Forming Tool Surface Compensation for Sheet Metal Springback

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing methods for correcting springback in sheet metal forming processes, such as global scaling approaches, result in rough approximations of workpiece stress states, leading to undesirable local deformations, pressure marks, and dimensional deviations, which can impair subsequent springback compensation and require time-consuming rework.

Innovation Solution

A method that simulates elastic-plastic forming operations using finite element methods to determine locally adapted scaling based on locally prevailing stresses, adjusting stress components, and generating a scaled working surface geometry that accounts for local shrinkage and distortions to improve springback compensation.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Manufacturing precision

If global scaling approaches are used to correct springback, then tool correction can be performed, but rough approximations of workpiece stress states result, leading to local deformations, pressure marks, and dimensional deviations

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedimensional accuracyVSAvoidstress state approximation accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent divides the workpiece into multiple finite elements and calculates stress states independently for each element. This segmentation allows local stress variations to be captured accurately, replacing the global scaling approach with a localized element-by-element analysis that determines precise scaling factors for each region based on its specific stress state.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies different scaling factors to different regions of the workpiece based on locally calculated stress states. Each finite element receives a customized scaling factor derived from its specific stress components, enabling localized correction of springback effects rather than applying a uniform global scaling factor, thereby avoiding local deformations and pressure marks.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

2Manufacturing precision

If global scaling approaches are used, then tool correction is achieved, but undesirable local deformations and pressure marks occur

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveoverall shape accuracyVSAvoidlocal deformations and pressure marks
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

By segmenting the workpiece into finite elements and analyzing stress states locally, the patent identifies specific regions prone to local deformations and pressure marks. This enables targeted correction strategies applied to individual elements, preventing the propagation of harmful local effects while maintaining overall shape accuracy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies localized quality control by calculating and applying specific scaling factors to each finite element based on its stress state. This local customization prevents uniform scaling-induced defects like pressure marks while maintaining global dimensional accuracy, as each region is corrected according to its specific mechanical behavior.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

3Manufacturing precision

If conventional tool correction methods are used, then springback compensation is attempted, but convergence behavior in tool setup deteriorates and time-consuming rework is required

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvespringback compensation accuracyVSAvoidtool setup time
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent performs preliminary finite element analysis and stress state calculation during the tool design phase, before actual tooling and production begin. By pre-calculating scaling factors for each finite element based on simulated stress states, the method enables direct application of corrected tool geometry without iterative adjustments, significantly reducing tool setup time and improving convergence behavior.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent replaces traditional iterative mechanical trial-and-error tool correction methods with a computer-based finite element analysis system. This substitution allows rapid calculation of precise scaling factors and corrected tool geometries, eliminating time-consuming physical rework and improving convergence toward the final tool design.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Applied Scientific Principles

This section explains which scientific principles are used to turn an abstract innovation direction into a practical engineering solution.

Function Achieved in This Case

This approach reduces local deformations and pressure marks, enhances the quality of springback compensation, and improves convergence behavior in tool setup, ensuring accurate production of complex formed parts with minimal rework.

Implementation Method 1

a) Simulating an elastic-plastic forming operation using a discretization method, in particular using a finite element method

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectElastic-plastic deformation: Deformation

Implementation Method 2

d) Simulating an elastic deformation of the workpiece starting from the first configuration and based on the local stresses

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectElastic deformation: Elasticity

Implementation Method 3

c) Adjusting the determined local stresses in terms of sign and/or magnitude

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectStress adjustment: Stress Relaxation

Data Source

PatentEP3866043B1Compensation for resilience during the production of shaped parts
Publication Date: 2025.12.17 INIGENCE GMBH
  • EP3866043B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3866043B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP3866043B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

The invention relates to a method for determining a springback-scaled effective surface of a forming tool for producing a complex formed part by drawing, to a method for producing a forming tool, to a method for producing a complex formed part, and to a computer program product. Use in computer-aided, simulation-based production planning.