancies between these
sets of data are very minor so that the obtained parameters for
each rubber compounds can be clearly attributed to their Bergs-
tröm–Boyce equation parameters. In the early work of Bergs-
tröm–Boyce, it was suggested that the parameter A is related to
m via:
5
Fig. 4. Force vs. extension (numerically predicted and experimentally measured)
A ¼ pffiffiffi m ð2Þ
ð 3Þ
with the Yeoh hyperelastic model for S1 specimen.
462 M.H.R. Ghoreishy et al. / Materials and Design 53 (2014) 457–465

Fig. 6. Force vs. extension (numerically predicted and experimentally measured) Fig. 9. Force vs. extension (numerically predicted and experimentally measured)
with the Yeoh hyperelastic and Bergström–Boyce (BB) models for S1 specimen with the Yeoh hyperelastic and Bergström–Boyce (BB) models for B4 specimen
(hyper-viscoelastic analysis). (hyper-viscoelastic analysis).

molecular structure of the rubber compounds. To check the repro-

Fig. 7. Force vs. extension (numerically predicted and experimentally measured)
with the Yeoh hyperelastic and Bergström–Boyce (BB) models for S4 specimen
(hyper-viscoelastic analysis).
ducibility of the results and also accuracy of the determined
parameters, tests were carried on 1 cm sample with S1 compound
at two more extension rates of 50 and 250 mm/min. The parame-
ters of the Bergström–Boyce equation determined from analysis
at 500 mm/min, were utilized and the finite element simulations
were performed in these cases. The results were compared with
their experimental counterparts and shown in Fig. 10. As can be
seen, decreasing the extension rates led to lower predicted and
measured force for a given extension which could be attributed
to the more relaxation of polymer chains in molecular networks.
We have also run a finite element analysis for S1 sample using
the mentioned parameters in compressional mode. The compres-
sion rate was selected to be 10 mm/min based on the value speci-
fied in ISO7743 [25] test procedure. The results including the
measured compressive force and vertical deformation of the sam-
ple with hyperelastic and hyper-viscoelastic materials models as
well as the experimental data are shown in Fig. 11. In both cases,
there are very good agreements between computed and measured
forces which confirmed the accuracy and reliability of the calcu-
lated parameters for the prediction of the viscoelastic behavior at
different deformation rate and mode. It should be noted that in
the latter case although a normal force was applied on the test
sample, the generated deformations in the rubber cylinder are
combinations of compressive, shear and tension modes. This can
be verified by examining the distributions of the shear, normal
strains as shown in Figs. 12a–c. This is due to the frictional effect

Table 5
Calculated parameters of Bergström–Boyce model.

Sample code Parameters of BB model

Sa Ab ma ca
S1 1.1 0.19 4 1
S2 0.97 0.4 4 1
S3 0.98 0.28 4 1
S4 0.78 0.5 4 1
Fig. 8. Force vs. extension (numerically predicted and experimentally measured) B1 0.88 0.55 4 1
with the Yeoh hyperelastic and Bergström–Boyce (BB) models for B1 specimen B2 0.94 0.31 4 1
(hyper-viscoelastic analysis). B3 0.91 0.55 4 1
B4 0.95 0.26 4 1
B5 0.94 0.38 4 1
It is worth, however, to note that if this parameters should be B6 0.96 0.24 4 1

determined independently, the physical meaning of the parame- a

Dimensionless.
b
ters (as listed in Table 5) are in complete agreement with the (S)1 (MPa)1.
 M.H.R. Ghoreishy et al. / Materials and Design 53 (2014) 457–465
Fig. 10. Force vs. extension (numerically predicted and experimentally measured)
with the Yeoh hyperelastic and Bergström–Boyce (BB) models for S1 specimen at
three extension rates of 50, 250 and 500 mm/min.
Fig. 11. Compressive force vs. vertical deflection. Experimentally measured (N) and
numerically predicted with Yeoh (- - -) and Yeoh–Bergström–Boyce (–) models for
S1 compound.
between sample and contacting surfaces which led to generation of
the shear between sample and contacting surfaces and also bulging
which takes place in rubber cylinder wall (see Fig. 11).
As can be seen in Table 5, for all samples the two exponential
parameters in Eq. (1) i.e. m and c are constant. This means that they
are dependent on the type and quantity of the base polymers used
in the compound. Since the polymer types (SBR and BR) and their
amounts are kept constant in all samples, these parameters are
constant throughout the analyses. In addition our numerical exper-
iments [20] showed that among the four aforementioned parame-
ters in Bergström–Boyce model, the effect of parameter S are much
more significant than the other variables and thus the variations of
the S on the hysteretic behavior of the rubber samples and their
relationship with structures of the compounds are discussed. In
the theory of the Bergström–Boyce model the parameter S is the
ratio of the stress experienced by the inelastic part of the mole-
cules (network B) to the stress carried by elastic (time indepen-
dent) part of the network (i.e. network A). Consequently, an
increase in the computed value of S corresponds to the increase
in dissipation and inelastic effects. However, the variation of the
parameter A is also prominent (as recorded in Table 5) and it
should also be taken into account. Generally, an increase in value
of A, means that the strain rate is also increased. Therefore, if A is
computed to be a large value then the rate of applied strain is also
large so that the macromolecules do not have enough time to be
463
relaxed. This gives rise to a lower hysteresis in rubber. Contrary,
if the computed value of A is too small, the polymer molecules
are fully relaxed so that they do not show mush inelastic effect.
These phenomena are analogous to the rheological behavior of
the polymer melts under low, normal and high shear rates. At
low and high shear rates the polymer chains show a Newtonian
behavior in which the viscosity is independent of the shear rate,
while at moderate shear rate range, the viscosity is a function of
the shear rate such as power-law equation. Back to our obtained
results, it can be seen that for single filler compounds, i.e. S1 to
S4, a decrease in the particle size would rise to a decrease in S. This
means that decreasing the particle size increases the hysteresis
and inelastic effect. This result is in consistent with those which
are already published. It is quite known that increasing the particle
size of carbon blacks not only increases the mechanical behavior of
rubber compounds which is due to the increasing in reinforcing ef-
fect, but also increases the hysteresis and heat buildup in rubber
compounds (see for example, [27,28]). Sample S1 contains the
N220 carbon black which has the lowest particle size among the
selected fillers in this work. The iodine number which is a measure
of surface area (the higher iodine number, the smaller particle size)
for this type of carbon black is about 121. Samples 2 and 3 contain
N330 and N375. Typical values of iodine numbers for these carbon
blacks are 82 and 90, respectively. Finally, sample S4 has N550
with relatively small iodine number as 43. Therefore, in accordance
with our expectation, samples S1 and S4 have the highest and low-
est values of parameter S, respectively. Similarly, samples S2 and
S3 have approximately near iodine numbers so their corresponding
values of the parameters S are also close to each other. However,
since the iodine number of the carbon black used in sample S2 is
a little smaller than the iodine number of the filler used in sample
S3, the parameters S for sample S2 is also a little larger than that
was obtained for sample S3. Based on their DBP values, the struc-
tural measure of the selected carbon black types in sample S1 to S4
i.e. N220, N330, N375 and N550 are 114, 102, 114 and 121, respec-
tively. If we consider the computed values of the parameter A for
samples S1 to S4 (Table 5), it is clear that an increase in the struc-
ture of the carbon black would rise in a decrease in parameter A
which suggest that we can have a correlation between structure
of the carbon black strain rate.
Having considered single particle filled compounds, we focus
our attention to blends of carbon blacks in samples B1 to B6. Sim-
ilar expected trends are obtained in these cases. This indicated that
the increasing effect of one filler type on a specific property is com-
pensated with decreasing effect of another type for the same prop-
erty. For example, both samples B1 and B2 have a blend of N330
with N550 carbon blacks with equal total filler volumes. However,
sample B2 has larger amount of N330 (which has smaller particle
size). Therefore, parameter S for B1 (0.88) is smaller than that
was computed for B2 (0.94). Similarly, comparing the computed
values of the S and A for sample B2 and B4 show that equal values
for S was obtained which is due to the close values of the iodine
number for carbon black types N330 and N375. However, for sam-
ple B2 in which N330 is replaced with N375 a lower parameter A
was obtained which was due to the higher structure of the N375
than the N330. Samples B5 and B6 both have the same total filler
content and type (60 phr of N220 and N550). However, it can be
seen that due to use of higher values of N220 carbon black in B6
which has smaller particle size, the calculated parameter A for this
compound is relatively larger than B5 with lower N220 content.
Also, the calculated parameter A for B5 (0.38) is larger than the cor-
responding value for B6 (0.24) and closer to compounds with lower
hysteresis. Comparing the computed values of the S and A for sam-
ple B3 and B5 show that although both compounds have equal
amount of N550 (30 phr), since B5 has 30 phr N220 with smaller
particle size than N375 used in B3, we can see that the calculated
464 M.H.R. Ghoreishy et al. / Materials and Design 53 (2014) 457–465

Fig. 12a. Distribution of the shear strain (12 ) in the rubber cylinder under compressive force.

Fig. 12b. Distribution of the normal strain (22 ) in the rubber cylinder under compressive force.

Fig. 12c. Distribution of the normal strain (11 ) in the rubber cylinder under compressive force.

S for B5 (0.94) is larger than the corresponding value in B3 (0.91).
This means that B5 shows higher hysteresis than B3.
In order to evaluate the ability of the used model and method-
ology in hysteresis prediction and also dissipation effects, the
temperature rise during a cyclic loading were measured using a
Goodrich Flexometer instrument. These data are shown in
Fig. 13. As can be seen, there is a close match between measured
temperature rise which is itself a measure of dissipation and model
parameters given in Table 5. For example, as stated before samples
S1 and S4 have the highest and lowest values of S among the single
black compounds, respectively. These compounds (i.e. S1 and S4)
have also the highest and lowest temperature rise which confirms
the accuracy of the predicted parameters (we should recall that the
higher value of S corresponds to higher dissipation or inelastic
effect). Correspondingly, in samples B1 to B6 in which carbon black
blended compounds were used, similar match between predicted
parameters and measured temperature rise can be observed. For
instance, samples B1 and B6 have the lowest and highest values
of S (0.88 and 0.96), respectively. Sample B6 contains a blend of
fine carbon black (N220) with N550 while in sample B1 blend of
N330 and N550 was used. Therefore, it is expected that the sample
B1 has the lowest hysteresis and the highest energy dissipation is
attributed to sample B6. As it can be seen in Fig 13, sample B1 has
the lowest temperature rise and sample B6 shows the highest
increase in measured temperature which confirms the accuracy
of the predicted parameters. The hysteretic behavior of rubber
 M.H.R. Ghoreishy et al. / Materials and Design 53 (2014) 457–465
Fig. 13. Temperature rise in rubber compounds measured by a Goodrich Flexom-
eter test machine. These results are based on the average of at least three samples
for each compound.
Fig. 14. Predicted and experimentally measured compressive force vs. applied
vertical (axial) deflection during a loading/unloading cycle.
compounds and the ability of the model in prediction of the hyster-
esis loop were also studied for a rubber cylinder during a cyclic
loading. The finite element mesh shown in Fig. 3 was utilized
and a loading/unloading path was defined for sample S1. The re-
sults are shown in Fig. 14 along with their associated experimental
data. As it can be seen, very good agreement exists between model
predictions and actual data. However, the discrepancy between
these two sets of data become relatively prominent at higher axial
deformations. This could be due to the de-bonding phenomenon
between polymer-filler and filler–filler that occur at higher strains
which change the structure of the material [27,28]. Since the
Bergström–Boyce model does not take the interaction between
polymer networks and fillers into consideration, the accuracy of
the model decreases. Therefore, more research on this topic needs
to be under taken to modify the Bergström–Boyce equation to in-
clude both polymer network role and particulate reinforcing fillers
into the model.
6. Conclusions
Using a previously developed numerical algorithm which was
based on the finite element modeling of three rubber strips under
tension loads, the parameters of the Bergström–Boyce hysteresis
model were determined. Ten rubber samples were prepared in
which different carbon black types and blends were used. The calcu-
lated parameters were considered against the structural and other
465
properties of the carbon blacks. It was shown that both particle size
and measure of structure described by iodine and DBP numbers, are
in a very good correlation with first and second parameters of the
Bergström–Boyce equation i.e. S and A. Therefore, the methodology
and results obtained in this work can be used for the assessment of
the dissipating effect of a specific rubber compound. This has a great
potential during the assessment of the rolling resistance of pneu-
matic tires, especially for the tread and sidewall compounds.
References
[1] Morman KN, Pan TY. Application of finite element analysis in the design of
automotive elastomeric components. Rubber Chem Technol 1988;61:503–33.
[2] Nicholson DW, Nelson WN. Finite element analysis in design with rubber.
Rubber Chem Technol 1990;63:368–406.
[3] Nicholson DW, Nelson WN, Lin B, Farinella A. Finite element analysis of
hyperelastic components. Appl Mech Rev 1998;51:303–20.
[4] Muhr AH. Modeling the stress–strain behavior of rubber. Rubber Chem
Technol 2005;78:391–425.
[5] Beda T. Modeling hyperelastic behavior of rubber: a novel invariant-based and
a review of constitutive models. J Polym Sci, Part B: Polym Phys
2007;45:1713–32.
[6] Wang LR, Lu ZH. Modeling method of constitutive law of rubber hyperelasticity
based on finite element simulations. Rubber Chem Technol 2003;76:271–85.
[7] Ghasemi I, Karrabi M, Ghoreishy MHR. Investigation into stress–strain
behaviour of organoclay SBR composite using different constitutive models.
Plast Rubber Compos 2008;37:305–10.
[8] Ghoreishy MHR. Hyperelastic constitutive models using FEA of rubbers: a
study. Tire Technol Int (Annual Review) 2010:32–4.
[9] Arruda EM, Boyce MC. A three-dimensional constitutive model for the large
stretch behavior of rubber elastic materials. J Mech Phys Solids
1993;41:389–412.
[10] Ogden RW. Recent advances in the phenomenological theory of rubber
elasticity. Rubber Chem Technol 1986;59:361–83.
[11] Yeoh OH. Some forms of the strain energy function for rubber. Rubber Chem
Technol 1993;66:754–71.
[12] Marlow RS. A general first-invariant hyperelastic constitutive model. In:
Busfield JJC, Muhr AH, editors. Constitutive models for rubber III. Lisse: Swets
& Zeitlinger; 2003. p. 157–60.
[13] Ghoreishy MHR. Determination of the parameters of the Prony series in hyper-
viscoelastic material models using the finite element method. Mater Design
2012;35:791–7.
[14] Shim VPW, Yang LM, Lim CT, Law PH. A visco-hyperelastic constitutive model
to characterize both tensile and compressive behavior of rubber. J Appl Polym
Sci 2004;92:523–31.
[15] Vandenbroucke A, Laurent H, Ait Hocine N, Rio C. A hyperelasto-visco-
hysteresis model for an elastomeric behaviour: experimental and numerical
investigations. Compos Mater Sci 2010;48:495–503.
[16] Gracia LA, Liarte E, Pelegay JL, Calvo B. Finite element simulation of the
hysteretic behaviour of an industrial rubber: application to design of rubber
components. Finite Elem Anal Des 2010;46:357–68.
[17] Bergström JS, Boyce MC. Constitutive modeling of the large strain time-
dependent behavior of elastomers. J Mech Phys Solid 1998;46:931–54.
[18] Bergström JS, Boyce MC. Large strain time-dependent behavior of filled
elastomers. Mech Mater 2000;32:627–44.
[19] Bergström JS, Boyce MC. Constitutive modeling of the time-dependent and
cyclic loading of elastomers and application to soft biological tissues. Mech
Mater 2001;33:523–30.
[20] Ghoreishy MHR, Alimardani M, Zafarmehrabian R, Taghvaei S. Modeling the
hyperviscoelastic behavior of a tire tread compound reinforced by silica and
carbon black. J Appl Polym Sci 2013;128:1725–31.
[21] Dal H, Kaliske M. Bergström–Boyce model for nonlinear finite rubber
viscoelastisity: theoretical aspects and algorithmic treatment for the FE
method. Comput Mech 2009;44:809–23.
[22] Areias P, Matous K. Finite element formulation for modeling nonlinear
viscoelastic elastomers. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg
2008;197:4702–17.
[23] Gough J, Gregory IH, Muhr AH. Determination of constitutive equations for
vulcanized rubber. In: Boast D, Coveney VA, editors. Finite element analysis of
elastomers. London: Professional Engineering Pub; 1999. p. 5–26.
[24] Abaqus, Theory manual, Version 6.11; 2011.
[25] ISO 7743. Rubber-vulcanized or thermoplastic – determination of compression
stress–strain properties, International Organizations for Standardization,
Geneva, Switzerland; 2011.
[26] ISO 4666. Rubber- vulcanized – determination of temperature rise and
resistance to fatigue in flexometer testing. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organizations for Standardization, 2010.
[27] Hess WM, Klamp WK. The effects of carbon black and other compounding
variables on tire rolling resistance and traction. Rubber Chem Technol
1983;56:390–417.
[28] Donnet JB, Custodero E. Reinforcement of elastomers by particulate fillers. In:
Mark JE, Erman B, Eirich FR, editors. Science and technology of
rubber. London: Elsevier Academic Press; 2005. p. 367–400.