Is It Validated?

“Is it validated?” – that’s often the first question we hear after introducing our durability simulation capabilities. And for good reason, given the weight that hangs on the hinge of product durability. Endurica takes verification and validation (V&V) very seriously. Let’s look at what that means.

First, it means that our tools are built on well-known, well-established foundations.  These foundations include 1) definition of material / crack behavior via fracture mechanics (Rivlin and Thomas, 1953), 2) integration of the crack growth rate law to predict fatigue life (Gent, Lindley and Thomas, 1964), 3) the fact that crack precursors occur naturally in all locations and all orientations in a rubber sample (Choi and Roland 1996, Huneau et al 2016), 4) hyperelastic stress-strain laws compatible with commercial FEA codes (see Muhr 2005 for an excellent review), and 5) rubber’s fatigue threshold (Lake and Thomas 1967).  The validation case thus begins with the cumulative authority of thousands of reports that have confirmed these classical results over nearly 70 years.

Critical plane analysis for rubber has now been around for 20+ years, and it has been validated in multiple ways (material level, component level, system level), across multiple experimental programs (industrial and academic), by multiple independent research groups working on multiple applications (see Google/scholar, for example).  It has been validated that: 1) it correctly predicts crack plane orientation under uniaxial, proportional and nonproportional loadings (Harbour et al 2008), 2) it correctly predicts fatigue life across different modes of deformation (Mars 2002), 3) it correctly accounts for the effects of crack closure (Mars 2002), 4) it correctly predicts the development of off-axis cracks for nonrelaxing cycles in strain-crystallizing materials (Ramachandran 2017), 5) it correctly predicts the effects of finite straining on crack orientation (Mars and Fatemi 2006).

The literature is full of old experiments that we have used as validation targets.  We have validated Endurica’s strain crystallization models by simulating experimental results published by Cadwell et al (1940) and by Fielding et al (1943).  We have validated the ability to predict deformation mode effects by simulating experimental results for simple and biaxial tension published by Roberts and Benzies (1977).  We have validated Endurica’s temperature dependence against measurements reported by Lake and Lindley (1964).  We have validated against multiaxial fatigue experiments reported by Saintier, Cailletaud and Piques (2006).

We’ve done our own validation experiments.  My PhD dissertation (University of Toledo, 2001) contains an extensive database of tension/torsion/compression fatigue tests against which our critical plane algorithms were validated.  Two additional PhD dissertations that I co-advised generated additional validations.  Dr. Malik Ait Bachir’s thesis (2010) validated mathematically that the scaling law we use for small cracks is valid across all multiaxial loading states.  Dr. Ryan Harbour’s thesis (2006) contains a database of multiaxial, variable amplitude fatigue experiments against which our rainflow and damage accumulation procedures were extensively validated.

Validation from partners.  We partner with several testing labs.  We have invested in testing protocols that produce clean, accurate data and we have run validation programs with our partners to verify the effectiveness of our testing protocols.  We’ve demonstrated significant improvements to test efficiency and reproducibility (Goosens and Mars 2018) and (Mars and Isasi 2019).  We’ve validated techniques for estimating precursor size and size distribution (Robertson et al 2020, Li et al 2015).

Validation from users.  Three (3) of the top 12 tire companies and six (6) of the top 10 global non-tire rubber companies now use our solutions.  Most of our users have run internal validation programs to show the effectiveness of our solutions for their applications.  Most of these studies are unpublished, but the fact that our user base has continued growing at ~20%/year for 12 years (as of this year) says something important both about the technical validation case and the business validation case.  Validation studies have been published with the US Army (Mars, Castanier, Ostberg 2017), GM (Barbash and Mars 2016), Tenneco (Goossens et al 2017) and Caterpillar (Ramachandran et al 2017).

Validation from external groups.  There are several academic groups that have independently applied and validated components of our approach.  There are too many to list completely, but a few recent examples include Zarrin-Ghalami et al (2020), Belkhira et al (2020) and Tobajas et al (2020).

Software verification, benchmarking and unit testing.  In addition to the experimental validations mentioned above, each time we build a new version of our software, we execute a series of automated tests.  These tests verify every line of code against expected function, and they ensure that as we add new features, we do not introduce unintended changes.  The benchmarks include tests that verify things like coordinate frame objectivity (rigid rotations under static load should do no damage and the same strain history written in two different coordinate systems should have the same life), and check known results pertaining to material models and cycle counting rules.  You can read more about our software quality processes here.

It is safe to say that no other solution for fatigue life prediction of rubber has been tested and validated against a larger number of applications than Endurica’s.

References

Aıt-Bachir, M. “Prediction of crack initiation in elastomers in the framework of Configurational Mechanics.” PhD diss., Ph. D. thesis, Ecole Centrale de Nantes, Nantes (France), 2010.

Barbash, Kevin P., and William V. Mars. Critical plane analysis of rubber bushing durability under road loads. No. 2016-01-0393. SAE Technical Paper, 2016.

Belkhiria, Salma, Adel Hamdi, and Raouf Fathallah. “Cracking energy density for rubber materials: Computation and implementation in multiaxial fatigue design.” Polymer Engineering & Science (2020).

Cadwell, S. M., R. A. Merrill, C. M. Sloman, and F. L. Yost. “Dynamic fatigue life of rubber.” Rubber Chemistry and Technology 13, no. 2 (1940): 304-315.

Choi, I. S., and C. M. Roland. “Intrinsic defects and the failure properties of cis-1, 4-polyisoprenes.” Rubber chemistry and technology 69, no. 4 (1996): 591-599.

Fielding, J. H. “Flex life and crystallization of synthetic rubber.” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry 35, no. 12 (1943): 1259-1261.

Goossens, J.R., Mars, W., Smith, G., Heil, P., Braddock, S. and Pilarski, J., 2017. Durability Analysis of 3-Axis Input to Elastomeric Front Lower Control Arm Vertical Ride Bushing (No. 2017-01-1857). SAE Technical Paper. https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-1857

Goossens, Joshua R., and William V. Mars. “Finitely Scoped, High Reliability Fatigue Crack Growth Measurements.” Rubber Chemistry and Technology 91, no. 4 (2018): 644-650. https://doi.org/10.5254/rct.18.81532

Harbour, Ryan Joseph. Multiaxial deformation and fatigue of rubber under variable amplitude loading. Vol. 67, no. 12. 2006.

Harbour, Ryan J., Ali Fatemi, and Will V. Mars. “Fatigue crack orientation in NR and SBR under variable amplitude and multiaxial loading conditions.” Journal of materials science 43, no. 6 (2008): 1783-1794.

Huneau, Bertrand, Isaure Masquelier, Yann Marco, Vincent Le Saux, Simon Noizet, Clémentine Schiel, and Pierre Charrier. “Fatigue crack initiation in a carbon black–filled natural rubber.” Rubber Chemistry and Technology 89, no. 1 (2016): 126-141.

Lake, G. J., and P. B. Lindley. “Cut growth and fatigue of rubbers. II. Experiments on a noncrystallizing rubber.” Journal of Applied Polymer Science 8, no. 2 (1964): 707-721.

Li, Fanzhu, Jinpeng Liu, W. V. Mars, Tung W. Chan, Yonglai Lu, Haibo Yang, and Liqun Zhang. “Crack precursor size for natural rubber inferred from relaxing and non-relaxing fatigue experiments.” International Journal of Fatigue 80 (2015): 50-57.

Mars, William Vernon. Multiaxial fatigue of rubber. 2001.

Mars, Will V. “Cracking energy density as a predictor of fatigue life under multiaxial conditions.” Rubber chemistry and technology 75, no. 1 (2002): 1-17.

Mars, W. V., and A. Fatemi. “Analysis of fatigue life under complex loading: Revisiting Cadwell, Merrill, Sloman, and Yost.” Rubber chemistry and technology 79, no. 4 (2006): 589-601.

Mars, W. V., and A. Fatemi. “Nucleation and growth of small fatigue cracks in filled natural rubber under multiaxial loading.” Journal of materials science 41, no. 22 (2006): 7324-7332.

Mars, W. V. “Computed dependence of rubber’s fatigue behavior on strain crystallization.” Rubber Chemistry and Technology 82, no. 1 (2009): 51-61. https://doi.org/10.5254/1.3557006

Mars, William V., Matthew Castanier, David Ostberg, and William Bradford. “Digital Twin for Tank Track Elastomers: Predicting Self-Heating and Durability.” In Proceedings of the 2017 Ground Vehicle Systems Engineering and Technology Symposium (GVSETS). 2017.pdf here

Mars, W. V., and M. Isasi. “Finitely scoped procedure for generating fully relaxing strain-life curves.” In Constitutive Models for Rubber XI: Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Constitutive Models for Rubber (ECCMR 2019), June 25-27, 2019, Nantes, France, p. 435. CRC Press, 2019.

Muhr, A. H. “Modeling the stress-strain behavior of rubber.” Rubber chemistry and technology 78, no. 3 (2005): 391-425.Lake and Thomas 1967

Ramachandran, Anantharaman, Ross P. Wietharn, Sunil I. Mathew, W. V. Mars, and M. A. Bauman. “Critical Plane Selection Under Nonrelaxing Simple Tension with Strain Crystallization.” In Fall 192nd Technical Meeting of the Rubber Division, pp. 10-12. 2017.

Rivlin, R. S., and A. G. Thomas. “Rupture of rubber. I. Characteristic energy for tearing.” Journal of polymer science 10, no. 3 (1953): 291-318.Gent, Lindley and Thomas, 1964

Roberts, B. J., and J. B. Benzies. “The relationship between uniaxial and equibiaxial fatigue in gum and carbon black filled vulcanizates.” Proceedings of rubbercon 77, no. 2 (1977): 1-13.

Robertson, Christopher G., Lewis B. Tunnicliffe, Lawrence Maciag, Mark A. Bauman, Kurt Miller, Charles R. Herd, and William V. Mars. “Characterizing Distributions of Tensile Strength and Crack Precursor Size to Evaluate Filler Dispersion Effects and Reliability of Rubber.” Polymers 12, no. 1 (2020): 203. Pdf here

Saintier, Nicolas, Georges Cailletaud, and Roland Piques. “Multiaxial fatigue life prediction for a natural rubber.” International Journal of Fatigue 28, no. 5-6 (2006): 530-539.

Tobajas, Rafael, Daniel Elduque, Elena Ibarz, Carlos Javierre, and Luis Gracia. “A New Multiparameter Model for Multiaxial Fatigue Life Prediction of Rubber Materials.” Polymers 12, no. 5 (2020): 1194.

Zarrin-Ghalami, Touhid, Sandip Datta, Robert Bodombo Keinti, and Ravish Chandrashekar. Elastomeric Component Fatigue Analysis: Rubber Fatigue Prediction and Correlation Comparing Crack Initiation and Crack Growth Methodologies. No. 2020-01-0193. SAE Technical Paper, 2020.

 

twitterlinkedinmail

Behind the Scenes Tour of Endurica Software Development and QA Practices

Ever wonder what it takes to consistently deliver quality and reliability in our software releases?  Here’s a brief overview of the systems and disciplines we use to ensure that our users receive timely, trouble-free updates of Endurica software.

Automation:

Throughout the life of our software, changes are made to our source code for a variety of reasons.  Most commonly, we are adding new features and capabilities to our software.  We also make updates to the code to improve performance and to squash the inevitable bugs that occasionally occur.

With each change committed to the code repository, the software needs to be built, tested, and released.  Endurica’s workflow automates these steps so that any change to the source repository triggers a clean build of the software.  A successful build is automatically followed by a testing phase where our suite of benchmarks is executed and compared to known results.  Finally, the build is automatically packaged and stored so that it is ready to be delivered.  At each step along the way, a build error or failed test will cancel the workflow and send an alert warning that the release has been rejected, so that the issue can be addressed, and the workflow restarted.

Figure 1: Endurica’s build and testing process ensures that high quality standards are met for every new release. Black arrow: normal flow, Red arrow: on error or failed test.

Reliability:

The automated testing phase that every release goes through helps ensure the reliability of our software.  For example, every Endurica CL release must pass all 70 benchmarks.  Each benchmark is a separate Endurica CL analysis made up of different materials, histories, and output requests.  Results from a new build are compared to known results from the previous successful build.  If results do not agree, or if there are any errors, the benchmark does not pass and the build is rejected.

The testing phase prevents “would-be” bugs from making it into a release and makes sure that any issues get resolved.

Repeatability:

The automated nature of our development workflow naturally helps with repeatability in our releases.  Each build flows through the same pipeline, creating consistent releases every time.  There is less worry, for example, that a component will be forgotten to be included.  It also allows us to recreate previous versions if comparisons need to be made.

Traceability:

Our version control system enables us to easily pinpoint where and when prior changes were introduced into the software.  Each release is tied to a commit in the repository. This allows any future issues to be easily traced back and isolated to a small set of changes in the source for quick resolution.

Responsiveness:

Automating the build and release pipelines greatly increases our responsiveness.  If an issue is discovered in a release, the problem can be resolved, and a fully corrected and tested release can be made available the same day.  We can also quickly respond to user feedback and suggestions by making small and frequent updates.

The systems and disciplines we use in our development process make us very efficient, and they protect against many errors. This means we can spend more of our time on what matters: delivering and improving software that meets high standards and helps you to get durability right.

twitterlinkedinmail

EIE – Effect of Map Discretization on Interpolation Accuracy

Overview

The accuracy of the interpolated results performed by EIE is dependent on the discretization of the map. Specifically, the results will become more accurate as the map’s point density increases. This study uses a simple 2D model to quantify the accuracy of results interpolated from maps with different densities.

Model

A 1 mm x 1 mm rubber 2D plane strain model with two channels is used. The square’s bottom edge is fixed and the top edge is displaced in the x and y directions as shown below. The x displacement corresponds to channel 1 and the y displacement corresponds to channel 2. The working space of the model is defined by the x displacement ranging from 0 mm to 0.8 mm and the y displacement ranging from -0.08 mm to 0.8 mm.

Plane strain model with two channels

The model is meshed with 100 8-node, quadrilateral, plane strain, hybrid, reduced integration elements (shown below).

100 element mesh

History

We define as the benchmark reference solution a history that covers the model’s entire working space with a high density of points. An evenly spaced grid of 128×128 points for a total of 16384 points is used as the history (shown below). It is important that this history is more refined than the maps that we will create to ensure that we are testing all regions of our maps.

128×128 history points

These points are used to drive the finite element model and the results are recorded. For this study, we record the three non-zero strain components and the hydrostatic pressure (NE11, NE22, NE12, and HP) for each element at each time point. In summary, there are 4 result components, 100 elements, and 16384 time increments. This set of results is the reference solution since it is solved directly by the finite element model. We will compare this solution to our interpolated results to measure our interpolation accuracy.

Maps

Six maps with different levels of refinement are used to compute interpolated results for our history points. All of the maps structure their points as an evenly spaced grid. The first map starts with two points along each edge. With each additional map, the number of points along each edge is doubled so that the sixth and final map has 64 edge points. The map points for the six maps are shown below.

Six maps with increasing levels of refinement

The map points for these six maps are used to drive the finite element model’s two channels. The strain and hydrostatic pressure results from the FEA solutions are recorded at each map point in a similar way to how the results were recorded for the FEA solution that was driven by the history points. Next, EIE is used six times to interpolate the map point results at each resolution onto the high resolution reference history points.

We now have seven sets of history results: the true set of results and six interpolated sets of results.

Results

To compare our results, we look at the absolute difference between the sets of results. The absolute error is used, opposed to a relative error, since some regions of the model’s working space will give near zero strain and hydrostatic pressure. Division by these near zero values would cause the relative error to spike in those regions.

Since we have 100 elements and 4 components per element, there are a lot of results that could be compared. To focus our investigation, we look at the element and component that gave the maximum error. The figure below shows contour plots for each of the six maps for this worst-case element and component. The component that gave the maximum error was NE12. The title of each of the contour plot also shows the maximum error found for each of the plots.

Error contours for the worst-case element and component. Titles report the maximum log10 error.

You can see that the error decreases as the map density increases. Also, you can identify the grid pattern in the contour plots since the error gets smaller near the map points.

Plotting the maximum error for each of the maps against the number of map points on a log scale is shown below. The slope of this line is approximately equal to 1 which is expected since a linear local interpolation was used to compute the results.

Maximum error vs the number of points for each of the six maps
twitterlinkedinmail
close
Trial License RequestTrial License RequestTrial License RequestTrial License RequestTrial License Request

Our website uses cookies. By agreeing, you accept the use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.  Continued use of our website automatically accepts our terms. Privacy Center