Simulation of Secondary Operations and Springback – The Implicit Shell Provides a Precise and Rapid Solution

Statistical analysis of finite element modeling in sheet metal forming and springback analysis

“…This results in a drastic reduction in solution time, which is 27 times faster than the normal implicit formulation (Kubli and Reissner, 1995). In addition, the latest version of AutoForm used in this study, AutoForm Incremental v4.0 (AF4), is equipped with a non-conforming triangular shell element formulation combined with bending enhanced membrane element to simulate all primary and secondary forming operations (Schonbach et al, 2005). The implicit simulation was performed using the full definition of the tools and part in AutoForm on a dual processor 2.0 GHz Intel platforms PC.…”

Investigating spring back phenomena in double curved sheet metals forming

“…Nearly every possible approach to simulate spring back has been recently reported as successful, including implicit/implicit, explicit/explicit, static explicit/static explicit, explicit/implicit and even one-step methods [48]. Some researchers [48][49][50][51] expressed that according to static nature of spring back stage, the implicit method must be applied. However, the dynamic explicit method is more suitable for forming stage.…”

“…Using mentioned conditions, explicit FEM simulation of forming and spring back stages were conducted using proper time step and mass scaling factor of 400. Implicit spring back simulations were preformed in the standard manner [48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56].…”