A Cascade Optimization Methodology For Automatic Parameter Identification and Shape/process Optimization in Metal Forming Simulation

Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.
195 (2006) 54725508

www.elsevier.com/locate/cma
A cascade optimization methodology for automatic

parameter identication and shape/process optimization
in metal forming simulation
J.-P. Ponthot *, J.-P. Kleinermann
LTAS-MC&TContinuum Mechanics and Thermomechanics, University of Lie`ge, Chemin des chevreuils 1, B4000 Lie`ge, Belgium
Received 28 March 2005; received in revised form 31 October 2005; accepted 2 November 2005
Abstract
Computer simulations of metal forming processes using the nite element method (FEM) are, today, well established. This form of
simulation uses an increasing number of sophisticated geometrical and material models, relying on a certain number of input data, which
are not always readily available. The aim of inverse problems, which will be considered here, is to determine one or more of the input data
relating to these forming process simulations, thereby leading to a desired result. In this paper, we will focus on two categories of such
inverse problems.
The rst category consists of parameter identication inverse problems. These involve evaluating the material parameters for material
constitutive models that would lead to the most accurate results with respect to physical experiments, i.e. minimizing the dierence
between experimental results and FEM simulations.
The second category consists of shape/process optimization inverse problems. These involve determining the initial geometry of the
specimen and/or the shape of the forming tools, as well as some parameters of the process itself, in order to provide the desired nal
geometry after the forming process. These two categories of inverse problems can be formulated as optimization problems in a similar
way, i.e. by using identical optimization algorithms. In this paper, we intend rstly to solve these two types of optimization problems by
using dierent non-linear gradient based optimization methods and secondly to compare their eciency and robustness in a variety of
numerical applications.
2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Finite element method (FEM); Large strains; Inverse problems; Parameter identication; Forming processes; Optimization methods; Cascade
algorithm
1. Introduction
The computer simulation of metal forming processes using the nite element method (FEM) has proven its eciency
and usefulness. It allows the virtual testing and comparison of several candidate processes, thus avoiding the use of costly
trial and error methods. Trial and error methods can no longer be used in most cases, mostly for economical reasons. As
a result non-linear FEM applications have started to be commonly used in industry. As with any simulation method, FEM
involves reality modeling and thus requires the introduction of some models approximating to actual behavior. FEM simulations are deterministic and require the introduction of several forms of input data, such as geometry, mesh, non-linear
material behavior laws, loading cases, friction laws, etc. In such cases, the computation of metal forming process evolution
Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 4 366 93 10; fax: +32 4 366 91 41.
E-mail address: JP.Ponthot@ulg.ac.be (J.-P. Ponthot).
0045-7825/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cma.2005.11.012
J.-P. Ponthot, J.-P. Kleinermann / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 195 (2006) 54725508
5473
and its nal results are dened as a direct problem. Since ecient numerical methods have already been developed, these
direct problems using FEM have become well established. As a result, it becomes possible to solve more complex problems,
namely inverse problems. The aim of inverse problems is to determine one or more of the direct problem input data, leading
to a given desired result, as detailed below. Dierent inverse problem types can be formulated according to the input data
needing to be identied.
One of the most important and dicult forms of input data to introduce is the material constitutive law and, in particular, the numerical values of its parameter. This model must express mathematically many microstructural phenomena
appearing during material deformation in one single law. Currently, in the metal forming context, increasingly complex
models are being proposed in order to model an increasing number of specic material behaviors such as superplasticity,
creep-forming, powder compaction, glue and anisotropic or temperature dependent behaviors. The models contain a certain number of parameters, according to the selected material model that must be identied in order to obtain an accurate
and predictive constitutive model. Moreover, in some cases, several dierent constitutive models could be used and it
would be interesting to compare these in a quantitative way.
The rst category of inverse problems, that of parameter identication, can be used to give a solution to the problems of
constitutive model selection and of nding the models numerical parameters. In order to obtain such a solution, the key
idea is to carry out a physical experiment highlighting material behavior and then to compare its results with the same
experiment simulated with FEM. Subsequently, material parameters can be updated until they lead to a good agreement
between experimental and numerical results. In practice, a mathematical denition of the dierence or gap between these
two results has to be computed, and adapted optimization methods have to be used in some way to further minimize this
gap by adjusting material parameters. If dierent models are proposed, each is identied, and the minimum gap obtained
with each model can be used as a quantitative value of its accuracy.
Of course, the industry expects answers to some of the problems it encounters. The second category of inverse problems,
that of shape/process optimization, shows great potential in helping engineers to solve eciently some of these fundamentals
problems. In most forming process designs, such as in the deep drawing of a car fender, the nal geometry of the specimen
to be formed is prescribed. Moreover, the forming process must be designed to ensure that, after deformation and springback, the blank will reach this prescribed shape. However, most direct numerical tools cannot predict perfectly the specimens geometry after deformation (e.g. due to springback, non-homogeneous deformations, necking or aws in
appearance, etc.). For this reason, an automatic design of the initial geometry of the specimen and/or the forming tool
shape in order to provide the desired nal geometry after forming process is very attractive for forming process designers.
The design process itself can also be seen as an inverse problem.
In this paper, we will describe, a mathematical formulation common to both parameter identication and initial geometry/tool shape design problems. This idea of solving both types of problem with the same algorithm has already been proposed by the authors in [78]. In the present paper, we extend this idea by proposing a more developed methodology, which
features improved robustness and eciency. Robustness has been enhanced by the introduction of a so called cascade algorithm as proposed in [108,111] and also adopted in [107,81,82]. Cascading allows a single optimization problem to be
addressed using a number of autonomous sequential optimization stages. A highly versatile and robust algorithm ultimately becomes available, which can readily be applied to a great variety of optimization problems. Furthermore, eciency
has been improved thanks to the use of sensitivity analysis instead of numerical dierentiation, which had been previously
used in [78]. Another original contribution presented in this paper is the improvement to the Globally Convergent Method
of Moving Asymptotes, initially proposed by Svanberg [134], and this also enhances the robustness of the cascade
algorithm.
All these methods and algorithms will be used in various numerical applications of parameter identication, as well as in
initial geometry and tool shape design problems. These applications will also allow a comparison of the eciency and
robustness of the proposed approach.
2. Parameter identication problems
The nal result of the simulation of metal forming procedures strongly depends on the constitutive material behavior
model. For this reason, the reliability of simulations results is directly related to the accuracy of the model, including
the numerical value attributed to the dierent parameters involved. The development of non-elastic material models is
divided into four steps. First, a physical test with correctly chosen measured data must highlight material features. Second,
a mathematical model must be expressed, based on these experimental results and physical knowledge, to reect the actual
behavior. The third step consists of identifying material parameters that appear in the selected model. Finally, the resulting
model must be tested and validated on more complex structures.
In many situations, simple tests such as simple tension, creep, relaxation or cyclic tests are conducted in such a way that
high stress levels, high strain rates, etc. are avoided. These restrictive conditions prove to be sucient in order to justify the
assumption of uniform distribution of the resulting strains and stresses within the whole volume of the specimen. At the
5474
beginning of the 1990s numerous attempts were made to give accurate values for parameters involved in constitutive models (see for example [69,79,43,2]). At that time, parameter identication was simply achieved through the use of curve tting
techniques.
However, in general, the assumption of homogeneity cannot often be veried experimentally. Typical examples, induced
by geometrical eects, are the cases of torsion test, see, for example, [93], necking of the sample in tension test [102] or
barreling of the sample due to friction in compression tests [90].
In order to account for this non-homogeneity within the sample, strategies have been recently developed by performing
parameter identication using nite element simulations. In 1991, Chaboche et al. [22], used a trial-and-error procedure to
identify material parameters and in 1992, Schnur and Zabaras [126] proposed the coupling of a nite element code with an
optimization method in order to determine material parameters. Then, in 1993, Cailletaud and Pilvin [18,19] generalized
the technique to non-linear material models. Almost simultaneously, Mahnken and Stein [89,88,90,92,87], as well as Gelin
and Ghouati [58,62,61,59,63,60] also presented seminal contributions in this domain. Cailletaud and Pilvin proposed, as an
optimization method, a quasi-Newton method with BFGS update, while Gelin and Ghouati used a LevenbergMarquardt
algorithm. In 1995, Gavrus et al. [5457] extended the formulation proposed in [18,19] and used a GaussNewton type
algorithm to nd the optimal solution. Also noteworthy is the work of Rodic and Gresnovnik [120,118,121,71,70], who
developed an interface to allow a nite element code to dialogue more easily with various optimization algorithms. Contributions in this area can also be found in [13] among others; see also [25,113].
The key idea in solving the problem of parameter identication is to simulate the physical experiment, trying to optimize
material parameters in order to compute with FEM the same results as experimental ones. This problem is known mathematically as an inverse problem and can be seen as an optimization problem whereby the objective function to minimize is
the gap between the experimental result and FEM simulation result. Optimization variables are material parameters which
appear in the proposed model.
First of all, a mathematical denition of the gap between experiment and simulation results is required. The experimental result consists of several discrete measures at sampling times or points. These can be represented in graphic form with
several experimental points leading to an experimental curve (see Fig. 1a). Hence, our denition of the gap is based on the
sum of the square of the distances (Y-axis dierence) between experimental points and the corresponding point (same Xaxis value) of the FEM result (see Fig. 1b). Moreover, in order to obtain an average relative ordinate dierence between a
point on the experimental curve and its corresponding point on the FEM curve, we dene the function to minimize or
objective function as
v
u n
2
u1 X uFEM
x uexp
i
i
Sx t
;
n i1
uexp
i
where x is the vector of control variables to be optimized, n is the number of experimental points, uexp
is the ordinate of the
i
ith experimental point, and uFEM
is
the
ordinate
of
the
ith
FEM
point.
It
is
clear
that,
if
both
the
physical
experiment as well
i
as the FEM model were perfect, this would lead to S(x) = 0. In practice, this would never happen and we can simply expect
S(x) to take a low non-zero value.
b
Fig. 1. Typical experimentsimulation gap denition.
5475
3. Initial geometry and tool shape design

Another inverse problem in metal forming simulation is the initial geometry and tool shape design needed to form the
desired component. In other words, this can be seen as a product and/or process optimization. Classical direct problems
allow simulation of forming procedures when initial geometry and tool shape are known, providing nal geometry, strains,
stresses, etc. However, in most forming processes, the nal geometry of the specimen is prescribed, or at least desired.
Therefore, the forming process designer faces an inverse problem, requesting an initial geometry and/or tool shape that
would lead to the prescribed deformed geometry. This can sometimes be rather dicult, particularly if springback eects
are non-negligible.
This type of inverse problem can also be formulated as an optimization problem where the objective function to be minimized is the gap between the FEM simulation of the nal geometry and the desired one. The optimization variables here
are geometrical (initial shape, geometry of tools, etc.) or process parameters (loading, etc.), as introduced by the designer.
The rst application of this concept in metal forming simulation is attributed to Beckers and Kopp [10]. It was later extensively developed by Fourment and coworkers [47,44,26,48,45,46,49,142,29] for forging applications. They mainly used
BFGS algorithms. This concept has also been applied to deep drawing by Ghouati et al. [65,66,112,67], as well as to tube
hydroforming [64]. Also in relation to deep drawing, but with a simplied approach, Batoz et al. [9,8,7,72,32] optimized
initial blank contours through using BFGS, SQP or response surface algorithms, while sensitivities were computed using
the adjoint variable method. Batoz et al. also included a procedure for controlling forming defects, such as failure and
wrinkling. Various other processes have also been studied, such as forging [133,121,119] and sheet metal forming [99], tube
hydroforming [101], polymer injection and extrusion [131,132,130], and contact problems [38]. Hot forming problems have
also been studied, such as superplastic forming [35]. This kind of simulation shows great potential for the future.
For such shape/process optimization problems, the mathematical denition of the objective function can be based on
the same one as used in parameter identication (1). For example, if one wants to achieve a desired geometry, each node
of the external surface of the deformed piece can be projected onto the desired shape and the gap between this node and the
prescribed shape can thus be computed. Therefore, we dene the objective function as
s
n
1X
Sx
2
gapi x2 ;
n i1
where x is the vector of control variables to be optimized, n is the number of projected nodes, i.e. the dimension of vector x,
and gapi is the gap between the ith projected node and the prescribed shape (see Fig. 2).
4. Optimization methods
Both types of inverse problem: parameter identication and shape/process optimization problems require the discovery of
one or several ecient optimization methods able to minimize the implicit, non-convex, and strongly non-linear objective
function as dened in (1) and (2). The above least-square objective function formulation is classical and known to be ecient. However, it is much more dicult to nd ecient and robust optimization methods to solve these problems. Many
Fig. 2. Example of objective function and optimization variables example.
5476
dierent methods have been proposed in several research institutions. The two main families of optimization algorithms are
evolutionary algorithms (EA) [68,127,106,105,30,151,141,20,39,83] and the more classical gradient based methods, see for
example, [33,11,12,15] among others. Alternatively, neural networks can be used [53,74,104,144,145,111,148,100].
As EA require a large amount of direct function evaluation, it is generally assumed that their use in the eld of metal
forming is more expensive than the gradient based methods. For this reason we have not considered them here. However,
due to continuous progress, the cost of using EA continues to decrease and some attempts can be noticed in the literature
to solve the inverse problems in the present study by using EA. This is particularly true in the case of parameter identication, see for example, [97,52,50,51,117,85,17,84,34,149,148], where the computational time is rather limited, but also in
metal forming. However, in shape/process optimization, it can be seen that these studies are generally restricted to one single
forming process, such as deep-drawing [98,124], forging and extrusion [122,123,27,28,3,21,4], or hammering [94]. In addition, although these elds are not to be confused with metal forming, it is interesting to consider recent, EA based, contributions to manufacturing [31,16] or materials design [23].
The main reason for using EA is that, statistically, due to their random search capability, these algorithms have a greater
chance of achieving the global optimum even when starting from a poor initial population of designs. One good way of
improving robustness and eciency of the optimization algorithms is likely to lie in combining the advantages of both
types of algorithms by sequentially using EA followed by mathematical programming methods, as already presented in
[107,81] for structural shape optimization.
4.1. Classical structural optimization methods
As already stated, we will restrict ourselves in the present study to gradient based methods. These methods can be classied into three main categories: classical structural optimization methods, linearization methods, and convex approximation methods. Traditional optimization methods, such as conjugate gradient, or BFGS [95,11,15], etc., can be used to
minimize the implicit, non-convex and strongly non-linear objective function. At each iteration, these methods are divided
into two main steps. Firstly, a descent direction (s(k)) is computed based on gradient vector value gx oS
at the current
ox
(k)
iteration (k) point (x ) and previous iteration results. These traditional optimization methods are only dierentiated in
terms of the descent direction computation formula. Secondly, due to a Line-search algorithm, the objective function is
minimized along this direction to nd the new approximation point (x(k+1)) for the next iteration.
4.2. GaussNewton and LevenbergMarquardt methods
The GaussNewton or NewtonRaphson method is very useful in numerical computation methods for seeking the roots
of a non-linear equation or a non-linear equation system. In relation to the inverse problems considered here, optimum
objective function values must be close to zero (ideally equal to zero). For this reason, our inverse problems can be formulated as the root seeker of a non-linear equations system (for i = 1, . . . , n)
uFEM
x uexp
0
i
i
gapi x 0
parameter identification;
shape=process optimization.
3
4
Starting from the approximation parameters x(k), each iteration provides a new approximation x(k+1), based on the rst
order Taylor approximation of the above system around x(k). Following this, x(k+1) is computed in order to satisfy
uFEM
xk1 uexp
0 or gapi(x(k+1)) = 0 (see Fig. 3a).
i
i
However, in our computational experiments, the above method only proved to be ecient when x(k) was far from the
optimum, i.e. when it behaved like a GaussNewton algorithm, but it was not possible to use it eciently close to the optimum. In fact, the true objective function optimum value is always larger than zero and the above non-linear system (3) or
(4) does not have a root. In the neighborhood of the optimum (which is actually a minimum and not a root, see Fig. 3b, the
GaussNewton method becomes unstable and another optimization method must be used.
One way to improve upon the problem of instability is to add a stabilization procedure. the LevenbergMarquardt
method [61,62] is similar to the GaussNewton method, but introduces a new parameter, the LevenbergMarquardt
parameter k, which stabilizes the GaussNewton method. This parameter is updated iteration after iteration with respect
to the convergence rate.
4.3. Convex approximation optimization methods
Convex approximation optimization methods are well known for their application to structural optimization problems.
The key idea behind these methods is to replace the original optimization problem with a sequence of simple convex explicit
sub-problems. The optimum of each subproblem becomes the new parameter approximation and then a new explicit sub-
uEF (x) - uexp
x0
5477
uEF (x) - uexp
x1
x2 x3
x0
x1
x3
x 2 x5 x4
Fig. 3. (a) Far from the optimum, the GaussNewton method is ecient and behaves like a root-seeking algorithm but, in the neighborhood of the
optimum (b) it becomes non-convergent due to the fact that there is no actual root for the considered problem.
problem is formulated, approximating the original problem again. This procedure is repeated until convergence is achieved.
The following methods constitute three essential approaches in structural optimization: the CONLIN method developed
by Fleury [42,41], the MMA method developed by Svanberg [134], and the SQP method developed by Schittkowski [125].
Their success relies on the fact that convex approximations of closed forms are jointly utilized with an ecient dual solution procedure. However, it must be noted that these methods do not perform well in some cases, and even fail when the
convexity is not correctly assigned, see also [147]. In general, both objective function and constraints must be approximated
to form each sub-problem. However, in the case of the inverse problem in this study, we consider only boundary and linear
constraints, which do not have to be approximated due to their simple explicit form. For this reason, in our case, each
explicit sub-problem derives from the basic problem where the objective function S(x) is replaced by its simple explicit
approximation e
S x.
4.3.1. CONvex LINearization method (CONLIN)
Historically, see for example, [40], the rst convex approximation method to be used was the reciprocal variables
method, which replaces basic parameter x with reciprocal variables zi = 1/xi (for i = 1, . . . , n) in the optimization problem.
Therefore, at each iteration of the optimization process, the approximated simple explicit sub-problem is given by the linearization of the basic problem (meaning linearization of both objective function and constraints if they present a complex
or implicit form), expressed in terms of these reciprocal variables, at the current parameter set. This method has demonstrated excellent results in several cases, attributed to the fact that some optimization constraints are much less non-linear
in terms of reciprocal variables for linear elastic problems (e.g. bar truss weight optimization).
The CONvex LINearization method [42,41] is based on the use of these reciprocal variables, but also on direct variables,
according to the approximated functions rst derivative sign. This method takes into account the fact that some constraints could be less non-linear in terms of direct variables. Each iteration is divided into four main steps. Firstly, the
derivatives of the objective function and constraints (if complex or implicit form) with respect to the optimization variables
are computed. Secondly, depending on the sign of these derivatives, an automatic choice between direct and reciprocal variables is made for each function to be approximated. Thirdly, the convex approximation is given by the rst order Taylor
series of the function expressed in terms of these chosen variables. Finally, when the three rst steps are computed for
objective function and each constraint, the simple optimization sub-problem is solved. The sub-problem optimum becomes
the new approximation of the basic problem optimum.
4.3.2. Method of Moving Asymptotes (MMA)
More than a decade ago, Svanberg [134] presented a new general non-linear optimization method, particularly ecient
in structural optimization. The Method of Moving Asymptotes or MMA, is a generalization of the CONLIN method,
whereby the linearization intermediate variables can be modied during the iterative process, in order to adjust to the convexity of each approximation. Instead of simply using direct and reciprocal variables, this method uses intermediate variables 1/(Ui xi) and 1/(xi Li) (for i = 1, . . . , n) respectively, where Ui and Li (which stand respectively for upper and
lower) are user-selected parameters that can be modied from one iteration to another. The intermediate variables are
called moving asymptotes. Similarly to the CONLIN method, the objective function and constraints are approximated
by the rst order Taylor series of the function expressed in terms of these intermediate variables. In order to achieve a stable and fast convergence of the method, an ecient updating technique is required for these asymptotes, iteration after
iteration. Svanberg [134] proposed an empirical but ecient formula for this.
5478
Let us highlight a major property of both the CONLIN and MMA methods. The objective function is approximated by
a monotonous rising function if the function derivative is positive, or by a monotonous decreasing function if the derivative
is negative. Hence, if constraints are not approximated (i.e. because of their simple explicit form), this leads to a non-convergence of both methods if the minimum is located strictly inside the feasible domain (no active constraints). For this
reason, identication problems and initial geometry and/or tool shape design cannot be solved using these methods [150].
4.3.3. Globally Convergent Method of Moving Asymptotes (GCMMA)
As a result of the limitations of the COLIN and MMA methods, Svanberg [135] proposed in 1995, a very simple modication of MMA to make it globally convergent. This method, the Globally Convergent Method of Moving Asymptotes, or GCMMA, still creates convex approximations of problem functions (objective function and constraints if
necessary), but the functions present a U shape with a minimum between the two vertical asymptotes (the ones dened
in MMA) for each optimization variable. A new convex approximation parameter appears, q. This is modied from one
iteration to another in a similar way to the updating of moving asymptotes.
Let us consider the kth iteration of the optimization process, with starting parameter approximation, x(k). Let us suppose that U(k) and L(k), the moving asymptotes at the kth iteration, and q(k), are known (see two-point updating method
described later, see Section 4.3.4). After computing the derivative of the objective function S(x) with respect to each optimization variable, the sub-problem objective function, e
S x, is given by
!
k
k
n
X
pi
qi
e xk
S
5
rk ;
k
k
U

x
x

L
i
i
i1
i
i
where

k
oSxk
q
k
k
U i Li ;
oxi
2

k
k
oSx
q
k
k
k 2
k
k
qi xi Li
U i Li ;
oxi
2

!
k
k
n
X
pi
qi
rk Sxk
;
k
k
k
k
U i xi
xi L i
i1
k
pi U i xi 2
where the symbols ()+

y if y
y
0 if y

y if
y
0
if
6
7
8
and () respectively mean

> 0;
6 0.
y < 0;
y P 0.
Let us examine the graphical representation of such a convex approximation. First, let us consider a simple problem with
only one single optimization variable. Fig. 4 shows the (unknown) objective function S(x) (solid line) and its convex
k
approximation, e
S x , at point A (dotted line). The lower (L) and upper (U) asymptotes are also represented. We can
see the parabolic U shape approximation of the objective function, as created by the GCMMA method.
As we can see in Fig. 4, moving the asymptotes and updating q from one iteration to another is a key factor in the
success of this method. Moving asymptotes updating is similar to MMA updating (see two-point updating method in
Section 4.3.4 below). Regarding the update of q, Svanberg [135] proposed the following updating law which has already
Fig. 4. Convex approximation using GCMMA.
5479
proven its eciency in structural optimization. Reordering the terms in (5), the approximation function e
S k x can be
expressed as
e
S k x hk x qk d k x;
where h(k)(x) and d(k)(x) do not depend on q(k). Let us dene

dk
Sxk1 e
S k xk1
.
d k xk1
10
Following Svanberg [135], the proposed q updating rule is

qk1 qk
qk1 qk
6qk 4dk
6qk dk
2qk dk
2qk 2dk
if dk P 0;
11
if dk < 0;
12
with the initial value for q(0) given by

oSx0

n
ox
1 X
i
0
q
;
5n i1 xmax
xmin
i
i
13
and xmin
are respectively the maximum and minimum value allowed for xi.
where xmax
i
i
4.3.4. Two-point updating method
In order to ensure the quality of convex approximations with MMA or GCMMA, it is crucial to use an ecient moving
asymptote updating law. The updating rule is given by
k
k1
k
Ui
k
xi
k1
sU i
Li xi sxi
k1
Li
k1
xi
.
14
15
The value of the scalar parameter s depends upon the convergence history. According to the heuristic approach initially
proposed by Svanverg [134], the choice of s is as follows. When the optimization process tends to oscillate, then a small
value of s (s < 1 e.g. s = 0.3), should be used to move the asymptotes closer to the current design point. Otherwise, a larger
value of s (s > 1 e.g. s = 1.2), should be used to reduce the curvature of the approximation (see Fig. 7). This represents a
zero-order heuristic scheme. In order to improve the convergence, Zhang and Fleury [146,147] introduced the so-called
two-point updating scheme. The key idea behind two-points updating is to adjust automatically the moving asymptotes
in order to ensure that the kth iteration convex approximation will t the exact function at the preceding iteration point,
as shown in Fig. 5.
As moving asymptote updating formula is still given by relations (14) and (15) but the parameter s is now computed in
order to ensure that
e
S k xk1 ; s Sxk1 .
16
The corresponding equation is formed by replacing Eqs. (14) and (15) in the basic convex approximation Eq. (5).
This non-linear equation in s (16) is solved with a NewtonRaphson iterative process. The evolution of a convex
approximation value for any admissible point x (meaning between upper and lower moving asymptotes, i.e. Li < xi < Ui
Fig. 5. Convex approximation with GCMMA and two-point updating method.
5480
for i = 1, . . . , p) with respect to parameter s, is presented in Fig. 6. Subsequently, this can be veried by replacing (14) and
(15) in (5), so that
oe
S k x; s
60
os
and
o2 e
S k x; s
P 0.
os2
17
4.3.5. Globally Convergent Modied Method of Moving Asymptotes (GC3MA)

The GCMMA method described above with two-point updating method has been implemented together with the twopoint updating method in the large deformation nite element code METAFOR [114], and has been tested on inverse problem applications. In some cases, the resulting iterative optimization process could not converge because, even where some
iterations were very convergent, others led to a signicant divergence. An iteration is dened as being convergent if
S(k+1)(x) < S(k)(x), but otherwise, it is dened as divergent.
We propose here a new original method, which avoids these divergent iterations without disturbing the convergent ones.
This new method is named GC3MA standing for Globally Convergent Modied Method of Moving Asymptotes. The
key idea is to make sub-iterations when the convex approximation parameters (U, L and q) are not well suited. The aim is,
of course, to modify the asymptotes until they lead to a convergent iteration. If x(k) is the starting point of the kth iteration,
the basic GCMMA algorithm gives a convex approximation of the objective function going through S(x(k1)) (two-point
updating method). The minimum of this convex approximation, in turn, becomes the new approximation point of the optimum parameter values, x(opt)1 (see Fig. 7a). After calculating the objective function value at this point, we can verify that
the kth iteration is convergent. If it is not, it means that the convex approximation of this iteration has been too widemouthed. Hence, to create a more conservative convex approximation, we reconsider the kth iteration almost identically
but we prescribe that the new convex approximation should pass through the resulting divergent point x(opt)1 (see Fig. 7b).
In this way, the new minimum of this more conservative approximation, x(opt)2, will be closer to x(k). If this new feasible
point still leads to a divergent kth iteration, another convex approximation is realized by passing through this latest minimum point, x(opt)2. This sub-iterative process is used until convergence of the kth iteration. This last converged point will
then be used as a starting point for the next iteration, x(k+1).
Let us demonstrate that the new objective function approximation e
S 2 x is more conservative than the previous one
1
e
S x.
The rst sub-iteration is divergent, so
Sxk1 > Sxk0 .
(k)1
As x
18
is the minimum of e
S 1 , we have
e
S 1 xk1 < e
S 1 xk0 .
19
By construction, e
S 1 x is a rst order approximation of S(x) in x(k)0, giving
e
S 1 xk0 Sxk0 .
20
Fig. 6. Convex approximation evolution versus parameter s.
first sub-iteration
S( x )
5481
second sub-iteration
S( x )
x
a
(k)1
L
x(k) x(k-1)
x(opt)1
Moving asymptotes
U (k)1
Exact objective function
(k)2
x(opt)1
x(opt
)2 x(k)
U(k)2
Approximated objective function
Fig. 7. Sub-iterative method with GCMMA or GC3MA.
We chose to form a second sub-iterative convex approximation using the two-point updating method, tting exact function
into the last obtained divergent point x(k)1.
e
S 2 xk1 Sxk1 .
21
Using (18)(21), we form:

e
S 2 xk1 Sxk1 > Sxk0 e
S 1 xk0 > e
S 1 xk1 .
22
This convex approximation value modication in x(k)1 is only induced by the two-point updating method, meaning that
there is only parameter s modication in (14) and (15). As already mentioned regarding the two-point updating method
oe
S k x; s
6 0.
os
23
So, we can conclude that each sub-iterative convex approximation shows a lower s value than the previous sub-iteration
approximation, leading to a more conservative convex approximation, i.e.
e
S 2 x > e
S 1 x
24
for every x so that Li < xi < Ui for i = 1, . . . , p.

5. A cascade optimization strategy
It is commonly accepted in the scientic community that there exists no unique algorithm robust enough to deal with
every possible situation. For example, Patnaik et al. [109] assessed the performance of eight dierent optimization algorithms on forty dierent structural design problems. Their conclusion was that, although any problem could be solved
by at least one optimizer, no individual optimizer was able to solve all of the problems. In order to alleviate convergence
diculties, they proposed [108] the so-called cascade optimization strategy. In this strategy, also adopted by Papadrakakis
and Lagaros [107,81,24,82], a multi-stage procedure is applied, in which various optimizers are activated one after the other
in a pre-specied sequence. Of course, the aim of this strategy is to take advantage of the strength of each selected algorithm. It should also be noted that the sequence can be either of a deterministic type [108,110,111,116] or of an evolutionary
type [82,24], or it can even combine gradient and evolutionary algorithms [107,81].
The general situation expressed above for structural optimization problems also holds true in the present context. The
objective function shape can be very dierent from one problem to the next and is generally very noisy. For this reason, a
very ecient optimization procedure when applied to one problem, could be completely inecient when applied to
another. Moreover, one method can be advantageous in some iterations of the optimization process, but not well suited
to others. As described before, linearization methods (GaussNewton and LevenbergMarquardt) can provide fast objective function decreasing when control parameters are far from optimum values but are inecient close to this optimum. In
this area, the conjugate gradient method shows excellent convergence. It is for this reason that we naturally combined these
methods into a cascade algorithm to form the GaussNewton + conjugate gradient and LevenbergMarquardt + conjugate gradient methods. When the rst method gives an objective function decreasing rate lower than a dened value, as
explained below, the iterative optimization process automatically shifts to the conjugate gradient method.
5482
Continuing with this idea of optimization method combination, we tried to develop a robust optimization method able
to solve each considered application, using the optimization method most likely to be ecient. GC3MA showed, in many
applications, a very low rate of convergence when approaching the optimum, moving to the optimum point very slowly.
For this reason, we propose here the combined method GC3MA + conjugate gradient. In the same way, in order to take
advantages of the LevenbergMarquardt and GaussNewton methods, which are likely to give very fast convergence in the
rst iterations, we propose to use the GaussNewton + GC3MA + conjugate gradient and LevenbergMarquardt + GC3MA + conjugate gradient methods.
In order to test and compare all these proposed methods on several numerical applications in terms of robustness, accuracy and CPU time, we implemented the following eight methods:
Abbreviated name
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Conjugate gradient
BFGS
GC3MA
GC3MA + conjugate gradient
GaussNewton + conjugate gradient
LevenbergMarquardt + conjugate gradient
GaussNewton + GC3MA + conjugate gradient
LevenbergMarquardt + GC3MA + conjugate gradient
or
or
or
or
or
or
or
or
CG
BFGS
GC3MA
GC3MA + CG
GN + CG
LM + CG
GN + GC3MA + CG
LM + GC3MA + CG
Of course in a cascade algorithm, an important point is the criterion used to switch from one optimizer to another. In
the present case, a heuristic and very pragmatic approach based on numerical experiments was adopted.
Switching from GN to another optimizer: If, from one iteration to another, the relative decrease of the objective function
was less than 10%, we switched from GN to another optimizer. This relatively large value comes from the fact that GN
is relatively unstable close to a minimum.
Switching from LM to another method: The same criterion as above was used but the tolerance here was reduced to 1%,
thanks to the stabilizing eect introduced in the optimizer.
Switching from GC3MA to another optimizer: The situation here was slightly dierent. As GC3MA is an original
method, its basic properties are not so well known. We performed many numerical tests, which revealed that, close
to an optimum, CG performed much better than the other optimization algorithms since, in that region, it was much
more stable. On the other hand, GC3MA sometimes exhibited a slightly divergent iteration followed by a fast convergent iteration. Eventually, we were left with the following switch criterion: if three iterations in a row led to a relative
decrease in the objective function lower than 10%, we switched from GC3MA to another optimizer.
It should also be noted that, in the present procedure, the intermediate solution from the previous optimizer was used as
a start value for the newly activated algorithm, without any perturbation.
6. Sensitivity analysis
6.1. Direct problem solving
In this study, we used the large strain nite element home made code METAFOR [114]. This code has several uses: it
can be used to simulate many metal forming processes, it proposes several material constitutive laws and allows dynamic or
quasi-static formalism (with Updated Lagrangian formulation as well as Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian formulation
[37,14]), etc. Implicit and explicit time integration methodologies are also available, but we only considered sensitivity computation integration in implicit schemes because of its intrinsic ability to reuse a large amount of information, already computed in direct problem implicit time integration.
An incremental solving method consists of loading the structure step by step, with moderate load increments Df n, which
in turn implies limited nodal displacements Dun of the structure. Let us consider the load increasing from f n to f n+1 (time
step n). The NewtonRaphson iterative scheme is used to nd out a new balanced conguration un+1 so that
ext
wn1 f int
uun1 0.
n1 un1 f n1 un1 M
25
NewtonRaphson procedure uses a linearization of this equation to evaluate the tangent stiness matrix KT and to form
the nodal position vector for updating relations (n is the time step index and k is the NewtonRaphson iteration index)
5483
nodal positions
correction
START
- load increment
- new configuration
guess
balanced
configuration
internal =
external
load?
Stress computation
Newton-Raphson iterative scheme
last balanced config.

becomes reference
config.
last time
step ?
Sensitivity
computation
(if inverse prob.)
STOP
Fig. 8. Direct problem solving using Updated Lagrangian implicit scheme.

k1
KT
owun1
.
ou
1
un1 un1 K T wn1
26
with
27
Therefore, when the new balanced conguration un+1 is computed, this conguration becomes the new reference conguration for the next time step and a new load increment is applied. This incremental process is repeated until the last time
step, see Fig. 8.
6.2. Sensitivity computation scheme
Optimization methods chosen to solve the considered inverse problems require the evaluation of rst derivatives of the
objective function with respect to optimization parameters. This operation is called sensitivity computation and is of the
utmost importance for achieving an ecient procedure. Many studies have been dedicated to this, see for example,
[139,136,140,137,138,75,76,5,80,96,35,133,143]. These derivatives are deducted from the Jacobian matrix
ouFEM
parameter identification
28
J
ox
or
J
ogap
ox
shape optimization.
29
This matrix, computed at each time station corresponding to an experimental measure, can be divided into two parts. So, if
the ith experimental point corresponds to the nth time step, the ith line of J is given by
ouFEM
ouFEM Dun
i
i n
;
ox
ou
Dx
30
where the rst term is computed analytically or with numerical perturbations of un (displacement vector), and the second
term is the global derivative of balanced nodal positions with respect to optimization parameters. This last matrix is computed at each time step of the direct problem, thanks to sensitivity computation, as explained below.
Let us derive the fundamental equilibrium Eq. (25), expressed as
wn un ; x 0.
31
We obtain for each of the optimization parameters xi

Dwn own Dun own
n
0.
Dx
ou Dxi
oxi
32
Using the tangent stiness matrix computed in the direct problem part, we form the basic sensitivity equation
Dwn
Dun
K 1
.
T
Dx
Dx
33
5484
Dwn
The matrix Dx expresses the global inuence of optimization parameters on equilibrium residual wn all along the n considered time steps [92,91]. It is computed using a numerical perturbation procedure. This means that optimization parameters are disturbed and the corresponding equilibrium residual vector is then computed. Finite dierences are then
used to form the desired matrix.
Eq. (33) takes a form similar to a basic NewtonRaphson iterative procedure in direct problem equilibrium research, but
it is limited to one single iteration. In fact, a balanced conguration with disturbed parameters is deduced from Eq. (33) as
un1 x Dxi un1 x
Dun1
Dxi ;
Dxi
34
where un1(x + Dxi) is the balanced nodes position corresponding to the parameter vector (x1, . . ., xi + Dxi, . . . , xp) and
un1(x) is the balanced nodal position of the basic problem.
For this reason, in order to improve accuracy and to allow larger time steps, we propose a generalization and an increase
in the robustness of this method using a complete NewtonRaphson iterative process. At each time step, disturbed parameter balanced congurations are deduced from the basic balanced conguration using a new NewtonRaphson iterative
procedure. At each iteration of this procedure, the disturbed balanced conguration is updated using the following formula, until the residual equilibrium of the disturbed problem ends under a xed tolerance. Thus,
1
unk1 x Dxi uk
n x Dxi K T wn ;
35
where n is the time step index and k is the NewtonRaphson

iteration index. Similarly, we compute balanced disturbed
Dun
conguration un(x Dxi). So, the desired matrix Dx can be formed economically using nite dierences.
This method showed excellent results in numerical applications, being between three and seven times faster than the
global nite dierences method in sensitivity computation. Besides being faster, this method also leads to an improvement
in accuracy. Moreover, the method also uses an algorithms quite similar to the basic direct problem. So, it is very easy to
introduce it into an existing nite element code. The method is also very easy to generalize to other formalisms, such as
Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian or Adaptive meshes, thermo-mechanical problems, etc.
7. Numerical applications: Parameter identication
In this and the following section, a number of applications will be presented in order to demonstrate the eciency and
the robustness of the proposed approach and in particular of the cascade algorithms implemented.
All of these applications are metal forming/large strains oriented. Needless to say that however powerful an optimization algorithm, the user has also to take some care to ensure that the direct problem simulation, or the direct function
evaluation, is a numerical model that correctly reproduces the physics behind the considered application. For this reason,
care should be exercised before using the optimization algorithm. For example, the user has to design a nite element mesh
that is ne enough to reproduce to some accuracy the desired phenomena. All meshes presented hereafter have been
checked insofar as the results from the direct simulations they provide are converged in the non-linear nite element sense
i.e. a further renement of the mesh would only marginally modify the response. On the other hand, the non-linear constitutive model selected has to be complex enough to correctly capture the phenomena involved. In this regard, the application to rubber parameters identication illustrates how the optimization algorithm allows the selection of one
constitutive model over another, provided, of course, that both models are available in the nite element code used.
7.1. Identication of a non-linear elasticplastic hardening model
Let us consider the necking of a cylindrical bar. The geometry and mesh are presented in Fig. 9. Notice that the diameter
in the middle of the bar is slightly smaller (1%) than at the end. This dierence will trigger necking. The external load is
applied through an imposed displacement of the beam ends, so that, at the end of the experiment, the total lengthening is
14 mm.
The experimental results [102] of the external applied force evolution are formed with respect to bar elongation, and the
necking radius evolution versus elongation. The material is a special steel used in piping manufacture for the nuclear industry (Steel A-533, Grade B, Class 1). In order to simulate its behavior, we chose an elasto-plastic model with non-linear
hardening, such as the one proposed in [129]. This hardening is described by the following law:
0
rVM epl r0VM r1
epl fepl ;
36
VM rVM 1 expd
q
pl
plast
is the plastic strain tensor.
where epl is the equivalent plastic strain 23 epl
ij eij and eij
The deformation history can be seen in Fig. 10. Due to the complex deformation pattern and non-homogeneous deformation in the necking region, it is quite impossible to t a constitutive model onto an experimental curve.
5485
Fig. 9. Neckinginitial geometry and mesh of a cylindrical bar.
Fig. 10. Necking of a cylindrical bar. Deformation history of a 400 element mesh corresponding to initial conguration and 6, 10 and 14 mm total
elongation.
This elasto-plastic model with non-linear hardening contains six parameters. Elastic parameters are assumed to be
known (E = 206,900 N/mm2 and m = 0.29). The resulting identication problem is thus formed of four parameters to be
identied: (r0VM , r1
VM , d and f). An experimental result is formed, consisting of two evolution curves, respectively, force
and necking radius evolution versus elongation. First, we use the combined LM + CG method as the optimization algorithm. This is applied to both experimental curves simultaneously.
The starting values and optimum parameter set, corresponding to the minimum gap between experiments and nite element simulation are presented in Table 1. The corresponding simulation results, compared to the two experimental curves,
are presented in Fig. 11. We can clearly see that initial parameter values give a good approximation for necking radius
evolution, but that they strongly overestimate the applied load. After parameter identication, the simulated applied load
ts almost perfectly the experimental result. The necking radius evolution is very well simulated for elongations of greater
than 0.15, but FEM simulation overestimates this radius for lesser elongations. This may be due to some other inaccurate
model or experimental errors (for zero elongation, the necking radius R/R0 appears to be dierent from 1).
Table 2 compares the results obtained with the eight dierent optimization methods. We can clearly see that three different optima have been reached, characterized by dierent d values, which represent the lowest sensitivity parameter of
this problem. Lower sensitivity parameter updating is a good way of distinguishing between optimization methods. The
5486
Table 1
Initial and optimal values for the hardening modelS represents the error
Initial values
Optimum values
r0VM N=mm2
2
r1
VM N=mm
f (N/mm2)
S (%)
500.0
458.5
800.0
657.7
25.000
18.868
300.0
311.4
15.697
1.401
90
85
80
External load (kN)
75
70
65
60
optimum parameter simulation
starting parameter simulation
experiment
55
50
45
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Elongation (L-L0)/L0
1
0.95
Necking radius (R/R0)
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
optimum parameter simulation
starting parameter simulation
experiment
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0.22
Elongation (L-L0)/L0
Fig. 11. Neckingexperiment/simulation results comparison for both external load and necking radius versus elongation.
GaussNewton method is not stabilized and tends to over-modify such parameters. In fact, the GaussNewton method
passes over the d optimum value (about 18.9) to reach a local minimum with a d value of about 16.7 (see Fig. 12). The
LevenbergMarquardt (LM) method, which can be seen as a stabilization of the GaussNewton (GN) method, seems
to lead to the optimum d value. Gradient based methods such as, Globally Convergent Modied Method of Moving
Asymptotes (GC3MA), conjugate gradient (CG) and BFGS used alone, show a negligible decrease of d. The gradient
vector, being almost parallel to the d parameter axis, is almost unmodied (see Fig. 12). For this reason, these methods
lead to a local minimum corresponding to a d value very close to the starting value (approximately 25). Therefore, the best
5487
Table 2
Neckingcomparison of the eight dierent optimization methods
CG
BFGS
GC3MA
GC3MA + CG
GN + CG
LM + CG
GN + GC3MA + CG
LM + GC3MA + CG
2
r1
VM N=mm
f (N/mm2)
S (%)
CPUa
391.4
401.0
415.3
392.0
480.6
458.5
480.8
458.9
651.8
649.5
661.9
651.7
660.0
657.7
659.7
657.0
24.999
24.999
24.996
24.995
16.691
18.868
16.696
18.871
329.1
337.2
329.6
329.6
306.4
311.4
307.4
313.1
1.411
1.421
1.833
1.411
1.431
1.401
1.431
1.402
54 0
1 h 54 0
56 0
47 0
1 h 57 0
1 h 49 0
1 h 26 0
1 h 30
With Digital Alphastation 600 5/266.
GN+GC3MA+CG
GC3MA+CG
10
S (%)
10
S (%)
S (%)
10
1
0
10
15
20
10
12
14
25
20
20
20
15
15
15
0.8
Parameter
25
vm
0.7
0.6
0
vm
0.5
0.8
0.3
Iteration
20
0.2
10
12
0.8
0.7
vm
0.6
0
vm
0.5
0.3
15
vm
0.6
0.4
10
0.7
0.4
Iteration
25
0.2
Iteration
Iteration
Parameter
CG
Parameter
r0VM N=mm2
0.5
0
vm
0.4
0.3
0.2
Iteration
10
12
14
10
12
Iteration
Fig. 12. Neckingobjective function (logarithmic scale) and parameter evolution (the values have been normalized by a factor of 1000) during the
optimization process. The vertical dotted lines indicate an optimization algorithm switch.
optimum seems to be given by the two methods starting with LM. Comparing optimum values and minimum objective
function value S, as well as CPU, we can say that the LM + GC3MA + CG method seems to be the most ecient in this
case.
Fig. 12 presents the objective function and parameter evolution during the optimization process. The GN +
GC3MA + CG method exhibits an excellent convergence rate during the rst two iterations to reach the local minimum
described above. Then, GC3MA and CG almost fail to modify GaussNewton parameters. The two other methods presented provide another local minimum, where d is very dierent, but others are quite similar. In fact, GC3MA seems inefcient in this case, shifting after a few iterations to the conjugate gradient method. For this reason, both converge to the
same local optimum in a similar way.
In order to assess the inuence of the discretization, we ran again the optimization algorithm again with two dierent
meshes. Starting from the 400 elements/800 DOFs (Degree Of Freedom) mesh as described above, which will be called the
reference mesh, we will rst generate a ne mesh by dividing each element into four equal sub-elements. This will lead to a
1600 elements mesh. Starting again from the reference mesh, we will obtain a coarse mesh by merging four adjacent
elements into one. This will lead to a 100 element mesh. As Tables 3 and 4 show, the relative dierence obtained with
the dierent meshes is quite limited, provided of course that the mesh is not too coarse to represent the physics involved.
5488
Table 3
Optimum values comparison for reference and ne mesh
r0VM
r1
VM
N=mm
N=mm2
d
f (N/mm2)
S
Fine mesh
Reference mesh
Relative dierence (%)
457.489
657.733
18.8679
313.417
1.3721
458.575
657.729
18.8680
311.443
1.4005
0.24
0.0007
0.0001
0.63
2.0
Table 4
Optimum values comparison for reference and ne mesh
r0VM
r1
VM
N=mm
N=mm2
d
f (N/mm2)
S
Coarse mesh
Reference mesh
Relative dierence (%)
451.263
665.349
18.8681
281.983
1.5933
458.575
657.729
18.8680
311.443
1.4005
1.6
1.2
0.0003
9.5
14.0
7.2. Simultaneous material parameter and friction coecient identication

As in the previous application, it is possible to optimize simultaneously a material behavior model, with a friction model
that describes interactions between solid bodies. Let us consider the crushing of a cylindrical specimen as shown in Fig. 13.
The billet, placed under two rigid planes, is reduced to 25% of its initial height. During this experiment, external load evolution is measured. This evolution will be used to solve an inverse problem simultaneously determining the friction coefcient between the billet and the two rigid planes and the billet material behavior model.
This experiment was easily simulated with FEM using axisymmetric elements. Only a quarter of the billet was meshed
because of the symmetry of the problem. This mesh was adjusted in order to avoid, after crushing, ill conditioned mesh
elements. The billet material was a 30CD4-34G steel, which was modeled using an elasto-plastic material behavior with
linear isotropic hardening. This hardening is described by the law:
0
pl
rVM epl
eq rVM heeq .
37
This elasto-plastic model contains only two parameters: the initial yield stress r0VM , and the hardening coecient h. To describe the frictional contact with rigid dies, we chose the Coulomb friction model containing only one parameter: the friction coecient l. Hence, we face an inverse problem of the identication of three parameters based on the experimental
measure of the external load evolution with crushing.
Fig. 14 presents the inverse problem results. Corresponding parameter values are shown in Table 5. We can see that
initial parameters clearly overestimate the applied load. This is corrected eciently with optimum parameters, which leads
to a good agreement with the experimental results. Only the last experimental measure shows signicant gap between
experiment and optimum FEM simulation, where the applied load is slightly underestimated. Nevertheless, the optimum
parameters lead to a satisfactory t with experimental results, with an average Y-axis relative gap of under 5.6%.
rigid body
30 mm
20 mm
rigid body
22.46067 mm
rigid body
rigid body
Fig. 13. Frictioncrushing of a cylindrical billetinitial and deformed geometry.
5489
300000
250000
initial guess
optimum
External load (N)
200000
experiment
150000
100000
50000
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Crushing (%)
Fig. 14. Frictionexperimentsimulation results comparison.
Table 5
Frictioninitial and optimum parameters comparison (LM + GC3MA + CG)
r0VM
N=mm
h (N/mm2)
l
S (%)
Initial
Optimum
80.00
50.0
0.200
27.01
57.90
43.19
0.391
5.577
7.3. Parameter identication of two rubber hyperelastic models

In order to simulate the crushing of car door seal when the car door is being closed (see Fig. 20), a rubber hyperelastic
model had to be identied, using a tension test. The behavior of rubber is mainly characterized by the concepts of hyperelasticity and quasi-incompressibility. For a detailed mathematical treatment of rubber models, see for example [73]. A
hyperelastic material is dened by a non-linear strain energy density w, which is similar to the Helmholtz energy of the system. This energy function directly links stresses to strains in the system. An important property of these rubber materials is
their aptitude to undergo large deformations without tearing.
To take into account the incompressible behavior of rubber, a reduced (isochoric) strain gradient Fe can be dened as
1
Fe J 3 F ;
38
where F is the strain gradient and J is the determinant of F. We can also dene the reduced Finger tensor as
e Fe Fe T .
B
39
This introduction of the reduced tensors allows a separation of deviatoric (distortional) and volumetric parts of the strain
energy function, as
weI 1 ; eI 2 ; J U eI 1 ; eI 2 W J ;
40
where U is the strain energy function of the incompressible material; W(J) acts as a penalty coecient enforcing incompressibility; eI 1 and eI 2 are the two rst invariants of the reduced Finger tensor.
Dierent hyperelastic models can be expressed using dierent U function forms. We propose in this paper to identify two
of these models and to compare their results. These are the Gent-Thomas and improved Hart-Smith models, expressed as
Gent-Thomas model
U eI 1 ; eI 2 C 1 eI 1 3 3C 2 ln eI 2 .
41
5490
Improved Hart-Smith model

Z
U eI 1 ; eI 2 C 1 expC 3 eI 1 3C4 d eI 1 3C 2 ln eI 2 .
42
where C1, C2, C3 and C4 are material parameters to be identied. These models respectively require the identication of
two and four parameters.
7.3.1. Gent-Thomas model identication

Table 6 presents optimum parameters values obtained with the eight proposed optimization methods. The starting point
is C1 = 6 N/mm2 and C2 = 2 N/mm2. We can clearly see that, apart from GC3MA alone, each method converges quite
accurately to the researched optimum. We can also notice that BFGS is not at all ecient when applied to this problem.
The last column of Table 6 presents the number of direct problem simulations that would lead to the same computation
time as the inverse identication problem actually required. This is calculated as the computation time of the inverse problem divided by an average computation time for one direct simulation of the experiment.
Regarding objective function values, GN + CG method results were chosen as the reference optimum. The corresponding simulation result is compared to the experimental one in Fig. 19. Moreover, as this method is the fastest one, GN + CG
seems to be the most ecient method for the considered problem. Regarding the inaccurate initial guess of parameter values (initial values were 6 and 2 while optimized values were 0.30 and 0.25, respectively) and the good convergence of
almost every optimization method, it seems that the considered inverse problem presents a smooth objective function
shape, which is easy to minimize.
Objective function and parameters evolution during optimization with the LM + GC3MA + CG method are presented
in Figs. 15 and 16. In this gure the poor convergence of LM method, followed by an ecient GC3MA method, can be
noticed. However, GC3MA cannot decrease the objective function by any more after 12 iterations. Subsequently, the CG
method leads to an optimum in only six iterations.
7.3.2. Improved Hart-Smith model identication
In order to improve upon the previous simple model, identication of a more complex model, called the improved HartSmith model, was undertaken. This model contains four material parameters. Table 7 presents optima reached with the
proposed optimization methods. The starting point is C1 = 0.23 N/mm2, C2 = 0.2 N/mm2, C3 = 0.005 and C4 = 1.5.
These results highlight substantial dierences in the properties of the optimization methods with regard to lower sensitivity parameters. Since C4 parameter demonstrates a much lower sensitivity than others. C4 optimum values can be very
dierent from one method to another. The GN method tends to exaggerate C4 updating, leading to a too low optimum
value of approximately 0.3 N/mm2. The LM method seems the most ecient method in C4 updating. The three other
stand-alone methods (GC3MA, BFGS and CG) almost fail to modify C4, leading to an optimum value very close to
the starting value. So, we can conclude that only the LM + GC3MA + CG and LM + CG methods reached the actual
optimum. The corresponding simulation results are compared to the experimental one in Fig. 19.
Both the LM + GC3MA + CG and LM + CG methods can be divided into two main steps. The rst iterations using
LM allow a good optimization of C4 (because of its lower sensitivity) with, simultaneously, a rst update of C1 to C3
parameters (see Fig. 18). Then, after six iterations, the LM method becomes less ecient (see Fig. 17). The second step
of the process is performed using the GC3MA and CG methods. This step no longer modies C4, but updates accurately
C1 to C3 parameters (see Fig. 18).
Table 6
Comparison of optimization methods for Gent-Thomas identication
CG
BFGS
GC3MA
GN + CG
LM + CG
GC3MA + CG
GN + GC3MA + CG
LM + GC3MA + CG
C1 (N/mm2)
C2 (N/mm2)
S (%)
CPU
0.3028
0.3109
0.8323
0.3037
0.3090
0.2994
0.3046
0.3047
0.2511
0.2595
0.7814
0.2520
0.2575
0.2476
0.2529
0.2530
3.282
3.455
79.87
3.280
3.379
3.335
3.284
3.285
1h
11 h
2h
1h
2h
2h
2h
2h
54 0
41 0
51 0
20 0
14 0
22 0
53 0
50 0
Dir. equivalent problems

180
1107
270
126
212
224
273
268
5491
100000
10000
S (%)
1000
100
10
8
10
Iteration
12
14
16
18
Fig. 15. Gent-Thomas rubberobjective function evolution using LM + GC3MA + CG method. The vertical dotted lines indicate an optimization
algorithm switch.
5
C1
C2
N/mm
-1
8
10
Iteration
12
14
16
18
Fig. 16. Gent-Thomas rubberparameter evolution using LM + GC3MA + CG method. The vertical dotted lines indicate an optimization algorithm
switch.
7.3.3. Constitutive models comparison

Fig. 19 compares the two identied models with experimental results. It can be seen that the improved Hart-Smith
model ts experimental results better than does the Gent-Thomas model. Quantitatively, this better t corresponds to
an objective function value, which measures the gap between experimental points and simulation results, a gap of
3.28% for Gent-Thomas model, improved to 2.67% with the Hart-Smith model.
It would seem that the improved Hart-Smith model is, mathematically, a better model than the Gent-Thomas. However,
it can be noticed that the dierence between the curves representing the identied results for the Hart-Smith and Gent-Thomas models, appears mainly for elongations greater than 2.4 (240% of engineering strain) which will seldom happen in a
structural simulation. For this reason, in order to verify whether using the more complex model (Hart-Smith) is useful, the
car door seal crushing problem was run with the two dierent constitutive models. Results for stress and nal geometry are
5492
Table 7
Rubbercomparison of optimization methods for Hart-Smith model identication
C1 (N/mm2)
CG
BFGS
GC3MA
GN + CG
LM + CG
GC3MA + CG
GN + GC3MA + CG
LM + GC3MA + CG
C2 (N/mm2)
C3
0.2244
0.1902
0.1856
0.2494
0.2199
0.2285
0.2282
0.2211
0.2766
0.2428
0.2380
0.3010
0.2721
0.2806
0.2786
0.2732
C4
0.00754
0.01594
0.02283
0.00170
0.01409
0.00664
0.01987
0.01396
S (%)
1.497
1.500
1.499
0.307
1.166
1.495
0.339
1.166
2.705
3.984
5.359
3.309
2.668
2.689
3.837
2.668
CPU
Dir. equivalent problems

0
2h0
2 h 42 0
2 h 18 0
2 h 21 0
1 h 46 0
1 h 15 0
1 h 24 0
1 h 58 0
96
130
110
99
85
60
67
95
1000
S (%)
100
10
1
0
10
Iteration
12
14
16
18
20
Fig. 17. Hart-Smith rubberobjective function evolution using LM + GC3MA + CG method. The vertical dotted lines indicate an optimization
algorithm switch.
presented in Fig. 20. Stress distribution along the seal is almost identical with both models. This means that, in such a structural computation, there is no need to compute with the more complex Hart-Smith model, nor there is any need to identify
it!
8. Numerical applications: Shape/process optimization
8.1. Initial shape design for superplastic forming of a cup
We will now consider the superplastic forming (SPF) of a cup, as described in Fig. 21. Details regarding superplasticity
and superplastic forming can be found in [6,103,36]. The cup is clamped on its perimeter and the assembly is heated to high
temperature (about half the melting temperature (K) of the material, i.e. approximately 925 C in the present caseTitanium alloy). Subsequently, a vacuum is made between the cup and the rigid die. On the lower face of the specimen to be
formed, a gas pressure will deform the specimen with a very low strain rate in order to bring it into contact with the die
without inducing necking eects (superplastic conditions). This pressure is automatically updated so as to keep a maximum
value for the equivalent viscoplastic strain rate equal to 1.5104 s1 (superplastic range). In the nal conguration in
Fig. 21, every external node of the mesh is in contact with the rigid die. The material is modeled with an elasticviscoplastic
law as described in [115]. The material properties are given in Table 8.
The straining and resultant thickness of the specimen can be very dierent from one area to another, leading to a nonhomogeneous thickness distribution in the nal component. This will also induce higher stress zones. In order to avoid
these problems, we propose, using the presented inverse approach, to determine the initial piece geometry that would lead,
5493
-0.2
0.4
-0.21
0.38
C2 (N/mm2)
C1 (N/mm2)
-0.22
0.36
0.34
0.32
-0.23
-0.24
-0.25
-0.26
-0.27
0.3
-0.28
0.28
0
10
12
Iteration
14
16
18
-0.29
0
20
0.01
1.6
0.009
1.59
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
12
14
16
18
20
Iteration
0.008
1.58
0.007
1.57
C4
C3
0.006
0.005
0.004
1.56
1.55
0.003
1.54
0.002
1.53
0.001
0
0
1.52
2
10
12
14
16
18
20
Iteration
Iteration
Fig. 18. Hart-Smith rubberparameters evolution using LM + GC3MA + CG method. The vertical dotted lines indicate an optimization algorithm
switch.
1.4
1.2
Stress F/A0 (N/mm2)
0.8
0.6
Hart-Smith
Gent-Thomas
experiment
0.4
0.2
0
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
Elongation l/l0
2.4
2.6
2.8
Fig. 19. Rubberexperimental and numerical simulation results comparison for tension test.
after the superplastic forming, to the prescribed uniform thickness distribution along the nal cup (see Fig. 21b). The chosen initial design parameters are the initial specimen thicknesses in nine dierent locations, as shown in Fig. 22.
The initial parameter guess (see Fig. 23a), which corresponds to a simple trapezoidal geometry, leads to a thinning on
the top of the cup and a small bump at about one third of the cups depth. Both these problems are reduced in Fig. 23b
5494
Fig. 20. Crushing of a cad door sealresults comparison for the two identied material models.
Constraintes quiv.
de Von Mises J2
(N/mm2)
174.3
157.3
140.4
123.4
106.5
89.5
72.6
55.6
38.6
21.7
4.7
e
e
e
e
(a)
(b)
Fig. 21. SPF process (a) and inverse problem description (b). (a) Shows the initial conguration with applied pressure, as well as congurations after 1, 2,
3, 4 and 5 h.
Table 8
Material properties for superplastic forming
Youngs modulus
Poissons ratio
Viscoplastic behavior
E = 12,000 N/m2
m = 0.25
r
0:0296 5267:62 _ vp 0:85 N=m2
and c, which present results with intermediate parameters set during the optimization iterative process. Following this,
Fig. 23d shows an (almost) perfect cup, with prescribed homogeneous thickness. Also notice the good level of homogeneity
in stress distribution. Corresponding parameters and objective function values are presented in Table 9.
Table 10 compares the dierent optimization methods. Only 3 (out of 9) parameter optimum values are presented to be
compared, others show similar properties. We can clearly see that each optimization method leads to the same optimum
200
par9
par8 par7
180
170
par6 par5 par4
120
70
rigid die
rigid die
Corresponding initial mesh
Initial design parameters
145
5495
20
40
par3 par2
par1
initial blank
(mm)
Fig. 22. SPFLocation of the optimization variables (par1 to par9) and initial mesh.
starting
values
interm. 1
optimum
interm. 2
J2 Von-Mises stresses
(N/mm2)
14
28
42
56
70
84
98 112 126 140
Fig. 23. SPFinitial and deformed geometry with (a) starting parameters (b) and (c) intermediate parameters, (d) optimum parameters. The coarse mesh
represents the rigid die. Results obtained with LM + GC3MA + CG method.
Table 9
SPFinitial thickness evolution during the optimization process
Initial
Intermediate 1
Intermediate 2
Optimum
par9 (mm)
par8 (mm)
par7 (mm)
par6 (mm)
par5 (mm)
par4 (mm)
par3 (mm)
par2 (mm)
par1 (mm)
S (%)
16.00
13.69
13.75
14.77
18.00
15.56
15.66
18.01
20.00
17.93
18.01
20.37
22.00
21.02
21.01
25.05
24.00
22.58
22.19
23.30
27.00
27.19
26.91
30.10
28.00
29.54
29.65
34.30
30.00
31.17
31.38
36.74
32.00
33.13
33.20
36.93
337.86
216.79
193.48
17.453
5496
Table 10
SPFoptimum comparison for dierent optimization algorithms
Start
CG
BFGS
GC3MA
GC3MA + CG
GN + CG
LM + CG
GN + GC3MA + CG
LM + GC3MA + CG
par9 (mm)
par8 (mm)
...
par3 (mm)
par2 (mm)
par1 (mm)
S (%)
CPU
16.000
14.733
14.733
13.765
14.774
14.891
14.771
14.928
14.771
18.000
18.036
17.799
15.676
18.031
17.949
18.012
17.911
18.012
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
28.000
34.328
33.872
29.753
34.272
34.359
34.272
34.301
34.359
30.000
36.715
36.776
31.501
36.683
36.677
36.683
36.743
36.6803
32.000
36.754
35.431
33.229
36.931
37.058
36.931
36.921
36.993
337.86
17.606
23.567
185.49
17.453
18.576
17.436
19.142
17.436
1 h 22 0
2 h 48 0
55 0
2 h 10
18 0
29 0
54 0
29 0
with a fair level of accuracy. The composite method starting with LM seems to be the most ecient, leading to the lowest
objective function value involving a very low CPU time. GC3MA alone gives a good convergence at the start of the optimization process, but is soon unable to decrease the objective function further and BFGS gives (moderately) inaccurate
optimum values, but after many iterations. The other methods lead to the researched optimum, but CPU time required
is relatively non-homogeneous. Once again, the LM + GC3MA + CG and LM + CG methods seem to be the most ecient composite methods for the considered problem.
Fig. 24 presents objective function and parameter evolution during the optimization process for three methods. We may
notice the eciency of the GaussNewton method, leading almost to the optimum in four iterations. Following this, in
order to improve accuracy, the conjugate gradient method is used. However, this method provides a low convergence rate
in this case, and the optimum reached lacks accuracy. The second column in Fig. 24 shows how GC3MA becomes inefcient after six iterations. Then, the conjugate gradient converges to the optimum in 20 further iterations. The last column
shows that, using the conjugate gradient method, a smooth parameter evolution is obtained, with continuous decreasing of
the objective function. This method converges after about 25 iterations. However, this smooth evolution is due to a large
number of small steps along successive descent directions, leading to high computational cost.
8.2. Springback compensation in industrial fastener deep drawing
Let us consider the next blueprint describing an industrial fastener component, as described in Fig. 25. This element,
starting from a at blank, has to be formed using a deep-drawing process.
The deep-drawing process applied to an open prole, as is the case here, leads to signicant springback during tool
removal. If, for the geometry of the tools, one uses the nal desired geometry, this springback will induce a signicant
LM+GC3MA+CG
GC3MA+CG
100
10
10
S (%)
100
10
10
Iteration
15
20
25
100
10
30
45
40
40
35
35
35
30
25
Parameter
45
40
30
25
15
20
15
15
15
10
10
10
10
15
20
Iteration
25
30
35
40
25
20
Iteration
20
30
20
10
Iteration
45
Iteration
Parameter
Parameter
CG
1000
1000
S (%)
S (%)
1000
25
30
10
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Iteration
Fig. 24. SPFobjective function and parameters evolution during optimization process. The vertical dotted lines indicate an optimization algorithm
switch.
5497
Fig. 25. Fastenerindustrial component blueprint.
dierence between the resulting geometry of the formed component and the prescribed one. in this way, an inverse problem
is formed by trying to determine the tool shape that would lead, after deep-drawing and springback, to the prescribed
geometry. The optimized geometry, i.e. the nal geometry we are looking for, is the one on the left-hand side of Fig. 25.
In order to determine the optimal geometry of the tool, we have introduced some parameters in the denition of the tool
shape. These parameters, which will be the optimization variables of the problem, are described in Fig. 26. So, the considered problem contains 11 parameters (8 point positions and 3 curvature radii) to be optimized. These parameters dene the
punch shape. Die shape is drawn from a parallel to the punch shape, at a distance equal to the nal prescribed thickness of
the sheet. The end parts of the tool were both kept in the same position (i.e. points located at (0, 0) and (240, 0) in Fig. 26),
but the internal part was parameterized in order to modify tool geometry to counterbalance springback eects.
Fig. 27 shows the whole process including springback eects. We can clearly see the large amount of springback, which
can be compensated for thanks to die and punch shape optimum design.
Fig. 28 shows FEM results obtained during optimization process iterations. Using the initial set of parameters, we can
clearly see the signicant gap between nal and desired formed specimen geometry. The right hand part of the curve is
much improved after only one iteration and the left hand downhill part then starts then to be optimized. This seems to
be almost completed after three iterations. Following this, a large number of iterations are still necessary to improve
the accuracy of the results. After 30 iterations, the inverse problem appears to be solved with a tool shape that leads to
/r1+e
/r2-e
pu
nc
/r3-e
h:
rig
on
e
/r1
(/x5;/x7)
(100;/x6)
/r3
punch: initial position

(0;0)
(/x1;/x2)
fin
al e
po
sit
i
e
id di e
/r2
(180;/x6+80tg15)
(/x3;/x4)
(/x8;0)
(240;0)
Fig. 26. Fastenerpunch and die parameterization (distances in mm).
5498
J2 Stresses
(N/mm2)
632.2
geometry after drawing
569
geometry after springback
505.8
desired geometry
442.6
379.3
rigid die
316.1
252.9
Deep drawing +
springback
189.7
126.4
63.2 rigid punch
0
Fig. 27. Fasteneroptimum tools shape and corresponding deformed component. The springback is clearly visible in this gure.
Iteration 1
eratio
die. it
die. i
Significative gap
Significative gap
Punch. ite 1
Punch. ite 0
Iteration 3
Iteration 30
(optimum)
Desired final shape
um di
Desired final shape
die. it
optim
eratio
n3
Desired final shape
n1
Desired final shape
terati
on 0
Initial guess
Significative gap
Punch. ite 3
Optimum punch
Fig. 28. Comparison between desired (solid line in the neighborhood of the mesh) and obtained (represented by the nal conguration of the FEM mesh)
result during optimization process iterations.
an almost perfect t between the nal geometry and the prescribed one. The average gap value between these two geometries is less than 0.1 mm.
Table 11 presents optimum parameter values reached with the eight proposed optimization methods. Initial parameter
values are x1 = 55 mm, x2 = 10 mm, x3 = 114 mm, x4 = 19 mm, x5 = 139 mm, x6 = 32 mm, x7 = 65 mm, x8 = 178 mm,
r1 = 11.5 mm, r2 = 4.5 mm, and r3 = 16 mm. This table also shows a poor convergence for the six methods not starting
with the LevenbergMarquardt algorithm. In fact, these six methods led to a very slow update of the lower sensitivity
parameter x8 in this problem. This parameter exhibits a much lower sensitivity compared with the ten other parameters.
As already noted, BFGS, GC3MA and CG methods alone are unable to update correctly lower sensitivity parameters.
Moreover, all optimization parameters are strongly coupled. Both these properties create a poor optimization of the lower
sensitivity parameters, even with the GN method. For this reason, these six methods, not using the LM method at the start,
lead to a local minimum characterized by a wrong x8 value, very close to its initial value (178 mm). This local minimum is
presented in Fig. 29.
5499
Table 11
Fastenercomparison of the minima obtained using dierent optimization methods
CG
BFGS
GC3MA
GN + CG
LM + CG
GC3MA + CG
GN + GC3MA + CG
LM + GC3MA + CG
x1
...
x6
x7
x8
r1
r2
r3
S (%)
CPU
55.019
55.026
55.084
54.982
54.840
55.102
54.982
54.868
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
32.151
32.025
32.639
31.538
32.219
32.391
32.189
32.336
65.093
65.237
65.183
64.509
65.294
65.638
64.803
65.199
177.92
178.01
177.47
177.58
168.71
177.59
177.49
168.79
10.734
11.291
10.817
11.291
11.408
10.917
10.992
11.494
4.2696
4.6396
4.3637
4.3579
4.0824
4.0352
4.6334
4.1036
14.000
14.000
14.717
14.000
14.877
14.164
14.504
15.511
40.934
43.238
36.258
43.552
10.424
30.232
36.786
10.441
23 h 23 0
22 h 8 0
10 h 10 0
10 h 53 0
6 h 80
18 h 21 0
19 h 58 0
9 h 23 0
Fig. 29. Fastenerlocal minimum reached with methods not starting with LM algorithm. The line in the neighborhood of the mesh represents the desired
geometry.
Once more, both LM + GC3MA + CG and LM + CG methods are shown to be very ecient in solving this problem.
They lead to an average gap of less than 0.1 mm, between the simulated deformed shape and the prescribed one, which is
below blueprint prescribed tolerances. Figs. 30 and 31 show objective function and parameter evolution using the
LM + GC3MA + CG method. We can notice the eciency of the LevenbergMarquardt method, which decreases objective function from 64.1% to 13.5% in only ve iterations. During these iterations, x8 is almost perfectly optimized, and the
S (%)
100
10
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Iteration
Fig. 30. Fastenerobjective function evolution using LM + GC3MA + CG method. The vertical dotted lines indicate an optimization algorithm switch.
5500
55
54.8
54.6
54.4
0
19
18.8
18.6
18.4
18.2
18
0
65.5
65.4
65.3
65.2
65.1
65
10.06
10.02
x1 (mm)
9.98
9.94
9.9
9.86
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0
Iteration
139.3
139.2
x2 (mm)
115.6
115.2
114.8
114.4
114
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0
Iteration
x3 (mm)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Iteration
33.4
33
139.1
32.6
x6 (mm)
x5 (mm)
139
32.2
138.9
31.8
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Iteration
Iteration
Iteration
178
11.52
176
11.48
r1 (mm)
174
11.44
x7 (mm)
172
11.4
x8 (mm)
170
11.36
168
11.32
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Iteration
Iteration
Iteration
4.5
16
4.4
15.9
4.3
15.8
4.2
15.7
r2 (mm)
4.1
15.6
r3 (mm)
4
15.5
3.9
15.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Iteration
Iteration
x4 (mm)
Fig. 31. Fastenerparameter evolution using LM + GC3MA + CG method. The vertical dotted lines indicate an optimization algorithm switch.
ten other parameters are updated. Some of these are close to their optimum value (x1, x3x7 and r2). Nevertheless, some
others still need to be improved (x2, r1 and r3). These last three parameters are optimized during GC3MA iterations, but
are still not perfectly updated. Following this, the conjugate gradient method reaches the optimum with a good level of
accuracy in 30 iterations. However, as can be seen in Fig. 31, it should be noticed that, from an industrial point of view,
the optimization process could have been stopped long before 30 iterations, for example after 1215 iterations. Though
slightly improving the nal results, the remaining iterations are not strictly necessary. They are shown here simply to demonstrate how the algorithms behave when they are taken to the limit.
8.3. Hydroforming of a tube
Hydroforming is an important forming technology in the automotive industry, where it is used to produce numerous
components, see for example, among many others, [128,1,86]. Tubular hydroforming involves the concurrent application
of internal pressure and axial compression loads to cause a round tube to conform to a die shape. However, as the process
occurs inside a press, it is impossible for the operator to see on-line what is happening. He can only see the result of the
forming operation and simply notice whether the process has been successful or not without being able to determine exactly
when failure occurred. So, when the production of a new component is needed, the optimum sequencing of loading, i.e.
pressure and axial-feed displacement, has to be determined by means of the operators experience, and this generally results
in a lengthy trial-and-error procedure towards obtaining a satisfactory product.
Based on a problem proposed in [101], we are going to try to optimize the process parameters or loading, namely the
pressure and jack displacement evolution in order to obtain a hydroformed tube with a uniform thickness after forming.
The geometry of the tool part, as well as the loading situation, is illustrated in Fig. 32 while the nal component is illustrated in Fig. 33. The jacks are assumed to be rigid and are therefore modeled thanks to imposed displacements at the end
of the tube. The loading is assumed to be discretized by piecewise linear functions of time as shown in Fig. 32. Both curves
start at zero. In this idealized situation, the design variables are chosen to be two points on the displacement curve and two
points on the pressure curve. Thus, there are four optimization variables involved in this problem.
The initial results, as well as the results after optimization are illustrated in Fig. 34. It can clearly be seen how the nal
product shape has been improved by the optimization process. Physically, it can be seen that, in the rst step, the optimized
process has a tendency initially to increase the jack displacements, with a low pressure increase. Then, in the second part of
the process, this tendency is reversed and the pressure increases much faster in order to make the shape of the tube conform
5501
Fig. 32. Hydroformingdescription of the process, loading and tool geometry.
Fig. 33. Hydroformingmesh and geometry of the nal conguration.
to the tooling. With the optimized loading, the mean gap between the actual thickness of the tube and the desired thickness
of 2 mm is lower than 0.07 mm. Once again, the two most ecient optimization methods were found to be the LM/GC and
LM + GC3MA + CG methods, with a cost of respectively 491 and 474 equivalent direct problems.
9. Comparison of optimization algorithms
As already discussed, the main diculty of the considered inverse problems lies in the objective function shape which
can be very complex, noisy and very dierent from one problem to another. For this reason, the most important property
of the best-buy optimization method is, in our opinion, robustness, meaning a good convergence in most considered
problems. As this property can only appear with statistics based on several inverse problem results, Fig. 35 presents optimization results statistics for 11 numerical applications, numbered 111 on the horizontal axes (6 parameter identications + 5 shape designs). These 11 applications consist of the six presented in this paper, which are quite representative,
plus ve others compiled from [77]. As GC3MA and BFGS alone clearly showed poor results with respect to the six other
methods, they are not presented in the gure.
The higher the darker column, the more inaccurate the considered optimization method is. This height is calculated as
the relative dierence between minimum objective function value reached with the considered method and the most accurate optimization method for that problem (lowest objective function value), disregarding CPU time. The higher the lighter
5502
rigid die
J2 Von-Mises
(N/mm2)
370.6
Initial approximation
348.4
326.2
303.9
281.7
259.4
Desired final geometry
237.2
om
zo
215
disp. (mm)
100
192.7
170.5
148.3
re
80
60
Press. (10 bar)
126
-5
103.8
81.5
59.3
37.1
14.8
0
d
lui
su
res
ent
em
f ck displac
ja
40
20
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Time
J2 Von-Mises
(N/mm2)
370.6
rigid die
Optimum
348.4
326.2
303.9
281.7
59.3
37.1
14.8
0
is
kd
jac
20
0.2
re
su
pla
40
es
81.5
e
cem
pr
103.8
nt
60
id
126
80
flu
148.3
disp. (mm)
170.5
100
bar)
192.7
om
zo
-5
237.2
215
Desired final geometry
Press. (10
259.4
0.4
0.6
0.8
Time
Fig. 34. Hydroforminginitial and optimum results.
column, the more time consuming the considered optimization method is, when applied to that problem. This column
height is calculated as the relative dierence between the CPU time required by the considered method and the fastest optimization method for the considered problem, regardless of the nal objective function value.
A rst look at the robustness of these methods shows that the LM + GC3MA + CG method seems to be the best overall. In fact, this method led in the case of each considered problem, to the global optimum with an excellent level of accuracy. It always led to a minimum close to the absolute (with a dierence of less than 2.5%). This method does not seem to
be the fastest but it is quite ecient, leading to a reasonable computation time (a maximum of 170% with respect to the
fastest, and an average value of 76%). This average value places the LM + GC3MA + CG method as the second fastest
among those proposed, just after the LM + CG method (with an average value of 55%). However, the LM + CG method,
though the fastest, seems slightly less accurate than LM + GC3MA + CG. It also presented poor convergence properties in
5503
Relative CPU (with regard to the fastest method)

Relative minimum objective function (with regard to the most accurate method)
LM+GC3MA+CG
GN+GC3MA+CG
GC3MA+CG
400
400
400
350
350
350
300
300
250
250
300
.
.
250
200
200
150
150
150
100
100
100
50
50
50
200
0
1
0
1
10 11
LM+CG
10 11
400
350
350
350
300
300
300
250
250
200
200
200
150
150
150
100
100
100
50
50
50
10 11
10 11
10 11
CG
400
GN+CG
400
250
0
1
10 11
Fig. 35. Comparison of optimization methods.
one numerical application (see column 7). GN + GC3MA + CG is also quite ecient, even if not perfectly accurate (see
columns 6, 9, 10 and 11) and not very fast when applied to some problems (see columns 3, 5 and 9). According to the present study, GC3MA + CG, GN + CG and GN + GC3MA + CG methods are not of great interest because they present
highly non-homogeneous properties. These methods are very ecient when applied to some problems but totally inecient
with others, presenting very low accuracy and/or a very high computation time.
10. Conclusion
The coupling of ecient optimization algorithms with a large strain nite element code allows the consideration of some
new design problems that a forming process designer could face. With these inverse problems, which are extremely relevant
to industry, the goal is to determine some of the input data of the forming process (material parameter, initial shape, loading evolution, etc.) in order to reach a desired result. The rst example of an inverse problem presented here was that of
parameter identication involving minimizing a least-square gap between experimental results and its nite element simulation in order to determine the most appropriate material parameter values for a given constitutive model. The second
example presented of an inverse problem was that of the initial geometry and/or tool shape design involving obtaining,
after the forming process, the prescribed geometry or some optimum values for the process.
These two types of inverse problem can be formulated as optimization problems involving minimizing an implicit nonconvex and strongly non-linear objective function under boundary and linear constraints. We have proposed several optimization methods in this paper, together with some original combinations of these methods, in order to nd the most
robust and accurate method. For these applications, starting with the LevenbergMarquardt algorithm seems essential
for robustness, since this method allows the correct updating of low sensitivity parameters in the initial iterations. Starting
the optimization procedure with another method can lead to a local minimum and, thus, a lack of robustness.
Some numerical applications were also presented. Parameter identication problems, as well as initial geometry and/or
tool shape design were solved eciently with the presented formulation.
We also compared the eight proposed optimization methods in terms of robustness, accuracy and time consumption.
Based on statistics from 11 numerical applications, it appears that although the LM + CG method could be an alternative,
it is the LM + GC3MA + CG method that is the most adapted to the considered inverse problems, because it exhibits both
5504
robustness and accuracy despite not being the fastest. This method is very ecient but reasonably costly in every considered numerical application. It is the method we recommend and this will be used as the default method in our future
applications.
Acknowledgement
Professor Eduardo Fancello is gratefully acknowledged for his critical reading of the manuscript.
References
[1] M. Ahmetoglu, T. Altan, Tube hydroforming: state-of-the-art and future trends, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 98 (2000) 2533.
[2] G. Amar, J. Dufailly, Identication and validation of viscoplastic and damage constitutive equations, Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 12 (2) (1993) 197
218.
[3] C.A.C. Antonio, M.N. Dourado, Metal-forming process optimisation by inverse evolutionary search, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 121 (2002) 403
413.
[4] C.C. Antonio, C.F. Castro, L.C. Sousa, Optimization of metal forming processes, Comput. Struct. 82 (2004) 14251433.
[5] H.J. Antunez, M. Kleiber, Sensitivity of forming processes to shape parameters, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 137 (1996) 189206.
[6] J. Argyris, I.St. Doltsinis, A primer on superplasticity in natural formulation, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 46 (1984) 83131.
[7] O. Barlet, H. Naceur, J.L. Batoz, C. Knopf-Lenoir, Shape optimum design of blank contours using a simplied inverse approach, in: F.P.T. Baaijens
J. Huetink (Eds.), Simulation of Materials Processing: Theory, Methods and Applications, Balkema, Rotterdam, June 1998, pp. 787792.
[8] J.-L. Batoz, Y.Q. Guo, F. Mercier, The inverse approach with simple triangular shell elements for large strain predictions of sheet metal forming
parts, Engrg. Comput. 15 (7) (1998) 864892.
[9] J.L. Batoz, Y.Q. Guo, Analysis and design of sheet forming parts using a simplied inverse approach, in: D.R.J. Owen, E. Onate, E. Hinton (Eds.),
Comput. Plasticity, Fundmen. and Appl., CIMNE, Barcelona, 1997, pp. 178195.
[10] M. Beckers, R. Kopp, A new approach to optimization of metal forming processes, in: E. Thomson (Ed.), NUMIFORM89, Balkema, Rotterdam,
1989, pp. 107113.
[11] D. Bertsekas, Nonlinear Programming, Athena Scientic, Belmont, Massachusetts, 1995.
[12] D. Bertsekas, Constrained Optimization and Lagrange Multiplier Methods, Athena Scientic, Belmont, Massachusetts, 1996.
[13] G. Bolzon, R. Fedele, G. Maier, Parameter identication of a cohesive crack model by Kalman lter, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191
(2002) 28472871.
[14] R. Boman, J.P. Ponthot, Finite element simulation of lubricated contact in rolling using the Arbitrary LagrangianEulerian formulation, Comput.
methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 193 (2004) 43234553.
[15] J.F. Bonnans, J.C. Gilbert, C. Lemarechal, C.A. Sagastizabal, Numerical OptimizationTheoretical and Practical Aspects, Springer, 2003.
[16] M. Brezocnik, J. Balic, Z. Brezocnik, Emergence of intelligence in next-generation manufacturing systems , Robot. Comput. Integr. Manufact. 19
(2003) 5563.
[17] M. Brezocnik, J. Balic, Z. Kampus, Modeling of forming eciency using genetic programming, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 109 (2001) 2029.
[18] G. Cailletaud, P. Pilvin, Identication, problemes inverse: un concept modulaire, in: 2ie`me Colloque National en Calcul des Structures, Giens, 1993,
pp. 770787.
[19] G. Cailletaud, P. Pilvin, Identication and inverse problems related to material behaviour, in: H.D. Bui, M. Tanaka (Eds.), Inverse Problems in
Engineering Mechanics, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1994, pp. 7986.
[20] E. Cantu-Paz, Ecient and Accurate Parallel Genetic Algorithms, Kluwer Academic Publisher, 2000.
[21] C.F. Castro, C.A.C. Antonio, L.C. Sousa, Optimization of shape and process parameters in metal forging using genetic algorithm, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 146 (2004) 356364.
[22] J.L. Chaboche, D. Nouailhas, S. Savalle, Agice: Logiciel pour lidentication interactive graphique des lois de comportement, La Recherche
Aerospatiale 3 (1991) 5976.
[23] N. Chakraborti, Genetic algorithms in material design and processing, Int. Mater. Rev. 49 (34) (2004) 246260.
[24] N.D. Charmpis, D.C. Lagaros, M. Papadrakakis, Multi-database exploration of large design spaces in the framework of cascade evolutionary
structural sizing algorithms, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 194 (2005) 33153330.
[25] B. Chen, L. Tong, Thermomechanically coupled sensitivity analysis and design optimization of functionally graded materials, Comput. Methods
Appl. Mech. Engrg. 194 (2005) 18911911.
[26] J.L. Chenot, E. Massoni, L. Fourment, Inverse problems in nite element simulation of metal forming processes, Engrg. Comput. 13 (2/3/4) (1996)
190225.
[27] J.S. Chung, S.M. Hwang, Application of a genetic algorithm to the optimal design of the die shape in extrusion, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 72 (1997)
6977.
[28] J.S. Chung, S.M. Hwang, Application of a genetic algorithm to process optimal design in nonisothermal metal forming, J. Mater. Process. Technol.
8081 (1998) 136143.
[29] S.H. Chung, L. Fourment, J.L. Chenot, S.M. Hwang, Adjoint state method for shape sensitivity analysis in non-steady forming applications, Int. J.
Numer. Methods Engrg. 57 (2003) 14311444.
[30] C. Coello, A comprehensive survey of evolutionary-based multiobjective optimization techniques, Knowl. Inform. Syst. 1 (3) (1999) 269308.
[31] V.C. de Castilho, M. do Carmo Nicoletti, M.K. El Debs, An investigation of the use of three selection-based genetic algorithm families when
minimizing the production cost of hollow core slabs, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 194 (2005) 46514667.
[32] A. Delameziere, H. Naceur, P. Breitkopf, C. Knopf-Lenoir, P. Batoz, J.-L. Villon, Feasibility in deep drawing: optimization of material properties
using response surface, Mec. Ind. 3 (2002) 9398.
[33] J.E. Dennis, R.B. Schnabel, Numerical Methods for Unconstrained Optimization and Nonlinear Equations, Prentice-Hall, NJ, 1983.
[34] R. Di Lorenzo, N. Fratini, L. Filice, S. Micari, S. Bruschi, Comparison of analytical methods and AI tools for material characterisation in hot
forming, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 125126 (2002) 434439.
5505
[35] I. Doltsinis, T. Rodic, Process design and sensitivity analysis in metal forming, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 45 (1999) 661692.
[36] I.St. Doltsinis, Large Deformation Processes of Solidsfrom Fundamentals to Numerical Simulation and Engineering Applications, WIT Press,
2004.
[37] J. Donea, A. Huerta, J.P. Ponthot, A. Rodriguez-Ferran, Arbitrary LagrangianEulerian methods, in: E. Wiley, R. Stein, R. de Borst, T.J.R.
Hughes (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Computational Mechanics (Chapter 14), vol. 1, Wiley, Chichester, 2004, pp. 413438.
[38] E.A. Fancello, R.A. Feijoo, Shape optimization in frictionless contact problems, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 37 (1994) 23112335.
[39] X.T. Feng, C. Yang, Genetic evolution of nonlinear material constitutive models, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 190 (2001) 5957
5973.
[40] C. Fleury, A unied approach to structural weight minimization, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 20 (1) (1979) 1738.
[41] C. Fleury, CONLIN: an ecient dual optimizer based on convex approximation concepts, Struct. Optim. 1 (1989) 8189.
[42] C. Fleury, First and second order convex approximation strategies in structural optimization, Struct. Optim. 1 (1989) 310.
[43] J.F. Fontaine, The torsion-tensile testing method for the characterization of cold metal formability, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 32 (1992) 253
262.
[44] L. Fourment, T. Balan, J.L. Chenot, Optimisation de forme doutils en forgeage, in: Deuxieme colloque national en calcul des structures, HERMES,
Giens, France, 1995, pp. 807812.
[45] L. Fourment, T. Balan, J.L. Chenot, Optimal design for non-steady-state metal forming processesII. Application of shape optimization in forging,
Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 39 (1996) 5165.
[46] L. Fourment, T. Balan, J.L. Chenot, Optimum design of the hot forging process: a FE inverse model with remeshing for large deformation,
in: D.R.J. Owen, E. Onate, E. Hinton (Eds.), Computational Plasticity: Fundamentals and Applications, CIMNE, Barcelona, 1997, pp. 804
809.
[47] L. Fourment, J.L. Chenot, The inverse problem of design in forging, in: 2nd International Symposium on Inverse Problems, Balkema, Rotterdam,
1994, pp. 2128.
[48] L. Fourment, J.L. Chenot, Optimal design for non-steady-state metal forming processesI. Shape optimization method, Int. J. Numer. Methods
Engrg. 39 (1996) 3350.
[49] L. Fourment, J.L. Chenot, Inverse methods applied to metal forming processes, in: B.H.V. Topping (Ed.), Computational Mechanics for the
Twenty-First Century, Saxe-Coburg Publications, Edinburgh, 2000, pp. 127143.
[50] T. Furukawa, Parameter identication with weightless regularization, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 52 (2001) 219238.
[51] T. Furukawa, T. Sugata, S. Yoshimura, M. Homan, An automated system for simulation and parameter identication of inelastic constitutive
models, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 22352260.
[52] T. Furukawa, G. Yagawa, Inelastic constitutive parameter identication using an evolutionary algorithm with continuous individuals, Int. J. Numer.
Methods Engrg. 40 (1997) 10711090.
[53] T. Furukawa, G. Yagawa, Implicit constitutive modelling for viscoplasticity using neural networks, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 43 (1998) 195
219.
[54] A. Gavrus, E. Massoni, J.L. Chenot, Computer aided rheology for constitutive parameter identication, in: D.R.J. Owen et al. (Eds.), 4th
International Conference on Computational Plasticity, Pineridge Press, 1995, pp. 755766.
[55] A. Gavrus, E. Massoni, J.L. Chenot, Constitutive parameter identication using a computer aided rheology approach, in: S.F. Shen et al. (Eds.),
5th International Conference on Numerical Methods in Industrial Forming Processes, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1995, pp. 563568.
[56] A. Gavrus, E. Massoni, J.L. Chenot, An inverse analysis using a nite element model for identication of rheological parameters, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 60 (14) (1996) 447454.
[57] A. Gavrus, E. Massoni, J.L. Chenot, An inverse nite element analysis applied to viscoplastic parameter identication, in: John Wiley and Sons
(Eds.), Second ECCOMAS Conference on Numerical Methods in Engineering, Paris, September 1996.
[58] J.-C. Gelin, O. Ghouati, An inverse method for determining viscoplastic properties of aluminium alloys, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 45 (14) (1994)
435440.
[59] J.-C. Gelin, O. Ghouati, An inverse solution procedure for material parameters identication in large plastic deformation, Commun. Numer.
Methods Engrg. 12 (3) (1996) 161173.
[60] J.C. Gelin, Apports de la modelisation numerique pour lidentication du comportement des materiaux en vue de leur mise en forme, in: O.
Debordes, A. Dogui, F. Sidoro (Eds.), Interactions experience-calcul pour lidentication du comportement mecanique des materiaux, page
supplement, November 1998.
[61] J.C. Gelin, O. Ghouati, Une methode didentication inverse des parame`tres materiels pour les comportements non-lineaires, Rev. Europeenne des
elements Finis 4 (4) (1995) 463485.
[62] O. Ghouati, Identication et Modelisation Numerique Directe et Inverse du comportement Viscoplastique des Alliages dAluminium, Ph.D. thesis,
U.F.R. des Sciences et Techniques de lUniversite de Franche-Comte, July 1994.
[63] O. Ghouati, J.-C. Gelin, Identication of material parameters directly from metal forming processes, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 8081 (1998) 560
564.
[64] O. Ghouati, J.C. Gelin, M. Baida, H. Lenoir, Simulation and control of hydroforming processes for tubes or anges forming, in: J.A. Govas (Ed.),
2nd ESAFORM Conference on Material Forming, Guimaraes, Portugal, 1999, pp. 473476.
[65] O. Ghouati, D. Joannic, J.C. Gelin, Etude et optimisation des parame`tres de procede pour le controle du retour elastique de pie`ces embouties,
in: Peseux et al., (Eds.), 3ie`me Col. Nat. Calcul des Structures, Presses Academ. Ouest, 1997, pp. 729734.
[66] O. Ghouati, D. Joannic, J.C. Gelin, Optimisation of process parameters for the control of springback in deep drawing, in: F.P.T. Baaijens,
J. Huetink (Eds.), Simulation of Materials Processing: Theory, Methods and Applications, june 1998, pp. 787792.
[67] O. Ghouati, H. Lenoir, J.C. Gelin, Optimisation de procedes en emboutissage des toles, in: Peseux et al. (Eds.), 4ie`me Col. Nat. Calcul des
Structures, CSMA Teknea, 1999, pp. 407412.
[68] D.E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc., 1989.
[69] M. Grediac, A. Vautrin, A new method for determination of bending rigidities of thin anisotropic plates, J. Appl. Mech. 57 (1990) 964968.
[70] I. Gresovnik, Inverse. Software for solving optimization and inverse problems. Available from: <http://www.c3m.si/inverse/>.
[71] I. Gresovnik, T. Rodic, A general-purpose shell for solving inverse and optimization problems in metal forming, in: 2d ESAFORM Conference on
Material Forming, Guimares, Portugal, 1998, pp. 497500.
5506
[72] Y.Q. Guo, J.-L. Batoz, H. Naceur, S. Bouabdallah, F. Mercier, O. Barlet, Recent developments on the analysis and optimum design of sheet metal
forming parts using a simplied inverse approach, Comput. Struct. 78 (2000) 133148.
[73] G.A. Holzapfel, Nonlinear Solid Mechanics. A Continuum Approach for Engineering, J. Wiley & sons, 2000.
[74] N. Huber, Ch. Tsakmakis, A neural network tool for identifying the material parameters of a nite deformation viscoplasticity model with static
recovery, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2001) 353384.
[75] M. Kleiber, Shape and non-shape structural sensitivity analysis for problems with any material and kinematic non-linearity, Comput. Methods
Appl. Mech. Engrg. 108 (12) (1993) 7397.
[76] M. Kleiber, P. Kowalczyk, Sensitivity analysis in plane stress elasto-plasticity and elasto-viscoplasticity, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 137
(1996) 395409.
[77] J.P. Kleinermann, Identication parametrique et optimisation des procedes de mise a forme par problemes inverses, Ph.D. thesis, Universite de
Lie`ge, September 2000, (In French).
[78] J.P. Kleinermann, J.P. Ponthot, Parameter identication and shape/process optimization in metal forming simulation, J. Mater. Process. Technol.
139 (2003) 521526.
[79] R. Kopp, F.D. Philipp, Physical parameter and boundary conditions for the simulation of hot forming processes, Steel Res. 9 (1992) 392398.
[80] P. Kowalczyk, M. Kleiber, Shape sensitivity elasto-plastic computations, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 171 (1999) 371386.
[81] N.D. Lagaros, M. Papadrakakis, G. Kokossalakis, Structural optimization using evolutionary algorithms, Comput. Struct. 80 (2002) 571589.
[82] N.D. Lagaros, V. Plevris, M. Papadrakakis, Multi-objective design optimization using cascade evolutionary computations, Comput. Methods Appl.
Mech. Engrg. 194 (2005) 34963515.
[83] M. Laumanns, L. Thiele, K. Deb, E. Zitzler, Combining convergence and diversity in evolutionary multi-objective optimization, Evolution. Comput.
10 (3) (2002) 262282.
[84] B. Li, J. Lin, X. Yao, A novel evolutionary algorithm for determining unied creep damage constitutive equations, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 44 (2002) 987
1002.
[85] G.R. Liu, J.H. Lee, A.T. Patera, Z.L. Yang, K.Y. Lam, Inverse identication of thermal parameters using reduced-basis method, Comput. Methods
Appl. Mech. Engrg. 194 (2005) 30903107.
[86] H.U. Lucke, Ch. Hartl, T. Abbey, Hydroforming, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 115 (2001) 8791.
[87] R. Mahnken, A comprehensive study of a multiplicative elastoplasticity model coupled to damage including parameter identication, Comput.
Struct. 74 (2) (1999) 179200.
[88] R. Mahnken, E. Stein, Gradient-based methods for parameter identication of viscoplastic material, in: 2nd International Symposium on Inverse
Problems, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1994, pp. 137144.
[89] R. Mahnken, E. Stein, The parameter identication for visco-plastic models via nite element method and gradient-methods, Model. Simul. Mater.
Sci. Engrg. 2 (1994) 597616.
[90] R. Mahnken, E. Stein, A unied approach for parameter identication of inelastic material models in the frame of the nite element method,
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 136 (1996) 225258.
[91] R. Mahnken, E. Stein, Concepts and computational methods for parameter identication of inelastic material models, in: E. Onate, D.R.J. Owen,
E. Hinton (Eds.), Computational Plasticity, Fundamentals and Applications, CIMNE, Barcelona, 1997.
[92] R. Mahnken, E. Stein, Parameter identication for nite deformation elasto-plasticity in principal directions, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.
147 (1997) 1739.
[93] A. Moal, E. Massoni, J.L. Chenot, A nite element model for the simulation of the torsion and torsion-tension tests, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech.
Engrg. 103 (1993) 417434.
[94] K. Mori, M. Yamamoto, K. Osakada, Determination of hammering sequence in incremental sheet metal forming using a genetic algorithm, J.
Mater. Process. Technol. 60 (1996) 463468.
[95] A.J. Morris, Foundations of Structural Optimization. Numerical Methods in Engineering Series, John Wiley and sons, 1982.
[96] Z. Mroz, J. Piekarski, Sensitivity analysis and optimal design of non-linear structures, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 42 (1998) 12311262.
[97] D. Muller, G. Hartmann, Identication of materials parameters for inelastic constitutive models using principles of biologic evolution, J. Engrg.
Mater. Technol. 111 (1989) 299305.
[98] H. Naceur, Y.Q. Guo, J.-L. Batoz, Blank optimization in sheet metal forming using an evolutionary algorithm, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 151
(2004) 183191.
[99] Y. Nakamura, T. Ohata, T. Katayama, E. Nakamichi, Optimum die design for sheet metal forming process by nite element and discretized
optimization methods, in: F.P.T. Baaijens, J. Huetink (Eds.), Simulation of Materials Processing: Theory, Methods and Applications, Taylor &
Francis, June 1998, pp. 787792.
[100] N. Nariman-Zadeh, A. Darvizeh, A. Jamali, A. Moeini, Evolutionary design of generalized polunomial neural networks for modeling and prediction
of explosive forming process, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 164165 (2005) 15611571.
[101] K.B. Nielsen, M.R. Jensen, J. Danckert, Optimization of sheet metal forming processes using nite element simulations, Acta Metall. Sinica (English
Letters) 13 (2) (2000) 531539.
[102] D.M. Norris, J.R.B. Morran, J.K. Scudde, D.F. Quinones, A computer simulation of the tension test, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 26 (1978) 119.
[103] K.A. Padmanabhan, R.A. Vasin, F.U. Enikeev, Superplastic Flow: Phenomenology and Mechanics, Springer, 2001.
[104] M. Papadrakakis, N.D. Lagaros, Reliability based structural optimization using neural networksand Monte Carlo simulationstructural optimization
using evolution strategies and neural networks, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (32) (2002) 34913507.
[105] M. Papadrakakis, N.D. Lagaros, Advanced solution methods in structural optimization based on evolution strategies, Engrg. Comput. 15 (1) (1998)
1234.
[106] M. Papadrakakis, N.D. Lagaros, Y. Tsompanakis, Structural optimization using evolution strategies and neural networks, Comput. Methods Appl.
Mech. Engrg. 156 (1998) 309333.
[107] M. Papadrakakis, Y. Tsompanakis, N.D. Lagaros, Structural shape optimization using evolution strategies, Engrg. Optim. 31 (1999) 515540.
[108] S.N. Patnaik, R.M. Coroneos, D.A. Hopkins, A cascade optimization strategy for solution of dicult design problems, Int. J. Numer. Methods
Engrg. 40 (1997) 22572266.
[109] S.N. Patnaik, R.M. Coroneos, J.D. Guptill, D.A. Hopkins, Comparative evaluation of dierent optimization algorithms for structural design
applications, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 39 (1996) 17611774.
5507
[110] S.N. Patnaik, D.A. Hopkins, General-purpose optimization method for multidisciplinary design applications, Adv. Engrg. Software 31 (2000) 57
63.
[111] S.N. Patnaik, J.D. Guptill, D.A. Hopkins, Subproblem optimization with regression and neural netwok approximators, Comput. Method Appl.
Mech. Engrg. 194 (2005) 33593373.
[112] P. Picart, O. Ghouati, J.-C. Gelin, Optimization of metal forming process parameters with damage minimization, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 8081
(1998) 597601.
[113] J. Pinho-da Cruz, F. Teixeira-Dias, On the optimisation of viscoplastic constitutive modelling using a numerical feedback damping algorithm,
[114] J.P. Ponthot, Traitement Unie de la Mecanique des Milieux Continus Solides en Grandes Deformations par la Methode des Elements nis. Ph.D.
thesis, Universite de Lie`ge. Available from: <http://www.ulg.ac.be/ltas-mct>, 1995.
[115] J.P. Ponthot, Unied stress update algorithms for the numerical simulation of large deformation elasto-plastic and elasto-viscoplastic processes, Int.
J. Plasticity 18 (1) (2002) 91126.
[116] J.P. Ponthot, J.P. Kleinermann, Optimization methods for initial/tool shape optimisation in metal forming processes, Int. J. Vehicle Des. 39 (1/2)
(2005) 1424.
[117] J. Qu, Q.L. Jin, B.Y. Xu, Parameter identication for improved viscoplastic model considering dynamic recrystallization, Int. J. Plasticity 21 (2005)
12671302.
[118] T. Rodic, I. Gresovnik, A computer system for solving inverse and optimization problems, Engrg. Comput. 15 (7) (1998) 893907.
[119] T. Rodic, I. Gresovnik, Optimization of prestressing of cold forging tooling system, in: 2d International Conference on Inverse Problems in
Engineering, vol. 2, Engineering Foundation, New York, 1998.
[120] T. Rodic, I. Gresovnik, D.R.J. Owen, Application of error minimization concept to estimation of hardening in tension test, in: 4th International
Conference on Computational Plasticity, Pineridge Press, Swansea, 1995, pp. 779786.
[121] T. Rodic, J. Korelc, I. Gresovnik, Inverse analyses and optimization of cold forging processes, in: 1st ESAFORM Conference on Material Forming,
Sophia-Antipolis, France, 1998, pp. 255258.
[122] S. Roy, S. Ghosh, R. Shivpuri, Optimal design of process variables in multi-pass wire drawing by genetic algorithm, J. Manufact. Sci. Engrg., Trans.
ASME 118 (1996) 244251.
[123] S. Roy, S. Ghosh, R. Shivpuri, A new approach to optimal design of multi-stage metal forming processes with micro genetic algorithm, Int. J. Mach.
Tools Manufact. 37 (1) (1997) 2944.
[124] O. Schenk, M. Hillman, Optimal design of metal forming die surfaces with evolution strategies, Comput. Struct. 82 (2004) 16951705.
[125] K. Schittkowski, NLPQL: a FORTRAN subroutine solving constrained nonlinear programming problems, Ann. Oper. Res. (1985) 485500.
[126] D. Schnur, N. Zabaras, An inverse method for determining elastic material properties and a material interface, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 33
(1992) 20392057.
[127] M. Sebag, M. Sschoenauer, H. Maitournam, Identication de mode`les rheologiques par programmation genetique, in: la Presse Academique de
lOuest, editor, Actes du troisie`me colloque national en Calcul des Structures, vol. 1, Giens, France, May 1997, pp. 177182.
[128] K. Siegert, M. Haussermann, B. Losch, R. Rieger, Recent developments in hydroforming technology, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 98 (2000) 251258.
[129] J.C. Simo, A framework for nite strain elastoplasticity based on maximum plastic dissipation and the multiplicative decomposition, Comput.
Method Appl. Mech. Engrg. 66 (1988) 199219.
[130] D.E. Smith, D.A. Tortorelli, C.H. Tucker III, Analysis and sensitivity analysis for polymer injection and compression molding, Comput. Methods
Appl. Mech. Engrg. 167 (1998) 325344.
[131] D.E. Smith, D.A. Tortorelli, C.H. Tucker III, Optimal design for polymer extrusion, Part I: Sensitivity analysis for non-linear steady-state systems,
[132] D.E. Smith, D.A. Tortorelli, C.H. Tucker III, Optimal design for polymer extrusion, Part II: Sensitivity analysis for weakly-coupled nonlinear
steady-state systems, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 167 (1998) 303323.
[133] A. Srikhanth, N. Zabaras, Shape optimization and preform design in metal forming processes, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 190 (2000)
18591901.
[134] K. Svanberg, The method of moving asymptotes. A new method for structural optimization, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 24 (1987) 359373.
[135] K. Svanvberg, A globally convergent version of MMA without linesearch, in: N. Olho, G.I.N. Rovaznus (Eds.), Proceedings of the First World
Congress of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, ISSMO, Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, 1995, pp. 916.
[136] D.A. Tortorelli, Sensitivity analysis for non-linear constrained elastostatic systems, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 33 (1992) 16431660.
[137] D.A. Tortorelli, P. Michaleris, Design sensitivity analysis: overview and review, Inverse Probl. Engrg. 1 (1994) 71105.
[138] D.A. Tortorelli, P. Michaleris, C.A. Vidal, Tangent operators and design sensitivity formulations for transient non-linear coupled problems with
application to elastoplasticity, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 37 (1994) 24712499.
[139] D.A. Tortorelli, G. Subramani, C.Y. Lu Stephen, Sensitivity analysis for coupled thermoelastic systems, Int. J. Solids Struct. 27 (12) (1991) 1477
1497.
[140] D.A. Tortorelli, Z. Wabg, A systematic approach to shape sensitivity analysis, Int. J. Solids Struct. 30 (9) (1993) 11811212.
[141] D.A. Van Veldhuizen, G.B. Lamont, Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: analyzing the state-of-the-art, Evolution. Comput. 8 (2) (2000) 125
147.
[142] D. Vieilledent, L. Fourment, Shape optimization of axisymmetric preform tools in forging using a direct dierentiation method, Int. J. Numer.
Methods Engrg. 52 (2001) 13011321.
[143] N. Zabaras, Y. Bao, A. Srikanth, W.G. Frazier, A continuum lagrangian sensitivity analysis for metal forming processes with applications to die
design problems, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 48 (2000) 679720.
[144] L. Zhang, G. Subbarayan, An evaluation of back-propagation neural networks for the optimal design of structural systems: Part I. training
procedures, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 28732886.
[145] L. Zhang, G. Subbarayan, An evaluation of back-propagation neural networks for the optimal design of structural systems: Part II. numerical
evaluation, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 28872904.
[146] W.H. Zhang, C. Fleury, Two-point based sequential convex approximations for structural optimization, in: M. Hogge, E. Dick (Eds.), 3e`me Congre`s
National Belge de Mecanique Theorique et Appliquee, Universite de Lie`ge, May 1994.
[147] W.H. Zhang, C. Fleury, A modication of convex approximations methods for structural optimization., Comput. Struct. 64 (14) (1997) 8995.
5508
[148] J. Zhao, F. Wang, Parameter identication by neural network for intelligent deep drawing of axisymmetric workpieces, J. Mater. Process. Technol.
166 (2005) 387391.
[149] K.M. Zhao, J.K. Lee, Finite element analysis of the three-point bending of sheet metals, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 122 (611) (2002).
[150] C. Zillober, A globally convergent version of the method of moving asymptotes, Struct. Optim. 6 (1993) 166174.
[151] E. Zitzler, Evolutionary Algorithms for Multiobjective Optimization: Methods and Applications, Ph.D. thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology, Zurich, 1999.

A Cascade Optimization Methodology For Automatic Parameter Identification and Shape/process Optimization in Metal Forming Simulation

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A Cascade Optimization Methodology For Automatic Parameter Identification and Shape/process Optimization in Metal Forming Simulation

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.

195 (2006) 54725508

A cascade optimization methodology for automatic

3. Initial geometry and tool shape design

Fig. 2. Example of objective function and optimization variables example.

uEF (x) - uexp

uEF (x) - uexp

where the symbols ()+

and () respectively mean

Fig. 4. Convex approximation using GCMMA.

where h(k)(x) and d(k)(x) do not depend on q(k). Let us dene

Following Svanberg [135], the proposed q updating rule is

with the initial value for q(0) given by

Fig. 5. Convex approximation with GCMMA and two-point updating method.

4.3.5. Globally Convergent Modied Method of Moving Asymptotes (GC3MA)

Fig. 6. Convex approximation evolution versus parameter s.

Exact objective function

Approximated objective function

Fig. 7. Sub-iterative method with GCMMA or GC3MA.

Using (18)(21), we form:

for every x so that Li < xi < Ui for i = 1, . . . , p.

last balanced config.

Fig. 8. Direct problem solving using Updated Lagrangian implicit scheme.

un1 un1 K T wn1

We obtain for each of the optimization parameters xi

where n is the time step index and k is the NewtonRaphson

Fig. 9. Neckinginitial geometry and mesh of a cylindrical bar.

External load (kN)

Necking radius (R/R0)

With Digital Alphastation 600 5/266.

Relative dierence (%)

Relative dierence (%)

7.2. Simultaneous material parameter and friction coecient identication

Fig. 13. Frictioncrushing of a cylindrical billetinitial and deformed geometry.

External load (N)

Fig. 14. Frictionexperimentsimulation results comparison.

7.3. Parameter identication of two rubber hyperelastic models

Improved Hart-Smith model

7.3.1. Gent-Thomas model identication

Dir. equivalent problems

7.3.3. Constitutive models comparison

Dir. equivalent problems

Stress F/A0 (N/mm2)

par6 par5 par4

Corresponding initial mesh

Initial design parameters

98 112 126 140

Fig. 25. Fastenerindustrial component blueprint.

punch: initial position

Fig. 26. Fastenerpunch and die parameterization (distances in mm).

geometry after drawing

geometry after springback

Desired final shape

Desired final shape

Desired final shape

Desired final shape

Fig. 32. Hydroformingdescription of the process, loading and tool geometry.

Fig. 33. Hydroformingmesh and geometry of the nal conguration.

Desired final geometry

Press. (10 bar)

Desired final geometry

Fig. 34. Hydroforminginitial and optimum results.

Relative CPU (with regard to the fastest method)