Journal of

Materials
Processing
ELSEVIER Journal of Materials Processing Technology 50 (1995) 385-394 Technology

A better sheet-formability test

K. N a r a s i m h a n a,*, M . P . M i l e s b, R . H . W a g o n e r c
Department of Metallurgical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Powai, Bombay 400076, India
a

b Ecole Nationale Superieure des Mines de Paris, Sophia Antipolis 06560, France
CDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering, The Ohio State Universi~, Columbus, OH 43210, USA

Industrial summary

Instability predictions are important in sheet-metal forming processes, one such instability
being splitting failures due to localized necking. The majority of such sheet-metal industrial
splitting failures occur near to the plane-strain state. Therefore, sheet-metal industries have
always been looking for an "ideal" formability test which allows them to evaluate sheets for
their ability to resist splitting failures under near plane-strain conditions. Several formability
tests have been developed in the past but none have been very successful. Presently, a new test
has been designed, constructed and used to evaluate the formability of different sheet materials.
The results from this new test are compared with standard limiting-dome-height (LDH)
tests and finite-element simulations. The results show that the new test is more reproducible,
more closely follows the desirable plane strain path and takes roughly 1/6 of the time to perform
relative to the LDH test. Strain measurements and finite-element simulations have
revealed that the improvements are a result of the new test geometry, which produces a more
stable and repeatable plane-strain state near to the splitting failure locations. The failure
heights in the new tests were predicted using a section analysis finite-element program,
SHEET-S.

I. Introduction

Instabilities or defects limit useful shape-changes during sheet-metal forming.

Puckering, wrinkling and tearing are some of the c o m m o n instabilities that can
develop during sheet-metal forming. Sheet tearing is the most c o m m o n and i m p o r t a n t
instability that can be observed under stretching conditions and usually takes place in
regions that have thinned locally, i.e. in localized necks. It has been observed that the
majority of industrial stamping failures occur by splitting near to plane-strain condi-
tions.

* Corresponding author.

0924-0136/95/$9.50 fC 1995 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved

SSDI 0 9 2 4 - 0 1 3 6 ( 9 4 ) 0 1 4 0 0 - U
386 K. Narasimhan et aL /Journal of Materials Processing Technology 50 (1995) 385-394

The localized necking instability has been studied and characterized both by
experimental and theoretical methods. Hill has predicted conditions for localized
necking under conditions of negative minor strains under a biaxial state of stress [1].
Marciniak and Kuczynski have introduced an approach (in which the sheet is
assumed to contain an infinite-length thickness defect) to predict localized necking
under biaxial stretching conditions [2]. Wagoner's research group has used finite-
element methods (FEM) for the first time to predict limit strains under biaxial
stretching conditions [3-5]. In their approach a more realistic finite defect was
assumed to be present in the sheet.
In the experimental approach, the localized necking failures are measured
and represented conveniently as a forming-limit diagram (FLD), the latter being
a representation of the critical combination of the two principal surface strains
(major and minor) above which localized necking instability is observed.
The ability of a sheet metal to resist necking instability during stretching is
quantified and measured in formability tests: the latter allow the grading and ranking
of sheet metals by evaluating their ability to resist necking instability.
In this paper we review some of the popular formability tests and their problems
and limitations are discussed. Then, results from a new formability test that has been
developed recently at the Ohio State University are presented and the test is com-
pared with the present day industry-standard limiting-dome-height (LDH) test. The
failure heights in the new test are predicted using FEM.

2. Formability tests: a brief review

Formability is the ability of the sheet metal to be stamped/formed without develop-

ing any failures, thus formability is not easily quantified as it depends on several
interacting factors. All of such factors (material flow properties, ductility, die ge-
ometry, die material, lubrication, press speed etc.,) contribute to the success or failure
of the stamping to varying degrees in an interdependent manner. It should be noted
that no single formability test can describe or quantify the formability for all types of
stamping applications [6, 7].
The basic forming characteristics of sheet metals are obtained even from simple
mechanical tests such as tensile, bulge and hardness tests. A high strain-hardening
exponent, n, is related to the ability of material to undergo large uniform strains before
necking instability [6]. Lower yield strength gives lower spring-back and better fixing
of shape in lightly-formed parts [6]. A high value of the strain-rate sensitivity index, m,
also improves material formability by delaying the onset of localized necking. A high
magnitude of anisotropy index, r, gives better drawability in materials by resisting
thinning.
The major disadvantage of simple tests is that they completely ignore the effect of
processing variables (die/punch geometry, lubrication, punch speed) on the forming
behavior of the sheet metal. Also, the deformation modes (strain states) are very simple
in such tests, as opposed to the complex modes existing in a real stamping. Formability
tests that attempt to simulate actual stamping conditions are discussed next.
 K. Narasimhan et al. /Journal of Materials Processing Technology 50 (1995) 385-394 387

2.1. Simulative tests

The important modes of deformation that can exist in a industrial stamping are
drawing and stretching. Several formability tests have been developed that simulate
drawing and or stretching conditions existing in press-forming operations: such
formability tests are termed "Simulative Tests". Some of the popular simulative tests
are: 1. The Swift cup test [8]; 2. The Erichsen and the Olsen dome tests [9]; and 3. The
LDH test [10, 11].

2.1.1. The Swift cup test

The Swift cup test simulates drawing operations and thus evaluates the sheet
metal's drawability. The test involves drawing a small flat-bottomed parallel-sided
cup, in which the sheet is held under a blank-holder, but is welt lubricated to ensure
that it can be drawn under the blank-holder.
The drawability of the sheet metal is estimated by drawing series of blanks of
increasing diameter. The maximum blank size that can be drawn without fracture
occurring over the punch nose is used to calculate the limiting draw ratio
(LDR):

LDR = maximum blank diameter/cup diameter.

In order to produce consistent results in this test, the process variables must be
standardized. The die and punch radii are specified as 6.35 mm. The die surfaces and
die profile radius are highly polished. The punch blank/die interface and blank/blank
holder interface are thoroughly lubricated, Polyethylene sheet lubricated with either
mineral oil or vaseline generally being used. The punch is cleaned and degreased only.
The blank-holder force must be sufficient to prevent wrinkling for a given thickness
and size of the blank.
The Swift cup test is well suited to predict the performance of sheet metals in
deep-drawn components. This test is time consuming and is not suited for predicting
sheet-metal behavior in stamping that involve stretching operations.

2.1.2. The Erichsen and the Olsen tests

The Erichsen and the Olsen tests were the first tests developed to estimate sheet
metal formability under stretching conditions. In both tests, the sheet is clamped
between two polished fiat plates with a hole of diameter equal to 25.4 mm and a ball of
diameter, d, is pressed into the sheet metal until failure occurs. The height of the cup, h,
at failure is used as the formability index (d for Olsen test is equal to 22.2 mm and for
Erichsen test d is equal to 20 mm). The larger this height, h, the greater is the sheet
metals ability to resist necking instability during stamping.

Evolution of the L D H test. The Erichsen and the Olsen tests are no longer favored
because of poor reproducibility of data and lack of correlation with either other
mechanical properties or service experience. Hecker [ 10] attributes this to insufficient
size of the penetrator, the inability to prevent inadvertent drawing in of the flange and
inconsistent lubrication. Hecker noted that bending strains are normally minimal
388 K. Narasimhan et aL /Journal of Materials Processing Technology 50 (1995) 385-394

during the stamping of a large sheet, whereas the small punch used in the Erich-
sen/Olsen test produces significant bending strains in the sheet; moreover, Hecker
remarked that the clamping plates were not effective in keeping the sheet from
drawing into the die cavity. The amount of draw-in was not identical from test to test
and thus was seen as a great source of the variability in the data. Hecker subsequently
proposed a stretch-formability test with a 102 mm diameter hemispherical punch and
dies with a lockbead to prevent draw-in. The test was also performed under dry
friction conditions. Ghosh [11] modified the Hecker test to simulate plane-strain
conditions, as more than 80% of the stamping failures occur close to plane-strain
conditions [12]. This modified test is known as the limiting dome height (LDH) test
and is described next.

2.1.3. Limiting dome-height test

The LDH test is developed to simulate more effectively the fracture conditions
(plane strain) found in most stampings. In this test a 102 mm diameter hemispherical
punch is used and sheet-metal strips of varying width are clamped rigidly in a blank-
holder and then stretched over the punch. The metal strips are marked with a grid of
small circles (2.5 mm diameter) and the width strain at the fracture site is measured
from the circle closest to the fracture. This width strain is minimum (close to plane
strain) at some critical blank width of the sheet metal. Correspondingly, the height at
which the dome fails shows a minimum at the critical blank-width. This minimum
height is known as the limiting dome-height near plane strain (LDHo) and is used
extensively as a formability index. LDH results correlate well with the total elongation
observed in a tensile test [13]. The LDH test results also correlate well with the
stamping behavior [12, 14].
As the LDH test is able to simulate the most critical strain state observed in
stamping (plane-strain conditions), it is the most popular test used in industry. Mostly
in industry a standard width of about 133 mm is used for finding the LDH, instead of
determining the critical blank-width for a given sheet metal experimentally. This
procedure does not assure the simulation of the plane-strain condition, as the critical
width depends on the mechanical properties of the sheet metal tested. In other words,
different sheet metals will have different critical widths at which their LDHo's are
obtained. Of late, the LDH test has been losing popularity due to a large scatter in the
test results and a general lack of consistency of the test [ 15, 16]. The problems with the
LDH test are described next.

2.2. Problems with the L D H test

The large scatter in the LDH results prompted a special detailed procedure for
performing this test. The North American Deep Drawing Research Group
(NADDRG) recommends [17] a procedure for finding the critical blank-width that
minimizes the height at failure (using about 25 blanks of varying width), then
"seasoning" the punch by testing about 10 dummy specimens of the critical width, and
finally averaging the punch height results of the next 8 specimens of the critical width
to calculate the LDHo. Despite the above lengthy procedure, the LDH results have
 K. Narasimhan et al. /Journal of Materials Processing Technology 50 (1995) 385 394 389

been proven nearly impossible to reproduce using various machines and tooling from
different sources [18].
The basic difficulty lies in the LDH test-geometry itself, which, being axisymmetric,
does not produce the desired stable, reproducible plane-strain conditions over large
regions of the sheet sample [19]. The strain-state varies from point to point in the
test-sheet strip, and with punch height at the eventual failure location. Even the final
strain ratio at the failure site is dependent critically upon the lateral draw-in, which in
turn depends on small variations in plastic anisotropy, friction [11] and the constraint
of the drawbead. Also, L D H failures are usually defined by a load drop at the punch.
However, the splitting is not sudden because the strain state varies significantly in the
vicinity of the split initiation. Instead, a diffuse neck becomes a local crack which then
propagates laterally into material subjected to a varying strain state. This is quite
different from the kind of failure observed in a plane-strain tensile test [20], where
a crack develops over most of the specimen width simultaneously and the load drops
sharply, easily defining the failure elongation.
In summary, early formability tests often lack the ability to distinguish between
materials which exhibit good and poor press performance. The more modern LDH
test improves this performance by concentrating on stretch boundary conditions near
to the plane-strain state. However, the LDH geometry can be used to produce plane
strain only over a relatively narrow spatial and temporal area, and this region
depends on the material properties, the sheet thickness, and the surface condition. The
limitations of the LDH test can thus be summarized as [19]: (i) a large inherent
scatter, particularly from laboratory to laboratory; (ii) it is time consuming; (iii) it
suffers from unstable plane strain conditions; and (iv) there is imprecise definition of
failure because of the nature of the crack.
If the evolution of formability test and its current status are analyzed carefully it is
very clear that an ideal formability test should simulate stable plane-strain conditions:
this is because the majority of industrial stamping failures occur under near to
plane-strain conditions. Although the LDH test attempts to simulate plane-strain
conditions, it is not well suited for routine industrial usage for the reasons discussed
above. Recently a new formability test (The OSU test) has been developed at The
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. This new test is described and compared
with the LDH test in the next section.

3. OSU formability test 1-19, 21]

It is first useful to list the characteristics of an "ideal" formability test:

1. The test should simulate stable plane-strain conditions, as more than 80% of
industrial stamping failures occur near to plane-strain conditions (also, usually, the
formability of a material is minimum under plane-strain conditions, making it the
most critical strain-state).
2. The test should be reproducible with minimal scatter,
3. The test should correlate well with press performance.
4. The test should be fast and easy to perform using standard equipment.
390 K. Narasimhan et al. /Journal of Materials Processing Technology 50 (1995) 385-394

5. The test data, or the formability index obtained from the test, should be easy to
interpret and analyze theoretically. Experimentally-validated theoretical models can
then be used with confidence in industry to evaluate and rank sheet metals for
stamping operations.
With the above objectives in mind, a new plane-strain formability test has been
developed. Three specific punch geometries are tested, modeled and compared with
the LDH test. Fig. 1 shows the three trial tooling geometry of the dies and punches
that have been developed. As can be seen in Fig. 1, the new punch geometry is similar
to the LDH test geometry, but is not axisymmetric, instead it is of cylindrical
geometry. This geometry is expected to produce more stable plane-strain conditions,
because of the two-dimensional nature of the punch.
The fiat-elliptical punch was found to be the most suitable during preliminary
experiments 1-21] and is therefore used as the new OSU formability test tooling for
comparison with the LDH test results. The OSU test consists of testing 5 sheet blanks
of constant width of 124 mm and length of 178 mm. (In comparison, for the LDH test,
about 25 samples of varying widths are tested to first obtain the critical width and
then about 18 samples are tested at the critical width). No seasoning is done in this
test. Results for these 5 tests are then averaged. As in most of the cup tests, the punch
height at failure is used as the formability index in the OSU test.

C Y L I N D R I C A L PUNCH SHARP E L L I P T I C A L PUNCH

FLAT - E L L I P T I C A L PUNCH

LJ
[~

P77A
Fig. 1. Three trial tooling geometries for the OSU formability test.
 K. Narasimhan et al. /Journal of Materials Processing Technology 50 (1995) 385-394 39

OSU TEST LDH TEST

0.4 1.4
O PH = 30.4 rnm 0 PH = 32.3 m m
0.2 • PH = 25.6 m m o
1.2 • PH = 23.9 m m
o PH = 20,5 m m o PH = 21.5 m m
0.0 1.0
o2
0.2 2 • o&
CO ~1 O o 0.8
B
o O co • o o"
0.4 0.6
i o °°°
o o A o
0.6 0.4 0

0.8 0.2 D Q

1.0 UNIVIT STEEL

, i , t . i i
FRAT
.
7 ,
0.0

-0.2
JNIVIT STEEL
,
FRACTURE
,+, i , i i
1"20 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 '1'o 20 30 40 50 60
Original Distance From Pole (mm) Original D i s t a n c e F r o m Pole (ram)

Fig. 2. Variation of strain ratios for the OSU and the LDH test.

LDH AND OSU TEST CORRELATION

40

35
E
E a UNIVITS ~ E E L
I--
Or) 30
UJ
I--
--1
U'J
O
25 ~ 2008-T4

i I i I

2020 30 40 50
LDH (turn)
Fig. 3. Correlation of measured formabilities from the OSU and the LDH test.

The variation in the strain conditions (as represented by the ratio of minor strain to
major strain, ~2/~1) during the OSU and the L D H test is presented in Fig. 2. The sheet
metal tested here is Univet steel. The comparison shows the following:
1. The strain conditions are more proportional and stable in the OSU test than in the
L D H test. The range in the strain ratio (e2/el) at the eventual fracture location for OSU
392 K. Narasimhan et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 50 (1995) 385-394

test is less than half of that for the LDH test. The scatter in test results is related
directly to the magnitude of this range in the strain ratios: the larger the range, the
greater is the scatter in the test results [19]. Therefore, it can be seen that the scatter in
OSU test is less than that in the LDH test.
2. The strain ratio in the OSU test is about half of that observed for the LDH test at
the eventual fracture location, just before fracture, i.e. the OSU test simulates condi-
tions closer to plane-strain conditions than does the LDH test.
The results from the OSU test correlates well with the LDH test results, Fig. 3.
Thus, the known correlation of the LDH test to stamping performance applies equally
to the OSU test.
Although the OSU test improves upon the LDH test, it does not show plane-strain
conditions for a wide range of sheet metals. As an example, the OSU test shows
significant deviation from plane-strain conditions for sheet metals with a high magni-
tude of the anisotropy index, R [21]. Recently a detailed FEM analysis has been
carried out to optimize the tooling geometry of the OSU test [22]. This optimized
geometry is expected to develop plane-strain conditions even in sheet metals with
R values as high as 2 [22].

4. Prediction of failure heights in OSU formability test

A section-analysis FEM program, SHEET-S, [23-25] is used to predict the failure

heights measured in the new formability test. The failure heights are predicted for the
following three sheet materials: Univet steel, IF steel and 2008-T4 A1 alloy (more
details about these materials and other related experimental results can be found in
[21]). Two approaches are used for predicting the failure heights. In the first ap-
proach, the height at which the predicted punch load attains a maximum is assumed
to be the failure height (for the 2008-T4 alloy, the SHEET-S program did not simulate
up to the maximum load condition due to certain numerical instability problems.
Therefore, for this alloy, failure height is not predicted by the first approach). In the
second approach, the punch height at which the SHEET-S predicted peak strain
attains a magnitude equal to the experimentally measured FLDo is taken as the failure
height (FLDo is the limit strain under plane-strain conditions).
Failure height predictions using both the approaches are presented in Table 1. The
correlation between the experimentally measured and the predicted failure heights is
conveniently expressed by the following factor:
predicted height - measured height 100%.
CF (Correlation factor) = measured height

The correlation factors for the two approaches are reported in Table 1.
Two important observations can be made from the predicted results. The predicted
failure heights are always less than the experimentally measured heights, because
SHEET-S assumes that the sheet deforms under plane-strain conditions. However,
the strain ratios measured in experiments [21], show a deviation from plane-strain
 K. Narasimhan et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 50 (1995) 385-394 393

Table 1
Correlation between experimental and predicted failure heights

Sheet Experimental Predicted CF Predicted CF R

Metal Failure Height Method 1 Height Method 2
Height (mm) (%) (ram) Ii%)
(mm) Method 1 Method 2

2000-8 25.2 -- 24.6 - 2.4 0.6

Univit 32.1 30.5 - 5 28 - 12.8 1.45
IF steel 34.3 30.75 - 10.35 28.75 - 16.2 1.95

conditions. As the plane-strain state is the condition which produces the least
formability, any deviation from this strain state is expected to give rise to an
improvement in formability. In a formability test, the failure height corresponding to
the plane-strain condition is expected to be the least and, therefore, any deviation
from the plane-strain condition should produce an increase in the failure height. The
results shown in Table 1 are in agreement with this analysis. The 2008-T4 alloy
showed the least deviation from plane strain amongst the materials tested [21] and,
therefore, correspondingly shows the best correlation to the predicted heights,
Table 1.
The second observation that can be made is that the correlation factor improves as
the magnitude of the anisotropy index, R, decreases. A decrease in the value of R leads
to a decrease in the absolute value of the minor strains. Thus, decrease in the R values
tends to produce strain ratios closer to plane-strain conditions, giving rise to an
improvement in the correlation factor, Table 1.

5. Conclusions

Formability tests are required to be able to understand splitting instabilities in

stamping and can be used mainly for ranking and sorting incoming sheet metals for
a given stamping. In this paper, the authors have reviewed some of the popular
formability tests and critically compared the industry-standard LDH test with a new
formability test, the OSU test, developed recently. The OSU test can be seen as the
best formability test available today, for the following reasons:
1. It simulates a stable strain state which is closer to plane-strain conditions.
2. The test has the best reproducibility amongst the tests available.
3. The test is easy to perform and is about 6 times faster than the standard LDH
test.
4. The test results are modelled easily using existing FEM programs, whereas the
LDH test results can not be modelled easily [7].
Failure heights in the OSU tests were predicted using the SHEET-S program. The
correlation factor between the measured and predicted results improved as the
anisotropy index, R, decreased.
394 K. Narasimhan et al. /Journal of Materials Processing Technology 50 (1995) 385-394

References

[1] R. Hill, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 1 (1952) 19.

[2] Z. Marciniak and K. Kuczynski, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 9 (1967) 609.
[3] D.A. Burford and R.H. Wagoner, in: R.H. Wagoner, K.S. Chan and S.P. Keeler (Eds.) Forming Limit
Diagrams: Concepts Methods and Applications, TMS Warrendale, 1989, p. 167.
[4] K. Narasimhan and R.H. Wagoner, Metall. Trans., 22A (1991) 2655.
[5] K. Narasimhan, D. Zhou and R.H. Wagoner, Scripta Metall., 26 (1992) 41.
[6] R.M. Hobbs and J.L Duncan, in: P.D. Harvey (Ed.), A Course on Advanced Sheet Metal Forming, ASM
Metals Park, OH, 1979.
[7] D.A. Burford, K. Narasimhan and R.H. Wagoner, Metall. Trans., 22A (1991) 1775.
[8] S.Y. Chung and H.W. Swift, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 165 (1951) 199.
[9] A. Erichsen, German Patent No. 260180, 6 July, 1912.
[10] S.S. Hecker, Metals Eng. Quarter. 14 (1974) 30.
[11] A.K. Ghosh, Metals Eng. Quarter. 15 (1975) 53.
[12] R.A. Ayers, W.G. Brazier and V.F. Sajewski, J. Appl. Metalworking, 1 (1979) 41.
[13] R. Stevenson, J. Appl. Metalworking, 3 (1984) 272.
[14] J.M. Story, J. Appl. Metalworking, 3 (1984) 292.
[15] D.J. Meuleman, J.L Siles and J.J. Zoldak, SAE Paper No. 850005, 1985.
[16] J.M. Story, J. Appl. Metalworking, 2 (1982) 119.
[17] ASM/NADDRG: Recommended referee practice for the LDH test, 1987.
[18] ASM/NADDRG: Final report of the LDH committee, May 1990.
[19] M.P. Miles, J.L. Siles, R.H. Wagoner and K. Narasimhan, A better sheet formability test, Metall.
Trans., in print.
[-20] R.H. Wagoner, Metall. Trans., llA (1980) 165.
[21] M.P. Miles, J.L. Siles, R.H. Wagoner and K. Narasimhan, Finite-element simulation of a plane-strain
formability test, Metall. Trans., 24A (1993) 1143.
[22] M.P. Miles, K. Narasimhan, F.I. Saunders, Y.S. Suh, R.H. Wagoner and J. Siles, A better test to
evaluate sheet formability, EMTEC/CT-28/TR-92-28 final report, EMTEC, Kettering, OH, 1992.
[23] R.H. Wagoner, C.T. Wang and E. Nakamachi, Proc. First Int. SAMPE Symp. Exhibition, Tokyo,
Japan, 1989.
[24] Y.T. Keum, C.T. Wang and R.H. Wagoner, SHEET-S (Version 2.0): Industrial trials and user's guide,
Report no. ERC/NSM-S-90-09, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 1990.
[25] M.J. Saran and R.H. Wagoner, in: Near Net Shape Manufacturing for the Automobile Industry, ASM,
Detroit, MI, 1990, p. 160.