Journal: International Journal of Material Forming

Article Title: Analysis of ESAFORM 2021 cup drawing benchmark of an Al alloy, critical factors for accuracy and efficiency of FE simulations

doi: 10.1007/s12289-022-01672-w

Figure Lengend Snippet: FE code and yield criterion used by each team, with (A) for an associated law, (NA) for a non-associated choice. For polycrystalline model, their use for identification (I) or forming simulations (F) is noted in last column. The source of the set of anisotropy parameters used (benchmark committee, own identification) is also indicated

Article Snippet: The models that predict 8 ears (the 2-D orthotropic yield criteria HomPol4, HomPol6, Yld2000-2D) and the 3-D orthotropic yield criterion Yld2004–18p (POSTECH data set and NTNU based on physical experiments and simulations conducted with their own implementations in the FE code ABAQUS) have an earing amplitude much lower than Hill48 or the experimental one (see Fig. or Tables and ).

Techniques:

Journal: International Journal of Material Forming

Article Title: Analysis of ESAFORM 2021 cup drawing benchmark of an Al alloy, critical factors for accuracy and efficiency of FE simulations

doi: 10.1007/s12289-022-01672-w

Figure Lengend Snippet: Coefficients of Yld2004–18p associated with the common choice of m = 8 (Line 1 from POSTECH, Line 2 from NTNU, both based on physical experiments, and Line 3 from NTNU based on virtual tests by Damask crystal plasticity simulations)

Article Snippet: The models that predict 8 ears (the 2-D orthotropic yield criteria HomPol4, HomPol6, Yld2000-2D) and the 3-D orthotropic yield criterion Yld2004–18p (POSTECH data set and NTNU based on physical experiments and simulations conducted with their own implementations in the FE code ABAQUS) have an earing amplitude much lower than Hill48 or the experimental one (see Fig. or Tables and ).

Techniques:

Journal: International Journal of Material Forming

Article Title: Analysis of ESAFORM 2021 cup drawing benchmark of an Al alloy, critical factors for accuracy and efficiency of FE simulations

doi: 10.1007/s12289-022-01672-w

Figure Lengend Snippet: Measured experimental points, CP modelling results and Yld2004–18p yield function cut as well as plastic strain directions: a Yield surface of biaxial stress state in RD-TD plane; b Direction of plastic strain rate in biaxial tension

Article Snippet: The models that predict 8 ears (the 2-D orthotropic yield criteria HomPol4, HomPol6, Yld2000-2D) and the 3-D orthotropic yield criterion Yld2004–18p (POSTECH data set and NTNU based on physical experiments and simulations conducted with their own implementations in the FE code ABAQUS) have an earing amplitude much lower than Hill48 or the experimental one (see Fig. or Tables and ).

Techniques:

Journal: International Journal of Material Forming

Article Title: Analysis of ESAFORM 2021 cup drawing benchmark of an Al alloy, critical factors for accuracy and efficiency of FE simulations

doi: 10.1007/s12289-022-01672-w

Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison of the experimental yield locus and the predictions using Yld2000-2D and Yld2004–18p identified by POSTECH on physical experiments

Article Snippet: The models that predict 8 ears (the 2-D orthotropic yield criteria HomPol4, HomPol6, Yld2000-2D) and the 3-D orthotropic yield criterion Yld2004–18p (POSTECH data set and NTNU based on physical experiments and simulations conducted with their own implementations in the FE code ABAQUS) have an earing amplitude much lower than Hill48 or the experimental one (see Fig. or Tables and ).

Techniques: Comparison

Journal: International Journal of Material Forming

Article Title: Analysis of ESAFORM 2021 cup drawing benchmark of an Al alloy, critical factors for accuracy and efficiency of FE simulations

doi: 10.1007/s12289-022-01672-w

Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison of the experimental with the predictions using Yld2000-2D and Yld2004–18p identified by POSTECH on physical experiments: a normalized flow stress and b r -values

Article Snippet: The models that predict 8 ears (the 2-D orthotropic yield criteria HomPol4, HomPol6, Yld2000-2D) and the 3-D orthotropic yield criterion Yld2004–18p (POSTECH data set and NTNU based on physical experiments and simulations conducted with their own implementations in the FE code ABAQUS) have an earing amplitude much lower than Hill48 or the experimental one (see Fig. or Tables and ).

Techniques: Comparison

Journal: International Journal of Material Forming

Article Title: Analysis of ESAFORM 2021 cup drawing benchmark of an Al alloy, critical factors for accuracy and efficiency of FE simulations

doi: 10.1007/s12289-022-01672-w

Figure Lengend Snippet: Mechanical tests used for the phenomenological yield locus identification

Article Snippet: The models that predict 8 ears (the 2-D orthotropic yield criteria HomPol4, HomPol6, Yld2000-2D) and the 3-D orthotropic yield criterion Yld2004–18p (POSTECH data set and NTNU based on physical experiments and simulations conducted with their own implementations in the FE code ABAQUS) have an earing amplitude much lower than Hill48 or the experimental one (see Fig. or Tables and ).

Techniques: Shear

Journal: International Journal of Material Forming

Article Title: Analysis of ESAFORM 2021 cup drawing benchmark of an Al alloy, critical factors for accuracy and efficiency of FE simulations

doi: 10.1007/s12289-022-01672-w

Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison between experimental and predicted results by Yld2004–18p criterion with data set of POSTECH, using ABAQUS explicit (POSTECH VUMAT) and with data set of NTNU for their own UMAT implementation in ABAQUS (see “ ” Section (Table )): ( a ) punch force-displacement, ( b ) earing profile

Article Snippet: The models that predict 8 ears (the 2-D orthotropic yield criteria HomPol4, HomPol6, Yld2000-2D) and the 3-D orthotropic yield criterion Yld2004–18p (POSTECH data set and NTNU based on physical experiments and simulations conducted with their own implementations in the FE code ABAQUS) have an earing amplitude much lower than Hill48 or the experimental one (see Fig. or Tables and ).

Techniques: Comparison

Journal: International Journal of Material Forming

Article Title: Analysis of ESAFORM 2021 cup drawing benchmark of an Al alloy, critical factors for accuracy and efficiency of FE simulations

doi: 10.1007/s12289-022-01672-w

Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison between experimental and predicted results by Yld2004–18p criterion with the anisotropy coefficients provided by POSTECH and NTNU (see “ ” Section (Table )), using LS-DYNA (built-in; USiegen): a punch force-displacement, b earing profile

Article Snippet: The models that predict 8 ears (the 2-D orthotropic yield criteria HomPol4, HomPol6, Yld2000-2D) and the 3-D orthotropic yield criterion Yld2004–18p (POSTECH data set and NTNU based on physical experiments and simulations conducted with their own implementations in the FE code ABAQUS) have an earing amplitude much lower than Hill48 or the experimental one (see Fig. or Tables and ).

Techniques: Comparison

Journal: International Journal of Material Forming

Article Title: Analysis of ESAFORM 2021 cup drawing benchmark of an Al alloy, critical factors for accuracy and efficiency of FE simulations

doi: 10.1007/s12289-022-01672-w

Figure Lengend Snippet: FE predictions of the anisotropy for uniaxial loadings according to Yld2004–18p criterion for the anisotropy coefficients, provided by POSTECH and NTNU (see “ ” Section (Table )), using LS-DYNA (USiegen) and ABAQUS (POSTECH): a uniaxial tensile flow stresses, b Lankford coefficients ( r -values)

Article Snippet: The models that predict 8 ears (the 2-D orthotropic yield criteria HomPol4, HomPol6, Yld2000-2D) and the 3-D orthotropic yield criterion Yld2004–18p (POSTECH data set and NTNU based on physical experiments and simulations conducted with their own implementations in the FE code ABAQUS) have an earing amplitude much lower than Hill48 or the experimental one (see Fig. or Tables and ).

Techniques:

Journal: International Journal of Material Forming

Article Title: Analysis of ESAFORM 2021 cup drawing benchmark of an Al alloy, critical factors for accuracy and efficiency of FE simulations

doi: 10.1007/s12289-022-01672-w

Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison between experimental and predicted results by Yld2004–18p criterion with the anisotropy coefficients identified based only in mechanical data or considering also computer experiments, as described in “ ” and “ ” Sections (Table ): a punch force-displacement, b earing profile

Article Snippet: The models that predict 8 ears (the 2-D orthotropic yield criteria HomPol4, HomPol6, Yld2000-2D) and the 3-D orthotropic yield criterion Yld2004–18p (POSTECH data set and NTNU based on physical experiments and simulations conducted with their own implementations in the FE code ABAQUS) have an earing amplitude much lower than Hill48 or the experimental one (see Fig. or Tables and ).

Techniques: Comparison

Journal: International Journal of Material Forming

Article Title: Analysis of ESAFORM 2021 cup drawing benchmark of an Al alloy, critical factors for accuracy and efficiency of FE simulations

doi: 10.1007/s12289-022-01672-w

Figure Lengend Snippet: FE prediction synthesis and error vs. experimental values for models using a blank discretization by solid elements. Global error values lower than 0.01 are highlighted in bold

Article Snippet: The models that predict 8 ears (the 2-D orthotropic yield criteria HomPol4, HomPol6, Yld2000-2D) and the 3-D orthotropic yield criterion Yld2004–18p (POSTECH data set and NTNU based on physical experiments and simulations conducted with their own implementations in the FE code ABAQUS) have an earing amplitude much lower than Hill48 or the experimental one (see Fig. or Tables and ).

Techniques:

Journal: Lab on a Chip

Article Title: Detection and identification of single ribonucleotide monophosphates using a dual in-plane nanopore sensor made in a thermoplastic via replication †

doi: 10.1039/d3lc01062g

Figure Lengend Snippet: (A) Schematic showing the layout of the mixed-scale fluidic circuit including the microchannels and dual in-plane nanopore sensor. Also shown is a COMSOL simulation indicating the relative voltage drop throughout the fluidic circuit. There are four reservoirs (two on either side of the dual in-plane nanopore sensor) showing the sample inlet and outlet reservoirs. (B) 2D schematic of the dual in-plane nanopore sensor, which consisted of a 3D tapered input populated with pillars used to help electrokinetically shuttle single molecules into the sensor from the microchannels. There were in-plane nanopores flanking either side of the flight tube used to determine the molecular-dependent apparent electrophoretic mobility of the particular molecule translocating through the sensor. The pores had a pseudo-Gaussian shape determined by the ion beam intensity profile and the flight tube had a square shape. (C) SEM images of the Si master mold of the dual in-plane nanopore sensor (upper panel). In this SEM, the microchannels are shown as well. A high-resolution SEM of the dual in-plane nanopore sensor is shown in the middle panel with the 10 μm length flight tube. The lower panels show high resolution SEMs of the two in-plane pores that flank the flight tube. These pores are both 10 nm in length. (D) AFM images of the dual in-plane nanopores that flanked the nanometer flight tube. The AFM images are those for the resin stamp (left) and the imprinted device (right). (E) COMSOL simulation of the relative voltage drop through an in-plane pore. (F) Relative voltage drop through the sensor as a function of sensor position. The absolute voltage drop through each element of the sensor could be determined by multiplying the relative potential drop × applied voltage to the sensor. The flight tube had a length of 10 μm. C s = capacitance of the polymer substrate (cross-hashed area; dot-dashed line shows capacitor plates, d = effective distance between plates), R NC = nanochannel flight tube resistance, and R MC = microchannel resistance.

Article Snippet: As seen from , 3% of the fluidic circuit voltage drop occurred in the microchannels while 97% of the voltage drop occurred in the dual in-plane nanosensor region of this chip based on the physical dimensions of this chip (see Table S1 ). provides a 2D COMSOL simulation (see Table S1 for COMSOL variables) of the relative voltage drop around the nanopore.

Techniques: Polymer