Sunil Kumar

Department of Mechanical Engineering,

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi,
New Delhi 110016, India
e-mail: mez158170@iitd.ac.in
Influence of Inhomogeneous
Deformation on Tensile Behavior
of Sheets Processed Through

S. Venkatachalam

Department of Aerospace Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai 600036, Tamil Nadu, India
e-mail: aerovenkat74@gmail.com
1
Hariharan Krishnaswamy
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai 600036, Tamil Nadu, India
e-mail: hariharan@iitm.ac.in
Ravi Kumar Digavalli
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi,
New Delhi 110016, India
e-mail: dravi@mech.iitd.ac.in
H. S. N. Murthy
Department of Aerospace Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai 600036, Tamil Nadu, India
e-mail: mhsn@iitm.ac.in
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/materialstechnology/article-pdf/141/4/041007/6394585/mats_141_4_041007.pdf by Indian Institute Of Technology- New Delhi user on 07 January 2020
Constrained Groove Pressing
Constrained groove pressing (CGP) is a severe plastic deformation technique to produce
the ultra-fine grained sheet. The inhomogeneous strain distribution and geometry variation
induce differential mechanical properties in the processed sheet. The improved mechanical
properties of CGP sheets is due to the composite effect of weak and strong regions formed
by geometric and strain inhomogeneities. Weaker regions exhibit large strain, lower yield
strength, and higher strain hardening compared to stronger regions. The estimation of
mechanical properties is influenced by these defects leading to the difference in the mechan-
ical properties along different orientations. Experimental investigation revealed that the
commonly used tensile samples cut perpendicular to the groove orientation exhibit variation
in thickness along the gauge length affecting the results from tensile tests. To further under-
stand the effect of geometric variation, a typical CGP specimen was reverse engineered and
finite element (FE) simulation was performed using the actual geometry of the CGP pro-
cessed specimen. The strain distribution from FE simulation was validated experimentally
using the digital image correlation data. Based on the numerical and experimental studies,
miniature specimens were designed to eliminate the geometric effects from the standard
parallel specimen. Miniature parallel specimens showed lower yield strength and total
elongation compared to the standard specimens. However, the statistical scatter of total
elongation of the miniature specimens was much less than that of the standard specimens,
indicating better repeatability. Probably this is the first study to quantify the contribution of
composite geometric effect in the mechanical properties of CGP. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4043492]

1 Introduction effect is significant in the bent region as the strain vary continuously
through the thickness. Heterogeneous mechanical and material
Constrained groove pressing (CGP) technique is one of the
properties were observed in the sheet processed through CGP [8].
severe plastic deformation (SPD) methods to produce ultrafine-
Researchers also have reported a variation of hardness in the thick-
grained material by imposing large plastic strain [1,2]. CGP
ness direction, suggesting nonuniform grain refinement [7]. Strain
includes asymmetrically grooved and flat dies to perform grooving
inhomogeneity is also observed around the constraint region
and flattening operations alternatively. The edges of the specimen
along the edges [4,9]. Since the mechanical properties of the
are constrained to subject the sheet to shear deformation in slant
sheet are strongly linked to the nonuniform grain refinement [8],
regions under hydrostatic stress. The sheet is subjected to a
the tensile behavior is dependent on the location of the sample.
uniform plastic strain of 1.16 after every pass, and this imposed
Apart from the material inhomogeneity, the waviness induced in
strain increases with the number of passes leading to a ultrafine-
the plane of the sample due to repeated grooving and flattening
grained structure [1,3,4]. The application of CGP processed sheet
influences the tensile properties by inducing premature localization.
is wide owing to its high strength to weight ratio and improved
In general, researchers either ignored the nonuniformity of surface
toughness [5].
defects or polished the sample to remove these defects before the
The improvement in mechanical properties at the end of every
tensile test [10].
pass can be characterized using monotonic tensile tests. However,
It is possible to map the strain distribution on the surface of the
performing repeatable tensile tests at the end of every pass of
tensile specimen and to estimate the local stress–strain properties
CGP is challenging due to the inhomogeneity in the sample. The
at different regions. The effort is similar to that reported in tailor
additional deformation around the bend radius in the groove press-
welded blanks where the heterogeneous mechanical properties in
ing stage hardens the material locally. This hardened region resists
the welded region are estimated [11–13]. Lockwood et al. [11]
subsequent deformation during the flattening stage, inducing
and Genevois et al. [12] characterized such local behavior within
waviness of the surface at the end of the CGP process. The sheet
the friction stir welded region of aluminum alloy using a digital
surface consists of small unevenness of the material along with sur-
image correlation (DIC) technique. The estimation of such localized
face cracks and die impressions periodically [4,6]. Such surface
behavior can account for the process-induced strain inhomogeneity,
defects and the inhomogeneous grain refinement significantly
but the geometric influence leading to thickness variation in the
affect the uniaxial mechanical properties obtained by tensile tests.
gauge length cannot be accommodated in the tensile behavior. It is
One of the important effects of inhomogeneous strain distribution
pertinent to consider both geometric and material inhomogeneities
is the nonuniform grain refinement during the process [7]. This
for representing the mechanical properties of the CGP. Currently,
a systematic understanding of the material and geometric inhomo-
geneity in the tensile characterization of CGP sample is not
1
Corresponding author. available.
Contributed by the Materials Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF
ENGINEERING MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received November 29, 2018;
The present work aims to attempt such a combined effort so that
final manuscript received April 3, 2019; published online May 9, 2019. Assoc. a methodology to estimate the mechanical behavior of the CGP
Editor: Huiling Duan. sample can be presented. The local stress–strain relations are

Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology OCTOBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 041007-1
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
obtained by analyzing the strain distribution from DIC. In the earlier
studies [11–13], an isostress condition was assumed while obtaining
the local stress–strain relation, where global stress is directly
mapped with measured local strain. Such an assumption does not
account for the local geometry changes. Therefore, in the present
work, the localized strain measured using DIC is used to compute
the instantaneous cross-sectional area. The instantaneous area and
load cell data were used to estimate the local stress.
This local constitutive behavior accounts for the material inho-
mogeneity due to grain refinement. To understand the effect of
geometric variation, a typical CGP sample was reverse engineered
and finite element (FE) simulation was performed using the actual
geometry of the CGP processed sample. The estimated local
stress–strain curves were used to improve the accuracy of the simu-
lation. The results of FE simulation were further validated experi-
mentally using the DIC data.
Based on the studies, it was inferred that the orientation of the
tensile specimen concerning the groove orientation has a major con-
tribution to the tensile properties. Systematic studies were also per-
formed by modifying the geometry of the specimen to eliminate the
geometric effects.
The outcome of the present work helps to standardize the sample
geometry and orientation to perform repeatable and accurate tensile
tests using CGP samples. The recommendation based on the present
work can be used to present representative tensile properties at the
end of each pass in the CGP process.
2 Experimental Study
Low carbon steel and commercially pure aluminum were pro-
cessed through CGP die with sample dimensions of 64 mm ×
64 mm × 2 mm. The commercially pure aluminum shall henceforth
be referred as aluminum in the rest of the article. Grooving and flat-
tening operations were performed alternatively in every pass of four
stages. Each pass induces an average plastic strain of 1.16 [4,5]. The
samples were processed till failure. During CGP, sample and die
surface interface was layered with molybdenum disulfide (MoS2)
to reduce the friction effect that may lead to early nucleation of
cracks.
Tensile specimens were cut from the CGP processed samples as
per the ASTM E8M [14] standard (Fig. 1(a)) using wire cutting
along orientations perpendicular and parallel to the groove. To
Fig. 1 (a) Tensile specimen as per ASTM standard for both
materials and miniaturized tensile specimen design for (b) low
carbon steel and (c) aluminum (all dimensions are represented
in mm)
041007-2 / Vol. 141, OCTOBER 2019
avoid the geometric inhomogeneity in the gauge section, non-
standard tensile specimens with lesser gauge width, as shown in
Figs. 1(b) and 1(c), were used for aluminum and low carbon steel.
All the tensile tests were conducted using INSTRON-8801
(100 kN capacity) universal tensile testing machine. Since the
load requirement of miniature aluminum samples was much
lesser, 0.5 kN Zwick-Roell UTM was used for these samples.
All the samples were deformed under an initial strain rate of
0.001 s−1. Noncontact DIC was used to obtain the full-field
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/materialstechnology/article-pdf/141/4/041007/6394585/mats_141_4_041007.pdf by Indian Institute Of Technology- New Delhi user on 07 January 2020
strains on the surface of the samples. To have a better correlation
between the undeformed and deformed specimen images, the spec-
imens were speckled with black spray paint. The images were
acquired using image acquisition software (VIC-SNAP-2010, Corre-
lated Solutions) with a charge-coupled device camera (Prosilica
GX1910 of 1920 × 1080 pixels resolution) at the rate of 20 fps.
The deformation load was obtained from the load cell at a frequency
of 0.05 s in synchronization with the image acquisition. The
acquired images were correlated to obtain the full-field strain.
Vickers macro hardness tests on CGP processed low carbon steel
and aluminum samples after the first pass were also carried out to
prove inhomogeneous microstructural properties in the transverse
direction. A load of 5 kg with 10 s dwelling time was applied at
two consecutive distance while measuring hardness.
2.1 Reverse Engineering of Constrained Groove Pressing
Samples. To understand the effect of geometric surface variations
induced by CGP, the deformed samples were reverse engineered.
Typical low carbon steel samples after five CGP passes were
scanned using a STEINBICHLER COMET L3D-Blue light
scanner. The scanned data were further processed using SIEMENS
NX software, and the three-dimensional (3D) model of the sample
was constructed using commercial computer-aided design software,
SOLIDWORKS. Two tensile specimens in different orientations, along
and perpendicular to grooves, were extracted from the 3D model for
numerical analysis.
3 Finite Element Simulation
Finite element simulation studies on CGP tensile specimens were
performed using the commercial ABAQUS software. The 3D models of
tensile specimens were meshed using linear eight-noded reduced
integral brick elements. Around 30,000 and 25,000 elements were
used to mesh the model of specimens along perpendicular and
parallel orientations, respectively. A displacement-based boundary
condition was imposed on the finite element model where the one
end was completely constrained and the other end was free to
deform along the loading direction as shown in Fig. 2. Two nodes
were selected from both sides to measure the displacement of
the gauge section. The resultant force was calculated by the sum-
mation of nodal reaction forces from the participating elements.
4 Results and Discussion
The low carbon steel and aluminum samples failed after five
passes (average theoretical plastic strain, 5.8) and three passes
Fig. 2 Finite element meshed model of perpendicular tensile
specimen with boundary conditions
Transactions of the ASME
 Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/materialstechnology/article-pdf/141/4/041007/6394585/mats_141_4_041007.pdf by Indian Institute Of Technology- New Delhi user on 07 January 2020
Fig. 5 Scanning electron microscopic images of the CGP pro-
Fig. 3 Tensile specimens from CGP processed samples of cessed low carbon steel sample in the thickness direction indi-
(a) low carbon steel and (b) aluminum with surface unevenness cating the surface defects such as (a) surface uneven profile,
and cracks (b) cracks on the top edge, and (c) cracks on the lower edge
after the fifth pass
(average theoretical plastic strain, 3.48), respectively, during the
CGP process. The tensile specimens of CGP processed samples
Surface unevenness started appearing on the samples of both
exhibited surface unevenness and cracks, as shown in Fig. 3. The
materials after one pass and continued till the last pass with a
magnified images of surface unevenness and cracks in the last speci-
slight change in the profile. Similarly, the surface cracks physically
men are also distinctly shown in the inset.
appeared after the third and second pass of the CGP processed
The 3D scanning of the low carbon steel after five passes is
samples of low carbon steel and aluminum, respectively. Figure 5
shown in Fig. 4(a). A section of the scanned geometry indicating
shows the scanning electron microscopic images of the cross
the surface unevenness induced during the CGP process is shown
section of the CGP processed low carbon steel sample after the
in Fig. 4(b). Tensile specimens along transverse (perpendicular to
fifth pass. Surface unevenness and surface cracks were distinctly
groove) and longitudinal (parallel to groove) were extracted from
observed, and the pattern was found to repeat after 8 mm along
the 3D CGP processed sheet model (Fig. 4(c)). It is observed that
the transverse direction. These defects (surface unevenness and
the specimens cut perpendicular to the groove direction have a sig-
surface cracks) significantly affect the results obtained from con-
nificant surface waviness that may lead to early onset of localization
ventional tensile tests.
during tensile tests.

4.1 Tensile Characterization of Constrained Groove

Pressing Samples. In general, monotonic tensile tests in CGP
samples are performed along the longitudinal direction [4] to
compare the as-received properties along the rolling direction of
the sample (although tests along the transverse direction [3,8] also
have been reported). From the geometry of the CGP dies, the trans-
verse direction is perpendicular to the grooves.2 In the present work,
tensile tests were performed in both transverse (perpendicular) and
longitudinal (parallel) to the groove, and the results are shown in
Fig. 6. The key mechanical properties extracted from Fig. 6 are tab-
ulated in Table 1. To understand the improvement in mechanical
properties, yield strength (σy ), ultimate tensile strength (σUTS ),
and uniform elongation (ϵu ) of the CGP processed sample are nor-
malized with that of the as-received sample. Accordingly,
(σy )CGP
(σy )r = (1)
(σy )as−recd.

(σUTS )CGP
(σUTS )r = (2)
(σUTS )as−recd.

(ϵu )CGP
(ϵu )r = (3)
(ϵu )as−recd.

Fig. 4 (a) A 3D scanned CGP processed sample, (b) section of

the scanned geometry indicating surface unevenness, and 2
Usually, the rolling direction of the sheet is aligned perpendicular to the groove
(c) extracted tensile specimens along and perpendicular direction direction.

Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology OCTOBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 041007-3
 CGP with reasonable ductility. The increment in strength was sig-
nificant in the first pass and gradually decreased in the subsequent
passes. The increase in strength is due to the generation of new
dislocations and grain refinement through severe plastic shear
deformation by CGP [3]. In subsequent passes (increasing plastic
strain), the fine grain structure due to rich dislocation density
reduces the average mean free path for dislocation mobility, and
hence, the accumulation of new dislocations is difficult. The
increased dislocation density leads to appreciable dynamic recovery

Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/materialstechnology/article-pdf/141/4/041007/6394585/mats_141_4_041007.pdf by Indian Institute Of Technology- New Delhi user on 07 January 2020
(which is proportional to dislocation density) in the subsequent
passes affecting the rate of strain hardening [16]. Simultaneously,
the reason of decrease in strength is also due to the presence of
surface defects, which increased with pass number [6]. On the
other hand, the ductility of the sample decreases in the first pass
and remains constant in the subsequent passes of both the materials.

4.1.1 Inhomogeneous Strain Distribution. It is observed that

Fig. 6 Stress–strain curves of CGP processed standard (ASTM
E8M) specimens of (a) low carbon steel and (b) aluminum
The variation of strength and elongation ratios are shown in
Fig. 7. The overall trend is similar to the results published elsewhere
[3,10]. The ratio represents the quantitative improvement in the
strength and decrements of elongation. The improvement in the
strength ratio of the low carbon steel is more compared to that of
aluminum due to more grain refinement. Grain refinement is
higher in low stacking fault energy material due to more twin for-
mation [15]. The strength ratios of parallel specimens show
higher strength improvement compared to that of the perpendicular
specimen for both the materials due to geometric inhomogeneity.
The strength of the sample improved after processing through
the mechanical properties of the specimens parallel and perpendic-
ular to groove orientation are distinctly different. The difference is
attributed to three factors, namely (i) crystallographic texture, (ii)
strain inhomogeneity, and (iii) geometric defects. The maximum
contribution of the crystallographic texture-induced anisotropy is
in the as-received condition. The difference in the yield strength
along the rolling and transverse directions of low carbon steel is
7 MPa, whereas the difference at the end of the fifth pass is
118 MPa. The mechanical anisotropy due to crystallographic tex-
tures in initial material diminishes during SPD processes [17], but
overall anisotropy increases due to the microstructural inhomogene-
ity [8]. It is proved by the increasing strength difference between the
two orientations with the number of passes (Table 1). Therefore, the
orientation-dependent mechanical properties in CGP processed spe-
cimen is not due to mechanical anisotropy. Among the other two
factors, the strain inhomogeneity can be attributed to the local
bending at groove corners as schematically shown in Fig. 8. Most
of the studies on CGP show the existence of inhomogeneous micro-
structure and mechanical properties after processing. Yoon et al. [9]
found the inhomogeneous strain distribution along the longitudinal
length of the CGP processed sample. Regions corresponding to die
corners received irregular strains during processing. Hardness and
tensile tests were performed by many researchers to prove the non-
uniformity of properties in the sample [3,8,18]. They showed highly
inhomogeneous properties (measured by hardness tests) in initial
passes and then slightly decreases further with the pass number.
Surface characteristics dominate over microstructural inhomogene-
ity to increase the inhomogeneity in the mechanical properties.
Yadav et al. [8] further correlated the strain inhomogeneity due to
additional bending strain with the nonuniform microstructure and
mechanical properties. Approximating the bending at corners to
the pure bending [4,19], the additional surface strain (ϵbend ) can
be roughly estimated as given below.

t 
ϵbend = ln 1 + (4)
2R
where R is the bend radius and t is sample thickness (2 mm).

Table 1 Mechanical properties of perpendicular and parallel to the groove direction of low carbon steel and aluminum specimens

Ultimate tensile strength

Pass number Yield strength (MPa) (MPa) Uniform elongation (%)

Material Direction Parallel Perpendicular Parallel Perpendicular Parallel Perpendicular

Low carbon steel 0 222 229 295 304 23.00 22.67

1 661 571 692 610 1.00 1.60
3 632 555 675 586 0.85 1.20
5 612 494 641 515 0.80 0.64
Aluminum 0 127 132 146 157 9.78 10.37
1 202 184 216 203 1.80 2.20
3 198 168 214 176 1.70 1.00

041007-4 / Vol. 141, OCTOBER 2019 Transactions of the ASME


Fig. 7 Variation of yield strength (YS), ultimate strength (UTS),
and uniform elongation (UE) ratio with pass number of (a) low
carbon steel and (b) aluminum
In the current study, the die corner radius (r) is 0.6 mm and bend
radius, R = r + (t/2), at neutral axis is 1.6 mm. During the first stage
(equivalent plastic strain, 0.58 [20]), the calculated tensile and com-
pressive true bending strains at outer and inner fibers are ±0.485.
The severe strain corresponds to the regions that are subjected to
both shear strains and bending strains. Proportionally for 1.5%
equivalent plastic strain (which is equivalent to strain before
necking during a tensile test in the perpendicular specimen after
first pass), the bending strain is 1.25%. Since bending is occurring
on front and rear side surfaces, bending strain on the front surface is
half of it, i.e., 0.625%. It is approximately equal to the difference in
strain between the strong region and the intermediate region
(Fig. 9). The deformed sample at the slant region is subjected to
pure shear deformation along the neutral axis. The material above
and below at the corner regions is under the influence of bending
strain in addition to shear deformation.
The localized bending induces additional strain hardening
around the corners. This strain hardened region resists deformation
Fig. 8 Schematic of the CGP processed sample with deformed
regions
Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/materialstechnology/article-pdf/141/4/041007/6394585/mats_141_4_041007.pdf by Indian Institute Of Technology- New Delhi user on 07 January 2020
Fig. 9 The variation of strain with transverse distance of per-
pendicular tensile specimens of (a) low carbon steel and
(b) aluminum
in subsequent stages when compared to the neighboring regions.
This local bending also affects the pure shear stress state that is
expected during the CGP process. To verify this, the strain distribu-
tion during the tensile test of the specimen cut perpendicular to the
groove orientation is experimentally determined from DIC. The
experimental strain distribution in a section of the specimen before
local failure by necking is plotted in Fig. 9. The abscissa in Fig. 9
refers to the centerline distance in the section.
Figure 9 clearly shows the overall inhomogeneous strain distribu-
tion on the specimen surface along the rolling direction (perpendic-
ular to grooves). The overall strain inhomogeneity due to all the
above three factors increases with the number of passes with the
exception of the last pass. The failure strain during the last pass is
drastically reduced due to strain hardening in the previous passes.
The surface unevenness and cracks are severe in the last pass.
The strain localization occurs at infinitesimal increment of strain
near the defect leading to failure. Therefore, the total strain of the
final pass plotted along with other two passes is lower due to the
reduction in failure strain. Otherwise, it decreases due to micro-
structural inhomogeneity [3]. Based on the strain distribution
shown in Fig. 9, the regions were designated as strong, intermedi-
ate, and weak. The strong region posthardening resists deformation
and hence exhibit the lesser strain value. On the other hand,
maximum strain is recorded in the weak region. During subsequent
deformation, this inhomogeneous strain distribution will lead to
nonuniform grain refinement through the thickness [8]. Hardness
was measured through the thickness of the CGP processed
sample. Figure 10 shows the variation of inhomogeneous hardness
OCTOBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 041007-5
 Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/materialstechnology/article-pdf/141/4/041007/6394585/mats_141_4_041007.pdf by Indian Institute Of Technology- New Delhi user on 07 January 2020
Fig. 10 Inhomogeneous variation of hardness and surface
strain with transverse distance of CGP processed sample of
low carbon steel after one pass

distribution due to nonuniform grain distribution and inhomoge-

neous surface strain distribution due to all factors (as mentioned
above) in the transverse direction. The hardness value presented is
the average of three points in the through-thickness direction. As
the surface strain distribution is varying harmonically, it illustrates
that geometric defects have a significant influence on mechanical
properties over crystallographic texture and strain/microstructural
inhomogeneity.
Since the load applied is uniform across the gauge length of the
specimen, the strain inhomogeneity will affect the stress distribution
locally. This can be quantified using the local strain information
measured using DIC.
Actual cross-sectional area to the specific region is evaluated by
instantaneous local strain using Eq. (5) [21].

Ai = Ai o e−ϵ
i
(5)
Fig. 11 Local stress–strain distributions of a perpendicular
The actual area (A i) decreases exponentially as a function of local tensile specimen of (a) low carbon steel and (b) aluminum mate-
rials of different regions and comparison with average curve
strain (ϵi ) at different instant at different regions. The local stress
(σi ) is calculated as the ratio of the applied load (measured from
the load cell (F)) to the actual area as in Eq. (6). Table 2 Yield strength, strength coefficient, and strain
hardening exponent from stress–strain curves of different
F regions of low carbon steel and aluminum materials
σi = (6)
Ai
Yield Strength Strain
The local stress–strain curves generated specific to each of strength coefficient, K hardening
the three regions are plotted in Fig. 11. Figure 11 compares the Material Region (MPa) (MPa) exponent, n
stress–strain curves of different local regions with the average
curve (assuming homogeneous strain) of the CGP processed Low carbon Average 595 856 0.074
sample after the first pass of low carbon steel and aluminum. steel Strong 608 819 0.066
Yield strength, strength coefficient, and strain hardening exponent Intermediate 595 875 0.078
are calculated from the stress–strain curves of different regions of Weak 585 916 0.089
two materials and are tabulated in Table 2. Assuming the Hollomon Aluminum Average 190 300 0.087
hardening law (σ = Kϵn ), strength coefficient (K), and strain hard- Strong 198 288 0.076
ening exponent (n) were evaluated for different local stress–strain Intermediate 192 295 0.083
curves. The log σ − log ϵ plots were made from true stress–true Weak 187 300 0.089
strain data between the yield point and the ultimate strength. The
slope of the plot is n and the y-intercept is log K. Average and inter-
mediate stress–strain curves are identical to each other in both the actual difference between the two orientations (≈90 MPa) is
materials. The weak regions are characterized by the lower yield much more than the above values. Therefore, the microstructural
strength and higher strain hardening exponent, and the reverse is inhomogeneity cannot completely explain the orientation-depen-
observed in the strong regions, which are evident from the values dent mechanical properties.
of yield strength and n, respectively, in Table 2. The additional
bending strain in the strong region influences the strain hardening
behavior. Similar behavior was observed in both the materials in 4.2 Strain Distribution Comparison of Experimental and
all the passes. The maximum difference between the strong and Numerical Study. From the discussion in Sec. 4.1.1, the difference
the average stress–strain curve at the end of the first pass in low in mechanical properties along the two orientations cannot be
carbon steel is 11.5 MPa and that of aluminum is 6 MPa. The explained by the texture-induced mechanical anisotropy or strain/

041007-6 / Vol. 141, OCTOBER 2019 Transactions of the ASME

microstructural inhomogeneity. The third factor of geometric inho-
mogeneity is explored in detail through finite element simulations
and experimental observations. Finite element simulation was per-
formed using the 3D scanned geometry of the CGP processed
sample (Sec. 3). The material inhomogeneity in CGP processed
sample causes differential strength and hardening behavior, as
explained in the previous section as well as in literature
[3,8,9,18]. Therefore, the finite element simulation of the CGP pro-
cessed sample will not be accurate without considering this micro-

Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/materialstechnology/article-pdf/141/4/041007/6394585/mats_141_4_041007.pdf by Indian Institute Of Technology- New Delhi user on 07 January 2020
structural inhomogeneity. Sinusoidal distribution of strain was
observed as shown in Fig. 9, and the CGP processed region was
approximated to be a composite of three regions. The scanned
geometry of the tensile specimen was accordingly divided into
three regions, namely strong, intermediate, and weak as shown in
Fig. 12. It may be observed that the distribution of the three
regions are cyclic and are out of phase between the top and the
bottom surface. The local stress–strain curve estimated in
Sec. 4.1.1 is assigned to these regions individually. The composite
model distributed with three different types of regions assigned with
local stress–strain properties can account for the material inhomoge-
neity with improved accuracy.
Tensile tests of the CGP processed perpendicular and parallel
tensile specimens were simulated in the software for both the
materials. For brevity, the numerically predicted and experimental
strain distribution is compared only for low carbon steel, and the
similar trend was observed for aluminum too. Figure 13(a) com-
pares the typical surface strain distribution measured from DIC
with that of finite element results after the first pass of CGP. The
trend of harmonic strain variation is captured well, albeit the lack
of accurate quantification. The difference between the simulation
and the experimental results is from multiple reasons. The scanned
sample geometry and the actual tensile specimen could have minor
variations. Besides, the approximation in local stress–strain beha-
vior with strong property gradient between weak and strong
regions could have further contributed to the difference. Neverthe-
less, the results indicate that the geometric defects arising out of the
CGP process result in strong inhomogeneity in a surface strain that
could affect the measured mechanical properties. Fig. 13 Variation of strain distribution with distance for a typical
Figure 14 compares the experimental (DIC) and simulated experiment using DIC and finite element model of (a) perpendic-
map of surface strain distribution of the perpendicular specimen ular and (b) parallel tensile specimen of low carbon steel
after first pass. It shows that the strain variation obtained from
both the experimental and the numerical simulation is identical
and follows a regular pattern. In both cases, the average strain
(≈1.5%) is different from the local strain, which varies by magni-
tudes and positions. Based on this result, it can be concluded that
the stress–strain curve along the transverse direction with geometric
and microstructure inhomogeneities cannot yield a reliable repre-
sentative mechanical property. However, the parallel specimen
has the inhomogeneous regions aligned along the loading direction.
Therefore, the strain compatibility attempts to distribute the load
resulting in a homogeneous property.
Figure 13(b) compares strain distribution curves from simulation
and experiments of the parallel tensile specimen. Both strain distri-
bution curves are measured just before the necking point (≈1%) and
correlate reasonably well. The difference between simulation and
experiment is due to similar reasons explained above. Both the

Fig. 14 Strain distribution map of a perpendicular tensile speci-

Fig. 12 Perpendicular tensile specimen incorporated in simula- men of low carbon steel using (a) DIC and (b) finite element
tion with partitioned regions to assign local properties simulation

Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology OCTOBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 041007-7
experimental and the simulated strain distribution exhibit significant
improvement in uniform strain when compared to a perpendicular
orientation. Figure 15 illustrates the strain distribution map of the
parallel tensile specimen using DIC and simulation. The strain dis-
tribution is more uniform on the surface of the parallel specimen
than that of the perpendicular specimen. Thus, the parallel tensile
specimen is superior to represent the properties of the CGP
sample compared to the perpendicular tensile specimen.
Although the strain distribution in parallel orientation shows sig-

Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/materialstechnology/article-pdf/141/4/041007/6394585/mats_141_4_041007.pdf by Indian Institute Of Technology- New Delhi user on 07 January 2020
nificant improvement, the experimental strain distribution from DIC Fig. 16 Schematic of the standard parallel tensile specimen
exhibit nonuniformity especially in the diagonal corners of the with loading and the left-side plane view indicating the bending
surface. This is probably the bent surface of the specimen causes moment during tensile test
difficulty in alignment of the specimen with the loading axis of
tensile machine, which can lead to a small moment (proportional in standard specimen is attributed to the formation of multiple
to the surface offset from neutral axis). This cannot be captured necks and dynamic strengthening of these necks during deforma-
in finite element simulation, as displacement constraint is applied tion. The dynamic strengthening could be due to both material
along the loading direction in all the nodes individually. and geometric inhomogeneities. Since the through-thickness mate-
rial inhomogeneity due to nonuniform grain refinement is also
4.3 Tensile Specimen Design of Constrained Groove present in the miniature specimen, the higher overall ductility in
Pressing Processed Sample. As discussed, the parallel tensile spe- the CGP samples is predominantly due to the composite effect of
cimen exhibits incompatibility due to the presence of the bent geometric variation.
region. This can be avoided if the parallel specimen cut for the Figure 18 shows the variation of yield strength and uniform elon-
tensile property is free from the nonhomogeneous bent region. gation with pass number obtained with miniature and standard spec-
However, the standard ASTM specimen with 6 mm width cannot imens for both the materials. As in the case of the standard
completely eliminate the bent region (Fig. 16). To overcome this specimen, miniature specimen also shows the improvement of
issue, nonstandard tensile specimens along parallel orientation strength and reduction of uniform elongation when compared to
with width less than the standard size are made from the CGP pro- the as-received material. It indicates that the miniature tensile
cessed sheet. The width is chosen in such a way that the gauge
length of the tensile specimen is free from the corner bent region
of the groove. This will ensure that only the slant portion of the
CGP processed samples are subjected to tensile load during testing.
Miniature tensile specimens without surface defects were cut
from low carbon steel and aluminum samples. The tensile test
results obtained from these miniature specimens were compared
with that of standard specimens as shown in Fig. 17. Yield strength
and overall elongation obtained from the miniature specimen are
less than that of the standard parallel specimen for both the materials
due to the absence of severely deformed bent section in the minia-
ture specimen. It is observed that the postnecking elongation of the
miniature samples is less when compared to the standard samples.
The chosen region of the miniature tensile specimen is softer than
the bent region that has undergone excessive strain hardening.
The improved overall ductility including postuniform elongation

Fig. 17 The comparison of tensile behavior using standard

Fig. 15 Strain distribution map of a parallel tensile specimen of and miniature tensile specimen of (a) low carbon steel and
low carbon steel using (a) DIC and (b) finite element simulation (b) aluminum

041007-8 / Vol. 141, OCTOBER 2019 Transactions of the ASME

 the specimen in the through-thickness direction. Since the yield
strength from the miniature specimen is lower than that of the stan-
dard specimen, it can be used for conservative design in certain
applications with a higher factor of safety. The developed testing
procedure is applicable for the determination of the evaluation of
local properties that can be used in the detailed analysis of the
CGP process using finite element simulation.
Figure 19 illustrates the comparison of statistical scatter of total
elongation at a given pass number of miniature and standard spec-

Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/materialstechnology/article-pdf/141/4/041007/6394585/mats_141_4_041007.pdf by Indian Institute Of Technology- New Delhi user on 07 January 2020
imens from the CGP processed sample of low carbon steel and alu-
minum. The scatter of the total elongation obtained from standard
specimens are wide compared to miniature specimens due to the
bending on the sample. Such difference in scatter is not observed
between uniform elongation of standard and miniature specimen
of both the materials (Fig. 18). It shows that postuniform elongation
is significantly affected by the distribution of geometric defects in
the standard specimen. Reduction of scatter in the total elongation
of the miniature specimen is due to the elimination of geometrical
defects.

5 Conclusions
In this work, experimental and numerical studies were performed
effectively to estimate the local constitutive behavior of the speci-
men from the sample processed through CGP under the effect of
surface defects and nonuniform material properties using DIC tech-
nique. Tensile tests of miniature tensile specimens with reduced
surface defects were conducted to estimate the safe mechanical
properties of the CGP processed sample to make it useful for prac-
tical applications. The conclusions from this study are as follows:
(1) Geometric defects such as surface unevenness and cracks
on the CGP processed sample significantly influence the
mechanical properties measured using tensile specimens ori-
ented along and perpendicular to the groove direction. Stan-
Fig. 18 Variation of yield strength and uniform elongation with dard parallel tensile specimen generates better mechanical
pass number of the CGP processed sample of (a) low carbon properties due to uniform strain distribution along the
steel and (b) aluminum loading direction.
(2) The local constitutive behavior of each region is different
from each other due to the geometric defects on the surface
specimen without surface defects gives better repeatability and of perpendicular tensile specimen. Soft region shows
higher accuracy in tensile properties of the sample processed higher strain, lower yield strength, and higher ability to
through CGP. For a given pass, the values of yield strength and strain harden. Inhomogeneous variation of local tensile beha-
uniform elongation varied within a range as shown in Fig. 18, vior in the transverse direction generates anisotropy indicated
and it could be due to the inhomogeneous strain distribution of by different mechanical properties in perpendicular and par-
allel directions.
(3) The orientation perpendicular to grooves suffer from strain
localization as confirmed by both simulation and experi-
ments. In the case of specimen parallel to grooves, the diag-
onal corners in the gauge length showed nonuniformity due
to geometric inhomogeneity leading to additional bending
strain. Therefore, it is undesirable to use a standard parallel
specimen to measure the mechanical properties.
(4) Miniature specimens parallel to the grooves on the other
hand were relatively free from geometric defects as con-
firmed from the repeatability in measuring total elongation.
Miniature specimens exhibit lower value of strength and duc-
tility and can be used for conservative design in certain appli-
cations with a higher factor of safety.

Acknowledgment
One of the authors (K. H.) would like to acknowledge the support
received from Department of Science and Technology (DST) India
through the SERB Project No. YSS/2015/001342.

References
Fig. 19 Variation of total elongation with pass number of minia- [1] Shin, D. H., Park, J.-J., Kim, Y.-S., and Park, K.-T., 2002, “Constrained Groove
ture and standard specimens from the CGP processed sheet of Pressing and Its Application to Grain Refinement of Aluminum,” Mater. Sci. Eng.
low carbon steel and aluminum A, 328(1–2), pp. 98–103.

Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology OCTOBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 041007-9
 [2] Lee, J., and Park, J., 2002, “Numerical and Experimental Investigations of
Constrained Groove Pressing and Rolling for Grain Refinement,” J. Mater.
Process. Technol., 130, pp. 208–213.
[3] Khodabakhshi, F., Kazeminezhad, M., and Kokabi, A., 2010, “Constrained
Groove Pressing of Low Carbon Steel: Nano-Structure and Mechanical
Properties,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 527(16–17), pp. 4043–4049.
[4] Wang, Z.-S., Guan, Y.-J., Wang, G.-C., and Zhong, C.-K., 2015, “Influences of
Die Structure on Constrained Groove Pressing of Commercially Pure Ni
Sheets,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 215, pp. 205–218.
[5] Gupta, A. K., Maddukuri, T. S., and Singh, S. K., 2016, “Constrained
Groove Pressing for Sheet Metal Processing,” Prog. Mater. Sci., 84, pp. 403–462.
[6] Peng, K., Su, L., Shaw, L. L., and Qian, K.-W., 2007, “Grain Refinement and
Crack Prevention in Constrained Groove Pressing of Two-Phase Cu–Zn
Alloys,” Scr. Mater., 56(11), pp. 987–990.
[7] Mou, X., Peng, K., Zeng, J., Shaw, L. L., and Qian, K.-W., 2011, “The Influence
of the Equivalent Strain on the Microstructure and Hardness of H62 Brass
Subjected to Multi-Cycle Constrained Groove Pressing,” J. Mater. Process.
Technol., 211(4), pp. 590–596.
[8] Yadav, P. C., Sinhal, A., Sahu, S., Roy, A., and Shekhar, S., 2016,
“Microstructural Inhomogeneity in Constrained Groove Pressed Cu-Zn Alloy
Sheet,” J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 25(7), pp. 2604–2614.
[9] Yoon, S. C., Krishnaiah, A., Chakkingal, U., and Kim, H. S., 2008, “Severe
Plastic Deformation and Strain Localization in Groove Pressing,” Comput.
Mater. Sci., 43(4), pp. 641–645.
[10] Kumar, S. S., and Raghu, T., 2011, “Tensile Behaviour and Strain Hardening
Characteristics of Constrained Groove Pressed Nickel Sheets,” Mater. Des.,
32(8–9), pp. 4650–4657.
[11] Lockwood, W. D., Tomaz, B., and Reynolds, A. P., 2002, “Mechanical Response
of Friction Stir Welded AA2024: Experiment and Modeling,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A,
323(1–2), pp. 348–353.
041007-10 / Vol. 141, OCTOBER 2019
[12] Genevois, C., Deschamps, A., and Vacher, P., 2006, “Comparative Study on
Local and Global Mechanical Properties of 2024 T351, 2024 T6 and 5251 O
Friction Stir Welds,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 415(1–2), pp. 162–170.
[13] He, C., Huang, C., Liu, Y., Li, J., and Wang, Q., 2015, “Effects of Mechanical
Heterogeneity on the Tensile and Fatigue Behaviours in a Laser-Arc Hybrid
Welded Aluminium Alloy Joint,” Mater. Des. (1980–2015), 65, pp. 289–296.
[14] ASTM International, 2016, “Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of
Metallic Materials,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, Technical
Report, Report No. ASTM E8 / E8M - 13.
[15] Zhao, Y., Liao, X., Zhu, Y., Horita, Z., and Langdon, T., 2005, “Influence of
Stacking Fault Energy on Nanostructure Formation Under High Pressure
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/materialstechnology/article-pdf/141/4/041007/6394585/mats_141_4_041007.pdf by Indian Institute Of Technology- New Delhi user on 07 January 2020
Torsion,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 410, pp. 188–193.
[16] Hosseini, E., and Kazeminezhad, M., 2011, “A New Microstructural Model
Based on Dislocation Generation and Consumption Mechanisms Through
Severe Plastic Deformation,” Comput. Mater. Sci., 50(3), pp. 1123–1135.
[17] Yapici, G. G., Karaman, I., and Maier, H. J., 2006, “Mechanical Flow Anisotropy
in Severely Deformed Pure Titanium,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 434(1–2),
pp. 294–302.
[18] Kumar, S. S., and Raghu, T., 2014, “Structural and Mechanical Behaviour of
Severe Plastically Deformed High Purity Aluminium Sheets Processed by
Constrained Groove Pressing Technique,” Mater. Des., 57, pp. 114–120.
[19] Nazari, F., and Honarpisheh, M., 2018, “Analytical Model to Estimate Force of
Constrained Groove Pressing Process,” J. Manuf. Process., 32, pp. 11–19.
[20] Zrnik, J., Kovarik, T., Novy, Z., and Cieslar, M., 2009, “Ultrafine-
Grained Structure Development and Deformation Behavior of Aluminium
Processed by Constrained Groove Pressing,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 503(1–2),
pp. 126–129.
[21] Leitão, C., Galvão, I., Leal, R., and Rodrigues, D., 2012, “Determination of Local
Constitutive Properties of Aluminium Friction Stir Welds using Digital Image
Correlation,” Mater. Design, 33, pp. 69–74.
Transactions of the ASME