Arch Appl Mech (2020) 90:615–622

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00419-019-01629-7

O R I G I NA L

İsmail Doğan Külcü

A hyperelastic constitutive model for rubber-like materials

Received: 24 July 2019 / Accepted: 30 October 2019 / Published online: 12 November 2019
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract In this contribution, a new form of the strain energy function is proposed to describe the hyperelastic
behavior of rubber-like materials under various deformation. The proposed function represents an invariant-
based model and contains two material parameters. The model was tested with the experimental data of
vulcanized rubbers, collagen and fibrin. The material parameters are kept constant for a material subjected
to different types of loading. Good agreement between model and experimental data was obtained for all
materials.

Keywords Hyperelasticity · Strain energy · Constitutive relation · Rubber-like materials

1 Introduction

Mechanics of rubber-like materials are an appealing topic of scientific researches due to their wide range
of applications. To design a material for complex devices and predict the material behavior under various
loading conditions, the mechanical characterization is critical. As the morphology of rubber-like materials
enables them to undergo nonlinear elastic deformations [5], hyperelastic models are one of the first attempts
to describe the rubber-like material behavior. Numerous phenomenological and micromechanical hyperelastic
material models have been developed since 1940s [2,17].
Micromechanical characterization provides deeper insight into the physical deformation of a material
subjected to various loading types. Such material models contain physically motivated material parameters.
This fact serves a better understanding of the deformation mechanism [1]. Three-chain [11], four-chain [6],
eight-chain [1] and unit sphere [13] models are some of the important and successful micromechanical models
in the literature.
Phenomenological models can be categorized as principal stretched-based and strain invariant-based mod-
els. Ogden [15] proposed a principal stretched-based model, which is the multiplication of the shear modulus
with the finite sum of the scalar power of principal stretches. His model is frequently used in the field of
material modeling considered in the perspective of hyperelasticity. Among strain invariant-based models, neo-
Hookean model [14] is the simplest one and describes the material behavior reasonably well for moderate
deformations. Mooney–Rivlin [14], Isahara [10], Yeoh [20], Gent [8] and Carroll [3] models are some of the
strain invariant-based models cited commonly in the literature.
The present contribution aims to propose a new form of the strain energy function for nonlinear elastic
behavior of rubber-like materials. The motivating key for the present study is to reduce the number of material
parameters and describe different deformation types with an identical value of material parameters. The paper
is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, fundamental equations within the concept of continuum mechanics are
İ. D. Külcü (B)
Faculty of Engineering, Turkish-German University, Sahinkaya Cad. 86, 34820 Beykoz/Istanbul, Turkey
E-mail: kulcu@tau.edu.tr
616 İ. D. Külcü

summarized and the proposed model is described. Model predictions and the error margin of the proposed
strain energy function in comparison with the experimental data are represented in Sect. 3. Finally, the present
contribution is concluded in Sect. 4.

2 Constitutive modeling

2.1 Fundamental equations

In the present contribution, isothermal, isotropic, hyperelastic material behavior in finite strain regime is
considered and reviewed under the theory of elasticity. For full details, readers are referred to, for instance,
Ogden [14].
A rubber-like solid is considered as continuous media, and position vectors X and x are defined in the
reference and current configurations, respectively. Thus, the deformation tensor F is given by
∂x
F= = Gradx. (1)
∂X
In the theory of hyperelasticity, response of the material is described by the strain energy function as

Ψ = Ψ (C) (2)

where C is the right Cauchy–Green tensor and defined as C = FT F. As the strain energy of the rubber-like
solid can be decomposed into volumetric and isochoric parts [9], the strain energy function is represented as

Ψ (C) = Ψvol (J ) + Ψiso (C), (3)

where J = detF. The strain energy can also be formulated in terms of strain invariants as

Ψiso (C) = Ψ (I1 , I2 , I3 ), (4)

where Ii (i = 1, 2, 3) is the invariant of C. The invariants of C are given by

I1 = λ21 + λ22 + λ23 , I2 = λ21 λ22 + λ21 λ23 + λ22 λ23 , I3 = λ21 λ22 λ23 , (5)

where λi (i = 1, 2, 3) is the principal stretch.

Assuming the incompressibility condition for rubber-like materials, the nominal stress is written as
∂Ψ 1
Pi = − p (i = 1, 2, 3), (6)
∂λi λi
where p is the Lagrange multiplier. Using the chain rule, Eq. (6) is also represented by
∂Ψ ∂ I1 ∂Ψ ∂ I2 1
Pi = + − p (i = 1, 2, 3). (7)
∂ I1 ∂λi ∂ I2 ∂λi λi

2.2 Proposed strain energy function

The existing models, some of which are cited, are frequently utilized to describe the nonlinear hyperelastic
rubber-like behavior. These models have been presented in different forms such as polynomial, exponential
and logarithmic [4]. Many of the early proposed models represent an accordance with experimental data, in
particular uniaxial test data. However, under various deformation types, such as equibiaxial tension and pure
shear, most of these models are generally ineffective to predict the material behavior with identical values of
material parameters used to fit the model to experimental data. This fact obstructs the fitting procedure and
computational calculations. To the best of our knowledge, the Carroll model [3], which contains three material
parameters, is able to capture experimental data of uniaxial tension, equibiaxial tension and pure shear with
same values of material parameters in low margin of error [17]. In this context, to reduce the number of material
A hyperelastic constitutive model for rubber-like materials 617

Table 1 Principle stretches and strain invariants for equibiaxial tension and pure shear deformations

Equibiaxial tension Pure shear

Principle stretches λ1 = λ λ1 = λ
λ2 = λ λ2 = λ1
λ3 = 1/λ2 λ3 = 1
Strain invariants I1 = 2λ2 + 1
λ4
I 1 = λ2 + 1
λ2
+1
I 2 = λ4 + 2
λ2
I2 = I1

parameters and simplify calculation and fitting processes, a strain energy function containing only two material
parameters is proposed as
   
α 1
Ψ = μ f (I1 , α) + f I2 , − + ln f (I1 , 1) + 1 , (8)
16 α
where μ is the shear modulus, α is the scalar material parameter and
α  y[x−3]
f (x, y) = e −1 .
y
Equation (8) can be considered as an additive combination of exponential and polynomial functions. As
rubber-like materials exhibit J-type stress under various loading types, exponential functions are convenient
to describe their mechanical behavior. The first two terms of Eq. (8) may correspond to some of the existing
models [7,12] with some changes in the function. However, unlike these models, the material parameters are
same for all terms of Eq. (8) for various deformation types. Therefore, by considering the applicability of the
present model for different loading modes with identical values of the material parameters, the present model
contains fewer material parameters than the early proposed models. As shown in Sect. 3, this fact makes the
handling of the fitting and simulation procedures less effortful.

2.2.1 Engineering stress

The principle stretches of the uniaxial deformation for an incompressible material are represented by
√ √
λ1 = λ, λ2 = 1/ λ, λ3 = 1/ λ. (9)
Thus, the first and second strain invariants are written as
2 1
I 1 = λ2 + , I2 = 2λ + . (10)
λ λ2
Using Eqs. (7) and (8), the nominal stress for the uniaxial tensile (UT) deformation can be derived as
∂Ψ ∂ I1 ∂Ψ ∂ I2
PUT = + (11)
∂ I1 ∂λi ∂ I2 ∂λi
     −α(I −3) 
1  (α(I1 −3)) 1 2
= 2μ λ − 2 αe + 1 + 2μ 1 − 3 αe 16
(12)
λ λ
  
−α [ I2 −3]
 
1 1
= 2μ λ − 2 α e(α[I1 −3]) + α e 16
+1 . (13)
λ λ
In the same manner, nominal stress functions of equibiaxial tensile (ET) and pure shear (PS) deformations
can be derived (see also Table 1) as
   
−α [ I2 −3]
 
1 (α[I1 −3])
PET = 2 λ − 5 μ α e + αλ e
2 16
+1 , (14)
λ
   
−α [ I2 −3]
 
1
PPS = 2 λ − 3 μ α e(α[I1 −3]) + α e 16
+1 . (15)
λ
618 İ. D. Külcü

30
λ = 1.5
λ = 2.0
25 λ = 2.5
λ = 3.0
20

)
UT
15

log(P
10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
α
Fig. 1 Effect of α in the modeling

7
exp. rubber (UT)
exp. rubber (ET)
6 exp. rubber (PS)
Nominal Stress (MPa)

model (UT)
5 model (ET)
model (PS)
4

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Stretch λ
Fig. 2 Comparison of the proposed strain energy function against the experimental data of vulcanized rubbers published by
Treloar [19] (μ = 0.135, α = 0.0631)

3 Results

3.1 Material parameter study

The present model contains two material parameters: μ and α. μ is considered as a physically motivated
material parameter and proportionally influences the material behavior. The scalar parameter α may not have
a physical interpretation. Figure 1 represents the effect of α for different stretch values in the modeling.
Increasing the value of α results in the stiffer material behavior. To obtain the values of μ and α in Sect. 3.2,
the Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm has been utilized.

3.2 Validation of the model

The objective of this subsection is to evaluate the predictive capability of the proposed model by comparing
the model with experimental data of various materials and different loading types.
The proposed strain energy function is firstly validated with the experimental data of vulcanized rubbers
published by Treloar [19]. The model is compared with uniaxial tension, equibiaxial tension and pure shear
deformations. The model contains two material parameters, which are kept constant for different deformation
types. Good agreement is obtained for three deformation modes between the proposed strain energy function
and experimental data (see Fig. 2).
A hyperelastic constitutive model for rubber-like materials 619

7
exp. rubber (UT)
exp. rubber (ET)
6 model (UT)

Nominal Stress (MPa)

model (ET)
5

0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Stretch λ
Fig. 3 Comparison of the proposed strain energy function against the experimental data of rubber published by Sasso [16]
(μ = 0.553, α = 0.0251)

0.00014 exp. collagen (UT)

exp. fibrin1 (UT)
exp. fibrin2 (UT)
Nominal Stress (MPa)

0.00012
model collagen (UT)
model fibrin1 (UT)
0.0001 model fibrin2 (UT)
−5
8x10
−5
6x10
−5
4x10
−5
2x10

0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
Stretch λ
Fig. 4 Comparison of the proposed strain energy function against the experimental data of collagen (μ = 6 × 10−8 , α = 24.8)
and fibrin (fibrin1 (steady): μ = 13 × 10−8 , α = 7.18, fibrin2 (oscillatory): μ = 12.5 × 10−7 , α = 1.75) subjected to the uniaxial
tension test [18]

To expand the verification of the proposed model, experimental data of rubber by Sasso et al. [16] are
utilized. The model is secondly compared with the uniaxial and equibiaxial tensile tests. Material parameters
are preserved constant for different deformation types. Comparison between the model and the experimental
data is well matched (see Fig. 3).
In Fig. 4, the model is checked against the experimental data of collagen and fibrin subjected to uniaxial
tension test [18]. Although the variation of the stress value between biological gels and vulcanized rubbers is
enormous, the model is able to predict the nonlinear elasticity of biological gels as well.
To examine the error margin of the model, discrepancy between the model and experimental data is
calculated as

N
1 2
Error2 = Pmodel (λi ) − Pexp.data (λi ) , (16)
N
i=1

where N is the number of experimental data. Results of the error margin of the model for different materials
and different deformation types are given in Table 2. The error variance of the model with respect to the
experimental data is considerably low, which reveals the accuracy of the proposed strain energy function for
a wide range of materials exhibiting nonlinear stress behavior.
620 İ. D. Külcü

Table 2 Error margin of the model predictions given in Figs. 2, 3 and 4

Material Error (MPa)

Uniaxial tension Equibiaxial tension Pure shear
Rubber [19] 0.081804 0.081727 0.036118
Rubber [16] 0.080963 0.149415
Collagen [18] 9.09914 × 10−7
Fibrin1 [18] 1.9439 × 10−6
Fibrin2 [18] 1.1095 × 10−5

3.5
Gent
Yeoh
3 Carroll
Eq. 8
2.5

2
Ψ

1.5

0.5

0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
λ
Fig. 5 Comparison of the proposed strain energy function with the strain energy functions represented by Carroll [3], Yeoh [20]
and Gent [8]

Finally, the proposed model is compared against models by Carroll [3], Yeoh [20] and Gent [8]. The strain
energy functions of these models are written as,

Ψcarroll = a I1 + bI14 + c I2 , (17)

Ψyeoh = c1 (I1 − 3) + c2 (I1 − 3)2 + c3 (I1 − 3)3 , (18)
 
Jm η I1 − 3
Ψgent = − ln 1 − , (19)
2 Jm

where a, b, c, c1 , c2 , c3 , η and Jm are material parameters.

First comparison is carried out by comparing the strain energy functions of the mentioned models (see
Fig. 5). Equation (8) exhibits similar behavior with the model proposed by Yeoh [20]. The Gent model [8]
presents a exponential characteristic in the strain energy. However, the strain energy value of the Carroll model
[3] is larger than 0 in the stress-free state, which indicates the pre-energized form. Although this fact does not
hamper the applicability of the Carroll model due to the derivation of the strain invariant with respect to stretch
[see (7)], this may imply a fundamental question about this model.
Second verification is performed by comparing the nominal stress behavior of these models against exper-
imental data by Treloar [19]. The values of the material parameters of the models by Carroll [3], Yeoh [20]
and Gent [8] are taken from the paper by Steinmann et al. [17] and kept constant for all types of deformation.
As shown in Fig. 6a, all models are able to describe uniaxial tensile test. Error margin of the models for
description of the pure shear test is also low for all models (see Fig. 6b). However, the predictive capabilities
of Yeoh and Gent models are unsatisfactory for the equibiaxial test, which is successfully described by the
proposed model and the Carroll model (see Fig. 6c). Although the fundamental question expressed in Fig. 5
for the Carroll model is disregarded, the number of material parameters of the proposed model is fewer than
that of the Carroll model, which underlines the benefit of Eq. (8).
A hyperelastic constitutive model for rubber-like materials 621

(a) 7
Treloar data (UT)
Eq. 8

Nominal Stress (MPa)

6
Yeoh
5 Gent
Carroll
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Stretch λ
(b) 2.5
Treloar data (PS)
Eq. 8
Nominal Stress (MPa)

2 Yeoh
Gent
Carroll
1.5

0.5

0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Stretch λ
(c) 3
Treloar data (ET)
Eq. 8
Nominal Stress (MPa)

2.5 Yeoh
Gent
2 Carroll

1.5

0.5

0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Stretch λ
Fig. 6 Comparison of Eq. (8), Carroll [3], Yeoh [20] and Gent [8] models against the experimental data by Treloar [19]. a uniaxial
test, b pure shear, c equibiaxial test

4 Conclusion

In the literature, many constitutive relations describing hyperelastic behavior of rubber-like materials exist.
However, many of these relations are either inefficient to capture different loading modes or changing the values
of material parameters is necessary. In this contribution, a new form of the strain energy function having two
material parameters is proposed. The function represents an invariant-based model, which comprises first and
the second invariants of the right Cauchy–Green tensor. Reasonably good agreement between the model and
experimental data of various materials is achieved with fixed values of material parameters for different loading
types.
622 İ. D. Külcü

Acknowledgements Author thanks the anonymous reviewers for their constructive and fruitful comments.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

1. Arruda, E., Boyce, M.: A three-dimensional constitutive model for the large stretch behavior of rubber elastic materials. J.
Mech. Phys. Solids 41, 389 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(93)90013-6
2. Boyce, M.C., Arruda, E.M.: Constitutive models of rubber elasticity: a review. Rubber Chem. Technol. 73(3), 504–523
(2000)
3. Carroll, M.: A strain energy function for vulcanized rubbers. J. Elast. 103(2), 173–187 (2011)
4. Darijani, H., Naghdabadi, R.: Hyperelastic materials behavior modeling using consistent strain energy density functions.
Acta Mech. 213(3–4), 235–254 (2010)
5. Dobrynin, A.V., Carrillo, J.M.Y.: Universality in nonlinear elasticity of biological and polymeric networks and gels. Macro-
molecules 44(1), 140–146 (2010)
6. Flory, P., Rehner, J.: Statistical mechanics of cross-linked polymer networks i. rubberlike elasticity. J. Chem. Phys. 11, 512
(1943). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1723791
7. Fung, Y.: Elasticity of soft tissues in simple elongation. Am. J. Physiol. Leg. Content 213(6), 1532–1544 (1967)
8. Gent, A.: A new constitutive relation for rubber. Rubber Chem. Technol. 69, 59 (1996)
9. Holzapfel, G.A.: Nonlinear Solid Mechanics: A Continuum Approach for Engineering. Wiley, Hoboken (2005)
10. Isihara, A., Hashitsume, N., Tatibana, M.: Statistical theory of rubber-like elasticity. iv.(two-dimensional stretching). J. Chem.
Phys. 19(12), 1508–1512 (1951)
11. James, H., Guth, E.: Theory of the elastic properties of rubbers. J. Chem. Phys. 11, 455 (1943)
12. Mansouri, M., Darijani, H.: Constitutive modeling of isotropic hyperelastic materials in an exponential framework using a
self-contained approach. Int. J. Solids Struct. 51(25–26), 4316–4326 (2014)
13. Miehe, C., Göktepe, S., Lulei, F.: A micro–macro approach to rubber-like materials—part i: the non-affine micro-sphere
model of rubber elasticity. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52, 2617 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2004.03.011
14. Ogden, R.: Non-Linear Elastic Deformations. Dover Publications, New York (1997)
15. Ogden, R.W.: Large deformation isotropic elasticity-on the correlation of theory and experiment for incompressible rubberlike
solids. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A Math. Phys. Sci. 326(1567), 565–584 (1972)
16. Sasso, M., Palmieri, G., Chiappini, G., Amodio, D.: Characterization of hyperelastic rubber-like materials by biaxial and
uniaxial stretching tests based on optical methods. Polym. Test. 27(8), 995–1004 (2008)
17. Steinmann, P., Hossain, M., Possart, G.: Hyperelastic models for rubber-like materials: consistent tangent operators and
suitability for Treloar’s data. Arch. Appl. Mech. 82(9), 1183–1217 (2012)
18. Storm, C., Pastore, J.J., MacKintosh, F.C., Lubensky, T.C., Janmey, P.A.: Nonlinear elasticity in biological gels. Nature
435(7039), 191 (2005)
19. Treloar, L.: Stress-strain data for vulcanized rubber under various types of deformation. Rubber Chem. Technol. 17(4),
813–825 (1944)
20. Yeoh, O.H.: Characterization of elastic properties of carbon-black-filled rubber vulcanizates. Rubber Chem. Technol. 63(5),
792–805 (1990)

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.