53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference<BR>20th AI AIAA 2012-1453

23 - 26 April 2012, Honolulu, Hawaii

Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of the SRM Flexible Joint

Xiaoguang Zhang, 1 Yu Liu, 2 and Junxue Ren 3

School of Astronautics, Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Beijing, 100191, P.R. China

Kai Zhan 4
School of Engineering Applied Science, The George Washington University,
Washington, DC 20052, USA

Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics (BUAA) is currently developing a

small flexible joint to provide thrust vector control for the tactical motor to improve missile
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on May 13, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2012-1453

controllability and maneuverability. The emphasis is placed on the structural characteristics

in terms of stiffness and strength. To obtain more reliable designs and reduce development
risks and duration, three-dimensional nonlinear finite element analysis was performed to
simulate the flexible joint structural behavior in bench test conditions using ANSYS Code
Version 11.0. The constitutive relation of elastomer was described using the Mooney-Rivlin
strain energy density function, material constants of which were determined by curve-fitting
the material uniaxial tension and simple shear test data. The elastomer and reinforcement
stress distributions under pressure and vectoring loading were presented. The analysis
predictions show good agreement with the bench tested axial deflection and reinforcement
hoop stress.

Nomenclature
a = joint pivot radius
β = joint angle
β1 = inner joint angle
β2 = outer joint angle
φt = cone angle
ne = number of elastomer rings
nr = number of reinforcement rings
te = thickness of individual elastomer ring
tr = thickness of individual reinforcement ring
W = strain energy density function
Ii = the principal strain invariants
λi = the principal stretch ratios
Cij = material constant
r, θ, φ = spherical coordinates
U = displacement
p = vessel pressure
σ = normal stress
τ = shear stress
δ = vectoring angle

1
Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty 403, School of Astronautics, Email: zhangxiaoguang1986@126.com
2
Professor, Faculty 403, School of Astronautics
3
Instructor, Faculty 403, School of Astronautics
4
M.S. Student, School of Engineering Applied Science
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright © 2012 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
 I. Introduction

T HE flexible joint has been widely used on the solid rocket motor (SRM) to provide thrust vector control (TVC)
both for large strategic or space applications and small tactical applications. The joint comprises elastomer rings
alternating with metal or composite-material rings. All rings are concentric spherical sections bonded to form a
flexible assembly, which is rigid in axial direction to withstand large axial loads, due to motor combustion pressure,
with small axial displacements, but allows large angular deflections at relatively low torque forces.
The thrust vector control performance of the flexible joint is mostly determined by its structural characteristics in
terms of stiffness and strength. Stiffness mainly refers to the axial compression stiffness and angular stiffness
reflected by the axial deflection under motor pressure and vectoring angle at actuation torque, respectively.
Considering the TVC accuracy, high axial stiffness is desired to minimize the axial deflection, whereas low angular
stiffness is expected to reduce the actuation torque and power requirements. Associated with the strength issue are
failure mode identification, strength design and verification for the flexible joint components.
There are, however, several technical challenges for flexible joint structural analysis, including: 1) the spherical
shell shaped ealstomer and reinforcement rings, 2) both material and geometric nonlinearity arising from the
nonlinear mechanical properties of rubber elastomer, 3) axisymmetric pressure and non-axisymmetric actuation load
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on May 13, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2012-1453

conditions. Due to the complexity of the problem, early researchers conducted stress test to investigate the stress
distribution on the reinforcement external surface.1, 2 But the test means is invalid as to the flexible joint interior, the
bondline, and the elastomer rings where strain gauges can not be located. Anon3 and Woodberry4 proposed
empirical design formulas for reinforcement hoop compressive stress based on test results of joints varying from
20.3 to 55.9 cm in diameter. Singh and Rao5 refined the formulas to make them applicable to flexible joints with
conical shaped reinforcement and elastomer rings. It must be noted that these formulas are only valid in the diameter
range of 20.3-55.9 cm.
In this paper, In order to obtain comprehensive description of the flexible joint structural characteristics,
nonlinear finite element analysis was carried out using the commercial code ANSYS Code Version 11.0. The
predicted results were validated by the displacement transducers measurement and strain gauges measurement in the
bench test.

II. Flexible Joint Model

Figure 1 shows the flexible joint configuration for bench test considered here, which was developed by Beijing
University of Aeronautics and Astronautics (BUAA) for tactical propulsion. The flexible joint features forward pivot
point and consists of six 1.0 mm-thick spherical elastomeric rings alternating with five 1.2 mm-thick spherical
reinforcement rings, an aft attach ring, and an fwd attach ring. The elastomeric rings are fabricated from natural
rubber while the reinforcement and attach rings are made of high-strength metal 30CrMnSi steel. The detail
geometric parameters are listed in Table 1.

156

t
40.03

Aft attach ring

Reinforcement
Elastomer
2
 Fwd attach ring
1 a

Pivot point O

Figure 1. Schematic of flexible joint.

Table 1. Flexible joint geometric parameters.

a (mm) β (°) β1 (°) β2 (°) φt (°) ne nr te (mm) tr (mm)
80 50 40 60 15 6 5 1.0 1.2

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 III. Elastomer Constitutive Model
In solid mechanics, elastomer is defined as hyperelastic material. The relation between the stress and strain is
indirectly specified through the relation between the internal energy and the strain,6 i.e.,
W  W  I1 , I 2 , I 3  (1)
The three strain invariants can be expressed as:
I1  1  2  3
2 2 2

I 2  1 2  2 3  1 3
2 2 2 2 2 2

I 3  12 3
Note that I3 is a volumetric constant. Due to the common assumption of incompressible material in engineering
assumption, I3=1, and the term associated to it does not contribute to the strain energy function. Eq. (1) reduces to
Eq. (2):
W  W  I1 , I 2  (2)
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on May 13, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2012-1453

Rivlin7 expanded Eq. (2) by Taylor series around the undeformed configuration as:


 Cij  I1  3   I 2  3  , C00  0
i j
W  (3)
i =0,j =0

C00=0 represents W=0 in the no deformation case. From a mathematical point of view, Eq. (3) can approach any
function relations with a certain continuity requirements, thus it has a wide range of suitability. Since higher order
truncations can simulate more accurately the large deformation situation8, the second-order, five-term Mooney-
Rivlin model was chosen in the present analysis.
W  C10  I1  3   C01  I 2  3   C20  I1  3   C11  I1  3  I 2  3   C02  I 2  3 
2 2
(4)
The material constants Cij may be identified by fitting Eq. (4) to experimentally measured stress-strain curves in
uniaxial tension (Fig. 2) and simple shear (Fig. 3) with a least squares approach, as shown in Fig. 4. They are as
follows: C10=0.048605 MPa, C01=0.17840 MPa, C20=0.011386 MPa, C11=-0.051774 MPa, C02=0.081621 MPa.
Figure 4 shows the predicted stress-strain curves by Eq. (4) in comparison with experimental data.

Figure 2. Uniaxial tension test. Figure 3. Simple shear test.

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 14 0.16

12
Expt. data Expt. data
Mooney-Rivlin 0.12 Mooney-Rivlin
10

Stress, MPa
Stress, MPa

8
0.08
6

4
0.04
2

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Strain Strain
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on May 13, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2012-1453

a) Uniaxial tension b) Simple shear

Figure 4. Correlation of Mooney-Rivlin model with test data in uniaxial tension and simple shear.

IV. Nonlinear Finite Element Method

A. Model Geometry and Mesh

The flexible joint is initially axisymmetric shaped but non-axisymmetrically loaded (actuation load), so three-
dimensional modeling is required. Considering the plane symmetry nature in the uniaxial vectoring case, only one-
half of the geometry is simulated. Figure 5 shows the finite element computational mesh in the spherical coordinate
system. The rubber and metal rings are meshed with SOLID185 and SOLID45 elements in ANSYS (Version 11.0),
respectively. Each ring is divided into 4×20×25 divisions in the thickness, width, and hoop directions, respectively.

 (r, ,)

Figure 5. Finite element computational mesh.

B. Material Properties
The modulus of elasticity, Poisson’s ratio and yield strength of 30CrMnSi steel are 2.058×105 MPa, 0.3 and 883
MPa, respectively. The mechanical behavior of rubber elastomer is described by the aforementioned Mooney-Rivlin
model.

C. Boundary Conditions
The symmetry boundary condition is applied to the symmetric cross section (φ=0°, and 180°) as the hoop
displacement equal to zero (Uφ=0). All degrees of freedom are constrained at the top surface of the aft attach ring.

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 D. Solution Controls
For geometrically nonlinear problem solution, incremental method combined with Newton-like iteration is
required.9 The load is divided into a series of small increments. Within each increment, Newton-like iteration is
performed until convergence is achieved, before proceeding on to the next increment.
In ANSYS, the incremental-iterative solution is carried out through the incremental Newton-Raphson procedure,
in which the load is applied incrementally by defining a one-dimensional table and “Full Newton-Raphson” method
is chosen.10 The sparse direct solver is selected. The “line search”, “adaptive descent”, and “automatic time
stepping” options are activated to improve and accelerate convergence. The convergence criteria is set to L2-norms
of both force and displacement tolerance equal to 0.005.

V. Results and Discussions

A. Pressure Loading Condition

The stress distribution is spatially axisymmetric under pressure loading conditions, that is, τrφ=τφθ=0. The
pressure acts as an axial compression load, causing axial deflection of the flexible joint, hoop stress in reinforcement
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on May 13, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2012-1453

rings, and shear stress in elastomer rings.

1) Axial deflection
Figure 6 shows the predicted flexible joint axial deflection at various vessel pressures. The axial deflection
increases with the vessel pressure and exhibits some nonlinear behavior, indicating the gradually increasing axial
stiffness.

0.4
Axial Deflection, mm

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Vessle Pressure, MPa
Figure 6. Flexible joint axial deflection at various vessel pressures.

2) Reinforcement stress
Figure 7 shows the distribution of hoop stress σφ in reinforcement rings under pressure of 6 MPa. Figure 8 shows
the hoop stress σφ of each reinforcement ring (No. 1 represents the reinforcement adjacent to the fwd attach ring)
along the arc length (from the inner radius to the outer radius) at cross section φ=0°. The hoop stress σφ is tensile at
the outer radius and compressive at the inner radius. Moreover, the compressive stress is greater.

Figure 7. The reinforcement hoop stress distribution at p=6 MPa.

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 45

30
N o. 1
N o. 2
15
N o. 3
N o. 4

 , MPa
0
N o. 5

-15

-30

-45

-60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Arc Length, mm
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on May 13, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2012-1453

Figure 8. The reinforcement hoop stress along the arc length at p=6 MPa (section φ=0°).

3) Elastomer stress
Figure 9 shows the elastomer shear stress τrθ distribution. Figure 10 shows the shear stress τrθ of each elastomeric
ring (No. 1 represents the elastomer bonded to the fwd attach ring) along the arc length (from the inner radius to the
outer radius) at cross section φ=0°. The shear stress τrθ in elastomer rings is high at the sides and low in the middle.

Figure 9. The elastomer shear stress distribution at p=6 MPa.

-0.02

-0.04
r , MPa

N o.1
N o.2
N o.3
-0.06
N o.4
N o.5
N o.6
-0.08

-0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Arc Length, mm

Figure 10. The elastomer shear stress along the arc length at p=6 MPa (section φ=0°).

B. Pressure and Vectoring Loading Condition

The stress distribution is symmetric about the actuator fixing plane under the combined loading of pressure and
vectoring.
Figures 11 and 12 show, respectively, the distributions of hoop stress σφ in reinforcement rings and shear stress
τrθ in elastomeric rings at vectoring angle of 5° under 6 MPa vessel pressure. In comparison to the stress distribution

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 shown in Figs. 7 and 9, the stress levels become higher due to vectoring loading. Figure 13 shows the hoop stress σφ
of each reinforcement ring along the arc length (from the inner radius to the outer radius) at cross sections of φ=0°,
and 180°. At section φ=0°, because of the tension effect by the actuator, the compressive stress at the inner radius
increases drastically. At section φ=180°, the compression effect by the actuator leads to stress reversion, that is,
tensile at the inner radius and compressive at the outer radius. Figure 14 shows the shear stress τrθ of each
elastomeric ring along the arc length (from the inner radius to the outer radius) at cross sections of φ=0°, and 180°.
The vectoring load causes tensile shear stress at section φ=0°, while the shear stress at section φ=180° is always
compressive.
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on May 13, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2012-1453

Figure 11. The reinforcement hoop stress distribution at p=6 MPa, δ=5°.

Figure 12. The elastomer shear stress distribution at p=6 MPa, δ=5°.

180 100
N o.1 N o. 1
N o.2 75 N o. 2
90 N o.3 N o. 3
N o.4 50 N o. 4
N o.5 N o. 5
0
 , MPa

 , MPa

25

-90 0

-25
-180
-50

-270 -75
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Arc Length, mm Arc Length, mm

a) Section φ=0° b) Section φ=180°

Figure 13. The reinforcement hoop stress along the arc length at p=6 MPa, δ=5°.

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 1.8 -0.5
N o.1 N o.1 N o.4
1.6 N o.2 -0.6 N o.2 N o.5
N o.3 N o.3 N o. 6
N o.4 -0.7
1.4 N o.5

 r , MPa
N o. 6 -0.8
r , MPa

1.2
-0.9
1
-1

0.8 -1.1

0.6 -1.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Arc Length, mm Arc Length, mm
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on May 13, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2012-1453

a) Section φ=0° b) Section φ=180°

Figure 14. The elastomer shear stress along the arc length at p=6 MPa, δ=5°.

VI. Experimental Validation

To validate the analysis, the flexible joint bench test was conducted, as shown in Fig. 15. The fixture utilized a
pressure vessel pressurized with nitrogen gas to simulate the realistic motor pressure environment, and an
electromechanical actuator to provide the required vectoring torque. Axial deflection of the flexible joint was
measured using the vertically mounted LVDT transducer. The vector angle was obtained directly by the
inclinometer or calculated from the measured displacements by the two horizontally installed LVDT transducers.
The vectoring torque was determined by multiplying the load cell measurement by the moment arm with respect to
the pivot point. Constantan strain gauges were located circumferentially on the reinforcements to determine the hoop
stresses due to pressure and vectoring.
Figure 16 shows the comparison between predicted and measured axial deflection. Table 2 lists the predicted and
measured No. 5 reinforcement hoop stress at the inner radius under pressure loading. The minus sign denotes the
compressive stress. Both Figure 16 and Table 2 indicate the effectiveness and accuracy of the nonlinear finite
element analysis method.

4 3
9

8
10
7
11 6
5
12

1 2
13

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 1, pressure vessel; 2, center post; 3, flexible joint; 4, O-ring; 5, 6, 9, 10, LVDT transducers;
7, 13, spherical joint; 8, inclinometer; 11, load cell; 12, electromechanical actuator.

Inclinometer
LVDT transducer
Load cell
Flexible joint

Flexible joint

Strain gauges

Actuator
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on May 13, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2012-1453

Pressure vessel

Figure 15. Flexible joint bench test fixture.

0.4
Expt. data
ANSYS
Axial Deflection, mm

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Vessle Pressure, MPa
Figure 16. Comparison between predicted and measured axial deflection.

Table 2. Comparison between predicted and measured No. 5 reinforcement hoop stress at the inner radius.
Vessel Pressure (MPa) 1 2 3 4 5 6
ANSYS (MPa) -9.20 -18.13 -25.80 -35.51 -44.16 -50.71
Test (MPa) -2.88 -18.11 -29.22 -35.19 -41.16 -48.77

VII. Conclusion
1) Elastomer is hyperelastic material featuring large deformation and nonlinearity. Its constitutive relation can
be characterized by the Mooney-Rivlin strain energy density function. The material constants should be evaluated
by best data fitting against the stress-strain data pairs measured from material experiments. Because of material and
geometric nonlinearities, the flexible joint structural analysis should be implemented combining incremental method
and Newton-Rapson iteration.
2) The stress distribution is spatially axisymmetric in the flexible joint when subjected to pressure loading.
For elastomer rings, among the three components of shear stress, only τrθ exists, which is high at the sides and low in
the middle at the cross section. The hoop stress is the main stress component in reinforcement rings, tensile at the
outer radius and compressive at the inner radius. Moreover, the compressive stress is greater. The flexible joint axial
deflection increases with pressure and exhibits some nonlinearity.
3) The stress distribution is symmetric about the actuator fixing plane under combination of pressure and
vectoring loading. Because of the non-axisymmetric vectoring loading, the resultant shear stress in elastomer rings
9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the Kai Di Northwest Rubber Co., LTD, Xianyang, Shaanxi for their
efforts in rubber material test and flexible joint manufacture. Also, the authors would like to thank Mr. Min Zhang
of Institute of Solid Mechanics, Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics for his guidance in strain gauges
measurement.

References
1
Sherard, H., “Development of Advanced Flex Joint Technology,” AIAA/SAE 9th Propulsion Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada,
Nov. 5-7, 1973, AIAA Paper 73-1262.
2
Canfield, A. R., Anderson E. E., and Nichols, G. E., “Space Shuttle Nozzle Development,” AIAA/SAE 14th Joint Propulsion
Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, July 25-27, 1978, AIAA Paper 78-951.
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on May 13, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2012-1453

3
Woodberry, R. F. H., “Flexible Joint for Thrust Vector Control,” AIAA/SAE 11th Propulsion Conference, Anaheim,
California, Sep. 29-Oct. 1, 1975, AIAA Paper 75-1221.
4
Anon., “Solid Rocket Thrust Vector Control,” NASA SP-8114, 1974.
5
Singh, G., and Rao, G. V., “New Design Formulas for a Flex-Bearing Joint,” J. Spacecraft, Vol. 30, No. 6, Sep. 9, 1991, pp.
779-780.
6
Boyce, M. C., and Arruda, E. M., “Constitutive Models of Rubber Elasticity: a Review,” Rubber Chemistry and Technology,
Vol. 73, No. 3, 2000, pp. 504-552.
7
Rivlin, R. S., Large Elastic Deformation of Isotropic Materials: I. Fundamental Concepts, II. Some Uniqueness Theories for
Pure Homogeneous Deformations,” Ser A-240, Philos. Trans. R. Soc., London, 1948, pp. 459-508.
8
Ciamebella, J., “Experimental Testing and Nonlinear Viscoelastic Modeling of Filled Rubber,” Ph.D. Dissertation, The
Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, 2010.
9
Zienkiewicz, O. C., and Taylor, R. L., The Finite Element Method. Vol 2: Solid Mechanics, 5th ed., Butterworth-Heinemann,
London, 2000.
10
ANSYS Inc., Release 11.0 Documentation for ANSYS, 2007, Chap. 15.

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics