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
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 influence 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 o1 and o2 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 modified 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
finite-element method (FEM) have also been introduced
into the theoretical predictions of the FLD [1927].
These results have significantly 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

Downloaded from http://www.elearnica.ir

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.

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

224

2. Theoretical analysis

The theoretical analysis in this paper is based on the

plastic theory of Hill taking orthotropic anisotropy into
account, the equivalent stress si and the equivalent
strain increment doi being defined as follows:

'
'

3(1+ r)

2(2+ r)

doi =

'

s 21 +s 22

2(1+ r)(2+ r)

3(1+ 2r)

'

2r
s1s2
1 +r

do 21 +do 22 +

2r
do1 do2
1 +r

(1)
(2)

The associated flow rule in the principal axes of

orthotropic anisotropy is expressed in the form:
do1
do2
do3
doi
=
=
=
(1 + r)s1 rs2 (1+r)s2 rs1 s1 +s2 2(2 +r)
si
3
(3)
where s1, s2, do1 and do2 are the major and minor
principal stress and strain increment within the plane of
a sheet, respectively, and do3 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. 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:
si = Ko ni

&

oi = doi

(4)

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 a =s2/s1:
For o2 B0:
oj1 =

1 +(1 a)r
n
1 +a

(5)

oj2 =

a (1 a)r
n
1+a

(6)

For o2 \0:

2r
a+ a 2
1+ r
of1 =
n
1+ 4r + 2r 2
2
(1+a)(1+ r) 1
a+ a
(1+r)2
2r
[(1+ r)a r] 1
a+ a 2
1+ r
of2 =
n
1+ 4r+ 2r 2
2
(1+a)(1+ r) 1
a+ a
(1+r)2

2.1. The fundamental theory

si =

[1+ r(1 a)] 1

(7)

(8)

2.2.2. The modified SwiftHill model

In order to overcome the disadvantages of Hollomons equation which cannot be used for the description of the strain-hardening and the flow 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:
si = ss + (s0 ss) exp(oi /kv)

(9)

si = a+uIVoi

(10)

Both assumptions are based on basic physical considerations of dislocation movement and interaction and
fit 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): ss and s0 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 uIV 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:

o1 max =

o2 max =

'
'

oi






2 2+ r

3 r
oi

2 2+ r

3 r

 n

 n


1+ r
a 1
r

1+ r
(a 2 + 1) 2a
r
1+ r
a
r
1+ r
(a 2 + 1) 2a
r

(11)

(12)

where oi can be determined by the following conditions.

If necking starts during stage III, the deformation is
represented by Eq. (9), and then oi is calculated by:

oi = ln

sskv
(ss s0)(Z + kv)

(13)

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

225

Table 1
Mechanical properties, thickness and flow-curve parameters of the materials studied
Steel

Thickness
(mm)

YS
(MPa)

UTS
(MPa)

d
(%)

ss
(MPa)

s0
(MPa)

kv

UIV
(MPa)

a
(MPa)

TRIP
DP
IF
IFHS
A0
A3
ZStE 180 BH

1.00
1.50
1.01
0.84
0.82
0.80
0.77

422
269
124
204
290
305
246

730
496
311
368
598
653
343

35.1
27.2
44.1
36.8
38.6
46.2
38.9

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

1222.7
582.8
380.5
481.2
920.0
1735.0
395.6

420.6
291.5
129.8
213.8
251.0
140.0
203.0

0.2442
0.0681
0.0818
0.0866
0.2305
0.3900
0.0795

1081
610
408
488
727
810
408

665
460
279
361
514
250
307

whilst if necking starts in stage IV, the deformation is

represented by Eq. (10):
oi =

uIV a
uIV

(14)

In Eqs. (13) and (14), Z is the critical subtangent to

the flow curve of the material, its value being obtainable by using both of the following equations:
When o2 B 0:

'   

Z=

2 2+r
3
r

1 +r
(a 2 +1) 2a
r

1
(a +1)
r

(15)

and when o2 \0:

 
n
' 
 
 

3/2
1
(a 2 +1) 2a
r
2 2+r

1 2 3
2
3
r
1+
(a +1) 1 + (a 2 +a)
r
r
(16)

1+

Z=

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 t0 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 flow-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 flow curves have been determined by means of the
conventional tensile test. The flow 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 uIV-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.

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

226

Table 2
Chemical composition of the materials studied (mass%)
Steel

Si

Mn

Al

Nb

Ti

Cr

Ni

TRIP
DP
IF
IFHS
A0
A3
ZStE 180 BH

0.170
0.110
0.004
0.003
0.052
0.024
0.010

1.04
0.33
0.04
0.04
0.27
0.27
0.01

1.33
1.28
0.20
0.35
0.17
1.25
0.19

0.003
0.014
0.012
0.010
0.270
0.270
0.015

0.006
0.013
0.015
0.050
0.029
0.025
0.040

0.060
0.030
0.030
0.010
0.010
0.060

0.005

0.003
0.003
0.005
0.005
0.005

0.035
0.024
0.066

0.06
0.02
0.014
0.012

16.4
16.67

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 fulfils 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 beneficial 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 beneficial to higher FLD levels. The TRIP steel
used in this investigation shows the highest strength level
combined with very low total elongation (d-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 flow.
In addition, the forming temperature has a very
strong influence 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: (o1 theor. o1 exp.)/o1 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
modified by the two-equation flow 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 modified 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 flow 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 flow behaviour of the
materials, but also on the assumptions for instability
criteria and perhaps on further material properties and
experimental factors.

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

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, firstly, are in good agreement only with the
experimental results for TRIP, A0 and A3 steel, and
secondly, the modified 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. 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

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 flow rules. These
results imply that the modified 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 flow 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 Swift Hill instability criteria are different
in their basic flow 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 modified Hill Swift
model with sufficient accuracy for ferritic steels. The
classical HillSwift models deliver too-small FLD0
values.
4. In steels with metastable austenite, all of the
models have difficulties 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.

[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) 609620.
[6] Z. Marciniak, K. Kuczynski, T. Pokora, Influence 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. 111126.
[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, Influence 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: Influence
of sheet thickness and grain size in weakly texture sheets, Metall.
Trans. A 12 (1981) 1595 1602.

230

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

[23] F. Barlat, Crystallographic texture, anisotropic field surface and

forming limits of sheet metals, Mater. Sci. Eng. 91 (1987) 55 72.
[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.

[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 Feinblech aus phosphorlegierten Stahlen und aus Stahlen mit Dualphasengefuge, 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) 211230.