0
Research Papers: FORMING

Evaluation of Lubricants for Stamping of Al 5182-O Aluminum Sheet Using Cup Drawing Test

[+] Author and Article Information
Long Ju

School of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Science and Technology Beijing,
30 Xueyuan Road,
Haidian, Beijing 100083, China
e-mail: ivanbj88@gmail.com

Tingting Mao

Center for Precision Forming,
The Ohio State University,
339 Baker Systems,
1971 Neil Avenue,
Columbus, OH 43210
e-mail: mao.64@osu.edu

Julio Malpica

Honda Engineering of North America, Inc.,
24000 Honda Parkway,
Marysville, OH 43040
e-mail: Julio_Malpica@ega.honda.com

Taylan Altan

Center for Precision Forming,
The Ohio State University,
339 Baker Systems,
1971 Neil Avenue,
Columbus, OH 43210
e-mail: altan.1@osu.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Manufacturing Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING. Manuscript received January 14, 2015; final manuscript received May 19, 2015; published online September 4, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Blair E. Carlson.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 137(5), 051010 (Sep 04, 2015) (8 pages) Paper No: MANU-15-1035; doi: 10.1115/1.4030750 History: Received January 14, 2015

Lubricants are necessary to avoid adhesion, galling, and scratching in aluminum stamping processes. In this study, various lubricants, including dry lubes and wet lubes, were evaluated using cup drawing test (CDT) for stamping of Al 5182-O aluminum sheets. The effects of surface texturing, with electro-discharge texturing (EDT) and mill finish (MF), on the friction behavior were also investigated. Furthermore, the methodology to evaluate the performance of lubricants was established based on (a) maximum applicable blank holder force (BHF) and (b) draw-in length in flange or flange perimeter of formed cups. Finite element (FE) simulations were carried out to determine the coefficient of friction (CoF) at tool–workpiece interface during deep drawing under different lubrication conditions. Flow stress data of Al 5182-O material were obtained using viscous pressure bulge (VPB) and tensile tests. In this study, it was confirmed that, in forming Al 5182-O, dry film lubricants have better lubricity than wet lubricants. A better lubrication condition was found with EDT surface texture.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Groche, P. , Nitzsche, G. , and Elsen, A. , 2008, “Adhesive Wear in Deep Drawing of Aluminum Sheets,” CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol., 57(1), pp. 295–298. [CrossRef]
Meiler, M. , Pfestorf, M. , Merklein, M. , and Geiger, M. , 2004, “Tribological Properties of Dry Film Lubricants in Aluminum Sheet Metal Forming,” 2nd ICTMP, Nyborg, Denmark, June 15–18, pp. 489–500.
Meiler, M. , and Jaschke, H. , 2005, “Lubrication of Aluminum Sheet Metal Within the Automotive Industry,” Adv. Mater. Res., 6-8, pp. 551–558. [CrossRef]
Wei, J. , Erdemir, A. , and Fenske, G. R. , 2000, “Dry Lubricant Films for Aluminum Forming,” Tribol. Trans., 43(3), pp. 535–541. [CrossRef]
Meiler, M. , Pfestorf, M. , Geiger, M. , and Merklein, M. , 2003, “The Use of Dry Film Lubricants in Aluminum Sheet Metal Forming,” Wear, 255(7), pp. 1455–1462. [CrossRef]
Kim, H. , Sung, J. , Goodwin, F. E. , and Altan, T. , 2008, “Investigation of Galling in Forming Galvanized Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSSs) Using the Twist Compression Test (TCT),” ASME J. Mater. Process. Technol., 205(1), pp. 459–468. [CrossRef]
Kim, H. , Sung, H. , Sivakumar, R. , and Altan, T. , 2007, “Evaluation of Stamping Lubricants Using the Deep Drawing Test,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 47(14), pp. 2120–2132. [CrossRef]
Subramonian, S. , Kardes, N. , Demiralp, Y. , Jurich, M. , and Altan, T. , 2011, “Evaluation of Stamping Lubricants in Forming Galvannealed Steels for Industrial Application,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 133(6), p. 061016. [CrossRef]
Liewald, M. , Wagner, S. , and Becker, D. , 2010, “Influence of Surface Topography on the Tribological Behaviour of Aluminium Alloy 5182 With EDT Surface,” Tribol. Lett., 39(2), pp. 135–142. [CrossRef]
Hartfield-Wunsch, S. , Cohen, D. , Sanchez, L. , and Brattstrom, L. , 2011, “The Effect of Surface Finish on Aluminum Sheet Friction Behavior,” SAE Technical Paper No. 2011-01-0534.
Raharijaona, F. , Roizard, X. , and Stebut, J. V. , 1999, “Usage of 3D Roughness Parameters Adapted to the Experimental Simulation of Sheet–Tool Contact During a Drawing Operation,” Tribol. Int. 32(1), pp. 59–67. [CrossRef]
Zhou, R. , Cao, J. , Wang, Q. J. , Meng, F. , Zimowski, K. , and Xia, Z. C. , 2011, “Effect of EDT Surface Texturing on Tribological Behavior of Aluminum Sheet,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 211(10), pp. 1643–1649. [CrossRef]
Groche, P. , and Möller, N. , 2012, “Tribological Investigation of Deep-Drawing Processes Using Servo Presses,” ASME Paper No. MSEC2012-7292, pp. 127–137. [CrossRef]
Nasser, A. , Yadav, A. , Pathak, P. , and Altan, T. , 2010, “Determination of the Flow Stress of Five AHSS Sheet Materials (DP 600, DP 780, DP 780-CR, DP 780-HY and TRIP 780) Using the Uniaxial Tensile and the Biaxial Viscous Pressure Bulge (VPB) Tests,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 210(3), pp. 429–436. [CrossRef]
Brem, J. C. , Barlat, F. , Dick, R. E. , and Yoon, J. W. , 2005, “Characterizations of Aluminum Alloy Sheet Materials Numisheet 2005,” AIP Conf. Proc., Detroit, MI, Aug. 15–19.
Leu, D. K. , and Sheen, S. H. , 2013, “Roughening of Free Surface During Sheet Metal Forming,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 135(2), p. 024502. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Flow stress curves obtained from tensile test and VPB test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

3D measurements of surface texture (Al 5182-O, 1.5 mm): (a) EDT and (b) MF, provided by Honda Engineering

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Schematic of the cup drawing operation (CDT) and tooling

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Deep draw tooling used in CDT [7]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Test procedure for the evaluation of lubricants

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Flange perimeter recorded for 13 lubricant tests at 16 ton BHF (B, D, H, and N failed at 16 ton BHF). Note: The y-axis on the graph does not start from 0. The error bands show the deviation between samples.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Flange perimeter recorded for five lubricant tests at 17 ton BHF (A, C, E, I, and J failed at 17 ton BHF). Note: The y-axis on the graph does not start from 0. The error bands show the deviation between samples.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison between MF and EDT at (a) 16 ton BHF and (b) 17 ton BHF

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of flange perimeters obtained from simulation and experiment to predict the CoF at 16 ton BHF for Al 5182O/MF

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of flange perimeters obtained from simulation and experiment to predict the CoF at 17 ton BHF for Al 5182O/MF

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Thickness comparison between experiment and simulation of drawn cup with lubricant F: (a) rolling direction and (b) transverse direction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Thickness comparison between experiment and simulation drawn cup with lubricant I: (a) rolling direction and (b) transverse direction

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