Osu 1354563712

EVALUATION OF FORMABILITY AND DETERMINATION OF FLOW
STRESS CURVE OF SHEET MATERIALS WITH DOME TEST
THESIS
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of

Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Ji You Yoon
Graduate Program in Mechanical Engineering
The Ohio State University
2012
Master's Examination Committee:
Taylan Altan, Advisor
Jerald Brevick
Copyright by
Ji You Yoon
2012
Abstract
Determination of flow stress curve of sheet material is important for designing

stamping process efficiently. Entering accurate flow stress curve to FE
simulations is necessary to obtain reliable results from simulations. Furthermore,
in most Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), material properties may vary
from coil to coil and that can affect to product quality.
The dome test is a material test to evaluate formability and determine the flow
stress curve of the sheet materials. The dome test is a biaxial test which
consequently achieves greater maximum true strain without localized necking
compared to that of uniaxial tensile test. As a result, the flow stress curve obtained
from the dome test can be determined up to larger strains than in tensile test. This
reduces possible errors from extrapolation of flow stress curve obtained from
tensile test.
FE simulations are performed in order to understand the deformation process in

the dome test and to develop database for computer program, PRODOME,
(MATLAB). With PRODOME, flow stress curve is calculated (determining K and
n values in Hollomons Law (=Kn)) by inputting dome test outputs of punch
force vs. stroke. It is calculated by using inverse analysis method.
From the dome test, JAC 590R (t = 1.6 mm), JAC 780 TRIP (thickness = 1.0 mm)
and Al 6022 (t = 1.0 mm) are tested. Lubrication system is developed from the
dome test. With lubrication system, samples are evaluated how much they deviate
from the apex of the dome by having percentage error they have in the flow stress
curve.
ii
Dedication
This document is dedicated to my parent, my sister and friends
iii
Acknowledgements
Thanks God, I barely finish my study without Your help and Your strength that
comes from You. To be able to accomplish this study, I have been supported and
supervised by many people that God sent to me. To my family, I cannot express
my gratitude enough. I am indebted to my family and my friends who helped me a
lot during my school period. I believe that I would not be able to name everyone
separately and to thank for everything that they did for me, however, I would like
to express a few words of thanks from the bottom of my heart. I would like to
express my deepest gratitude to:
Prof. Taylan Altan for his great support and his valuable suggestions which make
me strong to step up beyond my deficiency. His intellectual support, advice and
guidance make me possible to accomplish this research works. I thank my
committee member Dr. Jerald Brevick for support.
I thank my colleagues of the CPF, Eren Billur, Dr. Hyun-Sung Son, Soumya
Subramonian, Tingting Mao, Xi Yang, Adam Groseclose, Niranjan Rajagopal for
their assistance. I also want to express great thanks to HRA, Jim Dykeman and
Ben Flocken for their support.
Specially, I would like to thank my parents and my sister for their endless
encouragement, inspiration, advice and support.
I would like to thank all those too numerous to mention here, who have assisted
and encouraged to complete of my work.
iv
Vita
February 2006 ............................................ Se-Hwa Girls High School
2010........................................................... B.S. Mechanical Engineering,
Hanyang University
2011 to present ..............................................Graduate Research Associate,
Department of Mechanical
Engineering, The Ohio State
University
Fields of Study
Major Field: Mechanical Engineering
v
Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................... ii
Dedication .............................................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ iv
Vita.......................................................................................................................... v
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 1
CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND ............................................................... 3
2.1 Uniaxial Tensile Test .................................................................... 4
2.2 Biaxial Tension Test ................................................................... 16
2.2.1 Cupping tests ......................................................................... 16
2.2.2 Limiting Dome Height (LDH) Test ....................................... 17
2.2.3 Bulge Test .............................................................................. 20
2.2.4 Dome Test (extension of LDH test) ....................................... 24
CHAPTER 3 OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH .................................. 25
3.1 Objectives .................................................................................... 25
3.2 Approach ..................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 4 INVERSE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY .................... 30

vi
CHAPTER 5 EXPERIMENTAL WORK AND RESULTS ................. 33
5.1 Experiments and Tooling ............................................................ 33
5.2 Test Procedure ............................................................................. 34
5.3 Output from the Dome Tests ....................................................... 35
5.4 Test Parameters and Selection of Materials ................................ 36
5.5 Test Results ................................................................................. 39
CHAPTER 6 FE SIMULATIONS ......................................................... 41
6.1 Simulation Parameters ................................................................ 41
6.2 Computer Program PRODOME Using MATLAB ................. 43
6.2.1 General concepts of computer program using MATLAB ..... 43
6.2.2 Running the PRODOME ....................................................... 44
CHAPTER 7 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................... 47
7.1 Determination K and n Values of the Sheet Materials ................ 47
7.2 Anisotropy Correction ................................................................. 48
7.3 Comparison of the Flow Stress Curves ....................................... 49
7.3.1 Tensile test vs. dome test ....................................................... 49
7.3.2 VPB test vs. Dome test from DEFORM and PAMSTPMP... 51
7.4 Zero Point Adjustment ................................................................ 53
7.5 Lubrication System ..................................................................... 55
vii
7.5.1 Preliminary Evaluation Lubricant Test .................................. 55
7.5.2 Measurement of angle of fractures ........................................ 56
CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............................. 64
REFERNECES ..................................................................................................... 68
APPENDIX A: Lubricants list .............................................................................. 72
APPENDIX B: Evaluation lubricant tests for high formability material (JSC
270F, t = 0.8 mm) ................................................................................................. 73
viii
List of Tables
Table 1. Dome test experiment matrix [Dykeman 2011, POSCO 2012].............. 33
Table 2. Material properties evaluated by tensile test provided by Honda ........... 37
Table 3. Test parameters of the dome test ............................................................ 38
Table 4. K & n values and of the materials with isotropic assumption ( =
1) ........................................................................................................................... 47
Table 5. Normal anisotropy of the materials (provided by Honda) ...................... 49
Table 6. Determined parameters from VPB test (w/o considering anisotropy),
DEFORM and PAMSTAMP ................................................................................ 52
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1. Tensile test specimen, according to ASTM E8 [Altan 2012, ASTM
2011] ....................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2. Schematic of a fixture used in a tensile test [Altan 2012] ....................... 5
Figure 3. The schematic of the force vs. elongation curve obtained from tensile
test [Altan 2012] ..................................................................................................... 5
Figure 4. Engineering stress vs. engineering strain curve [Kalpakjian 2008] ........ 7
Figure 5. Comparison stress vs. strain curve between engineering state and true
state [Hosford 2007] ............................................................................................... 8
Figure 6. True stress and true strain curve of Al 1100-O, plotted on log-log scale
[Hosford 2007, Altan 2012] .................................................................................... 9
Figure 7. Some of the flow curve equations used in plastic deformation studies
[Marciniak 2002, Altan 2012]: (a) Hollomons Law, (b) Swifts Law, (c) Linear
strain hardening, and (d) Constant ........................................................................ 10
Figure 8. Predicted flow stress curves by different equations [Nasser 2010, Paul
2012] ..................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 9. Schematic representation of stress-strain conditions for necking in
simple tension [Altan 2012] .................................................................................. 13
x
Figure 10. Flow stress curve obtained from tensile test and bulge test [Billur
2011] ..................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 11. Sheet orientations relative to normal and planar anisotropy [Totten
2003, Altan 2012] ................................................................................................. 14
Figure 12. Definitions of width and thickness strains in a tensile specimen [Davis
2004] ..................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 13. Schematic of Fukui conical cup test [Hosford 2007] .......................... 16
Figure 14. Schematic of Erichsen cup test [Doege 2010, Altan 2012] ................. 17
Figure 15. Schematic of LDH tooling [Grote 2009] ............................................. 18
Figure 16. Location of maximum thinning when friction is (a) 0 and (b) 0.075
[Ngaile 2000] ........................................................................................................ 18
Figure 17. Influence of interface friction (a) on the location of maximum thinning,
(b) on punch force [Ngaile 2000].......................................................................... 19
Figure 18. Comparison of stretchability results of different steels from LDH test
[WSA 2009, Altan 2012] ...................................................................................... 19
Figure 19. Schematic of Hydraulic Bulge Test [Gutscher 2004] .......................... 21
Figure 20. Viscous Pressure Bulging (VPB) test set-up [Ngaile 2000] ................ 21
Figure 21. Geometry of bulge test [Billur 2011] .................................................. 22
Figure 22. Fracture location of (a) frictionless dome test with fracture at apex,
TRIP 780 (t = 1mm) with lubrication (Teflon and Clay) (b) with no lubrication 24
Figure 23. Punch force vs. stroke curve of 780 TRIP. Fracture occurred at the
apex of the dome ................................................................................................... 26
xi
Figure 24. Normalized punch force vs. stroke curve of 780 TRIP (t = 1.0mm) with
fracture at the apex of the dome ............................................................................ 31
Figure 25. Flow chart of inverse analysis methodology [Cho 2005].................... 32
Figure 26. Schematic of the dome test [Grote 2009, Interlaken] .......................... 34
Figure 27. Dome test tooling ................................................................................ 35
Figure 28. Punch force vs. stroke curve from experiment, 780 TRIP (t = 1.0 mm)
with lubricants of Teflon and Clay ....................................................................... 36
Figure 29. Top and front view of burst sample from dome test ( JAC 590R, t =
1.6mm) .................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 30. Punch force vs. stroke curve of JAC 590R (t = 1.6mm) ..................... 39
Figure 31. Punch force vs. stroke curve of 780 TRIP (t = 1.0mm) ...................... 40
Figure 32. Punch force vs. stroke curve of Al 6022 (t = 1.0mm) ......................... 40
Figure 33. Quarter model of simulation at stroke of 50 mm ................................ 42
Figure 34. Process of the PRODOME .................................................................. 43
Figure 35. PRODOME window to select experimental punch force vs. stroke data
............................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 36. PRODOME window to input initial thickness and normal anisotropy of
the sheet material .................................................................................................. 45
Figure 37. PRODOME window shows punch force vs. stroke curve from
experiment and buttons to renew data, initial thickness and/or normal anisotropy
............................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 38. PRODOME window that shows calculated flow stress curve ........... 46
xii
Figure 39. PRODOME window that shows buttons which can save data ........... 46
Figure 40. Flow stress curves of materials of JAC 590R, TRIP 780 and Al 6022
with isotropic assumption ( = 1) ......................................................................... 48
Figure 41. Comparison flow stress curve obtained from the dome test (isotropic,
anisotropic) and the tensile test for JAC 590R (t = 1.6 mm) ................................ 50
Figure 42. Comparison flow stress curve obtained from the dome test (isotropic,
anisotropic) and tensile test for JAC 780 TRIP (t = 1.6 mm) ............................... 51
Figure 43. Digitized punch force vs. stroke curve obtained from experiment ..... 52
Figure 44. Comparison K and n values among VPB test, DEFORM and
PAMSTAMP......................................................................................................... 53
Figure 45. (a) Punch force vs. stroke curve with good zero point adjustment and
shifted zero point adjustment (b) flow stress curve of good zero point adjustment
and shifted zero point adjustment ......................................................................... 54
Figure 46. Reference sample of JSC 270F (t = 0.8 mm) for calibration, stroke up
to 1.00 inch............................................................................................................ 54
Figure 47. Change in the location of maximum thinning with increased of
coefficient of friction ............................................................................................ 55
Figure 48. Dome test sample of JAC 780 TRIP (t = 1.6 mm) with lubricant of
Teflon and Clay of (a) sample 1, (b) sample 2 and (c) sample 3 .......................... 56
Figure 49. Measuring the angle of fracture using AutoCAD software (780 TRIP
with no lubrication, t = 1.0 mm) ........................................................................... 57
Figure 50. Flow stress curve with angle of fractures for JAC 590R (t = 1.6mm) 59
xiii
Figure 51. Flow stress curve with angle of fractures for 780 TRIP (t = 1.0mm) . 59
Figure 52. Flow stress curve with angle of fractures for Al 6022 (t = 1.0mm) .... 60
Figure 53. Percentage error, maximum strain and the dome height on each angle
of fractures for JAC 590R (t = 1.6mm) ................................................................ 60
of fractures for 780 TRIP (t = 1.0mm).................................................................. 61
of fractures for Al 6022 (t = 1.0mm) .................................................................... 61
Figure 56. Angle of fracture with increasing friction (JAC 590R, t = 1.6 mm) ... 62
xiv
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
In sheet metal forming or stamping, mechanical properties of the sheet material

(e.g., flow stress curve) significantly influence metal flow and product quality.
This information is essential as an input to FEM (Finite Element Method). Sheet
metal forming companies use FE simulations widely because it is a very
beneficial and powerful tool to significantly reduce the time and cost of die try-
outs and productions. To obtain reliable results from FE simulations, accurate
material property must be entered into the analysis. Furthermore, in a stamping
plant, the quality control of the incoming sheet material is necessary for
establishing a robust production process. In most Advanced High Strength Steels
(AHSS), material properties may vary from coil to coil and this affects part
quality and scrap rate. Therefore, accurate and reliable method of determination
of formability and flow stress curve of sheet material are important for designing
a reproducible and robust stamping operation.
Uniaxial tensile test is a standard test which is commonly used by sheet material
suppliers/steel mills to determine the formability of sheet materials. The flow
stress curve obtained from the tensile test is under uniaxial state of stress which is
not enough to emulate the stress state in actual stamping. Another effect of this is
that true strain range obtained from the tensile test is limited because local
necking starts at the Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS). Extrapolation of flow stress
data from the tensile test to obtain large strains is an approximation and not
accurate compared to the data from a biaxial test. Therefore, it is necessary to
conduct a biaxial test to obtain flow stress curve with a larger range of strain
compared to that of a tensile test.
1
The dome test is used to evaluate formability and flow stress curve of sheet
materials. The main reason of using the dome test instead of hydraulic bulge test
is the ease in conducting the dome test. With these benefits, companies may
prefer to conduct the dome test to obtain sheet material property. In this thesis, K
and n values are determined in Hollomons law (=Kn) from the output of the
dome test (punch force vs. stroke curve). Finite element based inverse analysis
technique [Cho 2005] is used to determine K and n values.
The overall study is broken up into Chapters;

Chapter 2: Background
Chapter 3: Objectives and Approaches
Chapter 4: Inverse Analysis Methodology
Chapter 5: Experimental Works and Results
Chapter 6: FE simulations
Chapter 7: Results and Discussion
The information contained in this thesis will cover research which is performed at
HONDA R&D and CPF.
2
CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND
In a manufacturing process, a given material, usually shapeless or of a simple

geometry, (in case of sheet metal forming a blank) is transformed into a useful
part having a complex geometry with well-defined shape, size, accuracy and
tolerances, appearance, and properties [Altan 1983]. Metal forming includes (a)
bulk forming processes such as forging, extrusion, rolling and drawing and (b)
sheet forming processes such as brake forming, deep drawing and stretch forming
[Altan 2012]. The most important properties which are related to forming
behavior are [Phlandt 1989]:
Stress vs. strain curve (also known as flow stress curve): yield strength (Y
or ), ultimate tensile strength (UTS or ), strain hardening exponent
(n value)
Plastic anisotropy: normal anisotropy ( ), planar anisotropy (r)
Forming limits: uniform elongation ( ), reduction of area ( ),
upsettability, Erichsen cupping depth
Surface properties: roughness ( , , , ), chemical and physical
surface properties
When a material deforms, elastic deformation and plastic deformation occurs.

During elastic deformation, when load is removed, the material recovers the form
to what originally it was. However, when load is applied further, material will
reach plastic phase. In this phase, the material deforms permanently. Because of
factors such as strain hardening and area reduction, relationship between load and
deformation becomes nonlinear. In uniaxial tensile test, those explanations are
more understandable [Altan 2012].
3
2.1 Uniaxial Tensile Test
The uniaxial tensile test is the standard test to determine mechanical properties of
metals. As shown in Figure 1, standard size specimen is cut out from the sheet
metal and stretched slowly until it fractures.
Overall Length = 203.2 mm (8 in)
Gage Length
l 0= 50.8mm (2 in)
Width = 12.7mm
Width = 19.1 mm (0.50 in)
(0.75 in)
Figure 1. Tensile test specimen, according to ASTM E8 [Altan 2012, ASTM

2011]
Wider ends of the specimen are gripped by the special fixtures not influencing
deformation. The specimen is attached to fixed and moving crossheads as shown
in Figure 2. During the test, fixed crosshead is fixed and moving crosshead is
pulled down. Consequently, gripped specimen is pulled down and reaction forces
are applied on both sides of the specimen. Extensometer measures the elongation
of gage length in real time. Through the test, load vs. elongation curve is obtained
as shown in Figure 3. It is normalized with respect to the geometry of specimen to
calculate stress and strain. lU is uniform elongation and lF is total elongation at
load vs. elongation curve.
4
F
Column
Fixed Crosshead
Specimen
Moving Crosshead v
F
Table
Base and Actuator
Figure 2. Schematic of a fixture used in a tensile test [Altan 2012]
Fracture
Load (F)
Force
Uniform
Plastic
Deformation
Non-uniform
Plastic
lU Deformation
lF
Elongation
Elongation (l)
Figure 3. The schematic of the force vs. elongation curve obtained from tensile
test [Altan 2012]
5
Engineering stress ( ) is defined as the force (F) divided by the original cross-
sectional area ( ) as shown in Eq. 1.
Eq. 1
Engineering strain (e) is defined as shown in Eq. 2.
Eq. 2
where is the original length of the gage and is the elongation. As illustrated
in Figure 4, there is useful information in engineering stress vs. engineering strain
curve. Yield strength (Y or ) is the stress value where elastic phase finishes.
After yield strength, plastic phase starts. Yield strength can be determined by any
three of these techniques: (a) offset method, (b) Extension under load method, (c)
Autographic diagram method [ASTM 2011]. For elastic phase, linear slope
indicates Youngs modulus (E). When engineering stress reaches maximum
engineering stress, specimen starts localized necking ending uniform elongation
( ), and the stress value at this point is called ultimate tensile strength (UTS or
). Uniform elongation ( ) is considered to be an indicator of ductility or
formability of the material because after necking, material starts to fail [Altan
2012]. Engineering stress and engineering strain are based on original cross-
sectional area. However, true stress (or flow stress, ) is the ratio of applied load
(F) and instantaneous cross-section area (A) as shown in Eq. 3 [Altan 2012].
Eq. 3
6
Figure 4. Engineering stress vs. engineering strain curve [Kalpakjian 2008]
Eq. 4 shows how true stress (flow stress) is derived from engineering stress and
engineering strain [Marciniak 2002]. True strain is calculated by considering
instantaneous gage length (l) divided by initial length of the gage ( ) as shown in
Eq. 5.
Eq. 4
Eq. 5
7
According to the definition of true stress and true strain curve, flow stress curve
can be drawn up to the strain of b which corresponds to the ultimate tensile
strength (UTS) at the engineering stress and engineering strain curve as shown in
Figure 5.
Relationship between stress and strain can be expressed with Hookes Law
( ) in elastic region and Hollomons Law in plastic region (=Kn). In
elastic region, stress and strain have linear relationship. Youngs modulus (E) can
be determined by the slope of the engineering stress ( ) and engineering strain (e)
curve. In the plastic region, Hollomons Law is the most commonly used
nonlinear relationship between true stress and true strain. K indicates the strength
coefficient and n is the strain hardening exponent. Figure 6 shows the true stress
and true strain curve of Al 1100-O [Hosford 2007, Altan 2012].
Figure 5. Comparison stress vs. strain curve between engineering state and true
state [Hosford 2007]
8
10000
Value of elastic modulus, E = 10x103 ksi

which is the value of , when = 1.0 by
extrapolation of the line denoting the
elastic region.
1000
n
gio
True Stress, [ksi]

re
t ic
el as
of
100 n
t io
p ola
tra
25 Ex K = 25 ksi (value of
for = 1.00)
n
10
1
Slope = n = 0.25
I II III
1
0.0001 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.00
True Strain,
Figure 6. True stress and true strain curve of Al 1100-O, plotted on log-log scale
[Hosford 2007, Altan 2012]
Flow stress curve is the curve after yield stress and before plastically necking.
Flow stress is important in metal forming processes as it defines the behavior of
material deformation. It is a function of strain ( ) , strain rate ( ) , temperature ( )
and microstructure (S) as shown in Eq. 6.
f , , , S Eq. 6
In most materials, flow stress increases with strain in room temperature because
of strain hardening which is a result of interaction of dislocations or inclusions in
the crystalline structure [Lange 1985]. Flow stress curve equations are developed
in different ways as shown in Figure 7. Including Hollomons Law which is a
good approximation of the flow stress curve [Phlandt 1989], there are several
other equations which are shown in Figure 8.
9
Figure 7. Some of the flow curve equations used in plastic deformation studies
[Marciniak 2002, Altan 2012]: (a) Hollomons Law, (b) Swifts Law, (c) Linear
strain hardening, and (d) Constant
Figure 8. Predicted flow stress curves by different equations [Nasser 2010, Paul
2012]
Flow stress curve from tensile test is generally preferred because of its simplicity
and the conditions of tensile test have been well defined by standards [Phlandt
1989]:
10
ASTM E 6-09b: Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Methods of
Mechanical Testing, 2009
ASTM E8/E8M-11: Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of
Metallic Materials 2011.
ASTM A 370: Standard Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing
of Steel Products, 2012
ASTM B 557: Standard Methods of Tension Testing Wrought and Cast
Aluminum and Magnesium Alloy Products, 2010
ASTM B 557M: Standard Methods of Tension Testing of Wrought and
Cas Aluminum and Magnesium Products (Metric), 2010
ISO 6892: Metallic materials Tensile testing Part 1: Method of test
at room temperature - First Edition, 2009
Euronorm 2-80: Tensile Testing on Steel (Revision), 1980
ASTM E83 REVa: Standard Practice for Verification and Classification
of Extensometers, 2010
ASTM E 1012: Standard Practice for Verification of Testing Frame and
Specimen Alignment Under Tensile and Compressive Axial Force
Application, 2012
However, there is a demand for another test method to determine flow stress
curve for metal forming purposes. In practice, strain hardening exponent (n) is
considered as an indication of material formability since it corresponds to the
value of uniform elongation in the engineering stress and engineering strain curve.
The necking (instability in tensile test) starts when normal force (F) is at the
condition of maximum and this can be formulated by Eq. 7.
dF
0 Eq. 7
d
11
Right before reaching maximum force, the normal force can be expressed as
shown in Eq. 8.
A A0 exp F A0 exp Eq. 8
Instantaneous area (A) is plugged into Eq. 7:
d
exp exp
dF
0 A0 Eq. 9
d d
d

d
Therefore, tensile instability condition is obtained by Eq. 10 when the flow stress
is assumed to follow Hollomons Law.
d
nK n 1 K n Eq. 10
d
or:
Figure 9 illustrates true stress and true strain condition at necking in tensile test.
For most of the metals, strain hardening exponent lies in the range of 0.1 to 0.5
[Phlandt 1989], tensile test can only determine flow stress curve for a small
range of strain as shown in Figure 10.
12

K n
d
Slope
d 1
Figure 9. Schematic representation of stress-strain conditions for necking in

simple tension [Altan 2012]
1000
Effective Stress ( ) [MPa]
800
Bulge Test
_
600
400
Tensile Test
200
DP 600, t = 1.0mm
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Effective Strain ( )
Figure 10. Flow stress curve obtained from tensile test and bulge test [Billur
2011]
As a result, the widely used tensile test has deficiencies [Altan 2012]:
13
It gives material properties for uniaxial conditions while in practical
stamping the deformation is biaxial.
It is limited to relatively low strains, due to necking.
It needs extrapolation in FE based process simulations that may lead to
errors.
On the other hand, tensile test can be useful to determine anisotropy properties. In
real world, microstructures of the materials are not always uniform in all
directions (isotropic) but are aligned in certain directions (anisotropic). It is
important to get anisotropy coefficients of the sheet material. Anisotropy can be
defined by two forms: (1) normal anisotropy, and (2) planar anisotropy. As shown
in Figure 11, while normal anisotropy differs through the thickness of the material,
planar anisotropy changes according to various directions within the plane of the
sheet [Altan 2012].
Normal
Anisotropy Planar
(r) r0
Anisotropy
r45 r
r90
Rolling
Direction
Figure 11. Sheet orientations relative to normal and planar anisotropy [Totten
2003, Altan 2012]
While sheet metal is processed, grains of the materials microstructure are aligned
in rolling direction and packed in thickness direction. This leads to significant
differences in strength properties in rolling direction and perpendicular to
14
rolling direction. Ratio of the strains in the width to thickness directions
determined by tensile test is referred to as r-value, also known as the plastic strain
ratio. It is given by Eq. 11 where w is the width strain and t is the thickness
strain, as illustrated in Figure 12.
w
r Eq. 11
t
t
Figure 12. Definitions of width and thickness strains in a tensile specimen [Davis
2004]
With higher r values, sheet material tends to resist to thinning. The plastic strain
ratio (r) is determined along parallel ( ), transverse ( ) and diagonal ( ) to
rolling direction of the sheet material. Normal anisotropy ( ) and planar
anisotropy ( ) are defined as shown in Eq. 12 and Eq. 13 [Phlandt 1989, Altan
2012].
Eq. 12
r0 2r45 r90
r Eq. 13
2
15
2.2 Biaxial Tension Test
2.2.1 Cupping tests
There are several cupping tests to determine formability, such as Swift cup test,
Fukui test, and Erichsen test. From Swift cup test, limiting drawing ratio for the
flat bottom cups is determined. Fukui conical cup test as illustrated in Figure 13
determines both stretching and drawing over a spherical indenter [Hosford 2007].
Figure 13. Schematic of Fukui conical cup test [Hosford 2007]
In Erichsen test, as shown in Figure 14, circular punch with diameter of 20 mm

(0.787) stretches clamped sheet material under biaxial condition. The sheet
material deforms to a hemispherical shape and finally fractures. The depth of the
ball refers as Erichsen Index (IE), and the larger Erichsen Index means the better
formability. Cupping tests have limitations and are losing favor because of
irreproducibility. Hecker described the limitation of cupping tests as insufficient
size of the penetrator, inability to prevent inadvertent draw-in of the flange and
inconsistent lubrication [Hecker 1974]. That is, cupping tests are limited to use
in practice because the area of the sheet material is subjected to deformation is
relatively small. And thickness of the sheet material influences significantly on
formability. Also, friction between sheet material and tooling affects the test
results [Hosford 2007, Altan 2012].
16
Figure 14. Schematic of Erichsen cup test [Doege 2010, Altan 2012]
2.2.2 Limiting Dome Height (LDH) Test
Hecker proposed Limiting Dome Height (LDH) Test to avoid the small area of
deformation which was one of the limitations of the Erichsen cup test, and Ghosh
modified Hecker test to simulate plane-strain condition where 80% of stamping
failure occurs [Ayers 1979]. LDH test uses 101.6 mm (4) diameter of the punch
and sheet material is stretched in biaxial directions while clamped at the edges by
lockbead to avoid draw-in (Figure 15). At ERC/NSM, the LDH test was used to
evaluate lubricants. FE simulations for the LDH test showed that the test is very
sensitive to friction and it affect the test measurements [Ngaile 1999]. FE
simulations, shown in Figure 16, are conducted to study relationships of interface
friction. As expected maximum thinning when friction is zero occurred at the
apex of the dome. For friction of 0.075, location of maximum thinning shifted by
20 mm away from the apex [Ngaile 2000, Hosford 2007, Altan 2012].
17
Figure 15. Schematic of LDH tooling [Grote 2009]
Generally, location of maximum thinning moves away from the apex of the dome
as interface friction increases, and punch force also increase as interface friction
increases as shown in Figure 17.
Maximum thinning Maximum thinning
(a) (b)
Figure 16. Location of maximum thinning when friction is (a) 0 and (b) 0.075
[Ngaile 2000]
18
Y 30 1.2
location of maximum thinning [mm] 55
location of maximum thinning [in]

Distance from center of punch to
Distance from center of puch to
25 1
54
Punch load [tons]

20 0.8
53
15
Y 0.6 52
51
10 0.4
Hemispherical 50
5 punch 0.2
49
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
X Coefficient of friction
Coefficient of friction
(a) (b)
Figure 17. Influence of interface friction (a) on the location of maximum thinning,
(b) on punch force [Ngaile 2000]
Figure 18 shows limiting dome height of several materials which indicates each
materials stretchability.
Figure 18. Comparison of stretchability results of different steels from LDH test
[WSA 2009, Altan 2012]
19
LDH test can simulate the most critical strain state in plane strain conditions, so it
is usually used in industry. However, there are several limitations for using LDH
test [Narasimham 1995]:
Large scatter of results from LDH test needed special detailed procedure
recommended by North American Deep Drawing Research Group
(NADDRG) [ASM/NADDRG 1987]. Despite the special procedure, it is
nearly impossible to reproduce the results within a laboratory and between
different laboratories [ASM/NADDRG 1990].
It is hard to obtain stable reproducible plane-strain condition over large
region of the sheet material.
Result is dependent critically upon small variations in plastic anisotropy,
friction and constraint of the drawbead [Ghosh 1975].
It is time consuming.
There is imprecise definition of failure because of nature of the crack
[Narasimham 1995].
2.2.3 Bulge Test
In bulge test, sheet material is deformed under balanced biaxial deformation while
it is clamped around its periphery (Figure 19). There are two types of bulge test:
(a) hydraulic bulge test using pressurized fluid (such as oil) and (b) Viscous
Pressure Bulge test using viscous medium as shown in Figure 20.
20
Figure 19. Schematic of Hydraulic Bulge Test [Gutscher 2004]
Figure 20. Viscous Pressure Bulging (VPB) test set-up [Ngaile 2000]
Viscous Pressure Bulge (VPB) Test as shown in Figure 20 is installed in

hydraulic press with a die cushion or nitrogen cylinders. When ram moves down,
punch pushes the viscous medium so that pressure is generated within the medium
acting on the sheet material. Instantaneous variables during bulging to determine
flow stress curve are dome height ( ), pressure (P), dome apex thickness (t) and
bulge radius ( ). Figure 21 shows the geometry of bulge test where constant
21
parameters for die sets are initial sheet material thickness ( , clamping force ( ),
upper die fillet radius ( ), die cavity radius ( ).
Figure 21. Geometry of bulge test [Billur 2011]
Biaxial strain can be calculated by reduction of sheet thickness as following Eq.

14 [Hill 1950, Billur 2008]:
Eq. 14
Eq. 15
Eq. 16
To calculate effective strain ( ), measured parameters, which are pressure (P) and
dome height ( ), need to be determined and there are several methods such as
Hill [Hill 1950], Enikeev-Kruglov [Kruglov 2002, Slota 2008] and Chakrabarty-
Alexander. In a recent study, Slota showed that the result from Enikeev-Kruglov
approach is more accurate than that of Hill approach [Slota 2008].
22
Since bulge test is applied to a thin sheet material (i.e., , where is
die cavity diameter), membrane theory can be assumed in which bending effects
are negligible [Hill 1950, Ranta 1979, Gutscher 2004, Billur 2008]. Based on von
Mises yield criterion, the effective stress can be calculated by Eq. 17 [Gutscher
2004].
Eq. 17
To calculate the effective stress ( ), bulge radius ( ) needs to be determined first.

Hill method [Hill 1950] and Panknin method [Gutscher 2004, Kaya 2008] are the
approaches of determination of bulge radius.
There are some limitations with using hydraulic bulge test as follows [Young
1981, Ko 2011, Altan 2012]:
This test has not been standardized so that it is difficult to compare results
from different tooling and laboratories.
Spraying related issues exist in optical measurement system (reported by

[Ko 2011]).
3-D optical measurement system (ARAMIS) is highly reliable at room

temperature condition. However, when temperature increases,
smoke/vapor blocks the vision and big deflections occur in the prediction
of bulge radius [Billur 2008].
Tooling gets dirty after sheet bursts because of using oil or viscous
medium.
It is highly demanding time and labor to analyze the data from the test.
23
2.2.4 Dome Test (extension of LDH test)
Using same tooling of LDH test (Figure 15), dome test can be utilized to
determine flow stress, formability and anisotropy for stamping under biaxial
deformation condition. It should be noted that adequate lubrications (near zero
friction) are needed to obtain flow stress accurately. Maximum thinning occurs at
the apex of the dome when friction is zero as in the bulge test as shown in Figure
22(a). Friction at tool-workpiece interface has an effect on formability and
thinning distribution. As friction increases, maximum thinning location moves
toward die corner radius as shown in Figure 22 (b).
By using dome test, it may be possible to determine (a) flow stress under biaxial
deformation, (b) formability under biaxial stretch and (c) a flow stress equation in
Hollomons Law (=Kn) that provide reliable input data on mechanical
properties of sheet materials to generate FE simulations of metal flow in stamping.
(a) (b)
Figure 22. Fracture location of (a) frictionless dome test with fracture at apex,
TRIP 780 (t = 1mm) with lubrication (Teflon and Clay) (b) with no lubrication
24
CHAPTER 3 OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH
3.1 Objectives
Overall objective is to determine flow stress curves (determining K and n values
in Hollomons law, =Kn ) of sheet metal, by using the dome test which is easier
to use in industry than the bulge test. There are two parts to satisfy overall
objective:
1) Experiments:
a. Dome test: a proposed test to obtain flow stress (by recording,

punch force vs. stroke) at large strains,
b. Tensile test: a well-established, standard test for determination of

anisotropy and uniaxial formability.
2) Inverse Analysis:
a. FE simulations: To build the database for inverse analysis,
b. Computer program PRODOME using MATLAB: To inversely

calculate K and n values, based on simulation database and
experimental measurements (punch force vs. stroke).
3.2 Approach
1) Phase 1: Conduct preliminary experiments for evaluation of the lubricants
for dome tests at Honda R&D.
a. Punch force and punch stroke are recorded during dome test.
b. Punch force vs. stroke curves are generated by using MS Excel.
c. Fracture occurred at the apex of 780 TRIP (Lubricants: Hydro-

Aluminums suggestion [Hydro-Aluminum 2012], thickness =
25
1mm). Hydro-Aluminums suggestion is to achieve a nearly
friction-less state making 7 layer system. This sample is our
reference model for making FE simulations. Recorded punch force
vs. stroke curve from experiment is shown in Figure 23.
200
Max. punch force

=150 kN
150
Punch Force [kN]
100
50
780 TRIP (t = 1.0mm)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Stroke [mm]
Final punch stroke
from exp.= 37.5 mm
Figure 23. Punch force vs. stroke curve of 780 TRIP. Fracture occurred at the
apex of the dome
2) Phase 2: Run 3-D (PAMSTAMP) dome test simulations.
Simulations were conducted for constant K and several n values by using tool
geometry provided by Interlaken and punch force will be calculated as a function
of punch stroke as described below:
26
a. The material model is assumed to be following Hollomon law
(Power law) =Kn where K is strength coefficient and n is strain
hardening exponent.
b. n affects the shape of the punch force vs. punch stroke curve.
c. However, K does not affect the shape of the punch force vs. punch
stroke curve but affects the magnitude of the punch force vs. punch
stroke curve. Thus, the FE simulations will be conducted for a
preselected K value and various n values (K = 1000MPa, n =
0.060.6 with 0.01 increments).
d. Sheet thickness is assumed to be same as 780 TRIP (t=1mm) and

final punch stroke is decided to be 50mm.
e. Experimental punch force vs. punch stroke curve will be

normalized to eliminate the effect of K on the magnitude of the
punch force and will be compared with normalized punch force vs.
punch stroke curve from FE simulations.
3) Phase 3: Make computer program.
a. 55 polynomial equations which fit the normalized punch force vs.

stroke curves from simulations (n=0.060.6) are obtained.
b. Experimental stroke is plugged into each equation to obtain FE

normalized punch force as a function of n-value.
c. Difference ( ) between experimental normalized punch force and

FE normalized punch force is calculated using Eq. 18 [Cho 2005,
Demiralp 2011]:

Eq. 18
27
Where:
Difference at a parameter of n (strain hardening exponent) in

FE simulation,
Applied strain hardening exponent to FE simulation

n
(n=0.060.6 with 0.01 increments)
j jth stroke (total punch stroke is divided into m intervals, j=1:m),
Normalized measured punch force during experiments for jth

stroke, (normalized means that measured punch force is
divided by the maximum punch force)
Normalized calculated punch force for jth stroke from FE

simulation with n .
d. Determine n value and calculate K using Eq. 19 [Demiralp 2011]:
K= Eq. 19
Where,
(n) : Maximum punch force from FE simulation with determined n value

(Eq. 18) at maximum experimental stroke
: Initial sheet thickness
4) Phase 4: Conduct tensile tests to determine: (a) uniaxial stress-strain

curves and (b) anisotropy coefficients (r0, r45 and r90) to apply anisotropy
correction on the biaxial flow stress.
a. Flow stress curve is obtained, Hollomon law (Power law) =Kn
28
b. Tensile test is conducted for anisotropy coefficient (r0, r45 and r90)
by Honda.
c. Anisotropy correction factor is calculated using Eq. 20 and Eq. 21

[Hill 1948, Billur 2011].
Eq. 20

Eq. 21
Where, =
29
CHAPTER 4 INVERSE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Inverse analysis methodology was used to determine the flow stress and the
interface friction at elevated temperatures by [Cho 2003]. Following procedure is
the inverse analysis methodology applied to this study:
1) The data points on experimental punch force vs. stroke curve were
provided by Honda.
2) Material is assumed to follow Hollomons Law (=Kn) where K is

strength coefficient and n is strain hardening exponent. FE simulations
were conducted for constant K (1000 MPa) and several n values (from
0.06 to 0.6) by using the same tool geometry used in the experiments
provided by Honda and Interlaken (who built the test machine for the
dome test). Punch forces were calculated as a function of punch stroke.
3) After obtaining punch force vs. stroke curves from experiments and FE
simulations, each curve was normalized by dividing the force at various
stroke positions by the punch force at the maximum experimental stroke
(Figure 24). Normalization of the punch force vs. stroke curve on both
experiment and FE simulation was done to eliminate the effect of K on the
magnitude of the punch force vs. stroke curve. n value only affects the
shape of the punch force vs. stroke curve.
4) n values were determined by Eq. 18 which brought the minimum

difference ( ) between normalized experimental punch force vs. stroke
curve and normalized FE punch force vs. stroke curve [Cho 2005].
5) K does not affect shape of the punch force vs. punch stroke curve but
affects the magnitude of the punch force vs. stroke curve. Since FE
30
simulations were done with K = 1000 MPa, K value can be calculated by
Eq. 19. Since initial thickness of FE simulation model was 1 mm,
maximum punch force from FE simulation should be multiplied by initial
thickness. This is on approximation to be evaluated later.
Figure 25 shows inverse analysis methodology to determine n value of a tested

material.
1.0
0.8
Normalized Punch Force [kN]
0.6
0.4
0.2
780 TRIP (t = 1.0mm)
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Stroke [mm]
Final punch stroke
from exp.= 37.5 mm
Figure 24. Normalized punch force vs. stroke curve of 780 TRIP (t = 1.0mm) with
fracture at the apex of the dome
31
Initial guess of K (1000 MPa) and n (0.06)
Run FE simulations
with several n values
(n = 0.06 to 0.6)
Extract FE simulation
results
n = n + 0.01 Calculate Difference

( )
Store Difference ( )
No
n = 0.6 ?
Yes
Find minimum
Determine n value
Figure 25. Flow chart of inverse analysis methodology [Cho 2005]
32
CHAPTER 5 EXPERIMENTAL WORK AND RESULTS
5.1 Experiments and Tooling

The dome tests were conducted at Honda by using INTERLAKEN 150T press
(Figure 26). During the test, punch force and stroke data were recorded. There are
four categories of tested sheet materials: (1) ASTM 1008 Low Carbon Steel, (2)
TRIP Steel, (3) High Strength Low Alloy Steel and (4) Aluminum tempered as of
T4 condition (solution heat treated and naturally aged).
Table 1. Dome test experiment matrix [Dykeman 2011, POSCO 2012]
Equipment INTERLAKEN 150T press

JSC 270F (t = 0.8 mm)
JAC 780TRIP (t=1.0 mm and t = 1.6
Sheet Material mm)
JAC 590R (t=1.6 mm)
Al 6022-T4 (t=1.0 mm)
Sheet dimensions
165.1 mm 165.1 mm (6.5 in 6.5 in)
(length width)
Punch radius, Rp 50.8 mm (2 in)
Die corner radius, Rdie corner 6.35 mm (0.25 in)
Die diameter, Ddie 105.76 mm ( 4.16 in)
Lockbead diameter, Dlock 132.58 mm (5.22 in)
Punch stroke Until the sample fractures
Lubricants Teflon, Clay and others (given in Appendix A)
33
6.35 mm 0.25 in.
Figure 26. Schematic of the dome test [Grote 2009, Interlaken]
5.2 Test Procedure
The dome test experiments were done with the tooling described in the previous
section. The press used for these experiments is a 150 ton press manufactured by
Interlaken as shown in Figure 27.
At the beginning, the tooling is open and the sheet material is placed between die
and blankholder. When the press runs, the sheet is clamped by lockbead. Then the
solid hemispherical punch moves upward and deforms the sheet. As a result of
high clamping force and lockbead, the sheet is prevented from drawing into die
cavity. The sheet is deformed until it fractures.
With the computer controlled system, it is possible to record punch force, punch
stroke, clamp force and clamp stroke with time. From this data acquisition, punch
force vs. stroke curve can be made, and this curve is needed to determine flow
stress curve of the material.
34
Camera system
Die
Solid punch (inside)

Monitor
Blank
holder UniTest control
system
Figure 27. Dome test tooling
5.3 Output from the Dome Tests
In the dome test, punch force and punch stroke were recorded by the computer
controlled system. Since the punch force vs. stroke curve is invalid after the sheet
fractures, the data has to be deleted after fracture. Punch force vs. stroke curve is
plotted shown as Figure 28. From punch force vs. stroke curve, dome height (AC)
and maximum punch force also can be detected.
35
200
Max. punch force
=150 kN Dome height
(distance AC)
Reference
150
B
Punch Force [kN]
100
50
780 TRIP (t = 1.0mm)

A C
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Stroke [mm] Final punch stroke
from exp.= 37.5 mm
Figure 28. Punch force vs. stroke curve from experiment, 780 TRIP (t = 1.0 mm)
with lubricants of Teflon and Clay
5.4 Test Parameters and Selection of Materials

The material tested using the dome test are JSC 270F, JAC 590R, 780 TRIP and
Al 6022. These materials are widely used in stamping. The material properties
evaluated by uniaxial tensile tests are presented in Table 2.
36
Table 2. Material properties evaluated by tensile test provided by Honda
Al 6022-
Parameter Unit JSC 270F JAC 590R 780 TRIP
T4
mm 0.8 1.6 1.0 1.0

Initial sheet
thickness
inch 0.031 0.063 0.039 0.039
MPa 119 468 447 N/A

Yield Strength
psi 17,259 67,900 64,800 N/A
Ultimate MPa 283 638 811 N/A

Tensile
Strength psi 41,046 92,500 117,600 N/A
% elongation % 50.7 24.2 26.3 N/A
n-value 0.32 0.17 0.23 N/A
In Table 3, the parameters for the dome test are shown. The speed of the punch is
set to 1.35 mm/s (0.06 in/sec). The clamping force of 445 kN (100,000 lbs) and
lockbead ensured that the sheet is not drawn into the die cavity. The test specimen
is square of 165.1 mm 165.1 mm (6.5 in 6.5 in). Figure 29 shows a burst
sample of JAC 590R. The best location of the fracture is the apex of the dome to
have frictionless condition. Lubricant system will be discussed in more detail in
Section 7.5. The ring mark around the sample is formed by lockbead.
37
Table 3. Test parameters of the dome test
Parameter Metric British
Punch speed 1.35 mm/s 0.06 in/sec
Clamping force 445 kN 100,000 lbs
Diameter of the cavity of

105.76 mm 4.16 in
the die
Radius of the fillet of the

6.35 mm 0.25 in
cavity
Size of the test sample 165.1 mm 165.1 mm 6.5 in 6.5 in.
Figure 29. Top and front view of burst sample from dome test ( JAC 590R, t =
1.6mm)
38
5.5 Test Results
From experiments, punch force vs. stroke curve of three materials (JAC 590R,
780 TRIP, Al 6022) are obtained. Fracture occurred at the apex of the dome by
eliminating or minimizing the friction (combination of Teflon and Clay as
lubricants). Punch force vs. stroke curves are shown in Figure 30, 31 and 32.
Since, fracture did not occur at the apex of the dome for JSC 270F (t = 0.8mm)
and JAC 780 TRIP (t = 1.6 mm), the results are not included.
200
Max. punch force

=188 kN
150
Punch Force [kN]
100
50
JAC 590R (t = 1.6mm)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
from exp.= 43.1 mm
Figure 30. Punch force vs. stroke curve of JAC 590R (t = 1.6mm)
39
200
Max. punch force

=150 kN
150
Punch Force [kN]

100
50
780 TRIP (t = 1.0mm)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Stroke [mm]
Final punch stroke
from exp.= 37.5 mm
Figure 31. Punch force vs. stroke curve of 780 TRIP (t = 1.0mm)
200
Al 620 (t = 1.0mm)
150
Punch Force [kN]
100
50
Max. punch force
=40 kN
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
from exp.= 35.7 mm
Figure 32. Punch force vs. stroke curve of Al 6022 (t = 1.0mm)
40
CHAPTER 6 FE SIMULATIONS
FE simulations were conducted to a establish database for the dome test.

Simulations were conducted for constant K (1000 MPa) and several n values
(from 0.06 to 0.6 with 0.1 increments). The database was built using MS Excel
and has punch stroke, punch force and plastic maximum strain ( ) at the apex
of the dome from simulations. With these results, the experiment can be analyzed
to determine K & n values and maximum strain value ( ) of the sheet material.
The simulations were conducted by PAMSTAMP, a dynamic explicit code for 3-
D simulation with shell elements.
6.1 Simulation Parameters

The geometrical model in simulation is shown in Figure 33. The diameter of die
cavity (Ddie), die corner radius (Rdie corner) and punch radius (Rp) are same
dimensions as in the experimental tooling. The sheet is modeled until the
lockbead. Therefore, outer nodes of the sheet in simulation are fixed so that they
cannot draw into the die cavity. This ensures that the sheet only stretches in
biaxial direction. The geometry of the simulation is symmetric. Therefore, only
one quarter of model is simulated to reduce simulation time (Figure 33). Material
type for sheet is elastic-plastic and other tools (punch, blank holder and die) are
rigid. The sheet is modeled with 1566 elements with element size of 1.5mm.
Punch force vs. stroke curves were then used as the database of computer program
using MATLAB to determine K and n values of the sheet.
41
Sheet
Die
Blankholder
Punch
Figure 33. Quarter model of simulation at stroke of 50 mm
The flow stress of the sheet material can be described by the Hollomons Law:
Eq. 22
Range of the n values were investigated in literatures to cover n values of overall

steel and aluminum grades [POSCO 2012, Altan 2012]. Final punch stroke for FE
simulation was up to 50 mm. Since radius of the punch is 50.8 mm, it is no more
biaxial stretching after 50.8 mm. Like other usual dynamic explicit simulations,
the speed of punch was set much faster than that of the experiment to reduce
computing time. Punch velocity for these simulations was used as 5mm/ms,
appropriate value from literature [Gutscher 2004].
42
6.2 Computer Program PRODOME Using MATLAB
6.2.1 General concepts of computer program using MATLAB
A Computer program, PRODOME, was developed using MATLAB R2012b. This

PRODOME has two inputs, 1) punch force vs. stroke curve from the experiment
and 2) punch force vs. stroke curve database from FE simulations. By running the
PRODOME, punch force vs. stroke curves on both from the experiment and FE
simulations were normalized. After normalization, differences of punch force
were calculated according to n values. n value was determined by obtaining the
minimum difference between experimental normalized punch force and
normalized punch force obtained from FE simulations (Eq. 18). K was calculated
by Eq. 19. Anisotropy correction was considered in the PRODOME. More detail
about anisotropy correction will be in Section7.2. Process of the PRODOME is
illustrated in Figure 34.
Computer program
Experimental Normalize punch force vs. stroke
punch force vs. curve Determine K & n
According to experimental stroke, values and
stroke curve calculate difference between exp.
(Excel File) normalized punch force and
normalized FE punch force
Determine n value that brings
minimum difference between exp. and
simulation
Calculate K value
Consider initial thickness ( )
Consider anisotropy correction
FE simulation
database
(PAMSTAMP)
Figure 34. Process of the PRODOME
43
6.2.2 Running the PRODOME
When the PRODOME is run, it asks to open an Excel file with the experimental
punch force vs. stroke data as shown in Figure 35.
Figure 35. PRODOME window to select experimental punch force vs. stroke data
Once the punch force vs. stroke data is copied from the Excel file, the
PRODOME will ask for the initial thickness ( ) and normal anisotropy ( ) of the
sheet material as shown in Figure 36.
As shown in Figure 37, once all the parameters are entered, the punch force vs.
stroke curve is plotted on the upper right side of the screen. Punch force vs. stroke
data, initial thickness and normal anisotropy can be changed by clicking the
relevant buttons.
By clicking the yellow Calculate Stress Strain button, the PRODOME
inversely calculates K and n values, and the maximum strain. Flow stress is
plotted on the lower right side as shown in Figure 38.
44
As shown in Figure 39, true stress and true strain data can be saved in Excel file
by clicking the button below the true stress and true strain table. Plots can also be
saved by clicking the buttons.
Figure 36. PRODOME window to input initial thickness and normal anisotropy of
the sheet material
Figure 37. PRODOME window shows punch force vs. stroke curve from
experiment and buttons to renew data, initial thickness and/or normal anisotropy
45
Figure 38. PRODOME window that shows calculated flow stress curve
Figure 39. PRODOME window that shows buttons which can save data
46
CHAPTER 7 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
7.1 Determination of K and n Values of the Sheet Materials

When the PRODOME is run with input of punch force vs. stroke curve
obtained from experiment, difference ( ) of punch force vs. stroke curve was
compared between the experimental result and FE database from n value of 0.06
to 0.6. Calculated K and n values are listed in Table 4 and flow stress curves are
shown in Figure 40.
Table 4. K & n values and of the materials with isotropic assumption ( = 1)

( = plastic strain at maximum dome height (at fracture) in simulation)
Material K [MPa] n-value
JAC 590R
955 0.30 0.72
(t = 1.6mm)
TRIP 780
1335 0.28 0.54
(t = 1.0mm)
Al 6022
348 0.20 0.53
(t = 1.0mm)
47
1400
JAC 590R (t=1.6mm)
TRIP 780 (t =1.0mm)
1200
Al 620 (t=1.0mm)
1000
K = 1335 MPa, n = 0.28

True stress [MPa]
800
600
K = 955 MPa, n = 0.30

400
200
K = 348 MPa, n = 0.20
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
True strain
Figure 40. Flow stress curves of materials of JAC 590R, TRIP 780 and Al 6022
with isotropic assumption ( = 1)
7.2 Anisotropy Correction

In practice, sheet material is almost never isotropic. Since FE simulation database
was based on isotropic assumption ( ), it should be modified by obtaining
appropriate plastic anisotropy coefficients (r0, r45 and r90) from uniaxial tensile
test. Therefore, calculated flow stress curves in Section 7.1 should be corrected
for anisotropy. [Hill 1990]s anisotropic yield criteria is used. Eq. 20 and Eq. 21
shows how to calculate correction factor for anisotropy correction [Hill 1948,
48
Hill 1990, Nasser 2010, Billlur 2011]. Normal anisotropies are calculated for the
materials as shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Normal anisotropy of the materials (provided by Honda)
JAC 780 TRIP

JAC 590R (t=1.6mm)
(t=1.0mm)
Normal anisotropy ( ) 0.573 0.955
Plastic ratio along

parallel to rolling 0.45 0.86
direction ( )
Plastic ratio along

diagonal to rolling 0.51 1.01
direction ( )
Plastic ratio along

transverse to rolling 0.82 0.94
direction ( )
7.3 Comparison of the Flow Stress Curves
7.3.1 Tensile test vs. dome test
Flow stress curves obtained from the dome test and tensile test were compared as
shown in Figures 41 and 42. Flow stress curves obtained from the dome test were
anisotropy corrected as discussed in Section 7.2. Since tensile test result of Al
49
6022 (t = 1.0 mm) was not available, flow stress curve comparison could not be
made for Al.
1400
Dome test w/o anisotropy
1200 Dome test w anisotropy
Tensile test
1000 K = 1117 MPa, n = 0.30, = 0.64

True Stress [MPa]
800
600
K = 955 MPa, n = 0.30, = 0.72
400
K = 984 MPa, n = 0.18, = 0.15
200
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
True Strain
Figure 41. Comparison of flow stress curves obtained from the dome test
(isotropic, anisotropic) and the tensile test for JAC 590R (t = 1.6 mm)
50
1400
Dome test w/o anisotropy
Dome test w anisotropy
1200
Tensile test
1000
True Stress [MPa]
K = 1355 MPa, n = 0.28, = 0.53

800
K = 1335 MPa, n = 0.28, = 0.54

600
400
K = 1507 MPa, n = 0.26, = 0.15
200
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
True Strain
Figure 42. Comparisons flow stress curves obtained from the dome test (isotropic,
anisotropic) and tensile test for JAC 780 TRIP (t = 1.6 mm)
7.3.2 VPB test vs. Dome test from DEFORM and PAMSTAMP
In a preliminary study on the dome test, JAC 270E (t = 0.69 mm) was used for
sheet material[Demiralp 2011]. In the report, K and n values were determined by
conducting FE simulation using DEFORM. K and n values from VPB test was
also reported on this report. To calculate K and n values from the PRODOME
(based on PAMSTAMP), 10 digitized points of punch force vs. stroke curve
(Figure 43) (experimental dome test) were used as input to the PRODOME. Table
6 describes each K and n values from VPB test, DEFORM and PAMSTAMP.
51
Figure 43. Digitized punch force vs. stroke curve obtained from dome test
experiment (JAC 270E)
Table 6. Determined parameters from VPB test (w/o considering anisotropy),

DEFORM and PAMSTAMP
PAMSTAMP
Parameters VPB test [MPa] DEFORM [MPa]
[MPa]
K 691 711 680
n 0.265 0.25 0.25
52
800
VPB test
700 DEFORM K = 711 MPa, n = 0.25
PAMSTAMP
600
True Stress [MPa]
500
K = 680 MPa, n = 0.25
400
300 K = 691 MPa, n = 0.265
200
100
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
True Strain
Figure 44. Comparison K and n values among VPB test, DEFORM and
PAMSTAMP
7.4 Zero Point Adjustment

When punch force vs. stroke curve from experiment is copied to the PRODOME,
zero point adjustment is important. When the experiment is started, punch force
has some fluctuations depending on the experimental conditions. These
fluctuations should be deleted to adjust the zero point. The adjustment has
significant effect on n values as shown in Figure 45. To avoid error due to zero
point adjustment, it is good to find the point where punch force starts to increase
continuously.
53
200 1200
good zero point adjustment (A)
shifted zero point adjustment (B)
1000
A
150
K = 955 MPa, n = 0.30
800
True Stress [MPa]

Punch Force [kN]
B
100 600
K = 980 MPa, n = 0.52
400
50
200 good zero point adjustment (A)

shifted zero point adjustment (B)
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Stroke [mm] True Strain
(a) (b)
Figure 45. (a) Punch force vs. stroke curve with good zero point adjustment and
shifted zero point adjustment (b) flow stress curve of good zero point adjustment
and shifted zero point adjustment
To extablish a good method to make a zero point adjustment, one test was done
by stopping the punch at 1 inch before fracture occurred at the sample of JSC
270F (t = 0.8 mm) as shown in Figure 46. Dome height (AC from Figure 28) was
measured with height gage. The zero point on the experimental load vs. stroke
curve was determined, i.e., measured AC on the sample and maximum stroke on
the load vs. stroke curve were equal.
Figure 46. Reference sample of JSC 270F (t = 0.8 mm) for calibration, stroke up
to 1.00 inch
54
7.5 Lubrication System
To obtain the flow stress curve accurately, maximum thinning should occur at the
apex of the dome as in the VPB test. However, fracture does not occur always at
the apex of the dome in the dome test. When friction exists, maximum thinning
occurs away from the apex of the dome as shown in Figure 47. Therefore, it is
necessary to know how much angle of the fracture ( in Figure 47) is acceptable
to use the flow stress curve obtained from the dome test. In this Section,
percentage error between reference sample (of which fracture occurred at the apex)
and other samples are calculated.
Necking when friction = 0

Necking moves with increased friction
Figure 47. Change in the location of maximum thinning with increased of

coefficient of friction
7.5.1 Preliminary Evaluation Lubricant Test
In these dome tests, various lubricants were used to eliminate the friction between
the punch and the sheet. Lubricants applied to the experiments are described in
APPENDIX A.
55
For JSC 270F (t = 0.8 mm), samples were tested with a number of combinations
of lubricants listed in APPENDIX B. However, all samples showed fracture far
from the apex. For a different way to obtain fracture at the apex, punch stroke was
stopped after some distance and lubricants were renewed. This procedure also
could not help to obtain fracture at the apex of the dome (APPENDIX B). Dome
height and maximum punch force did not much change after renewing lubricants.
Also, for JAC 780 TRIP (t = 1.6 mm), fracture did not occur at the apex of the
dome with the same lubrication condition that caused fracture at the apex for
other thickness (t = 1.0 mm) and other materials (JAC 590R and Al 6022). as
shown in Figure 48 .
Fracture Fracture Fracture
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 48. Dome test sample of JAC 780 TRIP (t = 1.6 mm) with lubricant of
Teflon and Clay of (a) sample 1, (b) sample 2 and (c) sample 3
7.5.2 Measurement of angle of fractures
To measure the angle of fracture from the apex, Figure 49, AutoCAD software
was used. After the photo of a sample is taken from front side as in Figure 49, it
56
was exported to AutoCAD and the radius was measured. Ruler was set together
beside of the sample to obtain absolute radius of the dome.
Fracture
Figure 49. Measuring the angle of fracture using AutoCAD software (780 TRIP
with no lubrication, t = 1.0 mm)
The angle () can be calculated by using Eq. 23:
Eq. 23
where l is curvature length from the apex of the dome to the fracture, and r is
radius of the dome. r is measured by making 3 points circle fit of the sample in
Auto CAD. Reference samples for each material are considered to be used as
follows:
JAC 590R (t = 1.6 mm) with lubricants of Teflon and Clay,
57
JAC 780 TRIP (t = 1.0 mm) with lubricants of Hydro Aluminums
suggestion (7 layer system conceiting of lanolin/Teflon
foil/lanolin/Mipolam (2 mm thick)/lanolin/Teflon foil/lanolin),
Al 6022 (t = 1.0 mm) with lubricants of Teflon and Clay.
Angle of the fractures of the reference samples were measured to be smaller than
2 degrees. Average percentage error of the flow stress curve is calculated by using
Eq. 24:
Eq. 24
where i corresponds to the strain with increment of 0.01 until maximum strain
( ) of either reference flow stress ( ) or objective flow stress ( ). Flow
stress curve with different angles of fracture for each material are shown in
Figures 50, 51 and 52. Lubrication system which contains percentage error at the
angle where fracture occurred, maximum strain and dome height are shown in
Figures 53, 54 and 55.
58
1400
AB
CD
1200
1000 D
True Stress [MPa]

800
A, B, C
600
400
A: fracture at 2 deg.
B: fracture at 12 deg.
200 C: fracture at 16 deg.
D: fracture at 46 deg.
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
True Strain
Figure 50. Flow stress curve with angle of fractures () for JAC 590R (t = 1.6mm)
1400
D
AB C 1200 A
D EF
1000 B, C
G
True Stress [MPa]
800
600
400
200 C: fracture at 7 deg.
D: fracture at 12 deg.
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
True Strain
Figure 51. Flow stress curve with angle of fractures () for 780 TRIP (t = 1.0mm)
59
400
AB
C
300
A, B, C
True Stress [MPa]

200
100
C: fracture at 38 deg.
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
True Strain
Figure 52. Flow stress curve with angle of fractures () for Al 6022 (t = 1.0mm)
0.8 50
AB Maximum Strain
Dome Height
CD
40
0.6
Dome Height [mm]

30
Max. Strain
0.4 Reference 0.6 % error 0.9 % error 25 % error
20
0.2
10
0.0 0
A B C D
(2 deg.) (12 deg.) (16 deg.) (46 deg.)
of fracture () for JAC 590R (t = 1.6mm)
60
0.8 50
Maximum Strain
Dome Height [mm]
AB C
D EF 0.6
40
Dome Height [mm]

G 30
Max. Strain
0.4
20
Reference 6 %
0.2
7% 10 % 8% 22 % 21 %
error error error error error error 10
0.0 0
A B C D E F G
(2 deg.) (5 deg.) (7 deg.) (15 deg.) (20 deg.)(47 deg.) (49 deg.)
of fracture () for 780 TRIP (t = 1.0mm)
0.8 50
Maximum Strain
AB Dome Height
C 40
0.6
Dome Height [mm]

30
Max. Strain
0.4
20
0.2
Reference 0.6 % error 2 % error 10
0.0 0
A B C
(2 deg.) (5 deg.) (38 deg.)
of fracture () for Al 6022 (t = 1.0mm)
For JAC 590R (t = 1.6 mm), simulations were conducted with different
coefficient of friction (0.050.35 with 0.05 increments). For K and n values for
flow stress curve to input, 955 MPa and 0.30 are used as same as the reference
61
sample of JAC 590R has. Punch stroke was up to 35.6 mm to obtain coefficient of
friction in dry condition (46 degree of angle of fracture shown in Figure 53). At
maximum thinning distribution, the location of maximum thinning (possible
fracture) could be predicted. Angle of fracture were calculated by using same
methodology which were used for measurement of angle of fractures on
experimental samples.
Minimum angle
Maximum angle
(a)
50
46.2
43.8
42.1
40 40.4 41.4 40.4
Angle of Fracture [deg.]
39.8
36.4 38.0
34.2
30 30.0
27.9
20
17.4
15.2
10
0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Coefficient of Friction
(b)
Figure 56. Angle of fracture from apex () with increasing friction (JAC 590R, t =
1.6 mm) (simulations)
62
Because of element size, minimum angle of fracture and maximum angle of
fracture were calculated as shown in Figure 56 (a). In Figure 56 (b), angle of
fracture are described as a function of coefficient of friction. In this result, JAC
590R sample in dry condition (46 deg.) has coefficient of friction approximately
of 0.35 (Figure 56 (b)).
63
CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
Obtaining and using precise material property is important for designing stamping
process. Only accurate inputs to FE simulations give reliable outputs. The dome
test is a material test for sheet materials to evaluate formability and determine the
flow stress curve. Since the stress state of the dome test is biaxial, the maximum
achievable strain without localized necking is much larger than that of the tensile
test.
In this study, inverse analysis methodology was used to obtain flow stress curves
(assumed to be following Hollomons Law: ) from punch force vs.
stroke curves of the tested sheet materials. (JAC 590R (t = 1.6 mm), JAC 780
TRIP (t = 1.0mm) and Al 6022 (t = 1.0 mm)). From experiments, punch force vs.
stroke curves were recorded. PRODOME was developed using MATLAB with
database obtained from FE simulations (K = 1000 MPa, n = 0.06 ~ 0.6 with 0.01
increments). By running the PRODOME, K & n and maximum plastic strain
( ) can be determined. Also, lubrication system was investigated when
friction cannot be eliminated.
Fracture did not occur at the apex of the dome of JSC 270F (t = 0.8mm).
For future work, it is desirable to try with combination of lubricants of
beef tallow which is oil that performs high viscosity, and urethane. It is
reported that lubricant causes fracture to occur at the apex of the dome for
both mild steel and high strength steel. Garbage bag can also be
considered to try to be used as lubricant.
With the same lubricants which successfully worked for JAC 780 TRIP (t
= 1.0mm), the thicker material (JAC 780T, t=1.6mm) did not give the
64
fracture at the apex because friction stress which is dependent on interface
pressure is higher for thicker material. (Coulombs law, Friction stress ( )
= Coefficient of friction ()*Pressure (p)).
K & n and are determined for following materials:
o JAC 590R (t = 1.6 mm): K = 1117 MPa, n = 0.30 and = 0.64

(with normal anisotropy of 0.573)
o JAC 780 TRIP (t = 1.0 mm): K = 1355 MPa, n = 0.28, = 0.53

(with normal anisotropy of 0.955)
o Al 6022 (t = 1.0 mm): K = 348 MPa, n = 0.20, = 0.53 (with

isotropic assumption)
In comparison of the flow stress curve between the tensile test and the
dome test, flow stress curve for JAC 590R gets closer to the flow stress
curve from the tensile test. For JAC 780 TRIP, flow stress curve did not
change much after anisotropy correction.
In a sample of 1.6mm thick JAC 590R, the flow stress curve determined
by the dome test with anisotropy correction was up to a true strain of 0.64,
whereas by the tensile test, it was up to 0.15. For sample of 1.0mm thick
JAC 780 TRIP, the flow stress curve determined by the dome test with
anisotropy correction was up to a true strain of 0.53, whereas by the
tensile test, it was up to 0.15.
The flow stress curve obtained from the VPB test, was compared with the
dome test analysis using DEFORM and using PAMSTAMP. The flow
stress curve from PAMSTAMP follows well the result from VPB test
(average 1% error). Between the VPB test and the dome test using the
DEFORM, average error is approximately 5%.
65
The Dome Test allows, under biaxial deformation, the determination of:
(a) the flow stress curve up to larger strains compared to the tensile test
and (b) formability under biaxial stretch.
It is important to be aware of zero point adjustment. By cutting

fluctuations at the beginning of the punch force vs. stroke curves recorded
from experiments, continuous punch force vs. stroke curve should be
obtained. For one sample of JSC 270F (t = 0.8 mm), experiment was
conducted and stopped at 1 inch of the dome height not having fracture.
As a result, measured dome height was used to calibrate zero point
adjustment. For future idea, it is better to conduct two experiments for
each material, one for (a) the formability of the material by obtaining
fracture at the apex and the other for (b) purpose of calibration by stopping
punch before fracture occurs. And the dome height of the sample can be
measure by either Coordinate-Measuring Machine (CMM) or height gage.
Lubricants of Teflon + Clay reduce friction well for JAC 780T (t=1.0mm),
JAC 590R (t=1.6mm) and Al 6022 (1.0 mm) and they are easy to use
compared to Hydro Aluminums suggestion.
In lubrication system, percentage errors of the flow stress curve between

reference sample and objective samples were investigated:
o JAC 590R (t = 1.6 mm): up until 16 degrees of angle of fracture,

the percentage errors were less than 1 %.
o JAC 780TRIP (t = 1.0 mm): until approximately 20 degrees, the

percentage errors were less than 10 %.
o Al 6022 (t = 1.0 mm): there were small percentage errors (under

2 %) in overall range of angle of fractures (2 deg., 5 deg. and 38
deg.)
66
This study attempted to investigate the errors introduced when the fracture
occurred away from the apex. However, more work is needed with other
sheet materials to establish guidelines for the proper used of the dome test.
67
REFERENCES
Altan, T., Oh, S., and Gegel, H. L., Metal Forming: Fundamentals and
Applications, American Society for Metals, (1983).
Altan, T., "Metal Forming Processes in Manufacturing", Ch. 4 in Handbook of

Sheet Metal Forming, (2012).
ASM/NADDRG: Recommended referee practice for the LDH test, (1987).
ASM/NADDRG: Final report of the LDH committee, (1990).
ASTM E 6-09b: Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Methods of

Mechanical Testing, (2009).
ASTM B 557: Standard Methods of Tension Testing Wrought and Cast

Aluminum and Magnesium Alloy Products, (2010).
ASTM B 557M: Standard Methods of Tension Testing of Wrought and Cas

Aluminum and Magnesium Products (Metric), (2010).
ASTM E 83 Rev a: Standard Practice for Verification and Classification of

Extensometers, (2010).
ASTM E8/E8M-11: Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic

Materials, (2011).
ASTM A 370: Standard Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel
Products, (2012).
ASTM E 1012: Standard Practice for Verification of Testing Frame and Specimen
Alignment Under Tensile and Compressive Axial Force Application, (2012).
Ayers, R. A., Brazier, W.G. and Sajewski, V. F., J. Appl. Metal working,
1,(1979).
Billur, E. and Ko, M., " a Comparative Study on Hydraulic Bulge Testing and
Analysis Methods ", Proceedings of the 2008 International Manufacturing
Science and Engineering Conference, (2008).
68
Billur, E., et al., Factor Affecting the Accuracy of Flow Stress Determined by the
Bulge Test, Steel Research Journal, (2011).
Cho, H., Determination of flow stress and interface friction at elevated

temperatures by inverse analysis technique, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 170, (2005).
Cho, H., Ngaile, G. and Altan, T.,2003, Simultaneous determination of flow

stress and interface friction by finite element based inverse analysis technique,
Annals of the CIRP Vol. 52/1/2003, pp. 221-224, (2003).
Davis, J.R., Tensile Testing, 2nd Edition, ASM International. ISBN 0-87170-806-
X, (2004).
Demiralp, Y., et al., Determination of Flow Stress by using Dome Test and
Finite Element Based Inverse Analysis Preliminary Study, CPF report-
2.1/11/01, (2011).
Doege, E., Behrens, B.A., ed. Handbuch Umformtechnik (Metalforming

Handbook, in German), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, (2010).
Dykeman, J., Strain Limit Analysis for JAC 270E_3, (2011).
Euronorm 2-80: Tensile Testing on Steel (Revision), (1980).
Ghosh, A.K., Metals Eng. Quarter 15(53), (1975).
Gronostajski, Z., The constitutive equations for FEM analysis, Journal of

Materials Processing Technology 106, 40-44 ,(2000).
Grote, K.H. and Antonsson, E.K., ed. Springer Handbook of Mechanical

Engineering, Springer, Wrzburg, (2009).
Grote, K.H. and Antonsson, E.K., Eds., Springer Handbook of Mechanical

Engineering, Springer, (2009).
Gutscher, G., Wu, H., Ngaile, G., and Altan, T., Determination of flow stress for
sheet metal forming using the viscous pressure bulge (VPB) test, Journal of
Materials Processing Technology Vol.146, pp.1-7, (2004).
Hecker, S. S., Met. Engr Q. v. 14, (1974).
69
Hill, R., A Theory of the yielding and plastic flow of anisotropic metals,
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 193A, p.281-297, (1948).
Hill, R.: A Theory of Plastic Bulging of a Metal Diaphragm by Lateral Pressure,

Philosophical Magazine Series 7 (41), 1133-1142, (1950).
Hill, R., "Constitutive modeling of orthotropic plasticity in sheet metals", Journal

of Mechanical Physics of Solids 38, 405417., (1990).
Hosford, W.F. and Caddell, R.M.. Metal Forming: Mechanics and Metallurgy, 3rd
Edition, Cambridge University Press . ISBN 978-0-521-88121-0., (2007).
ISO 6892: Metallic materials Tensile testing Part 1: Method of test at room
temperature - First Edition, (2009).
Kalpakjian, S. and Schmid, S., Manufacturing Processes for Engineering

Materials, 5th ed., Pearson Education, (2008).
Kaya, S., T. Altan, T., Groche, P., Klpsch, C.,: Determination of the flow stress
of magnesium AZ31-O sheet at elevated temperatures using the hydraulicbulge
test, International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 48 550-557., (2008).
Kruglov, A. A., Enikeev, F. U., Lutfullin, R. Ya.: Superplastic forming of a

spherical shell out a welded envelope, Materials Science and Engineering A323
416-426., (2002).
Lange, K., ed. Handbook of Metal Forming, McGraw-Hill, New York , (1985).
Marciniak, Z., J.L. Duncan and S.J. Hu. Mechanics of Sheet Metal Forming,
Butterworth Heinemann ISBN 0-7506-5300-0, (2002).
Narasimhan, K., Miles, M.P., Wagoner, R.H., A Better sheet-formability test,

Journal of Materials Processing Technology Vol 50, pp. 385-394, (1995).
Nasser, A., Yadav, A., Pathak, P., Altan, T., Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 210 429436., (2010).
Ngaile, G., Altan, T. Model Test to Evaluate Lubricants and Die coatings in Tube
Hydroforming, Report No. THF/ERC/NSM-99-R-4, (1999).
Ngaile, G., Gutscher, G. and Altan, T. Evaluation of Friction and Formability in

Stamping: Practical Methods for Production, presented at the Sheet Forming
Conference, April 12/13, Detroit, MI, Stamping Journal, Sept/Oct,p.26. , (2000).
70
Paul, S.K., "Predicting the flow behavior of metals under different strain rate and
temperature through phenomenological modeling", Computer Materials Science
65 , p. 91-99, (2012).
Pohlandt, K., "Determining of Flow Curves of Sheet Metal", Ch. 3 in Handbook

of Materials Testing for the Metal Forming Industry, (1989).
POSCO, Automotive Steel Data Book, (2012).
Ranta-Eskola, A. J.: Use Of The Hydraulic Bulge Test In Biaxial Tensile Testing,
Int. J. of Mech. Sciences 21 p.457-465., (1979).
Slota, J., Spik, E.: Determination of Flow Stress by the Hydraulic Bulge Test,
Metalurgija 47, (2008).
Totten, G.E. and MacKenzie, D.S., ed. Handbook of Aluminum, Volume 1:

Physical Metallurgy and Process, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY, (2003).
71
APPENDIX A: Lubricants list
Lanolin (sheep wool fat/wax spray type) from TriState Distributors, Inc
(Product info: http://tsdnetwork.com/Fluid-Film.php)
Mipolam Elegance 290/ 0131 Opal (2mm thick) from Gerflor North
America (Product info: http://www.gerflor.com/int/floors-for-
professionals/product-page/mipolam-elegance-290,8.html)
Teflon foil: Honda uses Teflon sheets (thickness=0.1mm) and this

lubricant is offered by Honda (product of Grainger).
Clay offered by Honda
Hydro-Aluminums Suggestion: To achieve a nearly friction-less state, 7

layer system.
557 Silicon: Dow Corning Silicone Dry Film 557 (Product info:
http://www.firstpowergroupllc.com/DCC_Product_Sheets/Molykote_557.
pdf)
Gr spray: CRC Industrial Dry Graphite Lubricant Spray
Rubbers are offered by Honda
o Rubber 1: Rubber Burna-N (a type of Nitrile rubber)1/16 in thick

(Grainger Item# 2UNR1:
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/wwg/search.shtml?searchQuery
=2UNR1&op=search&Ntt=2UNR1&N=0&GlobalSearch=true&ss
t=subset )
o Rubber 2: Thin and stretchy more than that of Rubber 1.
72
APPENDIX B: Evaluation lubricant tests for high formability material (JSC
270F, t = 0.8 mm)
Various combination of lubricants
Max. Max.
sam
Lube Punch Punch
ple pic note
condition force Stroke
#
[lbs] [inch]
Fracture
1 557Si+Gr 15899 1.432
557Si+Teflo
n+557Si+Ru
2 bber2+557Si 16455 1.64 Fracture
+Teflon+557
Si
Fracture
3 557Si 15972 1.441
Fracture
4 557Si 16212 1.471
73
5 2 layered Fracture
16215 1.622
Teflon
Necking
6 Dry 15449 1.399
7 Dry 15385 1.392
8 Dry 15257 1.376 Necking
Fracture
9 Lanolin 15900 1.443
74
ME290 - Fracture
10 2.05mm 16323 1.335
thick
Punch is
covered
11 Punch
15077 1.402
Teflon Fracture with
Teflon.
Fracture
12 Rubber1+Cl
16827 1.673
ay
Rubber1+Te Necking
13 17886 1.616
flon+Clay
14 Rubber1+Te Fracture
16951 1.651
flon+clay
75
Rubber1+Ru
15 bber2+Teflo 17288 1.619 Fracture
n+Clay
Fracture
16 Teflon 16862 1.652
17 Teflon+Clay 16405 1.692 Fracture
18 Teflon+Clay 16808 1.723 Fracture
19 Teflon-Clay-
16654 1.648 Fracture
557Si
76
Different punch stroke
Max.
sam Max.
Lube Punch
ple Punch pic note
condition Stroke
# force [lbs]
[inch]
Out of
Teflon +
1 center of
Clay
punch
reference
sample for
Teflon + calibration
2 N/A N/A
Clay of 2 stage
up to
1.00"
2stage:
3
Teflon +
16077 1.759
Fracture 1.0''
Clay stop/failur
e
Teflon + Fracture
4 16468 1.761 non stop
Clay
Teflon + Fracture
5 15414 1.472 non stop
Clay
2stage:
6
Teflon +
15899 1.779 Fracture 1.2''
Clay stop/failur
e
77
3stage:
Teflon +
12 15758 1.723 Fracture 1.00''/1.4''/
Clay
failure
78

Osu 1354563712

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Osu 1354563712

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

EVALUATION OF FORMABILITY AND DETERMINATION OF FLOW

STRESS CURVE OF SHEET MATERIALS WITH DOME TEST

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of

Graduate Program in Mechanical Engineering

The Ohio State University

Master's Examination Committee:

Taylan Altan, Advisor

Determination of flow stress curve of sheet material is important for designing

FE simulations are performed in order to understand the deformation process in

This document is dedicated to my parent, my sister and friends

February 2006 ............................................ Se-Hwa Girls High School

2010........................................................... B.S. Mechanical Engineering,

2011 to present ..............................................Graduate Research Associate,

Engineering, The Ohio State

Major Field: Mechanical Engineering

Dedication .............................................................................................................. iii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 1

CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND ............................................................... 3

2.1 Uniaxial Tensile Test .................................................................... 4

2.2 Biaxial Tension Test ................................................................... 16

2.2.1 Cupping tests ......................................................................... 16

2.2.2 Limiting Dome Height (LDH) Test ....................................... 17

2.2.3 Bulge Test .............................................................................. 20

2.2.4 Dome Test (extension of LDH test) ....................................... 24

CHAPTER 3 OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH .................................. 25

3.1 Objectives .................................................................................... 25

3.2 Approach ..................................................................................... 25

CHAPTER 4 INVERSE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY .................... 30

5.1 Experiments and Tooling ............................................................ 33

5.2 Test Procedure ............................................................................. 34

5.3 Output from the Dome Tests ....................................................... 35

5.4 Test Parameters and Selection of Materials ................................ 36

5.5 Test Results ................................................................................. 39

CHAPTER 6 FE SIMULATIONS ......................................................... 41

6.1 Simulation Parameters ................................................................ 41

6.2 Computer Program PRODOME Using MATLAB ................. 43

6.2.1 General concepts of computer program using MATLAB ..... 43

6.2.2 Running the PRODOME ....................................................... 44

CHAPTER 7 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................... 47

7.1 Determination K and n Values of the Sheet Materials ................ 47

7.2 Anisotropy Correction ................................................................. 48

7.3 Comparison of the Flow Stress Curves ....................................... 49

7.3.1 Tensile test vs. dome test ....................................................... 49

7.4 Zero Point Adjustment ................................................................ 53

7.5 Lubrication System ..................................................................... 55

7.5.2 Measurement of angle of fractures ........................................ 56

CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............................. 64

APPENDIX A: Lubricants list .............................................................................. 72

APPENDIX B: Evaluation lubricant tests for high formability material (JSC

270F, t = 0.8 mm) ................................................................................................. 73

Table 1. Dome test experiment matrix [Dykeman 2011, POSCO 2012].............. 33

Table 2. Material properties evaluated by tensile test provided by Honda ........... 37

Table 3. Test parameters of the dome test ............................................................ 38

Table 4. K & n values and of the materials with isotropic assumption ( =

Table 5. Normal anisotropy of the materials (provided by Honda) ...................... 49

Table 6. Determined parameters from VPB test (w/o considering anisotropy),

DEFORM and PAMSTAMP ................................................................................ 52

Figure 1. Tensile test specimen, according to ASTM E8 [Altan 2012, ASTM

Figure 2. Schematic of a fixture used in a tensile test [Altan 2012] ....................... 5

test [Altan 2012] ..................................................................................................... 5

state [Hosford 2007] ............................................................................................... 8

[Hosford 2007, Altan 2012] .................................................................................... 9

strain hardening, and (d) Constant ........................................................................ 10

Figure 9. Schematic representation of stress-strain conditions for necking in