Press Technology Comparative Analysis

1.0 Introduction

This purpose of this paper is to compare Amino’s link-servo press to conventional

mechanical and hydraulic presses. The analysis will be divided into two sections.
The first section will compare the presses on the basis of measurables. The second
section will focus on more qualitative aspects of the three presses.

The measurables investigated in the first section are maximum speed, energy
consumption, required maintenance and cost of operation. It should be noted that
although every effort has been made to provide values representative of the capabilities
of each type of press, they should not be taken to indicate the performance of the press
for every type of part. Refer to the sections for the individual metrics for a more
detailed explanation of the assumptions used.

The second section will look at some of the qualitative aspects of the presses such as
formability and flexibility, ergonomics and safety, and other qualitative implications of
the quantitative metrics.
2.0 Quantitative Comparison

Below is a graph comparing the three press types using various metrics. Because the
graph is meant to be representative, the quantitative values in each case have been
scaled so that they can be displayed on the same graph.

Max Speed (SPM) Energy Consumption Cost of Maintenance Operating Cost ($/ hr)

Amino Link- Servo Press Conventional Mechanical Press Conventional Hydraulic Press

Refer to the following text for a more detailed description of each metric.
2.1 Maximum Speed

The maximum speed metric is meant to indicate the maximum speed of which the press
is capable. It should not be interpreted as the speed normally used for or even
suitable to a given forming operation, but rather a measure of the physical capability of
the press. Furthermore, although this metric is termed the maximum speed it should
not be inferred that any of the presses can be operated at a reduced speed. For
discussions about these last 2 points, refer to 3.1 Formability and Flexibility.

Not surprisingly, the mechanical press is the fastest, followed by Amino’s link-servo
press and finally by the hydraulic press. The mechanical press, with its dedicated
motion, is well suited to high speed stamping. The link-servo press is also capable of
higher speeds but as it is not built primarily for such applications, it cannot achieve the
same throughput as a mechanical press. At the other end of the scale is the hydraulic
press where hydraulic fluid flow rates limit the speed of the press.

2.3 Energy Consumption

Energy consumption is quite simply the amount of net power the press requires to
perform a single stroke.

The hydraulic press consumes the most power, followed by the mechanical press and
lastly by Amino’s link-servo press. This difference is a direct result of the press
mechanisms. The biggest difference comes from the fact that both the mechanical and
hydraulic systems are continuously consuming power even during loading or unloading
of material. The servo motor on a link-servo press however can be turned off during
loading and unloading to reduce power consumption. The link-servo press also uses
regenerative braking to generate power during stroke deceleration, thus reducing its
net power consumption.
2.3 Cost of Maintenance

Cost of maintenance reflects the total costs in both parts and labour required to
maintain the press.

Again, the hydraulic press comes in as the most expensive. The high cost comes from
direct costs such as the large number of hydraulic components (filters, valves, etc) as
well as from indirect sources such as contamination of the hydraulic fluid. Next is the
mechanical press. Similar to the hydraulic press, the mechanical press typically has a
large number of components (clutches, transmissions, etc) which must be maintained.
Finally is the link-servo press. Unlike the mechanical and hydraulic presses, the
link-servo press has relatively few components (a servo motor, a ball screw, and simple
mechanical linkages) thus reducing the number of items needing to be maintained as
well as reducing the complexity of necessary repairs or maintenance.

2.4 Operating Cost

Operating cost is meant to represent the total cost of operating the press. It includes
such variable factors as power consumption and maintenance, as well as overhead items
such as initial cost averaged over the life of the press.

Similar to the previous 2 metrics, the hydraulic press comes in as the most expensive,
followed by the mechanical press and finally by the link servo. However, the difference
in this case is not as pronounced. The higher initial cost of Amino’s link-servo press
reduces the magnitude of the savings realized by its lower operating costs.
3.0 Qualitative Comparison

Although metrics such as those above are invaluable in evaluating a capital investment
such as a press, they only tell part of the story. Other factors must also be considered.
Thought must be given to the suitability of the press to make the current desired part.
If the press is not to dedicated to a single product line, the ease with which the press can
be set or adapted to produce other parts. Beyond the production-specific concerns are
also other issues such as safety, as well as the impact of the press’s behaviour on tooling
and secondary operations.

Below is a discussion of some of these considerations with respect to the three types of
presses.

3.1 Formability and Flexibility

Formability is closely tied to the metric of speed. A short cycle time increases the
impact on the blank, and as such reduces the amount of forming that can be performed
in a single hit without fracture. Conversely, a long cycle time enables better material
flow which in turn facilitates greater deformation before failure.

Based on this, it can be said that although mechanical presses are good for high
volumes of relatively easily formed parts, they are not well suited to deeper draws or
more difficult to form parts. By similar reasoning, the slow cycle time of a hydraulic
press, while a detriment to large volume production, is ideal for the production of deep
drawn or difficult to form parts.

Amino’s link-servo press however does not have a single fixed motion curve. Unlike a
mechanical press which is in continuously cycles up and down at a fixed speed or a
hydraulic press whose speed is limited by the fluid flow rate to the cylinder and whose
force is determined by the fluid pressure, the degree of motion control inherent with a
servo motor allows the link-servo press to operate over a wide range of speeds and
pressures. As such a link-servo press can be set to function with the quick hard
strokes of a mechanical press, or the slow forming cycles of a hydraulic press, giving the
link-servo press a greater range of formability than either of the conventional presses.
Beyond just emulating conventional presses though, virtually any type of motion curve
can be set into the link-servo press. Pulsing cycles are possible, as is a holding time
(for example, at the completion of a stroke) where the punch maintains pressure but
does not move. To achieve the benefits of both types of conventional presses, hybrid
cycles are also possible. The punch can be lowered quickly, similar to the case of a
mechanical press. However, before it engages the blank, the punch can be slowed to
form the part in a manner comparable to a hydraulic press. This achieves formability
similar to that of a hydraulic press with a cycle time closer to that of a mechanical press.

3.2 Safety

Another qualitative aspect of press operation is safety. Although not tied to

productivity or other metrics, safety is nonetheless of vital importance for the
consideration of large pieces of equipment such as presses. As a result all of the 3
presses considered here are equipped with safety systems. However, the effectiveness
of these systems can be limited by the type of mechanism driving the press motion.

In the case of a mechanical press, a typical method of stopping the press motion is the
use of a clutch brake. However, due to the inertia of the drive mechanism, it is possible
for the shaft to rotate up to 20° after the brake has engaged (if maintained properly).

In the case of a hydraulic press, the press motion can be halted by stopping the flow of
hydraulic fluid into the cylinder. Due to the relatively slow rate of travel of the
cylinder, this can be an effective means of stopping the motion of the press. However,
although the motion has stopped, the pressure remains and must be dissipated before
the press can be opened.

In the case of Amino’s link-servo press, the press motion is stopped through the use of a
hydro-safety lock mechanism. This mechanism can engaged twice as fast as the
average brake on a mechanical press. Beyond that however are the mechanics of the
press itself. Because the press is driven by a servo motor and ball screw there is not
the inertia to restrain as is the case with the mechanical press nor is there the necessity
to bleed a fluid circuit as in the case of the hydraulic press.
3.3 Effects on Neighbouring Processes

One additional quality of these presses that warrants consideration is the press’s
impact and effect on its neighbouring processes and tooling. Although this is not a
characteristic of the press, it is an important factor in determining the suitability of a
press to a given task.

One area this issue manifests itself is tooling life. In this regard, the slow action of the
hydraulic press is an advantage in minimizing the wear on the tooling. Conversely, the
hard fast strikes of a mechanical press greatly increase tool damage. In the middle of
course is the link-servo press which can vary between these two extremes depending on
what type of motion curve it is set with. However, even when emulating a mechanical
press, it is still possible to slow up the motion just before contact with the material,
reducing the impact damage to the tooling.

Another issue of compatibility with neighbouring processes was touched on indirectly in

3.1 Formability and Flexibility. This matter is the ease with which the press can
accommodate new tooling, either during first-off trials or after tool changes. Because
both mechanical and hydraulic presses have limited adjustment functionality, there
may be the need to extensively tweak the tools themselves in order to achieve a quality
part. Although this may also be the case with the link-servo press, there is also the
possibility with that press to make fine adjustments to the forming parameters and
motions which may be able to accommodate for slight irregularities in not only the tool
set in the link-servo press but also slight imperfections coming from previous processes.

Although there are many other qualitative bases upon which the three presses can be
compared, the above examples help to illustrate some of the associated issues of each
press technologies.
4.0 Summary

Presented above has been a rough comparative analysis of three different press
technologies; a conventional mechanical press, a conventional hydraulic press and
Amino’s link-servo press. Because this was the most general of comparisons it is not
possible to state definitively which technology is the best. However, as the scope of
intended press work is defined, the analysis above can be refined and solidified, likely
pointing to one technology being the best suited for the desired application.