Research Papers

Forming Limit Diagram Determination of Al 3105 Sheets and Al 3105/Polypropylene/Al 3105 Sandwich Sheets Using Numerical Calculations and Experimental Investigations

[+] Author and Article Information
M. H. Parsa

School of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering,
College of Engineering,
University of Tehran,
P.O. Box 11155/4563,
14399 Tehran, Iran
e-mail: mhparsa@ut.ac.ir

M. Ettehad

Zachry Department of Civil Engineering,
Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77843
e-mail: mah.ettehad@gmail.com

P. H. Matin

Associate Professor
Department of Engineering and
Aviation Sciences,
University of Maryland Eastern Shore,
Princess Anne, MD 21853
e-mail: phmatin@umes.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Materials Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology. Manuscript received April 6, 2012; final manuscript received December 19, 2012; published online May 6, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Mohammad A. Khaleel.

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 135(3), 031003 (May 06, 2013) (12 pages) Paper No: MATS-11-1078; doi: 10.1115/1.4023848 History: Received April 06, 2011; Revised December 19, 2012

Sandwich sheet structures are gaining a wide array of applications in the aeronautical, marine, automotive, and civil engineering fields. Since such sheets can be subjected to forming/stamping processes, it is crucial to characterize their limiting amount of deformation before trying out any forming/stamping process. To achieve this goal, sandwich sheets of Al 3105/polymer/Al 3105 were prepared using thin film hot melt adheres. Through an experimental effort, forming limit diagrams (FLDs) of the prepared sandwich sheets were evaluated. In addition, simulation efforts were conducted to predict the FLDs of the sandwich sheets using finite element analysis (FEA) by considering the Gurson–Tvergaard–Needleman (GTN) damage model. The agreement among the experimental results and simulated predictions was promising. The effects of different parameters such as polymer core thickness, aluminum face sheet thickness, and shape constraints were investigated on the FLDs.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Burchitz, I., Boesenkool, R., Van der Zwaag, S., and Tassoul, M., 2005, “Highlights of Designing With Hylite—A New Material Concept,” Mater. Des., 26, pp. 271–279. [CrossRef]
Somayajulu, T. S. V., 2004, “Vibration and Formability Characteristics of Aluminium-Polymer Sandwich Material,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Kim, K. J., and Chung, K., 2003, “Formability of AA5182/Polypropylene/AA5182 Sandwich Sheets,” J. Mater.Process. Technol., 193, pp. 1–7. [CrossRef]
Ruokolainen, R. B., and Sigler, D. R., 2008, “The Effect of Adhesion and Tensile Properties on the Formability of Laminated Steels,” J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 17, pp. 330–339. [CrossRef]
Kim, J. K., and Thomason, P. F., 1990, “Forming Behavior of Sheet Steel Laminates,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 22, pp. 45–64. [CrossRef]
Weiss, M., Rolfe, B. F., Dingle, M., and Duncan, J. L., 2006, “Elastic Bending of Steel-Polymer-Steel (SPS) Laminates to a Constant Curvature,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 73, pp. 574–579. [CrossRef]
Mohr, D., 2005, “On the Role of Shear Strength in Sandwich Sheet Forming,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 42, pp. 1491–1512. [CrossRef]
Aghaie-Khafri, M., and Mahmudi, R., 2004, “Prediction of Plastic Instability and Forming Limit Diagrams,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 46, pp. 1289–1306. [CrossRef]
Uthaisangsuk, V., Prahl, U., and Muns, S., 2008, “Experimental and Numerical Failure Criterion for Formability Prediction in Sheet Metal Forming,” J. Comput. Mater. Sci., 43, pp. 43–50. [CrossRef]
Yao, H., and Cao, J., 2002, “Prediction of Forming Limit Curves Using an Anisotropic Yield Function With Prestrain Induced Backstress,” Int. J. Plast., 18, pp. 1013–1038. [CrossRef]
Ozturk, F., and Lee, D., 2004, “Analysis of Forming Limits Using Ductile Fracture Criteria, J. Mater. Process. Technol., 14, pp. 397–404. [CrossRef]
Wu, P. D., Embury, J. D., Lioyd, D. J., Huang, Y., and Neale, K. W., 2009, “Effects of Superimposed Hydrostatic Pressure on Sheet Metal Formability,” Int. J. Plast., 25(9), pp. 1711–1725. [CrossRef]
Alsos, H. S., Hopperstad, O. S., Tornqvist, R., and Amdahl, J., 2008, “Analysis and Numerical Analysis of Sheet Metal Instability Using a Stress Based Criterion,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 45, pp. 2042–2055. [CrossRef]
Shen, W., Peng, L. H., and Tang, C. Y., 2005, “An Anisotropic Damage-Based Plastic Yield Criterion and Its Application to Analysis of Metal Forming Process,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 47, pp. 1897–1992. [CrossRef]
Sanchez, P. J., Huespe, A. E., and Oliver, J., 2008, “On Some Topics for the Numerical Simulation of Ductile Fracture, Int. J. Plast., 24, pp. 1008–1038. [CrossRef]
Chen, Z., and Dong, X., 2008, “The GTN Damage Based on Hill's Anisotropic Yield Criterion and Its Application in Sheet Metal Forming,” Comput. Mater. Sci., 42(9), pp. 1414–1419. [CrossRef]
Dutta, B. K., Guin, S., Sahu, M. K., and Samal, M. K., 2008, “A Phenomenological Form of the q2 Parameter in the Gurson Model,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 85, pp. 199–210. [CrossRef]
van den Boogaard, A. H., 2002, “Thermally Enhanced Forming of Aluminum Sheet—Modeling and Experiment,” Ph.D. thesis, Twente University, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Harewood, F. J., and McHugh, P. E., 2007, “Comparison of the Implicit and Explicit Finite Element Method Using Crystal Plasticity,” Comput. Mater. Sci., 39, pp. 481–494. [CrossRef]
Harewood, F. J., and McHugh, P. E., 2000, “Comparison of Implicit and Explicit Finite Element Methods for Dynamic Problems,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 105, pp. 110–118. [CrossRef]
Parsa, M. H., Ettehad, M., Matin, P. H., and Al Ahkami, S. N., 2010, “Experimental and Numerical Determination of Limiting Drawing Ratio of Al3105-Polypropylene-Al3105 Sandwich Sheets,” ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol., 132, p. 031004. [CrossRef]
Matin, P. H., and Smith, L. M., 2005, “Practical Limitations to the Influence of Transverse Normal Stress on Sheet Metal Formability,” Int. J. Plast., 21(4), pp. 671–690. [CrossRef]
Chen, M. A., Li, H. Z., and Zhang, X. M., 2007, “Improvement of Shear of Aluminum-Polypropylene Lap Joints by Grafting Maleic Anhydride Onto Polypropylene, Int. J. Adhes. Adhes., 27, pp. 175–187. [CrossRef]
ASTM D 1876-00, 2001, “Standard Test Method for Peel Resistance of Adhesives (T-Peel Test),” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM D 3164-97, 2001, “Standard Test Method for Strength Properties of Adhesively Bonded Plastic Lap-Shear Sandwich Joints in Shear by Tension Loading,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
Parsa, M. H., and Ettehad, M., 2008, “Prediction of Delamination During Deep-Drawing of Steel-Polymer-Steel Sandwich Sheet Material,” 9th International Conference on Technology of Plasticity, Gyeongju, Korea, September 7–11.
Reis, F., Malcher, L., Andrade Pires, F. M., and Césarde Sá, J. M. A., 2010, “A Modified GTN Model for the Prediction of Ductile Fracture at Low Stress Triaxialities,” Instituto de Engenharia Mecânica (IDMEC), Porto, Portugal.
Chen, Z., and Dong, X., 2008, “Comparison of GTN Damage Models for Sheet Metal Forming,” J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ., 13(6), pp.739–743. [CrossRef]
Li, H., Fu, M. W., Lua, J., and Yang, H., 2011, “Ductile Fracture: Experiments and Computations,” Int. J. Plast., 27, pp. 147–180. [CrossRef]
Liang, X., 2008, “Constitutive Modeling of Void Shearing Effect in Ductile Fracture of Porous Materials,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 75, pp. 3343–3366. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic FEM model of the tools used for the determination of the forming limit diagrams

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic view of sandwich sheets

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

True stress-strain curves

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Fibrillation at the aluminum-polymer interface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Blank sandwich samples prepared with different widths for the punch stretching test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Geometry of the experimental specimen and simulated model for the FLD determination

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Experimentally determined and numerically predicted FLD for the 2 mm sandwich sheet with 0.5 mm aluminum face sheet

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Schematic representation of the safe and necked ellipses used for the experimental determination of the FLD [8]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Experimental deformed sandwich sheet specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Experimental FLD: (a) 2 mm sandwich sheet, (b) 1.2 mm sandwich sheet, and (c) 0.5 mm monolayer aluminum sheet

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Experimental FLD of sandwich sheets with different aluminum face sheet thicknesses

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Details of the punch stretch tooling used in the study

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Numerically obtained FLDs for both the 2 mm sandwich sheet and the 1.85 mm aluminum monolayer sheet

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Through thickness void volume fraction for the sandwich sheets at the punch nose

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Variation of the mean (hydrostatic) stress distribution through the thickness direction for two simulated models of monolayer sheets

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Variation of the mean (hydrostatic) stress distribution through the thickness direction for the simulated narrow and wide sandwich sheets

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Mean (hydrostatic) tensile stress in the balanced biaxial state

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Void volume fraction distributions through the specimen width at a step right before the macro crack formation for the 2 mm sandwich sheet and the 1.85 mm monolayer sheet



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In