Week 3 Sheet metal Bending challenge
OBJECTIVE:
To evaluate and compare simulation results of the below three cases:
Case 1:
Aluminium Alloy 1199, Copper Alloy NL and Magnesium Alloy NL. Find out the Equivalent stress, Equivalent elastic strain and Total Deformation in the Y direction and compare the results for the three materials.
Case 2:
With the material as Aluminium Alloy, change the friction coefficient to 0.19 and run the analysis as mentioned in Case 1. Compare the results with that in case 1.
Case 3:
Refine the mesh on the plate such that it doesn't cross the academic limit. With Aluminium alloy as material, run the analysis as in Case 1 and compare the results.
PROCEDURE:
Geometry: The geometry is loaded into space claim and checked if it is free of error.
Contacts: Create two contacts.
Mesh:
Add body sizing to the punch and the die. The element size is 4mm. Another body sizing is added to the plate. This element size must be fine as it is the object of interest. Also, add a face sizing of 1mm to the faces that are going to in contact with the plate. Make sure that the type of element in the workpiece is a tetrahedron by adding the mesh method.
Analysis Setting:
Load Setting:
Punch Displacement: Add a displacement using tabular data. The punch should be lifted after the 7s.
Workpiece Displacement: To ensure that the workpiece does not move sideways we fix the workpiece on the z-axis.
Die Displacement: Keep the die fixed for 0-7s and then add a displacement downwards in 9th and 10th second.
RESULTS & CONCLUSION:
Case 1 : (Al alloy, Cu alloy, & Mn alloy)
Von-Misses Stress:
| CASE-1 | Aluminium 1199 | CASE-2 | Copper Alloy | CASE-3 | Magnesium Alloy | Conclusion | |
| Equivalent Stress (Mpa) | 276.39 | 293.87 | 255.2 | Max Stress for Cu > Al > Mg |
Elastic Strain:
| CASE-1 | Aluminium 1199 | CASE-2 | Copper Alloy | CASE-3 | Magnesium Alloy | Conclusion | |
| Equivalent Elastic Strain | 0.97 | 1.01 | 0.85 | Max Strain for Cu > Al > Mg |
Directional Deformation:
| CASE-1 | Aluminium 1199 | CASE-2 | Copper Alloy | CASE-3 | Magnesium Alloy | Conclusion | |
| Directional Deformation (mm) | 2.11 | 2.86 | 1.39 | Directional Deformation for Cu > Al > Mg |
Case 2 : (Frictional Co-eff. = 0.19 for Al)
Von-Misses Stress:
| Aluminium 1199 | CASE-1 | CASE-2 | Conclusion |
| Frictional Coeff. | 0.1 | 0.19 | |
| Equivalent Stress (Mpa) | 276.39 | 250.63 | Max Stress for Case-1 > Case-2 |
Elastic Strain:
| Aluminium 1199 | CASE-1 | CASE-2 | Conclusion |
| Frictional Coeff. | 0.1 | 0.19 | |
| Equivalent Elastic Strain | 0.97 | 1.01 | Max Strain for Case-1 < Case-2 |
Directional Deformation:
| Aluminium 1199 | CASE-1 | CASE-2 | Conclusion |
| Frictional Coeff. | 0.1 | 0.19 | |
| Directional Deformation (mm) | 2.11 | 2.63 | Directional Deformation for Case-1 < Case-2 |
Conclusion: On increasing the coefficient of friction the 'Equivalent Strain and Directional Deformation' increases compared to the Von-Mises Stress in Case-2.
Case 3: Mesh Refined to 0.75 mm
Von-Misses Stress:
| Aluminium 1199 | CASE-1 | CASE-2 | Conclusion |
| Plate Mesh Size | 1.0 mm | 0.75 mm | |
| Equivalent Stress (Mpa) | 276.39 | 255.85 | Max Stress for Case-1 > Case-2 |
Elastic Strain:
| Aluminium 1199 | CASE-1 | CASE-2 | Conclusion |
| Plate Mesh Size | 1.0 mm | 0.75 mm | |
| Equivalent Elastic Strain | 0.97 | 0.94 | Max Strain for Case-1 < Case-2 |
Directional Deformation:
| Aluminium 1199 | CASE-1 | CASE-2 | Conclusion |
| Plate Mesh Size | 1.0 mm | 0.75 mm | |
| Directional Deformation (mm) | 2.11 | 2.73 | Directional Deformation for Case-1 < Case-2 |
Conclusion: On refining the mesh size we get better results and 'Equivalent Strain and Directional Deformation' increases compared to the Von-Mises Stress in case-3.
File Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yRkSAy6Fwx5y4uU1RchdTBE7-RTR3yCr/view?usp=sharing