Forming limit diagram of Al-Cu two-layer metallic sheets considering the Marciniak and Kuczynski theory

Abstract

The aim of this research was to introduce a computational approach for prediction of the forming limit diagram of Al-Cu two-layer metallic sheets. The computational approach was based on the modified Marciniak and Kuczynski theory. In this study, the forming limit diagrams of aluminum–copper two-layer metallic sheets were obtained through the modified Marciniak and Kuczynski theory and experimental investigations. In the present modified Marciniak and Kuczynski theory, there existed four nonlinear equations which were solved simultaneously. The Quasi-Newton Method was applied for a solution to the system of equations. To verify the theoretical predictions, the experimental works were accomplished on the Al-Cu two-layer metallic sheets and a good agreement between the proposed method and experimental works was observed.

Keywords

Two-layer metallic sheet forming limit diagram Marciniak and Kuczynski theory experiment

Introduction

Two-layer metallic sheets are progressively utilized in industrial and domestic parts. Their advantages include an increased corrosion and wear resistance, sound and vibration damping, uniform temperature distribution due to the different heat expansion coefficients of the layers, decreased wrinkling and spring back, and finally reduced cost and weight.¹ Forming limit curves (FLCs) are applied to determine the sheet metals formability. The laboratory test results have demonstrated that the FLCs are affected by several factors containing strain rate,^2–6 strain hardening index and anisotropy coefficients,^7–9 heat treatment,^10,11 grain size and microstructure,^12,13 strain path changes^14–16 and sheet thickness.¹⁷

Keeler and Backofen¹⁸ presented the FLCs concept for the first time. After that, many researchers such as Kami et al.,¹⁹ Hashemi et al.,²⁰ Safikhani et al.,²¹ Situ et al.,²² Mohebbi and Akbarzadeh,²³ Barlat and Lian,²⁴ Banabic et al.²⁵ and Zhang et al.²⁶ tried to develop some numerical and analytical models to determine the sheet metal formability. However, a few attentions have been paid to study the behavior of multi-layer sheets. In 1979, Semiatin and Piehler²⁷ performed the first research on multi-layer materials. Yoshida and Hino²⁸ investigated the laminated sheet formability both numerically and experimentally. They found that the FLC of the laminates lied between the FLC of its components. Weiss et al.²⁹ tried to determine the laminated sheet formability in different temperatures to specify its effect on the formability of this kind of sheets. Aghchai et al.³⁰ determined the formability of two-layer Al/St sheet both theoretically and experimentally. Their results showed that the two-layer sheet formability was between its components formability. Bagherzadeh et al.³¹ developed analytical models to evaluate instability condition and stress analysis of cylindrical St-Al two-layer cups in the hydro-mechanical deep drawing. Liu et al.³² developed an Al/polyethylene/Al sandwich sheet and investigated its formability. Their study demonstrated that by enhancing the polyethylene core thickness, the formability of this kind of sandwich sheet could be better. Parsa et al.³³ studied the FLC of Al/polypropylene/Al sandwich sheets both numerically and experimentally. They used finite element (FE) analysis to determine the FLCs of a sandwich sheet in their numerical investigations. They studied the influences of several parameters such as shape constraints and thickness of polymer layer on the FLCs in their research. Karajibani et al.³⁴ investigated the formability of two-layer (aluminum-st12 steel) sheets in the deep drawing process through numerical simulations and experiments. Their research illustrated that the formability of two-layer sheet was dependent on the process parameters.

Although the fracture occurs by previous necking in several sheet metal forming operations, there are operations or simply operating conditions where fracture can develop without previous necking.³⁵ The scope of this research is limited to situations where necking occurs before failure by the fracture.

According to the literature review, it could be seen that many efforts were spent to determine the forming limit diagram (FLD) in one-layer sheets and a few efforts were spent to study the two-layer metallic sheet formability. In this research, the FLDs of aluminum–copper two-layer metallic sheets were obtained through the modified Marciniak and Kuczynski (M-K) theory. Barlat and Lian’s²⁴ 1989 anisotropic yield function was applied. In the present modified M-K theory, there existed four nonlinear equations which were solved simultaneously. The Quasi-Newton Method was applied for a solution to the system of equations. To verify the analytical results, a stretch-forming process with a hemispherical punch was used to obtain the experimental FLD. The predicted forming limits correlate well with experimental data.

Experimental procedure

Materials

The two-layer sheets (aluminum–copper) were used in this study. The explosive welding was utilized for an excellent joining of aluminum and copper sheets in order to fabricate the Al-Cu two-layer sheets.³⁶ The total thickness of aluminum and copper sheet was both 1 mm and the two-layer blank was made of 0.37 mm Cu and 0.63 mm Al sheets. An STM-50 (SANTAM Company) electronic tensile machine was employed to accomplish the tensile tests. The mechanical and material properties of each layer were determined by standard test using specimens which were prepared according to ASTM-E8 specification at a constant crosshead speed of 2 mm/min.³⁷ The tensile test samples and dimension of the specimens used in this research are shown in Figure 1. The mechanical and material properties of each layer are illustrated in Table 1.

Figure 1.

The dimensions of the standard specimens.

Table 1.

The material and mechanical properties of Cu and Al sheets from tensile tests.

Material	Specific gravity (kg/m³)	Young’s modulus, E (GPa)	Yield strength, YS (MPa)	Strength coefficient, K (MPa)	Strain hardening index, n
Cu	8940	115	306	540	0.11
Al	2710	69	122	232	0.12
Al-Cu	−	87	226	390	0.12

The plastic strain ratios ( $r_{0}$ , $r_{45}$ and $r_{90}$ ) that describe the anisotropy of the material in three rolling directions were obtained using specimens made according to ASTM-E8M specification by wire electro-discharge machining (EDM) cutting machine. Measured values of the plastic strain ratios are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

The plastic strain ratios.

	r ₀	r ₄₅	r ₉₀	R = (r₀ + 2 × r₄₅ + r₉₀)/4
Al	0.657	0.644	0.679	0.656
Cu	0.643	1.382	0.631	1.0095
Al-Cu	0.651	0.870	0.643	0.7585

Punch stretching test

The punch stretching tests were carried out with a hemispherical punch of 100-mm diameter according to the procedure suggested by Nakazima et al.³⁸ on a 30 ton hydraulic press (Figure 2). Circular blanks of polyethylene foil with 0.05-mm thick were used for lubrication in the experiments. The specimens with different geometries were used to obtain the FLC in this study according to ISO 12004-2 standard.³⁹ Figure 3 shows the geometries of the used specimens to obtain the FLC.⁴⁰

Figure 2.

The experimental FLC setup.

Figure 3.

The different specimen geometries to obtain the FLC (all the dimensions in mm).⁴⁰

To measure the principal strains after performing tests to determine the FLC, the circular grids were marked on the blanks by the electro-chemical etching method. In previous research,⁴¹ it has been observed that, when the layer with a lower formability was in contact with the punch and the layer with a higher strength and formability was on the die side, the formability of the two-layer sheet would be improved. Thus, the circular grids were marked on the Cu side (the layer with higher formability) of the aluminum–copper two-layer sheet which was on the die side in order to obtain more formability. The circular grids were deformed to elliptic shapes during the tests. For each specimen, the major and minor limited strains were measured from the major and minor axes of the ellipse that was located at the nearest distance to the localized necking zone. Mylar tape was used to measure directly the major and minor strains in the deformed circle (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Mylar transparent tape.⁴⁰

The M-K theory

In the modified M-K theory represented in this study, the necking was ascribed to a geometrical inhomogeneity in the form of a weak region which existed before loading began. In the zone with geometrical inhomogeneity, sheet thickness was a little smaller than the safe zone. As the result of the applied force, this region originated and changed its direction with respect to initial coordinates. Finally, necking began from the zone with geometrical inhomogeneity. A geometrical inhomogeneity coefficient was defined as $f_{0} = t^{b} / t^{a}$ . The modified representation of the M-K model is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Schematic of the modified M-K approach for two-layer sheet.

It was assumed that in the safe zone (e.g. zone “a”), strain path was linear. The strain and stress calculations were carried out for this zone and then for the grooved zone (e.g. zone “b”). Barlat and Lian’s²⁴ 1989 anisotropic yield function and Holloman’s hardening law were used in this work.

To start the analysis, a small value for $d {\bar{ε}}^{a}$ (the effective strain increment in the safe zone) was applied. The effective strain in each step would be calculated by

{\bar{ε}}^{a}_{new} = {\bar{ε}}^{a}_{old} + d {\bar{ε}}^{a}

(1)

Now applying hardening law, the effective stress could be found

{\bar{σ}}^{a} = k ({\bar{ε}}^{a})^{n} (\overset{\cdot}{\bar{ε}} / {\overset{\cdot}{\bar{ε}}}_{0})^{m^{a}}

(2)

Having the effective stress, the stress ratio $(α = σ_{2} / σ_{1})$ and the yield criteria, $σ_{1}^{a}$ and $σ_{2}^{a}$ , were computed and the stress tensor in principal coordinates was presented as follows

[σ^{a}]_{xyz} = [\begin{matrix} σ_{1}^{a} & 0 \\ 0 & σ_{2}^{a} \end{matrix}]

(3)

To determine the stress tensor in the groove coordinates which was shown in Figure 5, rotation matrix was used

\begin{matrix} T = [\begin{matrix} \cos θ & \sin θ \\ - \sin θ & \cos θ \end{matrix}] \\ [σ^{a}]_{ntz} = T \times [σ^{a}]_{xyz} \times T^{T} = [\begin{matrix} σ_{nn}^{a} & σ_{nt}^{a} \\ σ_{nt}^{a} & σ_{tt}^{a} \end{matrix}] \end{matrix}

(4)

Applying incompressibility condition and flow rule, the zone “a” was completely solved and then all strains and stresses in zone “b” should be calculated. In this zone, unknown parameters were $σ_{nn}^{b}, σ_{nt}^{b}, σ_{tt}^{b}, ε_{nn}^{b}, ε_{nt}^{b}, ε_{tt}^{b}$ and $ε_{3}^{b}$ , but applying incompressibility condition and flow rule, they reduced to $σ_{nn}^{b}, σ_{nt}^{b}, σ_{tt}^{b}, d {\bar{ε}}^{b}$ . The four equations required to calculate these unknowns were the strain compatibility equation, plastic work equivalence principle and two force equilibrium equations⁹

\begin{matrix} \frac{d ε_{tt}^{b}}{d ε_{tt}^{a}} - 1 = 0 \\ \frac{d ε_{nn}^{b} σ_{nn}^{b} + d ε_{tt}^{b} σ_{tt}^{b} + 2 d ε_{nt}^{b} σ_{nt}^{b}}{d {\bar{ε}}^{b} {\bar{σ}}^{b}} - 1 = 0 \\ f \frac{σ_{nn}^{b}}{σ_{nn}^{a}} - 1 = 0 \\ f \frac{σ_{nt}^{b}}{σ_{nt}^{a}} - 1 = 0 \end{matrix}

(5)

where f changed according to

f = \exp (ε_{3}^{b} - ε_{3}^{a})

(6)

Newton–Raphson method was used to solve this set of equations.⁷ Consider N functions $F_{i}$ involving variables $x_{i}, i = 1, 2, \dots, N$ as follows^42–44

F_{i} (x_{1}, x_{2}, \dots, x_{N}) = 0 i = 1, 2, \dots, N

(7)

In the neighborhood of x, each of functions $F_{i}$ can be expanded in Taylor series

F_{i} (x + δ x) = F_{i} (x) + \sum_{j = 1}^{N} \frac{\partial F_{i}}{\partial x_{j}} δ x_{j} + O (δ x^{2})

(8)

In matrix notation, equation (8) is reduced to

F (x + δ x) = F (x) + J \cdot δ x + O (δ x^{2})

(9)

The matrix of partial derivatives appearing in equation (9) is the Jacobian matrix J

J_{ij} \equiv \frac{\partial F_{i}}{\partial x_{j}}

(10)

Terms of order $δ x^{2}$ and higher are neglected and by setting $F (x + δ x) = 0$ , we get a set of equations

J \cdot δ x = - F or δ x = - J^{- 1} \cdot F

(11)

The variable $δ x$ is then added to the solution vector

x_{new} = x_{old} + δ x

(12)

and the process is iterated to the convergence. For obtaining the unknown parameters in the groove zone, matrix F is defined as

F = [\begin{matrix} F_{1} & F_{2} & F_{3} & F_{4} \end{matrix}]^{T}

(13)

where

F_{1} = \frac{d ε_{nn}^{b} σ_{nn}^{b} + d ε_{tt}^{b} σ_{tt}^{b} + 2 d ε_{nt}^{b} σ_{nt}^{b}}{d {\bar{ε}}^{b} {\bar{σ}}^{b}} - 1 = 0

(14)

F_{2} = \frac{d ε_{tt}^{b}}{d ε_{tt}^{a}} - 1 = 0

(15)

F_{3} = f \frac{σ_{nn}^{b}}{σ_{nn}^{b}} - 1 = 0

(16)

F_{4} = f \frac{σ_{nt}^{b}}{σ_{nt}^{b}} - 1 = 0

(17)

And the unknown parameter x, is defined as

x = [\begin{matrix} σ_{nn}^{b} & σ_{tt}^{b} & σ_{nt}^{b} & d {\bar{ε}}_{b} \end{matrix}]^{T}

(18)

In this study, equations (14)–(17) have been used simultaneously as set of nonlinear equations. After $d {\bar{ε}}^{b}$ was obtained in each step, it was compared to $d {\bar{ε}}^{a}$ and if $d {\bar{ε}}^{b} / d {\bar{ε}}^{a} > 10$ the localized necking began and $ε_{1}^{a}$ , $ε_{2}^{a}$ were saved; otherwise, a greater value for $d {\bar{ε}}^{a}$ was assumed and the process repeated. This procedure was performed for different values of stress ratios and groove angles until the whole diagram was determined. Groove orientation is function of strain increments in homogeneous zone and can be used from following formula⁴⁵

\tan (θ + d θ) = \exp [(1 - ρ) d ε_{1}^{a}] \tan (θ)

(19)

where

ρ = \frac{d ε_{2}^{a}}{d ε_{1}^{a}}

(20)

For any constant value of $α (0 \leq (α = σ_{2} / σ_{1}) \leq 1)$ , by changing groove angle $θ$ , between $0^{\circ}$ and $90^{\circ}$ , minimum value of major strain can be found. This minimum value and its corresponding minor strain were defined as point in the FLC.

Constitutive equations

Barlat and Lian’s²⁴ 1989 yield criterion and Holloman hardening law were used in plastic calculations of FLC. Barlat and Lian’s²⁴ 1989 yield criterion was the first orthotropic yield function proposed by Barlat and his coworkers. It was proved that this yield criterion could describe the behavior of orthotropic sheet metals exhibiting planar anisotropy and it was written as follows

{\bar{σ}}_{y} = {(\frac{a {| K_{1} + K_{2} |}^{m} + a {| K_{1} - K_{2} |}^{m} + c {| 2 K_{2} |}^{m}}{2})}^{1 / m}

(21)

where

K_{1} = \frac{σ_{1} + h \cdot σ_{2}}{2}, K_{2} = \sqrt{{(\frac{σ_{1} - h \cdot σ_{2}}{2})}^{2} + p^{2} \cdot σ_{12}^{2}}

(22)

This yield criterion contained five coefficients $(m, a, c, h, p)$ where m was a material parameter associated with the crystal structure of the sheet metal. For body-centered cubic (BCC) and face center cubic (FCC) metals, the values of m equaled to 6 and 8, respectively. The anisotropic material constants $a, c$ and h were obtained from the Lankford coefficients r-value corresponding to 0°, 45° and 90° orientations $(r_{0}, r_{45} and r_{90})$ according to the following equations

a = 2 - 2 \sqrt{\frac{r_{0}}{1 + r_{0}} \cdot \frac{r_{90}}{1 + r_{90}}}, c = 2 - a, h = \sqrt{\frac{r_{0}}{1 + r_{0}} \cdot \frac{1 + r_{90}}{r_{90}}}

(23)

The last anisotropic parameter p could be determined implicitly by some r values in the following form

r_{ϕ} = \frac{2 m σ_{y}^{m}}{(\frac{\partial ϕ}{\partial σ_{xx}} + \frac{\partial ϕ}{\partial σ_{yy}}) \cdot σ_{ϕ}} - 1

(24)

Assuming $ϕ = 45$ and the value of p could be determined by an iterative operation.

In this work, the Holloman law was used to describe the effective stress ${\bar{σ}}_{Y}$ as a function of effective strain $\bar{ε}$ , strain hardening exponent n and strength coefficient K. This relation was defined as

{\bar{σ}}_{Y} = K (\bar{ε})^{n}

(25)

Results and discussion

In this research, the results of the modified M-K approach for FLDs of Al-Cu two-layer metallic sheets were presented. The predicted FLDs were compared with the FLD obtained experimentally for Al-Cu two-layer metallic sheets (Figure 6). It could be concluded from Figure 6 that this method was in good agreement with the experimental test results for Al-Cu two-layer sheets.

Figure 6.

The FLDs for the Al-Cu two-layer metallic sheets.

Figure 6 showed that there was a low difference between the results of the modified M-K approach and experiment for the FLD₀ (i.e. major strain in plane strain state). This difference could be due to the errors in strain measurement by the conventional “circle grid analysis” method. Therefore, it could be deduced that the theoretical results were in fairly good agreement with experimental test results. Also typical deformed test samples in experimental works have been illustrated in Figure 7.

Figure 7.

Typical deformed test samples.

Figure 8 illustrates the influence of inhomogeneous factor f₀ on FLD₀ (FLD₀ is the major strain in plane strain state). Sensitivity of the FLD to variations of f₀ is very high, and if it is assumed wrongly, the resulting FLD will differ greatly from the experimental data. By increasing this parameter, the FLD level shifted up. Thus, to determine any specific FLD, at first, the suitable value of this parameter must be adopted. For this purpose, the value of this parameter decreases from the greatest value, that is, 1, until predicted FLD₀ has good agreement with corresponding experimental value.

Figure 8.

The influence of inhomogeneous factor f₀ on FLD₀.

Conclusion

In this article, a methodology already developed for prediction of strain FLD (e.g. for single layer sheets) has been extended and applied for determination of the FLD of the Al-Cu two-layer metallic sheets. The methodology was based on the modified M-K theory with Barlat’s 1989 anisotropic yield function. The numerical results for the FLDs were verified by comparing them with experimental test results. Results from the present approach were in fairly good agreement with experimental investigations.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author received financial support of Iran National Science Foundation (INSF).

References

Morovvati

Mollaei-Dariani

Asadian-Ardakani

. A theoretical, numerical, and experimental investigation of plastic wrinkling of circular two-layer sheet metal in the deep drawing. J Mater Process Tech 2010; 210: 1738–1747.

Gerdooei

Dariani

. Strain-rate-dependent forming limit diagrams for sheet metals. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 2008; 222: 1651–1659.

Hashemi

Ghazanfari

Abrinia

. The effect of the imposed boundary rate on the formability of strain rate sensitive sheets using the M-K method. J Mater Eng Perform 2013; 22(9): 2522–2527.

Dariani

Liaghat

Gerdooei

. Experimental investigation of sheet metal formability under various strain rates. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 2009; 223: 703–712.

Chu

Leotoing

Guines

. Temperature and strain rate influence on AA5086 forming limit curves: experimental results and discussion on the validity of the M-K model. Int J Mech Sci 2014; 78: 27–34.

Zhang

Chu

Guines

. Dedicated linear–voce model and its application in investigating temperature and strain rate effects on sheet formability of aluminum alloys. Mater Design 2015; 67: 522–530.

Assempour

Hashemi

Abrinia

. A methodology for prediction of forming limit stress diagrams considering the strain path effect. Comp Mater Sci 2009; 45: 195–204.

Xia

Zhu

. Sheet metal forming limits under stretch-bending with anisotropic hardening. Int J Mech Sci 2013; 75: 244–256.

Assempour

Nejadkhaki

Hashemi

. Forming limit diagrams with the existence of through-thickness normal stress. Comp Mater Sci 2010; 48(3): 504–508.

10.

Wang

Carsley

Zhang

. Forming limits of an age hardenable aluminum sheet after pre-straining and annealing. Int J Mech Sci 2014; 82: 13–24.

11.

Babu

NBK

Davidson

Rao

. Effect of differential heat treatment on the formability of aluminium tailor welded blanks. Mater Design 2014; 55: 35–42.

12.

Lee

Wen

. A dislocation-based model of forming limit prediction in the biaxial stretching of sheet metals. Int J Mech Sci 2006; 48: 134–144.

13.

Aghchai

Shakeri

Mollaei Dariani

. Influences of material properties of components on formability of two-layer metallic sheets. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 2013; 66: 809–823.

14.

Nguyen

Lee

M-G

. Hydroformability assessment of AA6063 tubes using the polar effective plastic strain diagram. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 2015; 229: 647–653.

15.

Uppaluri

Venkata Reddy

Dixit

. An analytical approach for the prediction of forming limit curves subjected to combined strain paths. Int J Mech Sci 2011; 53: 365–373.

16.

Nurcheshmeh

Green

. Investigation on the strain-path dependency of stress-based forming limit curves. Int J Mater Form 2011; 4: 25–37.

17.

Dilmec

Halkaci

Ozturk

. Effects of sheet thickness and anisotropy on forming limit curves of AA2024-T4. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 2013; 67: 2689–2700.

18.

Keeler

Backofen

. Plastic instability and fracture in sheets stretched over rigid punches. Trans ASM 1963; 56: 25–48.

19.

Kami

Dariani

Vanini

. Numerical determination of the forming limit curves of anisotropic sheet metals using GTN damage model. J Mater Process Tech 2015; 216: 472–483.

20.

Hashemi

Abrinia

Faraji

. A methodology for determination of extended strain-based forming limit curve considering the effects of strain path and normal stress. Proc IMechE, Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science 2015; 229(9): 1537–1547.

21.

Safikhani

Hashemi

Assempour

. The strain gradient approach for determination of forming limit stress and strain diagrams. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 2008; 222(4): 467–483.

22.

Situ

Jain

Metzger

. Determination of forming limit diagrams of sheet materials with a hybrid experimental–numerical approach. Int J Mech Sci 2011; 53: 707–719.

23.

Mohebbi

Akbarzadeh

. Prediction of formability of tailor welded blanks by modification of MK model. Int J Mech Sci 2012; 61: 44–51.

24.

Barlat

Lian

. Plastic behavior and stretchability of sheet metals. Part I: a yield function for orthotropic sheets under plane stress conditions. Int J Plasticity 1989; 5(1): 51–66.

25.

Banabic

Barlat

Cazacu

. Advances in anisotropy and formability. Int J Mater Form 2010; 3(3): 165–189.

26.

Zhang

Chen

. Effect of through-thickness normal stress on forming limits under Yld2003 yield criterion and M-K model. Int J Mech Sci 2014; 89: 92–100.

27.

Semiatin

Piehler

. Forming limits of sandwich sheet materials. Metall Trans A 1979; 10: 1107–1118.

28.

Yoshida

Hino

. Forming limit of stainless steel-clad aluminium sheets under plane stress condition. J Mater Process Tech 1997; 63: 66–71.

29.

Weiss

Dingle

Rolfe

. The influence of temperature on the forming behavior of metal/polymer laminates in sheet metal forming. J Eng Mater: T ASME 2007; 129: 530–537.

30.

Aghchai

Shakeri

Mollaei-Dariani

. Theoretical and experimental formability study of two-layer metallic sheet (Al1100/St12). Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 2008; 222: 1131–1138.

31.

Bagherzadeh

Mollaei-Dariani

Malekzadeh

. Theoretical study on hydro-mechanical deep drawing process of bimetallic sheets and experimental observations. J Mater Process Tech 2012; 212: 1840–1849.

32.

Liu

Xue

. Forming limit diagram prediction of AA5052/polyethylene/AA5052 sandwich sheets. Mater Design 2013; 46: 112–120.

33.

Parsa

Ettehad

Matin

. Forming limit diagram determination of Al 3105 sheets and Al 3105/polypropylene/Al 3105 sandwich sheets using numerical calculations and experimental investigations. J Eng Mater: T ASME 2013; 135: 031003.

34.

Karajibani

Fazli

Hashemi

. Numerical and experimental study of formability in deep drawing of two-layer metallic sheets. Int J Adv Manuf Tech. 2015; 80: 113–21.

35.

Silva

Skjoedt

Bay

. Revisiting single-point incremental forming and formability/failure diagrams by means of finite elements and experimentation. J Strain Anal Eng 2009; 44: 221–234.

36.

Gulenc

. Investigation of interface properties and weldability of aluminum and copper plates by explosive welding method. Mater Design 2008; 29: 275–278.

37.

Metals test methods and analytical procedures, annual book of ASTM standards (ASTM-E8 and ASTM-E517), vol. 03.01. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2000.

38.

Nakazima

Kikuma

Hasuka

. Study on the formability of steel sheets. Yawata Tech Rep 1971; 284; 678–680.

39.

ISO 12004:1997(E). Metallic materials—guidelines for the determination of forming limit diagrams.

40.

Ozturk

Lee

. Experimental and numerical analysis of out-of-plane formability test. J Mater Process Tech 2005; 170: 247–253.

41.

Bagherzadeh

Mirnia

Mollaei Dariani

. Numerical and experimental investigations of hydro-mechanical deep drawing process of laminated aluminum/steel sheets. J Manuf Process 2015; 18: 131–140.

42.

Ganjiani

Assempour

. An improved analytical approach for determination of forming limit diagrams considering the effects of yield functions. J Mater Process Tech 2007; 182(1): 598–607.

43.

Ganjiani

Assempour

. Implementation of a robust algorithm for prediction of forming limit diagrams. J Mater Eng Perform 2008; 17(1): 1–6.

44.

Hashemi

Abrinia

Assempour

. Forming limit diagram of tubular hydroformed parts considering the through-thickness compressive normal stress. Proc IMechE, Part L: J Materials Design and Applications 2016; 230(1): 332–343.

45.

Bassani

Hutchinson

Neale

. On the prediction of necking in anisotropic sheet. In: Lipmann

(ed.) Metal form plasticity. Berlin: Springer, 1979, pp.1–13.