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

net/publication/259532990

Detailed Investigation of Forming Limit Determination Standards for

Aluminum Alloys

Article  in  Journal of Testing and Evaluation · January 2013

DOI: 10.1520/JTE104356

CITATIONS READS

7 877

4 authors:

Murat Dilmeç Huseyin S. Halkaci

Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Selcuk University
35 PUBLICATIONS   167 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   364 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fahrettin Ozturk Mevlüt Türköz

TAI - Turkish Aerospace Industries, Inc. Konya Technical University
148 PUBLICATIONS   1,381 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   132 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Prediction of Forming Limit Diagram Using Improved Analytical Model View project

TWIP Steels View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mevlüt Türköz on 18 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2013
Available online at www.astm.org
doi:10.1520/JTE104356

Murat Dilmec,1 H. Selcuk Halkaci,1 Fahrettin Ozturk,2 and Mevlut Turkoz3

Detailed Investigation of Forming Limit

Determination Standards for Aluminum Alloys

REFERENCE: Dilmec, Murat, Selcuk Halkaci, H., Ozturk, Fahrettin, and Turkoz, Mevlut, “Detailed Investigation of Forming Limit Determination
Standards for Aluminum Alloys,” Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2013, pp. 1–12, doi:10.1520/JTE104356. ISSN 0090-3973.

ABSTRACT: In this study, experimental studies were conducted to evaluate the differences between the ASTM E2218-02 and ISO 12004-2
standards that are used for construction of the forming limit curve (FLC) and that made various assumptions, which create dissimilar FLCs for the same
material. The comparison was made for two materials which have moderate brittle and ductile characteristics, AA2024-T4 and AA5754-O alloys,
respectively. The effects of a specimen’s geometry, lubrication condition, and determination methods of limit strains on FLCs were considered and com-
pared. Because the same strain evaluation method should be used for the standards, so as to be able to investigate the effect of only standards, a simple
method in the computer grid analysis system was used. To test the validity and the reliability of the method, limit strains on the same specimens were
also determined with using a real-time measurement method for the ISO experiments, and the results reveal that the method is reliable. Failure mecha-
nisms were inspected for further investigation. The Nakajima specimens formed with the two standards showed different failure mechanisms. Finally,
conducting the case studies, it was concluded that ISO 12004-2 yields more reliable and reproducible results than the ASTM standard.
KEYWORDS: ASTM E2218-02, ISO 12004-2, forming limit curve, failure

Introduction most reliable [7,8]. In recent years, different experimental meth-

The feasibility of the sheet metal forming process is simulated
under a computer environment to eliminate design changes and
time waste during the manufacturing. Therefore, finite-element
analysis (FEA) software is generally used to evaluate the form-
ability of materials [1]. It is known that material and process pa-
rameters that are input to the FEA program have a great influence
on accuracy of the results [2,3]. In recent years, forming limit
curve (FLC) of a sheet metal is introduced to the finite-element
analysis software to evaluate a stamping part. The forming limit
curve concept was first developed by Keeler and Backofen [4] to
evaluate the workability of a sheet metal. The FLC consists of all
possible combinations of major and minor limit strains, which
range from tensile to biaxial stretching conditions, including plane
strain condition [5,6]. The FLCs are widely used in sheet metal
forming analysis for the purpose of determining workability and
diagnosing production problems. The accuracy of simulations
depends on the accuracy of the FLC inputted to the software [1].
Because the theoretical FLCs vary based on the used yield cri-
teria, they do not offer reliable predictions. Although the experi-
mental FLCs are time consuming and labor intensive, they are still
Manuscript received September 26, 2011; accepted for publication May 16,
2012; published online December 11, 2012.
1
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Architecture and Engineering,
Selcuk Univ., Konya, Turkey
2
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Nigde Univ.,
Nigde, Turkey; and Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Petroleum
Institute, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Corresponding author), e-mail:
fahrettin@nigde.edu.tr
3
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Seydisehir Eng., Selcuk
Univ., Seydisehir, Konya, Turkey.
ods were proposed based on the shapes and sizes of dies and
specimens. The tests are generally classified into in-plane and out-
of-plane formability tests [4]. The most commonly used determi-
nation method of the FLC is the Nakajima test (out-of-plane test),
which uses a hemispherical punch to deform the test specimens
[9–12]. In this test, a sheet blank is clamped between the upper and
lower dies and a hemispherical punch stretches the material until
necking or failure is observed [1]. Different specimen geometry pro-
duces different strain paths from tensile to biaxial conditions [13].
FLCs are generally constructed according to ASTM E2218-02
[14] and ISO 12004-2 [15] standards. In the ASTM, it is not speci-
fied that some details related to application of the Nakajima
experiment. Different assumptions are made to determine necking
or failure limit creating different results, which causes dissimilar
FLCs for the same material [16]. To eliminate these differences or
uncertainties, ISO 12004-2 standard was published in 2008 and
the standard provides good reproducibility. The ISO differs from
the ASTM in terms of the specimen’s geometry and the lubrica-
tion condition and limit strain determination method. These pa-
rameters affect FLCs considerably [13,17].
Aluminum alloys are one of the most widely used metals in
many industries [18,19] because of high strength-to-weight ratio,
its comparative ease of production, corrosion resistance and rela-
tively low cost [20,21]. AA2024-T4 sheet is particularly well-
suited for parts requiring high strength-to-weight ratios and is one
of the most widely used in commercial and military aircraft for
make fuselage and wing skins. The 5XXX alloys are widely used
in automotive industry because of advantages of high strength,
good corrosion resistance and relatively excellent formability.
AA5754 is one of the most important alloys of these series. The
AA5754 is usually used at O condition [19]. This material has

C 2012 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
Copyright V 1
2 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

TABLE 1—The chemical compositions of the materials (wt. %). geometry, lubrication condition, and limit strain evaluation methods
on FLCs were investigated. Failure mechanisms were inspected
Alloy % Cu % Mg % Mn % Fe % Si % Zn % Ti % Cr
and case studies were carried out for further investigation.
AA2024 4.44 1.29 0.6 0.123 0.068 0.092 0.027 0.002
AA5754 0.006 3.1 0.16 0.287 0.135 <0.02 0.022 0.064

been receiving considerable scientific and technological attention

because they show little or no progressive damage accumulation
prior to fracture [22].
In this research, experimental studies were performed to evalu-
ate the FLC determination standards. The effects of specimen’s
Experimental Procedure
Material and Forming Process
In this research, AA2024 and AA5754 sheets having two different
characteristics which are moderate brittleness and ductility,

FIG. 1—FLC test specimens according to (a) ASTM E 2218-02, and (b) ISO 12004-2 standards.
 DILMEC ET AL. ON DETAILED INVESTIGATION OF FORMING LIMIT
FIG. 2—Formability test system.[24]
respectively, were studied. AA2024-T4 sheet is widely used in
commercial and military aircraft for make fuselage and wing
skins. AA5754-O is especially used in automobile inner-body
panels often requiring a deep-drawn cross-section application
because of its superior formability. The chemical compositions of
the materials are given in Table 1. The mechanical properties of
the materials were determined by the tensile test according to
ASTM E8M-04 standard.
The FLC test specimens were prepared according to both
standards. The specimen’ geometries are shown in Fig. 1(a) and
1(b). Different strain paths can be created by using various speci-
men widths. The specimens having 1 mm thickness and 25 mm,
50 mm, 75 mm, and 100 mm widths have an hourglass shapes on
the narrow section for the both standards to eliminate failure at the
blank holder area. The names of the specimens were denoted by w
plus the specimen width. The Nakajima specimens specified in the
ASTM and the ISO standards differ from each other in terms of
geometry. The main differences of the specimens are the shaft
lengths as shown in the figure. The shaft lengths are about 9 mm
and 25 mm for ASTM and ISO, respectively. In addition to the
regular test specimens, four additional widths from w127 to w133
were also formed to improve the accuracy of the position of the
lowest major strain.
FIG. 4—The section where the limit strain values are determined in the simple method.
3
FIG. 3—A typical sample which the dye on the it is was removed with acetone.
The test specimens were prepared by laser cutting machine at
rolling direction. AA2024 specimens were solution heat treated at
493 C for 30 min. Then they were quenched in cold water and
were allowed to be naturally aged at room temperature for 7 days
and so the mechanical properties of the material have a substan-
tially stable condition (T4). AA5754 was annealed at 380 C dur-
ing 4 h and it becomes O temper.
To measure strains, a 2.5-mm square grid pattern was printed
by silk-screening method on the specimens. The detail of the pro-
cess is given in the authors’ earlier study [23]. The grid pattern
has high accuracies and resolutions and was resisted against defor-
mation and operating processes such as friction and lubrication.
Then the specimens were deformed until the failure by using the
formability test system as shown in Fig. 2. A 200-kN clamping
force was found to be suitable for the process. When necking or
fracture occurs, the forming process is automatically stopped. The
punch speed was about 60 mm=min and each test has been
repeated at least three times.
It is specified that the evaluation area must be nearly friction-
less in ISO 12004-2. The standard mentions that the distance from
the apex of the dome to the fracture should not exceed a maximum
4 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

TABLE 2—The mechanical properties of the materials.

Yield strength Ultimate strength True strain Strain hardening exponent Strength coefficient Normal anisotropy Planar anisotropy
Material rY (MPa) rU (MPa) e n K (MPa) rm Dr

AA2024-T4 271 499 0.1640 0.20 724 0.91 0.22

AA5754-O 90 212 0.22 0.34 470 0.72 0.11

Note: All values are the mean of the three repeats and for 1 mm and 0 direction.

15 % of the punch diameter. If this condition is not satisfied, the
test must be repeated. The lubrication systems may not be
changed during the construction of a particular FLC. Paraffin wax
(lubrication 1) was used as lubricant between the interface of the
punch and the sheet for all the widths in the ISO standard. In the
ASTM standard, only square samples were lubricated with
0.3-mm thick polyethylene film with five layers þ SAE 10 mineral
oil lubricant (lubrication 2). The other widths were formed under
dry conditions.
In addition to the comparison of each standard’s own proper-
ties for both materials, the effects of the specimen geometry and
the lubrication condition were investigated for only AA2024 ma-
terial. The best curve was fitted to the strains obtained from all the
widths and repeats using the Microsoft Excel software. To see the
repeatability of each standard, the w25 and w100 samples were
tested by many repeats. The standard deviations of all the strains
were calculated using the shortest distances of the strains to their
own fitting curves.
FIG. 5—An example formed Nakajima specimen according to (a) ISO, and (b)
ASTM.
Limit Strain Determination Methods
FLCs were constructed according to ASTM E2218-02 and ISO
12004-2 standards. For conducting the ISO experiments, limit
strains were determined by using a real-time strain measurement
method that determines the limit strains according to the cross-
section method denoted in the ISO. Because double necking prob-
lems occur in the formed specimens following the ASTM, limit
strains cannot be determined by using the cross-section method.
Therefore, a simple method in a computer grid analysis system
was used for the ASTM experiments. To be able to investigate the
effects of the experimental standards, the same evaluation method
should be used. The limit strains obtained from a specimen with
using the both strain measurement methods must be in a good
agreement. To test the validity and the reliability of the simple
method, the limit strains were determined with both methods
using the same specimen.
Real-Time Strain Measurement Method—Because
the cross-section method is very complicated and time consuming,
ARAMIS a real-time measurement system was used for the deter-
mination of the limit strains according to ISO 12004-2. The ARA-
MIS can automatically determine the limit strains on the surface
of a specimen according to the cross-section method. This system
utilizes digital image processing and uses high-resolution CCD
cameras, which can measure the strains on the surface of a speci-
men has speckle pattern during deformation process. The CCD
cameras track the changes of the speckles taking photographs dur-
ing forming process. Photograph of an undeformed specimen is
taken as reference. While forming is in progress, ARAMIS com-
pares instantaneous photographs with the reference and calculates
the deformations and displacements. After the completion of the
image processing, three or five sections over the fracture region
are drawn. The measured strain distribution along these cross sec-
tions is analyzed. The strain points in the fracture area are deter-
mined by an objective mathematical criterion defined by the ISO.
A new strain distribution is reconstructed using these strain points
and a second order parabola is fitted the remaining part of the
strain distribution. The resulting values at the crack position indi-
cate the limit strains.
To measure the limit strains on the same specimens using the
both methods before creating speckle pattern, a 2.5-mm square
grid pattern was first applied on it. After the real-time measure-
ments, the dye on the dome-shaped specimens was removed with
acetone without disappearing of the grid pattern (Fig. 3). Then
the strains on the specimens were also determined by the
simple method to see the difference between two measurement
methods.
 DILMEC ET AL. ON DETAILED INVESTIGATION OF FORMING LIMIT 5

FIG. 6—Typical strain distributions in formed Nakajima specimens following to (a) ASTM, and (b) ISO.

FIG. 7—The strain distribution through most critical section of formed specimens following to both standards.
6 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION
FIG. 8—The validity of the simple method for AA2024-T4.
Grid Analysis Method—In the ASTM standard, calcula-
tion method for the limit strains is not specified. The strain distri-
bution on the specimens was obtained using a computer grid
analysis method, which is ASAME software. In this software, the
deformations of the grids on a deformed specimen were measured
by means of at least two photographs taken at different angle
using a reference target cube through photographs. There is not a
reliable limit strain determination method for all the materials in
this software. Therefore, a simple method was used to determine
the limit strains according to the ASTM.
The strain distributions for the specimens were quite uniform
for Nakajima specimens formed following to the ISO. When the
strain distribution has been evaluated in the range of 1 %, it was
seen that the maximum strain region always covers at least four
grids. A section was drawn to covers at least four grids parallel to
the fracture line as shown in Fig. 4 and the means of the major
and minor strain values in this section were specified as limit
strain values.
FIG. 9—The validity of the simple method for AA5754-O.
Results and Discussion
Mechanical properties of the materials are given in Table 2.
Nakajima Experiments
All of the specimens were formed until necking or fracture
occurred. Necking was not observed for any of the samples
because of the brittle nature of AA2024-T4, but AA5754-O for
the both standards. In the ISO experiments, samples were frac-
tured in such a way that the distance from the apex of the dome to
the fracture was not exceeded a maximum 15 % of the punch di-
ameter. In fact, many of the samples were fractured very close to
the apex of the dome as shown in Fig. 5(a). However, the frac-
tures were far away (about 25  35 mm) from the apex of the
dome in the ASTM experiments (Fig. 5(b)). Thus, a double neck-
ing problem occurs in the formed specimens according to the
ASTM as shown in Fig. 6(a). When the distance from the apex of
 DILMEC ET AL. ON DETAILED INVESTIGATION OF FORMING LIMIT 7

FIG. 10—The comparison of the repeatability of limit strains obtained following ASTM and ISO.

the dome to the fracture did not exceed a maximum 15 % of the
punch diameter, the problem of double necking was drastically
reduced (Fig. 6(b)). Thus, the evaluation of the strains is more
easer and accurate.
In a typical sample, strain distributions through most critical
section that pass the apex of the dome and perpendicular to the frac-
ture are given in Fig. 7 for both standards. It is clearly seen that the
determination of an accurate limit strain is easy in the ISO.
Because the geometry of the specimens in the ISO standard is
circular and the shaft length (25 mm) where the deformation is
localized is bigger than the ASTM, the strain distribution on the
deformed specimens according to the ISO is more uniform than
that of the ASTM (9.4 mm) as shown in Fig. 6(a)–6(b). For the
comparison of the strain distributions, the strains on the specimens
were graded according to the color in such a way that the grade of
major strain is about 1 %. Whereas the changing of the maximum
strain value occurs in eight grids in the ISO samples, this change
occurs in only two grids in the ASTM samples, as in these cases
and the usual.
Reliability of Grid Analysis Method
For the validity of the simple method, it is required that the FLC
obtained from this method is in good agreement with that of the
cross section method. The FLCs obtained from the same samples
by using both methods for AA2024-T4 and AA5754-O are given
Fig. 8 and Fig. 9, respectively. It is obvious that the FLCs obtained
by using the two methods are in a good agreement for the both

FIG. 11—The obtained FLCs following to ASTM and ISO standards for AA2024-T4.
8 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION
FIG. 12—The obtained FLCs following to ASTM and ISO standards for AA5754-O.
materials. So the validity and the reliability of the simple method
were obviously proved. In that case, this method can be confidently
used to provide a more accurate comparison of the standards.
Effect of Limit Strain Determination Standards
The effect of the used standards on the repeatability is shown in
Fig. 10 for some specimens. For the w25 specimen, the limit strain
values obtained following the ASTM change within 0.03 strain
and have a standard deviation of 0.0095, these values are 0.013
and 0.0065, respectively, for the ISO. For the w100 specimen,
these values are 0.023, 0.0085, 0.012, and 0.006, respectively.
The overall uncertainty values of the construction of the FLCs are
6r % 0.0095 and 0.006 strain for the ASTM and the ISO, respec-
tively. It is obvious that the ISO standard enhances the repeatabil-
ity. Similar results were obtained for the other geometries too. As
a result, the conducted experiment following to the ISO gives the
more accurate and the reproducible results. The lowest error bands
should be used as safe FLCs.
FIG. 13—The effect of the specimen geometry on FLC.
The difference between the obtained FLCs following to the
ISO and the ASTM standards for AA2024-T4 and AA5754-O
materials are shown in Figs. 11 and 12, respectively. In the ISO
and the ASTM standards, the lubrication 1 and 2, respectively,
was used as lubricant. In the ASTM standard, only the square
samples were lubricated and the other widths were formed under
the dry condition.
The curves are considerably different from each other, particu-
larly for the plane strain and the equi-biaxial strain fields. The
FLC level obtained following to the ISO is higher than from the
ASTM for the uniaxial tension and the equi-biaxial fields.
Although the major strains obtained following to the ASTM are
bigger than these of the ISO, the minor strains are smaller because
of friction effect in the ASTM experiments for the plane strain. In
this case, all of the possible combinations cannot be obtained. In
other words, the constructed curve do not represent to all the
forming processes. All these negatives were eliminated in the
ISO. Because the strain distribution on the deformed specimens
 DILMEC ET AL. ON DETAILED INVESTIGATION OF FORMING LIMIT 9

FIG. 14—The effect of the lubrication on FLC.

following to the ISO is more uniform than that of the ASTM, the Effect of Specimen Geometry
strain values obtained from the ASTM are lower than that of the
ISO for the uniaxial tension and the equi-biaxial fields [24]. After the comparison with own all properties of the standards for
the both materials, the effect of the specimen geometry was

FIG. 15—The thickness strain distributions of the ASTM and ISO specimens for (a) w25, and (b) w175.
10 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION
FIG. 16—The necking behaviors of the Nakajima specimens for AA2024-T4 with 1 mm and 0 direction.
investigated for AA2024 material. The specimens in both stand-
ards were lubricated with the paraffin and the effect of the geome-
try on the FLC is shown in Fig. 13.
It can be seen that whereas two curves are in a good agreement
with each other for the biaxial stress, there is a significant differ-
ence between the curves for the tension tensile. The level of the
curve obtained using the ASTM specimens is lower than that of
the ISO as much 0.01 strain. This difference may be important in
the forming processes.
Whereas the deformation is localized at approximately the
shaft length of 9 mm for the specimens having hourglass shape in
the ASTM experiments, it is distributed through a longer length
(25 mm) for the ISO. Then it is expected that the strain distribu-
tion on the deformed specimens following to the ISO is more uni-
form than that of the ASTM. Moreover the periphery of the ISO
specimens is circular provide the uniform strain distribution. In
this case, the limit strain where the deformation concentration
occurs for the ASTM is lower and more scattered than that of the
ISO as shown in the figure. As a result, it is concluded that use of
the ISO specimens is more suitable.
Effect of Lubrication
To inspect the effect of only the lubrication condition, all the ISO
specimens was formed with dry and paraffin wax for AA2024 and
the obtained FLCs were given in Fig. 14. This situation is similar to
the comparison with own all the properties of the standards. It is
expected that the difference in the dashed curves in Figs. 11 and 14
is approximately equal to the effect of the specimen geometry for
the same thickness. Consequently, it was seen that the lubrication
condition affects significantly the FLC [25]. Case studies should be
conducted so as to determine which curve is reliable.
Failure Mechanisms
The failure mechanisms (the thickness distribution and the neck-
ing behavior) of the Nakajima specimens were inspected to
explain more detail the differences in the obtained FLCs following
to the both standard. The thickness distributions were measured
with a profile projector at intervals of 1 mm, 20 scale factor,
and 0.002 mm accuracy and the necking behaviors were observed
with the scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The thickness dis-
tributions through the most critical section of the w25 (uniaxial
tension) and the w175 (equi-biaxial stretching) specimens that
pass the apex of the dome and perpendicular to the fracture were
given in Fig. 15 for both standard. It is obvious that the double
necking problem occurs in the ASTM specimens. The thickness
strain on the ISO deformed specimens is more uniform than these
of the ASTM. So the bigger limit thickness strain values can be
obtained. The thickness strain values can be also calculated with
using the constant volume assumption. It was seen that the differ-
ence between the measured and the calculated thickness strains
for the FLC’s various fields are about 0.01  0.03 strain.
The SEM photographs of the most critical section of the sam-
ples are given in Fig. 16 with the aim of visually investigation of
the necking behaviors of the samples. The fractures occur in a
way to make about 45 angle with the thickness direction because
of shear stresses for all of the samples. Whereas the localized
necking is observed for the ASTM samples, particularly w25 and
w175, the diffuse necking is sighted for the ISO samples.
Case Study
To test the validity of the FLCs obtained following both standards,
the case studies were experimentally conducted for the both
 DILMEC ET AL. ON DETAILED INVESTIGATION OF FORMING LIMIT 11

FIG. 17—The case studies for (a) AA2024-T4, and (b) AA5754-O.

materials. To investigate the different regions of the FLCs, classi- Conclusions

cal deep drawing and hydraulic bulge processes were conducted.
In this study, the FLCs were constructed by ISO 12004-2 and
The diameters of the deep drawn and hemispherical parts are 65
ASTM E2218-02 standards for AA2024-T4 and AA5754-O mate-
and 60 mm, respectively. Initially, the specimens were formed
rials which have moderate brittle and ductile characteristics,
until the failure starts and so the forming limits were determined
respectively. The effects of the specimen’s geometry, the lubrica-
for the both processes. Then the parts were formed until the incipi-
tion condition and the limit strain determination methods on FLCs
ent fracture and the strain distribution on the parts was measured
were considered. A simple method was proposed to easily deter-
with the computer grid analysis software (Fig. 17).
mine the limit strains without needing a real-time measurement
The strain distributions of the failure cups formed with the
system, which is expensive. The following results were drawn:
deep drawing were below the ASTM FLCs and the failure parts
seem as safe for the both materials. In spite of that, these strain • The FLCs obtained from the cross section (real-time
distributions were above the ISO FLCs and these curves confirm measurement system) and the proposed methods are in
the failure for the both materials. Moreover the strain distributions good agreement. So the simple method can be confidently
on the non failure parts formed with hydraulic bulge process were used.
above the ASTM curves and the fracture seems occur. On the con- • The strain distribution on the deformed specimens accord-
trary, the ISO FLCs support that the parts do not fracture. Conse- ing to ISO 12004-2 is more uniform than that of the ASTM
quently, the ISO curves give more reliable results for the both E2218-02 and so determination of an accurate limit strain is
materials and the usage of the ISO curves in the FEA is more easy and more accurate and reproducible results are
confident. obtained from the ISO.
12 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION
• If the Nakajima specimen’s geometry specified in the ISO is
used, the strain distribution on the formed samples is more
uniform than that of the ASTM. Moreover, because the ge-
ometry of the ISO specimens is circular, the strain distribu-
tion is more uniform. Therefore, the usage of the geometries
and the experimental methods designated in the ISO is more
suitable from the ASTM.
• The friction between the interface of the punch and the
sheet is fairly effective on the FLCs. To obtain more reliable
FLCs, the coefficient of friction should be minimized as far
as possible as stated in the ISO standard.
• It was observed that the localized necking occurs for the
ASTM samples, the diffuse necking is sighted for the ISO
samples.
• Conducting the case studies, it was concluded that the ISO
curves give more reliable results for both brittle and ductile
materials and the usage of the ISO curves in the FEA is
more confident.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by The Scientific and Technological
Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK), Project No. 108M516,
Project Title: “Adding Drawbead to the Blank Holder for Enhanc-
ing Formability of Aluminum Alloy Sheets with Hydroforming
Process.” This work is also supported by the Research Project
Unit (BAP) of Selcuk University under Project No. 09101005.
TÜBITAK, Selcuk University, and Metal Forming Laboratory in
Nigde University, and Metal Forming Center of Excellence in Ati-
lim University are profoundly acknowledged.
References
[1] Emilie, H., Carsley, J. E., and Verma, R., “Development of
Forming Limit Diagrams of Aluminum and Magnesium
Sheet Alloys at Elevated Temperatures,” J. Mater. Eng. Per-
form., Vol. 17, No. 3, 2008, pp. 288–296.
[2] Nakajima, K., Kikuma, T., and Hasuka, K., “Study on Form-
ability of Steel Sheets,” Yawata Tech. Rep., No. 284, 1971,
pp. 678–680.
[3] Paraianu, L., Comsa, D. S., Gracio, J. J., and Banabic, D.,
“Modelling of the Forming Limit Diagrams Using the Finite
Element Method,” The 8th International Conference of the
European Scientific Association for Material Forming ESA-
FORM, April 2005, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
[4] Keeler, S. P. and Backofen, W. A., “Plastic Instability and
Fracture in Sheets Stretched over Rigid Punches,” ASM
Trans. Quart., Vol. 56, 1963, pp. 25–48.
[5] Taylor, B., “Formability Testing of Sheet Metals,” ASM
Handbook, Vol. 14, Forming Forging, 1993, pp. 1930–1985.
[6] Narayanasamy, R. and Narayanan, S. C., “Experimental Anal-
ysis and Evaluation of Forming Limit Diagram for Interstitial
Free Steels,” Mater. Design, Vol. 28, 2007, pp. 1490–1512.
[7] Hosford, W. F. and Caddell, R. M., Metal Forming:
Mechanics and Metallurgy, 3rd Ed., Cambridge University
Press, New York, 2007.
View publication stats
[8] Graf, A. and Hosford, W. F., “Calculations of Forming
Limit Diagrams,” Metall. Trans. A, Vol. 21A, 1990, pp.
87–94.
[9] Raghavan, K. S., “A Simple Technique to Generate in-Plane
Forming Limit Curves and Selected Applications,” Metall.
Mater. Trans. A, Vol. 26A, 1995, pp. 2075–2084.
[10] Ayres, R. A., “Aids for Evaluating Sheet Metal Formability:
The Limiting Dome Height (LDH) Test and the Cir. Grid
Analyzer,” Novel Techniques in Metal Deformation Testing,
R. H. Wagoner, Ed., TMS, 1983, pp. 47–64.
[11] Lewison, D. J., 1999, “An Assessment of Different Experi-
mental Methods for Determination of Forming Limits,”
Master’s thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy,
NY.
[12] Ghosh, A. K. and Hecker, S. S., “Stretching Limits in Sheet
Metals: In-Plane Versus out-of-Plane Deformation,” Metall.
Trans., Vol. 5, 1974, pp. 2161–2164.
[13] Djavanroodi, F. and Derogar, A., “Experimental and Numer-
ical Evaluation of Forming Limit Diagram for Ti6Al4V Tita-
nium and Al6061-T6 Aluminum Alloys Sheets,” Mater.
Design, Vol. 31, 2010, pp. 4866–4875.
[14] ASTM E2218-02, 2008, “Standard Test Method for Deter-
mining Forming Limit Curves,” Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Vol. 03.01, ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, PA.
[15] ISO 12004-2, 2008, “Metallic Materials-Sheet and Strip-
Determination of Forming-Limit Curves-Part 2: Determina-
tion of Forming-Limit Curves in the Laboratory.”
[16] Jahromi, S. J., Nazarboland, A., Mansouri, E., Abbasi, S.,
“Investigation of Formability of Low Carbon Steel Sheets by
Forming Limit Diagrams,” Iranian J. Sci. Technol., Trans.
B, Eng., Vol. 30, No. B3, 2006, pp. 377–385.
[17] Narayanasamy, R. and Sathiya Narayanan, C., “Forming,
Fracture and Wrinkling Limit Diagram for Steel Sheets of
Different Thickness,” Mater. Design, Vol. 29, 2008, pp.
1467–1475.
[18] Campbell, F. C., Manufacturing Technology for Aerospace
Structural Materials, London, UK, 2006.
[19] ASM Handbook, Properties and Selection: Nonferrous
Alloys and Special-Purpose Materials, Vol. 2, 1990.
[20] George, E. T. and MacKenzie, D. S., Handbook of Alumi-
num, Physical Metallurgy and Processes, Marcel Dekker,
New York, 2003.
[21] U.S. Army Materials and Mechanics Research Center, Mili-
tary Standardization Handbook, Aluminum and Aluminum
Alloys, 1966.
[22] Spencer, K., Corbin, S. F., and Lloyd, D. J., “Notch Fracture
Behaviour of 5754 Automotive Aluminium Alloys,” Mater.
Sci. Eng. A, Vol. 332, Nos. 1–2, 2002, pp. 81–90.
[23] Ozturk, F., Dilmec, M., Turkoz, M., Ece, R. E., and Halkaci,
H. S., “Grid Marking and Measurement Methods for Sheet
Metal Formability,” 5th International Conference and
Exhibition on Design and Production of Machines and
Dies=Molds, Aydın, Turkey, 2009, pp. 41–49.
[24] Ozturk, F. and Lee, D., “Experimental and Numerical Analy-
sis of out-of-Plane Formability Test,” J. Mater. Proc. Tech-
nol., Vol. 170, 2005, pp. 247–253.
[25] Dilmec, M., 2012, “Effect of Sheet Thickness on Forming
Limit Curve of 2024-T4 Aluminum,” Ph.D. thesis, Selcuk
University, Konya, Turkey.