Uniaxial press: 1 ram vs 2 rams

  • Thread starter Thread starter Metallus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ram Stress
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the differences between uniaxial hydraulic presses with one ram (Press B) versus two rams (Press A) for compacting powders. Press A, which applies force symmetrically from both ends, results in a more uniform stress distribution and minimizes density gradients in the compacted pellet. In contrast, Press B, which applies force from one direction, can lead to non-uniform stress and density variations due to wall friction and the nature of powder compaction. The consensus is that using two rams is advantageous for achieving consistent material density in sintered powder parts.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of hydraulic press mechanics
  • Knowledge of powder compaction principles
  • Familiarity with material sintering processes
  • Basic concepts of stress distribution in materials
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mechanics of uniaxial hydraulic presses
  • Study the effects of wall friction on powder compaction
  • Explore material properties affecting density gradients in sintered parts
  • Learn about advanced compaction techniques in powder metallurgy
USEFUL FOR

Engineers, material scientists, and manufacturing professionals involved in powder metallurgy and compaction processes will benefit from this discussion.

Metallus
Assume to have 2 hydraulic presses for compacting powders with the following designs:
ApOp4pV.png


Press A has 2 rams that apply force in opposite directions, pointing towards the powders in the middle
Press B has 1 ram that applies force in one direction, towards the base of the press

My colleagues keep telling me that Press A is "symmetric", has different stress distribution and will lead to a more uniform compacted pellet, whereas press B will have a "gradient" compacting because of the non-uniform stress (keeping the overall applied force constant).

Why should it be different? Even if I'm applying a load only on one ram, the other end will apply an equal force in the opposite direction by reaction (3rd law), since it's the same material anyways. It should be the exact same thing. I'm a chemist and they are engineers, so I always assume to be in the wrong in these matters, but this just sounds too wrong to my brain.

What am I missing? Can you help me?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
In the absence of friction, your contention that A and B should be equivalent is certainly correct.

With friction (particularly side wall friction), there will be some difference.
 
Dr.D said:
In the absence of friction, your contention that A and B should be equivalent is certainly correct.

With friction (particularly side wall friction), there will be some difference.
If you are referring to friction between the ram and the walls of the sample holder, it should be negligible since everything is lubricated. If you are referring to the powders pressing against the walls horizontally and generating attrition when they are pressed vertically, then what would change? On the other end we have the same situation, don't we?

And what about their claims? Are they indeed fictitious or have any basis? They always say that the stress distribution isn't the same. What do they actually mean?
 
I would tend to think there won't be any difference between A and B unless the pellet under compression has unusual material properties, but as it turns out, this is a common problem in material sintering presses. According to my quick research, double-ended presses are used to minimize material density variation in sintered powder parts.

http://thelibraryofmanufacturing.com/pressing_sintering.html
TheLibraryofManufacturing.com said:
When manufacturing a thin part from a powder, (high diameter to thickness ratio), [density gradients] may not present a problem [when using a single-end press]. With thicker parts, significant density variations might occur relative to the distance from the punch. To mitigate this type of problem of density-pressure variation within a compacted powder, two opposing punches are usually employed.
 
In case A, you have the prospect of relative motion between the ram and the container walls at both end. In case B, this prospect exists at only one end.
 
Mech_Engineer said:
I would tend to think there won't be any difference between A and B unless the pellet under compression has unusual material properties, but as it turns out, this is a common problem in material sintering presses. According to my quick research, double-ended presses are used to minimize material density variation in sintered powder parts.

http://thelibraryofmanufacturing.com/pressing_sintering.html
So it is indeed as they say, using two rams will overcome the density gradient. But why does that happen? Isn't the powder being pressed from the other side as well simply by reaction to the applied pressure? And what if I used press A but only applied pressure on one end? Would that still lead to a density gradient?

Damn, my brain just refuses this.

Dr.D said:
In case A, you have the prospect of relative motion between the ram and the container walls at both end. In case B, this prospect exists at only one end.
What consequences does this have?
 
It would seem the problem arises because the powder is not an ideal fluid. If you were compressing say water, then the force would be uniformally distributed throughout the volume. Going to the other extreme, if you compress a rock the force will be axial (at least until it shatters.) In the intermediate case of a powder, I would expect the lines of equal force to be somewhat divergent from the ram to the sides of the die, due to the powder grains being forced between each other. This divergent force would introduce a somewhat conical shape to the lines of equal force in the lower part of the material.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 103 ·
4
Replies
103
Views
22K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K