The document discusses using Altair HyperForm to optimize blank shapes and nesting for stamping parts to reduce material costs. Through blank optimization and nesting simulations, the company was able to finalize blank shapes with 98% accuracy on the first trial, improve strip layout yields by 5-12%, and reduce product development time from 3 days to 1 day. While blank optimization and nesting were effective for most parts, some challenges remained for parts with curvature or multiple blanks. Overall, using HyperForm improved design confidence and helped eliminate tool trials to validate new processes.

1. Cost Reduction on Input Material Through Blank Optimization & Nesting
by Using Altair HyperForm.
Mr. Mohan Raj. H Mr. Thirunavukkarasu. K Mr. Udayakumar. A Mr. Sivalingam. T
Deputy Manager Deputy Manager Deputy Manager Deputy Manager
AMW Auto Components Ltd. AMW Auto Components Ltd. AMW Auto Components Ltd. AMW Auto Components Ltd.
34 km, Bhachau Road 34 km, Bhachau Road 34 km, Bhachau Road 34 km, Bhachau Road
Bhuj-370020 India Bhuj-370020 India Bhuj-370020 India Bhuj-370020 India
Abstract
To obtain the demand of Low cost product with High Quality is the main “MANTRA” of each & every organization to keep their business
successful on the competitive global market. Even though this “MANTRA” has been set by management/customer, to execute & thrive
on this, engineering should initiate and realize Value engineering and Improvement proposals for making the products more cost
competitive. Simulation based virtual validation of engineer’s concepts are engrossed to the triumph of “MANTRA”.
Process validation study was made on stamping parts of Truck COWL. The purpose of this study is:-
1. To reduce input material by optimized strip layout,
2. To reduce lead time on Blank shape & size finalization,
3. To validate & predict the user concept design to control spring back,
4. And making First Time Thru (FTT) on Tool design.
To carry out the study of process validation we used of Altair HyperWorks.
COWL- Connecting Bracket Part:
Fig. 1
Simulation Driven Innovation 1

2. Process Methodology:
Process Flow: (Total 4 Stages carried out to complete the product)
This is the process method of connecting bracket manufacturing. Each and every operation plays a
major roll to get a quality product. The following parameters/issues to be taken care on each operations.
Blanking :
This is first operation, Blank shape & size leads to trim line
confirmation of the final product dimensions,
First Forming:
This is second operation, in this positioning of the blank is most
important which decides the entire geometry of the final product,
Final Forming:
This is third operation, which forms 100% of final product profile
& dimensions. (Critical zone: Forming shape, Wrinkle, Crack &
Dimensional variations)
Piercing:
This is final operation, Clamping location/Datum holes are
pierced.
Fig. 2
Simulation Driven Innovation 2

3. Blank Optimization:
Like above mentioned product, we have more products with more complex profile on this project. For
complicated & irregular profile parts, we faced problems for finalizing the Blank shape. Even though Radioss
One step Analysis provides the blank shape in a single click but still we can’t able to take into consideration
as a final blank shape. To achieve the exact final shape we used the tool, Blank Optimization which helps us
to freeze the blank shape thru virtual simulation itself. The developed blanks thro optimizer is matching 98%
of actual component & this gives confident to implement & manufacture the Blanking tool without any trials.
When the trim edges are dimensionally important for any fit & functional requirements, then we may
require an additional trimming operation after forming to get the required product dimensions. And also it
requires an excess material for trimming allowance. By using optimization tool we can get the perfect trim
edge dimensions directly after forming without any additional operation & material.
In blank optimization, precise capturing of the final part profile after performing an incremental
forming analysis, the deviation between the final part edge from the analysis and the targeted part edge is
measured and applied to original blank profile. A new blank shape is then generated based on the applied
deviation. Material is removed or added in areas corresponding to deviations of the part edge with respect to
the target edge.
Results & Discussions:
Setup for First Forming Results for First Forming
Fig. 3 Fig. 4
Simulation Driven Innovation 3

4. Setup for Final Forming Results for Final Forming
Fig. 5 Fig. 6
Process for Blank Optimization:
Input for Blank Optimization
Fig. 7
Simulation Driven Innovation 4

5. Generated Trim line on Formed State File (STA) matching with actual
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Generated Trim line on Initial Blank
Fig. 10 Fig. 11
Simulation Driven Innovation 5

6. Spring Back Analysis:
Even though the designer develops the tools with good formability & thinning, there is another painful area,
which is to control the spring back on the components. Our Altair HyperWorks also address these issues and
it can predict and validate the spring back on the component for the conceptual design developed by the
designer. Altair HyperWorks not only supports the formability validation it also help us to achieve the
functional parameter of the components like fitment condition.
Fig. 13
Fig. 12 Fig. 14
We have done the forming simulation for all the components along with the spring back analysis. On the
simulation results we have got a spring back around 1.2mm (0.6mm/side) with the regular flat forming punch
(Fig 13). To control the spring back we have done several iteration with various design. At last we have
controlled the spring back within 0.1mm through the corner setting method with ironing groove in forming
punch (Fig 14). If we have done the same thing as practical, surely it takes long time to prove this concept.
Whereas thru, our Altair HyperWorks we have achieved the solution in an hours.
Simulation Driven Innovation 6

7. Simulation Result:
Fig. 15 Fig. 16
Before Spring Back Analysis with Regular Flat Punch After Spring Back Analysis with Regular Flat Punch
Fig. 17 Fig. 18
Before Spring Back Analysis with Ironing Groove Punch After Spring Back Analysis with Ironing Groove Punch
Almost we had 25 parts with the similar kind of `U’ Bending products in this project, Hence we planned to
validate the Simulation vs. Actual for 1 part before applying the concept to all the parts. In our validation
process we have validated both flat punch & Ironing groove punch and the results are co-relates to the
simulation in both the cases.
Actual Result:
Spring Back on Flat punch No Spring Back on Ironing Punch
Fig. 19 Fig. 20
Simulation Driven Innovation 7

8. Nesting:
Blank Nesting is one of the most important things in the stamping die design, which determines the optimal
material usage through geometric nesting of blanks. If the nesting has been made in manual, there we can
only validate the target percentage of material utilization. But we can’t able to find whether it is the best
optimal nesting. Whereas in Altair HyperWorks we can get the optimal strip layout in a single click and helps
us, to reduce input material cost & strip layout design time.
In manual nesting it’s very difficult to have various kinds of iterations, like rotating & mirroring the part and
nesting it to the maximum yield. Here in Blank nesting we make various kinds of iteration easily and selected
the best yield for the blanking tool design.
Generic method Strip layout:
Fig. 21
Strip width 71.8mm and the Pitch 39.2mm. Yield percentage 72.5%
As a theory, when the yield percentage is more than 65%, then it will be called as economic strip layout.
When, we designed with generic strip layout, designer will always look up to get more than the targeted
percentage of 65%. In Fig. 21 the layout gives yield percentage of 72% hence it looks to be a good design.
But we are not sure it is the best optimal design.
In such kind of situation HyperWorks Blank nesting supports us to get the optimal layout design. For the
same part we have done in blank nesting tool, there we got the yield percentage of 77%. It is 5% more than
the designer’s idea.
Simulation Driven Innovation 8

9. Thru Blank nesting tool method Strip layout
Fig. 22
Strip width 71.0mm and the Pitch 37.2mm. Yield percentage 77.34%
This is a simple example shown here to understand the power of Blank nesting. We have done the blank
nesting for all the parts, there we have saved yield percentage of 5% to 12% for various products when
compared to designers concepts. It is huge savings in input material cost.
Simulation Driven Innovation 9

10. Benefits Summary:
S. No Description Genral Method Thru Simulation Remarks
1 Process Design 2 Hrs 2 Hrs
2 Blank Devlopment 3 Hrs 0.5 Hrs
3 Blank Shape & Size Accuracy 70% (Based on Experience) 98%
4 Blank Finalization Min 2 Trials Achieved on First Trial
5 Process Verification It will be validated during trials only 2 Hrs
6 Failure Prediction Limitation based on Experience Predicted in Process Verification itself
7 Spring Back Prediction Limitation based on Experience 1 Hr
8 Strip layout 3 Hrs 10 Mins (Thru Nesting)
9 Strip Size Finalization After Trials only During Design Stage Itself
10 Blank Tool Manufacturing After Trails with Machined Blank During Initial Development itself
11 Process Devlopment Lead Time 3 days 1 day
12 Product Proving 3 to 4 Trials 1 Trial
In general Process design method it take lead time of 4 days for finalize the process whereas
thru simulation we can complete it in 2 days with more confidence with verification results.
For 1 part we saved 2 days on process finalization, as a project (55 parts) we have saved
around 110 mandays. Thru this new product development lead time was reduced.
Challenges:
In Blank optimization tool, we faced problem on getting the final part edge when the part have a curvature
and placing blank on non-normal to the Z-axis. For such kind of product we can’t able to use the blank
optimization tool, Hence we gone more iteration with different blank size to confirm the dimensions of the
product.
In Blank Nesting tool, if we do nesting with 2 blanks we get the results within 5 to 10 minutes. While using
more than 2 blanks it takes more hours to calculate the same. When we have a same sheet thickness parts,
we have planned to have 3 or 4 blanks in single blanking tool to reduce process cost & increase the
productivity. In such areas when we tried the nesting it has taken huge time to conclude the layout.
Future Plans:
Earlier we have done only wheel based products, right now we used for our COWL project and implemented
successfully short span of time. So we planned to apply it for all our stampings business like Cabin Project,
White goods Businesses also.
Simulation Driven Innovation 10

11. Conclusions:
HyperWorks-Blank Nesting & Optimization we have saved input material cost by using optimized strip layout
design. The HyperWorks analytical software validates our innovations & provides confident to implement the
same in work shop physically. It saved our time by eliminating lot of tool trials. It also helps us to overcome
the resource availability for process development.
Simulation Driven Innovation 11