TurboCAD Forums

The Ultimate Resource for TurboCAD Knowledge

Register
 
Be sure your post is relevant to the current discussion.  Create a new topic within the appropriate board if you are unsure.

Simulation testing a drawing
Read 17834 times
* January 08, 2014, 06:52:51 PM
Does anyone have a way of testing the strength of a drawing? I have heard about it, but know nothing about it!!
I have this simple U shape to be cut out of 2'' plate, and am wondering if load is applied on the circle, how much can be applied before the legs start flexing (noticably), and how much if it flexes .125 at the end. At what point would it deform (stay bent)?
Can anyone help me out here, or point me in the right direction?
Sorry if my terminology is way off!
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 06:57:49 PM by chipoffblock »

Logged


* January 08, 2014, 07:34:28 PM
#1
Need complete dimensions and material description.

Henry H

Logged


* January 08, 2014, 08:08:13 PM
#2
Need complete dimensions and material description.

Henry H

Lets use 40,000 psi steel for now.
The tcw file is not enough for dimensions?
Basically a 2 x 2 sq bar 12in to inside radius.

Logged


* January 08, 2014, 10:11:17 PM
#3
Need complete dimensions and material description.

Henry H

Lets use 40,000 psi steel for now.
The tcw file is not enough for dimensions?
Basically a 2 x 2 sq bar 12in to inside radius.


Sometimes what seems simple is not necessarily so... unless you have the background knowledge. It might be a bit beyond a first year engineering problem -- but not much if correctly stated.


Here is a reminder of what is involved:
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/Notes/Forces.pdf


Certainly Comsol Multiphysics has a solver built in -- if you can define precisely the point of application of the force(s) and the vector (angle) of application.


Maybe you should do a force diagram and state what material the legs will be resting on... what the range of forces to be applied is like to be etc.






Logged
WillR
SW:TC 21 Pro Platinum, FM15, 20 Pro Platinum 64 Bit, also V 19.1 64Bit & 32 bit 17.2 and 18.1; Furniture Maker 14 and 10. HW: Vista 64 Ultimate, AMD 1090 (6 core) 8GB memory Plus also an AMD  8 core systemFX


* January 08, 2014, 10:36:46 PM
#4
FWIW -- a little digging around will find programs like this...


http://www.csc.fi/english/pages/elmer


Elmer is an open source multiphysical simulation software mainly developed by CSC - IT Center for Science (CSC). Elmer development was started 1995 in collaboration with Finnish Universities, research institutes and industry. After it's open source publication in 2005, the use and development of Elmer has become international.

Elmer includes physical models of fluid dynamics, structural mechanics, electromagnetics, heat transfer and acoustics, for example. These are described by partial differential equations which Elmer solves by the Finite Element Method (FEM).


You have to set up the model -- but then you can do some variations on the calculations.  As it's free -- it's a little easier on the pocketbook than COMSOL.


Logged
WillR
SW:TC 21 Pro Platinum, FM15, 20 Pro Platinum 64 Bit, also V 19.1 64Bit & 32 bit 17.2 and 18.1; Furniture Maker 14 and 10. HW: Vista 64 Ultimate, AMD 1090 (6 core) 8GB memory Plus also an AMD  8 core systemFX


* January 09, 2014, 07:32:08 AM
#5
Ok, Thanks for the replies!
Not sure what info is needed, I just had this hopeful thought that someone had a program that they could load that drawing in, and it would spit out data!!
I have seen it with AutoCad Inventer, I think it was. But didn't know if Turbocad had such??
But as for a little more detail, I was wanting to make a hole punch for sq tube. So the circle drawn on the top of my drw, is where the die would be.
The bottom leg would be welded to a plate that was bolted to the punch press bed/table. So the force would be straight down.
So, using 2.5x2.5x188w tube, over the 2x2 sq bar, I will have a nominal 1/8 of play, so I was wondering if punching a hole that requires 10t, will the 2x2 flex that 1/8 till it bottoms out, or will it punch it without flexing? I could probable go to a higher grade steel if required, but thought I wanted to see if this would work first.
If Someone has a way to figure this out, I would gladly pay a bit, as I don't have time to try and study/learn how to do it myself!!
Update; The plate I was going to use, is 44w, 44k Yield, 65-90k tensile. I can also get some 100k yield
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 06:03:12 PM by chipoffblock »

Logged


* January 09, 2014, 05:17:06 PM
#6
"...using 2x2x188w tube, over the 2x2 sq bar, I will have a nominal 1/8 of play..."

You lost me there.

Henry H

Logged


* January 09, 2014, 06:02:23 PM
#7
"...using 2x2x188w tube, over the 2x2 sq bar, I will have a nominal 1/8 of play..."

You lost me there.

Henry H

Not a wonder!! That was spos to be 2.5 x 2.5 x 188w tube!
I changed the original.

Logged


* January 09, 2014, 07:00:28 PM
#8
Your 2x2 would be seriously overstressed by a ten-ton load applied at its free end.

Henry H

Logged


* January 10, 2014, 07:16:07 AM
#9
Your 2x2 would be seriously overstressed by a ten-ton load applied at its free end.

Henry H

Do you have any details? Or do you just know this from experience? :-)
Because, I have a few modification options. The 100k yield steel, as mentioned.
Or I could cut the length down, as I mostly need it for parts where the holes are 7.5'' from end of tube.

Also, the 2x2 will only move 1/8'' and then it would bottom out on the bottom side of the tube, so if that would not stay bent,(spring back) then that may still work. But then the punched hole will be dimpled.

So, if I know what this design can handle, I can work back from there!

Logged


* January 10, 2014, 09:43:38 AM
#10
Your 2x2 would be seriously overstressed by a ten-ton load applied at its free end.

Henry H

Do you have any details? Or do you just know this from experience? :-)
Because, I have a few modification options. The 100k yield steel, as mentioned.
Or I could cut the length down, as I mostly need it for parts where the holes are 7.5'' from end of tube.

Also, the 2x2 will only move 1/8'' and then it would bottom out on the bottom side of the tube, so if that would not stay bent,(spring back) then that may still work. But then the punched hole will be dimpled.

So, if I know what this design can handle, I can work back from there!

Both. Biggest problem with your design is the intense stress concentration in the curved region. If you can revise the mounting so that the 2x2 is straight, mounted by clamping at the far end, and reduce the length as much as possible, then you'll stand a chance of making it work. But if the applied load is really ten tons, you'll still have to use heat-treated alloy steel (even 100ksi yield won't be good enough unless the length is drastically reduced).

Henry H

Logged


* January 10, 2014, 11:41:44 AM
#11
Your 2x2 would be seriously overstressed by a ten-ton load applied at its free end.

Henry H

Do you have any details? Or do you just know this from experience? :-)
Because, I have a few modification options. The 100k yield steel, as mentioned.
Or I could cut the length down, as I mostly need it for parts where the holes are 7.5'' from end of tube.

Also, the 2x2 will only move 1/8'' and then it would bottom out on the bottom side of the tube, so if that would not stay bent,(spring back) then that may still work. But then the punched hole will be dimpled.

So, if I know what this design can handle, I can work back from there!

Both. Biggest problem with your design is the intense stress concentration in the curved region. If you can revise the mounting so that the 2x2 is straight, mounted by clamping at the far end, and reduce the length as much as possible, then you'll stand a chance of making it work. But if the applied load is really ten tons, you'll still have to use heat-treated alloy steel (even 100ksi yield won't be good enough unless the length is drastically reduced).

Henry H
Thanks alot Henry, for your wisdom.
I guess my focus has been so much on eliminating stress/fatigue points, as in the curved region, I did not think it could be counterproductive!
Altho, I am starting to think that keeping it from bending may not work.
As long as it is stiff enough to hold the die centered on the punch, it could be allowed to flex down, untill it bottoms out in the tube, and then it will punch.(I could raise the die a 16th'', so it would only flex 1/16'')
(BTW, we are punching 21/64 holes in 3/16wall tube, hence the 10t)
If I make the 2x2 straight, then if it does flex, it will sooner stay bent, correct?
And clamping it, in my mind, seemed harder (more machining) to make it rigid enough to keep the die centered.

I feel like this has gone beyond the forum's intentions, Is this something you are interested in helping me outside of the forum, Henry? or is it okay here?
My initial thought was maybe TCAD had simulation software.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 11:45:51 AM by chipoffblock »

Logged


* January 10, 2014, 02:16:38 PM
#12
Just for curiosity, how many holes do you have to punch, is it an ongoing thing or just for one particular job?.

Logged


* January 10, 2014, 02:42:20 PM
#13
Just for curiosity, how many holes do you have to punch, is it an ongoing thing or just for one particular job?.

Yes, this is an ongoing thing for us, we now drill thousands of these holes!

Logged


* January 10, 2014, 03:23:58 PM
#14
I would go with Henry's suggestion for a more suitable steel and a heavier mounting post, but still like the idea of the loopback underneath, but with a heavier section that would afford a small amount of flex as repetitive strain would creep in after a period of time and cause possible stress cracks or fracture. Also put a microswitch at the location of the end of the box section that would activate the punch when it is in punching position.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 03:32:16 PM by Michael Geraghty »

Logged


* January 10, 2014, 04:26:00 PM
#15
"As long as it is stiff enough to hold the die centered on the punch, it could be allowed to flex down, untill it bottoms out in the tube, and then it will punch."

It won't bottom out in the tube. The punch pushes the tube down, and the tube pushes the bar down. The tube and the bar move as one. Once the punch penetrates the tube, however, the load will be relieved and the bar/tube will rebound.

Henry H

Logged


* January 11, 2014, 12:03:25 PM
#16
"As long as it is stiff enough to hold the die centered on the punch, it could be allowed to flex down, untill it bottoms out in the tube, and then it will punch."

It won't bottom out in the tube. The punch pushes the tube down, and the tube pushes the bar down. The tube and the bar move as one. Once the punch penetrates the tube, however, the load will be relieved and the bar/tube will rebound.

Henry H

Actually it will. That part of the unit I did not draw yet, but there will be a bottom .250 below that die holding block. So the punch will dimple the tube, meanwhle pushing the die holder down, till the holder contacts the bottom of the tube, and then punch.

Logged


* January 11, 2014, 03:41:18 PM
#17
"As long as it is stiff enough to hold the die centered on the punch, it could be allowed to flex down, untill it bottoms out in the tube, and then it will punch."

It won't bottom out in the tube. The punch pushes the tube down, and the tube pushes the bar down. The tube and the bar move as one. Once the punch penetrates the tube, however, the load will be relieved and the bar/tube will rebound.

Henry H

Actually it will. That part of the unit I did not draw yet, but there will be a bottom .250 below that die holding block. So the punch will dimple the tube, meanwhle pushing the die holder down, till the holder contacts the bottom of the tube, and then punch.

Can you update the drawing?

Henry H

Logged


* January 13, 2014, 08:32:55 AM
#18

[/quote]

Can you update the drawing?

Henry H
[/quote]

Sorry, Henry, The rest of the drawing is still in my head!
I had a fellow with solidworks look at it, and solidworks simulation software said 3500lbs would flex it about 1/8''.
But I am not sure how many such flexes it could handle without fatigue cracking. Wondering if tapering the top bar toward the die, would give it more uniform flex....
Does TC have simulation software?

Logged


* January 13, 2014, 09:01:14 AM
#19
Does TC have simulation software?

TurboCAD does not have "simulation software".

Logged
Alvin Gregorio
(mostly Residential Architectural 2D; no formal CAD Training; intermittent TurboCAD user since yr. 2000 [ver6.5])
---TurboCAD: V20.2PP(57.0)[as of 3/12/15]; V19DL(54.2); V11.2Pro; Windows-7-Pro/64-bit; Intel-Core-i3 CPU; 2.27ghz; 4GB RAM; Intel HD Graphics (CPU based)


* January 13, 2014, 01:02:41 PM
#20
If it is in your head, no need to draw it up, just sketch it and scan the image, but put all the relevant parts in. As you have described it upto now, it's hard to get the overall picture, are you intending to depress the top of the box section with the punch, before  the die bottoms out on the box section and before it starts to punch?.

Logged


* January 13, 2014, 04:09:55 PM
#21
Hey, here is what is in my head! I have just dabbled in 3d yet, so I am pretty proud of myself :-) Actually more impressed with the tools of TC Pro!

Logged


* January 13, 2014, 05:08:28 PM
#22
Thats a lot better, and now if I am understanding your interpretation correctly, longer would be better, and the die support arm would have a smaller angle of deflection and less stress on your return bend.
As I see it now, your box section is bottomed out on the base section, and the die and punch move together pushing  the top of the box section down 1/8 of an inch or so before bottoming out on the bottom inside of the box section, and then it punches the hole.

If this is your scenario, it should work, even at the longer distance that you wanted originally.

Is the depression of the top of the box section to clear the head of a pin or bolt so it sits flush?.

« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 05:20:36 PM by Michael Geraghty »

Logged


* January 13, 2014, 05:24:02 PM
#23
Thats a lot better, and now if I am understanding your interpretation correctly, longer would be better, and the die support arm would have a smaller angle of deflection and less stress on your return bend.
As I see it now, your box section is bottomed out on the base section, and the die and punch move together pushing  the top of the box section down 1/8 of an inch or so before bottoming out on the bottom inside of the box section, and then it punches the hole.

If this is your scenario, it should work, even at the longer distance that you wanted originally.

I'm wondering...

Does the support arm deflect downward along with the punch and the die, until the support arm bottoms out? And why allow so much as 1/8 inch before bottoming out?

Henry H

Logged


* January 13, 2014, 06:06:42 PM
#24
Michael, I think we are on the same page now!
Altho, if your last sentence is referring to the slot in the cross pce under the die/holder, no, that is so the punch slug has a place to fall when you pull off the tube, and when you slide the next one on, it should push it off the back. (that's the thought anyway!)

Henry, yes, my first hope was to get it strong enough to not have to, (would have been simpler) but now the plan is to let that arm deflect. As far as the 1/8'' goes, that is what I meant in that earlier reply, about raising the die to make the tolerance less. But I have to leave it loose enough to accommodate the weld, as well as any discrepancy in the tube.

Logged


* January 13, 2014, 06:15:49 PM
#25
Thats a lot better, and now if I am understanding your interpretation correctly, longer would be better, and the die support arm would have a smaller angle of deflection and less stress on your return bend.
As I see it now, your box section is bottomed out on the base section, and the die and punch move together pushing  the top of the box section down 1/8 of an inch or so before bottoming out on the bottom inside of the box section, and then it punches the hole.

If this is your scenario, it should work, even at the longer distance that you wanted originally.

I'm wondering...

Does the support arm deflect downward along with the punch and the die, until the support arm bottoms out? And why allow so much as 1/8 inch before bottoming out?

Henry H

Not certain Henry, but it looks as though he wants to dimple the top 1/8" or so before it punches so it depresses the top of the box section to maybe clear the head of a pin, and if it is the case, no load at all on the return bend, purely being used for springback so the next box section to go on the arm has some clearance. In fact it could have just been pin jointed with a retainer to stop the punch lifting in back up on the return stroke, and a spring to open it back up to allow some clearance for the next box section to go on the arm. It would be as well rising !/8" also, so the die is square to the base of the box section when it punches.

We may not have the full story yet, but it looks very similar to the box section furniture scenario that has a dimple for the screw head.


Logged


* January 13, 2014, 06:22:48 PM
#26
Michael, I think we are on the same page now!
Altho, if your last sentence is referring to the slot in the cross pce under the die/holder, no, that is so the punch slug has a place to fall when you pull off the tube, and when you slide the next one on, it should push it off the back. (that's the thought anyway!)

Henry, yes, my first hope was to get it strong enough to not have to, (would have been simpler) but now the plan is to let that arm deflect. As far as the 1/8'' goes, that is what I meant in that earlier reply, about raising the die to make the tolerance less. But I have to leave it loose enough to accommodate the weld, as well as any discrepancy in the tube.

We are reading from the same page now, just make sure your punch only travels the distance it needs, otherwise the angle after springback may catch on your die. You may look at a cam on one side of your centralising pins, to aid in removal, as the sides of the box section may bow very slighly as it dimples the top 1/8".

Nice job on your model!.

Logged


* January 13, 2014, 07:01:01 PM
#27
Good thought on the cam, my worker had mentioned that as well!
Although, I think we can leave enough tolerance between those pins, that it should not be an issue.
I don't want the tube to dimple, that is why I had wanted a solid enough arm, but I am hoping that if we narrow the tolerance to 1/16th or less, it won't hardly dimple.

Logged


* January 13, 2014, 07:27:18 PM
#28
Caught your reply after I posted, most of the dimple on the top should bow the sides slightly, and a fair percentage should rebound after punching. I have just done a quick check on your punch clearance with the springback angle through 3/16"  at 1/8" over 7.5" and over 12", it equates to about 0.004" on the 7.5" and about  0.0026 on the 12".

Hope this helps, not sure what the die clearances already are!.

You appear to have ended up with a good scenario, even though you originally intended the die arm to take the full 10T.

I notice your clearance is to clear the weld on the box section, I always used to use a paint roller line down the length when using different materials, and it might be worth your while to put a line down all your box sections before you start so you know which side does not have the weld without physically checking, but that is upto you, just a tip from my fabrication days.

Be sure to let us know how you got on!.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 07:59:01 PM by Michael Geraghty »

Logged


* January 13, 2014, 07:36:41 PM
#29
Thanks, Michael, The die clearance is .031 overall, so then we should still be ok.
I had thought of thinning out the top arm, so it would flex easier, thought maybe it wouldn't crack as soon???
I'll try and let you know how it goes!

Logged


* January 13, 2014, 07:49:49 PM
#30
Thanks, Michael, The die clearance is .031 overall, so then we should still be ok.
I had thought of thinning out the top arm, so it would flex easier, thought maybe it wouldn't crack as soon???
I'll try and let you know how it goes!

As I said in my earlier post to Henry, it could actually be pinned, as it no longer really takes any load now that it bottoms out before punching, but the springback is handy to set your clearance for the next box section being inserted over the die arm plus it makes it a bit more rigid horizontally, but you could thin out the area by the return bend after you try it out if required.

Logged


* January 13, 2014, 07:55:45 PM
#31
"In fact it could have just been pin jointed with a retainer to stop the punch lifting in back up on the return stroke, and a spring to open it back up to allow some clearance for the next box section to go on the arm. It would be as well rising !/8" also, so the die is square to the base of the box section when it punches."

I was thinking that, too. More parts involved, but they're simple and it saves fabricating that curved member.

Henry H


Logged


* January 13, 2014, 08:00:02 PM
#32
"In fact it could have just been pin jointed with a retainer to stop the punch lifting in back up on the return stroke, and a spring to open it back up to allow some clearance for the next box section to go on the arm. It would be as well rising !/8" also, so the die is square to the base of the box section when it punches."

I was thinking that, too. More parts involved, but they're simple and it saves fabricating that curved member.

Henry H

I have a friend with a waterjet and 2'' plate, so that part is simple!!

Logged


* January 13, 2014, 08:09:06 PM
#33
The one advantage to pinned, is the ability to put different die size arms on the same mount.

Logged


* January 13, 2014, 08:15:06 PM
#34
The one advantage to pinned, is the ability to put different die size arms on the same mount.

That is a good point. I had thought of that, but now I am planning on using this same one for 3'' tube as well.
Just need to raise the die, (and/or add shims to the bottom of arm)and spread the guide pins apart (eccentric bottoms?)

Logged


* January 13, 2014, 08:23:22 PM
#35
The one advantage to pinned, is the ability to put different die size arms on the same mount.

That is a good point. I had thought of that, but now I am planning on using this same one for 3'' tube as well.
Just need to raise the die, (and/or add shims to the bottom of arm)and spread the guide pins apart (eccentric bottoms?)

Well I am off to bed now, nearly 5am here in the Uk, will catch up on developments tomorrow!.

Logged


* January 13, 2014, 10:50:29 PM
#36
I had another quick look. I am in the middle of a number of ongoing projects so I do not have a lot of time...

However... Packages like COMSOL can import DXF files for the geometry.

Packages Like Open Cascade can import STL files:
http://www.opencascade.org/

But you do need to be able to "write the equations" to tell the system what is happening -- i.e. where to apply the force. I have been through some COMSOL training and do understand how to present this problem to the solver -- I do not think it is that difficult. Perhaps you can have a look at COMSOL and see how you use a physics package to solve these problems -- it's well worth the time. There are many tutorials and video seminars available. (Free -- even if the package is not.)

The Elmer package cannot directly import files from TurboCAD -- but can accept files from various "mesh" (geometry) packages including OpenCascade.


If you are indeed punching a lot of holes it may well be worth investing the time to learn about these solvers to model the stresses and strains and heat generation and material changes.

Logged
WillR
SW:TC 21 Pro Platinum, FM15, 20 Pro Platinum 64 Bit, also V 19.1 64Bit & 32 bit 17.2 and 18.1; Furniture Maker 14 and 10. HW: Vista 64 Ultimate, AMD 1090 (6 core) 8GB memory Plus also an AMD  8 core systemFX


* January 14, 2014, 07:43:54 AM
#37
Thanks, WillR, sometime I do want to look into that! But right now I NEED to start punching holes!!
Michael and Henry, The pinning idea is growing on me, but not sure how I would do that so there was no side to side play at the die.
Cause any play at the back, will be magnified at the die....

Logged


* January 14, 2014, 05:41:47 PM
#38
Ther are a couple of solutions to the pin method.

Method (1)
Entails making the square bar that holds the die longer with a hole and pin at the pivot point or where your return bend is now, then it extends in the opposite direction and sandwiched between two guides that reduce the amount of sideways movement at the die end.

Method (2)
Entails a wider pair of  lugs with a smaller clearance tolerance at the pivot point, again with a pin.

Advantages of the two methods, method(1) would end up with a longer bar, and consequently a longer fabricated piece with baseplate, although the extended end would not need to be fastened to the bed, just the part from the pivot to the die end.

Method two would be smaller, but wider lugs with a higher tolerance clearance at the pivot point.


My own opinion is that method(1) would be better.

If you have set heights for your punch bed based on your drawing, then post a copy of your drawing, and I will adjust the model I have drawn to suit your existing dimensions to show you what I have proposed.

If you post the drawing on the forum, post as Turbocad V19 format when saving, as I don't have v20.




Logged


* January 14, 2014, 06:04:59 PM
#39
Ther are a couple of solutions to the pin method.

Method (1)
Entails making the square bar that holds the die longer with a hole and pin at the pivot point or where your return bend is now, then it extends in the opposite direction and sandwiched between two guides that reduce the amount of sideways movement at the die end.

Method (2)
Entails a wider pair of  lugs with a smaller clearance tolerance at the pivot point, again with a pin.

Advantages of the two methods, method(1) would end up with a longer bar, and consequently a longer fabricated piece with baseplate, although the extended end would not need to be fastened to the bed, just the part from the pivot to the die end.

Method two would be smaller, but wider lugs with a higher tolerance clearance at the pivot point.


My own opinion is that method(1) would be better.

If you have set heights for your punch bed based on your drawing, then post a copy of your drawing, and I will adjust the model I have drawn to suit your existing dimensions to show you what I have proposed.

If you post the drawing on the forum, post as Turbocad V19 format when saving, as I don't have v20.

Here is my current drawing; I only have V17

Logged


* January 14, 2014, 09:05:08 PM
#40
Here is an example of Method(1), just as an example, the materials could be thinned down, but I tend to over design on purpose as experience tells me someone will throw this in the corner at some stage or run over it with a forklift truck.( Just an example)

A spring on the back end could return it to it's raised position.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2014, 09:15:19 PM by Michael Geraghty »

Logged


* January 14, 2014, 09:11:45 PM
#41
Method(2) would be the same as method(1), only the lugs at the pivot point would be wider(larger surface contact with lugs) and the washers would be absent, also the machining tolerance between the lugs would be higher.

The only reason for the washers on method(1), is so the machining tolerance does not have to be so critical, as you could just adjust it by slimming down one of the washers to get a good fit.

5:50am now in the Uk, and time for a cup of tea and then bed.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2014, 09:26:10 PM by Michael Geraghty »

Logged


* January 19, 2014, 04:27:19 PM
#42
Just wondering how you are going on with your punch jig, did you finally decide on a method, and have you had any success?.

Logged


* January 30, 2014, 11:38:43 AM
#43
Just wondering how you are going on with your punch jig, did you finally decide on a method, and have you had any success?.

Hey Michael, thanks for the interest. Sorry I havn't got back sooner, but no news is good news!!
I went with basically my last design I sent, and its been punching like a heavyweight!! Few little thing we will tweak as we go......
Thanks again for all the help, everyone!

Logged


* January 30, 2014, 02:14:16 PM
#44
Good to know everything worked okay!.

Logged


* January 31, 2014, 02:58:45 PM
#45
Here are some pictures of the working punch and parts.

Logged


* January 31, 2014, 03:13:51 PM
#46
Here are some pictures of the working punch and parts.

You've incorporated a stop to limit the deflection of the die holder. Was hoping you'd do that.

What kind of steel did you use?

Henry H

Logged


* January 31, 2014, 03:19:43 PM
#47

You've incorporated a stop to limit the deflection of the die holder. Was hoping you'd do that.

What kind of steel did you use?

Henry H
[/quote]

Just mild steel.

Edit: How do you quote just the last post? If I try and delete part, it doesn't seem to work.

Logged