PSI - Issue 25

Hassan Mansour Raheem et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 25 (2020) 3–7 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

5

2.4. FEA simulation The hyperelastic parameters were obtained from ABAQUS after pair the uniaxial compression data nominal stress strain. A 3D brick elements 20-node hybrid was used to maintain the incompressibility in the model. To investigate the capability of SEDFs, FEA simulation results in tension were compared with SEDFs models in tension as well. 3. Results and discussion The experimental data of A2 under the unconfined compression test were used to define the four hyperelastic models in tension and compression, i.e. Ogden-N1, Neo-Hookean, Mooney-Rivlin, and Yeoh models. The predicted response from using FEA model in tension was reported as well. Figure 1 shows the comparison between the test data and the calibrated models in compression. It seems that for A2 all models were able to fit the compression data in all range of the applied strain except Yeoh’s model. Because its falls to represent the actual response. Table 1 shows the parameters for each model.

Fig. 1. Hyperelastic models fit the experimental data under unconfined compression loads, 2 wt. % of agarose.

Table 1. Hyperelastic parameters of 2 wt. % of agarose in compression.

Materials Constant (kPa)

C10

C20

C30

C01

Agarose 2 wt.% (A2) Yeoh

17.803

56.61

-122 …… ……

….. -9.7

Mooney-Rivilin Neo-Hookean

36.59 21.68

…..

……

……

Ogden-N1

µ

α

37.71

-2.07

The calibrated hyperelastic models were utilized in ABAQUS for general geometry, in addition to the loading conditions, to validate the predicted tension results from the fitting process for each model. Figure 3 illustrates the pairwise comparison of each model between the predicted response of FEA model using ABAQUS and SEDFs data both in tension. In the fitting process within ABAQUS, it was clear that SEDFs provide results in tension depending