INCORPORATING MANUFACTURING EFFECTS

IN STRUCTURAL DESIGN : FLEX AND DENT

B Nejabat & S Holmberg C OConnor & R D Jones

Volvo Car Body Components Altair Engineering Ltd.
Virtual Verification Vanguard Centre
SE-293 80 Sir William Lyons Road
Olofstrm Coventry
Sweden CV4 7EZ
bnejabat@volvocars.com S royston@altair.com
Abstract: As automotive OEMs strive to significantly reduce development costs a common strategy has evolved, to
eliminate the testing of physical prototypes and replace by virtual testing (CAE) in order to achieve low cost
certification. However, for many components subjected to complex loadings, it has not been possible to achieve
correlation between experimental and numerical results. It has long been postulated that the manufacturing
process can have a major effect on the structural performance. However, a comprehensive software tool set has
not been available to efficiently investigate this effect. This paper details the strategy for the efficient coupling
between manufacturing process and structural product simulations. A key element of this strategy is a new
software tool Altair HyperMap. This technology is applied to the Flex and Dent assessment of an aluminium
panel. Invaluable insight into the performance of the panel is obtained by incorporating the manufacturing
effects. Correlation of the Flex resistance was substantially improved due to the inclusion of these effects.

Keywords: Sheet Metal Forming, Flex and Dent, LS-DYNA, HyperMap, ABAQUS

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Generally, structural simulations commence with the supply of a design geometry, usually
supplied as CAD data together with nominal values for material properties (eg. thickness). In
addition, it is assumed that the material of the component to be in a virginal state, being
unaffected by prior manufacture.
The majority of manufacturing processes (eg. sheet metal forming, extrusion, casting etc.)
produce a permanent shape change to the component. These processes produce inherently
variable material properties (eg. thickness distribution) and a residual stress / strain field which
remains in self equilibrium within the component.
The effect of the manufacturing process on the performance of components has yet to be fully
quantified. However, it is postulated that the manufacturing history could have significant
implications with regard to a components crashworthiness [1], stiffness, NVH and fatigue [2]
performance. This study details the CAE technologies used to couple the areas of process and
product simulation. Subsequently, making it feasible to quantify the effect the manufacturing
processes have on the structural performance of components.
A comprehensive experimental and numerical programme of studies is performed to assess the
Flex and Dent of an aluminium test panel. The correlation of a components Flex and Dent
response is extremely difficult to achieve [3,4]. This study will provide invaluable insight into the
importance of including process effects into structural assessments.

Copyright Altair Engineering Ltd, 2002 12 / 1

2.0 STRATEGY TO COUPLE PROCESS AND PRODUCT SIMULATIONS

A central strategy of HyperMesh [5], was to create a pre and post processor which was a
solver independent, neutral system. HyperMesh is used to generate models for both
manufacturing and product simulations. The functionality already exists for the import and
export of models to the majority of industry applied manufacturing and product simulation
codes. Consequently, HyperMesh is the central tool in the strategy to couple process and
product simulations. A schematic representation of the analysis codes currently included
in the coupling process is presented in Figure 1.

In addition, the graphical interface of HyperMesh will accommodate more advanced

applications. Typically, where the assembly of various components manufactured using
different process techniques (eg. stamped, cast, extruded etc) is required or where a
complete structure only requires the process effects of a number of key components to be
included.

Figure 1: Schematic Representation to Couple Process and Product Simulations

Copyright Altair Engineering Ltd, 2002 12 / 2

 There are many technical barriers to prevent the coupling of process and product
simulation. The programs used to perform the product and process simulations often use
completely different numerical approaches. The initial step was to create a mechanism to
facilitate the transfer of the manufactured state of a component, so that it could be used
generically in any structural assessment. This was achieved by standardising on the
format of a file describing the geometry and the physical state (eg. residual stress / strain,
thickness distribution etc.) of a manufactured structure.

LS-DYNA [6], generates a file (ie. dynain) which contains a complete description of the
manufactured state. This format was adopted as the standard file format to facilitate
manufacturing data incorporated into product simulations. Two manufacturing simulation
software companies, AutoForm GmbH [7] and MAGMA GmbH [8] altered their software to
output a final state file in this format dynain. The result of this process was the creation of
a new standard format file for transferring manufacturing information.

3.0 HYPERMAP SOFTWARE TOOL

Generally, the models used for manufacturing simulations are inappropriate for direct use
in a structural simulation. A major reason is due to the difference between the dissimilar
manufacturing and structural mesh. This mesh is designed to capture the different events.
However, the areas of focus in a structural simulation as compared to a manufacturing
simulation are fundamentally different.

To overcome this major hurdle an approach was developed to map the manufacturing
state information from the dynain format model onto a completely different mesh of the
same geometry. This entails the mapping of the engineering parameters from the
manufactured model onto a different structural analysis mesh. This is a difficult task, as
the mix of scalar, vector and tensor quantities, need to be manipulated.

A dialog box (Figure 2) to control the mapping process has been programmed into the
main interface of the Altair software product HyperMesh [5]. Upon accessing the
HyperMap [9] software a dialog box is displayed to gather the input data that the mapping
process requires. There are many options available in the dialog box, but the main
purpose is to direct the input and output of models to meet the specific need of the
structural analysis required. This includes for instance the selection of the product
analysis software, which can be one of four industry standard packages (i.e. LS-DYNA [6],
ABAQUS [10], RADIOSS [11] and NASTRAN [12]).

The main mapping algorithm constructs a parameter distribution local to each material
point to be mapped on the structural mesh. The software interpolates this distribution to
find the position, and value of the engineering parameters for that material location. The
two major drivers of the accuracy of the algorithms are therefore the relative proximities
between the two models and also the interpolation algorithms used. The output files from
the mapping process are organised and formatted to the specifications of the product
analysis code requested by the user.

Copyright Altair Engineering Ltd, 2002 12 / 3

 Figure 2: HyperMap Mapping Software and Process

A result reader was constructed to enable the mapped and non-mapped models to be
post-processed directly in HyperView. This environment provides the tools to interrogate
the models to ensure their integrity. To supplement the visual validation offered by this
post-processing environment, a number of verification metrics are presented to the user at
the termination of the mapping phase. These metrics assess the accuracy of the
HyperMap process, based on the stress, strain and thickness distributions of the mapped
and non-mapped models.

4.0 EXPERIMENTAL TEST PROGRAMMES

Sheet Metal Forming of Test Panel

The test panel (Figure 3) was formed using a conventional blank, punch and die
configuration. The forming process was rigoursly controlled with extensive measurements
made on the process parameters and the formed test panels. A load cell is attached to the
blank holder to measure the blank holder pressure.

Circle Grid Analysis (CGA) had been used to measure the forming strains that the panel
incurred during the forming process. CGA involves electrochemically etching the blank
with circle grid patterns prior to manufacture. During the pressing process the etched
circles become stretched and form elliptical shapes. The ellipses on the formed panel can
then be measured post manufacture, using appropriate video editing equipment, and the
surface strains in the panel in pre-determined regions can be estimated.

Copyright Altair Engineering Ltd, 2002 12 / 4

 Figure 3: Flex and Dent Experimental Configuration

Flex and Dent Resistance Testing

The test panel geometry was chosen since it is ideal for Flex and Dent resistance
assessments (Figure 3). The Flex response is a measure of the recoverable elastic
deformation of a structure. The flexible buckling of a car bonnet upon loading, would be an
example of this type of structural response. The Dent resistance is linked to the non-
recoverable plastic deformation of a structure. Indentations on vehicle body work caused
by stone impacts would fall into this category.

The formed aluminium panel was bolted to a dent test rig at the four bolt hole locations
pierced in the component (Figure 3). The panel upon being secured to the rig was subject
to loading by a hemispherical indenter in a plane normal to the upper surface of the
structure.

The indenter was under load control, and would displace the test panel until the required
reaction force was achieved from the structure. The load would then be removed and the
sequence would begin again to a higher load level. The indenter would progressively load
and un-load the structure to three different load levels (i.e. 150N, 200N and 250N). This
would be done in sequence, so that the progressive indentation caused to the panel in the
location it was loaded could be measured.

The Flex performance of the panel was assessed by measuring the resistance force
versus deflection response. The Dent performance is measured by recording the
progressive irrecoverable deformation of the panel in the locality of the load application
position.

5.0 PROCESS SIMULATIONS

The process simulation of all the forming operations of the dent test panel was performed
using the software package LS-DYNA [6].

Copyright Altair Engineering Ltd, 2002 12 / 5

 Sheet Metal Forming Simulation

A finite element model (Figure 4) was constructed to simulate the forming process used to
create the dent test panel. CAE models of the die, punch, blank holder, punch insert and
blank were built using HyperMesh [5]. Since the test panel contains a plane of symmetry,
a half model was constructed to reduce the analysis calculation times.

The model contains drawbead features which are located on the tooling surfaces of the
blank holder and the die. This feature is used to restrict material flow from the flange
areas of the panels from entering the die cavity during the forming process. The high
mesh refinement of the blank model was adequate to capture the bending and unbending
over the geometric features of the tooling surfaces.

Figure 4: Forming Simulation Model

The mechanical properties of the aluminium were derived from tensile testing of material
samples from the same batch of material used for the forming programme. The forming
tools and blank were given appropriate physical constraints or motions, consistent with the
forming process used to create the dent test panels. Inputs to the model included the
normal pressure exerted by the tooling surfaces on the blank in the flange areas during the
form. Appropriate frictional conditions were applied to the tooling contact surfaces.

The strain results for three distinct locations on the panel (Figure 5) were selected for the
correlation between the experimental and numerical results (Table 1). This correlation
was further facilitated by small changes to the friction coefficients applied to the tooling
contact surfaces in the numerical model.

Copyright Altair Engineering Ltd, 2002 12 / 6

 Location Experimental % Strain Numerical % Strain % Difference
Point CGA (e1, e2) CGA (e1, e2) Between Ex & Nu

Point 1 2.21, 1.52 1.86, 1.35 +16 / +11

Point 2 2.76, 2.48 2.76, 2.60 0 / -5

Point 3 3.06, 0.96 3.09,1.42 -1 / -48

Table 1: Experimental and Numerical Correlation

150 45 100

Point 2 Point 1

150

Point 3

Figure 5: Location of the Evaluation Points

Springback and Trimming Simulations

Once acceptable correlation had been achieved for the initial forming simulation, the
further process steps can be simulated. The effect of removing the tools enveloping the
formed test panel is to induce an elastic relaxation stage (springback) as a new state of
static equilibrium is achieved. The objective of the springback simulation is to arrive at the
correct state of residual stress and strain, which will be present in the test panel upon
completion of the forming process and removal from the tool set.

In order to perform the structural loading of the dent test panel, the component is bolted to
a test rig (Figure 3). This means that four bolt holes need to be pierced in the test panel in
the four corners of the component. A trimming analysis was simulated to remove this
excess material. The removal of any material from a component will disturb the

Copyright Altair Engineering Ltd, 2002 12 / 7

 equilibrium of the structure. Therefore another final springback calculation was performed
to re-establish the equilibrium that would have been lost upon removal of the bolt hole
material in the piercing process. In total, a forming, two springback and a trimming
analysis were performed on the test panel to arrive at the completed manufacturing state.

6.0 HYPERMAP PROCESS

Figure 6: Parameter Mapping using HyperMap

Upon completion of the manufacturing process the results from the manufacturing mesh
were transferred onto a mesh suitable for structural simulation. This process was
facilitated by the use of the dynain file, which contains a description of the manufacturing
variables (eg. full stress tensor, effective plastic strain and thickness distribution) for each
element in the manufacturing model. HyperMap was used to perform the mapping of
these various tensor and scalar parameters between the two dissimilar manufacturing and
structural meshes. A typical, mapping of a manufacturing variable (eg. thickness), for the
dissimilar meshes is shown in Figure 6.

The culmination of the parameter mapping process provided a structural mesh, which held
a very detailed description of the manufacturing history of the component. This finite
element model data was then made available to the structural analysis code ABAQUS
[10].

7.0 STRUCTURAL SIMULATIONS

Model Development

A structural analysis model was built using HyperMesh [5]. This included a mesh of the
test panel, the indenter and some rigid constraint elements to represent the constraint
conditions at the bolt holes. A contact surface patch was created to specify a footprint
position for the indenter. The manufacturing information derived from the HyperMap [9]
software was included in the structural simulation in ABAQUS [10] using the USER

Copyright Altair Engineering Ltd, 2002 12 / 8

 SUBROUTINE interface facility.
A matrix of simulations (Table 2) was used to establish which inputs to the analysis were
driving the structural performance. The variables between the simulation load cases would
be the inclusion or exclusion of the element stress tensor, equivalent plastic strain and the
thickness distribution data after the process simulations. Every other input to the
numerical simulations except the three variables stated remained exactly the same.

Manufacturing Residuals
Analysis Included in Dent Simulations
Case Label
Plastic Strain Stress Tensor Thickness

B r r r

C r r a

D a r r

E a r a

F a a a
Table 2: Simulation Load Case Matrix

Force Deflection Performance

The experimental (curve A) and numerical (curve B to F) Flex responses of the aluminium
panel to the test rig loading are presented in Figures 7. Consequently, if the numerical
models are correlating with experiment then they should converge to the curve A result.

AC-120 T4 Load - Displacement Curves

300
A / Experimenal Data
250
B / Nominal Properties
C / Thickness Distribution
D / Strain Distribution
200
E / Thickness & Strain Distribution
Force [N]

F / All Manufacturing Residuals

150

100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Deflection [mm]

A B C D E F

Figure 7: Flex Results, 250 N Loading

Copyright Altair Engineering Ltd, 2002 12 / 9

 The traditional approach, simulation B, excludes the manufacturing history of the
component and assumes nominal properties (eg. thickness). The resulting response
(Figure 7) over predicts the initial stiffness of the panel by approximately a factor of two.
The model under predicts the final displacement of the panel by 2mm at the majority of the
load levels.

The effects of the various manufacturing residuals can be concluded from Figure 7. The
inclusion of the thickness distribution alters the shape of the curve significantly and gives
better correlation with the experimental results. Taking plasticity, i.e. the strain distribution,
into account does not affect the flex response at all and yields an identical curve as the
nominal case. However, plastic strains lead to thinning of the panel and thus should be
considered together with the thickness distribution, as given by curve E. Finally, all the
manufacturing results, i.e. the thickness-, strain- and the stress distribution are included in
the analyses, as demonstrated by curve F. Curves C, E and F coincide.

Through the observation of the numerical results, it is possible to conclude that the
inclusion of the manufacturing history (ie. stress, plastic strain and thickness distribution)
reduces the inherent stiffness of the panel. The results clearly demonstrate that the
thickness distribution is the dominant driver for the flex response of the panel. The
inclusion of plastic strain and stress distribution has negligible impact on the deflection
response of the structure (ie. no difference between curves C, E and F).

Resistance to Denting

AC 120 T4 Load - Dent Depth

300

250

200
Load [N]

150

100

50

0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8
Dent Depth [mm]

A B C D E F

Figure 8: Dent Depth Results at Various Load Levels

The results of the experimental dent test and analysis simulations are shown in Figure 8.
Firstly, it is clear that nominal properties (B) tend to over estimate the dent depths caused

Copyright Altair Engineering Ltd, 2002 12 / 10

 by the indenter loading (A). This over estimate is pronounced when the thickness
distribution alone is included (C).

The material in the locality of the indenter will have been significantly thinned during the
manufacturing process. When this thinning is included in the structural simulation, without
the plasticity, the reduction in the cross sectional area of the material promotes local stress
concentrations and plastic deformation. This propensity to exhibit the plastic deformation
more easily is the cause of the exaggerated dent depths.

When the residual plasticity is included with the thickness distribution the dent response
significantly changes (D). Although the material has the same propensity to concentrate
the applied stress because of the reduced cross sectional area, the residual plasticity
provides a material mechanism to prevent large local deformation. Recall that from the
manufacture this material will have been work hardened. Therefore to cause further
plasticity the material must be elevated to higher stress levels.

The introduction of the residual plasticity from manufacture considerably changes the
response in the area of the panel local to the indenter. When the residual plasticity is
included the simulations under predict the indentations caused by the indenter.

This discrepancy is proposed to be precipitated by the Isotropic Von-Mises constitutive

model, which has been used to calculate the plasticity response of the material. It is
suggested that the model is not capable of reliably predicting the Dent response of a
structure when the model is primed with the manufacturing simulation results. It is further
proposed, that the use of a pure kinematic, or alternatively a combined kinematic/isotropic
constitutive model to represent the material behaviour would provide a better correlation.

The residual stress distribution does not seem to have a great impact on the results in this
instance (F). Curves E and F coincide. The main drivers of the dent deformation are the
residual plasticity and the thickness distribution.

8.0 DISCUSSION

It was shown [13] that the flex performance of automotive exterior steel panels can be
simulated with high accuracy using nominal material properties. In the current study,
however, the use of nominal material data results in poor correlation with the experimental
flex result. This can be explained by the extent of springback of the aluminium panel.
Today it is difficult to predict the final shape of a structure [14] using FE analysis.
Correlation between the simulated final shape of the model and the actual springback of
the panel is unknown and may be the cause of the obtained error in the initial stiffness of
the panel. The overall flex response, however, is significantly altered, giving better
resemblance to the experimental curve, by the inclusion of the stamping effects.

9.0 CONCLUSIONS

This early application of the HyperMap software tool provides an efficient gateway to
include the effects of the manufacturing process into structural performance assessments.

Copyright Altair Engineering Ltd, 2002 12 / 11

 The Flex and Dent study of an aluminium test panel provided invaluable insight into the
physical effects controlling the structures response. The correlation of the Flex resistance
is greatly improved by the inclusion of manufacturing effects. It was shown that the
thickness distribution was the driving parameter for the flex response, whereas for the dent
response both thickness and strain distribution were of major importance. The stress
distribution has negligible effect in both flex and dent performance when used in an
isotropic constitutive model. However, the Dent response requires further investigation.
It is postulated that a more sophisticated constitutive plasticity model (eg. combined
kinematic / isotropic) may provide improved correlation to the dent depth.

10.0 REFERENCES

[1] Studies of the effect of Forming on the Crash response of Vehicles with
Hydro-Formed Frames, T. Dutton, Second European LS-DYNA Users
Conference Proceedings, 1999

[2] Assessment of Forming Strains in a Sheet Metal Component, L. Wong,

HyperWorks Technology Showcase Conference Proceedings, 1999

[3] Design Criteria for the Dent Resistance of Auto Body Parts, J. A. DiCello and
R. A. George, SAE Technical Paper Series, 740081

[4] Material and Design Factors Influencing the Quasi-Static Dent Resistance of
Steel Body Panels, S. Siriam, J. G. Speer and D. K. Matlock, SAE Technical
Series, 1999-01-0025

[5] HyperMesh Version 5.0, Altair Engineering Inc., 2001

[6] LS-DYNA Version 960, Livermore Software Technology Corporation, 2001

[7] AutoForm Engineering GmbH, Technopark Zurich, Technoparkstrasse 1, CH

8005 Zurich

[8] MAGMA GmbH, Kackertstrasse 11, 52072 Aachen, Germany

[9] HyperMap Version 5.0.2, Altair Engineering Ltd., 2002

[10] ABAQUS/Standard, Version 6.1, Hibbit, Karlsson and Sorensen Inc., 2001

[11] RADIOSS CRASH, Version 4.1, MECALOG, 2000

[12] NASTRAN, Version 4.2, MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation, 1998

[13] Experimental and Numerical Assessment of Flex and Dent Performance of

Automotive Exterior Panels, S. Holmberg, B. Nejabat, to be published

[14] Use of FE-analysis in Predicting and Verifying the Design of an Automotive

Component Forming Process, A. Andersson, 2001

Copyright Altair Engineering Ltd, 2002 12 / 12

This technical paper was first presented at an Altair Engineering event.

About Altair Engineering

Altair's distinctive approach to virtual product design allows businesses
worldwide to meet their engineering and commercial challenges. Our
HyperWorks computer aided engineering (CAE) software suite and
consultancy services can help optimise your product development processes.

Altair HyperWorks is an advanced toolkit of CAE applications. It supports

your company's bottom line, by helping you achieve the most efficient product
designs in the shortest time possible. Optimising the product design and
development processes can offer extensive business benefits:

Get products to market faster

Reduce mass while improving structural strength
Cut production cost per unit and prototyping costs

Read more at www.uk.altair.com/software

With market pressure driving ever shortening design cycles and lower
development costs, Altairs Product Design and Development division is
ideally positioned to help clients accelerate projects and improve their end
products. We offer both a comprehensive, design-to-prototype product
development service and consultancy throughout the design process.

Our skilled team of engineers located in the UK and across the world provides
clients with high value, innovative, product design and development. We
integrate simulation technologies into the design process to drive the design
concepts and optimise product performance. More details:
www.uk.altair.com/pdd

In grid computing, our technologies such as PBS Pro allow organisations

from any industry to more effectively manage their distributed IT resources.
Altair's Enterprise Computing business unit helps clients maximise their return
on investment in numerically intense computing environments. Find out more
at www.uk.altair.com/enterprisecomputing

Contact Us
Altair Engineering Ltd
Vanguard Centre
Sir William Lyons Road
Coventry CV4 7EZ
Phone 024 7632 3600
E-mail info@uk.altair.com
www.uk.altair.com