Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mooney Rivlin
Mooney Rivlin
2021 Mooney-Rivlin
Introduction
Mooney-Rivlin models are popular for modeling the large strain
nonlinear behavior of incompressible materials, i.e., rubber.
It's important to
understand that Mooney-Rivlin models do not
give any special insight into material behavior. They are merely curve-fits of various polynomials to
test data. The
numerical values of coefficients resulting from the curve-fits are entered into FEA programs for use in mechanical analyses. The
FEA program knows how stiff the rubber is based on the values of the coefficients.
Keep in mind that auto-summation of duplicated subscripts will not apply to the equations on this page. Hopefully, the reasons for this will be
obvious!
Strain Energy
Recall that we saw on the thermodynamics page
that the 2nd Piola-Kirchhoff stress is the partial derivative of the Helmholtz free energy with
respect to the elastic part of the Green strain
tensor (with a density thrown in).
PK2
∂Ψ
σ = ρo
el
∂E
The Helmholtz free energy contains thermal energy and mechanical strain energy. But in most every discussion of Mooney-Rivlin coefficients, the
thermal
part is neglected, leaving only the mechanical part, W . (Actually, W
is declared to represent ρo Ψ, not just Ψ). Second, since all of the
deformation of a hyperelastic material is elastic by definition,
it is sufficient to write E simply as E.
This gives
el
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html ∂ 1/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
∂W
PK2
σ =
∂E
∂W
PK2
σ =
i
∂Ei
But alas, even this is not quite what is done in Mooney-Rivlin models. Instead, derivatives
are taken with respect to stretch ratios, λ, which are the
ratios of initial and final lengths in the principal directions, (LF /Lo ). So the stretch ratio is
"one plus engineering strain," λ = 1 + ϵEng , and
therefore λ − 1 = ϵEng = ΔL /Lo .
∂W ∂W ∂λi
PK2
σ = =
i
∂Ei ∂λi ∂Ei
We just need an equation relating Ei to λi . Recall that a principal Green strain equals
2
ΔLi 1 ΔLi
Ei = + ( )
Lo 2 Lo
1
2
Ei = (λi − 1) + (λi − 1)
2
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 2/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
∂λi 1
=
∂Ei λi
1 ∂W
PK2
σ =
i
λi ∂λi
This equation by itself is not helpful. But recall from the energetic conjugates page that
σi = (1 + ϵi )2 σiPK2 and therefore
σi 2
= λ σ
i
PK2
i
. So if we
simply multiply
both sides of the above equation by λ2i , we will have something much more useful.
∂W
2 PK2
σi = λ σ = λi
i i
∂λi
So each principal Cauchy stress can be related directly to the partial derivative of
strain energy through
∂W
σi = λ i
∂λi
In this case, the stretch ratio is in a principal strain direction, and will
give a principal Cauchy stress in that same principal direction.
Let's take the above equation and propose a very simple function for the strain energy
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html
W for a special case of uniaxial tension 3/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
Let's take the above equation and propose a very simple function for
the strain energy, W , for a special case of uniaxial tension.
Propose that
1
2
W = E(λ − 1)
2
1 2
∂ [ E(λ − 1) ]
2
σ = λ
∂λ
= λE(λ − 1)
Eng
σ = E(λ − 1)
and λ = 1 + ϵ
Eng
, so λ − 1 = ϵ
Eng
.
And this leads to
Eng Eng
σ = Eϵ
That was fun because of its simplicity and the familiar result we obtained, but it is in fact not very useful. Why? Because we have
over-
simplified things so much that we have lost the ability to
incorporate Poisson Effects. So our proposed function for the
strain energy, W ,
in terms of λ could not be used
in, say, a general 3-D finite element program. We will see how to overcome these limitations in the
following sections.
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 4/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
Invariants
The Mooney-Rivlin class of models express the strain energy in terms of
invariants, which are in turn expressed as functions of stretch ratios.
The invariants are of the product of the deformation gradient with its transpose,
F ⋅ F . This result is symmetric because the product of any
T
T T T T T
F ⋅ F = (V ⋅ R) ⋅ (V ⋅ R) = V ⋅ R ⋅ R ⋅ V = V ⋅ V
(LF /Lo )1 0 0
⎡ ⎤
⎣ ⎦
0 0 (LF /Lo )3
Why V ⋅ R?
λ 0 0
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html ⎡ ⎤ 5/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
λ1 0 0
⎡ ⎤
VPr = ⎢ 0 λ2 0 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
0 0 λ3
2
λ 0 0
⎡ 1 ⎤
T 2
(V ⋅ V )Pr = ⎢
0 λ 0 ⎥
⎢ 2 ⎥
⎣ 2 ⎦
0 0 λ
3
is symmetric, so it does
have three invariants. (Recall that invariants are independent of
coordinate transforms.)
T
V ⋅ V
2 2 2
I1 = λ + λ + λ
1 2 3
2 2 2 2 2 2
I2 = λ λ + λ λ + λ λ
1 2 2 3 1 3
2
VF
2 2 2 2
I3 = det(. . .) = λ λ λ = ( ) = J
1 2 3
Vo
Keep in mind that these equations for the invariants are special cases because they are of a symmetric
matrix in its principal orientation, so off-
diagonal terms can be neglected because they are zero. But this does not mean that they are incorrect in anyway.
VF
I3 merits a few additional comments. First, it is the square of the Jacobian, J ,
because λ1 λ2 λ3 = (
Vo
) , and therefore
I3 is the square of the
volume ratio. Also, for incompressible materials, I3
always equals 1, and therefore λ1 λ2 λ3 = 1 .
The incompressibility relationship is often used to simplify the terms of the invariants,
particularly I2 . For example, note that the first term in I2 ,
λ
2
λ
2
is equal to 1/λ2 This can also be applied to the two remaining terms to give the following set of equations
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 6/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
λ
1
λ
2
, is equal to 1/λ3 . This can also be applied to the two remaining terms to give the following set of equations.
2 2 2
I1 = λ + λ + λ
1 2 3
1 1 1
I2 = + +
2 2 2
λ λ λ
1 2 3
2
I3 = (λ1 λ2 λ3 ) = 1
Finally, it is worth noting that the invariants do not equal zero in the
undeformed state, i.e., when the strains are zero. Keep in mind that λ = 1
when ϵ = 0. Therefore, the undeformed state corresponds to
I1 = 3, I2 = 3, and I3 = 1. Also keep in mind that I3 will
always equal 1 for an
incompressible material. So it cannot reflect any deformation state since its value never changes. This leaves I1 and I2
to do all the work.
Mooney-Rivlin Models
The Mooney-Rivlin class of models expresses the mechanical strain energy as a sum of the invariants as follows.
i j 2
W = ∑ ∑ Cij (I1 − 3) (I2 − 3) + D (J − 1)
i j
2 2
W = C10 (I1 − 3) + C01 (I2 − 3) + C11 (I1 − 3) (I2 − 3) + C20 (I1 − 3) + +D (J − 1)
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 7/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
W = C10 (I1 − 3) + C01 (I2 − 3) + C11 (I1 − 3) (I2 − 3) + C20 (I1 − 3) + . . . +D (J − 1)
Incompressibility
The final D(J − 1)2 term is unique. Despite all the talk of incompressibility, this term relies on the material model actually being ever-
so-slightly compressible so that J varies slightly from 1. We will see that it reflects the finite
bulk modulus of a nearly incompressible
material. It also functions somewhat (though not exactly) like hydrostatic stress.
Each principal Cauchy stress is related to the derivative of the above equation with respect to the corresponding λ. For example, the 1st principal
Cauchy stress corresponds to
derivatives of W with respect to the first stretch ratio, λ1 .
∂W ∂W ∂I1 ∂W ∂I2 ∂W ∂J
σ1 = λ 1 = λ1 ( + + )
∂λ1 ∂I1 ∂λ1 ∂I2 ∂λ1 ∂J ∂λ1
The derivatives of the strain energy with respect to the invariants, and J , are
∂W ∂W
= C10 + C11 (I2 − 3) + 2C20 (I1 − 3) + . . . = C01 + C11 (I1 − 3) + . . .
∂I1 ∂I2
∂W
= 2 D (J − 1)
∂J
∂I1 ∂I2 2 ∂J
= 2λ1 = − = λ2 λ3
3
∂λ1 ∂λ1 λ ∂λ1
1
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 8/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
All of these terms can be combined to give polynomials relating stretch ratios
to principal stresses, with coefficients such as C10 , C01 , C11 , and
C20
that are determined from curve-fitting these equations to experimental data.
The simplest case of all the Mooney-Rivlin type models is the so-called
Treloar's Law. In this case, only C10 is used, and all other
constants are ignored, as if they are zero. (Note that it is always
necessary to use D.) This produces
2
W = C10 (I1 − 1) + D(J − 1)
∂W ∂I1 ∂W ∂J
σ1 = λ 1 ( + )
∂I1 ∂λ1 ∂J ∂λ1
2
= 2 C10 λ + 2 D (J − 1)(λ1 λ2 λ3 )
1
Once again, the D term requires some explanation. First, since J = VF /Vo ,
then (J − 1) = ΔV /Vo = ϵVol . So we will replace
(J − 1)
with the volumetric strain. Second, the product (λ1 λ2 λ3 )
is also J or VF /Vo . We will assume that this value is so close to 1
negligible.
2
σ1 = 2 C10 λ + 2 D ϵVol
1
Likewise, the equations for the other two principal Cauchy stresses are
2
σ2 = 2 C10 λ + 2 D ϵVol
2
2
σ3 = 2 C10 λ + 2 D ϵVol
3
Popular Coefficients
It is popular to choose the following coefficients: C10 , C01 ,
and C20 . These three lead to the following equation(s) to be
curve-fit to experimental
data.
3
σ1 = λ1 {[C10 + 2 C20 (I1 − 3)][2λ1 ] + [C01 ][−2/λ ]} + 2 D ϵV l
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 10/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
σ1 = λ1 {[C10 + 2 C20 (I1 3)][2λ1 ] + [C01 ][ 2/λ ]} + 2 D ϵVol
1
1
2 2 2 2 2
= 2 C10 λ − 2 C01 + 4 C20 λ (λ + λ + λ − 3) + 2 D ϵVol
1 1 1 2 3
2
λ
1
1
2 2 2 2 2
σ2 = 2 C10 λ − 2 C01 + 4 C20 λ (λ + λ + λ − 3) + 2 D ϵVol
2 2 2 1 2 3
λ
2
1
2 2 2 2 2
σ3 = 2 C10 λ − 2 C01 + 4 C20 λ (λ + λ + λ − 3) + 2 D ϵVol
3 2 3 1 2 3
λ
3
Don't forget that the stresses here are Cauchy stresses, not engineering stresses.
Keep in mind that there is no physical insight built into these equations! They
are merely a collection of polynomials that happen to curve this way
and that,
in ways that are similar to the stress-strain curves one gets
from actual laboratory tests on rubber test specimens. The equations also
possess one additional key critical property. As will be seen shortly,
they predict higher principal stresses for equibiaxial tension than plane strain
tension, and then higher again against uniaxial tension.
Developing Mooney-Rivlin equations for these special cases appears to be a very popular thing to do. There are a couple reasons for this.
First,
the deformation modes are (relatively) easily accomplished in lab tests, at least the uniaxial tension case is. The second
reason is that the
ti b i l t d t li i t th b lk
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html d l hi h k lif littl i Thi ill b d t t d t 11/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
equations can be manipulated to eliminate
the bulk modulus, which makes life a little easier.
This will be demonstrated next.
The key to eliminating the bulk modulus for these three special cases is to recognize that
σ3 = 0 in each. Therefore, one can subtract two
equations from
each other to accomplish σ1 − σ3 as follows.
1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
σ1 − σ3 = 2 C10 (λ − λ ) + 2 C01 ( − ) + 4 C20 (λ − λ )(λ + λ + λ − 3)
1 3 2 2 1 3 1 2 3
λ λ
3 1
But σ3 = 0 , so
1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 2C (λ λ ) 2C ( ) 4C (λ λ )(λ λ λ 3) 12/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
σ1 = 2 C10 (λ − λ ) + 2 C01 ( − ) + 4 C20 (λ − λ )(λ + λ + λ − 3)
1 3 2 2 1 3 1 2 3
λ λ
3 1
2 2
λ 1 1 λ
Eng 3 3
2 2 2
σ = 2 C10 (λ1 − ) + 2 C01 ( − ) + 4 C20 (λ1 − ) (λ + λ + λ − 3)
1 2 3 1 2 3
λ1 λ1 λ λ λ1
3 1
Uniaxial Tension
1
λ1 = λ λ2 = λ3 =
√λ
Eng 1 1 1 2
2
σ = 2C10 (λ − ) + 2C01 (1 − ) + 4 C20 (λ − ) (λ + − 3)
Uniaxial 2 3 2
λ λ λ λ
1
λ1 = λ λ2 = 1 λ3 =
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 13/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
λ1 λ λ2 1 λ3
λ
Eng 1 1 1 1
2
σ = 2 C10 (λ − ) + 2 C01 (λ − ) + 4 C20 (λ − ) (λ + − 2)
Plane 3 3 3 2
λ λ λ λ
Strain
Tension
Equibiaxial Tension
1
λ1 = λ2 = λ λ3 =
2
λ
Eng 1 1 1 1
3 2
σ = 2C10 (λ − ) + 2C01 (λ − ) + 4 C20 (λ − ) (2λ + − 3)
Equibiaxial 5 3 5 4
λ λ λ λ
Uniaxial Tension
This shows the basic curves for uniaxial tension when each coefficient is
set to 1.
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 14/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
Stress-Strain Curves
For the case where C10 = 1 and all other constants are zero...
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 15/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
For the case where C01 = 1 and all other constants are zero...
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 16/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
For the case where C20 = 1 and all other constants are zero...
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 17/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
1 1 1 2
Eng 2
σ = 2 C10 (λ − ) + 2 C01 (1 − ) + 4 C20 (λ − ) (λ + − 3)
2 3 2
λ λ λ λ
Eng
σ = 0.547 C10 + 0.497 C01 + 0.031C20
10%
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 18/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
And MA100 is
dσ ∣
Eϵ=0 = ∣ = 6 (C10 + C01 )
dλ ∣λ=1
Experimental Data
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 19/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 20/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 21/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 22/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
Found on a Forum...
Problem with parameters in Mooney-Rivlin model
Hello,
I want to use Mooney-Rivlin parametrs from the paper publish in the internet - they received parameters :
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 23/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
C10: 2.7507e-2
C01: 1.3077e-1
C11: 6.8027e-2
D: 4.8694e-2
My problem is :
Authors of these paper didn't mention what units of stress and strain they used to obtained the C10, C01, C11, D parameters. Is the
units of input data of stress-strain important?
LOG IN WITH
OR SIGN UP WITH DISQUS ?
Name
I think you should probably stop doing whatever you are doing right now and look for a teacher's (Professor's) job.
Cheers,
Shree
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 24/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
Thank you once again and looking forward to your other websites :)
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›
Thank you for doing a great job at explaining the concept. You mentioned that the V matrix is easier to use than the U matrix from the polar
decomposition to solve for the invariants. What additional considerations would be required if the U matrix is being used. I am thinking of using
Singular Value Decomposition to solve for the U matrix, and then using the main diagonal for the invariants. Would this be a correct method?
I was also wondering what the relation was from the strain energy density to the Young's modulus, or how exactly the Mooney-Rivlin is used to
create a stress strain relationship? If used in FEA then an elements Young's modulus could be used to either update stiffness matrix, or find how
hard one element is to deform versus an another.
Thanks again,
Chris
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›
Hi Chris. Thanks for your interest. Concerning using SVD to get U and main diagonal components for the invariants.... I can't be certain
that's correct. And in fact, I think it is not. One reason I say that is because I don't see how to get U from an SVD. If it can, then great.
Recommend making up a numerical example and trying it out to confirm one way or another. (I'm way too busy to do so myself at the
moment.)
As for relationship between strain energy density (SED) and Young's Modulus (E), it is simple for materials that behave like Hooke's Law,
but doesn't exist for materials that don't. Recall that SED is the integral of sigma * d_epsilon, so it's the area under a stress-strain curve. If
material follows Hooke's Law, then it would be SED = 0.5 * sigma * epsilon (SUMMED OVER EACH COMPONENT OF THE TENSORS!).
But since sigma = E * epsilon, this can be subbed into SED equation to get 0.5 * E * epsilon^2 and/or 0.5 * sigma^2 / E. But if material does
not follow Hooke's Law then about all you can do is go back to the principle that it is the area under a stress-strain curve (Note that E is
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 25/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
not follow Hooke s Law, then about all you can do is go back to the principle that it is the area under a stress strain curve. (Note that E is
not in a Mooney-Rivlin model, at least not explicitly.)
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›
My idea for the SVD came from a few sources, but here is a link where it is outlined: http://buzzard.ups.edu/cour...
Since hyperelastic materials don't follow Hook's law as you mentioned, would it then be fair to assume that the ∑∑Cij(I1−3)i(I2−3)j
represents a tensile modulus at a given deformation? In this sense it can be a measure of relative hardness(effort required to
deform) of two hyperelastic elements for FEA.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›
I have doubts regarding the calculation of Strain Energy Density (SED) for the particular case of volumetric compression. The problem is that the
result of SED from the hyperleastic function is different to the result of SED calculated by integrating the product of Cauchy stress by the increment
of true strain.
true_strain = -0.356675
see more
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 26/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›
Thanks for your interest in the website, Julio. And no, I don't see why you got different results, at least based on an initial quick glance.
Certainly seems like both values should be the same. But evidently, we're both overlooking something simple.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›
Cauchy stress and true strain agree perfectly between FEA and theoretical calculations.
However, again, the problem is the calculation of Strain Energy Density (SED):
Below, you can see the comparison between different calculations of SED. I have used 1000 increments for the trapezoidal
integration as well as for the FEA. Why do you think FEA and theoretical calculations are so different if cauchy stress and true strain
are exactly the same? This is crazy!
Any idea from your side would be great and very valuable for me. Thanks a lot in advance.
Kind regards,
see more
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›
just an advance regarding my doubts. The FEA results agree perfectly well with the theory, the only difference is that the
theory provides the SED over undeformed volume (V0) and FEA provides the SED over deformed volume (Vf). Thus, both
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 27/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
theory provides the SED over undeformed volume (V0) and FEA provides the SED over deformed volume (Vf). Thus, both
results are related each other by J.
SED_theory * V0 = SED_FEA * Vf
SED_theory = SED_FEA * J
On the other hand, the calculation of SED by integrating Cauchy stress and True strain remains unsolved. I have realized
that the results of the integration agree perfectly well with the theory if I use nominal_stress and nominal_strain instead of
Cauchy_stress and true_strain. However, this only works for the particular case of volumetric compression (deviatoric part of
SED = 0). Do you know why this happens?
Kind regards,
Julio
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›
Hi Julio,
Good catch there regarding theory * V0 = FEA * Vf. I think that makes sense assuming FEA is always using current values
and parameters. However, I'm with you on the question of using Cauchy stress and true strain. That must be an acceptable
combo to use because they are energetically conjugate. Sorry I'm not more help.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›
An additional point, pictures below show the proof that, in volumetric compression, the SED corresponds to the integration of
Nominal Stress and Nominal Strain. For me, it does not make any sense. As far as I know, energetic conjugates are
Cauchy_stress-True_strain or 2nd Piola-Kirchhoff Stress and Green-Lagrange Strain.
Moreover, this proof only works for this particular case of volumetric compression. When deviatoric component is involved in
the strain tensor, the integration of Nominal Stress and Nominal Strain does not work.
This is a mess!
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 28/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
This is a mess!
Thanks again,
Julio
see more
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›
In your Cauchy Stress calculations, you shouldn't take J as 1. Mr. McGinty has pointed out to eleminate the J in the Cauchy
Stress calculations if the material is incompressible. However, in your example you have negative strains in all principal
directions meaning you have a high contraction and J<<1. I have calculated the same example in MATLAB using discrete
integration and if you do not omit the J term you would get the same Strain Energy Density from the W calculation. Also, the
first strain energy term C10*(I1−1) also contributes to strain energy even tough it is much smaller than D*(J-1)^2
Sigma(Cauchy)_i = 2*C10*λ_i^2+2*D*(J-1)*J
At the start Mr. McGinty derived the "Cauchy Stress" with the assumption of incompressibility. Remember Piola Kirchoff
Stress is sigma_PK2= J * F^-1 *sigma(cauchy) *F^-T where F is the deformation gradient. In your problem F = V where F
has the stretches along the diagonals. It means that sigma(cauchy)_i = lambda_i^2 * sigma_PK2 * J which means we have
to multiply with J to get Cauchy Stress! What he has calculated is the Kirchoff stress therefore your equations hold if we take
see more
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 29/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›
I have a small doubt when it comes to your compressible form of M-R model (also in Treloar's law). As you have included a term with J (assuming
that the model is compressible), should we not be using the invariants of the 'Unimodular Right Cauchy Green deformation tensor'? i.e. using
invariants of C_overbar instead of C, where C_overbar = (F_overbar^T x F_overbar).
Shree
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›
Thanks again
Thanks!
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›
Could you tell me if you know which constants should I use for Viton? (FKM)
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 30/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
Could you tell me if you know which constants should I use for Viton? (FKM).
Antonio
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›
Hi Antonio. Thanks for the post. I have never even heard of Viton! The answer depends on the shape of the stress-strain curve and how
accurately do you want to fit it.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›
Thank you for visiting this webpage. Feel For $4.99, you receive two formatted For $12.95, you receive two formatted
free to email me if you have questions.
PDFs
(the first for 8.5" x 11" pages,
the PDFs
(the first for 8.5" x 11" pages,
the
second for tablets) of the materials second for tablets) of the entire
website.
advertiser above.
Doing so helps to cover
Click here
to see a sample page in each
website hosting fees. Click here
to see a sample page in each of the two formats.
Email address to receive PDFs
Bob McGinty
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 31/32
26.8.2021 Mooney-Rivlin
Table of Contents
Metal Plasticity Dynamic Material Properties
www.continuummechanics.org/mooneyrivlin.html 32/32