Int J Mater Form (2014) 7:395403

DOI 10.1007/s12289-013-1134-y

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Development of a new failure prediction criterion

in sheet metal forming
Alexandra Werber Mathias Liewald
Winfried Nester Martin Grunbaum

Klaus Wiegand
Jorg Simon Jurgen

Timm Walter Hotz

Received: 29 January 2013 / Accepted: 6 May 2013 / Published online: 7 June 2013
Springer-Verlag France 2013

Abstract In industrial try-out processes in sheet metal

forming usually the forming limit curve is used as failure
criterion in order to describe the onset of localized necking.
Forming limits, however, are strain-path dependent. Up to
today many different approaches how the strain-path dependent behavior of the forming limit curve can be avoided
have been published. Best known are the approaches based
on forming limit stress curves published by Arrieux, and the
approach of Muschenborn published in 1975. An overview
over existing failure criteria is given in this contribution.
The failure criterion forming limit stress curve as well as
several failure criteria based on Muschenborns approach
will be evaluated with newly recorded experimental data
on forming limit curves for non-proportional loading. A
new approach, that is in contrast to the two mentioned
approaches not based on assumptions but on experimental
observations, is presented herein. The suggested approach is
presented as failure surface where strains above the surface
indicate the onset of localized necking. The failure surface
is given as function of the loading mode and the level of
effective pre-stretching. Different suggestions how to use
and simplify the new approach are given in this paper. The
prediction accuracy of the addressed approaches as well as

A. Werber () M. Liewald

Institute for Metal Forming Technology, University of Stuttgart,
Stuttgart, Germany
e-mail: alexandra.werber@ifu.uni-stuttgart.de
W. Nester M. Grunbaum K. Wiegand
Daimler AG, Production Planning,
Sindelfingen, Germany
J. Simon J. Timm W. Hotz
Novelis Switzerland SA, Sierre, Switzerland

of the newly suggested approach is evaluated by transforming the data of the approaches back into the conventional
forming limit curve for several non-linear strain paths. The
comparison of the described approaches shows that forming
limits for non-proportional loading can be well-predicted
with the suggested approach.
Keywords Forming limit curve Forming limit stress
curve Non-linear strain path Prediction of failure

Introduction and literature review

Industrial sheet metal forming processes usually are evaluated using the forming limit curve (FLC) where the onset
of localized necking is described as function of major and
minor true strains [1, 2]. The conventional forming limit
curve, however, is only valid for linear forming processes
as non-linear loading changes shape and position of the
forming limit curve [3]. In industrial forming linear forming
processes are rare as forming of complex parts or multi-step
forming operations always induce non-linear strain paths.
Many approaches to deal with non-linear strain paths have
been published up to today. An extract of them can be
seen in Fig. 1. There, the chosen approaches are displayed
arranged in three lines. The approaches are classified by
the applied input data into instability analysis, theoretical assumptions and pure phenomenological. The one
based on instability analysis starts off with the Maximum
Force Criterion of Consid`ere [4]. The line of the theoretical
assumptions starts with Muschenborn et al.s [5] observations. The pure phenomenological line is based on the
forming limit curve found by Keeler [1] and Goodwin [2].
In the following paragraphs the mentioned approaches will
be addressed.

396

Int J Mater Form (2014) 7:395403

Fig. 1 Overview of several

criteria potentially capable of
dealing with non-proportional
loading operations

In 1885 Consid`ere [4] suggested to use the Maximum

Force criterion in order to describe the onset of diffuse
necking. According to this law diffuse necking occurs as
soon as the effort exerted on a specimen during uniaxial
loading reaches a maximum. Based on Consid`eres failure
criterion Swift formulated in 1952 a new criterion with twodimensional modifications of Consid`eres suggestion [4].
Also Hill suggested some modifications of Consid`eres suggestion [4]. Based on these approaches Hora and Tong [7,
19] published 1996 the Modified Maximum Force Criterion
(MMFC), which assumes that the current stress state, when
the maximum force is reached, is transformed into a plane
strain stress state. Due to this stress transformation the prediction of the onset of localized necking is delayed. Several
extensions to the Maximum Force criterion have been published until today. Based on the described models of Swift
and Hill, Bressan and Williams [6] found in 1983 a criterion
which is called Through thickness shear instability criterion. According to this criterion failure takes place in the
direction of pure shear as soon as the shear stress reaches a
maximum.
A further line of failure description (see Fig. 1) is the one
based on theoretical assumptions. The approach of Arrieux
[15], which belongs into this line, was the first one on how
to transform forming limit strains into stress space. His
idea later was taken on by Stoughton [20]. Both of them
showed, that forming limit stress curves were strain path
independent. However, lately several critical works have
been published as well [21], stating that the failure criterion
forming limit stress curve is only strain path independent for
small strains and for alloys exhibiting an isotropic hardening
behavior [22].
In 1975 Muschenborn and Sonne [5] presented a study
on the effect of non-linear strain paths on shape and position of the forming limit curve. They suggested that the
forming limit curve represents the point of the maximum
reachable thickness strain. Based on this work Yoshida
et al. [16] published in 2007 the approach to describe the

sum of all thickness strains as function of the ratio of

principle stress values. Zeng et al. [17] published in 2008
an approach to display the sum of all effective strains as
function of the ratio of minor to major strain. For both
approaches, the one of Yoshida and the one of Zeng, the
resulting curves for different non-linear strain paths are supposed to map to one region of the new diagram. Out of these
three approaches Stoughton [18] derived a new illustration
alternative in polar coordinates.
Lately, new approaches like the one of Ofenheimer [9],
Bai and Wierzbicki [13] and Volk [11, 12] have been published, which are based on algorithms that are trained with
experimental data. The approach presented herein belongs
into this line.
In this work forming limit curves for non-linear loading for the aluminum alloy AA6014 are analyzed using the
approaches by Arrieux [15], Muschenborn and Sonne [5],
Yoshida [16], Zeng [17] and Stoughton [18]. Experimental data of Werber et al. [23] are used. Additionally, a new
approach to describe failure for processes with non-linear
loading is presented.
All models are evaluated using the experimental data
published in [23]. In this work non-linear strain paths
were realized for the aluminum alloy AA6014 with a sheet
thickness of 1 mm by first pre-stretching the material and
Nakajima experiments as second loading step. Information on the used material are given in Table 1 and in
[24]. The strain hardening parameter n in Table 1 is averaged for experimental strain values in the range between

Table 1 Mechanical properties of the regarded alloy AA6014

Test direction

Rm [MPa]

Rp0.2 [MPa]

Rolling dir.
Diagonal
Transverse

230
231
226

121
122
117

0.262
0.263
0.269

0.78
0.49
0.68

Int J Mater Form (2014) 7:395403

2 and 20 %. The samples were pre-stretched in uniaxial, plane strain and biaxial direction up to levels of
0.17 in uniaxial direction and 0.24 in biaxial direction.
The forming limit curves gained during Nakajima experiments after pre-stretching are given in Fig. 2. The numbers given in the caption indicate the level of effective
strain according to von Mises [3] accomplished during
pre-stretching. E.g. the label biaxial 0.02 indicates a
biaxial pre-stretching up to an effective strain of 0.02.
The results are consistent with prior published work by
e.g. [25].

Evaluation of the suitability of several models

to the prediction of non-linear forming processes
In the following sections first the stress-based approach
according to Arrieux [15] will be addressed. Experimentally
determined forming limit curves for several linear and nonlinear strain paths [23] will be transformed into stress space.
A transformation of the determined forming limit stress
curve back into strain space and a comparison between the
experimentally determined data and the transformed curves
will be carried out. In the second part of this paragraph several approaches in the line of Muschenborn et al. [5] (see
Fig. 1) will be applied and their accuracy of prediction will
be evaluated by transforming the approaches back into conventional forming limit curves and comparing the calculated
and the experimental results.
Forming limit stress curve according to Arrieux

397

The equations suggested for the transformation are given in

[20].
More detailed information regarding the transformation
of strains into stress space can be found as well in [20] as in
[21]. The transformation in this study was performed with
the flow curve approximations according to Hockett-Sherby
[26].
Hockett-Sherby:
kf = A B en

(1)

Using the given description of the flow curve and the

isotropic yield criterion according to von Mises the transformation of the experimentally measured FLCs into stress
space has been performed [21]. The results of this transformation can be found in Fig. 3 on a magnified 1 -axis. It can
be seen that the curves do not map on one single curve, but
are positioned in a range between a major strain of about
310 MPa and 345 MPa.
In order to assess the applicability and the preciseness of the FLSC as failure criterion for forming processes with non-linear strain paths the forming limit stress
curve of the un-deformed material (AA6014 0 %) is
transformed back into strain space. The results are compared to the experimentally gained curves. According to
[15, 20] all forming limit strains for different non-linear
loading conditions map to one single curve in stress space.
The transformation of the obtained forming limit stress
curve for proportional loading back into strain space is
therefore supposed to result for several differing prestretching levels in the same curves that have been measured
experimentally.

According to Arrieux et al. [15] and to Stoughton [20] forming limit strains can be transformed into stress space using a
yield criterion and a numeric description of the flow curve.

Fig. 2 Forming limit curves of AA6014 recorded with pre-stretched

material

Fig. 3 Forming limit stress curves for several non-linear strain paths
transformed from experimental data

398

The performance of the failure criterion forming limit

stress curve can be assessed by comparing the experimentally measured curves for non-proportional loading with the
calculated ones. For the calculations the equations given
in [15, 20] were applied. The results of these calculations can be found in Fig. 4. The transformed curve of the
un-deformed material is not displayed as the curves are
positioned on top of each other. For biaxial pre-stretching
modes the transformed forming limit curves decrease while
the experimentally measured forming limit curves show for
small pre-stretching levels like 0.02 a decrease, however,
increase again for higher pre-stretching levels like 0.24.
For this reason, the difference between the transformed
and the experimentally measured curves increases for high
pre-stretching levels. Similar results can be found for uniaxial pre-stretching. There the calculated curves exhibit a
continuous increase for increasing uniaxial pre-stretching.
The experimentally obtained curves, however, decrease for
small pre-stretching levels and increase hereafter. This is
why the difference between the experimentally determined
curves and the transformed curve is increased for small
pre-stretching levels. A more detailed analysis regarding
the assessment of the forming limit stress curve as failure
criterion can be found in [21].
Strain-based criteria
Forming limits are usually described with the forming limit
curve developed by Keeler et al. [1] and Goodwin [2] where
the onset of localized necking is given as function of major
and minor strain. The conventional forming limit curve is
only valid for linear strain paths. The forming limit curve is
experimentally recorded with Nakajima experiments.
Based on the considerations of Muschenborn et al.
[5], Yoshida et al. [22] as well as Zeng et al. [17] and

Fig. 4 Transformation of the AA6014 0 % forming limit stress curve

back into strain space assuming different pre-stretching modes and
levels. Results are compared to the experimentally measured forming
limit curves of [23] with the same pre-stretching condition

Int J Mater Form (2014) 7:395403

Stoughton et al. [18] published approaches how to rearrange the conventional forming limit curve in order to deal
with the dynamic behavior of the forming limit curve. The
approaches of this line will be addressed in the following
sections.
Strain-based criterion according to Muschenborn
and Sonne
In 1975 Muschenborn et al. [5] published a study regarding non-linear strain paths in aluminum-killed deep drawing
steel. They suggested that the forming limit curve constitutes the maximum reachable effective strain.
Using the forming limit curve without pre-straining,
which can be seen in Fig. 2 as black curve, several
forming limit curves for defined pre-straining conditions
can be predicted using the effective von Mises strain.
Results of such calculations are displayed in Fig. 5.
There, as dotted lines the according to Muschenborn
et al. determined FLCs are displayed while the experimentally measured FLCs for the same pre-straining levels are depicted as solid lines. In that figure a certain
deviation can be observed between experimentally measured and according to Muschenborn et al. determined
forming limit curves. Here again, like for the forming
limit stress curve (see Fig. 4) calculated forming limit
curves show a continuous increase for uniaxial pre-stretching and a continuous decrease for biaxial pre-stretching,
which is not consistent with the experimentally determined
forming limit curves gained on the same pre-stretching
levels.

Fig. 5 Comparison between experimentally measured FLCs following pre-straining and FLCs after pre-straining calculated according to
Muschenborn

Int J Mater Form (2014) 7:395403

399

Strain-based criterion according to Yoshida

criterion according to von Mises the following equations can

be used:

In 2007 Yoshida et. al. [16] suggested a new display format

for the forming limit curves and in particular for forming
limit curves with several non-proportional loading paths.
They suggested to display the sum of all effective strains of
all quasi-linear loading paths as function of the ratio of the
two principal stresses during the last quasi-linear forming step. Yoshida et al. suggested this approach in order
to avoid the difficult to understand illustration of forming limit stress curves. They state that the relation between
= 2 /1 and is strain path independent for all materials that exhibit an isotropic hardening behavior. Yoshida et
al. suggest to use their curve with a safety margin which is
commonly done with conventional forming limit curves as
well.
As the parameter can be derived from the parameter
which has been used in the approach of Muschenborn et al.
the transformation of the resulting curve back into the
conventional display format according to Keeler et al. [1]
shows exactly the same results as for Muschenborn et al. in
Fig. 5.

Ordinate: cos() and Abscissa: sin(), whereas

= tan1 ().

Strain-based criterion according to Zeng

In contrast to Yoshida et al. Zeng et al. [17] suggested
to display forming limit curves for proportional as well
as non-proportional loading as function of the parameter
. They performed several studies showing that all curves
with different pre-stretching levels of one material map to
only one single curve. The transformation of the resulting curve for AA6014 back into the conventional display
format results again in exactly the same figure as for the
approach according to Muschenborn et al., which is given in
Fig. 5.

For this approach the same input data is used as for

the application of the approaches of Muschenborn et al.,
Yoshida et al. and Zeng et al. Therefore the transformation
of the curve of the un-deformed material back into the conventional forming limit curve and forming limit curves for
several non-linear loading paths results in again exactly the
same diagram as in Fig. 5.
Recapitulation of presented strain-based approaches
The four presented approaches in this chapter represent four
different illustration methods based on the fundamental
idea that was published first by Muschenborn et al. [5] in
1975, as can be seen in Fig. 1. All of them are based on the
idea that the forming limit curve represents the maximum
reachable effective strain. For each material an adequate
yield criterion can be used to determine the respective
effective strains. As shown in Fig. 5 the approaches show
a certain improvement of the failure prediction for nonlinear forming processes compared to the failure prediction
with the conventional proportional forming limit curve.
However, as can be observed in Fig. 5, the assumption
that the conventional forming limit curve represents the
maximum reachable effective strain is not valid for the
employed alloy. In particular for pre-stretching levels above
an effective strain of 0.15 the predicted forming limits are
not precise for the employed alloy.
These findings show the need for further ideas how to
deal with the dynamic behavior of the conventional forming
limit curve. For this reason in the following section a new
phenomenological approach will be presented.

Strain-based criterion according to Stoughton

Based on the two described approaches according to
Yoshida et al. and Zeng et al., Stoughton et al. [18] suggested in 2012 another illustration method for the same
data, the Polar Effective Plastic Strain Diagram (PEPSdiagram). His intention was to provide a stress-based failure criterion which is as convenient to use as the conventional forming limit diagram. Instead of the ratio of
minor and major true strain the cosine of the arc tangent of this ratio is applied multiplied with the sum of
all effective strains of all quasi-linear forming steps. As
abscissa the sine of the arc tangent of this ratio is applied.
In this way an illustration form is developed which is
very similar to the conventional forming limit diagram.
Stoughton et al. used for the failure description of steel the
yield criterion according to Hill. When applying the yield

Development of new failure prediction criterion

The most important difference between the presented
approach and the strain and stress-based approaches of the
previous sections is that the newly presented approach is
based on experimental observations while the previously
described approaches are based on theoretical assumptions
regarding specific material behavior. Four different variants
of the newly developed approach will be introduced.
In Fig. 2 the forming limit curves for proportional
loading as well as for several non-linear loading cases are
displayed for AA6014 with a sheet thickness of 1 mm. The
caption provides the pre-stretching mode as well as the
pre-stretching level. In this figure the strains reached during
pre-stretching are added up with the strains reached during

400

Int J Mater Form (2014) 7:395403

Fig. 7 Dependency of the plane strain point of a forming limit curve

of the level of effective pre-strain

Fig. 6 Representation of forming limit curves gained during Nakajima experiments with pre-stretched material without adding up the
strains reached during pre-stretching

Nakajima experiments. In Fig. 6 the same forming limit

curves are represented without adding up the strains during
pre-stretching. It can be observed that with increasing level
of effective pre-strain, no matter which pre-stretching mode
had been realized, the forming limit curve decreases. To
point out this relation, the dependency of the plane strain
dip of a forming limit curve as function of the effective prestrain level is displayed in Fig. 7. Several additional forming
limit curves published in [23] are considered as well. The
points for the three different pre-stretching modes (uniaxial,
plane strain or biaxial) are marked with different symbols.
In that figure the strong dependency between effective
level of pre-stretching and position of the forming limit
curve becomes obvious. Compared to the pre-stretching
modes uniaxial and biaxial the points after plane strain prestretching exhibit a slight increase which is probably due to
the definition of the onset of plastic yielding.
The trend of the obtained points can be fitted with the
following analytical relation:
1,planest rain =

AB
C

D
prest
rain

+B

square fit the fit error amounts to 0.0049, whereas the highest percentage of this error is due to the slightly increased
points after plane strain pre-stretching. The resulting curve
is given in Fig. 8. For the actual analysis only bilinear strain
paths have been applied. When considering highly complex
strain paths with more than two quasi-linear strain paths
the abscissa represents the sum of all effective strains apart
from the last quasi-linear part.
Approach 1 (A1) In order to create a failure criterion that
predicts failure for all loading states an additional dimension
is needed. Either the stress triaxiality or the ratio of minor
and major true strain may be used for this purpose. As
each experimentally determined forming limit curve in this
work consists of only six points an interpolation between
the experimental points is needed to obtain a thorough data
basis. In this case a linear point-to-point interpolation has
been used. Then for each the respective major true strain
can be sorted out by using secants with an inclination corresponding to . As forming limit curves obtained during
Nakajima experiments usually exhibit a certain shift into
biaxial direction (see [23]) caused by the hemispherical

(2)

whereas the parameter A represents the major true strain

of the dip of the linear FLC and the parameters B, C and
D can be fitted to the experimentally determined points.
The parameter A has been chosen as described to fix the
resulting curve on the experimentally measured point of
the proportional forming limit curve. For the applied alloy
AA6014 the parameters can be given with A = 0.204;
B = 0.1993, C = 1.1692, D = 0.8765. Using a least

Fig. 8 Fit of the plane strain points as function of effective level of

pre-strain

Int J Mater Form (2014) 7:395403

401

phi

0.4

0.2

0
0

0.1

0.2
phi eff

0.3

0.4

0.55

0.5

0.65
0.6
Stress triaxiality

0.7

Fig. 11 Illustration of new failure criterion as function of stress

triaxiality

Fig. 9 Determination of major true strain values for random ratios of

minor and major true strain

shape of the punch the position of all forming limit curves

has to be corrected before. To correct the biaxial shift the
method according to Leppin et al. [27] has been applied
simplified by the assumption that the biaxial shift can be
standardized. The results of this correction as well as the
method how the respective major true strain can be sorted
out are given in Fig. 9. With this data the new failure criterion can be displayed as surface as in Fig. 10 (as function of
the ratio of minor and major true strain ) and in Fig. 11 (as
function of stress triaxiality). According to this new method
major true strains that are positioned below the failure surface do not indicate failure, while strains on or above the
failure surface indicate localized necking and cracks.
Approach 2 (A2) The presented method can be simplified
by only using the relation between pre-strain and the position of the resulting dip of the forming limit curve. The
curve of this relation (see Fig. 8) is then shifted to both end
points of the original forming limit curve. Between the three
curves a linear interpolation is accomplished. The resulting
surface can be found in Fig. 12 as function of the ratio of
minor and major true strain . The same proceeding can be
accomplished for the stress triaxiality as third dimension.
For sake of a straightforward manuscript it is not shown
in this contribution. In Fig. 13 a comparison between the

experimentally determined forming limit curves (with corrected biaxial shift) and the predicted forming limit curves is
shown. Despite of the described simplification forming limit
curves can still be predicted with a sound accuracy. The
plane strain region of each FLC is well-predicted. For high
pre-stretching levels the curves show in the fringe regions a
maximum inaccuracy of major strains up to 0.025.
Approach 3 (A3) A further method to obtain the suggested
failure surface is described in the following. Instead of
extracting values of major true strain at various points the
original forming limit curve (as function of ) can be extrapolated along the found relation (see Fig. 8). The resulting
failure surface for AA6014 is given in Fig. 14.
Approach 4 (A4) With the suggested specification of
approach 3 the position of FLCs after certain pre-stretching
levels can be well-predicted. However, the transformation
of the shape of a FLC is neglected. For this reason the
suggested approach has been varied again introducing an
interpolation between the conventional FLC and a FLC
after a high level of pre-stretching: In this way, the position
of FLCs after certain pre-stretching levels is predicted by
the applied spline while the shape of the respective FLC is
indicated by an interpolation between the shape of the conventional FLC and the shape of a FLC with an high level of
pre-stretching. The resulting failure surface is displayed in
Fig. 15.

0.4

phi 1

0.3

phi1

0.4

0.1

0.2

0
0

0.2

0
0
0.1
0.1

0.2

phi eff

0.3

0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Fig. 10 Illustration of new failure criterion as function of , approach

1 (A1)

0.2
phi eff

0.3
0.4 -0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Fig. 12 Simplified illustration approach as function of the ratio of

minor and major true strain , approach 2 (A2)

402

Int J Mater Form (2014) 7:395403

0.4

phi

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.1
0.2
phieff

0.3
0.4 -0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Fig. 15 Interpolation of shape between FLC without pre-stretching

and FLC with high level of pre-stretching, position according to spline
(see Fig. 8), approach 4 (A4)

Fig. 13 Comparison between experimentally determined forming

limit curves and according to approach 2 (A2) predicted forming limit
curves

The accuracy of the FLC prediction of approach 4 can be

assessed again by looking at the transformation of the failure surface back into conventional FLCs which is displayed
in Fig. 16. The predicted FLCs are positioned very close to
the experimentally determined FLCs which proves that the
suggested failure surface indicates failure properly even for
high levels of pre-stretching.

Discussion
In this paper the stress-based failure criterion according
to Arrieux et al. [15] as well as several strain-based criteria that all trace back to the approach of Muschenborn
et al. [5] were evaluated using actual experimental data [23]
recorded with the aluminum alloy AA6014. By comparing
the predicted forming limit curves for several non-linear
strain paths with the experimentally measured forming limit
curves the prediction accuracy could be evaluated. All of
the addressed approaches improve the current situation with
the conventional forming limit curve. However, in particular for pre-stretching levels above an effective strain of 0.15
the deviation between the predicted forming limit curves

and the experimentally gained ones is too high for a safe

application in manufacturing.
For this reason a new failure prediction criterion has
been suggested in this paper: Presented criterion is derived
from experimental data of several forming limit curves for
non-linear loading. Prediction accuracy of the suggested
criterion directly depends on the amount of the recorded
experimental data. As in [11], however, a similar behavior of connatural alloys might be assumed, so that the
experimental effort might be reduced significantly.
The newly developed approach is solely dependent on
the experimental input data. No models or further assumptions are used; for this reason the new approach is more
robust than other approaches like the forming limit stress
curve. Additionally, the new criterion can be easily implemented into existing commercial FE-packages as all of the
applied dimensions are already available in most of the
well-established simulation software packages.
In constrast to the suggested approaches of Ofenheimer
[9] and Volk [11, 12], the developed approach can be clearly
illustrated with a three-dimensional response surface. Fore

0.4

phi

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
1

0.1
0.2
phi

0.5
0.3

eff

0
0.4

-0.5

Fig. 14 Simplified illustration approach as function of the ratio of

minor and major true strain , approach 3 (A3)

Fig. 16 Comparison between experimentally determined forming

limit curves and according to new approach A4 predicted forming limit
curves

Int J Mater Form (2014) 7:395403

this reason it can be used manually as well as in combination

with FE-simulation software. The algorithm is not evaluated
for each pre-stretching step separatly, but it is given with one
single three-dimenional failure surface. In addition, a safety
margin which is commonly used for industrial applications
can be easily defined by offsetting the response surface.

403

9.

10.

11.

Conclusions
12.

A new criterion for the prediction of failure for nonlinear forming processes has been proposed which indicates the remaining major true strain as function of
effective pre-strain and the ratio of minor and major true
strain or the stress triaxiality. The resulting failure criterion is given as three-dimensional surface. Strains that
indicate a forming process without occurring failure are
positioned below the failure surface.
The new failure criterion described in this contribution
needs to be evaluated in real forming processes.
Further experimental evaluations have to show whether the developed approach can be validated for further
alloys and wether for connatural alloys (an aluminum
6xxx-alloy) the found relation can be paralleled.
Further experimental data should also be recorded in
order to prove that the proposed criterion is also valid
for forming operations with more than two quasi-linear
steps.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

References
1. Keeler S, Backofen W (1963) Plastic instability and fracture in
sheets stretched over rigid punches. Trans Am Soc Metals 56:25
48
2. Goodwin G (1975) Application of strain analysis to sheet
metal forming problems in the press shop. Soc Automot Eng
680093:8798
3. Banabic D, Bunge H-J, Pohland K, Tekkaya A, Banabic D (eds)
(2000) Formability of metallic materials. Springer-Verlag
4. Altmeyer G (2012) Modelisation theoretique et numerique des
crit`eres dinstabilite plastique. Application la prediction des
phenom`enes de striction et de localisation lors doperation de

mise en forme par emboutissage. PhD thesis, LEcole

Nationale
Superieure dArts et Metiers
5. Muschenborn W, Sonne H-M (1975) Einfluss des, Formanderungsweges auf die Grenzformanderungen von Feinblech. Archiv des
Eisenhuttenwesens 46:597602
6. Bressan J, Williams J (1983) The use of a shear instability criterion
to predict local necking in sheet metal deformation. Int J Mech Sci
25:155168
7. Hora P, Tong L, Reissner J (1996) A prediction method for ductile
sheet metal failure in FE-simulation. Numisheet
8. Marciniak Z, Kuczynski T, Pokora T (1973) Influence of the
plastic properties of a material on the forming limit diagram for

20.
21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

sheet metal in tension. Int J Mech Sci Pergamon Press 15:789

805
Ofenheimer A, Kitting D, Koplenig M, Grass H, Volk W, Lipp
A, Illig R, Kupfer H (2008) Cost effective strategy to predict
formability in two-step sheet forming operations. Numisheet
Neukamm F, Feucht M, Haufe A (2009) Considering damage
history in crashworthiness simulations. 7th European LS-DYNA
Conference
Volk W, Suh J (2012) Reliable and robust evaluation of local
necking with a generalized thinning limit diagram. Forming Technology Forum, pp 115120
Volk W, Hoffmann H, Suh J, Kim J (2012) Failure prediction for
nonlinear strain paths in sheet metal forming. CIRP Ann Manuf
Technol 61:259262
Bai Y, Wierzbicki T (2008) A new model of metal plasticity and
fracture with pressure and Lode dependence. Int J Plast 24:1071
1096
Bai Y, Wierzbicki T (2008) Forming severity concept for predicting sheet necking under complex loading histories. Int J Mech Sci
50:10121022
Arrieux R, Bedrin C, Boivin M (1982) Determination of an
intrinsic forming limit stress diagram for isotropic metal sheets.
In: Proceedings of the 12th biennial congress of the IDDRG,
pp 6171
Yoshida K, Kuwabara T (2007) Effect of strain hardening behavior on forming limit stresses of steel tube subjected to nonproportional loading paths. Int J Plast 23:1260
1284
Zeng D, Chappuis L, Xia ZC, Zhu X (2008) A path independent
forming limit criterion for sheet metal forming simulations. SAE
Int J Mater Manuf 1(1):809817
Stoughton T, Yoon J-W, Liewald M (eds) (2012) Advances in
metal forming limits under nonlinear and out-of-plane forming
conditions, New developments in sheet metal forming, pp 221
240
Tong L, Hora P, Reissner J (2002) Prediction of forming limit
with nonlinear deformation paths using modified maximum force
criterion. Numisheet
Stoughton TB (2000) A general forming limit criterion for sheet
metal forming. Int J Mech Sci 42:127
Werber A, Liewald M, Nester W, Grunbaum M, Wiegand K,
Simon J, Timm J, Hotz W (2013) Assessment of forming limit
stress curves as failure criterion for non-proportional forming
processes. Prod Eng 7(23):213221
Yoshida K, Suzuki N (2008) Forming limit stresses predicted by
the phenomenological plasticity theories with anisotropic workhardening behavior. Int J Plast 24:118139
Werber A, Liewald M, Nester W, Grubaum M, Wiegand K, Simon
J, Timm J, Bassi C, Hotz W (2012) Influence of different prestretching modes on the Forming Limit Diagram of AA 6014. Key
Eng Mater 504506:7176
Werber A, Liewald M (2012) Influence of pre-strain and heat treatment on mechanical properties of aluminum sheet. Int J Mater
Form 5(4):307315
Graf A, Hosford W (1994) The influence of strain-path changes on
forming limit diagrams of Al 6111 T4. Int J Mech Sci 36(10):897
910
Hockett J, Sherby O (1975) Large strain deformation of polycrystalline metals at low homologous temperatures. J Mech Phys
Solids 23:8798
Leppin C, Li J, Daniel D (2008) Application of a method to correct
the effect of non-proportional strain paths on Nakajima test based
forming limit curves. Numisheet