In LSDYNA, there are different elements available in the analysis of sheet metal stamping Would you please give me some advice on how to choose the proper element type?
Implicit spring back analysis is better if converged solution can be obtained. However, over the past two years, I have done over sixty forming simulations, and I only got two converged solutions for spring back simulation. So I think spring back prediction by using implicit is not realistic. What is your opinion regarding the convergence issue?
In springback analysis I’ve found I have two problems: 1) When I use the implicit method I don’t have enough memory and can’t continue the calculation; and 2) At other times springback analysis takes too much time. Are there any methods available to solve these problem?
When I do springback analysis after trimming, I need to coarsen the mesh to decrease the memory requirement and increase the computation speed. We can trim the mesh first and then do coarsen the mesh; we also can coarsen the mesh first, and trim the mesh later. Is there any difference between the above two methods?
When the constraint contact is used, the mesh is distorted in the forming analysis. Is there a way to prevent this distortion?
When I do a forming analysis there is large penetration of the blank into the rigid tools. Is there a way to reduce the penetration problem?
When I used *LOAD_MASK for hydro-forming analysis, first I have no problem in applying the load, but the load is in the wrong direction. I used negative value for the load curve to reverse the load direction. However, there was no load applied to the blank anymore. What might be the problem?
There are two methods in trimming, i.e. smooth and non-smooth trimming. In smooth trimming, the boundary element will be cut exactly along the trimming curve; while in non-smooth trimming, the boundary element can be either kept or removed from the model and it will not be cut in half. What is the advantage of each method?
When I used adaptive mesh in hydro forming simulation, there was no problem in the initial stage. However, I found that the direction of the pressure wasn’t reasonable after the mesh had been refined adaptively. What was the problem and how can it be fixed?
I performed springback analysis using the seamless method, but no converged solution was obtained. Then I wrote a small input deck and restarted the calculation from d3dumpxx. From the message file, the converged solution was obtained, but when I tried to use Taurus to display it, the mesh for the last stage was not written to the d3plot file. Is there a way to avoid this?
In LSDYNA, there are many choices for contact. What is the commonly used contact type in stamping analysis?
I attempted to restart the springback analysis from the d3dump01. The springback analysis was not performed even though the “message” file shows that the analysis terminated normally. What causes this problem and how can it be fixed?