Evaluation of Lubricants For Stamping Deep Draw Quality Sheet Metal in Industrial Environment

EVALUATION OF LUBRICANTS FOR STAMPING DEEP
DRAW QUALITY SHEET METAL IN INDUSTRIAL

ENVIRONMENT
THESIS
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master

of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Soumya Subramonian, B.E
Graduate Program in Mechanical Engineering
The Ohio State University
2009
Dissertation Committee:
Professor Taylan Altan, Advisor
Professor Gary L. Kinzel

Copyright by
Soumya Subramonian
2009
ABSTRACT
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
quality during stamping. In this study, different types of lubricants were evaluated using
Strip Draw Test and Deep Draw Test for stamping galvannealed steel sheets. Preliminary
finite element (FE) simulations were carried out in order to determine the BHF for Strip
Draw and Deep Draw Tests. FE simulations were carried out after the tests in order to
determine the coefficient of friction at tool-work piece interface during deep drawing for
different lubrication conditions and BHFs. Flow stress data of materials under biaxial
load which are used in FE simulations are obtained by Viscous Pressure Bulge tests. Strip
Draw Test was used as a preliminary test to evaluate the relative performance of the
lubricants. Lubricants that showed good performance in Strip Draw Test were tested
using Deep Draw Test. Dimensions of the formed strips and cups and the maximum
applicable BHF to draw parts without fracturing were the criteria used for evaluation of
lubricants in Strip Draw Test and Deep Draw Test. In general, synthetic lubricants
performed better than petroleum-based lubricants in this study.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr.Taylan Altan for providing
me with an opportunity to be a part of Engineering Research Center for Net Shape
Manufacturing (ERC/NSM). His intellectual support, encouragement and guidance have
been vital in making this research work possible and successful. I extend my sincere
thanks to Dr. Gary Kinzel for serving on the committee and for his continuous support
throughout my Masters program.
I would like to extend special thanks to the sponsors of this research – Honda Motor
Company Ltd., Milan Jurich and Doug Staats for supporting this research project and for
their valuable inputs. I also extend my thanks to the lubricant companies Tower Oil and
Technology Co., Houghton Intl., IRMCO, MS Fluids, Quaker Chemicals, Parker and
Daubert Chemical Company Inc. for having participated in this study and providing their
products.
Sincere thanks to all the students and visiting scholars at ERC/NSM for their support
during my graduate studies. My special thanks to Nimet Kardes who started this study,
Adam Groseclose, Eren Billur, Gautham Sukumaran, Neeraj Agarwal, Dr. Partchapol
Sartkulvanich and Yurdaer Demiralp for their assistance and suggestions through this
period. I also extend my thanks to Dr.Hyunok Kim whose work for ILZRO was used as
an inspiration for this study.
iii
VITA
May 27, 1985…………………………………………………………………. Born - India

2006 ………………………………………………………...B.E, Mechanical Engineering
Anna University, Chennai, India
2008 ……………………………………………………….. Graduate Teaching Associate
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Columbus, Ohio, USA
2009 …………………………………………………………Graduate Research Associate
Engineering Research Center for Net
Shape Manufacturing (ERC/NSM),
Columbus, Ohio, USA
FIELD OF STUDY
Major Field: Mechanical Engineering
Studies in: Metal Forming Technology and Tribology
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………...…………ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……………………………………………………………...iii
VITA……………………………………………………………………………………..iv
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………ix
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………...x
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………….. 1
1.1 Stamping of Draw Quality Steel (DQS) in automotive industry……………….. 1
1.2 Factors Affecting Stamped Part Quality [Altan, 2007]………………………….1
1.2.1 Press variables………………………………………………………………2
1.2.2 Tool variables……………………………………………………………….2
1.2.3 Lubrication…………………………………………………………………. 2
1.3 Effect of lubrication on stamping………………………………………………. 2
1.4 Research Motivation……………………………………………………………. 3
CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY………………. 4
2.1 Objectives………………………………………………………………………..4
2.2 Methodology……………………………………………………………………. 4
CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………. 5
3.1 Friction Models used in Metal Forming Analysis [Kim, 2008]………………… 5
v
3.2 Lubrication Mechanisms in Metal Forming [Kim, 2008]………………………. 7
3.2.1 Primary Lubrication Mechanisms in Metal Forming……………………….7
3.2.2 Secondary Lubrication Mechanisms in Metal Forming…………………… 9
3.3 Types of Lubricants used in metal forming…………………………………… 9
3.4 Tribotests for evaluation of lubricant performance…………………………….10
CHAPTER 4 PREPARATION FOR EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF

LUBRICANTS…………………………………………………………………………. 12
CHAPTER 5 MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION BY VISCOUS PRESSURE

BULGE (VPB) TEST………………………………………………………………….. 16
5.1 Description of the tooling and test procedure…………………………………. 16
5.2 Principles of Viscous Pressure Bulge Tests…………………………………… 17
5.3 Experimental Conditions and Results of VPB………………………………… 19
CHAPTER 6 EVALUATION OF LUBRICANTS USING STRIP DRAW TEST…22
6.1 Principles of Strip Draw Test …………………………………………………..22
6.2 Finite Element Simulations to Determine Testing Conditions…………………24
6.3 Experimental Set-up for Strip Draw Test………………………………………25
6.3.1 Description of Tooling …………………………………………………….25
6.3.2 Test procedure……………………………………………………………..26
6.3.3 Lubricant Selection and Application……………………………………... 27
6.4 Strip Draw Test ………………………………………………………………...27
6.4.1 Preliminary SDT tests ……………………………………………………..27
6.4.2 Strip Draw Test - Experiment ……………………………………………..29

vi
6.5 SDT - Experimental Results and Analysis ……………………………………..30
6.6 Summary and Conclusions……………………………………………………..32
6.6.1 Summary …………………………………………………………………32
6.6.2 Conclusions………………………………………………………………..33
CHAPTER 7 EVALUATION OF LUBRICANTS USING DEEP DRAW TEST ….34
7.1 Principles of Deep Draw Test (DDT) ………………………………………….34
7.2 Preliminary Finite Element Simulation of Deep draw test (DDT)……………..35
7.2.1 FE Model and Simulation Parameters …………………………………….35
7.2.2 FE Simulation Results …………………………………………………….36
7.3 Experimental Set-up and Test Procedure for Deep Draw Test ………………...37
7.3.1 Description of the tooling …………………………………………………37
7.3.2 Test Procedures ……………………………………………………………37
7.3.3 Lubricant Selection and Application Method ……………………………..38
7.4 Deep Draw Test Experiments ………………………………………………….39
7.4.1 Preliminary Deep Draw Test Experiments ………………………………..39
7.4.2 Deep draw tests ……………………………………………………………41
7.5 Deep Draw Test - Experimental Results and Analysis ………………………...41
7.6 FE simulations to predict Coefficient of friction at tool-work piece interface ...45
7.7 Summary and Conclusions……………………………………………………. 51
7.7.1 Summary …………………………………………………………………..51
7.7.2 Conclusions………………………………………………………………..52
vii
CHAPTER 8 FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED DURING EVALUATION OF
LUBRICANTS AND WHILE IMPLEMENTING THE RESULTS IN
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT ……………………………………………………..53
8.1 Important Practical Issues to Consider While Evaluating Lubricants in

Laboratory……………………………………………………………………………..53
8.1.1 Lubricant application method and quantity ……………………………….54
8.1.2 Die and Blank Holder Surface …………………………………………….54
8.1.3 BHF………………………………………………………………………..55
8.1.4 Ram Speed ………………………………………………………………...55
8.2 Factors to be Considered during Implementation of Results in Industrial

Environment …………………………………………………………………………..55
CHAPTER 9 OVERALL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ……………………..57
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………….……58
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 : Lubricants and their details for evaluation of stamping DQS (“L” indicates
lubricant and “W” indicates Washer Oil) ......................................................................... 13
Table 5.1: Parameters used in the viscous bulge test ........................................................ 20
Table 5.2: Thicknesses and average plastic anisotropy ratios, R (provided by Arcelor-
Mittal) of sheet materials .................................................................................................. 20
Table 6.1 Results of FE simulations of SDT showing the variation in punch force and
draw-in length as a function of CoF and BHF .................................................................. 25
Table 6.2: List of lubricants and washer oils tested using SDT....................................... 27
Table 6.3: Test conditions for Preliminary Strip Draw Test ............................................. 28
Table 6.4: Test Conditions for SDT .................................................................................. 29
Table 7.1 FE Simulation Parameters for obtaining BHF range for DDT ......................... 36
Table 7.2 Maximum thinning % at 80mm of stroke ......................................................... 36
Table 7.3 List of Lubricants used in DDT ........................................................................ 39
Table 7.4 Parameters of Preliminary Cup Drawing Experiments..................................... 40
Table 7.5 Parameters of Cup Drawing Tests .................................................................... 41
Table 7.6 Parameters used in FE simulations to predict CoF ........................................... 46
Table 7.7 Results of FE simulations (Flange perimeter and Maximum Punch Force) ..... 47
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Increasing process window by reducing friction [Meiler et al, 2004].............. 3
Figure 3.1: Relationship between contact pressure and frictional shear stress ................... 6
Figure 3.2: Stribeck curve showing onset of various lubrication mechanisms................... 8
Figure 3.3: Various tribotests used for evaluating stamping lubricants (Kim and Altan,
2005) ................................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 5.1: Schematic of the tooling used for the VPB test; before and after bulging of the
sheet [Gutscher et al, 2004] .............................................................................................. 17
Figure 5.2: Geometry of the sheet before and after the VPB test [Gutscher et al, 2004] . 17
Figure 5.3: Algorithm used to determine the flow stress curve from the VPB test
[Gutscher et al, 2004] ........................................................................................................ 19
Figure 5.4: Flow stress data obtained from VPB tests ...................................................... 21
Figure 6.1: Draw die, die insert and deformed strip sample in SDT [Kim, 2008] .......... 23
Figure 6.2: Schematic representation of the SDT ............................................................. 24
Figure 6.3: Schematic of strip draw test tooling ............................................................... 26
Figure 6.4 Results of Strip Drawing Test showing the average strip elongation of
different materials ............................................................................................................. 32
Figure 7.1 Schematic of deep drawing operation and tooling ......................................... 34
Figure 7.2 Axi-symmetric model used in simulation of Deep draw test in DEFORM-2D
........................................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 7.3 Schematic of Cup Draw Test procedure .......................................................... 38
Figure 7.4 Flange perimeter and punch force recorded for 11 lubrication conditions at 20
tons BHF (M + L18 failed at 20 ton BHF) Note: The y-axis on the graph does not start
from 0. The error bands show maximum of 7% deviation. .............................................. 42
x
tons BHF (the rest failed) Note: The y-axis on the graph does not start from 0. The error
bands show maximum of 3% deviation. ........................................................................... 43
tons BHF (L1 and L10 failed at 24 tons) Note: The y-axis on the graph does not start
from 0. The error bands show maximum of 7% deviation. .............................................. 44
tons BHF for 270D/GA pre-phosphate ............................................................................. 45
Figure 7.8 Quarter model of the Deep draw test used in FE simulations using PAM-
STAMP ............................................................................................................................. 46
Figure 7.9 Comparison of flange perimeter obtained from simulation and experiment to
predict the coefficient of friction at 20 ton BHF for 270D/GA ........................................ 48
predict the coefficient of friction at 24 ton BHF for 270D/GA pre-phosphate ................ 51
xi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Stamping of Draw Quality Steel (DQS) in automotive industry
Galvannealed steels are being increasingly used in the automotive industry because of the
excellent corrosion protection and high surface quality offered by the galvannealed
coating. They are used in applications involving both visible and non-visible parts.
Galvannealed coating has a low coefficient of friction and this helps in metal flow
between the punch and the die. But the hardness of the coating due to the presence of iron
can make deep drawing operations difficult. Hence, it is important that the other
parameters which affect the drawing process are improved upon in order to obtain good
parts.
1.2 Factors Affecting Stamped Part Quality [Altan, 2007]
In industrial mass production of auto body panels, single-acting presses with either single
or multipoint control (MPC) die cushion systems are predominantly used for deep
drawing. Drawing is followed by secondary operations such as trimming, restriking, and
flanging. The quality of the formed auto body panel is significantly influenced by the
drawing operation.
The quality of the stamped parts is affected by “control variables”. The two main kinds of
control variables are process variables and incoming sheet material. Within the realm of
stamping, the process variables are press variable, tool variable and lubricant.
1
1.2.1 Press variables
In an MPC blank holder system, several individually programmable cushion pins are
placed around the blank perimeter, and an appropriate blank holder force (BHF) is
selected at each pin location. When the BHF in select cushion pins is locally controlled,
material flow in localized regions also can be controlled.
Flexible BHF control systems can accommodate variations in incoming sheet material
properties and thicknesses. The punch or forming speed also is a control variable because
it influences the increase in tool temperature during the forming operation.
1.2.2 Tool variables
Nitrogen gas springs are placed inside tools to allow local application of BHF in well-
defined areas of the blank, thus allowing for better control of sheet material flow during
the forming process. Spacers mounted on blank holders also can be used to control the
sheet material flow locally. Spotting or tool grinding during production can be eliminated
through the use of spacers.
1.2.3 Lubrication
Material flow during the forming and drawing operations depends on the lubricant, which
affects frictional forces at the blank-tool interface. Incoming blanks may either be
precoated or sprayed with lubricant during the forming process. Lubricant performance
also is influenced by the tool temperature.
1.3 Effect of lubrication on stamping
Lubrication plays an important role in stamping processes as it reduces friction at the

tool–workpiece interface, thus enhancing the ability to produce a good quality part. Since
the quality of stamped parts significantly changes with lubrication, good lubrication
2
condition would lead to lower scrap rate and better quality of parts. Lubrication condition
greatly affects the material flow during the stamping process and can increase the process
window. The process window can be characterized by the BHF and the drawing ratio
(Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1: Increasing process window by reducing friction [Meiler et al, 2004]
1.4 Research Motivation
Galvannealed steels have plenty of applications in the automotive industry. They have a
hard (due to the presence of iron) coating on the surface which reduces its drawability.
Various new lubricants are explored and evaluated in this study in order to improve the
formability of draw quality galvannealed steels. This could result in lower scrap rate
while stamping galvannealed steels.
3
CHAPTER 2
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY
2.1 Objectives
The overall research objective of the proposed study is to reduce the scrap rate in
stamping Galvannealed and Galvannealed/Pre-phosphate Draw Quality Steel by
determining the optimal lubrication condition. The specific objectives are to:
 Develop a methodology to evaluate the lubricants that are currently used and others
commercially available.
 Select lubricants that perform better than those currently used.
 Determine the coefficient of friction at the tool-work piece interface under various
lubrication conditions by comparing experimental results and FE simulation results.
2.2 Methodology
The following approach was used to evaluate the lubricants.
1. Preliminary cleanability and chemical stability tests were conducted on the lubricants
to confirm their usability in stamping industry.
2. Viscous pressure bulge tests were carried out in order to determine the material
properties of the sheet metal.
3. Strip Drawing Test (SDT) was conducted using all the lubrication conditions.
4. Deep Drawing Test (DDT) was conducted on the lubricants which performed
relatively better than the rest in SDT.
5. FE simulations were used to determine the coefficient of friction (CoF) under the
various lubrication conditions.
4
CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 Friction Models used in Metal Forming Analysis [Kim, 2008]
Two friction models have been commonly used to describe the frictional condition in
metal forming processes. They are Amonton-Coulomb‟s friction model (Equation 3.1)
and the shear friction model (Equation 3.2). Both models quantify interface friction by
lumping all of the interface phenomena, which are illustrated in Figure 3.1, into a non-
dimensional coefficient or factor.
τf = µ p …Equation 3.1
Where τf = frictional shear stress, µ = coefficient of friction and p = normal pressure.

However, in metal forming processes, the interface pressure „p’ can reach a multiple of
the yield strength of material. Thus, the linear relationship between τf and p in Amonton-
Coulomb‟s model is not valid at high contact pressure levels because the shear stress, τf,
cannot exceed the shear strength, k, of the deformed material that is normally the
workpiece. Therefore, the coefficient of friction becomes meaningless when μp exceeds
τf. Thus, to avoid this limitation of Amonton-Coulomb‟s model, the shear friction model
was proposed by Orowan in 1943. In this model, as shown in Figure 3.1, the frictional
shear stress, τf, at low pressure is proportional to the normal pressure such as Amonton-
Coulomb‟s model, however it equals to the shear strength, k, at high pressure.
5
Figure 3.1: Relationship between contact pressure and frictional shear stress
In Equation 3.2, m equals to zero for no friction and m equals to one for a sticking
friction condition that is the case where sliding at the interface is preempted by shearing
of the bulk material [Schey, 1983].

τf = f  = m = mk …Equation 3.2
3
(0 ≤ m ≤ 1)
Where f = friction factor, m = shear factor, k = shear strength and  = flow stress.
To consider the effect of real contact area ratio on friction, Wanheim and Bay [Wanheim
et al., 1974 and Bay et al., 1975] proposed a modified shear friction model, namely the
general friction model. As shown in Equation 3.3 in this model, the friction shear stress,
τf, is a function of the real contact area ratio, α. When two nominally flat surfaces are
placed in contact, surface roughness causes the discrete contact spots. The total area of all
these discrete contact spots constitutes the real contact area and, in most cases of contact,
this will be only a fraction of the apparent contact area. The ratio of the real contact area
to the apparent contact area is known as the real contact area ratio, α.

τf =f'αk = m …Equation 3.3
3
6
Where f' = modified friction factor, m = modified shear factor (as a function of real
contact area),  = flow stress, α = real contact ratio = real contact area / apparent
contact area (Ar/Aa).

However, Wanheim and Bay‟s model, does not consider the effects of lubricant behavior
[Wilson 2004]. To take lubricant effects into account, a concept of complex model was
proposed for boundary and mixed film lubrication regimes at the tool-workpiece interface
by Bowden and Tabor (1967), as shown in Equation 3.4. In this model the frictional shear
stress, τf , is given by
τf = ατa + (1-α)τb … Equation 3.4
where α = the real contact area ratio,

τa = average shear stress at contacting asperity peaks
and τb = average shear stress (lower stress) at the lubricant pockets.
This model explicitly formulates important variables, the real contact area ratio related to
τa and the lubricant behavior related to τb that is influenced by viscosity, pressure, sliding
speed and film thickness. If there is no lubricant at the tool-workpiece interface then τb
will be zero and the frictional shear stress, τf, will be a function of real contact area ratio
that equals to Equation 3.3. To take into account of the lubricant behavior on friction, an
artificial lubricant film was assumed to exist at the tool-workpiece interface and the
variation of film thickness was calculated to characterize the variation of friction using
the Reynolds equation in Fluid mechanics theory [Wilson et al. 1995 and Wilson, 2004].
However, although this approach has more detailed considerations to express the
lubricant behavior, this model showed difficulties to apply to metal forming simulations.
3.2 Lubrication Mechanisms in Metal Forming [Kim, 2008]
3.2.1 Primary Lubrication Mechanisms in Metal Forming
There are four primary lubrication mechanisms (i.e. dry / boundary / mixed film /
hydrodynamic) observed in metal forming processes. As shown in Figure 3.2, the
7
Stribeck curve illustrates the onset of various types of lubrication as a function of
lubricant viscosity, η, sliding velocity, v, and normal pressure, p [Schey, 1983].
Dry condition means no lubrication at the mating surfaces, thus friction is high. This
condition is desirable in only a few selected forming operations (e.g. hot rolling of plates
or slabs and non-lubricated extrusion of aluminum alloys).
Boundary lubrication is defined as a condition where the solid surfaces are so close
together that surface interaction between mono or multi molecular films of lubricants and
the solid asperities dominates the contact [Bhushan, 2002]. Boundary lubrication is the
most widely encountered lubrication condition in stamping, forging and hydroforming.
Mixed-layer lubrication is also frequently encountered in sheet metal forming. In this
case, the micro-peaks of the metal surface experience boundary lubrication conditions
and the micro-valleys of the metal surface become filled with the lubricant.
Hydrodynamic lubrication condition rarely exists in metal forming and it occurs only
under very specific conditions of velocity and temperature (e.g. sheet rolling operation).
Figure 3.2: Stribeck curve showing onset of various lubrication mechanisms
8
3.2.2 Secondary Lubrication Mechanisms in Metal Forming
In addition to the primary lubrication mechanisms, when the trapped lubricant permeates
the real contact surface, two different types of secondary lubrication mechanism, called
Micro-Plasto-Hydro-Static Lubrication (MPHSL) and Micro-Plasto-Hydro-Dynamic
Lubrication (MPHDL) may also develop. Beginning with the mixed-layer lubrication
condition, the trapped and pressurized lubricant may escape from the valleys of the
surface. When the lubricant escapes from the valleys of the surface, it forms a thin film
between the surface asperities and the die where boundary lubrication previously
dominated. Thus, the frictional stress is further reduced. Experimental evidence of
MPHSL and MPHDL mechanisms for sheet metal forming has been found by many
researchers [Azushima et al, 1991, 1995, 1996, 2000A and 2000B, Bech et al. 1998 and
1999, Le et al. 2003, Lo et al. 1997, Mizuno et al. 1982, Shimizu et al. 2001, Sorensen et
al. 1999, and Sutcliffe et al. 2001]. To reduce the surface friction, the optimized textured
sheets can be used to enhance the MPHSL and MPHDL mechanisms [Pfestorf et al.
1998].
3.3 Types of Lubricants used in metal forming
Stamping lubricants are either petroleum based or water based, and by varying the
additive content can have widely different properties and performance qualities
depending upon the application (light, medium, heavy duty stamping). Water based
stamping lubricants are generally water soluble. They sometimes contain petroleum oil.
Synthetic lubricants can be both water and non-water soluble. Ester technology may also
be classified as synthetic. Emulsion stamping lubricants generally contain mineral oil and
sometimes referred to as "soluble oils". The most common terminologies regarding
technology are: neat oils (petroleum-based oils), water soluble and synthetics.
9
3.4 Tribotests for evaluation of lubricant performance
There are a number of tests that are used for evaluation of lubricant performance (Figure
3.3), but some of these tests have limitations in emulating relevant process conditions
such as temperature, contact pressure and speed that exist in real stamping production.
Evaluating lubricants in real-world production conditions is difficult and expensive.
Therefore, the laboratory tribo-test must emulate testing conditions, which are relevant in
real stamping production.
Figure 3.3: Various tribotests used for evaluating stamping lubricants (Kim and Altan,
2005)
10
The various tests that are commonly used in evaluating lubricants are (i) stamping
lubricant test (ii) twist compression test (iii) deep drawing test (iv) strip drawing test (v)
ironing test and (vi) scratch and slider test. The stress and strain conditions in the
stamping lubricant test are more plane strain as in bending and do not reproduce the
stress-strain conditions of stamping. Also, contact pressure and temperature are much
lower than in deep drawing. Twist compression test and the scratch and slider tests do not
consider the effect of the deformation of the sheet metal on the lubrication system. Strip
Draw Tests (SDT) work well for AHSS because cups cannot be drawn of AHSS. It is
used as a preliminary test for draw quality steels because it works on the same principle
as deep draw test (DDT). DDT best emulates the stamping conditions because (1) there
is deformation of the sheet metal as in real-world production (2) the contact pressure,
speed and temperature correspond well with those found in stamping. Hence, SDT and
DDT are used in this study for evaluation of lubricants. In both SDT and DDT, the
elongation of the material and BHF are the parameters used to evaluate the lubricants.
11
CHAPTER 4
PREPARATION OF EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF

LUBRICANTS
The lubricants for evaluation were obtained from the commercially available lubricant
suppliers. Fifteen lubricants and two washer oils were used in this study. The details of
the lubricants and washer oils are given in Table 4.1. The sheet metal generally has mill
oil on them when they are sent from the steel plant. The washer oils are used before
blanking and stamping in order to ensure that the sheet metal is clean from dirt before it
is stamped. Some of the lubricants can also act as washer oils and are applied before
blanking to clean the sheet surface. It is important to test the stability of the oil mixture
formed due to the combination of mill oil, washer oil and stamping lubricant. This was
done using the chemical stability test. The mixture was checked for haziness and
precipitation. The lubrication conditions that caused (a) precipitation after one week and
(b) corrosion with hot dip galvanized steel samples after four weeks at room temperature
were eliminated. The lubrication condition which passed the chemical stability tests were
tested for cleanability. This is also important since the sheet metal should be cleaned of
the lubricant in order to be painted. Hence, cleanability tests were also conducted. Of the
34 lubrication conditions which were initially selected for evaluation, 11 were eliminated
using the chemical stability and cleanability tests.
12
Table 4.1 : Lubricants and their details for evaluation of stamping DQS (“L” indicates
lubricant and “W” indicates Washer Oil)
Lubricant Cost Dilution

Codes Company Type of lubricant /gallon Ratio
$13.50
L1 MS Fluid Synthetic lubricant ($6.75) 1:1 ratio
$23.85
$19.10
$15.85
$17.73
L5 Quaker Water emulsifiable lubricant ($1.773) 9:1 ratio
use as
L6 Quaker water based lubricant $8.89 received
M Mill oil - -
oil-dispersed lubricant with
extreme pressure and polar use as
L7 Quaker additives $13.99 received
use as
L8 Quaker oil-dispersed lubricant $14.32 received
Known
Parker Petroleum carbon hydride to use as
W1 (Japan) with anti-rust additive sponsor received
Continued
13
Table 4.1 Continued
Known
Parker Petroleum hydrocarbon and to use as
W2 (Japan) additives sponsor received
Known
to use as
W3 Daubert Petroleum based lubricant sponsor received
Known
to use as
L9 Daubert Petroleum based lubricant sponsor received
semi-synthetic with extreme $19.21($
L10 Tower Oil pressure additive 3.8) 4:1 ratio
synthetic soluble oil from
renewable resources with $16.68
L11 Tower Oil extreme pressure additive ($3.336) 4:1 ratio
synthetic soluble oil from
renewable resources-no chlorine $20.33
L12 Tower Oil or sulfur ($4.066) 4:1 ratio
Synthetic lubricant with extreme $16.33
L13 Tower Oil pressure additive ($3.266) 4:1 ratio
Not use as
L14 Irmco light oily lubricant known received
water based lubricant with

additives for corrosion
Not
L15 Irmco inhibition, metalworking 2:1 Ratio
known
performance, film strength and
fluid preservation
Continued
14
Table 4.1 Continued
Houghton $19.69
L16 Intl. Water soluble lubricant ($4.92) 3:1 ratio
Houghton Use as
L17 Intl. Petroleum based with additives $15.86 received
Houghton Use as
L18 Intl. Petroleum based lubricant $6.68 received
15
CHAPTER 5
MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION BY VISCOUS

PRESSURE BULGE (VPB) TEST
In order to carry out FE simulations of strip draw test and deep draw test, it is essential to
have the true stress-strain curve of the sheet material. VPB test is conducted to obtain the
flow-stress data of the material under biaxial state of stress. Larger strain values are
obtained in VPB tests, which are relevant to stamping operations when compared to the
data obtained using tensile tests.
5.1 Description of the tooling and test procedure
ERC/NSM has developed a tooling for flow stress determination as shown in Figure 5.1.
This tooling provides an online measurement of dome height and pressure. The VPB test
uses a viscous medium that is easy to handle instead of a liquid type medium. The tooling
(Figure 5.1) is designed for a double action hydraulic press. The upper die is connected to
the slide of the press and the lower die is connected to the cushion of the press. The
punch in the lower die is fixed to the press table. At the beginning, the tooling is open and
the blank sheet is placed between the upper and the lower dies. The dies are then closed
to clamp the blank material and the slide moves down together with the entire die set.
Consequently, the viscous medium is pressurized by the stationary punch and the sheet is
bulged by the viscous medium flowing into the upper die. The sheet is deformed until its
forming limit is reached. The tooling has a lock-bead to ensure pure stretching without
the flange material drawn into the die cavity. The press used for these experiments was a
160 ton hydraulic press with the CNC-controlled hydraulic cushion pins. The maximum
BHF of the press is 100 ton.
16
Figure 5.1: Schematic of the tooling used for the VPB test; before and after bulging of the
sheet [Gutscher et al, 2004]
5.2 Principles of Viscous Pressure Bulge Tests
The membrane theory is used to determine the flow stress curve with the hydraulic bulge
test as described in [Gutscher et al. 2004] (Figure 5.2).
Figure 5.2: Geometry of the sheet before and after the VPB test [Gutscher et al, 2004]
17
The effective stress,  and the effective strain,  can be calculated for the hydraulic
bulge test using Equations 5.1 and 5.2.
…Equation 5.1
… Equation 5.2
Where εt = Strain at thickness„t‟, p = pressure, Rd = instantaneous radius of curvature, td =
instantaneous wall thickness at the apex of the dome, hd = instantaneous dome height, t0 =
initial sheet thickness, dc = die diameter, Rc = Die corner radius, dsheet = Diameter of the
sheet.
From Equation 5.1 and Equation 5.2, it can be seen that four variables are needed to
determine the flow stress (  = K  n) of a material: (a) instantaneous radius of curvature,
Rd (b) instantaneous wall thickness at the apex of the dome, td (c) instantaneous dome
height, hd (d) pressure, P. The radius (Rd) and the thickness (td) are calculated as a
function of the dome height (hd) and the strain hardening exponent (n) in  = K  n
by
using a database, which was created by FEM. The procedure to determine the flow stress
is shown in Figure 5.3.
18
Figure 5.3: Algorithm used to determine the flow stress curve from the VPB test
[Gutscher et al, 2004]
The database has been created using different n-values. It should be noted that a database
for different n-values is only created once. Once created, the database can be used for any
material. The strength coefficient (K) does not much influence the geometric variables.
As shown in the flow chart (Figure 5.3), the determination of flow stress starts by
assigning an initial n-value. Then the flow stress curve and K and n values (  = K  n)
are calculated. This n-value is then used to calculate the thickness and the radius at the
top of the dome and flow stress curve again. Iteration is continued until the difference
between the new and the previous n-value is less than 0.001. Details of VPB test are also
available in [Gutscher et al. 2004].
5.3 Experimental Conditions and Results of VPB
Various sheet materials were tested to obtain the formability that is indicated by the
maximum dome height without fracture. Seven samples for each material were tested.
The first two samples were tested until the sheet fractured at the bulge. Consequently the
19
other samples were tested slightly below the pressure needed for fracture and the
maximum bulge height was measured. The test parameters used are shown in Table 5.1.
The thicknesses and the average plastic anisotropy ratios, R (See Equation 5.3)
considered in calculation of flow stress curves are given by Table 5.2.
R = (R0+ R90+ 2R45)/4 …Equation 5.3
Table 5.1: Parameters used in the viscous bulge test
Ram speed 5 mm/sec

Clamping force 500 kN
Radius of fillet of cavity 6.4 mm
Size of the test sample 254mm x 254mm
DQS 270D - GA / Pre-Phosphate, DQS 270D - GA , DQS

Sheet Materials
270F – GA, DQS 270F - GA / Pre-Phosphate
Table 5.2: Thicknesses and average plastic anisotropy ratios, R (provided by Arcelor-
Mittal) of sheet materials
Sheet Material Thickness(mm) R
DQS 270D - GA / Pre-Phosphate 0.75 1.85

DQS 270D - GA 0.75 1.85
DQS 270F – GA 0.75 1.98
DQS 270F - GA / Pre-Phosphate 0.75 1.98
20
Figure 5.4 shows the flow stress curves of the materials used in this study obtained using
VPB test. The curves are not extrapolated. They are the values obtained from the
experiment.
600.0
Flow Stress Data
500.0
True Stress (MPa)
400.0
300.0
270F- GA
200.0 270F-GA/prephosphated
270D-GA
100.0
270D-
GA/prephosphated
0.0
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500
True Strain
Figure 5.4: Flow stress data obtained from VPB tests
21
CHAPTER 6
EVALUATION OF LUBRICANTS USING STRIP DRAW

TEST
Strip drawing test was derived from the cup drawing test to reduce the blank size for
studies on galling and performance of lubricants [Kim et al. 2008]. It was designed for
advanced high strength steel (AHSS) since it is difficult to draw a cup without any failure
because of limited formability of AHSS.
6.1 Principles of Strip Draw Test
25.4 mm x 355.6 mm strip sample is used in the strip draw test. The strip sample is
placed into the slot on the stationary punch. Then the draw die to which the two die
inserts are assembled moves down with the ram to form the strip, as given in Figure 6.1.
Each die insert has four different corner radii (5 mm, 8 mm, 10mm and 12 mm). In this
test, the corner radius of 5mm was used to draw the strips as it would be more severe than
the other radii in order to investigate the performance of lubricants. The final shape of the
strip is U-shape with a depth of approximately 81.7 mm (Figure 6.1).
22
Figure 6.1: Draw die, die insert and deformed strip sample in SDT [Kim, 2008]
Evaluation criteria used to evaluate the performance of lubricants by strip drawing

test
Strip elongation - smaller the strip elongation (i.e. smaller the thinning of the specimen),
better the lubrication condition.
A good lubricant will reduce the CoF and this will decrease the punch force and the strip
elongation. In addition, varying the coefficient of friction using different lubricant and
BHF will result in a wide range of friction force based on the Coulomb‟s law (Equation
3.1), and thus a wide range of the punch force and draw-in length (See Figure 6.2).
The parameter that is controlled in the experiments is the coefficient of friction, μ, and
the measured responses are the punch force and strip draw-in length. Therefore, these
responses need to be as sensitive as possible to even small variation in the coefficient of
friction in order to make any measurable distinction between the different lubricants. This
is especially important because the expected range of μ is small and many sources of
error exist in the test (variation in (i) initial strip dimensions (ii) drawing stroke (depth),
(iii) material flow stress, (iv) the amount of lubricant applied and (v) error in the force
and strip length measurement). To summarize, the difference that should be noticed in the
punch force and draw-in length should be much more than the experimental error.
23
L = 157.74 mm
Lp=152.4mm
Figure 6.2: Schematic representation of the SDT [Kim, 2008]
Although high BHF may be desirable, it should not exceed the limit above which necking
or excessive thinning can occur in the experiments. Also, any experimental trial should
not be done before making sure that the sources of error which are mentioned above are
reduced as much as possible. Therefore, the following actions were taken before the
actual experiments: i) strip samples were prepared carefully and any variation in the
initial strip dimensions were recorded ii) a positive stop was used for the final press ram
position to make sure the same stroke was achieved in every test, iii) the lubricant weight
applied was narrowed to an acceptable range and tested for variation iv) the sensors used
for measuring the punch force and the stroke were properly calibrated before the tests.
6.2 Finite Element Simulations to Determine Testing Conditions
Different lubrication conditions correspond to different CoF at the tool-workpiece

interface. Hence FE simulations were conducted in PAMSTAMP 2G in order to
determine the BHF that can be applied during SDT without necking or fracturing by
observing change in draw-in lengths and punch forces at different CoFs for different
BHFs.
24
From Table 6.1, it is seen that BHF 3-5 tons does not cause necking. Uniform elongation
of 24% was used for the simulations. BHF of 5 tons shows more variation in draw-in
length and punch force across different CoFs than BHF of 3 tons. 3-5 tons BHF is a good
working range for SDT based on Table 6.1.
Table 6.1 Results of FE simulations of SDT showing the variation in punch force and
draw-in length as a function of CoF and BHF
BHF 3 5 7 9
(tons) Draw- Max Draw- Max Draw-in Max Draw-in Max
in Punch in Punch length Punch length Punch
length force length force (mm) force (mm) force
(mm) (KN) (mm) (KN) (KN) (KN)
CoF
0.05 61.40 4.61 59.43 6.60 55.46 8.48 47.54 10.48
0.06 60.77 5.33 57.94 7.60 50.51 10.00 necking necking
0.07 60.15 6.03 55.3 8.76 necking necking necking necking
6.3 Experimental Set-up for Strip Draw Test
6.3.1 Description of Tooling
In the present study, the strip drawing tooling operates with a 160-ton hydraulic press that
has a maximum ram speed of 70 mm/sec (2.75 inch/sec) (Figure 6.3).The preset constant
BHF is provided by the CNC-controlled hydraulic cushion pins. During the test, the
punch force is measured by a 15 Ton load cell located at the bottom of punch and the
displacement of press slide is recorded by an infrared laser sensor. SDTs are performed in
this study in order to determine the relative performance of the lubricants. As a large
25
number of lubricants are tested, SDT is a good preliminary test in order to short-list the
lubricants to be tested using the deep draw test.
Figure 6.3: Schematic of strip draw test tooling [Kim, 2008]
6.3.2 Test procedure
The following steps were done as a part of SDT.

 FE simulations to determine the range of BHF that could be used.
 Preliminary SDT experiments to determine the exact test conditions.
 SDT experiments.
 Analysis of results.
The following step-wise procedure was followed in SDT.

1. Strips of equal lengths were cut from all the four varieties of steel being tested.
2. Lubricant was applied on both sides of the strip (details in section 6.3.3.)
26
3. The strips were drawn using the die inserts shown in Figure 6.1 and the same side
of the strip was measured using a flexible ruler before and after drawing.
4. The change in strip length was used to evaluate the lubricants.
6.3.3 Lubricant Selection and Application
Lubricants selected for this study are commercially available through some of the major
lubricant companies in the country. Different kinds of lubricant were selected for this
study (Table 6.2).
Lubricant was applied on both sides of the strip in equal quantity using pipette and draw
down bar #0 for uniform application to a coating weight of 1.5(+/- 0.3 gm/m2). The
amount of lubricant applied is around 0.6-0.8 gm/m2 according to data obtained from one
of the stamping plants of a leading automotive industry. Hence, in this study, the amount
of lubrication closest to real-world production conditions was maintained. The list of
lubricants selected for this study is tabulated in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2: List of lubricants and washer oils tested using SDT
Synthetic lubricant L1, L11,L12,L13

semi-synthetic lubricant L10
water based lubricant L6,L15
petroleum-based lubricant L7,L8,L9,L14
Washer oils W2, W3
6.4 Strip Draw Test
6.4.1 Preliminary SDT tests
Preliminary SDTs were conducted in order to determine the testing conditions under
which the tests can give best results.
27
The test conditions for preliminary SDT are given in Table 6.3.
Table 6.3: Test conditions for Preliminary Strip Draw Test
Sheet Material DQ 270F-GA/Pre-phosphate
0.75 mm, 25.4±0.2 mm, 356 ±0.5

Sheet thickness, width and length
mm
Die Material Uncoated Graphite Cast Iron
Die insert corner radius, Rd 5 mm
Die insert width and length 40 mm, 94.35 mm
Punch corner radius, Rp 20.07 mm
Punch diameter, Dp 152.4 mm
Punch-die clearance, (Dd-Dp)/2 2.67 mm
Stroke, St 81.7 mm
BHF 3, 4, 5 tons
Ram Speed 4, 10, 20 and 40 mm/sec
L9- Spray
Lubricants - Application L7- Draw down bar
L9+W3- Spray/Spray
# of samples per lubricant 5 samples
The primary SDT was used to determine BHF and ram speed which would be able to
give different draw-in lengths for different lubricants. At 5 tons BHF, strips cracked even
28
when they were drawn at lower speeds. At 3 and 4 tons BHF, strips cracked at higher
speeds. Lower speed of 4mm.sec did not give significant variation of strip length. Hence,
3 and 4 ton BHF and 10mm/sec were concluded to be the best conditions to run SDT.
Based on the preliminary tests, it can be noted that ram speed plays a significant role in
drawing the strip.
6.4.2 Strip Draw Test – Experiment
Table 6.4: Test Conditions for SDT
DQ 270F-GA/Pre-phosphate, DQ 270F-
Sheet Material GA,DQ 270D-GA/Pre-phosphate, DQ 270D-
GA
Sheet thickness, width
0.75 mm, 25.4±0.2 mm, 356 ±0.5 mm
and length
Die Material Uncoated Graphite Cast Iron
Die insert corner radius,
5 mm
Rd
Die insert width and
40 mm, 94.35 mm
length
Punch corner radius, Rp 20.07 mm
Punch diameter, Dp 152.4 mm
Punch-die clearance,
2.67 mm
(Dd-Dp)/2
Stroke, St 81.7 mm
BHF 3 tons
Ram Speed 10 mm/sec
Continued
29
Table 6.4 Continued
L1, L6, L7, L8, L9, L10, L11, L12, L13, L15,
W2+L9, W3+L1, W3+L6, W3+L7, W3+L9,
Lubrication conditions W3+L10, W3+L11, W3+L13, W3+L14,
W3+L15, L9 with no mill oil ( all conditions
except the last one has mill oil on the sheet)
Lubricants - Application Draw down bar #0
Coating Weight 1.1 – 1.8 gm/m2
# of samples per
5 samples
lubricant
Four different sheet materials are tested in this study. Pre-phosphate grades are coated
with a phosphate layer which is believed to increase formability. The variation of the
effect of same lubrication condition on the four materials needs to be determined. Since
the four materials are stamped in the same plant, it would be interesting to analyze the
difference in effects of the same lubrication condition on them. Since they are all DQS,
the results should be comparable.
Table 6.4 gives the test conditions for SDT. The potential difficulties/important issues to
be considered while performing SDT are given in CHAPTER 8.
6.5 SDT - Experimental Results and Analysis
The variation in strip elongation is used to evaluate the different lubricants. Smaller the
strip elongation better is the lubrication condition. The strip elongations were recorded
for every lubrication condition on each sheet material. Figure 6.4 and Figure 6.5 show the
strip elongations for every lubrication condition.
Figure 6.4 Results of strip drawing test showing strip elongation for different materials
30
31
Figure 6.4: Results of strip drawing test showing strip elongation for different materials
Average Strip Elongation (of all materials)
25
These lubricants will be
considered for Deep
20 Drawing Test
Strip Elongation (mm)
15
10
Lubricant
Figure 6.5 Results of Strip Drawing Test showing the average strip elongation of
different materials
6.6 Summary and Conclusions
6.6.1 Summary
- Preliminary evaluation of various lubricants was done by forming four grades of

steels using strip draw test.
- Performance of lubricants was evaluated by measuring the strip elongation under
different lubrication conditions.
- FE simulations were used to find the range for experimental test conditions.
32
6.6.2 Conclusions
The following results can be inferred from Figure 6.4 and Figure 6.5:
- There is a considerable variation in the strip lengths for different lubrication
conditions and this can be used to evaluate the lubricants.
- The pre-phosphate steel has more formability than the others. This can be inferred
from the chart where the strip elongations of the pre-phosphate steels are lesser than
the others. This effect is especially observed in conditions where the lubricant is not
very good. Pre-phosphate coating reduces the coefficient of friction at the interface
acting like a lubricant.
- All the sheet materials show similar trends when they are formed under different
lubrication conditions
- 270F/GA is more formable than 270D/GA and pre-phosphate sheets are more
formable than the ones which are not.
- Based on the results of SDT, the following can be applied to Deep draw test (DDT).
 Lubricants which performed well in the SDT will be additionally tested using
DDT.
 Lubricants can be tested in DDT using 270D/GA sheet as it is the least formable
and the four sheet varieties show similar results for different lubrication
conditions.
33
CHAPTER 7
EVALUATION OF LUBRICANTS USING DEEP DRAW TEST
7.1 Principles of Deep Draw Test (DDT)
The deep drawing process is used extensively to evaluate the performance of lubricants.
In deep drawing (Figure 7.1), the most severe friction takes place at the flange area
(Figure 7.1). The lubrication condition in this flange area influences the thinning and
failure in the side wall of drawn cup. It also affects the draw-in length, Ld. As the blank
holder pressure (Pb) increases, the frictional stress (τ) also increases based on Coulomb‟s
law (Equation 3.1). Therefore, lubricants can be evaluated in the deep drawing by (i)
measuring the maximum applicable BHF without failure in the cup wall and (ii)
measuring the perimeter of the cups formed using different lubricants at the same BHF.
Figure 7.1 Schematic of deep drawing operation and tooling [Kim, 2008]
34
Evaluation Criteria
Quantitative analyses to determine the effectiveness of lubricants are carried out based on
the following evaluation criteria:
 The maximum applicable BHF (higher the BHF that can be applied without
fracturing the cup, better the lubricant).
 Measurement of perimeter in flange area (shorter the perimeter, better the
lubrication).
7.2 Preliminary Finite Element Simulation of Deep draw test (DDT)
The objective of performing preliminary finite element simulations of DDT is to obtain

the workable range of BHF for deep draw test. DEFORM-2D is used for the preliminary
simulations. The maximum thinning on the side wall of the cup is the parameter used to
decide the range of BHF to be used in the experiment. From the Strip Draw Tests, it was
found that thinning of 28% gave rise to fracture of the strip. Hence, maximum thinning of
28% on the side wall of the cup was used as the criteria to determine the working range
of BHF.
7.2.1 FE Model and Simulation Parameters
The FE model and the parameters used are seen in Figure 7.2 and Table 7.1 respectively.
Die
Sheet
Blank
Holder
Punch
Figure 7.2 Axi-symmetric model used in simulation of Deep draw test in DEFORM-2D
35
Table 7.1 FE Simulation Parameters for obtaining BHF range for DDT
Parameter Description
Sheet material 270D/GA
0.75mm thickness
k=598.12, n=0.2541 in σ = kεn
Blank Size 304.8 mm diameter
BHF 20 tons, 30 tons, 40 tons
Coefficient of friction (between blank 0.05,0.06,0.07
holder and sheet, die and sheet)
Stroke 80mm
7.2.2 FE Simulation Results
The results of finite element simulations for DDT are summarized in
Table 7.2. From this, it is concluded that 20-30 tons BHF should be a good working
range for drawing the cups.
Table 7.2 Maximum thinning % at 80mm of stroke

Coefficient of friction
0.05 0.06 0.07
20 15 17 15
30 20 19 29
BHF
fractured at
(tons)
75mm of fractured at
40 29 stroke 65mm of stroke
36
7.3 Experimental Set-up and Test Procedure for Deep Draw Test
7.3.1 Description of the tooling
In the present study, the deep drawing tooling operates in a 160-ton hydraulic press that
has a maximum ram speed of 300 mm/sec (12 inch/sec). The schematic of the tooling
used are shown in Figure 6.3. A draw die attached to the upper ram moves down and
forms a cup sample with a stationary punch. The preset constant BHF is provided by the
CNC-controlled hydraulic cushion pins. During the test, the punch force is measured by a
load cell located at the bottom of punch and the displacement of die is recorded by an
infrared laser sensor.
In this study, the draw ratio (blank diameter / punch diameter) was selected to be 2.0. The
drawing depth was selected to be 80 mm (3.15 inch) to leave some flange area for
measuring the draw-in length and the perimeter of flange. Round blanks of 304.8 mm
(=12 inch) diameter and 0.75mm (=0.029 inch) thickness were cut from 270D/GA steel
sheet.
7.3.2 Test Procedures
In the deep drawing test, the following steps are carried out:
- Clean the tool surface with acetone before every lubrication condition.
- Apply the lubricant on both sides of sheet sample using draw down bar #0 –
maintain consistency in amount of lubrication (with an error of +/-0.3 gm /m2).
- Mount the sheet specimen on the blank holder surface – ensure repeatability of
position on blank holder surface.
- Draw a round cup sample as illustrated in Figure 7.3.
- Make sure that the cups are drawn to the same height (+/- 0.3 mm acceptable) by
using positive stops to stop the ram.
- Measure the perimeter of the flange (using a flexible measuring tape).
- Record maximum punch force and load-stroke curve.
37
Figure 7.3 Schematic of Cup Draw Test procedure
7.3.3 Lubricant Selection and Application Method
Based on the results of the Strip Draw Test, the lubricants for Deep draw test are selected.
In addition, three other lubricants are also tested. The list of lubricants and the sheet
material on which they would be tested in DDT is given below, in Table 7.3.
Application of lubricant on the blank is done using draw down bar #0. It has to be
ensured that the lubricant is spread all over the blank surface on both sides uniformly.
The amount of lubricant applied is 1.5g/m2 (+/- 0.3 g/m2). This was ensured by measuring
a few samples with digital balance before and after lube application and maintaining the
amount of lubricant applied.
38
Table 7.3 List of Lubricants used in DDT
No. Code 270D/GA 270/GA Phos
1 M+W3+L9 √ √
2 M+W2+L9 √ √
3 M+L9 √ √
4 M +Hot Wash + L9 √ √
5 M+L1 √ -
6 M+L6 √ -
7 M+L10 √ -
8 M+L11 √ -
9 M+L15 √ -
10 M+L16 √ -
11 M+L17 √ -
12 M+L18 √ -
7.4 Deep Draw Test Experiments
7.4.1 Preliminary Deep Draw Test Experiments
The parameters of deep draw test are given in Table 7.4. Main objectives of the
preliminary cup drawing experiments are:
 To set the tooling up for drawing the thin, draw quality sheet material.
 To determine the minimum BHF at which the tests need to be run such that cups
can be formed with all the lubricants (but high enough to see enough variation
between lubrication conditions to differentiate them).
39
Table 7.4 Parameters of Preliminary Cup Drawing Experiments
Sheet material 270D/GA

0.75mm thickness
BHF 18 tons, 20 tons, 22 tons
Slide Force 70 tons
Ram Speed 40mm/sec
Stroke 79.5 mm
Nine lubrication conditions from the Strip Draw Test have been chosen for the deep draw
test. The “worst” performing condition of the nine conditions was used to find the
minimum BHF that needs to be used to run the tests. The maximum BHF at which cups
could be drawn with this “worst” lubricant is found to be 20 tons. The idea here is that if
cups with the “worst” performing of the lubricants can be drawn at a certain BHF, cups
with other lubrication conditions can also be drawn. 3 samples of the other lubrication
conditions were tested to see if there is a variation in the perimeters of the cups formed
using different lubricants. There was a sufficient variation of 20-25 mm which is good
enough to mark the difference between lubricants. Hence, the deep drawing experiments
would be started with 20 ton BHF.
40
7.4.2 Deep draw tests
The deep draw tests are similar to the preliminary tests but are conducted at different
BHFs. Lubricants that can be used at higher BHFs to form cups without cracking are
better than the rest. The test parameters are given below, in Table 7.5.
Table 7.5 Parameters of Cup Drawing Tests
Sheet material 270D/GA (0.75mm thickness)

270D/GA pre-phosphate (0.75mm thickness)
BHF 20 tons, 22 tons, 24 tons – 270D/GA

27 tons – 270D/GA Pre-phosphate
Slide Force 70 tons
Ram Speed 40mm/sec
Stroke 79.5 mm
Number of samples 5-10 (based on the consistency of perimeter of the

cups)
7.5 Deep Draw Test - Experimental Results and Analysis
As seen in Figure 7.4, the lubricants are evaluated based on (i) the perimeter of the flange
and (ii) maximum BHF at which the cup can be formed without cracking. A lubrication
condition is said to have failed at a certain BHF if three consecutive cups crack.
41
At 20 ton BHF, cups with all except one lubrication condition are drawn and show a
variation in perimeter (Figure 7.4). Lubricants L15 to L10 in the graph could be
categorized as “better performing” lubricants.
Flange Perimeter and Punch Force at 20 tons BHF

(270D/GA)
780.0 150.0
775.0 145.0
Maximum Punch Force (kN)

Flange Perimeter (mm)
770.0 140.0
765.0 135.0
760.0 130.0
755.0 125.0
750.0 120.0
745.0 115.0
740.0 110.0
735.0 105.0
Lubricant
Flange perimeter (mm) Maximum punch force(kN)
tons BHF (M + L18 failed at 20 ton BHF) Note: The y-axis on the graph does not start from
0. The error bands show maximum of 7% deviation.
42
Flange Perimeter and Punch Force at 22 tons BHF
(270D/GA)
770.0 140.0

765.0 135.0
760.0 130.0
755.0 125.0
750.0 120.0
745.0 115.0
740.0 110.0
M+L1 M+L15 M+L6 M+L10
Lubricant
Flange Perimeter(mm) Maximum punch force(kN)
tons BHF (the rest failed) Note: The y-axis on the graph does not start from 0. The error bands
show maximum of 3% deviation.
43
Flange Perimeter and Punch Force at 24 ton BHF
(270D/GA)
765.0 125.0

760.0 120.0
755.0 115.0
750.0 110.0
745.0 105.0
740.0 100.0
M+L6 M + L15
Lubricant
Flange Perimeter (mm) Maximum Punch Force (kN)
tons BHF (L1 and L10 failed at 24 tons) Note: The y-axis on the graph does not start from 0.
The error bands show maximum of 7% deviation.
There is a good correlation between the results obtained at 20 tons BHF (Figure 7.4) and
22 tons BHF (Figure 7.5). Four of the six lubricants that performed well at 20 tons BHF
also performed well at 22 tons BHF. These four lubricants are tested at higher BHFs to
further narrow down to two “best” lubricants of the ones selected for the tests.
The two lubricants that perform well at 24 ton BHF (Figure 7.6), L6 and L15 are
recommended as alternative lubricants for the sponsor‟s stamping plant.
Tests were also done with 270D/Pre-phosphate material with the lubrication conditions
currently used in the sponsor‟s plant to see their performance relative to each other.
Figure 7.7 shows the results. There was not much difference in the flange perimeter and
the four conditions show almost the same performance.
44
Flange Perimeter and Punch Force at 27 ton BHF
782.0 135.0
(270D/GA pre-phos)

780.0 130.0
778.0 125.0
776.0 120.0
774.0 115.0
772.0 110.0
770.0 105.0
M+W2+L9 M+W3+L9 M+L9 M+hot wash+L9
Lubricant
Flange Perimeter(mm) Maximum Punch Force (kN)
tons BHF for 270D/GA pre-phosphate
7.6 FE simulations to predict Coefficient of friction at tool-work piece

interface
FE simulations were carried out with PAM-STAMP in order to predict the coefficient of
friction at the tool-blank interface under different lubrication conditions and different
blank holder forces, using the parameters given in Table 7.6. Because of axisymmetry,
only a quarter of the cup was modeled in FEA, as seen in Figure 7.8. The FEA results are
seen in Table 7.7.
45
Table 7.6 Parameters used in FE simulations to predict CoF
Sheet material 270D/GA 270D/GA pre-phosphate

Strength coefficient (k) 598.12 MPa 605.7 MPa
Strain hardening exponent (n) 0.2541 0.2498
Blank Size – Diameter 304.8 mm

– Thickness 0.75 mm
BHF 20 tons, 22 tons, 24 tons for 270D/GA

27 tons for 270D/GA Pre-phosphated
Coefficient of friction (between 0.06 to 0.1

blank holder and sheet, die and
sheet)
Stroke 79.5mm
Figure 7.8 Quarter model of the Deep draw test used in FE simulations using PAM-
STAMP
46
Table 7.7 Results of FE simulations (Flange perimeter and Maximum Punch Force)
Coefficien Flange Maximum
Material BHF (tons) t of perimeter Punch
Friction (mm) Force (kN)
131.8592
0.08 746.216
136.7572
0.09 756.908
20
140.8568
0.1 767.352
-
0.11 FRACTURE
133.3412
0.08 753.912
270D/GA
22 138.4332
0.09 764.84
-
0.1 FRACTURE
125.6868
0.06 738.436
24 135.7448
0.07 761.468
-
0.08 FRACTURE
136.2256
0.07 755.624
270D/GA pre- 141.594
27 0.08 775.716
phosphated
-
0.09 FRACTURE
47
The perimeter of the flange obtained at the end of stroke in the simulation is compared to
the perimeter of the flange obtained in the experiment and is used to determine the
coefficient of friction from the simulation.
Flange Perimeter and Punch Force for BHF 20 tons (270D/GA)
Coefficient of friction (CoF) obtained from simulations. Flange perimeters

from experiment and simulation are matched in order to predict CoF
780.0 150.0
775.0 145.0

770.0 140.0
765.0 135.0
760.0 130.0
755.0 125.0
750.0 120.0
745.0 115.0
740.0 110.0
735.0 105.0
Lubricant
flange perimeter (mm) maximum punch force(kN)
predict the coefficient of friction at 20 ton BHF for 270D/GA
From Figure 7.9, it can be seen that the CoF while using the “better” lubricants is about
0.09 and the CoF while using the “not so good” ones is 0.1.
48
Flange Perimeter and Punch Force for BHF 22 tons
(270D/GA)
770.0 140.0

765.0 135.0
760.0 130.0
755.0 125.0
750.0 120.0
745.0 115.0
740.0 110.0
M+L1 CoF 0.08 M+L15 M+L6 M+L10 CoF 0.09
Lubricant
Flange Perimeter(mm) maximum punch force (kN)
49
Flange Perimeter and Punch Force at 24 ton BHF for 270D/GA

765.0 140.0

flange Perimeter (mm)
760.0 135.0
755.0 130.0
750.0 125.0
745.0 120.0
740.0 115.0
735.0 110.0
730.0 105.0
CoF 0.06 M+L6 ML15 CoF 0.07
Lubricant
From Figures 7.9-7.11, it is observed that the CoF decreases as the BHF increases for the
same lubrication condition. BHF has an effect on the CoF. By comparing FE simulations
with experimental data, it is observed that the CoF decreases with increase in BHF.
50
Flange Perimeter and Punch Force at 27 ton BHF (270D/GA phos)

781.0 145
780.0 140

779.0 135
778.0 130
777.0 125
776.0 120
775.0 115
774.0 110
773.0 105
772.0 100
CoF 0.08 M+W2+L9 M+W3+L9 M+L9 M+hot
Lubricant wash+L9
predict the coefficient of friction at 24 ton BHF for 270D/GA pre-phosphate
7.7 Summary and Conclusions
7.7.1 Summary
- Evaluation of lubricants was done using Deep Draw Test on 270D/GA and
270D/GA pre-phosphate.
- The criteria used for evaluation are the maximum applicable BHF and the flange
perimeter.
- The tests were carried out at different BHFs and the results were in agreement with
each other.
- FE simulations were conducted in order to determine the coefficient of friction
under different lubrication conditions and BHFs.
51
7.7.2 Conclusions
- The evaluation of lubricants was successful in terms of differentiating their

performances with respect to each other under emulated production conditions.
- Two lubricants L6 and L15 were evaluated to be the “best” among the ones tested
in this study and L1 and L10 were the next best.
- In general, water based lubricants performed the best followed by synthetic
lubricants. Both water based and synthetic lubricants performed significantly better than
petroleum-based lubricants.
- FE simulations revealed that the CoF decreases with increase in BHF for the same
lubrication condition.
- Variation in CoF can be observed with variation in lubrication conditions.
52
CHAPTER 8
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED DURING EVALUATION OF

LUBRICANTS AND WHILE IMPLEMENTING THE RESULTS IN
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
8.1 Important Practical Issues to Consider While Evaluating

Lubricants in Laboratory
It often happens that when tests or experiments are conducted in laboratories, people fail
to take into account conditions in the real world under which the results will be
implemented. It should be understood that the results may not hold good when the
conditions are different and hence experimental conditions should be able to emulate the
application for which the results would be used. This is especially true when
experimental results are directly applied in the industry or in practice.
There are several issues that need attention to details while conducting experiments, some
more obvious than others. It could turn out that the results of a study cannot be applied in
the real world because of the short-comings or pitfalls which completely change or do not
replicate the conditions under which they will be applied. In this study, a lot of care was
taken to make sure that the experimental conditions are realistic thus making the results
reliable.
In this study, it was important to be cognizant of the conditions in which stamping are
carried out in the industry in order to evaluate lubricants for them. Some of the aspects to
be considered are:
53
8.1.1 Lubricant application method and quantity
In stamping industry, lubricants are applied using rollers, squeegees or sprayers. They are
automated and hence have good repeatability and spread the lubricant uniformly on the
blank surface. It is not feasible to have such a set-up in laboratory testing conditions. But
it is important that there is an alternative method which can deliver the same output and
the same blank condition after lubrication. Hence, in this test, pipette and draw down bar
were used for applying and spreading the lubricant on the blank. It was found that 0.6-0.8
gm/m2 was the lubricant film thickness on the blank under production conditions in the
stamping plants. In order to be comparable, a lubricant film thickness of about 1.2 g/m2 is
applied on the blanks in this study. The blanks were weighed before and after application
of lubricant in order to ensure the weight of lubricant applied. Hence, consistency was
maintained within the blank and between blanks.
8.1.2 Die and Blank Holder Surface
Studies have been done on the die and blank holder surfaces and how they affect the
quality of stampings. [Kim, 2001] measured the surface roughness of a die forming the
side outer panel of an automobile and the Ra was found to vary from 0.21µ to 1.39µ. This
gave a direction to the surface roughness that should be used in this study. It was also
found that the behavior of lubricants varied with the surface of the work piece and the
tooling. Further, [Kim, 2001] found that the coefficient of friction does not need to be
lower with lower surface roughness. Instead it was found to be lowest at a surface
roughness Ra value of 0.3µ. In this study, the blank holder surface was polished to a
surface roughness of 0.25-0.45µ and the die had a surface roughness of 0.3-0.5µ. Sand
paper was used to polish the blank holder surface. Another important aspect to be taken
care of is the parallelism between the blank holder and die surface. If the surfaces are not
54
parallel to each other, shims can be added to the die locally at those regions. This would
ensure equal flow of material throughout the surface.
8.1.3 BHF
The BHF used in the experiments should be comparable to those used in production
conditions. The BHF significantly affects the coefficient of friction at the tool-work piece
interface and hence changes the conditions at which parts are stamped. In this study,
force of 20-24 tons was used in order to draw DQS cups of 12” diameter. This is
comparable to the forces used in the stamping industry. The amount of BHF also has a
significant effect on the quality of the stamped part. This also stated in [Seikirk, 1986].
8.1.4 Ram Speed
The speed at which the ram travels has an important effect on the drawability of the part.
Different lubricants perform differently under different stamping speeds. Hence during
tests, it is important that the stamping is done at speeds comparable to production
environment.
In deep draw experiments, flange perimeters are measured for evaluation of lubricants.
Hence, it is extremely important to maintain consistency in the cup heights. In this study,
positive stops were used to stop the ram at the same position for all the cups. A deviation
of +/- 0.15mm was observed in the height of the cups and this variation was acceptable.
Positive stops were found to be more accurate than limit switches which gave deviation
of +/- 1.5mm in the height of the cups formed. Such a variation caused a larger variation
in the flange perimeter.
8.2 Factors to be Considered during Implementation of Results in

Industrial Environment
The results of Strip Draw Test and Deep Draw Test have shown that synthetic/water
based lubricants perform better than the petroleum-based lubricants for stamping DQS.
Petroleum-based lubricants have been used in the stamping industry for a long time now.
55
The more newly-developed synthetic lubricants provide good stampability and hence
reduce scrap rate significantly. They also provide an improved surface of the stamped
metal.
However, before a switch is done from a petroleum-based lubricant to a synthetic
lubricant in a stamping plant, there are a lot of issues that need to be considered. Some of
them are briefly discussed here. This could also be future work in terms of “practicability
of switch from petroleum-based lubricant to water based lubricant in stamping”.
Some of the issues in switching to synthetic lubricants are discussed here.
- Stamped parts are generally stacked one on top of the other before they are
welded / assembled. Sometimes, they are stored for about 15-20 days before they are
moved for the next process. This means that there is metal to metal contact with the
synthetic lubricant trapped in between with low chances of evaporation. This might
aggravate corrosive action on the metals. Lubricant companies have not tested such
conditions for corrosion.
- Changes associated with the (stamping) lubrication system might be something
that needs attention. A mixing station for diluting the synthetic lubricants is another
addition. Since the synthetic oils have a lower viscosity than straight oils, it may affect
the application such as squeegees, rollers or sprayers.
The pros of changing to a synthetic lubricant as claimed by the lubricant companies are:
- Lower environmental impact
- Reduced energy and chemical cost to clean stamped parts
- Improved tool performance
- Improved part quality
- Improved housekeeping of floors and equipment.
However, the actual effects of using a synthetic lubricant in a stamping plant can be
realized only by implementing in a real production environment.
56
CHAPTER 9
OVERALL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the methodology developed earlier [Kim, 2008] to evaluate the performance
of lubricants was improved and utilized. This methodology can be applied in order to
evaluate lubricant performance of deep draw quality and other materials that can be
drawn into strips and cups.
Strip Drawing Tests were conducted with all the lubrication conditions on four kinds of
draw quality steels. The lubricants showed similar trends when tested with four different
sheet materials. The lubricants which performed well in SDT were further tested using
DDT. The lubricants tested using both SDT and DDT showed similar trends in both tests
which proves that SDT can be used as a preliminary experiment for DDT.
The results of the study have been interesting in terms of the kind of lubricants which
performed better than the others. In general, water based and synthetic lubricants
performed better than the petroleum-based ones. More research needs to be done before
implementing the results under production conditions since changing from petroleum-
based lubricants to water-based lubricants would need to satisfy requirements other than
just the quality of the stamped parts.
57
REFERENCES
[Altan, 2007] Altan,T., “Examining process variables to find stamped

part quality parts,” Stamping Journal, October 9, (2007)
[Andreasen et al, 1997] Andreasen, J., Bay, N., Andersen, M., Christensen, E.,
Bjerrum, N., “Screening the performance of lubricants for the ironing of stainless steel
with a strip reduction test”,Wear, Vol.207, pp.1–5, (1997)
[Arcelor Mittal, 2008] http://www.arcelormittal.com/automotive/sheets/N_EN.pdf,

“Galvannealed zinc-iron alloy coated steels”,(2008)
[Azushima et al. 1991] Azushima, Uda, Yokohama and Kudo, “An Interpretation of the
Speed Dependence of the Coefficient of Friction under the Micro-PHL Condition in
Sheet Drawing”, Annals of CIRP(1991), Vol.40, pp.227-230 (1991).
[Azushima et al. 1995] Azushima and Kudo, “Direct Observation of Contact Behaviour
to Interpret the Pressure Dependence of the Coefficient of Friction in Sheet Metal
Forming”, Annals of the CIRP, Vol.44, pp. 209-212 (1995).
[Azushima et al. 1996] Azushima, Yoreyama, Yamaguchi and Kudo, “Direct Observation
of Microcontact Behavior at the Interface between Tool and Workpiece in Lubricated
Upsetting”, Annals of the CIRP, Vol. 45, pp. 205-210 (1996)
[Azushima et al. 2000A] Azushima and Tanaka, “Lubricant Behavior Trapped within
Pockets on Workpiece Surface in Lubricated Upsetting by Means of Direct Fluorescence
Observation Technique”, Annals of the CIRP, pp. 165-168 (2000)
58
[Azushima et al. 2000B] Azushima and Akira, “FEM Analysis of Hydrostatic Pressure
Generated Within Lubricant Entrapped Into Pocket on Workpiece in Upsetting Process”,
Transactions of the ASME, Vol.122, pp.822-827 (2000)
[Bech et al. 1998] Bech, Bay and Eriksen, “A Study of Mechanism of

Liquid Lubrication in Metal Forming”, Annals of the CIRP, Vol.47, pp.221-226, (1998)
[Bhushan 2002] Bhushan, B., “Introduction to Tribology”, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New
York, US (2002)
[Bowden et al. 1967] Bowden, F.P. and Tabor, D., “Friction and Lubrication”, Methuen
& Co. LTD, London, U.K. (1967)
[Choudhury et al, 2006] Choudhury,I.A., Lai, O.H., Wong, L.T., “PAM-STAMP

in the simulation of stamping process of an automotive component”, Simulation
Modelling Practice and Theory, Vol.14, pp.71-81 (2006)
[Houghton International, 2009] Private communication with Houghton International,

2009
[Gutscher et al, 2004] Gutscher, G., Wu, H., Ngaile, G., and
Altan, T., “Determination of flow stress for sheet metal forming using the viscous
pressure bulge (VPB) test”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology Vol.146, pp.1-7,
(2004)
[Kim et al, 2002] Kim, D.D., Kim, B.M., Lee, Y., Min, B.H., “Friction
characteristics for surface finish and the stoning direction of stamping dies”, Proceedings
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture,
Vol.216, pp.531-542 (2002)
[Kim, 2008] Kim,H., “Prediction and elimination of galling in forming galvanized

advanced high strength steels (AHSS)”, Ph.D Thesis Dissertation,2008.
59
[Kim et al, 2008] Kim, H., Sung, J., Altan, T., “Investigation of galling in
forming galvanized advanced high strength steels (AHSS) using the twist compression
test (TCT)”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol.205, pp.459–468 (2008)
[Kim et al, 2008] Kim, H., Altan, T., Yan, Q., “Evaluation of stamping
lubricants in forming advanced high strength steels (AHSS) using deep drawing and
ironing tests”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 209, pp.4122-4133
(2008)
[Le et al. 2003] Le and Sutcliffe, “Evolution of Surface Pits on Stainless Steel Strip in
Cold Rolling and Strip Drawing”, Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 125, pp.384-390
(2003)
[Lo et al. 1997] Lo, S. and Wilson, R., “A theoretical model of micro-pool lubrication in
metal forming,” Proceedings of the 1st International conference on Tribology in
Manufacturing, Gifu, Japan, pp.83-90, (1997)
[Meiler et al, 2004] Meiler, M., Pfestorf, M., Merklein, M., and Geiger, M.,
“Tribological Properties of Dry Film Lubricants in Aluminum Sheet Metal Forming”,
Proceedings of the 2nd ICTMP, June 15-18, 2004, Nyborg, Denmark, pp.489-500 (2004)
[Mizuno et al. 1982] Mizuno, T., and Okamoto, M, “Effects of Lubricant Viscosity at
Pressure and Sliding Velocity on Lubrication Condition in the Compression Friction Test
on Sheet Metals” Journal of Lubrication Technology, Vol.104, pp.53-59 (1982)
[Olsson et al, 2004] Olsson, D.D., Bay, N., Andreasen, J., “Prediction of
limits of lubrication in strip reduction testing”, Annals of CIRP Vol.53 (1), pp.231–234
(2004)
[Pfestorf et al. 1998] Pfestorf, M., Engel, U. and Geiger, M., ”3D-Surface Parameters and
Their Application on Deterministic Textured Metal Sheets” International Journal of
Machine Tools & Manufacture, Vol.38, pp.607-614, (1998)
60
[Schey et al, 1983] Schey, J., “Tribology in Metalworking: Lubrication,
Friction andWear”, American Society for Metal, Metal Park, Ohio (1983)
[Shimizu et al. 2001] Shimizu, Andreasen, Bech and Bay, “Influence of Workpiece
Surface Topography on the Mechanisms of Liquid Lubrication in Strip Drawing.
Transactions of the ASME, Vol.123, pp.290-294 (2001)
[Sorensen et al. 1999] Sorenson, Bech, Andreason, Bay, Engel and Neudecker, “A Basic
Study of the Influence of Surface Topography on Mechanisms of Liquid Lubrication in
Metal Forming”, Annals of the CIRP, Vol.48, pp.203-208, (1999)
[Sutcliffe et al. 2001] Sutcliffe, Le and Ahmed, “Modeling of Micro-Pit Evolution in

Rolling or Strip-Drawing”, Journal of Tribology, Vol.123, pp. 791-798, (2001)
[Vermeulen et al, 2001] Vermeulen, M., Scheers, J., “Micro-hydrodynamic

effects in EBT textured steel”, International Journal for Machine Tools and Manufacture
Vol.41, pp.1941– 1951 (2001)
[Wanheim et al. 1974] Wanheim, Bay and Peterson, “A theoretically

determined model for friction in metal working processes”, Wear, Vol.28, pp. 251-258
(1974)
[Wilson 2004] Wilson, W., “Modeling Tribology in Computer Simulations of Forming

Processes”, the ICMTP Conference, Denmark (2004)
61

Evaluation of Lubricants For Stamping Deep Draw Quality Sheet Metal in Industrial Environment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of Lubricants For Stamping Deep Draw Quality Sheet Metal in Industrial Environment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EVALUATION OF LUBRICANTS FOR STAMPING DEEP

DRAW QUALITY SHEET METAL IN INDUSTRIAL

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master

Soumya Subramonian, B.E

Graduate Program in Mechanical Engineering

The Ohio State University

Professor Taylan Altan, Advisor

Professor Gary L. Kinzel

performed better than petroleum-based lubricants in this study.

May 27, 1985…………………………………………………………………. Born - India

1.1 Stamping of Draw Quality Steel (DQS) in automotive industry……………….. 1

1.2 Factors Affecting Stamped Part Quality [Altan, 2007]………………………….1

1.2.1 Press variables………………………………………………………………2

1.2.2 Tool variables……………………………………………………………….2

1.3 Effect of lubrication on stamping………………………………………………. 2

1.4 Research Motivation……………………………………………………………. 3

CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY………………. 4

CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………. 5

3.1 Friction Models used in Metal Forming Analysis [Kim, 2008]………………… 5

3.2.1 Primary Lubrication Mechanisms in Metal Forming……………………….7

3.2.2 Secondary Lubrication Mechanisms in Metal Forming…………………… 9

3.3 Types of Lubricants used in metal forming…………………………………… 9

3.4 Tribotests for evaluation of lubricant performance…………………………….10

CHAPTER 4 PREPARATION FOR EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF

CHAPTER 5 MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION BY VISCOUS PRESSURE

5.1 Description of the tooling and test procedure…………………………………. 16

5.2 Principles of Viscous Pressure Bulge Tests…………………………………… 17

5.3 Experimental Conditions and Results of VPB………………………………… 19

CHAPTER 6 EVALUATION OF LUBRICANTS USING STRIP DRAW TEST…22

6.1 Principles of Strip Draw Test …………………………………………………..22

6.2 Finite Element Simulations to Determine Testing Conditions…………………24

6.3 Experimental Set-up for Strip Draw Test………………………………………25

6.3.1 Description of Tooling …………………………………………………….25

6.3.2 Test procedure……………………………………………………………..26

6.3.3 Lubricant Selection and Application……………………………………... 27

6.4 Strip Draw Test ………………………………………………………………...27

6.4.1 Preliminary SDT tests ……………………………………………………..27

6.4.2 Strip Draw Test - Experiment ……………………………………………..29

6.6 Summary and Conclusions……………………………………………………..32

6.6.1 Summary …………………………………………………………………32

CHAPTER 7 EVALUATION OF LUBRICANTS USING DEEP DRAW TEST ….34

7.1 Principles of Deep Draw Test (DDT) ………………………………………….34

7.2 Preliminary Finite Element Simulation of Deep draw test (DDT)……………..35

7.2.1 FE Model and Simulation Parameters …………………………………….35

7.2.2 FE Simulation Results …………………………………………………….36

7.3.1 Description of the tooling …………………………………………………37

7.3.2 Test Procedures ……………………………………………………………37

7.3.3 Lubricant Selection and Application Method ……………………………..38

7.4 Deep Draw Test Experiments ………………………………………………….39

7.4.1 Preliminary Deep Draw Test Experiments ………………………………..39

7.4.2 Deep draw tests ……………………………………………………………41

7.5 Deep Draw Test - Experimental Results and Analysis ………………………...41

7.6 FE simulations to predict Coefficient of friction at tool-work piece interface ...45

7.7 Summary and Conclusions……………………………………………………. 51

7.7.1 Summary …………………………………………………………………..51

8.1 Important Practical Issues to Consider While Evaluating Lubricants in

8.1.1 Lubricant application method and quantity ……………………………….54

8.1.2 Die and Blank Holder Surface …………………………………………….54

8.1.4 Ram Speed ………………………………………………………………...55

8.2 Factors to be Considered during Implementation of Results in Industrial

CHAPTER 9 OVERALL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ……………………..57

1.1 Stamping of Draw Quality Steel (DQS) in automotive industry

1.2 Factors Affecting Stamped Part Quality [Altan, 2007]