Sheet metal forming is characterized by various process parameters such as the forming sequence, shapes of products and dies, friction parameters, forming speed etc. A designer is faced with the challenge of identifying optimal process parameters for minimum springback. Currently, a vast majority of such applications in practice are guided by trial and error and user experience. In this paper, we present two useful designer aids; an evolutionary algorithm and a neural network integrated evolutionary algorithm. We have taken a simple springback minimization problem to illustrate the methodology although the evolutionary algorithm is generic and capable of handling both single and multiobjective, unconstrained and constrained optimization problems. The springback minimization problem has been modeled as a discrete variable, unconstrained, single objective optimization problem and solved using both optimization methods. Both the algorithms are capable of generating multiple optimal solutions in a single run unlike most available optimization methods that provide a single solution. The neural network integrated evolutionary algorithm reduces the computational time significantly as the neural network approximates the springback instead of performing an actual springback computation. The results clearly indicate that both the algorithms are useful optimization tools that can be used to solve a variety of parametric optimization problems in the domain of sheet metal forming.

1.
Stevenson
,
R.
,
1993
, “
Springback in Simple Axisymmetric Stampings
,”
Metall. Trans.
,
24
, pp.
925
934
.
2.
Zhang
,
L. C.
,
Lu
,
G.
, and
Leong
,
S. C.
,
1997
, “
V-shaped Sheet Forming by Deformable Punches
,”
J. Mater. Process. Technol.
,
63
, pp.
134
139
.
3.
Richmond, O., and Davenpeck, M. L., 1962, “A Die Profile for Maximum Efficiency in Strip Drawing,” 4th US Cong. Appl. Mech., ASME, p. 1053.
4.
Roy
,
S.
,
Ghosh
,
S.
, and
Shivpuri
,
R.
,
1996
, “
Optimal Design of Process Variables in Multi-pass Wire Drawing by Genetic Algorithm
,”
J. Manuf. Sci. Eng.
,
118
, pp.
244
251
.
5.
Srinivas
,
N.
, and
Deb
,
K.
,
1994
, “
Multiobjective Optimization Using Nondominated Sorting in Genetic Algorithms
,”
Evol. Comput.
,
2
(
3
), pp.
221
248
.
6.
Ray, T., Tai, K., and Seow, K. C., 2000, “An Evolutionary Algorithm for Constrained Optimization,” Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO 2000, Las Vegas, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp. 771–777.
7.
Ray
,
T.
,
Tai
,
K.
, and
Seow
,
K. C.
,
2001
, “
Multiobjective Design Optimization by an Evolutionary Algorithm
,”
Eng. Optimiz.
,
33
(
4
), pp.
399
424
.
8.
Deb
,
K.
, and
Kumar
,
A.
,
1995
, “
Real Coded Genetic Algorithms with Simulated Binary Crossover: Studies on Multimodal and Multiobjective Problems
,”
Complex Syst.
,
9
(
6
), pp.
431
454
.
9.
Hornik
,
K.
,
Stinchhcombe
,
M.
, and
White
,
H.
,
1989
, “
Multilayer Feedforward Neural Networks are Universal Approximators
,”
Neural Networks
,
2
, pp.
359
366
.
10.
Ray
,
T.
,
Gokarn
,
R. P.
, and
Sha
,
O. P.
,
1996
, “
Neural Network Applications in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering
,”
Artif. Intell. Eng.
,
1
, pp.
213
226
.
11.
Barlat
,
F.
, and
Lian
,
J.
,
1989
, “
Plastic Behavior and Stretchability of Sheet Metals. Part I: A Yield Function for Orthotropic Sheets Under Plane Stress Conditions
,”
Int. J. Plast.
,
5
, p.
51
51
.
You do not currently have access to this content.