Mechanical responses of Ecoflex silicone rubber: Compressible and

incompressible behaviors
D. Steck,1 J. Qu,1 S. B. Kordmahale,2 D. Tscharnuter,3 A. Muliana ,1 J. Kameoka2
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77853
2
Department of Electrical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77853
3
Polymer Competence Center Leoben GmbH, Roseggerstrasse 12, 8700, Leoben, Austria
Correspondence to: A. Muliana (E-mail: amuliana@tamu.edu)

ABSTRACT: Silicon rubbers are widely used in a variety of products ranging from cooking utensils and electronics to medical devices and
implants. Recently, they have sparked an interest among soft robotics researchers as they can be easily formed into various shapes and
actuated in a relatively fast and easy way. In this article, we examine the nonlinear elastic response of a silicon rubber, Ecoflex, under
both compressible and incompressible constraints. An experimental test on a uniaxial tension indicates a slight compressibility, and the
compressibility increases with stretching. Five different constitutive material models are considered to describe the nonlinear elastic
responses of Ecoflex under both compressible and incompressible conditions. In addition, finite element (FE) analysis is presented to
analyze multiaxial response of structures or devices made of Ecoflex under complex boundary conditions. This study highlights the vari-
ations in the multiaxial response of structures at large deformations from different constitutive models under different compressible and
incompressible constraints. For a high precision control in soft robotics applications, there is a need to understand the multiaxial
response of silicon rubbers, especially under large deformations. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2018, 135, 47025.

Received 14 December 2017; accepted 8 July 2018

DOI: 10.1002/app.47025

INTRODUCTION Depending on the complexities of the structures, it might not be

Silicone rubbers are becoming the materials of choice for light-
weight compliant systems that require a relatively fast and small
actuation. Their soft characteristics make them appealing for the
development of soft robots and artificial limbs. Rubber pneumatic
actuators are gaining popularity due to their rather simple actua-
tion mechanisms. Some advantages of using silicone rubbers in
designing pneumatic actuators are that high-power-to-weight
ratios are attainable, relatively small input air pressures are
needed to induce large deformations, and they can be easily formed
into various shapes at a relatively low cost. Several types of pneu-
matic rubber actuators have been developed such as the McKibben
artificial muscle,1 bending actuators,2–5 biomimetic robots that
mimic animal locomotion,6–9 and biomedical devices10–13 among
others.
Despite the simple actuation mechanism, analyzing and designing
silicone rubber pneumatic actuators is quite challenging due to
the highly nonlinear responses of silicone rubbers. When analyti-
cal solutions are considered, a simple constitutive material model
such as the neo-Hookean model is often used for the silicone
rubber. The neo-Hookean model is limited in its ability to cap-
ture the response of rubber or silicone rubber under large stretch.
possible to obtain exact analytical solutions of the deformations
of pneumatic actuators. Finite element (FE) analyses have been
widely considered for analyzing responses of pneumatic silicone
rubber actuators. Examples can be found in Refs.5,14–16, and17. In
these FE analyses, the mechanical response of silicone rubbers is
typically modeled as nonlinear elastic and incompressible. Several
well-established nonlinear elastic constitutive models, such as the
neo-Hookean, Ogden, Mooney–Rivlin, and Yeoh models, with
incompressibility constraint have been considered. The responses
determined from the FE analyses are generally in good agreement
with the experimental results, particularly for pressures that gen-
erate low-to-moderate stretch. At higher pressures, which are
associated with large stretch, mismatches between FE analyses
and experiments are more pronounced.
It should be noted that models for nonlinear elastic responses
generally involve several material constants, which can lead to
nonuniqueness in the material parameters. There are numerous
sets of values of the material parameters that fit the experimental
data for a wide range of stretches (see the discussion in Ref.18).
Ogden et al.18 indicated that material parameters calibrated from
the uniaxial response do not necessarily predict the response
from the biaxial loading particularly at larger stretch, and vice

© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

47025 (1 of 11) J. APPL. POLYM. SCI. 2018, DOI: 10.1002/APP.47025

ARTICLE WILEYONLINELIBRARY.COM/APP

versa. In some models such as the Gent model, the mismatches

are rather small, but in other models such as the six-parameter
Ogden model, large mismatches are seen. Simultaneously fitting
material parameters for uniaxial and biaxial loadings can give
good overall fits of the data. In many FE simulations on pneu-
matic actuators, such as the ones mentioned above, the material
parameters are obtained mainly from uniaxial data.14,17 When
pressurized, the pneumatic actuators experience multiaxial defor-
mations. The effect of nonuniqueness in material parameters on
the overall performance of pneumatic rubber actuators might
become more pronounced.
Like elastomers, silicone rubbers are often considered as isotropic
nonlinear elastic incompressible or nearly incompressible mate-
rials. Typical experiments are conducted by uniaxially stretching
the silicone rubber specimens without measuring the lateral
stretch, which leads to an incompressible assumption. As will be
shown later in this article, the volumetric changes in silicone rub-
ber specimens under uniaxial stretching increase with increasing
stretch ratios, although the values remain relatively small (with
the determinant of the deformation gradient less than 1.1). The
effect of this slightly compressible behavior of silicone rubbers on
the overall multiaxial deformations of pressurized vessels has not
been fully explored.
In this article, we examine the compressibility and incompressi- Figure 1. Production process for Ecoflex dog-bone specimen. (a) A sche-
bility constraints in the material models in predicting the overall matic diagram of the dog-bone mold with 3D view and cross-sectional view.
mechanical response of silicone rubbers. We first present experi- (b) Dispensing Ecoflex solution into the dog-bone mold. (c) Curing process
mental tests on Ecoflex silicone rubber specimens under uniaxial where a thin plastic film is placed on top of the Ecoflex to eliminate the
stretching and measure the axial and lateral response of the speci- effect of surface tension. (d) The dog-bone specimen is extracted from the
mens. Different material models with compressible and incom- mold. (e) A real image of the produced Ecoflex dog–bone specimen. [Color
pressible behaviors are considered in describing the nonlinear figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
elastic responses of the Ecoflex. Boundary value problems of a
pressurized sphere and pneumatic actuator device are then pre- EXPERIMENTAL TESTS
sented to understand the multiaxial response of devices under The uniaxial tensile tests were conducted using an Instron 5500
compressible and incompressible conditions. We also consider electromechanical testing machine equipped with a 10 N load
FE analyses in predicting the response of Ecoflex under different cell. Axial and transverse strains up to a maximum axial stretch
boundary conditions. of approximately 5 were measured using the digital image corre-
lation system Mercury RT (Sobriety s.r.o., Czech Republic) with
ECOFLEX SPECIMEN FABRICATION two Prosilica GT6600 29 megapixel cameras. ISO 527-3 type
5 specimens were used. At an axial stretch ratio of 5, the speci-
Uniaxial tensile tests were conducted on dog-bone specimens. To
men width is reduced from 6 to <3 mm (due to small changes in
produce the uniaxial dog-bone specimens, a dog-bone mold was
volume). Therefore, measuring the axial and transverse stretch
directly printed by using a stereolithographic micro 3D printer as
requires a compromise between spatial resolution for the trans-
shown in Figure 1(a). At the first step of production, the mixed
verse stretch measurement and field of view for the axial stretch
Ecoflex 00-30 solution was dispensed into the dog-bone mold,
measurement. The cameras were set up so that the field of view
and then the whole mold was placed in a desiccator for 20 min
covered two times the specimen gauge length. This setup gives
for degassing, as shown in Figure 1(b). After this degassing pro-
good resolution of the transverse stretch while still maintaining a
cess, a piece of polystyrene Petri dish film was placed on the top
sufficient view of the specimen. When the specimens are
of dispensed Ecoflex solution to make the surface of the Ecoflex
stretched to 5 times their initial length, upon unloading, signifi-
smooth by eliminating the surface tension of Ecoflex solution as
cant hysteretic areas are observed. Because we consider only non-
shown in Figure 1(c). In this way, after the curing process, a uni-
linear elastic response, we limit the experimental tests to a stretch
form thickness Ecoflex dog-bone specimen was obtained. The
level around 4, in which the specimens experience full recovery
curing time for the Ecoflex dog-bone specimen was 4 h. After the
and negligible hysteretic area is observed.
room temperature cure, the uniaxial dog-bone specimen was
extracted from the mold as shown in Figure 1(d). An image of Figure 2 shows the experimental results from uniaxially stretch-
the final dog-bone specimen is shown in Figure 1(e). Two batches ing the Ecoflex specimens with a constant stretch rate of 1.2/min.
of dog-bone specimens with different thicknesses, that is, 2 and Nine specimens from two batches with different thicknesses were
3 mm, were produced. tested under several loading–unloading cycles. Under this testing

47025 (2 of 11) J. APPL. POLYM. SCI. 2018, DOI: 10.1002/APP.47025

ARTICLE WILEYONLINELIBRARY.COM/APP
Figure 2. Experimental results from uniaxial stretching with a stretch rate
of 1.2/min. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
condition, the Ecoflex specimens show full recovery upon
unloading, as depicted in Figure 3. The Cauchy stress measure is
considered in presenting the experimental data. Good repeatabil-
ity is also observed in the testing results with marginal variations.
The amount of volume changes are examined by calculating the
determinant of the deformation gradient (det F) during the uni-
axial tests, shown in Figure 2(c). The Ecoflex sample exhibits
slight compressibility, and the compressibility increases with
stretching. From these observed experimental results, we consider
the Ecoflex as a nonlinear elastic material. We will assess both
compressible and incompressible conditions and their implication
1
In this study, we take the initial configuration as our reference configuration, and we assume that in the initial configuration, the
material is stress- and strain-free.
47025 (3 of 11)
Figure 3. Loading–unloading cycles with a constant stretch rate. [Color fig-
ure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
on the multi-axial deformations of Ecoflex under several bound-
ary conditions.
CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
We first consider a recently developed constitutive model20,21 to
describe the mechanical responses of the Ecoflex sample. The
new constitutive model expresses the left Cauchy–Green defor-
mation tensor (B) in terms of the Cauchy stress (T), whereas
constitutive models for nonlinear elastic behaviors often express
the stress in terms of the kinematical quantities, that is, strains or
stretch. With regard to the material parameter characterizations
from experiments, a straightforward characterization is shown for
the new model that expresses the stretch tensor in terms of stres-
ses, which will be shown later. We also compare the responses
generated from the classical hyperelastic models wherein the
stress is derivable from the stored energy. The new model is in
general described by four material constants in the case of a com-
pressible isotropic elastic body. When the motion is restricted to
the isochoric case, the response can be completely characterized
by just two material constants.
Let x denote the current position of a particle that is at Xin a
stress-free reference configuration.1 Let x ¼ χκR ðX, t Þ be the
motion of a particle at current time t in a configuration κR with
the deformation gradient F defined as
J. APPL. POLYM. SCI. 2018, DOI: 10.1002/APP.47025
ARTICLE WILEYONLINELIBRARY.COM/APP

∂χκR The constants μ and δ are determined directly from the axial
F¼ ð4:1Þ response.
∂X
We also consider the classical hyperelastic models wherein the
The left and right Cauchy–Green deformation tensors B and stress is derivable from the stored energy to compare the
Care defined through responses obtained from the new model. We first consider a very
B≔FF T , C≔F T F ð4:2Þ popular model by Ogden,23,24 where, in general, the stored energy
The new nonlinear elastic model for isotropic materials is in terms of principal stretches for a compressible material is
given as N μi
 pffiffiffi 
WO ¼ Σ ½Λ1 αi + Λ2 αi + Λ3 αi − 3 + Wvol ð4:6Þ
i¼1 αi
 pffiffiffi  1 −e − δ I2
B ¼ ga ðTÞ ¼ I −κ 1− e −α I2 I + μ pffiffiffiffi T, ð4:3Þ
X
I2 1 2 1 N
Wvol ¼ λ J − J + − μi lnJ ð4:7Þ
whereα, δ, κ and μ are constants, and I2 = tr(T2).. It is seen in 2 2 i¼1
eq. (4.3) that when T = 0, B = I. As discussed by Muliana
where J = det F, and μi, αi, λ are the material constants. The axial
et al. 20 and Muliana et al.,21 the above model reduces to the clas-
component of stress is given as:
sical linearized elastic model upon linearization and imposing
small displacement gradients. Mansouri and Darijani22 have also Λk ∂W ∂W
Tkk ¼ + ; k ¼ 1,2,3 ð4:8Þ
considered an exponential function for strain energy in terms of J ∂Λk ∂J
the first and second invariants of the Cauchy stretch tensor. Their For the uniaxial tensile test, the axial stresses in the compressible
model is shown to be capable of capturing a multiaxial response Ogden model are
of nonlinear elastic behavior of soft materials with a relatively XN
μi  αi αi =2 − αi =2 
small number of material parameters. When compared to various T11 ¼ Λ1 − J Λ1
well-established models, the Mansouri and Darijani22 model gave J
i¼1
ð4:9Þ
much better predictions of experimental data. XN
μi  αi =2 −αi =2 
T22 ¼ T33 ¼ J Λ1 − 1 + λðJ − 1Þ ¼ 0
J
The uniaxial tensile test is defined by the following deformation i¼1
2 3
Λ1 0 0 When an incompressible condition is imposed (J = 1), the axial
gradient tensor, F ¼ 4 0 Λ2 0 5, where Λ1 and Λ2 are the stress reduces to
0 0 Λ2 X
N  
− α =2
stretch in the axial (x1 axis) and transverse (x2 axis) directions. TO ¼ TO11 ¼ μi Λα1 i − Λ1 i ð4:10Þ
Assuming isotropic behavior, the transverse response in the x3 i¼1

axis is assumed to be the same as the one in the x2 axis. Once
the deformation gradient has been determined, different stress
and strain measures can be constructed. In the uniaxial tensile
test, the nonzero component of the Cauchy stress is T11 ¼ ðΛP11Þ2 ,
2
Another model that describes well the nonlinear elastic response
of materials with a limiting stretch behavior is a model by Gent.25
The stored energy in terms of stretch for a compressible material
is given as

where the first Piola–Kirchhoff stress in the axial loading direc- μ J1 −3

WGT ¼ − Jm ln 1− + Wvol ð4:11Þ
tion is P11 = F/A0, where F is the axial force, and A0 is the initial 2 Jm
area of the cross section. Because stress T11 is the only nonzero  
component in the case of a uniaxial loading, we refer to it as Wvol ¼ c1 lnJ + c2 ð lnJ Þ2 + c3 J 2 −1 ð4:12Þ
T. The components of the deformation tensor in eq. (4.3) are where J1 is the first invariant of the stretch tensor, and μ, c1, c2,
written as c3, and Jm are the material parameters. The volumetric part of the
ð1− e − δT Þ    stored energy is given in eq. (4.12). The stress in general is then
B11 ¼ Λ21 ¼ ½1− κð1− e − αT Þ + μ T ¼ 1 − κ 1− e − αT
T obtained from the following equation:
+ μð1 −e − δT Þ
B22 ¼ Λ22 ¼ Λ23 ¼ ½1− κð1− e − αT Þ 2 ∂W ∂W
ð4:4Þ T¼ B + 2J I ð4:13Þ
J ∂J1 ∂J
It is seen in eq. (4.4) that, using the lateral response such as that For the uniaxial loading considered in the experiment,
in Figure 2(b), we can first calibrate the two constants κ and α. where J1 ¼ Λ21 + 2Λ22 , J ¼ Λ1 Λ22 , and T22 = T33 = 0, the axial stres-
Once these two constants are determined, using the axial ses are:
response in Figure 2(a), the two other constants μ and δ are

μ Jm J
obtained. T11 ¼ Λ21 − ð4:14Þ
J ðJm −J1 + 3Þ Λ1
When we impose the isochoric motion (det F = 1) to the uniaxial
loading, we have Λ2 ¼ Λ3 ¼ p1ffiffiffiffi
Λ
, and the constitutive model in When an incompressible condition is considered J1 ¼ Λ21 + 2=Λ1 ,
1

eq. (4.4) reduces to the axial stress in eq. (4.14) reduces to:

1 ð1− e − δT Þ   μJm 1
Λ21 − ¼μ T ¼ μ 1 −e − δT ð4:5Þ TGT ¼ TGT11 ¼ Λ21 − ð4:15Þ
Λ1 T ðJm − J1 + 3Þ Λ1

47025 (4 of 11) J. APPL. POLYM. SCI. 2018, DOI: 10.1002/APP.47025

ARTICLE WILEYONLINELIBRARY.COM/APP
When an incompressible condition is considered, the material
parameters in the Ogden and Gent models, eqs.(4.10) and(4.15),
respectively, can be easily determined from fitting the uniaxial
data. However, when a compressible condition is considered,
determining the material parameters is quite tedious because we
need to concurrently fit the axial and lateral experimental data
from the following relations:
T11 ¼ f1 ðΛ1 , Λ2 Þ
T22 ¼ f2 ðΛ1 , Λ2 Þ ¼ 0
In the new model where we express the stretch in terms of stres-
ses in eq. (4.4), determining the material parameters for com-
pressible bodies is straightforward, as discussed above.
In addition, two additional models, that is, Yeoh and Mooney–
Rivlin, that are commonly considered for describing nonlinear
elastic response of soft materials are also considered. The stored
energy functions for the Yeoh and Mooney–Rivlin models are
X
3 X
3
W¼ Ci ðI1 − 3Þi + Di ðJ − 3Þ2k
i¼1 k¼1
 
W ¼ C1 I1 −3Þ + C2 I2 − 3Þ + DðJ − 1Þ2
where I1 ¼ J − 2=3 I1 , and Ci and Di are the material constants.
Figure 4 illustrates the uniaxial response of Ecoflex when the
body is assumed as incompressible. Different constitutive mate-
rial models are considered for describing the mechanical
responses of Ecoflex. The material parameters calibrated from the
above models are listed in Table I. We now consider the Ecoflex
as a compressible material as suggested by the volume changes in
Figure 2(c). The volumetric strain energy functions in eqs.(4.7)
and (4.12) are considered in the Ogden and Gent constitutive
models, respectively. Figure 5 presents the axial and transverse
responses of Ecoflex with five constitutive models being consid-
ered. It is seen that all models are capable of capturing both axial
and lateral responses of Ecoflex, except for the Mooney–Rivlin
model that shows relatively large deviations. The calibrated mate-
rial parameters are given in Table II. For the hyperelastic models,
where the stress is expressed in terms of stretch, the lateral stress
Figure 4. Uniaxial response of Ecoflex treated as an incompressible mate-
rial. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
is not exactly zero (Figure 6) unlike in the new model; however,
the values are negligible compared to the magnitude of the axial
stress in the experiment.
Furthermore, the absolute percent errors of the above models,
when compared with experimental data, are presented in
Figure 7. The percent errors from both incompressible and
compressible assumptions are presented. It is seen that the pre-
sent model gives relatively small errors, especially for the com-
ð4:16Þ
pressible condition. As expected, percent errors from the
Mooney–Rivlin model are quite large. Other models show varia-
tions in the percent errors with the higher values at early
loading.
In summary, the uniaxial tension tests of Ecoflex silicone rubber,
which indicate slightly compressible behavior, have been used to
examine the nonlinear elastic response of materials under com-
pressible and incompressible conditions. Several hyperelastic
models are used to describe the response of Ecoflex. The hyper-
ð4:17Þ elastic models considered in this study are capable of capturing
the nonlinear elastic response of Ecoflex under compressible
and incompressible conditions. However, when the compress-
ð4:18Þ ible condition is considered, calibrating material parameters in
the hyperelastic models is quite challenging not only because
the models involve more material parameters but also because
the need to concurrently satisfy the axial and lateral conditions
during the curve fitting of experimental data. As a consequence,
the traction-free condition on the lateral surfaces cannot be
exactly satisfied, as depicted in Figure 6. The new model, which
is shown to be capable of describing the mechanical responses
of Ecoflex, has several advantages with regard to calibrating the
material parameters: (1) it has a relatively few material parame-
ters, (2) it eliminates the need to impose an isochoric motion in
calibrating the material parameters, and 3) it directly satisfies
the boundary conditions.
Furthermore, we investigate the nonlinear elastic response of Eco-
flex under uniaxial stretching using ABAQUS FE analyses. 3D con-
tinuum elements (C3D20RH) are used. The Ogden constitutive
models for both compressible and incompressible cases are consid-
ered. The stored energy in terms of the principal stretches is given
h α i P h i
as WO ¼ ΣN μi Λ ^1 i + Λ^2 αi + Λ
^3 αi −3 + M 1 ðJ − 1Þ2j , where
i¼1 αi j¼1 Dj
J = Λ1Λ2Λ3 is the Jacobian, Λ ^k ¼ J − 1=3 Λk , k ¼ 1,2,3, and μi, αi,
Dj are the material parameters. After conducting a convergence
study, the total number of elements in the FE analysis of the
uniaxial stretching case is 5040 elements. Figure 8 shows com-
parisons of the uniaxial response of Ecoflex from FE simulation
and analytical solution. Both compressible and incompressible
cases are considered. The material parameters used in the FE
simulations are summarized in Table III. For the compressible
case, the responses from incorporating D1 and D2 and only D1
are presented. It is seen in Figure 8 that the response with only
D1 can better capture the transverse response but shows some
deviation in the axial response, when compared to experimental
data. The response with D1 and D2 shows better comparison
with the axial response and slightly underpredicts the transverse
response. Overall, the FE simulation and analytical solutions,
both for compressible and incompressible conditions, can cap-
ture the experimental test data.
47025 (5 of 11) J. APPL. POLYM. SCI. 2018, DOI: 10.1002/APP.47025
ARTICLE WILEYONLINELIBRARY.COM/APP

Table I. . Material Parameters for Ecoflex as an Incompressible Material

Present model Ogden (N = 3) Gent Yeoh Mooney–Rivlin

μ = 18 μ1 = 22 kPa Jm = 27 C1 = 17 kPa C1 = 48 kPa
−1
δ = 0.004 kPa α1 = 1.3 μ = 17 kPa C2 = −0.2 kPa C2 = −152 kPa
μ2 = 0.4 kPa C3 = 0.023 kPa
α2 = 5
μ3 = −2 kPa
α3 = −2

We first study the response of an inflated thin-walled sphere whose

initial radius and thickness are R and H, respectively, and R >> H.
The wall of the sphere is modeled as a membrane. This problem
allows for obtaining analytical solutions to compare responses from
the three models with compressible and incompressible conditions.
When inflated by a lateral pressure p, the principal stretches in the
membrane are the in-plane components Λ1 = Λ2 = r/R and the
out of plane component Λ3 = h/H, where r and h are the radius
and thickness of the inflated sphere, respectively. The correspond-
ing principal stresses are σ 1 = σ 2 = σ; σ 3 ≈ 0. The in-plane prin-
cipal stresses are related to the lateral pressure by the following
relation σ ¼ p2 ΛΛ13 HR . When we consider an isochoric motion
Λ3 ¼ Λ12 , the constitutive relation for the new model is
1
pffi
1 1  
Λ21 ¼ 4 + pffiffiffi μ 1− e − 2 δpΛ1 H
2 3R
ð5:1Þ
Λ1 2
For an incompressible material behavior, the lateral pressures
from the Ogden and Gent models are as follows:
H 1 X N  
pO ¼ 2 μ Λαi −Λ1− 2αi ð5:3Þ
R Λ1 i¼1 i 1
3

H 1 μJm 1 1
pGT ¼ 2 Λ 2
− ; I1 ¼ 2Λ21 + ð5:4Þ
R Λ31 Jm − I1 + 3 1
Λ41 Λ41
Figure 8 illustrates the response of an inflated sphere with R/
H = 10 when incompressible constraint is considered for the
Figure 5. Uniaxial response of Ecoflex treated as a compressible material. models. All models show a similar trend, in which, initially, the
[Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] pressure increases with the in-plane stretch, then a slight change in
pressure with continuously increasing stretch is seen, and finally
BOUNDARY VALUE PROBLEMS
the pressure starts increasing again with further stretching. The cor-
We now present boundary value problems to examine the multi- responding in-plane stress and stretch response indicates the limit-
axial response of the Ecoflex when compressible and incompress- ing stretch behavior, which should be expected from experimentally
ible conditions are considered. observing the uniaxial stretching of the Ecoflex specimens.

Table II. . Material Parameters for Ecoflex as a Compressible Material

Present model Ogden (N = 3) Gent Yeoh Mooney-Rivlin

κ = 0.715 μ1 = 22 kPa Jm = 27 C1 = 17 kPa C1 = 48 kPa
α = 0.016 kPa−1 α1 = 1.3 μ = 17 kPa C2 = −0.2 kPa C2 = −152 kPa
μ = 20 μ2 = 0.4 kPa c1 = 50 D=3
δ = 0.003 kPa−1 α2 = 5 c2 = 20 C3 = 0.023 kPa
μ3 = −2 kPa c3 = −25 D1 = 15
α3 = −2 D2 = 20
λ = 375 D3 = 10

47025 (6 of 11) J. APPL. POLYM. SCI. 2018, DOI: 10.1002/APP.47025

ARTICLE WILEYONLINELIBRARY.COM/APP

Figure 6. Lateral stress during uniaxial stretching from the hyperelastic

models (Ecoflex is treated as a compressible material). [Color figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

We now consider a compressible material behavior for the

inflated sphere discussed above. For the new model, the constitu-
tive relation for the in-plane and lateral stretches is
 pffi pffi
Λ1 R  1  2 Λ1 R

Λ21 ¼ Λ22 ¼ 1 −κ 1− e − 2 αpΛ3 H + pffiffiffi μ 1− e − 2 δpΛ3 H
2
ð5:6aÞ
2
 pffi
Λ1 R 
Λ23 ¼ 1− κ 1 −e − 2 αpΛ3 H
2
ð5:6bÞ
Figure 8. Uniaxial response of Ecoflex, comparing FE simulation and ana-
lytical solution of Ogden model. [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Equations (5.6a) and (5.6b) need to be solved simultaneously to

determine the response of the inflated sphere. When the Ogden
model is used, the constitutive relation becomes
H 1 X N  
pO ¼ 2 μ Λαi −J αi Λ1− 2αi ð5:7aÞ
R Λ31 i¼1 i 1
αi

1X N
J
0¼ μi 2αi − 1 + λðJ − 1Þ ð5:7bÞ
J i¼1 Λ1
Finally, we also consider the Gent model with the following con-
stitutive relation:

H 1 μJm J2 J2
pGT ¼ 2 Λ2
− ; I1 ¼ 2Λ 2
+ ð5:8aÞ
R Λ31 Jm − I1 + 3 1
Λ41 1
Λ41

1 μJm J 2
0¼ + 2c1 −μ + 4c2 lnJ + 4c3 J 2 ð5:8bÞ
J Jm − I1 + 3 Λ41
In both Ogden and Gent models, two equations need to be solved
simultaneously to determine the response of the inflated sphere.
In obtaining the response of the inflated sphere for compressible
cases, eqs. (5.6)–(5.8) are solved numerically.

Table III. . Material Parameters for Ecoflex Used in FE Simulations

i μi (kPa) αi Di
1 16.9 1.3 1.156
2 0.08 5.0 0.0001
Figure 7. Percent errors of several models compared to experimental data.
3 1.0 −2.0 -
[Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

47025 (7 of 11) J. APPL. POLYM. SCI. 2018, DOI: 10.1002/APP.47025

ARTICLE WILEYONLINELIBRARY.COM/APP

It is quite interesting to see that, when a compressible material

behavior is considered, the response from the Ogden and new
models differs from when an incompressible behavior is assumed,
as depicted in Figure 9. It should be noted that in the uniaxial
stretching experimental tests, models with both incompressible
and compressible conditions can capture the response (Figures 4
and 5), which should be expected because the tested Ecoflex only
shows mild compressibility as stretch increases. When we con-
sider a multiaxial response, the Ogden and Gent models show a
drop in pressure as the membrane stretch increases. In the Gent
model, the pressure begins to increase again quite rapidly with
further stretching of the membrane. In the new model, the pres-
sure monotonically increases with stretching of the membrane.
We further examine the lateral (through thickness) stretch
obtained from the compressible form of the three models dis-
cussed above, shown in Figure 10. Although the new model gives
a limiting lateral stretch of around 0.5, the Ogden and Gent
models show a significant decrease in the lateral stretch that is
quite similar to the incompressible condition. As seen in this fig-
ure, the lateral stretch in the Ogden and Gent models reaches a
very low value (less than 0.1) when the in-plane stretch is around
3.5. In the new model, a limiting stretch in the in-plane direction
is accompanied by a limiting stretch in the lateral direction, simi-
lar to the uniaxial stretching experiment.
We also present FE simulations of the pressurized sphere using
the Ogden model. Compressible and incompressible conditions
are considered. Only a fraction of the sphere is modeled, as
shown in Figure 11, and symmetric boundary conditions are
imposed. The inner radius of the unpressurized sphere is 10 mm,
and the thickness is 1 mm. After performing a convergence
study, a total of 1960 C3D20RH elements were used in the FE
analysis. Figure 12 shows the response of an inflated sphere at
different pressures, comparing analytical solutions and FE simu-
lations. At relatively moderate-to-large stretch, some deviation in
the analytical and simulation results is seen both for compressible
and incompressible cases. The deformed shapes at several stretch
levels are also shown in Figure 12. The corresponding stress con-
tours for both in-plane and out-of-plane stresses are depicted in
Figure 13. At low stretch levels, both compressible and incom- Figure 9. Pressurized sphere response comparing compressible and incom-
pressible cases show similar stress contours. However, at a large pressible material behaviors. [Color figure can be viewed at
stretch level, significant differences in the stress contours between wileyonlinelibrary.com]
the compressible and incompressible cases are seen. This should
be expected because the compressible behavior is more pro-
nounced when the Ecoflex is subjected to large stretch, as indi-
cated by the uniaxial tests (Figure 2). In addition to the
continuum element, we consider shell element (S4R) in simulat-
ing response of an inflated sphere. A total of 168 elements were
used to model a portion of the sphere. Figure 14 illustrates the
response from the analytical and numerical simulation with shell
element. Response from the numerical solution with the shell ele-
ment shows better agreement with the analytical solution, which
is expected. From the analyses of an inflated sphere, at moderate-
to-large stretch, responses from the three different models vary
quite significantly, whereas their responses on a uniaxially stretch
specimen are similar for the different stretch values. Experiments
with different loading conditions are certainly required to better Figure 10. The corresponding radial stretch of the pressurized sphere using
compressible material models. [Color figure can be viewed at
guide the development or choice of constitutive material models,
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

47025 (8 of 11) J. APPL. POLYM. SCI. 2018, DOI: 10.1002/APP.47025

ARTICLE WILEYONLINELIBRARY.COM/APP
Figure 11. Portion of a hollow sphere used in FE simulation. [Color figure
can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
which could be crucial when designing soft and compliant
structures.
The second problem presents a more complex boundary condi-
tion, in which only FE analysis is considered. As an example, we
analyze the response of a pneumatic actuator soft micromold
(PASMO) device, which is used for releasing drugs in the form of
collagen microparticles. Detailed discussion on the PASMO
design and function can be found in the study of Huang et al.,10
Huang et al..11 A schematic of a PASMO device is shown in
Figure 15 (top). The device consists of a cylindrical body with
three different layers. The bottom layer is rather thin (1 mm) and
is made of a relatively stiff material to prevent expansion at the
bottom surface when air pressure is applied. The second layer
consists of a circular microchannel of Ecoflex material where air
pressure is applied. The thickness of the second layer is 7 mm,
and the height of the microchannel is 4 mm. The top layer of
1 mm thickness is made of Ecoflex material with several wells
printed on its top surface. The wells have a diameter of 1 mm
and a depth of 0.3 mm. Because of a symmetric condition, only a
quarter model of PASMO is considered in the FE analysis
(Figure 15, bottom). After performing a convergence study, a
total of 165 938 tetrahedral elements with 10 nodes (ABAQUS
element type C3D10H) are used in the analysis. The Ogden
material model for both compressible and incompressible condi-
tions, as discussed above, is adopted. Figure 16 depicts the area
expansion of one of the wells (the well marked by an asterisk in
the bottom image in Figure 15) at different pressures. Both com-
pressible and incompressible behaviors show a similar trend;
however, the magnitude of the area expansion shows some
Figure 12. Response of sphere inflation using Ogden models (analytical and
FE simulation with 3D continuum elements). [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
47025 (9 of 11)
Circumferential Radial stress, V 3 Circumferential stress, V1,V 2
stretch
Compressible Incompressible Compressible Incompressible
1.49
4.0
Figure 13. Stress contours from FE simulation plotted on undeformed con-
figuration. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
variation. This indicates slight changes in the response when dif-
ferent material behaviors are considered. Figure 17 illustrates the
logarithmic circumferential strain contours and deformed shapes
for the three different material behaviors. It is seen that changes
in the deformed shapes of the PASMO device are observed when
slightly different material behaviors are considered.
CONCLUSIONS
We have studied a nonlinear elastic response of Ecoflex silicone
rubber under several loading conditions. We first conducted an
experiment by uniaxially stretching and unloading Ecoflex dog-
bone specimens to understand the mechanical response of Eco-
flex. The Ecoflex samples show limiting stretch behaviors in both
axial and lateral directions and slight compressibility, and up to
an axial stretch ratio of 4, they exhibit elastic response with a
negligible hysteretic area. The compressibility increases with
increasing stretch ratio. While most studies on Ecoflex mechani-
cal behaviors consider nonlinear elastic response with incom-
pressible constraints, in this article, we examine the consequences
of the compressibility behavior of Ecoflex on the multiaxial
response of devices or structures made of Ecoflex. To mathemati-
cally describe the mechanical response of Ecoflex, we have con-
sidered five constitutive material models for isotropic elastic
behavior with compressible and incompressible constraints. The
five models are shown to be capable of capturing the nonlinear
Figure 14. Response of sphere inflation using Ogden models (analytical and
FE simulation with shell elements). [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
J. APPL. POLYM. SCI. 2018, DOI: 10.1002/APP.47025
ARTICLE WILEYONLINELIBRARY.COM/APP
Figure 15. PASMO device for drug release. [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
elastic response of Ecoflex from the uniaxial test, under both
compressible and incompressible constraints. In addition, we also
perform FE analysis based on the Ogden hyperelastic model for
describing the uniaxial response of Ecoflex.
Next, we have presented analytical and numerical solutions to
several boundary value problems to examine the multiaxial
response of the Ecoflex when compressible and incompressible
conditions are considered. It is noted that the models that show
similar behaviors under uniaxial stretching give variations in
responses under multiaxial loading conditions especially at rela-
tively large stretch. The variations are also seen in the FE ana-
lyses. We also observed that at relatively large stretch, different
multiaxial responses with compressible and incompressible con-
straints are seen, which is expected. It is necessary to perform
experiments under multiaxial loading conditions to better
describe the response of materials and characterize material
parameters. When modeling and simulation are used to guide the
design of structures or devices made of Ecoflex, proper material
behaviors need to be considered, especially when large deforma-
tions are expected.
Figure 16. PASMO response under internal pressure. [Color figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
47025 (10 of 11)
Figure 17. Logarithmic strain contours along the circumferential direction
at 22 kPa internal pressure. [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research is sponsored by the Air Force Office of Scientific
Research (AFOSR) under grant FA9550-14-1-0234.
REFERENCES
1. Tondu, B. J. Intell. Material Syst. Struct. 2012, 23, 225.
2. Kodmahale, S.; Kameoka, J. Ann. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2015, 2,
1021.
3. Shapiro, Y.; Wolf, A.; Gabor, K. Sens. Actuators. 2011,
167, 484.
4. Sun Y, Song YS, and Pail K (2013). In IEEE/RJS Interna-
tional Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems
(IROS), p 4446.
5. Suzumori K, Endo S, Kanda T, Kato N, Suzuki H (2007).
In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation, p 4975.
6. Endo S, Suzumori K, Kanda T, Kato N, Suzuki H, and
Ando Y (2006), “Flexible and Functional Pectoral Fin
Actuator for Underwater Robots” the 3rd International
Symposium on Aero Aqua Bio-mechanisms ISABMEC,
S42, pp. 55
7. Konishi, S.; Kawai, F.; Cusin, P. Sens. Actuators. 2001,
89, 28.
8. Suzumori, K. Robotics Auton. Syst. 1996, 18, 135.
9. Suzumori, K.; Kondo, F.; Tanaka, H. J. Robotics Mechatron.
1993, 5, 537.
10. Huang, P. J.; Chou, C. K.; Chen, C. T.; Yamaguchi, H.;
Qu, J.; Muliana, A.; Hung, M. C.; Kameoka, J. Soft Robot.
2017a, 4, 390–399.
11. Huang PJ, Qu J, Saha P, Muliana A, and Kameoka J
(2017b), “Artificial islet: Microencapsulation for Beta cells
in collagen microparticles via circular pneumatically actu-
ated soft micro-mold (cPASMO) device” under review
12. Noritsugu, T.; Tanaka, T. IEEE ASME Trans. Mechatron.
1997, 2, 259.
J. APPL. POLYM. SCI. 2018, DOI: 10.1002/APP.47025
ARTICLE WILEYONLINELIBRARY.COM/APP

13. Suzumori K, Hama T, Kanda T (2006), In Proceedings of
IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automa-
tion, p 1824.
14. Wakimoto S, Ogura K, Suzumori K, Nishioka Y (2009). In
Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics
and Automation, p 556.
15. Wakimoto, S.; Suzumori, K.; Ogura, K. Adv. Robotics. 2011,
25, 1311.
16. Zhang J, Wang H, Tang J, Guo H, and Hong J (2015). In
Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Informa-
tion and Automation, p 2460.
17. Polygerinos, P.; Wang, Z.; Overvelde, J. T. B.;
Galloway, K. C.; Wood, R. J.; Bertoldi, K.; Walsh, C. J. IEEE
Trans. Robotics. 2015, 1, 1552–3098.
18. Ogden, R. W.; Saccomandi, G.; Sgura, I. Comput. Mech.
2004, 34, 484.
19. Muliana AH, Rajagopal KR, and Tscharnuter, D, “A Non-
linear Integral Model for Describing Responses of Visco-
elastic Solids” Int. J. Solids and Structure, 2015 58, pp.
146–156.
20. Muliana, A.; Rajagopal, K. R.; Tscharnuter, D.; Pinter, G.
Int. J. Solids Struct. 2016, 100, 95.
21. Muliana, A.; Rajagopal, K. R.; Tscharnuter, D.;
Schrittesser, B.; Saccomandi, G. Rubber Chem. Technol.
2018, 91, 375–389.
22. Mansouri, M. R.; Darijani, H. Int. J. Solids Struct. 2014, 51,
4316.
23. Ogden, R. W. Proc. R. Soc. London A. 1972a,
326, 565.
24. Ogden, R. W. Proc. R. Soc. London A. 1972b, 328, 567.
25. Gent, A. N. Rubber Chem. Technol. 1996, 69, 59.

47025 (11 of 11) J. APPL. POLYM. SCI. 2018, DOI: 10.1002/APP.47025