Journal of Materials Processing Technology 121 (2002) 308312

An improved equivalent drawbead model and its application

Li Shuhui*, Lin Zhongqin, Xu Weili, Bao Youxia
School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
Received 25 May 2001

Abstract
In this work, an improved equivalent drawbead model is presented to replace the actual drawbead shape. Three-dimensional finite
element analysis of the deep drawing process was performed to determine the optimum distribution of drawbead restraining force for the
stamping of the joint panel of a gate pillar. The optimum design of the drawbead geometry was executed by means of nonlinear constraint
optimization in conjunction with the improved equivalent drawbead model. The drawbead geometry parameters obtained from the
optimization design were validated by the achievement of defect-free production panels. The simulation results correspond well with those
observed in actual practice, which demonstrates that the restraining force can be reflected effectively by the improved equivalent drawbead
model. # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Drawbead model; Finite element analysis; Defect-free production part

many investigations have been carried out by means of

experimental research, theoretical analysis and finite eleWith the rapid development of finite element theory and
ment simulation. Nowadays, there are two different fashions
computer technology, three-dimensional finite element anain the simulation of the drawbead. One way is to model the
lysis of the stamping process has come into use in many large
exact geometry of the drawbead. The blank will be subject to
bending and friction restraining force when it slides through
automobile plants in Japan, Europe and America [13]. The
finite element method has become the main means of analysis
the bead. This involves a relatively fine meshing of the blank
at the early design stage with a workload and lead-time
near to the bead with potentially high cost in computer time.
adapted to the design cycle. However, most of the applications
The second way is to set-up an equivalent drawbead model,
of finite element analysis focus only on the simulation of the
in which the actual drawbead is replaced by its projection
forming process for given boundary conditions, and not on the
onto the binder surface, i.e. a flat surface that has the same
design of the boundary conditions to form a defect-free
width as the actual drawbead, a regular mesh being conproduction part. Here the forming process of the joint panel
structed for the flat surface. The restraining force produced
by the actual drawbead is assigned to the nodes in the regular
of a gate pillar is simulated to illustrate process design by
means of the finite element method. An improved equivalent
mesh of the equivalent drawbead following the virtual work
drawbead model is adopted for the finite element analysis and
principle. The sheet metal passing through the equivalent
the optimization design of the drawbead structure.
drawbead model is then subjected to the same restraining
force as that produced by the actual drawbead. The use of an
equivalent drawbead model avoids the need for using an
2. Improved equivalent drawbead model
extremely fine mesh for the sheet metal and, in consequence,
a huge saving of computation time can be achieved.
The drawbead is a key factor influencing the forming
In 1978, Weidemann [4] proposed an equivalent drawquality during the deep drawing process. In recent years,
bead model as follows:
(
"
!
!
#)
2mP 4mj 2ss
emj
1
1
1
1
1
2mj
mj
e p
DBRF tw

e
t
4Rg 12 t 4Rg 12 t 4Rb 12 t
4Rg 12 t 4Rg 12 t
4Rg 12 t
3
1. Introduction

Corresponding author.

where t is the blank thickness, w the length of the bead, m the

friction coefficient, ss the yield stress, j the bending angle

0924-0136/02/$ see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 4 - 0 1 3 6 ( 0 1 ) 0 1 1 1 3 - X

L. Shuhui et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 121 (2002) 308312

of the blank, Rg the shoulder radius of the groove, Rb the

bead radius, and P the equivalent binder holding force per
unit length (the binder holding force is applied to the flat
surface of the blank).
The Weidemann model is simple in form and easy to use.
However, there are some disadvantages. The first is the
ignoring of the characteristics of material hardening and
anisotropy, and also elastic deformation and thickness
change. The second is that the bending angle j is undetermined. The third is the over-valuation of the bending strain
due to the assumption that the effective bending radius is
equal to that of the bead or the groove in the case of shallow
pressing depth. In view of the disadvantages mentioned
above, the equivalent drawbead model will be improved
on the basis of the assumptions as below.
The blank is in the plane-strain state, i.e. ey 0, when
sliding through the drawbead. The influence of the strain rate
and the Bausinger effect on the deformation process is
neglected. The stress in the thickness direction, which is
much lower than the bending stress, can be ignored. The
material is assumed to be rigidplastic. The thinning effect
of the blank and the shear stress are both ignored.
The restraining force of the drawbead is divided into two
portions, the friction force for the blank to be overcome and
the resistance force produced by the bending and reverse
bending deformation when it slides through the bead.
It can be found from the Energy Conserved Law that the
stress increment produced by the plastic deformation due to
the bending and reverse bending process is as below:
Dsx1 12 sx ex
Considering plane anisotropy, the ratio of the yield stress
between the plane-strain and the unitension state is given by
the plane anisotropic yield criterion proposed by Hill in 1948:
1r
F p
1 2r
where r is the anisotropy parameter.
Based on the assumption of a rigidplastic material, i.e.
the effective stress is the same as the flow stress, so that
1r
sx  p s
1 2r
Considering the hardening effect, the flow stress can be
expressed as follows: s Ken , where K is the strength
factor, n the hardening exponent, and e the effective strain.
From ignoring of ey, ez and sz and all of the shear stresses,
just assuming that e ex , the following relation is obtained:
1r
Dsx1 p Ken1
2 1 2r x
For the pure bending process, the engineering shear strain
varies linearly in the thickness direction. The strain at the
outer surface is as below:
2t Reff
ex ln
2Reff t

309

Fig. 1. The schedule for a semicircular drawbead geometry.

where Reff is the effective bending radius, and t the blank

thickness.
It can be concluded that the resistance force produced by
the bending and reverse bending deformation is as below:


1r
2t Reff n1
Dsx1 p K ln
2Reff t
2 1 2r
The stress increment overcoming the friction at the site of
the drawbead fillet and the groove shoulder fillet is
Dsx2 sx1 emj  1
where m is the friction coefficient, j the bending angle, and sx1
the stress at the beginning of the bending angle. The equation
of the bending angle is derived as follows (refer to Fig. 1).
If d  Rb t Rg , then
Rb t  d Rg
;
S
Rb t Rg
y2 cos1 q ;
S2 Rb t  d Rg
2

y1 tg1

j 90  y1  y2 90  tg1

Rb t  d Rg
S

Rb t Rg
 cos1 q ;
2
S Rb t  d Rg
2

S Rg Rb g

where d is the pressing depth, Rg the groove shoulder radius,

Rb the bead radius, t the blank thickness, and g the gap
between the bead and the groove.
If d > Rb t Rg , then
d  Rb t Rg
;
S
Rb t Rg
y2 cos1 q ;
S2 d  Rb t Rg
2

y1 tg1

j 90 y1  y2 90 tg1

d  Rb t Rg
S

Rb t Rg
 cos1 q
S2 d  Rb t Rg
2

310

L. Shuhui et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 121 (2002) 308312

tensile test was used in the finite element simulation. The

For a semicircular drawbead, the number of bending and
influence of the drawbead is ignored during the binder wrap
reverse bending deformations is 6. As a result, the semiprocess. The material model is set to three-parameter BARcircular drawbead restraining force per unit length is given
LAT-LIAN.
below:
(
"




#
2Rg eff t n1 4mj
2Rg eff t n1
1r
2Rb eff t n1 3mj
DRBDF p Kt
e
ln
ln
ln
e
2Rb eff t
2Rg eff t
2Rg eff t
2 1 2r
"


#

)
2Rg eff t n1
2Rg eff t n1
2Rb eff t n1 mj
e ln

ln
ln
2Rb eff t
2Rg eff t
2Rg eff t
3. Finite element model

4. Results and discussion

The objective part shape is shown in Fig. 2. For the

purpose of eliminating material accumulation, the addendum surface is constructed. The meshes of the stamping die
are shown in Fig. 3. The number of the die elements with the
use of four-node and triangular shell elements is 5228, and
the number of the nodes is 4450. The stamping process is
divided into two phases, binder wrap and deep drawing. To
facilitate the simulation, the punch speed was set to 1 and
10 m/s, respectively, for the stage of binder wrap and deep
drawing. A coefficient of Coulomb friction of 0.11 was
assumed. The stressstrain relation of st14 obtained from the

Firstly, the equivalent drawbead restraining force is determined by the finite element method. Secondly, the geometrical parameters of the actual drawbead are designed by
means of the nonlinear constraint optimization method. The
experiments are performed on the condition of the simulations and the results of both cases are compared.
For the case of consistent drawbead restraining force with
a value of 36 N/mm at different sites, the results of the
experiment and the simulation correspond well with each
other, and fracture occurs at the same place, as shown in
Fig. 4. The drawbead restraining force distribution is then

Fig. 3. The finite element model and its set-up.

Fig. 2. The objective part shape after trimming.

Fig. 4. Formability under consistent drawbead force conditions: (a) forming limit diagram; (b) experiment result.

L. Shuhui et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 121 (2002) 308312

311

Fig. 7. A photograph of the stamped part.

5. Optimization for the actual drawbead geometry

Fig. 5. Drawbead restraining force distribution.

Fig. 6. Formability for variable drawbead restraining force conditions.

changed to five different values on the basis of the simulation

result, as shown in Fig. 5. The simulation result of the
forming limit diagram, as shown in Fig. 6, illustrates a great
improvement of the part formability.

The finite element simulation of the deep drawing process

concerns only the equivalent drawbead restraining force, and
not the geometry parameters of the drawbead. In this study,
the restraining forces were used in the finite element analysis
for the drawbead design without considering the actual
drawbead shapes. The actual drawbead can be derived
reversibly from the restraining force by the optimization
design. After the determination of the reasonable restraining
force, the design of the drawbead geometry can be critical to
the die design.
It can be seen from the improved equivalent drawbead
model that the restraining force is related to the blank
material and the bead geometry parameters. For a certain
blank, the bead radius (Rb), the groove shoulder radius (Rg)
and the pressing depth (d) are the key factors influencing
the restraining force. In this paper, the nonlinear constraint
optimization method is adopted to design the bead geometry with the equivalent drawbead restraining force as
the objective function. The optimization results of the
drawbead geometry parameters at various positions are
shown in Table 1. The actual drawbead finishing is done
with the guide of the optimization design. The experiment
results indicate that the part produced according to the
finite element analysis and the optimization design is

Fig. 8. Thickness distribution at typical sections.

312

L. Shuhui et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 121 (2002) 308312

Table 1
Optimization results of the drawbead geometry

6. Conclusions

DRBDF (N/mm)

Rb (mm)

Rg (mm)

d (mm)

118
65
40
25
6

5.71
6.06
6.51
7.28
10.00

3.99
4.05
4.86
5.11
5.00

7.34
6.13
4.45
3.64
2.00

defect-free, as shown in Fig. 7. The thickness distribution

at the typical sections shown in Fig. 7 given by an ultrasonic thickness detector corresponds well with the
simulation results except that the experiment result is a
little lower than the simulation result, as shown in Fig. 8.
The main reason is that the exact thickness of the blank is
0.97 mm while that in the simulation is defined to be
1.0 mm, which is the same as the standard. Thus, it can
be said that the finite element analysis is effective for
the stamping die design and the process plan, and the improved equivalent drawbead model can reflect the restraining
force exactly.

1. The improved equivalent drawbead model can reflect

the friction and bending/reverse bending restraining
force exactly. It is a useful complement to the finite
element analysis software.
2. Finite element simulation of the stamping process can
substitute for the trial and error method to some extent
during the stamping die design process. Finite element
analysis and the optimization method can be effective
analysis tools in stamping die design and process planning.
References
[1] E. Spisak, F. Stachowicz, Deformation analysis of large-sized
autobody panels, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 53 (1995) 817826.
[2] F. El-Khaldi, S. Aita, L. Penazzi, T. Tamada, T. Ogawa, S. Tasaka, O.
Horie, Industrial validation of CAE finite element simulation of a
stretch-drawn autobody art (Front Fender Case), in: The Proceedings
of the IDDRG Conference, Shenyang, China, 1992.
[3] M. Karima, Practical application of process simulation in stamping, J.
Mater. Process. Technol. 46 (1994) 309320.
[4] C. Weidemann, The blank holder action of drawbeads, in: Proceedings
of the 10th Biennial IDDRG Congress, 1978, pp. 7985.