0
Technical Brief

On Cavitation in Rubberlike Materials

[+] Author and Article Information
Yoav Lev

Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Technion–I.I.T.,
Haifa 32000, Israel

Konstantin Y. Volokh

Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Technion–I.I.T.,
Haifa 32000, Israel
e-mail: cvolokh@technion.ac.il

Contributed by the Applied Mechanics Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF APPLIED MECHANICS. Manuscript received December 14, 2015; final manuscript received December 21, 2015; published online January 18, 2016. Editor: Yonggang Huang.

J. Appl. Mech 83(4), 044501 (Jan 18, 2016) (4 pages) Paper No: JAM-15-1673; doi: 10.1115/1.4032377 History: Received December 14, 2015; Revised December 21, 2015

Microscopic voids can irreversibly grow into the macroscopic ones under hydrostatic tension. To explain this phenomenon, it was suggested in the literature to use the asymptotic value of the hydrostatic tension in the plateau yieldlike region on the stress–stretch curve obtained for the neo-Hookean model. Such an explanation has two limitations: (a) it relies on analysis of only one material model and (b) the hyperelasticity theory is used for the explanation of the failure phenomenon. In view of the mentioned limitations, the objective of the present note is twofold. First, we simulate the cavity expansion in rubber by using various experimentally calibrated hyperelastic models in order to check whether the stress–stretch curves have the plateau yieldlike regions independently of the constitutive law. Second, we repeat simulations via these same models enhanced with a failure description. We find (and that was not reported in the literature) that the process of cavity expansion simulated via hyperelastic constitutive models exhibiting stiffening, due to unfolding of long molecules, is completely stable and there are no plateau yieldlike regions on the stress–stretch curves associated with cavitation. In addition, we find that the instability in the form of yielding observed in experiments does appear in all simulations when the constitutive laws incorporate failure description with energy limiters.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Cauchy stress versus stretch in uniaxial tension (left) and hydrostatic tension versus hoop stretch in cavity expansion (right) for the neo-Hookean model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Hydrostatic tension versus hoop stretch in cavity expansion for the Biderman, Yeoh–Fleming, and Isihara models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Hydrostatic tension versus hoop stretch in cavity expansion for the Ogden, Gent, and Arruda–Boyce models

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In