Journal of Materials Processing Technology 112 (2001) 174±184

Statistical evaluation of the uncertainty of experimentally

characterised forming limits of sheet steel
Koen Janssensa,*, Frouke Lambertb, So®e Vanrostenberghec, Michel Vermeulenc
a
Institut fur Umformtechnik, ETH Zentrum/CLA, Tannenstrasse 3, CH-8092 ZuÈrich, Switzerland
b
SIDMAR (ARBED group), Kennedylaan 51, B-9042 Gent, Belgium
c
OCAS (ARBED group), Kennedylaan 3, B-9060 Zelzate, Belgium
Received 7 May 2000; received in revised form 7 November 2000; accepted 27 November 2000

Abstract

The experimental measurement of forming limit curves (FLCs) has become common practice in the process of evaluating the formability
of sheet steel and other sheet metals. In spite of the considerable amount of time researchers have spent on the subject of FLCs, the question
regarding the accuracy and precision with which a forming limit can be determined experimentally still has not been suf®ciently analysed.
The objective of the current work is to evaluate the intrinsic precision of the experimental procedure. The results of the present work give a
reliable estimate of the (precision wise) uncertainty on the locus of an FLC. In addition, an alternative approach for interpreting the results
of a forming limit characterisation experiment is evaluated. The new approach is a ®rst attempt to capture the expected tendency of a
material to deform along different but linear strain paths for the same geometrical boundary conditions for different sheet steel grades.
# 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Forming limit curve; Sheet metal forming; Steel; Deep drawing; Statistical analysis

1. Introduction
The experimental measurement of forming limit curves
(FLCs) has become common practice in the process of
evaluating the formability of sheet steel and other sheet
metals. Methods like those proposed by Nakazima and
Marciniak [1] are frequently used and, to some level, always
seem to lead to an FLC, which can be used to analyse deep
drawing operations from a material's point of view.
However, in spite of the considerable amount of time
researchers have spent on the subject of FLCs, e.g. [2±7] and
references therein, today the question regarding the accuracy
and precision with which a forming limit can be determined
experimentally still has not been suf®ciently analysed.
The expressions ``accuracy'' and ``precision'' are used in
this paper as de®ned in Fig. 1. The accuracy of the experi-
mental determination of an FLC is a complex matter to
analyse as it depends largely on the experimental procedure
used to obtain the curve. This is mostly due to the fact that
FLCs are determined in technological experimental set-ups,
technological in the sense that the experiments involve not
only the material but also boundary conditions like friction
and differences in strain path from one experimental set-up
*
Corresponding author.
geometry to another. The work reported here does not treat
the accuracy of the experimental determination of FLCs.
The objective of the current work is to evaluate the
intrinsic precision of the experimental procedure as it has
been used by the authors for several years. The approach
used for the current investigation is to submit the same
material several times to a part of the total procedure which
is normally used to determine the FLC, thereby obtaining
some statistical data on the precision of the procedure, and at
the same time excluding the material variations themselves
as much as possible.
The results of the present work give a reliable estimate of
the (precision wise) uncertainty on the locus of an FLC.
Given the result that the observed uncertainty is rather large,
instead of using FLCs, the concept of forming limit bands
(FLBs) is put forward, which is a more reliable tool in the
evaluation of the formability of sheet steel. This concept is
not new in itself, as it is the approach introduced originally
by Keeler, Goodwin and others (see [8] and references
therein).
In addition, an alternative approach for interpreting the
results of a forming limit characterisation experiment is
evaluated. The argument for introducing this new method is
that when using only the locus of the FLC, one discards a
signi®cant amount of data available from the experimental

0924-0136/01/$ ± see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 4 - 0 1 3 6 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 8 9 0 - 6
 K. Janssens et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 112 (2001) 174±184
Fig. 1. Accuracy and precision de®ned.
measurements, i.e. the expected tendency to deform along
different strain paths for the same geometrical boundary
conditions for different sheet steel grades. The new approach
is a ®rst attempt to capture this data, with the objective to use
the information in the analysis of deep drawing processes
from a materials point of view. The conclusions drawn from
the observations made here are however not as expected.
They suggest that strain path direction is depending on the
Lankford parameter up to some transition value. For
r > rtransition , the strain path direction remains constant.
2. Problem description
A substantial amount of measurements, characterising the
forming limits of different steel grades, have been performed
by the authors.
When observing the FLCs that have been collected so far,
two important problems are found
 The scatter observed in the data is important.
 The FLCs are very similar for the different steel grades.
The combination of both of these observations implies
that one may not be able to differentiate between the forming
Fig. 2. The Nakazima (left) and Marciniak (right) tools.
175
limits of different steel grades in a statistically reliable way.
Given the high cost of characterisation of the forming limits
of sheet material, this would imply a lot of effort put into a
procedure resulting in data with poor signi®cance.
The objective of the current work is to evaluate the
precision of the experimental procedure using a statistical
approach.
3. Experimental procedure and material parameters
3.1. Experimental conditions
In order to determine the experimental FLC two methods
are used: Marciniak and Nakazima. The difference between
two methods is the punch and sample geometry and the
friction conditions between the punch and the sample.
Both tests, schematically shown in Fig. 2, were performed
on a hydraulic press LVD-HPD160 (160 t capacity). The
Nakazima tool has a hemispherical punch with diameter
160 mm, while the Marciniak tool has a cylindrical, ¯at
punch with diameter 120 mm. The lower blank holder plate
of both tool systems is provided with teeth to prohibit
material ¯ow under the blank holder plate.
To determine the forming limit in different forming
modes Ð deep drawing, plane strain and stretching Ð
the width of the sample is varied. A square grid
…2:5  2:5 mm2 † is applied on all samples by electrochemi-
cal etching. This etching is performed on the sheet side that
is not in contact with the tool, implying it has no in¯uence on
the friction conditions during the process.
Each sample is formed with a speed of 2 mm/s. The
movement of the sheet material between the plates is
blocked during the test by using a suf®ciently high blank
holder force.
To restrict the in¯uence of friction and to induce failure in
the middle of the sample and not at the edges, friction
between the punch and the sample is minimised. In the case
of a Nakazima test, a combination of PTFE foil (0.1 mm)
and viscous oil (Tizinol FG2-Fuchs) is used between the
176 K. Janssens et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 112 (2001) 174±184

Fig. 3. Example of Nakazima sample (left) and the Bragard method to determine necking limit of the material.

sample and the punch. In the case of a Marciniak test, a
spacer with a hole in the middle (diameter 35 or 50 mm) is
put between sample and punch.
3.2. Measurements and interpretation of results
After deformation, strains are measured along a line
perpendicular to the crack or local neck. The strain level
is evaluated in ®ve squares at both sides of the crack,
resulting in values for the major and minor strain compo-
nents.
In order to obtain the points of the FLC, the method of
Bragard [9] is used. For each sample, a parabolic curve is
®tted through the values obtained for the major strain, as
illustrated in Fig. 3.
The maximum value of the parabola returns the limiting
value of the major strain for local necking. The correspond-
ing value for the minor strain component is taken from the

Fig. 4. Example of the result of an FLC.

 K. Janssens et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 112 (2001) 174±184 177

same position as the maximum of the parabola through

calculation of the mean value of the two neighbouring
points. This procedure is performed for every sample width
used, and ultimately results in a set of points describing the
FLC, as illustrated in Fig. 4.

4. Material properties

Table 1 shows the mechanical properties of the steel

grades used for the experiments reported on here. Two
different steel grades have been selected: DC04 and
Fig. 5. Construction of a ``reference'' FLC, consisting of two straight
DC06. These steel are commonly implemented in the auto-
lines, for the statistical analysis of the experimental data.
motive industry for the construction of car bodies. The DC04
steel grade is implemented for parts with normal deep
drawing complexity, while the DC06 grade is a highly deep to deep drawing mode and the points measured in plane
drawable grade which is implemented for parts with high strain mode. The crossing of this line with the vertical
deep drawing complexity. axis is assumed equal to the FLD0 value (which occurs
close to the data set at a sample width of 180 mm).
Subsequently a straight line is drawn through the FLD0
5. Design of experiment locus and the averages of the data sets in the left and
right quadrant of the FLD. The result is an FLC
In order to obtain an estimate of the uncertainty on the consisting of two straight lines, as shown in Fig. 5.
locus of the FLC, two different steel grades (mild steels, 2. For each point in a data set, the deviation from the
deep drawing quality) are both put through the experimental average locus is calculated as the distance to the
procedure for three selected sample widths. More precisely reference FLC, measured perpendicularly to the direc-
for each material, three sample widths were selected, for each tion of the latter (Fig. 6). The reason for measuring the
of which 10 samples were analysed, thus resulting in a total deviation perpendicular to the reference curve is related
set of 60 samples. The argument for limiting the experi-
mental design to only three sample widths is limiting the total
time of the evaluation to an acceptable level. The selected
sample widths are 60, 180 and 300 mm, aiming at the left,
middle and right areas of a forming limit diagram (FLD).
Given this straightforward design of experiment, the locus
of the FLC for the given material and sample width is
estimated based on a data set of 10 experimental measure-
ments. The estimate of the locus at this point is approxi-
mated by the average of the data set.
In order to obtain an estimate of the population spread, the
following approach is used
1. A ``reference'' FLC is constructed as follows: a straight
line is drawn through the averages of the points closest Fig. 6. The data noise is measured perpendicular to the reference FLC.

Table 1
Steel grades used in the experiments and their mechanical properties

Yield point, Strength, Strain at rupture, Lankford Work

Rp (MPa) Rm (MPa) A80 (Eng%) parameter, r hardening, n

DC04 …t ˆ 0:77 mm†

08 219 363 38 1.43 0.198
908 224 367 35 1.54 0.196
458 232 379 33 0.87 0.190
DC06 …t ˆ 0:80 mm†
08 109 270 53 2.24 0.261
908 107 264 47 2.37 0.252
458 112 280 47 1.48 0.241
178 K. Janssens et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 112 (2001) 174±184

to the instability of the process of local necking of a where m equals 1, 2 or 3 for a confidence interval of 68,
material, i.e. the same sample width may lead to 95 and 99% on the exact location of the FLC locus.
different values for major and minor strains at necking,
but the results tend to spread more along the curve than
perpendicular to the curve. Using the described pro- 6. Results and discussion
cedure allows a better estimate of the locus of the FLC.
3. An estimate of the precision factor of the uncertainty of The raw data can be found in Table 2, and is depicted on
the locus of the curve at each data set is then constructed an FLD in Fig. 7. All data except one point for the DC04
as follows: grade has been accepted without further investigation. The
one point which is observed in the biaxial strain mode at
 s of the experimental measurements is approximated by
e2 ˆ 0:41 and e1 ˆ 0:44 seemed abnormally high at ®rst
the standard deviation s of the data set, calculated accord-
sight. Further investigation however showed that the
ing to the method described above.
increased deviation is entirely inherent to the method of
 The locus is approximated by the average of a data set.
strain measurement implemented and/or the irregularity of
This data set is limited to 10 points, thus a confidence
the rupture pattern, which is frequently observed for this
interval on this approximation should be calculated
sample width and thus cannot be considered anomalous.
using a correction factor ta,n according to the Student
Using this data and the approach described in Section 5,
t-distribution, resulting in the following formula:
the results given in Table 3 and depicted in Fig. 8 are
ta;n 1 s obtained when analysing the uncertainty on a per data set
p (1)
n 1 (10 samples) basis, i.e. the width of the FLB is varied locally
according to the z-values observed locally for each data set.
with a the confidence level, n the number of samples in a
As can be seen in Fig. 8, this leads to an increase of the
data set, and s estimated by the standard deviation s of the
uncertainty on the FLC locus from the deep drawing to the
data set.
stretching quadrant of the FLD. This is no surprise since
 In addition, an uncertainty exists on the estimate of s by
samples rupture in a more irregular fashion in the stretching
the standard deviation s of the data set. For a confidence
mode than they do in the deep drawing mode. Some
level of a this is given by the following formula using the
examples of samples are shown in Figs. 9 and 10.
w-squared distribution:
v However, as only 10 samples per deformation path have
u ! been used, and the advised minimum for a statistically sound
u 1 1
t…n 1†s2 (2) analysis is about 30 samples, the signi®cance of the trend
w2a=2;n 1 w21 a=2;n 1 shown is very small. In addition, when looking at other data
sets from earlier experimental work, this trend is not con-
 An estimate of the global precision z on the position of the ®rmed.
FLC at the data set is then given by An alternative approach is to disregard any dependency of
v
! the uncertainty to the minor strain, and to evaluate the global
u
u 2
ta;n 1s
2
1 1 uncertainty of the FLC locus by grouping all the data sets
t 2
zˆm s ‡ ‡ …n 1†s 2
n 1 w2a=2;n 1 w21 a=2;n 1 into a single one. This global data set, containing 60
samples, leads to a statistically much more reliable analysis.
(3) Using the procedure as described in Section 6, one obtains

Table 2
The true strain at local necking for the different sample widths for both steel grades, as determined using the Bragard method [9]

Grade DC04 077 Grade DC06 080

60 mm 180 mm 300 mm 60 mm 180 mm 300 mm

e2 e1 e2 e1 e2 e1 e2 e1 e2 e1 e2 e1
0.275 0.5 0.04 0.3 0.3 0.33 0.41 0.675 0.04 0.385 0.315 0.38
0.31 0.51 0.03 0.31 0.31 0.34 0.43 0.66 0.01 0.36 0.34 0.36
0.29 0.5 0.04 0.305 0.32 0.365 0.41 0.675 0.03 0.38 0.33 0.36
0.25 0.455 0.05 0.295 0.3 0.325 0.4 0.67 0.045 0.385 0.375 0.4
0.25 0.465 0.04 0.31 0.32 0.35 0.41 0.66 0.055 0.375 0.31 0.375
0.31 0.505 0.045 0.305 0.32 0.36 0.42 0.68 0.015 0.38 0.31 0.39
0.295 0.505 0.03 0.27 0.32 0.365 0.38 0.625 0.04 0.37 0.335 0.37
0.31 0.495 0.01 0.29 0.335 0.365 0.425 0.665 0.04 0.41 0.345 0.37
0.26 0.465 0.04 0.295 0.32 0.365 0.42 0.675 0.03 0.385 0.365 0.395
0.3 0.5 0.04 0.31 0.41 0.44 0.44 0.675 0.025 0.385 0.365 0.39
 Fig. 7. Experimental results for the DC04 and DC06 grade in an FLD.

Table 3
Estimated precision as derived for each of the data sets

DC04 DC06

60 mm 180 mm 300 mm 60 mm 180 mm 300 mm

Estimate of FLC locus (e2, e1(%)) 29, 49 4, 30 33, 36 42, 67 3, 38 34, 38

Estimate of z at confidence level (% true strain!)
95% 0.8 1.1 3.1 0.7 1.3 1.2
99% 1.1 1.3 3.9 0.9 1.6 1.5
FLB width at confidence level (% true strain!)
95% 3.3 4.2 12.3 2.9 5.1 4.8
99% 6.4 8.0 23.5 5.4 9.7 9.1

Fig. 8. FLBs for indicated con®dence levels, based on local data set uncertainty estimates.
180 K. Janssens et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 112 (2001) 174±184

Fig. 9. Example of Nakazima samples.

Fig. 10. Example of Marciniak samples.

an FLB width of about 7%, true strain at a con®dence level
of 99%. It is exactly this band width which has been used in
drawing the FLBs as shown in Fig. 8. The results shown in
Fig. 8 clearly indicate that for the given number of samples
per sample width, it is possible to discriminate DC04 from
DC06 in the deep drawing and the plane strain modes, and
that both grades are proven nearly equally formable in the
pure stretching mode.
The evolution of the width of the FLB as a function of the
total number of samples used in the experimental procedure
can be estimated from the current data using Eq. (3). The
resulting curve is depicted in Fig. 11. A plausible conclusion

Fig. 11. The evolution of the width of the FLB as a function of the total number of samples used in the experimental procedure.
 K. Janssens et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 112 (2001) 174±184
from this ®gure is that, in order to limit the uncertainty to an
acceptable level, at least 20 samples should be included in
the experimental procedure. Furthermore, one can also see
that the uncertainty would not decrease substantially when
one would increase the number of samples to even higher
volumes.
7. New interpretation approach of FLC experiments
The results presented in Section 6 prove that one has to
perform a substantial amount of experiments in order to
discriminate the FLBs of improved deep drawing steel
grades like DC06 and standard deep drawing grades like
DC04, even when the differences in mechanical parameters
are signi®cant as for the materials used in this work. Con-
sidering the effort that is put in FLB characterisation, the
question arises whether one can get more out of the raw data
than with the current procedure.
An alternative way of looking at the raw data, is to
evaluate the direction of the strain path as a function of
the sample width. In this context it is frequently suggested
that for different materials, not only the locus of the FLC
moves, but also the strain distribution in a formed part
is modi®ed. This is correct, as for example an increase in
work hardening rate n of the material leads to a more
homogeneous strain distribution and thus a lowering of
the strain peaks implying a decrease of potential problems
in a part. Also the Lankford parameter r is expected to have
an in¯uence on the strain distribution, i.e. higher r values
allow deeper drawing, from which one could derive that
Fig. 12. Strain clouds of DC04 and DC06 for sample widths 60, 180 and 300 mm.
181
higher r values promote deep drawing as a deformation
mode.
The question is whether such information can be extracted
from a standard Nakazima or Marciniak experiment. To ®nd
out whether this is the case, the data collected from a forming
limit experiment has to be analysed taking into account the
sample width. All the strain points measured on all of the 60
samples used in the analysis reported as in the former sec-
tions are depicted in the diagram shown in Fig. 12. Assum-
ing that the strain path is linear, every point reveals the strain
path for a speci®c location on the sample: it is the vector
starting at the origin of the FLD pointing at the data point.
To validate the assumption of linearity, the experiment has
been evaluated at different punch depths, the result of which
can be found in Fig. 13. This ®gure shows all the data points
for a 40 mm wide sample, measured at 20, 40, 60, 80 and
100% punch depth (100% is the punch position at sample
failure). The chart clearly illustrates that no deviation from
linearity can be observed. Similar experiments have been
performed for other sample widths, and none of them
revealed any deviation from the linearity assumption.
One way of looking at the data in Fig. 12 is to determine
the strain path direction as a function of the steel quality. It is
quite evident from looking at the strain clouds that no
difference in strain path direction can be observed. For all
three sample widths, the direction is the same within a few
degrees. This is not as one may expect, as higher r and thus
higher q …ˆ ewidth =elength ˆ e2 =e1 † implies that under
tensile test conditions, a more negative minor strain is
preferred to an increase of the major strain, thereby promot-
ing the deep drawing mode in the material.
182 K. Janssens et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 112 (2001) 174±184
Fig. 13. The build-up of strain in a forming limit characterisation experiment.
As this observation is not as expected, an extended
number of mild steels have been analysed to see whether
the strain path direction is varying at all. In order to be able
to manage the large amount of data involved, the strain path
direction is evaluated based on the necking limit points as
determined with the Bragard method (described in detail in
Section 4). This approach has been thoroughly evaluated and
there is no indication of systematic differences, i.e. when
evaluating the strain path direction either with the strain
cloud regression approach or with the Bragard points, the
same strain path direction is found.
Using the Bragard points, a chart is constructed as shown
in Fig. 14
 The chart shows the angle between the strain path direc-
tion and the vertical axis in the FLD as a function of
sample width. Positive angles are defined as clockwise
and drawn against the Y-axis on the right of the chart in
Fig. 14.
 The S-shaped line in the chart is a reference representing
the mean strain path direction for a DC06 grade of
thickness 0.8 mm. This ``strain path direction reference''
has been constructed based on more complete forming
limit experiments, totalling about 40 samples with dif-
ferent sample widths (ˆ extended test). Plotted along the
Y-axis on the left of the chart is the deviation of the current
experiment to this reference line.
Although the data presented in Fig. 14 show a faint
difference in the strain path direction of DC04 and DC06
grade steels, the difference is too small in comparison to the
scatter on the data to draw any decisive conclusions, i.e. one
is not able to discern a rotation of the strain path direction.
This observation is con®rmed in all other data sets we have
available, concerning a variety of steel grades (including
bake hardening, structural, high strength and stainless steel
grades).
A separate experiment was performed, comparing two
steel grades, which have exactly the same sheet thickness but
have very different mechanical properties (mild steel DC06
and micro-alloyed HSS, ZStE 420), as listed in Table 4. The
results, depicted in Fig. 15, show that a difference in strain
path is observed in the deep drawing mode, where the strain
path turns about 108 more into deep drawing mode. In plane
strain and stretching mode, there is no difference in strain
path direction.
Based on the above ®ndings, one can conclude:
 Mild steels with approximately the same thickness (ran-
ging from DC04 to DC06, with 1:5 < r90 < 2:3) seem to
show the same strain path direction, independent of their
r-value for all deformation modes.
 A micro-alloyed high strength steel with r90  0:9 does
have a strain path direction different from mild steels, but
only in deep drawing mode.
 K. Janssens et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 112 (2001) 174±184 183

Fig. 14. Strain path direction chart for DC04 and DC06 grades.

Table 4
Steel grades used in the additional experiment and their mechanical properties

Yield point, Strength, Strain at rupture, Lankford Work

Rp (MPa) Rm (MPa) A80 (Eng%) parameter, r hardening, n

ZStE 420 …t ˆ 0:91 mm†

08 280 474 27 0.59 0.139
908 392 490 26 0.87 0.143
458 384 448 33 1.50 0.142
DC06 …t ˆ 0:91 mm†
08 145 309 46 1.84 0.236
908 152 308 45 2.29 0.227
458 153 313 44 1.78 0.229

These observations suggest that there might be a transi- seems to ``saturate'' to a constant level. Further research
tion in r-value, below which the deep drawing strain on this hypothesis is necessary. It also should take into
path direction is varying with r, and in deep drawing account the in¯uence of sheet thickness. Experimental
mode only. Above this transition value, strain path direction results not presented in detail in this paper suggest that

Fig. 15. Strain path directions observed for steel grades DC06 and ZStE 420, both having a sheet thickness of 0.91 mm. A small deviation is observed in the
deep drawing mode strain path direction.
184 K. Janssens et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 112 (2001) 174±184
the dependence of the strain path on the sheet thickness is
non-linear.
8. Conclusions
The precision of a procedure to determine the FLCs of a
material has been statistically analysed. Implementation of a
procedure using 20 samples leads to an uncertainty band of
about 9% true strain wide. This estimate of uncertainty does
not include potential systematic errors. Comparison of this
conclusion to the conclusions of a ®nite element analysis of
the uncertainty on sheet materials forming limits [10] leads
to the hypothesis that most of this scatter is due to the
material behaviour and not to the experimental procedure.
The fact that the curve shown in Fig. 11 levels off asymp-
totically for higher sample sets is a con®rmation of this
hypothesis.
The strain path direction in forming limit experiments
according to the Nakazima or Marciniak procedure shows
only a small dependence on the mechanical properties of the
sheet steel. The only parameter that seems to play a sig-
ni®cant role is the sheet thickness.
In view of the uncertainty band present when character-
ising the formability of a material with the Marciniak or
Nakazima procedure, the authors of this article ®nd it more
appropriate to address this technological material property
using the denomination FLB instead of FLC.
When working with FLBs instead of FLCs, the imple-
mentation of a ``safety margin'' on the locus of the FLB is
redundant, as this is included in the characterisation proce-
dure. When using the FLB in a forming analysis of a real part
stamped in a single step, points of strain below the FLB are
99% safe, points in the FLB itself are potentially proble-
matic. Evidently, one can still judge the robustness of the
process based on the distance between the strain points
observed and the lower limit of the FLB.
References
[1] Z. Marciniak, K. Kuczynski, Limit strains in the processes of stretch
forming sheet metal, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 9 (1967) 609±620.
[2] A. Graf, W.F. Hosford, Calculations of forming limit diagrams,
Metall. Trans. A (1990) 87.
[3] A. Graf, W.F. Hosford, Calculations of forming limit diagrams for
changing strain paths, Metall. Trans. A 24 (1993) 2497.
[4] S.G. Xu, K.J. Weinmann, A. Chandra, Analysis of forming limits
using the Hill 1993 yield criterion, J. Eng. Mater. Techol. (1998)
236±241.
[5] W.M. Sing, K.P. Rao, In¯uence of material properties on sheet metal
formability limits, J. Mater. Process. Techol. (1995) 35.
[6] E.T. Till, H. Pauli, Parameters affecting forming limits in steel
sheets, in: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on
Numerical Methods in Industrial Forming Processes (NUMIFORM),
1998.
[7] S. Hiwatashi, A. VanBael, P. VanHoutte, C. Teodosiu, Prediction of
forming limit strains under strain path changes: application of an
anisotropic model based on texture and dislocation structure, Int. J.
Plasticity (1998) 647±669.
[8] S.P. Keeler, On the origins of the FLD. in: R.H. Wagoner, et al.
(Eds.), Forming Limit Diagrams: Concepts, Methods and Applica-
tions, The Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 1989.
[9] A. Bragard, et al., A simpli®ed technique to determine the FLD at the
onset of necking, Metallurgical Report, CRM No. 33, 1972.
[10] K. Narasimhan, D. Zhou, R.H. Wagoner, Application of the Monte
Carlo and ®nite element methods to predict the scatter band in
forming limit strains, Scripta Metall. Mater. (1992) 41.