metals

Article
Acquisition and Evaluation of Theoretical Forming
Limit Diagram of Al 6061-T6 in Electrohydraulic
Forming Process
Min-A Woo 1 , Woo-Jin Song 2 , Beom-Soo Kang 1 and Jeong Kim 1, *
1 Department of Aerospace Engineering, Pusan National University, Busan 46241, Korea;
alsdk0072@pusan.ac.kr (M.-A.W.); bskang@pusan.ac.kr (B.-S.K.)
2 Department of Green Transportation System, Graduate School of Convergence Science, Pusan National
University, Busan 46241, Korea; woodysong@pusan.ac.kr
* Correspondence: greatkj@pusan.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-51-510-2477




Received: 28 February 2019; Accepted: 29 March 2019; Published: 2 April 2019


Abstract: The current study examines the forming limit diagram (FLD) of Al 6061-T6 during the
electrohydraulic forming process based on the Marciniak–Kuczynski theory (M-K theory). To describe
the work-hardening properties of the material, Hollomon’s equation—that includes strain and strain
rate hardening parameters—was used. A quasi-static tensile test was performed to obtain the
strain-hardening factor and the split-Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) test was carried out to acquire
the strain rate hardening parameter. To evaluate the reliability of the stress–strain curves obtained
from the SHPB test, a numerical model was performed using the LS–DYNA program. Hosford’s
yield function was also employed to predict the theoretical FLD. The obtained FLD showed that the
material could have improved formability at a high strain rate index condition compared with the
quasi-static condition, which means that the high-speed forming process can enhance the formability
of sheet metals. Finally, the FLD was compared with the experimental results from electrohydraulic
forming (EHF) free-bulging test, which showed that the theoretical FLD was in good agreement with
the actual forming limit in the EHF process.

Keywords: forming limit diagram; Marciniak-Kuczynski theory; strain rate; electrohydraulic forming;
numerical simulation

1. Introduction
Forming thin plate materials is limited by the occurrence of fractures and wrinkles. In the case of
uniaxial tensile deformation of the sheet, when the deformation is small, the plastic strain increases as
the load increases. However, after the load reaches the peak value, the plastic strain increases, and
the deformation becomes unstable immediately even though the load decreased. At this time, diffuse
necking occurs at the center of the specimen, because load reduction due to cross-section reduction is
larger than load increase due to the work hardening of the sheet in micro deformations.
As the diffused neck grows, a local neck occurs where most deformation is concentrated in a
narrow region in the direction having a critical slope with respect to the tensile direction. In addition,
with sudden decrease in the plate’s thickness, the load suddenly drops without any increase in load
displacement–displacement curve—resulting in ductile fracture.
To avoid defects and generate products desired by the designer, accurately evaluating the sheet
metal’s forming limit is necessary. Generally, during the sheet metal forming process, the forming limit
diagram (FLD) is employed to predict whether materials fracture or not. The FLD was first introduced
by Keeler [1] and Goodwin [2]. It is a curve that characterizes a sheet’s formability, it also reflects major
and minor strains prior to localized necking. If the deformed sheet’s strains are located below the curve,

Metals 2019, 9, 401; doi:10.3390/met9040401 www.mdpi.com/journal/metals

Metals 2019, 9, 401 2 of 15

Metals 2019, 9, x is
the material FOR PEER REVIEW
evaluated to be safe from breakage, otherwise, it is expected that the sheet is fractured. 2 of 15
The FLD is obtained using theoretical or experimental methods. The FLD prediction theory includes
sheet
Swift’sisdiffusion
fractured.neck The FLD[3],
theory is Hill’s
obtained
local using
necking theoretical
theory [4],or andexperimental
Marciniak and methods.
Kuczynski’s The (M-K)
FLD
prediction
theory [5]. A forming limit diagram development is found in previous research [6–8]. Keeler and
theory includes Swift’s diffusion neck theory [3], Hill’s local necking theory [4], and
Marciniak
Brazier [6] andfound Kuczynski’s
that the level (M-K)
of FLDtheory [5]. Awith
increased forming
sheet limit diagram
thickness and the development
strain-hardeningis found in
index,
previous
they also research
approximated [6–8].this
Keeler and Brazier
phenomenon into[6] found limit
forming that the level ofRaghavan
equations. FLD increased with
et al. [7] sheet
reviewed
thickness and the strain-hardening index, they also approximated this
the commonly used empirical method to predict the forming limit curves for various steel sheets, and phenomenon into forming
limit
Greenequations.
and BlackRaghavan
[8] showed et the
al. [7] reviewed
details the commonly
of a visual method toused empirical
determine the method
occurrence to predict the
of necking
forming limitmeasuring
using strain curves forsystems.
various steel sheets, and Green and Black [8] showed the details of a visual
method to determine
Among these theories, the occurrence of necking
the M-K theory using
is most strainused
widely measuring
becausesystems.
it is in good agreement with
Among these theories, the M-K theory is most widely used
experimental results. Many researchers have actively carried out studies to modify because it is in goodthis agreement
model to predictwith
experimental results. Many researchers have actively carried out studies
more accurate forming limits. Ghazanfari and Assempour [9] used a modified M-K model to predict to modify this model to
predict more accurate forming limits. Ghazanfari and Assempour [9] used
the FLD of carbon steel by combining geometrical and material inhomogeneity. While Safdarian [10] a modified M-K model to
predict
developed the the
FLD new ofM-Kcarbon
model steel by combining
to consider the effectgeometrical
of bendingand material
strain on FLD. inhomogeneity. While
Safdarian [10] developed the new M-K model to consider the
Generally, FLD is obtained under quasi-static conditions or under a strain effect of bending strain
rate on
of 1FLD.
s−1 or less.
Generally, FLD is obtained under quasi-static conditions
However, forming characteristics of materials change depending on forming speed, which or under a strain rate of 1 s-1 or less.
affects
However,
formability. forming
Therefore,characteristics
FLD should ofbematerials change depending
able to consider changes in on forming
strain rate tospeed,
predict which affects
the forming
formability. Therefore, FLD should be able to consider changes
limit of various sheet metal forming processes with various strain rate condition. in strain rate to predict the forming
limit In
of various sheet many
recent years, metal forming
high-speed processes
forming with various such
processes strainasrate condition.
electrohydraulic forming (EHF),
In recent years, many high-speed forming processes
explosive forming (EF), and electromagnetic forming (EMF), have been developed. such as electrohydraulic forming (EHF),
According
explosive forming (EF), and electromagnetic forming (EMF), have
to Golowin [11] and Kamal [12], high-speed forming provides improved formability due to the been developed. According to
Golowin [11] and
high-pressure andKamal [12], high-speed
high-speed impact comparedforming to provides improvedunder
forming processes formability due toconditions.
quasi-static the high-
pressure and high-speed impact compared to forming processes under
The improved formability has been demonstrated with steels [13], aluminum alloys [14], as well quasi-static conditions. The
as
improved formability has been demonstrated with steels [13], aluminum
magnesium and titanium alloys [15]. Therefore, many high-speed forming processes have been studied alloys [14], as well as
magnesium
for improvedand titanium
sheet alloys [15]. Therefore, many high-speed forming processes have been
metal formability.
studied for improved sheet metal formability.
Among many high-speed forming processes, EHF uses a discharged electric energy as a
Among many high-speed forming processes, EHF uses a discharged electric energy as a
deformation resource of the blank in fluid. As shown in Figure 1, it consists of capacitor, chamber, die,
deformation resource of the blank in fluid. As shown in Figure 1, it consists of capacitor, chamber,
electrodes, blank, wire, and fluid. When the capacitor discharges the electric energy, two electrodes
die, electrodes, blank, wire, and fluid. When the capacitor discharges the electric energy, two
deliver the energy into the fluid and it creates a high-pressure, high-temperature shock wave, which
electrodes deliver the energy into the fluid and it creates a high-pressure, high-temperature shock
forms the sheet metal. The EHF process can reduce experimental cost by using only one rigid tool.
wave, which forms the sheet metal. The EHF process can reduce experimental cost by using only one
In addition, when compared to EMF, it is possible to reduce the occurrence of defects or wrinkles
rigid tool. In addition, when compared to EMF, it is possible to reduce the occurrence of defects or
because sheet bouncing does not occur even though the process proceeds at high-speed [16].
wrinkles because sheet bouncing does not occur even though the process proceeds at high-speed [16].

Figure 1. A schematic view of electrohydraulic forming apparatus.

Figure 1. A schematic view of electrohydraulic forming apparatus.
To evaluate the improved formability during the EHF process, acquiring FLD from the EHF
To evaluate
experiment is the the improved
simplest formability
way, this during
is however thetoEHF
difficult process,
obtain. acquiring
In general, FLD from
experimental thecan
FLD EHFbe
experiment is the simplest way, this is however difficult to obtain. In general, experimental FLD can
obtained at a constant strain rate. However, in EHF experiments, the plate’s strain rate is not constant,
be obtained at a constant strain rate. However, in EHF experiments, the plate’s strain rate is not
constant, and it ranges from 0 to 1000 s−1 or more. Therefore, it is necessary to develop the theoretical
FLD, which can consider strain rate variation in EHF.
 Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15

Therefore, in this study, to acquire theoretical FLD during the EHF process, the M-K theory was
used, and Hollomon’s stress–strain equation including strain-hardening and strain rate sensitivity
Metals 2019, 9, 401
parameters was employed [17]. The strain-hardening index was acquired from the quasi-static tensile 3 of 15
test and the strain rate sensitivity parameter was obtained by the split-Hopkinson pressure bar
(SHPB) test, which is a high strain rate property acquisition test. In addition, the numerical simulation
and it ranges from 0 to 1000 s−1 or more. Therefore, it is necessary to develop the theoretical FLD,
for EHF was conducted to evaluate the material’s property obtained from the quasi-static tensile test
which can consider strain rate variation in EHF.
and SHPB test by comparing results of the numerical simulation and EHF experiment. Finally, to
Therefore, in this study, to acquire theoretical FLD during the EHF process, the M-K theory was
evaluate whether the obtained FLD can predict the actual forming limit of the plate, experimental
used, and Hollomon’s stress–strain equation including strain-hardening and strain rate sensitivity
results from the EHF process were compared to theoretical FLD.
parameters was employed [17]. The strain-hardening index was acquired from the quasi-static tensile
test and the strain rate sensitivity parameter was obtained by the split-Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB)
2. Material Property for Al 6061-T6
test, which is a high strain rate property acquisition test. In addition, the numerical simulation for
EHF was Hollomon’s
conducted equation, which
to evaluate the includes
material’s the strain rate
property hardening
obtained from and strain-hardening
the quasi-static tensileindices,
test andis
used test
SHPB to consider the sheet’s
by comparing high
results strain
of the rate on FLD
numerical and is and
simulation presented in EquationFinally,
EHF experiment. (1). to evaluate
whether the obtained FLD can predict the actual forming limit of the plate, experimental results from
n  ε m
the EHF process were compared to theoreticalσFLD. = Kε   (1)

 ε0 
2. Material Property for Al 6061-T6

where σ is the effective stress, K is the stress coefficient, ε is the effective strain, ε is the effective
Hollomon’s equation, which includes the strain rate hardening and strain-hardening indices, is
strain rate, ε 0 is reference strain rate (0.00067s-1), n is the strain hardening index, and m is the strain
used to consider the sheet’s high strain rate on FLD and is presented in Equation (1).
rate hardening coefficient.
. !m
n ε
2.1. Quasi-Static Material Property σ = Kε . (1)
ε0
In Equation (1), K and n are generally acquired by a quasi-static tensile .
test. Parameter n
measures
where .
σ is the
the ability
effective of a material
stress, K is to
the become
stress harden,
coefficient, and
ε is a
thelarger value
effective indicates
strain, ε is the larger degrees
effective strainof
strain
rate, ε0 hardening.
is referenceFor most
strain general
rate (0.00067 s−1 ), n isthe
materials, thestrain-hardening
strain hardeningindex index, is in
and them0.1–0.5 range.rate
is the strain The
strain hardening
hardening exponent n and the strength coefficient K are both determined from the true stress
coefficient.
versus the true strain in the region of uniform elongation.
2.1. Quasi-Static Material
In this study, Property
the MTS Landmark-370 machine was employed to calculate parameters K and n
of the Al 6061-T6
In Equation (1),material at agenerally
K and n are strain rate of 0.00067
acquired s−1, at roomtensile
by a quasi-static temperature. The specimen
test. Parameter n measureswas
designed using ASTM E8 as shown in Figure 2 [18]. L = 200 mm, G = 50
the ability of a material to become harden, and a larger value indicates larger degrees of strain mm, C = 20 mm, W = 12.5
mm, R = 12.5
hardening. Formm,
mostand thickness
general = 1 mm.
materials, theParameters
strain-hardening K and n of Alis6061-T6
index are presented
in the 0.1–0.5 range. Thein Table
strain1.
hardening exponent n and the strength coefficient K are both determined from the true stress versus
Table 1.elongation.
the true strain in the region of uniform Material constants of Al 6061-T6.
In this study, the MTS Landmark-370 Value to calculate parameters K and n
machine was employed
Coefficient
of the Al 6061-T6 material at a strain rate of − 1
K 0.00067 s , at530 room temperature. The specimen was
designed using ASTM E8 as shown in Figuren2 [18]. L = 2000.14048mm, G = 50 mm, C = 20 mm, W = 12.5 mm,
R = 12.5 mm, and thickness = 1 mm. Parameters m K and n of 0.028
Al 6061-T6 are presented in Table 1.

Figure 2. Specimen for quasi-static tensile test.

Figure 2. Specimen for quasi-static tensile test.
Table 1. Material constants of Al 6061-T6.

2.2. High Strain Rate Material Property

Coefficient Value
The strain rate hardening indexK m in Equation (1)530 is obtained from the material property
acquisition test at various strain rate nconditions. In this0.14048
research, the SHPB test was performed to
m 0.028
 Metals
Metals 2019,
2019, 9, 9,
401x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of4 of
15 15

obtain the parameter m. The SHPB is a specialized apparatus used to investigate material properties
at High
2.2. high strain
Strain rate
Rateconditions. Kolsky [19] presented a method for acquiring the dynamic behavior of
Material Property
materials using the SHPB test. Two cylindrical bars are positioned at each end of a specimen to
The strain rate hardening index m in Equation (1) is obtained from the material property
compress it as shown in Figure 3. Dimensions for the specimen were as follow: diameter = 10 mm
acquisition
and lengthtest
= 10atmm.
various
Whenstrain rate conditions.
a bar (incident bar) in front In this
of the research,
specimen the SHPB by
is struck testanwas performed
impact bar, a
to compressive
obtain the parameter m. The SHPB is a specialized apparatus used to investigate
stress wave is generated, and it propagates in the direction of the specimen. When this material properties
at wave
high strain
reachesrate
theconditions. Kolsky
contact surface [19] presented
between the bar and a method
the specimen, for acquiring the dynamic
some fraction behavior
of the wave is
ofreflected
materialsback to the bar, and the remaining portion passes through the specimen up to the next barto
using the SHPB test. Two cylindrical bars are positioned at each end of a specimen
compress it as bar).
(transmitted shown in Figure
During 3. Dimensions
the test, elastic stressfor the specimen
waves of the twowere bars as
arefollow:
measureddiameter
by two= strain
10 mm
andgauges attached to the surface of the bars as shown in Figure 3 and they are used to calculate bar,
length = 10 mm. When a bar (incident bar) in front of the specimen is struck by an impact the a
compressive stress wave is generated, and it propagates
stress–strain wave of the specimen using Equations (2) and (3). in the direction of the specimen. When this
wave reaches the contact surface between the bar and the specimen, some fraction of the wave is
reflected back to the bar, and the remaining portion passes S through the specimen up to the next bar
σ specimen (t ) = Y ε T (t ) (2)
(transmitted bar). During the test, elastic stress waves S of the two bars are measured by two strain
specimen

gauges attached to the surface of the bars as shown in Figure 3 and they are used to calculate the
stress–strain wave of the specimen using Equations 2C t
(t ) = − (2)0and ε(3).
Lspecimen 0
ε specimen T (t )dt (3)
S
In Equation (2), Y and S are young’sσspecimen (t) = Y and area εofT (cross-section
modulus t) for the bar, Sspecimen is the(2)
Sspecimen
cross-section of the specimen. εT (t )
is the strains of the Ztransmitted bar measured by strain gauge.
2C0 t
In Equation (3), C0 is a propagation velocity
ε specimen − elastic
(t) =for waveε Tin
(t)the
dt bar, Lspecimen is the length of the(3)
Lspecimen 0
specimen. The SHPB test is described in detail in [20].
InFigure 4 shows
Equation (2), Y the
andstress–strain
S are young’scurves modulusof Al 6061-T6
and area ofaccording to the
cross-section forstrain
the bar,rate condition
Sspecimen is the
calculated using
cross-section of theEquations
specimen. (2)εand
T ( t ) (3). Three
is the curves
strains were
of the obtained atbar
transmitted 2300, 3200, and
measured by3900 s ,gauge.
strain−1 and
Inwere used (3),
Equation to calculate the strain ratevelocity
C0 is a propagation hardening index mwave
for elastic usinginthe
thecurve
bar, Lexplained
specimen is in
theEquation
length of(1).
the
To obtain the material constant m, the stress and
specimen. The SHPB test is described in detail in [20]. the strain should be replaced with logarithmic scale.
The parameter m can then be extracted using a linear curve-fitting method, this is shown in Table 1.

(a)

(b)

3. 3.(a)(a)Conceptual
Figure
Figure Conceptual design
design and (b) specimenofofthe
(b)specimen thesplit
splitHopkinson
Hopkinson Pressure
Pressure Bar.
Bar.

Figure 4 shows the stress–strain curves of Al 6061-T6 according to the strain rate condition
calculated using Equations (2) and (3). Three curves were obtained at 2300, 3200, and 3900 s−1 , and
Metals 2019, 9, 401 5 of 15

were used to calculate the strain rate hardening index m using the curve explained in Equation (1).
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15
To obtain the material constant m, the stress and the strain should be replaced with logarithmic scale.
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15
The parameter m can then be extracted using a linear curve-fitting method, this is shown in Table 1.
700

700
600

600
500

500
(MPa)

400
(MPa)

400
Stress

300
Stress

300 2300 /s
200 3200 /s
/s
2300
200 3900 /s
3200 /s
100 3900 /s /s
0.00067
100 0.00067 /s
0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
0
0.00 0.02 0.04 Strain 0.06 0.08 0.10
Strain
Figure4.
Figure 4. Stress–strain
Stress–strainrelationship
relationshipof
ofAl
Al6061-T6
6061-T6at
atquasi-static
quasi-staticand
andhigh-strain
high-strainrate
rateconditions.
conditions.
Figure 4. Stress–strain relationship of Al 6061-T6 at quasi-static and high-strain rate conditions.
3.3. Numerical
NumericalSimulation
Simulationof ofElectrohydraulic
ElectrohydraulicForming Forming
3. Numerical Simulation of Electrohydraulic Forming
3.1.
3.1. Finite
FiniteElement
ElementModeling
Modelingfor forFluid
FluidParts
Parts
3.1. Finite
To Element Modeling for Fluid Parts
Tovalidate
validatethe thematerial
materialproperty
propertyobtained
obtained in inSection
Section 2,2, aanumerical
numerical simulation
simulation for for EHF
EHF waswas
performed.
performed. The numerical
The numerical
To validate the material model
model was developed
was obtained
property in the
developedininSection LS-DYNA
the LS-DYNA program.
2, a numerical To
program. reduce numerical
To reduce
simulation EHF cost,
for numerical
was
only
cost,1/4
onlyof1/4
performed. theofmodel
The the was employed
model
numerical was
modelemployed
wasbecause the numerical
because
developed the model
numerical
in the LS-DYNA is program.
model axisymmetric
is axisymmetricaboutabout
To reduce the Z-axis.
the Z-
numerical
In the
cost, numerical
axis. only
In the model,
1/4numerical
of the model there
model, are fluid parts
there are fluid
was employed (water,
because parts vacuum,
the(water,
numerical plasma)
vacuum, and
modelplasma) structural parts
and structural
is axisymmetric (blank,
about theparts
Z-
chamber,
(blank,
axis. die)numerical
In chamber,
the as shown inshown
Figure
die) asmodel, in5.Figure
there Inare
thefluid
experiment,
5. In the
parts electrodes
experiment,
(water, are used
electrodes
vacuum, to deliver
are
plasma) used electric
deliver energy
andtostructural electric
parts
into the chamber,
energy
(blank, water.
into the However,
die) as when
water. using
However,
shown the electrodes
when
in Figure 5.using
In thethein the simulation,
electrodes
experiment, the simulation,
in the
electrodes model is soto
are used complicated
the model
deliver that
is so
electric
itenergy
is too
complicateddifficult to create
thatwater.
into the the elements.
it is tooHowever,
difficult to For
create
when the simulation
the elements.
using efficiency,
For the
the electrodes plasma
insimulation part was
efficiency,
the simulation, used instead
plasmaispart
the model so
ofwastheused
electrodes.
complicated instead
that itThis
ofisthetreatment
too difficultistoreasonable
electrodes. This thebecause
treatment
create many
is reasonable
elements. previous
For the because studies
simulationmany [21–23] have
previous
efficiency, shown
studies
plasma [21–
part
that
was the
23] have numerical
usedshown
insteadthat model with the
numerical model
of the electrodes. plasma part can
with the plasma
This treatment represents the
part can
is reasonable deformation
represents
because manythe results well
deformation
previous instead
studiesresults
[21–
of
23] electrodes.
well instead
have shown of electrodes.
that the numerical model with the plasma part can represents the deformation results
well instead of electrodes.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 5.5. (a)
Figure Y-Z plane
(a)Y-Z plane view
view and
and (b) three-dimensional view
(b)three-dimensional view for
for numerical
numerical simulation
simulation model
model of
of
electrohydraulic
electrohydraulic
Figure forming
5. (a)Y-Z forming process.
process.
plane view and (b)three-dimensional view for numerical simulation model of
electrohydraulic forming process.
The
The most
most important
important factor
factor in
in the
the fluid
fluid parts
parts is
is the
the plasma
plasma partpart that
that has
has the
the forming
forming resource.
resource.
Plasma
Plasma is necessary
Theismost
necessary for the
for the
important application
application
factor in the fluid of electric
of parts
electric energy
energy
is the plasmaand was
andpart modeled
wasthat
modeled as an
an adiabatically
has theasformingadiabatically
resource.
expanding
Plasma gas with 1-mm
is necessary for theradius. The electric
application energy
of electric in the
energy andplasma was assumed
was modeled as antoadiabatically
be uniform
through thegas
expanding entire volume
with 1-mmof the plasma
radius. and theenergy
The electric pressure in isthe
presented
plasma aswasshown in Equation
assumed (4).
to be uniform
through the entire volume of the plasma and the pressure is presented as shown in Equation (4).
Metals 2019, 9, 401 6 of 15

expanding gas with 1-mm radius. The electric energy in the plasma was assumed to be uniform
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 15
through the entire volume of the plasma and the pressure is presented as shown in Equation (4).
ρ
P = ( γ − 1) ρ E (4)
P = (γ − 1)ρ0 E (4)
ρ0
where γ is an adiabatic index, ρ is the density, ρ0 is the initial density, and E is the initial energy per
where γ is an adiabatic index, ρ is the density, ρ 0 is the initial density, and E is the initial energy
volume of the plasma. The parameter E is calculated as the product of the current and the voltage.
per volume of the plasma. The parameter E is calculated as the product of the current and the voltage.
In this paper, γ was 1.26 and ρ0 was 1000 kg/m3 , which is equal value with the density of the water.
In this paper, γ was 1.26 and ρ 0 was 1000 kg/m3, which is equal value with the density of the water.
To calculate E, the current curve was obtained by Rogowski coil as shown in Figure 6, and the voltage
To calculate E, the current curve was
was assumed to decrease linearly from obtained byvoltage
the input Rogowski8 kVcoil
to as shown
0 until theincurrent
Figure curve
6, andreached
the voltage
the
was assumed
peak value. to decrease linearly from the input voltage 8 kV to 0 until the current curve reached the
peak value.

Figure 6. Current curve used in the

the numerical
numerical simulation.
simulation.

Since
Since the
the numerical
numerical model
model in
in this
this research
research has
has three
three fluid
fluid parts,
parts, the
the contact
contact conditions
conditions between
between
them
them must be defined, but they cannot be easily defined as the contact conditions used
must be defined, but they cannot be easily defined as the contact conditions used in
in general
general
structural
structural analysis. In addition,
analysis. In addition, to
to deform
deform the
the blank,
blank, elements
elements ofof the
the water
water part
part underwent
underwent aa large
large
deformation, inducing the mesh distortion problem. The above problems can be resolved
deformation, inducing the mesh distortion problem. The above problems can be resolved by applyingby applying
the
the arbitrary
arbitrary Lagrange–Eulerian
Lagrange–Eulerian (ALE)
(ALE) solver
solver in
in LS-DYNA.
LS-DYNA.

3.2. Numerical Model of Structural Parts

3.2. Numerical Model of Structural Parts
Structural parts consist of blank, chamber, and die, all of which are modeled using shell elements
Structural parts consist of blank, chamber, and die, all of which are modeled using shell elements
for reducing the simulation time. The chamber and the die are assumed to be rigid bodies and the
for reducing the simulation time. The chamber and the die are assumed to be rigid bodies and the
material of the blank is Al 6061-T6. The element size of the blank is 2 mm and other parts have
material of the blank is Al 6061-T6. The element size of the blank is 2 mm and other parts have similar
similar size with the blank to deliver the pressure of the water accurately. The material property for
size with the blank to deliver the pressure of the water accurately. The material property for the blank
the
wasblank was presented
presented with stress–strain
with stress–strain curvescurves obtained
obtained in Section
in Section 2 2using
using*DEFINE_TABLE
*DEFINE_TABLE and and
*DEFINE_CURVE in LS-DYNA.
*DEFINE_CURVE in LS-DYNA.
When
When defining
defining the
the contact
contact between
between the
the fluid
fluid and
and structure
structure parts
parts (i.e.,
(i.e., fluid–structure
fluid–structure interaction
interaction
(FSI),
(FSI), the
the *CONSTRAINED_
*CONSTRAINED_ LAGRANGE_IN_SOLID
LAGRANGE_IN_SOLID keyword keywordof of LS-DYNA
LS-DYNA was was used.
used. To
To apply
apply this
this
keyword, the two parts must overlap in part [24]. Therefore, as shown in Figure
keyword, the two parts must overlap in part [24]. Therefore, as shown in Figure 5, the vacuum5, the vacuum part is
part
larger than the actual space that must be vacuumed (between the blank and the die).
is larger than the actual space that must be vacuumed (between the blank and the die). This allows This allows the
vacuum
the vacuumto overlap withwith
to overlap the structural partsparts
the structural and and
the keyword to work
the keyword properly.
to work properly.
3.3. Results of Numerical Simulation
3.3. Results of Numerical Simulation
Figure 7 shows the progression of the EHF and the deformation behavior of the blank. The initial
Figure 7 shows the progression of the EHF and the deformation behavior of the blank. The initial
plasma part is very small at the beginning step and grows larger with increasing electric energy as time
plasma part is very small at the beginning step and grows larger with increasing electric energy as
goes on. As the shape of the plasma changes, water moves and causes the free bulging deformation of
time goes on. As the shape of the plasma changes, water moves and causes the free bulging
deformation of the blank as shown in Figure 7. This figure also shows that there was no leakage of
the fluid due to the FSI, mentioned in Section 3.2, being properly applied to the numerical model.
Metals 2019, 9, 401 7 of 15

the blank
Metals 2019,as
9, xshown in Figure
FOR PEER REVIEW7.
This figure also shows that there was no leakage of the fluid due 7toofthe
15
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15
FSI, mentioned in Section 3.2, being properly applied to the numerical model.

Figure 7. Blank
Figure 7. Blank deformation
deformation versus
versus time
time during
during discharge.
discharge.
Figure 7. Blank deformation versus time during discharge.
Figure 8 shows the effective strain rate over time at points A, B, and C on the blank. The maximum
Figure 8 shows the effective −strain rate over time at points A, B, and C on the blank. The
strainFigure
rate was8 shows the effective
approximately 2300 sstrain ratewas
1 , which over time near
created at points A, B, and
the entrance whereC the
on blank
the blank. The
is inserted.
maximum strain rate was approximately 2300 s−1−1, which was created near the entrance where the
maximum strain rate was approximately 2300 s , which was created near the entrance
The reason for the maximum strain rate at point C due to the fact that it was closed to the area clamped where the
blank is inserted. The reason for the maximum strain rate at point C due to the fact that it was closed
blank is inserted. The reason for the maximum strain rate at point C due to the fact that
to the chamber and the die. The forming of the blank took place in a very short time, and the section it was closed
to the area clamped to the chamber and the die. The forming of the blank took place in a very short
to thepoint
near area C clamped to the chamber
was tensioned rapidly and
due the die. The forming
to clamping, of the
so that the blank took
maximum place
strain rateinoccurred
a very short
near
time, and the section near point C was tensioned rapidly due to clamping, so that the maximum strain
time, and
point C. the section near point C was tensioned rapidly due to clamping, so that the maximum strain
rate occurred near point C.
rate occurred near point C.

Figure 8. Effective strain rate at different position of deformed blank.

Figure 8. Effective strain rate at different position of deformed blank.
Figure 8. Effective strain rate at different position of deformed blank.
In addition, the maximum strain rate was less than 2500 s−1 , the final deformation shapes of the
sheetInIn addition,
inaddition, the maximum
the simulation strain rate was
and the strain
experiment wereless than 2500
similar s−1, the final
as shown deformation shapes of the
the maximum rate was less than 2500 s−1, theinfinal
Figure 9, although
deformation there of
shapes was
thea
sheet
10% errorin the simulation
insimulation
maximum andand the
bulgethe experiment
height, meaning were similar
thatsimilar as
the materialshown in
property Figure 9,
obtainedalthough there
from SHPB was a
sheet in the experiment were as shown in Figure 9, although thereiswas
valid
a
10% error
for the EHF in maximum bulge height, meaning that the material property obtained from SHPB is valid
10% error in process.
maximum bulge height, meaning that the material property obtained from SHPB is valid
for the EHF process.
for the EHF process.
Metals 2019, 9, 401 8 of 15
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15

Figure 9. Comparison of numerical simulation and experiments.

Figure 9. Comparison of numerical simulation and experiments.
4. Theories for Prediction of Forming Limit Diagram
4. Theories for Prediction of Forming Limit Diagram
4.1. M-K Model
4.1. M-K Model
To predict the forming limit in the biaxial tensile state, Marciniak and Kuczynski used a model
with To predict
initial the forming
material defects inlimit in the biaxial
the groove tensile state,
set perpendicular to Marciniak and Kuczynski
the major strain used
(ε 1 ) direction. a model
Assuming
with initial material defects in the groove set perpendicular to the major strain
that the defects cause a local neck as the plate deforms under biaxial tension, they predicted ( ε ) direction.
1 the forming
Assuming
limit due tothat
the the defects of
occurrence cause
locala necking.
local neck Thisas theory
the plate deforms
largely under
depends on biaxial
the sizetension, they
of the initial
predicted
defects, butthe formingagrees
generally limit well
due with
to thetheoccurrence
experimental of local
resultsnecking.
and hasThis
beentheory
widelylargely depends
used until on
recently
the size
in the of the initial
evaluation of thedefects,
formingbutlimit
generally
of the agrees
material. wellThe with
FLD theshape
experimental
obtained results and has
by the M-K modelbeenis
widely used until by
greatly influenced recently
the yieldin the evaluation
function of the the
used under forming
biaxiallimit of the
tensile material.
condition. ThisThe FLD shape
phenomenon
obtained by theaM-K
occurs because closemodel is greatly
relationship influenced
exists between by thethe
ratioyield function
of the usedin
flow stress under the biaxial
the biaxial tensile
tensile state
condition. Thisinphenomenon
and the stress the plane strain occurs because astate
deformation closedepending
relationship on exists between
the shape of thethe ratio
yield of the flow
curve.
stressAssuming
in the biaxial
that tensile
the sheet state and the
where the biaxial
stress in the plane
tensile stressstrain deformation
is applied state depending
has an initial on the
defect at a narrow
shape
regionof the yield
across curve.width in a direction perpendicular to the major principal stress direction as
the plate
shown Assuming
in Figurethat10, the
the sheet
initialwhere the biaxial
imperfection tensile
of the stress
plate is appliedashas
is expressed an initial
Equation (5).defect at a narrow
region across the plate width in a direction perpendicular to the major principal stress direction as
shown in Figure 10, the initial imperfection of = t B0
f 0 the /t A0is expressed as Equation (5).
plate (5)

where t A0 is the initial thickness of the uniform f0 = tBregion

0 / t A0 A and t (5)
B0 is the initial thickness of the
imperfection
where t A0 isregion B. f 0 thickness
the initial can be assumed
of theoruniform
obtained by theAsurface
region and t Broughness experiment. Generally,
0 is the initial thickness of the
for FLD based on M-K model, f 0 is at least 0.98 [5,25–29]. Therefore, in this paper, f 0 was assumed to
imperfection region
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEERB. f 0 can be assumed or obtained by the surface roughness experiment.
REVIEW 9 of 15
be 0.995.
Generally, for FLD based on M-K model, f 0 is at least 0.98 [5,25–29]. Therefore, in this paper, f 0
was assumed to be 0.995.
Because forces acting in direction 1 in regions A and B must be in equilibrium with each other
when the biaxial tension is applied to the plate, Equation (6) should be satisfied, from the force
equilibrium relation.
σ A1t A = σ B1tB → σ A1t A0 exp(ε A3 ) = σ B1tB0 exp(εB3 ) (6)
where σ A1 and σB1 are stresses in direction 1 of the uniform and the imperfect regions, respectively,
and ε A3 and εB3 are the strains in the thickness direction of the uniform and the imperfect regions,
respectively. The ratio of the stresses σ A 2 and σ A1 in region A has a constant value defined as
Equation (7).
Figure
Figure 10. Assumption of
10. Assumption = σ A 2imperfection
ofαinitial
initial / σ A1
imperfection in
in M-K
M-K theory.
theory. (7)

In addition, the plate to be deformed should satisfy Equation (8).

ε A 2 = ε B 2 ( ≡ Δε A 2 = Δε B 2 ) (8)
where εA2 and εB2 are the strains in direction 2, and Δε A2 and ΔεB 2 are the strain increments.
When it is assumed that the stress ratio as shown in Equation (7) is constant and isotropic
Metals 2019, 9, 401 9 of 15

Because forces acting in direction 1 in regions A and B must be in equilibrium with each other
when the biaxial tension is applied to the plate, Equation (6) should be satisfied, from the force
equilibrium relation.

σA1 t A = σB1 t B → σA1 t A0 exp(ε A3 ) = σB1 t B0 exp(ε B3 ) (6)

where σA1 and σB1 are stresses in direction 1 of the uniform and the imperfect regions, respectively,
and ε A3 and ε B3 are the strains in the thickness direction of the uniform and the imperfect regions,
respectively. The ratio of the stresses σA2 and σA1 in region A has a constant value defined as
Equation (7).
α = σA2 /σA1 (7)

In addition, the plate to be deformed should satisfy Equation (8).

ε A2 = ε B2 (≡ ∆ε A2 = ∆ε B2 ) (8)

where ε A2 and ε B2 are the strains in direction 2, and ∆ε A2 and ∆ε B2 are the strain increments.
When it is assumed that the stress ratio as shown in Equation (7) is constant and isotropic
hardening occurs, the strain ratio in the uniform region A is also a constant value and it is specified as
a constant as shown in Equation (9).
β A = ∆ε A2 /∆ε A1 (9)

The flow stress equation and the yield criterion of the material described in the next section are
applied here. Then, assuming the strain increment in the direction of major strain (direction 1 in
Figure 10) in the initial uniform region, the values satisfying Equations (5)–(8) are obtained through
iterative calculation.
As the deformation of the material progresses, the strain state within the imperfection region
approaches the plane strain state, and the necking is set to occur when the strain increment ratio
(∆ε A1 /∆ε B1 ) becomes smaller than 0.1.

4.2. Yield Function

The yield function of the material used in this study is Hosford 79 (nonquadratic anisotropic yield
function) developed by Hosford [30] and is shown in Equation (10).

f (σij ) = F |σ2 − σ3 | a + G |σ3 − σ1 | a + H |σ1 − σ2 | a = 1 (10)

where F, G, and H are anisotropic parameters, and a is an index determined according to the crystal
structure of the material. When a = 2, Equation (10) can be reduced to the von-Mises yield criterion.
When a = 6 and 8, it is known that Equation (10) indicates good experimental results for BCC
(body-centered cubic) and FCC (face-centered cubic) materials, respectively. In addition, when the
parameter a increases, Equation (10) approximates the shape of the Tresca’s yield function curve and
it is the same as in the case of a = ∞. In this research, parameter a = 8 was used because the crystal
structure of the Al 6061-T6 is FCC.
Considering only the normal anisotropy of the sheet assuming a plane stress state for the thin
sheet, Equation (10) is summarized as Equation (11).
 1
1 a
σ= (1 + | α | a + r |1 − α | a |σ1 | (11)
1+r

where r is a normal anisotropy parameter and α is the stress ratio (σ2 /σ1 ). The value of r was obtained
by the uniaxial tensile test, which was 0.84 in the case of Al 6061-T6 [31]. The strain ratio and the strain
work are shown in Equations (12) and (13).
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 15
Metals 2019, 9, 401 10 of 15

ε 2 α a−1 − r (1 − α )a−1
β= = (12)
ε1 a− 1+
1
r (1 − α )a−1 a−1
ε2 α − r (1 − α )
β= = (12)
ε1 r (1)σ−Δαε) a−1
σΔε = (11 ++αβ (13)
1 1
σ∆ε = (1 + αβ)σ1 ∆ε 1 (13)
4.3. Procedure
4.3. Procedure for
for Calculation
Calculation of
of Theoretical
Theoretical FLD
FLD
The method
The method forfor acquiring
acquiring FLD
FLD using
using the
the M-K
M-K method
method isisshown
shownin inFigure
Figure11.
11.(1)
1) Set
Set the
the initial
initial
value of stress ratio in region A, β . It has a value ranging from 0 to 1 depending on the tensile
value of stress ratio in region A, β A. It has a value ranging from 0 to 1 depending on the tensile state state
A
and it
and it is
is used
used toto obtain
obtain the
the stress ratio ααAA using
stress ratio usingEquation
Equation(12).
(12).(2)
2) Assume
Assume that
that the
the initial
initial value
value of
of
Δ εB1
∆ε B1 isis1e − 4
1e and
-4
calculate ∆ε
and calculate ΔεBB2
2 . 3) Calculate ββBB and ααBB using
(3)Calculate usingEquation
Equation(8).
(8).(4) Calculate ∆ε
4) Calculate ΔεA
A and
∆ε
ΔεBB by using an effective strain work equation. 5) Adjust the value of Δ ε AA1
effective strain work equation. (5) Adjust the value of ∆ε 1
until Equation (6) is
satisfied.
satisfied. In In Figure
Figure 10,
10, T
TA1 is the
A1 is the force
force inin region
region AA and
and T TB1 is the force in region B as described in
B1 is the force in region B as described in

Equation (6). In addition, δ is a term representing the force equilibrium

Equation (6). In addition, δ is a term representing the force equilibrium criterion of region
criterion A and region
of region A and
B, and this value is set to 1 + 1e − 10 . (6) Apply ∆ε continuously until Equation (6) is satisfied and
region B, and this value is set to 1 + 1e . 6) Apply Δ ε B1 continuously until Equation (6) is satisfied
−10 B1
∆ε A1 /∆ε B1 becomes smaller than 0.1. (7) Acquire ε A and ε B depending on the values of β A when step
and Δ ε A1 / Δ ε B1 becomes smaller than 0.1. 7) Acquire ε A and ε B depending on the values of β A
(6) is satisfied and present these values on the ε 1 − ε 2 plane.
when step 6) is satisfied and present these values on the ε 1 − ε 2 plane.

Figure 11. Flow chart for acquisition of forming limit diagram.

Figure 11. Flow chart for acquisition of forming limit diagram.
5. Forming Limit Diagram
5. Forming Limit Diagram
As mentioned in the introduction Section, the material has different deformation characteristics
As mentioned
depending in therate.
on the strain introduction
Figure 12 Section,
shows the thedeformation
material hasevolution
different of
deformation
the material characteristics
according to
depending
the onsensitivity
strain rate the strain index
rate. Figure 12 shows
m at biaxial strainthe deformation
state. evolution
At the beginning of the
of the material
process, the according
deformation to
the strain rate sensitivity index m at biaxial strain state. At the beginning of
is similar in the uniform and the imperfection regions. However, when it reaches a certain limit, it the process, the
deformation on
concentrates is similar in the uniform
the imperfection region,and the imperfection
which regions.InHowever,
means the necking. addition,when
as theitvalue
reaches
of ma
certain limit,
becomes it concentrates
larger, on the
local instability imperfection
occurs later in the region, which
material, andmeans the necking.
large plastic In addition,
deformation as the
is possible,
value of m becomes larger, local instability
so that the formability of the material is improved. occurs later in the material, and large plastic deformation
is possible, so that the formability of the material is improved.
that the formability is improved.
The
Figureinertia effect the
13 shows is well known as
theoretical FLDtheof
cause of formability
Al 6061-T6 improvement
according [32]. Itstrain
to the different delays unstable
rate index.
conditions such as necking due to the inertia that wants to maintain its original stable
As described in Figure 12, the larger value of m, the higher the forming limit line is, which means state when the
material
that is deformed
the formability at high-strain rate condition. As the strain rate change increases, the inertia
is improved.
effectThe
lasts the stable state for longer than quasi-static state, and the necking is delayed, resulting in
Metals 2019,inertia
9, 401 effect is well known as the cause of formability improvement [32]. It delays unstable 11 of 15
improved formability. Therefore,
conditions such as necking due to the high-speed forming,
inertia that wants towhich can dramatically
maintain increase
its original stable state the
whenstrain
the
rate, can improve
material is deformedthe formability of the
at high-strain ratematerials that
condition. Ashave
the low formability.
strain rate change increases, the inertia
effect lasts the stable state for longer than quasi-static state, and the necking is delayed, resulting in
improved formability. Therefore, high-speed forming, which can dramatically increase the strain
rate, can improve the formability of the materials that have low formability.

Figure 12. Deformation behavior of regions A and B according to the m

m value.
value.

Figure 13 shows the theoretical FLD of Al 6061-T6 according to the different strain rate index.
As described in Figure 12, the larger value of m, the higher the forming limit line is, which means that
Figure 12. Deformation behavior of regions A and B according to the m value.
the formability is improved.

Figure 13. Theoretical forming limit diagram of Al 6061-T6 material.

6. Evaluating the Forming Limit Diagram at a High-Strain Rate Condition Using Experimental
Figure 13. Theoretical forming limit diagram of Al 6061-T6 material.
Results
Figure 13. Theoretical forming limit diagram of Al 6061-T6 material.
The inertia effect
To evaluate is well known
the reliability as the cause
of theoretical FLDofatformability
m = 0.024, improvement
the diagram was [32].compared
It delays unstable
with the
6. Evaluating
conditions
experimental suchthe Forming
as necking
results obtainedLimit
duefrom Diagram
to the at
the inertia a High-Strain
that wants test.
EHF free-bulging Rate Condition
to maintain Using
its original
The experiment Experimental
wasstable
carried state
out when
using
Results
the material
equipment is deformed
as shown at in high-strain
Figure 14. The rateinput
condition. Aswas
voltage the 12strain
kV, rate
whichchange increases,
is enough the inertia
to create cracks
effect lasts
in theTo
sheet,the
and
evaluatestable
the state for
theresults longer
of the
reliability than quasi-static
ofdeformed
theoretical sheet
FLDare state,
shown
at m and
in
= 0.024, thediagram
Figure
the necking is
15. Thewas delayed,
strains of the
compared resulting
deformedin
with the
improved
sheet wereformability.
experimental measured Therefore,
using
results obtained fromhigh-speed
a strain the forming,
measurement which
apparatus,
EHF free-bulging test.can
and
Thedramatically
they increase
were scattered
experiment the
was carried strain
in the
outFLDrate,
as
using
can improve
described in the formability
Figure 16. of the materials that have low formability.
the equipment as shown in Figure 14. The input voltage was 12 kV, which is enough to create cracks
in theThe strains
sheet, and ofthethe sheetofinthe
results thedeformed
safe zonesheetare located
are shownhigher than the
in Figure 15. theoretical
The strainsquasi-static
of the deformedFLD
6.
(m Evaluating
= 0.001), thethe
and Forming
strains Limit
of the Diagram
sheet in at
thea High-Strain
fracture zone Rate
are Condition
located Using
higher than the theoretical
sheet were measured
Experimental Results using a strain measurement apparatus, and they were scattered in the FLD as
FLD at thein
described high strain
Figure 16.rate index (m = 0.024), which means that the formability of the sheet is enhanced
To
Theevaluate
strains ofthethe
reliability
sheet in of thetheoretical
safe zone FLD at m = higher
are located 0.024, thethandiagram was compared
the theoretical withFLD
quasi-static the
experimental results obtained from the EHF free-bulging test. The experiment was
(m = 0.001), and the strains of the sheet in the fracture zone are located higher than the theoretical carried out using
the
FLDequipment
at the highasstrain
shown inindex
rate Figure(m14. The input
= 0.024), whichvoltage
means was
that12the
kV,formability
which is enough
of the to create
sheet cracks in
is enhanced
the sheet, and the results of the deformed sheet are shown in Figure 15. The strains of the deformed
sheet were measured using a strain measurement apparatus, and they were scattered in the FLD as
described in Figure 16.
Metals
in the2019,
EHF9,process
x FOR PEER REVIEW
as compared 12 of In
with the quasi-static condition as mentioned in the introduction. 15

addition, because FLD at m = 0.024 is located between the different strain zone, it can be concluded
in the EHF process as compared with the quasi-static condition as mentioned in the introduction. In
that the theoretical FLD acquired in this study can predict the onset of instability or localization of
addition, because FLD at m = 0.024 is located between the different strain zone, it can be concluded
the sheet
Metals 2019,metal
9, 401 in EHF process well. 12 of 15
that the theoretical FLD acquired in this study can predict the onset of instability or localization of
the sheet metal in EHF process well.

Figure 14. Experimental apparatus for electrohydraulic forming.

Figure 14. Experimental apparatus for electrohydraulic forming.
Figure 14. Experimental apparatus for electrohydraulic forming.

Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 15

Figure 15.
Figure Experimental results
15. Experimental results from
from EHF
EHF experiment
experiment at
at 12
12 kV.
kV.

Figure 15. Experimental results from EHF experiment at 12 kV.

Figure 16. Evaluation of the theoretical forming limit diagram using experimental results.
Figure 16. Evaluation of the theoretical forming limit diagram using experimental results.

7. Conclusion
In this study, a theoretical FLD was obtained to evaluate the formability of sheet metals in
electrohydraulic forming process. Hollomon’s stress–strain equation and Hosford’s yield function
were used to obtain the FLD based on the M-K theory. The SHPB test was conducted to obtain the
Metals 2019, 9, 401 13 of 15

The strains of the sheet in the safe zone are located higher than the theoretical quasi-static FLD
(m = 0.001), and the strains of the sheet in the fracture zone are located higher than the theoretical FLD
at the high strain rate index (m = 0.024), which means that the formability of the sheet is enhanced
in the EHF process as compared with the quasi-static condition as mentioned in the introduction.
In addition, because FLD at m = 0.024 is located between the different strain zone, it can be concluded
that the theoretical FLD acquired in this study can predict the onset of instability or localization of the
sheet metal in EHF process well.

7. Conclusions
In this study, a theoretical FLD was obtained to evaluate the formability of sheet metals in
electrohydraulic forming process. Hollomon’s stress–strain equation and Hosford’s yield function
were used to obtain the FLD based on the M-K theory. The SHPB test was conducted to obtain the
value of m in Hollomon’s equation at the strain rate range of 2300–3900 s−1 , and numerical simulation
was carried out to evaluate the stress-strain curves acquired from SHPB test.
From the theoretical FLD of Al 6061-T6, it was confirmed that as the value of m becomes larger,
local instability occurs later in the sheet, and large plastic deformation is possible so that the formability
of the sheet is improved. This phenomenon occurs because of the inertial effect, which wants to
maintain its original state and delay going to unstable necking state. Therefore, formability is better
when the material is under the rapid changes in the strain rate. In conclusion, when the sheet material
is formed in a high-speed forming, which can result in a large strain rate change in the sheet, the
formability of the sheet metal can be enhanced.
In addition, experimental results from EHF test were used to confirm the reliability of theoretical
FLD. The FLD showed good agreement with experimental results, concluding that theoretical FLD
based on the M-K model is reliable.
In the future work, using the acquired theoretical FLD, the forming limit will be predicted when
the sheet metal is deformed into a complicated shape, such as a sharp edge, in the EHF process.

Author Contributions: M.-A.W. performed the numerical simulation and experiments for electrohydraulic
forming; W.-J.S. and B.-S.K. wrote the algorithm for theoretical forming limit diagram; M.-A.W. and J.K. wrote
and edited the paper; All authors were involved in discussion for the paper.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the
Korea government (MSIT) through the Engineering Research Center (No. 2012R1A5A1048294) and the Basic
Science Research Program (No. NRF-2017R1D1A3B03034265).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Keeler, S.P.; Backhofen, W.A. Plastic instability and fracture in sheets stretched over rigid punches.
ASM Trans. Q. 1963, 56, 25–48.
2. Goodwin, G.M. Application of strain analysis to sheet metal forming problems in the press shop.
SAE Tech. Pap. 1968. [CrossRef]
3. Swift, H.W. Plastic instability under plane stress. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 1952, 1, 1–18. [CrossRef]
4. Hill, R.T. On discontinuous plastic states, with special reference to localized necking in thin sheets. J. Mech.
Phys. Solids 1952, 1, 19–30. [CrossRef]
5. Marciniak, Z.; Kuczyński, K. Limit strains in the processes of stretch-forming sheet metal. Int. J. Mech. Sci.
1967, 9, 609–620. [CrossRef]
6. Keeler, S.P.; Brazier, W.G. Relationship between laboratory material characterization and press shop
formability. Microalloying 1975, 75, 517–530.
7. Raghavan, K.S.; Van Kuren, R.C.; Darlington, H. Recent progress in the development of forming limit curves
for automotive sheet steels. SAE Tech. Pap. 1992. [CrossRef]
8. Green, D.E.; Black, K.C. A visual technique to determine the forming limit for sheet materials. SAE Trans.
2002, 624–634. [CrossRef]
Metals 2019, 9, 401 14 of 15

9. Ghazanfari, A.; Assempour, A. Calibration of forming limit diagrams using a modified Marciniak–Kuczynski
model and an empirical law. Mater. Des. 2012, 34, 185–191. [CrossRef]
10. Safdarian, R. Forming limit diagram prediction of tailor welded blank by modified M-K model.
Mech. Res. Commun. 2015, 67, 47–57. [CrossRef]
11. Golowin, S.; Kamal, M.; Shang, J.; Portier, J.; Din, A.; Daehn, G.S.; Bradley, R.; Newman, K.E.; Hatkevich, S.
Application of a Uniform Press Actuator for Electromagnetic Processes of Sheet Metal. J. Mater. Eng. Perform.
2007, 16, 455–460. [CrossRef]
12. Kamal, M.; Daehn, G.S. A Uniform Press Electromagnetic Actuator for Forming Flat Sheets. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng.
2007, 129, 369–379. [CrossRef]
13. Melander, A.; Delic, A.; Björkblad, A.; Juntunen, P.; Samek, L.; Vadillo, L. Modelling of electro hydraulic free
and die forming of sheet steels. Int. J. Mater. Form. 2013, 6, 223–231. [CrossRef]
14. Smerd, R.; Winkler, S.; Salisbury, C.; Worswick, M.; Lloyd, D.; Finn, M. High strain rate testing of automotive
aluminium alloy sheet. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2005, 32, 541–560. [CrossRef]
15. El-Magd, E.; Abouridouane, M. Characterization, modelling and simulation of deformation and fracture
behaviour of light-weight wrought alloys under high strain rate loading. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2006, 32, 741–758.
[CrossRef]
16. Golovashchenko, S.F.; Bessonov, N.M.; Ilinich, A.M. Two-step method of forming complex shapes form sheet
metal. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2011, 211, 875–885. [CrossRef]
17. Hollomon, J.H. Tensile deformation. Aime Trans. 1945, 12, 1–22.
18. ASTM International. ASTM E8/E8M-09 Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials; ASTM:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2011.
19. Kolsky, H. Stress wave in Solids. J. Sound Vib. 1949, 1, 41–65. [CrossRef]
20. An, W.J.; Woo, M.A.; Noh, H.G.; Kang, B.S.; Kim, J. Design and Fabrication of Split Hopkinson pressure bar
for Acquisition of Dynamic Material property of Al6061-T6. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 2016, 33, 587–594.
[CrossRef]
21. Golovashchenko, S.F.; Gillard, A.J.; Mamutov, A.V.; Golovashchenko, S.F.; Mamutov, A.V.; Gillard, A.J.;
Mamutov, A.V. Formability of dual phase steels in electrohydraulic forming. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2013,
213, 1191–1212. [CrossRef]
22. Hassannejadasl, A.; Green, D.E.; Golovashchenko, S.F.; Samei, J.; Maris, C. Numerical modelling of
electrohydraulic free-forming and die-forming of DP590 steel. J. Manuf. Process. 2014, 16, 391–404. [CrossRef]
23. Mamutov, A.V.; Golovashchenko, S.F.; Mamutov, V.S.; Bonnen, J.J. Modeling of electrohydraulic forming of
sheet metal parts. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2015, 219, 84–100. [CrossRef]
24. Hallquist, J.O. LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual; Livermore Software Technology Corporation 970:
Livermore, CA, USA, 2007.
25. Banabic, D.; Dannenmann, E. Prediction of the Influence of Yield locus on the Limit strains in Sheet Metals.
J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2001, 109, 9–12. [CrossRef]
26. Lou, Y.; Kim, S.B.; Huh, H. Analytical Study of the Effect of Material Properties on the Formability of Sheet
Metal Based on the M-K Model. Trans. Mater. Process. 2010, 10, 393–398. [CrossRef]
27. Ahmadi, S.; Eivani, A.R.; Akbarzadeh, A. An Experimental and Theoretical Study on the Prediction of
Forming Limit Diagrams using New BBC Yield Criteria and M-K Analysis. Comp. Mater. Sci. 2009, 44,
1272–1280. [CrossRef]
28. Bazzaz, A.R.; Noori, H.; Mahmudi, R. Calculation of Forming Limit Diagrams using Hill’s 1993 Yield
Criterion. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2011, 53, 262–270. [CrossRef]
29. Aretz, H. Numerical Analysis of Diffuse and Localized Necking in Orthotropic Sheet Metal. Int. J. Plast.
2007, 23, 798–840. [CrossRef]
30. Hosford, W.F. On yield loci of anisotropic cubic metals. In Proceedings of the Seventh North American
Metalworking Research Conference, SME, Dearborn, MI, USA, May 1979; pp. 191–197.
Metals 2019, 9, 401 15 of 15

31. Friedman, P.A.; Pan, J. Effects of plastic anisotropy and yield criteria on prediction of forming limit curves.
Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2000, 42, 29–48. [CrossRef]
32. Altan, T.; Tekkaya, A.E. Sheet Metal Forming: Processes and Applications; ASM International: Almere,
The Netherlands, 2012.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).