K. R.

Gilmour
S. Paul
A. G. Leacock
School of Electrical
and Mechanical Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering,
University of Ulster,
Jordanstown, Northern Ireland
The Influence of Lubricant Film
Thickness on Friction Coefficients
During Slow Speed Deep Drawing
Operations
During some deep drawing operations liquid lubricants are used under the blankholder to
reduce friction coefcients. Under the clamping action of the blankholder, lubricants will
be squeezed out resulting in a changing lm thickness after the initial application of the
blankholder load. A relationship between kinetic friction coefcient values and the load-
ing duration of the blankholder can be observed from analysis of results recorded during
simulative testing. By using a numerical model to combine empirical measurements, fric-
tion coefcients during boundary lubrication, lubricant lm thickness with sheet surface
topography data, it can be shown that the coefcient of friction can reliably be predicted
for a given loading duration. DOI: 10.1115/1.1330732
Introduction
The introduction of lubricant to the tool blank interface results
in better control of the quality of deep drawn components. It is
generally recognized that when lubricant is added, the metal form-
ing process will take place under a mixed lubrication regime,
where the applied load is shared between the asperities and the
lubricant lm 1. This results in a load sharing condition in the
blankholder region, such as that shown in Fig. 1 2. There are few
models available for this regime 3. Most models are based on a
combination of models from hydrodynamic lubrication 4,5 and
boundary lubrication. In areas where such a scenario exists, the
proportion of the load carried by the asperities, F
asp
can be esti-
mated as in Eq. 1.
F
asp
F
n
F
oil
(1)
By assuming the shear strength of the lubricant to be negligible,
the friction force F
t
can be calculated as in Eq. 2, where
i
is
the coefcient of friction at the asperity interface.
F
t
F
asp

i
(2)
Values for
i
are best determined empirically since the properties
of the materials and lubricants and the process parameters will all
effect the value obtained.
At the asperity interface, it is proposed that sufcient lubricant
is present only to permit conditions of boundary lubrication to
exist. Under this condition,
i
is effectively the same as the
boundary coefcient
b
for a given set of parameters. Substituting

b
into Eq. 2 gives the relation shown in Eq. 3.
F
t
F
asp

b
(3)
Due to the relatively low contact pressures experienced during
deep drawing, Emmens 6, it is proposed that for the conditions
being considered, F
asp
can be assessed with sufcient accuracy
using the relation shown in Eq. 4, where A
r
is the asperity con-
tact area, and H is the hardness of the workpiece asperity.
F
asp
A
r
H (4)
Substituting the relation of Eq. 4 into that of Eq. 3 results in
the relation shown in Eq. 5.
F
t
A
r
H
b
(5)
From Eq. 5 it is apparent that the expected value of friction
tangential to the blank surface can be calculated if the material
hardness, coefcient of friction during boundary lubrication and
area of asperity contact are known. the values for both H and
b
can be determined from standard tests, whilst determining the
value of A
r
for a given set of conditions is slightly more difcult.
Under loading conditions, the value of A
r
will be dependent
upon the total force applied by the blankholder. From Eq. 1 it is
apparent that the proportion of the blankholder load carried by the
asperities will be dependent upon the proportion of load carried by
the blank lubricant. The load carrying capacity of the oil is largely
dependent upon the oil pressure which is itself determined by the
effects of many parameters such as drawing velocity, viscosity,
tool geometry, and blank geometry.
In the current report the effect of an additional parameter,
namely loading duration, is investigated for a given set of process
conditions. The loading duration can be dened as that period of
time which has elapsed between application of the blankholder
load and the instant at which the drawing force is measured. The
work in this report demonstrates that the force required to draw
the blank under the blankholder can vary signicantly depending
upon the period of time the blankholder load has been
Contributed by the Tribology Division for publication in the ASME JOURNAL OF
TRIBOLOGY. Manuscript received by the Tribology Division November 22, 1999;
revised manuscript received August 1, 2000. Associate Editor: A. A. Lubrecht. Fig. 1 Typical contact geometry at toolblank interface
846 Vol. 124, OCTOBER 2002 Copyright 2002 by ASME Transactions of the ASME
Downloaded From: http://www.asmedl.org/ on 08/07/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
applied. the identication of this parameter and explanation of the
mechanisms causing it will help to reduce inconsistency in the
manufacture of deep drawn components.
Theory
When the blankholder load is rst applied it causes the blank-
holder to move downwards. When the blank has been lubricated,
the rate at which the blankholder descends when it has contacted
the lubricant is governed by the action of the squeeze lm. For
ease of analysis most authors assume that during the approaching
stage the velocity of blankholder descent is accurately described
by simple squeeze lm theory 5. For a rectangular interface such
as that shown in Fig. 2 the velocity of closure u can be dened
as in Eq. 6,
u
F
n
h
3
lb
3
k
s

, (6)
Fig. 2 A rectangular interface
Fig. 3 Friction test machine
Fig. 4 Conventional graph illustrating the effect of prior loading duration on the kinetic fric-
tion curve
Journal of Tribology OCTOBER 2002, Vol. 124 847
Downloaded From: http://www.asmedl.org/ on 08/07/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
where F
s
is the normal applied force, h is the gap height, is the
lubricant viscosity, l is the gap length, b is the gap breadth, and k
s
is the shape factor. Correspondingly if the velocity of descent is
known, then the surface separation at any instant can be calculated
relative to a nal penetration height.
The nal penetration height will be such that the corresponding
asperity contact area will support the applied load F
n
. As previ-
ously shown the value of A
r
can be estimated as in Eq. 4.
Finding the actual penetration height which corresponds to the
value of A
r
requires knowledge of the blank surface geometry. By
examining a portion of the surface using surface measuring equip-
ment, data can be obtained providing a relationship between bear-
ing area and penetration height. This data is derived in a manner
similar to that rst described by Abbott and Firestone 7. This
data also allows the contact area to be calculated after a given
period of loading duration, provided the applied load, nal pen-
etration height and rate of descent are known. From this contact
area, the friction force at any instant, F
t
, can be calculated as
shown in Eq. 5.
Unfortunately Eq. 6 is only valid whilst the total separation
between tool and blank remains large relative to the asperities on
the sheet. It is generally believed that when the total separation
reduces to a height of around three times the roughness of the
sheet, then the additional effects of leakage in the ow paths
around asperities must be considered, Boyd 8. Correspondingly
Eq. 6 must be modied as in Eq. 7.
u
F
n
h
e
3
lb
3
k
s

(7)
In Eq. 7, h
e
is an effective clearance height value which takes
into account the additional ow paths available due to the surface
geometry of the sheet. The value of h
e
will be affected, not only
by the roughness of the sheet, but also by the waviness. Whilst
methods such as nite difference have been proposed for estimat-
ing the theoretical effects of the surface geometry on the value of
h
e
, it has previously been shown by the author that the existence
of trapped lubricant pools provide additional complications to the
Fig. 5 New graph illustrating the effect of prior loading duration on the kinetic friction curve
Fig. 6 Graph illustrating the t of the averaged drawing load growth curve through additional
data
848 Vol. 124, OCTOBER 2002 Transactions of the ASME
Downloaded From: http://www.asmedl.org/ on 08/07/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
analysis, Paul 9. Alternatively, the rate of closure, u, can be
assessed simply and accurately using empirical tests to obtain
time versus separation data. In this report such an approach has
been adopted.
Simulation Equipment and Test Procedure
A friction testing machine which was originally developed by
Gilmour 10 provided a simulative test facility for empirical mea-
surements, see Fig. 3. This apparatus has a range of constant
drawing velocities between 3.4 mm/s and 100 mm/s. Loads of up
to 200 kN can be applied to the test specimen under the action of
two hydraulic cylinders. Drawing load, blank holding force and
displacement, can all be measured using transducers and the re-
sults recorded using a data acquisition system for analysis using
computer software. Additionally, the prior loading duration pe-
riod elapsed between application of the blankholder load and the
commencement of draw can also be recorded.
For the tests discussed, at tools were manufactured using K. E.
970 tool making steel. Tool surfaces were hardened to an average
of 61.1 Rockwell C using heat treatment. This permitted mul-
tiple draw tests to be carried out with no signicant wear or scor-
ing occurring on the tool surface.
For all tests, 1.5 mm thick, cold rolled drawing grade mild steel
sheet type CR4GP was used. Laser cut specimen strips, nominally
50 mm wide 620 mm long were used for all tests carried out.
Prior to testing all specimens were checked for imperfections such
as scores, gouges, or edge burrs before being cleaned with a sol-
vent based cleaning agent and allowed to dry.
Prior to testing approximately 1.52 ml of the commercially
available deep drawing lubricant Cindolube, was distributed
evenly across each side of the strip. Strips were loaded in the
machine with approximately 100 mm of material protruding be-
yond the back edge of the tool. This prevented any decrease in the
nominal contact area during testing. During testing the ambient
temperature was maintained relatively constant at a nominal value
of 15.6C/0.6C. The draw velocity was xed at 5 mm/s and
the blank holding force maintained constant at 36.5 kN.
Experimental Friction Tests
For the set of tests in discussion, nine different prior loading
duration values were used. Two tests were carried out at each
prior loading duration and a new specimen was used each time.
The prior loading duration values used were: 2, 5, 10, 15, 20,
30, 50, 70, and 90 seconds. The blankholder pressure was 3.5
MPa, typical of conditions in many deep drawing operationsit
should be noted that this pressure is sufcient only to cause local
deformation of contacting asperities under the blankholder.
The drawing loads measured during each test are shown collec-
tively in the graph of Fig. 4. From these results it is apparent that
the average drawing load becomes greater as the prior loading
duration is increased. Whilst the practice of plotting results as
shown in Fig. 4 is common place, the method used to create the
graph in Fig. 5 is not. In Fig. 5 the x-axis parameter is total
loading duration, a parameter dened by the author as the total
time elapsed since the initial application of the blankholder
load.
From the graph of Fig. 5, it is apparent that an averaged
drawing load growth curve relating drawing load to total loading
duration can be extracted from the results. It is also apparent that
for the parameter values used, the effects of the initial squeeze
Fig. 7 Flowchart illustrating modied kinetic friction model
Fig. 8 Separation between blankholder and workpiece versus
total loading duration
Journal of Tribology OCTOBER 2002, Vol. 124 849
Downloaded From: http://www.asmedl.org/ on 08/07/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
lm are almost eliminated after 35 s. Repeating the tests at 2, 5, 7,
10, and 12 s, provides more information on the effect of the
squeeze lm on the drawing load as shown in Fig. 6. Here again it
is apparent that once the initial static friction effects have been
overcome at the commencement of draw, the drawing load returns
to the averaged drawing load growth curve for the rest of the
draw.
Simulation Model
It was earlier proposed that the drawing load could be predicted
during the action of squeeze lm, provided that certain process
parameters could be reliably calculated or estimated. The ow-
chart in Fig. 7 represents a computer based model designed to
carry out such a task. This model neglects the initial effects of
static friction and generates values of drawing load for a series of
given values of total loading duration. For simplication it has
been assumed that the effects of drawing velocity are negligible,
viscous friction is zero and the tool surface is relatively at,
smooth and hard.
In Step 1 the relationship between separation and total loading
duration is dened by completion of a simple static test where the
total clamps the workpiece but no drawing force is applied. This
was achieved by using additional high resolution displacement
transducers located on the tooling arrangement shown in Fig. 3.
The change in separation of the top and bottom tool could be
measured as the total loading duration elapsed. Using transducers
with resolution of 2 m/division, movements of 1 m or less
were easily detectable. A typical result is shown in Fig. 8 where
the separation is relative to the nal steady state value.
In Step 2 an effective hardness for the asperities is calculated
based upon earlier work, Boyd 10 and in Step 3, using the rela-
tion of Eq. 4, a nal contact area is estimated. Surface measure-
ments were carried out using a non-contact laser scanning device
to allow the nal truncation height to be calculated in Step 4.
Using the scanning machine a random area of a sample specimen
which was relatively free from defects was scanned. From the
resultant data a bearing area curve was derived as shown in Fig. 9.
Over the appropriate contact range this curve can be modeled by
the relation of Eq. 8, where h is the truncation height metres
relative to the surface RMS plane. By rearranging for h, this re-
lation can be used in the program to determine the nal truncation
height.
A
r

1
1.16
e
h3.2/0.745
(8)
In Step 5 the separation height is calculated for the current time
increment. The separation between one side of the sheet and one
tool face, can be estimated as half the measured separation, since
the empirical separation test measured the distance between the
top and bottom tool. The current height relative to the RMS plane
can be calculated as the sum of the nal height and the current
separation.
In Step 6 the height calculated in Step 5 is used in Eq. 8 to
calculate the current contact area. After verifying that contacts
actually exists, the load carried by the asperities is calculated in
Step 8 using the relation of Eq. 4. In Step 9 the equivalent
drawing load is calculated using an empirically derived coefcient
of friction for asperity interactions. For the modeled results a co-
efcient of friction of 0.11 is used, based on the results of simu-
lative tests where the squeeze lm regime has transferred into a
boundary lubrication condition.
Finally, the process is repeated for all time increments, result-
ing in a calculated relation between drawing load and total loading
Fig. 9 Graph illustrating partial bearing area curve of specimen surface
Fig. 10 Comparison of simulation model results with empiri-
cal data
850 Vol. 124, OCTOBER 2002 Transactions of the ASME
Downloaded From: http://www.asmedl.org/ on 08/07/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
duration. The graph in Fig. 10 illustrates the results obtained when
using process parameter values suitable for modeling the empiri-
cal tests in discussion.
Discussion
It has earlier been shown that a general curve can be drawn
through the empirical results obtained. By reconsidering the
graphs in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 it becomes apparent that the magnitude
of deviations between individual test results and the general curve
are also affected by the loading duration. Deviation from the gen-
eral curve tend to increase as the prior loading duration increases
until the effects of the initial squeeze lm have expired. It is likely
that this is indirectly related to the effect of the forces generated in
overcoming the initial static friction acting on the blank surface.
Such forces cause the shearing of high asperities in a brief wear-
ing in period, allowing the tool to descend further which subse-
quently pressurizes the lubricant remaining within the tooling/
blank clearance space. This causes a temporary reduction in the
load carried by the asperities while the new squeeze lm decays.
Boyd 10 has already shown that the value of static friction
will increase with prior loading duration while the initial squeeze
lm decays and this is further supported by the results shown in
Fig. 5 and Fig. 6. By applying the analysis proposed to the results
obtained, it becomes apparent that increases in static friction loads
cause more damage and a subsequent greater reduction in the
initial drawing load.
An averaged drawing load growth curve drawn through the
empirical results of Fig. 6 is again shown in Fig. 10 together with
the results of the simulation model. From the graph it is immedi-
ately apparent that there is a marked similarity both in form and
magnitude between both sets of results. Inaccuracies in the model
are most likely to arise from the analysis of the surface interac-
tions. In particular, the model assumes that the area scanned is
entirely representative of the sheet surface and that the corre-
sponding contact area for a given separation can be estimated by
simple truncation of the surface asperities. Ideally, it should be
possible to produce a representative result without the need for
empirical time versus separation data. Unfortunately, the addi-
tional effects of trapped lubricant pockets have prevented the suc-
cessful use of the squeeze lm equation in this role.
Conclusions
By plotting drawing loads against a new parameter known as
total known duration, the effects of the lubricant squeeze lm
between the tool and blank can be clearly observed. By correlat-
ing the results in this way a clear trend emerges which allows a
general drawing load versus total loading duration curve to be
drawn. From these results it can be concluded that in deep draw-
ing operations, the drawing load will be highly dependent upon
the total loading duration if the initial squeeze lm has not ex-
pired. Trends have also been identied in the degree of deviation
from the averaged drawing load growth curve at the commence-
ment of the draw and explanations have been proposed which
require further validation.
Comparison of the results from the model simulation with those
of empirical tests indicates a good degree of similarity, suggesting
that the drawing load is largely dependent upon the degree of
asperity contact. Finally, the use of surface information to esti-
mate the contact area for a measured separation is found to be
reasonably reliable.
References
1 Wilson, W. R. D., 1990, Mised Lubrication in Metal Forming Processes,
Adv. Technol. Plast., 4, pp. 16671676.
2 Emmens, W. C., 1988, The Inuence of Surface Roughness on Friction,
Proc. 15th Biennial I.D.D.R.G. Congress, Detroit, Michigan, May 1618, pp.
6370.
3 Schipper, D. J., 1988, Transitions in the Lubrication of Concentrated Con-
tact, Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente.
4 Hsu, T. C., 1994, Rened Models for Hydrodynamic Lubrication in Axisym-
metric Stretch Forming, ASME J. Tribol., 116, pp. 101109.
5 Mahdavian, S. M., and Shao, Z. M., 1993, Isoviscous Hydrodynamic Lubri-
cation of Deep Drawing and Its Comparison with Experiment, ASME J.
Tribol., 115, pp. 111118.
6 Emmens, W. C., and Monfort, G., 1990, The Inuence of Process Conditions
and Surface Characteristics on Friction at Low Pressure, 3rd Int. Conf. On
Technology of Plasticity, July.
7 Abbott, E. J., and Firestone, F. A., 1933, Specifying Surface Quality, A
Method Based on Accurate Measurement and Comparison, Mech. Eng., 55,
pp. 569573.
8 Boyd, M. R., 1996, An Investigation of the Friction and Lubrication Effects
in the Deep Drawing Process Through Simulative and Empirical Testing,
D. Phil. thesis, University of Ulster.
9 Paul, S. J., 1996, Kinetic Friction of Lubricated Contacts in the Deep Draw-
ing Process, D.Phil. thesis, University of Ulster, p. 88.
10 Gilmour, K. R., 1989, Simulative Testing as an Aid to the Industrial Devel-
opment of Deep Drawn Complex Forms, D.Phil. thesis, 1, University of
Ulster, pp. 98145.
Journal of Tribology OCTOBER 2002, Vol. 124 851
Downloaded From: http://www.asmedl.org/ on 08/07/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms