This benchmark problem is an approximation of the Numisheet 2002 – Benchmark B problem. Simulations are carried out using MD Nastran solution sequence 400 to find the angles before and after spring back. Experimental results are available for this benchmark, but it is noted that the sheet is slightly anisotropic. The text setup and reference details of these experimental results are given in Figure 3-1. The current problem uses an isotropic elastic-plastic hardening behavior.

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

1.3K views

This benchmark problem is an approximation of the Numisheet 2002 – Benchmark B problem. Simulations are carried out using MD Nastran solution sequence 400 to find the angles before and after spring back. Experimental results are available for this benchmark, but it is noted that the sheet is slightly anisotropic. The text setup and reference details of these experimental results are given in Figure 3-1. The current problem uses an isotropic elastic-plastic hardening behavior.

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Evaluation of Gas Turbine Rotor Dynamic Analysis Using the Finite Element Method 2012
- Benchmark Proceedings
- Altair's Student Guides - Instructor's Manual - CAE for Simulation of Sheet Metal Forming
- Altair's Student Guides - A Designer's Guide to Finite Element Analysis
- A FINITE ELEMENT SOLVER FOR MODAL ANALYSIS OF MULTI-SPAN OFFSHORE PIPELINES
- Paper 6
- Lecture 1 - Introduction
- Finite Element Method
- Ansys12 Classic Tutorial Lab1
- Analysis of Fire Effects on Steel Reinforced Concrete Beams
- 11 Energy Methods (1)
- 10.1002cepa.333
- 978-1-58503-381-2-1
- Q1
- FEA Tutorials BK1
- Module 1 Introduction to FEM
- A New Finite Element Method for Strain Gradient Theories and Applications to Fracture Analyses
- FEA Dr Azura
- FEA of Tieback Wall Movement
- KELOMPOK_3_GEOLOGI_STRUKTUR

You are on page 1of 15

Summary 80

Introduction 81

Solution Requirements 81

FEM Solutions 82

Modeling Tips 92

Input File(s) 93

Video 93

80 MD Demonstration Problems

CHAPTER 3

Summary

Title Chapter 3: 3-D Sheet Metal Forming

Contact features • Rigid and deformable bodies

• Mesh dependency

• Elasticity, plasticity and spring back

• Sliding contact around circular surface

Geometry 2-D Plane strain elements or shell elements (units: Original

Position

Punch

mm)

• Punch radius = 23.5 Sheet

Final

Position

• Die radius R2 = 25.0 W

R2

• Die shoulder R3 = 4.0 R3

Die

• Length of sheet (initially) =120.0

• Thickness of sheet = 1.0

• Width of sheet = 30.0

• Punch stroke = 28.5

Material properties • Young’s modulus: E = 70.5kN mm 2 • Hollomon hardening:

• Poisson’s ratio: = 0.342 = K n

• Initial yield stress: 0 = 194N mm 2 K = 550.4N mm 2

n = 0.223

• Elastic plastic material (isotropic hardening)

• Geometric nonlinearity

• Nonlinear boundary conditions

Displacement boundary • Symmetric displacement restraints (half symmetry).

conditions • Bottom surface fixed.

• Prescribed vertical displacement for the punch.

Element type 2-D Plane strain - 4-node linear elements; 3-D Shell - 4-node shell elements

Contact properties Coefficient of friction = 0.1342

FE results 1. Forming angle and angle after release

2. Plot of punch force versus punch displacement compared to experimental values

2D Plane Strain With Friction

300 Punch Force (N)

SOL 400

250

Marc

200

150

100 Experimental

50

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Punch Displacement (mm)

CHAPTER 3 81

3-D Sheet Metal Forming

Introduction

This benchmark problem is an approximation of the Numisheet 2002 – Benchmark B problem. Simulations are carried

out using MD Nastran solution sequence 400 to find the angles before and after spring back. Experimental results are

available for this benchmark, but it is noted that the sheet is slightly anisotropic. The text setup and reference details

of these experimental results are given in Figure 3-1. The current problem uses an isotropic elastic-plastic hardening

behavior.

SOURCE

FREE BENDING BENCHMARK TESTING OF 6111-T4 ALUMINUM ALLOY SAMPLE

John C. Brem*, Frederic Barlat**, Joseph M. Fridy** Alcoa Technical Center, Pennsylvania,

Numisheet 2002 Conference, Korea

Figure 3-1 Test Setup for Numisheet 2002 - Benchmark B Problem

Solution Requirements

Two solutions: one using friction coefficient 0.1342 (bilinear Coulomb friction model) between the sheet and both

tools, and one frictionless solution are requested for:

• Forming angle (the angle at the end of the punch stroke)

• Angle after release (the angle after tool removal)

• Punch force - punch displacement diagram

Figure 3-2 shows the definition of angle . The solutions, obtained with shell elements and plane strain elements,

include the following:

• Element size (in particular near the curved zones)

• Method used in discretization of the tools

• Method for normal contact detection (hard/direct contact)

• Method for stick slip approximation (bilinear Coulomb friction model)

82 MD Demonstration Problems

CHAPTER 3

Unit: mm

A C

20 20

B D

20

y

x θ D

FEM Solutions

FEM solutions have been obtained with MD Nastran’s solution sequence 400 for the 2-D plane strain and 3-D shell

representations of the present sheet metal forming problem. The details of finite element models, contact simulations,

material, load, boundary conditions, and solution procedure of both the 2-D plane strain and 3-D shell approaches are

discussed.

The finite element model used for the 2-D plane strain approach is shown in Figure 3-3. The punch and die are

modeled in analytical form. The finite element mesh for the sheet contains 850 elements with 5 elements over the

thickness. Only half of the sheet is modeled. The applied element lengths can be determined from Table 3-1. MD

Nastran’s 2-D plane strain solid elements with material ID 1 are selected using the following PLPLANE and PSHLN2

entries. The 30 mm for the width of the sheet is specified in PSHLN2 option.

PLPLANE 1 1

PSHLN2 1 1 1 30.0 +

+ C4 PLSTRN L

CHAPTER 3 83

3-D Sheet Metal Forming

Table 3-1 Number of Elements in Length Direction (2-D Plane Strain Model)

Position Number of Elements

0 x 27mm 50

27 x 40.2mm 100

40.2 x 60mm 20

The finite element model used for the 3-D shell approach is presented in Figure 3-3. Also, in this case, only half of the

plate has been modeled with appropriate symmetry conditions at the middle of the plate. The sheet is modeled using

1020 thick shell elements with 6 elements across the width and 170 elements along the length (as in Table 3-2). MD

Nastran’s thick shell elements with material ID 1 are selected using the following PSHELL and PSHLN1 entries. The

thickness 1 mm for the sheet is specified in PSHELL option.

PSHELL 1 1 1. 1 1

PSHLN1 1 1 1 NO +

+ C4 DCT L

84 MD Demonstration Problems

CHAPTER 3

Position Number of Elements

0 x 40mm 160

40 x 60mm 10

Contact Models

In defining the contact model for the 2-D plane strain case, the sheet is modeled as a deformable body and the punch

and die are modeled as rigid bodies. Elements comprising the sheet are used to generate a deformable contact body

with ID 4 using the following BCBODY and BSURF entries. Contact body ID 5 is used to define the load controlled

rigid body with a control node ID 1 for the punch and contact body ID 6 is used to define the position controlled rigid

body for the die. The geometry profiles of these rigid bodies are defined using 2-D NURB curves that describe the true

surface geometry and most accurately represent the punch and die geometry. The friction factor of 0.1342 is defined

for all these contact bodies.

BCBODY 4 2D DEFORM 4 0 .1342

BSURF 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

...

BCBODY 5 2D RIGID 0 .1342 1 1

0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

RIGID 1 4 CBODY2

NURBS2D -3 3 50

...

BCBODY 6 2D RIGID 0 .1342 1 -1

0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

RIGID 0 6 CBODY3

NURBS2D -2 2 50

...

The contact bodies for the 3-D shell models are also defined in similar way with the punch and die surfaces defined

using 3-D NURB surfaces. The following BCBODY entries are used to define contact bodies for 3-D shell model. The

control node ID 1198 is used in this case to define the load controlled rigid body for the punch.

BCBODY 1 3D DEFORM 1 0 .1342

BSURF 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

...

BCBODY 2 3D RIGID 0 .1342 1 1198

0 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0.

RIGID 1198 1 CBODY2

NURBS -19 4 4 4 50 50 14

...

BCBODY 3 3D RIGID 0 .1342 1 -1

0 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0.

RIGID 0 5 CBODY3

NURBS -7 13 4 4 50 50 0

...

The following BCPARA bulk data entry defines the general contact parameters to be used in the analysis. The ID 0 on

the BCPARA option indicates that the parameters specified herein are applied right at the start of the analysis and are

maintained through the analysis unless some of these parameters are redefined through the BCTABLE option.

Important entries under BCPARA option include: FTYPE – the friction type and the BIAS - the distance tolerance bias.

For all the models, the bias factor, BIAS, is set to 0.99. The bilinear Coulomb friction model is activated by setting

FTYPE to 6. For the models without friction, FTYPE is set as 0.

BCPARA 0

BIAS .99 FTYPE 6

CHAPTER 3 85

3-D Sheet Metal Forming

The following BCTABLE entries identify how the contact bodies can touch each other. The BCTABLE with ID 0 is used

to define the touching conditions at the start of the analysis. This is a mandatory option required in SOL 400 for contact

analysis and is flagged in the case control section through the optional BCONTACT = 0 option. Similar BCTABLE

options with ID 1, 2 and 3 are used to define the touching conditions for later steps in the analysis, and it is flagged

using the option BCONTACT = n (where n is the step number 1, 2 or 3) in the case control section. Two contact pairs

are defined in the BCTABLE option: one between the sheet and punch and one between the sheet and die. Both the 2-

D plane strain and 3-D shell models have similar BCTABLE entries.

BCTABLE 0 2

SLAVE 4 0. 0. .1342 0. 0

0 0 0

FBSH 1.+20 .99 0.

MASTERS 5

SLAVE 4 0. 0. .1342 0. 0

0 0 0

FBSH 1.+20 .99 0.

MASTERS 6

Material

The isotropic elastic and elastic- plastic material properties of the sheet are defined using the following MAT1, MATEP,

and TABLES1 options. The Hollomon hardening behavior, = K n with K = 550.4N mm 2 ,and n = 0.223 is

represented in the form of stress-strain data defined in TABLES1 option.

MAT1 1 70500. .342 1.

MATEP 1 Table 1 Isotrop Addmean

TABLES1 1 2

0. 194. .02 230.043 .04 268.496 .06 293.904

.08 313.378 .1 329.365 .2 384.423 .3 420.802

.4 448.681 .5 471.573 .6 491.14 .7 508.317

.8 523.682 .9 537.619 1. 550.399 1.1 562.224

1.2 573.239 1.3 583.564 1.4 593.287 ENDT

The following NLMOPTS entry enables large strain formulation using additive plasticity with mean normal return.

NLMOPTS,LRGS,1

The following set of boundary conditions has been applied for both 2-D plane strain and 3-D shell models:

• Symmetry conditions (i.e., no displacement in horizontal direction) have been applied to the left size of the

strip

• For the position controlled rigid body used for the die surface, all degrees of freedom have been suppressed.

For the control node of the load controlled rigid body used for the punch surface, the displacement

components in horizontal directions are suppressed, while the displacement in vertical direction is specified as

a function of the time (refer to Table 3-3).

86 MD Demonstration Problems

CHAPTER 3

Time Vertical Displacement

0.0 0

1.0 -28.5

2.0 -28.5

3.0 0

The following data in the case control section of the input file defines the load and boundary conditions at the four

different steps of the analysis. The bulk data entries SPCD, SPCR and SPC1 are used to define the loads in these steps.

The SPCD data presented here shows the application of the imposed downward displacement of 28.5 in vertical

direction in steps 1 and 2 at node 1 for the 2-D plane strain model. A similar imposed displacement is applied at node

1198 for the 3-D shell model. The SPCR data presented here shows the application of the imposed upward relative

displacement of 10.0 in vertical direction in step 3 and its fixation in step 4 at node 927 for the 2-D plane strain model.

A similar imposed relative displacement is applied at node 1167 for the 3-D shell model.

SUBCASE 1

STEP 1

NLSTEP = 1

BCONTACT = 1

SPC = 2

LOAD = 1

STEP 2

NLSTEP = 2

BCONTACT = 2

SPC = 2

LOAD = 2

STEP 3

NLSTEP = 3

BCONTACT = 3

SPC = 3

LOAD = 3

$ Loads for Load Case : step-1

SPCADD 2 7 9

SPCD 1 1 2 -28.5

SPC1 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SPC1 9 12 1

$ Loads for Load Case : step-2

SPCD 2 1 2 -28.5

$ Loads for Load Case : step-3

SPCADD 3 7 8 9

SPCD 3 1 2 -18.5

SPCR 3 927 2 10.

SPC1 8 2 927

Solution Procedure

The present analysis of metal forming and gradual spring back is carried out in four different steps on both the 2-D

plane strain and 3-D shell models. In each of these models, the analysis has been carried out for the cases with and

without friction using SOL 400 in MD Nastran. The first step analyses the metal forming process, the second step is

used to achieve a more accurate solution before the spring back analysis starts in steps 3 and 4.

In the first step, the metal forming operation is simulated by applying a vertical downward displacement of punch. The

nonlinear procedure is defined through the following NLSTEP entry with ID 1. Here 100 indicates the total number

CHAPTER 3 87

3-D Sheet Metal Forming

of increments; PFNT represents Pure Full Newton-Raphson Technique wherein the stiffness is reformed at every

iteration; 500 is the maximum number of allowed recycles for every increment. UP indicates that convergence will

be checked on displacement (U) and residuals (P). The 0.01 defined in the fourth line of NLSTEP indicates the

convergence tolerances of 0.01 for displacement and residual checking. The negative sign of displacement tolerance

indicates that iteration on displacements will be checked against the incremental displacement quantity instead of total

displacement.

The second step is considered to be a dummy one in which the load applied in the first step is maintained with very

fine convergence tolerances on displacement and residual. This step is used to ensure that the model reaches the good

equilibrium condition at the end of step 2 and before starting step 3 involving the more complex spring back operation.

It can be seen from the NLSTEP ID 3 that this spring back operation is done over 200 increments with a convergence

check only on displacement.

NLSTEP 1 1.

GENERAL 500 1 10

FIXED 100 1

MECH UP -0.01 0.01 PFNT -1

0 0

NLSTEP 2 1.

GENERAL 500 1 10

FIXED 10 1

MECH UP -0.0001 0.0001 PFNT -1

0 0

NLSTEP 3 1.

GENERAL 500 1 10

FIXED 200 1

MECH U -0.01 PFNT -1

0 0

To restrict rigid body movement during the springback step-3, a spring with very small stiffness (1e-5) is added at the

free end using the following CELAS1 and PELAS cards.

CELAS1 851 2 927 2

PELAS 2 1.E-5

Results

The characteristic deformed stages from the 2-D plane strain analysis without friction and with friction during the

forming step are shown in Figure 3-5. The deformed shapes during the release in various stages are shown in

Figure 3-6.

88 MD Demonstration Problems

CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3 89

3-D Sheet Metal Forming

In the analysis without friction, contact is initially present between the sheet and the lower section of the punch. Near

the end of the deformation, the sheet separates at the lower section of the punch and gets in contact with the lower

section of the die. As soon as this contact is detected, the sheet is further bent into the final shape and the required force

in the force displacement history curve increases (Figure 3-5). In the analysis with friction, the deformation behavior

is different. The tangential forces due to friction result in a stretching of the sheet causing contact between the punch

and the sheet to be present during the complete forming history.

The characteristic load displacement curves for the analysis from SOL 400 without friction and with friction are shown

in Figure 3-7. The differences in the shape of the curves are caused by the different contact conditions at the end of

the forming stage.

90 MD Demonstration Problems

CHAPTER 3

350 Punch Force (N)

300

250 No Friction

200

150

With Friction

100

50

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

-50

Punch Displacement (mm)

Figure 3-7 Load Displacement Diagram for 2-D Plane Strain Model

Observe that the unloading stage is analyzed in two steps. In the first unloading step the punch and the strip are moved

simultaneously in upward direction. This releases the strip from the die, while it remains in contact with the punch. In

the second unloading step the strip is fixed in vertical direction while the punch is moved further upward to its original

position. This gradually releases the strip from the punch and allows it to spring back to its final configuration. Note

that the fixation of the strip is such that there are no reaction forces after it has lost contact with both the die and the

punch. This, of course, is a requirement in order to capture the proper spring back behavior. The fixation primarily

serves to suppress rigid body motions of the model during the unloading stage.

The characteristic values of the angles at the end of the forming stage and after removal of the tool are listed in

Table 3-4.

Table 3-4 Characteristic Angles during Forming and Release Process (2-D Plane Strain Model)

Friction Coefficient Forming Angle Angle After Release

0 20.42 46.24

0.1348 20.35 54.56

A comparison of the results obtained with Marc and SOL 400 of MD Nastran is shown in Figure 3-8 (no friction) and

Figure 3-9 (friction). In the last figure, a comparison is also made with the experimental result. The results from SOL

400 are found to be on the higher side, particularly towards the end of forming. The results exhibit more oscillations

in the load displacement curve and this is caused by the use of hard contact approach in Marc and SOL 400. It should

be noted that no experimental data points are reported for the unloading.

CHAPTER 3 91

3-D Sheet Metal Forming

300 Punch Force (N)

250

No Friction Marc

200

150

100

No Friction MD SOL 400

50

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Punch Displacement (mm)

Figure 3-8 Load Displacement Curves from Marc and SOL 400 (without friction)

300 Punch Force (N)

SOL 400

250

Marc

200

150

100 Experimental

50

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Punch Displacement (mm)

Figure 3-9 Load Displacement Curves from Marc and SOL 400 (with friction)

The results of analyses from 3-D shell models have been compared with the plane strain analysis for both the cases

with and without friction. The load displacement curves for these two models are shown in Figure 3-10 (no friction)

and Figure 3-11 (friction=0.1348).

2D & 3D No Friction

300 Punch Force (N)

250 3D

200

150

100 2D

50

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Punch Displacement (mm)

Figure 3-10 Comparison of Plane Strain and Shell Analyses (no friction)

92 MD Demonstration Problems

CHAPTER 3

300 Punch Force (N)

250

200

150 3D

100 2D

50

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Punch Displacement (mm)

Figure 3-11 Comparison of Plane Strain and Shell Analyses (friction = 0.1348)

The resulting values of the characteristic angles are listed in Table 3-5 (no friction) and Table 3-6 (with friction). For

the case with friction, the results are compared with experimental predictions from Numisheet 2002. The predictions

of SOL 400 from both 2-D plane strain case and 3-D shell models are found to match well with the experiment.

Table 3-5 Comparison of Angles for Plane Strain and Shell Approach (no friction)

Forming Angle Angle After Release

Plane strain 20.42 46.24

Shell 20.38 46.67

Table 3-6 Comparison of Angles for Plane Strain and Shell Approach (Friction 0.1348)

Forming Angle Angle After Release

Plane strain 20.35 54.56

Shell 20.45 54.07

Numisheet 19.6 to 21.0 53.4 to 55.8

Modeling Tips

One of the complicating characteristics in this benchmark problem is a very local contact between the plate and the

curved shoulders of the die. In fact, the contact is almost a point (2-D) or line (3-D) contact with a large amount of

sliding. Contact is only verified between the nodes of the plate and the rigid dies. Hence, in the discrete steps of the

displacement history, points can be identified where no contact is detected; especially, if large elements are used near

the shoulder of the die.

The following are some guidelines and tips for modeling this benchmark:

• A fine mesh has to be used to describe the contact of the nodes of the sheet with the die properly

• A smooth representation of the die has to be chosen, either in an analytical form or by a piecewise linear curve

using a high number of segments

CHAPTER 3 93

3-D Sheet Metal Forming

• The unloading behavior is characterized by removal of the tools and at the same time adding boundary

conditions preventing the possibility of rigid body movement.

• The unloading behavior should preferably be done in a number of steps. Note that in these steps low values of

the normal and, consequently, the friction forces are present which makes it difficult to obtain a converged

solution

• Numerical damping is often recommended to stabilize the solution, but it can be shown that this greatly

influences the accuracy of the solution.

Input File(s)

File Description

nug_03a.dat MD Nastran SOL 400 input for 2-D plane strain model (without friction)

nug_03b.dat MD Nastran SOL 400 input for 2-D plane strain model (with friction)

nug_03c.dat MD Nastran SOL 400 input for 3-D shell model (without friction)

nug_03d.dat MD Nastran SOL 400 input for 3-D shell model (with friction)

Video

Click on the image or caption below to view a streaming video of this problem; it lasts approximately 25 minutes and

explains how the steps are performed.

Original

Punch Position

Sheet

Final

Position

W

R2

R3

Die

- Evaluation of Gas Turbine Rotor Dynamic Analysis Using the Finite Element Method 2012Uploaded bymhsgh2003
- Benchmark ProceedingsUploaded byJoão Santos
- Altair's Student Guides - Instructor's Manual - CAE for Simulation of Sheet Metal FormingUploaded byKFourMetrics
- Altair's Student Guides - A Designer's Guide to Finite Element AnalysisUploaded byKFourMetrics
- A FINITE ELEMENT SOLVER FOR MODAL ANALYSIS OF MULTI-SPAN OFFSHORE PIPELINESUploaded byKenneth Davis
- Paper 6Uploaded bydjebin
- Lecture 1 - IntroductionUploaded bywdmalik
- Finite Element MethodUploaded bySriram Anil Kumar Gandham
- Ansys12 Classic Tutorial Lab1Uploaded bySaeed Kokhaei
- Analysis of Fire Effects on Steel Reinforced Concrete BeamsUploaded byBigBobbo
- 11 Energy Methods (1)Uploaded byjorge
- 10.1002cepa.333Uploaded bytrungce
- 978-1-58503-381-2-1Uploaded bynikomi99
- Q1Uploaded byArya AtUl
- FEA Tutorials BK1Uploaded byAbdul Aziz
- Module 1 Introduction to FEMUploaded byKhaled Alzaabi
- A New Finite Element Method for Strain Gradient Theories and Applications to Fracture AnalysesUploaded bymusubash
- FEA Dr AzuraUploaded byMohd Taufik Azmi
- FEA of Tieback Wall MovementUploaded byHenry Abraham
- KELOMPOK_3_GEOLOGI_STRUKTURUploaded byYogaD'paksindra
- Case Study - HatchUploaded byChandra Clark
- If EmUploaded byapi-3700440
- FEM Simulation of Non-Axisymmetric Stretch Flange Forming of Aluminum Alloy 5052 Based on Shell Type Elements .pdfUploaded byYogesh Dewang
- de_true-colors.pdfUploaded byMahesh Sb
- 36-IGAUploaded byJorge Luis Garcia Zuñiga
- Mesh refinementUploaded byOm Petel
- ansy_ra1Uploaded byMahesh Sangali
- 2 Stress & StrainUploaded byReinhard Danang
- Dynamics Analysis of MasonryUploaded byKali Bahadur Shahi
- Time Discontinuous Galerkin Finite Element methodUploaded byom

- Mar 103 Experimental Elastomer AnalysisUploaded byDan Wolf
- Patent 4,477,222 Mounting Construction For Turbine Vane AssemblyUploaded byDan Wolf
- Rubber White Paper - Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of ElastomersUploaded byDan Wolf
- Cylinder Upsetting with Plastic and Friction Heat GenerationUploaded byDan Wolf
- Heating and Convection on a PlateUploaded byDan Wolf
- w03 Break Forming Mar101Uploaded byDan Wolf
- MD Nastran Demonstration Problems 2010Uploaded byDan Wolf
- Beam Reinforced Shell Structure using OffsetsUploaded byDan Wolf
- Animated 3-D Punch (Rounded Edges) ContactUploaded byDan Wolf
- Chapter 3.9: Break FormingUploaded byDan Wolf
- Convection Correlations for PCBUploaded byDan Wolf
- Coupled Advection for Heat ExchangerUploaded byDan Wolf
- User Defined Subroutines for Heat Transfer CoefficientUploaded byDan Wolf
- Simulation of Fuel Tank FillingUploaded byDan Wolf
- Deformable Baffle in a Duct using OpenFSIUploaded byDan Wolf
- Automated Bolt ModelingUploaded byDan Wolf
- Marc 2010 User's GuideUploaded byDan Wolf
- Shallow Cylindrical Shell Snap-throughUploaded byDan Wolf
- Satellite in OrbitUploaded byDan Wolf
- Thermal Contact on Surface, Edge and Solid FaceUploaded byDan Wolf
- Plastic Spur Gear Pair FailureUploaded byDan Wolf
- Impact of a Rigid on Composite Laminate using GENOA PFA MaterialUploaded byDan Wolf
- Collection and Primitives RadiationUploaded byDan Wolf
- Steady State Heat Transfer due to Natural Convection between Two Noncontacting BodiesUploaded byDan Wolf
- Stent Analysis with Growing Rigid BodyUploaded byDan Wolf
- 2-D Cylindrical Roller ContactUploaded byDan Wolf
- Girkmann Problem using Axisymmetric Shell ElementsUploaded byDan Wolf
- Girkmann Verification ProblemUploaded byDan Wolf
- w03 Break Forming Mar101vUploaded byDan Wolf

- bns-tccUploaded byanupam789
- How to Reduce Sho OverheadUploaded bysyahrudy
- Flash Separation Aspen Notes 2007Uploaded byAnonymous210
- Problem StructuringUploaded byLakshmiArun
- OutlierUploaded bynandini
- Nu Cleo SynthesisUploaded bymaneesh_massey_1
- final-exam-review-notes.pdfUploaded byDung Tran
- Design and Analysis of Globoidal Cam Index DriveUploaded byijsret
- Material managementUploaded byAnandababu
- Differential EquationsUploaded bymukramah.yusuf
- Instrumentation SystemUploaded bysouvik5000
- Week KnowledgeUploaded byGiselle Muhammad
- Be BoardUploaded byYap Wen Khong Yap Wen Khong
- multiplication games for childrenUploaded byapi-239232218
- PllUploaded byTuấn Anh Nguyễn
- key paperUploaded byAnkur Amlani
- On the Study and Difficulties of Mathematics 1000000807Uploaded byEnergyclub Peta Dimenzija
- An Equivalent Accidental Eccentricity to Account for the Effects of Torsional Ground Motion on Structures-Basu-2014-IsIUploaded bypouyamh
- MP 2009 Intro AIUploaded byAfiq Iqmal
- AP Hisotry Practice BiUploaded byRajaSekhararayudu Sana
- Basic ThermodynamicsUploaded byVivek Verma
- CG Model QBUploaded byjetlin
- Hello Friends, This is a Tutorial for the Language ‘C’.Uploaded byHimanshu Verma
- Hadamard 1911 English TranslationUploaded bymanoj0071991
- Methods_to_Increase_Line_Relay_Loadability_6-7-06_%282%29.pdfUploaded byblaagica
- week 22 hwUploaded byapi-233892269
- 142893674-Source-Code-Aplikasi-Inventory-Data-Barang.pdfUploaded byosirisgod
- Impact of Auto-correlation on Expected Maximum DrawdownUploaded byPeter Urbani
- VHDL Reference ManualUploaded byashlesha_vc
- Circle diagramUploaded bySuvra Pattanayak