AN EVALUATION OF THE DEEP

DRAWABILITY OF ALUMINIUM AA 6082-O

SHEET

FINAL YEAR RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT

Submitted By:

Eliaser Tuhadeleni Nghishiyeleke

(201037106)

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of BSc. (Hon) Degree in Mechanical

Engineering

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL AND INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

UNIVERSTY OF NAMIBIA
 DECLARATION

This report is a presentation of my original research work. Wherever contributions of others

are involved, every effort is made to indicate this clearly, with due reference to the literature.

The work was done under the guidance of Mr. M. M. Mashingaidze at the University of
Namibia, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, Jos Eduardo dos Santos
Campus, Ongwediva.

Eliaser T. Nghishiyeleke Date:

(Candidate)

In my capacity as a supervisor of the candidates research project, I certify that the above
statements are true to the best of my knowledge.

Mr. M. Mashingaidze Date:

(Supervisor)

In my capacity as the head of department of the Mechanical and Industrial Engineering

Department (candidates department), I certify that the above statements are true to the best of
my knowledge

Dr. A. A. Ogunmokun Date:

(HOD of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering department)

ii
 DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my family and all supportive friends

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost I thank the almighty GOD, for having finally made this humble effort a
reality.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Mr. Melvin Mashingaidze

whose support, stimulating suggestions and inspiration helped me during the time of research
and writing of this report. His willingness to give his time so generously has been very much
appreciated. Without his invaluable guidance and persistent help, this work would have never
been possible.

Furthermore, I would like to extent special thanks to my HOD Dr. A. A. Ogunmokun, the
Mechanical Lab technician Mr. N. Shikomba and Mr. E. Shaanika (Staff Development
Fellow) for their guidance and technical supports in putting up the research equipment in
place.

I also would like to take up this opportunity to give votes of thanks to the Faculty of
Engineering and IT for the WP300 Universal Material Tester used to carry out this study and
to the Jinan Precision Equipment Co. Ltd, from China, for supplying the materials (specimens)
used in this study.

Likewise, though they may not possibly know how much of help they have been, I am
indebted to my close colleagues and supportive friends for encouraging me in all of my
pursuits and inspiring me to follow my dreams. Without their company and their tirelessly
motivational efforts I would not have gone boldly this far.

Finally, I wish to express my earnest gratitude to my family, for their ongoing support and
loads of love that made it possible for me to undertake the undergraduate studies.

iv
 ABSTRACT

Little information is available on formability of aluminium alloy AA 6082-O sheet. The deep
drawability of AA 6082-O was experimentally investigated by carrying out tensile tests and
Erichsen cupping tests. From the XRF analysis done on the tested specimens, the alloy used
for the present study contained Silicon (0.95 %wt) and Magnesium (1.16 %wt). The tensile
strength and modulus of elasticity were highest in the rolling direction (0) and increased with
sheet thickness. The range of r values of the alloy for the two thicknesses in the three rolling
directions were and 1.23 r2.0 mm 2.40, the upper bound and lower
bound values being for 0 and 90 respectively in both cases. The range of n values in the three
rolling directions for the two thicknesses were and
, both being higher than unity . The obtained FLC level of the
FLDs from the Erichsen Cupping test was found to be higher for 2.0 mm thickness than 1.0
mm thickness. Based on the results of the two testing methods it was observed that the deep
drawability of AA6082 O sheet is largely affected by the sheet thickness and the rolling
direction. It increases with increasing sheet thickness , but the alloy exhibits planar anisotropy
(r < 0) as evidenced by some test samples earing. The alloy fractures with little or no
observable necking, but the general stress-strain behaviour is typical of that of the aluminium
6000 alloy series.

Key words: Formability, deep drawability, tensile test, Erichsen cupping test, AA 6082-O,
FLCs, FLD, sheet thickness, rolling direction, planar anisotropy

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ........................................................................................................................ ii

DEDICATION ........................................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... iv

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................ v

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... xi

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... xiii

LIST OF SYMBOLS/ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................. xiv

CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................. 16

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 16

1.1. General background ................................................................................................... 16

1.2. Statement of the problem ........................................................................................... 18

1.3. Objectives ................................................................................................................... 18

1.4. Hypotheses ................................................................................................................. 19

1.5. Significance of the study ............................................................................................ 20

1.6. Scope of the study ...................................................................................................... 20

CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................................. 21

LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 21

2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 21

2.2. Aluminium and the automotive industry.................................................................... 21

2.2.1 ................................................................................................................................... 21

Background........................................................................................................................ 21

2.2.2 Aluminium AA6082 ........................................................................................... 24

2.3. Basics of deep drawing process and drawability of metal sheets .............................. 27

vi
 2.4. Sheet metal properties and the deep drawing process ................................................ 31

2.5. Testing techniques for determining deep drawability ................................................ 32

2.5.1 Tensile test .......................................................................................................... 33

2.5.2 Erichsen cupping test .......................................................................................... 42

2.5.3 Forming Limit Diagram (FLD)........................................................................... 45

2.6. Defects in deep drawing manufacturing .................................................................... 49

2.6.1. Wrinkling ............................................................................................................ 50

2.6.2. Earing .................................................................................................................. 50

Tearing and excessive thinning of drawn cups .......................................................... 51

2.6.3. .................................................................................................................................. 51

2.7 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 52

CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................. 53

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 53

3.1. Research design .......................................................................................................... 53

3.2. Apparatus and materials ............................................................................................. 55

3.2.1. WP 300 Universal Material Tester ..................................................................... 55

3.2.2. Micrometer screw gauge ..................................................................................... 57

3.2.3. A circle stencil, a metal scriber and an adjustable divider.................................. 58

3.2.4. Vernier Caliper ................................................................................................... 58

3.2.5. Vernier Depth Gauge .......................................................................................... 59

3.2.6. Research materials .............................................................................................. 60

3.3. Procedures .................................................................................................................. 61

3.3.1. Tensile test experiments...................................................................................... 61

3.3.2. Erichsen cupping test experiments ..................................................................... 64

vii
 3.4. Data processing and analysis ..................................................................................... 68

3.5. Ethical considerations ................................................................................................ 69

CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................. 70

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 70

4.1. Chemical composition analysis .................................................................................. 70

4.2. Tensile test experiment results and discussion........................................................... 70

4.1.1. Observation ......................................................................................................... 70

4.1.2. Stress strain behaviour of AA6082-O .............................................................. 71

4.1.3. Comparisons between engineering stress-strain and true stress-strain curves ... 73

4.1.4. Basic mechanical properties of AA6082 O sheet ............................................ 74

4.1.5. Basic formability parameters of AA6082 O sheet ........................................... 75

4.1.5.1 Strain hardening exponent (n), and the strength coefficient (K) ........................ 75

4.1.5.2 Plastic anisotropy of AA6082-O sheet .................................................................. 78

4.1.6. Hypothesis testing (Tensile test experiments) .................................................... 81

4.3. Deep drawing experiment results ............................................................................... 81

4.2.1. Observation ......................................................................................................... 82

4.2.2. Erichsen Index (IE) and breaking force .............................................................. 85

4.2.3. The Forming Drawing Ratio (FDR) ................................................................... 86

4.2.4. Forming Limit diagram (FLD) ........................................................................... 88

4.2.5. Hypothesis testing ............................................................................................... 89

CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................. 90

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 90

5.1. Tensile test ................................................................................................................. 90

Erichsen Cupping test .................................................................................................... 91

viii
 5.2. ......................................................................................................................................... 91

Correlation of tensile properties and the developed FLCs for the two thicknesses ....... 92

5.3. ......................................................................................................................................... 92

5.4 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 92

APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... 93

Appendix A: Chemical composition ..................................................................................... 93

Appendix B: Flat Tensile Test specimens used for the experiments .................................... 93

Figure B1: Dog bone shape flat tensile test specimens .................................................. 93

Appendix C: Tensile test experiments raw data .................................................................... 94

Figure C1: Example of the tensile test raw data from the WP 300 PC data acquisition of
the WP 300 Universal Material Tester machine ................................................................ 94

Appendix D: Computed average values from the tensile test experiments .......................... 95

Table D1: Computed average values for the tensile test raw data of 1.0 mm thickness, 0
rolling direction test specimens ......................................................................................... 95

Table D2: Computed average values for the tensile test raw data of 1.0 mm thickness, 90
rolling direction test specimens ......................................................................................... 96

Appendix E: Mechanical and formability parameters of AA6082 O sheet from the tensile
test experiments ..................................................................................................................... 97

Table E1: The basic mechanical and formability parameters for AA6082 O sheet from
the Tensile Test experiments ............................................................................................. 97

Appendix F: Deep drawing test specimen preparation ......................................................... 97

Figure F1: Gridlines and concentric circle marking on deep drawing test specimen (test
specimen preparation) ....................................................................................................... 97

Appendix G: Deep drawn specimens in Erichsen Cupping Test experiments...................... 98

Figure G1: The ten deep drawn specimens (five for each thickness) ................................ 98

Appendix H: Defects observed on the deep drawn specimens ............................................. 98

ix
 Figure H1: Earing of the grooved deep drawn specimens ................................................ 99

Appendix I1: Erichsen Cupping Test Experiments data ..................................................... 100

Table I1: Raw data and the computed average values from Erichsen Cupping test
experiments...................................................................................................................... 100

Table I2: Forming Limits for the 2.0 mm thickness test specimens ............................... 101

Table I3: Average breaking force and Erichsen Index of AA6082 O sheet ................. 102

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 103

x
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Deep drawing process ............................................................................................ 16

Figure 2.1: The change in material consumption in an average car ......................................... 22
Figure 2.2: Application of aluminium in automobile industry ................................................. 23
Figure 2.3: Principle of the deep drawing process.................................................................... 28
Figure 2.4: Drawing stages in deep drawing operations ........................................................... 29
Figure 2.5: Typical stress-strain curve of a ductile material..................................................... 34
Figure 2.6: Dog bone shape flat tensile test specimen preparation ....................................... 35
Figure 2.7: Total elongation region on the Engineering stress-strain curve ............................. 36
Figure 2.8: The relationship between LDR and ravg for various metals.................................... 39
Figure 2.9: Determination of the strain hardening coefficient from the stress-strain curve ..... 40
Figure 2.10: The log true stress- log true strain curve .............................................................. 41
Figure 2.11: The principle of Erichsen Cupping Test .............................................................. 43
Figure 2.12: The Erichsen cupping testing process (before and after the test) ......................... 43
Figure 2.13: The FLD according to Keeler and Goodwin ........................................................ 46
Figure 2.14: The modified Nakazima specimen ....................................................................... 47
Figure 2.15: Method of developing the Forming Limit Diagram ............................................. 48
Figure 2.16: FLD for a Heat-Treatable Aluminium Alloy (AA6016 T4) ............................. 49
Figure 2.17: Wrinkling phenomenon: (a) Corrugation (b) bending over ................................. 50
Figure 2.18: Ears formation in deep drawing ........................................................................... 51
Figure 3.1: WP 300 Universal Material tester (fitted with tensile test accessories) ................. 56
Figure 3.2: WP 300 Universal Material Tester fitted with cupping test accessories ................ 57
Figure 3.3: A Digit outside micrometer .................................................................................... 57
Figure 3.4: A circle stencil, scriber and divider ........................................................................ 58
Figure 3.5: Vernier Caliper ....................................................................................................... 59
Figure 3.6: Depth micrometer: (a) Measuring the depth of the drawn specimen ..................... 59
Figure 3.7: Test specimens: (a) Flat tensile test specimens (b) deep drawing specimens ........ 60
Figure 3.8: Tensile test experiment equipment ......................................................................... 61

xi
Figure 3.9: Tensile test experiment procedures ........................................................................ 63
Figure 3.10: Deep drawing experiment equipment .................................................................. 64
Figure 3.11: The deep drawing specimens designs .................................................................. 66
Figure 3.12: Erichsen cupping test experiment setup ............................................................... 67
Figure 4.1: The fractured tensile test specimens after the experiment ..................................... 71
Figure 4.2: The Engineering stress-strain curve of AA6082 O sheet .................................... 72
Figure 4.3: The true stress-true strain curve ............................................................................. 72
Figure 4.4: Comparison of engineering and true stress-strain behavior of AA6082 O .......... 73
Figure 4.5: The log true stress log true strain curve of AA6082 O sheet ............................ 76
Figure 4.6: Deep drawn parts after the experiment .................................................................. 82
Figure 4.7: Ears formation on the tested specimen (two ears formed) ..................................... 83
Figure 4.8: Tearing of the base of the drawn specimen ............................................................ 84
Figure 4.9: Punch force vs Erichsen Index ............................................................................... 85
Figure 4.10: The Forming Limit Diagram ............................................................................... 88
Figure A1: Chemical analysis of AA6082 O sheet................................................................ 93
Figure B1: Dog bone shape flat tensile test specimens ......................................................... 93
Figure C1: Example of the tensile test raw data from the WP 300 PC data acquisition of the
WP 300 Universal Material Tester machine ............................................................................. 94
Figure F1: Gridlines and concentric circle marking on deep drawing test specimen (test
specimen preparation) ............................................................................................................... 97
Figure G1: The ten deep drawn specimens (five for each thickness) ....................................... 98
Figure H1: Earing of the grooved deep drawn specimens ........................................................ 98
Figure H2: Tearing and excessive thinning of the wall of drawn part ..................................... 99

xii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Typical chemical composition for AA6082-O 9 ..................................................... 25

Table 2.2: Typical mechanical properties of AA6082-O ......................................................... 26
Table 2.3: General physical properties of AA6082-O .............................................................. 26
Table 4.1: The determined basic mechanical properties of AA6082 O sheet ....................... 74
Table 4.2: The determined strain hardening exponent (n) and strength coefficient (K) of
AA6082-O sheet ....................................................................................................................... 78
Table 4.3: The plastic anisotropy (r), average normal anisotropy (ravg) and planar anisotropy
(r) of AA6082 O sheet ......................................................................................................... 79
Table 4.4: A t-test analysis on the r values of 0 and 90 direction (r0 and r90) ...................... 81
Table 4.5: The Forming drawing ratio of the test specimen geometries .................................. 87
Table 4.6: Forming limits Hypothesis testing ........................................................................... 89
Table D1: Computed average values for the tensile test raw data of 1.0 mm thickness, 0
rolling direction test specimens ................................................................................................ 95
Table D2: Computed average values for the tensile test raw data of 1.0 mm thickness, 90
rolling direction test specimens ................................................................................................ 96
Table E1: The basic mechanical and formability parameters for AA6082 O sheet from the
Tensile Test experiments .......................................................................................................... 97
Table I1: Raw data and the computed average values from Erichsen Cupping test ............... 100
Table I2: Forming Limits for the 2.0 mm thickness test specimens ....................................... 101
Table I3: Average breaking force and Erichsen Index of AA6082 O sheet ........................ 102

xiii
 LIST OF SYMBOLS/ABBREVIATIONS

AA6082-O : Soft, full annealed aluminium alloy

FLD : Forming Limit Diagram

FLC : Forming Limit Curve

LDR : Load drawing ratio

: Carbon dioxide

UTS : Ultimate Tensile strength

YS: Yield Strength

E : Youngs Modulus (Modulus of elasticity)

IE : Erichsen Index number

: The confidence level

: The plastic strain ratio (also known as plastic anisotropy)

: Planar anisotropy

: Average normal anisotropy

: Strain hardening coefficient/exponent

: Strength coefficient

: Engineering strain

: True strain

: True width strain

xiv
 : True longitudinal strain

: Minor strain

: Major strain

: Engineering stress

: True stress

: Final width

: Initial width

: Final thickness

: Initial thickness

: Final length

: Initial length

: Reduction of Area

: Initial area

: Area at fracture

: Elongation

IDDRG : International Deep Drawing Research Group

XRF : X-ray fluorescence

xv
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1. General background

Deep drawability is one of the most important indicators used to evaluate the ability of sheet
metals to undergo plastic deformation to produce desired shape changes without fracture or
excessive thinning during the deep drawing process [1]. It is referred to as the maximum
drawn-in at the completion of the cup-shaped indentation produced after the deep drawing
operations, see Figure 1.1. According to the DIN standard, DIN 8584-3 (DIN 03h), deep
drawing process is referred to as a tensile-compressive sheet forming process in which a
plane blank is formed into a hollow part open on one side or the forming of a pre-drawn
hollow shape into another with a smaller cross-section without an internal change in the sheet
thickness [1, 2].

Figure 1.1: Deep drawing process [1]

16
Deep drawing process involves conversion of flat thin sheet blanks drawn into desired shapes,
usually by mechanical or hydraulic presses. It is one of the most important sheet metal
forming operations, extensively used for both serial and mass production in packing and
automotive industry. It is used to produce parts with high strength, lightweight and geometries
unattainable with some other manufacturing processes [3]. Hence, sheet metal forming
technologies have been constantly challenged by improvements in the automotive industry
over the last several decades [1]. This is due to increasing economic and political demands
experienced by the automotive industry such as; the need for reduction of fuel consumption,
decrease in emission of global warming gases such as carbon dioxide, increasing customer
expectations, safety requirements and market competition. Therefore, there is a strong need for
products which can be manufactured more successfully, more economically and swiftly to
satisfy these ever increasing market needs [4].

Consequently, specific solutions based on the intensive use of aluminium as modified or new
alloys have been developed [4]. Among the known relatively new developed aluminium alloys
is alloy AA6082, which is easy to machine, heat treatable and optimized to be the strongest
alloy in the 6000 aluminium alloy series [5, 6]. These have seen it replace AA6061 in many
applications such as in skin sheet or structural sheet materials [4, 6]. However, during the
production of structural sheet materials, many technical problems can appear in the final
products such as unexpected failure due to strain localization, poor surface finish or other
defects, of which the causes remain unknown. Thus, the need to have all necessary
information about the mechanical behaviour of the alloy during different working conditions
is of the utmost importance [3, 7].

That can only be realized by carrying out laboratory mechanical tests, which gives reliable
assessments on the behaviour of the alloy under specific conditions close to those ones
encountered in the industrial production process [8, 9,]. AA6082 being a relatively new alloy,
little quantitative data has been published about the mechanical behavior and texture
developed during the mechanical testing processes. This aroused the researchers attention to
carry out an experimental study on the deep drawability of AA 6082-O sheet by carrying out
two different kinds of mechanical tests namely; Tensile Test and Erichsen Cupping Test,

17
which are some of the good testing techniques for the simulation of deep drawing and other
industrial forming processes.

1.2. Statement of the problem

Aluminium alloy AA6082 is a relatively new alloy hence; several studies are being done on
the formability of the alloy. However, no documented work on the deep drawability of
AA6082-O sheets could be found. It has been observed with some new alloys in the sheet
metal forming industry that; producing desired shaped drawn parts successfully by deep
drawing process the completion of the operations are nearly within the necking region. This
causes fracture on the shells of the specimens to occur and result in defective products. Once
this condition occurs the deep drawing process has to be repeated, but with another specimen,
resulting in material wastage, which is undesirable in the manufacturing industries. Thus, this
work is an attempt to establish the deep drawability of this alloy, in view of the applications it
can be used for.

1.3. Objectives

The main objective of the study was to determine the deep drawability of AA 6082-O sheet,
by carrying out tensile tests on flat sheet specimens cut in the rolling direction, transverse and
normal (0, 45, and 90) direction relative to the rolling direction of the original metal sheet,
and to carry out Erichsen cupping tests, on 60 mm x 60 mm flat sheet specimens of two
different thicknesses (1.0 mm and 2.0 mm), using a WP 300 Universal Material Tester with a
loading capacity of 20 kN.

The specific objectives of the study were to:

1. Determine the stress strain behaviour of AA 6082 O sheet.

2. Determine the plastic strain ratios of AA 6082 O sheet.
3. Establish the plane strain forming limit diagram of the alloy for variable blank
thicknesses.
18
1.4. Hypotheses

1. Stress-strain behaviour

Null hypothesis (H0): r0 r90

The tensile strength of AA6082-Osheet is higher in the rolling direction, r0, than in the
normal direction r90 (level of significance, = 5 %).

Alternative hypothesis (H1): r0 < r90

The tensile strength of AA 6082-O sheet in the rolling direction, r0, is less than in the
normal direction r90.

2. Forming limits

Null hypothesis (H0): 2.0 mm 1.0 mm

The forming limits for 2.0 mm thick AA 6082-Osheet are greater than those for 1.0 mm
thick AA 6082-Osheet (level of significance, = 5 %).

Alternative hypothesis (H1): 2.0 mm < 1.0 mm

The forming limits for 2.0 mm thick AA 6082-O sheet are less than those for 1.0 mm thick
AA 6082-Osheet.

19
1.5. Significance of the study

This work will add more knowledge on sheet metal formability testing to the existing body of
knowledge on the subject, which is very vital in the metal forming industry. It may also be
used as a basis for further studies of the same alloy and other alloys from the same group
(6000 series). Furthermore, with the experiments being done using the WP 300 Universal
material tester in the Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering laboratory at
UNAM, Jos Eduardo Dos Santos Campus, Ongwediva, the final report of this work may
serve as a guiding document on performing deep drawing tests for students lab sessions, in
addition to the deep drawing experiment manual provided by the supplier of the Universal
Material Tester machine.

1.6. Scope of the study

The study evaluated the deep drawability of AA 6082-O sheet, on samples of 1.0 mm and 2.0
mm thickness. Two kinds of formability tests were carried out namely; the tensile tests on
specimens cut at three different rolling directions (at 0,45, and 90 relative to the rolling
direction of the sheet metal) and the Erichsen Cupping tests on square shaped (60.0 mm x 60.0
mm) specimens(of which some are modified to form a wedged shape). Vaseline BLUESEAL
(50 ml) was used as a lubricant, to lubricate the surface of the 27. 0 mm diameter punch, the
20.0 mm die and the deep drawing specimens. A WP 300 Universal Material Tester machine
by Gunt Hamburg Company, having a maximum loading capacity of 20kN was used for the
experiments. Results were used to determine the stressstrain behaviour of the alloy, to
evaluate the plastic anisotropy (plastic strain ratio, r) and establish the forming limit diagram
(FLD) for the alloy. Several assumptions were made during the study; that all the experiments
were carried out at constant room temperature, loading speed was uniform at all times, the
punch specimen interface was frictionless and other operational parameters not considered
for the study (such as the blank temperature, punch velocity, die arc radius etc.) were assumed
to have an insignificant effect on the drawability of the alloy studied. Hence, the outcome of
this study is only applicable to AA 6082-O sheets, based on the stated test conditions.

20
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Introduction

The sheet metal deep drawing technology is one of the most challenging forming processes in
the manufacturing industry. Metal sheets of various sizes, shapes and thicknesses are used to
produce deep drawn parts, covering a diverse range of material characteristics and process
variables which requires an understanding of material properties to carefully evaluate,
simulate and determine the formability of sheet metals [1]. This chapter covers the typical
chemical composition, some of the average mechanical and physical properties of AA 6082-O
sheet. It also covers the basic theory of the deep drawing process, mechanical testing
techniques for the simulation of deep drawing process particularly, tensile test and Erichsen
cupping test. Parameters for evaluating the drawability of drawn parts namely the ductility,
strain hardening coefficient n, plastic strain ratio r (plastic anisotropy), height of the
indentation (also known as the Erichsen index number IE), and the forming limit diagram
(FLD) are also discussed.

2.2. Aluminium and the automotive industry

This section outlines the background of aluminium alloys with relative to the automotive
industry. It also looked at the chemical composition, average mechanical and physical
properties of AA6082-O sheet.

2.2.1 Background

Numerous studies reported that there has been a trend toward the use of lightweight metals
and alloys, in the automotive industry, markedly aluminium sheets, to address environmental
concerns, the problem of fuel consumption and weight reduction in automotive parts, during

21
the design and the construction phases of automotive bodies [3, 4, 10, 11, 12]. This can be
deduced from Figure 2.1, which shows the percentage change in material consumption in an
average car with change in time (years).

Figure 2.1: The change in material consumption in an average car [10]

Historically, Tetsuro et al. [3] stated that, After the Kyoto International Conference for
Global Environment Problem in 1997, the decrease of global warming gas emission such as
became an urgent need for automobile manufactures. For this purpose, the reduction of
automobile weight has become one of the biggest needs. Accordingly, an increase in the
amount of high strength steel (HSS) sheet and aluminium sheet car body has been remarkable.
Furthermore, Miller et al. [10] testified that aluminium usage in automotive applications has
grown more than 80% within a period of 5 years, see Figure 2.1, and reported that a total of
about 110 kg of aluminium per vehicle in 1996, is predicted to rise to 250 or 340 kg, with or
without taking body panel or structure applications into account, by the year 2015. Thus, an
effort on weight reduction and significant increase in aluminium sheet for automotive
applications is expected.

22
Similarly, it can also be clearly inferred from the mass contribution (140 kg) and weight
reduction (48%) of aluminium on a simulated automotive body shown in Figure 2.2, which
comprises of different metal components (steel and aluminium parts) of various masses and
different deep drawn geometrical configurations.

Figure 2.2: Application of aluminium in automobile industry [6]

Hirofumi and Takayuki [11] equally reported that in recent years, a trend of weight reduction
in automobiles is rising from the viewpoint of reducing fuel consumption and exhaust gas
emissions. The study then, highlighted that above all, the application of aluminum alloys to
automotive body panels is positively considered as a means of effective weight reduction.
Likewise, Santosh et al. [12] recounted that an increase in demand for weight reduction of
automotive parts becomes a driving factor in research and design work for both supplier
industry and end users. Hence, a large number of studies have been carried out to optimize
design and process, to ensure that the production of parts with minimum thickness, weight
reduction and uniform thickness is attained.

23
In the same way, Gassemieh [4] emphasized that; the requirement for new and innovative
materials in different industrial applications increases continually, motivating material
engineers to improve the characteristics of traditional alloy systems, by the introduction of
new alloys to processing and to develop new alloys to respond to ever changing requirements
for the designing of automotive bodies. Consequently, new aluminium alloy sheets with
enough strength and ductility, such as alloy AA6082, have developed, having a wide range of
opportunities for various engineering structures and component application even in other
modern industries.

2.2.2 Aluminium AA6082

AA6082 is a relatively newly developed, heat treatable alloy, alloyed with magnesium and
silicon, and belongs to the 6000 series [4, 5]. It also corresponds to standard designations such
as HE30, DIN 3.2315, EN AW-6082, ISO: Al Si1MgMn and A96082. According to the
database sheet for aluminium alloys by Aalco Metals Ltd. [5] AA6082 is a medium strength
alloy, yet known to be the strongest of all the heat treatable alloys in 6000 series. This is due
to the addition of a large amount of manganese (ranging from0.40 - 1.00 % by weight, see
Table 2.1) to its chemical composition, which controls its grain structure, making it to be a
stronger alloy with an excellent corrosive resistance, compared to other alloys of the same
group (6000 series).

24
 Table 2.1: Typical chemical composition for AA6082-O [5]
Element % present

Silicon (Si) 0.70 - 1.30

Magnesium (Mg) 0.60 - 1.20

Manganese (Mn) 0.40 - 1.00

Iron (Fe) 0.0 - 0.50

Chromium (Cr) 0.0 - 0.25

Zinc (Zn) 0.0 - 0.20

Others (Total) 0.0 - 0.15

Titanium (Ti) 0.0 - 0.10

Copper (Cu) 0.0 - 0.10

Other (Each) 0.0 - 0.05

Aluminium (Al) Balance

Moreover, AA6082 is also known as a structural alloy and used in plate form for machining.
Thus, as a relatively new alloy, optimized to be the strongest of all other alloys in the group
(6000 series) with only minor drawback in its other properties, Gassemieh [4] reported that the
highest strength (maximum tensile strength of 150 MPa, see table 2.3) has set it to replace
AA6061 (AA6061) in many applications, for instance in structural sheet materials to produce
flat rolled or extruded parts for different industrial applications. Aalco Metals Ltd [5] as well
indicated that apart from transport applications, AA6082 is also typically used for highly
stressed application, trusses, bridges, cranes, ore skips, beer barer and milk churns. Looking at
the tensile strength and proof stress of the alloy AA6082 provided in Table 2.2 and 2.3 one
may infer why the alloy is set to be the best candidate for different applications.

25
 Table 2.2: Typical mechanical properties of AA6082 - O [5]
Property Value

Proof Stress 0.2 % (MPa) 60

Tensile Strength (MPa) 130

Shear strength (MPa) 85

Elongation AS (%) 27

Table 2.3: General physical properties of AA6082-O [5]

Property Value
Density 2.70 g/cm
Melting Point 555 C
Thermal Expansion 24 x 10-6 /K
Modulus of Elasticity 70 GPa
Thermal Conductivity 180 W/m.K
Electrical Resistivity 0.038 x 10-6 .m
rty Value
Prop

In addition, AA 6082 can be precipitation hardened; hence it does exist in different temper
types. The database sheet by Aalco Metals Ltd. [5] outlined that the most common type of
tempers for AA6082 aluminium are T6, O, T4 and T651. That is;

T6: the solution heat treated and artificially aged temper

O: the soft, full annealed temper,
T4: the solution heat treated and naturally aged to a substantially stable condition
temper,

26
 T651: the solution heat treated, stress relieved by stretching the artificially aged
temper

Whereby, letter T and O according to Joseph [13] are the heat treatment symbols (temper
designation letters) used by the temper designation system of ANSI H35.1 (M)-2009 standard
to identify wrought alloys. The alloy can be supplied in various forms such as channel, angle,
tee, and square bar, square box section, rectangular box section, flat bar, tube and sheet,
depending on the customers requests and the purpose it is going to be used for.

Despite the fact that AA 6082 has different tempers, the present study focused only on the
soft, full annealed temper (the temper type O) in evaluating the deep drawability of AA 6082.
However, Aalco Metals Ltd. [5] pointed out that it is difficult to produce thin walled,
complicated extrusion shapes with alloy 6082, reason being that the extruded surface finish is
not as smooth as other similar strength alloys in the 6000 series. Due to that reason, Hirofumi
and Takayuki [11] proposed that if aluminium sheets are actually used for automotive body
panels then the evaluation of press formability is required in addition to mechanical properties
such as strength and ductility to have a large pool of quantitative data on the alloys
mechanical properties and formability which helps reducing drawing defects, costs and save
time during manufacturing process.

2.3. Basics of deep drawing process and drawability of metal sheets

Deep drawing is the metalworking process used for shaping flat sheets into cup shaped
articles such as bathtubs, shell cases, and automotive body panels [14]. While, drawability is
based on the definition of the boundary of the product, with which a quantitative definition of
draw-in is established. Thus, Klock [1] defined drawability as the maximum draw-in at the
completion of the cup shaped indentation formed after deep drawing. Whereas, Zhiqing and
Xuemei [15], defined drawability as the maximum formable capability of drawn materials
under special conditions, that is, the degree to which a material can be drawn without failure,
to produce a desirable cup - shaped part, under limited conditions.

27
According to Sieget and Wagner [2], and George [14] the deep drawing process, requires a
blank, blank holder, punch and die, as outlined in Figure 2.3, which shows the principle of the
deep drawing process.

Figure 2.3: Principle of the deep drawing process [2]

Whereby, the blank is a piece of sheet metal, typically a disc or rectangle, which is pre-cut
from the stock material and will be formed into the part of desired shape. The blank is
clamped down by the clamp holder over the die, which has a cavity in the external shape of
the part. A tool called a punch moves downward into the blank and draws or stretches the
material into the die cavity, again see Figure 2.3. As the punch advance towards its final
position, the work piece experiences a complex sequence of stresses and strains as it is formed
into its final shape see Figure 2.4. Hence, the tensile force applied to the blank cause it to
plastically deform into a cup-shaped part.

28
Referring to Figure 2.4, which shows a schematic overview of step by step deep drawing
process, from the initial stage till the final stage of the process. Groover [16] explained that in
stage (1), the blank holder force, , is applied and the punch begins to move towards the
sheet material. In stage (2), the sheet material is subjected to a bending operation. The sheet is
then bent over the corner of the punch and the corner of the die. In stage (3), as the punch
continues moving down, a straightening action occurs in the metal that was previously bent
over the die radius. Metal from the flange is drawn into the die opening to form the cylinder
wall.

Figure 2.4: Drawing stages in deep drawing operations:(1) initial step, (2) bending of edge, (3)
straightening of side wall, (4) thinning and drawing, (5) final cup shape[16]

Whereas in stage (4), Groover [16] indicated that as the metal in the flange moves toward the
center, it is subjected to the following state of stress:

Compression in the circumferential direction (the outer perimeter becomes smaller)

Tension in the radial direction
A relatively small compression in the thickness direction

29
Since the volume of metal remains constant, and because the circumferential stress is
relatively large, the sheet will thicken as it moves in the flange area, see stage (5), which
shows the final cup shaped drawn part. However, the number of forming operations to be
carried out to produce the desired final shape depends on the geometry of the part to be
formed. That is, the simpler the profile (geometry) of the part to be drawn the lesser the
number of forming process to be carried out and the more complex the profile of the part to be
formed the more the number of forming operations to be carried out. Therefore, the drawing
process can be used to produce parts with shallower profiles (such as cooking pans) and parts
with deeper profiles (such as engine blocks) through a single operation or a series of
operations called drawing reductions.

For parts with complex profiles (complex geometries) a series of forming operations need to
be performed to get the shape of the part right and without it failing. George [14] described
that for complex shapes which required a set of steps to be carried out, in each step, a punch
forces the part into a different die, stretching the part to a greater depth each time. After the
part is completely drawn, the punch and the blank holder can be raised and the part removed
from the die. The portion of the sheet metal that was clamped under the blank holder may
form a flange around the part, thus it can be trimmed off.

Several studies pointed out that deep drawing is the most common forming process for sheet
metals used in modern industry [2, 4, 12, 17]. Mohammad et al. [17] pointed out that,
nowadays, the deep drawing process is used in the modern industry extensively for forming
automotive inner and outer parts. However, sheet metal deep drawing technology is one of the
most challenging forming processes in the manufacturing industry. Challenging in a sense
that; it is a complex forming process in essence that it involves tension at the cup wall,
bending at punch and die corners and compression at flange. Hence, in order for the material
to be drawn successfully, friction between the sheet material and surfaces of the blank holder
and die must be overcome and the deformation energy should be provided.

30
2.4. Sheet metal properties and the deep drawing process

This section relates the deep drawing process (forming process) to the properties of the
material to be formed. The focus is identifying the specific sheet metal properties that have
direct or indirect effect on the quality of the drawn parts and the selection of the testing
techniques to be used in forming the blanks. Above all, this section is also meant to single out
the kind of material properties that need to be determined so as to be able to conclude on the
formability of sheet metals.

The deep drawing process has several interrelated variables such as the sheet blank (geometry
and material), the tool (geometry and material), the condition at the interface of the tool and
the blank, the mechanics of plastic deformation, the characteristics of the final product, and
the plant environment (working condition) in which the process is being conducted. However,
Mohammad et al. [17] pointed out that; among other variables the material properties of the
sheet blank have a significant effect on the deep drawing process, not only on the quality of
the drawn part but also on the determination of the process parameters to be used in order to
produce the desired part. Stressing on the same point, Richard [18] also confirmed that,
besides other process variables, the outcome of the drawing process depends greatly on the
material characteristics, particularly mechanical properties, reason being that, material
properties of a blank may vary from coil to coil and affect part quality, and scrape rate of the
metal stock, from which the specimens are cut.

Richard [18] also discussed mechanical properties or parameters that have direct or indirect
influence on formability and product quality. These properties are; the Ultimate Tensile
Strength (UTS), Yield Strength (YS), Youngs modulus (E), ductility, hardness, the strain
hardening exponent (n) also referred to as strain hardening coefficient and the plastic strain
ratio (r), of which all of these parameters except hardness, can be determined from the results
of a standard tensile test. Standard in a sense those specimens of specific dimensions are cut
from the blank of a sheet metal at an angle of 0, 45 and 90 in relation to the starting metal
sheet. Thus, an understanding of material properties particularly mechanical properties is of
utmost importance in determining the success of a forming process of sheet metals. That can
only be realized by carrying out of mechanical testing techniques such as the tensile test.
31
Similarly, in the Metals Handbook [19] it is documented that the properties of sheet metals
vary considerably, depending on the base (steel, aluminium, copper, or others), alloying
elements present, processing heat treatment, age, and level of cold work. Thus, to account for
variability, Santosh at el. [12] suggested that, when selecting materials for a particular
application, a compromise usually must be made between the functional properties required in
the part and the forming properties of the available materials. Hence, material properties play
an important role in metal forming process as well as on drawability of a drawn part.

2.5. Testing techniques for determining deep drawability

Groover [16] explained that at the end of the nineteenth century, due to the development of the
sheet forming technology, sheet metal formability became a research topic. As a result,
various formability tests (technological testing methods) have been developed specific for
each of the two basic types of deformation patterns (drawing and bending), in addition to the
tensile test. Therefore, in the case of the drawing process there are simulation tests for
stretching, deep drawing and combined drawing, namely; the cupping test according to
Erichsen (Erichsen cupping test), the hydraulic budge test, the cup drawing test according to
Swift (referred to as the Swift cup test) and the deep drawing and rupture test method
according to Engelhardt, of which all these testing methods are used to simulate the behaviour
of the material during forming processes.

Besides, Groover [16] distinguished the developed testing methods and stated that the cupping
test according to Erichsen is standardized in DIN 50 101, Part 1.The test is conducted using a
spherical punch and can be carried out using an Erichsen universal cupping test machine,
where by a sheet specimen blank is clamped firmly between the blank holders which prevents
the inflow (feeding) of the sheet volume from under the blank holder into the deformation
zone during the test. While for the Swift cup test, the test is conducted using a flat punch and
simulates pure deep drawing characterized primarily by a plane tension-compression state of
stress under the blank holder. However, the Swift cup test is not standardized, though the
International Deep drawing Research Group (IDDRG) has issued a guideline for it.

32
Whereas the deep drawing and rupture test method according to Engelhardt, Groover [16]
indicated that this test is a combination of the methods for formability of sheets and the
simplification of the deep drawing cupping test. Whereby, the deep drawing cupping test
requires a large number of tests to enable the determination of drawability with sufficient
accuracy. In contrast, the testing of sheets according to Engelhardt requires only a single
specimen which may result in insufficient accuracy due to limited number of tests to carry out.
Thus, due to the drawbacks in the testing methods according to Swift and Engelhardt, the
current study looked only at the tensile test and the Erichsen cupping test, in determining the
drawability of the alloy under study.

2.5.1 Tensile test

According to Richard [18] the tensile test is the most basic and common test used to measure
the mechanical properties of sheet metals, which helps determining the success of a forming
process. It also gives a graphical description of the amount of deflection under load for a given
material. Explicitly, tensile test also measures the resistance of a material to a static or slowly
applied force and determine the stress-strain behavior of materials. The specimens for this test
are prepared according to tensile test standard, DIN EN 10 002-20*80, see Figure 2.5 which
shows a typical stress-strain curve of a ductile material together with the shape of the
specimens used for the test. With a stress-strain curve important properties of a material such
as UTS, YS, E, the total elongation (sometimes denoted as total strain, see Figure 2.5) of the
test specimen at fracture, and strain hardening exponent (n) can be determined. The test also
determines other important properties of the sheet metal such as the plastic strain ratio (r), the
planar anisotropy (r) and the average normal anisotropy ( ).

33
 Figure 2.5: Typical Stress Strain curve of a ductile material [2]

In the case of determining plastic strain ratio (r) from the tensile test, Richard [18] and
Animesh et al. [20] highlighted that the test specimens must be cut at 0, 45 and 90,
respectively to the rolling direction and the direction must be reported with the result. Reasons
being that in some sheet materials the -values vary with the applied axial strain due to the
development of planar anisotropy, for which sample orientation can be significant to the
measurement of plastic strain ratio . Therefore the test samples are cut as shown in Figure 2.6
to cover up for the possible shortcomings.

34
 Figure 2.6: Dog bone shape flat tensile test specimen preparation [2]

Overall, in the sheet metal forming industry, the tensile test is used to evaluate formability of
sheets by determining the fundamental properties of sheet metals such as; ductility, strain
hardening exponent (n), the plastic strain ration (also known as normal anisotropy) r, planar
anisotropy (r), as well as average normal anisotropy ( ) that are noteworthy during the
manufacturing process.

2.5.1.1 Ductility

Richard [18] defined ductility as the capacity for plastic deformation. Then, pointed out that
there are two measures of ductility governed by ASTM E8/E8M standard namely total
elongation (% El) and reduction of area (% RA). On the word of Richard [18] total elongation
is the amount of uniaxial strain at fracture, sometimes referred to as the total strain (see Figure
2.5) which determines the capability of the sheet metal to stretch without necking and failure.
Total elongation can be deduced from engineering stress strain curve. Referring to Figure
2.7, the total elongation is depicted as strain at point z and it is always expressed in term of
percentage using the following relationship:

( ) (2.1)

35
Where is the elongation from the starting point, point O to the fracture point (that is, from
point O to point z on the horizontal axis of Figure 2.7), is a final length of the test
specimen (see Figure 2.7) and is the initial gauge length of the test specimen at point O on
Figure 2.7.

Figure 2.7: Total elongation region on the Engineering stress-strain curve [18]

Just as total elongation, reduction of area is another measure of ductility expressed in

percentage as well. It is calculated by measuring the cross sectional area at the fracture point;
see Figure 2.7, using the following relationship:

( ) (2.2)

Where and are the cross sectional area of the test specimen at the initial point, point O
and fracture point, point z respectively (all reference made to Figure 2.7).

Generally, total elongation and reduction of area both increase with increasing cross-sectional
area of the specimen. As the reduction of area increases the minimum allowable bend radius
36
for a sheet material decreases whereas the percent elongation decreases with increasing gage
length due to localized necking in the specimen. Therefore, for a successful deep draw, Cevdet
et al. [21] concluded that sheet material used for stretch forming should be ductile and
uniformly deformed without necking. In other words, both high tensile strength at formed wall
region and high ductility of material at flange area are expected from initial material.

2.5.1.2 Plastic strain ratio, r (plastic anisotropy)

Plastic strain ratio ( ) is one of the factors that affect formability and has the most significant
effect on the deep drawability of sheet metals. Richard [18] stated that the plastic strain ratio
is considered as a direct measure of sheet metal drawability and is used for evaluating
materials intended for forming shapes by a deep drawing process. That is to say, the - value
indicates the ability of the sheet metal to resist thinning or thickening when being deep drawn
into a cup shaped profile. Additionally, Richard [18] as well expressed that the value is
calculated from true width strain and true longitudinal strain (see equation 2.3) as a test
specimen is pulled in tension and its determination is governed by ASTM E517 Standard Test
Method for plastic strain ratio for sheet metal. Assuming the volume of the specimen
remains constant; the r value is computed using the following relationship:

( )
(2.3)

( )

Where true width strain ( ) and true longitudinal strain ( ) , of

which , , , , and are the final width, initial width, final thickness, initial thickness,
final length and initial length of the flat tensile test specimen respectively. However, the
thickness values sometimes are hard to measure [9]; hence in determining the value the
width and length values are preferred.

37
Generally, two types of plastic anisotropy can be identified namely; planar anisotropy (r) and
average normal anisotropy ( ). Average normal anisotropy, ( ) is one of the parameter
that determines the limiting drawing ratio (drawability). Using the tensile test results the
value is given as:

(2.4)

Where , and are the plastic strain ratio on the region parallel (at 0), at 45 and
perpendicular (at 90) to the rolling direction of the sheet metal respectively.

Likewise, planar anisotropy (r) is another parameter that helps determine the drawability of
sheet metal and its value is related more on the formation of ears for a drawn part. Hence, the
height of the ears increases as r increase and when r = 0, no ears form. Thus, r is in
correlation with the extent of earing and using tensile test results, planar anisotropy (r) can
be computed as follows:

(2.5)

Cevdet et al. [21] stated that for material to have a better deep drawability the value of
should be high than 1, then emphasized that when the material is said to have
a good drawability and when the material is said to have poor drawability. Thus,
drawability increases with the increasing average anisotropy values for sheet metals. However,
Hirofumi and Takayuki [11] reported that the expression in equation (2.4) has not been clear
from experimental results so far because the average rvalue for aluminium alloys produced
by conventional rolling and annealing processes generally shows rather lower values than 1
and exist only in a narrow range of 0.55 0.85, see Figure 2.8, which shows a typical
relationship between the average normal anisotropy and the limiting drawing ratio for various
sheet metals including aluminium.

38
 Figure 2.8: The relationship between LDR and ravg for various metals [14]

Moreover, sheet metal exhibits different behaviour in different plane directions and this causes
ears to form in deep drawn parts. More anisotropic properties lead to greater earing and
decreased efficiency of the deep drawing process. According to Cevdet et al. [21] for a sheet
metal to provide an optimal deep drawability, a combination of high and low r is
required. Briefly, that means the sheet should have high resistance to thickening in the desired
cup-shape without a change in sheet thickness when it is formed.

2.5.1.3 Strain hardening coefficient (n)

Richard [18] describes the strain hardening coefficient as a measure of how rapidly a material
becomes stronger and harder due to plastic deformation. This is realized by measuring the
stress strain response in the plastic region prior to necking. This region on the curve is a
region between the offset yield strength point B and the ultimate stress point D, see Figure 2.9.

39
Figure 2.9: Determination of the strain hardening coefficient from the stress-strain curve [18]

In the strain hardening region (region B D, in Figure 2.9), the engineering stress strain
curve is approximated by the following equation:

(2.6)

Where , , and is the true stress, strength coefficient, true strain and the strain hardening
coefficient respectively. Conversely, Groover [16] stated that, the engineering stress-strain
curve does not give a true indication of the deformation characteristics of the material due to
the fact that it is based on the original cross-sectional area and this dimension changes
continuously during the test. Thus, as a solution to technical problems in sheet metal forming,
the true stress and true strain are much more important. True stress ( ) is determined as
follows:

(2.7)

Where, , , , and are applied force, actual area (instantaneous area), true stress,
engineering strain and engineering stress respectively.
40
While true strain ( ) is given as:

(2.8)

Whereby, and are instantaneous and initial lengths.Once the values of true stress and true
strain are determined, they can be plotted on a graph to give a true stress-strain curve of a
material. Moreover, the Metals Handbook [19] indicated that in order to determine the strain
hardening exponent from the true stress and true strain values a logarithmic operation have to
be applied on the true stress and true strain values, as:

(2.9)

Plotting the resultant values on a graph, generates a power-law representation or curve a as

shown in Figure 2.10. By computing the gradient of the curve, the strain hardening coefficient
is obtained, which helps obtaining the value of .in equation (2.6).

Figure 2.10: The log true stress- log true strain curve [19]

41
According to Animesh et al. [20] a high strain hardening exponent is related to the ability of
sheet material to undergo large uniform strains during biaxial stretching operations. To be
specific on how high the value of should be, Groover [16] revealed that values lie between
0 and 1, whereby when the material is referred to as a perfect plastic solid and when
, the material is known to be 100% elastic solid. Nevertheless, for ductile metals at room
temperature, they usually exhibit values of from 0.02 to 0.5. Similarly, Cevdet et al. [21]
interpreted the value as the measures of a good stretching forming characteristics, then
inferred that the greater value of n means that the material has the desired high ductility and
uniform plastic deformation characteristics. Thus, strain hardening coefficient is a
fundamental parameter for stretch forming operation, where work material is stretched beyond
elastic region. When it increases, a materials resistance to necking also increases

2.5.2 Erichsen cupping test

Animesh et al. [20] described the Erichsen cupping test as a ductility test, which is employed
to evaluate the ability of metallic sheets and strips to undergo plastic deformation in stretch
forming. This test can be classified as a stretch forming test which simulates plane stress
biaxial tensile deformation. The test consists of forming an indentation by pressing a punch
with a spherical end against a test piece clamped between a blank holder (sheet holder) and a
die, until a through crack appears; see Figure 2.11 and Figure 2.12, which illustrate the
principle of the cupping test according to Erichsen.

42
 Figure 2.11: The principle of Erichsen Cupping Test [1]

Prior to drawing, a net of circles is printed on the surface of the samples and after the drawing
some circles are distorted into elliptical shapes. The depth of the cup is measured which is
referred to as penetration depth or Erichsen number (IE), which determines the formability of
sheet metals. The greater the value of d or IE (see Figure 2.12), the greater is the formability
of the sheet metal.

Figure 2.12: The Erichsen cupping testing process (before and after the test) [2]

43
Based on the work of Anas et al. [22] the major and minor axes diameters of the ellipses are
measured and used to determine the values of the major strain and minor strain using the
relationship shown in equation (2.10) and equation (2.11). Hence, the major strain is given as:

( ) (2.10)

Where , and are major strain, diameter of the major axis of the formed ellipse and
initial diameter of the printed circles before deep drawing respectively. While the minor strain
is give as:

( ) (2.11)

Where , and are minor strain, diameter of the minor axis of the formed ellipse and
diameter of the printed circles before deep drawing respectively. The resulting strain values
from the two equations (equation 2.10 and 2.11) can then be represented graphically to give a
curve called a forming limit curve/ diagram. All in all, from the Erichsen cupping test one can
determine the limiting drawing ratio (drawability), Erichsen Index number (IE), the force load
drawing in addition to the forming limit curve.

2.5.2.1 Limiting drawing ratio (LDR)

Mohammad et al. [17] defined the Limiting drawing ratio as the ratio of the largest diameter
of the blank that can be drawn without failure to the smallest diameter of the cup or punch.
Expressed as:

(2.12)

Where and are the initial diameter of a circle on the blank and punch diameter
respectively. According to Zhiqing and Xuemei [15] LDR can also be expressed as the ratio of
the surface area of the blank to the punch area. It is commonly used to provide a measure of

44
the drawability of sheet metals, the higher the LDR, the more extreme the amount of deep
drawing.

2.5.3 Forming Limit Diagram (FLD)

An FLD is considered as one of the most important tools for determining the formability of
sheet metals. Together with the Forming Limit Curve (FLC), the FLD provides a method for
determining process limitations in sheet metal forming and used to assess the stamping
characteristics of sheet metal materials. According to the study of Amra et al. [23] a forming
limit diagram (FLD) is a representation of the critical combination of two principal surface
strains (major and minor strain) above which localized necking instability is observed.

Agreeing with the study of Amra et al. [23], Tisza and Kovcs [24] discussed the forming
limit diagram as a useful concept for characterizing the formability of sheet metal, which
reflects the maximum principal strains that can be sustained by sheet materials prior to the
onset of localized necking. Based on the two studies, it is reported that the first forming limit
diagram was published by Keeler. However, Keeler determined the forming limit curve only
in the positive range of minor strain ( ) in 1963. And the left hand side ( ) was
then determined by Goodwin in 1968 and since then the FLD is sometimes referred to as the
Keeler-Goodwin curve, see Figure 2.13, which shows the schematic illustration of the FLD
according to Goodwin and Keeler.

45
 Figure 2.13: The FLD according to Keeler and Goodwin [2]

This curve is interesting because it divides the plane into two zones. The success area (zone) is
under the forming limit and the failure zone is above it, for deep drawing operation and the
criteria to reject the drawn parts is now on the onset of localized necking. Industrially, a FLD
is used in method planning, tool manufacturing and tool shops to optimize stamping tools and
their geometries. Thus, since the discovery of the FLD several studies have been carried out
on establishing different methods of generating this type of curve, both theoretically and
experimentally.

2.5.3.1. Experimental determination of FLD

In determining the FLD experimentally, Tisza and Kovcs [24] indicated that the specimens
with circular or rectangular cross-section proposed by Nakazima and Marciniak are generally
used, either as modified version or original version. For this present study square cross
section plate were used. Figure 2.14 shows the modified version which was used by Tisza and
Kovcs [24] to determine the FLD experimentally.
46
 Figure 2.14: The modified Nakazima specimen [24]

Prior to the Erichsen cupping test, the grid lines or circular geometries are printed on the
surface of the test specimens as shown in Figure 2.15. The distortion in the shape of the grid
lines patterns or circular shaped patterns is measured to determine the value of the minor and
major strains of the sheet material after fracture, using the relationships of equation (2.10) and
equation (2.11). Amra et al. [23] also highlighted that to obtain various strain states during the
forming process dissimilar tool geometries are required. However, different strain states can
also be obtained with one tool geometry by employing special methods for various proposed
shaped test such as the modified Nakazima specimens.

47
 Figure 2.15: Method of developing the Forming Limit Diagram [2]

Besides, obtaining various strain states to come up with the FLD, the study by Venkateswarlu
et al. [25] and Santhakumar et al. [26] pointed out that apart from the process parameters, the
sheet thickness also has significant effect on the formability of sheet material and concluded
that the formability increases with increasing sheet thickness. To account for the effect of
sheet thickness, Tisza and Kovcs [24] reported that increasing the sheet thickness results in
shifting the forming limit curve upward along the major axis. Figure 2.16 illustrates the typical
FLD of a heat treatable aluminium alloy AA6016-T4, which belongs to the same group series
as AA6082 O, the alloy being studied.

48
 Figure 2.16: FLD for a Heat-Treatable Aluminium Alloy (AA6016 T4)

2.6. Defects in deep drawing manufacturing

Many times after deep drawing operations, several defects are observed like; wrinkling,
earing, tearing, excessive thinning of cups and rupture of blanks. According to Muhammad
[27], the defects usually occur due to unsuitable or non-optimal operation variable in deep
drawing process and can be controlled by careful regulation of the process factors. Therefore,
in designing the deep drawing die and during the experiments, the defects which can occur
must be avoided in order get an ideal result from the experiments. Following are the common
defects encountered in deep drawing operations:

49
2.6.1. Wrinkling

Wrinkling is one of the common defects that occur in sheet metal forming by conversion deep
drawing process [27]. It is a kind of buckling phenomenon that prevents successful forming of
the sheet, and often occurs when blank holder force (BHF) is too low. Thus, optimization of
the BHF is necessary since too high force will cause excessive friction. With this kind of
defect the sheet thickness and corner radius of the die are essential parameters. If corner radius
of the die is not high enough, tearing may occur, but if the corner radius is excessive wrinkling
may occur. Therefore, like the BHF, die corner radius must be optimized to reduce the defects
on the drawn part. Figure 2.17 show the common form of wrinkling phenomenon on deep
drawn parts:

Figure 2.17: Wrinkling phenomenon: (a) Corrugation (b) bending over [27]

2.6.2. Earing

Earing is another very common defect observed in deep drawing operations. It appears in the
form of wavy edges at the open end of the drawn cup, predominated by the anisotropy of a
sheet metal blank [27]. It can therefore be defined as the formation of an uneven height at the
edge of a drawn product, forming a series of peak and valleys along its circumference. Earing
often occurs due to more easy deformation in some directions than the other. This is simply
because; during deep drawing, the sheet metal is subjected to different amounts of plastic
strain for each angle relative to rolling direction, which causes different amounts of elongation
50
or plastic deformation. The difference in amount of elongation and plastic deformation results
in formation of ears due to anisotropic properties of material. According to Mohammad [27],
the number of ears formed is normally four, however two, six or eight ears are also possible.
Once the ears are formed they are usually trimmed off from the drawn part in order to obtain
the desired part geometry. Figure 2.18 show an example of earing phenomenon.

Figure 2.18: Ears formation in deep drawing [27]

2.6.3. Tearing and excessive thinning of drawn cups

Tearing is also one of the most common defects in deep drawing process. They are mostly
caused by too high or improper force distribution and material properties. Mohammad [27]
reported that; usually tearing and excessive thinning of the formed shell wall occurs near the
base of the drawn test specimen. Other reasons for tearing and excessive thinning of sheet
metals may be due to an inefficient blank shape. When tearing occurs at the corners of the
wall it may indicate a problem with the blanking geometry.

51
2.7 Summary

In summary, aluminium as a light metal has been widely considered and used in the
automobile industry to help reduce weight of the automobile bodies, reduce problems of fuel
consumption and cater for the ever increasing safety demand in designing of automobile
bodies. This has resulted in development of new aluminium alloys such as AA6082 to cater
for the high demand experienced by the automotive industry. However, to reduce defects, cost
and improve product quality manufactured from new sheet metals, evaluating the formability
of new sheet materials is of utmost important in modern industries such as the metal forming
industry. This is achieved by determination of mechanical properties of sheet metals through
mechanical testing techniques such as the tensile test and sheet metal forming testing
techniques such as the Erichsen cupping test. The results of these testing techniques are used
to determine certain parameters (characteristics) for the sheet metals particularly; the tensile
strength (TS), ductility, the plastic strain ratio (r), the strain hardening coefficient (n), Erichsen
Index (IE) as well as establishing a FLD.

52
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Deep drawability is an indicator used to evaluate the ability of a given blank sheet to undergo
plastic deformation without failing. This ability is experimentally determined and depends
greatly on the process parameters, mechanical properties, thickness of the sheet metal and the
parts geometry. This study aimed at evaluating the deep drawability of AA 6082-O sheet by
carrying out tensile test and deep drawing test (Erichsen cupping test) experiments. The
experiments were carried out in the Mechanical Engineering Lab at the University of Namibia,
Jos Eduardo dos Santos Campus, in Ongwediva, northern Namibia. Hence, given in this
chapter are the design approach, instruments used, measurements and calculations carried out.
This chapter also includes method tools used to obtain and analyze the data in assessing the
deep drawability of this specified aluminium alloy.

3.1. Research design

This study incorporated both qualitative and experimental research design. Two types of
experiments were carried out, and these were tensile tests and Erichsen cupping tests. The
results obtained from the two experiments were compared with similar results from literature,
hence making the study to be both quantitative and experimental.

For the first type of experiment (the tensile test experiment), two factors were considered
namely; the thickness of the specimen and the rolling direction at which the specimen was cut
from the AA6082-Osheet. The first factor (thickness) was tested at two levels (that is, at
thickness of 1.0 mm and 2.0 mm) whereas the second factor (rolling direction) was tested at
three levels (that is at an angle of 0, 45 and 90 to the rolling direction). Making the tensile
test experiment to be a factorial design with six different treatment groups (
). The groups were randomly assigned which makes this experiment a posttest-only

53
design. For each treatment group, two replications were assigned to the group to ensure easy
identification of the sources of variation in the tensile test results and to better estimate the
true effects of the treatments on the stress-strain behaviour of this alloy. This resulted in a total
of 18 runs to be carried out for the first experiment. Thus, the tensile test
experiment was a two-factor experimental design.

For the second experiment (the Erichsen cupping test experiment), only one factor was
considered (that is, the thickness of the test specimens), which makes the Erichsen cupping
test to be a single-factor experimental design. Just as in the first type of experiment (the tensile
test experiment), this factor (the thickness) was tested at two levels (at thickness of 1.0 mm
and 2.0 mm) but with only two different treatment groups. Five replications were performed
for each treatment group so that a good estimate on the effect of specimen thickness on the
forming limits of the alloy could be obtained when establishing the forming limit diagram of
this alloy. This made up a total of 10 runs for the second set of
experiments.

Overall, the first experiment, a factorial, posttest-only design was used to test the
hypothesis on the stress-strain curve of the alloy (the first hypothesis of the study) while the
second experimental, a single-factor design was used to test the hypothesis on the forming
limits (second hypothesis of the study) of the alloy. The treatment groups were replicated to
strengthen the experiments reliability and validity. Thus, for the two set of experiments a total
of 28 runs were carried out for the study and the data on the mechanical properties of the alloy
based on the variation in the thickness of test specimens used for the study were gathered by
using the described research design approach in evaluating the deep drawability of the alloy.

54
3.2. Apparatus and materials

Various instruments were used for this study namely; the WP 300 Universal Material Tester
machine, a micrometer screw gauge, a circle stencil, a Vernier Caliper, a metal scriber, and an
adjustable divider. Thus, this section discusses the various instruments and accessories used in
obtaining the data of the study.

3.2.1. WP 300 Universal Material Tester

A Universal Material Tester (WP 300 Universal Material Tester, 200354) supplied by Gunt
Hamburg Company with a maximum loading capacity of 20 kN and a PC-based data
acquisition (WP 300 PC-based data acquisition) was used for the two sets of experiments. The
machine consists of hardware components namely; a position encoder for measurement of the
deformation, a pressure transducer with an adapter for measurement of the test force, a
measuring amplifier with USB interface for digitization of measured values, a power supply
and the associated cables. A material testing program software called LabVIEW was installed
on the computer of the data acquisition system, which runs under Windows XP/ 2000 and
supports the following testing processes; the tensile test, compression test, hardness test,
bending test and shear test); with an online graphics, calculation of characteristic material
values, storage of measured values in file form and creation and printing of test logs. The
measured data sent to the PC via USB interface has 12 bit accuracy.

For the tensile test experiments, the Universal Material Tester fitted with flat tension specimen
holder accessories was used to carry out the tensile test and the PC data acquisition system
connected to this machine was used to trace the load-elongation relationship of the test
specimens of the alloy progressively as the load is applied, see Figure 3.1. Hence, this fitment
on the machine tests the tensile strength of the specimen and the PC data acquisition system
eases the determination of the load-extension curves of the alloy after the tensile test
experiments.

55
 Figure 3.1: WP 300 Universal Material tester (fitted with tensile test accessories)

In the case of the Erichsen cupping test set of experiments, the same Universal Material Tester
fitted with the deep drawing (cupping test) accessories was used in applying the load onto the
surface of the deep drawing specimen, to form an indentation until the specimen cracked. The
deep drawing accessories are; a spherical drawing punch with a diameter of 20 mm, a die of
27 mm diameter, a blank holder with two hexagonal bolts and mirror which permits the
underside of the specimen to be observed and thus makes it possible to see exactly how
cracking starts as the load is applied, see Figure 3.2.

56
 Figure 3.2: WP 300 Universal Material Tester fitted with cupping test accessories

3.2.2. Micrometer screw gauge

A digital outside micrometer screw gauge (Serial no:080487460) with a range and accuracy of
0 - 25 mm and 0.01 mm, respectively, was used to measure the width of the flat tensile test
specimens before and after the tensile test experiments. Figure 3.3 is a picture of that gauge.

Figure 3.3: A digital outside micrometer screw gauge

57
3.2.3. A circle stencil, a metal scriber and an adjustable divider

A circle stencil with known circle diameters was used in this study together with an adjustable
divider and a metal scriber (see Figure 3.4) to scribe gridlines and circles on the surface of the
Erichsen cupping test specimens before the test. The adjustable divider was also used to mark
off the distance between two points marked on the circumference, along the vertical and
horizontal center lines of the scribed circles after the specimen cracked and then transfer this
marked off distance to the Vernier Caliper for the reading.

Figure 3.4: A circle stencil, scriber and divider

3.2.4. Vernier Caliper

A metric Vernier Caliper (see Figure 3.5) with a measuring range and accuracy of 200.0 mm
and 0.05 mm respectively was used in this study; to measure the marked off distances,
transferred from the divider.

58
 Figure 3.5: Vernier Caliper

3.2.5. Vernier Depth Gauge

A Mitutoyo depth micrometer fixed rod (Serial no: 115781), with a measuring range ,
resolution and width base of 0 25 mm, 0.01 mm and 101.6 mm x 16 mm base, respectively,
was used in the study, to measure the depth of the drawn cups formed on the tested deep
drawing specimens. Figure 3.6 is a picture of that gauge.

Figure 3.6: Depth micrometer: (a) Measuring the depth of the drawn specimen
59
3.2.6. Research materials

A total of 28 testing samples of 6082-O-temper aluminium alloy were supplied from Peoples
Republic of China by Jinan Precision Equipment CO. LDT, in 1.0 mm and 2.0 mm thickness
for the research. Of the total supplied testing samples; 10 sample were square plates for
Erichsen Cupping Test experiments, 5 samples per thickness. The dimensions of the Erichsen
Cupping Testing samples were; 60.0 x 60.0 mm, as specified by the deep drawing operation
manual accompanying the WP 300 Universal Material Tester used for the study. The other 18
sample of the total testing samples supplied were dog bone shape flat tensile test specimens,
cut at three different directions; 0, 45 and 90 in respect to the rolling direction, 3 samples
per testing conditions (specimen thickness and direction). The supplied tensile test specimens
had a width, gauge length and total length of 12.5 mm, 60.0 mm and 144.0 mm respectively,
and the contour of the sections of the specimens complied with DIN 50125 - E8 Standards.

Figure 3.7: Test specimens: (a) Flat tensile test specimens (b) deep drawing specimens

60
3.3. Procedures

Two sets of experiments were carried out for the study and the experimental procedures of
each set of experiments are outlined in this section.

3.3.1. Tensile test experiments

Figure 3.8: Tensile test experiment equipment

Two sets of rectangular cross-section AA6082 flat specimens with a thickness of 1.0 mm and
2.0 mm (with 9 specimens per thickness) were prepared according to the DIN 50125 E8
standard. The angle at which the specimens were cut was noted; initial test specimen
thicknesses and gauge lengths were measured before the tests and recorded. The gripping
heads of the tensile test accessories were then fitted in the upper cross-member and cross-head
onto the tensile zone of the Universal Material Tester by screwing the lower gripping head
61
into place, downwards with a short bolt and a pressure pad, and securing the upper griping
head upward with a long bolt and a hexagonal nut without slaking.

Thereafter, the specimens were manually screwed into the lower and upper gripping head,
making sure that the threads were completely screwed in. Before applying the load, on the
computer of the data acquisition system the type of test to be carried out was selected by
selecting the /Start/Tensile test menu option; a new measurement series was created by
selecting the /File/New series menu option; the desired nature of the tensile test specimen was
selected (as flat tensile specimen); the material and dimensions of the specimen were entered
into the system by opening the entry window using the /View/Setting menu option.

Using the hand wheel on the master cylinder of the machine, the specimens were subjected to
tensional load slowly and continuously until fractured and the maximum load at which the
specimen failed was recorded. After the specimens fractured the final gauge lengths and
widths were measured, and the force-elongation, stress-elongation curves were obtained from
the PC data acquisition system. Thus, all the measured values were recorded as data for the
experiments.

62
1. Prepare flat specimen holder chuck 2. Fitting gripping heads in upper
(accessories). cross- member and cross-
head on the tensile zone
of the machine.

3. Mounting the specimen between the 4. Setup the PC data acquisition

gripping heads. system, then apply the load
gently to the specimen by
using the hand wheel on the
master cylinder.

7. Once the specimen break, unscrew

the hexagonal nuts to remove it 8. Tested tensile test specimens
from the clamping heads.

Figure 3.9: Tensile test experiment procedures

63
3.3.2. Erichsen cupping test experiments

Figure 3.10: Deep drawing experiment equipment

Two sets of AA6082 square (60 mm x 60 mm) deep drawing specimens (with a thickness of
1.0 mm and 2.0 mm, 5 specimens per set) were prepared. The specimens were first cleaned of
the dirt, then the centre of each specimen was located (marked with centrelines). Thereafter,
gridlines (vertical and horizontal lines) with an offset of 10 mm were scribed on the surface of
each test specimen using a metal scribe. A set of 5 concentric circles with diameters of 5 mm,
8 mm, 17 mm, 23 mm and 26 mm were also scribed on the surface of each specimen and each
circle shared the same centre with the test specimen (see Figure 3.11). Four points were then
marked on the circumference of each circle, two points along the vertical centreline and the
other two points along the horizontal centreline. The thickness of the specimen and the
distance between the two marked points along the same centrelines of the drawn circles were

64
measured before the test so as to be able to conclude whether there is a change in the distance
between the two marked points after the experiment.

Having only one punch and needing to generate various stress paths that would cover the
entire domain of the forming limit diagram after the experiments, required that the shape
(geometry) of some of the test specimens be first modified before carrying out any test. The
modifications on the shape of the specimens were as follows: one specimen of the 5 specimens
from each thickness set was used as a controller; that is, no modification was made to its
shape. Then, the shapes of the other four specimens from each thickness set were modified.

The first modification made was, by cutting a segment (groove) or an arc recess from the two
sides (right hand and left hand side) of the square specimen. The width of the arc of the cut
segment was 60.0 mm whereas the height of the arc was 10 0 mm; hence a radius of 48.5 mm
(see Figure 3.11.b) and this modification was applied to two specimens from each thickness
set.

The second modification made was, by cutting a groove segment or an arc recess with a width
of 60.0 mm and a height of 16.5 mm, hence a radius of 34.0 mm (see Figure 3.11.c). This
modification was applied to two specimens from each thickness set.

Thus, for each set of thickness, there was a controller specimen, two specimens with the first
modification and two specimens with the second modification and their geometries resembled
the geometries shown in Figure 3.11.

65
 Figure 3.11: The deep drawing specimens designs: (a) non-grooved specimen (acting as a
controller), (b) Grooved specimen (with a segment width of 60 mm and height of 10 mm), (c)
Grooved specimen (with a segment width of 60 mm and height of 16.5 mm)

After all the modifications on the shape specimens were done, the 20.0 mm spherical punch,
the 27.0 mm die and the scribed surface of the specimens were lubricated with Vaseline
BLUESEAL jelly. Afterward, the specimen to be tested was centrally mounted on the die and
clamped tightly between the die and the holding clamp using two hexagonal bolts. The
prepared body was then set on the Universal Material Tester through the tube of the
compression zone of the machine and the drawing punch gently pressed against the specimen
by means of the hydraulic device using screw hand wheel on the master cylinder (see Figure
3.10). The dial gauge was set to zero before applying any load onto the specimen. After
zeroing, the load was gently applied onto the specimen by forcing the ball of the punch onto
the test specimen until a crack appeared on the budge dome (the mirror). The specimen was
then removed from the die and the penetration depth of the punch onto the surface of the
specimens was measured which gave the Erichsen Index (IE) of the drawn part.

Finally, observation on the distortion of the scribed circles was made, and then the distance
between the two marked points on each scribed circles vertical and horizontal centreline was
measured and recorded as minor and major diameters of the scribed circles after the deep
drawing process, which helped in the determination of the minor and major strains, and the
establishment of the forming limit diagram.

66
 1. Have the deep drawing 2. Marking gridlines and circles on the
accessories). surface specimen.

3. After lubricating the die and 4. Setup the PC data acquisition

specimen, mount the specimen system, then apply the load gently to
between the die and blank holder. the specimen by using the hand wheel
on the master cylinder.

7. Once the specimen break, unscrew 8. Measure the depth of the form cup
the hexagonal nuts to remove it from shape on the tested specime using a
the clamping heads. depth micrometer.

Figure 3.12: Erichsen cupping test experiment setup

67
3.4. Data processing and analysis

The results of the tensile test experiments that are generated by the computer of the PC-data
acquisition system such as the tabulated values (see appendix B, Figure B1), graphical data
(force-elongation diagram and stress-elongation diagram), were printed as test reports and
then used to determine the ductility of the alloy using the relationship give in Eq. 2.1. The
tabulated data and test reports were also used to determine the stress-strain curves of the alloy
by calculating the average values from the data generated using Microsoft Excel 2010. From
the test reports produced by the PC-data acquisition system, the average tensile yield strength,
average yield stress, average Ultimate Tensile Strength and average elongation were
determined from graphs generated with Microsoft Excel 2010. The mechanical properties of
the alloy obtained from the experiments and the drawn stress- strain curves were compared
with the AA 6082-O and the other aluminium alloys stress strain curves from literature.

The results from the Erichsen test were used to determine the forming limit curve, hence the
deep drawability of the alloy. A t-test analysis was done in Microsoft Excel 2010 to find out
the significance of thickness on the ultimate tensile strength, minor and major strains of the
alloy. This also helped in determining whether an increase in thickness has an effect on the
forming limit curve of the alloy under study. The obtained values of the strain hardening
exponent (n) and strength coefficient (K) were compared with those of comparable aluminium
alloys used for structural applications, in order to assess the deep drawability of the alloy.

68
3.5. Ethical considerations

The Universal Material Tester machine used for the study only takes specific materials of
certain strength and thicknesses (up to 2.0 mm thick for deep drawing); hence for safety all
these were complied with during the study to ensure that the machine was used correctly and
for the purpose it was designed for. The specimens used for the study were cut according to
the specifications of the standards that govern the respective kind of test experiments, to
ensure that the study conforms to existing standardized methods and the results of the study
may be easily compared with those from literature. Lastly, caution was taken during the
experiments to prevent compromising the relevance of the data obtained for the study and
ensuring that the study does not interfere with the wellbeing of the other candidates who were
concurrently carrying out experiments in the same lab, though on other testing machines.

69
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Chemical composition analysis

A chemical analysis was done on the tested specimens with an XRF analyzer and the samples
used in the study were found to contain Silicon (1.16 %), Magnesium (0.95 %) and other
elements as shown in Figure A1, on the appendices,. The obtained percentages by weight of
alloying elements were found to be in agreement with those from literature. Thus, it can be
said that the test samples used for this study were for the specified aluminium alloy.

4.2. Tensile test experiment results and discussion

Tensile test experiments were carried out on dog-bone shaped flat test specimens of AA6082
O sheet for two distinct thicknesses (1.0 mm and 2.0 mm) and three directions relative to the
rolling direction (0) of the AA6082 O sheet, transverse direction (45) and normal direction
(90). Three test specimens were tested per rolling direction for the two different thicknesses
and the results were as follows:

4.1.1. Observation

After the tensile test experiments, the broken test specimens were observed and found not to
have necked much to the extent that a cup shape forms around the neck region as the case for
some materials. The necking was so small that sometimes it was hard to identify if the
specimen had necked or fractured without necking. Figure 4.1 show some of the broken
tensile test specimens:

70
 Figure 4.1: The fractured tensile test specimens after the experiment

4.1.2. Stress strain behaviour of AA6082-O

Figures 4.2 and 4.3 show the engineering stress strain curves and true stress-train curves of
AA6082 O sheet for the two thicknesses (1.0 mm and 2.0 mm) and three rolling direction
(0, 45 and 90), respectively. From these figures it can be seen that for both thicknesses, the
tensile strength (UTS) of AA6082 O is higher in the rolling direction (0) and lower in the
normal direction (90), with the corresponding values as recorded in Table 4.1. It can also be
seen that; the engineering stress-strain curves of AA6082 O sheet increases linearly toward
the yield point as expected of aluminium alloys. The true stress-strain curves increases
exponentially toward the maximum tensile strength.

71
 150 Alloy : AA6082 - O sheet

Key:
120 Th : Thickness
Engineering stress (s) [MPa]

RD : Rolling Direction

90 Th: 1.0 mm, RD: 90 deg.

Th: 1.0 mm, RD: 45 deg.

60 Th: 1.0 mm, RD: 0 deg.

Th: 2.0 mm, RD: 90 deg.

30
Th: 2.0 mm, RD: 45 deg.

Th: 2.0 mm, RD: 0 deg.

0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18
Engineering strain (e) [%]

Figure 4.2: The engineering stress-strain curves of AA6082 O sheet

1800

1600 Alloy : AA6082 - O sheet

1400
Trues stress () [Mpa]

Key:
1200

1000 Th: 1.0 mm, RD: 90 deg.

Th: 1.0 mm, RD: 45 deg.
800
Th: 1.0 mm, RD: 0 deg.
600 Th: 2.0 mm, RD: 90 deg.
400 Th: 2.0 mm, RD: 45 deg.
Th: 2.0 mm, RD: 0 deg.
200

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
True strain () [%]

Figure 4.3: The true stress-true strain curves

72
4.1.3. Comparisons between engineering stress-strain and true stress-strain curves

Figure 4.4 show the stress strain curves; both the engineering and true stress strain curves,
plotted on the same axes.

1400.0 Alloy: AA6082-O sheet

Thickness : 1.0 mm
1200.0

Rolling direction: 90 deg.

1000.0

Rolling direction: 45 deg.

Stress [MPa]

800.0
Rolling direction: 0 deg.
600.0
RD: 90 deg.

400.0
RD: 45 deg.

200.0 RD: 0 deg.

0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

Strain [%]

Figure 4.4: Comparison of engineering and true stress-strain behaviour of AA6082 O

It can be seen from Figure 4.4 that for all the three directions the true stress always rises in the
plastic region, whereas the engineering stress rises and then falls after going through a
maximum stress. Thus, the maximum represents a significant difference between the
engineering stress-strain curve and the true stress-strain curve. In the engineering stress-strain
curve, this point indicates the beginning of necking.

73
4.1.4. Basic mechanical properties of AA6082 O sheet

Table 4.1 contains some of the basic mechanical properties of AA6082 O sheet, which were
determined from the tensile test experiments, with the help of the obtained stress-strain curves
shown in Figure 4.1 and 4.2.

Table 4.1: The determined basic mechanical properties of AA6082 O sheet

UTS
Specimen Rolling YS [MPa] E f f
thickness Direction [MPa] Engineering True [GPa] [%] [MPa]
value value
0 88.36 137.29 939.23 88.33 9.22 114.54
1.0 mm 45 78.23 130.13 179.84 85.09 6.66 117.61
90 122.21 113.77 696.53 83.64 10.78 85.14

0 82.57 139.08 1699.78 89.60 16.52 97.66

2.0 mm 45 88.46 109.60 1459.06 64.48 15.59 76.09
90 113.77 90.89 1131.99 53.39 14.40 67.40

From the data in Table 4.1, as the case of the highest Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) (139.08
MPa) for 2.0 mm thicknesses, 0 rolling direction, again with the modulus of elasticity (E) it
can be seen that of the two thicknesses and three rolling directions considered for the study,
2.0 mm thick test specimens have the highest E value, 89.60 GPa, in 0, the rolling direction.
The modulus of elasticity was determined from the slope of the elastic region of the
engineering stress-strain curves. From the same table, Table 4.1 it can also be seen that of the
two thicknesses and three rolling direction considered in this present study, the yield strength
is higher in the normal direction (90) (122.21 MPa, 113.77 MPa), and lower in rolling
direction (0), (88.36 MPa, 82.57 MPa) for both thicknesses, the highest values being those of
1.0 mm test specimens thickness in both cases.

74
However, in sheet metal forming operations for a sheet metal to be more formable, the sheet
metal should have a low yield point (low yield strength). Based on the obtained tensile test
results, the yield points of 2.0 mm thickness test specimens are lower than those of 1.0 mm
thickness in the rolling direction and normal direction, the least value being that of the rolling
direction (0). Thus, 2.0 mm thick AA6082 O test specimens were more ductile and
formable than 1.0 mm thick AA6082 O test specimens. Hence, the formability of AA6082
O sheet can be said to improve with an increase in sheet thickness.

4.1.5. Basic formability parameters of AA6082 O sheet

From the tensile test experiment the formability parameters determined were: the strain
hardening exponent (n), the strength coefficient (K), the plastic strain ratio (r values). The
results found were as shown in Figure 4.3, Table 4.2 and Table 4.3:

4.1.5.1 Strain hardening exponent (n), and the strength coefficient (K)

Figure 4.5 shows the log true stress log true strain curve of AA6082-O sheet for both 1.0
mm and 2.0 mm thickness in the three rolling directions, taken at an elongation of 2 6 %.
The 2- 6 % range was chosen because not all the test specimens had an elongation of more
than 10.0 %, particularly the 1.0 mm thick specimens. Therefore the choice of this range was
for an easy comparison of the formability and mechanical parameters for the two distinct
thicknesses considered in the present study.

The gradients of the linear regressions on the plotted graphs correspond to the n values for the
tested specimens in the specified rolling direction and were found to be in a range of (1.54
1.81) and (1.64 1.74) for 1.0 mm thickness and 2.0 mm thickness, respectively. It can be
seen from the graph that the gradients (n values) of these linear regression graphs are greater
than one for both thicknesses, hence the corresponding n values are all above the known
normal n value range (0.0 1.0). For 1.0 mm thickness test specimens, of the three rolling
directions the transverse direction (45) was found to have the least n value (n45 = 1.5489) and
a higher n value (n90 = 1.8054) in the rolling direction (90). Whereas for 2.0 mm thickness
75
test specimens, of the three rolling directions the normal direction (90) was found to have the
least n value (n90 = 1.6441) and the transverse direction (45) was found to have the highest n
value (n45 = 1.7141).

8.0 Alloy : AA6082 - O sheet

y = 1.8054x + 5.6606
R = 0.9995 Key:
7.0 Th : Thickness
RD : Rolling Direction
6.0 Th: 2.0 mm, RD: 0 deg.

Th: 2.0 mm, RD: 45 deg

5.0 Th: 2.0 mm, RD: 90 deg.

log (true stress) [MPa]

y = 1.6767x + 2.4957
R = 0.9986 Th: 1.0 mm, RD: 0 deg.

4.0 y = 1.5489x + 2.4964 Th: 1.0 mm, RD: 45 deg.

R = 0.9982
Th: 1.0 mm, RD: 90 deg.
y = 1.5817x + 2.4316
3.0 R = 0.997 Linear (Th: 2.0 mm, RD: 0 deg.)

y = 1.7141x + 2.382 Linear (Th: 2.0 mm, RD: 45 deg)

2.0 R = 0.9996
Linear (Th: 2.0 mm, RD: 90 deg.)
y = 1.6441x + 2.32
Linear (Th: 1.0 mm, RD: 0 deg.)
R = 0.9962
1.0 Linear (Th: 1.0 mm, RD: 45 deg.)

Linear (Th: 1.0 mm, RD: 90 deg.)

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
log (true strain) [%]

Figure 4.5: The log true stress log true strain curve of AA6082 O sheet

It is therefore clear that from the obtained ranges of n values for the two thicknesses of
AA6082 O sheet considered, the 1.0 mm thickness has the least lower bound value and the
highest upper bound value than 2.0 mm thickness specimens
Since the lower bound of 2.0 mm test specimen thickness is
higher than that of 1.0 mm ( ) and knowing that;
the higher the n value, the better the strain distribution and resistance to localized thinning of
sheet metal, then 2.0 mm thick test specimens were found to have a higher deep

76
drawability compared to 1.0 mm thickness test specimens. Hence, an increase in AA6082 O
sheet thickness improves the deep drawability during deep drawing forming operations.

Though the n values were found to be out of the known r value range, based on the tensile test
results of an experimental study done by Ehab and Abdulhakim [28] on the same alloy, but
different temper (AA6082-T4), and at different operating temperatures, the obtained n values
were also higher than unity, upper bound 7.0 (n = 7.0), and lower bound 3.0 (n = 3.0). It was
then concluded that the very high n values were due to the threshold stress intensity, a
condition governing the geometry and the surrounding microstructure of the formed crack on
the test specimen. It is an important characteristic of the cyclic fracture toughness of the
material,however, it can be affected by the method of heat treatments of the metal. This could
also be the case with this present study, because there was no control over the way the test
specimens were heat treated (annealed). They were supplied in the annealed condition and
tested in that state. Other possible contributors to the relatively high n values could be
operation parameters not considered in the study.

Using the relationship; and given in equations 2.6 and

2.9 respectively, the strength coefficients (K values) were also determined from the same
tensile test results for the two thickness and three rolling directions, as tabulated in Table 4.2.
The K values were found to be in the range of (38.00 63.90 MPa) and (44.00 51.80 MPa)
for 1.0 mm and 2.0 mm respectively. It can be seen from these ranges of K values that 2.0 mm
thickness test specimens have the highest lower bound (K2.0 mm = 44.00 > K1.0 mm = 38.0 MPa).
As is the case of n values, the higher the K values the higher the resistance of the sheet to
localized thinning, hence the higher the formability. Table 4.2 contains the determined n
values and the corresponding K values.

77
Table 4.2: The determined strain hardening exponent (n) and strength coefficient (K) of
AA6082-O sheet

n(2 6)% K [MPa]

Thickness Rolling direction

0 1.8054 63.885

1.0 mm 45 1.5489 35.392

90 1.5817 38.168

0 1.6767 47.501

2.0 mm 45 1.7141 51.773

90 1.6441 44.066

Despite the fact that the obtained n values are out of the usual range, it can be seen that for
both thicknesses (1.0 mm and 2.0 mm) the strain hardening coefficient is higher in the rolling
direction. Based on the work of Cevdet et al. [21], a high n value is an indication that the
sheet metal has the desired high ductility and uniform plastic deformation characteristics. With
this, it can be said that AA6082 O sheets have a high ductility in the rolling direction.

4.1.5.2 Plastic anisotropy of AA6082-O sheet

Plastic strain ratios (r - values) were determined in the three rolling directions (r0, r45, and r90)
for thickness, 1.0 mm and 2.0 mm, using equation 2.3. The average normal anisotropy (ravg)
and planar anisotropy (r) were also determined from the obtained r - values, using equations
2.4 and 2.5 respectively. The obtained values are shown in Table 4.3.

78
 Table 4.3: The plastic anisotropy (r), average normal anisotropy (ravg) and planar
anisotropy (r) of AA6082 O sheet
r - Values.
Thickness Rolling direction
r ravg r

0 0.75
1.0 mm 0.59 -0.20
45 0.69
90 0.23

0 2.40

45 2.28 -0.44
2.0 mm 2.06

90 1.28

From the tabulated r values it can be seen that; for both thicknesses (1.0 mm and 2.0 mm)
and all rolling directions (0, 45 and 90) the highest r - values were found to be for 0 rolling
direction, with the highest r - value (2.40) being for 2.0 mm thickness. It can also be seen from
the same table that; again for both thicknesses (1.0 mm and 2.0 mm) the lowest r - value were
found to be in the normal direction, 90, the lowest (0.23) being for 1.0 mm thickness. All the
obtained r - values of 1.0 mm thickness are less then unity, however they are agreeing with
Hirofumi and Takayuki [11] report, that; the average r value for aluminium alloys produced
by conventional rolling and annealing processes generally shows lower values than 1.0 and
exist only in a narrow range of 0.55 0.85.

Looking at the obtained average r - values in Table 4.3, the calculated ravg value (ravg = 0.59)
for 1.0 mm lies within the stated range (0.55 -0.85). Whereas for the case of the 2.0 mm
thickness, the calculated ravg (r = 2.06) is greater than unity, and corresponds to the condition
of good drawability (ravg > 1.0). Though the ravg - value of 1.0 mm (ravg = 0.59), does not
79
satisfy the known normal condition of good drawability (r avg > 1.0), using the specified range
of ravg - value by [11] as the basis of evaluating the drawability of aluminium alloys in the
annealed condition, it can be said that even the ravg value (ravg = 0.59) for 1.0 mm thickness is a
sign of good drawability of the alloy, since this value lies within the specified range of 0.55
0.85.

Table 4.3 also contains the planar anisotropy (r), and it can be seen that for both thickness
the determined r values (-0.20 and -0.44) are all negative (r < 0). Based on Richard [18],
when r = 0, no ears form on a drawn part and an increase in r - value, results in an increases
in the height of the ears formed. However, the direction of such ears will vary with the sign of
r value. According to Niemeier [29], a study on the formability of two different aluminium
alloys, AA2024-T4 and AA2219 T31 was done and yielded r values of -0.1124 and
0.0149, respectively. Based on these obtained r values it was then concluded that the
obtained r values indicated that earing will occur during deep drawing. Using the work by
Niemeier [29], as the basis of this study, the obtained values of r (-0.20 and -0.44) being not
equal to zero (r 0) and being all negative (r < 0), then it can be said that; with this alloy
earing will occur, specifically in the compressed direction.

This agrees with the observation made on the tested deep drawing (Erichsen cupping test) test
specimens that the two formed ears appeared on the two grooved sides of the specimens,
which are the sides that experienced compression for the specimens that undergone a tension
compression deformation process. Thus, the obtained r values for the two thicknesses
revealed that AA6082 O sheet has a high deep drawability. However, sheet metal of this
type of aluminium alloy have a high chance of ear formation on parts that undergo a tension
compression deformation process during deep drawing operations.

80
4.1.6. Hypothesis testing (Tensile test experiments)

Table 4.4 show the statically analysis that was done on the r values for the two rolling
directions: r0 and r90. From the t- test analysis, it was found that the P values for both one-tail
(P = 0.011) and two-tail (P = 0.022) are less than 0.05 (P = 0.05). Hence, the null hypothesis
was rejected.

Table 4.4: A t-test analysis on the r values of 0 and 90 direction (r0 and r90)

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Variable 1 (r) Variable 2 (r)

Mean 1.574520105 0.755464972
Variance 0.958364714 0.515716869
Observations 6 6
Pearson Correlation 0.779633648
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 5
t Stat 3.263725161
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.011176628
t Critical one-tail 2.015048373
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.022353255
t Critical two-tail 2.570581836

4.3. Deep drawing experiment results

An experimental study on determining the drawability and forming limit curves of the
AA6082 O sheet was carried out using a WP 300 Universal Material Tester, with a spherical
punch of diameter 20.0 mm and a die of diameter 27.0 mm. Five flat test specimens with a
thickness of 1.0 mm and 2.0 mm were used: a 60.0 mm x 60.0 mm specimen; two 60.0 mm x
60.0 mm two-sided grooved specimens with a segment radius of 48.5 mm, segment height of
10.0 mm and segment width of 60.0 mm; and two 60.0 mm x 60.0 mm two-sided grooved
specimens with segment radius of 34.0 mm, segment height of 16.5 mm and segment width of
60.0 mm, for both thickness. Vaseline BLUESEAL jelly (50.0 ml) was used as the lubricant.
The results were as follows:
81
4.2.1. Observation

Figure 4.6 show the 10 deep drawn test specimens, 5 for each thickness, that were tested in the
study.

Figure 4.6: Deep drawn parts after the experiment

From the tested samples, it was observed that for both thicknesses (1.0 mm and 2.0 mm)
deeper drawn cup shapes were produced from the grooved specimens of segment radius 34.0
mm, with the deepest (IE = 22.40 mm) being for 1.0 mm. This is because less force is required
to cause the inward flow of material from the sides of the test specimens for thinner sheets
than thicker sheets. It could also be that since only two sides of the four sides were fully
clamped due to the deep grooves on the specimens, which might have resulted in an
insufficient clamping force to hold the specimens firmly. Hence, it results in an easy inward
flow of materials from the two un-grooved sides of the test specimens and formation of ears
on the drawn parts.

82
4.2.1.1. Ears formation on the drawn parts

Figure 4.7 show the earing formation on the grooved specimens of segment radius 34.0 mm,
for the two thicknesses considered in the study.

Formed ears
Formed ears

Figure 4.7: Ears formation on the tested specimen (two ears formed)

On the right is a 2.0 mm thickness and on the left is a 1.0 mm thick specimen. From the figure
it can be seen that for both specimens two ears formed, one on each grooved side. This is due
to the fact that the grooves on the test specimen resulted in a non-uniform specimen geometry,
such that during the deep drawing the clamped surface areas of the two grooved sides are less
than those of the two non-grooved sides of the specimen. As the specimen is subjected to
loading, there is an easy inward flow of material from the grooved sides than the other sides.
Hence, much of the deformation occurs on the grooved sides. Due to difference in amount of
deformation experienced by the four sides of the specimen, wavy edges known as ears are
formed in the directions which are open or easily deformed.

83
4.2.1.2. Tearing and excessive thinning on the wall of the drawn parts

Figure 4.8 shows a 2.0 mm thickness deep drawn test specimen. The base experienced
excessive thinning, and tearing happened between the base and the clamped edges.

Tore base of the tested

specimen

Figure 4.8: Tearing of the base of the drawn specimen

The specimen had two grooves, with segment width, height and radius of 60.0 mm, 16.5 mm
and 34.0 mm respectively. It can be seen from the figure that after the deep drawing process,
the wall thinned and started to tear along the clamped region, near the base. This could be
either due to too high or improper force distribution within the part or material consideration
such as excessive force due to material impediments or either due to the blanking geometry
since the ears are found at the corners of the walls of the cup.

84
4.2.2. Erichsen Index (IE) and breaking force

Figure 4.9 show a graph of Erichsen Index plotted against the punch force or breaking force.
The punch forces used to plot the graph were the maximum forces recorded after the test
specimen broke (see also in the appendix, Table I3).

25

20
Erichsen index (IE) [mm]

Alloy : AA6082 - O
15 sheet

2.0 mm thickness
10

1.0 mm thickness
5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
The punch force (kN)

Figure 4.9: Punch force vs Erichsen Index

From Figure 4.9 it was found that the forces required to fracture the specimens and the depth
(i.e. IE) of the formed cup shapes upon fracture for test specimens with a thickness of 1.0 mm
are less compared to the 2.0 mm specimens, with an exception of one of the grooved samples
of segment radius 34.0 mm. To account for this exception, this was simply because excessive
force (7.40 kN) was applied after the specimen had already fractured. For the non-grooved
samples, all the four sides of the test specimens were equally clamped by the blank holder,
restricting the inward flow of material from the sides of the specimens during loading. As a

85
result, the specimens experienced tension in all the four sides; hence they went through a
tension-tension deformation process.

In the case of the two-sided grooved specimens with a segment radius of 48.5 mm all the four
sides were clamped by the blank holder, but not equally restricted as the case of the non-
grooved specimens. The two grooved sides were less restricted compared to the other two
non-grooved sides of the same two-sided grooved specimens. This resulted in an inward flow
of material from the non-grooved sides, causing the specimens to experience tension in the
non-grooved direction and compression in the grooved direction. Hence, they went through a
tension-compression deformation process.

4.2.3. The Forming Drawing Ratio (FDR)

A punch and die of diameter 20.0 mm and 27.0 mm respectively were used for the
experiments. The dimensions of blanks used in the study were 60.0 mm x 60.0 mm, however
three designs of the test specimens were used for the deep drawing process. Thus, for the three
designs, using equation 2.11 the FDRs were determined and found as shown in Table 4.5. It
can be seen from the table that the highest FDR value was found to be 3.0, corresponding to
the non-grooved test specimen geometry, followed by the grooved specimen of radius 48.5
mm (2.0), then the grooved specimen of radius 34.0 mm. Thus, based on this results it can be
said that the Forming Drawing ratio decreases with the uniformity or complexity of the part
geometry.

86
Table 4.5: The Forming drawing ratio of the test specimen geometries
Test specimen geometry Forming drawing ratio (FDR)

87
4.2.4. Forming Limit diagram (FLD)

Forming Limit Curves of AA6082-O sheet was experimentally determined by measuring the
major and minor axes of the deformed concentric circles scribed on the test specimen after
fracture occurred (see Table I1 and I2 in the appendices). The deformed circles surrounding
the fractured region were used to obtain the forming limit curves (FLCs). Test specimens of
two different thickness; 1.0 mm and 2.0 mm were used for the simulation of the FLC and
FLD. It was then found that the thickness of the sheet metal have effects on the level of the
forming limits. From Figure 4.9 it can be clearly seen that an increase in sheet thickness
shifted the forming limit level up, along the major strain axis. This is more visible on the
tensile-tensile region (the right or positive side) of the FLD than on the compression-tensile
region (the left or negative side).

Figure 4.10: The Forming Limit Diagram

88
4.2.5. Hypothesis testing

A t-test statistical analysis on the major strains of the forming limits was carried out in
Microsoft Excel 2010. The results obtained were as in Table 4.6:

Table 4.6: Forming limits Hypothesis testing

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Variable 1 (2.0 mm thickness) Variable 2 (1.0 mm thickness)

Mean 0.070322199 0.055478993
Variance 0.067841499 0.034595419
Observations 5 5
Pearson Correlation 0.994466309
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 4
t Stat 0.425612955
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.346145284
t Critical one-tail 2.131846786
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.692290568
t Critical two-tail 2.776445105

The hypothesis was to test the effect or influence of thickness on the forming limit levels with
a confidence interval of 5%. From Table 4.6, it can be seen that the two means and variances
are not the same for the two thicknesses. It can be seen that for both one-tail (P =0.346) and
two tail (P = 0.692) are bigger than 0.05 (P = 0.05). Thus, there is insufficient evidence to
reject the null hypothesis. It can also be seen that for the two tested variables (thickness, and
limit level based on major strains) there is a positive strong correlation (R2 = 0.9945) between
the sheet thickness and the forming limits. Thus, the thickness of the sheet has an effect on the
forming limit level of AA6082 O sheet.

89
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Experiments with two kinds of metal forming simulative testing methods; the standard tensile
test and the Erichsen Cupping Test were done on AA6082-O sheet dog bone shape flat test
specimens and square test specimens, with and without grooves respectively. Two thickness,
1.0 mm and 2.0 mm, and three rolling directions, 0, 45 and 90 were considered for the
study.

5.1. Tensile test

From the tensile test experiments the following conclusions were made:

The tensile strength (UTS) and modulus of elasticity (E) of AA6082 O sheet were found
to be highest in the rolling direction, 0, and for the 2.0 mm thickness. Thus, it was
concluded that an increase in the sheet thickness improves the UTS and E of AA6082 O
sheet.
The yield strength (YS) was found to be lower in the rolling direction (0) and for the 2.0
mm thickness. The lower the yield strength of a sheet metal, the better the formability.
Hence, the deep drawability of AA6082 O sheet is higher in the rolling direction, and
improves with an increase in sheet thickness.
For both thicknesses the strain hardening exponent, n determined in the tensile test was
also found to be higher in the rolling direction (0), the highest being that for 1.0 mm thick
specimens; and lower in the normal direction (90), with the lowest being for 1.0 mm thick
specimens. Overall, the 2.0 mm thickness was found to have the higher lower bound
values of the obtained n values than the 1.0 mm thickness. Thus, AA6082 O sheet resists

90
 excessive thinning in the rolling direction, and the deep drawability improves with an
increase in sheet thickness.
The determined average r (ravg) values, were found to be all higher than unity for the 2.0
mm thickness in all three rolling directions. The higher the r value, the better the deep
drawability of sheet metal. Thus, it was concluded that 2.0 mm sheet thickness of AA6082
O has better formability than 1.0 mm thickness, since the thicker cross-section
distributes the strain more uniformly and resists localized necking better. Again a
conclusion was made that the deep drawability of AA6082 O sheet improves with an
increase in sheet thickness.
The calculated r and r values determined for the two thicknesses are in good agreement
with those for other aluminium alloys as reported by Niemeier and other researchers [28],
meaning AA6082 O sheet has good formability.

5.2. Erichsen Cupping test

From the Erichsen Cupping test experiments the following conclusions were made:

The FLCs for 2.00 mm thickness test specimens were found to be higher than those for 1.0
mm thick test specimens. Thus, the forming limit level of AA6082 O sheet rises with an
increase in sheet thickness. This implies that the drawability of AA6082 O sheet is
predominated by the thickness of the blank to be drawn, simply because the FLC levels
increased with thickness as was expected.
The FLCs for the two thicknesses (1.0 mm and 2.0 mm) did not fall within one universal
band; however they have similar orientation and shape. It was then concluded that the
drawability of the alloy improves with an increase in thickness.
The major strain (1) and minor strain (2) values obtained by varying the blank thickness
and groove size on the blank during the Erichsen cupping tests were consistent and fell
along the positive minor strain (2) axis as predicted by Keeler. The shape and size of the
grooves on the test specimens strongly influenced the strain paths (distribution).

91
5.3. Correlation of tensile properties and the developed FLCs for the two
thicknesses

During the laboratory study of FLCs it was found that 2.0 mm thickness had a higher strain
level than 1.0 mm thickness. The lower bound for the range of strain hardening exponent, n ,
determined by the tensile tests for the three rolling direction was also found to be higher for
2.0 mm than 1.0 mm. All the r values for 2.0 mm thickness test specimens were found to be
higher than unity (r2.0 mm > 1) and also higher than those for 1.0 mm thick test specimens, in all
the three rolling direction. Based on the tensile test experiments results, it led to the conclusion
that the formability of AA6082 O sheet increases with an increase in sheet thickness and is
higher in the rolling direction (0). The conclusion based on the tensile test results was found
to be in agreement with the results obtained from the Erichsen Cupping test experiments. The
FLCs determined from Erichsen Cupping test results showed that an increase in sheet
thickness raised the forming limit level of AA6082 O sheet on the FLD. Overall, based on
the two different experiments carried out for the study it was concluded the drawability of
AA6082 O sheet improves with an increase in thickness. This is attributed to higher FLC
level, higher plastic strain ratio (r) values, and higher strain hardening exponent (n) values of
2.0 mm thick sheet.

5.4 Recommendations

More studies need to be done on the formability parameters of the alloy to clarify the range of
the n values, considering the fact that normal n values range from 0 to 1. Also since the
Universal Material Tester machine used for the present study can accommodate both circular
and square deep drawing specimens, it is suggested that circular specimens of the same alloy,
and same thickness should be used for further studies together with numerical methods in the
establishment of the FLCs and FLDs of the alloy. Smaller circle tessellation prints on the
surface of the deep drawing testing specimens could be used instead of concentric circular
patterns in future studies, when determining the FLCs.

92
 APPENDICES

Appendix A: Chemical composition

Figure A1: Chemical analysis of AA6082 O sheet

Appendix B: Flat Tensile Test specimens used for the experiments

Figure B1: Dog bone shape flat tensile test specimens

93
 Appendix C: Tensile test experiments raw data

Figure C1: Example of the tensile test raw data from the WP 300 PC data acquisition of the WP 300
Universal Material Tester machine

94
 Appendix D: Computed average values from the tensile test experiments

Table D1: Computed average values for the tensile test raw data of 1.0 mm thickness, 0 rolling direction
test specimens
Tensile test Experiment of Aluminium AA6082 - O Sheet (Thickness: 1.0 mm thickness, Rolling Direction: 0 deg.)
True Corrected
Distance Force Engineering Engineering True log
strain true log log
(S ) (F) strain (e) stress (s) stress () (K*strain^n)
() stress
[mm] [kN] [%] [MPa] [%] [MPa] [MPa] [%] [MPa] [MPa]

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
0.23 0.64 0.73 61.10 0.55 105.87 178.42 -0.60 4.66 5.18
0.35 0.88 0.98 87.69 0.68 173.31 289.82 -0.38 5.16 5.67
0.55 1.14 1.60 102.52 0.96 266.62 668.17 -0.05 5.59 6.50
0.75 1.30 2.20 117.09 1.16 374.39 1141.21 0.15 5.93 7.04
0.92 1.47 2.82 128.34 1.34 490.40 1740.61 0.29 6.20 7.46
1.09 1.60 3.45 134.74 1.49 598.94 2440.09 0.40 6.40 7.80
1.26 1.68 3.93 134.48 1.60 663.43 3052.16 0.47 6.50 8.02
1.44 1.68 4.58 136.53 1.72 762.40 3953.60 0.54 6.64 8.28
1.64 1.71 5.18 137.29 1.82 848.60 4861.53 0.60 6.74 8.49
1.85 1.72 5.91 136.53 1.93 943.89 6078.96 0.66 6.85 8.71
2.00 1.70 6.43 135.76 2.01 1008.55 7000.66 0.70 6.92 8.85
2.18 1.69 7.00 135.50 2.08 1083.84 8080.49 0.73 6.99 9.00
2.37 1.68 7.60 133.71 2.15 1149.35 9279.06 0.77 7.05 9.14
2.55 1.64 8.36 131.16 2.24 1226.96 10899.86 0.80 7.11 9.30
2.65 1.53 8.82 127.83 2.28 1254.84 11935.99 0.83 7.13 9.39
2.82 1.41 9.22 114.54 2.32 1170.92 12880.96 0.84 7.07 9.46

95
Table D2: Computed average values for the tensile test raw data of 1.0 mm thickness, 90 rolling
direction test specimens
Tensile test Experiment of Aluminium AA6082 - O Sheet (Thickness: 1.0 mm, Rolling Direction: 90 deg.)
True
Distance Force Engineering Engineering True Corrected log
strain log log
(s ) (F) strain (e) stress (s) stress () true stress (K*strain^n)
()
[mm] [kN] [%] MPa [%] [MPa] [MPa] [%] [MPa] [MPa]

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
0.14 0.63 0.46 50.11 0.38 73.23 73.99 -0.42 1.86 1.87
0.31 1.11 1.03 88.46 0.71 179.66 177.48 -0.15 2.25 2.25
0.47 1.32 1.57 105.59 0.95 271.72 265.72 -0.02 2.43 2.42
0.68 1.37 2.25 109.94 1.18 357.47 362.19 0.07 2.55 2.56
0.84 1.40 2.79 111.98 1.33 424.86 430.23 0.12 2.63 2.63
1.01 1.41 3.36 112.49 1.47 490.88 494.74 0.17 2.69 2.69
1.15 1.42 3.82 113.52 1.57 547.67 542.61 0.20 2.74 2.73
1.29 1.40 4.29 112.24 1.66 593.25 587.18 0.22 2.77 2.77
1.46 1.42 4.86 113.77 1.77 666.20 638.37 0.25 2.82 2.81
1.60 1.42 5.34 113.52 1.85 720.14 679.25 0.27 2.86 2.83
1.80 1.41 6.00 112.49 1.95 786.88 730.07 0.29 2.90 2.86
1.91 1.41 6.38 113.00 2.00 833.40 758.02 0.30 2.92 2.88
2.00 1.41 6.67 112.49 2.04 863.15 779.15 0.31 2.94 2.89
2.17 1.38 7.24 110.70 2.11 912.52 817.79 0.32 2.96 2.91
2.27 1.39 7.57 111.47 2.15 955.11 838.88 0.33 2.98 2.92
2.43 1.39 8.11 111.47 2.21 1015.60 872.66 0.34 3.01 2.94
2.56 1.36 8.55 108.91 2.26 1039.57 898.51 0.35 3.02 2.95
2.67 1.35 8.90 107.89 2.29 1067.86 918.81 0.36 3.03 2.96
2.80 1.31 9.33 104.57 2.34 1080.35 942.98 0.37 3.03 2.97
3.01 1.24 10.04 98.94 2.40 1092.02 980.54 0.38 3.04 2.99
3.23 1.06 10.78 85.14 2.47 1003.16 1018.14 0.39 3.00 3.01

96
Appendix E: Mechanical and formability parameters of AA6082 O sheet from the
tensile test experiments

Table E1: The basic mechanical and formability parameters for AA6082 O sheet from the Tensile Test
experiments
Rolling YS UTS E
Thickness n K [MPa] r ravg r
Direction [MPa] [MPa] [MPa]

0 88.36 137.29 88.33 1.690 301.79 0.75

1.0 mm 45 78.23 130.13 85.09 1.522 319.74 0.69 0.56 -0.20
90 122.21 113.77 83.64 1.422 289.73 0.23

0 82.57 139.08 89.60 1.674 321.74 2.40

2.0 mm 45 88.46 109.60 64.48 1.497 271.96 2.28 2.06 -0.44
90 113.77 90.89 53.39 1.424 237.90 1.28

Appendix F: Deep drawing test specimen preparation

Figure F1: Gridlines and concentric circle marking on deep drawing test specimen (test specimen
preparation)

97
Appendix G: Deep drawn specimens in Erichsen Cupping Test experiments

Figure G1: The ten deep drawn specimens (five for each thickness)

Appendix H: Defects observed on the deep drawn specimens

98
Figure H1: Earing of the grooved deep drawn specimens

Figure H2: Tearing and excessive thinning of the wall of drawn part

99
 Appendix I1: Erichsen Cupping Test Experiments data
Table I1: Raw data and the computed average values from Erichsen Cupping test experiments

Specimens of 2.0 mm thickness data

Major Major Minor Minor

No axis axis axis axis Average
Initial Average
Test of (d1) (d1) (d2)[m (d2)[ Minor Minor Major
diamete [mm] Major m]
specimen the [mm]2 mm]2 axis strain strain
r (d0) axis (d1)
dimensions circl Work Work (d2)[m (2) (1)
[mm] Work [mm]3 Work
e piece piece m]3
piece 2 piece 1
1 2
C1 26 32.55 _ 32.55 31.95 _ 31.95 0.21 0.22
A 60.0 mm C2 23 30.05 _ 30.05 28.75 _ 28.75 0.22 0.27
x 60.0 mm, C3
non- 17 24.65 _ 24.65 23.55 _ 23.55 0.33 0.37
grooved C4 8 10.85 _ 10.85 10.50 _ 10.50 0.27 0.30
C5 5 7.05 _ 7.05 6.65 _ 6.65 0.29 0.34

A 60.0 x C1 26 33.20 32.45 32.83 33.00 31.10 32.05 0.21 0.23

60.0 mm,
grooved C2 23 30.60 30.55 30.58 30.15 26.85 28.50 0.21 0.28
with two
Segments: C3 17 25.20 25.35 25.28 23.65 21.35 22.50 0.28 0.40
Segment
height, C4 8 11.50 10.60 11.05 10.15 10.85 10.50 0.27 0.32
width and
radius: 10.0
mm C5 5 8.75 6.55 7.65 6.25 5.90 6.08 0.19 0.43
60.0 mm
48.5 mm

A 60.0 x
C1 26 32.20 33.30 32.75 27.20 28.35 27.78 0.0660 0.2308
60.0 mm,
grooved C2 23 28.70 29.55 29.13 24.50 24.90 24.70 0.0713 0.2361
With two
segments C3 17 21.35 22.75 22.05 18.95 19.50 19.23 0.1230 0.2601
Segment
height, C4 8 9.95 10.50 10.23 9.90 9.95 9.93 0.2156 0.2454
width and
radius: 16.5 C5 5 6.55 6.65 6.60 6.35 6.45 6.40 0.2469 0.2776
mm
60.0 mm
34.0 mm

100
 Table I2: Forming Limits for the 2.0 mm thickness test specimens

The Forming Limit Curves

Negative Major Negative Major Minor strain (- Major strain
Minor strain (- strain Minor strain strain 2) (1)2
2 =2) (1) (-2 =2) 2 (21)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.325912476 0.743127113

-0.206075643 0.22 -0.21 0.45 0 0.230806424
-0.223143551 0.27 -0.22 0.53 0.071309028 0.236102696
-0.33 0.37 -0.33 0.74 0.280301965 0.396602421
-0.27 0.30 -0.27 0.61 0.325912476 0.371563556
-0.29 0.34 -0.29 0.69

101
Table I3: Average breaking force and Erichsen Index of AA6082 O sheet
Average Erichsen Index
Average Punch force [kN]
[mm]
Specimen geometry
1.0 mm 2.0 mm 1.0 mm 2.0 mm
thickness thickness thickness thickness

2.70 7.40 7.45 10.59

3.50 7.79 7.14 11.19

6.23 8.74 21.255 17.73

102
 REFERENCES

[1] F. Klock, Manufacturing process, Sheet metal forming Chapter4, RWTH Eds.,
Springer, Vergas Berin Heidelberg., pp. 293, 2013.
[2] K. Sieget and S. Wagner, Lecture Notes for TALAT 3704, Deep drawing, Institute of
Forming Technology, Stuttgart University, 1994. Available at:
http://www.alueurope.eu/talat/lectures/3701.pdf, Retrieved on September 13, 2014.
[3] O. Tetsuro, T. Ken, S. Makoto and K. Masao, Temperature and Strain Rate
Dependence of Mechanical Properties and Square Shell Deep Drawability of Al-Mg
sheets in Warm Working Condition, Journal of Japan Institute of Light Metals., vol.
43, no. 12, pp. 3184 3188, September 26, 2002.
[4] E. Ghassemieh, New Trends and Developments in Automotive Industry,
http://www.intelchopen.com/books. Retrieved on August 12, 2014.
[5] Aalco Metals Ltd, AA 6082 O Sheet, Technical Data Sheets for AA, December
03, 2013.
[6] Magnus Longseth, Aluminium in the Offshore and Automotive industry,
http://www.hydro.com/pagefiles/147642122/06%20ML%20-
%20Aluminium%20in%20the%20offshore%20and%20automotive%20industry.pdf,
Retrieved on September 14, 2014
[7] A. Aired, H. Vandekinderen, J. Barros, R. Cols, and Y. Houbaert: Constitutive
equations for the room temperature deformation of commercial purity aluminium,
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 134, no. 3, pp. 398-404, 2003,
[8] W.J. Ali and L. K. Haider, A Comparison of Formability of Commercial Pure
Aluminium Sheet by Using Punch and Hydraulic Bulging, AL Rafdain Engineering
Journal., vol.18, no.2, pp.1-12, 2010
[9] T. Animesh, A. K. Sujit, P. Sanjib, S Ayan and S. Joydeep, Formability
Characterization of Composite Sheet Materials by Erichsen Cupping Testing Method,
International Journal of ChemTech Research., vol.6, no.3, pp.1883 1886, May-June
2014.

103
[10] W. S. Miller, L. Zhuang, J. Bottema, A. J. Wittebroad, P. D. Smet, A. Haszalerand A.
Viersegge, Recent development in AAs for the automotive industry,
Material Science and Engineering A280, pp. 37 49, 2000.

[11] I. Hirofumi and T. Takayuki, Texture control for improving deep drawability in
rolled and annealed AA sheets, Journal of Material Transactions, vol.
48, no. 8, pp. 2014 2022, July 19, 2007.

[12] S. T Santosh, N. K Chhapkhale and S. R Todkor Investigation of forming limit

curves of various sheet materials using hydraulic bulge testing with analytical,
experimental and FEA techniques, International Journal of Engineering Research
and Application (IJERA), vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 858 863, January February 2013.

[13] C. Joseph International Temper Designation System for wrought AAs,

Part II Thermally Treated (T Temper) AAs, Light metal age,
August 2010.

[14] E. D. George, Mechanical Metallurgy, SI metric Eds. McGraw Hill, New York,
1988.

[15] X. Zhiqing and Y. Xuemei, Quantitative evaluation for drawability of sheet metal,
J. Mater. Sci. Technol., vol. 21, no. 5, February 1, 2005.

[16] M. P. Groover, Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing: Materials, Processes, and

Systems,4thEds.,Wiley, USA, 2009.

[17] T. Mohammad, E. Esmaeil and F. Qods, An Experimental Study on Earing and

Planar Anisotropy of Low Carbon Steel Sheets, World Applied Sciences Journal.,
vol.15, no.1, pp. 01 04, 2011

[18] G. Richard, Sheet Metal Testing Guide, Formability of sheet metals, Measuring the
plastic strain ratio of sheet metals, ADMET, Inc. Norwood, July 2013.

[19] Metals Handbook, Forming and forging, vol. 14, ninth Eds. ASM international, 1988,
pp. 888 897.
104
[20] T. Animesh, A. K. Sujit, P. Sanjib, S Ayan and S. Joydeep, Formability
Characterization of Composite Sheet Materials by Erichsen Cupping Testing
Method, International Journal of ChemTech Research., vol.6, no.3, pp.1883
1886, May-June 2014.

[21] M. Cevdet, N.K Sinan and K. Bekir, An investigation of deep drawability of low
carbon steel sheets and applications in artificial neural networks, Journal of
Mathematical and Computation Applications, vol.2, no.3.pp. 199 125, 2010.

[22] O. B. Anas., H. H. Mahir., A. B. Eklas, The Effect of Load Punch in the Limits of
Strain Paths for (1006) Steel Sheets by using stretch forming, Anbar Journal for
Engineering Science.,vol.1, no.1, pp. 102-113, May 2012.

[23] T. Amra, T. Penelnjal, and H. Suad, Experimental Determination of Forming Limit

Diagram, Trends in the Development of Machinery and Associated Technology,4th
International Research/Expert Conference, TMT 2010, Mediterranean Cruise,
September 11-18, 2010.

[24] M. Tisza, and Z. P. Kovcs, New methods for predicting the formability of sheet
metals, Journal of Production Processes and Systems, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 45-54, 2012.

[25] G. Venkateswarlu, M. J Davidson and G. R N Tagore, Influence of process

parameters on cup drawing of aluminium 7075 sheet, International Journal of
Engineering, Science and Technology, vol. 2, no. 11, pp. 41 49, 2010.

[26] J. Santhakumar and G. Arunkumar, Optimization of deep drawing process

parameters using design of experiments, International Review of Mechanical
Engineering Journal, vol.6, no. 5, pp. 996, July 01, 2012.

[27]. S.B.I. Muhammad, Experimental study of formability of sheet metal in deep

drawing process, Technical report, Bsc. of Eng., University of Malaysia Pahang, 2010.
Available at: http://www.unpir.ump.edu.my/2885/1/CD5912.pdf,. Accessed on: February
19, 2015.

105
[28] A. E. Ehab and A. A. Abdulhakim, High-temperature tensile deformation of 6082-
T4 Al alloy, Springer Science+Bussiness Media, LLC, July 16, 2008.

[29] B.A. Niemeier, Formability Topics Metallic materials, Available at:

https://books.google.com.na/books?id=RMC7g0_bUUC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=r-
values+vs+UTS&source=bl&ots=Sd3YQ7eHZo&sig=Y41g01xI614dQEZxl9oA3vqI_Jw&
hl=en&sa=X&ei=FFDnVMO1IcGmUqKlhMAP&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=
r-values%20vs%20UTS&f=false. Accessed on: February 18, 2015.

106