w w w. a u t o s t e e l. o r g

Transcription

1 Great Designs in Steel is Sponsored by: AK Steel Corporation, ArcelorMittal Dofasco, ArcelorMittal USA, Nucor Corporation, Severstal North America and United States Steel Corporation

2 2010 FORD RAPTOR HYDRO-FORMED FRONT BUMPER Conrad M. Kudelko John Cass Ford Motor Company Amino NAC

3 2010 Ford Raptor Truck - Street

4 2010 Ford Raptor Truck - Off-Road

5 Bumper Comparison 2010 F-150 Bumper 2010 Raptor Bumper

6 Raptor Bumper Styling Demands Exposed bumper Painted low-gloss Versus F-150, Raptor has: - Greater sweep (PV) -Wider (Y-axis) -Deeper (X-axis) Deep exposed pockets with acute angles

7 110 Years of Exposed Steel Bumpers No bumpers Forged iron bars made by blacksmiths Flat strap steel bands

8 110 Years of Exposed Steel Bumpers s High carbon spring steel st chromed bumper: Safety in night driving s 340MPa low carbon, low alloy, formed cold

9 Exposed Bumpers - Other A. B. C. E. D. F.

10 110 Years of Exposed Steel Bumpers 1980s Roll-forming Exposed Hydro-forming? -In 1998 Amino produced first exposed hydro-formed bumper (front) Isuzu F-series truck in Japan

11 When Hydro-Forming Makes Sense Sheet hydro-forming: Low volume: 60,000 /year or less Large parts Minimal tooling Short Lead times Higher variable cost is tolerated Tubular-hydro-forming Part consolidation- general cost rule: When 1 part can replace 3 or more Elimination of engineered scrap

12 Ford SVT-Program Demands Low volume vehicle: 7500 annually Minimal tooling Higher variable cost tolerated Utilize F-150 bracketry Satisfy Baja off-road durability Robust corrosion protection Meet damage requirements

13 Ford SVT- Process/Material Selection Process: Sheet hydro-forming Material Selection: 1.6mm 140MPa DD Steel No return flanges Corrosion prevention: - 60/60G Electro-galvanized - Trim edges edge-sanded -Improved E-coat - Anti-chip urethane primer - Low-gloss matte finish topcoat

14 Advanced High-Strength Steels

15 Stress-Strain Curves for Select Sheet Steel Grades Engineering Stress (ksi) (Ultra High Strength) (High Strength) (Bake Hardening) (Dent Resistant) (Draw ing Quality) Engineering Strain (%) ArcelorMittal Grades DDQ+ DQSK HFT340 IsoDent BH210 BH280 HF50Y60T HF80Y100T DF140T M190

16 Bumper Concern- Dentability 2000 Toyota Tundra Front Bumper 1.45 mm, IF Steel

17 Bumper Concern- Dentability Use typical sheet-metal tests: Oil-canning Tests Not suitable for 1.6mm + Palm dimpling gages Alternative to minimize denting Increase current material thickness 1.6 to 1.8mm Increase yield strength using BH-210

18 Shopping Cart Test Isometric View Plan View

19 Shopping Cart Test Results 10mph Empty Cart (60 pounds of cart weight) Impact at Corner with bumper beam upgaged to 1.8mm and material grade changed to BH-210

20 Styling Ramifications BH mm Gage Open radii Increase radii from R18 to R20 Open up surface by 3 to 5 degrees Decrease depth of pocket by 10 mm

21 4.2 K/h Damageability Hood Upper Grille Fender Fascia Upper Headlamp Bumperette Bumper Beam

22 4.2 K/h Damageability 25 mm excessive barrier intrusion into grille Barrier Plan View Grille

23 Beam Improvement Study Description Baseline 1.6mm 140 MPa Baseline 2.0mm Baseline Beam 1.6mm, 340 MPa Material Excessive Intrusion % Improvement Comments 25 mm Does not meet target 21 mm 16 Does not meet target 16 mm 36 Does not meet target Conclusion: Beam improvements insufficient to minimize barrier intrusion

24 Bumperette Improvement Study Description Excessive intrusion (mm) % Improvement in intrusion Baseline + Bumperette + egg crate reinforcement Comments Does not meet target Baseline + Bumperette + egg crate reinforcement + moved forward by 12mm Baseline + Bumperette + egg crate reinforcement + moved forward by 12mm + Egg crate vertical ribs doubled; all ribs normal to barrier Baseline + Bumperette + egg crate reinforcement + moved forward by 12mm Egg crate vertical ribs doubled; all ribs normal to barrier + egg crate material changed to 30% glass filled poly propylene Baseline + Bumperette + egg crate reinforcement + moved forward by 12mm Egg crate vertical ribs doubled; all ribs normal to barrier + egg crate material changed to 30% glass filled poly propylene + additional gussets on the ribs 6 76 Does not meet target 3 88 Does not meet target Does not meet target Meets intrusion target

25 Engineering Conclusions Must engineer bumper for hydro-forming: Low volume means low tooling capital Tooling is minimal No return flanges Corrosion factors need consideration because of lower gage, lack of flanging Lower strength steel and gage may require new types of tests Design bumper as a system; don t rely on beam to perform all the work

26

27 Amino Locations A AMINO Corp, Fujinomiya, Japan ANAC, St. Thomas, Ont.

28 Plant Overview 65,000 sq. feet on 7 acres 3 Station Sheet Hydro-form production line. 800Ton Tryout Press TS16949 / ISO14001 CAD Unigraphics, CATIA5 CMM Machine

29 ANAC Production Line Schematic Tool Pallet Changer Di-Stacker & Robot Station 3 Servo, Restrike/Flange 8,000kN Transfer Robots Station 2 Servo Trim/Pierce 8,000kN Station 1 FFP-Servo 30,000kN

30 Sheet Hydro-Forming

31 Comparison (Conventional vs. Sheet Hydro-Forming) Deeper Draw with Better Quality Thinning Split Contacts Shock Lines Building & less contact Better holding & uniform Conventional Sheet Hydro-forming

32 Draw Tooling

33 Sheet Hydro-Forming Process 1. Blank Set 2. Clamping 3. Forming 4. End Stroke 5. Slide up 6. Remove panel

34 Comparison of Draw Ratio D o /d p = 2.8 D o /d p = 2.0 CONVENTIONAL FFP

35 Higher Formability Of Sheet Hydro-Forming Flexible Styling. Low tooling investment Fewer forming operations Dimensional Stability Better Surface quality

36 Flexible Production System Fluid Forming Laser Trimming Multiple Forming

37 Raptor Draw Simulation PAMSTAMP simulation Showed some concern areas of possible wrinkling and thinning in fog light pocket Decided to verify concerns in die tryout, before making further concessions

38 Draw Die Part drawn home in one operation

39 Stamping Production Video

40 Restrike Die Fog light pocket restruck Master gauge holes added

41 Trimming and Piercing All piercing and trimming done on 5 axis laser

42 Restrike/Flange Die Restrike die used again to form ten Grille attachment tabs These tabs were added to the product after Restrike Die was completed Grille attachment tabs

43 Two-Tone Paint Two-tone paint (Foundry Black and Grille Silver) E-coat primer and wet paint topcoat

44 Assembly All assembly done manually Bumperette sub-assemblies developed for this assembly Majority of mounting brackets carry-over from F-150 program

45 Capability Study Average Ppk of 6.4; lowest Ppk of 3.28 FORD BUMPER CAPABILITY STUDY SPC 01 SPC 02 SPC 03 SPC 04 SPC 13 SPC 05 SPC 07 (+) OUTBORD (+) OUTBORD (+) OUTBORD (+) OUTBORD (+) OUTBORD (+) OUTBORD (+) OUTBORD ( ) INBOARD ( ) INBOARD ( ) INBOARD ( ) INBOARD ( ) INBOARD ( ) INBOARD ( ) INBOARD TOL. +/ 3.50 MM TOL. +/ 3.50 MM TOL. +/ 3.50 MM TOL. +/ 3.50 MM TOL. +/ 3.50 MM TOL. +/ 3.50 MM TOL. +/ 3.50 MM MAX MAX MAX MAX MAX MAX MAX MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN AVG AVG AVG AVG AVG AVG AVG RANGE RANGE RANGE RANGE RANGE RANGE RANGE Std. Dev Std. Dev Std. Dev Std. Dev Std. Dev Std. Dev Std. Dev Ppk 3.28 Ppk 8.37 Ppk 8.07 Ppk 7.49 Ppk 4.35 Ppk Ppk 4.29 SPC 12 SPC 08 (+) OUTBORD (+) OUTBORD ( ) INBOARD ( ) INBOARD TOL. +/ 3.50 MM TOL. +/ 3.50 MM MAX MAX MIN MIN AVG AVG RANGE RANGE Std. Dev Std. Dev Ppk 5.03 Ppk 4.75 SPC 11 SPC 06 (+) OUTBORD (+) OUTBORD ( ) INBOARD ( ) INBOARD TOL. +/ 3.50 MM TOL. +/ 3.50 MM MAX MAX MIN MIN AVG AVG RANGE RANGE Std. Dev Std. Dev Ppk 8.83 Ppk 5.28 SPC 14 SPC 15 SPC 10 SPC 16 SPC 17 SPC 09 (+) OUTBORD (+) OUTBORD (+) OUTBORD (+) OUTBORD (+) OUTBORD (+) OUTBORD ( ) INBOARD ( ) INBOARD ( ) INBOARD ( ) INBOARD ( ) INBOARD ( ) INBOARD TOL. +/ 3.50 MM TOL. +/ 3.50 MM TOL. +/ 3.50 MM TOL. +/ 3.50 MM TOL. +/ 3.50 MM TOL. +/ 3.50 MM MAX MAX MAX MAX MAX MAX MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN AVG AVG AVG AVG AVG AVG RANGE RANGE RANGE RANGE RANGE RANGE Std. Dev Std. Dev Std. Dev Std. Dev Std. Dev Std. Dev Ppk 7.37 Ppk 6.44 Ppk 6.83 Ppk 7.39 Ppk 4.69 Ppk 8.82

46 Summary Was able to produce bumper that could not be formed conventionally, and gave customer steel bumper they required Draw bumper in one operation Low tooling investment (50% less than conventional stamping tools) Maintained dimensional and surface requirements of part Part has full PPAP and Appearance Approval

47 Acknowledgements Ravir Bhatnagar & William Bernert- ArcelorMittal Scott Kahlbaum- Roush Industries Detroit Public Library - Skillman Branch National Automotive History Collection

48 Great Designs in Steel is Sponsored by: AK Steel Corporation, ArcelorMittal Dofasco, ArcelorMittal USA, Nucor Corporation, Severstal North America and United States Steel Corporation