Constitutive Modeling of Elastomers – Accuracy

of Predictions and Numerical Efficiency

J. S. Bergström
jorgen@polymerFEM.com

ABSTRACT: The mechanical behavior of elastomers is characterized by rate- and temperature-

dependence, and the stress-strain response is known to be strongly non-linear. These experimental features
are well recognized and important, and have been extensively studied for more than 50 years. The
understanding of the micromechanisms controlling the macroscopic mechanical behavior is much more
recent, and advanced modeling tools allowing for accurate predictions of arbitrary deformation histories
have only started to become available during the last few years. This paper outlines the current state of the
art in finite element modeling of elastomers, and exemplifies the predictive capabilities of modern
constitutive theories for filled elastomers.

Introduction
In today’s competitive business environment it has become increasingly important to improve,
streamline, and shorten the design process of technical and non-technical products. This trend is
relevant for many industries, including the tire industry, where the need to produce the best
possible product using the least amount of resources is paramount for prosperity. As a result
there is an increased need to perform and rely upon computational tools early in the design cycle,
and rely as little as possible on trial-and-error and real mechanical experiments. One of the most
important computational tools for this purpose is the Finite Element (FE) method. The FE
method is an established procedure that enables predictions of deformations and stresses of
products in normal or accelerated loading environments. Although the FE procedures continue to
evolve, there are numerous FE packages that are commercially available and capable of
performing advanced simulations.
There are three types of input that are needed to perform a FE simulation: (1) the geometry of
the part(s) of interest; (2) the applied loading and boundary conditions; and (3) the material
behavior of each of the different materials. The first two of these required inputs are often easy to
accurately specify by CAD software and knowledge of the loading environment. The third input,
the specification of the material models, is typically the most difficult and challenging part of
performing FE simulations. The goal of this paper is to survey a select set of material models
(constitutive equations) that are suitable for simulating tire materials. Commercial FE packages
typically come with a selection of material models that are suitable for elastomers, under certain
loading conditions. Most of the built-in models are hyperelastic models, which are effective at
predicting the average behavior of an elastomer, but do not capture rate-effects, dynamic loading,
hysteresis, or Mullins effect. Recently, Ogden and Roxburgh [1] and Qi and Boyce [2] have
proposed models for augmenting the classical hyperelastic models to include predictive
capabilities of the Mullins effect [3]. The rate-effect, dynamic loading, and hysteresis behavior of
elastomers can be captured using the Bergstrom-Boyce (BB) model [4-5].
This study compares predictions from these different material model combinations with
experimental data for two filled elastomers. Two different chloroprene rubbers are studied, but
the applied theory and results are applicable also for other elastomers. The theory of the different
models is briefly reviewed, and the predictive capabilities of each of the different models are

1
 2
quantified by the coefficient of determination, R . When selecting a material model for a FE
simulation, it is not only the predictive capability that is of interest but also the numerical
efficiency and computational time. For this reason, the simulation times resulting from using the
different material models are also quantified. This information enables intelligent decisions
related to the tradeoff between simulation accuracy and required simulation time.

Experimental Data
The material models examined in this work were compared to experimental data obtained
from chloroprene rubber filled with 7 vol% and 25 vol% carbon black N600. These materials
were used and quantified in earlier studies [4-5]. In the experiments the samples were sized
according to ASTM D575, and the experiments were performed at room temperature using strain
control loading. A summary of the experimental results for these two types of chloroprene rubber
is given in the next two sections.

Chloroprene Rubber with 7 vol% Carbon Black

The material was loaded in displacement control following the strain history shown in the
inset in Fig. 1. The specimen was loaded using four load-unload cycles with gradually increasing
strain amplitude, using an applied strain rate of 0.01/s. The figure shows that the material
exhibits significant amounts of hysteresis during the cyclic loading, and that the amount of
1
Mullins softening is only about 10% .

Chloroprene Rubber with 25 vol% Carbon Black

A second chloroprene rubber with higher carbon black concentration was loaded using the
same applied strain history (see the inset in Fig. 2). This figure shows that the material response
is characterized by large hysteresis and significant amount of strain hardening (stiffening) at large
compressive strains. For this material, the amount of Mullins softening is approximately 25%1.

Material Models
There are three major classes of material models that can be used to simulate the response of
elastomeric materials: hyperelastic models, hyperelastic models incorporating the Mullins effect,
and advanced time-dependent models. In this study, the following material models have been
studied: the Yeoh model [6], the eight-chain model [7], the Yeoh model with Ogden-Roxburgh
Mullins [1] effect, the eight-chain model with Ogden-Roxburgh Mullins effect, the Yeoh model
with Qi-Boyce Mullins effect [2], the eight-chain model with Qi-Boyce Mullins effect, the
Bergstrom-Boyce model [4-5], the Bergstrom-Boyce model [4-5] with Ogden-Roxburgh Mullins
effect, and the Bergstrom-Boyce (BB) model with Qi-Boyce Mullins effect. All of these models
have been discussed in detail in the references cited above and only brief summaries of the
individual model components are included. Note that the models for Mullins effect can be
activated in combination with any of the hyperelastic models or the BB-model.

1
The amount of Mullins effect was calculated from the stress level at a strain of –0.4 during the first and
forth loading cycle.

2
Yeoh Model
The Yeoh model [6] is a hyperelastic material model that is based on a representation of the
strain energy density in a 3-term expansion of the first strain invariant, I1. For incompressible
uniaxial loading I1 = λ 2 + 2 / λ , where λ is the applied stretch. The true stress is given by:

 1
σ = 2  λ 2 −  C10 + 2C20 (I1 − 3) + 3C30 (I1 − 3)  ,
2
(1)
 λ  
where C10, C20, and C30, are material parameters.
The Yeoh model has been proven to accurately predict the equilibrium response of elastomers
in different loading modes. Additionally, the Yeoh model is easy to apply and provides robust
(Drucker stable) predictions. The Yeoh model is available in all major Finite Element (FE)
codes.

Eight-Chain Model
The eight-chain model [7] is a physically inspired hyperelastic model that is based on a non-
linear representation of the strain energy density in terms of the first invariant I1. For uniaxial
incompressible loading the true stress is given by:

µ  λ chain   1
σ= L−1  lock  λ 2 −  , (2)
λ chain λ  λ

where and λ lock are material parameters, λ chain = (λ 2

)
+ 2 / λ / 3 , and L−1 ( x ) is the inverse
Langevin function [7], where L ( x ) = coth( x) − 1/ x . The eight-chain model is always
unconditionally stable and has been shown to give accurate predictions of large-strain multiaxial
deformation states. The eight-chain model is available in all major FE codes.

Ogden-Roxburgh Model for Mullins Effect

To account for the Mullins effect, Ogden and Roxburgh [1] proposed an extension of
hyperelastic models in which the strain energy density, U, is taken to be a function not only of the
applied deformation state, but also an internal state variable, , tracking the damage state in the
material. For incompressible loading, the following form is used:
U (λ1 , λ2 , λ3 ,η ) = ηU (λ1 , λ2 , λ3 ) , (3)

where λi are the principal stretches. In the Ogden-Roxburgh (OR) model the damage variable
is taken to evolve with applied deviatoric strain energy as follows:

1  U dev
max
− U dev 
η = 1 − erf  max 
, (4)
r  m + β U dev 
where r, , and m are material parameters, erf(x) is the error function, U dev is the current
max
deviatoric strain energy density, and U dev is the evolving maximum deviatoric strain energy

3
density for the material point in its deformation history. The OR-model can be applied to any
hyperelasticity model.

Qi-Boyce Model for Mullins Effect

A different approach to account for the Mullins effect has been developed by Qi and Boyce
[2]. In their model the virgin elastomer is considered to consist of two phases: soft domains and
hard domains. The Qi-Boyce (QB) model introduces a state variable to track the transformation
of hard domains to soft domains with the applied deformation history. For incompressible
loading, the following form is used:

U = (1 − v f )⋅ U (I1 ) (5)

The volume fraction of hard domains, vf, evolves with the applied chain stretch as follows:

v f = v ff − (v ff − v fi )exp 
(
 − A Λ chain
max
−1) , (6)
 λlock − Λ chain
max


where vff is the final volume fraction of hard domains, vfi is the initial volume fraction of hard
domains, and Λ chain
max
is the maximum chain stretch the during the deformation history of the
material point. The Qi-Boyce model for Mullins effect is not yet available as a built-in feature of
commercial FE codes, but has been implemented by the author as a user material subroutine
(UMAT). Most FE codes have the capability to augment the built-in material models with user-
defined material models, typically coded as external Fortran subroutines that are linked into the
FE software during simulations. The use of external UMATs can provide significant advantages
in certain circumstances. The QB-model can be applied to any hyperelastic model.

Bergstrom-Boyce Model
The hyperelastic models presented above provide useful information regarding the equilibrium
behavior of elastomers, but they are all inherently incapable of predicting rate-dependence,
hysteresis, and the response during cyclic loading. To overcome these shortcomings, Bergstrom
and Boyce [4-5] developed a physically inspired model that captures most of the experimentally
observed characteristics of the rubbery response. The Bergstrom-Boyce (BB) model is based on
a conceptual representation of the molecular microstructure into two networks acting in parallel:
one network gives the equilibrium behavior, and one network gives the time-dependent deviation
from the equilibrium state. The key of the BB-model is a reptation-inspired equation capturing
the rate of viscoelastic flow as a function of the deformation state and the applied stress state:
m
 τ 
γ = (λ )
C
chain
−1   , (7)
 τ base 
where γ is the viscoelastic flow rate in shear, C, m, and τ base are material parameters, and τ is
the effective shear stress. Additional details of the BB-model are given in the original
publications [4-5].
The BB-model is a built-in material model in ABAQUS/Standard. It has been implemented
by the author as a user material subroutine (UMAT) for ABAQUS and LS-DYNA, and also
extended to include the two Mullins effect models discussed above.

4
Results
The quality of the predictions of the different material models presented in the previous
section was assessed by direct comparison with the experimental data for the chloroprene rubber.
For this comparison, the appropriate material parameters for each material were first obtained by
a trial-and-error procedure followed by a non-linear minimization approach [8]. The results from
this evaluation are presented in the next two subsections.

Chloroprene Rubber with 7 vol% Carbon Black

A direct comparison between the experimental data for the chloroprene rubber with 7 vol%
CB and the predictions from the eight-chain model is presented in Fig. 3. The corresponding
results for the combined eight-chain and OR-model is shown in Fig. 4, and the results from the
combined eight-chain and QB-model is shown in Fig. 5. The predictions from the combined BB
and QB-models are shown in Fig. 6.

Chloroprene Rubber with 25vol% Carbon Black

The experimental data for the chloroprene rubber with 25 vol% CB are compared in Figs. 7
through 9 with the eight-chain model, the combined eight-chain and OR-model, and the
combined BB and QB-model, respectively.

Conclusions
The different material models studied in this work all provide reasonable first-order
predictions of the experimentally observed behavior of the two types of chloroprene rubber. It is
clear, however, that some of the models provide a much more detailed and accurate description of
the material response, and therefore are more suitable for FE simulations. Direct comparisons
between the predictive qualities are presented in Table 1 and in Fig. 10. The (1-R2) term shown in
Fig. 10 can be interpreted as the average error of the model predictions. For each material model,
the given data is the average response for the two types of chloroprene rubber. It is interesting to
note that the Yeoh model and the eight-chain model give predictions of similar accuracy. The
relative error of the predictions of these pure hyperelastic material models is about 25%.
Augmenting either of these hyperelastic models with one of the models for Mullins effect reduces
the relative error in the predictions to about 7%. Note that the hyperelastic models with Mullins
effect (Figs. 4, 5, and 8) do not capture time-dependence and hysteresis. The history-dependent
response that is depicted in these figures is caused by damage accumulation and not viscoelastic
flow. Also, even though the OR-model and the QB-model for Mullins effect are significantly
different in background and implementation, both give similar quality of predictions.
The most accurate model in this study is the Bergstrom-Boyce (BB) model combined with one
of the models for Mullins effect. Both the OR-model and QB-model work well and give
predictions with a relative error of about 2%. The BB-model accurately predicts [4-6] the
response of elastomers after the Mullins effect has been removed. It is shown here that the BB-
model combined with a Mullins effect model can accurately predict the complete set of
experimental behavior of the elastomers.
When performing FE analysis of elastomeric components it is not only the accuracy that is
important but also the computational costs and total simulation time. To examine the numerical
efficiency of the different material models a simple uniaxial benchmarking simulation was
performed. The results from this benchmarking study are presented in Table 2 and in Fig. 11.
For completeness, some of the material models were benchmarked both with the built-in model in

5
ABAQUS/Standard and a user material subroutine (UMAT) implementation. Some of the more
advanced models are not available as a standard feature of commercial FE codes, for these
models only the results from the UMAT simulation are given. Figure 11 shows that combining
the OR-model or QB-model for Mullins model with a hyperelastic model does not cause a
reduction in the required simulation time. The figure also shows that for the hyperelastic models
where both a UMAT and a built-in model for ABAQUS exist, the UMAT-based simulation is
about 35% slower than the built-in ABAQUS implementation. The main reason for this is that
the UMAT is using a less efficient algorithm to calculate the Jacobian stiffness matrix needed for
the implicit simulation. Figure 11 also shows that the built-in model in ABAQUS for the BB-
model is very inefficient, it requires at least twice the run time compared to the UMAT
implementation of the same model. It is important to note that the increase in simulation time
between the hyperelastic models and the BB-model with Mullins effect is only 14%. The largest
difference in simulation time between the most advanced UMAT simulation and the fastest built-
in hyperelastic model is about 55%. This is a rather small difference considering that the BB-
model combined with a Mullins effect model gives predictions that have 10 times smaller error
than the traditional hyperelastic models, and 3 times smaller error than the hyperelastic models
combined with a Mullins effect model. Hence, using an advanced material model can enable
simulations with outstanding accuracy, at a relatively small computational cost. A future study
will focus on other elastomers of interest in tire applications.

References
[1] Ogden, R. W., Roxburgh D. G., “A Pseudo-Elastic Model for the Mullins Effect in Filled
Rubber,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Vol. 455, 1999, pp. 2861-
2877.
[2] Qi H. J., Boyce M. C., “Constitutive Model for Stretch-Induced Softening of the Stress-
Strain Behavior of Elastomeric Materials,” Journal Mech. Physics Solids, Vol. 52, 2004,
pp. 2187-2205.
[3] Mullins, L., “Softening of Rubber by Deformation,” Rubber Chem. Technol., Vol., 42, pp.
339-362.
[4] Bergström, J. S., Boyce M. C., “Mechanical Behavior of Particle Filled Elastomers,”
Rubber Chem. Technol., Vol 72, 1999, pp. 633-656.
[5] Bergström, J. S. Boyce M. C., “Large Strain Time-dependent Behavior of Filled
Elastomers,” Mech. Mater., Vol. 32, 2000, pp. 627-644.
[6] Yeoh, O. H., “Some Forms of the Strain Energy Function for Rubber,” Rubber Chem,.
Technol., Vol. 66, 1993, pp. 754-771.
[7] Arruda, E. M., Boyce M. C., “A Three-Dimensional Constitutive Model for the Large
Stretch Behavior of Rubber Elastic Materials,” Journal Mech. Physics Solids, Vol. 41,
1993, pp. 389-412.
[8] Bergström, J. S., Rimnac, C. M., Kurtz, S. M., “An Augmented Hybrid Constitutive Model
for Simulation of Unloading and Cyclic Loading Behavior of Conventional and Highly
Crosslinked UHMWPE,” Biomaterials, Vol. 25, 2004, pp. 2171-2178.

6
TABLE 1 - Summary of R2 values for predictions of different constitutive models for two
chloroprene rubbers with different amounts of carbon black.

R2-value for CR R2-value for CR

Material Model 7vol% CB 25vol% CB
Yeoh model 0.825 0.659
8-chain model 0.822 0.677
Yeoh model, Ogden-Roxburgh Mullins effect 0.946 0.924
8-chain model, Ogden-Roxburgh Mullins effect 0.935 0.933
Yeoh model, Qi-Boyce Mullins effect 0.943 0.897
8-chain model, Qi-Boyce Mullins effect 0.939 0.905
BB-model 0.975 0.928
BB-model, Ogden-Roxburgh Mullins effect 0.986 0.968
BB-model, Qi-Boyce Mullins effect 0.990 0.962

7
TABLE 2 - Run time for the different constitutive models for an ABAQUS/Standard
benchmarking test case.

Normalized Run
Material Model Time

Yeoh model (ABAQUS built-in) 1.01

Yeoh model (UMAT implementation) 1.35

8-chain model (ABAQUS built-in) 1.00

8-chain model (UMAT implementation) 1.37

Yeoh model, Ogden-Roxburgh Mullins effect

1.03
(ABAQUS built-in)

Yeoh model, Ogden-Roxburgh Mullins effect

1.36
(UMAT implementation)

8-chain model, Ogden-Roxburgh Mullins effect

1.03
(ABAQUS built-in)

8-chain model, Ogden-Roxburgh Mullins effect

1.39
(UMAT implementation)

Yeoh model, Qi-Boyce Mullins effect 1.39

8-chain model, Qi-Boyce Mullins effect 1.39

BB-model (ABAQUS built-in) 3.04

BB-model (UMAT implementation) 1.52

BB-model, Ogden-Roxburgh Mullins effect 1.56

BB-model, Qi-Boyce Mullins effect 1.55

8
FIG. 1 – Uniaxial compression data for chloroprene rubber with 7 vol% of CB. The
figure shows the material response during the first four load cycles.

9
FIG. 2 – Uniaxial compression data for chloroprene rubber with 25 vol% CB. The figure
shows the material response during the first four load cycles.

10
FIG. 3 – Comparison between experimental data for chloroprene rubber with 7 vol% CB
and predictions from the eight-chain model.

11
FIG. 4 – Comparison between experimental data for chloroprene rubber with 7 vol% CB
and predictions from the eight-chain model with Ogden-Roxburgh Mullins effect.

12
FIG. 5 – Comparison between experimental data for chloroprene rubber with 7 vol% CB
and predictions from the eight-chain model with Qi-Boyce Mullins effect.

13
FIG. 6 – Comparison between experimental data for chloroprene rubber with 7 vol% CB
and predictions from the BB-model with Qi-Boyce Mullins effect.

14
FIG. 7 – Comparison between experimental data for chloroprene rubber with 25 vol%
CB and predictions from the eight-chain model.

15
FIG. 8 – Comparison between experimental data for chloroprene rubber with 7 vol% CB
and predictions from the eight-chain model with Ogden-Roxburgh Mullins effect.

16
FIG. 9 – Comparison between experimental data for chloroprene rubber with 7 vol% CB
and predictions from the BB-model with Qi-Boyce Mullins effect.

17
FIG. 10 – Summary of relative error of different constitutive models to predict the
behavior of two types of chloroprene rubber.

18
FIG. 11 – Summary of normalized simulation time of a three-dimensional benchmarking
case using different material models.

19