Improved mapping workflow with HM 11

Transcription

1 Dipl.-Ing.M. Meyer, M. Eng. D. Pielok, Dipl.-Ing. M. Heuse (all Faurecia) Dipl.-Ing. G. de los Rios, Dipl.-Ing. A. Hülsmann (all Altair) 8. November 2011

2 Content Short introduction on Faurecia Mapping workflow Actual workflow New approach Part 1: Results with HyperMesh 11 RIS HyperForm 11 Part 2: Parameter local bending Part 3: Parameter blank holder force Part 4: Parameter holes Part 5: variation of forming mesh size Conclusion 2

3 Content Short introduction on Faurecia Mapping workflow Actual workflow New approach Part 1: Results with HyperMesh 11 RIS HyperForm 11 Part 2: Parameter local bending Part 3: Parameter blank holder force Part 4: Parameter holes Part 5: variation of forming mesh size Conclusion 3

4 Faurecia overview 75,000 employees* 238 sites 33 countries Group revenues: 13.8 billion 38 R&D centers 2010 key figures 4,500 R&D engineers and technicians 300 patents filed in 2010 Annual R&D budget: 1 billion Listed on Euronext Paris (SBF compartment A) 1- Denso 2- Bosch 3- Conti 4- Aisin Seiki 5- Magna 6- Faurecia* 11,4 7- Delphi 8- ZF 9- Faurecia JCI auto 11- TRW 10- Thyssen Krupp 12- BASF 13- Valeo 14-Yazaki 15- Lear 17- Mobis 18- JTEKT 19- Hitachi The world's top automotive equipment suppliers (2009 revenues b) 16- Toyota Boshoku 20- Sumitomo electric N 6 worldwide equipment supplier *4 BGs + HQ 4

5 2010 revenues by Business Group n 2 worldwide 1.3 bn 10% n 1 worldwide 4.8 bn 22% Group revenues 13.8 bn 35% n 1 worldwide 3.1 bn 33% n 1 worldwide in mechanisms 4.6 bn 5

6 Faurecia Seating key figures

7 Content Short introduction on Faurecia Mapping workflow Actual workflow New approach Part 1: Results with HyperMesh 11 RIS HyperForm 11 Part 2: Parameter local bending Part 3: Parameter blank holder force Part 4: Parameter holes Part 5: variation of forming mesh size Conclusion 7

8 Stamping department Problem: actual workflow Stamping model one step Time issue One step simulation Thinning? Crash model Crash simulation without mapping Buckling of parts? Plastic strain? Crash department Additional simulation Issue: Efficiency and flexibility in project Stamping model Element based multi geometry step change w/o CAD file Change of part Multi thickness step and material simulation Mapping with one step solver Buckling of mapped parts? Mapping with incremental solver 8

9 Stamping department New approach One step simulation Hyperform in HM 11 Crash model Crash simulation with one step mapping for all parts in force flow Crash department Stamping model multi step Buckling of mapped parts? Multi step simulation Mapping with incremental solver 9

10 New approach in HM 11 Workflow in HM 11: Create crash model with all (material, contact, fastener, etc.) Start Result Implementation Solver (RIS) tool in HM Choose parts for mapping Mesh, material and part thickness are taken from crash model More then 1 can be chosen One step solver starts Result: equivalent plastic strain and thickness 10

11 New approach in HM 11 Positive: Mapping one step will be standard for all parts Less crash simulations Faster time to implement one step mapping (>5 min per part) No need of additional meshing No need of CAD No need of additional material database Easy handling of tool, no need of stamping knowledge No need of additional license Negative: Additional simulations for FEA pilots No check from stamping department if stamping results are ok One step simulation is done twice for formability check by stamping department and for mapping by crash department 11

12 Content Short introduction on Faurecia Mapping workflow Actual workflow New approach Part 1: Results with HyperMesh 11 RIS HyperForm 11 Part 2: Parameter local bending Part 3: Parameter blank holder force Part 4: Parameter holes Part 5: variation of forming mesh size Conclusion 12

13 Master thesis: September 2010 February 2011 Task of the study: Validation of new work flow 4 typical seat parts Static load case Deformation represents real deformation from crash test Master thesis is in cooperation with Altair Germany pull direction fixation 13

14 Part 1: HyperMesh 11 result Comparison: Base model w/o mapping Mapping with forming suite results (one step) Mapping with LS-Dyna results (multi step) Mapping with RIS tool in HW 11 Target: RIS tool in HM 11 should reach: Minimum: forming suite result mapping Maximum: LS-Dyna result mapping 14

15 Part 1: HyperMesh 11 result Difference between FS and Dyna Difference between HM and Dyna Dplast strain = Dyna FS Dplast strain = Dyna HM 15

16 Part 1: HyperMesh 11 result Difference between FS and Dyna Difference between HM and Dyna Dthickness = Dyna FS Dthickness = Dyna HM 16

17 Part 1: HyperMesh 11 result Force vs. displacement Deformation seat sidemeber A seat sidemeber B backrest sidemember A backrest sidemember B LS-Dyna forming suite HM 11 RIS base w/o mapping 100% 98,9% 91,1% 83,9% 100% 96,0% 90,9% 91,7% 100% 97,4% 96,1% 90,8% 100% 98,4% 96,7% 88,5% The results with the actual version of HM 11 doesn t reach the result of forming suite process What is the reason for that? 17

18 Part 1: Conclusion and next steps The results are far away from the results with forming suite one step solver. What can be the reason? In HyperForm the following functions are available: Local bending on / off Blank holder forces none / low / medium / high Additional remarks from stamping simulation: Holes are closed before forming and cut afterwards Stamping simulation is done with finer mesh as in crash simulation To get the potential we used for the next steps for forming process HyperForm, but we keep the same mesh size 18

19 Content Short introduction on Faurecia Mapping workflow Actual workflow New approach Part 1: Results with HyperMesh 11 RIS HyperForm 11 Part 2: Parameter local bending Part 3: Parameter blank holder force Part 4: Parameter holes Part 5: variation of forming mesh size Conclusion 19

20 Part 2: HyperForm 11 result, Parameter local bending Local bending: Comparison of local bending on and off Explanation: Source: Stoughton, T.: Model of Drawbead Forces in Sheet Metal Forming. Michigan: 1990 With the local bending option the function of the draw beads is integrated in the one step solver The function of an draw bead is to prestrain the material. Also the flow of the material into the deep will be reduced. HyperForm as there is no geometry of the draw bead and no material makes an assumption of the influence. Material flow 20

21 Part 2: HyperForm 11 result, Parameter local bending Difference between FS and Dyna Difference between HF and Dyna Dplast strain = Dyna FS Dplastic strain = Dyna HF lb 21

22 Part 2: HyperForm 11 result, Parameter local bending Difference between FS and Dyna Difference between HF and Dyna Dthickness = Dyna FS Dthickness = LS HF lb 22

23 Part 2: HyperForm 11 result, Parameter local bending Force vs. displacement Deformation seat sidemeber A seat sidemeber B backrest sidemember A backrest sidemember B LS-Dyna forming suite HF 11 with local bending HF 11 w/o local bending 100% 98,9% 91,1% 99,6% 100% 96,0% 90,9% 97,8% 100% 97,4% 96,1% 96,5% 100% 98,4% 96,7% 98,5% By deactivating local bending the results are close to forming suite 23

24 Part 3: HyperForm 11 result, Parameter blank holder Blank holder force: Possible choice: None, low, medium, high Comparison here: None and low blank holder die Explanation: blank In one step simulation the force will be implemented at the edges of the shells in plane direction HyperForm calculates the forces internally depending on the sheet thickness The user can define the force by the choice of none (0%), low (20%), medium (50%) and high (80%) The blank holder avoids the material flow into the tool. blank holder force in one step solver Source: Tschätsch, H. u. Dietrich, J.: Praxis der Umformtechnik Arbeitsverfahren, Maschinen, Werkzeuge. 9. Auflage. Wiesbaden: Vieweg Teubner,

25 Part 3: HyperForm 11 result, Parameter blank holder The plastic strain increase Increase by 18% The thickness decrease decrease about 0,1 mm 25

26 Part 3: HyperForm 11 result, Parameter blank holder Force vs. displacement Deformation seat sidemeber A backrest sidemember A LS-Dyna forming suite HF 11 blankholder none HF 11 blankholder low 100% 98,9% 99,6% 81,9% 100% 97,4% 96,5% 90,3% The blank holder force low has a negative influence on the result. 26

27 Part 4: HyperForm 11 result, Parameter holes Closed holes: Forming of inner contour Trimming operation Turning down of flange 27

28 Part 4: HyperForm 11 result, Parameter holes Difference between closed and opened holes Dplastic strain = open - closed 28

29 Part 4: HyperForm 11 result, Parameter holes Difference between closed and opened holes Dthickness = open - closed 29

30 Part 4: HyperForm 11 result, Parameter holes 30

31 Part 4: HyperForm 11 result, Parameter holes Force vs. displacement Deformation seat sidemeber A seat sidemeber B backrest sidemember A backrest sidemember B The effect of closed holes is visible. LS-Dyna forming suite HF 11 open holes HF 11 closed holes 100% 98,9% 99,6% 100,1% 100% 96,0% 97,8% 97,5% 100% 97,4% 96,5% 96,6% 100% 98,4% 98,5% 98,3% The influence on the result is in these examples less 31

32 Part 5: HyperForm 11 result, variation of forming mesh size Classic process Fine meshed model for stamping Coarse meshed model for crash Mapping process: Lose of details New process Coarse meshed model for stamping Coarse meshed model for crash Lose of geometrical details 32

33 Part 5: HyperForm 11 result, variation of forming mesh size Difference between fine and crash mesh for mapping Dplastic strain = fine - crash 33

34 Part 5: HyperForm 11 result, variation of forming mesh size Difference between fine and crash mesh for mapping Dthickness = open - closed 34

35 Part 5: HyperForm V11 result, variation of forming mesh size Force vs. displacement Deformation seat sidemeber A seat sidemeber B backrest sidemember A backrest sidemember B LS-Dyna forming suite HF 11 crash mesh HF 11 fine mesh 100% 98,9% 99,6% 100,1% 100% 96,0% 97,8% 100,7% 100% 97,4% 96,5% 97,2% 100% 98,4% 98,5% 98,7% Results by using crash mesh for forming simulation as good as using results from fine meshed parts 35

36 Content Short introduction on Faurecia Mapping workflow Actual workflow New approach Part 1: Results with HyperMesh 11 RIS HyperForm 11 Part 2: Parameter local bending Part 3: Parameter blankholder Part 4: Parameter holes Part 5: variation of forming mesh size Conclusion 36

37 Conclusion RIS tool in HyperMesh 11: The mapping by using the RIS tool in HW 11 will be usable if: Local bending will be deactivated Blank holder force set to none Preference file planed to do the predefined standards In the moment bending force are set to middle. Can be changed by the user to none Holes are closed Tool for automatic close and reopen will be available These options be available with the HyperWorks V update planed for Q

38 Thank you for your attention! 38