MEEN610 APPLIED FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS (Fall

2019)

Report on the

Simulation of Superplastic Forming of an Airplane Nose

The work presented in this report was undertaken with the Khalifa University’s
policies of Academic Honesty upheld in its completion.

Submitted by:
Fares Al Awwa 100040619
Omar Elkhatib 100046297
Mohamad Khalil 100040634
Ahmad Salem 100038962
Course Instructor: Dr. Firas Jarrar

December 5, 2019

1
 Table of Contents
Abstract...................................................................................................................................... 3
1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Literature review .............................................................................................................. 5
1.3 Problem definition ............................................................................................................ 5
2.0 Material Constitutive Model................................................................................................ 5
3.0 Finite Element Simulation ................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Geometry .......................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Boundary and loading conditions..................................................................................... 7
3.2 Mesh ................................................................................................................................. 8
4.0 Methodology........................................................................................................................ 8
5.0 Results and Discussion ...................................................................................................... 11
5.1 3D Model ....................................................................................................................... 11
5.2 Axisymmetric Model ..................................................................................................... 13
5.3 Comparison of models ................................................................................................... 14
6.0 Conclusions and recommendations ................................................................................... 14
7.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 15
List of Figures.......................................................................................................................... 16
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... 17

2
Abstract
Superplastic forming is a process used to manufacture complex and high precision parts
which can be used in aerospace and automotive industry. Superplastic metal sheet is heated to
a certain temperature to develop material’s superplasticity, and pressurized to force the
material to a die. Aircrafts nose cone is the forward most part in aircrafts and rockets and it is
a critical part, since it is subjected to high stresses. This study focuses on comparing a 3D
solid elements model and an axisymmetric elements model of an aircraft nose cone using
commercial finite element code ABAQUS. Computational time, stress, strain and thickness
values were obtained and compared for both models. The simulation results show longer
computational time for 3D model compared to axisymmetric model due to number of
elements. In addition, both models obtained similar results with 3.3% and 5.9% difference for
the minimum strain and maximum strain, respectively. However, the stress values are not in
good agreement.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background
Under certain conditions, superplastic materials are capable of undergoing very large tensile
strains prior to failure. Some materials can elongate for more than 500% of the undeformed
length (Figure 1). For a material to deform superplastically, it should be at elevated
temperatures and low strain rates. The temperature should be greater than half of the
material’s melting point, and the strain rate is typically in the range 10-4-10-2 s-1 [1]. The
interest in superplastic materials is growing in the aerospace, automotive, transport, and
medical fields is growing.

(a)

(b)
Figure 1. Examples of superplastic materials. a) An elongation of 1950% of a Pb-Sn alloy: the specimen is coiled for
ease of photography. b) An elongation of 3050% of a magnesium alloy [2].

3
Several advantages stem from the very high ductility that superplastic materials possess,
some of them are:

● Forming complex shapes out of one piece and in a single operation

● Considerable savings in weight and cost because it is a net shape forming process
● Lowering the tooling costs due to the low strength of the superplastic materials at
elevated temperatures, therefore the tooling can be made of relatively low strength
materials.
On the other hand, the forming duration is longer than other conventional forming processes
[3]. Figure 2 shows the implementation of SPF in the aerospace industry. The top image
represents an airframe component that is manufactured by welding 23 pieces, whereas the
bottom image is the optimized part for superplastic forming as a single piece.

Figure 2. Original 23-piece welded design (top) and 1-piece design optimized for SPF (bottom) Courtesy: Superform
USA.

Figure 3 shows a typical superplastic forming process. A flat sheet is inserted between two
dies, where the upper die has gas valves and the lower die has the desired geometry. The
sheet is deformed under the pressure of the injected gas from the top valves, where the gas is
typically argon. Both of the die and sheet are maintained at the same temperature, and the
strain rate is controlled by controlling the injection of pressure [1].

Figure 3. Blow forming of superplastic materials. a) the sheet is inserted between two dies. b) inert gas is injected
from the upper die. c) forming completed after establishing full contact between the sheet and the die. d) removal of
the formed part [Gillo].

4
 1.2 Literature review
The aerospace and automotive industries are increasingly employing superplastic forming of
Titanium (Ti), Aluminum (Al), and Magnesium (Mg) alloys. The aerospace industry has
advanced the superplastic forming of Ti, whereas the automotive industry played a significant
role in driving developments in Al and Mg alloys. The high strength to weight ratio and
corrosion resistance are two of the excellent mechanical properties of Ti that brought the
attention of engineers and researchers. Sanders and Ramulu [4] gave a historical timeline for
the implementation of Ti in superplastic forming. Among the interesting examples they gave
is the production of monolithic panels for the F-15 Eagle aircraft by superplastic forming. As
a result, 10 thousand fasteners and 726 parts where eliminated.
Jarrar [5] designed different pressure profiles for simulation and compared it with Al-Mg
alloy AA5083 forming time and thinning. The study aimed to optimize pressure profiles
without affecting the formed part. The study concluded that single and multi-step isobaric
pressure profiles generates the same thickness as constant maximum strain rate with less
time, and it is easier to apply.
Jarrar et al. [6] compared dome height and pole thickness evolution using different AA5083
constitutive material modeling, and the extracted simulation data were compared with
experimental data from the literature. As a result, power law models had inaccuracy because
of cavitation, and it recommends to consider cavitation effect in order to get accurate
simulation and results.
Juneidi et al. [7] used superplastic forming method to fabricate plate-fin heat exchanger using
AA5083 Alloy. The effect of triangular fins’ aspect ratio on the thickness distribution and
pressure cycles required is considered in this study. The study shows that less deep triangular
channels have better quality, and increasing fraction coefficient to a certain limit improves
thinning in channels and lowers the pressure which requires more time.

1.3 Problem definition

In this paper, the commercial finite element code ABAQUS is used to simulate the
superplastic forming of AZ31B airplane nose. The influence of the modelling space, 3D or
axisymmetric, on the, stress, and strain is investigated.

2.0 Material Constitutive Model

Predicting the behavior of the material during superplastic forming depends on the accuracy
of the constitutive equations and models. The following power law is used to describe
superplastic deformation at a given temperature
𝝈 = 𝒌𝜺̇ 𝒎

where σ is the flow stress, k is a constant, ε is strain rate, and m is the strain rate sensitivity of
flow stress, where the values of m exceed 0.3 for superplastic materials and are in the range
0.4-0.8. Determining the constants is a curve fitting process of experimental data. The values
of k and m are determined by [6] to be 0.4 and 100 MPa.sm for the magnesium alloy AZ31B
at 450 °C, respectively. The previous equation is limited to a narrow range of strain rates and
does not take into account the influence of the grain size and the strain hardening. Dai et al.
[6] investigated the accuracy of two constitutive models to predict superplastic forming and
concluded that there is a good agreement between the power law model and the experimental
results.

5
3.0 Finite Element Simulation
3.1 Geometry
The geometry is inspired from the airbus A320 airplane. This means that the diameter of the
part is 1.5 times the depth. This forms a challenge in SPF as the ratio of height to diameter is
high. However, this is one of the parameters being tested. Figures 4 and 5 show the
geometries of the parts and the profile of the nose with the dimensions in mm.

Figure 4. Geometry of the airplane nose.

6
 Figure 5. Sheet and die geometries.

3.2 Boundary and loading conditions

Table 1 illustrates the boundary and loading conditions.

Table 1. Boundary and loading conditions.

Part 3D simulation Axisymmetric

sheet The sheet is pinned to the flange of the die The sheet is pinned to the
flange of the die at one
side
sheet Not applicable One of the sheet sides is
constrained to be
axisymmetric
die Die is fixed so it cannot move or bend Die is fixed so it cannot
move or bend
Airplane nose part is fixed so it cannot move or bend part is fixed so it cannot
part move or bend

Figure 6 show the boundary and loading conditions for the 3D model. Figure 7 shows the
boundary conditions for the axisymmetric model.

7
 (a) (b)

(c)
Figure 6. Boundary and loading conditions for (a) airplane nose, (b) sheet, and (c) die.

3.2 Mesh
The meshes for 3D and axisymmetric were chosen from default settings in ABAQUS. Table
2 summarizes the mesh details for both models. Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the meshed
geometries for the 3D parts. Both meshes were dominated by linear quadrilateral elements.
For the 3D model the sheet accounted for most of the elements at about 54,000 elements.

4.0 Methodology
The commercial finite element code ABAQUS is used to examine the superplastic forming of
an airplane nose model using 3D and axisymmetric models. In the axisymmetric model, the
circular die is modeled as an analytical rigid surface and the sheet is modeled as a deformable
surface using solid elements. In the 3D model, the die is modeled as a discrete rigid solid and
the sheet is modeled as a deformable shell. The behavior of the AZ31B sheet is modeled with
elastic and creep models as in Table 3. The sheet is clamped to the upper side of the die to
allow superplastic forming upon applying pressure to the sheet. The Visco procedure is
selected to simulate the time-dependent creep behavior in two consecutive steps, where the
first step applies a small pressure of 5 MPa and the second step applies the desired pressure
of 100 MPa.

8
 Figure 7. Boundary conditions for the axisymmetric model.

Table 2. Mesh summary for the 3D and axisymmetric models.

Parameter 3D Model Axisymmetric Model

No. of Nodes 57,315 12,119

No. of Elements 56,888 11,250

9
 Figure 8. Meshed geometries.

Figure 9. Meshed assembly during formation.

10
Table 3. Modeling AZ31B material behavior.

Elastic behavior Young’s modulus 45800 MPa

Poisson's ratio 0.35

Creep behavior Power law multiplier 1e-5

equivalent stress order 2.5

5.0 Results and Discussion

5.1 3D Model
The results obtained include the total time required to conduct the SPF over the mold, the
generated von messes stresses (MPa), strain (mm) and final sheet thickness (mm). The results
for axisymmetric and 3D model are reported and compared. First, the von Mises stress
contours for the 3D model at different time intervals are shown in Figure 10; starting from
initial (A) to the final stage of SPF (E). The maximum and minimum stresses reached 312.5
MPa and 0.11 MPa, respectively at the final stage of the SPF simulation. Maximum stresses
are generated once the sheet starts to contact the Nose, and deformation takes place (stage B).
Once deformation has occurred, the stresses are resolved (stages C and D); and a reduction in
thickness occurs. At stage E, the stresses increase around the bottom edge of the Nose and the
die due to the resistance of the material stretching over those curved surfaces.

Figure 10. Stress contours of the sheet at the end of SPF process.

11
 Figure 11. Stress contours at successive time intervals.

Figure 12 illustrates the development of strain (U) contours as the sheet deforms at successive
time intervals. The sheet incurs high strains where the surface does not contact the die, while
the strains remain minimal were it is in contact with the die’s surface, i.e. around the edges of
the die and the Nose. At stage B the strains are around 26 (green ring in B and orange ring in
C) and continue increasing to reach a maximum value of about 40 as shown in the red regions
(stage E), which indicates maximum deformation.

Figure 12. Strain contours at successive time intervals.

The thickness of the sheet is inversely proportional to strain, i.e. it is expected to be lowest
where strain values are highest. This was confirmed from the thickness (STH) contour plots
as shown in Figure 13. The minimum thickness was around 0.2 mm.

12
 Figure 13. Sheet thickness contours at successive time intervals.

5.2 Axisymmetric Model

The axisymmetric model is represented in 2D, and it provides a clearer view of the cross
section during the SPF process, which shows the change in thickness of the sheet. The results
obtained from this model revealed two important effects as shown in Figure 14 for the von
Mises stress plots. In (A) the cross section is shown to be not continuous as some elements
are flipped, which might be a result of the mesh generated for this modeling approach.
Secondly, in (B) one element only attains a very high stress value of about 800 MPa, which
can also be attributed to the mesh type chosen. The maximum stress value occurs specifically
at this location, since the sheet incurs high resistance to deformation at the bottom edge of the
Nose. Omitting the stress at this specific element the rest of the elements incur stresses in
range from ~ 0.2 – 360 MPa, which correspond to the contour color range between blue and
green, respectively.

Figure 14. Stress plot for axisymmetric SPF modeling. (A) blow up of sheet cross section. (B) blow up showing a
singular maximum stress element in red.

13
 Figure 15. Strain plots at successive time intervals for axisymmetric SPF modeling.

The strain plots over time for the axisymmetric model are shown in Figure 15 as well as the
development of the cross-section profile over the die during SPF. The maximum and
minimum strain values were ~40 and 3.6, respectively. It can be seen that the minimum
thickness of the sheet is at the bottom of the die where full contact is established, whereas the
largest thickness values are close to the die-entry region.

5.3 Comparison of models

Table 4. Results Comparison.

Percentage
Parameter 3D Model Axisymmetric Model
Difference
Max Stress (MPa) 312.5 357.8 14.5%
Min Stress (MPa) 0.115 0.212 NA
Max Strain 43.0 44.4 3.3%
Min Strain (Non zero) 3.58 3.79 5.9%
Computation Time
48:51 1:47 NA
(hr:min)

Table 4 shows a comparison between different parameters of the 3D and the axisymmetric
models at specified locations. It can be seen that both models exhibit a similar trend. The
values for strain appear to be the closest between the two models, whereas the minimum
stress deviates greatly. This result can be justified by the difference in the meshes and the
incomplete establishment of contact between the sheet and the die. It is interesting to note
that computation time required to complete the simulation for the 3D model was almost 24x
than that for the axisymmetric model, which required less than 2 hours to complete.

6.0 Conclusions and recommendations

This project entailed the simulation of an SPF process for an airplane nose using two FEA
modeling approaches: 3D and 2D axisymmetric modeling. The modeling started with the
creation of 3D geometries of the nose, die and sheet, while a 2D representation of the die,
nose and the sheet was created for the axisymmetric model. The mesh contained around
57,000 elements for 3D, and about 11,000 elements for the latter. The results for stress and
strain from both models showed good agreement. With maximum stress and strain values of

14
312.5 MPa and 43 for 3D, while 357.8 MPa and 44.4 for the axisymmetric model. The
computation time required for the axisymmetric was 24 times less than for the 3D model.
With the similar results obtained from both, the axisymmetric model is a better approach for
reducing compaction time. The thickness of the sheet during SPF was indicated from the 3D
model, which exhibited a decrease down to ~0.2 mm around the perimeter of the nose.

In future work, it is necessary to begin with a mesh sensitivity analysis to study the influence
of the mesh on a certain variable in a specified location. Initially, the mesh can be coarse and
uniform. It is then refined at locations of interest and at locations where high gradients are
present such as the die entry and along the nose model. This procedure minimizes the
computational time and predicts the superplastic forming accurately.

7.0 References
[1] G. Giuliano, Ed., Superplastic forming of advanced metallic materials Related titles.
Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2011.
[2] T. G. Langdon, “Seventy-five years of superplasticity: historic developments and new
opportunities,” J. Mater. Sci., vol. 44, no. 22, pp. 5998–6010, 2009.
[3] S. Kalpakjian and S. Schmid, Manufacturing Engineering and Technology. Singapore:
Pearson Education, 2009.
[4] D. G. Sanders and M. Ramulu, “Examination of Superplastic Forming Combined with
Diffusion Bonding for Titanium,” J. Mater. Eng. Perform., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 744–752,
2004.
[5] F. S. Jarrar and M. A. Nazzal, “Inclination Angle Effect on the Thickness Distribution
in a Superplastic Formed Long Rectangular Pan,” vol. 735, pp. 155–161, 2013.
[6] G. Dai, F. Jarrar, F. Ozturk, and J. Sheikh-ahmad, “On the Effect of the Complexity of
the Constitutive Model in Simulating Superplastic Forming,” Defect Diffus. Forum,
vol. 385, pp. 379–384, 2018.
[7] F. S. Jarrar, M. Liewald, P. Schmid, and A. Fortanier, “Superplastic Forming of
Triangular Channels with Sharp Radii,” J. Mater. Eng. Perform., vol. 23, no. 4, pp.
1313–1320, 2014.

15
List of Figures
Figure 1. Examples of superplastic materials. a) An elongation of 1950% of a Pb-Sn alloy:
the specimen is coiled for ease of photography. b) An elongation of 3050% of a magnesium
alloy [2]. .................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Original 23-piece welded design (top) and 1-piece design optimized for SPF
(bottom) Courtesy: Superform USA. ........................................................................................ 4
Figure 3. Blow forming of superplastic materials. a) the sheet is inserted between two dies.
b) inert gas is injected from the upper die. c) forming completed after establishing full contact
between the sheet and the die. d) removal of the formed part [Gillo]. ...................................... 4
Figure 4. Geometry of the airplane nose. ................................................................................. 6
Figure 5. Sheet and Die geometries. ......................................................................................... 7
Figure 6. Boundary and loading conditions for (a) airplane nose, (b) sheet, and (c) die. ........ 8
Figure 7. Boundary conditions for the axisymmetric model. ................................................... 9
Figure 8. Meshed geometries.................................................................................................. 10
Figure 9. Meshed assembly during formation. ....................................................................... 10
Figure 10. Stress contours of the sheet at the end of SPF process. ........................................ 11
Figure 11. Stress contours at successive time intervals. ......................................................... 12
Figure 12. Strain contours at successive time intervals. ......................................................... 12
Figure 13. Sheet thickness contours at successive time intervals........................................... 13
Figure 14. Stress plot for axisymmetric SPF modeling. (A) blow up of sheet cross section.
(B) blow up showing a singular maximum stress element in red............................................ 13
Figure 15. Strain plots at successive time intervals for axisymmetric SPF modeling............ 14

16
List of Tables
Table 1. Boundary and loading conditions. .............................................................................. 7
Table 2. Mesh summary for the 3D and axisymmetric models. ............................................... 9
Table 3. Modeling AZ31B material behavior. ........................................................................ 11
Table 4. Results Comparison. ................................................................................................. 14

17