Issues on the Correlation between Experimental and Numerical Results in Sheet Metal Forming Benchmarks

被引:0
作者
Amaral, Rui L. [1 ,2 ]
Neto, Diogo M. [3 ]
Wagre, Dipak [2 ]
Santos, Abel D. [1 ,2 ]
Oliveira, Marta C. [3 ]
机构
[1] Inst Sci & Innovat Mech & Ind Engn INEGI, R Dr Roberto Frias 400, P-4200465 Porto, Portugal
[2] Univ Porto FEUP, Fac Engn, Dept Mech Engn, R Dr Roberto Frias 400, P-4200465 Porto, Portugal
[3] Univ Coimbra, Dept Mech Engn, CEMMPRE, Rua Luis Reis Santos, P-3030788 Coimbra, Portugal
关键词
experimental benchmarks; finite element modeling; numerical validation; sheet metal forming; springback; FRICTIONAL CONTACT; SPRINGBACK; SIMULATION; PREDICTION; SURFACES;
D O I
10.3390/met10121595
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
The validation of numerical models requires the comparison between numerical and experimental results, which has led to the development of benchmark tests in order to achieve a wider participation. In the sheet metal-forming research field, the benchmarks proposed by the Numisheet conference series are a reference, because they always represented a challenge for the numerical codes within the state of the art in the modeling of sheet metal forming. From the challenges proposed along the series of Numisheet benchmarks, the springback prediction has been frequently incorporated, and is still a motivation for the development and testing of accurate modeling strategies. In fact, springback prediction poses many challenges, because it is strongly influenced by numerical parameters such as the type, order, and integration scheme of the finite elements adopted, as well as the shape and size of the finite element mesh, in addition to the constitutive model. Moreover, its measurement also requires the definition of a fixture that should not influence the actual springback and the proper definition of the measurement locations and directions. This is the subject of this contribution, which analyzes the benchmark focused on springback prediction, proposed by the Numisheet 2016 committee. Numerical results are obtained with two different codes and comparisons are performed between both numerical and experimental data. The differences between numerical results are mainly dictated by the ambiguous definition of boundary conditions. The analysis of numerical and experimental springback results should rely on the use of global planes to ensure the objectivity and simplicity in the comparison. Therefore, the analysis gives an insight into issues related to the comparison of results in complex geometries involving springback, which in turn suggests some recommendations for similar future benchmarks.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 23
页数:23
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]   Benchmark 2-Springback of a Jaguar Land Rover Aluminium Panel [J].
Allen, Martin ;
Oliveira, Marta ;
Hazra, Sumit ;
Adetoro, Oluwamayokun ;
Das, Abhishek ;
Cardoso, Rui .
NUMISHEET 2016: 10TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AND WORKSHOP ON NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF 3D SHEET METAL FORMING PROCESSES, PTS A AND B, 2016, 734
[2]  
[Anonymous], NXT DEF EV
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1991, P VDI BERICHTE, V894
[5]   Advances in anisotropy of plastic behaviour and formability of sheet metals [J].
Banabic, Dorel ;
Barlat, Frederic ;
Cazacu, Oana ;
Kuwabara, Toshihiko .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATERIAL FORMING, 2020, 13 (05) :749-787
[6]   A 6-COMPONENT YIELD FUNCTION FOR ANISOTROPIC MATERIALS [J].
BARLAT, F ;
LEGE, DJ ;
BREM, JC .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PLASTICITY, 1991, 7 (07) :693-712
[7]   PREDICTION OF TRICOMPONENT PLANE-STRESS YIELD SURFACES AND ASSOCIATED FLOW AND FAILURE BEHAVIOR OF STRONGLY TEXTURED FCC POLYCRYSTALLINE SHEETS [J].
BARLAT, F ;
RICHMOND, O .
MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, 1987, 95 :15-29
[8]  
Col A, 2005, AIP CONF PROC, V778, P228, DOI 10.1063/1.2011223
[9]  
Col A., 2002, Proceedings of NUMISHEET 2002 -5th International Conference and Workshop on Numerical Simulation of 3D Sheet Forming Processes, V1, P643
[10]  
Damian-Noriega Z., 2008, P ICCES INT C COMP E, V8, P25, DOI DOI 10.3970/ICCES.2008.008.025