Proceedings of the ASME 2014 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition

IMECE2014
November 14-20, 2014, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

IMECE2014-36924

INFLUENCE OF GEOMETRICAL PARAMETERS ON THE MAXIMUM DEEP DRAWING

HEIGHT OF RECTANGULAR PARTS

Aarón Rivas Menchi1, Hugo I. Medellín Castillo1, Dirk F. de Lange1, Pedro de J. García Zugasti2
1
Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, C.P. 78290, S.L.P., México
2
Instituto Tecnológico de San Luis Potosí, Av. Tecnológico s/n, C.P. 78437, S.L.P., México

E-mails: rivasmenchi@gmail.com, hugoivanmc@uaslp.mx, dirk.delange@uaslp.mx, pzugasti@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT expensive machining and welding operations giving a better

The deep drawing process is commonly used in the industry
because its ability to produce parts with reduced weight and
good mechanical properties at a high production rates.
However, the elasto-plastic deformation mechanism of deep
drawing is complex and difficult to analyse; this because there
are many process parameters and variables involved that affect
the quality of final products. Among these variables are the
geometric parameters, which have been proved to have a great
influence on the process. Theoretical and experimental
analyses reported in the literature have been mainly focused
on conventional cylindrical cup deep drawing. Few research
works have dealt with the deep drawing analysis of non-
cylindrical parts, particularly the influence of geometrical
parameters on the deep drawing performance.
This paper presents an analysis of the effect of geometrical
parameters on the allowable deep drawing height (DDH) of
rectangular parts before fracture. The aim is to identify the
influence of the main geometrical parameters on the DDH,
Numerical analyses based on the Finite Element Method
(FEM) were used to investigate the influence of geometrical
parameters, such as the radii, the metal sheet thickness, and
the aspect ratio, among others, on the DDH.
Keywords: Rectangular deep drawing, deep drawing height
(DDH), geometrical parameters, Finite Element Method
(FEM).
1. INTRODUCTION
Deep drawing is a sheet metal forming process used to make
cup-shaped, box-shaped or other complex- curved, hollow-
shaped parts. It is performed by punch that pushes a sheet
metal blank into a die cavity, resulting in a contoured part. [1].
Deep Drawing process is an extensively used in
manufacturing of sheet metal parts because it eliminates
quality finished product in few operations and at high
production rates. However, there are many parameters
involved that affect the quality of the final products. Within
these parameters are included geometrical parameters (e.g.,
punch radius, sheet thickness, aspect ratio, etc.), the material
properties (e.g., elastic modulus, yield stress, hardening
parameters, etc.) and the process (e.g., blankholder force,
friction coefficient, temperature, etc.).
Various experimental studies have been attended in order to
establish the deep drawing parameters of cylindrical cups [2-
6]. Padmanabhan et al. [3] focused on determining the
optimum values between the die radius, blankholder force and
friction coefficient for a stainless steel axisymmetric deep
drawing. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out
to examine the influence of process parameters on the
thickness variation of the circular cup. The results suggested
that the die radius have a major influence than the blankholder
force and friction. A similar work was carried out by Colgan
and Monaghan [4], concluding that the tooling geometry,
especially the die radius, is generally the most important
characteristic on the quality of deep drawing.Some works have
focuses on the effect of the parameters on the DDH. For
example, Saxena and Dixit [5], [6] performed a parametric
study of the effect of various parameters on the maximum
DDH before wrinkles [5] and fracture [6], for both cylindrical
and square cup drawing. They pointed that some parameters
are more significant in square drawing while others are more
prominent in circular drawing due the difference in the flange
geometry, the presence of the corner regions and the absence
of axisymmetry in square drawing that causes different
material flow pattern and stress state.

1 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

 Figure 1. Schematic diagram of tool geometric parameters of rectangular cup drawing process (S b= blank size, Sp= punch size, rpb= punch radius
bottom, rpc= punch corner radius, rd= die radius, rdc=die corner radius t0= blank thickness, c=clearance).

punch and die must have radii, given rpb, rpc, rd. The sides of
The maximum DDH (i.e., the cup height at which the fracture the punch and die are separated by a clearance c.
initiates) of square parts mainly increases with the sheet
thickness, the die radius and the bottom and wall punch radius.
The effects of process parameters on the formability of the
deep drawing of rectangular cups made of stainless steel were
investigated by Chen and Lin [7], where the major parameters
affecting the formability are the bottom and wall punch radius.
In another work, Chen et al. [8] studied the effect of punch
radius and die corner radius with magnesium alloy AZ31 at
elevated temperature and their results agree well with the
another study mentioned above. Most of these research works
are based on FEM and experimental methods; few works are
focused on theoretical analysis. Medellin et al. [9] proposed a
new expression to calculate the allowable DDH of rectangular
parts, this expression considers the blank, cup and punch
dimensions and is based on the combination of the equivalent
diameter concept and the volume conservation principle. Their
results have shown a lower prediction error than others
expressions reported in the literature. They consider that in Figure 2. Schematic diagram of part geometric parameters of a
order to reduce the prediction error, the new proposed rectangular cup drawing process.
equation can be extended by considerer other geometrical and
process parameters. 2.2 Deep drawing height analysis
In order to use the well-known deep drawing theory of
The aim of this paper is to identify the influence of the main
cylindrical cups, the "equivalent diameter" concept is used. It
geometrical parameters on the DDH through a parametric
study. Particularly it focuses on the analysis of the allowable has to be mentioned that the equivalent diameter concept has
been already used in the literature, e.g. Lange [10], however in
deep drawing height (DDH) of rectangular steel cups before
this paper this concept is combined with the volume
the fracture. Numerical simulations by FEM together with
experimental data taken from the literature are used. conservation principle. According to Lange [10], the
equivalent diameter De is defined as the diameter of the
circular blank whose area AC is equal to the rectangular blank
2. RECTANGULAR DEEP DRAWING
area, AR, with length A and width B, see Figure 3. Thus,
considering that AC=AR the equivalent diameter De can be
2.1 Dimensions and Geometrical parameters
obtained as:
Drawing of a box-shaped part is a simple drawing operation,
with tool and part geometric parameters as shown in Figure 1 𝐴𝐵
and Figure 2, respectively. A rectangular blank with thickness 𝐷𝑒 = 2√ (1)
𝜋
t0 is drawn into a die by means of rectangular punch. The
For a square blank A=B and eq. (1) is reduced to:
2 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 𝜋𝑑𝑒2
2𝐴 𝑉𝑐𝑐 = (𝜋𝑑𝑒 (ℎ𝑎 )𝑐 + ) 𝑡𝐶𝐶 = (𝐴𝐵)𝑡𝑅𝐶 (8)
𝐷𝑒 = (2) 4
√𝜋
where tCC is the thickness of the equivalent cylindrical cup. It
The maximum DDH of a cylindrical cup, (ha)C, with diameter can be seen that the volume of the equivalent cylindrical cup is
d and obtained from a circular blank with diameter D, it can equal to the volume of the rectangular blank. On the other
be estimated as suggested by Lange [10] and Smith and hand, the volume of the rectangular cup, VRC, can be obtained
Bakerjian [11]: (Figure 2) as:

(𝐷2 − 𝑑2 ) 2
𝑉𝑅𝐶 = [𝑎𝑏 − (4 − 𝜋)𝑟𝑝𝑐 + 2(𝑎 + 𝑏 − (4 − 𝜋)𝑟𝑝𝑐 )(ℎ𝑎 )𝑅 ]𝑡𝑅𝐶 (9)
(ℎ𝑎 )𝐶 = (3)
4𝑑
where (ha)R is the allowable DDH of the rectangular cup, a and
b are the length and width, respectively, of the rectangular
Considering the well-known drawing ratio, β, for a single deep cup, tRC is the thickness of the rectangular cup, and RPC is the
drawn operation of cylindrical cups, and by using the
punch corner radius. Now, by considering the volume
equivalent diameter concept, the following equation is
conservation principle, the following expression is obtained:
obtained:

𝐷 𝐷𝑒 𝑉𝑅𝐶 = 𝐴𝐵 (10)
𝛽= = (4)
𝑑 𝑑𝑒
Moreover, it can be said that the material volume of the
where De and de are the equivalent diameters of the equivalent cylindrical cup is the same as the material volume
rectangular blank and cup, respectively. of the rectangular cup. It is difficult to predict the amount of
thinning; however, thinning occurs in both cylindrical and
rectangular parts. Thus it can be considering that both tCC and
tRC are not constant, but they are equivalent and therefore can
be considered equal. Thus, (ha)R can be calculated by solving
Eqs (9) and (10), which leads to the following expression:

𝐴𝐵 − 𝑎𝑏 + (4 − 𝜋)𝑟𝑝2
(ℎ𝑎 )𝑅 = (11)
2[𝑎 + 𝑏 − (4 − 𝜋)𝑟𝑝 ]
Figure 3. Circular blank and rectangular blank.
Thus Eq. (11) can be used to calculate the allowable DDH of
According to Lange [10] and Smith and Bakerjian [11], the
steel rectangular parts as a function of the rectangular blank,
maximum drawing ratio βmax that can be obtained in a single
cup and punch dimensions. It has to be mentioned that this
deep drawing operation of steel is 2. This value should only be
equation is applicable only when the sheet metal
used for steel sheet (approximate values of βmax for a few
thickness, t, satisfies t<<a and t<<b.
materials can be obtained from [10]), typical conditions of
tooling and a diameter to thickness ratio D/t = 50 [10]. Thus,
2.3 Blank-holder force analysis
𝐷𝑒 The blank-holder force of cylindrical cups can be estimated as
𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 = =2 (5) suggested by Marciniak et al. [12]:
𝑑𝑒
𝑑 𝜎𝑈𝑇𝑆
Solving Eqs. (1) and (5) for de: (𝐹𝐵𝐻 )𝑐 = 𝐴𝐵𝐻 [(𝛽 − 1)2 + ] (12)
200 ∙ 𝑡 400
𝐷𝑒 𝐴𝐵
𝑑𝑒 = 2
=√𝜋 (6) Where σUTS is the ultimate tensile strength and 𝐴𝐵𝐻 is the
blankholder area. Considering Eq. (12) and the equivalent
diameter concept, the following equation for blankholder force
Substituting Eqs. (1) and (6) in Eq. (3), the allowable DDH of
a cylindrical cup, (ha)C, as a function of the A and B of rectangular parts is obtained:
dimensions of the rectangular blank, is obtained:
𝑑𝑒 𝜎𝑈𝑇𝑆 𝜋
(𝐹𝐵𝐻 )𝑅 = ([(𝛽 − 1)2 + ] ) (𝐷𝑒2 − (𝑑𝑒 + 2𝑐 + 2𝑟𝑑 )2) (13)
200 ∙ 𝑡 400 4
𝐷𝑒2 − (𝐷𝑒 /2) 2
3 3 𝐴𝐵
(ℎ𝑎 )𝐶 = [ ] = 𝐷𝑒 = √ (7)
4(𝐷𝑒 /2) 8 4 𝜋
This Eq. (13) can be used to estimate the blankholder force of
The volume of the equivalent cylindrical cup, VCC, can be rectangular parts.
calculated as:

3 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

3. NUMERICAL SIMULATION
In the present study, the tooling geometries were constructed
in the NX®CAD software, and the numerical simulation of the
deep drawing process was carried out using FEM by means of
the ANSYS LS-DYNA® software. One quarter of the
rectangular cup forming setup was modeled considering the
symmetry principle. The FEM model, Figure 4, comprises the
forming rigid bodies: punch, die, and blank holder; and the
blank material (metal sheet) modeled as a deformable body.
Figure 4. Segregated view of the finite element meshes for a square
cup (b/a=1) drawing process.
The FEM model uses a quadratic SHELL 163 elements. The
size of the element in the blank is 0.8 mm. In addition, the
analysis scheme adopted Belytschko–Tsay shell elements with
five integration points, so that the drawing cup of the
rectangular shape with high aspect ratio produced reasonable
deformation conditions such as bending and twisting within a
reasonable computing time. It has to be mentioned that the
number of elements used in the FEM model was obtained
based on a sensitivity analysis of the mesh size, with a
maximum variation of 1% to 4%.
3.1 Material
The material used for the analysis is forming steel [13] with
mechanical properties given in Table 1. The sheet metal was
modelled as an isotropic elastoplastic material. In addition, the
work-hardening behaviour is considered isotropic according to
the Swift power law: 𝜎 = 𝐾(𝜀0 + 𝜀𝑝 )𝑛 .
Table 1. Mechanical properties of Forming Steel.
Mechanical property Value
Young modulus (E) 210 GPa
Ultimate tensile strength (σUTS) 440 MPa
Yield strength (σy) 276 MPa
Density (ρ) 7800 kg/m3
Hardening exponent (n) 0.2726
Hardening constant (K) 604.121 MPa
Poisson’s ratio (υ) 0.3
4 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
3.2 Process parameters
The analysis is perfomed with a constant blank-holder force
FBH = 15.0 kN. For each rectangular part the blank holder
force was calculated using the Eq. (13) [12] to avoid
wrinkling. The punch, blank holder plate and die were
considered as rigid bodies, i.e. no deformation was considered
during simulation. Coulomb’s friction model was considered
between the contact bodies. In this paper the friction
coefficient was selected as 0.05, and the punch velocity 0.1
m/s.
3.3 Failure criteria
In the case of isotropic material behavior, the Von Mises
equivalent stress was used to predict the failure as follows:
𝜎𝑒
𝐹𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒 = (14)
𝜎𝑈𝑇𝑆
where σUTS is the ultimate tensile strength of the forming steel
material. The failure occurs when σe > σUTS, i.e. if Failure > 1.
This criterion was implemented as a subroutine in ANSYS
LS-DYNA® to dynamically evaluate the material failure in
each step of the entire simulation process. Figure 5 shows the
equivalent stresses for three rectangular parts with different
aspect ratio b/a.
3.4 FEM model validation
The validation of the proposed FEM model was done by
comparing our results with the results provided by [14], [15],
which is commonly used to validate FEM simulations in metal
forming [15],[16]. Stresses and strains results were compared
and a general 5% difference between our results and those
reported in the literature [14] was obtained. The results were
also compared in terms of drawn-in values (Figure 6) with the
numerical and experimental results provided by different
researchers [14], [15], [17]. The results shown in Table 2
reveal a good agreement. The FEM validation was also carried
out by comparing the thickness profile along 0° and 45°
(Figure 7). The results also revealed a good agreement
between our results and those results reported in the literature.
Table 2. Comparison of draw-in values.
DX DY DD
Reference
(mm) (mm) (mm)
Experimental (Makinouchi et al. [15]) 27.95 - 15.00
Zhang (Zhang et al [16]) 28.37 - 15.51
Coupled vumat (Khelifa and Oudjene 28.10 26.10 13.50
[14])
Our FEM model 29.00 - 16
.
Figure 5. Equivalent stress [MPa] when the part fails (Failure > 1), for the following values of the aspect ratio: a) b/a = 1, b) b/a = 0.75 and c) b/a =
0.5.

drawing were examined by FEM simulations. The square cup

deep-drawing benchmark test of Saxena and Dixit [6] has been
Final shape considered as the reference of this parametric study.
One geometric parameter was analysed at a time while the
other process parameters remained the same. For each
geometric parameter, the effect of aspect ratio on the DDH
was also studied. Three basic geometries with aspect ratios,
b/a, 1, 0.75 and 0.5, were defined and they are presented in
Table 3. The equivalent drawing ratio β, the area of
underfomed blank, and the cross-section area of the punch
were kept constant in the parametric study for all geometries.
The material used for this study is forming steel, Table 1 [13].
Original shape
The results of the parametric study were normalized by the
Figure 6. Draw-in values based on the original and final shape.
blank thickness t0.

Table 3. Geometric dimensions of the base model used for the

parametric study.
Geometric
b/a=1 [6] b/a=0.75 b/a=0.5
Parameter
A 124 mm 134 mm 150 mm
B 124 mm 114.75 mm 102.5 mm
a 70 mm 80.83 mm 99 mm
b 70 mm 60.621 mm 49.5 mm
Thickness 1 mm 1 mm 1 mm
Clearance 2 mm 2 mm 2 mm
Die radius 5 mm 5 mm 5 mm
Punch bottom 8 mm 8 mm 8 mm
Radius
Punch corner 10 mm 10 mm 10 mm
Radius
Punch stroke 25 mm 25 mm 25 mm

4.1 Effect of the metal sheet thickness

Figure 7. Thickness distribution strain along: a) OA rolling direction
0°, b) OB 45° direction
4. PARAMETRIC STUDY
The effects of geometric parameters, such as punch bottom
radius, punch corner radius, die corner radius, sheet thickness
and clearance on the allowable DDH of rectangular cup
5 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
The effect of thickness on the allowable DDH was studied
considering the following metal sheet thicknesses: t=0.8, 1.0,
1.2 and 1.5 mm, and for geometries with b/a=1 thickness
values of 0.9 and 1.1 mm were also used. In this analysis the
clearance was varied for each simulation according to c=2t.
The results are shown in Figure 8. From these results it can be
noticed that for thickness values smaller than 1.2 mm, the
allowable DDH remains practically constant, i.e. no effect of
thickness on the allowable DDH is observed. However, for
thickness values greater than 1.2 mm, the allowable DDH
tends to converge to one value for all aspect ratios. It is also
observed that the thickness did not have a significant influence
on the DDH for geometries with b/a = 0.5 and b/a = 0.75.
 Figure 8. Effect of sheet thickness on the allowable DDH.
4.2 Effect of the punch corner radius
The effect of the punch corner radius on the allowable DDH is
shown in Figure 9. This effect was studied using the following
values of the die radii: rpc= 6.0, 8.0, 10.0, 12.0, 14.0 and 18.0
mm, and for geometries with b/a=1, values of rpc= 7.0 and
16.0 mm were also considered. The results have shown that
the DDH increases with the punch corner radius, but in the
case of b/a=1 geometries, the DDH has a behavior of a unit
step function, which is in agreement with [7], [8]. For
geometries of b/a =0.5 and b/a= 0.75, the allowable DDH
slightly increases with the punch corner radius.
Figure 9. Effect of punch corner radius on the allowable DDH.
4.3 Effect of the punch bottom radius
The analysis was performed using the following values of rpb:
6.0, 8.0, 10.0, 12.0 mm, and for geometries with b/a=1 values
of 7.0 and 9.0 mm were also used. The effect of the punch
bottom radius on the DDH obtained from FEM simulations is
shown in Figure 10. As expected, a linear behavior is
observed, a small rpb induces an early failure resulting in a
small DDH value. This behavior is the same for all the
different aspect ratios.
6 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Figure 10. Effect of punch bottom radius on the allowable DDH.
4.4 Effect of the die radius
The effect of the die radius on the allowable DDH of
rectangular cup drawing is shown in Figure 11. This effect
was studied considering the following die radii values: rd=
3.0, 5.0, 7.0 and 9.0 mm, and for geometries with b/a=1, an rd
value of 8.0 mm was also used. The results have shown that
the allowable DDH increases as the die radii increases, i.e. a
linear behavior is observed for all aspect ratio values.
Figure 11. Effect die radius on the allowable DDH.
4.5 Effect of clearance
The effect of clearance on the allowable DDH is shown in
Figure 12. This effect was studied using the following
clearance values: c = 1.1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 mm for a 1 mm
metal sheet thickness value. The results have shown that the
clearance has an insignificant effect on the allowable DDH.
Also it is observed that square parts, b/a = 1, lead to greater
DDH values than parts with other aspect ratios.

Figure 12. Effect of clearance on the allowable DDH.
5. DISCUSSION
In general, there are three main important remarks regarding
the deep drawing of rectangular parts:
1. The allowable DDH increases with the die radius, the
punch bottom radius, the punch corner radius and the
clearance. From these, the die radius and the punch
bottom radius have the greatest influence on the DDH.
2. In general, the maximum DDH is also influenced by
the aspect ratio b/a. Square parts (b/a = 1) lead to the
greatest allowable DDH values.
3. The trends in the results show a general linear
relationship between the DDH and the geometrical
parameters, except for some cases such as the effect of
the punch corner radius and for some results aspect
ratio (b/a) values.
The major effect on the allowable DDH was the die radius, in
contrast with the results reported in literature [6] and [7].
However, the failure criteria used in this work is based on the
equivalent stress, compared with the damage or maximum
strain criteria used in the literature. Figure 13 shows that when
the die radius is different, the stress distribution at flange
corner is different, for instance with rd= 3 mm there is more
stress concentration than for rd= 9mm; this because the edges
of the flanges are more sharp and therefore the allowable
DDH is smaller. This effect is more important in square cup
drawing (i.e., b/a =1) than rectangular cup drawings as it can
be seen in Figure 11.
Figure 13. Equivalent stress distribution [MPa] in square cup
drawing with different die radius: a) rd=3mm and b) rd= 9mm.
Another interesting observation is the effect of the punch
corner radius. The results show a reflection point at rpc= 10t0,
and remains constant, Fgiure 9. This effect may be to the fact
that when rpc = a/2 and b/a = 1, the square cup drawing
7 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
becomes a cylindrical cup drawing, which usually has a higher
deformability.
Finally, the DDH is also affected by the aspect ratio. In
general, higher DDH values were obtained for b/a= 1 than for
other aspect ratios. Regarding the geometric parameters, the
clearance, sheet thickness and punch radius were the most
affected by the aspect ratio, with an allowable DDH variation
of up to 15%.
6. CONCLUSION
An analysis to evaluate the influence of geometrical
parameters on the allowable DDH for rectangular parts has
been presented. Based on FEM simulations, a parametric
study considering variations of the geometrical parameters and
their influence on the maximum cup height was performed.
The results have drawn the following conclusions:
 The allowable DDH increases linearly with the
geometrical parameters, except for some cases such as the
effect of the sheet metal thickness and punch corner radius.
 The radius (i.e. rd,rpc,rpb), especially the die radius, have a
greater influence on the allowable DDH than the other
parameters.
 The maximum DDH is also influenced by the aspect ratio
b/a.
Future work consider the introduction of the geometrical
parameters influence on Eq. (11), in order to improve its
accuracy. Also the analysis of the material properties influence
is considered as future work.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the financial support from the
National Science and Technology Council of México
(CONACYT).
References
[1] Groover, M. P., 2007, “Fundamentals of modern
manufacturing: materials processes, and systems,” John
Wiley & Sons, New York., Chap. 20.
[2] Shahani, A. R., and Salehinia, I., 2008, “Analysis of
wear in deep-drawing process of a cylindrical cup,”
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 200(1), pp.
451-459.
[3] Padmanabhan, R., Oliveira, M. C., Alves, J. L., and
Menezes, L. F., 2007, “Influence of process parameters
on the deep drawing of stainless steel. Finite Elements in
Analysis and Design,” 43(14), pp. 1062-1067.
[4] Colgan, M., and Monaghan, J., 2003, “Deep drawing
process: analysis and experiment,” Journal of materials
processing technology, 132(1), pp. 35-41.
[5] Saxena, R. K., and Dixit, P. M., 2010, “Prediction of
flange wrinkling in deep drawing process using
bifurcation criterion,” Journal of Manufacturing
Processes, 12(1), pp. 19-29.
[6] Saxena, R. K., and Dixit, P. M., 2011, “Numerical
analysis of damage for prediction of fracture initiation in
deep drawing,” Finite Elements in Analysis and Design,
47(9), pp. 1104-1117.
[7] Chen, F. K., and Lin, S. Y., 2007, “A formability index
for the deep drawing of stainless steel rectangular cups,”
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 34(9-10), pp. 878-888.
[8] Chen, F. K., Huang, T. B., and Chang, C. K., 2003,
“Deep drawing of square cups with magnesium alloy
AZ31 sheets,” International Journal of Machine Tools
and Manufacture, 43(15), pp. 1553-1559.
[9] Medellín-Castillo, H. I., García-Zugasti, P. D. J., de
Lange, D. F., and Colorado-Alonso, F. J., 2013, “Analysis
of the allowable deep drawing height of rectangular steel
parts,” The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 66(1-4), pp. 371-380.
[10] Lange, K., 1985, “Handbook of metal forming,”
McGraw-Hill, New York, Chap. 20.
[11] Smith, D. A. , 1990, “Die design handbook,” SME, USA.
[12] Hu, J., Marciniak, Z., and Duncan, J., 2002, “Mechanics
of sheet metal forming”. Butterworth-Heinemann, UK.
[13] Elgueta, M., 2002, “Ductile damage analysis of sheet
metal forming,” Journal of materials processing
technology, 121(1), pp. 148-156.
[14] Khelifa, M., and Oudjene, M., 2008, “Numerical damage
prediction in deep-drawing of sheet metals,” Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 200(1), pp. 71-76.
[15] Makinouchi, A., Nakamachi, E., Onate, E., and Wagoner,
R.H., 1993, “Verification of Simulation with
Experiments. Proceedings of the Numisheet 1993”.
Second International Conference on Numerical
Simulation of 3D Sheet Metal Forming Process, Ishera,
Japan, August 31–September 2.
[16] Zhang, H. W., Xu, W. L., Di, S. L., and Thomson, P. F.,
2002, “Quadratic programming method in numerical
simulation of metal forming process,” Computer methods
in applied mechanics and engineering, 191(49), pp. 5555-
5578.
[17] Onate, E., Kleiber, M., Saracibar, D., and Agelet, C.,
1988, “Plastic and viscoplastic flow of void‐containing
metals,” Applications to axisymmetric sheet forming
problems. International journal for numerical methods in
engineering, 25(1), pp. 227-251.

8 Copyright © 2014 by ASME