See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258186787

A comparative study on determination of forming limit diagrams for

industrial aluminium sheet alloys considering combined effect of strain path,
anisotropy and yield locus

Article  in  The Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering Design · August 2012

DOI: 10.1177/0309324712448302

CITATIONS READS

5 1,069

3 authors, including:

Milad Janbakhsh F. Djavanroodi

Amirkabir University of Technology Prince Mohammad University
4 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS    89 PUBLICATIONS   935 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ECAP (nanomaterials) View project

Investigation of the ultrasonic vibration on the ECAP process View project

All content following this page was uploaded by F. Djavanroodi on 25 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original Article
JSA
J Strain Analysis
47(6) 350–361
Ó IMechE 2012
A comparative study on determination Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
of forming limit diagrams for industrial DOI: 10.1177/0309324712448302
sdj.sagepub.com

aluminium sheet alloys considering

combined effect of strain path,
anisotropy and yield locus

Milad Janbakhsh, Faramarz Djavanroodi and Mohammad Riahi

Abstract
Suitability of AA2024-T3 and AA5083-H111 aluminium sheet alloys for forming operations in room temperature were
examined by using forming limit diagrams with different strain paths. In the experimental part, circular bulge, non-
grooved tensile as well as grooved tensile specimens were used. This was done to simulate the following: (a) biaxial
stretching region (positive range of minor strain), (b) uni-axial strain path and (c) strain path from uni-axial tension to
plane strain region of the forming limit diagram, respectively. The effects of combined strain paths coupled with material
anisotropy were taken into account in each stage. Tensile properties as well as formability parameters were correlated
in accordance with the attained forming limit diagrams. Average plastic strain ratio and planar anisotropy, in addition to
work hardening exponents of the samples, were calculated from the test data and the effects on the forming limit dia-
grams were discussed. Moreover, comparisons were made between experimental and theoretical forming limit diagrams.
It is shown that experimental forming limit diagrams are in very good agreement with the theoretical predictions, partic-
ularly when BBC2000 yield criteria are used for the M–K model. In addition, theoretical prediction by using the Hill93–
Swift model showed small deviation with the experimental forming limit diagrams. Finally, finite element simulations were
carried out to investigate the numerical forming limit diagrams through an industrial sheet metal forming simulation soft-
ware. It was consequently shown that, due to frictional effects resulting from hemispherical-shaped punch, the finite ele-
ment results depicted small deviation compared to the experimental data.

Keywords
Forming limit diagram, anisotropy, strain path, AA2024, AA5083

Date received: 22 December 2011; accepted: 23 April 2012

Introduction in production of structural parts. In order to better

Knowledge of sheet metal formability prior to the
forming operation is of interest for aerospace, automo-
tive and marine industries. The main reason is to mini-
mize the costly experimental trials before finalizing the
die design. Also, with increasing utilization of finite ele-
ment (FE) codes in production, the need for more accu-
rate material models has become increasingly evident.
In addition to models describing the initial yielding and
subsequent hardening, other models are needed to
describe the limits of forming, such as necking, fracture
and wrinkling.
Owing to increased demand for lightweight compo-
nents in aerospace, automotive and marine industries,
aluminium sheet alloys have gained ever more interest
understand the cold formability of these alloys, their
behaviour under sheet metal forming operations must
be determined both experimentally and theoretically.
Sheet metal formability is often evaluated by forming
limit diagram (FLD). The concept of FLD was first
introduced by Keeler1 and Goodwin.2 The FLD pro-
vides the limiting strains that a sheet metal can sustain
School of Mechanical Engineering, Iran University of Science and
Technology, Iran
Corresponding author:
Faramarz Djavanroodi, School of Mechanical Engineering, Iran University
of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
Email: javanroodi@iust.ac.ir
Janbakhsh et al. 351

while being formed. Laboratory testing has shown that
the forming limit diagrams are influenced by several
factors including strain hardening exponent and aniso-
tropy coefficients,3–5 strain rate,6–13 temperature,8,13–16
grain size and microstructure,17–21 sheet thickness,22–24
strain path changes25–28 and heat treatment.29–31
In recent years many experimental techniques have
been developed to investigate the FLD from different
aspects.32–35 These studies were based on elimination of
frictional effects resulting from toolsets and materials,
or the uniformity of the blank surface and mechanical
properties of sheet materials deduced from the conven-
tional tensile testing.
Common tests for the FLD are, hydraulic bulge
test,36 Keeler punch stretching test,37 Marciniak test,38
Nakazima test,39 Hasek test40 and the bi-axial tensile
test using cruciform specimen41 (in short cruciform
testing device). From previous studies,32–35,37–40 it is
widely acknowledged that friction remains an unknown
entity yet to be effectively characterized and under-
stood. Thus, the list of available tests is greatly reduced
to only two options – hydraulic bulge test and cruci-
form testing device. Further analysis shows that due to
simplicity of equipment and specimen (i.e. less costly),
the hydraulic bulge test is preferred as a complimentary
test method.42
On the other hand, several researchers have pro-
posed a number of analytical models to predict FLD.
Hill’s localized instability criterion,43 combined with
Swift’s diffused instability criterion,44 was the first ana-
lytical approach to predict FLDs. It was shown that
forming limit curves are influenced by material work
hardening exponent and anisotropy coefficient. Xu and
Weinmann45 showed that for prediction of the FLD,
the shape of the used yield surface has a direct influence
on the limit strains. They used the Hill’93 criterion to
study the effect of material properties on the FLDs.
The M–K model46 predicts the FLD based on the
assumption of an initial defect in a perpendicular direc-
tion with respect to loading direction. The assumption
made for this non-homogeneity factor is subjective and
hence, the forming limit diagram is directly influenced
by it. This method was then developed considering the
material properties.47,48
Several researchers used the ductile fracture criteria
for forming limit predictions in hydroforming pro-
cess,49 deep drawing process,50 bore-expanding51 and
biaxial stretching.52 Fahrettin and Daeyong53 and
Kumar et al.54 proposed the thickness variations and
the thickness gradient criterion respectively. These cri-
teria are limited because they require precise measure-
ments of thickness. Bressan and Williams55 used the
method of shear instability to predict the FLDs.
Consequently, experimental techniques are widely
accepted for determination of the FLDs and for verifi-
concluded that for frictionless condition Tresca’s and
Bressan and William’s criterion yield better prediction
of the FLD. Effect of temperature and strain rate,57–59
stress state60,61 and grain size59,62 have been investi-
gated on formability of AA5083 sheets at high tempera-
tures. There are little data available for investigating
the FLDs at room temperature with the absence of fric-
tional effects.
The principal objective of the present study is to
establish a framework which presents a practical
approach for experimental determination of FLD and
several theoretical models for prediction of forming
limit diagrams for 0.3 mm thick AA2024-T3 and 1mm
thick AA5083-H111 aluminium sheet alloys subjected
to linear strain paths. For the experimental approach,
the following testpieces have been used to obtain differ-
ent regions of FLD: circle specimens to simulate biaxial
stretching region of FLD (positive range of minor
strain); non-grooved tensile specimens (dog-bone
shaped specimens) to simulate the uni-axial strain path
and two distinctive grooved tensile specimens repre-
senting the strain path ranging from uni-axial tension
to plane strain region of FLD. The onset of localized
necking was distinguished by investigating the strain
distribution profiles near the necking region.
Furthermore to predict the theoretical FLDs, Swift
model with Hill93 yield criteria63 and M–K model with
Hill93 and BBC2000 yield criteria64 were used.
Predicted FLDs were compared with the experimental
data to evaluate the suitability of the approaches used.
Moreover, considering the extensive application of
Autoform 4.4 software in sheet metal forming indus-
tries, several parts representing different strain paths
were formed to evaluate the FLDs of the tested sheets
numerically. The effects of process parameters as well
as yield loci and material properties used in simulations
were also discussed.
Theoretical analysis
Hill93 and BBC2000 Constitutive models
In this paper Hill 93 and BBC2000 constitutive models
were used to predict the FLDs. Equation (1) represents
Hill’93 yield criterion63
 
s21 cs1 s2 s22 ðps1 + qs2 Þ
 + + ð p + q Þ 
s20 s0 s90 s290 sb
s1 s2
=1 ð1Þ
s0 s90
c 1 1 1
= 2+ 2  2
s0 s90 s0 s90 sb
 
2R0 ðsb  s90 Þ 2R90 sb c 1
p=  +
ð1 + R0 Þs20 ð1 + R90 Þs290 s0 s10 + s190  s1
b

cation of the predicted FLDs resulted from analytical  

2R90 ðsb  s0 Þ 2R0 sb c 1
models. q=  +
ð1 + R90 Þs290 ð1 + R0 Þs20 s90 s10 + s190  s1
Vallellano et al.56 studied the formability of 1.2 mm b

AA2024-T3 sheets subjected to biaxial stretching. They ð2Þ

352 Journal of Strain Analysis 47(6)

where c, p and q are Hill’93 coefficients and can be cal-

culated by using five mechanical parameters obtained
from two uni-axial tensile tests and an equi-biaxial ten-
sion. s1 , s2 are principle stresses along principle axes,
s0 , s90 are yielding stresses obtained from tensile tests
and sb is biaxial yield stress deduced from equi-biaxial
bulge test. R0 , R90 are the strain ratios resulted from
tensile testing of sheet materials along different direc-
tions with respect to the rolling direction.
Banabic et al.64 proposed a new yield criterion called
BBC2000 for orthotropic sheet metals under plane
stress conditions. The equivalent stress is defined as
h i2k1
 = aðbG + cCÞ2k + aðbG  cCÞ2k + ð1  aÞð2cCÞ2k
s
ð3Þ
where a, b, c and k are material parameters, while G
and C are functions of the second and third invariants
of a fictitious deviatoric stress tensor and can be
expressed as explicit dependencies of the actual stress
components Figure 1. Schematic description of M–K model.
G = ðd + eÞs11 + ðe + fÞs22
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2 zones. When the flow localization occurs in the groove
1 1 at a critical strain in homogeneous region, the limiting
C= ðd  eÞs11 + ðe  fÞs22 + g2 s2xy ð4Þ
2 2 strain of the sheet is reached. Furthermore, the major
strain is assumed to occur along the x-axis. The M–K
where d, e, f and g are anisotropy coefficients of mate-
necking criterion assumes that the plastic flow localiza-
rial and k-value is set in accordance with the crystallo-
tion occurs when the equivalent strain increment in
graphic structure of the material (k = 3 for BCC alloys
imperfect region (b) reaches ten times greater than in
and k = 4 for FCC alloys). For the BBC2000 yield
homogeneous zone (a) (deb . 10dea). When the neck-
model, the detailed description can be found in Banabic
ing criterion is reached the computation is stopped and
et al.64
the corresponding strains (eaxx, eayy) obtained at that
moment in the homogeneous zone are the limit strains.
Theoretical prediction of the FLD For the model, equation expressing the equilibrium of
the forces acting along the interface of the two regions
The simulation of plastic instability is performed using
could be expressed as follows
M–K and Hill–Swift analysis. The rigid plastic, plane
stress condition and isotropic work hardening of the s1a ta = s1b tb ð6Þ
materials were assumed.
A detailed description of the theoretical M–K analy- Strains parallel to the notch are equal in both regions
sis, schematically illustrated in Figure 1, can be found
in Marciniak and Kuczynski.46 The M–K model is de2a = de2b ð7Þ
based on the growth of an initial defect several publica-
In addition, the model assumes that the strain ratio in
tions in the form of a narrowband perpendicular to the
zone a, is constant during the whole process
principal axis. The initial value of the geometrical defect
(f0) is characterized by equation (5), where ta0 and tb0 de2a = rde1a ð8Þ
are the initial thicknesses in the homogeneous and
grooved region, respectively. Detailed FLD calculation using BBC2000 yield criter-
ion is presented in Butuc.65 Swift work-hardening
tb0 model with strain rate sensitivity factor was used
f0 = ð5Þ
ta0
 = Kðe0 + eÞn e_m
s ð9Þ
The x, y, z-axes correspond to rolling, transverse and
normal directions of the sheet, whereas 1 and 2 repre- where e0 is pre-strain (usually 0.008), e_ is strain rate, n
sent the principal stress and strain directions in the is the work-hardening exponent and m is defined as the
homogeneous region. The set of axis bound to the strain rate sensitivity factor.
groove is represented by n, t, z-axes where‘t’ is the long- In this paper, in addition to M–K analysis, the Swift
itudinal one. The plastic flow occurs in both regions, analysis44 with Hill’93 yield criterion was used to pre-
but the evolution of strain rates is different in the two dict the FLDs.66–67
Janbakhsh et al. 353

Table 1. Chemical composition of the tested sheet materials.

Material Ti (%) Al (%) Cr (%) Cu (%) Fe (%) Mg (%) Mn (%) Si (%) Zn (%) V (%)

AA2024-T3 Max 0.15 90.7-94.7 Max 0.1 3.8-4.9 Max 0.5 1.2-1.8 0.3-0.9 Max 0.5 Max 0.25 –
AA5083-H111 Max 0.15 92.4-95.6 0.05-0.25 Max 0.1 Max 0.4 4-4.9 0.4-1 Max 0.4 Max 0.25 –

respect to the rolling direction. These specimens were

then tested under uni-axial loading condition in con-
junction with the ASTM-E517-00 standard.68
In order to obtain the tension-tension side of the
FLD (pure stretching region), the bulge test specimens
were prepared. The bulge samples for simulation of the
strain path#4, were 100 mm in diameter and the cavity
diameter of circular dies was 70 mm. LASER imprint-
ing technique was used to print a circular overlapping
grid on the surface of the test specimens. The grid of
circles was 2 mm diameter pattern for the tension and
the bulging samples. The diameter of the circle of the
grids have been measured before and after the strain
throughout the major and minor principal directions
Figure 2. Different types of specimens representative of the
taking as reference a perpendicular axis system placed
linear strain paths.
in the geometric centre of each circle or in the centre of
the tension specimen. These principal directions are
Experimental methodology
Experimental determination of the forming limit dia-
grams was carried out for 0.3mm thick AA2024-T3
and 1mm thick AA5083-H111 aluminium sheet alloys.
The chemical composition of the tested sheet alloys are
shown in Table 1.
In order to evaluate the FLDs, different strain paths,
which cover full domain of the FLD, are examined and Figure 3. Uni-axial tensile specimen representative of strain
shown in Figure 2. The linear strain paths is described path#1.
through the strain ratio parameter namely r representa-
tive of the strain state. These paths are spanned between
the uni-axial tension region (e1 = 22e2) and the equi-
biaxial stretching (e1 = e2). The linear strain paths are
described through the strain ratio (equation (10)) para-
meter representative of the strain state.

de2
r= ð10Þ
de1

Figure 4. Grooved specimen representative of strain path#2.

Preparation of the specimens
Three different shapes of tensile specimens were pre-
pared using wire EDM method. According to Figure 2,
a non-grooved specimen was prepared to simulate the
strain path#1, two distinctive grooved specimens were
used to obtain draw points representing the strain
paths#2 and 3. The non-grooved and grooved speci-
mens were then drawn under a linear load. The speci-
mens are shown in Figures 3–5 and the dimensions are
listed in Table 2. To obtain the mechanical properties
of sheet metals, tensile specimens were prepared accord-
ing to ASTM-E8 standard at 0°, 45° and 90° with Figure 5. Grooved specimen representative of strain path#3.
354 Journal of Strain Analysis 47(6)

Table 2. Dimensions of the tensile specimens.

Specimens A (mm) B (mm) C (mm) D (mm) E (mm) F (mm) G (mm)

Tensile specimen representative of strain path#1 150 17 75 12 28 R20 –

Tensile specimen representative of strain path#2 150 40 45 16 52.5 R26 –
Tensile specimen representative of strain path#3 150 40 12 12 69 R6 8

Figure 6. Finite element modelling as well as gridded sample shapes.

parallels and perpendicular, respectively, to the rolling
direction of the sheet.
Tensile specimens were tested up to the fracture
point. Likewise, bulge testing of the bulge samples were
carried out to reach the bursting point. Subsequent to
that, diameters of ellipses which are the conclusions of
deformed circles were measured precisely.
Autoform uses the implicit integration algorithm which
the contribution to the total calculation time from these
complex material laws is substantially smaller.
For the approach, first CAD data were modelled in
CATIA software and then imported into Autoform 4.4
environment. In order to cover full range of the FLD,
different specimens with different groove dimensions

Numerical investigation
Table 3. Dimensions of different FLD samples prepared for FE
Recently, several researchers4,69–71 have investigated approach.
the forming limit diagrams through finite element
codes. In this investigation, Autoform Master 4.4 soft- Sample # A(mm) B(mm)
ware was used for FE analysis of forming limit dia-
1 100 5
grams. The setting of the numerical simulation is based
A 2 100 12
on the hemispherical punch and different shapes of spe- 3 100 20
cimens, as shown in Figure 6. Descriptions of the speci- B 4 100 30
men dimensions and the geometrical model used in the 5 100 40
simulation are shown in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. 6 100 50
7 100 60
The tensile properties of sheet metal were then intro- 8 100 100
duced to the software and forming limit diagram were
generated in Autoform 4.4 software by using Keeler
method.1 Autoform 4.4 software automatically gener-
ates yield surface proposed by Banabic (BBC yield sur- Table 4. Process parameters used for the simulation.
face) for aluminium sheet materials when anisotropy
Process parameter Value/Type
coefficients and elasto-plastic behaviour of sheet are
imported. In Autoform the use of the shell element for Punch diameter (mm) 50
the element formulation is mandatory, and therefore Diameter of die opening (mm) 55
defaults, for the process steps Drawing, Forming, Die profile radius (mm) 8
Bending and Hydroforming. Moreover, since for alu- Punch speed (mm/s) 1
Punch travel Up to rupture
minium and ultra-high-strength steels more complex Clamping type Draw bead (lock mode)
material laws (for example Barlat or Banabic) are used,
Janbakhsh et al.
Table 5. Uni-axial and biaxial properties of AA2024-T3 and AA5083-H111 sheets.
Property AA2024-T3
0°
Yield stress, sy (MPa) 330
Work-hardening exponent, n 0.165
Hardening coefficient, K (MPa) 590
Anisotropy factor, rx° 0.751
Balanced biaxial yield stress, sb (MPa) 362
Average anisotropy, rave 0.883
Planar anisotropy, Dr 20.333
Strain rate sensitivity factor, m 0.015
rave = ( r0 + r90 + 2r45)/4.
Dr = ( r0 + r902 2r45)/2.
were modelled to simulate the tension–compression to
tension–tension side of the FLD (Figure 6).
For the FE simulation, the punch, holder and die
considered as rigid parts. A displacement velocity of
1mm/s was considered for the hemispherical punch
while for the clamping a draw bead with lock mode was
selected to ensure pure stretching of the sheet into die
cavity. Friction coefficient was taken to be 0.15 between
the surfaces. The virtual samples were engraved with
the gridded pattern of 3 mm diameter circles (Figure 6).
Major and minor strains were recorded after each time
step to evaluate the numerical FLD.
Results and discussion
Tensile and formability properties
Tensile properties obtained from the tensile tests and
biaxial properties obtained from bulge tests are tabu-
lated in Table 5. As it can be deduced from the Table,
AA2024-T3 sheet possesses maximum n-value along
rolling direction and minimum n-value along 45° orien-
tation to rolling direction. For the same sheet, K-value
is maximum along the rolling direction and minimum
at 45° orientation to the rolling direction. For AA5083-
H111 aluminium, n-value is maximum for 45° orienta-
tion to the rolling direction and minimum along 90°
orientation to the rolling direction. The K-value is max-
imum along 45° orientation to rolling direction and
minimum along the rolling direction. Results from the
tensile tests indicate the average values for strain-
hardening (n), is higher for the AA5083-H111 sheet
(0.221) which indicates higher stretchability and form-
ability when compared with AA2024-T3 sheet alloy
(0.158). From the tensile tests results, the AA2024-T3
sheet exhibits maximum r-value along 45° orientation
to the rolling direction and minimum r-value along 90°
orientation to the rolling direction. The AA5083-H111
aluminium exhibits maximum r-value along 45° orien-
tation to the rolling direction and minimum r value
along the rolling direction.
As it can be observed in Table 5, both aluminium
sheet alloys investigated in this study, have small normal
anisotropy in different angular offsets from the rolling
355
AA5083-H111
45° 90° 0° 45° 90°
314 337 178 195 184
0.148 0.16 0.22 0.233 0.21
572 585 514 521 517
1.05 0.682 0.625 1.03 0.667
238
0.838
20.384
0.012
direction. The average anisotropy of the sheets are
approximately the same and lower than 1 (rave \ 1).
AA2024-T3 sheets are somehow brittle due to T3 natu-
rally aged. Although average anisotropy are approxi-
mately the same for both sheet metals, the lower work
hardening values for AA2024-T3 sheet prove that the
formability of this alloy is less compared to the AA5083-
H111 sheet. High-strength characteristics of T3 aged
have made AA2024-T3 alloy suitable to be used in man-
ufacturing of high strength aerospace components. On
the other hand, the planer anisotropy (Dr) is somehow
less for AA2024-T3 alloy which shows more tendency to
earring during deep drawing processes when compared
to AA5083-H111 alloy.
The effect of anisotropy was considered for calculat-
ing the yield surfaces for Hill and BBC2000 yield cri-
teria. For the tested sheets the average anisotropy is less
than 1(rave \ 1), consequently, the yielding surfaces
tend to be decreased along the biaxial stress axis. As a
result, stretching side of the FLD (tension-tension side)
is influenced by the shape of the yield loci.
Determination of the FLD
Figure 7 shows the ruptured bulge and tensile speci-
mens as well as the deformed circles after loadings. A
combination of LASER imprinting and high resolution
photography was employed to measure the diameters.
Non-deformed circles were used for calibration of the
pictures. As a result, deformed circles were measured
through measuring techniques in Solidworks software.
Ellipses located in the fractured region, were considered
as unsafe points. Likewise, ellipses with one row offset
from the fractured region were considered as marginal
points and ellipses located in other rows of imprinted
grids were considered as safe points. Equations (11) and
(12), were used to obtain True major strain (e1) and true
minor strain (e2) from the measured diameters.
Comparisons between experimental and theoretical
FLDs
One of the most important factors for prediction of
FLD through the M–K analysis is the applied
356
Figure 7. The ruptured tensile and bulge specimens.
constitutive yield model. Figure 8 presents the experi-
mental and numerical forming limits for AA2024-T3
aluminium alloy. For numerical analysis, yield surfaces
were described by Hill93 and BBC2000 yield functions
and hardening model was expressed by Swift equation.
As it can be observed from Figure 8, although pre-
dicted curves by using Hill93-Swift model and M–K
Figure 8. Experimental and calculated forming limit diagram
for AA2024-T3.
Journal of Strain Analysis 47(6)
with Hill93 are in good agreement with the experimen-
tal data, the best prediction is carried out when M–K
model with the yield surface of BBC2000 and initial
geometrical defect (f0) of 0.975 are used.
Relating to AA5083-H111 aluminium sheet alloy,
from Figure 9 it can be observed that good agreement
Figure 9. Experimental and calculated forming limit diagram
for AA5083-H111.
Janbakhsh et al.
between experimental data and the predicted curve are
obtained when M–K with Hill’93 yield criterion or
Hill93-Swift model are used. As discussed before, the
shape of the yield loci has a strong influence on the
stretching region of the FLD. Consequently, although
Hill–Swift model as well as the M–K model when
BBC2000 yield criterion is used are in good agreement
with the experimental data from the uni-axial region
(r = 21/2) to the plane strain region (r = 0), in equi-
biaxial region (r = 1) the small deviations between
these models and the experimental data are noticeable.
However, as discussed by Graf and Hosford,25 apply-
ing prestrain in biaxial tension (r = 1) will decrease the
formability if followed by plane strain or biaxial ten-
sion. Moreover, for uniaxial tension sample (r = 21/2),
if both prestrain and final testing with e1 are applied
normal to the rolling direction, the FLD will be
increased for subsequent plane strain and biaxial
regions. Furthermore, for plane strain sample (r = 0) a
slight increase of the overall level of the curve is
expected when prestrain and final testing with e1 are
applied normal to the rolling direction.
d1
e1 = Ln ð11Þ
d0
d2
e2 = Ln ð12Þ
d0
Influence of n-value and r-value on FLD
Generally, there are two material properties which have
more influence on forming limit diagram; the aniso-
tropy and the work-hardening exponent (n-value).
R-values less than one (rave \ 1), will result in the
reduction of limit strains in biaxial stretching and lower
levels for FLD in plane strain region are expected. The
average anisotropy is less than 1 for both aluminium
sheet alloys. Consequently, these sheets do not resist to
thinning during the sheet metal forming processes.
Moreover, less limit strain ranges on the tension – com-
pression side of FLD are attainable. For most materi-
als, forming limit curve intersects the major strain axis
at the point equivalent to the n-value. As the n-value
decreases, the limit strain level decreases. For AA2024-
T3 and AA5083-H111, the major strain value are
approximately 0.16 and 0.2 at plane strain region of the
FLD. Hence, FLD for AA2024-T3 sheet has a lower
level in comparison with AA5083-H111 as shown in
Figures 8 and 9.
Comparison of experimental FLD with other’s work
Figure 10 compares the FLDs between 0.3 mm
AA2024-T3 determined in this study and 1.2 mm
AA2024-T3 investigated by Vallelano et al.56 Frictional
effect between the toolset and the sheet were not con-
sidered in their study. On the other hand, thinner sheets
are characterized by higher values of anisotropy factors
357
Figure 10. Comparison of experimental FLDs for AA2024-T3.
than thicker sheet. In terms of normalized yield stresses
an increase of sheet thickness will bring about increase
of normalized yield stress which directly affects the
stretching region of the FLD.65 Consequently, the
experimental procedure and the sheet thickness are the
two reasons for this offset between the experimental
FLD results for AA2024-T3 sheets.
Comparisons between experimental and numerical
results
Figures 11 and 12 shows the numerical result generated
by Autoform 4.4. The mechanical properties are intro-
duced in to the software, the yield surface and FLD are
generated as shown in Figure 11. Figure 12 shows the
engraved circles are deformed and their shapes have
been changed to ellipses. The major and minor dia-
meters of the ellipses were measured in the software to
simulate the FLDs through FE method. Figures 13 and
14 show the comparison of the experimental and
numerical FLDs. As shown in the figures, employing
BBC yield criterion for both sheet materials will result
in better prediction of the FLDs compared to experi-
mental data. Predicted FLDs by using the industrial
sheet metal forming code showed that the shape of the
yield loci will have influence on the level of the FLD.
Also both figures show that necking points predicted
by Hill yield criterion stand at a lower level than those
predicted by BBC yield criterion. The overall compari-
son shows a good agreement between FE results and
data deduced from the experiments. This small devia-
tion between numerical and experimental results may
be the conclusion of frictional effects between hemi-
spherical punch (in FE simulation) and the sheet
metals. While frictional effects remained an unknown,
in order to define the FLDs for different materials,
either procedures without frictional effects should be
employed or the effect of friction should be taken into
account.
358
Figure 11. Curves introduced and generated into the software. (a) AA2024-T3 and (b) AA5083-H111.
Figure 12. Deformed specimens simulated into Autoform.
Although the forming behaviour of materials can be
well expressed through uni-axial tensile tests, the theore-
tical prediction of FLD may still lie in large deviations
from the experimentally determined FLDs. This finding
proves that suitable theoretical approaches depend not
only on the thorough understanding of the forming
behaviour of materials, but also on the suppositions for
yield surfaces as well as material specifications.
Journal of Strain Analysis 47(6)
Figure 13. Comparison of the experimental FLD with FEM for
AA2024-T3.
FEM: finite element method.
Conclusions
In this study, forming limit curves were evaluated for
two industrial aluminium sheet alloys namely AA2024-
T3 and AA5083-H111. For the experimental curves,
different shape of specimens expressing different strain
paths considering the effect of anisotropy were used
Janbakhsh et al.
Figure 14. Comparison of the experimental FLD with FEM for
AA5083-H111.
FEM: finite element method.
to cover full range of the FLD. Experimentally deter-
mined curves were then used to validate the theoretical
approaches employed. For the Swift and M–K models,
Hill’93 and BBC2000 yield criteria were utilized.
Moreover, a commercial FE code being used in sheet
metal forming industries was brought into play to study
the limit strains of the tested sheets numerically. Hill
and BBC yield criteria as well as Swift work hardening
models were employed for the input data. Results were
then compared to the experiments from the viewpoints
of different yielding models along with frictional effects
on the FLDs. Based upon the experimental, theoretical
and numerical works done in this study, the following
conclusions could be drawn.
1. Tensile tests showed that although almost the same
average normal anisotropy was obtained for the
alloys, the average values for strain-hardening (n),
is higher for the AA5083-H111 sheet (0.221) which
indicates higher stretchability and formability
when compared with AA2024-T3 sheet alloy
(0.158).
2. For AA2024-T3, predicted curves by M–K with
BBC2000 yield criteria, stands in the closer agree-
ment with the experimental data while the best
agreement for AA5083-H111 is achieved when the
M–K with Hill’93 yield criteria are used.
3. Although the average anisotropy for the sheets is
approximately the same, the work-hardening expo-
nent for AA2024-T3 is lower than AA5083-H111.
As a result FLDs for AA2024-T3 sheet have relied
in lower levels in comparison with AA5083-H111.
4. For numerically predicted FLDs, necking points
predicted by Hill yield criterion stands at a lower
level than those predicted by BBC yield criterion.
As a result, the overall comparison shows a well
359
agreement between FE results and data deduced
from the experiments.
5. The small deviation between numerical and experi-
mental results may be the conclusion of frictional
effects between hemispherical punch (in FE simu-
lation) and the sheet metals.
References
1. Keeler SP. Determination of forming limits in automo-
tive stampings. Sheet Met Ind 1965; 42: 683–691.
2. Goodwin GM. Application of strain analysis to sheet
metal forming problems in the press shop. Metall Italiana
1968; 60: 764–774.
3. Sowerby R and Duncan JL. Failure in sheet metal in
biaxial tension Int J Mech Sci 1971; 13: 217–229.
4. Djavanroodi F and Derogar A. Experimental and
numerical evaluation of forming limit diagram for
Ti6Al4V titanium and Al6061-T6 aluminium alloys
sheets. Mater Des 2010; 31: 4866–4875.
5. Rezaee-Bazzaz A, Noori H and Mahmudi R. Calculation
of forming limit diagrams using Hill’s 1993 yield criter-
ion. Int J Mech Sci 2011; 53(4): 262–270.
6. Percy JH and Brown RH. The effect of strain rate on the
forming limit diagram for sheet metal. CIRP Annls –
Mfg Technol 1980; 29(1): 151–152.
7. Jie M, Cheng CH, Chan LC, et al. Forming limit dia-
grams of strain-rate-dependent sheet metals. Int J Mech
Sci 2009; 51(4): 269–275.
8. Lee YS, Kwon YN, Kang SH, et al. Forming limit of
AZ31 alloy sheet and strain rate on warm sheet metal
forming. J Mater Process Technol 2008; 201(1-3): 431–
435.
9. Verleysen P, Peirs J, Van Slycken J, et al. Effect of strain
rate on the forming behaviour of sheet metals. J Mater
Process Technol 2011; 211(8): 1457–1564.
10. Li M and Chandra A Influence of strain rate sensitivity
on necking and instability in sheet metal forming. J Mater
Process Technol 1999; 96(1-3): 133–138.
11. Zhang C, Leotoing L, Guines D, et al. Theoretical and
numerical study of strain rate influence on AA5083 form-
ability. J Mater Process Technol 2009; 96(1-3): 133–138.
12. Khan AS and Baig M. Anisotropic responses, constitu-
tive modeling and the effects of strain rate and tempera-
ture on the formability of an aluminum alloy. Int J Plast;
2011; 27(4): 522–538.
13. Palumbo G, Sorgente D and Tricarico L. A numerical
and experimental investigation of AZ31 formability at
elevated temperatures using a constant strain rate test.
Mater Des 2010; 31: 1308–1316.
14. Naka T, Torikai G, Hino R, et al. The effects of tempera-
ture and forming speed on the forming limit diagram for
type 5083 aluminum–magnesium alloy sheet. J Mater
Process Technol 2001; 113(1-3): 648–653.
15. Huang GS, Zhang H, Gao XY, et al. Forming limit of
textured AZ31B magnesium alloy sheet at different tem-
peratures. Trans Nonferrous Metals Soc China 2011;
21(4): 836–843.
16. Lee YS, Kim MC, Kim SW, et al. Experimental and
analytical studies for forming limit of AZ31 alloy on
warm sheet metal forming. J Mater Process Technol 2007;
187–188; 103–107.
360
17. Wilson DV, Mirshams AR and Roberts WT. An experi-
mental study of the effect of sheet thickness and grain size
on limit-strains in biaxial stretching. Int J Mech Sci 1983;
25(12): 859–870.
18. Stachowicz F. Effects of microstructure on the mechani-
cal properties and limit strains in uniaxial and biaxial
stretching. J Mech Work Technol 1989; 19: 305–317.
19. Inal K, Neale KW and Aboutajeddine A. Forming limit
comparisons for FCC and BCC sheets. Int J Plast; 2005;
21(6): 1255–1266.
20. Moore M and Bate P. Microstructural inhomogeneity
and biaxial stretching limits in aluminum alloy AA6016.
J Mater Process Technol 2002; 125–126: 258–266.
21. Shu J, Bi H, Li X, et al. Effect of Ti addition on forming
limit diagrams of Nb-bearing ferritic stainless steel. J
Mater Process Technol 2012; 212(1): 59–65.
22. Narayanasamy R and Sathiya Narayanan C. Forming,
fracture and wrinkling limit diagram for if steel sheets of
different thickness. Mater Des 2008; 29(7): 1467–1475.
23. Kleemola HJ and Kumpulainen JO. Factors influencing
the forming limit diagram: Part II – Influence of
sheet thickness. J MechWorking Technol 1980; 3(3-4):
303–311.
24. Raghavan KS and Garrison Jr WM. An investigation of
the relative effects of thickness and strength on the form-
ability of steel sheet. Mater Sci Engng A 2010; 527(21-22):
5565–5574.
25. Graf A and Hosford W. The influence of strain-path
changes on forming limit diagrams of Al 6111 T4. Int J
Mech Sci 1994; 36: 897–910.
26. Uppaluri R, Reddy NV and Dixit PM. An analytical
approach for the prediction of forming limit curves sub-
jected to combined strain paths. Int J Mech Sci 2011;
53(5): 365–373.
27. Assempour A, Hashemi R, Abrinia K, et al. A methodol-
ogy for prediction of forming limit stress diagrams con-
sidering the strain path effect. Comput Mater Sci 2009;
45(2):195–204.
28. Hiwatashi S, Bael AV, Houtte PA, et al. Prediction of
forming limit strains under strain path changes: Applica-
tion of an anisotropic model based on texture and dislo-
cation structure. Int J Plas 1998; 14(7): 647–669.
29. Park KS, Park KT, Lee D, Let al. Effect of heat treat-
ment path on the cold formability of drawn dual-phase
steels. Mater Sci Engng A 2007; 449–451; 1135–1138.
30. Narayanasamy R, Ravi Chandran M and Parthasarathi
NL. Effect of annealing on formability of aluminum
grade 19000. Mater Des 2008; 29: 1633–1653.
31. Tajally M and Emadoddin E. Mechanical and anisotropic
behaviors of 7075 aluminum alloy sheets. J Mater Des
2011; 32(3): 1594–1599.
32. Hecker SS. Simple technique for determining forming
limit curves. Sheet Metal Ind 1975; 5: 671–676.
33. Tadros AK and Mellor PB. An experimental study of the
in-plane stretching of sheet metal. Int J Mech Sci 1978;
20: 121–134.
34. Gronostajski J and Dolny A. Determination of forming
limit curves by means of Marciniak punch. Memor Sci
Rev Metal 1980; 4: 570–578.
35. Raghavan KS. A simple technique to generate in-plane
forming limit curves and selected applications. Metall
Trans A 1995; 26: 2075–2084.
36. Olsen TY. Machines for ductility testing. Proc Am Soc
Mater 1920; 20: 398–403.
Journal of Strain Analysis 47(6)
37. Keeler SP. Plastic instability and fracture in sheet stretched
over rigid punches. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Boston, MA, 1961.
38. Marciniak Z. Limits of sheet metal formability (in Polish).
Warsaw: WNT, 1971.
39. Nakazima K, Kikuma T and Hasuka K. Study on the
formability of steel sheets. Yawata Tech Rep 1971; 284;
678–680.
40. Hasek V. On the strain and stress states in drawing of
large unregular sheet metal components (in German).
Berichte aus dem Institute fiir Umformtechnik, Universitdit
Stuttfart, 1973; Nr. 25, Essen, Girardet.
41. Hoferlin E, Bael AV, Houtte PV, et al. The design of a
biaxial tensile test and its use for the validation of crystal-
lographic yield loci. Modelling Simul Mater Sci Engng
2000; 8: 423.
42. Koh CW. Design of a hydraulic bulge test apparatus. MSc
Thesis, 2008, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
43. Hill R. A theory of yielding and plastic flow of anisotro-
pic metals. Proc Roy Soc Lond 1948; 193A: 197–281.
44. Swift HW. Plastic instability under plane stress. J Mech
Phys Solids 1952; 1: 1–18.
45. Xu S and Weinmann KL. Prediction of forming limit
curves of sheet metal using Hill’s 1993 user-friendly yield
criterion of anisotropic materials. Int J Mech Sci 1998;
40: 913–925.
46. Marciniak Z and Kuczynski K. Limit strains in the pro-
cesses of stretched-forming sheet metal. Int J Mech Sci
1967; 9: 609–620.
47. Marciniak Z, Kuczynski K and Pokora T. Influence of
the plastic properties of a material on the forming limit
diagram for sheet metal in tension. Int J Mech Sci 1973;
15: 789–805.
48. Parmar A and Mellor PB. Predictions of limit strains in
sheet metal using a more general yield criterion. Int J
Mech Sci 1978; 20: 385–391.
49. Lei L and Kim J. Bursting failure prediction in tube
hydroforming processes by using rigid-plastic FEM com-
bined with ductile fracture criterion. Int J Mech Sci 2002;
44: 1411–1428.
50. Takuda H and Mori K. Prediction of forming limit in
deep drawing of Fe/Al laminated composite sheets using
ductile fracture. J Mater Process Technol 1996; 60: 291–
296.
51. Takuda H and Mori K. Prediction Prediction of forming
limit in bore-expanding of sheet metals using ductile frac-
ture criterion. J Mater Process Technol 1999; 92–93: 433–
438.
52. Takuda H and Mori K. Prediction Finite element analysis
of limit strains in biaxial stretching of sheet metals allow-
ing for ductile fracture. Int J Mach Tools Mf 2000; 42:
785–798.
53. Fahrettin O and Daeyong Li. Analysis of forming limits
using ductile fracture criteria. J Mater Process Technol
2004; 147: 397–404.
54. Kumar S, Date PP and Narasimhan K. A new criterion
to predict necking failure under biaxial stretching. J
Mater Process Technol 1994; 45: 583–588.
55. Bressan JD and Williams JA. The use of a shear instabil-
ity criterion to predict local necking in sheet metal defor-
mation. Int J Mech Sci 1983; 25: 155–168.
56. Vallellano C, Morales D and Garcı́a-Lomas FJ. A study
to predict failure in biaxially stretched sheets of aluminum
alloy 2024-T3. Mater Mfg Process 2008; 23(3): 303–310.
 Janbakhsh et al. 361

57. Banabic D, Vulcan M and Siegert K. Bulge testing under sheets in biaxial stretch forming. Mater Des 2010; 31:
constant and variable strain rates of superplastic alumi- 1365–1383.
num alloys CIRP Annl Mfg Technol 2005; 54(1): 205–208. 71. Ko DC, Cha SH, Lee SK, et al. Application of a feasible
58. Naka T, Torikai G, Hino R, et al. The effects of tempera- formability diagram for the effective design in stamping
processes of automotive panels. Mater Des 2010; 31:
ture and forming speed on the forming limit diagram for 1262–1275.
type 5083 aluminum–magnesium alloy sheet. J Mater
Process Technol 2001; 113(1–3): 648–653.
59. Liu J, Tan MJ, Jarfors AEW, et al. Formability in Appendix
AA5083 and AA6061 alloys for light weight applications. Notation
Mater Des 2010; 31(1): S66–S70.
60. Gao X, Zhang T, Hayden M, et al. Effects of stress state a, b, c, k material parameters in BBC2000 criterion
on plasticity and ductile fracture of an aluminum 5083 c, p, q coefficients of Hill’93 yield criterion
alloy. Int. J Plasticity 2009; 25(12): 2366–2382. d, e, f, g anisotropy coefficients of material in
61. Chan KC and Chow KK. Analysis of hot limit strains of BBC2000 yield criterion
a superplastic 5083 aluminum alloy under biaxial tension. de2a , de2b strains parallel to the notch
Int J Mech Sci 2002; 44(7): 1467–1478. f0 geometrical defect
62. Verma R, Ghosh AK, Kim S, et al. Grain refinement K strength coefficient
and superplasticity in 5083 Al. Mater Sci Engng: A 1995;
m strain rate sensitivity factor
191(1–2): 143–150.
63. Hill R. A user-friendly theory of orthotropic plasticity in
n work-hardening exponent
sheet metals. Int J Mech Sci 1993; 35(1): 19–25. R0 , R45 , R90 anisotropy coefficients
64. Banabic D, Kuwabara T, Balan T, et al. An anisotropic rave average anisotropy
yield criterion for sheet metals. J Mater Process Technol Dr planar anisotropy
2004; 157–158; 462–465. ta0, tb0 initial thicknesses at homogeneous and
65. Butuc MC. Forming limit diagrams. Definition of plastic grooved region
instability criteria. PhD Thesis, University do Porto, 2004.
66. Banabic D. Limit strains in the sheet metals by using the
e effective strain
new Hill’s yield criterion (1993). J Mater Process Technol e0 pre-strain
1999; 92–93: 429–432. e_ strain rate
67. Wang L and Lee TC. The effect of yield criteria on the e1 , e2 major and minor limit strain
forming limit curve prediction and the deep drawing pro- G,C functions of the second and third
cess simulation. Int J Machine Tools Mf 2006; 46: 988–995. invariants
68. ASTM Committee E28/Subcommittee E28.02, Standard r strain ratio
Test method for plastic strain ratio r for sheet metal, s
 effective stress
2006, ASTM E517–00. s1 , s2 principle stresses
69. Bhagat AN, Singh A, Gope N, et al. Development of s0 , s90 yielding stresses obtained from tensile
cold-rolled high- strength formable steel for automotive tests
applications. Mater Mfg Process 2010; 25: 1, 202–205.
sb biaxial yield stress
70. Kumar PS and Kumar RD. Experimental and numerical
studies on the forming behavior of tailor welded steel

View publication stats