Advertisement

Study of the simple extension tear test sample for rubber with Configurational Mechanics

Conference paper

Abstract

The simple extension tear test-piece also referred to as the trousers sample is widely used to study crack propagation in rubber. The corresponding energy release rate, called tearing energy for rubber materials, was first established by Rivlin and Thomas (J Polym Sci, 10:291–318, 1953); a second derivation was proposed later by Eshelby (In G.C. Sih, H. C. van Elst, and D. Broek, editors, Prospects of Fracture Mechanics, 69-84, Leyden, 1975). We show here that the derivation of this result can be advantageously revisited through the scope of Configurational Mechanics. Our approach is based on the rigorous definition of the configurations of the body and on the physical significance of the configurational stress tensor. More precisely, it is demonstrated that the change in energy due to crack growth, and then the tearing energy, is directly related to the components of the configurational stress tensor in the body.

Keywords

Rubber Tearing energy Simple extension tear test Configurational Mechanics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andriyana A and Verron E (2007). Prediction of fatigue life improvement in natural rubber using configurational stress. Int J Solids Struct 44: 2079–2092 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Eshelby JD (1951). The force on an elastic singularity. Phil Trans R Soc Lond A 244: 87–112 CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Eshelby JD (1975a). The elastic energy-momentum tensor. J Elast 5(3-4): 321–335 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Eshelby JD (1975b). The calculation of energy release rates. In: Sih, GC and Broek, D (eds) Prospects of fracture mechanics, pp 69–84. Noordhoff, Leyden Google Scholar
  5. Greensmith HW and Thomas AG (1956). Rupture of rubber - III - Determination of tear properties. Rubber Chem Technol 29: 372–381 Google Scholar
  6. Griffith AA (1920). The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Phil Trans R Soc Lond A 221: 163–198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kienzler R and Herrmann G (1997). On the properties of the Eshelby tensor. Acta Mech 125: 73–91 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Knowles JK and Sternberg E (1972). On a class of conservation laws in linearized and finite elastostatics. Arch Rat Mech Anal 44: 187–211 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Maugin GA (1993). Material inhomogeneities in elasticity. Chapman and Hall, London MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Maugin GA (1995). Material forces: concepts and applications. Appl Mech Rev 48: 213–245 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rivlin RS and Thomas AG (1953). Rupture of rubber. I. Characteristic energy for tearing. J Polym Sci 10: 291–318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Thomas AG (1994). The development of fracture mechanics for elastomers. Rubber Chem Technol 67: G50–G60 Google Scholar
  13. Verron E, Andriyana A (In Press) Definition of a new predictor for multiaxial fatigue crack nucleation in rubber. J Mech Phys Solids. doi: 10.1016/j.jmps.2007.05.019
  14. Verron E, Le Cam J-B and Gornet L (2006). A multiaxial criterion for crack nucleation in rubber. Mech Res Commun 33: 493–498 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut de Recherche en Génie Civil et MécaniqueUMR CNRS 6183, École Centrale de NantesNantes cedex 3France

Personalised recommendations