Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering Wright State University Dayton, OH 45435
CDOC
Presentation Outline
Research objectives Overview of forging process Need for preform shape optimization Research challenges Reduced basis design approach Case studies Summary
CDOC
Research Objectives
CDOC
Identify 3-D preform shape parameters Define optimization design parameters Define finite element-based objectives and constraints Establish explicit relationship between design parameters and objectives and constraints
Enable preform design for complex 3-D forging components Develop a computationally feasible technique Improve product quality
CDOC
Trimming
Intermediate shapes
Tradeoff designs
Forming process
Quality check
Robust design
0 .0 6 0 .0 5 0 .0 4
Frequency
0 .0 3 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 -1.79 -1.53 -1.27 -1.01 -0.75 -0.49 -0.23 0.03 0.29 0.55 0.81 1.07 1.33 1.59
P e rce n tag e c h a n g e in d im e n sio n
Machinable
Rejected
Temperature distribution
CDOC
Flash
Underfill
Reduced underfill
Initial shape
Blocker shape
Preform shape
Blocker shape
CDOC
No preform
h=b
Knowledge-based approach
Finite element approach
h = 2b
h = 3b
Design Issues
2D Assumptions for 3D parts
Plane-strain - No deformation in out-of-plane direction Axisymmetric - Material flow is radial
CDOC
Practical forgings are neither axisymmetric nor plane-strain Require large number of parameters Require large number of simulations Long computational times
Shape parameters
Preform shapes
CDOC
Hypercube sampling techniques Conduct forging simulations of the DOE billets Extract FEM output data
Optimize
CDOC
CDOC
Basis Vectors
Need large number of boundary points
Increases length of the basis vector Require no extra computational cost
Basis 1 [Y1]
Desired boundary
CDOC
Basis 2 [Y2]
Basis 3 [Y3]
False boundary
Basis Vectors
Need large number of boundary points
Increases length of the basis vector Require no extra computational cost
Basis 1 [Y1] Basis 2 [Y2] Basis 3 [Y3]
CDOC
Basis shapes
Forged parts
Y = Y + a i Yi
c i=1
a1
Y2
a1 0.2 a2 0.5 a3 0.6
a2
Y3
a1
a2
a3
a3
Forged part 0 ai 1 Basis shapes
Y = Y + a i Yi
c i=1
a1
Y2
a1 0.6 a2 0.2 a3 0.3
a2
Y3
a1
a2
a3
a3
0 ai 1 Forged part Basis shapes
Y = Y + a i Yi
c i=1
a1
Y2
a1 0.6 a2 0.1 a3 0.8
a2
Y3
a1
a2
a3
a3
0 ai 1 Basis shapes Forged part
Y = Y + a i Yi
c i=1
a1
Y2
a2
DOE points
Resultant preform shapes Y3
a3
0 ai 1 Basis shapes
Scaling maintains constant volume for resultant preforms Weights (ai) are the design parameters
CDOC
Generate Latin Hypercube sampling points Perform finite element simulations Obtain objectives and constraints
Med
Strain variance
Min
Underfill
Optimization Statement
Design variables
CDOC
Cost function
Subject to
Underfill g(ai) 0
0 ai 1
Design Optimization
b1 b2 h1 h1 = 1.25 x b1 h2 = 1.50 x b2 h2
CDOC
Rail section
view
Results
Parameter a1 a2 a3 a4 Initial value 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.3 Optimum values 0 1 0.758 0
CDOC
Optimized billet
Response
Flash : 3 %
Iteration number
CDOC
No information available for a new product Enable design with geometrically simple basis shapes
CDOC
Conduct FEM analysis using DEFORM-3D Obtain objective and constraints Generate surrogate model using response surface method Redesign using optimization algorithm No Constraint satisfied? Yes Optimum preform
CDOC
Rail section
CDOC
Basis shapes
Rail section
Best shape
Best weights
a1 0 a2 1 a3 1
CDOC
Rail section
Basis shapes
Optimum weights
a1 0 a2 1 a3 0.7246
Result Comparison
Single-level
Basis 1 [Y1]
CDOC
Multi-level
Multi-level design scheme leads to optimum billet Computational time increases Expert knowledge can be used for single-level design scheme
Optimum billet Optimum billet
Case Study - 2
h/b ratio is one Three simple billet shapes as basis shapes All basis shapes give underfill Flash: 3 % Quarter model for forging simulation
Zone A
3xh 2.2xh 1.5xh
CDOC
Zone B h b h=b
Basis 1 [Y1]
Basis 2 [Y2]
Basis 3 [Y3]
Forged part
Results
Three design variables 15 DOE points generated None give complete die fill
Optimum weights
a1 a2 0.1036 0.7165 a3
CDOC
0.6158
Preform shape
Achieved optimum shape in single level Requires multi-level design process for higher h/b ratios
Case Study - 3
3-D Metal hub with h/b = 2 Allowable flash percentage: 2% Quarter model assumed for forging simulations
CDOC
Level 1
Three basis shapes selected in Level 1
Basis 1 [Y1] Basis 2 [Y2] Basis 3 [Y3]
CDOC
Level 1 Results
Level 1 best shape : Basis 3
a1 0 a2 0 a3 1
CDOC
Forged part
No other basis shape combinations give less underfill Need to satisfy the underfill constraint Tapering profile of the Basis 3 is crucial
Level 2
Basis 1 is the Level 1 best shape Variation of Basis 1 form Basis 2 and Basis 3
Basis 1 [Y1] Basis 2 [Y2] Basis 3 [Y3]
CDOC
Level 2 Results
No underfill Flash volume: 2% Basis 2 has the maximum contribution
Optimum weights
a1 0.6 a2 1.0 a3 0.3
CDOC
Performance characteristics
Level/Response Level 1 Level 2 Underfill(cm3) 139.60 0
CDOC
Rear end
Steering link
CDOC
All basis shapes give more underfill at the front end Each basis vector contains 648 shape
Basis 3
Resultant Shapes
Basis 1
CDOC
Basis 2
Basis 3
Level 1 Results
Level 1 best weights
a1 0 a2 0.76 a3 1.0
CDOC
Rectangular nature of Basis 3 is most crucial Contribution of Basis 2 provides the tapering profile Level 1 best shape becomes the Basis 1 in Level 2
Level 1 Results
Level 1 best shape
CDOC
0 .0 8
Basis 1
12 10
Basis 2
Basis 3
0 .0 6
Strain Variance
0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0
Flash %
8 6
Basis 2
0 .0 7
4 2
0 1 2
Basis 1
Basis shape
Flash percentage
Strain variance
Basis shape
Basis 3
Level 2
Basis 1
CDOC
Basis 3
Basis 4
Basis shapes
Resultant Shapes
Basis 1
CDOC
Basis 2
Basis 3
Basis 4
Increasing the number of basis shapes also increases the DOE points to 25 from 15
Level 2 Results
Optimum Weights
a1 1.0 a2 0.6 a3 0.76 a4 0
CDOC
Optimum Preform
Complete die fill achieved, Flash volume: 5% Contribution of Basis 1 reduces the curvature of Basis 2 Basis 3 Cross-sectional radii reduced Any contribution of Basis 4 increases the strain variance
Level 2 Results
Optimum Preform
CDOC
Performance characteristics
12 0 .1 2 10 0.1
Basis 1
Basis 2
Basis 2
Strain Variance
0 .0 8
Flash %
Basis 3
Basis 4
Preform
0 .0 6
0 .0 4
Basis 1
0 .0 2
0 1 2
Basis shape
3
Basis shape
Basis 3
Basis 4
5
Preform
Flash percentage
Strain Variance
Summary
Introduced a novel concept for 3-D preform design
Reduced basis technique
CDOC
Enables design variable definition for complex 3-D components Utilized simple basis shapes in multi-level optimization Knowledge based basis shapes aids faster optimization Optimum preform shapes can be easily manufactured Applicable for both 2-D and 3-D forging processes
Thank you