V.

Vujovic
Professor,
Faculty of Technical Sciences,
University of Novi Sad, Yugoslavia
A. H. Shabaik
Professor of Engineering,
University of California,
Los Angeles, CA 90024
A New Workability Criterion for
Ductile Metals
The forming limit curves are important aids in determining the extent of deforma-
tion a material can be subjected to during a forming process. In this paper a forming
limit criterion for bulk metalworking processes, based on the magnitude of the
hydrostatic component and the effective stress of the state of stress, is proposed.
The determination of the forming limit curve by means of three simple tests,
namely, tension, compression, and torsion tests, is presented.

Introduction
The forming limit in metalworking is a complex
phenomenon that depends both on the material and the defor-
mation process parameters. Workability is a term used to
define the degree of deformation during a metalforming
operation that a material can be subjected to without failure.
Ductility of a material is generally defined by the strain at
fracture. In metalworking applications, ductility is not a
unique property of the material; it depends on the local state
of stress and strain rate in combination with material
characteristics such as microstructure, inclusion content and
morphology, and grain size; and the condition along tool-
workpiece interface. Control of these parameters may thus be
exercised to produce conditions favorable for enhanced defor-
mation to fracture [1, 2]. As a result of the interactive nature
of these parameters, workability is not easily quantified. Ac-
curate forming limit charts are highly desirable because of
their tremendous aid to both the design and manufacturing
engineers. Numerous investigations on forming limits and
ductility of materials can be found in the literature [4-19].
Most bulk forming processes (e.g., forging, rolling, extru-
sion), in contrast to sheet metal forming processes, involve
stress states that are predominantly compressive; however,
secondary tensile stresses at specific locations in any of these
processes can develop [3] leading to fracture initiation. Frac-
ture, therefore, determines the extent of deformation or the
forming limit in bulk metalworking process.
In this paper a forming limit criterion for bulk metalwork-
ing processes, based on the magnitude of the hydrostatic com-
ponent and the effective stress of the stress state (the first in-
variant of the stress tensor and the second invariant of the
deviatoric stress tensor), is proposed. The determination of
the forming limit curve (FLC) by means of three simple tests is
presented.
Workability Criteria
Metalworking processes involve plastic deformation that
results in the change of both the cross-sectional area of the
Workpiece and of its overall shape. Different metalworking
Processes produce different stress states during deformation.
Contributed by the Materials Division for publication in the JOURNAL OF
ENGINEERING MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received
Materials Division, July 26, 1985.
Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology
Copyright © 1986 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/14/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
These processes may be classified into the following two main
categories:
1. Sheet metalworking processes are characterized by a
plane state of stress that falls in the range from a uniaxial ten-
sion to an equibiaxial tension. For sheet metalforming under
biaxial tension (tension-tension region), Keeler and Backofen
[4] introduced the idea of a forming limit diagram (FLD)
based on the surface major and minor strains ex and e2. The
extension of the forming limit diagram into the tension-
compression region was proposed by Goodwin [5] in 1968.
The forming limit curve (FLC) for the entire range of e2/ex =
— 0.5 to 1.0, (which is also representative of the forming
modes for stretching and drawing of sheet metals), is indicated
by a plot of the limits of e{ and e2 as shown in Fig. 1 [6]. Any
combination of the two surface strains ex and e2 falling below
the FLC is considered acceptable. Point A on the curve
represents plane strain condition.
2. Bulk metalworking processes produce a state of stress
that is generally triaxial with the major stress components be-
ing compressive. When one of the stress components becomes
tensile at some points in the deformation region, fracture is
the limiting factor for these processes.
While numerous investigations on the prediction and deter-
mination of the FLC for sheet metals can be found in the
literature, very few publications can be found on the forming
limit condition in bulk metalworking processes.
Cockcroft [7] proposed a criterion based on the tensile
strain energy density. This criterion emphasizes the impor-
tance of the tensile stress component on fracture. The criterion
has been applied by a number of investigators (8, 9) to a vari-
ety of cold- and hot-working processes with varying degrees of
success.
As an outgrowth of experimental evidence of the impor-
tance of the spherical (hydrostatic) component of stress state
on fracture, we propose for our workability criterion the use
of a parameter /3 defined as follows:
P= ^ - ^ = - (1)
o V37,
where am is the mean or hydrostatic stress component.
is the effective stress component
by the
(a1 - a2)2 + (o-2 - CT3)2 + (CT3 - °x)2~
-[-'
JULY 1986, Vol. 108/245
 AK Sleel

MAJOR STRAIN

<> e
l (%)
* (, 120-

D
V
\^ 110- O Success

•S\ "^ O Neck

\ "^ ® Fracture

V* 100-

90-
FAItURE

4<Vi:> 80- -«

8
70-
V
• Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of the proposed forming limit curve for bulk
metalworking processes
«• V
V
60- .£• ac
JO
V

; \p53- J' I «.-*z

5^1 o I %= 0
62=0

SAFE SAFE
^,
-^v

-%
V
Specimen w-dlh and lubncalion
63=0
c- •c 63=0

C 5 5 in - Oly o fl m - 2 v in coWu'&tftane spacer

.A S i n -Dry
"7 4 in - Neoprene and oil 30- ^ 8 m - ; in polyurelhane spacer (mc )

'"J 1 4 tn • Neoprene and otl (mc - If _ fl in • Neopfene and oil

8 in - 3 sneets polyethylene and oil (mc )
,__, 4 m - Neoprene and oil (mc )
V 8 in - 3 sheets polyethylene and oil
3 2 in - Dry
20- u 8 in - Dfy
\) 2 in - Neoprene and oil (mc )
6 in - Dfy
O 1 in - Neoprene and oil -1 — - f t 0 t/S—- 1
5 m - Neoprene and oil (inc )
c= Tensile specimen - 0°
0 Tensile specimens -45° 10- Fig. 3 IS values for tension, compression, and torsion

1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-10 0 10
For bulk metalworking processes (Category 2 above) f3 is <
MINOR STRAIN - e,(*>
1.0. It is this range that is the main aim of our investigation.
Fig. 1 Sheet metalforming limit curve for aluminum-killed steel [6] For these processes we propose the following equation for the
forming limit strain (j>e:
ax, a2, CT3 is the principal stress tensor.
Jx is the first stress invariant of the stress tensor = ax + a2 +
3/ 2
I2 is the second stress invariant of the stress deviators Values of /3 < 1 represent a wide range of bulk metalform-
ing processes ranging from simple tensile (/3 = 1) to drawing,
(<*i - °i)2 + (a2 - a3)2 + (<J3 - <7,)2 rolling, forging, extrusion, etc. (/3 < 1). A schematic diagram
showing the general shape of the forming limit line (FLL) is
For the two main categories (1 and 2) previously described, given in Fig. 2. When (3 = 0 the state of stress is a pure
the range of /? can be found as follows: deviatoric stress resulting in a purely octahedral shear stress
For sheet metalworking processes the range of stress is from case. The positive or negative values of /3 correspond to an ad-
a uniaxial tension to an equibiaxial tension. dition of a positive spherical stress tensor (hydrostatic tension)
For uniaxial tension or a negative spherical stress tensor (hydrostatic pressure).
For the determination of the forming limit curve proposed
J
applied» by equation (2), the stress components and the strain com-
1 ponents at the limiting condition must be known. For the pur-
and J
pose of demonstrating the application of the proposed
"IT applied

criterion, three tests that are relatively easy and inexpensive to

3<7„, conduct are selected. These tests are the tension, the torsion,
.\/3 = — - = 1 . 0 and the compression tests (Fig. 3).
a
For equibiaxial tension (a, = a2 o) 1 Axial Compression Test. This test under ideal fric-
tionless conditions results in a purely uniaxial compressive
a= a
state of stress during the entire deformation process. In this
2 case if a specimen of an original diameter DQ and original
and height H0 is compressed, the final diameter will increase from
D0 to Df and final height will decrease from HQ to Hf. The
3ff„: state of stress and strain is as follows:
.0 = - = 2.0
ar = ag = 0, a,„ = ——
For plane strain case (point A on Fig. 1) /3 = 1.5.
Therefore, for sheet metalworking processes (Category 1) the
range for (3 is 1.0 > <3 > 2.0. This indicates that hydrostatic 3<7„
Therefore (3 = 1.0
tension will always be present in this case.

246 /Vol. 108, JULY 1986 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/14/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 ~:.:- ,. ."'"; ~. -:-; r=~: .... ~25dia
,

:.:
I·
:to

6h;0 6h • 0

IJ')
N

6h; 0.165" 6 h. 0.165"

,23.4
Fig. 5 Specimen geometry-compression test
dia = 25 mm, height = 25 mm

6h;0.315"

Fig. 6 Specimen geometry-torsion test

dia= 15 mm, gage length =
130 mm
6h=0.40g" 6h = 0.401 ..
(0) UNLUBRICATfD I b} LUBRICATED
Specimens of the geometry shown in Fig. 5, machined with
Fig. 4 Grid distortion during compression a thin outer ring to act as an entrapment for and to maintain a
pool of lubricant, are therefore, used in this study to provide
minimum or zero friction condition at the interface. By carry-
(3) ing out the test until cracks are observed, the fracture strain
[limit formability strain 1>e = In (A/A o)] corresponding to (3
= - 1 can be determined.
and
2 Torsion Test. Geometry of the specimen for this test is
EO=Er=ln[ ~~] DJ>D o shown in Fig. 6. The resulting state of stress due to the applied
torsion is
As the compression continues the final diameter will con-
tinue to increase. The corresponding hoop strain on the out- al=a, a2=-a, a3=0
side surfaces (which is a tensile strain) will also increase until it The corresponding mean and effective stresses are given by
reaches the fracture limit of the material. Once fracture is 1
initiated the forming limit strain 1>e is the same as the effective alii =-3- [aj +a2+ a3]=0
strain i' at fracture and is determined from:

1>e=i'=ln[ z; ] =In[ ~~] at fracture (4)

In an actual compression test, the friction effect along the
interface can be minimized and sometimes eliminated through
the use of the proper lubricant. The effect of lubrication on
metal flow and deformation during compression has been ex-
amined by Shabaik, (20) and his results are shown in Fig. 4.
Differences in the grid distortion at any instance of deforma-
tion between the lubricated case and the unlubricated case can
be seen. These results show that for the unlubricated case
radial flow of the deforming material at the interface is
restricted. As a result the originally straight outside surface
becomes bulged or barreled. As the deformation continues
folding, where material from the sides of the specimen comes
in Contact with the platen, takes place (see Fig. 4(a) when t:..h
:= 0.409" of a specimen that was originally 1.0" in height i.e.,
40.9 percent red. in height). For the lubricated case deforma-
tionis almost identical to that of uniform deformation with no
eVidence of folding. Deformation is, therefore, purely uniaxial
compression.
a=V3a
In this case, (3 = O. The test is conducted until cracks are
observed. The final angle of twist is measured and the cor-
responding effective strain (i') at fracture (limit formability
strain 1>e) is determined from
1 r()
1>e=i'= V3 L
where,. is the specimen radius, IJ is the final angle of twist, and
L is the gauge section length.
3 Tension Test. In the tension test a specimen is sub-
jected to a continually increasing uniaxial tensile force. The
deformation in the tensile bar is uniform across the gage
length until the maximum load is reached. At this point
localized deformation (necking) begins to take place. After
necking the state of stress is no longer uniform. In metalform-
ing processes where tensile stresses are applied, localized neck-
ing renders a part unacceptable. In this case the forming limit
strain 1>e is determined by the effective strain (i') at necking,
and since the region from yielding to necking is one of

JOUl'nal of Engineering Materials and Technology JULY 1986, Vol. 108/247

Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/14/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 1 I<'orming limit strain tP e A 1<1:
Specimen No. Forming Limit Strains
Compression : Torsion : Tension
({3 = - 1) : ({3 = 0) : ({3 = 1)
1.0 I
1 1.310 : .609 .146
2 1.296 : .628 .166
3 1.270 : .617 .141
4 1.268 : .593 .131
5 : .612 .182
6 : .602 .207
I
7 I .166
I
8 I .148 -1.0 --I' 1.0
I
9 I .121
Fig. 8 Forming limit curve for bulk metalworking processes
Average Point A corresponds to compression
cf>e Point B corresponds to torsion
Value 1.275 .610 .156 Point C corresponds to tension

limit strain ¢e are given in Table 1. Photographs of the various

specimens after deformation are shown in Fig. 7. Details of
the fracture surfaces are also shown in Fig. 7. The forming
limit curve based on these three tests is shown in Fig. 8. From
the figure it is clear that as the magnitude of the spherical state
of stress increases, the forming limit strain of the material
decreases.
Photographs of the specimens after compression to the
limiting strain (approximately 1.275 logarithmic strain), Fig.
7(a) show that the ring machined for lubricant entrapment,
Fig. 5, remained on the outside of the contact area after defor-
mation with no evidence of folding from the cylindrical sur-
face. This indicates that the method of entrapping and pro-
viding a pool of lubricant at the interface was effective in
maintaining a pure compressive deformation.

Conclusions
The formability limit curve of materials gives information
about its formability potential as a function of the stress state.
This stress state is determined by the metalworking system.
This information is essential for the design of the forming pro-
cess and for optimum utilization of materials and processes.
A new workability criterion was proposed and tests were
utilized to arrive at the shape of the forming limit curve for
AISI 1043 steel. The testing techniques are simple and are per-
formed using standard equipment and specimens. The cor-
responding states of stress do not involve complex procedures
for the determination of their components. Forming limit
Fig. 7 Deformed specimens and fracture surface (a) Compression, (b) strains are easily measured and the determination of the form-
tension, (c) torsion ing limit strain is easily obtained. The forming limiting strain
curve obtained from these three tests covers a practical range
of applications to a number of metal working processes.
uniform plastic deformation, the state of stress and strain are
given by Acknowledgment
1
ITJ = it, IT2 = IT} = 0, ITm =-3- IT, This work was performed in the laboratories of the Institute
for Production Engineering - FTN, University of Novi Sad,
Yugoslavia. The research described in this paper is supported
El=E=ln[~o], E2=E}= +E by the National Science Foundation (USA) under Grant No.
YOR 80/008 and the Self-Management Community for
According to this state of stress and state of strain Research of Voivodina, Yugoslavia. The authors wish to
thank Barbara Brooks for typing the manuscript.
{3 = 3IT m = 1.0
it
References
and the corresponding forming limit strain
I Maier, A. F., Einflus das Spannungsvermogen auf das Formanderllllgs
A o ] at neckmg
. Vermogen der Metalische Werkstoffe, Stuttgart, 1934.
¢e = E=ln [A 2 Bridgman, P. W., Studies in Large Plastic Flow and Fracture, New York,
1952. . .
3 Shabaik, A. H., and Thomson, E. G., "Computer Aided Visioplasllc11Y
Solutions of Some Deformation Problems," Proceedings of the Internatio llal
Experimental Results and Discussions Symposium on Foundation of Plasticity, Warsaw, Poland, 1972, pp. 177-199.
4 Keeler, S. P., and Backofen, W. A., "Plastic Instability and Fracture III
Specimens for the three tests were prepared from the same Sheet Strelch'ed over Rigid Punches," Trans. ASM, Vol. 56, 1963, pp. 25-48.
material, in this case AISI 1043 steel. More than one specimen 5 Goodwin, G. M., "Application of Strain Analysis to Sheet Melalformlllg
was used for each test. The results of the values of the forming Problems in Press Shop," SAE Paper No. 680093, 1968.

248/ Vol. 108, JULY 1986 Transactions of the AsME

Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/14/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 6 Hecker, S. S., Proc. 17th Biennial Congress of International Deep Draw-
ing Research Group, Amsterdam, Oct. 9-10, 1972.
7 Cockcroft, M. G., "Ductility Fracture in Cold Working Operations," in
Ductility, ASM, 1967.
8 Cockcroft, M. G., and Latham, D. J., " A Simple Criterion of Fracture
for Ductile Metals," / . of the Institute of Metals, Vol. 96, 1968, pp! 33-39.
9 Setters, C. M., and McG. Tegart, W. J., "Hot-Workability," Interna-
tional Metal Reviews, Vol. 17, 1972, pp. 1-24.
10 Storozen, M. V., and Popov, E. A., "Theory of Metal Deformation Proc-
esses (in Russian)," Machinostroenie, Moskva, 1971.
11 Rogers, H. C , "The Effect of Material Variables on Ductility," in Duc-
tility, ASM, 1967, p. 31.
12 Erman, E., and Kuhn, H. A., "Noval Test Specimens for Workability
Measurement," Proceedings ASTMConference on Compression Testing, 1982.
13 Ghosh, A. K., Hecker, S. S., and Keller, S. P., "Sheet Metalforming and
Testing," Workability Testing Techniques, ASM, 1984.
14 Vujovic, V., "Investigation of the Domestic Steel Different Structure
State Effects on the Formability by Cold Working," doctoral dissertation,
University of Novi Sad, Yugoslavia.
15 Jahnke, H., Retzke, R., and Weber, W., "Umformen und Schmieden,"
VEB Verlag Technik, Berlin, 1973.
16 Smirnov, G. A., and Alajev, The Resistance of Material to the Plastic
Deformation (in Russian), Leningrad, 1978.
17 Aljajev-Smirnov, Mechanical Basis of Metal Deformation Processes (in
Russian), Leningrad, 1968.
18 Kuhn, H. A., Lee, P.-W., and Erturk, T., " A Fracture Criterion for
Cold-Forming," JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY, 1973,
pp. 213-218.
19 Stenger, H., "Uber die Abhangigkeit des vormanderungsvermogens
Metallischer Werkstoffe vom Spannungs Zustand, doctoral dissertation, 1965,
Aachen Tech. Hoch. Schulle.
20 Shabaik, A. H., "Prediction of the Geometry Changes of the Free Bound-
ary During Upsetting by the Slip Line Theory," ASME Journal of Engineering
for Industry, Series B, Vol. 93, 1971, pp. 586-592.

ASME INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

Life Management of Energy Conversion Systems - A New Frontier
Albany Marriott
Albany, NY
October 5-7, 1987

ASME's Materials Division is making plans for a second international conference to follow the 1983 Conference on "Ad-
vances in Life Prediction Methods." The objective for the planned conference is to combine a number of disciplines which
are now being developed and are leading to a comprehensive approach to life management.
The three major topics which will be covered in the conference and provide the framework for a comprehensive life manage-
ment methodology are:
- Monitoring and Diagnostics - includes NDE techniques and analysis, sensor development, damage measurement, and
application of expert systems.
- Life Prediction - includes damage assessment, stress analysis, multiaxial formulations, deterministic and probabilistic
methods, and comparison with experience.
- Repair and Refurbishment - includes welding, brazing, metal spraying, alternate design concepts, and effectiveness of
repair.
The conference committee is particularly interested in receiving papers describing new scientific and engineering
measurements, analyses, and processes.
The applications are expected to include nuclear and fossil generating plant, chemical plant, aircraft engines, and other in-
dustrial products involving mechanical design. It is planned to have at least one keynote presentation in each of the major
areas. Depending on the response, it is anticipated that one or more workshops may be organized to address special themes.
It is also proposed that an assessment forum will consider the current state of development of the technology of life manage-
ment and provide guidance on future directions.

Program
All potential paper contributors should submit abstracts of up to 500 words to:
Monitoring and Diagnostics Life Prediction Repair and Refurbishment
E. L. Hofmeister E. Krempl D. A. Woodford
General Electric Company Department of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Materials
Corporate Research and Development Aeronautical Engineering, Engineering
Building 37 Room 215 and Mechanics Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Schenectady, NY 12301 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, NY 12180
Troy, NY 12180

Publication
The conference proceedings will be published in a special bound volume.

Time Table
July, 1986 Call for Abstracts
November 1, 1986 Final Date for Abstract Acceptance
March 1, 1987 Deadline for Receipt of Manuscript

Steering Committee
J. R. Whitehead, Chairman
E. L. Hofmeister, Technical Co-Chairman
E. Krempl, Technical Co-Chairman
D. A. Woodford, Technical Co-Chairman
D. K. Crounse

Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology JULY 1986, Vol. 108/249

Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/14/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use