Advertisement

Experimental Mechanics

, Volume 58, Issue 9, pp 1479–1484 | Cite as

Measurement of a Nearly Friction-Free Stress–Strain Curve of Silicone Rubber up to a Large Strain in Compression Testing

  • Sanghoon Kim
  • Minkyu Kim
  • Hyunho Shin
  • Kyong-Yop Rhee
Brief Technical Note
  • 171 Downloads

Abstract

Nominal stress–strain curves of a silicone rubber specimen with a range of length-to-diameter (L/D) ratios have been measured via compression testing. The curves are highly dependent on the L/D ratio. The contact area has been measured using stamp ink applied to the sidewall of the specimen to determine the optimal L/D ratio which yields the stress–strain curve closest to the curve of the friction-free specimen. Traces of ink appear on the platen after the compression test, indicating that the phenomenon of rollover takes place. When the L/D ratio is less than 1.0, the contact area is less than that of the friction-free specimen although the phenomenon of rollover supplements the contact area. When the L/D ratio increases up to 1.0, the contact area increases toward that of the ideal specimen that deforms uniformly under the friction-free condition; the stress–strain curve of the specimen with the L/D ratio of 1.0 can be regarded as the nearly friction-free property of silicone rubber.

Keywords

Nearly friction-free property Stress–strain curve Uniaxial compression Silicone rubber Rollover of the side wall 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was financially supported by the Basic Science Research Program under contract numbers 2017R1A6A3A11028683 (S. Kim) and 2015R1A2A2A01002454 (H. Shin) through a National Research Foundation (NRF) grant funded by the Ministry of Education (Korea).

References

  1. 1.
    Ju ML, Jmal H, Dupuis R, Aubry E (2015) Visco-hyperelastic constitutive model for modeling the quasi-static behavior of polyurethane foam in large deformation. Polym Eng Sci 55:1795–1804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kim W-D, Kim W-S, Woo C-S, Lee H-J (2004) Some considerations on mechanical testing methods of rubbery materials using nonlinear finite element analysis. Polym Int 53:850–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gent AN, Discenzo FM, Suh JB (2009) Compression of rubber disks between frictional surfaces. Rubber Chem Technol 82:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bradley GL, Chang PC, Mckenna GB (2001) Rubber modeling using uniaxial test data. J Appl Polym Sci 81:837–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Williams JG, Gamonpilas C (2008) Using the simple compression test to determine Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio and the coulomb friction coefficient. Int J Solids Struct 45:4448–4459CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doman DA, Cronin DS, Salisbury CP (2006) Characterization of polyurethane rubber at high deformation rates. Exp Mech 46:367–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dar UA, Zhang W, Xu Y, Wang J (2014) Thermal and strain rate sensitive compressive behavior of polycarbonate polymer-experimental and constitutive analysis. J Polym Res 21:519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mansouri MR, Darijani H, Baghani M (2017) On the correlation of FEM and experiments for hyperelastic elastomers. Exp Mech 57:195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mesa-Múnera E, Ramírez -Salazar JF, Boulanger P, Branch JW (2012) Inverse-FEM characterization of a brain tissue phantom to simulate compression and indentation. Ing y Cienc 8:11–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schroeder W, Webster DA (1949) Press-forging thin sections-effect of friction, area, and thickness on pressures required. J Appl Mech ASME 16:289–294Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hill R (1998) The mathematical theory of plasticity. Oxford University Press Inc., New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rand JL (1967) An analysis of the split Hopkinson pressure bar. NOLTR 67–156, White OakGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cha SH, Shin H, Kim JB (2010) Numerical investigation of frictional effects and compensation of frictional effects in split hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) test. Trans Korean Soc Mech Eng A 34:511–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Banerjee JK (1985) Barreling of solid cylinders under axial compression. J Eng Mater Technol 107:138–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Christiansen P, Martins PAF, Bay N (2016) Friction compensation in the upsetting of cylindrical test specimens. Exp Mech 56:1271–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khan AS, Balzer JE, Wilgeroth JM, Proud WG (2014) Aspect ratio compression effects on metals and polymers. J Phys Conf Ser 500Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Espinosa HD, Patanella A, Fischer M (2000) A novel dynamic friction experiment using a modified Kolsky bar apparatus. Exp Mech 40:138–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Experimental Mechanics 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanics of Nano-composites and Design Laboratory, Department of Mechanical EngineeringKyunghee UniversityYonginRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Mechanics of Materials and Design Laboratory, Department of Materials EngineeringGangneung-Wonju National UniversityGangneungRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations