|
| Reference | Type of sheet and method of examination | Parameters considered | Results obtained |
|
| Raghavan [1] | Marciniak biaxial stretch test and produced the in-plane FLCs by using a single punch/die on low-carbon drawing quality sheet steel (0.76 to 1.5 mm thickness) | Obtained in-plane FLCs and compared with the conventional out-of-plane dome tests | Results confirmed that (a) sheet thickness has an intrinsic influence on forming limits and (b) plastic anisotropy and (c) in-plane FLCs were somewhat lesser than out-of-plane FLCs near plane strain |
|
| Levy and Van Tyne [2] | Stress-based FLCs were developed using the uniaxial tensile test data of IF RePhos, HSLA 350, HS440W, DP 500, DP600, DP800, DP980, and TRIP600 with 0.7, 1.4, and 2.1 mm | Keeler–Brazier equation for developing the FLCs | FLCs were well correlated with strain-based FLCs |
|
| Pundan et al. (2017) | FLDs developed by Nakajima testing on DP600GA (1.2 mm thickness), DQ (0.7 mm thickness), HIF (0.8 mm thickness), and EDD (0.8 mm thickness) | Proposed a method based on a combination of experiments and the use of CrachLab | The forming limit diagram generated using the proposed methodology was compared with the one obtained using the standard procedure, and a good correlation was obtained |
|
| Lumelskyj et al. [3] | Evaluated the FLCs using finite element simulations with Nakazima formability tests on a DC04 steel sheet of 1 mm thick | Nakazima formability tests through experiments and simulations | The FLCs strains were calculated by using the strain localization criteria |
|
| Paul [4] | Reviewed and indicated the various parameters such as limit strain evaluation method, punch profile, microstructure, prestraining path, strain rate, and temperature influencing the FLCs | The tensile properties and their relationship with FLCs. Demonstrated the microstructure characteristics of FLCs | Sandwich sheets made of metal-polymer-metal formability evaluation and construction of FLD have been discussed |
|
| Sokolova et al. [5] | Investigated the deep drawing and bending of 316L/polyolefin/316L sandwich with 0.5 mm thick cover and 0.6 mm thick core | The geometry and the size of the local inlays | Observed less formability of solid steel inlays MPM sandwich composites than without reinforced sheets |
|
| Carradò et al. [6] | Stainless steel (0.5 mm thick) and/or aluminum alloy (AlMg3) (0.5 mm thick) and core polyolefin sheet (PP-PE). Tested MPM through adhesive and Erichsen test and deep drawing | For proper bonding in sandwich sheets, roll bonding and heating press processes are used. Used two flat punches of various sizes and shapes | The properties of the sandwiches have been studied and compared with similar, industrially produced materials available on the market |
|
| Sokolova et al. [7] | The formability of sandwich composites made of 316L/PP-PE/316L with various sample sizes and core thicknesses for the deep drawing process | Different sample sizes and core thickness | The punch geometry and the core thickness were found a significant impact on sandwich-forming behaviour |
| Two flat punches of different sizes and shapes |
|
| Liu et al. [8] | A numerical simulation model was created and simulated the forming of AA5052-polyethylene-AA5052 sandwich sheets with the conditions at the interface between the skin sheet and the core materials | Sandwich sheets were tested using the rigid punch and Nakazima forming methods under three different separation, adhesion, and stick interface conditions | Found that as interfacial adhesion strength increases, the FLD of sandwich sheets shifts to a higher value |
|
| Liu et al. [9] | The FLDs of AA5052-polyethylene-AA5052 sandwich sheets | The Gurson–Tvergaard–Needleman damage model was used for simulation. Nakazima forming tests | The results showed that the formability of the AA5052/polyethylene/AA5052 sandwich sheet was superior to that of the monolithic AA5052 sheet. Formability was increased by increasing the thickness of polyethylene core layer |
|
| Li et al. [10] | The face sheets and core of the honeycomb sandwich panels were made of Al-1200 and Al-5052 | The blast resistance of square sandwich panels with hexagon aluminum honeycomb cores through experimentations and numerical simulations | They have studied the deformation phenomenon of aluminum honeycomb cores |
|
| Harhashe et al. [11] | Developed 316L/polymer/316L (SPS) sandwich materials by roll-bonding method with variable core thickness (0.3, 0.6, and 1.8 mm) with 0.5 mm thick 316L | Examined mechanical properties by changing core thickness. Investigated under deep drawing conditions | According to the deformation analysis, the inserted reinforcements had a significant impact on the strain distribution, failure, and consequently the location of cracking |
|
| Harhash et al. [12] | Developed deep drawing steel grade 316L with a skin sheet thickness of 0.49 and 0.24 mm, while the core sheet was a PP-PE copolymer foil of 0.3, 0.6, 1.0, and 2.0 mm thick | Examined the impact of various core thicknesses on the mechanical properties in terms of elastic modulus, yield, and ultimate tensile strength | Deep drawing was used to determine FLC curve of SPS |
|
| Harhash et al. [13] | Developed deep drawing steel grade 316L with a skin sheet thickness of 0.49 and 0.24 mm, while the core sheet was a PP-PE copolymer foil of 0.3, 0.6, 1.0, and 2.0 mm thick | The impact of reinforcements with various geometries, sizes, materials, and locations on the stretching and deep drawability of SPS | The stretching outcomes demonstrated that a smaller reinforcement decreases the forming potential |
|
| Harhash et al. [14] | Developed deep drawing steel grade 316L with a skin sheet thickness of 0.49 and 0.24 mm, while the core sheet was a PP-PE copolymer foil of 0.3, 0.6, 1.0, and 2.0 mm thick | The deep drawing behaviour of SPS sandwich sheets by experimental, analytical, and numerical methods | A good agreement was derived regarding predicting the forming forces, the strain field distribution, and thickness reduction results |
|
| Kami et al. [15] | Analyzed the formability of three-layer DC06 skins with polymer in the middle sheets | An anisotropic GTN model and a modified M-K model were used to quantify the FLCs of sandwich sheets | The results showed that all of the parameters had significant effects on the formability of the sandwich sheets. Furthermore, it was found that, by increasing the thickness of the layers, the sandwich sheets formability improved |
|
| Miranda et al. [16] | Fabricated steel metal skins with 0.3 mm thickness and a polymeric core with 1 mm thickness | Characterization and formability of SPS sandwich materials, hole expansion tests, and deep drawing Erichsen test | Formability was observed through numerical simulations that were also performed to know the influence of tool geometry during the hole expansion test |
|
| Forcellese and Simoncini [17] | The three-layer MPM sandwich composite obtained by cold rolling bonding a core film in polypropylene polyethylene | Punch tests with a hemispherical shape were used to gauge formability | Results were related to the debonding mechanism occurring at the interfaces between steel sheet and plastic core as the angle of the sample axis was 0° and 90° |
| Resin, 0.4 mm in thickness, with two cover sheets in higher strength interstitial free steel (0.2 mm thick) | Compared samples oriented at 0° and 90° to the rolling direction, and it was found that samples oriented at 45° to the rolling direction had the highest mechanical properties and formability |
|
| By Marques et al. [18] | Finite element analysis was used and studied the forming behaviour of multilayer sheets on two multilayer sheets of interstitial free steel of a thickness of 1.6 mm, A1060-O of 0.3 mm thick, and a polymeric core, 1.0 mm thick | The behaviour of the multilayer sheets and their equivalent materials was assessed using numerical simulations of the bulge test, deep drawing of a U-channel profile, and square cup | The curves of force vs. displacement of the punch as well as the strain and stress distributions were used to evaluate the effects of the different mechanical properties of the constituent materials and some geometric parameters of the deep-drawing process on the plastic behaviour |
|
| Harhash et al. [19] | Investigated the forming behaviour of sandwich composites made of SPS. Developed deep drawing steel grade 316L with a skin sheet thickness of 0.49 and 0.24 mm, while the core sheet was a PP-PE copolymer foil of 0.3,0.6, 1.0, and 2.0 mm thick | Under three-point bending conditions, a wide range of SPS layer configurations and thicknesses were tested while taking into account various bending angles (60, 90, and 150°) and punch radii (1.5, 3, 6, and 12 mm) | The results were validated, and a good fit between the numerical and analytical findings and the experimental findings was made |
|
| Kazemi et al. [20] | Made AA5754-polyethylene-AA5754 sandwich composite sheets, respectively (0.5 mm each skin layer and 0.5 mm polyethylene layer), and developed the forming limit diagram through experimentally and numerically | Evaluated mechanical properties, Nakazima test, and fractography | The forming results illustrated that the AA5754-polyethylene-AA5754 sandwich composites are applicable to be used instead of the aluminum sheets |
|
| Bekele et al. [21] | Investigated formability analysis of metal-polymer sandwich composites made of “AW 6082-PVC-AW 6082 (APA)” and “galvanized steel-PVC-galvanized steel (GPG)” sandwich sheets | For evaluating the formability, the actual limit dome height (LDH)—biaxial strain path—tests were simulated | The results were analyzed by forming limit diagram, punch force distribution, and a dome height at diverse conditions of punch velocity and friction. A comparison was made and represented the best combinations for the formability of the sandwich composites |
|
| Kella and Mallick [22] | AA5182-O/polypropylene/AA5182-O laminates with various combinations of core and skin thicknesses | Studied the springback of the sandwich laminates, the effects of various tool design and process parameters, such as die radius, punch radius, and blank holder force | The springback response of sandwich laminates is higher than that of the single aluminum sheet if they have the same thickness |
|
| Pazand et al. [23] | The forming boundaries and deformation characteristics of three-layer metallic (aluminum (AA3004), stainless steel (SUS304), and copper (Cu1011)) sheets were attempted | A numerical finite element method was used to investigate how the layer arrangement affected the FLD, stress triaxiality, and limiting dome height (LDH) | The results showed that the material properties, particularly the tensile strength, play a key role in controlling the FLD of the three-layer sheets |
|
