applied

sciences
Article
Optimization of Shape Design of Grommet through
Analysis of Physical Properties of EPDM Materials
Young Shin Kim 1 , Eui Seob Hwang 2 and Euy Sik Jeon 3, *
1 Industrial Technology Research Institute, Kongju National University, Kongju 31080, Korea;
people9318@gmail.com
2 Company-affiliated R&D center/New Business Manager, DAESUNG HI-TECH Co., Ltd., Cheonan 31025,
Korea; hus5174@dscmc.com
3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Industrial Technology Research Institute,
Kongju National University, Kongju 31080, Korea
* Correspondence: osjun@kongju.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-41-521-9284




Received: 10 December 2018; Accepted: 27 December 2018; Published: 2 January 2019


Abstract: Ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) has superior mechanical properties, water
resistance, heat resistance, and ozone resistance. It can be applied to various products owing to its
low hardness and high slip resistance properties. A grommet is one of the various products made
using EPDM rubber. It is a main component of automobiles, in which it protects wires throughout
the inside and outside of a vehicle body. The grommet, made of EPDM, has different mounting
performance depending on the process parameters and the shape of the grommet. This study
conducted optimization to improve the mounting performance of a grommet using EPDM materials.
The physical properties of the main molding materials were investigated according to process
parameters. A grommet was fabricated according to the process parameters of fabrication. Insertion
force and separation force were examined through experiments. Nonlinear material constants were
determined through uniaxial and biaxial tensile tests. The nonlinear analysis of the grommet was
conducted, and a compound design that incorporated the shape parameters for the minimum load of
each part was derived. Then, additional nonlinear analysis was performed. This was followed by a
comparative analysis of the actual model through experimental evaluation.

Keywords: Ethylene-propylene diene monomer rubber EPDM; grommet; physical properties;

optimization of shape design

1. Introduction
Ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) rubber is a terpolymer in which ethylene, propylene,
and diene are irregularly bonded. Compared to general rubbers, it has superior mechanical properties,
water resistance, heat resistance, and ozone resistance. In addition, it has high inheritance and corona
discharge resistance because of limited in its chemical structure [1]. Moreover, it can be applied to
various products owing to its low hardness and high slip resistance properties [2,3]. Numerous studies
have been conducted based on the diverse applications of EPDM, with a focus on the reliability of
EPDM-based products [4–6]. Studies have been conducted to analyze the physical characteristics of
composite materials [7,8].
A grommet is one of the various products made using EPDM rubber [9]. It is a main component
of automobiles, in which it protects wires throughout the inside and outside of a vehicle body. Unlike
conventional plastic, EPDM rubber is characterized by high flexibility, high elasticity, and high
tensile strength. It is fabricated through an injection molding process. Grommets are also produced
through the injection molding process of EPDM [7]. The parameters of this process, such as time and

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 133; doi:10.3390/app9010133 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 133 2 of 12

temperature, not only change the physical properties of raw materials but also affect the insertion force
and separation force generated during mounting a grommet on a body when molding a grommet
product. Accordingly, in this study, to analyze the physical properties of raw materials according
to process parameters, we set the main factors of molding process parameters using a design of
an experimental method (DOE) [10–12]. Specimens were prepared according to process conditions.
Tensile strength and elongation were measured, and the correlation was analyzed.
The process parameters of EPDM raw materials were set, and the experimental design was
established by applying factorial designs from among experimental design methods. The physical
properties of the raw materials were tested using the standard test method for soft vulcanized rubber
(KS M 6518) [13] for confirming the changes in the physical properties according to process parameters.
The physical properties of EPDM were checked and reflected during grommet vulcanization [14].
The experimental design was established using factorial designs among the bellows type, cable type,
and cable-less type. Then, we compared and analyzed the maximum insertion force and maximum
separation force generated during mounting. It was confirmed that an insertion force and separation
force tended to not occur depending on process parameters. We conducted the nonlinear analysis
of EPDM to improve grommet design for mounting performance. For this purpose, stress–strain
rate information was obtained through uniaxial and biaxial tensile tests, and the nonlinear material
constants required for the analysis were determined. The shape parameters of the grommet were set,
and a mounting performance simulation was conducted for various shapes. Based on the analytical
results, we derived the dimensions for optimizing grommet mounting performance. Additional
analysis was conducted with the derived dimensions. An actual grommet was manufactured and
analyzed to verify its feasibility.

2. Experimental Analysis Based on Molding Process Conditions

2.1. Analysis of Physical Properties Based on Molding Process Conditions

The physical properties of EPDM rubber, which is a raw material for making grommet, were
analyzed according to the conditions of the injection process. The controllable factors that were
expected to affect the physical properties were set, and specimens were fabricated according to the
KS M 6518 [13] standard for each experimental condition. The physical properties were set as tensile
strength and elongation, which were measured using a universal testing machine. Table 1 shows the
main process parameters for injection molding. The experiment was conducted 16 times. The table
shows the experimental conditions for each process value.

Table 1. Experimental conditions for different process values (DOE).

Temp. Time Strength Elongation Temp Time Strength Elongation

No. Degassing No Degassing
(◦ C) (s) (Mpa) (%) (◦ C) (s) (Mpa) (%)
1 160 200 # 11.2 969.0 9 160 200 X 10.5 968.3
2 160 200 # 11.1 960.4 10 160 200 X 10.8 944.8
3 160 600 # 13.4 853.9 11 160 600 X 13.5 851.5
4 160 600 # 12.9 815.2 12 160 600 X 13.0 821.2
5 180 200 # 13.2 840.5 13 180 200 X 12.8 838.7
6 180 200 # 13.1 836.0 14 180 200 X 13.2 844.8
7 180 600 # 13.4 775.0 15 180 600 X 13.0 749.7
8 180 600 # 13.7 792.3 16 180 600 X 13.3 767.1

Figure 1 shows the main effects and interactions of the factors that affect tensile strength.
Temperature and time affect tensile strength, while degassing does not. Additionally, interactions
occur according to time and temperature and no interactions occur, owing to degassing.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 133 3 of 12
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 12

(a) (b)
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Main
Main effects
effects plot
plot and
and interaction
interaction plot
plot for
for tensile
tensile strength.
strength. (a)
(a) Main
Main effects
effects plot
plot for
for tensile
tensile
strength; and (b) Interaction plot for tensile strength.
strength; and (b) Interaction plot for tensile strength.

Table 22 shows
Table shows the analysis of variance (ANOVA)
(ANOVA) result for the factors that affect tensile strength.
strength.
ANOVA is
ANOVA is aa collection
collection of
of statistical
statistical models
models and
and their
their associated
associated estimation
estimation procedures
procedures (such
(such as the
the
“variation” among
“variation” among and and between
between groups)
groups) used
used to
to analyze
analyze the
the differences
differences among
among group means
means in aa
sample. ‘Adj. SS’ represents the sum of squares, ‘Adj. MS’ is the mean squares, and ‘F-Value’ is the the
value of
value of the
the adj.
adj. The SS of each factor divided by the mean squares error. error. ‘p-value’ was derived based
on F value. p values larger than 0.05 are pooled as error error terms,
terms, and
and only
only significant
significant factors
factors are
are shown.
shown.
The regression
The regression Equation
Equation (1)(1) was
was derived
derived through
through ANOVA
ANOVA analysis.
analysis. The
The R 2
R value of the
2 the regression
regression
equation is
equation is 94.59%
94.59% and
and the adj. R22 value is 93.24%.
the adj.

𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑒
tensile𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔ℎ𝑡
strenght = −15.59
15.59 + 0.1585𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝 0.04592𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒− 0.00025Temp
0.1585Temp + 0.04592Time 0.00025𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒
× Time
(1)
(1)

Table 2. ANOVA
Table 2. ANOVA result
result for
for tensile
tensile strength.
strength.

Source SourceDF DF Adj SS SS Adj

Adj Adj
MS MS F-ValueF-Value p-Value p-Value
Model Model 3 3 15.95 15.95 5.31661
5.31661 69.95 69.950.000 0.000
Linear Linear 2 2 11.91
11.91 5.95374
5.95374 78.33 78.330.000 0.000
Temp (°C) Temp (℃)1 1 5.380
5.380 5.38007
5.38007 70.78 70.780.000 0.000
Time (s) 1 6.5274 6.52741 85.88 0.000
2-way interactions Time (s) 1 1 6.5274
4.0423 6.52741
4.04234 85.88 53.180.000 0.000
T (°C) × Time2-way
(s) interactions
1 1 4.04234.0423 4.04234 4.04234 53.18 53.180.000 0.000
Error T (℃) × Time 12(s) 1 0.91214.0423 4.04234 0.0760 53.18 0.000
Total Error 15 12 16.8619
0.9121 0.0760
Total 15 16.8619
2.2. Elongation according to Time and Gas Removal Conditions
2.2. Elongation according to Time and Gas Removal Conditions
Figure 2 shows the plot of the major factors that determine elongation. Time and temperature
affectFigure
elongation,
2 shows andthegasplot
removal
of thehas a minor
major factorseffect
thaton elongation.
determine Figure 2bTime
elongation. shows thetemperature
and diagram of
the interactions.
affect elongation,Itandcan gas
be confirmed
removal has thata temperature
minor effect on andelongation.
time affectFigure
each other.
2b shows the diagram of
Table 3 shows
the interactions. the be
It can ANOVA
confirmedresults fortemperature
that the analysisandof the factors
time affectthat
eachaffect elongation. Based on
other.
the analysis
Table 3 of tensile
shows thestrength
ANOVAaccording
results fortothe
process parameters,
analysis temperature
of the factors that affectand time affect
elongation. tensile
Based on
strength and of
the analysis elongation, while degassing
tensile strength accordingdoes not. However,
to process parameters,a few specimens without
temperature and timedegassing did
affect tensile
exhibit
strengthpores. We set the degassing
and elongation, parameter
while degassing doesin additional
not. However, experiments.
a few specimensThe regression Equationdid
without degassing (2)
was derived through ANOVA analysis. The R 2 value of the regression equation is 96.69% and the adj.
exhibit pores. We set the degassing parameter in additional experiments. The regression Equation (2)
R 2 value is 95.86%.
was derived through ANOVA analysis. The R2 value of the regression equation is 96.69% and the adj.
R2 value is 95.86%.
elongation = 2213 − 7.436Temp − 1.437Time − 0.00702Temp × Time (2)
𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 2213 7.436𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝 1.437𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 0.00702𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 (2)
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 133 4 of 12
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 12

(a) (b)
Figure2.2.Main
Figure Maineffects
effectsplot
plotand
andinteraction
interactionplot
plotfor
forelongation.
elongation.(a)(a)Main
Maineffects
effectsplot
plotfor
forelongation;
elongation;and
and
(b)
(b) Interaction
Interaction plot
plot forfor elongation.
elongation.

Table
Table ANOVA
3. 3. result
ANOVA forfor
result elongation.
elongation.
Source SourceDF DFAdjAdj
SS SS AdjAdjMS
MS F-Value F-Value
p-Value p-Value
Model Model 3 375,096.2 25,032.1
75,096.2 25,032.1 116.87116.87 0.000 0.000
Linear Linear 2 271,937.7 35,968.9
71,937.7 35,968.9 167.93167.93 0.000 0.000
Temp. (°C) 1 34,243.5 34,243.5 159.88 0.000
Time (s)
Temp. (℃)1
137,694.2
34,243.5 34,243.5
37,694.2
159.88175.99 0.000 0.000
2-way interactions Time (s)1 1 3158.4
37,694.2 37,694.2
3158.4 175.9914.75 0.000 0.034
T (°C) × Time2-way
(s) interactions
1 1 3158.4
3158.4 3158.4
3158.4 14.75 14.75 0.034 0.002
Error T (℃) × Time 12 (s) 1 2570.2
3158.4 214.2
3158.4 14.75 0.002
Total 15 77,666.4
Error 12 2570.2 214.2
Total 15 77,666.4
2.3. Measurement of Grommet Mounting Performance according to Molding Process Parameters
We derived the process parameters that increase mounting performance by measuring mounting
2.3. Measurement
performance of Grommet
according Mounting
to grommet Performance
shape. according
Based on to Molding
the results Process
described Parameters
in the previous section,
temperature and time were set as the process parameters because they affect tensile strength and
We derived the process parameters that increase mounting performance by measuring
elongation. We set the maximum and minimum values for each factor according to grommet shape and
mounting performance according to grommet shape. Based on the results described in the previous
fabricated the grommet. Here, degassing was applied in the fabrication of all products. The mounting
section, temperature and time were set as the process parameters because they affect tensile strength
performance of the products was analyzed by measuring the insertion force required for fastening
and elongation. We set the maximum and minimum values for each factor according to grommet
the grommet and the required separation force. Insertion force and separation force were measured
shape and fabricated the grommet. Here, degassing was applied in the fabrication of all products.
using a universal tensile tester when the grommet was inserted into or removed from a panel fixing jig.
The mounting performance of the products was analyzed by measuring the insertion force required
The experimental speed was set as 50 mm/min, and the experiment was repeated twice. We employed
for fastening the grommet and the required separation force. Insertion force and separation force
three widely used types of shapes for the grommet. The temperature and time parameters for molding
were measured using a universal tensile tester when the grommet was inserted into or removed from
the grommet of each shape in the initial test are shown in Table 4. Figure 3 shows the types of
a panel fixing jig. The experimental speed was set as 50 mm/min, and the experiment was repeated
grommet shape.
twice. We employed three widely used types of shapes for the grommet. The temperature and time
parameters for molding the grommet of each shape in the initial test are shown in Table 4. Figure 3
Table 4. Experimental conditions.
shows the types of grommet shape.
Temp. (◦ C) Time (s)
Type
Table
Min(−1) 4. Experimental
Max(1) conditions.
Min(−1) Max(1)
Bellows 160 180
Temp. (°C) 200 (s)
Time 600
Cable Type170 190 400 800
Min(−1) Max(1) Min(−1) Max(1)
Blank 180 200 300 900
Bellows 160 180 200 600
Cable 170 190 400 800
Blank 180 200 300 900
 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 133 5 of 12
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 12

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 12

(a) (b) (c)

Figure
Figure3.3.Grommet
Grommetshapes.
shapes.(a)
(a)Bellows
Bellowstype;
type;(b)
(b)Cable
Cabletype;
type;and
and(c)
(c)Cable-less
Cable-lesstype.
type.

The
Theinsertion
insertionforce
forceand andseparation
separationforce
forcefor
fordifferent
differentgrommet
grommetshape shapetypes
typesarearegiven
givenininTable
Table5.5.
ANOVA
ANOVAwas wasusedusedtoto analyze
analyze thethe
insertion force
insertion and and
force separation force force
separation for each
fortype
eachoftypeshape,of and it
shape,
was
andconfirmed that there
it was confirmed wasthere
that no difference between insertion
was no difference between force and separation
insertion force according
force and separation force
to grommettoprocess
according grommet parameters. As shown in
process parameters. AsFigure
shown4,ineven though
Figure 4, eventhere is nothere
though difference between
is no difference
insertion force andforce
between insertion separation (a) force according
and separation to(b)
force according process parameters,
to process (c) the the
parameters, times
times at atwhich
whichthe
the
maximum insertion
maximum insertion force
force andand maximum
maximum separation
separation force force
occur occur
vary vary
depending depending
Figure 3. Grommet shapes. (a) Bellows type; (b) Cable type; and (c) Cable-less type. on process on process
parameters.
parameters.
This appears This appears
to be because to be
thebecause the elongation
elongation rate changes rate changes according
according to process to process parameters.
parameters. Moreover,
Moreover,
it wasThe it was that
confirmed
insertion confirmed
forcetheand thatinthe
change
separation change
insertion
force for indifferent
force insertion force and
and separation
grommet force
shapeseparation
was more
types force
given was
areinfluenced more
by
in Tablethe
5.
influenced
changes inbythethe changes
shape of thein the shape
grommet. of the grommet.
ANOVA was used to analyze the insertion force and separation force for each type of shape, and it
was confirmed that there was no difference between insertion force and separation force according
to grommet process parameters. As shown Experimental
Table 5. in Figure 4, evenresults.
though there is no difference between
insertion forceValue
Process and separation forceType
Bellows according to processCable Typeparameters, the times at
Cable-Less which the
Type
maximum insertion force and maximum separation force occur vary depending on process
Insertion Separation Insertion Separation Insertion Separation
Temp. ThisTime
parameters. appears toForce be because the elongation rate changes
Force Force Forceaccording to process Force
Force parameters.
Moreover,−1 it was −1 confirmed that
94.1 the change
85.3 in insertion
226.5 force
120.6and separation
99.0 force was more
73.5
influenced
1 by the changes
1 in the
94.1 shape of the
88.3 grommet.268.7 119.6 97.1 65.7

(a) (b)
Figure 4. Insertion force and separation force experimental results according to process parameters
by grommet type. (a) Insertion force results according to grommet shape type; and (b) separation
force results according to grommet shape type.

Table 5. Experimental results.

Process Value Bellows Type Cable Type Cable-Less Type

(a) (b)
Insertion Separation Insertion Separation Insertion Separation
Temp.
FigureTime
4. Insertion force and separation force experimental results according to process parameters
Force
Figure 4. Insertion Force force experimental
force and separation Force Force
results according to Force Force
process parameters by
−1by grommet
grommet type.
−1 type. (a) Insertion
(a)94.1
Insertion force
force results
results
85.3 according
according to grommet
to grommet
226.5 shape
120.6 shape
type;type;
and andseparation
(b)
99.0 (b) separation
force
73.5
1 force results
results 1 according
according to grommet
to grommet
94.1 shapeshape
type. type. 268.7
88.3 119.6 97.1 65.7
3. Nonlinear Analysis Using FEM Table 5. Experimental results.
3. Nonlinear Analysis Using FEM
Process
3.1. Value
Parameter Bellows to
Settings According Type
Shape Cable Type Cable-Less Type
3.1. Parameter Settings According to
Insertion Shape
Separation Insertion Separation Insertion Separation
Temp. Time considered that the factors that influenced insertion force and separation force were
This study
This studyby Force
considered Force Force Forceforce andForce Forcewere
more affected the shapethat theproduct
of the factors that
thaninfluenced insertion
by the process parameters of theseparation
product.force
Therefore,
more −1affected−1 94.1
by product
the shape 85.3
of parameterized
the product than 226.5
by the process 120.6
parameters 99.0 73.5
the shape of the was to analyze insertion force and of the product.
separation forceTherefore,
according
1
the shape 1 product
of the 94.1 88.3
was parameterized 268.7 insertion119.6
to analyze 97.1 force according
force and separation 65.7

3. Nonlinear Analysis Using FEM

3.1. Parameter Settings According to Shape

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 133 6 of 12
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 12

to
to the
the changes
changes in
in shape.
shape. Figure
Figure 55 shows
shows the
the shape
shape parameters
parameters of
of the
the main
main part
part of
of the
the grommet,
grommet, and
and
Table 6 shows the values of each shape parameter.
Table 6 shows the values of each shape parameter.

6. Parameters
Table 6.
Table Parameters according
according to
to shape.
shape.
Level a (mm)
Level a (mm) b b
(mm)
(mm) c (mm) d (mm)
c (mm) d (mm)
e (℃) e (°C)
1 1 4 4 1010 11 5 5 135 135
2 2 4.5 4.5 1111 1.51.5 6 6 145 145
3 5 12 2 7 155
3 5 12 2 7 155

Figure 5. Grommet shape parameter settings.

3.2. Nonlinear Analysis by Setting Material Constants

3.2. Nonlinear Analysis by Setting Material Constants
Unlike metals, rubber retains its elasticity even under large strain. As rubber has hyper-elastic
Unlike metals, rubber retains its elasticity even under large strain. As rubber has hyper-elastic
properties that exhibit nonlinearity between load and strain, it is important to understand its nonlinear
properties that exhibit nonlinearity between load and strain, it is important to understand its
properties [15]. We conducted uniaxial and biaxial tensile tests of EPDM rubber to obtain stress–strain
nonlinear properties [15]. We conducted uniaxial and biaxial tensile tests of EPDM rubber to obtain
rate information. Then, we determined the nonlinear material constants required for finite element
stress–strain rate information. Then, we determined the nonlinear material constants required for
analysis. The uniaxial and biaxial tensile tests were performed using an EPDM 50 material to
finite element analysis. The uniaxial and biaxial tensile tests were performed using an EPDM 50
obtain stress–strain data, as shown in Figure 6. We determined the material constants required for
material to obtain stress–strain data, as shown in Figure 6. We determined the material constants
nonlinear analysis. The tensile test was performed using the KS standard dumbbell-type three test [13].
required for nonlinear analysis. The tensile test was performed using the KS standard dumbbell-type
The Mullins effect is observed in EPDM materials, such as rubber, in which the initial molecular
three test [13]. The Mullins effect is observed in EPDM materials, such as rubber, in which the initial
structure is rearranged upon repeated loads [16–19]. As shown in Figure 6a,b, as strain range gradually
molecular structure is rearranged upon repeated loads [16–19]. As shown in Figure 6a,b, as strain
increases, if a strain larger than the previously applied strain is received, a certain permanent strain
range gradually increases, if a strain larger than the previously applied strain is received, a certain
occurs and strain does not become zero, even if stress is zero. In addition, while the gauge distance of
permanent strain occurs and strain does not become zero, even if stress is zero. In addition, while the
a specimen increases in the repeated loading process, the cross-sectional area decreases.
gauge distance of a specimen increases in the repeated loading process, the cross-sectional area
The nonlinear material constants for finite element analysis were obtained through the curve
decreases.
fitting of the stress-strain data obtained in the uniaxial and biaxial tensile tests. The relationship
The nonlinear material constants for finite element analysis were obtained through the curve
between stress and strain was determined to obtain the final nonlinear material constants considering
fitting of the stress-strain data obtained in the uniaxial and biaxial tensile tests. The relationship
the change in the cross-sectional area under the repeated loading of rubber, as shown in Figure 7.
between stress and strain was determined to obtain the final nonlinear material constants considering
The Ogden model was used for nonlinear analysis. An Ogden model is a hyper elastic material
the change in the cross-sectional area under the repeated loading of rubber, as shown in Figure 7.
model that can be used for predicting the nonlinear stress-strain behavior of materials such as rubber
The Ogden model was used for nonlinear analysis. An Ogden model is a hyper elastic material
or polymer. Ogden model was introduced by Ogden in 1972, and the strain energy density function
model that can be used for predicting the nonlinear stress-strain behavior of materials such as rubber
for an Ogden material is as follows (3)
or polymer. Ogden model was introduced by Ogden in 1972, and the strain energy density function
for an Ogden material is as follows (3) n a a a
!
λ1k + λ2k + λ3k − 3
w = ∑ µk (3)
𝜆 𝜆 ak 𝜆 3
w k =1
𝜇 (3)
𝑎
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 133 7 of 12
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 12
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 12

where
where w:
w: Strain
Strain energy density; µμkk,, aakk:: Ogden
energy density; Ogden constants;
constants; and
and λ: ratio; nn ==3.3.
Stretch ratio;
λ: Stretch
where w: Strain energy density; μk, ak: Ogden constants; and λ: Stretch ratio; n = 3.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
6.6. Experimental stress–strain
Experimental curves for compound
stress–strain EPDM. (a) Uniaxial tension; (b) Biaxial
Figure 6.
Figure Experimental stress–strain curvescurves for compound
for compound EPDM.
EPDM. (a) (a) tension;
Uniaxial Uniaxial(b)tension;
Biaxial
tension.
(b) Biaxial tension.
tension.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 7. Stable stress–strain curves for compound EPDM. (a) Uniaxial tension; and (b) biaxial
Figure 7.
7. Stable
Stablestress–strain
stress–strain curves
curves for for compound
compound EPDM.
EPDM. (a) Uniaxial
(a) Uniaxial tension;
tension; and (b)and (b) tension.
biaxial biaxial
tension.
tension.
Table 7 shows the coefficients of the Ogden model with a strain range of 100%, which is a
Table 7 shows the coefficients of the Ogdenconstants.
model with a strain range of 100%, which is a
Table
material 7 shows
model used the coefficients
to describe of thematerial
nonlinear Ogden model withTheaABAQUS
strain range of 100%,
commercial which was
software is a
material model used to describe nonlinear material constants. The ABAQUS commercial software
material model used to describe nonlinear material constants. The ABAQUS commercial software
used [20–22].
was used [20–22].
was used [20–22].
Table 7. Ogden model 3rd constant values.
Table 7. Ogden model 3rd constant values.
Table 7. Ogden model 3rd constant values.
Ogden Model 3rd Constant Values
Material Ogden Model 3rd Constant Values
Materialµ1 µ2 Ogden Model
µ3 3rd Constant
α1 Values α2 α3
Material μ1 μ2 μ3 α1 α2 α3
EPDM50 (100%) 3.557 μ1 8.004μ2 4.550μ3
× 10-1 α1 × 10-2 α2
2.000 4.000 × 10α3-3 2.381
EPDM50 (100%) 3.557 8.004 4.550 × 10-1-1 2.000 × 10-2-2 4.000 × 10-3-3 2.381
EPDM50 (100%) 3.557 8.004 4.550 × 10 2.000 × 10 4.000 × 10 2.381

Figure 8 shows an image of the analysis results. Figure 8a shows the initial state before analysis
Figure 8 shows an image of the analysis results. Figure 8a shows the initial state before analysis
Figure
and (b) shows8 shows an image
graphically oneof
ofthe
theanalysis
various results.
analysisFigure
results.8aThe
shows the initial
maximum state
value ofbefore analysis
insertion force
and (b) shows graphically one of the various analysis results. The maximum value of insertion force
and
and (b) shows graphically
separation one of the through
force was confirmed various analysis results.
the analysis The The
results. maximum
resultsvalue of insertion
for insertion forceforce
and
and separation force was confirmed through the analysis results. The results for insertion force and
and separation force was confirmed through the analysis results. The results for insertion
separation force were obtained for 32 conditions through the nonlinear analysis, as shown in Table force and8.
separation force were obtained for 32 conditions through the nonlinear analysis, as shown in Table
separation force were obtained for 32 conditions through the nonlinear analysis, as shown
ANOVA was performed for insertion force and separation force according to shape design parameters. in Table
8. ANOVA was performed for insertion force and separation force according to shape design
8. ANOVA
Results showedwasthat
performed for except
all variables insertion force
d were and separation
significant among the force according
variables to shapeinsertion
that affected design
parameters. Results showed that all variables except d were significant among the variables that
parameters. Results showed that all variables except d were
force, while shape parameters b and e affected separation force. significant among the variables that
affected insertion force, while shape parameters b and e affected separation force.
affected insertion force, while shape parameters b and e affected separation force.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 133 8 of 12

Table 8. Experimental conditions for different dimension values (DOE).

Insertion Separation Insertion Separation

No. a [mm] b [mm] c [mm] d [mm] e [◦] No. a [mm] b [mm] c [mm] d [mm] e [◦]
Force (N) Force (N) Force (N) Force (N)
1 4.5 11 1.5 6 145 62.37 69.72 17 4 10 2 7 155 64.13 70.60
2 4 10 1 7 135 62.66 64.52 18 4.5 11 2 6 145 62.95 70.21
3 4 10 2 5 135 61.78 64.33 19 5 12 2 5 135 62.37 70.21
4 5 10 1 7 155 63.25 70.41 20 4.5 11 1.5 6 145 62.37 69.72
5 4.5 11 1.5 6 145 62.86 70.01 21 4.5 11 1 6 145 62.27 69.23
6 5 11 1.5 6 145 62.56 70.80 22 5 12 2 7 155 63.84 78.25
7 5 12 1 7 135 62.07 69.82 23 4 12 1 7 155 63.44 74.33
8 4.5 11 1.5 6 155 63.15 73.05 24 4.5 11 1.5 5 145 62.07 69.33
9 5 10 1 5 135 61.58 66.19 25 4 12 1 5 135 61.58 67.27
10 4 10 1 5 155 62.27 69.03 26 4.5 11 1.5 6 135 62.95 67.27
11 4.5 11 1.5 6 145 62.37 69.72 27 4.5 11 1.5 6 145 62.37 69.72
12 4.5 11 1.5 6 145 62.37 69.72 28 4.5 11 1.5 7 145 63.35 70.31
13 4 12 2 5 155 62.76 74.72 29 4 11 1.5 6 145 62.37 68.54
14 5 10 2 5 155 70.31 62.76 30 4 12 2 7 135 62.95 68.15
15 5 10 2 7 135 62.86 66.88 31 4.5 10 1.5 6 145 62.27 67.37
16 4.5 12 1.5 6 145 62.37 71.78 32 5 12 1 5 155 63.15 73.15
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 133 9 of 12
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 12
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 12

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure
Figure 8. Analysis
8. Analysis results.
Analysisresults.
results. (a)
(a) Sectional
Sectional view for
for grommet analysis; and
and (b) analysis result
Figure 8. (a) Sectional view view
for grommet grommet
analysis;analysis; (b)
and (b) analysis analysis
result result
confirmation
confirmation
confirmation of stress and maximum stress distribution by the position of grommet.
of stress and of stress and
maximum maximum
stress stressby
distribution distribution byofthe
the position position of grommet.
grommet.

4.
4. Optimization
4. Optimizationof
Optimization ofShape
of ShapeParameters
Shape Parameters
Parameters

4.1. Derivation
4.1.
4.1. Derivationof
Derivation ofofOptimal
OptimalShape
Optimal Shape Parameters
Shape Parameters
Parameters
We derived
We
We derived the
derived the shape
the shape parameters
shape parameters for
parameters for minimizing
for minimizing insertion
minimizing insertion force
insertion force and
force and maximizing
and maximizing separation
maximizing separation
separation
force based
force
force based on
based onthe
on theresults
the resultsobtained
results obtained from
obtained from the
from thenonlinear
the nonlinear analysis.
nonlinear analysis. Large
analysis. Largevalues
Large valueswere
values wereobtained
were obtained for
obtained forshape
for shape
shape
parameters
parameters a, b, d, and e and a value of 1.313 was obtained for c. Insertion force
parameters a, b, d, and e and a value of 1.313 was obtained for c. Insertion force and separation force
a, b, d, and e and a value of 1.313 was obtained for c. Insertion force and and separation
separation force
force
were were predicted
predicted as as
62.46 62.46
N N
and and
76.98,76.98, respectively.
respectively. Figure
Figure 9 9
is is
an an optimization
optimization
were predicted as 62.46 N and 76.98, respectively. Figure 9 is an optimization graph that shows graph
graph that
that shows
shows
insertionforce
insertion
insertion force and
force and separation
and separation force
separation force according
force according to
according to the
to the values
the values of
values of each
of each shape
each shape parameter
shape parameter obtained
parameter obtained using
obtained using
using
the
the response
response surface
surface optimization
optimization
the response surface optimization [23]. [23].
[23].

Figure
Figure9.
Figure 9.9.Shape
Shapeparameter
Shape parameteroptimization
parameter optimizationresults
optimization resultsusing
results usingresponse
using response optimization
response optimization tool.
optimization tool.
tool.

4.2. Design
4.2.
4.2. DesignVerification
Design Verification
Verification
As shown
As
As shown in
shown in Table
in Table 9,
Table 9, nonlinear
9, nonlinear analysis
nonlinear analysis was
analysis was conducted
was conducted to
conducted to verify
to verify the
verify the feasibility
the feasibility of
feasibility of the
of the shape
the shape
shape
parameters
parameters and predicted values were derived using the response optimization
parameters and predicted values were derived using the response optimization tool. To verify the
and predicted values were derived using the response optimization tool.
tool. To
To verify
verify the
the
feasibilityof
feasibility
feasibility of the
of the predicted
the predicted values,
predicted values, nonlinear
values, nonlinear analysis
nonlinear analysiswas
analysis was conducted
was conductedby
conducted by modeling
by modelingthe
modeling the values
the valuesof
values of the
of the
the
derived shape parameters. An insertion force of 62.76 N was derived from the results of the
derived shape parameters. An insertion force of 62.76 N was derived from the results of the additional additional
nonlinear
nonlinear analysis;
analysis; the
the difference
difference from
from the
the predicted
predicted value
value (62.46
(62.46 N)
N) was
was 0.29
0.29 N.
N.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 133 10 of 12

derived shape parameters. An insertion force of 62.76 N was derived from the results of the additional
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 12
nonlinear analysis; the difference from the predicted value (62.46 N) was 0.29 N.
The predicted value of separation force was confirmed to be 77.08 N using the response
The predicted value of separation force was confirmed to be 77.08 N using the response
optimization tool. The value obtained through the additional nonlinear analysis was 76.98 N, and the
optimization tool. The value obtained through the additional nonlinear analysis was 76.98 N, and the
difference between the predicted and analysis values was 0.10 N. Table 9 shows the predicted values
difference between the predicted and analysis values was 0.10 N. Table 9 shows the predicted values
obtained from the response optimization tool and the values obtained via the additional analysis.
obtained from the response optimization tool and the values obtained via the additional analysis.
Table 9. Comparison of predicted and analysis values.
Table 9. Comparison of predicted and analysis values.
Classification Predicted Value (N) Analysis Value (N) Difference (N)
Classification Predicted Value (N) Analysis Value (N) Difference (N)
Insertion force 62.46 62.76 0.29
Insertion force 62.46 62.76 0.29
Separation force 76.98 77.08 0.10
Separation force 76.98 77.08 0.10

4.3.4.3.
Verification of Effectiveness
Verification of Effectiveness
A grommet
A grommet was fabricated
was to experimentally
fabricated to experimentally testtest
insertion force
insertion and
force andseparation
separationforce using
force thethe
using
predicted
predicted shape
shapeparameters.
parameters. Based
Basedononthethe
process variables
process variablessetset
in in
thethe
previous test,
previous thethe
test, temperature
temperature
was set to 170 ◦ C and the time was set to 300 s to produce a grommet. The experiments were conducted
was set to 170 °C and the time was set to 300 s to produce a grommet. The experiments were
as conducted
shown in Figure
as shown10. Insertion
in Figureforce was 50.0 N,
10. Insertion andwas
force separation
50.0 N, force was 85.3 N.force
and separation The predicted
was 85.3 N.andThe
experimental values are different because, when the grommet is fabricated,
predicted and experimental values are different because, when the grommet is fabricated, aa protrusion is formed
to reduce
protrusionthe friction
is formedbetween the grommet
to reduce and between
the friction the mounting part in the
the grommet insertion
and part. This
the mounting causes
part in the
insertion force to be smaller than the predicted value. Table 10 show the Predicted and
insertion part. This causes insertion force to be smaller than the predicted value. Table 10 show the measured
insertion
Predictedforce
andand separation
measured force. force and separation force.
insertion

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 10.10.Comparison
Comparisonofofsimulated
simulatedand
and experimental
experimental values. (a)
(a)Insertion
Insertionforce
forcemeasurement;
measurement;and
and(b)
(b)comparison
comparisonofofinsertion
insertionand
andseparation
separationforces.
forces.

Table Predicted
10. 10.
Table andand
Predicted measured insertion
measured force
insertion andand
force separation force.
separation force.
Classification
Classification Predicted Value
Predicted Value (N)
(N) Simulated Value
Simulated Value (N)
(N) Experimental Value
Experimental Value(N)(N)
Insertion
Insertionforce
force 62.5
62.5 62.8
62.8 50.0
50.0
Separation
Separation force
force 77.0
77.0 77.1
77.1 85.3
85.3

5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
This
Thisstudy conducted
study conducted optimization
optimization to to
improve
improvethethe
mounting
mounting performance
performance of of
a grommet
a grommet using
using
EPDM
EPDM materials. The
materials. physical
The physicalproperties
propertiesof of
thethe
main molding
main molding materials
materialswere
wereinvestigated
investigatedaccording
according
to process
to processparameters.
parameters.A grommet
A grommet was fabricated
was fabricatedaccording
according to to
thethe
process
processparameters
parameters of of
fabrication.
fabrication.
Insertion force
Insertion and separation
force force were
and separation forceexamined through experiments.
were examined Nonlinear material
through experiments. Nonlinear constants
material
were determined
constants werethrough uniaxial
determined and biaxial
through uniaxialtensile
and tests. The
biaxial nonlinear
tensile tests.analysis of the grommet
The nonlinear analysis was
of the
conducted,
grommet was conducted, and a compound design that incorporated the shape parameters forofthe
and a compound design that incorporated the shape parameters for the minimum load
each part wasload
minimum derived. Then,
of each partadditional nonlinear
was derived. Then, analysis
additional was performed.
nonlinear This was followed
analysis performed. byThis
a
comparative
was followed analysis of the actual model
by a comparative analysis through experimental
of the actual evaluation.
model through experimental evaluation.
1. The physical properties of EPDM materials were analyzed according to molding parameters.
Tensile strength and elongation were measured. Tensile strength increased with temperature
and time.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 133 11 of 12

1. The physical properties of EPDM materials were analyzed according to molding parameters.
Tensile strength and elongation were measured. Tensile strength increased with temperature
and time.
2. A grommet was fabricated by applying the process parameters that affected the properties of
specimens. Experiments were conducted to measure the insertion force and separation force
of the fabricated grommet. We confirmed that the maximum load did not change with tensile
strength and elongation. Moreover, differences in insertion time occurred owing to differences
in elongation.
3. Uniaxial and biaxial elongation tests of the EPDM materials were conducted to perform the
nonlinear analysis of the grommet, and physical property data were derived through the Ogden
model. The grommet model was set for each shape parameter and analyzed for various cases.
The influence of insertion force and separation force was confirmed through the set shape
parameters, and the dimensions for minimizing insertion force and maximizing separation force
were derived.
4. Additional analysis was performed for comparing the results of the optimization and experiments
to verify the feasibility of the derived dimensions.

Author Contributions: Y.S.K., E.S.H. and E.S.J. conceived and designed the experiments; Y.S.K., E.S.H. and
E.S.J. performed the experiments; Y.S.K., E.S.H. and E.S.J. analyzed the data; Y.S.K., E.S.H. and E.S.J. contributed
reagents/materials/analysis tools; Y.S.K., E.S.H. and E.S.J. wrote the paper.
Funding: This research was financially supported by the Ministry of SMEs and Startups (MSS), Korea, under the
“Convergence and Integration R&D(P0005112)” supervised by the Korea Institute for Advancement of Technology
(KIAT).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Abou-Helal, M.O.; El-Sabbagh, S.H. A study on the compatibility of NR–EPDM blends using electrical and
mechanical techniques. J. Elastomers Plast. 2005, 37, 319–346. [CrossRef]
2. Kondyurin, A. EPDM rubber modified by nitrogen plasma immersion ion implantation. Materials 2018, 11,
657. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Ginic-Markovic, M.; Choudhury, N.R.; Dimopoulos, M.; Matisons, J. Adhesion between polyurethane coating
and EPDM rubber compound. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2004, 18, 575–596. [CrossRef]
4. Kwak, S.B.; Choi, N.S.; Choi, Y.J.; Shin, S.M. Nondestructive characterization of degradation of EPDM rubber
for automotive radiator hoses. Key Eng. Mater. 2006, 326–328, 565–568. [CrossRef]
5. Zhao, Q.; Li, X.; Gao, J. Aging of ethylene–propylene–diene monomer (EPDM) in artificial weathering
environment. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2007, 92, 1841–1846. [CrossRef]
6. Ismail, H.; Pasbakhsh, P.; Ahmad Fauzi, M.N.; Bakar, A.A. Morphological, thermal and tensile properties of
halloysite nanotubes filled ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) nanocomposites. Polym. Test. 2008,
27, 841–850. [CrossRef]
7. Gatos, K.G.; Thomann, R.; Karger-Kocsis, J. Characteristics of ethylene propylene diene monomer
rubber/organoclay nanocomposites resulting from different processing conditions and formulations.
Polym. Int. 2004, 53, 1191–1197. [CrossRef]
8. Ismail, H.; Shaari, S.M. Curing characteristics, tensile properties and morphology of palm ash/halloysite
nanotubes/ethylene-propylene-diene monomer (EPDM) hybrid composites. Polym. Test. 2010, 29, 872–878.
[CrossRef]
9. Kim, Y.S.; Jeon, E.S.; Hwang, E.S. Effects of injection molding process conditions on physical properties of
EPDM using design of experiment method. MATEC Web Conf. 2018, 167, 1–6. [CrossRef]
10. Maamoun, A.; Xue, Y.; Elbestawi, M.; Veldhuis, S. Effect of selective laser melting process parameters on the
quality of Al alloy parts: Powder characterization, density, surface roughness, and dimensional accuracy.
Materials 2018, 11, 2343. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 133 12 of 12

11. Ezedine, F.; Linares, J.M.; Chaves-Jacob, J.; Sprauel, J.M. Measurement parameters optimized for sequential
multilateration in calibrating a machine Tool with a DOE Method. Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 313. [CrossRef]
12. López, A.; Aisa, J.; Martinez, A.; Mercado, D. Injection moulding parameters influence on weight quality of
complex parts by means of DOE application: Case study. Measurement 2016, 90, 349–356. [CrossRef]
13. KS M 6518:2016. Physical Test Methods for Vulcanized Rubber; Korean Industrial Standards: Seoul, Korea, 2016.
14. Kumar, C.S.S.R.; Nijasure, A.M. Vulcanization of rubber. Resonance 1997, 2, 55–59. [CrossRef]
15. Woo, C.S.; Kim, W.D.; Choi, S.S. Material Characteristics Evaluation and Useful Life Prediction by Heating
Aging of Rubber Materials for Electronic Component. In Proceedings of the KSME 2005 Spring Annual
Meeting, Busan, Korea, 25–27 May 2005; pp. 130–135.
16. Jang, W.J.; Han, C.Y.; Lee, S.B. Material Tests and Prediction for Finite Element Analysis of EPDM.
In Proceedings of the KSME 2008 Autumn Annual Meeting, Pyeongchang, Korea, 5–7 November 2008;
pp. 65–70.
17. Kowalik, M.; Pyrzanowska, J.; Piechal, A.; Blecharz-Klin, K.; Widy-Tyszkiewicz, E.; Suprynowicz, K.;
Pyrzanowski, P. Determination of mechanical properties of rat’s artery using optimization based method
and Ogden’s model. Mater. Today Proc. 2017, 4, 5849–5854. [CrossRef]
18. Wu, Y.; Wang, H.; Li, A. Parameter identification methods for hyperelastic and hyper-viscoelastic models.
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 386. [CrossRef]
19. Kim, W.D.; Kim, W.S.; Kim, D.J.; Woo, C.S.; Lee, H.J. Mechanical testing and nonlinear material properties
for finite element analysis of rubber components. Trans. KSME 2004, 28, 848–859.
20. Bhowmick, S.; Liu, G.R. Three dimensional cs-fem phase-field modeling technique for brittle fracture in
elastic solids. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2488. [CrossRef]
21. Ullah, S.N.; Hou, L.F.; Satchithananthan, U.; Chen, Z.; Gu, H. A 3D RITSS approach for total stress and
coupled-flow large deformation problems using ABAQUS. Comput. Geotech. 2018, 99, 203–215. [CrossRef]
22. Kim, B.; Lee, S.B.; Lee, J.; Cho, S.; Park, H.; Yeom, S.; Park, S.H. A comparison among Neo-Hookean Model,
MooneyRivlin Model, and Ogden Model for chloroprene rubber. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 2012, 13, 759–764.
[CrossRef]
23. Chu, Z.; Zheng, F.; Liang, L.; Yan, H.; Kang, R. Parameter determination of a minimal model for brake squeal.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 37. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).