Blog, homepage-featured-top, News
We thank Dennis McPike, Zapp Tooling Alloys, Inc. for contributing this insightful case study.
Multi-phase steels are complex to cut and form, requiring specific tooling materials. The tooling alloys which have been used for decades, such as D2, A2 or S7, are reaching their load limits and often result in unacceptable tool life. The mechanical properties of the sheet steels achieve tensile strengths of up to 1800 MPa with elongations of up to 40%. Additionally, the tooling alloys are stressed by the work hardening of the material during processing.
The challenge to process AHSS quickly and economically makes it necessary for suppliers to manufacture tooling with an optimal tool steel selection. The following case study illustrates the tooling challenges caused by AHSS and the importance of proper tool steel selection.
A manufacturer of control arms changed production material from a conventional steel to an Advanced High-Strength Steel (AHSS), HR440Y580T-FB, a Ferrite-Bainite grade with a minimum yield strength of 440 MPa and a minimum tensile strength of 580 MPa. However, the tool steels were not also changed to address the increased demands of AHSS, resulting in unacceptable tool life and down time.
According to the certified metal properties, the 4 mm thick FB 600 material introduced into production had a 525 MPa yield strength, 605 MPa tensile strength, and a 20% total elongation. These mechanical properties did not appear to be a significant challenge for the tool steels specified in the existing die standards. But the problems encountered in production revealed serious tool life problems.
To form the FB 600 the manufacturer used D2 steel. D2 was successful for decades in forming applications. This cold work tool steel is used in a wide variety of applications due to its simple heat treatment and its easily adjustable hardness values. In this case, D2 was used at a hardness of RC 58/60.
While tools manufactured from D2 can withstand up to 50,000 load cycles when forming conventional steels, these particular D2 tools failed after only 5,000 – 7,000 cycles during the forming of FB 600. The first problems were detected on a curl station where mechanical overload caused the D2 tools to break catastrophically, as seen in Figure 1 below. Since the breakage was sudden and unforeseeable, each failure of the tools resulted in long changeover times and thus machine downtime.
Figure 9: Breakage seen in control arm curl tool made from D2, leading to premature failure. Conversion to a PM tool steel having higher impact resistance led to 10x increase in tool life.M-20
Since the cause of failure was a mechanical breakage of the tools, a tougher alternative was consequently sought. These alternatives, which included A2 and DC53 were tested at RC 58-60 and unfortunately showed similar tool life and failures.
Metallurgical analysis indicated that the failure resulted from insufficient impact strength of the tool steel. This was caused by the increased cross-cut that the work-hardened AHSS exerted on the curl. As an alternative material, a cold work steel with a hardness of 58-60, a tensile strength of about 2200 – 2400 MPa and high toughness was sought. These properties could not be achieved with conventional tool steels. The toolmaker used a special particle metallurgy (PM) tool steel to obtain an optimum combination of impact strength, hardness and wear resistance.
Particle metallurgy (PM) tool steels, due to their unique manufacturing process, represent improvements in alloy composition beyond the capabilities of conventional tool steels. Materials with a high alloy content of carbide formers such as chromium, vanadium, molybdenum and tungsten are readily available. The PM melting process ensures that the carbides are especially fine in particle size and evenly distributed (reference Table 1). This process results in a far tougher tool steel compared to conventional melting practices.
Table 1: Elemental Composition of Chosen Tool Steel
The manufacturer selected Z-Tuff PM® to be used at a hardness of RC 58-60. Employing the identical hardness as the conventional cold work steel D2, a significant increase in impact strength (nearly 10X increase as measured by un-notched Charpy impact values) was realized due to the homogeneous microstructure and the more evenly distributed precipitates. This positive effect of the PM material led to a significant increase in tool life. By switching to the PM tool steel, the service life is again at the usual 40000 – 50000 load cycles. By using a steel with an optimal combination of properties, the manufacturer eliminated the tool breakage without introducing new problems such as deformation, galling, or premature wear.
AHSS creates tooling demands that challenge the mechanical properties of conventional tool steels. Existing die standards may not be sufficient to achieve consistent and reliable performance for forming, trimming and piercing AHSS. Proper tool steel grade selection is critical to ensuring consistent and reliable tooling performance in AHSS applications. Powder metallurgical tool steels offer a solution for the challenges of AHSS.
Blog, homepage-featured-top, main-blog
Dr. Donald Malen, College of Engineering, University of Michigan, reviews the use of two recently developed Powertrain Models, which he co-authored with Dr. Roland Geyer, University of California, Bren School of Environmental Science.
The use of Advanced High-Strength Steel (AHSS) grades offer a means to lightweight a vehicle. Among the benefits of this lightweighting are less fuel used over the vehicle life, and better acceleration performance. Vehicle designers as well as Greenhouse Gas analysts are interested in estimating these benefits early in the vehicle design process. G-13
Models are constructed for this purpose which range from the use of a simple coefficient, (for example fuel consumption change per kg of mass reduction), to very detailed models accessible only to specialists which require knowledge of hundreds of vehicle parameters. Draw backs to the first approach is that the coefficient may be based on assumptions about the vehicle which do not match the current case. Drawbacks to the detailed models are the considerable expense and time needed, and the lack of transparency in the results; It is difficult to relate inputs with outputs.
A middle way between the simplistic coefficient and the complex model, is described here as a set of Parsimonious Powertrain Models. G-10, G-11, G-12 Parsimony is the principle that the best model is the one that requires the fewest assumptions while still providing adequate estimates. These Excel spreadsheet models cover Internal Combustion powertrains, Battery Electric Vehicles, and Plug-in Electric Vehicles, and predict fuel consumption and acceleration performance based on a small set of inputs. Inputs include vehicle characteristics (mass, drag coefficient, frontal area, rolling resistance), powertrain characteristics (fuel conversion efficiency, gear ratios, gear train efficiency), and fuel consumption driving cycle. Model outputs include estimates for fuel consumption, acceleration, and a visitation map.
Physics of the Models
Fuel consumption is determined by the quantity of fuel used over a driving cycle. The driving cycle specifies the vehicle speed vs. time. An example of a driving cycle is the World Light Vehicles Test Procedure (WLTP) cycle shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Fuel Consumption Driving Cycle (WLTP Class 3b).
Given the velocity history of Figure 1, the forces on the vehicle resisting forward motion may be calculated. These forces include inertia force, aerodynamic drag force, and rolling resistance. The total of these forces, called tractive force, must be provided by the vehicle propulsion system, see Figure 2.
Figure 2. Tractive Force Required.
Once vehicle speed and tractive force are known at each point of time during the driving cycle, the required torque and rotational speed may be determined for each of the drivetrain elements, as shown in Figure 3 for an Internal Combustion system, and Figure 4 for a Battery Electric Vehicle.
Figure 3. Internal Combustion Powertrain.
Figure 4. Battery Electric Vehicle Powertrain.
In this way, the required torque and speed of the engine or motor may be determined. Then using a map of efficiency, shown to the right in Figures 3 and 4, the energy demand is determined at each point in time. Summing the energy demand over time yields the fuel used over the driving cycle. The reader is referred to References 1 and 2 for a much more in depth description of the models.
Example Application
As an example application, consider the WorldAutoSteel FutureSteelVehicle (FSV).W-7 The FSV project, completed in 2011, investigated the weight reduction potential enabled with the use of AHSS, advanced manufacturing processes and computer optimization. The resulting material use in the body structure is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. FutureSteelVehicle steel grade application.
This use of AHSS allowed a reduction in the vehicle curb mass from 1200 kg to 1000 kg. What are the effects of this mass reduction on fuel consumption and acceleration performance? The inputs required for the powertrain model are shown in Table 1 for the base case.
Table 1: Model Inputs for Base Case.
The results provided by the powertrain model are summarized in the acceleration-time vs. fuel consumption graph of Figure 6. Point A is the base case at 1200 kg curb mass. The lightweight case with same engine is shown as Point B. Note the fuel consumption reduction and also the acceleration time reduction. Often the acceleration time is set as a requirement. For the lighter vehicle, the engine size may be reduced to achieve the original acceleration time and an even greater reduction in fuel consumption as shown as Point C.
Figure 6. Summary of results of base vehicle and reduced mass vehicle.
Using the parsimonious powertrain models allows such ‘what-if’ questions to be answered quickly, with minimal data input, and in a transparent way. The Parsimonious Powertrain Models are available as a free download at worldautosteel.org.
homepage-featured-top, main-blog
In this edition of AHSS Insights, George Coates and Menachem Kimchi get back to basics with important fundamentals in forming and joining AHSS.
As the global steel industry continues its development of Advanced High-Strength Steels (AHSS), including 3rd Gen products with enhanced formability, we’re reminded that successful application is still dependent on the fundamentals, both in forming and joining. In this blog article, we address some of those forming considerations, as well as highlighting common joining issues in manufacturing.
Forming Considerations
The somewhat lower formability of AHSS compared to mild steels can almost always be compensated for by modifying the design of the component and optimizing blank shape and the forming process.
In stamping plants, we’ve observed inconsistent practices in die set-up and maintenance, surface treatments and lubrication application. Some of these inconsistencies can be addressed through education, via training programs on AHSS Application Guidelines. These Guidelines share best practices and lessons learned to inform new users on different behaviors of specific AHSS products, and the necessary modifications to assist their application success. In addition to new practices, we’ve learned that applying process control fundamentals become more critical as one transitions from mild steels to AHSS, because the forming windows are smaller and less forgiving, meaning these processes don’t tolerate variation well. If your present die shop is reflective of housekeeping issues, such as oil and die scrap on the floor or die beds, you are a candidate for a shop floor renovation or you will struggle forming AHSS products.
Each stamping operation combines three main elements to achieve a part meeting its desired functional requirements:
There is good news, in that our industry is responding with new products and services to improve manufacturing performance and save costs.
As an example, lubrication application is often overlooked, and old systems may be ineffective. In the forming of AHSS, part temperatures can become excessive, and break down lubricant performance. Figure 1 shows an example of part temperatures from an Ohio State University study conducted with DP 980 steels.O-1
Figure 1: Example Temperature distribution for DP 980 Steel.O-1
Stampers often respond by “flooding” the process with extra lubricant, thinking this will solve their problem. Instead, lubricant viscosity and high temperature stability are the most important considerations in the lubricant selection, and new types exist to meet these challenges. Also, today there are new lubrication controllers that can finely control and disperse wet lubricants evenly across the steel strip, or in very specific locations, if forming requirements are localized. These enable better performance while minimizing lubricant waste (saving cost), a win-win for the pressroom.
Similarly, AHSS places higher demands on tool steels used in forming and cutting operations. In forming applications, galling, adhesive wear and plastic deformation are the most common failure mechanisms. Surface treatments such as PVD, CVD and TD coatings applied to the forming tool are effective at preventing galling. Selection of the tool steel and coating process used for forming AHSS will largely depend on the:
- Strength and thickness of the AHSS product,
- Steel coating,
- Complexity of the forming process, and
- Number of parts to be produced.
New die materials such as “enhanced D2” are available from many suppliers. These improve the balance between toughness, hardness and wear resistance for longer life. These materials can be thru-hardened, and thus become an excellent base material for PVD or secondary surface treatments necessary in the AHSS processing. And new tool steels have been developed specifically for hot forming applications.
Joining Considerations
In high-volume production different Resistance Spot Welding (RSW) process parameters can be used depending on the application and the specifications applied. Assuming you chose the appropriate welding parameters that allows for a large process window, manufacturing variables may ruin your operation as they strongly effect the RSW weld quality and performance.
Material fit-up
One of the great advantages of the RSW process is the action of clamping the material together via the electrode force applied during the process. However due to the pre-welding condition/processing such as the stamping operation, this fit-up issue, as shown in Figure 2, can be very significant especially in welding an AHSS product. In this case the effective required force specified during the process setup for the application is significantly reduced and can result in an unacceptable weld, over-heating, and severe metal expulsion. If the steels are coated, higher probability for Liquid Metal Embrittlement (LME) cracking is possible.
Figure 2: Examples of Pre-Welding Condition/Processing Fit-Up Issues.
For welding AHSS, higher forces are generally required as a large part of the force is being used to force the parts together in addition to the force required for welding. Also, welding parameters may be set for pre-heating with lower current pulses or current up-slope to soften the material for easier material forming and to close the gap.
Electrodes Misalignment
During machine set up, the RSW electrodes need to be carefully aligned as shown in Figure 3A. However, in many production applications, electrode misalignment is a common problem.
Electrode misalignment in the configurations shown in Figure 3B may be detrimental to weld quality of any RSW application. Of course, the electrode misalignment shown in this figure is exaggerated but the point is that it happens frequently on manufacturing welding lines.
In these cases, the intendent contact between the electrodes is not achieved and thus the current density and the force density (pressure) required for producing an acceptable weld cannot be achieved. With such conditions, overheating, expulsion, sub-size welds and extensive electrode wear will result. Again, if coated steels are involved, the probability for LME cracking is higher.
Note also that following specifications or recommendations for water cooling the electrode is always important for process stability and extending electrode life.
Figure 4: Sequence of Squeeze Time and Welding Current Initiation.
Squeeze Time
The squeeze time is the time required for the force to reach the level needed for the specific application. Welding current should be applied only after reaching this force, as indicated in Figure 4. All RSW controllers enable the easy control of squeeze time, just as with the weld time, for example. In many production operations, a squeeze time is used that is too low due to lack of understanding of its function. If squeeze time is too low, high variability in weld quality in addition to severe expulsion will be the result.
The squeeze time required for an application depends on the machine type and characteristics (not an actual welding parameter such as weld time or welding current for example).
Some of the more modern force gauges have the capability to produce the curve shown in the Figure so adequate squeeze time will be used. If you do not know what the required squeeze time for your machine/application is, it is recommended to use a longer time.
For more on these topics, browse the Forming and Joining menus of these Guidelines.
