This document describes a finite element analysis simulation of a riveting process in ANSYS and compares the results to experimental data. The simulation modeled a rivet being driven into a sheet metal joint. Material properties, boundary conditions, and a displacement-controlled loading process were defined. The results for bulge diameter and protruding rivet height matched well with experimental testing, with less than 2.13% difference. This validated the ability of the ANSYS simulation to accurately model the riveting process.

1. Validation of RivetingValidation of Riveting
processprocess
Validation of RivetingValidation of Riveting
processprocess
--AshutoshAshutosh SrivastavaSrivastava
--GunjanGunjan VermaVerma
--VinayVinay CarpenterCarpenter
--AshutoshAshutosh SrivastavaSrivastava
--GunjanGunjan VermaVerma
--VinayVinay CarpenterCarpenter
© 2010 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. 1 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary© 2010 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. 1 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

2. Problem Statement
• Objective:
To benchmark riveting process in ANSYS with the
experimental results[1].
• To simulate a riveting process.
– A rivet is driven into sheet joint
© 2010 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. 2 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary
– A rivet is driven into sheet joint
– Other end of the rivet is constraint using a rigid
support
• Output
– Dmax, diameter of the bulge
– H, Final protruding height
[1] Amarendra, .A (2006), “A Finite Element and Experimental Investigation on the Fatigue of Riveted Lap Joints in Aircraft Applications,” Phd Thesis, School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia
Institute of Technology.

3. Problem Configuration
Top View of plates Rivet Close-up
© 2010 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. 3 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary
Top View of plates
Side View of specimen
Rivet Close-up

4. Geometry
Punch
Rivet
Bottom Plate 2mm thick
3.175
11.9
© 2010 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. 4 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary
Bottom Plate 2mm thick
Top Plate 2mm thick
34.9
5.475
11.9
14.2
All Dimensions are in mm

5. Material definition
Following material properties were used for the respective parts:
• Rivet : 21174-T4 AL Alloy
• Sheet 2024-T3 Al Alloy
A tabulated stress strain input data was provide based on the equation given
below:
σtrue = C(εtrue
m)
Isotropic hardening was considering during the simulation
© 2010 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. 5 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary
Isotropic hardening was considering during the simulation
Material Elastic Properties Flow Stress Parameters
Young’s
Modulus (GPa)
Poisson’
s ratio
Strain Range C (MPa) m
21174-T4 AL 71.7 0.33 εy≤εtrue≤3 551.58[2,3] 0.15[2,3]
2024-T3 AL 72.4 0.33 εy≤εtrue≤0.02 765[1] 0.14[1]
0.02≤εtrue≤3 744[1] 0.164[1]
[1] Amarendra, .A (2006), “A Finite Element and Experimental Investigation on the Fatigue of Riveted Lap Joints in Aircraft Applications,” Phd Thesis, School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia
Institute of Technology.
[2] Szolwinski, M.P., Farris, T.N. (2000). “Linking riveting process parameters to the fatigue performance of riveted aircraft structures,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol.37, No.1, pp. 130-135.
[3] Bajracharya,. B (2006),“Effect of Variations of Riveting Process on The Quality of Riveted Joints,” Masters Thesis, Department of Industrial and Manufacturing, Wichita State University.

6. Material definition contd..
4.00E+08
5.00E+08
6.00E+08
7.00E+08
Stress(Pa)
Hardening curve 21174-T4 AL alloy
© 2010 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary
0.00E+00
1.00E+08
2.00E+08
3.00E+08
4.00E+08
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
Stress(Pa)
Plastic Strain (mm/mm)

7. Material definition contd..
6.00E+08
7.00E+08
8.00E+08
9.00E+08
1.00E+09
Stress(Pa)
Hardening curve 2024-T3 AL alloy
© 2010 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. 7 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary
0.00E+00
1.00E+08
2.00E+08
3.00E+08
4.00E+08
5.00E+08
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Stress(Pa)
Plastic Strain (mm/mm)

8. Boundary Conditions
Fix X direction displacement on
rivet edge
Fix X direction displacement & apply displacement in Y
direction to the puncher
© 2010 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. 8 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary
Fix Y direction displacement at plates side
Fix Y direction displacement at
rivet head

9. Analysis Settings and procedure
• Load was applied gradually in two steps.
– In the first step predetermined displacement was applied
– In the second step the punch was displaced in reverse direction
to simulate spring-back action of the rivet.
• All contacts were considered as frictional contact (frictional coefficient
as 0.2) except the one between the plates which was assumed as
© 2010 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. 9 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary
as 0.2) except the one between the plates which was assumed as
bonded for simplicity.
• Force probe was used to determine the squeeze force.
• Load displacement graph was plotted for each case.

10. RESULTS
© 2010 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. 10 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary
RESULTS

11. UX Direction Displacement
© 2010 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. 11 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary
F = 26.9 KN
Dmax = 8.6454mm
F = 35.67 KN
Dmax = 9.6108mm
F = 45.02 KN
Dmax = 10.3766mm
F = 53.804 KN
Dmax = 10.9426mm

12. UY Direction Displacement
© 2010 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. 12 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary
F = 26.9 KN
H = 5.796mm
F = 35.67 KN
H = 4.66mm
F = 45.02 KN
H = 3.93mm
F = 53.804 KN
H = 3.46mm

13. Dmax Result Comparison
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
Dmax(mm)
Dmax Result Comparison
ANSYS
Exp
© 2010 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. 13 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary
8
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Squeeze Force (KN)
Squeeze
Force,
ANSYS
(KN)
Squeeze
Force,
Exp[1] (KN)
Dmax
(mm)
Ansys
Dmax
(mm)
Exp[1]
% diff
(ANSYS)
26.90 26.69 8.6454 8.559 1.01
35.67 35.56 9.6108 9.525 0.9
45.02 44.48 10.3766 10.16 2.13
53.80 53.37 10.9426 10.795 1.37
[1] Amarendra, .A (2006), “A Finite Element and Experimental Investigation on the Fatigue of Riveted Lap Joints in Aircraft Applications,” Phd Thesis, School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia
Institute of Technology.

14. Final Protruding Height Comparison
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
ProtrudingHeight(mm)
Protruding Height (H) Comparison
ANSYS
Exp
© 2010 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. 14 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary
3
25 35 45 55 65
Squeeze Force (KN)
Squeeze
Force,
ANSYS
(KN)
Squeeze
Force,
Exp[1] (KN)
H (mm)
Ansys
H (mm)
Exp[1]
% diff
(ANSYS)
26.90 26.69 5.797 5.796 0.017
35.67 35.56 4.66 4.59 1.53
45.02 44.48 3.93 4 1.75
53.80 53.37 3.46 3.49 0.86
[1] Amarendra, .A (2006), “A Finite Element and Experimental Investigation on the Fatigue of Riveted Lap Joints in Aircraft Applications,” Phd Thesis, School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia
Institute of Technology.

15. Conclusion
• The whole process was setup in workbench environment
without any assistance of command snippet.
• All the four cases were setup in a single project format,
thus eliminating the need of four different files.
• ANSYS numerical results match with experimental results
© 2010 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. 15 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary
• ANSYS numerical results match with experimental results
well within the norms
– A maximum difference of 2.13% was observed for the final
deformed rivet diameter.
– A maximum difference of 1.75% was observed for the final
protruding height

16. Refrences:
[1] Amarendra, .A (2006), “A Finite Element and Experimental Investigation on
the Fatigue of Riveted Lap Joints in Aircraft Applications,” Phd Thesis,
School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology.
[2] Szolwinski, M.P., Farris, T.N. (2000). “Linking riveting process parameters
to the fatigue performance of riveted aircraft structures,” Journal of Aircraft,
Vol.37, No.1, pp. 130-135.
© 2010 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. 16 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary
Vol.37, No.1, pp. 130-135.
[3] Bajracharya,. B (2006),“Effect of Variations of Riveting Process on The
Quality of Riveted Joints,” Masters Thesis, Department of Industrial and
Manufacturing, Wichita State University.