Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Sunday, August 12, 2018

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 2001-01-0079

Formability and Performance of Steel-Plastic

Steel Laminated Sheet Materials
Todd M. Link
U. S. Steel Research

Reprinted From: New Sheet Steel Products and Sheet Metal Stamping
(SP–1614)

SAE 2001 World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
March 5-8, 2001

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Sunday, August 12, 2018

The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE’s consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sec-
tions 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as
copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works,
or for resale.

SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your
orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 2001 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely
responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Sunday, August 12, 2018
Formability and Performance of Steel-Plastic-Steel
Laminated Sheet Materials
Copyright © 2001 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
ABSTRACT
Steel-plastic-steel (SPS) laminated sheet materials can
be utilized in certain automotive applications to achieve
significant weight savings over “conventional” sheet
steels. Three SPS laminates were produced using
various combinations of light gage steel skins and
polypropylene cores. Compared to homogeneous
steels, density reductions of 35 to 46 percent were
achieved. Benefiting from the ductility of their steel
skins, SPS laminates can posses adequate formability
for typical automotive sheet applications. Furthermore,
the forming limit curves can be predicted using the work
hardening exponent and thickness of the composite
laminate. In three-point bending, the elastic stiffness of
SPS laminates is nearly equivalent to that of monolithic
steels of the same thickness. Thus, weight reductions
similar to those of aluminum alloys can be achieved
utilizing laminates in stiffness-critical applications. The
quasi-static dent resistance of SPS laminates is
improved by increasing the plastic core thickness, by
increasing the steel skin strength, and by utilizing bake
hardenable steel skins. These results provide an
indication of the suitability of SPS laminates for potential
use in automotive applications.
INTRODUCTION
Governmental regulations are driving automobile
producers to decrease vehicle weight in order to reduce
fuel consumption and emissions. To achieve vehicle
weight reductions without compromising performance
and affordability is a formidable challenge that often
requires the consideration of alternative materials and/or
manufacturing processes. With composite materials, the
positive attributes of two or more materials are combined
to produce a unique material with properties that cannot
be obtained from the individual components alone. In
this case, a steel-plastic-steel (SPS) composite sandwich
sheet is investigated.
2001-01-0079
Todd M. Link
U. S. Steel Research
Galvanized steel is currently the dominant sheet material
in automobiles, because of its attractive combination of
strength and formability at a relatively low cost. The use
of steel skins in the sandwich material should ensure a
compatibility with existing press-forming operations and
surface treatments, while maintaining affordability.
Polypropylene was selected as the core of the sandwich
material for its relatively low density, low cost, and
acceptable mechanical properties.
SPS laminated sheet materials offer several advantages
over homogenous sheet steels. First, dramatic density
reductions are possible, as lightweight polypropylene
accounts for a significant portion of the sheet cross-
section. Second, SPS laminates have good specific
bending stiffness. In bending, the outer fibers of a sheet
material carry the majority of the load, while the center of
the sheet cross-section (i.e., the neutral axis) remains
unstressed. Thus, SPS laminates can have similar
bending stiffness to homogeneous steels, but at a
significantly lower weight. Compared to steels with
equivalent stiffness, weight reductions of 50% to 60%
1,2
have been achieved with other SPS laminates. SPS
laminates have also been shown to have good sound
1,3,4
and vibration dampening characteristics.
Potential applications for SPS laminates include a wide
variety of noise-deadening covers or housings (such as
timing belt or valve covers), inner reinforcement panels,
floor pans, wheel wells, and dash panels. The
advantages of similar SPS sandwich materials were
recognized in the development of the Ultra-Light Steel
Auto Body (ULSAB), where SPS laminates were used for
5
spare tire tub and dash panel applications.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Sunday, August 12, 2018
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
MATERIALS
Three composite sandwich materials were produced in a
continuous process from light gage steel skins and a
plastic core. The three laminate materials (designated
as A, B, and C) were produced from two single reduced
“blackplate” steels and two polypropylene cores of
different thicknesses. For the skins, laminates A and B
have 0.22-mm thick T-1/batch annealed (BA) steel, and
laminate C has 0.21-mm thick T-4/continuously annealed
(CA) steel. For the cores, laminate A has 0.51-mm thick
polypropylene, and laminates B and C have 0.28-mm
thick polypropylene. A special polypropylene with high
thermal stability was selected for compatibility with paint
baking thermal cycles. The constitution of the three
composite materials is summarized in Table I. For the
bending stiffness tests, the laminates were compared to
six aluminum killed drawing quality (AKDQ) steels, three
high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, two 6061
aluminum (Al)-alloys, and one 5182 Al-alloy.
Table I – Constitution of SPS Laminates
Material Thickness (mm)
Laminate Core Skin
A Lam 0.96 0.51 0.22
B Lam 0.73 0.28 0.22
C Lam 0.71 0.28 0.21
FORMABILITY
For each laminate, tension tests were performed in
triplicate on samples oriented 0°, 45° and 90° to the
rolling direction. Tensile tests were also performed in
triplicate on the individual steel skins on longitudinally
oriented samples. The steel skins were separated from
the polypropylene cores by heating the laminates to
approximately 230°C and scraping the softened core
material away from the skins. The skin specimens were
at approximately 230°C for a maximum of 2 minutes.
To generate forming limit diagrams (FLDs), the cleaned
and oiled specimens were tested using a limiting dome
height (LDH) machine with a 100-mm diameter ball
punch. The tests were performed with a punch rate of
250 mm/min and were terminated at a prescribed load
drop of 333 N, which corresponded to the onset of
through-thickness failure. The samples were 175-mm
long (in the transverse direction) and ranged between 25
and 175-mm in width (in the rolling direction). Surface
strains were determined by circle grid analysis using 2.5-
mm diameter circle grids.
STIFFNESS TESTS
Three-point bending tests were performed on six
longitudinally oriented samples of each material.
Bending test samples were nominally 150-mm long and
25-mm wide. The test fixture consisted of two 50-mm
long, 38-mm diameter cylindrical supports with a 118-mm
span. The load was applied with a calibrated force gage
with a fixed 25-mm long, 12.5-mm diameter semi-
cylindrical indenter. The entire apparatus was fixed to
the stage of a microhardness test machine, and the load
was applied incrementally using a screw-driven
assembly. Displacement was measured from the bottom
of the test specimen using a contact dial displacement
gage.
Bending tests were performed in a displacement-
controlled fashion. The test stage was advanced until
the specimen reached a specified displacement, at which
the load was measured from the force gage. Specimens
were loaded incrementally, in steps of 0.25-mm or 0.5-
mm displacement. Tests were carried out to
displacements approximately 12.5-mm beyond specimen
yielding, and load-displacement data sets were recorded
manually. After plotting the load-displacement data, a
Steel linear fit was applied to the elastic portion of the data.
Skin The slope of the linear fit line was calculated and defined
T-1/BA as the elastic bending stiffness. The dimensions of each
T-1/BA bending test specimen were measured using a
T-4/CA micrometer and caliper, and the mass of each specimen
was measured using a digital balance. From these
measurements, the approximate density of each test
specimen was calculated.
DENT TESTS
Samples were formed into pie pans with a slight dome
having 5% balanced biaxial strain (i.e., 5% major
engineering strain and 5% minor engineering strain) in
the center of the panel. The pie pan samples were
clamped rigidly and loaded incrementally in the center of
the convex panel surface with a 25-mm diameter ball
indenter at a rate of 50-mm/min. The load required to
form a permanent dent with a depth of 0.1-mm was
defined as the dent load. All three laminates were tested
in the as-received (AR), or unbaked, condition.
Additionally, laminate C was tested with a simulated
paint bake cycle of 175°C for 30 min after forming. Five
replicate samples were tested for each condition.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Sunday, August 12, 2018

RESULTS The T-1/BA skins (used in laminates A and B) have a

yield strength of approximately 220 MPa, a tensile
FORMABILITY strength of approximately 350 MPa, 39% total
elongation, and an n-value of 0.204. The T-4/CA skins
The mechanical properties of the SPS laminates and (used in laminate C) have a yield strength of
their steel skins are presented in Table II. The values approximately 360 MPa, a tensile strength of 415 MPa,
represent averages calculated in the following manner: 24% total elongation, and an n-value of 0.141. The T-
1/BA skins exhibit continuous yielding behavior, while the
X 0 + X 90 + 2 X 45 T-4/CA skins exhibit discontinuous yielding with
X = [1] approximately 4.0% yield point elongation. The
4 discontinuous yielding of laminate C and the T-4/CA
skins may have resulted from strain aging of the steel
For laminate C and the T-4/CA skins, n-values were skins associated with the elevated temperatures of
determined from 5% engineering strain to the strain laminate processing, skin separation, or aging during
corresponding to the ultimate tensile strength. All other sample storage.
n-values were determined between 10% and 20%
engineering strain. The normal anisotropy (rm) was Table II – Laminate and Skin Mechanical Properties
determined at 17% engineering strain for laminates A
and B, and at 13% engineering strain for laminate C. YS UTS TE n rm
Material (MPa) (MPa) (%)
Laminates A and B, composed of T-1/BA skins, have A Lam 105 167 39.7 0.192 1.65
yield strengths of approximately 105 MPa and 130 MPa B Lam 130 209 42.0 0.199 1.65
and tensile strengths of approximately 165 MPa and 210 C Lam 215 249 25.2 0.132 1.53
MPa, respectively. It is interesting to note that although T-1/BA Skin 219 353 38.9 0.204 -
these two materials exhibit different strength levels, they T-4/CA Skin 358 414 23.9 0.141 -
have nearly the same load carrying capacity. The steel
skins appear to carry close to the entire load in the
tension tests, and the different core thicknesses result in
The measured FLDs of laminates A, B, and C are
different cross-sectional areas and therefore different
presented in Figures 1, 2, and 3, along with their
strength levels. Considering strength and thickness,
theoretical FLDs. The equations used to generate the
laminate A has a load bearing capacity approximately
theoretical FLDs were derived from the data of Keeler
5% greater than that of laminate B. Both laminates A 6
and Brazier. In each case, there is good agreement
and B have total elongations near 40% and n-values of
between the measured and theoretical FLDs. Laminates
0.19-0.20. The similarity between these parameters for
A and B show similar levels of formability with measured
laminates A and B suggests that laminate ductility is
plane-strain forming limits (FLDo-values) of 33% and
dominated by the ductility of the steel skins, as they both
31%, respectively. Laminate C has significantly lower
have the same steel skins.
formability with a measured FLDo-value of 18%. For
comparison, highly formable fully stabilized sheet steel of
Laminate C, composed of T-4/CA skins, has a yield
similar gages would have FLDo-values of 40%-45%,
strength of approximately 215 MPa, a tensile strength of
significantly higher than laminates A and B. Less
approximately 250 MPa, total elongation of 25%, and an
formable sheet steels such as 250-280 MPa yield
n-value of about 0.13. Thus, laminate C has higher
strength bake hardenable (BH) grades and 280 MPa
strength and lower ductility than laminates A and B. The
yield strength HSLA steels would be expected to have
higher strength of laminate C results from the use of
similar formability to laminates A and B, for equivalent
stronger steel skins. Laminates A and B exhibit
gages. The theoretical FLDs of the three laminates are
continuous yielding behavior, so 0.2% offset yield
shown in Figure 4. Considering that major strains in
strengths are reported for these materials. However,
typical automotive body panels are generally below 30%,
laminate C exhibits discontinuous yielding with
laminates A and B appear to be adequately formable for
approximately 0.5% yield point elongation, so its lower
most automotive applications.
yield strength is reported.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Sunday, August 12, 2018

Laminate A Theoretical Forming Limit Diagrams

100 100
Safe
Major Engineering Strain (%)

Major Engineering Strain (%)

80 Fail B
80
Theoretical C
60 60 FAIL

40 40

SAFE
20 20

0 0
-40 -20 0 20 40 -40 -20 0 20 40
Minor Engineering Strain (%) Minor Engineering Strain (%)

Figure 1. Forming limit diagram for laminate A. Figure 4. Theoretical FLDs for laminates A, B, and C.

STIFFNESS TESTS

In three-point bending, the elastic stiffness of the

Laminate B
100 laminates was compared to a variety of monolithic sheet
steels and Al-alloys with different strengths and
Safe
Major Engineering Strain (%)

Fail thicknesses. The measured elastic stiffness of each

80
Theoretical material is shown as a function of sheet thickness in
Figure 5. The theoretical bending stiffness of monolithic
60 steel and Al-alloy sheet are included in the figure.
Theoretical three-point bending stiffness can be
40 predicted from plane-strain beam theory using the
7
following equations:
20
F = kx [2]

0 where F is the force required for a displacement x, and k

-40 -20 0 20 40
is the elastic stiffness. The stiffness, k, is a function of
Minor Engineering Strain (%)
sheet thickness, elastic modulus, and geometry, and is
given by:
Figure 2. Forming limit diagram for laminate B.
k = 48 EI [3]
Laminate C
L3
100
where E is the elastic modulus, I is the moment of inertia,
Safe
Major Engineering Strain (%)

and L is the bending span (118-mm in this case). For

80 Fail
Theoretical these calculations, elastic moduli of 200 GPa and 71
GPa were used for steel and aluminum, respectively.
60 The moment of inertia, I, of a monolithic sheet material is
calculated as:
40
3
I = bh [4]
12
20
where b is the sample width (25-mm in this case) and h
0 is the sheet thickness.
-40 -20 0 20 40
Minor Engineering Strain (%)

Figure 3. Forming limit diagram for laminate C.

 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Sunday, August 12, 2018

3
to 5.01 g/cm . As configured, the SPS laminates have
Elastic Bending Stiffness (N/mm)
40 densities between 35% and 46% less than that of
monolithic sheet steel. The density of an SPS laminate
35 Monolithic steel
Theoretical-steel
is a function of its plastic volume fraction and decreases
30 Monolithic aluminum as the plastic volume fraction increases. The density of
Theoretical- aluminum monolithic Al-alloy sheet is approximately 40% less than
25
SPS laminate the average density of the SPS laminates. Thus, the
20 densities of these SPS laminates fall roughly between
those of monolithic sheet steels and Al-alloys.
15
10 Table III – Measured Densities of Stiffness Testing
5
Samples

0 Measured Handbook Density

0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 8
Material Density Density Reduction
Sheet Thickness (mm) 3 3
(g/cm ) (g/cm ) (%)
A Lam 4.10 - 46
Figure 5. Elastic bending stiffness as a function of sheet B Lam 5.01 - 35
thickness for SPS laminates, monolithic steels, and C Lam 4.90 - 36
monolithic Al-alloys. Steels 7.59-7.70 7.87 -
Al-alloys 2.59-2.66 2.70 66
Several observations are made from the data presented
in Figure 5. First, there is good agreement between the
measured stiffness values and the theoretical stiffness of The specific stiffness of each material is shown as a
both monolithic sheet materials. Thus, this experimental function of sheet thickness in Figure 6. Since there was
procedure appears to be a sound method of evaluating good agreement between the measured stiffness and the
the bending stiffness of a material. Secondly, monolithic theoretical stiffness for the homogeneous materials, only
sheet steels have roughly three times greater bending the theoretical curves are shown in Figure 6 for
stiffness than Al-alloy sheets of the same thickness, simplicity. It is interesting that the monolithic steel and
resulting from the differences in elastic modulus. Thus, Al-alloy sheet materials have nearly the same specific
for equivalent bending stiffness to steel, Al-alloy sheet stiffness for a given thickness. This is true because both
must be upgaged (i.e., the thickness must be increased). the elastic modulus and the density of steel are nearly
For example, a 0.93-mm thick sheet steel will have three times that of aluminum. Thus, the two factors
approximately equivalent bending stiffness to a 1.32-mm effectively cancel each other out, for the same sheet
thick Al-alloy sheet. Finally, the three SPS laminates thickness. It is also noted that the specific stiffness of
show nearly equivalent bending stiffness to the the SPS laminates is greater than both monolithic steel
monolithic sheet steels of the same thickness. and Al-alloy sheet materials for a given thickness. As

To assess the bending performance further, the specific 5000

stiffness of each material was considered. In this case,
specific stiffness is defined as the elastic bending Steel- theoretical
Specific Stiffness (cm )

4000 Aluminum- theoretical

2

stiffness divided by the measured density. The specific SPS laminates

stiffness values presented are unique to this three-point
bending configuration, although the same relative 3000
differences between materials would be expected for A
alternative three-point bending configurations. The 2000
average measured densities of the three laminates and
the homogeneous materials are shown in Table III. The C B
1000
average measured densities of the monolithic steels and
3 3
Al-alloys are 7.65 g/cm and 2.63 g/cm , respectively.
The reported handbook densities of steel and aluminum 0
3 3 8 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
are 7.87 g/cm and 2.70 g/cm , respectively. The
Sheet Thickness (mm)
measured densities are within 3% of the reported values.
The measured densities are consistently lower than the
reported values, because the volume of the samples Figure 6. Specific stiffness as a function of sheet
measured using a micrometer and calipers may have thickness for SPS laminates, monolithic steels, and
been artificially high due to error resulting from small monolithic Al-alloys.
surface asperities. The measured densities of the three
3
laminates ranged from 4.10 g/cm
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Sunday, August 12, 2018

configured, the laminates have between 45% and 60% DISCUSSION

greater specific stiffness than both monolithic steel and
Al-alloy sheet of the same thickness. The strength of an SPS laminate can be predicted using
the mechanical properties of the steel skins and the
DENT TESTS thicknesses of the sandwich constituents. Specifically,
laminate strength is predicted by multiplying the skin
The dent test results are summarized in Table IV and strength by the volume fraction of steel, assuming that
presented graphically in Figure 7. All three laminates the polypropylene core has zero load carrying capacity.
were tested without baking (designated as as-received For instance, laminate A has a steel skin volume fraction
(AR)), and laminate C was tested after a simulated of 0.469. Using the measured mechanical properties of
automotive paint bake cycle (designated as Baked). the skins (given in Table II), laminate A is predicted to
have a yield strength of 105 MPa and a tensile strength
Table IV – Dent Test Results for SPS Laminates of 165 MPa. Hence, the strength levels of laminate A are
accurately predicted, and there is similar good
Gage YS Dent Load agreement between the predicted and measured
Material (mm) (MPa) (N) strengths for laminates B and C. Thus, SPS laminates
AR Baked can be produced with a wide range of strength levels by
A Lam 0.96 105 108 N/A selecting the desired steel skins and steel volume
B Lam 0.73 130 78 N/A fraction.
C Lam 0.71 215 100 128
The ductility of an SPS laminate is closely related to the
160 ductility of the skins from which it is composed. For
As-received example, the laminates exhibit the same, or even slightly
140
Baked greater, total elongation than their individual skins in a
120 tension test. However, the n-values of the laminates are
slightly lower than those of their corresponding skins.
Dent Load (N)

100
2
80
Similar results were observed by DiCello.
Mathematically, if the cross-sectional area of a
60
hypothetical material that obeys Power Law hardening
(i.e., σ = Kε ) is increased without changing its load
40 n

20 carrying capacity, its strength coefficient (K) will

0
decrease, but its n-value will not change. Therefore, the
n-value of an SPS laminate should be the same as that
C Lam
A Lam

B Lam

of the steel skins from which it is made, if the core simply

increases the cross-sectional area of the laminate and
does not carry any load. However, if a small yet
Figure 7. Dent load of SPS laminates in both as-
constant load carrying capacity were assigned to the
received and baked conditions. The error bars represent
core (i.e., by assuming an elastic-perfectly-plastic stress-
the full range of scatter over the five replicate tests.
strain response), the n-value of the laminate would be
expected to decrease. Thus, it appears that the n-value
The effects of core thickness and steel skin strength on
of the laminate may be slightly lower than that of the
laminate dent resistance can be examined as follows.
corresponding skins, because the polypropylene core
Laminates A and B have the same steel skins, but the
may have a small load carrying capacity.
thicker polypropylene core for laminate A results in a
39% increase in the dent resistance of the laminate.
The theoretical FLDo-values are compared to the
Laminates B and C have similar steel volume fractions
measured FLDo-values for each laminate in Table V. In
and thicknesses, but the use of higher strength steel
addition, the theoretical FLDo-values of the steel skins
skins in laminate C results in a 28% increase in dent
are shown. For laminates A and B, there is very good
resistance. Comparison of laminate C in the unbaked
agreement between the measured and theoretical FLDo-
and baked conditions further supports this claim, as the
values. However, since FLDo decreases with decreasing
simulated paint bake cycle yields a 27% increase in dent
sheet thickness, the T-1/BA skins from which laminates
load. From these data, it is apparent that laminate dent
A and B are composed have significantly lower
resistance can be improved with increased core
theoretical FLDo-values than the theoretical and
thickness and also the use of higher strength, bake
measured FLDo-values of laminates A and B. Hence, it
hardenable steel skins.
appears that the laminates may have greater formability
than the individual skins from which they are composed.
This may be possible because the skin to core bonding
of the laminates is very good, allowing the laminates to
behave similar to a monolithic material of the same
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Sunday, August 12, 2018

thickness. It is also possible that the rigid core can Table VI – Estimated Weight Reductions for Stiffness-
restrict metal flow to a certain degree such that the Critical Applications
laminates experience greater post-uniform deformation
2
than would the individual skins. Additionally, two 1m Weight
fractures (one for each of the skins) must be initiated for Material Stiffness Gage Mass Reduction
an SPS laminate, compared to a single fracture for a (N/mm) (mm) (kg) (%)
monolithic material. Thus, laminates A and B appear to Steel 10 0.93 7.11 -
show enhanced formability relative to the individual skins SPS Lam 10 0.93 3.81 46
from which they are composed. Al-alloy 10 1.32 3.47 51

Table V – Comparison of Theoretical and Measured

Plane Strain Forming Limits The dent tests results have shown that laminate quasi-
static dent resistance is maximized by increasing the
Theor. Meas. plastic core thickness and by utilizing high strength, bake
Material Gage n FLDo FLDo hardenable steel skins. Unfortunately, a laminate with
(mm) (%) (%) hard skins and a thick plastic core was not examined in
A Lam 0.96 0.192 34 33 this study. This constitution would be expected to yield
B Lam 0.73 0.199 32 31 the greatest dent resistance. It is noted that all of these
C Lam 0.71 0.132 21 18 dent test data are for quasi-static indentations. Under
T-1/BA Skin 0.22 0.204 26 - more realistic dynamic conditions, even greater dent
T-4/CA Skin 0.21 0.141 18 - resistance would be expected from the SPS laminates
due to the positive strain rate sensitivity of their steel
skins.
The measured FLDo for laminate C is slightly lower than
the theoretical FLDo. Consequently, the measured FLDo One of the most endearing qualities of SPS laminates is
for laminate C is nearly the same as the theoretical FLDo the inherit flexibility in their design. By varying the grade
of the T-4/CA skins from which it is composed. Thus, the and thickness of the steel and plastic constituents, a
data for laminate C do not support the claim that the wide range of properties can be obtained. For thinner
laminates may show enhanced formability relative to the laminates (e.g., less than 1-mm), light gage steels from
individual skins. Regardless, it seems that the formability the tin mill are used, and thicker laminates are processed
of an SPS laminate is as good as or better than the steel using sheet mill steels. In either case, a wide variety of
skins from which it is composed. mechanical properties are available. Therefore, flexibility
in SPS laminate design allows properties such as
High bending stiffness is a significant attribute of SPS density, strength, and ductility to be tailored for specific
laminates. Using the data presented thus far, the automotive applications.
approximate weight reductions corresponding to the
substitution of SPS laminates and Al-alloys for sheet CONCLUSIONS
steels in a stiffness-critical application can be estimated
as follows. From Figure 5, an SPS laminate, a Three steel-plastic-steel laminates were produced from
homogenous steel, and a homogeneous Al-alloy with thin gage steel skins and polypropylene cores, resulting
equal stiffness can be selected. Assuming that the SPS in 35% to 46% overall density reductions compared to
laminates have equivalent bending stiffness to monolithic homogeneous steel. The formability of these laminates
sheet steels, substitution of one of the SPS laminates in was characterized by tension tests and forming limit
this study for an equal gage steel will result in up to diagrams. The performance of the laminates was
approximately 46% weight savings. It is noted that it evaluated by three-point bending tests and dent tests.
may be possible to achieve even greater weight savings From this investigation, the following conclusions were
by using an SPS laminate with a higher polypropylene drawn:
volume fraction. For equivalent bending stiffness, an
upgaged Al-alloy must be used. The mass of a • The formability of SPS laminates is equivalent to, or
hypothetical panel with a surface area of 1 square meter superior to, the steel skins from which they are
is shown for each material in Table VI, and the potential composed. SPS laminates can be produced with
weight reductions are estimated. As shown, SPS adequate formability for typical automotive sheet
laminates can offer weight savings close to those applications.
associated with the use of Al-alloys for stiffness-critical
applications.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Sunday, August 12, 2018
• In three point bending, SPS laminates have greater
specific stiffness than monolithic steels and Al-alloys,
for a given sheet thickness. The use of SPS
laminates in stiffness-critical applications can result
in weight savings similar to those associated with Al-
alloys, compared to monolithic steel.
• The quasi-static dent resistance of SPS laminates is
improved by increasing the plastic core thickness, by
increasing the steel skin strength, and by utilizing
bake hardenable steel skins.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thank Steve Bianculli, Richard
Fiscus, Brandon Hance, Aleksy Konieczny, Jeff Lievens,
Jody Shaw, Mike Simko, and Greg Walters of U. S. Steel
for their individual efforts and assistance with this project.
Without their help, this work would not have been
possible.
The material in this paper is intended for general
information only. Any use of this material in relation to
any specific application should be based on independent
examination and verification of its unrestricted availability
for such use, and determination of suitability for the
application by professionally qualified personnel. No
license under any USX Corporation patents or other
proprietary interest is implied by the publication of this
paper. Those making use of or relying upon the material
assume all risks and liability arising from such use or
reliance.
REFERENCES
1. W. K. Miller, “Metal-Plastic Laminates for Vehicle
Weight Reduction,” SAE Paper No. 800077, 1980.
2. J. A. DiCello, “Steel-Polypropylene-Steel Laminate –
A New Weight Reduction Material,” SAE Paper No.
800078, 1980.
3. H. Endoh, M. Ejima, T. Saitoh and J. Morita,
“Development of Vibration Damping Steel Sheet with
Superior Service Performance,” Nippon Technical
Report No. 44, January, 1990.
4. H. Takechi, “Recent Developments in Steel Products
for Automotive Applications,” International Journal of
Vehicle Design, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1990.
5. UltraLight Steel Auto Body Final Report, American
Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, D. C., May,
1998.
6. S. P. Keeler and W. G. Brazier, “Relationship
Between Laboratory Material Characterization and
Press Shop Formability,” Proceedings of
Microalloying 75, New York, 1977.
7. S. Timoshenko and S. Woinowsky-Krieger, Theory of
nd
Plates and Shells, 2 . Edition, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1959.
nd
8. Metals Handbook Desk Edition, 2 Edition, ASM
International, Materials Park, OH, 1998.