Modeling and experimental validation of interfacial fatigue damage in fiber‐reinforced rubber composites

Abstract

This article presents an experimental and numerical study of short-fiber-reinforced rubber sealing composites (SFRC) at different stress amplitudes (1 MPa, 2 MPa, and 3 MPa). The curves of the maximum strain varying with the number of cycles were obtained by the fatigue test, and the damage modes of SFRC at different stress amplitudes were determined by scanning electron microscope. A finite element model (FEM) was established, where fibers distributed randomly and the stress-based fatigue damage model integrating with a bilinear tractionseparation law of the cohesive zone model was embedded in the fiber/matrix interface. The effect of different stress amplitudes on the fatigue damage of SFRC was investigated by FEM where the interfacial debonding behavior was considered. The predictions at stress amplitudes of 1 MPa are generally consistent with experimental data. The predictions at high stress amplitudes (2 MPa and 3 MPa) are agreeable with experimental data at low number of cycles.

Aramid pulp reinforced hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber composites with ionic liquid compatibilizers

“…Rubber products are currently used in the automotive sector and other important fields of application . For instance, short synthetic fiber‐reinforced rubbers are being applied in sealing products, such as gaskets and packers . Packers are widely employed in very harsh environments, at high pressures and high temperatures, for oil and gas exploration .…”

A New Multiparameter Model for Multiaxial Fatigue Life Prediction of Rubber Materials

“…In order to obtain more accurate values, the effects of multiaxial stresses have been taken into account in this work by the FEM (finite element method) simulations ( Figure 4). adjusted as a hyperelastic material that can be simulated by formulating the NeoHookean model [31], and as shown in Equation 15 with a constant value of C1 = 1.5 and J = 1.…”

“…where C1 and D are material constants and J is the determinant of the gradient strain tensor F. All the tests described were simulated during a load cycle, and mechanical variables were extracted. Results for A1 and B1 tests, described in Table 1 According to the authors, the material used in their tests belongs to the family of the elastomers whose behaviour is adjusted as a hyperelastic material that can be simulated by formulating the NeoHookean model [31], and as shown in Equation (15) with a constant value of C 1 = 1.5 and J = 1.…”

Relationship between local damage and macroscopic response of soft materials highly reinforced by monodispersed particles

“…Early studies (Böhm et al, 2004;Llorca and Segurado, 2004;Segurado and Llorca, 2005, among others) were focusing on ductile matrices with infinitesimal strain formalism. More recently, account for composites with hyperelastic matrices, for which softening may result from the matrix/filler interface damage only, were considered in finite strain in two-dimensional (Moraleda et al, 2009;Toulemonde et al, 2016;Zhang et al, 2018;Li et al, 2018) and three-dimensional representations (Spring and Paulino, 2015;Gilormini et al, 2017). While some of these contributions have focused on the impact of the cohesive zone model parameters on the macroscopic behavior (Spring and Paulino, 2015;Toulemonde et al, 2016), others have looked at the distribution of stresses in the matrix (Moraleda et al, 2009;Li et al, 2018).…”