Journal of Materials Processing Technology 145 (2004) 72–83

Evaluation of sheet metal formability by tensile tests

Stefan Holmberg a,∗ , Bertil Enquist b , Per Thilderkvist c
a Volvo Cars Body Components, SE-293 80 Olofström, Sweden
b Department of Structural Mechanics, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96 Göteborg, Sweden
c Industrial Development Centre, V. Storgatan 20, SE-293 38 Olofström, Sweden

Received 3 July 2002; received in revised form 18 July 2003; accepted 21 July 2003

Abstract

The use of sheet metal forming simulations has reduced lead-times and costs for the development of new car bodies significantly. The
accuracy of the simulations is to a large extent dependent on the quality of the material properties provided as input to the simulations.
Improving the quality of the material properties is the key factor in order to further increase the accuracy of the simulations. This study is
focused on the forming limit properties of sheet metal.
A test procedure for determining the forming limit in plane was developed. The tests are carried out in a tensile testing machine. The
test method enables a fast and easy determination of the forming limit and the results show small scatter. Furthermore, the influence of
friction is eliminated. By modifying the specimen geometry, the test procedure can be applied to determine the complete left-hand side of
the forming limit curve (FLC).
The specimen geometry and the grip arrangements are essential in order to get successful tests. With inappropriate specimen design or
insufficient clamping, fracture will not occur at the desired region of the specimen.
The study involves both numerical and experimental work. Simulations were performed in order to find appropriate specimen design
prior to testing and for performing parameter studies. One mild steel and one high strength steel was included in the study.
© 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sheet metal; Forming limit; Material testing; Optical deformation measurement

1. Introduction simulations and reality is the experimental determination of

Large efforts are being made in the automotive industry
in order to shorten lead times and reduce costs when de-
veloping new car models. In order to manage this, physical
testing has to a large extent been replaced with numeri-
cal simulations. Simulations are used to verify both the
properties of the car and the car components as well as
their producability. An area of which significant progress
has been made is finite element simulation of sheet metal
forming. Simulations have to a large extent replaced try-out
tools as the process verification method. In this way, both
lead-times and costs for the development of new car body
parts have been reduced considerably [1].
Much work has been made during the last years in order
to increase the accuracy of the finite element programs and
in the modelling technique. One area of significant impor-
tance in order to further increase the correlation between
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +46-454-265329; fax: +46-454-265788.
E-mail address: sholmber@volvocars.com (S. Holmberg).
relevant material properties. The accuracy of the simulations
is to a very large extent dependent on the quality of the mate-
rial properties provided as input to the simulations. Improv-
ing the quality of the material properties is the key factor
in order to further increase the accuracy of the simulations.
Material properties of main interest for sheet metal forming
are stress–strain relations describing the work-hardening of
the material and forming limits describing how much the
material can be deformed without cracking. This study is
focused on the forming limit properties. Improved methods
for material characterisation of sheet metal is a field that
has gained a larger focus during the last years [2–4].
The need for accurate material characterisation methods
is of great importance in order to further strengthen the use
of the simulation technique for sheet metal forming appli-
cations. This is becoming of even more important due to
the increased use of new high strength materials in order
to reduce weight and increase the crash performance. The
problem with these new high strength sheet materials is that
their increase in strength is compensated by a reduction in
formability. Optimal usage of these new materials requires

0924-0136/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2003.07.004
 S. Holmberg et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 145 (2004) 72–83
Major strain 1
Plane
Uniaxial
strain
tension
Pure
shear
FLC
Equal
biaxial
tension
Uniaxial
compression
Minor strain 2
Fig. 1. Forming limit curve.
a deep knowledge of the material properties so that it is
possible to be close to the forming limit.
A fundamental problem in sheet metal forming is frac-
turing. It is therefore essential to be able to predict the
risk of fracture with high accuracy. The forming limit curve
(FLC) is the most commonly used fracture criterion for
sheet metal forming applications [5–7]. The FLC shows
the amount of deformation (strain) a sheet material can re-
sist as function of the deformation mode and is a relation
between the major and minor strain (Fig. 1). In the fig-
ure, the different main deformation modes are indicated.
The minimum of the FLC is normally at the plane strain
condition.
In order to avoid fracturing of the material, it is neces-
sary that the strain levels everywhere in the stamped part
be below the FLC. A safety margin is normally introduced,
resulting in an offset of the FLC. The risk of fracture is de-
termined by evaluating how close the strain condition is to
the FLC. It is not sufficient only to check the risk of fracture
when designing a forming process, however. Other problems
such as excessive thinning, wrinkling or insufficient stretch
may occur. These conditions are normally also evaluated by
Fig. 3. Example of tool geometry and stamped specimens used for FLC determination together with fractured specimen after testing.
73
Fig. 2. Forming limit diagram indicating safe forming region.
studying the strain levels. A forming limit diagram is con-
structed from the FLC and is normally used in the design of
the forming process (Fig. 2).
There is no unique standard for determining FLCs, the
main routine when determining a FLC is as follows, how-
ever. By forming a number of sheet specimens with varying
widths, different deformation modes (strain states) are re-
ceived (Fig. 3). The sheet specimens are equipped with cir-
cle grids in order to enable strain evaluation. The specimens
are stamped to fracture and the strain state is evaluated just
outside the fracture zone. The limiting strain levels deter-
mined from these different specimens are then connected
to a curve, by some kind of curve-fitting. The procedure for
determining FLCs may differ concerning the geometry of
the forming punch used, the specimen dimensions, the num-
ber of specimen geometries considered, the technique used
for the strain states evaluation and the type of curve-fitting
used. An example of tool and specimen geometries used
for determination of FLCs is given in Fig. 3. An example
of a FLC is shown in Fig. 4. In the diagram, the mea-
sured strain levels using different specimen geometries are
shown.
74 S. Holmberg et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 145 (2004) 72–83
Fig. 4. Example of FLC, showing measured strain levels using different specimen geometries (indicated by the different colours) and example of curve-fitting
to the measured strain points. For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.
The FLC concept has a number of limitations and uncer-
tainties. One fundamental problem with the FLC concept
is that it is based on the assumption of linear strain paths,
i.e. the mode of deformation remains constant throughout
the deformation process. This condition is not fulfilled in
most practical cases, however. A lot of studies concern-
ing the effect of non-linear (or broken) strain paths on
the FLC have been conducted [8,9]. In these studies, the
FLC has been determined on specimens which have been
subjected to different types of pre-straining conditions.
Taking the effect of non-linear strain paths into account in
practical process design is very complex, however, since
an infinite number of different pre-straining conditions
exist.
Another problem with the FLC is that the experimental
results are influenced by the friction conditions during test-
ing. There is also a small deviation from linear strain paths
due to bending effects during forming. A problem in prac-
tical forming process design is that the determination of the
FLC is a rather lengthy procedure. In the automotive indus-
try, there is often a shortage of time for the process design
phase, which means that there sometimes is not enough time
to perform a thorough FLC determination. Therefore, differ-
ent theoretical and empirical formulas have been developed.
Another drawback of significance is the large scatter in ex-
perimental results when determining a FLC. This is due to
the overall testing procedure as well as the strain evaluation
methodology.
Despite the drawbacks with the concept of FLCs, it is,
by far, the most commonly used fracture criterion for sheet
metal forming applications. This is due to its, in many cases,
good performance, its simplicity and for historical reasons.
New fracture criterions have been developed but no one has
yet come to general practical use in the automotive industry
[10,11].
The forming limit at the plane strain condition is of par-
ticular interest. This is due to several reasons listed below:
• It is, normally, the mode of deformation where the ma-
terial can resist the lowest amount of strain, i.e. it is the
minimum point of the FLC.
• It is often a critical strain condition for real stamped parts.
• The plane strain condition is a very unstable condition
with a rapid localisation.
• The forming limit in plane strain is often used when rank-
ing the formability of different materials.
• The plane strain formability limit is a good measure to be
combined with theoretical models of FLCs.
2. Aim and scope of the present study
The main objective of this study was to evaluate a test
procedure for determination of the formability of sheet
metal through tensile testing. The main focus in the study
was the forming limit in the plane strain condition but
other strain states were also considered. The main expected
advantages of this test procedure as compared to the con-
ventional forming limit determination would be: a fast and
simple test with no need of other testing equipment than
a uniaxial tensile testing machine, a low scatter in experi-
mental results, and no influence of friction on the results.
Another advantage is that this test procedure simplifies the
usage of optical equipment for the strain determination.
 S. Holmberg et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 145 (2004) 72–83
Table 1
Material characteristics for the two materials included in the study
Material t (mm) Rp0.2 (MPa) Rm (MPa)
Mild steel 1.0 137 284
High strength steel 1.0 278 469
Another aim with the investigation was to get a better
understanding of the material behaviour prior to and during
localisation and fracturing.
The study involves both numerical simulations and ex-
perimental work. The simulations were performed in order
to find appropriate design of the specimens prior to testing
and for performing various parameter studies. Two different
materials were included in the study, a mild steel and a high
strength steel.
3. Specimen geometries
Several different specimen geometries were evaluated,
both numerically by finite element simulations and experi-
mentally. A schematic drawing of a specimen is shown in
Fig. 5. A large part of the specimen length is used for the
clamping. The total length of the specimen was approx-
imately 120. The specimens were provided with a notch
in order to receive a well-defined localisation and fracture
region in the middle part of the specimen. Specimens with
different widths (w1 and w2 ), initial free lengths (h0 ) and
notch sizes were evaluated. In this study, specimens widths
(w1 and w2 ) ranging from 16 up to 76 mm and free lengths
ranging from 6 up to 12 mm were considered.
4. Materials
Two different materials were included in the study, a
mild steel and a high strength steel. The basic mechanical
Fig. 5. Schematic drawing of specimen geometry used in the tests.
75
r0 r45 r90 n E (GPa) ν
1.99 2.61 2.13 0.24 210 0.3
0.98 0.66 1.22 0.21 210 0.3
properties of these materials are given in Table 1. In the
table, t is the initial sheet thickness, Rp0.2 the yield strength,
Rm the ultimate tensile strength, r0 , r45 , r90 the anisotropy
coefficients, n the strain hardening exponent, E the Young’s
modulus and n the Poisson’s ratio. Stress–strain relations
describing the work-hardening behaviour of the materials
are shown in Fig. 6. These data were determined through
standard uniaxial tensile tests. FLCs for the materials are
given in Fig. 7. The curves are determined through the con-
ventional method by stamping specimens of different widths
to fracture and determine the strain levels by circle grid
evaluation. The curves are fourth order polynomial fits of
the measured strain data points. As can be seen, the material
properties differ significantly between the grades. The high
strength steel grade has yield stresses and tensile strengths
of about two to three times as high as the mild steel. The
anisotropy coefficients differ significantly. The FLCs also
differ, the high strength steel generally, show lower forma-
bility. The forming limit in plane strain is about 40% for
the mild steel and about 30% for the high strength steel.
5. Experimental procedure
The experiments were performed in an uniaxial material
testing machine (Fig. 8). The testing machine is built up with
a load frame of a solid T-slot table, columns and a hydrauli-
cally manoeuvrable crosshead to which the servo-hydraulic
actuator with capacity of ±100 kN is mounted. Control and
data acquisition is performed by computer boards and spe-
cially designed programs. To be able to clamp the specimen
in the desirable manner, special attention was put on the
shaping of the wedges, specially their surface towards the
specimen. Sliding between the specimen and the wedges
should be avoided during loading (or kept to a minimum).
Measuring equipment, consisting of two cameras and a
computer for picture grabbing and analysis [12], was used
in order to measure deformations and strain distributions
in the specimens during testing. Specimens used for opti-
cal deformation measurements were sprayed with a dark
colour forming a random pattern. The other specimens
were equipped with circle grids in order to facilitate strain
measurements after testing.
The test was run in deformation control with the initial
piston rate of 0.2 mm/min and was, after the elastic limit,
successively increased to about 0.5 mm/min. After the crack
was opened to at least half the specimen width and the ap-
plied load was decreased to about one third of the maximum,
the test was stopped.
76 S. Holmberg et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 145 (2004) 72–83

500

450 Mild steel

400 High strength steel

Tensile stress [MPa]

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 35,0 40,0 45,0 50,0 55,0

Engineering strain [%]

Fig. 6. Tensile stress–strain curves for the materials included in the study.

0,80

0,70

0,60
Major strain

0,50

0,40

0,30

0,20

0,10

0,00
-0,40 -0,30 -0,20 -0,10 0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40
Minor strain

0,80

0,70

0,60
Major strain

0,50

0,40

0,30

0,20

0,10

0,00
-0,40 -0,30 -0,20 -0,10 0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40
Minor strain

Fig. 7. FLCs for the materials included in the study: mild steel (above); high strength steel (below).
 S. Holmberg et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 145 (2004) 72–83 77

placement controlled loading in the y-direction at the nodes

on the upper boundary.
The yield criterion of Hill was adopted [14]. Hill’s po-
tential function is an extension from the Mises function and
can be expressed as


F(σ22 − σ33 )2 + G(σ33 − σ11 )2 + H(σ11 − σ22 )2
f(σ) =
+ 2Lσ23 2 + 2Mσ 2 + 2Nσ 2
31 12

where σ ij denote the stress components and F, G, H, L, M

and N are material constants obtained by tests of the material
in different directions. These constants can be expressed in
Fig. 8. Testing equipment used for the experiments.
terms of six yield stress ratios R11 , R22 , R33 , R12 , R13 and
R23 according to
 
6. Numerical procedure 1 1 1 1
F= + 2 − 2 ,
2 R222 R33 R11
The analyses were carried out in Abaqus/Standard [13]  
with static conditions assumed and shell elements employed. 1 1 1 1
A simplified modelling approach was used, only the cen- G= + 2 − 2 ,
2 R233 R22 R22
tral part of the specimens was modelled (Fig. 9). The grip  
arrangements of the testing machine were not taken into ac- 1 1 1 1
H= + 2 − 2 ,
count. This means that the strain distribution predicted by 2 R211 R22 R33
the simulations will not be exactly correct if there is slip
3 3 3
in the grip conditions. Therefore, there should be a ‘safety’ L= , M= , N=
margin in the simulations in terms of the strain distribution 2R223 2R213 2R212
in order to compensate for slip in the grips. Slip will in- In sheet metal forming applications, it is common to use
crease the strains at the edges and decrease the strains in anisotropic material data in terms of ratios of width strain
the middle part of the specimen and thereby might trig a to thickness strain. The stress ratios can then be defined as
fracture at the edges of the specimen and not in the middle

region. r90 (r0 + 1)
R11 = R13 = R23 = 1, R22 = ,
The nodes at the upper boundary of the modelled spec- r0 (r90 + 1)
imen were constrained to move in the x- and z-directions


and the nodes at the lower boundary were constrained in r90 (r0 + 1) 3r90 (r0 + 1)
R33 = , R12 =
the x-, y- and z-directions. The loading is applied as a dis- r0 + r90 (2r45 + 1)(r0 + r90 )

Fig. 9. Only the central part of the specimen (specimen free length) was modelled in the numerical analyses.
78 S. Holmberg et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 145 (2004) 72–83

where r0 , r45 and r90 are the anisotropy coefficient in
terms of width strain to thickness strain ratios obtained
from uniaxial tensile tests in different directions, see
Table 1. The material hardening behaviour is modelled
as a piecewise linear true stress curve as function of the
effective plastic strain, based on the tensile stress–strain
curves shown in Fig. 6. A linear extrapolation of the true
stress–strain curve is also made in order to be able to
capture strain levels beyond the maximum levels obtained
from the uniaxial tensile tests. The risk of fracture is eval-
uated by comparing the strain state in the specimen with
the FLC as used normally in sheet metal forming simula-
tions.
In order to capture the strain localisation, the mesh size
must be sufficiently small. The model used consists of about
1200 element, with typical element lengths of about 0.4 mm.
The mesh size chosen is judged to be sufficiently small in
order to capture the accuracy necessary for this investiga-
tion. Test simulations with a finer mesh (element lengths of
about 0.20 mm) were performed showing very similar re-
sults. The coarser mesh was then chosen in order to reduce
the computation time.

Fig. 10. Deformation process for plane strain test, the pictures are linked to the recorded stress–strain curve below. The results show the behaviour of
the mild steel material.
 S. Holmberg et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 145 (2004) 72–83 79

7. Results and discussion
The deformation process of a specimen for plane strain
forming limit evaluation is shown in Fig. 10. The speci-
men is shown at six different levels of deformation, from
the undeformed state to a state with an open crack. The
pictures are linked to the recorded stress–strain curve also
shown. The results shown are for the mild steel grade. As
can be seen, fracture occurs in the middle region of the
specimen. The crack does not become visible until the
force has decreased significantly. It should be noted that
the complete stress–strain curve, including the softening

Fig. 11. Strain distributions for plane strain test at three different levels of deformation, see link to the recorded stress–strain curve: (left) longitudinal
strain; (right) transverse strain. The results show the behaviour of the mild steel material. The region where an open crack is developed is removed from
the strain evaluation and is shown in black.
80 S. Holmberg et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 145 (2004) 72–83
branch, is captured. This is enabled by the short free length
of the specimen in combination with the high stiffness of
the testing machine. The measured strain distributions in
the specimen at different levels of deformation are shown
in Fig. 11. The region where an open crack is developed is
removed from the strain evaluation and is shown in black.
As can be seen, there is a clear localisation in the middle
of the specimen. An exact state of plane strain in the frac-
ture area was not reached. The transverse strain in and just
outside the fracture zone is very low, however.
In order to get a condition as close to plane strain as
possible in the middle region of the specimen, the specimen
width should be as large as possible. The maximal width of
the specimen is restricted by the test equipment, however.
The wider the specimen, the higher the necessary maxi-
mal tensile force and the necessary clamping force. If the
clamping force is too low, this will result in a diffuse grip
condition with significant slip between the specimen and
the grips. Also, a wide specimen requires a corresponding
width of the wedges. In this study, the maximum specimen
width was 76 mm. The transverse strain in the middle re-
gion of the specimen was in the region of 2–5%. Another
way of reducing the transverse strain is to decrease the
specimen free length. The ratio between the width and the
free length of the specimen should be as high as possible.
By reducing the free length from 8 to 6 mm, the transverse
strains decrease from 4 to about 1% for the mild steel
Fig. 12. Comparison of results from numerical simulation and experimental results. Strain distributions just before cracking: (left) simulation; (right)
experiments.
case. A lower free length complicates the strain evaluation,
however.
For high strength steel, the strain condition in the middle
part of the specimen was closer to an exact plane strain con-
dition than for the mild steel. The transverse strain was about
1–2% units lower for the high strength steel compared with
the mild steel. This was seen both in the numerical simula-
tions and in the practical testing. The reason for this is the
difference in anisotropy between the high strength steel and
the mild steel. The mild steel shows a significant anisotropy,
with r-values of about 2. A high r-value results in that the
material has a tendency of compensating the axial strain-
ing by transverse compressive straining rather than through
thinning. For materials with a high degree of anisotropy, it
is therefore somewhat more difficult to get a condition of
plane strain in the middle of the specimen than for material
with a low degree of anisotropy.
A comparison between simulated response and experi-
mental results are given in Fig. 12. The pictures show the
strain distributions in the specimen just before cracking.
The colour scales used in the simulation are similar but
not identical to those used for the experimental results. It
can be concluded that the results from the simulations are
close to the experimental results. The simulated response,
generally, indicates a somewhat more distinct localisation
and slightly lower transverse strains than the experimental
results. This difference is mainly due to the grip conditions
 S. Holmberg et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 145 (2004) 72–83
Fig. 13. Influence of notch size on strain distribution in specimen for plane strain fracture limit determination. Strain plots for a central cut through the
specimen for specimens with different notch sizes.
assumed being perfect in the simulations. Large efforts were
made in order to minimise sliding between the specimen
and the grip wedges but ideal conditions were very difficult
to achieve in reality.
The influence of the notch size on the strain distribu-
tion was investigated. In Fig. 13, results from numerical
simulations showing the influence of the notch size on the
strain distribution is given. The strain distribution for a
central cut through the specimen for specimens with four
different notch sizes are shown. The results show the strain
distribution when the strain in the middle of the specimen
approaches 40%. As can be seen, the notch size clearly in-
fluence the strain distribution at the edges of the specimen.
The strain mode in the middle of the specimen is not af-
fected, however. A large notch give rise to high strain levels
and thereby a higher risk of fracture at the edges of the spec-
imen. A large notch might thus induce fracture at the edges
of the specimen and not, as desired, in the middle region of
the specimen where plane strain conditions apply. This risk
of unwanted fracture at the edges of the specimen is further
increased in practical testing, since perfect grip conditions
are not possible to achieve. In the practical testing, a large
number of the specimens with the large notch size were
unsuccessful with fracture coming from the edges of the
specimen.
The fracture limits in the plane strain condition deter-
mined by this procedure are in good agreement with the
81
results obtained by the conventional forming limit determi-
nation. A number of similar specimens were tested (nine
mild steel specimens and eight high strength steel speci-
mens). The specimens were equipped with circle grids and
the strains just outside the fracture zone were evaluated.
For each specimen, the strains were evaluated at three lo-
cations. An average forming limit strain of 39 and 31%
was received for the mild steel and the high strength steel,
respectively. These values show good agreement with the
conventionally determined forming limits (Fig. 7). It can
be concluded that the results show small scatter both con-
cerning the measurements of the individual specimens and
when comparing the results from the different specimens.
By changing the specimen geometry, the strain state is
changed and fracture limits in other strain modes than plane
strain may be determined. This is illustrated in Fig. 14.
In the figure, results from numerical simulations of three
different specimen widths are given. The diagram show the
predicted strain state at fracture for the different specimen
configurations. The results shown are for the mild steel.
By decreasing the width of the specimen, the strain state
changes from plane strain and approaches that of uniaxial
tension. Another alternative is to increase the free length of
the specimen or change both the width and the free length.
It is advantageous to have a rather wide specimen in order
to get as small boundary effects as possible and to have a
wide fracture area in order to ease the strain evaluation.
82 S. Holmberg et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 145 (2004) 72–83
4 3
Major strain
Uni-axial
tension
-0,40 -0,30 -0,20
Fig. 14. Results from numerical simulations showing the influence of specimen width and specimen free length on the strain state at fracture. w1 denote
the maximal width and h0 the free length of the specimen (Fig. 5).
8. Conclusions
The following conclusions apply:
• A test procedure for determining the forming limit in plane
strain for sheet metal was developed. The main advan-
tages with the method are that it enables a fast and easy
determination of the formability. The results show small
scatter as compared to the conventional methods and it
can be carried out in a tensile testing machine. It does not
require any forming tools or press. Furthermore, the re-
sults are not influenced by the friction. Exact plane strain
conditions were difficult to achieve, a minor compressive
strain of about 2–4% occurred. Successful tests were car-
ried out for both a mild steel and for two different high
strength steels.
• The grip arrangements are essential in order to get suc-
cessful tests. With insufficient clamping of the specimen,
localisation and fracture will not occur at the desired mid-
dle region of the specimen where plane strain conditions
apply.
• The specimen width influences the strain state signifi-
cantly. The specimens width should be as large as possible
in order to get a condition as close to plane strain as pos-
sible in the middle region of the specimen. The maximum
possible specimen width is restricted by the testing equip-
ment in terms of the maximum available tensile force, the
maximum available clamping force and the width of the
wedges.
• The specimen free length has a large influence on the re-
sults. The specimen free length should be as small as pos-
sible in order to get a condition as close to plane strain as
possible in the middle region of the specimen. The strain
evaluation is complicated by decreasing the specimen free
length too much, however.
• It can be concluded that the notch size has a large influ-
ence on the stress and strain distribution in the specimen.
0,80
1: w1=34, h0=8
0,70 2: w1=22, h0=8
3: w1=22, h0=12
0,60
4: w1=16, h0=8
2
0,50
1
0,40
0,30
0,20
0,10
0,00
-0,10 0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40
Minor strain
With a too large notch, the strains at the edges of the
specimen become large and fracture occur at the edges of
the specimen and not in the desired middle region of the
specimen.
• A test procedure for determining the complete left-hand
side of the FLC by tensile tests was outlined. By changing
the geometry of the specimen, different strain conditions
are achieved. The right-hand side of the FLC cannot be
determined by this procedure, however.
• The short free length of the specimens and the high
stiffness of the testing machine enabled stable test
performance and thereby recording of the complete
stress–strain curve, including the softening branch. The
test procedure can therefore be used in development
and verification of fracture mechanics models describ-
ing the localisation and softening behaviour of the
material.
References
[1] A. Andersson, Use of FE-analysis in predicting and verifying
the design of an automotive component forming process, Report
TMMV-1044, Ph.D. Thesis, Division of Production and Materials
Engineering, Lund University, Sweden, 2001.
[2] H. Pijlman, Sheet material characterisation by multi-axial ex-
periments, University of Twente, The Netherlands, 2001. ISBN
90-36516951.
[3] R. Knockaert, Numerical and experimental study of the strain lo-
calization during sheet forming operations, Ph.D. Thesis, CEMEF,
Sophia-Antipolis, France, 2001.
[4] P. Hora, A. Feurer, A. Wahlen, J. Reissner, Methods for handling of
FEM input and output data with the goal of higher computational
reliability, in: Proceedings of the European Congress on Computa-
tional Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering (ECCOMA),
Barcelona, 2000.
[5] P. Keeler, Sheet Met. Ind. 42 (1965) 683.
[6] G.M. Goodwin, Application of strain analysis to sheet metal forming
problems in the press shop, SAE Paper no. 680093, 1968.
 S. Holmberg et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 145 (2004) 72–83
[7] Z. Marciniak, K. Kuczynski, Limit strain in the processes of
stretch-forming sheet metals, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 9 (1967) 609–620.
[8] A. Graf, W.F. Hosford, Calculations of forming limit diagram for
changing strain paths, Metall. Trans. 24 (1993).
[9] P. Friedman, D. Houston, Effects of prestraining on the formabil-
ity of Al–Mg sheet alloys, Research Report SRR-1999–0091, Ford
Research Laboratories.
[10] T.B. Stoughton, A general forming limit criterion for sheet metal
forming, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 42 (2000) 1–27.
83
[11] P. Hora, L. Tong, Prediction methods for ductile sheet metal failure
using FE-simulation methods, in: Proceedings of the IDDRG’94,
Lissabon, 1994, pp. 363–375.
[12] K. Galanius, Manual Aramis 4.7 Deformation measurement using
the grating method, GOM mbH Braunschweig, Germany, 2001.
[13] Hibbit, Karlsson & Sorensson Inc., ABAQUS, Version 6.2, Paw-
tucket, RI, USA, 2001.
[14] R. Hill, The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity, Oxford University
Press, London, 1950.