Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'anisotropy'.
Found 2 results
Size matters! At least when it comes down to the finite element size. To cover different layers of fiber orientation in a fiber reinforced material it is necessary to use a fine mesh, but to keep the cpu time low, it has to be as coarse as possible. I´d like to share with you the following experience: - Midplane meshes of course are the best opportunity to caver as much information over the thickness as possible since it is simply your choice how many layers you´d like to use. - A Hexahedral mesh is nice to keep dof low, but can only cover as many information as there are elements over the thickness. - Tetrahedral meshes usually take less time in preprosessing and are usually the best choice to represent complex geometries. For short fiber reinforced materials they have another benefit. The center of each Tet-element is slighty shifted over the thickness and therefore, covers different information. In this picture you see the fiber orientation distribution function over the thickness (legend) and an example micrograph showing this effect in a real part. The different mesh types have different pros and cons when used to take these effects into account:
Hi all, I wanted to know if actual springback after forming depends on sheet rolling direction. As anisotropy coefficients (r0, r45 and r90) affect thickness reduction, I think they must be important in springback analysis but during routine process (as defined in related tutorial) which is performing springback analysis following an incremental forming simulation, they are ignored at all. Am I wrong? Thanks in advance.