0
Research Papers

Evaluation of Stamping Lubricants in Forming Galvannealed Steels for Industrial Application

[+] Author and Article Information
Soumya Subramonian, Nimet Kardes, Yurdaer Demiralp

Center for Precision Forming (formerly ERC for Net Shape Manufacturing–ERC/NSM),  The Ohio State University, 339 Baker Systems, 1971 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210

Milan Jurich

 Honda of America Mfg., Inc., Corporate Planning, 24500 Honda Parkway, Marysville, OH 43040 e-mail: Milan_Jurich@ham.honda.com

Taylan Altan

Center for Precision Forming (formerly ERC for Net Shape Manufacturing – ERC/NSM),  The Ohio State University, 339 Baker Systems, 1971 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210 e-mail: altan.1@osu.edu

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 133(6), 061016 (Dec 09, 2011) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4003948 History: Received December 01, 2009; Revised March 14, 2011; Published December 09, 2011; Online December 09, 2011

Lubrication is one of the process variables that affect the quality of stamping sheet materials. Using a good lubricant can significantly reduce scrap rate and/or improve the quality of stamping. In this study, different types of lubricants were evaluated using strip draw test (SDT) and deep draw test (DDT) for stamping of galvannealed steel sheets. Finite element (FE) simulations were carried out to determine the coefficient of friction at tool-work piece interface during deep drawing under different lubrication conditions and blank holder forces. Flow stress data of materials under biaxial load which are used in FE simulations are obtained by viscous pressure bulge tests. SDT was used as a preliminary test to evaluate the relative performance of the lubricants. Lubricants that showed good performance in this test were tested using DDT. Dimensions of the formed strips and cups and the maximum applicable blank holder force to draw parts without fracturing were the criteria used for evaluation of lubricants in both tests. In general, it was possible to form cups with higher blank holder force when synthetic/water-based lubricants were applied to the sheet. In conclusion, evaluated synthetic/water-based lubricants had better lubricity than petroleum-based lubricants.

Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Flow chart for lubrication evaluation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Schematic of strip draw test [4]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Configuration of specimen and die insert in SDT [4]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Strip draw test tooling [4]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Results of strip drawing tests, average elongation of all materials for various lubrication conditions used (strips cracked while using lubricant L14)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Schematic of deep draw test

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Axisymmetric model of the tooling used in DEFORM-2D simulations

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Quarter model of the DDT simulated using PAM-STAMP

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Schematic of deep drawing tooling

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Flange perimeter and punch force recorded for 11 lubrication conditions at 20 ton BHF (M + L18 failed at 20 ton BHF)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Flange perimeter and punch force recorded for four lubrication conditions at 22 ton BHF (samples of other lubrication conditions failed)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Flange perimeter and punch force recorded for two lubrication conditions at 24 ton BHF (L1 and L10 failed at 24 ton)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Comparison of flange perimeters obtained from simulation and experiment to predict the coefficient of friction at 20 ton BHF

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Comparison of flange perimeters obtained from simulation and experiment to predict the coefficient of friction at 22 ton BHF

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Comparison of flange perimeters obtained from simulation and experiment to predict the coefficient of friction at 24 ton BHF

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Schematic of the tooling used for VPB test; before and after bulging of the sheet [9]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Flow stress data obtained from VPB test

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In