Author Contributions
Conceptualization, T.T.D., P.S.M. and N.L.; numerical simulation, T.T.D. and N.L.; experimental works, T.T.D., P.S.M. and N.L.; optimal analysis, T.T.D. and N.L.; writing—original draft preparation, N.L.; writing—review and editing, T.T.D. and P.S.M.; visualization, T.T.D.; supervision, T.T.D.; project administration, T.T.D.; funding acquisition, T.T.D. and P.S.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Figure 1.
Geometry parameters of the die and punch; RD is the die edge radius, RD1 is the pocket radius on the bottom of die, RP is the punch nose radius and q is holder pressure.
Figure 1.
Geometry parameters of the die and punch; RD is the die edge radius, RD1 is the pocket radius on the bottom of die, RP is the punch nose radius and q is holder pressure.
Figure 2.
Camera cover model (unit: mm).
Figure 2.
Camera cover model (unit: mm).
Figure 3.
3D surface model of tools.
Figure 3.
3D surface model of tools.
Figure 4.
The shape of sheet blank (unit: mm).
Figure 4.
The shape of sheet blank (unit: mm).
Figure 5.
Two cases of the experimental punch. (a) Case I with Rp = 0.8 mm; (b) Case II with Rp = 2 mm.
Figure 5.
Two cases of the experimental punch. (a) Case I with Rp = 0.8 mm; (b) Case II with Rp = 2 mm.
Figure 6.
Two cases of the experimental die. (a) Case I with RD = 5 mm and RD1 = 2 mm; (b) Case II with RD = 8 mm and RD1 = 4 mm.
Figure 6.
Two cases of the experimental die. (a) Case I with RD = 5 mm and RD1 = 2 mm; (b) Case II with RD = 8 mm and RD1 = 4 mm.
Figure 7.
The numerical thickness distribution (unit: mm): (a) view 1; (b) view 2.
Figure 7.
The numerical thickness distribution (unit: mm): (a) view 1; (b) view 2.
Figure 8.
The numerical stress results: (a) stress distribution (unit: mm); (b) deforming area distribution.
Figure 8.
The numerical stress results: (a) stress distribution (unit: mm); (b) deforming area distribution.
Figure 9.
The thickness comparison of numerical and experimental results.
Figure 9.
The thickness comparison of numerical and experimental results.
Figure 10.
The schematic for the numerical and experimental analyses.
Figure 10.
The schematic for the numerical and experimental analyses.
Figure 11.
The effect of die edge radius on thickness.
Figure 11.
The effect of die edge radius on thickness.
Figure 12.
The effect of die edge radius on stress.
Figure 12.
The effect of die edge radius on stress.
Figure 13.
The effect of pocket radius of die on thickness.
Figure 13.
The effect of pocket radius of die on thickness.
Figure 14.
The effect of pocket radius of die on stress.
Figure 14.
The effect of pocket radius of die on stress.
Figure 15.
The effect of punch nose radius on thickness.
Figure 15.
The effect of punch nose radius on thickness.
Figure 16.
The effect of punch nose radius on stress.
Figure 16.
The effect of punch nose radius on stress.
Figure 17.
The numerical forming results. (a) Case I with RD = 5 mm, RD1 = 2 mm and RP = 0.8 mm; (b) Case II with RD = 8 mm, RD1 = 4 mm and RP = 2 mm.
Figure 17.
The numerical forming results. (a) Case I with RD = 5 mm, RD1 = 2 mm and RP = 0.8 mm; (b) Case II with RD = 8 mm, RD1 = 4 mm and RP = 2 mm.
Figure 18.
The experimental forming results for Case I. (a) The first stage; (b) the second stage.
Figure 18.
The experimental forming results for Case I. (a) The first stage; (b) the second stage.
Figure 19.
The experimental forming results for Case II. (a) The first stage; (b) the second stage.
Figure 19.
The experimental forming results for Case II. (a) The first stage; (b) the second stage.
Figure 20.
The effect of punch nose radius and die edge radius on thickness.
Figure 20.
The effect of punch nose radius and die edge radius on thickness.
Figure 21.
The effect of punch nose radius and die edge radius on stress.
Figure 21.
The effect of punch nose radius and die edge radius on stress.
Figure 22.
The effect of punch nose radius and pocket radius of die on thickness.
Figure 22.
The effect of punch nose radius and pocket radius of die on thickness.
Figure 23.
The effect of punch nose radius and pocket radius of die on stress.
Figure 23.
The effect of punch nose radius and pocket radius of die on stress.
Figure 24.
The effect of pocket radius of die and die edge radius on thickness.
Figure 24.
The effect of pocket radius of die and die edge radius on thickness.
Figure 25.
The effect of pocket radius of die and die edge radius on stress.
Figure 25.
The effect of pocket radius of die and die edge radius on stress.
Table 1.
Physical and mechanical properties of aluminum alloy A1050.
Table 1.
Physical and mechanical properties of aluminum alloy A1050.
Elastic Modulus (GPa) | Yield Strength (MPa) | Tensile Strength (MPa) | Density (kg/m3) | Poisson’s Ratio | Hardness (HB) |
---|
71 | 95 | 150 | 2.71 | 0.3 | 34 |
Table 2.
Tool parameters in the deep drawing process.
Table 2.
Tool parameters in the deep drawing process.
RD (mm) | RD1 (mm) | Rp (mm) |
---|
3.0–8.0 | 2.0–4.0 | 0.8–2.0 |
Table 3.
The thickness and stress results at point F with different values of die edge radius.
Table 3.
The thickness and stress results at point F with different values of die edge radius.
RD (mm) | t (mm) | σ (MPa) |
---|
3.0 | 0.490 | 156.0 |
4.0 | 0.500 | 148.2 |
5.0 | 0.508 | 145.0 |
6.0 | 0.513 | 142.5 |
7.0 | 0.515 | 141.0 |
8.0 | 0.516 | 140.0 |
Table 4.
The thickness and stress results at point F with different values of pocket radius on the bottom of die.
Table 4.
The thickness and stress results at point F with different values of pocket radius on the bottom of die.
RD1 (mm) | t (mm) | σ (MPa) |
---|
2.0 | 0.516 | 143.0 |
2.5 | 0.520 | 141.0 |
3.0 | 0.522 | 140.0 |
3.5 | 0.525 | 139.0 |
4.0 | 0.526 | 138.5 |
Table 5.
The thickness and stress results at point F with different values of punch radius.
Table 5.
The thickness and stress results at point F with different values of punch radius.
RP (mm) | t (mm) | σ (MPa) |
---|
0.8 | 0.499 | 147.0 |
1.0 | 0.509 | 145.0 |
1.2 | 0.511 | 144.0 |
1.4 | 0.523 | 140.0 |
1.6 | 0.533 | 137.0 |
1.8 | 0.545 | 134.0 |
2.0 | 0.566 | 133.0 |
Table 6.
Input parameters and coding variables.
Table 6.
Input parameters and coding variables.
Input Parameters | Max | Mean | Min | Coding Variables | Max | Mean | Min |
---|
RD | 8.0 | 5.5 | 3.0 | X1 | 1 | 0 | −1 |
RD1 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | X2 | 1 | 0 | −1 |
RP | 2.0 | 1.4 | 0.8 | X3 | 1 | 0 | −1 |
Table 7.
The set of simulation.
Table 7.
The set of simulation.
No. | X0 | X1 | X2 | X3 | X1 X2 | X1 X3 | X2 X3 | X1 X2 X3 | X1′ | X2′ | X3′ | t (mm) | σ (MPa) |
---|
1 | + | − | − | − | + | + | + | − | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.451 | 163 |
2 | + | + | − | − | − | − | + | + | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.498 | 144 |
3 | + | − | + | − | − | + | − | + | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.463 | 160 |
4 | + | + | + | − | + | | − | − | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.506 | 143 |
5 | + | − | − | + | + | − | − | + | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.472 | 157 |
6 | + | + | − | + | − | + | − | − | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.559 | 130 |
7 | + | − | + | + | − | − | + | − | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.479 | 154 |
8 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.572 | 126 |
9 | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −0.73 | −0.73 | −0.73 | 0.524 | 139 |
10 | + | 1.215 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.746 | −0.73 | −0.73 | 0.539 | 133 |
11 | + | −1.215 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.746 | −0.73 | −0.73 | 0.427 | 167 |
12 | + | 0 | 1.215 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −0.73 | 0.746 | −0.73 | 0.529 | 139 |
13 | + | 0 | −1.215 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −0.73 | 0.746 | −0.73 | 0.521 | 141 |
14 | + | 0 | 0 | 1.215 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −0.73 | −0.73 | 0.746 | 0.557 | 134 |
15 | + | 0 | 0 | −1.215 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −0.73 | −0.73 | 0.746 | 0.494 | 148 |
Table 8.
The numerical and experimental thickness values of the camera cover parts.
Table 8.
The numerical and experimental thickness values of the camera cover parts.
| RD (mm) | RD1 (mm) | RP (mm) | Simulation t (mm) | Experiment t (mm) |
---|
Case I (Random) | 5.0 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 0.46 | 0.48 |
Case II (Optimum) | 8.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 0.58 | 0.6 |