Examensarbete 20 pong D-niv

THE INFLUENCE OF SHEET THICKNESS

ON THE FORMING LIMIT CURVE FOR
AUSTENITIC STAINLESS STEEL
Reg.kod: Oru-Te-EXA078-M106/04
Claes Svensson
Maskiningenjrsprogrammet 160 p
rebro vrterminen 2004

Examinator: Magnus Jarl

PLTTJOCKLEKENS INVERKAN P FORMBARHETSGRNSKURVAN

FR AUSTENITISKT ROSTFRITT STL

rebro universitet
Institutionen fr teknik
701 82 rebro

rebro University
Department of technology
SE-701 82 rebro, Sweden

Abstract
Forming limit curves (FLCs) are mostly used as a parameter in finite element analysis to
control where the material exceeds the level of formability. They are also used in workshops
to analyze actual and potential problems of sheet forming or to compare the formability of
different materials.
The relevance to make FLCs with the existing method, punch size 100 mm, on very thin
material can be discussed when the industry is using much smaller tools in the actual forming
process. The influence on the FLC-level for stainless steel sheets with different thicknesses is
investigated experimentally.
A new method to make FLCs on thinner gauges based on the current method used by
Outokumpu Stainless is investigated. The main idea is to shrink the existing parameters in the
method with one third, carry out the tests as before and obtain the same FLC-level. Normally
a sheet thickness range from 0.8 mm to 1.5 mm is used to create FLCs with the existing
method. The new method is supposed to be used on sheets from of 0.30 mm and thinner. An
ISO standard exists but is only providing guidelines for metal sheets of nominal thicknesses
from 0.2 mm to 3 mm.
The FLCs made on thicker sheets with the existing method, will be compared with the FLCs
made for thinner sheets with the new method. Steel sheets, EN 1.4401, with thicknesses of
0.15 mm, 0.20 mm, 0.30 mm, 0.40 mm and 0.60 mm are used in the hemispherical dome
tests.
Results from tests in this thesis showed a coinciding FLC-level for all gauges created with
both the existing method and the new method. The small difference in FLC-level between the
both methods could be neglected.

Sammanfattning
En formbarhetsgrnskurva (FGK) anvnds mest som en parameter vid analyser som finita
element metoden. Den kontrollerar s att materialet inte verskrider sin grns fr formbarhet.
Kurvorna anvnds ven i verkstder fr att analysera potentiella problem vid pltformningen
och fr att jmfra olika materials egenskaper.
Den metod som anvnds, 100 mm stmpel, fr att ta fram en FGK fr mycket tunna material
kan ifrgasttas, d dessa verktyg r vldigt stora i frhllande till plttjockleken. Dessutom
anvnder sig industrin av mycket mindre verktyg vid sjlva formningsoperationen.
Plttjocklekens betydelse fr nivn av en FKG kommer att analyseras experimentellt.
En ny metod fr att ta fram en FKG fr tunna material, baserad p nuvarande metod som
anvnds av Outokumpu Stainless, tas fram och utvrderas. Huvudidn r att krympa
nuvarande metods parametrar med en tredjedel och utfra testerna som vanligt och nd f
samma niv p FGK:n. Normalt anvnds en plttjocklek runt 0.8 mm till 1.5 mm fr att ta
fram en FGK med nuvarande metod. Nya metoden skall anvndas fr material frn 0.3 mm
och tunnare. En ISO standard finns men ger endast rekommendationer fr hur en FGK kan tas
fram.
De FGK gjorda med nuvarande metod, jmfrs sedan med de FGK producerade med nya
metoden. Materialet som anvnds i testerna r EN 1.4401 med plttjocklekar p 0.15 mm,
0.20 mm, 0.30 mm, 0.40 mm, och 0.60 mm.
Resultaten frn testerna i detta arbete visade en sammanfallande niv fr alla FGK gjorda med
bde den nuvarande samt den nya metoden. Den lilla skillnaden som uppstod i FGK-niv
mellan de bda metoderna kunde ignoreras.

Forewords
The purpose of a thesis work for a mechanical engineering education at 160 points is to train
the student in using the knowledge obtained from school for 20 weeks in an industrial
environment to solve a real problem.
This thesis work was carried out at Avesta Research Centre, ARC, Outokumpu Stainless AB
in Avesta from February to July 2004.
I would like to thank my supervisor at Outokumpu, Hanna Stinessen, for her support and
guidance through the thesis work. My supervisor at rebro University, Sven-Erik Lundberg
for his help and encourage. Also Ingemar sling at Outokumpu for his time, help and support
in the laboratory. Lennarth Johanssons effort and help in the workshop. Erik Schedin for his
special knowledge on metalforming. Asko Khnen for his time and assistance and the rest of
the personnel at Outokumpu Stainless for their special help and support.

2004-06-08 Claes Svensson

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................................ 5
1.1 Background................................................................................................................................................. 5
1.2 Objective ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
2. Theory................................................................................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Stainless steels............................................................................................................................................. 6
2.1.1 Austenitic stainless steels ..................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.2 Ferritic stainless steels .......................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.3 Martensitic stainless steels.................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.4 Duplex stainless steels .......................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.5 Stainless steel EN 1.4401 ..................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Forming limit curves .................................................................................................................................. 8
2.2.1 FEM analysis and the FLC ................................................................................................................. 11
2.2.2 Strain analysis..................................................................................................................................... 12
2.3 Strain analysis software Autogrid........................................................................................................... 13
3 Methods ............................................................................................................................................................. 14
3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 14
3.2 Material data ............................................................................................................................................ 14
3.3 Equipment................................................................................................................................................. 15
3.4 Tool design and arrangement.................................................................................................................. 16
3.5 Specimen design and preparation........................................................................................................... 17
3.5.1 First design, A .................................................................................................................................... 17
3.5.2 Second design, B ................................................................................................................................ 18
3.5.3 Third design, C ................................................................................................................................... 19
3.6 Test procedure .......................................................................................................................................... 20
3.7 How to create the FLC............................................................................................................................. 20
3.7.1 Calibration of the system .................................................................................................................... 20
3.7.2 Evaluation of the FLC ........................................................................................................................ 21
3.8 Existing method used to evaluate FLCs ................................................................................................. 23
4 Results................................................................................................................................................................ 24
4.1 Design A .................................................................................................................................................... 24
4.2 Design B..................................................................................................................................................... 26
4.3 Design C .................................................................................................................................................... 26
5 Discussion.......................................................................................................................................................... 30
5.1 Comparisons of FLCs .............................................................................................................................. 30
5.1.1 Comparisons of FLCs between large and small method..................................................................... 34
5.2 Other results ............................................................................................................................................. 36
5.2.1 Effect of different image-sequences and punch speed........................................................................ 36
5.2.2 Influences from sheet thickness and mechanical properties ............................................................... 38
5.2.3 The results and problems with the edge preparation .......................................................................... 41
5.3 Final discussion......................................................................................................................................... 42
6 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................................... 43
7 List of references ............................................................................................................................................... 44
Appendix 1............................................................................................................................................................ 46

1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Metal forming operations of very small and thin parts made from stainless steel is common
today. The automotive industry is in demand of forming limit curves (FLCs) because of the
increasing use of finite element simulations. In order to make this analysis accurate and
precise, full material data, among other things the forming limit curve (FLC) is required.
The relevance to make FLCs with the existing method, with a punch of 100 mm, on very thin
material can be discussed when the industry is using much smaller tools in the actual forming
process. These thin sheets are generally used to form small sized shapes and the grid size on
which the strains are measured are typically 2 mm, often several times larger than the
thickness of the sheet.
Most of the knowledge has been gained for a sheet thickness around 1 mm, driven by the
automotive industry. The influence of sheet thickness on the formability is analyzed in one
paper [1] and indicates that the FLC-level increases with increasing sheet thickness [2]. Some
papers indicate that it could be a true scale factor. However, based on experience, this is
probably only true down to a certain level in sheet thickness where the material starts to
behave thin.
Outokumpu Stainless has developed a method to make FLCs, so have other companies. There
is a standard, mostly a guideline, for determination of FLCs made by the international
organization for standardization [3]. This standard is only a recommendation and describes
the principle and procedure very briefly and does not provide any test specimen design or tool
geometry. However, a new standard is on its way.

1.2 Objective
The main subject of this thesis work is to find out a method to create FLCs for thin stainless
steel sheets with thicknesses from 0.30 mm and thinner. It investigates the possibility to
modify and apply an already present method by scaling the tools, grid and test specimens, or
if it is necessary create a new method to make FLCs for these thin sheets.

2. Theory
2.1 Stainless steels
Stainless steel is the generic name for steels with very high corrosion resistance and with a
certain amount of chromium, at least 13% or more [4]. The chromium forms a very thin
passive oxide surface film to the steel, completely invisible for the eye, which is the carrier of
the stainless characteristics. This passive surface has the ability to rebuild itself on damaged
parts if oxygen is present. The corrosion resistance generally increases with more chromium
and in alloys containing 12-13% [5] the steel does not rust in a normal atmosphere or in sweet
water. With even more chromium added to the steel it can resist more aggressive mediums.
Most of the stainless steels also have good cutting, welding and forming properties. The
stainless steels are divided into different groups depending on their structure. Furthermore,
stainless steels are fully recyclable. Table 1 illustrates typical values of mechanical properties.
Table 1 Typical values of mechanical properties for stainless steels [6].

Type of stainless steel

Ferritic
Duplex
Austenitic
Martensitic

Rp0.2 [MPa]

Rm [MPa]

370
620
270
600

500
840
620
750

2.1.1 Austenitic stainless steels

By adding nickel in sufficient amounts to a steel containing chromium the crystal structure
will change from ferrite to austenite [5]. Titanium and niobium stabilizes the steel by bonding
the carbon and thereby decrease the risk of intercrystalline corrosion. In modern steel refinery,
the carbon content is kept low without additions of titanium and niobium. Molybdenum has
the same effect as chromium and is mostly added to increase the corrosion resistance.
Low yield strength, rapid work hardening, high elongation and high impact strength
characterizes these steels. They also have a high resistance towards corrosion and are easy to
weld. The basic composition among these steels is 18% chromium and 8% nickel [7], also
often referred to as the 18-8 steels.
Austenitic stainless steels are not hardenable by heat treatment but some will become very
hard upon cold working [4]. Yield point is higher than for carbon steel sheet forming grades
and will increase further with addition of nitrogen. [8]. Austenitic steels are non-magnetic but
some can be magnetic after a cold working operation [9]. This is due to of the development of
strain-induced martensite during the deformation process.

2.1.2 Ferritic stainless steels

Ferritic stainless steels are completely ferritic at all temperatures with a BCC structure. Upon
tempering the structure will not change at all, thereby they are not hardenable by heat
treatment [4]. The only alloying element is chromium varying between 12 and 30%. They
also have low carbon content. Ferritic alloys have good ductility and formability and their
strength is normally somewhat higher than austenitic steels but can be highly raised if nickel
is added [8]. Ferritic steels are also weldable.

2.1.3 Martensitic stainless steels

Martensitic stainless steels were the first stainless steels that were commercially developed,
for cutlery. They have a relatively high carbon content compared to other stainless steels.
By heat treatment and tempering, the steels reach a higher strength. This process is called
quenching. Martensitic stainless steels are plain chromium steels containing between 12 and
17% chromium [8]. They are very hard and brittle, also magnetic and are used in cutlery,
aerospace and general engineering. Nickel is sometimes added to enhance the quenching
ability and molybdenum is added to increase the corrosion resistance. Martensitic steels are
weldable but to avoid cracking they should be preheated and to avoid brittleness they must be
annealed afterwards [8].

2.1.4 Duplex stainless steels

Duplex stainless steels are sometimes referred to as austenitic-ferritic steels or ferritemartensitic. The properties of two microstructures of approximately equivalent amount are
joined and combine many of the beneficial properties of ferritic and austenitic steels. They
contain high levels of chromium and moderate amounts of nickel, this explains the high
corrosion resistance and the excellent mechanical properties. Super duplex grades have
enhanced pitting and crevice corrosion resistance due to the additions of chromium,
molybdenum and nitrogen [10]. Duplex steels also have good weldability.

2.1.5 Stainless steel EN 1.4401

This is the steel type used for tests in this thesis. These steels [11] are austenitic stainless
steels with molybdenum that provide improved corrosion resistance in environments
containing chlorides and other halides, compared to standard Cr-Ni grades. Hot working can
be performed in the temperature range 850-1150C and they can easily be formed, welded
and fabricated by a full range of cold working operations, like heading, drawing and bending.
Cold working operations will slightly harden the material but heat treatment will not.
However, heat treatments at the critical temperature interval (550-850C), welding of heavy
gauges, hot forming and slow cooling after such a treatment will increase the risk for
intergranular corrosion. To avoid this problem the material can be stabilized with titanium and
low carbon content, such as EN 1.4571 and EN 1.4432. Note that this behavior is not a real
problem today, due to the low carbon content in stainless steels.
These austenitic grades are more difficult to machine than carbon steels but compared to more
highly alloyed stainless steels it is fairly easy. They require high cutting force, show
resistance to chip breaking and a high tendency to built-up edge formation [11]. To obtain the
best machining results is to use high power equipment, sharp tools and a rigid setup. Table 2
contains mechanical properties for these steel types.

Table 2 Mechanical properties, typical values at 20C [11].

Steel grade
Outokumpu Stainless
4404
4401
4406
4571
4432
4436
4435
4429

EN
1.4404
1.4401
1.4406
1.4571
1.4432
1.4436
1.4435
1.4429

ASTM
316L
316
316LN
316Ti
316L
316
316L
316LN

Rp0.2 [MPa]
280
280
320
270
280
300
270
350

Rm [MPa]
570
570
620
570
570
590
570
670

These steels are used in applications for handling the wide range of chemicals used by process
industries e.g. paper, textile, food and beverages, pharmaceutical, medical and in other
chemical environments. The steels are supplied with a wide range of surface finish and
qualities. They are non-magnetic in annealed condition but after a cold working operation
they can be slightly magnetic.

2.2 Forming limit curves

In many sheet metal forming operations the deformation is predominately stretching. When a
sheet is increasingly thinned, two modes of plastic instability are possible, i.e. diffuse and
localized necking, see figure 1 [7]. The strains at which localized necking is first observed can
be experimentally determined for loading along various paths.

Fig 1 Diffuse (a) and localized necking (b)

In 1963 Keeler and Backofen [12] studied failure in biaxially stretched sheets and constructed
a strain map that was the beginning of what is known as forming limit diagrams (FLDs). The
main discovery was that the largest principal strain before any localized thinning in a sheet
increased as the degree of biaxiality increased. Later, Keeler [13] found out that the material
properties have great influence on the strain distribution in biaxial stretching of sheet metal.
He constructed a map in principal strain space that separated safe strain states that a material
could provide from the more severe states, which would lead to failure. By definition, max is
the major principal strain, and min is the minor principal strain. In other words the FLDs show
the combination of major and minor in-plane principal strains beyond which failure occurs.
With further development of the experimental techniques by Goodwin [14], a FLD for mild
steel was obtained and served as a criterion for most stamping processes. Because of the
contribution of Keeler and Goodwin to the understanding of material formability, the
developed FLDs for carbon-steel stamping are often referred to as Keeler-Goodwin diagrams.
The FLDs cover strain states from uniaxial tension through plane strain to biaxial tension.
8

FLCs are very useful when analyzing actual and potential problems in sheet forming and are
often presented as the actual curve in the FLD. The forming limit curve is a convenient
representation of the ultimate ductility a material may display under various strain conditions
and a given boundary criterion such as failure or onset of necking. Sheets premarked with
circle or square grids can be formed in either laboratory tools during die development or in
production tools for optimizing and planning.
When forming a material it may become thinner or thicker at certain places and instead of
measuring the thickness directly, it can be measured by applying a pattern on the surface of
the sheet and using the constancy of volume condition. A grid is marked on the specimen
using either photochemical or an electrochemical process. The electrochemical process is the
most common and also the one used at Outokumpu Stainless. A stencil, like the one used in
silkscreen printing, is carrying the grid pattern and is placed upon the sheet and on top of it a
plastic rag soaked in electrolyte. The sheet to be etched is connected as an anode to a DC
circuit and a metal roller connected to the cathode side of the DC circuit is then passed across
the plastic rag. This method is fast, cheap and gives a good result. Variations of the grid
pattern, circles or squares, may be used for strain measurements, see figure 2.

Fig 2 Square grid and circular grid pattern

When the sheet material is formed, surface deformation transform the squares into
parallelograms or the circles into ellipses. Different strain gives different ratios between the
major and minor axes of the ellipses, see figure 3 [15]. Note that true strain will be used from
now on. These axes define the two perpendicular strain components, also known as principal
strains and can be defined as true strains max=ln(a/d0) and min =ln(b/d0) or engineering strains
emax=(a-do)/d0 and emin=(b-d0)/d0 [8].

Fig 3 Major and minor axes

When using a square pattern the procedure is the same as for the circle pattern to determine
the maximum and minimum strains. The value of max is always positive but min can be either
positive or negative depending on the forming condition. A positive value of min indicates
that stretch forming has taken place while a negative value indicates drawing [16].
Forming limit curves can be obtained from forming specimen strips of varying widths etched
with grids in a tool geometry as shown in figure 4.

Fig 4 Tool geometry

The strips are deformed to the point of fracture and varying the widths of them provides a
range of strain conditions, see figure 5. The narrow parts undergo drawing and provide data
on the left side of the forming limit curve. The wide parts undergo biaxial stretch and fill the
right side of the curve. Naturally, the intermediate widths fill the center of the forming limit
curve.

Fig 5 Test specimens with different widths

By plotting max and min measured close to the fracture for each specimen, a scatter band will
be obtained and this represents the FLC, illustrated in figure 6. A deformation condition
below the scatter band is safe from fracture and a deformation within and above the scatter
band indicates a serious risk of failure.
The position of the FLC curve depends mainly on material strength and thickness. Also the
geometry of the testing tool, the grid pattern and punch diameter affect the level of the FLC.
This must be considered when comparing curves or work pieces with different geometrics
[16].

10

It is very difficult to compare a component in production with a simulated test in the

laboratory because these tests are carried out on small simple specimen. Also, FLCs
determined in different laboratories tend to differ somewhat [7]. For an accurate comparison it
is necessary to know what strain the sheet will experience in production. Strains can be
measured and compared with the FLC, potential trouble spots can be identified and the
severity of the problem can be established. Another reason for comparing strains with the
FLC is that the forming problem may be identified. Better lubrication, tool alignment, sheet
thickness, material properties or different blank holder force may solve these issues.

Fig 6 Typical FLC curve. Curves are representing upper and lower limit in the scatter band.

2.2.1 FEM analysis and the FLC

To be able to make accurate predictions of deformation, tool force, blank design, etc for
geometrical shapes, computer simulation is almost necessary. In this area FEM is dominant
and it is a powerful method of analysis based on energy principles. In recent years this method
has become very user friendly and so accurate that it can be used commercially in sheet
forming for carbon steels. However, for stainless steels the hardening in the material cannot
be controlled in most of the software and Outokumpu Stainless have activities to improve this
situation in co-operation with universities and software companies.
In the automotive industry the tooling design can now be made by computer and the need for
prototype testing has been significantly reduced. Also press forces and deformation path can
be calculated when forming components.
Models of the tools and blanks are created in a graphical user interface from scratch or
generated from CAD files. Now the boundary conditions are defined and stored in a data file
using a pre-processor. Boundary conditions, for example, can be clamped edges or symmetry
lines. Also relevant material data, friction etc must be included. When the model and process
are defined calculations are made and the results are handled in a postprocessor that also
creates a graphical presentation of the results. Images of components, contours of stress and
strain distribution etc are created. Note that most of the mathematics in commercial FEM
programs are invisible to the user.

11

2.2.2 Strain analysis

The strains have a high effect considering the formability of a material. The strains effect on
forming a metal sheet is illustrated in figure 7 [15]. The strains in the figure can be defined by
a term called strain ratio min/max. A value of 1 corresponds to equibiaxial strain, 0 to plane
strain, -1/2 to uniaxial strain and 1 to pure shear. Failure generally occurs in a region near
plane strain, where all strains are positive in the plane of the sheet, i.e. near the y-axis.

Fig 7 Strain paths

Results of forming operations can be analyzed relatively easy. A grid pattern is applied to the
work piece on the area of interest, similar to that pattern used to determine the FLC. When the
component is formed the deformed pattern is measured the same way as before. Measured
values of strain are compared with the FLC of the material and if they go well below the
curve the material can safely be deformed.

12

2.3 Strain analysis software Autogrid

The company Vialux has developed a computer-based equipment that has the ability to
calculate strain in formed sheet metal, based upon grid patterns that consist of orthogonal
lines spaced at 1 to 5 mm, optically. In the past, even today, distortions in grid patterns on
sheet metal were evaluated manually. This is very time consuming and errors are likely to
occur.
To measure the strain optically, an Autogrid unit [17] is placed in front of the etched part on
the testing machine. Four CCD video cameras connected to a computer record and evaluates
the 3-d view, see figure 8, simultaneously during the actual forming process. At least two
cameras have to recognize the same point to calculate the strain, but Autogrid uses four
cameras in case of strongly curved objects e.g. a 90 bend. Also, using more than two viewing
directions will overdetermine the solution and improve the accuracy.

Fig 8 Principle of test arrangement and photogrammetry

Figure 8 also shows the principle of photogrammetry where the imaging process can be
described by a beam projection. If the position of two cameras and two homologous image
points p1 (x1; y1) and p2 (x2; y2) are known, the corresponding object point P(X;Y;Z) can be
calculated. This procedure is known as space intersection. As a result, a geometric model
must be defined, which describes the transformation from image points to object points.
Additional to the parameter of the rotation matrix and the parameter of the projection center,
known as exterior orientation, the interior orientation parameters of the camera are necessary.
They must be calculated through a calibration procedure. For this procedure a special
calibration object is needed that has small special targets with well-known data attached on
the surface. During the calibration process, the calibration object must be recognized with the
four cameras from several views.
This procedure, filming the forming process, gives precise access to the maximum strain
value just before necking and when subsequent cracking occurs. The x, y and z coordinates
are calculated automatically by the system using its built in software. Engineering and true
strains are calculated and presented as a full field colored graph on the actual 3-d surface or as
a FLC. This gives a qualitative impression and allows identification of critical regions.

13

3 Methods
3.1 Introduction
The existing method, from now on referred to as the large method, to make FLCs on stainless
steel sheets with a thickness around 1 mm used a specific tool arrangement. A new method,
from now on referred to as the small method, to measure strains on steel sheets with a
thickness of 0.3 mm will have to use another set of tools. A thickness ratio between these steel
sheets was almost one third. Now, the idea was to shrink the existing toolset, along with the
test specimens, with one third and make FLCs on steel sheets three times thinner and
hopefully receive the same results. If a scaling factor exists between the curves or if they
obtain the same FLC-level it will be convenient.

3.2 Material data

The material used was EN 1.4401 made by Outokumpu Stainless and the steel sheets did not
come from the same charge. Table 3 shows the detailed analysis of the sheets.
Table 3 Charge analysis in %
Sheet
Charge
C
Si
thickness
no
0,44

Mn

Cr

Ni

Mo

Ti

Cu Co

Al

1,48

0,028

0,001

17,11

10,64

2,06

0,034

0,42 0,14

0,019

0,005

0.152

400430

0,036

0.201

856905

0,036

0,46

1,51

0,027

0,0003

16,95

10,56

2,03

0,028

0,35 0,23

0,017

0,004

0.320

858118

0,035

0,45

1,52

0,029

0,0002

17

10,59

2,02

0,027

0,31 0,15

0,02

0,003

0.430

400508

0,036

0,44

1,52

0,027

0,0002

16,92

10,59

2,04

0,037

0,37 0,13

0,02

0,002

0.630

923018

0,034

0,35

1,48

0,026

0,0002

17,02

10,76

2,04

0,028

0,39 0,12

0,019

0,002

Table 4 shows the mechanical properties. The tensile tests were made transverse and
longitudinal to the rolling direction and are presented as T and L in the tables. All values are
average values.
Table 4 Average mechanical properties for the material EN 1.4401
Test no

Rp0.2
[MPa]

Rp1.0
[MPa]

Rm
[MPa]

A50
[%]

0.15L

155

180

510

45

0.15T

Not tested due to material dimensions in rolling mill

0.20L

145

165

516

52

0.20T

148

168

492

61

0.30L

221

238

561

45

0.30T

239

256

577

52

0.40L

223

245

566

48

0.40T

235

257

563

54

0.60L

270

300

627

58

0.60T

272

302

630

71

14

3.3 Equipment
All the testing was performed at Outokumpu Stainless R&D laboratories in Avesta. The
following equipment was used:
o Laboratory press, Interlaken ServoPress 150 model AVS01, see figure 9.
o Autogrid unit with 4 progressive Hitachi CCD video cameras, see figure 10.
o Strain analysis software, Autogrid, Vialux GmbH
o Deep drawing oil, Lubriform 14, Lubriteknik AB Sweden
o Lubricant film, Nitto Pro Techno 224P blue transparent 75m, Nitto tape AB.

Fig 9 Interlaken ServoPress 150, maximum force=1200kN

Fig 10 Autogrid unit, a portable computer and Hitachi CCD videocameras

15

3.4 Tool design and arrangement

The tool arrangement for the hemispherical dome test was based upon the existing toolset to
create FLCs but scaled with one third. Table 5 contains the dimensions.
Table 5 Tool dimensions from both methods used to determine FLCs

Tool
Existing punch diameter
New punch diameter
Existing die aperture
New die aperture
Existing die radius
New die radius

Dimension [mm]
100
33
105
35
5
1.7

The tools for deep drawing were special manufactured for Outokumpu Stainless and are
showed in figure 11 along with a setup of these.

Fig 11 Tool arrangement and setup for Interlaken ServoPress 150

A new die was made to perform the tests. Also two metal pegs were attached on the holding
plate to be able to center the test specimens, see figure 12. These pegs were mounted in holes
on metal springs and thereby they did not interfere in the actual testing. In figure 12 the
arrangement of the cameras can also be seen. They were placed on top of the press, along with
a halogen lamp for extra light. From here the cameras are able to see the entire press operation
due to a hole in the top of the press, ass seen in figure 11.

Fig 12 The holding plate and arrangement of the cameras on top of the press

16

3.5 Specimen design and preparation

3.5.1 First design, A
This initial design was used to evaluate the idea if it was possible to keep the original shaped
specimens downsized with a third. The stainless steel sheets used for these tests had a
thickness of 0.30 mm, 0.20 mm and 0.15 mm. They were prepared in the rolling direction to
force the crack transverse to this direction. Abrasive water-jet-cutting was used because it
does not give a heat-influenced zone to the edge of the material that could affect the test
result. It also provides a somewhat good edge that acquires a relatively small grinding effort.
The test samples were shaped according to figure 13 that also shows a photograph of an
etched sample. The arrow indicates the rolling direction of the sheet.

Fig 13 Shape of the initial test specimens, design A

The dimensions of A and R are constant. A is 67 mm and R is 50 mm. B is varying according

to table 6. All values in the table are scaled with one third from the original sized specimens.
Table 6 Initial test specimens dimensions, drawings attached in appendix 1.

Sample ID
a
b
c
d
e
f
g

B [mm]
67
53
40
33
20
13
7

All specimens used were grinded on the edge in the length direction of the specimen before
being etched and tested. It is essential to provide a good edge surface to avoid initiation of
fracture that will lead to a non-accepted test result. The square grid pattern used was 1 mm
and etched with the electrochemical process described earlier in this thesis on page 9.

17

3.5.2 Second design, B

The specimen design used in these tests was made from scratch and the shape was based on
design A but with smaller radius and more material area for the press to clamp on. Figure 14
shows two drawings from this B series while the complete drawings of the series are attached
in appendix 1. All samples were prepared in the same way as design A, regarding the edges
and the grid pattern. The samples were made of steel sheets with a thickness of 0.20 mm and
0.30 mm.

Figure 14 Samples from B series, the arrow shows the rolling direction

The differences among the samples were waist and width. The dimensions are presented in
table 7.
Table 7 Dimensions of B series

Sample ID
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h

Waist [mm]
70
35
30
25
20
15
10
5

Width [mm]
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35

18

3.5.3 Third design, C

This series was almost identical to the B series, besides a smaller radius of 10 mm instead of
15 mm. It was made to see if a smaller radius would affect the press operation and provide
another result. These samples were made in gauges of 0.15, 0.20 and 0.30 mm and figure 15
illustrates a sample from this series. The arrow in the figure shows the rolling direction.

Fig 15 Sample from C series

Table 8 illustrates the dimensions of the C series and the complete set of drawings can be seen
in appendix 1. All samples were prepared just as the other two series before etching and any
testing was carried out. The length was 70 mm for all of the specimens in the series.
Table 8 Dimensions of the C series

Sample ID
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h

Waist [mm]
70
35
30
25
20
15
10
5

Width [mm]
70
55
50
45
40
35
30
25

19

3.6 Test procedure

Before any testing was performed the samples were prepared with deep drawing oil and
lubricant plastic film. Three layers of plastic film with a small quantity of oil between them
were attached in the middle on the non-etched side of the specimens. This was made to force
the crack to the center of the specimens i.e., on top of the punch, especially for sample a. The
etched side of the specimens was polished with a small amount of oil to make the grid more
visible to the cameras and a square was marked with a felt-tip pen to simplify the
identification in the strain measurement. The rolling direction was also marked on the first
specimens in the series. The testing was performed with a clamp force of 600kN with a punch
speed of 5 mm/s and 1 mm/s to find out how much the speed influences the result. Also, the
necking of a specimen must start from the center and transverse to the rolling direction
otherwise it is a false test.

3.7 How to create the FLC

The specimens were formed and the cameras recorded the operations. The cameras were set to
record video with maximum speed for the system, 120 frames per second (fps) = 30 fps for
each camera. Three images before a crack or a visible neck was saved. Strain measurement
was evaluated on these three pictures for every specimen and gathered to obtain three
different FLCs. It was made to see how much the strain values were affected by stepping
backwards in the film. Three steps back in the film with a frame rate of 30 fps and a punch
speed of 5 mm/s correspond to 0.5 mm in punch depth. For a speed of 1 mm/s it is only 0.1
mm.

3.7.1 Calibration of the system

Before any press operation was made the cameras had to be calibrated and placed upon the
press. Calibration was done with the object seen in figure 16 and 17. The plate is a special
calibration object with circles, well known by the system, attached on the surface.

Fig 16 Calibration object

Fig 17 Screen dump from Autogrid

This object is photographed from six different views with all four cameras and then the
software calculates the interior parameters for the cameras. The calibration process took place
on the floor. First the actual height from the die to the tripod placed on top of the press was
measured to obtain the right level for it on the floor. When the calibration process had taken
place the tripod was moved back to the top of the press.
20

3.7.2 Evaluation of the FLC

Following pages will describe the procedure to evaluate the strains on a sheet. Figure 18, a
screen dump, shows how to find a single point in the grid. From this start-point the system
can obtain the rest of the points on the sheet. The same point must be defined in two opposite
cameras in order for the system to detect and find the rest of the points. Here is where the
marked square was convenient because it made it easier to find the point.

Fig 18 Screen dump from Autogrid how to obtain the start point

Figure 19, shows the detected points on the sheet. This procedure is user defined and in this
case an area of 10x10 points are of interest while maximum is 80x80.

Fig 19 Screen dump of detected points in Autogrid

21

When the area of interest has been defined next step is to calculate the strains and bring up the
results. Figure 20 is a screen dump from the calculation of true major strains and figure 21 is
the calculation of true minor strains.

Fig 20 True major strains, screen dump from Autogrid

Fig 21 True minor strains, screen dump from Autogrid

22

Figure 22 shows the calculated points presented in a FLD. The maximum value is marked and
its values are 0.02 for 1 and 0.00 for 2. This also shows the accuracy for the software since
the measurement was made on an undeformed sheet.

Fig 22 FLD, screen dump from Autogrid

When the real tests are performed one maximum point from all the different specimens in a
series, first to last, are collected and then adjusted to a FLC in Microsoft Excel. As mentioned
earlier, measurements are done on different image-sequences backwards from the crack or a
visible neck. In the end this will bring three FLCs depending on the influence from the punch
speed and punch depth.

3.8 Existing method used to evaluate FLCs

This method, large method, is using the toolset presented earlier in table 5. A square-grid of 2
mm is used on specimens exactly three times larger than the A series, see table 6. Preparation
of the test specimens is equal to the small method. Testing is made with a punch speed of 5
mm/s. When evaluating strains the third image-sequence backwards in the film from the crack
or a visible neck is used. Steel sheets with a thickness range from 0.8 mm to 1.5 mm are
typical for this test method.

23

4 Results
4.1 Design A
The punch speed in these tests was 5 mm/s with the small tool arrangement. Evaluations of
the FLCs were made on the third image-sequence backwards in the film from the crack or a
visible neck.
When testing this series it worked well for a thickness of 0.30 mm while some of the test
specimens failed for 0.20 mm and 0.15 mm, results presented in table 9 to 11. The failed
specimens got ripped apart in the edge of the die instead of cracking in the center as they were
supposed to. Figure 23 illustrates a correct test and a failed one.
Table 9 Results from testing the A series 0.30 mm

Specimen id
a
b
c
d
e
f
g

Success
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Failure

Table 10 Results from testing the A series 0.20 mm

Specimen id
a
b
c
d
e
f
g

Success
X
X

Failure

X
X
X
X
X

Table 11 Results from testing the A series 0.15 mm

Specimen id
a
b
c
d
e
f
g

Success
X
X

Failure

X
X
X
X
X

24

Even if some of the specimens failed the FLCs were evaluated for 0.30 mm and 0.20 mm,
presented in figure 24. Due to the fact that 0.15 mm had a large number of failed specimens a
complete FLC could not be made.

Fig 23 A series. Failed e specimen to the left and a correct b specimen to the right.

A series
t = 0.30mm & 0.20mm
0,60

true maximum strain

0,50
0,40
0,30
0,20
Circles
0.30mm
Squares 0.20mm

0,10

-0,40

-0,30

-0,20

-0,10

0,00
0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

true minimum strain

Fig 24 FLCs for A series

A higher FLC-level was obtained for the thicker sheet, an expected result. In the middle of the
FLC two higher points can be seen for both series.

25

4.2 Design B
Because of the failures with design A this series was made to get a full working set of test
specimens. They were tested with punch speeds of 5 mm/s and 1 mm/s.
This series also failed in the same way as design A and the tests were aborted. However, this
time the results were improved and a fever number of specimens failed.

4.3 Design C
This series was made based on B series and all specimens except b were a success. The tests
continued anyway because a set of seven specimens was obtained which was desired for these
tests. This is also the same number of specimens the large method is using. The tests were
carried out on all gauges with punch speeds of 5 mm/s and 1 mm/s to observe the influence
from the speed. The small tool arrangement was used, described earlier on page 16.
To create the FLCs all three image-sequences backwards in the film from the crack or a
visible neck was evaluated. It was done to examine the full effects from moving backwards in
punch depth. Note that the second sequence is not presented in any of the FLCs because when
evaluated it was positioned between the first and third image-sequence.
The first FLC, figure 25, shows the results from a punch speed of 5 mm/s on a sheet thickness
of 0.30 mm. This sheet thickness was also the most uncomplicated to test and evaluate.
t = 0,30 mm
Punch speed 5 mm/s
0,60

true maximum strain

0,50

1
2

0,40
0,30
Color
Blue
Black

0,20

image-sequence
1st
3d

curve
1
2

0,10

-0,40

-0,30

-0,20

0,00
0,00

-0,10

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

true minimum strain

a1

c1

d1

e1

f1

g1

h1

a3

c3

d3

e3

f3

g3

h3

Fig 25 FLC from C series for t=0.30 mm

A higher level was obtained when evaluating the strains at a punch depth closer to the crack
or a neck. When moving three sequences backwards in the film it corresponds to 0.5 mm in
punch depth and one sequence to 0.17 mm while two images to 0.33 mm. The last specimen
in this series, h, had a tendency to loose its value in maximum strain but increase in minimum
strain when going from the first frames to the third.

26

In the FLC presented in figure 26 a punch speed of 1 mm/s was used for a sheet thickness of
0.30 mm. When moving three steps backwards in the film at this punch speed it corresponds
to 0.1 mm while one step back is 0.03 mm, in punch depth.

t = 0.30mm
Punch speed = 1mm/s
0,60
1

true maximum strain

0,50

2
0,40
0,30
0,20

Color
Blue
Black

0,10

-0,40

-0,30

-0,20

0,00
0,00

-0,10

image-sequence curve
1st
1
3d
2

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

true minimum strain

a1

c1

d1

e1

f1

g1

h1

a3

c3

d3

e3

f3

g3

h3

Fig 26 FLC from C series for t=0.30 mm

This curve is not similar to the previous one and an even higher level of the FLC was
obtained. Also, the h specimens maximum strain values did not decrease.
Figure 27 and 28 shows the FLCs for a sheet thickness of 0.20 mm with different punch
speeds. The first one presents a punch speed of 5 mm/s.
t = 0.20 mm
Punch speed 5 mm/s

true maximum strain

0,60
0,50

0,40

2
Color
Blue
Black

0,30
0,20

image-sequence
1st
3d

nr
1
2

0,10

-0,40

-0,30

-0,20

-0,10

0,00
0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

true minimum strain

a1

c1

d1

e1

f1

g1

h1

a3

c3

d3

e3

f3

g3

h3

Fig 27 FLC from C series for t=0.20 mm

27

For this sheet thickness of 0.20 mm it was very difficult to obtain values for the a specimens,
which corresponds to equibiaxial strain. The crack had a tendency to begin far from the
middle of the specimen with both punch speeds. An effect from this is a much lower value in
maximum strain. Also in this FLC the last specimen obtained a lower value in maximum
strain and the FLC-level got higher when evaluating the first image-sequences. Another
behavior is seen in the FLC for a punch speed of 1 mm/s for the same sheet, 0.20 mm, in
figure 28.
t = 0.20 mm
Punch speed 1 mm/s

0,6

true maximum strain

0,5

1
2

0,4
0,3

Color
Blue
Black

0,2

image-sequence
1st
3d

curve
1
2

0,1

-0,40

-0,30

-0,20

0
0,00

-0,10

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

true minimum strain

a1

c1

d1

e1

f1

g1

h1

a3

c3

d3

e3

f3

g3

h3

Fig 28 FLC from C series for t=0.20 mm

With this punch speed the last specimen, id h, gained a much higher value in both maximum
and minimum strain. Next FLC, sheet thickness of 0.15 mm, with a punch speed of 5 mm/s is
presented in figure 29.
t = 0,15mm
Punch speed 5 mm/s
0,6

true maximum strain

0,5
1

0,4
2

0,3
Color
Blue
Black

0,2
0,1

image-sequence curve
1st
1
3d
2

0
-0,4

-0,3

-0,2

-0,1

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

true minimum strain

a1

c1

d1

e1

f1

g1

h1

a3

c3

d3

e3

f3

g3

h3

Fig 29 FLC from C series for t=0.15 mm

28

Figure 30 shows the FLC for a punch speed of 1 mm/s for the sheets thickness of 0.15 mm.
t=0,15mm
punch speed 1mm/s
0,60
0,50
true maximum strain

1
0,40

2
0,30
0,20

Color
Blue
Black

0,10

-0,40

-0,30

-0,20

0,00
0,00

-0,10

image-sequence curve
1st
1
3rd
2

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

true minimum strain

a

a1

c1

d1

e1

f1

g1

h1

Fig 30 FLC from C series for t=0.15 mm

These FLCs both decrease in maximum strain for sample id h, at the end of the curve. With a
punch speed of 1 mm/s the h specimens increased in minimum strain while decreasing in
maximum strain. In the FLC with a punch speed of 5 mm/s the last point drop in maximum
strain and do not obtain a higher value in minimum strain.
In many of the FLCs, for all steel sheets with a speed of 5 mm/s, the last points have a
tendency to drop in maximum strain while the minimum strain increases. This behavior was
not an expected result. This problem is discussed in chapter 5.2.3. It can also be seen that the
FLC-level, for all sheets, is depending on which one of the image-sequences being evaluated.

29

5 Discussion
5.1 Comparisons of FLCs
The first curves to be compared, in figure 31, are the A series and the C series. This was made
to see if there were any differences in strain, level, and position. The curves are based on the
third image-sequence with a punch speed of 5 mm/s. As seen in the figure the level and
position of the two curves are similar, even if the two series have different geometrics.
A series compared to C series
t = 0.30 mm

0,60

true maximum strain

0,50

0,40

0,30

0,20

A series

0,10

C series
-0,40

-0,30

-0,20

0,00
0,00

-0,10

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

true minimum strain

Fig 31 Comparison of A and C series

Comparison of 0.15, 0.20 & 0.30

with a punch speed of 1mm/s

0,60
1

0,50

true maximum strain

2
3

0,40

0,30

0,20

Nr
1
2
3

0,10

curve
0.30mm
0.20mm
0.15mm

0,00
-0,4

-0,35

-0,3

-0,25

-0,2

-0,15

-0,1

-0,05

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

0,4

true minimum strain

Fig 32 Comparison of all sheets with a punch speed of 1mm/s

30

In figure 32 all sheets in C series are compared with a punch speed of 1 mm/s based on the
first image-sequence backwards in the film. As mentioned before, this is only 0.03 mm in
punch depth.
A comparison of all sheets with a punch speed of 5 mm/s is made in figure 33. These results
are also based on the first image-sequences backwards in the film that corresponds to 0.17
mm in punch depth. In figure 34 both speeds are compared for gauges of 0.15, 0.20 and 0.30
mm.
Comparison of 0.15, 0.20 & 0.30
with a punch speed of 5mm/s
0,6
1

0,5
true maximum strain

0,4

0,3
Nr
1
2
3

0,2
0,1

curve
0.30mm
0.20mm
0.15mm

0
-0,4

-0,3

-0,2

-0,1

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

true minimum strain

Fig 33 Comparison of all sheets with a punch speed of 5 mm/s

The FLC-level of 0.20 mm is higher than 0.30 mm at the left end of the curve, for both
speeds.
Small method, 33mm punch
Both speeds

0,6

0,5

true maximum strain

0,30 5mm/s
0,4

0,20 5mm/s
0,15 5mm/s

0,3

0,30 1mm/s
0,20 1mm/s

0,2

0,15 1mm/s

0,1

0
-0,4

-0,35

-0,3

-0,25

-0,2

-0,15

-0,1

-0,05

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

0,4

true minimum strain

Fig 34 Comparison of both speeds for small method

31

An individual comparison of punch speeds was also made for all sheets presented in figure 35
to 37.
Comparison of speeds
t = 0.30mm
0,6
1
true maximum strain

0,5
2
0,4
0,3
0,2
1 1mm/s
2 5mm/s

0,1
0
-0,4

-0,3

-0,2

-0,1

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

true minimum strain

Fig 35 Comparison of speeds for t=0.30 mm

Comparison of speeds
t = 0.20mm
0,60

true maximum strain

0,50

1
2

0,40
0,30
0,20
1 1mm/s
2 5mm/s

0,10

-0,40

-0,30

-0,20

-0,10

0,00
0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

true minimum strain

Fig 36 Comparison of speeds for t=0.20 mm

32

Comparison of speeds
t = 0.15mm
0,6
0,5
true maximum strain

1
0,4
2
0,3
0,2
1 1mm/s
2 5mm/s

0,1
0
-0,4

-0,3

-0,2

-0,1

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

true minimum strain

Fig 37 Comparison of speeds for t=0.15 mm

In all these speed-comparisons the curves for a speed of 1 mm/s generates a higher and more
even FLC-level. At the left end of the curves, they tend to differ from those made with a
speed of 5 mm/s. As mentioned earlier, this effect is not due to an inherent speed influence of
the FLC, but is only an effect of the punch depth at which the analysis is performed.

33

5.1.1 Comparisons of FLCs between large and small method

FLCs for gauges of 0.30 mm, 0.40 mm and 0.60 mm made with the large method, the nonscaled A series, is compared with steel sheets of 0.15 mm, 0.20 mm and 0.30 mm created with
the small method. Note that all FLCs made with the small method are based on the curves for
a punch speed of 1mm/s and first image-sequence, while the punch speed for the large method
was 5 mm/s. Figure 38 illustrates the gauges of 0.30 mm, 0.40 mm and 0.60 mm made with
the large method. The large method uses a 100 mm punch and a square grid of 2 mm.
Large method
100mm punch
0,60
0,50
0,40
1

0,30mm
0,30

0,40mm
0,60mm

0,20
0,10

-0,40

-0,30

-0,20

-0,10

0,00
0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

Fig 38 FLCs made with the large method

All points for the sheets are mixed in one diagram. It indicates a related FLC-level on these
sheets made with the large method. The gauge of 0.30 mm was made with both methods and a
comparison between them was made. Figure 39 illustrates this and points out that a similar
FLC-level is obtained even with different methods.
t=0,30mm
Both methods
0,60
0,50

0,40
Large

0,30

Small

0,20
0,10

-0,40

-0,30

-0,20

-0,10

0,00
0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

Fig 39 FLCs for 0.30 mm made with both methods

34

The points for the small method in figure 39 are based on a punch speed of 1 mm/s and the
first image-sequence was evaluated. Large method is based on a speed of 5 mm/s and the third
image-sequence was used to measure the strains.
If all sheets made with both methods are mixed together in one figure a scatter band is
obtained and is shown in figure 40. In figure 41 individual FLCs are drawn for each sheet.
Comparison of all sheets.
Both methods.

0,6

true maximum strain

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
-0,4

-0,3

-0,2

-0,1

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

true minimum strain

Fig 40 Scatter band for all sheets made with both methods

Comparison of all sheets.

Both methods.

0,6
1

0,5

true maximum strain

0,4

0,3

1
2
3
4
5
6

0,2
0,1

0.60mm
0.40mm
0.30mm
0.30mm
0.20mm
0,15mm

Existing method
Existing method
Existing method
New method
New method
New method

0
-0,4

-0,3

-0,2

-0,1

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

true minimum strain

Fig 41 FLCs for all sheets made with both methods

Figure 41 shows a tendency to receive one FLC-level for all sheets, regardless of which one
of the methods used to create them. Only the sheet with a thickness 0.15 mm is somewhat
lower. Here is perhaps were the material started to behave thin.
35

5.2 Other results

5.2.1 Effect of different image-sequences and punch speed
An observation from the test for the small method was a difference in punch depth depending
on the speed. This is presented as a diagram in figure 42.
Maximum strain and punch depth
18,0
17,59

Punch depth [mm]

17,5

0,15 1mm/s

17,0

16,83

0,20 1mm/s

16,81
16,5

0,30 1mm/s

16,50

0,15 5mm/s

16,19

0,20 5mm/s

16,0

0,30 5mm/s

15,70
15,5
15,0
0,35

0,40

0,45

0,50

0,55

1, true maximum strain

Fig 42 Comparison of 1 and punch speed

It was the strain from the first image-sequence after the crack or a neck that was evaluated and
is presented above. The maximum strains were measured on the first specimen in the series,
the one that corresponds to equibiaxial strain. It can bee seen that both a higher strain and
punch depth is obtained when changing the speed from 5 mm/s to 1 mm/s. In table 12 the
enhancements are calculated and presented in percents.
Table 12 The improvements with a punch speed of 1 mm/s
Sheet
thickness
[mm]

Increase of
punch depth
[%]

Increase
of strain 1
[%]

0,15

3,1

2,5

0,20

2,0

2,3

0,30

4,6

4,1

36

Another interesting observation was the results of moving backwards in the film when
evaluating the strains. The FLC-level is different depending on which one of the sequences
used to evaluate the strains. Ratios were calculated between sheet thickness and the number of
steps in the film. The ratios between punch depth and number of steps were also calculated.
Change of speed is also affecting the level of the FLC indirect. Slower speeds generate a
higher accuracy in punch depth for a given frame rate for the cameras. So this was made for
both speeds and is presented in table 13 to 15. The specimens used for this calculation were
the first and last one in the series, id a and id h.
Table 13 Calculated ratios for a sheet thickness of 0.15 mm
1 mm/s
5 mm/s
Share of
Share of
0.15 mm
punch depth
punch depth
Id a [%]
Id a [%]
3 steps
0,62
3,18
2 steps
0,41
2,12
1 step
0,21
1,06

1 mm/s
Share of
punch depth
Id h [%]
1,46
0,97
0,49

5 mm/s
Share of
punch depth
Id h [%]
9,14
6,09
3,11

1 mm/s
Share of
punch depth
Id h [%]
1,36
0,90
0,45

5 mm/s
Share of
punch depth
Id h [%]
6,55
4,37
2,18

1 mm/s
Share of
punch depth
Id h [%]
1,22
0,81
0,41

5 mm/s
Share of
punch depth
Id h [%]
6,59
4,39
2,20

Table 14 Calculated ratios for a sheet thickness of 0.20 mm

0.20 mm

1 mm/s
Share of punch depth
Id a [%]

5 mm/s
Share of punch depth
Id a [%]

3 steps
2 steps
1 step

0,59
0,40
0,20

3,03
2,02
1,01

Table 15 Calculated ratios for a sheet thickness of 0.30 mm

0.30 mm

1 mm/s
Share of punch depth
Id a [%]

5 mm/s
Share of punch depth
Id a [%]

3 steps
2 steps
1 step

0,57
0,38
0,19

2,97
1,98
0,99

In the last table, table 16, the ratios for a thickness of 0.60 mm with the large method are
calculated as a comparison with the tables for the small method above.
Table 16 Calculated ratios for a sheet thickness of 0.60 mm, large method
0.60 mm

Id a
Share of punch depth [%]

Id g
Share of punch depth [%]

3 steps

1,04

1,52

A slower punch speed was preferred for the small method when this made it easier to evaluate
the strains and a less scattering of points in the FLCs was obtained. The first image for the
small method was also selected because it was closest to the third image for the large method,
i.e. the punch depth was similar.

37

5.2.2 Influences from sheet thickness and mechanical properties

In figure 43 the sheet thicknesses are compared with the elongation in the rolling direction of
the material, A50. This result is not influenced from any of the testing methods and the sheet
thickness does not seem to have a major effect on the elongation value. Only 0.60 mm is
somewhat higher.
70
60

A50 [%]

50
40
30
20
10
0
0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

sheet thickness

Fig 43 Sheet thickness compared to elongation

In figure 44 the strains are compared to sheet thicknesses for both methods. Figure 45
presents a comparison of maximum strains and elongation for all sheets made with both
methods.
0,6

maximum strain

0,55

0,5

0,45

0,4

0,35

equibiaxial

plane strain

uniaxial

0,3
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

thickness [mm]

Fig 44 Strains compared to sheet thickness for all sheets. Both methods.

38

0,6

maximum strain

0,55

0,5

0,45

0,4

0,35

equibiaxial

plane strain

uniaxial

0,3
40

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

A50 [%]

Fig 45 Strains compared to elongation for all sheets. Both methods.

As seen in figure 44 thicker sheets obviously provide a higher equibiaxial strain, for both
methods. Same trend is not seen for plane strain and uniaxial tension. The elongation does not
seem to influence the strains, for any of the methods.
A comparison was made between tensile strength and true maximum strain for both methods.
This is presented in figure 46.
Both methods
700

Rm [MPa]

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0,35

0,4

0,45

0,5

0,55

1 - Equibiaxial strain
Fig 46 Tensile strength compared to equibiaxial strain, 1

39

The diagram in figure 46 shows that a somewhat higher strain is achieved with rising tensile
strength. This trend shows the same result as a comparison between sheet thickness and
equibiaxial strain. Also a comparison between tensile strength and sheet thickness was made,
presented in figure 47.
Both methods
700
600
Rm [MPa]

500
400
300
200
100
0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

t [mm]

Fig 47 Tensile strength compared to sheet thickness

A thickness effect can be seen also in this diagram, figure 47. Thicker sheets provide a higher
tensile strength.

40

5.2.3 The results and problems with the edge preparation

When using the large method, normally all samples are grinded with a sharp hand tool. This
method is acceptable on a sheet thickness around 1 mm with those large test samples. The
edge does not seem to influence the test results because necking constantly occurs in the
center of the test specimens, as it is supposed to.
If a test specimen from the small method was grinded in the same way the necking started
from the edge and ripped the specimen apart. FLCs with this failure were made before a
proper grinding was done and the FLC for 0.30 mm is presented in figure 48, curve number 1.

t = 0.30mm
Punch speed = 1mm/s
0,60
2

true maximum strain

0,50

0,40
0,30
0,20
0,10

-0,40

-0,30

-0,20

-0,10

0,00
0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

true minimum strain

Fig 48 Failed FLC for t=0.30 mm

The strains from specimens corresponding to uniaxial tension, id g-h, were very affected from
this. Both 1 and 2 got a very low value because of the edge.
When using a slower punch speed the problem with the necking sequence became more
visible for the cameras, because of a higher accuracy in punch depth for a given frame rate.
Instead of a manual hand tool, all edges were grinded with a grinding machine in the rolling
direction. After this operation abrasive paper were used. Necking then occurred in the center
of the specimen and this FLC is presented as curve number 2 in figure 48. Higher strains were
now obtained for the last specimens on the left hand side.
For the sheet of 0.15 mm this problem is still a fact. All edges were grinded with precision in
the same way as 0.20 mm and 0.30 mm. The use of a lower punch speed made the effect less
noticeable and a slightly higher value in strains was obtained. FLCs are presented earlier in
figure 30 and 31.
Note that all sheets tested with the small method still suffer from this problem with a punch
speed of 5 mm/s.

41

5.3 Final discussion

When scaling the large method with one third, problems with sample geometrics of the blanks
occurred. The radius of those specimens did not fit the tools and they got ripped apart. After
redesign of the specimens this problem disappeared for a large number of samples and the
final tests with the small method succeeded. However, this problem seemed to come back for
one of the specimens for the large method with a gauge of 0.30 mm. Gauges thinner than 0.30
mm were not tested with the large method and it is possible that this problem exist for thinner
sheets. If a test with thinner sheets than 0.30 mm will be carried out with the large method,
then the test specimens would probably have to be redesigned.
Another problem was the edges of the test specimens described earlier. It disappeared when
grinding very careful with a machine and abrasive paper. Both minimum and maximum strain
increased after a proper grinding. But for the thinnest sheet of 0.15 mm this grinding was not
enough. The solution could be the use of another method than water-jet-cutting to produce the
specimens, for example with an electrical discharge machine (EDM).
Use of different punch speeds in the hemispherical dome test affected the FLC-level on the
small method. When changing punch speed from 5 mm/s to 1 mm/s a higher accuracy in
punch movement was obtained. It was possible to evaluate the strains closer to fracture or
necking. This also made it easier to step backwards in the film to find the neck with an exact
precision. Measurement was now made on the correct first or third image-sequence before
necking and some scattering in the FLCs disappeared. The strain level also increased. It
should be noted however, that no measurements were made with a visible neck. All data are
based on neck-free samples even though closer to necking for the slow punch speed.
Evaluations on all these gauges made with different methods showed a tendency to generate
the same FLC-level when they are compared in the same diagram. Even when the sheet made
with both methods, 0.30 mm, was compared a similar FLC-level could be seen. Almost
similar results are showed in stretch forming of brass sheets when scaling the tools [18]. Also,
previous work on this austenitic grade has shown a comparable FLC-level [19]. However, a
small difference in FLC-level can be seen. This variation depends on dissimilarity between
the two methods from choice of punch speed and which one of the image-sequences being
used. Measurement accuracy of the software is also a contributing factor. A certain variation
in strain level is a direct effect from this and the natural scattering of this method is not
analyzed here.
Based on the comparisons in this thesis the thickness effect on the FLCs can be neglected.
The only thicknesses showing a significantly higher level are the 0.20 mm and 0.6 mm sheets
in equibiaxial stretching, but these thicknesses had on the other hand also higher A50 values,
indicating that this is rather an influence of mechanical properties. Also, no such thickness
influence can be detected for uniaxial tension and plane strain. Since plane strain and uniaxial
strain are the most frequent strain state in actual forming operations, it is reasonable to assume
that the sheet thickness influences the FLC-level very little for this steel grade.

42

6 Conclusions
For the austenitic stainless steel grade 1.4401, the following conclusions can be drawn.

The difference in FLC-level between the standard tool geometry (100 mm punch) and
a smaller (33 mm punch) was negligible.

A small effect, within the normal experimental scatter, of the sheet thickness could be
seen between 0.6 and 0.2 mm. For a smaller gauge, 0.15 mm, the FLC-level seemed to
become somewhat lower.

The FLC-level is sensitive to the combination of punch speed and image frame rate
and has to be standardized. When changing tool dimensions, this has to be scaled
correspondingly.

The thin gauges are very sensitive to the edge preparation and sample geometry and a
methodology to solve this problem was worked out in this thesis.

43

7 List of references
[1]

D.W.A REES
Influence of sheet thickness upon forming limits
4th International ESAFORM Conference on Material Forming
Liege, Belgium, 2001

[2]

William F. Hosford, John L. Duncan

Sheet metal forming; A review
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9911/Hosford-9911-text.html
2004-04-22

[3]

International Standard ISO 12004

Metallic materials, guidelines for the determination of forming-limits diagrams
International Organization for Standardization, 1997
ISO 12004:1997(E)

[4]

Karlebo serien nr 1
Karlebo handbok, utgva 14
Stockholm, Liber AB, 1992
ISBN: 91-21-13273-9

[5]

MNC handbok nr 4
Rostfria stl
Norrtlje, Affrstryckeriet, 1978
ISBN: 91-7162-070-2, ISSN: 0347-9463

[6]

Pierre-Jan Cunat
The Euro Inox handbook of stainless steel
Euro Inox, 2002
ISBN: 2-87997-008-3

[7]

William F. Hosford, Robert M. Cadell

Metal forming mechanics and metallurgy, second edition
Englewood, PTR Prentice-Hall Inc, 1993
ISBN: 0-13-588526-4

[8]

AvestaPolarit AB, kompendium

Konstruera i rostfritt

[9]

AvestaPolarit AB, brochure

Standard Cr-Ni stainless steels
Avesta, Centrum tryck AB, 2002
Info 210702GB

[10]

Outokumpu Stainless AB, brochure

Duplex stainless steel
Avesta, Centrum tryck AB, 2004
Info 1008EN2
44

[11]

AvestaPolarit AB, brochure

Standard Cr-Ni-Mo stainless steels
Graphic concept/EDITA Aros, 2002
Info 210802GB

[12]

Stuart P. Keeler, Walter A. Backofen

Plastic instability and fracture in sheets stretched over rigid punches
ASM TRANS Q. Vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 25-48. Mar. 1963

[13]

Stuart P. Keeler
Determination of forming limits in automotive stampings
SHEET METAL IND. Vol. 42, no. 461, pp. 683-691. Sept. 1965

[14]

Gorton M. Goodwin
Application of strain analysis to sheet metal forming problems in the press shop
MET ITAL. Vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 767-774. Aug. 1968

[15]

SSAB Tunnplt AB
Formningshandboken, utgva 2
Borlnge, Lygner marknadskontakt AB, 1998

[16]

Avesta Sheffield AB, brochure

Guide for deep drawing stainless steel sheets
Info 9589

[17]

Vialux
Autogrid operators manual
Chemnitz, 2001

[18]

Erik Schedin, Anders Thuvander

Influence of sheet thickness, tool dimensions and grain size on the formability of
brass sheet
Institutet fr metallforskning, 1987
IM-2177

[19]

Roger Andersson
Effects of composition and the production process on formability of austenitic
steels
Lule, University of technology, 1999
ISSN: 1402-1757

45

Appendix 1
Drawings, containing 6 pages.

46

Drawings of A series
Sample a

Sample b
R 33 mm

53 mm
67 mm

67 mm
R 50

mm

Sample d

Sample c
R 33 mm

R 33 mm

40 mm

33 mm

67 mm

67 mm

R 50

mm

mm
R 50

1(6)

Sample f

Sample e
R 33 mm

R 33 mm

20 mm

13 mm

67 mm

67 mm
R 50 mm

R 50 mm

Sample g
R 33 mm

7 mm
67 mm
R 50 mm

2(6)

Drawings of B series
sample b

sample a
20,00 mm

R 15,00 mm
70,00 mm

70,00 mm

70,00 mm

65,00 mm

sample d

sample c
20,00 mm

20,00 mm

70,00 mm

70,00 mm
R 15,00 mm

60,00 mm

R 15,00 mm

55,00 mm

3(6)

sample e
20,00 mm

sample f
20,00 mm

70,00 mm
R 15,00 mm

70,00 mm

50,00 mm

sample g

R 15,00 mm

45,00 mm

sample h
20 mm

20,00 mm

R 15,00 mm
70,00 mm

R 15,00 mm

40,00 mm

70 mm

35 mm

4(6)

Drawings of C series
sample a

sample b
25,00 mm

70,00 mm

70,00 mm

55,00 mm

70,00 mm

sample d

sample c
25,00 mm

25,00 mm

70,00 mm

R 10,00 mm

R 10,00 mm

50,00 mm

70,00 mm

R 10,00 mm

45,00 mm

5(6)

sample e

sample f
R 10,00 mm

25,00 mm

25,00 mm
R 10,00 mm

70,00 mm

70,00 mm

40,00 mm

35,00 mm

sample g
25,00 mm

70,00 mm

30,00 mm

sample h
25,00 mm

R 10,00 mm

70,00 mm

R 10,00 mm

25,00 mm

6(6)