Abstract

High-strength sheet metal stamping, especially with Advanced High-Strength Steels (AHSS) like SCGA1180 (galvannealed 1180 MPa steel), faces significant formability challenges. A primary failure mode is splitting, where localized necking leads to cracks in formed panels. Ensuring quality in mass production is difficult due to limited real-time feedback in traditional stamping lines. This paper proposes an integrated approach using the ARGUS 3D optical forming analysis system for real-time split detection, in conjunction with AutoForm® stamping simulations, to proactively identify and eliminate splits. We provide a comprehensive introduction to stamping challenges with AHSS, including material formability limits and typical failure modes. A detailed technical overview of the ARGUS system is presented – covering its operating principle based on photogrammetry and dot-grid strain measurement, real-time data acquisition of full-field strains, and how it compares measured strains against Forming Limit Curves (FLCs) to flag critical areas. We then describe a methodology for integrating ARGUS in production stamping lines, using simulation predictions from AutoForm to focus monitoring on high-risk zones and enable prompt corrective actions (e.g. press adjustments or tool modifications) before producing excessive scrap. A case study on an automotive B-pillar inner panel made of SCGA1180 steel is presented, where ARGUS detected an incipient split in real time. The case study includes measured major/minor strain distributions, thickness reduction maps, and forming limit diagrams with and without the ARGUS-based intervention. We show that by comparing ARGUS measurements with simulation predictions, the stamping process was optimized to reduce peak strain from ~35% to ~25% (below the FLC), eliminating panel splits. Quantitative results include stress–strain data, forming limit diagram analysis, and a reduction of scrap rate from 5% of panels to essentially zero. Three tables detail material properties of SCGA1180 vs. conventional steels, simulation vs. measurement strain values at critical locations, and production quality metrics before and after ARGUS implementation. Five figures (including color-coded strain maps, FLC charts, and ARGUS integration schematics) and three illustrative graphs (e.g. strain vs. position along the panel) supplement the analysis. The findings demonstrate that real-time forming analysis with ARGUS, when integrated with upfront simulation, can significantly enhance stamped part quality, prevent splits, and eliminate unnecessary panel waste. The paper concludes with implications for Industry 4.0 quality control in stamping and recommendations for broader implementation of optical strain monitoring to achieve zero-defect manufacturing.

Keywords

  • NHIS
  • Nigerian Navy
  • Healthcare
  • Medical services

References

  1. 1. AutoForm Engineering, “Identifying and Resolving the Most Common Defects in Sheet Metal Forming,” StampingSimulation (blog), 2018.
  2. 2. K. Schmid and J. Coryell, “Stamping Assessment of Various 980 and 1180 MPa Steel Grades,” Proc. Auto/Steel Partnership Tech. Workshop, Detroit, MI, 2017.
  3. 3. S. Mitra, “ARGUS Professional Software: New Optical Solution for Forming Analysis,” Everything About Metrology (Industry News), 18 Mar. 2021. metrologicallyspeaking.commetrologicallyspeaking.com
  4. 4. Scan-Xpress Pty Ltd., “ARGUS – Optical Forming Analysis System,” Technical Application Note, Melbourne, Australia, 2017.
  5. 5. Omron Automation, “Split and Scratch Detection in Stamping,” Application Note, 2020. automation.omron.com
  6. 6. Advanced High-Strength Steel (AHSS) Insights, “Reference Panels and Formability System in Stamping,” AHSS Insights Blog, WorldAutoSteel, 2019.
  7. 7. Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 5 and Figure 6 from https://www.trilion.com/argus
  8. 8. Figure 4 B-pillar in location (It is the vertical support connecting the roof to the chassis)
  9. https://service.tesla.com/docs/BodyRepair/Body_Repair_Procedures/Model_X/HTML/en-us/GUID-85EEB2C9-CD62-4FB7-B98E-5C1C588A257F.html
  10. 9. https://northamerica.arcelormittal.com/media/vtmdpdq2/arcelormittal_data-sheet_dual-phase-steels
  11. 10. https://stampingsimulation.com/identifying-solving-common-defects-sheet-metal-forming
  12. 11. https://ahssinsights.org/forming/quality-control/quality-control/
  13. 12. https://www.metalformingmagazine.com/article/?/stamping-presses/high-speed/better-process-monitoring-via-in-press-detection
  14. 13. https://metrologicallyspeaking.com/gom-releases-a-new-software-version-for-sheet-metal-forming-analysis
  15. 14. https://www.scan-xpress.com.au/products/handheld-metrology/argus
  16. 15. https://www.scan-xpress.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Automotive-Deformation-Deformation-of-part-during-stamping.pdf
  17. 16. https://www.zeiss.com/metrology/us/systems/optical-3d/3d-testing/argus
  18. 17. Can Random Splits in Production be Brought Under Control?By Fabrizio Tinti, AutoForm.
  19. https://formingworld.com/random-splits-under-control/
  20. 18. https://cogniac.ai/industries/automotive/
  21. 19. D. D. Stoughton and C. Yoon, “A new approach for the theoretical calculation of forming limit diagrams,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., vol. 211, no. 6, pp. 894–903, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2010.12.005
  22. 20. J. F. Goudeau et al., “Strain measurement using digital image correlation for formability evaluation in sheet metal forming,” Exp. Mech., vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 203–211, 2003, doi: 10.1007/BF02412216
  23. 21. T. Kuwabara, “Measurement and analysis of material behavior under cyclic tension-compression using the servo-controlled tension-internal pressure testing machine,” Int. J. Plast., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 385–419, 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.ijplas.2006.03.007
  24. 22. H. Gese and H. Dell, “Numerical Prediction of the FLC with the Program Crach,” in Proc. FLC Zurich 06, Zurich, Switzerland, Mar. 2006.
  25. 23. B. Settles, “Active learning literature survey,” Univ. Wisconsin–Madison, Tech. Rep. 1648, 2010. [Available: https://burrsettles.com/pub/settles.activelearning.pdf]
  26. 24. K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1556
  27. 25. M. M. Shahabi, M. Soleimani, and F. Berto, “Fatigue prediction of advanced high-strength steels under multi-axial loading,” Int. J. Fatigue, vol. 104, pp. 148–157, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2017.06.007
  28. 26. J. Banabic, Sheet Metal Forming Processes: Constitutive Modelling and Numerical Simulation, Springer, 2010, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-88113-1