Ain Shams University Faculty of Engineering

Design & Production Department

Theory of Metal Forming MDP 381

Fall 2024

Lab report (1)

Spring back in bending process

Student Name: Ahmed Mohamed

Ahmed
Student ID: 1901675
Section: 1

Degree:

Remarks:
 Table of Contents
page
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….… 2
2. Experiment procedure………………..……………………………………………… 3-4
3. Equations used to determine spring back factor theoretically and
actual …………………………………………………………………………….…………….. 4
4. Experiment results………………………………………………………………....... 5-7
5. Comments on experiment results……………………………………………… 7

List of illustrations
page
Figures
1. Hand press .......................................................................................... 3
2. Bending Process schematic ................................................................ 3
3. Vernier caliper .................................................................................... 4
4. Vernier bevel protractor ..................................................................... 4
𝐑
5. Copper ( 𝐊 − 𝐢 ) curve ...................................................................... 5
𝐭
𝑹𝒊
6. Aluminum ( 𝐊 − ) curve................................................................ 6
𝒕
𝑹𝒊
7. Galvanized steel ( 𝐊 − ) curve ..................................................... 6
𝒕
𝑹𝒊
8. Black steel ( 𝐊 − ) curve ...............................................................6
𝒕
𝑹𝒊
9. Stainless steel ( 𝐊 − ) curve ......................................................... 7
𝒕
Tables
1. Specimens’ data ................................................................................... 3
2. Experiment results ............................................................................. 5

MDP381 1
 Introduction
Spring-back definition:

Spring-back effect is the tendency of a metal to partially return to

its original shape after being formed (bent in our experiment), due
to its elasticity.

Factors Influencing Spring-Back:

1. Material Properties: The elasticity of the metal, determined by

Young's Modulus. Materials with higher Young's Modulus values
are stiffer and less elastic. They resist deformation more effectively
and tend to exhibit less spring-back after bending.
2. Bending Radius: The sharper the radius is, the less springback
there will be. The wider the die opening is in air forming, the
greater the springback, because of the larger radius. And the greater
the bend radius is in relationship to the material thickness, the
greater the springback.
Bending Angle: The angle to which the metal is bent has an impact
on spring-back, with bigger angles comes greater spring-back.
4. Thickness of the Workpiece: The spring back angle increases as
sheet thickness decreases.

Effect of spring back in dimensional accuracy:

• Spring back effect leads to inaccurate dimensions and angles.

• Achieving precise forming is important to fulfill the product
and assembly constraints.
• Springback effect is a problem that must be dealt with to
maintain precise dimensions and angles.

MDP381 2
Experiment procedure:
1. In this experiment we want to study spring back
effect and the factors affecting it. We have different
materials with different thickness to be bent as shown in
the following table: Table 1. specimens’ data.
Material t (mm) 𝝈𝒚 (𝑴𝑷𝒂) 𝑬 (𝑴𝑷𝒂)
Copper 0.25 33.3 130,000
Aluminum 1 276 70,000
Aluminum 2 276 70,000
Galvanized steel 1.1 510 200,000
Stainless steel 0.25 620 190,000
Stainless steel 0.9 620 190,000
Black steel 0.5 241 202,000
Black steel 1 241 202,000

2. Tools used:
I. Hand press with a punch and die that punch tip radius (𝑅𝑖)
= 4 𝑚𝑚 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 (𝛼𝑖) = 90°.

Fig.1 Hand press Fig.2 Bending Process schematic

MDP381 3
 II. Vernier caliper: To measure sheets’ thickness.

Fig.3
III. Vernier bevel protractor: To measure bend angle after
bending.

Fig.4

Equations used to determine spring back

factor theoretically and actual:
𝑅𝑖 𝑅𝑖 𝜎𝑦 𝑅𝑖 𝜎𝑦
• 𝑅𝑓 =4×( )3 −3 × 𝐸𝑡 +1
𝐸𝑡
𝐾
• =
𝛼𝑓
𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝛼𝑖
𝑡
𝑅+
𝐾 = 𝑖 2
• 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑡
𝑅𝑓+2

MDP381 4
 Experiment results
Table 2. Experiment results
Material t (mm) 𝑹𝒇 (mm) 𝑎𝒇 𝐾𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐾𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙

Copper 0.25 4.05 78° 30\ 0.872 0.988

Aluminum 1 4.064 86° 0.956 0.986

Aluminum 2 4.032 88° 30\ 0.983 0.994

Galvanized steel 1.1 4.037 85° 30\ 0.95 0.992

Stainless steel 0.25 4.22 86° 0.956 0.95

Stainless steel 0.9 4.059 88° 40\ 0.985 0.987

Black steel 0.5 4.039 84° 30\ 0.939 0.991

Black steel 1 4.02 87° 30\ 0.972 0.996

Graphs:
𝐑𝐢
1. Copper ( 𝐊 − ) curve:
𝐭
𝐾

MDP381 5
 𝑹𝒊
2. Aluminum ( 𝐊 − ) curve:
𝒕

Aluminum
1

0.99

0.98

0.97
𝐾
K

0.96

0.95

0.94

0.93
2 4
Ri/t

𝑹𝒊
3. Galvanized steel ( 𝐊 − ) curve:
𝒕

Galvanized steel
0.995
0.99
𝐾

0.985
0.98
0.975
0.97
K

0.965
0.96
0.955
0.95
0.945
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Ri/t

𝑹𝒊
4. Black steel ( 𝐊 − ) curve:
𝒕

Black steel
1.01
1
0.99
0.98
0.97
K𝐾

0.96
0.95
0.94
0.93
0.92
0.91
4 8
Ri/t

MDP381 6
 𝑹𝒊
5. Stainless steel ( 𝐊 − ) curve:
𝒕

Stainless steel
0.99

0.98

0.97
𝐾

0.96
K

0.95

0.94

0.93
4.444444444 16
Ri/t

Comments on experiment results:

1. Values of 𝐾𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 aren’t the same as 𝐾𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙.

This may be because:
A. The Typical values of material’s properties (𝜎𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐸) which
are taken in table.1 are not the same as specimens’ properties.
B. Error in measuring of bend angle (∅).

2. Verification that the spring back angle increases as sheet

thickness decreases.

3. Verification that the spring back angle differs from one

material to another based on its yield strength and young’s
modulus of elasticity.

MDP381 7
MDP381 8