Sheet Metal Forming Process Design Rules Development

Antonio Del Prete; Gabriele Papadia; Teresa Primo

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.473.765

Paper Titles

DOE Analysis of the Effects of Geometrical Parameters on the Self-Piercing Riveting of Aluminium Alloy AA6060T4
p.733

Cutting Path Optimization Using Tabu Search
p.739

A Knowledge-Based System for Manufacturability Assessment of Deep Drawn Sheet Metal Parts
p.749

A Holistic Modeling Approach for the Design of Tension Leveling and Scale Breaking Processes and Equipment
p.757

Sheet Metal Forming Process Design Rules Development
p.765

Employment of Finite Element Modelling and Design of Experiments to Investigate the Geometrical Factors in T-Type Bi-Layered Tube Hydroforming
p.775

Continuous Improvement of Manufacturing Systems with the Concept of Functional Periodicity
p.783

Experimental Investigation of Parameters Effect on Laser Forming Productiveness
p.791

Design for Manufacture Based on an Integrated Product Process Design Model
p.799

HomeKey Engineering MaterialsKey Engineering Materials Vol. 473Sheet Metal Forming Process Design Rules...

Sheet Metal Forming Process Design Rules Development

Abstract:

Finite element analysis (FEA) is a powerful tool to evaluate the formability of stamping parts during process and die design development procedures. However, in order to achieve good product quality and process reliability, FEA application has to be performed many times exploring different process parameters combinations. Meanwhile, it is very difficult to perform an exhaustive process design definition when many parameters play a fundamental role to define such a complex problem. So, under the needs of reduction in: design time, development cost and parts weight, there is an urgent need to develop and apply more efficient methods in order to improve the current design procedures. For a generic component it is clear how its shape, among several parameters, has a direct influence on its feasibility. Starting from this assumption, the authors have developed a new approach grouping components upon their shapes analyzing component formability within a given “component family”. Nowadays, it exists only a process designer “sensitivity” that produces a ranking upon shape/feasibility ratio. Having as reference industrial test cases, the authors have defined appropriate shape parameters in order to have dimensionless coefficients representative for the given geometries. In particular, the components have been classified using a parameters set defining similarity families: related to geometrical aspects and to constitutive material. From the geometrical point of view the following parameters have been defined: family name, shape factor, punch radius-thickness ratio, die radius-thickness ratio, while for the constitutive material a code has been defined. FEA has been extensively used in order to: define, investigate and validate each shape parameter with a proper comparison to the macro feasibility of the chosen component geometry. The feasibility configuration definition, for a given shape, has been made through an appropriate study of the influence of each process variable on the properly process performances.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

View Preview

Info:

Periodical:

Key Engineering Materials (Volume 473)

Pages:

765-772

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.473.765

Citation:

Cite this paper

Online since:

March 2011

Authors:

Antonio Del Prete, Gabriele Papadia, Teresa Primo

Keywords:

Finite Element Analysis (FEA), Key Performance Indexes, Shape Parameter, Sheet Metal Forming

Export:

RIS, BibTeX

Price:

Permissions:

Request Permissions

References

[1] W. Thomas, T. Altan, Application of computer modelling in manufacturing of automotive stampings, Steel Res. 69 (4/5) (1998) 181–187.

DOI: 10.1002/srin.199801470

Google Scholar

[2] A. Makinouchi, Sheet metal forming simulation in industry, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 60 (1996) 19–26.

Google Scholar

[3] A. Del Prete, T. Primo, G. Papadia, B. Manisi, Feasibility evaluation of sheet metal hydroformed components through shape factors application", SheMet, 09 Conference, 6 – 8 Aprile 2009, Birmingham, Vols. 410-411 (2009) pp.25-36, ISSN 1013-9826.

DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/kem.410-411.25

Google Scholar

[4] Del Prete A., Anglani A., Primo T., Manisi B., Numerical and Experimental Validation for Sheet Metal Hydroforming Process Rules, Steel research int. 79 (2008), Special Edition Metal Forming Conference 2008, Volume 2, pp.301-308.

Google Scholar

[5] Del Prete A., Elia A., Primo T., Manisi B., Process Automation Tools Development for Sheet Metal Hydroforming Simulation, ISC 5th International Simulation Conference, Delft, The Netherlands, EUROSIS publication, June 2007, ISBN 978-90-77381-34-2, pp.114-118.

Google Scholar

[6] Del Prete A., Primo T., Papadia G., Manisi B., Process Rules for Sheet Metal Hydroforming, ISC 5th International Simulation Conference, Delft, The Netherlands, EUROSIS publication, June 2007, ISBN 978-90-77381- 34-2, pp.109-113.

Google Scholar

[7] The Data Warehouse Toolkit, second edition (Wiley), Hoepli, Kimball Ralph, Ross Margy (2003).

Google Scholar

[8] Liu Wei, Yang Yuying, Multi-objective optimization of sheet metal forming process using Pareto-based genetic algorithm, Journal of materials processing technology 208 (2008) 499–506.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2008.01.014

Google Scholar