Journal of Materials Processing Technology 83 (1998) 223 230

A comparative study of the forming-limit diagram models for sheet steels

Wolfgang Bleck a,*, Zhi Deng b, Kostas Papamantellos a, Christopher Oliver Gusek c
b a Institute of Ferrous Metallurgy, Aachen Uni6ersity of Technology, Intzestr. 1, D-52072 Aachen, Germany Department of Metal Forming, Uni6ersity of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, Peoples Republic of China c Preussag Stahl AG, Eisenhuttenstr. 99, D-38223 Salzgitter, Germany

Received 6 May 1997

Abstract In this paper, a comparative investigation of two forming-limit diagram (FLD) models based on the Swift and Hill instability criterion as well as on an empirical model proposed by the North American Deep Drawing Research Group (NADDRG) and experimental FLDs has been carried out for different mild and high-strength sheet steels, such as transformation-induced plasticity (TRIP), dual-phase (DP), austenitic stainless, bake-hardening and interstitial-free (IF) steels. The emphasis of this investigation is to consider these different approaches to predicting the FLD. In addition, the inuence of differences in strain-hardening have been estimated and the difference between the FLDs for different steel sheets has been analysed from the point of view of metal physics. 1998 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cold-rolled steels; Formability; Forming-limit diagram; High-strength steel; Tensile instability; Transformation-induced plasticity

1. Introduction The concept of the forming-limit diagram introduced by Keeler [1] and Goodwin [2] can represent comprehensively sheet metal formability and has been used widely as one of the criteria for optimizing stamping processes and in the designing of dies. Such diagrams indicate both of the principal strains m1 and m2 at diffuse or localized instability in the plane-stress state for different strain paths. Because of the complexity of the experimental determination of the FLD, a number of theoretical calculating models have been set up on the basis of the classical or modied Swift and Hill instability criteria [3 18]. In recent years, the knowledge and principles of damage mechanics, plastic mechanics of porous materials, and microscopic materials science combined with the nite-element method (FEM) have also been introduced into the theoretical predictions of the FLD [19 27]. These results have signicantly enriched and improved the understanding and application of the FLD. However, there has not been a general model that can be

* Corresponding author. Fax: +49 241 8888224. 0924-0136/98/$19.00 1998 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved. PII S0924-0136(98)00066-1

applied for various steel sheets until now and, furthermore, the still-too-complex calculations for predicting the FLD will limit their use in practical applications. Another important aspect of investigations of the FLD is the assessment of sheet metal formability. Recently developed high-strength steels such as bake-hardening grades, high-strength interstitial-free (IF) grades and multi-phase steels offer a very good combination of strength and ductility. In particular, newly developed triple-phase steels associated with the TRIP effect (TRansformation Induced Plasticity) can further improve formability accompanied by the enhancement of strength due to the transformation of retained austenite to martensite during deformation. It may be considered that TRIP steels have the best strengthductility balance amongst formable high-strength steels so far and thus provide the chance of applying steels of very high strength level in automotive production. This investigation was carried out for a better understanding of the forming behaviour of high-strength steel by means of the experimental determination and theoretical predication of the FLD for a variety of different steels as well as comparison with other formable or deep-drawable steels.

224

W. Bleck et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 83 (1998) 223230

2. Theoretical analysis

2.1. The fundamental theory

The theoretical analysis in this paper is based on the plastic theory of Hill taking orthotropic anisotropy into account, the equivalent stress |i and the equivalent strain increment dmi being dened as follows: |i =

dmi =

' '

3(1+ r) 2(2+ r)

'

| 2 +| 2 1 2

2(1+ r)(2+ r) 3(1+ 2r)

'

2r |1|2 1 +r 2r dm1 dm2 1 +r

2r h+ h 2 1+ r mf1 = n 1+ 4r + 2r 2 (1+h)(1+ r) 1 h+ h 2 (1+r)2 2r [(1+ r)h r] 1 h+ h 2 1+ r mf2 = n 1+ 4r+ 2r 2 (1+h)(1+ r) 1 h+ h 2 (1+r)2 [1+ r(1 h)] 1

 

n n

(7)

(8)

(1) (2)

dm 2 +dm 2 + 1 2

The associated ow rule in the principal axes of orthotropic anisotropy is expressed in the form: dm1 dm2 dm3 dmi = = = (1 + r)|1 r|2 (1+r)|2 r|1 |1 +|2 2(2 +r) |i 3 (3) where |1, |2, dm1 and dm2 are the major and minor principal stress and strain increment within the plane of a sheet, respectively, and dm3 is the thickness strain increment. The value r, which represents the anisotropic characteristics of the sheet, is the ratio of the width and thickness strain of a specimen deformed in uniaxial tension.

2.2.2. The modied SwiftHill model In order to overcome the disadvantages of Hollomons equation which cannot be used for the description of the strain-hardening and the ow behaviour of materials under larger strain conditions [2931], a twoequation description of the strain-hardening behaviour was proposed. For small amounts of strain the Voce equation (Eq. (9)) and for high amounts of strain a linear equation (Eq. (10)) was chosen:
|i = |s + (|0 |s) exp(mi /kv) |i = a+qIVmi (9) (10)

2.2. The FLD models 2.2.1. The Swift Hill model It has been proven that a good simulation of the forming limit strains can be given on the basis of the Swift diffuse instability theory and the Hill localized instability theory [9,24,28], and where Swifts and Hills theories are used to calculate the forming limit strains on the left and the right side, respectively, of the FLD. Assuming that the stress strain relationship of sheets can be expressed by Hollomons equation:
|i = Km n i mi = dmi

&

Both assumptions are based on basic physical considerations of dislocation movement and interaction and t well to experimental results for b.c.c. steels. Eq. (9) represents stage III strain-hardening of the basic dislocation theory, whilst Eq. (10) describes strain-hardening in stage IV. In Eqs. (9) and (10): |s and |0 are the saturation and yield stress respectively; kv is the slope of dynamic annihilation, which relates to temperature and stacking fault energy; a is a parameter of the material; and qIV is the average work-hardening rate for higher deformation. In a previous work, a theoretical model for determining the FLD based on the stressstrain relationship mentioned above and combined with the Swift and Hill instability criterion was set up [32]. The associated formulae for calculating the forming-limit strains can be given in the form:

(4)

m1 max =

where K is a parameter of the material and n is the strain-hardening exponent. According to Swifts and Hills criterion combined with Eqs. (1) (3), the formulae calculating the forming-limit strains can be written as follows, with h =|2/|1: For m2 B0: mj1 = mj2 = 1 +(1 h)r n 1 +h h (1 h)r n 1+h (5) (6)

' ' 

mi

2 2+ r 3 r mi

m2 max =

2 2+ r 3 r

   

1+ r h 1 r

1+ r (h 2 + 1) 2h r 1+ r h r 1+ r (h 2 + 1) 2h r

 n   n  n

n n

(11)

(12)

where mi can be determined by the following conditions. If necking starts during stage III, the deformation is represented by Eq. (9), and then mi is calculated by: mi = ln |skv (|s |0)(Z + kv) (13)

For m2 \0:

W. Bleck et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 83 (1998) 223230 Table 1 Mechanical properties, thickness and ow-curve parameters of the materials studied Steel Thickness (mm) 1.00 1.50 1.01 0.84 0.82 0.80 0.77 YS (MPa) 422 269 124 204 290 305 246 UTS (MPa) 730 496 311 368 598 653 343 l (%) 35.1 27.2 44.1 36.8 38.6 46.2 38.9 r n |s (MPa) 1222.7 582.8 380.5 481.2 920.0 1735.0 395.6 |0 (MPa) 420.6 291.5 129.8 213.8 251.0 140.0 203.0 kv UIV (MPa) 1081 610 408 488 727 810 408 a (MPa) 665 460 279 361 514 250 307

225

TRIP DP IF IFHS A0 A3 ZStE 180 BH

0.90 0.83 1.88 1.86 0.85 0.91 1.40

0.27 0.19 0.27 0.23 0.37 0.35 0.19

0.2442 0.0681 0.0818 0.0866 0.2305 0.3900 0.0795

whilst if necking starts in stage IV, the deformation is represented by Eq. (10): mi = qIV a qIV (14)

In Eqs. (13) and (14), Z is the critical subtangent to the ow curve of the material, its value being obtainable by using both of the following equations: When m2 B 0:

'   
2 2+r 3 r

Z=

1 +r (h 2 +1) 2h r

1 (h +1) r

(15)

and when m2 \0:

Z=

  n '     
1+

3/2 1 (h 2 +1) 2h r 2 2+r 1 2 3 2 3 r 1+ (h +1) 1 + (h 2 +h) r r (16)

2.2.3. The NADDRG model For simplifying the experimental and theoretical determination of the FLD and utilizing the FLD more easily in the press workshop, the North American Deep Drawing Research Group (NADDRG) introduced an empirical equation for predicting the FLD in practice [33]. This equation for calculating the forming-limit strain e10 in the plane-strain state in terms of engineering strain can be expressed as:
e10 =(23.3+360t)(n/0.21) (17)

where t 0 0.125 is the sheet thickness in inches. According to this model, the FLD is composed of two lines through the point e10 in the plane-strain state. The slopes of the lines located respectively on the left- and right-side of the FLD are about 45 and 20.

listed in Table 1 along with their mechanical properties, thickness and ow-curve parameters applied in the theoretical calculations of the FLDs. The chemical composition of the different steels is given in Table 2. TRIP is a newly developed high-strength steel with three phases: ferrite, C-enriched bainite and C-enriched retained austenite; showing the TRIP effect. DP is a ferritemartensite dual-phase steel. IF and IFHS are ultra-low carbon interstitial-free (IF) deep-drawable and high-strength steels, respectively. Two austenitic stainless steels with different Ni contents, and by this different austenite stability, are included, which have been laboratory melted and which are labelled A0 and A3. These steels are prone to strain-induced austenite transformation, also. ZStE 180 BH is a high-strength bake-hardening steel that has been processed via batch annealing. Most of the steels have been produced industrially, with the exception of laboratory-processed TRIP, and A0 and A3 steel. The experiments determining the FLDs for all the sheets studied have been carried out in an ERICHSEN universal materials-testing machine with specimens of different width and shape. Specimens were deformed by a rigid punch with a hemispherical nose, the punch diameter being 100 mm and the punch speed 0.9 mm s 1. The limit strains have been determined from a circular grid pattern with a circle diameter of 2 mm. The ow curves have been determined by means of the conventional tensile test. The ow curves have been modelled as described above, the different parameters for the models being given in Table 1. The different strain-hardening behaviour of steels with metastable austenite phase is obvious from the kv- and qIV-values. A detailed discussion of the strain-hardening behaviour is given in Ref. [35].

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Experimental FLDs

3. Experimental procedure The materials used in the present investigation are A comparison between the experimental forminglimit curves for TRIP and IF steel is shown in Fig. 1.

226

W. Bleck et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 83 (1998) 223230

Table 2 Chemical composition of the materials studied (mass%) Steel TRIP DP IF IFHS A0 A3 ZStE 180 BH C 0.170 0.110 0.004 0.003 0.052 0.024 0.010 Si 1.04 0.33 0.04 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.01 Mn 1.33 1.28 0.20 0.35 0.17 1.25 0.19 S 0.003 0.014 0.012 0.010 0.270 0.270 0.015 P 0.006 0.013 0.015 0.050 0.029 0.025 0.040 Al 0.060 0.030 0.030 0.010 0.010 0.060 N 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.005 Nb 0.035 0.024 0.066 Ti 0.06 0.02 0.014 0.012 Cr 16.4 16.67 Ni 11.57 7.60

These two steels represent the softest and the hardest steel grade in this study. The limit strains in the plane-strain state and the nearby region for TRIP steel are much lower than for IF steel, which may be associated with its much higher strength (Table 1). However, TRIP steel displays comparable formability in the stretching (tension tension) region with higher strain and extremely higher limit strains in the drawing (tension compression) region with higher strain, in particular near to uniaxial tension. This is similar to previously reported results [34]. Fig. 1 also displays the extreme differences between TRIP and IF steel in strain path, which may contribute to differences in forming behaviour. Fig. 2 illustrates the relationship between the forminglimit strains in the plane-strain state FLD0 and the tensile strength for different sheet steels, in which the scatter band of the ferritic steels includes mild, micro-alloyed and dual-phase steels with a thickness of 0.7 0.9 mm. Generally speaking, FLD0 values decrease with the increase of tensile strength. The DP steel investigated here as well as mild and high-strength IF steels are near to the upper boundary of this scatter band, taken from the literature [36]. TRIP steel and austenitic stainless steels are all superior to ferritic steels with regard to the combination of FLD0-value and tensile strength. It may

be considered that TRIP steel fulls the requirement of ultra-high strength and reasonable formability. For TRIP steel, the appropriate stress state is a very important factor to give full play to formability because it may contribute to the benecial effect of transformation plasticity by the interaction of the transformational volume changes with the hydrostatic component of stress [37]. It can be concluded from the discussion so far that a drawing or stretching operation seems to be most suitable for forming TRIP steel. In general, a higher FLD level means better formability. Although a rigorous relationship between the FLD level and basic mechanical properties of materials has not yet been set up, it is clear that it depends on the yield and tensile strength, on the strain-hardening rate and on strain-rate sensitivity. A lower strength level, higher strain-hardening rate and positive strain-rate sensitivity will be benecial to higher FLD levels. The TRIP steel used in this investigation shows the highest strength level combined with very low total elongation (l-value) as well as a poor r-value, but it has the highest strain-hardening rate. Its UIV-value is maximum, and its kv-value is the second largest. The good strain-hardening rate and relatively high FLD level of TRIP steel is strongly associated with its TRIP effect. The transformation

Fig. 1. The experimental forming-limit diagrams of TRIP and IF steel.

Fig. 2. Relationship between FLD0 value and tensile strength for cold-rolled steels, thickness range 0.7 0.9 mm.

W. Bleck et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 83 (1998) 223230

227

Fig. 4. The theoretical and experimental FLD of TRIP steel. Fig. 3. The theoretical and experimental FLD of IF steel.

plasticity of retained austenite can enhance sheet metal formability by delaying the strain localization to higher strain values; thus, there is more strain-hardening capacity at a higher strain level, where it is most needed to stabilize plastic ow. In addition, the forming temperature has a very strong inuence on the retained austenite transformation as well as on the enhancement of the FLD level, for TRIP steel. It has been proven that when TRIP steel is formed at the optimum forming temperature its FLD level will be much higher than that for DP steel over the whole strain region [34]. It can be expected that the forming-limit strains of TRIP steel will be greatly increased, considering the higher actual forming temperature of the workpieces resulting from deforming energy and friction under press workshop conditions. In this investigation, all tests were carried out at room temperature.

steel sheets in practice because of its ease for calculation. The predictions by the HillSwift model based on Hollomons equation seems to give a lower boundary of the FLDs for IF, IF-HS, ZStE 180 BH and DP steel. The predicted FLD0-values are much lower than the measured values. Only in case of the TRIP steel and both of the austenitic steels was a satisfactory agreement with the experimental FLDs observed. In particular for TRIP steel, the average error has been calculated using the equation: (m1 theor. m1 exp.)/m1 exp. 100%. The theoretical and experimental results differ by only 6.4% on average over the whole strain region. The theoretical predictions by the HillSwift model modied by the two-equation ow curve description seems to give an upper boundary of the FLD for every material used in this investigation. However, this model also depicts a good agreement between calculated and experimental results for IF, DP, A0

4.2. Comparison between the theoretical and experimental FLDs

Figs. 39 show the comparisons between the theoretical predictions based on the different models mentioned above and the experimental FLDs, for all the sheet steels studied. Generally speaking, there exists no one model that can be used for every material. The simple empirical model developed by NADDRG gives very good predications of the FLDs for DP steel as well as for IF, IF HS and ZStE 180 BH steel which belong to the group of deep-drawable or highstrength ferritic steel. However, for TRIP steel and both of the austenitic steels, the predictions by this model do not display a good coincidence with the experimental results. It may be considered that this model is valuable for extending its application for ultra-deep-drawable or formable high-strength ferritic

Fig. 5. The theoretical and experimental FLD of DP steel.

228

W. Bleck et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 83 (1998) 223230

Fig. 6. The theoretical and experimental FLD of IFHS steel.

and ZStE 180 BH steel in the plane-strain state as well as in the region near to it. A forming-limit strain band can be obtained through combining an upper boundary by the modied model and a lower boundary by the Hill Swift model, for each steel. The major difference between both models lies in the applied strain-hardening models for the material. It is obvious that the theoretical FLDs differ greatly with the strain-hardening model, and for the same model the predicted accuracy varies with different materials. On the other hand, although the ow law expressed by Eqs. (9) and (10) can represent very well the stressstrain relationships in uniaxial tension for materials, the theoretical predictions still show large deviations from the experimental FLDs. This implies that an appropriate calculating method depends not only on the understanding of the ow behaviour of the materials, but also on the assumptions for instability criteria and perhaps on further material properties and experimental factors.

Fig. 8. The theoretical and experimental FLD of A3 steel.

4.3. Comparison between the theoretical and the experimental FLD0 -6alue
Fig. 10 compares the theoretical and experimental forming-limit strains in the plane-strain state FLD0 for all of the steels investigated. The importance of the FLD0-value lies in the fact that fracture or a crack appearing in cold-formed parts under press conditions often occurs in this state and that the forming-limit strain in this state is minimum. From Fig. 10, the forming-limit strains predicted by the HillSwift model, rstly, are in good agreement only with the experimental results for TRIP, A0 and A3 steel, and secondly, the modied HillSwift model predicts the forming-limit strains in the plane-strain state with a good accuracy, the corresponding predicting errors being, respectively, 5.6 and 3.0% for DP and IF steel with higher calculated FLD0 values, although the model does not describe the shape of the FLD curve accurately. On the other hand, in the case of A3 steel, a

Fig. 7. The theoretical and experimental FLD of A0 steel.

Fig. 9. The theoretical and experimental FLD of ZStE 180 BH steel.

W. Bleck et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 83 (1998) 223230

229

References
[1] S.P. Keeler, Circular grid systems: A valuable aid for evaluation sheet forming, Sheet Met. Ind. 45 (1969) 633 640. [2] G.M. Goodwin, Application of strain analysis to sheet metal forming problems, Metall. Ital. 60 (1968) 767 771. [3] H.W. Swift, Plastic instability under plane stress, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 1 (1952) 1 18. [4] R. Hill, On discontinuous plastic states with special reference to localized necking in thin sheets, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 1 (1952) 19 30. [5] Z. Marciniak, K. Kuczynski, Limit strains in the processes of stretch-forming sheet metal, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 9 (1967) 609 620. [6] Z. Marciniak, K. Kuczynski, T. Pokora, Inuence of the plastic properties of material on the forming limit diagram for sheet metal in tension, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 15 (1973) 789 805. [7] K. Yamaguchi, P.B. Mellor, Thickness and grain size dependence of limit strains in sheet metal stretching, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 18 (1976) 85 90. [8] H. Moritoki, Criterion and mode of the forming limit in sheet forming, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 3 (1992) 363 378. [9] J.Z. Gronostajski, Z. Zimniak, Theoretical simulation of sheet behaviour in forming processes, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 31 (1992) 57 63. [10] D. Banabic, S. Valasutean, The effect of vibratory straining upon forming limit diagrams, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 34 (1992) 431 437. [11] D. Banabic, I.R. Dorr, Prediction of the forming limit diagrams in pulsatory straining, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 45 (1-4) (1994) 551 556. [12] J.W. Hutchinson, K.W. Neale, Sheet necking: I. Validity of plane stress assumptions of the long wavelength approximation, in: D.P. Koistinen, N.M. Wang (Eds.), Mechanics of Sheet Metal Forming, Plenum Press, New York, 1978, pp. 111 126. [13] J.W. Hutchinson, K.W. Neale, Sheet necking: III. Strain rate effects, in: D.P. Koistinen, N.M. Wang (Eds.), Mechanics of Sheet Metal Forming, Plenum Press, New York, 1978, pp. 269 282. [14] A. Barata Da Rocha, J.M. Jalinier, Plastic instability of sheet metal under simple and complex strain paths, Trans. Iron Steel Inst. 24 (1984) 32 40. [15] A. Barata Da Rocha, F. Barlat, J.M. Jalinier, Prediction of the forming limit diagrams of anisotropic sheets in linear and nonlinear loading, Mater. Sci. Eng. 68 (1985) 151 164. [16] A. Barata Da Rocha, J.M. Jalinier, The development of strain gradients in sheet metal forming processes, in: Proc. Int. Symp. Plastic Instability, Paris, France, 1983, pp. 35 47. [17] J.V. Laukonis, A.K. Ghosh, Effects of strain path changes on the formability of sheet metals, Metall. Trans. A 9 (1978) 1849 1856. [18] J. Lian, B. Baudelet, Forming limit diagram of sheet metal in the negative minor strain region, Mater. Sci. Eng. 86 (1987) 137 144. [19] F. Barlat, A. Barata Da Rocha, J.M. Jalinier, Inuence of damage on the plastic instability of sheet metals under complex strain paths, J. Mater. Sci. 19 (1984) 4133 4137. [20] A. Melander, E. Schedin, S. Karlsson, J. Steninger, A theoretical and experimental study of the forming limit diagrams of deep drawing steels, dual phase steels, austenitic and ferritic stainless steels and titanium, Scand. J. Metall. 14 (1985) 127 148. [21] A. Melander, A new model of the forming limit diagram applied to experiments on four copper base alloys, Mater. Sci. Eng. 58 (1983) 63 88. [22] D.V. Wilson, W.T. Roberts, P.M.B. Rodriques, Effects of grain anisotropy on limit strains in biaxial stretching. Part I: Inuence of sheet thickness and grain size in weakly texture sheets, Metall. Trans. A 12 (1981) 1595 1602.

Fig. 10. Comparison between the calculated and the experimental FLD0 values for multi-phase steel sheets.

shape with very low limit strains in the tensile region is predicted, because of the two different ow rules. These results imply that the modied Hill Swift model, which is based on a strain-hardening description based on metal physics, leads to a reasonable prediction of the FLD0-values in ferritic steels. The strain-hardening behaviour of TRIP steel and austenitic stainless steels is determined by retained austenite stability and thus a different metal physics law has to be chosen. The good accuracy in predicting the FLD0-values in these experiments using Hollomons ow curve is obvious, but seems to be more or less a matter of chance. 5. Conclusions 1. Different models have been proposed to predict the forming-limit diagram of sheet steels. The models based on the SwiftHill instability criteria are different in their basic ow rules, whilst a third model is an empirical approach based on the evaluation of ferritic steels. 2. The forming-limit diagram is affected by the thickness, the yield and tensile strength, and the strain hardening and strain-rate sensitivity. 3. None of the models can predict the forming-limit diagram reliably. The FLD0 value is met by the empirical NADDRG model and the modied Hill Swift model with sufcient accuracy for ferritic steels. The classical HillSwift models deliver too-small FLD0 values. 4. In steels with metastable austenite, all of the models have difculties in providing accurate data. For reliability, the stability of the retained austenite has to be regarded, as well as the instability criterion used in the models having to be reconsidered.

230

W. Bleck et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 83 (1998) 223230 [32] C.O. Gusek, W. Bleck, W. Dahl, Modelling of sheet metal testing, in: Proc. Int. Conf. MSMM 96, Beijing, Peoples Republic of China, 11 13 June 1996, pp. 593 599. [33] S.B. Levy, A comparison of empirical forming limit curves for low carbon steel with theoretical forming limit curves of Ramaekers and Bongaerts, IDDRG WG3, Ungarn, 13 14 June 1996. [34] K. Sugimoto, M. Kobayashi, A. Nagasaka, S. Hashimoto, Warm stretch-formability of TRIP-aided dual-phase sheet steels, ISIJ Int. 35 (1995) 1407 1414. [35] W. Bleck, Z. Deng, K. Papamantellos, Formability evaluation of sheet steels for automotive operation, in: Proc. Int. Conf. on Advanced Automobile Materials, Beijing, China, 4 7 Nov. 1997, pp. 47 54. [36] W. Bleck, E.-J. Drewes, et al., Hoherfestes kaltgewalztes Fein blech aus phosphorlegierten Stahlen und aus Stahlen mit Dual phasengefuge, Stahl u. Eisen 106 (25/26) (1986) 1381 1398. [37] A.G. Mamalis, G.N. Haidemenopolos, Aspects of ductility, toughness and formability of steel sheet in relation to transformation plasticity, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 30 (1992) 211 230.

[23] F. Barlat, Crystallographic texture, anisotropic eld surface and forming limits of sheet metals, Mater. Sci. Eng. 91 (1987) 5572. [24] R.M. Wagoner, K.S. Chan, S.P. Keeler, Forming Limit Diagrams: Concepts, Methods and Applications, TMS, Warrendale, PA, 1989. [25] F. Stachowicz, Effect of material inhomogeneity on formability of cooper and brass sheets, in: Proc. 19th IDDRG Biennial Congr., Eger, Hungary, 1014 June 1996. [26] A. Needleman, N. Triantfyllidis, Void growth and local necking in biaxially stretched sheets, Trans. ASME, J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 100 (1978) 164. [27] C.C. Chu, A. Needleman, Void nucleation effects in biaxially stretched sheets, Trans. ASME, J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 102 (1980) 249. [28] D.W.A. Rees, R.K. Power, Forming limits in a clad steel, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 45 (1994) 571575. [29] X.F. Fang, W. Dahl, Z. Metallke. 86 (1) (1995) 41. [30] X.F. Fang, VDI Fortschrittsberichte, Series 5, No. 289, 1990. [31] X.F. Fang, W. Dahl, Mater. Sci. Eng. A141 (1991) 189.