Materials and Design

Manuscript Draft

Manuscript Number: JMAD-D-16-03266

Title: Biaxial Stretching of Extra Deep Drawing Steel Sheet using

Hydraulic Bulge Test

Article Type: Research Paper

Keywords: Extra deep drawing steel; Hydraulic bulge test; Finite element
simulation; Yield models; Fractography

Abstract: The accuracy of finite element modelling of sheet metal forming

processes is highly dependent on the correctness of input material
properties, which are conventionally taken from uniaxial tensile test,
where the maximum achievable strain is limited to 20 - 30%, which leads
to extrapolation of the data points beyond fracture. In this paper,
experimental, analytical and finite element studies are conducted on the
biaxial stretching of extra deep drawing steel sheet using hydraulic
bulge test, where the plastic strain level extends more than 70%. The
analytical study includes approaches by Hill, Panknin, Chakarabarty and
Kruglov. The simulation study is done using three yield criteria, Hill-
48, Barlat-89 and Barlat-2000. Experimental validation shows that the
stress-strain curves using bulge radius based on Panknin approach and
thickness based on Kruglov approach in analytical study and using Barlat-
2000 yield model in simulation study are in close agreement with the
experimental curve. In addition, the fractography study is conducted on
specimens from tensile and bulge tests, which reveals the presence of
more deep elongated shear dimples in bulge test when compared to equiaxed
dimples in tensile test. This corroborates with the high level of plastic
deformation till fracture in the hydraulic bulge test.
Graphical Abstract
Click here to download high resolution image
*Highlights (for review)

Journal Title: Journal of Materials and Design

Biaxial Stretching of Extra Deep Drawing Steel Sheet using

Hydraulic Bulge Test

Highlights:

1) Importance of hydraulic bulge test for obtaining the material properties and stress-
strain data for accurate FE modelling of industrial sheet metal forming processes
2) Analytical and FE modelling of hydraulic bulge test on extra deep drawing steel sheet
with experimental validation for stress-strain curve and crack initiation
3) Strain at fracture is found to be greater than 70% for hydraulic bulge test in contrast to
30% for tensile test
4) Bulge test fractographs show the presence of elongated shear dimples, corroborating
the higher level of plastic deformation till fracture, in contrast to the presence of
equiaxed dimples in tensile test fractographs.

1
*Manuscript
Click here to view linked References

Journal Title: Journal of Materials and Design

Biaxial Stretching of Extra Deep Drawing Steel Sheet using

Hydraulic Bulge Test

Amit Kumar Gupta1, Anvesh Krishna Sannidhi1, George Varghese2

1
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, BITS-Pilani, Hyderabad Campus, Telangana, India –
500078
2
Tower Automotive India Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad, Telangana, India – 500081

*
Corresponding author: Email ID: akgupta@hyderabad.bits-pilani.ac.in

Ph.: +91-40-66303518, Fax. +91-40-66303998

1
 Biaxial Stretching of Extra Deep Drawing Steel Sheet using
Hydraulic Bulge Test

Abstract:

The accuracy of finite element modelling of sheet metal forming processes is highly
dependent on the correctness of input material properties, which are conventionally taken
from uniaxial tensile test, where the maximum achievable strain is limited to 20 - 30%, which
leads to extrapolation of the data points beyond fracture. In this paper, experimental,
analytical and finite element studies are conducted on the biaxial stretching of extra deep
drawing steel sheet using hydraulic bulge test, where the plastic strain level extends more
than 70%. The analytical study includes approaches by Hill, Panknin, Chakarabarty and
Kruglov. The simulation study is done using three yield criteria, Hill-48, Barlat-89 and
Barlat-2000. Experimental validation shows that the stress-strain curves using bulge radius
based on Panknin approach and thickness based on Kruglov approach in analytical study and
using Barlat-2000 yield model in simulation study are in close agreement with the
experimental curve. In addition, the fractography study is conducted on specimens from
tensile and bulge tests, which reveals the presence of more deep elongated shear dimples in
bulge test when compared to equiaxed dimples in tensile test. This corroborates with the high
level of plastic deformation till fracture in the hydraulic bulge test.

Keywords – Extra deep drawing steel; Hydraulic bulge test; Finite element simulation; Yield
models; Fractography

1. Introduction:

In sheet metal forming process, finite element method (FEM) has been extensively used as an
effective tool to avoid unnecessary experimental try-outs and optimization of process
parameters [1]. Optimization of process parameters in sheet metal forming is a vital task to
reduce manufacturing cost and understand their influence on the deformation behaviour of
the sheet metal [2]. An accuracy of finite element code for metal forming applications is
highly dependent on correctness of input material properties and selection of appropriate
material models.

2
Accurate determination of mechanical properties and suitable selection of material models is
one of the key issues in analysing the deformation behaviour. Several techniques are used to
obtain flow curve of the metallic materials including tensile, compression, torsion, and
hydraulic bulge test [3]. The flow stress curves determined using different tests and test
conditions do not replicate each other due to effects of stress state, yield criterion assumption,
anisotropy, Bauschinger effect, experimental inaccuracies, and general weakness of the
modelling. Therefore, none of the test methods can be named as the best or optimal [4]. Each
has its own specific field of application due to certain straining paths. Among those test
system, the most widely used one is uniaxial tensile test [3-4]. However, limitations of
uniaxial tensile test have been described by several researchers [5-6]. In tensile tests, the
maximum achievable strain is reported to be limited (~30%) and this leads to extrapolations
of the test data that are necessary beyond the fracture point. On the other hand, biaxial stress
state test provides flow curves for the materials with extended range of plastic strain levels up
to ~70% before bursting occurs [7-8].

Hydraulic bulge test has been known as a convenient and appropriate method for judging the
formability of sheet metal [9]. A major advantage of the bulge test over the more
conventional uniaxial tensile test is that the stress–strain curve extends to the range of
effective strain as can be found in many forming processes [10]. The simplicity of specimen
preparation for bulging is an added advantage over other biaxial state stress test such as
biaxial tensile test [11]. Since the bulge test has not been standardized yet, the ‘‘bulge test”
term in literature refers to variety of test systems including both testing of sheet and tube-
formed samples with several differences in practice [4]. Tube bulge test is preferred mainly
for determining the hydro-formability of the tubular materials as developed and explained in
various previously published studies [12-13]. On the other hand, sheet bulge test systems can
be categorized in terms of the pressure source for the bulging, the die shape or die dimensions
used. Bulging is mostly achieved via pumping hydraulic fluid into the cavity [14-15],
however, in some cases, in order to prevent leakage, viscous material was used or pneumatic
(gas) pressurization was utilized as well at elevated temperature levels [16]. Die shapes in
bulge tests are mainly spherical or elliptical [17].

For the theoretical analysis of hydraulic bulge test, Hill [18] and Panknin [19] proposed the
expressions for the bulge radius without and with consideration of fillet radius effect
respectively. Similarly, Hill [18], Chakrabarty [20] and Kruglov [21] proposed various
expressions for calculating the thickness at the apex of the dome. Further, Smith [22]

3
proposed expressions for the effective flow stress and effective strain considering the
anisotropic effect of rolling on the sheet materials.

Ranta-Eskola [23] was among the initial researchers who carried out hydraulic bulge test
experiments and developed biaxial flow stress curves. The bulge shape was measured by
using bulge contours in a travelling microscope and the radius by using spherometer, while
the thickness at the apex of the dome was calculated from the surface strains measured from
indented marks by using a travelling microscope. In addition, he also considered the elastic
spring back caused by pressure drop while removing the specimen. Kangning [24] calculated
the thickness from a set of explicit integral formulas, whose inputs are taken from the tensile
tests. Using Hill-48 as yield criteria, he calculated flow stress by iterative algorithm
combined with the proposed explicit integral formulas and then compared the flow stress
results of bulge test with uniaxial tensile test. Mulder [25] discussed the recommendations of
international standard on the determination of biaxial stress–strain curves by means of the
hydraulic bulge test with optical measuring systems.

Muammer [4] used a bulge set up with spherical die instead of using hydraulic pressure. He
performed two different sets of experiments - first one was continuously conducted until the
burst of the specimen, where the radius and the thickness of the bulge are calculated from 3D
stereo optical measurement system, and the second set up to a certain height of the bulge,
where the radius and the thickness at that height is calculated by using a dial gauge. On the
other hand, Gutscher [11] used inverse analysis to calculate the biaxial flow stress curves. In
addition to this, Nasser [26] included anisotropic correction factor in computing the biaxial
flow stress. Djavanroodi [27] developed the experimental method to determine the bulge
radius and the thickness at apex of the dome. While conducting the bulge test experiments,
several photographs of the specimen were captured. On these captured photographs, a three
point circle is fitted by using Solid works software and thus the radius was measured.
Similarly thickness is calculated by drawing a small circle on the specimen, which changes
into an ellipse after deformation. By using the major and minor diameters of the ellipse to
calculate strains, the thickness at the apex of the dome was determined.

In this work, analytical models (Hill, Panknin, Chakrabarty and Kruglov) are used to compute
bulge radius and thickness at the apex of the dome in order to develop flow stress curve for
the hydraulic bulge test. Its finite element model is developed using various yield models
(Hill-48 [28], Barlat-89 [29] and Barlat-2000 [30]). The results of analytical and FE models

4
are validated with the experimental results. In addition, a fractography study is done on
fracture surfaces of specimens from uniaxial tensile test and biaxial hydraulic bulge test.

2. Theoretical Analysis of Hydraulic Bulge Test:

The schematic diagram and geometry of the commonly used hydraulic bulge test is shown in
Figure 1. Here dc and Rc represent the diameter and radius of the cavity respectively, hb as the
bulge height, p as the hydraulic pressure, Rf as the fillet radius of the cavity, Rb as the bulge
radius, t0 as the initial sheet thickness and tb as the thickness at the apex of the dome.

(a) (b)
Figure 1: Hydraulic bulge test (a) schematic diagram, (b) geometry

Using the classical membrane theory [11], the effective flow stress ( ̅) and the effective
strain ( )̅ can be defined as follows in Equations (1-2):

̅ ( ) (1)

̅ ( ) (2)

In these equations, the radius (Rb) and the thickness (tb) at the apex of the bulge need to be

determined using analytical approaches. Assuming the dome as spherical and without

considering the fillet radius, Hill [18] proposed the bulge radius as:

(3)

5
On the other hand, Panknin [19] included the effect of fillet radius ( ) and proposed the
following expression for the bulge radius:

( )
(4)

For calculating the thickness (tb) at the apex of the bulge, Equations (5-7) represent various
expressions proposed by Hill [18], Chakrabarty [20] and Kruglov [21] respectively. In
Equation (6), Chakrabarty [20] considered the thickness as a function of the strain hardening
exponent (n), while Kruglov [21] formulated the thickness as a function of the bulge radius.

( ) (5)
( )

( ) (6)
( )

( )
( ) (7)
( )

However, these analytical approaches for determining effective flow stress and effective
strain do not take into consideration the anisotropic effect of rolling on the sheet materials. To
bring in this anisotropic effect, Smith [22] proposed the following modifications for
determination of effective flow stress and effective strains:

* + (8)

(9)
( ( ))

where, and are determined using Equations (1-2) and R is the average
normal anisotropy of the sheet material.

3. Experimental Studies on Extra Deep Drawing (EDD) Steel:

Extra deep drawing (EDD) steels are widely used in deep drawing and automotive industries.
EDD steel is generated from vacuum degassed steel to achieve a very low-carbon percentage.
It has various desirable properties due to which it has wide applications in the industry. It has
high resistance to thinning during deep-drawing operations. Due to low carbon percentage, it

6
has good ability for welding. Additionally, the fatigue performance of EDD steel is better
than many of the high strength steels due to its low yield strength.

The chemical composition of the as-received EDD steel sheet with 1 mm thickness is
presented in Table 1. The microstructure of the as-received EDD steel sheet with the etching
reagent as Nital solution (98% methanol and 2% nitric acid) is given in Figure 2.

Table 1: Chemical composition of as-received EDD steel sheet (wt. %)

Element C Mn S P Fe

Composition Wt. (%) 0.08 0.40 0.03 0.03 Rest

Figure 2: Microstructure of as-received EDD steel sheet

3.1. Tensile test:

Uniaxial tensile tests have been performed to determine the material properties required in
numerical and analytical analysis of sheet metal forming process. The specimens were
prepared as per sub sized ASTM E8/E8M-11 standard using wire-cut electro-discharge
machining process for high accuracy and finish. The specimens were tested along the three
directions, with the tensile axis being parallel (00), diagonal (450), and perpendicular (900) to
the rolling direction of the sheet. These tests are used to determine the following material
properties: the strain hardening exponent (n), strain rate sensitivity (m), Lankford parameters
(r), yield strength (σy), and strength coefficient (K). Three samples were tested in each of the
three directions and average values were reported to account for the scatter. The strain
hardening exponent (n) was determined from the regression of the load–displacement data
obtained from the tensile tests, using Holloman equation ( ). Average normal
anisotropy (R) has been found by using Equation (10). Based on the tensile tests, the material

7
properties are presented in Table 2 and the flow curves are shown in Figure 3. It can be
observed that the tensile strengths in 00 and 900 to the rolling directions are quite close to each
other; while in 450 to the rolling direction is significantly different.

(10)

Table 2: Material properties for EDD steel

σ0 (MPa) σ45(MPa) σ90 (MPa) R r0 r45 r90 rb K (MPa) n

196.87 135.12 136.5 1.45 1.42 1.38 1.61 1.068 544.4 0.229

where, σ0, σ45, σ90 are yield strengths in 00, 450, 900 to the rolling directions respectively.

Figure 3: Engineering stress versus engineering strain curves in different rolling directions

3.2. Bulge test:

The experimental setup for the hydraulic bulge test comprises a die set with bottom die
connected to a pressurized oil chamber and the top die fixed with a round blank for free
stretching. The top die opening diameter is 50 mm with die fillet radius as 5 mm. The
maximum capacity of the oil pump is 500 bar. The oil chamber pressure is measured with the
help of a digital pressure gauge, while the bulge height is measured with the help of a dial
indicator. The bulge radius is measured with the help of a spherometer as governed by
Equation (11).

(11)

8
where, L is the distance between the three legs of the spherometer, which forms an equilateral
triangle, and h is the spherometer reading, i.e., the vertical movement of the screw.

The specimens for biaxial bulge test are circular sections of 90 mm diameter. First, the bulge
tests were conducted on three specimens by continuously increasing the oil chamber pressure
until the specimens got burst. The burst pressures for the three specimens were measured as
280, 293 and 275 bar respectively. These burst specimen are shown in Figure 4. Then, the
bulge tests were conducted on three more specimens where the oil chamber pressure was
raised only up to 90% of the burst pressure with in-situ measurement of the bulge radius
using a spherometer and the bulge height using a dial gauge indicator. It is done so
particularly to safe guard the dial gauge as it cannot withstand the impact loads when the
specimen bursts. These results were then extrapolated up to the burst pressure.

Figure 4: Experimental burst specimens

4. Finite Element Modeling of Hydraulic Bulge Test:

The finite element (FE) model of hydraulic bulge test is developed using a commercially
available code with LS-Dyna version 971 explict solver. FE simulations are used
comprehensively in the sheet metal forming processes. It significantly reduced the time
consuming, inexact and costly die tryouts. However, the reliability of the numerical
simulations depends not only on the models and methods used but also on the accuracy and
applicability of the input data.

The FE model used for simulation is shown in Figure 5. Upper and lower dies are modeled as
rigid bodies using *MAT_RIGID in simulation. Four node shell elements with Belytschko-
Tsay element formation is used for FE discretization of both blank and die. The FE
discretization of the blank is shown in Figure 5 (b). The blank is restrained between the dies

9
by applying pressure on the lower die. The upper die is constrained in all directions. Three
different material yield models viz; Hill-48 (*MAT_TRANSVERSELY_ANISOTROPIC_
ELASTIC_PLASTIC), Barlat-89 3-parameter (*MAT_3-PARAMETER_BARLAT) and
Barlat-2000 (*MAT_BARLAT_YLD2000) are considered for blank material. Thickness
based mesh adaptivity method is used to refine the blank mesh to get an accurate location of
crack. Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) is plotted for predicting the crack location. Thickness
and n values are input to plot FLD from analytical results in LS-PrePost. Increasing pressure
load as shown in Figure 6 is applied on blank to simulate the hydraulic pressure.

(a) (b)
Figure 5: FE model of hydraulic bulge test setup (a) wire model, (b) blank model

5. Results and Discussion:

Based on the theoretical, experimental and FE simulation study of the hydraulic bulge test,
the following results are compiled and discussed:

5.1. Bulge pressure, bulge radius and thickness at apex:

With the increase in bulge pressure, it is expected to observe an increase in bulge height with
a decrease in bulge radius and thickness at the apex of the dome. Figure 6 represents the
comparison of experimental and FE simulation results of variation in bulge pressure with
respect to the bulge height. FE simulation results are obtained using three different yield
criteria: Hill-48, Barlat-89, Barlat-2000 which are respectively shown by Hill-48, B-89 and
B-2000 lines in Figure 6. From these results, it can be observed that the pressure curve using
Barlat-2000 yield criteria best fits with the experimental pressure values.

10
 Figure 6: Comparison of experimental and FE simulation results of bulge pressure

The results of bulge radius obtained from theoretical analysis and FE simulation study are
compared with the experimental values in Figure 7 (a) and (b) respectively. Theoretically,
the bulge radius is determined using Equations (3-4), Hill and Panknin respectively. From
Figure 7 (a), it can be observed that the bulge radius determined using Panknin relationship is
closely matching with the experimental values, which corroborates the fact that Panknin
takes fillet radius into consideration in determination of the bulge radius. On the other hand,
in FE simulation results in Figure 7 (b), the bulge radius is found to be insensitive to the
choice of yield criterion among Hill-48, Barlat-89 and Barlat-2000.

(a) (b)

Figure 7: Results of bulge radius (a) experimental and analytical (b) experimental and FE
simulation
Similarly, the results of thickness at apex of the dome as obtained from theoretical analysis
and FE simulation study are compared with the experimental values in Figure 8 (a) and (b)
respectively. Theoretically, the thickness at the apex of the dome is determined using
Equations (5-7), Hill, Chakrabarty and Kruglov respectively. In Equation (7), Kruglov
proposes the use of bulge radius to determine thickness at the apex of the dome, where bulge
radius again can be determined either by Hill – Equation (3) or Panknin – Equation (4).

11
Based on this, Figure 8 (a) has legends Kru r-Hill and Kru r-Panknin, which represent the
thickness at the apex of the dome using Kruglov formula with bulge radius from Hill and
Panknin respectively. Herein, it can be observed that the thickness predicted by Kru r-
Panknin closely matches with the experimental values. On the other hand, from the FE
simulation results in Figure 8 (b) it can be observed that the thickness predictions using
Barlat-2000 yield criterion closely matches with the experimental values of thickness.

(a) (b)

Figure 8: Results of thickness at the apex of the dome (a) experimental and analytical (b)
experimental and FE simulation

5.2. Stress-strain curves:

Flow stress and strain values have been calculated using Equations (1, 2, 8, 9) based on
theoretical and experimental data. These stress-strain curves have been presented in Figure 9
(a), where in the legend rh and rp represent the bulge radius using Hill and Panknin
respectively; while th, tc and tk represent the thickness at the apex of the dome using Hill,
Chakrabarty and Kruglov respectively. Thus, the legend rh-th represents the theoretical
stress-strain curve using radius from Hill and thickness also from Hill and so on. From these
results, it can be inferred that theoretical stress-strain curve using rp-tk (radius from Panknin
and thickness from Kruglov) closely matches with the experimental stress-strain curve.
Similarly, the stress-strain curves from FE simulation study using Hill-48, Barlat-89 and
Barlat-2000 yield criteria have been compared with the experimental stress-strain curves in
Figure 9 (b). Herein it can be observed that for higher strains ( > 0.15), all three FE
simulation based stress-strain curves closely match with the experimental curve.

12
 (a) (b)
Figure 9: Stress-strain curves (a) experimental and analytical (b) experimental and FE
simulation
Figure 10 presents the comparison between the stress-strain curves obtained from the
hydraulic bulge test (biaxial) and from the tensile test (uniaxial). These curves have been
plotted till fracture. From these curves, it can be observed that in the uniaxial tensile test, the
specimen can be stretched only up to 30% strain before fracture; while in the biaxial
hydraulic bulge test, the specimen can be stretched up to more than 70% strain before the
final burst. In addition, both these curves are found to be almost similar up to 30% strain.
These results for EDD steel are in close agreement with the results obtained for aluminium
and titanium alloys [7-8]. These findings are further substantiated by a fractography study on
the tensile test and bulge test fracture specimens in the next section. .

Figure 10: Stress-strain curves obtained from the hydraulic bulge test and the tensile test

5.3. FE simulation of crack initiation:

FE analysis has been used to predict the crack initiation in the specimen in the hydraulic
bulge test. Based on the analytical results in LS-PrePost, the forming limit diagram has been

13
plotted as presented in Figure 11, which has been used to accurately predict the crack
initiation. Figure 12 presents the FE predictions of crack initiation using Hill-48, Barlat-89
and Barlat-2000 yield criteria. Figure 4 presents the experimental burst specimen showing the
crack initiation and propagation. From these figures, the predictions of crack initiation in FE
simulation using all three yield criteria are found to be in close agreement with the
experimental burst. Particularly, Barlat-2000 yield criterion gives more accurate crack
prediction and bursting of the specimen.

Figure 11: Forming limit diagram for predicting the crack initiation

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 12: FE simulation of crack initiation using (a) Hill-48, (b) Barlat-89 and (c) Barlat-
2000

6. Fractography study:

In order to clarify the failure mechanisms in the tensile test and the hydraulic bulge test, the
fracture surfaces after tensile test and bulge test were observed by the scanning electron

14
microscopy (SEM). The SEM images are shown in Figures 13-14 for fractography of tensile
test and hydraulic bulge test respectively. Figures 13 (a) and (b) represent the fractographs
with 100X and 250X magnification at fracture surface of the tensile test, where the necked
region can be clearly observed with a thickness of approximately 0.25 mm. On the other
hand, Figures 14 (a) and (b) represent the fractographs with 100X and 250X magnification at
fracture surface of the hydraulic bulge test, where there is no necking in the material; rather
there is a uniform thinning in the sheet at the apex of the dome with a thickness of
approximately 0.2 mm and then there is shear failure.

At higher magnifications 3000X and 6000X, Figures 13 (c) and (d) show that the material in
the tensile test exhibited a typical ductile fracture showing deep equiaxed or hemispheroidal
dimples with predominance of 2 μm diameter size and very few of 7 μm diameter size.
Ductile tensile fractures in most materials have a grey fibrous appearance with equiaxed or
hemispheroidal dimples [31]. This kind of fracture occurs by microvoid formation and
coalescence.

From the fractographs of bulge test at higher magnifications in Figures 14 (c) and (d), it can
be observed that there is a predominance of deep elongated shear dimples of 3 μm minor axis
and 6 μm major axis with some shear dimples of 4.5 μm minor axis and 9 μm major axis and
very few shear dimples of 6 μm minor axis and 12 μm major axis. However, all these shear
dimples maintain a 1:2 ratio in the minor and major axis. This finding is in agreement with
the presence of elongated shear dimples in case of fractures in biaxial stretching of DP600
steel using a hemispherical punch and die test setup [34].

It has been reported that there are two distinctively different ductile rupture mechanisms
depending on the stress state, which will either compete or co-operate under different
situation leading to ductile failure [32]. At high stress triaxiality, the fractured surfaces are
covered with large and deep dimples, suggesting that growth and internal necking of voids
being the governing rupture mechanism. At low triaxiality, near a generalized shear state of
stress the presence and growth of voids does not play a significant role. Here rupture occurs
by internal shearing between voids and seems to be governed by a simple shear deformation.
This mechanism is often referred to as shear dimple rupture, where final failure takes place
by shearing of the intervoid ligaments. This finding is in good agreement with the
experimental results of tensile test and hydraulic bulge test in current study.

15
In addition, from Figures 13-14, it can be observed that the shear dimples in bulge test are
more in number and more deep when compared to the equiaxed dimples in tensile test. It has
been reported that the large number of deep dimples in a fractograph indicates the higher
level of plastic deformation at failure [33]. Thus, this indicates that the plastic deformation till
fracture is much higher in the bulge test specimen than the tensile test specimen, which
corroborates with the observations in the stress-strain curve in Figure 10.

a b
0.75 mm

0.25 mm

c d

Figure 13: Tensile test fractographs (a) 100X, (b) 250X, (c) 3000X and (d) 6000X

16
 a b

0.2 mm

c d

Figure 14: Bulge test fractographs (a) 100X, (b) 250X, (c) 3000X and (d) 6000X

7. Conclusions:

This paper presents experimental, analytical, finite element and fractography studies on the
biaxial stretching of EDD steel sheet using hydraulic bulge test. The important conclusions
from this study are:

1. In hydraulic bulge test, the maximum achievable strain in plastic deformation is more
than 70% before bursting of the specimen, while in tensile tests it is limited to 30% as
shown in Figure 10.
2. Analytical results based on Hill, Panknin, Chakarabarty and Kruglov approaches are
experimentally validated and it is found that the stress-strain curves using bulge radius
based on Panknin approach and thickness based on Kruglov approach are in close
agreement with the experimental curve.

17
3. FE simulation study using three yield criteria, Hill-48, Barlat-89 and Barlat-2000, reveals
that all three criteria give quite accurate predictions of stress-strain curve for the bulge
test as well as of the crack initiation before bursting. Particularly, Barlat-2000 yield
criterion gives more accurate results.
4. The fractography study on specimens from tensile and bulge tests reveals the ductile
failure, but with the presence of more deep elongated shear dimples in bulge test when
compared to equiaxed dimples in tensile test, which corroborates with the high level of
plastic deformation till fracture in the hydraulic bulge test.

Based on these points, it can be concluded that for accurate FE modelling of industrial sheet
metal forming processes, where the state of stress is mostly biaxial, it is more suitable to use
hydraulic bulge test for obtaining the material properties and stress-strain data as an input to
FE simulation models. Future work involves bulge test experiments and simulations at
elevated temperatures and development of forming limit diagrams based on bulge tests.

Acknowledgements:
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge University Grants Commission (UGC),
Government of India, for supporting this research work through Research Award scheme, 30-
69/2012 (SA-II).

References:
1. Kotkunde NK, Deole D. Aditya, Gupta AK, Singh SK, Comparative study of constitutive modeling for Ti–6Al–
4V alloy at low strain rates and elevated temperatures. J Mater Des 2014; 55:999–1005.
2. Lin YC, Chen X-M. A critical review of experimental results and constitutive descriptions for metals and
alloys in hot working. J Mater Des 2011;32:1733–1759.
3. Lange K. Handbook of metal forming. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1985.
4. Muammer Koç, Eren Billur, Ömer Necati Cora. An experimental study on the comparative assessment of
hydraulic bulge test analysis methods. J Mater Des 32 (2011) 272–281.
5. Altan T, Palaniswamy H, Bortot P, Mirtsch M, Heidl W, Bechtold A. Determination of sheet material
properties using biaxial tests. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on accuracy in forming
technology. Chemnitz, Germany, 2006.
6. Keller S, Hotz W, Friebe H. Yield curve determination using the bulge test combined with optical
measurement. International deep drawing research group IDDRG 2009. International conference, Golden,
CO, USA, 2009.

18
7. Janbakhsh et. al., Utilization of bulge and uniaxial tensile tests for determination of flow stress curves of
selected anisotropic alloys, Proc IMechE Part L: J Mater Des and Applications, 2012, 227(1) 38–51.
8. Güner A, Brosius A, Tekkaya AE. Analysis of the hydraulic bulge test with FEA concerning the accuracy of
the determined flow curves. Key Engineering Materials 2009; 439–447.
9. Atkinson, M. Accurate determination of biaxial stress–strain relationships from hydraulic bulging tests of
sheet metals. . Int J Mech Sci 1997; 39 :761–769
10. Gleyzal, A, Plastic deformation of a circular diaphragm under pressure. J App Mech 1948; 70: 288–296.
11. Gutscher, G, Wu H-C, Ngaile, G, Altan T, Determination of flow stress for sheet metal forming using the
viscous pressure bulge (VPB) test. J Mater Process Technol 2004; 146:1–7.
12. Koç M, Aueulan Y, Altan T. On the characteristics of tubular materials for hydroforming – experimentation
and analysis. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2001; 41(5):761–72.
13. Koç M, Altan T. An overall review of the tube hydroforming (THF) technology. J Mater Process Technol
2001;108(3):384–93.
14. Dziallach S, Bleck W, Blumbach M, Hallfeldt T. Sheet metal testing and flow curve determination under
multiaxial conditions. Advance Engineering Material 2007; 9(11):987–94.
15. Koh CW. Design of a hydraulic bulge test apparatus. MS Thesis, naval architecture and marine engineering.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2008.
16. Banabic D, Vulcan M, Siegert K. Bulge testing under constant and variable strain rates of superplastic
aluminium alloys. CIRP Annuals Manufacturing Technology 2005; 1:205–218.
17. Rees DW. Plastic flow in the elliptical bulge test. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 1995;
37(4):373–389.
18. Hill R. C. A theory of the plastic bulging of a metal diaphragm by lateral pressure. London, Edinburgh,
Dublin Philos Mag J Sci, 1950; 41(322):1133–42.
19. Panknin W. The hydraulic bulge test and the determination of the flow stress curves. Dissertation,
Institute for Metal Forming Technology, University of Stuttgart, Germany, 1959
20. CHAKRABARTY J, ALEXANDER JM. Hydrostatic bulging of circular diaphragms. J Strain Anal Eng Des
1970;5:155–61.
21. Kruglov A.A., Enikeev F.U., Lutfullin RYa.. Superplastic forming of a spherical shell out a welded envelope.
Materials Science Engineering A 2002;
22. Smith L. M., Wanintrudar C., Yang W., Jiang S. A new experimental approach for obtaining diffuse-strain
flow stress curves. . J Mater Process Technol 2009; 209: 3830-3839.
23. Ranta-Eskola A. J. Use of the hydraulic bulge test in biaxial tensile testing. Int J Mech Sci 1979; 21:457–65.
24. Kangning Liu , LihuiLang , et al. I A novel approach to determine plastic hardening c urves of AA7075 sheet
utilizing hydraulic bulging test at elevated temperature. Int J Mech Sci 2015;100: 328–338.
25. Mulder J, Vegter H, Aretz H, Keller S, van den Boogaard a. H. Accurate determination of flow curves using
the bulge test with optical measuring systems. J Mater Process Technol 2015;226:169–87.

19
26. Nasser a., Yadav a., Pathak P, Altan T. Determination of the flow stress of five AHSS sheet materials (DP
600, DP 780, DP 780-CR, DP 780-HY and TRIP 780) using the uniaxial tensile and the biaxial Viscous
Pressure Bulge (VPB) tests. J Mater Process Technol 2010;210:429–36.
27. Djavanroodi F, Janbakhsh M. Formability Characterization of Titanium Alloy Sheets. Titanium Alloys -
Advances in Properties Control, book edited by Sieniawski J and Waldemar Ziaja, ISBN 978-953-51-1110-8,
Published: May 15, 2013.
28. Hill R. A Theory of the Yielding and Plastic Flow of Anisotropic Metals. Proc R Soc Lond A Math Phys Sci
1948;193:281–97.
29. Barlat F, Lian K. Plastic behavior and stretchability of sheet metals. Part I: A yield function for orthotropic
sheets under plane stress conditions. Int J Plast 1989;5:51–66.
30. Barlat F, Brem JC, Yoon JW, Chung K, Dick RE, Lege DJ, et al. Plane stress yield function for aluminum alloy
sheets - Part 1: Theory. Int J Plast 2003;19:1297–319.
31. Gabriel BL, Scanning Electron Microscopy, vol. 12, ASM Handbooks,1998, p. 173.
32. Barsoum I, Faleskog J. Rupture mechanisms in combined tension and shear—Experiments. Int. J. Solids
Struct. 44 (2007) 1768–1786.
33. Rahmatollah G, Giuseppe M. Ductile failure of X100 pipeline steel – Experiments and fractography. J Mater
Des 2013; 43:513–525
34. Valente Tigrinho LM, Chemin Filho RA, Prestes Marcondes PV. Fracture analysis approach of DP600 steel
when subjected to different stress/strain states during deformation. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2013;
69:1017–24.

20