You are on page 1of 188

2004 A/SP Lightweight Door Outer Project Table of Contents 1.0 1.2 1.3 2.

0 Introduction & Executive Summary 1.1 Program Introduction 1.1 Executive Summary Study Objectives & Scope 1.2 Study Objectives and Scope Members & Contributors Overall Work Plan Overall Work Plan 2.1 Design Steps 2.2 Draw Die Development 2.3 Physical Testing Steel Materials CAE Analysis 4.1 Manufacturing 4.1.1 Linear Static Analysis 4.1.1.1 Designs Selected for Prototype 4.1.2 Forming 4.1.3 Springback 4.2 Attributes (Analytical) 4.2.1 Dent Testing 4.2.1.1 Introduction 4.2.1.2 Dent Location & Door Assembly Constraints 4.2.1.3 Dent Analysis 4.2.1.4 Dent Resistance Analysis Results 4.2.1.5 Summary of Dent Resistance Analysis (Finite Element) 4.2.1.6 Dent Resistance Analysis Performance Comparison 4.2.2 Oil Canning 4.2.2.1 Oil Canning Definition 4.2.2.2 KJ Baseline 0.74 mm Contour Plots 4.2.3 Modal Analysis 4.2.3.1 Strain Density Plot 4.2.4 Structural Modes 4.2.4.1 0.74 MM Door Outer Gauge 4.2.4.2 0.65 MM Door Outer Gauge 4.2.4.3 Structural Modes Summary 4.2.5 Panel Initial Stiffness

3.0 4.0

5.0 6.0

Material Properties Comparison Die Design 6.1 Draw die 6.1.1 Press Specifications 6.1.2 Press Photos 6.2 Trimming 6.3 Flanging 6.3.1 Flange Die 6.3.2 Flange Photos 6.4 Hemming & Adhesives 6.4.1 Hemming Photos Prototype Development 7.1 Plan 7.2 Flow Chart 7.3 Results 7.3.1 Tryouts 7.3.1.1 HFT340 If Rephos (Baseline) 7.3.1.2 DP500 EG, 0.72 mm 7.3.1.3 DP500 HDGA, 0.69 mm 7.3.1.4 DP500 EG, 0.65mm 7.3.1.5 DP500 EG, 0.62 mm 7.3.1.6 DP500 HDGA, 0.60 mm 7.3.1.7 BH250 EG, 0.68 mm 7.3.1.8 BH250 EG, 0.64mm 7.3.2 Circle Grid 7.3.3 Dimensional Accuracy Physical Testing Physical testing 8.1 Dent Resistance, Oil Canning & Panel Stiffness Tests 8.1.1 Summary 8.1.2 Introduction 8.1.3 Test Descriptions 8.1.4 Testing Procedures 8.1.5 Dent Testing Results 8.1.6 Oil Canning Test Results

7.0

8.0

9.0

Project Summary Project Summary 9.1 Overview 9.2 Analytical vs. Actual 9.3 Design/Manufacturing Considerations 9.3.1 Design Standards 9.3.2 Die Considerations 9.3.3 Blank Considerations 9.3.4 Stamping 9.3.5 Trimming, Flanging, Hemming 9.4 Third Party Testing Contacts 10.1 Auto/Steel Partnership 10.2 Oxford Automotive 10.3 Supplier Contacts Altair Engineering, Inc. Hubert Enterprises Henkel Technologies Lord Corporation Icon CTG

10.0

1.0 1.1

Introduction & Executive Summary Project Background

In Phase 1 (2001), the Auto/Steel Partnership completed a Lightweight Closures Project whose objective was to achieve 25% mass reduction on a 2002 DaimlerChrysler Jeep KJ door assembly at a cost penalty of less than $0.70 per pound saved. A multi-piece inner door panel construction was developed which achieved a mass reduction of 3.40 lbs. However A/SP OEM members rejected the use of a multi-piece inner panel as too sensitive for dimensional control during the fabrication process. Based on this feedback, the A/SP Lightweight Closures Project was redirected to use a single-piece inner panel with alternative design and manufacturing proposals to maximize mass savings. This became the subject of a Phase 2 initiative The Phase 2 (2002) A/SP Lightweight Closures Project sought to optimize material usage on a single-piece door inner panel using several different technologies. Technologies considered were 1) multi-piece tailor welded blanks (TWBs), 2) 2D TWBs, 3) patch blanks and 4) hydroformed substructures. The project maintained its direction toward real world manufacturing environments reviewing numerous options. Through investigation of manufacturability, performance and their impact on mass, multiple concepts were eliminated in order to focus on selected designs for better in depth studies. The mass, cost and performance results showed a mass reduction percent of the inner and related reinforcements ranged from 12.5 percent to 18.6 percent. The cost per pound saved was above $1.71/lb.in all cases, which exceeded the $0.70 per pound saved target. Preliminary analysis on the door outer showed a potential 20 percent mass reduction at no cost penalty by utilizing advanced high-strength steel (AHSS). Therefore it was recommended that future investigation, Phase 3(2004), be focused on AHSS application in the door outer panel.

1.2

Executive Summary

The direction for the Phase 3 (2004) A/SP Light weight Closure projects was the reduction of the door outer panel thickness using advanced highstrength steel, employing different materials/thicknesses and coating variations. Materials considered for this project were Bake Hardenable and Dual Phase steels, with electrogalvanized (EG) and hot dipped galvannealed (HDGA) coatings. Both analytical and physical properties were compared to document the accuracy of actual to analytical results determined upon its material property structure. Also included in the projects purpose was to promote the use of advanced high-strength steels for door outer panel applications. The project used both the baseline die configuration and a die configuration with product Figure 1-1: A/SP Lightweight Door Outer Project Phase 3 Prototype Door and styling concessions. While the baseline door, from the 2002 Jeep Liberty (KJ) used an IFRephos 0.74 mm minimum thickness material, which is typical construction for current production small SUV vehicle doors, the project was successful in achieving mass reduction up to 17.2 percent for the door closure outer panel using: BH 250 at 0.64 mm with a slight styling concession, and DP 500 at gauges as low as 0.62 mm with the baseline die design configuration.

The materials used in this project represent good opportunities for weight reduction at near equivalent costs. However, it should be stated that though they may provide equivalent or better dent resistance at thin gauges, a different door design may present a situation where stiffness constraints would prohibit the use of these materials. A key strategy of the A/SP is to evaluate, prioritize and complete, on schedule, projects that meet the vision of the Partnership for the use of steel in automotive applications. This strategy has led to steel-focused research projects that have contributed significantly to the knowledge-base of A/SP member companies and has addressed and resolved many common issues faced in automobile design and manufacture. Consequently, the lessons learned in applicable projects have been brought to bear in this Closure Project. These include research in the following areas:

Issues: Dent resistance, oil canning, panel stiffness, surface quality, etc. Material Guidelines Formability Guidelines Springback, Material Memory, etc.

Fifty percent of this project was funded by the Department of Energy through the Freedom Car and USCAR Programs as part of the Departments continuing support to increase vehicle fuel economy.

1.3

Study Objectives and Scope

The main objective of the Auto/Steel Partnership (A/SP) Lightweight Closure Project Phase 3 (2004) project effort was to reduce the door outer panel thickness using advanced high-strength steel by utilizing different materials/thicknesses and coating variations. Materials considered for this project were Bake Hardenable and Dual Phase steels, with electro-galvanized (EG) and hot dipped galvannealed (HDGA) coatings. Both analytical and physical properties would be compared to document the accuracy of actual to analytical results determined upon its material property structure.

Figure 1-1: Baseline Vehicle, 2002 Jeep Liberty (KJ)

The purpose of this project is to investigate the option of using high-strength steel for the door outer panel, as well as investigate mass savings opportunities and evaluate cost impact. The project focused on formability and product performance. A detailed investigation of hemming processes for high-strength steels was outside of the scope of this project. Although hemming issues may occur, these issues are not perceived as insurmountable based on member experience with AHSS steel in a production environment. The impact of high-strength steel on production tooling, as well as weldability issues, also were outside of the scope of this project. The same baseline vehicle door architecture used for the 2001 and 2002 project design development work, i.e., the 2002 DaimlerChrysler KJ (Jeep Liberty; Figure 1-1), is also used for this project. The design development goal is as follows: Design Options are to achieve a formable door outer panel without a product change to the baseline door and determining the impact of lower thickness and higher strength materials on product requirements including: o o o o o o o Dent resistance Panel stiffness Palm printing Maximum deflection Oil canning Thinning Overall door performance (sag, check load, etc.)

Determine the manufacturing limits/requirements for producing a door with a highstrength steel door outer. o Stamping (springback, formability) o Surface quality o Product design considerations (radii, wall angle, etc.) o Process Considerations Target a 20% mass reduction over the baseline vehicle door outer panel, using highstrength steels with lower gauges, at zero incremental cost increase or at a cost savings. Minimize recurring and non-recurring cost impact to achieve this reduction. Develop applicable real world design outputs. Develop applicable real world manufacturing outputs. Design for a theoretical SOP 2006. Explore product and manufacturing development paths. Determine the impact of lower thickness, higher strength materials on product requirements.

The major scope of this project focused on formability. Hard tools were not built; Kirksite tooling was utilized in the prototype trials to achieve a formable outer door panel. 1.3.1 Scope Details Following is an outline of the projects development scope: Material and Properties Linear Static Analysis Draw Die Development Formability Analysis Finite Element (FE) Analysis Mass Analysis Product Design Development Design concessions Tool Build Manufacturing Development Validation

The scope included a series of outputs expected as a result of the projects design development focus: Material Properties Guideline Formability Software FE Analysis Results Captured Manufacturing Opportunities Product/Manufacturing Development Output Mass Analysis Validation

Several parameters served as design checks along the development cycle. The majority of these parameters held design development within the confines of real-world

application to ensure that the final designs could be immediately applied to the baseline vehicle. The remainder insured that the design concessions could be successfully manufactured with the target materials. These parameters were as follows: Applicable Material Properties Draw and Formability Latitude OEM Acceptable Design Practices OEM Acceptable Manufacturing Practices Cost and Mass Guidelines

1.4

Members & Contributors

The following is a list of the members of the A/SP lightweight Closures Project Team, whose dedication to innovative steel applications for the automotive industry made this project possible. Auto Steel Partnership (A/SP): Industry Steel Representatives: Dofasco Inc. Ispat Inland Inc. Severstal NA Inc. Stelco Inc. United States Steel Corporation OEM Representatives: DaimlerChrysler Corp. Ford Motor Company General Motors Corporation Engineering & Project Management: Oxford Automotive, Inc. Contributors: Altair Engineering JF Hubert Enterprises Henkel Technologies Lord Corporation Icon Creative Technology Group Fifty percent of this project was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy through the Freedom Car and USCAR Programs. For more information about the A/SP, Oxford Automotive, Inc., and the project contributors, please select Contacts from the Main Menu.

10

2.0 2.1

Overall Work Plan Design Steps

Following is an outline of the design steps taken in this Phase 3 project. Analysis o Linear Static (Structural ) Analysis Upper Frame Deflection Outer Panel Initial Stiffness Static Check Load Baseline Analysis o Outer panel at 0.74 mm Analysis with variable Material /Thickness o Outer panel at 0.70 mm, 0.65 mm and 0.60 mm Comparison of Static Structural Performance Set the minimum outer panel thickness to meet the Target

Modify the die development o Based on the forming results

The die designs are iteratively changed as modifications are made and re-analyzed.

Forming Re-analysis o Re-run the analysis utilizing new development Finalize Die Development o Modify the die development o Run forming analysis using actual materials. Data required: Mechanical Properties Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) o Run preliminary Springback Analysis o Die development Outer panel draw die Forming Analysis o Simulate utilizing the current material o Simulate utilizing the new material o Documentation of all variations Test Cases (Analytical) o Dent resistance o Oil canning o Panel stiffness Draw Die Development

2.2

Numerous draw die development iterations were run through formability analysis using worst case and typical properties to determine a formable panel as close to baseline as possible. Each run was subjected to a process of elimination, giving careful consideration to the run findings to guide possible next direction to be taken. From those findings, designs were chosen for tryout with limited concessions. The material tryout direction taken is shown in the Figure 2-1 flow chart following.
11

Figure 2-1: Prototype Flow Chart

12

2.3

Physical Testing

There were three samples of each variant, plus a baseline material to be tested for dent resistance, oil canning, and minimum static force required to produce a visible dent This depth depends on many factors, such as paint color, local panel curvature, and affected area of the dent. First visible depths (FVDDs) in the range of 0.02 mm to 0.1 mm have been used. The procedures for evaluating dent resistance were set according to Auto/Steel Partnership guidelines for automotive body panels, Section 3, Dent Depth, First Visible. The report is to include a chart comparing analytical with actual test results

13

3.0

Prototype Steel Materials

3.1 Materials Table (Actual)

Table 3-1: Door Outer Material Chart (Actual)

Blank Size

53" (1346.2 mm) x 59.5"(1511.3 mm)


IF REPHOS

Dimension Thickness 0.76 mm (0.0299")


BH 250

Coating HFT340 HDGA Coating EG EG

Coating Weight (g/m2) 54/50 Coating Weight (g/m2) N/A 83/84 Coating Weight (g/m2) 65/66 61/75 58/59 54/51 58/60

Thickness Thickness Thickness 0.64 mm (0.0252") 0.68 mm (0.0267")


DP 500

Dimension Thickness Thickness Thickness Thickness Thickness 0.67 mm (0.0264") 0.72 mm (0.0283") 0.69 mm (0.0272") 0.60 mm (0.0236")* 0.62 mm(0.0244")

Coating EG EG HDGA HDGA EG

* Tensile strength 634 MPa. See material properties comparison (click Material Comparison at the Main Menu).

14

4.0 4.1

CAE Analysis Manufacturing

4.1.1 Linear Static Analysis

Table 4-1: Linear Static Analysis Simulation Upper Frame Deflection Door Sag @15 Deg. Open (Door, Hinge) Outer Panel Initial Stiffness Static Check Stop Target Y < 2.00 MM Deflection under 10 lbs/ft. loading Z < 6.60 MM Vertical Deflection wf200 lbs @ Latch 1000 N/22.84 MM (250 lbs/inch) Z < 1.50 MM Max Vertical Set after 350 ft-lbs. Load Hinge Moment Baseline (Outer 0.74) 1.024 2.105 19.56 Y Deflection = 37.73 (Nonlinear Z Set = 0.379) 8.042 0.70 mm 1.045 2.111 21.62 Y Deflection = 37.89 0.65 mm 1.074 2.121 24.73 Y Deflection = 38.13 0.60 mm 1.105 1.131 28.6 Y Deflection = 38.41

Weight kg

Notations: a. Baseline: The door as it is today (results obtained from analysis performed by Altair Engineering). b. All test procedures and requirements were taken from DCX informational sheets. There were non-linear requirements for a few of these cases; however, these load cases were used in the linear analyses for optimization and stiffness. This is the reason why the Ystiffness of the static check stop case was used though the set was measured in Z in the non-linear test after unloading. The door only was used for static check stop because of the method that was used for an A to B comparison. The door was set at a rigid mount point at the hinge locations. The body side panel was not used in this setup, thus this was used as a door-only target. The targets supplied were subsystem requirements. See Figures 4-1 through 4-4 to view load locations for each test. c. The Static Check Stop analysis is meant for Non-Linear analysis to determine the Permanent (Z-Set) Deformation after the loading. The Linear Static version of the same analysis could be a good reality check in the earlier stage of the development. However, to meet the objective, Static Check Stop analysis must be done in the NonLinear environment.

15

Force

Force

Figure 4-1: Linear Static Analysis, Static Check Stop

Figure 4-2: Linear Static Analysis, Outer Panel Initial Stiffness

Force Force

Force Force

Force Force

Force

Figure 4-3: Linear Static Analysis, Upper Frame Deflection

Figure 4-4: Linear Static Analysis, Door Sag at 15o Open

4.1.1.1

Designs Selected for Prototype

Design Option A (Baseline) was to achieve a formable door outer panel without a product or styling change to the baseline door. There were slight changes though in the window opening in the corner of the B-Pillar at the beltline area. (See Figure 45) This area was adjusted to accommodate a strain issue due to the depth of the draw. The area was brought further outboard to relieve the depth of draw and assist with material flow. The revision was only in the portion of the window opening that would be trimmed out and had no affect on the styling.

Adjusted area

Figure 4-5: Top view of the door panel at beltline and B-Pillar

Design Option B (Revision 10A) was to achieve a formable door outer panel with a product change but without affecting a styling change to the baseline door. The major revision to 10A was a decrease in the outboard pocket depth to 5.0 mm to shorten up the length of line at the beltline. (See Z Section in Figure 4-7 and X Section in Figure 4-6) This change affects the reinforcement mirror bracket and the mounting supports behind the mirror appliqu.

Baseline Surface

5.0 mm

Figure 4-6: Revision 10A X Section at mirror flag (5.0 mm shift outboard in mirror flag surface) 17

Mirror Flag Z Section

Figure 4-7: Revision 10A Z Section, Mirror flag overlay comparison (5.0 mm shift outboard in mirror flag surface)

18

Design Option C (Revision 11A) was to achieve a formable door outer panel with a minor change to the styling of the baseline door. The major revisions to 11A were a 5.0 mm outboard move of the pocket depth to shorten the length of line at the beltline, as well as development of a 7 degree angle in the mirror flag pocket to the tangent of the character line across the beltline. The latter was to improve material flow and reduce length-of line. (See Section in Figure 4-8) This change impacts the reinforcement mirror bracket and the mounting supports behind the mirror appliqu.

Baseline Revision 10A/11A 5mm move

Radii changes 1.06 mm /11A 1.80 mm/10A Radii changes 1.60 mm /11A 2.00 mm/10A

Figure 4-8: Revision 11A X Section, Mirror flag overlay comparison (5.0 mm shift outboard in mirror flag surface)

19

4.1.2

Forming Analysis

The A/SPs key strategy was to evaluate advanced high-strength steels analytically to determine whether it was feasible to use this material at thinner gauges and different coatings to form an outer door panel. The findings in this section show different approaches that were investigated to reach that goal and summarize the success or failure of each formability run. The formability was an important factor in this project. Findings during this part of the project were documented and successful runs compared to actual prototype manufacturing. Through this research, valuable information was gained as to the accuracy between the analytical and actual manufacturing of advanced high-strength steels. In the beginning of the project, the A-SP Lightweight Closure Group verbally agreed to take a robust design approach during the analytical design phase. As a part of that approach, the Group decided that material worst case mechanical properties should be used to perform all the formability and structural analyses. The idea was to design a robust die so that any material properties fluctuation would not affect the manufacturing process since the worst case scenario had been taken into consideration. By considering a worst case material properties scenario, the possibility of significant material properties variation was eliminated. As well, worst case material properties have a lower Forming Limit Diagram (Zero FLD0 point), which means that all available formability is not used, since the most often the supplied material has typical material properties and a higher FLD0 point. Therefore, it was decided that the FLD marginal zone should be reduced from the Industry Standard of ten percent (10%) to three percent (3%), while using worst case material properties. As the project progressed, the committee revisited the FLD issue, and it was decided that instead of using 3% marginal, both the 3% and 10% marginal lines would be included on the FLD, irrespective of material properties. Since the analyses were performed using both typical and worst case material properties, it is advisable to read the legend of each FLD shown in this report to determine which material properties were used for a particular analysis.

20

4.1.2.1

Baseline (BH250)
Material Thickness Condition

Baseline

Bake Hardenable 250

0.60 mm Thickness

Worst Case Material Properties

The formability simulation was run on the baseline model with the existing production process. There were no revisions made to the model. During simulation, the door developed splitting issues along the beltline. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-9. Major Strain: Showed some areas of concern in the center of the door just above the rocker and forward of the door handle location. (See Figure 4-10) Minor Strain: This showed areas at the rear of the door from the beltline down and at the bottom of the door that were not within the scope of the target. (See Figure 4-11) Thinning: The thinning chart showed areas in the mirror flag with over 20% thinning as well as splitting issues at the beltline. (See Figure 4-12) Conclusion: An area of failure due to splitting was located on the flat between the 3 millimeter radius character line at the beltline and the 5 millimeter radius leading into the window opening along the beltline. There was also splitting in the mirror flag area.

Splitting

Figure 4-9: BH 250, 0.60 mm, Baseline Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) Worst Case Material Properties

21

Figure 4-10: BH 250, 0.60 mm, Baseline Major Strain Worst Case Material Properties

Figure 4-11: BH 250, 0.60 mm, Baseline Minor Strain Worst Case Material Properties

Figure 4-12: BH 250, 0.60 mm Baseline Thinning, Worst Case Material Properties 22

4.1.2.2

Baseline (DP 500)


Material Thickness Condition

Baseline

Dual Phase 500

0.60 mm

Worst Case Material Properties

The formability simulation was run on the baseline model with the existing production process. There were no revisions made to the model. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-13 . Major Strain: Showed some areas at the A pillar above and below the mirror flag that fell at approximately 1.5% strain but the overall strain was uniform across the panel at 2%. (See Figure 4-14) Minor Strain: This showed local areas at the rear and front of the door that were a smaller percent strain, but this is an unavoidable occurrence because of the shape of the door. (See Figure 4-15) Thinning: The thinning chart showed areas in the mirror flag over 20% thinning along with splitting issues at the beltline. (See Figure 4-16) Conclusion: An area of failure due to splitting was located on the flat between the 3 millimeter radius character line at the beltline and the 5 millimeter radius leading into the window opening along the beltline. There was also splitting in the mirror flag area.

Splitting

Figure 4-13: DP 500, 0.60 mm, Forming Limit Diagram Worst Case Material Properties

23

Figure 4-14: DP 500, 0.60 mm, Baseline Major Strain Worst Case Material Properties

Figure 4-15: DP 500, 0.60 mm, Baseline Minor Strain Worst Case Material Properties

Figure 4-16: DP 500 .60 mm Baseline Thinning Worst Case Material Properties 24

4.1.2.3 Revision 1A

Revisions

Revision 1A|Bake Hardenable 250


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 1A

Bake Hardenable 250

0.70 mm Thickness

Worst Case Material Properties

The 5 millimeter radius into the window opening was increased to 7.5 mm (See Section detail in Figure 4-17) to relieve the length of line for forming along this area. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-18. Major Strain: Showed numerous areas of inconstancies in percentage of strain across the panel. (See Figure 4-19) Minor Strain: Showed outer areas of the panel at zero percent strain. (See Figure 4-20) Thinning: The thinning chart showed most areas in the 2.5% to 5% thinning range and local corners at 20% along with the splitting issue at the beltline. (See Figure 4-21) Conclusion: The formability simulation of the Revision 1A model developed splitting along the beltline. The failure area was again located on the flat between the 3 millimeter radius character line at the beltline and the 5 millimeter radius leading into the window opening.

Opened radius 7.5 mm Radius (Rev 1A) 5.0 mm Radius Baseline

Figure 4-17: Revision 1A Section (Open @ beltline)

25

Figure 4-18: BH 250, 0.70 mm, Rev. 1A Forming Limit Diagram, Worst Case Material Properties

Figure 4-19: BH 250, 0.70 mm, Rev. 1A Major Strain Worst Case Material Properties (Open @ Beltline Flange Radius)

26

Figure 4-20: BH 250, 0.70 mm, Rev. 1A Minor Strain Worst Case Material Properties (Open @ Beltline Flange Radius)

Figure 4-21: BH 250, 0.70 mm, Rev. 1A Thinning, Worst Case Material Properties (Open @ Beltline Flange Radius)

27

Revision 1A|Dual Phase 500, 0.70 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 1A

Dual Phase 500

0.70 mm

Worst Case Material Properties

The 5 millimeter radius into the window opening was increased to 7.5 mm to attempt to relieve the length of line for forming along this area. (See Section detail in Figure 4-17, Page 25.) The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-22. Major Strain: Showed some areas at the A pillar above and below the mirror flag that fell at approximately 1.5% strain, but the overall strain was uniform across the panel at 2%. (See Figure 4-23) Minor Strain: Showed areas at the rear and front of the door that were 1.5% to 2.0% strain. (See Figure 4-24) Thinning: The thinning chart showed most areas in the 2.5% to 5% thinning and local corners at 20% along with the splitting issue at the beltline. (See Figure 4-25) Conclusion: The formability simulation of the Revision 1A model developed splitting along the beltline. The area of failure was again located on the flat between the 3 millimeter radius character line at the beltline and the 5 millimeter radius leading into the window opening from the middle of the window to the rear of window opening.

Figure 4-22: DP 500, 0.70 mm, Rev. 1A Forming Limit Diagram, Worst Case Material Properties (Open @ Beltline Flange Radius)

28

Figure 4-23: DP 500, 0.70 mm, Rev. 1A Major Strain Worst Case Material Properties (Open @ Beltline Flange Radius)

Figure 4-24: DP 500, 0.70 mm, Rev. 1A Minor Strain Worst Case Material Properties (Open @ Beltline Flange Radius)

Figure 4-25: DP 500, 0.70 mm, Rev. 1A Thinning Worst Case Material Properties (Open @ Beltline Flange Radius)

29

Revision 1A|Dual Phase 500, 0.65 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 1A

Dual Phase 500

0.65 mm

Worst Case Material Properties

The 5 millimeter radius into the window opening was increased to 7.5 mm to relieve the length of line for forming along this area. (See Section detail in Figure 4-17, Page 25.) The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-26. Major Strain: Showed some areas at the A pillar above and below the mirror flag that fell at approximately 1.5% strain but the overall strain was uniform across the panel at 2%. (See Figure 4-26) Minor Strain: Showed areas at the rear and front of the door that were 1.5% to 2.0% strain. (See Figure 4-27) Thinning: The thinning chart showed most areas in the 2.5% to 5 % thinning and local corners at 20% along with the splitting issue at the beltline. (See Figure 4-28) Conclusion: The formability simulation of the Revision 1A model developed splitting along the beltline. The failure area was again located on the flat between the 3 millimeter radius character line at the beltline and the 5 millimeter radius leading into the window opening from the middle of the window to the rear of the window opening. The beltline area will be addressed with further modifications.

Figure 4-26: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 1A Forming Limit Diagram, Worst Case Material Properties (Open @ Beltline Flange Radius)

30

Figure 4-27: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 1A Major Strain Worst Case Material Properties (Open @ Beltline Flange Radius)

Figure 4-28: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 1A Minor Strain Worst Case Material Properties (Open @ Beltline Flange Radius)

Figure 4-29: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 1A Thinning Worst Case Material Properties (Open @ Beltline Flange Radius)

31

Revision 2 Revision 2A|Bake Hardenable, 0.70 mm

Material

Thickness

Condition

Revision 2A

Bake Hardenable 250

0.70 mm

Worst Case Material Properties

For this revision, the radius inside the mirror pocket was revised to 10 mm to relieve the splitting. (See Section A-A in Figure 4-30) The 5.0 mm radius into the window opening was increased to 9.5 mm and the character line increased to 3.5 mm to attempt to relieve the forming length of line along this area. (See Section B-B in Figure 4-31) The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-32. Major Strain: Minor Strain: Thinning: N/A N/A N/A

Conclusion: The formability simulation of the revision 2A model developed splitting along the beltline with the existing production process. The failure area was again located on the flat between the 3 millimeter radius character line at the beltline and the 5 millimeter radius leading into the window opening. The beltline area needs to be addressed with further modifications.

B B

A A

10.0 mm radius

5.0 mm baseline

View A

32 Figure 4-30: Revision 2A Section A-A, Mirror Flag Area w/Trim

B B

A A
3.0 mm

9.5 mm

3.5 mm View B

5.0 mm

View C

Figure 4-31: Revision 2A Section B-B Window opening radius and character line change

Figure 4-32: BH 250, 0.70 mm, Rev. 2A Forming Limit Diagram, Worst Case Material Properties (Open @ Beltline Flange Radius)

33

Revision 3 Revision 3 iterations focused on gaining material flow from the window area to remedy beltline splitting. Various hole configurations were explored in the formability runs, using both Bake Hardenable 250 and Dual Phase 500 steels in alternating trials. The results of these explorations are summarized following in Revision 3A through Revision 3N Version 3A. Revision 3A|Bake Hardenable 250, 0.65 mm
Material Thickness Condition

Revision 3A

Bake Hardenable 250

0.65 mm

Worst Case Material Properties

Revision 3A configured three holes parallel to the beltline. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-33. Major Strain: Minor Strain: N/A N/A

Thinning: N/A . Conclusion: The material split between each hole in the window opening. There was also considerable failure in the mirror flag along the beltline.

Figure 4-33: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3A Forming Limit Diagram , Worst Case Material Properties (Baseline w/three holes in window opening)

34

Revision 3B|Bake Hardenable 250, 0.65 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 3B

Bake Hardenable 250

0.65 mm

Worst Case Material Properties

Revision 3B configured two 110 mm diameter holes in the window opening parallel to the beltline. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-34. Figure 4-35 shows the holes reconfigured. Major Strain: Minor Strain: N/A N/A

Thinning: N/A . Conclusion: The Revision 3B hole configuration did not completely relieve the beltline splitting issue. There was splitting at the holes at worst case material properties, using the product stamping process as it exists presently. There was some relief along the beltline that fell into the marginal range for typical properties. The mirror flag area still remains an issue with splitting along the beltline.

Figure 4-34: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3B Forming Limit Diagram, Worst Case Material Properties (Baseline w/holes In window opening)

35

Figure 4-35: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3B Forming Limit Diagram, Reconfigured Holes, Worst Case Material Properties (Baseline w/holes in window opening) Note: The FLD chart indicates 3% and 10% margins from the fracture line.

36

Revision 3C| Bake Hardenable 250, 0.65 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 3C

Bake Hardenable 250

0.65 mm

Worst Case Material Properties

Revision 3C used a slot configuration, positioned parallel to the beltline, in the formability run. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-36. Major Strain: Minor Strain: N/A N/A

Thinning: N/A . Conclusion: The outer panel with the slot configuration split at both ends onto the panel surface before the end of the stroke, and the run was terminated.

Figure 4-36: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3C Forming Limit Diagram, Worst Case Properties (Baseline w/holes in window opening, 110 dia.) Note: Panel not at bottom position.

37

Revision 3D|Bake Hardenable 250, 0.65 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 3D

Bake Hardenable 250

0.65 mm

Worst Case Material Properties

Revision 3D used a slightly smaller slot configuration (still positioned parallel to the beltline) in the formability run than that used in Revision 3C. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-37. Major Strain: Minor Strain: N/A N/A

Thinning: N/A . Conclusion: The outer panel with the slot configuration split at both ends onto the panel surface before the end of the stroke, and the run was terminated.

Figure 4-37: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3D Forming Limit Diagram, Worst Case Material Properties (Baseline w/holes in window opening) Note: Panel not at bottom position. Reduced slot size from 3C.

38

Revision 3E| Bake Hardenable 250, 0.65 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 3E

Bake Hardenable 250

0.65 mm

Worst Case Material Properties

For Revision 3E, a large hole was positioned in the center of the window area. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-38. Major Strain: Minor Strain: N/A N/A

Thinning: N/A . Conclusion: This outer panel hole configuration did not completely achieve relief from the splitting issue at the beltline. There was localized relief at the beltline directly below the hole, but splitting at the beltline on either side of the hole.

Figure 4-38: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3E Forming Limit Diagram Worst Case Material Properties (Baseline w/holes in window opening)

39

Revision 3F|Bake Hardenable 250, 0.65 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 3F

Bake Hardenable 250

0.65 mm

Typical Material Properties

For Revision 3Fs formability run, Revision 3Bs 130 mm holes, positioned parallel to the beltline, were enlarged 20 MM (150 mm total). The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-39. Major Strain: Minor Strain: Thinning: N/A N/A N/A

Conclusion: This outer panel hole configuration did not completely achieve relief from the splitting issue at the beltline. Using typical properties, had a marginal area occurred between the two holes.

Figure 4-39: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3F Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties (Baseline w/holes In window opening, 130mm dia.)

40

Revision 3G|Bake Hardenable 250, 0.65 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 3G

Bake Hardenable 250

0.65 mm

Typical Material Properties

Revision 3G used two teardrop shaped holes in the horizontal position in the window opening parallel to the beltline. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-40. Major Strain: Minor Strain: N/A N/A

Thinning: N/A . Conclusion: The teardrop hole configuration split in between the two holes, failing in the formability simulation run with typical properties.

Figure 4-40: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3G Forming Limit Diagram Typical Material Properties, (Baseline, 2 tear shape holes in window opening)

41

Revision 3H|Bake Hardenable 250, 0.65 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 3H

Bake Hardenable 250

0.65 mm

Typical Material Properties

Revision 3H used two holes in the window opening, joined by a slit, in the horizontal position parallel to the beltline to counteract the results demonstrated in Revision 3G. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-41. Major Strain: Minor Strain: N/A N/A

Thinning: N/A . Conclusion: The outer panel as it exists presently with this hole and slit configuration split at the outboard location of both holes with typical properties.

Figure 4-41: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3H Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties, (Baseline, 2 holes with slit in window opening)

42

Revision 3J|Dual Phase 500, 0.65 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 3J

Dual Phase 500

0.65 mm

Typical Material Properties

Revision 3J used two holes in the window opening parallel to the beltline that were enlarged to 140 mm and the position moved to accommodate better forming. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-42. Major Strain: Minor Strain: N/A N/A

Thinning: N/A . Conclusion: This hole configuration still resulted in splitting between the two holes in the formability simulation run with typical properties.

Splitting

Figure 4-42: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3J Forming Limit Diagram Typical Material Properties, (Holes in window opening enlarged to 140 mm)

43

Revision 3K|Dual Phase 500, 0.65 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 3K

Dual Phase 500

0.65 mm

Typical Material Properties

Revision 3K added dimples to the two hold (140 mm) configuration used in 3J. The dimples were placed between the two window opening holes to gain extra material and alleviate the splitting between the holes. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-43. Major Strain: Minor Strain: N/A N/A

Thinning: N/A . Conclusion: The two 140 mm holes with added dimples resulted in worse splitting than the original revision 3J without the dimples. This could be a direct result of the dimple area being work hardened when formed in the blank. The mirror flag area still remains an issue with splitting along the beltline.

Splitting

Figure 4-43: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3K Forming Limit Diagram Typical Material Properties, (140 mm holes w/added dimples)

44

Revision 3L| Dual Phase 500, 0.65 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 3L

Dual Phase 500

0.65 mm

Typical Material Properties

Revision 3L changed the cylindrical holes in the window opening to vertical teardrops. The location of the holes was determined through previous material flow results. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figures 4-44 to 4-46 following. Major Strain: See Figure 4-47. Minor Strain: See Figure 4-48. Conclusion: The beltline area was relieved and the splitting issue was alleviated. Areas above the marginal zone were noted on the Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) chart at the B pillar area and the mirror flag beltline. These issues were addressed in the next revision.

Figure 4-44: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3L Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties (Holes in window opening changed to teardrops in vertical position and shifted to accommodate better forming)

45

Splitting

Marginal

Figure 4-45: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3L Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties (Holes in window opening changed to teardrops in vertical position and shifted to accommodate better forming)

Figure 4-46: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3L Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties (Holes in window opening changed to teardrops in vertical position and shifted to accommodate better forming) See yellow area noted in the chart.

46

Figure 4-47: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3L Major Strain Typical Material Properties

Figure 4-48: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3L Minor Strain, Typical Material Properties

47

Revision 3M| Dual Phase 500, 0.65 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 3M

Dual Phase 500

0.65 mm

Typical Material Properties

The results achieved Revision 3L shifted the engineering teams attention to the local problem areas rather than making changes to the entire door. The teardrop hole was enlarged to relieve the splitting condition at the B pillar in a localized area and, according to Revision 3L results, at the beltline in the mirror flag area. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-49. Major Strain: Minor Strain: N/A N/A

Thinning: N/A . Conclusion: The results created a negative affect between the two teardrops. Splitting occurred at their closest point.

Splitting

Figure 4-49: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3M Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties (Teardrop holes in window opening increased from Rev. 3L to relieve marginal areas)

48

Revision 3N Ver2A Revision 3N Ver 2A|Bake Hardenable 250, 0.60 mm Revision 3N Ver 2A
Material Thickness Condition

Bake Hardenable 250

0.60 mm

Worst Case Material Properties

The teardrop shape and size from revision 3L again was utilized in this iteration. The surface was revised in the lower area at the rear of the window opening in the draw die. The attempt was to shallow up the depth of the draw to eliminate a localized area splitting. The mirror flag also was addressed because of continuing failure at the beltline and upper area. The major issue in this area was the depth of the pocket. Some of the pocket surface radii were revised in attempts to relieve this. The area was located behind the mirror appliqu so as not to be visible. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-50 to 4-51 following. Major Strain: Minor Strain: Thinning: See Figure 4-52. See Figure 4-53. N/A

Conclusion: The area between the two teardrop holes fell above the marginal zone and showed possible splitting. The area at the beltline in the mirror flag showed major failure according to the FLD chart.

Figure 4-50: BH 250, 0.60 mm, Rev. 3N Ver 2A Forming Limit Diagram Worst Case Material Properties bh250typ65_it3nL2a.tif bh250typ65 it3nL2a 001.tif

49

Figure 4-51: BH 250, 0.60 mm, Rev. 3N Ver 2A Forming Limit Diagram Worst Case Material Properties

Figure 4-52: BH 250, 0.60 mm, Rev. 3N Ver 2A Major Strain Worst Case Material Properties

Figure 4-53: BH 250, 0.60 mm, Rev. 3N Ver 2A Minor Strain Worst Case Material Properties 50

Revision 3N Ver 2A|Bake Hardenable 250, 0.65 mm Revision 3N Ver 2A


Material Thickness Condition

Bake Hardenable 250

0.65 mm

Worst Case Material Properties

Revision 3N Ver 2A revised the lower area surface at the rear of the window opening in the draw die. The intent was to shallow up the depth of the draw to eliminate a localized area from rising above the marginal zone, resulting in a possible splitting issue. The mirror flag also was addressed because of continuing failure at the beltline and upper area. The major issue in this area was the depth of the pocket. Part of the pocket surface radii was revised to relieve this. The area was located behind the mirror appliqu so as not to be visible. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-54. A comparison of Rev. 3N Ver 2A, BH 250, 0.60 mm and 0.65 mm thicknesses is shown in Figures 4-57 to 4-60. Major Strain: Minor Strain: See Figure 4-55. See Figure 4-56

Thinning: N/A . Conclusion: The B pillar at the beltline in the window area was relieved, and the splitting issues were alleviated. Marginal areas are noted on the FLD chart. The area at the beltline in the mirror flag showed major failure according to the FLD chart.

Figure 4-54: BH 250 0.65 mm, Rev. 3N Ver 2A Forming Limit Diagram Worst Case Material Properties

51

Figure 4-55: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3N, Ver 2A, Major Strain Worst Case Material Properties

Figure 4-56: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3N Ver 2A Minor Strain Worst Case Material Properties

52

Comparison of Rev. 3N Ver 2A, BH 250, 0.60 mm and 0.65 mm thicknesses, Worst Case Material Properties

Figure 4-57: Rev. 3N Ver 2A, BH 250, 0.60 mm Worst Case Material Properties

Figure 4-58: Rev. 3N Ver 2A, BH 250, 0.65 mm Worst Case Material Properties

Figure 4-59: Rev 3N Ver 2A, BH 250, 0.60 mm Worst Case Material Properties

Figure 4-60: Rev 3N Ver 2A, BH 250, 0.65 mm Worst Case Material Properties

53

Revision 3N Ver 2A|Bake Hardenable 250, 0.65 mm Revision 3N Ver 2A


Material Thickness Condition

Bake Hardenable 250

0.65 mm

Typical Material Properties

Revision 3N Ver 2A revised lower area surface at the rear of the window opening in the draw die. The attempt was to shallow up the depth of the draw to eliminate a localized area from rising above the marginal zone, which results in a possible splitting issue. The mirror flag also was addressed because of continuing failure at the beltline and upper area. The major issue in this area was the pocket depth. Some of the pocket surface radii were revised in attempts to relieve this pocket depth issue. The area was located behind the mirror appliqu so as not to be visible. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figures 4-61 and 4-62. Major Strain: Minor Strain: See Figure 4-63. See Figure 4-64

Thinning: N/A . Conclusion: The B pillar at the beltline in the window area was still slightly above the marginal zone, and the splitting issues were not completely alleviated. Marginal areas are noted on the FLD chart. The mirror flag area at the beltline had locations that fall above the marginal zone, which still created some possible splitting issues.

Figure 4-61: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3N Ver 2A Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties

54

Figure 4-62: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev 3N Ver 2A, Typical Material Properties

Figure 4-63: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3N Ver 2A Major Strain, Typical Material Properties

Figure 4-64: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3N Ver 2A Minor Strain Typical Material Properties

55

Revision 3N Ver 2A|Dual Phase 500, 0.65 mm Revision 3N Ver 2A


Material Thickness Condition

Dual Phase 500

0.65 mm

Typical Material Properties

Revision 3N Ver 2A revised lower area surface at the rear of the window opening in the draw die. The intent was to shallow up the depth of the draw to eliminate a localized area from rising above the marginal zone, resulting in a possible splitting issue. The mirror flag also was addressed because of continuing failure at the beltline and upper area. The major issue in this area was the pocket depth. Some of the pocket surface radii were revised in attempts to relieve this pocket depth issue. The area was located behind the mirror appliqu so as not to be visible. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figures 4-65. Major Strain: Minor Strain: Thinning: See Figure 4-67. See Figure 4-68. N/A

Conclusion: The B pillar at the beltline in the window area was relieved, and the splitting issues were alleviated. Marginal areas are noted on the FLD chart. The mirror flag area has locations that fall above the marginal zone. A comparison of Rev 3N Ver2A to the original Rev 3L configuration is shown in Figure 4-66.

Figure 4-65: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3N Ver 2A Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties 56

Rev 3N Ver2A Typical Material Properties

Rev 3L Typical Material Properties

Figure 4-66: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev 3N Ver 2A Comparison to Rev 3L, Tear drop holes

Figure 4-67: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3N Ver 2A Major Strain Typical Material Properties

Figure 4-68: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3N Ver 2A Minor Strain, Typical Material Properties

57

Revision 3N Ver 2A|Dual Phase 500, 0.70 mm Revision 3N Ver 2A


Material Thickness Condition

Dual Phase 500

0.70 mm

Typical Material Properties

Revision 3N Ver 2A revised lower area surface at the rear of the window opening in the draw die. The intent was to shallow up the depth of the draw to eliminate a localized area from rising above the marginal zone, resulting in a possible splitting issue. The mirror flag also was addressed because of continuing failure at the beltline and upper area. The major issue in this area was the pocket depth. Some of the pocket surface radii were revised in attempts to relieve this pocket depth issue. The area was located behind the mirror appliqu so as not to be visible. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-69. Major Strain: Minor Strain: N/A N/A

Thinning: N/A . Conclusion: The B pillar at the beltline in the window area was relieved, and the splitting issues were alleviated. Marginal areas are noted on the FLD chart. The mirror flag area has a location that fell above the marginal zone but was not considered a major concern

Figure 4-69: DP 500, 0.70 mm, Rev. 3N Ver 2A Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties

58

Revision 3N Ver3A Revision 3N Ver3A|Bake Hardenable 250, 0.60 mm Revision 3N Ver 3A


Material Thickness Condition

Bake Hardenable 250

0.60 mm

Worst Case Material Properties

The teardrop shape and size from revision 3L again was utilized in this iteration. The surface was revised from Revision 3N Ver2A at the lower area at the rear of the window opening in the draw die. The attempt was to shallow up the depth of the draw and to eliminate a localized area in the marginal zone from previous material and gauge runs. The mirror flag also was addressed because of continuing failure at the beltline and upper area. The major issue in this area was the pocket depth. Some of the pocket surface radii were revised to relieve this. The area was located behind the mirror appliqu so as not to be visible. Note: The radii in the character line at the mirror pocket were increased locally to open up this area for a better material flow. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-70. Major Strain: Minor Strain: See Figure 4-71. See Figure 4-72.

Thinning: N/A . Conclusion: The B pillar splitting at the beltline in the window area was relieved, and the splitting issues were alleviated. Marginal areas are noted on the FLD chart. The mirror flag area still had locations that fell above the marginal zone.

Figure 4-70: BH 250, 0.60 mm, Rev. 3N Ver 3A Forming Limit Diagram, Worst Case Material Properties

59

Figure 4-71: BH 250, 0.60 mm, Rev 3N Ver 3A, Major Strain Worst Case Material Properties

Figure 4-72: BH 250, 0.60 mm, Rev. 3N Ver 3A Minor Strain Worst Case Material Properties

60

Revision 3N Ver3A|Bake Hardenable 250, 0.65 mm Revision 3N Ver3A


Material Thickness Condition

Bake Hardenable 250

0.65 mm

Worst Case Material Properties

The teardrop shape and size from revision 3L was utilized in this iteration. The surface was revised from Revision 3N Ver2A at the lower area at the rear of the window opening in the draw die. The attempt was to shallow up the depth of the draw and to eliminate a localized area in the marginal zone from previous material and gauge runs. The mirror flag also was addressed because of continuing failure at the beltline and upper area. The major issue in this area was the pocket depth. Some of the pocket surface radii were revised in attempts to relieve this. The area was located behind the mirror appliqu so as not to be visible. Note: The character line radius at the mirror pocket was increased locally to open it up for a better material flow in this area. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-73. Major Strain: Minor Strain: See Figure 4-74. See Figure 4-75.

Thinning: N/A . Conclusion: The B pillar splitting at the beltline in the window area had improved results, and the splitting issues were alleviated. Marginal areas are noted on the FLD chart. The mirror flag area still had locations that fell above the marginal zone.

Figure 4-73: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3N Ver 3A Forming Limit Diagram, Worst Case Material Properties

61

Figure 4-74: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3N Ver 3A Major Strain Worst Case Material Properties

Figure 4-75 BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 3N Ver 3A Minor Strain Worst Case Material Properties

62

Revision 4A Revision 4A|Bake Hardenable 250, 0.65 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 4A

Bake Hardenable 250

0.65 mm

Worst Case Material Properties

Revision 4A attempted to relieve the splitting condition at the beltline and was focused in the area of the character line. The original 3.0 mm radius character line was changed to 5.0 mm (See Figure 4-76). This run used the baseline door. The change as identified was the only one made to the product. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-77. Major Strain: Minor Strain: Thinning: N/A N/A N/A

Conclusion: An area of failure due to splitting was located at the beltline. Further attention needed to be given in this area to achieve results that would be acceptable.

B B

3.0 mm Baseline

View C

5.0 mm

5.0 mm

Figure 4-76 : Revision 4A Section B-B Character line change

63

Figure 4-77: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 4A Forming Limit Diagram, Worst Case Material Properties (Baseline with 5.0 Chararacter Line)

64

Revision 5A Revision 5A|Bake Hardenable 250, 0.65 mm

Material

Thickness

Condition

Revision 5A

Bake Hardenable 250

0.65 mm

Worst Case Material Properties

Revision 5As effort to relieve the beltline splitting condition was similar to that completed in Revision 2A. As in Revision 2A, the radius inside the mirror pocket was revised to 10.0 mm to relieve the splitting. (See Section A-A in Figure 4-78) The 9.5 millimeter radius into the window opening at the beltline from Revision 2A was held. The baselines 3.0 millimeter radius character line was increased to 5.0 mm as shown in Section B-B in Figure 4-79. (Revision 2A increased this dimension to 3.5 mm). The formability run was conducted using the existing process. See Figures 4-80 and 4-81 for Forming Limit Diagrams (FLD). Major Strain: Minor Strain: N/A N/A

Thinning: N/A . Conclusion: The described revisions still had splitting along the beltline with the current products stamping process. The mirror pocket still remains a continuing issue.

B B

A A

10.0 mm

5.0 mm Baseline View A

Figure 4-78: Revision 5A Section A-A Mirror pocket revision

65

9.5 mm

3.0 mm Baseline

View C

5.0 mm Baseline

5.0 mm

Figure 4-79: Revision 5A Section B-B Beltline change

Figure 4-80: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 5A Forming Limit Diagram, Worst Case Material Properties (9.5 mm radius @ beltline with 5.0 Char. Line)

66

Figure 4-81: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 5A Forming Limit Diagram: Second Run, Worst Case Material Properties (9.5 mm radius @ beltline with 5.0 Char. Line)

67

Revision 5A|Dual Phase 500, 0.65 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 5A

Dual Phase 500

0.65 mm

Typical Material Properties

Revision 5As effort to relieve the beltline splitting condition was similar to that completed in Revision 2A. The 9.5 millimeter radius into the window opening at the beltline from Revision 2A was held. The baselines 3.0 millimeter radius character line was increased to 5.0 mm as shown in Section B-B in Figure 4-79 on Page 66. (Revision 2A increased this dimension to 3.5 mm). The formability run was conducted using the existing process. As in Revision 2A, the radius inside the mirror pocket was revised to 10.0 mm to relieve the splitting. (See Section A-A in Figure 4-78 on Page 65.) See Figures 4-82 and 4-83 for Forming Limit Diagrams (FLD). Major Strain: Minor Strain: N/A N/A

Thinning: The thinning chart showed most areas in the 2.5% to 5 % thinning and local corners at 20% along with the splitting issue at the mirror flag area. See Figure 4-83. Conclusion: The described revisions still had some areas of concern at the mirror pocket using the products stamping process as it exists presently. The beltline had acceptable results with the typical material properties. The changes to the product affected the Class A surface (character line) and the radius to the flange at the window opening that is used for attachment of the weather strip. To minimize interference with the weather strip, the 9.5 mm radius was slightly decreased, and a small tip was made to the beltline.

Figure 4-82: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 5A Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties (9.5 mm radius @ beltline with 5.0 Char. Line)

68

Figure 4-83: DP 500 0.65 mm, Rev. 5A Thinning, Typical Material Properties (9.5 mm radius @ beltline with 5.0 Char. Line)

69

Revision 6A Revision 6A|Bake Hardenable 250, 0.65 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 6A

Bake Hardenable 250

0.65 mm

Typical Material Properties

Revision 6A took more of a design change approach by tipping the flat at the beltline 7 degrees up from its original design position. This was to eliminate the sharp angle from the character line to the flange in the window opening. The 5.0 millimeter radius into the window opening at the beltline was changed to 7.5 mm. (See Section A-A in Figure 4-84) The original 3.0 millimeter radius character line was changed to 5.0 mm. The radius inside the mirror pocket was revised to 10.0 mm including the 7 degree tip to relieve the splitting. (See Section B-B in Figure 4-85) The run was conducted using the existing process. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figures 4-86 and 4-87. Major Strain: Minor Strain: Thinning: See Figure 4-88. See Figure 4-89. See Figure 4-90.

Conclusion: The described revisions improved in the areas of concern, using the products stamping process as it exists presently. The mirror flag could be improved in a local area, but the overall pocket was acceptable. There were some marginal, but acceptable, conditions at the B pillar area of the beltline. The conclusion was that the results were achieved because the radii were softened (enlarged) and the length of line reduced. Stretching the material over a sharp radius made it difficult for the material to flow into the window opening and then again at the window flange.

7.5 mm radius

B B

A A

7.0 degrees

5.0 mm Baseline

Figure 4-84: Revision 6A Section A-A Mirror pocket change 70

7.0 Degrees

View C

5.0 mm Baseline

10.0 mm

Figure 4-85: Revision 6A Section B-B Mirror pocket change

Figure 4-86: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 6A Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties (7.5 mm radius @ beltline & 7.0 deg angle with 5.0 mm character line)

71

Figure 4-87: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 6A Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties (7.5 mm radius @ beltline & 7.0 deg angle with 5.0 mm character line)

72

Figure 4-88: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 6A Major Strain, Typical Material Properties (7.5 mm radius @ beltline & 7.0 deg angle with 5.0 mm character line)

Figure 4-89: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 6A Minor Strain, Typical Material Properties (7.5 mm radius @ beltline & 7.0 deg angle with 5.0 mm character line)

Figure 4-90: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 6A Thinning, Typical Material Properties (7.5 mm radius @ beltline & 7.0 deg angle with 5.0 mm character line) 73

Revision 6A|Dual Phase 500, 0.65 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 6A

Dual Phase 500

0.65 mm

Typical Material Properties

Revision 6A took more of a design change approach by tipping the flat at the beltline 7 degrees up from its original design position. This was to eliminate the sharp angle from the character line to the flange in the window opening. The 5.0 millimeter radius into the window opening at the beltline was changed to 7.5 mm. (See Section A-A in Figure 4-78 on Page 65.) The original 3.0 millimeter radius character line was changed to 5.0 mm. The radius inside the mirror pocket was revised to 10.0 mm including the 7 degree tip to relieve the splitting. (See Section B-B in Figure 4-79 on Page 66.) The run was conducted using the existing process. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figures 4-91 and 4-92. Major Strain: Minor Strain: See Figure 4-93. See Figure 4-94.

Thinning: See Figure 4-95. . Conclusion: The described revisions improved in the areas of concern, using the products stamping process as it exists presently. The mirror flag had a marginal local area, but the overall pocket was acceptable. There were some marginal conditions at the B pillar area of the belt line, however, it was concluded that this was created by a meshing error. The conclusion was that the results were achieved because the radii were softened (enlarged) and the length of line reduced. Stretching the material over a sharp radius made it difficult for the material to flow into the window opening and then again at the window flange.

Figure 4-91: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 6A Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties (7.5 mm radius @ beltline & 7.0 deg angle with 5.0 mm character line)

74

Figure 4-92: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 6A Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties (7.5 mm radius @ beltline & 7.0 deg angle with 5.0 mm character line)

Figure 4-93: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 6A Major Strain, Typical Material Properties (7.5 mm radius @ beltline & 7.0 deg angle with 5.0 mm character line)

75

Figure 4-94: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 6A Minor Strain, Typical Material Properties (7.5 mm radius @ beltline & 7.0 deg angle with 5.0 mm character line)

Figure 4-95: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 6A Thinning, Typical Material Properties (7.5 mm radius @ beltline & 7.0 deg angle with 5.0 mm character line)

76

Revision 7A Revision 7A|Dual Phase 500, 0.65 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 7A

Dual Phase 500

0.65 mm

Typical Material Properties

Revision 7A was set up with a 60 mm deep window opening pad. (See Section in Figure 4-96) Along with the pad, a cutout in the window area of the blank was introduced. This direction was taken to obtain better material flow towards the splitting issue along the beltline area. There were no surface changes to the existing design, but the addition of the window area pad constitutes a change to the current stamping process. Die positions are shown in Figure 4-97. The Forming Limit Diagrams (FLD) are shown in Figure 4-98 and 4-99. Major Strain: Minor Strain: Thinning: N/A N/A N/A

Conclusion: The window pad introduction still resulted in splitting in the front lower window area located just behind the mirror flag. The splitting occurred when the pad was at a full contact, but the die was not at the full down position. At the end of the complete stroke the results were not acceptable, with splitting in numerous areas.

Belt line 60 mm depth

Upper header Header Figure 4-96: Revision 7A, DP 500 0.65 mm (60 mm pad depth) Typical Material Properties

B Pillar

77

Die Position: Closed

Die Position: Midway

Die Position: Home

Figure 4-97: Die Position for Window Pad (60 mm depth), DP 500 0.65 mm, Rev. 7A

Beads

Figure 4-98: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 7A Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties, 60 mm Pad Depth (Results from bottom of the stroke.)

78

Figure 4-99: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 7A Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties, 60 mm Pad Depth (Results from an area 17 to 28mm from bottom of the stroke. Call out shows results of splitting.)

79

Revision 7B Revision 7B| Dual Phase 500, 0.65 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 7B

Dual Phase 500

0.65 mm

Typical Material Properties

Revision 7B was set up with a 45 mm deep window opening pad. (See Section in Figure 4-100) Along with the pad, a cutout in the window area of the blank was introduced. This direction was taken to obtain better material flow towards the splitting issue along the beltline area. There were no surface changes to the existing design, but the addition of the window area pad constitutes a change to the current stamping process. The Forming Limit Diagrams (FLD) are shown in Figures 4-101 and 4-102. Major Strain: Minor Strain: N/A N/A

Thinning: N/A . Conclusion: The shallower pad results showed splitting occurring in the front window area located just behind the mirror flag and at the beltline. The splitting resulted when the pad was at full contact, but the die was at the end of the complete stroke. The results were not acceptable due to the splitting issues.
Belt line

45 mm depth

Figure X- : Revision 7B, DP 500 0.65 mm (45 mm pad depth) Typical Material Properties Belt line 60 mm depth

Figure 4-100: Revision 7A, DP 500 0.65 mm (60 mm pad depth) Typical Material Properties (for comparison) 80

Figure 4-101: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 7B Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties, 45 mm Pad Depth (Results are from bottom of the stroke.)

Figure 4-102: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 7B Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties, 45 mm Pad Depth (Results are from an area 11 mm from bottom of the stroke.)

81

Revision 8A Revision 8A|Bake Hardenable 250, 0.65 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 8A

Bake Hardenable 250

0.65 mm

Typical Material Properties

Revision 8A took a different approach to relieve the splitting issues along the beltline. This attempt was to open up the drawing angle at the beltline to assist with material flow. A 9 degree angle was added to the existing baseline models 11 degree die tip, and the resulting 20 degree die angle was then run in the forming simulation. Changes at the bottom of the door were made to accommodate the die angle change. This change did not affect the styling shape of the door panel. Major Strain: Minor Strain: N/A N/A

Thinning: See Figure 4-103 . Conclusion: Results did not show an improvement to the splitting issue at the beltline at the window opening flange. The results did prove that the tighter radius still did not receive enough material flow to alleviate the efforts to form this area.

Splitting @ beltline

Figure 4-103: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 8A Thinning, Typical Material Properties (20 degree die tip; Baseline: 11 degrees; results from bottom of the stroke.)

82

Revision 8A|Dual Phase 500, 0.65 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 8A

Dual Phase 500

0.65 mm

Typical Material Properties

Revision 8A took a different approach to relieve the splitting issues along the beltline. This attempt was to open up the drawing angle at the beltline to assist with material flow. A 9 degree angle was added to the existing baseline models 11 degree die tip, and the resulting 20 degree die angle was then run in the forming simulation. Changes at the bottom of the door were made to accommodate the die angle change. This change did not affect the styling shape of the door panel. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-104. Major Strain: Minor Strain: N/A N/A

Thinning: See Figure 4-105. . Conclusion: Results did not show an improvement to the splitting issue at the beltline at the window opening flange. The results did prove that the tighter radius still did not receive enough material flow to support efforts to form this area.

Figure 4-104: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 8A Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties, (20 degree die tip; Baseline: 11 degrees; Results are from bottom of the stroke.)

83

Figure 4-105: DP 500, 0.65mm, Rev. 8A Thinning (20 degree tip) Typical Material Properties

84

Revision 9A Revision 9A| Bake Hardenable 250, 0.60 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 9A

Bake Hardenable 250

0.60mm

Worst Case Material Properties

Revision 9A used the existing baseline model with the addition of the teardrop hole configuration and B pillar window area surface change introduced in Revision 3N Ver3A. The focus of this revision was directed at the mirror flag to alleviate the splitting at the beltline. This revision introduced a new pocket depth and moved outboard 3.0 mm in an attempt to shorten up the length of line at the beltline. This change affects the reinforcement mirror bracket and the mounting supports behind the mirror appliqu. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-106. Major Strain: Minor Strain: N/A N/A

Thinning: N/A . Conclusion The results showed the beltline at the mirror flag still did not fall below the acceptable range on the FLD chart. It is important to note, however, that this formability run was completed for the worst case scenario in material type, gauge and material properties to form for evaluation purposes.

Figure 4-106: BH 250, 0.60 mm, Rev. 9A Forming Limit Diagram, Worst Case Material Properties (Mounting surface moved outboard 3.0mm)

85

Revision 10A Revision 10A|Bake Hardenable 250, 0.60 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 10A

Bake Hardenable 250

0.60mm

Worst Case Material Properties

Revision 10A used the existing baseline model with the addition of the teardrop hole configuration and B pillar window area surface change introduced in Revision 3N Ver3A. The focus of this revision was directed at the mirror flag to alleviate the splitting at the beltline. The major revision to 10A was an increase in the outboard pocket depth to 5.0 mm to shorten up the length of line at the beltline. (See Z Section in Figure 4-107 and X Section in Figure 4-108) This change affects the reinforcement mirror bracket and the mounting supports behind the mirror appliqu. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-109. Major Strain: Minor Strain: N/A N/A

Thinning: N/A . Conclusion The results showed that the beltline at the mirror flag still did not fall below the acceptable range on the FLD chart. This formability run was done for the worst case scenario in material type, gauge and material properties to form for evaluating purposes.

Figure 4-107: Revision 10A Z Section, Mirror flag overlay comparison (5.0 mm shift outboard in mirror flag surface) 86

Baseline Surface

5.0 mm

Figure 4-108: Revision 10A X Section at mirror flag (5.0 mm shift outboard in mirror flag surface)

Rev 10A| 5.0 mm Figure 4-109: BH 250, 0.60 mm, Revision 10A Forming Limit Diagram, Worst Case Material Properties (Mounting surface moved outboard 5.0mm)

Rev 9A| 3.0 mm

87

Revision 10A|Dual Phase 500, 0.65 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 10A

Dual Phase 500

0.65 mm

Worst Case Material Properties

Revision 10A used the existing baseline model with the addition of the teardrop hole configuration and B pillar window area surface change introduced in Revision 3N Ver3A. The focus of this revision was directed at the mirror flag to alleviate the splitting at the beltline. The major revision to 10A was an increase in the outboard pocket depth to 5.0 mm to shorten up the length of line at the beltline. (See Z Section in Figure 4-107 and X Section in Figure 4-108 on Pages 86 and 87) This change affects the reinforcement mirror bracket and the mounting supports behind the mirror appliqu. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-110. Major Strain: Minor Strain: N/A N/A

Thinning: N/A . Conclusion The results showed the beltline at the mirror flag still did not fall below the acceptable range on the FLD chart. For evaluation purposes, this formability run was completed using a worst case scenario. The mirror flag will be evaluated further to relieve the splitting issue.

Figure 4-110: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 10A Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties (Mounting surface moved outboard 5.0mm)

88

Revision 11A Revision 11A|Bake Hardenable 250, 0.60 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 11A

Bake Hardenable 250

0.60mm

Worst Case Material Properties

Design Option (Revision 11A) was to achieve a stampable door outer panel with a minor change to the styling of the baseline door. The major revisions to 11A were a 5.0 mm outboard move of the pocket depth to shorten the length of line at the beltline, as well as development of a 7 degree angle in the mirror flag pocket to the tangent of the character line across the beltline. The latter was to improve material flow and length-of line. (See Section in Figure 4-111) This change affects the reinforcement mirror bracket and the mounting supports behind the mirror appliqu. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figure 4-112 to 4-114. Major Strain: Minor Strain: N/A N/A

Thinning: N/A . Conclusion The results showed the beltline at the mirror flag still did not fall below the acceptable range on the FLD chart. However, this formability run did show slight improvement in the localized area. It is important to note that this formability run was completed for the worst case scenario in material type, gauge and material properties to form for evaluation purposes.

1.60 mm (2.00 mm)

1.06 mm (1.80 mm)

Figure 4-111: Revision 11A, 7 degree comparison, Worst Case Material Properties Note: This is a comparison between the baseline gap and the intrusion from the mirror flag revision

89

Figure 4-112: BH 250, 0.60 mm, Rev. 11A Forming Limit Diagram, Worst Case Material Properties (Mounting surface moved outboard 5.0 mm and 7 deg angle from the character line at the beltline)

90

Figure 4-113: BH 250, 0.60 mm, Rev. 11A Forming Limit Diagram, Worst Case Material Properties (Mounting surface moved outboard 5.0 mm and 7 deg angle from the character line at the beltline) Formability results showed the window area in the marginal zone.

Figure 4-114: BH 250, 0.60 mm, Rev. 11A Forming Limit Diagram, Worst Case Material Properties (Mounting surface moved outboard 5.0 mm and 7 deg angle from the character line at the beltline) The analytical results at the mirror flag area fell above the marginal zone along the character line. This revision showed slight improvement from the previous Revision 10A but not an acceptable analytical result.

91

Revision 11A|Bake Hardenable 250, 0.65 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 11A

Bake Hardenable 250

0.65mm

Typical Material Properties

Revision 11A continued exploration of the baseline model used in Revision 3NVer3A, focusing on the mirror flag splitting along the beltline. The major revisions to 11A were an 5.0 mm outboard move of the pocket depth to shorten the length of line at the beltline, as well as development of a 7 degree angle in the mirror flag pocket to the tangent of the character line across the beltline for improve material flow and length of line improvement. (See Section in Figure 4-111 on Page 89) This change affects the reinforcement mirror bracket and the mounting supports behind the mirror appliqu. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figures 4-115 to 4-118. Major Strain: Minor Strain: N/A N/A

Thinning: N/A . Conclusion Using typical material properties, the results showed that a small area in the beltline at the mirror flag still did not fall below the acceptable range on the FLD chart. It is questionable whether or not this minimal location would split during the stamping process. This formability run did show slight improvement in this localized area.

Figure 4-115: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 11A Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties (Mounting surface moved outboard 5.0mm and 7 deg angle from the character line at the beltline)

92

Figure 4-117: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 11A Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties (Mounting surface moved outboard 5.0 mm and 7 deg angle from the character line at the beltline) Formability results showed the window area in the marginal zone.

Figure 4-118: BH 250, 0.65 mm, Rev. 11A Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties (Mounting surface moved outboard 5.0 mm and 7 deg angle from the character line at the beltline) The analytical results at the mirror flag area fell above the marginal zone along the character line. This revision showed slight improvement from the previous Revision 10A but not an acceptable analytical result.

93

Revision 11A|Dual Phase 500, 0.65 mm


Material Thickness Condition

Revision 11A

Dual Phase 500

0.65 mm

Typical Material Properties

Revision 11A continued exploration of the baseline model used in Revision 3NVer3A, focusing on the mirror flag splitting along the beltline. The major revisions to 11A were an 5.0 mm outboard move of the pocket depth to shorten the length of line at the beltline, as well as development of a 7 degree angle in the mirror flag pocket to the tangent of the character line across the beltline for improve material flow and length of line improvement. (See Section in Figure 4-111- on Page 89) This change affects the reinforcement mirror bracket and the mounting supports behind the mirror appliqu. The Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is shown in Figures 4-119 to 4-121. Major Strain: Minor Strain: N/A N/A

Thinning: N/A . Conclusion The results showed the beltline at the mirror flag fell in the acceptable marginal range on the FLD chart. This formability run did show enough improvement in this localized area to conclude that a 0.65 mm material gauge with the same properties and material type would have acceptable results.

Figure 4-119: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 11A Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties (Mounting surface moved outboard 5.0mm and 7 deg angle from the character line at the beltline)

94

Figure 4-120: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Revision 11A Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties (Mounting surface moved outboard 5.0 mm and 7 deg angle from the character line at the beltline) The analytical results at the mirror flag area fell in the marginal zone along the character line. This revision showed improvement from the previous Revision 10A with acceptable analytical result.

Figure 4-121: DP 500, 0.65 mm, Rev. 11A Forming Limit Diagram, Typical Material Properties (Mounting surface moved outboard 5.0 mm and 7 deg angle from the character line at the beltline) Formability results showed a very small number of locations in the window area in the marginal zone.

95

4.1.3 Springback Forming simulations were performed using generic typical material properties (not the exact material used for the prototype). Forming simulation results were then used to perform springback simulations. Both the forming and springback simulations were performed using PAMSTAMP 2000 software. The forming simulations were performing using an incremental explicit version (v. 2G) of PAMSTAMP 2000, whereas the springback simulations were performed using the implicit version this software. PAMSTAMP 2000 software provides a feature that converts the data from explicit to implicit. The analyses were performed in the free-free state (without boundary condition). The results of springback can be used as a good indicator, however, the numerical value may differ from the real life outcome. Figures 4-122 to 4-124 provide images of the results. Table 4-2 summarizes the data.

Figure 4-122: DP 500 0.65 mm Springback (Typical Material Properties)

Since springback simulation is still evolving towards quantitative validity, it can be assumed that results shown in this report are a good indication of real springback trends.

96

Figure 4-123: DP 500 0.65 mm Springback (Typical Material Properties)

Figure 4-124: DP 500 0.65 mm Springback (Typical Material Properties)

97

Table 4-2: Analytical Springback Chart

1
Springback location points

2
PHASE 3 - A/SP OUTER DOOR SPRINGBACK REULTS
Grades Gauge #1 (mm) #2 (mm)

3
#3 (mm)

Analytical Analytical Analytical

IFREPHOS DP500 BH250

0.74mm 0.65mm 0.65mm

1.24 5.67 0.5

4.5 11 5.6

3.7 9.05 5.6

98

4.2 4.2.1

Attributes (Analytical) Dent Testing Introduction

4.2.1.1

Out of nine possible locations four locations (1, 4, 5 & 6) were selected to performed dent resistance analysis. The dent resistance analysis Finite Element Model (FEM) includes the material work hardening revealed in forming analyses. The results of each element from the forming analyses were mapped and converted to the dent resistance analysis model element to capture the formability affect. All the mechanical properties (See Table 4-5 on Page 103) from the material were obtained from typical material properties (not from the original coupon used for prototyping). The forming analyses were performed using LSDYNA and the results were then converted to ABAQUS using a Special Converting Software developed by Altair Engineering Inc. and Severstal NA Inc. Finally ABAQUS was used to performed the dent resistance analysis. The analyses were performed on Baseline, DP 500 material with 0.65 mm thickness and BH250 with 0.65 mm thickness. 4.2.1.2 Dent Location & Door Assembly Constraints
1 2 4 5 3 6

The dent analysis includes forming effects for the door outer. A 210N load is applied to each location with a spherical indenter. Figure 4125 shows dent locations. Figure 4-126 shows the dent analysis constraint locations.

Figure 4-125: Location for dent resistance analysis

99

Constraints

Constraints

Constraints Constraints

Figure 4-126: Model set up

100

4.2.1.3

Dent Analysis

DP 500 0.65 Steel Following are contour plots for Location 5, using DP 500 0.65 mm steel. To view an animation on these results, select Dent Resistance Analysis Animation from this sections menu.

Figure 4-127: Dent Resistance Analysis, Contour Plots, DP 500 0.65

Figure 4-128: Dent Resistance Analysis, Contour Plots, DP 500 0.65

Figure 4-129: Dent Resistance Analysis, Contour Plots, DP 500 0.65 mm, after unloading. Permanent set 0.026 mm < 0.1 mm

101

BH 250 0.65 mm Steel Following are contour plots for Location 1, using BH 250 0.65 mm steel. To view an animation on these results, select Dent Resistance Analysis Animation from this sections menu.

Figure 4-130: Dent Resistance Analysis Contour Plots, BH 250 0.65

Figure 4-131: Dent Resistance Analysis, Contour Plots, BH 250 0.65

Figure 4-132: Dent Resistance Analysis, Contour Plot, BH 250 0.65 mm, after unloading. Permanent set 0.132 mm < 0.1 mm

4.2.1.4

Dent Resistance Analysis Results

Tables 4-3 to 4-5 show the analyses results. The results do not take into consideration the bake hardening affect due to the difficulty in capturing the changes in the material mechanical properties. Therefore, this data was not available to enter into the FEA model. A comparison of the results were made, and any permanent set less than 0.1 MM was considered acceptable after loading and unloading a 210 N incremental load at every location.

102

4.2.1.5

Summary of Dent Resistance Analysis (Finite Element)

Table 4-3: Dent Analysis

Table 4-4: Dent Analysis

Table 4-5: Material Data

103

4.2.1.6

Dent Resistance Analysis Performance Comparison

The order of dent performance by location from best to worst is 1, 4, 6 and 5. Figure 4-133 and Table 4-6 summarize results.

0.250

KJ-Baseline
0.200

DP500 BH250

Permanent Set (mm)

0.150

1 4 7

2 5

3 6

0.100

0.050

0.000 Location 1 Location 4 Location 5 Location 6 Location 5 Location 6

0.65 mm Figure 4-133: Dent Resistance Analysis performance comparison. Permanent set for 0.65, 0.60 mm vs. Baseline 1 2 Table 4-6: Dent Resistance Simulation Results Chart 3 7 8 9 4 6

0.60 mm

Dent Resistence Location Pts. (Load 210 N)

1 4 5 6
Gauge
0.74mm 0.65mm 0.65mm

Lot No.
Analytical Analytical Analytical IF-REPHOS DP 500 BH250

#1 (mm)
0.052 0.023 0.132

#4 (mm)
0.100 0.020 0.137

#5 (mm)
0.112 0.026 0.149

#6 (mm)
0.110 0.034 0.137

104

4.2.2 4.2.2.1

Oil Canning Oil Canning Definition


Force (N)

Soft oil canning

Hard oil canning

Oil can initiates

Displacement (mm) Figure 4-134: Oil Canning Definition

4.2.2.2

KJ Baseline 0.74 mm Contour Plots

No hard oil canning was found in this analysis.

Figure 4-135: Oil Canning Analysis

105

Force (N)

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement (mm) Figure 4-136: Oil Canning Analysis, Loading up to 250N Force (N)

300
KJ-Baseline : 0.74mm

250

DP500: 0.65 BH250: 0.65 DP500: 0.60 BH250: 0.60

200

150

100

50

0 0 2 4 6
Displacement (mm) Figure 4-137: Oil Canning Comparison, 0.65, 0.60 mm outer thickness vs Baseline

10

12

106

4.2.3

Modal Analysis

Figure 4-138 shows the Baseline Finite Element Model (FEM) set up and loading condition for the modal analysis. The purpose of the model analysis was to find the weakest locations in the door outer in order to perform an initial stiffness analysis. Two locations (Figures 4-138 and 4-139) were identified at mode 10 and mode 13 as the area with highest strain energy density, which essentially means those areas had maximum flapping during modal energy. The modal analysis was run with free conditions. 4.2.3.1 Strain Density Plot

Location 1

Figure 4-138: Modal analysis (Mode 10)

107

Location 2

Figure 4-139: Modal analysis (Mode 13)

108

4.2.4 Structural Modes 4.2.4.1 0.74 MM Door Outer Gauge

Free free modal analysis was carried out for the door assembly.

Figure 4-140: Door Outer Gauge = 0.74

Figure 4-141: Mode 1 = 42.1 Hz (Torsion)

Figure 4-142: Mode 2 = 44.4 Hz (Torsion)

Figure 4-143: Mode 3 = 66.8 Hz (Bending)

109

4.2.4.2

0.65 MM Door Outer Gauge

Free free modal analysis was carried out for the door assembly.

Figure 4-144 : Door Outer Gauge 0.65 mm

Figure 4-145 : Mode 1 = 42.0 Hz (Torsion)

Figure 4-146: Mode 2 = 44.2 Hz (Torsion)

Figure 4-147: Mode 3 = 66.5 Hz (Bending)

110

4.2.4.3

Structural Modes Summary

Table 4-7: Structural Modes Summary

Mode 1 2 3

Hz (0.74 mm) 42.1 44.4 66.8

Hz (0.65 mm) 42.0 44.2 66.5

111

4.2.5 Panel Initial Stiffness The results from the doors indicate that Eigen values show very little differences for the two material thicknesses. There should not be any significant impact on the Eigen values because the differences in thicknesses are very minimal, although the higher thickness shows a slightly higher Eigen value. Another speculation would be that part of the stiffness gained by the higher thickness was offset by the gain in mass, causing both material thicknesses to exhibit close to the same Eigen value. The right side of Table 4-8 shows the amount of displacement while applying 210 N force at the center of the door (Point #5). This basically indicates the initial stiffness of the door.

Table 4-8: Stiffness Location Point# 5

Eigen Value (Hz)

Disp. for 210 N (mm)

Mode 1 2 3

0.75 MM 42.1 44.2 66.8

0.65 MM 42 44.2 66.5 Baseline @ 0.74 DP500 @ 0.65 BH250 @ 0.65 7.25 8.10 8.79

To view an Eigen Value animation, click Panel Initial Stiffness Animation from this Sections menu.

112

5.0 5.1

Material Properties Comparison Coupon Test Results

The results detailed in this section are a comparison of the actual material used for the prototype build compared to the analytical simulation materials. Click Tables & Graphs to view details on this comparison.

113

Table 5-1: Outer Panel Material Properties (Coupon Test Averages) Typical Properties Baseline (analytical) If-Rephos Coupon 0.76 mm HFT340 HDGA AVG. ksi
Yield Strength

Typical Properties Baseline (analytical) DP500

Worst Case Properties Baseline (analytical) DP500

Coupon 0.72 mm DP500 EG AVG.

Coupon 0.69 mm DP500 HDGA AVG.

Coupon 0.67 mm DP500 EG AVG.

Coupon 0.62 mm DP500 EG AVG.

Coupon 0.60 mm DP500 HDGA AVG.

Typical Properties Baseline (analytical) BH250

Worst Case Properties Baseline (analytical) BH250

Coupon

Coupon

0.68 mm BH250 EG AVG.

0.64 mm BH250 AVG.

31.4 216.5

28.9 199

48.6 335.5

49.7 343

46.3 319

49.4 340.6

45.6 314

49.3 340

53.1 366.0

37.8 262

42 290

42.9 296

42.3 292.0

Mpa

ksi
Tensile Strength

53.3

51.4

81.5

79.6

75.9

82.0

82.4

75.7

91.8

52.5

53.7

58.7

56.0

Mpa
Total Elongation

367.5

354

562

549

523

564.7

568

522

633.0

362

370

405

386.0

35.8

37.8

25.0

26.0

27.8

26.0

26.7

28.5

24.0

39.2

35.0

34.8

34.7

n value r value

1020%

0.201

0.216

0.202

0.180

0.176

0.151

0.182

0.164

0.154

0.178

0.160

0.192

0.166

1.547

1.704

0.890

0.900

0.975

1.06

0.891

1.22

1.15

1.12

1.40

1.48

1.60

114

During the course of the program, the KJ door original production material was changed from HDGA HSFS-025 or a HDGA IF-Rephos to an EGA (mild steel DQSK). The project used material closest to the latest production material for all of the testing runs.
Table 5-2: HFT340 Baseline Material Properties, Actual vs. Analytical Material Yield Strength (MPa/ksi) Tensile Strength (MPa/ksi) Total Elongation (%) n Value 10-20% r Value

If Rephos Analytical HDGA, 0.74 mm Material for simulation HFT340 HDGA 0.76 mm Material for prototype

216.5

31.4

367.5

53.3

35.8

0.201

1.547

28.9

199

354

51.4

37.8

0.216

1.704

HFT340 HDGA, 0.76mm If Rephos Analytical HDGA, 0.74mm

r Value

1.704 1.547 0.216 0.201 37.8 35.8 354 367.5 51.4 53.3 199 216.5 28.9 31.4 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

n Value 10-20%

Total % Elongation

Mpa Tensile Strength

ksi Tensile Strength

Mpa Yield Strength

ksi Yield Strength

Figure 5-1: HFT340 Baseline Material Properties, Actual vs. Analytical Graphing

115

Table 5-3:

DP 500 Material Properties, Actual vs. Analytical

Material Analytical: Typical Properties (used in simulation) Worst Case Properties (used in simulation) Prototype: DP500 EG 0.72 mm DP500 HDGA 0.69 mm DP500 EG 0.67 mm DP500 EG 0.62 mm DP500HDGA 0.60 mm

Yield Strength (MPa/ksi)

Tensile Strength (MPa/ksi)

335.5 343.0

48.6 49.7

562.0 549.0

81.5 79.6

319.0 340.6 314.0 340.0 366.0

46.3 49.4 45.6 49.3 53.1

523.0 564.7 568.0 522.0 633.0

75.9 82.0 82.4 75.7 91.8

633.0
522.0 568.0

Mpa Tensile Strength 523.0

564.7 549.0 562.0

91.8 75.7 82.4 ksiTensile Strength 82.0 75.9 79.6 81.5

EG 0.62 mm EG 0.67mm HDGA 0.69mm


366.0 340.0 314.0

EG 0.72 mm Analytical Worst Case Properties, 0.74 mm Analytical Typical Properties, 0.74 mm

Mpa Yield Strength

340.6 319.0 343.0 335.5

53.1 49.3 45.6 ksi Yield Strength 49.4 46.3 49.7 48.6 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0

Figure 5-2:

DP 500 Material Properties, Actual vs. Analytical 116

Table 5-4: DP 500 Material Properties, Actual vs. Analytical

Material Analytical: Analytical Typical Properties (used in simulation) Analytical Worst Case Properties (used in simulation) Prototype: DP500 EG 0.72 mm DP500 HDGA 0.69 mm DP500 EG 0.67 mm DP500 EG 0.62 mm DP500 HDGA 0.60 mm

Total % Elongation

n Value 10-20%

r Value

25.0 26.0 27.8 26.0 26.7 28.5 24.0

0.202 0.180 0.176 0.151 0.182 0.164 0.154

0.890 0.900 0.980 1.060 0.890 1.220 1.150

1.150 1.220 0.890

HDGA 0.60 mm
EG 0.62 mm
EG 0.67 mm
HDGA 0.69 mm
EG 0.72 mm

r Value

1.060 0.980 0.900 0.890

0.154 0.164 0.182

Analytical Worst Case Properties, 0.74mm


Analytical Typical Properties, 0.74mm

n Value 10-20%

0.151 0.176 0.180 0.202

24.0 28.5 26.7

Total % Elongation

26.0 27.8 26.0 25.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

Figure 5-3: DP 500 Material Properties, Actual vs. Analytical

117

Table 5-5: BH250 Material Properties, Actual vs. Analytical

Material
Analytical Typical Properties, 0.74 mm Analytical Worst Case Properties, 0.74 mm BH 250 EG, 0.68 mm BH 250 EG, 0.64 mm

Yield Strength (MPa/ksi)

Tensile Strength (MPa/ksi)

Total % Elongation

n Value 10-20%

r Value

262.0

37.8

362.0

52.5

39.2

0.178

1.120

290.0

42.0

370.0

53.7

35.0

0.160

1.400

296.0

42.9

405.0

58.7

34.8

0.192

1.480

292.0

42.3

386.0

56.0

34.7

0.166

1.600

r Value

1.600 1.480 1.400 1.120 0.166 0.192 0.160 0.178 34.7 34.8 35.0 39.2

EG 0.64 mm EG 0.68 mm Analytical Worst Case Properties, 0.74 mm Analytical Typical Properties, 0.74 mm

n Value 10-20%

Total % Elongation

Tensile Strength Mpa

386.0 405.0 370.0 362.0 56.0 58.7 53.7 52.5 292.0 296.0 290.0

Tensile Strength ksi

Yield Strength

Mpa

262.0 42.3 42.9 42.0 37.8


50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0

Yield Strength ksi

0.0

300.0

350.0

400.0

450.0

Figure 5-4: BH250 Material Properties, Actual vs. Analytical

118

6.0 6.1

Die Design Draw Die

6.1.1 Press Specifications The prototype process used a 1000-ton mechanical press with a 32-inch stroke with a press run at 20 strokes per minute (21.3 inches per second). The die used to produce the parts was a three-piece stretch draw die made of zinc alloy (Kirksite). Draw development simulated the current DaimlerChrysler production tools, however, it only produced one hand. The current production tool uses a right- and left-hand attached tool. Binder pressure was 140 tons, and the beads were fully set prior to the punch contact. Pad travel was four inches, and total draw depth was 3.25 inches. The parts were made in a single stroke to replicate production. All panels were made using primarily mill oil as a lubricant; no special means or lubricants were used. 6.1.2 Press Photos

Figure 6-1: Die press

Figure 6-2: Draw die

Figure 6-3: Draw die

119

6.2

Trimming

Draw panels were laser trimmed to match the CAD data. 6.3 Flanging

6.3.1 Flange Die The flange die also is a three-piece zinc alloy die with a pad on nitro cylinders. The Pad retained the Class A surfaces around the periphery of the panel and directflanged the entire hem and window opening. The die did not cam flange, which left the hems open both at the header and bottom of the door. The flange angles were open as much as 30 degrees to the surface depending on the die tip and surface. 6.3.2 Flange Photos

Figure 6-5: Flange die Figure 6-4: B Pillar window opening

120

6.3.2

Flange Photos - CONTINUED

Figure 6-6: Flanged panel

Figure 6-7: Flange panel

Figure 6-8: Window tabs

121

6.4

Hemming & Adhesives

Fully sub-assembled inner doors were supplied by DaimlerChrysler. Hem sealer and anti-flutter material were applied to the prototypes to match the production doors (Figure 6-9). Two types of hem adhesives were used: Hem sealer Versilok 262-254 MSCD 470-A Anti-flutter -Terostat 4010.9

The window tracks also were installed and welded. The outer skins were hemmed to the inners in a hem buck and the flanges were hammer-formed. This created a strong functional hem, but the hem line gaps and surface finish were not at the same quality level as mechanically hemmed production doors.

Hem sealer

Anti-Flutter

Figure 6-9: Hem sealer and anti-flutter material locations 122

6.4.1 Hemming Photos

Figure 6-10: Hem buck

Figure 6-11: Corner hem

Figure 6-12: Corner hem

Figure 6-13: Mirror flag

Figure 6-14: Window opening belt hem

123

7.0 7.1

Prototype Development Plan

The prototype portion of this project was to initiate a baseline die, utilizing the baseline material (HFT340) to achieve a formable panel. This would then be utilized as the starting point for tryouts of the AHSS with materials at various gauges, grades and material coatings. Tryouts of each material were available to reach a formable panel. The BH250 0.62 mm was received at a later date and was run only at Option C (revision 11A). Each panel was worked in the die with adjustments dependent upon the materials reaction to the die to obtain a formable panel. Each formable panel was circle-gridded, checked and documented. If the outer panel failed, the material would be utilized in the next die change iteration. A flow chart was completed for each material, documenting results. To view the flow chart indicating the overall process utilized for this project, click Prototype Flowchart from this Sections menu. 7.2 Flow Chart

To view, click Prototype Flowchart from this Sections menu.

124

7.3

Results

During the first stages of the prototype stamping WD40 was utilized as a lubricant. This later was replaced with the same type of mill oil used in production. The mill oil was used only on the binder surface. The photos later in this section show iterations of panel hits along with descriptions of areas of concern marked on the panel in the photos. The formable and non-formable panel results are documented in this section. The surface quality of the doors was typical for prototype panels and assemblies. Hammer marks did bleed through to the Class "A" around the periphery of the hem. Certain types of material, including the baseline material, showed chatter marks behind the door handle. These chatter marks also were visible in the post of the draw die. The marks were not a duplication of the lows in the tool, but the project team concluded that this contributed to the surface distortion. In general the doors had the same surface defects that are typical of this type of styling. Lows (mouse ears) were seen on all samples in the upper B pillar corner, below the mirror pocket, and in front and behind the handle pocket. Some panels also showed lows on the A Pillar next to and above the mirror pocket and lows below the cat walk at the base on the B Pillar window opening. As mentioned above, these lows (mouse ears) are typical of most doors with sunken handle pockets, mirror pockets and closed angle B Pillar corners, drawn down for welding and assembly. The lows can be improved by increasing the strain in the panel and changing the radius in the affected areas. This does require many hours of tryout and development to improve these conditions, but they will not be completely eliminated using a three-piece stretch draw die. 7.3.1 Tryouts Following is detail on the prototype tryouts. One condition that seemed to be prevalent on most panels is a slight distortion in the area of the upper portion on the door in the B Pillar. A binder set was done and initial punch contact to attempt to evaluate when the buckling in the B Pillar occurred. The results showed that the panel in the B Pillar area began to show a wrinkle at approximately inch (6.0 mm) from the bottom of the stroke. Some of this condition may be due to the window opening area being raised in this location to accommodate the tabbed flanges. Changing this surface in the window opening could possibly alleviate some of the reaction that occurred. The project team noted that most of the panels followed the same consistency in regards to areas that had surface distortion (mouse ears, etc.). Each panel was rated on its own merit as far as the overall condition of the panel is concerned. The outer panels were visually evaluated by the A/SP and Oxford Automotive project team members. The baseline production panel was drawn with both front and rear door attached. Since this was not the case for the prototype draw panels, some consistency will change due to this factor.

125

7.3.1.1

HFT340 If Rephos (Baseline)

Material Properties
Table 7-1: HFT340 Baseline Material Properties Yield Strength (MPa/ksi) Tensile Strength (MPa/ksi) Total Elongation (%) n Value 10-20%

Material

r Value

HFT340 HDGA, 0.76 mm

199

28.9

354

51.4

37.8

0.216

1.704

Press Run Information


Table 7-2: HFT340 Press Run

Material HFT340 HDGA, 0.76 mm

Baseline Design 700 ton at bottom stroke WD40 lubricant on binder only 19 nitros under lower ring

126

Photos HFT340, 0.76 mm Baseline

Figure 7-1: 2nd Hit HFT340 0.76 mm

Figure 7-2: 2nd Hit HFT340 0.76 mm (zoomed)

Figure 7-3: 3rd Hit HFT340 0.76 mm

Figure 7-4: 3rd Hit HFT340 0.76 mm (zoomed)

Figure 7-5: 4th Hit HFT340 0.76 mm

Figure 7-6: 4th Hit HFT340 0.76 mm (zoomed)

127

Photos CONTINUED HFT340, 0.76 mm Baseline

Figure 7-7: 5th Hit HFT340 0.76 mm

Figure 7-8: 5th Hit HFT340 0.76 mm

Figure 7-11: Final HFT340 0.76 mm Figure 7-9: 6th Hit HFT340 0.76 mm Figure 7-10: 6th Hit HFT340 0.76 mm

128

Visual Inspection, HFT340 HDGA, 0.76 mm, Assembled Panel Areas showing surface concerns were in the upper B-Pillar where a slight distortion was noted. There also were slight chatter marks in the location below the handle. The handle, mirror pocket and B-pillar along the belt line all showed common problem areas with surface distortion.

129

7.3.1.2

DP500 EG, 0.72 mm

Material Properties

Table 7-3:

DP 500 Material Properties Yield Strength (MPa/ksi) 319.0 46.3 Tensile Strength (MPa/ksi) 523.0 75.9 Total % Elongation 27.8 n Value 10-20% 0.176 r Value

Material
DP500 EG, 0.72 mm

0.980

Press Run Information


Table 7-4: Press Run Information, DP Materials Material Baseline Design Revision 10A 700 ton at bottom stroke Mill oil on binder only Teardrop cutouts in DP500 EG, window 0.72 mm N/A 21 nitros under lower ring Hit with vent holes on lower punch Revision 11A

N/A

Photos - DP500 EG, 0.72 mm

Figure 7-12: DP500 EG 0.72 mm

Figure 7-13: DP500 EG 0.72 mm (zoomed)

Visual Inspection, DP500 EG, 0.72mm, Unassembled Outer Panel The chatter marks below the handle pocket did not exist in the panel on this particular material. The areas with slight distortion were still prevalent (mirror pocket and the B-pillar along the beltline, handle and corners). There also was a slight distortion noted at the A-pillar just above the mirror pocket.

130

7.3.1.3

DP500 HDGA, 0.69 mm

Material Properties

Table 7-5:

DP 500 Material Properties

Material DP500 HDGA, 0.69 mm

Yield Strength (MPa/ksi) 340.6 49.4

Tensile Strength (MPa/ksi) 564.7 82.0

Total % Elongation 26.0

n Value 1020% 0.151

r Value 1.060

Press Run Information


Table 7-6: Press Run Information, DP Materials Material Baseline Design 700 ton at bottom stroke Mill oil on binder only 21 nitros under lower ring Teardrop cutouts in window Hit with material thickness shims only Revision 10A Revision 11A 660 ton at bottom stroke Mill oil on binder only Teardrop cutouts in window 23 nitros under lower ring Hit with vent holes on lower punch

DP500 HDGA, 0.69mm

676 ton at bottom stroke Mill oil on binder only Teardrop cutouts in window 22 nitros under lower ring Hit with vent holes on lower punch

Photos - DP500 HDGA, 0.69 mm Baseline Die

Figure 7-14: DP500 HDGA, 0.69mm B li

Figure 7-15: DP500 HDGA, 0.69mm B li

Visual Inspection, DP 500 HDGA, 0.69 mm The panel was reviewed for DP500 HDGA @ 0.69 mm at the baseline die level and failed to result in an formable panel with splitting and hard marks in the mirror flag area. This material was eliminated from the baseline version and moved for tryout at Revision 10A. The revision had typically the same condition as the DP500 HDGA, 0.60, even though the material thickness was a 0.09 mm difference. This material was moved for tryout at Revision 10A.

131

Photos - DP500 HDGA, 0.69 mm - CONTINUED Revision 10A

Figure 7-16: DP500 HDGA, 0.69mm Revision 10A

Figure 7-17: DP500 HDGA, 0.69mm Revision 10A

Figure 7-18: DP500 HDGA, 0.69mm, Revision 10A

Visual Inspection, DP 500 HDGA, 0.69 mm Revision 10A still maintained a weak area in the mirror flag and surface distortion at the upper corner of the B Pillar. The project team decided that the mirror pocket issue was not going to improve without a possible change and consequently the design was moved to Revision 11A. Attaining an acceptable surface on the outer part of the panel needed to be addressed first and then correction of the mirror pocket issue would be reviewed. The only change between 10A and 11a was centralized in the mirror pocket at the beltline. The beltline failed at Revision 10A, but addressing the rest of the panel in Revision 10A would not change the condition at the mirror flag.

132

Photos - DP 500 HDGA, 0.69 mm - CONTINUED Revision 11A

Figure 7-19: DP500 HDGA, 0.69mm, #2

Figure 7-20: DP500 HDGA, 0.69mm, #3

Figure 7-21: DP500 HDGA, 0.69mm, #4 Figure 7-22: DP500 HDGA, 0.69mm, #4B Revision 11A

Visual Inspection, DP 500 HDGA, 0.69 mm The panel was reviewed at Revision 11A. Attempts address the surface skin of the panel resulted in failure in the mirror pocket. The mirror flag was addressed and the pocket did have an acceptable result, but to the sacrifice of the A Pillar area just forward of the mirror pocket which showed surface wrinkles. It was concluded that one or the other could be achieved, but both areas could not achieve acceptable results at the same time. The mirror pocket material could be obtained from the outer portion of the blank but was not held tight enough to form an acceptable A Pillar. The same was true in reverse: holding the bead tighter at the outboard edge in turn caused failure in the mirror flag area. The upper B Pillar still contained some slight distortion in the corner. This panel was deemed non-formable. Note: Both HDGA materials reacted in the same manner for all revision levels regardless of material gauge differences.
133

7.3.1.4

DP500 EG, 0.65mm

Material Properties

Table 7-7:

DP 500 Material Properties

Material

Yield Strength (MPa/ksi)

Tensile Strength (MPa/ksi)

Total % Elongation

n Value 1020%

r Value

DP500 EG, 0.67 mm

314.0

45.6

568.0

82.4

26.7

0.182

0.890

Press Run Information


Table 7-8: Press Run Information, DP Materials

Material

Baseline Design
700 ton at bottom stroke Mill oil on binder only Teardrop cutouts in window 21 nitros under lower ring Hit with vent holes on lower punch

Revision 10A N/A

Revision 11A N/A

DP500 EG, 0.67 mm

Photos - DP500 EG, 0.65mm

Figure 7-25: DP500 EG, 0.67 mm Figure 7-23: DP500 EG, 0.67 mm Figure 7-24: DP500 EG, 0.67 mm

134

Visual Inspection, DP500 EG, 0.67 mm, Assembled Panel Chatter marks to the surface just below the handle pocket were detected, and the upper B-pillar still contained some surface distortion (this condition changed in severity and location as the material used in each iteration changed). No surface distortion was noticeable in the A-pillar area. The same surface conditions and surface distortion around the handle pocket and beltline area were noted.

135

7.3.1.5

DP500 EG, 0.62 mm

Material Properties

Table 7-9:

DP 500 Material Properties

Material

Yield Strength (MPa/ksi)

Tensile Strength (MPa/ksi)

Total % Elongation

n Value 1020%

r Value

DP500 EG, 0.62 mm

340.0

49.3

522.0

75.7

28.5

0.164

1.220

Press Run Information


Table 7-10: DP 500 Press Run Material Baseline Design

DP500 EG, 0.62 mm

680 ton at bottom stroke Mill oil on binder only Teardrop cutouts in window 22 nitros under lower ring Hit with vent holes on lower punch

Photos - DP500 EG, 0.62 mm

Figure 7-26: DP500 EG, 0.62mm

Figure 7-27: DP500 EG, 0.62mm

Figure 7-28: DP500 EG, 0.62mm 136

Visual Inspection, DP500 EG, 0.62 mm , Assembled Panel The handle pocket as well as just below the mirror flag at the beltline showed a slightly larger surface distortion than the other panels. The chatter marks below the handle still existed but less surface distortion in the upper B pillar was detected.

137

7.3.1.6

DP500 HDGA, 0.60 mm

Material Properties
Table 7-11: DP 500 Material Properties

Material

Yield Strength (MPa/ksi)

Tensile Strength (MPa/ksi)

Total % Elongation

n Value 1020%

r Value

DP500 HDGA, 0.60 mm

366.0

53.1

633.0

91.8

24.0

0.154

1.150

Press Run Information


Table 7-12: Press Run Information, DP Materials Material Baseline Design Revision 10A 685 ton at bottom stroke Mill oil on binder only Teardrop cutouts in window 26 nitros under lower ring Hit with vent holes on lower punch 666 ton at bottom stroke No shims or mill oil on binder Teardrop cutouts in window 26 nitros under lower ring Hit with vent holes on lower punch Revision 11A 685 ton at bottom stroke Mill oil on binder only No shims Teardrop cutouts in window 23 nitros under lower ring Hit with vent holes on lower punch

DP500 HDGA, 0.60 mm

Photos - DP500 HDGA, 0.60 mm Baseline

Figure 7-29: DP500 HDGA, 0.60mm, Baseline

Figure 7-30: DP500 HDGA, 0.60mm, Baseline

Visual Inspection, DP 500 HDGA, 0.60 mm The panel was reviewed for the DP500 HDGA 0.60 at the baseline die level and failed to result in an formable panel due to splitting and hard marks in the mirror flag area. Consequently, this material was eliminated from the baseline version, and it was moved to Revision 10A tryout.
138

Photos DP500 HDGA, 0.60 mm - CONTINUED Revision 10A

Figure 7-32: DP500 HDGA, 0.60mm, Revision 10A

Figure 7-31: DP500 HDGA, 0.60mm, Revision 10!

Visual Inspection, DP 500 HDGA, 0.60 mm Revision 10A still maintained a weak area in the mirror flag and surface distortion at the upper corner of the B Pillar. The decision to move to Revision 11A was made because the mirror pocket was not going to improve without a possible change. Achieving an acceptable surface in the outer part of the panel must first be addressed, and then correction of the mirror pocket issue reviewed. The only change between Revisions 10A and 11a was centralized in the mirror pocket at the beltline. The beltline failed at Revision 10A, but addressing the rest of the panel in Revision 10A would not change the condition at the mirror flag.

139

Photos DP500 HDGA, 0.60 mm - CONTINUED Revision 11A

Figure 7-34: DP500 HDGA, 0.60mm, Revision 11A Figure 7-33: DP500 HDGA, 0.60mm, Revision 11A

Visual Inspection, DP 500 HDGA, 0.60 mm The panel was reviewed at Revision 11A, and it was noted that working the surface skin of the panel resulted in failure in the mirror pocket. Resolution of the mirror flag problem was attempted, and the pocket did have an acceptable result but to the sacrifice of the A pillar area just forward of the mirror pocket which exhibited surface wrinkles. It was concluded that one or the other could be achieved, but both areas could not achieve acceptable results at the same time. The mirror pocket material could be obtained from the outer portion of the blank but was not held tight enough to form an acceptable A Pillar. The same was true in reverse: holding the bead tighter at the outboard edge in turn caused failure in the mirror flag area. The upper B Pillar still contained some slight distortion in the corner. This panel was deemed non-formable. Note: Both materials of HDGA reacted in the same manner for all revision levels regardless of material gauge differences.

140

7.3.1.7

BH250 EG, 0.68 mm

Material Properties
Table 7-13: BH Materials

Material BH 250 EG, 0.68 mm

Yield Strength (MPa/ksi)

Tensile Strength (MPa/ksi)

Total % Elongation

n Value 10-20%

r Value

296.0

42.9

405.0

58.7

34.8

0.192

1.480

Press Run Information


Table 7-14: BH250 Press Run

Material BH250 EG, 0.68 mm, Baseline

Baseline Design 700 ton at bottom stroke Mill oil on binder only Teardrop cutouts in window 22 nitros under lower ring Hit with vent holes on lower punch

Photos - BH250 EG, 0.68 mm

Figure 7-36: BH250 EG, 0.68 mm Grid (zoomed) Figure 7-35: BH250 EG, 0.68 mm Grid

Figure 7-37: BH250 EG, 0.68 mm

Figure 7-38: BH250 EG, 0.68 mm (zoomed) 141

Visual Inspection, BH250 EG, 0.68 mm, Assembled Panel Surface distortion was slightly more noticeable in the upper B-pillar corner. Chatter marks were visible in the area just below the door handle. Distortion in the surface (mouse ears) was located in the same areas as previous panels. There was some surface distortion in the A-pillar above the mirror but less than the DP500 EG 0.70 mm material.

142

7.3.1.8

BH250 EG, 0.64 mm

Material Properties
Table 7-15: BH250 Material Properties

Material BH 250 EG, 0.64 mm

Yield Strength (MPa/ksi)

Tensile Strength (MPa/ksi)

Total % Elongation

n Value 10-20%

r Value

292.0

42.3

386.0

56.0

34.7

0.166

1.600

Press Run Information


Table 7-16: BH250 Press Run

Material BH250 EG, 0.64 mm

Revision 11A 680 ton at bottom stroke Mill oil on binder only Teardrop cutouts in window 23 nitros under lower ring Hit with vent holes on lower punch

Photos - BH250 EG, 0.64mm

Figure 7-40: BH250 EG, 0.64 mm Figure 7-39: BH250 EG, 0.64 mm

Visual Inspection, BH250 EG, 0.64 mm, Unassembled Outer Panel The same surface distortion conditions in the common areas of the mirror pocket handle and along the beltline were prevalent. On one panel that was checked just after stamping, there was an area that reflected possible roller marks from the roll of steel.

143

7.3.2 Circle Grid Analysis 7.3.2.1 Purpose

The specific purpose of this report is to specify the results of formability analyses of draw panels formed from AHSS materials, using the current production material, HFT340 (IF-rephos) HDGA, as a baseline for performance. 7.3.2.2 Comments

In addition to the HFT340 HDGA, other trial materials included multiple gauges of BH250-EG, DP500-EG and DP500-HDGA materials ranging from 0.60 mm to 0.70mm. Steel mills providing these materials were U.S. Steel, and Ispat Inland. Mechanical properties are available in Table 7-17. Following the material test results is a summary table of formability analysis results (i.e. thickness strain and circle grid analyses). U.S. Steel personnel evaluated panels using a forming limit based on minimum specified gauge and a worst-case (i.e. -3) n-value, as provided by the steel suppliers.
Table 7-17: Trial material mechanical properties Material grade IF-Rephos BH250-EG BH250-EG DP500-EG DP500-EG DP500-EG DP500-HDGA DP500-HDGA Gauge (mm) 0.74 0.68 0.64 0.72 0.67 0.62 0.69 0.60 Terminal n-value 0.244 0.192 0.166 0.188 0.201 0.164 0.154 0.155 Yield (MPa) 196.0 294.8 292.0 319.0 314.0 340.0 341.3 367.0 Tensile (MPa) 339.0 404.7 386.0 523.0 568.0 522.0 565.4 634.0 % EL (MPa) 45.2 34.8 34.7 27.8 26.7 28.5 26.0 24.0

Table 7-18: Comparison of formability analysis results using worst-case FLD criteria Material grade IF-Rephos BH250-EG BH250-EG DP500-EG DP500-EG DP500-EG DP500-HDGA DP500-HDGA Gauge (mm) 0.74 0.68 0.64 0.72 0.67 0.62 0.69 0.60 Worst-case n-value 0.201 0.165 0.160 0.180 0.180 0.150 0.150 0.150 Worst-case n-value/gauge FLD FLD safety status # Marginal Safe (10) Marginal (7) Critical (0) Marginal (9) Safe (17) Marginal (7) Marginal (2) Marginal (1) 0 1 3 1 0 1 4 2 # Critical 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

144

It should be noted that the die used in the trials was a Kirksite tool and not a production die (i.e. chromed cast iron, flame hardened, ion-nitrided, etc.). Thus the material tool interface frictional performance would potentially vary significantly from a production die. One could reasonably expect an improved performance in each panel (particularly the HDGA-coated grades) with the lower friction incurred. Surface stretch data is available in Table 7-22 on Page 147. 7.3.2.3 Trial Conditions

Die conditions and available press parameters for each trial hit are given below in Tables 7-19 and 7-20.
Table 7-19: Die conditions for each trial materials hit Trial location: Press ID: Forming Method: Upper Female Risers (in.): Lower Punch Risers (in.): Punch Die Height (in.): Shut Height (in.): Lower Ring Nitro Plate Height: (in.) Faball #1 Niagara 3-piece stretch draw 12 8 29.75 49.75 0.25 Blank Size Supplied: 59.5" x 53" Blank Size Used: See Figure 7-41 Blank Shape: Configured Lubrication Type: 61 AUS Application: By hand Amount: Light-medium applied to binder-contacted area

Table 7-20: Press parameters for each trial materials hit

Material grade IF-Rephos BH250-EG BH250-EG DP500-EG DP500-EG DP500-EG DP500-HDGA DP500-HDGA

Gauge (mm)
0.74 0.68 0.64 0.72 0.67 0.62 0.69 0.60

Geometry revision Baseline N/A 11-A N/A N/A 10-A 11-A 11-A

No. of nitro cylinders 700 max. 21 nom. Ram tonnage 680 23

650 660 670

22 23 23

NOTE: The brief table below indicates the nature of the minimal die work performed to produce geometry Revisions 10A and 11A. These were meant to improve formability conditions in the mirror pocket area (location 8).
Table 7-21: Die work performed Geometry revision Baseline 10-A 11-A Die work performed Die as received from DCX with no product changes Mirror pocket (I.e. location 8) moved outboard 5mm Mirror pocket moved outboard 5mm and lower shelf draft angle increased by 7 deg.

145

7.3.2.4

Part Photographs

Figure 7-41: Dimensioned trial blank

12
buckles

3 4 A 5 6 7 I J K D E F B

8 9 C H 10 11 M

Figure 7-42: Draw panel with thickness strain locations, surface stretch locations identified, as well as buckling condition at location 2.

146

Table 7-22: Surface stretch data IF-Rephos 0.74mm BH250-EG 0.68 mm BH250-EG 0.64mm DP500-EG 0.72 mm

Loc. A B C D E F G H I J K L M

Minor (%) Major (%) 1.00 0.75 1.25 0.25 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.50 0.50 0 0.25 0.25 1.00 3.75 3.50 2.50 4.75 4.00 3.25 3.00 3.50 4.50 3.25 2.50 2.50 2.75

Minor (%) Major (%) 0.50 0.25 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.25 0 2.25 1.50 1.00 0.50 1.25 3.50 0.25 0 0 1.50

Minor (%) Major (%) Data not available 1.25 4.75

Minor (%) Major (%) 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.25 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 1.25 1.00 1.50 3.25 0.25 0 0 2.00

Data not available

0 0 0 0 0

DP500-EG 0.67mm

DP500-EG 0.62 mm

DP500-HDGA 0.69 mm

DP500-HDGA 0.60 mm

Loc. A B C D E F G H I J K L M

Minor (%) Major (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 2.00 0.50 2.00 1.75 1.25 1.25 1.75 2.00 0 0 0 2.50

Minor (%) Major (%) 0.50 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.75 0.25 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.50 1.75 2.00 1.25 0.50 1.50 1.75 2.00 0 0 N/A 2.50

Minor (%) Major (%)

Minor (%) Major (%)

NO DATA AVAILABLE

NO DATA AVAILABLE

Comments The above data confirms an obvious assumption: More formable materials experience a greater degree of surface stretch while higher strength steels tend in the opposite direction. All of the above data should be held to 0.5%. Personnel at Faball, the prototype manufacturer, scribed the blanks with 100 mm-diameter circles.

147

Table 7-23: Material properties USS BH250-EG 0.68 mm

Mechanical Properties - coil G329221 Props.


Yield Stgh (MPa)

L 285.4 284.1

T 301.3 300.6

D 300.6 297.2

AVG 297.0 294.8

+/- 3 sigma values Value is above statistical maximum 245. 7 267.9 X 370. 6 31.8 390.2 X 34.4 37.0 409.9 290.0

Tensile Stgh (MPa) Total Elong (%) n-value (10%20%)

404.0

404.0

405.4

404.7

34.6

35.1

34.7

34.8 n-bar 0.192

X 0.17 7 0.185 0.193 R-bar Statistical range for R-value is unavailable for R-value 1.38 1.67 1.44 1.48 this grade NOTE 1: From the upper and lower yield points indicated above, this material exhibits approximately 0.8% yield-point elongation 0.184 0.201 0.192 NOTE 2: The statistical ranges above represent data for 77 coils with gauges ranging from 0.028-0.034
Table 7-24: Surface Properties

Coating Weight (g/m2) Top 83.0 Bottom 84.1 NOTE: Data from U.S. Steel Auto Center XRF

Table 7-25: Chemical Analysis

C 0.028 Al 0.039

Mn 0.17 N 0.002

P 0.07 V 0.001

S 0.007 B 0.0003

Si 0.008 Ti 0.002

Cu 0.02 Cb 0.01

Ni 0.01 Sb 0.001

Cr 0.08

Mo 0.003

Sn 0.005

148

Table 7-26: Material properties - USS DP500 HDGA 0.69 mm Mechanical Properties coil GE528437210 Props. Yield Stgh (MPa) Tensile Stgh (MPa) Total Elong (%) n-value (10%20%) R-value L 339.9 563.3 25.0 0.145 0.89 T 345.4 579.8 24.5 0.153 1.07 D 339.2 558.5 27.3 0.154 1.13 AVG 341.3 565.4 26.0 n-bar 0.154 R-bar 1.06 Statistical ranges for this material grade are unavailable +/- 3 sigma values

Table 7-27: Surface properties

Coating Weight (g/m2) Top 58.1 Bottom 59.0 NOTE: Data from Auto Center XRF

Table 7-28: Chemical Analysis

C 0.06 Al 0.047

Mn 1.65 N 0.008

P 0.017 V 0.001

S 0.007 B 0.0001

Si 0.001 Ti 0.002

Cu 0.02 Cb 0.002

Ni 0.01

Cr 0.19

Mo 0.198

Sn 0.001

149

Table 7-29: Material Properties - USS DP500 HDGA 0.60 mm

Mechanical Properties coil GE528448220 Props. Yield Stgh (MPa) Tensile Stgh (MPa) Total Elong (%) n-value (10%20%) R-value L 369 T 369 D 364 AVG 367 +/- 3 sigma values

640

638

628

634 Statistical ranges for this material grade are unavailable

23.5

22.5

25.0

24.0 n-bar 0.155 R-bar 1.15

0.151 0.94

0.157 1.23

0.155 1.21

Table 7-30: Surface Properties

Coating Weight (g/m2) Top 54.3 Bottom 51.5 NOTE: Data from Auto Center XRF

Table 7-31: Chemical Analysis

C 0.07 Al 0.039

Mn 1.7 N 0.007

P 0.015 V 0.001

S 0.006 B 0.0001

Si 0.003 Ti 0.001

Cu 0.02 Cb 0.002

Ni 0.02

Cr 0.19

Mo 0.193

Sn 0.001

150

Base Material, HFT340 0.74 mm, Thickness Strain Analysis


Table 7-32: HFT340 Thinning Circle Grid Data Thinning/Circle Grid Data

Gage (in.) Actual Min. 0.0300 0.0290 Measured Thickness (in.) 0.0260 0.0269 0.0263 0.0247 0.0272 0.0255 0.0260 0.0254 0.0275 0.0257 0.0274

n-value 0.244 0.201 Major Grid Strain

FLD0 39.6 32.3 Minor Grid Strain

Thick. (T C) in. 0.0215 0.0227

FLD10 29.6 22.3

Thick. (T M) in. 0.0232 0.0245 Formability Status Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe

Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Final Calculated Major Thinning Thickness Major Strain Strain Strain (%) (in) (%) Safety (%) 13.3 10.3 12.3 17.7 9.3 15.0 13.3 15.3 8.3 14.3 8.7 0.0260 0.0269 0.0263 0.0247 0.0272 0.0255 0.0260 0.0254 0.0275 0.0257 0.0274 15.38 11.52 14.07 21.46 10.29 17.65 15.38 18.11 9.09 16.73 9.49 16.88 20.74 18.20 10.81 21.97 14.62 16.88 14.16 23.18 15.53 22.78

NOTE: Major Strain Safety: If less than 10% it is considered Marginal


Figure 7-43: HFT340 Thickness Strain Analysis

45 40 35 Major Strain (% 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Starting gauge: 0.0300 in. Minimum n-value: 0.201 Actual n-value: 0.244

Worst Case; Dashed Lines Failure 0.0227 in.

0.0245 in. Marginal

Safe

10

11

Note: * Indicates correction for positive minor strain

151

BH250 EG 0.69 mm, Thickness Strain Analysis


Table 7-33: BH250 EG 0.69 mm Thinning Circle Grid Data Thinning/Circle Grid Data
Gage (in.) Actual Min. 0.0276 0.0276 Measured Thickness (in.) 0.0244 0.0253 0.0248 0.0246 0.0241 0.0232 0.0247 0.0240 0.0263 0.0248 0.0263 n-value 0.192 0.165 Major Grid Strain FLD0 30.4 26.1 Minor Grid Strain Thick. (TC) in. 0.0212 0.0219 Thinning Strain (%) 11.6 8.3 10.1 10.9 12.7 15.9 10.5 13.0 4.7 10.1 4.7 Final Thickness (in) 0.0244 0.0253 0.0248 0.0246 0.0241 0.0232 0.0247 0.0240 0.0263 0.0248 0.0263 FLD10 20.4 16.1 Thick. (TM) in. 0.0229 0.0238

Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Calculated Major Strain Formability Major Strain Safety (%) Status (%) 13.11 9.09 11.29 12.20 14.52 18.97 11.74 15.00 4.94 11.29 4.94 12.98 17.00 14.80 13.90 11.57 7.13 14.35 11.09 21.15 14.80 21.15 Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe Marginal Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe

NOTE: Major Strain Safety: If less than 10% it is considered Marginal


Figure 7-44: BH250 EG 0.69 mm Thickness Strain Analysis

40 35 30 Major Strain (% 25 20 15

Starting gauge: 0.0276 in. Minimum n-value: 0.165 Actual n-value: 0.192

Worst Case; Dashed Lines 0.0219 in. Failure 0.0238 in. Marginal

Safe

10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Note: * Indicates correction for positive minor strain

152

BH250 EG 0.64 mm, Thickness Strain Analysis


Table 7-34: BH250 EG 0.64 mm Thinning Circle Grid Data Thinning/Circle Grid Data
Gage (in.) Actual Min. 0.0259 0.0256 Measured Thickness (in.) 0.0221 0.0244 0.0206 0.0218 0.0229 0.0220 0.0229 0.0229 0.0246 0.0236 0.0248 n-value 0.166 0.160 Major Grid Strain FLD0 25.8 24.8 Minor Grid Strain Thick. (TC) in. 0.0206 0.0208 Thinning Strain (%) 14.7 5.8 20.5 15.8 11.6 15.1 11.6 11.6 5.0 8.9 4.2 Final Thickness (in) 0.0221 0.0244 0.0206 0.0218 0.0229 0.0220 0.0229 0.0229 0.0246 0.0236 0.0248 FLD10 15.8 14.8 Thick. (TM) in. 0.0224 0.0226

Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Calculated Major Strain Formability Major Strain Safety (%) Status (%) 17.19 6.15 25.73 18.81 13.10 17.73 13.10 13.10 5.28 9.75 4.44 7.56 18.60 -0.98 5.94 11.65 7.02 11.65 11.65 19.47 15.01 20.32 Marginal Safe Critical Marginal Safe Marginal Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe

NOTE: Major Strain Safety: If less than 10% it is considered Marginal


Figure 7-45: BH250 EG 0.64 mm Thickness Strain Analysis

40 35 30 Major Strain (%)

Starting gauge: 0.0259 in. Minimum n-value: 0.160 Actual n-value: 0.166

Worst Case; Dashed Lines

0.0208 in. Failure

25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

0.0226 in.

Marginal Safe

10

11

Note: * Indicates correction for positive minor strain

153

DP500 EG 0.72 mm, Thickness Strain Analysis


Table 7-35: DP500 EG 0.72 mm Thinning Circle Grid Data Thinning/Circle Grid Data
Gage (in.) Actual Min. 0.0276 0.0276 Measured Thickness (in.) 0.0244 0.0253 0.0248 0.0246 0.0241 0.0232 0.0247 0.0240 0.0263 0.0248 0.0263 n-value 0.188 0.180 Major Grid Strain FLD0 29.7 28.5 Minor Grid Strain Thick. (TC) in. 0.0212 0.0215 Thinning Strain (%) 11.5 8.2 10.0 10.7 12.6 15.8 10.4 12.9 4.6 10.0 4.6 Final Thickness (in) 0.0244 0.0253 0.0248 0.0246 0.0241 0.0232 0.0247 0.0240 0.0263 0.0248 0.0263 FLD10 19.7 18.5 Thick. (TM) in. 0.0230 0.0233

Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Calculated Major Strain Formability Major Strain Safety (%) Status (%) 12.95 8.93 11.13 12.03 14.35 18.79 11.58 14.83 4.79 11.13 4.79 15.50 19.52 17.33 16.42 14.10 9.66 16.88 13.62 23.66 17.33 23.66 Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe Marginal Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe

NOTE: Major Strain Safety: If less than 10% it is considered Marginal


Figure 7-46: DP500 EG 0.72 mm Thickness Strain Analysis

40 35 30 Major Strain (%) 25 20 15 10 5 0

Starting gauge: 0.0276 in. Minimum n-value: 0.180 Actual n-value: 0.188 Failure

Worst Case; Dashed Lines 0.0215 in. 0.0233 in.

Marginal Safe

10

11

Note: * Indicates correction for positive minor strain

154

DP500 EG 0.67 mm, Thickness Strain Analysis


Table: 7-36: DP500 EG 0.67 mm Thinning Circle Grid Data Thinning/Circle Grid Data
Gage (in.) Actual Min. 0.0261 0.0256 Measured Thickness (in.) 0.0238 0.0246 0.0239 0.0239 0.0238 0.0237 0.0242 0.0239 0.0240 0.0245 0.0245 n-value 0.201 0.180 Major Grid Strain FLD0 31.3 27.8 Minor Grid Strain Thick. (TC) in. 0.0199 0.0204 Thinning Strain (%) 8.8 5.7 8.4 8.4 8.8 9.2 7.3 8.4 8.0 6.1 6.1 Final Thickness (in) 0.0238 0.0246 0.0239 0.0239 0.0238 0.0237 0.0242 0.0239 0.0240 0.0245 0.0245 FLD10 21.3 17.8 Thick. (TM) in. 0.0215 0.0221

Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Calculated Major Strain Formability Major Strain Safety (%) Status (%) 9.66 6.10 9.21 9.21 9.66 10.13 7.85 9.21 8.75 6.53 6.53 18.18 21.75 18.64 18.64 18.18 17.72 19.99 18.64 19.10 21.32 21.32 Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe

NOTE: Major Strain Safety: If less than 10% it is considered Marginal


Figure 7-47: DP500 EG 0.67 mm Thickness Strain

40 35 30 Major Strain (%) 25 20 15 10 5 0

Starting gauge: 0.0261 in. Minimum n-value: 0.180 Actual n-value: 0.201 Failure

Worst Case; Dashed Lines 0.0204 in. 0.0221 in.

Marginal Safe

10

11

Note: * Indicates correction for positive minor strain

155

DP500 EG 0.62 mm, Thickness Strain Analysis


Table 7-37: DP500 EG 0.62 mm Thinning Circle Grid Data Thinning/Circle Grid Data
Gage (in.) Actual Min. 0.0245 0.0244 Measured Thickness (in.) 0.0228 0.0246 0.0230 0.0229 0.0238 0.0229 0.0236 0.0212 0.0225 0.0232 0.0239 n-value 0.164 0.150 Major Grid Strain FLD0 25.1 22.9 Minor Grid Strain Thick. (TC) in. 0.0196 0.0199 Thinning Strain (%) 6.9 -0.4 6.1 6.5 2.9 6.5 3.7 13.5 8.2 5.3 2.4 Final Thickness (in) 0.0228 0.0246 0.0230 0.0229 0.0238 0.0229 0.0236 0.0212 0.0225 0.0232 0.0239 FLD10 15.1 12.9 Thick. (TM) in. 0.0213 0.0217

Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Calculated Major Strain Formability Major Strain Safety (%) Status (%) 7.46 0.41 6.52 6.99 2.94 6.99 3.81 15.57 8.89 5.60 2.51 15.45 22.49 16.38 15.92 19.96 15.92 19.09 7.34 14.01 17.30 20.39 Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe Marginal Safe Safe Safe

NOTE: Major Strain Safety: If less than 10% it is considered Marginal


Figure 7-48: DP500 EG 0.62 mm Thickness Strain Analysis

40 35 30 Major Strain (%) 25 20 15 10 5 0

Starting gauge: 0.0245 in. Minimum n-value: 0.150 Actual n-value: 0.164

Worst Case; Dashed Lines

0.0199 in. Failure 0.0217 in.

Marginal Safe

10

11

Note: * Indicates correction for positive minor strain

156

DP500 HDGA 0.69 mm, Thickness Strain Analysis


Table 7-38: DP500 HDGA 0.69 mm Thinning Circle Grid Data Thinning/Circle Grid Data
Gage (in.) Actual Min. 0.0283 0.0270 Measured Thickness (in.) 0.0244 0.0249 0.0252 0.0256 0.0262 0.0242 0.0254 0.0234 0.0263 0.0251 0.0262 12 0 20 0 16 0 n-value 0.154 0.150 Major Grid Strain 15 13 12 FLD0 24.5 23.6 Minor Grid Strain 0 0 0 Thick. (TC) in. 0.0227 0.0229 Thinning Strain (%) 13.8 12.0 11.0 9.5 7.4 14.5 10.2 17.3 7.1 11.3 7.4 Final Thickness (in) 0.0244 0.0249 0.0252 0.0256 0.0262 0.0242 0.0254 0.0234 0.0263 0.0251 0.0262 FLD10 14.5 13.6 Thick. (TM) in. 0.0247 0.0249

Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Calculated Major Strain Formability Major Strain Safety (%) Status (%) 15.98 13.65 12.30 10.55 8.02 16.94 11.42 20.94 7.60 12.75 8.02 7.58 9.91 11.26 13.02 15.55 6.62 12.15 2.63 15.96 10.82 15.55 Marginal Marginal Safe Safe Safe Marginal Safe Marginal Safe Safe Safe

NOTE: Major Strain Safety: If less than 10% it is considered Marginal

Figure 7-49: DP500 EG 0.62 mm Thickness Strain Analysis

30 25 Major Strain (%) 20 15 10 5 0

Starting gauge: 0.0283 in. Minimum n-value: 0.150 Actual n-value: 0.154 Failure

Worst Case; Dashed Lines

0.0229 in.

0.0249 in. Marginal

Safe

10

11

Note: * Indicates correction for positive minor strain

157

DP500 HDGA 0.60 mm, Thickness Strain Analysis


Table 7-39: DP500 HDGA 0.60 mm Thinning Circle Grid Data Thinning/Circle Grid Data
Gage (in.) Actual Min. 0.0238 0.0236 Measured Thickness (in.) 0.0197 0.0225 0.0214 0.0214 0.0212 0.0213 0.0215 0.0209 0.0214 0.0219 0.0231 0 0 0 0 0 0 n-value 0.155 0.150 Major Grid Strain FLD0 23.5 22.7 Minor Grid Strain 0 Thick. (TC) in. 0.0193 0.0194 Thinning Strain (%) 17.2 5.5 10.1 10.1 10.9 10.5 9.7 12.2 10.1 8.0 2.9 Final Thickness (in) 0.0197 0.0225 0.0214 0.0214 0.0212 0.0213 0.0215 0.0209 0.0214 0.0219 0.0231 FLD10 13.5 12.7 Thick. (TM) in. 0.0210 0.0211

Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Calculated Major Strain Formability Major Strain Safety (%) Status (%) 20.81 5.78 11.21 11.21 12.26 11.74 10.70 13.88 11.21 8.68 3.03 1.89 16.92 11.49 11.49 10.44 10.96 12.00 8.82 11.49 14.02 19.67 Marginal Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe Marginal Safe Safe Safe

NOTE: Major Strain Safety: If less than 10% it is considered marginal.


Figure 7-50: DP500 HDGA 0.60 mm Thickness Strain Analysis

30 25 Major Strain (% 20

Starting gauge: 0.0238 in. Minimum n-value: 0.150 Actual n-value: 0.155

Worst Case; Dashed Lines 0.0194 in. Failure

0.0211 in.

15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Marginal Safe

10

11

Note: * Indicates correction for positive minor strain

158

7.3.3 Dimensional Accuracy The Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM) data did indicate some variation between lots. These results can only be used as a guideline. A detailed capability study would need to be performed using a 30-piece sample set of each lot as a minimum requirement. Panels also would need to be assembled using repeatable productiontype assembly equipment since manual welding and hammer-formed flanges and hems are inconsistent and produce variability. Figure 7-51 below indicates the CMM locations, and the tables following detail results for each panel tested. A graph in Figure 7-52 on Page 169 displays this information for all panels for comparison purposes. The CMM Data does show some variation between lots. These results can only be used as a guideline; a detailed Capability study would need to be preformed using, at a minimum, a 30-piece sample set of each lot. These panels also would need to be assembled using repeatable production type assembly equipment. Manual welding and hammer-formed flanges and hems are inconsistent and produce variability.

Figure 7-51: CMM Locations

159

Table 7-40: BH250 EG 0.68 mm Axis PT01 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT02 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT03 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT04 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT05 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT06 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT07 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT08 X: Y: Z: Vec: Ln: 1 2924.9456 636.6469 2270.3928 Pt: 8 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 -0.1196 1.2393 0.8618 1.5142 >--*-----< 0.9393 0.5618 1.2142 Ln: 1 2609.8989 727.4567 2050.3096 Pt: 7 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0894 -0.5372 -0.2734 -0.6094 >-----*---< -0.2372 >*-------< -0.3094 2609.9883 726.9194 2050.0361 Ln: 1 2470.6792 853.629 1489.0529 Pt: 6 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0427 -1.4152 0.097 -1.4192 >-----*---< -1.1152 >------*--< -1.1192 2470.7219 852.2138 1489.1499 Ln: 1 2800.4919 864.8534 1503.3497 Pt: 5 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.03 -2.5357 0.1853 -2.5426 >-----*---< -2.2357 >-------*-< -2.2426 2800.522 862.3177 1503.535 Ln: 1 3086.9814 865.7594 1503.9442 Pt: 4 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 -0.0278 1.038 -0.0844 1.0418 >----*----< 0.738 >---*-----< 0.7418 3086.9536 866.7974 1503.8599 Ln: 1 3123.6899 852.8785 1744.1594 Pt: 3 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0017 -0.116 -0.0276 -0.1193 >----*----< >--*------< >----*----< >--*------< 3123.6917 852.7625 1744.1318 Ln: 1 3299.9734 804.6242 1900.1818 Pt: 2 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 -0.0178 0.4457 0.1218 0.4624 >----*----< 0.1457 >------*--< 0.1624 3299.9556 805.0699 1900.3036 Nominal Ln: 1 3324.9629 623.7281 2315.3821 Pt: 1 Actual type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 -0.1638 2.5283 1.6853 3.0429 >-*-------< 2.2283 1.3853 2.7429 Tol + Tol Dev. Tol~Dev

3324.7991 626.2563 2317.0674

2924.8259 637.8862 2271.2546

160

Table 7-41: DP500 EG 0.72 mm Axis PT01 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT02 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT03 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT04 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT05 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT06 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT07 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT08 X: Y: Z: Vec: 2924.9456 636.6469 2270.3928 Ln: 1 Pt: 8 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 -0.134 1.3867 0.9644 1.6944 >--*------< 1.0867 0.6644 1.3944 2924.8115 638.0336 2271.3572 2609.8989 727.4567 2050.3096 Ln: 1 Pt: 7 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1125 -0.677 0.3445 0.7679 >------*--< -0.377 -0.0445 -0.4679 2610.0115 726.7797 2049.9651 2470.6792 853.629 1489.0529 Ln: 1 Pt: 6 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0464 1.5385 0.1055 1.5428 >-----*---< -1.2385 >------*--< -1.2428 2470.7256 852.0906 1489.1583 2800.4919 864.8534 1503.3497 Ln: 1 Pt: 5 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0276 2.3297 0.1703 -2.336 >----*----< -2.0297 >-------*-< -2.036 2800.5195 862.5237 1503.52 3086.9814 865.7594 1503.9442 Ln: 1 Pt: 4 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0391 1.4536 -0.118 1.4589 >---*-----< 1.1536 >--*------< 1.1589 3123.6899 852.8785 1744.1594 Ln: 1 Pt: 3 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0024 0.1685 -0.04 0.1732 >----*----< >-*-------< >---*-----< >-*-------< 3123.6924 852.71 1744.1194 3299.9734 804.6242 1900.1818 Ln: 1 Pt: 2 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0103 0.2576 0.0704 0.2672 >----*----< >--------*< >-----*---< >--------*< 3324.9629 623.7281 2315.3821 Nominal Ln: 1 Actual Pt: 1 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1396 2.1582 1.4385 2.5974 >--*------< 1.8582 1.1385 2.2974 Tol + Tol Dev. Tol~Dev

3324.8232 625.8863 2316.8206

3299.9631 804.8818 1900.2522

3086.9424 867.213 1503.8262

161

Table 7-42: DP500 EG 0.67 mm Axis PT01 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT02 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT03 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT04 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT05 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT06 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT07 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT08 X: Y: Z: Vec: 2924.9456 636.6469 2270.3928 Ln: 1 Pt: 8 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0911 0.9427 0.6555 1.1518 >--*------< 0.6427 0.3555 0.8518 2609.8989 727.4567 2050.3096 Ln: 1 Pt: 7 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2415 1.4509 0.7385 1.6459 >--------*< -1.1509 -0.4385 -1.3459 2610.1448 725.9793 2049.5576 2470.6792 853.629 1489.0529 Ln: 1 Pt: 6 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0537 -1.782 0.1222 -1.787 >-----*---< -1.482 >------*--< -1.487 2470.7339 851.8171 1489.177 2800.4919 864.8534 1503.3497 Ln: 1 Pt: 5 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0422 3.5701 0.2609 3.5798 >-----*---< -3.2701 >--------*< -3.2798 2800.5344 861.2534 1503.6128 3086.9814 865.7594 1503.9442 Ln: 1 Pt: 4 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0032 0.1192 0.0096 0.1196 >----*----< >------*--< >----*----< >------*--< 3123.6899 852.8785 1744.1594 Ln: 1 Pt: 3 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0012 -0.082 0.0195 0.0843 >----*----< >---*-----< >----*----< >---*-----< 3123.6917 852.7673 1744.1329 3299.9734 804.6242 1900.1818 Ln: 1 Pt: 2 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0027 0.0681 0.0186 0.0706 >----*----< >-----*---< >----*----< >-----*---< 3324.9629 623.7281 2315.3821 Nominal Ln: 1 Actual Pt: 1 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1338 2.0652 1.3767 2.4857 >--*------< 1.7652 1.0767 2.1857 Tol + Tol Dev. Tol~Dev

3324.8308 625.7684 2316.7422

3299.9719 804.6633 1900.1924

3086.9792 865.8487 1503.9369

2924.8567 637.5651 2271.0313

162

Table 7-43: DP500 EG 0.62 mm #1 Axis PT01 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT02 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT03 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT04 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT05 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT06 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT07 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT08 X: Y: Z: Vec: 2924.9456 636.6469 2270.3928 Ln: 1 Pt: 8 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0935 0.9686 0.6736 1.1835 >--*------< 0.6686 0.3736 0.8835 2609.8989 727.4567 2050.3096 Ln: 1 Pt: 7 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1892 1.1374 0.5789 1.2902 >-------*-< -0.8374 -0.2789 -0.9902 2610.094 726.2841 2049.7129 2470.6792 853.629 1489.0529 Ln: 1 Pt: 6 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0432 -1.437 0.0985 -1.441 >-----*---< -1.137 >------*--< -1.141 2470.7236 852.1522 1489.1541 2800.4919 864.8534 1503.3497 Ln: 1 Pt: 5 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0308 2.6109 0.1908 -2.618 >-----*---< -2.3109 >-------*-< -2.318 2800.5232 862.2026 1503.5435 3086.9814 865.7594 1503.9442 Ln: 1 Pt: 4 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0271 1.008 0.0819 1.0117 >----*----< 0.708 >---*-----< 0.7117 3123.6899 852.8785 1744.1594 Ln: 1 Pt: 3 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0056 0.3789 -0.09 0.3895 >----*----< -0.0789 >---*-----< -0.0895 3123.696 852.4606 1744.0602 3299.9734 804.6242 1900.1818 Ln: 1 Pt: 2 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 0.001 0.0002 0.0011 >----*----< >----*----< >----*----< >----*----< 3299.9749 804.5867 1900.1714 3324.9629 623.7281 2315.3821 Nominal Ln: 1 Actual Pt: 1 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1292 1.9958 1.3303 2.4021 >--*------< 1.6958 1.0303 2.1021 Tol + Tol Dev. Tol~Dev

3324.8359 625.6907 2316.6904

3086.9556 866.7275 1503.8655

2924.8552 637.5828 2271.0435

163

Table 7-44: DP500 EG 0.62 mm #2 Axis PT01 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT02 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT03 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT04 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT05 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT06 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT07 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT08 X: Y: Z: Vec: 2924.9456 636.6469 2270.3928 Ln: 1 Pt: 8 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0515 0.5334 0.3708 0.6517 >---*-----< 0.2334 0.0708 0.3517 164 2609.8989 727.4567 2050.3096 Ln: 1 Pt: 7 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2139 1.2855 0.6543 1.4582 >--------*< -0.9855 -0.3543 -1.1582 2610.1187 726.1359 2049.6375 2470.6792 853.629 1489.0529 Ln: 1 Pt: 6 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0535 1.7737 0.1216 1.7786 >-----*---< -1.4737 >------*--< -1.4786 2470.7339 851.8155 1489.1771 2800.4919 864.8534 1503.3497 Ln: 1 Pt: 5 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0344 2.9183 0.2133 2.9263 >-----*---< -2.6183 >--------*< -2.6263 2800.5269 861.8953 1503.5659 3086.9814 865.7594 1503.9442 Ln: 1 Pt: 4 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0251 0.9362 -0.076 0.9396 >----*----< 0.6362 >---*-----< 0.6396 3123.6899 852.8785 1744.1594 Ln: 1 Pt: 3 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0046 0.3052 0.0725 0.3138 >----*----< -0.0052 >---*-----< -0.0138 3123.6951 852.5343 1744.0776 3299.9734 804.6242 1900.1818 Ln: 1 Pt: 2 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0115 0.2835 0.0775 0.2941 >----*----< >--------*< >-----*---< >--------*< 3324.9629 623.7281 2315.3821 Nominal Ln: 1 Actual Pt: 1 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1665 2.5714 1.7141 3.0948 >-*-------< 2.2714 1.4141 2.7948 Tol + Tol Dev. Tol~Dev

3324.7986 626.2663 2317.0742

3299.9634 804.8691 1900.2487

3086.9575 866.6557 1503.8713

2924.8972 637.1476 2270.7407

Table 7-45: BH250 EG 0.64 mm Axis PT01 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT02 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT03 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT04 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT05 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT06 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT07 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT08 X: Y: Z: Vec: 2924.9456 636.6469 2270.3928 Ln: 1 Pt: 8 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0481 0.4971 0.3457 0.6074 >---*-----< 0.1971 0.0457 0.3074 165 2609.8989 727.4567 2050.3096 Ln: 1 Pt: 7 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.158 -0.95 0.4834 1.0776 >-------*-< -0.65 -0.1834 -0.7776 2610.0627 726.4714 2049.8083 2470.6792 853.629 1489.0529 Ln: 1 Pt: 6 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0435 1.4429 0.0989 1.4469 >-----*---< -1.1429 >------*--< -1.1469 2470.7239 852.1463 1489.1544 2800.4919 864.8534 1503.3497 Ln: 1 Pt: 5 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0361 3.0631 0.2239 3.0715 >-----*---< -2.7631 >--------*< -2.7715 2800.5286 861.7504 1503.5765 3086.9814 865.7594 1503.9442 Ln: 1 Pt: 4 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0149 0.5586 0.0454 0.5606 >----*----< 0.2586 >---*-----< 0.2606 3123.6899 852.8785 1744.1594 Ln: 1 Pt: 3 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0039 -0.256 0.0608 0.2631 >----*----< >*--------< >---*-----< >*--------< 3123.6943 852.5836 1744.0894 3299.9734 804.6242 1900.1818 Ln: 1 Pt: 2 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.001 0.0237 0.0065 0.0246 >----*----< >----*----< >----*----< >----*----< 3299.9758 804.5619 1900.1647 3324.9629 623.7281 2315.3821 Nominal Ln: 1 Actual Pt: 1 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0908 1.4036 0.9355 1.6892 >--*------< 1.1036 0.6355 1.3892 Tol + Tol Dev. Tol~Dev

3324.8743 625.0984 2316.2957

3086.9678 866.2781 1503.902

2924.9006 637.1113 2270.7156

Table 7-46: HFT340 HDGA 0.76 mm #1 Axis PT01 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT02 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT03 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT04 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT05 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT06 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT07 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT08 X: Y: Z: Vec: 2924.9456 636.6469 2270.3928 Ln: 1 Pt: 8 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0581 0.602 0.4187 0.7356 >---*-----< 0.302 0.1187 0.4356 166 2609.8989 727.4567 2050.3096 Ln: 1 Pt: 7 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1375 0.8262 0.4204 0.9371 >------*--< -0.5262 -0.1204 -0.6371 2610.0288 726.6746 2049.9116 2470.6792 853.629 1489.0529 Ln: 1 Pt: 6 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0425 1.4066 0.0964 1.4105 >-----*---< -1.1066 >------*--< -1.1105 2470.7202 852.2723 1489.1459 2800.4919 864.8534 1503.3497 Ln: 1 Pt: 5 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0283 2.3873 0.1744 2.3939 >----*----< -2.0873 >-------*-< -2.0939 2800.5195 862.5159 1503.5205 3086.9814 865.7594 1503.9442 Ln: 1 Pt: 4 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0417 1.5546 0.1262 1.5603 >---*-----< 1.2546 >--*------< 1.2603 3123.6899 852.8785 1744.1594 Ln: 1 Pt: 3 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0015 0.0974 0.0231 0.1001 >----*----< >------*--< >----*----< >------*--< 3299.9734 804.6242 1900.1818 Ln: 1 Pt: 2 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0159 0.3969 0.1084 0.4118 >----*----< 0.0969 >------*--< 0.1118 3324.9629 623.7281 2315.3821 Nominal Ln: 1 Actual Pt: 1 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1155 1.7833 1.1887 2.1463 >--*------< 1.4833 0.8887 1.8463 Tol + Tol Dev. Tol~Dev

3324.8447 625.5529 2316.5986

3299.9556 805.0693 1900.3033

3123.6877 853.0245 1744.1941

3086.9385 867.3638 1503.8138

2924.8833 637.2899 2270.8398

Table 7-47: HFT340 HDGA 0.76 mm #2 Axis PT01 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT02 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT03 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT04 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT05 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT06 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT07 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT08 X: Y: Z: Vec: 2924.9456 636.6469 2270.3928 Ln: 1 Pt: 8 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1077 1.1151 0.7754 1.3624 >--*------< 0.8151 0.4754 1.0624 167 2609.8989 727.4567 2050.3096 Ln: 1 Pt: 7 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.092 0.5527 0.2813 -0.627 >------*--< -0.2527 >*--------< -0.327 2609.9834 726.9481 2050.0508 2470.6792 853.629 1489.0529 Ln: 1 Pt: 6 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0432 1.4358 0.0984 1.4398 >-----*---< -1.1358 >------*--< -1.1398 2470.7209 852.2431 1489.1478 2800.4919 864.8534 1503.3497 Ln: 1 Pt: 5 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0293 2.4724 0.1807 2.4791 >----*----< -2.1724 >-------*-< -2.1791 2800.5205 862.4309 1503.5267 3086.9814 865.7594 1503.9442 Ln: 1 Pt: 4 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0417 1.553 0.1261 1.5586 >---*-----< 1.253 >--*------< 1.2586 3123.6899 852.8785 1744.1594 Ln: 1 Pt: 3 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0015 0.0969 0.0231 0.0996 >----*----< >--*------< >----*----< >--*------< 3123.6907 852.8302 1744.1479 3299.9734 804.6242 1900.1818 Ln: 1 Pt: 2 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0142 0.3536 0.0966 0.3668 >----*----< 0.0536 >------*--< 0.0668 3324.9629 623.7281 2315.3821 Nominal Ln: 1 Actual Pt: 1 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1575 2.4323 1.6213 2.9274 >-*-------< 2.1323 1.3213 2.6274 Tol + Tol Dev. Tol~Dev

3324.8027 626.2019 2317.0313

3299.9573 805.026 1900.2915

3086.9385 867.3622 1503.814

2924.8337 637.8029 2271.1965

Table 7-48: HFT340 HDGA 0.76 mm #3 Axis PT01 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT02 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT03 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT04 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT05 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT06 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT07 X: Y: Z: Vec: PT08 X: Y: Z: Vec: 2924.9456 636.6469 2270.3928 Ln: 1 Pt: 8 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0576 0.5977 0.4155 0.7302 >---*-----< 0.2977 0.1155 0.4302 2609.8989 727.4567 2050.3096 Ln: 1 Pt: 7 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0898 -0.54 0.2749 0.6126 >-----*---< -0.24 >*--------< -0.3126 2609.9812 726.9608 2050.0571 2470.6792 853.629 1489.0529 Ln: 1 Pt: 6 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0361 1.2004 0.0823 1.2038 >-----*---< -0.9004 >-----*---< -0.9038 2470.7139 852.4785 1489.1317 2800.4919 864.8534 1503.3497 Ln: 1 Pt: 5 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0256 2.1723 0.1588 2.1783 >----*----< -1.8723 >-------*-< -1.8783 2800.5168 862.731 1503.5049 3086.9814 865.7594 1503.9442 Ln: 1 Pt: 4 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0491 1.8289 0.1486 1.8355 >---*-----< 1.5289 >--*------< 1.5355 3123.6899 852.8785 1744.1594 Ln: 1 Pt: 3 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 0.0054 0.0012 0.0055 >----*----< >----*----< >----*----< >----*----< 3123.6892 852.9325 1744.1722 3299.9734 804.6242 1900.1818 Ln: 1 Pt: 2 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 -0.009 0.2238 0.0612 0.2321 >----*----< >--------*< >-----*---< >--------*< 3299.9624 804.8962 1900.2561 3324.9629 623.7281 2315.3821 Nominal Ln: 1 Actual Pt: 1 type: IJK -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1379 2.1306 1.4202 2.5642 >--*------< 1.8306 1.1202 2.2642 Tol + Tol Dev. Tol~Dev

3324.8223 625.9002 2316.8301

3086.9312 867.6381 1503.7915

2924.8838 637.2855 2270.8367

168

Vector Variation 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 Deviation from Nomina 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 -2 -2.5 -3 -3.5 -4

Inspection Point Number

BH250 EG 0.68 mm DP500 EG 0.62 mm #2

DP500 EG 0.72 mm HFT340 GA 0.76 mm #1

DP500 EG 0.67 mm HFT340 GA 0.76 mm #2

DP500 EG 0.62 mm #1 HFT340 GA 0.76 mm #3

Figure 7-52: Vector variation chart (all panels/materials)

169

8.0 8.1 8.1.1

Physical Testing Dent Resistance, Oil Canning & Panel Stiffness Tests Summary

Static and oil canning dent tests were conducted on 18 KJ front doors at USS Automotive Center mechanical testing laboratory. The doors were stamped from six different steel grades with different gauges. There were three duplicate doors for each material. Every door went through the simulative automotive paint/bake cycle before dent testing. A static dent test was performed on three locations (1, 4 and 6) and an oil canning test was applied to one location (5). The A/SP dent test procedures were used for both tests. Testing results show the Dual Phase steels performed much better for dent resistance than the baseline material. 8.1.2 Introduction

A computer controlled hydraulic dent tester was used for this study, a schematic of which is shown in Figure 8-1. The door panel was placed under the indenter and tightly clamped on the wood fixture, and the fixture was clamped onto the testing bed with a clamping device. Dent testing was performed at specified dent locations using a 25.4mm (1-inch) diameter steel ball. Load vs. deflection data was recorded during the entire loading and unloading cycle. A photo of the dent tester is shown in Figure 8-2.

Formed Panel

Indenter

Clamps

Fixture Figure 8-1: Schematic drawing of dent tester

170

Figure 8-2: Static/Dynamic Dent Tester

8.1.3 Test Descriptions Tests and procedures employed were used as follows: Static dent test 50 (mm/min) testing speed 25.4 diameter steel ball indenter Minimum load to cause a visible dent at 0.1 mm

Oil canning Hard oil canning: Buckling event that results in a load drop (Figure 8-3) Soft oil canning: Buckling event less severe than hard oil canning in which the slope of the load-displacement curves exhibit a local minimum but remains positive. (Figure 8-4)

200 Load (N) 150


No Oil Canning

100 50
Hard Oil Canning

0
0 2 4 6 8 10

Deflection (mm)
Figure 8-3: Hard oil canning

171

200 Load (N) 150 100 50 0


0 2 4 6 8 10
No Oil Canning

Soft Oil Canning

Deflection (mm)
Figure 8-4: Soft oil canning

8.1.4 Testing Procedures Incremental static dent test: Pre-load to 7 N at velocity of 50 mm/min. Record the initial indenter position and unload to 0 N. Load to 50 N at velocity of 50 mm/min and unload to 0 N. Post load to 7 N at velocity of 50 mm/min. Record the indenter position and unload to 0 N. Record dent depth as the difference in indenter positions between pre load and post load. Cycling of the test is accomplished by repeating step 1-4 with a load increment of 20 N. The test will continue until the dent depth reaches 0.2 mm

Oil canning load: Pre-load to 7 N at velocity of 50 mm/min. Record the initial indenter position and unload to 0 N. Load to 325 N at velocity of 50 mm/min and unload to 0 N. Post load to 7 N at velocity of 50 mm/min. Record the indenter position and unload to 0 N.

Static dent tests were conducted on five different materials, listed in Table 8-1. All doors were baked at 177 degrees C (350o F) for 30 minutes to simulate an automotive paint/bake cycle (Figure 8-5). A special template was made for the door to indicate marked locations and was used to translate identical testing locations to every tested door (Figure 8-6). Static dent test was performed on locations 1, 4 and 6, and oil canning was conducted on location 5 (Figure 8-7).

172

Table 8-1: Testing Materials

Material BH250 EG DP500 EG DP500 EG DP500 EG Hft340 EG BH250 EG

Code 1559 1560 1572 1582 1586 1648

Thickness (mm) 0.68 0.72 0.67 0.62 0.76 0.64

Door

Convection Oven Figure 8-6: Oven for door baking

173

Static dent test

1 4
Oil Canning

Figure 8-7. Testing locations

A special wood fixture was made to support the door panel (clamped), which will ensure no movement of the panel during the testing cycle. The fixture with the door panel was again tightly clamped onto the testing bed (Figure 8-8). The testing was performed by moving the steel indenter up and down onto the testing location, which aligns with the normal direction of the testing surface (Figure 8-9).

90 degree

Indenter

Testing Fixture

Figure 8-8: Testing fixture setup

174

8.1.5 Dent Testing Results

Figure 9-9: Dent testing

44.4

45.1

50

A/SP static dent test (dent load at 0.1 mm)


39.6 42.6

BH250 EG-1559-0.68 DP500 EG-1560-0.72 DP500 EG-1572-0.67 DP500 EG-1582-0.62 Hft340 EG-1586-0.76 BH250 EG-1648-0.64
39.1 37.9

37.3

36.4

34.8

35.3

40

30
24

20

10

0 1 4 6

Figure 8-10 shows the dent resistance of tested materials. The dent load is the load that causes 0.1 mm visible dent depth. The DP steels performed dramatically better than the HFT340 steel. Among all tested DP steels, only one DP500, EG 0.67 mm, performed comparable to BH250 steel. A summary of results is shown in Table 8-2.

37.3

38.2

36

34

Dent Load (lbs)

32.6

Testing Location
Figure 8-10. Variation of dent load with testing locations for different materials

27.4

32

175

8.1.5 Dent Testing Results - CONTINUED Due to different load procedures performed between the analytical and the physical this chart will read only the results after loading and unloading a 210 N incremental load at every location. A comparison of the results were made, and any permanent set less than 0.1 mm was considered acceptable after loading and unloading a 210 N incremental load at every location. The results do not take into consideration the bake hardening affect due to the difficulty in capturing the changes in the material mechanical properties.

Table 8-2: Dent Resistance Simulation Results Chart

Dent Resistence Location Pts. (Load 210 N)

1 4 5 6
#1 (mm)
0.052 0.023 0.132

Materials IF-REPHOS
DP 500

Gauge
0.74 mm 0.65 mm 0.65 mm

#4 (mm)
0.100 0.020 0.137

#5 (mm)
0.112 0.026 0.149

#6 (mm)
0.110 0.034 0.137

BH250

176

8.1.6

Oil Canning Test Results

Oil-canning load (325N) was applied to Test Location #5 on every tested door. No oil canning was found for all tested doors during the experiments due to panel geometry design, surface stretch and the stiffness. Typical oil-canning response for each tested material is shown in Figure 8-11.

80 70 60

Oil Canning load at location 5 Load: 73 lb (325 N)


BH250 EG-1559-0.68 DP500 EG-1560-0.72 DP500 EG-1572-0.67 DP500 EG-1582-0.62 Hft340 EG-1586-0.76 BH250 EG-1648-0.64

Load (lbs)

50 40 30 20 10 0 0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

Displacement (in)
Figure 8-11. Oil canning response

177

9.0 9.1

Project Summary Overview

The Auto/Steel Partnership (A/SP) team members agreed that the outer door closure project brought forth very informative data at all levels of this project. While some areas became concerns, others showed positives that may be applied to today's manufacturing guidelines. Forming an AHSS outer panel proved to be a doable option, but still elicited caution due to the surface quality. The particular testing that was done during this project showed a positive improvement but additional testing would provide a complete picture of the true overall limitations of the materials in regards to door closures. The geometric revisions (10A and 11A) to aid in the forming of the outer doors were Figure 9-1: A/SP Lightweight Door determined through this project and Outer Project Phase 3 Prototype Door possible limitation guidelines documented. This project became a positive foundation for future development programs to further aid in the use of high strength steel at thinner gauges to help in mass reduction for outer door panels. The weight savings were significant and came close to meeting the 20% target. The savings varied from door to door, but were significant enough overall to warrant further investigation for production development. The forming of the door outer panel with the existing baseline design became a plus for this project. The physical test results on the prototype doors showed a performance that was a significant improvement over the baseline material. This finding was well received by the project team members. 9.2 Analytical vs. Actual

The forming simulation used on the door outer panel tends to over-predict results, which is readily known to be the case in most forming simulations. The results of the actual stamping proved to be more successful than previously predicted from the charted results. This was one of the reasons the forming limit diagram (FLD) chart was changed during the project to provide both three percent and ten percent (worse case vs. typical) readings when tracking the success or failure of any particular panel.

178

The teardrop-shaped holes in the window opening proved to be the determining factor in the forming of the actual panels. Tryouts of the materials without the holes were run in the first portion of the prototype project to prove out the analytical results. These results substantiated the findings that failure in forming these panels was as predicted with both BH250 and DP500. The results were not successful due to the restrictions of the flow of material in the problem areas along the beltline at the window opening and the mirror flag. The findings supported the original direction to utilize the teardrop-shaped holes as the main focus through all runs and proved to be satisfactory for most materials. The only material not utilizing this direction was the baseline material, HFT340, which provided the project with the tryout base die. Each material and thickness had its own characteristics, depending upon its material properties. Each was evaluated for forming and surface quality, which showed some areas of concern. Physical testing did show slightly better results than the analytical testing in dent resistance, panel stiffness and oil canning. 9.3 Design/Manufacturing Considerations

9.3.1 Design Standards The major issue with forming the door outer panel had to do with the sharp character lines and depth of the draw in the mirror flag and other local areas. The material flow restriction became an issue during the analytical runs and the physical stamping of the door outer. However, there were results from Revision 6A in the analytical formability runs that showed success in forming along the beltline in the window opening without splitting and without any cutout hole configurations in the window opening. These changes were felt by the members to be too far outside the styling concessions of this project but should be documented for possible further study. It did show that upholding certain guidelines in styling would enhance the success of utilizing high-strength steel. 9.3.2 Die Considerations It was not within the scope of this particular project to determine the affect of AHSS on the hard tool, and this would have to be further studied. There were some surface quality concerns, but it could not be determined whether this was due to the Kirksite die since the areas of concern were in a common location. 9.3.3 Blank Considerations

The minimum size of the blank used was 53.0 in (1346.2 mm) x 59.5 in. (1511.3 mm). There were some issues related to the necessity for a slightly larger blank size to accommodate some areas of the outer edge where the beads lay. Formability was run with a slightly larger blank. Some blanks needed to be readjusted to allow enough material to feed into the beads without running short of material, which caused some issues in obtaining good stretch. Some of the materials were limited in width dependent on the steel roll available. The baseline vehicle production door was stamped as a double door outer, front and rear attached; but this project used a

179

single door outer draw. It should be noted that a slightly larger blank size should be used for this door outer, which would ease some of the issues. The grain direction was not taken into consideration for this particular project since the available roll sizes dictated how the blanks were cut. 9.3.4 Stamping Different approaches were taken during the projects draw die development with respect to staying in line with present day manufacturing guidelines. Window pads at various heights were run with window cutouts, changing die angles of the panel, radius changes and surface angle revisions to obtain a formable outer panel. Hole configurations of various sizes, shapes, angles and locations all were entered into the focus of this project. The pad configuration had failed at all various depths and was considered not to be an alternative approach for this particular door configuration. Die angles were opened up but without any change to previous results. It was determined that even a slight alteration in the window opening hole position or configuration could result in a negative effect, and therefore, the holes had to stay constant in relationship to the blank placement in the die. 9.3.5 Trimming, Flanging, Hemming Hemming was not in the scope of the project but certain expectations would be as follows: A sharp trim edge would be crucial to avoid edge splitting in flanging or hemming. This was simulated in the project using laser trimming. The concerns of AHSS wear on a trim die would still have to be recognized as part of this projects format. Successful flanging was achieved with the flanging tool used, which would indicate, for this door at least, a high probability of success in production with some adjustments completed. However for the purpose of this project, hand-hemming was completed, and consequently there was noticeable read-through on the outer panel. Whether this would be the case with production hemming tools and what effect it would have on the tools themselves would need to be further studied. Although hemming issues may occur, these issues are not perceived as insurmountable based on member experience with AHSS steel in a production environment. 9.4 Third Party Testing

Protecting the proprietary nature of the OEM data for the KJ door was of considerable importance to the A/SP Lightweight Closure Project Team. Using a third-party testing organization to conduct independent Finite Element (FE) testing was decided a best practice that accomplished the needed analysis, while insuring confidentiality of OEM proprietary information.

180

10.0 10.1

Contacts Auto/Steel Partnership

The A/SP Oxford Automotive Lightweight Closure Project is an effort spearheaded by the Auto/Steel Partnership, whose members include: DaimlerChrysler Corporation Ford Motor Company General Motors Corporation Dofasco Inc. Ispat Inland Inc. Severstal N.A. Steel Company Stelco Inc. United States Steel Corporation

The Auto/Steel Partnership leverages the resources of the automotive, steel and related organizations and is a Partnership dedicated to: Ensuring that steel is the "competitive material of choice" in a changing automotive market: Using inter-company and inter-industry cooperative programs to ensure the success of the member companies; Proactively resolving governmental regulatory agency requirements and customer needs.

Contact Information: Gene Cowie Project Manager GCowie@a-sp.org

181

10.2

Oxford Automotive

As a leading-edge Tier I supplier, Oxford Automotive possesses the unique ability to provide the whole package: design, engineering, prototyping, tooling, blanking, stamping and assembly. As a result, OEMs around the world trust Oxford Automotive to serve as complete project managers. In fact, you'll find the Oxford Automotive name on several systems and platforms worldwide. Oxford Automotive's design and engineering team is at the forefront of product weight reduction and component simplification, helping OEMs produce lighter vehicles and generate greater cost savings. Headquartered in Troy, Michigan, Oxford Automotive currently has 38 locations in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, France, Germany, Italy and Turkey. Contact Information: Randy Van Kerschaever Program Manager Oxford Automotive 5750 New King St Suite 200 Troy, MI 48098 Phone: 248-577-4970 Email: rvankerschaever@oxauto.com www.oxauto.com

182

10.3

Supplier Contacts

We wish to thank our suppliers for their expertise and conscientious efforts to help the A/SP and Oxford Automotive reach this projects objectives. To learn more about these partners, see the Supplier Contacts information provided in the Appendix.

183

Altair Engineering, Inc. Headquartered in Troy, Michigan, with offices throughout North America, Europe and Asia, Altair Engineering is a leading global product design consulting and technology company. Founded in 1985 as a product development consulting company, Altair understands what goes into the product development process. Altair is comprised of five lines of business serving 1,300 clients worldwide, including many Fortune 500 companies. The companys goal is to help clients gain market power through product development differentiation. Altairs Product Design and Development team provides high-level consulting services in product strategy, design and engineering, and test and development. The Enterprise Process Management Consulting business line assists organizations in mapping and improving existing design processes and implementation plans - by introducing innovation through simulation, automation, optimization and robust design technology. The Commercial Software Products business unit provides clients with an integrated suite of world-class design and analysis software featuring modeling, visualization, simulation, and optimization capabilities as well as design process automation and manufacturing process simulation. Client Site Services offers Altairs highly skilled technical consultants to clients on a contract basis. Finally, the Enterprise Computing business line provides computer-resource management technology for high-performance computing and implementation consulting services. Contact Information: John Brink Director of Engineering Altair Engineering, Inc. 1820 E Big Beaver Troy, MI 48083-2031 Phone: 248.614.2400 Fax: 248.614.2411 www.altair.com

184

J. F. Hubert Enterprises
J. F. Hubert Enterprises is a major supplier of product engineering, design, development and manufacturing combined with a long tradition of innovation, excellence and customer service. Since 1974 J.F. Hubert Enterprises (JFHE) has consistently provided significant improvements in its capabilities and performance. JFHE has focused on the aerospace and automotive industries providing full service in four major areas of products and services: - Engineering Support - Material Forming Processes Aerospace Automation - Tool & Mold Development Product Design - Fabrication and Assembly Tool Design Prototype Development

Today JFHE has evolved with three (3) of the most efficient divisions to support its focus on vehicle development. The divisions include M & T Engineering Solutions, Fab-All Manufacturing, and Sharp Tooling & Assembly. With advanced Computer Aided Design, CNC Machining, CMM Verification, utilization of Laser Tracking technology during fabrication along with Hydraulic and Mechanical stamping presses, JFHE has expertise in all of the following: Draw Dies for Aluminum forming Master Coordination Tools and Floor Assembly Jigs Injection and Compression Molds Hydro Form Tools Drill/ Mill / Router Fixtures Bond Forms / Winding Mandrels Composite Tools Automation Machinery and Equipment Specialty Items machines, special; kits, etc.

JFHE is fully capable of working with a full range of materials including todays composites. JFHE can refurbish, remanufacture, or fabricate new tooling to existing designs. JFHE quality system complies with MIL-STD-45662, MIL-I-45208 standards and is 9001-2000 registered. FACILITIES: JFHE has six locations, 100,000 square feet of engineering and manufacturing facilities in Troy, MI, Fraser, MI and West Coast engineering/design locations in Seattle and Los Angeles for automotive and aerospace customers. Contact Information: Patrick Walsh Director of Program Management Email: pwalsh@jfhe.com Phone: (248) 776-0016 www.jfhe.com
185

Henkel Technologies
Henkel Surface Technologies is a new name with a long and rich tradition. It is the result of the mergers of several leading suppliers of finishing, forming, plating, and assembly processes and services that consistently represent the most advanced technologies available to a wide range of industries. Among the companies that have been joined to form Henkel Surface Technologies are Parker Amchem, Novamax, Thiem, Teroson, and Diversified Technology, Inc. (DTI). The former Parker Amchem was the world's leading provider of technology for treating and protecting metal and plastic surfaces. Novamax brings extensive expertise in finishing and metalworking in areas that both augment and complement those provided by Parker Amchem. Thiem brings nearly 50 years experience in sealants, adhesives and corrosion control coatings. Together with Henkel Surface Technologies' Teroson line of specialty adhesives, sealants, protective and acoustic coatings, the two offer a full and comprehensive line of products. DTI's leadership in the development of lubricants for the aluminum and steel beverage can and the aluminum rolling mill industries, along with their other products, are closely allied with Parker Amchem cleaners, pretreatment coatings, and mobility-enhancing processes. The Engineering Services Group of Henkel Surface Technologies provides each industry group with comprehensive design and engineering functions. Among these are computerized monitoring and process control systems, line configuration, and production automation. These are coupled with the company's Chemical Systems management Group, which is capable of providing full-system chemicals responsibility, from order and inventory control through recovery and recycling of spent chemicals. Henkel Surface Technologies supports its processes and services with the world's largest and most experienced in-plant customer service team, with specialists serving each of its industry components. This team is further strengthened by our dedicated tech service centers in Duesseldorf and Heidelberg, Germany; Singapore, China; San Paulo, Brazil; and Madison Heights, MI. In these dedicated facilities we combine both the industry's most advanced R&D programs with extensive testing and analyses for our customers worldwide. Internationally, Henkel Surface Technologies is one of several business groups of Henkel Corporation, part of the Henkel Group, headquartered in Duesseldorf, Germany. With over 4,000 employees in the United States, and 56,600 worldwide, the Henkel Group has 200 companies in 55 countries, with annual sales of more than DM 21.3 billion (EUR 10.9 billion). We also manufacture a wide range of related metal treating products... for drawing and forming applications, for cleaning and deoxidizing metals, for anodizing, coloring, and electroplating metals; for spray booth maintenance, and for dozens of other applications. Our extensive line of adhesives and sealants have been developed to meet specific industry needs, particularly in automotive assembly. In addition to processes for metals, we offer a full line of cleaners, conditioners and rinse aids for improving paint finishes over plastic substrates. From the beginning, our R&D efforts have resulted in continuous improvements in the quality and performance of pretreatment systems, and particularly in developing environmentally-friendly technology. We have led the way in formulating energy-efficient low-temperature processes, in developing chrome-free treatments, dried-inplace coatings, and VOC-free autodeposition coatings, to cite just a few of our many innovations. Ultimately our highest priority is service tailored to our customers needs. Our global network of affiliates and licensees helps assure this on a worldwide basis. We maintain 11 state-of-the-art manufacturing and distribution plants in North America, and 49 worldwide, providing products, services, and support in 60 countries. Contact Information: Henkel Surface Technologies North American Headquarters 32100 Stephenson Hwy. Madison Heights, MI 48071 (248) 583 - 9300 Phone (248) 583 - 2976 Fax www.hstna.com 186

Lord Corporation Lord Corporation offers a constantly expanding line of elastomeric adhesives; urethane, acrylic, and epoxy adhesives for bonding sealing; and flocking applications. Lord Corporation also produces a wide range of coatings for exterior and interior components; and structural adhesives for bonding metal and plastic components ranging from body panels and closures to interior assemblies. Our commitment to structural adhesive systems for automotive applications was underscored by the relocation of Lord Corporation, Automotive Systems, to the Detroit Area in 1993. Since then, Versilok acrylic adhesives have become the industry standard in hem flange bonding on doors, hoods and deck lids for automotive vehicles. Contact Information: Phone: (800) 458-0456 Online: www.lord.com

187

ICON Creative Technologies Group CREATIVES at WORK


ICON offers its customers a broad spectrum of creative solutions, ranging from traditional print or fixed media, to digital solutions deployed on the web, on CD-ROM or as standalone applications. Our information architecture process and our development strategies allows us to deliver multiple products for a given venue or event, with similar branding, design and style. Our Services Include: Web development Creative ideas for marketing and communications deliverables On-line surveys & training modules B2B web-based solutions Videos & DVDs Email campaigns Corporate/sales presentations Trade show kiosks Training Modules CD-ROMs Print brochures, corporate reports, product catalogs

TECHNOLOGY at WORK
As a hybrid agency, our development services also cover application development on the web, PDAs, DVD and CD-ROM. Our programmers create customized solutions for customers who need proper management of data online, on extranets and intranets. Our data solutions help customers track marketing and communications metrics more effectively, gather key customer data, manage customer accounts, track orders, facilitate online purchasing and online content management. Custom application development begins with the development of process flow, usability and general data architecture. Our information architects completely document your entire solution prior to programming and server integration. Contact ICON Creative Technologies Group to discuss your custom programming needs and schedule a preliminary review of services.

Contact Information:

Robert Cleveland President ICON CTG 202 E. Huron, Suite 100 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Phone: (734) 239-3586 Email: rob.cleveland@iconicweb.com www.iconicweb.com
188