Proceedings of the ASME 2016 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition

IMECE2016
November 11-17, 2016, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

IMECE2016-67273

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ANALYTICAL EXPRESSIONS TO ESTIMATE THE DEEP DRAWING

FORCE OF CYLINDRICAL AND RECTANGULAR PARTS

Aarón Rivas Menchi1, Hugo I. Medellín Castillo1, Dirk F. de Lange1, Pedro de J. García Zugasti2
1
Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, C.P. 78290, S.L.P., México
2
Instituto Tecnológico de San Luis Potosí, Av. Tecnológico s/n, C.P. 78437, S.L.P., México

E-mails: rivasmenchi@gmail.com, hugoivanmc@uaslp.mx, dirk.delange@uaslp.mx, pzugasti@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT NOTATION
The deep drawing process has been widely used in the A Length of the rectangular blank
industry because it eliminates costly operations such as AC Area of the equivalent circular blank
welding and machining. However, there are many parameters APC Area of the equivalent cylindrical punch
involved that affect the quality of the final products. One of APR Cross section area of the rectangular punch
the main parameters of the deep drawing process is the AR Area of the rectangular blank
maximum deep drawing force (DDF) or drawing load, which a Length of the rectangular cup or part
is the maximum force required to perform a particular deep B Width of the rectangular blank
drawing operation. This maximum DDF is needed to define b Width of the rectangular cup or part
the required capacity of the press, and to calculate the deep c Clearance
drawing work and the process efficiency. Several analytical D Flange diameter when the maximum DDF occurs
expressions to estimate the maximum DDF have been DDF Deep drawing force
proposed in the literature, particularly for cylindrical parts. Db Blank diameter
However, few research works have focused on analyzing the Db,e Diameter of the equivalent circular blank
prediction performance of these expressions. dd Die diameter
df,max Theoretical flange diameter when the maximum DDF
In this paper, the performance of different analytical
occurs
expressions to estimate the maximum DDF of cylindrical and
df,max,e Theoretical equivalent diameter when the maximum
rectangular parts, is evaluated and compared. Initially, several DDF occurs
expressions proposed by different researches for the maximum dm Mean diameter of the part
DDF of cylindrical parts are presented. Then, these dp Punch diameter
expressions are transformed into new expressions for the dp,e Diameter of the equivalent cylindrical punch
maximum DDF of rectangular parts by using different E Prediction error
concepts of equivalency, such as the equivalent diameter FBH Blank holder force
concept. Finally, the prediction performance of all the Fd Analytical deep drawing force or punch load
expressions for both cylindrical and rectangular deep drawing Fd,exp Experimental or real DDF of cylindrical parts
is analysed and compared using experimental data from the Fd,exp,R Experimental or real DDF of rectangular parts
literature. The performance is evaluated in terms of the Fd,i Maximum DDF predicted by the expression i
prediction error. The results have suggested that the analytical Fd,max Analytical maximum DDF of cylindrical parts
Fd,max,R Analytical maximum DDF of rectangular parts
expressions involving the largest number of parameters have a
H Cup height when the maximum DDF occurs
superior prediction performance than the analytical K Hardening coefficient of the flow curve
expressions involving less parameters. kd Romanowski's correction factor
Keywords: deep drawing, deep drawing force (DDF), n Hardening exponent
cylindrical deep drawing, rectangular deep drawing, analytical PB Blank perimeter
expressions, prediction error. Pm Mean perimeter of a rectangular part
Pp Punch perimeter

1 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

q Anisotropy parameter
r Lankford coefficient
rd Die radius
rdc Die corner radius
rpb Punch bottom radius
rpc Punch corner radius
t0 Blank thickness
𝛼 Die radius angle
𝛽 Drawing ratio
𝛽𝑒 Equivalent drawing ratio
𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 Maximum drawing ratio
𝜂 Efficiency of the cylindrical deep drawing process
due to the friction effect
𝜇 Friction coefficient
σ𝑓 Flow stress
σ𝑓𝑚,𝐼 Average flow stress corresponding to the strain from
the outer radius to the inner radius of the flange
σ𝑓𝑚,𝐼𝐼 Average flow stress before and after the bending of
the metal sheet at the die radius
σ𝑦,0 Initial yield stress of the work material
σUTS Ultimate tensile strength of the work material
φ1 True strain located at the flange edge
φ2 True strain located at the beginning of the die radius
φ3 True strain located at the end of the die radius
1. INTRODUCTION
Deep drawing is a sheet metal forming process used to
make cup-shaped, box-shaped or other complex-curved
hollow-shaped parts. It is performed by punch that pushes a
sheet metal blank into a die cavity, resulting in a cupped part.
The deep drawing process is extensively used in the
manufacturing of sheet metal parts because it eliminates
expensive machining and welding operations giving a better
quality finished product in few operations and at high
production rates [1]. Moreover, the increasing demand for
sheet metal components with increasingly complex shapes,
reduced weight and superior mechanical properties in various
industries such as automotive and aerospace, has attracted the
research interest in the deep drawing process.
Deep drawing is a complex process because of the large
elasto-plastic stresses and strains involved. Moreover, there
are many parameters in the process that affect the quality of
the final products. These parameters include geometrical
parameters (e.g., punch radius, sheet thickness, aspect ratio,
etc.), material parameters (e.g., elastic modulus, yield stress,
hardening parameters, etc.), and process parameters (e.g.,
blankholder force, friction coefficient, temperature, etc.). The
effect of these parameters on the part quality is not simple
since they are not independent.
One of the main parameters of the deep drawing process is
the maximum deep drawing force (DDF), which is the
maximum value of the force required to perform a particular
deep drawing operation. This maximum DDF is needed to
define the press capacity, and to determine the deep drawing
work, strain energy, and the process efficiency. However, the
calculation of the DDF is a difficult task because of the large
number of parameters involved and the complexity of the deep
drawing process. To evaluate the influence of these parameters
2 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
on the DDF, analytical, numerical and experimental methods
have been used. Experimental methods are expensive and time
consuming because of the materials, tools and machines
needed to carry out the experimental tests. On the other hand,
numerical methods are less expensive but they require the
correct definition and calibration of a numerical model in
order to provide reliable results. Finally, theoretical methods
are cost-effective and simple to implement since they are
based on analytical expressions derived from theoretical
analysis, numerical models or experimental tests.
In general, the analytical expressions reported in the
literature for the estimation of the maximum DDF can be
divided into two groups [2,3]: 1) empirical expressions
obtained from experimental data; and 2) analytical expressions
obtained from the theoretical analysis of the metal forming
process and the plasticity theory, mainly the theory of Siebel
[4]. In the case of rectangular deep drawing, there are very few
expressions to estimate the maximum DDF. These expressions
are based on empirical relationships [5] or complex equations
that require the stress state of the metal sheet [6]. The need of
developing new analytical expressions for the analysis of the
rectangular deep drawing process has been remarked in [1],
[6] and [7]. It is believed that as the knowledge of the deep
drawing process increases, the use of trial and error methods,
commonly used in the industry, can be reduced [8].
Even though several expressions to estimate the DDF of
cylindrical parts have been reported in the literature, a limited
number of research works have focused on the evaluation and
comparison of the prediction performance of these
expressions. The use of analytical expressions to estimate the
DDF is commonly used to validate experimental models,
numerical models or both. For instance, in [9] the
experimental and numerical results corresponding to a
cylindrical part were compared with two empirical expressions
previously reported in [10, 11]. The results obtained from
these two expressions were very similar to those results
obtained from the empirical and numerical models. On the
other hand, the prediction errors of the Siebel’s expressions
[3] were estimated in [12]. The results showed that the
extended Siebel’s expression was more accurate than the
expressions with empirical parameters. In the case of
rectangular deep drawing, the prediction performance of the
expressions to calculate the DDF has not been analyzed in the
literature.
This paper presents a performance analysis of different
analytical expressions to calculate the maximum deep drawing
force of cylindrical and rectangular parts. The aim is to
evaluate the performance of each expression in terms of the
prediction error, and to identify those expressions with the
best performance. Several expressions to estimate the
maximum DDF of cylindrical parts are analyzed. These
expressions are then transformed into new expressions for
rectangular parts by using equivalency concepts such as the
equivalent diameter. Finally, the prediction performance of all
the expressions for both cylindrical and rectangular deep
drawing is analyzed and compared with experimental data
from the literature.
2. DEEP DRAWING ANALYSIS
According to the part geometry, the deep drawing process
can be classified into three main groups [8]: cylindrical deep
drawing, rectangular deep drawing, and irregular deep
drawing. In this paper only the cylindrical and rectangular
deep drawing will be studied.
2.1 Cylindrical and rectangular deep drawing
Figure 1 shows the main components and geometrical
parameters of the cylindrical deep drawing process, whilst
Figure 2 shows the main geometrical parameters of the
rectangular deep drawing process. In general, the geometrical
parameters of the cylindrical drawing are also present in the
rectangular drawing, except for some additional parameters in
the rectangular process. An important geometrical
characteristic of the rectangular deep drawing is the aspect
ratio b/a, for instance b/a =1 for a square shape.
diameter Db,e is defined as the diameter of a circular blank
with an area AC equals to the area of the rectangular blank AR
with length A and width B, as shown in Figure 3. Thus, the
blank equivalent diameter Db,e can be obtained by considering
AC=AR, resulting in the following expression:
𝐴𝐵
𝐷𝑏,𝑒 = 2√ (1)
𝜋
Similarly, the punch equivalent diameter, dp,e, is defined as
the diameter of a cylindrical punch with an area APC equals to
the area of the rectangular punch APR, with length a and width
b. Thus, the punch equivalent diameter dp,e can be determined
by considering APC=APR, which results in the following
expression:
𝐴𝑃𝑅
𝑑𝑝,𝑒 = 2√ (2)
𝜋

2.2 Equivalent diameter

In order to use the well-known deep drawing theory of
cylindrical parts, the equivalent diameter concept is used. This
concept has been previously proposed and used in the
literature, [1, 3, 6, 8]. According to Lange [3], the equivalent
where 𝐴𝑃𝑅 = 𝑎𝑏 when the punch corner radius are not
2
considered, and 𝐴𝑃𝑅 = 𝑎𝑏 − (4 − 𝜋)𝑟𝑃𝐶 when the punch
corner radius are considered.

Figure 1. Components and parameters of the cylindrical deep drawing process [10]: a) blank (Db= blank diameter), b) main parameters (dp= punch or
part diameter, dd= die diameter, rpb = punch bottom radius, rd = die radius, c= clearance, FBH= blank holder force), c) deep drawing force (Fd), and d)
final part (dp= punch or part diameter).

Figure 2. Geometrical parameters of the rectangular deep drawing process [7]: A= blank length, B= blank width, a= punch or part length, b= punch
or part width, rpb = punch bottom radius, rpc= punch corner radius, rd = die radius, rdc= die corner radius, t0= blank thickness, c= clearance.

3 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 (a) (b)
Figure 3. Blank geometry: a) circular y b) rectangular.
A variation of the equivalent diameter concept based on
the drawing ratio β was proposed in [1] as follows:
𝐷𝑏 𝐷𝑏,𝑒
𝛽= = (3)
𝑑𝑝 𝑑𝑝,𝑒
where Db,e is the blank equivalent diameter according to eq.
(1), and dp,e is the punch equivalent diameter. Since the
maximum drawing ratio βmax that can be achieved in a single
deep drawing operation of steel metal sheet is 2 [3] (values of
βmax for other materials can be also obtained from [3]), the
punch equivalent diameter can be obtained from the previous
equation as follows:
𝐷𝑏,𝑒 𝐴𝐵
𝑑𝑝,𝑒 = =√
2 𝜋
The previous equivalent diameter concepts do not take into
account the aspect ratio b/a of the rectangular shape; therefore
they do not distinguish between a lengthened or a squared
rectangular shape with the same area. In order to consider the
aspect ratio of the blank and part, in this paper a new approach
to determine the equivalent diameter is proposed. This new
concept takes into account the distance between the two
opposite vertices of the rectangular shape to define the
equivalent diameter, as shown in Figure 4. Thus, the
equivalent diameters can be determined by using the
Pythagorean Theorem as follows:
𝐷𝑏,𝑒 = √𝐴2 + 𝐵2
𝑑𝑝,𝑒 = √𝑎2 + 𝑏 2
These new equivalent diameters will be named as
“Pythagorean equivalent diameters”.
2.3 Analysis of the cylindrical deep drawing force
According to Siebel [4], the theoretical formulation to
estimate the maximum DDF is based on the following
assumptions:
 The sheet metal thickness remains constant.
 The strain hardening relationship corresponds to a
perfect plastic solid.
 The Tresca yield criterion is used.
 The Euler’s formula for belt friction is used to model
the friction force on the die radius.
 Ideal plastic behavior of the material during bending
and flattening of the metal sheet.
 Isothermal process at environment temperature.
b B
a
A
Figure 4. Pythagorean equivalent diameters for a rectangular blank
and punch.
The total punch force or the total deep drawing force is
comprised of the following components:
A. Force to carry out the ideal strain of the metal sheet at
the flange area.
B. Force to bend the metal sheet at the die radius.
C. Force to unbend or straight the metal sheet after the
(4) die radius.
D. Friction force between the blank holder, metal sheet
and die.
E. Friction force effect at the die radius.
Thus, according to Siebel the total deep drawing force can
be obtained by summing all these components:
𝐷 2𝜇𝐹𝐵𝐻 𝑡0
𝐹𝑑 = 𝜋𝑑𝑚 𝑡0 [𝑒 𝜇𝛼 (1.1𝜎𝑓𝑚,𝐼 ln + ) + 𝜎𝑓𝑚,𝐼𝐼 ] (7)
𝑑𝑚 𝜋𝐷𝑡0 2𝑟𝑑
E A D B+C
where Fd is the deep drawing force for an instant flange
diameter D, and dm is the mean part diameter, which for
(5) cylindrical deep drawing it can be calculated as dm = dp + t0.
Two process parameters are involved in eq. (7): the blank
holder force, FBH, and the friction coefficient 𝜇 between the
(6) blank holder and the metal sheet, and between the die and the
metal sheet, including the contact at the die radius. The die
radius angle, 𝛼, is also included. The value of this angle is
usually 90° or 𝜋/2 radians. On the other hand, 𝜎𝑓𝑚,𝐼 is the
average flow stress corresponding to the strain from the outer
radius to the inner radius of the flange, and 𝜎𝑓𝑚,𝐼𝐼 is the
average flow stress before and after the bending of the metal
sheet at the die radius. These average stress values can be
calculated considering the exponential flow curve as follows:
𝜎𝑓𝑚,𝐼 = 0.5𝐾(𝜑1𝑛 + 𝜑2𝑛 ) (8)
𝜎𝑓𝑚,𝐼𝐼 = 0.5𝐾(𝜑2𝑛 + 𝜑3𝑛 ) (9)
where K and n are the coefficient and the exponent of the flow
curve, respectively, and the strains φ1, φ2 and φ3 are the true
strains located at: the flange edge, the end of the flange (or
beginning of the die radius), and the end of the die radius (or
4 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
beginning of the part wall), respectively. These strains can be This equation corresponds to the expression reported in [3].
calculated with the following equations:
There are other expressions in the literature to determine
𝐷𝑏
𝜑1 = ln (10) the maximum deep drawing force of cylindrical parts; Table 1
𝐷
summarizes some of these expressions.

√𝐷𝑏2 −𝐷2 +(𝑑𝑑 +2𝑟𝑑 )2 2.4 Analysis of the rectangular deep drawing force
𝜑2 = ln (11) From eqs. (14) to (17) and the equivalent diameter
𝑑𝑑 +2𝑟𝑑
concept, equivalent expressions to estimate the DDF of
rectangular parts can be derived. Additionally, the blank
𝑡0
𝜑3 = (ln (1 + ) + 𝜑2 ) (12) perimeter PB, the punch perimeter Pp, and the mean perimeter
2𝑟𝑑 +𝑡0
Pm of the rectangular part are required to derive the equivalent
expressions. These perimeters are shown in Figure 5 and can
where dd is the die diameter and can be obtained as dd =dp+2t0. be calculated with the following equations:

More details about the analysis and development of eq. (7) 𝑃𝑝 = (2𝑎 + 2𝑏 − 8𝑟𝑝𝑐 + 2𝜋𝑟𝑝𝑐 ) (21)
can be found in [2] and [3]. From eq. (7) it is observed that to
determine the maximum deep drawing force it is necessary to
know the flange diameter D to which this force occurs. 𝑃𝑚 = (2𝑎 + 2𝑏 − 8𝑟𝑝𝑐 + 2𝜋𝑟𝑝𝑐 + 𝜋𝑡0 ) (22)
According to [4], the maximum DDF is practically
independent of the work material and the drawing ratio, and it 𝑃𝐵 = 2𝐴 + 2𝐵 (23)
occurs when the flange diameter is:

𝑑𝑓,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ≈ 0.77𝐷𝑏 (13) To determine the flange diameter value when the
maximum DDF of a rectangular part occurs, eq. (13) is
modified as follows:
where 𝑑𝑓,𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the flange diameter when the maximum DDF
occurs. By substituting this value in eq. (7) the maximum 𝑑𝑓,𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑒 ≈ 0.77𝐷𝑏,𝑒 (24)
DDF for a cylindrical part is obtained:
𝜋 𝑑𝑓,𝑚𝑎𝑥 2𝜇𝐹𝐵𝐻 where Db,e is the cylindrical equivalent diameter of the
𝐹𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝜋𝑑𝑚 𝑡0 [𝑒 𝜇 2 (1.1𝜎𝑓𝑚,𝐼 ln + )+ rectangular blank.
𝑑𝑚 𝜋𝑑𝑓,𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑡0

𝑡0
𝜎𝑓𝑚,𝐼𝐼 ] (14)
2𝑟𝑑

Table 1. Expressions to determine the maximum DDF of cylindrical parts.

Reference Maximum Deep Drawing Force
𝜎𝑓𝑚𝐼 𝐷
𝐹𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝜋𝑑𝑚 𝑡0 [1.1 (ln 𝑑 𝑏 − 0.25)] (15)
𝜂
Siebel – 𝑝

Beisswanger [4] where η is the efficiency of the cylindrical deep drawing process due to the friction effect [12].This value is
consider as η=0.75.
1 𝐷
𝐹𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝜂 𝜋𝑑𝑝 𝑡0 𝜎𝑓 ln 𝑑 𝑏 (16)
𝑝
Lange [3] where the flow stress 𝜎𝑓 = 0.5(𝜎𝑓𝑚,𝐼 + 𝜎𝑓𝑚,𝐼𝐼 ) and the process efficiency η=0.75 [12]. This expression is widely
used in the industry [3], [12].
1+𝑛 𝑛 𝑛 𝑛
2𝑞 𝑥=𝐷/2 𝑑𝑝 𝐻 𝑑𝑥 2𝐹𝐵𝐻 𝜇 𝑡 𝐾 2𝑞 4𝐻
𝐹𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝜋𝑑𝑝 𝑡0 (𝑒 𝜇𝜋/2 (𝐾 (𝑞+1)
2 2
∙ ∫𝑥=𝑑 (ln√1 + ) )+ + 2𝑟0 (𝑞+1) (ln√1 + 𝑑 ) ) (17)
𝑝 /2 𝑥2 𝑥 𝜋𝐷𝑡0 𝑑 𝑝
Schedin [13]
where H and D are the deep drawing height and flange diameter, respectively, when the maximum DDF occurs.
2𝑞
The anisotropy parameters can be simplified by 𝑞+1 = 1, where q = (1+r)/r and r is the anisotropy coefficient.
𝐷
𝐹𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝜋𝑑𝑝 𝑡0 𝜎𝑈𝑇𝑆 (𝑑 𝑏 − 0.7) (18)
𝑝
Groover [10]
where 𝜎𝑈𝑇𝑆 is the ultimate tensile strength of the work material.

D
Fd,max = πdp t 0 σUTS (−2.4 d b + 2.32)
p

Turner [11] (19)

where 𝜎𝑈𝑇𝑆 is the ultimate tensile strength of the work material.

𝐹𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝜋𝑑𝑝 𝑡0 𝜎𝑈𝑇𝑆 𝐾𝑑 (20)

Romanowski
[14] where Kd is a coefficient with a value 0.2 to 1.1, depending on the deep drawing ratio and the material thickness
to the blank diameter ratio [3].

5 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 Thus, by substituting the equivalent diameter concept and
the rectangular perimeters in eqs. (14) to (17), the following
new expressions to calculate the maximum DDF of
rectangular parts are obtained.
where the flow stress can calculated as 𝜎𝑓 = 0.5(𝜎𝑓𝑚,𝐼 +
𝜎𝑓𝑚,𝐼𝐼 ).
2.4.4. Rectangular deep drawing force of Schedin
In this case the cross section area of the part wall and the
equivalent diameters are substituted in eq. (17) to obtain:

𝐹𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑅 =
1+𝑛 0.77𝐷𝑏,𝑒 𝑛
2𝑞 2 𝑥= 𝑑𝑝.𝑒 𝐻 𝑑𝑥
𝜇𝜋/2
𝑃𝑝 𝑡0 (𝑒 (𝐾 ( ) ∙∫ 𝑑𝑝.𝑒
2
(ln√1 + ) +
𝑞+1 𝑥= 𝑥2 𝑥
2
𝑛 𝑛
2𝐹𝐵𝐻 𝜇 𝑡0 2𝑞 2 2𝐻
)+ 𝐾( ) (ln√1 + ) ) (28)
0.77𝑃𝐵 𝑡0 2𝑟𝑑 𝑞+1 𝑑 𝑝,𝑒 /2

where H is the deep drawing height when the DDF is

maximum, and can be determined experimentally or
Figure 5. Blank, mean and punch perimeters in rectangular deep
numerically. However, the integral of this eq. (28) can only be
drawing. 2𝑞
solved numerically. For the anisotropy parameter , where
𝑞+1
2.4.1. Rectangular deep drawing force of Siebel q= (1+r)/r, it can be considered r=1, which correspond to an
From Eq. (14), and after substituting the equivalent values isotropic material.
and the rectangular perimeters, the following equivalent
expression is obtained: 2.4.5. Rectangular deep drawing force of Tschaetsch
According to Tschaetsch [5], the maximum DDF of a
𝜋 0.77𝐷𝑏,𝑒 2𝜇𝐹𝐵𝐻
𝐹𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥.𝑅 = 𝑃𝑚 ∙ 𝑡0 [𝑒 𝜇
2 (1.1σfm,I ln + )+ rectangular part can be estimated with the following
𝑑𝑝,𝑒 +𝑡0 0.77𝑃𝐵 𝑡0 expression:
σfm,II 2𝑟𝑡0 ] (25) 4+(𝑎+𝑏−4𝑟𝑝𝑏 )
𝑑
𝐹𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑅 = 𝑡0 𝜎𝑈𝑇𝑆 (𝛽𝑒 − 0.9) (2𝜋𝑟𝑝𝑐 + ) (29)
2
where Db,e and dp,e are the cylindrical equivalent diameters of
the rectangular blank and punch, respectively. The average where 𝑎 and 𝑏 are the lenght and width of the punch,
flow stresses σfm,I and σfm,II can be calculated using the respectively, 𝛽𝑒 is the equivalent drawing ratio, and 𝜎𝑈𝑇𝑆 is
equivalent diameters Db,e, dp,e and 𝑑𝑓,𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑒 . the ultimate tensile strength of the work material. The
equivalent drawing ratio can be calculated using the
2.4.2. Rectangular deep drawing force of Siebel- equivalent diameters in eq. (3).
Beisswanger
In this case the cross section area of the part wall and the
equivalent diameters, are substituted in eq. (15) to obtain the 3. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
following equivalent expression: The performance of the different expressions to calculate
the maximum deep drawing force was assessed in terms of the
𝜎𝑓𝑚𝐼 𝐷𝑏,𝑒
𝐹𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑅 = 𝑃𝑚 𝑡0 [1.1 (ln − 0.25)] (26) prediction error, which was defined as:
𝜂 𝑑𝑝,𝑒

This expression requires the efficiency value, η, of the
rectangular deep drawing process. Since this value has not
been reported in the literature, the value of the cylindrical
drawing process can be used, i.e. η=0.75. The average flow
stress σfm,I can be determined using the equivalent diameters
Db,e, dp,e and 𝑑𝑓,𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑒 .
2.4.3. Ideal rectangular deep drawing force of Lange
The equivalent expression of eq. (16) for rectangular deep
drawing is:
1 𝐷𝑏,𝑒
𝐹𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑅 = 𝑃𝑚 𝑡0 𝜎𝑓 ln
𝜂 𝑑𝑝,𝑒
|𝐹𝑑,𝑖 −𝐹𝑑,𝑒𝑥𝑝 |
𝐸= 100% (30)
𝐹𝑑,𝑒𝑥𝑝
where E is the prediction error, 𝐹𝑑,𝑒𝑥𝑝 is the experimental or
real DDF used to produce the physical part, and 𝐹𝑑,𝑖 is the
maximum DDF predicted by the analytical expression i; where
i = eq. (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19) or (20) for cylindrical
deep drawing, and i = eq. (25), (26), (27), (28), or (29) for
rectangular deep drawing. The variation of the prediction error
has been also evaluated by means of the standard deviation.
(27) 3.1 Cylindrical deep drawing force
Six case studies from the literature were selected to
evaluate the prediction error of the expressions to estimate the
cylindrical DDF [9, 12, 15-18]. These case studies and their

6 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

characteristics are presented in Table 2. From the information
of Table 2, the maximum DDF for each case study was
estimated using eqs. (14) to (20). The results of the maximum
DDF and the average prediction error for each expression are
summarized in Table 3.
3.2 Rectangular deep drawing force
For the rectangular deep drawing force analysis, six case
studies from the literature were also considered [15, 19-21].
These case studies and their characteristics are presented in
Table 4. The maximum DDF for each case study was
calculated using eqs. (25) to (29) and two different equivalent
diameter concepts: the equivalent diameters of Lange, eqs. (1)
and (2), and the Pythagorean equivalent diameters, eqs. (5)
and (6).
The results of the maximum DDF and the average
prediction error when using the Pythagorean equivalent
diameters are summarized in Table 5. Similarly, Table 6
summarizes the results of the maximum DDF and the average
prediction error when the Lange´s equivalent diameters were
used.

Table 2. Case studies for the cylindrical deep drawing force analysis.
Fd,exp Db dp t0 H rpb rd K σUTS σy,0 FBH
Case study Material n µ
(kN) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (kN)
Case 1 [12] Stainless steel 18.4 73 46 1 17 10 8 348 0.07 325 220 -- 0.15
Case 2 [15] Deoxidized steel 45.1 110 50 0.74 27.5 8 8 560 0.259 300 172 19.6 0.17
Case 3 [16] Deoxidized steel 48.1 120 60 0.80 21 5 5 510 0.247 300 172 9.81 0.12
Case 4 [17] Copper 59.5 180 100 0.90 20 5 -- 423 0.3 -- -- 29.4 0.22
Case 5 [9] Aluminium 27.0 90 48 0.60 17 3 3 566 0.345 285 183 3.0 0.168
Case 6 [18] Brass 79.0 200 100 0.70 40 13 5 895 0.42 400 200 100 0.06

Table 3. Cylindrical deep drawing force and average prediction error.

Fd,max (kN)
Case study Fd,exp ec. (14) ec. (15) ec.(16) ec. (17) ec. (18) ec. (19) ec. (20)
Case 1 [12] 18.4 15.1 14.4 28.0 15.4 41.7 37.9 27.5
Case 2 [15] 45.1 43.5 38.5 52.0 43.5 52.3 42.9 38.4
Case 3 [16] 48.1 39.5 38.1 55.4 37.3 58.8 50.7 49.8
Case 4 [17] 59.5 64.9 42.1 68.9 57.3 93.3 83.7 84.8
Case 5 [9] 27.0 22.3 19.2 30.1 21.7 30.3 26.8 25.5
Case 6 [18] 79.0 82.8 81.4 122.0 79.4 114.0 98.5 96.8
Average
prediction -- 11.7±6.78 19.6±9.79 27.6±20.3 10.9±9.48 46.4±42.9 30.4±40.1 23.1±19.2
error %

Table 4. Case studies for the rectangular deep drawing force analysis.
Fd,exp,R A B a b t0 H rd rpb rpc K σUTS σy,0 FBH
Case study Material n µ
(kN) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (kN)
Case 7 [21] Galvanized
62.0 121 121 55 55 0.87 19 8 4 15 519 0.103 455 357 26.0 0.03
steel
Case 8 [21] Galvanized
48.0 121 121 55 55 0.84 20 8 4 15 522 0.228 400 286 26.0 0.03
steel
Case 9 [15] Steel
49.5 170 120 120 40 0.65 22 6 6 9 662 0.27 300 145 14.7 0.11
Case 10 [19] Steel
69.5 150 150 70 70 0.78 28.3 5 8 10 567 0.263 460 164 19.6 0.14
Case 11 [20] Steel
47.6 124 124 70 70 1 12.5 5 8 10 604 0.272 440 276 15.0 0.05
Case 12 [21] Galvanized
45.0 121 121 55 55 0.75 21 8 4 15 542 0.19 400 291 26.0 0.03
steel

7 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 Table 5. Rectangular deep drawing force and average prediction error using the Pythagorean equivalent diameters.
Fd,max,R (kN)
Case study Fd,exp,R ec. (25) ec. (26) ec. (27) ec. (28) ec. (29)
Case 7 [21] 62 54.8 62.0 83.4 51.1 73.7
Case 8 [21] 48 43.7 51.6 70.3 40.0 62.6
Case 9 [15] 49.5 36.6 33.9 62.9 32.9 18.4
Case 10 [19] 69.5 71.7 65.7 92.6 64.6 53.0
Case 11 [20] 47.6 55.2 52.9 87.9 44.2 45.6
Case 12 [21] 45 42.1 50.1 67.9 39.6 55.9
Average
prediction -- 12.0±8.18 11.2±10.9 46.1±20.9 15.7±9.84 27.4±19.4
error %

Table 6. Rectangular deep drawing force and average prediction error using the equivalent diameters of Lange.
Fd,max,R (kN)
Case study Fd,exp,R ec. (25) ec. (26) ec. (27) ec. (28) ec. (29)
Case 7 [21] 62 54.8 65.5 86.3 55.1 77.9
Case 8[21] 48 45.5 53.0 72.3 44.1 66.1
Case 9 [15] 49.5 66.4 67.5 96.0 61.4 29.1
Case 10 [19] 69.5 72.0 66.4 92.7 68.6 53.8
Case 11 [20] 47.6 55.5 52.8 87.9 49.7 46.4
Case 12 [21] 45 44.0 52.8 70.0 43.4 59.0
Average
prediction -- 12.2±12.0 14.2±11.8 59.5±24.5 8.79±8.24 26.8±13.8
error %

4. DISCUSSION error and the lowest variation. On the other hand, eq. (26) had
the smallest average prediction error, slightly smaller than eq.
4.1 Prediction error analysis for cylindrical deep (25), but with a larger variation than eq. (25). Equation (25)
drawing had a maximum prediction error of 26.2% for case study 9 and
Figure 6 shows the average prediction error and its a minimum average prediction error of 3.15% for case study
variation for each of the expressions used to estimate the 10. In contrast, eq. (26) showed a maximum prediction error
maximum DDF of cylindrical parts. From this figure it can be of 31.6% for case study 9, and a minimum prediction error of
observed that eqs. (14) and (17) have the smallest average 0.02% for case study 7. Since eq. (26) is simpler to be
prediction error and variation, and therefore the best implemented than eq. (25), its practical use is recommended.
performance when predicting the maximum DDF of
cylindrical parts. Equation (14) had a maximum prediction
error of 18.1% for case study 1, and a minimum prediction
error of 3.5% for case study 2; thus it can be considered as a
reliable and accurate expression to estimate the maximum
DDF of cylindrical parts. On the other hand, eq. (17) had the
smallest average prediction error of all the expressions, but
with a larger variation than eq. (14). Moreover, eq. (17)
requires the deep drawing height H at which the maximum
DDF occurs and the numerical solution of a defined integral;
therefore the use of eq. (17) is more complex than eq. (14).
Equation (15) is a simple expression with a larger average
prediction error than eqs. (14) and (17), but with a smaller
error and variation than the rest of the expressions. Therefore
Figure 6. Average prediction error and variation for cylindrical DDF.
eq. (15) is recommended for practical use. It can also be
observed that eqs. (16), (18), (19) and (20) had a inferior
prediction performance than eqs. (14), (15) and (17). Figure 8 presents the results of the average prediction error
and variation of all the expressions used to estimate the
maximum DDH of rectangular parts but using the Lange’s
4.2 Prediction error analysis in rectangular deep
drawing equivalent diameters. These results show that eq. (28) led to
Figure 7 shows the average prediction error, and its the smallest average prediction error and variation than the
variation, of all the expressions used to estimate the maximum rest of the equations. However, this eq. (28) is more complex
DDF of rectangular parts using the Pythagorean equivalent and difficult to be used than the rest of the expressions. On the
diameters. From this figure it can be observed that eqs. (25) other hand, eqs. (25) and (26) showed a low prediction error
and (26) had a superior prediction performance than the rest of and variation. Equation (25) had a maximum prediction error
the equations. Equation (25) had a low average prediction of 34.0% for case study 9, and a minimum prediction error of

8 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

2.24% for case study 12. In contrast, eq. (26) had a maximum
prediction error of 36.3% for case study 9, and a minimum
prediction error of 4.46% for case study 10. In the case of eq.
(28), the maximum prediction error was 24.0% for case study
9, and the minimum prediction error was 1.35% for case study
10. From these results it was observed that the maximum error
of all the expressions was for case study 9, which corresponds
to the only case study with an aspect ratio 𝑏/𝑎 ≠ 1, i.e. a
rectangular shape rather than a square shape as the rest of the
case studies. This lower performance of the expressions when
having 𝑏/𝑎 ≠ 1 can be associated to the fact that none of the
expressions reported in the literature have considered the
aspect ratio in the formulation of the rectangular deep drawing
problem. For the rest of the case studies, the prediction error
of all the expressions was smaller than for case study 9.
Figure 7. Average prediction error and variation for rectangular DDF
and the Pythagorean equivalent diameters.
Figure 8. Average prediction error and variation for rectangular DDF
and the Lange´s equivalent diameters.
Equation (29), which is widely used in practice [5], had an
average prediction error and variation greater than eqs. (25),
(26) and (28) but smaller than eq. (27), despite the equivalent
diameter used. Thus, it can be said that eq. (29) is a simple and
practical expression to estimate the maximum DDF of a
rectangular part with an acceptable accuracy. However, for a
more accurate estimation eq. (26) is recommended because is
simpler than eq. (25).
Regarding the use of two different equivalent diameter
concepts, the results have shown that the prediction error and
variation when using the Pythagorean equivalent diameters are
slightly smaller than when using the Lange´s equivalent
diameters. Thus, the use of the Pythagorean equivalent
9 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
diameter concept will lead to a better prediction performance
than the Lange´s equivalent diameter concept; however the
difference is small.
Finally, from figures 6 to 8 it can be observed that the
larger the number of the parameters involved in the analytical
expressions, the better the accuracy in predicting the
maximum DDF. Those expressions with the largest number of
parameters will lead to the smallest prediction error and
variation of the maximum DDF.
5. CONCLUSION
Several expressions to determine the maximum deep
drawing force of cylindrical and rectangular parts have been
analyzed and proposed. The performance of these expressions
in terms of the prediction error was evaluated using case
studies from the literature. The results have evidenced that the
prediction performance of these expressions is variable and
depends on the number of parameters involved in the
expression. The expressions with the largest number of
parameters lead to the smallest prediction errors. In the case of
rectangular deep drawing, it has been demonstrated that the
proposed equivalent expressions to estimate the maximum
DDF have an acceptable prediction error of about 12%.
However, this prediction error is greater for rectangular parts
than for square parts. Moreover, the use of the new proposed
Pythagorean equivalent diameter has been proved to lead to
smaller prediction errors than when using the well-known
Lange’s equivalent diameter.
Future work considers the analysis of the effect of the
aspect ratio 𝑏/𝑎 on the maximum DDF of rectangular parts.
Additionally, the analysis of the effect of the punch corner
radius on the maximum DDF of rectangular parts is also
considered as part of the future work.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the financial support from
the National Science and Technology Council of México
(CONACYT).
References
[1] Medellín-Castillo, H. I., García-Zugasti, P. de J., de
Lange, D. F., Colorado-Alonso, F. J., 2013, “Analysis of
the Allowable Deep Drawing Height of Rectangular
Steel Parts”, The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 66 (1-4), pp. 371.
[2] Rivas-Menchi, A., 2015, “Análisis del Efecto de
Diversos Parámetros en el Desempeño del Proceso de
Embutido de Formas Rectangulares”, Master Thesis,
Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, México.
[3] Lange, K. (ed.), 1985, Handbook of Metal Forming, Mc
Graw Hill, New York.
[4] Siebel, E., Beisswäner, H., 1955, Tiefziehen:
Forschungsarbeiten auf dem Gebiete des Tiefziehens im
Auftrage der Forschungsgesellschaft Blechverarbeitung,
Carl Hanser Verlag, München.
[5] Tschaetsch, H., 2006, Metal Forming Practice, Springer,
New York.
[6] Daxin, E., Takaji M., Li Z., 2008, “Stress Analysis of
Rectangular Cup Drawing”, Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, 205(1), pp. 469.
[7] Rivas-Menchi, A., Medellín-Castillo, H. I, de Lange, D.
F., García-Zugasti, P. de J., 2014, “Influence of
Geometrical Parameters on the Maximum Deep Drawing
 Height of Rectangular Parts”, ASME 2014 International
Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition,
IMECE2014-36924, pp. V02AT02A016.
[8] García-Zugasti, P. de J., 2005, “Proceso de Embutido de
Productos Rectangulares de Lámina (Estudio Teórico-
Práctico)”, PhD Thesis, Universidad de Guanajuato.
México.
[9] García, C., Celentano, D., Flores, F., Ponthot, J.P., Oliva,
O., 2006, “Numerical Modelling and Experimental
Validation of Steel Deep Drawing Processes: Part II:
Applications”, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, 172 (3), pp. 461.
[10] Groover, M.P., 2007, Fundamentals of Modern
Manufacturing: Materials, processes and systems (3rd
ed.), Wiley, New York.
[11] Suh, N. P., Turner, A. P., Coffin, L., 1976, “Elements of
the Mechanical Behavior of Solids”, Journal of Applied
Mechanics 43, pp. 383.
[12] Fereshteh-Saniee, F., Montazeran, M. H., 2003, “A
Comparative Estimation of the Forming Load In The
Deep Drawing Process”, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 140(1), pp. 555.
[13] Schedin, E., 1991, “Micro-Mechanisms of Sheet-Tool
Contact in Sheet Metal Forming”. PhD Thesis, Royal
Institute of Technology, Sweden.
[14] Romanowski, W.P., 1959, Handbuch der
Stanzereitechnik, VEB Verlag Technik, Berlin.
[15] Choi, T. H., Huh, H., 1999, “Sheet Metal Forming
Analysis of Planar Anisotropic Materials by a Modified
Membrane Finite Element Method With Bending
Effect”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 89,
pp. 58.
[16] Huh, H., Han, S. S., Yang, D. Y., 1994, “Modified
Membrane Finite Element Formulation Considering
Bending Effects in Sheet Metal Forming Analysis”,
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 36(7), pp.
659.
[17] Thiruvarudchelvan S., Travis F. W., Poh T. K., 1999,
“On the Deep Drawing of Cups With Punch and Blank-
Holding Forces Proportional to a Hydraulic Pressure”,
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 92, pp. 375.
[18] Saran, M. J., Schedin, E., Samuelsson, A., Melander, A.,
Gustafsson, C., 1990, “Numerical and Experimental
Investigations of Deep Drawing of Metal Sheets”,
Journal of Engineering for Industry, 112(3), pp. 272.
[19] Khelifa, M., Oudjene, M., 2008, “Numerical Damage
Prediction in Deep-Drawing of Sheet Metals”, Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 200(1), pp. 71.
[20] Saxena, R. K., Dixit, P. M., 2011, “Numerical Analysis of
Damage for Prediction of Fracture Initiation in Deep
Drawing”, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design,
47(9), pp. 1104.
[21] Mamalis A. G., Manolakos D. E., Baldoukas A. K.,
1997, “Simulation of Sheet Metal Forming Using
Explicit Finite Element Techniques: Effect of Material
and Forming Characteristics: Part 2. Deep-Drawing of
Square Cups”, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, 72(1), pp.110.

10 Copyright © 2016 by ASME