A quick forming study is useful when you want to compare several ideas. Later, you may need to examine springback, compensation or a small surface defect more closely.
That is the distinction behind feasibility and validation in the PAMSTAMP methodology. The workflow is familiar, but the level of detail needs to match the question.
This explanation draws on the 2022 User Guide. Its numerical examples are context for the method, not a new set of universal 2025 settings.
What changes in the mesh?
The guide identifies blank mesh size and refinement as a major difference. A finer final mesh can resolve behaviour that a quick exploratory model smooths over.
Tool geometry matters too: contact surfaces, radii, chord error and angles between elements should represent the tool you intend to simulate. Refining the blank while leaving an artificial sharp tool edge does not settle that problem.
If you remesh the source tool, rebuild the offset tools from it. Otherwise, the new surface and older derived geometry can become inconsistent.
Compare the same region in both models
Keep the feasibility run and make a separate validation variation. Record the initial size and maximum refinement, then inspect the final Characteristic length rather than relying only on the entered level.
Use the same states and result scale for comparison. A local thinning peak may change with refinement; investigate whether the region is better resolved and whether the result is sufficiently stable for your purpose.
There is no benefit in adding an exact mesh size from another part merely because that part was also a body panel.
More than a mesh change
Review material data, friction, tool motion, contact and blank position. For springback, the inspection supports matter as well.
If you apply another process macro, revisit the generated refinement attributes. The macro can replace earlier settings.
Also read how the forming stage ended. A run stopped early by a pinch condition is not a completed stroke just because it produced results.
How to describe the study
Call the model a validation-quality setup only with an explanation of what was reviewed. The word in a strategy name doesn’t prove agreement with a real part.
Keep the comparison with your report and connect it to springback, surface defects or runtime, depending on the question that led you to refine the model.
Previous: How to Configure a PAM-STAMP Solver Host
Next: How to Investigate Cosmetic Defects in PAM-STAMP