Three-Dimensional Elastic-Plastic FEM Analysis on Rectangular-Section Tubular Forming
This paper presents the comparison of the difference between tubular extrusion and drawing processes by elastic-plastic finite element simulations. 3-D rectangular-section tubular cold extrusion and drawing processes were simulated by an elastic-plastic finite element method. The processes of both extrusion and drawing can be viewed as steady-state once material exits from the die. For this reason, the steady-state results of the two processes are discussed. Important factors in the processes such as deformed shapes, die fill, and external work are discussed and compared for the two cases. The conclusions show that the extrusion process can make tubular products with precise dimensions and better mechanical properties, but with high external work and slightly larger elastic spring back; whereas the drawing process can make tubular products with much lower external work and smaller spring back, but with poor outside corner fill and lower one-stage area reduction. The final information obtained through elastic-plastic FEM simulations is shown to be useful for die design and process design.
KeywordsDrawing Process External Work Inside Corner Tubular Product Corner Fill
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- A. Seweryn and M. Siemieniuk, “Analysis of strain-hardening effect in tube drawing and extrusion by the slip-line method”, NUMIFORM 92, pp645–650, 1992Google Scholar
- T. Udagawa, E. Kropp, and T. Altan, “Simulations of titanium tube extrusion by FEM with automated remeshing capability”, Rept. #ERC/NSM-89–27, Engineering Research center for Net Shape Manufacturing, columbus, Ohio, 1989Google Scholar
- M. S. Joun and S. M. Hwang, “Optimal Process Design in Steady State Metal Forming by Finite Element Method - II. Application to Extrusion Die Profile Design”, Int. J. Machine Tools and Manufacture, 1992Google Scholar
- S. Urbanski, M. Packo, L. Sadok, and J. Kazanecki, “Prediction of hardness distribution in draw tubes by matrix method”, NUMIFORM 92, pp675–680, 1992Google Scholar