Page 32 - MetalForming November 2009

Tooling Technology TOOLING BY DESIGN
PETER ULINTZ
Peter Ulintz has worked in the sheetmetal-forming industry since 1978. His background includes tool and die making, tool and process engineering, engineering management and product devel- opment. Peter also operates the website ToolingbyDesign.com, a source for the transfer of modern metalforming and tool-and-die technology, and which promotes the use of “Performance-Based Die Engineering Strategies.”
Peter speaks at PMA seminars and roundtables focusing on tool and die design, die maintenance, deep drawing, stamping simula- tion, tooling for stamping high- strength steels and problem solv- ing in the press shop.
Peter Ulintz pete.ulintz@toolingbydesign.com www.toolingbydesign.com
Q: I am a raw material supplier (brass) and we currently supply coils to a stamping company hav- ing difficulty drawing parts from our material. Our control charts for tensile, yield, elongation and grain size all indi- cate our process is stable and in control, yet our customer continues to have difficulties. To give you an idea of the size of this part, it is the bottom of a light bulb.
Our customer describes the prob- lem as: “Splitting appears at the begin- ning of each coil and again when we are close to the center of each coil... We have been able to run the material by refurbishing the tool and roughening up (sandblasting) the die and strippers to hold the material during drawing. This roughening process has to be done on a daily basis, with considerable down- time. The latest lot of material received does not appear to be performing any better.”
I understand that the first reaction is to question the raw-material supplier, but is there something within the stamping process that may be con- tributing to the problem that we may be overlooking?
A: Blaming the material supplier sounds quite rational to me. After all, finding a good scapegoat consumes far less time than conducting root cause analysis!
But seriously, a couple of things your customer describes have my attention.
First, its comment regarding the forming problems being present at the beginning and middle of the coil sug- gests a thermal issue may be contribut- ing to the problem. Depending how long it takes to change a coil during
production, the die temperature may be changing (decreasing) which in turn changes the clearances between the draw post and die ring. Once the initial adjustments are made at coil change to eliminate the start-up problems, the press is turned back on and the die begins to heats up again, which in turn reduces the drawing clearances and restricts material flow. This is particu- larly true when failures occur near the end of the drawing process in an area where material is in compression and thickening.
Another possibility is that the force being applied by the draw pad may be too low. A common corrective response to part breakage is to reduce the draw- pad pressure to allow material to “flow better.” This can be the wrong approach, especially when there is insufficient pad pressure to begin with. When draw- pad pressures are too low, wrinkles and buckles form in the sheetmetal surface as it flows toward the die cavity. Since there is not adequate clearance between the punch and die to accommodate these wrinkles, material flow is imped- ed and excessive stretching and tearing can occur. If draw-pad pressure is reduced as a solution to the splitting problem, the situation worsens.
In this particular case, the correct solution is to increase draw-pad pres- sure to retard material flow and prevent wrinkle and buckle formations in the sheet. Draw-pad pressure requirements should be calculated and then con- firmed in the tooling before trying any other solutions. Simple formulas are readily available in die-engineering handbooks to get you close. For more precise results, computer metalforming
30 METALFORMING / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009
www.metalformingmagazine.com
Pressing Questions...and Answers