考虑到热轧厚板的材料力学性能、成形方式和板材精度均与薄板存在一定差异,且常用冲压分析软件无法准确模拟厚板成形与回弹,因此,以某车型纵梁为例,采用Autoform,Dynaform以及MARC进行成形与回弹仿真分析对比,依据分析结果判定何种软件更适合热轧厚板冲压仿真分析。首先,分析厚板成形特点以及与薄板的差异性,梳理出3种软件分析厚板时的差异;其次,通过3种软件对同一纵梁外板进行模拟分析对比。为获得真实可靠的实测值,成形前在板料上利用激光绘制基圆,依据成形后基圆尺寸变化计算主次应变,并选取断面及检测点,测量回弹尺寸与厚度变化,与3种软件分析结果进行对比。结果表明:MARC的实体单元对厚度和主次应变分析最为准确;对于回弹,Dynaform计算更为准确,Autoform和MARC回弹结果均与实测值产生较大偏离。 Considering the material mechanical properties of hot-rolled thick plate, forming methods and plate precision are some differences with the sheet, and commonly used stamping analysis software can not accurately simulate thick plate forming and rebound, so a vehicle longitudinal beam, for example, using Autoform , Dynaform and MARC were compared to form simulation and springback simulation. Based on the analysis results, it was determined which software is more suitable for the hot stamping simulation analysis. First of all, the difference between the forming characteristics of thin slab and the thin slab is analyzed, and the differences between the three kinds of slabs are analyzed. Secondly, the simulation analysis of the same slab outer slab is carried out by three kinds of softwares. In order to obtain the true and reliable measured values, the base circle was drawn by laser on the sheet before forming, the primary and secondary strains were calculated according to the change of base circle shape after forming, the section and the detecting points were selected, the change of rebound size and thickness was measured, Software analysis of the results for comparison. The results show that the physical unit of MARC is the most accurate for thickness and primary and secondary strain analysis. The Dynaform calculation is more accurate for springback, and the springback results of Autoform and MARC deviate greatly from the measured values.