Journal of Materials Processing Technology 179 (2006) 56–60

Theorical and experimental determination of the forming

limit diagram for the AISI 304 stainless steel
Haroldo Béria Campos a,∗ , Marilena Carmen Butuc b , José Joaquim Grácio b ,
João E. Rocha b , José Manuel Ferreira Duarte c
aUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Mechanical Engineering Department, Av. Antônio Carlos 6627, Campus da Pampulha,
B. Hte., Minas Gerais, Zip Code 31270-901, Brazil
b Centro de Tecnologia Mecânica e Automação, Mechanical Engineering Department, Universidade de Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
c Mechanical Engineering Department, Universidade do Porto, 4099 Porto Codex, Portugal

Abstract
The theoretical prediction and the experimental validation of the forming limit curve (FLC) have been made for the AISI 304 stainless steel during
linear strain paths. The Marciniak–Kuczynski (M–K) method has been used in the theoretical prediction. For the calculation, the Hill’48 yield
criterion has been used. For the experimental survey of the forming limit curve (FLC) we have used: non-grooved tension specimens simulating a
uniaxial tension strain path; grooved tension specimens simulating a strain path ranging between uniaxial tension and plane strain and also circular
specimens to reach a path representing biaxial tension. The circular specimens were submitted to the biaxial expansion through the bulge test. To
determine the strain values at the necking moment we used Zurich number 5 method. Using a heterogeneity factor of 0.955 an optimal adjustment
of the theoretically predicted forming limit curve was achieved with that one obtained experimentally.
© 2006 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Keywords: Forming limit curve; MK method; AISI 304 stainless steel; Forming limit diagram

1. Introduction elements is a complex area which nowadays enables the achieve-

The technological processes of metal conformation through
plastic deformation enables the production of mechanical parts
with high production rate and the practical total use of the avail-
able raw material. These processes stand on a high position in
the metal working industry due to the amount of raw material
treated.
The success of some plastic conformation operation depends
on various interactive parameters of different nature (intended
geometry, conditions of operation, properties of the material,
etc.). Although the influence of each of these parameters can be
analyzed separately, its synthesis is particularly hard, due to its
complexity and its interactivity.
The capacity to predict success of a plastic conformation
operation using numerical simulation resource or not, raises
considerable technological interest. The final result of all the
conception process depends on a set of parameters as previously
stated. The numerical simulation based on the method of finite
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: beriacampos@uol.com.br (H.B. Campos).
ment of results of undoubting interest. The complexity of the
processes of plastic conformation imposes a rigid and frequent
characterization of the mechanical behaviour and formability of
sheet metal used in these processes. In the last years, impor-
tant development has been achieved based on new models, in
experimental laboratory and industrial analysis.
The Forming Limit Diagrams (FLD) have been extensively
used in the sheet conformation industry to evaluate the forma-
bility, specially in the car industry [1]. The FLDs have enabled
the prediction of which deformation can lead to the failure of the
material for different strain paths and are considered an impor-
tant tool in the die project as well as to optimize and correct
problems in the line production [2].
The concept of FLD was first developed by Keelerand
co-workers [3]. The introduced method consists in using a sheet
with grid circles which are later stamped up to the failure of the
material. Therefore, the circles acquire the shape of ellipses and
the strains are obtained through the measuring of its bigger and
smaller axis. The circles affected by the fracture are considered
failure, while the others are considered safe. The FLD is
traced from the combination of the strains which lead to the
failure.

0924-0136/$ – see front matter © 2006 Published by Elsevier B.V.

doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2006.03.065
 H.B. Campos et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 179 (2006) 56–60
The evaluation of the formability of the metal sheets has been
done using diversified tests such as Erichsen, Swift, Nakazima,
LDH (Limit Dome Heigth) and Fukui [1]. It is important to men-
tion that among the mentioned tests, the Swift, the Nakazima and
the LDH keep special interest. The first test is used to determine
the limit draw ratio, presenting a strain path in drawing. The
other ones are highly used to determine the forming limit curve
(FLD) since they can simulate almost all the strain paths.
The first attempt of numerical prediction of the FLD was
made by Marciniak and Kuczynski [4]. The model known as
MK, takes the shape of an initial imperfection as a groove
throughout the material which causes the surface to be weak-
ened locally.
Choi et al. [5] as well as Pishbin and Gillis [6] have worked
in another method known as JG, which takes for granted that
the strain occurs in three steps: (I) homogeneous strain up to the
ultimate load; (II) strain concentration under constant load; (III)
located necking with sudden drop of the load. These three steps
are mathematically represented to allow, along with the material
work hardening law of the contour conditions, an equation sys-
tem which enables to describe the behaviour of the metal during
all the process of strain.
Kwon et al. [7] have used a method which applies the crite-
rion of “located shear instability” along with a yield criterion to
obtain the FLD. This method takes for granted that the located
shear will happen when the tension of the shear reaches a crit-
ical value. The results are compared to those obtained with the
MK method, showing that the model adopted by Know et al. is
more conservative. Other authors [8–16] have developed ana-
lytical prediction studies of the FLDs comparing the obtained
results from different methods and analyzing the effects of the
properties of the material in the diagram.
Graf and Hosford [13] have used the MK method with the
yield criterion of Logan and Hosford [14], which is a particular
case of the Hill’79 yield criterion, in order to study the behaviour
of the FLD with the variation of the n, m, R, a and f parameters.
Recently, Xu and Weinmann [15] have used the Hill’93 criterion
in the study of the effects of the properties of the material in the
prediction of the FLCs, showing that the shape of the geomet-
ric place of the yield criterion has a big influence on the limit
strains.
In the present study, a theoretical prediction and an experi-
mental determination of the forming limit curve (FLC) for the
AISI 304 stainless steel when submitted to a liner strain path
has been performed. The MK method has been used in the theo-
retical prediction of the diagram. In the calculation, the Hill’48
yield criterion and the Swift equation have been used. For the
experimental survey of the forming limit curve the following
specimens have been used: non-grooved tension specimens sim-
ulating a uniaxial tension strain path; grooved tension specimens
simulating the strain path ranging between uniaxial tension and
plane-strain and the circle specimens to obtain paths represent-
ing biaxial expansion. The circle specimens were submitted to
a biaxial expansion through the bulge test. The onset of local-
ized necking was determined from strain distribution profiles
near the necking region through the use of the Bragard method
[1] and following the calculation procedure No 5 of Zurich rec-
57
Table 1
AISI 304 stainless steel chemical composition
C 0.055
Cr 18.2
Mn 1.8
Ni 8.1
P 0.31
S 0.001
Si 0.357
ommended by the International Deep Drawing Research Group
(IDDRG)
2. Experimental methodology
AISI 304 stainless steel sheet samples with a chemical composition as pre-
sented on Table 1 and thickness of 0.7 mm have been used in this study to survey
the forming limit curve (FLD). The material has presented a size of a 30 ␮m
medium grain and the tests were made using initial strain rate around 10−3 s−1 .
To survey the FLD the strain paths shown in Fig. 1 have been used. Each
linear strain path can be described through the parameter ρ representative of the
strain state and given by
dε2
ρ= (1)
dε1
Considering a linear load, it can be stated that the strain path of a draw point
represents the strain geometric place of this point throughout the strain path.
To find the strain paths drawing (shown in Fig. 1), survey of tension on
non-grooved specimens (Fig. 2) have been conducted to strain path 1 (uniaxial
tension, ρ = −1/2) while tension on grooved specimens (Figs. 3 and 4) allows
to strain paths 2 and 3 (Fig. 1). The result of these tests has enabled the survey
of three points in the left side of the forming limit diagram (FLD). Besides that,
the non-grooved specimens (Fig. 2) have been used to survey the material yield
curve, the yield strength and the normal anisotropy coefficient (R) in samples
taken at 0◦ , 45◦ and 90◦ in relation to the rolling direction. The coefficient of
sensibility to the strain rate was obtained through the variation of the strain rate
of 10−3 to 10−2 for a strain of 0.2.
To obtain the strain paths for stretching, also shown in Fig. 1, the bulge test
(Fig. 5) in circle specimens with diameter of 250 mm have been made. To get
the strain paths 4 and 5 two elliptical dies with bigger diagonal of 150 mm and
smaller diagonal of 70 and 90 mm have been used, respectively. The strain path 6
(biaxial tension, ρ = 1) has been obtained by using a circle die with the diameter
of 150 mm.
Fig. 1. Strain path used in the survey of the forming limit curve (FLC).
58 H.B. Campos et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 179 (2006) 56–60
Fig. 2. Drawing of the non-grooved specimen which was used in tests of tension,
strain path 1.
Fig. 3. Drawing of the grooved specimen which has been used in tension tests,
strain path 2.
Fig. 4. Drawing of the grooved specimen which has been used in tension tests,
strain path 3.
An electro-chemical method was used to print on the surface of the test-
pieces a grid of circles of 2 mm diameter pattern respective to uniaxial tension
test and 3 mm diameter pattern respective to bulge test. The diameter of the
circle of the grids have been measured before and after the strain throughout
Fig. 5. Schematic drawing of the bulge test with its circular and elliptical die
used to achieve. strain paths 4, 5 and 6.
Fig. 6. Initial defect of the M–K analysis.
the major and minor principal directions taking as reference a perpendicular
axis system placed in the geometric centre of each circle or in the centre of the
tension specimen. These principal directions are parallels and perpendicular,
respectively, to the rolling direction of the sheet. To find the limit strain at the
necking, the Zurich [1] method number 5 has been used.
3. Theoretical analysis
The simulation of plastic instability is performed using the
Marciniak–Kuczinsky (M–K) analysis. The rigid plasticity, the
plane stress condition and isotropic work hardening of the mate-
rial is assumed.
A detailed description of the theoretical M–K analysis,
schematically illustrated in Fig. 6, can be found in several publi-
cations [5]. The model is based on the growth of an initial defect
in the form of a narrow band inclined at an angle Ψ 0 with respect
to the principal axis. The initial value of the geometrical defect
is characterized by the ratio eb0 /ea0 , where ea0 and eb0 are the ini-
tial thicknesses in the homogeneous region and in the groove,
respectively. The x, y, z-axes correspond to rolling, transverse
and normal directions of the sheet, whereas 1 and 2 represent the
principal stress and strain directions in the homogeneous region.
The set of axis bound to the groove is represented by n, t, z-axes
where ‘t’ is the longitudinal one. This two-zone material is sub-
jected to plastic deformation applying a constant incremental
stretching of the homogeneous part. The plastic flow occurs in
both regions, but the evolution of strain rates is different in the
two zones. When the flow localization occurs in the groove at
a critical strain in homogeneous region, the limiting strain of
the sheet is reached. Furthermore, the major strain is assumed
to occur along the X-axis. Marciniack–Kuckzinski necking cri-
terion assumes that the plastic flow localization occurs when
the equivalent strain increment in imperfection region (dε̄b ) is
ten times greater than in homogeneous zone (dε̄a ). When the
necking criterion is reached the computation is stopped and
the corresponding strains (εaxx , εayy ) accumulated at that moment
in the homogeneous zone are the limit strains. The analysis is
repeated for different values of ψ0 (between 0◦ and 90◦ ) and
the limit point on the FLD is obtained after minimization of the
curves εaxx , versus ψ0 (Fig. 6).
 H.B. Campos et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 179 (2006) 56–60 59

Each material is completely defined macroscopically by its

yield surface and its work-hardening law σ̄(ε̄), which in the
present work is presented by Swift equation:
σ̄(ε̄) = k(ε̄0 + ε̄)n ε̇m (2)
where σ̄ and ε̄ are the effective stress and strain, whereas k, n,
m, ε0 are material constants.
The yield surface of the material is described by Hill’48
yield function [17], which is certainly the most popular equation
describing the behaviour of orthotropic materials such as rolled
sheets. The Hill’48 yield function has the form:
σ̄YF
2
= σx2 − 2Hσx σy + (F + H)σy2 + 2Pσxy
2
(3)
Fig. 8. Normalized yield stress as a function of the tensile loading axis.
where F, H, P can be calculated using the anisotropy coefficients
R0 , R45 and R90 .The numerical results presented in the next
section have been obtained using FLDcode [18].

4. Results

The 304 stainless steel sheet under investigation was charac-

terized by the anisotropy coefficient values presented in Fig. 7,
yield limit shown in picture 8 and by the Swift equation (flow)
obtained for tensioned samples according to a loading axis coin-
ciding with the direction of the sheet presented in the Eq. (4):
σ̄(ε̄) = 1527(0.01 + ε̄)0.47 ε̇0.012 (4)
Knowing the strong effect of the shape of the yield surface on Fig. 9. Experimental and theoretical Forming Limit Diagrams during linear
the stretchability, in the right part of the Forming Limit Diagram strain paths.
for linear strain paths, the capability of Hill’48 yield criterion
to describe the material behaviour was also studied. Therefore,
to be equal to 0.955, this value being lower than the considered
the predicted distribution of the anisotropy coefficient and the
correct defect value according to previous work by Barlat based
normalized yield stress with respect to the angle with the rolling
in microstructure analyses which is around 0.996–0.998.
direction are shown in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively.
Fig. 9 shows very good predictions of limit strains in linear
Fig. 7 shows that the predicted distribution of the anisotropy
strain paths obtained using Hill’48 and Swift hardening law. An
factor as a function of the tensile loading axis between 0◦ and
evident formability reduction is observed for plane strain con-
90◦ by Hill’48 is in good agreement with the experimental one.
ditions, thus corroborating previous results obtained for several
From Fig. 8 can be seen that the Hill’48 tends to reproduce the
metals [19]. The perfect agreement between the simulated curve
shape of normalized stress distribution but the predicted values
and the experimental data asses the Hill’48 very good perfor-
are rather far from the experimental data.
mance in forming limit prediction for proportional loading for
In order to obtain the best agreement with the experimental
the studied material.
data the initial value of the M–K geometrical defect is considered
5. Conclusion

A successful correlation is observed between the experimen-

tal FLDs and the computed limit strains using M–K approach
when, the shape of yield locus is described by Hill’48 criterion
and the hardening law represented by Swift equation.
It was remarked the excellent ability of the combination of
Hill’48 with Swift hardening law to correctly estimate the limit
curve for the studied material during linear strain paths.

Acknowledgements

M.C. Butuc wishes to thank the Portuguese Foundation of

Fig. 7. Distribution of anisotropy coefficients as a function of the tensile loading Science and Technology (FCT) for her doctoral fellowship. H.B.
axis. Campus thanks to CAPES (Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento
60 H.B. Campos et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 179 (2006) 56–60
de Pessoal de Nivel Superior) for the financial support through
the process BEX1132/00-8.
References
[1] J.M.F. Duarte, Conformacao Plastica de Chapas Metalica: Simulacao
Numerica e Caracterizacao Mecanica, Tese de Doutorado. Departamento
de Engenharia Mecanica e Gestao Industrial. Faculdade de Engenharia,
Universidade do Porto, 1997.
[2] W.F. Hosford, R.M. Caddell, Metal forming—Mechanics and Metallurgy,
2nd ed., PTR Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1993.
[3] A.K. Gosh, S.S. Hecker, S.P. Keeler, Sheet metal forming and testing, in:
G.E. Dieter (Ed.), Workability Testing Techniques, American Society for
Metal, Metals Park, 1984, pp. 133–195.
[4] Z. Marciniak, K. Kuczynski, Limit strains in the processes of stretched-
forming sheet metal, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 9 (1967) 609–620.
[5] W. Choi, P.P. Gillis, S.E. Jones, Calculation of the forming limit diagram,
Metall. Trans. A 20A (1989) 1975–1987.
[6] H. Pishbin, P.P. Gillis, Forming limit diagrams calculated using Hill’s non-
quadratic yield criterion, Metall. Trans. A 23A (1992) 2817–2831.
[7] J.W. Kwon, D.N. Lee, I. Kim, Forming limit diagrams of zinc and zinc
alloy coated steel sheets, Script. Metall. Mater. 31 (1994) 613–618.
[8] A.G. Mamalis, A.P. Karafillis, N.M. Vaxevanadis, Prediction of the limit
strains of sheet steel thermally and mechanically worked in relation to
surface integrity changes: a theoretical model, J. Mater. Process. Technol.
25 (1991) 15–33.
[9] A.F. Graf, W.F. Hosford, Calculations of forming limit diagrams for chang-
ing strain paths, Metall. Trans. A 24A (1993) 2497–2501.
[10] J. Gronostajski, Z.J. Zimniak, A few methods of analytical calculation
of forming-limit curves, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 55 (1995) 213–
217.
[11] L. Zhao, R. Sowerby, M.P. Sklad, A theoretical and experimental investi-
gation of limit strains in sheet metal forming, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 38 (1996)
307–1317.
[12] W. Bleck, Z. Deng, K. Papamantellos, C.O. Gusek, A comparative study
of the forming-limit diagram models for sheet steels, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 83 (1998) 223–230.
[13] A.F. Graf, W.F. Hosford, Calculations of forming limit diagrams, Metall.
Trans. A 21A (1990) 87–94.
[14] R. Logan, W.F. Hosford, Upper-bound anisotropic yield locus calcula-
tions assuming <1 1 1>—pencil glide, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 22 (1980) 419–
430.
[15] S. Xu, K.J. Weinmann, Prediction of forming limit curves of sheet metal
using Hill’s 1993 user-friendly yield criterion of anisotropic materials, Int.
J. Mech. Sci. 40 (1998) 913–925.
[16] L.F. Ferznandes, Avaliacao do Criterio de Ruptura na Simulacao de
Estampagem Baseado em Curvas Limite de Conformacao, Dissertacao de
Mestrado, Departamento de Engenharia de Estruturas da, Universidade
Federal de Minas Gerais, 1999.
[17] R. Hill, A theory of the yielding and plastic flow of anisotropic metals,
Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A193 (1948) 281–297.
[18] M.C. Butuc, A. Barata Da Rocha, J.J. Gracio, J. Ferreira Duarte, A more
general model for forming limit diagrams prediction, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 125–126 (2002) 213–218.
[19] A. Barata Da Rocha, F. Barlat, J.M. Jalinier, Prediction of the forming limit
diagram of anisotropic sheets in linear and non-linear loading, Mater. Sci.
Eng. 68 (1984) 151–164.