Examensarbete 20 pong D-niv

THE INFLUENCE OF SHEET THICKNESS ON THE FORMING LIMIT CURVE FOR AUSTENITIC STAINLESS STEEL
Reg.kod: Oru-Te-EXA078-M106/04 Claes Svensson Maskiningenjrsprogrammet 160 p rebro vrterminen 2004

Examinator: Magnus Jarl

PLTTJOCKLEKENS INVERKAN P FORMBARHETSGRNSKURVAN FR AUSTENITISKT ROSTFRITT STL

rebro universitet Institutionen fr teknik 701 82 rebro

rebro University Department of technology SE-701 82 rebro, Sweden

Abstract
Forming limit curves (FLCs) are mostly used as a parameter in finite element analysis to control where the material exceeds the level of formability. They are also used in workshops to analyze actual and potential problems of sheet forming or to compare the formability of different materials. The relevance to make FLCs with the existing method, punch size 100 mm, on very thin material can be discussed when the industry is using much smaller tools in the actual forming process. The influence on the FLC-level for stainless steel sheets with different thicknesses is investigated experimentally. A new method to make FLCs on thinner gauges based on the current method used by Outokumpu Stainless is investigated. The main idea is to shrink the existing parameters in the method with one third, carry out the tests as before and obtain the same FLC-level. Normally a sheet thickness range from 0.8 mm to 1.5 mm is used to create FLCs with the existing method. The new method is supposed to be used on sheets from of 0.30 mm and thinner. An ISO standard exists but is only providing guidelines for metal sheets of nominal thicknesses from 0.2 mm to 3 mm. The FLCs made on thicker sheets with the existing method, will be compared with the FLCs made for thinner sheets with the new method. Steel sheets, EN 1.4401, with thicknesses of 0.15 mm, 0.20 mm, 0.30 mm, 0.40 mm and 0.60 mm are used in the hemispherical dome tests. Results from tests in this thesis showed a coinciding FLC-level for all gauges created with both the existing method and the new method. The small difference in FLC-level between the both methods could be neglected.

Sammanfattning
En formbarhetsgrnskurva (FGK) anvnds mest som en parameter vid analyser som finita element metoden. Den kontrollerar s att materialet inte verskrider sin grns fr formbarhet. Kurvorna anvnds ven i verkstder fr att analysera potentiella problem vid pltformningen och fr att jmfra olika materials egenskaper. Den metod som anvnds, 100 mm stmpel, fr att ta fram en FGK fr mycket tunna material kan ifrgasttas, d dessa verktyg r vldigt stora i frhllande till plttjockleken. Dessutom anvnder sig industrin av mycket mindre verktyg vid sjlva formningsoperationen. Plttjocklekens betydelse fr nivn av en FKG kommer att analyseras experimentellt. En ny metod fr att ta fram en FKG fr tunna material, baserad p nuvarande metod som anvnds av Outokumpu Stainless, tas fram och utvrderas. Huvudidn r att krympa nuvarande metods parametrar med en tredjedel och utfra testerna som vanligt och nd f samma niv p FGK:n. Normalt anvnds en plttjocklek runt 0.8 mm till 1.5 mm fr att ta fram en FGK med nuvarande metod. Nya metoden skall anvndas fr material frn 0.3 mm och tunnare. En ISO standard finns men ger endast rekommendationer fr hur en FGK kan tas fram. De FGK gjorda med nuvarande metod, jmfrs sedan med de FGK producerade med nya metoden. Materialet som anvnds i testerna r EN 1.4401 med plttjocklekar p 0.15 mm, 0.20 mm, 0.30 mm, 0.40 mm, och 0.60 mm. Resultaten frn testerna i detta arbete visade en sammanfallande niv fr alla FGK gjorda med bde den nuvarande samt den nya metoden. Den lilla skillnaden som uppstod i FGK-niv mellan de bda metoderna kunde ignoreras.

Forewords
The purpose of a thesis work for a mechanical engineering education at 160 points is to train the student in using the knowledge obtained from school for 20 weeks in an industrial environment to solve a real problem. This thesis work was carried out at Avesta Research Centre, ARC, Outokumpu Stainless AB in Avesta from February to July 2004. I would like to thank my supervisor at Outokumpu, Hanna Stinessen, for her support and guidance through the thesis work. My supervisor at rebro University, Sven-Erik Lundberg for his help and encourage. Also Ingemar sling at Outokumpu for his time, help and support in the laboratory. Lennarth Johanssons effort and help in the workshop. Erik Schedin for his special knowledge on metalforming. Asko Khnen for his time and assistance and the rest of the personnel at Outokumpu Stainless for their special help and support.

2004-06-08 Claes Svensson

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................................ 5 1.1 Background................................................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Objective ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Theory................................................................................................................................................................. 6 2.1 Stainless steels............................................................................................................................................. 6 2.1.1 Austenitic stainless steels ..................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.2 Ferritic stainless steels .......................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.3 Martensitic stainless steels.................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.4 Duplex stainless steels .......................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.5 Stainless steel EN 1.4401 ..................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Forming limit curves .................................................................................................................................. 8 2.2.1 FEM analysis and the FLC ................................................................................................................. 11 2.2.2 Strain analysis..................................................................................................................................... 12 2.3 Strain analysis software Autogrid........................................................................................................... 13 3 Methods ............................................................................................................................................................. 14 3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 14 3.2 Material data ............................................................................................................................................ 14 3.3 Equipment................................................................................................................................................. 15 3.4 Tool design and arrangement.................................................................................................................. 16 3.5 Specimen design and preparation........................................................................................................... 17 3.5.1 First design, A .................................................................................................................................... 17 3.5.2 Second design, B ................................................................................................................................ 18 3.5.3 Third design, C ................................................................................................................................... 19 3.6 Test procedure .......................................................................................................................................... 20 3.7 How to create the FLC............................................................................................................................. 20 3.7.1 Calibration of the system .................................................................................................................... 20 3.7.2 Evaluation of the FLC ........................................................................................................................ 21 3.8 Existing method used to evaluate FLCs ................................................................................................. 23 4 Results................................................................................................................................................................ 24 4.1 Design A .................................................................................................................................................... 24 4.2 Design B..................................................................................................................................................... 26 4.3 Design C .................................................................................................................................................... 26 5 Discussion.......................................................................................................................................................... 30 5.1 Comparisons of FLCs .............................................................................................................................. 30 5.1.1 Comparisons of FLCs between large and small method..................................................................... 34 5.2 Other results ............................................................................................................................................. 36 5.2.1 Effect of different image-sequences and punch speed........................................................................ 36 5.2.2 Influences from sheet thickness and mechanical properties ............................................................... 38 5.2.3 The results and problems with the edge preparation .......................................................................... 41 5.3 Final discussion......................................................................................................................................... 42 6 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................................... 43 7 List of references ............................................................................................................................................... 44 Appendix 1............................................................................................................................................................ 46

1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Metal forming operations of very small and thin parts made from stainless steel is common today. The automotive industry is in demand of forming limit curves (FLCs) because of the increasing use of finite element simulations. In order to make this analysis accurate and precise, full material data, among other things the forming limit curve (FLC) is required. The relevance to make FLCs with the existing method, with a punch of 100 mm, on very thin material can be discussed when the industry is using much smaller tools in the actual forming process. These thin sheets are generally used to form small sized shapes and the grid size on which the strains are measured are typically 2 mm, often several times larger than the thickness of the sheet. Most of the knowledge has been gained for a sheet thickness around 1 mm, driven by the automotive industry. The influence of sheet thickness on the formability is analyzed in one paper [1] and indicates that the FLC-level increases with increasing sheet thickness [2]. Some papers indicate that it could be a true scale factor. However, based on experience, this is probably only true down to a certain level in sheet thickness where the material starts to behave thin. Outokumpu Stainless has developed a method to make FLCs, so have other companies. There is a standard, mostly a guideline, for determination of FLCs made by the international organization for standardization [3]. This standard is only a recommendation and describes the principle and procedure very briefly and does not provide any test specimen design or tool geometry. However, a new standard is on its way.

1.2 Objective
The main subject of this thesis work is to find out a method to create FLCs for thin stainless steel sheets with thicknesses from 0.30 mm and thinner. It investigates the possibility to modify and apply an already present method by scaling the tools, grid and test specimens, or if it is necessary create a new method to make FLCs for these thin sheets.

2. Theory
2.1 Stainless steels
Stainless steel is the generic name for steels with very high corrosion resistance and with a certain amount of chromium, at least 13% or more [4]. The chromium forms a very thin passive oxide surface film to the steel, completely invisible for the eye, which is the carrier of the stainless characteristics. This passive surface has the ability to rebuild itself on damaged parts if oxygen is present. The corrosion resistance generally increases with more chromium and in alloys containing 12-13% [5] the steel does not rust in a normal atmosphere or in sweet water. With even more chromium added to the steel it can resist more aggressive mediums. Most of the stainless steels also have good cutting, welding and forming properties. The stainless steels are divided into different groups depending on their structure. Furthermore, stainless steels are fully recyclable. Table 1 illustrates typical values of mechanical properties.
Table 1 Typical values of mechanical properties for stainless steels [6].

Type of stainless steel Ferritic Duplex Austenitic Martensitic

Rp0.2 [MPa] 370 620 270 600

Rm [MPa] 500 840 620 750

2.1.1 Austenitic stainless steels

By adding nickel in sufficient amounts to a steel containing chromium the crystal structure will change from ferrite to austenite [5]. Titanium and niobium stabilizes the steel by bonding the carbon and thereby decrease the risk of intercrystalline corrosion. In modern steel refinery, the carbon content is kept low without additions of titanium and niobium. Molybdenum has the same effect as chromium and is mostly added to increase the corrosion resistance. Low yield strength, rapid work hardening, high elongation and high impact strength characterizes these steels. They also have a high resistance towards corrosion and are easy to weld. The basic composition among these steels is 18% chromium and 8% nickel [7], also often referred to as the 18-8 steels. Austenitic stainless steels are not hardenable by heat treatment but some will become very hard upon cold working [4]. Yield point is higher than for carbon steel sheet forming grades and will increase further with addition of nitrogen. [8]. Austenitic steels are non-magnetic but some can be magnetic after a cold working operation [9]. This is due to of the development of strain-induced martensite during the deformation process.

2.1.2 Ferritic stainless steels

Ferritic stainless steels are completely ferritic at all temperatures with a BCC structure. Upon tempering the structure will not change at all, thereby they are not hardenable by heat treatment [4]. The only alloying element is chromium varying between 12 and 30%. They also have low carbon content. Ferritic alloys have good ductility and formability and their strength is normally somewhat higher than austenitic steels but can be highly raised if nickel is added [8]. Ferritic steels are also weldable.

2.1.3 Martensitic stainless steels

Martensitic stainless steels were the first stainless steels that were commercially developed, for cutlery. They have a relatively high carbon content compared to other stainless steels. By heat treatment and tempering, the steels reach a higher strength. This process is called quenching. Martensitic stainless steels are plain chromium steels containing between 12 and 17% chromium [8]. They are very hard and brittle, also magnetic and are used in cutlery, aerospace and general engineering. Nickel is sometimes added to enhance the quenching ability and molybdenum is added to increase the corrosion resistance. Martensitic steels are weldable but to avoid cracking they should be preheated and to avoid brittleness they must be annealed afterwards [8].

2.1.4 Duplex stainless steels

Duplex stainless steels are sometimes referred to as austenitic-ferritic steels or ferritemartensitic. The properties of two microstructures of approximately equivalent amount are joined and combine many of the beneficial properties of ferritic and austenitic steels. They contain high levels of chromium and moderate amounts of nickel, this explains the high corrosion resistance and the excellent mechanical properties. Super duplex grades have enhanced pitting and crevice corrosion resistance due to the additions of chromium, molybdenum and nitrogen [10]. Duplex steels also have good weldability.

2.1.5 Stainless steel EN 1.4401

This is the steel type used for tests in this thesis. These steels [11] are austenitic stainless steels with molybdenum that provide improved corrosion resistance in environments containing chlorides and other halides, compared to standard Cr-Ni grades. Hot working can be performed in the temperature range 850-1150C and they can easily be formed, welded and fabricated by a full range of cold working operations, like heading, drawing and bending. Cold working operations will slightly harden the material but heat treatment will not. However, heat treatments at the critical temperature interval (550-850C), welding of heavy gauges, hot forming and slow cooling after such a treatment will increase the risk for intergranular corrosion. To avoid this problem the material can be stabilized with titanium and low carbon content, such as EN 1.4571 and EN 1.4432. Note that this behavior is not a real problem today, due to the low carbon content in stainless steels. These austenitic grades are more difficult to machine than carbon steels but compared to more highly alloyed stainless steels it is fairly easy. They require high cutting force, show resistance to chip breaking and a high tendency to built-up edge formation [11]. To obtain the best machining results is to use high power equipment, sharp tools and a rigid setup. Table 2 contains mechanical properties for these steel types.

Table 2 Mechanical properties, typical values at 20C [11].

Steel grade Outokumpu Stainless 4404 4401 4406 4571 4432 4436 4435 4429

EN 1.4404 1.4401 1.4406 1.4571 1.4432 1.4436 1.4435 1.4429

ASTM 316L 316 316LN 316Ti 316L 316 316L 316LN

Rp0.2 [MPa] 280 280 320 270 280 300 270 350

Rm [MPa] 570 570 620 570 570 590 570 670

These steels are used in applications for handling the wide range of chemicals used by process industries e.g. paper, textile, food and beverages, pharmaceutical, medical and in other chemical environments. The steels are supplied with a wide range of surface finish and qualities. They are non-magnetic in annealed condition but after a cold working operation they can be slightly magnetic.

2.2 Forming limit curves

In many sheet metal forming operations the deformation is predominately stretching. When a sheet is increasingly thinned, two modes of plastic instability are possible, i.e. diffuse and localized necking, see figure 1 [7]. The strains at which localized necking is first observed can be experimentally determined for loading along various paths.

Fig 1 Diffuse (a) and localized necking (b)

In 1963 Keeler and Backofen [12] studied failure in biaxially stretched sheets and constructed a strain map that was the beginning of what is known as forming limit diagrams (FLDs). The main discovery was that the largest principal strain before any localized thinning in a sheet increased as the degree of biaxiality increased. Later, Keeler [13] found out that the material properties have great influence on the strain distribution in biaxial stretching of sheet metal. He constructed a map in principal strain space that separated safe strain states that a material could provide from the more severe states, which would lead to failure. By definition, max is the major principal strain, and min is the minor principal strain. In other words the FLDs show the combination of major and minor in-plane principal strains beyond which failure occurs. With further development of the experimental techniques by Goodwin [14], a FLD for mild steel was obtained and served as a criterion for most stamping processes. Because of the contribution of Keeler and Goodwin to the understanding of material formability, the developed FLDs for carbon-steel stamping are often referred to as Keeler-Goodwin diagrams. The FLDs cover strain states from uniaxial tension through plane strain to biaxial tension. 8

FLCs are very useful when analyzing actual and potential problems in sheet forming and are often presented as the actual curve in the FLD. The forming limit curve is a convenient representation of the ultimate ductility a material may display under various strain conditions and a given boundary criterion such as failure or onset of necking. Sheets premarked with circle or square grids can be formed in either laboratory tools during die development or in production tools for optimizing and planning. When forming a material it may become thinner or thicker at certain places and instead of measuring the thickness directly, it can be measured by applying a pattern on the surface of the sheet and using the constancy of volume condition. A grid is marked on the specimen using either photochemical or an electrochemical process. The electrochemical process is the most common and also the one used at Outokumpu Stainless. A stencil, like the one used in silkscreen printing, is carrying the grid pattern and is placed upon the sheet and on top of it a plastic rag soaked in electrolyte. The sheet to be etched is connected as an anode to a DC circuit and a metal roller connected to the cathode side of the DC circuit is then passed across the plastic rag. This method is fast, cheap and gives a good result. Variations of the grid pattern, circles or squares, may be used for strain measurements, see figure 2.

Fig 2 Square grid and circular grid pattern

When the sheet material is formed, surface deformation transform the squares into parallelograms or the circles into ellipses. Different strain gives different ratios between the major and minor axes of the ellipses, see figure 3 [15]. Note that true strain will be used from now on. These axes define the two perpendicular strain components, also known as principal strains and can be defined as true strains max=ln(a/d0) and min =ln(b/d0) or engineering strains emax=(a-do)/d0 and emin=(b-d0)/d0 [8].

Fig 3 Major and minor axes

When using a square pattern the procedure is the same as for the circle pattern to determine the maximum and minimum strains. The value of max is always positive but min can be either positive or negative depending on the forming condition. A positive value of min indicates that stretch forming has taken place while a negative value indicates drawing [16]. Forming limit curves can be obtained from forming specimen strips of varying widths etched with grids in a tool geometry as shown in figure 4.

Fig 4 Tool geometry

The strips are deformed to the point of fracture and varying the widths of them provides a range of strain conditions, see figure 5. The narrow parts undergo drawing and provide data on the left side of the forming limit curve. The wide parts undergo biaxial stretch and fill the right side of the curve. Naturally, the intermediate widths fill the center of the forming limit curve.

Fig 5 Test specimens with different widths

By plotting max and min measured close to the fracture for each specimen, a scatter band will be obtained and this represents the FLC, illustrated in figure 6. A deformation condition below the scatter band is safe from fracture and a deformation within and above the scatter band indicates a serious risk of failure. The position of the FLC curve depends mainly on material strength and thickness. Also the geometry of the testing tool, the grid pattern and punch diameter affect the level of the FLC. This must be considered when comparing curves or work pieces with different geometrics [16].

10

It is very difficult to compare a component in production with a simulated test in the laboratory because these tests are carried out on small simple specimen. Also, FLCs determined in different laboratories tend to differ somewhat [7]. For an accurate comparison it is necessary to know what strain the sheet will experience in production. Strains can be measured and compared with the FLC, potential trouble spots can be identified and the severity of the problem can be established. Another reason for comparing strains with the FLC is that the forming problem may be identified. Better lubrication, tool alignment, sheet thickness, material properties or different blank holder force may solve these issues.

Fig 6 Typical FLC curve. Curves are representing upper and lower limit in the scatter band.

2.2.1 FEM analysis and the FLC

To be able to make accurate predictions of deformation, tool force, blank design, etc for geometrical shapes, computer simulation is almost necessary. In this area FEM is dominant and it is a powerful method of analysis based on energy principles. In recent years this method has become very user friendly and so accurate that it can be used commercially in sheet forming for carbon steels. However, for stainless steels the hardening in the material cannot be controlled in most of the software and Outokumpu Stainless have activities to improve this situation in co-operation with universities and software companies. In the automotive industry the tooling design can now be made by computer and the need for prototype testing has been significantly reduced. Also press forces and deformation path can be calculated when forming components. Models of the tools and blanks are created in a graphical user interface from scratch or generated from CAD files. Now the boundary conditions are defined and stored in a data file using a pre-processor. Boundary conditions, for example, can be clamped edges or symmetry lines. Also relevant material data, friction etc must be included. When the model and process are defined calculations are made and the results are handled in a postprocessor that also creates a graphical presentation of the results. Images of components, contours of stress and strain distribution etc are created. Note that most of the mathematics in commercial FEM programs are invisible to the user.

11

2.2.2 Strain analysis

The strains have a high effect considering the formability of a material. The strains effect on forming a metal sheet is illustrated in figure 7 [15]. The strains in the figure can be defined by a term called strain ratio min/max. A value of 1 corresponds to equibiaxial strain, 0 to plane strain, -1/2 to uniaxial strain and 1 to pure shear. Failure generally occurs in a region near plane strain, where all strains are positive in the plane of the sheet, i.e. near the y-axis.

Fig 7 Strain paths

Results of forming operations can be analyzed relatively easy. A grid pattern is applied to the work piece on the area of interest, similar to that pattern used to determine the FLC. When the component is formed the deformed pattern is measured the same way as before. Measured values of strain are compared with the FLC of the material and if they go well below the curve the material can safely be deformed.

12

2.3 Strain analysis software Autogrid

The company Vialux has developed a computer-based equipment that has the ability to calculate strain in formed sheet metal, based upon grid patterns that consist of orthogonal lines spaced at 1 to 5 mm, optically. In the past, even today, distortions in grid patterns on sheet metal were evaluated manually. This is very time consuming and errors are likely to occur. To measure the strain optically, an Autogrid unit [17] is placed in front of the etched part on the testing machine. Four CCD video cameras connected to a computer record and evaluates the 3-d view, see figure 8, simultaneously during the actual forming process. At least two cameras have to recognize the same point to calculate the strain, but Autogrid uses four cameras in case of strongly curved objects e.g. a 90 bend. Also, using more than two viewing directions will overdetermine the solution and improve the accuracy.

Fig 8 Principle of test arrangement and photogrammetry

Figure 8 also shows the principle of photogrammetry where the imaging process can be described by a beam projection. If the position of two cameras and two homologous image points p1 (x1; y1) and p2 (x2; y2) are known, the corresponding object point P(X;Y;Z) can be calculated. This procedure is known as space intersection. As a result, a geometric model must be defined, which describes the transformation from image points to object points. Additional to the parameter of the rotation matrix and the parameter of the projection center, known as exterior orientation, the interior orientation parameters of the camera are necessary. They must be calculated through a calibration procedure. For this procedure a special calibration object is needed that has small special targets with well-known data attached on the surface. During the calibration process, the calibration object must be recognized with the four cameras from several views. This procedure, filming the forming process, gives precise access to the maximum strain value just before necking and when subsequent cracking occurs. The x, y and z coordinates are calculated automatically by the system using its built in software. Engineering and true strains are calculated and presented as a full field colored graph on the actual 3-d surface or as a FLC. This gives a qualitative impression and allows identification of critical regions.

13

3 Methods
3.1 Introduction
The existing method, from now on referred to as the large method, to make FLCs on stainless steel sheets with a thickness around 1 mm used a specific tool arrangement. A new method, from now on referred to as the small method, to measure strains on steel sheets with a thickness of 0.3 mm will have to use another set of tools. A thickness ratio between these steel sheets was almost one third. Now, the idea was to shrink the existing toolset, along with the test specimens, with one third and make FLCs on steel sheets three times thinner and hopefully receive the same results. If a scaling factor exists between the curves or if they obtain the same FLC-level it will be convenient.

3.2 Material data

The material used was EN 1.4401 made by Outokumpu Stainless and the steel sheets did not come from the same charge. Table 3 shows the detailed analysis of the sheets.
Table 3 Charge analysis in % Sheet Charge C Si thickness no
0.152 0.201 0.320 0.430 0.630 400430 856905 858118 400508 923018 0,036 0,036 0,035 0,036 0,034 0,44 0,46 0,45 0,44 0,35

Mn
1,48 1,51 1,52 1,52 1,48

P
0,028 0,027 0,029 0,027 0,026

S
0,001 0,0003 0,0002 0,0002 0,0002

Cr
17,11 16,95 17 16,92 17,02

Ni
10,64 10,56 10,59 10,59 10,76

Mo
2,06 2,03 2,02 2,04 2,04

Ti
0,034 0,028 0,027 0,037 0,028

Cu Co
0,42 0,14 0,35 0,23 0,31 0,15 0,37 0,13 0,39 0,12

N
0,019 0,017 0,02 0,02 0,019

Al
0,005 0,004 0,003 0,002 0,002

Table 4 shows the mechanical properties. The tensile tests were made transverse and longitudinal to the rolling direction and are presented as T and L in the tables. All values are average values.
Table 4 Average mechanical properties for the material EN 1.4401 Test no 0.15L 0.15T 0.20L 0.20T 0.30L 0.30T 0.40L 0.40T 0.60L 0.60T 145 148 221 239 223 235 270 272 Rp0.2 [MPa] 155 Rp1.0 [MPa] 180 Rm [MPa] 510 A50 [%] 45

Not tested due to material dimensions in rolling mill 165 168 238 256 245 257 300 302 516 492 561 577 566 563 627 630 52 61 45 52 48 54 58 71

14

3.3 Equipment
All the testing was performed at Outokumpu Stainless R&D laboratories in Avesta. The following equipment was used: o Laboratory press, Interlaken ServoPress 150 model AVS01, see figure 9. o Autogrid unit with 4 progressive Hitachi CCD video cameras, see figure 10. o Strain analysis software, Autogrid, Vialux GmbH o Deep drawing oil, Lubriform 14, Lubriteknik AB Sweden o Lubricant film, Nitto Pro Techno 224P blue transparent 75m, Nitto tape AB.

Fig 9 Interlaken ServoPress 150, maximum force=1200kN

Fig 10 Autogrid unit, a portable computer and Hitachi CCD videocameras

15

3.4 Tool design and arrangement

The tool arrangement for the hemispherical dome test was based upon the existing toolset to create FLCs but scaled with one third. Table 5 contains the dimensions.
Table 5 Tool dimensions from both methods used to determine FLCs

Tool Existing punch diameter New punch diameter Existing die aperture New die aperture Existing die radius New die radius

Dimension [mm] 100 33 105 35 5 1.7

The tools for deep drawing were special manufactured for Outokumpu Stainless and are showed in figure 11 along with a setup of these.

Fig 11 Tool arrangement and setup for Interlaken ServoPress 150

A new die was made to perform the tests. Also two metal pegs were attached on the holding plate to be able to center the test specimens, see figure 12. These pegs were mounted in holes on metal springs and thereby they did not interfere in the actual testing. In figure 12 the arrangement of the cameras can also be seen. They were placed on top of the press, along with a halogen lamp for extra light. From here the cameras are able to see the entire press operation due to a hole in the top of the press, ass seen in figure 11.

Fig 12 The holding plate and arrangement of the cameras on top of the press

16

3.5 Specimen design and preparation

3.5.1 First design, A
This initial design was used to evaluate the idea if it was possible to keep the original shaped specimens downsized with a third. The stainless steel sheets used for these tests had a thickness of 0.30 mm, 0.20 mm and 0.15 mm. They were prepared in the rolling direction to force the crack transverse to this direction. Abrasive water-jet-cutting was used because it does not give a heat-influenced zone to the edge of the material that could affect the test result. It also provides a somewhat good edge that acquires a relatively small grinding effort. The test samples were shaped according to figure 13 that also shows a photograph of an etched sample. The arrow indicates the rolling direction of the sheet.

Fig 13 Shape of the initial test specimens, design A

The dimensions of A and R are constant. A is 67 mm and R is 50 mm. B is varying according to table 6. All values in the table are scaled with one third from the original sized specimens.
Table 6 Initial test specimens dimensions, drawings attached in appendix 1.

Sample ID a b c d e f g

B [mm] 67 53 40 33 20 13 7

All specimens used were grinded on the edge in the length direction of the specimen before being etched and tested. It is essential to provide a good edge surface to avoid initiation of fracture that will lead to a non-accepted test result. The square grid pattern used was 1 mm and etched with the electrochemical process described earlier in this thesis on page 9.

17

3.5.2 Second design, B

The specimen design used in these tests was made from scratch and the shape was based on design A but with smaller radius and more material area for the press to clamp on. Figure 14 shows two drawings from this B series while the complete drawings of the series are attached in appendix 1. All samples were prepared in the same way as design A, regarding the edges and the grid pattern. The samples were made of steel sheets with a thickness of 0.20 mm and 0.30 mm.

Figure 14 Samples from B series, the arrow shows the rolling direction

The differences among the samples were waist and width. The dimensions are presented in table 7.
Table 7 Dimensions of B series

Sample ID a b c d e f g h

Waist [mm] 70 35 30 25 20 15 10 5

Width [mm] 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35

18

3.5.3 Third design, C

This series was almost identical to the B series, besides a smaller radius of 10 mm instead of 15 mm. It was made to see if a smaller radius would affect the press operation and provide another result. These samples were made in gauges of 0.15, 0.20 and 0.30 mm and figure 15 illustrates a sample from this series. The arrow in the figure shows the rolling direction.

Fig 15 Sample from C series

Table 8 illustrates the dimensions of the C series and the complete set of drawings can be seen in appendix 1. All samples were prepared just as the other two series before etching and any testing was carried out. The length was 70 mm for all of the specimens in the series.
Table 8 Dimensions of the C series

Sample ID a b c d e f g h

Waist [mm] 70 35 30 25 20 15 10 5

Width [mm] 70 55 50 45 40 35 30 25

19

3.6 Test procedure

Before any testing was performed the samples were prepared with deep drawing oil and lubricant plastic film. Three layers of plastic film with a small quantity of oil between them were attached in the middle on the non-etched side of the specimens. This was made to force the crack to the center of the specimens i.e., on top of the punch, especially for sample a. The etched side of the specimens was polished with a small amount of oil to make the grid more visible to the cameras and a square was marked with a felt-tip pen to simplify the identification in the strain measurement. The rolling direction was also marked on the first specimens in the series. The testing was performed with a clamp force of 600kN with a punch speed of 5 mm/s and 1 mm/s to find out how much the speed influences the result. Also, the necking of a specimen must start from the center and transverse to the rolling direction otherwise it is a false test.

3.7 How to create the FLC

The specimens were formed and the cameras recorded the operations. The cameras were set to record video with maximum speed for the system, 120 frames per second (fps) = 30 fps for each camera. Three images before a crack or a visible neck was saved. Strain measurement was evaluated on these three pictures for every specimen and gathered to obtain three different FLCs. It was made to see how much the strain values were affected by stepping backwards in the film. Three steps back in the film with a frame rate of 30 fps and a punch speed of 5 mm/s correspond to 0.5 mm in punch depth. For a speed of 1 mm/s it is only 0.1 mm.

3.7.1 Calibration of the system

Before any press operation was made the cameras had to be calibrated and placed upon the press. Calibration was done with the object seen in figure 16 and 17. The plate is a special calibration object with circles, well known by the system, attached on the surface.

Fig 16 Calibration object

Fig 17 Screen dump from Autogrid

This object is photographed from six different views with all four cameras and then the software calculates the interior parameters for the cameras. The calibration process took place on the floor. First the actual height from the die to the tripod placed on top of the press was measured to obtain the right level for it on the floor. When the calibration process had taken place the tripod was moved back to the top of the press. 20

3.7.2 Evaluation of the FLC

Following pages will describe the procedure to evaluate the strains on a sheet. Figure 18, a screen dump, shows how to find a single point in the grid. From this start-point the system can obtain the rest of the points on the sheet. The same point must be defined in two opposite cameras in order for the system to detect and find the rest of the points. Here is where the marked square was convenient because it made it easier to find the point.

Fig 18 Screen dump from Autogrid how to obtain the start point

Figure 19, shows the detected points on the sheet. This procedure is user defined and in this case an area of 10x10 points are of interest while maximum is 80x80.

Fig 19 Screen dump of detected points in Autogrid

21

When the area of interest has been defined next step is to calculate the strains and bring up the results. Figure 20 is a screen dump from the calculation of true major strains and figure 21 is the calculation of true minor strains.

Fig 20 True major strains, screen dump from Autogrid

Fig 21 True minor strains, screen dump from Autogrid

22

Figure 22 shows the calculated points presented in a FLD. The maximum value is marked and its values are 0.02 for 1 and 0.00 for 2. This also shows the accuracy for the software since the measurement was made on an undeformed sheet.

Fig 22 FLD, screen dump from Autogrid

When the real tests are performed one maximum point from all the different specimens in a series, first to last, are collected and then adjusted to a FLC in Microsoft Excel. As mentioned earlier, measurements are done on different image-sequences backwards from the crack or a visible neck. In the end this will bring three FLCs depending on the influence from the punch speed and punch depth.

3.8 Existing method used to evaluate FLCs

This method, large method, is using the toolset presented earlier in table 5. A square-grid of 2 mm is used on specimens exactly three times larger than the A series, see table 6. Preparation of the test specimens is equal to the small method. Testing is made with a punch speed of 5 mm/s. When evaluating strains the third image-sequence backwards in the film from the crack or a visible neck is used. Steel sheets with a thickness range from 0.8 mm to 1.5 mm are typical for this test method.

23

4 Results
4.1 Design A
The punch speed in these tests was 5 mm/s with the small tool arrangement. Evaluations of the FLCs were made on the third image-sequence backwards in the film from the crack or a visible neck. When testing this series it worked well for a thickness of 0.30 mm while some of the test specimens failed for 0.20 mm and 0.15 mm, results presented in table 9 to 11. The failed specimens got ripped apart in the edge of the die instead of cracking in the center as they were supposed to. Figure 23 illustrates a correct test and a failed one.
Table 9 Results from testing the A series 0.30 mm

Specimen id a b c d e f g Specimen id a b c d e f g Specimen id a b c d e f g

Success X X X X X X X Success X X

Failure

Table 10 Results from testing the A series 0.20 mm

Failure

X X X X X Success X X Failure

Table 11 Results from testing the A series 0.15 mm

X X X X X

24

Even if some of the specimens failed the FLCs were evaluated for 0.30 mm and 0.20 mm, presented in figure 24. Due to the fact that 0.15 mm had a large number of failed specimens a complete FLC could not be made.

Fig 23 A series. Failed e specimen to the left and a correct b specimen to the right.

A series t = 0.30mm & 0.20mm 0,60 0,50 true maximum strain 0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 0,00 true minimum strain Circles 0.30mm Squares 0.20mm

-0,40

-0,30

-0,20

-0,10

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

Fig 24 FLCs for A series

A higher FLC-level was obtained for the thicker sheet, an expected result. In the middle of the FLC two higher points can be seen for both series.

25

4.2 Design B
Because of the failures with design A this series was made to get a full working set of test specimens. They were tested with punch speeds of 5 mm/s and 1 mm/s. This series also failed in the same way as design A and the tests were aborted. However, this time the results were improved and a fever number of specimens failed.

4.3 Design C
This series was made based on B series and all specimens except b were a success. The tests continued anyway because a set of seven specimens was obtained which was desired for these tests. This is also the same number of specimens the large method is using. The tests were carried out on all gauges with punch speeds of 5 mm/s and 1 mm/s to observe the influence from the speed. The small tool arrangement was used, described earlier on page 16. To create the FLCs all three image-sequences backwards in the film from the crack or a visible neck was evaluated. It was done to examine the full effects from moving backwards in punch depth. Note that the second sequence is not presented in any of the FLCs because when evaluated it was positioned between the first and third image-sequence. The first FLC, figure 25, shows the results from a punch speed of 5 mm/s on a sheet thickness of 0.30 mm. This sheet thickness was also the most uncomplicated to test and evaluate.
t = 0,30 mm Punch speed 5 mm/s 0,60 0,50 true maximum strain 0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 0,00 true minimum strain a1 c1 d1 e1 f1 g1 h1 a3 c3 d3 e3 f3 g3 h3 Color Blue Black image-sequence 1st 3d curve 1 2
1 2

-0,40

-0,30

-0,20

-0,10

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

Fig 25 FLC from C series for t=0.30 mm

A higher level was obtained when evaluating the strains at a punch depth closer to the crack or a neck. When moving three sequences backwards in the film it corresponds to 0.5 mm in punch depth and one sequence to 0.17 mm while two images to 0.33 mm. The last specimen in this series, h, had a tendency to loose its value in maximum strain but increase in minimum strain when going from the first frames to the third.

26

In the FLC presented in figure 26 a punch speed of 1 mm/s was used for a sheet thickness of 0.30 mm. When moving three steps backwards in the film at this punch speed it corresponds to 0.1 mm while one step back is 0.03 mm, in punch depth.

t = 0.30mm Punch speed = 1mm/s 0,60 0,50

true maximum strain

1 2

0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 0,00 Color Blue Black image-sequence curve 1st 1 3d 2

-0,40

-0,30

-0,20

-0,10

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

true minimum strain a1 c1 d1 e1 f1 g1 h1 a3 c3 d3 e3 f3 g3 h3

Fig 26 FLC from C series for t=0.30 mm

This curve is not similar to the previous one and an even higher level of the FLC was obtained. Also, the h specimens maximum strain values did not decrease. Figure 27 and 28 shows the FLCs for a sheet thickness of 0.20 mm with different punch speeds. The first one presents a punch speed of 5 mm/s.
t = 0.20 mm Punch speed 5 mm/s 0,60 true maximum strain 0,50 0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 0,00
Color Blue Black image-sequence 1st 3d 2 nr 1 2 1

-0,40

-0,30

-0,20

-0,10

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

true minimum strain a1 c1 d1 e1 f1 g1 h1 a3 c3 d3 e3 f3 g3 h3

Fig 27 FLC from C series for t=0.20 mm

27

For this sheet thickness of 0.20 mm it was very difficult to obtain values for the a specimens, which corresponds to equibiaxial strain. The crack had a tendency to begin far from the middle of the specimen with both punch speeds. An effect from this is a much lower value in maximum strain. Also in this FLC the last specimen obtained a lower value in maximum strain and the FLC-level got higher when evaluating the first image-sequences. Another behavior is seen in the FLC for a punch speed of 1 mm/s for the same sheet, 0.20 mm, in figure 28.
t = 0.20 mm Punch speed 1 mm/s

0,6 0,5 true maximum strain 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 0,00 true minimum strain a1 c1 d1 e1 f1 g1 h1 a3 c3 d3 e3 f3 g3 h3

1 2

Color Blue Black

image-sequence 1st 3d

curve 1 2

-0,40

-0,30

-0,20

-0,10

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

Fig 28 FLC from C series for t=0.20 mm

With this punch speed the last specimen, id h, gained a much higher value in both maximum and minimum strain. Next FLC, sheet thickness of 0.15 mm, with a punch speed of 5 mm/s is presented in figure 29.
t = 0,15mm Punch speed 5 mm/s 0,6 0,5 true maximum strain 0,4
2 1

0,3 0,2 0,1 0 -0,4 -0,3 -0,2 -0,1 0 true minimum strain
a1 c1 d1 e1 f1 g1 h1 a3 c3 d3 e3 f3 g3 h3

Color Blue Black

image-sequence curve 1st 1 3d 2

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

Fig 29 FLC from C series for t=0.15 mm

28

Figure 30 shows the FLC for a punch speed of 1 mm/s for the sheets thickness of 0.15 mm.
t=0,15mm punch speed 1mm/s
0,60 0,50

1
true maximum strain 0,40

2
0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 0,00 true minimum strain a c d e f g h a1 c1 d1 e1 f1 g1 h1

Color Blue Black

image-sequence curve 1st 1 3rd 2

-0,40

-0,30

-0,20

-0,10

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

Fig 30 FLC from C series for t=0.15 mm

These FLCs both decrease in maximum strain for sample id h, at the end of the curve. With a punch speed of 1 mm/s the h specimens increased in minimum strain while decreasing in maximum strain. In the FLC with a punch speed of 5 mm/s the last point drop in maximum strain and do not obtain a higher value in minimum strain. In many of the FLCs, for all steel sheets with a speed of 5 mm/s, the last points have a tendency to drop in maximum strain while the minimum strain increases. This behavior was not an expected result. This problem is discussed in chapter 5.2.3. It can also be seen that the FLC-level, for all sheets, is depending on which one of the image-sequences being evaluated.

29

5 Discussion
5.1 Comparisons of FLCs
The first curves to be compared, in figure 31, are the A series and the C series. This was made to see if there were any differences in strain, level, and position. The curves are based on the third image-sequence with a punch speed of 5 mm/s. As seen in the figure the level and position of the two curves are similar, even if the two series have different geometrics.
A series compared to C series t = 0.30 mm

0,60

0,50

true maximum strain

0,40

0,30

0,20

0,10

A series C series

-0,40

-0,30

-0,20

-0,10

0,00 0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

true minimum strain

Fig 31 Comparison of A and C series

Comparison of 0.15, 0.20 & 0.30 with a punch speed of 1mm/s

0,60
1

0,50
2

true maximum strain

0,40

0,30

0,20

0,10

Nr 1 2 3

curve 0.30mm 0.20mm 0.15mm

0,00 -0,4 -0,35 -0,3 -0,25 -0,2 -0,15 -0,1 -0,05 0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35 0,4

true minimum strain

Fig 32 Comparison of all sheets with a punch speed of 1mm/s

30

In figure 32 all sheets in C series are compared with a punch speed of 1 mm/s based on the first image-sequence backwards in the film. As mentioned before, this is only 0.03 mm in punch depth. A comparison of all sheets with a punch speed of 5 mm/s is made in figure 33. These results are also based on the first image-sequences backwards in the film that corresponds to 0.17 mm in punch depth. In figure 34 both speeds are compared for gauges of 0.15, 0.20 and 0.30 mm.
Comparison of 0.15, 0.20 & 0.30 with a punch speed of 5mm/s 0,6 0,5
true maximum strain
1 2

0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 -0,4 -0,3 -0,2 -0,1 0 true minimum strain 0,1 0,2 Nr 1 2 3

curve 0.30mm 0.20mm 0.15mm

0,3

0,4

Fig 33 Comparison of all sheets with a punch speed of 5 mm/s

The FLC-level of 0.20 mm is higher than 0.30 mm at the left end of the curve, for both speeds.
Small method, 33mm punch Both speeds

0,6

0,5

true maximum strain

0,30 5mm/s
0,4

0,20 5mm/s 0,15 5mm/s 0,30 1mm/s 0,20 1mm/s 0,15 1mm/s

0,3

0,2

0,1

0 -0,4 -0,35 -0,3 -0,25 -0,2 -0,15 -0,1 -0,05 0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35 0,4

true minimum strain

Fig 34 Comparison of both speeds for small method

31

An individual comparison of punch speeds was also made for all sheets presented in figure 35 to 37.
Comparison of speeds t = 0.30mm 0,6 1 0,5
true maximum strain

2 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 -0,4 -0,3 -0,2 -0,1 0 true minimum strain 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 1 1mm/s 2 5mm/s

Fig 35 Comparison of speeds for t=0.30 mm

Comparison of speeds t = 0.20mm 0,60 0,50 true maximum strain 0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 0,00 true minimum strain 1 1mm/s 2 5mm/s

1 2

-0,40

-0,30

-0,20

-0,10

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

Fig 36 Comparison of speeds for t=0.20 mm

32

Comparison of speeds t = 0.15mm 0,6 0,5 true maximum strain 1 0,4 2 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 -0,4 -0,3 -0,2 -0,1 0 true minimum strain 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 1 1mm/s 2 5mm/s

Fig 37 Comparison of speeds for t=0.15 mm

In all these speed-comparisons the curves for a speed of 1 mm/s generates a higher and more even FLC-level. At the left end of the curves, they tend to differ from those made with a speed of 5 mm/s. As mentioned earlier, this effect is not due to an inherent speed influence of the FLC, but is only an effect of the punch depth at which the analysis is performed.

33

5.1.1 Comparisons of FLCs between large and small method

FLCs for gauges of 0.30 mm, 0.40 mm and 0.60 mm made with the large method, the nonscaled A series, is compared with steel sheets of 0.15 mm, 0.20 mm and 0.30 mm created with the small method. Note that all FLCs made with the small method are based on the curves for a punch speed of 1mm/s and first image-sequence, while the punch speed for the large method was 5 mm/s. Figure 38 illustrates the gauges of 0.30 mm, 0.40 mm and 0.60 mm made with the large method. The large method uses a 100 mm punch and a square grid of 2 mm.
Large method 100mm punch 0,60 0,50 0,40 0,30mm
1

0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 0,00

2

0,40mm 0,60mm

-0,40

-0,30

-0,20

-0,10

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

Fig 38 FLCs made with the large method

All points for the sheets are mixed in one diagram. It indicates a related FLC-level on these sheets made with the large method. The gauge of 0.30 mm was made with both methods and a comparison between them was made. Figure 39 illustrates this and points out that a similar FLC-level is obtained even with different methods.
t=0,30mm Both methods 0,60 0,50 0,40 1 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 0,00 2 Large Small

-0,40

-0,30

-0,20

-0,10

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

Fig 39 FLCs for 0.30 mm made with both methods

34

The points for the small method in figure 39 are based on a punch speed of 1 mm/s and the first image-sequence was evaluated. Large method is based on a speed of 5 mm/s and the third image-sequence was used to measure the strains. If all sheets made with both methods are mixed together in one figure a scatter band is obtained and is shown in figure 40. In figure 41 individual FLCs are drawn for each sheet.
Comparison of all sheets. Both methods.

0,6

0,5

true maximum strain

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0 -0,4 -0,3 -0,2 -0,1 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4

true minimum strain

Fig 40 Scatter band for all sheets made with both methods

Comparison of all sheets. Both methods.

0,6
1

0,5
3 5

true maximum strain

0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 -0,4 -0,3 -0,2 -0,1 0 true minimum strain 0,1 0,2

1 2 3 4 5 6

0.60mm 0.40mm 0.30mm 0.30mm 0.20mm 0,15mm

Existing method Existing method Existing method New method New method New method

0,3

0,4

Fig 41 FLCs for all sheets made with both methods

Figure 41 shows a tendency to receive one FLC-level for all sheets, regardless of which one of the methods used to create them. Only the sheet with a thickness 0.15 mm is somewhat lower. Here is perhaps were the material started to behave thin. 35

5.2 Other results

5.2.1 Effect of different image-sequences and punch speed
An observation from the test for the small method was a difference in punch depth depending on the speed. This is presented as a diagram in figure 42.
Maximum strain and punch depth
18,0 17,59 17,5

Punch depth [mm]

17,0 16,5 16,19 16,0 15,70 15,5 15,0 0,35

0,15 1mm/s
16,83 16,81 16,50

0,20 1mm/s 0,30 1mm/s 0,15 5mm/s 0,20 5mm/s 0,30 5mm/s

0,40

0,45

0,50

0,55

1, true maximum strain

Fig 42 Comparison of 1 and punch speed

It was the strain from the first image-sequence after the crack or a neck that was evaluated and is presented above. The maximum strains were measured on the first specimen in the series, the one that corresponds to equibiaxial strain. It can bee seen that both a higher strain and punch depth is obtained when changing the speed from 5 mm/s to 1 mm/s. In table 12 the enhancements are calculated and presented in percents.
Table 12 The improvements with a punch speed of 1 mm/s Sheet thickness [mm] 0,15 0,20 0,30 Increase of punch depth [%] 3,1 2,0 4,6 Increase of strain 1 [%] 2,5 2,3 4,1

36

Another interesting observation was the results of moving backwards in the film when evaluating the strains. The FLC-level is different depending on which one of the sequences used to evaluate the strains. Ratios were calculated between sheet thickness and the number of steps in the film. The ratios between punch depth and number of steps were also calculated. Change of speed is also affecting the level of the FLC indirect. Slower speeds generate a higher accuracy in punch depth for a given frame rate for the cameras. So this was made for both speeds and is presented in table 13 to 15. The specimens used for this calculation were the first and last one in the series, id a and id h.
Table 13 Calculated ratios for a sheet thickness of 0.15 mm 1 mm/s 5 mm/s Share of Share of 0.15 mm punch depth punch depth Id a [%] Id a [%] 3 steps 0,62 3,18 2 steps 0,41 2,12 1 step 0,21 1,06 Table 14 Calculated ratios for a sheet thickness of 0.20 mm 0.20 mm 3 steps 2 steps 1 step 1 mm/s Share of punch depth Id a [%] 0,59 0,40 0,20 5 mm/s Share of punch depth Id a [%] 3,03 2,02 1,01 1 mm/s Share of punch depth Id h [%] 1,36 0,90 0,45 5 mm/s Share of punch depth Id h [%] 6,55 4,37 2,18 1 mm/s Share of punch depth Id h [%] 1,46 0,97 0,49 5 mm/s Share of punch depth Id h [%] 9,14 6,09 3,11

Table 15 Calculated ratios for a sheet thickness of 0.30 mm 0.30 mm 3 steps 2 steps 1 step 1 mm/s Share of punch depth Id a [%] 0,57 0,38 0,19 5 mm/s Share of punch depth Id a [%] 2,97 1,98 0,99 1 mm/s Share of punch depth Id h [%] 1,22 0,81 0,41 5 mm/s Share of punch depth Id h [%] 6,59 4,39 2,20

In the last table, table 16, the ratios for a thickness of 0.60 mm with the large method are calculated as a comparison with the tables for the small method above.
Table 16 Calculated ratios for a sheet thickness of 0.60 mm, large method 0.60 mm 3 steps Id a Share of punch depth [%] 1,04 Id g Share of punch depth [%] 1,52

A slower punch speed was preferred for the small method when this made it easier to evaluate the strains and a less scattering of points in the FLCs was obtained. The first image for the small method was also selected because it was closest to the third image for the large method, i.e. the punch depth was similar.

37

5.2.2 Influences from sheet thickness and mechanical properties

In figure 43 the sheet thicknesses are compared with the elongation in the rolling direction of the material, A50. This result is not influenced from any of the testing methods and the sheet thickness does not seem to have a major effect on the elongation value. Only 0.60 mm is somewhat higher.
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0,00

A50 [%]

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

sheet thickness

Fig 43 Sheet thickness compared to elongation

In figure 44 the strains are compared to sheet thicknesses for both methods. Figure 45 presents a comparison of maximum strains and elongation for all sheets made with both methods.
0,6

0,55

maximum strain

0,5

0,45

0,4

0,35

equibiaxial
0,3 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5

plane strain
0,6

uniaxial
0,7

thickness [mm]

Fig 44 Strains compared to sheet thickness for all sheets. Both methods.

38

0,6

0,55

maximum strain

0,5

0,45

0,4

0,35

equibiaxial
0,3 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54

plane strain
56

uniaxial
58 60

A50 [%]

Fig 45 Strains compared to elongation for all sheets. Both methods.

As seen in figure 44 thicker sheets obviously provide a higher equibiaxial strain, for both methods. Same trend is not seen for plane strain and uniaxial tension. The elongation does not seem to influence the strains, for any of the methods. A comparison was made between tensile strength and true maximum strain for both methods. This is presented in figure 46.
Both methods
700 600 Rm [MPa] 500 400 300 200 100 0 0,35 0,4 0,45 1 - Equibiaxial strain
Fig 46 Tensile strength compared to equibiaxial strain, 1

0,5

0,55

39

The diagram in figure 46 shows that a somewhat higher strain is achieved with rising tensile strength. This trend shows the same result as a comparison between sheet thickness and equibiaxial strain. Also a comparison between tensile strength and sheet thickness was made, presented in figure 47.
Both methods 700 600 500
Rm [MPa]

400 300 200 100 0 0 0,1 0,2 0,3

t [mm]

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

Fig 47 Tensile strength compared to sheet thickness

A thickness effect can be seen also in this diagram, figure 47. Thicker sheets provide a higher tensile strength.

40

5.2.3 The results and problems with the edge preparation

When using the large method, normally all samples are grinded with a sharp hand tool. This method is acceptable on a sheet thickness around 1 mm with those large test samples. The edge does not seem to influence the test results because necking constantly occurs in the center of the test specimens, as it is supposed to. If a test specimen from the small method was grinded in the same way the necking started from the edge and ripped the specimen apart. FLCs with this failure were made before a proper grinding was done and the FLC for 0.30 mm is presented in figure 48, curve number 1.

t = 0.30mm Punch speed = 1mm/s 0,60 2 0,50 0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 0,00

true maximum strain

-0,40

-0,30

-0,20

-0,10

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

true minimum strain

Fig 48 Failed FLC for t=0.30 mm

The strains from specimens corresponding to uniaxial tension, id g-h, were very affected from this. Both 1 and 2 got a very low value because of the edge. When using a slower punch speed the problem with the necking sequence became more visible for the cameras, because of a higher accuracy in punch depth for a given frame rate. Instead of a manual hand tool, all edges were grinded with a grinding machine in the rolling direction. After this operation abrasive paper were used. Necking then occurred in the center of the specimen and this FLC is presented as curve number 2 in figure 48. Higher strains were now obtained for the last specimens on the left hand side. For the sheet of 0.15 mm this problem is still a fact. All edges were grinded with precision in the same way as 0.20 mm and 0.30 mm. The use of a lower punch speed made the effect less noticeable and a slightly higher value in strains was obtained. FLCs are presented earlier in figure 30 and 31. Note that all sheets tested with the small method still suffer from this problem with a punch speed of 5 mm/s.

41

5.3 Final discussion

When scaling the large method with one third, problems with sample geometrics of the blanks occurred. The radius of those specimens did not fit the tools and they got ripped apart. After redesign of the specimens this problem disappeared for a large number of samples and the final tests with the small method succeeded. However, this problem seemed to come back for one of the specimens for the large method with a gauge of 0.30 mm. Gauges thinner than 0.30 mm were not tested with the large method and it is possible that this problem exist for thinner sheets. If a test with thinner sheets than 0.30 mm will be carried out with the large method, then the test specimens would probably have to be redesigned. Another problem was the edges of the test specimens described earlier. It disappeared when grinding very careful with a machine and abrasive paper. Both minimum and maximum strain increased after a proper grinding. But for the thinnest sheet of 0.15 mm this grinding was not enough. The solution could be the use of another method than water-jet-cutting to produce the specimens, for example with an electrical discharge machine (EDM). Use of different punch speeds in the hemispherical dome test affected the FLC-level on the small method. When changing punch speed from 5 mm/s to 1 mm/s a higher accuracy in punch movement was obtained. It was possible to evaluate the strains closer to fracture or necking. This also made it easier to step backwards in the film to find the neck with an exact precision. Measurement was now made on the correct first or third image-sequence before necking and some scattering in the FLCs disappeared. The strain level also increased. It should be noted however, that no measurements were made with a visible neck. All data are based on neck-free samples even though closer to necking for the slow punch speed. Evaluations on all these gauges made with different methods showed a tendency to generate the same FLC-level when they are compared in the same diagram. Even when the sheet made with both methods, 0.30 mm, was compared a similar FLC-level could be seen. Almost similar results are showed in stretch forming of brass sheets when scaling the tools [18]. Also, previous work on this austenitic grade has shown a comparable FLC-level [19]. However, a small difference in FLC-level can be seen. This variation depends on dissimilarity between the two methods from choice of punch speed and which one of the image-sequences being used. Measurement accuracy of the software is also a contributing factor. A certain variation in strain level is a direct effect from this and the natural scattering of this method is not analyzed here. Based on the comparisons in this thesis the thickness effect on the FLCs can be neglected. The only thicknesses showing a significantly higher level are the 0.20 mm and 0.6 mm sheets in equibiaxial stretching, but these thicknesses had on the other hand also higher A50 values, indicating that this is rather an influence of mechanical properties. Also, no such thickness influence can be detected for uniaxial tension and plane strain. Since plane strain and uniaxial strain are the most frequent strain state in actual forming operations, it is reasonable to assume that the sheet thickness influences the FLC-level very little for this steel grade.

42

6 Conclusions
For the austenitic stainless steel grade 1.4401, the following conclusions can be drawn.

The difference in FLC-level between the standard tool geometry (100 mm punch) and a smaller (33 mm punch) was negligible.

A small effect, within the normal experimental scatter, of the sheet thickness could be seen between 0.6 and 0.2 mm. For a smaller gauge, 0.15 mm, the FLC-level seemed to become somewhat lower.

The FLC-level is sensitive to the combination of punch speed and image frame rate and has to be standardized. When changing tool dimensions, this has to be scaled correspondingly.

The thin gauges are very sensitive to the edge preparation and sample geometry and a methodology to solve this problem was worked out in this thesis.

43

7 List of references
[1] D.W.A REES Influence of sheet thickness upon forming limits 4th International ESAFORM Conference on Material Forming Liege, Belgium, 2001 William F. Hosford, John L. Duncan Sheet metal forming; A review http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9911/Hosford-9911-text.html 2004-04-22 International Standard ISO 12004 Metallic materials, guidelines for the determination of forming-limits diagrams International Organization for Standardization, 1997 ISO 12004:1997(E) Karlebo serien nr 1 Karlebo handbok, utgva 14 Stockholm, Liber AB, 1992 ISBN: 91-21-13273-9 MNC handbok nr 4 Rostfria stl Norrtlje, Affrstryckeriet, 1978 ISBN: 91-7162-070-2, ISSN: 0347-9463 Pierre-Jan Cunat The Euro Inox handbook of stainless steel Euro Inox, 2002 ISBN: 2-87997-008-3 William F. Hosford, Robert M. Cadell Metal forming mechanics and metallurgy, second edition Englewood, PTR Prentice-Hall Inc, 1993 ISBN: 0-13-588526-4 AvestaPolarit AB, kompendium Konstruera i rostfritt AvestaPolarit AB, brochure Standard Cr-Ni stainless steels Avesta, Centrum tryck AB, 2002 Info 210702GB Outokumpu Stainless AB, brochure Duplex stainless steel Avesta, Centrum tryck AB, 2004 Info 1008EN2 44

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

AvestaPolarit AB, brochure Standard Cr-Ni-Mo stainless steels Graphic concept/EDITA Aros, 2002 Info 210802GB Stuart P. Keeler, Walter A. Backofen Plastic instability and fracture in sheets stretched over rigid punches ASM TRANS Q. Vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 25-48. Mar. 1963 Stuart P. Keeler Determination of forming limits in automotive stampings SHEET METAL IND. Vol. 42, no. 461, pp. 683-691. Sept. 1965 Gorton M. Goodwin Application of strain analysis to sheet metal forming problems in the press shop MET ITAL. Vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 767-774. Aug. 1968

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

SSAB Tunnplt AB Formningshandboken, utgva 2 Borlnge, Lygner marknadskontakt AB, 1998 Avesta Sheffield AB, brochure Guide for deep drawing stainless steel sheets Info 9589 Vialux Autogrid operators manual Chemnitz, 2001 Erik Schedin, Anders Thuvander Influence of sheet thickness, tool dimensions and grain size on the formability of brass sheet Institutet fr metallforskning, 1987 IM-2177 Roger Andersson Effects of composition and the production process on formability of austenitic steels Lule, University of technology, 1999 ISSN: 1402-1757

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

45

Appendix 1
Drawings, containing 6 pages.

46

Drawings of A series
Sample a Sample b
R 33 mm

53 mm
67 mm

67 mm
R 50 mm

Sample c
R 33 mm

Sample d
R 33 mm

40 mm 67 mm

33 mm 67 mm

R 50

mm

mm R 50

1(6)

Sample e
R 33 mm R 33 mm

Sample f

20 mm 67 mm R 50 mm

13 mm 67 mm R 50 mm

Sample g
R 33 mm

7 mm 67 mm R 50 mm

2(6)

Drawings of B series sample a

20,00 mm R 15,00 mm 70,00 mm 70,00 mm

sample b

70,00 mm

65,00 mm

sample c
20,00 mm 20,00 mm

sample d

70,00 mm R 15,00 mm

70,00 mm R 15,00 mm

60,00 mm

55,00 mm

3(6)

sample e
20,00 mm 20,00 mm

sample f

70,00 mm R 15,00 mm

70,00 mm

R 15,00 mm

50,00 mm

45,00 mm

sample g
20,00 mm

sample h
20 mm

R 15,00 mm 70,00 mm R 15,00 mm 70 mm

40,00 mm

35 mm

4(6)

Drawings of C series sample a

25,00 mm

sample b

70,00 mm

70,00 mm

R 10,00 mm

70,00 mm

55,00 mm

sample c
25,00 mm 25,00 mm

sample d

70,00 mm

R 10,00 mm

70,00 mm

R 10,00 mm

50,00 mm

45,00 mm

5(6)

sample e
25,00 mm R 10,00 mm 70,00 mm

sample f
R 10,00 mm 25,00 mm

70,00 mm

40,00 mm

35,00 mm

sample g
25,00 mm

sample h
25,00 mm

70,00 mm

R 10,00 mm

70,00 mm

R 10,00 mm

30,00 mm

25,00 mm

6(6)