15 sifufi 3 n.o. - s.fu so

Forming Design of Fuel Tank Component Using Nonlinear Finite

Element Method

rn/m-5

fiiwiyn IOHO

IOHO

10540

Tsl'rf1'UBi8SjjJw«iiJJi:5if)iis'Mti*3iiJtfiJJiioi)i4jiJi'n0'Hin5siJ7tjni5iiiijilfii'MiJis;Hu uim

M 3

r,mi niafi i ihinQiaetrwuasuwnj'uirusTiJ n?aSfi 2 M

uasnififi 3 l^nftvoijijvo^iu^iu 2

2

Abstract

Many metal automotive pans are produced b\: stamping while there are many relevant parameters in the process

design. To be able to efficiently design the pan manufacturing, the designer needs to have sufficient knowledge and

understanding to metal part processing as well as to apply computer models before the implementation of physical tryouts

is carried out. This paper investigates stamping of a fuel tank component by applying finite element methods to analyze

the formability to determine the optimal forming process. The main parameters of interest are the part configuration and

blank configuration. A number of correction attempts are successively made to successfully form the part. From the

17

ilfi 15 fltfufl 3 n.o. - s.fi. 50

analysis of 3 case studies, it is found that the first case results wrinkling and tearing. The second case, which has

drawbead to correct wrinkles, results a reduction of wrinkling and tearing. The third case, which trims 2 edges of the

blank and modifies drawbead groove, results a better part than the previous 2 cases and passes the formability

requirements.

Keywords : Nonlinear Finite Element Method, Forming Design. Formability Analysis. Fuel Tank Component, Drawbead

(Automotive Industry)

s n inn

en ii an ij f nil i -sun swam 1001-3 snecuo-a

no o,?ia"iwniiiunawu?'uen'u

OUfl (Automotive Parts Industry) "JMHll

y v

Nflfll?)EJlll]ljfllJ1lJ (Stamping)

e-Added) M

(Mass Production)

(repeatable quality) [1] lumi

(Forming Design) iw?f'31Jtnt)14«fi

ina (Tearing) (Wrinkle) uns

(Springback) s (Die)

(Tooling)

21 fi [2]

11?iaoiJ9f ̂ (Tryouts)

(Finite Element Method w o FEM)

Dv-naform [3] lumrjifmsMmsmu

(detect free)

ntf«4lwjilfi i

X50cmX20 cm

UNU

ilisinai i m

18

1floSifu«tt)tJfniHa?imiM 3 fluviovj no (i) nssiy

aiflVUnl (Draw process); (2) ni£t)TUmiM1iail (Trim

process): (3) n?£inum?!in£| (Drill process)

Lower die

CAD w^«iuJ«iJii

(Upper Die) a d T U l l ' U H

(Lower Die)

(Lower Die) iJg'l

i (Binder)

ll~H~m

ilfi 15 offim 3 n.o. - s.n. 50

(Upper Die) Tl£

(Binder) !!ci£

(Lower Die) i

(Relative Motion) t

3.

SGTSE

MPa

44

Curve)

0.9 mm.

(Tensile Strength) inflflll 270 MPa

(Yield Strength) inflflll 150

(%Elongation) JJintTJI

(Flow

(Uniaxial Tensile Test) 1?lt)?niJ1?OTltiynw

[4-6]

a (Flow curve)

s" ( i )

K f)8 Strength coefficient llfl£ » H8 Hardening

exponent ?inmi1lniiTifins iHanjjn?it)Oti

(Regression Analysis) wl&hlbsinfU K = 354.08

N'mmMms n = 0.18737

Illfl 3 imet-3 Flo

19

m 15 oirufi 3 n.o. - s.n. 50

9w™2345

1

2345

12345

25.0025.0025.0025.0025.00

25.0025.0025.0025.0025.00

25.0025.0025.0025.0025.00

21.4221.4421.4021.4521.45

21.45L 21.48

21.4421 4521 43

21.4621 4721.4521.4621.47

0.90.90.90.90.9

0.90.9090.90.9

0 90.90.90.90.9

0.84

0.840.85

0.850.84

0.85

0.850.86

0.850.86

0840850.840.84

0.85

fn ln(Wo/Wx)0.15450.15360.15550.15320.1532

0.15320.15180.15360.15320.1541

0.15270 15220.15320.15270 1522

en Inlto/txl0.06900.06900.0572005720.06899

avg R90

0.057160.057160045460057160.04546

avg R«

0.068990057160.06899006899005716

avgR0

R2.24012.22662.72022.67942.2198

2.4172

2.67942.65503.37902.67943.3893

2.9564

2213126631221982.21312.6631

2.3944

4.1.

R)

IflJffl £w flO

£ flB

(R-value mo Plastic Strain Ratio Ml 0

(2)

(Width Strain) UctJ

(Thickness Strain) 'V<

(Pre-Processing) S

CAD

FEM <«?nimfllC!lbufl11J Dynaform

(Meshing)

ttJJJJOTIV! Planar Anisotropy

n o ~^ ^H>O 45 , ^ ,

-= ~^~

Ifltm Rav flB fhlijaEJ'UtH R-value; RO, /?45, Rm f!0 fil R-

value ^l?)ll?l?n3Jll%4T 0, 45, 90 0-3fTl fnUlSWIIflDe-Si y

iflW 2.6811

(Higher order elements) l l f l l

(3D -Shell

Element)

(Plane Stress)

4.

FEM)

Belytschko-Tsay [7](Nonlinear

(Large Aspect Ratio) FITS

20

(Rigid Body)

1 000-5000 mm/s

4.2.y

(Solving)

(Solver)

LS-DYNA [8] ^ifluWnm^DUlllJ Explicit

FEM

4.2. milifins-Hwasflaa^

(Post-Processing)

FEM

5.

5.1.

(Ideal Blank Configuration)

(Inverse Analysis) Iwllbsimu Dynaform

MSTEP M^ima^lwillfl 4

3 n.y. - s.n. 50

) Nonlinear

FEM

(Forming Limit Diagram wfo FLD)

?ifi [9]

ln 5 uaeu FLD ii

21

5.2.

Size) IfttlfrmUflWffi 680X1 220 mm.

6

(Blank

Size)

wufl«4l'Utlfi i

1 nttft-5 FLD 1ie^5flqutl|llnia Blank size

tlfi 15 yum 3 n.u. - s.fi. 50

tu unaj

(Blank V-U

a (Draw

Upper Die !!f1S

Binder 1'H2m'U?01J1llcH'l4iinn'U81)5\J^1\4<lJl£lJ1W 15

mm. 1l%J1?l'iU0^7'0^?l1BlJflll?ffl4?njJ'5tl?l 8 UflS 9

Drawbead

Tooling T l a i J Drawbead

10 Blank

22

ilfi 15 nuufi 3 n.o. - s.n. 50

\ 1

Section cut D-D (1:1)

Section cut A-A

Section cut F-F (1:1)

Section cut E-E (1:1)

Section cut B-B

Section cut C-C

12

23

tlfi IS flimfi 3 n.a. - s.n. 50

16 liff«'inil1'Ma«TUB-JllNt4laM£lumwll Blank

Size

Blank size

16

i? fi 2

ufintmlu'inu 30%

mi-s

8.

DBtlBllfjaj Engineering Technology Associates

Inc. (ETA) USA ?1slbtJ?mTJJfW1u'!lbufl1iJ Dynaform

in. t?TH11l

9.

[1]

[3]

Buranathiti, T., Cao, J., Xia, Z.C., and Chen, W.,

Probabilistic Design in a Sheet Metal Stamping

Process under Failure Analysis. The 6th International

Conference and Workshop on Numerical Simulation

of 3D Sheet Forming Processes NUMISHEET.

Detroit. Vol. A: pp. 867-872. 2005.

vnmii iJiajiii. miHammjaulu

21,

^ni) 2549

: u. 172-176. 2549.

ETA. 2005. Dynaform: User's Manual Version 5.2.

25

[4] Hill. R.. The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity.

Clarendon Press. Oxford. 355p. 1950.

[5] Hosford. W. F., and Caddell, R. M.. Metal Forming:

Mechanics and Metallurgy, Prentice-Hall, Inc. New-

Jersey, 3 64p, 1993.

[6] Wagoner. R.H.. and Chenot, J.-L.. Metal Forming

Analysis. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

376p. 2001.

o tlfi 15 otfufi 3 n.a. - s.n. 50

[7] Belytschko. T.. Lin. J.I.. and Tsai. C.S.. Explicit

Algorithms for One Point Quadrature Shell Element,

Computational Methods in Applied Mechanics and

Engineering, Vol. 42, pp. 225-251, 1984.

[8] LSTC, 2006, LS-DYNA: User's Manual. Version

970.

[9] Marciniak. Z.. and Kuczynski. K.. Limit Strains in

the Processes of Stretch-Forming Sheet Metal.

International Journal of Mechanical Science, Vol. 9,

9; pp. 609-620,1967.

26