Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comprehensive benchmark study of commercial sheet metal forming simulation softwares used in the automotive industry

  • Original Research
  • Published:
International Journal of Material Forming Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There are currently several commercial Finite Element Analysis (FEA) softwares available, and it is not clear for a company the differences between them, mostly in terms of results accuracy, reliability and usability. International conferences were created to promote a world-class forum in which, simulation engineers and automakers, can exchange their knowledge in the sheet metal forming field and evaluate stamping simulation softwares, through benchmarking exercises. However, a comparison of FEA tools based in such methodology is not truly reliable, since each participant can choose its own strategy to build the numerical model based on the experimental data delivered. In this study, the authors use a different approach to achieve a more reasonable and fair comparison between three different sheet metal forming FEA tools: AUTOFORM R5.2, PAM-STAMP 2G 2012.2 and DD3IMP. Although the existence of substantial differences in the Finite Element (FE) formulations and element types, the material laws and process parameters adopted were kept as close as possible, making the constitutive models essentially identical. This benchmark was carried out using the Numisheet 2008 Benchmark #2, which is well specified and for which there are a set of experimental results available. The numerical results and experimental results were compared in terms of: punch forces, draw-in, principal strains, formability, geometry after springback and computational cost. The usage of equivalent constitutive models shows that the accuracy of the FEA tools are roughly the same. This study also highlights the true meaning of the differences between the numerical results in the industrial competitiveness of a company.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29
Fig. 30
Fig. 31

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Banabic D (2010). Sheet metal forming processes: constitutive modelling and numerical simulation, 1st ed. Springer, New York. ISBN: 978-3-540-88112-4, pp. 21-25, 45-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88113-1

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Tang SC, Ilankamban R, Ling P (1988) A finite element modeling of the stretch-draw forming process. SAE Technical Paper 880527. https://doi.org/10.4271/880527

  3. Honecker A, Mattiasson K (1989) Finite element procedures for 3D sheet forming simulation. In: Thompson EG, Wood RD, Zienkiewicz OC, Samuelsson A (eds) NUMIFORM’89. AA Balkema, Sophia Antipolis

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lenard JG, Schey JA (2002) Metal forming science and practice: a state-of-the-art volume in honour of Professor J.A. Schey’s 80th Birthday. In: Lenard JG (ed) Numerical simulation of sheet metal. Elsevier Science Ltd, Amsterdam, pp 143

  5. Cazacu O, Barlat F (2001) Generalization of Drucker’s yield criterion in orthotropy. Math Mech Solids 6(6):613–630. https://doi.org/10.1177/108128650100600603

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Banabic D, Kuwabara T, Balan T, Comsa DS, Julean D (2003) Non-quadratic yield criterion for orthotropic sheet metals under plane-stress conditions. Proceedings of the 7th Conference ‘TPR2000’. Cluj Napoca, Romania, pp 217–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Aretz H, Barlat F (2004) General orthotropic yield function based on linear stress deviator transformations. In: Ghosh S, Castro GC, Lee JK (eds) Materials processing and design: modelling, simulation and applications. Proceedings of the NUMIFORM 2004 Conference, Columbus, O. H., pp 147–151

  8. Banabic D, Aretz H, Comsa DS, Paraianu L (2005) An improved analytical description of orthotropy in metallic sheets. Int J Plast 21(3):493–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijplas.2004.04.003

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Vegter D, van den Boogaard AH (2006) A plane stress yield function for anisotropic sheet material by interpolation of biaxial stress states. Int J Plast 22(3):557–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijplas.2005.04.009

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Comsa DS, Banabic D (2008) Plane-stress yield criterion for highly-anisotropic sheet metals. In: Hora P (ed) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference and Workshop on Numerical Simulation of 3D Sheet Metal Forming Processes, NUMISHEET 2008, Interlaken, Switzerland, pp 43–48

  11. Hillmann M, Kubli W (2009) Method for designing a tool for deep drawing and tool for deep drawing of sheet metal. US patent 7623939 B2, 24 Nov 2009

  12. Kubli W, Krainer A (2012) Method and computing system for designing a sheet-metal-forming process. US patent 20120123579 A1, 17 May 2012

  13. Kubli W, Krainer A (2013) Method and system for processing and displaying sheet-metal-forming simulation parameters. US patent 8478572 B2, 2 Jul 2013

  14. Kubli W, Krainer A (2013) Method and computing system for designing a sheet-metal-forming process. US patent 8560103 B2, 15 Oct 2013

  15. Roll K, Wiegand K, Hora P, Manopulo N, Clausmeyer T (2008) Benchmark 2 – influence of drawbeads on the springback behavior («S-Rail») part b: benchmark analysis. In: Proceeding of the 7th International Conference and Workshop on Numerical Simulation of 3d Sheet Metal Forming Processes, Interlaken, Switzerland

  16. Hora P, Peters P, Manopulo N, Gorji M (2015) Challenges in the accurate modeling of sheet metal forming processes. In: Proceedings of 8th Forming Technology Forum Zurich 2015 – Advanced Constitutive Models in Sheet Metal Forming

  17. Roll K, Wiegand K, Hora P (2008) Benchmark 2 – influence of drawbeads on the springback behavior («S-Rail») part a: physical tryout report. In: Proceeding of the 7th International Conference and Workshop on Numerical Simulation of 3d Sheet Metal Forming Processes, Interlaken, Switzerland

  18. Padmanabhan R, Oliveira MC, Alves JL, Menezes LF (2007) Influence of process parameters on the deep drawing of stainless steel. Finite Elem Anal Des 43(14):1062–1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2007.06.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Walker SV, Leine RI (2016) Modeling and numerical simulation of anisotropic dry friction with nonconvex friction force reservoir. In: Proceedings of the 4th joint of international conference on multibody system dynamics, Montréal

  20. Trzepieciński T, Lemu H (2011) Investigation of anisotropy problems in sheet metal forming using finite element method. Int J Mater Form 4(4):357–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12289-010-0994-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lemu H, Trzepieciński T (2013) Numerical and experimental study of frictional behavior in bending under tension test. J Mech Eng 59(1):41–49. https://doi.org/10.5545/sv-jme.2012.383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Trzepieciński T, Bazan A, Lemu H (2015) Frictional characteristics of steel sheets used in automotive industry. Int J Automot Technol 16(5):849–863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12239-015-0087-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by SFRH/BDE/51189/2010.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Nuno Miguel de Seabra Merendeiro

    Present address: Sodecia-participações Sociais Sgps Sa, Rua do Espido, 164-F, Edificio Via Norte, 4470-177, Maia, Portugal

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Product Competence Center Sodecia, Rua Eng.° Frederico Ulrich, 2650, 4470-605, Maia, Portugal

    Anthony Michael Fernandes Pimentel, Nuno Miguel de Seabra Merendeiro & Diana Maria Faria Vieira

  2. CMEMS, Universidade do Minho, Campus de Azurém, 4800-058, Guimarães, Portugal

    Anthony Michael Fernandes Pimentel & José Luís de Carvalho Martins Alves

Authors
  1. Anthony Michael Fernandes Pimentel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. José Luís de Carvalho Martins Alves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nuno Miguel de Seabra Merendeiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Diana Maria Faria Vieira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony Michael Fernandes Pimentel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pimentel, A.M.F., de Carvalho Martins Alves, J.L., de Seabra Merendeiro, N.M. et al. Comprehensive benchmark study of commercial sheet metal forming simulation softwares used in the automotive industry. Int J Mater Form 11, 879–899 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12289-018-1397-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12289-018-1397-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation