Skip to main content
Log in

Evaluating the performance of can-body stock using the drawbead simulator

  • Aluminum Packaging Alloys
  • Research Summary
  • Published:
JOM Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is well recognized that formability depends on several material properties and process variables. The sheet metal surface roughness and material properties interact with lubricant type, quantity applied, and viscosity in a complex way to change friction. This work was undertaken to determine if the drawbead simulation tester could be used to obtain meaningful information related to the out-of-round (OOR) can production problem. Using the test, the performance of can stock that made OaR cans in production was compared to can stock that performed successfully. The results indicate some necessary can-body stock surface conditions for good production, but these are not necessarily limiting conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. S.R. MacEwen et al.,, “The Science of Modelling Can Forming and Performance,” Aluminum Alloys for Packaging, ed. J.G. Morris et al. (Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1992), pp. 85–101.

    Google Scholar 

  2. T.C. Sun, “Surface and Metallurgy Effects in Wall Ironing of AA 3104,” Aluminum Alloys for Packaging, ed. J.G. Morris et al. (Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1992), pp. 183–192.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J.A. Schey, “Geometric Factors Affecting Results from the Drawbead Simulation (DBS) Test,” Lubrication Engineering, 50 (3) (1993), pp. 255–260.

    Google Scholar 

  4. H.D. Nine, “Testing Lubricants for Sheet Metal Forming,” Novel Techniques in Metal Deformation Testing (Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1983), pp. 31–46.

    Google Scholar 

  5. G. Monfort and J. Defourny, Surface Roughness and Friction in Press Forming (report no. EUR 13330, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  6. J.A. Schey, “Friction in Working 5052 Aluminum Alloy Sheet,” Light Metals Processing and Applications (Montreal, Quebec: Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy, and Petroleum, 1993), pp. 571–580.

    Google Scholar 

  7. A. Bragard, “Galling During Press Forming of Cold Rolled Steel Sheets,” Metal Transfer and Galling in Metallic Systems (Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1987), pp. 265–280.

    Google Scholar 

  8. J.A. Schey, “Report of NADDRG Friction Committee on Reproducibility of Friction Tests Within and Between Laboratories,” Sheet Metal and Stamping Symposium—SP-944 (Warrendale, PA: SAE, 1993), pp. 261–267.

    Google Scholar 

  9. J.V. Reid and J.A. Schey, “Full Fluid Film Lubrication in Aluminum Strip Rolling,” ASLE Transactions, 21 (1978), pp. 191–200.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. T.N. Rouns et al., “Microstructural Evolution of the Insoluble Constituent Particle Size Distribution in 3XXX Aluminum Alloys During Fabrication,” RASELM ′91 (Tokyo, Japan: Japan Institute of Light Metals, 1991), pp. 911–916.

    Google Scholar 

  11. R.G. Kamat, “AA3104 Can Body Stock Ingot Characterization and Homogenization Study” (Paper presented at TMS Annual Meeting, Anaheim, California, February 4–8, 1996; to be published in JOM June 1996).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reid, J.V., Kamat, R.G. Evaluating the performance of can-body stock using the drawbead simulator. JOM 48, 26–28 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03222961

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03222961

Keywords

Navigation