The following article appears in the journal JOM,

51 (11) (1999), pp. 39-44.

Sheet Metal Forming: A Review

William F. Hosford and John L. Duncan

Developments in the numerical modeling of stamping processes and experimental

measurements now make it possible to design stamping processes using sound
engineering principles. This article shows how experimental and theoretical
contributions have led to the concept of a forming window in strain space that
identifies the strains that can be developed safely in a sheet element. It is bounded
by failure limits corresponding to localized necking, shear fracture, and wrinkling.
A robust stamping process is one in which the strains in the part lie well within the
forming window. The nature of the window and the influence of material behavior
on its shape can be predicted.

SHEET FORMING
In stamping, drawing, or pressing, a sheet is clamped around the edge and formed
into a cavity by a punch. The metal is stretched by membrane forces so that it
conforms to the shape of the tools. The membrane stresses in the sheet far exceed
the contact stresses between the tools and the sheet, and the through-thickness
stresses may be neglected except at small tool radii. Figure 1 shows a stamping die
with a lower counter-punch or bottoming die, but contact with the sheet at the
bottom of the stroke will be on one side only, between the sheet and the punch or
between the die and the sheet. The edge or flange is not usually held rigidly, but is
allowed to move inward in a controlled fashion. The tension must be sufficient to
prevent wrinkling, but not enough to cause splitting.

The limits of deformation, or the window for stamping, are shown in Figure 2. It is
assumed that the failure limits are a property of the sheet. This assumption is
reasonable if through-thickness stresses are negligible, and if each element follows
a simple, linear path represented by a straight line radiating from the origin.

The path in stampings is described by the ratio of the membrane strains

β= ε 2/ε 1

which vary from equal biaxial stretching (β = 1 ) to uniaxial compression

(β = −2. ) Figure 3 shows the strain paths along two lines in a rectangular
pressing. Such diagrams are strain signatures of the part. Unequal biaxial stretching
(β 1) will occur in the middle, A. In the sidewall, C, plane strain is most likely.
If the side of the stamping is long and straight, plane strain will exist also at D.
Over the rounded corner of the punch at F, the strain is biaxial. From H to J, strains
are in the tension-compression quadrant. The concept of the forming limit curve is
that all possible strain signatures are bounded by an envelope that is a characteristic
only of the material. The origins of this failure map were reviewed earlier,1 and
more recent developments are described here.

TENSILE INSTABILITY
Lankford, Gensamer, and Low2 studied the tearing of aluminum alloys deformed
along different strain paths. Their results for one aluminum alloy are replotted
inFigure 4. Failure in the tension-compression quadrant (as in Figures 2 and Figure
4) occurs by local necking along a direction of zero extension. In this region,
experiments agree well with the model of Hill,3 which is equivalent to a maximum
tension criterion. Tension is the force per length along a section in a sheet, and is
the product of the stress and the thickness, T = st. For a material with an effective
stress-strain curve

This predicts failure at a constant thickness, t = toexp(-n), as the limit line on the
left side of Figures 2 and Figure 4. This line intercepts the major strain axis
at ε 1 = n. The maximum tension criterion is a necessary condition for local
necking, but in biaxial tension there is no direction of zero extension.

Keeler and Backofen4 measured failure strains in biaxial stretching (Figure 5). As
the strain path becomes more biaxial, the measured failure strains increase,
exceeding the strain at maximum tension. They introduced the term "forming-limit
curve" to describe the plot of conditions that cause local necking.

Although these observations remained unexplained, they were confirmed and

extended by additional work (e.g., References 5-8). Coupled with the development
of circle-grid analysis, this formed a powerful method of diagnosing stamping
failures. The forming-limit curves could be obtained by measurements in the press
shop or laboratory. Figure 6 is a typical-forming limit curve for low-carbon steel.

DEFECT ANALYSIS
A pre-existing defect in the sheet, such as a local reduction in either thickness or
strength, can have a large effect on the strain at failure. As an example, a tensile
test specimen may have a defect region B that has a slightly lower load-carrying
capacity than elsewhere (region A). The initial defect can be a region that is thinner
or that has a lower flow stress because of variations in grain size, orientations, or
composition. In any case, it can be characterized for mathematical analysis as
though it were thinner.

f = tBo/tAo (1
)

where tBo and tAo are the initial thicknesses in the two regions. With this defect, the
maximum load in the test-piece is reached when the strain in the imperfection
reaches the value, n. The uniform strain ( ε Α = ε υ ) is

ε A
n
exp(−ε A) = fnnexp(-n) (2
)

An approximate solution9 for Equation 2 is

(3
)

The values of the uniform strain given by Equations 2 and 3 are compared in Figure
7. It is interesting to note that templates frequently used for machining sheet tensile
specimens often have a built-in defect of about 1 - f = 0.001, which, if n = 0.2,
results in a uniform elongation of ε υ = 0.18 instead of 0.2 (i.e., an imperfection of
one part in one thousand reduces the maximum uniform strain by 10%).

Marciniak and Kuczynski10,11 proposed that during biaxial stretching, local necks
also form by the growth of very small defects. If a trough-like region perpendicular
to the largest principal stress is weaker or thinner than the bulk of the material
(Figure 8), the strain will localize there. Equilibrium requires that the tensile force
perpendicular to the groove is the same in each region.

σ 1Α Αt = σ 1Β Β t (4
)

and compatibility requires that the strains parallel to the groove are equal,

ε 2Α = ε 2Β (5
)

If the uniform region deforms in a linear strain path, β Α , the strain in the groove
accelerates along a nonlinear path with β Β changing from β Α to 0 (Figure 9).
When the groove reaches plane strain, deformation in the uniform region ceases,
and the forming limit for that value of β Α is given by the strains ε 1* and ε 2* in
the uniform region, A.

The maximum tension criterion that leads to ε 1∗ + ε 2∗ = n appears to be a

necessary, but insufficient condition for local necking. The other condition is
dε 2Α /dε 1Α = 0 in the groove. In the tension-compression region of the diagram
(ε 2 ≤ 0 ), deformation in region A ceases immediately once the tension reaches a
maximum, while the neck forms along a line of zero extension. In the tension-
tension quadrant (ε 2 > 0 ), straining continues beyond the tension maximum until
plane strain is reached in the neck (unless fracture intervenes.)

The Marciniak-Kuczynski model provides a method for calculating forming-limit

curves and the effects of material properties. However, calculations in a number of
papers (e.g., References 12-14) predicted limits that deviated significantly from
those observed experimentally.

YIELD CRITERIA
Figure 10a illustrates how the stresses in the groove, B, differ from those in the
uniform region, while satisfying the equilibrium condition

σ 1β = ( tΑ /tΒ ) σ 1Α (6
)

The forming limit is reached when region B reaches plane strain (Figure 10b).
Sowerby and Duncan15 pointed out that this depends on the yield surface, which is
influenced by the R-value, measured in the tensile test. Using Hill's anisotropic
yield criterion,16 for plane stress
2 2 2
σ1+ σ 2 + R( σ 1− σ 2 ) = (7
)

Parmar and Mellor12 predicted a large dependence of forming limits on anisotropy

(Figure 11). However, experimental forming-limit diagrams show no appreciable
effect of anisotropy.

A yield criterion with a high-exponent was proposed17,18 to approximate upper-

bound yield locus calculations based on crystallographic slip, that is,
α α α
σ 1 + σ 2 + R( σ 1− σ 2) =2 a (8
)
Exponents of a = 6 and a = 8 were proposed for body-centered cubic and face-
centered cubic metals, respectively. This locus lies between the Tresca criterion and
Hill's quadratic form as shown in Figure 12. Forming limits calculated using this
high-exponent criterion19 predict almost no effect of anisotropy (Figure 13),
because in the high-exponent criterion, anisotropy has little effect on the stress ratio
needed for plane strain. Figure 14 from Barlat20 shows the effect of the yield-
criterion exponent on the forming limits. The yield locus for an exponent of is the
Tresca locus. For such a material, the yield locus has a vertex at which the strain
vector can have any orientation. Thus, when the tension is a maximum, plane strain
can occur in the neck with immediate failure. The forming limit in the tension-
tension quadrant does not coincide with the line

ε 1∗ + ε 2∗ = n

At one time, the discrepancy between calculated and experimental forming limits
generated interest in vertex models of yield loci and the application of the
deformation theory of plasticity, but these concepts have not been supported by
experiments. Other factors may affect the yield surface. It is clear that in the biaxial
stretching region, the material in the groove, B, follows a curved straining path.
Effects similar to the Bauschinger effect, such as kinematic hardening, could
diminish strain hardening in the groove and accelerate failure.

NATURE OF DEFECTS
Wilson and coworkers21,22 have studied local variations in grain orientation and
grain size that may be considered Marciniak defects. Local composition variations
may also be of importance in some materials.

In calculating forming limits, a value for the initial imperfection, f, in the

range 0.985 ≤ f ≤ 0.995 is usually chosen to create a fit with experimental
findings. McCarron et al.23 intentionally machined defects into steel sheets before
subjecting them to biaxial stretching and found that the artificial defects needed to
be in the range of 0.990 ≤ f ≤ 0.992 to localize the failure. The inability of
smaller defects to initiate local necking suggests that defects in the range given
were already present.

Industrial sheet probably has a characteristic spatial and size distribution of defects.
In many stamping operations, the area of sheet subject to critical straining may be
so small that it does not contain a large sample of defects in the sheet. The scatter
of limit strains suggested that the limit is a band rather than a single line.24 It was
suggested25 that the mean forming limit and scatter decreases as the physical scale
of the part is increased and as strain gradients became more gradual.
 STAIN HARDENING
The forming limit in plane strain is approximately equal to the strain-hardening
exponent, n. If n is reduced (e.g., by cold work), the window in biaxial tension
becomes very small (Figure 15). In fully cold-worked sheet, n ~ 0, the only
processes that are possible without tearing are equal biaxial tension, as in stretching
over a domed punch, and constant thickness deformation, ε 1 = − ε 2, as in deep
drawing. These possibilities are exploited in forming the two-piece aluminum
beverage can.

The critical events at necking occur at large strains so it is important in calculations

to use the values of strain hardening at high strains. In the tensile test, information
can only be obtained up to an equivalent strain of n. The loci of equivalent strains
are shown in Figure 16; clearly limit strains are greater than these. The shape of the
stress-strain curve at higher strains can be obtained from other tests, such as the
hydrostatic-bulge test. Bird and Duncan26 showed that materials with similar strain
hardening in the tensile test range may diverge at higher strains (Figure 17), and
this influences the limit strains.

STAIN-RATE SENSITIVITY
The strain-rate sensitivity of a material can be approximated by

(9
)

For engineering metals at room temperature, the m-values are in the range of -0.005
to 0.015. Even these low values of m can be significant. In a typical tensile
specimen, the strain rate is v/L if the length of the parallel section is L and the
extension rate is v. Typically the width of the test-piece is about L/8, and the
thickness is L/100. In a diffuse neck, deformation occurs within a length
approximately equal to the width, so the strain rate increases by a factor of 8. In a
local neck, deformation concentrates in a length about equal to the sheet thickness,
which increases the strain rate 100-fold. Even a little strain-rate sensitivity
increases the strength of the material in the neck, causing the neck to develop more
slowly, allowing additional deformation outside the neck and increasing the limit
strain. The effect of m on the forming limit curve is similar to the effect of the
strain-hardening exponent, n.

FRACTURE LIMITS
Tearing usually occurs by a shear fracture in the root of the localized neck. The
strain at fracture, ε f, is a material property like the reduction in area measured in
round-bar tensile tests. If the fracture strain for the material exceeds the strain at
which the local neck reaches plane strain (Figure 9), it does not influence the limit
strains in the uniform region, A. If, however, the fracture occurs before plane
strain-necking, it reduces the forming limit. This is illustrated in Figure 18 from
LeRoy and Embury,27 which shows that in biaxial tension, the limit strain in an
aluminum alloy is governed by fracture rather than by local necking.

CHANGING STRAIN PATHS

In the experiments used to determine forming limits, the strain paths are almost
linear. In some stampings, however, the strain paths are not linear. This problem
can be handled theoretically28 by simply imposing a changing strain path in region
A. Experiments with single, abrupt, path changes tend to confirm this approach.29

Figure 19 shows the effect of path changes in aluminum alloy 2008-T6. The change
in forming limits depends on the preloading path. For a bilinear path, the effect of
the first loading is to displace the minimum, either increasing or decreasing the
limits.

THICKNESS EFFECTS
Higher forming limits are found for thicker sheets.30 Figure 20 is a simplified
representation showing how measured forming limits for plane strain increase with
both thickness and strain-hardening exponent for steel. This measured effect is due
partly to the fact that the same grid size is used regardless of the sheet thickness.
The cross-sectional shape of necks is likely to be geometrically similar in thick and
thin sheets. In this case, the regions sampled in thick sheets tend to lie closer to the
centers of the neck and, therefore, have a higher average strain.
This explanation is supported by experiments31 in which both the grid size and
thickness were changed (Table I).

TABLE I
The Dependence of Forming Limits at Plane Strain on Sheet Thickness and Grid Size31
Engineering Strain

Sheet Thickness (mm) 2.54 mm Grid 5.08 mm Grid

0.76 0.38 0.34

1.52 0.47 0.41

Only a small change in the forming limit was observed when both the thickness and
the grid size were doubled. The two sheets, 1.52 mm and 0.76 mm thick, had nearly
the same composition, 0.049 wt.% C and 0.038 wt.% C, and n-values, 0.249 and
0.248, respectively. The measured forming limits in these results increase with
sheet thickness, but the increase is small when the grid size increase is proportional
to the sheet thickness. This is true for similar materials, but neck shape depends on
the rate sensitivity of the material.

Necks are more gradual in materials having a higher m. Aluminum alloys, with
very low m, have much sharper necks than low-carbon steel. With the sharper neck,
the thickness effect is likely to be less significant. This is consistent with the much
lower thickness effect in aluminum alloys found by Smith and Lee32 (Figure 21). It
has been suggested26,27 that if the absolute size of the defects remains constant,
when the sheet thickness increases the inhomogeneity factor, f, would decrease,
thereby raising the forming limits.

WRINKLING
Wrinkling may occur when the minor stress in the sheet is compressive. Wrinkling
of the flange areas (e.g., Figure 3) can be suppressed by the blankholder. However,
wrinkling may also occur in unsupported regions or regions in contact with only
one tool. Figure 22 shows the forming of a shell with a conical wall. A compressive
hoop stress may arise in the unsupported wall at C if too much material is allowed
to be drawn into the cavity.33 The usual remedy is to increase the blankholder force,
B, that increases the radial stress, σ 1, and strain, ε 1. The lateral hoop contraction
accompanying this radial stretching helps alleviate the hoop compression. How
much stretching is required depends on the R-value of the material, which is the
ratio of width-to-thickness strain in the tensile test. Less radial stretching is
required with a high R-value, decreasing the chance of tearing failure. The R-value
of drawing quality steel is typically >1 and that of aluminum sheet <1 so the
wrinkling problem is more severe in aluminum. The wrinkling tendency is also
affected by elastic modulus, sheet thickness, and tooling so there is no single
wrinkling limit for a material, and the inclusion of this line in the general diagram
(Figure 2) is not strictly valid.

Whitely34 showed that increased R permits drawing of deeper cups, but his analysis
does not explain why high R-value sheets are advantageous in forming shallow
parts, such as car-body outer panels. Their use is due to their increased wrinkling
resistance.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge helpful discussions with many colleagues, including D.

Lee, A.F. Graf , J.D. Embury, and B.S. Levy.

References
1. J.D. Embury and J.L. Duncan, Ann. Rev. Mater. Sci., 11 (1981), pp. 505-521.
2. W.T. Lankford, J.R. Low, and M. Gensamer, Trans. AIME, 171 (1947), p. 574.
3. R. Hill, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 1 (1952), pp. 19-30.
4. S.P. Keeler and W.A. Backofen, ASM Trans. Q., 56 (1963), pp. 25-48.
5. S.P. Keeler, SAE paper 680092 (Warrendale, PA: SAE, 1968).
6. G. Goodwin, SAE paper 680093 (Warrendale, PA: SAE, 1968).
7. S.S. Hecker, Sheet Metal Ind., 52 (1975), pp. 671-675.
8. A.K. Ghosh, Met. Eng. Q., 15 (3) (1975), pp. 53-64.
9. Z. Marciniak and J.L. Duncan, Mechanics of Sheet Metal Forming (London:
Edward Arnold, 1992).
10. Z. Marciniak, Archiwum Mechanikj Stosowanej, 4 (1965), p. 579.
11. Z. Marciniak and K. Kuczynski, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 9 (1967), p. 609.
12. A. Parmar and P.B. Mellor, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 20 (1978), pp. 2067-2074.
13. D. Lee and F. Zaverl, Jr., Int. J. Mech. Sci., 24 (1982), pp. 157-173.
14. K.S. Chan, Met. Trans., 16A (1985), pp. 629-639.
15. R. Sowerby and J.L. Duncan, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 3 (1971), pp. 217-129.
16. R. Hill, Proc. Roy. Soc., 193A (1948), p. 281.
17. W.F. Hosford, Proc. 7th North Am. Metalworking Conf. (Dearborn, MI: SME,
1979), pp. 1912-1916.
18. R.L. Logan and W.F. Hosford, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 22 (1980), pp. 419-430.
19. A.F. Graf and W.F. Hosford, Metall. Trans., 21A (1990), p. 87-94.
20. F. Barlat, Forming Limit Diagrams: Concepts, Methods and Applications, ed.
R.H. Wagoner, K.S. Chan, and S.P. Keeler (Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1989), p. 275.
21. D.V. Wilson and O. Acselrad, Proc. IDDRG 10th Biennial Congress (Redhill,
U.K.: Portcullis Press, 1978), pp. 155-166.
22. D.V. Wilson, W.T. Roberts, and P.M.B. Rodrigues, Metall. Trans., 12A (1981),
pp. 1595-1602.
23. T.J. McCarron et al., Metall. Trans., 19A (1988), pp. 2067-2074.
24. H. van Minh, R. Sowerby, and J.L. Duncan, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 16 (1974), p. 31.
25. H. van Minh, R. Sowerby, and J.L. Duncan, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 16 (1974), p.
339.
26. J.E. Bird and J.L. Duncan, Metall. Trans., 12A, (1981), pp. 235-241.
27. G.H. LeRoy and J.D. Embury, Formability: Analysis, Modeling and
Experimentation, ed. S.S. Hecker, A.K. Ghosh, and H.L. Gegel (Warrendale,
PA:TMS, 1978), pp. 183-207.
28. A.F. Graf and W.F. Hosford, Metall. Trans., 24A (1993), pp. 2497-2501.
29. A.F. Graf and W.F. Hosford, Metall. Trans., 24A (1993), pp. 2503-2512.
30. S.P. Keeler, Microalloying 75 (New York: Union Carbide, 1977), pp. 517-530.
31. K.S. Raghavan, Report to the FLC Users group of NADDRG (1991).
32. P.E. Smith and D. Lee, Proc. International Body Engineering
Conference (Detroit, MI: SAE, 1998), pp. 121-128.
33. J. Havranek, Sheet Metal Forming and Energy Conservation(Metals Park,
OH: ASM, 1976), pp. 245-263.
34. R. Whitely, Trans. ASM, 52 (1960), p. 154.

William F. Hosford is a professor in the Department of Materials Science and

Engineering at the University of Michigan. John L. Duncan is professor emeritus
at the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Auckland.
For more information, contact W.F. Hosford, University of Michigan,
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, 2300 Hayward Street, Ann
Arbor, Michigan 48109-2136; (734) 764-3371; fax (734) 763-4788; e-
mail whosford@umich.edu.

Copyright held by The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, 1999

Direct questions about this or any other JOM page to jom@tms.org.

Search TMS Document Center Subscriptions Other Hypertext Articles JOM TMS OnLine