Master's Degree Thesis

ISRN: BTH-AMT-EX--2007/D-10--SE

Parameter Analysis of Creep

Models of PP/CaCo3
Nanocomposites
0.12

Experimental
Theoritical
0.1

0.08
Strain

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time(Seconds)

Harikishan Mandalapu
Sandeep Karanamsetty

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Blekinge Institute of Technology
Karlskrona, Sweden
2007
Supervisor: Sharon Kao-Walter, Ph.D. Mech. Eng.
The Parameter analysis of creep
models of PP/CaCo3
nanocomposites

Harikishan Mandalapu
Sandeep Karanamsetty

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Blekinge Institute of Technology
Karlskrona, Sweden
2007

Thesis submitted for completion of Master of Science in Mechanical

Engineering with emphasis on Structural Mechanics at the Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona,
Sweden.
Abstract:
The present report is about the parameter analysis of creep models of
Nanocomposites (Isotactic polypropylene and CaCo3).The parametric
analysis of the nanocomposites under creep was carried out, and the
parameters related to creep model are determined by comparing to the
experimental results. The influence of these parameters on the creep was
studied. Using commercially available software ABAQUS, Finite
Element Calculations were done for elastic and creep conditions. The
results obtained from theoretical analysis were verified with the
Experimental Results. Also Abaqus results are compared with the
Experimental results. Experimental results were obtained from the
experiments conducted by the Department of Chemistry, Huazhong
University of Science and Technology, China and by Department of
Advanced Materials and Technology, College of Engineering, Peking
University, Beijing, China.
Keywords:
Creep strain, PP/CaCO3, Nanocomposites, FEM.
Acknowledgements
This thesis work is carried out at the Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden, under
the supervision of Dr.Sharon Kao-Walter.

We consider it is our duty to acknowledge the people without whose

assistance this work could not have been undertaken at all. We record our
deep sense of gratitude to Dr.Sharon Kao-Walter, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden, for her
invaluable guidance and kind cooperation extended by her throughout the
course of this work.

Our thanks go to the almighty God for giving us the opportunity to be able
to complete this project.

We wish to express our sincere appreciation to Tech. Etienne Mfoumou for

his help regarding ABAQUS analysis.

We also thank all our faculty members and our classmates for their
encouragement, discussion, comments and many innovative ideas in
carrying out this work.

Finally, we would like to dedicate this work to our parents in India for their
moral support and inspiration.

Karlskrona, April 2007

Harikishan Mandalapu,

Sandeep Karanamsetty.

2
Contents
1 Notations 5

2 Background 7

3 Introduction to creep 8
3.1 Primary Creep 11
3.2 Secondary Creep 12
3.3 Tertiary Creep 12
3.4 Creep under variable loading 12

4 Experimental Work 14
4.1 Introduction 14
4.2 Tensile test for creep measurement 14
4.3 Experimental Results and parameter Analysis Work 16
4.4 Curve fitting with three methods 20
4.4.1 Method 1 20
4.4.2 Method 2 27
4.4.3 Method 3 31
4.5 Discussion and conclusion of parameter analysis 38

5 ABAQUS Model 39

6 Modeling and Simulation 45

6.1 ABAQUS/CAE Model 45

7 Conclusions and Further Work 49

8 References 50

3
Appendices

Appendix A 52

A1 Finite Element Method 52

A2 Modeling, Simulation and Results 54
A2.1 Pre-processing 54
A2.2 Simulation 57
A2.3 Post-processing 58
A2.4 Simulation Results 60

Appendix B ABAQUS/CAE Input files 61

4
1 Notations

E Young’s Modulus [Mpa]

σ Stress [Mpa]

ε Strain

εc Creep Strain

ε& c Strain rate

ν Poisson’s ratio

D Constitutive matrix

t Time [Seconds]

R Universal gas constant [Cal/(mol)(K)]

A Material Constant

n Material Constant

m Material Constant

5
Abbreviations

PP Isotactic polypropylene

PN poly-oxyethylene

HDPE High density polyethylene

CaCo3 Calcium Carbonate

LVDT Linear Variable Displacement Transducer

6
2 Background
Nanocomposites refer to materials consisting of at least two phases with
one dispersed in another that is called matrix and forms a three-dimensional
network. Nanocomposites have been studied extensively mainly for
improved physical properties.

Isotactic polypropylene (PP) is used as a most common plastic for the

manufacturing of automotive parts, home appliances, for construction
process, etc [3].But this PP is notch sensitive and brittle under severe
conditions of deformation, such as at low temperatures or high impact rates,
which makes limited its wider range of usage for the manufacturing
processes. Blending PP with rigid inorganic particles such as CaCO3 is the
best way to improve the stiffness and toughness of the PP.Dispersion
quality of CaCO3 particles played a crucial role in toughening efficiency.
The nanocomposites composed of isotactic PP and CaCo3 nanoparticles
were fabricated by melt extrusion [3]. A nonionic modifier, poly-
oxyethylene (PN), was added to the PP/CaCo3 mixture by dry mixing
before melt extrusion. The dispersion of CaCo3 particles was greatly
improved by this PN modifier [2]. Isotactic polypropylene (PP) and
calcium carbonate CaCo3 nanocomposites mixture have various
applications in automotive, construction and in other fields due to their high
impact strengths and toughness. Different kinds of nanocomposites were
tested to study the creep mechanism of components. An experimental setup
was made and tensile creep tests were carried out on the specimen with
different composite compositions each time.

The aim of our thesis is to analyze the better creep model by studying the
parameters. The material parameters are determined by comparing to a
creep model from the experimental data and are verified along with the
values estimated from theoretical formula. The analysis is done considering
three methods with a defined creep model. We try to match the
experimental results for the creep behavior with the results obtained from
the theoretical formula. ABAQUS and Matlab were used to perform the
necessary finite element analysis and mathematical calculations. An
overview of creep behavior is observed from the results.

7
3 Introduction to Creep
Creep takes place in Engineering materials and structures manifested by the
accumulation of plastic deformation over prolonged time periods under
steady or variable loading conditions [11].

At elevated temperatures and at constant stress or load many materials

continue to deform at slow rate. This behavior is also called as creep. In
other words high temperature progressive deformation of a material at
constant stress is also called as creep.

Creep deformation does not happen suddenly. Creep is the term used to
describe the tendency of a material to move or to deform permanently to
relieve stresses.

There are different stages of creep. Creep can be subdivided into three
categories primary, steady state creep and tertiary.

The following figure1 illustrates the different stages of creep in a simple

way,

Figure1: Different stages of creep [11].

8
The long-term behavior of modern structures, whose final static
configuration is frequently the result of a complex sequence of phases of
loading and restraint conditions, are influenced largely by creep. Creep
substantially modifies the initial stress and strain patterns, increasing the
deformations induced by sustained loads, Relaxing the stresses due to
sustained imposed deformations, (artificially introduced, e.g. by jacking, or
due to natural causes like shrinkage or settlements) activating the delayed
additional restraints. A special emphasis is given to the compact
formulations derived directly from the fundamental theorems of the theory
of linear viscoelasticity for nano materials.

Creep tests are carried out on a specimen loaded [9], e.g., in tension or
compression, usually at constant load, inside a furnace which is maintained
at a constant temperature T.The extension of the specimen is measured as a
function of time. A typical creep curve for metals, polymers, and ceramics
is represented in Fig2.

The response of the specimen loaded by σ 0 at time t = 0 can be divided into

elastic and plastic part as

ε 0 = σ 0 / E (T ) + ε p (σ 0 , T ), (3.1)

Where E (T ) the modulus of Elasticity. The creep strain in Fig2 is can then
be expressed according to

ε c = ε (t ) − ε 0αt k (3.2)

9
 Figure2: Stages in creep [10]

Where k < 1 in the primary, k = 1 in the secondary, and k >1 in the tertiary
creep stage. These terms correspond to a decreasing,constant,and increasing
strainrate,respectively, and were introduced by ANDRADE(1910).These
three creep stages are often called transient creep, steady creep, and
accelerating creep; respectively.

The results (3.1) and (3.2) from the creep test justify a classification of
material behavior in three disciplines: elasticity, plasticity, and creep
mechanics.

Due to a proposal of HAUPT (2000) one can also distinguish four theories
of material behavior as follows:

• The theory of elasticity is concerned with the rate-independent

behavior without hysteresis.
• The theory of plasticity specifies the rate-independent behavior with
hysteresis.
• The theory of viscoelasticity describes the rate-dependent behavior
without equilibrium hysteresis.
• The theory of viscoplasticity is devoted to the rate-dependent
behavior with equilibrium hysteresis.

10
The creep behavior exists in two of the above listed categories, namely in
the theories of viscoelasticity and viscoplasticity.

3.1 Primary Creep

Primary creep, Stage I, is a period of decreasing creep rate [9]. Primary
creep is a period of primarily transient creep. During this period
deformation takes place and the resistance to creep increases until stage II

For constant-temperature creep behavior, ε c is thus given by

ε c = f (σ , t ) (3.3)
Several mathematical forms exist to represent the function f (σ , t ); one of
these is the Norton-Baily creep law:

ε c = Aσ n t m , (3.4)

Where the parameters A, n, m depend on the material and temperature. They

can be determined in a uniaxial creep test.

If the stress σ in (3.4) is assumed to be constant the creep rate d ≈ ε&c is

given by

ε&c = Amσ nt m −1. (3.5)

Inserting the time t from (3.4) into (3.5), we arrive at the relation

1 n ( m −1)
ε&c = mA mσ mε c m
(3.6)

Which characterizes the strain-hardening-theory, i.e., this strain rate

equation (3.6) includes stress and strain as variables. In contrast to (3.6) the
strain rate equation (3.5) contains stress and time as variables and is
therefore called the time-hardening-law.

11
3.2 Secondary Creep
Secondary creep, Stage II, is a period of roughly constant creep rate [9].
Stage II is referred to as steady state creep. Creep deformations of the
secondary stage are large and of similar character to pure plastic
deformations.

3.3 Tertiary Creep

Tertiary creep, Stage III, occurs when there is a reduction in cross sectional
area due to necking or effective reduction in area due to internal void
formation [9]. The tertiary creep phase is accompanied by the formation of
microscopic cracks on the grain boundaries, so that damage-accumulation
occurs. In some cases voids are caused by a given stress history and,
therefore, they are distributed anisotropically among the grain boundaries.

3.4 Creep under Variable Loading

Norton-Bialys’ creep law as expressed by the equation (3.3) has been used
extensively in analyzing creep problems [4]. The simplicity of this law
helps in arriving at analytical solutions with acceptable accuracy for creep
problems involving steady loadings. For situations when the applied
stresses vary with time, either continuously or according to step changes,
the use of Norton-Bialys’ law becomes inaccurate since the phases of
primary creep cannot be neglected at every load change. To overcome this,
the idea that equation (3.3) expresses the creep rate as a function of stress
σ and current time t,
i.e., ε& c = f (σ , t ) has been replaced by considering ε& c = f (σ , ε c ) .The
derivation of such functions is as follows:

The primary and secondary creep strains are expressed [4] by Equation as
follows:

ε c = Aσ n t m (3.7)

Where n >> 1 and m ≤ 1 .The time derivative gives

ε& c = Amσ n t m −1 (3.8)

12
This derivation results in the known Time-Hardening rule, where creep
strain rate is expressed as a function of the stress σ and time t.

Another formulation known as “strain-hardening” may be derived from the

above equation (3.8) eliminating time t, as given by Equation (3.7), namely

1
⎛ εc ⎞m
t = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (3.9)
⎝ Aσ
n
⎠

Substitution into Equation (3.8) yields

m −1 / m
⎛ εc ⎞
ε& = Am(σ ) ⎜⎜ n
⎟⎟
⎝ Aσ
n
⎠ or

ε& c = A1 / m m(σ ) n / m (ε c ) ( m −1) / m (3.10)

Equation (3.10) expresses the creep rate ε& c as a function of the stress σ
and the current creep strain ε c .Experiments indicate that the strain-
hardening formulation is to be favored over time-hardening formulation.
However, nothing the large scatter in creep data, the use of the simple law
of time hardening becomes justifiable in deriving analytical solutions.
Evidently, and strain hardening offers no difficulty in seeking numerical
solutions. Both formulations as given above are applicable only for
situations where no stress reversals occur, a situation where modified rules
have to be used .Also both formulations do not account well for the
important phenomenon of creep recovery due to unloading or variable
cyclic loading.

13
4 Experimental Work
4.1 Introduction
The nanocomposites composed of isotactic PP and CaCo3 nanoparticles [2]
are used to reinforce thermoplastic polymers which have wide applications
in many areas. The addition of these nanocomposites to the polymers
increases their toughness and stiffness. The major drawback of these
polymers is creep which occurs at stresses below the yield stress of the
polymer materials. Nanocomposites with combination of surface modifiers
such as poly-oxyethylene (PN) are good for obtaining uniform dispersion in
the polymer matrix and have better mechanical behavior [3] than the
original polymer matrix materials.

The present work is to analyze the creep behavior of these composites with
different PN content.

4.2 Tensile test for Creep Measurement

The experimental setup used for the testing the creep behavior [2] is shown
in the Figure (4) below.

Specimen

LVDT Control box

50mm

CPU
Weight

Carrier

Figure3: Schematic presentation of Test setup used for Experimental

analysis [2]

14
 Specimen PP CaCo3 PN Young’s Poisson’s Material
Modulus ratio Constant
Code (Wt %) (Wt %) (Wt (Gpa) ν n
%)
PP 100 0 0 1.21 0.34 10.28
PPC-0.75 84.25 15 0.75 1.55 0.36 8.71
PPC-1.5 83.5 15 1.5 1.25 0.34 11.76
PPC-2.25 82.75 15 2.25 1.31 0.32 12.20
Table1: Combinations of composites taken for experiments

The densities of PP and CaCO3 are 0.96 gm/cm3 and 2.55 gm/cm3
respectively.

The device used to carry out the tensile creep test [2] consists of a LVDT
with precession of 0.02mm, control box, computer, weights and carrier.
The tests were done at four different stresses 12.33MPa, 17.33MPa,
20.67MPa, 24MPa respectively. The tests were carried out in the laboratory
at a controlled temperature of 220C with variation of ± 20 C. The slight
change in the temperatures is negligible on the tensile properties of the
material. The dimensions of the specimen tested were 50x30x10mm 3 .

Generally, the whole creep process is divided in two three phases like
primary, secondary steady state and teritiary.Though the creep rate is rather
high in the primary stage than in the secondary steady stage, the creep
strain is not important compared to the total deformation because the rate
slows down continuously and the duration is limited.

In this work, we are only interested in the second stage which occupies
longer duration and the creep rate remains constant. So, the steady stage
influences the dimensional stability of the structure. In the tertiary stage
there is increase in the creep rate which causes final failure in short time.
So, the present work concentrates on the first two stages of creep to study
the effect of creep deformation and creep rate of the steady stage. The
tensile test is carried for duration of four hours for loads 12.33MPa,
17.33MPa, and 20.67MPa respectively. But for load 24MPa the failure
occurred within one hour.

15
4.3 Experimental Results and Parameter Analysis

Curves are plotted for creep strain versus time for different stresses for the
nanocomposites with different compositions of PP, CaCo3, PN.The curves
are as shown below [2].

Strain Vs Time under 12.33Mpa Experimental

0.02
PP0
PPC-0.75
0.018 PPC-1.75
PPC-2.25

0.016
Strain

0.014

0.012

0.01

0.008
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Time(S)
Figure 4: Strain versus time under 12.33MPa [2]

16
 Strain Vs Time under 17.33Mpa Experimental
0.035

0.03

0.025
Strain

PP
0.02 PPC0.75
PPC1.5
PPC2.25

0.015

0.01
0 5000 10000 15000
Time(S)
Figure 5: Strain versus time under 17.33MPa [2]

Strain Vs Time under 20.67Mpa Experimental

0.1

0.09 PP0
PPC-0.75
0.08 PPC-1.75
PPC-2.25
0.07
Strain

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Time(S)

Figure 6: Strain versus time under 20.67MPa [2]

17
 Strain Vs Time Under 24Mpa Experimental
0.14
PP
PPC0.75
0.12
PPC1.5
PPC2.25
0.1

0.08
Strain

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Time
Figure7: Strain versus time under 24MPa [2]

The creep rate is calculated from the values obtained from the experimental
data.

We have,

Total strain = elastic strain + creep strain

(4.1)

The creep rate is defined by the formula,

ε& c = Amσ n t m −1 (4.2)

Now the creep rate for different composites is plotted for the various
stresses. They are shown in the fig.8, 9 below. Also Logarithmic creep vs.
the logarithmic stress values are also plotted for the verification purpose.

18
 -5
x 10
3
PP
PPC0.75
2.5 PPC1.5
PPC2.25

2
Strain rate

1.5

0.5

0
12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Stress(Mpa)

Figure 8: strain rate of steady stage versus stress of tested materials

-4.5

PP
PPC0.75
-5
PPC1.5

PPC2.25

-5.5
Log(Creep-rate)

-6

-6.5

-7
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4
Log(Stress)

Figure 9: Creep rate of steady stage versus stress of tested materials

19
4.4 Curve fitting with three different methods
The analysis was carried out considering three different methods.
In method 1 we assume the creep model to have the formula of
ε c = Aσ n t m
We proceed to determine the material parameters for the creep model from
the experimental data. Also we assume the parameter m to be equal to one.
We tried to estimate the creep strain rate and the total strain with the
calculated parameters. The results obtained are compared with the
experimental results. Analysis of the above comparison is done to study the
creep behavior in this particular method.

In method 2 we have considered the same creep model similar to method 1.

Here we have assumed the parameter ‘m’ to be constant for each material
independent of stress and with varying ‘A’. We also determine the material
parameters in this method and also analysis was carried out similar to
method 1.From the comparison of the experimental and analytical results
conclusions were drawn.

The method 3 was carried out assuming the same creep model similar to the
above two methods. Here we have assumed that the material parameters
‘A’ and ‘m’ vary at each stress for different materials. Analysis was done
for the creep model using the same approach similar to method 1 and
method 2.

4.4.1 Method 1

We know the creep formula as,

ε c = Aσ n t m (4.3)
Since the secondary creep rate is considered in the experiment, and we
know ε c is almost linearly dependent on time and when the exponent
‘m=1’ in the above expression.

The values of ‘A’ can be calculated for four different stresses by comparing
to the experimental results and the average value is considered, and the
same is substituted in the above formula. We try to estimate the parameter
‘A’ assuming the other parameter ‘m’=1.The values of ‘A’ are estimated
from the above logarithmic Creep rate Vs. logarithmic stress graphs.

20
From fig.14 it can be found that there is a huge deviation in the results
between experimental and theoretical when we use Average ‘A’ value. One
of the possible reasons could be the error in the calculation of ‘A’ value
from the experimental data. Now we tried to approach the ‘A ‘values by
applying suitable numerical methods. The new values are substituted once
again. The calculations are performed by Matlab. The value of ‘A’ is
obtained by iterative calculations. The results from theoretical formula are
verified with the experimental results. Results are plotted in Matlab as
shown below,

The results are tabulated as shown below:

PP PPC-0.75 PPC-1.5 PPC-2.25

n 10.28 8.71 11.76 12.20
m 1 1 1 1
19.746 × 10 −18
Average 3.338 × 10 −19 6.993 × 10 −21 30.72 × 10 −22
‘A’

Approached 0.8011 × 10 −19 0.938 × 10 −17 1.1785 × 10 −21 4.362 × 10 −22

‘A’
Table2: Results from method 1

21
 -5
x 10 For PP
6
Approached
Experimental
5 Average

4
Creep-strain-rate

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Stress

Figure10: Creep strain rate Vs Stress for PP

-5
x 10 For PPC0.75
2.5
Approached
Experimental
Average
2
Creep-strain-rate

1.5

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Stress

Figure11: Creep strain rate Vs Stress for PPC0.75

22
 -4
x 10 For PPC1.5
1.2
Approached
Experimental
1 Average

0.8
Creep-strain-rate

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Stress

Figure12: Creep strain rate Vs Stress for PPC1.5

-4
x 10 For PPC2.25 Before Iterative Approximation of A
1.2
Approached
Experimental
1 Average

0.8
Creep-strain-rate

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Stress

Figure13: Creep strain rate Vs stress for PPC2.25

23
From the results above it can be understood that the parameter ‘m’ = 1 does
not give desired experimental results, and we proceed to method 2.

We have the total strain given by

⎛ dε c ⎞
ε = ε o + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟t = ε o + A(σ ) n t
⎝ dt ⎠ (4.4)

Now strain vs. time results are plotted as shown in Fig.14-18,

CASE1:Strain Vs Time for PP under 12.33Mpa

0.02

0.019

0.018

0.017
Experimental
0.016 Theoritical
S train

0.015

0.014

0.013

0.012

0.011

0.01
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Time(Seconds)

Figure14: Strain Vs time for PP under 12.33Mpa

24
 CASE1:Strain Vs Time for PP under 17.33Mpa
0.035

0.03
Experimental
Theoritical
0.025
Strain

0.02

0.015

0.01
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Time(Seconds)

Figure15: Strain Vs time for PP under 17.33Mpa

CASE1:Strain Vs Time for PPC0.75 under 17.33Mpa

0.028
Experimental
0.026 Theoritical

0.024

0.022

0.02
Strain

0.018

0.016

0.014

0.012

0.01
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Time(Seconds)

Figure16: Strain Vs time for PPC0.75 under 17.33Mpa

25
 CASE1:Strain Vs Time for PPC1.5 under 17.33Mpa
0.035

0.03
Experimental
Theoritical

0.025
Strain

0.02

0.015

0.01
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Time(Seconds)

Figure17: Strain Vs time for PPC01.5 under 17.33Mpa

CASE1:Strain Vs Time for PPC2.25 under 17.33Mpa

0.035

Experimental
0.03 Theoritical

0.025
Strain

0.02

0.015

0.01
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Time(Seconds)

Figure18: Strain Vs time for PPC2.25 under 17.33Mpa

26
From the fig.14 to 18 above we can see the strain vs. time is linear which is
not correct according to the experimental results. This may be due to the
assumptions made, and also the creep model we assumed in our case may
not be appropriate. So we proceed to method 2.

4.4.2 Method 2

In this method we assume that the creep stain rate ε& c defined by the
creep strain rate expressed as a function of the stress σ and time t
(i.e.) ε& c = Amσ n t m −1 .The parameter ‘m’ remaining constant during the
creep stage, with varying ‘A’

Since the secondary creep rate has much significance in the design fields,
we consider secondary creep here. From the Norton-Bialy’s creep laws:

ε c = Aσ n t m (4.5)

Now equation (4) expresses the creep rate as a function of stress σ and
current time t,
i.e., ε& c = f (σ , t ) has been replaced by considering ε& c = f (σ , ε c ) .The
derivation of such functions is as follows.

The time derivative gives

ε& c = Amσ n t m −1 (4.6)

This derivation results in the known Time-Hardening rule, where creep

strain rate is expressed as a function of the stress σ and time t.

We solve them to find out the value for ‘m’. The values of ‘A’ are
calculated by substituting the values of ‘m’ in above equations. The same is
tried at four different stresses. We arrive at four different ‘A’ values.
Similar approach as the method 1 is done here for ‘A’ value. The results are
plotted for experimental vs. theoretical.

27
The results are tabulated as shown below,

PP PPC-0.75 PPC-1.5 PPC-2.25

n 10.28 8.71 11.76 12.20
m 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Average 2.0577 × 10 −17
‘A’ 3.2193 × 10 −19 5.0453 × 10 −20 30.0123 × 10 −22
Approached
‘A’ 1.033 × 10 −18 8.9016 × 10 −17 2.563 × 10 −20 3.052 × 10 −21
Table3: Results from method 2

-5
x 10 CASE2:For PP With average A and Constant m values
2
Approached
1.8 Experimental

1.6

1.4
Creep-strain-rate

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Stress(Mpa)

Figure19: Creep strain rate Vs Stress for method 2

The results were drawn in the same figures together with the Experimental
results from Fig.20 to 23 for the different materials.

28
 CASE2:Strain Vs Time for PP under 17.33Mpa
0.035
Experimental
Theoritical

0.03

0.025
Strain

0.02

0.015

0.01
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Time(Seconds)

Figure20: Strain Vs time for PP under 17.33Mpa

CASE2:Strain Vs Time for PPC0.75 under 17.33Mpa
0.028
Experimental
0.026 Theoritical

0.024

0.022

0.02
Strain

0.018

0.016

0.014

0.012

0.01
0 5000 10000 15000
Time(Seconds)

Figure21: Strain Vs time for PPC0.75 under 17.33Mpa

29
 CASE2:Strain Vs Time for PPC1.5 under 17.33Mpa
0.035
Experimental
Theoritical

0.03

0.025
Strain

0.02

0.015

0.01
0 5000 10000 15000
Time(Seconds)

Figure22: Strain Vs time for PPC1.5 under 17.33Mpa

CASE2:Strain Vs Time for PPC2.25 under 17.33Mpa

0.035
Experimental
Theoritical

0.03

0.025
Strain

0.02

0.015

0.01
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Time(Seconds)

Figure23: Strain Vs time for PPC0.75 under 17.33Mpa

30
The total strain in this method is given by

ε = ε o + ε c = ε o + A(σ ) n t m (4.7)

The Relative error in % for method 2 is as shown below,

PP PPC0.75 PPC1.5 PPC2.25

12.33(Mpa) 23.45 27.45 27.10 25.70
17.33(Mpa) 22.36 24.90 26.70 25.50
20.67(Mpa) 20.44 22.96 26.97 26.34
24(Mpa) 15.34 13.89 14.67 15.56
Table4: Relative error in % of results when compared to experimental
results.

From the above results it can be understood that the values of parameter
‘m’ < 1and the corresponding ‘A’ values does not give desired
experimental results, and therefore method 3 was introduced.

4.4.3 Method 3

Here we assume that the material parameters ‘A’ and ‘m’ vary at each
stress for the different materials, and we proceed to calculate the
parameters from the creep equation.

ε& c = Amσ n t m −1 (4.8)

We try for different time t, for example 2000, 4000 sec respectively at
different stresses. And by performing necessary calculations we get the
values of the parameters can be obtained. Now we plot the curves for time
vs. strain using the obtained parameters, and they are verified with the
experimental values.

31
The values of A and m for each material at different stress values are
shown in the table below,

Material PP PPC0.75
Stress(Mpa) A m A m
12.33 3.883 × 10 −16 0.52 6.97 × 10 −14 0.35
17.33 2.58 × 10 −17 0.52 1.38 × 10 −14 0.31

20.67 2.79 × 10 −17 0.41 7.35 × 10 −15 0.27

24 4.30 × 10 −18 0.57 3.54 × 10 −16 0.60

Table5: Results from method 3 with assumed model

Material PPC1.5 PPC2.25

Stress(Mpa) A m A m
12.33 5.83 × 10 −17 0.30 3.51 × 10 −17 0.27
17.33 6.77 × 10 −18 0.22 1.93 × 10 −18 0.23

20.67 2.05 × 10 −19 0.43 1.876 0.60

−20
× 10
−21
24 6.70 × 10 0.81 1.261 0.90
−21
× 10

Table6: Results from method 3 with assumed model

32
 -5
x 10 CASE3:For PP With average A and m values
2
Approached
1.8 Experimental

1.6

1.4
Creep-strain-rate

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Stress(Mpa)

Figure24: Creep strain rate Vs Stress for method 3

The total strain is given by,

ε = ε o + ε c = ε o + A(σ ) n t m (4.9)

The results were drawn in the same figures together with the Experimental
results, as shown from Fig.25 to 28 for the different materials.

33
 CASE3:Strain Vs Time for PP under 17.33Mpa
0.04
Experimental
Theoritical
0.035

0.03
Strain

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Time(Seconds)

Figure25: Strain Vs time for PP under 17.33Mpa

CREEP3:Strain Vs Time for PPC0.75 under 17.33Mpa

0.028

0.026

0.024
Experimental
Theoritical
0.022

0.02
Strain

0.018

0.016

0.014

0.012

0.01
0 5000 10000 15000
Time(Seconds)

Figure26: Strain Vs time for PPC0.75 under 17.33Mpa

34
 CASE3:Strain Vs Time for PPC1.5 under 17.33Mpa
0.035

Experimental
0.03
Theoritical

0.025
Strain

0.02

0.015

0.01
0 5000 10000 15000
Time(Seconds)

Figure27: Strain Vs time for PPC1.5 under 17.33Mpa

CASE3:Strain Vs Time for PPC2.25 under 17.33Mpa

0.04

0.035

0.03
Experimental
Theoritical
Strain

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Time(Seconds)

Figure28: Strain Vs time for PP2.25 under 17.33Mpa

35
From the calculations it is evident that there exists one set of ‘A’ and ‘m’
values for each material at different stresses. This is clear from the plots
above.

Plots between A and stress values and also between m and stress values are
as shown
22
A Vs.Sigma
10
*PP
21
10 vPPC0.75
.PPC1.5
20 +PPC2.25
10

19
10

18
10
A

17
10

16
10

15
10

14
10
12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Stress(Mpa)

Figure29: Plot of A Vs Stress for method 3

36
 m Vs.Sigma
1
* PP
0.9 v PPC0.75
. PPC1.5
0.8 + PPC2.25

0.7

0.6
m

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Stress(Mpa)

Figure30: m Vs Stress plot for method 3

Relative error in % for case3 is as shown below,

PP PPC0.75 PPC1.5 PPC2.25

12.33(Mpa) 6.06 2.58 7.10 8.76
17.33(Mpa) 6.79 2.90 6.70 7.66
20.67(Mpa) 6.80 2.96 6.97 6.77
24(Mpa) 2.79 1.89 2.67 2.56
Table7: Relative error in % of results when compared to experimental
results for method 3

4.4.1.1 The results show that:

From the figure.29 it is evident that for the nanocomposites PPC1.5 and
PPC2.25 the material constant Vs stress graph behavior is similar, also it
shows that material constant ‘A’ decreases with the increase in stress.
Nanocomposites PP and PP0.75 have similar behavior from the figure.29.
For nanocomposites PP there is a small increase in the ‘A' value with
increase in stress at a particular instant, this may be due to the variation in
the material model

37
4.5 Discussion and Conclusion of parameter analysis
From the above three different methods we observed that the method 3
results were appropriate when compared to the experimental results. So we
conclude that the parameters ‘A’ and ‘m’ vary with each material at
specific stress value. This shows that creep behavior is dependent on the
material parameters. ‘A’, ‘n’ and ‘m’ are constants for the specific
temperature conditions and stresses. The other material constant ‘n’ also
influences the creep behavior. For our convenience we assumed the
parameter to be constant for each material at different stresses. If the
parameter ‘n’ was not assumed to be constant then the study of the creep
behavior will become difficult to analyze. The creep equation will have
three varying material parameters which vary at each stress. We conclude
that ‘A’ and ‘m’ values influence the creep behavior which is clear from the
plots between the experimental and theoretical results. Also there exists
unique ‘A’ and ‘m’ values for each material under different stresses for a
definite creep model defined.

38
5 ABAQUS Model
The creep model is described in different way in the ABAQUS. We now
try to estimate the values of ‘ ’ and ‘ ’ for the model. The ABAQUS
model is described as

= (5.1)

(5.2)

Where is creep strain rate

Total strain is,

(5.3)

Where, is ordinary elastic strain.

The values of ‘ ’ and ‘ ’ calculated for the ABAQUS model are shown
in the table.

Material PP PP0.75
Stress(Mpa)
12.33 20.12 × 10 −17 -0.48 2.44 × 10 −14 -0.65

17.33 1.406 × 10 −17 -0.48 4.218 × 10 −15 -0.69

20.67 1.14 × 10 −17 -0.59 1.98 × 10 −15 -0.73

24 2.45 × 10 −18 -0.43 2.12 × 10 −16 -0.40

Table8: Results for the ABAQUS model from method 3

39
 Material PPC1.5 PPC2.25
Stress(Mpa)
12.33 1.74 × 10 −17 -0.70 9.53 × 10 −18 -0.73

17.33 1.50 × 10 −18 -0.78 4.439 × 10 −19 -0.77

20.67 8.81 × 10 −20 -0.57 1.126 × 10 −20 -0.40

24 5.44 × 10 −21 -0.19 1.13 × 10 −21 -0.10

Table 9: Results for the ABAQUS model from method 3

Also results from the ABAQUS model are calculated using these ‘ ’ and
’ ’ values, and plotted along with the experimental results for the
selected materials at different stresses.

By applying the parameters from Table.7 and Table.8 in ABAQUS creep

calculation, the strain and strain rate were obtained for different materials.
The results were shown in fig.31 to 38 together with the experimental
curves. The good agreement can be observed from the figures. The
procedure to run the ABAQUS and same results were described in
Appendix A.

40
 Strain Vs Time for PP under 12.33Mpa
0.022
Experimental
ABAQUS
0.02

0.018
Strain

0.016

0.014

0.012

0.01
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Time(Seconds)
Figure31: Strain Vs time for PP under 12.33Mpa
PP under 17.33Mpa
0.04

Experimental
0.035
ABAQUS

0.03
Strain

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Time(Seconds)

Figure32: Strain Vs time for PP under 17.33Mpa

41
 Strain Vs Time for PPC0.75 under 12.33Mpa
0.015

Experimental
0.014
ABAQUS

0.013

0.012
Strain

0.011

0.01

0.009

0.008

0.007
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Time(Seconds)
Figure33: Strain Vs time for PPC0.75 under 12.33Mpa

PPC0.75 under 17.33Mpa

0.028

0.026

0.024
Experimental
0.022 ABAQUS
Strain

0.02

0.018

0.016

0.014

0.012

0.01
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Time(Seconds)
Figure34: Strain Vs time for PPC0.75 under 17.33Mpa

42
 Strain Vs Time for PPC1.5 under 12.33Mpa
0.018

Experimental
0.017
ABAQUS

0.016

0.015
Strain

0.014

0.013

0.012

0.011

0.01

0.009
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Time(Seconds)
Figure35: Strain Vs time for PPC1.5 under 12.33Mpa
Strain Vs Time for PPC1.5 under 24Mpa
0.12

Experimental
Theoritical
0.1

0.08
Strain

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time(Seconds)
Figure36: Strain Vs time for PPC1.5 under 24Mpa

43
 PPC2.25 under 12.33Mpa
0.022

Experimental
0.02 ABAQUS

0.018

0.016
Strain

0.014

0.012

0.01

0.008
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Time(Seconds)
Figure37: Strain Vs time for PPC2.25 under 12.33Mpa

Strain Vs Time for PPC2.25 under 24Mpa

0.14

Experimental
0.12
ABAQUS

0.1

0.08
Strain

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Time(Seconds)
Figure38: Strain Vs time for PPC2.25 under 24Mpa

44
6 Modeling and Simulation
6.1 ABAQUS/CAE
The ABAQUS software [15] suite has an unsurpassed reputation for
technology, quality, and reliability and provides a powerful and complete
solution for both routine and sophisticated linear and nonlinear engineering
problems. ABAQUS delivers a unified FEA environment that is a
compelling alternative to implementations involving multiple products and
vendors.

With ABAQUS/CAE we can quickly and efficiently create, edit, monitor,

diagnose, and visualize advanced ABAQUS analyses. ABAQUS/CAE
integrates modeling, analysis, job management, and results visualization in
a consistent, easy-to-use environment that is simple to learn for new users
yet highly productive for experienced users. Familiar concepts such as
feature-based, parametric modeling make ABAQUS/CAE a modern and
effective pre- and postprocessor for engineering specialists.

The finite element analysis of the creep model has been done in ABAQUS.

The assumptions made in our modeling are as follows

1. The material is assumed to be isotropic.

2. The material is assumed to be homogeneous.

The step by step procedure of the analysis of the creep model in ABAQUS
is shown in the Appendix A. It includes creation of part, assigning of
various material properties, creation of the section and the assembly, steps,
applying of loads and boundary conditions, meshing of the model. Finally,
creation of job and submitting the job for the analysis.

After submitting the job for analysis the ABAQUS software performs the
creep analysis of the material model. The results can be interpreted as
shown below.

45
The creep formation in the material can be seen for different step times in
the following figures,

FOR STEP TIME = 125 SECONDS

Figure39: Starting stage of Creep of PPC2.25 under 24Mpa.

From the figure39 the propagation of the creep at step time 125seconds can
be observed. Since the object is constrained at one end the values of the
creep strain vary according to the coloured regions.

46
 FOR STEP TIME = 960 SECONDS

Figure40: CE 22 for PPC2.25 under 24Mpa at certain step time.

From the fig.40 the propagation of creep at step time 960 seconds can be
observed. The center region has the maximum creep strain and the region
tends to expand with the increase in step time.

47
 FOR STEP TIME = 2500 SECONDS

Figure41: Creep formation at certain step time

From the Fig.39 to 41 the propagation of creep for step time 2500 seconds
can be observed. From the Fig.39 we can notice the creep phenomena with
the dark region formed in the center. Also from the Fig.39 to 41 we can
conclude that the increase in step time results in the increase in the creep
strain up to a certain time period.

48
7 Conclusions and further work
’A’ and ’m’ are constants and they are functions of stress. From the above
analysis we conclude that the material constants ‘A’ and ‘m’ influence the
creep strain for the nanomaterials studied. Erroneous values of ‘A’ results
in the huge deviation in the creep strain. This is evident from the plots
between the experimental and the theoretical values. So, approximation of
the ‘A’ value from the available range of values is done in order to reduce
the deviations in the results. Similarly suitable ‘m’ values were calculated
for the above three cases. Plots of creep strain Vs strain at different applied
stresses shows that all the materials are in the first two creep stages for the
maximum duration of the experiment.

A better creep model is required for describing nanocomposites. Since creep

varies with material model, each material can be described using different
creep model.

The results obtained from the analysis were not agreeing the experimental
results for certain loads in the first two cases for strain values. The possible
reason could be the assumptions made during the evaluation step. Our
assumption for the material constant m = 1 in our case may not be
appropriate, because the possible range of ‘m’ values are from 0 to 1.The
approached values of ‘A’ gave better results than the approximated ‘A’
values. There exist a unique ‘A’ and ‘m’ values for each material at
different stress conditions. This is evident from the case 3. Still, better
results can be achieved by employing better approximation methods. Creep
Analysis is carried out in Abaqus.The results are satisfactory.

From the ABAQUS results the creep strain CE22 is shown in the figures.
The propagation of creep is properly described in the results. We can
observe the creep phenomena with the varying step time.

Better results can be achieved by employing advanced approximation

techniques, and by considering more creep models.

Hopefully, research can be carried out on these outlined setbacks for

rectifying the same.

49
8 References
1. Computational Engineering Textbook by Goran Broman,
2. Reference to Creep behavior of polypropylene/CaCo3 nanocomposites
with nonionic modifier by Jinlong Ahang,Shu-Lin Bai,Centre for
Advanced Composite Materials, Department of Advanced Materials
and technology, College of Engineering, Peking University, Beijing
100871,China
3. Cao, Guozhong. Nanostructures and Nanomaterials.
Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2004.

4. Engineering Solid Mechanics (Fundamentals and Applications) by

Abdel- Rahman Ragab, Salah Eldin Bayoumi.

3. Papalambros, P. Y., (2000), Extending the Optimization Paradigm in

Engineering Design, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Michigan, USA.
4. McKay, M. D., Beckman, R. J. and Conover, W.J., (1979), A
Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables
in the Analysis of Output from a Computer Code, Technometrics, Vol.
21, No. 2, May 1979.
5. TheodorBalderes,"Finite elementmethod”,inAccessScienceby McGraw-
Hill.

6. http://websok.libris.kb.se/websearch/search?SEARCH_ONR=1013367
9
7. Introduction to Finite Elements in Engineering by Tirupathi
R.Chandrupatla and Ashok D.Belegundu.

8. Introduction to the Finite Element Method by Niels Ottosen and Hans

Petersson
9. Creep Mechanics by J.Betten 2nd Edition
10. Materialsengineer.com/CA-Creep-Stress-Rupture.htm
Copyright © 1999 Metallurgical Consultants

50
11. Ritchie, R.O. "Mechanical Behavior of Materials Lecture Notes,"
University of California, Berkeley. Rhoads, Fall 1993.
12. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creep_(deformation)
13. Hertzberg, R.W. "Deformation and Fracture Mechanics of Engineering
Materials." 3rd ed., New York. Wiley & Sons, 1989
14. Article relating to creep analysis research group, POLITECNICO DI
TORINO, Italy.
15. ABAQUS Standard manual.

51
Appendix A
A1 Finite Element Method

All the physical phenomena encountered in engineering mechanics [7] are

modeled by differential equations, and it is very complicated to solve these
equations by normal analytical methods. The finite element method is the
one approach by which differential equations can be solved in an
approximate manner as shown in Fig.42.

Model Approximation

Finite
Physical Differential Element
Phenomenon Equation Equations

Figure42: Steps in Engineering Mechanics Analysis [7]

The differential equation or equations, which describe the physical problem

considered, are assumed to hold over a certain region. This region may be
one-, two-, or three-dimensional. It is a characteristic feature of the finite
element method that instead of seeking approximations that hold directly
over the entire region, the region is divided into smaller parts, so called
finite elements, and the approximation is then carried out over each
element. For instance, even though the variable varies in a highly in
nonlinear manner over the entire region, it may be a fair approximation to
assume that the variable varies in a linear fashion over each element. The
collection of all elements is called a finite element mesh.

When the type of approximation which is to be applied over each element

has been selected, the corresponding behavior of each element can then be
determined. This can be performed because the approximation made over
each element is fairly simple. Having determined the behavior of all

52
elements, these elements are then patched together, using some specific
rules, to form the entire region, which eventually enables us to obtain an
approximate solution for the behavior of the entire body. The finite element
(FE) method can be applied to obtain approximate solutions for arbitrary
differential equations.

As the FE method is a numerical means of solving general differential

equations, it can be applied to various physical phenomena.Inorder to
emphasize this aspect, we shall be concerned here with FE formulation of
such diverse problems as heat conduction, torsion of elastic shafts,
diffusion, ground water flow, and the elastic behavior of one-, two- and
three-dimensional bodies, including beam and plate analysis.

As previously mentioned, it is a characteristic feature of the FE method that

the region,ie.,the body, is divided into smaller parts,i.e.the elements, for
which a rather simple approximation is adopted. This approximation is
usually a polynomial. The approximation over each element means that an
approximation is adopted for how the variable changes over the element.
This approximation is, infact, some kind of interpolation over the element,
where it is assumed that the variable is known at certain points in the
element. These points are called nodal points and they are often located at
the boundary of each element. The precise manner in which the variable
changes between its values at the nodal points is expressed by the specific
approximation, which may be linear, quadratic, cubic, etc.

The Finite Element Method is a numerical approach which results in the

establishment of systems of equations often involving thousands of
unknowns.

FEM is the numerical analysis technique for obtaining approximate

solutions to many types of engineering problems. The need for numerical
methods arises from the fact that for most engineering problems analytical
solutions does not exist. While the governing equations and boundary
conditions can usually be written for these problems, and difficulties
introduced by either irregular geometry or other discontinuities render the
problems intractable analytically.

To obtain a solution, the engineer must make simplifying assumptions

reducing the problem to one that can be solved, or a numerical procedure
must be used. In an analytic solution, the unknown quantity is given by a

53
mathematical function valid at an infinite number of locations in the region
under study, while numerical methods provide approximate values of the
unknown quantity only at discrete points in the region. In the finite element
method, the region of interest is divided into numerous connected sub
regions or elements within which approximating functions (usually
polynomials) are used to represent the unknown quantity.

A2 Modeling, Simulation and Results in ABAQUS

The ABAQUS procedure consists of the following processes:

A2.1 Pre-Processing

In the Pre-Processing part the model of the specimen is created for the
analysis.

There are different steps in this process, they are as follows

• Part

In this module it has been taken a three-dimensional, solid part with

extrusion property to create the required element for analysis. The sketcher
size was taken as 200.A beam with length 30mm, height 50mm and width
10mm has been created as shown in the figure.

54
 Figure43: Model of nanocomposite PP

• Property

In this module it has been defined the properties of the material like poisons
ratio, Young’s Modulus, etc;

The properties of the materials used are shown in the following table [2]

Specimen Young’s Modulus Poisson’s ratio Material Constant

Code (Gpa) ν n
PP 1.21 0.34 10.28
PPC-0.75 1.55 0.36 8.71
PPC-1.5 1.25 0.34 11.76
PPC-2.25 1.31 0.32 12.20

Also this is the module where it has been defined the material behaviors
like elastic and creep with the required properties and data.

55
 • Assembly

In this module an independent mesh on instance for the analysis has been
created.

• Step

In this module the analysis procedure was defined and the visco procedure
has been taken and the step time was taken as from 4000 to 16000 Seconds
depending on the stresses applied.

• Load

In this module the boundary conditions and the load conditions required for
our analysis has been considered. The beam was fixed at one end and the
load has been applied at the other end as shown in the figure below.

Figure44: Boundary conditions and Load for material

56
 • Mesh

In this module the finite element mesh for the element for the analysis has
been generated. Global seeds have been assigned for the instance. And
meshing was done for the region. The meshed element used for the analysis
is as shown in the following figure.

Figure45: Meshing of the model

A2.2 Simulation

• Job

In this module the job has been created and submitted for analysis.

57
A2.3 Post-Processing

• Visualization

This module is used to read the output database that ABAQUS/CAE

generated during the analysis and to view the results of the analysis. All the
results required are generated by this module using the options needed.

The results are generated from the field output. The creep strain CE 22
values are determined. The results for the creep analysis are shown in the
following figures,

Figure46: S,Mises for PPC2.25 under 24Mpa

58
Figure47: Tensors and Vectors for the Model PPC2.25 under 24Mpa

Figure48: Undeformed shape of PPC2.25 under 24Mpa

59
 Figure49: Deformed shape for PPC2.25 under24Mpa

A2.4 Simulation Results

Figure50: Creep Strain Vs Time under 24Mpa from ABAQUS For

PPC2.25 For a particular element selected.

60
Appendix B ABAQUS/CAE Input files

Input file for PP under 12.33Mpa

*Heading
PP0
** Job name: PP0 Model name: Model-1
*Preprint, echo=NO, model=NO, history=NO, contact=NO
**
** PARTS
**
*Part, name=PP0
*End Part
**
**
** ASSEMBLY
**
*Assembly, name=Assembly
**
*Instance, name=PP0-1, part=PP0
*Node
1, 15., 25., 10.
2, 15., 20., 10.
3, 15., 15., 10.
4, 15., 10., 10.
5, 15., 5., 10.
6, 15., 0., 10.
7, 15., -5., 10.
8, 15., -10., 10.
9, 15., -15., 10.
10, 15., -20., 10.
11, 15., -25., 10.
12, 15., 25., 5.
13, 15., 20., 5.
14, 15., 15., 5.
15, 15., 10., 5.
16, 15., 5., 5.
17, 15., 0., 5.

61
 18, 15., -5., 5.
19, 15., -10., 5.
20, 15., -15., 5.
21, 15., -20., 5.

...so on
213, -15., 10., 5.
214, -15., 5., 5.
215, -15., 0., 5.
216, -15., -5., 5.
217, -15., -10., 5.
218, -15., -15., 5.
219, -15., -20., 5.
220, -15., -25., 5.
221, -15., 25., 0.
222, -15., 20., 0.
223, -15., 15., 0.
224, -15., 10., 0.
225, -15., 5., 0.
226, -15., 0., 0.
227, -15., -5., 0.
228, -15., -10., 0.
229, -15., -15., 0.
230, -15., -20., 0.
231, -15., -25., 0.
*Element, type=C3D8I
1, 34, 35, 46, 45, 1, 2, 13, 12
2, 35, 36, 47, 46, 2, 3, 14, 13
3, 36, 37, 48, 47, 3, 4, 15, 14
4, 37, 38, 49, 48, 4, 5, 16, 15
5, 38, 39, 50, 49, 5, 6, 17, 16
6, 39, 40

.............so on.....
108, 206, 207, 218, 217, 173, 174, 185, 184
109, 207, 208, 219, 218, 174, 175, 186, 185
110, 208, 209, 220, 219, 175, 176, 187, 186
111, 210, 211, 222, 221, 177, 178, 189, 188
112, 211, 212, 223, 222, 178, 179, 190, 189
113, 212, 213, 224, 223, 179, 180, 191, 190

62
114, 213, 214, 225, 224, 180, 181, 192, 191
115, 214, 215, 226, 225, 181, 182, 193, 192
116, 215, 216, 227, 226, 182, 183, 194, 193
117, 216, 217, 228, 227, 183, 184, 195, 194
118, 217, 218, 229, 228, 184, 185, 196, 195
119, 218, 219, 230, 229, 185, 186, 197, 196
120, 219, 220, 231, 230, 186, 187, 198, 197
*Nset, nset=_PickedSet2, internal, generate
1, 231, 1
*Elset, elset=_PickedSet2, internal, generate
1, 120, 1
** Region: (PP0:Picked)
*Elset, elset=_PickedSet2, internal, generate
1, 120, 1
** Section: PP0
*Solid Section, elset=_PickedSet2, material=PP0
1.,
*End Instance
**
*Nset, nset=_PickedSet4, internal, instance=PP0-1, generate
1, 221, 11
*Elset, elset=_PickedSet4, internal, instance=PP0-1, generate
1, 111, 10
*Elset, elset=__PickedSurf5_S4, internal, instance=PP0-1, generate
10, 120, 10
*Surface, type=ELEMENT, name=_PickedSurf5, internal
__PickedSurf5_S4, S4
*End Assembly
**
** MATERIALS
**
*Material, name=PP0
*Creep, law=TIME
2.158e-16, 10.28, -0.48
*Elastic
1210., 0.34
**
** BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
**
** Name: BC-1 Type: Displacement/Rotation

63
*Boundary
_PickedSet4, 1, 1
_PickedSet4, 2, 2
_PickedSet4, 3, 3
** ----------------------------------------------------------------
**
** STEP: CREEP
**
*Step, name=CREEP, nlgeom=YES
CREEPTEST
*Visco, cetol=0.01
1600., 16000., 0.16, 16000.
**
** LOADS
**
** Name: Load-1 Type: Pressure
*Dsload
_PickedSurf5, P, -12.33
**
** OUTPUT REQUESTS
**
*Restart, write, frequency=0
**
** FIELD OUTPUT: F-Output-1
**
*Output, field, variable=PRESELECT
**
** HISTORY OUTPUT: H-Output-1
**
*Output, history, variable=PRESELECT
*End Step

64
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Master’s Degree Programme Telephone: +46 455-38 55 10
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Campus Gräsvik Fax: +46 455-38 55 07
SE-371 79 Karlskrona, SWEDEN E-mail: ansel.berghuvud@bth.se