Contact Pressure and Strain Energy Density of Hyperelastic U-shaped Monolithic Seals under Axial and Radial Compressions in an Insulating Joint: A Numerical Study
Source abstract
Abstract
In insulation joints, elastomeric U-shaped monolithic seals (UMSs) are replacing O-ring systems because of their enhanced sealing capabilities for the oil and gas industries. UMSs are compressed axially during assembly and radially when pressurized in operation. The reliability of UMSs due to the displacement imposed during assembly and the internal pressure in operation is influenced by the axial compression ratio, thickness ratio (TR), and geometric complexity. In this study, the hyperelastic behavior of elastomeric UMSs under axial and radial compressions is investigated using axisymmetric finite-element analysis. Twelve examples of UMSs with three geometric restraints (open grooves on both sides (type 1), an open groove on one side only (type 2), and no groove (type 3)) and four thickness ratios (TR = 0.25, 0.50, 1.00, and 1.50) are evaluated. To analyze nonlinear elastomeric materials, neo-Hookean constitutive equations are applied and the UMSs are considered as being a nearly incompressible hyperelastic material with a Poisson’s ratio of 0.499. The failure and detachment risks of UMSs are analyzed in terms of the equivalent stress, gap distance, contact pressure, and strain energy density. It is advantageous that the smaller the TR, the smaller the stress distribution. However, the generation of broader detachment regions is observed. Type 1 symmetrically shows the lowest stress distribution and the smallest detachment region, whereas type 3 symmetrically shows the highest values. Type 3 (TR = 0.25) shows the broadest detachment region in the arc-length range from −15.7 to 15.7 mm, whereas the largest gap of 0.7 mm is observed in type 2 (TR = 0.5). For all types, the detachment region disappears completely at TR = 1.0 or higher, which implies that full sealing is occurring. The average contact pressure increases exponentially during axial compression (in assembly) and linearly during radial compression (in operation). The largest contact pressure of 31.5 MPa is observed in type 3 (TR = 1.5), while the lowest is observed in type 1 (TR = 0.25). As for the strain energy density, type 3 at TR = 0.25 shows the largest increase in the strain energy density with 1.75 MJ/m3, while type 1 shows the most stable values of all cases. In conclusion, the lowest risk of failure of a nonlinear hyperelastic UMS was investigated numerically with minor equivalent stress and detachment region with higher contact pressure, which can be taken into account to ensure the reliability of the UMS.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Elasticity and Material Modeling · Tribology and Lubrication Engineering · Mechanical stress and fatigue analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Division of Mechanical Design Engineering, College of Engineering, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju 54896, Korea
Department of Bionanosystem Engineering, College of Engineering, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju 54896, Korea
Hemorheology Research Institute, College of Engineering, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju 54896, Korea
References (25)
Show source-provided references
1. Analysis of elastomeric O-ring seals in compression using the finite element method10.1080/10402009208982093 ↗
2. A novel stress distribution analytical model of O-ring seals under different properties of materials10.1007/s12206-016-1231-1 ↗
3. The effect of the O-ring on the end face deformation of mechanical seals based on numerical simulation10.1016/j.triboint.2016.01.038 ↗
4. Failure behavior of rubber O-ring under cyclic exposure to high-pressure hydrogen gas10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.01.034 ↗
5. Finite Element Analysis and Simulation of the Sealing Performance of Y-Ring Rubber Seal
6. Contact behavior analysis of elastomeric x-ring under uniform squeeze rate and internal pressure before and after forcing-out using the photoelastic experimental hybrid method10.1007/s12206-015-0436-z ↗
7. Finite element analysis and experimental study on contact pressure of hydraulic support bud-shaped composite sealing ring10.1177/1687814016674846 ↗
8. Green, I., and English, C. (1994, January 6–8). Stresses and deformation of compressed elastomeric O-ring seals. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Fluid Sealing, Firenze, Italy.10.1016/1350-4789(94)90283-6 ↗
9. A review on the Mullins effect10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2008.11.017 ↗
10. Analysis of the isotropic models of the Mullins effect based on filled silicone rubber experimental results10.1016/j.mechmat.2010.07.001 ↗
11. Numerical modelling of deformation of hyperelastic incompressible solids
12. An approach for hyperelastic model-building and parameters estimation a review of constitutive models10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2013.10.006 ↗
13. Bayesian model selection of hyperelastic models for simple and pure shear at large deformations10.1016/j.compstruc.2015.04.008 ↗
14. A finite viscoelastic constitutive model for filled rubber-like materials10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2015.04.002 ↗
15. Comparison of hyperelastic models for rubber-like materials10.5254/1.3547969 ↗
16. A three-dimensional constitutive model for the large stretch behavior of rubber elastic materials10.1016/0022-5096(93)90013-6 ↗
17. Ilseng, A., Skallerud, B., and Clausen, A. (2015). Volumetric compression of HNBR and FKM elastomers. Constitutive Models for Rubber, Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Constitutive Models for Rubbers, Prague, Czech Republic, 1–4 September 2015, CRC Press.
18. Constitutive models of rubber elasticity: A review10.5254/1.3547602 ↗
19. Large elastic deformations of isotropic materials. IV. Further developments of the general theory
20. Finite strain: Isotropic hyperelasticity10.1016/S0020-7683(03)00217-8 ↗
21. Volume changes associated with the deformation of rubber-like solids10.1016/0022-5096(76)90007-7 ↗
22. A constitutive model for compressible elastomeric solids10.1007/BF00376130 ↗
23. A comparison among Neo-Hookean model, Mooney-Rivlin model, and Ogden model for chloroprene rubber
24. Rubber modeling using uniaxial test data10.1002/app.1503 ↗
25. Tension behaviour of HNBR and FKM elastomers for a wide range of temperatures10.1016/j.polymertesting.2015.11.017 ↗