journal article·2020-05Open access

From specified product tolerance to acceptable material and process scatter: an inverse robust optimization approach

O. Nejadseyfi, H. J. M. Geijselaers, E. H. Atzema, M. Abspoel, A. H. van den Boogaard

Abstract

Abstract Production efficiency in metal forming processes can be improved by implementing robust optimization. In a robust optimization method, the material and process scatter are taken into account to predict and to minimize the product variability around the target mean. For this purpose, the scatter of input parameters are propagated to predict the product variability. Consequently, a design setting is selected at which product variation due to input scatter is minimized. If the minimum product variation is still higher than the specific tolerance, then the input noise must be adjusted accordingly. For example this means that materials with a tighter specification must be ordered, which often results in additional costs. In this article, an inverse robust optimization approach is presented to tailor the variation of material and process noise parameters based on the specified product tolerance. Both robust optimization and tailoring of material and process scatter are performed on the metamodel of an automotive part. Although the robust optimization method facilitates finding a design setting at which the product to product variation is minimized, the tighter product tolerance is only achievable by requiring less scatter of noise parameters. It is shown that the presented inverse approach is able to predict the required adjustment for each noise parameter to obtain the specified product tolerance. Additionally, the developed method can equally be used to relax material specifications and thus obtain the same product tolerance, ultimately resulting in a cheaper process. A strategy for updating the metamodel on a wider (noise) base is presented and implemented to obtain a larger noise scatter while maintaining the same product tolerance.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Manufacturing Process and Optimization · Advanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms · Optimal Experimental Design Methods

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (27)

Show source-provided references
1. Wiebenga JH, Weiss M, Rolfe B, van den Boogaard AH (2013) Product defect compensation by robust optimization of a cold roll forming process. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 213(6):978–98610.1016/j.jmatprotec.2013.01.006 ↗
2. Wiebenga JH, Atzema EH, van den Boogaard AH (2015) Stretching the limits of forming processes by robust optimization: A numerical and experimental demonstrator. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 217:345–35510.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.11.018 ↗
3. Hu J, Peng Y, Li D, Yin J (2007) Robust optimization based on knowledge discovery from metal forming simulation. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 187–188:698–70110.1016/j.jmatprotec.2006.11.070 ↗
4. Atzema E, Abspoel M, Kömmelt P, Lambriks M (2009) Towards robust simulations in sheet metal forming. Int J Mater Form 2(1):35110.1007/s12289-009-0534-5 ↗
5. Havinga J, van den Boogaard AH, Klaseboer G (2017) Sequential improvement for robust optimization using an uncertainty measure for radial basis functions. Structural and multidisciplinary optimization 55(4):1345–136310.1007/s00158-016-1572-5 ↗
6. Lee SH, Chen W (2009) A comparative study of uncertainty propagation methods for black-box-type problems. Struct Multidiscip Optim 37(3):239–25310.1007/s00158-008-0234-7 ↗
7. Stockert S, Wehr M, Lohmar J, Hirt G, Abel D (2018) Improving the thickness accuracy of cold rolled narrow strip by piezoelectric roll gap control at high rolling speed. CIRP Annals 67(1):313–31610.1016/j.cirp.2018.04.107 ↗
8. Cardozo N, Aanonsen S (2009) Optimized trishear inverse modeling. J Struct Geol 31(6):546–56010.1016/j.jsg.2009.03.003 ↗
9. António CC, Castro CF, Sousa LC (2005) Eliminating forging defects using genetic algorithms. Mater Manuf Process 20(3):509–52210.1081/AMP-200053557 ↗
10. Ponthot JP, Kleinermann JP (2006) A cascade optimization methodology for automatic parameter identification and shape/process optimization in metal forming simulation. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 195(41):5472–5508. John H. Argyris Memorial Issue. Part II10.1016/j.cma.2005.11.012 ↗
11. Nejadseyfi O, Geijselaers HJM, van den Boogaard AH (2019) Robust optimization based on analytical evaluation of uncertainty propagation. Eng Optim 51(9):1581–160310.1080/0305215X.2018.1536752 ↗
12. Keating EH, Doherty J, Vrugt JA, Kang Q (2010) Optimization and uncertainty assessment of strongly nonlinear groundwater models with high parameter dimensionality. Water Resour Res 46:W10517. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR00858410.1029/2009WR008584 ↗
13. Pacheco CC, Dulikravich GS, Vesenjak M, Borovinsek M, Duarte IMA, Jha R, Reddy SR, Orlande HRB, Colaço MJ (2016) Inverse parameter identification in solid mechanics using Bayesian statistics, response surfaces and minimization. vol 36
14. Forrester A, Sobester A, Keane A (2008) Engineering design via surrogate modelling: a practical guide John Wiley & Sons10.1002/9780470770801 ↗
15. Bonte MHA, Fourment L, Do T, van den Boogaard AH, Huétink J (2010) Optimization of forging processes using finite element simulations. Structural and Multidisciplinary optimization 42(5):797–81010.1007/s00158-010-0545-3 ↗
16. Marler RT, Arora JS (2005) Function-transformation methods for multi-objective optimization. Eng Optim 37(6):551–57010.1080/03052150500114289 ↗
17. Chen W, Jin R, Sudjianto A (2005) Analytical variance-based global sensitivity analysis in simulation-based design under uncertainty. Journal of mechanical design 127(5):875–88610.1115/1.1904642 ↗
18. Abspoel M, Neelis BM, van Liempt P (2016) Constitutive behaviour under hot stamping conditions. J Mater Process Technol 228:34–4210.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.05.007 ↗
19. Abspoel M, Scholting ME, Lansbergen M, An Y, Vegter H (2017) A new method for predicting advanced yield criteria input parameters from mechanical properties. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 248:161–17710.1016/j.jmatprotec.2017.05.006 ↗
20. Wiebenga JH, van den Boogaard AH (2014) On the effect of numerical noise in approximate optimization of forming processes using numerical simulations. International Journal of Material Forming 7:317–335
21. Dang V, Labergère C, Lafon P (2018) “Adaptive metamodel-assisted shape optimization for springback in metal forming processes,” International Journal of Material Forming10.1007/s12289-018-1433-4 ↗
22. Nejadseyfi O, Geijselaers HJM, van den Boogaard AH (2019) Evaluation and assessment of non-normal output during robust optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 59(6):2063–207610.1007/s00158-018-2173-2 ↗
23. Wang H, Xie H, Cheng W, Liu Q, Shen Y (2018) Multi-objective optimisation on crashworthiness of front longitudinal beam (FLB) coupled with sheet metal stamping process. Thin-Walled Structures 132:36–4710.1016/j.tws.2018.07.050 ↗
24. Das I, Dennis JE (1997) A closer look at drawbacks of minimizing weighted sums of objectives for Pareto set generation in multicriteria optimization problems. Structural optimization 14:63–6910.1007/BF01197559 ↗
25. Bolstad PV, Swank W, Vose J (1998) Predicting Southern Appalachian overstory vegetation with digital terrain data. Landscape ecology 13(5):271–28310.1023/A:1008060508762 ↗
26. Haftka RT, Gürdal Z (1992) Elements of structural optimization springer netherlands10.1007/978-94-011-2550-5 ↗
27. Marler RT, Arora JS (2010) The weighted sum method for multi-objective optimization: new insights. Structural and multidisciplinary optimization 41(6):853–86210.1007/s00158-009-0460-7 ↗