PSI - Issue 82

Andreas Taucher et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 82 (2026) 295–301 A. Taucher et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2026) 000–000

297

3

2. Methodology 2.1. Interview guidelines

An interview guide with 25 questions was prepared, which enabled the interviewers to follow a guided framework of consistent questions while also allowing for open discussions (Turner, 2010). Not all the questions were discussed in each of the interviews, as the interview partners held different positions in their companies and they used simulation software tools for different specific purposes and applications. Therefore, general questions and specific questions were distinguished. General questions focused on the simulation software used by the interview partner and on the application of simulations in the engineering process of sheet metal products. If the interview partner was experienced in modelling and simulation, the interview continued with specific questions about material models. All interviews were recorded and transcribed to consider all information without losing any relevant details (Seale et al., 1997). The transcripts were analyzed and categorized using a coding scheme to structure the information of all interviews. 2.2. Interview partners In total, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 experts (interview partners) of 10 different companies, i.e., for some of the companies more than just one expert was interviewed. The interview partners were selected due to their experience in forming simulation and/or material characterization, and they were categorized according to their main business field. Figure 3 visualizes the number of (a) interview partners and (b) companies categorized as original equipment manufacturer (OEM), tier 1 supplier, tool manufacturer, engineering service provider and simulation software developer. OEM and engineering service providers that usually create their own material models for the simulations are also referred to as material model creators for distinguishing them from tier 1 suppliers or tool manufacturer that only use material models from their customers or software library. Experts employed at an OEM were responsible for component engineering, material supplier qualification or tool design. They had knowledge of materials characterization, simulation of sheet metal forming and design processes. They used raw data from material tests provided by material suppliers or data from their own material tests to create material models for FE simulations. Experts employed at tier 1 suppliers used sheet metal forming simulations for feasibility studies (“one-step simulations”), systems engineering and tool design evaluations. Despite having basic knowledge of simulation of sheet metal forming, they did not create any material models, as these models were mostly prescribed by customers. Experts employed at tool manufacturers were designing and manufacturing forming tools that enable a reliable serial production of sheet metal components. For their FE simulations they used material models prescribed by customers. Experts working at engineering service providers supported their customers with engineering solutions regarding sheet metal components and assemblies in BiW or chassis systems. These experts either created material models or the required models were provided by customers or material suppliers. An expert employed at a software developer specialized on sheet metal forming was also interviewed.

Fig. 3. Number of (a) interview partners/experts and (b) companies included in the interviews. This means that several companies provided more than one interview partner expert for this survey.