sheet metal simulation applications

The Practical Use of Simulation in the Sheet Metal Forming Industry.

• Joint paper presented at the Confederation of
British Metalforming Technical Conference
2001.
• Paper focused on the use of both bulk and
sheet metal simulation software to aid
process development and improvement.

Wilde FEA Ltd. 2001

T: +44 (0) 161 4747479 E: info@WildeFEA.co.uk

 THE PRACTICAL USE OF SIMULATION IN THE
SHEET METAL FORMING INDUSTRY
Dr Brian Miller (bmiller@WildeAndPartners.com)
Wilde & Partners Ltd, Brindley Lodge, Adcroft Street, Stockport, Cheshire, SK1 3HS

Richard Bond (cae.solutions@virgin.net)

CAE Solutions Ltd, Unit D4, Hilton Trading Estate, Lanesfield, Wolverhampton, WV4 6DW

Abstract
Much of the attention on simulation software in recent years has been focused on the modelling of
bulk metal forming processes such as forging, rolling and extrusion. However, there are numerous
applications for the simulation of sheet forming processes and indeed many pressings suppliers in the
automotive industry are more advanced in the use of simulation than their forging counterparts.

The type of software most suitable for sheet metal forming depends very much on the activities of the
company and even the department. For example, at the part design or sales quotation stage, a quick
‘OneStep’ simulation can be run in minutes that ‘unfolds’ the part geometry to predict potential
forming problems such as tearing, wrinkling and insufficient strain. Alternatively, toolmakers and
stamping departments developing tooling concepts require a detailed incremental simulation where
the various processes involved in the press (e.g. closing of tools, drawing, trimming and flanging) can
be modelled accurately. Furthermore, there is an increasing need for tooling geometry to be created
more quickly than by traditional CAD systems. Software developers have responded by offering rapid
die face generation and morphing facilities within the simulation environment. If these issues are
combined with the fact that many sheet forming-type processes such as piercing, bending and fastener
clamping are best modelled using bulk metal forming software, the choice of software faced by the
sheet metal former considering simulation can become very confusing.

This paper aims to clarify the types of software available for sheet forming simulation and detail a
number of industrial applications. Furthermore, recent developments in simulation, including the
growing use of optimisation methods to automatically design tooling, will be discussed.

1. Introduction
The use of simulation software in metal forming processes has increased significantly in recent years
as the benefits of troubleshooting and optimising processes on the computer rather than through
extensive shop trials have been realised. The rapid development of software technology, together with
faster and lower cost computer hardware, have recently enabled many manufacturing operations to be
modelled cost-effectively that only a few years ago would have been considered impractical.

Many of these advances have been made possible by tailoring and optimising programs for specific
applications, which has resulted in the general terms of ‘sheet-forming’ and ‘bulk-forming’ applied to
different types of process modelling software. However, the choice of software for an uninitiated
company is not always as simple as this classification. For example, sheet metal forming simulation is
currently developing much interest in the UK as a means of reducing both the development costs of
stamping a new part and the production lead time. These costs are accumulated over the entire
development process from initial part design to the final production tool. The correct software tool
will depend on both the application and the stage of product development.

As distributors for both a 2D/3D bulk forming program (DEFORM) and a 3D sheet forming program
(AutoForm), Wilde & Partners have occasionally encountered confusion from companies involved
with sheet metal components who are interested in simulation but are not sure which approach suits
their processes. The objective of this paper is to reduce this confusion and highlight practical ‘sheet
metal’ applications using both types of program.

2. Types of Simulation Program Available

Most analysis software employs the finite element method where the geometry of the component to be
deformed is divided or ‘discretised’ into simplified regular shapes called ‘elements’. There is a large
range of elements available of varying complexity (or degrees of freedom) that can model different
modes of deformation (and temperatures fields, electromagnetic fields etc.) [1]. General purpose finite
element codes are not generally suitable for metal forming simulation because they are not optimised
for these applications, and often do not include features such as automatic remeshing, robust evolving
contact algorithms and a tailored, easy-to-use interface which are essential for practical
implementation. In general, the two fundamental types of metal forming simulation software available
to the sheet metal forming and fabrication industries can be classified by their element choice:

• ‘Sheet-forming’ programs, such as AutoForm, utilise shell elements which are well suited for
large, thin sheet problems, where the stresses and deformation are primarily in the plane of
the sheet;
• Implicit ‘Bulk-forming’ programs, such as DEFORM, utilise solid elements that can be
superior for thicker sheet forming and certain hydroforming problems where the shell
description is considered inadequate, and other sheet metal type problems such as joining and
blanking, which are beyond the scope of shell element based simulation packages.

Depending on the objective of the simulation work, sheet-forming programs can also be subdivided
into the following 3 main areas:

2.1.1 One Step ‘Inverse’ Programs

One Step programs work in reverse to what is normally expected from a simulation program. The part
geometry with or without addendum is ‘unfolded’ back to the flat blank shape or to a curved
blankholder profile. A One Step simulation can be used to assess very quickly whether the part is
feasible by predicting material thickness distribution, cracks, wrinkles, plastic strain and minimum
blank outline. Quicker than an Incremental simulation, an entire OneStep analysis will typically take
between 5-15 minutes even for complex parts, including the import of part geometry from CAD, the
automatic filling of holes and the specification of process parameters. Refinements to a basic OneStep
simulation can be made by including the restraining effect of the addendum/flange area and the
application of binder force and friction. The addendum can be generated automatically from part and
binder surface geometry by specifying punch opening and flange boundary lines. A full tool analysis
can also be performed if the CAD geometry is available or has been created in a ‘Die Designer’
system as described in Section 2.1.3.

2.1.2 Incremental Programs

Incremental programs offer a full process model that simulates the forming stages as accurately as
possible in the logical order from blankholder closing to final flanging. Consequently, incremental
simulations are computationally more intensive than the equivalent one step analysis, and require
tooling information to be input. There are two types of incremental code based on either ‘implicit’ or
‘explicit’ mathematical formulations. Implicit codes such as AutoForm typically solve within 1-4
hours depending on the complexity of the part whereas explicit counterparts tend to be 2-4 times
slower.

As a ‘virtual tryout’ of the production method, an incremental simulation will often by used to
simulate the entire stamping process, with capabilities to model the initial deflection of the sheet due
to gravity, blankholder closing, first draws and restrikes, sheet repositioning, cutting operations,
flanging and springback. Some codes can also simulate hydro-mechanical (fluid forming) processes
for sheets and tubes.

2.1.3 Rapid Parametric Die Design Tools

When tooling information is required in a OneStep or Incremental analysis, the creation of the tooling
geometry using a traditional CAD system is often very time-consuming, and can form a ‘bottleneck’
when trying to run several simulations quickly to optimise a die design. Consequently, some
simulation programs now include integrated rapid die geometry creation tools that enable tooling
concepts to be designed and evaluated by simulation more quickly. Developed specifically for
automotive die designers, toolmakers and sheet metal stampers, additional surfaces are created for the
addendum and blankholder areas of the tools (Figure 1). It has been estimated that these tools can
reduce tooling development time by as much as 50%. Moreover, if the die geometry is parametrically
linked to the simulation, optimisation programs as described in Section 6 can automatically modify
the tools until the desired process is achieved.

Addendum
Part

Blankholder Addendum

Figure 1. Examples of tooling geometry created using AutoForm DieDesigner from the initial part
geometry

3. Matching the Simulation Program to the Application

In principle, the solid element will always model 3D deformation in the most complete sense since it
is a true discretisation of the geometry. When using solid elements, the geometry of any component
should typically be divided into a number of elements in all directions to capture gradients in field
variables and avoid extreme aspect ratios. For large thin sheet applications, this results in huge
numbers of elements within the model and impractically long run times. Shell elements simplify the
analysis by considering stiffness only in the plane of the element and due to bending. For thin sheet
structures shell elements consequently offer a far more computationally efficient solution and work
well if the primary mode of deformation is stretching and any bending is not severe compared to the
thickness [2]. However, if the radii of any sheet bending (e.g. die or punch radius) approach the
thickness of the sheet then solid elements can be significantly more accurate. Moreover, if the
deformation includes other modes, such as localised compression through the sheet thickness (e,g.
rivet installation) or extensive through-thickness shear (as in ironing or blanking processes), solid
elements are necessary.

3.1 The Application of ‘Sheet Forming’ Programs

Sheet forming codes are used by companies for simulating the majority of deep drawing/stretching
forming processes where sheet thickness is less than 2-3 mm. Typical parts that are assessed with
these codes are automotive skin panels, automotive inner parts such as reinforcements, sumps and
exhaust manifolds, aerospace engine components and complex white good components. In these
cases, the engineer is usually most interested in the forming characteristics of the part including:

• The presence of wrinkles

• High tensile strains leading to cracks
• Insufficient plastic strain resulting in ‘loose’ material and poor surface finish
• Skid lines where the sheet is marked by localised punch contact
• Minimum blank outline to ensure sufficient material is available

Many of these characteristics can be conveniently assessed by a formability plot, where the major and
minor strains predicted by the simulation are compared to the specific Forming Limit Curve for the
material grade to identify potential problems (Figure 2).

Figure 2. AutoForm simulation example providing an assessment of formability (Courtesy BMW AG)

The majority of sheet forming software licenses will be found in the automotive industry where the
relatively large production volumes result in the greatest pressures to reduce part costs. In the vehicle
development process, the design cycle can be separated into 4 phases:

• Concept Evaluation
• Design Phase
• Prototype Phase
• Pre-production Phase
Typically the work performed in these phases will be shared between the OEMs and their first and
second tier suppliers. Consequently, sheet forming simulation programs are used by virtually all
OEMs (e.g. Land Rover, Jaguar), 1st tier pressing suppliers (e.g. Swindon Pressings, Mayflower),
engineering consultancies (e.g. Lotus Engineering) and also smaller tooling development companies
(e.g. CAE Solutions). Depending on the development phase and company strategy, different types of
sheet forming program are most appropriate. For example, at Concept Evaluation, the part designer is
unlikely to know the tooling geometry and indeed will not normally have the expertise to design the
tools anyway. However, a simple Part Only OneStep simulation may be run to identify early forming
problems that may occur if the part moves to the next phase. In such cases, the results can be used to
aid discussions with the stamping engineers and guide necessary modifications to the part to achieve a
‘designed-for-manufacture’ concept. At the Design Phase, as the part is finalised, more detailed
OneStep simulations can be run with some approximate tooling concepts involving trial addendum
and blankholder developments. At the prototype and pre-production phases, these tooling concepts are
refined with detailed geometry from CAD or DieDesigner tools, and then Incremental simulations are
performed with the input of drawbeads, blank shape, binder forces, relief cuts and other process
parameters.

In practice Wilde & Partners have found that the application of the One Step and Incremental sheet
forming programs varies widely between companies. In some cases, One Step simulations are used by
stamping engineers at advanced stages of development because of their speed and ability to determine
a minimum blank outline from the unfolded shape. Alternatively, in other situations, because of
reduced run times from improved algorithms and hardware, incremental simulations are being
increasing used at relatively early stages of the design cycle.

3.2 The Application of ‘Bulk Forming’ Programs

Until recently, the use of solid element descriptions for sheet forming and fabrication simulations was
severely limited by requirements on computational speed and memory size. However, the recent
advances in software and hardware technology [3] have made it possible to run simulations with
100,000 to 300,000 or more elements in a reasonable amount of time. Simulation codes such as
DEFORM are therefore being increasingly used for applications that fall outside the limitations of the
sheet forming codes described above. They are also useful for modelling certain operations such as
fastener insertion, piercing, and blanking that cannot be simulated using shell elements. In many
processes, such as fastener insertion and other joining operations, two or more objects may be in
contact with each other, with both objects deforming at once. Not all simulation codes can simulate
multiple simultaneously deforming objects and therefore the prospective user may need to check out
this criteria.

A few applications can potentially be simulated using both approaches. For example, simulations are
currently possible for tube hydro-forming with both shell and solid elements, with the best
combination of speed, accuracy and ease of use depending on the user and details of the application.
However, in most cases, including the following examples for both sheet and bulk forming codes, the
most appropriate simulation approach is generally clear and can be determined from discussions with
the software developers and distributors.
4. Practical Applications using a Sheet Forming Code (Shell Elements)
4.1 Formability Assessment using AutoForm OneStep

In a typical One Step application, the engineer will begin with only the part geometry and perhaps
some idea of the likely punch opening line of the tools and the final outline of the drawn sheet (‘the
flange boundary’). In the following example of a front fender, this information is first input into
AutoForm OneStep as shown in Figure 3(a). To perform the simulation, the program creates a mesh
of the entire drawn sheet, including the addendum and flange areas, and fills holes and missing zones
in the CAD geometry where necessary. During this stage, the mesh is automatically refined with
smaller elements in areas of higher curvature and strain gradients (Figure 3(b)) to maximise accuracy.
AutoForm OneStep then ‘unfolds’ the sheet to predict the minimum blank outline and make a
formability assessment of the final part (wrinkles, cracks, thinning etc). Figure 3(c) indicates the final
thickness distribution with critical thinning zones shown in red.

Punch Opening Line

Minimum
Flange Boundary
Blank
Outline

Part Geometry

(a) Inputs for the simulation (b) Automatic generation (c) Prediction of final thickness
of addendum distribution and blank outline

Figure 3. Assessment of the formability of a front fender by AutoForm OneStep (courtesy Audi AG)

4.2 Tooling Optimisation using AutoForm Incremental at CAE Solutions Ltd

CAE Solutions Ltd provides CAD/CAM/CAE services to the tooling industry, specializing in a wide
range of components and tooling variants for sheet metal forming processes. For die and process
development, the company over the past five years have used various sheet forming simulation tools
for analysing and predicting formability tendencies. This enables their die designs & process
developments to be firstly ‘Proved’ and secondly fully ‘Optimised’ for successful production.
Through their experience, CAE Solutions have found that one significant advantage for toolmaking
companies having simulations conducted on their die designs (apart from the obvious of process
failure) is the ability to request component concessions early in the manufacturing cycle if the process
has any ‘borderline’ forming conditions. Other advantages of simulation for die manufacturing are the
minimisation of blank utilisation, allowing binder and die surface sizes to be kept to a minimum for
tool weight reductions, and the determination of kinematic and force requirements for production
planning and press selection.
4.2.1 Implementation of AutoForm-Incremental

AutoForm-Incremental has been implemented into CAE Solutions as the front end simulation code for
work with single and multi step draw operations, together with AutoForm DieDesigner for rapid die
development due to its ability to automatically generate run-offs and variable draw levels for trials.
Before the implementation of AutoForm, benchmarks were conducted with archived simulation
projects carried out previously on an alternative ‘explicit’ incremental simulation code. On one
particular project, with equivalent levels of accuracy specified, the set-up and run time of the
AutoForm simulation was found to be approximately 10% of the original simulation time of 9.5 hours
for the previous code. The results confirmed very similar formability characteristics of the component
to the original simulation. As Figure 4 illustrates, the AutoForm simulation successfully demonstrated
an ‘out-of-control’ process. The blank was shown not to be retained under the blankholder, leading to
significant wrinkling at an early stage.

After using AutoForm on a range of complex multi stage forming panels of different sheet materials,
from high strength ZSTE (high press) through to Stainless grades (441,409,304,430ti), CAE
Solutions saw good comparative feedback from their customer press trials to the simulations
performed.

Figure 4 An example AutoForm incremental simulation at CAE Solutions Ltd indicating excessive
sheet draw-in and wrinkling (Courtesy: Mapleline)

4.2.2 Case Study of a Stainless Steel Half Shell Exhaust Component

A project was undertaken by CAE Solutions Ltd on behalf of Unipart Eberspacher to design the
tooling for stainless steel half shell exhaust components. These were to be produced and welded
together to form the inter silencer assembly, which is assembled inside the main rear exhaust box.
This project was performed in conjunction with Hewmor Products Ltd, who manufactured the tools,
and Salop Design & Engineering Ltd who performed the final pressings. An interesting feature of the
half shells was the perforations in the shell assembly used to decrease acoustic levels through the
system. The part was a high production component and for both thermal and acoustic performance
was to be produced from stainless steel grade 441 at 1.5mm sheet thickness. From initial 3D die
design, it was determined that the tooling was to be operated manually through four stages of
operations at approximately 5 strokes per minute in a mechanical press, as follows (Figure 5):

• Op10 – Developed piercing operation used to create the perforation pattern in the flat blank.
• Op20 – Draw operation which allows form to be formed down to body flange level, with ‘Y’
piece & ‘Inlet/Outlet’ ports developed out for trimming and restriking.
• Op30 – Trim part all round, with further development local to Y piece and Port regions.
• Op40 – Restrike & Flanging operation to calibrate local radii, and flange Y piece & Port walls
to flange level.
 (a) Punch Side (b) Die Side

Figure 5. 3D design of 4 Stage Tooling

4.2.3 Development of the Half Shell Tooling using Simulation

CAD geometry was imported from the 3D design model into AutoForm, where the tools were defined
for the Op20 Draw. A rough blank was generated with a ‘first-off’ trial perforation pattern. It was
clearly identified that 90 off 3.5mm holes were required in the half shell. From the first simulation
results of Op10 & 20 in Figure 6 it was seen that, when formed, the perforation pattern spread onto
the lower flange area, together with gaps appearing on top of the pressing to allow further holes to be
introduced. This would be unacceptable to the customer and therefore modifications were required.

(a) Partly drawn initial perforation pattern (b) Tools closed

Figure 6. AutoForm Incremental Simulation of ‘First-Off’ Trial Perforation Pattern

From the initial simulation results CAE Solutions were able to adjust the perforation pattern and
optimise the blank to its minimum size before running a second simulation (Figure 7). The results of
the second and final simulation proved the perforation pattern to be correct, and enabled the minimum
blank size and the required force tonnage to be supplied to customer for early material coil ordering
and press selection verification.

Op30 initial trim line developments were then simulated in AutoForm, together with the Op40 flange
and restrike operations, which highlighted the necessity to reduce material thinning in the ‘Y’ area of
the component where trapped metal caused a localised problem. In addition to a reduction in the blank
size that allowed material to flow inwards more easily, CAE Solutions were able to increase the local
radii in the Op20 Draw Die CAD model to solve this problem.

(a) Optimised Perforation Pattern (b) Tools Closed

Figure 7. AutoForm Incremental Simulation of Optimised Perforation Pattern

4.2.4 Integration of AutoForm with the Manufacture of the Half Shells

With the ability to feedback information from AutoForm to their CAD systems, CAE Solutions was
able to quickly update its 3D design CAD geometry to begin preparation of all CAM cycles required
for Hewmor Products to begin CNC machining for tool manufacture. Operations 10, 20 & 40 were
manufactured complete to the 3D design with slight further development conducted on trimming stage
Op30.

4.2.6 Final Outcome of the Half Shell Tooling Development

It can be seen from Figure 8 that the actual components achieved in tryout were highly similar to
those predicted by simulation. As a further test, the simulated draw model was exported to the
toolmaker as an STL file, which was inspected in a comparison test against a ‘hard’ pressing. Results
showed the ‘pull in’ boundary of the component to be consistent with errors ranging up to 1-1.5 mm.
With the use of simulation techniques, tooling design and manufacture was completed in 6 weeks
ready for initial line production. Only 1 day of try-out time was required for the update of trim-line
development to cut the final profiles of the Op30 cutting punch, die and stripper. Due to the
confidence in the process all tools were manufactured as finished units, not approaching the try-out
press until completion. Even the Op30 trim tool was simulated to within 1 mm, allowing the 3D form
to be CNC-machined leaving minimum re-machining for the updated development.
 (a) Actual perforation pattern (b) Final simulation of perforation pattern

(c) Final thickness distribution

Figure 8. Comparison of AutoForm Incremental simulation results with the actual component at
tryout

5. Practical Applications using a Bulk Forming Code (Solid Elements)

Forging and extrusion examples of bulk forming simulations have been shown at previous CBM
Technical Conferences and elsewhere [3-5]. The following case studies are a selection reported by
Fischer and Walters [6] using the 2D and 3D DEFORM simulation systems, applied to sheet metal
and fabrication processes.

5.1 Axisymmetric Cup Drawing

As mentioned previously, drawing processes where the draw radius of the tool is approaching the
thickness of the sheet are typically not well served by sheet forming codes that rely on shell elements,
since the bending of the material becomes as significant as stretching and drawing. Furthermore, these
type of programs struggle to model ‘ironing’ processes where shear stresses develop through the
thickness between the punch and die. In such cases, particularly if the deformation is near-
axisymmetric or plane strain, solid elements offer a superior and fast simulation solution. In one
reported industrial application the DEFORM bulk forming code is able to detect corner cracking on
thick sheet deep drawn cups using the Cockcroft-Latham damage criteria[6]. Figure 9 illustrates a 2
stage drawing process where the high damage value on the outside surface of the sheet after the
second operation indicates potential failure.

Figure 9. Simulation of a 2- step cup drawing process. High damage value in outside corner on
second operation indicates a likelihood of fracture at this location.

5.2 Spinning and Crimping

Spinning operations are typically performed to close off the ends of thin walled tubular components in
diverse applications from cans to racing car drive seals. In many cases the deformation of the ‘sheet’
material is difficult anticipate and can require significant machine set-up time before the end is not
over or under-formed.

Figure 10 shows the use of 2D bulk forming simulation to help reduce the development time and
expense of a new spinning process at a company. By simulating the effect of varying a number of
machine parameters, a final production process was developed that enabled the can to be folded
without any buckling or wrinkling occurring.

Figure 10. Simulation of a spinning operation on a thin walled can using DEFORM-2D.
Another process used in can manufacture is crimping, where three rollers are used to join a cap to a
canister by forming a groove of a similar depth to the thickness of the sheet. The cylindrical updating
capability in DEFORM-3D was used to simulate the localised deformation of the cap, enabling the
movement of the rollers to be optimised (Figure 11).
 Figure 11. Simulation of three roll crimping process for attaching a cap to a canister

5.3 Fine Blanking

The fracture modelling capability in DEFORM has now been used for a number of years to study the
localisation deformation of material around the failure zone [7-9]. Since shear-type forming processes
develop high gradients of stress through the thickness, the solid elements of a bulk forming code are
required. By simulating the effect of process parameters on burr formation during fine blanking in
sheets, this capability can be used to aid the optimisation of the punch-die clearance for minimum
roll-over and burr formation (Figure 12). Furthermore, by predicting punching loads, simulation
studies can also be used when investigating tool wear problems.

Figure 12. Simulation of a fine blanking process. Simulation clearly shows rollover, shear zone, and
rupture zone.

5.4 Riveting

Simulation of the installation of a blind rivet involves severe deformation of two discrete objects,
fracture, residual stress, and complex contact conditions. Since the stress pattern is predominantly
through the thickness of the sheets, solid elements must be used for this simulation. This simulation
also requires the ability to simulate multiple deforming objects as shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13. DEFORM-2D simulation of the rivet installation process. Note residual stress in rivet
and sheet metal after installation.

5.5 Stud Mounting

Fischer and Walters [6] describe the application of computer simulation by Fabristeel Corporation of
Taylor, Michigan to develop their self-piercing mechanically staked fasteners for sheet metal parts.
Their patented drawform stud was fully developed using simulation. The development process
included simulation of the installation process, modeling pullout strength, and designing the
manufacturing process for the part, using the multiple deforming body capability illustrated in Figure
14. Based on damage values in the sheet, the original design was modified to prevent fracture in the
panel. Pull-out loads predicted by DEFORM were within 5% of experimental values (Figure 15).

Figure 14. (Left) DEFORM-2D simulation of drawform stud installation. (Right) Photograph of stud
after installation.
 Figure 15 Simulation of drawform stud pullout, and pullout load curve.

5.6 Wire Twisting

An alternator manufacturer was experiencing problems with a wire twist tool jamming on wires
during the manufacturing process. The cause of the jamming was not clear, and was not easily
observable on production equipment. Simulation of this process required a software package such as
DEFORM-3D, capable of modelling complex contact conditions between multiple deforming objects
in a three dimensional simulation (Figure 16). The root cause of the problem was identified, and the
process was modified to eliminate the jamming.

Figure 16: DEFORM-3D simulation of twisting 4 wires together

6 Recent Developments
6.1 Automatic Optimisation of Forming Processes

There is increasing interest in both sheet and bulk forming simulation to automatically optimise the
manufacturing operations using either integrated optimisation algorithms or third party software such
as iSIGHT. Since the automatic determination of even a limited number of optimal process
parameters may require a large number of simulations to be run, its practicality depends very much on
processing time. However, it is inevitable that automatic optimisation will become increasingly
popular in industry as computer speeds improve.
Optimisation capabilities are currently available within AutoForm, enabling the running of multiple
OneStep or Incremental simulations to automatically ‘fine-tune’ die geometry or stamping processes.
Indeed, since One Step simulations of thin sheet drawn parts can already be run in minutes, the
optimisation of flange boundaries, drawbeads and other parameters is already being performed
regularly by some users. Fully integrated within the user interface and parametrically linked to the
DieDesigner capabilities, the user is able to determine the optimal tool geometry (radii of part and
run-off, drawbar height, wall angles, over-crown etc) and stamping process (binder forces, drawbead
strength, blank outline, etc,) based on target objectives such as maximum and minimum levels of
strain (Figure 17).

Figure 17. An illustrative example of an AutoForm optimisation of tooling geometry, based on the
objective of reducing all major strains below the forming limit curve.

6.2 3D Machining Simulations using Bulk Forming Codes

Although not directly associated with sheet forming, a recent application using DEFORM-3D
indicates the continued spread of simulation technology into all areas of manufacture. Although 2D
simulations of machining simulation have been performed for a number of years [10], until recently,
limitations on software and computer technology made the three-dimensional (3D) simulation of chip
formation impractical. Simulation was therefore limited to so-called ’orthogonal’ cutting, where the
cutting edge of the tool is perpendicular to the direction of cutting. As it is convenient to model, there
is still much simulation carried out in this mode, however advances in simulation technology have
recently made 3D simulation of metal cutting a practical option. As Figure 18 illustrates, a 3D
simulation of oblique cutting indicates the lateral chip curl not seen in an orthogonal process.

Figure 18. DEFORM-3D simulation of an oblique cutting process

7. Conclusions
This paper has intended to outline the variety of simulation approaches available to sheet metal
forming and fabrication companies depending on their applications. However, perhaps the overall
objective has been to demonstrate how simulation technology in general, when correctly used, can
solve manufacturing problems, reduce development costs and even make better products. The choice
of software is in many ways a secondary decision for a company, and can be made by discussing their
requirements and applications with developers, distributors and trade bodies such as the CBM. The
first and most important decision is whether a company decides that simulation technology in general
may form part of their strategy into the future.

8. Acknowldgements
The author wishes to thank Richard Bond of CAE Solutions Ltd for his help with the incremental
sheet forming applications, and Hewmor Products Ltd, Salop Design & Engineering Ltd and Unipart
Eberspacher for their permission to use this material. Also, thanks go to Fisher & Waters for allowing
their bulk forming case studies to be shown, and Audi AG and BMW AG for the additional examples.

9. References
[1] NAFEMS, A Finite Element Primer, DTI National Engineering Laboratory, 1986

[2] W. Kubli & J. Reissner, Optimisation of sheet-metal forming processes using the special
purpose program AutoForm, J.Mat.Proc.Tech.50 (1995), 292-305.

[3] W.T. Wu, J.P. Tang, and G. Li, Recent Developments of Process Simulation and its
Applications to Manufacturing Processes”, 1st International Conference on Thermal Process
Modeling and Computer Simulation, March 28-30, 2000, Shanghai, P.R. China.

[4] B. Miller, Virtual Manufacturing: New Simulation Technology and the Business Case, CBM
Technical Conference 1999.

[5] C. Wheelhouse & B. Miller, The Industrial Application of Forging Simulation at UEF Ltd ,
CBM Technical Conference 2000.

[6] C E. Fischer & J.Walters, Computer Simulation of Metal Fabrication Processes using
DEFORM, SFTC Paper #363.

[7] Y. Kim, M. Yamanaka, T. Altan, Prediction and Elimination of Ductile Fracture in Cold
Forgings using FEM simulations, Ohio State University Engineering Research Center Paper
No. 265.

[8] E. Taupin, J. Breitling, W.T. Wu, and T. Altan, Material Fracture and Burr Formation in
Blanking – Results of FEM Simulations and Comparison with Experiments, J. of Materials
Processing Technology, 1996, vol. 59, nos. 1-2, pp. 68.

[9] B. Miller, M. Ward & K. Davey, The Numerical Simulation of Potential Forming Problems in
a Railway Wheel Manufacturing Process, Proc. Int. Conf. on Forging, IMECHE, 1998

[10] E. Ceretti, P.F.Bohmer, W-T Wu & T Altan, Application of 2D FEM to Chip Formation in
Orthogonal Cutting, J.Mat.Proc.Tech.,59 (1996), 169-180.