CN112231892B - Qualitative and quantitative analysis method for comprehensively evaluating reliability of stamping simulation result - Google Patents
Qualitative and quantitative analysis method for comprehensively evaluating reliability of stamping simulation result Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CN112231892B CN112231892B CN202010941556.6A CN202010941556A CN112231892B CN 112231892 B CN112231892 B CN 112231892B CN 202010941556 A CN202010941556 A CN 202010941556A CN 112231892 B CN112231892 B CN 112231892B
- Authority
- CN
- China
- Prior art keywords
- error
- quantitative analysis
- simulation
- reliability
- result
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Active
Links
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F30/00—Computer-aided design [CAD]
- G06F30/20—Design optimisation, verification or simulation
Abstract
The invention discloses a qualitative and quantitative analysis method for comprehensively evaluating the reliability of stamping simulation results, which comprises the following whole analysis method, wherein the analysis method is carried out from step 1 to step 4 one by one when in use: step 1, an observation method: performing qualitative analysis, observing whether the wrinkling and cracking conditions of the same part are synchronous by naked eyes, marking, and judging the general trend; step 2, material flow line comparison method: and semi-quantitative analysis, wherein the reduction degree of the simulated forming process is represented by the change of the flow shape before and after the material is formed. Step 3, a reduction ratio comparison method: quantitative analysis, measurement and comparison of the thinning rate of a typical position, selecting marked areas in an observation method, comparing the thinning rates one by one, and performing a step 3 of strain measurement: and (4) carrying out quantitative analysis, namely carrying out comparison error with the strain data output of the simulation result after measurement by using a GOM strain measuring instrument. The invention compares the forming simulation with the actual result to judge the reliability of the simulation result and guide the simulation reduction to the actual production process.
Description
Technical Field
The invention relates to a qualitative and quantitative analysis method for comprehensively evaluating the reliability of a stamping simulation result, which is suitable for the field of forming simulation and is used for verifying the qualitative and quantitative analysis of error comparison between an entity forming result and a simulation calculation result.
Background
Simulation is used as a time-saving, labor-saving, scientific and efficient test method, and the heat is always high in recent years. For example, more and more automobile host plants and material suppliers use the simulation technology to evaluate the stamping performance of materials, and the technology has the advantages that the forming performance of products can be intuitively known and various abnormal values can be obtained by software analysis without multiple entity experiments. However, parameters of material performance fluctuate between each batch and between batches, and each type of simulation software can only input a unique numerical value to perform a stamping experiment, so that the input numerical value can truly represent the material performance, and the experiment is representative and is closer to the actual situation.
In the field of plate stamping and forming, because multiple nonlinear theoretical relations are involved, the practical result is difficult to be guided by general theoretical calculation, and the computer numerical simulation technology is a high-efficiency and rapid research mode and can obtain comprehensive experimental data in each experiment.
However, in the practical application process, algorithms of a plurality of stamping simulation software are different, and engineers have different identification and control on boundary conditions, so that the final simulation calculation result is greatly influenced. The traditional mode for distinguishing the simulation result from the actual stamping result is visual identification, and then the mode is judged according to experience to see whether the appearance of the simulation result is synchronous with the actual stamping result, and a systematic quantifiable reliability evaluation method is not provided.
Disclosure of Invention
In order to solve the technical problems, the invention aims to provide a qualitative and quantitative analysis method for comprehensively evaluating the reliability of a stamping simulation result.
In order to solve the technical problems, the invention adopts the following technical scheme:
a qualitative and quantitative analysis method for comprehensively evaluating the reliability of stamping simulation results comprises the following whole analysis method, and when the method is used, the steps from step 1 to step 4 are carried out one by one:
step 1, observation method: performing qualitative analysis, observing whether the wrinkling and cracking conditions of the same part are synchronous by naked eyes, marking, and judging the general trend;
step 2, material flow line comparison method: and (4) semi-quantitative analysis, wherein the reduction degree of the simulated forming process is represented by the change of the flow shape before and after the material is formed.
Step 3, a reduction ratio comparison method: quantitative analysis, measuring and comparing the thinning rate of the typical position, selecting the marked areas in the observation method, and comparing the thinning rates one by one;
step 4, strain measurement: and (4) carrying out quantitative analysis, namely carrying out comparison error with the strain data output of the simulation result after measurement by using a GOM strain measuring instrument.
Further, the specific method of step 1 is as follows: and (4) whether the shapes, positions and degrees of the thickening/thinning cracks are the same or similar, if the shapes, positions and degrees of the thickening/thinning cracks are not the same, adjusting boundary conditions automatically and correcting the boundary conditions until general trend observation is similar, marking related special areas, and waiting for next analysis.
Further, the specific method of step 2 is as follows: respectively placing the simulated plate, the actual punched original contour line and the formed contour line in the same center, projecting the most concave point and the most convex point of the feeding to the plane of the original contour line, then connecting the measured values, and determining to be qualified if the error between the simulation and the actual is less than 10%, and waiting for the next analysis.
Further, the specific method in step 3 is as follows: calculating the thickness reduction and thickening rate of the part close to the outer edge by using measuring instruments such as a micrometer screw, a vernier caliper and the like and the thickness of the original plate; the parts which are not easy to measure adopt a method of breaking the measurement, but pay attention to not cutting the parts to be measured exactly, otherwise, measurement deviation is caused.
Further, in steps 1 to 3, the following confidence levels are classified according to the final error result:
the areas with final errors smaller than 10 percent account for more than 80 percent of the total area number, and meanwhile, the errors of the residual areas are not more than 15 percent, so that the areas are the credibility level A;
the area with the final error of 10% -20% accounts for more than 80% of the total area number, and meanwhile, the remaining area error is not more than 25%, so that the reliability level is B level;
the reliability is determined when the final error accounts for 60% -80% of the total number of the areas with the error less than 20%, and the reliability level is C level when the error of the residual area is not more than 30%;
in other serious cases, or in the region with final error above 50%, the reliability level is D grade.
Further, in step 4, the following confidence levels are classified according to the final error result:
and (3) disregarding the failure cracking and material overlapping areas, if the difference between the maximum deviation percentage and the minimum deviation percentage of other areas is less than 15%, the reliability level is A, the reliability level is B between 15% and 25%, the reliability level is C between 25% and 35%, and if the reliability level is more than 35%, the reliability level is D.
Compared with the prior art, the invention has the beneficial technical effects that:
the invention compares the forming simulation with the actual result to judge the reliability of the simulation result and guide the simulation reduction to the actual production process.
Detailed Description
A qualitative and quantitative analysis method for comprehensively evaluating the reliability of stamping simulation results is characterized in that the following whole analysis method is used from step 1 to step 4 one by one.
Step 1, observation method: qualitative analysis, namely observing whether the wrinkling and cracking conditions of the same part are synchronous or not by naked eyes, and judging the general trend;
the specific method comprises the following steps: and (4) whether the shapes, positions and degrees of the thickening/thinning cracks are the same or similar, if the shapes, positions and degrees of the thickening/thinning cracks are not the same, adjusting boundary conditions automatically and correcting the boundary conditions until general trend observation is similar, marking related special areas, and waiting for next analysis.
Step 2, material flow line comparison method: semi-quantitative analysis, wherein the reduction degree of the simulated forming process is represented by the change of the flow shape before and after the material is formed;
the method comprises the following specific operations: respectively placing the simulated plate, the actual punched original contour line and the formed contour line in the same center, projecting the most concave point and the most convex point of the feeding to the plane of the original contour line, then connecting the measured values, and determining to be qualified if the error between the simulation and the actual is less than 10%, and waiting for the next analysis.
Step 3, a reduction ratio comparison method: quantitative analysis, measurement and comparison of the thinning rate of a typical position, selecting a marked region (a position with large thinning and thickening changes) in the observation method, and comparing the thinning rates one by one. (note: the method is only suitable for thinning and thickening comparison of the non-failure plate, and the obvious cracking or overlapping part cannot be used for comparison due to the fact that cracking or overlapping easily causes the calculation process to be non-convergent and blocked);
the method comprises the following specific operations: calculating the thickness reduction and thickening rate of the part close to the outer edge by using measuring instruments such as a micrometer screw, a vernier caliper and the like and the thickness of the original plate; the parts which are not easy to measure adopt a method of breaking the measurement, but pay attention to not cutting the parts to be measured exactly, otherwise, measurement deviation is caused.
The credibility grades are classified into grade A (highly credible), grade B (relatively credible), grade C (recommended correction, credibility after correction can reach above grade B), grade D (serious error exists, unreliability):
the areas with final errors smaller than 10 percent account for more than 80 percent of the total area number, and meanwhile, the errors of the residual areas are not more than 15 percent, so that the areas are the credibility level A;
the final error is 10% -20% of the total area number, and the residual area error is not more than 25%, so that the reliability level is B level;
the reliability is determined when the final error accounts for 60% -80% of the total number of the regions with the error less than 20%, and the reliability level is C grade when the error of the residual region is not more than 30%;
and in other serious cases, or in the areas with the final errors of more than 50%, the reliability level is D grade.
Step 4, strain measurement: and (4) performing quantitative analysis, namely performing comparison error with the strain data output of the simulation result after measurement by using a GOM strain measuring instrument.
Since the three methods in steps 1-3 are all characteristic region comparison, the deviation rating standard should be more strict, and in the full strain measurement method in step 4, the difference between the maximum deviation percentage and the minimum deviation percentage of other regions (note that the deviation value is considered with a sign, if the minimum deviation is 10% and the maximum deviation is 20%, the deviation is 30%) is less than 15%, the reliability level is a,15% -25% and C, and if the deviation is more than 35%, the reliability level is D, regardless of the failure cracking and overlapping regions.
The invention compares the forming simulation with the actual result to judge the reliability of the simulation result and guide the simulation reduction to the actual production process.
The above-described embodiments are merely illustrative of the preferred embodiments of the present invention, and do not limit the scope of the present invention, and various modifications and improvements of the technical solutions of the present invention can be made by those skilled in the art without departing from the spirit of the present invention, and the technical solutions of the present invention are within the scope of the present invention defined by the claims.
Claims (4)
1. A qualitative and quantitative analysis method for comprehensively evaluating the reliability of stamping simulation results is characterized by comprising the following whole analysis method which is performed from step 1 to step 4 one by one when in use:
step 1, observation method: performing qualitative analysis, observing whether the wrinkling and cracking conditions of the same part are synchronous by naked eyes, marking, and judging the general trend;
step 2, material flow line comparison method: semi-quantitative analysis, wherein the reduction degree of the simulated forming process is represented by the change of the flow shape before and after the material is formed;
step 3, a reduction ratio comparison method: quantitative analysis, measuring and comparing the thinning rate of the typical position, selecting the marked areas in the observation method, and comparing the thinning rates one by one;
step 4, strain measurement: quantitative analysis, namely comparing errors with the strain data output of a simulation result after measurement by using a GOM strain measuring instrument;
in steps 1 to 3, the following confidence levels are classified according to the final error result:
the final error of the areas with less than 10 percent accounts for more than 80 percent of the total number of the areas, and meanwhile, the error of the residual areas is not more than 15 percent, and the final error is a reliability level A;
the final error is 10% -20% of the total area number, and the residual area error is not more than 25%, so that the reliability level is B level;
the reliability is determined when the final error accounts for 60% -80% of the total number of the regions with the error less than 20%, and the reliability level is C grade when the error of the residual region is not more than 30%;
in other serious cases, or in the area with the final error of more than 50 percent, the reliability level is D level;
in step 4, the following confidence levels are classified according to the final error result:
and (3) disregarding the failure cracking and stacking areas, if the difference between the maximum deviation percentage and the minimum deviation percentage of other areas is less than 15%, the reliability level is A, the reliability level is 15% -25% B, the reliability level is 25% -35% C, and if the difference is more than 35%, the reliability level is D.
2. The method for comprehensively evaluating the credibility of the stamping simulation result, qualitatively and quantitatively analyzing the result of the stamping simulation according to claim 1, wherein the specific method in the step 1 is as follows: and if the shapes, positions and degrees of the thickened or thinned cracks are the same or similar, adjusting boundary conditions and correcting the boundary conditions automatically if the thickened or thinned cracks are inconsistent until general trend observation is similar, marking related special areas, and waiting for next analysis.
3. The method for comprehensively evaluating the credibility, qualitatively and quantitatively analyzing the punching simulation result according to claim 1, wherein the specific method in the step 2 is as follows: respectively placing the simulated plate, the actual punched original contour line and the formed contour line in the same center, projecting the most concave point and the most convex point of the feeding to the plane of the original contour line, then connecting the measured values, and determining to be qualified if the error between the simulation and the actual is less than 10%, and waiting for the next analysis.
4. The method for comprehensively evaluating the credibility of the stamping simulation result, qualitatively and quantitatively analyzing the result of the stamping simulation according to claim 1, wherein the specific method in the step 3 is as follows: calculating the thickness reduction and thickening rate of the part close to the outer edge by using a micrometer caliper and a vernier caliper and the thickness of the original plate; the part which is not easy to be measured adopts a method of breaking the measurement, but the part to be measured is not cut exactly, otherwise, the measurement deviation is caused.
Priority Applications (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202010941556.6A CN112231892B (en) | 2020-09-09 | 2020-09-09 | Qualitative and quantitative analysis method for comprehensively evaluating reliability of stamping simulation result |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202010941556.6A CN112231892B (en) | 2020-09-09 | 2020-09-09 | Qualitative and quantitative analysis method for comprehensively evaluating reliability of stamping simulation result |
Publications (2)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CN112231892A CN112231892A (en) | 2021-01-15 |
| CN112231892B true CN112231892B (en) | 2022-11-18 |
Family
ID=74116092
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202010941556.6A Active CN112231892B (en) | 2020-09-09 | 2020-09-09 | Qualitative and quantitative analysis method for comprehensively evaluating reliability of stamping simulation result |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| CN (1) | CN112231892B (en) |
Families Citing this family (2)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN113418759A (en) * | 2021-05-14 | 2021-09-21 | 包头钢铁（集团）有限责任公司 | Test method of thermal simulation sample |
| CN113686293A (en) * | 2021-08-18 | 2021-11-23 | 包头钢铁（集团）有限责任公司 | Method for representing plate forming flow state |
Citations (6)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US7117065B1 (en) * | 2006-03-31 | 2006-10-03 | Ford Global Technologies, Llc | Method for modifying a stamping die to compensate for springback |
| CN104765912A (en) * | 2015-03-25 | 2015-07-08 | 湖南大学 | Robustness optimizing method of aluminum plate punching process |
| CN107127274A (en) * | 2016-02-29 | 2017-09-05 | 鞍钢股份有限公司 | A kind of stamping parts of automobile reduction assay method |
| CN109635364A (en) * | 2018-11-22 | 2019-04-16 | 哈尔滨理工大学 | A kind of springback capacity evaluation method based on control errors function |
| CN109657279A (en) * | 2018-11-23 | 2019-04-19 | 湖南天汽模汽车模具技术股份有限公司 | A kind of hot forming part performance reliability design method considering manufacture factor |
| CN110162907A (en) * | 2019-05-29 | 2019-08-23 | 包头钢铁（集团）有限责任公司 | A method of characterization plate formability parameters window value is obtained using numerical simulation study |
Family Cites Families (2)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US20080004850A1 (en) * | 2006-06-05 | 2008-01-03 | Phida, Inc. | Method of Universal Formability Analysis in Sheet Metal Forming by Utilizing Finite Element Analysis and Circle Grid Analysis |
| US8831914B2 (en) * | 2012-04-04 | 2014-09-09 | Ford Global Technologies, Llc | Pseudo-physical modeling of drawbead in stamping simulations |
-
2020
- 2020-09-09 CN CN202010941556.6A patent/CN112231892B/en active Active
Patent Citations (6)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US7117065B1 (en) * | 2006-03-31 | 2006-10-03 | Ford Global Technologies, Llc | Method for modifying a stamping die to compensate for springback |
| CN104765912A (en) * | 2015-03-25 | 2015-07-08 | 湖南大学 | Robustness optimizing method of aluminum plate punching process |
| CN107127274A (en) * | 2016-02-29 | 2017-09-05 | 鞍钢股份有限公司 | A kind of stamping parts of automobile reduction assay method |
| CN109635364A (en) * | 2018-11-22 | 2019-04-16 | 哈尔滨理工大学 | A kind of springback capacity evaluation method based on control errors function |
| CN109657279A (en) * | 2018-11-23 | 2019-04-19 | 湖南天汽模汽车模具技术股份有限公司 | A kind of hot forming part performance reliability design method considering manufacture factor |
| CN110162907A (en) * | 2019-05-29 | 2019-08-23 | 包头钢铁（集团）有限责任公司 | A method of characterization plate formability parameters window value is obtained using numerical simulation study |
Non-Patent Citations (2)
| Title |
|---|
| "冲压CAE模拟分析与实际调模相结合的研究";王俊杰，陶志民;《模具制造》;20181130(第11期);第4-7页 * |
| "基于正交试验的车顶盖板冲压工艺参数模拟研究";张海波，孙力伟;《锻压技术》;20170430;第42卷(第4期);第79-84页 * |
Also Published As
| Publication number | Publication date |
|---|---|
| CN112231892A (en) | 2021-01-15 |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| CN112231892B (en) | Qualitative and quantitative analysis method for comprehensively evaluating reliability of stamping simulation result | |
| CN112382582B (en) | Wafer test classification method and system | |
| CN109711659B (en) | Yield improvement management system and method for industrial production | |
| CN103886125A (en) | Numerical simulation method for thermal composite forming of titanium alloy | |
| CN104700200A (en) | Multivariate product quality monitoring method oriented to digital workshop | |
| CN102601881B (en) | Method for monitoring on-line quality and updating prediction model of rubber hardness | |
| CN114819636B (en) | Industrial production data processing method and system based on SPC detection | |
| CN103745114A (en) | Method for computing stress relaxation numerical values and resilience of titanium alloy | |
| CN115213255A (en) | Method for adjusting dimensional deviation of stamping part, electronic device and storage medium | |
| CN111506562A (en) | EXCE L-based automatic identification method for quality detection laboratory abnormal data | |
| CN105093166A (en) | Electronic watt-hour meter field inspection method | |
| CN115098829A (en) | Online carbon emission analysis method based on multi-source metering data | |
| CN107340758A (en) | A kind of reliability of technology towards multistage manufacturing process is assessed and control method | |
| Mottonen et al. | Manufacturing process capability and specification limits | |
| US20220100923A1 (en) | Method and system of reporting stretching failure in stamping die development | |
| CN110764040B (en) | Method and system for determining error measurement function of automatic verification system | |
| CN101780488A (en) | Internal thread cold-extrusion processing quality on-line forecasting method | |
| US7895008B2 (en) | Method of performing measurement sampling of lots in a manufacturing process | |
| CN113780724B (en) | Product quality batch stability quantitative evaluation criterion calculation method | |
| CN102608303B (en) | Online rubber hardness measurement method | |
| CN115270407A (en) | Shear strength parameter calculation method and evaluation method thereof | |
| CN113686293A (en) | Method for representing plate forming flow state | |
| CN113869502A (en) | Deep neural network-based bolt tightening failure reason analysis method | |
| Xue | Stock Price Forecasting Based on ARIMA Model an Example of Cheung Kong Hutchison Industrial Co. | |
| Seifi et al. | Designing different sampling plans based on process capability index |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| GR01 | Patent grant | ||
| GR01 | Patent grant |