The Effect of Predeformation Level on the
Variability of Forming Properties of Low Carbon
Steel
S.E. Oraby, Member, IAENG and A.M. Alaskari
Abstract—In forming processes, metal is usually subjected to
multi-stages deformation. In order to process one stage
effectively, actual information in term of mechanical and forming
properties of the preceding stage should be available to start with.
It has long been assumed by those interested in forming processes
that the forming properties (behaviors) remain constant
regardless the number of involved deformation stages. The
validation of such an assumption is investigated in the current
study for low carbon steel. It has shown that the claim of forming
parameters constancy is valid only within a limited domain of
strain rate between 0.05 and 0.1. Outside this region, different
behavior of forming parameter is noticed and, a compensatory
action should be considered. Mathematical formulation of the
experimental data has led to the establishment of many functional
empirical relations by which a correction factor is determined.
Better understanding of the problem is shown via the qualitative
response surface approach including the 3-D representation and
quantitative contouring plots. Also, interrelationships are
empirically developed between the mechanical properties (yield
strength, ultimate tensile strength; and area reduction) and the
forming properties (strain hardening exponent and strength
coefficient).
Index Terms-Predeformation, Forming properties, Mechanical
properties, Low carbon steel, Mathematical modeling.
I. INTRODUCTION
Carbon steels, by far, are the most common material to be used
in industrial and manufacturing plants especially when forming
processes are intended. The higher formability of low carbon
steel is due to its high ductility that is usually accompanied with
moderate strength and hardness. This usually justifies the
increasing demands to conduct an elaborated investigation to
shed more light on the possible in-process variability that may
exist in the normal mechanical properties of the material during
multi stages deformation process. The mechanical properties
Manuscript received December 11, 2006. This research was supported by a
contract grant (TS-05-001) from the Public Authority of Applied Education and
Training (PAAET), Kuwait.
S. E. Oraby is with the College of technological Studies, PAAET, P.O. Box
42325 Shuwaikh 70654 Kuwait (phone: +965 9549019; fax: +965 4832761;
e-mail: soraby@paaet.edu.kw).
A. M. Alaskari is with the College of technological Studies, PAAET, P.O.
Box 42325 Shuwaikh 70654 Kuwait (phone: +965 2314856; fax: +965
4832761; e-mail: aalaskari@gmail.com).
of metals can be enhanced by various ways such as by alloying
[1]-[5], heat treatment [6]-[11], or mechanical deformation
[12]-[16]. Practically, the mechanical properties of low
carbon steel can be probably improved during forming in term
of increased strength and hardness. This is usually achieved on
the account of lowering its ductility within the feasible usage
domain. However, to reach efficient and accurate practical
conditions under which material performs, a qualitative
judgment should be available. This is an essential requirement
when common multi-stages forming process is involved since
at the beginning of any stage, relevant information regarding
the current properties status is usually utilized in the
preparation and the design of any subsequent deformation
stage. Although the mechanical properties of the deformed
material can be retrained by further heat treatment, this is not
usually the best approach since it adds to the cost and the time
of the manufacturing process.
Depending on the type of forming process, formability maybe
defined as the ability of the material to deform under specific
load, from its original configuration to a defined final shape
without reaching failure. Buckling, necking, fracturing or their
combination usually limits forming or deformation process
[17]. Buckling is a result of compressive loading; while
necking is a result of tensile loading under uniform flow that
transforms to local flow. In many sheet forming and tube
forming processes, the deformation is usually characterized by
biaxial stretching. Failure in stretching operations normally
occurs by a sharp localized necking on the surface.
The current study is an approach to investigate the possible
variation involved in the forming properties of low carbon steel
as it is affected by subsequent predeformation process.
Statistical and formulation procedures are applied to the
experimental data in order to accurately quantify and assess the
emerged interrelationship.
II. THEORETICAL ANALYSIS
Deformation may be classified as elastic, elastic-plastic, and
plastic. Figure 1 shows a typical stress-strain curve for tensile
test. Additionally, there are also superplastic forming used in
advance industries, such as aerospace and automotive
industries, for sheet metals [8], [18]. When increasing load is
applied gradually to a piece of ductile metal, it will deform length and radius at shoulder respectively.
elastically at first. As load is increased to a certain level, the
metal is then deformed permanently and uniformly until
ultimate tensile strength, then non- uniformly until fracture.
Elastic deformation is recoverable and it vanishes as the
applied load is removed usually causing spring back in cold
forming. The elastic-plastic and plastic are permanent
deformations and irreversible forming process. A perfectly
plastic material is one that does not work-harden or
strain-harden, yet ductile materials show some work hardening
by cold working.
In metal forming, elastic-plastic zone should be considered
since the ductile metal is often uniformly deformed at that
region retaining a high portion of its strain under the applied
load. When metals are plastically deformed beyond the yield
point, and at temperatures below the recrystallization, they are
said to be cold worked. In addition to the accompanied shape
change due to deformation, strength and hardness usually
increase. Work hardening and strain hardening terms are Fig. 1 Typical stress-strain curve for tensile test
referring to such increase by cold working. Consequently, this
strengthening mechanism reduces the ductility of the metals.
Most materials show strain hardening behavior by cold work,
which can be expressed by the conventional equation as:

σcon= K(εo +εa )n, (1)

where ε0 is the effective strain prior to cold working, εa is the

effective strain due subsequent plastic deformation, σ is the
effective stress, n is the strain hardening exponent and K is the
strength coefficient. Both K and n are thought to be the material
constants that are free of predeformation (ε0 = 0). Yet in this
paper, K and n are investigated for variability of the
predeformation length of the specimen. This leads to the
currently proposed more precise equation of the true stress as
follows:
Fig. 2 Experimental setup and data acquisition system
n
σ exp = K .ε , (2)
A moderate capacity Hoytom Di-10-Cp/MH 1491
considering K and n are essentially predeformation dependent. universal tensile testing machine is used. As shown in Fig. 2,
Although there are many testing techniques to evaluate work specimen is held between upper and lower grippers while load
hardening behavior such as direct compression, torsion, is induced gradually. Data are digitally in-process transferred
balanced biaxial or bulged testing, and plain-strain to PC using compatible Hoytom software. Typical output is
compression, tensile test is considered the most common shown in Fig. 3-a.
destructive technique due to its simplicity and ability to
generate sufficient information regarding mechanical
properties of the tested piece. IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND FORMULATION

III. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE AND SETUP
Due to its wide utilization in many engineering applications
and due to its economical feasibility, low carbon steel is
selected for the current study. Common chemical composition
of the employed low carbon steel is 0.16 % C, 0.21 % Si, 0.54
% Mn, 0.009 % P and 0.022 % S. Long flat specimens are
prepared according to BS 18. Specimen configuration is: 25,
100, 300, 25 mm for width, gauge length, parallel length, total
Testing procedures are designed to include four levels of
predeformation: 8, 12, 16, and 20 mm in addition to the original
(no predeformation) case. For each level, the specimen is first
predeformed to the specified elongation level and then the load
is removed. The predeformed specimen is then tested in the
conventional tensile testing procedures until fracture. For the
same predeformation level, testing is repeated at least three
times using different specimen.
The onset of the predeformation level (8 mm.) is selected
based on preliminary tests so that to be well at the beginning of
the elastic-plastic (forming) zone. For a precise illustration of
the underlined topics and, to cover the entire practical
functional domain, predeformation levels are selected to be
equally spaced. The utmost predeformation level 20 mm. is
specified considering two factors: i) to be well within the
elastic-plastic zone and, ii) to be well before the ultimate tensile
stress. Between the onset and the utmost predeformation
levels, two intermediate levels (12 and 16 mm.) are considered.
i) No Predeformation Characteristics
The original (no predeformation) specimen is tested until
fracture to obtain the nominal mechanical and forming
properties of low carbon steel. For consistency, these
procedures are repeated individually and independently five
times using similar specimen. As shown in Fig. 3-a the onset of
elastic plastic zone is determined just following the yield point.
The latter is specified as the vertical intersection of the curve at
strain ratio of 0.5 %. Even though an alternative approach of
strain ratio of 0.2 % is sometimes proposed in the literatures, a
more practical ratio 0.5% is preferred to avoid inaccuracy due
to possible slipping between gripper and specimen at the
beginning of the test.
(a) No predeform. (b) Level 1: 8 mm predeform.
(c) Level 2: 12 mm predeform. (d) Level 3: 16 mm predeform.
(e) Level 4: 20 mm predeform.
Fig.3 Typical output of specimen tensile testing with and
without predeformation
Strain hardening exponent (n) is extracted from the curve at
the ultimate tensile stress point and, it is calculated from the
equations follows:
n = ε ult . (3)
For the five specimen, the exponent n is found varies
between 0.2170 and 0.2279 with an average value of 0.2218;
hence:
σ = Kε 0.2218 . (4)
The strength coefficient (K) can be determined using any
point within the elastic-plastic zone (between yield and
ultimate tensile stress). Its range is found to be between 692
and 723 Mpa with an average value of 707.3. Therefore, a
general equation of the material is:
σ = 707.3ε 0.2218 (5)
This equation represents the main features and the
mechanical properties of the tested low carbon steel.
According to conventional approach by many investigators,
e.g. [13], both K and n are considered constant throughout
forming process regardless the number of deformation stages.
However, it is one of the main goal of the current research is to
examine the validation of such an assumption.
ii) Predeformation Characterizes
As described earlier, four sets of predeformation levels are
prepared with at least three-repeated specimen for each level.
During testing procedures, the operating and testing conditions
are maintained with only predeformation level as a variable.
Typical data are graphically shown in Figs. 3(b-e). A common
trend can be observed that, as predeformation level increases,
yield strength gradually increases with a corresponding
decrease in elongation (ductility). Also, the higher the
predeformation level, the closer yield and ultimate tensile
strengths in magnitudes. In other words, the curve beyond the
yield point becomes more and more flattened as
predeformation level becomes higher. This supports the
approach proposed here that forming parameters K and n are
not constant. For each test, K and n have been determined in
the same way as described in the previous section as the
average of at least three repeated experiments. This has
resulted in the following set of equations for predeformation
8,12, 16 and 20 mm respectively:
σ 8 _ exp = 665.89ε 0.1552 . (6)
σ 12 _ exp = 640.71ε 0.1212 . (7)
σ 16 _ exp = 611.49ε 0.0853 . (8)
σ 20 _ exp = 578.96 ε 0.0603 . (9)
These equations represent the general trend of the functional
interrelation between the mechanical properties of the tested
material, represented by the strength and ductility, and the
forming parameters represented by K and n.
As predeformation level becomes higher, the forming
properties (K & n) show a different trend that supports the
proposed approach that the mechanical properties of the
predeformed material are not constant. To verify such an
aspect, a set of corresponding equations has to be deduced
using the conventional approach (1). This has led to the
development of the following relation:
σ con = 707.293( ε o + ε a )0.2218 , (10)
where εo is the initial predeformation level of the true strain.
To determine the difference between the two approaches
at different predeformation level, a correction factor (Hcorr) is
proposed here as:
H corr_i = σ Con _ i − σ exp_ i , (11)
where i is the predeformation level: 8, 12, 16 or 20 mm. while
σcon-i and σexp.-i are the conventional and the current approach
respectively.
Graphical representation of the calculated correction
factor Hcorr, as affected by the strain and predeformation level,
is shown in Fig. 4. For each predeformation level a consistent
trend is observed where the difference (correction factor Hcorr)
is significantly high at low strain and, as strain increases, Hcorr.
decreases non-linearly until it reaches a critical point after
which it tends to behave differently according to its
predeformation level. Generally the more severe the
predeformation level, the higher tendency to change its
decreasing trend as strain increases and vice versa.
Considering all experimental data for the four levels of
predeformation, three regions on the curve may be clearly
distinguished. The first region A, with nonlinear rapid negative
slope, the intermediate region B, at which data tend to behave
differently and the third, region C with almost linear low slope
trend that also level of predeformation dependent.
At region A, at given strain, smaller values of correction
factor (Hcorr) are obtained at higher predeformation levels. This
means that the use of the conventional relation (σcon) seems to
over-estimate the stress (σ). However, this trend is clearly
reversed in region C at moderate to high strain values. An
interpretation may be proposed that relation (σcon) seems to
over estimate the stress (σ) with higher difference magnitudes
at high predeformation level.
Hcorr _8 Hcor r_12 Hcorr _16 Hcor r_20
70
[A] [B] [C]
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
T r ue st r a i n
Fig. 4 Correction factor (Hcorr) for predeformation levels.
However, at region B within a strain range (from 0.05 to
0.1), both conventional (σcon) and proposed (σexp) seem to lead
to almost similar output or, minimum difference. The
underlined region comprises the minimum intersection points
for all levels. If predeformation level 16 mm is disregarded, the
region B is strictly limited to strain value of approximately
0.075. Therefore, it can be definitely suggested that there is a
limitation on the application of the conventional approach of
the properties constancy. In other words, the assumptions that
both K and n are constant regardless the predeformation level is
valid only within a strain range of 0.05 to 0.1 with the most
credible value at 0.075.
Generally, it may be concluded that, according to the
current experiment verification and outcome, the claim of
forming properties constancy is not unanimously valid except
in a narrow strain domain of 0.05 to 0.1. Around this region, a
correction factor should be considered as indicated in (11).
It is thought that a better understanding of the problem
may be globally enhanced through the establishment of
response surface representation of 3-D contouring plots. A
qualitative description for the whole set of experimental data
under study is explained by 3-D response surface graphics as
shown in Fig. 5. Values of correction factor Hcorr are plotted as
a surface where at given predeformation level and strain value,
the corresponding Hcorr can be determined. Surface clearly
indicates the nature of the three regions named in Fig. 4.
Interpretation may be explained by observing the relation
between the poles of the surface and their interaction. Surface
poles are: low strain-low predeformation (lower left corner);
low strain-high predeformation (upper left corner); high
strain-low predeformation (lower right corner); and high
strain-high predeformation (upper right corner). However, a
better qualitative approach to get digitalized values of the
correction factor Hcorr is obtained using the response surface
contours as shown in Fig. 6. Each contour represents a unique
value of Hcorr r as it is affected by each of predeformation level
and initial strain and, accordingly, the correct stress σ exp can be
defined.
In Fig. 6, three different regions can be distinguished: A, B,
and C. Region A is for low strain with non-linear attitude and
the correction factor is always high for any level of
predeformation. This is described in the figure as tight contour
plots with higher comparative difference. This region
represents the operating domain explained in Fig. 4 for the
strain range of 0.02 and 0.05. Also, this can be shown in the
3-D graph, Fig. 5 around left poles.
Region B, that is bound by the dotted thick line, Fig. 6,
comprises the values of minimum correction factor where both
σcon and σ exp are usually close in magnitude. While this
includes all practical strain for all deformation levels between
0.05 and 0.1, its further effects extends at higher strain range up
to 0.15 but only for low predeformation levels of 8 and 12 mm.
However, in region C, at the top-right corner of the contour, the
two high levels of predeformation are represented (16 and 20
mm.). At this region, greater correction factor values are
obtained as strain increases.
V. MATHMATICAL MODELING OF THE FORMING PROPERTIES
In the last section, a compensatory correction factor (Hcorr) is
developed to determine the real experimental value of the stress
at any deformation stage. However, in the current section,
another approach is rather presented to estimate the forming
properties (K and n) as well as the mechanical properties (yield
strength, ultimate tensile strength, and ductility). This is of
vital interest for those involved in forming process evaluation
based on the actual response (σexp)
Mathematical modeling analysis has proved to be more
effective to evaluate many experimental problems and to detect
the functional relationships between involved variables and
their interaction [19]. Nonlinear regression analysis, available
with SPSS computer package, is used to investigate the whole
set of the obtained experimental data bearing in mind the
following functional interrelations:

[n & K] αφ ( ∆L ) , (12)

where ã L is the instantaneous predeformation level: 8, 12, 16

or 20 mm.
Trying many different structures of nonlinear estimation
process has led to the best models:

Strain Hardening Exponent (n) = 1.292[ ]

∆L . (13)

Strength Coefficient (K) = 103.43 ( ∆L) - 3.81 ( ∆L) 2 . (14)

Excellent statistical measures are obtained with nothing has

been emerged against models significance and adequacy.
Fig. 5. 3-D response surface representation of the whole set
While adjusted determination factor (R2) are 0.991 and 0.998
of experimental data
for models 13 and 14 respectively, the corresponding F-value
are 1244 and 412 which they are extremely satisfactory for the
0.18
size of the experimental data employed.
Region C
Additionally, it is thought that helpful way to enhance the
problem manipulation and understanding is by the estimation
0.16
of mechanical properties based on the forming properties. To
do this, experimental data are fitted into linear regression
Predeformation Strain

procedures and, this has led to the following significant and

0.14
adequate models:
Region B

0.12
Yield Strength ( σ y ) = [ −1588.13 / n ] + 0.94( K ) , (15)
with R2 = 0.999 and F_ exp value = 9312.
Region A
0.1
Ultimate Tensile strength ( σ ult ) = [ −1203.46 / n ] + 0.914( K ) ,
(16)
0.08
with R2 = 1.0 and F_value = 63758.
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
True Strain Area Reduction = 114.08 (n) + 1.206E - 02 (K) , (17)
2
Fig 6. Response surface contours of the whole set of with R = 0.997 and F_value = 1614.
experiment data
 VI. Conclusion
In this study it is investigated the effect of forming
predeformation on the forming parameters of low carbon steel.
Tensile testing is carried out for specimen with four levels of
predeformation: 8,12,16 and 20 mm. Results are compared to
those from conventional specimen with no predeformation.
Many technical topics and experimental observations have
been noticed. These can be summarizes as:
It has shown that, in general, there is a negative difference in
the values of K and n for predeformed specimen. Moreover,
this difference becomes bigger at higher predeformation levels.
Between the zero predeformation and the highest level of 20
mm, reduction in strength coefficient K is about 6% while it is
about 72.8% for strain hardening exponent n.
Based on the previous observations, a correction factor is
proposed as the mathematical difference in true stress between
the conventional stationary approach and the real experimental
one. For a given predeformation level within the practical true
strain of 0.02 to 0.16, calculated correction factor starts with a
higher value that decreases as strain increases. However, at
higher predeformation level of 16 and 20 mm, the correction
factor usually tends to reverse its trends and increases at higher
values of strain. Moderate predeformation level of 12 mm
seem to maintain a constant value after passing a transient zone
of true strain between 0.05 and 0.1. Nevertheless, for the lowest
predeformation level of 8 mm, the correction factor decreases
slowly and gradually within and after that transient zone.
Generally for all predeformation level, it may be concluded
that the least error values between the conventional and the
proposed approaches exists within strain range of 0.05 to 0.1. It
can be said, accordingly, that this is the boundary of the
validation of the conventional approach where forming
parameters are kept constant regardless the sequence of the
predeformation process.
Response surface 3-D representation of entire set of
experimental data clearly shows a hidden trend as the different
strain and predeformation levels affect the correction factor.
However, a quantitative digitized approach is presented as
contour plots in which the various deformation zones are
distinguished.
To build a database approach that might be helpful as a
work-floor information source, forming parameters K and n are
empirically related to mechanical properties. Excellent
significant and adequate models are developed with high
confidence and statistical criteria.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank the PAAET for supporting the
project under the grant contract no. (TS-05-001). Also, they
express their deep grateful to the departmental staff and
Technological Studies College and PAAET higher education &
researches administrations for whatever assistance produced.
Special thanks for Mr. A. Albannay for his technical assistance
in specimen preparation and setup procedures.
REFERENCES
[1] W. D. Callister Jr, “Material Science and Engineering: An Introduction,”
6th ed., John Wiley publication, 2003.
[2] F. Li, D. H. Bae, and A. K. Ghosh, “Grain elongation and anisotropic
grain growth during superplastic deformation in an Al-Mg-Mn-Cy
Alloy,” Acta Materials, vol. 45, no. 9, 1997, pp. 3887-3895.
[3] D. Sampath, S. Moldenhauer, H. R. Schipper, K. Mechsner, and A.
Hazler, “Decomposition of solid solution of AA5083 alloy upon
exposure to elevated Temperatures,” Materials Science Forum., vol. 331-
337, 2000, pp. 1089-1094.
[4] K. Shabata and Y. Mishima, “Effects of Cu and other tramp elements on
steel properties,” ISIJ International, vol. 37, no. 3, 1997, p. 197.
[5] T. R. McNelley, M. E. McMahon, and S. J. Hales, “An EBSP
investigation of alternate microstructures for superplasticity in
aluminum–magnesium alloys,” Script Materials, vol. 36, no. 4, 1997, pp.
369-375.
[6] E. M. Taleff, P. J. Nevland, and P.E. Krajewski, “Tensile ductility of
several commercial aluminum alloys at elevated temperatures,”
Metallurgical and Materials Trans. A, vol. 32, no. 5, May 2001, pp.
1119-1130.
[7] R. W. Davis, J. S. Vetrano, M. T. Smith, and S. G. Pitman, “Mechanical
properties of aluminum tailor welded blanks at superplastic
temperatures,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 128, no.
1, October 2002, pp. 38-47.
[8] H. C. Heikkenen and T. R. Mcnelley, “Superplasticity in Aerospace,”
Annual Meeting of the Metallurgical Society, Arizona, January 1988,
USA.
[9] M. T. Perez-Prado, G. Gonzalez-Doncel, O. A. Ruano, and T. R.
McNelly, “Texture analysis of the transition from slip to grain boundary
sliding in a discontinuously recrystallized superplasctic aluminum
alloy,” Acta. Materials, vol. 49, 2001, pp. 2259-2268.
[10] C. F. Martyin, J. J. Blandin, and L. Salvo 2001, “Variation in
microstructure and texture during high temperature deformation Of Al-
Mg alloy,” Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 297, 2001, pp. 212-
222.
[11] C. Hsiao and J. C. Huang, “Deformation mechanism during low and
high temperature superplasticity in 5083 Al-Mg Alloy,” Metallurgical
and Materials Trans. A, vol. 33, 2002, pp. 1373-1384,
[12] W. F. Hostford and R. M. Caddell, “Metal Forming: Mechanics and
Metallurgy,” 2nd ed., Prentice Hall Inc., 1993.
[13] E. M. Mielnik, “Metal Working Science and Engineering,” McGraw
Hill, 1991.
[14] E. G. Thomsen, C. T. Yang, and S. Kobayashi, “Mechanics of plastic
deformation in metal deformation,” The Macmillan Company, New
York, 1965.
[15] T. G. Nieh, J. Wadsworth, and O. D. Sherby, “Superplasticity in Metals
and Ceramics,” Cambridge University Press, 1979.
[16] M. L. Mecartney, “ Grain boundary engineering of highly deformable
ceramics,” Current Status and Future Potential. (Materials Research
Society Symposium Proceedings, Warrendale, PA, USA: Mater. Res.
Soc, vol. 601, 2000, pp. 81-91.
[17] A. M. Alaskari and S. Das, “Practical numerical analysis of a crack near
a weld subjected to primary loading and hydrogen embrittlement,”
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 173 no. 1, March
2006, pp. 1-13.
[18] O. D. Sherby and J. Wadsworth, “Superplasticity- Recent Advances and
Future Directions,” Progress of Materials Science, vol. 33, 1989, pp.
169-221.
[19] S. E. Oraby, A. M. Alaskari and E. A. Almeshaiei, “Quantitative and
qualitative evaluation of surface roughness-tool wear correlation in
turning operations,” Kuwait Journal of Science & Engineering (KJSE),
An International Journal of Kuwait University, vol. 31 no. 1, 2004, pp.
219-244.