# Talk:Sheet metal

WikiProject Metalworking (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metalworking, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Metalworking on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

## Untitled

The way this is written, it implies sheet metal has only been around since 1500 AD... pretty sure that's not true... Yeah I'm pretty sure the Japanese had that covered since day one.

## Gauge

The gauge section didn't explain 'gauge' entirely.

Seconded - having read this : . . .

"The weight of steel per square foot per inch of thickness is 41.82 lb (18.96 kg), this is known as the Manufacturers' Standard Gage for Sheet Steel"

I still have no idea what Gauge actually means. How could I use that to work out what thickness 18 gauge is. I find it hard to believe that an engineering unit is both arbitrary and non-linear - is it a left-over from an earlier age ?

I answer my own question. Yes, gauge is both non-linear and arbitrary. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_wire_gauge. I'll edit the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fentlehan (talkcontribs) 14:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

--69.151.57.205 (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that the table headings no longer identify Manufacturer's Standard Gauge, despite the fact that the section opens with an explicit statement about MSG. The third column of the Table, simply identifies "Steel", which may or may not be the MSG thicknesses.Extraordinary Spaces (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

As you noted, Gauge is archaic. See comments below on Sheet Thicknesses for some more info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.156.60.130 (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

## What about suits of armour?

They pre date 1500. If you consider things like breastplates and helmets it is more like thousands of years before 1500AD.

Sheet metal is a product of the industrial revolution. The article is not discussing forged products, or thin metal in general. Sheet metal is the specific product produced by rolling lines: long, thin, and coiled metal hundreds of meters long. - Toastydeath 01:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This is an old topic but still relevant and I see where the OP is coming from. The article starts off by saying sheet metal is just that, nothing about it necessarily being made by an industrial process. --Una Smith (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

## embosses and beads on sheet metal

can any body tell that how on sheet metal , geometry and numbers of embossments and beads are determined59.160.18.209 (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please elaborate, because I don't even know what you are asking here. --Wizard191 (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

for example on the car platform ,how are no. and geometry of embossments are decided? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.18.209 (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's probably done based on geometrical constraints and FEA analysis. They used the FEA to figure out optimal depth to gain the most nominal stiffness. It's also dependent on manufacturability. --Wizard191 (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

## Merge from sheet metal forming

The article sheet metal forming is just a partial list of processes, just like the one here. However, the list in sheet metal at least has an introduction for each. I don't see any reason why there needs to be a separate article to list the same things. Wizard191 (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Wizard191 (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

## Merge from sheet metal gauge

I see no reason why the gauge needs to be listed in another article. I thought that it was missing, but then found that one obscure link led to the page. Wizard191 (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

agreed, one stop reading is always best 17:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)B3tech —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.198.62 (talk)

Done. --Wizard191 (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

## Abreviation CRS

There's an abreviation CRS which is linked to article "Steel". That article does not explain the term CRS. 82.103.194.225 (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Cold Rolled Steel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.70.244.178 (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

## Thickness of sheet metal

Can anybody tell me up to what thickness the piece is called sheet metal after that up to what it is called plate and above what thickness it is called a metal block? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiran engr (talkcontribs) 06:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The introduction covers that information. Wizard191 (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The main article seems to describe thickness in terms of gauge (probably quite similar to the use of that term when describing wire). But I am curious. Is it common to find thicknesses of 10.1 gauge, or 10.25, or 10 1/3 gauge? I think the main article could be improved if there were a discussion of the various kinds of sheet metal when laid over each other, or pressed together so tightly they fused. 216.99.219.53 (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

gauges are not used with a decimal i.e 16.5 they most commonly in incraments of "2" like 18ga. 20ga. 22ga. ect. they also usually start calling it plate at 1/4 " or .250. the term crs is an acronym of "cold rolled steel" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.196.64.56 (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a more definitive source for the tolerances (e.g. max and min thickness) for sheet steel than a reference to a commercial supplier's information? The sheet steel thicknesses look a lot like the Manufacturer's Standard Gauge (I didn't check explicitly) but to the best of my knowledge, that "standard" did not include tolerances. So what is the source and is there a unique reference or is this something that was "created" by one supplier and then quoted and requoted to become defacto. Extraordinary Spaces (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC).

I think that suppliers are very reliable. I use their information on a daily basis to design parts accurately. If their information were inaccurate, that would be a good way to lose business. If you don't think its a reliable ref, please post something at WP:RSN. Wizard191 (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
It is not an issue of whether the information is relaible. I want to know an originating source (e.g. show me an industry association document or published standard. Extraordinary Spaces (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thickness table--Zinc seems to be reversed. 99.236.162.167 (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've done a bunch of research on this topic for my companies' design guide. We do a lot of sheet metal manufacturing. First, suppliers are only moderately accurate. A few things they generally avoid telling you, they almost always supply on the minimal side of thickness. This should be expected because they charge you per sheet, but it is per mass that they buy the raw material. Thinner sheet, more sheets per lump they buy. Second, if you don't specify a standard to which to buy from, they can't really be blamed if they wiggle on what thickness they provide you if you specify a gauge. Sure, their website says 14 gauge is .078", but your inspection guys tell you what they got is .0747". Probably not what you expected, but for uncoated cold rolled steel sheet that's pretty standard. Now how about when you purchase Electro-Galvanized or Galvannealed steel sheet? Enough on that. Engineering best practice is to specify what standard you are using. Currently the most widely accepted of these (and generally what you are going to get anyway) are ASTM (A480, A568) and ISO for steel sheet. Aluminum is typically ANSI (H35) or ISO. The ASTM specs generally state a minimal thickness (i.e. + something, - nothing) but also make it clear that the purchase order should specify nominal or minimum thickness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.156.60.130 (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

## CNC Videos

There are a couple CNC videos that may be beneficial for this article. Here is a video of a CNC Punch / Laser press cutting sheet metal:

http://www.crosstownmetal.com/plant-capacity/cnc-laser-video/

Here is a video of CNC press brake bending sheet metal:

http://www.crosstownmetal.com/plant-capacity/cnc-brake-video/

Bc_flyfisher June 23, 2009

## Sheet metal for beginners

The main article could be improved if there were a paragraph or two on "sheet metal working for beginners" - since I have never worked with sheet metal, and am anticipating the construction of a metal roof on a small tool shed in my backyard. I already have access to a fair amount of sheet metal. I need to worry about the load of the wind on the shed, but I don't have to worry about vertical load because nothing will be resting on top of it. (Or should I start worrying about that?) I need somewhere to put my lawnmowers and power tools. That's why I need to build a little shed.

I need to know if cutting a big piece of sheet metal into long vertical strips is going to be a whole lot easier (or less expensive) using a pneumatic grinder + air compressor, or an electric circular saw + grinding wheel. I'm anticipating marking the sheet metal with a permanent marker before cutting. Some helpful advice right now will help out a lot before I start on the wrong path of construction/destruction. Yes, I will buy some visors. Are certain kinds of gloves better than others? 216.99.219.95 (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide and the talk pages are not a forum. For questions please see the help desk. Wizard191 (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
An article in Wikipedia ought to describe the subject matter well enough that an interested person can walk away from it feeling he has learned a thing or two. Unfortunately the article needs a a description of sheet metal working for beginners. It simply doesn't meet with ordinary expectations of online users.
The main article could be improved by describing tools, gear, and practices needed for working sheet metal. 216.99.219.53 (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The content under the heading of "Forming Processes" is specifically "HOW TO" since it describes things that can be done with Sheet Metal, and fails to address the processes used for forming sheets of metal to begin with. Such a change in the content of that heading would also directly address other concerns on this discussion/dispute page, including the date(s) of origin, since each process for creating sheets can have its own date, solving that dispute. I fully agree that the article should NOT go into "HOW TO WORK WITH SHEET METAL", but that subject has been broached, and that's what should be removed, or at least that heading should be renamed something like "Working Processes". 98.251.151.63 (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC) 26 January 2011

## HARDNESS UNITS OF SHEET METAL AND METHODS OF HARDENS TEST

Can anybody please define details of hardness checking methods of sheet metals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.124.137.2 (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

## Brake Press

Could the info under brake press forming not be added to the brake press page, which could then be linked to from this page as per the other methods? The cutting section is also quite poor. Laser cutting seams very hurriedly thrust in there. What about water jet cutting? Plasma? Te list goes on. dhutch (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow what you are asking for. Can you please flesh your thoughts out for me. Wizard191 (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

## Some of this content is seems vendor-centric

Mention of "most common" types of materials seems to be slanted to particular vendor sources. It certainly doesn't match my own experience, per se. For example, I would question which conditions or tempers are actually more common for aluminum. In that, I actually question the necessarity for that heading. I would like to see non-vendor based sourcing for the information, if possible. If not possible, I would like to see a rewrite/removal of the section because notiability comes into question. fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) 18:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:N is for article existence only, not sections. If you feel that the sources are not reliable, please report them to WP:RSN. If you feel that the section doesn't cover the topic in a worldwide manner, then tag it as such. Wizard191 (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Notability applies to all aspects of an article, not just to the topic of the article itself. I've actually never seen anyone split hairs about how to apply notibility in this manner before, and I've participated in very intense debates on hotly contested articles. However, I tagged that section with a NPOV tag. Someone removed the NPOV tag, so I am being diplomatic about moving forward by trying to disucss here. If someone has a better tag besides NPOV to show that sections of this article are slanted to the American POV, then please make a suggestion. Based on your comment, I will reintroduce the NPOV tag if no other comments follow within a couple of days. fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) 23:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Of particular note, the grade and condition of AL that is considered "common" various between countries.
A direct quote from WP:N: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." (italics are from the original source) A NPOV tag is perfectly fine with me. Wizard191 (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
(There is no practical difference between the two that I can see, since it is the content itself that estalishes the notability of the topic (which means that the content must also be notable), and since any article section can, in theory, become it's own article if there is enough material for it. From your interpretation, one could add any material whatsoever to any article where notability of the topic itself is established. From my understanding and experience, there is a certain bar that must be reached to add material to an article. Maybe I'm over applying Notability itself, but there a body of rules that cover this, of which Notibility is part. fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) 15:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC))
I'm noticing other similar issues with the article at large. I'll add the NPOV tag to the whole article. fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) 15:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm completely confused as to how you can't see that WP:N only applies to article existence, seeing how that's the only thing the guideline discusses. I didn't copy and paste the next sentence in WP:N, but maybe this will help your understanding: "They do not directly limit the content of articles. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." However, this isn't the place to argue whether WP:N applies to content or not; if you feel like it should, start a discussion at WT:N. Wizard191 (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to close this discuss out, in my opinion, applying notability only to the creation of article itself and not at all to its content can create scenario where notability is attempted by collecting a series of unnotable details in the content, or where trivia is collected within an otherwise notable topic (I've seen both these scenarios attempted in several articles quite recently). I'm not trying to convince you, just addressing your question as to how I see it. However, NPOV appears to be the overall issue with this article, as is so noted with a hatnote. fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) 17:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

## Manufactured how?

It seems like an encyclopedia article on sheet metal should include at least some reference as to how it is manufactured. So much of the article is devoted on how to form it, but how does it come to be in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.202.234 (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Incidentally, the early versions [1] of this article appear to have some information on the manufacturing process, and its history. Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

"Usage of steel as a building material is popular as a cost effective, quality material as compared to the alternatives.[2] The three most common stainless steel grades available in sheet metal are 304, 316, and 410.[3]

Grade 304 is the most common of the three grades. It offers good corrosion resistance while maintaining formability and weldability. Available finishes are #2B, #3, and #4. Grade 303 is not available in sheet form.[3]"

Is "303" a typo for "304"?

A quick check only of McMaster.com shows 304, 316, and 410 available in sheet form. 303 is only available in bar stock. So the statement is correct, but perhaps not useful.Jim1138 (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

## on what basis and how is classification of sheet and foil/leaf is done

can a metal piece of thickness 0.6 mm could be called as metal sheet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.199.65 (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

## Errors in thickness and tolerance charts

There are several errors in the thickness and tolerance charts. e.g. the nominal thickness for stainless steel 16ga sheet should be .0625". The thickness ranges is the tolerance chart do not line up properly with the gauge column and the values are not in agreement with the thickness chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.24.147.249 (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

## Stainless steel sheet metal tolerances

I believe your table is backwards....smaller the gauge.... the thickness should increase not decrease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.10.100.85 (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)