An AHSS material card for stamping simulation is more than a tensile-strength value attached to a steel grade. It is the mathematical description used by the CAE model to represent how the sheet begins to yield, how it hardens, how it flows under different loading directions, when localized necking occurs and, in more advanced models, how it unloads, fractures and responds to strain rate.
As automotive stamping moves toward AHSS, UHSS and 3rd Gen steels, the quality of this material input is becoming one of the main limitations on simulation reliability. Two simulations can use the same part geometry, die surfaces and process sequence yet produce different draw-in, thinning, press load or springback results if their material cards are built from different tests, correlations or modeling assumptions.
The emerging engineering question is therefore no longer only “Do we use CAE?” It is increasingly: Does the CAE input represent the real material closely enough for the decision we are trying to make?
Great Designs in Steel 2026 included dedicated presentations on improved metal-forming material cards, digital-twin material characterization of dual-phase steels and coupled stamping simulation with deformable tools and presses. Together, these topics show an industry shift from simply running simulations toward improving the physical realism of the data and models used inside them. The technical examples discussed in this article are industry references rather than Changdong material-testing claims.
Describes how the material strengthens as plastic strain increases and influences load, thinning, necking and springback predictions.
Represents anisotropic sheet behavior under multi-axial loading and affects material flow, draw-in and strain distribution.
FLC data supports necking prediction, while more advanced fracture models may be required for surface, shear or edge cracking.
Kinematic hardening, elastic-modulus evolution and strain-rate sensitivity become important when springback or dynamic material behavior must be predicted.
A stamping-simulation material card is a set of experimental data, mathematical models and fitted parameters used by finite-element software to represent sheet-metal behavior. At a basic level, it may contain a hardening curve, yield model and forming-limit information. More advanced cards can include kinematic hardening, changing elastic modulus, strain-rate sensitivity and fracture criteria. The correct level of characterization depends on what the simulation is expected to predict.
A grade designation such as DP980 describes a material category and strength range, but it does not uniquely define the complete constitutive model needed by forming simulation.
Actual sheet behavior varies with steel producer, product design, thickness, processing route, rolling direction and production lot. Even within the allowed specification range, yield strength, hardening behavior and formability can move enough to influence the stamping process.
A CAE model therefore needs more than a grade label. It needs a defensible set of data and modeling assumptions that are appropriate for the material and the engineering question.
A library card may represent one coil, one supplier, an older test program or a set of correlations. Another card with the same nominal grade name may use a different yield model, hardening law or FLC. If the user does not know how the card was generated, the apparent precision of the simulation can exceed the precision of the input data.
| Material Input | Physical Meaning | Simulation Results Influenced |
|---|---|---|
| Hardening curve | How flow stress increases as plastic deformation develops | Press load, thinning, strain distribution, necking and springback |
| Yield surface / anisotropy | How the sheet responds to different combinations and directions of stress | Draw-in, metal flow, major/minor strain distribution and thinning |
| Forming Limit Curve | The strain combinations associated with localized necking | Traditional forming-limit and necking-risk evaluation |
These three categories provide a useful foundation, but increasingly complex AHSS applications often require more than this basic description.
A standard tensile test provides useful engineering information, but after diffuse necking begins the conventional gauge-section data can no longer be interpreted as a simple uniform stress-strain state.
Forming simulations may require the hardening curve at plastic strains well beyond uniform elongation. Engineers therefore need either a mathematical extrapolation or additional characterization methods such as DIC-based tensile evaluation or bulge testing.
The selected extrapolation or hardening law matters because it affects the predicted material resistance as deformation increases. Two cards that match the early tensile curve can still diverge substantially later in the forming process.
Rolled sheet metal does not necessarily behave identically in every direction. Longitudinal, diagonal and transverse tensile tests provide information about directional plastic behavior, but advanced yield-surface models may require additional biaxial, shear or plane-strain data.
This becomes important when a complex automotive part contains several strain paths in one component. A material model fitted only to uniaxial data may reproduce one loading condition while providing less reliable predictions under another.
The choice of yield criterion is therefore not simply a software setting. It determines how the experimental material data are translated into multi-axial forming behavior.
A forming limit curve is commonly used to assess localized necking risk, but the method used to obtain or estimate that curve matters.
Correlation-based FLCs can be fast and inexpensive, but they rely on assumptions derived from particular groups of materials. Experimental FLC testing requires more time and cost but provides data from the actual sheet being characterized.
This distinction becomes more important for newer AHSS grades. A correlation developed around older mild or high-strength steels should not automatically be assumed to describe a newer multi-phase steel accurately.
The traditional FLC is primarily a localized-necking criterion. For many conventional steels, necking develops before final fracture, making the FLC a useful forming-risk indicator.
Advanced high-strength steels can introduce additional failure modes. Surface cracking, shear fracture and sheared-edge cracking can occur without following the same necking sequence.
When those risks are important, a material card or simulation setup may need fracture criteria specifically calibrated for the relevant failure mode. An FLC alone cannot represent every type of AHSS cracking.
This is particularly relevant to the UHSS Trim Die Design and Tool Life topic, where the trimmed edge can become the critical failure location during downstream forming.
Springback is especially sensitive to how the material model represents loading, unloading and reverse loading. A simple isotropic hardening model with a constant elastic modulus can miss important behavior that occurs when sheet bends and unbends over drawbeads and tool radii.
Kinematic hardening helps represent the Bauschinger effect during stress reversal, while advanced models can account for changes in apparent elastic modulus after plastic deformation.
For AHSS automotive parts where dimensional stability is critical, these inputs can substantially change predicted springback. Accurate die compensation therefore depends not only on a good finite-element mesh or die surface, but also on the unloading behavior represented by the material model.
See Springback Compensation in Automotive Stamping for the broader tooling perspective.
Mechanical characterization is often performed under quasi-static laboratory conditions, while material deformation during production stamping can occur much faster.
The 2026 GDIS work on digital-twin characterization of dual-phase steel specifically investigated strain-rate effects together with high-resolution DIC measurements and automated forming-limit evaluation. The study demonstrates why a static material datasheet may not fully describe the material response needed for a more complete digital model.
Strain-rate sensitivity varies by material and should not be generalized from one steel grade to another. The engineering question is whether the rate dependence is large enough to influence the simulation objective and therefore justify additional characterization.
A detailed material card cannot compensate for unrealistic process assumptions. Friction, lubrication, temperature, blank position, tool flexibility and press deformation can all change the physical stamping process.
| Accuracy Layer | Typical Inputs | Typical Prediction Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Material model | Hardening, anisotropy, FLC, kinematic hardening, modulus, strain rate, fracture | Flow, thinning, necking, cracking, load and springback |
| Contact / process model | Friction, lubrication, contact pressure, sliding speed, temperature and surface evolution | Draw-in, strain distribution, wrinkles, thinning and forming load |
| Tool / machine model | Die elasticity, press deflection, actual load distribution and tool contact | Contact pressure, draw-in, surface quality, formability and springback |
This distinction is important. Friction is a critical stamping-simulation input, but it is normally part of the contact or process model rather than simply another tensile-property field inside the material card.
Many traditional forming simulations use a single constant coefficient of friction. In reality, friction can vary with contact pressure, sliding velocity, material direction, temperature, lubrication and changes to the sheet surface during deformation.
Recent forming-software development reflects this shift. AutoForm Forming R13 introduced an enhanced strain-based friction model that accounts for surface-roughness changes during the forming process, together with improved wrinkle tracking. AutoForm highlights this surface-evolution effect particularly for aluminum forming, but the broader direction is relevant to stamping CAE: process inputs are becoming less static and more physically descriptive.
A more detailed material card should therefore be paired with a process model appropriate to the engineering question. Improving one input while leaving another major variable oversimplified may not improve the final prediction as much as expected.
Production stamping does not process the exact same mechanical-property set for the entire life of the program. Material remains within specification while properties can vary between coils, production lots or suppliers.
A material card developed from one laboratory sample is therefore a representation of that test condition—not necessarily the complete range of material behavior that the production tool will experience.
This creates a second engineering level beyond nominal prediction: robustness. Instead of asking only whether the nominal material forms successfully, advanced engineering can evaluate whether the process remains stable across the expected property range.
Adding more parameters only improves simulation when those parameters come from suitable tests, are fitted to an appropriate constitutive model and are relevant to the failure or dimensional behavior being predicted.
The objective is not to create the largest possible material file. It is to create a traceable and validated representation of the material behavior needed for the actual forming process. More complexity without reliable characterization can produce additional uncertainty rather than additional accuracy.
The 2026 GDIS presentation on dual-phase steel material characterization used static and dynamic mechanical testing, high-resolution Digital Image Correlation, parameter identification and automated finite-element workflows as part of a material-level digital twin.
This reflects a broader digitalization trend: a material datasheet is increasingly viewed as insufficient when the engineering objective requires predictive simulation. Experimental results must be translated into constitutive parameters, validated against physical behavior and then implemented into larger component and process models.
This material-level digital representation can become one of the foundations of the broader Digital Process Twin in Stamping Engineering, where engineering models are later compared with tryout, production and quality data.
Material characterization is critical, but it is not the only source of simulation error. High-strength materials increase press forces, and large automotive dies can introduce measurable tool and press deformation under load.
A separate 2026 GDIS study examined coupled press and tool deformation throughout the stamping stroke. The work showed that tool and press elasticity can alter contact conditions, draw-in and springback predictions compared with conventional rigid-tool assumptions.
This provides an important engineering boundary for material-card discussions: simulation reliability depends on the complete physical model. Improving the material description is essential, but the remaining process and tooling assumptions must also be appropriate to the problem.
The required data depend on the project and the simulation objective. A practical hierarchy can be considered:
| Engineering Objective | Useful Material Characterization |
|---|---|
| Early feasibility | Basic stress-strain data, directional r-values, suitable hardening model and FLC information |
| Detailed material flow / thinning | Extended hardening curve, stronger anisotropy characterization and suitable biaxial data |
| Springback | Kinematic hardening, unloading/reloading behavior and appropriate elastic-modulus representation |
| Edge or local fracture | Failure characterization appropriate to sheared-edge, bending or other local fracture mechanisms |
| Rate-sensitive application | Mechanical testing over the relevant strain-rate range and suitable constitutive implementation |
Material-card quality affects decisions made before physical tooling exists: draw depth, process sequence, die-face geometry, springback compensation, predicted press load and the location of potential splits or wrinkles.
Dongguan Changdong Tool & Die Co., Ltd. supports DFM and CAE when required as part of custom stamping-die development. Simulation results can then be checked through die manufacturing, 45T–800T press tryout, engineering correction and sample validation under suitable project conditions.
Changdong does not claim to operate an independent full-spectrum AHSS material-characterization laboratory. When project-specific CAE requires advanced material data, the quality and source of customer-, steelmaker- or laboratory-provided material inputs remain important to the reliability of the analysis.
An AHSS stamping-simulation material card is a mathematical representation of sheet-metal behavior used by CAE software to predict material flow and failure.
Basic material cards commonly describe hardening, anisotropic yielding and forming limits. Advanced simulation may additionally require kinematic hardening, strain-dependent elastic behavior, strain-rate sensitivity and fracture models, while friction and tool or press compliance are separate but equally important process inputs.
Dongguan Changdong Tool & Die Co., Ltd. supports DFM, CAE, stamping-die design, manufacturing, press tryout and sample validation. Changdong is not presented as a steel producer or independent full-spectrum material-characterization laboratory.
A material card contains data, constitutive models and fitted parameters used by finite-element software to mathematically represent how a sheet metal grade deforms and fails.
A library card may be useful for early feasibility work, but its test data, assumptions and material source should be understood before using it for high-confidence tooling or springback decisions. Project-specific material may behave differently.
Not for many advanced forming questions. Multi-axial flow, anisotropy, forming limits, unloading behavior and fracture can require additional characterization beyond a conventional tensile curve.
Usually friction is handled as a contact or process model rather than a core mechanical material card. It remains critical because contact pressure, sliding conditions, lubrication and surface behavior influence material flow and forming results.
AHSS can combine high strength with complex anisotropy, springback, edge fracture and local-formability behavior. Simplified material assumptions can therefore affect predicted metal flow, failure, tonnage and final part shape.
Send the part drawing, actual material specification, sheet thickness, forming requirements and available press information for a project-specific DFM and tooling review.
Email Drawings for Tooling ReviewChangdong is good at making metal stamping dies up to 4.2 meters, also we produce small size metal stamping toolings. The company manages the complete stamping die program from the CAE Simulation, layout designs and stamping tooling designs, and finish the machining to tryout and home line tryout to your hands. Meanwhile, the company produces the prototyping parts and stamping parts range from 45-880T. The successful cases include: stamping tools of Leoni connectors, automotive stamping dies of PSA P8 & B618, metal stamping toolings of Cummins exhaust pipe assembly, automobile stamping dies of NISSAN H60B projects, and stamping tools of car audio system, Canon printers, refrigerators, ovens and washing machines and so on.If you need metal stamping dies ,stamping parts or metal prototypings,
Email to us: sales@chang-dong.com
An AHSS material card for stamping simulation is more than a tensile-strength value attached to a steel grade. It is the mathematical description used by the CAE model to represent how the sheet begins to yield, how it hardens, how it flows under different loading directions, when localized necking occurs and, in more advanced models, how it unloads, fractures and responds to strain rate.
As automotive stamping moves toward AHSS, UHSS and 3rd Gen steels, the quality of this material input is becoming one of the main limitations on simulation reliability. Two simulations can use the same part geometry, die surfaces and process sequence yet produce different draw-in, thinning, press load or springback results if their material cards are built from different tests, correlations or modeling assumptions.
The emerging engineering question is therefore no longer only “Do we use CAE?” It is increasingly: Does the CAE input represent the real material closely enough for the decision we are trying to make?
Great Designs in Steel 2026 included dedicated presentations on improved metal-forming material cards, digital-twin material characterization of dual-phase steels and coupled stamping simulation with deformable tools and presses. Together, these topics show an industry shift from simply running simulations toward improving the physical realism of the data and models used inside them. The technical examples discussed in this article are industry references rather than Changdong material-testing claims.
Describes how the material strengthens as plastic strain increases and influences load, thinning, necking and springback predictions.
Represents anisotropic sheet behavior under multi-axial loading and affects material flow, draw-in and strain distribution.
FLC data supports necking prediction, while more advanced fracture models may be required for surface, shear or edge cracking.
Kinematic hardening, elastic-modulus evolution and strain-rate sensitivity become important when springback or dynamic material behavior must be predicted.
A stamping-simulation material card is a set of experimental data, mathematical models and fitted parameters used by finite-element software to represent sheet-metal behavior. At a basic level, it may contain a hardening curve, yield model and forming-limit information. More advanced cards can include kinematic hardening, changing elastic modulus, strain-rate sensitivity and fracture criteria. The correct level of characterization depends on what the simulation is expected to predict.
A grade designation such as DP980 describes a material category and strength range, but it does not uniquely define the complete constitutive model needed by forming simulation.
Actual sheet behavior varies with steel producer, product design, thickness, processing route, rolling direction and production lot. Even within the allowed specification range, yield strength, hardening behavior and formability can move enough to influence the stamping process.
A CAE model therefore needs more than a grade label. It needs a defensible set of data and modeling assumptions that are appropriate for the material and the engineering question.
A library card may represent one coil, one supplier, an older test program or a set of correlations. Another card with the same nominal grade name may use a different yield model, hardening law or FLC. If the user does not know how the card was generated, the apparent precision of the simulation can exceed the precision of the input data.
| Material Input | Physical Meaning | Simulation Results Influenced |
|---|---|---|
| Hardening curve | How flow stress increases as plastic deformation develops | Press load, thinning, strain distribution, necking and springback |
| Yield surface / anisotropy | How the sheet responds to different combinations and directions of stress | Draw-in, metal flow, major/minor strain distribution and thinning |
| Forming Limit Curve | The strain combinations associated with localized necking | Traditional forming-limit and necking-risk evaluation |
These three categories provide a useful foundation, but increasingly complex AHSS applications often require more than this basic description.
A standard tensile test provides useful engineering information, but after diffuse necking begins the conventional gauge-section data can no longer be interpreted as a simple uniform stress-strain state.
Forming simulations may require the hardening curve at plastic strains well beyond uniform elongation. Engineers therefore need either a mathematical extrapolation or additional characterization methods such as DIC-based tensile evaluation or bulge testing.
The selected extrapolation or hardening law matters because it affects the predicted material resistance as deformation increases. Two cards that match the early tensile curve can still diverge substantially later in the forming process.
Rolled sheet metal does not necessarily behave identically in every direction. Longitudinal, diagonal and transverse tensile tests provide information about directional plastic behavior, but advanced yield-surface models may require additional biaxial, shear or plane-strain data.
This becomes important when a complex automotive part contains several strain paths in one component. A material model fitted only to uniaxial data may reproduce one loading condition while providing less reliable predictions under another.
The choice of yield criterion is therefore not simply a software setting. It determines how the experimental material data are translated into multi-axial forming behavior.
A forming limit curve is commonly used to assess localized necking risk, but the method used to obtain or estimate that curve matters.
Correlation-based FLCs can be fast and inexpensive, but they rely on assumptions derived from particular groups of materials. Experimental FLC testing requires more time and cost but provides data from the actual sheet being characterized.
This distinction becomes more important for newer AHSS grades. A correlation developed around older mild or high-strength steels should not automatically be assumed to describe a newer multi-phase steel accurately.
The traditional FLC is primarily a localized-necking criterion. For many conventional steels, necking develops before final fracture, making the FLC a useful forming-risk indicator.
Advanced high-strength steels can introduce additional failure modes. Surface cracking, shear fracture and sheared-edge cracking can occur without following the same necking sequence.
When those risks are important, a material card or simulation setup may need fracture criteria specifically calibrated for the relevant failure mode. An FLC alone cannot represent every type of AHSS cracking.
This is particularly relevant to the UHSS Trim Die Design and Tool Life topic, where the trimmed edge can become the critical failure location during downstream forming.
Springback is especially sensitive to how the material model represents loading, unloading and reverse loading. A simple isotropic hardening model with a constant elastic modulus can miss important behavior that occurs when sheet bends and unbends over drawbeads and tool radii.
Kinematic hardening helps represent the Bauschinger effect during stress reversal, while advanced models can account for changes in apparent elastic modulus after plastic deformation.
For AHSS automotive parts where dimensional stability is critical, these inputs can substantially change predicted springback. Accurate die compensation therefore depends not only on a good finite-element mesh or die surface, but also on the unloading behavior represented by the material model.
See Springback Compensation in Automotive Stamping for the broader tooling perspective.
Mechanical characterization is often performed under quasi-static laboratory conditions, while material deformation during production stamping can occur much faster.
The 2026 GDIS work on digital-twin characterization of dual-phase steel specifically investigated strain-rate effects together with high-resolution DIC measurements and automated forming-limit evaluation. The study demonstrates why a static material datasheet may not fully describe the material response needed for a more complete digital model.
Strain-rate sensitivity varies by material and should not be generalized from one steel grade to another. The engineering question is whether the rate dependence is large enough to influence the simulation objective and therefore justify additional characterization.
A detailed material card cannot compensate for unrealistic process assumptions. Friction, lubrication, temperature, blank position, tool flexibility and press deformation can all change the physical stamping process.
| Accuracy Layer | Typical Inputs | Typical Prediction Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Material model | Hardening, anisotropy, FLC, kinematic hardening, modulus, strain rate, fracture | Flow, thinning, necking, cracking, load and springback |
| Contact / process model | Friction, lubrication, contact pressure, sliding speed, temperature and surface evolution | Draw-in, strain distribution, wrinkles, thinning and forming load |
| Tool / machine model | Die elasticity, press deflection, actual load distribution and tool contact | Contact pressure, draw-in, surface quality, formability and springback |
This distinction is important. Friction is a critical stamping-simulation input, but it is normally part of the contact or process model rather than simply another tensile-property field inside the material card.
Many traditional forming simulations use a single constant coefficient of friction. In reality, friction can vary with contact pressure, sliding velocity, material direction, temperature, lubrication and changes to the sheet surface during deformation.
Recent forming-software development reflects this shift. AutoForm Forming R13 introduced an enhanced strain-based friction model that accounts for surface-roughness changes during the forming process, together with improved wrinkle tracking. AutoForm highlights this surface-evolution effect particularly for aluminum forming, but the broader direction is relevant to stamping CAE: process inputs are becoming less static and more physically descriptive.
A more detailed material card should therefore be paired with a process model appropriate to the engineering question. Improving one input while leaving another major variable oversimplified may not improve the final prediction as much as expected.
Production stamping does not process the exact same mechanical-property set for the entire life of the program. Material remains within specification while properties can vary between coils, production lots or suppliers.
A material card developed from one laboratory sample is therefore a representation of that test condition—not necessarily the complete range of material behavior that the production tool will experience.
This creates a second engineering level beyond nominal prediction: robustness. Instead of asking only whether the nominal material forms successfully, advanced engineering can evaluate whether the process remains stable across the expected property range.
Adding more parameters only improves simulation when those parameters come from suitable tests, are fitted to an appropriate constitutive model and are relevant to the failure or dimensional behavior being predicted.
The objective is not to create the largest possible material file. It is to create a traceable and validated representation of the material behavior needed for the actual forming process. More complexity without reliable characterization can produce additional uncertainty rather than additional accuracy.
The 2026 GDIS presentation on dual-phase steel material characterization used static and dynamic mechanical testing, high-resolution Digital Image Correlation, parameter identification and automated finite-element workflows as part of a material-level digital twin.
This reflects a broader digitalization trend: a material datasheet is increasingly viewed as insufficient when the engineering objective requires predictive simulation. Experimental results must be translated into constitutive parameters, validated against physical behavior and then implemented into larger component and process models.
This material-level digital representation can become one of the foundations of the broader Digital Process Twin in Stamping Engineering, where engineering models are later compared with tryout, production and quality data.
Material characterization is critical, but it is not the only source of simulation error. High-strength materials increase press forces, and large automotive dies can introduce measurable tool and press deformation under load.
A separate 2026 GDIS study examined coupled press and tool deformation throughout the stamping stroke. The work showed that tool and press elasticity can alter contact conditions, draw-in and springback predictions compared with conventional rigid-tool assumptions.
This provides an important engineering boundary for material-card discussions: simulation reliability depends on the complete physical model. Improving the material description is essential, but the remaining process and tooling assumptions must also be appropriate to the problem.
The required data depend on the project and the simulation objective. A practical hierarchy can be considered:
| Engineering Objective | Useful Material Characterization |
|---|---|
| Early feasibility | Basic stress-strain data, directional r-values, suitable hardening model and FLC information |
| Detailed material flow / thinning | Extended hardening curve, stronger anisotropy characterization and suitable biaxial data |
| Springback | Kinematic hardening, unloading/reloading behavior and appropriate elastic-modulus representation |
| Edge or local fracture | Failure characterization appropriate to sheared-edge, bending or other local fracture mechanisms |
| Rate-sensitive application | Mechanical testing over the relevant strain-rate range and suitable constitutive implementation |
Material-card quality affects decisions made before physical tooling exists: draw depth, process sequence, die-face geometry, springback compensation, predicted press load and the location of potential splits or wrinkles.
Dongguan Changdong Tool & Die Co., Ltd. supports DFM and CAE when required as part of custom stamping-die development. Simulation results can then be checked through die manufacturing, 45T–800T press tryout, engineering correction and sample validation under suitable project conditions.
Changdong does not claim to operate an independent full-spectrum AHSS material-characterization laboratory. When project-specific CAE requires advanced material data, the quality and source of customer-, steelmaker- or laboratory-provided material inputs remain important to the reliability of the analysis.
An AHSS stamping-simulation material card is a mathematical representation of sheet-metal behavior used by CAE software to predict material flow and failure.
Basic material cards commonly describe hardening, anisotropic yielding and forming limits. Advanced simulation may additionally require kinematic hardening, strain-dependent elastic behavior, strain-rate sensitivity and fracture models, while friction and tool or press compliance are separate but equally important process inputs.
Dongguan Changdong Tool & Die Co., Ltd. supports DFM, CAE, stamping-die design, manufacturing, press tryout and sample validation. Changdong is not presented as a steel producer or independent full-spectrum material-characterization laboratory.
A material card contains data, constitutive models and fitted parameters used by finite-element software to mathematically represent how a sheet metal grade deforms and fails.
A library card may be useful for early feasibility work, but its test data, assumptions and material source should be understood before using it for high-confidence tooling or springback decisions. Project-specific material may behave differently.
Not for many advanced forming questions. Multi-axial flow, anisotropy, forming limits, unloading behavior and fracture can require additional characterization beyond a conventional tensile curve.
Usually friction is handled as a contact or process model rather than a core mechanical material card. It remains critical because contact pressure, sliding conditions, lubrication and surface behavior influence material flow and forming results.
AHSS can combine high strength with complex anisotropy, springback, edge fracture and local-formability behavior. Simplified material assumptions can therefore affect predicted metal flow, failure, tonnage and final part shape.
Send the part drawing, actual material specification, sheet thickness, forming requirements and available press information for a project-specific DFM and tooling review.
Email Drawings for Tooling ReviewDongguan Changdong Stamping Dies CO., LTD. © copyright Add：NO. 56-B, Fuming South Road, Dalang, Dongguan, P.R.C
E-mail: sales@chang-dong.com Tel: 0086-769-8106 1256 Mobile: 0086-189 2949 4380 Sales Manager: Ms. Alice Fax: 0086-769-8106 1926
Dongguan Changdong Tool & Die Co., Ltd. is a custom metal stamping die and stamped parts manufacturer founded in 2012. We support automotive, home appliance, electrical and industrial projects from DFM review and die design to press tryout, sample validation and metal stamping production.
Main capabilities: Stamping Dies | Progressive Die | Transfer Die | Prototype Die | Prototype Tooling | Stamping Parts | Custom Metal Stamping Parts
For new tooling or stamping projects, please send your 2D drawing, 3D model, material grade, sheet thickness, tolerance requirements, annual volume and sample target date through Contact Us.
中文
English
Technical Exchange
Industry Trends
Downloads
Troqueles EV