Research Papers

Optimization of Preform Design in Tadeusz Rut Forging of Heavy Crankshafts

[+] Author and Article Information
Min Churl Song

Forging Engineering Team,
Hyundai Steel, Co. Ltd,
Suncheon 58034, South Korea
e-mail: kalsong@hyundai-steel.com

Chester J. VanTyne

Department of Metallurgical
and Materials Engineering,
Colorado School of Mines,
Golden, CO 80401
e-mail: cvantyne@mines.edu

Jin Rae Cho

Department of Naval Architecture
and Ocean Engineering,
Hongik University,
Sejong 339-701, South Korea
e-mail: jrcho@hongik.ac.kr

Young Hoon Moon

School of Mechanical Engineering,
Pusan National University,
30 Jangjeon-dong, Geumjeong-gu,
Busan 609-735, Korea
e-mail: yhmoon@pusan.ac.kr

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received January 14, 2017; final manuscript received June 3, 2017; published online July 20, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Gracious Ngaile.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 139(9), 091014 (Jul 20, 2017) (13 pages) Paper No: MANU-17-1025; doi: 10.1115/1.4037039 History: Received January 14, 2017; Revised June 03, 2017

Tadeusz Rut (TR) forging is a widely used forging method to create heavy, solid crankshafts for marine or power-generating engines. The preform of a TR forging is forged into a crank throw by simultaneously applying both a vertical and a horizontal deformation. It is necessary to optimize the preform design, since a conventional analytical design for the preform gives various choices for the geometric variables. The purpose of the current study is to optimize the preform design in TR forging for heavy crankshafts in order to improve the dimensional accuracy of a forged shape using a limited material volume. A finite element (FE) model for TR forging was developed and validated by comparing with experimental results. Parametric FE analyses were used to evaluate the effects of the geometric variables of the preform on the final dimensions of the forged product. The geometric variables of the preform were optimized by a response-surface method (RSM) to obtain the results of parametric FE analyses. The volume allocation between the pin and the web of the preform is the dominant factor that affects the desirability of the final forged shape. A multi-objective optimization is employed to consider the mutually exclusive changes of local machining allowances of the final forged product. Optimization using a response-surface method is a useful tool to reach the large and uniform machining allowances that are required for the preform necessary for a TR forging.

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


IACS, 2012, “ Calculation of Crankshafts for I.C. Engines-Calculation of Fatigue Strength,” International Association of Classification Societies, London, Standard No. IACS UR M53.6. http://rules.dnvgl.com/docs/pdf/gl/maritimerules/gl_vi-4-2_e.pdf
Rut, T. , 1968, Multi-Connector Equipment for Forging Crankshafts and Upsetting Bar Stock by the TR Method, Pergamon Press, Elmsford, NY.
Rut, T. , 1988, “ Forging of Long-Stroke Crankshafts by the TR-Method,” Arch. Metall., 133(1), pp. 17–33.
Park, S. H. , Yoon, S. M. , Synn, S. Y. , Park, L. W. , Park, J. K. , Lee, E. G. , and Kim, T. D. , 1999, “ A Study of Forging Equipment for One Body Crankshaft of Medium Sized Marine Engine,” Trans. Mater. Process., 8(3), pp. 237–244.
Kakimoto, H. , Choda, T. , Takahashi, Y. , Fujita, K. , Takahara, H. , and Mori, H. , 2006, “ Process Design of RR Forging Using Numerical Simulation,” J. Jpn. Soc. Technol. Plast., 47(548), pp. 829–834. [CrossRef]
Park, J. H. , Li, Q. S. , Lee, M. C. , Cho, B. J. , and Joun, M. S. , 2009, “ Finite Element Simulation of Hot Forging of Special Purpose Large Crankshafts,” ISMAI-03, Tokyo, Japan, Feb. 23–25, pp. 184–187. http://msjoun.gnu.ac.kr/pub/paper/2009/2009-F.pdf
Sztangret, L. , Milenin, A. , Sztangret, M. , Walczyk, W. , Pietrzyk, M. , and Kusiak, J. , 2011, “ Computer Aided Design of the Best TR Forging Technology for Crank Shafts,” Comput. Methods Mater. Sci., 11(2), pp. 237–242. http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/baztech/element/bwmeta1.element.baztech-article-BUJ8-0013-0003
Walczyk, W. , Milenin, A. , and Pietrzyk, M. , 2011, “ Computer Aided Design of New Forging Technology for Crank Shaft,” Steel Res. Int., 82(3), pp. 187–194. [CrossRef]
Zhang, C. , Cui, Z. , and Sui, D. , 2013, “ Numerical Simulation of Upset-Bending Forging for Heavy Crankshaft,” Adv. Mater. Res., 773, pp. 267–271. [CrossRef]
Jia, Z. , Xu, B. , Sun, M. , Li, D. , Deng, J. , and He, M. , 2013, “ Study on the Metal Flow of Large Marine Full-Fiber Crankshaft Processed by TR Bending-Upsetting Method,” AIP Conf. Proc., 1532, pp. 812–818.
Zhang, L. , Zhang, Z. , Li, S. , Cui, H. , and Cui, H. , 2006, “ FE Simulation and Bending Speed Optimization of N-TR Continuous Grain Flow Forging Process for Solid Heavy Crankshaft,” Obrób. Plast. Met., 17(2), pp. 3–13. http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/element/bwmeta1.element.baztech-article-BPB2-0017-0009/c/httpwww_inop_poznan_plwydawnictwoobrobka-plastyczna-metalixvii-2-1-nowy.pdf
Shirgaokar, M. , Epp, G. , Nystrom, J. , and Taylor, B. , 2011, “ Continuous Grain Flow (CGF) Forging of Crankshafts on a Multi-Directional Press,” IFM 2011, Pittsburgh, PA, Oct. 18, pp. 313–319.
Castro, C. F. , Antonio, C. A. C. , and Sousa, L. C. , 2004, “ Optimization of Shape and Process Parameters in Metal Forging Using Genetic Algorithms,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 146(3), pp. 356–364. [CrossRef]
Thiyagarajan, N. , and Grandhi, R. V. , 2005, “ Multi-Level Design Process for 3-D Preform Shape Optimization in Metal Forming,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 170(1–2), pp. 421–429. [CrossRef]
Poursina, M. , Parvizian, J. , and Antonio, C. A. C. , 2006, “ Optimum Pre-Form Dies in Two-Stage Forging,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 174(1–3), pp. 325–333. [CrossRef]
Tumer, H. , and Sonmez, F. O. , 2009, “ Optimum Shape Design of Die and Preform for Improved Hardness Distribution in Cold Forged Parts,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 209(3), pp. 1538–1549. [CrossRef]
Guan, Y. , Bai, X. , Liu, M. , Song, L. , and Zhao, G. , 2014, “ 3D Preform Design in Forging Process Based on Quasi-Equipotential Field and Response Surface Method,” Procedia Eng., 81, pp. 468–473. [CrossRef]
Yanhui, Y. , Dong, L. , Ziyan, H. , and Zijian, L. , 2010, “ Optimization of Preform Shapes by RSM and FEM to Improve Deformation Homogeneity in Aerospace Forgings,” Chin. J. Aeronaut., 23(2), pp. 260–267. [CrossRef]
Park, H. S. , and Dang, X. P. , 2015, “ Multiobjective Optimization of the Heating Process for Forging Automotive Crankshaft,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 137(3), p. 031011. [CrossRef]
Sun, G. , Li, G. , Gong, Z. , Cui, X. , Yang, X. , and Li, Q. , 2010, “ Multiobjective Robust Optimization Method for Drawbead Design in Sheet Metal Forming,” Mater. Des., 31(4), pp. 1917–1929. [CrossRef]
Abbas, A. T. , Aly, M. , and Hamza, K. , 2016, “ Multiobjective Optimization Under Uncertainty in Advanced Abrasive Machining Processes Via a Fuzzy-Evolutionary Approach,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 138(7), p. 071003. [CrossRef]
Sarmiento, G. S. , Bugna, J. F. , Canale, L. C. F. , Riofano, R. M. M. , Mesquita, R. A. , Totten, G. E. , and Canale, A. C. , 2007, “ Modeling Quenching Performance by the Kuyucak Method,” Mater. Sci. Eng., 459(1–2), pp. 383–389. [CrossRef]
Shang, J. S. , Li, S. , and Tadikamalla, P. , 2004, “ Operational Design of a Supply Chain System Using the Taguchi Method, Response Surface Methodology, Simulation, and Optimization,” Int. J. Prod. Res., 42(18), pp. 3823–3849. [CrossRef]
Loong, N. C. , Barsi, M. , Fang, L. F. , Masoumi, H. R. F. , Trupathy, M. , Karijiban, R. A. , and Abdul-Malek, E. , 2014, “ Comparison of Box-Behnken and Central Composite Design in Optimization of Fullerene Loaded Palm-Based Nano-Emulsions for Cosmeceutical Application,” Ind. Crops Prod., 59, pp. 309–317. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Assumption of volume allocation for the preform design of a TR forging in the conventional analytic design

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Kinematic characteristics of a TR device: (a) conversion of vertical press deformation into horizontal and (b) correlation between vertical and horizontal stroke

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic drawing of a TR forging for a single crank throw: (a) initial state and (b) final state

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Forging test for the prototype: (a) TR forging device attached to the press, (b) the position of preform in the dies, (c) shape immediately after forging, and (d) forged crank throw

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Measurement of local machining allowance: (a) 3D coordinate measurement and (b) evaluation of local machining allowance by comparing measured coordinates on the forged product with the machined model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Finite element model for TR forging

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Decrease of machining allowance due to the underfill: (a) CW and (b) PF

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Flow chart for optimization of the preform design

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Measured flow stress of AISI 4140 steel: (a) strain rate 0.5/s and (b) strain rate 0.05/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Change of forged shape during progress of the TR forging

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Results of forging analysis at the final state: (a) temperature and (b) effective strain

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Mesh and dimensions of preform for the prototype forging test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Heavy crankshaft for marine or power-generating engine: (a) after forging, (b) after machining, and (c) sequential forging process for a single crank throw in a TR forging

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Forging load from finite element analysis for the prototype forging test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Machining allowance distribution of the forged shape from FE analysis for the prototype forging test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Options of volume allocation in the preform design

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Main effects plots of design variables on the preform geometry: (a) web diameter (Dpw), (b) web length (Lpw), and (c) pin length (Lpp)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Response surface of the design variables for the machining allowances: (a) CW, (b) PF, and (c) PT

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Optimum zone of the design variables for trial no. 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Comparison of maximum and minimum machining allowance between the parametric FE results and the optimum of trial no. 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Optimization result: (a) comparison of preform between the test forging and optimum and (b) machining allowance distribution from FE analysis for the optimum preform



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