1 / 30

Matteo Strano Università di Cassino, Dip. Ingegneria Industriale Cassino (FR), Italy

Robustness Evaluation and Tolerance Prediction for a Stamping Process with Springback Calculation by the FEM. Matteo Strano Università di Cassino, Dip. Ingegneria Industriale Cassino (FR), Italy m.strano@unicas.it http://webuser.unicas.it/tsl. Outline of the presentation.

clio
Download Presentation

Matteo Strano Università di Cassino, Dip. Ingegneria Industriale Cassino (FR), Italy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Robustness Evaluation and Tolerance Prediction for a Stamping Process with Springback Calculation by the FEM Matteo Strano Università di Cassino, Dip. Ingegneria Industriale Cassino (FR), Italy m.strano@unicas.it http://webuser.unicas.it/tsl

  2. Outline of the presentation • Objectives of the research • An IDEF model of the FEM simulations • The model setup • The FEM simulation setup • Variables of the IDEF model • The random input vector x • The output geometrical response • Evaluating the geometrical robustness • Sensitivity analysis • Montecarlo simulation • Response Surface Methodology • A new Upper Bound method • Comparing the different methods • Conclusions

  3. Control variables u Output response variables x Input process parameters d IDEF Model of the FEM Simulation Numisheet ’05 benchmark #2 OBJECTIVES FEM simulation

  4. u x d IDEF model: the benchmark ’05 - #2 Numisheet ’05 benchmark #2 OBJECTIVES -Binder force -Binder travel deterministic model -Deviation from reference geometry -Sheet thickness -Young modulus -Anisotropy r-values -Friction f-values etc. FEM simulation

  5. random output random input vector u unknowndistribution & moments covariance x mean d IDEF model: uncertainty Incorporate uncertainty into x OBJECTIVES FEM simulation

  6. The FEM simulation setup • Solver • Pam-Stamp 2g, with springback • Drawbeads • Physical • Mesh • Quadrangular Belytschko-Tsay,5 integration points, initial size 10 mm • Material • isotropic Hill ’48 hardening, orthotropic material with given r0, r45 and r90, • Flow stress law OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP

  7. FEM simulation The random input vector x • The vector x has 11 components Nx=11 • x1=K, x2=n, x3=e0 (flow stress parameters) • x4=t(initial sheet thickness) • x5=r0, x6=r45, x7=r90 (anisotropy parameters) • x8=E(young modulus) • x9=fb, x10=fd, x11=fp(friction coefficients between the blank and the binder, the upper die and the lower punch) OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP High dimensional problem

  8. estimating The random input vector x • Mean vector • Given nominal values • Covariance matrix • ANOVA + correlation analysis for x1 to x8 • No data available for x9 to x11 (friction coefficients) • Assumptions on mean and standard deviation OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP

  9. The random input vector x • Mean vector • Covariance matrix OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP

  10. d FEM simulation The reference geometry is obtained by running a simulation with nominal values of x0 The output response • Geometrical deviation OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP For every simulation run, the position of the formed sheet afterspringback must befixed

  11. d FEM simulation = The output response • Geometrical deviation OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP For every simulation run, the position of the formed sheet afterspringback must befixed +

  12. totally fixed X and Y fixed Calculating d: positioning the sheet • Method A • 2 reference points + symmetry plane OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP after springback

  13. A: reference geometry B: sampled geometry B A Calculating d: positioning the sheet • Method A • 2 reference points + symmetry plane OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP distance d- after springback

  14. A: reference geometry B: sampled geometry B A Calculating d: positioning the sheet • Method A • 2 reference points + symmetry plane OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP distance d+ after springback

  15. Calculating d: positioning the sheet Symmetry plane • Method B • rotating and translating each shape until the error d is minimized • exact estimation of d but computationally expensive OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP Z Y X after springback

  16. 1 point fixed in space Calculating d: positioning the sheet • Method C OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP Positioning plane Y after springback

  17. d5 d4 d2 d3 d1 Evaluating the geometrical robustness • Goal • estimating the variation of thegeometrical deviation • average values OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP ROBUSTNESS

  18. Upper Confidence Limit of dat99.7% = Evaluating the geometrical robustness • Goal • estimating the variation of thegeometrical deviation • average values OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP ROBUSTNESS width of 6s tolerance intervalof the final shape 

  19. Evaluating the geometrical robustness • Alternative methods • Inexpensive and rough • Sensitivity analysis • changing 1 parameters each simulation • … • Approximate upper bound method • … • Expensive and precise • Montecarlo simulation • Response Surface Methodology • ... OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP ROBUSTNESS

  20. Montecarlo simulation • Sampling Nmc combinations from the multinormal • All statistics canbe calculated • Average valuesand confidencelimitsstabilize as Nmc increases OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP ROBUSTNESS

  21. Response Surface Methodology • Full second order polynomial regression model for d as a function of x • reduced dimensionality for xusing normal anisotropy • A new vector can be formed • The “metamodel” can be used for calculating all statistics, including OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP ROBUSTNESS

  22. x2 3 x1 Approximate upper bound method Hp: components of x standardized and independently distributed • probability density function is a spheroid • take the spheroid with radius 3 (6s interval) • sample a (small) number of points on this spheroid • extreme conditions are selected • geometrical deviation of final shape will be larger than for any other pointfalling within the 6s sphere OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP ROBUSTNESS

  23. x2 3 x1 Approximate upper bound method Hp: components of x standardized and independently distributed • probability density function is a spheroid • take the sphere with radius 3 (6s interval) • sample a (small) number of points on this sphere • calculate average values of this boundary sample (not the population) OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP ROBUSTNESS can be taken as an upper bound estimate of

  24. x2 x2 3 x1 x1 Approximate upper bound method If the components of x are correlated • the density function is an ellipsoid • the mahalanobis transformation can be used for sampling on the 6s boundary of the ellipsoid OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP ROBUSTNESS

  25. Comparing the different methods • Available results • Montecarlo provides all OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP ROBUSTNESS COMPARISON

  26. Comparing the different methods • Available results • RSM may provide and only if a regression model is built OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP ROBUSTNESS COMPARISON

  27. Comparing the different methods • Available results • UB provides only OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP ROBUSTNESS COMPARISON

  28. Comparing the different methods • Accuracy and cost • UB with 20 runs is close to RSM and MC OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP ROBUSTNESS COMPARISON

  29. Conclusions • A method has been proposed for evaluating robustness of sheet metal forming operations • Estimating the width dUCL of the tolerance band for the final part shape, requires: • Preliminary estimation of the covariance matrix S of the random input vector x • A method for calculating the geometrical deviation d of each simulation from the reference geometry • A statistical method for calculating dUCL, the 6s interval of d OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP ROBUSTNESS COMPARISON CONCLUSIONS

  30. Conclusions • method for calculating d • Method A (benchmark) • Method B (exact, minimization of d) • Method C (proposed) • Less expensive but not exact (overestimates d) • method for calculating dUCL, the 6s interval of d • Montecarlo • RSM • proposed UB approach • Less expensive, provides close upper bound OBJECTIVES MODEL SETUP ROBUSTNESS COMPARISON CONCLUSIONS

More Related