Design For Uncertainties of Sheet Metal

DESIGN FOR UNCERTAINTIES OF SHEET METAL
FORMING PROCESS
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State University
By
Wenfeng Zhang, M.S.
****
The Ohio State University
2007
Dissertation Committee: Approved By
Dr. Rajiv Shivpuri, Adviser
Dr. Allen Yi Adviser

Graduate Program in
Dr. Tunc Aldemir Industrial and Systems Engineering
ABSTRACT
The exclusion of inherent process variations in the current deterministic design methods
for sheet metal forming can lead to very unreliable result that may cause high scrap rate,
frequent rework, machine shut down and thus huge loss of profit. Extensive research has
been done in exploring the deterministic effect of each factor on the part, but the impact
of their variations on the fluctuation of output quality for the stamping process is seldom
addressed and quantified. The inclusion of uncertainty in the design and optimization
cycle should lead to better understanding of the impact of uncertainty associated with
system input on the system output. This understanding can then be applied for managing
such uncertainties. To date, there are very few reports on incorporating uncertainties and
variations in the design of stamping processes.
In this research we propose three different probabilistic design approaches. It uses sheet
metal forming finite element method (FEM) simulation as the fundamental tool. When
the system meta-model is not complex, the design of experiments (DOE) technique and
response surface method (RSM) are integrated with FEM to build an explicit function to
connect process input to process performance output. With the quantification of
uncertainties of input variables, by Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) or other reliability
analysis methods, the probability that the product conforms to its specification can
ii
therefore be assessed. Through the right formulation of probabilistic optimization the
robust optimal design configuration can be found. In the case where the number of
process inputs is too many so that the design of experiment cannot handle and the system
meta-model cannot be approximated, the alternate approach that integrates FEM,
multi-objective genetic algorithm and reliability assessment is illustrated.
By the proposed probabilistic design approaches, deeper understanding about the
relationship between process variables uncertainties with the part qualities is achieved.
Ultimately, the process output variability could be reduced, defect rates could be
minimized and product quality would be improved.
iii
DEDICATION
Dedicated to my parents: Zhongping Zhang/Xiaohui Shu and my wife Ji Li.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost I would like to thank Dr. Rajiv Shivpuri, my adviser, for his support,
guidance and above all, encouragement throughout the years of my PhD program. I have
learned knowledge and the way to obtain knowledge under his instructions that has
prepared me to make more contributions in the future.
I thank other members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Allen Yi and Dr. Tunc Aldemir
for their scientific inputs and advice, as well as the member of my general exam
committee, Dr. Steve MacEachern and Dr. Tedd Allen for their valuable comments and
suggestions.
I also own thanks to our group members, Lin Yang, Yijun Zhu, Yongning Mao, Xiaomin
Cheng, Yuanjie Wu, Meixing Ji and Chun Liu, for their academic help and friendship.
Thanks also go to Dr. Jiang Hua, Dr. Ziqiang Sheng, and Dr. Satish Kini for their kindly
supports and helpful suggestions.
Finally, I want to express my sincere gratitude to my wife, Ji Li for her longtime support
and unconditional love! She always makes me smile even facing the greatest difficulty. I
am so glad that she will get her PhD degree the same time with me next month! We are
going to be a proud and happy dual-PhD family!

v
VITA
May 16, 1978 Born - Wuhan, P.R. China
2000 B.E., Mechanical Engineering, Huazhong Univ. of

Science and Technology, Wuhan, P.R. China
2001 – 2003 M.S., Mechanical Engineering, the Ohio State

University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
2001 – 2007 Graduate Research Associate, Department of

Industrial, Welding and Systems Engineering, the
Ohio State University
PUBLICATIONS
Zhang, W., Sheng, Z., Shivpuri, R., Probabilistic Design of Aluminum Sheet Drawing for
Reduced Risk of Wrinkling and Fracture, Numisheet (Detroit), 2005, pp.247-252.
Zhang, W., Shivpuri, R., Investigating Reliability of Variable Blank Holder Force Control
in Sheet Drawing under Process Uncertainties, ASME, Journal of Manufacturing Science
and Engineering, accepted, 2006.
Zhang, W., Shivpuri, R., A new Discrete Friction Concept in Sheet Metal Deep Drawing
and Its Process Optimization by Multi-objective Optimization, ASME, Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Engineering, accepted, 2006.
vi
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Industrial & Systems Engineering
Major Area: Manufacturing
Minor I: Reliability Engineering
Minor II: Statistical Quality Control
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION.................................................................................................................. iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................ v
VITA.................................................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................... xii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Traditional Approach to Process Design .................................................................. 4
1.2 New Approach for Robust Process Design............................................................... 6
1.3 Objective of Research ............................................................................................... 8
1.4 Research Significance and Benefits.......................................................................... 9
1.5 What is My Contribution? ...................................................................................... 10
1.6 Dissertation Outline ................................................................................................ 11
2. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................... 13

2.1 Finite Element Method and Its Application in Sheet Metal Forming..................... 15
2.1.1 Introduction to Sheet Metal Forming............................................................... 15
2.1.2 Basis of Finite Element Method ...................................................................... 17
2.1.3 Application of Finite Element Method in Sheet Metal Forming ..................... 18
2.2 Design of Experiments Techniques ........................................................................ 21
2.2.1 Full-factorial Design ........................................................................................ 21
viii
2.2.2 Orthogonal Arrays ........................................................................................... 21
2.2.3 Latin Hypercube Design .................................................................................. 22
2.2.4 Central Composite Design ............................................................................... 25
2.2.5 Box-Behnken Design ....................................................................................... 25
2.2.6 Computer Aided Designs................................................................................. 27
2.3 Approximating Methods ......................................................................................... 27
2.3.1 Response Surface Method................................................................................ 28
2.3.2 Kriging Meta Models....................................................................................... 30
2.3.3 Neural Networks .............................................................................................. 31
2.4 Literature Review of Deterministic Sheet Metal Forming Process Optimization
Employing FEM, DOE and Approximation Methods .................................................. 32
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................................................. 38

3. 1 Taguchi Robust Design.......................................................................................... 38
3.1.1 Introduction to Taguchi Robust Design........................................................... 38
3.1.2 General Taguchi Robust Design Optimization Formulation ........................... 43
3.1.3 Disadvantages of Taguchi Robust Design method .......................................... 44
3.2 Reliability Based Optimization............................................................................... 45
3.2.1 Reliability Analysis.......................................................................................... 45
3.2.2 Reliability Based Optimization Formulation ................................................... 51
3.3 Proposed Probabilistic Design approach ................................................................ 53
4. EXPERIMENT OBSERVATION ON THE PART QUALITY VARIATIONS ..... 56

4.1 Experiment Objective ............................................................................................. 56
4.2 Experimental Design............................................................................................... 58
4.2.1 Criteria to Select Right Part to Draw ............................................................... 58
4.2.2 Drawing Die Design ........................................................................................ 59
ix
4.2.3 The Measurement of Quality Characteristics .................................................. 63
4.2.4 The Experiment Procedure .............................................................................. 65
4.3 The Experiment Result ........................................................................................... 66
4.3.1 Wrinkling Measurement Result ....................................................................... 67
4.3.2 Fracture Measurement Result .......................................................................... 71
4.3.3 Springback Measurement Result ..................................................................... 74
4.4 Experiment Conclusion........................................................................................... 76
5. PROBABILISTIC DESIGN OF ALUMINUM SHEET DRAWING FOR

REDUCED RISK OF WRINKLING AND FRATURE............................................... 77
5.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 78
5.2 General Approach for Probabilistic Design............................................................ 82
5.3 Quality Index to Measure Risk ............................................................................... 83
5.4 The Numerical Simulation Model .......................................................................... 85
5.5 Selection of Input Variables.................................................................................... 86
5.6 Prediction of Wrinkling and Fracture ..................................................................... 87
5.7 DOE and RSM ........................................................................................................ 91
5.8 Probabilistic Assessment for Wrinkling and Fracture ............................................ 95
5.9 Optimal Design Approach ...................................................................................... 96
5.10 Effect of Variation on The Optimum Design ..................................................... 103
5.11 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 105
6. INVESTIGATING RELIABILITY OF TEMPORAL VARIABLE BLANK

HOLDER FORCE CONTROL IN SHEET DRAWING UNDER PROCESS
UNCERTAINTIES........................................................................................................ 106
6.1 Introduction........................................................................................................... 107
6.2 General Approach for Probabilistic Design Optimization.................................... 110
x
6.3 Parameterization of The Variable Blank Holder Force ........................................ 114
6.4 The numerical Simulation Model ......................................................................... 117
6.5 Selection of Input Variables and Output Variables .............................................. 120
6.6 Deterministic Design vs. Probabilistic Design ..................................................... 122
6.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 134
7. SPATIALLY VARYING CONSTRAINTS AND PROBABILISTIC DESIGN BY

MULTI-OBJECTIVE GENETIC ALGORITHM..................................................... 138
7.1 Introduction........................................................................................................... 140
7.2 Setup of Spatially Varying Constraints in Hishida Part Drawing......................... 149
7.3 Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-II..................................................... 153
7.3.1 Pareto optimal and Pareto front ..................................................................... 155
7.3.2 Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II............................................... 157
7.4 Design Optimization Model.................................................................................. 161
7.4.1 Design Objectives .......................................................................................... 161
7.4.2 Design Variables............................................................................................ 165
7.4.3 Integration of NSGA-II Optimization and Pam-Quickstamp Full FEA ........ 165
7.4.4 Hishida Part Drawing Process Heuristics ...................................................... 166
7.5 Optimization Result and Analysis ........................................................................ 167
7.6 The Probabilistic Design Search........................................................................... 174
7.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 180
8. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK .............................................................. 182

LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 187
APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................ 193
APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................ 218
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 4.1. The die/punch design and test setup ................................................................ 62
Table 5.1. Variation of material properties [28][29]......................................................... 81
Table 5.2, The variation and DOE levels for selected parameters.................................... 90
Table 5.3. Deterministic design result ............................................................................ 101
Table 5.4. Probabilistic design result.............................................................................. 102
Table 6.1. Circular blank dimensions, material properties, and friction coefficients used
in the simulation of drawing the conical cup from AKDQ steel. ........................... 119
Table 6.2. The sensitivity of initial selected process parameter. .................................... 121
Table 6.3. The deterministic and probabilistic design result with constraint reliability. 130
Table 7.1. Material properties used in the simulation..................................................... 164
Table 8.1. The summary of prob. & determ. design strategies....................................... 184
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1. Latin Hypercube design [11] .......................................................................... 24
Figure 2.2. Comparison of CCD design and Box-Behnken design. ................................. 26
Figure 3.1. Taguchi robust design matrix [11]. ................................................................ 41
Figure 3.2. Taguchi loss function [11].............................................................................. 42
Figure 3.3. Reliability based analysis [11]........................................................................ 46
Figure 3.4. FORM reliability analysis method [11].......................................................... 47
Figure 4.1. Illustration of process output variations caused by input variations for sheet
drawing process. ....................................................................................................... 57
Figure 4.2. The cylindrical cup drawing die design.......................................................... 60
Figure 4.3. The hydraulic press used in the drawing test.................................................. 61
Figure 4.4. Illustration of measurement of three quality characteristics of drawn cups... 64
Figure 4.5. Parts drawn without and with lubricants at two levels of BHFs. ................... 68
Figure 4.6. The parts after drawing and the defective parts.............................................. 69
Figure 4.7. The measurement result for number of wrinkling along the flange. .............. 70
Figure 4.8. The result for the maximum height of wrinkling mark along cup sidewall. .. 72
Figure 4.9. The fracture measurement result. ................................................................... 73
Figure 4.10. The springback angle measurement result. .................................................. 75
Figure 5.1. General probabilistic design approach. .......................................................... 88
xiii
Figure 5.2. Simulation model of the Hishida forming process. ........................................ 89
Figure 5.3. The measurement of sidewall wrinkling. ....................................................... 93
Figure 5.4. Sensitivity plot of wrinkling and thinning...................................................... 94
Figure 5.5. Probabilistic design of BHF. .......................................................................... 99
Figure 5.6. Probabilistic design of mean of Lub1........................................................... 100
Figure 5.7. Effect of variation of random variables on the quality index....................... 104
Figure 6.1. The blank holder control profile from [44] and the fitted Gaussian
approximation for sheet drawing. ........................................................................... 116
Figure 6.2. The FEM simulation model of the sheet drawing process and the final drawn
part. ......................................................................................................................... 118
Figure 6.3. Maximum thinning and sidewall wrinkling (y-axis) at different s of BHF
(x-axis). ................................................................................................................... 125
Figure 6.4. The design solution of PI control, deterministic design and probabilistic
design for csw = 0.21 . ............................................................................................. 128
Figure 6.5. The design solution of PI control, deterministic design and probabilistic
design for csw = 0.23 .............................................................................................. 129
Figure 6.6. Histograms of sidewall wrinkling and maximum thinning for the deterministic
designs..................................................................................................................... 131
Figure 6.7. Histograms of sidewall wrinkling and maximum thinning for the probabilistic
designs..................................................................................................................... 132
Figure 6.8. Evaluation of probabilistic design vs. deterministic design ......................... 135
Figure 7.1. Example of one setup of drawbeads on the Hishida part drawing [51]........ 142
xiv
Figure 7.2. The segment-elastic binder used in the Hishida part drawing [51]. ............. 144
Figure 7.3. Micro-texture to alter the friction condition [53]. ........................................ 147
Figure 7.4. Topological effect at the roughness level [55]. ............................................ 148
Figure 7.5. The Hishida Part. .......................................................................................... 150
Figure 7.6. Spatial distribution of discrete friction zones............................................... 152
Figure 7.7. The Pareto optimal and Pareto front............................................................. 156
Figure 7.8. The procedure of NSGA-II [61]. .................................................................. 159
Figure 7.9. The simulation model of discrete friction drawing of Hishida part. ............ 163
Figure 7.10. The optimization flow chart. ...................................................................... 168
Figure 7.11. The Pareto front of discrete friction NSGA-II optimization. ..................... 169
Figure 7.12. Uniform friction design and strain distribution after drawing.................... 171
Figure 7.13. Discrete friction design and strain distribution after drawing. ................... 172
Figure 7.14. Strain distribution at different locations of the part after drawing. ............ 173
Figure 7.15. Reliability analysis of the Pareto front points. ........................................... 176
Figure 7.16. Reliability of feasible points in the last Pareto front when BHF COV=0.05,
friction COV=0.1 .................................................................................................... 177
friction COV=0.2 .................................................................................................... 178
friction COV=0.4 .................................................................................................... 179
xv
CHAPTER 1
1. INTRODUCTION
At present, metal stampings are used in almost every mass-produced product. Consider
the number of consumer and industrial products that include sheet metal parts:
automobile and truck bodies, airplanes, railway cars, farm and construction equipment,
appliances, office furniture, computers, and more. Although these examples are
conspicuous because they gave sheet-metal exteriors, many of their internal components
are also made of sheet. According to a survey in the US, some 100,000 metal stampings
could be found in the average American home in the 1980s [1]. The commercial
importance of sheet metalworking is significant. The three major categories of sheet
metal processes are cutting, bending, and drawing. Cutting is used to separate large
sheets into smaller pieces, to cut out a part perimeter, or to make holes in a part. Bending
and drawing are used to form sheet metal parts into their required shapes. In this research,
we focus mainly on the drawing process.
Stamping product qualities have always been one of the most important concerns of the
industries. Any quality issues can be very costly to the manufacturer, creating difficulties
in assembly, causing rework or repair in the production floor or the field, and resulting in
1
customer dissatisfaction. Traditionally, the products quality is assured by inspecting parts
in full or fractional after they have been manufactured against the specifications and
standards such as dimensions, visual characteristics, mechanical and electrical properties.
The inspection can only be done after the part is made. If the part is out of specification,
action will be taken based on experience about whether to stop the production line and
investigate the root cause. It is usual that before an out of specification signal is sent out,
the production has been kept running for a long time and produced a large amount of
scrap parts.
The practice of inspecting products after they are made is now being replaced rapidly by
the online quality control methods which were pioneered primarily by Demming,
Taguchi and Juran. Among them the statistical processes control (SPC) and related
control charts are the most famous and widely used tools in industries. The key concept
here is the usage of control limits instead of specification limits denoted in the design
drawing or manufacturing instruction card. The control limits, which should be much
narrower than the specification limits, are developed statistically based on the natural
process variation in a stable status or a good status. The goal is to keep the process under
this stable status so that all the parts will meet the spec.
Besides setting up the control limits and charts for the products, some important process
parameters could also be monitored, for example, the furnace temperature in hot forging
process. By this much tighter control limit, system abnormality such as mean/variation
2
shift could be detected much faster than the traditional inspection method and sources of
quality problems could be rapidly identified.
However, these online quality control methods only concentrate on the manufacturing
stage and cannot compensate for poor design quality. It is commonly known that by the
20-80 rule, nearly 80 percent of parts quality issues are due to improper product or
process design. Improper product design sometime means the product is not well
designed for the manufacturing. When a process is not well designed, it is highly likely
that the product quality is very sensitive to the process variation. If the variation is
uncontrollable, prohibitively costly process control schemes may be required to improve
the process capability, and they cannot guarantee a product robust to deterioration and
variability due to uncontrollable process factors.
More specifically, for sheet metal stamping process, a well designed process is much
more important than online SPC control. The reason is that when the traditional SPC
charts are used to monitor the process, and the out-of-control signals indicating the
process mean shift are encountered, a sheet metal stamping process does not have the
necessary adjustability in its process variable input settings to allow adjusting the mean
response in an out-of-control condition. Hence, the signals often go ignored. This means
that additional expense might be incurred due to service costs under warranty and, more
importantly, due to the loss of market share because of customer dissatisfaction.
3
Therefore, if the quality concept is moved further upstream to the design process, these
costs can be avoided. The need for costly process control, mass inspection, and service
costs are minimized if one optimizes product and process design to ensure product
robustness.
1.1 Traditional Approach to Process Design
Drawing is a sheet metal forming operation used to make cup-shaped, box-shaped, or
other complex-curves, hollow-shaped parts. It is performed by placing a piece of sheet
metal over a die cavity and then pushing the metal into the opening with a punch. The
blank must usually be held down flat against the die by a blank holder.
A lot of efforts have been put into the design phase in order to produce a defect-free part.
Given material and part shape, the optimum deep drawing design, in general, focuses on
three main aspects: the blank design, tooling design and process design. The blank design
includes optimizing blank geometries and thickness. The tooling design is to determine
the optimal punch and die radii, the punch and die clearance, the drawbead shape and
location. The process design tends to find the best setting of process parameters such as
the friction (lubricant type and procedure), the punch speed and the blank holder force.
4
However, most design processes mentioned above are based largely on designer’s
experiences and nowadays widely used deterministic finite element method (FEM)
simulations. Designer could check the drawability through the numerical prediction of
fracture and final sheet thickness, wrinkling, surface defects, springback and residual
stresses. If simulation reveals any potential failure or defect, designer would modify the
process according to the specific defect and his previous experiences. A new simulation
will be conducted again to verify the new design. If defect still exists, a second round of
design modification will be taken. This iteration is basically the traditional engineering
trial-and-error process using the computer simulation instead of real drawing experiment.
It is noticed that during this process, no process uncertainty or variation is considered. All
the simulation input parameters such as material properties are a sure and fixed number.
Therefore, we say the traditional design process is deterministic in nature.
After the design is put in the production, however, the process variations are actually
taken care of by the online quality control methods like statistical process control (SPC).
It is apparent that a gap exists between the process design and the process control. The
deterministic design does not consider any process uncertainty/variation while the
corresponding process control statistically utilizes them in a fundamental level.
Majeske [2] has researched several leading automobile manufacturers to identify sources
of variation in sheet metal stamping. His result shows that within the same batch, which
means same die and process setup, the part-to-part variation is around 30 percent of the
5
total part variation in the long run. This is equal to say that no matter how good your
deterministic design is, the inevitable process variation may make the design output large
variation and thus bad quality.
1.2 New Approach for Robust Process Design
As illustrated in the previous section, a design process considering the uncertainties and
variations should be adopted to improve the products quality. Robust design is such a
design philosophy. We call it a philosophy because its principle is straightforward:
design a process that is insensitive to the noise factors, but its implement is not trivial. In
fact, different robust design methods are still being developed nowadays.
The Taguchi robust design is believed to be the most widely used and recognized design
method. However, its shortcomings are obvious. First, the optimal design can only be at
the experimental points. Basically, the method calculates the signal/noise ratio for each
combination of control variables. The configuration with the largest ratio is selected as
the optimal design. No point between them could be evaluated. Second, the way Taguchi
design the experiment matrix arbitrarily assumes independence between control factors
and noise factors. Thus the highly possible coupling of them is ignored, which is not
justifiable. Third, the relationship between those variables is still not clear and effect of
variation of each noise factor on the part quality could not be quantified.
6
Comparing to Taguchi robust design, the reliability-based optimization is more
systematic and quantitative. It seeks to identify design solutions that not only optimize
performance (minimize or maximize one or more objectives), but also satisfy constraints
on the minimum reliability (or maximum probability of failure). Consequently, a
deterministic optimization problem is modified in creating a reliability-based
optimization problem by adding (and defining) random variables, and modifying
deterministic constraints to become probabilistic reliability constraints. However, the
biggest issue of this approach is that the objective function is evaluated at the mean value
of design variables and hence it is deterministic in nature instead of stochastic. Most
optimization schemes developed for this method could not handle it if we change the
objective function to include uncertainties and variation.
In this research, we propose three different probabilistic design approaches. It uses sheet
connect process input to process performance output. With the quantification of
uncertainties of input variables, by Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) or other reliability
analysis methods, the probability that the product conforms to its specification would
therefore be assessed. Through the right probabilistic optimization formulation that we
will talk about in later chapters, the robust optimal design could be found. In this
dissertation, we will also explain the method to deal with the case where the number of
7
meta-model cannot be approximated. The integration of FEM, multi-objective genetic
algorithm and reliability assessment approach will be illustrated in chapter 7. Its main
aim is to reduce process variability, reduce defect rates and improve process capability by
robust process design.
1.3 Objective of Research
The specific objectives of this research are as follows:
y To model an existing sheet metal forming process for:
à Understanding the impact of variation of process input on the variation of process
output.
à Designing the best input parameter settings for robust process design
à Improvement of the process capability and reduction of defect rate for a better
product quality.
The proposed methodology could be applied to most stamping process and other typical
manufacturing processes such as forging, rolling, injection molding and die casting.
Moreover, the analysis from the probabilistic design of the sheet drawing process would
reveal very important facts in the stochastic prospective and give us more understanding
about the process.
8
1.4 Research Significance and Benefits
Although extensive research has been done in exploring the deterministic effect of each
factor on the part, the impact of their variations on the fluctuation of output quality for
the stamping process is seldom addressed. The inclusion of uncertainty in the design and
optimization cycle should lead to better understanding of the impact of uncertainty
associated with system input on the system output. This understanding can then be
applied for managing such uncertainties.
The proposed probabilistic design approach, which incorporates process uncertainty, is
capable of reducing process performance variation/defect rate and improving process
capability/quality. Our approach fully integrates finite element method (FEM), design of
experiments (DOE), response surface methodology (RSM), and performance variability
assessment methods like Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS)/Sensitivity-Based Variability
Estimation to deal with relatively simple case. For some really complex situations, an
integration of FEM, multi-objective genetic algorithm and reliability assessment is
illustrated. Though numerical methods have been in practical use for process design and
control, few studies in the past have addressed integration of FEM, system modeling and
approximation such as RSM, and probabilistic design. Our research will have great utility
in the design and evaluation of production processes.
9
The proposed systematical approach would significantly contribute to:
y Designing a production process without undergoing costly trial and error
procedures.
y Finding the robust production process design in terms of reduced defects,
improved quality and hence less costs.
y Understanding quantitatively the impact of process input variation on the
variation of process performance output so that the production system is not a
black-box any more.
1.5 What is My Contribution?
There are three aspects in this research that are my contributions.
1. Very few researches have been done to systematically and quantitatively include the
process uncertainties into the process design and analysis cycle in the sheet metal
forming area. There have some Taguchi robust design works done before. But as
mentioned previously, the Taguchi method has many shortcomings.
2. The proposed integrated probabilistic design approach is very new in the sheet metal
forming area and even in other metal forming areas like forging and rolling. It
combines sheet forming numerical simulation, process modeling/approximation,
10
uncertainties modeling and probabilistic design optimization formulation and leads to
a robust setting. Hence, the traditional trial-and-error process design efforts, which
add to the cost of manufacturing, will be reduced.
3. This research also proposes a new method to deal with complex system robust design
where the number of process input is so large that the system can not be modeled by
the DOE and RSM approach. The integration of FEM, multi-objective genetic
algorithm, and reliability assessment provides a good solution.
1.6 Dissertation Outline
Chapter 1 outlines the motivation behind this work along with the objectives and research
approach. Chapter 2 presents a brief overview of FEM, DOE and system approximation
techniques. Chapter 3 gives introduction to current used Taguchi robust design, reliability
based optimization and our proposed probabilistic design. Chapter 4 presents a simple
cylindrical cup drawing experiment showing that at the fixed level of process setting the
part quality characteristics can have a very large variation. This experiment serves as a
justification to conduct the probabilistic design for the sheet metal forming process. The
simple probabilistic design methodology using the quality index as objective is illustrated
in chapter 5. By considering the material properties variation and process condition
variation, an optimal deterministic blank holder force and stochastic friction coefficients
11
means are obtained to minimize the defect rate. A more formal probabilistic design
formulation is explained in chapter 6, where the temporal varying blank holder force
itself is treated as random variable like what we see in the real world. By incorporating
process variations, both the reliability constraints and Taguchi type objective are
considered in the design optimization formulation. The probabilistic design is also
compared with the deterministic design and the PI design which is usually adopted to
find the variable blank holder force profile. In chapter 7, spatial varying constraints on
the sheet are studied with the introduction of the very new discrete friction concept. The
finite element simulation is integrated with the multi-objective genetic algorithm and
drawing process heuristics to find the optimal deterministic design configuration. Then
the reliability analysis method is used to find the probabilistic design optimum. Chapter 8
concludes our research work and address the future work.
12
CHAPTER 2
2. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
To understand the effect of process uncertainties on the product quality, we need to have
a system model which connects the input to output. A basic tool in knowing output to a
certain input for a manufacturing process would be the numerical simulation based on
finite element method. Currently, for most manufacturing processes like forging, rolling,
stamping, injection modeling, die casting and machining, proved and effective FEM
commercial software have been widely adopted in the industries. For forging/rolling
simulations, DEFORM and FORGE3 are two major FEM packages. For stamping,
PAM-STAMP and LS-DYNA are dominant. For injection molding, we have
MOLDFLOW. For die casting, we have PROCAST. For machining, DEFORM has
developed a dedicated module to simulate the chip formulation and breakage.
The widely used FEM manufacturing process simulation software not only provide an
effective tool in developing process for a much shorter time cycle, but also offer us an
economic way to investigate the impact of process uncertainty on the product quality. We
can image the case where we need to understand how the variation of the die radius
would affect the drawing quality. By real experiments, it will be so expensive and
13
even prohibitive to fabricate different configurations of dies, because each set of die can
easily cost a couple of thousands dollars. However, by using PAM-STAMP, the industry
proved simulation software, we only need several hours of computation to identify the
relation between die radius and part wrinkling/fracture.
Although simulation is much cheaper than the real experiment in the monetary terms, the
time needed by numerical computation still pose a severe constraint in exploring the
manufacturing system behavior. Normally, a three dimensional simulation for a typical
industrial like forging case could take one day to finish. In some extreme case, for
example, the simulation of the chip formation in the machining process may consume up
to one month. Therefore, systematic way of running simulations by certain principles
instead of randomly searching the process design space is really important and necessary.
Design of Experiments (DOE), which includes several design techniques, could help us
figure out the economic number and design of simulation run so that a desired level of
system approximation model could be built.
Closely related to the DOE usage are the system approximation methods. DOE tells you
how to design a smart experiment to investigate a system, while approximation methods
are data analyzing/processing tool to build a compact mathematical system model which
captures and represents the system itself.
14
There are three major system approximation methods: the Response Surface Method
(RSM), the Kriging method, and Artificial Neural Network (ANN). In this chapter, we
will first give background information on finite element methods and its application in
sheet metal forming. Then we will talk about the common Design of Experiments
methods and the chosen design for our FEM simulations. Following DOE, the system
approximation methods will be addressed. All these three topics are the fundamentals to
understand later on how we incorporate process uncertainty to investigate/design the
process.
2.1 Finite Element Method and Its Application in Sheet Metal Forming
2.1.1 Introduction to Sheet Metal Forming
Sheet metal is simply metal formed into thin and flat pieces, which are usually less than
6mm. There are different metals that can be made into sheet metal. Aluminum, brass,
copper, cold rolled steel, mild steel, tin, nickel and titanium are just a few examples of
metal that can be made into sheet metal. Sheet metal has wide applications in car bodies,
airplane wings, medical tables, roofs for building and many other things.
Sheet metal forming refers to various processes used to convert sheet metal into different
shapes for a large variety of finished parts. The typical forming processes include
15
stretching, drawing, cutting, bending and flanging, punching and shearing, spinning,
press forming and roll forming. In this research we will primarily focus on the sheet
metal drawing process.
A sheet metal forming system comprises all the input variables relating the blank
(geometry and material), the tooling (geometry and material), the conditions at the
tool-material interface, the mechanics of plastic deformation, the equipment used, the
characteristics of the final product, and finally the plant environment in which the process
is being conducted. The design, control, and optimization of sheet forming processes
require analytical knowledge regarding metal flow, stresses as well as technological
information related to lubrication, material handling, die design and manufacturing, and
forming equipment. The mechanics of deformation provides the means for determining
how the metal flows, how the desired geometry can be obtained by plastic deformation,
and what the expected mechanical properties of the produced part are [3].
The state of deformation in a plastically deforming metal is fully described by the
displacements, velocities, strains, and strain-rates. The basic mechanisms in sheet metal
forming are stretching, drawing, and bending. Depending on the shape and the relative
dimensions of the blank and the tool, one or more basic mechanisms is predominantly
involved. The limits of sheet-metal forming are determined by the occurrence of defects,
such as wrinkles and fracture in the blank [3]. An important development in checking the
formability of sheet metals is the forming limit diagram. In this diagram the major and
16
minor surface strains at a critical site are plotted at the onset of visible, localized necking
in a deformed sheet, and the locus of strain combinations that will produce failures in an
actual forming operation can be drawn. Experimental methods are used to construct the
diagram.
2.1.2 Basis of Finite Element Method
The concept of the finite element procedure may be dated back to 1943 when Courant
approximated the warping function linearly in each of an assemblage of triangular
elements to the St. Venant torsion problem and proceeded to formulate the problem using
the principle of minimum potential energy. Similar ideas were used later by several
investigators to obtain the approximate solutions to certain boundary-value problems. It
was Clough who first introduced the term “finite elements” in the study of plane
elasticity problems. Since then numerous studies have been reported on the theory and
applications of the finite element method.
The basic concept of the finite element method is one of discretization. The finite
element model is constructed in the following manner. A number of finite points are
identified in the domain of the function, and the values of the function and its derivatives,
when appropriate, are specified at these points. The points are called nodal points. The
domain of the function is represented approximately by a finite collection of sub-domains
called finite elements. The domain is then an assemblage of elements connected

17
together appropriately on their boundaries. The function is approximated locally within
each element by continuous functions that are uniquely described in terms of the
nodal-point values associated with the particular element [4].
The path to the solution of a finite element problem consists of five specific steps: [4]
1. identification of the problem;
2. definition of the element;
3. establishment of the element equation;
4. assemblage of element equations; and
5. numerical solution of the global equations.
2.1.3 Application of Finite Element Method in Sheet Metal Forming
The use of finite element simulation technology for stamping applications is growing
rapidly these days. When looking at the recent history of virtual stamping, one can
distinguish several main time periods. The first period, before 1990, was in fact a
pre-industrialization period. In this period, people started using computers to understand
how to improve the forming process. At this stage the different attempts were mainly
focused on approaches such as expert system and knowledge based methods. An
important breakthrough occurred with the success of forming simulation applying finite
element method to stamping related problems.
18
Using the elastic-plastic approach, complete solutions of stretch-forming and
deep-drawing problems, taking into account the contact problem at the blank holder, die,
die profile, and punch head, were obtained by Wifi [5]. On the basis of the nonlinear
theory membrane shells, Wang and Budiansky [6] developed a procedure for calculating
the deformations in the stamping of sheet metal by arbitrarily shaped punches and dies.
Onate and Zienkiewicz [7] presented a finite-element formulation based on an extension
of the general viscoplastic flow theory for continuum problems to deal with thin shells.
Toh and Kobayashi [8,9] analyzed sheet-metal forming processes, axially symmetric and
non-symmetric, by the finite-element method based on the membrane theory. The
finite-element model takes into account the rigid-plastic material characteristics and
includes the normal anisotropy of the sheet metal as well as the finite deformation that
occurs during the sheet-forming process.
The main usage of stamping simulation software concentrated on strain predictions and
the introduction of stamping-related know-how. The user wanted to have answers to the
following questions: is this part feasible? Where does it fail? Where will wrinkling
happen? What does my forming limit curve look like? Over the years, stamping
simulation has helped to reduce the costs and lead-time of various components
considerably. One can identify the main parameters that are influencing the stamping
process: the part geometry and the die run-off design, the materials’ selection, the
manufacturing hardware and process and final quality control.
19
In our research, the FEM simulation package Pam-stamp is used intensively. Pam-stamp
2G is a calculation code that uses the finite element method (FEM). All the components
of a calculation (metal sheet, tools, drawbeads) are segmented as meshes, i.e. a discrete
representation of the geometry. For non-deformable tools, the mesh is only a
representation of the geometry, and the finite elements are only used for contact
description. On the other hand, for the blank or a deformable tool, the finite elements that
form this mesh represent small pieces of the material with a prescribed deformation
behavior. The mechanical phenomena that occur in a blank are faithfully reproduced
using a large number of these elements. The finer the mesh to be generated, the better
quality of the results, while the higher the number of elements, the longer the calculation
time.
Depending on the calculation type (implicit or explicit) the calculation is sub-divided into
increments or time-steps. Generally, implicit increments are large with respect to the
explicit time-steps. Positions, velocities, accelerations and forces are permanently
calculated at the nodes, which are points linked to the material. Within the elements,
strains are calculated from positions. Corresponding stresses are then obtained, which
result in forces on the nodes. This calculation is repeated over all the elements for the
entire duration of the calculation. Boundary conditions are used to remove degrees of
freedom, while velocities and forces further define the kinematic behavior of the finite
element model. To describe the actual deformation process, material properties and
thickness, can be assigned to an element [10].
20
2.2 Design of Experiments Techniques
Design of Experiments includes the design of all information-gathering exercises where
variation is present, usually under the full control of the experimenter. Often the
experimenter is interested in the effect of some process or intervention on some objects.
Design of experiments is a discipline that has very broad application. In the following
part, we will introduce the most frequently used DOE techniques.
2.2.1 Full-factorial Design
A full-factorial design is one in which all combinations of all factors at all levels are
evaluated. It is an old engineering practice to systematically evaluate a grid of points,
requiring n1 ∗ n2 ∗ n3 ∗ ...ni ( i is the number of factors, ni is the number of levels for
factor i ) design point evaluations. This practice provides extensive information for
accurate estimation of factor and interaction effects. However, it is often deemed
cost-prohibitive due to the number of analyses required [11].
2.2.2 Orthogonal Arrays
The use of orthogonal arrays can avoid a costly full-factorial experiment in which all
combinations of all factors at different levels are studied. A fractional factorial
21
experiment is a certain fractional subset (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc.) of the full factorial set of
experiments, carefully selected to maintain orthogonality (independence) among the
various factors and certain interactions. While the use of orthogonal arrays for fractional
factorial design suffers from reduced resolution in the analysis of results (i.e., factor
effects are aliased with interaction effects as more factors are added to a given array), the
significant reduction in the required number of experiments can often justify this loss in
resolution as long as some of the interaction effects are assumed negligible.
In fractional factorial designs, the number of columns in the design matrix is less than the
number necessary to represent every factor and all interactions of those factors. Instead,
columns are “shared” by these quantities, an occurrence known as confounding.
Confounding results in the dilemma of not being able to realize which quantity in a given
column produced the effect on the outputs attributed to that column. In such a case, the
designer must make an assumption as to which quantities can be considered insignificant
(typically the highest-order interactions) so that a single contributing quantity can be
identified [11].
2.2.3 Latin Hypercube Design
Another class of experimental design which efficiently samples large design spaces is
Latin Hypercube sampling. With this technique, the design space for each factor is
uniformly divided (the same number of divisions ( n ) for all factors). These levels are
22
then randomly combined to specify n points defining the design matrix (each level of a
factor is studied only once). For example, figure 2.1 illustrates a possible Latin
Hypercube configuration for two factors ( x1 , x2 ) in which five points are studied.
Although not as visually obvious, this concept easily extends to multiple dimensions.
An advantage of using Latin Hypercubes over Orthogonal Arrays is that more points and
more combinations can be studied for each factor. The Latin Hypercube technique allows
the designer total freedom in selecting the number of designs to run (as long as it is
greater than the number factors). While, the configurations are more restrictive using the
Orthogonal Arrays.
A drawback to the Latin Hypercubes is that, in general, they are not reproducible since
they are generated with random combinations. In addition, as the number of points
decreases, the chances of missing some regions of the design space increases [11].
23
Figure 2.1. Latin Hypercube design [11].
24
2.2.4 Central Composite Design
Central Composite Design (CCD) is a statistically based technique in which a 2-level
full-factorial experiment is augmented with a center point and two additional points for
each factor (star points). Thus, five levels are defined for each factor, and to study n
factors using Central Composite Design requires 2n + 2n + 1 design point evaluations.
The corner points are for the assessment of linear and 2-way interaction terms. Center
points are used to detect curvature and sometime replicated in experimental DOE to
estimate pure error. Star points are for the assessment of quadratic terms, see figure
2.2(a). Although Central Composite Design requires a significant number of design point
evaluations, it is a popular technique for compiling data for Response Surface Modeling
due to the expanse of design space covered, and higher order information obtained [11].
2.2.5 Box-Behnken Design
Box and Behnken developed a family of efficient three-level designs for fitting
second-order response surfaces. It exists only for 3-7 factors. Number of runs is very
close to CCD for the same number of factors. The Box-Behnken design doesn’t have any
corners and it is suitable for the situation when corners are not feasible (physical designs),
see figure 2.2(b).
25
(a) Central Composite Design
(b) Box-Behken Design
Figure 2.2. Comparison of CCD design and Box-Behnken design.
26
2.2.6 Computer Aided Designs
Other popular methods to select the design points are computer-aided designs. Computer
aided designs are generated based on a particular optimality criterion and are generally
optimal only for a specified model. The common types of optimality criteria include
D-optimality, A-optimality, G-optimality and V-optimality. Unlike the standard classical
designs such as factorials and fractional factorials, the computer-aided design matrices
are usually not orthogonal. These methods are particularly useful when standard designs
(e.g. factorial or CCD) cannot be simply implemented. Such situations might arise, for
example, when the design space is irregular due to feasibility constraints, or when there
are economic constraints on the size N of the experiment. In such cases, optimality
criteria and associated numerical techniques provide objective methods for selecting
design points.
2.3 Approximating Methods
Approximation concepts were introduced in structural design optimization in the late
1970s to do the following:
à Reduce the number of independent design variables through design variable
linking and reduced basis vectors concepts.
27
à Perform constraint deletion through truncation and regionalization schemes.
à Reduce the number of computer intensive, detailed analyses (or simulation code
evaluations) through the use of mathematical approximations of the design
optimization objective and constraint functions.
These approximations models can be used to reduce simulation codes or analyses that are
computation intensive. They can also help to eliminate the computational noise for
simulation codes in the case the outputs rapidly oscillate with gradual changes in the
values of input parameters. Computational noise has a strong adverse effect on
optimization by creating numerous local optima. Approximation models (Response
Surface Models in particular) naturally smooth out the response functions, and, in many
cases, help to converge to a global optimum faster. The usage of approximation is not
restricted to optimization. It also provides an efficient means of post-optimization or
sensitivity analysis. Their value is very high for computationally expensive engineering
methods, such as Monte Carlo Simulation, Reliability-Based Optimization, or
Probabilistic Design Optimization which we will conduct in this research [11].
2.3.1 Response Surface Method
Response surface method is a collection of statistical and mathematical techniques useful
for developing, improving, and optimizing processes. In some systems based on the
underlying engineering, chemical, or physical principles, the nature of the

28
relationship between y and x ’s might be know exactly. Then a model of the form
y = g ( x1 , x2 ,..., xk ) + e can be written. This type of relationship is often called a
mechanistic model. However, the more common situation would be that the underlying
mechanism is not fully understood, and the experimenter must approximate the unknown
function g with an appropriate empirical model y = f ( x1 , x2 ,..., xk ) + e . Usually the
function f is a first-order or second-order polynomial. This empirical model is called a
response surface model.
The model then can be used in optimization studies with a very small computational
expense, since evaluation only involves calculating the value of a polynomial for a given
set of design variables. Accuracy of the model is highly dependent on the amount of
information collected for its construction (number of exact analyses), shape of the exact
response function being approximated (like the order of polynomial), and volume of the
design space in which the model is constructed (the range covered by the RSM). In a
sufficiently small volume of the design space, any smooth function can be approximated
by a quadratic polynomial with good accuracy. For highly non-linear functions,
polynomials of 3rd or 4th order can be used. If the model is used outside of the design
space where it was constructed, its accuracy is impaired, and refining of the model is
required [11].
The response surface model relies on the fact that the set of designs on which it is based
is well chosen. Randomly chosen designs may cause an inaccurate surface to be
29
constructed or even prevent the ability to construct a surface at all. Because simulations
are often time-consuming or the experiments are expensive, the overall efficiency of the
design process relies heavily on the appropriate selection of a design set on which to base
the approximations. CCD design, Box-Behnken design, D-optimal design are the widely
used DOE methods to generate the design set for constructing a response surface model.
2.3.2 Kriging Meta Models
Kriging (named after the South-Afican mining engineer Krige) is an interpolation method
that predicts unknown values. More precisely, a Kriging prediction is a weighted linear
combination of all output values already observed. These weights depend on the
distances between the new and the observed inputs. The closer the inputs, the bigger the
weights are. Kriging models are extremely flexible due to the wide range of correlation
functions which can be chosen for building the approximation model. Furthermore,
depending on the choice of the correlation function, the model either can provide an
exact interpolation of the data, or an inexact interpolation [11].
The most popular DOE for Kriging is Latin Hypercube Design. LHS offers flexible
design sizes n (number of scenarios simulated) for any value of k (number of simulation
inputs). Geometrically, many classic designs consist of corners of k-dimensional cubes,
so these designs imply simulation of extreme scenarios. LHS, however, has better space
filling properties.
30
2.3.3 Neural Networks
Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) has been studied for many years in the hope of
mimicking the human brain’s ability to solve problems that are ambiguous and require a
large amount of processing. Human brains accomplish this data processing by utilizing
massive parallelism, with millions of neurons working together to solve complicated
problems. Similarly, ANN models consists of many computational elements, called
“neurons” to correspond to their biological counter-parts, operating in parallel and
connected by links with variable weights. These weights are adapted during the training
process, most commonly through the back-propagation algorithm, by presenting the
neural network with examples of input-output pairs exhibiting the relationship the
network is attempting to learn. The most common applications of ANN involve
approximation and classification. Approximation models attempt to estimate input-output
transformation functions, while classification involves using the known inputs to
determine class membership. Until now, we found there is no much literature about the
optimal experimental design for neural networks or even verification of the effectiveness
of the traditional regression model based optimal design methods on the neural net.
However, we have conducted a comparative study and the result shows that for building
the approximation model by neural network, the Bayesian D-optimal design (one kind of
computer aided DOE) gives the better prediction accuracy than the other experimental
design methods such as Latin Hypercube design or D-optimal designs. The details are
shown in the appendix A.
31
2.4 Literature Review of Deterministic Sheet Metal Forming Process
Optimization Employing FEM, DOE and Approximation Methods
Ayed et al. [12] presented a FEM combined with RSM approach to optimize the blank
holder force considering the drawing of a front door panel. The numerical simulations
were performed using ABAQUS Explicit. The parameters of the finite element model
(mesh density, speed of punch) were set to achieve a good prediction with a minimum
simulation time. The objective function was defined to minimize the work of punch.
Three inequity constraints functions were defined to avoid necking and wrinkling. To
avoid necking, the major stress of the blank was limited to a value, which was
determined by using the modified maximum force criterion. To avoid wrinkling, under
the blank holder, the angle between the blank holder surface and an element of the blank
was limited to a value set by user, as proposed by Gelin and Labergere[13]. In the useful
part of the workpiece, the major stress was limited to a value. A central composite design
experiment was applied to generate response surface model. For n independent variables,
the central composite design requires 2n + 2n + 1 simulations: 2n factorial designs
augmented by 2n axial points and one center point. Thus for seven blank holder forces
143 numerical simulations were necessary. Then a SQP algorithm was used to find the
optimum blank holder force.
Kim and Huh [14] carried out optimization of the process parameters for process design
in sheet metal forming processes. The scheme incorporated rigid-plastic FEM for the
32
deformation analysis and RSM for the optimum searching of process parameters. The
algorithm developed was applied to design of the draw bead force and the die radius in
deep drawing processes of rectangular cups. The algorithm showed the capability of
designing process parameters which enabled the prevention of the part being weak or
fracture during stamping processes. Kim et al. [15] used rigid-plastic FEM with modified
membrane elements for an analysis tool and RSM for constructing the approximation
surface for searching the optimum draw bead force in the sheet metal forming process.
The algorithm developed was successfully applied to a design of the draw bead forces in
the deep drawing process.
Tezuka et al. [16] used rigid plastic FEM and RSM for process parameter determination
in the sheet metal forming process. Using this methodology, process parameters such as
the optimum bead force in the deep drawing process were effectively calculated.
Lepadatu, et al. [17] presented a sheet metal bending process optimization method for
springback minimization that combined finite element analysis, response surface method
and gradient optimization algorithm. In his work, the optimization computation was
carried out with a FORTRAN program using the gradient method. In the first phase,
polynomial models were generated with the available DOE data obtained by finite
element simulation. In the second phase, the optimizer used the objective function during
the search for the optimum until the final converged solution was obtained. Springback of
sheet parts during bending process was simulated using finite element model including
33
damage evolution effects within the sheet. This simulation was based on a constitutive
law of large elasto-plastic strains coupled with damage type Lemaitre. Die corner radius,
punch-die clearance and blank holder force were the three main variables considered.
Central composite experimental design (CCD) was selected to generate data for fitting
the response surface.
Wang, et al. [18] reported a strain path controlled forming process through adjusting the
blank holder force located in various flange areas to achieve a facture free product. Due
to the wide application and the high efficiency of the finite element method, it was the
means used instead of experiment to carry out the controlled forming process. Deep
drawing processes with two materials, SPCC and Al 5754, were simulated with yield
criteria Hill 48 and Hill 90, respectively. The empirical equation, built through response
surface method (RSM), was developed based on the finite element method (FEM)
simulation results. Central composite design (CCD) was used to guide the simulations.
The equation, working as system model, explored the relationship between the principal
strain of fracture risk elements and the process parameters, especially the blank holder
force located in various flange areas. The empirical equations were developed based on a
set of numerical simulation results within two elements which have the high fracture risk.
Three dimensional principal strain surfaces of one element were drawn which displayed
the obvious trend varied with the space variant blank holder force. The model adequacy
was checked and confirmed using ANOVA method. Four extra sets of numerical
simulation were carried out to compare with the value predicted using RSM. Good
34
consistency confirms the effectiveness of this empirical equation with the plasticity field.
With the assistance of the empirical model, it was feasible to acquire a fracture free
product.
Forsberg, et al. [19] investigated the accuracy of response surface and Kriging modeling.
For RSM, the true response is usually replaced with a low-order polynomial. In Kriging
the true response is replaced with a low-order polynomial and an error correcting
function. In both cases the D-optimality criterion has been used to distribute the design
points. Crashworthiness simulations were carried out at the design points. From the
investigation, they found that Kriging better than RSM resolved abrupt changes in the
response, e.g. due to buckling, contact or plastic deformation. However, as seen from the
derivation of the D-optimality criterion, it was not valid for the approximation using the
Kriging technique. Therefore, the conclusion about Kriging was better than RSM was not
fair enough. The space-filling design like the Latin hypercube should be included in the
investigation.
Huang, et al. [20] illustrated an efficient method to optimize the intermedial tool surfaces
in the multi-step sheet metal stamping process to obtain improved quality of a product at
the end of forming. The proposed method was based on a combination of finite element
method (FEM) and the response surface method (RSM). The objective of the
optimization was to minimize the thickness variation within the part at the final stage.
The optimal radius of the intermedial surface and fillet radius were found.
35
Yamazaki, et al. [21] tried to apply the response surface approximate method to develop
aluminum beverage can ends. Geometrical parameters of the end shell were selected as
design variables. The analysis points in the design space were assigned using an
orthogonal array in the design of experiment technique. Finite element analysis code was
used to simulate the deforming behavior and to calculate buckling strength and central
panel displacement of the end shell under internal pressure. On the basis of the numerical
analysis results, the response surface of the buckling strength and panel growth were
approximated in terms of the design variables. By using a numerical optimization
program, the weight of the end shell was minimized subject to constraints of the buckling
strength, panel growth suppression and other design requirements.
Lin, et al. [22] established an effective prediction model of the spring-back of material
during the processing of an L-shaped bend by artificial neural networks (ANN). FEM
simulation of an L-shaped bend was first carried out for various thickness of material,
punch-round-radii and die-round-radii. The results of spring-back from FEM simulation
were then input to a neural network to establish a model for the L-shaped bend variables.
He concluded that the neural networks approximating fitted the experiments and the
optimal design could be achieved by this model.
Ji, et al. [23] used finite element method and neural network to inversely design the
rolling process parameters. The neural network could accurately predict the seam
36
forming and grain size in the rolling process. Then an inverse neural network was
constructed to find the optimal process setting given the grain size and constraint of no
seams.
Hambli, et al. [24] presented a similar approach that combined finite element simulation
with neural network modeling of the leading blanking parameters in order to predict the
burr height of the parts for a variety of blanking conditions. The numerical results
obtained by finite element computation including damage and fracture modeling and tool
wear effects were utilized to train the developed simulation environment based on back
propagation neural network modeling. The comparative study between the results by
neural network and the experimental ones showed good match.
37
CHAPTER 3
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Before we start talking about our approach of the probabilistic design for sheet metal
forming, we need to give introduction to the current design methods that incorporate
uncertainties. The most widely used and famous method was created by the quality guru
Taguchi: the Taguchi robust design.
3. 1 Taguchi Robust Design
3.1.1 Introduction to Taguchi Robust Design
The motive of robust design is to improve the quality of a product or process by
achieving performance targets and minimizing performance variation. The variables are
usually classified as the following categories:
à Control Variables X . These variables can be designed and controlled in the
manufacturing process.
38
à Noise variables Z . They are either not controllable, or too difficult or expensive
to control in the manufacturing process. Noise variables can cause the variation of
responses Y and lead to quality loss.
à Response variables Y . They are dependent performance characteristics.
Responses are the system outputs, and are functions of the control and noise
variables.
The robust design is to seek the settings of the control variables to reduce the variation of
system performance responses caused by uncertainty of noise variables and achieve
performance targets. One note here is that the control variables may have variation too at
the manufacturing process and thus cause variation of response variable. In this case, we
are seeking the best mean values of the control variables.
Taguchi's robust design evaluates the mean performance and its variation by crossing two
arrays: an inner array, designed in the control variables, and an outer array, designed in
the noise variables. As shown in figure 3.1, a two level factorial design is adopted for
both the inner and outer array. For each row of the inner array, response values are
generated for each noise variables combination. For example, inner array row 1 with
outer column 1 leads to the response value y11 , inner row 1 with outer column 2 leads to
response value y12 , and so on. This design then leads to multiple response values for
each combination of control variables, from which a response mean, μ , and variance or
standard deviation, σ , can be computed.
39
Given the mean and variance for each inner array row, the experiments can be compared
to determine which set of control settings best achieves “mean on target” and “minimized
variation” performance goals. Taguchi uses the signal-to-noise ratio (shown as S / N yi
for each control experiment), and quality loss (measured using a loss function) to
combine the effects of mean performance and performance variation, which can then be
used to compare the set of designs represented by the control variables combinations.
The S / N ratio calculation depends on the particular response being investigated [11]:
μ2
à The S / N ratio is 10 log10 if the response is a desired value.
σ2
⎛1 n ⎞
à The S / N ratio is − 10 log10 ⎜ ∑ y i2 ⎟ if the response is desired to be a lower
⎝ n i =1 ⎠
value.
⎛1 n 1 ⎞
à The S / N ratio is − 10 log 10 ⎜⎜ ∑ 2 ⎟⎟ if the response is desired to be a higher
⎝ n i =1 y i ⎠
value.
The second performance characteristic used by Taguchi Robust Design Techniques, the
loss function, is generally used to measure the loss of quality associated with deviating
from a targeted performance value, as shown in figure 3.2.
40
Figure 3.1. Taguchi robust design matrix [11].
41
Figure 3.2. Taguchi loss function [11].
42
Conventionally, the acceptable quality range is defined by the lower and upper
specification limits. All values within these two limits are assumed to have no quality
loss, and all values outside the limits are defined as having 100% quality loss. The best
example of this concept is GD&T. If the part dimension is larger or smaller than the
limits, the part is rejected. However, in Taguchi robust design, quality loss is measured
by the deviation from the target. This means loss of quality occurs gradually when the
quality characteristic moves in either direction from the target value, rather than as a
sharp cutoff with the conventional approach. The standard form of the loss function
L( y ) is given as follows:
L( y ) = k ( y − T ) 2 (3.1)
In the equation (3.1), y is the quality characteristic, such as a dimension or
performance parameter, T is the target value for the quality characteristic, and k is
the loss constant, which is used to convert the deviation from the target to appropriate
measure of quality loss.
3.1.2 General Taguchi Robust Design Optimization Formulation
The S / N ratio, loss function, and μ , σ can be combined to use in the case of
multi-objectives. The general Taguchi Robust Design formulation is then to search
through all the control design combinations and find the setting that minimizes the
43
following objective:
Robust design objective = [− S / N yi ] + [ L yj ] + [(±) μ yk + σ y2k ] (3.2)
In this general form, y i , y j , y k represents all the responses considered in the Taguchi
robust design problem. The plus sign is used when lower y k is desired, and minus sign
is used when higher y k is desired. Weight and scale values can also be used with each
objective.
3.1.3 Disadvantages of Taguchi Robust Design method
Nevertheless, the shortcomings of Taguchi’s robust design are obvious. First, the optimal
design can only be at the experimental points. The configuration with the largest ratio is
selected as the optimal design. No point between them could be evaluated. Second, the
way Taguchi design the experiment matrix arbitrarily assumes independence between
control factors and noise factors. Thus the highly possible coupling of them is ignored,
which is not justifiable. Third, the relationship between those variables is still not clear
and effect of variation of each noise factor on the part quality could not be quantified.
Although the objective function in Taguchi robust design is formulated well, the lack of
system model to connect x , z and y limits its application range.
44
3.2 Reliability Based Optimization
Reliability based optimization was developed based on reliability analysis. So before
delving into the optimization formulation, we need to explain its foundations: the
reliability analysis.
3.2.1 Reliability Analysis
The reliability analysis was first developed and applied in the structure safety field. It
incorporates uncertainties associated with geometrical and material properties, loading
and boundary conditions, and operational environment into structural analysis and design
by defining these random variables, their associated probabilistic distribution functions,
and statistical properties [11]. Due to the variation of input variables, the performance of
the designed structure component or system will experience variation too, some of which
may violate the constraints. The structural reliability is then defined as the probability of
satisfying a constraint, and is equal to 1- probability of failure, under the input
uncertainties. The concepts of reliability and probability of failure are illustrated in figure
3.3.
There are many methods developed in recent years to estimate the probability of failure
or reliability (estimating the areas inside and outside the constraints). We will mainly
introduce the following three commonly used methods.

45
Figure 3.3. Reliability based analysis [11].
46
Figure 3.4. FORM reliability analysis method [11].
47
à First Order Reliability Method (FORM)
à Mean Value First Order (MVFO) Method
à Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) Method
These methods are able to evaluate reliability for the current design point. Each method
is summarized in the following sections.
3.2.1.1 First Order Reliability Method
The idea of FORM is based on the desirable properties of the standard normal probability
distribution. Hasofer and Lind [25] defined the reliability index as the shortest distance
from the origin of the standard normal space ( U -space) to a point on the failure surface.
The reliability index β can be determined by a minimization problem with one equality
constraint (3.3):
β = min U
U (3.3)
−1
s.t. g ( X ) = g (T (U )) = g (U ) = 0
In this formulation, first the original random vector X is mapped to the standard,
uncorrelated normal vector U by a transformation T . Then a minimization searches
the closet point U * on the failure function g (U ) to the zero point. U * is called the
Most Probable Point (MPP). If the failure function g (U ) is linear in terms of the
48
normally distributed random variables U i , the failure probability is calculated as
Pf = Φ (− β ) , see figure 3.4. In this equation, Φ is the standard normal distribution
function. If the failure function is nonlinear, the equation above is still a good
approximation, provided that the curvature of the failure surface at the MPP is not too
large in magnitude.
3.2.1.2 Mean Value First Order Method
The MVFO reliability method utilizes the first order Taylor's series expansion of failure
functions g ( X ) at the mean values μ X . Then the variance of the g ( X ) is the sum of
the multiplication of variance of each dependent variable and its square of derivatives at
μ X . The mean-value reliability index, which is the same as β in the FORM method, is
then calculated by dividing the mean and standard deviation of g ( X ) [11]:
g (μ X ) μg
β= =
⎛ ∂g ⎞
2 σg (3.4)
∑ ⎜⎜ ∂X ⎟⎟ (σ X i ) 2
⎝ i ⎠
Similarly, the probability of failure can then again be calculated as Pf = Φ (− β ) . In
terms of the number of function evaluations, or simulation program executions needed to
calculate the reliability, MVFO is the most efficient reliability analysis method since it
49
requires only one time failure function evaluation to calculate the mean and sensitivity
evaluations to calculate the derivative. However, the mean-value reliability index is
accurate only for linear failure functions with normally distributed random variables.
3.2.1.3 Monte Carlo Simulation Method
Monte Carlo Simulation is a very straight forward method to calculate the probability of
failure. The reliability level R and probability of failure Pf can be calculated as in
equation (3.5) [11]:
⎛ # simulations in failure region ⎞ ⎛ # simulations in safe region ⎞

R = 1 − Pf = 1 − ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (3.5)
⎝ total # system simulations ⎠ ⎝ total # system simulations ⎠
This calculation is done by the following steps:
1. Identify random variables by assuming appropriate distributions, and defining
properties for each (mean, standard deviation, or coefficient of variation).
2. Specify the number of simulations to be executed (often 1000 - 10,000
simulations are necessary for accurate prediction of response statistical
properties).
3. Generate uniformly distributed random numbers for each random variable.
50
4. Convert each uniform random number to a random variable value corresponding
to appropriate distribution.
5. Evaluate failure function(s) using random variable values, and determine whether
simulation point is a success ( g ( X ) > 0 ) or failure ( g ( X ) < 0 ) for each failure
function g ( X ) .
6. Repeat step 3 through step 5 for the number of simulations specified in step 2.
7. Compute reliability R for each failure function.
3.2.2 Reliability Based Optimization Formulation
While the reliability-based design analysis methods seek to determine the reliability or
probability of failure of the current design (act on a single design point), reliability-based
optimization seeks to identify design solutions that not only optimize performance
(minimize or maximize one or more objectives), but also satisfy constraints on the
minimum reliability (or maximum probability of failure) [11].
Therefore, we can formulate a reliability-based optimization problem by modifying a
deterministic optimization problem by adding random variables, and reliability
constraints. The reliability-based optimization problem is formulated as follows (3.6):
51
Find the set of design variables X that:
Minimize : F ( X ,Y )
Subject to : g idet ( X , Y ) ≤ 0
(3.6)
j ( X ,Y , β j ) ≤ 0
g rel
Xl ≤ X ≤ Xu
In this formula, Y is the set of random variables, gi is the ith deterministic constraint,
g j is the jth reliability constraint, and β j is the reliability index value of the jth
reliability constraint. The reliability index value is calculated from the standard normal
distribution function by the desired reliability level. By incorporating the reliability index
to the constraints, the probability of failure must be equal or smaller than the desired
reliability. For example, a reliability index value of 2.0 corresponds to a reliability of
97.725% and a probability of failure of 2.275%.
FORM is usually embedded in reliability-based optimization to evaluate the satisfaction
of the reliability constraints. Since it also requires the solution of an optimization
problem to calculate the reliability, using this reliability analysis method within a
reliability-based optimization approach is considered a “double-loop” method (FORM
optimization loop within outer reliability-based optimization loop) [11].
A “single-loop” method, as documented in [26], and is significantly more efficient than
double-loop methods. In this approach, the critical (failure) point for each reliability
constraint is calculated using derivatives of the constraints, with respect to the random
52
variables, and the desired reliability index. The reliability constraints are then evaluated
at the critical point, while the objectives are evaluated at the mean value point (defined
by the mean values of the random variables).
3.3 Proposed Probabilistic Design approach
The Probabilistic Design combines elements from each to create a complete formulation
for accessing and improving reliability and robustness. Each of the methods discussed in
this chapter has its specific focus with respect to incorporating uncertainty.
Monte Carlo simulation is an investigative tool; no constraints or objectives are
formulated. Reliability analysis is focused on constraints; any objective included is
evaluated only at the mean value point (the current design point, with any random
variables set to their mean values). Reliability-based optimization is again focused on the
constraint formulation of an optimization problem, in converting deterministic constraints
to probabilistic constraints; again the objective retains its deterministic formulation and is
evaluated at the mean value point. Finally, Taguchi Robust Design places attention on
desired response values through the formulation of an objective function that includes the
desired mean performance and the “minimize variation” element; constraints are not
explicitly formulated.
53
Probabilistic design optimization includes in its formulation uncertainty information
related to variables, constraints, and objectives. The focus then is not only to identify
solutions that are reliable or robust with respect to constraint satisfaction, but also to
reduce the variability associated with objective components. Further, by defining the
variance or standard deviation of uncertain input design parameters not as fixed, but as
design variables themselves, tolerance design/optimization can be implemented by
seeking standard deviation settings for these parameters that produce acceptable
performance variation (objective components, constraints).
In the following chapters, first, we will present a simple cylindrical cup drawing
experiment, which shows that at the fixed level of process setting the part quality
characteristics can have a very large variation. This experiment serves as a justification to
conduct the probabilistic design for the sheet metal forming process. Then the simple
probabilistic design methodology using the quality index as objective is illustrated in
chapter 5. By considering the material properties variation and process condition
variation, an optimal deterministic blank holder force and stochastic friction coefficients
means are obtained to minimize the defect rate.
A more formal probabilistic design formulation is explained in chapter 6, where the
temporal varying blank holder force itself is treated as random variable like what we see
in the real world. By incorporating process variations, both the reliability constraints and
54
Taguchi type objective are considered in the design optimization formulation. The
probabilistic design is also compared with the deterministic design and the PI design
which is usually adopted to find the variable blank holder force profile.
In chapter 7, spatial varying constraints on the sheet are studied with the introduction of
the very new discrete friction concept. The die surface is segmented into 10 discrete areas
and punch is divided to 4 areas. Since the number of design variables under research is
fifteen, the methodology used in chapter 5 and 6 is not applicable here. In this complex
case, two phases design method is developed. The first step is to integrate the finite
element simulation with the multi-objective genetic algorithm to find the optimal
deterministic design configuration for those fifteen variables. Then the reliability analysis
method: Mean Value First Order is used to assess the defect rate for all the points within
the deterministic constraints in the last Pareto fronts which are obtained through the
multi-objective genetic algorithm.
55
CHAPTER 4
4. EXPERIMENT OBSERVATION ON THE PART QUALITY

VARIATIONS
4.1 Experiment Objective
The basic assumption of conducting probabilistic design for sheet metal drawing is that
although the process seems fixed under the pre-designed setting, there could still exist
great variations from various resources: the sheet material properties, sheet thickness,
lubrication, or blank holder force, etc.. These input variations can then cause large
variations of drawn parts quality characteristics, as schematically shown in figure 4.1.
The objective of this experiment is to observe and study the variations of drawn parts
quality at the fixed level of process setting so that our basic assumption about the
probabilistic design can be tested. The information about these variations will not only
justify our probabilistic design approach, but also provide statistical data to conduct
probabilistic design.
56
Input variations Output variations
Material Quality
Process Quality
y y
y y
Other Quality
Figure 4.1. Illustration of process output variations caused by input variations for sheet
drawing process.
57
4.2 Experimental Design
4.2.1 Criteria to Select Right Part to Draw
In this experiment, we only want to see the impact of variation of process parameters on
the parts quality variation. These process parameters variations include: sheet material
properties variation such as strength hardening coefficient, sheet thickness variation,
lubrication variation and blank holder force variation. The quality characteristics include
three aspects: wrinkling, fracture and springback. The criteria of selecting the
experimental part to draw should be based on two concerns:
1) Only the process parameters abovementioned should be considered in the drawing
process. No complex die/punch/blank geometry should be involved because their
variations may be coupled with the process variations we want to study.
2) The measurement of the three quality characteristics should be easy. The benefit of
easy measurement is the higher measurement gage R&R. Thus the measurement result
will almost reflect the part quality variation instead of measurement variation.
After careful consideration, the simple cylindrical cup drawing is selected in this
experiment since it satisfies both two criteria.
58
4.2.2 Drawing Die Design
The die/punch components designed for the cylindrical cup drawing are illustrated in the
figure 4.2. The hydraulic press is shown in figure 4.3. The die/punch parameters are
listed in table 4.1. In this test, we designed four components for the die part. The first is
the bottom plate, which is used to connect the die block to the hydraulic press bottom
stage. The die block is positioned above the bottom plate and functions as the die ring
holder. After die ring is put onto the die block, a centering ring is placed on the top of the
die ring and is pressed against the die block by the four screw bolts. There are four extra
screw holes on the centering ring, and their function is to lift the centering ring up by
screwing the bolts through the holes. By this design, we can easily take the die ring out,
and put in different die ring for other experiments. Therefore, we could save a lot by
using the same die block and centering ring.
The punch is connected to the hydraulic press through a screw cap on the top. To avoid
the negative pressure between the punch and the blank during the drawing, which may
cause problem to separate them afterward, we drilled a small hole through the punch as
air vent. In this drawing test, we also designed the blank holder, which is connected to the
up plate by the screws. The up plate is then T-slot connected to the up platen of the
hydraulic press. The sheet used in this experiment is HSLA350. The sheet thickness is
1mm. The coupon is cut to the disk shape with diameter of 5.8 inches.
59
Figure 4.2. The cylindrical cup drawing die design.
60
Figure 4.3. The hydraulic press used in the drawing test.
61
Punch diameter 3.250in
Punch corner radius 0.600in
Die ring radius 1.675in
Die corner radius 0.157in
Blank diameter 5.8in
Blank thickness 1mm
Blank material HSLA350
Lubrication Drawing oil (mid-state lub M2C)
Table 4.1. The die/punch design and test setup
62
4.2.3 The Measurement of Quality Characteristics
The three quality characteristics usually concerned in the sheet metal drawing are the
wrinkling, fracture and springback. One of the reasons that we choose the cylindrical cup
drawing is that the measurement of these three aspects is not difficult. The figure 4.4
shows schematically the front view of a cut open part after drawing.
1) The wrinkling can be measured by two metrics. The first is the number of wrinkles
along the flange. The second is the maximum height of the wrinkling mark on the cup
outside sidewall (the figure 4.4 shows the inside).
2) The fracture tendency is represented by the minimum sheet thickness along the cut
open cup. In the figure 4.4, the thinning happens at the transition area from cup bottom
corner to the straight side wall.
3) The springback can be measured by the expansion angle from cup bottom to cup top
after drawing. In the figure 4.4, Dtop is the diameter measured at the intersection of
flange and the sidewall. Dbottom is the diameter measured at the intersection of cup
bottom corner and sidewall. H is the vertical distance between them. The springback
Dtop − Dbottom
angle can be calculated by a tan( ).
2H
63
Wrinkling
Dtop
h
H
Wrinkling mark
Dbottom
t
Figure 4.4. Illustration of measurement of three quality characteristics of drawn cups.
64
The height of wrinkling mark and the maximum thinning are measured by the vernier
caliper. The Dtop and Dbottom are measured by micrometer. The gage R&R for those
two measurement methods in this case are around 10%. Besides, for each metric, 3
measurements will be conducted to minimize the measurement error and variation.
Therefore at this level of accuracy, we could assume that the measurement result will
represent mostly the variation of the drawn part quality instead of measurement error.
4.2.4 The Experiment Procedure
After we select the right part, design the drawing die, and figure out the measurement
methods for the quality characteristics, next we need to plan the experiment procedures.
Step One: First, we need to run some initial trial to find the feasible region of cup
drawing. Since the sheet material we only have is HSLA350, which is known for its good
strength but relatively poor limit drawing ratio (LWR). We want to determine the process
setting, which includes the right blank holder force, the right amount of lubricants
applied on the blank and right blank size, so that a cup without any defect can be drawn.
Step Two: After we find this good setting, we will keep it at fixed level and then repeat
drawing one by one. This means we will adopt the same way to put the drawing oil on
the same spots of the blank, place the blank on the same location on the die ring, use the
65
same blank holder force, and apply the same hydraulic press operation sequences. By this
way, we can reduce as much variation as possible induced by the human factors.
Step Three: After drawing enough cups according to the sample size (in this case 30),
we then measure the three quality characteristics of those cups. The measurement should
be taken in two steps. The first is to count the number of wrinkling, measure the
maximum height of wrinkling mark and the springback angle. After this, the cups will be
cup open in half and the minimum sheet thickness could be measured.
Step Four: At last, we need to analyze the data. The histogram is a good tool to visualize
the data distribution. The mean and standard deviation should be calculated too.
Normality test is also necessary to test whether the quality data follows normal
distribution. Finally, the coefficient of variation should be calculated, which represents
the ratio of the variations of the quality characteristics relative to their means.
4.3 The Experiment Result
During the experiment, we first found that the part quality was more sensitive to
lubrication than to the blank holder force. To show the effect of lubrication, two blank
disks were drawn at 3000lbs and 4500lbs BHF without the lubrication. Another two disks
were drawn at 3000lbs and 4500lbs with drawing oil applied. Their shapes are shown in
the figure 4.5. From these pictures, we see that when no lubrication was applied, even
66
reducing the BHF from 4500lbs to 3000lbs could not make a good cup without fracture.
Once lubricant was used, at both BHFs, no fracture appeared. The only difference was
that under smaller BHF, the wrinkling magnitude was higher.
To keep a compromise between wrinkling and fracture, we fixed the blank holder force at
4500lbs, applied lubricant (drawing oil), and then drew 30 pieces of blanks to the depth
of 44mm. The part shape after drawing is shown in figure 4.6(a). Within those 30 cups,
we found 3 of them were defective due to fracture, which are shown in figure
4.6(b)(c)(d).
4.3.1 Wrinkling Measurement Result
First we examine the wrinkling measurement result. The numbers of wrinkles along the
flange for the thirty pieces of drawn cups are plotted against test number in figure 4.7(a).
The histogram of those thirty data is shown in figure 4.7(b). Beside the histogram we
could see the calculated mean and standard deviation. The ratio between them (standard
deviation divided by mean), called coefficient of variation (COV), gives the level of
wrinkling variation under fixed process setting (BHF=4500lbs, drawing depth=44mm,
same drawing oil applied by the same pattern for every cup drawing). From the figure,
the COV for number of wrinkling is 1.737/25.53=6.8%. The figure 4.7(c) shows the
normality test plot. The p-value is 0.087. Therefore at the 95% confidence level, we
could say the number of wrinkling follows roughly normal distribution.

67
(a) BHF=3000lbs, without lubrication (b) BHF=4500lbs, with lubrication
(c) BHF=3000lbs, with lubrication (d) BHF=4500lbs, with lubrication
Figure 4.5. Parts drawn without and with lubricants at two levels of BHFs.
68
(a) the part shape after drawing (b) defective part 1 with fracture
(c) defective part 2 with fracture (d) defective part 3 with fracture
Figure 4.6. The parts after drawing and the defective parts.
69
Plot of wrinkling number vs. test number
29
28
27
wrinkling number
26
25
24
23
22
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Index
(a) plot of number of wrinkling vs. test number

Histogram of wrinkling number
Normal
9
8 Mean 25.53
7
StDev 1.737
N 30
6
Frequency
0
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
wrinkling number
(b) histogram of the number of wrinkling and the fitted normal distribution
Probability Plot of wrinkling number
Normal
99
95
90
80
70
Mean 25.53
Percent
60
50
40 StDev 1.737
30
N 30
20
AD 0.638
10
P-Value 0.087
5
1
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
wrinkling number
(c) normality test of the number of wrinkling

Figure 4.7. The measurement result for number of wrinkling along the flange.
70
Then we will check the variation of the maximum height of wrinkling mark along the cup
sidewall. The maximum heights of wrinkling mark along cup sidewall are plotted against
the test number, shown in figure 4.8(a). The histogram with normal distribution fit is
shown in figure 4.8(b) with the mean of 0.5308 and the standard deviation of 0.06093.
Therefore, the COV for the wrinkling height is 0.06093/0.5308=11.5%. The normality
test plot is given in figure 4.8(c). At 95% confidence level, we could say the wrinkling
height follows normal distribution since the p-value 0.11 is larger than 0.05. From the
results of number of wrinkling and height, we can see that the part quality in terms of
wrinkling has large variation. Assuming the drawing process is stable (plus/minus 3
sigma), the number of wrinkling from the production will range from 25.53-3*1.737
(around 20) to 25.53+3*1.737 (around 31). You could imagine how different the drawn
parts may looks like.
4.3.2 Fracture Measurement Result
The fracture tendency is represented by measuring the minimum sheet thickness along
the cut open cup sidewall. The plot of minimum thickness against the test number is
shown in figure 4.9(a). The histogram and the normality test are shown separately in
figure 4.9(b) and (c). From the figures, we see that the thickness does not follow normal
distribution since at 95% confidence level the p-value from normality test 0.018 is much
smaller than 0.05. However, we could still use COV to show its magnitude of variation,
which is equal to 0.002383/0.03418 (around 7%).

71
Plot of wrinkling length vs. test number
0.70
0.65
0.60
wrinkling length
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Index
(a) plot of maximum height of wrinkling mark along cup sidewall vs. test number
Histogram of wrinkling length
Normal
9
Mean 0.5308
8
StDev 0.06093
7
N 30
6
Frequency
0
0.40 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.60 0.64 0.68
wrinkling length
(b) histogram of maximum height of wrinkling mark along cup sidewall with normal
distribution fit
Probability Plot of wrinkling length
Normal
99
95
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
Mean 0.5308
40 StDev 0.06093
30
20
N 30
10
AD 0.598
5 P-Value 0.110
1
0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70
wrinkling length
(c) normality test of maximum height of wrinkling mark along cup sidewall
Figure 4.8. The result for the maximum height of wrinkling mark along cup sidewall.
72
Plot of thinning vs. test number
0.038
0.037
0.036
0.035
thinning
0.034
0.033
0.032
0.031
0.030
0.029
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Index
(a) plot of minimum thickness along cup sidewall vs. test number.
Histogram of thinning
Normal
6
Mean 0.03418
5 StDev 0.002383
N 30
4
Frequency
0
0.030 0.032 0.034 0.036 0.038
thinning
(b) plot of histogram of minimum thickness along cup sidewall and fitted normal
distribution
Probability Plot of thinning
Normal
99
95
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40 Mean 0.03418
30
20
StDev 0.002383
10
N 30
5 AD 0.910
P-Value 0.018
1
0.0300 0.0325 0.0350 0.0375 0.0400
thinning
(c) normality test of minimum thickness along cup sidewall.
Figure 4.9. The fracture measurement result.
73
Again, if we assume the process is stable (plus/ minus 3 sigma), the minimum thickness
will range from 0.03418- 3*(0.002383) = 0.027031 to 0.03418+ 3*(0.002383) =
0.041329.
4.3.3 Springback Measurement Result
The springback is measured by the angle illustrated in figure 4.4. The plot of angle vs.
test number is shown in figure 4.10(a). The histogram of angles and fitted normal
distribution is in figure 4.10(b) with the mean of 0.7961, and the standard deviation of
0.2188. From the normality test plot in figure 4.10(c), we could conclude that the
springback angles follow normal distribution since at 95% confidence level, the p-value
0.298 is much larger than 0.05. The COV for the angles is equal to 0.2188/0.7961=27%.
One common known issue of HSLA sheet material is the high springback. From this
experiment, we also see that the variation of springback (27%) is very high comparing to
wrinkling (6.8%, 11.5%) or fracture variations (7%).
74
Plot of angle vs. test number
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
angle
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Index
(a) plot of springback angle vs. the test number

Histogram of angle
Normal
7
Mean 0.7961
6 StDev 0.2188
N 30
5
Frequency
0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
angle
(b) plot of histogram of springback angle with normal distribution fit

Probability Plot of angle
Normal
99
95
90
80
70
Percent
60
50 Mean 0.7961
40
30
StDev 0.2188
20 N 30
10 AD 0.424
5 P-Value 0.298
1
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
angle
(c) normality test of springback angle
Figure 4.10. The springback angle measurement result.
75
4.4 Experiment Conclusion
In this simple cylindrical cup drawing test, we first found the optimal process setting to
deep draw the cup. The lubricants must be used to prevent the fracture. Thirty cups were
drawn at blank holder force 4500lbs, which gave the best compromise between wrinkling
and thinning. Then we measured different metrics to represent the three aspects of the
drawn cup quality: the wrinkling, fracture and springback. The number of wrinkling
along the flange and the maximum height of wrinkling mark along the cup sidewall
represent the wrinkling tendency. The angle from the cup bottom to top represents the
springback tendency. We then cut those thirty cups open and then measured the minimum
sheet thickness along the cup sidewall. This represents the fracture tendency. After the
data are analyzed, we found all of these metrics have large variation. Their coefficients of
variation range from 6.8% to 27%. The fracture metric does not follow normal
distribution, while the other metrics seem following normal distribution.
Through this simple drawing test, we not only justified the necessity of the probabilistic
deign approach by the large product quality variations observed, but also get some
quantitative information about the magnitude of those variations.
76
CHAPTER 5
5. PROBABILISTIC DESIGN OF ALUMINUM SHEET
DRAWING FOR REDUCED RISK OF WRINKLING AND
FRATURE
frequent rework, machine shut down and thus huge loss of profit. In this chapter, a
general approach is presented to quantify the uncertainties and to incorporate them into
RSM model so as to conduct probabilistic based optimization. As an application, deep
drawing process of Hishida part is analyzed. Given the blank shape and tooling, a
probabilistic design is successfully carried out to find the optimal combination of blank
holder force and friction coefficient under the presence of variation of material
properties.
The result shows that by the probabilistic design, the quality index (average defect rates
of wrinkling and fracture) improved (reduced) 42% over the traditional deterministic
77
design. It also shows that by further reducing the variation of friction coefficient to 2%,
the quality index will improve to 98.97%. In a mass production environment, this
achieved quality improvement is huge.
5.1 Introduction
Deep drawing is a process transforming flat sheets into cup or box shaped articles
without fracture or excessive localized thinning. Enormous efforts have been put into the
system design phase in order to produce a defect-free part. In the previous work, given
material and part, the optimum deep drawing design, in general, focuses on three main
aspects: blank design, tooling design and process design. The blank design includes
optimizing blank geometries and thickness [27]. The tooling design is to determine the
optimal punch and die radii, the punch and die clearance, the drawbead shape and
location [28] [29]. The process design tends to find the best setting of process parameters
such as the friction (lubricant type and lubrication procedure), the punch speed and the
blank holder force.
However, even if the drawing process is optimally designed, the part can have significant
scatter in dimensions and properties, as shown in the simple cup drawing test mentioned
in chapter 4. Majeske [2] analyzed data from several leading automobile manufacturers,
and highlighted the fact that the high scrap rate still remains as a predominant issue
78
especially in making complex shaped part for them. He reported that within the same
batch (same die and process setup) the part-to-part geometric variation can be as high as
30%. This high variation inevitably causes high scrap rate, frequent rework, machine shut
down and huge loss of profit.
Of course there are many factors such as inadequate or inaccurate modeling, unknown
failure mechanism, unpredictable human effect etc. causing the part fluctuation, but
variation that occur in the forming of each part is a significant and yet not well
recognized reason for the lack of process consistency.
Recently, a few researchers have investigated process variability. Gantar [30] identified
twelve most important influencing input parameters in the deep drawing process and
measured their variations. Karthik [31] investigated the variability of sheet material
properties and carried out measurements using more than 45 coils of same material. It
was shown that the strain hardening coefficient “ n ” can have coil-to-coil variation up to
14%. To give an idea about how much the material property can vary the result from
Gantar and Karthik is listed together in table 5.1. Cao [32] also pointed out that during
sheet bending process the variation of material strength “ K ” can be as high as 20%, the
strain hardening coefficient 16% and the friction coefficient 65%.
79
Extensive research has been done in exploring the deterministic effect of each factor on
the part, but the impact of their variations on the fluctuation of output quality for the
drawing process is seldom addressed and quantified. The inclusion of uncertainty in the
design and optimization cycle should lead to better understanding of the impact of
uncertainty associated with system input on the system output. This understanding can
then be applied for managing such uncertainties. Such designs that incorporate
uncertainty are more popularly referred to as probabilistic design [33]. To date, there is
no report on the probabilistic design of aluminum sheet deep drawing process.
80
ST-13[2] Stainless steel 409
Values Variation(%) Values Variation(%)
n 0.22 ± 0.036 16.3 0.2 ± 0.03 13.4
K 546 ± 50 9.1 751 ± 43 5.7
r 1.90 ± 0.20 10.5 1.5 ± 0.12 7.9
Table 5.1. Variation of material properties [28][29]
81
5.2 General Approach for Probabilistic Design
The concept of reliability based design was first introduced and developed in the
reliability calculations of structures. A limit state function, basically a failure criterion
with a deterministic model connecting the system input variables to the output variables,
will segment the multi-dimensional space spanned by the random variables into the
failure and safe domain. Given the joint probability density function of the random
variables, the probability of failure can be calculated by the portion of points in the
failure domain [34]. Each interested response will have its own limit state function. Then
the optimization is to search for the right means of random variables that minimize the
objective function while satisfying the reliability requirements.
Two problems need to be resolved when applying probabilistic design in the metal
forming process: construction of the limit state function and the joint probability. Since
metal forming is a highly nonlinear process influenced by many factors, there is no way
to analytically predict the system response. Nowadays, numerical simulations of sheet
metal forming processes based on finite element method have become a powerful tool to
predict the forming process. However, simulating each point according to the joint
probability to check its failure or safe is impossible. Even by some sampling technique,
this task is still too time-consuming. The only practical solution to overcome this
82
problem is to build the meta-model by the response surface method (RSM) to
approximate the limit state function. Through proper design of experiments (DOE), only
fraction of experiments or simulations is required. Then if the joint distribution of
random variables is known, statistical method like Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) can
evaluate the probability of failure for the interested responses [35]. The second difficulty
is to determine the joint distribution. Since the experimental data available for statistical
modeling of the random variables in metal forming are limited, it is not possible to make
any clear identification of correlation between the variables. Therefore, the independence
between them is usually assumed and accordingly the joint probability density function is
directly established as a product of the marginal density functions.
5.3 Quality Index to Measure Risk
As mentioned before, drawing process can be affected by the selection of blank, tools and
process parameters for given material and part. In traditional design, those factors are
taken as certain variables, meaning they don’t have random features at all. However,
many of them are indeed random variables. For example, the sheet metal material
properties can vary coil by coil or stock by stock. The lubrication condition for one part
can also be quite different from another.
83
To illustrate the necessity of incorporating uncertainties into the traditional optimum
design, the deep drawing process (figure 4.1) is schematically described where the
variations of input parameters are linked somehow to the fluctuation of output quality.
To date, there is no literature found on probabilistic design application for aluminum
sheet deep drawing processes. However, Sahai [33] adopted a very similar strategy in
designing a sheet metal flanging process. In his paper, he treated the sheet thickness “t”
and gap “g” as random design variables, the die corner radius “r” as a deterministic
design variable and the Young’s modules “E” and Yield Stress “Y” as random parameters.
Then the objective was to find a combination of sheet metal and tooling configurations
that would minimize the difference of springback to the target under the probabilistic
constraint that 99.99 percent of maximum absolute strain of the flanged sheet metal
should not exceed a specified value.
The issue is that being the quality feature, the springback should have a scatter because of
the variation of the system. Therefore, the intuitive objective should be minimizing the
probability of sheet springback angle exceeding the tolerance, namely the defect rate
instead of the deterministic objective function. Nevertheless, changing the objective to be
probabilistic will invalidate the optimization method he introduced. Additionally, the
author simply assumed the variation of random variables and did not investigate the
effect of enlarging or reducing the variable variations on the defect rate, which will be
tackled in this chapter.
84
In this chapter, the wrinkling and fracture are selected as the quality features. A new
measure, quality index, is established as the weighted sum of probability of no wrinkling
and probability of no fracture. It is written as:
QI = weight * Pr[no wrinkling] + (1 − weight ) Pr[no fracture] (5.1)
Then the objective is naturally to maximize the quality index. The outline of used
strategy is drawn in figure 5.1. A non-symmetrical Hishida geometry, which has four
corners with different radii and four tapered walls with different sloped angles on each
side, is chosen to demonstrate the concept.
5.4 The Numerical Simulation Model
The industrial/simulation model for the Hishida parts forming process is shown in Figure
5.2. The aluminum car body sheet alloy Ecodal-608-T4 (AA6181A) with 1mm thickness
is used for this study. The Krupkowsky-law hardening equation: σ y = K (ε 0 + ε p ) n is
used for modeling the material behavior. The drawing process is simulated using
PAM-STAMP.
85
5.5 Selection of Input Variables
Siekirk [36] has identified more than 25 variables that influence sheet metal forming.
However, it is impossible to include all the variables in the model. Instead, it will assume
that the blank shape and tooling have been designed and produced. The interests are
hence the optimal process parameters. After checking the sensitivity analysis result from
Gantar [30] and Jaisingh [37], the input variables are selected and classified into three
categories which are listed in table 5.2. The deterministic design variable is the blank
holder force – BHF. It has no variation since it can be easily close-loop-controlled. The
random design variable is the friction coefficient between blank/die and blank/binder –
Lub1, and the friction coefficient between blank/punch – Lub2. A uniform lubrication
over the whole blank surface is presumed. Although it is by and large the lubricant type
and lubrication procedure that decide the friction coefficient, many other factors like the
blank or tool surface roughness, sliding velocity and contact pressure [38] also have
significant effects on it. Cao [32] estimated that in sheet metal forming, the variation of
friction coefficient can be as high as 65%. Gantar [30] used 10% in his stability
evaluation of deep drawing process. In this probabilistic design problem 10% is used
initially. The random parameters that cannot be designed (noise variables) are the strain
hardening coefficient n , the strength coefficient K , blank dimension variation along the
horizontal and vertical direction - pm1 , pm 2 .
86
5.6 Prediction of Wrinkling and Fracture
There are two forms of wrinkling, the sidewall wrinkle (SW) and flange wrinkle (FW).
Since the flange area is trimmed after drawing, only sidewall wrinkling is measured by
geometrical consideration of part cross-sections cut into planes perpendicular to the
forming direction at a 25% parts height [39], as shown in figure 5.3.
The criterion for wrinkle defect is:
{wrinkling : if normalized magnitude of wrinkle > 1} (5.2)
Fracture happens when the strain at the local region is concentrated and subsequent
deformation changes from a smooth and continuous one to a markedly non-uniform one.
In this study, the maximum sheet thinning is measured to indicate the risk of fracture. The
criterion for fracture defect is:
{ fracture : if normalized maximum sidewall thinning > 1} (5.3)
87
Figure 5.1. General probabilistic design approach.
88
Figure 5.2. Simulation model of the Hishida forming process.
89
Designable signal variables Un-designable noise
variables
BHF Lub1 Lub2 n K pm1 pm 2

Variation − 10% 10%
13% 6% 5% 5%
Low(DOE) 495 0.05 0.05

0.2375 446 0 0
High(DOE) 605 0.12 0.12

0.2625 493 1 1
Table 5.2, The variation and DOE levels for selected parameters
90
5.7 DOE and RSM
For the seven variables, a Box-Behnken DOE is selected. This design allows efficient
estimation of the first and second order coefficients. Also because Box-Behnken has
fewer design points, it is less expensive to run than other design methods such as central
composite designs under the same number of factors. After a series of finite element
simulations, the data of magnitude of SW wrinkling and maximum thinning are collected
and fitted by the second order polynomials. The R 2 for them are 94% and 98%
respectively. To check the accuracy of the response surface models, ten additional
simulations are run at different points. The responses obtained by the simulations with
PAM-STAMP are compared with the interpolation based on response surface models.
The results correlate very well. The deviations in the response surface predictions are
within a few percent. Hence, the response surface models are considered to be
sufficiently accurate for the subsequent probabilistic design of the aluminum sheet deep
drawing process.
In the table 5.1, the variation data are for steel material. In this DOE and research we
used Aluminum material. The reason is that it is more difficult to draw an Aluminum part
without defects. However, we have conduct a testing to see whether the RSM generated
from the Aluminum material DOE could be used to predict the behavior of the steel
91
material (ST-12), since the thinning and wrinkling are mostly determined by the n and K
if we keep other process parameters the same. After testing, we found the Aluminum
RSM could predict the steel material very well. This means that the response for thinning
and wrinkling are monotonous. As long as the ranges of n and K are not far away from
the DOE range, the prediction is acceptable. Please see Appendix B for details.
Before proceeding to the probabilistic assessment, the main effect plot is drawn to show
how sensitive each of the variables on the two responses, see figure 5.4(a) and (b). It is
observed that the friction coefficient between die/blank and binder/blank has the most
significant impact on the wrinkling and fracture. When it becomes large, the magnitude
of wrinkling decreases whereas the maximum thinning increases. The explanation is that
due to the increased friction coefficient, larger friction force under the same blank holder
force will resist the material flowing into the wall area, and therefore change the strain
distribution in the FLD to the area where wrinkling is less likely to occur. At the same
time, more punch force is needed to draw the material into the die. With less material
going to the wall the maximum thinning along the sidewall is inevitable. The blank
holder force, which is the second largest factor to the wrinkling and facture defects, can
be explained similarly. Other observations include: (1) the geometric variations along the
initial blank are not sensitive so that they can be neglected in the following analysis. (2)
The strain hardening coefficient and the strength coefficient have effect on the quality
features but are limited comparing to friction coefficient and BHF.
92
Figure 5.3. The measurement of sidewall wrinkling.
93
Sensitivity of parameters to the magnitude of wrinkling
Lub1
BHF K
n Lub2 pm1 pm2
(a), The sensitivity plots for the wrinkling.
Sensitivity of parameters to the maximum thinning
Lub1
BHF K Lub2
n pm1 pm2
(b), The sensitivity plots for the thinning.
Figure 5.4. Sensitivity plot of wrinkling and thinning.
94
5.8 Probabilistic Assessment for Wrinkling and Fracture
The response surface models built in section 5.4 are deterministic in nature. Given a
design vector, the prediction is one certain value. This is unrealistic since many variables
contained in the model, like material constants, friction coefficients and geometric
dimensions, etc. are known to have a certain degree of scatter around their nominal
values. The variation of system input variables should be incorporated into the
deterministic model.
To incorporate uncertainties, it is assumed that the vector of random variables
Ψ = [ X1 , X 2 ,..., X n , Z1 , Z 2 ,...Z m ] representing the aluminum sheet forming process random
nature. X refers to the designable random variable while Z refers to the un-designable
random parameters like n and K . The realization of Ψ is ψ = [ x1, x2 ,...xn , z1 , z2 , ...zm ]
representing a specific metal forming process and the joint probability density function
f Ψ (ψ ) measures the probability of that event. Suppose g wr ( Ψ ) is the response model for
the wrinkling and we know the criterion for wrinkling defect is
{wrinkling : if normalized magnitude of wrinkle > 1} ,then the probability of wrinkling can be
calculated by
Pfwr = P{Ψ ∈ Ω fwr } = P{Norm( g wr (ψ )) − 1 ≤ 0} = ∫Ω f (ψ ) dψ

fwr Ψ (5.4)
95
where Ω fwr is defined as Ω fwr = {ψ : Norm( g wr (ψ )) − 1 ≤ 0} . The evaluation of the
probability of fracture is conducted in the same way. For the probabilistic design, it is
assumed that n ~ N (0.245,0.032 2 ) and K ~ N (470,30 2 ) . The standard deviation for
friction coefficient is 0.01. All the random variables are normal distributed and there is no
correlation between them. Hence, in every iteration of the probabilistic optimization,
Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) can be applied to evaluate the quality index for each
design vector.
5.9 Optimal Design Approach
In previous section it has already given the criteria of defining wrinkling and fracture, the
two major forms of defects in the manufacturing of Hishida parts. The optimal design
objective, therefore, is to find the right combination of BHF, Lub1 and Lub2 so as to
minimize the sum of two defects rates or maximize the quality index. There are two
approaches to achieve this objective.
The traditional way formulates the problem as
minimize {weight * Norm( Magnitude of wrinkling )

(5.5)
+ (1- weight ) * Norm( Maximum thinning )}
96
where weight is a coefficient between 0 and 1 that is decided by the significance of each
defect. Norm() is the function to normalize the magnitude of wrinkling and maximum
thinning so that they will have the same range during the optimization to avoid severe
bias.
The other approach that is adopted in this chapter captures the variations and expresses
the objective function in the form of probabilistic way as shown below:
maximize{weight * Prob[ no wrinkling ]

(5.6)
+ (1−weight )*Prob[ no fracture]}
where prob[] is the probability assessment function described in section 5.5. The first
optimal design approach is called “deterministic design” (DD) and the latter one
“probabilistic design” (PD).
For the PD two optimization techniques: the gradient based method and grid method are
tried. In the first method, for each iteration, several MCSs are conducted to calculate the
gradient at the current design point to determine the future search direction. It will
converge when the residual error is small enough. The second technique will segment the
design space into equal lattice and each intersection point will be evaluated and the best
design point who gives the largest quality index will be selected. It is found that the first
method is not very reliable since it is easy to be trapped in the local maxima. Although
the second method needs a much larger CPU time, for the sake of finding the global
97
maxima, the second method is used and all the results are reported by this method. To
illustrate the grid method, when the weight is 0.5, first the mean of Lub1 is fixed as 0.09
and mean of Lub2 as 0.12, and then the quality index is plotted against the different BHF,
see figure 5.5. In this case, the optimal BHF is easily determined at 605. In figure 5.6, the
mean of Lub2 is fixed as 0.12 and the BHF as 605, and then the quality index is plotted
against the different mean of Lub1. From the plot, the optimal mean of Lub1 is 0.09.
Based on the different value of weight, a series of optimization using both the DD and
PD operations is conducted. The results are tabulated in table 5.3 and 5.4.
First of all, it is seen that the deterministic design result is very different with
probabilistic design at the same weight. DD is prone to the extremes on the constraints
boundary. The BHF is either the minimum or the maximum. The friction coefficient also
has the similar pattern. The outcome is that either its probability of wrinkling is very
large or the probability of fracture is very large. In contrast, the PD makes a compromise
between the wrinkling and fracture very well. The weighted sum of the probabilities of
two defects is kept at a much lower level than the DD. When the weight equals 0.5, the
quality index for DD is 52.445% and the index for PD is 94.815%. The PD is much
superior to the DD. Secondly, from figure 5.5 and 5.6, it is found that the key to improve
the quality is the right design of lubrication between blank/die and blank/binder.
Considering the material properties’ variation, the quality index is more sensitive to
friction coefficient than the blank holder force.
98
Design of the optimal BHF
2
1.8
2*Quality index (weight=0.5)
1.6
Optimal BHF
1.4
1.2
Probability of no fracture
1
0.8
0.6 Probability of no wrinkling

0.4
0.2
0
480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620
BHF (mean of lub1=0.09, mean of lub2=0.12)
Figure 5.5. Probabilistic design of BHF.
99
Design of the optimal mean of Lub1
2
2*Quality index (weight=0.5)
1.8
1.6
Optimal mean of Lub1
1.4
1.2
1
Probability of no fracture
0.8
0.6
0.4
Probability of no wrinkling
0.2
0
0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12
Mean of Lub1(BHF=605, mean of Lub2=0.12)
Figure 5.6. Probabilistic design of mean of Lub1.
100
Weight wrinkle Weight fracture Lub1: binder/blank Lub2: punch/blank Pr[no Pr[no
BHF wrinkle]% fracture]%
0.1 0.9 0.05 0.12 495 0.22 100

0.2 0.8 0.05 0.12 605 4.89 100
0.3 0.7 0.05 0.12 605 4.89 100
0.4 0.6 0.05 0.12 605 4.89 100
0.5 0.5 0.05 0.12 605 4.89 100
0.6 0.4 0.09 0.12 605 93.78 95.85
0.7 0.3 0.12 0.12 605 99.98 42.63
0.8 0.2 0.12 0.12 605 99.98 42.63
0.9 0.1 0.12 0.12 605 99.98 42.67
Table 5.3. Deterministic design result
101
Weight Weight Lub1: binder/blank Lub2: punch/blank Pr[no Pr[no
wrinkle fracture BHF wrinkle]% fracture]%
0.1 0.9 0.08 0.12 605 77.06 99.03
0.2 0.8 0.09 0.12 590 91.16 96.80
0.3 0.7 0.09 0.12 605 93.78 95.85
0.4 0.6 0.09 0.12 605 93.78 95.85
0.5 0.5 0.09 0.12 605 93.78 95.85
0.6 0.4 0.1 0.12 565 96.73 91.48
0.7 0.3 0.1 0.12 585 98.20 89.17
0.8 0.2 0.1 0.12 595 98.52 88.23
0.9 0.1 0.1 0.12 605 98.93 86.50
Table 5.4. Probabilistic design result
102
5.10 Effect of Variation on The Optimum Design
In the previous probabilistic design, it has assumed that the variations of friction
coefficient, strain hardening coefficient and strength coefficient are 10%, 13% and 6%.
The real spread during manufacturing may be much larger. So in this section, the effect of
variations of random variables on the quality index to the optimum design will be
investigated.
The mean values and type of probability density function for the random variables were
kept constant, while the percent of variation (and accordingly the standard deviations)
were increased at different levels from 2% to 30%. Using MCS, the quality index at each
level can be evaluated. The relative importance of the various random variables is plotted
in figure 5.7. It is observed that the different level of variation of material properties does
not have effect on the quality index (also the defect rates). However, the variation of
lubrication can cause the quality index drop from 98.97% to 77.41% if its variation
increases from 2% to 30%.
103
Quality index vs. variation of random variables
1
0.95
Friction coefficient
0.9 strain hardening n
strength K
0.85
0.8
0.75
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Percent of Variation [% ]
Figure 5.7. Effect of variation of random variables on the quality index.
104
5.11 Conclusion
In this chapter, deep drawing process of Hishida part is analyzed. Given the blank shape
and tooling, a probabilistic design is successfully conducted to find the optimal
combination of blank holder force and friction coefficient under the presence of variation
of material properties. The result shows that by the probabilistic design, the quality index
(average defect rates) improved 42% over the traditional deterministic design. It is also
noticed that by further reducing the variation of friction coefficient to 2%, the quality
index will improve to 98.97%. In a mass production environment, the achieved quality
improvement is huge.
105
CHAPTER 6
6. INVESTIGATING RELIABILITY OF TEMPORAL
VARIABLE BLANK HOLDER FORCE CONTROL IN
SHEET DRAWING UNDER PROCESS UNCERTAINTIES
The blank holder force, which regulates the amount of metal drawn into the die cavity,
stands to be a very effective measure for the success of deep drawing. It has been shown
that properly designed temporal varying BHF profile can make a part with fewer defects.
Extensive research has been carried out in the determination of this optimum profile
usually in a deterministic way that does not consider the inherent process variations. This
exclusion of variations, however, leads to unreliable design. In this chapter, a
probabilistic design approach is presented to incorporate these variations. As a
demonstration, the cylindrical cup drawing process is analyzed. Under the presence of the
variation of sheet thickness and frictions between sheet/die/binder/punch, the
probabilistic design successfully finds the optimal variable BHF. The result shows that by
the probabilistic design, the yield (probability of good parts) improved to 99.98% from
48.04% by the traditional deterministic design. In mass production environment, the
achieved process robustness is huge.

106
6.1 Introduction
Deep drawing is a process transforming flat sheets into cup or box shaped articles
without fracture or excessive localized thinning. It is one of the most common processing
techniques utilized in mass production. Nowadays, more and more complex parts are
being deep drawn. A proper designed drawing process is crucial in order to produce a
defect-free part. In the previous work, given material and part, the optimum deep drawing
design, in general, focuses on three main aspects: blank design, tooling design and
process design. The blank design includes optimizing blank geometries and thickness.
The tooling design is to determine the optimal punch and die radii, the punch and die
clearance, the drawbead shape and location. The process design tends to find the best
setting of process parameters such as the friction (lubricant type and lubrication
procedure), the punch speed and the blank holder force.
Within all aforementioned design variables, the blank holder force, which regulates the
amount of metal drawn into the die cavity, stands to be a very effective measure for the
success of deep drawing. During drawing, the BHF could be kept constant or varied with
time. The advantage of constant BHF control is its simplicity, but practices do prove that
properly designed variable BHF profile, i.e. variation of BHF with punch stroke, can
make a part with less defects and higher quality. This improvement is due to the fact that
it allows the BHF to vary according to the status of stress state in the sheet so that the
optimal process conditions are maintained at each time step.
107
To determine a good variable BHF profile, an experimental or computational approach is
usually used. Hirose [40] examined the blank holder profile experimentally while
forming full scale automobile panels. He found the profiles that did succeed were the
ones starting at lower binder forces and then increasing during the latter stage of the
process. Hardt [41], instead of figuring out the profiles directly, developed a PI controller
to adjust the blank holder force in-process to ensure a previously determined optimal
forming-punch force trajectory or a normalized average thickness trajectory was followed
and replicated. However, to obtain that target punch force profile, a constant BHF was
applied in his experiment. These approaches, although giving acceptable results, require
extensive trial and error, and consume too much material and time. Therefore, the
computational approach is preferred. Sim and Boyce [42] first predicted the optimal BHF
profile for a round cup drawing through a closed-loop controlled simulation system using
the same idea as in [41]. The issue is that since the sidewall wrinkling was not considered
in the controller, the maximum cup height might have been overestimated. Cao and
Boyce [43], nevertheless, included both the wrinkling and fracture criteria in their work.
By applying a similar PI control strategy and using the major principal strains and
amplitudes of wrinkles at the location of the die radius as state variables, a variable BHF
profile for conical cup drawing was predicted and the failure-free drawing depth was
increased over that achieved with a constant BHF. Sheng [44] further improved the
optimal BHF profile prediction by taking the maximum thinning and flange wrinkling, as
well as sidewall wrinkling amplitudes as control indices. His adaptive simulation method
108
can give optimum variable BHF profile for drawing conical cups with acclaimed
increased failure-free drawing depth and uniformity of the wall thinning distribution.
Although extensive research has been done in the exploration of the optimum variable
BHF in the deep drawing process, researchers have seldom included the existing sheet
and process variations in their models and discussed the impact on the part quality.
In fact, it is observed that even if the drawing process is optimally designed, the produced
part can still have significant scatter in dimensions and properties. Majeske [2] analyzed
data from several leading automobile manufacturers and highlighted the fact that the high
scrap rate still remains as a predominant issue especially in making complex shaped part.
He reported that within the same batch (same die and process setup) the part-to-part
geometric variation can be as high as 21%.
To date, most predictions of variable BHF profiles by the computational approach
basically exclude these possible sheet and process variations and assume them at constant
values. This kind of design without uncertainties or variations is characterized as
deterministic design.
Although many authors have verified their BHF profile through experiments and
concluded that the design improved the drawing quality, however, these experiments
were conducted at the well controlled laboratory conditions. There may be high risk in
109
real production. The reason is that this deterministic optimization tends to push the
design towards one or more constraints boundaries until the constraints are active, thus
leaving the designer with a design for which even slight uncertainties in the problem
formulation or changes in the operating environment could produce failed products.
Therefore, the inclusion of unavoidable variations in the design of optimum variable
BHF should lead to better understanding of the impact of uncertainty associated with
such uncertainties. Such designs that incorporate uncertainty are more popularly referred
to as probabilistic design [33].
6.2 General Approach for Probabilistic Design Optimization
The concept of including uncertainties into design was mainly developed from the
communities of structural reliability, which focuses on accessing the probability of failure
of a design with respect to the structural constraints and evaluates the variation of these
constraints. A limit state function, basically a failure criterion with a deterministic model
connecting the system input variables to the output variables, will segment the
multi-dimensional space spanned by the random variables into the failure and safe
domain. Given the joint probability density function of the random variables, the
probability of failure can be calculated by the portion of points in the failure domain.
110
Thus a deterministic constraint can be converted to probabilistic constraint by this
approach.
Reliability-based optimization is then searching for the right means of random design
variables that minimize the objective function while satisfying the reliability
requirements [34]. However, the objective function is evaluated at the mean value point.
The reliability refers to the constraints only and the objective itself is regarded as
deterministic. That is why it is named reliability-based optimization. Its focus is on
constraints, shifting constraint distributions away from the constraint boundaries, but not
on the spread of the objective response distributions and the possible variation reduction.
On the other hand, the robust design, first developed by Taguchi, aims at driving the
objective mean performance towards a target and minimizing the variance of objective
performance. The Taguchi method uses the “crossing design matrix”, “Signal-to-noise
ratio” and “Loss function” to evaluate potential designs and select the best alternative
from among those evaluated. However, the constraints are not formulated as typically
done with optimization formulations and the optimization is only performed at the
discrete design points. Reducing the objective response variation, balancing “mean on
target” and “minimize variation” are its interests. The term “robustness” in the
engineering design context is defined as the sensitivity of performance parameters to
fluctuations in design parameters, particularly uncertain design parameters.
111
The probabilistic design, however, combines the features of both the reliability-based
optimization and the robust design by incorporating input constraints (bounds of random
design variables), output constraints (reliability constraints) and objective robustness
(minimize mean and variation). Buranathiti [45] was the first to conduct a probabilistic
design of a wheelhouse stamping process in sheet metal forming by maximizing the total
mean values of margins to failure and minimizing the variance of the margin. It
efficiently took the process uncertainties into account and created a system-level robust
probabilistic design model. Weighted three-point-based method was used to estimate the
means and standard deviations for the quality features. Li [46] also proposed a similar
approach in the sheet metal forming design. However it utilized the dual response surface
models for those means and standard deviations.
The general formulation for the probabilistic design is given as follows:
Find the set of design variables X that:

k wμ wσ
Minimize : F( μ y ( X ), σ y ( X )) = ∑ [ i ( μ yi − Ti ) 2 + i σ y2i ]
i =1 sμi sσ i (6.1)
Subject to : gi ( μ y ( X ), σ y ( X )) ≤ 0
X L + nσ X ≤ μ X ≤ X U − nσ X
Here yi , i = 1,..k are the output responses that designer cares about. wμi and wσ i are the
weights and sμi and sσ i are the scale factors for mean and variation of performance
response yi which has the target Ti . Like the probability constraint for input vector X ,
gi is the probability constraint for performance response yi , which is used to

112
confine its distribution within the upper and lower specification limit. For the case in
which the mean performance is to be minimized rather than directed towards a target, Ti
will be put equal to zero.
The key to implement the probabilistic optimization mentioned above is to estimate the
mean and variance for all the performance responses yi at each evaluated design point
during the optimization iterations. Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) is the most
straight-forward method to acquire the knowledge of the probability distribution of
responses of uncertain systems given distributions of inputs with high accuracy. The
procedure is to first sample the values of the random variables by the given probabilistic
distributions and then run the system simulations according to the sample points.
However, to get a good estimate of the mean and variance, researchers have shown that at
least one hundred sample points should be evaluated even with variance reduction
sampling techniques. Therefore, for instance, if our optimization requires 10 iterations,
the total number of metal forming simulations would be at least 1000. Considering the
computation and time effort for each nonlinear metal forming simulation, this method is
obviously not good. The practical solution to overcome this problem is to build a meta
model Y ( x) by the response surface method (RSM) to approximate the FEM simulation.
Through proper design of experiments (DOE), only fraction of simulations is required.
Then by the Propagation of Error, the mean of this performance response can be
calculated by setting the uncertain design parameters to their mean value,
113
1 m d 2Y 2
μ y = Y ( μ x ) + ∑ 2 σ xi (6.2)
2 i dxi
And the standard deviation of Y ( x) is given by the second order Taylor’s expansion:
2
1 m m ⎛ ∂ 2Y ⎞
2
m
⎛ ∂Y ⎞
σ y = ∑ ⎜ ⎟ (σ xi ) + ∑∑ ⎜
2
⎟⎟ (σ xi ) (σ x j )
2 2
(6.3)
i =1 ⎝ ∂xi ⎠ 2 i j ⎜⎝ ∂xi ∂x j ⎠
where σ xi is the standard deviation of the ith parameter and m is the number of
uncertain parameters which include designable random variables and un-designable
random variables.
6.3 Parameterization of The Variable Blank Holder Force
The probabilistic design of variable blank holder force cannot start from nowhere. In
reference [44], the author predicted its optimum profile for the drawing of conical cup in
a deterministic manner. In this chapter, however, this case is taken as an example to
investigate its performance under the presence of sheet and process uncertainties. To
illustrate the probabilistic design approach the same simulation model is adopted and it is
assumed that even when variations exist, the basic shape of the robust profile is the same
as the one determined in the reference [44]. Based on the features of the optimized
114
variable BHF in the referenced [44], the profile is characterized by two connected
Gaussian functions in the form of
x − μ1 x − μ2
−( )2 −( )2
σ1 σ2 (6.4)
y = I A1e + (1 − I) A2 e
where I is an indicator variable following the rule
⎧1 if x ≤ x*
I=⎨ (6.5)
⎩0 otherwise
where x* is the intersection point of the two Gaussian functions. After fitting the data, the
BHF curve can be approximated as
x −11.79 2 x − 27.7 2
−( ) −( )
y = I( x ≤ 16.3)348.9e 6.751
+ (1 − I( x ≤ 16.3))473e 13.12 (6.6)
The fitted curve is very close to the original optimized BHF in the reference [44], as
shown in the figure 6.1. The objective of parameterizing the predicted profile is to extract
the simple control parameters which can be used later in the design optimization.
115
Figure 6.1. The blank holder control profile from [44] and the fitted Gaussian
approximation for sheet drawing.
116
6.4 The numerical Simulation Model
The simulation model built in PAM-STAMP is shown in figure 6.2 and the model inputs
in table 6.1. This figure also includes the part drawn at the last step. The stroke is 47mm,
the same as in the reference [44]. The BHF profile in the simulation is inputted from the
fitted Gaussian curve. Due to the symmetry, only quarter of the tooling and part are
modeled. An elastic-plastic material model with isotropic hardening is considered. The
other inputs are kept the same as in the reference [44] and listed in table 6.1.
117
Binder Punch
Die
Figure 6.2. The FEM simulation model of the sheet drawing process and the final drawn
part.
118
Material AKDQ steel
Blank diameter 248mm/9.7in.
Blank thickness 0.86mm/0.034in.
σ = 795(0.0052 + ε )
0.2
Flow stress (MPa)
Friction coefficient Punch/blank,0.25;binder/blank,0.15;die/blank,0.15
Table 6.1. Circular blank dimensions, material properties, and friction coefficients used in
the simulation of drawing the conical cup from AKDQ steel.
119
6.5 Selection of Input Variables and Output Variables
Siekirk [36] has identified more than 25 variables that influence sheet metal forming.
However, it is impossible to include all the variables in the model. Instead, it is assumed
that the blank shape and tooling have been designed and produced. The interest is to find
the optimum process parameters, mostly referred to BHF, so that the drawing process is
desensitized to the unavoidable condition variations. After checking the result from
Gantar [30], Jaisingh [37] and Zhang [47], the process parameters initially selected for
sensitivity analysis are the punch speed: ps , friction between die/blank and binder/blank:
fd , friction between punch/blank: fp , and sheet thickness: t . To calculate the
sensitivity of each parameter, it is varied at three levels: low, medium and high while
keeping all other parameters at the medium level. There are three output responses of
interest: the maximum thinning y fr which represents the tendency to fracture, the sidewall
wrinkling ysw and the flange wrinkling y fw . The sensitivity is calculated by
⎡ yhigh
i
− ymed
i i
ymed − ylow
i ⎤
⎢ i i
⎥
1 3 ⎢ ymed ymed ⎥
∑
6 i =1 ⎢ xhigh − xmed
+
xmed − xlow ⎥ (6.7)
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ xmed xmed ⎥⎦
where y i , i = 1, 2,3 corresponds to y fr , ysw , y fw . The results are tabulated in table 6.2.
120
Variable name Lower Middle Higher Sensitivity
Sheet thickness t 0.76 0.86 0.96 0.83
Punch speed ps 9 10 11 0.21
Friction fp 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.61
Friction fd 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.89
Table 6.2. The sensitivity of initial selected process parameter.
121
From it, it is seen that the punch speed only has little effect on the maximum thinning of
the final cup comparing to the other three variables. Therefore punch speed is ignored.
6.6 Deterministic Design vs. Probabilistic Design
There are four variables considered in the design of experiments for the further
construction of RSM and optimization. They are sheet thickness: t , friction between
punch/blank: fp , friction between die/blank and binder/blank: fd , and the scale of the
fitted variable BHF: s , which is in the range of zero to one to enlarge or reduce the blank
holder force profile accordingly. In probabilistic design, the variables considered in the
DOE and RSM are classified into control variables and noise variables. Control variables
are those process parameters that can be easily changed and controlled at a certain level.
However, it is very hard or even impossible to set or control noise variables in the
ordinary manufacturing conditions. To illustrate, the adjustment a technician makes to the
office copier belongs to control factor while the humidity that fluctuates in the office
environment is noise factor. Ideally, processes should be adjusted to be insensitive to the
noise factors via the control factors, so that variation of noise variables does not cause
variation of product quality. Back to the copier example, a good designed copy machine
should handle paper properly during humid summer months as well as in the winter,
when conditions are dry and prone to static electricity.
122
In the study, the objective is to consistently make conical cup without defects. Therefore
the variables are classified as following:
I. Control variable: the scale of BHF: s
II. Noise variables: the sheet thickness: t , the friction between punch/blank: fp ,
the friction between die/blank and binder/blank: fd .
It should be emphasized that this classification is nowhere unchangeable. If some noise
variable is found to be the key to the success of the objective, a method may be figured
out to control it. For example, if the humidity is found to play an important role in the
right functionality of copy machine, a humidifier may be added to control the humidity in
the machine. Then the former noise variable changes to control variable. Of course,
sometime it is also impossible or too expensive to change it.
For the design of experiment (DOE), the Box-behken DOE plan is selected. This design
allows efficient estimation of the first and second order coefficients. Also because
Box-Behnken has fewer design points, it is less expensive to run than other design
methods such as central composite designs under the same number of factors [48]. With
four variables, there are total 27 runs. For each run, the maximum thinning y fr , sidewall
wrinkling ysw and flange wrinkling y fw are recorded. The full quadratic response models
are built after all the twenty-seven simulations are done. The default values for t , fp , fd
in the reference [44] are used and the performance responses plotted versus s,
123
shown in figure 6.3. From this figure, it is seen that when the BHF is increased, the
maximum thinning is going up while the sidewall wrinkling is the opposite. In the
reference [44], the criteria for the fracture failure and wrinkling are maximum thinning
being larger than 0.25, sidewall wrinkling 0.20 and flange wrinkling 0.05. Since all the
flange wrinkle magnitude within design range is much smaller than 0.05, its curve is not
shown in figure 6.3. Constrained by the failure criteria, the feasible range for s shrinks
to a very narrow band around 1 as illustrated in the shaded area, which is exactly the
optimum BHF generated by the PI control strategy in the reference [44]. After examining
the control strategy, it is found that it tends to maximize the drawing depth at the expense
of letting wrinkling especially sidewall wrinkling approaches its limit. By reducing the
BHF to just keep the wrinkling magnitude on the limit bound, the maximum thinning can
be achieved at a lower level so that drawing depth is increased. From the deterministic
point of view, no part will fail although their sidewall wrinkle magnitude reaches the
maximum allowed value. However, as discussed previously, the sheet properties and
process variations are unavoidable. Even a minor change of s , t , fp or fd will make the
wrinkling or fracture out of bound easily. Suppose s has a normal distribution with
mean equals unity and other parameters are constant, the probability for wrinkling failure
then will be about 50%. Adding the effect of variations of other variables, the defect rate
may be even higher. Therefore, the deterministic PI control strategy is not robust, and
sometime it is even very dangerous. The benefits of it, though, come from its ability to
predict a rough profile which grasps the metal flow characteristics evolution during
forming.
124
Wrinkling/thinning magnitude
D bottom
Scale of BHF: s
Figure 6.3. Maximum thinning and sidewall wrinkling (y-axis) at different s of BHF
(x-axis).
125
The probabilistic based optimization then should be able to take the process variation into
account and improve its robustness based on the predicted deterministic BHF profile.
Based on the current failure criteria, the feasible design space is so narrow that s equals
unity is the only choice. The probabilistic constraints will never get satisfied because no
change can be made to s and thus no solution available for the probabilistic
optimization. After literature checking and discussion with the author of the reference
[44], it is found that the sidewall wrinkling criterion is too strict. Therefore, it was
relaxed somehow to enable the solution of the probabilistic design optimization.
The deterministic optimization problem is formulated as:
ysw ( s ) y fr ( s )
Minimize : F = wsw + w fr
ssw s fr
Subjeect to : ysw ≤ csw (6.8)
y fr ≤ c fr
0.8 ≤ s ≤ 1.2
The probabilistic optimization problem is formulated as
wμsw wμ fr wσ sw wσ fr
Minimize : F = μ sw
2
+ μ 2fr + σ sw
2
+ σ 2fr
sμsw sμ fr sσ sw sσ fr
Subject to : μ sw + 3σ sw ≤ csw (6.9)
μ fr + 3σ fr ≤ c fr
s + 3σ s ≤ 1.2
0.8 ≤ s-3σ s
126
And the PI control optimization strategy can be described as
Minimize : F = y fr ( s)
Subject to : ysw ≤ csw (6.10)
0.8 ≤ s ≤ 1.2
In the figure 6.4 and 6.5, the sidewall wrinkling limit csw is relaxed from 0.21 to 0.23
gradually. The weights of fracture and sidewall wrinkling are chosen the same in the
deterministic optimization. The coefficient of variation for s is 1%, for the other three
is 5%. It is observed that PI control strategy and deterministic optimization always have
the same result, which is the intersection point of SW criterion line with the SW
magnitude curve. As explained earlier, PI control strategy tends to minimize the fracture
by letting the sidewall wrinkling magnitude approach limit. Therefore, as the criterion for
wrinkling is relaxed a bit, the blank holder force need be reduced to allow more
wrinkling.
For the deterministic design, if the weights for the two defects are the same, it is easy to
find out from the figure that the addition of those two curves has the lowest point at
s equals 0.8 and increases monotonously until it equals 1.2. The intersection point not
only satisfies both the fracture and wrinkling constraints, but also has the smallest
addition of their magnitude. However, concerning the process parameters variation,
neither of these two methods provides a reliable solution.
127
Scale of BHF: s
Figure 6.4. The design solution of PI control, deterministic design and probabilistic design
for csw = 0.21 .
128
Scale of BHF: s
Figure 6.5. The design solution of PI control, deterministic design and probabilistic design
for csw = 0.23 .
129
Csw=0.21 Csw=0.23
PI control Deter. Opt Prob. Opt PI control Deter. Opt Prob. Opt
S 0.925 0.925 0.9625 0.845 0.845 0.9125
Pr{no wrinkling} 45.78% 45.78% 91.04% 48.04% 48.04% 99.98%
Pr{no fracture} 100% 100% 99.86% 100% 100% 100%
(The coefficient of variation for s is 1%, other three are 5%)
Table 6.3. The deterministic and probabilistic design result with constraint reliability.
130
Csw=0.23
400
300
Frequency
200
100
0
0.217 0.224 0.231 0.238 0.245 0.252 0.259
Sidewall wrinkling magnitude
Cfr=0.25
350
300
250
Frequency
200
150
100
50
0
0.1870 0.1955 0.2040 0.2125 0.2210 0.2295 0.2380 0.2465
Maximum thinning magnitude
Figure 6.6. Histograms of sidewall wrinkling and maximum thinning for the
deterministic designs.
131
Csw=0.23
400
300
Frequency
200
100
0
0.198 0.204 0.210 0.216 0.222 0.228
Sidewall wrinkling magnitude
Cfr=0.25
300
250
200
Frequency
150
100
50
0
0.210 0.216 0.222 0.228 0.234 0.240 0.246
Maximum thinning magnitude
Figure 6.7. Histograms of sidewall wrinkling and maximum thinning for the probabilistic
designs.
132
On the contrary, the probabilistic design always pulls the optimum point away from the
deterministic constraint boundary. By this means, the probabilistic constraints can be
fulfilled with the larger fracture magnitude as tradeoff compared to the deterministic
design. In figure 6.4 where the sidewall wrinkling critical value is 0.21, it is also noted
that the probabilistic optimization gives no solution since the wrinkling reliability
constraint cannot be satisfied no matter what value s takes within its feasible region.
The best achievable probability of no wrinkling is 91.04% when s equals 0.9625. As the
sidewall wrinkling critical value is relaxed to 0.23, the probabilistic optimization has
solution and the probability of no wrinkling is 99.98% and the probability of no fracture
is 100%. The probabilistic design results are shown in table 6.3. The probabilities shown
here are calculated by the Monte Carlo Simulation and the histograms of the sidewall
wrinkling and fracture magnitude are compared side by side for the deterministic and
probabilistic optimization solutions, as drawn in figure 6.6 and 6.7. The sample size for
the Monte Carlo Simulation is 5000. It is easy to see that the distribution of thinning is
far away from the upper limit in the deterministic design. So it is very safe in terms of
avoiding fracture. On the other hand it turns out that half of the distribution of sidewall
wrinkling is outside of limit. It means half of the parts will be scrapped due to the
winkling problem. The probabilistic design, in contrast, pushes the distribution of
thinning a bit close to limit but gets rewarded by pulling most distribution of wrinkling
within limit. Therefore, the traditional deterministic design is not robust by forcing the
design solution on the constraint boundary.
133
Deterministic simulations were also conducted to evaluate the probabilistic design vs. the
deterministic design. The results are shown in figure 6.8. Figure 6.8(a)(b) shows the
thinning and wrinkling at the probabilistic design point. When the process is stable, we
could assume plus/minus 3 sigma. The most risky cases happen at these extremes. Figure
6.8(e)(f) shows the thinning and wrinkling at one of these most risky cases. The
deterministic design simulation result is shown in figure 6.8(c)(d). For the worse case of
scenario of probabilistic design, the wrinkling and thinning are still within the criteria
limits.
6.7 Conclusion
In this chapter, a probabilistic design for the variable BHF in the cylindrical cup drawing
process is conducted and compared with the traditional deterministic design. The result
shows that the BHF predicted by the deterministic method is not robust under the
presence of process variations. However, given the same failure criteria, the probabilistic
design improved the yield (probability of good parts) to 99.98% from the 48.04%
obtained by the traditional deterministic design. In mass production environment, the
achieved process reliability is huge.
134
(a) thinning for probabilistic design
Cross-section cut of drawn cup at

25% drawing height to measure the
sidewall wrinkling of the Prob.
design
SW=0.212
(b) sidewall wrinkling for probabilistic design
Figure 6.8. Evaluation of probabilistic design vs. deterministic design. (to be continued)
135
Figure 6.8 Continued
(c) thinning for deterministic design
Cross-section cut of drawn cup at

25% drawing height to measure the
sidewall wrinkling of the
Deterministic design
SW=0.229
(d) sidewall wrinkling for deterministic design
136
Figure 6.8 Continued
(e) thinning for probabilistic design at one of the extreme cases where all noise variables
at 3sigma away from mean
Cross-section cut of drawn cup at 25%

drawing height to measure the sidewall
wrinkling of the Prob. Design at 3sigma
extreme case
SW=0.226
(f) sidewall wrinkling for probabilistic design at one of the extreme cases where all noise
variables at 3sigma away from mean
137
CHAPTER 7
7. SPATIALLY VARYING CONSTRAINTS AND
PROBABILISTIC DESIGN BY MULTI-OBJECTIVE
GENETIC ALGORITHM
In chapter 6, the drawing quality is improved by the introduction of temporal varying
blank holder force. However, many researches on the application of spatial varying
constraints have been done to successfully to improve the drawing quality. Traditionally,
these spatial varying constraints can be achieved through placing multiple beads at
various locations on the drawing die. It is especially useful in the drawing of complex
shaped parts. Besides drawing beads, other forms of spatial varying constraints are also
being studied. They are segmented elastic binder and very new discrete friction concept,
which will be focused in this chapter. The idea of segmented binder is that the blank
holder can be segmented and different pressing forces are then applied at each sub-binder
so that distributed restraining forces are generated on the sheet to regulate the metal flow
spatially. The discrete friction is a very new research field. The basic assumption is that
by introducing the micro-texture or tiny pockets on the die surface the fiction
138
condition can be altered at different locations. From former cylindrical cup drawing test
and study, we know that the part quality is more sensitive to the lubrication than the
blank holder force. So in this chapter, we select the discrete friction method as one
promising form of spatial varying constraints and apply it to Hishida parts to study its
effectiveness in improving deep drawing quality. Due to the part geometry, to investigate
the advantage of discrete fiction concept, fifteen design variables need to be determined.
Meantime, the design objective is to reduce both the wrinkling and fracture defects
simultaneously. Traditional DOE and RSM combined method cannot resolve this
problem because a CCD design for 15 factors needs 32799 simulation runs, which are
obviously prohibited. Instead, the optimization is realized through the integration of
Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-II) and numerical simulation code to find the
optimal configuration of these local friction coefficients and other drawing process
parameter. The drawing quality by the uniform friction and the discrete friction are
compared. The results show that at the same draw depth and wrinkling level, around 12%
reduction of the maximum thinning has been obtained from discrete friction. If the
objective is to reduce both the wrinkling and fracture, an overall 33% improvement can
be obtained at the certain Pareto optimal setting from discrete friction comparing to
uniform friction. To incorporate process uncertainties and variations, the probabilistic
design search is implemented based on the deterministic design result from the
multi-objective genetic algorithm. The reliability analysis is carried out at each feasible
point from the last Pareto fronts. The design configuration with the highest reliability is
chosen as the optimal probabilistic design. For a complex case like this, the traditional
139
probabilistic design approach mentioned in chapter 5 and 6 is not applicable. However,
the proposed two phases design method illustrated in this chapter is able to effectively
find the optimal deterministic design pool and then search out the best probabilistic
design.
7.1 Introduction
Increase the forming window of the drawing process is an eternal topic in the sheet metal
forming industry. A typical stamping process is composed of three steps:
1. Binder holding blank: binder moves down to clamp the sheet;
2. Forming part: punch moves down to drag the sheet into the die cavity to take
shape of die and punch;
3. Releasing part: punch and binder move up and remove the formed part from the
die set.
Treating sheet metal forming process as a system, the forming window of the deep
drawing process is determined by intrinsic or constitutive material properties and
extrinsic factors in the manufacturing process, such as internal friction, forming speed,
tooling design, blank shape.
140
At a given sheet material and blank shape, tooling and process parameters, such as
forming speeds, temperatures etc., the metal flow into the die is determined by the
restraint imposed by the blank holder or the drawbead penetration. Previous studies have
shown that spatial distribution of these restraint forces could largely improve the
drawability of a given part.
The drawbeads are currently wide used in automobile industries to form complicated
auto-body panels. During the drawing, the blank holder force is usually uniformly
distributed along the binder. Its magnitude can be adjusted to roughly control the sheet
material flow into the die. The drawbeads, which are installed on the various spots of the
binder, could help more accurately control the material flow by exerting strong
restraining forces. One setup of such drawbeads for Hishida part drawing is shown in
figure 7.1.
Numerous researches have been done to model the bead, design the bead and study the
effect of bead on the part quality. Triantafyllidis et al. [49] considered the effects of the
drawbead using one-dimensional elasto-plastic shell element and compared numerical
results with experimental results. Cao and Boyce [50] analyzed the restraining force with
respect to the depth of drawbead. Naceur et al. [29] presents an optimization procedure of
drawbead restraining forces spatial distribution in order to improve the formability in
deep drawing process.
141
Figure 7.1. Example of one setup of drawbeads on the Hishida part drawing [51].
142
Siegert [51] first studied the segment-elastic binder and applied this concept in the
Hishida part drawing, as shown in figure 7.2(a). In this configuration, the binder has a
pyramidal support structure. On each pyramid a local blank holder force is introduced.
The blank holder forces are the pin forces of a multipoint cushion system. The pins,
which are adjustable by CNC, transfer the blank holder forces from the cushion plate to
the lower binder. Six pins are seen to support the binder, three on each long side of the
die. By spatially applying different forces along the binders, as illustrated in figure 7.2(b)
the limit drawing depth without any defects increased from 55mm to 63mm. Ayed [12]
applied the same concept on the optimization of the blank holder force distribution in the
stamping of a car front door panel. Although his work was focusing on the RSM method
to find the optimal force for the seven sub-binders, the result showed that the segmented
binder could reduce the inclination angle from 5 degree to 1 degree without wrinkling
and fracture defects. The segmented binder could alter the restraining force distribution
by changing the normal force applied on the blank to affect the flow pattern of the sheet
metal. We know that the restraining force is determined by both the normal force and the
friction coefficient. This reminds us that if we could control the friction condition
between die/punch and sheet, the drawability of sheet could also be improved without
using the complex segmented binder structure. Besides, the different friction can be
applied not only to binder but also to the die and punch. This actually expands the
forming window and gives us more control options. Therefore, in the following part we
will study the discrete friction concept and its application in Hishida part to form spatial
restraining force distribution.
143
(a) the segment-elastic binder
(b) the optimal pin forces for the segment-elastic binder
Figure 7.2. The segment-elastic binder used in the Hishida part drawing [51].
144
In sheet metal forming, the friction condition is affected by many parameters, such as
material properties of workpiece, tool and lubricant, sliding velocity and contact pressure,
and their effects are global, e.g. change the lubricant will change the friction everywhere
in the part interface.
However, the frictional conditions are also significantly dependent on the surface
topography of the tool [52] that can be locally tailored by applying micro texturing
techniques [53]. Excimer laser material processing is such a technique that offers the
opportunity to produce micro textures with high precision and flexibility on almost any
material – metal, ceramics and polymers [54]. The rectangle texture pocket formed by
Excimer lasers on the ceramics and its cross-section are shown in figure 7.3(a).
As illustrated in the figure 7.3(b), the friction zones in the textured stamping tooling can
be divided into textured area and non textured area. In the textured area, if the pressure is
higher enough to support the asperities of sheet blank, hydrodynamic lubrication situation
will be formed [53]. At the non-textured area, mixed lubrication regime happens
normally in the metal forming [52].
The micro texture tailored surface improves the friction condition by: a). forming
hydrodynamic pressure film to change real contact area; b) supplying lubricant by
working as small reservoirs. According to the experiments in [53], 14% of friction
coefficient reduction can be achieved by just varying the pocket length and depth. An
145
additional potential improvement is possible by changing the width and arrangement of
textures as well as the portion of the textured area. Besides adding the pocket texture to
the tooling surface, altering the surface roughness by micromachining is also another
effective measure to locally change the friction condition. Reported in [55], there is
maximum 54% friction reduction for die material M300 when the die surface roughness
Rz goes from 0.8 to 5.3 μm , see figure 7.4.
146
(a), rectangle texture pocket and the cross-section profile
(b), rectangle texture pocket and the cross-section profile
Figure 7.3. Micro-texture to alter the friction condition [53].
147
Figure 7.4. Topological effect at the roughness level [55].
148
7.2 Setup of Spatially Varying Constraints in Hishida Part Drawing
Based on the above discussion, friction condition on the stamping tooling interfaces can
be tailored by micro-texture process or micro machining process. A discrete friction
concept, which improves the deep drawing process by applying locally different friction
conditions, is proposed and demonstrated in this section. It is assumed that the friction
coefficients are design variables and the desired values can be realized at different zones
on the tool surfaces.
In the drawing of non-symmetrical geometry, the metal deformation changes with the
geometry and thus the required friction forces to control the metal flow are different.
Generally, the material at corner area is hard to flow in and prefers lower restraining
force while the straight edges have less compressive deformation caused thickening
tendency and thus need more retraining forces. The proposed discrete friction concept
tries to divide the deep drawing tooling into different friction zones and improves the
forming window by selecting different friction condition at the each friction zone. The
Hishida part, which has four corners with different radii and four tapered walls with
different slope angles on each side, is chosen, see figure 7.5 [39][47].
149
Figure 7.5. The Hishida Part.
150
Since the ideal friction condition depends on the drawing geometry, the segmentation of
these discrete zones follows the rule that each individual zone tends to have one unique
geometric feature and they are not overlapped. Based on this rule, the Hishida die/binder
and punch are divided into 10 zones and 4 zones, as denoted as μ1 , L , μ10 and
μ11 , L , μ14 respectively, see figure 7.6. Since metal flow is also largely controlled by the
blank holder force, BHF is added as another design variable. So for this new discrete
r
friction application, the design vector can be described as x = {μ1 , μ 2 , L , μ14 , BHF } . The
question following is how to find the optimal configuration of these friction conditions.
The next session will introduce the multi-objective genetic algorithm and the reason why
it should be used in this case.
151
Figure 7.6. Spatial distribution of discrete friction zones.
152
7.3 Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-II
There are several reasons why multi-objective genetic algorithm should be used to find
the optimal configuration of the friction values in this discrete friction case.
First, the traditional optimization techniques like sequential quadratic programming (SQP)
can only locate the local minimum. When the design space is high dimensional and the
response is not smooth or linear, it is more likely that the global optimal solution will be
missed. In this discrete friction scenario, the die is segmented to 10 friction zones.
Including the punch/sheet, die/binder/sheet friction coefficient and one blank holder force,
there are total fifteen design variables. Since the discrete friction zones on the die are
connecting to each other, the metal flow is affected jointly by the friction values. This
makes the system behavior highly nonlinear. Then traditional optimization method may
fail to find global minimum. MOGA, one of the exploratory optimization methods, is
very good at finding the global optimum.
Second, a good sheet metal forming process is judged by multiple criteria such as
wrinkling, fracture, and insufficient stretching. Traditional optimization methods usually
convert the multiple objectives to one single objective through a set of predetermined
weight coefficients. Most time the coefficients are determined based on expert
153
knowledge or trial-and-error and may not be right. However, the MOGA can compute
multiple objective functions simultaneously in one optimization run without converting
them into single objective by weighted linear combination. So no arbitrary weight
coefficients are needed.
Third, the multiple criteria in this sheet metal forming problem are conflicting with each
other. It is apparent that reduction of the tendency to fracture would increase the
probability of wrinkling. Therefore, there exists strong trade-off between these objectives.
The presence of multiple objectives then gives rise to a set of optimal solutions (known
as Pareto-optimal solutions), instead of a single optimal solution. Simply setting the
weights for them will likely to exclude the potential superior solution to the engineering
problem. However, the MOGA is capable of finding multiple Pareto-optimal solutions in
one single simulation run by the identification of the Pareto front.
Besides, unlike the numerical optimization techniques, the exploratory MOGA does not
require the calculation of the local gradient information of the objective to find the search
direction. In sheet metal forming design, getting this local gradient is very difficult or
even impossible.
154
7.3.1 Pareto optimal and Pareto front
*
For minimum problem, a vector of decision variables x is Pareto optimal if there does
not exist another x such that
*
f i ( x) ≤ f i ( x ) for all i = 1, L n
And
(7.1)
r *
f j ( x ) < f i ( x ) for at least one j , 1 ≤ j ≤ n.
n is the number of the objectives.
*
In words, this definition says that x is Pareto optimal if there exist no feasible vector of
decision variables x which would decrease some criterion without causing a
simultaneous increase in at least one other criterion. Unfortunately, this concept almost
always gives not a single solution, but rather a set of solutions called the Pareto optimal
*
set. The vectors x corresponding to the solutions included in the Pareto optimal set are
called non-dominated. The plot of the objective functions whose non-dominated vectors
are in the Pareto optimal set is called the Pareto front, as shown in figure 7.7, each design
objective corresponding to a coordinate axes. The multiple-objective genetic algorithm
can find the Pareto front through the following basic procedures. Initially, the algorithm
randomly selects multiple design points according to the chosen population size and
evaluates them against each of the objectives.

155
Figure 7.7. The Pareto optimal and Pareto front.
156
Then it finds the Pareto front to the current population by the so called domination
criterion. It is similar to the definition of Pareto solutions. A solution “a” is said to
dominate another “b” in the population if it is at least as good as b in every dimension
and better than b in at least one dimension (objective). The first set of Pareto front has
rank one, denoted by F1 . Then the next level of Pareto front F2 is found after the first set
of Pareto optimal is discounted from the population. This ranking process continues until
all the design points are ranked and denoted by F1 , F2 , L , Fk . After the ranking, the good
genes are selected, mutated and crossed-over to generate the next better population just
like the nature selection process by which a superior creature evolves whilst inferior
creatures fade out from their population as generations goes by.
7.3.2 Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II
Within the last two decades, a number of different EAs were suggested to solve
multi-objective optimization problem. Of them, Fonseca and Fleming’s MOGA [56],
Srinivas and Deb’s NSGA [57], Horn et al.’s NPGA [58], Zitzler and Thiele’s SPEA [59],
and Knowles and Corne’s PAES [60] enjoyed more attention. NSGA-II, the improved
version of NSGA, outperforms PAES and SPEA in terms of finding a diverse set of
solutions and in converging near the true Pareto optimal set [61]. Also, NSGA-II is more
computationally efficient by using elitism and crowded comparison operator that keeps
diversity without specifying any additional parameters.
157
The NSGA-II uses a fixed population size of N . In generation t , an offspring
population Qt of size N is created from parent population Pt and non-dominated
fronts F1 , F2 , L , Fk are identified in the combined population Pt ∪ Qt . The next
population Pt +1 is filled starting from solutions in F1 , then F2 , and so on as follows.
Let l be the index of a non-dominated front Fl that | F1 ∪ F2 ∪ L ∪ Fl |≤ N and
| F1 ∪ F2 ∪ L ∪ Fl ∪ Fl +1 |> N . First, all solutions in fronts F1 , F2 , L , Fl are copied to
Pt +1 , and then the least crowed ( N − | Pt +1 | ) solutions in Fl +1 are added to Pt +1 . This
approach makes sure that all non-dominated solutions ( F1 ) are included in the next
population if | F1 |≤ N , and otherwise the selection based on crowding distance will
promote diversity. The procedure is illustrated in figure 7.8.
The non-dominated sorting is described here. First, for each solution “ p ” two entities are
calculated: 1) dominated count n p , the number of solutions which dominate the solution
p , and 2) S p , a set of solutions that the solution p dominates. All solutions in the first
front F1 will have their domination count as zero. Now, for each solution p with
n p = 0 , we visit each member (q ) of its set S p and reduce its domination count by
one. In doing so, if any member q the domination count becomes zero, it is put in a
separate list Q . These members belong to the second non-dominated front F2 . Then the
above procedure is continued with each member of Q and the third front F3 is
identified. This process continues until all fronts are identified.

158
Figure 7.8. The procedure of NSGA-II [61].
159
The crowding distance is used to distribute the solutions more uniformly over the true
Pareto front to maintain a diverse population. Randomly select two solutions “a” and
“b”; if the solutions are in the same non-dominated front, the solution with a higher
crowding distance wins. Otherwise, the solution with the lowest rank is selected. Without
taking any preventive measures, the population tends to form relatively few clusters in
multi-objective genetic algorithm. The method used in NSGA-II is:
Step1. Rank the population and identify non-dominated fronts F1 , F2 , L , Fk . For each
front j = 1, L , k repeat steps 2 and 3.
Step2. For each objective function n , sort the solutions in F j in the ascending order.
Let
s =| F j | and x[i ,k ] represent the i th solution in the sorted list with respect to the
objective function n . Assign cd n ( x[1,n ] ) = ∞ and cd n ( x[ s ,n ] ) = ∞ , and for i = 2, L , s
z n ( x[ i +1,n ] ) − z n ( x[i −1,n ] )

assign cd n ( x[ i ,n ] ) =
z nmax − z nmin
Step3. To find the total crowding distance cd ( x) of a solution x , sum the solution
crowding distances with respect to each objective, i.e., cd ( x) = ∑ cd n ( x) .

n
160
7.4 Design Optimization Model
The simulation model for Hishida part forming process has been built up in the explicit
code PAM-STAMP2G, see figure 7.9. The Krupkowsky-law hardening equation:
σ y = K (ε 0 + ε p ) n is used for modeling the material behavior. The blank material
properties of the simulation model are listed in table 7.1.
7.4.1 Design Objectives
The objective functions needed in the NSGA-II to evaluate the quality of drawn Hishida
part are 1) fracture, 2) wrinkling. The building of these functions is based on the strains
on Forming Limit Diagram (FLD), which value can be obtained from the results file of
numerical simulation of Pamstamp 2G quickstamp full FEA.
An extensive literature review on fracture can be found in [62][63]. Generally, these
fracture criteria can be classified into the following three types: geometry based criteria,
e.g. FLD [64][65] and thinning at the part wall [66]; stress based, e.g. FLSD [67]; and
damage based criteria, e.g. Cockroft and Latham criterion [67]. In this study, thinning in
the part, a geometrical criterion, which has been traditionally used to estimate the
proximity to failure [66], is chosen as a criterion for determining the fracture. This is an
approximate method, because the limit of thinning is affected by strain paths.
161
Nevertheless, the thinning criterion is still useful and effective in most deep drawing
operations.
For wrinkling, Havranek [68] in his conical cup forming experiments found the
distribution of strain at the onset of sidewall formed a narrow band, which can be plotted
by a wrinkle-limit curve (WLC) in the negative section of the Forming-limit diagram
(FLD). According to his study on a range of material thickness, 0.25-0.99mm, this
wrinkling-limit curve is proved to be independent of sheet thickness. Hosford and
Caddell [69] have also shown that if the absolute value of principle strain ratio
β = ε min ε (where ε min and ε max are the major and the minor principal strains,
max
respectively) is greater than a critical value the wrinkling is supposed to happen, and the
larger the absolute value of β , the greater is the possibility of wrinkling to occur. Chen
[70] has successfully used this critical strain ratio value to predict sidewall wrinkling in
his studies on the formation of the tapered rectangular cups and stepped rectangular cups.
Sheng [39] used this wrinkling limit to predict the variable blank holder force for a
Hishida part. Therefore in this study, we will use his result and use 1 as critical wrinkling
ratio. This is equal to ε max = −ε min in the FLD diagram. The wrinkling objective
function can be defined as the proportion of strain points within the wrinkling zone of
forming limit diagram. The points below this curve represent the strong wrinkling
tendency.
162
(a) die with 10 different friction zones
(b) binder with 10 different friction zones
(c) punch with 4 different friction zones
Figure 7.9. The simulation model of discrete friction drawing of Hishida part.
163
Sheet material ECODAL
Initial sheet thickness 1mm
Flow stress (Mpa) σ y = 470(0.0013 + ε p ) 0.25
Table 7.1. Material properties used in the simulation
164
7.4.2 Design Variables
The design variables in this discrete friction case are: 1) ten discrete friction coefficients
μ1 , L , μ10 for die/binder, 2) four different discrete friction coefficients μ11 , L , μ14 for
punch, 3) one blank holder force. So there are fifteen design variables.
The multi-objective optimization for the discrete friction problem is formulated as,
Minimize:
F ( x) = {Obj f ( x), Objw ( x)}

Subject to:
400 KN ≤ BHF ≤ 700 KN ,
(7.2)
0.02 ≤ μ i ≤ 0.32, i = 1, L ,14
where:
x = {BHF , μi }, i = 1, L ,14
7.4.3 Integration of NSGA-II Optimization and Pam-Quickstamp Full FEA
In NSGA-II, at each generation, every design point is evaluated against the two
objectives: wrinkling and fracture. This calculation is based on the results output from the
finite element simulation of sheet metal drawing process. Suppose the population size is
thirty and evolves with fifty generations, NSGA-II requires approximately
165
30 × 51 = 1530 FEA simulations. If the formal Pam-Autostamp is used, given each
simulation needs 10 minutes, the whole optimization process requires at least ten days.
To alleviate the computation cost and find the solution quickly, the Pam-Quickstamp Full
Process code is used instead for its quickness. Pam-Quickstamp is a simplified approach
where some components of the press tool are deduced from the initial part and where the
real kinematics is not completely defined. Since this is a multi-objective trade-off
optimization problem, the Pam-Quickstamp, although with a little bit lower fidelity
comparing to Pam-Autostamp, can still yield a good global result. The optimization flow
chart is plotted in figure 7.10. In this NSGA-II optimization method, population size is
set as fifty and generations are set as eighty. Crossover probability is 0.9, crossover
distribution index is 20 and mutation distribution index is 100.
7.4.4 Hishida Part Drawing Process Heuristics
From the previous study, especially the segmented binder research for the Hishida part,
we found that the spatial distribution of the restraining forces was not random. In fact,
they go after some rules or heuristics which are followed by process engineers. We call
them process heuristics. One heuristics example is given here: in the corner area, in order
to pull the sheet more easily into the die, the friction between the punch/blank should be
larger than the friction between die/blank. We could transform these heuristics to
following explicit constraints bounds.

166
μ1 < μ14
μ4 < μ11
μ6 < μ12 (7.3)
μ9 < μ13
Therefore after multi-objective genetic algorithm searches out all the possible
combinations of these process parameters, we could use these heuristics rules to screen
out the designs that make sense to engineers. In addition, new rules can be added in or
existing heuristics can be modified. By this way, the sheet metal forming knowledge is
brought back to the design rather than using the genetic algorithm solely to find the
optimum mathematically.
7.5 Optimization Result and Analysis
After 4050 simulations, the Pareto front and all the other offspring objective evaluations
are shown in the figure 7.11. The blue solid dots represent the Pareto front and the light
blue dots are all the points evaluated by the genetic algorithm. The brown solid dots are
the design points that comply with the heuristics rule we mentioned above. However, in
the following analysis, this heuristics rule is ignored. We simply try to find any
opportunity to improve the part quality even if the friction settings seem abnormal. The
lowest level of thinning and wrinkling can approach to 0.07 and 0.01. Since the two
objectives are confronting to each other, it is impossible to achieve low values for both
thinning and wrinkling.
167
Start
FEA Modeling & Initial
Update
model
Pam-stamp FEA
NSGA-II
Mutation
Crossover
Objective Evaluation Selection
Terminate?
Drawing
End Process
Heuristics
Figure 7.10. The optimization flow chart.
168
0.23
Evaluation points in NSGA

0.21
Pareto front
Best uniform design

0.19
Comparable to uniform
design
0.17 Best discrete friction
design
Heuristics
0.15
Thinning
0.13
0.11
0.09
0.07
0.05
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Wrinkling
Figure 7.11. The Pareto front of discrete friction NSGA-II optimization.
169
To see the improvement of discrete friction in drawing of complex shape part, the
optimization of the uniform friction drawing is conducted according to the method in the
previous work [47] and the results are compared. When the weighs of wrinkling and
thinning objectives are equal, the optimum configuration for the uniform friction is that
blank holder force equals 605KN, die/binder friction equals 0.09 and punch friction
equals 0.12. The resulting maximum thinning and wrinkling are 0.098112 and 0.173657.
However, for the discrete friction case, in the Pareto front of figure 7.11 there is one
comparable point that has wrinkling equal 0.172064 but the maximum thinning is only
0.086309. This means that if the wrinkling is controlled at the same level, by applying
discrete friction the maximum thinning is improved by 12%. Furthermore, if the thinning
can be allowed to increase a little bit (the upper limit is 0.12), there exists a great
potential for the reduction of wrinkling. This best design point is shown in the figure 7.11
where the thinning is 0.10818 and the wrinkling dropped to 0.075453. Therefore, the
total objective (assume equal weights) is changed from 0.271769 of uniform friction to
0.183633 of the discrete friction case. The percentage of improvement is around 33% and
it is huge. The friction coefficient values and strain distributions of the uniform friction
and best discrete friction designs are plotted in figure 7.12 and 7.13 for comparison
purpose. The other benefit of applying discrete friction conditions is the more uniform
strain distributions within the part. Figure 7.14 illustrates the strain distribution, at the
corner walls A and B and bottom, the difference between the maximum strain and
minimum strain drop respectively from 0.178 to 0.156, from 0.176 to 0.136 and from
0.0214 to 0.013. The deformation on the part wall becomes more uniform.
170
(a) uniform friction design
(b) the strain distribution
Figure 7.12. Uniform friction design and strain distribution after drawing.
171
(a) discrete friction design
(b) the strain distribution

Figure 7.13. Discrete friction design and strain distribution after drawing.
172
0.25
Frist strain at the out

0.20
surface
0.15
Uniform
0.10 friction
0.05 Discrete
0.00
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00
Curlinear distance (mm)
a) Strain distribution at the corner A
0.25
Frist strain at the out
0.20 Uniform
friction
surface
0.15
0.10
0.05 Discrete
fi i
0.00
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00
Curlinear distance (mm)
b) Strain distribution at the corner wall B

First strain at the out
0.03
0.03 Uniform
0.02 friction
surface
0.02
0.01
Discrete
0.01 friction
0.00
150.00 250.00 350.00 450.00
Curvilinear distance (mm)
c) Strain distribution at the bottom
Figure 7.14. Strain distribution at different locations of the part after drawing.
173
7.6 The Probabilistic Design Search
To incorporate process uncertainties and variations, the probabilistic design search is
implemented based on the deterministic design result from the multi-objective genetic
algorithm. The reliability analysis is carried out at each feasible point from the Pareto
front. The criterion of wrinkling for Hishida part is 0.20, and the criterion of thinning is
0.12. Within the 50 points of the Pareto front, 19 of them have both wrinkling and
thinning smaller than the limits. They are denoted as feasible points.
For those 19 feasible points, reliability analysis is conducted at each point. The
aforementioned mean value first order method (MVFO) is used here to access the
reliability. The results are shown in figure 7.16, 7.17, 7.18, where the coefficient of
variation for blank holder force is kept at 0.05, and for die/punch friction it is changed
from 0.1 to 0.2 and 0.4. The purpose of three different levels of variations is to see when
the uncertainties of friction are enlarging, which point is the most robust design point.
All the results are summarized in the figure 7.15. The solid diamonds represent the
non-feasible deterministic points in the Pareto front. The solid square stands for the
feasible deterministic points in the Pareto front. The hollow triangles correspond to the
most reliable points (stochastic) when the BHF COV=0.05 and all other friction
COV=0.1. By referring to the figure 7.16, those 11 points all have zero percent of
wrinkling and thinning defect. When the uncertainties of friction is increased to
174
COV=0.2, the most reliable points are identified by the hollow square. In this case, only
3 points have zero percent of wrinkling and thinning defect. If we further increase the
friction COV to 0.4, we find there is no point which could have zero percent defect. The
best point has reliability for wrinkling equal 0.89 and for thinning 0.92.
The interesting observations from figure 7.15 lie in four aspects: (1), all the reliable
points are away from the deterministic constraints. (2), the higher the uncertainties, the
farther the robust point should be away from the deterministic constraints. (3), the most
robust design is in the middle of the robust points under lower uncertainties. (4), the
deterministic optimum is very different with the probabilistic optimum, which again
signifies the probabilistic design.
175
Reliability analysis of the Pareto front points
0.18
Non-feasible feasible good at cov=0.1
0.16 good at cov=0.2 best at cov=0.4
0.14
0.12
Best probabilistic design
0.1
0.08
Best deterministic design
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Figure 7.15. Reliability analysis of the Pareto front points.
176
Reliability at COV=0.1
1.050 Prob(no thinning) Prob(no wrinkling)
1.000
0.950
0.900
0.850
0.800
0.750
177
0.700
0.650
0.600
0.550
0.500
0.450
0.400
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Prob(no thinning) 1 0.8 1 0.88 1 0.960 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.779 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Prob(no wrinkling) 0.52 1 0.96 1 1 1.000 0.994 0.494 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Figure 7.16. Reliability of feasible points in the last Pareto front when BHF COV=0.05, friction COV=0.1
1.000
0.950
0.900
0.850
0.800
0.750
178
0.700
0.650
0.600
0.550
0.500
0.450
0.400
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Prob(no thinning) 1 0.72 1 0.727 0.971 0.880 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.996 0.971 1.000 0.709 0.998 1.000 0.960 0.960 0.968 1.000
Prob(no wrinkling) 0.48 1 0.88 1 1 1.000 0.920 0.466 0.960 0.965 0.994 1.000 1.000 0.998 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000
0.950
0.900
0.850
0.800
0.750
179
0.700
0.650
0.600
0.550
0.500
0.450
0.400
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Prob(no thinning) 0.993 0.6 0.945 0.576 0.798 0.679 0.937 1.000 0.912 0.919 0.839 0.918 0.618 0.868 0.921 0.786 0.796 0.824 0.898
Prob(no wrinkling) 0.467 1 0.708 0.987 0.98 0.994 0.799 0.420 0.790 0.811 0.893 0.888 0.902 0.929 0.810 0.905 0.984 0.976 0.894
7.7 Conclusion
Spatial varying constraints can successfully improve the drawing quality. Traditional
method is to use drawbeads or segmented binder to generate strong restraining forces on
the sheet to regulate its flow. In this chapter, we investigated discrete friction concept and
its application in the Hishida part drawing. By this method, more flexible spatial
constraints can be applied. Due to the Hishida part geometry, fifteen design variables
need to be determined. Meantime, the design objective is to reduce both the wrinkling
and fracture defects simultaneously. Traditional DOE and RSM combined method cannot
resolve this problem. Instead, the optimization is realized through the integration of
Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-II) and numerical simulation code to find the
optimal configuration of these local friction coefficients and other drawing process
parameter. The results show that at the same draw depth and wrinkling level, around 12%
reduction of the maximum thinning has been obtained from discrete friction. If the
objective is to reduce both the wrinkling and fracture, an overall 33% improvement can
be obtained from discrete friction comparing to uniform friction. To incorporate process
uncertainties and variations, the probabilistic design search is implemented based on the
deterministic design result from the multi-objective genetic algorithm. The reliability
analysis is carried out at each feasible point from the Pareto front. The design
configuration with the highest reliability is chosen as the optimal probabilistic design.
For a complex case like this, the traditional probabilistic design approach mentioned in
chapter 5 and 6 is not applicable. However, the proposed two phases design method
180
illustrated in this chapter is able to effectively find the optimal deterministic design pool
and then search out the best probabilistic design.
181
CHAPTER 8
8. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
frequent rework, machine shut down and thus huge loss of profit. Extensive research has
been done in exploring the deterministic effect of each factor on the part, but the impact
of their variations on the fluctuation of output quality for the stamping process is seldom
addressed and quantified. The inclusion of uncertainty in the design and optimization
cycle should lead to better understanding of the impact of uncertainty associated with
such uncertainties. To date, there is very few report on incorporating the uncertainties and
variations in the design of stamping process.
In this research we propose three different probabilistic design approaches. It uses sheet
connect process input to process performance output. With the quantification

182
of uncertainties of input variables, by Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) or other reliability
analysis methods, the probability that the product conforms to its specification would
therefore be assessed. Through the right formulation of probabilistic optimization the
robust optimal design configuration could be found. In the case where the number of
meta-model cannot be approximated, the alternate approach that integrates FEM,
multi-objective genetic algorithm and reliability assessment is illustrated. By the
proposed probabilistic design approaches, deeper understanding about the relationship
between process variables uncertainties with the part qualities is achieved. Ultimately,
the process output variability could be reduced, defect rates could be minimized and
product quality would be improved. The strategies, their advantages and disadvantages
are listed in table 8.1.
183
Strategies Advantages Disadvantages
DOE + FEM + z Quality index is a simple z Cannot handle the problem
RSM + MCS + metric to represent the design where the number of input
Quality Index to quality and can be easily variables is over 10. The DOE
lump understood. runs are too many.
multi-objective z Once RSM is build, MCS can z The MCS is evaluated at each
be used to accept all forms of design point; therefore great
input variables distributions computation effort is needed.
z Reliability is analyzed at the z Since no optimization routine
uniformed distributed design is used, the search for the
points and no optimization optimal is not efficient.
routine is required. Therefore z The design formulation only
no issue of local minima or concerns the defect rate. It
maxima exists. does not care about whether
the quality metrics is highly
consistent within the spec.
DOE + FEM + z The weighted sum of μ 2 + σ 2 z Cannot handle the problem
RSM + POE for design formulation not only where the number of input
σ + Weighted requires the quality metrics variables is too many. The
Sum of μ 2 + σ 2 should be within the spec. but DOE runs are too many.
design also the variation of them z Must assume that the quality
formulation should be minimized. This is metrics (the responses) follow
reflecting the Taguchi loss normal distribution, which
function idea. may be totally incorrect in
z The propagation of error will some cases.
derive an explicit form of z The multi-objectives are
standard deviation of quality lumped by the weighted sum
metrics and incorporate them of mean square and variance,
into the weighted sum of which are not straightforward
as the formulation in the first
μ 2 + σ 2 . Then difficult
strategy.
probabilistic design problem is z The mean square and variance
transformed to traditional may be at different scale,
optimization problem. which rises difficulty to
z No MCS is needed, which assign scale factors and
saves a lot computation effort. weights.
z The method is very efficient z The optimization routine may
since optimization routine is find the local minima or
used to search the optimal maxima instead of global
design. minima or maxima.
Table 8.1. The summary of prob. & determ. design strategies. (to be continued)
184
Table 8.1 Continued.
FEM + z Can handle very complex z The computation cost is still

Multi-objective problem where the number very huge. Each function
Genetic of design variables is very evaluation is a finite element
Algorithm + large. simulation since no meta-model
Reliability z The genetic algorithm is an or surrogate model is used.
Analysis at explorative method. The z The reliability analysis is
Pareto front design space is more conducted after the
thoroughly searched than the deterministic design by
second strategy. multi-objective genetic
z The multi-objective genetic algorithm.
algorithm does not need the z The selection of optimal design
arbitrary setting of weights still requires experience. This is
for different objectives. harder than the first strategy
Instead, it gives the Pareto where a simple quality index is
front, from which the adopted.
designer can select the right
optimal design based on the
ranking of the importance of
objectives.
z No DOE and RSM are
needed.
z No gradient is needed.
185
The future work includes:
1. Gathering more quantitative information of the process control and noise parameters,
especially their distribution statistics.
2. Investigate the more efficient probabilistic design algorithm when the process
parameters do not follow normal distributions.
3. Integrate the reliability analysis directly to the multi-objective genetic algorithm loop.
4. Investigate other system approximation methods besides response surface model,
such as the suitability of Kriging model in the sheet metal forming behavior
approximation.
186
LIST OF REFERENCES
[1]. Nee, A.Y.C., PC-based Computer Aids in Sheet-metal Working, J.Mech. Work.
Technol. 19 (1989) 11-21
[2]. Majeske, K.D., and Hammett, P.C., Identifying Sources of Variation in Sheet Metal
Stamping, International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 2002
[3]. Kobayashi, S., Oh, S., and Altan, T., Metal Forming and the Finite-element Method,
Oxford University Press, New York, 1989.
[4]. Zeinkiewicz, O, The Finite Element Method, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1977.
[5]. Wifi, S.A., An Incremental Complete Solution of the Stretch-forming and

Deep-drawing of a Circular Blank Using a Hemispherical Punch, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 1976,
Vol.18, p. 23
[6]. Wang, N.M., and Budiansky, B., Analysis of Sheet Metal Stamping by a
Finite-element Method, General Motors Research Publication GMR-2423, 1978
[7]. Onate, E,. and Zienkiewicz, O.C., A Viscous Shell Formulation for the Analysis of
Thin Sheet Metal Forming, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 1983, Vol. 25, p.305
[8]. Toh, C.H., and Kobayashi, S., Finite-element Process Modeling of Sheet Metal
Forming of General Shapes, Grundlagen der Umformtechnik I Symposium, Stuttgart,
1983, p.39
[9]. Toh, C.H., and Kobayashi, S., Deformation Analysis and Blank Design in Square
Cup Drawing, Int. J. Machine Tools Des. Res, 1985, Vol. 25, No. 1, p.15
[10]. Pam-stamp 2G version, user manual, 2005
[11]. Isight 8.0 version, reference manual, 2004
187
[12]. Ayed, L.B., et., Optimization of the blankholder force distribution with application
to the stamping of a car front door panel, Proceedings of Numisheet, 2005, pp. 849-854
[13]. Gelin, J.C., and Labergere, C., Numerical design and optimal control for sheet
metal forming and tube hydroforming process, 7th Int. Conf. in Numercial Mehods in
Forming Processes, NUMIFORM 2001, Toyahashi, Japan, 18-20
[14]. Kim, S.H., and Huh, H., Design of the Bead Forces and Die Shape in Sheet Metal
Forming Processes using a Rigid-plastic Finite Element Method and Response Surface
Methodology, Trans. KSTP (in Korean), Vol.9, No.3, pp.284-292, 2000
[15]. Kim, S.H., Huh, H. and Tezuka, A., Optimum Design of Draw-bead Force in Sheet
Metal Stamping using Rigid-plastic FEM and Response Surface Methodology,
Proceedings of KSTP Spring Conference (in Korean), pp.143-146, 1999
[16]. Tezuka, A., Kim, S.H., and Huh, H., Process Parameter Design in Sheet Stamping
Processes with Rigid-plastic Finite Element Analysis, Trans of JSCES, Paper
No.20000011, 2000
[17]. Lepadatu, D., Hambli, R., Kobi, A., and Barreau, A., Optimization of Springback in
Bending Processes using FEM Simulation and Response Surface Method, Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol., 2005, 27:40-47
[18]. Wang, L., and Lee, T.C., Controlled Strain Path Forming Process with Space Variant
Blank Holder Force using RSM Method, Journal of Materials Processing technology, 167,
2005, 447-455
[19]. Forsberg, J. and Nilsson, L., On Polynomial Response Surfaces and Kriging for Use
in Structural Optimization of Crashworthiness, Struct. Multidisc. Optim., 2005, 29:
232-243
[20]. Huang, Y., Lo, Z.Y., and Du, R., Minimization of the Thickness Variation in
Multi-step Sheet Metal Stamping, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 177, 2006,
84-86
[21]. Yamazaki, K., Itoh, R., Han, J., Watanabe, M., and Nishiyama, S., Optimum Design
of Aluminum Beverage Can Ends Using Structural Optimization Techniques,
Proceedings of Numisheet, 2005, pp.719-724
[22]. Lin, J.C., and Tai, C.C., The Application of Neural Networks in the Prediction of
Spring-back in an L-shaped Bend, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 1999, 15: 163-170
[23]. Ji, M.X., and Shivpuri, R., Reduction of Random Seams in Hot Rolling Through
FEA Based Sensitivity Analysis”, Materials Science and Engineering: A, Vol. 425, Issue:
1-2, pp. 156-166, June 15, 2006.
188
[24]. Hambli, R., Prediction of Burr Height Formation in Blanking Processes using
Neural Network, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 44, 2002, 2089-2102
[25]. Hasofer, A.M. and Lind, N.C., Exact and Invariant Second Moment Code Format,
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol.100, No. EM1, February, pp.111-121
[26]. Chen, X., Hasselman, T.K. and Neil, D.J., Reliability Based Structural Design
Optimization for Practical Applications, 38th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC, Structures,
Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Kissimmee, FL, pp.2724-2732, Paper No.
AIAA-97-1403.
[27]. Pegada, V., Chun, Y., Santhanam, S., “An Algorithm for Determining the Optimal
Blank Shape for the Deep Drawing of Aluminum Cups,” Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, 125-126 (2002) 743-750
[28]. Moshksar, M.M., and Zamanian, A., “Optimization of the Tool Geometry in the
Deep Drawing of Aluminum,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 72 (1997)
363-370
[29]. Naceur, H., Guo, Y.Q., “Optimization of drawbead restraining forces and drawbead
design in sheet metal forming process,” International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 43
(2001) 2407-2434
[30]. Gantar, G., Kuzman, K., “Sensitivity and Stability Evaluation of the Deep Drawing
Process,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 125-126 (2002) 302-308
[31]. Karthik, V., Comstock, R.J., Wagoner, R.H., “Variability of Sheet Formability and
Formability Testing,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 121 (2002) 350-362
[32]. Cao, J., Kinsey, B.L., “Next Generation Stamping Dies –Controllability and
Flexibility,” Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 17 (2001) 49-56
[33]. Sahai, A., Cao, J., Xia, C.Z., “Sequential Optimization and Reliability Assessment
Method for Metal Forming Processes,” NUMIFORM 2004
[34]. Haldar, A., Mahadevan, S., Reliability Assessment Using Stochastic Finite Element
Analysis, John wiley & Sons, INC., 2000
[35]. Irfan, K., McMahonand, Xianyi, C. M., “Reliability-based Structural Optimization

Using the Response Surface method and Monte Carlo Simulation,” 8th International
Machine Design and Production Conference, Sep.9-11, 1998, Ankara Turkey
[36]. Sirkirk, J.F., “Process Variable Effects on Sheet Metal Quality,” Journal of Applied
Metalworking, American Society for Metals, (1986) pp.262-269
189
[37]. Jaisingh, A., Narasimhan, K., “Sensitivity Analysis of a Deep Drawing Process for
Miniaturized Products,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 147 (2004) 321-327
[38]. Lee, B.H., Kenum, Y.T., Wagoner, R.H., “Modeling of the Friction Caused by
Lubrication and Surface Roughness in Sheet Metal Forming,” Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, 130-131 (2002) 60-63
[39]. Sheng, Z.Q., Shivpuri, R., “Adaptive PI Control Strategy for Prediction of Variable
Blank Holder Force,” ESAFORM 2004, Trondheim, Norway, April 28-30, 2004
[40]. Hirose, Y., Hishida, Y., Furubayashi, T., Oshima, M., and Ujihara, S., 1990, “Part II:
Applications of BHF-Controlled Forming Techniques,” Proc. 4th Symposium of the
Japanese Society for the Technology of Plasticity.
[41]. Hardt, D.E., and Fenn, R.C., 1993, “Real-Time Control of Sheet Stability During
Forming,” ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry, 115(3), pp. 299-308.
[42]. Sim, H.B., and Boyce, M.C., 1992, “Finite Element Analysis of Real-time Stability
Control in Sheet Forming Processes,” ASME Journal of Engineering Materials and
Technology, 114(2), pp. 180-188.
[43]. Cao, J., and Boyce, M.C., 1994, “Design and Control of Forming Parameters using
Finite Element Analysis,” Computational Material Modeling, PVP-Vol. 294, pp. 265-285.
[44]. Sheng, Z.Q., Jirathearanat, S., and Altan, T., 2004, “Adaptive FEM Simulation for
Prediction of Variable Blank Holder Force in Conical Cup Drawing,” International
Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 44, pp. 487-494.
[45]. Buranathiti, T., Cao, J., Xia, Z.C., and Chen, W., 2005, “Probabilistic Design in A
Sheet Metal Stamping Process under Failure Analysis,” NUMISHEET, L.M. Smith et al.,
eds., pp. 867-872.
[46]. Li, Y.Q., Cui, Z.S., Ruan, X.Y., and Zhang, D.J., 2005, “Application of Six Sigma
Robust Optimization in Sheet Metal Forming,” NUMISHEET, L.M. Smith et al., eds., pp.
819-824.
[47]. Zhang, W.F., Sheng, Z.Q., and Shivpuri, R., 2005, “Probabilistic Design of
Aluminum Sheet Drawing for Reduced Risk of Wrinkling and Fracture,” NUMISHEET,
L.M. Smith et al., eds., pp. 247-252.
[48]. Montgomery, D.C., and Myers, R.H., 1995, Response Surface Methodology:
Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, John Wiley & Sons.
190
[49]. Triantafyllidis, N., Maker, B., Samanta, S.K., An Analysis of Drawbeads In Sheet
Metal Forming: Part I-Problem Formulation, J. Engr. Mater. Technol. 108, 321-327
(1986)
[50]. Cao, J. and Boyce, M.C., Drawbeads Penetration as A Control Element of Material
Flow, Sheet Metal and Stamping Symposium, SAE 930517, Detroit, 1993, pp.145-153
[51]. Siegert, K., Ziegler, M., Wagner, S., Closed loop control of the friction force. Deep
drawing process, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 71 (1997) pp.126-133
[52]. Schey, J.A., Friction in Sheet Metal Working, SAE 970712
[53]. Neudecker, T., Popp, U., Schraml, T., Engel, U., Geiger, M., Towards optimized
lubrication by micro texturing of tool surfaces, Advanced Technology of Plasticity, Vol. I,
Proceedings of the 6th ICTP, Sept. 19-24, 1999, Nurmberg, Germany
[54]. Tonshoff, H.K., Hesse, D., Mommsen, J., Micromachining Using Excimer Lasers,
Annals of the CIRP 42 (1993) 1, p.247-251.
[55]. Wagner, S., Tribology in Drawing Car Body Parts, SAE, 1999-01-3228
[56]. Fonseca, C.M., and Fleming, P.J., Genetic Algorithms for Multiobjective
Optimization: Formulation, Discussion and Generalization, In Proceedings of The 5th
International Conference On Genetic Algorithms, pp.416, V423, 1993.
[57]. Srinivas, N., and Deb, K., Multiobjective Optimization Using Nondominated
Sorting in Generic Algorithm, Evolutionary Computation, Vol.2, No.3, pp.221, V248,
Fall 1994
[58]. Horn, J., Nafpliotis, N., and Goldberg, D.E., A Niched Pareto Genetic Algorithm for
Multiobjective Optimization, In Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on
Evolutionary Computation, Vol.1, pp.82-87, 1994
[59]. Zitzler, E., and Thiele, L., Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: A Comparative
Case Study and the Strength Pareto Approach, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary
Computation, Vol.3, No.4, pp.257, V271, 1999
[60]. Knowles, J., and Corne, D., The Pareto Archived Evolution Strategy: A New
Baseline Algorithm For Pareto Multiobjective Optimization, In Proceedings of 1999
Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Vol.1, pp.105, 1999
[61]. K.Deb, A.Pratap, S.Agarwal, and T.Metarivan, A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective
Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE Transactions on Evolution Computation, Vol. 6, No.2,
2002, pp.182-197.
191
[62]. Sheng, Z.Q., Yang, J.B., Jirathearanat, S., Altan, T., Drawing of Conical
Cups-prevention of Wrinkling and Fracture by Controlling Blank Holder Force, ERC
Report/ERC/NSM-01-R-47-A, 2001, Engineering Research Center for Net Shape
Manufacturing, the Ohio State University.
[63]. Keeler, S.P., and Backofen, W.A., 1964, Plastic Instability and Fracture in Sheet
Stretched Over Rigid Punches, ASM Transactions Quarterly, Vol.56, pp.25-48.
[64]. Goodwin, G..M., 1968, Application of Strain Analysis to Sheet Metal Forming
Problems in the Press Shop, SAE paper, No.680093.
[65]. Cockcroft, M.G.., Latham, D.J., 1968, J. Inst. Metals, 33-39.
[66]. Shulkin, L.B., Mendelsohn, D.A., Kinzel, G..L., Altan, T., 1997, Blank Holder
Pressure (BHP) Control with Flexible Blank Holder in Sheet Metal Forming,
ERC/NSM-S-97-14, Engineering Research Center for Net Shape Manufacturing, the
Ohio State University.
[67]. Arrieux, R., Determination and Use of the Forming Limit Stress Diagrams in Sheet
Metal Forming, Journal of Materials Processing and Technology 53 (1995) 47-56.
[68]. Havranek, J., Wrinkling Limit of Tapered Pressings, J. Aust. Inst. Met. 20(2) (1975)
114-119.
[69]. Hosford, W.F., Caddell, R.M., Metal Forming: Mechanics and Metallurgy, 2nd edn,
1993.
[70]. Chen, F.K., Liao, Y.C., An Analysis of Draw-Wall Wrinkling in A Stamping Die
Design, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technology (2002) 19:253-259.
192
APPENDIX A
A.1 Objective:
1. To check whether the neural network can have the same level of prediction accuracy
as regression when the same set of data is given?
2. What is the optimal structure for the neural network for the fixed data size?
3. When the data are collected by different experimental design methods, which one
will give the least prediction error for the neural network modeling?
A.2 Approach:
First, the prediction accuracy of regression or neural network can not be simply taken for
granted as good or bad. In some cases, one method may be better than the other, while at
some time, it is opposite. So in order to have a comprehensive investigation of their
performance, we design an experiment with three test functions, four settings of data size
and three experimental design methods.
The three test functions are chosen so that their surface complexes are increased one by
one. They are: (1) Cubic function (2) Bivariate normal function (3) Cowboy hat
function, as shown in figure A.1.

193
(a) Cubic function
(b) Bivariate normal function
(C) Cowboy hat function
Figure A.1. Shape of three test functions
194
The four settings of data size are: (1) 9 data points, (2) 16 data points, (3) 25 data points,
(4) 36 data points. The three experimental design methods are; (1) D-optimal design, (2)
Bayesian D-optimal design, (3) Latin hypercube design.
For the same setting of data size, different data is collected according to the three
experimental design methods. Here, we notice that D-optimal can give several design
matrixes by the order of the assumed model when the number of runs is the same. For
example, when the number of runs is 25, the possible models are: (1) full first order, (2)
full second order, (3) full third order, (4) full forth order, (5) full fifth order. Since we
don’t know whether the prediction error is higher or lower when the assumed model
orders change, we use the table A.1 to illustrate all the model orders with different run
numbers.
195
9 runs 16 runs 25 runs 36 runs
full 2nd model
full 3rd model full 3rd model full 3rd model full 3rd model
4th full Bayesian full 4th model full 4th model full 4th model
Latin hypercube 5th full Bayesian full 5th model full 5th model
Latin hypercube 6th full Bayesian full6th model
Latin hypercube full 7th model
8th full Bayesian
Latin hypercube
Table A.1. The model orders with different run numbers.
196
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 Series1 0 Ser i es1

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
-1.5 -1.5
Run=9, 2nd full model D-optimal Run=9, 3rd full model D-optimal
1.5
1
1
0.8
0.5
0.6
Series1
0 Series1
0.4
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
-0.5
0.2
-1
0
-1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5
Run=9, 4th full model Bayesian D-optimal Latin Hypercube design
Figure A.2. The data 2-D scatter plots for 9 points.
197
1.5
1.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 Series1 0 Series1
-0.5 -2 -1 0 1 2
-0.5
-1
-1
-1.5
-1.5
Run=16, 3rd full model D-optimal Run=16, 4th full model D-optimal
1.5 1.2
1 1
0.8
0.5
0.6 Series1
0 Series1
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
0.4
-0.5
0.2
-1
0
-1.5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Run=16, 5th full model Bayesian D-optimal Latin Hypercube design
Figure A.3. The data 2D scatter plot for 16 points.
198
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 Series1 0 Series1
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
-1.5 -1.5
1.5
1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0 Series1
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 Series1
-2 -1 0 1 2
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
-1.5 -1.5
Run=25, 5th full model D-optimal Run=25, 6th full model Bayesian D-optimal
1.2
0.8
0.6 Series1
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Latin Hypercube design
199
1.5
1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
Series1
0 0 Series1
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
-1.5 -1.5
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 Series1 0 Series1
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
-1.5 -1.5
Run=36, 5th full model D-optimal Run=36, 6th full model D-optimal
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 Series1 0 Series1
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
-1.5 -1.5
Run=36, 7th full model D-optimal Run=36, 8th full model Bayesian D-optimal
1.2
0.8
0.6 Series1
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Latin Hypercube design

200
For each of these data sets, we will fit to the respective regression model. Then we
randomly select 1000 data points from the design space and calculate the squared
difference between the predicted value and the true value by our known test functions.
The overall prediction error is measured as follows:
)
∑
1000
( yi − yi ) 2
RMSE = i =1
1000
However, to calculate RMSE for the neural network, things become complicated. The
reason is that first, the network can have different number of hidden nodes as you want. It
is not fixed at all. The second, there are a lot of training methods. Different ones may
have different effects. The third, the training convergence error can be set manually. To
see what effect can these factors have, for each data set we actually use 16 different
combination of number of hidden nodes, training method and training error to build the
neural network prediction model. The table A.2 represents the RMSE resulted from
different treatment for test function #3 at run 25 and 3rd full model D-optimal design. We
have 16 results for each design matrix.
201
Number
of Training Training
RMSE1 RMSE2 RMSE3 RMSE4 RMSE5 RMSEave RMSEvar
hidden method error
nodes
3 1 0.01 0.3608 0.35363 0.44372 0.55582 0.49739 0.43397 0.007607
3 1 0.001 0.39378 0.40901 0.39584 0.3677 0.40945 0.39954 0.000288
3 2 0.01 0.54614 0.6134 0.62496 0.60945 0.60945 0.61077 0.00097
3 2 0.001 0.51948 0.43873 0.43873 0.43873 0.43874 0.43873 0.001304
6 1 0.01 0.37859 0.32452 0.32269 0.48226 0.49886 0.39512 0.007166
6 1 0.001 0.68158 0.4759 0.38801 0.47085 0.45272 0.46649 0.012247
6 2 0.01 0.30436 0.23813 0.25355 0.33544 0.31371 0.29054 0.001712
6 2 0.001 0.27586 0.34779 0.35557 0.45858 0.39668 0.36668 0.004519
10 1 0.01 0.37595 0.6785 0.29018 0.31661 0.35506 0.34921 0.02478
10 1 0.001 0.50662 0.99966 0.34177 0.50057 0.26386 0.44965 0.081993
10 2 0.01 0.37809 0.311 0.37789 0.4026 0.26432 0.35566 0.003286
10 2 0.001 0.35574 0.40952 0.40331 0.53573 0.47556 0.42946 0.004931
15 1 0.01 0.41408 0.37616 0.50912 0.58991 0.61954 0.50437 0.01129
15 1 0.001 0.44542 0.77606 0.57462 0.33361 0.36945 0.46316 0.032371
15 2 0.01 0.31992 0.37212 0.22116 0.5473 0.59756 0.41311 0.024807
15 2 0.001 0.44199 0.41923 0.37942 0.32656 0.49367 0.41355 0.003996
Table A.2. RMSE of neural network from different training methods fro test function #3
at run 25 and 3rd full model D-optimal design.
202
In the table A.2, there are five RMSE values. Each of them is from the same neural
network model. The tricky thing about the neural network is that every time the same
network is trained by the same data set, the nodes weights are not the same. Thus the
prediction errors are varied. Sometime, the same network will even not converge. To
overcome this disadvantage, I make thirty same structured networks and train them by
the same data. After the training, I choose the five networks that have the least training
errors. Then I calculate the RMSE for each of those five networks and average them to
give the RMSEave for each network treatment.
For run equals to nine, and test function one, we run the three-way ANOVA, and found
that the number of nodes and training methods do matter in prediction error. The other
terms like the training error and other interaction terms are not significant. The similar
results apply also to other run number and test function combinations.
203
(a). Effect of network methods for test function 1
(b). Effect network methods for test function 2
(c). Effect of network methods for test function 3
Figure A.6. Effect of neural network methods for three test functions at run=9 and 2nd full
model D-optimal design.
204
Main Effects Plot (data means) for 3th_ave_1
nodes numer train method
0.5
0.4
0.3
Mean of 3th_ave_1
0.2
0.1
3 6 10 15 1 2
train error
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.001 0.010
(a). Effect of network methods for test function 1

0.4
0.3
Mean of 3th_ave_2
0.2
0.1
3 6 10 15 1 2
train error
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.001 0.010
(b). Effect of network methods for test function 2

0.7
0.6
Mean of 3th_ave_3
0.5
3 6 10 15 1 2
train error
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.001 0.010
(c). Effect of network methods for test function 3
Figure A.7. Effect of neural network methods for three test functions at run=9 and 3nd
full model D-optimal design.
205
The plots for the other order D-optimal or Latin hypercube designs are not shown here.
But we found that there is a principal in choosing the structure of network and some of
the training parameters. Basically, when the data size is small, we’d better select small
number of hidden nodes. When the data size is larger, we’d better select large number of
hidden nodes. The multiplication of input nodes number N input and number of hidden
nodes N hidden in addition of N hidden is recommended smaller than the data size N data .
Also when the number of hidden nodes is larger, the training error is better not set to be
too small. We can roughly regard the number of weights coefficient as the number of the
unknown parameters and the data size as the number of degree of freedom in regression
analysis. So if the number of hidden nodes is too many when our data size is relative
small, the network weights cannot be well estimated. For each data size settings, we
recommend corresponding neural network structures and training parameters. They are
tabulated in table A.3. So for each design matrix, we have 16 network results. From
these 16 results, we select the one by the criteria above. Then by this way, we can
compare the accuracy of regression and neural networks given the same data set.
The figure A.8 compares all the regression and network RMSE for different run numbers
(9, 16, 25, 36) with the three test functions. We observed that when the data size is small,
say 9 in this case, the regression outperforms the network a lot. However, when the data
collected are more and more, the network tends to have the similar performance as the
regression.
206
9 runs 16 runs 25 runs 36 runs
# of hidden nodes 3 3 6 10
Training method LM LM LM LM
Training error 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.01
Table A.3. Recommended neural network structure and training parameters.
207
Comparison of regression and neural net error
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
RMSE
neural net
0.5
regression
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
16
16
16
25
25
25
25
36
36
36
36
36
9
Figure A.8. Comparison of regression and neural network prediction error.
208
Comparison of regression and ANN, regre RMSE
(test function: cubic function) net RMSE
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
RMSE
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
9 9 9 9 16 16 16 16 25 25 25 25 25 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Sample number
(a). Comparison of regression and ANN for cubic test function.

(test function2: bivariate normal) net RMSE
0.35
0.3
0.25
RMSE
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
9 9 9 9 16 16 16 16 25 25 25 25 25 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Sample number
(b). Comparison of regression and ANN for bivariate normal function.

(test function3: cowboy hat function) net RMSE
0.8
0.6
RMSE
0.4
0.2
0
9 9 9 9 16 16 16 16 25 25 25 25 25 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
sample number
(c). Comparison of regression and ANN for cowboy test function.
Figure A.9. Individual plot of regression and ANN prediction error for three test
functions.
209
To have clearer view of the comparison, we split the RMSE by the test functions. The
figure A.9 (a) is the RMSE for the test function one. Since the full 3rd full polynomial
model includes the cubic function, the regression method actually gives no prediction
error. This tells us when the system response is simple the regression should be the better
choice.
The RMSE for the test function two is plotted in the figure A.9(b). We see that when the
response is starting to deviate from polynomial form, the performance of neural network
comes close to the regression. There are several peaks in the regression RMSE curve.
These points are corresponding to the Latin Hypercube designs. It is obvious that this
design method is not suitable for regression modeling and the regression method gives
higher requirement of the data than the neural network does. The test function three is
cowboy hat function, which is quite nonlinear. We know the neural network is linear
combination of basic activation functions, most of which are nonlinear too. So the
regression is supposed to work worse than network does in this case.
However, from the figure A.9(c), we see that regression still gives lower RMSE generally
than the network. This phenomenon is even apparent when the data size is small. The
explanation we tend to give is that using D-optimal design or Bayesian design, most
points gather at the corner of the design space. There is no much information given at the
center of the space. Since the network doesn’t know the underlying polynomial form as
the regression method, it is just being trained to remember the response at the
210
design space boundary. This is why it gives high prediction error over the whole space.
But when the data size is increased the network is doing better and better.
When the data are collected by different experimental design methods, which one will
give the least prediction error for the neural network method? We discussed the answer
by three different levels of response complexity. When the response is highly nonlinear
like the cowboy hat function, from the main effects plots, we found that given the small
size of data, the prediction is very bad no matter what experimental designs methods are
used. However, D-optimal design gives relative small prediction error (In the x-axis of
figure A.12, 9 means Bayesian D-optimal design, 10 means Latin hypercube design). It
also verifies our conclusion aforementioned: when the data is not big enough, we’d better
use less hidden nodes in the neural network otherwise the more the unnecessary hidden
nodes, the more spurious responses it will catch. When the number of runs is increased
from nine to thirty-six, the prediction error decreased from 0.55 to 0.15. We see in all
these cases, the Bayesian D-optimal design almost gives the lowest prediction error
within all the design methods for the function approximation by neural networks. My
explanation is that when the response becomes highly nonlinear, the traditional
D-optimal design still focuses on the boundary and some locations which may carry
low-order terms’ information. Bayesian D-optimal, on the other hand, contains lots of
high order terms and thus brings more information about the system’s behavior.
Therefore, it gives neural network lower prediction error. The Latin hypercube method
only gives good prediction when the number of experiments is big.
211
Main Effects Plot (data means) for ave Main Effects Plot (data means) for ave
model number of nodes model number of nodes
0.5 0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
Mean of ave
Mean of ave
0.1
2 3 9 10 3 6 10 15 3 4 9 10 3 6 10 15
training method training method
0.5 0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
1 2 1 2
Run=9, test function 1 Run=16, test function 1
Main Effects Plot (data means) for ave Main Effects Plot (data means) for ave
0.150 0.10
0.125 0.08
0.100
0.06
0.075
Mean of ave
Mean of ave
0.04
0.050
3 4 5 9 10 3 6 10 15 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 3 6 10 15
0.150 0.10
0.125 0.08
0.100
0.06
0.075
0.04
0.050
1 2 1 2
Figure A.10. Effect of DOE and neural network methods on prediction error for test
function 1.
212
Main Effects Plot (data means) for ave Main Effects Plot (data means) for ave_1
0.5 0.30
0.4 0.25
0.3 0.20
0.2 0.15
Mean of ave_1
Mean of ave
0.10
0.1
2 3 9 10 3 6 10 15 3 4 9 10 3 6 10 15
0.5 0.30
0.4 0.25
0.3 0.20
0.15
0.2
0.10
0.1
1 2 1 2
Main Effects Plot (data means) for ave_1 Main Effects Plot (data means) for ave_1
0.18
0.12
0.16
0.14
0.10
0.12
Mean of ave_1
Mean of ave_1
0.10
0.08
3 4 5 9 10 3 6 10 15 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 3 6 10 15
0.18
0.16 0.12
0.14
0.10
0.12
0.10
0.08
1 2 1 2
function 2.
213
Main Effects Plot (data means) for ave_2 Main Effects Plot (data means) for ave_2
0.48
0.80
0.46
0.75
0.70 0.44
0.65 0.42
Mean of ave_2
Mean of ave_2
0.60 0.40
2 3 9 10 3 6 10 15 3 4 9 10 3 6 10 15
0.48
0.80
0.46
0.75
0.70 0.44
0.65 0.42
0.60 0.40
1 2 1 2
Main Effects Plot (data means) for ave_2 Main Effects Plot (data means) for ave3
model number of nodes models number of nodes
0.40
0.40
0.35
0.35 0.30
0.30 0.25
Mean of ave_2
Mean of ave3
0.20
0.25
3 4 5 9 10 3 6 10 15 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 3 6 10 15
0.40
0.40
0.35
0.35 0.30
0.30 0.25
0.20
0.25
1 2 1 2
function 3.
214
A.3 Conclusion:
In this research, I try to answer the three questions:
1) To check whether the neural network can have the same level of prediction accuracy
as regression when the same set of data is given?
Through the comparative study, I found that the network at most times gives worse
prediction accuracy than the regression method. Especially when the system real
response is quite linear, the disadvantage of network is more apparent. But when the
system’s behavior is more and more nonlinear, the network tends to have the similar
accuracy as the regression. Since in this project, only three test function is used, we can
only assume that when the response is even more complex, the network may outperform
the regression.
2) What is the optimal structure for the neural network when the data size is increasing?
In this project, I found that the number of the hidden nodes is the most important
parameter we should take care in the building of neural network. Basically, when the data
size is small, we’d better select small number of hidden nodes. When the data size is
larger, we’d better select large number of hidden nodes. The multiplication of input
nodes number N input and number of hidden nodes N hidden in addition of N hidden is
215
recommended smaller than the data size N data . Also when the number of hidden nodes is
larger, the training error is better not set to be too small. We can roughly regard the
number of weights coefficient as the number of the unknown parameters and the data size
as the number of degree of freedom in regression analysis. So if the number of hidden
nodes is too many when our data size is relatively small, the network weights cannot be
well estimated. In function approximation, the LM training method gives the fastest
training speed and best result.
3) When the data are collected by different experimental design methods, which one will
give the least prediction error for the neural network method?
Through the study, we found that for building the system response model by the neural
network technique, the Bayesian D-optimal design gives the better prediction accuracy
than the other experimental design methods such as Latin Hypercube design or D-optimal
designs. In the future work, the EIMSE will be compared with Bayesian D-optimal.
Reference:
[1]. Choueiki, M., Training Data Development With The D-optimality Criterion, IEEE
Transaction On Neural Networks, vol. 10, No. 1, 1999
[2]. DuMouchel, W., A Simple Bayesian Modification of D-optimal Designs to Reduce

Dependence on An Assumed Model, Technometrics, Vol. 36, NO. 1, 1994
[3]. Johnson, M, Some Guidelines for Constructing Exact D-optimal Designs on Convex
Design Spaces, Technometrics, Vol. 25, NO. 3, 1983
216
[4]. DeVeaux, R., Prediction Intervals for Neural Networks via Nonlinear Regression,
Technometrics, Vol.40, NO. 4, 1998
[5] Cohn, D., Neural Network Exploration Using Optimal Experimental Design,
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 6, Morgan Kaufmann, 1994
[6]. Poland, J., Different Criteria for Active Learning in Neural Networks: A Comparative
Study, University of Tubingen, Germany, 2003
217
APPENDIX B
In this section we will briefly show the validation result of using aluminum RSM to
predict the thinning of steel material we referenced in table 5.1. The aluminum RSM is
from chapter 5.
The high and low levels of the aluminum material properties used in DOE and the
variation of the referenced steel material properties are compared and listed in table B.1.
From the table, we could see that their K values are not overlapped at all. Their n values
are partially overlapped though.
We first keep the blank holder force and lub1 at the normal level. Then we change the
value of n and K from low to high in the Pam-stamp simulation. There are 4
combinations for n and K. After the simulation, the thinning value is extracted. Meantime,
we use the known RSM of aluminum material to predict the thinning of steel material at
this n and K combination. The results are shown in the first 4 data rows in table B.2. We
see that the predictions are quite close. The error percentages are all below 2%.
Then we keep both the n and K values at low level, change the values of blank holder
force and lub1, and check whether the RSM will still give the good prediction. From last
218
4 rows in table B.2, we could see that the predictions are also very close to the simulation
values. Figure B.1 plots all these data in one figure so that we can easily see the
difference.
From this testing, we see that the RSM build from the aluminum can be used to
extrapolate the thinning behavior of the steel material as long as their n and k values are
not that far away from the range used in the aluminum DOE. I think the fact is due to the
monotonous characteristic of the thinning or wrinkling behavior with respect to material
properties n and K in this sheet metal drawing process. So even the steel has different
n/K value, their trends are the same. This conclusion is very helpful because it could save
us a lot of effort to re-run another 57 time-consuming FEM simulations in order to get
RSM for steel material.
219
Steel Aluminum
n+ 0.256 0.2625
n- 0.184 0.2375
k+ 596 493
k- 496 446
Table B.1. The range of n and K for aluminum and steel materials.
220
thinning
n k bhf lub1 thinning simu error perc
pred
1 1 0 0 0.075025 0.074228614 0.010615
1 -1 0 0 0.08073 0.080705725 0.000301
-1 1 0 0 0.062263 0.062307029 -0.00071
-1 -1 0 0 0.067563 0.06878414 -0.01807
-1 -1 1 1 0.095322 0.096296131 -0.01022
-1 -1 1 -1 0.056419 0.054879634 0.027285
-1 -1 -1 1 0.083661 0.086482383 -0.03372
-1 -1 -1 -1 0.052839 0.052050062 0.014931
Table B.2. The comparison of predicted values vs. the simulation values.
221
0.12
0.1
0.08
sim ulation
0.06
prediction
0.04
0.02
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure B.1. The comparison of prediction and simulation.
222

Design For Uncertainties of Sheet Metal

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Design For Uncertainties of Sheet Metal

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

DESIGN FOR UNCERTAINTIES OF SHEET METAL

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

Wenfeng Zhang, M.S.

The Ohio State University

Dissertation Committee: Approved By

Dr. Rajiv Shivpuri, Adviser

Dr. Allen Yi Adviser

variations in the design of stamping processes.

connect process input to process performance output. With the quantification of

uncertainties of input variables, by Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) or other reliability

meta-model cannot be approximated, the alternate approach that integrates FEM,

multi-objective genetic algorithm and reliability assessment is illustrated.

By the proposed probabilistic design approaches, deeper understanding about the

minimized and product quality would be improved.

Dedicated to my parents: Zhongping Zhang/Xiaohui Shu and my wife Ji Li.

prepared me to make more contributions in the future.

supports and helpful suggestions.

going to be a proud and happy dual-PhD family!

May 16, 1978 Born - Wuhan, P.R. China

2000 B.E., Mechanical Engineering, Huazhong Univ. of

2001 – 2003 M.S., Mechanical Engineering, the Ohio State

2001 – 2007 Graduate Research Associate, Department of

Major Field: Industrial & Systems Engineering

Major Area: Manufacturing

Minor I: Reliability Engineering

Minor II: Statistical Quality Control

2. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................... 13

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................................................. 38

4. EXPERIMENT OBSERVATION ON THE PART QUALITY VARIATIONS ..... 56

5. PROBABILISTIC DESIGN OF ALUMINUM SHEET DRAWING FOR

6. INVESTIGATING RELIABILITY OF TEMPORAL VARIABLE BLANK

7. SPATIALLY VARYING CONSTRAINTS AND PROBABILISTIC DESIGN BY

8. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK .............................................................. 182

Table 4.1. The die/punch design and test setup ................................................................ 62

Table 5.1. Variation of material properties [28][29]......................................................... 81

Table 5.3. Deterministic design result ............................................................................ 101

Table 5.4. Probabilistic design result.............................................................................. 102

Table 7.1. Material properties used in the simulation..................................................... 164

Figure 2.1. Latin Hypercube design [11] .......................................................................... 24

Figure 2.2. Comparison of CCD design and Box-Behnken design. ................................. 26

Figure 3.1. Taguchi robust design matrix [11]. ................................................................ 41

Figure 3.2. Taguchi loss function [11].............................................................................. 42

Figure 3.3. Reliability based analysis [11]........................................................................ 46

Figure 3.4. FORM reliability analysis method [11].......................................................... 47

Figure 4.2. The cylindrical cup drawing die design.......................................................... 60

Figure 4.3. The hydraulic press used in the drawing test.................................................. 61

Figure 4.4. Illustration of measurement of three quality characteristics of drawn cups... 64

Figure 4.9. The fracture measurement result. ................................................................... 73

Figure 4.10. The springback angle measurement result. .................................................. 75

Figure 5.1. General probabilistic design approach. .......................................................... 88

Figure 5.3. The measurement of sidewall wrinkling. ....................................................... 93

Figure 5.4. Sensitivity plot of wrinkling and thinning...................................................... 94

Figure 5.5. Probabilistic design of BHF. .......................................................................... 99

Figure 5.6. Probabilistic design of mean of Lub1........................................................... 100

Figure 7.5. The Hishida Part. .......................................................................................... 150

Figure 7.6. Spatial distribution of discrete friction zones............................................... 152

Figure 7.7. The Pareto optimal and Pareto front............................................................. 156

Figure 7.8. The procedure of NSGA-II [61]. .................................................................. 159

Figure 7.10. The optimization flow chart. ...................................................................... 168

importance of sheet metalworking is significant. The three major categories of sheet

we focus mainly on the drawing process.

standards such as dimensions, visual characteristics, mechanical and electrical properties.

quality problems could be rapidly identified.