The analytical model proposed by Dongjuan et al. [8] takes into consideration of the material properties, planar anisotropy but not the blank holder force and the coefficient of friction. Although the springback angle, θ2 obtained by the analytical model is very close to the experimental result, this is not valid for θ1. Comparison of simulation results shows that LS-DYNA gives slightly more accurate results than AUTOFORM for the examined process. 0.5 mm element size and 7 NIP value are the best fit for the prediction of the springback. Figure 9 shows the springback angles obtained by LS-DYNA and AUTOFORM simulations, and experimental results.