Analytical and Numerical Prediction of Localized Necking in Sheet

University of New Hampshire
University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository
Doctoral Dissertations Student Scholarship
Fall 2011
Analytical and numerical prediction of localized necking in sheet

metal forming processes
Raed Zuhair Hasan
University of New Hampshire, Durham
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation
Recommended Citation
Hasan, Raed Zuhair, "Analytical and numerical prediction of localized necking in sheet metal forming
processes" (2011). Doctoral Dissertations. 625.
https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation/625
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New
Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized
administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact
Scholarly.Communication@unh.edu.
ANALYTICAL AND NUMERICAL PREDICTION OF LOCALIZED
NECKING IN SHEET METAL FORMING PROCESSES
BY
RAED ZUHAIR HASAN
Master of Science, University of Technology-Baghdad, 2001
Ph.D. Dissertation
Submitted to the University of New Hampshire
in Partial Fulfillment of
The Requirements For The Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Mechanical Engineering
September, 2011
UMI Number: 3488791
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
Dissertation Publishing
UMI 3488791
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
This dissertation has been examined and approved.
Dissertation Director, Brad Lee Kinsey,

Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering
'or [jutti (PC?

Dissertatio/i Co-Director, Igor Tsukrov,
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Robert Jerard,
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Yajmis Korkons,
Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Edmund Chu,
Technical Leader/Manager at Alcoa
T/t'/n
Date
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my parents.
"£A+Ji\ p\&\ £i*j k a i l '
L?-&"
"Heaven lies under the feet of mothers."
Hadith Nabawi
m
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Support from NSF (grant #0654124) and from Mechanical Engineering Department at
the University of New Hampshire is gratefully acknowledged.
I would like to thank my advisors Dr. Brad L. Kinsey and Dr. Igor Tsukrov for having
introduced me to the topic of sheet metal forming and numerical simulations, their
insistence on excellence, solid work ethics and endless patience enabled the successful
completion of this work.
Appreciation and gratitude are extended to Dr. Robert Jerard, Tracey Harvey and Dr.
Todd Gross the chair of the Mechanical Engineering Department for providing help and
support during my study at the University of New Hampshire.
Also, I would like to thank Dr. Edmund Chu from Alcoa for agreeing to be a member
of the examiners committee. Special thanks to Dr. Yannis Korkolis and my brother Dr.
Bessam Z. Hasan for the useful suggestions and discussions.
The last but not least thanks are reserved for my parents, my cousin, Inam and my
wife, Wijdan for the patience, encouragement and support. Thank you for all you have
done for me.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
ABSTRACT xvii
NOMENCLATURE xix
CHAPTER PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1 -1. Background Information 1
1-2. Definition of Failure In Sheet Metal Forming 2
1-3. Motivation and Problem Statement 7
1-4. Research Goals and Contributions 12
2. ANALYTICAL MODELING OF FAILURE IN SHEET METAL FORMING
14
2-1. Review of Analytical Models Based on Plastic Instability 14
2.1.1. Empirical Equations 14
2.1.2. Swift-Hill's Model 15
2.1.3. Storen-Rice Model 17
2.1.4. M-K Model and H-N Extension of M-K Model 18
2.2. Comparison of Models to Past Experimental Data 24
2.3. Stress-Based Models 34
2.3.1. Non-Incremental Effective Stress Ratio Model 34
2.3.2. Modified Effective Stress Ratio Model 37

2.3.3. Comparison Between The M-K and The Effective Stress Ratio Models 40
2.3.4. Incremental Effective Stress Ratio Model 46
2.4. Non-Incremental, Major Principal Strain Ratio Model 48
2-5. Conclusions 58
3. NUMERICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS OF KEY
ASSUMPTIONS IN ANALYTICAL FAILURE MODELS 59
3.1 Introduction 59
3.2 Methodology 60
3.2.1 Experimental Procedure 60
3.2.2 Numerical Simulations Details 66
3.3 Results 68
3.3.1 Results for M-K Model Assumption 70
3.3.2 Results for Effective Stress Ratio Model Assumption 83
3.3.3 Results for Major Strain Ratio Model Assumption 90
3.5 Conclusions 100
4. EFFECT OF ELEMENT TYPES ON FAILURE PREDICTION USING A
STRESS-BASED FORMING LIMIT CURVE 102
4-1. Introduction 102
4-2. Marciniak Test Background 103
4-3. Numerical Simulations Details 106
4-4. Element Selection Guidelines 107
4-5. Comparison Between Element Types 109
4-6. Discussion 118
VI
4-7. Conclusion 119
5. CONCLUSIONS 120
6. FUTURE WORK 123
6.1 Analytical Modeling Improvements 123
6.2 Numerical Modeling Improvements 123
6.3 Experimental Verifications 124
REFERENCES 126
APPENDIXES 136
Appendix A: M-K Model Algorithm 137
Appendix B: M-K Predictions of The Materials Presented In Table 2.1 153
Appendix C: Modified Effective Stress Ratio Model Algorithm 161
Appendix D: Strain To Stress Conversion Methodology 164
vn
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Data of materials used in analyses
Table 2.2: Material models, f0 values and F-parameters determined
Table 3.1: Mechanical properties of AISI1018 used
Table 4.1: Seven specimen and washer dimensions used
Table 4.2: Number of nodes and elements in FEA models
Table 4.3: True stress and strain components values reported at crossing
paths with the experimental stress-based FLC
vm
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Examples of automotive industry applications 1
Figure 1.2: Strain-based forming limit diagram (FLD) 3
Figure 1.3: Forming Limit Curves (FLCs) for various sheet metals 3
Figure 1.4: Forming and fracture limit curves for AA5154-0 5
Figure 1.5: Fracture types during sheet forming 6
Figure 1.6: Formability window 7
Figure 1.7: Forming limit diagram with different stain paths 8
Figure 1.8: Strain-based FLCs for various uniaxial (U), equi-biaxial (E), and plane strain
(P) prestrains induced longitudinal (L) and transverse (T) to the major strain direction 8
Figure 1.9: Eleven strain-based FLCs from Graf and Hosford degenerate to one curve in
stress space when analytically converted using Barlat's 1989 yield criterion 10
Figure 1.2: Schematic of M-K model with reduced thickness in defect region (B)
compared to safe region (A) 19
Figure 2.2: Dependence of strain ratio on the defect orientation during localized necking
20
Figure 2.3: Schematic of M-K model with varying orientation of the defect (9) 21
Figure 2.4: Effect of changing 6 on FLC predictions for AA2008-T4 22
Figure 2.5: Predictions of FLC for HC220YD Steel (1) using different analytical models
26
Figure 2.6: Predictions of FLC for AA2008-T4 using different analytical models 27
ix
Figure 2.7: Example of strain-based FLC predicted using M-K model for AA2008-T4 28
Figure 2.8: Effect of changing / „ values on the FLC prediction of AA2008-T4 29
Figure 2.9: f0 values from M-K model that provide the best fit for the experimental data
29
Figure 2.10: Example of stress-based FLC predicted using M-K model for AA2008-T4
31
Figure 2.11: Average F- for p > 0 obtained from M-K model that provides the best fit
for the experimental data 32
Figure 2.12: Effect of changing strain path and the yield criteria on the F- parameter
using the modified M-K model and Al 2008-T4 alloy data 32
Figure 2.13: Effect of changing strain path on theF- parameter for different materials
33
Figure 2.14: F- parameter versus normalized depth at failure obtained from M-K model
33
Figure 2.15: Effective stress ratio model diagram 34
Figure 2.16: Methodology to increment OIA guess to determine a failure point on the
stress-based FLC 37
Figure 2.17: Effective stress ratio model results for Al 2008-T4 alloy with two yield
criteria 38
Figure 2.18: Effect of adding a concentrated stress region orientation {9 ) on the FLC
generated by the effective stress ratio model 39

Figure 2.19: Effect of adding a concentrated stress region orientation (0 ) on the stress-
based FLC generated by the effective stress ratio model 39
Figure 2.20: Comparison of perpendicular defect orientation (i.e., 0 = 0), Hill's equation
and au maximum method on the negative minor strain side of the FLC 40
Figure 2.21: Schematic of analysis methodologies in M-K and effective stress ratio
models 41
Figure 2.22: Comparison between the strain FLC prediction from M-K and the effective
stress ratio models for Al 2008-T4 43
Figure 2.23: Comparison between the stress FLC prediction from M-K and the effective
stress ratio models for Al 2008-T4 44
Figure 2.24: Strain paths from the incremental effective stress ratio model without
assuming compatibility 48
Figure 2.25: Least square slope ofF^j values obtained from M-K model that provides
the best fit for the experimental data 49
Figure 2.26: Linear fit of major principal strain data in the safe (A) and defect (B)
regions obtained from the M-K model for HC220YD Steel (1) 50
regions obtained from the M-K model for AA2008-T4 50
Figure 2.28: Comparison between forming limit stress diagrams obtained from M-K
model and the major principal strain ratio (MPSR) model for AA2008-T4 53
Figure 2.29: Comparison between FLC obtained from M-K model and the major
principal strain ratio (MPSR) model with varying yield function for AA2008-T4 54
XI
principal strain ratio (MPSR) model with varying 8 for AA2008-T4 56
principal strain ratio (MPSR) model with varying imperfection factor f0 for AA2008-T4
57
principal strain ratio (MPSR) model with varying the major strain concentration factor
Fs] for AA2008-T4 57
Figure 3.1: Representation of main groups of geometries for the Raghavan modification
to Marciniak test 60
Figure 3.2: Contour plot for locating X- and Y- axis on the specimen 61
Figure 3.3: Example of a grid of extracted nodes on the specimen 62
Figure 3.4: Strain paths varying from uniaxial to balanced biaxial cases for the various
specimen types 62
Figure 3.5: Tensile test data for AISI1018 used 65
Figure 3.6: AISI1018 hardening curves 67
Figure 3.7: Numerical simulated stress paths varying from uniaxial to balanced biaxial
cases for the various specimen types 69
ds
Figure 3.8: Initial Strain Path ( p = — - ) versus Forming Depth at Failure 69
dsx
Figure 3.9: Numerical and experimental contour plots of major true strain for Type 1-1
specimens 71
xn
Figure 3.10: Numerical and experimental contour plots of major true strain for Type II-2
specimens 72
specimens 73
Figure 3.12: Numerical and experimental contour plots of major true strain for Type IV
specimens 74
Figure 3.13: Strain path curves for the defect node and different locations away in the X-
direction for Type 1-1 specimens 76
direction for Type II-2 specimens 77
direction for Type II-3 specimens 78
direction for Type IV specimens 79
Figure 3.17: Incremental major strain ratios versus forming depth for Type 1-1 specimen
81
Figure 3.18: Incremental major strain ratios versus forming depth for Type II-2 specimen
81
82
Figure 3.20: Incremental major strain ratios versus forming depth for Type IV specimen
82
xni
Figure 3.21: Initial strain path versus incremental major strain ratio directly before
failure 83
Figure 3.22: Critical stress concentration factor (i.e.,F- parameter) versus the X-
direction location for Type 1-1 specimens at various distances from failure 85
Figure 3.23: Critical stress concentration factor (i.e.,F- parameter) versus the X-
direction location for Type II-2 specimens at various distances from failure 86
Figure 3.24: Critical stress concentration factor (i.e., F- parameter) versus the X-
Figure 3.25: Critical stress concentration factor (i.e.,/7- parameter) versus the X-
direction location for Type IV specimens at various distances from failure 88
Figure 3.26: F- parameter versus distance from the defect node in the X-direction for
different specimen types 89
Figure 3.27: Critical stress concentration factor versus initial strain path for both
experimental data (Exp) and numerical simulation (FEA) 90
Figure 3.28: Critical major strain concentration factor (i.e., Fc parameter) versus the X-
direction location for Type 1-1 specimens at various distances from failure 92
Figure 3.29: Critical major strain concentration factor (i.e., Fe parameter) versus the X-
Figure 3.30: Critical major strain concentration factor (i.e., F£ parameter) versus the X-
Figure 3.31: Critical major strain concentration factor (i.e., Fe parameter) versus the X-
direction location for Type IV specimens at various distances from failure 95
Figure 3.32: Fe parameter versus distance from the defect node in the X-direction for
different specimen types 96
Figure 3.33: Critical major strain concentration factor versus initial strain path for both
experimental data (Exp) and numerical simulation (FEA) 97
Figure 4.1: Modified Marciniak test tooling 104
Figure 4.2: Specimen and washer geometry types 105
Figure 4.3: FEA model showing the punch, die, locking ring and specimen 107
Figure 4.4: Boundary Conditions used in the FEA model for Type I specimen 108
Figure 4.5: Stain paths generated using the three element types with the experimental
Forming Limit Curve 113
Figure 4.6: Stress paths generated using the three element types with the experimental
stress-based FLC 114
Figure 4.7: FLC generated using the three element types with the experimental FLC 114
Figure 4.8: Punch displacements at failure versus the strain ratio for seven specimen
types 115
Figure 4.9: Location of the imperfection added to the mesh for specimen Type III-2 115
Figure 4.10: Effect of imperfection thickness (shell element) for specimen Type III-2
117
Figure 4.11: Location of failure for specimen Type III-2 117
Figure 6.1: Biaxial testing apparatus 125
Figure A.1: Original M-K model flowchart for a single deformation path 144-145
xv
Figure A.2: The modified M-K model with the transverse direction t parallel to the
defect and the normal direction n perpendicular to the defect 147
Figure B.l: M-K prediction of FLC for HC220YD Steel (1) 153
Figure B.2: M-K prediction of stresses at failure for HC220YD Steel (1) 153
Figure B.3: M-K prediction of FLC for HC220YD Steel (2) 154
Figure B.4: M-K prediction of stresses at failure for HC220YD Steel (2) 154
Figure B.5: M-K prediction of FLC for AK Steel (2) 155
Figure B.6: M-K prediction of stresses at failure for AK Steel (2) 155
Figure B.7: M-K prediction of FLC for AISI 304 SS 156
Figure B.8: M-K prediction of stresses at failure for AISI 304 SS 156
Figure B.9: M-K prediction of FLC for AA2008-T4 157
Figure B.10: M-K prediction of stresses at failure for AA2008-T4 157
Figure B. 11: M-K prediction of FLC for AA5182 158
Figure B.12: M-K prediction of stresses at failure for AA5182 158
xvi
ABSTRACT
ANALYTICAL AND NUMERICAL PREDICTION OF LOCALIZED
NECKING IN SHEET METAL FORMING PROCESSES
By
Raed Z. Hasan
University of New Hampshire, September, 2011
The goal of this research is to investigate, develop and validate analytical and
numerical tools that can accurately predict failure in sheet metal forming operations. The
strain-based forming limit curve (FLC) is one of the tools to predict the maximum
permissible strains of thin metallic sheets which are loaded in the plane of the sheet to
different states of stress. It may be used to assess forming operations in the press shops as
well as unintentional deformations, such as vehicle, aircraft, or train crashes. The
accurate prediction of failure in sheet metal stamping can shorten product lead times,
decrease tooling costs, and allow for overall more rigorous and robust designs. In the
present work, three main analytical models are discussed: the modified Marciniak and
Kuczynski (M-K) model which included a varying defect orientation with respect to the
principal stress directions, the effective stress ratio model and the major strain ratio
model. The M-K predictions of the FLC are demonstrated with several yield criteria for
eight different materials. Furthermore, the stress-based FLC theory of the effective stress
ratio model is described, and its extension to include varying defect orientation is
xvii
presented. Also the original non-incremental FLC theory of the major strain ratio model
is presented, and its extension to include varying defect orientation is described. In
addition, numerical and experimental data are used to investigate the key assumption of
the three analytical models and the results show that the parameters investigated to
predict failure (i.e., the incremental strain ratio, critical stress concentration factor and
critical strain concentration factor) were not constant for the various strain paths for three
analytical models considered. Finally, finite element analysis (FEA) is used to predict the
FLC with a stress-based failure criterion and a comparison between three different
element types (shell, solid and solid-shell) is investigated in detail. The numerical results
show that despite the differences in stress distribution assumptions, shell, solid and solid-
shell elements would not provide differences in failure prediction for the uniform, in-
plane stretching states examined when a stress-based failure criterion is used.
xvm
NOMENCLATURE
ava2,(7^ Principal Stresses (MPa)
eve2,e3 Principal Strains
m Strain Rate Sensitivity Exponent
n Strain Hardening Exponent
K Strength Coefficient (MPa)
& Effective Stress (MPa)
£ Effective Strain
s Strain Rate
g Effective Strain Rate
ds. Ratio of Incremental Minor Strain to Incremental Major

dex
Strain
<T 2 Ratio of Principal Stresses

a =
a
t
l
Initial Thickness of The Safe Region (mm)
0A
t Initial Thickness of Defect (mm)
f _ OB
Initial Thickness Ratio
Jo —~
*0A
tB Instantaneous Thickness Ratio

tA
Higher Order Yield Criterion Index, (For BCC Materials
a=6 and For FCC Materials a=8)
xix
Plastic Anisotropy Ratio
Plastic Anisotropic Ratio in Rolling Direction
Plastic Anisotropic Ratio Transverse to Rolling
Direction
Average Plastic Anisotropic Ratio
Ratio of Effective Stress to Major Stress
Ratio of Incremental Effective Strain to Incremental
Major Strain
Barlat's Yield Function Parameters
Defect Orientation
Critical Stress Concentration Factor
Critical Major Strain Concentration Factor
Linear Tolerance In Major Strain Ratio Model
xx
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1-1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Sheet metal forming operations are among the most useful mass production operations
in metal forming due to low costs and the existence of sheet materials with excellent
strength-to-weight ratios. These processes account for a sizable proportion of the
manufactured goods made in industrialized countries each year. For example, American
can manufacturers produce about 130 billion aluminum beverage cans annually,
equivalent to one can per American per day [1]. In automotive applications, deep drawing
and bending are among the most frequently employed operations. They are widely
utilized for the forming of outer panel and inner structural members (see Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1: Examples of automotive applications [2]
1
To increase the performance of the manufactured products and address environmental
concerns, more and more light weight and high strength materials have been used as a
substitute for conventional steel. These materials usually have limited formability. Thus,
a thorough understanding of the deformation mechanisms and the factors limiting the
forming of defect-free parts is essential, not only from a scientific or engineering
viewpoint, but also from an economic viewpoint.
In sheet metal forming operations, the amount of useful deformation is limited by the
occurrence of necking or plastic instability which takes the form of diffuse or localized
necking. Traditionally, necking in sheet metal forming is predicted to occur if the in-
plane principal strains fall above the associated strain-based Forming Limit Curve (FLC)
when plotted in strain space [3]. The FLC is defined as the connection of all points which
mark the onset of instability for a sequence of strain paths. Figure 1.2 shows a typical
strain-based FLC with "Fail" and "Safe" regions labeled. This Forming Limit Diagram
(FLD) was generated experimentally after testing of several specimens. The strains at a
given location in the material would be compared to the FLC to determine if failure is a
concern. Different sheet metals have different FLCs, for example see Figure 1.3 [1].
1-2. DEFINITION OF FAILURE IN SHEET METAL FORMING
There are three major failure modes in sheet metal forming processes, i.e., localized
necking, wrinkling and rupture/fracture [2, 4, 5]. Localized necking results from
excessive in-plane stretching which leads to plastic instability. The necking area aligns
with the direction of zero extension in the plane of the sheet and would then proceed to
tearing. Necking can be predicted by comparing the principal in-plane strain components
2
with strain-based FLCs. If the imposed strain components are above FLC, then the
material is expected to fail.
1 On
o safety
09- T crack or neck
T
v
08- •
fUjk"'
07- e° \ -\ j \
c 9>\ T : Fail Region „o^
're § o\ T ] ^~15v
•fe ° 6 '
d) ^^ \ 1. jT
S 05-
! O-
•§• 0 4 -
Y Safe Region
03-
02-
01-
n A_
-0 5 -04 -03 -02 -01 0 0 01 02 03 04 05
Minor true strain
Figure 1.2: Strain-based Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) [2]
Plane strain
Equal (balanced)
biaxial
Low-carbon
Failure steel
zone^-^-ss^-^Brass
High-strength
40
20
V steel
/Aluminum alloy
60
. Simple \ x \
tension
0 (forJ?= 1)
40 20
HiZ
0
* /
20
j _
40
Safe zone
_L
60 80
Minor strain (%)
Figure 1.3: Forming Limit Curves (FLCs) for various sheet metals [1]
3
Wrinkling is the result of compressive loading and/or unsupported material. For
example in a typical drawing process, restraining forces are applied to the blank through
frictional forces between the tooling and the blank, by the binder ring and punch
geometries; and/or through a bending/unbending force imposed by drawbeads. Such
restraining forces determine how the material flows and consequently the stress states in
the sheet. When in-plane compressive stress exists in the sheet, wrinkling could initiate in
the formed wall region where the blank is free of a normal constraint or in the flange area
where a pressure is imposed onto the sheet by the binder. The wrinkling tendency is
affected by elastic modulus, sheet thickness, blankholder forces and tooling [2, 4].
Shear fracture often results from intense localization of strain on planes of maximum
shear in the root of the localized neck. The strain at fracture, ef , is a material property. It
is possible to measure these fracture strains and plot them on an in-plane strain diagram
similar to the FLD. If the fracture strain for the material exceeds the strain at which the
local neck reaches plane strain, it does not influence the limit strains. If, however, the
fracture occurs before plane strain-necking, it reduces the forming limit. This is
illustrated in Figure 1.4 from LeRoy and Embury [6], which shows that in biaxial
tension, the limit strain in an aluminum alloy is governed by fracture rather than by local
necking.
Ductile fractures are another common fracture type in sheet metal forming processes
(see Figure 1.5) [2, 4, 5]. Ductile fractures are characterized by high deformation before
fracture. Stresses above the yield strength will in ductile materials result in plastic
deformation due to atomic lattice gliding and mobility/generation of dislocations. The
first phase of the plastic deformation will occur for the most part uniformly without
4
localized necking. Microvoids will be created and joined as the deformation process
progresses. Eventually the loading will be such that a localized neck will develop due to a
defect at a specific location in the material. Finally, triaxial stresses develop and result in
a cleavage fracture.
Figure 1.4: Forming and fracture limit curves for AA5154-0 [6]
There are two types of ductile fractures on a macroscopic scale:
• Flat-face tensile fracture
• Shear-face tensile fracture
Flat-face tensile fracture is a fracture normal to the largest tensile stress and with a
shear lip to the free surface. Shear-face tensile fracture is a fracture 45° to the surface.
5
Face-centered cubic (FCC) metals like austenitic stainless steels (e.g., AISI 316) and pure
aluminum are ductile due to the significant number of slip systems (e.g., 12). Body-
centered cubic (BCC) metals like ferritic steels also have a significant number of slip
systems (e.g., 12). Hexagonal close-packed (HCP) metals like magnesium have only
three slip systems and normally exhibit a brittle behavior [2].
Figure 1.5: Fracture types during sheet forming [2]
Based on the modes of failure mentioned above, the concept of a formability window
was first proposed and developed by Marciniak and Duncan [5]. A robust stamping
process is one in which the strains in the part lie well within the formability window as
shown in Figure 1.6. The nature of the window and the influence of material behavior on
its shape can be predicted [2, 5]. In this dissertation, the focus will be on the prediction
of localized necking and plastic instability.
6
Fracture Tearing
Fracture
f&
/ Forming
window
Wrinkling/* WL
•c£—xm— ~qpr,»
1
->f 2
Compression
Figure 1.6: Formability window [5]
1-3. MOTIVATION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT
The experimental determination of a complete FLD as the one shown in Figure 1.2
can require several tests to be performed with various specimen geometries to vary the
strain paths (ratio of minor strain to major strain) from uniaxial to biaxial stretching as
shown in Figure 1.7. In-plane strains must be measured during each experiment using
Circle Grid Analysis (CGA) or Digital Image Correlation DIC systems. Strain
measurements by CGA are error prone and take a long time to be completed successfully.
While strain measurements by DIC require calibrations and require an expensive system.
A major concern with the strain-based failure approach is that the FLCs exhibit
significant strain path dependence. During forming of complex geometries, sheet
materials often undergo a series of operations before the final part is produced. Each step
in the process changes the strain path induced in the material at a given location, thus
7
shifting and changing the shape of the strain-based FLC. Figure 1.8 shows the significant
effect that prestrain has on the FLCs of AA 2008-T4 [7].
%=•-«
<0
S
ô 0 Forming
Limit
Curve
E, = %
o
/*Y^V. \lfc
5ft
^ \ >J%
\J ^n* &
n
8?
Ax \
w <4r
« +
Minor Strata, 6j
Figure 1.7: Forming limit diagram with different stain paths [2]
04
03-
c
s NO PRESTRAIN
55
PT
| 02
l-
01 -
-02 -0 1 0 01 02 03 04
Minor True Strain
Figure 1.8: Strain-based FLCs for various uniaxial (U), equi-biaxial (E), and plane strain
(P) prestrains induced longitudinal (L) and transverse (T) to the major strain direction [7]
Marciniak and Kuczynski [8] developed an analytical model to predict these diagrams
without the use of significant experiments. By imposing conditions on strain along with
an imposed material defect, a strain-based FLC is obtained. This model has been shown
to match experimental data for the positive minor strain side of FLD with reasonable
agreement. The curves created by this analytical approach are not surprisingly affected by
changes in material parameters and plasticity models [8]. The M-K model also accurately
captures the effects of prestrain on the location and shape of the FLC [9].
Other research has shown that the strain-based FLD can be used in FEM analyses to
predict tearing concerns in numerical simulations when multiple strain paths are present
[10]. However, computation time increased significantly as the strain paths for each
element must be considered and M-K analyses performed in order to accurately predict
failure. These methods prove to be very complex when designing a forming process with
multiple operations.
An alternative to the strain-based FLD is one that is based on the stresses in the
material. Stoughton [11] analytically converted the curves from Graf and Hosford [7] to
stress space and showed that a stress-based FLD is less sensitive to the deformation path
(see Figure 1.9). Note that the 12% equi-biaxial case is an outlier presumably due to the
high prestrain value or experimental error. This conversion from strain to stress requires
the assumption of yield criterion and hardening models. While most curves degenerate to
a single stress-based FLC, the shape of the stress-based FLC varies depending on the
material models used as will be shown in Chapter 2.
Numerical simulations that incorporate a stress-based FLD have been shown to be less
computationally taxing and still achieved results that match experimental data [12].
9
These methods however still would require knowledge of the existing strain-based FLC
of a given material.
12% equi-biaxial case

400 -
L \ _ ^
^ ™ — 5 ^ — B ^ ^ " *
8 300 •
&
C/3
K 200 •
o
100 -
C) 100 200 300 400 500

Minor True Stress (MPa)
Figure 1.9: Eleven strain-based FLCs from Graf and Hosford degenerate to a single
curve in stress space when analytically converted using Barlat's 1989 yield criterion [7]
In addition, one major criticism of the stress-based FLC is the fact that it has not yet
been experimentally validated. The traditional FLD experimental procedures have no
direct method to measure the amount of stresses applied to the material. In-situ stresses
measurements are possible using a X-ray diffraction head placed over the failure location,
but this technique is still far from being applied outside specific laboratories. An
experimental setup with the ability to measure the applied loads in the principal
directions is necessary to obtain information about the stress in the material at failure.
Derov et al. [13] developed an analytical model to predict a stress-based FLD
referenced here as the effective stress ratio model. This model predicts both stress and
strain-based FLCs by assuming a constitutive relationship, yield criterion, and plastic
10
anisotropy ratio (R ) for the material. Similar to the M-K model, the effective stress ratio
model assumes a defect region in the material. However, instead of the decreased
thickness region as in the M-K model, a region of concentrated stress in the material is
assumed for the defect region. The critical stress concentration factor (i.e., F-
parameter), which is the ratio of the effective stress in the safe region of the material to
the effective stress in the defect region and determines the deformation state at necking
failure, is a key assumption in this model. As stress appears to be less deformation path
dependent, a model based on the effective stress seems reasonable. Also, the notion that
necking and tearing failures are related to the stress in the material is not unreasonable
considering that other material behaviors, such as plastic yielding and buckling, are
dependent on this parameter. The effective stress ratio model has been shown to
accurately predict the effects of prestrain on the location and shape of the FLC [13, 14].
In this dissertation, analytical and numerical procedures for the prediction of FLC are
proposed. Three analytical models are used in this dissertation: the strain-based M-K
model, a modified version of the effective stress ratio model where the concentrated
stress region can be oriented in any direction with respect to the principal stress directions
and a new major strain ratio model. A comparison between these three models is given
and factors affecting the accuracy of FLC prediction for all three models are discussed in
detail. Also the key assumptions of the three analytical models are investigated
experimentally and numerically. Finally, numerical investigations of three different
element types are presented to determine the best element type that can be used with the
stress-based failure criterion.
11
1-4. RESEARCH GOALS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
The main goal of this research is to develop analytical and numerical tools that can
accurately predict failure in sheet metal forming operations and may be used as a valid
alternative to the current experimental procedures required to generate a complete FLC.
For example, instead of performing several experimental tests to generate the FLD shown
in Figure 1.2, the analytical models proposed in this research can be used to generate
similar FLD with much fewer experimental tests for validation. In particular, a new
stress-based approach to predict failure, which is significantly less path dependent, is
investigated. Also, a new major strain ratio model is presented that can be more effective
during finite element simulations
Contributions to the literature and knowledge include the following:
• The effective stress ratio model is further developed by including the orientation
change in the concentrated stress region and adding more advanced yield criteria
to this model. The varying defect orientation improves the analytical prediction
on the negative minor strain side of the FLC, while the more advanced yield
criteria improves prediction on the positive minor strain side of the FLC.
• A new major strain ratio model is presented. It has significant computational
advantages over the traditional M-K model since it is a non-incremental approach
• The key assumptions of the M-K, the effective stress ratio and the major strain
ratio models were investigated experimentally and numerically.
• The element types which are appropriate for a stress-based failure criterion were
determined.
12
In Chapter 2 of this dissertation, the analytical framework of the M-K, the effective
stress ratio and the major strain ratio models are introduced and their results are
presented. In Chapter 3, the key assumptions in the analytical models are investigated
numerically and compared against previous experimental work. In Chapter 4, a
comparison between different element types used in numerical models that predict plastic
instability using a stress-based failure criterion is given. Finally, the conclusions and
future work are presented in Chapters 5 and 6 respectively.
13
CHAPTER 2
ANALYTICAL MODELING OF FAILURE IN SHEET METAL
FORMING
2-1. REVIEW OF ANALYTICAL MODELS BASED ON PLASTIC INSTABILITY
After the introduction of the FLDs concept by Keeler and Backofen in 1964 [3],
research focused on the development of mathematical models for theoretical
determination of FLDs was initiated. Here some of the well-known models are presented
briefly.
2.1.1. Empirical equations
Keeler and Brazier [15] proposed an empirical relationship for FLC calculation based
on statistical data collected for deep drawing quality (DQ) steels. The true limit major
strain for plane strain loading, FLCQ (see Figure 1.4), can be found from:
FLC0=\n -JL-(0.2325 + 0.1413f0) + ll (2.1)

VO.zllo J
where n is the strain hardening exponent from Ludwik-Hollomon strain-hardening law
(a = K(s)"), and t0is the thickness of the sheet (t0<3.175mm). The positive and
negative minor strain sides of the FLC can be calculated respectively using:
ff, = FLC0 + s2 (0.784854 - 0.008565 s2) (2.2)
ex =FLC0 +e2 (0.027254 s2 -1.1965 ) (2.3)
14
Keeler and Brazier's (K-B) equations are still used in industry to predict the FLC of
steel and the results obtained are in good agreement even with the experimental data for
new grades of steel alloys (Advanced High-Strength Steel (AHSS), Dual Phase (DP)
Steel, Transformation Induced Plasticity (TRIP) Steel etc.) [16].
The North American Deep Drawing Research Group (NADDRG) introduced an
empirical equation for predicting the FLD for several grades of steel alloys [16].
According to this model, the FLD is composed of two lines through the point FLC0 in the
plane strain state given in Eq. (2.1). The slopes of the lines located respectively on the
negative and positive minor strain sides of the FLC are 45° and 20°.
2.1.2. Swift-Hill's model
Swift [17] determined the conditions for plastic instability under plane stress for a
given material. Assuming von Mises yield condition and a Ludwik-Hollomon strain-
hardening law, a sheet element loaded along two perpendicular directions was analyzed
by applying the Considere criterion (e =n) for each direction. When^ 2 > 0 , the limit
strains are:
+ a.
\daU Kda2j ydaxj
(2.4)
2
^
cr. + <j-
yd<rxj yda2j j
'df^ 'df^
+ cr,
8a
\ U ydaxJ yd(T2j
£
2 = (2.5)
2
^
cr. + <T,
\d(JU Kd(j2j
15
where / is the yield function.
By using different yield functions, it is possible to evaluate Swift's limit strains as
functions of the ratio of principal stresses a = — and the material parameters (e.g.,
strain hardening exponent n and plastic anisotropy ratio R ) . As an example, if Hill's
1948 yield criterion is used, the limit strains are:
r _ ( TR ^
l + R(\-a) 1 =a + a2
X i+* JJ n (2.6)
l + 4i?+2J?-
(i+i?Xl+«) a +a
J)
({l + R)a-R{\-^la + a^
JJ
(2.7)
1 + 4R+2R'
(\ + R\l + a) 1 - a +a
(1 + Rf
W JJ
The expressions of the limit strains associated with other yield criteria are presented in
[18].
Hill [19] was the first who proposed a general criterion for localized necking in thin
sheets under plane stress states in the negative minor strain region (i.e., e2 <0). Hill [19]
showed that the neck angle is coincident with the direction where zero-elongation along
the neck occurs. Thus the straining perpendicular to the necking direction is due only to
the sheet thinning and is defined by:
KdaXJ
*i = (2.8)
^ ' ^
\d(7U yda2j
16
yda2/l
£2 =
f n (2.9)
df^ ^
+
\\d(7u \d(7u
If Hill's 1948 yield criterion is used, Hill's limit strains are:
l + RJl-af
*i = (2.10)
(l + «) J
a-R{l-a)
£2 = (2.11)
The FLC is obtained by computing the values of e} and £2 for different loading ratios
a (i.e., a=0 to a=\ for uniaxial tension to balanced biaxial tension). Swift criterion is
used for the right side of the FLC and Hill's criterion is used for the plane strain and left
side of the FLC.
2.1.3. Storen-Rice model
In order to create a bifurcation that allows a neck to form in plane strain for
proportional loading cases, Storen and Rice [20] introduced a vertex on the yield surface
whose discontinuity grows until a plane strain plastic increment is possible. They derived
the following relation for the major strain at the instant of instability using von Mises
yield function and Ludwik-Hollomon power law:
c 3p2+n(2 + pf
for n2=0 (2.12)
2{2 + pXl + p + p2)
3 + n{l + 2pf
£i = for n i=0 (2.13)
2(l + 2p\\ + p + p2)
17
wherep = — is the strain ratio(-0.5 <p<\) and ni and n2 are the components of the
*i
unit normal to the neck. The expressions of the limit strains associated with other yield
criteria are presented in [21].
2.1.4. M-K model and H-N extension of M-K model
Marciniak and Kuczynski [8] proposed in 1967 an incremental model for theoretical
determination of FLDs that included an infinite sheet metal containing a region of local
imperfection where heterogeneous plastic flow develops and localizes (see Figure 2.1).
The M-K analysis is based on assuming that necking is initiated by a geometrical or
structural non-homogeneity of the material represented by a variation in sheet thickness.
This thickness imperfection is assumed to be in the form of a groove perpendicular to the
principal strain directions as shown in Figure 2.1. The sheet is composed of the nominal
or "safe" area and weakened or "defect" area, which are denoted by A and B,
respectively. The initial imperfection factor of the defect f0 is defined as the thickness
ratio/ 0 = — , where t denotes the thickness and subscript o denotes the initial state
'CM
before the deformation. The strain and stress states in the two regions are calculated by
ds
imposing a strain path pA = ——, specifying the principal strain d£XB and guessing the
d£XA
principal strain dsXA . Compatibility (i.e., de2B = d£2A), the work-energy relationship and
constitutive material models for yielding and work hardening are used to calculate all the
stress and strain values in the two regions. To determine if the guessed value of d£XA is
correct, force equilibrium is verified, (see Appendix A for the set of equations and the
18
complete M-K algorithm used). As the deformation progresses, the strain paths in
regions A and B diverge (i.e., the ratio —— increases). The deformation of the specimen
d£XA
d£
is assumed to be a localized neck in region B when —— is approximately 10 according
d£XA
to [8, 22, 23]. The first and second principal strains in region A (eXA and £2A) at the onset
d£
of plastic instability define a point on the FLC, and by varying the strain ratio pA = ——
d£XA
different points on the FLC are obtained [22].
The assumption that the imperfection is oriented perpendicular to the principal
direction of loading is not correct for the negative minor strain region. According to Hill's
observations and the theory of localized necking [19], failure occurs at a certain angle 9
between (0° to 35°) depending on the loading path and material when sheet metal is
subjected to tensile stresses (see Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.1: Schematic of M-K model with reduced thickness in defect region (B)
compared to safe region (A) [8]
19
40
tan(6>) = J -P
35
30
t 25
ye Ml
1 #» 20 g
f 15
Localized nee k[5]

l 10
t t i i 1 s
'
-0.55 -0.5 -0.45 -0.4 -0.35 -0.3 -0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 (3
P
Figure 2.2: Dependence of defect orientation on the strain ratio during localized necking
The M-K theory was extended by Hutchinson and Neale [23] by introducing an
orientation of the defect with respect to the principal stress and strain directions (i.e., 9
in Figure 2.3). They found that for each proportional strain path on the negative minor
strain side of the FLD, an imperfection orientation angle 6 exists which gives the
minimum limiting major strain. In this modified M-K analysis, the angle 0 between the
imperfection and one of the principal directions is updated from an initial value at each
increment of the plastic deformation as:
1 + d£,,
tm(0 + d0) = tan(0) (2.14)
l + fl?£\
20
'J
M
V^ f\^Jf t
Ol^py/ A
/ A
^ "^11 / fe
# B / * 1
/ 1 /
~K 9 y l a
i
0<
' £ .—_»___J5^^
Figure 2.3: Schematic of M-K model with varying orientation of the defect (#) [9]
where d£XA and <fe2/l are the major and minor principal strain increments in the plane of
the sheet of the nominal area, respectively. By varying 0 between 0° and 90° and
performing the analysis, a minimum value of £XA is found. This minimum value and its
corresponding minor strain are defined as the necking failure point on the FLC as shown
in Figure 2.4.
There are modifications to incorporate the varied defect angle into the basic equations
for the M-K analysis as presented in Appendix A. The geometric compatibility equation
is expressed as:
d£llA=d£llB (2.15)
and the force equilibrium equations across the imperfection groove are:
F„„A = FnnB (2.16)
21
where subscripts n and t denote the normal and tangential directions of the groove (see
Figure 2.3), respectively, and F is the force per unit width in the specified direction.
K = 537 MPa, n = 0.2845, R0 = 0.78, R45 = 0.485, R^ = 0.58

0.8
\
\\
0.7
\
\\ 0.6
\
\ -S
- o.5 a
v CO
\ <w
A \ - 0.4 u
. \ Hu
S \
A \ O
•"AA - 0.3 'j?
• Experimental data %±
A i 0.2
—•—fo=0.9805, von Mises-Swift, theta=0
- A - fo=0.9805, von Mises-Swift, theta = Hill's equation 0.1
- • - fo=0.9805, von Mises-Swift, theta varies
0
-0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 ()
Minor True Strain
Figure 2.4: Effect of changing 6 on FLC predictions for AA2008-T4 [7]
Coordinate transformations are used to determine the forces, stresses and strains in the
safe and the defect regions from the principal stresses applied (see Appendix A). Using
the rotation matrix, T, the stress tensor is transformed to the defect orientation by:
U cos(#) sin(#)"
a"' = T^T7 = <*** m
where T = (2.17)
Vnt a
n -sin(0) cos(#)
The failure criterion in the M- K analysis can be defined in many ways. In the work of
Marciniak and Kuczynski [8], necking was considered to occur when the localization of
deformation reached a critical value (i.e., the plane stain case). Several researchers e.g.,
22
[24-26] have associated the necking in the M-K analysis to the ratio of the defective
strain increment in the groove to that in the nominal area —— . In their calculations,
KdelAJ
necking was assumed to occur when this ratio was greater than 10. This failure criterion
is also used in this dissertation.
The implementation of different yield criteria and material constitutive relationships in
the M-K model has been tested by several authors, e.g., Graf and Hosford [22], Barata
Da Rocha et al. [24, 25, 27], Ahmadi et al. [28], Assempour et al. [29, 30], Cao et al. [9,
31] and Banabic et al. [32]. Their research show that the predicted limit strains strongly
depend on the constitutive law, yield criterion and the anisotropic parameters
incorporated in the analysis. The use of a suitable yield function and material model that
describe accurately the plastic behavior of metals produces a better prediction of limit
strains with respect to the shape and location of the FLC. Sheet metal materials are
generally anisotropic, and it was assumed in this dissertation that the principal axes of
anisotropy are coincident with the principal stress directions in the sheet. Hill's 1979 non-
quadratic yield function [33] is one of the yield criteria used in this dissertation to
account for the sheet anisotropy. For plane stress conditions, this function can be written
as:
2(l + R)aa = (o-, + CJ2)a + (l + 2R\ax -<x2)" (2.18)
where a is the higher order yield criterion index (for BCC materials a = 6 and for FCC
materials a = 8) and R is the average anisotropy ratio determined from uniaxial tensile
tests conducted in three orientations with respect to the rolling direction of the sheet (0°,
45° and 90°):
23
- = R0+2R45+R90
4
Based on polycrystal experimental results, Lian and Barlat [34] proposed a yield
function (i.e., Barlat '89) which is able to describe the flow surface for aluminum alloy
sheets well and in some cases BCC materials as well. The Barlat '89 yield function has
the form:
a=(axa(b + baa +{2-bXl-hcc)aJa (2.20)
where a = 8, b and h are the parameters that account for anisotropic effects:
6 = 2 - 2 Us-^S^,h= L^L_l±î (2.21)
Two hardening laws, namely Swift and Voce, are considered in this dissertation to
describe the materials behavior during work hardening. These laws are:
o(s) = K(E0 + ef (EY (Swift) (2.22)
a(s)=A-Bexp(- Ce) (Voce)
where a is the effective true stress, s is the effective true strain, K is the strength
coefficient, n is the strain hardening exponent, m is the strain rate sensitivity exponent, £0
is the prestrain, A, B and C are material constants. The Voce model is used here to
describe the behavior of aluminum alloys in particular.
2.2. COMPARISON OF MODELS TO PAST EXPERIMENTAL DATA
Published experimental data for eight different materials was used to determine M-K
model parameters which provided reasonable predictions of FLCs. See Table 2.1 and
Appendix B for details of the considered steel and aluminum alloy cases, and Figures
24
2.5 and 2.6 for representative examples of the experimental data and different model
results. In these figures, sixteen strain paths were used for the M-K model predictions
( - 0 . 5 < / ? < l i n 0.1 increments). From these figures, it is clear that the M-K model
provides the best prediction compared to this experimental data if the correct yield
function and constitutive relationship are used [40].
Swift Model Voce Model Anisotropic

Initial
Parameters Parameters Parameters
Material Thickness Ref.
K A B | C
t« (mm) E0 ; n m Ro Rts R90
(MPa) (MPa) <MPa)|
:
HC220YD Steel (1) 0.80 661.0 0.005 0.222 0.015 : " - 1.28 i 2.08 1.86 [35,36]
HC220YD Steel (2) L60" "(512.1"' 0.005 0.2280.015 - - - 1.68 2.12 I 2.54 [35,36]
AKSteel - 426.2" 0.010 67228 0.018 i" - 1.70 1.27 2.13 " [37]
AISI304 SS 0.70 1527.0 - 0.470 0.012 - - - 0.92 1.30 0.78 [38]
AA2008-T4 1.70 537.0 0.005 0.285 -0.003; 0.78 0.49 0.58 m

426 234.0 5.130
AA5182 1.10 507.7 0.005 0.280 0.91 0.68 0.83 ![35,36]

380 249.7 i 7.895
AA6016-T4 417.9 0.010 0.2451 - 0.80 0.43 0.61 [25]

318 1191.1 8.706
[
AA6111-T4 1.05 554.0 10.010 0.257 -0.004 0.79 ! 0.63 0.67 [39]
440 275.2j7.015
Table 2.1: Data of materials used in analyses
Figure 2.7 shows the M-K predictions of FLC for AA2008-T4 material using four
different yield functions (von Mises, Hill's 1948, Hill's 1979 and Barlat' 89). As expected
both von Mises and Hill's 1948 yield functions give poor predictions for the positive
25
minor strain side when used to describe the behavior of the AA2008-T4 material. Figure
2.8 shows how the /„ value affects the predicted FLC.
0.8 experimental data

<C-B equation
0.7 Modified M-K model, Hill's 79, a=6 - Swift
NADDRG
0.6 • Swift-Hill, Hill's 1948
storen-Rice n2=0, von Mises
e Storen-Rice n2=0, Hill's 1948 o
« 0.5
• * *
CO
o
2 0.4
H
v.
I 0.3
IfÔ"*^^1*^
0.2
0.1
K =661 MPa, n =0.2222, R0 1.28, R45 = 2.08, R90 = 1.86, m=0.015, fo=0.997
Figure 2.5: Predictions of FLC for HC220YD Steel (1) using different analytical models
26
0.8 .
K == 537 MPa, n = 0.2845, R0 = 078, R45 = 0.485, Rgo = 0.58, m=-0.003, fo=0.9805
0.7 o - Experimental data
Modified M-K model, Hills 79, a=8- Swift

0.6
> . . . . . . Swift-Hill, Hill's 1948
e
' 3 0.5 Storen-Rice n2=0, von Mises
•**
GO
0> ". « » _ Storen-Rice n2=0, Hill's 1948
5 0.4
H
J? 0.3
0.2
0.1
nU J, r i i T * r i
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Minor True Strain
Figure 2.6: Predictions of FLC for AA2008-T4 using different analytical models
Note that the/ 0 values shown in Table 2.2 and Figure 2.9 are material model
independent. /„ is the same to match the experimental data regardless of material model
used. That is the / 0 values for steel with Hill-Swift and the f0 values for aluminum with
Barlat-Voce which provide the most accurate prediction of the experimental data are
fairly consistent (i.e., above 0.99). Note however that if Hill-Swift is used for aluminum
cases, different f0 values (i.e., 0.98-0.987) are obtained. Furthermore, a significantly
different /„ value was found for the AISI 304 stainless steel case considered (i.e., 0.963).
This was also observed by several others researchers [22, 27, 41, 42].
27
Yield Hardening F s from Eq.
Material a /. F5 for p > 0 F el forp>0
Criterion Model (2.43) at 0 A = 1
HC220YD Steel (1) Hills'79 6 Swift 0.997 o".931 0.941 0.767
HC220YD Steel (2) Hills'79 6 Swift 0.998 0~929 0.943 0.783
AK Steel Hills 79 6 Swift 0.999 0.930 0.940 0.813
AISI304 SS Hills 79 6 Swift 0.963 0.830 0.852 0.611
Hills 79 ! Swift o.m 0.920 0.929 0.658

AA2008-T4 !8
Barlat '89 i Voce 0.990 0.962 - 0.738
Hills 79 1 6 Swift 0.987 0^937 0.944 0.714

AA5182
Barlat '89; 8 Voce 0.999 0.993 - 0.852
I Hills '79 6 Swift 0.980 6525 0.939 0.660

AA6€16-T4
iBarlat '89 8 Voce 0.996 0.987 - 0.799
Hills 79 6 Swift 0.980 0.928 0.937 0.666

AA6111-T4
Barlat '89 8 Voce 0.993 0.976 - 0.778
Table 2.2: Material models, /„ values and F-parameters determined from M-K model
0.7
K=537 MPa, n=(|.2845, Ro=0.78, R45=0.485, R90=0.58, A=426 MPa, B=234.0
MPa,C=5.130
0.6
.5 °-5
'8
VI
u 0.4
s
u o Experimental data
H
s- 0.3
O ?<j*+++ ® - fo=0.9805, von Mises- Swift
0.2 •••••• fo=0.9805, Hill's 1948- Swift
-»— fo=0.9805, Hill's 79, a=6- Swift
0.1 -fo=0.9805, Hill's 79, a=8- Swift
- • - fo=0.99 Barlat '89-Voce
0 r—
-0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Minor True Strain
Figure 2.7: Example of strain-based FLC predicted using M-K model for AA2008-T4
28
0.4
K = 537 MPa, n = 3.2845, R0 = 0.78, R45 = 0.485, Rg0 = 0.58, m=-0.003
0.35
0.3 A w °
« 0.25
s 0.2
1.
H
i.
o
0.15
o Experimental data
0.1
-»• fo=0.97, Hills 79, a=8-Swift
0.05 -A—fo=0.9805, Hills 79, a=8- Swift

• - fo=0.99, Hills 79, a=8- Swift
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Minor True Strain
Figure 2.8: Effect of changing f0 values on the FLC prediction of AA2008-T4 [7]
i Hill-Swift HBarlat-Voce
Figure 2.9: /„ values from M-K model that provide the best fit for the experimental data
29
In addition to the strain data generated from the M-K model, stress data is also
determined as shown in Figure 2.10. As with the strain-based FLC, the yield criterion
affects the stress-based FLC. Recall from Chapter 1 that the stress-based failure criterion
is less path dependent than a strain-based approach. Therefore, stress parameters from the
M-K model were assessed with the goal of creating a stress-based model to predict
necking concerns. The critical stress concentration factor (i.e., F- parameter) [13, 14]
which is the ratio of the effective stress in the safe region of the material to the effective
stress in the defect region was calculated at failure from M-K model results. Table 2.2
and Figure 2.11 show average F~ values with p > 0 for the eight material cases
investigated. There is a clear distinction between values of F- for steel and aluminum
cases (i.e., approximately 0.93 and 0.962-0.993 respectively). Note that F~ is not a
constant for all loading paths, which is reasonable as the stress concentration would vary
depending on the minor stress induced as shown in Figures 2.12 and 2.13. Also, the F-
parameter is not constant during the deformation process as shown in Figure 2.14 where
normalized depth was plotted to show the consistent trend of decreasing F- parameter
values as deformation progresses.
The F- values presented in Table 2.2 and Figures 2.11 and 2.13 are the ones at
d£
failure (i.e., —— > 10) for the best fitting M-K analyses. There appears to be two values
d£XA
for the F- parameter at failure for positive and negative minor strain values as shown in
Figures 2.12 and 2.13. The average values ofF- for the positive minor strains are
reported in Table 2.2. Only positive minor strains were included so the orientation of the
30
defect (i.e., 9 in Figure 2.2) does not have to be considered. Recall that /„ values were
relatively constant for steel and aluminum cases (above 0.98). Thus this F- parameter
appears to be material dependent. Again in contrast to the /„ values, the F- values are
consistent for a given material model (i.e., values for Hill-Swift are between 0.920-0.937
for both steel and aluminum cases). As this F- parameter appeared to be promising, an
analytical stress-based model to predict necking failure was developed.
550
K=537 MPa, n=0.2845, R o =0.78, R 45 =0.485, R ^ O . 5 8 , A=426 MPa,
B=234.0MPa, C=5.130 ^^®
500
•* •
450
400
.Q^^F
350
9i
21 300
•*->
Qi
9 250 -
u
H
u
©
200 — •— von Mises, a=2 - Swift
150 ••<!•• Hill's 1949, a=2- Swift
— • • Hill's 1979, a=6 - Swift

100
—*—Hill's 1979, a=8 - Swift

50
—•— Barlat 89, a=8 - Voce
0 t -'-'r" ? 1 f r ' 1 i * 1 s
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Figure 2.10: Stress-based FLCs predicted using M-K model for AA2008-T4 with various
yield criteria
31
• Hill-Swift a Barlat-Voce
1 -
0.98 -
0.96 - r-
1
0.94 -J
0.92 -
9
1 ,
F °" " "i
° 0.88 -
0.86 -
II .
•
- .*..
0.84 -
IS k
0.82 -
J
IS
SSl .
1 ' ^ :ti
0.8 m 'hJi
AISI304 SS
HC220YD
HC220YD
AA2008 T4
"3 •*
Steel(1)
H
Steel(2) OO
• * *
CO
1—1
NO H
< I—1
o I-H
< NO
NO
3 3
Figure 2.11: Average Fff for /? > 0 obtained from M-K model that provides the best fit
for the experimental data
1 -
K=537 MPa, n=0.2845, Ro=0.78, R45=0.485, Ro0=0.58,
A=426 MPa, B=234.0 MPa, C=5.130
0.975 -
i.
at
• * *
E
« 0.925 ~
CS
0.
Mr*^
ir — ®— von Mises
•••••• Hills' 1948
0.875 - —•> • Hill's 1979, a=6
<-#—Hill's 1979, a=8
—•—Barlat 89, a=8 -Voce
! I i i• i t
! %
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 () 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
P
Figure 2.12: Effect of varying the yield criteria on the F- parameter using M-K model
and AA 2008-T4 data
32
1.05
-•—HC220YD Steel (1), Swift-Hill's

•••••• HC220YD Steel (2),Swift-Hill's
• - AK Steel, Swift-Hill's
-*—AISI 304 SS, Swift-Hill's
0.7 -A- -A12008-T4, Voce-Barlat
•••••• AA5182, Voce-Barlat
0.65 + - AA6016-T4, Voce-Barlat
A— AA6111-T4, Voce-Barlat
0.6 n r~ r r™ "i r~
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Figure 2.13: Effect of changing strain path on the F- parameter for different materials
K = 537 MPa, n = 0.2845, R =0.58, fo=0.9805, Hills 1979
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Normalized Depth at Failure
Figure 2.14: F- parameter versus normalized depth at failure obtained from M-K model
33
2.3. STRESS-BASED MODELS
2.3.1. Non-incremental effective stress ratio model
A non-incremental stress-based analytical model to predict stress-based and strain-
based FLC using the F- parameter was developed by Derov et al. [13, 14]. Other inputs
into this model include a constitutive relationship, yield criterion and anisotropic material
parameters. Like the M-K model, it assumes that an initial defect region is present in the
material, but instead of a thickness difference, a stress concentration as denoted by F- is
used (see Figure 2.15). The model also assumes that material parameters inside and
outside the defect region are the same.
The goal of the effective stress ratio model is to find the sets of <7XA and <72A that
satisfy compatibility, force equilibrium, work-energy relationships and the specified F-
value, which corresponds to failure (see Appendix C for equations). The stress u2A is
specified, while the stress <7XA is initially chosen. Thus, the stress path can be defined
o2A
(Ot ). The strains outside the defect can then be computed. First the effective
a
\A
stress is calculated:
| Defect Region
a2
1; ] Safe Region
/
°"i
A B A
Figure 2.15: Effective stress ratio model diagram [13]

34
Â=f(Â^2A) (2-23)
The relationship between the stress ratio (X and the strain ratio p in region A is
defined:
P = f(a) (2.24)
From the Ludwik-Hollomon power hardening law for example, the effective strain can
be defined:
£A = K (2-25)
The work-energy principle can then be used to obtain the major and minor strains in
region A (with proportional loading assumed):
°A£A
£lA (2.26)
°IA$+<*A PA)
_VA£A-VIA£IA
S
2A (2.27)
G
1A
All stresses and strains outside of the defect have now been obtained. To begin
computations inside the defect, the stress concentration factor, F-, is used to solve for aB
as:
B
~ F- (2-28)
Using Ludwik-Hollomon power hardening law and assuming the material parameters
are the same inside and outside the defect, £„ can also be calculated:
S
- A
S
B ~ —T (2.29)
te)-
35
Similar to the M-K model, it is assumed that compatibility is satisfied and £2 inside
and outside the defect are equal (£2A = ^ 2 B ) - Note that this model assumes proportional
loading in both regions A and B. With the knowledge of the effective strain and minor
strain within the defect, the major strain in the defect can be solved:
£
W=/{£B^2B) (2-30)
Note again that the incremental strain form of this equation is not used as proportional
loading is assumed in both the safe and defect regions. Thus this model is a non-
incremental approach. The strain ratio pB and stress ratio aB inside the defect can be
computed from similar relationships to Eq. (2.24), but for the region B.
Equations (2.26) and (2.27) can then be used inside the defect to obtain aXB and <J2B .
All parameters are now known, however these calculations can be performed for any
specified stresses (°'IA^(J2A) outside the defect. To determine if this stress state is
consistent with the physical condition, a force balance in the 1-direction (see Figure
2.15) is used to compare the assumed uXA to the one calculated (<ylA°) based on the stress
and strain values computed in the model.
^°=îB^{eiB-Â) (2.31)
If these major stresses (crXA and <rM°) are not within a small error, the guess of <JXA is
modified and the process is repeated. When the values coincide, the conditions for failure
have been met and the values in the safe region are recorded as the failure stresses and
strains. The minor stress (<J2A) is then incremented to continue calculating additional
failure points on the stress-based FLC (see Figure 2.16).
36
The limit stress and strain values calculated depend on the choice of the yield criterion
used as shown in Figure 2.17. The key assumption in the effective stress ratio model is
the selection of the critical stress concentration factor (F- parameter).
A limitation of the original effective stress ratio model by Derov et al. [13, 14] was
that the defect orientation on the negative minor strain side of the FLC was not allowed to
vary. Furthermore, the model could be enhanced by incorporating higher order yield
criteria. These modifications to the effective stress ratio model were added during this
dissertation work and are discussed in detail in the next section.
o-i i
0"l A (failed)
1
1
1
y 0"lA(guess)
/ 1
0"2A a2
Figure 2.16: Methodology to increment G\A guess to determine a failure point on the
stress-based FLC [14]
2.3.2. Modified effective stress ratio model
As with the M-K model, the assumption of a perpendicular defect to the major
principal stress direction is not valid for the negative minor strain side of the FLC. Thus
there is a need to incorporate defect orientation into the effective stress ratio model. The
37
concentrated stress region orientation 0 is added in a similar manner to the modified M-
K model as described by Eqs. (2.15) - (2.17) (see Appendix C).
Compatibility, force equilibrium and work-energy balance equations are again
satisfied during this numerical solution. The analysis is repeated for different initial
orientations [0 ) of the defect in the range between 0° and 35° as shown in Figures 2.18
and 2.19.
K = 537 MPa, n = 0.2845, R« = 0.78, R45 = 0.485, R90 = 0.58, /^=0.85
0.75 0- Experimental Data 600 - —•- von Mises

—»e«• von Mises
550 - - - a - - H i l l ' s 1948
• Hill's 1948
0.6
500 •
450 -
.5 °- 45 \
U
+^
CO
St e 400 - •• •
3
H 0.3
u \ °\L vi 350 -
0 <u
ce °o\^ i l l l l l T *"°"r 3
s 0.15 3 ^ 300 -
0
^ 250 -
S i
-0.3 -0.15 0 0.15 0.3

200 250 300 350 400 450
Minor True Strain
Figure 2.17: Effective stress ratio model results for AA 2008-T4 with two yield criteria
[13, 14]
38
von Mises, K = 537 MPa, n = 0.2845, 0.6 ~
Fff=09
0.5
0.4 ,S
'3s -
• * *
VI
0.3 «
— — 10 \ \ Sr
s-
02
••••••-20
- — 28
"• v
\
'I
§
- • -30
0.1
_ =.33
— . 35
0
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
Minor True Strain
Figure 2.18: Effect of adding a concentrated stress region orientation \0 )on the FLC
generated by the effective stress ratio model
600 - von Mises, K = 537 MPa, n = 0.2845,

£=0.9
500
400 -
•0
^300
VI
10
a>
s 20
£ 200
s- 28
o •30
"5* •33
gioo
35
100 200 300 400 500

Figure 2.19: Effect of adding a concentrated stress region orientation \0 ) on the stress-
based FLC generated by the effective stress ratio model
39
The band orientation can be obtained either by using Hill's equation (tail \6) - -J— p )
(see Figure 2.2) or by the maximizing of <7XA value versus 9 . Note that 9 should be
added only to the negative minor strain side of the FLC and should remain zero on the
positive minor strain side of the FLC. Figure 2.20 shows (9 critical) calculated based on
Hill's equation and the one for the o~u maximum method. Finally, the prediction of the
FLC in the effective stress ratio model was improved by applying Hill's 1979 non-
quadratic yield function Eq. (2.18).
von Mises, K = 537 MPa, n = 0.2845, 0.6
0.5
o2*
0.4 .5
^ es
-*-
1_
C/3
0.3 «u
H
0.2 e
- - Theta Critical (Hill's)

s
0.1
—• • Theta Critical (Max ol A)
1 "!' i " i 0
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 ()
Minor True Strain
Figure 2.20: Comparison of perpendicular defect orientation (i.e., 9 = 0), Hill's equation
and <7U maximum method on the negative minor strain side of the FLC
2.3.3. Comparison between M-K and effective stress ratio models
In order to compare the M-K and the effective stress ratio models, the analysis
methodologies in both models should be reviewed first. In the M-K analysis, a groove
defect is added to weaken the material, create a strain concentration and to propagate the
40
failure. The strain paths in both the safe A and defect B regions are nearly identical
initially but begin to eventually diverge (point C in Figure 2.21). The safe region
continues deforming along the linear strain path pA, while the strain in the defect
accelerates along a nonlinear path pB. When the strain state in the defect reaches plane
strain (e.g., when dsie/deiA is greater than 10 at point E), it is assumed that localized
necking has occurred (i.e., no further deformation in the safe region occurs at point D).
* *
The strain values £1A and£2i4 , outside the neck, are defined as the limit strains.
E
n
*4
£x / m
/ •»
Region B strain path b / «f
(3) / «!
R p g i n n R strain f • * •
path (M-K) ' ! 1
/ *• *;
* * u*
'/ *• l
M
C & IB
1
' *
• Jr
yi*
' # r Jr *§
i *y
/ jj^ *
* *
/ y \4
#
t
/ M
y *
/ y 1 #
*
/ yp #
;y R egion A strain ;
jy path (M-K andF9)\ ,' 1
o .1
' k.
£2 w
<
'2 4.«
.J
Figure 2.21: Schematic of analysis methodologies in M-K and effective stress ratio
models
41
In the effective stress ratio model, a stress concentration defect is assumed in the B
region (i.e., oB>oA since ^ V - " * ^ ) - The strain paths in regions A and B diverge
immediately (as shown in Figure 2.21) since this model is non-incremental and assumes
proportional loading in both regions (i.e., from points (O to D) and (O to E) respectively).
Thus there is no failure propagation in the effective stress ratio model. The force balance
in the 1-direction is used to check for failure. When the major stresses (crXA and <JXA") are
within a small error (i.e., 1%), it is assumed that localized necking has occurred and the
values outside the defect are recorded as the failure stresses and strains.
The main difference between the two models is present in the condition of
proportional loading for the defect region B. For example in the M-K model, the work-
energy equation is satisfied in region B as:
d£ a = d£x ax + d£2 a2 (2.32)
While in the effective stress ratio model, the work-energy equation is satisfied as:
£(J=£]GX+£2G2 (2.33)
Equation (2.33) is true if and only if proportional loading holds. Thus, proportional
loading is assumed for the effective stress ratio model and a non-incremental approach is
used.
Obviously, the two models define the reaching to localized necking and failure in two
different ways. Figures 2.22 and 2.23 show strain and stress FLC of both models when
Hill's 1979 yield criterion is used. Two of the F- parameters found directly from the M-K
model were used (F-=0.929 for the equi-biaxial case and F- =0.898 for the plane strain
case). Despite this, significant differences in the FLC results were obtained indicating the
42
effect of the proportional loading assumption in the defect region and the use of a
constant F- parameter despite varying values with deformation (see Figure 2.14). Thus,
the effective stress ratio model is not able to accurately predict failure due to this
assumption.
0.5 K == 537 MPa, n = 0.2845, R=0.58 - o Experimental data

- - M-K, fo=0.9805
0.45 -
...... Derov, Fa=0.929
**••
0.4 — • Derov, Fa=0.898
\ \
- * -Derov, Fa=0.79
0.35 * V\
OH \ \
tE 0.3
SB
x \> \ \
X 5
^ 8
8 X * \ ''''•••.
IZJO.25
v
\ " ' \
s
£ 0.2 V
s
'a? *~~*> Q ^ ^ *
\ s %
0.15 ^
%
0.1
0.05
n , t i s i s i t r : !
-0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Figure 2.22: Comparison between the strain FLC prediction from M-K and effective
stress ratio models for AA 2008-T4 [7]
43
500 K = 537 MPa, n = 0.2845, R=0.58
450
s e fe *
400 -
350 -
g 300
s-
35 250
o>
£200 • M-K, fo=0.9805
i-
•|l50
• Derov, Fo=0.929
100 H • Derov, Fo=0.898
50
Derov, Fo=0.79
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Figure 2.23: Comparison between the stress FLC prediction from M-K and effective
stress ratio models for AA 2008-T4
Note that a direct mathematical relationship between the M-K and the effective stress
ratio models can be found starting from force equilibrium:
FlA=F1B (2.34)
or with compatibility (i.e., d£2A -d£2B ):
a
\A %4 - a\B h (2.35)
By rearranging:
V (2.36)
\fAj
Defining the instantaneous thickness ratio \f):
44
f = -T=f0exp(e3B-e3A) (2.37)
Recall that f0 is the initial thickness ratio fo Eq. (2.36) can be rewritten as:
l
V 0A
°lA=°wf0VQ(SlB-eiA) (2.38)
From the definition of the ratio of the effective stress to the major principal stress:
l+ aa+R(l-a)a
<h = — = (2.39)
R+\
for Hills '79 non-quadratic yield function.
Equation (2.38) can be rewritten as:
(2.40)
<PA h
Force equilibrium equations in the effective stress ratio model are identical to that in
the M-K model, (i.e., Eqs. (2.34) - (2.36)):
Â=^W^M£3B-£3A) (2-41)
Note that Eqs. (2.41) and (2.38) are identical for f0 =1 (i.e., there is no initial
thickness difference) in the effective stress ratio model.
From the definition of the F- parameter (i.e., aA =F- aB) and Eq. (2.40):
^=fo^p(e3B-e3A)^- (2.42)
<PB
Equation (2.42) is a direct mathematical relationship between the key variables in the
two models (f0 and F-). For example, for the non-quadratic Hills '79 yield function:
45
1
f
\ + aA +R~(l-aA)a^
F
S = ~ = fo eX
P (£1B - £3A ) (2.43)
l + < +^(!-«fi)a
where a=6 for BCC materials and a=8 for FCC materials. Table 2.2 shows the F-
parameter values obtained using Eq. (2.43) when ccA=\.
2.3.4. Incremental effective stress ratio model
Since the non-incremental effective stress ratio model does not provide reasonable
results due to the embedded proportional loading in the defect area assumption (which is
not physically correct), an incremental approach was considered.
There are six inter-related variables in regions A and B regions
\d£x,d£2,d£, <Tj, <T2 and a). These variables can be calculated in region A by applying
the stress u1A and guessing the stress <JXA . As with the non-incremental effective stress
ratio model, the stresses and incremental strains outside the defect can then be computed
using Eqs. (2.23)- (2.27) presented earlier.
In essence for both the M-K and effective stress ratio models, the following equations
are applied to region B. In the M-K analysis, the computations start by knowing d£2B
from compatibility. There are six unknowns and six equations:
d£2B = d£2A Compatibility (2.44)
G
\A
&\B - T x Force equilibrium (2.45)
exp {e3B-e3A)
ag=/(ffg) Hardening function (2.46)
=
°B /(criB'cr2s) Yield function (2.47)
46
d£B(JB=d£XBoXB+d£2BG2B Work-energy (2.48)
and
,/ x= f( x Flow rule (2.49)
Equations (2.47)-(2.49) can also be written in terms of Ct and p .

In an incremental effective stress ratio model, one more condition is specified (i.e.,
aA = F-aB) which over-determines the system and makes an exact solution impossible
unless one of the above equations is not applied. For example, if the compatibility
condition can be removed (}.e.,d£2A ^d£2B), in theory, then the above set of five
~A
Equations (2.45)-(2.49) with the additional condition of c s - — could be solved. Figure
F
s
2.24 shows the result of this approach with an equi-biaxial strain path \pA = l) for say
the first step in the incremental approach with a step size of 0.1% strain. In this
approach, it was assumed that d£XB > d£XA and thus d£2B > d£2A since aB > aA . Therefore,
the strain path in the safe region is less than in the defect region (i.e., pB < pA ). This
would continue to persist with increasing deformation which is not correct physically.
Thus, an incremental approach to the effective stress ratio model that can satisfy all
the above mentioned equations does not provide a realistic solution. So far all attempts to
utilize the F- parameter in a generalized model that can predict FLC were not successful.
Therefore, an alternative F parameter is investigated as described in the next section.
47
0.00125 -
K = 537 MPa, n = 0.2845, Fs = 0.946, R = 1
0.001 -
a
y yy * ^*
r True Stra yy **
o
o
-o
d
Ul
o
yy **
y <»>
y *
yy +*
P
Ul
o
o
o
y *
yyy * * *
yy * *
0.00025 - y ^
/,+ - - - defect region B
s+y * _ safe region A
0 - J^r t • t ( i t i
0 0.00025 0.0005 0.00075 0.001 0.00125 0.0015

Minor True Strain
Figure 2.24: Strain paths from the incremental effective stress ratio model without
assuming compatibility
2.4. NON-INCREMENTAL, MAJOR PRINCIPAL STRAIN RATIO MODEL
A non-incremental approach to predicting necking failure is desirable to reduce the
computation time and complexity. To accomplish this, a critical major strain
£XA
concentration factor (i.e., FEX = — ) which is the ratio of the major true strain in the safe
region to the major true strain in the defect region at failure is used. Like theF- previously
investigated,F£] is calculated from the modified M-K model at failure. Table 2.2 and
Figure 2.25 show the least squares curve fit slope values of FeX for the positive minor
strain in the eight materials cases investigated. Only positive minor strains were
48
considered so the orientation of the defect (i.e., 9 in Figure 2.2) does not have to be
considered.
0.9 - • Hill-Swift H Barlat-Voce

0.85 -
0.8 -
;*;
4wA
0.75
1 •!:
l
pa
7
Fu °- I
0.65 - i
•i
0.6 •
0.55
I •
l
m m 1
n^ - I _ 31
AA6111 T4
AA6016 T4
AK Steel
HC220YD
HC220YD
AA2008 T4
AISI 304
Steel (1)
Steel (2)
SS
Figure 2.25: Least square slope of F£| values obtained from M-K model that provides the
best fit for the experimental data
FeX appears to be somewhat a material independent parameter as its values are
relatively constant (i.e., 0.74-0.85) for the steel and aluminum cases examined (Although
it is acknowledged that this is a large range of values). However, if Hill's 1979 yield
criterion is used, different values are obtained for the steel and aluminum cases (i.e.,
0.76-0.82 and 0.66-0.72 respectively). Figures 2.26 and 2.27 show the linear relationship
between the major true strain in the safe and defect regions for the right hand side of FLC
obtained from the M-K analysis. This linear relationship is the key assumption of the new
model. Note that there are intercept values as well for these linear curves, but these were
very small and insignificant, thus the intercept was ignored in this model for simplicity.
49
1 -
\ =0.8014x
< 0.8 -
,c
/S
Strain
as
/
V
S yy
xS^ > 0 767-lx
H 0.4 -
p
'S5
r
^ 0.2 - — Swift (Hills79 a=6)
— — Swift (von Mises a=2)

n-
() 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Major True Strain in B
regions obtained from the M-K model for HC220YD Steel (1)
0.6 -i
-• Swift (Hill's 79 a=8)

• Voce (Barlat'89 a=8)
45
tc °" ^ . . . . . . Swift (von Mises a=2)
^y
A
)7202x
3 ir **
s-
-fc^
VI
% 0.3 J <y
u
y
H > - 0 738K jT
i-
^yy* y = 0.658lx
o ^0P"%&y
y ^
«
S 0.15 -
o,
c) 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 0.75
Major True Strain in B
regions obtained from the M-K model for AA2008-T4
50
The yield criterion and the hardening model affect the FeX values as shown in Figures
2.26 and 2.27. For example, in Figure 2.27 the linear fit provided poor matching to data
when higher order yield criteria were used.
The new non-incremental model predicts simultaneously stress-based and strain-based
FLCs using a constitutive relationship, yield criterion, anisotropic material parameters,
and the assumption of FeX. Like the M-K model, it assumes an initial defect region is
present in the material and represented in the form of a groove perpendicular to the
principal strain directions for positive minor strain values. The goal of the new analytical
model is to find the sets of <JXA and <J2A values, as well as £XA and £2A values, that result
in a major strain concentration factor, FeX, which corresponds to failure.
Again, there are six inter-related variables in regions A and B
\£x, £2, £, <Tj, o2 and a). Similar to the effective stress ratio model, these variables can
be calculated in region A by assuming the stress a2A and then guessing the stress <JXA.
The effective stress, the effective strain, the principal strains and the strain ratio pA
outside the defect can be computed using Eqs. (2.23) - (2.27) presented earlier.
All stresses and strains outside the defect have now been obtained. Similar to the M-K
model, it is assumed that compatibility is satisfied and d£2 inside and outside the defect
are equal (d£2A =d£2B). Using the same definition of failure from the M-K analysis
(d£XB=\0d£XA):
PB=^ (2-50)
51
the stress ratio in the defect region aB can now be calculated, e.g., for von Mises yield
criterion, from the strain ratio pB .
The work-energy principle can be used again to obtain the major and minor strains in
the defect region using:
£
B°'B ~ £\B®\B ~T~ £2B V^BÎB ) (2-51)
and the effective stress inside the defect cP can be determined from:
VB=VlB^-aB+al) (2.52)
for von Mises yield criterion. Thus Eq. (2.51) can be rewritten as:
eB = (2.53)
V(1-«B+«B)
Furthermore, Ludwik-Hollomon power hardening law can be used to relate the
effective stress and strain in region B (Eq. (2.25)), thus:
'<o i r
OxB^-aB+alB)
(2.54)
\Kj K
After substituting Eq. (2.54) into Eq. (2.53) and simplifying:
f V
£ £ a
\B + \ A p A B (2.55)
(*«) = * J_
2
{jl-aB+a B}|n+l J
Finally, from force equilibrium:
(<*U ) = (J\Bfo ™p (£3B ~ £ 3 A ) = Vwfo Q

*P (£IB ~ £U ) (2.56)
After substituting Eq. (2.56) into Eq. (2.55) and simplifying:
52
( \
(O £
\B +£
uPAaB
(2.57)
Kfoexp(£w-£u) 2
{jl-aB+a B} J
where £XB is the only unknown in this equation.
After solving Eq. (2.57) for£"1B, an ordered set oi{oXA,o~2A ) with the corresponding
ordered set of ( £XA, £2A ) is obtained. To determine the set of stress and strain values that
causes failure, the F£x predicted for the given (cr1A,(T2A ) values is compared to the Fe]
value shown in Figure 2.25 and Table 2.2. If this linear value is within a predefined
error, these values of ( £1A, £2A ) and the corresponding (<rXA, cr2A ) values are reported as
the limit stresses and strains respectively as shown in Figures 2.28 and 2.29.
700 -,
K = 537 MPa, n = 0.2845, R0 = 0.78, R45 = 0.48,
600 -
R90 = 0.58, m=0, fo=0.9805
500
u
<£ 400 ,....*••*
™@?^mh ^
s
u
H
u 300
o
•x-.. M-K model (Von Mises)
200
• - M-K (Hill's79 a=8)
100 -- »- -MPSRModel (von Mises, 5=0.99, FE 1=0.7202)
—• • MPSR Model (Hill's79 a=8, 8=0.99, FE1=0.6581)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Minor True Strain
Figure 2.28: Comparison between forming limit stress diagrams obtained from M-K
model and the major principal strain ratio (MPSR) model for AA2008-T4
53
Experimental data
•*••• M-K model (Von Mises)
• - M-K (HiU's79 a=8)
-*—MPSR model (von Mises, 5=0.999, FE 1=0.7202)
•* - MPSR model (von Mises, 5=0.99, FE 1=0.7202)
-*< • MPSR model (von Mises, 5=0.98, FE 1 =0.7202)
0.5
-»• MPSJR model (Hill's79 a=8, 5=0.99, FE 1=0.6581)
0.4
m^"
'3
s- 0.3
•**
VI
01
s
u
H
u
.©0.2
«
0.1
K = 537 MPa, n = 0.2845, R0 = 0.78, R45 = 0.48, R90 = 0.58, m=0, fo=0.9805
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Minor True Strain
principal strain ratio (MPSR) model with varying yield function for AA2008-T4 [7]
Note that the linear fit hypothesis did not match well for higher order yield criteria and
the aluminum materials examined (see Figure 2.27). Thus, a linear tolerance (8) is
added to set a search region around the linear fit relationship between the major strains in
regions A and B. This 8 value is set as a tolerance or percentile to search around the
linear fit between the two strains for possible solution points (i.e., 100% for a perfect
zero-tolerance linear dependency). For example, if the linear tolerance o is set to 97%,
54
all the strain values deviating within 3% from the linear relationship will be considered as
a valid solution as shown in Figure 2.30.
The relationships between (p and (X) and ( a and Ct) are specific for each yield
criterion, so different results can be generated based on the yield criterion used. Hill's
1979 non-quadratic yield function (Eq. (2.18)) is applied in this model, which improved
the FLC prediction on the right hand side as shown in Figures 2.28 and 2.29. The FLC
prediction on the left hand side (shown in Figures 2.28 and 2.29) can be enhanced easily
by adding Hill's equation (tan(#) = yj— p ) to the major principal strain ratio model.
Another interesting feature in the major principal strain ratio model is that a solution
can be obtained even w h e n / , = 1 . For such a case the failure is physically caused by a
strain concentration rather than a difference in thickness or a groove. Note that the plane
strain case {pB = pA =0) is a discontinuity point for/ 0 = 1 , thus the major principal
strain ratio model algorithm does not necessarily converge to a solution near pA = 0 as
shown in Figure 2.31. Figure 2.32 demonstrates the sensitivity of new model results to
the change in FeX value. At plane strain case, as the value of FcX increases towards unity,
the major true strain value decreases towards zero.
55
All possible solutions points
...*... M-K model (Von Mises)
—*—MPSR model (von Mises, 5=0.999, FE 1=0.7202)
- «. -MPSR model (von Mises, 5=0.99, FEI =0.7202)

0.6
1_K . MPSR model (von Mises, 5=0.98, FEI =0.7202)
0.5
0.4
e
'3
u
vi
0»
g 0.3
H
u
et
©
0.2
0.1
K = 537 MPa, n = 0.2845, R0 = 0.78, R45 = 0.48, Rgo = 0.58, m=0, fo=0.9805
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Minor True Strain
principal strain ratio (MPSR) model with varying 8 for AA2008-T4
56
0.6
K" = 537 MPa, n = 0.2845, 5=0.99, F E , = 0 . 7 2 0 2
0.5
a
*3 0.4
s.
-*•*
^-'\y^s
Vl
0) \
2 0.3
H
s-
§ 0.2 \S®%»*> M-K model (von Mises)
\^y _ _ MPSR Mo del (fo=0.97)
0.1 -
—• • MPSR Model (fo=0.9805)
• MPSR Model (fo=0.99)
A
+ MPSR Model (fo=l)
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Minor True Strain
principal strain ratio (MPSR) model with varying imperfection factor/ for AA2008-T4
0.7 .
••. K = 537 M 5 a, n = 0.2845, 5=0.99, fo=0.9805 .•
0.6 *•*
•S 0.5
|o.4
t'
s
^0.3 jBt*\ •••X"- M-K model (von Mises)
©
-Z ^j^f5>*'"* —•— MPSR Model (Fe 1=0.6)
g0.2 IjjgT _ * . MPSR Model (Fel=0.7202)
r —®—MPSR Model (Fsl =0.75)
0.1 - • - MPSR Model (Fel=0.8)
n —••• MPSR Model (Fel=0.85)
i i t t i i ! I
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 C) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
JVlinor True Strain
principal strain ratio (MPSR) model with varying the major strain concentration factor
FeX for AA2008-T4
57
2-5. CONCLUSIONS
• The models presented in this chapter (i.e., M-K, effective stress ratio and major
principal strain ratio models) are analytical models that can predict strain-based
FLC in sheet metal forming. But the key assumptions need to be verified for each
model.
• Results indicate that better fits are obtained if more advanced higher order yield
criteria are used with the three models.
• The proportional loading condition and the constant F- value in the effective
stress ratio model limit the application of this model in sheet metal forming
processes.
• An incremental approach to the effective stress ratio model that can satisfy the set
of seven equations with six unknowns was not found.
• The major principal strain ratio model has significant computational advantages
over the traditional M-K model since it is a non-incremental approach. Therefore
it can be programmed and integrated within a FEA package easily.
• Varying the defect angle can be included in the major principal strain ratio model.
• The key assumption of the major principal strain ratio model (i.e., major strain
concentration factorF£]) can be investigated experimentally, thus F£l tables can be
generated for different materials.
58
CHAPTER 3
NUMERICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS OF KEY
ASSUMPTIONS IN ANALYTICAL FAILURE MODELS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, the key assumptions in the M-K, effective stress ratio and major strain
ratio models are investigated for 1018 steel specimens with a thickness of 0.78 mm using
experimental and numerical data from Marciniak tests. In the experimental procedure,
Digital Imaging Correlation (DIC) is used to measure the major and minor in-plane
strains [44, 45]. The implementation of the DIC system provided the detection of the
strain concentrations during the experiments. The high strain concentration areas were
determined using a strain contour plot and a strain extraction grid. Strain components
were obtained on the grid points inside (i.e., the defect region) and adjacent (i.e., the safe
regions) to the high strain concentrations for four different strain paths (i.e., specimen
geometries). In the numerical analysis, FEA simulations with Marc Mentat were
performed with shell elements to investigate the four specimen geometries. The
incremental major strain ratio from M-K model, the critical stress concentration factor
from effective stress ratio model, and the critical major strain concentration factor from
major strain ratio model are investigated both numerically and experimentally. Thus, the
mechanics- and material-based failure phenomena in these three analytical models are
examined in this chapter to provide insight into the material behavior at failure.
59
3.2 METHODOLOGY
3.2.1 Experimental Procedure
Marciniak tests with the Raghavan modifications [46] were conducted on four
different geometries which produced varying strain paths from uniaxial to balanced
biaxial [44, 45]. These geometries are identified with Roman numerals (e.g., I for
uniaxial and IV for balanced biaxial). The four specimen geometries used were Type 1-1,
Type II-2, Type II-3 and Type IV (see Figures 3.1, 4.2 and Table 4.1 in Chapter 4 for
details). For biaxial cases, the failure location is controlled with a steel sacrificial washer.
As opposed to Nakajima tests where bending and friction are present, failure in the
central test region of Marciniak tests is dependent only on the material properties and
imperfections. Note that eight geometries were investigated in total but the other four
either produced redundant strain paths or the failure was not able to be controlled in the
central test area [46, 47].
Figure 3.1: Representation of main groups of geometries for the Raghavan modification
to Marciniak test [46]
60
The major and minor in-plane Lagrange strains were calculated from the correlation
analysis using VIC 3D software from Correlated Solutions Inc. (this is the DIC software
default tensor for the strain calculations). The area of highest concentrated major strain
was selected as the defect region. An "Origin and X-Axis" coordinate system
transformation was used to locate the origin at the point of highest concentrated major
strain for the digital image directly before a physical tearing failure was observed [44,
45]. The direction of the defect region was identified by changing the scale of the contour
plot and aligning the X-axis to the perpendicular direction to this region. From this
assumption, the Y-axis is assigned by the DIC system automatically (see Figure 3.2)
[45].
35 1
3
121
JF&
0 82
13 75 •R&- '•''
•ST'-f^-r
US' •»
-7 5 Est. ...-.-
Vlih * •
20 75
"V^. • *!
-50
-50 -22 5 32 5 60
Figure 3.2: Contour plot for locating X- and Y- axis on the specimen [45]
Following the coordinate transformation, strain data was obtained from the contour
plots for use in post-processing programs which distinguish between the safe and defect
regions in the material. Figure 3.3 demonstrates how the grid of the extracted nodes on
the specimen was constructed. Major and minor strain data were obtained from the DIC
software at a series of lmm-spaced nodes between ±25 mm in the X-direction. This
61
provided deformation data perpendicular to the defect as assumed in the three models. A
figure of the strain paths (major strain versus minor strain) for each node was created [44,
45] (see Figure 3.4).
i35
»* *
• * * . -
16 25
•2 5
•21 25
•40
-40 -2125 -2 5 16 25 35
Figure 3.3: Example of a grid of extracted nodes on the specimen [45]
K=488.5 M P a , n=0.215, R 0 =1.88, R4 5 =1.15, R 9 0 =2.23,

Type 1-1 a=2, fo=0.999
0.8 Type IV
'3
£ 0.6
(/}
v
s
i.
H
u .0.4
o
0.2 Experimental Data
FEA Data
M-K model, Hills 1948, Swift
-0.4 0 0.2 0.4 O.i 0.8 1

Minor True Strain
Figure 3.4: Strain paths varying from uniaxial to balanced biaxial cases for the various
specimen types
62
The major and minor Lagrangian strain values determined for the defect node (i.e., eis
and e2e) and the safe region, (i.e., eiA and e2A) were first converted to true strains (i.e.,
£IB, £2B and SIA, £2A) using:
£ = -]n{\ + 2eL) (3.1)
Note that Eq. (3.1) is used as an approximation for the true strain values. The "safe"
region refers to the area outside the defect node. From these values, the strain ratio of
d£2
minor true strain to major true strain (i.e., P = ~—) was calculated. The stress ratio
d£x
which is defined as the ratio of minor true stress to major true stress (i.e., a = ^±) was
calculated based on the p value assuming Hill's 1948 yield criterion:
1
1+- p+\
R
V QJ
a= (3.2)
( 1N
p+ 1+-
V ^90 J J
A strain ratio and stress ratio were calculated for every node at every instant of time
during the deformation [44, 45]. The critical stress concentration factor, F-parameter,
was then determined for all nodes. Assuming Hill's 1948 yield criterion and that the
stress normal to the sheet in the thickness direction, (cr 3 ), is negligible, the effective
stress and major true stress are related by:
l + R90 Res
= 11- a2- a (3.3)
1+
V -^90 J v *oy V1 +
*oy
This expression was then applied to both the defect and safe regions of the material,
and a ratio was created:
63
o\ 1+^90 R,
1+ a. a,
V ^90 J l + R,0 J 0 + R
oj (3.4)
a
H 1+
V
l + R90
^90 J
Rn
l + Roj
a. a.
By multiplying both sides of Eq. (3.4) by the ratio of the major true stresses in the safe
and defect regions, the definition of F- parameter, becomes:
l + R90 R, (2R± A
1+ «\-
V ^90 Jv
1+
ôy l + Roy a. f _ A
(3.5)
Rn 2*0 \aiB J
1+
V "^90 J l + R,oj a. v 1 + *oy
a.
The ratio of major true stresses in the safe and defect regions can be equated to the
respective true strains by considering force balance in the major direction (i.e., recall Eqs.
(2.34) and (2.35) presented earlier in Chapter 2)
A/1 ~~ MB (2.34)
°L4 \4 °"lB 'B (2.35)
and by assuming the same initial thickness exists prior to forming. Thus:
t = t0exp(-e3) = t0exp{-e2-el) (3.6)
By applying Eq. (3.6) to both the safe and defect regions and substituting it into Eq.
(2.35):
r exp(-s2B-s[B)
O =
exp(-e2A-£XA)
(3.7)
Finally, by substituting Eq. (3.7) into Eq. (3.5), the Fa parameter can be expressed as:
64
1+
1 + Rgo Y R0
aA-
{2R^
+ R
"A (
K, ^90 )\} o) exp \ £2B £
\B) (3.8)
Fs
i I + R90 Y R0 f20 Vexp(- £2A X

£
2 \A)J
1+ a B- aB
K *90 A 0, [i + Roj J
The material used in the experiments for both the specimen and the washer was AISI
1018. Mechanical properties for this material based on uniaxial tension tests are provided
in Table 3.1. The tensile tests were conducted in three orientations with respect to the
rolling direction of the sheet (0°, 45° and 90°) and each test was repeated twice as shown
in Figure 3.5. The plastic anisotropic ratios (R) of the sheet metal were measured in the
three directions (0°, 45° and 90°) using the ASTM E517 standard tensile test method (see
Table 3.1).
450 i
-0
-0'
-45
•• 45'
-90
-90'
0.15 0.2 0.25 0.35 0.4

True Strain
Figure 3.5: Tensile test data for AISI1018 used
65
Mechanical Properties (at 0°) Swift Model ! Anisotropic
Initial
Parameters (at 0°) i Parameters
Material | Thickness
UTS YS E Poisson's | K
t0 (mm) £o n m : Ro 1 R45; R90
(MPa) i (MPa) (GPa) Ratio i (MPa)
:
AISI 1018J 0.78 365 170 200 0.29 j 488.5 0.215!0.012J1.88; 1.15J2.23
Table 3.1: Mechanical properties of AISI1018 used
3.2.2 Numerical Simulations Details
The FEA simulations of the modified Marciniak test were conducted using MSC
MARC 2008 Rl. Taking advantage of symmetry, only one fourth of the model was
necessary for the simulations (as shown in Chapter 4, Figure 4.3). The four geometries
specified in Table 4.1 were modeled in Marc (i.e., Type 1-1, Type II-2, Type II-3 and
Type IV). The washer and specimen thicknesses were 0.78 mm. In these numerical
simulations, incompressible shell elements (Marc element type 139) were used with a
large strain analysis of the elasto-plastic material. For biaxial loading, the deformation
will be well beyond the strain limit observed in uniaxial tension. It is known that the
material behavior at these large strains will not simply follow the power hardening curve
from uniaxial tension [47, 48] and work hardening will be less. Therefore, an alternative
material behavior was sought. Figure 3.6 shows the hardening curve assumed in the
finite element simulations (i.e., the average curve). This average curve is the
mathematical average hardening effect between the power hardening law model
(i£=488.5 MPa, «=0.215) obtained from the tensile tests and the completely saturated
hardening material model (0 =377 MPa). This was a first guess approximation of the
material behavior for large strain values. Others have used similar techniques to
determine the hardening behavior at large strains [47, 48, 49 and 50]. The data points for
66
this average curve were entered into the numerical simulations to characterize the
material behavior. All numerical simulations were conducted assuming Hill's 1948 yield
criterion.
Figure 3.6: AISI1018 hardening curves
First order shell elements were used for all models with a uniform in-plane element
size of 0.933 mm x 0.933 mm for all specimens. Both the washer and the specimen were
treated as deformable bodies and the tooling was modeled as rigid bodies. The coefficient
of friction between all surfaces was set to u= 0.1 based on friction sensitivity analysis
tests [47, 50]. Three boundary conditions (BCs) were used in all the models, i.e., two
symmetry BCs on the symmetry edges and a fully constraining BC along the lock ring
edge (as shown in Chapter 4, Figure 4.4). This latter BC is used to prevent material
draw-in to the forming area as required for Marciniak tests. All nodes and elements
outside the lock ring were removed from the model to reduce the computational time
required.
67
3.3 RESULTS
The results of Marciniak tests for different geometries were investigated with respect
to the key assumptions in the M-K model (i.e., the incremental major strain ratio), the
effective stress ratio model (i.e., the critical stress concentration factor) and the major
strain ratio model (i.e., the critical major strain concentration factor). As expected, the
various specimen geometries produced a distribution of strain paths varying from
uniaxial to balanced biaxial (see Figure 3.4). As evident from this figure, deformation
paths from the numerical simulations were reasonably close to the experimental paths
thus validating the modeling effort. Also the strain-based and stress-based FLCs for
AISI1018 were generated using the modified M-K model and the average hardening data
(i.e., A=445 MPa, rc=0.17) as shown in Figures 3.4 and 3.7. In the numerical simulations
and by analytically converting the experimental strain paths to the stress space (see
Appendix D for the analytical conversion procedure), the various specimen geometries
produced also a distribution of stress paths varying from almost uniaxial to balanced
biaxial (see Figure 3.7). Thus, varying deformation states at failure could be assessed.
d£2
For example as shown in Figure 3.8, with increasing initial strain path (i.e., P — ——
d£x
which was taken at an approximate major strain of 0.1 (since the strain path is not
constant) and increases theoretically from -0.5 for uniaxial to 1 for balanced biaxial), the
trend is for the forming depth to reach failure to increase due to more material resisting
deformation. Recall that the sacrificial washer is not used for Type I specimens. The
sacrificial washer significantly increased the forming depth at failure for Type II
specimens compared to Type I specimens. In the experimental tests the specimens were
deformed till fracture, while the stopping criterion (i.e., necking) in the numerical
68
simulations was determined when the incremental major strain ratio reached the critical
value of 0.1 (except for Type IV specimen as shown later).
500 i
ype IV
Type II-2
Type 1-1
• Experimental Data
* FEA Data
M-K model, Hills 1948, Swift
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Figure 3.7: Numerical simulated stress paths varying from uniaxial to balanced biaxial
cases for the various specimen types
35
s
S 30 Type IV
"3 25
JS
a.
• * *
«
Q
6X3 ,,„
C 20 • Experimental Data
s
©
1X4 » «B» - FEA Data
Type 1-1
15
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Initial Strain Ratio
d£2
Figure 3.8: Initial strain path ratio ( P = —— ) versus forming depth at failure
d£,
69
Figure 3.8 shows that all experimental specimens reached higher forming depths
than the numerical models predicted. This is due to the deformation not localizing as
quickly or being as concentrated in the experimental specimens. Figures 3.9 - 3.12 show
the contour strain plots for the four geometries investigated both experimentally and
numerically. During the experiments, Type II-3 specimen did not fail in the center as it
should. It failed instead near the hole edge location on the sacrificial washer. In the
numerical simulation of this specimen, the failure location was in the center. Also note
from the contour plots that experimental Type IV specimens had an abnormal shaped
area of concentrated strain (i.e., three "lobed" areas due to the balanced biaxial stretching
that was induced and multiple failure locations being initiated). The orientation of these
lobes (i.e., perpendicular and parallel to each other) is due to the normal principal and
maximum shear loading directions. These multiple failure locations were not observed in
the numerical simulations of Type IV specimens.
3.3.1 Results for M-K Model Assumption
The M-K model assumes a narrow defect region on the specimen in which the
thickness is assumed to be less than the safe region. The strain paths presented in Figures
3.13 - 3.16 are for the node (i.e., location) with the highest major strain value which was
defined as the defect Figures 3.9 - 3.12 show the defect region orientations and
perpendicular axis directions for all specimen types. To define the safe region in the
experimental data, the strain paths for the nodes at distances of 2, 5 and 10 mm
perpendicular to the defect in the X- direction are plotted for different specimen types as
shown in Figures 3.13 - 3.16. Alternatively, the safe region in the numerical models was
70
determined by plotting the strain and stress paths for the nodes at distances of 2, 3 and 5
mm perpendicular to the defect in the X- direction as shown in Figures 3.13 - 3.16. The
difference between the distances in the experiments and the FEA simulations is due to the
varying location of the deformation in the two cases.
a) Type I-1 FEA Data
'™ if i
b) Type 1-1 Experimental Data 0 94
"" 0 61
0 27
-0 07
-0 4
Figure 3.9: Numerical and experimental contour plots of major true strain for Type 1-1
specimens for a) numerical simulation and b) experimental data [44, 45]
71
a) Type 11-2 FEA Data
b) Type 11-2 Experimental Data

0.93
0.63
: 0.32
0.01
-0.3
72
a) Type II-3 FEA Data
b) Type II-3 Experimental Data

0.75
0.57
0.38
0.19

73
a) Type IV FEA Data
Lobe b) Type IV Experimental Data

0 83
0 70
: 0 57
0 44
03
Figure 3.12: Numerical and experimental contour plots of major true strain for Type IV
74
Conceptually, the divergence of the strain path curves for the defect location in the
M-K model should occur as observed in Figure 3.16 a) for Type IV specimens with the
safe region 5 mm away from the defect in the experimental data. That is, the defect and
safe regions follow the same strain path but then the defect region curve diverges just
prior to failure. Note that the divergence of the 10 mm away from the defect location
curves in the experimental data occurred early in the deformation process due to the
localization of the defect region Also, note that the location of safe region in numerical
models is related to the mesh size (i.e., the 2, 3 and 5 mm locations are approximated due
to the nodal locations at failure). For the experimental uniaxial cases (i.e., Figures 3.13
and 3.14), 10 mm away from the defect region, the divergence was not observed and the
defect and safe regions follow the same strain path throughout the process even up to
failure. For Figure 3.15 of Type II-3 specimens, the safe and defect regions do not follow
the same strain path determined experimentally even early in the process. However, for
the numerical simulations, the strain paths at various safe locations are the same initially
but then diverge.
75
a) Type I-l Experimental Data
-i 1
1
1
i 0.8
»
Strain
I
as
o
!
i s
I-
i H
0.4 u
\ ' p
- - Defect \ 'IT
. . . . . . . 2mm \ 0.2
_ . 5 m m \
— 10 mm \
0
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
Minor True Strain
b) Type I-l FEA Data 1 1

1
i 0.8
i
1 a
1 '3
0.6 i
i VI
Major True
\
o
\
— — Defect \
i
. . . . . . . 2 mm \
o
— • 3 mm \
— — 5 mm \
t i « 0
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
Minor True Strain
direction for Type I-l specimens for a) experimental [44, 45] and b) numerical simulation
data
76
a) Type II-2" Experimental Data |
s !
i
i
i - 0.8
True Strain
as
o
0.4 o
— — Defect 1
. . . . . . . 2 mm 1
0.2
—™ • 5 mm 1
——— 10 mm \
! ! i 0
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
Minor True Strain
1
b) Type II-2 FEA Data
1
1 . 0.8
1
i
'3
• 0.6^
4>
I s
i u
1 0.4 Ho
i '3°
— — Defect \
. . . . . . . 2mm \ - 0.2
spspsssra. ti T, r Y l t T l »
«=*«,_*„ 5 m m 1
i i r " i 0
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
Minor True Strain
direction for Type II-2 specimens for a) experimental [44, 45] and b) numerical
simulation data
77
1
a) Type II-3 Experimental Data
0.9
0.8
.1
0.7 •I
•l
0.6 1:1
0.5 Hi
"Jl
0.4
- Defect
0.3
•• 2 mm
0.2
• 5 mm
0.1
—10 mm
0
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Minor True Strain
1
b) Type II-:i FEA Data
0.9 -
0.8 - a
j
o
'-<t
Strain
-
OS
p
§0.5
u
H
u0.4
|0.3 II — — Defect
0.2 - i ••••••» 2 mm
f —» . 3 m m
0.1 -
1 ——5 mrn
A
! ! ? i i !
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Minor True Strain
direction for Type II-3 specimens for a) experimental [44, 45] and b) numerical
simulation data
78
1 a) Type IV Experimental Data
/
0.8 /
a
'3
35 0.6 -
s
u
H
fe 0.4 -
Jf — — Defect
0.2 - y • • 2 mm
y —— • 5 mm
y ——». jo mm
0 -r « i t r i
() 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Minor True Strain
1 -1 b) Type IV FEA Data
0.8 -
s f
et
Vt 0.6 -
s>-
H
£ 0.4 -
s y _ — Defect
0.2 - y ....... 2 mm
y — • 3 mm
0 -y —__5 mm
C 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Minor True Strain
direction for Type IV specimens for a) experimental [44, 45] and b) numerical simulation
data
79
In the M-K model, dsXB > \Ode1A defines the failure. Figures 3.17 - 3.20 show the
—L§_\ for the specimen types with respect to the defect

incremental major strain ratio (de
ds
K IA
node and the location 5 mm away from the defect location in the experimental data and 2
mm away in the numerical models. The difference in the defect location position is due to
the more concentrated deformation localization in the numerical simulations compared to
the experimental results (see Figures 3.9-3.12). In the experimental data, as the initial
strain path increases, the incremental major strain ratio for the image directly before the
tearing failure was observed decreased (e.g., approximately 12 for the uniaxial Type 1-1
case and 2.5 for Type IV balanced biaxial case) (see Figures 3.17 and 3.20). Thus, the
incremental major strain ratio is not a constant value which is often assumed when
implementing the M-K model. However, the line trajectory just prior to failure in these
figures is nearly vertical, thus indicating the localization of the deformation in the defect
region. While in the numerical simulation, all the models were able to reach to the
incremental major strain ratio of 10 except for the Type IV balanced biaxial case (see
Figure 3.20 and 3.21), the stopping criterion for this model was set to be the incidence of
direct contact between the punch and the test specimen due to the excessive sacrificial
washer hole expansion.
80
10 i
• FEA Data
et
«
fi
2 6
vi
B 4
a
a 2
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19
Forming Depth (mm)
Figure 3.17: Incremental major strain ratios versus forming depth for Type I-l specimen
for experimental [44, 45] and numerical simulation data
10 - - - - FEA Data ^
T^ • j. 1 T-\ j.
L/Xpcnmcntal Data
8
i-
Incremental Strain
as
j
I
4^
I
i
k '
fO
C\ -
i i j
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Forming Depth (mm)
81
10 FEA Data
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Forming Depth (mm)
FEA Data
3.5
©
3
'"g
.5 2.5
et
u
VI „
a
*• 1.5
i .Ur^'V^H^^
0.5
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Forming Depth (mm)
Figure 3.20: Incremental major strain ratios versus forming depth for Type IV specimen
82
'3
u
vi
"3
*J
a
o
S
t
u
S
"3
B
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Initial Strain Ratio
Figure 3.21: Initial strain path versus incremental major strain ratio directly before
failure for experimental [44, 45] and numerical simulation data
3.3.2 Results for Effective Stress Ratio Model Assumption
The effective stress ratio model uses a key assumption that relates failure to a critical
stress concentration factor (i.e., F- parameter), which is a ratio of the effective stress in
the safe region to the effective stress in the defect region. Since the stress values at the
defect location are always expected to be higher than the other areas, the F- parameter is
always less than unity.
Experimental data was analyzed at four different images before failure (i.e., 0.75-3
seconds before failure for the Type I-l specimen and 1-4 seconds for the Type II and the
Type IV specimens) [44, 45] which corresponds to a given distance before failure. The
reason for choosing different time amounts was to capture the failure and strain effects
between the subsequent images (i.e., approximately 1% strain difference between
images). As with the M-K analysis, the highest major strain location was selected as the
defect node. The effective stress value at the defect node was divided into the effective
83
stress value at the given X-direction location as shown in Figures 3.9 - 3.12. Thus, at the
X-distance of zero (i.e., the defect node) the F- parameter was unity. Figures 3.22 a) -
3.25 a) show plots of the X-direction location versus F- parameter. The five curves are
labeled with respect to the punch location prior to failure (e.g., see Figures 3.22 where
the punch would travel 0.36 mm between images). Numerical data was also analyzed at
four different increments prior to failure and are included in Figures 3.22 b) - 3.25 b).
In Figure 3.22 a), for the experimental uniaxial case, the F- parameter becomes
relatively constant after a distance of 10 mm away from the defect location. This could
represent the safe region of the specimen. For other specimen geometries, the F~
parameter continues to vary beyond 10 mm; thus, the "safe" region is not as easily
defined. Note that for Figure 3.23 a), for the Type II-2 specimen, the F5 parameter
increases after 15 mm away from the defect. In Figure 3.25 a) (i.e., the balanced biaxial
geometry), the .F-parameter is very close to unity for -10 to 10 mm in the X-direction
from the defect. This is due to the large defect area as observed in Figure 3.12.
The numerical simulation data shows the same trends observed from the experiments
(except for the increase of Fd parameter in Type II-2 specimens). However, the safe
region of the specimens was closer to the defect location. This is consistent with the safe
region evaluation for the M-K analysis parameter in Figures 3.13-3.16. Also the value
that the Fs parameter leveled off to is different. For example for the Type I-l specimens,
the F- value leveled off at 0.7 for experiments while for numerical simulations, the value
was much lower (i.e., 0.5). This again is due to the more localized defect in the FEA
results.
84
direction location for Type I-l specimens at various distances from failure for a)
experimental [44, 45] and b) numerical simulation data
85
Figure 3.23: Critical stress concentration factor (i.e., F~ parameter) versus the X-
direction location for Type II-2 specimens at various distances from failure for a)
86
a) Type II-3 Experimental Data
l.l
^^2»v
0.9 - ^l^«^
0.8 -
'• Fa -2.356 mm
0.7 - tfBt
~ Fa-1.767 mm
JS!
• Fa-1.178 mm
0.6 -
-Fa-0.589 mm
— Fa Fracture
—e^
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance from defect node in X-Direction (mm)
b) Type II-2 FEA Data
Fa-1.023 mm
Fa -0.737 mm
0.2 - Fa -0.520 mm
•Fa-0.243 mm
• Fa Failure
-e-
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance from defect (mm)
87
direction location for Type IV specimens at various distances from failure for a)
88
F- parameter values were also compared with respect to different specimen
geometries with strain paths varying from uniaxial to balanced biaxial. Figure 3.26
shows for both experimental and numerical data that as the initial strain path increases
(e.g., Type I-l for uniaxial and Type IV for balanced biaxial), the width of the defect
region increases. This effect is also physically reasonable. As the width area of the
specimen increases, the defect region for the specimen also increases.
a) Experimental Data
L2
1 ~-mw&^^ «_
^ ^ ^sn> ^ ^
0 8 -I ^
u
• * *
0.6 -
B -~^^ I-l
et
•u 0.4 - TypeII-2
et
OH
e — - TypeII-3
0.2 -
fa — —- Type IV
0 „
__
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
•Type I-l
Type 11-2
Type II-3
Type IV
^_
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Figure 3.26: F- parameter versus distance from the defect node in the X-direction for
different specimen types for a) experimental [44, 45] and b) numerical simulation data
89
Figure 3.27 shows the F- parameter values with respect to the initial strain path in
the "safe" region at both 5 and 10 mm away from the defect location for the experimental
data (Exp) and 2 and 5 mm away for the numerical simulation data (FEA). As the initial
strain path increases in the specimen, the F- parameter value increases.
1.2 -,
Type II-3 Type IV
Type II-2
Type I-l y^^Z— • *"**

uv
•**
a»
E
et
s-
et
C,
C
fa 5 mm away from the defect (Exp)
2 mm away from the defect (FEA)
10 mm away from the defect (Exp)
5 mm away from the defect (FEA)
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Initial Strain Path
Figure 3.27: Critical stress concentration factor versus initial strain path for both
experimental (Exp) [44, 45] and numerical simulation (FEA) data
3.3.3 Results for Major Strain Ratio Model Assumption
The major strain ratio model uses a key assumption that relates failure to a critical
major strain concentration factor (i.e., FeX parameter) which is the ratio of the major true
strain in the safe region to the major true strain in the defect region. Since the strain
values at the defect location are always expected to be higher than the other areas, the
FeX parameter is always less than unity.
90
Experimental data was analyzed at four different images before failure (i.e., 0.75-3
seconds before failure for the Type I-l specimen and 1-4 seconds for the Type II and type
IV specimens). To be consistent with the M-K and the effective stress ratio analyses, the
highest major strain location was selected as the defect node. For all specimens, the
defect node had the FeX parameter of unity. Figures 3.28 a) - 3.31 a) show plots of X-
direction location versus FeX parameter. The five curves are labeled with respect to the
punch location prior to failure (e.g., see Figures 3.28 a)). The punch would travel 0.36
mm between images. Numerical data was analyzed at four different increments prior to
failure. Figures 3.28 b) - 3.31 b) show the four curves labeled with respect to the punch
location prior to failure.
In Figure 3.28 a), for the experimental uniaxial case, the FeX parameter becomes
relatively constant although continues to decrease slightly after a distance of 10 mm away
from the defect location. This could represent the safe region of the specimen as was the
case in the effective stress ratio model. For other specimen geometries, the FsX parameter
continues to linearly decrease beyond 10 mm; thus, the "safe" region is not as easily
defined. Note that for Figure 3.31 b) (i.e., the numerical simulation of the balanced
biaxial geometry), the Fei parameter is very close to unity up to 12 mm in the X-
direction away from the defect. This is due to the large defect area as observed in Figure
3.12. The numerical simulation data shows the same trend observed from the experiments
but the safe region of the specimens is closer to the defect location in a similar trend to
the effective stress ratio model data. Again the values that the major strain ratio model
levels off at are different with lower values for the numerical simulations than the
experimental results.
91
Figure 3.28: Critical major strain concentration factor (i.e., FeX parameter) versus the X-
direction location for Type I-l specimens at various distances from failure for a)
experimental and b) numerical simulation data
92
Figure 3.29: Critical major strain concentration factor (i.e., F£X parameter) versus the X-
93
94
a) Type IV Experimental Data
^ ^ * ^ T ° 5 L * 'M^t .as^
owe** 1 *
"J^-^^^^^ 0.8
1
• * *
1
<u
0.6
B
et
s-
e« . . . . . . . p E l -2.273 mm
&- 0.4
U
- - F E I -1.705 mm
fa I
1
— • F£l-1.137mm
0.2
— • — F E I -0.568 mm
— — F E I Fracture
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

b) Type IV FEA Data

... .,....- .,. ,.. .4-.
ijiy 0.8 -
\ ^
u
o
0.6 -
B
et
u
et
OH . . . . . . . pel -0.876 mm
0.4 -
•H
W "=• ^ F E I -0.658 mm
fa
— • F E I -0.432 mm
0.2 -
— • - F E I -0.211 mm
1
' F E I Failure
is
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

direction location for Type IV specimens at various distances from failure for a)
95
Figure 3.32: F£] parameter versus distance from the defect node in the X-direction for
different specimen types for a) experimental and b) numerical simulation data
96
Fsl parameter values were also compared with respect to different specimen
geometries with strain paths varying from uniaxial to balanced biaxial. Figure 3.32
shows for both experimental and numerical data that as the initial strain path increases
(e.g., Type I-l for uniaxial and Type IV for balanced biaxial), the width of the defect
region increases.
Figure 3.33 shows the F£X parameter values with respect to the initial strain path in the
"safe" region at both 5 and 10 mm away from the defect location in the experimental data
(Exp) and 2 and 5 mm away in numerical simulation (FEA). As the initial strain path
increases in the specimen, the FEX parameter value increases in a similar trend to the
effective stress ratio model data. However, the Fs] parameter values seem more scatter.
Type IV
u
4t
S
es
;_
et
w
fa 5 mm away from the defect (Exp)
— • * 2 mm away from the defect (FEA)
D— 10 mm away from the defect (Exp)
O" - 5 mm away from the defect (FEA)
-0.6 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.2

Initial Strain Path
Figure 3.33: Critical major strain concentration factor versus initial strain path for both
experimental (Exp) and numerical simulation (FEA) data
97
3.4 DISCUSSION
The experimental results show that the key assumptions in the M-K, effective stress
ratio and major strain ratio models are not completely supported by the experimental data
of the tests described in [44, 45]. The incremental major strain ratio to indicate failure for
the M-K model is expected to be a constant value for every strain path. However, as
shown in Figure 3.21, the incremental major strain ratio decreases with increasing initial
strain path values in experimental data. Note, however the nearly vertical slope of the
curves just prior to failure in Figures 3.17 - 3.20. Thus, while the incremental major
strain ratio values were not a constant value (e.g., dsXB > 1 OdsXA ), only a small amount of
further deformation would have been necessary to achieve this value.
For the key assumption in effective stress ratio model, the critical stress concentration
factor was not constant at a given X-direction location for the various initial strain paths
either (see Figure 3.27). This is due to the saturation (i.e., leveling off) of the stress-strain
relationship at high strain values. Despite the higher strain values in the defect region as
shown in Figure 3.12, the calculated critical stress concentration factor did not decrease
significantly with the X-distance. This created near unity F- parameter in both the
experiments and numerical simulations for the balanced biaxial case. Furthermore, the
width of the defect region increased as the strain path varied from a uniaxial to balanced
biaxial case. For the Type IV case, the F- parameter was near unity over a 20-30 mm
range for the experimental results, and near unity over a 5-7 mm range for the numerical
simulation. This is much larger than a thin deformation zone assumed in all three
analytical models (see Figure 3.26).
98
For the key assumption in major strain ratio model, the critical major strain
concentration factor was not constant at a given X-direction location for various initial
strain paths either (see Figure 3.33). Since only two positive initial strain paths were
tested during the experimental and numerical tests, the hypothesis of a linear relationship
between the major stains in regions A and B for p > 0 cannot be completely verified and
more experiments are required to test this theory.
Thus, for none of the models considered (i.e., M-K, the effective stress ratio or the
major strain ratio models) did a constant parameter to predict failure exist. The M-K
model though had a more consistent location of the safe region (approximately 5 mm
away from the defect node in the experimental data and 2 mm away from the defect node
in the numerical simulations) and reasonable size of the defect region compared to the
effective stress ratio model which had a defect size of approximately 20-30 mm for the
experimental balanced biaxial case. Defect localization was also distinguishable in the
major strain ratio model as shown in Figure 3.32.
Note that for these comparisons of the M-K, the effective stress ratio and the major
strain ratio models assumptions, data was obtained to represent failure at the image
directly before a physical tearing failure was observed. However, plastic instability would
have occurred prior to this image. This, particularly, would have affected the results for
the M-K analysis as the deviation of the strain path in the defect region signifies plastic
instability. However, this would decrease the incremental major strain ratio at failure and
a typical value to predict failure is already lower than expected (i.e., <10) for all
d£XA
geometries except the uniaxial case.
99
3.5 CONCLUSIONS
In this chapter, the key assumptions in the M-K, effective stress ratio and major strain
ratio failure models were investigated by conducting Marciniak tests and numerical
simulations on AISI 1018 steel to determine the related parameters of interest. These
models are based on the assumptions regarding material behavior and the mechanics of
the deformation processes, and thus provide insight into failure. Strain was measured
experimentally in the process using Digital Imaging Correlation (DIC) and was converted
to a critical stress concentration factor (i.e., F- parameter) assuming Hill's 1948 yield
criterion, force equilibrium perpendicular to the defect region, and conservation of
volume. Strain paths generated from the Marciniak tests produced a reasonable
distribution between uniaxial and balanced biaxial cases.
For the M-K model, while a concentration of major strain existed in the defect region
compared to the safe region, the incremental major strain ratio at failure was not constant
but decreased as the initial strain path for the specimen increased. However, the trajectory
of the incremental major strain ratio curves was such that a plane strain state existed in
the defect region at failure. The safe region was shown to be approximately 5 mm away
from the defect region in the experimental data and 2 mm away from the defect region in
the numerical simulations. Note that the typical means to conceptualize failure in the M-
K model (i.e., the defect region strain path diverging from the safe region strain path)
does not occur for specimen geometries with uniaxial and plane strain paths.
For the effective stress ratio model, the F- parameter was not constant for the various
initial strain paths. Also, the size of the defect varied, which is expected due to the
varying specimen geometries. The saturation of effective stress for the stress-strain
100
relationship caused the F~ parameter for the balanced biaxial case to not decrease
significantly when considering locations perpendicular to the defect region. But the F-
parameter was able to characterize the localization of deformation, the size of the defect
region, and distinction between the safe and the defect regions.
For the major strain ratio model, the hypothesis of a linear relationship between the
major stains in both the safe and defect regions was not completely verified and more
experiments are required to verify this theory. But the FeX parameter was able to
characterize the localization of deformation, the size of the defect region, and distinction
between the safe and the defect regions in a similar trend to F- parameter.
101
CHAPTER 4
EFFECT OF ELEMENT TYPES ON FAILURE PREDICTION
USING A STRESS-BASED FORMING LIMIT CURVE
4-1. INTRODUCTION
Finite element analysis (FEA) is being used extensively in industry as another tool to
predict failure location during the forming process [49-56]. Literature review shows
extensive use of shell elements in sheet metal forming [55-60]. For example, Galbraith et.
al [56] compared the cost-benefits of seven four-noded shell elements included in LS-
DYNA3D element library for the Numisheet 93 square benchmark problem. Yoshida et
al. [58] performed a deformation analysis of dome test using shell elements. The limiting
cup height and rupture location were predicted accurately for mild steel, high-strength
steels, austenitic stainless steel and aluminum alloy.
Solid-shell elements have, also been used, for in sheet metal forming simulations [61-
68]. For example Cardoso et al. [62, 63] presented examples of the successful
implementation of solid-shell elements theory in sheet metal forming simulations,
including large deformation anisotropic and isotropic plasticity with friction, and
consistent numerical solutions compared to experimental results were provided.
On the other hand, 3D continuum elements were not so commonly utilized in the sheet
forming processes due to the large demand required in the computational time [69-70].
For example, Wriggers et al. [69] made a detailed comparison between modeling shells
by three-dimensional brick elements and simple shell elements. It has been shown that
102
the enhanced strain brick element yields accurate solutions and can be applied even to
very thin shells. Jung and Yang [70] presented a comparison of shell and solid elements
with experimental data for plane-strain conditions. Their comparisons indicated a close
agreement of all analyses with experiments in the pure stretching. Several comparisons
have been made between different element types [56, 59, 69, and 70] and the results, in
general, show that higher accuracy is achieved when using 3D continuum elements over
the shell elements.
This chapter presents a comparison between the strain, stress paths and the FLCs
generated using three element types: shell, solid and solid-shell elements. Through
numerical simulations and assuming a stress FLD, the results are compared to
experimental work to ensure that the numerical models are predicting the actual material
deformation and failure during the forming process. The results show that for the in-plane
stretching conditions examined; only minor differences exist in the FLDs generated with
each element type.
4-2. MARCINIAK TEST BACKGROUND
The Marciniak stretch test was designed to overcome the severe strain gradients
through the thickness that develop due to friction, normal punch pressure, and bending in
traditional dome tests [46, 47]. Without the influences of these parameters which are
difficult to quantify, Marciniak tests are more sensitive to material defects and can
provide more accurate and repeatable results that are useful for FEA simulations. In these
tests a sacrificial washer is inserted between the specimen and the punch to minimize the
strain localization under the punch edge. Also, a recessed punch surface is used in order
103
to minimize the friction in the central pole as shown in Figure 4.1. A lock ring is used to
prevent material flow into the forming area.
-PUNCH
100 mm (3 937") -
TOP BINDER
REMOVABLE
LOCK RING
-RECESSED
POCKET
n
-SACRIFICIAL
40 mm WASHER
RJ2 mm (0 472")
(1 575") L
R12mm(0 472'
~TT7\ -SPECIMEN
U
BOTTOM BINDER
110 mm (4 331")
Figure 4.1: Modified Marciniak test tooling
Raghavan developed and tested seventeen specimens configurations [46], and by
changing the specimen and the washer geometries he covered linear strain paths ranging
from uniaxial (i.e., ej = -2ei) to balanced biaxial stretching (i.e., £/ = ei). The width and
notch radius of the specimens as well as the hole diameter of the washers were varied to
ensure that strain localization and failure occurred within the in-plane straining region of
each sample. Seven specimens were selected from Raghavan's work for the numerical
simulations (see Figure 4.2 for the four major types of specimen geometries and Table
4.1 for the specimen details). All specimens and washers have a length of 177.8 mm. The
washer can be made from any stock steel or other metal with equal or better formability
104
than the specimen material. This assures that specimens fail before the edge of the
enlarged hole cracks or tears. Also, the washer thickness must be equal to or larger than
the specimen thickness if the same material is used for the specimen and washer;
otherwise fracture can occur in the washer.
Type I Type II Typem TypelV
177.8 * - W s •*. 177.8 177.8
177.8
Rs
c 177.8
Washer Geometry Dia W

I R« I DiaW
None 177.8
6 177.8 J ^ Q Q 177<8
Dia W
Figure 4.2: Specimen and washer geometry types
Specimen Effective Specimen Notch Radius Washer Hole Diameter

Type Width W s (mm) Rs (mm) W(mm)
Type I-l 25.4 76.2
No washer used
Type 1-2 50.8 63.5
Type II-l 120.6 40.64

No notch
Type II-2 139.7 38.1
Type IH-1 120.65 28.575 40.64
Type in-2 133.5 22.15 38.1
Type IV 177.8 No notch 30.25
Table 4.1: Seven specimen and washer dimensions used [46]
105
4-3. NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS DETAILS
The FEA simulations of the modified Marciniak test were conducted using MSC
MARC 2008 R l . Taking advantage of symmetry, only one fourth of the model was
necessary for the simulations as shown in Figure 4.3. The seven geometries specified in
Table 4.1 were modeled in Marc and twenty one simulations were conducted (seven with
shell element, seven with solid element and seven with solid-shell element). The washer
and specimen thicknesses are 0.8 mm. In all simulations, incompressible elements were
used with a large strain analysis of the elasto-plastic material. In this chapter, the material
used in the numerical simulation for both the specimen and the washer is hot dipped high
strength interstitial free steel HC220YD. Tensile tests and the experimental strain-based
FLD data were provided in the Numisheet 2008 benchmarking for this material [35]. The
mechanical properties of the HC220YD steel are £=200 GPa, v=0.29 with anisotropic
parameters of i?0=1.28, R45=2.08 and Rgo=l.$6. A power hardening law with parameters
of K= 678.3 MPa and rc=0.2258 was assumed. Numerical simulations were conducted
with Hill's 1948 yield criterion, and the yield loci for this material are (7.«/70=O.956 and
7p(/7o=1.005). The X-axis (see Figure 4.4) was considered parallel to the rolling
direction in all models.
First order elements were used for all models with a uniform initial in-plane element
size of 0.933 mm X 0.933 mm for all specimens. The number of elements and nodes are
provided in Table 4.2 for comparison between FEA models. Both the washer and the
specimen were treated as deformable bodies and the tooling was modeled as rigid bodies.
Since the area of interest in the Marciniak tests (i.e., the central region) has only in-plane
stresses and no bending, two elements per thickness were sufficient as the stress and
106
strain distributions through the thickness were uniform. Mid-plane nodes were used to
analyze the strain and stress values. The coefficient of friction between all surfaces was
set to ju= 0.1 based on friction sensitivity analysis tests performed by others [47, 50].
Three boundary conditions (BCs) were used in all the models, i.e., two symmetry BCs on
the symmetry edges and a fully constraining BC along the lock ring edge as shown in
Figure 4.4. This former BC is used to prevent material draw-in to the forming area as
required for Marciniak tests. All nodes and elements outside the lock ring were removed
from the model to reduce the computational time required.
Punch " * -•
*•
; ; A
*iJ^^^^^P''. .'••';^.t*WS F ^'
* \ \ - '''-.' •>.;• '—'•- $ ••.:•"• ^.*>
Bl"*ftjSSw
I'.'.V:.:^ t J-
t
flWBv*-s Lock ring

• "MX* 'i Type I specimen
4
/ 4>
Die
Figure 4.3: FEA model showing the punch, die, locking ring and specimen
4-4. ELEMENT SELECTION GUIDELINES
The shell element used in this chapter (element type 139 according to MSC MARC
notation) is a Kirchhoff-theory based 4-node bilinear thin-shell element with full
integration. The bilinear interpolation is used in this element for the coordinates,
displacements and rotations. The membrane strains are obtained from the displacement
field and the curvatures from the rotation field so that six degrees of freedom per node are
107
available. Integration through the shell thickness is performed numerically using
Simpson's rule and eleven integrations points though the thickness [71, 72].
Y-symmetry BCs
-X-symmetry
BCs
\
( 011M1 iininsi IK •>
(Kollni!! di'LLtion)
Figure 4.4: Boundary Conditions used in the FEA model for Type I specimen
The solid element used (Marc element type 7) is a 8-node three-dimensional
hexahedral continuum brick with full integration. This element uses trilinear (linear in all
three directions) interpolation functions; thus, the strains are constant throughout the
element. This results in a poor representation of shear or bending behavior. However, this
is not a concern in the central region of interest for Marciniak tests. The constant
dilatation integration procedure was used for this problem to prevent potential element
volumetric locking [71]. Higher order elements are not recommended for modeling large
plastic deformations because they are susceptible to volumetric locking when simulating
incompressible materials. Our test simulations support this observation. As a means to
demonstrate this, higher order quadratic elements were used and resulted in unstable
behavior of the model at strains higher than 30%. However at small strains, the
108
predictions of linear and high order elements models were identical. Also, higher order
elements should not be used in this type of problem due to the contact involved.
The solid-shell element used (element type 185) is a shell element of eight-node brick
topology with reduced integration. The element uses enhanced assumed strain
formulation for transverse normal component (i.e., E33) and transverse shear components.
The stiffness matrix of this element is formed using one integration point in the element
plane and a user defined number through the element thickness (with Marc's default of
seven layers selected). In this way the element can capture accurate material plasticity
under bending load. This element gives more accurate results than the classical shell
elements in applications that require double-sided contact [71, 72].
For all specimen types mentioned in Table 4.1 (except Type III), the element located
on the symmetry lines of the specimen experienced the highest strain and stress in the
model and thus was of interest to investigate for failure. For Type III specimens, the
element of interest was shifted by one row from the line of symmetry. The major and
minor stresses and strains that represent the deformation path for that element were then
plotted. Various strain paths from uniaxial to equibiaxial were obtained from the seven
geometries. All numerical simulations were conducted using Intel quad core 17- 950
processor (8MB of Cache, 3.06 MHz). Relative computational times are reported in
Table 4.2 for element type comparison.
4-5. COMPARISON BETWEEN ELEMENT TYPES
Figure 4.5 shows the experimental FLC from Numisheet 2008 [35] and the strain
paths obtained for the element in the mesh at the mid-plane which experienced the most
109
severe deformation. All the strain paths have crossed the experimental FLC. There are no
significant differences observed in the trend for the three element types when strain
values are below the FLC strain values. Strain paths for specimen Type II-2 shows some
minor deviation when e/=0.35 and Type III-2 shows some deviation throughout. More
obvious differences between the strain paths are observed above the FLC which indicates
strain localization and failure. Figure 4.6 shows the stress paths and the experimental
stress-based FLC (which was analytically converted from the experimental strain FLC,
see Appendix D for details regarding this analytical conversion). The stress paths show
more deviation than the strain paths with slight oscillation due to dynamic effects and
switching of contact conditions in the numerical simulations. In order to compare the
failure predicted by the stress-based FLD to the experimentally determined strain-based
FLDs, the stress-based FLD can be used to generate a strain-based FLD in the numerical
simulations. Crossing of the stress-based FLD determined the failure in the simulations
(as opposed to, for instance, a certain strain state, a certain thinning ratio, or any other
strain-based failure criterion). The strain state corresponding to failure in the stress state,
i.e., the point on the stress-based FLD obtained using linear interpolation, was plotted in
order to obtain a single point on the corresponding strain-based FLD. This was repeated
seven times for the seven different geometries for all three element types considered to
create seven points on the three strain-based FLCs. The strain-based FLC from the
numerical simulations was then generated by simply connecting the seven points with a
line. This numerically generated strain-based FLD was then compared to the
experimental strain-based FLD. Figure 4.6 and Table 4.3 show the values of true stress
110
components and the associated true strain components when the stress paths are crossing
the experimental stress-based FLC.
Row (1) Shell, (2) Solid, (3) Solid-Shell

Specimen Type
Number of nodes Number of elements Relative computational time
4193 4001 1
Type I-l 12579 8002 3.67
8002 4186 1.63
5793 5601 2.00
Type 1-2 17379 11202 6.16
17379 11202 4.12
12173 11856 17.45
Type II-l 22679 13311 21.41
30097 17745 20.96
14428 14088 23.95
Type II-2 34887 20590 68.90
26577 15622 27.83
9981 9662 23.37
Type III-l 23817 15336 51.90
23817 15336 37.59
10317 9998 22.87
Type III-2 24923 16068 51.26
S 24923 16068 35.73
10653 10328 22.51
Type IV 34088 19921 106.77
34088 19921 45.87
Tab le 4.2: Number oi "nodes and elements in FEA models
111
It is clear that good prediction is achieved except for specimen Type I-l, 1-2 and IV
(uniaxial and biaxial stretching). The maximum deviation in the major strain between the
element types occurred for the plane strain case (Type III-1) with a value of 0.058 and the
uniaxial tension case (Type I-l) with a value of 0.091. Figure 4.8 shows the punch
£2
displacement at failure versus the initial stain ratio (P - — ) . The solid-shell element
*i
shows a continuous trend of lagging behind both the shell and the solid elements for all
the geometries tested with a larger punch displacement required to indicate failure. Using
the reduced integration in the solid-shell element leads to a softer element and thus
volumetric locking in the plastic range has to be taken into account. This problem can be
solved by increasing the number of layers through the thickness of the solid-shell element
as shown in Figure 4.8.
For specimen Type III-2, an artificial geometrical imperfection (see Figure 4.9) was
introduced in the central four elements of all models (i.e., shell, solid and solid-shell) by
changing the element thickness from 0.8 mm to 0.76 mm (reduction by 5%). Adding this
imperfection was necessary so the stress path intersected with the experimental stress-
based FLC. Figure 4.10 shows the effect of reducing the thickness on the stress path for
the shell model. The shifting of the deformation path is due to the localization of the
deformation in that region. A similar effect was observed for all three element types. The
element thickness of 0.76 mm was selected since less reduction has little effect on the
stress path and thus failure predication. Note that the stress-based FLC was linearly
extended (see dotted portion of curve in Figure 4.5) so Type III-2 and IV specimen
intersected.
112
Failure location was changing depending on the specimen geometry. For example
specimen Types I-l, 1-2, II-1, II-2 and IV the failure locations were at the central element
along the lines of symmetry. However, for Type III-l and III-2, the failure locations were
shifted by one row of elements, as shown in Figure 4.11. This shift appears to be related
to the distribution of stresses for this particular geometry.
0.8
II
Figure 4.5: Stain paths generated using the three element types with the experimental
Forming Limit Curve
113
Figure 4.6: Stress paths generated using the three element types with the experimental
stress-based FLC
0.8 -
0.7 V -
0.6 Njt
0-5 "N^
V
w'0.4 \ - ,1-^y^^
-* j ^ ^
Vs
^**
0.3 ^—Experimental FLC
0.2 esiÔraB&p ^ h f * 1 1
0.1 - - — Solid
^^^^ Solid- Shell
U i i i- ?
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 () 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
£2
Figure 4.7: FLC generated using the three element types with the experimental FLC
114
55
50
0)
45
9
et
«M
• * *
4.0
et
• * *
eD
C
'••A
S 35 f-/
uet
30
M
t/t • shell
'6,'/
e>~- Solid
25 */ / • Solid-Shell 7 layers
Solid-Shell 11 layers
20
•Solid-Shell 15 layers
15
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.1 1
P =(E2/El)
Figure 4.8: Punch displacements at failure versus the strain ratio for seven specimen
types
~r - V ' 5*." > *" * i • I ~ - "at * "• '"**' < *\* y

»
•*• *- y y "X ^ y v >. v > < -
v x ' sc jy N ^ A ^ v * - > -f y
v
*>- ' . ' .*• '.•< ^ , * *
fi< Imperfection
Figure 4.9: Location of the imperfection added to the mesh for specimen Type III-2
115
Row (1) Shell (element 139), (2) Solid (element 7), (3) Solid-Shell (element 185)
Specimen Type
o, (MPa) C2(MPa) ; Ei | 62
751.5 199.3 0.715 -0.372
Type I-l 740.5 172.5 0.670 -0.352
735.9 162.5 0.624 -0.340
768.8 265.3 0.667 -0.310
Type 1-2 76778 !'" ~ " 252J 0.656 -0.306
772.8 236.3 0.639 0.310
769.3 341 0.556 -0.203
Type II-l 766.5 348.4 0.523 -0.189
770.8 323.4 0.528 0.197
426.8 750.4 0.424 -0.094
Type II-2 4071 ; 7544 0.441 -0.092
399.1 756.6 0.418 0.105
780.2 568.4 0.283 0.005
Type III-l 785.3 588.6 0.261 0.003
781.4 578.4 0.319 0.003
863.2 791.7 0.449 0.354
Type III-2 866.5 801.4 0.439 0.34
873.2 821 0.422 0.328
896.2 882.5 0.633 0.626
TypeFV 896.3 879.5 0.654 0.648
904.8 904.5 0.704 0.699
Table 4.3: True stress and strain components values reported at crossing of the stress
paths with the experimental stress-based FLC
116
1000
950
900 -
850 -
800
FLC
750 -
Element Thickness of 0.75 mm
700 Element Thickness of 0.77 mm
650
650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000
o7 MPa
ure 4.10: Effect of imperfection thickness (shell element) for specimen Type III-2
Figure 4.11: Location of failure for specimen Type III-2
117
4-6. DISCUSSION
In general, the strain paths generated utilizing the three different element types did not
show a significant difference below the strain-based FLC. The shell element showed the
ability to deform more than the solid and the solid-shell element, while the stress paths
had minor differences between the three elements. For example, stress paths generated
using the solid-shell element were more uniform and had less "zigzagging" than the other
elements indicating that solid-shell element is less sensitive to contact problems. The
FLCs generated using the three element types are in good agreement with the
experimental FLC and indicate that there is no preferred element for this problem. The
shell element-based FEA predictions of the forming depth at failure have been
experimentally validated for AISI1018 steel, as shown in Chapter 3.
However, usage of the shell element reduced the computational time considerably: by
474% and 204% (for the biaxial case) as compared to the solid and solid-shell elements,
respectively. Thus, because of this advantage in computational time, shell elements are
often used when modeling sheet metal forming operations.
Note that Marciniak tests produce a nearly linear strain path in the process. Kinsey et
al. [73] showed that the stress-based failure criterion could be used in numerical
simulations to predict failure for a square cup application. A restriking process was used
to create a sharper planar radius that could not be achieved in a single forming process.
Due to the path dependence of the strain-based FLD, an accurate prediction of the
forming severity could not be produced with a strain-based criterion. Thus, while only
linear strain paths were used in this research, similar results would be expected if non-
linear strain paths were induced as was the case in Kinsey et al. [73].
118
4-7. CONCLUSION
The effect of changing the element type has been investigated in numerical
simulations of the Marciniak test, and a stress-based failure prediction criterion was
successfully implemented.
The choice of an element for sheet-forming simulations must balance the
computational requirements against the desired accuracy of the results. Differences were
seen in the simulation time and performance of the three elements tested in MARC's
element library. If computational time is the dominant criterion for element selection,
then the shell element is a reasonable choice. More reliable predictions for FLD are
obtainable at a reasonable computational time with the solid-shell element. The stiffness
of this element can be controlled through the number of layers through the thickness and
15 layers shown to be reasonable for this problem.
119
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
Sheet metal forming is a key manufacturing process for several industries including
automotive and aerospace. Critical to the successful implementation of sheet metal
forming processes is the accurate prediction of material failure through numerical and
analytical models. In this dissertation, research efforts in this area were described. In
Chapter 2, three main analytical models were discussed: the modified Marciniak and
Kuczynski (M-K) model which included a varying defect orientation with respect to the
principal stress directions, the effective stress ratio model and the major strain ratio
model. The M-K predictions of the FLC were demonstrated with several yield criteria for
eight different materials. The non-incremental stress-based FLC theory of the effective
stress ratio model was described, and its extensions to include varying defect orientation
and more advanced yield criteria were presented. It was clear that the embedded
proportional loading condition and the constant critical stress concentration factor value
in the effective stress ratio model limit the application of this model. An incremental
approach to the effective stress ratio model that can satisfy the set of all equations was
not found. Also, the original non-incremental FLC theory of the major strain ratio model
was presented, and this model was shown to reasonably match data from proportional
experiments in both stress and strain space. This model has significant computational
advantages over the traditional M-K model since it is a non-incremental approach.
In Chapter 3, a study was conducted using Marciniak tests, AISI1018 steel and the
shell element numerical models to numerically investigate the key assumption of the
120
three analytical models. The results show that strain paths generated from simulating
Marciniak tests produced a reasonable match with the experimental data. The parameters
investigated to predict failure (i.e., the incremental strain ratio, critical stress
concentration factor and critical strain concentration factor) were not constant for the
various strain paths for the three analytical models considered. For the M-K model, while
a concentration of major strain existed in the defect region compared to the safe region,
the incremental strain ratio at failure was not constant but decreased as the initial strain
path for the specimen increased. However, the trajectory of the incremental strain ratio
curves was such that a plane strain state existed in the defect region at failure. For the
effective stress ratio model, the Fd parameter was also not constant for the various initial
strain paths. Also, the size of the defect varied, which is expected due to the varying
specimen geometries. Despite the higher strain values in the defect region as observed
with the experimental data, the saturation of effective stress for the stress-strain
relationship caused the F- parameter for the balanced biaxial case to not decrease
significantly when considering locations perpendicular to the defect region. But the F-
parameter was able to characterize the localization of deformation, the size of the defect
region, and distinction between the safe and the defect regions. The results of this
numerical study were consistent with the past work [44, 45] except that the safe region
was shown to be approximately 2 mm away from the defect region for all specimen
geometries and "lobed" defect areas existed for the experimental balanced biaxial strain
path cases, which is likely due to defects in the material. For the major strain ratio
model, the hypothesis of a linear relationship between the major stains in both the safe
and defect regions was not completely verified and more experiments are required to
121
verify this theory. But the FeX parameter was able to characterize the localization of
deformation, the size of the defect region, and distinction between the safe and the defect
regions in a similar trend to F- parameter.
Finally in Chapter 4, finite element analysis (FEA) was used in the prediction of FLC,
and a comparison between three different element types (shell, solid and solid-shell) was
conducted in detail. The numerical results show that despite the differences in stress
distribution assumptions, shell, solid and solid-shell elements would not provide
differences in failure prediction when a stress-based failure criterion is used to simulate
the Marciniak stretch test. The choice of an element for simulating this test must balance
the computational requirements against the desired accuracy of the results. If
computational time is a dominate criterion for element selection, then the shell element is
a reasonable choice
The goal of this dissertation was to develop analytical and numerical tools that can
accurately predict failure in sheet metal forming operations. Hopefully the work
presented adds to the knowledge in this area and will be useful to the sheet metal forming
community.
122
CHAPTER 6
FUTURE WORK
6.1 ANALYTICAL MODELING IMPROVEMENTS
There are new advanced higher order yield criteria that are able to describe materials
behavior more accurately e.g., the behavior of aluminum alloys in the M-K analysis [27,
31, 32 and 40]. These higher order yield criteria would require an additional
transformation technique or iterative procedure to solve for the stress and strain ratios
which would cause the computations to become more intensive, but not impossible.
Work has already begun on the incorporation of Banabic BBC2000 and Barlat YLD2000
in the major strain ratio model.
6.2 NUMERICAL MODELING IMPROVEMENTS
As mentioned previously in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, Hill's 1948 anisotropic yield
criterion was used in the numerical simulations of steel specimens. This yield criterion
does not accurately describe the behavior of aluminum alloys and there is a need to
incorporate other more advanced yield criteria (i.e., YLD2000 and BBC2000) if
aluminum alloys are going to be examined numerically.
Narasimhan and Wagoner [26] presented an interesting finite element model to
simulate in-plane forming limit diagrams of sheets containing finite defects without using
a contact problem (i.e., no punch or die were used). A specimen similar to Figure 2.1
was modeled on their study to investigate the key assumptions in the M-K model on the
right hand side of the FLC. Using such a FE model can reduce the simulation time
123
significantly and can be used to simulate the cruciform specimens in biaxial testing. A
similar finite element model for cruciform specimens is currently under development.
In addition, Abaqus EF commercial FEA package has a built-in M-K analysis that can
be used in the key assumptions verification and to make a comparison between the M-K,
effective stress ratio and major strain ratio models.
6.3 EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATIONS
For this dissertation, only steel specimens were tested numerically for different
geometries. Aluminum specimens should also be tested for all strain paths in order to
comment on the analytical models compatibility for different materials.
In addition, the biaxial testing machine should be ready in near future (see Figure
6.1). This will allow testing the specimens under different principal stresses without using
different geometries. Also, the deformation path can be altered during the test to
investigate the path independence of the stress-based failure criterion. The major strain
ratio model will incorporate future findings from the experiments to be performed in near
future. The biaxial loading stage must be assembled and tested to validate the design's
integrity. Furthermore, a batch of cruciform specimens will be fabricated. Preliminary
tests using the biaxial loading stage coupled with DIC could be used to characterize the
behavior of the cruciform specimens prior to running experiments to evaluate their
performance under variable loading conditions, both linear and non-linear deformation
paths.
124
Figure 6.1: Biaxial testing apparatus [74]
The results of this research raise questions about the findings from the comparison
between analytically predicted stress and strain based FLCs and experimental data which
was presented in Chapter 3. In particular, Chapter 2 results suggest that the major strain
ratio model could be further developed to improve predictions overall. Thus, more
experimental testing using varied specimen geometries is needed to understand the
effects of strain path on the critical major strain concentration factor. Furthermore, the
results from future testing of varied specimen geometries coupled with DIC will produce
strain path data which could be used to further evaluate the key assumptions in the major
strain ratio model.
125
REFERENCES
1. Schmid S., Kalpakjian S., (2010), "Manufacturing Engineering and Technology" 6th
edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, ISBN: 978-0136081685.
2. "Metalworking: Sheet Forming", (2006), ASM Handbook, vol. 14B, ASM
International, ISBN: 978-0871707109.
3. Keeler S.P., Backofen W.A., (1964) "Plastic instability and fracture in sheets
stretched over rigid punches", ASM Trans. Quart. 56 25.
4. Hosford W. and Duncan J. (1999), "Sheet metal forming: A review", Journal of the
Minerals, Vol 51, pp. 39-44.
5. Marciniak Z., Duncan J., Hu S.J. (2002), "Mechanics of Sheet Metal Forming" 2nd
edition, Elsevier, ISBN: 978-0750653008.
6. LeRoy G. H. and Embury J. D., (1978), "Formability: Analysis, Modeling and
Experimentation", Ghosh A. K. and Hecker H. L., eds. (AIME, 1978), pp. 183-207
7. Graf, A., Hosford, W., (1993), "Effect of Changing Strain Paths of Forming Limit
Diagrams of Al 2008-T4," Metall. Trans. A, 24A, pp. 2503-2512.
8. Marciniak Z., Kuczynski K. (1967), "Limit strains in the processes of stretch-
forming sheet metal", Int. J. Mech. Sci. 9 609-620.
9. Yao H., Cao J. (2002) "Prediction of Forming Limit Curves Using and Anisotropic
Yield Function with Prestrain Induced Backstress", International Journal of
Plasticity, Vol. 18, pp. 1013-1038.
126
10. Geese H., Dell H., Kebler L., Hooputra H., Werner., (2001), "Continuous Failure
Prediction Model for Non Linear Load Paths in Successive Stamping and Crash
Processes", Society of Automotive Engineers.
11. Stoughton, T. B., (2001), "Stress-Based Forming Limits in Sheet-Metal Forming" J.
Eng. Mater. Technol., 123, pp. 417^122.
12. Sakash A., Moondra S., Kinsey B., (2006), "Effect of Yield Criterion on Numerical
Simulation Results Using a Stress-Based Failure Criterion" J. Eng. Mater. Technol.
vol. 128, Issue 3, pp. 436- 444.
13. Derov M. J., Kinsey B., Tsukrov I., (2008), "The effect of model parameters on
predicted stress based failure criterion for sheet metal", Proceedings of the
International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference MSEC- ASME,
October 7-10, 2008 Evanston, IL, USA.
14. Derov M. J., (2008), "Investigation of a stress based failure criterion for sheet
metal", Master's Thesis, University of New Hampshire.
15. Keeler SP, Brazier WG, (1975), "Relationship between laboratory material
characterization and press-shop formability". Proceedings of the Micro Alloying
Conference, New York, NY, pp. 21-32
16. S.B. Levy, (1996), "A comparison of empirical forming limit curves for low carbon
steel with theoretical forming limit curves of Ramaekers and Bongaerts", IDDRG
WG3, Ungarn, 13-14 June 1996.
127
17. Swift H.W., (1952), "Plastic instability under plane stress". Journal of the
Mechanics and Physics of Solids 1, pp. 1-18.
18. Banabic D., Dannenmannb E., (2001), "Prediction of the influence of yield locus on
the limit strains in sheet metals", Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol.
109, Issues 1-2, pp 9-12.
19. Hill R., (1952) "On discontinuous plastic states, with special reference to localized
necking in thin sheets", J. Mech. Phys. Solids 1 pp. 19-30.
20. Storen, S., and Rice, J. R., (1975), "Localized Necking in Thin Sheets," J. Mech.
Phys. Solids, 23, pp. 421-441.
21. ZHU X., Klaus W., Abhijit C, (2001), "A unified bifurcation analysis of sheet metal
forming limits", Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology 2001, vol. 123,
no3, pp.329-333
22. Grafand A., Hosford W. F. (1990), "Calculations of forming limit diagrams", Met.
Trans. 21A, 87.
23. Hutchinson, J.W., Neale, K.W. (1978) "Sheet Necking-III. Strain-Rate Effects, in
Mechanics of Sheet Metal Forming", eds. D.P. Koistinen and N.M. Wang Plenum.
New York, pp. 269-283.
24. Barata Da Rocha, A., Barlat, F., Jalinier, J.M., (1984), "Prediction of forming limit
diagrams of anisotropic sheets in linear and nonlinear loading", Mat. Sci. Eng. pp.
68, 151.
128
25. Butuc M.C., Gracio J.J., Barata da Rocha A., (2003), "A theoretical study on
forming limit diagrams prediction", Journal of Materials Processing Technology
142,714-724.
26. Narasimhan, K., Wagoner, R.H., (1991), "Finite element modeling simulation of in
plane forming limit diagrams of sheets containing finite defects", Metall. Trans. A
22,2655.
27. Butuc M.C., Gracio J.J., Barata da Rocha A., (2002) "A more general model for
forming limit diagrams prediction", Journal of Materials Processing Technology
125-126,213-218.
28. Ahmadi S., Eivani A.R., Akbarzadeh A., (2009), "An experimental and theoretical
study on the prediction of forming limit diagrams using new BBC yield criteria and
M-K analysis", Computational Materials Science 44, 1272-1280.
29. Ganjiani M., Assempour A., (2007), "An improved analytical approach for
determination of forming limit diagrams considering the effects of yield functions",
Journal of Materials Processing Technology 182 ,598-607.
30. Ganjiani M., Assempour A., (2008), "Implementation of a Robust Algorithm for
Prediction of Forming Limit Diagrams", Journal of Materials Engineering and
Performance, vol. 17, no. l.pp 1-6.
31. Cao J., Yao H., (2000), "Prediction of localized thinning in sheet metal using a
general anisotropic yield criterion", International Journal of Plasticity 16, 1105-
1129.
129
32. Banabic D., Comsa S., Jurco P., Cosovici G., Paraianu L., Julean D., (2004),"FLD
theoretical model using a new anisotropic yield criterion", Journal of Materials
Processing Technology 157-158, 23-27.
33. Hill, R., (1979), "Theoretical plasticity of textured aggregates", Math. Proc. Camb.
Philos.Soc. 85, pp 179-191.
34. Lian J., Barlat F. and Baudelet B., (1989), "Plastic behaviour and stretchability of
sheet metals. Part II: Effect of yield surface shape on sheet forming limit",
International Journal of Plasticity, vol. 5, 2, pp. 131-147.
35. Volk W., Illig R., Kupfer H., Wahlen A., Hora P., Kessler L., Hotz, W. (2008),
"Benchmark 1 -Virtual forming limit curves. Part A: Physical tryout report",
Numisheet 2008, Part B: 3-9, Interlaken, Switzerland.
36. Volk W., Wahlen A., Hora P., Kessler L., Hotz, W. (2008), "Benchmark 1 - Virtual
forming limit curves. Part B: Benchmark analysis", Numisheet 2008, Part B: 11-19,
Interlaken, Switzerland.
37. S.S. Hecker, (1975), "Simple technique for determining forming limit curves", Sheet
Met. Ind., vol 52, pp 671-675.
38. Campos H. B., Butuc M. C, Rocha J., Duarte J. M., (2006), "Theoretical and
experimental determination of the forming limit diagram for the AISI 304 stainless
steel", Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 179, pp 56-60.
39. Graf, A., and Hosford, W., (1994), "The influence of strain-path changes on forming
limit diagrams of Al 6111 T4", Int. J. Mech. Sci. vol. 36, No. 10, pp. 897-910.
130
40. Butuc M.C., Banabic D., da Rocha A.B., Gracio J.J., Duarte J.F., Jurco P., and
Comsa D.S., (2002)," The Performance of Yld96 and BBC2000 Yield Functions in
Forming Limit Prediction", J. Mater. Process. Technol., 125-126, p 281-286.
41. Nurcheshmeh M., Green D. (2010), "Investigation on the strain-path dependency of
stress-based forming limit curves", International Journal of Material Forming, vol.
4, l,pp 25-37.
42. Assempour A., Hashemi R., Abrinia K., Ganjiani M., Masoumi E., (2009), "A
methodology for prediction of forming limit stress diagrams considering the strain
path effect", Computational Materials Science, vol. 45, Issue 2, pp.195-204.
43. Hosford W. F., Caddell R. M., (2007)," Metal Forming: Mechanics and
Metallurgy", 3rd edition, Cambridge University Press, ISBN: 978-0521881210.
44. Kasikci T., Wilson J., Kinsey B., (2011), "Experimental investigation of key
assumptions in analytical failure criteria for sheet metal forming", Proceedings of
NAMRI, Vol. 39.
45. Kasikci T., (2010), "Experimental investigation of key assumptions in analytical
failure criteria for sheet metal forming", Master's Thesis, University of New
Hampshire.
46. Raghavan K.S., (1995), "A simple technique to generate in-plane forming limit
curves and selected applications", Metallurgical and materials transactions A, vol.
26, No. 8, pp. 2075-2084.
131
47. Banabic D., (2010), " Sheet Metal Forming Processes: Constitutive Modelling and
Numerical Simulation", Springer-Verlag, New York, ISBN: 978-3540881124.
48. Li B., Nye T. J., Wu P. D., (2010), " Predicting the forming limit diagram of AA
5182-0", The Journal of Strain Analysis For Engineering Design, vol. 45, No. 4, pp.
255-273.
49. Firat M., (2008), "A numerical analysis of sheet metal formability for automotive
stamping applications" Computational Materials Science 43, pp. 802-811.
50. Reddy C. G., Reddy R. Reddy T.A., (2010), "Finite element analysis of the effect of
coefficient of friction on the drawability", Tribology International 43, pp. 1132-
1137.
51.Duan X., Jain M., Wilkinson D., (2006), "Development of a heterogeneous
microstructurally based finite element model for the prediction of forming limit
diagram for sheet material", Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A, vol. 37A,
pp. 2006-3489.
52. Simha C, Grantab R., Worswick M., (2008), "Application of an extended stress-
based forming limit curve to predict necking in stretch flange forming", Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Engineering, vol. 130.
53. Hongsheng L., Yuying Y.,Zhongqi Y., Zhenzhong S., Yongzhi W., (2009), "The
application of a ductile fracture criterion to the prediction of the forming limit of
sheet metals", Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209, pp. 5443-5447.
132
54. Uthaisangsuk V., Prahl U., Munstermann S., Bleck W., (2008), " Experimental and
numerical failure criterion for formability prediction in sheet metal forming",
Computational Materials Science 43, pp. 43-50.
55. Lee D., Majlessi S.A, (1993), " Deep drawing of square-shaped sheet metal parts,
part 1: finite element analysis", Journal of Engineering For Industry, 115, pp. 102-
109.
56. Galbraith P.C., Hallquist J.O., (1995), "Shell-element formulations in LS-
DYNA3D: their use in the modelling of sheet-metal forming", Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, 50, pp. 158-167.
57. Boudeau N., Gelin J.C, (1996), "Post-processing of finite element results and
prediction of the localized necking in sheet metal forming", Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, 60, pp. 325-330
58. Yoshida T., Katayama T., Usuda U., (1995), "Forming-limit analysis of
hemispherical-punch stretching using the three-dimensional finite-element method",
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 50, pp. 226-237.
59. Zeng Q., Combescure A., Arnaudeau F., (2001), "An efficient plasticity algorithm
for shell elements application to metal forming simulation", Computers and
Structures, vol. 79, Issue 16, pp. 1525-1540.
60. Rank E., Duster A., Niibel V., Preusch K., Bruhns O.T., (2005), "High order finite
elements for shells", Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering,
vol. 194, Issues 21-24, pp. 2494-2512.
133
61. Lu H., Ito K., Kazama K., Namura S., (2006), "Development of a new quadratic
shell element considering the normal stress in the thickness direction for simulating
sheet metal forming", Journal of Materials Processing Technology 171, pp. 341-347.
62. Parente M.P.L., Cardoso R.P.R., Alves de Sousa R.J., (2006), "Sheet metal forming
simulation using EAS solid-shell finite elements", Finite Elements in Analysis and
Design, 42, pp. 1137-1149.
63. R.J. Alves de Sousa, J.W. Yoon, R.P.R. Cardoso, R.A. Fontes Valente, J.J. Gracio,
(2007), " On the use of a reduced enhanced solid-shell (RESS) element for sheet
forming simulations", International Journal of Plasticity, 23, pp.490-515.
64. Doll S., Schweizerhof K., Hauptmann R., Freischlager C, (2000), "On volumetric
locking of low-order solid and solid-shell elements for finite elastoviscoplastic
deformations and selective reduced integration", Engineering Computations, vol. 17
no. 7, pp. 874-902.
65. Kulikov G.M., Plotnikova S.V., (2007), "Non-linear geometrically exact assumed
stress-strain four-node solid-shell element with high coarse-mesh accuracy", Finite
Elements in Analysis and Design 43, pp. 425-443.
66. Harnau M., Schweizerhof K., (2002), "About linear and quadratic "Solid-Shell"
elements at large deformations", Computers and Structures, 80, pp. 805-817.
67. Harnau M., Konyukhov A., Schweizerhof K., (2005), "Algorithmic aspects in large
deformation contact analysis using 'Solid-Shell' elements", Computers and
Structures 83, pp. 1804-1823.
134
68. Hauptmann R., Doll S., Harnau M., Schweizerhof K., (2001), "'Solid-shell'
elements with linear and quadratic shape functions at large deformations with nearly
incompressible materials", Computers and Structures, vol. 79, Issue 18,pp. 1671-
1685.
69. Wriggers P., Eberlein R., Reese S., (1995), "A comparison of three-dimensional
continuum and shell elements for finite plasticity", International Journal of Solids
and Structures, vol. 33, Issues 20-22, pp. 3309-3326.
70. Jung D.W., Yang K.B., (2000), "Comparative investigation into membrane, shell
and continuum elements for the rigid- plastic finite element analysis of two-
dimensional sheet metal forming problems", Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 104, pp. 185-190.
71. MSC Manual, Volume A, (2008), "Theory and User Information", MSC Software
Corporation.
72. MSC Manual, Volume B, (2008), "Element Library", MSC Software Corporation.
73. Kinsey B. L., Moondra S. and Sakash A., (2006), "Robust prediction of forming
severity using a stress based failure criterion for sheet metal", Transactions of the
North American Manufacturing Research Institute of SME, Vol. 34, pp. 491-498.
74. Mclaughlin K., (2009), "Investigation of a stress concentration factor for analytical
stress based failure criterion", Master's Thesis, University of New Hampshire.
135
APPENDICES
136
APPENDIX A
M-K MODEL ALGORITHM
A.1 ORIGINAL M-K MODEL
The M-K analysis is based on assuming that necking is initiated by a geometrical or
structural non-homogeneity of the material associated with a variation in sheet thickness.
This thickness imperfection is assumed to be in the form of a groove always oriented
perpendicular to the principal stress directions during the entire forming process (see
Figure 2.1). The sheet is composed of the nominal or "safe" area and weakened or
"defect" area, which are denoted by A and B, respectively. The initial imperfection factor
of the defect /„ is defined as the thickness ratio f0 — — where t denotes the thickness
HA
and subscript o denotes the initial state before the deformation. The strain and stress states
in the two regions are analyzed by imposing a strain path, specifying the principal strain
d£XB and principal strain d£XA. Compatibility and force equilibrium conditions are used
to calculate all the stress and strain values in the two regions and to determine if the
guessed value is correct [8, 23]. As the deformation progresses and the ratio —lS-
delA
becomes too high (approximately 10), the deformation of the specimen has localized in
region B. The first and second principal strains in region A (£XA&n&£2A) at the onset of
plastic instability defines a point on the FLC and by varying the strain ratio p = — L
dsx
different points on the FLC are obtained.
137
Before specifying the algorithm for the M-K model, the basic relationships for metal
deformation will be presented. These include the yield criterion (i.e., the transition for
elastic to plastic deformation) and the constitutive relationship (i.e., how stress is related
to strain in the material). As an example for Hosford higher order yield criterion (Hosford
1979) (assuming a plane stress condition):
R90(aiy+R0(a2y+R0R90(tT1-a2y=R90(R0 +\)aa (A.l)
<T = •(^M +R.M +R0R90{^ -<*iY) (A.2)

V^J o f a + 1 )
where R0 and R90 represent the anisotropic behavior of the material (i.e., the strain in the
width direction divided by the strain in the thickness direction during a uniaxial tension
test); <JX and G2 are the in-plane principal stresses, a is the higher order exponent
(typically 6 for BCC material and 8 for FCC material) and a is the effective stress.
The behavior of the material can be represented by Swift power hardening law:
<T(e) = K(eY{iY (A3)
where K is the strength coefficient, n is the strain hardening exponent, m is the strain rate
sensitivity exponent, e is the effective strain and £ is the effective strain rate.
From Eq. (A.2):
a (RQQ + RQ (a)a + R0RQO(1 ~ a)" ^

0=— = (A.4)
V ^90 fo+1)
where the ratio of the principal stress is defined as:
a =^ (A.5)
138
The flow rule which also relates stress to strain during plastic deformation is
expressed as:
dE dAÊL (A.6)
by applying the definition of dX from Eq. (A.6) in the principle of plastic work, the
principal strains and the effective stain can be related as:
d£x _ d£2
1 1 1
ôW +ô^9o(°"i - ^ r ^(^r -ôfo -^r1 (A 7)
_ - ds3 _ de
=
Rnfar+R0(*2y->= Unfa 4-ix^r
Thus:
^°^%w--'k+^('-ar) <A 8)
'
where d£x and d£2 are the incremental in-plane principal strains
From Eqs. (A.5) and (A.7), the ratio of the incremental principal strain is defined as:
_ ds2 = R0 \a)a - R0 i?qo (l - a)a (A.10)
dex R90+R0Rgo(l-ay-1
Using the volume constancy rule:
d£x + d£2 + d£3 = 0 (A.l 1)

From Eqs. (A.8), (A.9) and (A.l 1)
&
-\(v»r ( '-^ ( 1 -° ) i (A 12)
'
By applying the principle of plastic work, which is used to define the effective strain:
od.£ - axd£x + <J2d£2 , K , ON
139
ud£ = (J, d£x (l + ap) r A 14")
and
p=de_ = {\ + ap) (A15)

dex (j>
Now that the basic sheet metal forming relationships have been presented, equations
for the specific case of the original M-K model shown in Figure 2.1 are discussed. A
compatibility condition is assumed which relates the strain in A and B regions by:
d£2A =d£2B (A. 16)
From the assumption of imperfection factor:
(A i7)
u=Y -
and the definition of the strain through thickness:
*3, = l n - (A.18)
' h
f = foew(s3B-e3A)=tf (A.19)
'A
The equilibrium condition requires that the applied load remains constant along the
specimen (see Figure 2.1); therefore:

F
\A = Fw (A.20)
<7
\AtA =(7
\BtB (A.21)
From Eqs. (A.19) and (A.21):
°\A = fa\B (A.22)
From Eq. (A.4):
140
<*A = r^B (A.23)
<PA <t>B
From Eq. (A.3):
(eA + deA )" (eA )"' _ (eB + deB )" (eB f (A.24)
<I>A <t>B
From Eq. (A.19):
(sA+deAy{eAY f e™(r r )(£B + ^BY^B) (A.25)

Jo exp [£iB - S3A) :
0A <f>B
From Eqs. (A. 10), (A. 15) and (A. 16):
f r, \
— (£A+d£A)" £ = -rfoe*P (£3B - £3A )(£B + d£
B Y (A.26)
<PA \PAJ \PBJ
By substituting Eqs. (A.10), (A.12) and (A.15) in equilibrium Eq. (A.26), a governing
equation can be found and solved numerically for the error in [dsA).
Now after the presenting of fundamental relationships for plastic metal deformation
and those specific to the M-K model, the use of these in the M-K algorithm can be
presented (as shown in the flowchart of Figure A.1). The M-K methodology begins with
specifying a strain path \pA ) , material constants (K, n, R , m), order of yield criterion
(a), a finite increment of strain in region B \d£XB) and the imperfection factor f0. Then a,
<j> and /? values in region A can be found using Eqs. (A. 10), (A.5), and (A. 15), all the
strain components in region A can be defined after applying Eqs. (A. 10), (A.ll) and
(A.15). Equations (A.4), (A.10), (A.ll), (A.15), and (A.16) are used to calculate stress
and strain values in region B. Finally, force equilibrium (Eq. (A.26)) is used to check for
the error to determine if the stress and strain parameters in both regions A and B are
correct. If so, then the strain state in the material is updated and the procedure is applied
141
d£
1 A? 1 A
again in order to determine a strain path for the deformation. When the ratio —— '\A > R) is
d£.
reached, the procedure is ended and a point on the FLC (i.e., the limit strains in region A)
is noted. This methodology is repeated for various strain paths in order to determine the
entire FLC for the material.
The relationships of p and 0 are specific for each yield criterion, so different results
will be generated based on the yield criterion used. To incorporate other yield criteria, the
equation for ^ can be expressed in terms of a similar to Eq. (A.4) as:
<j> = 4\-a-\-a2
2R 2
=
Y~Y+~ia+ (A-27)
^ = (b + ba°+{2-b\l-hayfa)
for the von Mises, Hill '48, and Barlat '89 yield criteria respectively.
Where for Barlat'89:
2
% + Ri)\ + R9Q'h Vl + k *9o°' fl 8 (A 28)
'
and for Hill '48,
—=
R _ -"-0
R0 "*"
+ 2R
ZJ 45 + Rg0
MS ~*~ -^90 (A.29)
4
Also the equation for p can be expressed in terms « of similar to Eq. (A.10) as:
142
2a -I
2-a
+
p4 ^"-R (A.30)
(l + R)-Ra
_baa-1-h(2-b\l-hay i
P i
~ b+ {2-b\l-hay
for von Mises, Hill '48, and Barlat '89 yield criteria respectively. For Barlat '89 and
other higher order yield criterion, « i n terms of p is solved by an iterative process as
shown in the flowchart (Figure A.l).
Finally, the equation for the effective strain and effective stress can be expressed as:
d£ = J—[d£x2 + d£22 + d£xd£2 j - d£x j—(l + p2 + pj
rr———- SCTJ(\ + P2+P/L

= i°\ +v2 -vpz = —
2+p
R+l , i 2R
d£ = J-^=— (d£x + d£j + Rd£\iJ ): d£xJ\ + p2 +——p
\2R+V J2R+1 V R+l (A.31)
= (rf+cr2+R{<Jx-a2)2 =
y^hh+^p+p
V
\{ r
R+l
V ^ +1 R+l + Rp
d£x + ad.£2 1 + ap
d£
for von Mises, Hill '48, and Barlat '89 yield criteria respectively.
Other yield criteria such as Yld96 [25] and BBC2000 [32, 40] have been successfully
used with the M-K analysis and have shown good fit to experimental data depending on
the material considered.
143
Start
Initialize
ElA-0; E 1 B =0; E 2 A =0; £ 2 B =0; E 3 A=0; E 3B =0; e Ae ff=0; EBeff=0
Input pA, material

constants (K,n,R,m), order of
yield criterion (a), value 01%,
=
JIB
No-
aA=(R+(l+R) pA)/(R+l+RpA)
when a>2 then solve (aA(a-1)-R*(l-aA)(a"1))/(l+R*(l-aA)(a"1))= PA
start with ocA zero and increase by 10"5 until this equation is satisfied to an Eq. (A.10)
error of (10'8)
* A = ( ( I W +R(1- a A )')/(R+l)r
Eq. (A.4)
1 '
pA=(l+aAa+R(l-aA)a)/ (l+RCl-aA)"'1 |<|)A|) Eq.(A. 15)
^'
-">IA "
« (
* \
AE2A=pA AE1A Eq. (A.10)

1r
A S 3 A = - A E 1 A - AE2A Eq. (A.ll)
Ae Aeff =AEi A *P A Eq.(A. 15)
Set AE2B=AE2A Eq. (A. 16)
FindpB=AEiB/AE 2 B Eq. (A.10)
ure A.1: Original M-K model flowchart for a single deformation path
144
Yes
a B =(R+( 1+R) P B ) / ( R + 1 + R P B )
when a>2 then solve (a B ( ' "-R*(l-a B ) < a ' V U + R H l W n

)= PB
start with a B zero and increase by 10 5 until this equation is satisfied to an Eq. (A.10)
error of (10 8 )
(M(l+a B a +R(l-a B n/(R+l)r Eq. (A.4)
PB^l+aB'+Ra-ctfi)')/(1+R(1-<*B)* ' |<M)

Eq.(A. 15)
AEBrff=AEiB* PB
AE 1B = - A E I B - AE 2B Eq. (A.ll)
From force equilibrium across defect, error= (£Aefr +A£Aetr)° /<|>A fo exp(£3B-£3A) (EBeff +AEBefr )7 i Eq. (A.26)
(this comes from C7IA= CTIB fo exp(E3B-E 3A ))
error changes sign (since the error is a

jjionotonic function with a single zero)
Increase AEIA = AE, A + ACIA™
-0
U p d a t e EIA, £ 2 A , EAeff, ElB,
£2B, E Beft , E 3 B , E 3 A a n d Store
El B , E2B, EIA, E2A
No • B
Figure A.l: Original M-K model flowchart for a single deformation path (continued)
145
As an example of the effect of the yield criterion on the M-K model results, Figure
2.7 demonstrates the need for incorporating higher order yield criteria to accurately
predict experimental data. The overestimated predictions on the positive minor strain side
of the FLC are obvious when a =2 (i.e., von Mises and Hill's 1948 yield criteria). Figure
2.4 shows the overprediction of the experimental data on the negative minor strain side
when the orientation of the defect is physically not aligned with the principle direction.
Thus the M-K model can be enhanced to improve FLC predictions on the negative minor
strain side by varying the defect orientation as shown in the next section.
A.2 MODIFIED M-K MODEL
According to Hill's observations and theory of localized necking [19, 43], failure
occurs at a certain angle between (0° to 35°) depending on the loading path and material
when thin sheets are subjected to tensile stresses (see Figure 2.2). Thus the assumption of
a perpendicular defect to the major principal stress direction is not valid for the negative
minor strain side of the FLC and the need to incorporate this into the M-K theory is
required.
In the modified M-K analysis, the defect can be oriented from 0-90° with respect to
the principal strain directions as shown in Figure 2.3. The computations in this procedure
are identical to the equations of the original M-K model. The strain compatibility and
force equilibrium equations must be applied at the interface between the safe and defect
region [29, 30]. The force equilibrium equation (previously Eq. (A.20)) can be rewritten
as:
146
w =w (A.32)
nnA nnB
•f/ilA ** MB
where subscripts n and t denote the normal and tangential directions of the groove,
respectively, and F is the force per unit width in the t direction.
The Instantaneous imperfection factor ( / ) has the same definition as in Eq. (A.19),
thus:
M nnB ^ nnA
(A.33)
fontB = V»L
The compatibility requirement (previously Eq. (A. 16)) assumes that the strain in the
defect direction is equal in both regions:
dellB — denA (A.34)
Finally, the work-energy relation (previously Eq. (A. 13)) can be rewritten as:
(d£nrPnn + &„<*„ + 2^„,0"„,)- d£<7 = 0 (A.35)
where a is calculated from the hardening rule.
Groove :one
Rolling
Direction (x)
Figure A.2: The modified M-K model with the transverse direction t parallel to the
defect and the normal direction n perpendicular to the defect [29]
147
To begin the algorithm, all strains are set to zero. As with the original M-K model, the
inputs are the strain path \pA ) , material constants (K, n, R , m), order of yield criterion
(a), a finite increment of strain in region B [d£XB)and the imperfection factor / „ . A
similar procedure to the original M-K is used to determine the strain components in
region A and B. Using the rotation matrix, T, the strain and stress tensors are transformed
to the defect orientation by:
° ™ <Fn, cos(0) sin(0)'

o-"'=ro-vrr = where T = (A.36)
°ni a
tr -sin(0) cos(f?)
After calculation of the stress and strain components in the safe region, the same
variables must be solved for in the defect region. For this purpose, another improvement
was incorporated in the modified M-K model by the use of Newton-Raphson (N-R)
method in the solution procedure to solve for the strain path data. The flowchart for the
original M-K model shown in Figure A.1 was closed form with an iteration to determine
the correct stress and strain values for force equilibrium. Using the N-R method, a
considerable reduction in the computation time is achieved.
As in the original M-K model, a localized necking in sheet material is assumed to
d£
occur when the ratio —— > 10 is reached. At this stage, the computation is stopped and
d£XA
the corresponding limit strains (£iA,£1A) and limit stresses (GXA,cr2A) are stored. The
analysis is repeated for different initial orientations (9) of the defect in the range between
0° and 90° and the limit strain point is obtained after the minimization of £XA versus 9.
The unknown parameters in the defect region can be reduced to four:
d£
B'(TnnB^CrnBand^ntB
148
To calculate these four parameters four equations must be solved numerically using
Newton-Raphson method [9, 25, 29, 30]:
G = [GX G2 G3 Gj (A.37)
where
r _ (dSnnlPnnB + dSnB°ttB + l d S
ntB°nts) 1_ A „, .
Gx - —— 1- u Work-energy equation
d£Ba
d£
G2 = — 1=0 Compatibility equation
d£
ttA
(A.38)
(J 3 = y —M— \ = Q Force equilibrium equation
G4 = / — 1=0 Force equilibrium equation

<*ntA
It should be noted that defect orientations (9) is being updated from an initial value at
each increment of the plastic deformation due to band rotation as shown in Eq. (2.14).
Here is the modified M-K algorithm:
1. Initialize £!A=0, £iB= 0, £2A=0, e2s= 0, £j^= 0, £3B= 0, £Aeff= 0, £Bejr= 0 assuming As1B
=0.0001
Input PA, material constants (K, n, R , m), order of yield criterion (a), value of f0
2. If PA^-0 then set # = 0 . Otherwise set a search region around theoretical limit of
# (search region could be from 0-^45)
3. Ifa=2then aA=(R+(1 + R) pA)/(R+1+R PA)
149
If a>2 then solve
(aA(a'])- R (l-a^'^J/Q + R (l-aA)(a'1))= pA that is start with aA zero and increase
by 10"5 until this equation is satisfied to an error of (10-5)
4. <f,A=((l+aAa+R (l-aA)a)/(R+l))1/a,/3A=(l+a/+R (l-aAf)/(l + R (l-aAy' l<f>A\)
5. Initialize A£\A=0
6. A£2A = pA A£]A
7. A£3A = - A£1A - A£2A
8. A£Aeff =A£1A pA
9. Transform strain increments to groove direction
A£nnA=A£iA cos 0+A£2A sin 0
A£ttA=A£iA sin20+A£2A cos20
A£MA =(-A£]A +A£2A) cos0sin0
10. <JAeff=k (£Aeff+A£Aeff) "
1 1. (TjA=(?Aeff/0A
12. <72A=aA (TlA
13. Transform stresses to groove direction
0~nnA = 0~lA COS 0+&2A SIH 0
&ttA=o-]A sin 0+a2A cos20
PntA =(-OlA +0-2A) COS0 SW0
14. Set A£ttB=A£ttA
15. Set initial guess for solver
GrmB =0~nnA/f; 0'nB=(TttA; A£Beff = A£Aeff, f=fa'/ GntB =<TntA/f;
150
16 find A£2B=(A£ttB-A£iB sin20)/cos20
17. Find pB =A£1B/A£2B and solve (aB(a'1J- R (l-aB)(a'l))/(l+R (l-aBf'1))= pB (start with
aB zero and increase by 10"5 until this equation is satisfied to an error of 10"5)
18. <t>B=((l+aB° + R (1- aBf)/( R +l)f°
19. pB=(l + aBa+ R (l-aB/)/ (l + R (l-aaf-1 l<t>B\)
20. A£Beff=A£iB J3B
21 Transform strain increments to groove direction
A£nnB=A£iB cos 0+A£2B sin 0

7 7
A£ttB=A£]B sin 0+A£2B cos 0
A£ntB =(-A£1B +A£2B) cos0sin0
22. crBefl=k (£Beff+A£Beff) "
23. CJiB=CrBeff/<t>B
24. a2B=aB cr1B
25. Transform stresses to groove direction
<TnnB=0'lB COS2 0+CT2B Sin2 0
0~ttB=0'lBSin 0+CT2BCOS 9
&ntB =(-0"lB +&2B) COS0Sin0
26. error,= annA- annBfo exp(£3B-£3A)
27. error2 = antA- crntBf0 exp(£3B-£3A)
28. error3 = aBeff- aByieid
29. error4 = A£ttB-A£ttA
151
30. From the Jacobian of the four error functions determine the direction that minimizes
the four error functions simultaneously. From which find AEUB, crntB, <j„nB and auB. Repeat
16-30 until the errors are minimized
31. Find the corrected A values from:
AEttA =A£ttB
A£]A= AsttA /(sir?0+pA cos20),
AE2A = PA A£JA
A£3A = - ASIA - AE2A
A£Aeff =A£]A PA
32. Update E1A, £2A, £Aeff
33. Update s1B, £2B, £Beff, £3B, £SA
34. Store eIB, £2B, £JA, ?2A
35. Repeat 5-34 until \A£IA\< = \A£iB\/10
36. If pA>0 stop otherwise continue iterating for different 0 by repeating 3-36 until the
value of minimum A£iA is obtained
152
APPENDIX B
M-K PREDICTIONS OF THE MATERIALS PRESENTED IN TABLE 2.1
0.8 K=660.965 MPa, n=0 2222, Ro=1.28,R45=2.08,

R90=1.86, m 0.015, f=0.997
0.7
0.6
s
et 0.5
\ s
u
• * *
w
V 0.4
s
Hs- 0.3
u
o
et
s 0.2
0.1 • Experimental data

-*—Hill's 79, a=6 - Swift
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Minor True Strain
Figure B.l: M-K prediction of FLC for HC220YD Steel (1) [35, 36]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Figure B.2: M-K prediction of stresses at failure for HC220YD Steel (1)
153
0.9
K=612.1 MPa, n=0.3279, R^l.68, R45=2.12,
0.8 R90=2.54, m^0.015, f=0.9978
0.7
2 0.6
VI
0.5
3
0.4
©
0.3
0.2
0.1
Experimental data
-Hill's 1979, a=6-Swift
0 r—
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Minor True Strain
Figure B.3: M-K prediction of FLC for HC220YD Steel (2) [35, 36]
900 i
800
700 -
et
g 600 4 ^ ^ a—+~ * ,„„#
a> 500
u
•+*
r/5
Q> 400
9
300 -
p
'et 200 -
100
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Figure B.4: M-K prediction of stresses at failure for HC220YD Steel (2)
154
1A
K=426.2 MPa, n=0.228,lRo=1.7,R45=1.27,R90=2.13,
m=0.0 I8,f=0.999
1.2 •
•
•
c 1 .
2
™ 0.8 •
su
9 •
u
He? N*. *J*
0.4 \
0.2 • Experimental data

—*—Hill's 1979, a=6- Swift
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Minor True Strain
Figure B.5: M-K prediction of FLC for AK Steel (2) [37]
600
500
et ^p^f—#**"*—~*
&J 400
t/2
an
2 300
vi
9
£ 200 -
u
o
S 100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Figure B.6: M-K prediction of stresses at failure for AK Steel (2)
155
0.8 K=1527 MPa, n=D.47, Ro=0.92, R45=1.3,
R90=0.|78,m=0.012
0.7
0.6
ê
'3
-fc 0.5
vi
<u
£ 0.4
H
.2,0.3
a
0.2
Experimental data
0.1
Hill's 1979, a=6-Swift
0 r-
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Minor True Strain
Figure B.7: M-K prediction of FLC for AISI 304 SS [38]
1600
1400 -
1200 i
et
OH
§ , 1000
wa
m
£ 800
Vl
| 600
H
.o 400
e?
200
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Figure B.8: M-K prediction of stresses at failure for AISI 304 SS
156
05
K=537 MPa, n=0.2845^ Ro=0.78, R45=0.485, R90=0.58,
A=426 MPa, E;=234.0MPa, C=5.130
0.4
a
'3
u #
v, 0.3 . #
9 a "C
© 0.2 *^
'eT
• Experimental data
0.1
—*-Hills 79, a=8-Swift
- « - Barlat'89, a=8 -Voce
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Minor True Strain
Figure B.9: M-K prediction of FLC for AA2008-T4 [7]
500
450
et 400 H
OH
350 -
eft
300 -
t
VI 250
V
s
u
H 200 -
i-
os
'3 150
100 -
-Hill's 1979, a=8-Swift
50 -
_0_
•Barlat 89, a=8 - Voce
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Figure B.10: M-K prediction of stresses at failure for AA2008-T4
157
0.5
K=507.7 MPa, n=0.22|, Ro=0.91, R45=0.68, R90=0.83
A=380 MPa, ^=249.7 MPa, C=7.895
0.4
et
u 0.3
to
9
^0.2
0.1 Experimental data

Hill's 1979, a=6 - Swift
Barlat 89, a=8 - Voce
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Minor True Strain
Figure B.ll: M-K prediction of FLC for AA5182 [35, 36]
500
450
400
03
P. 3M)
S
Vj 300
VI
01
u 750
CO
•**
01
9 700
I.
H
la 150
©
s«« 100 •Hill's 1979, a=6- Swift

50
^Barlat 89, a=8- Voce
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Figure B.12: M-K prediction of stresses at failure for AA5182
158
04
K=417.85 MPa, n=0.l45, RÔ.8,R 4 5 =0.43, R90= 0.61,
A=318MPa, B=191.1MPa, C=8.706
0.3
1 \
| o , ^
'3 s
0.1
• Experimental data
-*~Hill's 1979, a=6 - Swift
- • - B a r l a t 89, a=8 - Voce
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Minor True Strain
400 -
350 -
^ •v/f^y*^^
£ 300 —^f&sSrBHxab
*ga*
¥«25 ° -
u
•+*
<*> 200 -
Ol
sk.
H 150 -
s-
o
•™9
gioo -
50 - «*~Hills 1979, a=6 -Swift

—©'-Barlat 89, a=8 -Voce
0 ! 1 1 '" 1 1 1 '' ' i 'I
50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

159
0.4 K=554 MPa, n="0 .2578, Ro=0.79, R 45 =0.63,
R 90 =0.67, A=440 MPa., B=275.2 MPa, C= 7.015
0.3
et
u
+*
CO
2 0.2
H
s-
_©
'S5
0.1
Experimental data
Hill's 1979, a=6- Swift
Barlat 89, a=8 - Voce
o i—-
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Minor True Strain
500 -j
450 -
^ ^ ^ ^
400
£350
S300
Vi
2 250
•*O
C -»
2 200
9
u _
*T 150
u
O
S'IOO -
S —•—Hill's 1979, a=6 - Swift
50 -
- • - B a r l a t 89, a=8 - Voce
0
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
160
APPENDIX C
MODIFIED EFFECTIVE STRESS RATIO MODEL ALGORITHM
A is the safe region, B is the defect region, a is the higher order yield criterion index
Given o2A we iterate through o\A
O.A=G2A/GIA
pA = (aA(a-1}- R (l-aJ^yfl+RO-aJ^)
<pA=(l+ (aA)a+R (l-aA)a/(R+l)f/a)
oeffA= VIA 9A
eeffA= (GeffA/K)(,M)
e1A = ceffA aeffA/(a1A (l+aA p/))
£2A = (veffA eeffA-aiA £!A)/G2A
Now transform strains and stresses to groove direction

7 7
SnnA^ £lA COS 0+ E2A Sin 9
7 7
EttA— £1A Sin 0+ E2A cos 0
EntA= (~£lA+ £2A) COS0Sin0
<JnnA= OlA COS20+ G2A Sin"0
0~tlA = GIA Sin29+ G2A cos29
&ntA=(- OIA + G2A) cos 9 sin 9
161
Next we turn towards B region
EttB ~ £ttA
seffs =EeffA/y>/n)
GeffB= K*(£effB)"
The problem now is that given ettB, eeffB, GeffB we need to find e}B, GIB, G2B
We start with an initial guess for ennB and we evaluate the following set of auxiliary
equations
7 7 7 ?
£IB ~(E„„B cos 9-EttB sin 0)/( cos 0-sin 0)
7 7 7 7
E2B =( EttB cos 0-EnnB sin 0)/( cos 9-sin 9)
PB =£2B/£IB
Next find aB from pB by solving the following polynomial for real root
ay1 - R ( I +PB) (1-O.B y 1

-pB = 0
Given that G2B = «B GJB from which we see that we have two unknowns EIB, GIB and two
equations. The equations that applies on these variables are
GIB a + G2Ba+ R (GIB- G2B) " = (R +1) GeffB "
ElB GJB + £2B G2B= EeffB GeffB
We solve these two equations together with the auxiliary equations to find an update to
EnnB and get the value of GIB until the difference is very close to zero
162
Now having £mB and EUB (= SUA) we re-evaluate the auxiliary equations
EIB = ( EnnB cos2 0-£ttB sin 0)/(cos20-sin20)

7 7 7 7
E2B = (EttB COS 0- E„nB Sin 0)/( COS 0- SW 0)
PB =E2B/EIB
Next find aB from ps by solving the following polynomial for real root
ay1 - R (1+PB) (1 - aB)a'' - pB = 0
G2B = O-B GIB
Now transform stresses to groove direction
7 7
O"««B= GIB COS 0+ G2B sin 9
&ttB= GIB sin 9+ G2B COS 9
GMB=(- GIB + C>2B) cos9'sin9
Next find
E3A = -(E1A+ E2A)
E3B = -(EIB + E2B)
and perform a force balance test
GnnAcalc = CTnnB CXp(E3B - £3^
Force = (JnnA / CTnnAcalc
If 0.99<Force< 1.01 then record ajA, °~2A, £IA and E2A as failure point values otherwise
iterate with another value for <TiA
163
APPENDIX D
STRAIN-STRESS CONVERSION METHODOLOGY
I- Converting From Strain to Stress Space
Assuming a plane stress condition (cr3 =0) the ratio of minor true stress, o"2, to the
major true stress, <JX, is defined by the parameter:
a = ^- (D.l)
O",
The ratio of minor true strain, £2, to major true strain £x, is defined by the parameter:
p = £i (D.2)
£
\
Plasticity theory defines an effective stress, a , which is a function of stress tensor
components and a set of material parameters. For in-plane loading conditions, the
effective stress can be expressed in terms of principal stresses and material parameters
using Hill's 1948 yield criterion as follows:
*=x( V
\+a
. ™ ^
2R
-——a
*+l J
(D.3)
where the average anisotropic material parameter, R , is:
and the a-p relationship can be reduced to:
(l + j j O » - * (D.5)
(l + R)-Ra
Effective strain can be expressed in terms of £x,£2 ando; as:
164
(l + R) L 2 2R m „
£
= n LeJl + p2+—^P (D.6)
V(l + 2i?) V l+ R
The relationship between effective stress and effective strain is given by the power
hardening law:
G = K{s)" (D.7)
Major and minor stress can be calculated using the following equations:
a2 - aax (D.8)
Steps for converting strain-based FLC values to stress-based FLC values:
1. Calculate p from strain increments using (D.2)
2. Calculate a using (D.5)
3. Calculate effective strain using (D.6)
4. Calculate effective stress using (D.7)
5. Calculate o~, using (D.3)
6. Calculate minor stress using (D.8)
II- Converting From Stress to Strain Space
Given the pair (<JiA, G2A), the strain-based FLC can be obtained as follows:
1. Compute aA=CT2A /<JIA
2. Use aA and compute pA, (j>A and pA
3. Substitute <f>A and <TJA into the equation <JlA = GA I </>A to obtain 0A
4. With (TA , compute the effective strain £A through an inverse hardening curve equation
5. Using £A, compute E]A from £A = PA£lA
6. With the knowledge of EJA and pA, £2A is computed
165

Analytical and Numerical Prediction of Localized Necking in Sheet

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analytical and Numerical Prediction of Localized Necking in Sheet

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of New Hampshire

University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository

Doctoral Dissertations Student Scholarship

Analytical and numerical prediction of localized necking in sheet

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation

NECKING IN SHEET METAL FORMING PROCESSES

RAED ZUHAIR HASAN

Master of Science, University of Technology-Baghdad, 2001

Submitted to the University of New Hampshire

The Requirements For The Degree of

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

Dissertation Director, Brad Lee Kinsey,

'or [jutti (PC?

This work is dedicated to my parents.

"£A+Ji\ p\&\ £i*j k a i l '

"Heaven lies under the feet of mothers."

the University of New Hampshire is gratefully acknowledged.

completion of this work.

support during my study at the University of New Hampshire.

Bessam Z. Hasan for the useful suggestions and discussions.

done for me.

LIST OF TABLES viii

1 -1. Background Information 1

1-2. Definition of Failure In Sheet Metal Forming 2

1-3. Motivation and Problem Statement 7

1-4. Research Goals and Contributions 12

2. ANALYTICAL MODELING OF FAILURE IN SHEET METAL FORMING

2-1. Review of Analytical Models Based on Plastic Instability 14

2.1.1. Empirical Equations 14

2.1.2. Swift-Hill's Model 15

2.1.3. Storen-Rice Model 17

2.1.4. M-K Model and H-N Extension of M-K Model 18

2.2. Comparison of Models to Past Experimental Data 24

2.3. Stress-Based Models 34

2.3.1. Non-Incremental Effective Stress Ratio Model 34

2.3.2. Modified Effective Stress Ratio Model 37

2.3.4. Incremental Effective Stress Ratio Model 46

2.4. Non-Incremental, Major Principal Strain Ratio Model 48

3. NUMERICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS OF KEY

ASSUMPTIONS IN ANALYTICAL FAILURE MODELS 59

3.2.1 Experimental Procedure 60

3.2.2 Numerical Simulations Details 66

3.3.1 Results for M-K Model Assumption 70

3.3.2 Results for Effective Stress Ratio Model Assumption 83

3.3.3 Results for Major Strain Ratio Model Assumption 90

3.5 Conclusions 100

4. EFFECT OF ELEMENT TYPES ON FAILURE PREDICTION USING A

STRESS-BASED FORMING LIMIT CURVE 102

4-1. Introduction 102

4-2. Marciniak Test Background 103

4-3. Numerical Simulations Details 106

4-4. Element Selection Guidelines 107

4-5. Comparison Between Element Types 109

4-6. Discussion 118

6. FUTURE WORK 123

6.1 Analytical Modeling Improvements 123

6.2 Numerical Modeling Improvements 123

6.3 Experimental Verifications 124

Appendix A: M-K Model Algorithm 137

Appendix B: M-K Predictions of The Materials Presented In Table 2.1 153

Appendix C: Modified Effective Stress Ratio Model Algorithm 161

Appendix D: Strain To Stress Conversion Methodology 164

Table 2.1: Data of materials used in analyses