Industry 4.0
Vol. 10 (2025), Issue 6, pg(s) 210-213

DOMINANT TECHNOLOGIES IN “INDUSTRY 4.0”

Advancements in Non-Contact Assessment of Pressing Shapes

  • 1 Technical University of Košice, Slovakia

Abstract

Contactless techniques for evaluating pressing shapes, as part of the Industry 4.0 framework, are increasingly adopted in industry. Springback assessment is critical for verifying the final geometry of automotive body panels. Although 2D photogrammetric methods have been in use for over a decade, 3D optical surface-scanning systems are now preferred due to their superior accuracy. This study evaluates cylindrical pressings with flat and hemispherical bottoms, fabricated from 1.6 mm thick DP800 dual-phase steel. Thickness distribution was measured using the GOM Scan 1 device. Experimental results were compared against numerical simulations performed in PamStamp software, employing the Vegter Lite yield criterion and Krupkowski hardening law. Real cups (50 mm diameter) were deep-drawn from 90 mm blanks on an Erichsen 145-60 testing machine, with plastic foil lubrication. The thickness profiles obtained from scanned data were directly compared with simulation predictions to assess model accuracy and springback behaviour.

Keywords

References

  1. A. Hrivňák, E. Evin, Formability of steel sheets (Košice-Elfa, 2004)
  2. T. Trzepieciński, Acta Metallur. Slov., 26(2) (2020), p.42-44. https://doi.org/10.36547/ams.26.2.553.
  3. A. Pilar Valerga Puerta, R. Aletheia Jimenez-Rodriguez, S. Fernandez-Vidal, and S. Raul Fernandez-Vidal, IntechOpen, Oct. 28 (2020), doi: 10.5772/intechopen.92998.
  4. G. Morteza, J. Clean. Prod., 252 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119869.
  5. M. Javaid, A. Haleem, R.P. Singh, R. Suman, Sens. Int., 2 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sintl.2021.100114
  6. M. Bilušić, L. Olivari, J. Indust. Inf. Integr., 41 (2024), 100654, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2024.100654
  7. T. Schenk, Introduction to Photogrammetry, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science (The Ohio State University: Columbus, OH USA, 2005)
  8. J. Valença, E.N.B.S. Júlio, H.J. Araújo: Experim. Techn., 36(5) (2012), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1567.2011.00731.x
  9. R. H. Helle, H. G. Lemu, Materials Today: Proceedings, 45 Part 6 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.01.828.
  10. R. Mendricky, MM Sci. J., 10 (2015), https://doi.org/10.17973/MMSJ.2015_10_201541
  11. ISO 6892-1:2019; Metallic Materials—Tensile Testing—Part 1: Method of Test at Room Temperature. International Organiza-tion for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
  12. ISO 10113:2020; Metallic Materials—Sheet and Strip— Determination of Plastic Strain Ratio. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
  13. ISO 10275:2020; Metallic Materials—Sheet and Strip— Determination of Tensile Strain Hardening Exponent. International Or-ganization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
  14. VDI/VDE 2634 Part 3:2008-12; Optical 3D-measuring systems - Multiple view systems based on area scanning: Verein Deutscher Ingenieure e.V., Düsseldorf 2008.
  15. G. Brabie, E.M. Costache, N. Nanu, B. Chirita, Int. J. Mech. Sc., 68 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2013.01.028
  16. S.S. Han, H.K. Kim, J. Mater. Process. Technol., 341 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2025.118881
  17. M. C. Oliveira, D. M. Neto, A.F.G. Pereira, J. L. Alves, L. F. Menezes, IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng., 1238 (2022), 012079, DOI 10.1088/1757-899X/1238/1/012079
  18. F. Cogun, H. Darendeliler, Int. J. Mater. Form., 10 (2017), DOI 10.1007/s12289-015-1258-3
  19. K.S. Lee, H.K. Jung, J.B. Kim, J.H. Kim, Trans. Mat. Proc. 20(1) (2011), doi: 10.5228/KSTP.2011.20.1.36.
  20. M. Ovsik, M. Bednarik, M. Reznicek, M. Stanek, Lubricants 12(260) (2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/lubricants12070260

Article full text

Download PDF