Assignment

No. 7
Name:- Vhanbatte
Shrinish

RollNo. :- 19CE36022

Given:-

Die with
Corrugation

Billet

Material Properties of Steel

Density 7800 kg/m3
Young's Modulus 2.E+11 N/m2
Poisson’s Ratio 0.3
Yield Stress 100 MPa
Linear Hardening Modulus 300 MPa

 A rectangular steel billet is forged using a rigid die with large corrugations as shown above i.e., the
die is pushed into the steel billet for it to deform.
 An axisymmetric analysis is performed as all the elements and loads are all symmetric about the
axis of symmetry- line passing through the left side of the billet. The 3D solution for this can be
obtained by rotating about the axis of symmetry.
 The die is modelled using an analytical rigid surface. This means it won’t have any meshes or nodes.
ABAQUS takes the geometry of this analytical rigid surface as planes and curves which are stored
using equations.
 The contact used in this analysis is Penalty contact, defined between the billet surface and the
inner surface of the die. This means that both the surfaces are attached with a very small spring
with high stiffness which would make the surfaces not penetrate each other and also not move
far apart which is a force-based constraint.
 Quasi-Static Analysis i.e., Dynamic Explicit analysis is used as the die is pushed with 2m/s which is
sufficiently slow and suitable for this analysis.
 Boundary Conditions: -
 The bottom of the billet is constrained in the vertical direction => U2 = 0
 Axisymmetric conditions are imposed along the line of symmetry that coincides with the left
edge i.e., the material of the billet should not flow leftwards as the axis of symmetry is
present there. => U1 = 0
 The die is pushed downwards with a constant velocity of 2 m/s. => V1= 0, V2 =-2m/s, VR3=0

Theory:-

 Since this die is pushed into the billet, plastic strains occur here. Since it is taken that the material
has strain hardening with a linear increase in strain after yielding (∵ H = 300MPa) the plastic strains
increase and the deformations are huge.
 In Finite Element Analysis, if an element becomes extremely badly shaped, then the accuracy of
the solution decreases and if the deformation is very high that the meshes cross each other, then
the analysis would be stopped with an error due to the Jacobian which becomes very less or
negative.
 So, to overcome this problem, Adaptive Meshing is used. This checks that for every predefined
time step, whether the elements have crossed each other or not or deformed too highly and
corrects their positions.
 But doing this adaptive meshing, a cardinal principle of mechanics- The lagrangian principle is
violated.
 In Lagrangian finite elements, it is assumed that there is no relative motion between the mesh
and the material below the mesh i.e., the material and the mesh are fixed to each other so that
they move and deform together.
 But in adaptive meshing, only the meshes are deformed and distorted and the material is not
deformed along with the mesh i.e., the mesh moves independently of the material. This is a
violation of the Lagrangian principle.
 In ABAQUS, corrections were made to not violate the Lagrangian principle in the adaptive meshing
called Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE).
 ALE formulation is done in such a way that it finds out the badly deformed meshes by moving
across the nodes of that element and simultaneously accounts for the state of underlying material
for the mesh motion by changing its stresses and strains.
 The stresses, strains, plastic strains, deformation gradients, etc. would be induced in the material
due to the sudden change in the motion of mesh independent of the material. So, the ALE pays
price for violating the Lagrangian principle by solving a set of equations due to these induced
stresses, strains, plastic strains, deformation gradients, etc. called Advection Equations which
would also increase the computational time of the analysis.
 So, this ALE method is a costly and time-consuming process as it moves through the meshes for
every given time step, moves through the meshes, finds if there are any high deformations,
reduces the deformations in the meshes by decreasing their high deformations and solves the
advection equations to account the change in the state of material below these meshes.
 This ALE method would not work for extremely coarse meshes.

Questions:-

1. Try performing a Lagrangian analysis. Run the job for .035 seconds. Note where and why
the excessive element distortions occur. These distortions degrade the quality of the
solution, and as mentioned, may cause the analysis to abort. Why?
 A) Given, the period of the step = 0.35s.
On performing the quasi-static Lagrangian analysis, the excessive element distortions occur at the
corners. This is because the corners have very little contact area which applies high stress on the
billet and hence causes high strain. This can be seen in the initial increment where the contact
constraint is not violated. But in the final increment where t = 0.35s, the contact constraint is
violated here as shown in the below figure.

Fig-1

This violation of contact constraint is due to high deformations and distortions of the meshes
which can be seen in the above figure and the steel is behaving as it is flowing. So, it is completely
plastified. Due to the violation in the contact constraint between the die and the billet and highly
distorted shapes of meshes, the quality of the solution is degraded which makes the obtained
PEEQ in the above figure a wrong result. Though the analysis didn’t abort in this case, it might be
aborted in other cases due to the high distortions of the meshes.

2. Next, perform an ALE analysis with mesh smoothing frequency of 5 and 3 mesh sweeps
per increment. Is the quality of the deformed mesh improved on using ALE?

A) Given, Frequency = 5, mesh sweeps =3. This means the ALE method would check if there are any
distortions, moves meshes according and solve advection equations for every 5 increments of the
analysis in 3 iterations to make them into a good shape.

ALE
Fig-2a

Lagrangian
Fig-2b
 The above result was obtained by performing the adaptive meshing with ALE analysis. This figure
(Fig-2) shows the PEEQ variation in both the analysis. We can see that the meshes in the
Lagrangian Analysis are highly deformed whereas, in ALE, their deformation is not quite huge. So,
the quality of the deformed mesh is improved by changing to ALE analysis.

3. Why is it necessary to extend the analytical rigid surface to the right, much beyond the
original billet length of 200 mm?

A) From the above figure (Fig-2) of analysis of billet in both Lagrangian and ALE, it can be seen that
the steel is flowing. The right end of the billet is not fixed. By the load applied on the billet by the
die, it plastifies and flows like a fluid much beyond its original length. The plastic deformation
flows along the right end of the steel billet. So, to support and continuously push the billet’s top
surface, this extra length of the die is provided.

Some friction was provided in adaptive meshing with ALE analysis between the die inner surface
and billet. Due to this friction, the steel has flown only to a certain extent. If friction was not
provided in between the billet and the die, the billet would have flown until the end of the die.

4. Where do the maximum plastic strains occur and what are their magnitudes?

A) From the ALE analysis, the highest equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ) has occurred at the points with
the most curvature or bending. That too at the mid bend of the die. The regions with the highest
curvature are the regions with the highest PEEQ or deformations. This can be observed from fig-
2b. The maximum plastic equivalent strain has a magnitude of 2.046e+01 which is a huge value.

5. What mesh size did you use for a billet? An excessively coarse mesh may result in even
the ALE analysis failing to complete.

A) The global seed size taken here was 0.005. Though it is not a finer mesh, the analysis has given a
reasonable result showing the deformations and not failing in between.

Discussion:-

 This analysis is a quasi-static analysis as the given velocity is slow enough to perform the quasi-
static analysis with 0.35s duration. Since the velocity of the die is small, the Kinetic Energy
should be negligible compared to Internal Energy.

For Lagrangian
Analysis

Fig-3a
 For Adaptive
Meshing with ALE
Fig-3b

 From the figure-3, it is evident that the whole internal energy comes from elastic strain energy
and plastic dissipation and the kinetic energy is negligible compared to internal energy. This means
that the performed analysis is exactly quasi-static.
 While defining the contact constraint between billet and die inner surface, penalty contact with
surface-to-surface contact interaction was used. In that, in the contact properties, tangential
behaviour, a penalty with some friction was provided. The friction coefficient taken was μ = 0.15.
This is because we assume that the inner surface of the die and top surface of the billet is
lubricated before pushing the die in.
 In the obtained result in Adaptive Meshing with ALE, the steel didn’t fill the 2 nd corrugation of the
die. This might be due to the friction provided in surface-to-surface contact of the die and the
billet. So, by changing the friction coefficient, this can be overcome.
 Even though this is a 2D-axisymmetric problem, by rotating about its axis, this becomes 3D. The
following figure (fig-4) shows the analysis of this billet in the 3D plane. This shows the strain
variation in the billet more clearly.