Distortion Near Cut-Off Edges of Channel, Hat-Channel and C-Channel Sections

Ona, Hiroshi; Jimma, Takashi

doi:10.1007/978-1-349-14620-8_75

Cited by 1 publication

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With increasing length of the outer flanges, the end flare of the inner flanges changes to a flaring out at both profile ends. In contrast to the investigation on Hat-profiles, end flare at the longer, inner flanges increases when the length of the shorter, outer flange increases [23].…”

Section: C-profilecontrasting

confidence: 61%

“…In addition, the greater the length of the outer flanges, the smaller the end flare at the inner flanges. [23] Moneke and Groche can further show that the forming strategy of the inner and outer flanges (simultaneous vs. sequential bending) greatly affects end flare. During the sequential forming of a Hat-profile, the flange, which was bent last, experiences significant end flare, while the flange, which was bent previously in the opposite direction, experiences strongly reduced end flare.…”

Section: Hat-profilementioning

confidence: 97%

“…The typical end flare of a U-profile is characterized by a flaring in at the lead end and a flaring out at the tail end, whereby the tail end flares out stronger than the lead end flares in. [23] Due to the strong dependency of end flare on the local contact state between flange and rolls as well as the associated plastic shear and bending strains, the profile deformation varies depending on the actual forming conditions. As a result, end flare can differ for every profile geometry and the deformation can change after each forming step.…”

Section: Residual Stresses In Roll Formingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The characteristic end flare of Hat-profiles is a flaring out of the longer, inner flanges at both profile ends [23,25,26], while the shorter, outer flanges flare in at the lead end and flare out at the tail end [27]. Due to the opposite bending direction of the inner and outer flanges during the forming process, the release of residual stresses creates torsional moments as well as bending moments that oppose each other [27].…”

Section: Hat-profilementioning

confidence: 99%

“…One the one hand, counter measures that induce opposite directed plastic strains during the forming process to counterbalance the distribution of residual stresses along the cross section. This is done by overbending and bending back [23] or by lowering and elevating the profile [27]. Regarding end flare of U-profiles, Moneke and Groche showed that by reducing the roll gap (no sheet thickness reduction due to the stiffness of the forming station), the bending load during the convex bending and reverse convex bending of the forming curve (Fig.…”

Section: Counter Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The origin of end flare in roll formed profiles

Moneke

Groche

2021

Int J Mater Form

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Roll forming is a continuous manufacturing process designed for large batch sizes. In order to economically produce roll formed parts with smaller batch sizes, the process setup times have to be reduced. During the setup, profile defects and especially the deformation caused by the release of the process-inherent residual stresses, also known as end flare, have to be counteracted. However, the knowledge regarding the creation of residual stresses is limited and the ability to reduce end flare usually depends on the experience of the process designer and the machine operator, which makes the setup time-consuming and cost-intensive. Therefore, in this paper the creation of end flare during the roll forming process is investigated in depth. As a result of this study explanation models for U-, C- and Hat-profiles, which link the creation of residual stresses to the local deformation during the forming process, are developed. Knowing how changes in the forming curve affect the creation of end flare allows to use a knowledge-based approach during the design and setup process, thereby reducing time and costs.

show abstract

Section: C-profilecontrasting

confidence: 61%

Section: Hat-profilementioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Residual Stresses In Roll Formingmentioning

confidence: 99%