International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 56 (2012) 6978

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmactool

Determination of pressure-dependent friction coefcient from draw-bend

test and its application to cup drawing
Y.S. Kim, M.K. Jain n, D.R. Metzger
Department of Mechanical Engineering, JHE 326G, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4L7

a r t i c l e i n f o

abstract

Article history:
Received 13 June 2011
Received in revised form
19 December 2011
Accepted 22 December 2011
Available online 14 January 2012

Friction under lubricated conditions is known to depend on pressure, and experimental determination
of this dependence has typically quantied pressure as a uniform value over the contact area. However,
non-uniform pressure distributions at the contact interfaces of draw-bend tests have been reported
from various experiments and simulations. A previous study by the authors had evaluated the
conventional methodology, which assumes uniform pressure distribution to estimate friction coefcients from draw-bend friction tests, and has concluded that the conventional methodology is only
valid for measuring an average friction coefcient over the pressure range, which exists in a specic
draw-bend system. In this paper, a new methodology to determine friction coefcients from draw-bend
friction tests considering the pressure non-uniformity is suggested. In the methodology, contact
pressure maps obtained from simulations, instead of the uniform pressure assumption, are included in
the analysis of test data to measure the pressure dependency of friction coefcient. The proposed
method is applied to friction measurement of aluminum sheets with anisotropic mill-nish surface and
friction coefcients were obtained as functions of contact pressure, sliding velocity and sliding
direction. Lastly, the obtained friction data were implemented into a nite element code, and circular
cup drawing experiments and simulations were performed to validate the methodology.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Friction measurement
Friction modeling
Friction anisotropy
Contact pressure
Finite element modeling
Cup drawing

1. Introduction
The draw-bend friction test closely mimics the motion and
deformation of a sheet metal drawn over a die radius. The friction
coefcient is measured between a metal strip and a cylindrical
pin while the strip slides, and bends and unbends around the pin.
A conventional method to determine a friction coefcient from
test data is based on the assumptions that (i) pin/strip contact
angle is equal to the geometric wrap angle, and (ii) pressure
distribution at the contact is uniform. However, these assumptions are not true due to the stiffness of metal strips. Alinger et al.
[1] measured the strains on the outer surfaces of the strips during
the draw-bend test and noticed that the real contact angle is less
than a geometric wrap angle from the longitudinal strain path.
Coubrough et al. [2] observed the existence of pressure peaks at
the pin/strip contact using a contact sensor on the pin. They also
observed that the real contact angle is less than the geometric
wrap angle. The study by Kim et al. [3] using 3D nite element
simulations of the tests clearly revealed and quantied the
phenomena concerning wrap angle and pressure variation.
Pereira et al. [4,5] investigated the time-dependent nature of
contact pressure response over the die radius in a channel

Corresponding author. Tel.: 905 525 9140x27841; fax: 905 525 9140.
E-mail address: jainmk@mcmaster.ca (M.K. Jain).

0890-6955/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2011.12.011

forming process using nite element analysis. They also observed

the two-peak steady-state contact pressure distribution as well as
transient localized pressure peaks. Because of these experimental
and numerical observations, which deviate from the underlying
assumptions for the friction calculation, a need for the reexamination of the conventional method has been raised.
In the previous study by the authors [6], the conventional
method had been evaluated using nite element simulations. In
the study, a non-constant friction coefcient model (Stribeck
friction model), which is more realistic than constant friction
coefcient model (Coulomb friction), was implemented into a
nite element code and applied to the draw-bend friction test
simulations. Using the force data obtained from the simulations,
friction coefcients were calculated using the conventional
method. A comparison of the reproduced friction coefcients with
the original input friction model showed that the conventional
method gives an average friction coefcient over the existing
pressure range of a specic draw-bend system. In another study
by the authors [7], the same approach was applied to the drawbend test cases for three different pin diameters and the experimental observations [812] of increase in the measured friction
coefcient as the pin diameter is decreased was explained,
implying the shortcomings of the conventional method.
In this paper, a new method to determine non-constant friction
coefcients from draw-bend friction tests is suggested. In this
method contact pressure maps obtained from simulations, instead

70

Y.S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 56 (2012) 6978

Strip
P

Grip &
Load Cell
FX (Inlet Strip Tension)

Pin

Grip &
Load Cell
(Outlet Strip Tension) FY
Fig. 1. Draw-bend friction test, (a) schematic layout and (b) experimental set-up.

Step 1)

12.7 mm pin

25.4 mm pin
Step 2)
25 mm
42 mm pin
Step 3)
45 mm
Inlet

Outlet

Fig. 3. Procedures for draw-bend test simulation.

71 mm

Strip models: 12.7mm wide x 1.04mm thick

Fig. 2. Finite element models for draw-bend friction test simulations.

of the uniform pressure assumption, are included in the analysis of

test data to account for the pressure dependency of friction
coefcient. The new method is applied to friction measurement
of aluminum sheets with known anisotropic mill nish, and the
friction coefcients are obtained as functions of contact pressure,
sliding velocity and sliding direction. The obtained friction model is
implemented into a nite element code and the model is validated
through circular cup drawing experiments and simulations.

outlet tension forces of the test with a rotating pin is a bending

force FB. The friction coefcient m and the applied average
pressure P are determined from the force data in the xed pin
test using the following equations [13]:


2
F F
m ln Y B
1
p
FX
P

F X F Y
2rw

where r is the pin radius, t is the strip thickness, w is the strip

width, FX and FY are the forces from xed pin test and FB is the
bending force.
As can be seen from the form of the above equations, the
conventional method determines one constant friction coefcient
from the test assuming a constant pressure. This implies the need
for a new method to determine friction coefcient as a function of
pressure.
2.2. Finite element modeling of the draw-bend friction test

2. Conventional method and nite element study of the test

2.1. Draw-bend friction test
In draw-bend friction tests (see Fig. 1 for schematics of the
test) two sets of tests are performed, one on a freely rotating pin
and the other on a xed pin. The difference between inlet and

FE models were prepared for three different pin diameters

(12.7 mm, 25.4 mm and 42 mm) as shown in Fig. 2. Top halves of
the geometries were modeled to exploit the symmetry conditions.
In the 12.7 mm pin case, the strip consisted of 5,850 8-node brick
elements with one point integration (ve elements through the
sheet thickness). In the longitudinal direction of the strip, ne

Y.S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 56 (2012) 6978

71

Fig. 4. Contact pressure (MPa) distribution on 901 wrap area of strip (12.7 mm pin case without friction) shown as (a) an overlay on the deformed FE mesh, and (b) as a 3D
pressure (in MPa)distancewrap angle plot.

Fig. 5. 3D pressure maps (in MPa) from simulations for the 3 pin diameters, (a) frictionless case and (b) Stribeck friction model.

Table 1
Input parameters for Stribeck friction model.
Values

mBL
mEHL

0.131
0.001
4.5  10  4
5.4  10  3
1.85 mm
1.2 Pa s

LBL
LEHL
Ra

meshes were used (100 elements in 25 mm distance) at the region

where the strip would experience the bending and unbending
deformation as shown in Fig. 2. Ten elements were used over the
width with ner mesh toward the strip edge due to the known
anticlastic deformations near strip edge during the draw-bend
process [14]. The pin was modeled as a rigid analytical surface.

Friction coefficient

Parameters

0.15

0.1

L=

0.05

0
Log (L)
Fig. 6. Input Stribeck friction model.


PRa

72

Y.S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 56 (2012) 6978

In the other two cases (25.4 mm and 42 mm pins), the length of the
nely meshed region was increased to 45 mm and 71 mm, respectively, while keeping mesh sizes equal to the 12.7 mm pin case.
Stressstrain data were selected from experimental results
available at hand for aluminum sheets and an isotropic elastic
plastic material model was used. All simulations were performed
with the nite element software called H3DMAP [15], which uses
an explicit solution method that is well suited to large deformation
problems. Simulations closely followed the general procedure of

the draw-bend test as shown in Fig. 3. In step 1, while xing the

inlet end, the outlet end was loosely bent around the pin by
applying a circular motion to the nodes at the outlet end. In step 2,
the nodes at the outlet end were moved until the inlet tension
(back tension stress: 57 MPa for the simulations in this paper)
reached a certain value. In step 3, the outlet end was moved with a
dened velocity (50 mm/s) while the inlet end followed with a
constant tension force. Steps 1 and 3 were performed by normal
explicit dynamic run without applying damping. Articial damping
is often applied in explicit methods to smooth out dynamically
induced vibrations, but here such damping will introduce error

0.14

0.1
Friction coefficient

Friction coefficient

0.15

0.05

0.09
Input Stribeck curve
Predicted friction curve

0.04

Conventional method

0
20
40
Contact pressure (MPa)

60
-0.01
0

Fig. 7. Input Stribeck friction model with pressure as horizontal axis.

20
30
40
Contact pressure (MPa)

50

60

Fig. 9. Predicted friction function compared to the input Stribeck curve.

0.2

0.1
0.075
0.05

Friction Coefficient

Friction coefficient

0.15

10

0.045
0.025

0.15

0.1

v = 6.35 mm/sec
v = 25.4 mm/sec
v = 101.6 mm/sec

0.05

0
12.7 mm

25.4 mm
Pin diameter

42 mm
0
10

Fig. 8. Friction coefcients estimated by conventional method.

Table 2
Tension forces from frictionless simulations.

F 0X
756.2
FB

25.4 mm pin
F 0Y
917.8
116.6

F 0X
756.2
FB

42 mm pin
F 0Y
822.1
65.9

F 0X
756.2
FB

F 0Y
788.7
32.5

Table 3
Tension forces from simulations with Stribeck friction.
12.7 mm pin
FX
756.2
FT
c1

25.4 mm pin
FY
1004.6
86.8
1.052

FX
756.2
FT
c2

30

0.2

42 mm pin
FY
875.0
52.9
1.034

FX
756.2
FT
c3

Friction Coefficient

12.7 mm pin

20
Pin Diameter (mm)

0.15
v = 6.35 mm/sec
v = 25.4 mm/sec
v = 101.6 mm/sec

0.1

0.05

0
FY
818.9
30.2
1.020

10

20
Pin Diameter (mm)

30

Fig. 10. Friction coefcients estimated by conventional method (a) RD strips

(b) TD strips.

Y.S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 56 (2012) 6978

into the force required to drive the motion. But for step 2, dynamic
relaxation method [16] has been applied so that any dynamic
responses aroused by motions in steps 1 and 2 can be damped out

73

before starting step 3. Thus, the main process of the draw-bend

friction test, step 3, can begin without undue numerical noise.
In the simulations, the analytical pin surfaces were dened as
master surfaces and the strip surfaces as slave surfaces for pure
master-slave contact algorithm, in that the contact forces and
pressures are calculated for each contacting node on slave
surfaces at each iteration of the explicit solution loop.

2.3. Contact pressure maps from simulations

Fig. 4 shows the contact pressure distribution at the pin/strip
interface of 12.7 mm pin case assuming frictionless pinsheet
interface. Contact pressure peaks appear near the entry and exit
regions of the strip, where bending and unbending of the strip
occur. There are also pressure peaks along the strip edges due to
the anticlastic deformation of the strips. Similar pressure distributions were obtained for 25.4 and 42 mm pin cases. However,
the two pressure peaks were sharper and decreased in height
with an increase in the pin diameter.
To simulate the xed pin cases, a Stribeck friction model [17],
to be explained in the next section, had been applied. Fig. 5 shows
the pressure maps from simulations with the Stribeck friction
model compared to the previous simulations without friction for
the 3 pin diameters (12.7 mm, 25.4 mm and 42 mm). It can be
seen that the pressure maps kept their general shapes while the
overall magnitudes increased slightly due to the increase of outlet
tension forces by friction forces. As can be noticed from Eq. (2),
the magnitude of average pressure is proportional to the outlet
tension force for the same back tension condition. It is to be noted
that the pressure prole shape is not much affected by the applied
friction because friction forces are applied in tangential directions
of contact surfaces while pressure forces in normal to contact
surfaces. This allows for the possibility of approximating the
pressure distribution without detailed prior knowledge of the
friction.

Fig. 11. Pressure maps obtained from simulations (a) 12.7 mm and (b) 25.4 mm
diameter pins.

v = 6.35 mm/s
v = 25.4 mm/s
v = 101.6 mm/s

0.3

v = 6.35 mm/s
v = 25.4 mm/s
v = 101.6 mm/s

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.2
0.1

0
0

20

40
P (MPa)

60

80

20

40
P (MPa)

60

80

Fig. 12. Friction coefcients determined by proposed method (a) RD strips (b) TD strips.

Friction curves obtained



6
5

2
v (mm/s)

1
P (MPa)

v (mm/s)

Fig. 13. Friction coefcients surfaces (a) RD strips (b) TD strips.

P (MPa)

74

Y.S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 56 (2012) 6978

friction model (Stribeck) was the same, the obtained friction

coefcient decreases as the pin diameter increases. This is
because the conventional method does not consider the pressure
dependency of the friction coefcient even though the input
friction model was a pressure dependent function. It agrees with
the experimental observations and shows the shortcomings of the
conventional method in addressing pressure dependent friction.

2.4. Stribeck friction model with friction coefcient estimation by

conventional method
In the Stribeck friction model, the friction coefcient is decided
by a Stribeck curve, which can be described as the following
arctangent function of lubricant number L:
"
!#
log10 L2 =LBL LEHL
mL 0:5 mBL mEHL mBL mEHL tanh
3
log10 LBL =LEHL

3. Proposed methodology for determining pressure

dependent friction coefcients

where mBL, mEHL, LBL, and LEHL are the parameters decided by
experiments. The lubricant number L is again a function given as

nZ

where n is the sliding velocity, P is the contact pressure, Z is the

lubricant viscosity, and Ra is the surface roughness. For the Stribeck
friction model in the current study, parameters were selected from
friction experiments done with steel strips by Ter Haar [17] as
shown in Table 1. The Stribeck curve with the chosen parameters is
shown in Fig. 6. Because the sliding velocity n is a constant
(50 mm/s) for this study, the input Stribeck curve can be plotted
again with contact pressure P as horizontal axis as shown in Fig. 7.
The friction coefcients were estimated with the force data
from the Stribeck simulations by the conventional method using
Eq. (1) and the result is shown in Fig. 8. Even though the applied

In the previous section, pressure maps for three pin diameter

cases (12.7 mm, 25.4 mm and 42 mm) had been obtained from
nite element simulations. The accuracy of these pressure maps
can be veried indirectly by comparing the tension force data
between the experiments and the simulations. At least the
obtained pressure maps are much better approximations than
the uniform pressure assumption of conventional method. With
these pressure maps known a priori, any friction model dened as
a pressure dependent function can be applied and the resulting
total friction forces can be calculated. Then the calculated total
friction forces can be compared to the total friction forces from
draw-bend friction experiments. This general procedure of the new
approach, in the form of detailed steps, is presented in Appendix A.

crit
FTy = y FN

4. Verication of the proposed method

PRa

y, TD

The proposed method was tested by applying the method to

back predict the input Stribeck friction model using force data
obtained from the simulations for three pin diameter cases.
The tension, bending and friction forces are summarized in
Tables 2 and 3. Also, the calculated ratios of average pressures
(xed pin case/rotating pin case) are shown in Table 3.
By the proposed method using the data in Tables 2 and 3 with
the pressure maps (Figs. 57) obtained from frictionless simulations, friction coefcient was determined as a pressure dependent
polynomial function (see Fig. 9). The friction coefcients obtained
by the conventional method were also plotted, where the average
pressures were calculated using Eq. (2). The proposed method
accurately predicted the input Stribeck friction data over the
pressure range that prevails in the draw-bend test conditions, while
the conventional method overestimated the friction coefcients.

x, RD

5. Proposed method applied to friction measurement on

aluminum sheet

crit
FTx = x FN

FTy

Stick region

FTx
Fig. 14. Stick/slip criteria for anisotropic friction model.

The proposed method was applied to the friction measurement of mill-nish AA5754-O sheets. The tests were conducted

Fig. 15. Block sliding simulation for verication of friction model.

0.35

0.35
0.3

p = 70 MPa

0.25


0.3

Input Friction Model

0.2

p = 40 MPa

0.15

Input Friction Model

0.25

Retrieved Friction

p = 10 MPa

p = 70 MPa

0.15

0.1

0.1

0.05

0.05

Retrieved Friction

0.2

p = 40 MPa
p = 10 MPa

0
0

20
40
60
80 100
Sliding velocity (mm/s)

120

20
40
60
80 100
Sliding velocoty (mm/s)

Fig. 16. Input friction model data vs. retrieved friction coefcient (a) RD sliding (b) TD sliding.

120

Y.S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 56 (2012) 6978

using the draw-bend test setup and two existing pins of 12.7 mm
and 25.4 mm diameters. Mill-nish aluminum sheets have
strong directional anisotropy in surface roughness. Therefore, the
friction measurements were performed on strips cut along the
rolling direction (RD) and transverse direction (TD) of the sheets.
The tests were also performed at three sliding speeds (6.35 mm/s,
25.4 mm/s and 101.6 mm/s) to measure the sliding speed dependency of the friction coefcient. Sheet forming lubricant, Parker
MP404, was applied to the test strips by dipping the specimens
into lubricant solution diluted with Hexane. By this way, 1.7
2.3 g/m2 of lubrications were applied to the strips. Fig. 10 shows
the friction coefcients estimated by applying the conventional
method to the test data. Obtained friction coefcients show the
same trend as other researchers observed in their tests that the
friction coefcient decreases as the pin size increases.
To obtain pressure maps at current test conditions for the
proposed method, simulations similar to the ones in Section 2
were performed for two frictionless pin (12.7 mm and 25.4 mm)
cases. Due to the high gradient of contact pressure near the strip
edge as observed in the previous simulations (see Figs. 5 and 6),
mesh densities were doubled in width direction of the strip
model. Fig. 11 shows the obtained pressure maps for 12.7 mm
and 25.4 mm diameter pins.
Fig. 12 shows the friction coefcients determined by applying the
proposed method to the test data. Because the tests were performed
using two different size pins, friction coefcients were obtained as
linear functions of pressure. Friction coefcient is higher in rolling

75

direction than transverse direction, which agrees with the test results
by other researchers for mill-nish aluminum sheets [1819]. Also, it
can be observed that at higher sliding speeds the friction coefcients
become more pressure independent and the difference between
RD and TD is reduced. This is because the contact becomes more like
hydrodynamic lubrication condition at higher sliding speed where
the load is carried more by lubricant lms [20].

6. Implementation of proposed method in a nite

element code
The friction coefcient curves obtained at three discrete
sliding speeds were interpolated over the domain of contact
pressure and sliding speed to get friction coefcient surfaces as
shown in Fig. 16. In the implementation to contact algorithm of a
nite element code, friction coefcient was decided as
X
m
Ni p,v mi
5
where p is the pressure, v is the sliding speed, Nis are the
interpolation functions and mis are the friction coefcient values
at the nodal points as shown in Fig. 13(a).
To model the measured friction anisotropy of mill-nish
aluminum sheets, the two friction coefcient surfaces shown in
Fig. 13 were applied to the two orthogonal directions as
X
X
mx
Ni p,vmRD
Ni p,vmTD
6
i and my
i

0.02

The stick/slip criterion was represented by an ellipse to

continuously connect the values in the two directions as shown
in Fig. 14. In the friction model, the size and shape of the ellipse
are decided by the local contact pressure and the sliding speed.
To verify the implemented friction model, simple block sliding
simulations as shown in Fig. 15 were performed, where the block
was pressed onto the rigid oor and slid at various pressure loads
and speeds and in various directions. The retrieved friction
coefcients agree well with the input friction data as shown in
Figs. 16 and 17.

0.01

7. Application to sheet metal forming simulation

0.05
Input Friction Model

0.04

Retrieved Friction

0.03

0
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Fig. 17. Input friction model data vs. retrieved friction coefcient for sliding cases
in various directions (with p 110 MPa and v 50 mm/s).

For experimental validation of the friction model obtained by

the proposed method, circular cup drawing tests and nite
element simulations of the tests were performed at nine punch
speeds (6 mm/s to 77 mm/s). Sheet samples were prepared as
111.25 mm diameter disks from the same coil used for the friction

57.8

Upper Die
Sheet

R6.35

Lower
R6.35

Punch

48
Fig. 18. Experimental cup drawing, (a) test set-up, (b) punch and die geometric details.

76

Y.S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 56 (2012) 6978

higher than the measured forces in 6 mm/s case and 77 mm/s

case, respectively.

tests. Lubrications were applied to the samples following the

procedures used to prepare the strips for the draw-bend friction
tests. A photograph of the experimental set-up for cup drawing
and geometric details of the punch and dies are shown in Fig. 18.
The corresponding nite element model is presented in Fig. 19.
Due to the relatively large difference between punch (48 mm) and
die (57.8 mm) diameters, the drawn cups formed conical shapes
and a cup depth of  17 mm was the maximum attainable due to
the material failure in the punch prole region. Punch forces,
drawn cup sizes and failure locations were compared between the
test and the simulation results.

7.2. Cup sizes

Fig. 21 shows a comparison of cup sizes in RD and TD of the
sheet samples for all nine punch speeds. The simulation results
agree with the test results in the general trend. As the punch
speed increases, the cup size decreases because more sheet
material is drawn in due to the less friction force. The draw-in
of material in TD is larger than in RD because the friction force in
TD is smaller than in RD.

7.1. Punch forces

7.3. Failure location
Punch forces from simulations agreed well with the tests as
shown in Fig. 20. Punch force decreases as the punch speed
increases due to the lower friction force at higher sliding speed.
Maximum punch forces from simulations were 2.9% and 2.4%

In the cup drawing tests two sheet samples were drawn until
the failure of the cup was observed. Fig. 22 shows the failed
samples, where the RD of the sheets is marked with an arrow. It
shows that both sheets failed in RD. This type of directional
failure is typically attributed to the material anisotropy of the
sheets in the literature. However, the strong frictional anisotropy

Fig. 19. Finite element model for cup drawing test.

Punch speed : 6 mm/s

35

77 mm/s

30

Punch Force (kN)

Punch Force (kN)

35

Fig. 22. Failed samples (RD of the sheets is marked by arrow).

25
20
15
10
5
0

5
10
15
Punch Displacement (mm)

77 mm/s

25
20
15
10
5
0

20

Punch speed : 6 mm/s

30

5
10
15
Punch Displacement (mm)

20

Fig. 20. Finite Punch force/displacement curves (a) experiments (b) simulations.

112

110

RD
TD

108

Cup Size (mm)

Cup Size (mm)

112

106
104
102
100
0

20
40
60
Punch Speed (mm/s)

80

110

RD
TD

108
106
104
102
100
0

20
40
60
Punch Speed (mm/s)

Fig. 21. Cup size as a function of punch speed from (a) experiments (b) simulations.

80

Y.S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 56 (2012) 6978

of mill-nish aluminum sheets could as well be a source of this

phenomenon. Fig. 23 shows the plastic strain distribution from
the simulation for this test, where the highly strain concentrated
area is the possible failure region. The comparison shows that the
current simulation with the proposed friction model accurately
predicted the location and direction of the failure region. This
implies that the frictional anisotropy is likely the source of the
directional material failure because the material anisotropy was
not considered in the current simulations.

8. Conclusions
1. A new methodology to determine pressure dependent friction
coefcients from draw-bend friction tests is developed. The
contact pressure maps in the whole pin/strip interface are
obtained from draw-bend simulations and included in the
analysis of test data.

77

2. The proposed friction measurement method and its implementation into a FE code considers local contact conditions
such as the sliding speed, contact pressure, sliding direction
and anisotropic stick/slip criterion in the form of an ellipse at
the macroscopic level.
3. The anisotropic friction model obtained by the new methodology
and its implementation into FE code is validated through circular
cup drawing experiments and simulations. The comparisons
between experiments and simulations show good agreements
in the aspects of punch force, cup size and failure location.
4. While the material anisotropy is not considered in the constitutive model, the phenomenon of failure in the rolling
direction of the sheet is accurately predicted. The results
indicate that the anisotropy of the material ow behavior in
the cup ange leading to variation in ange width and material
direction dependent fracture can arise from frictional anisotropy and not only from the material crystalline anisotropy.
5. The proposed methodology of draw-bend friction tests and
analysis of data is quite general and can be extended to obtain
friction coefcient representation in other forms such as
higher order polynomial functions of pressure.

Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Mr. L. D. Kenny of Novelis Global
Technology Center for his technical advice and for performing the draw-bend tests. The authors also acknowledge the
help of M. Bruhis at McMaster University with cup drawing
experiments.

Appendix A. General procedure for pressure dependent

friction measurement from draw-bend tests
See Appendix Figs. A1 and A2.
[1] Draw-bend friction experiments with xed pins (FY, FX):
F Y F X F T force from friction F B force from bending
Fig. 23. Plastic strain (natural strain) distribution for large punch displacement
(21 mm) case.

A1

[2] Draw-bend friction experiments with rotating pins (F0Y, F0X):

[a] Bending forces FB are obtained from
F B F 0Y F 0X

A2

FX
[b] Friction forces FT are obtained from
F T F Y F X F B

FY
Fig. A1. A schematic of the forces being applied to the sheet in a draw bend process.

A3

[3] Draw-bend simulations for rotating pin cases

[a] Pressure maps P0i and Ai are obtained from simulations
where P 0i and Ai are contact pressure and area data for
node i on the 901 wrap area of the inner surface of
the strip.

Fig. A2. Pressure distribution contours from FE simulations.

78

Y.S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 56 (2012) 6978

[b] Friction forces FT is related to a friction model m(P) as

ZZ
F T mPPdA
A4

[4]
[5]

and in discrete forms

X
mcP0i cP0i Ai
FT

A5

[6]

where c is the ratio of the average pressure (Eq. 3)

between the xed pin test and the rotating pin test.
[4] Minimize the following objective function to get optimum
m(P):
f

n
X

F T test j F T step3 j 2

[7]

A6

[8]

where n is the number of experimental cases.

[9]

If the friction coefcient is expressed as a second order

polynomial function of pressure

mP a0 a1 P a2 P2

[10]

A7

the following matrix equation is obtained by taking partial

derivatives of f with respect to a0, a1 and a2 and setting them to
zero:
2 P 0
3
P
P
c1 Pi1 Ai1 c1 2 P 02
c1 3 P03
i1 Ai1
i1 Ai1 8
6
7 a 9 8 test 9
i
i
i
6 P
7>
P 02
P 03
< 0>
= >
< F T 1 >
=
0
6c
2
3
P i2 Ai2 c2
Pi2 Ai2 7
6 2 Pi2 Ai2 c2
7 a1 F test
6
7> > > T 2 >
i
i
i
6 P
7: a ; : test ;
P
P
4c
5
2
F T 3
P0i3 Ai3 c3 2 P 02
c3 3 P03
3
i3 Ai3
i3 Ai3

[11]

A8

[15]

[12]

[13]

[14]

Substituting a0, a1 and a2 obtained from Eq. (A8) into Eq. (A7),
a optimum friction coefcient model expressed as a second order
polynomial of pressure can be determined.

[16]

[17]

References
[18]
[1] M.J. Alinger, S. Sriram, D.K. Matlock, An investigation of strain evolution in
thebending-under-tension friction test, Minerals, Metals and Materials
Society/AIME, Sheet MetalForming Technology, USA, 1999., pp. 129-140.
[2] G.J. Coubrough, M.J. Alinger, C.J. Van Tyne, Angle of contact between sheet anddie
during stretch-bend deformation as determined on the bending-under-tension
friction testsystem, Journal of Materials Processing Technology (2002), pp. 69-75.
[3] Y.S. Kim, M.K. Jain, D.R. Metzger, A nite element study of capstan friction
Test, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Numerical Methods

[19]

[20]

in Industrial Forming Processes, NUMIFORM, 2004, pp. 22642269, doi:10.

1063/1.1766872.
M.P. Pereira, W. Yan, B.F. Rolfe, Contact pressure evolution and its relation to
wear in sheet metal forming, Wear 265 (2008) 16871699.
M.P. Pereira, J.L. Duncan, W. Yan, B.F. Rolfe, Contact pressure evolution at the
die radius in sheet metal stamping, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 35323541.
Y.S. Kim, M.K. Jain, D.R. Metzger, Non-uniform pressure distribution in drawbend friction test and its Inuence on friction measurement, Proceedings of
the 6th International Conference and Workshop on Numerical Simulation of
3D Sheet Metal Forming Process;Numisheet 2005, Detroit, Michigan, USA,
2005, pp. 661666, doi:10.1063/1.2011298.
Y.S. Kim, D.R. Metzger, M.K. Jain, A nite element study on contact pressure
distribution in draw-bend friction test and its effect on friction measurement,
Proceedings of ASME 2005 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, PVP2005,
July 1721, Denver, Colorado, USA, 2005, pp. 315324, doi:10.1115/
PVP2005-71587.
R. Zheng, D. Overby, Strip friction experimental study on galvanized steel
sheet, Proceedings of the 15th Biennial Congress of the International Deep
Drawing Research Group (IDDRG), 1988, pp. 8590.
D.P. Kotchman, I. Kim, C.-Y. Sa, D. Lee, Determination of frictional behavior in
sheet metals using orthogonal arrays, Journal of Materials Engineering and
Performance 1 (1992) 555564.
P.K. Saha, R.D. Wilson, R.S. Timsit, Inuence of surface topography on the
frictional characteristics of 3104 aluminum alloy sheet, Wear 197 (1996)
123129.
S.S. Han, The inuence of tool geometry on friction behavior in sheet metal
forming, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 63 (1997) 129133.
Y.T. Keum, R.H. Wagoner, J.K. Lee, Friction model for FEM simulation of sheet
metal forming operations, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on
Numerical Methods in Industrial Forming Processes, NUMIFORM 2004,
Columbus, Ohio, USA, 2004, pp. 989994, doi:10.1063/1.1766656.1.
D.W. Vallance, D.K. Matlock, Application of the bending-under-tension
friction Test to coated sheet steels, Journal of Materials Engineering and
Performance 1 (5) (1992) 685694.
J.F. Wang, R.H. Wagoner, D.K. Matlock, F. Barlat, Anticlastic curvature in
draw-bend spring back, International Journal of Solids and Structures 42
(2005) 12871307.2.
R.G. Sauve, H3DMAP Version 6A general three-dimensional nite element
computer code for linear and nonlinear analysis of structures, Ontario Power
Technologies, Report No. A-NSG-96-120, Rev. 1, 1999.3.
R.G. Sauve, D.R. Metzger, Advances in dynamic relaxation techniques for
nonlinear nite element analysis, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology,
Transactions of the ASME 117 (1995) 170176.4.
R.T. Ter Haar, Friction in sheet metal forming, the inuence of local contact
conditions and deformation, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede,
the Netherlands,1996.
S.J. Murtha, J.M. Story, G.W. Jarvis, H.R. Zonker, Anisotropy effects in the
forming of aluminum sheet, SAE Journal of Materials and Manufacturing 104
(1995) 586594.5.
X. Roizard, F. Raharijaona, J. Von Stebut, P. Belliard, Inuence of sliding
direction and sliding speed on the micro-hydrodynamic lubrication component of aluminum mill-nished sheets, Tribology International 32 (1999)
739747.6.
F.P. Bowden, D. Tabor, The Friction and Lubrication Of Solids, Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1997.