Wear 237 2000. 129136 www.elsevier.

comrlocaterwear

A frictional study of uncoated EBT steel sheets in a bending under tension friction test
A. Wihlborg
a

a, )

, L. Gunnarsson

Chalmers Uniersity of Technology, Department of Production Engineering, Gothenburg, Sweden b Swedish Institute for Metals Research, Stockholm, Sweden Received 1 February 1999; received in revised form 13 June 1999; accepted 30 September 1999

Abstract A factorial design was used to investigate the frictional response of different uncoated EBT surface topographies. The test included three different topographies Sibetex w materials., two lubricants, two contact pressures, and two sliding speeds. The steel sheet strips were subjected to a Bending Under Tension BUT. friction test. Our findings indicate that the most significant factor, affecting friction, is lubricant viscosity, followed by sliding speed, contact pressure, and surface topography. For measurement of the sheet surface topography, a 3D stylus-instrument was used and the ball-filtering technique was applied. The surface topography was measured in the contact zone on the test samples. The results show that the surface topography is a significant factor, influencing friction in mixed lubrication. The larger the number of isolated lubricant pockets, the smaller is the friction coefficient. These isolated pockets identified here are located in the topmost area and are imprints from the rolls before the first textured rolls. q 2000 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Surface topography; Sheet materials; Tribology; Factorial design

1. Introduction For many years, research on deep-drawing processes has focused on steel sheet surface topography. Several reports w15x have found that surface topography influences frictional behaviour. Therefore, it is of great interest to determine which topography features influencing this behaviour, thus allowing for an optimisation of the topography for different needs. For example, the friction between sheet and tool directs the flow of the sheet into the die, thus influencing the stress and strain distribution in the component. It is obvious that a certain roughness of the sheet is necessary for the surface to retain enough lubricant reservoirs for supplying oil to the contact zones throughout the entire deformation process. The friction between the sheet and tool is influenced not only by the surface topography, but also by several parameters such as lubricant, surface chemistry, contact pressure, and sliding speed.

In the production of cold-rolled steel sheets, the final roughness is the result of a mixture of roughnesses obtained from the tandem mill and the temper mill. In steel sheet manufacturing today, five commercial texturing methods are available: shotblasting SB., electrical discharge-texturing EDT., laser-texturing LT., electron beam-texturing EBT., and electro-chromium deposition ECD.. When manufacturing steel sheet materials, rolls produced by different texturing methods may be used; an example of this is the Lasertex where the rolls in the tandem mill are shotblasted and the rolls in the temper mill are laser-textured. In this study, a factorial design was used to investigate the frictional response of different EBT topographies. A secondary goal was to identify and rank the parameters affecting friction; the parameters used were surface topography, lubricant, sliding speed, and contact pressure. 2. Experiments 2.1. Material properties

Corresponding author. Fax: q46-31-772-3819; e-mail: wihl@pe.chalmers.se

Three sheet materials of deep-drawing quality were included in the study. The materials were of similar grades

0043-1648r00r$ - see front matter q 2000 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 4 3 - 1 6 4 8 9 9 . 0 0 3 1 9 - 1

130

A. Wihlborg, L. Gunnarsson r Wear 237 (2000) 129136

Table 1 Mechanical properties, surface hardness, and average roughness of the tested materials Material EBT-S EBT-M EBT-R Sheet thickness mm. 0.8 0.8 0.69 R P0.2 MPa. 186 173 177 HV0,015 135 145 144 Ra m m. 1.5 2.0 3.0

friction-free. The mean contact pressure can be calculated with Eq. 2., where w is the width of the strip. t0 1 Rq 2 F1 y FBUB ms ln u R F2

1.

ps

F1 q F2 2 wR

2.

with similar mechanical properties see Table 1.. The texturing method was EBT of different patterns. The steel sheet materials had smooth S., medium M., and rough R. topographies. 2.2. Friction tests The friction tests were performed in a BUT test Bending Under Tension., illustrated in Fig. 1. The back tension force was predetermined in the control system and was held constant during the test. In the BUT test several parameters can be varied. Changing the tool diameter altered the pressure. The back tension force, F2 , was set to a force corresponding to the yield stress of the material. The sliding distance was about 100 mm. The tool material was a quenched and tempered steel ground with a 600 a grit paper, which results in a surface roughness of R a f 0.1 m m. The test material was cut into 600 = 50 mm strips, deburred, and degreased in an ultrasonic bath with an alkaline solution at 608C for a few minutes. Each strip was then flushed with water for approximately 30 s, followed by flushing with an excess of alcohol and allowed to dry. Thereafter, the lubricant was applied on the strip in excess in order to reduce the influence of lubricant amount. The sliding direction was perpendicular to the rolling direction. A friction coefficient can be evaluated from the BUT test by using Eq. 1., where F1 is the draw force, F2 is the back tension force, u is the angle of wrap, FBU B is the bending and unbending force, t 0 is the sheet thickness, and R is the tool radius. The bending and unbending force FBUB was measured for each material and sliding speed, using a tool with roller bearings which was considered

The unbending of the strip at the outlet of the tool changes the surface roughness to such an extent that a correct description of the surface in contact with the tool cannot be stated w4x; therefore, the surface roughness must be measured in the bend. The BUT equipment was therefore stopped instantly at the desired pressure and sliding speed. This enabled surface measurements in the bend at a more or less correct contact situation; however, when the sliding stops the lubricant pressure in cavities drops and the surface may be altered. This slight effect should not change the oerall conclusions from the work. 2.3. Factorial design The experiments were conducted as a two-level factorial design w6x and since a secondary goal was to identify and rank the parameters affecting friction; large parameter variations were the target. The parameters subjected to variations for the BUT test were surface roughness, sliding speed, contact pressure, and lubricant. The pressure was altered by altering the tool radius from 5 to 10 mm. Three levels of surface roughness were used. This leaves us with four parameters, resulting in 3r2.2 4 s 24 triple tests plus three additional tests for comparison with earlier studies test a6 in Table 3. reported by Jonasson et al. w4x. Table 2 shows the parameters and their value at each level and Table 3 shows the identification of the experiments. 2.4. Roughness measurements A stylus instrument, Surfascan 3D from Somicronic w7x, was used for all measurements of the steel sheet surface topography. Its vertical measurement range is 4 mm, with a resolution of 4 nm. A stylus with 2 m m tip radius and

Table 2 Parameters included in the fractional factorial design S s smooth, M s medium, R s rough. Parameter Surface roughness R o . Lubricant viscosity at 208C L u , mm2 rs. Contact pressure MPa. Pr . Sliding speed mmrs. Sp . Fig. 1. Principle of BUT-test. y S 55 15 50 q M 1350 30 200 o R

A. Wihlborg, L. Gunnarsson r Wear 237 (2000) 129136 Table 3 Numbering of the tests for each surface topography Test number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Lu 55 55 55 55 1350 1350 1350 1350 1350 Pr 30 15 30 15 30 30 15 30 15 Sp 50 50 200 200 50 100 50 200 200

131

908 tip angle was used. On the tested sheet strips the measurements were performed at a location in the middle of the bend and 10 mm from the strip edge. The measured areas in the bend are of 1 = 1 mm size and the sampling distance between each data point is 4 m m. The form was removed by applying a 5th degree polynom in the direction of the bend. In order to achieve contact conditions close to the actual ones, a ball filter w4x was applied to 3D topographical data. The contacting surface was determined by simulating the rolling of a ball over a surface measurement. The location of the ball centre describes the waviness in the surface. This waviness then is subtracted from the measured data and the result is a surface that is believed to be close to the real contacting surface between sheet material and tool. The ball-filtering can be considered as a software skid. However, the contacting profile can be obtained by using mechanical skids of appropriate shape. This filtering technique is old and known as the Eor envelope system and has been incorporated into, but also dropped from several national standards w8x. 2.5. Estimate of real contact area In order to examine the contact conditions for the different textures involved, the true area of contact, a ,

Fig. 3. Effects for parameters affecting the friction coefficient when comparing the smooth and the medium surface.

between the tool and the sheet material was estimated. The contact area was determined by identifying the height in surface topography where plateaus change to valleys. In order to find the separation level, a technique for characterising multicomponent surface texture w9,10x was adopted. This technique was based on the fact that a bearing-area curve composed of various Gaussian distributions appears as straight lines when plotted on a normal probability paper. The texture of the surface located in the bend clearly shows a two-component structure see Fig. 2., where the contact areas were visible as plateaus with their own topography, and the irregularity of valleys resulting from the as received sheet roughness and process-induced roughening w11x. To achieve the level of the contour line separating plateaus from valleys, the intersection point

Fig. 2. Example of the bearing area curve plotted on normal probability paper in order to estimate the area fraction of contact.

Fig. 4. Effects for parameters affecting the friction coefficient when comparing the smooth and the rough surface.

132

A. Wihlborg, L. Gunnarsson r Wear 237 (2000) 129136

of the two lines was defined as the bearing level. The estimated real contact area was strongly influenced by the slope of the line fitted to the valley component of the topography. Hence, this line slope was held constant and chosen to one standard deviation and the line was set as a tangent to the bearing area curve see Fig. 2..

3. Results and discussion The analysis of the factorial design with respect to frictional response was evaluated according to Ref. w6x. The results shows that the lubricant has the largest influence on the friction level see Figs. 35., followed by contact pressure Pr ., sliding speed Sp ., and surface roughness R o ., except when the rough and medium topographies were compared see Fig. 5.. The dotted lines display 95% confidence level. By comparing the factorial design see Table 2. and effects we find that the highviscosity lubricant reduces friction compared to the lowviscosity one, and that high speed and low contact pressure also reduce the friction coefficient. These results were easily accepted based on general experience. The rough surface showed the highest friction coefficient, followed in descending order by smooth and medium. This means that the intermediate surface roughness showed the smallest friction coefficient. The small scatter between the measured and the predicted from the linear model w6x. friction coefficient indicates a reasonably good correlation even in the case where the statistical significance was the poorest see Fig. 6.. It has been stated elsewhere w5x that the surface texture influences friction mostly in mixed lubrication and not in boundary lubrication. The different test combinations were evaluated in a Stribeck curve see Fig. 7., where the

Fig. 6. Predicted versus observed friction coefficient for significant parameters shown in Fig. 5.

friction coefficient is plotted versus the Hersey parameter dynamic viscosity)sliding speedrmean contact pressure.. It was difficult to find the border region between boundary and mixed lubrication from the results. Previous work shows that a friction coefficient of roughly 0.16 will be induced for boundary lubrication. The tests with the four smallest values of the Hersey parameter H . therefore can be expected to have had boundary lubrication or nearly boundary lubrication a14, Fig. 7.. For the other five H-values a59. the tests were considered to be in mixed lubrication. The area fraction of contact was dependent on pressure for the four lowest values of H See Fig. 8, a14., i.e. the tests performed with the high pressure a1, 3. provide a larger area of contact. In mixed lubrication the area fraction of contact decreases with an increasing value of H a59.. Fig. 8 shows that area fraction of contact was dependent on the surface topography. Jonasson et al. w4x proposed an important factor to explain the difference between different steel sheet materials, namely, the mean area of oil pockets. The evaluation area has to represent the whole contact zone between the

Fig. 5. Effects for parameters affecting the friction coefficient when comparing the medium and the rough surface.

Fig. 7. The Stribeck curve for the friction tests.

A. Wihlborg, L. Gunnarsson r Wear 237 (2000) 129136

133

Fig. 8. The area fraction of contact plotted versus the Hersey parameter. Fig. 10. The number of isolated oil pockets plotted versus the Hersey parameter.

strip edges, from inlet to outlet of the tool. The method used in Ref. w4x for the calculation of mean area includes all oil pockets. However, in the contact zone there is one large oil pocket and a few small ones in contact with the boundaries of the evaluation area see Fig. 9.. Such pockets have no possibility to be hydrostatically pressurised in the whole contact zone and, therefore, the figure of merit may be misleading. A more suitable expression for the capability of the surface to hold and transport oil is the number of isolated oil pockets, i.e., oil pockets with no edge contact. In this study, the isolated oil pockets have an area of 2500 m m2 or less. The results from Figs. 10 and 7 show that the medium material with a high number of oil pockets give a low friction coefficient. The pockets are located in the contact zone see Fig. 9., also noticed by Emmens w5x and Felder and Samper w3x. This explains why the medium surface, which showed a larger area fraction of contact, has the smallest friction coefficient in the mixed regime compared to the other textures. It has been proposed by several studies w12,13x that the hydrostatic pressure of isolated pockets will contribute significantly to reducing friction in sheet metal forming.

However, this work shows that the area of pressurised pockets for the studied materials was only about 12% for uncoated materials, while in Refs. w12,13x this fraction is probably larger. This means that the hydrostatic pressure effect on reducing the friction coefficient cannot be significant. On the other hand, the lubricant that will be squeezed out onto the contact spots w12,13x from these pressurised pockets during deformation probably causes friction to decrease. This may explain the difference in the frictional behaviours observed for the three materials, where the medium roughness has more pockets and also a smaller friction coefficient compared to the smooth and the rough surface. The small isolated pockets are located in the topmost region as seen in the SEM images Fig. 11.. Some of these pockets are grinding imprints from the rolls used before the first textured rolls; this can be seen from the imprints on the islands in the EBT texture Fig. 11.. This is explained by the manufacturing process of the EBT rolls w14x. Compared to the medium surface, the image of the

Fig. 9. Zoomed contour plots from test 6. a. the medium surface. b. the smooth surface. The black colour indicates oil pockets. The large, black areas are connected to each other and not considered pressurised.

134

A. Wihlborg, L. Gunnarsson r Wear 237 (2000) 129136

Fig. 11. SEM image of the medium a. and the smooth b. surfaces from test number 6 which is performed in mixed lubrication. The images are located next to the measured area. The rolling direction is horizontal and the sliding direction is vertical.

smooth surface shows that the grinding imprints are, to a higher degree, connected to the textured pattern. Therefore, isolated pockets are fewer for the smooth surface. The same was seen in the SEM image of the rough surface. Friction is altered without a change in number of oil pockets when the pressure is changed from the high level to the low level see Fig. 12.. This is clear for the medium

and the smooth materials, but not as clear for the rough material. Therefore, the contact pressure will in future be held constant during the tests to receive the friction results for the Stribeck curve. Note also that a decreasing sliding speed increased the number of oil pockets see Fig. 12.. Future work should include studies of how the number of isolated pockets may be predetermined. This would

A. Wihlborg, L. Gunnarsson r Wear 237 (2000) 129136

135

Fig. 12. The number of isolated oil pockets plotted versus the friction coefficient in mixed lubrication, i.e., test a59. All three surface roughnesses are compared for four different H-values. The combination of 100 mmrs and 30 MPa gives the same H-value as the combination 50 mmrs and 15 MPa.

improve the process stability and thereby reduces the number of rejected components.

4. Conclusions The results from the factorial design show that the surface topography is a significant factor for the frictional behaviour of uncoated steel sheets. The hydrostatic pressure in the lubricant pockets is a minor friction-reducing component for uncoated EBTsurfaces since the total area of these pockets is small, up to 2%. The number of isolated oil pockets affects the friction coefficient for tests performed in mixed lubrication; the larger the number the lower the friction. The lubricant

is squeezed out on the contact spots upon deformation, which is a mechanism that decreases friction. The isolated pockets mainly originate from the imprints of the ground rolls prior to the texturing of the sheet. An increase in contact pressure increases friction more than expected by the associated change in the Hersey parameter. Therefore, the pressure should be held constant when comparing tests from different parameter settings. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Volvo Car Corporation Volvo., Swedish Steel SSAB., and the Swedish National Board for Industrial and Technical Development NUTEK. for their support in this work.

Appendix A. Data from each friction test Material Rough Test No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 Strip 1 0.182 0.159 0.164 0.147 0.128 0.124 0.114 0.116 0.089 0.168 0.161 0.135 0.135 Strip 2 0.183 0.156 0.165 0.146 0.126 0.124 0.116 0.117 0.089 0.167 0.154 0.136 0.135 Strip 3 0.178 0.148 0.168 0.144 0.127 0.124 0.116 0.118 0.089 0.167 0.143 0.137 0.133 Area fraction of contact %. 22.6 20.9 27.8 21.5 26.3 21.3 21.2 20.3 20.6 29.6 28.2 34.5 32.3 Number of isolated oil pockets 1rmm2 . 67.9 54.3 117.2 67.9 100.0 75.3 70.4 48.1 63.0 132.1 161.7 242.0 159.3

Medium

136

A. Wihlborg, L. Gunnarsson r Wear 237 (2000) 129136

Smooth

5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0.106 0.104 0.095 0.096 0.071 0.179 0.159 0.159 0.146 0.123 0.119 0.103 0.107 0.081

0.108 0.106 0.093 0.096 0.072 0.180 0.156 0.160 0.145 0.123 0.120 0.103 0.107 0.080

0.109 0.107 0.094 0.097 0.072 0.181 0.148 0.161 0.139 0.125 0.121 0.103 0.108 0.082

37.4 33.1 35.0 29.2 26.3 29.2 23.2 30.4 22.9 29.8 25.6 27.5 27.7 21.8

248.1 238.3 239.5 144.4 132.1 71.6 48.1 82.7 30.9 77.8 90.1 88.9 46.9 54.3

References
w8x w1x M. Jonasson, On surface topography of steel sheet for car bodies, PhD thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, ISBN 91-7197574-8, November, 1997. w2x M. Pfestorf, U. Engel, M. Geiger, 3D-Surface parameters and their application on deterministic textured metal sheets, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 38 56. 1998. 607614. w3x E. Felder, V. Samper, Experimental study and theoretical interpretation of the frictional mechanisms in steel sheet forming, Wear 178 1994. 8594. w4x M. Jonasson, A. Wihlborg, L. Gunnarsson, Analysis of surface topography changes in steel sheet strips during bending under tension friction test, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 38 56. 1998. 459467. w5x W.C. Emmens, Tribology of flat contacts and its application in deep drawing, PhD thesis, University of Twente, ISBN 90-3651028-7, November, 1997. w6x G.E.P. Box, W.G. Hunter, J.S. Hunter, Statistics for experimenters, Wiley, New York, USA, 1978. w7x P. Contet, J.F. Ville, Surfascan, 3D, an industrial 3D surface texture w9x

w10x

w11x

w12x

w13x

w14x

characterization instrument, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 35 2. 1995. 151156. T.R. Thomas, Rough surfaces, Longman Press, London and New York, 1982. M.C. Malburg, J. Raja, Characterisation of surface texture generated by plateau honing process, Annals of the CIRP 42 1. 1993. 637639. T. Klimczak, M. Jonasson, Analysis of real contact area and change of surface texture on deep drawn steel sheets, Wear 179 1994. 129135. T. Klimczak, H. Dautzenberg, J.A.G. Kals, On the roughening of free surface during sheet metal forming, Annals of the CIRP 37 1. 1988. 267270. A. Azushima, M. Tsubouchi, H. Kudo, Direct observation of lubricant behaviours under the micro-PHL at the Interface between Workpiece and Die, Advanced Technology of Plasticity 1 1990. 551556. J. Bech, N. Bay, M. Eriksen, A study of mechanisms of liquid lubrication in metal forming, Annals of the CIRP 47 1. 1998. 221226. J. Dolves, Electron Beam Texturing of rolls, Iron and Steel Engineer, August, 1991.