Materials Science and Engineering A256 (1998) 69 82

Deep drawing characteristics of automotive aluminum alloys

M. Jain a,*, J. Allin a, M.J. Bull b
a

Alcan International Limited, Kingston Research and De6elopment Centre, Kingston, Ontario K7L 5L9, Canada b Alcan Rolled Products Company, Farmington Hills, MI 48331, USA Received 26 January 1998; received in revised form 13 July 1998

Abstract Limiting draw ratios (LDRs) and other axisymmetric deep drawing characteristics of AA5754-O and AA6111-T4 automotive aluminum sheet materials are investigated as a function of die prole radii by experiments and numerical predictions. A procedure for rapid determination of LDR based on a characteristic limit load of the material at fracture is developed and veried. Other deep drawing characteristics such as punch load versus displacement traces, ange draw-in, strain distribution along the cup prole, ange wrinkling, wall ironing and fracture characteristics are experimentally assessed for the two sheet materials as a function of the die prole radius. The results are compared with a recent analytical model by Schedin (Ph.D. Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 1991). as well as axisymmetric FE models of cup draw, to analyse the sensitivity of various material and test parameters towards the maximum punch load and stresses and strains in various regions of the cup. The deep drawability of AA5754-O, as measured by cup depth at fracture and LDR, is superior to that of AA6111-T4. The differences in the deep drawing behaviour of the two materials can be explained in terms of the competition in work hardening between the material in the ange at the die prole region versus the material at the punch prole region, bendability of the two materials, and fracture characteristics. A decrease in LDR and ange draw-in is observed as a function of the die prole radius. This decrease is attributed to the increased work hardening in the die prole region resulting from additional bending, unbending, and stretching of the material as it enters the die cavity, as well as increased tendency towards fracture for AA6111-T4. 1998 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Limiting draw ratios (LDRs); Axisymmetric deep drawing characteristics; Automotive aluminum sheet materials; Die prole radii; Limit loading

1. Introduction Most automotive components produced by conventional stamping lines are geometrically complex, with the material being subjected to combinations of stretching and drawing operations. Hence, alloy choice often requires the balancing of some conicting deformation characteristics as well as the obvious cost of manufacturing and product performance requirements. In the steel industry this has led to the development of a range of steel grades from commercial quality (CQ) to extra deep drawing quality (EDDQ) steels. For the deep drawing quality steels a strong emphasis is placed on developing a high r -value in the range of 1.5 2.2. These steels also tend to be internally clean with low carbon
* Corresponding author. Tel: + 1 613 5453668; fax: + 1 613 5412134; e-mail: mukesh.jain@alcan.com

contents. They have high n values (0.200.23) and total elongations in excess of 40% [2]. Most of the aluminum alloys have an r value between 0.7 and 1.0. In some cases, r values greater than 1.0 have been produced in a particular direction, although at least one other direction had a correspondingly reduced r value [2,3]. About the only realistic option to increase the r value for aluminum would appear to be to produce a random texture, or a particularly well balanced texture distribution that will allow the r value to approach 1 in all directions. Nonetheless, even though the r values for the aluminum alloys are only about half that of steel, they have, under the right circumstances, quite satisfactory drawing behaviour. Amongst the aluminum alloys some noticeable differences in forming behaviour on the stamping shop oor have been observed. However, the relationship between the material, die design and test parameters, etc., versus

0921-5093/98/$ - see front matter 1998 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved. PII S0921-5093(98)00845-4

70

M. Jain et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A256 (1998) 6982

Table 1 Tool geometric parameters of cup tests

Die set (mm) 149.86

Dd (mm) 153.83

Dp (mm) 149.99

Dc (mm) 177.8

c (mm) 1.92

Rp (mm) 12

Rd (mm) 12, 9, 6, 3

Dd, die diameter; Dp, punch diameter; Dc, binder diameter; Rd, die prole radius; Rp, punch prole radius; c, clearance, (DdDp)/2.

the deep drawability has not been well dened in order to provide a framework for future alloy developments [4 11]. For example, it has been observed that the drawing behaviour of partially hard tempers does not decrease as markedly as some of the other formability indicators such as uniform elongation and forming limit diagram [11]. There is no single material parameter which satisfactorily describes the drawing behaviour; in fact, it is somewhat surprising that the r value descriptor works as well as it does given the very large strains in the ange and the consequent evolution in microstructure and texture [5,12]. While many of the general metallurgical and die design principles that promote enhanced deep drawing are understood, the development of the next generation of automotive alloys will require a more detailed understanding of the relative hardening that takes place in the punch prole and ange regions of the cup as a function of material and die design parameters. This investigation is an attempt to rationalize the observed differences in the deep drawing behaviour of AA5754-O and AA6111-T4 automotive alloys.

2. Methodology

tests are given in Table 1. Two commercially produced automotive aluminum sheet materials, AA5754 and AA6111, of gauges 1.55 mm, were utilized in the annealed (O temper) and solution heat-treated (T4) condition, respectively. Aluminum Association chemical composition limits for AA5754 and AA6111 are given in Table 2. AA5754 is solid solution strengthened with approximately 3.0 wt% Mg which leads to a high strain hardening rate for this alloy. AA6111 is a precipitationstrengthened AlMgSiCu alloy. Both materials were direct chill (DC) cast, scalped, preheated and hot rolled to 2.5 mm gauge and subsequently cold rolled to a nal gauge of 1.55 mm. AA6111-T4 material was solution heat treated at nal gauge by holding at \ 530C for times sufcient to place the Mg, Cu, and Si additions in solid solution, after which it was rapidly quenched and naturally aged for several weeks. The uniaxial properties of the above materials are given in Table 3. The friction conditions were kept constant from test-to-test by utilizing 0.127 mm (or 0.005) Teon sheet on both sides of the blank. Flange draw-in was measured continuously as a function of punch displacement during the test by utilizing a especially designed LVDT with a displacement range up to 101.6 mm (or 4) located in the plane of the ange between the die and the blankholder (Fig. 1).
Table 2 Chemical composition limits in wt% (aluminum association) Material AA5754 AA6111 Max Min Max Min Cu 0.1 0.9 0.5 Fe 0.4 0.4 Mg 3.6 2.6 1.0 0.5 Mn 0.5 0.45 0.1 Si 0.4 1.1 0.6 Ti 0.15 0.1 Cr 0.3 0.1 Zn 0.2 0.15

2.1. Experimental
Cup drawing tests were conducted using die sets with die prole radii of 3, 6, 9 and 12 mm and a at bottomed punch of 150 mm diameter, while keeping the punch nose radius, percentage clearance, blank holder force, friction and other test conditions the same. The tool geometric parameters utilized in the various cup

Table 3 Uniaxial tensile properties and tensile formability parameters of AA5754-0 and AA6111-T4 sheet materials Tensile formability parameters Tensile strength (MPa) Uniform elongation (%) Total elongation (%) Strain hardening exponent (n ) Plastic strain ratio (r )

Material Yield strength (MPa)

Test direction () Tensile properties

AA5754-0

M. Jain et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A256 (1998) 6982

AA6111-T4

0 45 90 0 45 90

105.1 103.2 105.6 170.3 163.2 164.3

229.9 219.5 220.2 294.8 289.0 291.9

18.5 22.5 20.5 18.9 21.5 20.0

22.6 25.8 23.9 22.7 23.0 22.7

0.32 0.31 0.31 0.25 0.24 0.24

0.71 0.64 0.78 0.66 0.60 0.76

71

72

M. Jain et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A256 (1998) 6982

Fig. 1. A schematic of LVDT setup for continuous measurement of ange draw-in during cup tests.

A rapid method for estimating LDR based on the observation of a characteristic limit load at fracture was developed and is shown schematically in Fig. 2. In this procedure tests were conducted with two undersize blanks corresponding to wrinkle-free, fully drawn cups and the maximum punch loads are recorded (points A and B in Fig. 2a,b). Also, a test was conducted with an oversize blank at the same blankholding force which results in a fracture at the punch nose (point C in Fig. 2a,b). This established the maximum attainable load or the fracture load (as shown in Fig. 2a) or the fracture line (as shown in Fig. 2b). A line joining the maximum load points from the two undersize blanks (AB in Fig. 2b) was then extended to obtain a point on the fracture line (point D in Fig. 2b). The blank diameter corresponding to this point provided an estimate of LDR. Blanks of diameters in the vicinity of the estimated blank diameter were also tested to verify the estimated LDR. With this procedure, typically three to ve blanks were sufcient for LDR determination. Surface strains from imprinted square grids and thickness strains were determined transverse to rolling direction at various locations along the cup prole. Four distinct regions along the cup prole were chosen for strain evaluation; top of the cup, middle of the wall, punch nose and centre bottom of the cup.

2.2. Analytical model

The objective of the analytical work was to determine the relative sensitivity of material parameters; strength coefcient K and strain hardening exponent n in the power law equation, strain ratio r, and test parameters; die prole radius, blank size, blankholder force and friction towards the maximum punch load. The values assigned to the different test and material parameters in the model were taken from the experimental data. The model utilized was based on the work of Schedin [1]. The deformation characteristics accounted for in this model were: (i) plastic deformation due to ange shrinking, (ii) plastic deformation due to bending and unbending at the die edge, (iii) friction at the ange rim, and (iv) friction at the die edge. The ange deformation was assumed to occur with no thickness change of the sheet. This is a reasonable assumption as long as the drawing operation is non-critical from a fracture point of view. In Schedins model, the punch load is expressed as a function of punch displacement or cup height as follows:

Fig. 2. A test and analysis procedure based on limit load at fracture for rapid estimation of LDR.

F = 2yato e
II

! !! "
vy/2

2b K b+1

1+n 2

& ! '
r = D/2 r=a

ln

2aH 1+ 2 r

"

dr 2Pv t K 2b + + o r yDto 2R b + 1
III

"

! "! '
n 2

ln

1+

IV

2H a

""
n

M. Jain et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A256 (1998) 6982

73

Fig. 3. FE model of a cup draw test.

where F is punch force; H is punch displacement; K, n are strength coefcient and strain hardening exponent in Hollomon equation; b is (1 + r )/r ; r is normal anisotropy value; t0 is initial sheet thickness; a is punch radius; R is die edge radius; D is blank diameter at the current punch displacement H ; P is blank holder force; v is coefcient of friction. The input parameters to the model included; K, n, r, sheet thickness, punch and blank diameter, punch and die prole radii, coefcient of friction and blank holder force. The output consisted of a trace of punch load versus punch displacement as in the experiments.

2.3. Finite element model

The aim of FE study was to take a closer look at stress and strain development in various regions of the cup as a function of the punch displacement or cup height. As in the case of the analytical model, several simulations were carried out with FE model of different blank diameters, and using material parameters of AA5754-O and AA6111-T4 sheets. FE model of cup test was set-up as an axisymmetric model utilizing the FE code ABAQUS/Standard [13]. ABAQUS/Standard is a general purpose code for analysing static and dynamic problems by means of an implicit time integration scheme. The ABAQUS total Lagrangian procedure was utilized together with elastoplastic material, the large displacement, von Mises yield criterion, and the isotropic hardening option. A number of workers have utilized ABAQUS for simulation of sheet forming experiments [14 16]. The blank was modeled with ve layers of axisymmetric, four-node, quadrangular solid elements CAX4R with integration reduced (only one point of Gauss). A total of 2500 elements were used in the model and a ner mesh (with

no remeshing option) was utilized in the punch and die prole region of the blank (Fig. 3). These features adequately accounted for both stretching and bending effects. The mesh size was smaller than the size of grids imprinted on the experimental blanks. Also, the axisymmetric solid model is well suited for this problem and has much lower CPU times compared to 3D shell model [16]. Three rigid surfaces were used to simulate the punch, die and blank holder. Interface elements were used to simulate the contact between the blank and the three rigid surfaces. The contact algorithm used computes the amount of initial overclosure between the deforming blank and the rigid tool surface, and the relative shear sliding between the two. Using these

Fig. 4. Punch load versus punch displacement traces for tests on AA5754-O and AA6111-T4 using a blank diameter of 311.15 mm (or 12.25).

74

M. Jain et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A256 (1998) 6982

Fig. 5. Punch load versus punch displacement curves at various blank diameters for tests with a die prole radius of 12 mm for (a) AA5754-O and (b) AA6111-T4.

kinematic measures and Lagrange multiplier techniques, the contact pressure and friction forces are computed. A Coulomb friction law with coefcient of friction values of 0.5 in the punch and 0.05 in die prole and ange regions, respectively, were assumed based on differences in the relative sliding speeds in the punch and die prole regions [17]. The inputs to the model were; effective stress versus strain data pairs obtained from hydraulic bulge tests and extrapolated to a strain of 1 using a Voce-type t to the data, as well as sheet thickness, tool geometry, blank diameter, blank holder force, and coefcient of friction values for punch and die regions. A blank holder force of 60 kN was chosen as in the experiments. Several outputs from the model such as punch load versus displacement, ange draw-in, and stresses and strains at various locations along the cup at different punch depths were obtained for analysis.

3. Experimental results Fig. 4 shows a comparison of typical punch load versus displacement traces from cup drawing tests on AA5754-O and AA6111-T4 materials for a blank diameter of 311.15 mm (or 12.25). The curve is higher for AA6111-T4 reecting higher yield strength (YS) and ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of this alloy. However, the punch load reaches its maximum value around the same punch displacement values of about 6070 mm, i.e. 4045% of the maximum cup depth, for the two materials. The decrease in the punch force at large punch displacements is a typical characteristic of axisymmetric cup test and results from decreasing ange area, and consequently the force to pull the ange into the die cavity. The second peak in the punch force is a consequence of ironing that occurs when the

M. Jain et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A256 (1998) 6982

75

remaining ange, now thicker than the original sheet, is drawn into the cavity. Fig. 5a,b shows the typical punch load versus displacement traces obtained from blanks of different diameters, for the two materials. There appears to be a load limit that the material reaches prior to fracture, independent of the blank diameter. As the blank diameter is increased this load limit is reached at lower punch displacements. A plot of the maximum punch load as a function of the blank diameter for 6, 9 and 12 mm die prole radii is shown in Fig. 6. These results conrm the validity of the concept of a limit load at fracture. Similar results were obtained for AA6111-T4. The load limit concept was utilized for the determination of LDR as described earlier in Fig. 2. Fig. 7 shows a comparison of the ange draw-in versus punch displacement traces for the two materials. The ange begins to draw-in almost immediately after punch contact and the two materials show very similar ange draw-in characteristics. Slight wall wrinkling around the periphery of the top portion of the cup was observed in all cases. This was because the punch and dies were machined without any taper in their axial proles. Also, as mentioned earlier, a second load peak towards the end of the punch stroke, resulting from ironing, was observed. The extent of ironing was a function of clearance, blank size, tool geometric parameters, and blank holder force all of which contributed to the wrinkling and thickening of the edge of the blank. The ironing peak load with respect to the maximum punch load increased with a decrease in the die prole radius and the punch diameter. Also, for a

given blank diameter, the onset of ironing occurred at earlier stages of draw as the die prole radius and the punch diameter was decreased. Fracture of the oversized blanks occurred by necking at the punch prole radius typically observed for most materials. Fig. 8 shows ange draw-in as a function of cup height at fracture for tests carried out on blanks of larger diameters to purposely cause fracture in partially formed cup specimens. The results shown are for 6- and 9-mm die prole radii for the two materials. Clearly, the ange draw-in characteristics are not very different for the two materials even at larger blank diameters. The blank diameter decreases as one moves up along the curve. The largest blank, which had a diameter of 457.2 mm (or 18) corresponding to the lowest set of points on the curve, shows a minimum in ange drawin as expected. Also, AA5754-O shows a slightly higher cup height and ange draw-in values at fracture. This cup height at fracture, a measure of pure stretchability, is in a rather narrow range of 2224 mm for the two materials. Frequently in the drawing of AA6111-T4 a part of the ange or cup wall sheared off during the later stage of the draw thus giving an impression that the ironing peak loads were lower compared to AA5754-O. This type of failure by fracture at the top of cup wall is discussed in more detail at the end of this section. Because of these unusual shear type fractures, the LDR determination for AA6111-T4 was carried out by direct experiments (and not by the rapid method mentioned earlier). For this purpose, the selection of the largest blank that could be successfully drawn was based on

Fig. 6. Maximum punch load versus blank diameter for AA5754 tested with the following die prole radii of 6, 9 and 12 mm.

76

M. Jain et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A256 (1998) 6982

Fig. 7. Typical ange draw-in as a function of punch displacement for tests with a die prole radius of 9 mm for AA5754-O and AA6111-T4 sheet materials.

the analysis of instantaneous load drops, past the point of maximum load, and observation of test specimens for local ssures or fractures. Fig. 9 shows the LDR values for the two materials as a function of the die prole radius. For AA5754-O, the LDR remains largely unchanged until the die prole radius is reduced from 12 to 6 mm (see Table 4 for actual values). A rapid decrease in LDR is observed for a die prole radius of 3 mm. The LDRs for AA6111-T4 are only slightly lower than AA5754-O at the die prole radii of 12 and 9 mm, but drop signicantly as the

radius is decreased from 9 to 6 mm. In fact, no cups could be made for a die prole radius of 3 mm. Table 5 gives the major and minor strains at four different locations along cup prole for a blank diameter of 317.5 mm (or 12.5). As expected, the major strains are lowest at the centre bottom of the cup and increase progressively towards the top of the cup. The minor strains are tensile at the punch nose and at the centre bottom of the cup but become compressive at the middle and top of the cup. Although there was some scatter in the data, due to differences in the exact location of the measurement from one cup to another, the strain state at the punch prole and middle and top of the cup moves towards a plane strain state with a decrease in the die prole radius. Thus its proximity to the limit curve was increased with a decrease in the die prole radius. Similar conclusions can be drawn from the thickness strain proles along the cup for different die prole radii (Fig. 10). As mentioned earlier, ssure formation and cracking was observed at the location of the ironed wrinkles at the top of the cup wall arising from punch die clearance and unsupported ange towards the end of the draw. The fracture pattern had a characteristic U shape resulting from linkage between the two adjacent ssures (Fig. 11). The extent of ssure formation and cracking also depended upon the die prole radius and the blank diameter both of which controlled the amount of ange draw-in and the deformation (i.e. bending, stretching and unbending) at the die prole radius.

3.1. Results from the analytical model

Fig. 12ac shows the effect of AA5754-O material

Fig. 8. Experimentally determined ange draw-in as a function of cup height at fracture for AA5754-O and AA6111-T4 sheet materials.

Fig. 9. LDR versus die prole radius for (a) AA5754-O and (b) AA6111-T4 materials.

M. Jain et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A256 (1998) 6982 Table 4 Experimental and estimated LDR values for AA5754-0 and AA6111-T4 materials Tool geometric parameter set Die prole radius, Rd (mm) LDRs AA5754-0 1 2 3 4 12 9 6 3 2.16 2.07 2.07 1.44 AA6111-T4 2.03 1.95 1.78 B1.44

77

Table 5 Surface strain distribution along the cup prole of AA5754-0 and AA6111-T4 materials tested with various die prole radii Material Region True major strain Rd = 12 mm AA5754-0 Centre bottom Punch nose Middle wall Top of cup Centre bottom Punch nose Middle wall Top of cup 0.0047 0.1045 0.4188 0.5212 0.0584 0.1771 0.3347 0.4938 Rd = 9 mm 0.0427 0.1129 0.4448 0.4710 0.0264 0.0922 0.4038 0.4532 Rd = 6 mm 0.0408 0.1045 0.4952 0.5311 0.0466 0.0473 0.3229 0.3350 True minor strain Rd = 12 mm 0.0254 0.0223 0.4289 0.6407 0.0269 0.0268 0.2553 0.6372 Rd = 9 mm 0.0258 0.0214 0.3855 0.6055 0.0055 0.0207 0.2553 0.6372 Rd = 6 mm 0.0225 0.0210 0.3541 0.5777 0.0001 0.0324 0.2243 0.4139

AA6111-T4

parameters, K, n and r, respectively, on the predicted punch load versus displacement curve, while keeping the other test and tool geometric parameters the same as in the experiments. The maximum punch load decreases with a decrease in the K value and an increase in the n value. Also, the maximum punch load decreases with an increase in the r value. Thus, a combination of lower K, higher n and higher r will lead to a lower maximum punch load compared to a combination of higher K, lower n and lower r. Also, it is to be noted that the sensitivity of maximum punch load to r values in the range for Al alloys is rather small compared to n values. Similar results were obtained from the model for AA6111. As shown earlier in the experimental results section, there appears to be a characteristic fracture limit load for each of the two materials. This limit load was observed to be independent of the blank size, die prole radius and blank holder force. Fracture occurs when this fracture load limit is exceeded somewhere in the cup, usually in the wall, close to the punch prole radius. Thus, any increase in the maximum load, as predicted from the model, implies an increase in the propensity of the material towards fracture. In other words, an increase in the maximum load implies a decrease in the maximum blank diameter that can be successfully drawn or a decrease in LDR and vice versa. Since AA6111-T4 has a lower n and r and a higher K value compared with AA5754 (Table 3), one would expect a lower LDR for AA6111-T4 from the model.

Fig. 13 shows the effect of die prole radius on punch load versus displacement curve for AA5754-O. The maximum punch load is quite sensitive to die prole radius, particularly at 3 mm. This was observed experimentally as well. The contribution of bending and unbending at the die edge to the maximum punch load increases signicantly for 3-mm die radius.

3.2. Results from the FE model

Fig. 14 shows the simulation results for AA5754-O and AA6111-T4 for a fully drawn cup from a blank diameter of 292.1 mm (or 11.5). No stress or strain localization (i.e. necking) was observed and the cups could be drawn to completion. The strain paths of elements along the entire cup prole (process signatures) at various time steps (or punch depths) are shown in Fig. 14a,c for AA5754-O and AA6111-T4, respectively. The process signature at each punch depth has the shape of a loop, and the upper envelope of these loops corresponds to the largest strain value at each punch depth (high major strain values have been truncated at 0.5 to t the graphical layout of Fig. 14). The strains evolve towards the draw side of the forming limit diagram (shown by open square symbols) but remain below the projected forming limit curve on the draw side. The effective stresseffective strain point for two material elements at the die entry and at the critical wall region of the cup are shown on the ow curve in Fig. 14b,d for AA5754-O and AA6111-T4,

78

M. Jain et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A256 (1998) 6982

respectively. The critical material is dened as the element with the highest thickness strain and typically lies at the punch prole radius. A close inspection of these points on the ow curve indicates their relative position at different punch depths. The material at the die edge as well as in the wall moves along the curve but the critical material at the punch prole becomes ahead of the material at the die edge as the deformation proceeds. For example, the square of critical (marked S in Fig. 14b) is ahead of the corresponding bullet of die entry (marked B in Fig. 14b). This implies that, the critical material has a higher strength to pull the ange into the die cavity. This critical element unloads while the material at the die edge stays on the curve. This latter condition appears to be prerequisite for a successful draw. The earlier the critical element unloads, and the further away the two material elements are with respect to the stress plateau, the more stable or robust is the drawing process. A material with better work hardening characteristics, for example, as indicated by a lower K and a higher n values, will result in the critical element approaching saturation later thus

Fig. 11. Fracture characteristics during cup drawing: (a) crack initiation and ssure formation at the location of the ironed wrinkles; and (b) shear failure at the top of the cup wall in AA6111-T4.

Fig. 10. Thickness strain distribution along the cup prole for tests with a die prole radii of 12, 9 and 6 mm for AA5754-O and AA6111-T4 sheet materials.

providing additional strain range for unloading for the die entry material, and hence a higher LDR. Fig. 15 shows FE simulation results for a blank diameter of 304.8 mm (or 12.0) for otherwise identical simulation parameters as in Fig. 14 for the two materials. In this case, only the AA5754-O cup could be drawn to completion. The cup simulation for AA6111T4 showed necking in the wall close to the die prole. This necking manifests itself in terms of strains rapidly rising above the forming limit curve very early in the drawing process (Fig. 15c). An analysis of the effective stressstrain behaviour of the two materials shows that, for AA5754-O, the critical element at the punch prole region lies ahead of the die edge element and the element unloads at the end of the draw, as in the earlier case of 292.1 mm (or 11.5) blank (Fig. 15b). However, for AA6111-T4, the critical element at the punch nose approaches a stress plateau and strain localization occurs while the die entry material unloads (Fig. 15d).

M. Jain et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A256 (1998) 6982

79

Fig. 12. Effect of material parameters of AA5754-O on punch load versus depth curves, as predicted by the analytical model.

4. Discussion A test procedure for rapid and accurate determination of LDR based on three to ve cup tests has been developed and assessed in this work for AA5754-0 and AA6111-T4 materials. The method can be applied to material and tool geometric parameters which result in fracture at the punch prole region and not at the top of the cup. Since many of the failures occurred at the top of the cup for AA6111-T4 material at smaller die prole radii (6 and 3 mm), the method could not be applied to AA6111-T4 for these cases. To decide upon a particular value of LDR, a decision must be made as to what constitutes a defect-free cup should a defect develop in the last stages of the draw or a failure occur. For the purpose of obtaining an acceptable cup for determination of LDR using the rapid method, we may stipulate that no major defect can be allowed, regardless of its type or location. Here the major defects do not include surface nish such as orange peel or wrinkling of the wall. The various complementary results from the analytical model and FE simulations are in good agreement with the experimental trends. These results can be used to explain the effect of work hardening capacity of the two materials on the relative stress and strain develo-

ment in the ange at the die entry and in the punch prole region, and thus determine the overall stability of the drawing process in terms of proximity to the characteristic limit load at fracture or the forming limit diagrams. This relative hardening is also a function of

Fig. 13. Effect of die prole radius on punch load versus depth curves, as predicted by the analytical model.

80

M. Jain et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A256 (1998) 6982

Fig. 14. Results from FE simulations for a blank diameter of 292.1 mm (or 11.5), die prole radius of 6 mm and die/sheet/blankholder and punch/sheet friction values of 0.05 and 0.5, respectively: (a) AA5754-O, strain contours in the blank at various punch depths with respect to the materials forming limit diagram; (b) AA5754-O, effective stress and strains in the die edge region versus the critical or neck region; (c) AA6111-T4, strain contours in the blank at various punch depths with respect to the materials forming limit diagram; and (d) AA6111-T4, effective stress and strains in the die edge region versus the critical or neck region.

the die prole radius and blank diameter. In contrast to most forming operations where the material is stretched (for example domes or ribs on a part), and where the measure of formability is expressed in absolute terms such as a percentage increase in length or strain (such as FLD), drawing operations are a competition between the hardening (strain (n ) and texture (or r value) hardening) of the material in the punch prole region and the hardening occurring in the ange. In other words, it is a form of internal hardening competition. As long as the material in the punch prole region hardens faster than that at the ange, the draw operation will continue. Hence, it does not really matter that can body stock, for example, only has 2 4% elongation with very limited stretching capability, all that matters is that the remaining hardening capacity under the nose is sufcient to pull-in the ange. In addition, a higher LDR for AA5754-O compared to AA6111-T4 arises from a combination of lower K, higher n, higher r values, as suggested by the analytical model. Further, AA5754-O exhibits a higher bendability (as measured by a lower bend radius/thickness ratio), and a higher resistance to fracture compared to AA6111-T4 thus

aiding the drawing process. The present results also conrm the general stamping experience, using both soft and hard tools, that AA5754-O generally exhibits superior formability to AA6111-T4 when forming deep drawn shapes such as wheel wells and suspension turrets. The LDR values decrease with a reduction in the die prole radius for both materials. The effect of die radius on LDR can also be considered in terms of: (i) its effect on limit strain (for example, Fig. 10); (ii) maximum punch load in bending for a given blank diameter as shown by the analytical model (Fig. 13); and (iii) its effect on work hardening in the ange and at the punch prole, as shown from FE simulations (Fig. 14b,d). Thus, the smaller the die prole radius, the greater the peak punch load or local strain and thus closer it is to the materials load or strain limit or, in other words, the lower is the LDR or the maximum blank diameter that can be successfully drawn. Similarly, the smaller the die prole radius, the higher is the work hardening in the ange at the die entry, and thus the higher is the load required to pull the ange into the die cavity.

M. Jain et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A256 (1998) 6982

81

Fig. 15. Results from FE simulations for a blank diameter of 304.8 mm (or 12.0), die prole radius of 6 mm and die/sheet/blank holder and punch/sheet friction values of 0.05 and 0.5, respectively: (a) AA5754-O, strain contours in the blank at various punch depths with respect to the materials forming limit diagram; (b) AA5754-O, effective stress and strains in the die edge region versus the critical or neck region; (c) AA6111-T4, strain contours in the blank at various punch depths with respect to the materials forming limit diagram; and (d) AA6111-T4, effective stress and strains in the die edge region versus the critical or neck region.

The experimental and model results indicate that AA5754-0 is clearly more tolerant to the effect of reduced die prole radius compared to AA6111-T4. A reduced dependence of LDR on the die prole radius in the case of AA5754-O is also a consequence of its higher work hardening capacity and better bendability compared to AA6111-T4.

5. Summary (1) Fracture limit load exists for AA5754-O and AA6111-T4 materials. (2) A rapid method based on the fracture load limit and utilizing three to ve blanks can be used for the determination of limiting draw ratio (LDR) of AA5754O material. (3) The two materials exhibit similar depths of draw, punch displacement values for maximum punch load as a proportion of the depth of draw, cup depth at fracture for oversized blanks (pure stretch limit), and ange draw-in characteristics. (4) The limiting draw ratios (LDRs) for AA5754-O are higher than AA6111-T4. These differences in LDRs
.

can be explained in terms of work hardening, bendability and fracture characteristics of the two materials. (5) LDR decreases with a decrease in the die prole radius. AA6111-T4 is more sensitive to this effect than AA5754-O due to its relatively lower n value and lower bendability. (6) In AA6111-T4 wrinkling and the associated ironing during the later stages of the draw results in ssures at the site of the ironed wrinkles which link-up to cause shear failure at the top of the cup wall. This tendency for ironing and consequent crack formation and fracture is enhanced with a reduction in the die prole radius.

Acknowledgements The authors express their appreciation to Drs S.A. Court and P.-D. Wu for a review of the manuscript and to the management of Alcan for permission to publish this work.

References
[1] E. Schedin, Ph.D. Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 1991.

82

M. Jain et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A256 (1998) 6982 [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] H.P. Falkenstein, Memoires Sci. Rev. Metallurgie 3 (1980) 383. N. Kawai, et al., J. Eng. Industry 105 (1983) 235. J. Savoie, et al., Acta Mater. 44 (2) (1996) 587. ABAQUS/Standard, Version 5.7, HKS, Pawtucket, RI, 1995. A. Zeghloul, G. Ferron, Int. J. Plasticity 9 (1993) 603. A.B. Geltmacher, et al., Metall. Mater. Trans A 29A (1998) 775. M.J.M. Barata Marques, R.M.S.O. Baptista, J. Mater. Processing Tech. 24 (1990) 53.

[2] J.R. Fekete, in: SAE Int. Congress and Exposition, SAE Paper 970715 (1997). [3] K. Lange, Handbook of Metal Forming, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1985, p. 20.12. [4] D.A. Barlow, Engineering (1956) 329. [5] R.L. Whiteley, Trans. ASM 52 (1960) 154. [6] J.C. Wright, Sheet Metal Industries 39 (1962) 887. [7] R. Grimes, J.C. Wright, Sheet Metal Industries 44 (1967) 391. [8] B.A. Riggs, Sheet Metal Industries 50 (11) (1973) 620. [9] A. Younger, et al., Sheet Metal Industries 62 (9) (1985) 484.

[17] A.K. Sengupta, et al., J. Mech. Working Technol. 5 (1981) 181.