Materials and Design 85 (2015) 149–155

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmad

Forming limit diagram of Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS) based

on strain-path diagram
Marrapu Bhargava, Asim Tewari, Sushil K. Mishra ⁎
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS) is a promising material for automotive applications due to its high
Received 1 December 2014 strength-to-weight ratio compared to other steels. Recently third generation steels have been developed
Received in revised form 26 June 2015 which show intermediate properties between first and second generation AHSS. Formability analysis was per-
Accepted 28 June 2015
formed between first generation Transformation Induced Plasticity (TRIP) and second generation Quenched
Available online 3 July 2015
and Partitioned (Q&P) AHSS. The main objective of the study is to perform formability analysis of TRIP and
Keywords:
Q&P AHSS. The chemical compositions of both the steels are almost similar but different processing conditions
Forming limit curve lead to microstructural variations. Experimental and simulated strain-path diagram (SPD) was plotted from
AHSS drawing to stretching regions using Limit Dome Height (LDH) test and Finite Element Method (FEM) respective-
Finite element analysis ly. The formability of TRIP steel is higher when compared to Q&P steels. Stretching regions show large deviation
Strain-path diagram between experimental and simulated SPD for both the steels. A new strain localization criterion is proposed to
Necking criteria construct a forming limit curve (FLC) for both experimental and simulated SPD. The proposed failure criterion
is compared with other failure criteria for FLC prediction. The FLC based on new strain localization criterion
shows better agreement with experimental FLC compared to other failure criteria.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Presently, the demand for lightweight structures in the automotive
industry is enormously increased due to fuel economy, stringent safety
and environment standards [1,2]. Many automotive industries are try-
ing to replace some steel structures with light weight materials like alu-
minum, magnesium and composites [3–5]. Steel industries are also
developing new grades of Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS) with
high strength to weight ratio as light weight structures [6]. First gener-
ation AHSS are Dual Phase (DP), Complex Phase (CP) and Transforma-
tion Induced Plasticity (TRIP) steels. These steels have an ultimate
strength of 600–800 MPa and total elongation of 20-25% [7]. They are
being used in automotive applications due to their good crash energy
absorption capabilities and moderate strength [7]. The second genera-
tion AHSS are Twinning Induced Plasticity (TWIP) steels, lightweight
Induced-Plasticity (L-IP) and austenitic stainless steels which have a
very high ultimate strength of 1200–1500 MPa and elongation of 55-
70% [8]. However, their cost effectiveness for automotive applications
is very poor [8]. Steel industries have recently developed third genera-
tion steels, Quenched and Partitioned (Q&P) steels, which fall between
the first and second generation steels, having an ultimate strength of
900–1100 MPa and elongation of 15-18% [9].
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sushil.mishra@iitb.ac.in (S.K. Mishra).
Two AHSS from the first generation (TRIP) and third generation
(Q&P) are selected for formability analysis. TRIP steel is inter-annealed
(IA) at the temperature of 820,850 and 880 °C for 60 s and then isother-
mal bainitic transformation is done at the temperature of 440,460 and
480 °C for 20, 30 and 60 s respectively [10–15]. The development of
Q&P steel is a heat treatment process for steels which utilizes similar
composition as TRIP or DP steels and achieves superior combinations
of strength and ductility [9].The Q&P steel used in the present study is
produced from a two-step heat treatment process; the first (Quenching
step) is to heat the steel at 860 °C for 5 min and then coolit at 725 °C for
2–5 s to allow for ferrite formation. The material is then quenched at
140 °C/s to 260 °C which causes formation of martensite that is super-
saturated with carbon. In the second step the steel is again heated at
350 °C partitioning temperature, and holding the material at that tem-
perature for a period of 120 s causes carbon diffusion from the supersat-
urated martensite into austenite. This leads to a higher volume fraction
of retained austenite upon cooling to 25 °C [16–19]. Both the steels have
multiphase microstructure; TRIP steels consist of ferrite, bainite and
retained austenite (5-20%) and Q&P steels consist of ferrite, bainite,
martensite and retained austenite (5-8%). Retained austenite in both
the steels transforms to martensite during plastic deformation which
enhances the strength and ductility [10–15]. This transformation also
helps in enhancing formability and energy absorption [16–19]. AHSS
formability analysis has been done by many researchers [20–25]; how-
ever, very limited work has been reported for Q&P steels. Formability of
the materials at different strain-paths can be represented by forming

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.06.147
0264-1275/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
150 M. Bhargava et al. / Materials and Design 85 (2015) 149–155

limit curves (FLCs) [26–28]. FLC is plotted between major and minor Table 2
true strain at different strain-paths by applying different failure criteria. Nomenclature of different LDH samples.

These criteria are mostly based on strain localization or crack initiations 25 200 US
[29–31]. Forming a limit curve (using a failure criterion) shows the safe 50 × 200 US1
regions for materials to deform and regions of failure but does not show 75 × 200 US + PS
100 × 200 PS
the complete strain-path from initial stages of deformation till the frac-
150 × 200 PS + BS
ture. At the same time, the strain-path diagram shows complete defor- 175 × 200 BS1
mation behavior or strain evolution of the materials from the initial 200 × 200 BS
stage till the fracture. The strain-path diagram can be plotted from the
drawing region to the stretching region and different failure criteria
can be applied to plot FLC. Forming limit diagram (FLD) of TRIP steels
has been studied in detail [32,33] but very minimal work has been re- (US) is shown in Fig. 1a. Complete strain evolutions were captured
ported for Q&P steels. The objective of the present work is to compare from the initial stage of deformation till fracture and the strain-path
the formability of both the AHSS since the chemical composition and curve was constructed for all the sample geometries (drawing to
phases are almost similar. Complete strain-path diagrams were con- stretching).
structed experimentally using LDH [34] and by simulation using FEM
analysis. FLCs were also drawn using different necking criteria for the
simulation. Based on strain localization a new necking criterion has 1.2. Simulation Procedure
been proposed to draw FLCs which can be applied for both experimental
and simulation methods. To simulate complete strain-path diagram by LDH method for Q&P
and TRIP steels a finite element analysis was performed using
PAMSTAMP 2G solver. LDH tools punch, die, draw-bead and blanks
1.1. Experimental Procedure were modeled using Solidworks CAD software. The geometries and di-
mensions were kept similar as in experimental LDH testing [34]. Simu-
Sheets of TRIP and Q&P AHSS having thickness of 1.05 mm and lations were performed for different geometries of the blank to develop
1.2 mm respectively were selected for formability analysis. Chemical complete strain-path diagram using appropriate boundary conditions.
compositions of these steels are given in Table 1. The chemical compo- Major strain contour measured through simulation on the deformed
sitions of these steels are almost similar except that Q&P steels have Q&P sample (US) is shown in Fig. 1b. Hill 48 yield criterion and
marginally higher Mn content than TRIP steel. However their micro- Hollomon hardening law were used in simulation for both the steels.
structures are different due to processing conditions [10–19]. To study Friction between punch and blank was assumed to be 0.01 which is
the mechanical properties of these materials, tensile tests were per- very close to zero friction condition similar to LDH experiments. Friction
formed according to ASTM E 8 M standards using an Instron 5825 between blank holder, blank and die was assumed to be 0.12, and a
screw driven universal testing machine. Strain data were obtained 24 ton blank holding force was applied on the draw bead as in the
using an extensometer mounted on the samples for accurate strain
measurements. A minimum of three tests were performed for reproduc-
ibility of the results. For calculating the anisotropy, r tests were per-
formed at 0°, 90° and 45° with rolling directions (RD) of the sheets
according to the ASTM E 517 standard.
Limit Dome Height (LDH) tests were conducted using Electro Pneu-
matic 200 ton triple action servo hydraulic press. LDH samples were
machined to different geometries using water jet cutting such that the
different strain-paths from drawing region to stretching region can be
generated [26]. Sample dimensions and their nomenclature are given
in Table 2, where the maximum dimension (200 mm) is in the rolling
direction of the sheet. For online strain measurements, using the digital
image correlation (DIC) technique, one side of the samples were painted
with black paint and then white paint was sprinkled on it to produce a
random speckled pattern. To achieve zero friction condition between
punch and blank an elaborate lubrication system comprised of alternate
layers of grease, Teflon and PVC sheets were applied on the other side of Major strain
the sample. Appropriate blank holding force was applied to avoid wrin-
kling and drawing. The samples were subjected to out of plane deforma-
tion till fracture in a hydraulic press with a hemispherical punch having (a)
a diameter of 101.6 mm. The strain development during deformation
was captured using an online ARAMIS system [35] and further analysis
was done by the digital image correlation technique. Major strain con-
tour measured by the DIC technique on the deformed Q&P sample

Table 1
Chemical composition, in wt.%, of Q&P and TRIP steels.
(b) Major strain
Material C Si Mn P S Al N Fe

Q&P 0.20 1.49 1.82 0.017 0.0043 0.046 0.0039 Balance

Fig. 1. Major strain contour measured by (a) DIC technique and (b) FEA simulation on the
TRIP 0.233 1.365 1.540 0.004 0.007 0.08 - Balance
deformed Q&P sample (US).
 M. Bhargava et al. / Materials and Design 85 (2015) 149–155 151

experiments. Mesh size sensitivity analysis was done for different mesh 3.10
sizes from 0.5 to 2 mm with the increment of 0.25 mm. Different neck-
ing criteria were used to predict the localization based forming limit σ = 1423( )0.13
curve and compared with the experimental results. 3.05
R² = 0.9976

log True stress

2. Results
3.00

To understand the forming behavior of Q&P and TRIP steels uniaxial

tensile tests, ‘r’ bar test and LDH tests were performed at room temper- 2.95
ature. From the tensile test data, true stress and true strains curves were
plotted for three different directions (0°, 90° and 45°with the rolling di-
rection (RD)) and shown in Fig. 2a&b. The tensile behaviors of both the 2.90
steels are almost similar in all the three directions. Work hardening ex- 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
ponent ‘n’ and strength coefficient ‘K’ were calculated from the plot be- log True strain
tween log true stress and log true strain (Fig. 3a&b). This plot shows that
the linear behavior and R2 (coefficient of determination) of linear fit is
(a)
very close to 1. Hence ‘n’ and ‘K’ were calculated using the Hollomon 3.00
hardening law. Table 3 shows the mechanical properties of Q&P and 2.95
TRIP steels measured by the uniaxial tensile tests. The anisotropy ratio
σ = 1431( )0.24
(‘r’) calculated at three different directions is also shown in Table 3. 2.90

log True stress

R² = 0.9974
Q&P steel shows higher UTS and YS compared to TRIP steel; howev-
2.85
er ‘n’ and total elongation are less compared to TRIP steel. The
anisotropy ratio (‘r’) in all three directions is almost the same for 2.80
both the steels as is evident from the tensile test results. Normal
2.75
anisotropy (r) is close to one for Q&P steel and 0.8 for TRIP steels.
2.70

2.65
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
1400
log True strain
1200 (b)
1000
True stress (MPa)

Fig. 3. Plot of log True stress vs. log True strain for (a) Q&P and (b) TRIP steel. Strength co-
efficient ‘K’ and work hardening exponent ‘n’ were calculated from these plots.
800

600
0 degree For simulation of the complete strain-path diagram (SPD) mechan-
400 45 degree ical properties measured by the tensile and r bar test, as given in
90 degree Table 3, are used.
200
Limit Dome Height tests were performed for different geometries of
0
the samples (Table 2) to generate a complete strain-path diagram for
0 5 10 15 20
both the steels. Samples were deformed till fracture and online strain
developments were captured using the ARAMIS DIC technique. Three
True strain (%)
sections were created perpendicular to the crack and major and minor
(a) true strains were measured along these sections. A minimum of five
points on both sides of the crack along the created section were consid-
1200 ered for the strain analysis. Average strain of these points was calculated
(the standard deviation is less than 3%) for each stage of the deforma-
1000 tion (from the start till fracture) and strain-path diagrams were con-
structed. The experimental and simulated strain-path diagrams for
True stress (MPa)

800 Q&P and TRIP steel are shown in Fig. 4a&b respectively. It has been
observed that no two strain-paths intersect with each other, stating
600

400 0 degree
Table 3
45 degree Mechanical properties of Q&P and TRIP steels obtained from tensile and r tests.
200 90 degree
Direction YS (MPa) UTS (MPa) Elongation (%) ‘n’ ‘K’ ‘r’

Q&P
0
0o° 737 994 16.8 .13 1423 .98
0 5 10 15 20 25 90°o 739 1002 14 .12 1417 .95
True strain (%) 45°o 720 975 15.8 .12 1416 1.15

(b) TRIP
0°o 464 764 19.6 .24 1431 .72
90°o 468 789 19.2 .25 1476 .83
Fig. 2. True stress vs. True strain for (a) Q&P and (b) TRIP steel at 0°, 90° and 45° with
45°o 461 775 20.5 .27 1479 .92
rolling directions of the sheets.
152 M. Bhargava et al. / Materials and Design 85 (2015) 149–155

0.7 0.8
Experimental Experimental
0.6 Simulation ...... 0.7
Mesh 0.5
0.6 Mesh 0.75
0.5
Mesh 1

Major strain
0.5
Major strain

0.4 US Mesh 1.25

0.4 Mesh 1.5
US 1
0.3
0.3 Mesh 1.75
US+ PS
Mesh 2
PS
0.2 0.2
PS+BS
0.1 BS 1 0.1
BS 0.0
0.0
-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Minor strain Minor strain

(a) Fig. 5. Strain-path diagram for bi-axially (BS) deformed Q&P steel for different mesh sizes
and compared with experimental SPC.
0.9
0.8 Experimental
Simulation .....
0.7 experimental and simulation SPCs for plane strain-path in Q&P steel but
0.6 it deviates for TRIP steels. Both the steels show large deviation between
Major strain

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
Minor strain
(b)
Fig. 4. Comparison between experimental and simulated SPCs at different strain-paths for
(a) Q&P and (b) TRIP steel.
that major and minor strains are sufficient to describe the state of de-
formation in these sheets. Maximum major strain is achieved in uni-
axial (US) strain-path and lowest in plane strain (PS) for both the
steels.
FEM analysis using PAMSTAMP 2G solver was performed for differ-
ent geometries (Table 2) of the samples to generate a complete strain-
path diagram similar to the experimental strain-path diagram. Bound-
ary conditions were kept almost similar as in experiments. Simulations
were performed till one or more elements' elongation rate (strain rate)
increases steeply, more than 40-50% per stage (0.5 mm of progression),
and elongation is limited to those particular elements. This stage is con-
sidered as the fracture of the materials in the simulation. Major and
minor strains were measured for those particular elements from the
start of the simulation till the fracture. To study the mesh size effect
on the simulations, mesh sensitivity analysis was performed for all the
strain-paths. Simulations were performed at different mesh sizes
starting from coarse mesh size (2 mm) to fine mesh of 0.5 mm with a
reduction of 0.25 mm. Simulations were done for different mesh sizes
for all the strain-paths and mesh sensitivity analysis for biaxial strain-
path is shown in Fig. 5 for Q&P steel. Strain-path measured by a mesh
size of 1 mm for all the strain-paths is very close to the experimental
strain-path for both the steels and considered for further analysis. A
simulated strain-path diagram is shown in Fig. 4a&b along with the ex-
perimental SPD for Q&P and TRIP steels respectively. Simulation and ex-
perimental strain-path curves (SPCs) are in good agreement near the
drawing regions for both the steels. There is a good agreement between
US experimental and simulation SPCs for the biaxial region (BS) especially
US 1 at higher strains. Simulation fails to match with experimental dome
US+PS height or punch displacement (till the fracture) for plane and biaxial
strain-paths in both the steels. This can be clearly seen in Fig. 6 a-f,
PS
plot between the major and minor strain development with punch dis-
PS+BS
placement, for both the steels at the uniaxial (US), plane strain (PS) and
BS1 bi-axial (BS) regions. Simulation and experimental results are very close
BS at the uniaxial regions (Fig. 6a&d) and deviate at the plane strain
0.6 0.8 (Fig. 6b&e) and bi-axial regions (Fig. 6c&f). It has to be noted that the
slope of these curves (Fig. 6 a-f) changes steeply at a particular strain.
The change in the slope can be attributed to the strain localization and
the intersection of the slope can be considered as onset of strain locali-
zation (εl) as shown in Fig. 7.
Based on fracture and onset of strain localization εl a failure limit di-
agram (FLD) was plotted for Q&P and TRIP steels (Fig. 8a&b). FLDs does
not match for simulation and experimental in all the strain-paths when
fracture based failure criterion is used but it matches for the uniaxial to
plane strain regions for strain localization (εl) based failure criteria.
There is a huge deviation between simulation and experimental FLCs
in the biaxial region for both the steels based on strain localization (εl)
also. There are some peculiar trends observed near the biaxial region
in experimental FLC. FLC drops at the extreme biaxial region (BS1 and
BS) which is more prominent in Q&P steel compared to TRIP steel. The
reason for this needs to be further investigated and efforts to develop
microstructural based materials model to capture this behavior are
under progress.
It has to be noted that failure criteria need to be more accurate for
FLC predictions. The development of SPD gives us a tool to adopt differ-
ent failure criteria and predict the FLC for different applications. In this
study a method was adopted to measure the onset strain localization
(εl). There are different methods already developed by researchers to
calculate the FLC [29–31] in simulations. The equivalent plastic strain
method [30] is based on comparison of strain development between
two neighboring elements where mesh elongation starts. When strain
development in one of the neighboring element starts saturating
while it increases in another element, that particular point is considered
as an onset of strain localization or failure. Another criterion is based on
thickness strain [29], where the rate of change in thickness of the ele-
ment (where mesh elongation starts) increases steeply which is consid-
ered as the onset of strain localization. Onset of localization is also
measured by the load drop method [31]. When load drop occurs during
simulation it is considered as the start of localization. At this simulation
stage corresponding maximum strains were measured and considered
as strain localization.
 M. Bhargava et al. / Materials and Design 85 (2015) 149–155 153

0.7 0.4

0.6 Experimental minor strain Experimental minor strain

0.3 Experimental major strain
0.5 Experimental major strain
Simulation minor strain
0.4 Simulation minor strain
0.2 Simulation major strain

Strain
Strain

0.3
Simulation major strain
0.2 0.1
0.1
0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
Punch displacement (mm) Punch displacement (mm)

(a) (b)
1.6 0.7
1.4 Experimental minor strain 0.6 Experimental minor strain
1.2 Experimental major strain 0.5
Experimental major strain
1.0 Simulation minor strain 0.4
Simulation minor strain
Strain

Simulation major strain 0.3

0.8

Strain
0.2 Simulation major strain
0.6
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.2 -0.1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.0 -0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50
-0.3
Punch displacement (mm)
Punch displacement (mm)

(c) (d)
0.5 1.6
Experimental minor strain 1.4 Experimental minor strain
0.4
Experimental major strain Experimental major strain
1.2
Simulation minor strain Simulation minor strain
0.3 1.0
Simulation major strain Simulation major strain
Strain
Strain

0.2 0.8

0.6
0.1
0.4

0.0 0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0.0
-0.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Punch displacement (mm)
Punch displacement (mm)

(e) (f)
Fig. 6. Comparison of experimental and simulated major and minor strain development with punch displacement for (a) US in Q&P, (b) PS in Q&P, (c) BS in Q&P, (d) US in TRIP, (e) PS in
TRIP, and (f) BS in TRIP steel.

Comparison of simulated forming limit curve based on different
necking criteria [29–31] and proposed strain localization (εl) criterion
is plotted in Fig. 9a&b for Q&P and TRIP steels respectively. The FLC cal-
culated by equivalent plastic strain [30] and strain localization (εl) is
very close to each other. The FLC based on thickness criterion [29]
does not match with these two criteria accurately. However FLC based
on the load drop method overestimates the limits which has already
been reported [31]. The different proposed failure criteria [29–31] are
very cumbersome to calculate experimental FLC using a strain-path di-
agram. The major advantage of the proposed strain localization (εl)
criteria in this study is that it can be applied for both experimental
and simulated SPD to calculate the FLC very efficiently.
The experimental and simulated FLC based on the strain localiza-
tion (εl) necking criterion are compared for TRIP and Q&P and plot-
ted in Fig. 10. TRIP steel shows higher FLC compared to Q&P from
the drawing to plane strain regions and matches with each other at
the stretching regions. The higher FLC of TRIP steel is due to the
high work hardening rate and ductility at the uniaxial tensile test.
A detailed study needs to be conducted to understand the peculiar
behavior of Q&P steel and lower formability of TRIP steel at the
stretching regions. Both the steels have similar deformation mecha-
nisms such as slip and phase transformation but the extent of these
mechanisms is different [10–19]. Both the mechanisms strongly de-
pend on strain and strain-paths [36].
154 M. Bhargava et al. / Materials and Design 85 (2015) 149–155

0.5 0.8
0.7
0.4
0.6

Major strain
0.3 0.5
Strain

0.4
0.2 Experimental
0.3 localisation
0.1 localisation 0.2 Punch force [31 ]
Equivalent plastic strain [30 ]
0.1
0.0 thickness [29 ]

0 5 10 15 0.0
-0.1 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Punch Displacement (mm) Minor strain
(a)
Fig. 7. Plot between major and minor strain with punch displacement. Strain localization
(εl) was determined based on change in slope of major strain curve. 1.2

1.0

3. Conclusion 0.8

Major strain
Formability analysis of first generation TRIP steel and third gene- 0.6
Experimental
ration Q&P steel was performed by experimental and simulation
Localisation
methods. The following are the major conclusions from the above 0.4
Punch force [31]
study.
0.2 Equivalent plastic strain [30]
• strain-path diagram (SPD) can be used for plotting FLD based on different thickness [29]
failure criteria and complete strain-path evolution can be estimated 0.0
from the start of the deformation till fracture. -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Minor strain
(b)
1.6
Experiment failure Fig. 9. Comparison of different simulated FLCs based on different necking criteria with ex-
1.4 perimental FLC for (a) Q&P and (b) TRIP steel.
Simulation failure
1.2 Experiment localisation
Major strain

Simulation localisation
1.0 • The simulated FLC based on the proposed strain localization (εl) criterion,
is in good agreement with the experimental FLC compared to other
0.8
failure criteria.
0.6 • Formability of TRIP steel is higher compared to Q&P steels.
0.4
0.2
Acknowledgments
0.0
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 The authors are pleased to acknowledge India Science Lab, General
Minor strain Motors R&D, Bangalore, India for providing the required AHSS sheets
(a) for the experiments. The authors would also like to acknowledge
Prof. K. Narasimhan, IIT Bombay, for extending the Metal Forming
1.6
Laboratory facility for this work.
Experiment failure
1.4
Simulation failure
1.2 Experiment localisation 0.9
Major strain

1.0 Simulation localisation 0.8

0.8 0.7
0.6
Major strain

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4 Experiment localisation Q&P
0.2
0.3 Simulation localisation Q&P
0.0 0.2 Experimental localisation TRIP
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.1
Minor strain Simulation localisation TRIP
0.0
(b) -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Minor strain
Fig. 8. Comparison of experimental and simulated necking and fracture based forming
limit curves for (a) Q&P and (b) TRIP steel. Fig. 10. Comparison of experimental and simulated FLCs for Q&P and TRIP steels.
 M. Bhargava et al. / Materials and Design 85 (2015) 149–155
References
[1] H. Karbasian, A.E. Tekkaya, A review on hot stamping, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 210
(2010) 2103–2118.
[2] F.G. Caballero, S. Allain, J. Cornide, J.D. Puerta Velasquez, C. Garcia-Marco, M.K.
Miller, Design of cold rolled and continuous annealed carbide-free bainitic steels
for automotive application, Mater. Des. 49 (2013) 667–680.
[3] Jingjing Li, John E. Carsley, Thomas B. Stoughton, Louis G. Hector Jr., S. Jack Hu,
Forming limit analysis for two-stage forming of 5182-O aluminum sheet with inter-
mediate annealing, Int. J. Plast. 45 (2013) 21–43.
[4] B.L. Mordike, T. Ebert, Magnesium: properties- applications- potential, Mater. Sci.
Eng. A 302 (2001) 37–45.
[5] S.M. Sapuan, H.S. Abdalla, A prototype knowledge-based system for the material
selection of polymeric-based composites for automotive components, Compos.
Part A 29A (1998) 731–742.
[6] Liang Ying, Jin-dong LU, Ying Chang, Xing-Hui Tang, Ping Hu, Kun-min Zhao, Opti-
mization evaluation test of strength and toughness parameters for hot-stamped
high strength steels, J. Iron Steel Res. Int. 20 (11) (2013) 51–56.
[7] Mahmoud Y. Demeri, Transformation induced plasticity steels. Advanced High
Strength Steels-Science, Technology and Applications, ASM International-The
Materials Information Society (2011) 116–120.
[8] P.D. Zavattieri, V. Savic, L.G. Hector Jr., J.R. Fekete, W. Tong, Y. Xuan, Spatio-temporal
characteristics of the Portevin–Le Châtelier effect in austenitic steel with twinning
induced plasticity, Int. J. Plast. 25 (2009) 2298–2330.
[9] Jason Coryell, Josh Campbell, Vesna Savic, John Bradely, S.K. Mishra, Shashank
Tiwari, Louis Hector Jr., Tensile deformation of quenched and partitioned steel– a
third generation high strength steel, Miner. Met. Mater. Soc. 2 (2012) 555–562.
[10] Hai-tao Jiang, Wei Ding, Di Tang, Wei Huang, Mechanical property and microstruc-
tural characterization of C-Mn-Al-Si hot dip galvanizing TRIP steel, J. Iron Steel Res.
Int. 19 (8) (2012) 29–36.
[11] Yong Tian, Zhuang Li, Effects of warm deformation on mechanical properties of TRIP
aided Fe-C-Mn-Si multiphase steel, J. Iron Steel Res. Int. 19 (6) (2012) 47–52.
[12] Zi-cheng Zhang, Fu-xian Zhu, Yan-mei Li, Effect of thermomechanical control pro-
cessing on microstructure and mechanical properties of Fe-0.2C-1.44Si-1.32Mn
hot rolled TRIP steel, J. Iron Steel Res. Int. 17 (7) (2010) 44–50.
[13] Jin-long Zhao, Yan Xi, Wen Shi, Lin Li, Microstructure and mechanical properties of
high manganese TRIP steel, J. Iron Steel Res. Int. 19 (4) (2012) 57–62.
[14] Ming-ya Zhang, Fu-xian Zhu, Dong-sheng Zheng, Mechanical properties and
retained austenite transformation mechanism of TRIP-aided polygonal ferrite
matrix seamless steel tube, J. Iron Steel Res. Int. 18 (8) (2011) 73–78.
[15] Zheng-you Tang, Hua Ding, Lin-xiu Du, Hao Ding, Xin Zhang, Effect of
thermomechanical processing on microstructures of TRIP steel, J. Iron Steel Res.
Int. 14 (2) (2007) 56–60.
[16] Cai Zhao, Di Tang, Hai-tao Jiang, Song-shan Zhao, Hui Li, Process simulation and mi-
crostructure analysis of low carbon Si-Mn quenched and partitioned steel, J. Iron
Steel Res. Int. 15 (4) (2008) 82–85.
[17] S.S. Nayak, R. Anumolu, R.D.K. Misra, K.H. Kim, D.L. Lee, Microstructure-hardness
relationship in quenched and partitioned medium carbon and high carbon
steels containing silicon, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 498 (2008) 442–456.
155
[18] G. Sheng, Z.-G. Yang, Transition between partitioned and unpartitioned growth of
proeutectoid ferrite in Fe-C-Xi systems, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 465 (2007) 38–43.
[19] D.V. Edmonds, K. He, F.C. Rizzo, B.C. De Cooman, D.K. Matlock, J.G. Speer, Quenching
and partitioning martensite- a novel steel heat treatment, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 438–40
(2006) 25–34.
[20] Sansot Panich, Frederic Barlat, Vitoon Uthaisangsuk, Surasak Suranuntchai, Suwat
Jirathearanat, Experimental and theoretical formability analysis using strain and
stress based forming limit diagram for advanced high strength steels, Mater. Des.
51 (2013) 756–766.
[21] Seoknyeon Kim, Jinwoo Lee, Frederic Barlat, Myoung-Gyu Lee, Formability predic-
tion of advanced high strength steels using constitutive models characterized by
uniaxial and biaxial experiments, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 213 (2013) 1929–1942.
[22] Wu-rong Wang, Chang-wei He, Zhong-hua Zhao, Xi-cheng Wei, The limit drawing
ratio and formability prediction of advanced high strength dual phase steels,
Mater. Des. 32 (2011) 3320–3327.
[23] S. Toros, A. Polat, F. Ozturk, Formability and springback characterization of TRIP 800
advanced high strength steel, Mater. Des. 41 (2012) 298–305.
[24] F. Zhalehfar, S.J. Hosseinipour, S. Nourouzi, A.H. Gorji, A different approach for
considering the effect of non-proportional loading path on the forming limit diagram
of AA5083, Mater. Des. 50 (2013) 165–173.
[25] Jong Bong Hyuk, Frederic Barlat, Chan Ahn Deok, Heon-Young Kim, Myoung-Gyu
Lee, Formability of austenitic and ferritic stainless steel at warm forming temperature,
Int. J. Mech. Sci. 75 (2013) 94–109.
[26] S.P. Keeler, Determination of forming limits in automotive stampings, Sheet Metal
Ind. 42 (1965) 683–691.
[27] G.M. Goodwin, Application of strain analysis to sheet metal forming problems in the
press shop, Trans. SAEST 77 (1968) 380–387.
[28] S.S. Hecker, Simple technique for determining forming limit curves, Sheet Metal Ind.
58 (1975) 671–676.
[29] C.S. Zhang, L. Leotoing, D. Guines, E. Ragneau, Theoretical and numerical study of
strain rate influence on AA5085 formability, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 209 (2009)
3849–3858.
[30] Cunsheng Zhang, Lionel Leotoing, Guogun Zhao, Dominique Guines, Eric Ragneau, A
comparative study of different necking criteria for numerical and experimental pre-
diction of FLCs, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 20 (2011) 1036–1042.
[31] A. Petek, T. Pepelnjak, K. Kuzman, An improved method for determining forming
limit diagram in the digital environment, J. Mech. Eng. 51 (2005) 330–345.
[32] Hao Ding, Hua Ding, Chun-lin Qiu, Zheng-you Tang, Jian-min Zeng, Ping Yang, Form-
ability of TRIP/TWIP steel containing manganese of 18.8%, J. Iron Steel Res. Int. 18 (1)
(2011) 36–40.
[33] Chang Gil Lee, Sung-Joon Kim, Tae-Ho Lee, Sunghak Lee, Effects of volume fraction
and stability of retained austenite on formability in a 0.1C-1.5Si-1.5Mn-0.5Cu TRIP
aided cold rolled steel sheet, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 371 (2004) 16–23.
[34] S.S. Hecker, A cup test for assessing stretchability, Mech. Eng. Q. 14 (1974) 30–36.
[35] http://www.gom.com/3d-software/aramis-software.html.
[36] E.S. Perdahcioglu, H.J.M. Geijselaers, J. Huetink, Influence of stress state and strain
path on deformation induced martensitic transformations, Mater. Sci. Eng. A
481–482 (2008) 727–731.