[0001] This invention relates to lubricated metal workpieces, particularly of steel and
aluminium, used in the production of press-formed components, and in particular to
a method of using such workpieces to make structures of shaped components.
[0002] There is current interest in techniques for producing adhesively bonded structures
of shaped aluminium components for use in the automotive industry. Such a technique
is described for example in EPA 127343. The technique of converting a coil of aluminium
metal sheet into a structure of shaped components for use in the automotive industry
may typically involve the following steps:-
- The metal surface is pre-treated to provide a strongly bonded layer thereon which
acts as a base for subsequently applied adhesive.
- A lubricant is applied to the treated metal coil. The coil may then be stored or transported,
with the lubricant serving to protect the treated metal surface, and is cut up into
pieces ready for press-forming.
- The pieces of metal sheet are press-formed into components of desired shape. This
and subsequent operations are all performed on an automobile production line.
- Adhesive is applied to selected areas of the shaped components, without first removing
the lubricant.
- The components are assembled into the shape of the desired structure, and may be spot
welded or otherwise fixed to hold the structure together until the adhesive is cured.
- The adhesive is cured at elevated temperature.
- The metal surfaces of the structure are subjected to an aqueous alkaline cleaner which
removes the lubricant.
- The structure is painted.
[0003] Alternatively, the press-formed components may be secured together to form the structure
by mechanical means, e.g. by rivets or spot-welds, either in addition to or instead
of adhesive bonding.
[0004] A lubricant for use in such a technique needs to fulfil several requirements:
a) The lubricant must, obviously, have suitable lubricating properties for the press-forming
operation.
b) The lubricant should be solid at likely metal storage temperatures in order to
prevent stacked sheets from sticking together. Furthermore, a film of lubricant that
is liquid or sticky is prone to smear and to pick up dust and dirt.
c) Since it is not practicable in a production line to remove lubricant prior to application
of adhesive, the lubricant needs to be compatible with an adhesive if one is to be
used.
d) After the adhesive has been applied and cured, the lubricant must be readily removable
by an aqueous alkaline cleaner of the type conventionally used to prepare metal surfaces
for painting.
[0005] The lubricants of EPA 227360 are designed to be useful, not only for the technique
described above, but also for other forming and shaping operations performed on a
variety of metals.
[0006] In one aspect, EPA 227360 provides a lubricating composition for press forming consisting
of a lubricant dissolved or dispersed in a volatile liquid medium, wherein the lubricant
comprises at least one ester of a polyhydric alcohol having two or three hydroxyl
groups of which one or two are esterified with a long chain carboxylic acid and has
a melting point above ambient temperature but low enough to permit removal from a
metal surface by an aqueous alkaline cleaner.
[0007] EPA 227360 mentions that mixtures of esters may be used and may be advantageous;
and that the lubricant may contain a minor proportion up to 50% of one or more other
lubricating compounds such as long-chain carboxylic acids. The lubricants exemplified
are: diethylene glycol monostearate in solution in xylene; and diethylene glycol distearate
in solution in xylene.
[0008] Although the lubricants described in EPA 227360 are generally successful at meeting
requirements c) and d), they are sometimes less successful at meeting requirements
a) and b). It is surprisingly found that lubricants of this kind are ineffective,
so far as aluminium forming operations are concerned, at temperatures above their
liquidus. For good aluminium lubricating properties, in ester lubricants of this kind,
it appears necessary that some component be present in the solid state, so that the
lubricant is solid or at least mushy or viscous, at the forming temperature which
may be as high as 35°C or 40°C or even higher.
[0009] It might appear a simple matter to solve this isolated problem by using a different
ester with a higher melting point. A difficulty with this strategy is that higher
melting esters tend to be relatively hard at low and ambient temperatures, to the
extent that they readily spall and flake off metal surface to which they are applied.
Metal forming at 15 or 20°C cannot satisfactorily be performed under conditions where
the lubricant flakes off the metal workpiece. For use in various parts of the world,
there is a need for a single lubricant system which meets both these high- and low-temperature
criteria. It is an object of this invention to meet that need.
[0010] EPA 276 568 refers to a metal forming lubricant composition comprising partial ester
of polyhydric alcohols and ammonium salt of a long chain monocarboxylic acid and discloses
a specific composition consisting of ethylene glycol monostearate and stearic acid.
The lubricant is applied to the metal in form of an emulsion.
[0011] JP-A-62127237 discloses according to the abstract that an aliphatic diester (e.g.
ethylene glycol dilaurate) when used for metal forming reduces the sliding friction,
prevents irregular coating or release during handling and crack formation. The ester
is used as the sole lubricant.
[0012] In one aspect the invention provides lubricant which consists essentially of (in
wt %)
ethylene glycol dilaurate |
50 - 85 |
ethylene glycol monolaurate |
10 - 30 |
stearic acid |
up to 20 |
other glycol, ester and carboxylic acid species |
up to 20 |
as determined by analysis,
[0013] which lubricant has a hardness in the range 0.1 - 10 N/mm at all temperatures in
the range 15 - 35°C.
[0014] In another aspect, the invention provides lubricated metal wherein a surface of the
metal carries a film of the lubricant as defined.
[0015] In another aspect, the present invention provides a method of making a structure
of shaped aluminium components starting from lubricated aluminium metal sheet as defined,
comprising the steps:
- forming pieces of the sheet into components,
- bringing the components together in the shape of the desired structure,
- and securing the components together by mechanical and/or adhesive means.
[0016] Hardness of the lubricant is measured by a technique whereby a block of the uncoated
lubricant is equilibrated at a given temperature and is penetrated by a steel needle.
The test procedure used essentially involves driving a pointed 12 mm diameter needle
into the lubricant at a speed of 20 mm/minute, achieved with the use of materials
testing machine such as an Instron, and recording the load as a function of the needle
penetration into the lubricant. Separate tests are conducted at various temperatures
to derive the full curves. The hardness value quoted is then found as the slope of
the graph of penetration load versus penetration distance.
[0017] Although forming, e.g. press-forming, of metal sheet is generally performed at temperatures
in the range 15 - 30°C or 35°C, in some tropical locations temperatures in the press
may rise to 40°C or even 45°C. It is therefore preferred that lubricant films of this
invention have specified hardness values at temperatures within the range 15 - 40°C,
in the case of particularly preferred lubricants, within the range 15 - 45°C.
[0018] If the lubricant film is too hard, it is likely to be brittle and have poor frictional
characteristics during forming e.g. press-forming. If the lubricant film is too soft,
then again the lubricating characteristics are inferior. Preferably, the lubricant
film has a hardness in the range 0.1 - 5 N/mm at all temperatures within the range
specified at which forming e.g. press-forming is likely to take place in different
parts of the world. It is surprising that the hardness of the lubricant film has useful
predictive value for its lubricating characteristics.
[0019] The major component of the lubricant film is ethylene glycol di-laurate (EGDL).
[0020] The full ester or esters may be used optionally in admixture with a minor amount
of stearic acid. This optional minor component is present in an amount of most usually
5 - 20%, by weight on the weight of the mixture.
[0021] The full ester is used in admixture with a minor amount of ethylene glycol monolaurate
(EGML).
[0022] Lubricant composition can drift during storage, resulting in a somewhat different
composition on the lubricated metal surface, and these figures refer to the lubricant
when freshly made. Proportions herein are determined by analysis e.g. by standard
techniques involving gas chromatography, mass spectrometry and IR spectrometry; they
do not necessarily correspond closely to manufacturers' stated proportions in commercially
available materials.
[0023] To the best of our belief, there is no single ester of commercial purity which meets
the above-stated hardness requirement. Suitable lubricants may be achieved in one
or both of two ways. The first is by blending two or more components together. The
second is by using purer material.
[0024] These esters are not easy to purify. But to the best of our knowledge and belief,
EGDL has a melting point of about 50°C; and EGML has a melting point in the range
23 - 25°C; and mixtures of the two have melting ranges intermediate these two figures.
[0025] Full esters and partial esters such as EGDL and EGML can have impurities arising
from two main sources:-
a) The nominal fatty acid, e.g. lauric acid, is in fact a mixture of saturated long-chain
monocarboxylic acids, typically containing more than 30% of acids other than the nominated
one. An effect of these contaminating acids is to depress the melting point of the
ester.
b) The ester is derived from a fatty acid mixture which contains ethylenically unsaturated
acids. Such impurities make the lubricant less adhesive-compatible and less easy to
remove from the metal surface, and are therefore preferably absent or present in amounts
below 5% by weight.
[0026] As noted above, the lubricating characteristics of the lubricant film on lubricated
metal according to this invention fall off at both excessively high and excessively
low temperature. We have developed a test, which is described below, for measuring
lubricating characteristics in terms of a frictional coefficient (mu). This frictional
coefficient is preferably below about 0.1 at all temperatures within the range of
interest, that is to say 15°C up to 30°C or 35°C or 40°C or 45°C. As noted above,
the hardness of the lubricant film at any temperature is predictive of its frictional
coefficient.
[0027] Depending on its intended use, the lubricant may need to be compatible with subsequently
applied adhesive. In general, the esters described herein are compatible as a result
of being either absorbed or displaced by subsequently applied adhesive without grossly
impairing the adhesive bond strength obtainable. By contrast, resinous lubricants
and metal soap lubricants are generally not adhesive compatible in this sense.
[0028] The lubricant has a melting point above ambient temperature, preferably of at least
30°C, more preferably at least 40°C. This ensures that the lubricant is present as
a solid film on the metal substrate, which avoids problems with smearing and blocking
during coiling, decoiling, slitting and cutting. The use of such a lubricant avoids
contamination of the metal surface with a possible adhesive-incompatible oil or contaminant
and prevents local build up of lubricant to an undesirably thick layer.
[0029] The lubricant melts at a temperature low enough to permit its removal from a metal
surface by an aqueous alkaline cleaner, such as is used in automotive production lines
to prepare metal parts for painting. The highest practicable temperature for aqueous
alkaline cleaners in such circumstances is about 70°C. Lubricants melting below 70°C
and preferably below 65°C can thus be removed by aqueous alkaline cleaners. Lubricants
melting above 70°C may or may not be removable depending on whether they have chemical
groups, e.g. hydroxyl groups, which can react with the alkali to assist removal from
the metal surface. Thus for example, a commercially available wax having a melting
point of 85°C and an acid number of 135 to 155 by DIN 53402, was found not to be removable
by aqueous alkaline cleaners. A lubricant is deemed removable by aqueous alkaline
cleaners if it can be removed by treatment for 2 minutes at 70°C with a 15% by weight
aqueous solution of Ridolene 160 (a silicate-based proprietary cleaner marketed by
I.C.I. plc.)
[0030] A further aspect of this invention involves applying the lubricant to the metal in
the absence of any volatile solvent or diluent. This avoids the need to evaporate
volatile liquid from the lubricant film, and avoids the need to include any surface
active agent in the lubricant. It is found that the molten lubricants have satisfactory
viscosity for spraying or for application by roller coat. To ensure rapid solidification
of the lubricant film, the metal may be pre-cooled. To ensure good adhesion of a uniform
film, the metal may be pre-heated.
[0031] Alternatively the lubricant may be dissolved in a volatile solvent for application
to the metal. Indeed, very thin films can only be applied from solution. The use of
solution permits control of lubricant film thickness to within less than 0.5 g/m
2.
[0032] The lubricant may be applied to steel or other metals, but is likely to be principally
used on aluminium, which term is used to cover the pure metal and alloys in which
Al is the major component. A metal surface may carry a strongly-bonded inorganic and/or
organic pretreatment or primer layer, on the top of which the lubricant is present.
Such non-metallic layers are well known, and may be provided for example as chemical
conversion coatings or deposited coatings of the no-rinse type, based on chromium,
titanium or zirconium; or may be an anodic oxide layer (on Al or Ti) or a siloxane
layer. The metal may be in sheet form. The rate of application of lubricant will depend
on the intended use, but may typically be in the range of 0.1 - 10 g/m
2, e.g. 0.25 - 8 g/m
2, particularly 1 - 4 g/m
2, for aluminium coil to be formed into adhesively bonded structures.
[0033] Reference is directed to the accompanying drawings in which:
- Figure 1 is a schematic view of a strip-draw apparatus used for testing lubricated
metal;
- Figure 2 is a perspective view of a modified strip-draw apparatus;
- Figure 3 is a graph of hardness against temperature for several lubricants.
- Figures 4 and 6 are Bar Charts showing frictional coefficients of two lubricants at
different temperatures and different rates of application. Figure 4 is for lubricant
2. Figure 6 is for lubricant 1.
- Figure 5 is a bar chart showing lubricant residues after different bakes followed
by cleaning.
[0034] A purpose built strip-draw rig was designed and constructed with reference to ASTM
4173-82 for testing sheet metal forming lubricants. The apparatus is shown in Figures
1 and 2. The die set shown in Figure 1 was designed to simulate material flowing between
pressurised binder surfaces containing a draw bead arrangement. The die set of Figure
2 was designed to simulate flow between parallel binder surfaces so as to allow conventional
frictional values to be obtained.
[0035] Referring to Figures 1 and 2, one die 10 of each tool set is mounted on a load cell
12. The other die 14 of the tool set is mounted on a hydraulic cylinder 16. Flat strips
18, hydraulically pressurised between the two dies, can then be pulled through a particular
tool set while the clamp load is measured. The draw load is also measured using a
second load cell 20 mounted between a testing machine gripping jaw 22 and a cross
head 24. Thus, when used in conjunction with the flat parallel platen set of Figure
2, a conventional frictional value is obtained.
[0036] The strip draw rig is designed to be mounted on either a press simulator or a standard
tensile testing frame, depending on the variables under investigation.
[0037] Lubricated strips of material, 50 mm wide, were placed between the two faces of the
flat tool set of Figure 2 and hydraulically pressurised to a particular load. The
strips were then drawn through the die set of Figure 1 for a distance of approximately
250 mm, the draw and clamp forces being recorded as a function of time/displacement
of the drawn strip. Results presented in the form of a graph (draw force/2) versus
clamp load have a slope equal to the conventional friction coefficient.
EXAMPLE 1
[0038] A lubricant formulation according to the invention had the composition, in wt%:-
61% ethylene glycol dilaurate (EGDL).
19% ethylene glycol monolaurate (EGML)
11% stearic acid
9% other ester species
[0039] The identity of the components was determined by standard gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry techniques. This formulation is hereinafter called lubricant 1.
[0040] Another lubricant formulation according to the invention had the composition, in
wt%:-
70% ethylene glycol dilaurate
21.5% ethylene glycol monolaurate
8.5% other ester species
[0041] The identity of these components also was determined by standard gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry techniques. The formulation is hereinafter called lubricant 3.
[0042] A formulation called lubricant 2 was made up for comparison. Lubricant 2 contains
commercially available EGML 90% and stearic acid 10%. This lubricant falls outside
the scope of the present invention, and is included for comparison purposes only.
[0043] This commercially supplied ethylene glycol monolaurate has been analysed by us and
found to contain seven different acids in proportions as follows: caprylic (C
8) 3.9%; capric (C
10) 5.8%; lauric (C
12) 33%; myristic (C
14) 16.8%; palmitic (C
16) 11.9%; oleic and stearic (C
18) 28%.
[0044] Lubricants 1, 2 and 3 were applied by spraying on to aluminium alloy sheets which
had been preheated to 50°C. By this means, uniform films could be applied at controlled
thickness. The hardness of the lubricants was measured (by the method described above)
and the results are recorded in Figure 3.
[0045] Lubricants 1 and 2 were further tested in the strip draw rig illustrated in Figures
1 and 2. In each case, tests were performed at different temperatures in the range
0 - 50°C; and at five different rates of lubricant application ranging from 1 - 6
g/m
2. The results of these tests are shown in Figure 4 (for lubricant 2) and Figure 6
(for lubricant 1 batch 2, see below).
EXAMPLE 2
[0046] Lubricants 1 and 3 from Example 1 were evaluated. Lubricant 2 from Example 1 was
used for comparative purposes.
Experimental Procedure
[0047] The experimental work described below was carried out on 1.6 mm gauge 5754 material.
2.1 Application of Lubricant to Aluminium Sheets
[0048] The procedure for lubricant application consisted of pre-heating a reservoir of the
new lubricant to 70°C, and applying this onto sheets using air-assisted airless spray
nozzles. Lubricant was applied to sheets which were held at both room temperature
(20°C), and preheated to 60°C. These sheets were then placed in stacks. In the case
of the pre-heated material, the sheets were placed in a stack when the lubricant had
solidified.
2.2 Adhesive Compatibility
[0049] The standard test method for adhesive compatibility is to assemble standard lap shear
joints with a 10 mm overlap, using lubricated 1.6 mm pretreated coupons and a standard
adhesive. A string of six such joints are then exposed to combined stress/humidity
testing under a constant load. The time to failure of the first three joints in a
set of six joints is then noted. Individual lap shear joints are also exposed to salt
spray for given periods of time, and then tested for static strength retention.
[0050] Tests were carried out on joints manufactured with the lubricant 1 on their surfaces
prior to bonding. Two lubricant weight levels were evaluated, namely 2.0 g/m
2 and 5.5 g/m
2.
2.3 Lubricant Softening as a Function of Temperature
[0051] The Wax Penetration Test, was used to determine the softening response as a function
of temperature. The test procedure used essentially involves driving a pointed 12
mm diameter needle into the lubricant at a speed of 20 mm/minute, achieved with the
use of materials testing machine such as an Instron, and recording the load as a function
of the needle penetration into the lubricant. Separate tests are conducted at various
temperatures to derive the full curves. The hardness value quoted is then found as
the slope of the graph of penetration load versus penetration distance.
2.4 Strip Draw Evaluation
[0052] Lubricated sheets were produced with 3 g/m
2 of different lubricants via the pre-heated blank route, as indicated in section 2.1.
These sheets were guillotined into strips 50 mm wide and then drawn through the strip
draw rig, using the described procedure, to allow friction values to be determined
at temperatures of 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50°C.
2.5 Press Forming Evaluation of the Lubricant 1
[0053] Press forming tests were carried out on a press simulator to evaluate the lubricant.
Two distinct trials were used, namely:
(a) Square pan depth to failure.
(b) Pressed dome height to failure.
[0054] The above trials were carried out under standard conditions on a 275 mm square tooling
without the draw bead sections.
[0055] Sheets of AA5754-0 were pressed with 3 g/m
2 of both lubricants 1 and 2 to allow the comparative performance to be assessed.
2.6 Simulation of Possible Thermal Cycles of Pre-Lubricated Stacks
[0056] In order to simulate possible thermal cycles which may be experienced by pre-lubricated
material, lubricated stacks were produced by applying the lubricant to pre-heated
blanks, as described in section 2.1.
[0057] Four stacks were produced containing some thirty sheets, each 500 x 500 mm, with
a nominal 3 g/m
2 lubricant weight. These stacks were heated to four different temperatures in an oven
at, 30, 35, 40 and 45°C respectively. After removal from the oven, each stack was
left to cool with a centrally applied weight of 18.1 kg. After destacking, coupons
were removed from a number of adjacent sheets to quantify any lubricant transfer observed.
2.7 Cleaning, Oven Evaporation and Residues
[0058] Two distinct tests were carried out in this section, namely different oven bakes
followed by a cleaning stage, including no bake, and a typical bonded structure route
with the adhesive cure cycle included.
[0059] For the first series of tests, pretreated strips of aluminium were lubricated with
lubricant 2 (3.4 g/m
2) and lubricant 1 (3.8 g/m
2), and given the following treatment:
a) 20 minutes at 170°C
b) 20 minutes at 180°C
c) 20 minutes at 190°C
d) 20 minutes at 200°C
e) No oven bake.
[0060] All strips were then cleaned in stirred 20 g/litre solutions of Chemkleen CK165 at
a temperature of 60°C for 3 minutes. After drying, organic contamination on the strips
was measured, as carbon, by analysis at 600°C.
[0061] For the second series of tests, clean sheets of aluminium were coated with lubricant
1 and lubricant 2 at a coating weight of approximately 4.5 g/m
2. The sheets were then subjected to a cumulative oven-bake and alkali-clean cycle.
This consisted of:
a) 10 mins at 145°C
b) 20 mins at 190°C
c) 20 mins at 190°C
d) 30 secs alkali clean, (stirred 2.5% w/w Ridolene 336 at 60°C).
[0062] Final coat weights were measured after the cleaning stage using gravimetric determination.
3. RESULTS
3.1 Application of the Lubricant to the Sheets
[0063] Satisfactory results were obtained by spraying the lubricant 1 onto sheets held at
both room temperature, approximately 20°C, and sheets pre-heated to 60°C. The lubricant
solidified upon contact with the sheets held at ambient temperature. However, the
latter condition allowed the lubricant to remain liquid on the sheets for a short
time period.
[0064] The lubricant itself passed through the spray nozzles without any additional problems
to those encountered with the lubricant 2.
3.2 Adhesive Compatibility
[0065] The results of stress-humidity and salt spray testing on joints produced with lubricant
1 on their surfaces are presented in Table 1. This Table shows a good strength retention
after 20 weeks salt spray, and a testing duration in excess of 100 days during stress/humidity
with a 5 MPa applied stress.
3.3 Lubricant Softening as a Function of Temperature
[0066] The results of the Wax Penetration Testing carried out on lubricants 1, 2 and 3 are
presented in Figure 3.
[0067] Two batches of lubricant 1 were made on separate occasions. Batch 1 is shown by filled
diamonds joined by a solid line. Batch 2 is shown by shaded squares joined by a dotted
line. Both materials fall within the scope of the invention, as does lubricant 3,
shown by stars.
[0068] Lubricant 2 is shown for comparison. The hardness was relatively low at all temperatures.
3.4 Strip Draw Evaluation
[0069] Table 2 shows the comparative performance of the lubricants 1, 2 and 3 over the measured
temperature range for a given lubricant weight of 3 g/m
2. These figures show an improved performance of the lubricant 1 batch 1 at temperatures
of 30, 40 and 50°C. They also indicate a similar performance at 20°C.
3.5 Press Forming Evaluation of the Lubricant 1
[0070] The results of the press forming trials are shown in Table 3. This Table indicates
that both lubricants give a similar performance during stretch forming, but an improved
performance is obtained during square pan forming with the lubricant 1. The values
quoted are the average of five tests in each case. The tests themselves were carried
out in ambient conditions of around 22-24°C.
3.6 Simulation of Possible Thermal Cycles of Pre-Lubricated Stacks
[0071] Stacks of lubricated sheets, having lubricant 1 on their surface, which were heated
to 30, 35 and 40°C and subsequently cooled with a centrally applied weight showed
no evidence of de-stacking problems or lubricant transfer between adjacent sheets.
The corresponding stack heated to 45°C was more difficult to separate, showing clear
evidence of a "patchy" appearance, and slight lubricant transfer between adjacent
sheets. With the lubricant 2, a similar effect was seen at a temperature of 35°C.
3.7 Cleaning, Oven Evaporation and Residues
[0072] The results of the different oven bakes followed by a cleaning stage, including no
bake followed by a cleaning stage, are given in Figure 5. This figure shows that high
oven bakes contribute to the surface cleanliness.
[0073] The results of the oven evaporation trials show that lubricant 1 evaporates almost
totally compared to lubricant 2, 0.03 g/m
2 and 0.35 g/m
2 residue respectively. Final coat weights were also measured after the final alkali
clean using gravimetric determination. The results of both lubricants fell to between
-0.01 and -0.03 g/m
2 indicating that the cleaning stage is removing all of the residues.
4 DISCUSSION
4.1 Application of the Lubricant to the Sheets
[0074] No difficulties were experienced with the spray application of lubricant 1. Adherence
to the metal surface was improved by pre-heating the sheets, although a satisfactory
appearance was obtained with room temperature metal.
4 .2 Adhesive Compatibility
[0075] The results of the stress/humidity testing show that joints manufactured with lubricant
1 at a level of 2 g/m
2 are still on test, with 190 days achieved to date for all stress levels tested.
[0076] Salt spray data after 20 weeks exposure shows excellent strength retention at both
lubricant weight levels, out-performing the lubricant 2.
4.3 Lubricant Softening as a Function of Temperature
[0077] Results of the Wax Penetration test, presented in Figure 3, show the hardness improvement
over the temperature range examined. Earlier work had suggested that the hardness
value should be maintained between 0.1 and 1.0 N/mm on the vertical logarithmic axis.
Significantly exceeding the higher hardness values at lower temperatures will produce
a wax which is brittle and has limited value in terms of press die forming. At the
higher temperatures, hardness values less than 0.1 N/mm correspond to the melting
range of the wax. Figure 3 shows that the hardness of lubricant 1 falls to 0.1 N/mm
around 41-42°C, corresponding to its melting range. This is approximately 10-12°C
higher than lubricant 2. Thus the upper melting range has been significantly increased
without producing a brittle wax at the lower temperature range. Lubricant 3 has a
hardness that is strikingly independent of temperature.
4.4 Strip Draw Evaluation
[0078] In terms of frictional performance versus temperature for a lubricant weight of 3.0
g/m
2, Table 2, the lubricant 1 demonstrated a significant improvement in the frictional
coefficient at 30, 40 and 50°C, whilst having a similar performance at 20°C.
4.5 Press Forming Evaluation of the Lubricant 1
[0079] The results of the press forming evaluation indicate that the lubricant 1 formulation
has an equal performance during stretch forming, but a somewhat better performance
during square pan pressing. this should give an advantage to components such as door
rings and door inner pressings, where deep corner features are required having small
corner sweep radii. Thus the performance improvement will be beneficial.
4.6 Simulation of Possible Thermal Cycles of Pre-Lubricated Stacks
[0080] Results of thermal cycles applied to pre-lubricated stacks have shown no evidence
of lubricant transfer at 40°C, and only slight evidence of lubricant transfer when
the stack was heated to 45°C and then cooled. Thus, problems of lubricant transfer
with the lubricant 1 will now become apparent at temperatures between 40 and 45°C.
This performance is much better than the lubricant 2 where no evidence of transfer
was visible when the stack was heated to 30°C, but evidence was visible when the stack
was heated to 35°C. Hence a 10°C temperature improvement in terms of handling performance
has been achieved.
4.7 Cleaning, Oven Evaporation and Residues
[0081] Trials to assess the cleaning of the surface after either various oven bakes or no
bake, Figure 5, have shown that Chemkleen solution does clean the surfaces reasonably
effectively. High oven bake conditions, 190°C and 200°C, definitely contribute to
surface cleanliness in the case of lubricant 1, which evaporates very cleanly from
the aluminium surfaces.
[0082] Trials to determine the relative evaporation and remaining residues of lubricant
1 versus lubricant 2 have shown that the lubricant 1 evaporates almost completely
prior to the cleaning stage. Further, lower levels of carbon residuals are obtained.
Table 1:
Stress/Humidity and Salt Spray Data for the Lubricant 1 |
Lubricant Weight g/m2 |
Stress/Humidity Days to Failure |
Salt Spray Results (MPa) |
|
3 MPa |
4 MPa |
5 MPa |
0 wks |
8 wks |
20 wks |
2.0 |
190+ |
190+ |
190+ |
27.8 |
25.5 (92%) |
25.1 (90%) |
5.5 |
190+ |
190+ |
137 |
28.4 |
25.2 (89%) |
23.6 (83%) |
Table 2
Friction Value at temperature °C |
Lubricant |
10° |
20° |
30° |
40° |
50° |
1 |
|
0.017 |
0.012 |
0.046 |
0.069 |
2 |
|
0.020 |
0.036 |
0.096 |
0.107 |
3 |
0.092 |
0.020 |
0.043 |
nd |
nd |
nd - not determined |
Table 3:
Effect of Lubricant on Press Formability |
Lubricant |
Coat Weight (g/m2) |
Square Pan Depth mm |
Dome Height mm |
2 |
3.0 |
59.1 |
51.5 |
1 |
3.0 |
74.3 |
52.0 |