Bending Angle Calculation In the Instrumented Three-Point Bending Test

Patrick Larour, Benjamin Hackl, Franz Leomann, Katarzyna Benedyk

voestalpine Stahl GmbH, 4020 Linz, Austria
Patrick.Larour@voestalpine.com, Benjamin.Hackl @voestalpine.com,
Franz.Leomann@voestalpine.com, Katarzyna.Benedyk@voestalpine.com

Keywords: Instrumented three-point bending test, bending angle, bending formula, sheet bending
curvature, punch radius, bending legs angle.

Abstract. This work puts into critical question the calculation of bending formulas used in
instrumented bending tests. The various simplifications in determining the bending angle from the
punch stroke are clarified for existing bending formulas. The physical significance of the calculated
bending angle and the accompanying mathematical assumptions are then discussed in comparison to
the experimental bending angle determined optically from the bending legs.
The punch radius should not be neglected in the bending formulas, this leads to an
unnecessary underestimation of the bending angle at high angle level. The assumption of a close
contact of the steel sheet sample along the punch radius, which has to be postulated mathematically,
however is not fulfilled experimentally. The instrumented bending test therefore delivers
systematically more conservative angles in comparison to a measurement from the bending legs. A
better agreement between calculated and measured bending angle is achieved when increasing the
punch radius from 0.4mm to 1.0mm. Taking into account the experimental average sheet curvature
improves the agreement between calculated and measured bending angle.

Introduction
The instrumented 3-point free bending test is becoming increasingly important in the steel and
automotive industry in order to assess for example hemming, roll forming and crash properties of sheet
steel grades [1]-[4]. The bending angle at maximum load is a good indicator of the axial crash folding
ability especially for press-hardening steels [5]-[7]. To achieve a standardization of experimental results
between different laboratories, it is necessary to understand and compare the various bending angle
formulas which have been developed so far. Several bending test standards already exist according to
ISO 7438 [8], JIS Z 2248 [9] or ASTM E290 [10]. ISO 7438 and JIS Z 2248 standards deliver the same
analytical formula to calculate the bending angle.
Three similar bending angle formulas are compared in this investigation: the ISO 7438
bending formula [8], another bending formula from Laumann [11] and broadly used within the
European automotive industry and an alternative bending formula recently developed independently
both by the authors at voestalpine Stahl and by ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe, which will be referred to
as the VAS-TKSE bending angle formula later on.

Experimental procedures
Test set-up
Three-point bending tests are conducted at voestalpine Stahl (Fig. 10) according to current
specifications from the automotive industry. This bending test procedure is originally designed to
assess the hemming properties of aluminium grades. Milled bending samples which measures
6060 mm are tested with a very sharp punch radius of 0.4mm and a narrow roller distance of 2a+0.5
(a: thickness). The additional 0.5mm roller distance should guarantee a free bending state up to the
end of the test. Free rotating rollers with a 15mm radius are used as shoulders. Such an
instrument-monitored bending test provides a load-displacement curve depending on the immersion
depth S of the bending punch. Sample failure occurs in the maximum load range. After reaching the
maximum load, the test is not interrupted but is performed up to a bending angle around 160, which
203
is dependent on the sheet thickness. The recorded bending load/displacement curve is used to
calculate the bending load/bending angle curve. The parameter typically used for this calculation is
the online bending angle at maximum lload, which characterises sample failure (Fig. 10). The bending
angle of the specimen is not measured in the unloaded condition. This test set-up
set differs from the
bending test according to ISO 7438 [8],], which prescribes a much larger roller distance and punch
radius.

Fig. 10: Instrumented

nstrumented three-point bending test set-up
up at voestalpine Stahl.

Materials

A wide range of industrially cold rolled sheet steel grades have been investigated in the tensile
strength range 300-1500MPa and thickness range 0.7-2mm as shown in Table 1. The mechanical
properties may differ from currently
ntly available material standards.

Table 1:: Investigated cold rolled sheet steels

steels:: mechanical properties (90 to rolling direction).
direction)
Steel type Thickness Rp0.2 Rm A80 Rp0.2/Rm
Steel grade Process
(cold rolled) [mm] [MPa] [MPa] [%] [-]
DX54D Mild HDG (+Z) 0.70 169 296 46 0.57
HX340LAD HSLA HDG (+Z) 1.00 360 439 30 0.82
DP600 Dualphase HDG (+Z) 1.50 371 621 30 0.60
DP800 Dualphase HDG (+Z) 1.60 538 835 21 0.64
CP800 Complexphase EG (+ZE) 1.35 681 837 15 0.81
DP1000 Dualphase HDG (+Z) 1.00 653 1006 15 0.65
CP1000 Multiphase HDG (+Z) 1.25 903 995 7 0.91
UHSS1200 Multiphase CA 1.00 894 1217 13 0.73
1.00 1058 1495 6 0.71
22MnB5 press-hardening press-hardened 1.50 1034 1501 7 0.69
2.00 975 1461 6 0.67

Bending angle formulas definitions

ISO 7438 bending formula
The ISO 7438 testing standard [8] provides a simple bending formula. The bending angle in
Fig.2 is given as follows:

204
 p.c W . f c pW c. f c
sin 2 cos 2
2 p f c
2 or 2 p f c
2
(1)
p f c c
2
with: W 2 2
and c Rar

R: roller radius, r: punch radius, a: sample thickness, f: punch stroke, c: distance between the plane
including the horizontal axis of supports and the central axis of the rounded portion of the punch
before test, p: distance between the vertical planes including the central axis and the vertical axis of
each support and the vertical plane including the horizontal central axis of the punch after test [8].

c Rra
f S

R f c
2
r

p RL 2

Fig.2: Bending angle parameters according to ISO 7438 [8].

Laumann bending formula

A more complex bending formula has been developed by Laumann. It is referred to [11] for
more details on the analytical determination of this bending formula. The punch radius is neglected in
this bending formula. The bending angle (in ) in Fig. 3 is given as follows:
h 2 4 g.i h
2
L
R R a S
2
R a
2g 2 180

2. arctan * (2)
h h 2 4 g .i

2g


2 3
L 2 L L 2 L
g R R a S ;
2
h 2.R a . R 2. R 2 R a S . R
2 2 2 2
2 2 4
2 L 2 L L
i R a 2 .R a . R R a S .R a R a S . R R
4 2 2

2 2 2

with R: roller radius, L: roller distance, S: punch stroke, a: sample thickness.

205
 a

S
R

L/2

Fig. 3: Bending angle parameters according to Laumann [11].

VAS-TKSE bending formula

An alternative much more simple bending formula has been developed independently by the
authors at voestalpine Stahl and by ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe. The bending angle (in ) in Fig.
411 4 is given as follows (see Annex 1):

2 arcsin
Rra arctan S R r a . 180
R L 2 (3)

S R r a 2 R L 22

with R: roller radius, r: punch radius, L: roller distance, S: punch stroke, a: sample thickness.

L/2

2 r

Fig. 411: Bending angle parameters according to VAS-TKSE.

Discussion
Comparison of bending formulas

The VAS-TKSE, the ISO 7438 and the Laumann bending formulas have been compared
analytically in the following. The objective is to clarify the cause of any deviation. Fig. 5 exemplarily
shows the calculated bending angle values according to the VAS-TKSE, ISO 7438 and Laumann
bending formulas for a sheet thickness of 1 mm (the measured deviations are rather independent of
the sample thickness).
The ISO 7438 and VAS-TKSE bending formulas, in spite of their different mathematical
expressions, deliver exactly the same numerical values. Both bending formulas take into
206
consideration the punch radius and are based on the same assumptions. Significant differences,
however, are apparent with the Laumann bending formula. The bending angle according to Laumann
is systematically lower than that obtained with the VAS-TKSE or ISO 7438 formulas. If the punch
radius is set to 0 in the VAS-TKSE or ISO 7438 bending formulas, the same bending angle values are
obtained as with the Laumann formula.
In Laumans work, the punch diameter (0.1 till 0.6mm) has been neglected [11]. This can be
justified in this particular case since only low bending angles below 100 have been investigated in
this work. In the low bending angle region, which is typical for AHSS and press-hardening steels with
low ductility, neglecting the punch radius has little influence on the bending angle. The difference
amounts to approximately 1 at 60 bending angle. It increases however already to 5 at 120 bending
angle and reaches even up to 17 at 160 bending angle! Higher bending angles, especially above
100, increase dramatically the deviations between the two bending formulas. Neglecting the punch
radius always leads to underestimated bending angle values.
160 18
a=1.0mm, L=2a+0.5, R=15, r=0.4)
140 16

VAS-TKSE
14
120 ISO 7438
Calculated bending angle []

Offset VAS-TKSE - Laumann []

Laumann 12
100 Offset VAS-TKSE/Laumann
10
80
8

60
6

40
4

20 2

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Punch stroke [mm]

Fig. 5: VAS-TKSE/ISO 7438 vs. Laumann bending angle (sheet thickness: 1 mm)

Experimental bending angle and average sheet radius

In order to assess the accuracy of the bending formula, the bending angle between the two
undeformed legs has been determined as a reference. Interrupted incremental bending tests have been
performed stepwise up to fracture on the same sample. The bending tests have all been performed
with a roller distance of 2a+0.5 (a: sample thickness) for all tests with a punch radius of 0.4mm and
1.0mm.
The bending angle in the loaded condition has been determined manually with increasing
punch stroke from digital photographs with a portable USB microscope and compared with the
bending angle calculated from the punch stroke with the VAS-TKSE bending formula according to
Eq. 3. The sheet bending radius around the punch tip has also been measured in the loaded condition
and compared with the experimental punch radius.

Fig.6 a gives a schematic illustration of the bending angle determined experimentally between the
bending legs, or calculated from the local sheet curvature below the punch tip or calculated from the
average curvature around the punch radius. The higher the average sheet radius or the lower the sheet

207
curvature, the less the three angle definitions coincide. The biggest deviation betw
between experimental
(between legs) and calculated (from punch radius) bending angles occurs for DX54D (
Fig.6b),
b), the lowest for example with HCT980C (
Fig.6c).
Calculation of the bending angle in the three
three-point bending test with any bending formula must
assume a perfect contact of sheet sample along the punch radius followed by a linear shape of bending
legs between punch and rollers. This is the only way that the bending angle can be calculated
analytically. This is, however, almost never guaranteed for sheet steels (
Fig.6 a-c).
A lift off between punch and sheet additionally occurs at high bending angles, the punch tip loses
contact with the sheet sample (
Fig.6d ). The local sheet radius then is even lower than the punch radius. This leads to a complete
failure of the bending formula even for samples without fracture
fracture.
Fig. 127 and Fig. 138 show the experimental bending angle from the bending legs (optical
measurement) versus calculated bending angle from Eq. 3, respectively for a 0.4mm and 1.0mm
punch radius. The bending angle from the bending legs is generally higher than the calculated on
one, as
illustrated in
Fig.b.. Both bending angles match slightly better for AHSS than for mild of HSLA steels. The
maximum deviation between measured and calculated bending angles below 140 amount to 16 with
a 0.4mm punch radius (Fig. 127) and is reduced to 10 for a 1.0mm punch radius (Fig. 138).

Best fit average sheet radius

over the whole bending area

roller roller
Best fit local sheet
radius in the punch
area

punch

Bent sheet

bending calculated calculated calculated

legs > >
average sheet local sheet punch radius
/2 radius /2 radius /2 /2

(a) (b)

(d)
(c)

Fig.6: (a): Schematic definition of bending angles from punch, sheet radius or bending legs.
(b,c): Calculated bending angle from punch radius and bending legs angle (DX54D and CP1000 steel
grades, respectively). (d): Lift off between punch and sheet at high bending angles (DP600).

Fig. 9149 shows the average sample sheet radius determined according to Eq. 6 (Annex 2) versus
calculated bending angle from Eq. 3 with a 0.4mm punch radius. Following observations are made:
208
 The sample sheet is forced to match with the punch tool radius with increasing bending angle
. The average sheet bending radius decreases strongly from 15-30mm around 15 down to
the 0.4mm punch value (or even lower above 140).
The lower the strain hardening capability (high yield ratio Rp0.2/Rm) the more the plastic zone
concentrates locally around the punch tip, the lower the average sheet bending radius.
The lower the material thickness, the more the average sheet bending radius increases
(especially for DX54D, 0.7mm). A low material thickness leads to lower plastic strains, the
elastic strain component becomes then dominant and the average sheet bending radius
increases. At high thickness however, the plastic strains predominate, the sample is stiffer and
the sheet accommodates better along the punch radius.
The average sheet bending radius for a 0.4mm punch radius has correspondingly been approximated
(correlation coefficient r2=92%) as a function of the calculated bending angle from Eq. 3, as well as
sample thickness a and yield ratio Rp0.2/Rm :

4 k2
rbending k 1. a.R p 0.2 Rm . 1
n . a. R
p 0.2 Rm 4 n2
p (4)
k 1 171.53013; k 2 -0.85847; n 1 -0.94401; n 2 -0.15295; p -1.28667
180

punch radius: 0.4mm

160
Experimental bending legs angle []

140

120
DX54D_0.7mm
100 HX340LAD_1.0mm
DP600_1.5mm
80 CP800_1.35mm
DP800_1.6mm
60 CP1000_1.25mm
DP1000_1.0mm
40 UHSS1200_1.0mm
22MnB5_1.0mm
20 22MnB5_1.5mm
22MnB5_2.0mm
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Calculated bending angle from punch radius []

Fig. 12: Bending angle from bending legs vs. from bending formula (0.4mm punch radius).

209
 160

punch radius: 1.0mm

140
Experimental bending legs angle []

120

100 DX54D_0.7mm
HX340LAD_1.0mm
80 DP600_1.5mm
CP800_1.35mm
DP800_1.6mm
60
CP1000_1.25mm
DP1000_1.0mm
40
UHSS1200_1.0mm
22MnB5_1.0mm
20 22MnB5_1.5mm
22MnB5_2.0mm
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Calculated bending angle from punch radius []

Fig. 13: Bending angle from bending legs vs. from bending formula (1.0mm punch radius).

45
punch radius: 0.4mm
40
Average sheet bending radius [mm]

35 DX54D_0.7mm
HX340LAD_1.0mm
30 DP600_1.5mm
CP800_1.35mm
25 DP800_1.6mm
CP1000_1.25mm
20 DP1000_1.0mm
UHSS1200_1.0mm
15 22MnB5_1.0mm
22MnB5_1.5mm
10 22MnB5_2.0mm

rpunch = 0.4mm
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Calculated bending angle from punch radius []

Fig. 914: Experimental average bending sheet radius vs. bending angle (0.4mm punch radius).

210
 180

punch radius: 0.4mm

160
Experimental bending legs angle []

140

120
DX54D_0.7mm
100 HX340LAD_1.0mm
DP600_1.5mm
80 CP800_1.35mm
DP800_1.6mm
60 CP1000_1.25mm
DP1000_1.0mm
40 UHSS1200_1.0mm
22MnB5_1.0mm
20 22MnB5_1.5mm
22MnB5_2.0mm
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Calculated bending angle from modelled average sheet radius []

Fig. 150: Bending angle from bending legs vs. bending angle calculated from modeled average sheet
radius (0.4mm punch radius).

Fig. 15 shows the experimental bending legs angle versus bending angle calculated from Eq. 3
using the modeled experimental average sheet radius of Eq. 4 instead of the 0.4mm punch radius. A
better match of experimental and calculated bending angle values ( 4 below 130) is reached
(see Fig. 15 in comparison to Fig. 12). At bending angles above 130-140 the bending formula fails
anyway because of the sample lift off from the punch, which cannot be considered mathematically.
Therefore there is a fundamental difference between calculated and measured bending angles, which
cannot be fully overcome through analytical considerations.
Flat bending radius
A pronounced flattening and thinning of the sheet below the punch tip has been observed
repeatedly with increasing bending angle for multiphase and press-hardened steel grades with
Rm1000MPa. Such an effect, however, is not observed for example with mild or dualphase steel
grades with a round bent shape at any bending angle (Fig. 11). This flattening mainly occurs on the
tensile side opposite to the punch and to a lesser extent on the compression side. The assumption of a
round sheet shape and constant thickness around the punch tip, therefore, is not always realistic in
bending tests, especially with sheet steels with low strain hardening capability. This effect is not fully
understood yet and could not be reproduced in FEM simulations so far.

211
 No flattening Flattening

DX54D DP1000 CP1000 UHSS1200 22MnB5 hardened

Fig. 11: Bending sample flattening in the punch area.

Summary
The following conclusions can be drawn from this investigation:
It is strongly recommended to use the VAS-TKSE bending formula developed by the authors (or
the equivalent ISO 7438 formula) instead of the Laumann bending formula which neglects the
punch radius. This unnecessary simplification leads to a strongly underestimated bending angle at
high angle level. Because of its complexity the Laumann bending formula has also proved to
harbor the danger of erroneous implementation resulting from too many parameters and auxiliary
functions. The VAS-TKSE (or ISO 7438) formulations are significantly easier and safer to
implement.
Following discrepancies still exist between experimental bending angle from bending legs and
calculated bending angle according to VAS-TKSE (or ISO 7438) bending formulas:
o The necessary assumption of a perfect contact of the bent sheet around the punch tip is not
fulfilled experimentally. The average bending sheet radius is much higher than the punch
radius for bending angles below 100-120.
o The higher the strain hardening capability (low yield ratio) and the lower the sheet
thickness, the larger the average sheet radius below the punch radius.
o A bending sample lift off, away from the punch tip, is observed at high bending angles
above 140.
The calculated bending angle values, therefore, are lower than the measured bending legs angles.
At high bending angles however this behaviour is reversed due to the collapse and bending
sample lift off from the punch tip.
The deviation between experimental and calculated bending angle is slightly reduced (10 instead
of 16) when increasing the punch radius from 0.4 to 1.0mm. Increasing the punch radius in the
same order of magnitude as the average experimental sheet radius improves the bending formula
accuracy. The sharp punch radius of 0.4mm prescribed in current automotive bending testing
recommendations has been originally thought for hemming investigations. A larger punch radius
(1mm) however makes more sense to simulate folding or crash operations.
The instrumented bending test, therefore, is most suitable for relative bending angle comparisons,
yet it does not always provide physically correct bending angle values. A measurement of the
bending legs angle with optical measurement for example poses a challenge and is expensive.
This is however the only undisputed testing method of determining the bending angle throughout
the entire experiment without mathematical assumptions.
In contrast to the calculated bending angle from the punch stroke, the bending angle optically
measured from the bending legs implicitly takes into account the material dependent actual
bending behaviour in the sheet below the punch tip. An empirical non linear fit modeling is
proposed for the average sheet bending radius as a function of calculated bending angle, sheet
thickness and yield ratio. Taking into account the material dependent stiffness properties allows a
much better prediction of the real bending legs angle out of the instrumented calculated bending
angle.

212
Outlook
A lot of effort is being put in the accurate determination of bending angles at material fracture. It
would however make much more sense to determine the fracture strain as a result of bending tests
instead of the bending angle. Strain values can easily be derived analytically after optical
measurement of the local sheet bending radius in the punch area or as a first approximation from the
average bending radius around the experimental sheet curvature. Strain values are thickness
independent and can be directly used as fracture criteria in FEM forming simulations with a strong
bending component.

References
[1] T. Laumann, M. Pfestorf: Crash behaviour of various modern steels exposed to high deformation
rates. Steel Grips 6. CHS2 (2008) pp. 143-151.
[2] M.S. Walp: Impact Dependent Properties of Advanced and Ultra High Strength Steels. SAE
2007-01-0342.
[3] T.M. Link: Effects of Paint Baking on the Axial Crash Performance of Advanced High Strength
Steels. MS&T 2008 Conference, Pittsburgh (2008) pp. 1989-2000.
[4] J. Dykeman et al.: Material Property and Formability Characterization of Various Types of High
Strength Dual Phase Steel. SAE 2009-01-0794.
[5] P. Larour et al.: Influence of post uniform tensile and bending properties on the crash behaviour of
AHSS and press-hardening steel grades. IDDRG 2010 Graz, Austria.
[6] J. Faderl: phs-ultraform- Continuous galvanizing meets press-hardening. CHS2 Lule Schweden
(2009) pp. 283-292.
[7] Th. Labudde, W. Bleck: Formability characterisation of press hardened steels. CHS2 Lule
Schweden (2009) pp. 127-135.
[8] DIN EN ISO 7438 (2005): Metallic materials-Bend test.
[9] JIS Z 2248 (2006): Metallic materials-Bend test.
[10] ASTM E290 (2009): Standard Test Methods for Bend Testing of Material for Ductility.
[11] T. Laumann: Qualitative und quantitative Bewertung der Crashtauglichkeit von hchstfesten
Sthlen. Meisenbach-Edition, 2009, ISBN 978-3-87525-299-6.

213
Annex 1: Bending angle formula according to VAS-TKSE

The bending angle formula according to VAS-TKSE is derived in the following. The test
geometry is known, including R, r, L and a (
Fig. 116). The bending angle is to be determined:
S'
tan
2 l'
a

2 a

R 2 L/ 2
S
2
S

r
2
l
2

Fig. 116: Bending angle calculation of the VAS-TKSE bending formula.

The geometric conditions make it possible to depict l and S based on the known variables
and the unknown bending angle:

S S R r a 1 cos
2

l R L 2 R r a sin
2
sin
Using that tan and further multiplication yields: l ' sin S ' cos
cos 2 2
When values are given for l, S, reformulation yields the following :

R L 2sin R r a sin 2
R r a 1 cos cos
S cos
2 2 2 2 2

R L 2sin R r a sin 2 S R r a cos R r a cos 2

2 2 2 2
2 2
Subsequently, sin cos 1 , which yields:


R L 2sin R r a S cos R r a
2 (5)
AK GK
2

We then use sin sin cos cos sin . In addition, we define:

214


R L 2 sin R r a S cos R r a

AK
2 GK
2
AK GK R r a
sin cos
H 2 H 2 H
2 2 2
AK GK H
Yielding the following:

Rr a
sin
2 S R r a2 R L 22
which explicitly yields (in ) for:


2 arcsin
Rra arctan S R r a .180
R L 2

S R r a 2 R L 22

Or as a function of the punch stroke S:

Rra

2 arcsin arctan S ( R r a) .180

S R r a 2 R L 22 R L / 2

Annex 2: Average bending radius from optical bending angle measurement

The average sheet bending radius best fitting the curved bent zone around the punch radius (
Fig.) can be calculated from previous Eq. 5 using the experimental bending legs angle:
bending legs bending legs
R L 2 sin R rbending a S cos R rbending a
2 2
or:
bending legs
R L 2 sin 2
S cos bending legs
2
rbending R a (6)
bending legs
1 cos
2

R L/ 2
rbending
S

experiment,bending legs 2

Fig.13: Average bending radius calculation.

215