Effect of Thickness to Grain Size Ratio on Drawability for Micro

Deep Drawing of AISI 304 Stainless Steel

R.S. Lee1, C.H Chen1, J.T. Gau2

1 2
National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan; Northern Illinois University, USA

Summary
Although deep drawing process in the macro scale are well developed, the known concepts cannot be applied to
micro deep drawing through directly scale down the specimen and tooling size due to the so-called size effects.
Therefore, tensile test and micro deep drawing experiments were conducted to generate the knowledge for the
micro deep drawing process. Stainless steel 304 foils with 4 different thicknesses (150µm, 100µm, 50µm and
20µm) were used to investigate the influence of the blank holder forces and T/D ratio (thickness/average grain
diameter) on the limit draw ratio (LDR). Four female dies with different die diameters and die shoulder radii
and one punch were used for this study. The experimental results show: 1) the required blank holder force
increases with increasing of T/D ratio, 2) the limit drawing ratio (LDR) increases with increasing of T/D ratio
and increases at a decreasing slope as T/D ratio becomes larger, and 3) the limit drawing ratio (LDR) becomes
steady when T/D ratio > 10 for the as-received stainless steel 304 foils. Finally, the authors recommend having
at least 10 grains throughout the stainless steel 304 foils thickness for obtaining better formability and steady
deep drawing behavior for micro sheet forming.

Keywords: micro deep drawing, limit draw ratio, size effect, thickness to grain size ratio, stainless steel

1 Introduction

Due to the trend toward miniaturization, the demands for metal micro parts are tremendously
increased and widely used in different areas such as consumer electronics, telecommunication devices
medical devices, automotive industry etc [1, 2]. Lithographic technologies and micro machining are
utilized to produce micro components with high dimensional accuracy, but not cost effective. Besides,
the material types for these processes are limited [3]. In comparison with lithographic technologies
and micro machining, micro metal forming is the most suitable and cost effective manufacturing
process for mass production of micro metal parts and holds promise for numerous new technologies,
innovations, and applications. That is the reason the development of the micro sheet metal forming
for sheet thickness less than 0.1mm has gained attention recently [4]. Even though metal forming
processes in the macro scale are well developed, the known concepts cannot be applied to micro
metal forming through directly scale down the specimen and tooling size [5]. Therefore, more metal
forming researches in micro scale are necessary to generate the knowledge for micro sheet forming
process such as micro deep drawing.
In the recent study of Michel et al [6], tensile and hydraulic bulging tests were conducted to
study the flow stress curves (stress-strain) of brass in micro scale. Both experiments showed the same
trend that is the flow curve decreasing with the decrease of specimen thickness. They also proposed a
new model that can model size effects for micro scale metal forming. The influences of size effects on
flow stress, formability and springback on aluminum and brass were studied by Gau et al [7]. In their
investigation, they found the formability of aluminum decreases with the decrease of the T/D
(thickness/ average grain diameter) ratio. Saoteme et al. [8] conducted micro deep drawing study on
the steel with thickness less than 0.2mm. They obtained the relationship between the punch diameter
and drawability without a large amount of blank holder force. In addition, Vollertsen et al. [3] also
conducted micro deep drawing experiments to obtain the limit draw ratio (LDR) with the factors of
friction coefficient and the applied pressure. Lee et al [4] investigated the size effects of stainless steel
304 foils on the micro deep drawing of ball retainer and simulated the micro deep drawing process by
using LS-DYNA. It was found that the effective stress and effective strain of ball retainer were
influenced by thickness/grain size ratio. Furthermore, two-stage cylindrical cup deep drawings were
investigated by Manabe et al. [9] through both experiments and simulations to obtain the cup wall
geometry, thickness distribution and surface roughness of the deep draw parts. In their study, the tool
roughness was considered while the effects of grain size and thickness were ignored.
In this paper, tensile test and micro deep drawing test were conducted for studying the limit
draw ratio (LDR) of stainless steel 304 foils in micro scale. The as-received stainless steel 304 foils
with four different thicknesses (150µm, 100µm, 50µm and 20µm) were used for this study. The
influences of T/D ratio (Thickness to grain size ratio) and blank holder force on LDR were
investigated in this study.

2 Material and tooling and experimental method

2.1 Material preparation and grain size measurement
Figures 1 shows a specimen for the tensile test while five different size (diameter) specimens for
micro deep drawing tests are shown in Figure 2. For the tensile test, NIU water jet was used to cut
the specimens of which the dimensions were determined by ASTM E8 standard. As shown in Figure
2, the micro deep drawing specimens were punched out by a set of mini punches with different
diameters.

Fig.1: Tensile Test Specimen Fig. 2: Micro Deep Drawing Specimens

In order to observe the microstructures of the stainless steel foils throughout the thickness, the
o
samples were cut along the rolling direction ( 0o ) and transverse direction ( 90 ).Electrolytic etching
process was used to reveal austenite grain boundaries and the solution of 60mL HNO3 and 40mL H2O
was used. In the electrolytic etching process, the mounted specimens were immersed in the solution
with stainless steel cathode, using 1.5 volts DC power for 120 seconds [10]. The pictures of the
microstructures shown in Figures 3 were captured by an optical microscope with a fixed CCD
camera. Each picture in Figure 3 contains two microstructures of which the one along rolling
direction is shown on the top. ASTM E112-Heyn Lineal Intercept Procedure was used to determine
the grain size of the specimens. It is obvious that the grain shapes along the rolling direction are
longer than those which are along transverse direction. However, the number of grains throughout
thickness is almost the same for both directions.

(a) Thickness = 150 µm, T/D ratio = 11.66 (b) Thickness = 100 µm, T/D ratio = 9.96

(c) Thickness = 50 µm, T/D ratio = 6.51 (d) Thickness = 20 µm, T/D ratio = 4.35
Fig. 3: Microstructures of Stainless Steel 304 Foils [1]
2.2 Tooling and experimental procedure
MTS Sintech 2/G with 1250 Newton load cells was used to conduct the tensile test and micro
deep drawing experiments. Figures 4 and 5 show the setup for the micro deep drawing experiments
and the details of the micro die, respectively. As shown in Figure 4, several types of springs (different
spring constants) were used to generate different blank holder forces and one wire spring was used to
generate kick out force (20 Newton). Table 1 provides the initial blank holder forces at the moment
that the punch just touched blank surface. After initial contact, the blank holder forces increased with
the increase of punch stroke. The blank holder forces can estimated by adding the initial forces with
the product of the total spring constant and the punch travel distance after initial contact.

Fig. 4: The Setup for Micro Deep Drawing Experiment

Fig. 5: Micro Deep Draw Die Components [1]

The diameter of punch is 2mm with 0.5mm punch radius and four deep draw dies with different
diameters that are 2.33mm, 2.22mm, 2.11mm, 2.044mm with 0.6mm, 0.4mm, 0.2mm and 0.08mm
die shoulder radii, respectively, were used for experiments. As shown in Figure 5, the function of the
oblique position ring is to locate the blank for deep drawing. For this study, the punch travel speed
was set as 0.5mm/sec and no lubrication was used. At least 3 specimens of each T/D ratio
(thickness/average grain diameter) were tested. The physical meaning of T/D is the number of grains
throughout the foil thickness.

Table 1: Initial Blank Holder Forces

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
BHF*(N) 2 3.8 7 13 26.4 35.3 50.6 57.2 67.1 75.2 82.4
*BHF: initial blank holder force

3 Results and discussion

Figure 6 shows the flow stress curves of the as-received stainless steel 304 foils while Table 2
shows their mechanical properties. The specimens with 150µm thickness have the lowest yield stress
and ultimate stress and the highest failure strain in comparison with other foils. By observing Table 2,
the yield and ultimate stresses increase as the decrease of thickness and T/D ratio, but the failure
strain decreases. Therefore, the stainless steel 304 foils can be considered as the brittle materials
(failure strain < 0.05) when their T/D (thickness/average grain size) ratios are less than 10. That
means the stainless steel 304 foils with T/D < 10 may have less formability and drawability.

Table 2: Mechanical Properties of the Stainless Steel 304 foils

Thickness Yield Stress Ultimate Failure
T/D*
(µm) (MPa) Stress (MPa) Strain
20 4.35 1470.6 1470.6 0.025
50 6.51 1090.4 1301.6 0.041
100 9.96 821.5 1233.9 0.049
150 11.66 730.1 1188.9 0.182
*T/D: material thickness/average grain diameter

1600 500
Thickness = 20µm
1400 Thickness = 50µm
400
Thickness = 100µm
1200
Thickness = 150µm
Stress (MPa)

1000 300
Load (N)

800
Thickness = 20µm 200
600 Thickness = 50µm
400 Thickness = 100µm 100
200 Thickness = 150µm

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Strain Punch Stroke (mm)

Fig. 6: Flow Stress Curves of the Fig. 7: Load-Stroke Curves of Drawing

Tested Specimens Φ3.5mm Blanks

Figure 7 shows the Load-Strokes of drawing 3.5 diameter blanks with different thickness. The
thicker material (with larger T/D ratio), the higher peak load. In addition, it can also be observed that
the thinner material has the peak load at the shorter punch stroke. Figure 8 shows the top and bottom
views of a drawn cup with 50µm initial thickness (T/D=6.51).

1mm 1mm

Fig. 8: 50µm Thickness Cup (Drawing Ratio = 1.75)

A proper blank holder force and blank size are crucial in order for obtaining a deeper cup
without any split and/or wrinkle. As observed during experiments, the cups fractured on the cup
corner areas when the blank holder force and/or the specimen diameter are too large. On the other
hand, wrinkles were observed at the rims of the cups at the very early stage when the blank holder
forces were too small. Some of the experimental data were plotted in Figure 9. From these plots, the
limit drawing ratio (LDR) of stainless steel foils can be obtained.
 40 80
Good Parts
Blank Holder Force (N)
Good parts

Blank Holder Force (N)

Broken parts
Broken parts
30 Wrinkled parts
60 Wrinkled parts

20
40

10
20

0
0
1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1
Drawing Ratio Drawing Ratio

(a) 20µm (T/D=4.35) (b) 50µm (T/D=6.51)

80 90

Blank Holder Force (N)

Blank Holder Force (N)

75
60
60

40 45

30
20 Good parts Good parts
Broken parts 15 Broken parts
Wrinkled parts Wrinlked parts
0 0
1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2
Drawing Ratio Drawing Ratio

(c) 100µm (T/D=9.96) (d) 150µm (T/D=11.66)

Fig. 9: Drawing Ratio in Different Thickness and Blank Holder Force

Sufficient blank holder force is required for resisting wrinkling. However, excessive blank
holder force may result in fracture. For Higher T/D ratio, it needs higher blank holder force. The max
blank holder force at limit drawing ratio for different T/D ratios are shown in Figure 10. Limit
drawing ratio versus thickness to grain size ratio is shown in Figure 11. The limit drawing ratio
becomes steady (around 2) when T/D ratio >10 and decreases with the decrease of T/D ratio when
T/D ratio < 10.

80 2.1
Limit Drawing Ratio
Max Blank Holder Force (N)

60 2
40 1.9
20 1.8

0 1.7
4 6 8 10 12 4 6 8 10 12
T/D T/D

Fig. 10: Blank Holder Force versus T/D Ratio Fig. 11: Limit Drawing Ratio versus T/D Ratio

4 Conclusions

The as-received stainless steel 304 foils with four different thicknesses (150µm, 100µm, 50µm
and 20µm) were used for the tensile test and micro deep drawing experiments. The influence of the
T/D ratios and the bank holder forces on the micro deep drawing were obtained and listed as follows.
• The T/D ratio decreases with the decrease of thickness.
• Ultimate stress increases with decreasing of T/D ratio while ultimate strain decreases with the
decrease of T/D ratio.
 • The maximum blank holder force increases with increasing of T/D ratio.
• The limit draw ratio (LDR) increases with increasing of T/D ratio and increases at a
decreasing slope as T/D ratio becomes larger.
• Limit drawing ratio (LDR) becomes steady (around 2) when T/D ratio > 10 for the
as-received stainless steel 304 foils.

The limit drawing ratio decreases with decreasing of T/D ratio when T/D ratio < 10 while it
becomes steady (around 2) when T/D ratio > 10. Therefore, it is recommend that at least 10 grains
throughout the stainless steel 304 foils thickness (T/D>10) for better formability and steady deep
drawing behavior.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank National Science Council (NSC) of Taiwan sponsors Mr. Chen to
conduct micro forming research at NIU with Dr. Gau. In addition, the authors also would like to thank
Metal Industries Research & Development Centre (MIRDC) in Taiwan for providing micro tooling
for this experimental study. Part of this research is sponsored by National Science Council of Taiwan
under grant No. NSC 96-2221-E-006-273

References

[1] Chen, C.H., Gau, J.T., Lee, R.S., 2008, “Tensile and micro bending stretch bending experiments
for studying stainless steel 304 foil for micro sheet forming”, Submitted to 2008 International
Manufacturing Science And Engineering Conference.
[2] Geiger, M., Kleiner, M., Eckstein, R., Tiesler, N. and Engel, U., 2001, “Microforming”, Keynote
Paper, Annals of the CIRP, 50-2, pp. 445-462
[3] Vollertsen, F., Hu, Z., Schulze Niehoff H. and Theiler, C., 2004, “State of the art in micro forming
and investigations in micro deep drawing”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 151,
Issues 1-3, pp. 35–44.
[4] Lee, R.S., Chen, C.H., Song, Y.F., 2007, “Investigation of Micro Sheet Metal Forming of Ball
Retainer using Finite Element Analysis”, Proceeding of the 35th International MATADOR
Conference, pp. 101-104.
[5] Vollertsen, F., 2001, “Metal Forming: Microparts”, Encyclopedia of Materials, Science and
Technology
[6] Michel, J.F., Picart, P., 2003, “Size Effect on the Constitutive Behavior for Brass in Sheet Metal
Forming”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol.141, pp. 439-446.
[7] Gau, J., Principe, C. and Wang, J., 2007, “An Experimental Study on Size Effects on Flow Stress
and Formability of Aluminum and Brass for Microforming,” Journal of Material Processing
Technology, Vol. 184, pp. 42-46.
[8] Saotome Y, Yasuda K, Kaga H, 2001, “Microdeep Drawability of Very Thin Sheet Steel”, Journal
of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 113, pp. 641-647.
[9]Manabe K, Shimizu T, Koyama H, 2007, “Evaluation of Milli-Scale Cylindrical Cup in Two-Stage
Deep Drawing Process”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 187-188, 12, pp.
245-249.
[10]Metallography and Microstructure, ASM Handbook, 1992, 9, ASM International, pp. 534-535