Analysis of microcellular urethane bumpers and mounts

Yong Shim, Rod Hadi

Freudenberg-NOK Plymouth, Michigan Abstract: Modeling techniques of microcellular urethane bumpers and mounts were presented in this study. Microcellular urethane materials can be analyzed using ABAQUS elastomeric foam model. Complicated nonlinear behavior of microcellular urethane bumpers can be predicted accurately with proper finite element model and material parameters. Material models were developed in this study from the comparison of test results and numerical solutions. Several jounce bumpers were analyzed for the verification of material models. Force-deflection curves and deformed shapes were compared with test results. Simple shaped mounts were analyzed for another application. Design guidelines of MCU mounts were presented with an example problem.

1. Introduction
Microcellular urethane can be used for various applications, which require high performance material with excellent fatigue life. The advantages of microcellular urethane include excellent fatigue resistance, improved durability, smooth transition to high loads, superior heat dissipation, and improved NVH performance. Microcellular urethane bumpers can be analyzed using ABAQUS elastomeric foam model. However, satisfactory material model is not available. Therefore, simplified material properties are currently used for the analysis of microcellular urethane bumpers without considering the complicated material behavior of microcellular urethane. The results of finite element analysis shows large difference compared to actual test data. Nonlinear behavior of microcellular urethane bumpers can be predicted more accurately with proper finite element model and nonlinear stress-strain curves. Microcellular urethane has very complicated nonlinear material behavior during compression. Material models should be developed from extensive material tests considering different stages of stressstrain behavior of microcellular urethane foam. Material models and modeling techniques were developed for the analysis of microcellular urethane bumpers and mounts in this research. Proper material models were developed from the parametric study of stress-strain behavior for different densities, which was compared with test data. These material models were verified by the comparison of analysis and test results of bumpers. Finite element modeling techniques were developed for microcellular urethane bumpers mounts considering element type, size, and friction. The best material parameters for MCU should be selected considering the behavior of force-deflection curves for actual design and application of MCU. Several types of jounce bumpers were analyzed for the verification of the hyperform material parameters. The results of FE analysis were compared with test results. It was shown that the selection of material parameters was very critical for the prediction of MCU material behavior. Simple shaped mounts were analyzed to study the design parameters of MCU mounts. Several material parameters were used to accurately simulate MCUs S-shapes of force-deflection curves, which is very important for the optimized design of MCU mounts. A modeling procedure was suggested for the finite element analysis of mounts.

2. Material model
ABAQUS Hyperform option was used for the analysis of MCU material. The elastic behavior of the foam is defined by the strain energy function [1]: 2002 ABAQUS Users Conference 1

 i i i 1 el i i 1) 1 + 2 + 3 3 + (( J ) i =1 i where, N, i , i , i : material parameters, U =

N

2 i 2 i

i : principal stretches,

J el : elastic volume ratio

Material properties of MCU are determined by the parameters in the above equation. ABAQUS uses a least square fit to the experimental data to decide material parameters. Uniaxial compression and tensile test results of MCU specimen were shown in Figure 1 and 2 for the density from 0.3 to 0.65 g/cc. Poissons ratio was determined from another separate test results. Six different cases were compared for the finite element analysis: - Order of strain energy potential: N=1, 2, and 3 - Test data: Uniaxial compression data only and both compression and tensile data Best material parameters were determined from the comparison of FEA and test results of uniaxial compression and tensile test. Single element analysis was performed to study the effect of different material parameters. The stress-strain behavior of MCU was studied for a density of 0.5 g/cc only, because the stress-strain behavior of different densities show similar pattern. Stress-strain curves for different value of N and test data were shown for the density of 0.5 g/cc in Figure 3. When the only compression test data was used for the analysis, transition area of compressive stress-strain curve (S-curve) was well predicted by finite element analysis with the order of the strain energy potential of 2 or 3. But there were large deviation for tensile stress-strain curves. The order of the strain energy potential of 2 or 3 showed very good correlation with test data for both tensile and compressive stress-strain curves when both compressive and tensile test data were used, but they could not follow MCUs unique S-shaped stress-strain relation for compressive area. The curve for N=3 showed large deviation when tensile strain is larger than 50%. Therefore it can be concluded that the curve fit with N=2 and both compressive and tensile test data showed the best correlation with test results.

3. Jounce bumpers
Two types of MCU jounce bumpers were analyzed for the verification of force-deflection relation of different material parameters. Axi-symmetric two dimensional analysis was used in this study. Finite element models were shown in Figure 4. Bottom of bumpers were mounted in steel cups, which was assumed as rigid body. External loading was applied from the top rigid surfaces. Contact surfaces were defined for rigid bodies and skins of bumpers. The density used in the analysis was 0.5 g/cc. FEA results of force-deflection curves for the jounce bumper A were shown in Figure 5. Six material parameters in the previous section were used in the analysis. The FEA results were compared with test data in the figure. Material parameters for N=2 or 3 with only uniaxial compression data predicted the S-shape of lower displacement area pretty closely, but it showed higher values for reaction forces at higher displacement because of very high stress predictions in the stress-strain curves for tensile area as shown in Figure 3. The force-deflection curves for N=2 or 3 with both compression and tensile data showed very good correlation with test data in most range of displacement. But they didnt follow the Sshape of the force-deflection curve of test result for lower displacement. Both curves showed very similar results. FEA results of force-deflection curves for the jounce bumper B were shown in Figure 6. Material parameters for N=2 and 3 with only compression data and both compression and tension data were used in the analysis. The results with only compression test data showed higher values of reaction forces, which showed similar trend as previous results. The results with both compression and tension test data showed very good correlation with test data for the entire range of displacement, but it could not follow the S-curve also. 2 2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

Deformed shape of jounce bumper B at 36 mm deflection was shown in Figure 7. Both numerical and test results were compared in the figure. Material parameters had negligible effect on the deformed shape of jounce bumpers. Deformed shape predicted by finite element analysis showed very good correlation with test data as shown in the figure.

4. Top mount
4.1 MCU mount design Design factors of MCU mounts are preload, geometry and density to determine the best stiffness and force-deflection curves. For the maximum benefit of MCUs unique force-deflection curves, geometry and density of MCU mounts should be carefully selected to reduce stiffness and initial deformation with same amount of preloading compared with rubber material. Two typical force-deflection curves of MCU mounts were compared with rubber in Figure 8. - MCU A: Less displacement with same stiffness as rubber - MCU B: Less stiffness with same deflection compared to rubber The line AB in the figure shows optimum design range of MCU mount with preloading of 50 N. MCU mounts in that range has less stiffness with less initial deflection compared with rubber. The area C shows less deflection with higher stiffness. Area D shows less stiffness, but too much deflection. Both preload and MCU material should be considered for the design of MCU mounts to use optimum area of the force-deflection curves. Therefore, it is very important to predict accurate S-shape of force-deflection curves in the initial design stage of mounts.

4.2 Simple shape mount A simple shaped mount was analyzed to study the force-deflection behavior of MCU mount. The geometry of the mount was: inner diameter 10mm, outer diameter 35mm, and height 18.5mm. The density of the MCU was 0.4 g/cc. The mount was compressed by two rigid surfaces at the top and the bottom of the mount. Two material parameters were used in the analysis: uniaxial compression test data only and both compression and tensile test data. The order of strain energy potential used for both analyses was 2. FEA results of force-deflection curves with two material parameters were compared with test data as shown in Figure 9. The result with both compression and tensile test data agreed well with test result for entire range of deflection curve. It showed approximately average values between S-curve. It could be considered as best results when we were interested in force-deflection relation only, without considering the stiffness of the mount. The result with only compression test data showed S-shape of force-deflection curve clearly, but higher reaction forces compared to test result because of the highly predicted forces in tensile area (Figure 3). The curve may be shifted in vertical or horizontal direction to match test data or force-deflection curve with both compression and tensile test data for rough estimation. For example, 20% shift of the force-deflection curve in horizontal direction showed good correlation with test data as shown in the figure. Therefore, MCUs unique S-shape of force-deflection curve can be estimated roughly with both finite element results.

4.3 Top mount Figure 10 shows a top mount made with MCU. Two round MCU discs were attached to round steel plate in the middle. The mount was compressed from the top using a rigid surface. Deformed shape by compressive loading was also shown in the figure. Force-deflection curves for compressive loading were shown in Figure 11. Two curves showed similar trend with previous results as shown in Figure 9. The force deflection curve with only compressive test data can be shifted horizontal direction to roughly match average value of the other curve to estimate S-curve of the mount, with an assumption

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

that the second curve represents average force-deflection relation of the actual mount. It needs more tests to verify this procedure and amount of shift to match accurate S-curve, depending on geometry and density of MCU mounts.

5. References
1. ABAQUS Standard Users manual, Version 6.2, Hibbitt, Karsson & Sorenson, Inc

Compression 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65

Stress

Strain
Figure 1. Compressive stress-strain curves

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

Tension 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65

Stress

Strain
Figure 2. Tensile stress-strain curves

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

Density 0.5 2 1 Stress 0 -1 -2 -3 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 Strain 40 60 80 100

Test N=1 : C N=2 : C N=3 : C N=1 : C+T N=2 : C+T N=3 : C+T

Figure 3. Stress-strain curves for density 0.5 g/cc

Figure 4. FEA models for Jounce bumper A and B

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

Jounce Bumper A 5000 4000 Force (N) 3000 2000 1000 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Displacement (mm)
Figure 5. Force-deflection curve of Jounce bumper A

Test N=1 : N=2 : N=3 : N=1 : N=2 : N=3 :

C C C C+T C+T C+T

Jounce Bumper B 6000 5000 Force (N) 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Displacement (mm)
Figure 6. Force-deflection curve of Jounce bumper B

Test N=2 : N=3 : N=2 : N=3 :

C C C+T C+T

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

Figure 7. Deformed shapes of Jounce bumper

Force - Deflection Curves 120 100 80 Force 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Displacement Rubber MCU - A MCU - B

Figure 8. Force-deflection curves for mount design

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

MCU Mount 1200 1000 Force (N) 800 600 400 200 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Displacement (mm) Test Comp + Tens Comp Comp (Shifted 20%)

Figure 9. Force-deflection curves for simple shape mount

Figure 10. FEA model and deformed shape of top mount

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

Top Mount 1600 1400 1200 Force (N) 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Displacement (mm) Comp + Tens Comp Comp (Shifted 20%)

Figure 11. Force-deflection curves of top mount

10

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference