Analysis of ESAFORM 2021 cup drawing benchmark of an Al alloy, critical factors for accuracy and efficiency of FE simulations

Simple item page
dc.contributorAalto-yliopistofi
dc.contributorAalto Universityen
dc.contributor.authorHabraken, Anne Marieen_US
dc.contributor.authorAksen, Toros Ardaen_US
dc.contributor.authorAlves, Jose L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorAmaral, Rui L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBetaieb, Ehssenen_US
dc.contributor.authorChandola, Nitinen_US
dc.contributor.authorCorallo, Lucaen_US
dc.contributor.authorCruz, Daniel J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorDuchene, Laurenten_US
dc.contributor.authorEngel, Bernden_US
dc.contributor.authorEsener, Emreen_US
dc.contributor.authorFirat, Mehmeten_US
dc.contributor.authorFrohn-Soerensen, Peteren_US
dc.contributor.authorGalan-Lopez, Jesusen_US
dc.contributor.authorGhiabakloo, Hadien_US
dc.contributor.authorKestens, Leo A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLian, Junheen_US
dc.contributor.authorLingam, Rakeshen_US
dc.contributor.authorLiu, Wenchengen_US
dc.contributor.authorMa, Junen_US
dc.contributor.authorMenezes, Luis F.en_US
dc.contributor.authorTuan Nguyen-Minhen_US
dc.contributor.authorMiranda, Sara S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorNeto, Diogo M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPereira, Andre F. G.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPrates, Pedro A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorReuter, Jonasen_US
dc.contributor.authorRevil-Baudard, Benoiten_US
dc.contributor.authorRojas-Ulloa, Carlosen_US
dc.contributor.authorSener, Boraen_US
dc.contributor.authorShen, Fuhuien_US
dc.contributor.authorVan Bael, Alberten_US
dc.contributor.authorVerleysen, Patriciaen_US
dc.contributor.authorBarlat, Fredericen_US
dc.contributor.authorCazacu, Oanaen_US
dc.contributor.authorKuwabara, Toshihikoen_US
dc.contributor.authorLopes, Augustoen_US
dc.contributor.authorOliveira, Marta C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSantos, Abel D.en_US
dc.contributor.authorVincze, Gabrielaen_US
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Mechanical Engineeringen
dc.contributor.groupauthorAdvanced Manufacturing and Materialsen
dc.contributor.organizationUniversity of Liègeen_US
dc.contributor.organizationSakarya Universityen_US
dc.contributor.organizationUniversidade do Minhoen_US
dc.contributor.organizationUniversidade do Portoen_US
dc.contributor.organizationUniversity of Floridaen_US
dc.contributor.organizationGhent Universityen_US
dc.contributor.organizationUniversitat Siegenen_US
dc.contributor.organizationBilecik Seyh Edebali Universityen_US
dc.contributor.organizationDelft University of Technologyen_US
dc.contributor.organizationKU Leuvenen_US
dc.contributor.organizationIndian Institute of Technology Dharwaden_US
dc.contributor.organizationNorthwestern Polytechnical Universityen_US
dc.contributor.organizationNorwegian University of Science and Technologyen_US
dc.contributor.organizationUniversidade de Coimbraen_US
dc.contributor.organizationUniversidade de Aveiroen_US
dc.contributor.organizationYildiz Technical Universityen_US
dc.contributor.organizationPohang University of Science and Technologyen_US
dc.contributor.organizationTokyo University of Agriculture and Technologyen_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-10T08:22:05Z
dc.date.available2022-08-10T08:22:05Z
dc.date.issued2022-09en_US
dc.description.abstractThis article details the ESAFORM Benchmark 2021. The deep drawing cup of a 1 mm thick, AA 6016-T4 sheet with a strong cube texture was simulated by 11 teams relying on phenomenological or crystal plasticity approaches, using commercial or self-developed Finite Element (FE) codes, with solid, continuum or classical shell elements and different contact models. The material characterization (tensile tests, biaxial tensile tests, monotonic and reverse shear tests, EBSD measurements) and the cup forming steps were performed with care (redundancy of measurements). The Benchmark organizers identified some constitutive laws but each team could perform its own identification. The methodology to reach material data is systematically described as well as the final data set. The ability of the constitutive law and of the FE model to predict Lankford and yield stress in different directions is verified. Then, the simulation results such as the earing (number and average height and amplitude), the punch force evolution and thickness in the cup wall are evaluated and analysed. The CPU time, the manpower for each step as well as the required tests versus the final prediction accuracy of more than 20 FE simulations are commented. The article aims to guide students and engineers in their choice of a constitutive law (yield locus, hardening law or plasticity approach) and data set used in the identification, without neglecting the other FE features, such as software, explicit or implicit strategy, element type and contact model.en
dc.description.versionPeer revieweden
dc.format.extent96
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_US
dc.identifier.citationHabraken, A M, Aksen, T A, Alves, J L, Amaral, R L, Betaieb, E, Chandola, N, Corallo, L, Cruz, D J, Duchene, L, Engel, B, Esener, E, Firat, M, Frohn-Soerensen, P, Galan-Lopez, J, Ghiabakloo, H, Kestens, L A, Lian, J, Lingam, R, Liu, W, Ma, J, Menezes, L F, Tuan Nguyen-Minh, Miranda, S S, Neto, D M, Pereira, A F G, Prates, P A, Reuter, J, Revil-Baudard, B, Rojas-Ulloa, C, Sener, B, Shen, F, Van Bael, A, Verleysen, P, Barlat, F, Cazacu, O, Kuwabara, T, Lopes, A, Oliveira, M C, Santos, A D & Vincze, G 2022, ' Analysis of ESAFORM 2021 cup drawing benchmark of an Al alloy, critical factors for accuracy and efficiency of FE simulations ', INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATERIAL FORMING, vol. 15, no. 5, 61 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12289-022-01672-wen
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s12289-022-01672-wen_US
dc.identifier.issn1960-6206
dc.identifier.issn1960-6214
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 905d3a70-0f1f-47d4-a855-0e52efbced14en_US
dc.identifier.otherPURE ITEMURL: https://research.aalto.fi/en/publications/905d3a70-0f1f-47d4-a855-0e52efbced14en_US
dc.identifier.otherPURE FILEURL: https://research.aalto.fi/files/86525793/s12289_022_01672_w.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/115837
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi:aalto-202208104659
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherSPRINGER
dc.relation.ispartofseriesINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATERIAL FORMINGen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesVolume 15, issue 5en
dc.rightsopenAccessen
dc.subject.keywordBenchmarken_US
dc.subject.keyword6016-T4 aluminium alloyen_US
dc.subject.keywordDeep drawing modellingen_US
dc.subject.keywordModel comparisonsen_US
dc.subject.keywordEaring profile predictionen_US
dc.subject.keywordForce predictionen_US
dc.subject.keywordThickness predictionen_US
dc.subject.keywordANISOTROPIC YIELD FUNCTIONSen_US
dc.subject.keywordPLASTIC ANISOTROPYen_US
dc.subject.keywordTEXTURE DEVELOPMENTen_US
dc.subject.keywordSHEET METALSen_US
dc.subject.keywordPART Ien_US
dc.subject.keywordSTRAINen_US
dc.subject.keywordDEFORMATIONen_US
dc.subject.keywordCRITERIONen_US
dc.subject.keywordFRICTIONen_US
dc.subject.keywordBEHAVIORen_US
dc.titleAnalysis of ESAFORM 2021 cup drawing benchmark of an Al alloy, critical factors for accuracy and efficiency of FE simulationsen
dc.typeA1 Alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessäfi
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion
Files
Collections
[article-cris] Insinööritieteiden korkeakoulu / ENG