基于Autoform和Dynaform软件的超高强钢零件仿真对比

目的研究商用软件Autoform和Dynaform对超高强钢零件的回弹预测精度。方法以某车型前围板中间横梁零件冲压成形过程为例,分别基于Autoform和Dynaform软件建立冲压有限元模型模拟冲压成形和回弹过程,对两种软件成形性和回弹计算结果进行比较和讨论分析。结果 Dynaform和Autoform两种软件在成形性计算时结果比较一致,相同位置Autoform计算减薄率为16%,Dynaform为16.2%;Dynaform计算的最大减薄率为18%,比Autoform的16.2%略大;两种软件基本在相同位置预测出了起皱和开裂现象;比较修边后回弹仿真值与实测值,Dynaform计算的偏差满足设定阈值的占51.4%,高出Autoform约20%。结论 Dynaform计算的最大减薄率更大一些,对应量产时较高的安全裕度;同时其回弹计算结果与实测回弹值更为接近,回弹预测精度更高。

Comparison of Forming Simulation For UHSS Part Based on Autoform and Dynaform

This paper aims to study the prediction accuracy of springback based on commercial software Autoform and Dynaform. Parts for intermediate transverse girder in front wall panel of certain model was taken as example to establish a finite element model to simulate the punching, forming and spingback based on Autoform and Dynaform, and then compare and discuss the forming property and calculation results of springback based on the two kinds of software. The forming results of Dynaform and Autoform were nearly consistent. The reduction based on Autoform and Dynaform in the same position was 16% and 16.2% respectively. The maximum reduction calculated through Dynaform was 18% which was slightly higher than 16.2% calculated through Autoform. Both kinds of software predicted wrinkling and crack in the same place. The simulated value after trimming was compared with the measured value. The calculation deviation of Dynaform was 51% of the threshold value set, which was about 20% higher than that of Autoform. The maximum reduction calculated through Dynaform is higher, thus can get a higher safety margin in the volume production. Meanwhile, the calculation result of springback is closer to the measured value and its prediction accuracy is higher.