0
Research Papers

Indirect Strain Control in Aluminum Stamp Formed Pans

[+] Author and Article Information
William J. Emblom

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Louisiana at Lafayette,
P.O. Box 44170,
Lafayette, LA 70504
e-mail: wjemblom@louisiana.edu

Manuscript received July 8, 2016; final manuscript received April 1, 2017; published online May 11, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Gracious Ngaile.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 139(8), 081013 (May 11, 2017) (10 pages) Paper No: MANU-16-1373; doi: 10.1115/1.4036489 History: Received July 08, 2016; Revised April 01, 2017

A stamp forming die whose flexible blank holder (BH) was designed using finite element (FE) analysis was built. The tooling also included active draw beads, local wrinkling sensors, and local force transducers. Wrinkling was controlled using a proportional–integral–derivative (PID) feedback loop and blank holder force (BHF). Local forces in the tooling were also controlled using blank holder forces in a PID feedback loop. A third closed-loop control system that could be used to control local punch forces (LPF) near draw beads featured an advanced PID controller with a Smith Predictor and Kalman Filter. A Bang–bang controller was also incorporated into that control system in order to prevent control saturation. Fuzzy logic was used to transition from one controller to the other. Once closed-loop control was implemented, tests were performed in order to evaluate the strains in the pans for various forming conditions. These results were compared to open-loop tests and it was found that the strains' paths for closed-loop control tests resulted in convergence and were further from the forming limit than strains from open-loop control tests. Furthermore, it was seen that the strains in critical regions had more uniform strain fields once closed-loop control of local punch forces was implemented. Hence, it was concluded that controlling local punch forces resulted in the indirect control of strains in critical regions.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Process/Press optimization system

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Typical sheet metal stamping operation [9]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Aluminum test panel [4]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Location of the oval stamp forming research die instrumentation [4]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Schematic of forming and photo of lower die with sensors and draw beads [4]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Strains along path B for various BHF: BD = 3 mm and draw depth = 51 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Strains along path B for various DB: BHF = 83 kN and draw depth = 51 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Strains along path D and Pt B1 for BHF = 83 kN. Inside pan. Open-loop tests. Draw depth = 51 mm.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Path D and PT B1 for DB = 3 mm. Inside pan. Open-loop tests. Draw depth = 51 mm.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Strains at Pt B1. Inside pan. Draw depth = 51 mm: (a) BHF = 83 kN, DB varies and (b) DB = 1 mm, BHF varies.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Closed-loop control based upon BHP [4]: (a) LPF control and (b) wrinkle control

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Control of LPF based upon draw beads

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Demonstration of closed-loop control of LPF [4]: (a) control of LPF using BHF and (b) control of LPF using draw beads

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Quarter model of the oval pan showing strain paths [4]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Strains along path A for various DB positions: BHF = 110 kN and draw depth = 51 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Strains along path A for various BHF: DB = 3 mm and draw depth = 51 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Forming limit diagram: DB = 8 and BHF = 83 kN (failed at 42 mm draw depth)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

FLD of path B for various O–L forming conditions: BHF = 83 kN and draw depth = 51 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

FLD of path B for various O–L forming conditions: DB = 3 MM and draw depth = 51 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Closed-loop control. Strain path A. BHF = 83 kN and draw depth = 51 mm.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Strains in straight portion of pan. Draw depth = 51 mm: (a) major strains and (b) minor strains.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Strain path B forming limit diagram for closed-loop control of LPF 13 using draw beads: BHF = 83 KN and draw depth = 51 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Strains for path D and Pt B1 for closed-loop tests, variable corner BHF used to control LPF 15, variable middle BHF controlling wrinkles. DB = 2 mm unless stated. Draw depth = 51 mm.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

FLD for closed-loop control at die ends. Draw depth = 51 mm.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In