Materials Today: Proceedings 45 (2021) 4100–4104

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Comparison of physical and virtual simulation of multi-axial forging

processes on EN-AW 6082 aluminium alloy
József Bálint Renkó a,⇑, Gyorgy Krallics b
a
} egyetem rkp.
Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, H-1111 Budapest, Mu
3., Hungary
b
Institute of Physical Metallurgy, Metal Forming and Nanotechnology, University of Miskolc, H-3515 Miskolc-Egyetemváros, Hungary

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The multiaxial deformation of EN-AW 6082 Aluminium alloy samples was performed by a Gleeble 3800
Received 9 September 2020 thermo-physical simulator equipped with MaxStrain system. The samples were cyclic forged so, that the
Accepted 10 November 2020 accumulated equivalent plastic strain increased by the nearly same at every step. The increment of plastic
Available online 24 December 2020
strain was about 0.4, while the maximal equivalent strain was around 4. Between forging steps, pictures
were made about the deformation zone of the samples to track the geometric deformation. The simulator
Keywords: was programmed to implement different strain rates at ambient temperature. The tested strain rate was
Simulation
0.1 1/s. The unforeseeable temperature increase due to the plastic deformation was measured by ther-
Multi-axial forging
Finite element
moelements connected next to the deformation zone.
Modelling The finite element model of the physical simulations was created in QForm3D 9.0.9. software. During
Comparison the physical simulation, tool movements and temperature were recorded. These movements were used in
the virtual simulation to control the process. The Temperature-Time and Force-Displacement curves of
the simulations were compared to evaluate the finite element model.
Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 8th International Con-
ference on Advanced Materials and Structures - AMS 2020. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
Over the last 25 years, severe plastic deformation (SPD) tech-
niques has undergone a significant development [1–4]. Numerous
SPD methods have been invented to achieve ultrafine grain struc-
ture, such as high-pressure torsion [5–8], equal channel angular
pressing [9–14], cyclic closed die forging [15], multi-axial forging
[16–18] and many others [19–21]. Examining these procedures,
one of the easiest to realize is multi-axial forging (MAF). MAF
mostly does not require complicated tools, easy to implement,
and the size of the workpiece could go up to 100 mm [22–25].
For the physical multi-axial forging process, a Gleeble 3800
thermo-physical simulator equipped with a MaxStrain unit was
used. Using a Gleeble simulator forging parameters like forging
forces, tool movements and temperature can be regulated with
high accuracy.
The physical simulations were also performed virtually. Thus, a
finite element model (FEM) was created using QForm3D 9.0.9. soft-
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: renko.jozsef@edu.bme.hu (J.B. Renkó).
ware. If these simulations are designed and applied correctly, they
can give a deeper understanding of real processes. In addition, a
well-prepared, properly verified FEM can simulate with high accu-
racy and save the costs of expensive real-life measurements. Using
FEM before physical testing can also locate defects and failures in
material even during the design [26–30]. To reproduce and evalu-
ate the reliability of a non-monotonous process like multi-axial
forging, different characteristic curves of virtual and physical sim-
ulations were compared.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Material
The examined material was EN-AW 6082 type Aluminium alloy
Table 1. The composition of the material was within the prescribed
limit. The examined part of the prismatic workpiece is
12  12  12 mm, but due to the desing of the tool, a shank part
is required for fixing in the machine (Fig. 1.).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.11.329
2214-7853/Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 8th International Conference on Advanced Materials and Structures - AMS 2020.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
József Bálint Renkó and G. Krallics
Table 1
Chemical composition of the examined EN-AW 6082 Aluminium alloy.
Element Al Mn Si
Concentration (weight%) 97.229. 0.502 0.978
Fig. 1. Workpiece clamping and tool displacement shown in virtual simulation (a), and thermocouple position during physical simulation (b).
2.2. Physical simulation method
The physical multi-axial forging process was performed on a
Gleeble 3800 thermo-physical simulator equipped with MaxStrain
unit. The MAF process contained ten steps. In each forming step,
the achieved equivalent plastic strain was 0.4. Therefore, the
cumulative plastic strain was 4 at the end of the forming process.
For fixing the workpiece in the machine, two mounting clamps
were set at its both end, which are connected to a manipulator
(Fig. 1.a.). Thus, the workpiece can be rotated along its longitudinal
axis according to the current forging step. After each forging step,
the manipulator rotates 90° on the workpiece to realize multi-axial
behavior.
During the simulation, Gleeble system recorded workpiece tem-
perature, applied force and tool movements. The recording fre-
quency was 100 Hz. To properly record the temperature change,
a thermocouple was applied into the workpiece close to the defor-
mation zone (Fig. 1.b.). The temperature of the workpiece before
forging was used in the virtual simulations as initial temperature.
2.3. Finite element simulation method
The virtual simulations were created using QForm3D 9.0.9. soft-
ware. CAD models of tools, workpiece and mounting clamps were
previously created to support the simulation. To reach high accu-
racy, a properly fine mesh needs to be used. However increased
number of nodes elongate the simulation running time. To reach
the optimal accuracy-running speed setting, a half model was used.
To further increase accuracy, the recorded tool movements and ini-
tial temperature was applied in the simulation.
The real time-displacement curve included a lot of dead time
due to movements of the equipment. To reduce the unnecessary
simulation time, the time-displacement curves were cropped so,
that at least one tool is always moving while the length of tool
movements did not reduce. This way, the time to be simulated
reduced from over 1100 sec to 112 sec.
The meshing of the simulated bodies was automatically created
by the software using the previously determined fineness and
boundary conditions. The mesh density was increased around the
clamps and the deformation area. Using these settings, the compu-
tation time and the accuracy are both acceptable. Remeshing dur-
ing the simulation was automatic and continuous, preserving the
previously set boundary conditions, as well further increasing the
Materials Today: Proceedings 45 (2021) 4100–4104
Fe Mg Zn Cu Ni Cr Ti Sn Pb
0.252 0.780 0.055 0.089 0.005 0.044 0.045 0.001 0.020
mesh density in the formed area. The number of initial elements
were 24335, which has increased to 68,187 to the end of the sim-
ulation (Fig. 2.).
As previously mentioned, we wanted to test the generally used
material model to check its reliability. Thus, the used material
model was chosen from the QForm3D database. The applied model
combines elastic and plastic behavior and calculate strain accord-
ing to the applied stress, strain rate and the workpiece’s tempera-
ture, while considering thermo-physical aspects too.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Force-Displacement curves
The simulation data recorded with both techniques were evalu-
ated and decomposed into ten forging cycles. The force–displace-
ment curves are shown in Fig. 3. The required force to achieve
the previously determined strain values are shown an interesting
characteristic with both techniques. The first forging step had the
highest load demand, while the second forging step had the lowest.
After those, odd forging steps has a decreasing load demand from
step one and even forging steps need a gradually increasing force
from step two. As the multi-axial forging cycles go on, the force
demand of odd and even get closer and closer to each other.
This phenomenon was previously studied by Bereczki et al.
[31,32]. During the first forging step, the dislocation structure
arranged to withstand the load coming from the direction of cur-
rent forging. This arrangement however cannot withstand against
loads coming from different directions. As a result, the force
Fig. 2. Applied initial meshing.
4101
József Bálint Renkó and G. Krallics
Fig. 3. Force-displacement curves registered during physical (a) and finite element (b) simulations.
required for the second forging step will be significantly lower.
After the first two steps the grain refinement begins, which makes
this difference smaller and smaller as more and more forging steps
take place. Thus, the dislocation structure can withstand against
loads with less efficiency during the odd steps and more efficiency
during the even steps. After numerous amounts of forging cycles,
the forging load demand will converge to the same curve.
Although the physical and virtual simulations obtained a simi-
lar result, the individual forging steps show a significant difference
(Fig. 4.). Virtual simulation required a force approximately 5 kN
higher than physical simulations at any given moment. This differ-
ence is the result of multiple factors. Finite element simulation
cannot calculate with grain refinement and the rearrangement of
dislocation structure. In addition, the applied material model oper-
ates with linear hardening mechanical model. Due to the multi-
axial nature of the process, real materials will always require smal-
ler force. On the one hand, this material model will overestimate
the force required to form, which could become a safety factor.
On the other hand, this model is not applicable when calculating
resistance force and structural load, because the real load capacity
of the material is smaller. The reason for the difference, moreover,
is that the material curve is defined for a monotonic process, while
the physical process is cyclical in nature, resulting in other curves
[32–34].
3.2. Temperatures
The temperature change was recorded in both cases. During the
physical simulations a thermocouple was used to record the tem-
perature change of the deformation zone. During virtual simula-
Fig. 4. Comparison of individual force–displacement curves during the first four forging step (a) and during the whole process (b).
4102
Materials Today: Proceedings 45 (2021) 4100–4104
tions a tracked point was defined to the point, where the end of
the thermocouple supposed to be placed (Fig. 5.). The initial tem-
perature of the finite element simulation was set to 26.295, like
the recorded temperature at the beginning of physical simulation.
Most of aluminium alloys have a high heat transfer coefficient,
which lets the metal cool down relatively fast. During the finite
element simulation, the workpiece’s temperature increased faster
than under real conditions. The difference is to be found in the run-
ning time of the process. While physical simulation needed almost
1100 sec to move different parts of the equipment, the virtual pro-
cess did not require that amount of time. Therefore, the workpiece
had less time to cool back to its initial temperature, which caused a
rise in temperature. Despite all, the workpiece temperature did not
reach the temperature of hot forging, both conditions allow cold
forming.
4. Summary
To study the nature of EN-AW 6082 aluminium alloy during
multiaxial forging, both physical and virtual simulations were
made. During the physical simulation, time, tool movements, tem-
perature and forces were recorded. Using data from the previously
made experiment as boundary conditions, a finite element simula-
tion was created. Next to the recorded time, tool movements and
initial temperature, a CAD geometry and a standard linear-elastic
material model was added to the process.
The implemented virtual simulation was able to reproduce the
real conditions with a good approximation. In both cases, the char-
acteristic of force–displacement curves was similar. The first forg-
ing step had the highest, while the second forging step had the
József Bálint Renkó and G. Krallics
Fig. 5. Temperature changes recorded by the thermocouple (a) and by the applied tracked point in virtual simulation (b).
lowest load demand. After the first two steps, the maximal force of
the odd forging steps continuously decreased, while the maximal
force of even steps increased. Assuming the existence of the
force–displacement curve of the theoretical, infinite forging cycle,
from the third forging step the odd-numbered force–displacement
curves approach that from above, and the even-numbered curves
approach that from below.
Although the characteristic was very similar, the discrete force
values depending on the forging step and on the momentary dis-
placement have shown a significant difference. Virtual force curves
were continuously higher than the real force curves. The average
difference was about 5 kN. The differences were caused by the
applied linear hardening material model, which could not handle
the non-linear nature of multi-axial forging. However, this does
not mean, that the model is not suitable for every simulation. In
case of unidirectional load, the model could reproduce real condi-
tions with high accuracy. Overestimated forces could be a safety
factor in certain situations, like choosing an equipment for multi-
axial forging. But naturally, it prevents using in situations, where
multidirectional load is applied.
Overall, this technique could be a great tool to deeper under-
stand multi-axial forging. To do this, however, material models
most be reconsidered to get a proper response for multidirectional
workload.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
József Bálint Renkó: Methodology, Software, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Writing - original draft, Project administration.
Gyorgy Krallics: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing -
review & editing, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The publication of the work reported herein has been supported
by the NTP-SZKOLL-19-0066 National Talent Program of the Min-
istry of Human Capacities.
4103
Materials Today: Proceedings 45 (2021) 4100–4104
References
[1] V.M. Segal, V.I. Reznikov, A.E. Drobyshevkij, V.I. Kopylov, Russ. Metall. 1 (1981)
115.
[2] V.M. Segal, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 197 (1995) 157–164.
[3] A. Azushima, R. Kopp, A. Korhonen, et al., CIRP Annals - Manufacturing
Technology 57 (2008) 716–735.
[4] R.Z. Valiev, O.A. Kaibyshev, R.I. Kuznetsov, R.S. Musalimov, N.K. Tsenev, Dokl
Akad Nauk SSSR 301 (1988) 864.
[5] A.P. Zhilyaev, T.G. Langdon, Prog. in Mater. Sci. 53 (2008) 893–979.
[6] Y. Todaka, M. Umemoto, A. Yamazaki, et al., Mater. Transactions, 49(1). 1
(2008) 47- 53.
[7] A. Korbel, M. Richert, J. Richert, In,, Proc. 2nd Riso Int, Symp. on Metall. and
Mater. Sci., Roskilde (1981) 445–450.
[8] Y. Harai, Y. Ito, Z. Horita, Scripta Mater. 58 (2008) 469–482.
[9] A.A. Popov, I.Y. Pyshmintsev, S.I. Demakov, A.G. Illarionov, T.C. Lowe, R.Z.
Valiev, Scr. Mater. 37 (1997) 1089–1094.
[10] R.Z. Valiev, R.K. Islamgaliev, I.V. Alexandrov, Progress in Mater. Sci. 45 (2000)
103–189.
[11] R.Z. Valiev, T.G. Langdom, Prog. in Mater. Sci. 51 (2006) 881–981.
[12] G.J. Raab, R.Z. Valiev, T.C. Lowe, Y.T. Zhu, Mater. Sci. and Eng. A 382 (1–2)
(2006) 30–34.
[13] A.V. Nagasekhar, U. Chakkingal, P. Venugopal, J. of Mater. Proc. Techn. 173
(2006) 53–60.
[14] Ma. Aibin, N. Yoshinori, S. Kazutaka, S. Ichinori, S. Naobumi, Scripta Mater. 52
(6) (2005) 433–437.
[15] D. Magalhães, A. Pratti, A. Kliauga, J. Rubert, M. Ferrante, V. Sordi, J. of Mater.
Res. and Techn. 8 (1) (2018) 333–343.
[16] A. Rezaee-Bazzaz, S. Ahmadian, Mater. and Design 34 (2012) 230–234.
[17] R.M. Kuziak, W. Zalecki, M. Pietrzyk, S. Weglarczyk, Bulk and Graded
Nanometals 101–102 (2005) 43–48.
[18] S.G. Chowdhury, A. Mondal, J. Gubicza, G. Krallics, A. Fodor, Mater. Sci. and Eng.
A 490 (1–2) (2008) 335–342.
[19] Y. Saito, N. Tsui, H. Utsunomia, T. Sakai, R.G. Hong, Scripta Mater. 39 (9) (1998)
1221–1227.
[20] H. Utsunomiya, K. Hatsuda, T. Sakai, Y. Saito, Mater. Sci. and Eng. A 372 (2004)
199–206.
[21] J.Y. Huang, T.Z. Yuntian, D.J. Alexander, T.C. Lowe, R.J. Asaro, Mater, Sci. & Eng.
A 371 (1–2) (2004) 35–39.
[22] A. Krishnaiah, U. Chakkingal, P. Venugopal, Scripta Mater. 52 (2005) 1229–
1233.
[23] G. Krállics, A. Fodor, A. Agena, Ultraf., Grained Mater.: 5th Symp. on Ultraf,
Grained Mater., Warrendale (2006) 395–400.
[24] P.J. Szabó, B. Vero} Bereczki, Period. Polytechn, Mech. Eng. 55 (1) (2011) 63–66.
[25] T.S.B. Naser, G. Krállics, Mater. Sci. Forum 729 (2012) 464–469.
[26] M. Tikhonova, V. Dudko, A. Belyakov, R. Kaibyshev, Mater. Sci. Forum 667–669
(2010) 565–570.
[27] S. Ringeval, J.H. Driver, Mater. Sci. Forum 519–521 (2006) 979–984.
[28] J. Li, F. Wu, International Conference on Smart Grid and Electrical Automation
(ICSGEA), Changsha (2017) 355-357.
[29] C.M.O.L. Roque, S.T. Button, Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical
Sciences 22 (2) (2000) 189–202.
[30] J.B. Renkó, D. Kemény, J. Nyiro }, D. Kovács, Mater. Today: Proc. 12 (2019) 462–
469.
[31] S. Wangchaichune, S. Suranuntchai, Appl. Mech. and Mater. 875 (2018) 30–35.
[32] B.-A. Behrens, Cirp Annals-manufacturing Technology 57 (2008) 305–308.
[33] P. Bereczki, V. Szombathelyi, G. Krállics, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 84 (2014) 182–188.
[34] P. Bereczki, G. Krallics, J.B. Renkó, Proc. Manuf. 37 (2019) 253–260.
József Bálint Renkó and G. Krallics Materials Today: Proceedings 45 (2021) 4100–4104

Further Reading [2] Gy. Krallics, A. Fodor, J. Gubicza, Zs. Fogarassy, Mater. Sci. Forum, 589. (2008)
111-116.
[1] J. Gubicza, N.Q. Chin, Gy. Krállics, I. Schiller, T. Ungár, Curr. Appl. Phys. 6 (2)
(2006) 194–199.

4104