COMPLEX SHAPE SHEET

HYDROFORMING
Submitted to University of Engineering and Technology Taxila
Department of Mechanical Engineering

In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

M.Sc. in Mechanical Engineering

Author
Faisal Qayyum
12-MS-FT-AMD-03

Supervisor: Dr. Sayyid Masoodur Rahman Shah

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF MECHANICAL AND AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY TAXILA

March 2014

1
COMPLEX SHAPE SHEET
HYDROFORMING

Author
Faisal Qayyum
12-MS-FT-AMD-03

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

M.Sc. in Mechanical Engineering

Thesis Supervisor:
Dr. Sayyid Masoodur Rahman Shah
Asst. Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department, UET Taxila

External Examiner Signature: ______________________________________

Thesis Supervisor Signature: _______________________________________

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF MECHANICAL AND AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY TAXILA

March 2014
2
 Declaration

I certify that research work titled “Complex shape sheet hydroforming” is my individual
effort. The work has not been presented anywhere else for valuation. Where material has been
used from other sources it has been properly recognized / cited.

Faisal Qayyum
12-MS-FT-AMD-03

i
 Dedication

I dedicate this research work to my great and loving parents Abdul

Qayyum & Saima Qayyum. For they have always believed in me and
have been so loving, kind and affectionate. They always taught me to
dream big and were always a source of inspiration and motivation for
me.

ii
 Acknowledgements

All praise and thanks to Allah Subha’nahu Wata’ala, the most Gracious and the most Merciful,
Who gave us the resources, strength and health to carry out this research work. I heartfully
acknowledge the inspiring guidance, constant encouragement, valuable suggestions and kind
supervision of Dr. Masoodur Rahman Shah for his inspiration, passion and constant support
during my research work. His reassurance and supervision helped me throughout research work
and writing of this thesis. I want to pay special gratitude to Mr. Amman Ullah for his
continuous support in developing the experimental setup. The team of Department of
Mechanical Engineering especially Lab Supervisor Mr. Qaiser Mehmood and Lab Assistant
Mr. Asad Maqsood for their assistance during the research work. I would also thank Hina
Akram, Abdul Muqeet and Jawaad Afzal for their help and support in processing results of
the study.

iii
 Abstract

In industrial practice it takes multiple steps to produce complex shaped sheet metal parts of
good tolerances and better surface finish. Sheet hydroforming can be useful process to produce
complex shaped parts of better finish and tolerances, while keeping the production rate faster
and cheaper. Yet many parts are still not manufactured by this process because many
conditional parameters are involved with change with geometry, external conditions and
various other aspects.
In the current research work we have tried to address several problems which occur during
manufacturing of complex shaped parts using hydroforming process. Tensile tests and
anisotropy tests were conducted to determine the detailed material properties. Initial testes were
carried out to identify the process parameters majorly affecting the process, and in final tests
they were optimized to get the desired results.
Same problem was simulated using ABAQUS StandardTM explicit package, to further develop
a model to get deep insights of the process, material properties determined earlier were helpful
during simulation and helped us make the simulation model more real time and comparable.
During deep drawing Draw Ratio (DR) greater than 2.5 has been achieved by using residual
stress removal technique (annealing) and force control methods. The anisotropic behavior of
sheet has been analyzed and the results of simulation and experimentation have been compared.

iv
 Table of Contents

Declaration................................................................................................................................. i
Dedication .................................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ iii
Abstract .................................................................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ x
Symbols & Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... xi
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Literature review ......................................................................................................... 2
1.2.1 Hydroforming ...................................................................................................... 2
1.2.2 Deep Drawing ...................................................................................................... 5
1.2.3 Anisotropy............................................................................................................ 6
1.3 Flow Chart ................................................................................................................... 9
2 Mechanics of Deep Drawing ......................................................................................... 10
2.1 The stress diagram ..................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Stretch and draw ratios in a stamping ....................................................................... 11
2.3 The forming window ................................................................................................. 12
2.4 Drawing ..................................................................................................................... 13
2.5 Cup height ................................................................................................................. 15
2.6 Anisotropy ................................................................................................................. 15
2.7 Defining Lankford's r-values..................................................................................... 16
2.7.1 Planar anisotropy ............................................................................................... 16
2.8 Estimation of Drawing Force .................................................................................... 17
3 Experimentation ............................................................................................................. 18
3.1 Materials .................................................................................................................... 19
3.1.1 AISI D2 .............................................................................................................. 19
3.1.2 AISI SS304 ........................................................................................................ 19
3.2 Standards ................................................................................................................... 20
3.2.1 Tensile Test (ASTM E8) .................................................................................... 20
3.2.2 Lankford r-values (ASTM E517)....................................................................... 20
3.3 Die Design ................................................................................................................. 22

v
 3.3.1 Height of cup...................................................................................................... 22
3.3.2 Draw Ratio ......................................................................................................... 22
3.4 Experimental Setup ................................................................................................... 22
3.5 Deep Drawing ........................................................................................................... 23
3.5.1 Initial Tests......................................................................................................... 23
3.5.2 Upgraded Tests .................................................................................................. 25
3.6 Hydroforming ............................................................................................................ 27
3.6.1 Initial Tests......................................................................................................... 27
3.6.2 Final Tests .......................................................................................................... 27
3.7 Earing ........................................................................................................................ 28
4 Results ............................................................................................................................. 29
4.1 Tensile Tests .............................................................................................................. 30
4.2 Anisotropy Estimation............................................................................................... 32
4.3 Deep Drawing ........................................................................................................... 33
4.3.1 Initial .................................................................................................................. 33
4.3.2 Final ................................................................................................................... 34
4.4 Earing ........................................................................................................................ 36
4.5 Hydroforming ............................................................................................................ 37
5 Simulation ....................................................................................................................... 38
5.1 Deep Drawing ........................................................................................................... 39
5.1.1 Initial .................................................................................................................. 39
5.1.2 Final Test ........................................................................................................... 40
5.2 Earing ........................................................................................................................ 42
6 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 44
6.1 Deep Drawing ........................................................................................................... 45
6.2 Hydroforming ............................................................................................................ 45
6.3 Earing ........................................................................................................................ 45
6.4 Future Recommendations.......................................................................................... 46
Appendix I ................................................................................................................................. i
Appendix II ............................................................................................................................... x
Appendix III .........................................................................................................................xvii
References ............................................................................................................................... xx

List of Figures

vi
Fig. 1.1 : Schematics of experimental setup used by S. H. Zhang, M. R. Jensen et.al. [3] 2

Fig. 1.2 : Doubble sheet and tube hydroformed part by M. Merklein, M. Geiger and M.
Celeghini [11]............................................................................................................................ 3

Fig. 1.3 : Bipolar plate fabricated using convex rubber-pad forming [19] (a) front of the
bipolar plate and (b) back of the bipolar plate...................................................................... 5

Fig. 1.4 comparison between circulat and modified blank shapes ...................................... 8

Fig. 2.1 Illustrated here in the stress space. (The current yield ellipse is shown as a
broken line.) ............................................................................................................................ 11

Fig. 2.2 Section of a stamping illustrating the drawing and stretching ratios .................. 12

Fig. 2.3 The forming window for plane stress forming of sheet. ....................................... 13

Fig. 2.4 (a) Drawing of a circular shell. (b) Location of tensions on the yield locus. (c)
Distribution of tensions in the shell ...................................................................................... 14

Fig. 2.5 A disk of initial parameters drawn to cylindrical cup of mentioned parameters
.................................................................................................................................................. 15

Fig. 2.6 Chart for calculation of limiting drawing force, graph depicts punch profile to
punch diameter ratios of 0.2 ................................................................................................. 17

Fig. 3.1 Tensile test specimen of 0.5mm thickness .............................................................. 20

Fig. 3.2 Extraction of 3 specimens for the test and determination of r-values according
to ASTM E517 Standard ....................................................................................................... 20

Fig. 3.3 Specimens (undeformed & deformed) prepared for determination of Lankford
r-values (a) rolling direction (b) medial direction (c) perpendicular to rolling direction
.................................................................................................................................................. 21

Fig. 3.4 (a) upper flange for coupling (b) split die showing the internal cavity (c) setup of
complete assembly on MTS during final testing phase ...................................................... 23

Fig. 3.5 different failures in deep drawing during initial testing under different applied
conditions ................................................................................................................................ 25

Fig. 3.6 Annealing of flange between each punch of deep drawing ................................... 26

Fig. 3.7 Effect of anisotropy on the final shape of cup (earing) (a) schematics of earing
(b) actually deep drawn specimen ........................................................................................ 26

Fig. 3.8 Specimens busted from the bottom due to excessive yielding at the bottom
during initial hydroforming tests ......................................................................................... 27

Fig. 3.9 Fully hydroformed cup ............................................................................................ 27

vii
Fig. 3.10 Evolution of earing at periphery of sheet blank during the 8 step deep drawing
process ..................................................................................................................................... 28

Fig. 4.1 : Stress Strain diagram for 0.25mm thick sheet at different strain rates ........... 30

Fig. 4.2 : Stress Strain diagram for 0.5mm thick sheet at different strain rates............. 31

Fig. 4.3 : Comparison of stress strain pattern for 0.25mm and 0.5mm thick sheets at
48mm/min strain rate ............................................................................................................ 31

Fig. 4.4 Force vs displacement graph of one step deep drawing process .......................... 34

Fig. 4.5 Load vs displacement diagram of each step after annealing of flange, during
final deep drawing process .................................................................................................... 35

Fig. 4.6 Evolution of earing at periphery of sheet blank during the 8 step deep drawing
process ..................................................................................................................................... 36

Fig. 4.7 graph showing the evolution of force applied inside the cup during final
hydroforming process ............................................................................................................ 37

Fig. 5.1 Deep drawn cups in ABAQUS Standard (a) considering material as isotropic (b)
considering material anisotropy ........................................................................................... 39

Fig. 5.2 Comparison of experimental and simulation results for force vs tearing process
.................................................................................................................................................. 40

Fig. 5.3 Simulation results of force vs displacement for 6 step deep drawing process .... 41

Fig. 5.4 Final hydroformed cup from simulation ................................................................ 41

Fig. 5.5 Evolution of earing at periphery of sheet blank during the 8 step deep drawing
process ..................................................................................................................................... 42

Fig. 5.6 Radial distance of edge after each step of deep drawing ...................................... 43

Fig. 6.1 : Exploded view of full assembly will bill of material .............................................. i

Fig. 6.2 : Sectioned view of full assembly ...............................................................................ii

Fig. 6.3 : Detailed drawing of upper half of die................................................................... iii

Fig. 6.4 : Detailed drawing of lower half of die .................................................................... iv

Fig. 6.5 : Detailed drawing of gripper and guide .................................................................. v

Fig. 6.6 : Detailed drawing of upper clamping ring ............................................................. vi

Fig. 6.7 : Detailed drawing of lower clamping ring ............................................................vii

Fig. 6.8 : Detailed drawing of plunger and seat ................................................................ viii

viii
Fig. 6.9 : Auxiliaries used in assembly .................................................................................. ix

Fig. 6.10 Environment of ABAQUS/Standard 6.12 .............................................................. x

Fig. 6.11 Shape and dimensions of die model ....................................................................... xi

Fig. 6.12 Shape and dimensions of grabber .......................................................................... xi

Fig. 6.13 Shape and dimensions of punch ............................................................................xii

Fig. 6.14 Shape and dimensions of sheet ..............................................................................xii

Fig. 6.15 Complete assembly of all components ..................................................................xii

Fig. 6.16 Definition of interaction between die/sheet and grabber/sheet surfaces ......... xiii

Fig. 6.17 Definition of interaction between punch/sheet surfaces .................................... xiv

Fig. 6.18 Meshed sheet .......................................................................................................... xiv

Fig. 6.19 Tabular amplitude defined for all the boundary conditions .............................. xv

Fig. 6.20 Displacement of punch defined for each step ...................................................... xv

Fig. 6.21 Boundary condition manager depicting definition and propagation of all the
boundary conditions defined................................................................................................ xvi

Fig. 6.22 Pressure definition inside deep drawn sheet ....................................................... xvi

ix
 List of Tables

Table I : Chemical Properties of AISI D2 [42] ........................................................................ 19

Table II : Mechanical Properties of AISI D2 [43] ................................................................... 19

Table III : Chemical Properties of AISI SS304 [42]................................................................ 19

Table IV : Mechanical Properties of AISI SS304 [43] ............................................................ 19

Table V : change in respective length, width and thickness of speciemns in 3 directions ...... 32

Table VI : Results of tests carried out to determine Lankford r-values ................................... 33

Table VII : Input coefficients for simulating anisotropy in ABAQUS .................................... 33

x
 Symbols & Abbreviations

σ1 Principal Stress in x-direction

σ2 Principal Stress in y-direction
σ3 Principal Stress in z-direction
D Die impact line
d Diameter
d0 Initial diameter
A0 Initial cross-sectional area
εu Ultimate tensile strain
n Strain hardening factor
Tθ Tension in circumferential direction
Tϕ Tension in radial direction
r0 Outer radius
ri Inner radius
t thickness of blank
h height of cup
μ Coefficient of friction
w0 Initial width of specimen
wf Final width of specimen
l0 Initial length of specimen
lf Final length of specimen
F Force
ro Lankford r-value along rolling direction
r45 Lankford r-value along medial direction
r90 Lankford r-value along cross-rolling direction

Abbreviations
RD Radial Direction
LDR Limiting drawing ratio
DR Drawing ratio
UTS Ultimate tensile strength

xi
 1 Introduction

1.1 Problem Statement ..................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Literature review......................................................................................................... 2
1.2.1 Hydroforming ................................................................................................... 2
1.2.2 Deep Drawing ................................................................................................... 5
1.2.3 Anisotropy ......................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Flow Chart .................................................................................................................. 9

1
1.1 Problem Statement
In industrial practice it takes multiple steps to produce complex shaped sheet metal parts of
good tolerances and better surface finish. Sheet hydroforming can be useful process to produce
complex shaped parts of better finish and tolerances, while keeping the production rate faster
and cheaper. Yet many parts are still not manufactured by this process because many
conditional parameters are involved with change with geometry, external conditions and
various other aspects. We have done detailed analysis of deep drawing using various analytical
models, experimental techniques and numerical simulation codes has been carried out with
extended hydroforming of deep drawn cups to form complex shapes.

1.2 Literature review

Many researchers have already worked in the field of deep drawing and have developed many
empirical, analytical and numerical models. Some of the major contributions will be discussed
in this section.
1.2.1 Hydroforming
H.M. Shang, S. Qin and CJ. Tay [1] hydroformed copper sheets by two deformation paths
distinguished with the sequence in which the blank holding force is applied. A simple model
was offered which assumed that deformation is ruled by the present condition of draw-in at any
polar height. Results showed that in one-stage hydroforming drawing-in of the flange makes
sheet formability better while in double-stage hydroforming the “restricted flange” process is
generally better.
S. Thiruvarudchelvan and W. Lewis [2] worked on hydroforming of copper blanks. They used
constant pressure (68.9 kPa) hydraulic press and a diaphragm casted from rubber latex. Blanks
with draw ratios up to 2.65 were successfully hydroformed.
S. H. Zhang, M. R. Jensen et.al. [3] compared the numerical and experimental results of
hydromechanical deep drawing of aluminum and mild steel cups. Thickness variation in
finished product and failure due to local thinning were predicted and discussed. Experimental
setup is shown in Fig. 1.1. Results showed that LDR reached 2.5 for aluminum and 2.6 for mild
steel. The FE numerical simulation outcomes were also in agreement with experimental results.

Fig. 1.1 : Schematics of experimental setup used by S. H. Zhang, M. R. Jensen et.al. [3]

2
Anwar Kandil [4] conducted experiments to study the consequence of main process factors
such as initial pressure, sheet thickness, sheet material properties, punch geometry, punch load
and drawing ratio on the drawing of copper and aluminum blanks of varying diameter and
thickness. He compared the results obtained by hydromechanical deep drawing and
conventional deep drawing process [5] and found out that greater LDRs and uniform strain
distribution are obtained in hydromechanical deep drawing process.
S. Novotny and M. Geiger [6] designed laboratory systems to conduct uniaxial tension test for
Aluminum AA6016, the open hydraulic protrudion of sheet material and for strip drawing for
Aluminum AA5182, all at high temperatures. They concluded that different temperature
windows must be considered while hydroforming different alloys.
M. Zampaloni, N. Abedrabbo and F. Pourboghrat [7] used 3003-H14-aluminum sheet alloy
and focused on the experimental and numerical process of stamp hydroforming using
pressurized fluid on one surface. To numerically simulate the process they used commercially
available finite element analysis code Ls-Dyna3D. after using both isotropic and anisotropic
material representations and comparing results with experiments they concluded that Barlat’s
anisotropic yield parameter [8] accurately forecasted the location of the material failure and the
wrinkling appearances of aluminum sheet.
Shi-Hong Zhang, et.al. [9] proposed a method to produce small batch of complex shaped
hydroformed parts by using moveable female die, so that excessive thinning during the process
could be prevented. They found out that the forming limits of complex parts can be increased
by using moveable female die.
Lihui Lang, et. al. [10] were able to successfully hydroform multi-layered sheet with very thin
middle layer. They used hydromechanical deep drawing (HDD) with uniform pressure on one
side of the blank. Formability of the thin middle layer was significantly improved by avoiding
the failures. It was found out that larger the friction between sheets better will be the formability
of the middle layer.
M. Merklein, M. Geiger and M. Celeghini [11] developed a single step complex hydroforming
process by forming a tube and double sheet simultaneously in a die cavity. Analytical model
for the prediction of the edge shape, finite element analysis and laboratory trials were carried
out to remove all the defects and develop a defect proof process. Their hydroformed part is
shown in Fig. 1.2.

Fig. 1.2 : Double sheet and tube hydroformed part by M. Merklein, M. Geiger and M.
Celeghini [11]

3
G. Palumbo, S.H. Zhang, et. al. [12] controlled the blank forming by using moveable inferior
plate. After evaluating results obtained from FE simulation the specimens were specially
designed to avoid critical strain values, and good agreement between the experimental and
numerical results was observed.
C. Bruni . et.al. [13] carried out laboratory trials to analyze the effect of pressure, die insert
geometry and friction on residual stresses and spring back in TRIP800 steel. Spring back was
measured using 3D coordinate measuring machine while residual stresses were approximated
using X-ray diffraction technique. It was observed that high pressure, low corner radius and
high friction resulted in high equivalent plastic strain.
A. Cherouat, et.al. [14] presents a numerical practice based on elastoplastic constitutive
equations includinng non-linear anisotropic hardening. Tensile test for different initial rolling
orders were conducted to find Hill material parameters. Good arrangement between
mathematical, numerical and experimental outcomes was observed.
T. Khandeparkar and M. Liewald [15] hydromechanically deep drew low-carbon steel (DC04)
and stainless steel (DIN 1.4301) with complex stepped geometries. The capability of relocating
complex positive and negative topographies from the punch onto the blank surface with great
deep drawing ratios were investigated. The process was initially simulated using the FEM
solver LS-DYNA and then experiments were conducted on a die set with a maximum possible
deep drawing ratio β0,max =3.0. Limiting deep drawing ratios of β0,max =3.0 for DC04 and β0,max
=2.875 for DIN 1.4301 were accomplished.
Erkan Onder and A. Erman Tekkaya [16] analyzed a spectrum containing six basic geometries
used to evaluate three sheet metal forming procedures. About 200 dynamic-explicit FE
analyses were performed to yield a design rule. The results showed that less thining occurs in
hydromechanical deep drawing than in straight deep drawing, they also presented graphs for
extreme thinning and calibrating fluid pressure in terms of comparative fillet radii of the die.
Ahmad Assempour and Mohammad Reza Emami [17] developed a pressure equation by
considering the effects of work-hardening, friction and blank size, to exactly calculate the
pressure requirements in hydroforming process and the results showed some reasonable
differences with the experimental results.
M. Geiger, et. al. [18] proposed a strategy to compensate the difference in behavior of two
splits are made up of dissimilar materials or dissimilar initial thickness by applying
counterpressure outside one or both sheets. They used FE software PAM-STAMP-2G to
numerically simulate the process and developed a procedure to determine the necessary counter
pressure.
Yanxiong Liu, st. al. [19] analyzed concave and convex deformation styles and discussed their
characteristics in detail with numerical simulation and experimental means. An implicit FE
code of Abaqus/Standard was used to carry out numerical simulation. Results from simulation
were compared with experimental values to validate the numerical simulation. They concluded
that concave style is more appropriate when w/s>1, convex must be preferred otherwise. By
utilizing their study they were able to successfully manufacture bi-polar plate (w/s<1) sample
using convex rubber-pad forming as revealed in Fig. 1.3.

4
Fig. 1.3 : Bipolar plate fabricated using convex rubber-pad forming [19] (a) front of the
bipolar plate and (b) back of the bipolar plate.
Ihsan Irthiea, Graham Green, Safa Hashim and Abdulbast Kriama [20] conducted FE
simulation and experimental investigation on micro deep drawing developments of stainless
steel 304 sheets utilizing a flexible die. FE simulation was carried out considering basic
material parameters on Abaqus/Standard, and experiments were performed on flexible tooling
system. It was proven by the study that stainless steel 304 cups with great aspect ratio could be
found through a single micro deep drawing stage by flexible die.
1.2.2 Deep Drawing
A. S. Korhonen [21] devised a technique for estimating the maximum drawing force in the
deep drawing of cylindrical cups. He approximated that at the limiting drawing ratio maximum
force will act at the punch nose rounding and that there will be no contact between the sheet
and the punch at the point of necking, so that frictional force cannot assist in carrying any
drawing load. He proposed simple charts for determining the maximum drawing force as a
function of anisotropy and tooling geometry.
M. Ahmetoglu, et al. [22] found the wrinkling and fracture boundaries of aluminum alloy 2008-
T4 to remove defects, increase part quality and rise the draw depth. They performed
experiments on oval, oblong and rectangle specimens by varying the Blank Holding Force
(BHF). They concluded that BHF as a function of time increases the formability and quality of
final part.
Xi Wang and Jian Cao [23] based on simplified flat or curved sheet models with approximate
boundary conditions devised a modified energy approach utilizing energy equality and the
effective dimensions of the region undergoing circumferential compression.
Xi Wang and Jian Cao [24] devised a method is based on the wrinkling principle suggested by
Cao and Boyce [25] for forecasting the buckling performance of sheet metal under normal
limitation. They used a mixture of energy conservation and plastic bending theory. Their
analysis provided the serious buckling stress and wavelength as affected by normal pressure.

5
The results obtained were in excellent arrangement with those obtained from Cao and Boyce’s
numerical method [25], and also matched well with the experimental outcomes of a square cup
development. They also discussed that how wrinkling behavior is affected by material
properties.
Anupam Agrawal, N. Venkata Reddy and P.M. Dixit [26] predicted the minimum blank
holding pressure compulsory to evade wrinkling in the flange region during axisymmetric deep
drawing procedure. They equated the energy accountable for wrinkling to that which
overpowers the wrinkles. The model was verified by comparing with already published data.
S. Han, M. Bruhis, and M. K. Jain [27] developed a new FE model for deep drawing and
redrawing, which also accounted for the stiffness of working machine. a mathematical model
to determine the limiting drawing ratio (LDR) of deep drawing and redrawing procedures was
resulting based on the extension of an existing analytical model proposed by Leu [28] and
Hill’s anisotropic criterion [29]. The consequences of the scientific model were validated by
consistent experimental and FE simulation work in relationships of punch load and clamping
force against punch displacement and thickness allocations along the product profile.
R. Padmanabhan, M.C. Oliveira, J.L. Alves and L.F. Menezes [30] worked on the effect of
process parameters on the deep drawing of stainless steel. They used Taguchi method to
recognize the relative effect of each process restriction. They found out that die radius has the
highest effect on the deep drawing of stainless steel blank sheet followed by the blank holder
force and the friction coefficient. They also found out that blank holder force and local
lubrication arrangement improves the superiority of the formed part.
M. Kadkhodayan and F. Moayyedian [31] based on the Tresca yield criterion, bifurcation
functional and Tresca yield criterion along with the assumption of perfectly plastic material
developed a closed-form answer for the critical drawing stress. In their study they used
nonlinear plastic stress field and the deformation theory of plasticity. For larger width of
flanges they successfully predicted effect of a blankholder upon wrinkling and on the number
of waves produced. It was also demonstrated that using large deflection theory has the same
result as the using small deflection theory.
Wang Wu-rong, He Chang-wei, Zhao Zhong-hua and Wei Xi-cheng [32] worked on the
limiting drawing ratio (LDR) and formability forecast of progressive high strength dual-phase
steels (DP-AHSS). They conducted experiments to recognize the maximum blank diameter
with onset crack, then simulated the same problem using three yielding models (Hill [29],
Batlat [8] and Banabic [33]). The investigation showed that a Swift and Hockett–Sherby joint
formula is in good contract with the flow curve of the tensile test and Batlat-89 yield model
positively forecasts the beginning of shear crack of DP AHSS.
1.2.3 Anisotropy
Shunji Hiwatashi et.al. [34] developed an analytical model of plastic anisotropy grounded on
texture and dislocation structures. In their work only the initial texture and the dislocation
textures are expected to be accountable for anisotropy. They did that by introducing three inner
state variables and their development equations, these variables were related with the kinematic
hardening and the isotropic hardening of the yield locus.

6
M. S. Duesbery and V. Vitek [35] illustrated the concept of plastic anisotropy in bcc metals by
means of atomistic calculations, using Finnis-Sinclair inter-atomic force laws. They explained
the model of anisotropy by developing screw atomic and edge atomic maps of certain groups
and explained the flow of atoms under stress conditions. In this research they found out that γ-
surface play and important role in defining the isotropic properties of metals.
K. Manabe et.al. [36] developed an in-process documentation method of material properties
and lubrication situation in the deep-drawing process of anisotropic sheet metals and controlled
the blank holding force (BHF). The technique is grounded on a fusion model of artificial neural
network (ANN) and elastoplastic philosophy. Three substitute plastic deformation properties,
i.e. n value, F value and plastic anisotropic coefficient r, were identified. The friction
coefficient μ and the optimal BHF control path were then intended from the theoretic model.
Furthermore, the friction coefficient was observed during the entire procedure, and a closed-
loop governor was applied to adapt the BHF path consistent to the frictional deviation. It was
observed that more homogeneously wall thickness is achieved in this technique.
A.M. Zaky, et.al. [37] determine the optimal shape of a blank for the deep drawing of a
cylindrical cup deprived of ears. They predicted from the anisotropic properties of the sheet
metals and used the modified blank to reduce the ear shape. Comparison between experimental
results of circular and altered blanks were presented as shown in Fig. 1.4.
D. Ravi Kumar [38] studied the formability of five sheets of aluminum-killed extra-deep
drawing (EDD) low carbon steel. Forming limit diagrams (FLDs) were developed and were
correlated with microstructure, mechanical properties and formability parameters like strain
hardening coefficient (n) and normal anisotropy (f). It was found that four of the five sheets
have a favorable grain size and mechanical properties to meet the requirements of good
formability. Earing tendency during drawing was high for one sheet due to its high planar
anisotropy.
Saiyi Li, et.al. [39] performed FE simulations of sheet metal using the texture- and
microstructure-based (Tex–Mic) constitutive model. The effect of crystallographic texture was
incorporated through the use of an anisotropic plastic potential in strain-rate space, which gave
the shape of the yield locus. Two applications (a cup drawing test and a two-stage pseudo-
orthogonal progressive test) were presented to evaluate the accuracy and the efficiency of the
model. The developed model was skillful of forecasting the plastic anisotropy induced by both
the texture and the strain-path alteration.

7
 Fig. 1.4 comparison between circulat and modified blank shapes
S. H. Zhang, et.al. [40] numerically and experimentally investigated the hydromechanical deep
drawing processes of mild steel cups. Mild steel cups of 2.5 draw ratios were formed.
Experiments were done with the fixed gap technique (with insertions) and the straight method
(without insertions) under diverse prebuilding pressures and simulation was passed out using
explicit finite element code DYNA3D with the Barlat–Lian’s three-parameter material model.
It was decided that the anisotropy of the sheet material has a robust effect on the shape variation
of the cup wall and the thickness distribution of the cup.
R. Padmanabhan, et.al. [41] investigated the consequence of anisotropy in the tailor-welded
blank and the alignment of blank sheets rolling path during deep-drawing process. Finite
element analysis of deep-drawing mild steel and dual-phase steel tailor-welded blank models
was done using research purpose FE code DD3IMP. It was decided that anisotropy in the blank
sheets has reasonable influence and its influence to increased material flow depends on the
mechanical properties of the blank sheets. Suitable combination of the blank sheets rolling
direction alignment can significantly increase the formability of the tailor-welded blank in the
deep-drawing of square cup.

8
1.3 Flow Chart

Comples Shape Sheet Hydroforming

0.25 mm thick sheet 0.5 mm thick sheet Simulation

Deep Draw Hydroformign

Deep Draw Tests Hydroforming Tests 2-D 3-D
Tests Tests

Initial Initial Initial Final Initial Isotropic Isotropic

Annealing Final Aisotrpic

Anisotropy

9
 2 Mechanics of Deep Drawing

2.1 The stress diagram.................................................................................................... 11

2.2 Stretch and draw ratios in a stamping ..................................................................... 11
2.3 The forming window ................................................................................................ 12
2.4 Drawing .................................................................................................................... 13
2.5 Cup height ................................................................................................................ 15
2.6 Anisotropy ................................................................................................................. 15
2.7 Defining Lankford's r-values................................................................................... 16
2.7.1 Planar anisotropy ........................................................................................... 16
2.8 Estimation of Drawing Force .................................................................................. 17

10
To get insight of the deep drawing and hydroforming process it is important to get the insight
of the mathematical models developed by different researchers that explain this phenomena

2.1 The stress diagram

“A diagram in which the stress state associated with each strain point is shown is very useful
in understanding the forces involved in a process. Such a diagram is shown in Fig. 2.1, it is
used to illustrate the link between the strain and stress diagrams. Also, contours of equal
effective stress are shown, which are of course yield loci for particular values of flow stress.
During deformation, plastic flow will start from the initial yield locus shown as a continuous
line, i.e. when 𝜎̅ = (𝜎𝑓 ) and the loading path will be along a radial line of slope 1/a.”
0

Fig. 2.1 Illustrated here in the stress space. (The current yield ellipse is shown as a
broken line.)
The principal stresses are
𝜎1 ; 𝜎2 = 𝛼 × 𝜎1 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝜎3 = 0

2.2 Stretch and draw ratios in a stamping

“In stampings of simple shape, it is often useful to determine the stretch and draw ratios at a
section. Figure 4.10 shows the blank and die at the start of the operation. The points D are the
tangent points of the sheet at the die corner radius. As the blank is drawn in, the die will mark
the sheet slightly so that the position of the material point that was originally at D can be seen
on the sheet. The line on the stamping indicated by this marking or scratching is called the die
impact line and in Fig. 2.2(b) it is indicated by the point D0. The length measured around the

11
sheet, 2d, as shown in Fig. 2.2(b), is the current length of 2d0 and the stretching ratio is defined
as”
𝑑 − 𝑑𝑜
𝑆𝑅 = × 100%
𝑑𝑜

Fig. 2.2 Section of a stamping illustrating the drawing and stretching ratios
The drawing ratio is
𝑏𝑜 − 𝑏
𝐷𝑅 = × 100%
𝑏𝑜
It is often found that problems will occur in stamping if these ratios change too rapidly with
successive sections along the tool.

2.3 The forming window

“Sheet metal forming procedures can be narrowed by various actions. It can occur due to
resident necking and tearing. It is also likely for ductile sheet to break either within a necked
area or beforehand necking occurs. Other limits include wrinkling of the sheet underneath
compressive loading. We have observed that, for applied details, sheet can only be deformed
by tensile forces and consequently one of the main stresses must be positive, or, in the limit
equal to zero. Captivating these issues into account, it is useful to recognize a forming window
in which plane stress sheet forming is likely. This is demonstrated in Fig. 2.3. The compressive
limit where the main tension just reduces to zero is shown at the strain path of β = -2. The
wrinkling boundary is not exclusively a material property and so the limit is only exposed as a
region in the second and fourth quadrants. The diagram is a graphic aid and it can be understood
that if the strain-hardening index develops small, the window contracts to a narrow slit along
the left-hand diagonal. As mentioned, firming processes typically lead to condense strain-
hardening in the sheet and one of the tasks of sheet metal forming is to invent processes for
forming robust materials that will certify safe straining even though the window is small.”

12
 Fig. 2.3 The forming window for plane stress forming of sheet.
The equation for this process can be written as:
1
𝑛 − 𝜀𝑢 𝑛 − 𝜀𝑢 𝑑𝐴𝑜 𝑛
[1 − ] 𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( ) = (1 + )
𝑛 𝑛 𝐴𝑜
𝑑𝐴𝑜
As indicated (n - εu) and 𝐴𝑜
are small compared with unity and the above equation may be
approximated as
𝑛 − 𝜀𝑢 𝑛 − 𝜀𝑢 𝑛 − 𝜀𝑢 2 𝑑𝐴𝑜 1
(1 − )( ) = 1−( ) ≈1+
𝑛 𝑛 𝑛 𝐴𝑜 𝑛

2.4 Drawing
“If a circular blank is drawn into a circular die as shown in Fig. 2.4(a), we may anticipate that
the meridional tension will be tensile (positive) at the throat and zero at the outer edge. As any
circumferential line will shrink during drawing, the hoop tensions are likely to be negative or
compressive. The tensions will therefore lie in the second quadrant of the yield locus as shown
in Fig. 2.4(b) where”
𝑇∅ − 𝑇𝜃 = 𝑇̅

13
 Fig. 2.4 (a) Drawing of a circular shell. (b) Location of tensions on the yield locus. (c)
Distribution of tensions in the shell
“The equilibrium equation is then
𝑑𝑇∅ 𝑇̅
+ =0
𝑑𝑟 𝑟
Integrating and substituting the boundary condition that 𝑇∅ = 0 at 𝑟 = 𝑟0
𝑟0
𝑇∅ = 𝑇̅ ln
𝑟
And
𝑟0
𝑇𝜃 = 𝑇∅ − ̅𝑇 = −𝑇̅ (1 − ln )
𝑟
This stress distribution is illustrated in Fig. 2.4(c).”
“It may be seen from Fig. 2.4(b) that the maximum value for the meridional tension at the inner
radius of the drawn shell is when 𝑇∅ = 𝑇̅ .Substituting this gives that the maximum size shell
that can be drawn is when”
𝑟 𝑟
ln 𝑟0 = 1 or 𝑟0 = 𝑒 = 2.72 = 𝐿𝐷𝑅
𝑖 𝑖

“This so-called Limiting Drawing Ratio (LDR) given by the simple analysis is very
approximate and actual values in the range of 2.0–2.2 are usually observed.”

14
2.5 Cup height
“As specified earlier in this chapter, during drawing the flange, the outer region will incline to
thicken and the top of the cup could be larger than the initial blank thickness, as illustrated in
an overstated way in Fig. 2.5. The thinnest area will be near the base at point E where the sheet
is bent and unbent. At some in-between the wall, the thickness will be the similar as the first
thickness. An approximate estimation of the final cup height is found by assuming that it
contains a circular base and cylindrical wall as exposed on the right-hand side of the cup figure
and that the thickness is everywhere the same as the initial thickness. By comparing volumes
cup height is given by”

𝜋𝑅02 𝑡0 = 𝜋𝑟𝑖 𝑡0 + 2𝜋𝑟𝑖 𝑡0 ℎ

Fig. 2.5 A disk of initial parameters drawn to cylindrical cup of mentioned parameters
𝑟𝑖 𝑅 2
Equation 1: ℎ≈ {( 𝑟0 ) − 1}
2 𝑖

𝑅0
“As designated earlier, the drawing ratio ; is typically less than about 2.2; Equation 1 shows
𝑟𝑖
that the cup height for this ratio is closely twice the wall radius, or the height to diameter ratio
of the cup is almost unity.”

2.6 Anisotropy
For anisotropic creep in Abaqus/Standard Hill's function can be expressed as

where is the equivalent stress and F, G, H, L, M, and N are constants obtained by tests of
the material in different orientations. The constants are defined with the same general relations
as those used for anisotropic yield (above); however, the reference yield stress, , is replaced
by the uniaxial equivalent deviatoric stress, (found in the creep law), and , , ,

15
, , and are referred to as “anisotropic creep stress ratios.” The six creep stress ratios
are, therefore, defined as follows (in the order in which they must be provided):

You must define the ratios in each direction that will be used to scale the stress value when
the creep strain rate is calculated. If all six values are set to unity, isotropic creep is
obtained.

2.7 Defining Lankford's r-values

As discussed above, Hill's anisotropic plasticity potential is defined in Abaqus from user input
consisting of ratios of yield stress in different directions with respect to a reference stress.
However, in some cases, such as sheet metal forming applications, it is common to find the
anisotropic material data given in terms of ratios of width strain to thickness strain.
Mathematical relationships are then necessary to convert the strain ratios to stress ratios that
can be input into Abaqus.
In sheet metal forming applications we are generally concerned with plane stress conditions.
Consider to be the “rolling” and “cross” directions in the plane of the sheet; z is the
thickness direction. From a design viewpoint, the type of anisotropy usually desired is that in
which the sheet is isotropic in the plane and has an increased strength in the thickness direction,
which is normally referred to as transverse anisotropy. Another type of anisotropy is
characterized by different strengths in different directions in the plane of the sheet, which is
called planar anisotropy.
In a simple tension test performed in the x-direction in the plane of the sheet, the flow rule for
this potential (given above) defines the incremental strain ratios (assuming small elastic strains)
as

Therefore, the ratio of width to thickness strain, often referred to as Lankford's r-value, is

Similarly, for a simple tension test performed in the y-direction in the plane of the sheet, the
incremental strain ratios are

and

2.7.1 Planar anisotropy

In the case of planar anisotropy and are different and will all be different.
If we define in the metal plasticity model to be equal to ,

16
and, using the relationships above, we obtain

Again, if , and the Mises isotropic plasticity model is recovered.

2.8 Estimation of Drawing Force

A.S. Korohenen [21] developed a method for estimating maximum deep drawing force in the
deep drawing of cylindrical cups. He developed simple charts to obtain the maximum drawing
force as a function of tooling geometry. Here we will only discuss specifically our case.
HE showed that using voce’s equation 𝜎̅ = 𝐵 − (𝐵 − 𝐴)−𝑚𝜀̅ and assuming isotropy, following
equation is obtained:
1 2−√3
4 (1 + 𝑚)(1+𝑚) 𝐵−𝐴 2𝑚
𝐹= × ×( ) × 𝑅𝑚 × 2𝜋𝑅𝑡0
3 (1+
√3 1
) 𝐵
2 2 𝑚
(1 + 𝑚)
√3
Using this equation and considering the punch profile he devised several charts and tables. We
will only see one figure here, which is represented as Fig. 2.6. Our punch radius to punch
diameter is 0.2 and punch diameter to blank thickness ratio is 50. So after tracing the line we
come to know that
𝐹 = 1.195 × 𝑅𝑚 × 𝜋 × 𝑑 × 𝑡0
𝐹 = 1.195 × 619 × 𝜋 × 25 × 0.5
And the force comes out to be 29 kN. Which is very close to the values obtained from
experimentation and simulations.”

Fig. 2.6 Chart for calculation of limiting drawing force, graph depicts punch profile to
punch diameter ratios of 0.2

17
 3 Experimentation

3.1 Materials ................................................................................................................... 19

3.1.1 AISI D2 ........................................................................................................... 19
3.1.2 AISI SS304 ..................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Standards .................................................................................................................. 20
3.2.1 Tensile Test (ASTM E8) ................................................................................. 20
3.2.2 Lankford r-values (ASTM E517) ................................................................... 20
3.3 Die Design................................................................................................................. 22
3.3.1 Height of cup .................................................................................................. 22
3.3.2 Draw Ratio ...................................................................................................... 22
3.4 Experimental Setup .................................................................................................. 22
3.5 Deep Drawing ........................................................................................................... 23
3.5.1 Initial Tests ..................................................................................................... 23
3.5.2 Upgraded Tests ............................................................................................... 25
3.6 Hydroforming ........................................................................................................... 27
3.6.1 Initial Tests ..................................................................................................... 27
3.6.2 Final Tests ...................................................................................................... 27
3.7 Earing ....................................................................................................................... 28

18
3.1 Materials
3.1.1 AISI D2
Die for hydroforming was manufactured using AISI D2. The chemical composition [42] of this
material is shown in Table I.
Table I : Chemical Properties of AISI D2 [42]
Component C Si Mn Cr Mo V Ni Co Cu
Wt. % 1.55 0.3 0.4 11.8 0.8 0.8 0.3 1 0.25

Mechanical Properties of AISI D2 [43] are shown in Table II

Table II : Mechanical Properties of AISI D2 [43]
Properties Density Young’s Poisson’s Compressive Thermal Specific
Kg/m 3 Modulus Ratio Yield Conductivity Heat
GPa Strength W/m.K KJ/Kg.K
MPa
Value 7700 210 0.3 2200 20 0.46

The material was heat treated by using ASTM B661-12 [44]. Heat treatment of AISI D2 helps
make it hard hence more scratch proof, which increases the life of die.

3.1.2 AISI SS304

Chemical composition of AISI SS304 [42] is shown in Table III
Table III : Chemical Properties of AISI SS304 [42]
Component C Cr Fe Mn Ni P S Si
Wt. % 0.08 18-20 66.3-74 Max. 2 8-10.5 0.045 0.03 Max. 1

Mechanical properties of AISI SS304 [43] are shown in Table IV.

Table IV : Mechanical Properties of AISI SS304 [43]
Properties Density Poisson’s Young’s Yield UTS Rockwell
Kg/m 3 Ratio Modulus Strength MPa Hardness
GPa MPa
Value 8000 0.3 200 215 505 70

Tensile tests for sheets of 0.25mm and 0.5mm thickness were done using ASTM E8 Standard
[45]. Results of these tests have been discussed in Chapter 4.

19
3.2 Standards
3.2.1 Tensile Test (ASTM E8)
To determine the mechanical plastic properties and strength of material, tensile tests were
carried out at different strain rates. Specimens were prepared and tested according to the ASTM
E8 Standard [45]. A specimen prepared for tensing has been shown in Fig. 3.1. Tests were
conducted for sheets of 0.25 mm and 0.5 mm thickness. Results of these tests have been
discussed in Chapter 4.

Fig. 3.1 Tensile test specimen of 0.5mm thickness

3.2.2 Lankford r-values (ASTM E517)
During initial testing it was observed that blanks showed anisotropic behavior while forming.
To determine the Lankford r-values for anisotropy specimens were prepared and tested
according to the ASTM E517 Standard [46]. As for sheet only planar anisotropy is considered,
specimens were cut in 3 directions which have been represented in Fig. 3.2.

Fig. 3.2 Extraction of 3 specimens for the test and determination of r-values according
to ASTM E517 Standard
Specimens were cut in directions represented in Fig. 3.2, then according to standard they were
elongated 20% to their original length and the data was recorded for further calculations.
Specimens before testing and after testing have been presented in Fig. 3.3, which are as follows:

20
i) Rolling Direction (r0) Fig. 3.3 (a)
ii) Medial Direction (r45) Fig. 3.3 (b)
iii) Perpendicular to rolling direction (r90) Fig. 3.3 (c)

(a)

(b)

(c)
Fig. 3.3 Specimens (undeformed & deformed) prepared for determination of
Lankford r-values (a) rolling direction (b) medial direction (c) perpendicular to
rolling direction

21
The r value is considered a measure of sheet metal draw ability, Δr is measure of the tendency
to form ears in the flange of deep drawn cylindrical parts in the direction of higher r values
[46]. The results of these tests are shown in Chapter 4.

3.3 Die Design

3.3.1 Height of cup
By considering the article given in “Mechanics of Sheet metal forming” [47] Chapter 8 page
123, we can find the cup height by equating volumes as shown in Equation 2
Equation 2 𝜋𝑅𝑜2 𝑡𝑜 = 𝜋𝑟1 𝑡𝑜 + 2𝜋𝑟1 𝑡𝑜 ℎ
It can be transformed into
𝑟1 𝑅 2
Equation 3 Equation 4 ℎ≈ {( 𝑟𝑜 ) − 1}
2 𝑖

𝑟1 𝑅 2
Equation 4 ℎ≈ {( 𝑟𝑜 ) − 1}
2 𝑖

We had several pre-defined constants in our calculations, we wanted to keep the internal
diameter di 28mm and wanted to restrict the height of cup to be 30mm. so after putting values
in Equation 3 we get the following
14 𝑅 2
30 ≈ {(14𝑜 ) − 1}
2

When solved gives us Ro = 32.18mm which can be rounded off to 35mm. now we know the
initial diameter of the blank which will be Do = 65mm
3.3.2 Draw Ratio
Limiting drawing ratio (LDR) is defined as the ratio of the maximum blank diameter that can
be safely drawn into a cup to the punch diameter. Maximum size of the shell that can ideally
be drawn is of LDR 2.72 [47] Chapter 7 page 114. But practically due to strain hardening,
effect of friction and material anisotropy LDR is significantly decreased upto 1.7 [47] Chapter
8 page 122.
During die design we kept the internal diameter of 28mm and used the blank of 70mm diameter,
hence kept the LDR of 2.46. The problem was discretized into 2 main components, i) deep
drawing and ii) hydroforming of deep drawn cup.

3.4 Experimental Setup

Die was designed according to the above mentioned specifications, and the complete assembly
was developed to perform these experiments. Assembly drawing and detailed drawings of each
part of assembly have been presented in Annexure I. The assembly was used with 10 ton
conventional hydraulic press to perform initial tests and late was used on MTS 810 system to
perform final tests. Setup of complete assembly on MTS during final testing phase has been
shown in Fig. 3.4

22
 (a)

(b) (c)
Fig. 3.4 (a) upper flange for coupling (b) split die showing the internal cavity (c) setup
of complete assembly on MTS during final testing phase

3.5 Deep Drawing

Major
3.5.1 Initial Tests
Initial test were performed on a standard 10 Ton hydraulic press present in Fracture Mechanics
and Fatigue Lab. The testes were performed on 0.25mm and 0.5mm thick sheets of 65mm
diameter. There tests were conducted to find the narrow window of optimum external
parameters in which the deep drawing and eventually hydroforming is possible. Those
parameters are as follows:
i) Sheet Thickness
ii) Gripping Pressure
iii) Lubrication
iv) Die surface finish
v) Draw Speed
vi) Type of Mandrel
Role of each of the parameter on the process is discussed in this section.

23
3.5.1.1 Sheet Thickness
As described earlier tests were performed on both 0.25mm and 0.5mm thick sheets, by keeping
all the other parameters constant it was observed that 0.25mm thin sheet wrinkled from the
flange during deep drawing which increases structural inertia of the flange which hinders
material flow, which eventually results in tearing of the wall.
Thick sheet is easy to draw, but greater force is required to complete the process. It is important
to note that one step deep drawing of 0.5mm thick sheet is not possible as described earlier in
Chapter 3, because of this reason the wall tears when the load exceeds from 34kN.
3.5.1.2 Gripping Pressure
Load cell was incorporated in the full assembly of hydroforming die to estimate the gripping
pressure on the flange during initial clamping of sheet. During initial tests it was noted that
optimum gripping pressure is also important for successful deep drawing of the cup.
Low gripping pressure results in wrinkling of the flange, while high gripping pressure hinders
the flow of material into the die cavity and eventually results in tearing of sheet.
3.5.1.3 Lubrication
During initial tests 2 types of lubricants were used graphite grease and layers of polythene.
Tests were performed without lubrication, with lite lubrication and with full lubrication. It
was noted during the initial tests that better the lubrication better is the flow of material into
die cavity, but the area under punch nose should not be lubricated and should be kept rough.
3.5.1.4 Die surface finish
Flow of the material into the die cavity also depends upon the surface finish of the die and
grabber, greater the surface finish, lesser will be the friction coefficient between the die and
sheet, and greater will be the formability. Surface of die was polished using sand paper and
diamond paste during the initial testing.
3.5.1.5 Draw Speed
It was observed that draw speed does not affect the outcomes of the process significantly.
3.5.1.6 Type of Mandrel
Two types of mandrels were used for deep drawing of cylindrical cup, solid aluminum
mandrel and rubber mandrel. During initial testing it was observed that rubber mandrel grips
the deep drawn cup tightly along the walls of the die, friction between the sheet and die
increases significantly which hinders the flow of more material into the die cavity, hence
results in failure of sheet due to excessive thinning at the bottom of the deep drawn cup. So it
is better to use a solid mandrel during deep drawing of the cup. Aluminum mandrel of 25mm
diameter and 50mm length was used during the process.

24
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 3.5 different failures in deep drawing during initial testing under different
applied conditions

3.5.2 Upgraded Tests

During initial testing optimum boundary conditions for successful deep drawing were
identified for this specific process, which were as follows:
i) Sheet of 0.5mm thickness should be used for deep drawing purpose because it can
bear more stress, and has less wrinkling issues for LDR of 2.46
ii) It was noted that limiting force for deep drawing the cup should not exceed 34kN,
keeping this fact under consideration we set the value of applied force to be 30kN
iii) It is important to note that deep drawing at LDR of 2.46 is impossible to achieve in
one step, so it was finally decided that cup will be revived after each step, it will be
annealed to remove residual stresses and then will be redrawn further.
iv) Optimum gripping pressure which nether grips the sheet too much nor is too less
that the sheet starts wrinkling was found out to be 20kN for 70mm diameter of blank
v) Sheet should be fully lubricated using graphite grease and polythene sheet

25
vi) Surface of die and gripper were polished before carrying out the final tests to reduce
friction and make material flow better
vii) Draw speed of 10mm/min was selected to carry out the tests
viii) It was concluded that deep drawing should be done using a solid mandrel
Finally deep drawn cup is shown in Fig. 3.7, it can clearly be observed from the figure that
earing occurs due to anisotropy.

Fig. 3.6 Annealing of flange between each punch of deep drawing

(a) (b)
Fig. 3.7 Effect of anisotropy on the final shape of cup (earing) (a) schematics of
earing (b) actually deep drawn specimen

26
3.6 Hydroforming
Hydroforming can be done by using any kind of fluid to homogeneity apply pressure inside the
cup. During our hydroforming process we preferred to use urethane rubber to internally apply
pressure.
3.6.1 Initial Tests
During initial tests we tried to use rubber as mandrel for deep drawing and hydroforming, as
described earlier, during initial testing it was observed that rubber mandrel grips the deep drawn
cup tightly along the walls of the die, friction between the sheet and die increases significantly
which hinders the flow of more material into the die cavity, hence results in failure of sheet
due to excessive thinning at the bottom of the deep drawn cup. It was finalized that it is difficult
to deep draw the cup using rubber mandrel specifically in our case.

(a) (b)
Fig. 3.8 Specimens busted from the bottom due to excessive yielding at the bottom
during initial hydroforming tests
3.6.2 Final Tests
During the final testing phase, cup was deep drawn using solid mandrel and multiple punches
and annealing steps. Once the cup was fully formed, rubber mandrel was placed inside the cup
and the chamber was pressurized using MTS 810. Total pressure of 70kN was applied so that
the corners and cavities might fully form inside the die. Final product is shown in Fig. 3.9.

Fig. 3.9 Fully hydroformed cup

27
3.7 Earing
Anisotropic behavior of the sheet has been discussed in Chapter 1 and 2. Earing in the deep
drawn part is the result of anisotropy in practical cases. To examine this effect in our deep
drawn part, we devised a method, we took picture of specimen after each punch of deep
drawing, and examined those pictures afterwards to thoroughly examine this earing effect.
Each step has been depicted in Fig. 3.10, and it is very clear from the whole figure that how
earing has evolved over each punch of deep drawing.

(1) (2) (3)

(4) (5) (6)

(7) (8) (9)

Fig. 3.10 Evolution of earing at periphery of sheet blank during the 8 step deep
drawing process

28
 4 Results

4.1 Tensile Tests ............................................................................................................. 30

4.2 Anisotropy Estimation .............................................................................................. 32
4.3 Deep Drawing ........................................................................................................... 33
4.3.1 Initial............................................................................................................... 33
4.3.2 Final ................................................................................................................ 34
4.4 Earing ....................................................................................................................... 36
4.5 Hydroforming ........................................................................................................... 37

29
4.1 Tensile Tests
As discussed earlier, the tensile tests were performed on the material to exactly idealize plastic
properties of the material, the tests were performed at different strain rates. Fig. 4.1 shows the
plastic properties of 0.25 mm thick sheet at different strain rates, and it can clearly be seen that
from the range of 0.48mm/min to 48mm/min stair rate the material is almost strain independent.
While in Fig. 4.2, which represents the plastic properties of 0.5 mm thick sheet. It can be seen
that from the rnage of 0.48 mm/min to 480 mm/min the sheet is highly stain rate dependent. At
0.48 mm/min strain rate the sheet shows the yield strength of 223 MPa while at 4.8 mm/min
and 48 mm/min strain rates the sheet shows yield strength of 273 MPa, while at 480 mm/min
strain rate the sheet has very high value of yield strength which is close to 400 MPa. Hence it
has been seen that AISI SS 304 shows greater strain hardening at higher strain rates, which in
turn can be concluded that it should be deep drawn at relatively lower strain rates.

500
450
400
350
True Stress (MPa)

300
250
200 480 mm/min
150 48 mm/min
4.8 mm/min
100 0.48 mm/min
50
0
0
0.040.02 0.06 0.08 0.1
True Strain
Fig. 4.1 : Stress Strain diagram for 0.25mm thick sheet at different strain rates

30
 600

500

400
True Stress (MPa)

300

200 480 mm/min

48 mm/min
4.8 mm/min
100 0.48 mm/min

0
0.04 0.060 0.02
0.08 0.1
True Strain
Fig. 4.2 : Stress Strain diagram for 0.5mm thick sheet at different strain rates

Comparison of tensile tests of both 0.25mm and 0.5mm sheets for 48mm/min strain rate is
shown in Fig. 4.3, which shows a significant difference in the total elongation, yeild strengh
and UTS of both sheets.

700

600

500
True Stress (MPa)

400

300
0.5mm Thick
200 0.25mm thick
100

0
0.4 0 0.2
0.6 0.8
True Strain
Fig. 4.3 : Comparison of stress strain pattern for 0.25mm and 0.5mm thick sheets at
48mm/min strain rate

31
4.2 Anisotropy Estimation
Determination of Lankford’s coefficients is necessary to analytically determine the value of
anisotropy in the sheet and to simulate it in ABAQUS/Standard explicit environment. As
discussed earlier in Chapter 3, using ASTM 517 standard test to determine anisotropic
coefficients were conducted, and the procedure to process results will be presented in this
section.
Standard specimens were prepared as shown in Fig. 3.3. each specimen was 20% elongated
and the results obtained are represented in tabular form in Table V.
Table V change in respective length, width and thickness of speciemns in 3 directions
Thickness (t) (mm) Width (w) (mm) Length (l) (mm)
Initial (t0) Final (tf) Initial (w0) Final (wf) Initial (l0) Final (lf)
Specimen 1
0.5 0.46 12.46 11.38 20 24
(y-direction)
Specimen 2
0.5 0.48 12.22 11.42 20 24
(θ-direction)
Specimen 3
0.5 0.453 12.22 11.39 20 24
(x-direction)

Values of εl, εw and εt were calculated respectively. And the r-values have been calculated by
using the following set of equations:
𝑤
ln 𝑤0
𝑓
𝑟=( )
𝑙𝑓 𝑤𝑓
ln
𝑙0 𝑤0
Then
12.22
ln 11.39 0.07034
𝑟𝑦 = ( )=( ) = 0.739
24 × 11.39 0.09518
ln 20 × 12.22

12.46
ln 11.38 0.09066
𝑟𝑥 = ( )=( ) = 0.981
24 × 11.38 0.09165
ln 20 × 12.22

12.22
ln 11.42 0.0677
𝑟45 = ( )=( ) = 0.591
24 × 11.42 0.11461
ln 20 × 12.22

All these values have been presented in tabular form in Table VI. These values were further
used to extract planar Lankford’s coefficients to be used in simulation.

32
 Table VI: Results of tests carried out to determine Lankford r-values
Direction εl εw εt r
Rolling (X) 0.1823 -0.09066 -0.08338 0.981
Y 0.1655 -0.0987 -0.0987 0.739
45 0.1823 -0.0677 -0.0548 0.591

𝑟𝑦 (𝑟𝑥 + 1)
𝑅22 = √ = 1.0794
𝑟𝑥 (𝑟𝑦 + 1)

𝑟𝑦 (𝑟𝑥 + 1)
𝑅33 = √ = 0.926
𝑟𝑥 + 𝑟𝑦

3𝑟𝑦 (𝑟𝑥 + 1)
𝑅12 = √ = 1.061
(2𝑟45 + 1)(𝑟𝑥 + 𝑟𝑦 )
Values of R22, R33 and R12 were determined using the above mentioned equations, where the
sheet lies in plane 2-3. The values will be defined in the respective boxes if the plane of sheet
changes. Values of R11, R13 and R23 have been kept 1 because of the planar anisotropy. All the
corresponding values of constants have been presented in Table VII.

Table VII: Input coefficients for simulating anisotropy in ABAQUS

R11 R22 R33 R12 R13 R23
1 0.926 1.31148 1.061 1 1

4.3 Deep Drawing

4.3.1 Initial
As discussed above, during initial deep drawing tests we tried to deep draw cup in one single
step. As we try to reduce the diameter of flange in deep drawing process, the angular stresses
build up and flange becomes hard, and difficult to draw. When we keep on applying more
force, while more material stops flowing into the die cavity, the wall of cup bears all the forces,
elongates, necking occurs and eventually the part fails. As shown in Fig. 3.5 (a).

33
 40
35
30
25
Force (kN)

20
15
Experimentation
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 4.4 Force vs displacement graph of one step deep drawing process
Fig. 4.4 shows load vs deformation graph of the process described above, it can be clearly seen
that during this process the cup wall tears after cup is deep drawn to 16 mm depth. From this
experiment we noted that limiting force on the cup wall could at maximum be 33.5kN.
This meant that we cannot increase force more than this value during the experimentation or
the cup wall will tear. So the following test protocol was defined:
i) MTS will be programmed to run on diplacement control of 10mm/min at 10mm/min
draw speed.
ii) Machine power will cutoff at 30kN force.
iii) To remove residual stresses produced in the cup flange it will be annealed after each
punch, unless the cup is fully formed.
4.3.2 Final
During the final testing phase above mentioned test protocols were considered to successfully
deep draw the cup. Important point to be considered here is that when we increase the LDR
more than 1.7 after certain depth of draw, the axial stresses in the flange increase so much, and
the flange becomes so hard that it stops flowing into the cavity, so we have to anneal the flange
to remove the residual stresses and draw it to more depth, until it stops lowing again.

34
 30

25

20 1st Punch
Force (kN)

2nd Punch
15 3rd Punch
4th Punch
10 5th Punch
6th Punch
5 7th Punch
8th Punch
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 4.5 Load vs displacement diagram of each step after annealing of flange, during
final deep drawing process

Force vs displacement data for each punch was recorded and has been presented in Fig. 4.5.
For each punch the limiting force was kept to be 28 kN. Each curve represents one stroke, and
between each step the flange of cup was annealed to remove the residual stresses in it.
It is interesting to note that during each stroke homogenous deep drawing of the cup was
accomplished which is almost 6 mm. except the step 2 and 6 in which the flange was gripped
very tightly to remove the bends in the flange which were produced during annealing process.
In the 8th punch it can be observed that at a limiting flange diameter the radial forces eventually
drop and the deep drawing force decreases just before the cup is completely drawn.

35
4.4 Earing

(1) (2) (3)

(4) (5) (6)

(7) (8) (9)

Fig. 4.6 Evolution of earing at periphery of sheet blank during the 8 step deep
drawing process

In Fig. 3.10 picture of flange has been represented after each punch, edges of those pictures
have been traced to clearly depict the real picture in Fig. 4.6. (1) represents the blank diameter,
then all the consecutive pictures represent the flange outer periphery compared to the initial
blank diameter and finally (9) represents the final shape of flange periphery compared to the
initial blank. This representation helps better estimate that how the flange is drawn into the die
cavity, and how anisotropy affects the shape of flange to develop earing.

36
4.5 Hydroforming
Once the cup is successfully drawn into the die cavity, it is then hydroformed to fully form into
the die cavity, so that all the corners and radii are fully developed. The desired bulb shape is
obtained during this step. We used elastomer to hydroform the cup because sealing the die fully
is not required in this case.

80

70

60

50
Force (kN)

40

30
Hydroforming
20

10

0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Displacement of punch (mm)

Fig. 4.7 graph showing the evolution of force applied inside the cup during final
hydroforming process
Fig. 4.7 shows the increase in force applied inside the cup form 10 kN to 70 kN max. It was
observed during the test that cup is hydroformed at 50 kN while 70 kN force is applied to fully
fill conres of the die.

37
 5 Simulation

5.1 Deep Drawing ........................................................................................................... 39

5.1.1 Initial............................................................................................................... 39
5.1.2 Final Test ......................................................................................................... 40
5.2 Earing ....................................................................................................................... 42

38
Simulation of the process was done in ABAQUS/StandardTM 6.12 Explicit environment. There
are 3 major steps which are considered while doing simulation in ABAQUS/StandardTM 6.12,
which are as follows:
i) Pre-Processing
ii) Processing
iii) Post Processing
The step by step procedure involved in carrying out simulation has been explained in Appendix
II with illustrations. Here we will only discuss the results obtained from simulation. Finally
deep drawn cups from simulation have been shown in Fig. 5.1. It can be seen that when the
material is considered ideal (isotropic) the cup is fully drawn into the die as shown in Fig. 5.1
(a), and when the material is considered anisotropic earing occurs which hiders the flow of
material into the die cavity as shown in Fig. 5.1 (b). Detailed results obtained from the
simulation will be discussed in this chapter.

(a) (b)
Fig. 5.1 Deep drawn cups in ABAQUS Standard (a) considering material as isotropic
(b) considering material anisotropy

5.1 Deep Drawing

5.1.1 Initial
One step deep drawing process was simulated in ABAQUS/Standard explicit environment and
the same failure occurred as during experimentation, as depicted in Fig. 5.2. Force vs depth of
draw have been plotted to show that when force reaches 27 kN excessive thinning of wall
occurs and eventually wall of cup fails when the depth reaches 14 mm. the trend of this curve
comparable to curve we obtained during experimentation. With deviation of 15%.

39
 30

25

20
Force (kN)

15

10
Simulation
5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 5.2 Comparison of experimental and simulation results for force vs tearing process

5.1.2 Final Test

Muti-step deep drawing process with annealing after each pass was simulated in
ABAQUS/Standard explicit environment by considering axisymmetric model. Step by step
procedure of model development and boundary condition definition has been explained in
detail in Annexure II. The problem was simulated for the blank size of 65 mm diameter. And
the reaction force on the punch to deep draw the cup was recorded.

40
 25
Simulation Deep Drawing

20
Force (kN)

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 5.3 Simulation results of force vs displacement for 6 step deep drawing process
Force vs displacement data from simulation for each punch has been presented in Fig. 5.3.
During each punch fixed amount of displacement was defined and resulting reaction force on
the punch was observed accordingly. Total 6 steps were defined. Each curve represents one
stroke, and between each step the flange of cup was annealed to remove the residual stresses
in it.
It is interesting to note that almost similar to experimentation pattern is obtained. In step 5 the
diameter of flange decreases rapidly hence less force is required to draw the cup during this
step, and in last step sheet is fully drawn hence the force eventually decreases. Final shape of
hydroformed cup is shown in Fig. 5.4

Fig. 5.4 Final hydroformed cup from simulation

41
5.2 Earing
To simulate anisotropy in ABAQUS/Standard environment material orientation direction and
planar Lankford coefficients should be defined. The significance and procedure to determine
Lankford coefficients has been discussed in Chapter 2, while Lankford coefficients specifically
for our case have been calculated and presented in Chapter 4. The results of change in outer
periphery of sheet obtained from simulation after each punch have been presented in Fig. 5.5.

(1) (2) (3)

(4) (5) (6)

(7) (8) (9)

Fig. 5.5 Evolution of earing at periphery of sheet blank during the 8 step deep
drawing process

42
Each picture depicted in Fig. 5.5 shows the shape of outer periphery of sheet (solid) compared
to the initial shape (meshed) after each punch, it is interesting to note that sue to the frictionless
contacts defined between sheet and adjoining surfaces of die and grabber, more flow of sheet
into the cavity during each step was observed as compared to actual experimentation.
Analytical results of change in radii have been presented in Fig. 5.6.

37
35
Distance of edge from centre (mm)

33 Step 0
31 Step 1
29 Step 2
Step 3
27
Step 4
25 Step 5
23 Step 6
21 Step 7
Step 8
19
17
0 100 200 300
Angle

Fig. 5.6 Radial distance of edge after each step of deep drawing

Radial distances of outer periphery from the center of cup after each step has been plotter in
the form of r-theeta coordinates in Fig. 5.6. This graphical representation gives a very deep
insight of what is actually happening to the flange after each deep drawing and annealing step.
Step 0 is a straight line at 35 mm radial distance because initially the blank was completely
circular. In step 1 the sheet is deep drawn and the shape of flange becomes a bit square. After
each step the effect of earing becomes more and more prominent and finally after final step the
inner and outer radii of sheet lie between 18.9 mm and 24.4 mm. it is to be noted that these
values are very close to the experimental results.

43
 6 Conclusion

6.1 Deep Drawing ........................................................................................................... 45

6.2 Hydroforming ........................................................................................................... 45
6.3 Earing ....................................................................................................................... 45
6.4 Future Recommendations ........................................................................................ 46

44
In the current research work detailed analysis of deep drawing using various analytical models,
experimental techniques and numerical simulation codes has been carried out with extended
hydroforming of deep drawn cups to form complex shapes.
During deep drawing Draw Ratio (DR) greater than 2.5 has been achieved by using residual
stress removal technique and force control methods. The anisotropic behavior of sheet has been
analyzed using experimental and simulation results.

6.1 Deep Drawing

Through literature review it was already known that for Stainless Steel Limiting Drawing Ratio
(LDR) is 1.7. In this research we successfully drew cups of Drawing Ratio (DR) of 2.5, and
concluded that to achieve such greater draw ratios we need to remove the residual stresses
produced in the flange. In a single punch the limiting force which AISI SS304 sheet of 0.5mm
thickness with DR of 2.5 can withstand is 34 kN (as predicted by literature), and it fails after
16mm depth. Simulation of the same process also yields the same results with 15% errors, these
errors occur due to many approximations taken during definition of process parameters.
Heating the flange at 6000C followed with sudden cooling (annealing) results in removal of
residual stresses and softens the flange material. Controlled force deep drawing followed by
annealing steps when desired, results in successful deep drawing of cup. Simulation also yields
the same results with the same trend of force and displacement, hence this model can be useful
in approximating the limiting values in deep drawing process.

6.2 Hydroforming
Using a polymer e.g. latex rubber for hydroforming reduces the need of very critical sealing
conditions. It was observed during experimentation that initial hydroforming of the sheet grips
the wall along the die and hinders the flow of material into the die cavity and the material
eventually fails from the bottom. Hence it is advantageous to first deep draw the cup using
solid mandrel and then hydroformed it by pressurizing it from inside.
During experimentation and simulation maximum internally applied pressure was 1376 MPa.
It is necessary to apply such high pressures to achieve better corner filling and surface finish
of the part.

6.3 Earing
Earing occurs due to the anisotropic behavior of sheet. The anisotropy of a sheet can be
quantized using Planar Lankford’s model to determine the r-values in rolling, cross-rolling and
θ directions. The shape of flange effected due to earing was studied and analyzed.
After defining the Lankford coefficients in the simulation, changing contours of flange after
each step were compared with experimental results and very close similarity in its trends and
results was observed which has been depicted in detail in Appendix III. It can be seen that in
simulation the flange flows into the cavity faster than actual experimentation, it is because of
the approximation of frictionless contacts defined for simulation.

45
6.4 Future Recommendations
In this research work we have developed a wide framework and very strong foundation for the
future researchers in the field of hydroforming. Following are some of the future
recommendations on which a researcher can work on:
i) Develop similar hydroforming models for 0.7mm and 1mm thick AISI SS304 sheets
and compare the results with the current research.
ii) Incorporate a heating annealing ring inside the die and execute the same hydroforming
process constantly, which will reduce the manufacturing time.
iii) Refine the simulation model of the process by determine the frictional effects and
defining more detailed process parameters to reduce the errors in simulation.
iv) Using the same simulation model, develop new systems to manufacture more complex
hydroforms, specifically some practical parts from industry.

46
 Appendix I

Fig. 6.1 : Exploded view of full assembly will bill of material

i
Fig. 6.2 : Sectioned view of full assembly

ii
Fig. 6.3 : Detailed drawing of upper half of die

iii
Fig. 6.4 : Detailed drawing of lower half of die

iv
Fig. 6.5 : Detailed drawing of gripper and guide

v
Fig. 6.6 : Detailed drawing of upper clamping ring

vi
Fig. 6.7 : Detailed drawing of lower clamping ring

vii
Fig. 6.8 : Detailed drawing of plunger and seat

viii
Fig. 6.9 : Auxiliaries used in assembly

ix
 Appendix II
TM
Simulation of the process was done in ABAQUS/Standard 6.12 Explicit environment.
General view of ABAQUS/StandardTM 6.12 is shown in Fig. 6.10.

Fig. 6.10 Environment of ABAQUS/Standard 6.12

As described earlier, the problem was simplified to 4 axisymmetric parts only which were as
follows:
i) Die
ii) Grabber
iii) Punch
iv) Sheet
Die, grabber and punch were defined as analytical rigid bodies along their respective
reference points. They were modeled exactly as real time parts which were used during
experimentation as shown in Fig. 6.11, Fig. 6.12 and Fig. 6.13. Only sheet was defined as a
deformable shell as shown in Fig. 6.14.

x
Fig. 6.11 Shape and dimensions of die model

Fig. 6.12 Shape and dimensions of grabber

xi
 Fig. 6.13 Shape and dimensions of punch

Fig. 6.14 Shape and dimensions of sheet

Sheet was assigned with material properties which are shown in Fig. 4.2 and Table IV. All the
parts were assembled together using coaxial translation command. Complete assembly of all
the components is shown in Fig. 6.15.

Fig. 6.15 Complete assembly of all components

xii
Problem was defined in 13 steps with 6 dynamic/explicit time steps of 0.005 unit time with
Nlgeom. Each step was followed by an anneal step as actually performed during
experimentation. Finally a dynamic/explicit of step time 0.005 unit time was defined
significance of which will be defined later.
A, CSTRESS, EVF, LE, PE, PEEQ, PEEQVAVG, PEVAVG, RF, S, SVAVG, U, V were
selected to be the output variables in the field output request in whole model, and ALLAE,
ALLCD, ALLDMD, ALLFD, ALLIE, ALLKE, ALLPD, ALLSE, ALLVD, ALLWK,
ETOTAL were selected to be the output variables in the history output request of the problem.
Interaction is taking place between sheet and all 3 parts of the die which are die, grabber and
punch. Surface to surface interaction between die/sheet surfaces and grabber/sheet surfaces
was defined to be friction less, while keeping the rigid surfaces to be master and sheet to be the
slave surface as shown in Fig. 6.16. While the punch/sheet surface was defined to be surface
to surface contact with friction coefficient of 0.1, the contact is demonstrated in Fig. 6.17.
Surfaces of die, grabber and punch were constrained to be rigid along their respective reference
points

Fig. 6.16 Definition of interaction between die/sheet and grabber/sheet surfaces

xiii
 Fig. 6.17 Definition of interaction between punch/sheet surfaces
Sheet was assigned with total of 320 elements with 405 nodes. Explicit, linear and
axisymmetric stress elements were defined as CAX4R (4-node bilinear axisymmetric
quadrilateral, reduced integration, hourglass control). Mesh size was controlled to keep aspect
ratio of all elements below 3.3. The meshed sheet is shown in Fig. 6.18.

Fig. 6.18 Meshed sheet

Tabular amplitude for all the boundary conditions was defined as shown in Fig. 6.19. During
each step the punch was moved 6mm deep into the cavity of the die as depicted in Fig. 6.20
except the last step in which it was displaced by 15mm to complete the deep drawing of the
sheet. Between each displacement annealing step was defined to remove all the stresses
produced in the sheet and make it soft again. Complete set of boundary conditions defined is
shown in Fig. 6.21. In the final step the sheet was pressurized from the inside to simulate the
hydrostatic pressure actually done by using rubber. Fig. 6.22 shows the loading condition
applied inside sheet in the final step.

xiv
Fig. 6.19 Tabular amplitude defined for all the boundary conditions

Fig. 6.20 Displacement of punch defined for each step

xv
Fig. 6.21 Boundary condition manager depicting definition and propagation of all the
boundary conditions defined

Fig. 6.22 Pressure definition inside deep drawn sheet

xvi
Appendix III

xvii
xviii
xix
 References
1. Shang, H., S. Qin, and C. Tay, Hydroforming sheet metal with intermittent changes in
the draw-in condition of the flange. Journal of materials processing technology, 1997.
63(1): p. 72-76.
2. Thiruvarudchelvan, S. and W. Lewis, A note on hydroforming with constant fluid
pressure. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 1999. 88(1–3): p. 51-56.
3. Zhang, S.H., et al., Analysis of the hydromechanical deep drawing of cylindrical cups.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 2000. 103(3): p. 367-373.
4. Kandil, A., An experimental study of hydroforming deep drawing. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 2003. 134(1): p. 70-80.
5. Mielnik, E.M., Metalworking science and engineering. McGraw-Hill, Inc.(USA),
1991, 1991: p. 976.
6. Novotny, S. and M. Geiger, Process design for hydroforming of lightweight metal
sheets at elevated temperatures. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 2003.
138(1–3): p. 594-599.
7. Zampaloni, M., N. Abedrabbo, and F. Pourboghrat, Experimental and numerical
study of stamp hydroforming of sheet metals. International Journal of Mechanical
Sciences, 2003. 45(11): p. 1815-1848.
8. Barlat, F. and K. Lian, Plastic behavior and stretchability of sheet metals. Part I: A
yield function for orthotropic sheets under plane stress conditions. International
Journal of Plasticity, 1989. 5(1): p. 51-66.
9. Zhang, S.-H., et al., Technology of sheet hydroforming with a movable female die.
International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 2003. 43(8): p. 781-785.
10. Lang, L., J. Danckert, and K.B. Nielsen, Multi-layer sheet hydroforming:
Experimental and numerical investigation into the very thin layer in the middle.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 2005. 170(3): p. 524-535.
11. Merklein, M., M. Geiger, and M. Celeghini, Combined tube and double sheet
hydroforming for the manufacturing of complex parts. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing
Technology, 2005. 54(1): p. 199-204.
12. Palumbo, G., et al., Numerical/experimental investigations for enhancing the sheet
hydroforming process. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture,
2006. 46(11): p. 1212-1221.
13. Bruni, C., et al., A study of techniques in the evaluation of springback and residual
stress in hydroforming. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 2007. 33(9-10): p. 929-939.
14. Cherouat, A., et al., Experimental and finite element modelling of thin sheet
hydroforming processes. International Journal of Material Forming, 2008. 1(1): p.
313-316.
15. Khandeparkar, T. and M. Liewald, Hydromechanical deep drawing of cups with
stepped geometries. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 2008. 202(1–3): p.
246-254.
16. Önder, E. and A.E. Tekkaya, Numerical simulation of various cross sectional
workpieces using conventional deep drawing and hydroforming technologies.
International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 2008. 48(5): p. 532-542.
17. Assempour, A. and M.R. Emami, Pressure estimation in the hydroforming process of
sheet metal pairs with the method of upper bound analysis. Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, 2009. 209(5): p. 2270-2276.
18. Geiger, M., M. Merklein, and M. Cojutti, Hydroforming of inhomogeneous sheet
pairs with counterpressure. Production Engineering, 2009. 3(1): p. 17-22.

xx
19. Liu, Y., et al., Studies of the deformation styles of the rubber-pad forming process
used for manufacturing metallic bipolar plates. Journal of Power Sources, 2010.
195(24): p. 8177-8184.
20. Irthiea, I., et al., Experimental and numerical investigation on micro deep drawing
process of stainless steel 304 foil using flexible tools. International Journal of
Machine Tools and Manufacture, 2014. 76(0): p. 21-33.
21. Korhonen, A.S., Drawing force in deep drawing of cylindrical cup with flat-nosed
punch. Journal of Engineering for Industry, 1982. 104: p. 29.
22. Ahmetoglu, M., et al., Control of Blank Holder Force to Eliminate Wrinkling and
Fracture in Deep-Drawing Rectangular Parts. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing
Technology, 1995. 44(1): p. 247-250.
23. Wang, X. and J. Cao, On the prediction of side-wall wrinkling in sheet metal forming
processes. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 2000. 42(12): p. 2369-2394.
24. Wang, X. and J. Cao, An Analytical Prediction of Flange Wrinkling in Sheet Metal
Forming. Journal of Manufacturing Processes, 2000. 2(2): p. 100-107.
25. Cao, J. and M. Boyce, Wrinkling behavior of rectangular plates under lateral
constraint. International journal of solids and structures, 1997. 34(2): p. 153-176.
26. Agrawal, A., N.V. Reddy, and P.M. Dixit, Determination of optimum process
parameters for wrinkle free products in deep drawing process. Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, 2007. 191(1–3): p. 51-54.
27. Han, S., M. Bruhis, and M. Jain. Some Considerations In Modeling Axisymmetric
Deep Drawing And Redrawing Process And LDR Prediction. in AIP Conference
Proceedings. 2007.
28. Leu, D.-K., The limiting drawing ratio for plastic instability of the cup-drawing
process. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 1998. 86(1): p. 168-176.
29. Hill, R., The mathematical theory of plasticity. Vol. 11. 1998: Oxford university
press.
30. Padmanabhan, R., et al., Influence of process parameters on the deep drawing of
stainless steel. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 2007. 43(14): p. 1062-1067.
31. Saxena, R.K. and P.M. Dixit, Prediction of flange wrinkling in deep drawing process
using bifurcation criterion. Journal of Manufacturing Processes, 2010. 12(1): p. 19-
29.
32. Wu-rong, W., et al., The limit drawing ratio and formability prediction of advanced
high strength dual-phase steels. Materials & Design, 2011. 32(6): p. 3320-3327.
33. Banabic, D., et al., An improved analytical description of orthotropy in metallic
sheets. International Journal of Plasticity, 2005. 21(3): p. 493-512.
34. Hiwatashi, S., et al., Modelling of plastic anisotropy based on texture and dislocation
structure. Computational Materials Science, 1997. 9(1–2): p. 274-284.
35. Duesbery, M.S. and V. Vitek, Plastic anisotropy in b.c.c. transition metals. Acta
Materialia, 1998. 46(5): p. 1481-1492.
36. Manabe, K., M. Yang, and S. Yoshihara, Artificial intelligence identification of
process parameters and adaptive control system for deep-drawing process. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 1998. 80–81(0): p. 421-426.
37. Zaky, A.M., A.B. Nassr, and M.G. El-Sebaie, Optimum blank shape of cylindrical
cups in deep drawing of anisotropic sheet metals. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, 1998. 76(1–3): p. 203-211.
38. Ravi Kumar, D., Formability analysis of extra-deep drawing steel. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 2002. 130: p. 31-41.
39. Li, S., et al., Finite element modeling of plastic anisotropy induced by texture and
strain-path change. International Journal of Plasticity, 2003. 19(5): p. 647-674.

xxi
40. Zhang, S.H., et al., Effect of anisotropy and prebulging on hydromechanical deep
drawing of mild steel cups. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 2003.
142(2): p. 544-550.
41. Padmanabhan, R., et al., Effect of anisotropy on the deep-drawing of mild steel and
dual-phase steel tailor-welded blanks. Journal of Materials Processing Technology,
2007. 184(1–3): p. 288-293.
42. Volume, A.H., 1: Properties and Selection: Irons, Steels, and High-Performance
Alloys. ASM International, 1990.
43. Handbook, M., Desk edition. ASM, Metals Park, 1985.
44. ASTM, B661-12 Standard Practice for Heat Treatment of Magnesium Alloys. ASTM
Standards, 2012.
45. E8, A., Standard test methods for tensile testing of metallic materials. Annual book of
ASTM standards, 1997. 3.
46. Standard, A., E517-00. ASTM Standard Annual Book vol. 0.3, 2000. 1.
47. Hu, J., Z. Marciniak, and J. Duncan, Mechanics of sheet metal forming. 2002:
Butterworth-Heinemann.

xxii