Sheet Metal Forming Simulation
Case Studies

Case Study - Die Engineering 9822

Die Engineering Pty Ltd. (Die Engineering) has introduced sheet metal forming simulation on complex tooling projects in order to get ahead of the competition and avoid the slow death facing many local toolmakers in Australia.

The most recent successful project for Die Engineering and StampingSimulation.com was a deep-drawn front bumper reinforcement for the next model Toyota Camry. The product design called for a 590-megapascal (Mpa) tensile strength Japanese steel, and other tool makers had quoted the part to be drawn in a minimum of two stages.

Using simulation, Die Engineering was able to determine, in less than 24 hours, that the product was feasible with just one draw. They used the simulation results to ensure that they quoted the best price for a feasible tool, with no guesswork and no added “fat”, which may have made their quote less competitive.

Needless to say, Die Engineering won the project and proceeded with the tool design based on the simulations provided during the quote process. To be successful in the press, it was critical to use simulation to “validate” the final tool design, a virtual tryout using StampingSimulation.com’s SimulateLite service. In addition, a sample of the 590MPa production material was sent for uniaxial tensile strain testing at ThyssenKrupp Steel Services (Detroit, Michigan, USA). The data from this test was available in less than 24 hours, and it fed into the simulation in order to ensure the most accurate simulation result was realized.

“It was critical for the timing and cost of the project that we made acceptable parts at first tool tryout. Since we had used simulation, we knew the required binder force, and we knew we needed to use lubrication to make a successful part. We found that our first part split! Quickly, we checked our blank size on the shop floor and realized we had cut the trial blank larger than the simulation determined. After a simple blank size adjustment, we made acceptable parts during our first tool tryout, with no splits and no wrinkles. The press operator (the customer) couldn’t believe his eyes.” Paul Elliston, Die Engineering Director.

It was estimated that at least four to five days were saved in the press by using simulation early in the project and by simulating the final tool design. In fact, the job would have been lost at quotation if it was not determined that the product was feasible in one draw. We had to be quick with simulation at the quote development stage in order to avoid being dead in the press.

Figure 1:  Forming Limit Information
AutoForm-Incremental simulation result showing Forming Limit Information.

Figure 2:  Incremental Simulation
The AutoForm Incremental simulation shows every step of the draw process using tool design data.

Figure 3:  Drawn Parts
Drawn parts produced at the first tool tryout.

Figure 4:  Drawn Parts
Drawn parts produced at the first tool tryout.

Figure 5:  Draw Tool in Press
Draw tool in press at the first tool tryout with successful drawn part in the tool.