Sheet Metal Testing Challenges

Table of Contents

• Sheet Metal Key Industries

• Challenges of Testing Stronger Material

• Challenges Determining Formability Properties

• Extensometer Selection

• Effect of Efficiency

2
 Sheet Metal Industries
The top three industries that sheet metal is sold to:

1. Automotive (Largest growth)

2. Consumer products
3. Aerospace

3
 Automotive Sheet Metal Industry Summary
USA Changing Regulatory Requirements
Average fuel
U.S. CAFE consumption
standards E F needs to
increase to
in 2016
34.1MPG

• Reduce Emissions
• The metals industry is producing stronger material than ever before!
• Competition from Composite Material to Replace Metal
• Formability is a key differentiator for metals
• Increasing strength attempts to minimize composite material benefits
• Aluminum ‘Taking’ Traditional Steel Market Share
• Increased testing scrutiny from Automotive OEMs
• GROWTH!
• Growth = More metal needed = More testing required
4
 Stronger Material: Challenges
• Increased Load Requirement
• Is your current machine capable?
• Higher wear on your system
• Do you need higher testing machine capacity?

• Gripping Issues
• Are you having to increase clamping pressure?
• Sign of worn jaw faces leading to specimen slippage

• Violent Specimen Failures

• Have you seen damage to your extensometer?
• Increased wear on knife edges
• Extensometer slippage  false readings

• Reduced Formability
• Measure r- and n-values accurately and repeatedly

5
 Formability: Challenges
Metals Formability = Unique Selling Point (USP) vs. Composite Materials

• Are the Formability Properties Important to You?

• Calculating r- and n-values can be much simpler

• Do You know the Yielding Behavior of Each Material?

• Switching testing machine control modes is vital depending
on the yielding type

• Are You Testing More and More Specimens?

• Learn how to increase your efficiency on your testing system

6
 Formability: r-value
• The plastic strain ratio (r) of sheet metal is its ability to resist thinning or thickening when
subjected to a tensile or compressive force

• Difficult to measure thickness change; preferable to measure the length and width
changes

• Requires axial and transverse strains to be measured

7
 Formability: n-value
• Sheet metal material’s, response to cold working is given by the strain-hardening
exponent, n

• It is a measure of the increase in strength due to plastic deformation

High n-value

Sheet metal with a high n-value

σ - Stress
exhibits a high increase in strength with Low n-value

minimal movement

ε - Strain

8
 Extensometers for r- & n-values

9
 Efficiency: Extensometer Comparison
Specimen Specimen Insertion Extensometer Setup Test Time with Specimen Removal
Measurement Extensometer Removal

AutoXBiax Total Cycle Time: 115 Seconds

> 30%
FASTER!

AVE 2 Total Cycle Time: 121 Seconds

Clip-On Total Cycle Time: 172 Seconds

1 2 3
Minutes
10
 Effect on Throughput
*Total
Tests Per Day Clip-On AutoXBiax Time Savings
per year

50 143 min 96 min 48 min 200 hours

100 287 min 192 min 95 min 401 hours

200 573 min 383 min 190 min 801 hours

300 860 min 575 min 285 min 1202 hours

In 1 year, that’s 401 hours of time saved

*Presuming 253 working days in a year

11
 Influencing Factors

Specimen Specimen Insertion Extensometer Setup Test Time with Specimen Removal
Measurement Extensometer Removal

Total Cycle Time

Automatically Hydraulic Grips Automatic Strain Rate Control Hydraulic Grips

Calculated & Entered Vs Contacting Vs Vs
Vs Manual Grips Vs ‘Stress’ Rate Control Manual Grips
Manually Entered Advanced Video Vs
Non Contacting Crosshead Rate
Vs Control
Specimen Stops Clip-On
Vs Automatic Removal
Manual Alignment Vs
Axial Manual Removal
Vs
= Most Efficient Axial & Transverse

12
 The Differences
Specimen Extensometer
Specimen
Insertion & Attachment & Control Type
Measurement
Removal Removal

INCREASED
USER
INTERACTION

• 6 measurements/specimen • Time spent aligning by eye • Time spent aligning by eye • Time spent tuning tests
• ~42 keystrokes/specimen • Grip closing time is longer • Time to pause test to remove with specimens
10 TESTS = 420 KEY STROKES • Longer test times

MINIMIZED
USER
INTERACTION

• 6 measurements/specimen • Specimen inserted quickly and • Repeatable alignment • Automatic Gain

• ~7 keystrokes/specimen easily with alignment devices • Automatically removes Adjustment
10 TESTS = 70 KEY STROKES • Grips close quickly without pausing • Optimized test times

13
 Potential Time Savings

14
 Software Efficiency Modifications

Multiple Users

Multiple Materials CAN COST + $£

Multiple Inputs

Some changes can be made quickly and easily to existing Bluehill® test methods to:

• Decrease individual test time

• Minimize downtime between tests
• Allow for extra time spent on more value-added tasks

15
 Software Efficiency Modifications: Prompted Methods

• Optimal for a multiple-operator environment

• Consistent entries
• Consistent test flow from operator to operator
• Customizable for different tests
• Prompt before sample, before specimen,
after specimen, after sample, etc.

16
 Software Efficiency Modifications: Yield Types

Do you know the material’s yielding

behavior?
• Different methods needed for different material
• False YPE will be calculated if the method is not
setup for discontinuous material
• If setup in strain control the machine could go
out of control as yielding occurs outside the G.L.

YPE/Ae = Yield Point Elongation

Instron® Bluehill® TestProfiler provides:

• Automatic switch over for compliant method
• Automatic end of YPE conditions dictate changeover
• Machine control remains stable

17
 Get your lab prepared today.
Contact your local
Instron® Sales Representative

Visit www.instron.com
for more information

18