Experimental determination of the failure surface for DP980 high-strength metal sheets considering stress triaxiality and Lode angle

  • Minsoo Kim
  • Hyunseok Lee
  • Seokmoo HongEmail author
Open Access


To meet requirements for reduced fuel consumption of cars, the use of components made of sheets of high-strength steel instead of conventional steel has been on the rise. However, low ultimate elongation of high-strength steel often causes problems during plastic deformation and more research is needed to improve failure predictability. Ductile failure models available in commercial finite element analysis (FEA) packages require the material’s tensile strength and failure strain for failure prediction. For stress states that are more complex than the uniaxial case, accurate prediction of the how, when, and where failure occurs has been become problematic and it has been investigated by numerous researchers. In this study, we investigate the prediction of failure in DP980 sheets under triaxle stress states. We first determine the shapes of specimens using certain triaxial stress states, such as pure shear, uniaxial tension, biaxial deformation, which are induced by corresponding tensile tests. When failure occurs, equivalent strain at the failure locus is obtained by means of digital image correlation (DIC) and then plotted against triaxiality and Lode angle, based on which the triaxiality failure diagram (TFD) is established to implement in the FEA program of LS-DYNA. Validation is made by comparing the numerical results with burring test data. Good agreement was found for failure locus and strain distribution at the time of failure.


Failure surface Stress triaxiality DP980 sheet Lode angle Digital image correlation Burring test 


  1. 1.
    Khan MS, Bhole SD, Chen DL, Boudreau G, Biro E, Deventer JV (2009) Resistance spot welding characteristics and mechanical properties of galvannealed HSLA 350 steel. Can Metall Q 48:303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Joost W (2012) Reducing vehicle weight and improving U.S. energy efficiency using integrated computational materials engineering. TMS 64:1032–1038Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Butcher C, Dykeman J (2017) Fracture characterization of advanced 980 MPa steels. In: Proceedings of the 16th annual great design in steels, Livonia, MI, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tsoupis I, Merklein M (2016) Edge crack sensitivity of lightweight materials under different load conditions. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng 159:012017. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Choi KS, Liu WN, Sun X, Khaleel A, Fekete JR (2009) Influence of manufacturing processes and microstructures on the performance and manufacturability of advanced high strength steels. J Eng Mater Technol 131(4):041205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Keeler SP (1965) Determination of forming limits in automotive stampings. SAE Technical Paper 650535.
  7. 7.
    ISO (2008) 12004-2 Metallic materials-sheet and strip-determination of the forming limit curves. Part 2: Determination of FLCs in the laboratory. International Organization for Standardization.
  8. 8.
    ASTM (2015) E2218-15 Standard test method for determining forming limit curves. ASTM International.
  9. 9.
    Arrieux R, Bedrin C, Boivin M (1982) Determination of an intrinsic forming limit stress diagram for isotropic metal sheets. Proceedings of the 12th Biennial Congress International Deep Drawing Research Group. Santa Margherita, Italy, pp 61–71Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pradeau A, Thuillier S, Yoon JW (2016) Prediction of failure in bending of an aluminium sheet alloy. Int J Mech Sci 119:23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li W, Liao F, Zhou T, Askes H (2016) Ductile fracture of Q460 steel: effects of stress triaxiality and Lode angle. J Construct Steel Res 123:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cockcroft MG, Latham DJ (1968) Ductility and the workability of metals. J Inst Met 96:33–39Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oh S, Chen C, Kobayashi S (1979) Ductile failure in axisymmetric extrusion and drawing, part 2, workability in extrusion and drawing. J Eng Ind 101:36–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brozzo P, Deluca B, Rendina R (1972) A new method for the prediction of formability in metal sheets, sheet material forming and formability. In: Proceedings of the 7th biennial conference of the IDDRGGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oyane M, Sato T, Okimoto K, Shima S (1980) Criteria for ductile fracture and their applications. J Mechanical Working Technol 4(1):65–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bai Y, Wierzbicki T (2008) A new model of metal plasticity and fracture with pressure and lode dependence. Int J Plasticity 24(6):1071–1096CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hallquist JO (2012) LS-DYNA keyword user’s manual, version 971. Livermore Software Technology Corporation, Livermore, CA, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Neukamm F, Feucht M, Haufe A (2008) Consistent damage modelling in the process chain of forming to crashworthiness simulations. In: Proceedings of the 7th LS-DYNA anwenderforum. Bamberg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Neukamm F, Feucht M, Haufe A (2009) Considering damage history in crashworthiness simulations. In: Proceedings of the 7th European LS-DYNA conference. Salzburg, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Borrego M, Morales-Palma D, Martínez-Donaire AJ, Centeno G, Vallellano C (2015) On the study of the single-stage hole-flanging process by SPIF. Procedia Engineering 132:290–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marciniak Z (1965) Stability of plastic shells under tension with kinematic boundary condition. Arch Mech Stosow 17:577–592Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hotz W (2006) European efforts in standardization of FLC. ETH Zürich. Zürich, Switzerland, pp 24–25Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tasan CC, Hoefnagels JPM, Diehl M, Yan D, Roters F, Raabe D (2014) Strain localization and damage in dual phase steels investigated by coupled in-situ deformation experiments and crystal plasticity simulations. Int J Plast 63:198–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    ASTM (2016) E8/E8M-16a Standard test method for tension testing of metallic materials. ASTM International.
  25. 25.
    ISO 6892-1 (2016) Metallic materials-tensile testing. Part 1: Method of test at room temperature. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    ARAMIS (2011) User’s manual-software v6.3.1. GOM-Gesellschaft für Optische Messtechnik mbH, Braunschweig, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Johnson GR, Cook WH (1985) Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various strains, strain rates, temperatures and pressures. Eng Fract Mech 21(1):31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gurson A (1977) Continuum theory of ductile rupture by void nucleation and growth: part 1. Yield criteria and flow rules for porous ductile media. J Eng Mater Technol 99:2–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringSogang UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.NARA Mold & Die Co., Ltd.ChangwonRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical & Automotive EngineeringKongju National UniversityCheonanRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations