Ansys Assistant will be unavailable on the Learning Forum starting January 30. An upgraded version is coming soon. We apologize for any inconvenience and appreciate your patience. Stay tuned for updates.
General Mechanical

General Mechanical

Topics related to Mechanical Enterprise, Motion, Additive Print and more.

Hyperelastic : Mooney–Rivlin vs. neo-hookean

    • Jia-Wei Liao
      Subscriber
      When I was doing nonlinear simulation of large deformation of breast compression, I saw that some papers used hyperelastic Mooney–Rivlin model, and some papers used hyperelastic neo-hookean model in the selection of breast material properties.
       
      I used Mooney–Rivlin at the beginning, and the result was element highly distorted error. Later, I switched to neo-hookean and the other conditions were the same, and the calculation converged successfully.
       
      I would like to ask what is the main difference between Mooney–Rivlin and neo-hookean? Why can the highly distorted element be solved after changing the material properties? The calculation results using neo-hookean will be more inaccurate than Mooney–Rivlin ?

      Thanks for your help!!!
    • John Doyle
      Ansys Employee

      Both models are based on a strain energy density function.  NeoHookean is the simplest (mathematically) of all the hyperelastic options, but it also is limited to relatively small strain (<30%) and typically only curve fits well for mildly nonlinear stress strain curves without inflection points. 
      I would refer you to Section 4.6 of the MAPDL Material Reference Guide available online for a more rigorous explanation of all the hyperelasticity material options.   
      If NeoHooekan result passes all your validation requirements, then you should be fine to use it.

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • The topic ‘Hyperelastic : Mooney–Rivlin vs. neo-hookean’ is closed to new replies.
[bingo_chatbox]