benchmark proceedings

254
NUMISHEET 2011 The NUMISHEET 2011 Benchmark Study of the 8th International Conference and Workshop on Numerical Simulation of 3D Sheet Metal Forming Processes Seoul, Korea 2126 August 2011 PART C BENCHMARK PROBLEMS AND RESULTS Editors Hoon Huh KAIST Kwansoo Chung Seoul National University Soo Sik Han Kumoh National Institute of Technology Whan Jin Chung Seoul National University of Science and Technology Benchmark Organizers Alcoa Kangwon National University POSCO KAIST Daegu University Seoul National University Organization KAIST SNU Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology Seoul National University The Korean Society for Technology of Plasticity

Upload: joao-santos

Post on 08-Nov-2014

158 views

Category:

Documents


6 download

TRANSCRIPT

NUMISHEET 2011The NUMISHEET 2011 Benchmark Study of the 8th International Conference and Workshop on Numerical Simulation of 3D Sheet Metal Forming Processes Seoul, Korea 2126 August 2011 PART C BENCHMARK PROBLEMS AND RESULTS Editors Hoon Huh KAIST Kwansoo Chung Seoul National University Soo Sik Han Kumoh National Institute of Technology Whan Jin Chung Seoul National University of Science and TechnologyBenchmark Organizers Alcoa Kangwon National University POSCO KAIST Daegu University Seoul National University OrganizationKAIST SNUKorea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology Seoul National University The Korean Society for Technology of Plasticity NUMISHEET 2011 The NUMISHEET 2011 Benchmark Study of the 8th International Conference and Workshop on Numerical Simulation of 3D Sheet Metal Forming Processes August 2126, 2011, Seoul, Korea PART C BENCHMARK PROBLEMS AND RESULTS Editors Hoon Huh KAIST Kwansoo Chung Seoul National University Soo Sik Han Kumoh National Institute of Technology Wan Jin Chung Seoul National University of Science and Technology Benchmark Organizers Alcoa Kangwon National University POSCO KAIST Daegu University Seoul National University Organization KAIST SNU Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology Seoul National University The Korean Society for Technology of Plasticity EDITORS Hoon Huh Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-701 Korea [email protected] Kwansoo Chung Seoul National University Daehak-dong, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 151-744 Korea [email protected] Soo Sik Han Kumoh National Institute of Technology Sanho-ro 77, Gumi, Gyeongbuk 730-701 Korea [email protected] Wan Jin Chung Seoul National University of Science and Technology 172 Gongreung 2-dong, Nowon-gu, Seoul 139-743 Korea [email protected] KAIST PRESS Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-701 Korea www.kaistpress.com Printed in Korea ISBN 9788989453482 - III TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE V ACKNOWLEDGEMENT VI ORGANIZATION OF NUMISHEET 2011 VII BENCHMARKS GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS 3 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 4 BM1 Earing Evolution during Drawing and Ironing Processes Benchmark Description 11 General Information of Participants and Solution Methods 14 Summary of Simulation Conditions and Methods 36 List of figures 38 Results of AA5052 39 Results of AKDQ 44 BM2 Simulation of the Cross-shaped Cup Deep-drawing Process Benchmark Description 51 General Information of Participants and Solution Methods 56 Summary of Simulation Conditions and Methods 72 List of Figures 73 List of Tables 79 Results of AZ31B ( = 0.05) 80 Results of AZ31B ( = 0.10) 104 - IV BM3 CAE-based Optimization of Stamping Processes for a Front Side Member Benchmark Description 131 General Information of Participants and Solution Methods 139 Summary of Simulation Conditions and Methods 158 List of Figures 159 Results of DP590 160 BM4 Pre-strain Effect on Spring-back of 2-D Draw Bending Benchmark Description 173 General Information of Participants and Solution Methods 178 Summary of Simulation Conditions and Methods 207 List of Figures 209 Results of DP780 211 APPENDIX A BM1 (AA5042, AKDQ Steel) 229 APPENDIX B BM2 (AZ31B) 235 APPENDIX C BM3 (DP590) 237 APPENDIX D BM4 (DP780) 239 PARTICIPANTS FOR BENCHMARK 243 - V - PREFACE In the era of ever more rapid development of science and technology, the numerical technology might be one of the most significant advancement, contributing in all engineering areas. Especially, in the field of sheet metal forming, the progress of numerical methods during the last half a century was so immense, changing all academic and industrial practices in this field. Amid such numerical technology advancement, the NUMISHEET conference has been established as a triennial world-class forum ever since 1989, making major contribution in the field of the numerical modeling of sheet metal forming processes: Colorado (USA, 1989), Zurich (Switzerland, 1991), Isehara (Japan, 1993), Dearborn (USA, 1996), Besancon (France, 1999), Jeju Island (Korea, 2002), Detroit (USA, 2005), Interlaken (Switzerland, 2008). Now, its 8th conference (counted from the conference in Zurich1), NUMISHEET 2011, is held in Seoul, Korea. It is our great pleasure to invite you all, scientists and engineers including software developers and industrial users as well as students, to participate in the event to promote exchanges of valuable experiences and new ideas on numerical methods, material modeling as well as forming technologies. Following the conference tradition, the conference features technical sessions along with keynote lectures, benchmark sessions to compare numerical predictions with experiments and also technical tours. In the early stage of the advancement of numerical methods, major technical topics were focused on numerical technologies including various algorithms associated with integration schemes, element types and contact problems. However, as these issues settled, new topics emerged in the area of material modeling including new characterization methods and constitutive modeling as well as new forming technologies to meet challenges associated with newly emerging light or high strength sheets, which are demanded as an element of the green technology. To address such new technical demand, technical sessions consist of Constitutive modeling, Materials testing, Crashworthiness, Crystal plasticity/multi-scaling, Finite element techniques, Fracture/damage, High temperature forming, Hydroforming, Process modeling/optimization, Process design/rigid packaging and Spring-back. The benchmark topics cover forming of aluminum and magnesium alloys as well as advanced high strength steels: Earing evolution during drawing and ironing processes (AA 5042 aluminum/AKDQ steel), Simulation of the cross-shaped cup deep-drawing process (AZ31B magnesium), CAE-based optimization of stamping processes for a front side member (DP590 steel), Pre-strained effect on spring-back of 2-D draw bending (DP780 steel). Also, note that a new session is set aside for the first time solely for young (graduate school) researchers to promote their own interactions without involvement of their seniors. As for the technical tours, visiting Hyundai Steel (Dang-Jin) Plant and GM Korea (Bu-Pyung) Plant is arranged. We deeply appreciate your participation in the NUMISHEET 2011 conference, which is most important for the success of the conference. Seoul, June 23, 2011 NUMISHEET2011 Organizing Committee Kwansoo Chung, Hoon Huh, Frederic Barlat, Young Hoon Moon, Heung Nam Han 1The first one in Colorado was a meeting. Details are referred to the article The early history of the NUMISHEET benchmarks and international conferences written by Wagoner and Hora in the current conference proceedings. - VI - ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The utmost appreciation for the success of the NUMISHEET2011 conference goes to all scientists and engineers from academia and industry, who participated in The NUMISHEET conference sharing their valuable experiences and ideas with/without their technical presentations and benchmark solutions. We also greatly appreciate the devoted services of all committee members, plenary lecturers and session organizers/chairpersons, who are listed in the program booklet and proceedings. The success of the conference was also immensely indebted to following contributors, who supported the conference through generous finances and devoted services, but not explicitly recognized in any printed form elsewhere. First, we would like to gratefully appreciate the financial support of our sponsors: POSCO and Hyundai Steel as Gold Sponsors, TATA Steel, AutoForm Engineering GmbH, Quantech ATZ and JSOL Corporation as Silver Sponsors, BK21-Materials Education and Research Division, KIMS, KITECH, DMI and Sungwoo Hi-Tech as Bronze Sponsors. Financial supports from RIAM (Research Institute of Advanced Materials at Seoul National University), Seoul Tourism Organization, KOFST (the Korean Federation of Science and Technology Societies Grant), MKE (the Ministry of Knowledge Economy Grant, B551179-11-02-00) and NRF (the National Research Foundation of Korea Grants funded by the Korean Government, 2010-220-D00037 and 2011-0020493) are also deeply appreciated. We also would like to thank Hyundai Steel and GM Korea for providing technical tours. As for the NUMISHEET 2011 Benchmark session, its success owed a great deal to contributors who devoted their services in various ways behind the scenes, which are also gratefully appreciated. For BM1, Dr. Keun-Hwan Kim and Mr. Jae Heon Park (POSCO) supplied steel samples, while Mr. John Brem (who retired now) and Mr. Edward Llewellyn at Alcoa Technical Center conducted intensive materials characterization. Mr. Robert E. Dick at Alcoa Technical Center also performed the standard experiment. For BM2, Dr. Seok Moo Hong (Samsung Electronics) supported developing the cross-shaped cup deep-drawing die and Mr. Hong-Jeon Baek (AUSTEM) supplied the AZ31 samples, while Mr. Myung Geun Lee (Kangwon National University) performed the experimental work and Mr. Taejoon Park (Seoul National University) performed the numerical calibration work. For BM3, Dr. Kanghwan Ahn (POSCO) supplied the DP590 samples, while Prof. F. Barlat, Prof. Myoung-Gyu Lee (POSTECH) and Dr. Gihyun Bae (KAIST) performed the material characterization and Mr. Hyunjun Choi (Daegu University) performed the experimental work. As for BM4, Mr. Gi-Dong Lee (Hwashin) supplied DP780 samples, while Dr. Kanghwan Ahn (POSCO), Mr. Yuki Ogihara (TUAT) and Dr. Xu Le (POSTECH) performed the experimental work. A draft of benchmark results was prepared by Dr. Gihyun Bae (KAIST) whose effort and devotion has made the NUMISHEET 2011 Benchmark volume well arranged. We are also so grateful to Prof. Jeong-Whan Yoon (Swinburne University) and Prof. Jian Cao (Northwestern University) for timely advice and guidance. Also, the organization committee gratefully acknowledges the services provided by the members of the Materials Mechanics Laboratory (SNU), Computational Solid Mechanics and Design Laboratory (KAIST), Materials Mechanics Laboratory (GIFT), Advanced Materials Processing Technology Laboratory (Pusan University), Micro Mechanics and Material Processing Design Laboratory (SNU). Special thanks are due to Mr. Dong Yoon Seok (SNU), who took care of errands and chores as well as correspondence. NUMISHEET2011 Organizing Committee Kwansoo Chung, Hoon Huh, Heung Nam Han, Young Hoon Moon, Frederic Barlat - VII - ORGANIZATION OF NUMISHEET 2011 CHAIRMAN Chung, Kwansoo (Seoul National University, Korea) COCHAIRMAN Huh, Hoon (Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Korea) Barlat, Frdric (Pohang University of Science and Technology, Korea) Moon, Young Hoon (Pusan National University, Korea) Han, Heung Nam (Seoul National University, Korea) STEERING COMMITTEE Brunet, M. (France) Gelin, J. C. (France) Hora, P. (Switzerland) Lee, J. K. (USA) Nakamachi, E. (Japan) Oh, Soo Ik (Korea) Pourboghrat, F. (USA) Stoughton, T. B. (USA) Wagoner, R. H. (USA) Yang, Dong-Yol (Korea) INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Alexandrov, S. (Russia) Aretz, H. (Germany) Balan, T. (France) Banabic, D. (Romania) Batoz, J. L. (France) Bouvier, S. (France) Cao, J. (USA) Carsely, J. (USA) Cazacu, O. (USA) Chastel, Y. (France) Chen, J. (China) Chenot, J. L. (France) Choi, Tae Hoon (Korea) Dick, R. E. (USA) Ghosh, S. (USA) Gracio, J. J. (Portugal) Habraken, A. M. (Belgium) Halder, A. (India) Han, Chung-Souk (USA) Hartley, P. (UK) Huetink, J. (Netherlands) Iadicola, M. (USA) Im, Yong Bin (Korea) Kessler, L. (Germany) Keum, Young-Tak (Korea) Khan, A. S. (USA) Kim, Chongmin (Korea) Kim, Sung-Joon (Korea) Kim, Young-suk (Korea) Korhonen, A. S. (Finland) Kuroda, M. (Japan) Kuwabara, T. (Japan) Li, X. X. (China) Lim, Jong Dae (Korea) Martins, P. (Portugal) Massoni, E. (France) Mattiasson, K. (Sweden) Meinders, T. (Netherlands) Merklein, M. (Germany) Narasimhan, K. (India) Ofenheimer, A. (Austria) Park, Sung-Ho (Korea) Roll, K. (Germany) Rousselier, G. (France) Ruan, X. Y. (China) Smith, L. M. (USA) Takahashi, S. (Japan) Tekkaya, A. E. (Turkey) Tzou, G. Y. (Taiwan) Van Tyne, C. J. (USA) Vegter, H. (Netherlands) Worswick, M. (Canada) Wu, P. (Canada) Yoon, Jeong-Whan (Australia) Yoshida, F. (Japan) ADVISORY COMMITTEE Bhattacharjee, D. (India) Cho, Won-Suk (Korea) Ham, Youngki (Korea) Kwon, Oh Joon (Korea) Moon, Man-Been (Korea) Park, Jong Jin (Korea) Yoon, Jeong-Whan (Australia) - VIII - BENCHMARK COMMITTEE Huh, Hoon (Chairman, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Korea) Chung, Wan Jin (Co-Chairman, Seoul National University of Technology, Korea) Han, Soo Sik (Co-Chairman, Kumoh National Institute of Technology, Korea) Suh, Yeong Sung (Co-Chairman, Hannam University) BM1 Yoon, Jeong-Whan (Chairman, Swinburne University, Australia) Dick, Robert E. (Co-Chairman, ALCOA, USA) BM2 Kim, Heon Young (Chairman, Kangwon National University, Korea) Kim, Hyung Jong (Co-Chairman, Kangwon National University, Korea) BM3 Kim, Se-Ho (Chairman, Daegu University, Korea) Kang, Yeon Sik (Co-Chairman, POSCO, Korea) Kim, Dongjin (Co-Chairman, POSCO, Korea) BM4 Chung, Kwansoo (Chairman, Seoul National University, Korea) Kuwabara, Toshihiko (Co-Chairman, Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Japan) Ahn, Deok Chan (Korea) Bae, Gihyun (Korea) Choi, Tae Hoon (Korea) Hong, Seung Hyun (Korea) Kim, Daeyong (Korea) Kim, Heung Kyu (Korea) Kim, Jong Bong (Korea) Kim, Tae Joon (Korea) Lee, Hyoungjin (Korea) Lee, Moon Yong (Korea) Lee, Myoung-Gyu (Korea) Moon, Myungsoo (Korea) Park, Jae Heon (Korea) Park, Taejoon (Korea) Verma, Rahul K. (India) Yoo, Dong Jin (Korea) PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE Barlat, Frdric (Chairman, POSTECH, Korea) Han, Heung Nam (Korea) Choi, Shi-Hoon (Korea) Lee, Myoung-Gyu (Korea) Lee, Wonoh (Korea) Kim Ji Hoon (Korea) PROGRAM COMMITTEE Moon, Young Hoon (Chairman, Pusan National University, Korea) Han, Heung Nam (Co-Chairman, Seoul National University, Korea) Lee, Young Gook (Korea) Lee, Young Seon (Korea) Suh, Dong Woo (Korea) Yu, Woong-Ryeol (Korea) PART C BENCHMARK PROBLEMS AND RESULTS NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 3 - BENCHMARKS GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS Objectives Four benchmarks are proposed to the participants to NUMISHEET 2011, concerning the deep drawing of cylindrical cup, the cross-shaped cup deep-drawing, 2-D draw bending with and without pre-strain and the complete forming of a front fender. BM1 Earing Evolution during Drawing and Ironing Processes 1. To investigate the earing evolution during drawing and ironing processes for advanced material modeling 2. To predict the average cup heights and the required punch load after drawing and ironing processes BM2 Simulation of the Cross-shaped Cup Deep-drawing Process 1. To validate the capability of numerical simulation for a warm forming process 2. To investigate the warm forming process including the punch load, the thickness distribution, the temperature distribution and the failure location BM3 CAE-based Optimization of Stamping Processes for a Front Side Member 1. To investigate capability of utilizing CAE process for the tool design of an automotive member with high strength steels 2. To develop a CAE process to design the optimum process parameters by inspecting and removing problems, such as tearing, wrinkling, spring-back, and so on, during a press tooling design BM4 Pre-strain Effect on Spring-back of 2-D Draw Bending 1. To evaluate the spring-back behavior of advanced high strength steels in multi-step forming processes 2. To investigate the pre-strain effect on subsequent forming and spring-back in 2-D draw bending Units The standard units for NUMISHEET 2011 are mm for lengths, kN for forces. All strains to be reported correspond to logarithmic ones. Results report All benchmark results were reported in the Excel sheets specially designed by the benchmark committee. NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 4 - PARTICIPANTS FOR BM1 Number Name Affiliation CountryBM100 (Reference) Robert E. Dick1, Jeong-Whan Yoon2 1Alcoa Technical Center, 2Swinburne University of Technology 1USA, 2Australia BM101 Hans Mulder1 1TATA Steel Research, Development & Technology NetherlandsBM102 Jan Nov1, Martin Skrikerud1, Hans Mulder2, Henk Vegter2 1ESI Group, 2TATA Steel Czech Republic BM103 Jonghun Yoon1, Oana Cazacu1 1University of Florida USA BM104 Oscar Fruitos1, Alberto Frriz1, Eugenio Oate1 1CIMNE(International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering) Spain BM105 P. Eyckens1, J. Gawad1, Q. Xie1, A. Van Bael1, D. Roose1, G. Samaey1, P. Van Houtte1 1Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Belgium BM106 Siguang Xu1, Ching-Kou Hisung1, Thomas Stoughton1, Matt Oliver1 1General Motors, Gbobal Body Manufacturing Engineering USA BM107 Subir Roy1, Hariharasudhan Palaniswamy1 1Altair Engineering Inc USA BM108 Takahiko Hisamori1, Hidetaka Ito1, Nobuhiko Sugitomo1, Ninshu Ma1 1JSOL Corporation Japan BM109 Waluyo Adi Siswanto1, Agus Dwi Anggono1 1Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia Malaysia BM110 Seok Nyeon Kim1, Jin-Woo Lee1, Myoung-Gyu Lee1, Frdric Barlat1 1Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH) Korea NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 5 - PARTICIPANTS FOR BM2 Number Name Affiliation CountryBM200 (Reference) Heon Young Kim1, Hyung Jong Kim1 1Kangwon National University Korea BM201 Arthur Shapiro1, Xinhai Zhu1, David Lorenz2 1LSTC, 2Dynamore, GmbH USA BM202 Dirk Steglich1, Mintesnot Nebebe1 1Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht Centre for Materials and Coastal Research, Materials Mechanics Germany BM203 Siguang Xu1, Ching-Kou Hisung1, Thomas Stoughton1, Matt Oliver1 1General Motors, Gbobal Body Manufacturing Engineering USA BM204 Subir Roy1, Hariharasudhan Palaniswamy1 1Altair Engineering Inc USA BM205 Toshirou Amaishi1, Ito Hidetaka1, Ninshu Ma1 1JSOL Corporation Japan BM206 Zhigang Liu1, Patrice Lasne1, Elisabeth Massoni1 1CEMEF (center of material forming), Mines- Paristech. France BM207 Waluyo Adi Siswanto1, Agus Dwi Anggono1 1Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia Malaysia NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 6 - PARTICIPANTS FOR BM3 Number Name Affiliation CountryBM300 (Reference) Seho Kim1, Dongjin Kim2, Hoon Huh3, Gihyun Bae3 1Daegu University, 2POSCO research center, 3KAIST Korea BM301 Andrew Ruthven1 1TATA Steel, TATA Steel Automotive Engineering United Kingdom BM302 Bonyoung Ghoo1, Sunao Tokura1, Rongfeng Liu1 1JSOL Corporation Japan BM303 Chanho Lee1 1AutoForm Engineering Korea BM304 Hong-seok Choi1, Byung-min Kim1 1Pusan National University Korea BM305 Oscar Fruitos1, Alberto Forgas1, Alberto Frriz1, Eugenio Oate1 1CIMNE(International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering) Spain BM306 Jian Zhang1, Wei Yan1, Yue Li1 1FAW Tooling Die Manufacturing Company LTD. China BM307 Eisso Atzema1, Michael Abspoel1 1Tata Steel Research, Development & Technology NetherlandsBM308 Mohamed Saffieddine1, Erwan beauchesne1, Subir Roy1, Hariharasudhan Palaniswamy1 1Altair Engineering Inc USA NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 7 - PARTICIPANTS FOR BM4 Number Name Affiliation CountryBM400 (Reference) Kwansoo Chung1, Toshihiko Kuwabara2, Rahul K. Verma3, Taejoon Park1 1Seoul National University, 2Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, 3TATA Steel 1Korea, 2Japan, 3India BM401 Detlev Staud1, Bart Carleer1 1AutoForm Engineering GmbH Germany BM402 Eisso Atzema1, Pascal Kmmelt1, Tushar Khandeparkar1 1TATA Steel Research Development and Technology NetherlandsBM403 Jeong-Yeon Lee1, Jin-Woo Lee1, Myoung-Gyu Lee1, Frdric Barlat1 1Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH) Korea BM404 K.-C. Liao1, T. Y. Chen1 1National Taiwan University Taiwan BM405 Martin Holeek1, Martin Skrikerud1 1ESI Group Czech Republic BM406 Masahi Arai1, Yasuyoshi Umezu1 1JSOL Corporation Japan BM407 Oscar Fruitos1, Alberto Frriz1, Eugenio Oate1 1CIMNE (International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering) Spain BM408 Per-Anders Eggertsen1, Kjell Mattiasson1 1Chalmers University of Technology Sweden BM409 Rohith Uppaluri1, B. P. Gautham1 1TATA Research Development and Design Centre, A divison of TATA Consultacy Services India BM410 Subir Roy1, Hariharasudhan Palaniswamy1 1Altair Engineering Inc USA BM411 Takayuki Hama1,2, Masato Takamura2, Yuji Miyoshi2 1Kyoto University, 2RIKEN Japan CHAPTER 1 BM1 Earing Evolution during Drawing and Ironing Processes Provided by Alcoa (USA) Contact Robert E. Dick Alcoa Technical Center USA [email protected] Jeong-Whan Yoon Swinburne University of Technology Australia [email protected] Hoon Huh KAIST (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) Korea [email protected] Gihyun Bae KAIST (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) Korea [email protected] NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 11 - BM 1 Earing Evolution during Drawing and Ironing Processes Commercial can-making processes include drawing, redrawing and several ironing operations. It is experimentally observed that during the drawing and redrawing processes earing develops, but during the ironing processes, earing is reduced. Furthermore, if ironing (wall thinning) is employed, a more uniform wall thickness and increased cup height results. It is important to understand the earing evolution during drawing and ironing for advanced material modeling. A special die which considers both drawing and ironing within one punch stroke were designed to simplify the real processes. Two typical body stock materials (AA 5042 and AKDQ Steel) were provided for this benchmark. RECOMMENDATIONS AA 5042 shows a complicated earing profile (8 ears) with a highly anisotropic behavior. The focus of AA 5042 is the accurate prediction of earing profiles during drawing and ironing processes with an advanced materials model (for example, Barlat et al.[2004] , Cazacu et al.[2006]), which are capable of predicting more than four ears. Meanwhile, AKDQ steel shows nearly isotropic behavior. The focus of the benchmark is accurately predict the average cup heights after drawing and ironing processes as well as the required punch load. A general yield function which can predict four ears will be appropriate for this material. Figure 1.1 Example: Drawing & Ironing NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 12 - 1.1. TOOLING GEOMETRY A schematic view of tools and their dimensions for the drawing and ironing processes are shown in Figure 1.2. Rb=38.049 mm, Rp=22.860 mm, Rd=23.368 mm, Rh=23.114 mm, rp1=0.254 mm, rp2=2.229 mm, rd=1.905 mm, ri=0.254 mm, H1=12,700 mm, H2=19.050 mm, H3=20.272 mm, H3=9.220 mm, Ld=0.635 mm, a1=0.873 deg., a2=8 deg. Figure 1.2 Schematic view of tools and their dimensions 1.2. TOOL MATERIALS All of the tool parts are made from the hardened steel. The specific information is given as follows: 1. Punch : A2 Tool Steel 58-60 RC 2. Holder : A2 Tool Steel 58-60 RC 3. Drawing Die : AISI D-2 61-63 RC (finish 2-4) 4. Ironing Ring : CARBIDE (finish 0-2) NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 13 - 1.3. BLANK MATERIALS The initial dimension of the blank is the constant radius of 38.049 mm. AA 5042 (t=0.208 mm) and AKDQ Steel (t=0.229 mm) are considered for this benchmark. The detail material characterizations for the two materials are shown in the Appendix A (BM1: Materials Characterization). 1.4. MACHINE AND TOOLING SPECIFICATIONS Friction on the ironing ring wall opposes the flow of material, whereas friction on the punch side trends to draw the material in the direction of punch travel. Therefore, the opposing frictional forces produce severe transverse deformation through the thickness. The recommended friction and blank holding faces are given as follows: 1. Friction : 0.05 2. Blank Holding Force : 6.672 (kN) or 1500 (lbs) (For a quarter model, divide it by 4) Solid element is recommended for this benchmark with careful control of an incremental punch stroke. This benchmark has high nonlinearities including double sided contract with anisotropy. It is recommended to verify your model with a simple isotropic yield function (like von-Mises) before it is applied for an advanced anisotropic model. 1.5. BENCHMARK REPORT Earing evolution 1. Cup height (mm) after drawing vs. Angle from the rolling (Deg.) 2. Cup height (mm) after ironing vs. Angle from the rolling (Deg.) Load vs. Punch stroke for drawing and ironing 1. Load (kN) vs. Punch stroke (mm) NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 14 - GENERAL INFORMATION OF PARTICIPANTS AND SOLUTION METHODS BM100 NUMISHEET 2011 Earing Evolution during Drawing and Ironing Processes A. Benchmark participant Name Robert E. Dick1*, Jeong Whan Yoon2** Affiliation 1Alcoa Technical Center, 2Swinburne University of Technology Address 1100 Technical Dr., Alcoa Center, PA 15069-0001, USA 2Faculty of Engineering & Industrials Sciences, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia Email *[email protected], **[email protected] Phone number *+1 724 337 2882, **+61 3 9214 5573 Fax number **+61 3 9214 8264 B. Experimental conditions Materials AA 5042(t=0.208 mm) and AKDQ Steel (t=0.229 mm) Lubricant Henkel 6461 C. Measurement Name of Equipment IT3 Tester Features Designed and Assembled by RPDT D. Remarks AA 5042(t=0.208 mm) benchmark is highly anisotropic material. The purpose of this benchmark is to evaluate the capability to predict complicated eight earing profile during cup drawing process and the evolution of earing during ironing process. While, AKDQ Steel (t=0.229 mm) is very isotropic material with slight four ears. The focus has been made on the prediction of the average earing heights after drawing and ironing. Complete directional (every 15 degrees) and biaxial data for both materials have been provided to accommodate any material models available. The anisotropic coefficients for some popular anisotropic models have been provided for the convenience purpose of the benchmark participants. NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 15 - BM101 NUMISHEET 2011 Earing Evolution during Drawing and Ironing Processes A. Benchmark participant Name Hans Mulder1* Affiliation 1TATA Steel Research, Development & Technology Address PO Box 10,000; 1970 CA; IJmuiden; Netherlands Email *[email protected] Phone number +31-251 497 849 Fax number B. Software/Hardware Name of the FEM code N.A. General aspect of the code Analytical solution in discrete steps, implemented in Excel spreadsheet Basic formulations See Numisheet paper 135 Element/Mesh technology Number of elements Discretization of flange in 5 segments, Drawing in 25 steps, Ironing in 25 steps Type of elements N.A. Contact property model Simulation of elastic blank holder (n = n-avg * t/tavg) Friction formulation Coulomb friction CPU type CPU clock speed Intel T5600 @ 1.83 GHz Number of cores per CPU 2 Main memory 1 GB Operating system Windows XP Total CPU time None (instantaneous graphic representation of results) NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 16 - C. Describe the material model that is used for each material Yield Function/Plastic Potential Material 1: AA5042 Hosford yield locus with independent parameter fits for every (5) segment (drawing) Hill'48 planar isotropic yield locus with fit to biaxial stress (ironing) Material 2: AKDQ steel Hosford yield locus with independent parameter fits for every (5) segment (drawing) Hill'48 planar isotropic yield locus with fit to biaxial stress (ironing) Hardening Rule Material 1: AA5042 Isotropic hardening (r-values and stress ratio fixed throughout deformation) Material 2: AKDQ steel Isotropic hardening (r-values and stress ratio fixed throughout deformation) Stress-Strain Relation Material 1: AA5042 Voce hardening, averaged for 7 directions (uniaxial tensile tests) Material 2: AKDQ steel Swift hardening, averaged for 7 directions (uniaxial tensile tests) D. Remarks The analytical solution can predict the cup height profile, wall thickness distribution and drawing force accurately. The outcome however is quite sensitive to the material data that is used, in particular to the stress ratio for uniaxial tensile tests in different directions, and to the r-values. The prediction of the cup height profile (earing) is therefore dependent on the material characterization as well as on the material model that is used. That is demonstrated by submitting two solutions for each material: (1) using the r-values from the tensile tests and the stress ratio by comparing the uniaxial yield stresses at 0.5 MPa plastic work (0.2% equivalent plastic strain; initial yield) for AA5042 and by using r-values and stress ratio determined by interpretation of the texture data using software developed by prof. Van Houtte at the University of Leuven for AKDQ steel, (2) using the r-values from the tensile tests and the stress ratio by comparing the uniaxial yield stresses at a level of plastic work that is close to the end of uniform strain (20 MPa plastic work for AA5042 = average of 6.4% equivalent strain and 56.5 MPa plastic work for AKDQ = average of 14% equivalent strain). The choice for the first solution for both materials is based on personal expectations and experience on the outcome of the cup height profile for these types of materials. NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 17 - BM102 NUMISHEET 2011 Earing Evolution during Drawing and Ironing Processes A. Benchmark participant Name Jan Nov1*, Martin Skrikerud1, Hans Mulder2, Henk Vegter2 Affiliation 1ESI Group, 2TATA Steel Address Brojova 16, 326 00, Czech Republic Email *[email protected] Phone number +420 724 269 068 Fax number +420 377 432 930 B. Software/Hardware Name of the FEM code Pam-Stamp 2G General aspect of the code Dynamic explicit (forming, ironing, spring-back after ironing), Static implicit (spring-back after drawing) Basic formulations Updated Lagrangian formulation with associated flow rule, Hill'48, Vegter yield function, isotropic hardening Element/Mesh technology Number of elements Blank sheet : 23272 for ironing, 3514 for drawing Type of elements Blank: 4-node Belytschko-Tsay shell, reduced integration, hourglass control, 9 integration points through thickness, T.T.S. normal stress option used for ironing to decribe well normal stress Contact property model Accurate contact Friction formulation Standard Coulomb friction CPU type CPU clock speed Intel Core i7-980X 3.33 GHz, one CPU used Number of cores per CPU 6 Main memory 24 GB Operating system Linux Total CPU time 5.3 hours NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 18 - C. Describe the material model that is used for each material Yield Function/Plastic Potential Material 1A: AA5042 Drawing: Vegter model based on mechanical test in 7 directions using equvialent plastic work corresponing to 0.5 MPa Ironing: Hill48 (ironing), mapping of results used between stages Material 1B: AA5042 Drawing: Vegter model based on mechanical test in 7 directions using equvialent plastic work corresponing to 20 MPa Ironing: Hill48 (ironing), mapping of results used between stages Material 2: AKDQ steel Not simulated Hardening Rule Material 1: AA5042 Isotropic hardening Material 2: AKDQ steel Not simulated Stress-Strain Relation Material 1: AA5042 Voce equation, based on 0 tensile test data Material 2: AKDQ steel Not simulated D. Remarks Benchmark was made as a cooperation between ESI Group (Jan Novy) and TATA Steel (Henk Vegter, Hans Mulder). ESI Group did the simulations and TATA Steel has prepared the material input data. Registration of the benchmark was made by Martin Skrikerud from ESI Group. Yield criteria were evaluated from all mechanical test results (tensile tests in 7 directions and bulge tests) at two different amounts of plastic work resulting into two different material input sets. The reason for using different sets of material input is that the predicted earing results are very sensitive for this input. A very big influence of local thickening of the blank under the blank holder was observed during drawing. Because thickening was quite high at 90 to rolling direction the cup height at this area was increased due to much higher friction forces in drawing. On the contrary friction forces were very low or even zero at areas with low thickening under blank holder. For this reason, a set-up is used that provides a more uniformly distributed blank holder pressure by means of a high value of deformation height factor (numerical parameter reducing contact penalty stiffness). So we finally present three sets of results. The Steel case was not simulated, because this case is of less interest for prediction of other than four earing behavior. The set-up for ironing was always the same and new T.T.S shell option to simulate normal stress was used for it. Simulation result 1: Vegter model based on all mechanical tests at equvialent plastic work of 0.5 MPa, high deformation height Simulation result 2: Vegter model based on all mechanical tests at equvialent plastic work of 20 MPa, high deformation height Simulation result 3: Vegter model based on all mechanical tests at equvialent plastic work of 0.5 MPa, default deformation height NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 19 - BM103 NUMISHEET 2011 Earing Evolution during Drawing and Ironing Processes A. Benchmark participant Name Jonghun Yoon1*, Oana Cazacu1** Affiliation 1University of Florida Address 1350N Poquito Rd Shalimar FL32579, USA Email *[email protected], **[email protected] Phone number 1-850-833-9350 ext. 241 Fax number 1-850-833-9366 B. Software/Hardware Name of the FEM code ABAQUS Explicit General aspect of the code Explicit code Basic formulations Updated Lagrangian formulation Element/Mesh technology Number of elements 15630 Type of elements Solid element (C3D8R) Contact property model Hard contact Friction formulation Coulomb friction CPU type CPU clock speed core i7 2.67GHz Number of cores per CPU 2 Main memory 4GB Operating system Window 7 Total CPU time 10 hours NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 20 - C. Describe the material model that is used for each material Yield Function/Plastic Potential Material 1: AA5042 CPB06ex2 with strength differential parameters set to zero (k=0, k'=0) Material 2: AKDQ steel CPB06ex2 with strength differential parameters set to zero (k=0, k'=0) Hardening Rule Material 1: AA5042 Isotropic hardening Material 2: AKDQ steel Isotropic hardening Stress-Strain Relation Material 1: AA5042 Voce type hardening Material 2: AKDQ steel Voce type hardening D. Remarks The anisotropic yield function used is the form of CPB06 yield function (Cazacu et al, 2006) for cubic metals with no tension-compression asymmetry. NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 21 - BM104 NUMISHEET 2011 Earing Evolution during Drawing and Ironing Processes A. Benchmark participant Name Oscar Fruitos1*, Alberto Frriz1, Eugenio Oate1 Affiliation 1CIMNE(International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering) Address Campus del Baix LLobregat Edifici C3,despatx213 2apl c/Esteve Terradas n5 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona), Spain Email *[email protected] Phone number 34 -93.413.41.77 Fax number 34-93.413.72.42 B. Software/Hardware Name of the FEM code STAMPACK-v7 General aspect of the code Dynamic-Explicit FEM Basic formulations Total Lagrangian formulation with associated flow rule, logarithmic strains Element/Mesh technology Number of elements 8820 Type of elements 8-node 3D solid Hexahedral element, 4 integration points, total Lagrangian Contact property model Basic Coulomb friction model (Penalty method) Friction formulation CPU type CPU clock speed 2.5GHz Number of cores per CPU 2 Main memory 0.5MB Operating system Windows XP Total CPU time 45 hours NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 22 - C. Describe the material model that is used for each material Yield Function/Plastic Potential Material 1: AA5042 Material 2: AKDQ steel Hill48 / Hill48 Hardening Rule Material 1: AA5042 Material 2: AKDQ steel Isotropic VOCE Stress-Strain Relation Material 1: AA5042 Material 2: AKDQ steel Elasto-plastic 3D model, hyperelastic, large strains (logarithmic). D. Remarks NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 23 - BM105 NUMISHEET 2011 Earing Evolution during Drawing and Ironing Processes A. Benchmark participant Name P. Eyckens1*, J. Gawad1**, Q. Xie1, A. Van Bael1, D. Roose1, G. Samaey1, P. Van Houtte1 Affiliation 1Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Address Kasteelpark Arenberg 44 - bus 2450; 3001 Heverlee, Belgium Email *[email protected], **[email protected] Phone number (+32) 16 321305 Fax number (+32) 16 321990 B. Software/Hardware Name of the FEM code Abaqus General aspect of the code Commercial, general-purpose FE package Basic formulations Explicit Element/Mesh technology Number of elements 3375 Type of elements 8-node continuum brick elements with reduced integration Contact property model kinematic contact constraint ('hard contact'); rigid tooling Friction formulation Coulomb friction (friction coefficient: 0.05) CPU type CPU clock speed 2.8 GHz Number of cores per CPU 8 cores per CPU, only one core was used Main memory 4 GB Operating system Linux 2.6.32 Total CPU time 42 hours 42 minutes (CPU time varied from one simulation to another: Material-1: 32 hours 55 minutes; Material-2: 9 hours 47 minutes) NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 24 - C. Describe the material model that is used for each material Yield Function/Plastic Potential Material 1: AA5042 Facet plastic potential [1], order 8. Facet anisotropy coefficients are obtained on the basis of crystallographic texture exclusively (through non-negative least squares fitting in stress space to the results of the ALAMEL multi-level polycrystalline plasticity model [2]). Material 2: AKDQ steel Same as Material-1, except order 6. Hardening Rule Material 1: AA5042 Swift hardening law Material 2: AKDQ steel Swift hardening law Stress-Strain Relation Material 1: AA5042 Accumulated plastic slip/resolved shear stress Material 2: AKDQ steel Accumulated plastic slip/resolved shear stress D. Remarks [1] Van Houtte, P., Yerra, S.K., Van Bael, A., 2009. The Facet method: A hierarchical multilevel modelling scheme for anisotropic convex plastic potentials. Int. J. Plasticity 25, 332-360. [2] Van Houtte, P., Li, S., Seefeldt, M., Delannay, L., 2005. Deformation texture prediction: from the Taylor model to the advanced Lamel model. Int. J. Plasticity 21, 589-624. NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 25 - BM106 NUMISHEET 2011 Earing Evolution during Drawing and Ironing Processes A. Benchmark participant Name Siguang Xu1*, Ching-Kou Hisung1, Thomas Stoughton1, Matt Oliver1 Affiliation 1General Motors, Gbobal Body Manufacturing Engineering Address 30001 Van Dyke, VEC 1M40-8, Warren, MI 48090-9020, Mail Code: 480-210-1Y3, USAEmail *[email protected] Phone number 248-343-7222 Fax number 586-492-2564 B. Software/Hardware Name of the FEM code LS-DYNA3D v971d General aspect of the code Dynamic Basic formulations Explicit Element/Mesh technology Number of elements 27212 solid elements for quarter model of steel, 40305 shell elements for quarter model of aluminum Type of elements Solid element for steel, shell element for aluminum Contact property model One way surface to surface with friction Friction formulation Coulomb friction law CPU type CPU clock speed 2.9 GHz Number of cores per CPU 8 Main memory 32 Operating system Linux Red Hat Total CPU time 13 hours 36minutes for steel, 8 hours 12 minutes for aluminum NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 26 - C. Describe the material model that is used for each material Yield Function/Plastic Potential Material 1: AA5042 Barlat 2000 Material 2: AKDQ steel Hill 1948 Hardening Rule Material 1: AA5042 Isotropic hardening Material 2: AKDQ steel Isotropic hardening Stress-Strain Relation Material 1: AA5042 Voce Law Material 2: AKDQ steel Power Law D. Remarks NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 27 - BM107 NUMISHEET 2011 Earing Evolution during Drawing and Ironing Processes A. Benchmark participant Name Subir Roy1*, Hariharasudhan Palaniswamy1** Affiliation 1Altair Engineering Inc Address 1820 E Big Beaver road, Troy, MI 48083, USA Email *[email protected], **[email protected] Phone number 001-248-614-2400 - Ext 354, 467 Fax number 001-248-614-2411 B. Software/Hardware Name of the FEM code RADIOSS v110 General aspect of the code Forming: Dynamic Explicit FEM, Ironing: Dynamic Explicit Basic formulations Updated Lagrangian formulation with associated flow rule, HILL 1948 yield function Element/Mesh technology Number of elements Blank: Quarter geometry was considered due to symmetry. Total of 61100 elements Type of elements HEPH solid with 5 layers of solid elements on the thickness direction. Contact property model Penalty formulation Friction formulation Basic Columb's law CPU type CPU clock speed IntelXeon CPU E5430 @ 2.66 GHz (2 processors) Number of cores per CPU 4 cores Main memory 32GB RAM Operating system Windows Vista 64 bit Total CPU time Forming and Ironing done in one setup as provided in benchmark schematic. The total CPU time is 36650 seconds for AKDQ and 36650 seconds for AA5082 NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 28 - C. Describe the material model that is used for each material Yield Function/Plastic Potential Material 1: AA5042 Hill48 Material 2: AKDQ steel Hill48 Hardening Rule Material 1: AA5042 Isotropic hardening Material 2: AKDQ steel Isotropic hardening Stress-Strain Relation Material 1: AA5042 Power law Material 2: AKDQ steel Power law D. Remarks The analysis was conducted as shown in the schematic in one setup with the drawing followed by ironing as shown in the schematic with 12.7 mm apart. Therefore a combined drawing and ironing force as function of punch stroke is provided. Only a quarter blank was modeled due to symmetry conditions. However the punch force is provided considering the full cup (multiplied by four). Also, the force provided is the normal force acting on the punch in the drawing direction. NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 29 - BM108 NUMISHEET 2011 Earing Evolution during Drawing and Ironing Processes A. Benchmark participant Name Takahiko Hisamori1*, Hidetaka Ito1, Nobuhiko Sugitomo1, Ninshu Ma1 Affiliation 1JSOL Corporation Address 2-2-4 Tosabori, Nishi-ku, Osaka 550-0001, Japan Email *[email protected] Phone number 81(6)4803-5820 Fax number 81(6)6225-3517 B. Software/Hardware Name of the FEM code JSTAMP/NV (solver: LS-DYNA) General aspect of the code Nonlinear dynamic explicit, dynamic implicit and static implicit Basic formulations Dynamic explicit Element/Mesh technology Number of elements Blank(shell): 43000, Blank(solid): 258000 Type of elements Blank: AA5042 Shell with Belytschko-Wong-Chiang, 5 integration points through thickness for drawing stage Solid with 1 integration point, 3 elements through thickness for ironing stage Blank: AKDQ steel Solid with 1 integration point, 3 elements through thickness for both stages Contact property model Penalty method Friction formulation Coulomb friction model CPU type CPU clock speed AA5042: 2.93 GHz for drawing stage, 2.59 GHz for ironing stage AKDQ steel: 2.59 GHz for drawing stage, 2.93 GHz for ironing stage Number of cores per CPU AA5042: 8(SMP excution with 2 CPUs) cores for drawing stage 32(MPP excution with 16 CPUs) cores for ironing stage AKDQ steel: 32(MPP execution with 16 CPUs) cores for drawing stage NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 30 - 16(MPP excution with 4 CPUs) cores for ironing stage Main memory AA5042: 48GB(cache memory: 8MB) for drawing stage 2GB(cache memory: 1MB) for ironing stage AKDQ steel: 2GB(cache memory: 1MB) for drawing stage 48GB(cache memory: 8MB) for ironing stage Operating system AA5042: Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 4 (Nahant Update 7) for drawing stage SUSE LINUX Enterprise Server 9 for ironing stage AKDQ steel: SUSE LINUX Enterprise Server 9 for drawing stage Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 4 (Nahant Update 7) for ironing stage Total CPU time AA5042: 11 hours 37 minutes for drawing stage 2 hours 31 minutes for ironing stage AKDQ steel: 16 hours 34 minutes for drawing stage 4 hours 10 minutes for ironing stage C. Describe the material model that is used for each material Yield Function/Plastic Potential Material 1: AA5042 Gotoh yield function for drawing stage (LS-DYNA user subroutine) Mises yield function for ironing stage Material 2: AKDQ steel Hill '48 for both stages Hardening Rule Material 1: AA5042 Yoshida-Uemori kinematic hardening model for drawing stage (LS-DYNA user subroutine) Isotropic hardening model for ironing stage Material 2: AKDQ steel Isotropic hardening model for both stages Stress-Strain Relation Material 1: AA5042 Parameters of Yoshida-Uemori model by fitting Stress-Strain relation supplied by benchmark committee for drawing stage Stress-Strain relation supplied by benchmark committee for ironing stage Material 2: AKDQ steel Stress-Strain relation supplied by benchmark committee for both stages D. Remarks As for ironing stage of AA5042, the material model does not consider the anisotropy as the Mises yield function is used. NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 31 - BM109 NUMISHEET 2011 Earing Evolution during Drawing and Ironing Processes A. Benchmark participant Name Waluyo Adi Siswanto1*, Agus Dwi Anggono1 Affiliation 1Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia Address 86400, Parit Raja, Batu Pahat, Malaysia Email *[email protected] Phone number +604537745 / +60146637073 Fax number +604536080 B. Software/Hardware Name of the FEM code eta/DYNAFORM 5.8 General aspect of the code General purpose finite element for analyzing the large deformation static and dynamic response of structure including structure couple to fluids. Basic formulations Dynamic explicit Element/Mesh technology Number of elements Part: 625 elements, Tools: 534 elements Type of elements Quadrilateral And Triangular Contact property model Scale factor for sliding interface penalties Friction formulation Forming one way surface to surface frictional value CPU type CPU clock speed 2.33 GHz Number of cores per CPU Core 2 Quad Processors Main memory 2 GHz Operating system Windows Xp Professional SP3 Total CPU time 5431 seconds (1 hours 30 minutes 31 seconds) NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 32 - C. Describe the material model that is used for each material Yield Function/Plastic Potential Material 1: AA5042 Planar unisotropic plasticity model Material 2: AKDQ steel Planar unisotropic plasticity model Hardening Rule Material 1: AA5042 Nonlinear hardening rule Material 2: AKDQ steel Nonlinear hardening rule Stress-Strain Relation Material 1: AA5042 Krupskowsky law Material 2: AKDQ steel Krupskowsky law D. Remarks Modeling: A half model considered and applied symmetrical boundary conditions Punch speeding: 70 mm/s Simulation stage illustrations: - Before drawing - In the middle of drawing NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 33 - - After drawing completed - In the middle of ironing - After ironing completed NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 34 - BM110 NUMISHEET 2011 Earing Evolution during Drawing and Ironing Processes A. Benchmark participant Name Seok Nyeon Kim1, Jin-Woo Lee1, Myoung-Gyu Lee1*, Frdric Barlat1 Affiliation 1Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH) Address San 31 Hyoja-dong, Nam-gu, Pohang, Gyeongbuk 790-784, Korea Email *[email protected] Phone number 82-54-279-9034 Fax number 82-54-279-9299 B. Software/Hardware Name of the FEM code ABAQUS 6.10 General aspect of the code Cup drawing and Ironing: Dynamic Explicit Basic formulations Updated Lagrangian formulation with associated flow rule, Yld2004-18p non-quadratic yield function, Hill1948 quadratic yield function, Voce hardening law Element/Mesh technology Number of elements Blank: 17830 Type of elements Blank: 8-node continuum element with reduced integrations Tools: analytical rigid surface Contact property model ABAQUS/Explicit: Kinematic contact enforcement ABAQUS/Standard: No contact occurs Friction formulation Penalty method CPU type CPU clock speed Intel Core 2 Duo 3.0GHz Number of cores per CPU 2 Main memory 3.25GBytes NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 35 - Operating system Windows 7 Enterprise K 32bit Total CPU time AA5042: 35 hours 30 minutes AKDQ steel: 33 hours 40 minutes C. Describe the material model that is used for each material Yield Function/Plastic Potential Material 1: AA5042 Yld2004-18p Material 2: AKDQ steel Yld2004-18p Hardening Rule Material 1: AA5042 Voce Material 2: AKDQ steel Voce Stress-Strain Relation Material 1: AA5042 Equal biaxial tension along rolling direction Material 2: AKDQ steel Equal biaxial tension along rolling direction D. Remarks Material constants of AKDQ steel for yield function Yld2004-18p were calculated by using uniaxial tension test data and biaxial tension test data. NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 36 - SUMMARY OF SIMULATION CONDITIONS AND METHODS Number Name Software/Hardware Material Model BM101 Hans Mulder 1. Software : N.A. 2. Hardware (CPU) : Intel T5600 1.83 GHz 1. Yield function : Hosford (drawing), Hill48 (ironing) 2. Hardening rule : Isotropic 3. Stress-strain relation : AA5042 - Voce AKDQ - Swift BM102 Jan Nov, Martin Skrikerud, Hans Mulder, Henk Vegter 1. Software : Pam-Stamp 2G 2. Hardware (CPU) : Intel Core i7-980X 3.33 GHz 1. Yield function : Vegter (drawing), Hill48 (ironing) 2. Hardening rule : Isotropic 3. Stress-strain relation : Voce BM103 Jonghun Yoon, Oana Cazacu 1. Software : ABAQUS Explicit 2. Hardware (CPU) : Intel Core i7 2.67GHz 1. Yield function : CPB06ex2 2. Hardening rule : Isotropic 3. Stress-strain relation : Voce BM104 Oscar Fruitos, Alberto Frriz, Eugenio Oate 1. Software : STAMPACK-v7 2. Hardware (CPU) : 2.5GHz 1. Yield function : Hill48 2. Hardening rule : Isotropic Voce 3. Stress-strain relation : Elasto-plastic 3D model, hyperelastic, large strains BM105 P. Eyckens, J. Gawad, Q. Xie, A. Van Bael, D. Roose, G. Samaey, P. Van Houtte 1. Software : ABAQUS 2. Hardware (CPU) : 2.8 GHz 1. Yield function : Facet plastic potential 2. Hardening rule : Swift 3. Stress-strain relation : Accumulated plastic slip/resolved shear stressBM106 Siguang Xu, Ching-Kou Hisung, Thomas Stoughton, Matt Oliver 1. Software : LS-DYNA3D v971d 2. Hardware (CPU) : 2.9 GHz 1. Yield function : AA5042 - Barlat2000 AKDQ - Hill48 2. Hardening rule : Isotropic 3. Stress-strain relation : AA5042 - Voce AKDQ - Power law BM107 Subir Roy, Hariharasudhan Palaniswamy 1. Software : RADIOSS v 110 2. Hardware (CPU) : Intel CPU E5430 2.66 GHz 1. Yield function : Hill48 2. Hardening rule : Isotropic 3. Stress-strain relation : Power law NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 37 - BM108 Takahiko Hisamori, Hidetaka Ito, Nobuhiko Sugitomo, Ninshu Ma 1. Software : JSTAMP/NV (solver: LS-DYNA) 2. Hardware (CPU) : 2.93 GHz (AA5042 drawing, AKDQ steel ironing) 2.59 GHz (AA5042 ironing, AKDQ steel drawing) 1. Yield function : AA5042 - Gotoh (drawing), von Mises (ironing) AKDQ - Hill48 2. Hardening rule : AA5042 - Yoshida/Uemori (drawing), Isotropic (ironing) AKDQ - Isotropic 3. Stress-strain relation : AA5042 - Yoshida-Uemori (drawing), Voce (ironing) AKDQ - Voce BM109 Waluyo Adi Siswanto, Agus Dwi Anggono 1. Software : eta/DYNAFORM 5.8 2. Hardware (CPU) : 2.33 GHz 1. Yield function : Planar unisotropic plasticity model 2. Hardening rule : Nonlinear hardening rule 3. Stress-strain relation : Krupskowsky law BM110 Seok Nyeon Kim, Jin-Woo Lee, Myoung-Gyu Lee, Frdric Barlat 1. Software : ABAQUS 6.10 2. Hardware (CPU) : Intel Core 2 Duo 3.0GHz 1. Yield function : Yld2004-18p 2. Hardening rule : Voce 3. Stress-strain relation : Equal biaxial tension along rolling direction NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 38 - LIST OF FIGURES BM1 AA5042 Figure 1.1.01 (AA5042) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the drawing process Figure 1.1.02 (AA5042) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the drawing process Figure 1.1.03 (AA5042) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the drawing process Figure 1.1.04 (AA5042) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the ironing process Figure 1.1.05 (AA5042) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the ironing process Figure 1.1.06 (AA5042) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the ironing process Figure 1.1.07 (AA5042) Punch load vs. punch stroke during the drawing process Figure 1.1.08 (AA5042) Punch load vs. punch stroke during the drawing process Figure 1.1.09 (AA5042) Punch load vs. punch stroke during the drawing process AKDQ steel Figure 1.2.01 (AKDQ) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the drawing process Figure 1.2.02 (AKDQ) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the drawing process Figure 1.2.03 (AKDQ) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the drawing process Figure 1.2.04 (AKDQ) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the ironing process Figure 1.2.05 (AKDQ) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the ironing process Figure 1.2.06 (AKDQ) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the ironing process Figure 1.2.07 (AKDQ) Punch load vs. punch stroke during the drawing process Figure 1.2.08 (AKDQ) Punch load vs. punch stroke during the drawing process Figure 1.2.09 (AKDQ) Punch load vs. punch stroke during the drawing process Remark) The cup height described on figures was reflected by using symmetry of the cup drawing process when a participant only reported the cup height data from 0 to 90 or 180. The range (or angle from the rolling direction) of the cup height is specified on figures in order to classify the reported data. NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 39 - Figure 1.1.01 (AA5042) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the drawing process Figure 1.1.02 (AA5042) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the drawing process 0 60 120 180 240 300 360161718192021222324Cup height after drawing [mm]Angle from the rolling direction [deg.] BM1-00 (360o) (Reference) BM1-01A (360o) BM1-01B (90o) BM1-02A (360o) BM1-02B (360o) BM1-02C (360o)0 60 120 180 240 300 360161718192021222324 BM1-00 (360o) (Reference) BM1-03 (360o) BM1-05 (90o) BM1-06 (360o) BM1-07 (360o)Cup height after drawing [mm]Angle from the rolling direction [deg.]NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 40 - Figure 1.1.03 (AA5042) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the drawing process Figure 1.1.04 (AA5042) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the ironing process 0 60 120 180 240 300 360161718192021222324 BM1-00 (360o) (Reference) BM1-08 (360o) BM1-09 (360o) BM1-10 (360o)Cup height after drawing [mm]Angle from the rolling direction [deg.]0 60 120 180 240 300 360161718192021222324 BM1-00 (360o) (Reference) BM1-01A (360o) BM1-01B (90o) BM1-02A (360o) BM1-02B (360o) BM1-02C (360o)Cup height after drawing [mm]Angle from the rolling direction [deg.]NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 41 - Figure 1.1.05 (AA5042) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the ironing process Figure 1.1.06 (AA5042) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the ironing process 0 60 120 180 240 300 360161718192021222324 BM1-00 (360o) (Reference) BM1-03 (360o) BM1-05 (90o) BM1-06 (360o) BM1-07 (360o)Cup height after drawing [mm]Angle from the rolling direction [deg.]0 60 120 180 240 300 360161718192021222324 BM1-00 (360o) (Reference) BM1-08 (360o) BM1-09 (360o) BM1-10 (360o)Cup height after drawing [mm]Angle from the rolling direction [deg.]NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 42 - Figure 1.1.07 (AA5042) Punch load vs. punch stroke during the drawing process Figure 1.1.08 (AA5042) Punch load vs. punch stroke during the drawing process 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700246810 BM1-00 (Reference) BM1-01A BM1-01B BM1-02A BM1-02B BM1-02CPunch load [kN]Punch stroke [mm]0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700246810 BM1-00 (Reference) BM1-03 BM1-05 BM1-06 BM1-07Punch load [kN]Punch stroke [mm]NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 43 - Figure 1.1.09 (AA5042) Punch load vs. punch stroke during the drawing process 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700246810 BM1-00 (Reference) BM1-08 BM1-09 BM1-10Punch load [kN]Punch stroke [mm]NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 44 - Figure 1.2.01 (AKDQ) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the drawing process Figure 1.2.02 (AKDQ) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the drawing process 0 60 120 180 240 300 360161718192021222324Cup height after drawing [mm]Angle from the rolling direction [deg.] BM1-00 (360o) (Reference) BM1-01A (360o) BM1-01B (90o) BM1-03 (360o) BM1-04 (90o)0 60 120 180 240 300 360161718192021222324Cup height after drawing [mm]Angle from the rolling direction [deg.] BM1-00 (360o) (Reference) BM1-05 (90o) BM1-06 (360o) BM1-07 (360o) BM1-08 (360o)NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 45 - Figure 1.2.03 (AKDQ) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the drawing process Figure 1.2.04 (AKDQ) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the ironing process 0 60 120 180 240 300 360161718192021222324Cup height after drawing [mm]Angle from the rolling direction [deg.] BM1-00 (360o) (Reference) BM1-09 (360o) BM1-10 (360o)0 60 120 180 240 300 360161718192021222324 BM1-00 (360o) (Reference) BM1-01A (360o) BM1-01B (90o) BM1-03 (360o) BM1-04 (90o)Cup height after drawing [mm]Angle from the rolling direction [deg.]NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 46 - Figure 1.2.05 (AKDQ) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the ironing process Figure 1.2.06 (AKDQ) Cup height vs. angle from the rolling direction after the ironing process 0 60 120 180 240 300 360161718192021222324 BM1-00 (360o) (Reference) BM1-05 (90o) BM1-06 (360o) BM1-07 (360o) BM1-08 (360o)Cup height after drawing [mm]Angle from the rolling direction [deg.]0 60 120 180 240 300 360161718192021222324 BM1-00 (360o) (Reference) BM1-09 (360o) BM1-10 (360o)Cup height after drawing [mm]Angle from the rolling direction [deg.]NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 47 - Figure 1.2.07 (AKDQ) Punch load vs. punch stroke during the drawing process Figure 1.2.08 (AKDQ) Punch load vs. punch stroke during the drawing process 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70048121620 BM1-00 (Reference) BM1-01A BM1-01B BM1-03 BM1-04Punch load [kN]Punch stroke [mm]0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70048121620 BM1-00 (Reference) BM1-05 BM1-06 BM1-07 BM1-08Punch load [kN]Punch stroke [mm]NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 48 - Figure 1.2.09 (AKDQ) Punch load vs. punch stroke during the drawing process 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70048121620 BM1-00 (Reference) BM1-09 BM1-10Punch load [kN]Punch stroke [mm] CHAPTER 2 BM2 Simulation of the Cross-shaped Cup Deep-drawing Process Provided by Kangwon National University (Korea) Contact Heon Young Kim Kangwon National University Korea [email protected] Hyung Jong Kim Kangwon National University Korea [email protected] Hoon Huh KAIST (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) Korea [email protected] Gihyun Bae KAIST (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) Korea [email protected] NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 51 - BM 2 Simulation of the Cross-shaped Cup Deep-drawing Process Magnesium is a fairly strong and light-weight metal, with a density that is one-fourth that of steel and two-thirds that of aluminum. When alloyed with other metals, it has an excellent strength-to-weight ratio and shows outstanding performance in terms of machinability, vibration absorption, and electromagnetic shielding. These features have drawn attention to magnesium as a useful material for various electronic parts and structural applications. Magnesium alloys usually exhibit very poor workability and formability at room temperature because of their hexagonal close-packed (HCP) structure, but the forming limit can be considerably increased at elevated temperatures. Recently, warm or hot press-forming technology for magnesium alloy sheets has been recognized as a promising alternative. The objective of this benchmark is to validate the capability of numerical simulation for a warm forming process. Figure 2.1 shows a specimen formed by the cross-shaped cup deep-drawing process. Figure 2.1 A cross-shaped deep-drawn cup RECOMMENDATIONS The simulation of this warm forming process should be a coupled thermal-deformation analysis considering the effect of temperature and strain-rate on material properties (particularly, stress-strain curve). It is recommended for simplicity that the surface temperatures of all tools, whether heated or cooled, are assumed constant during the forming NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 52 - process, although this is not true. Modeling of heat transfer on the blank-tool interface may depend on the participant and the code used. At the beginning in the forming process, the blank is contacting with all tools: its lower surface with the punch and the blank holder, and the upper surface with the pad (counter-punch) and the die. The punch does not start to move up until the temperature distribution in the blank reach a steady state. 2.1. TOOLING GEOMETRY A schematic view of tools is shown in Figure 2.2, and the dimensions of tools and initial blank are shown in Figure 2.3. The pad is used to keep the bottom of a cup flat. Figure 2.2 Schematic view of the cross-shaped cup deep drawing process 2.2. TOOL MATERIALS All the tool parts are made of hardened tool steel SKD11. All surfaces which come in contact with the blank are to be ground with the surface roughness (Ra) less than 5 m. 2.3. BLANK MATERIALS The blank material is AZ31B magnesium alloy sheet with the thickness of 0.5 mm. The initial (undeformed) blank has an octagonal shape as shown in Figure 2.3(c). Material data is given in Appendix B and the EXCEL file AZ31B.xlsx. The data, not provided here, NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 53 - required for theoretical or numerical modeling such as anisotropic yield function, hardening/softening, heat transfer, etc. can be appropriately assumed. Planar anisotropy may or may not be taken into consideration. (a) Punch and pad (b) Die and blank holder (c) Blank Figure 2.3 Geometry of the tools and the initial blank NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 54 - 2.4. MACHINE AND TOOLING SPECIFICATIONS In order to maximize the deep-drawability of the blank material the die and the blank-holder are heated by heating cartridges embedded in each tool, while the punch and the pad are cooled by circulating water. Process parameters are as follows: 1. Surface temperature of the die and the blank-holder: 250 2. Surface temperature of punch & pad: 100 3. Punch velocity: 0.15 mm/s 4. Blank-holding force: 1.80 to 3.96 kN (linearly increases as shown in Figure 2.4(a)) 5. Pad force: 0.137 to 2.603 kN (linearly increases as shown in Figure 2.4(b)) 6. Lubricant: Teflon tape (for high temperature) 7. Drawing depth (punch displacement): over 18 mm (a) Blank holding force (b) Pad force Figure 2.4 Variation of the blank holding force and pad force 2.5. BENCHMARK REPORT General description: 1. Benchmark participant: name, affiliation, address, e-mail address, phone-number and fax number 2. Simulation software: code name, general aspects of the code, basic formulation, element/mesh information 3. Simulation hardware: CPU type, CPU clock speed, number of cores per CPU, main NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 55 - memory, operating system 4. Material model: yield function, hardening law, constitutive equation 5. Heat transfer model on the blank-tool interface 6. Failure prediction model 7. There are two sets of hardening curves provided: The first is a set of experimentally measured engineering stress-engineering strain curves. The second is a set of effective stress-effective strain curves inversely obtained numerically from the measured first set; therefore, expected to be valid both in pre-and post-uniform deformation ranges. All participants are required to report results obtained using the second set. However, if participants want to manipulate the first set to obtain a new set of effective curves utilizing their own methods, they can report additional results separately along with explanations on the methods used to obtain their own effective curves. FEA results: 1. Punch load vs. punch displacement curve 2. Thickness distribution of the formed part along the 0, 22.5, 45, 67.5, 90 directions from the rolling direction at the punch displacements of 10 mm and 18 mm, respectively: thickness vs. travel length from the center towards the edge along each direction, in which travel length is measured on the mid-section surface. 3. Temperature distribution of the formed part along the 0, 22.5, 45, 67.5, 90 directions from the rolling direction at the punch displacements of 10 mm and 18 mm, respectively: temperature vs. travel length from the center towards the edge along each direction, in which travel length is measured on the mid-section surface. 4. Coordinates of end points at the flange along the 0, 22.5, 45, 67.5, 90 directions from the rolling direction at the punch displacements of 10 mm and 18 mm, respectively, measured for the mid-section surface. 5. If simulation results show failure, report the failure location, major/minor strains at the failure site, punch displacement at failure along with explanations on the failure criterion used (such as FLD provided). 6. Verification of the first measured curves, if the participants use their own effective curves. NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 56 - GENERAL INFORMATION OF PARTICIPANTS AND SOLUTION METHODS BM200 NUMISHEET 2011 Simulation of the Cross-shaped Cup Deep-drawing Process A. Benchmark participant Name Heon Young Kim1*, Hyung Jong Kim1** Affiliation 1Kangwon National University Address 192-1 Hyoja-dong, Chuncheon-si, Gangwon-do 200-701, Korea Email *[email protected], **[email protected] Phone number *82-33-250-6317, **82-33-250-6314 Fax number 82-33-242-6013 B. Experimental conditions Material of tool SKD61 (die steel) Heating Four heat cartridges embedded in each of the die and blank holder Cooling Water circulating through the cooling channel in the punch and pad Lubricant Thermo-resistant Teflon sheet C. Measurement Name of equipment ARGUS (software version 6.2.0) Features - Optical measurement of 3D coordinates and surface strains - Provides the distribution of major/minor strains and thickness reduction Gridding Laser-marked point grid pattern with the center distance of 1.0 mm NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 57 - D. Remarks (a) point grid pattern on a deformed specimen (b) pattern recognition and mesh generation Figure 1. Strain and thickness measuring process using ARGUS system NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 58 - BM201 NUMISHEET 2011 Simulation of the Cross-shaped Cup Deep-drawing Process A. Benchmark participant Name Arthur Shapiro1*, Xinhai Zhu1, David Lorenz2 Affiliation 1LSTC, 2Dynamore, GmbH Address 7374 Las Positas Road, Livermore, California, 94551, USA Email *[email protected] Phone number 1 925 449 2500 Fax number 1 925 449 2507 B. Software/Hardware Name of the FEM code LS-DYNA General aspect of the code FE code for analyzing the large deformation response of structures with heat transfer Basic formulations Nonlinear explicit finite elements Element/Mesh technology Number of elements Blank: 2,940 deformable shell elements, Tools: 33,751 rigid shell elements Type of elements Blank: deformable shells, Tools: rigid shells Contact property model Mechanical friction coefficient 0.10 and 0.05 Thermal contact coefficient 4500 W/m2C Friction formulation Sliding with voids CPU type CPU clock speed 2.40 GHz Number of cores per CPU 1 925 449 2500 Main memory 8 GB Operating system Linux 2.6 x86_64 Total CPU time 8 minutes 31 seconds NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 59 - C. Describe the material model that is used for each material Yield function/Plastic potential, Anisotropy model Material 1: AZ31B 3-parameter Barlat: Lankford parameters for the anisotropy are a function of (strain, temperature) Hardening rule Material 1: AZ31B Table form: property data entered in a 4-dimensional table as (stress, strain, strain rate, temperature) Failure prediction model Material 1: AZ31B None Heat transfer model (Blank-tool interface) Material 1: AZ31B Contact coefficient 4500 W/m2C for gaps less than 0.01mm Optional (If the participants use their own effective curves) Material 1: AZ31B (true stress, true strain) converted to (effective stress, effective plastic strain) D. Remarks NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 60 - BM202 NUMISHEET 2011 Simulation of the Cross-shaped Cup Deep-drawing Process A. Benchmark participant Name Dirk Steglich1*, Mintesnot Nebebe1 Affiliation 1Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht Centre for Materials and Coastal Research, Materials Mechanics Address Max-Planck-Str. 1, D-21502 Geesthacht, Germany Email *[email protected] Phone number 49 4152 872543 Fax number 49 4152 8742543 B. Software/Hardware Name of the FEM code ABAQUS 6.10.2 & Zmat General aspect of the code Multipurpose commercial FE Environment, special plug-in for material definition Basic formulations Implicit Element/Mesh technology Number of elements 116124 Type of elements 4-node linear shell elements, reduced integration Contact property model Hard contact Friction formulation Coulomb Friction CPU type CPU clock speed 2.66 Ghz Number of cores per CPU 1 Main memory 24 Gb Operating system Linux Total CPU time 2.2E05 seconds NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 61 - C. Describe the material model that is used for each material Yield function/Plastic potential, Anisotropy model Material 1: AZ31B Cazacu, Plunkett, Barlat 2006 (CPB2006), Isotropic hardening Hardening rule Material 1: AZ31B Equation form: exp(0.006 x (T100)) x (322 133 x exp(eps/0.16)) Failure prediction model Material 1: AZ31B None Heat transfer model (Blank-tool interface) Material 1: AZ31B Clearance-dependent thermal conductance Optional (If the participants use their own effective curves) Material 1: AZ31B D. Remarks Results of simulation with friction coefficient 0.05 are provided in a separate Origin 8.0 file NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 62 - BM203 NUMISHEET 2011 Simulation of the Cross-shaped Cup Deep-drawing Process A. Benchmark participant Name Siguang Xu1*, Ching-Kou Hisung1, Thomas Stoughton1, Matt Oliver1 Affiliation 1General Motors, Gbobal Body Manufacturing Engineering Address 30001 Van Dyke, VEC 1M40-8, Warren, MI 48090-9020, Mail Code: 480-210-1Y3, USAEmail *[email protected] Phone number 248-343-7222 Fax number 586-492-2564 B. Software/Hardware Name of the FEM code LS-DYNA3D v971d General aspect of the code Dynamic Basic formulations Explicit for forming, implicit for thermal Element/Mesh technology Number of elements 18665 (quarter blank) Type of elements Element 16 Contact property model One way surface to surface thermal contact Friction formulation Coulomb friction law CPU type CPU clock speed Intel Xeon E5430 2.66Ghz Number of cores per CPU 4 Main memory 16Gb Operating system Window 7 Total CPU time 18 hours 37 minutes NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 63 - C. Describe the material model that is used for each material Yield function/Plastic potential, Anisotropy model Material 1: AZ31B Modified Barlat 89 (Mat 36) Hardening rule Material 1: AZ31B Table form Failure prediction model Material 1: AZ31B FLD Heat transfer model (Blank-tool interface) Material 1: AZ31B Conductive heat transfer based on the gap between blank and tool Optional (If the participants use their own effective curves) Material 1: AZ31B D. Remarks NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 64 - BM204 NUMISHEET 2011 Simulation of the Cross-shaped Cup Deep-drawing Process A. Benchmark participant Name Subir Roy1*, Hariharasudhan Palaniswamy1** Affiliation 1Altair Engineering Inc Address 1820 E Big Beaver road, Troy, MI 48083, USA Email *[email protected], **[email protected] Phone number 001-248-614-2400 - Ext 354, 467 Fax number 001-248-614-2411 B. Software/Hardware Name of the FEM code RADIOSS V 110 General aspect of the code Heating: Transient Explicit, Forming: Dynamic Explicit with Thermal option Basic formulations Updated Lagrangian formulation with associated flow rule, Von Mises yield function Element/Mesh technology Number of elements Blank: quarter geometry considered due to symmetry Total of 11450 elements Type of elements HEPH shell elements with 5 integration point along thickness Contact property model Penalty formulation with heat transfer between the pairs in contact. Friction formulation Basic Columb's law CPU type CPU clock speed IntelXeon CPU E5430 @ 2.66 GHz (2 processors) Number of cores per CPU 4 cores Main memory 32GB RAM Operating system Windows Vista 64 bit Total CPU time 10470 seconds NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 65 - C. Describe the material model that is used for each material Yield function/Plastic potential, Anisotropy model Material 1: AZ31B Hill 1948 yield function Hardening rule Material 1: AZ31B Table form Failure prediction model Material 1: AZ31B None Heat transfer model (Blank-tool interface) Material 1: AZ31B Heat transfer between tool and blank is considered as part of contact and expressed by heat conductance given in the bench mark description. Optional (If the participants use their own effective curves) Material 1: AZ31B D. Remarks Only a quarter blank was modeled due to symmetry conditions. However the punch force is provided considering the full cup (multiplied by four). Also, the force provided is the normal force acting on the punch in the drawing direction. NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 66 - BM205 NUMISHEET 2011 Simulation of the Cross-shaped Cup Deep-drawing Process A. Benchmark participant Name Toshirou Amaishi1*, Ito Hidetaka1, Ninshu Ma1 Affiliation 1JSOL Corporation Address Tosabori Daibiru Building, 2-2-4, Tosabori Nishi-ku, Osaka 550-0001, Japan Email *[email protected] Phone number +81-80-2167-5861 Fax number +81-6-6225-3517 B. Software/Hardware Name of the FEM code JSTAMP/NV General aspect of the code Nonlinear Implicit(heat transfer) / Explicit(mecahanichal forming) Coupling Basic formulations Elastic Viscoplastic Material, Diagonal Scaled Conjugate Gradient Iterative Element/Mesh technology Number of elements 26828 Type of elements Fully Integrated Contact property model Surface to surface Friction formulation Coulomb CPU type CPU clock speed 3.33GHz Number of cores per CPU 4 Main memory 3.0GB Operating system Windows XP Total CPU time 3 hours 20 minutes NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 67 - C. Describe the material model that is used for each material Yield function/Plastic potential, Anisotropy model Material 1: AZ31B Hill '48 with temperature dependence Hardening rule Material 1: AZ31B Table form Failure prediction model Material 1: AZ31B Thinning Heat transfer model (Blank-tool interface) Material 1: AZ31B Conduct, Convection Optional (If the participants use their own effective curves) Material 1: AZ31B D. Remarks NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 68 - BM206 NUMISHEET 2011 Simulation of the Cross-shaped Cup Deep-drawing Process A. Benchmark participant Name Zhigang Liu1*, Patrice Lasne1, Elisabeth Massoni1 Affiliation 1CEMEF (center of material forming), Mines- Paristech. Address 1 rue Claude Daunesse, 06 904, Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France Email *[email protected] Phone number +33 (0)4 93 95 75 61 Fax number B. Software/Hardware Name of the FEM code FORGE 2009 General aspect of the code Industrial Simulation Software Basic formulations Implicit Mixed Finite Element P1+P1 Formulation Element/Mesh technology Number of elements 107632 Type of elements Volumic Tetrahedrons Contact property model Penalised explicit contact Friction formulation Coulomb Explicit Formulation CPU type CPU clock speed 2992 Mhz Number of cores per CPU 4 Main memory 3325 Mb Operating system Windows XP Total CPU time 34 hours 3 minutes 40 seconds NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 69 - C. Describe the material model that is used for each material Yield function/Plastic potential, Anisotropy model Material 1: AZ31B Hill anisotropic Criteria Hardening rule Material 1: AZ31B Table form Failure prediction model Material 1: AZ31B Volumic failure model Heat transfer model (Blank-tool interface) Material 1: AZ31B Fourier thermal exchange Model Optional (If the participants use their own effective curves) Material 1: AZ31B D. Remarks FORGE software, based on the finite element method, is used to simulate hot, warm and cold forming of 3D parts. The software uses thermo-viscoplastic or thermo-elasto-vicoplastic laws for hot forging. For warm and cold forming processes, a thermo-elasto-plastic model enables the prediction of residual stresses and geometrical dimensions at the end of the forming. Anisotropic Hill model and kinematic hardening can be considered to represent the plastic material behavior. The stability of automatic volumic meshing and remeshing procedure enables the simulation of geometrically complex parts. The parallel / Cluster version of FORGE in 3D decreases the computations time and thus enables the use of meshes consisting of many nodes. NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 70 - BM207 NUMISHEET 2011 Simulation of the Cross-shaped Cup Deep-drawing Process A. Benchmark participant Name Waluyo Adi Siswanto1*, Agus Dwi Anggono1 Affiliation 1Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia Address 86400, Parit Raja, Batu Pahat, Malaysia Email *[email protected] Phone number +604537745 / +60146637073 Fax number +604536080 B. Software/Hardware Name of the FEM code eta/DYNAFORM 5.8 General aspect of the code General purpose finite element for analyzing the large deformation static and dynamic response of structure including structure couple to fluids. Basic formulations Dynamic explicit Element/Mesh technology Number of elements Tools : 731 elements, Blank : 773 elements Type of elements Quadrilateral And Triangular Contact property model Scale factor for sliding interface penalties Friction formulation Forming one way surface to surface frictional value CPU type CPU clock speed 2.33 GHz Number of cores per CPU Core 2 Quad Processors Main memory 2 GHz Operating system Windows XP Professional SP3 Total CPU time 18638 seconds (5 hours 10 minutes 38 seconds) NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 71 - C. Describe the material model that is used for each material Yield function/Plastic potential, Anisotropy model Material 1: AZ31B Planar unisotropic plasticity model Hardening rule Material 1: AZ31B Nonlinear hardening rule Stress-strain relation Material 1: AZ31B Krupskowsky law Failure prediction model Material 1: AZ31B FLC Keeler Heat transfer model (Blank-tool interface) Material 1: AZ31B Convection Heat transfer coefficient Optional (If the participants use their own effective curves) Material 1: AZ31B D. Remarks Modeling: Only quarter model considered and applied symmetrical boundary conditions Punch speeding: 10 mm/s, due to CPU limitation running time - Before drawing - In the middle of drawing - After drawing completed NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 72 - SUMMARY OF SIMULATION CONDITIONS AND METHODS Number Name Software/Hardware Material Model BM201 Arthur Shapiro, Xinhai Zhu, David Lorenz 1. Software : LS-DYNA 2. Hardware (CPU) : 2.40 GHz 1. Yield function: 3-parameter Barlat 2. Hardening rule: Table form 3. Failure prediction model: None 4. Heat transfer model : Contact coefficient 4500 W/m2C for gaps less than 0.01mm BM202 Dirk Steglich, Mintesnot Nebebe 1. Software : ABAQUS 6.10.2 & Zmat 2. Hardware (CPU) : 2.66 GHz 1. Yield function: CPB2006 2. Hardening rule: Isotropic 3. Failure prediction model: None 4. Heat transfer model : Clearance-dependent thermal conductance BM203 Siguang Xu, Ching-Kou Hisung, Thomas Stoughton, Matt Oliver 1. Software : LS-DYNA3D v971d 2. Hardware (CPU) : Intel Xeon E5430 2.66GHz 1. Yield function: Modified Barlat 89 2. Hardening rule: Table form 3. Failure prediction model: FLD 4. Heat transfer model : Conductive heat transfer based on the gap between blank and tool BM204 Subir Roy, Hariharasudhan Palaniswamy 1. Software : RADIOSS V 110 2. Hardware (CPU) : Intel Xeon E5430 2.66 GHz 1. Yield function: Hill48 2. Hardening rule: Table form 3. Failure prediction model: None 4. Heat transfer model : Heat conductance in benchmark description BM205 Toshirou Amaishi, Ito Hidetaka, Ninshu Ma 1. Software : JSTAMP/NV 2. Hardware (CPU) : 3.33 GHz 1. Yield function: Hill48 2. Hardening rule: Table form 3. Failure prediction model: Thinning 4. Heat transfer model: Conduct, ConvectionBM206 Zhigang Liu, Patrice Lasne, Elisabeth Massoni 1. Software : FORGE 2009 2. Hardware (CPU) : 2.992 GHz 1. Yield function: Hill anisotropic Criteria 2. Hardening rule: Table form 3. Failure prediction model : Volumic failure model 4. Heat transfer model : Fourier thermal exchange Model BM207 Waluyo Adi Siswanto, Agus Dwi Anggono 1. Software : eta/DYNAFORM 5.8 2. Hardware (CPU) : 2.33 GHz 1. Yield function: Planar unisotropic plasticity model 2. Hardening rule: Nonlinear hardening rule 3. Failure prediction model : FLC Keeler 4. Heat transfer model : Convection Heat transfer coefficient NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 73 - LIST OF FIGURES BM2 Friction coefficient () = 0.05 Figure 2.1.01 (=0.05) Punch load vs. punch stroke during the drawing process Figure 2.1.02 (=0.05) Punch load vs. punch stroke during the drawing process Figure 2.1.03 (=0.05) Thickness vs. travel length from the center towards the edge along each direction (punch stroke = 10 mm, angle from the rolling direction = 0.0) Figure 2.1.04 (=0.05) Thickness vs. travel length from the center towards the edge along each direction (punch stroke = 10 mm, angle from the rolling direction = 0.0) Figure 2.1.05 (=0.05) Thickness vs. travel length from the center towards the edge along each direction (punch stroke = 10 mm, angle from the rolling direction = 22.5) Figure 2.1.06 (=0.05) Thickness vs. travel length from the center towards the edge along each direction (punch stroke = 10 mm, angle from the rolling direction = 22.5) Figure 2.1.07 (=0.05) Thickness vs. travel length from the center towards the edge along each direction (punch stroke = 10 mm, angle from the rolling direction = 45.0) Figure 2.1.08 (=0.05) Thickness vs. travel length from the center towards the edge along each direction (punch stroke = 10 mm, angle from the rolling direction = 45.0) Figure 2.1.09 (=0.05) Thickness vs. travel length from the center towards the edge along each direction (punch stroke = 10 mm, angle from the rolling direction = 67.5) Figure 2.1.10 (=0.05) Thickness vs. travel length from the center towards the edge along each direction (punch stroke = 10 mm, angle from the rolling direction = 67.5) Figure 2.1.11 (=0.05) Thickness vs. travel length from the center towards the edge along each direction (punch stroke = 10 mm, angle from the rolling direction = 90.0) Figure 2.1.12 (=0.05) Thickness vs. travel length from the center towards the edge along each direction (punch stroke = 10 mm, angle from the rolling direction = 90.0) Figure 2.1.13 (=0.05) Temperature vs. travel length from the center towards the edge along each direction (punch stroke = 10 mm, angle from the rolling direction = 0.0) Figure 2.1.14 (=0.05) Temperature vs. travel length from the center towards the edge along each direction (punch stroke = 10 mm, angle from the rolling direction = 0.0) Figure 2.1.15 (=0.05) Temperature vs. travel length from the center towards the edge along each direction (punch stroke = 10 mm, angle from the rolling direction = 22.5) Figure 2.1.16 (=0.05) Temperature vs. travel length from the center towards the edge along each direction NUMISHEET 2011 August 21-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea - 74 - (punch stroke = 10 mm, angle from the rolling direction = 22.5) Figure 2.1.17 (=0.05) Temperature vs. travel length from the center towards the edge along each direction (punch stroke = 10 mm, angle from the rolling direction = 45.0) Figure 2.1.18 (=0.05) Temperature vs. travel length from the center towards the edge along each direction (punch stroke = 10 mm, angle from the rolling direction = 45.0) Figure 2.1.19 (=0.05) Temperature vs. travel length from the center towards the edge along each direction (punch stroke = 10 mm, angle from the rolling direction = 67.5) Figure 2.1.20 (=0.05) Temperature vs. travel length from the center towards the edge along e