Hydro-Forming a Steel Tube Finite Element Model Design Greg Wilmes Finite Element Method
Download ReportTranscript Hydro-Forming a Steel Tube Finite Element Model Design Greg Wilmes Finite Element Method
Hydro-Forming a Steel Tube Finite Element Model Design Greg Wilmes Finite Element Method MIE 605 – Spring 2003
Hydro-Forming of a Steel Tube • Background • Model Creation – Model Limitations – Contact elements – Load stepping • Findings • Future Work • Conclusion
Background
Hydro-Forming is a manufacturing process which forms complex shapes using uncompressible liquids.
• Sheet Hydro-Forming – Hoods – Roofs • Tubular Hydro-Forming – Engine chassis – Frame Rails – Exhaust Systems
Primer: Tube Hydroforming a b c d e
F axial Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts P F axial
f
Derived from: Siempelkamp Pressen Systeme GmbH & Co.
Materials Systems Laboratory
Concerns During Hydroforming Process
Focus of this project • Create a Finite Element Model to simulate the hydro-forming process • Use the model to create a 3”x3” square tube from a 3” round tube.
Real World Example • • • • • 3-D parts Non-linear material properties Material variations Complicated geometry with bends and depressions Friction
Geometry Simplifications • 2-Dimensional • Symmetric • Deformation from Circle to Square • Rigid Target Surface • Constant Thickness 1.6mm
Pressu re
Governing Equation • Hoop Stress
y
P
r t
P t r
Material Property Simplifications • Isotropic Expansion • Non-Linear – Experimental tensile test data – 20 points • Coloumb Friction Effects • No strain rate effects
Plastic Deformation of Low Carbon Steel
350 340 330 320 310 300 290 280 270 260 250 0 0.05
0.1
Strain
0.15
0.2
Model Creation • Element Type – Plane 42 • 4 noded • 2-Dimensional • • Non-Linear Options – Plane Stress Option – Local Coordinate System – Extra Shape Functions
Meshing • • Hydro-Form Die – Rigid Target • No mesh allowed Hydro-Form Blank – Mapped Mesh • Angled • Thickness split
Contact Elements • • Allows modeling of contact between two objects Used Contact Wizard – Rigid Target – Deformable Contact – No Separation (sliding) option – Coloumb Friction (0.27)
Solution Control Options • • • • Static – Quasi-Static Evaluation Non-Linear Solution Stepped Loading Auto Time Steps
Constraints • Target Die – Fully constrained – Cannot Move • Contact Blank – Symmetrically Constrained
Load Steps • Using a simple “do” loop – Slowly increase internal pressure – 380 MPa • Used second “do” loop – Maintain pressure for a period of time • Repeated for different meshing configurations
Findings Maximum Displacement 12.6
12.5
12.4
12.3
12.2
12.1
12 11.9
11.8
11.7
0 200 400 1200 1400 1600 600 800
Elements
1000 • • • Difference between 90 elements and 1400 elements was 0.032mm
0.3% difference Close to general manufacturing machining tolerances
Continued Work • • Refine Finite Element simulation to match real world parts – 3-Dimentions – Different materials – Different deformation shapes Stress State analysis
Conclusion and Thoughts • The Finite Element Method and Ansys seem to be appropriate for analyzing this problem • Model seemed as respond well with about 100 elements