As competition in the car market increases, the techniques for car manufacturing are developed and becomes more advanced to be able to keep up with the pace. The development process of car body components has shifted over the years to involve more simulation driven testing than ever before to save time and money in the early stages of development. As the importance of reliable sheet metal forming simulations grows, inconsistencies between simulations and physical stamping can be detrimental to the development time if stamping dies need to be reworked because of poor correlation between physics and simulations. The aim of this study is to improve the coherence between physical stamping and the simulation software used by Volvo Cars. The coherence is determined by studying different properties of the result in simulations and comparing them to measurements taken on the corresponding physical stamped parts. A comparison was done between the current standard simulation software, Autoform Forming R8 and a beta version of Autoform Forming R10. The objectives of this study were to compare the sheet thickness, strain, draw-in and ability to predict material failure between the two simulation software to see which of them correlate best to the physical measured parts. The workflow consisted of initially setting up the simulations in Autoform Forming R8. Some of the simulations could begin testing right away, while others required needed some geometry rework as the physical tested parts had been stamped with modified stamping dies. When the simulation setups were completed copies of the simulations were taken and run on Autoform Forming R10 to compare with. The simulations were run with a varied Triboform friction models and some of the simulations were run using symmetry to reduce the simulation time. When data was compared Autoform Forming was used when possible and when additional tools were needed the simulated geometries were exported and compared in software such as SVIEW and GOM Correlate. The result showed relatively low differences in the comparisons of sheet thickness and major and minor strain as neither of the simulations seemed to give more accurate values compared to the measurements. A slight improvement in the draw-in comparison was found for the Autoform Forming R10 compared to the R8 simulation. In the material failure prediction a major difference was found where the Autoform Forming R10 simulations were better at determining splits than R8. However the splits were only discovered with 2 of the 4 tested friction models in the R10 simulations while the 1 of the 4 simulations indicated risks for a split in the R8 simulation. In conclusion the simulations run on Autoform Forming R10 seem to be better at predicting splits and draw-in dimensions while no major differences were found in the comparisons of strain and sheet thickness.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:bth-22585 |
| Date | January 2022 |
| Creators | Torstensson, Alexander |
| Publisher | Blekinge Tekniska Högskola, Institutionen för maskinteknik |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0133 seconds