Numerical And Experimental Analysis Of The Process Of Aviation Drawpiece Forming Using Rigid And Rubber Punch With Various Properties

Open access


This paper presents the results of the numerical analysis and experimental research of the forming process of aviation drawpiece made from 0.6 mm thick Inconel 625 sheet metal. First phase of testing was conducted using rigid steel tools for drawpiece forming. Results of conducted simulations show that during rigid tool forming, the middle of the drawpiece losses stability. In consequence, rigid tool forming leads to the formation of unacceptable wrinkles on the drawpiece. Subsequent experimental research confirmed wrinkles of the metal drawpiece in this area. It was assumed that in order to eliminate this negative phenomenon, minor changes in technology and tool construction would have to be made. The drawpiece will be shaped by means of a flexible tool, than re-shaped using rigid tools. In the second phase of the research, tooling design changes have been made. They consisted of replacing the steel punch with a specially designed stamp susceptible for deformation. FEM numerical simulations were performed for flexible punch forming made of polyurethane elastomer with different hardness (50, 70, 85 and 90 Sh A). On their basis, the effect on the mechanical characteristics of the elastomeric drawing process and the formation of wrinkles was shown. They can be effectively eliminated by the use of a punch with hardness of 90 Sh A, which has also been confirmed by experimental research. In addition, the paper presents a comparative analysis of the deformations in selected actual drawpiece areas and in the elastomeric punch with hardness 90 Sh A computer model. The actual drawpiece deformation schedule and the values were determined using photogrammetric system Argus v.6.3., while the computer modeled drawpiece was based on FEM calculations performed in the MARC / Mentat system. In conclusion the difficulties as well as the advantages and disadvantages in determining the deformation of sheet metal parts were indicated using photogrammetric system Argus and FEM.

[1] S. Erbel, K. Kuczyński, Z. Marciniak, Obróbka plastyczna, PWN Warszawa 1981 [in Polish].

[2] Z. Gronostajski, Badania stosowane w zaawansowanych procesach kształtowania plastycznego, Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej, Wrocław 2003 [in Polish].

[3] M. Ramezani, Z. M. Ripin, Rubber-pad forming processes: Technology and applications, Woodhead Publishing 2012.

[4] MSC Software, MSC.Marc Volume B: Element Library (2010).

[5] MSC Software, MSC.Marc Volume A: Theory and User Information (2010).

[6] F. Feresthteh-Saniee, M. H. Montazeran, J. Mater. Process. Tech. 140, 555-561 (2003).

[7] A. Żmudzki, A. Śledzińska, M. Pietrzyk, H. Woźnika, A. Plewiński, T. Drenger, Obróbka Plastyczna Metali 16, 50-62 (2005) [in Polish].

[8] E.L. Deladi. Static friction in rubber-metal contacts with application to rubber pad forming processes. PhD thesis, Print Partners IPSKAMP, The Netherlands 2006.

[9] M. Ramezani, Z. M. Ripin, R. Ahmad, J. Mater. Process. Tech. 209, 4925–4934 (2009).

[10] MSC Software, Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Elastomers (2010).

[11] M. Money, Journal of Applied Physics 11, 582 (1940).

[12] W. Frącz, F. Stachowicz, T. Pieja, Acta Metallurgica Slovaca 19, 1, 51-59 (2013).

[13] J. Slota, M. Jurcisin, I. Gajdos, E. Spisak, Acta mechanica et automatica 7, 117-123 (2013).

[14] J. Sińczak, Podstawy procesów przeróbki plastycznej, Wydawnictwo Naukowe AKAPIT, Kraków 2001 [in Polish].

[15] A. Del Prete, G. Papadia, B. Manisi, Key Engineering Materials 473, 637-644 (2011).

[16] M. Schneider, H. Friebe, K. Galanulis, Validation and optimization of numerical simulations by optical measurement of tools and parts, International Deep Drawing Research Group, 327-332 (2008).

[17] MSC Software, MSC.Marc Volume B: Element Library (2010).

[18] ARGUS USER GUIDE, (2011).

Archives of Metallurgy and Materials

The Journal of Institute of Metallurgy and Materials Science and Commitee on Metallurgy of Polish Academy of Sciences

Journal Information

IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.571
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.776

CiteScore 2016: 0.85

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.347
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.740


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 183 183 10
PDF Downloads 56 56 3