Laboratory for Manufacturing Automation

Consortium on Deburring and Edge Finishing (University of California, Berkeley)

Year Paper gardner

Comparative Study of Finite Element Simulation Software

Joel D. Gardner
UC Berkeley

Athulan Vijayaraghavan
UC Berkeley

David A. Dornfeld
University of California, Berkeley

This paper is posted at the eScholarship Repository, University of California. http://repositories.cdlib.org/lma/codef/gardner 05 01 Copyright c 2005 by the authors.

Comparative Study of Finite Element Simulation Software

Abstract
The choice of nite element software for machining analysis is an important factor in determining the quality and scope of analysis that can be performed. In this report, a comparative study is presented on three commercially available nite element analysis software packages detailing their applicability for performing machining simulations, specically to study burr formation. The three packages presented are Deform, AdvantEdge and Abaqus. Each software package is discussed rst and its advantages and disadvantages are presented. Then, the packages are compared and the suitable package for dierent scenarios is suggested.

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FINITE ELEMENT SIMULATION SOFTWARE

Athulan Vijayaraghavan athulan@berkeley.edu Joel D. Gardner gard0158@me.berkeley.edu

Sponsored by NSF Grant DMI-0300549 GOALI: Development of Comprehensive Drilling Simulation Tool

ABSTRACT The choice of finite element software for machining analysis is an important factor in determining the quality and scope of analysis that can be performed. In this report, a comparative study is presented on three commercially available finite element analysis software packages detailing their applicability for performing machining simulations, specifically to study burr formation. The three packages presented are Deform, AdvantEdge and Abaqus. Each software package is discussed first and its advantages and disadvantages are presented. Then, the packages are compared and the suitable package for different scenarios is suggested. Keywords: Finite element method, machining, software.

very time consuming. The choice of package is very important for both the type of analysis that can be performed as well as the quality of the results. This is because different packages have different capabilities and it is critical to select the package with the appropriate feature set. Furthermore, the assumptions and solver techniques used in the package have far reaching consequences in the results obtained from the simulations. This report discusses the use of three software packages: Abaqus, Deform and AdvantEdge. First, the software packages are described and their advantages and disadvantages are detailed. They are then compared and a suggestion is made for which type of package is most suitable for which type of analysis. The ultimate use of these software packages is for study of the following: Burr formation in curved-surface drilling and drilling of intersecting holes Machining of composite materials Burr formation in drilling of multilayer materials

INTRODUCTION The finite element (FE) method has been a very popular tool in analyzing machining operations, especially to study edge phenomenon such as burr formation. FE formulations are easier to apply than analytical methods which tend to be cumbersome and involve the tedious applications of boundary conditions (Klocke, 2002). Also, burr formation is an elastic-plastic problem with large scale material deformation, and it is tedious to setup analytical equations to model this (Min, 2001). Currently, all the finite element formulations done by the LMA involve the use of some kind of a commercial FE package. Indeed, given the complexity of the finite element method, other options, such as customized solvers, are

DEFORM Background Deform, short for Design Environment for Forming, is a product of Scientific Forming Technologies Company (SFTC) and is a commercially available FEM solver that can be applied to several manufacturing processes. Deform's original area of specialty was in metal forming operations like forging. It has since expanded to include modules that support machining operations.

Advantages Deforms machining modules can be used to quickly set up standard machining processes like turning, milling and drilling. The user has to supply the workpiece and tool geometry as well as the process parameters. The solver then uses a standard solver configuration and finds the solution. Alternatively, the user has the ability to adjust solver parameters like mesh-size, nodal boundary conditions, and tool-workpiece interaction properties, for example. Given that many of these parameters remain constant from one simulation to the next, the pre-programmed modules can work very effectively. However, for detailed research and analysis, the high level of control is desirable. Fortunately, Deform can accommodate both modes of simulation. Deform also has an extensive material library containing models of several common materials and alloys. The program also has the capability of defining new materials based on stress/strain data and other key material properties. This contributes to the usability of the program to simulate actual process conditions and increases its applicability. Deform uses adaptive meshing controls to accommodate high workpiece deformations that are very common in machining. This ensures the accuracy of the solution as well as ensuring that an optimal number of elements are used overall. That is, more elements are used where strain rates are high and there is large deformation and fewer elements are used little deformation is takes place. Disadvantages Deform's drilling module is still in a beta version and there are a few deficiencies that are being addressed. The workpiece tends to demand more and more elements as the simulation progresses, which causes the simulation to run slower with time. In addition, the simulation will stop periodically and the mesh size needs to be adjusted by the user. There are several fine points which accompany the learning curve for Deform, but the learning process is not tedious. Summary Overall, Deform is a very useful program in simulating metal cutting processes. It is very diverse in the types of simulations it can run

and the user has a good amount of control over the process conditions. Both the preprogrammed module and the high control interface are straightforward and logical. Although there are still some bugs that need to be worked out, the program is still very functional and it is very valuable in the area of metal cutting FEM simulations. ADVANTEDGE ThirdWave Systems AdvantEdge is a machining specific FEM package. It has preprogrammed modules for both 2D and 3D machining operations including turning and milling. AdvantEdge also comes with a workpiece modeler as well as a material property library. Advantages As AdvantEdge has been explicitly written with machining operations in mind, its solvers have been optimized specifically for metal-cutting processes. Also, the software has a very userfriendly interface with simple input screens to supply the tool and workpiece geometries as well as the process parameters. AdvantEdge has a built-in editor for simple tool and workpiece geometries and allows for the import of more complex geometries. AdvantEdge also has a very extensive material library with models of many engineering metals and alloys, including several aerospace alloys. Specifying new materials is relatively simple and the user has the capability to enter the properties of the material using different models. The program also uses adaptive meshing to handle increase the accuracy of the solution in the areas of high deformation and allows a reasonable degree of flexibility in the meshing controls. Disadvantages AdvantEdge does not give the user much flexibility in configuring the controls of the solver. While this may be preferable in some cases, this means that the user is restricted to the preset controls of the software. The software also has no support for drilling operations. A beta version with this functionality has been announced, however. Also, while the software has built-in material models of aerospace alloys, it does not have any support for aerospace composites.

Summary AdvandEdge is a good program for performing easy-to-setup machining simulations. While it does not offer many customizable controls, it has a very simple interface and allows very quick setup of simulations. ABAQUS Abaqus is a general purpose FEM program that can solve a variety of problems. Abaqus has been the mainstay of LMAs research and the reader is directed to past work which has used this software (Choi, 2001; Min, 2001, Park, 1996). Abaqus does not have any modules/packages for machining simulations, and hence the user has to explicitly define the tool and the workpiece, the process parameters and the simulation controls (including boundary conditions and mesh geometry.) Advantages Abaqus comes with two solvers (Standard and Explicit) which can be used to run a variety of simulations. Simulations are setup in Abaqus by using keywords that define the functioning of the simulation. The user is free to model the machining operation using specific axioms, thus providing a good deal of control over the simulation. Though Abaqus has no support for any materials, it allows users to configure the materials using a variety of models. The user also has very fine control

over the meshing and the element types used in the model. Perhaps the biggest advantage of Abaqus is that is allows modeling at a high level of detail. The user is able to setup a very detailed model describing various kinds of behavior, as well as a bare-bones model that provides general information. Moreover, the software is command-line accessible and supports scripting functionality. Disadvantages The open-ended nature of the program presents a steep learning curve. Also, it takes a lot of time to setup simulations using the software as the user has to manually set many of the simulation parameters. This is especially true in the case of mesh optimization. Summary Abaqus is a good program is the user is interested in performing a very thorough analysis from scratch without using any preset controls and assumptions, though this presents a significant learning curve. It offers a robust set of tools that provides the user a lot of control over the entire simulation process. CONCLUSIONS The various software packages features are compared in Table 1.

TABLE 1. COMPARISION OF SOFTWARE FEATURES.

Scenarios If a quick, easy to setup machining simulation is needed, then the preferable software packages would be Deform and AdvantEdge. These packages allow quick setup of simulations and have built in modules to specify material properties, tool and workpiece geometries and process parameters. Between these two packages, Deform offers more control over the simulation process while AdvantEdge is easier to setup. In order to perform detailed simulations where different solver mechanisms need to be used and precise control is needed over the mesh and the boundary conditions, then the preferable software package is Abaqus. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors thank Chris Fischer of SFTC, Troy Marusich of Third Wave Systems and Nuno Rebello of Abaqus for providing the LMA with software and assistance. The authors also thank the members of the Consortium on Deburring and Edge Finishing (CODEF) for their discussions, feedback and financial support for this work. The National Science Foundation is gratefully acknowledged for funding this research under grant DMI0300549 GOALI: Development of Comprehensive Drilling Simulation Tool. REFERENCES Choi, J., Min, S., Dornfeld, D. A., Alam, M., Tzong, T. (2003), Modeling of Inter-layer Gap Formation in Drilling of a Multilayered Material, CIRP International Workshop on Modeling of Machining Operations, McMaster th University, May 20 . Klocke, F., Beck, T., Hoppe, S., Krieg, T., Muller, N., Nothe, T., Raedt, H.-W., Sweeny, K. (2002), Examples of FEM Application in Manufacturing Technology, Journal of Material Processing and Technology, 120, pp. 450-457. Min, S., Dornfeld, D., Kim, J., Shyu, B. (2001), Finite Element Modeling of Burr Formation in Metal Cutting, Machining Science and Technology, 5/2, pp. 307-322. Park, B., 1996, Modeling of Burr Formation Processes in Metal Cutting, Ph.D. Dissertation, U. C. Berkeley.