Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Wear
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wear
Short communication
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 3 September 2010
Received in revised form 4 February 2011
Accepted 4 February 2011
Keywords:
Friction
Tribology
Sheet metal forming
a b s t r a c t
During deformation of the sheet metal over a tool, contact occurs only at the peak asperities of both
surfaces. In the contact areas the processed material ows over the tools surface, therefore all the models used to study forming processes must include a way to take into account the contact with friction
phenomena. More widely used friction models are based in the Amontons-Coulomb theories.
Unfortunately experience shows that for most applications the available models cannot accurately
describe the friction phenomena. The determination of the friction coefcient in a sheet metal forming
process is a complex procedure, because many variables inuence the friction mechanisms. The aim of
this research work is to apply an experimental approach in order to bridge simple benchmark friction
experiments with real sheet forming applications.
Two different techniques were used to assess friction, namely unidirectional crossed cylinders sliding with linear increase of the load and an equipment which allows measuring the friction coefcient
under stretch-forming conditions in a sheet metal forming process. The tested materials are a cold-rolled
advanced high-strength steel, DP600, and an aluminium 1100 alloy against heat-treated AISI D3 steel. The
test protocols were established to allow the study of several effects: sliding speed, the surface roughness,
the lubricant effect, the load and the running-in effect. The differences between the two techniques are
widely discussed and laser prolometry and scanning electron microscopy are used to help understand
the prevalent friction mechanisms.
The present study allows concluding that: the friction results obtained by a load-scanning test are
always higher than values assessed by a draw-bead test; roughness of the die material plays an important
role on the friction coefcient; a signicant reduction of friction was attained in multi-pass load-scanning
tests due to running-in effect.
2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Nowadays, numerical simulation has been widely accepted in
the optimisation of forming processes owing to the advantage of
the notable progress of computer capabilities. Signicant benets
can be obtained especially on time-to-market and start-up costs by
utilizing simulations. However, the advantage of applying numerical simulation of sheet metal forming operations results depends
on the correct modelling of several topics [1,2]. Among these, contact conditions denition in conjunction with friction modelling
assumes a decisive role. In fact, tribological properties, and frictional processes, are important factors determining the result of
forming [3]. However, tribology itself comprises the interaction of
different factors connected to the sheet metal surface. Thus, experimental research in sheet metal forming follows two directions:
1652
- Understand friction during sheet metal forming using complementary experimental methods: load-scanning and draw-bead
friction tests.
- Compare the results obtained by two different experimental techniques: one, the load scanning, with good control and which
allows the study of the effect of each variable; the second, draw
bead, replicates the sheet metal forming conditions, so the transferability of the results is assured.
- Testing the abilities of the recently developed draw-bead tester
in different contact conditions.
2. Experimental details
The friction coefcient, as established by the AmontonsCoulomb model, corresponds to the linear proportionality ratio
between the friction force and the normal load [27], Eq. (1). Therefore, each pair (friction force; normal force) allows the estimation
of the friction coefcient value, as plotted in Fig. 2a.
F = N
(1)
1653
The pulling force of the sheet is the sum of the force of bending
plus the friction force. Thus, in order to nd the friction coefcient
in the process it is very important know the contribution of these
two effects to the pulling force. To resolve this problem two types
of test are made. The rst one, the A type test is made with the
ve rotary rolls built with bearings. In this assembly the pulling
force measurement just takes into account the deformation force,
because with these rollers the tests are done with negligible friction. In the second one, the B type test, the rollers 1, 2 and 3,
Fig. 4, are changed to xed rollers. In this type of test the pulling
measurement takes into account the deformation and the friction
force.
The friction coefcient is evaluated in these tests according to
Eq. (2) [24], where Ffs is the total pulling force, acquired in B type
test, Ffr is the pulling force without friction, acquired in A type
test and Fn is the normal force, measured during B type test by
the corresponding load cell, Fig. 3b.
=
Fig. 3. Draw-bead friction test. (a) Conguration of the deformation geometry. (b)
Outline of the test assembly.
For these tests performed with increasing load, the friction coefcient is better determined as a slope, because in that case the
friction coefcient is the relationship between the friction force and
normal load increase and thus the offset errors are nullied [27].
This approach, Fig. 2b, allows the verication of the applicability of
the linear Amontons-Coulomb model and permits the calculation
of a safe friction coefcient value that is applicable to the entire
loading range.
2.2. Draw-bead friction test
The draw-bead test allows the simulation of the bending and
unbending in a sheet metal forming process and to measure the
friction coefcient during the sliding of the sheet against a die during the forming process [25]. To do this type of test, test equipment
was especially designed in order to be used in conjunction with
a classical electromechanical tensile test machine. With this test
equipment it is possible to measure the forces associated with the
forming process. The required conguration is shown in Fig. 3.
These tests are performed with a constant velocity and the
pulling and normal force data is acquired by two load cells with
a rate of 100 Hz.
Ffs Ffr
Fn
(2)
Default test conditions in this research were: xed relative positions of the rolls, constant speed of 1 mm/s and a sliding distance
of 100 mm. The values of the force components used in Eq. (2) to
calculate the friction coefcient are the average of the measurements in the steady-state part of the test. For each test condition
a minimum of three repetitions were considered, further the average value of friction coefcient and the standard deviation were
also considered.
2.3. Materials
The tool steel AISI D3, tempered and quenched, was used as die
material. Two cold-rolled sheet materials, with a thickness of 1 mm,
were used in the friction test against AISI D3, namely: DP600 dualphase steel and aluminium alloy AA 1100. Table 1 summarises the
material properties.
Table 2 summarises the different material combinations used
in the different series of tests. All tests were done with lubrication. Before testing, both sliding surfaces were cleaned with ethylic
alcohol and lubricated with stamping oil, Fuchs Renoform MZAN
54. The average quantity of lubricant applied was around 25 g/m2 .
Table 1
Mechanical properties.
Property
Hardness (GPa)
Yield stress (MPa)
Ult. tensile stress (MPa)
Material
AA 1100
DP600
AISI D3
0.8
105
110
5.87
362
651
7.75
1654
Table 2
Summary of test conditions and material combination.
Study
Materials
Experimental technique
Comparison loadscanning/draw-bead
DP600 against D3
AA1100 against D3
Lubricant Fuchs MZAN54
Inuence of roughness
DP600 against D3
Lubricant Fuchs MZAN54
Inuence of running-in
DP600 against D3
AA1100 against D3
Lubricant Fuchs MZAN54
Lubrication regime
DP600 against D3
Lubricant viscosity:
28.0360.18 mPa s
DP600/D3
AA1100/D3
AA1100/D3
D3 Roughness
Rz /Ra (m)
1.66/0.22
1.66/0.22
2.48/0.27
0.14 0.019
0.11 0.0014
0.13 0.0007
Draw-bead
Roll diameter: 21 mm
Sliding speed: 1 mm/s
Rz of D3: 1.66 and 2.48 m
Roll diameter: 21 mm
Sliding speed: 1 mm/s
Rz of D3: 1.66, 2.48, 3.66 and 4.47 m
Materials
Load-scanning
Ffs
wr
(3)
P2500
P1000
P600
P320
Ra
Rz
Rk
Rpk
Rvk
0.22
0.27
0.48
0.52
1.66
2.48
3.66
4.47
0.57
0.84
1.22
1.97
0.48
0.55
0.67
1.45
0.14
0.44
0.38
0.38
1655
Fig. 5. Micrograph of the contact surface. The scratches parallel to the sliding direction allow identication of abrasion by grooving as the main contact mechanism.
Fig. 6. Running-in effect in (a) dual-phase steel DP600 and (b) aluminium alloy
AA1100.
Fig. 8. Effect of the number of sliding passes in the aluminium wear track surface
morphology for the D3/AA1100 pair: (a) 1 pass; (b) 3 passes and (c) 5 passes.
Fig. 7. Evolution of the friction coefcient for the pairs D3/DP600 D3/AA1100 with
the number of passes.
Load scanning was used to investigate the evolution of the friction in multi-pass tests. Two pairs of material were investigated
in this study: AISI D3 cylinders against DP600 sheet steel and AISI
D3 cylinders against aluminium alloy 1100. To verify the runningin effect multi-pass tests are made from one to ve passes in the
same track. The roughness of the AISI D3 cylinder was always
Ra = 0.27 m and Rz = 2.48 m.
Both materials tested reveal a reduction of the friction coefcient with the increasing of the number of passes, Fig. 6. Fig. 6a and
1656
H [m]
1.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
6.00
7.50
7.50
8.47
8.47
28.03
39.20
39.20
28.03
39.20
40.71
39.20
39.20
39.20
60.18
39.20
60.18
39.20
40.71
1.44E-11
1.96E-11
4.00E-11
4.39E-11
6.02E-11
6.51E-11
8.01E-11
1.01E-10
1.24E-10
1.93E-10
1.53E-10
2.41E-10
1.75E-10
1.82E-10
Fig. 9. Effect of the number of sliding passes in the spectra of the aluminium roughness proles for the D3/AA1100 pair (AR - as-received AA1100 sheet).
Fig. 10. Variation of the friction coefcient as a function of the contact conditions
using a Stribeck type curve.
4. Conclusions
Tribological characteristics involved in sheet metal forming
have been investigated using two experimental approaches: a loadscanning type tester and a recently developed draw-bead type
device. The following conclusions can be drawn from this study:
1. Comparing the results obtained by both experimental techniques load scanning always produced lower friction values. This
difference could be due to the highest contact pressure on the
load-scanning test.
2. Roughness of the die material has a signicant effect on the friction coefcient.
3. A signicant effect of reduction of friction by the running-in
effect has been achieved by multi-pass load-scanning tests. The
reduction of the friction occurs especially by the attenuation of
the roughness components with high wavelength.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) for the nancial support for this work
(project PTDC/EMETME/74152/2006).
References
[1] K. Roll, Simulation of sheet metal forming necessary developments in the
future, in: P. Hora (Ed.), Proceedings NUMISHEET08, 7th International Conference and Workshop on Numerical Simulation of 3D Sheet Metal Forming
Processes Part A, 2008, pp. 859863, ISBN: 978-3-909386-80-2.
[2] Mikls Tisza, Numerical modeling and simulation in sheet metal forming academic and industrial perspectives, Mater. Sci. Forum 473474 (2005) 135140.
[3] Mikls Tisza, Tibor Flp, A general overview of tribology of sheet metal forming, J. Technol. Plast. 2 (2001) 1125.
[4] B. Podgornik, S. Hogmark, J. Pezdirnik, Comparison between different test
methods for evaluation of galling properties of surface engineered tool surfaces,
Wear 257 (2004) 843851.
[5] B. Podgornik, S. Hogmark, O. Sandberg, V. Leskovsek, Wear resistance and
anti-sticking properties of duplex treated forming tool steel, Wear 254 (2003)
11131121.
[6] B. Podgornik, S. Hogmark, Surface modication to improve friction and galling
properties of forming tools, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 174 (2006) 334341.
[7] B. Podgornik, S. Hogmark, O. Sandberg, Inuence of surface roughness and
coating type on the galling properties of coated forming tool steel, Surf. Coat.
Technol. 184 (2004) 338348.
[8] A. Ramalho, Study of the relationships friction contact stresses using
load scanner tests, in: Proceedings 11th Nordic Symposium on Tribology
NORDTRIB2004, 2004, pp. 699707.
[9] B.H. Lee, Y.T. Keum, R.H. Wagoner, Modeling of the friction caused by lubrication and surface roughness in sheet metal forming, J. Mater. Process. Technol.
130131 (2002) 6063.
[10] J.H.C. de Souza, M. Liewald, Analysis of the tribological behaviour of polymer composite tool materials for sheet metal forming, Wear 268 (2010)
241248.
[11] V. Severo, L. Vilhena, P.N. Silva, J.P. Dias, D. Becker, S. Wagner, A. Cavaleiro,
Tribological behaviour of WTiN coatings in semi-industrial strip-drawing
tests, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 20910 (2009) 46624667.
[12] D.D. Olsson, N. Bay, J.L. Andreasen, Int. J. Surf. Sci. Eng. 4 (1) (2010) 212.
[13] Hyunok Kim, Ji Hyun Sung, Rajesh Sivakumar, Taylan Altan, Evaluation of
stamping lubricants using the deep drawing test, Int. J. Mach. Tool Manuf. 47
(2007) 21202132.
[14] Hongying Gong, Zhonling Lou, Zhiling Zhang, Studies on the friction and lubrication characteristics in the sheet steel drawing process, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 151 (2004) 328333.
[15] S. Hao, B.E. Klamecki, S. Ramalingam, Friction measurement apparatus for sheet
metal forming, Wear 224 (1999) 17.
1657
[16] K.J. Weinmann, S.K. Kernosky, Ann. CIRP 45 (1) (1996) 269272.
[17] H.Y. Kim, B.C. Whang, W.B. Bae, An experimental study on forming characteristics of pre-coated sheet steels, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 120 (2002)
290292.
[18] S.S. Han, The inuence of tool geometry on friction behavior in sheet metal
forming, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 63 (1997) 129133.
[19] Z. Deng, M.R. Lovell, Effects of lubrication and die radius on the friction behavior
of Pb-coated sheet steels, Wear 244 (2000) 4151.
[20] M.R. Lovell, Z. Deng, Characterization of interfacial friction in coated sheet
steels: inuence of stamping process parameters and wear mechanisms, Tribol.
Int. 35 (2002) 8595.
[21] D. Wiklund, B.-G. Rosen, A. Wihlborg, A friction model evaluated with results
from a bending-under-tension test, Tribol. Int. 42 (2009) 14481452.
[22] A. Azushima, M. Sakuramoto, Effects of plastic strain on surface roughness and
coefcient of friction in tension-bending test, Ann. CIRP 55 (1) (2006).
[23] M. Samuel, Inuence of drawbead geometry on sheet metal forming, J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 122 (2002) 94103.
[24] H.D. Nine, Draw bead forces in sheet metal forming, in: Proceedings of a Symposium on Mechanics of Sheet Metal Forming: Behaviour and Deformation
Analysis, Plenum Press, Warren, Michigan, 1978, pp. 179211.
[25] L.R. Sanchez, Characterisation of a measurement system for reproducible friction testing on sheet metal under plane strain, Tribol. Int. 32 (1999) 575586.
[26] S. Hogmark, S. Jacobson, O. Wnstrand, A new universal test for tribological
evaluation, in: D.J. Schipper (Ed.), Proceedings 21st Meeting of International
Research Group on Wear of Engineering Materials, IRG-OECD, Amsterdam,
March, 1999, pp. 2526.
[27] A. Ramalho, A reliability model for friction and wear experimental data, Wear
269 (2010) 213223.
[28] W.C. Emmens, J. Bottema, Friction of aluminium in deep drawing, in: Proceedings IDDRG Congress, 1998.
[29] A. Azushima, J. Miyamoto, H. Kudo, Effect of surface topography of workpiece
on pressure dependence of coefcient of friction in sheet metal forming, Ann.
CIRP 47 (1) (1998) 479482.
[30] Shigley, Joseph Edward, et al., Mechanical Engineering Design, 7th ed., McGrawHill, 2004.
[31] B.E. Soumya Subramonian, Evaluation of lubricants for stamping deep draw
quality sheet metal in industrial environment; M.Sc. Thesis, Ohio State University, 2009.
[32] ZhuWei, Z.L. Zhang, X.H. Dong, Deep drawing of rectangle parts using variable
blank holder force, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 29 (2006) 885889.
[33] E. Rabinowicz, Friction and Wear of Materials, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, 1995.
[34] Peter J. Blau, Running-in: art or engineering? J. Mater. Eng. 13 (1991) 4753.