Anda di halaman 1dari 9

ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 50 (2008) 743751 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmecsci

Electromagnetic blank restrainer in sheet metal forming processes


Y.R. Seo
Enview Technologies, 238 Nickels Arcade, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USA Received 1 May 2007; received in revised form 16 November 2007; accepted 24 November 2007 Available online 4 December 2007

Abstract Electromagnetic blank restrainer (EMBR) is a new technology that was recently developed to control material movement in sheet metal forming processes. Magnetic attraction on the ferrous sheet metal is the intrinsic property of EMBR. Such magnetic force is quantied using Maxwells stress tensor to assess the feasibility of EMBR in the sheet metal forming process. The 3D nite element analysis (FEA) of an electromagnetic system is conducted to determine the distribution of magnetic ux density on contacting surfaces of the sheet metal. The distribution is then used to estimate the magnetic force. Experiments have been conducted to measure the magnetic force and compare with results from the FEA. Biaxial-loading apparatus has been built to measure restraining forces on the sheet metal with blankholder, drawbead, and EMBR. All the restraining forces are put together in a chart to see where each method stands with respect to one another. In order to evaluate the quality of forming with each method, an experimental die has been built. The die forms a channel in a single stroke and provides a direct indication of how each restraining method controls blank movement in the die. The real advantage of EMBR lies in the effectiveness of force control and its exible location in a sheet metal forming die. To prove this, a prototype has been built in a tryout die where house appliance panel is formed with blankholder and EMBR. EMBRs are locally installed in the die and actively controlled during the forming process. The part formed with EMBR shows a signicant improvement in the forming quality. At the end of this paper, two immediate impacts that EMBR can bring to the sheet metal forming industry are also discussed. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Electromagnetic; Sheet metal forming; Magnetic force; Restraining force; EMBR; Control

1. Introduction In order to understand the primary functions and capabilities of electromagnetic blank restrainer (EMBR) in the sheet metal forming process, we shall begin our discussion by going over some relevant forming terminologies and technological background. Fig. 1 shows a typical sheet metal forming die with conventional components. At the start of forming, a blank is held down by the blankholder before it is contacted by the punch. While the blank is formed into part geometry, the blankholder suppresses wrinkling in the ange and restrains blank movement in the die cavity. Drawbeads are often added in the die to increase the restraining force on the blank. However, they require an increase in the blank size because
Tel.: +1 734 222 5955; fax: +1 734 222 5956.

E-mail address: yseo@enviewtechnologies.com 0020-7403/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2007.11.008

they severely deform the blank prior to entering the die cavity and leave blemishes on the surface. A blank undergoes very complex and extensive deformation during the forming process. Thus, it is common to encounter forming failures during die tryout and production. Fig. 2 shows such failures like wrinkling, tearing, and springback. Wrinkling can occur where forces are not sufcient enough to suppress buckling of the sheet metal. On the other hand, tearing can be caused by an excessive restraining force against material movement. Springback is due to an elastic recovery of formed blank upon its removal from the die cavity. Often the forming failures can occur even after thousands of successful parts in production. Such occurrence is mostly due to the variations in production like inconsistent blank thickness and tool wear. Therefore, a sheet metal forming die, if possible, ought to be built to adapt to these variations by controlling appropriate forces in real time.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
744 Y.R. Seo / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 50 (2008) 743751

Currently, there are only a couple of process variables that can be actively controlled during the forming process. They include blankholder force (BHF) and drawbead restraining force (DRF). There are still many factors affecting the success of forming such as die radius, clearance, corner radius, and stand-off, but they can never be adequately incorporated with real-time control. For decades, research has been focused on the blankholder and drawbeads [1]. Many advanced concepts were introduced and tested in laboratory settings. Some of the concepts include real-time force control by Hardt and Fenn [2], variable drawbead penetration by Cao and Boyce [3], and segmented binder concept by Siegert and Doege [4]. However, their implementation in production has been somewhat hindered by the inherent complexity and limitations of hydraulic system and large capital investment, which could range from quarter to several million dollars depending on the capacity of hydraulic system. A need for new technology that can implement these advanced concepts in production without much complexity and large capital investment was the initial motivation to develop EMBR. It is designed to exert strong magnetic forces on the blank by magnetically coupling electromagnet and armature. It is also capable of precisely varying the force. The operation can be electronically controlled and thus fully automated in production. Low carbon steel, high strength steel and 400 series stainless steel sheet metal are ferrous materials commonly used in the sheet metal

forming industry. In the present paper, we will discuss in detail the development of EMBR and present its technical and economical advantages over conventional methods. 2. Magnetic forces on the ferrous sheet metal It is quite intuitive to imagine that a ferrous object is attracted to a magnet. Such magnetic force on the ferrous sheet metal must be quantied so that we can compare it to conventional forces and assess the feasibility of EMBR. When a magnetically conducting element is placed in a magnetic eld B, it is induced with a magnetic stress rem, which can be expressed in Maxwells stress tensor as [5,6]   1 1 em 2 sij Bi Bj dij jB j ; i x; y; z, (1) m0 2 where ( dij 0 1 for iaj for i j )

and m0 is the permeability of vacuum. Surface traction s with surface normal n can be obtained from s n sem ij . (2)

If we decompose B into components tangent and normal to the surface (Bt,Bn), s can be simplied as   1 1 2 2 Bn Bt ; Bn Bt . (3) s tt ; tn m0 2 If we assume that B is symmetric on the surface, then the magnetic force tangent and normal to the surface (Ft,Fn) are F t 0, Fn 1 m0 Z
s

(4) 1 2 B B2 t ds. 2 n (5)

Fig. 1. Sheet metal forming die with conventional components.

Eq. (5) shows that the magnetic normal force is determined by both the normal and tangential component of B, and can become tensile or compressive depending on the projection angle of B to the surface. Therefore, it is crucial to have an accurate assessment of B when we are computing the magnetic forces. Fig. 3(a) depicts the magnetic forces generated by EMBR in a sheet metal forming die. Fm,a and Fm,s are

Fig. 2. Typical forming failures: (a) wrinkling, (b) tearing, and (c) springback.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y.R. Seo / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 50 (2008) 743751 745

Fig. 3. (a) Magnetic forces by EMBR and (b) two different contact forces on the sheet metal.

Fig. 4. (a) Electromagnetic system modeled in 3D FEA and (b) magnetization curves for ferrous metals.

the magnetic force on the armature and sheet metal, respectively. Fig. 3(b) shows two different contact forces on the sheet metal. Fm,a is the contact force between the sheet metal and armature while Fm,s+Fm,a is the contact force between the sheet metal and electromagnet. Again, if we assume that B is symmetric on the contacting surfaces, Fm,s and Fm,a are just normal forces. Then, the restraining force Fr on the sheet metal can be written as F r ZF m ; a Z F m ; a F m ; s , (6)

where Z is the coefcient of friction between the contacting surfaces. Furthermore, the inductive force by the eddy current in a moving sheet metal is quite negligible in comparison to Fr in the sheet metal forming process. If B is determined in the armature and sheet metal, all the forces in Eq. (6) could be computed using Eq. (5). However, it is nearly impossible to measure B on the contacting surfaces without altering the contact condition. In a paper by Seo [7], it is shown that, contrary to the general belief in its negligibility within close contact, the presence of Bt is signicant in the contact between the rough surfaces of ferrous bodies and varying widely within a few micrometers. Thus, we now resort to the nite element analysis

(FEA) where we can obtain the distribution of B in the vector space. Fig. 4(a) shows the electromagnetic system that has been modeled in the 3D FEA. The system consists of electromagnet, sheet metal, and armature. The electromagnet and armature are made of FeCo alloy, and the sheet metal is 1 mm cold-rolled-draw-quality (CRDQ) 1008 steel. Their magnetization curves are given in Fig. 4(b). It is apparent that the FeCo alloy is magnetically stronger and more efcient than the 1008 steel. When the electromagnet is powered with NI, it attracts the armature and sheet metal while creating rough surface contacts between them. The micro-gap g has been exaggerated for better viewing and is actually in micrometers. Seo [7] demonstrated that the contact between two rough surfaces could be represented as a uniform separation without much concern for the actual contact areas, and the separation could be determined from the roughness of contacting surfaces. He used the same metals with the same surface nishes as in this paper and found g 2.78 mm most accurate in representing the actual contact separation. Therefore, we have used the same g in our current FEA model.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
746 Y.R. Seo / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 50 (2008) 743751

Fig. 5. (a) Bn and Bt distribution on the contact surface and (b) magnetic forces from the 3D FEA.

Fig. 5(a) shows the distribution of Bn and Bt on one of the contacting surfaces at NI 1950 A turn. The x- and y-axes are normalized with the length. It is clearly shown that Bn stays within small variation (o0.1 T) while Bt gets considerably high toward the edges. Now, Fm,a and Fm,s are computed using Eq. (5) and the distribution of B at NI 03000 A turn, and then divided by the contact area. The magnetic force per unit area (fm) can be conveniently used to estimate with reasonable accuracy magnetic forces for different contact areas [6]. Fig. 5(b) shows their plots. When fm,a is 1.5 106(N/m2 at NI 1500(A(turn and the contact area is equal to 0.01(m2, Fm,a becomes 15,000(N (1.70(ton). Thus, the magnetic force is signicant enough to be considered in the sheet metal forming process. It is also shown in Fig. 5(b)5 that Fm,s is consistently around 10% of Fm,a and hence, Eq. (6) can be simplied as F r 2 :1 Z F m ; a . (7) If we assume Z 0.15, Fr becomes 4725 N when Fm,a 15,000 N. 3. Experiments An electromagnetic system similar to Fig. 4(a) has been constructed for experiments where we can measure the magnetic forces. The electromagnet and armature are made of the same FeCo alloy, and the sheet metal is again 1 mm CRDQ 1008 steel. The contact surface area between the armature and the sheet metal is equal to 0.003 m2. All the contacting surfaces except the sheet metal have been prepared with roughness less than 0.5((m. The experiments will be carried out up to the saturation of electromagnet.

3.1. Measurement of the magnetic force on armature, Fm,a The electromagnetic system was placed in a tensile machine where we have measured the magnetic force on the armature by slowly pulling it from the sheet metal. The tensile force dropped suddenly once the armature detached itself from the sheet metal. The force has been measured at the increments of NI from 0 to 3000 A turn. Fig. 6(a) shows the force plot from the experiment. The magnetic force increases linearly at rst and then becomes non-linear into saturation. The magnetic force at NI 1950 A turn is 4860 N. Fig. 6(b) shows the magnetic forces per unit area from the experiment and the previous FEA. It shows a fairly good agreement except at the low magnetization. Here, we shall make a comment on measuring Fm,s in the experiment. Unlike the measuring of Fm,a, which could be done by simply pulling the armature from the sheet metal, it is empirically difcult to measure Fm,s without altering the contact condition between the armature and sheet metal. Thus, as far as Fm,s is concerned, we might have to rely on the FEA. 3.2. Measurement of restraining forces A biaxial-loading apparatus has been constructed to conduct an experiment where we can measure restraining forces with blankholder, drawbead, and EMBR. Fig. 7 depicts the biaxial loading and experimental setups for each method. While the constant normal force Fn is applied on the specimen, the restraining force Fr is measured as the specimen is being retracted vertically. The retracting speed is set at 40 mm/s. Contacting surfaces are lubricated with a water-based lubricant. The experiment is carried out rst with the blankholder and drawbeads and then with EMBR.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y.R. Seo / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 50 (2008) 743751 747

Fig. 6. (a) Fm,a from the experiment and (b) fm,a from the experiment and previous FEA.

Fig. 7. Measuring restraining force with EMBR, blankholder, and drawbead.

Two different normal forces, 6000 and 9000 N, were applied on the blankholder. The bottom two plots in Fig. 8(a) represent the actual readings from the experiment. Restraining forces are 1822 and 2632 N for Fn 6000 and 9000 N, respectively, and the corresponding coefcients of friction are 0.152 and 0.146. Two different drawbeads, DB1 and DB2, were used in measuring the restraining force. Fig. 8(b) shows their dimensions. A steady normal force of 9000 N was applied on the drawbead as clamping force. The upper two plots in Fig. 8(a) represent the actual readings. The restraining force with DB1 and DB2 are approximately 6250 and 8500 N, respectively. Small geometric differences between DB1 and DB2 have caused the restraining force to shift 2250 N. This is a large leap in the force magnitude. Nevertheless, the DRF is much higher than the frictional force by the blankholder. From this, we

can infer that when a drawbead is added in a die, the total restraining force could jump substantially from with the blankholder alone. We could adjust the restraining force by changing the drawbead penetration and other dimensions, yet the resulting force shift could be very dramatic. Thus, practically speaking, it is very hard to control the restraining force in real time using the drawbead. The experiment proceeded with EMBR as shown in Fig. 7. The restraining force has been measured at the increments of NI from 0 to 3000 A turn. In addition to the magnetic force, two normal forces, 6000 and 9000 N, were also applied on the armature. This implies that in practice, EMBR can be combined with blankholder to increase the total restraining force instead of resorting to drawbead. Fig. 9(a) shows force plots from the experiment. The restraining force has proportionally increased with the additional normal forces. The saturation patterns of all three cases are almost identical, meaning that the addition normal forces rarely affected the restraining force with EMBR. Thus, the restraining force by EMBR can simply be superimposed on the friction force by blankholder without much complication. In Fig. 9(b), the restraining force per unit area fm,r from the experiment is compared with Eq. (7) of which the force is computed with Fig. 6(a) and Z 0.15. It is clearly shown that fm,r from the experiment is consistently higher than Eq. (7). This may suggest that the actual Fm,s would have been higher than what we have predicted in the 3D FEA. If we adjust Eq. (7) based on this comparison, it becomes F r 2 :2 Z F m ; a . (8)

This also implies that Fm,s is 20% of Fm,a. It is also shown in Fig. 9(b) that at the low magnetization, the restraining force from the experiment is much higher than the equations. We do not yet fully understand why this is so, but it is worth mentioning here that magnetic properties in contact are much more sensitive at low magnetization than

ARTICLE IN PRESS
748 Y.R. Seo / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 50 (2008) 743751

Fig. 8. (a) Restraining forces with blankholder and drawbeads and (b) drawbead dimensions.

Fig. 9. Restraining force with EMBR: (a) total restraining force with normal forces and (b) comparison between the experiment and Eqs. (7)(8).

Fig. 10. Changes in the restraining force with EMBR due to partial contact loss.

at high magnetization [7]. Thus, there might have been some contact conditions causing the discrepancy. Fig. 10 shows changes in the restraining force with EMBR due to partial contact loss of the sheet metal with EMBR. The experiment was conducted at NI 1950 A turn with and without Fn 9000 N. The retraction of specimen was

terminated at 50% contact loss. In both cases, the restraining force has dropped only around 18% at the 50% contact loss. This low drop rate can be explained such that even the non-contact area is still subject to a strong magnetic eld in EMBR. This could be very benecial in the sheet metal forming process because we can reduce the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y.R. Seo / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 50 (2008) 743751 749

blank size without much loss of the magnetic force, resulting in considerable cost savings in production. 3.3. Selection of optimal restraining force So far, we have measured the restraining forces with blankholder, drawbead, and EMBR. If we put them together in a chart after scaling them, it becomes clear where each method stands with respect to one another. Fig. 11 shows the chart based on 9000 N normal force applied on the sheet metal. There is a considerable absence of force between the blankholder and drawbead. This implies that switching to drawbead from blankholder could mean over-constraining the blank movement that might have been otherwise under-constrained. In practice, the high restraining force with drawbead makes a die quite sensitive to small variations in production. On the other hand, EMBR can provide an easily accessible and progressive force range in the chart by bridging between the blankholder and drawbead. Besides, its operation can be fully automated and electronically controlled in production. This will certainly enhance the selection of optimal restraining force during development of a sheet metal forming die and in production. 4. Die tryouts An experimental die has been built to prove the feasibility of EMBR in the sheet metal forming process. Fig. 12(a) shows the schematic of the die that forms a

Fig. 11. Restraining force comparison.

channel in a single stroke. The forming of channel mainly involves bending and tensile deformation of the sheet metal. The die is designed such that the restraining force can be applied by blankholder, drawbead, and EMBR. Thus, it can provide a coherent comparison of how each restraining method controls the blank movement and affects the forming quality. Fig. 12(b) shows electromagnets that are assembled in the die anges. They are the same electromagnet used in the previous experiments. The assembly surfaces have been nely ground and polished to promote a fair contact with the sheet metal blank. Armatures are assembled in the blankholders and aligned with the electromagnets. The blank is made of 1 mm CRDQ 1008 steel sheet metal and its size is 102 406 mm. It has been electro-etched with 5 mm circle grids, of which the deformations can be measured for plastic strains after forming. Nitrogen gas springs are assembled in the blankholders to generate 9000 N for BHF and drawbead clamping force. The drawbead geometry is identical to DB1 in Fig. 8(b). The drawbeads are positioned 70 mm away from the die entry, so that the preformed materials would not be drawn into the die cavity. This is a very common practice with the drawbead in the industry. Water-based lubricant is thoroughly sprayed on the tool surfaces and blank prior to forming. The tryout is carried out in a 200 ton mechanical press and the punch speed is set at 50 mm/s. Fig. 13(a) and (b) shows channels formed with EMBR and the drawbead, respectively. EMBR did not show any sign of forming deciency or problem while the drawbead left scratches on the blank surface. Thinning strains have been measured on the channel and plotted in Fig. 13(c) and (d). Strains with the blankholder and EMBR are compared in Fig. 13(c), and those with EMBR/9 kN and the drawbead are compared in Fig. 13(d). It is shown in Fig. 13(c) that the two plots are very similar in their distributions and the thinning strains are relatively small (o0.03). On the other hand, the strains shown in Fig. 13(d) are much higher and the drawbead has induced considerable strains between E and B in comparison to those between A and B by EMBR/9 kN. The excessively strained

Fig. 12. (a) Schematic of channel forming die and (b) EMBR assembly in the die.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
750 Y.R. Seo / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 50 (2008) 743751

Fig. 13. A channel formed with (a) EMBR and (b) drawbead, (c) thinning strain comparison between EMBR and BHF, and (d) EMBR/9 kN and drawbead.

material cannot be allowed into the die cavity because it can greatly affect the forming quality. This also explains why drawbeads require an increase in the blank size. Other than these two areas (A&E), the strains of EMBR/9 kN and the drawbead are somewhat similar in their distributions. This suggests that EMBR/9 kN has generated the restraining force as good as the drawbead. From this tryout, we have proved that EMBR could increase the restraining force as effectively as the drawbead, yet without imposing any of its shortcomings such as preforming and damaging the blank. Until now, we have not demonstrated force variation with EMBR in the sheet metal forming process. The real advantage of EMBR lies in the effectiveness of force control and its exible location in a sheet metal forming die. Fig. 14(a) and (b) shows a house appliance panel formed with blankholder and EMBR, respectively. The panel features in the middle a complex forming sequence with small corners to be established in a single stroke. Limited tool contact with the blank has caused excessive wrinkling in Fig. 14(a). Conventionally, drawbeads could be added in the middle to increase the restraining force and prevent the wrinkling. However, they could adversely cause excessive thinning in the small corners and mandate a substantial increase in the blank size. The blank size with drawbeads is 18.5% larger than one without. This could result in additional millions of dollars in the material cost alone during the life production of the panel. On the other hand, EMBR can be actively varied during the forming process to prevent the wrinkling and excessive thinning, and it does not require an increase in the blank size. Fig.

14(c) shows the force variations with EMBRs. During the early stage of the forming, the restraining forces is kept at the maximum to prevent the wrinkling, and then when the danger of wrinkling has passed, the forces are dropped to the minimum where the forming continues to establish the corners without excessive thinning. During the tryout, the control sequence was fully automated and electronically controlled with a laser displacement sensor that was installed on the traveling die cavity. In Fig. 14(b), a panel that was formed with EMBR shows neither any sign of wrinkling nor tearing in the corners. From this tryout, we have proved that EMBRs can be locally installed in a sheet metal forming die and each EMBR can be independently controlled to meet specic forming requirements. For the current tryout, the entire system of EMBR, which includes electromagnets and armatures, DC power supplies for each magnet, laser displacement sensor for punch position, DAQ devices, and computer program, has cost only a fraction of the projected material savings from the reduction of blank size. However, for this particular application where the additional restraining forces are applied and varied for the middle section only, adjustable hydraulic cushion systems that are designed to exert the force on the entire blankholder rather than any specic locations would not be a suitable alternative to consider. Even if it is possible as done in the segmented binder, the system would require separate hydraulic units including cylinders, servo valves, cushion pins, and controllers to apply the same variable forces as EMBR. Nevertheless, the real benet of EMBR lies where the existing methods could not provide solutions, both

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y.R. Seo / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 50 (2008) 743751 751

Fig. 14. (a) Severe wrinkling, (b) clean forming with EMBR, (c) force variations with EMBRs, and (d) displacement sensor.

technical and economical, for previous forming challenges due to their inherent limitations. 5. Conclusions We have proved the feasibility of EMBR in sheet metal forming processes by conducting various experiments and die tryouts. Many technical and economical advantages of EMBR over the drawbead are also discussed in the present paper. More importantly, with EMBR, many advanced concepts that were previously introduced can be readily implemented in production, yet without a large capital investment. Here we can think of two immediate impacts that EMBR can bring to the sheet metal forming industry. First, with EMBR we can retrot existing production dies that were originally built with drawbeads. The dies should have a large portion of the ange trimmed for scrap because of the areas affected by the drawbeads. In this way, we can reduce the blank size with EMBR and generate substantial cost savings in production. Second, the exibility and controllability of EMBR can create unprecedented opportunities to optimize the sheet metal forming process. EMBR can be made in any size and installed in any location in a die to meet specic forming

requirements and achieve a high forming quality. Since it is electronically operated, EMBR can be fully integrated with a control module and sensors to vary its force in real time during die tryout and production. This will certainly improve the efciency and productivity in the sheet metal forming industry.

References
[1] Obermeyer E, Majlessi S. A review of recent advances in the application of blank-holder force towards improving the forming limits of sheet metal parts. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 1998;75:22234. [2] Hardt D, Fenn R. Real-time control of sheet stability during forming. ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry 1993;115:299308. [3] Cao J, Boyce M. Draw bead penetration as a control element of material ow. SAE 1993:930517. [4] Siegert K, Doege E. CNC hydraulic multipoint blankholder system for sheet metal forming presses. CIRP 1993;42(1):31922. [5] Knoepfel HE. Magnetic elds: a comprehensive theoretical treatise for practical use. New York: Wiley; 2000. [6] Seo YR. Electro-magnetic blank restrainer. PhD thesis, University of Michigan; 2006. [7] Seo YR. Approximation of rough surface contact in estimating magnetic force at high magnetization using nite element analysis. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 2007, submitted for publication.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai