Deep Drawing of A Cylindrical Cup

MECA 0464 Large deformation
2012-02-06
PROJECT WORK REPORT
Course: MECA-0464 Large Deformations of Solids Report Title: Deep Drawing of a Cylindrical Cup
Submission date: 2012-02-06
Author name Dutta Soumya Bondarenko Sergey
Email soumya@kth.se sergeyb@kth.se
Deep drawing of a cylindrical cup
2012-02-06
Content
1 2 3 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Problem Statement........................................................................................................................... 4 Baseline Setup Configuration ........................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................ 5 3.2 Geometry Definition ................................................................................................................. 5 3.3 Mesh Generation ..................................................................................................................... 6 3.4 Physical Parameters of the Baseline ....................................................................................... 7 Variation of the Mechanical and Physical Parameters ..................................................................... 7 4.1 Hardening Laws ....................................................................................................................... 7 4.1.1 VOCE hardening law ........................................................................................................... 7 4.2 Gravity effect.......................................................................................................................... 12 Variation the Numerical Parameters .............................................................................................. 13 5.1 Time Integration Schemes ..................................................................................................... 13 5.1.1 Implicit integration algorithm .............................................................................................. 14 5.1.2 Explicit Integration Scheme ............................................................................................... 14 5.1.3 Quasi-Static Scheme (MDE_NDYN = 0) ........................................................................... 16 5.2 Temporal and Spatial Discretization ...................................................................................... 18 5.2.1 Timesteps .......................................................................................................................... 18 5.2.2 Mesh .................................................................................................................................. 19 5.3 Contact Interactions ............................................................................................................... 21 5.3.1 Coulomb Friction Law ........................................................................................................ 21 5.3.2 Sticking Contact ................................................................................................................. 22 5.3.3 Frictionless Contact ........................................................................................................... 22 5.4 Influence of the Penalty Coefficients ..................................................................................... 23 5.4.1 Normal Penalty Coefficient ................................................................................................ 23 5.4.2 Tangential Penalty Coefficient ........................................................................................... 25 5.4.3 Depth of the Contact Detection ......................................................................................... 27 5.5 Influence of Plastic Incompressibility ..................................................................................... 28 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 30 References ..................................................................................................................................... 32
6 7
2012-02-06
List of Figures
Figure 1. Problem configuration.............................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2. Geometry of the model ............................................................................................................ 6 Figure 3. Stress strain diagram............................................................................................................ 8 Figure 4. Load (kN) vs. puncher displacement (mm), Voce law ............................................................. 9 Figure 5. Height evolution (mm) comparison, Voce law ......................................................................... 9 Figure 6. Equivalent von Mises stress comparison, Voce law ............................................................. 10 Figure 7. Stress-strain relation comparison of different hardening laws .............................................. 10 Figure 8. Load (kN) vs. puncher displacement (mm) comparison of different hardening laws ............ 11 Figure 9. Height evolution (mm) comparison of different hardening laws ............................................ 11 Figure 10. Height evolution (mm) comparison of 3 gravity cases ........................................................ 12 Figure 11. Load (kN) vs. puncher displacement (mm) of 3 gravity cases ............................................ 13 Figure 12. Load (kN) vs. puncher displacement (mm) ......................................................................... 15 Figure 13. Load (kN) vs. puncher displacement (mm) ......................................................................... 15 Figure 14. Load (kN) vs. puncher displacement (mm) ......................................................................... 16 Figure 15. Height evolution (mm) comparison of different integration schemes .................................. 16 Figure 16. Load (kN) vs. puncher displacement (mm) of different integration schemes ...................... 17 Figure 17. Height evolution (mm) comparison of different timestep values ......................................... 18 Figure 18. Timestep comparison .......................................................................................................... 18 Figure 19. Load (kN) vs. puncher displacement (mm) of different timestep values ............................. 19 Figure 20. Meshed models ................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 20. Mesh comparison ................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 22. Height evolution (mm) ......................................................................................................... 20 Figure 23. Load (kN) vs. puncher displacement (mm) ......................................................................... 21 Figure 24. Height evolution (mm) ......................................................................................................... 22 Figure 25. Load (kN) vs. puncher displacement (mm) ......................................................................... 23 Figure 26. Height evolution (mm) ......................................................................................................... 24 Figure 27. Depth of the contact. ........................................................................................................... 24 Figure 28. Load (kN) vs. puncher displacement (mm) ......................................................................... 25 Figure 29. Height evolution (mm) ......................................................................................................... 26 Figure 30. Load (kN) vs. puncher displacement (mm) ......................................................................... 26 Figure 31. Load (kN) vs. puncher displacement (mm) ......................................................................... 27 Figure 32. Height evolution (mm) ......................................................................................................... 27 Figure 33. Height evolution (mm) ......................................................................................................... 28 Figure 34. Load (kN) vs. puncher displacement (mm) ......................................................................... 29
List of Tables
Table 1. Problem inputs .......................................................................................................................... 5 Table 2. Domain discretization ................................................................................................................ 6 Table 3. Baseline definition ..................................................................................................................... 7 Table 4. Mesh comparison .................................................................................................................... 19 Table 5. Normal penalty coefficient variation ........................................................................................ 23 Table 6. Tangential penalty coefficient variation ................................................................................... 25 Table 7. Depth of the contact [mm] ....................................................................................................... 27
2012-02-06
1 Introduction
A numerical investigation of deep drawing process was carried out. Sheet material M2-DDQ (Deep Drawing Quality steel) in the shape of a circular plate with radius of 105 mm and the thickness 1 mm was used for this analysis. Deep drawing is a sheet metal forming process in which a sheet metal blank is radially drawn where drawn part exceeds its diameter into a forming die by the mechanical action of a puncher. Deep drawing is a shape transformation process with material retention. The simulation of this process exemplifies a hardening process undergone by the material. During this process, the numerical and physical parameters of the blank have a significant effect not only on the quality of formed parts but also on the determination of process parameters. Thus a parametric study of various simulation parameters like timestep, mesh density, hardening law parameters etc, was performed and the results are discussed.
2 Problem Statement
Consider the modeling of deep drawing of a cylindrical cup described in Fig. 1
Figure 1. Problem configuration
It is asked to analyze the following results: Height evolution (mm) of the upper surface along the flange at a given radius R = 75 mm from the initial sheet metal center during the process The load (kN) vs. punch displacement (mm)
2012-02-06
Geometry and material properties along with the tooling specification are shown in the Table 1.
Geometry data (mm) 105 50 52.25 9.5 7.0 1 Material Properties Steel M2-DDQ Mass density 7850 [N/m3] Average Youngs modulus 221.37e9 [Pa] Poisson ratio 0.33 Type Isotropic Uniaxial tensile direction 0o Saturation yield stress 300 [MPa] Tooling specification Total BHF 40 [kN] Punch Stroke 40 [mm] Friction coefficient 0.0426 (lubricant) Friction coefficient (no 0.1459 lubricant) Ro R1 R2 R3 R4 Thickness
Table 1. Problem inputs
3 Baseline Setup Configuration

3.1 Assumptions 1) The punch, die and blank holder in this model are considered as
absolutely rigid bodies, which signify that the body exhibits negligible fluidity during the total simulation period. 2) In order to save computational time and cost, the condition of axis
symmetry is imposed on the circular disc that requires a 2D simulation across the radial cross-section shown in Figure 2. 3) 4) Material of the plate is isotropic. The assumption of plane strain behavior.
3.2 Geometry Definition Since Python language enables to interact with the Metafor software, the whole program is defined in Python starting from geometry definition.
2012-02-06
Geometry consists of lines (curvesets) defined by points (pointsets). Lines are connected in wiresets (contours). In order to keep normal in the same direction, wiresets of the plate, holder, puncher and die are defined in the counterclockwise direction.
Puncher Holder
Plate
Die
Figure 2. Geometry of the model
3.3
Mesh Generation
Simple transfinite 2D mesh was used for this model. It was generated automatically with the detection of the predefined division of the plate. Since transfinite mesher in Metafor can be applied on the contour with four lines, eight curves of the plate were united in the counterclockwise direction.
n1 41
n2 50
n3 31
n4 3
Table 2. Domain discretization
2012-02-06
3.4
Physical Parameters of the Baseline

Python variable
PROPERTY
Hardening Law Drawing direction Time integration scheme Number of timesteps (time discretization) Number of nodes (spatial discretization) Contact Interaction Normal Penalty Coefficient Tangential Penalty Coefficient Depth of the Contact Detection
Krupkowsky law -g (up) Quasi static 20 492 0.1459 30e6 300 0.007
Table 3. Baseline definition
KrupkowskyIsotropicHardening GRAVITY_Y MDE_NDYN,0 setInitialTime setNextTime TransfiniteMesher2D CoulombContactMaterial PEN_NORMALE PEN_TANGENT PROF_CONT
Maximum number of iterations was chosen as 10. Residual tolerance for mechanical iterations (Newton-Raphson method) is set to 1e6. Accuracy of the temporal integration error was taken by default (1e-4), it was found out that simulation results with the temporal integration error of 1e-4 does not differ from simulations without any error. Described simulation takes around 55 sec. of real CPU time. Therefore chosen values of parameters are reasonable.
4 Variation of the Mechanical and Physical Parameters

4.1 Hardening Laws
Krupkowsky law of hardening The hardening law provides a relation between the von-misses stress and effective plastic strain. As it was given in the problem statement, rolling direction is taken as 0 degrees. The following law given by Krupkowsky
= K ( 0p + p ) n vm
The constants K, n and 0p are taken from the appendix [1]. 4.1.1 VOCE hardening law A comparison of hardening laws with respect to the height evolution is done in the following case. The phenomenon of Elastic plastic hardening could be portrayed using the simulation with different parameter of the voce law.
2012-02-06
The voce hardening law [1] is a non-linear hardening law:
y = y 0 + ( y y 0 ) (1 exp( p ) )
(0.1)
Where y 0 is the elastic Yield is stress, y is the saturation yield stress and p is the effective plastic strain. Thus a high value of gives the saturation region close to the asymptotic line while a lower value gives a solution in the plastic region.
Asymptotic line
Plastic region
Elastic region
Figure 3. Stress strain diagram
In the metaphor reference material [2], the voce law is given in the form of the following equation where is replaced by although they both provide the degree of non-linearity.
vm = y el + Q (1 exp( p ) )
The parameter is varied to different extent in order to achieve a proper value. 1 2 1 3 10 4 100
(0.2)
0.01
2012-02-06
Perfectly plastic
Figure 4. Load (kN) vs. puncher displacement (mm), Voce law
During deep drawing process, punch force evolution law can be represented from the curve of punch force versus displacement, and it can provide a guide for selecting proper press machine. From Fig. 4 we can see how as the value of Ksi increases the value of puncher displacement which depends upon the strain in the material reaches the asymptotic value. A low value of ksi such as 0.01 is almost like pure plastic as the strain increase almost at an infinite rate when compared to the stress expressed as load in this graph. This aspect is also shown in the height evolution graph, where the lower ksi value deforms in the region of high stress and shows no height evolution for the point R=75 mm
Figure 5. Height evolution (mm) comparison, Voce law
10
2012-02-06
=10
=0.01
Figure 6. Equivalent von Mises stress comparison, Voce law
The phenomenon of plasticity can be clearly seen in the above figures as well. No movement of the point R=75 mm signifies the regional plastic deformation at the regions exhibiting high stress. Thickness is unevenly distributed in the part after deep drawing generally, with the minimum thickness at the region of punch radius and outside the die corner, and the maximum thickness at the flange area. Existence of thickness variation during the production may cause failure in the part [7].
Voce saturation law vs Krupkowsky law of hardening
Figure 7. Stress-strain relation comparison of different hardening laws
As discussed in the Section 2, It is asked to analyze the Height evolution (mm) of the upper surface along the flange at a given radius R = 75 mm and the load vs. punch displacement (mm). Load was extracted from the upper surface of the plate while punch displacement was measured at the center point. The comparison of VOCE saturation law with Krupkowsky gives the following results:
11
2012-02-06
Figure 8. Load (kN) vs. puncher displacement (mm) comparison of different hardening laws
Figure 9. Height evolution (mm) comparison of different hardening laws
According to the Fig. 8, at the final timestep, Krupkowsky hardening law shows higher load than Voce. Concerning the height evolution, Voce law with = 100 (which is a free variable) gives biggest height change.
12
2012-02-06
4.2
Gravity effect
The study of the preferable direction of motion to the outcome is carried out by comparing 3 cases 1) Puncher moving in the direction of gravity 2) Puncher moving opposite to the direction of gravity 3) No gravity.
Figure 10. Height evolution (mm) comparison of 3 gravity cases
From the graph above it is possible to see that simulation with the puncher moving against the gravity (upwards) begins from an infinitesimally higher position of the point at R=75mm because the plate is lifted. However, when the direction of gravity was reversed or no gravity case, the weight of the material pushes the position downwards. This can also be seen in the load vs puncher displacement graph, where the point moves up and down when the puncher begins to push the material. This up and down motion at the position might be the reason to prefer motion of puncher against the gravity.
13
2012-02-06
Figure 11. Load (kN) vs. puncher displacement (mm) of 3 gravity cases
The figure also displays the no gravity of along the gravity direction of puncher motion to require larger force over a longer period of time with the difference of 10 kN at the end. Thus a direction of motion against the gravity is the preferred puncher motion.
5 Variation the Numerical Parameters

5.1 Time Integration Schemes
Transient algorithms could be classified into two distinct categories: implicit algorithms, in which a matrix system is solved, one or more times per step, to improve the solution; and explicit algorithms, in which the solution may be improved without storing a matrix, or solving a system of equations [4]. It is simplest to illustrate the procedure using a 1-DOF system (e.g. a forced, undamped spring-mass system) first. For this case the equation of motion is: (0.14)Suppose that we are able to get estimates for the acceleration u (t ) and u (t + t ) both at the start and end of a general time step t .It is possible to use a Taylor series expansion to obtain estimates of displacement and velocity at time (t + t ) t 2 u (t + t ) u (t ) + t u (t ) + (1 2 ) u (t ) + 2 u (t + t ) 2 u (t + t ) u (t ) + t (1 1 ) u (t ) + 1u (t + t ) (0.3) (0.4)
Here, 1 and 2 are two adjustable parameters that determine the nature of the time integration scheme. If we set 1 2 0 the acceleration is estimated based on its = =
14
2012-02-06
value at time t . This is known as an explicit integration scheme. Alternatively, if we put 1 2 1 the acceleration is estimated from its value at (t + t ) , this is known = = as implicit time integration [5]. 5.1.1 Implicit integration algorithm The implicit schemes consider inertial forces at every time and thus inertial terms appear in the equation of motion (0.5) F OOB = int ( x, x, t ) F ext ( x, x, t ) = M + F x 0 OOB where F is the out of balance force is equal to zero at any time. Eq. 0.6 has to be solved at any time, starting from a known (equilibrated) solution at x time tn try to determine a new configuration at time tn +1= tn + t . Express x , through finite difference formula and try to solve the equation of motion. Key idea is to use Taylors expansion of Eq. 0.6 Equation of motion to be solved at any time:
F OOB = (1 M )Mn +1 + M Mn + (1 F )[ F int ( xn +1 , xn +1 ) x x F ext ( xn +1 , xn +1 )] + F [ F int ( xn , xn ) F ext ( xn , xn )]
(Eq.0.0.6)
M and F are free parameters balancing sampling times around [tn , tn +1 ] for
averaging respectively inertia terms and forces. Eq. 0.0.7 can be solved thanks to Newton-Raphson method. In addition, relations between the displacements x , velocities v and accelerations a are [6]: x(tn +1 ) x(tn ) + [tn +1 tn ] v(tn ) + (tn +1 tn ) 2 {[0.5 ]a(tn ) + a(tn +1 )} = (Eq.0.0.7) v(tn +1 )= v(tn ) + [tn +1 tn ] {[1 ]a(tn ) + a(tn +1 )} Three implicit schemes were analyzed 1) Chung Hulbert (MDE_NDYN = 2) In case of Chung Hulbert, in Eq. 0.0.7 weight parameters are M 0 , F 0 . Integration parameters in Eq. 0.0.8 are = 0.25(1 F + F ) 2 and = 0.5(1 2 M + 2 F ) 2) Hilber-Hughes-Taylor (MDE_NDYN = 2, MDR_ALPM, 0) In case of HHT, in Eq. 0.0.7 M = 0 , F 0 Integration parameters in Eq. 0.0.8 are = = 0.25(1 + F ) 2 and 0.5(1 + 2 F ) 3) Newmark (MDE_NDYN = 2, MDR_ALPM, 0, MDR_ALPF, 0) Newmark can be recovered from Eq. 0.0.7 when M = 0 , F = 0 . Therefore integration parameters in Eq. 0.0.8 are = 0.25 and = 0.5
This involves integrating the equation of balance of internal forces Fnint , the forces of inertia Mn ( M the diagonal matrix is mass and is acceleration) and external x x ex t forces Fn :
5.1.2 Explicit Integration Scheme
15
2012-02-06
Mn + Fnint Fnex t = x 0
Three explicit schemes were analyzed 1. Centered difference (MDE_NDYN = 1)
(Eq.0.0.8)
Using the relationship between displacement x ,velocity v and acceleration a , the equilibrium Eq.0.0.9 becomes: ( F (t ) Fint (tn +1 )) a (tn +1 ) = ext n +1 (Eq.0.0.9) M Once acceleration is defined velocity and position can be updated. Then new strain & stress increments can be found and therefore new values of Fnint and Fnex t can be evaluated for the next timestep.
Figure 12. Load (kN) vs. puncher displacement (mm)
Not converging. 2. Chung Hulbert (MDE_NDYN = 3) Is the special case of Newmark. The relationship between displacement x , velocity v and acceleration a are: x(tn +1 ) = x(tn ) + (tn +1 tn )v(tn ) + (tn +1 tn ) 2 {(0.5 )a(tn ) + a(tn + 1)} (Eq.0.0.10) v(tn +1 ) = v(tn ) + (tn +1 tn )(1 )a (tn ) + a (tn +1 ) This scheme is conditionally stable (the time step size is limited) [6]
Not converging. 3. Tchamwa (MDE_NDYN = 6) The relationship between displacement x , velocity v and acceleration a are: x(tn +1 ) = x(tn ) + (tn +1 tn )v(tn ) + (tn +1 tn ) 2 a(tn ) (Eq.0.0.11) v(tn +1 ) = v(tn ) + (tn +1 tn )a (tn )
16
2012-02-06
Not converging. 5.1.3 Quasi-Static Scheme (MDE_NDYN = 0)
In case of the baseline setup for simplicity, a quasi-static integrational scheme was used. A quasi-static scheme neglects the presence of an inertial force and thus the work done by an inertial force by considering a statically equilibrium system at every time step. Thus it results in the following equilibrium equation: F int = F ext or Wint = Wext Equation to solve at any time:
F OOB = F int ( x, x, t ) F ext ( x, x, t ) = 0
(0.12)
(0.0.13)
Starting from a given equilibrium configuration at t0 where all parameters are known, try to find a new equilibrium configuration (with defined tolerance) at time t1= t0 + t in order to find new parameters set ( x1 , 1 , q1... ).
Figure 15. Height evolution (mm) comparison of different integration schemes
17
2012-02-06
Figure 16. Load (kN) vs. puncher displacement (mm) of different integration schemes
The schemes with generalized point method or conservative method of implicit integration, shows a fluctuating value of load whose average seem to match the trend of quasi static.
The Chung Hulbert implicit scheme could be seen to be a smoother alternative of the quasi static or Newmark schemes.
Implicit algorithms generally have the advantage with respect to numerical stability. Explicit algorithms, on the other hand, generally require that small time steps be taken to insure numerical stability. The computational cost per step is generally much less for explicit algorithms than for implicit algorithms due to the avoidance of equation solving. It is by now concluded that neither approach is optimal for all cases [5].
18
2012-02-06
5.2
Temporal and Spatial Discretization
5.2.1 Timesteps Increasing the timesteps affects the total computation time considerably and thus a trade off must be met between the accuracy and computational time.
Figure 17. Height evolution (mm) comparison of different timestep values
No major change in the trend of height evolution could be spotted with the change in number of time steps. However the larger the number of steps the slower it takes ot converge.
Figure 18. Timestep comparison
19
2012-02-06
Figure 19. Load (kN) vs. puncher displacement (mm) of different timestep values
5.2.2 Mesh The plate was divided in three subdomains which were discretized with control of the divisions using n parameter. Model was meshed four times for comparison as represented on the Fig.20.
a) b) c) d) Figure 20. Meshed models
Number Real n1 n2 n3 n4 of CPU elements Time a) Very Coarse b) Coarse c) Medium d) Fine (baseline) 30 20 10 2 30 20 10 3 35 50 20 3 41 50 31 3 163 244 436 492
Number Number of mech. of steps Iterations 785 735 457 459
64.407 260 76.297 240 65.468 155 53.172 159
Table 4. Mesh comparison
20
2012-02-06
For detailed mesh analysis number of steps, number of mech. iterations and real CPU time were compared. Data was taken from the Metafor Command line. Results were written in the Tab.4 and represented graphically on the Fig.21.
Figure 21. Mesh comparison
It is possible to conclude that the more mesh is refined the less numbers of steps and mech. Iterations are used. Regarding real CPU time, fine mesh shows lower results than coarse, as expected. Finally, Height evolution versus time Fig.22 and Load versus Puncher displacement Fig.23 were compared for each mesh. Puncher displacement was measured at the centre point of the tool when load of the puncher was extracted from the upper surface of the plate.
Figure 22. Height evolution (mm)
The graph above shows clear trend and convergence of the results to the Fine mesh. If the mesh is very coarse it might show completely wrong results.
21
2012-02-06
With the mesh refinement force of the puncher applied on the upper surface tends from higher values to approximately 2 kN (at last timestep). Moreover, coarse mesh shows shaky results at final timesteps of the simulation. 5.3 Contact Interactions
Three surface-surface contact pairs as punchblank, dieblank and blank holderblank were created. For this analysis three friction laws were used: 1. Coulomb friction law 2. Sticking Contact 3. Frictionless Contact 5.3.1 Coulomb Friction Law Coulomb law was chosen for the baseline. This law is assumed to be dry friction which resists relative lateral motion of two solid surfaces in contact. And it is characterized by friction coefficient a dimensionless scalar value which describes the ratio of the force of friction between two bodies tT and the force pressing them together t N : Average value of the friction coefficient without lubricant (static and dynamic) was taken from [1]. (COEF_FROT_STA = 0.1459, COEF_FROT_DYN = 0.1459)
22
2012-02-06
5.3.2 Sticking Contact When Coulomb criterion f is negative f = tT A t N < 0 . - friction coefficient A - adherence
(Eq.0.0.14)
For sticking contact (elastic domain), both penalty coefficients and depth of the contact are defined. Normal Penalty Coefficient, C N =30e6 (was taken from the baseline) Tangential Penalty Coefficient, C T =300 (was taken from the baseline) Influence of penalty coefficients was analysed later. 5.3.3 Frictionless Contact Simulation with the frictionless (or sliding) contact between the plate and die, holder and puncher was performed. Coulomb criterion f is zero (Eq.0.0.15) f = tT A t N = 0 For frictionless contact tangential penalty coefficient is not defined. Normal Penalty Coefficient, C N =30e6 (was taken from the baseline) Results were compared using two graphs: Height evolution Fig.24 and Load vs. puncher displacement Fig.25
23
2012-02-06
From the graphs above it is seen that Coulomb and Sticky Contact laws show quite similar results with the small difference. According to Fig.24, Frictionless model gives larger height difference along with lower puncher force Fig.25 in comparison with other laws. 5.4 Influence of the Penalty Coefficients
5.4.1 Normal Penalty Coefficient Normal Penalty Coefficients (C N ) represents stiffness of the contact which is a measure of the resistance offered by an elastic body to deformation in the normal to the contact plane. Force normal to the contact is equal to gap normal gap of penetration multiplied by penalty coefficient: (Eq.0.0.16) tN = C N g N Analysis was performed for three values of C N between the test plate and puncher, die and holder. Other parameters remain unchanged. 1. 2. 3. 4. CN CN CN CN = 1e6 = 15e6 = 30e6 (baseline) = 50e6
Table 5. Normal penalty coefficient variation
It was found out that further increment of the C N leads to an error in Metafor because excessive stiffness locks the puncher. Dependency of Height Evolution of the upper surface of the plate (point 24) and Time is presented on the Fig. 24.
24
2012-02-06
Regarding height evolution, normal penalty coefficient has direct influence on the results. Deeper penetration inside the die contour Fig.27 gives simulations with lower values of the normal penalty coefficients
Figure 27. Depth of the contact.
25
2012-02-06
Value of the total force on the plate shows tendency to increase with increment of the value of normal penalty coefficient. 5.4.2 Tangential Penalty Coefficient Tangential Penalty Coefficients (C T ) represents stiffness of the contact which is a measure of the resistance offered by an elastic body to deformation in the tangential direction. Force tangential to the contact is equal to gap tangential gap of penetration multiplied by penalty coefficient: (Eq.0.0.17) tT = CT gT Analysis was performed for three values of C T between the test plate and puncher, die and holder. While other parameters remain unchanged.
1. C T = 1 2. C T = (baseline) 3. C T = 600 4. C T = 900
300
Table 6. Tangential penalty coefficient variation
26
2012-02-06
Influence of the tangential penalty coefficient shows same tendency as for normal penalty, though with more linear convergence.
27
2012-02-06
5.4.3 Depth of the Contact Detection Depth of the contact was analyzed for the point on the lower surface of the plate (pointset 24). The Depth is the distance from the surface which defines the area where contact is detected. Values were changed from minimum 0.0002 to maximum. Further decrease or increase of the value gives error in Metafor. PROF_CONT [mm] 1. 0.0002 2. 0.001 3. 0.007 (baseline) 4. 0.01 5. 0.015 6. 0.04
Table 7. Depth of the contact [mm]
Value of depth of the contact detection was changed only for the die since point at R=75mm from the axis is moving along the die throughout the whole simulation.
Even though values were changed six times it does not affect neither load value nor height evolution.
28
2012-02-06
5.5
Influence of Plastic Incompressibility
The standard integration method uses integration of deviatoric stress, signifying change in shape, and hydrostatic stress, signifying change in volume, at each Gauss points [3]. Since it does not take plastic incompressibility as one of the constraints, the other option of under selective integration can be used to prevent the phenomenon of locking where the element becomes too stiff.
As shown in Fig.33, when compared to the methods of under integration where the height of point R=75 mm decreases by nearly 0.002 mm, the decrease with the standard formulation method is half of it at 0.001 mm. The reason could be incompressibility occurring at certain elements.
29
2012-02-06
The difference in the load required for the required puncher displacement is lower in case of under integrated formulation throughout the process of deep drawing when compared to the standard formulation technique. The general trend of under integrated formulation load being less than the standard formulation, the energy dissipated could be interpreted to be higher in the case of the later.
30
2012-02-06
6 Summary and Conclusions

Influence of various mechanical and physical parameters was investigated in the deep drawing simulation using Metafor. Comparison was performed mainly using two functions: height evolution of the down surface of the plate at radius 75 mm from the centre and load of the puncher versus displacement. Firstly a baseline setup was created with the setup described above, and the parameters were individually keeping others fixed. The following conclusions were drawn based on the analysis
The conclusions are as follows:
1) When Voce hardening law was analysed, it was found that value of Ksi (free variable) increases the value of puncher displacement which depends upon the strain in the material reaches the asymptotic value. When Voce is compared to Krupkowsky, the last one shows higher load than Voce. Concerning the height evolution, Voce law with = 100 gives biggest height change.
2) The influence on gravity was found to be minimal, with a minute difference in initial few time steps in the position of the point 75 mm from the centre.
3) Comparisons of quasi static, implicit and explicit schemes were attempted. Chung Hulbert implicit scheme was found to give a slight difference in results; however, other implicit schemes gave negligible difference. Explicit schemes could not be completed as a optimum combination of convergence and timesteps could not be reached due to time constraint.
4) No major change in the trend of height evolution could be spotted with the change in number of time steps. However the larger the number of steps the slower it takes to converge.
5) 4 steps of mesh refinement was compared and the results were similar in case of the medium and fine mesh showing mesh convergence in these 2 cases.
31
2012-02-06
Since not a significant difference in the computational time could be observed, a fine mesh is recommended for this case.
6) A comparison between setup with 2 friction laws and one frictionless setup were analysed. According to the graphs, frictionless contact shows different result as compared to the cases with friction.
7) Variation of normal penalty coefficient showed that value of the total force on the plate exhibits tendency to increase with increment of the value of normal penalty coefficient. Variation of tangential penalty coefficient Influence of the tangential penalty coefficient shows same tendency as for normal penalty, though with more linear convergence.
8) Under integration was tried in comparison with the standard formulation and it was found that the general trend of under integrated formulation load being less than the standard formulation, the energy dissipated could be interpreted to be higher in the case of the later.
It is seen that variation of different process parameters changes shape and properties of the plate and therefore affects the quality of the product. Obtained results may provide some guidelines for the real deep drawing process and tool selection in order to avoid failure.
32
2012-02-06
7
[1] [2] [3] [4]
References
Appendix Material and Friction data, 2002, Jeju Island, Korea Benchmark test A, 2002, Jeju Island, Korea Large Deformation of Solids, 2011, Prof. J.-P. Ponthot, Liege IMPLICIT-EXPLICIT FINITE ELEMENTS IN NONLINEAR TRANSIENT ANALYSIS, 1978, University of California, Thomas J.R. HUGHES
[5]
EN222:
Mechanics
of
Solids
Division
of
Engineering
Brown
University,
http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/En222/Notes/FEMdynamic/FEMDynamic.htm [6] [7] METAFOR on-line help, LTAS-MNL, http://metafor.ltas.ulg.ac.be/dokuwiki/ Influences of material parameters on deep drawing of thin-walled hemispheric surface part, 2008, En-zhi, Northwestern Polytechnical University, China

Deep Drawing of A Cylindrical Cup

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Deep Drawing of A Cylindrical Cup

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

MECA 0464 Large deformation

PROJECT WORK REPORT

Submission date: 2012-02-06

Author name Dutta Soumya Bondarenko Sergey

Email soumya@kth.se sergeyb@kth.se