Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
AvailableScienceDirect
Availableonline
onlineatatwww.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia Manufacturing 29 (2019) 512–519
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
18th International Conference on Sheet Metal, SHEMET 2019
18th International Conference on Sheet Metal, SHEMET 2019
Friction in sheet metal forming:
Friction in sheet metal forming:
influence
Manufacturing of surface roughness and 2017,
strain rate 2017,
on 28-30 June
influence ofSociety
Engineering surfaceInternational
roughness Conference
and MESIC
strain rate on
sheet metal 2017, forming simulation
Vigo (Pontevedra), Spain results
sheet metal forming simulation results
Costing
Matsmodels for
Sigvanta,b,*
a,b,*
capacity
, Johan optimization
Pilthammar a,b
a,b
, Johan Holin
c
c
Industry
, Jan Harmen 4.0: Trade-off
Wiebenga c
c
,
Mats Sigvant ,
Toni ChezanJohan
d Pilthammar e , Johan Hol , Jan Harmen Wiebenga
f ,
between usedd,,capacity
Toni Chezan
Bart Carleerand and Ton van den Boogaard
Bart Carleere andoperational efficiency
Ton van den Boogaard f
a
Volvo Cars, Dept 81153 Stamping CAE & Die Development, Olofström, Sweden
A. Santana , P. Afonso , A. Zanin , R. Wernke
a bBlekinge
Dept a81153
Volvo Cars,Institute
TriboForm
of Technology, a,*& Die Development,
Valhallavägen,
Stamping CAE 371 41b Karlskrona,
Olofström,Swedenb
Sweden
c b
BlekingeEngineering, Hengelosestraat
Institute of Technology, 500, 7521 371
Valhallavägen, AN Enschede, the Netherlands
41 Karlskrona, Sweden
c
TriboForm d
Tata aSteel, P.O. Hengelosestraat
UniversityBox
Engineering, 10.000,4800-058
of Minho, 1970500,
CAGuimarães,
IJmuiden,
7521 the Netherlands
AN Enschede,
Portugalthe Netherlands
e
AutoFormdTataEngineering,
Steel,
b P.O.Josep-v-Fraunhofer
Box 10.000,
Unochapecó, Str.IJmuiden,
13A, D-44227
1970 Chapecó,
89809-000 CA Dortmund, Germany
the Netherlands
SC, Brazil
e f
AutoFormUniversity of Twente,
Engineering, P.O. Box 217, 7500
Josep-v-Fraunhofer Str.AE, Enschede,
13A, D-44227The Netherlands
Dortmund, Germany
f
University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands

Abstract
Abstract
Abstract
Under the concept of "Industry 4.0", production processes will be pushed to be increasingly interconnected,
The quality of sheet metal formed parts is strongly dependent on the tribology and friction conditions that are acting in the actual
information based on a real time basis and, necessarily, much more efficient. In this context, capacity optimization
The quality
forming of sheet
process. metal
These formed
friction parts is strongly
conditions are then dependent
dependent on on the
the tribology
tribology and friction
system, conditions
i.e. the applied that
sheetarematerial,
acting incoating
the actual
and
goes
forming
tooling
beyond
material,
thethe
process. traditional
These frictionaim
lubrication
of capacity
conditions
and process
maximization,
areconditions.
then dependent oncontributing
Although the tribology
friction
also
is ofsystem,
for i.e.
organization’s
the applied
key importance,
profitability
sheet
it is currentlymaterial, and value.
coating
not considered and
in
Indeed,
detail lean metal
toolinginmaterial,
sheet management
the lubrication and
forming simulations. continuous
and process The improvement
conditions.
current industrial approaches
Althoughstandard
friction is toof usesuggest
key capacity
aimportance,
constant it is optimization
(Coulomb)currently instead
not considered
coefficient of
in
of friction,
maximization.
detail in
which sheetthe
limits The
metal study
forming
overall ofsimulations.
simulationcapacity optimization
The Since
accuracy. andyears,
costing
currenta industrial
few backmodels
standard is toisis
there ananaongoing
use important researchcoefficient
constantcollaboration
(Coulomb) topic
on thatofmodelling
friction deserves
friction,
contributions
which limits
between Volvo from
theCars, both
overall the practical
Tatasimulation
Steel, TriboForm and
accuracy. theoretical
Since a few
Engineering, perspectives.
years, back
AutoForm Thisispaper
there
Engineering presents
an ongoing
and the andofdiscusses
collaboration
University Twente. Ina previous
mathematical
on friction modelling
papers
model
between
by for capacity
Volvo
the authors, results management
Cars, Tata
fromSteel, based
studieson
TriboForm
lab scale anddifferent
Engineering, costing
studies ofAutoForm
body partsmodels
Engineering
at Volvo(ABC and
Cars, andtheTDABC).
both University A generic
of Twente.
parts in early tryout for model
In hasmodels
previous
new car been
papers
developed
by well
as andresults
the authors,
as parts it was
in usedlab
from
production tohave
analyze
scalebeen idle
studies capacity
and
presented.studies and
However,to the
of body design
parts strategies
at Volvoof
introduction towards
Cars,
a newboth the maximization
parts
friction in earlyin
model tryout of organization’s
for
the sheet new carforming
metal models
as well The
as parts
simulations
value. in production
forces the user
trade-off tohave
capacity gain been presented.
knowledge
maximization vsHowever,
about accuratethevalues
operational introduction
for newof
efficiency ahighlighted
newparameters
isinput friction and
model in
is the
andit question sheet
shown metalcapacity
current
that forming
modeling
simulations forces
assumptions.
optimization This
might thehide
paper user to gain
presents knowledge
results
operational aboutonaccurate
from studies
inefficiency. valuesonfor
the influence thenew
sheet input
metalparameters and question
forming simulation current
results from modeling
stamping
assumptions.
die2017
© surface This paper
Theroughness
Authors. andpresents results
introduction
Published by from
of
Elsevier studies
strain
B.V. rate on the influence
sensitivity in theon the sheet
sheet material metal forming
model. Thesimulation
study willresults from stamping
use a FE-model of a
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference a
die
part surface roughness
presented in and
previous introduction
papers. of strain rate sensitivity in the sheet material model. The study will use a FE-model of
part presented in previous papers.
2017.
© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
©© 2018
2019 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published by by Elsevier B.V.
B.V.
This is an open
Keywords: accessPublished under Elsevier
articleTDABC; the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is anCost
openModels;
accessABC;
article under the Capacity Management;license
CC BY-NC-ND Idle Capacity; Operational Efficiency
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an and
Selection openpeer-review
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee
under responsibility of the organizing committee of of SHEMET
SHEMET 2019. 2019.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of SHEMET 2019.
Keywords: Sheet Metal Forming Simulations; Material modeling; Friction modeling; Tribology
1. Introduction
Keywords: Sheet Metal Forming Simulations; Material modeling; Friction modeling; Tribology

The cost of idle capacity is a fundamental information for companies and their management of extreme importance
in modern production systems. In general, it is defined as unused capacity or production potential and can be measured
2351-9789 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
in several ways: tons of production, available hours of manufacturing, etc. The management of the idle capacity
This is an open
2351-9789 access
© 2018 Thearticle under
Authors. the CC BY-NC-ND
Published license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
by Elsevier B.V.
* Paulo
This is an Afonso.
Selection and Tel.:article
+351
openpeer-review
access 253
under 510
the761;
CC fax:
responsibility
under +351
of the 253
BY-NC-ND 604 741
organizing
license committee of SHEMET 2019.
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
E-mail address: [email protected]
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of SHEMET 2019.

2351-9789 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review
2351-9789 © under
2019responsibility
The Authors. of the scientificbycommittee
Published Elsevier of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference 2017.
B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of SHEMET 2019.
10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.169
 Mats Sigvant et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 29 (2019) 512–519 513
2 Mats Sigvant / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000

1. Introduction

Accurate sheet metal forming simulations are highly needed for developing cost effective production processes for
automotive panels. Effectiveness increase of the stamping process development enables shorter development time,
increased material utilization and less scrap and thereby provides a significant contribution to the current efforts of the
automotive industry to reduce the environmental burden of industrial processes.
Significant accuracy increase in sheet metal forming finite element simulations can be obtained by incorporation
of advanced friction models and advanced material models as has been demonstrated by the research of Volvo Cars in
collaboration with Tata Steel, TriboForm Engineering, AutoForm Engineering and the University of Twente. Both
model tests as well as car body parts in both try-out and production conditions have been studied and the conclusions
has been presented in [1-4].
The advanced friction model introduced by TriboForm predicts the dependence of the friction coefficient on contact
pressure, sliding velocity, plastic deformation and temperature. It provides a more realistic description of the local
contact condition in the simulation as compared to the constant Coulomb friction model, which is currently used as
the industrial standard. The TriboForm model also introduces parameters defining the tribology system: the tool
material and surface roughness, the sheet material, sheet surface roughness and sheet coating type and finally, the
lubricant type and quantity. Therefore, the use of the model requires additional assumptions for all these parameters.
Typically, in a test die, the variation of the sheet metal roughness is small and can be neglected while the lubricant
quantity can be maintained at a chosen constant value for a selected lubricant. On the other hand, in a die set used in
industrial applications, the active surfaces coming in contact with the sheet metal might present both variations of
surface roughness and differences in material type. It is common to use chrome plating or surface hardening treatments
as requested by the industrial application. Consequently, the actual tribology system of a die set needs to be defined
for each contact surface depending on surface material and the local surface roughness.
The extra parameters offered by the advanced friction and material models needs to be careful selected and a number
of simplifying assumptions is usually needed in order to keep the model manageable. At the same time, a sensitivity
analysis in order to determine the most important parameters would appear as an option but the overall complexity
prevents incorporation of all aspects in one model. A gradual approach is preferred in which the addition of new
parameters is justified by estimating the significance of the differences observed between simulation and experimental
results while performing sensitivity analysis on a reduced number of parameters.
This paper presents a model based study of a door inner panel. Characteristic for the part chosen for this study is
the complicated geometry typically found in closures applications where the challenge is to find a balance between
preventing splitting and controlling wrinkling while maximizing the part depth. The first studies performed on this
part with the most simple variants of the advanced TriboForm models, no strain rate sensitivity and one tribology
system for all active surfaces indicated the potential for further accuracy increase. The present study describes the
effects of the of tool roughness and material strain rate sensitivity effects on simulations predictions.

2. Current study

2.1. Part production at Volvo Cars

The part that was used in [2-3], i.e. the Rear Door Inner for Volvo X90 is also used in this study. The part is
produced in a mechanical transfer press-line at Volvo Cars in Olofström, Sweden. The corresponding velocity profile
of the press line has been recorded and implemented in the forming simulations. The blank is a contour cut from a
1700 mm wide coil and the pitch is 1553 mm. The stroke rate is set to 8 strokes/min. The sheet material is a VDA239
CR4 GI sheet material with a thickness of 0.7 mm, EDT surface finish and delivered by Tata Steel. The sheet material
is delivered with a Fuchs Anticorit RP4107S lubricant. Measurements in production have shown that the lubrication
amount ranges between 0.7 g/m2 and 2.2 g/m2 on both sides of the sheet. An average value of 2.0 g/m2 will be used in
this study. The tooling material is nodular iron GGG70L. The tools are hardened at the positive tool radii and chrome
plated at selected areas, see also Table 2.
514 Mats Sigvant et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 29 (2019) 512–519
Mats Sigvant / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000 3

2.2. Sheet Metal Forming Simulations

All sheet metal forming simulations in this study has been performed with AutoFormplus, version 7.0.4 and the
FE-model is displayed in Fig 2. The actual tooling geometries have been determined by 3D scanning. After the
scanning, an FE-analysis of the complete die and press structure loaded with the blank holder force used in production
has been performed and the deformed scanned surfaces in that FE-analysis after blank holder closing are used in the
sheet metal forming simulations, see [5] for more details. The material model used was BBC 2005, with material
parameters determined according to the method described in [10]. The used material data is presented in Table 1 and
Fig 1. The different settings for tool surface hardening, coating and Sa-roughness value in each part of the die in each
simulation are presented in Table 2. Both GI- and ZM-coated blanks are included in the study.

Table 1. Material data for the BBC 2005 material model.

σ0 σ45 σ90 σb R0 R45 R90 Rb M
[MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa]
CR4 156.6 160.0 156.0 187.0 1.81 1.34 1.88 0.98 4.5

Fig 1. Hardening curves used in the forming simulations.

Table 2. Tool surface hardening, coating and Sa-value used in the different simulations.
Simulation Upper Binder Die
Lower Binder Punch
[µm] [µm]
Reference Laser Hardened, 0.45 Chrome Plated, 0.35
1 Laser Hardened, 0.35 Chrome Plated, 0.35
2 Laser Hardened, 0.75 Chrome Plated, 0.35
3 Laser Hardened, 0.45 Chrome Plated, 0.20
4 Laser Hardened, 0.45 Chrome Plated, 0.50

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. The Reference Model

In papers [2-3], only one friction model was used for all die surfaces due to limitations in the interface between
TriboForm Analyzer and AutoForm at that time. However, in the die used in production, the die surface is divided
into two areas, the upper binder is laser hardened and the die surface is chrome plated. The lower binder is also laser
hardened. The first step in this study was therefore to include these modifications in the FE-model in order to bring
 Mats Sigvant et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 29 (2019) 512–519 515
4 Mats Sigvant / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000

it closer to the die used in production. The simulation results from this modified model was then compared with the
simulation results from the previous FE-model used in [2-3]. For both GI- and ZM-coated blanks, it was concluded
that major strains increased slightly while the draw-in was slightly reduced. For the remainder of this study, the
updated model is the reference.

Fig 2. The AutoForm FE-model used in the study. The different friction surfaces in Table 2 are also displayed. The Upper Binder and the Die is a
single structure moving as one unit in the simulation.

3.2. Influence of the upper and lower binders tool surface roughness on the results

The set-up of Simulations 1 and 2 in Table 2 are designed to study the effects on the simulation results of the tool
surface roughness on the upper and lower binders. The friction forces on these surfaces together with the draw beads
are controlling the flow of the sheet material during the stamping process. One could therefore assume that the
Sa-value will have a large influence on the simulations results, in this case the major strain and the draw-in. For the
GI-system, this assumption is confirmed, at least partly. Major strains and draw-in in Simulation 1, which uses a low
Sa-value, is similar to results with the reference model. On the other hand, in Simulation 2, the major strains are higher
and the draw-in is lower than for the reference model. The difference in major strain between Simulation 1 and 2 and
the reference model are displayed to the left and in the middle in Fig 3. A positive value in Fig 3 indicates an increase
of the major strain compared to the reference model using the S a-value in that particular simulation. Similarly, a
negative value indicates a decrease of the major strain compared to the reference model using the S a-value in that
particular simulation.
The results form Simulation 1 and 2 using a ZM-system shows the same trends, but the magnitude of the differences
is smaller than for the GI-system, see right plot in Fig 3.

Simulation 1 – Reference model, GI Simulation 2 – Reference model, GI Simulation 2 – Reference model, ZM

Fig 3. Difference in major strain between Simulation 1 and the reference model with the GI-system (left), Simulation 2 and the reference model
with the GI-system (middle), Simulation 2 and the reference model with the ZM-system (right).
516 Mats Sigvant et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 29 (2019) 512–519
Mats Sigvant / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000 5

Studying all these results, two conclusions can be made. Firstly, the response from both the GI- and ZM-system is
non-linear. A binder surface with a high Sa-value result in higher major strains and lower draw-in compared to a binder
surface with a low Sa-value. However, at certain Sa-value, the difference in results becomes small for further reduction
of the Sa-value. The second interesting conclusion is that the effect described above is more pronounced for the
GI-system.

Fig 4. Friction coefficients as function of contact pressure for different Sa-values for the GI-system (left) and ZM system (right) in
Simulation 1 and2.

3.3. Influence of the die and punch tool surface roughness on the results

The set-up Simulations 3 and 4 in Table 2 are designed to study the effects on the simulation results of the tool
surface roughness of the die and the punch. On these surfaces, there are less displacement of the sheet material, at
least compare to the upper and lower binder surfaces. The major deformation mode is instead bending the sheet and/or
stretching sheet material between two radii. The assumption therefore is that the surface roughness on these surfaces
will a less influence on the simulation results compared to the tool surface roughness on upper and lower binder and
this is confirmed for both the GI- and ZM-system. Once again, the simulations with the highest Sa-values are
generating the largest differences in major strain and draw-in compared to the reference model, see Fig 5, and for
these simulations are the difference larger for the GI-system than for the ZM-system.

Simulation 4 – Reference model, ZM

Simulation 4 – Reference model, GI

Fig 5. Difference in major strain between Simulation 4 and the reference model with the GI-system (left), Simulation 4 and the reference model
with the ZM-system (right).

The pressure dependency of the two different systems in Simulations 3 and 4 are displayed in Fig 6. These values
are also valid for a temperature of 21°C, no straining of the sheet material and 1 mm/s relative velocity between the
sheet and die surface. The friction coefficients for the tribological systems in Simulation 3 and 4 are similar to those
displayed in Fig 4, but the current systems have lower friction coefficients. For the ZM-system, the difference friction
coefficient is small for the three different Sa-values. The similarities between Fig 4 and Fig 6 implies that also the tool
surface roughness on the die and punch should have an influence on the results, at least for high S a-values.
 Mats Sigvant et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 29 (2019) 512–519 517
6 Mats Sigvant / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000

However, there is also another fact that must be considered, namely the contact pressure at different location in the
stamping die. The contact pressures are high in the draw beads and low on the other parts of the upper and lower
binder. On the die and punch are also the contact pressure high. Therefore should the focus be on differences at low
pressures in Simulations 1 and 2 and Fig 4, while the focus should be at high pressures in Simulations 3 and 4 and
Fig 6. In Fig 4, the largest differences in friction coefficients are at low pressures and this result in a large effect on
the major strains and the draw-in. In Fig 6, the differences between friction coefficients for the three different
Sa-values is small at high contact pressures which then explains the small effect on the simulation results for
Simulation 3 and 4.

Fig 6. Friction coefficients as function of contact pressure for different S a-values for the GI-system (left) and ZM system (right) in Simulation 3
and 4.

3.4. Influence of strain rate sensitivity on the results

The reference model, using both the GI- and the ZM-system, has been simulated with a material model that includes
a positive strain rate effect, i.e. an increase of the strain rate will increase the strength of the material. The idea is that
this will reduce the major strains in the part and in Fig 7 are the difference in major strain with and without strain rate
sensitivity for the two tribology systems presented.

Strain rate sensitivity – Reference model, GI Strain rate sensitivity – Reference model, ZM

Fig 7. Difference in major strain for the reference model including strain rate sensitivity compared to without strain rate sensitivity. The difference
for the GI-system is displayed in the left plot and the difference for the ZM-system is displayed in the right plot.

The results in Fig 7 are interesting. Using the GI-system, the major strain is reduced, but not in all areas. In fact,
the major strain in the majority of the part is almost the same with and without strain rate sensitivity. However, one
area with a large reduction is in the door bow in the upper part of the door. For ZM-system, there is hardly no difference
in the major strain between the strain rate sensitive model and the reference model. In order to try to understand these
results, the plastic strain rate in the two simulations are compared and presented in Fig 8.
 Mats Sigvant / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000 7
518 Mats Sigvant et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 29 (2019) 512–519

GI

ZM

Fig 8. Plastic strain rate in the sheet mid surface at the end of the forming operation in the model with strain rate sensitivity for the GI-system (top)
and the ZM-system (bottom).

The results in Fig 8 is showing significant differences in strain rate, depending on if the GI- or the ZM-system is
used. In general, the strain rates are higher with the GI-system. The area in the door bow is once again showing the
largest differences, almost five times higher strain rates with the GI-system than with the ZM-system. In some other
areas, e.g. in the lower part of the door, the strain rate are twice as high for the GI-system compared to the ZM-system.
If the same comparisons of the plastic strain rates are done for the reference model, the differences between the GI-
and the ZM-system are similar to those presented in Fig 8, i.e. the introduction of strain rate sensitivity is not the
reason for these differences displayed in Fig 8. Instead, it is once again differences between the two tribology models
that generate the results presented in Fig 8. This was not at all expected, but nevertheless important and interesting.

4. Conclusion and further work

The tool surface roughness has a significant effect on simulation accuracy as the differences in punch, die and
binder areas tribology systems results in different balance between stretching in the punch area and material flow into
the die cavity. The increase of the binder surface roughness while the punch and die roughness are kept constant results
in significant higher restraining and is explained by the friction coefficient increase with increasing the tool surface
roughness for the GI system. The effect is also present but it is smaller for the ZM system.
Similarly, the die and punch tools surface roughness variation study indicates a more sensitive GI system as
compared to the ZM system. In this case, the effects are smaller as compared to the binder variations and demonstrates
the non-linearity of the tool surface variation effects originating from both friction model behavior and part geometry
complexity.
The studied model reacts also in the case of incorporating the strain rate sensitivity as compared to the more simple
situation of a rate independent model. The effects are part location dependent with the areas experiencing large sliding
in the part wall more affected as compared to the area in the punch region. Again, the two tribology systems appear
to behave differently with the ZM-system less sensitive for this effect as compared to the GI-system.
 Mats Sigvant et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 29 (2019) 512–519 519
8 Mats Sigvant / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000

The similar behavior of the strain rate sensitivity and the reference model suggests that the most important effect
originates from the friction model. This observation stresses the need of both accurate friction model data parameters
and also the need for further investigations toward sliding speed effects characterisation.
This study illustrates the importance of tool roughness control in sheet metal forming. From an experimental
perspective it indicates both a challenge and an opportunity. Non-uniform tool surface roughness might result in
significant differences between the predicted behavior as compared to the experimental behavior during tool try-out
or part production and would require additional trial and error experiments in order to obtain the desired restraining
of the material flow needed for obtaining good quality pressed parts. At the same time as the effect appears to be
sliding velocity dependent, the results of the tests might be significant different between series production and tool
try-out conditions and contributing in this way in a negative way to the process of die set conditioning.
From the simulation perspective, the tool surface roughness effects can increase the difficulty of assessing the
simulation accuracy while comparing the simulation results to experimental draw in and strain distribution
measurements.
The opportunity suggested by this study originates form the fact that tool roughness can be used as an additional
parameter to control material flow, provided that it is maintained between acceptable limits in order to prevent
undesired phenomena as galling and the associated tool pollution. Modern additive manufacturing techniques
available today might be used to modulate the tool surface roughness in a way that would result in a good part quality
and higher forming depth.
Finally, a comment on the effects of the used coating system. The use of novel coatings on the sheet metal for
automotive applications like the ZM-system, which is less sensitive to tool roughness and sliding speed, provides
advantages. One example is a possibility for reducing the costs associated to tool manufacturing and production ramp
up at the start of a new car project and the behavior of the ZM coating system provides a good basis for further increase
of the manufacturing productivity.
The future work will involve similar studies as the current one on different parts and different tribology systems.
One interesting case would be to study the sensitivity to tool surface roughness for sheets with pre-lubs of the 1st and
2nd generation that now are available and used in the automotive industry.

References

[1] M. Sigvant, J.Hol, T. Chezan, T. van den Boogaard, Friction modeling in sheet metal forming simulations: Application and validation on an
U-bend product, Proceedings of FTF 2015, Zurich, Switzerland.
[2] M. Sigvant, J. Pilthammar, J. Hol, J.H. Wiebenga, T. Chezan, B. Carleer, A.H. van den Boogaard, Friction and lubrication modeling in
sheet metal forming simulations of a Volvo XC90 inner door, IOP Conference Series: Material Science and Engineering 159 (1) (2016).
[3] M. Sigvant, J. Pilthammar, J. Hol, J.H. Wiebenga, T. Chezan, B. Carleer, A.H. van den Boogaard, Friction in sheet metal forming:
Simulations of the Volvo XC90 inner door, Proceedings of FTF 2016, Ohlstadt, Gemany.
[4] M. Sigvant, J. Pilthammar, J. Hol, J.H. Wiebenga, T. Chezan, B. Carleer, A.H. van den Boogaard, Friction in Sheet Metal Forming
Simulations: Introduction of New Sheet Metal Coatings and Lubricants, Proceedings of IDDRG 2018, Waterloo, Canada.
[5] J. Pilthammar, M. Sigvant, S. Kao-Walter, Introduction of elastic die deformations in sheet metal forming simulations, International Journal
of Soild and Structures, 151 (2018) 76-90
[6] R. Grueebler, P. Hora, Temperature dependent friction modeling for sheet metal forming. International Journal of Material Forming, 2
(2009) 251–254.
[7] M. Ludwig, C. Müller, P. Groche, Simulation of dynamic lubricant effects in sheet metal forming processes. Key Engineering Materials, 438
(2010) 171–178.
[8] J. Hol, V.T. Meinders, M.B. de Rooij, A.H. van den Boogaard, Multi-scale friction modeling for sheet metal forming: The boundary
lubrication regime. Tribology Int., 81 (2014) 112–128.
[9] J. Hol, V.T. Meinders, H.J.M. Geijselaers, A.H. van den Boogaard, Multi-scale friction modeling for sheet metal forming: the mixed
lubrication regime. Tribology Int., 85 (2015) 10–25.
[10] D. Banabic, B. Carleer B, D.-S. Comsa, E. Kam, A. Krasivskyv, K. Mattiasson, M. Sester, M. Sigvant, X. Zhang, Sheet Metal Forming
Processes, Constitutive Modelling and Numerical Simulation, Springer, (2010).