Features 01
Expected Problems
Don't you have these kinds of problems in outer shape evaluation of press-formed parts?
• Variations occur in evaluation results due to errors by measuring personnel and the ambiguity of standards.
• Accurate comparison is not possible because of the difficulty of superimposing shapes due to springback and deformation.
• Improvement measures cannot be developed because it is not possible to identify the cause of differences in the shape in the analysis model and the actual formed part.
• Improvement of dimensional accuracy is time-consuming because adjustment of the forming conditions is a manual search process.
Features 02
Technology highlight
• Preparation of a highly accurate outer shape model utilizing measured 3D shape data after springback of formed parts (Fig. 1).
• Detailed comparison of the outer shape prediction results by elastoplastic FEM analysis and measurement-based forming model (Fig. 2).
• Improvement of the predictive accuracy of the analysis model by quantitative evaluation of shape differences.
• Improvement of dimensional accuracy by optimization of press-forming conditions based on analysis results.
• Achievement of high reproducibility and accuracy, contributing to high efficiency in evaluation work and stabilization of manufacturing quality.
Features 03
Proposed Solutions (Examples)
Software for outer shape evaluation of press-formed parts
Links 01
Other Solutions