ZL50裝載機(jī)總體及工作裝置設(shè)計(jì)
購買設(shè)計(jì)請充值后下載，，資源目錄下的文件所見即所得，都可以點(diǎn)開預(yù)覽，，資料完整，充值下載可得到資源目錄里的所有文件。。?！咀ⅰ浚篸wg后綴為CAD圖紙，doc,docx為WORD文檔，原稿無水印，可編輯。。。帶三維備注的都有三維源文件，由于部分三維子文件較多，店主做了壓縮打包，都可以保證打開的，三維預(yù)覽圖都是店主用電腦打開后截圖的，具體請見文件預(yù)覽，有不明白之處，可咨詢QQ:1304139763
課程設(shè)計(jì)說明書
題目名稱： 鑰匙模具設(shè)計(jì)
學(xué)生姓名：
專 業(yè)： 機(jī)械工程及自動化（汽車工程）
班 級：
學(xué) 號：
指導(dǎo)教師：
時(shí) 間： 2006年 12 月 25 日— 2007年1 月28日
機(jī)械工程學(xué)院
課程設(shè)計(jì)任務(wù)書
一、設(shè)計(jì)題目：
鑰匙模具設(shè)計(jì)
二、設(shè)計(jì)參數(shù)：
零件：鑰匙
生產(chǎn)批量：大批量
材料：08F
板料厚度t = 2mm
三、具體要求：
1. 分析研究零件的工作圖；
2. 確定零件的沖壓工藝；
3. 進(jìn)行零件沖壓模具設(shè)計(jì)；
4. 編寫設(shè)計(jì)計(jì)算使用說明書。
四、進(jìn)度安排：
2006.12.25——2006.12.31 收集資料
2007.1.1 ——2007.1.7 分析零件工作圖，確定沖壓工藝方案
2007.1.8 ——2007.1.14 模具主要零件尺寸的設(shè)計(jì)計(jì)算
2007.1.15??——2007.1.21 繪制模具裝配圖及零件圖
2007.1.22?——2007.1.28 編寫設(shè)計(jì)說明書
五、工作量：
1. 繪制模具裝配圖 1張
2. 繪制零件圖 2張
3. 編寫設(shè)計(jì)說明書 1份
六、總評成績及評語：
指導(dǎo)教師 簽名日期 年 月 日
系 主 任 審核日期 年 月 日
目 錄
序 言………………………………………………………………………………5
1 零件工藝分析………………………………………………………………......6
1.1設(shè)計(jì)零件介紹…………………………………………………………………6
1.2零件工藝分析…………………………………………………………………6
2確定工藝方案及模具結(jié)構(gòu)形式………………………………………………...7
3模具設(shè)計(jì)計(jì)算…………………………………………………………………...7
3.1排樣……………………………………………………………………………7
3.2計(jì)算總沖裁力…………………………………………………………………8
3.3計(jì)算壓力中心…………………………………………………………………8
3.4沖模刃口尺寸及公差的計(jì)算…………………………………………………8
3.5確定各主要零件結(jié)構(gòu)尺寸……………………………………………………9
4繪制非標(biāo)準(zhǔn)零件圖……………………………………………………………...10 4.1凸凹模具設(shè)計(jì)圖………………………………………………………………10
4.2鑰匙零件標(biāo)準(zhǔn)圖………………………………………………………………12
4.3 鑰匙凹模圖…………………………………………………………………...12
參考文獻(xiàn) …………………………………………………………………………13
序 言
本次課程設(shè)計(jì)是我們學(xué)完了大學(xué)四年全部的本專業(yè)課程后進(jìn)行的一次設(shè)計(jì)學(xué)習(xí)，是大學(xué)學(xué)業(yè)的一次總結(jié)性、綜合性的復(fù)習(xí)和鍛煉，同時(shí)為明年的畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)打好基礎(chǔ)和鋪墊，這也是對我的理論知識與聯(lián)系實(shí)際掌握程度的一次很好的考察。因此，此次設(shè)計(jì)對我的學(xué)習(xí)及在今后的工作中起著很重要的作用，給我很大的幫助。同時(shí)，在此感謝四年來各位專業(yè)老師的幫助和教導(dǎo)。
1零件工藝分析
1.1設(shè)計(jì)零件介紹：
如圖1所示零件：鑰匙
生產(chǎn)批量：大批量
材料：08F t=2mm
設(shè)計(jì)該零件的沖壓工藝與模具 。
圖1 鑰匙零件圖
1.2沖裁件工藝分析
沖裁件工藝性是指沖壓零件在沖壓加工過程中的難易程度。沖壓件工藝性的具體指標(biāo)包括：
1) 材料消耗少，生產(chǎn)準(zhǔn)備周期短；
2) 工序數(shù)量少，勞動量與勞動強(qiáng)度低；
3) 盡量減少后續(xù)的機(jī)加工量及有關(guān)輔助工序；
4) 沖壓工藝設(shè)備少，生產(chǎn)面積需要?。?
5) 操作簡便，盡量能采用非高級技工；
6) 提高模具在完成生產(chǎn)周期情況下的壽命；
7) 生產(chǎn)效率高，生產(chǎn)成本。
為使沖壓件達(dá)到優(yōu)良工藝指標(biāo)，必須合理確定尺寸精度和具有良好的結(jié)構(gòu)工藝性。
沖壓件的尺寸精度可達(dá)IT6（或IT7）級，精度等級越低其沖壓加工越困難。具體查表可得，沖壓加工中沖裁，精沖及拉深工序等加工方法所能達(dá)到的尺寸精度。
沖壓件的結(jié)構(gòu)工藝性一般指其結(jié)構(gòu)的幾何形狀。其幾何形狀越簡單，越容易沖壓，則結(jié)構(gòu)工藝性越好。因此要求：
1) 材料的選定不僅要能滿足沖壓件的強(qiáng)度與剛度要求，還應(yīng)該具有良好的沖壓性能。這是由于每一種板材都有自己的化學(xué)成分，力學(xué)性能以及與沖壓性密切相關(guān)的特征值。在生產(chǎn)實(shí)際中經(jīng)常出現(xiàn)這樣的情況，一個沖壓件的加工能否順利加工完，直接取決于板材的沖壓性能。所以有必要根據(jù)沖壓變形的特點(diǎn)與要求，合理地選用材料。
2) 沖壓加工是一種冷變形加工方法，它與熱變形加工方法最本質(zhì)的特點(diǎn)是：有冷變形加工的硬化效應(yīng)。因此，應(yīng)該充分利用著這一特性，盡量選用軟而塑性好的，避免過厚的金屬材料。
3) 當(dāng)對產(chǎn)品零件要求重量輕而強(qiáng)度，剛度高時(shí)，可采用強(qiáng)肋形式及翻邊，卷圓等工序來達(dá)到要求。
綜合以上分析
1. 材料：08F鋼板是優(yōu)質(zhì)碳素結(jié)構(gòu)鋼，具有良好的可沖壓性能。
2. 工件結(jié)構(gòu)形狀：沖裁件內(nèi)、外形應(yīng)盡量避免有尖銳傾角，為提高模具壽命，建議將所有90°傾角改為R0.5的圓角。
3. 尺寸精度：零件圖上未標(biāo)注公差的尺寸，屬自由尺寸，可按IT14級確定工件尺寸的公差。經(jīng)查公差表，各尺寸公差為：
24±0.52 50-0.62 12.8±0.43 7.3-0.36 3±0.3
結(jié)論：可以沖裁
2確定工藝方案及模具結(jié)構(gòu)形式
沖裁模具設(shè)計(jì)的基本原則：
1）根據(jù)制作的尺寸精度要求以及生產(chǎn)批量，綜合考慮經(jīng)濟(jì)效益選擇模具種類。
2）模具結(jié)構(gòu)和模具材料應(yīng)與制作批量相適應(yīng)。
3）盡量采用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)模架和模具零件。
4）模架的平面尺寸，不僅要與凹模尺寸相適應(yīng)，還應(yīng)與壓力機(jī)臺面尺寸及開孔尺寸大小相適應(yīng)。
5）落料模的送料方向要與選用壓力機(jī)相適應(yīng)。
6) 為了便于校模和存放，模具應(yīng)安裝閉合高度限位塊。模具工作時(shí)限位塊不應(yīng)受壓。
7) 沖壓對稱制件的模架應(yīng)明顯不對稱，以防止上模和下模裝錯位置。
8) 彎曲件的落料模，排樣時(shí)應(yīng)考慮材料扎制方向。
9) 刀口尖腳處宜用拼塊。既便于加工，也可防止應(yīng)力集中導(dǎo)致開裂。
10) 應(yīng)在結(jié)構(gòu)上采取措施使凸模和凹模的側(cè)向力相互平衡，不宜讓模架承受側(cè)向力。
11) 安裝于模具內(nèi)的彈簧，應(yīng)保證彈簧彈裂時(shí)不致蹦出傷人。
12) 沖孔模應(yīng)考慮放入和取出制作方便，安全。
13) 沖孔模的定位，應(yīng)防止落料板正反都能防入。
14) 多凸模沖孔時(shí)，鄰近大凸模的細(xì)小凸模應(yīng)在長度上比大凸模短一沖件厚料，因?yàn)槿糇鞒上嗤L度則容易折斷。
15) 對于大型落料與修邊?；驔_件內(nèi)孔有窄小突出與凹槽時(shí)，應(yīng)采用鑲拼與嵌塊結(jié)構(gòu)。
3模具設(shè)計(jì)計(jì)算
3.1．排樣 計(jì)算條料寬度及確定步距
首先查有關(guān)表確定搭邊值。根據(jù)零件形狀，兩工件間按矩形取搭邊值b=2,側(cè)邊按圓形取搭邊值a=2。
連續(xù)模進(jìn)料步距為17.65mm。
條料寬度按相應(yīng)的公式計(jì)算：
B=(D+2a)-⊿ 查表 ⊿=0.6
B=(50+2×2)-0.6
=54-0.6
畫出排樣圖，圖2
圖2 排樣圖
3.2．計(jì)算總沖裁力
沖裁力F=KLtτ (查τ=300Mpa,周長L在caxa里查詢得到)
=1.3*129.648*2*300/10000=10.11 (t)
推件力F1= nKtF (取n=1，查表Kt=0.06)
=1*0.06*10.11=0.61(t)
由于沖模采用剛性卸料裝置和下出料方式，故總的沖壓力為：
F0 =F+ F1 =10.11+0.61=10.72(t)
3.3．確定壓力中心：
根據(jù)圖3計(jì)算，自定義坐標(biāo)系,計(jì)算壓力中心坐標(biāo)
圖形近似關(guān)于Y軸對稱，所以X=0
即壓力中心(X=0.00 Y=-9.32)
圖3 壓力中心（圖中用紅十字線表示）
3.4．沖模刃口尺寸及公差的計(jì)算
刃口尺寸計(jì)算方法及演算過程：
材料為08F,厚度為2mm，查表（19.1-7），可得Zmin=0.246mm,Zmax=0.360
Zmax-Zmin=0.114
落料部分的基本尺寸為50，則
δ凸= -0.025 δ凹= +0.035
故均能滿足分別加工時(shí)， │δ凸│ + │δ凹 │=0.06＜ Zmax-Zmin，的要求
查表得 x＝0.5
表1 沖模刃口尺寸
沖裁性質(zhì)
工作尺寸
計(jì)算公式
凹模尺寸注法
凸模尺寸注法
落料
50-0.62
24±0.52
9.25-0.25
7.3-0.36
凹模：
凸模：
（24－0.5*1.04）
（9.25－0.75*0.25）
（7.3-0.75*0.36）
3.5確定各主要零件結(jié)構(gòu)尺寸
（1）落料凹模外形尺寸的確定
落料凹模厚度h的確定：
h=kb （b為最大孔口尺寸，取50mm，查表，取k=0.34）
=17mm
落料凹模壁厚c的確定
c=2h=34mm 取c=34mm
（2）凸模長度L的確定
凸模長度L計(jì)算為：
L=h1+h2+h3+a
其中固定板厚h1=21；固定卸料板厚h2=5；導(dǎo)板厚h3=0; a=2.4
L= h1+h2+h3+a＝28.4
凸模厚度H的確定：
H= P取總壓力=107200N
H= =22.049mm
選用沖床的公稱壓力，應(yīng)大于計(jì)算出的總壓力P0=10.72t;最大閉合高度應(yīng)大于沖模閉合高度+5mm;工作臺臺面尺寸應(yīng)能滿足模具的正確安裝。按上述要求，結(jié)合工廠實(shí)際，可選用開式雙柱壓力機(jī)。并需在工作臺面上配備墊塊，墊塊實(shí)際尺寸可配制。
（3）設(shè)計(jì)并繪制總圖、選取標(biāo)準(zhǔn)件
按已確定的模具形式及參數(shù)，從冷沖模標(biāo)準(zhǔn)中選取標(biāo)準(zhǔn)模架。
繪制模具總裝圖。
按模具標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，選取所需的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)件，查清標(biāo)準(zhǔn)件代號及標(biāo)記，寫在總圖明細(xì)表。并將各零件標(biāo)出統(tǒng)一代號。
4繪制非標(biāo)準(zhǔn)零件圖
4.1 凸凹模具設(shè)計(jì)圖
圖4 鑰匙沖裁模設(shè)計(jì)
1-下模座 2-定位銷 3-凹模 4-導(dǎo)柱 5-導(dǎo)套 6-凸模 7-卸料板 8-模柄
9-連接螺釘 10-內(nèi)六角螺釘 11-圓柱銷 12-上模座 13-螺釘 14-緊固螺釘 15-圓柱銷
表2 零件明細(xì)表
序號
名稱
數(shù)量
材料
1
下模座
1
HT200
2
定位銷
1
45#
3
凹模
1
T10A
4
導(dǎo)柱
2
T8A
5
導(dǎo)套
2
20
6
凸模
1
T10A
7
卸料板
1
45#
8
模柄
1
Q235(A5)
9
連接螺釘
1
45#
10
內(nèi)六角螺釘
1
45#
11
圓柱銷
1
45#
12
上模座
1
HT200
13
螺釘
1
45#
14
緊固螺釘
1
45#
15
圓柱銷
1
45#
4.2鑰匙零件標(biāo)準(zhǔn)圖
圖5標(biāo)準(zhǔn)零件圖
4.3 鑰匙凹模圖
圖6 凹模圖
參考文獻(xiàn)
陳錫棟，周小玉主編. 實(shí)用模具技術(shù)手冊. 北京：機(jī)械工業(yè)出版社，2001.7
鄧明主編. 實(shí)用模具設(shè)計(jì)簡明手冊. 北京：機(jī)械工業(yè)出版社，2006.1
13
第 26 頁 共 27 頁
e pos 模具工業(yè)現(xiàn)狀Process simulation in stamping – recent
applications for product and process design
Abstract
Process simulation for product and process design is currently being practiced in industry. However, a number of input variables have a significant effect on the accuracy and reliability of computer predictions. A study was conducted to evaluate the capability of FE-simulations for predicting part characteristics and process conditions in forming complex-shaped, industrial parts.
In industrial applications, there are two objectives for conducting FE-simulations of the stamping process; (1) to optimize the product design by analyzing formability at the product design stage and (2) to reduce the tryout time and cost in process design by predicting the deformation process in advance during the die design stage. For each of these objectives, two kinds of FE-simulations are applied. Pam-Stamp, an incremental dynamic-explicit FEM code released by Engineering Systems Int'l, matches the second objective well because it can deal with most of the practical stamping parameters. FAST_FORM3D, a one-step FEM code released by Forming Technologies, matches the first objective because it only requires the part geometry and not the complex process information.
In a previous study, these two FE codes were applied to complex-shaped parts used in manufacturing automobiles and construction machinery. Their capabilities in predicting formability issues in stamping were evaluated. This paper reviews the results of this study and summarizes the recommended procedures for obtaining accurate and reliable results from FE simulations.
In another study, the effect of controlling the blank holder force (BHF) during the deep drawing of hemispherical, dome-bottomed cups was investigated. The standard automotive aluminum-killed, drawing-quality (AKDQ) steel was used as well as high performance materials such as high strength steel, bake hard steel, and aluminum 6111. It was determined that varying the BHF as a function of stroke improved the strain distributions in the domed cups.
Keywords: Stamping; Process ;stimulation; Process design
1. Introduction
The design process of complex shaped sheet metal stampings such as automotive panels, consists of many stages of decision making and is a very expensive and time consuming process. Currently in industry, many engineering decisions are made based on the knowledge of experienced personnel and these decisions are typically validated during the soft tooling and prototyping stage and during hard die tryouts. Very often the soft and hard tools must be reworked or even redesigned and remanufactured to provide parts with acceptable levels of quality.
The best case scenario would consist of the process outlined in Fig. 1. In this design process, the experienced product designer would have immediate feedback using a specially design software called one-step FEM to estimate the formability of their design. This would allow the product designer to make necessary changes up front as opposed to down the line after expensive tooling has been manufactured. One-step FEM is particularly suited for product analysis since it does not require binder, addendum, or even most process conditions. Typically this information is not available during the product design phase. One-step FEM is also easy to use and computationally fast, which allows the designer to play “what if” without much time investment.
Fig. 1. Proposed design process for sheet metal stampings.
Once the product has been designed and validated, the development project would enter the “time zero” phase and be passed onto the die designer. The die designer would validate his/her design with an incremental FEM code and make necessary design changes and perhaps even optimize the process parameters to ensure not just minimum acceptability of part quality, but maximum achievable quality. This increases product quality but also increase process robustness. Incremental FEM is particularly suited for die design analysis since it does require binder, addendum, and process conditions which are either known during die design or desired to be known.
The validated die design would then be manufactured directly into the hard production tooling and be validated with physical tryouts during which the prototype parts would be made. Tryout time should be decreased due to the earlier numerical validations. Redesign and remanufacturing of the tooling due to unforeseen forming problems should be a thing of the past. The decrease in tryout time and elimination of redesign/remanufacturing should more than make up for the time used to numerically validate the part, die, and process.
Optimization of the stamping process is also of great importance to producers of sheet stampings. By modestly increasing one's investment in presses, equipment, and tooling used in sheet forming, one may increase one's control over the stamping process tremendously. It has been well documented that blank holder force is one of the most sensitive process parameters in sheet forming and therefore can be used to precisely control the deformation process.
By controlling the blank holder force as a function of press stroke AND position around the binder periphery, one can improve the strain distribution of the panel providing increased panel strength and stiffness, reduced springback and residual stresses, increased product quality and process robustness. An inexpensive, but industrial quality system is currently being developed at the ERC/NSM using a combination of hydraulics and nitrogen and is shown in Fig. 2. Using BHF control can also allow engineers to design more aggressive panels to take advantage the increased formability window provided by BHF control.
Fig. 2. Blank holder force control system and tooling being developed at the ERC/NSM labs.
Three separate studies were undertaken to study the various stages of the design process. The next section describes a study of the product design phase in which the one-step FEM code FAST_FORM3D (Forming Technologies) was validated with a laboratory and industrial part and used to predict optimal blank shapes. Section 4 summarizes a study of the die design stage in which an actual industrial panel was used to validate the incremental FEM code Pam-Stamp (Engineering Systems Int'l). Section 5 covers a laboratory study of the effect of blank holder force control on the strain distributions in deep drawn, hemispherical, dome-bottomed cups.
2. Product simulation – applications
The objective of this investigation was to validate FAST_FORM3D, to determine FAST_FORM3D's blank shape prediction capability, and to determine how one-step FEM can be implemented into the product design process. Forming Technologies has provided their one-step FEM code FAST_FORM3D and training to the ERC/NSM for the purpose of benchmarking and research. FAST_FORM3D does not simulate the deformation history. Instead it projects the final part geometry onto a flat plane or developable surface and repositions the nodes and elements until a minimum energy state is reached. This process is computationally faster than incremental simulations like Pam-Stamp, but also makes more assumptions. FAST_FORM3D can evaluate formability and estimate optimal blank geometries and is a strong tool for product designers due to its speed and ease of use particularly during the stage when the die geometry is not available.
In order to validate FAST_FORM3D, we compared its blank shape prediction with analytical blank shape prediction methods. The part geometry used was a 5?in. deep 12?in. by 15?in. rectangular pan with a 1?in. flange as shown in Fig. 3. Table 1 lists the process conditions used. Romanovski's empirical blank shape method and the slip line field method was used to predict blank shapes for this part which are shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 3. Rectangular pan geometry used for FAST_FORM3D validation.
Table 1. Process parameters used for FAST_FORM3D rectangular pan validation
Fig. 4. Blank shape design for rectangular pans using hand calculations.
(a) Romanovski's empirical method; (b) slip line field analytical method.
Fig. 5(a) shows the predicted blank geometries from the Romanovski method, slip line field method, and FAST_FORM3D. The blank shapes agree in the corner area, but differ greatly in the side regions. Fig. 5(b)–(c) show the draw-in pattern after the drawing process of the rectangular pan as simulated by Pam-Stamp for each of the predicted blank shapes. The draw-in patterns for all three rectangular pans matched in the corners regions quite well. The slip line field method, though, did not achieve the objective 1?in. flange in the side region, while the Romanovski and FAST_FORM3D methods achieved the 1?in. flange in the side regions relatively well. Further, only the FAST_FORM3D blank agrees in the corner/side transition regions. Moreover, the FAST_FORM3D blank has a better strain distribution and lower peak strain than Romanovski as can be seen in Fig. 6.
Fig. 5. Various blank shape predictions and Pam-Stamp simulation results for the rectangular pan.
(a) Three predicted blank shapes; (b) deformed slip line field blank; (c) deformed Romanovski blank; (d) deformed FAST_FORM3D blank.
Fig. 6. Comparison of strain distribution of various blank shapes using Pam-Stamp for the rectangular pan.
(a) Deformed Romanovski blank; (b) deformed FAST_FORM3D blank.
To continue this validation study, an industrial part from the Komatsu Ltd. was chosen and is shown in Fig. 7(a). We predicted an optimal blank geometry with FAST_FORM3D and compared it with the experimentally developed blank shape as shown in Fig. 7(b). As seen, the blanks are similar but have some differences.
Fig. 7. FAST_FORM3D simulation results for instrument cover validation.
(a) FAST_FORM3D's formability evaluation; (b) comparison of predicted and experimental blank geometries.
Next we simulated the stamping of the FAST_FORM3D blank and the experimental blank using Pam-Stamp. We compared both predicted geometries to the nominal CAD geometry (Fig. 8) and found that the FAST_FORM3D geometry was much more accurate. A nice feature of FAST_FORM3D is that it can show a “failure” contour plot of the part with respect to a failure limit curve which is shown in Fig. 7(a). In conclusion, FAST_FORM3D was successful at predicting optimal blank shapes for a laboratory and industrial parts. This indicates that FAST_FORM3D can be successfully used to assess formability issues of product designs. In the case of the instrument cover, many hours of trial and error experimentation could have been eliminated by using FAST_FORM3D and a better blank shape could have been developed.
Fig. 8. Comparison of FAST_FORM3D and experimental blank shapes for the instrument cover.
(a) Experimentally developed blank shape and the nominal CAD geometry; (b) FAST_FORM3D optimal blank shape and the nominal CAD geometry.
3. Die and process simulation – applications
In order to study the die design process closely, a cooperative study was conducted by Komatsu Ltd. of Japan and the ERC/NSM. A production panel with forming problems was chosen by Komatsu. This panel was the excavator's cabin, left-hand inner panel shown in Fig. 9. The geometry was simplified into an experimental laboratory die, while maintaining the main features of the panel. Experiments were conducted at Komatsu using the process conditions shown in Table 2. A forming limit diagram (FLD) was developed for the drawing-quality steel using dome tests and a vision strain measurement system and is shown in Fig. 10. Three blank holder forces (10, 30, and 50?ton) were used in the experiments to determine its effect. Incremental simulations of each experimental condition was conducted at the ERC/NSM using Pam-Stamp.
Fig. 9. Actual product – cabin inner panel.
Table 2. Process conditions for the cabin inner investigation
Fig. 10. Forming limit diagram for the drawing-quality steel used in the cabin inner investigation.
At 10?ton, wrinkling occurred in the experimental parts as shown in Fig. 11. At 30?ton, the wrinkling was eliminated as shown in Fig. 12. These experimental observations were predicted with Pam-stamp simulations as shown in Fig. 13. The 30?ton panel was measured to determine the material draw-in pattern. These measurements are compared with the predicted material draw-in in Fig. 14. Agreement was very good, with a maximum error of only 10?mm. A slight neck was observed in the 30?ton panel as shown in Fig. 13. At 50?ton, an obvious fracture occurred in the panel.
Fig. 11. Wrinkling in laboratory cabin inner panel, BHF=10?ton.
Fig. 12. Deformation stages of the laboratory cabin inner and necking, BHF=30?ton.
(a) Experimental blank; (b) experimental panel, 60% formed; (c) experimental panel, fully formed; (d) experimental panel, necking detail.
Fig. 13. Predication and elimination of wrinkling in the laboratory cabin inner.
(a) Predicted geometry, BHF=10?ton; (b) predicted geometry, BHF=30?ton.
Fig. 14. Comparison of predicted and measured material draw-in for lab cabin inner, BHF=30?ton.
Strains were measured with the vision strain measurement system for each panel, and the results are shown in Fig. 15. The predicted strains from FEM simulations for each panel are shown in Fig. 16. The predictions and measurements agree well regarding the strain distributions, but differ slightly on the effect of BHF. Although the trends are represented, the BHF tends to effect the strains in a more localized manner in the simulations when compared to the measurements. Nevertheless, these strain prediction show that Pam-Stamp correctly predicted the necking and fracture which occurs at 30 and 50?ton. The effect of friction on strain distribution was also investigated with simulations and is shown in Fig. 17.
Fig. 15. Experimental strain measurements for the laboratory cabin inner.
(a) measured strain, BHF=10?ton (panel wrinkled); (b) measured strain, BHF=30?ton (panel necked); (c) measured strain, BHF =50?ton (panel fractured).
Fig. 16. FEM strain predictions for the laboratory cabin inner.
(a) Predicted strain, BHF=10?ton; (b) predicted strain, BHF=30?ton; (c) predicted strain, BHF=50?ton.
Fig. 17. Predicted effect of friction for the laboratory cabin inner, BHF=30?ton.
(a) Predicted strain, μ=0.06; (b) predicted strain, μ=0.10.
A summary of the results of the comparisons is included in Table 3. This table shows that the simulations predicted the experimental observations at least as well as the strain measurement system at each of the experimental conditions. This indicates that Pam-Stamp can be used to assess formability issues associated with the die design.
Table 3. Summary results of cabin inner study
4. Blank holder force control – applications
The objective of this investigation was to determine the drawability of various, high performance materials using a hemispherical, dome-bottomed, deep drawn cup (see Fig. 18) and to investigate various time variable blank holder force profiles. The materials that were investigated included AKDQ steel, high strength steel, bake hard steel, and aluminum 6111 (see Table 4). Tensile tests were performed on these materials to determine flow stress and anisotropy characteristics for analysis and for input into the simulations (see Fig. 19 and Table 5).
Fig. 18. Dome cup tooling geometry.
Table 4. Material used for the dome cup study
Fig. 19. Results of tensile tests of aluminum 6111, AKDQ, high strength, and bake hard steels.
(a) Fractured tensile specimens; (b) Stress/strain curves.
Table 5. Tensile test data for aluminum 6111, AKDQ, high strength, and bake hard steels
It is interesting to note that the flow stress curves for bake hard steel and AKDQ steel were very similar except for a 5% reduction in elongation for bake hard. Although, the elongations for high strength steel and aluminum 6111 were similar, the n-value for aluminum 6111 was twice as large. Also, the r-value for AKDQ was much bigger than 1, while bake hard was nearly 1, and aluminum 6111 was much less than 1.
The time variable BHF profiles used in this investigation included constant, linearly decreasing, and pulsating (see Fig. 20). The experimental conditions for AKDQ steel were simulated using the incremental code Pam-Stamp. Examples of wrinkled, fractured, and good laboratory cups are shown in Fig. 21 as well as an image of a simulated wrinkled cup.
Fig. 20. BHF time-profiles used for the dome cup study.
(a) Constant BHF; (b) ramp BHF; (c) pulsating BHF.
Fig. 21. Experimental and simulated dome cups.
(a) Experimental good cup; (b) experimental fractured cup; (c) experimental wrinkled cup; (d) simulated wrinkled cup.
Limits of drawability were experimentally investigated using constant BHF. The results of this study are shown in Table 6. This table indicates that AKDQ had the largest drawability window while aluminum had the smallest and bake hard and high strength steels were in the middle. The strain distributions for constant, ramp, and pulsating BHF are compared experimentally in Fig. 22 and are compared with simulations in Fig. 23 for AKDQ. In both simulations and experiments, it was found that the ramp BHF trajectory improved the strain distribution the best. Not only were peak strains reduced by up to 5% thereby reducing the possibility of fracture, but low strain regions were increased. This improvement in strain distribution can increase product stiffness and strength, decrease springback and residual stresses, increase product quality and process robustness.
Table 6. Limits of drawability for dome cup with constant BHF
Fig. 22. Experimental effect of time variable BHF on engineering strain in an AKDQ steel dome cup.
Fig. 23. Simulated effect of time variable BHF on true strain in an AKDQ steel dome cup.
Pulsating BHF, at the frequency range investigated, was not found to have an effect on strain distribution. This was likely due to the fact the frequency of pulsation that was tested was only 1?Hz. It is known from previous experiments of other researchers that proper frequencies range from 5 to 25?Hz [3]. A comparison of load-stroke curves from simulation and experiments are shown in Fig. 24 for AKDQ. Good agreement was found for the case where μ=0.08. This indicates that FEM simulations can be used to assess the formability improvements that can be obtained by using BHF control techniques.
Fig. 24. Comparison of experimental and simulated load-stroke curves for an AKDQ steel dome cup.
5 Conclusions and future work
In this paper, we evaluated an improved design process for complex stampings which involved eliminating the soft tooling phase and incorporated the validation of product and process using one-step and incremental FEM simulations. Also, process improvements were proposed consisting of the implementation of blank holder force control to increase product quality and process robustness.
Three separate investigations were summarized which analyzed various stages in the design process. First, the product design phase was investigated with a laboratory and industrial validation of the one-step FEM code FAST_FORM3D and its ability to assess formability issues involved in product design. FAST_FORM3D was successful at predicting optimal blank shapes for a rectangular pan and an industrial instrument cover. In the case of the instrument cover, many hours of trial and error experimentation could have been eliminated by using FAST_FORM3D and a better blank shape could have been developed.
Second, the die design