JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS I N E N G I N E E R I N G VOL.

INTERNATIONAL , 39, 33-50 (1996)

OPTIMAL DESIGN FOR NON-STEADY-STATE

METAL FORMING PROCESSES-I.
SHAPE OPTIMIZATION METHOD

L. FOURMENT AND J. L. CHENOT

CEMEF, Ecole des Mines de Paris, BP 207, U R A C N R S 1374,06 904 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

SUMMARY
We suggest a shape optimization method for a non-linear and non-steady-state metal forming problem. It
consists in optimizing the initial shape of the part as well as the shape of the preform tool during a two-step
forging operation, for which the shape of the second operation is known. Shapes are described using spline
functions and optimal parameter values of the splines are searched in order to produce, at the end of the
forging sequence, a part with a prescribed geometric accuracy, optimal metallurgical properties and for
a minimal production cost. The finite element method, including numerous remeshing operations, is used for
the simulation of the process. We suggest using a least-squares-type algorithm for the unconstrained
optimization method (based o n external penalty) for which we describe the calculation of the derivatives of
the objective function. We show that it can reduce to calculations which are equivalent to the derivative
calculations of steady-state processes and to evolution equations. Therefore, the computational cost of such
an optimization is quite reasonable, even for complex forging processes. Lastly, in order to reduce the errors
due to the numerous remeshings during the simulation, we introduce error estimation and adaptive
remeshing methods with respect to the calculation of derivatives.

KEY WORDS finite element method; shape optimization; sensitivity analysis; forming process; optimal design; forging

1. INTRODUCTION
Shape optimization methods have developed rapidly during the past 70 years and it is now
possible to solve more and more complex problems in structural engineering using optimal design
procedures.' In the meantime, the numerical modelling of forming processes has progressed in
several directions and problems as complex as deep drawing, rolling and forging processes are
now currently simulated in 2-D and in 3-D.2-4By means of the numerical study of die profiles for
the steady-state metal extrusion process, see for instance the work of Smelser et a bridge has
been laid between shape optimization and forming processes. Kusiak et aL6 and Joun el al.7
actually formulated the problem in terms of shape optimization. Kusiak et al. introduced
a polynomial shape discretization although Joun et al. successively used interpolations with line
segments and spline functions. The sensitivity analysis and, later, the calculation of the analytical
derivatives of the optimization problem were introduced by Kusiak et a1.' It improved the
convergence rate of the method and reduced its computational cost. In the field of forging,
Grandhi et tackled the problem of process design, by taking the die velocity and the initial
die temperature as optimization parameters, in order to control the effective strain rate and
temperature of the process. They consider nodal velocities and temperature as state variables. The
control procedure is based on a state space model. On the other hand, Legat et aL9 studied the

CCC 0029-598 1/96/010033-18 Received 9 December 1993

0 1996 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 20 January 1995
34 L. FOURMENT AND J. L. CHENOT

first design of the preform final D ~ R

with foldine defects

optimized preform final part without defects

Figure 1. The problem of preform design in forging

inverse problem of die shape design which produces an extrudate of a prescribed shape,
suggesting the use of an implicit method derived from the free boundary search methods; it was
applied to 3-D extrusion problems. Park et a/." tackled the same type of problem for the
non-steady-state forging process: finding the preform design which produces a finished part of
a prescribed shape (see Figure 1). The authors introduced the concept of backward tracing:
starting the simulation with the prescribed final shape, the procedure goes backward in order
to calculate the corresponding preform. This method was applied to 2-D forging and 3-D
rolling processes lo-' including work-hardening effects. However, the engineering forging
problem is more complex. In particular, the shapes of the tools of the preforming steps are
additional unknowns of the design problem and a forging sequence usually includes several
operations.
In the present work, we restrict ourselves to a two-step forging process including a preform tool
and a finishing tool (see Figure 2). Therefore, the engineering problem is the design of the initial
part (which is produced from a cylinder by a simple upsetting-like operation) and of the preform
tool, in order to obtain, at the end of the second forging operation, the desired final part with
prescribed geometric tolerances and without any defects. Figure 1 shows a standard example of
folding defects which occur using the first preform (which is itself obtained by forging) and which
do not occur using the second optimized preform. Other additional criteria of the process might
have to be taken into account, such as metallurgical properties (minimal strain value, maximal
temperature value, grain size, etc.) and technological constraints. Then, the process is optimized
with respect to its cost (forging energy, tool wear, etc.). As the shape of the finishing tool is
determined by the shape of the desired part, the optimization problem only concerns the design of
the preform tool (defined by the set of parameters p l ) and the design of the initial shape (defined
by a reduced set of parameters p 2 ) (see Figure 2). The main aspects of this particular optimization
problem are the following: non-linearities of the mechanical problem, non-steady-state processes,
complex evolving contact and need for numerous remeshing operations during simulation. The
 METAL FORMING PROCESSES, PART f 35

initial part preform tool finishing tool

(parameter pz) (parameter pi) (prescribed)

Figure 2. Optimal design for a two-step forging sequence

purpose of this work is to propose a method for solving such an optimization problem and to
show that a solution can be achieved at a reasonable computational cost.
In Section 2, we shall introduce both equations of the forming problem and of the optimization
problem and then their discretization with the finite element method. Section 3 will be dedicated
to the calculation of the analytical derivatives of the optimization problem. Finally, in Section 4,
we shall discuss some other aspects of the problem: resolution method, resolution algorithm,
error estimates and remeshing problems.

2. PROBLEM STATEMENT

2.1. Forming problem

For many applications in the field of hot forming, the elastic deformation can be neglected and
the classical Norton-Hoff law is commonly used for incompressible isotropic materials:

s = 2K($fi)"-'E (1)
where

&
i=
divv = 0
where 0 is t..e Cauchy stress tensor, s is the deviatoric part of 0, K is the consistency of the
material, m is the strain rate sensitivity coefficient, i is the strain rate tensor and u is the velocity
field.
The interface between the tools and the part is assumed to follow a power friction law:
T = -aK 11 Aul 114-1 Au, (4)
where
Aul = (u - udie) - [ ( u - U d i c ) . n] n (5)
T = nn - (an.n)n (6)
where t is the friction shear stress, n is the normal to the tool surface, a and q are the friction law
coefficients, and Vdie is the prescribed velocity of the tool-forging die.
36 L. FOURMENT AND J. L. CHENOT

Figure 3. Definition of the forming problem

The forming problem is defined on a domain R-the part-with boundary conditions on dQ

which are: free surface conditions on dTR and friction conditions on d,R-the tool (see Figure 3).
Inertia forces are neglected. Hence, the equilibrium equations of the domain, at any time t , are as
follows:
d i v o = O on R (7)
an=O on dTR (8)
( u - U d i e ) . n = 0 if on. n < 0 on ddQ (9)
The problem is solved using the classical velocity f~rmulation,'~
the incompressibility condi-
tion being introduced via an augmented Lagrangian form~lation.'~ At any time t, the (v,3,)
solution (3, is the Lagrange multiplier which corresponds, here, to the pressure) verifies the
saddle-point equations:
(0,I.) E -Y x 9, V(o*, A*) E -Yo x 9

I, 2K(J5k)mp18:E*dw +
I*
;Idivo*dw + p(divu,divu*),

+ I., aK 11 AZI,(I4 Au, .u* ds = 0 (10)

I*I.*divudw = 0

where Y is the space of kinetically admissible velocity fields-verifying (9), -Yo is the space of
kinetically admissible velocity fields-verifying u n = 0, if on.n < 0, on a d o , 9 is the space of the
a

pressure field, p is a numerical coefficient of the augmented formulation which is introduced to

improve the convergence rate of the iterative saddle-point algorithm which is generally used to
solve (10) and (1l), and ( .), is the scalar product associated with the space 9.

2.2. Optimization problem

The objective function Q, is a measure of several parameters of the process. For instance, we can
select two of them which have to be taken into account in most forging sequences: the total energy
 METAL FORMING PROCESSES, PART 1 37

distance

Figure 4. Distance between the final shape and the prescribed shape

of the process and the effective strain. Total energy is a measure of the actual cost of the process; it
is a rather smooth function of design parameters which guarantees the existence of local minima.
Effective strain values make it possible to measure the metallurgical quality of the forged part:
values greater than a critical value inside the workpiece ensure this quality.

where /3 is a weighting coefficient, B is the effective strain and B,, is a numerical coefficient.
The minimization of Q, should verify different kinds of constraints g. Let us just take into
account the respect of the shape of the prescribed final part (see Figure 4). At the end of the
process, the distance between the shape of the actual part and the shape of the prescribed part is
written:

where ~ ( x is) the projection of a material point x belonging to dl2 onto the surface of the
prescribed shape.
The computational cost of one single calculation of the objective function is already significant
(although the additional cost of the objective function is negligible, the cost of the simulation of
the forging sequence itself is large). Therefore, numerical derivations or even pseudo-analytical
derivations (see Reference 15 for instance) would be quite expensive and cannot be considered for
actual industrial problems. Hence analytical derivations of a) and g are required. They can be
calculated for the continuous problem (expressed in a weak form or not); meanwhile here, for the
sake of simplicity, we shall give details of only the calculation of the discrete derivatives. It is
based on the differentiation of the equations of the discrete problem.

2.3. Discrete problem

The spatial finite element discretization is introduced in the usual way.4 The discrete unknown
velocity field u,, and the discrete unknown pressure field 2, are expressed in terms of the
interpolation parameters Vk and A,:
xh = 1X k N k
k
(14)
38 L. FOURMENT AND J. L. CHENOT

where N k are the interpolation functions for co-ordinates and velocities and N 1are the interpola-
tion functions for pressures.
At this point, it is convenient to introduce the Bk linear operators which are defined, for any k,
by:

Hence, the discretized saddle-point equations (10) and (1 1) are written:

where

where X , V,A are the notations used for the ( x k ) , ( v k ) and (A,) vectors, and p is a large numerical
coefficient.
Equation (19) is written both for a PO interpolation of the pressure (associated with a P2
interpolation of the velocity) and for a discontinuous P1 interpolation of the pressure with
elimination of the non-constant pressure degrees of freedom (associated with a P2 + (bubble)
interpolation of the velocity, see Reference 14 for details).
The discrete boundary conditions are written, for any node k which belongs to ado:

V k E d d n , (vk - Vdie). n =0 (21)

The non-linear equations (19)-(21) are solved by the Newton-Raphson procedure:

at iteration (n): I/("+ = Vcn) + ,d"A V(") (22)

where p(") is the line-search coefficient and A V(")is solution of the linearized saddle-point
problem:
R,(X, V'"',A'")) + a& (X, V("))AP)= 0
~

av
W k ,I ) , ac, (23)
CI(X,I""')+ -(X)AV'"' =0
av
 METAL FORMING PROCESSES. PART I 39

Equation (23) is solved by an Uzawa-type algorithm which requires the inversion of a stiffness
matrix only once.
After resolution of the problem for a given contact surface, if the normal stress value on,(we
-
note: on = on n) of any node k of a& is no longer negative, then the node is released from contact
(unilateral contact condition); it is then removed from and a new resolution of (19)-(21) is
done.
The domain a, being known at time t, the resolution of equations (19)-(21) gives the values of
nodal velocities v k , for any node k. The simple one-level explicit Euler scheme is used to compute
the domain Rr+Ar, at time t + At, the velocity field being assumed to remain constant during the
time increment At:

V k , X i + A r= X ; + ViA.t (24)
Two methods are used to avoid numerical errors due to artificial material penetration in the
tool: a node X:+Ar which has penetrated the tool is projected on the tool surface, or the time
increment At is modified in order that X:+" be exactly in contact for generally only one node (see
Figure 5). When a node is already in contact at time r, it is assumed to remain in contact during
the entire time increment and then a projection on the tool surface is necessary if the surface is not
planar (see Figure 5). In both cases, equation (24) is substituted by
x:+" = xt,'"' - ( x r 0 x ~ ~n'+A')n'+A'
A', (25)
where Xi.'"' is the position of point k calculated by equation (24), falling inside the tool, Xr, is
a point of the line segment upon which Xi,'"' is projected (notice that X,,Xf,'"' is a vector) and
r, + Ar is the normal of the line segment upon which is projected.

2.4. Discrete optimization problem

The shapes of the initial part and of the preform tools are usually described by line segments
and circles. This description is very close to the engineering problem, but it requires the
introduction of many constraints on the parameter variations during the optimization procedure.
A description with spline functions has several advantages: it is still adapted to CAD systems, it
reduces the number of optimization parameters, and it makes it easier to introduce the physical
constraints of the problem. Spline curves are next discretized into line segments for the simulation
of the forming problem. The shape (xi,x:) is defined according to

k= 1
2d

Figure 5. Projection of a node on the tool surface

40 L. FOURMENT AND J. L. CHENOT

modified
ahape

active characteristic p i n t
passive characteristic point

normal to the spline

at active points

/ mi(itrl optimization direction

optimized shape
used for the next
initial shape optimization step

Figure 6. Discretization of shapes using spline functions; definition of the optimization parameters

where uk(5) = l / ( k - l)!tk-',2d - 1 is the degree of the spline function which is generally taken
as 3, C;;' and C$" are the spline coefficients which are defined in order that xS,((,) = x; and
xt(5,) = x; and (x!, x;), are the characteristic points which define the spline.
The parameters of the shape optimization problem are the displacements (p,) of the character-
istics points in the normal direction of the initial curve (see Figure 6) and then the parameter
definition depends on the initial guess of the shape. The discrete objective function is written:

where

where Nincis the number of time increments and t e n d is the final time of the process.
The discrete shape constraint condition, at the end of the process ( t = t e n d ) , is as follows:

where L(xk) is a segment length associated with the boundary node xk.

3. DERIVATIVE CALCULATION
Derivatives of the objective function @h and of the constraint function gh are functions of dV'/dp
and dX'/dp, at any time of the process:
 METAL FORMING PROCESSES, PART 1 41

This point makes the optimization problem particular: dX/dp and dV/dp must be simultaneously
calculated. It results that adjoint state methods cannot be used straightforwardly for this kind of
problem.

3.1. General principles

Derivatives are calculated by the following incremental method:
A t time t = 0

dXt'O
if the initial shape of the part is not to be optimized: --
-0 (33)
dP2
dXt=O dx
else: --- - (34)
dP2 dP2
where xs is the point of the spline curve (which defines the initial shape of the part) which
coincides with X. dx"/dp2 is calculated after differentiation of (26).
At time t: dXldp is assumed to be known. dV/dp is calculated by derivation of the discretized
equilibrium equations (19) and (20) and of the boundary conditions (21):

The last term vanishes when the tool has a translation movement, which is usually the case.
Therefore, as in most optimization problems, d V/dp is solution of a linear problem, the matrix of
which is the same as the matrix of the mechanical problem. As this latter has already been
triangularized, the additional computational cost of the derivative calculation is not prohibitive
with respect to the resolution of the mechanical problem. Meanwhile, because of the non-linearity
of the constitutive equations, the last stiffness matrix which has been triangularized (during the
resolution of the nth iteration of the Newton-Raphson algorithm (23))is not exactly the matrix of
(35), but a very close approximation of it:

Hence the cost of the derivative calculation is quite reasonable with respect to a single evaluation
of the objective function.
42 L. FOURMENT AND J. L. CHENOT

In the following, we shall assume that one step of the Uzawa algorithm is enough to reach
a satisfactory precision of the saddle-point solution. As we are using an augmented Lagrangian
formulation, this becomes equivalent to a penalty formulation. Although this assumption is not
needed, it makes the writing of the following calculations quite simple. A vanishes and then
equation (35) is modified to give
dX aRk dV
Vk, - - + - - = O
ax dp av dp
then
dV aR - ' a R dX
(39)
-dP= - ( G ) dXdp
At this level, d@h/dx and dQh/aV are simultaneously calculated with dR/dX and aR/dV.
At time t + At: dX'+A'/dp is given by differentiation of equations (24) and (25). For any
internal node k and for any boundary node k which has not been projected onto the tool surface
+
at time t At,
dXLfAt dX: dV:
-- - -+ -- At
dP dP dP
For any boundary node k which belongs to the tool surface at time t + At,

and then

where n'"' is the normal of the tool segment to which X:+" belongs, (tf+A')i=1,2are the
tangents of the tool segment and xf is the point of the spline curve (which defines here the shape
of the tool to be optimized) which coincides with X:"'. dxi/dp, is calculated after differentiation
of (26).

3.2. Calculation of aR/aX

From a practical standpoint, the calculation of aR/aX is difficult, but as it is classical only the
general ideas of the derivation of equation (19) are recalled. It is based on mapping onto the
reference element:

Vk, R:(X, V) = C R:'(X, V) (43)

e

R:'(X, v) = 2 K ( 3 i h ) m - l i j , : BkI JeIdw,,r (44)

where J' is the Jacobian matrix of the transformation between Q, (a finite element in the
actual space) and Qref (the corresponding element in the reference space), \.lei is the
 METAL FORMING PROCESSES, PART I 43

determinant of J".

From equation (17),

If T indicates the transposition operator,

where N' is a vector: N' = dxh/dX,. As

where 5 is the natural co-ordinate on the reference element, then

where

On the other hand (see Appendix I for the proof),

therefore,

The penalty term of equation (19) is derived in the same way, as well as the surface term. For the
latter, the mapping onto the reference surface element is used:
44 L. FOURMENT AND J. L. CHENOT

wherejs is the Jacobian matrix of the transformation between dQs (a finite element of the surface
in the actual space) and aRref(the corresponding surface element in the reference space), 1 j sI is the
determinant of j s and S, is the set of surface elements which belong to a&.

Most of these terms are similar to the previous terms which have already been calculated for the
volume integral. Hence we only describe the calculation of aAuh,/aX,:

As we have assumed that the tool has a translation movement, the last term vanishes. For a 2-D
problem (see Appendix I1 for the 3-D case), we introduce the unit vector k which is normal to the
plane and the tangent vector u:

Therefore.

where A represents the vector product. Finally,

4. OPTIMIZATION METHOD

4.1. Optimization algorithm

The resolution algorithm for an optimization problem depends on the type of constraint
g which is imposed. For unconstrained problems, quasi-Newton algorithms like the BFGS
algorithmI6 are well adapted, although for quite general problems with equality and inequality
constraints, algorithms based on Lagrangian multipliers and sequential quadratic program-
ming" should be used. For the present case, according to the simple objective function (12) and
the simple constraint (1 3), the constraint condition can be eliminated using a penalty formulation.
At this point, we must notice that usually the constraint g (13) is not an equality. Indeed, in the
great majority of forging processes there is a flash which is introduced to evacuate the excess
matter and to reduce the forming pressure (see Figure 4). The shape of the flash is not of any
 METAL FORMING PROCESSES, PART I 45

particular interest in the process. Thus a more realistic constraint condition is written:

= I, sign(x.n(x).n) 11 n ( x ) - x I/ ds < 0

where xn(x) is a vector, n is the current normal to the workpiece and sign is the function which
gives the sign of its argument.
In order to take into account the constraint condition via an external penalty method, the
objective function @ is replaced by @glob:

=@ + r Max(0, g) (61)
where r is a large numerical coefficient.
Therefore, an unconstrained algorithm can be used for minimizing @glob. On the other hand the
present problem is well adapted to the least-squares algorithm according to the writing of the
global discretized objective function when B is equal to 0 (i.e. not taking into account the effective
strain values):

@fob = ?(Ja)'
+
i= 1
1 ( 1 1 n(xk)
x,n k. 0 s ( X x ) n.
- xk 11 L(Xk))' (62)

Hence @fob can be written in the following least-squares form:

Using the least-squares method, an approximation of the second-order derivative of @hglob can
be obtained from the calculation of only the first-order terms (see Appendix and, moreover,
the line search method can be avoided. As the calculation of @:lob is nearly as costly as the
calculation of both @:lob and d@;lob/dp,it can be very advantageous,

4.2. General algorithm

(0) Definition of an initial shape of the preform (intermediate) tool by the user. Selection of the
active characteristic points of the spline.
(i) Calculation of the normal of the spline at active points. This defines the parameters of the
optimization problem (normal displacement of active characteristic points).
(ii) Optimization algorithm: each iteration requires a full simulation of the forging sequence
and the calculation of @fob, d@fob/dpand (d@hm/dp)m.
(iii) End if the prescribed precision is reached, else go back to step (i) using the optimized shape
as new initial guess (see Figure 6).

4.3. Remeshiny problem

One simulation of the forging process requires several remeshing operations in order to adapt
the mesh to the evolution of the geometry of the problem, and in order to rectify the distortion of
the elements." After remeshing, all state variables must be transferred from the previous mesh
onto the actual mesh. The various derivatives of the optimization problem, dX/dp and d@/dp
(and dV/dp, if another time integration scheme is used), must be transferred too. It is not our
46 L. FOURMENT AND J. L. CHENOT

ambition here to evaluate the influence of remeshing operations on the calculation of the
derivatives, especially since we are using an unstructured automatic mesh generator. However, we
want to minimize the loss of information during this transfer. Rather than using an inverse
mapping procedure which does not always provide satisfactory results, we prefer using a least-
squares method. Let us note (Ph as the variable which is defined on the previous mesh Qh and &, as
the transferred variable of the new mesh a h .

(Ph= c PkNk
kenh
(64)

di = c
I€@'
cp;"

rp; minimizes the following least-squares function, which is defined on nh:

4.4. Error estimators

Two reasons beg for the use of error estimators. Firstly, adaptive remeshing methods based on
error estimators makes it possible to control the quality of the finite element ~ o l u t i o n . Secondly,
'~
error estimators indicate the precision of the results of the simulation. For instance, the precision
on and gh can be introduced into the stopping criterion of the optimization procedure. For
metal forming, we have shown by numerical tests' that an energy error estimator of the
Zienkiewicz-Zhu typezoqz1 gives quite satisfactory results. At any time t, the error is estimated by

?(&)(& - dh): (& - 4 )dW>"' (67)

where
?(&) = 2 K ( J 5 i)m-l
& is a continuous finite element strain rate tensor which is calculated from the finite element
velocity field uh by a local finite difference method.22,3
The element values of ( 1 9 : )are
~ used as error indicators in the adaptive remeshing procedure.
A global error estimate of the full process is approximated by

in which the time contribution to the error was neglected.

It is also important to estimate the precision on the calculation of the various derivatives of the
optimization problem and, on the other hand, building adapted meshes with respect to this error
could improve the precision of the optimization method. Two error estimators are suggested here,
according to two different approaches. In the first approach, we start from the differentiation of
the error estimator of the mechanical problem. The total energy of deformation is written:
 METAL FORMING PROCESSES, PART I 47

where

For some specific boundary conditions, it can been shown that

lwex- whl= IIuex-uhIIW (72)

where We, is the exact value of the total energy of the problem and u,, is the exact value of the
velocity field of the problem. From this assumption, we can differentiate the square of equation
(72) and, according to equation (70),

d d Wh - d( 11 ucx(r) - uh(t) IIE’)

(73)
dp dp 2(wex-l wh) c
r dP
For the simplified objective function, Id W,,/dp - dWh/dpl can be considered a measure of the
error upon dQh/dp. The first error estimator a d is then obtained by substituting the exact error of
the mechanical problem with its estimate (67) and (69):

d(O:,)2/dp can be written as the sum of two terms: one is a function of the discontinuity of the
strain rate tensor field ih, and the other is a function of the discontinuity of the derivative field of
the strain rate tensor, d&/dp. Therefore, the first term depends essentially on the precision of the
solution of the mechanical problem and the second on the precision of the derivatives. As the first
error is already taken into account in (69), we keep only the second term for estimating the
discretization error of the derivatives:

This value is not necessarily positive, so we suggest using an error estimator very similar to Ox,
which is built by replacing i h by dih/dp in (67):

We notice that Od requires the computation of d&/dp which is very costly if & is calculated by
a global smoothing method and which is still complex to calculate if it is calculated by a local
finite difference method. Indeed, as the smoothing operator is a function of the co-ordinates of the
domain, the calculation of d&/dp is as complex as the calculation of a R / a X . Hence, we suggest
a second error estimator which is an estimation of I(ducx/dp- duh/dp11 using the same norm as
in (69) and which is based on the same type of estimation:

Here, the calculation ofgh(duh/dp)is quite similar to the calculation of &(Oh) and does not require
much additional computational effort.
48 L. FOURMENT AND J. L. CHENOT

5. CONCLUSION
We have shown that a shape optimization problem can be formulated for a non-steady-state
metal forming process. It requires calculation of analytical derivatives of the discrete mechanical
problem, following a method very similar to that previously used for steady-state problems and
non-linear structural problems. Therefore, the estimated computational cost of these derivatives
is less than the computational cost of the resolution of the original mechanical problem, which
makes the optimization problem quite reasonable to solve for non-steady-state. Because of the
evolutive character of the problem, we believe that the precision of the finite element results plays
an important part in the precision of the optimization procedure. Hence, we have suggested use of
a robust least-squares optimization algorithm, another least-squares method for the transfer of
the derivatives after remeshing, and following an error control strategy (based on adaptive
remeshing) for both the mechanical problem and the optimization problem, according to the
error estimators which we have proposed.
On the other hand, the evolution of contact during the process is the most difficult aspect of the
present shape optimization problem. There seems to be very little work on this topic in the
literature of optimization. From a theoretical point of view, some parts of the problem are still
unsolved. In particular, the unilateral contact condition (9) is not really taken into account when
calculating the problem derivatives and it still seems to be an unsolved problem. Therefore, once
the actual coding of the derivatives is finished, numerical experiments will allow for evaluating the
importance of this approximation (by comparing the analytic calculations of the derivatives and
finite difference calculations of numerical derivatives) and, eventually, for improving these
calculations through further studies. On the other hand, these numerical experiments might show
other problems which are rather connected to the discrete formulation of the mechanical
problem. In particular, the discrete outline of tools with line segments is not differentiable, which
makes equation (41) discontinuous at any node of the tool discretization. It can be improved by
a higher-order discretization of the outline.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work has been done in the framework of a cooperative study funded by the French Forging
Profession and its Technical Center: CETIM

APPENDIX I

Proqfofequation (51): dl J e l / d x , = IJel dNn/dx

Let n be a node of the finite element mesh and i a space direction ( i = 1,2,3). Let j and k be the
two other (in 3-D) directions in space. The Jacobian is written:
 METAL FORMING PROCESSES, PART I 49

and

Therefore,

Finally,
aN"
8lJ.l - IJ'I -
--
8xi.n axi

APPENDIX I1

Calculation o f a n / a X , ,for the 3 - 0 caSe

We introduce two tangents, (ti)i= 1,2, to the current surface:
aNk
for i = 1,2: ti = 1X
k

where tiis the system of natural co-ordinates of the surface element and N k is the restriction of
interpolation functions onto the surface element. Therefore,
n = tl A tzljsl-'
And then

APPENDIX I11

Least-squares algorithm
As

then

Hence, 2( (d@,,"/dp)(p))T((d@,,"/dp)(p))is an approximation of the second-order derivative of

Then a standard modified Newton-Raphson procedure is used to minimize @:lob:
@:lob.

(a) p(O' is given

(b) p ( n f 1) = p ( n ) + A(n)Ap(n)
50 L. FOURMENT AND J. L. CHENOT

where

A(“) is the line search coefficient: it is equal t o 1 if there is n o line search.

REFERENCES
1. R. T. Hafka, Z. Giirdal and M. P. Kamat, Element ofStructural Optimization, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1990.
2. S. Kobayashi, ‘A review on the finite element method and metal forming process modelling’, J . Appl. Metalworking,
2, 163-169 (1982).
3. N. Soyris, L. Fourment, T. Coupez, J. P. Cescutti, G. Brachotte and J. L. Chenot, ‘Forging of a connecting rod 3D
finite element calculation’, Eng. Comput., 9, 63-80 (1992).
4. K. Hans Raj, L. Fourment, T. Coupez and J. L. Chenot, ‘Simulation of industrial forging of axisymmetrical parts’,
Eng. Comput., 9, 575-586 (1992).
5. R. E. Smelser, 0. Richmond and E. G. Thompson, ‘A numerical study of the effect of die profile on extrusion’, in K.
Mattiason, A. Samuelson, R. D. Wood and 0. C. Zienkiewicz (eds.), Numerical Method in Industrial Forming
Procrsses, Balkema/Rotterdam/Boston, 1986, pp. 305-312.
6. J. Kusiak, ‘Some aspects of optimization of metal forming tool shape design’, Metalurgia I Odlewnicto, 16, 339-346
( 19901.
\ I

7. M. S. Joun and S. M. Hwang, ‘Application of finite element method to process of optimal design in metal extrusion., in
J. L. Chenot, R. D. Wood and 0. C. Zienkiewicz (eds.), Numerical Method in Industrial Forming Processes,
Balkema/Rotterdam/Boston, 1992, pp. 619-624.
8. J. Kusiak and E. G. Thompson, ‘Optimization techniques for extrusion die shape design’, in K. Mattiason,
A. Samuelson, R. D. Wood and 0. C. Zienkiewicz (eds.), Numerical Method in Industrial Forming Processes,
Balkema/Rotterdam/Boston, 1989, pp. 569-574.
9. V. Legat and J. M. Marchal, ‘Die design: an implicit formulation for the inverse problem’, Int. j. numer. methodsyuids,
16, 29-42 (1993).
10. J. J. Park, N. Rehelo and S. Kobayashi, ‘A new approach to preform design in metal forming with the finite element
method’, Int. J . Tool Des. Res., 23, 71-79 (1983).
11. S. M. Hwang and S. Kobayashi, ‘Preform design in plane-strain rolling by the finite element method’, Int. J . Tool Des.
Res., 24, 253-266 (1984).
12. B. S. Kang and S. Kobayashi, ‘Perform design in ring rolling processes by the three-dimensional finite element
method’, I n t . J. Tool Des. Res., 139-151 (1991).
13. C. Bohatier and J. L. Chenot, ‘Finite element formulation for non-steady state viscoplastic deformation’, Int. j. numer.
methods eng., 21, 1697-1708 (1985).
14. M. Fortin and A. Fortin, ‘Experiments with several elements for viscous incompressible flows’, In&.j. numer. methods
fluids, 5, 91 1-928 (1985).
15. K. K. K. Choi and E. J. Haug. ‘Shape design sensitivity analysis of elastic structures’, J . Struct. Mech., 11, 231-269
(1983).
16. J. E. Dennis and R. B. Schnabel, Numerical Methods for Unconstrained Optimization and Non Linear Equations,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1983.
17. J. S. Arora, A. I. Chahande and J. K. Paeng, ‘Multiplier method for engineering optimization’, Int. j. numer. methods
eng., 32, 1485-1525 (1991).
18. T. Coupez and J. L. Chenot, ‘Large deformations and automatic remeshing’, in D. R. J . Owen, E. Ofiate and E. Hinton
(eds.), Computational Plasticity, Pineridge Press, Swansea, 1992, pp. 1077- 1088.
19. L. Fourment and J. L. Chenot, ‘Study of some error estimators for adaptive meshing in metal forming’, in D. R. J.
Owen, E. Oiiate and E. Hinton (eds.), Computational Plasticity. Pineridge Press, Swansea, 1992, pp. 1077-1088.
20. 0.C. Zienkiewicz and J. Z. Zhu, ‘A simple error estimator and adaptive procedures for practical engineering analysis’,
Int. j . numer. methods eng., 24, 337-357 (1987).
21. 0. C. Zienkiewicz, Y. C. Liu and G. C. Huang, ‘Error estimation and adaptivity in flow formulation for forming
problem’, Int. j. numer. methods eng., 25, 23-42 (1988).
22. T. Liszka and J. Orkisz, ‘The finite difference method at arbitrary irregular grids and its application in applied
mechanics’, Comput. Struct., 11, 83--95 (1980).
23. H. Cheng, R. V. Grandhi and J. C. Malas, ‘Design of optimal process parameters for non-isothermal forging’, Int.
j . numer. methods eng., 37, 155-177 (1994).