Multivariate modelling of variability in sheet metal forming

Abstract The inherent variability in incoming material and process conditions in sheet metal forming makes quality control and the maintenance of consistency extremely difficult. A single FEM simulation is successful at predicting the formability for a given system, however lacks the ability to capture the variability in an actual production process due to the numerical deterministic nature. This paper investigates a probabilistic analytical model where the variation of five input parameters and their relationship to the sensitivity of springback in a stamping process is examined. A range of sheet tensions are investigated, simulating different operating windows in an attempt to highlight robust regions where the distribution of springback is small. A series of FEM simulations were also performed, to compare with the findings from the analytical model using AutoForm Sigma v4.04 and to validate the analytical model assumptions. Results show that an increase in sheet tension not only decreases springback, but more importantly reduces the sensitivity of the process to variation. A relative sensitivity analysis has been performed where the most influential parameters and the changes in sensitivity at various sheet tensions have been investigated. Variation in the material parameters, yield stress and n -value were the most influential causes of springback variation, when compared to process input parameters such as friction, which had a small effect. The probabilistic model presented allows manufacturers to develop a more comprehensive assessment of the success of their forming processes by capturing the effects of inherent variation.

[1]  Thaweepat Buranathiti,et al.  Benchmark Simulation Results: Automotive Underbody Cross Member (Benchmark 2) , 2005 .

[2]  Farhang Pourboghrat,et al.  Prediction of spring-back and side-wall curl in 2-D draw bending , 1995 .

[3]  Karl D. Majeske,et al.  Identifying Sources of Variation in Sheet Metal Stamping , 2003 .

[4]  Wolfgang Laurig,et al.  Quality improvement through capable processes and ergonomic design , 1997 .

[5]  Farhang Pourboghrat,et al.  Springback in plane strain stretch/draw sheet forming , 1995 .

[6]  Thaweepat Buranathiti,et al.  Numisheet2005 Benchmark Analysis on Forming of an Automotive Underbody Cross Member: Benchmark 2 , 2005 .

[7]  Brad L. Kinsey,et al.  An experimental study to determine the feasibility of implementing process control to reduce part variation in a stamping plant , 1997 .

[8]  Duncan Manual,et al.  Six Sigma methodology: reducing defects in business processes , 2006 .

[9]  Thaweepat Buranathiti,et al.  Benchmark Simulation Results: Automotive Deck Lid Inner Panel (Benchmark 1) , 2005 .

[10]  Bernard Rolfe,et al.  Quantitative analysis of robustness in a simulated stamping process , 2006 .

[11]  C.-C. Chu,et al.  The effect of restraining force on springback , 1991 .

[12]  Z. Marciniak,et al.  The mechanics of sheet metal forming , 1992 .

[13]  Thaweepat Buranathiti,et al.  Benchmark Simulation Results: Channel Draw/Cylindrical Cup 2‐Stage Test (Benchmark 3) , 2005 .

[14]  Duško Pavletić,et al.  Application of Six Sigma methodology for process design , 2005 .

[15]  Yuyao Li,et al.  Application of Six Sigma Robust Optimization in Sheet Metal Forming , 2005 .

[16]  Jennifer Markarian Six Sigma: quality processing through statistical analysis , 2004 .

[17]  David K. Matlock,et al.  Influence of low-strain deformation characteristics of high strength sheet steel on curl and springback in bend-under-tension tests , 2007 .

[18]  R. G. Davies Springback in high-strength steels , 1981 .

[19]  Thaweepat Buranathiti,et al.  NUMISHEET2005 Benchmark Analysis on Forming of an Automotive Deck Lid Inner Panel: Benchmark 1 , 2005 .

[20]  Matthew Doolan,et al.  Identifying variation in sheet metal stamping , 2001 .

[21]  Masanobu Ueda,et al.  A study of springback in the stretch bending of channels , 1981 .