CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 27,aNo. 4,a2014

730

DOI: 10.3901/CJME.2014.0515.094, available online at www.springerlink.com; www.cjmenet.com; www.cjmenet.com.cn

Error Analysis of FLC Experimental Data at Warm/Hot Stamping Conditions

ZHUANG Weimin1, *, ZHANG Mengxi1, and CHEN Yanhong2
1 State Key Laboratory of Automotive Dynamic Simulation, Jilin University, Changchun 130022, China
2 Department of Aeronautics, Imperial College, London SW7 2AZ, UK
Received December 5, 2013; revised May 14, 2014; accepted May 15, 2014

Abstract: Forming limit curves(FLCs) are commonly used for evaluating the formability of sheet metals. However, it is difficult to
obtain the FLCs with desirable accuracy by experiments due to that the friction effects are non-negligible under warm/hot stamping
conditions. To investigate the experimental errors, experiments for obtaining the FLCs of the AA5754 are conducted at 250. Then, FE
models are created and validated on the basis of experimental results. A number of FE simulations are carried out for FLC test-pieces
and punches with different geometry configurations and varying friction coefficients between the test-piece and the punch. The errors
for all the test conditions are predicted and analyzed. Particular attention of error analysis is paid to two special cases, namely, the
biaxial FLC test and the uniaxial FLC test. The failure location and the variation of the error with respect to the friction coefficient are
studied as well. The results obtained from the FLC tests and the above analyses show that, for the biaxial tension state, the friction
coefficient should be controlled within 0.15 to avoid significant shifting of the necking location away from the center of the punch; for
the uniaxial tension state, the friction coefficient should be controlled within 0.1 to guarantee the validity of the data collected from FLC
tests. The conclusions summarized are beneficial for obtaining accurate FLCs under warm/hot stamping conditions.
Keywords: forming limit curve(FLC), error analysis, warm/hot stamping, finite element analysis

Introduction

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in

the use of aluminum alloys in the automotive industry. This
can be attributed to their excellent properties, such as high
strength/weight ratio, good corrosion resistance, and
favorable weldability[12]. It is however obvious that the
poor formability of aluminum alloys at room temperature
substantially limits their usage in the automotive industry.
One practical solution to this problem is logically the use of
the warm/hot stamping process, which can considerably
improve the formability of aluminum alloys[39].
The forming limit curve(FLC), first presented by
KEELER and BACKOFEN[10], is widely used in sheet
metal forming for determining the likely occurrence of
failure[11]. It plays a safety-judging role in sheet metal
formability simulation[12]. Specifically, any strain state falls
into the area that is encompassed by the FLC is safe;
otherwise, failure should occur. Therefore, the accuracy of
formability simulation of a stamping process by using finite
element method(FEM) depends on that of the FLC used[13].

To obtain an accurate FLC for sheet metal forming at

room temperature, tests should be carried out under six
different strain states(see Fig. 1) according to the ISO
standards[1415]. As can be seen from the figure, the strain
paths are linear, meaning that the corresponding loading
states maintain the same from the start to the end[16]. Also,
the determined linear strain paths of a general FLC range
from the uniaxial tension strain state(path 1: 2/1=0.5),
to the biaxial tension strain state(path 6: 2/1=1.0).

Fig. 1.
* Corresponding author. E-mail: zhuangwm@jlu.edu.cn
Supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China(Grant No.
51375201), Jilin Province Science and Technology Development
Plan(Grant No. 20130101048JC), and Open Research Fund of Shanghai
Key Laboratory of Digital Manufacturer for Thin-walled Structure(Grant
No. 2013001)
Chinese Mechanical Engineering Society and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Strain states of a typical FLC

1. Uniaxial tension; 2. Intermediate tensile; 3. Plane strain;

4, 5. Intermediate stretching; 6. Biaxial tension.

The feasibility of two commonly used tests, namely, the

Marciniak test and the Nakajima test, for the determination

CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

of the FLCs has been analyzed during past decades.
RAGHAVAN[17] reported that in-plane(the Marciniak test)
forming limits are slightly lower than out-of-plane(the
Nakajima test) forming limits near plane strain.
BOISSIRE R, et al[18], suggested that the Nakajima test
can obtain a complete FLC with limited number of tests at
any chosen scale staying within the non-influential range of
grain size and defect dimensions. Based on their study, it
can be concluded that the Nakajima test is better choice for
the determination the FLCs.
Many researches have also been carried to investigate the
factors affecting the FLCs at room temperature.
BRESSAN[19] suggested that the FLCs are affected by the
thickness of the test-piece, and thicker sheets have higher
limit strains. BLECK, et al[20], suggested that the FLCs are
also affected by factors such as yield tensile strength, the
strain hardening and the strain-rate sensitivity.
MARCINIAK, et al[21], conducted both experimental and
theoretical research to study the influence of plastic
property on the FLCs. Their research revealed that the
FLCs are also affected by the uniformity of material
orientations, specifically, the FLC in the rolling direction is
significantly different from that in the transverse direction,
and the limit strains are somewhat higher in rolling
direction.
The key factor of obtaining accurate results from
Marciniak FLC tests is to keep the friction coefficient as
close as possible to zero. As regards cold FLC tests, seven
layers of lubricants are applied to ensure that the friction
coefficient is close to zero[11] so that the errors can be
minimized. However, for warm/hot FLC tests, the
lubrication method is not suitable since the polymer-type
lubricant layers cannot be used at high temperatures; and
the friction is normally much higher than that in cold FLC
tests. On the basis of the above facts, significant research
was carried out by HSU, et al[13], suggesting that a
test-piece tends to fail at the contact area between the
punch and the unsupported region away from the center of
the test-piece, due to the friction in the Nakajima test.
Nevertheless, they have not proposed a suitable friction
coefficient range to achieve a desirable failure location for
the accurate FLC experiments. Although they emphasized
that the Nakajima test is complicated by the effect of
friction, the relation between the friction and the errors of
FLC experiments was not studied properly. Therefore, the
main aim of this paper is to quantify the effect of friction
on the errors of FLC data through carrying out numerical
simulations.
In this paper, the warm/hot FLC experimental procedure
is introduced; and experimental results for AA5754 at
warm/hot stamping condition with temperature of 250
are presented and analyzed, based on which, the FLC errors,
particularly for uniaxial tension and biaxial tension
conditions are identified. This leads to the main aim of the
research. Then FE models, calibrated from the experimental
results, are created for the investigation of the errors at

731

different test conditions. The simulation results on errors

are presented and analyzed. Finally, conclusions are given
at the end of the paper.

Experiments

2.1 Material and geometry of test-pieces

Test-pieces used in this research were made of the
commercial alloy AA5754, which offers good corrosion
resistance, weldability and formability. The chemical
compositions of the AA5754 are given in Table 1.
Table 1.

Chemical compositions of AA5754(wt.%)[11]

Si

Fe

Mn

Mg

Al

0.4

0.4

0.5

2.63.2

Bal.

Based on the ISO standards[15], the Nakajima type

forming method was selected to determine FLC at various
warm/hot stamping conditions. Fig. 2 shows the tools
used for Nakajima tests. The blanker holder has a circular
draw bead with a diameter of 104 mm. As is clear from Fig.
3, the test-piece is a circular blank with a waist(W) in the
middle forming by two parallel edges; the rolling direction
of the material is parallel to the waist axis for the aluminum
alloy in accordance with the ISO standards[15].

Fig. 2.

Forming tools for Nakajima tests

Fig. 3. Waisted test-piece geometry

for Nakajima type test for AA5754

According to the ISO standards[15], the FLC can be

derived by considering six strain states as depicted in Fig. 1.
Test-pieces with different widths of the waist(W), listed in

YZHUANG Weimin, et al: Error Analysis of FLC Experimental Data at Warm/Hot Stamping Conditions

732

Table 2, were used to achieve different strain states in the

tests.

out FLC tests so as to provide a useful guidance for the data

of FLC tests being generated accurately.

Table 2. Widths of the waist of the test-pieces

Strain state number

Widths of the waist

W/mm

24

64

80

88

92

160

2.2 Experimental procedure and results

In order to measure the strains, the test-pieces were
marked with regular distributed circular dots(1.5 mm in
center-to-center spacing, and 0.75 mm in diameter) forming
a square pattern, prior to carrying out the forming tests. A
high rate press was used and a furnace was mounted on the
machine to conduct the tests at elevated temperature. After
that, lubricated test-pieces were put on the blank holder in
the pre-heated furnace, and then stamped by the punch. For
each strain state, the test was repeated three times to obtain
averaged data.
Fig. 4 shows the FLC of AA5754 obtained by carrying
out the above mentioned experiments at the warm/hot
stamping conditions where the temperature was 250 and
the forming speed was 75 mm/s. Based on the data points,
the curve was fitted according to Keeler s formulas[22].

FE Model and Validation

Finite element analysis(FEA) was performed using the

commercial finite element code LS-DYNA to investigate
the errors of FLC experiments at warm/hot stamping
conditions. Hypermesh was used to create the finite
element mesh, assign the boundary conditions, and build
the LS-DYNA input data for the analysis.
Considering the geometrical symmetry of the test-piece,
only a quarter of it was modeled to save computational time
of the simulation. The whole FE model used four- and
three-node mixed shell elements; and the thickness was 1.5
mm for the shell elements of the test-pieces. The punch and
the die were created using a rigid material(Material 20 in
LS-DYNA). Due to the complexity of the stress-strain
relation of the AA5754, a piecewise linear plastic material
model(Material 24 in LS-DYNA) was used to describe its
elastic-plastic behavior. The basic material formability
parameters of the AA5754 were input into the material
model as material parameters of FE simulations. The elastic
parameters of the AA5754 are listed in Table 3, while the
strain rate dependent true stress-strain relations used for the
simulations are shown in Fig. 5.
Table 3. Material parameters of AA5754
Parameter

Fig. 4.

AA5754

Thickness t / mm

1.5

Density / (g cc1)

2.7

Youngs modulus E / GPa

70

Poissons ratio v

0.3

Yield strength s / MPa

121

Tensile strength b / MPa

211

FLC of AA5754 at warm/hot stamping conditions

It can be seen from the figure that the data points of the
first and the last strain states of the experimental FLC
deviate severely from the theoretical strain paths of the
uniaxial and the biaxial tension states of the theoretical
FLC respectively. This means that there are errors between
the experimental FLC and the theoretical FLC, particularly
for the uniaxial and biaxial tension strain states. It is
generally accepted that these errors are mainly caused due
to the high friction between the punch and the test-piece.
However, detailed studies on the relation between the
friction and the errors have not been investigated; and thus
the friction is normally controlled subjectively when
carrying out such tests[11]. One of the objectives of this
paper is therefore to investigate and quantify the errors of
the uniaxial and biaxial tension strain states when carrying

Fig. 5. True tress-strain curves of AA5754 at 250

The FE model is shown in Fig. 6. The length or width of

a typical element used was around 5 mm in the punch and
the die models, and 1 mm in the test-piece model. As can
be clearly seen from the figure, the die was applied with
fixed constraint; and the draw bead was simplified into a

CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

fixed constraint imposing on the test-piece due to the fact
that the material of the test-piece outside the draw bead
cannot flow toward the center during the forming process.
Moreover, the stamping speed of the punch was set to be 75
mm/s along the reverse direction of the Z axis.

Table 4. Data of experiments and FE predictions

Strain state
1
2
3
4
5
6

Fig. 6.

FE model for FLC test simulation

In order to validate the feasibility of the FE model, a

series of FE analyses were carried out by varying the model
size of the test-piece, namely, the waist width(W) of the
test-piece changing from 24 mm to 160 mm to generate six
strain states that were parallel to that in the experiments.
Fig. 7 shows the FLCs obtained by the experiments and the
FE simulations. Both the predicted and experimental data
points were fitted according to Keelers formulas[22], and
the data of both experiments and FE predictions are listed
in Table 4. It can be seen from the fitted curves that the
result obtained by the FE analyses has a good agreement
with that obtained by experiments within the allowed error
range. Based on the above, the feasibility of the FE model
used in this research is validated.

Fig. 7.

Comparison of experimental and predicted

FLCs of AA5754

733

1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2

Experiment

FE prediction

0.095

0.109

0.342

0.382

0.023

0.005

0.287

0.279

0.001

0.002

0.284

0.286

0.013

0.014

0.289

0.270

0.024

0.021

0.269

0.218

0.159

0.184

0.331

0.353

Simulation Results and Discussions

4.1 Friction coefficient and geometrical sizes effects

In order to investigate the FLC errors, simulations were
carried out using several FE models under the above
mentioned conditions, namely, a temperature of 250 and
a forming speed of 75 mm/s. The FE models differed from
each by varying from 0.05 to 2 the ratio(W/D) of the waist
width of the test-piece to the punch diameter. Also, the
friction coefficients() between the test-piece and the
punch that were used in these models were set to be 0, 0.05,
0.10, 0.15, and 0.20.
Fig. 8 shows the comparison of the values of 1 and the
location of 1 values measured at different stages for the
biaxial tests(2/1=1.0) with the friction coefficients of 0.0
(=0.0), and 0.2(=0.2) respectively. For the case of
friction coefficient is 0.0, the high strain area should be in
the center of the test-piece throughout the deformation
process. This feature has been shown in Fig. 8(i).
Theoretically, correct strain values can be measured from
the location with no error involved in. However, as the
friction conditions have been considered, for example, the
friction coefficient is 0.2 (Fig. 8(ii)). At the beginning of
the tests (t/tf =0.3), the high strain location are close to the
center (Fig. 8(ii) (a)) and the difference from the results
obtained from the ideal condition (Fig. 8(i) (a)) is very little.
With the increment of the deformation, the high strain area
for the test with the friction coefficient of 0.2 moves away
from the center, see figures (Figs. 8(ii) (b) & (c)). This
friction coefficient increases the errors on (1) the location
of strains measured from the tests, and, (2) the values of
strains measured. This is the main reason contributing the
errors of FLC tests as shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 9 shows the variation of 2/1 with respect to that of
friction coefficient(=0.0, 0.1, and 0.2) and geometry size
(W/D). It should be noted that the biaxial tension, the plain
strain, and the uniaxial tension states of the simulation are
corresponding to the W/D being 2, 1, and 0.1 respectively.
As is clear from the figure, the predicted |2/1| generally
shows a decreasing trend with respect to the increasing
friction. However, there are some exceptions to this trend.

YZHUANG Weimin, et al: Error Analysis of FLC Experimental Data at Warm/Hot Stamping Conditions

734

For example, the predicted 2/1 of plain strain state

(W/D=1) is close to 0.0 (of 5.4% error) in all three friction

Fig. 8.

conditions. In other words, it is almost independent of

friction under the plane strain state.

Variation of 1 at different stages of the tests for the friction coefficients of (i) =0.0 and (ii) =0.2
tf Deformation time of the appearance of maximum major strain; t Deformation time.

In terms of the friction effects on 2/1 under the two

extreme states(the biaxial and the uniaxial tension states) of
the FLC simulation, results showed in Fig. 9 are extracted
to generate Fig. 10, through which the friction effects can
be illustrated much clearly. For biaxial tension state
(W/D=2), the predicted 2/1 is around 0.983(very close to
the theoretical value 1, only of 1.7% error) when the
friction coefficient() is 0; and it decreases to 0.638(of 36%
error) as the friction coefficient() increases from 0 to 2.
Thus, the main reason for the error of biaxial tension strain
state is the , and the error increases with increasing
between the punch and the test-piece. As regards the
uniaxial tension state(W/D=0.1), the predicted 2/1 is
0.455(of 9% error with respect to the theoretical value
0.5), it can be seen from this value, the geometrical sizes
of test-piece and punch affect the error of uniaxial tension
strain state. Meanwhile, the error deviates from the
theoretical value even further as the increases.
Theoretical error analysis of the uniaxial tension state will

be given in the next section.

Fig. 9.

Relation between 2/1 friction coefficient (),

and geometry (W/D)

CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Since the highest strain area of the deforming test-piece
shifts away from its center gradually(see Fig. 8(ii)) if
friction coefficient() is considered, the location of necking
(d/R) or failure should shifts in the same pattern as well.
Fig. 11 shows the relation between the location of necking
and the friction coefficient(). It can be concluded that 1) if
0.0<<0.05, the necking location is independent of the
under both the uniaxial and biaxial tension states; 2) if
0.05<<0.2, the location is in same linear dependency of
the under both tension states; 3) if 0.1<<0.2, the
dependency of the on the necking location of the uniaxial
tension state is much significant than that of the biaxial
tension state.

735

that affects the minor strain can be calculated as

F Fs Ff ,

(1)

where Fs is side force and Ff is friction force, they are

defined as

Fs

Ff

Fr sin d Fr (1 cos ),

(2)

Fr cos d Fr sin ,

(3)

where is the friction coefficient, and can be written as

tan

W 2 W
,
R
D

(4)

where D is punch diameter.

Fig. 10. Effect of friction coefficient() on the test errors

for biaxial and uniaxial tension strain states

Fig. 12.

Fig. 11.

Relation between necking location(d/R)

and friction coefficient ()

4.2 Error of uniaxial tension state theoretical analysis

As mentioned in the previous section, there is an error of
uniaxial tension state of FLC between experimental/
simulation value and theoretical value, which should not be
neglected. The cause of the error can be analyzed as
follows.
Fig. 12 shows the force on the test-piece. The force(F)

Force on test-piece

It can be seen from Eqs. (2), (3), and (4), the side force
increases with the increasing W/D, while the friction force
increases with the increase of the friction coefficient () or
the W/D. In other words, both the side and the friction
forces inhibit the contraction of the material when the
test-piece is stretched. Therefore, if the W/D and were of
any error and they were increasing, the error of uniaxial
tension state would have been magnified by the forces upon
which they(W/D and ) have influence. Specifically, the
error of uniaxial tension state would have been magnified
by forces due to the corresponding inhibition effect of
material contraction being reduced.
For a typical FLC, the biaxial tension deformation zone,
and the tension and compression deformation zone[23] are
the zones where 2/1>0, and 2/1<0 respectively. To
illustrate the error of uniaxial tension state magnified by
that of W/D and friction, Fig 13, which shows the relation
between the error of uniaxial tension state in the tension
and compression deformation zone, and geometry(W/D)

736

YZHUANG Weimin, et al: Error Analysis of FLC Experimental Data at Warm/Hot Stamping Conditions

and friction coefficient() is generated from Fig. 9

(2/1<0). The relative error is defined as

2 1 (0.5)
| 0.5 |

100%,

(5)

where 0.5 represents ideal uniaxial tension strain state

(2/1=0.5).

Fig. 13. Errors of uniaxial tension state in the tension

and compression deformation zone of FLC

It can be seen from figure that if the friction is not

considered(=0.0), then the relative error increases
steadily(5.2% to 10.8%) with respect to the increase of
geometry size (0.050.4). As for the other two cases
(=0.1, 0.2), they also show increasing trends but much
rapidly. Moreover, for any fixed W/D(e.g. W/D=0.05), the
relative error of the case that has a lower friction coefficient
is lower than that of the case that has a higher friction
coefficient. In other words, the relative error shows an
increasing trend with respect to the increase of friction.
Thus, the errors of the uniaxial tension state of an FLC
among experimental, simulation, and theoretical cases are
justified.

Conclusions

(1) The error of the biaxial tension state of an

experimental FLC is mainly due to the fact that the friction
between the punch and the test-piece is non-negligible,
while the friction in the theoretical FLC model is assumed
to be zero. If the friction coefficient is bigger than 0.05, the
error can be more than 10%; and if it is bigger than 0.15,
the necking location can shift away from the center over
10% of the punchs radius.
(2) For the uniaxial tension state of an FLC experiment,
the corresponding error has a complicated relation with the
ratio of the width of the test-piece and the diameter of the
punch(W/D), and the friction coefficient between the
punch and the test-piece(). If W/D=0.1 and <0.1, the

error can be controlled within 15%.

(3) The errors of any states of an FLC experiment
generally show an increasing trend with respect to the
increase of the friction, with the except of the plain strain
state. The friction coefficient() has little effect on plane
strain state, which the error can be controlled under 6%.
References
[1] SHU Da, SUN Baode, WANG Jun, et al. Melt purity-property
relationships in casting aluminum alloys[J]. Special Casting &
Nonferrous Alloys, 1992, 12(2): 5256. (in Chinese)
[2] XU Zhengbing, ZOU Yongzhi, ZENG Jianmin. New inclusion
assessment method in aluminum alloyselectrochemical method
for inclusion assessment[J]. Chinese Journal of Mechanical
Engineering. 2011, 24(1): 160166.
[3] BOLT P J, LAMBOO N A P M, ROZIER P J C M. Feasibility of
warm drawing of aluminium products[J]. Journal of Materials
Processing Tech., 2001, 115(1): 118121.
[4] SHEHATA F, PAINTER M J, PEARCE R. Warm forming of
aluminium/magnesium alloy sheet[J]. Journal of Materials
Processing Tech., 1978, 2(3): 279290.
[5] LI D, GHOSH A K. Biaxial warm forming behavior of aluminum
sheet alloys[J]. Journal of Materials Processing Tech., 2003, 145(3):
281293.
[6] FINCH D M, WILSON S P, DORN J E. Deep drawing aluminum
alloys at elevated temperatures. Part I. Deep drawing cylindrical
cups[J]. ASM Trans. Quart., 1946, 36: 254289.
[7] FINCH D M, WILSON S P, DORN J E. Deep drawing aluminum
alloys at elevated temperatures. Part II. Deep drawing boxes[J].
ASM Trans. Quart., 1946, 36: 290310.
[8] NAKA T, YOSHIDA F. Deep drawability of type 5083
aluminiummagnesium alloy sheet under various conditions of
temperature and forming speed[J]. Journal of Materials Processing
Tech., 1999, 89: 1923.
[9] NAKA T, TORIKAI G, HINO R et al. The effects of temperature
and forming speed on the forming limit diagram for type 5083
aluminum magnesium alloy sheet[J]. Journal of Materials
Processing Tech., 2001, 113(1): 648653.
[10] KEELER S P, BACKOFEN W A. Plastic instability and fracture in
sheets stretched over rigid punches[J]. ASM Trans. Quart., 1963, 56:
2548.
[11] SHI Z, WANG Y, LIN J. An investigation, using standard
experimental techniques, to determine FLCs at elevated temperature
for aluminium alloys[C]//YUAN S J, VOLLERSTEN F, WANG A R,
et al. The 3rd International Conference on New Forming
Technology. Harbin, China: August 2628, 2012: 100104.
[12] BUTUC M C, GRACIO J J, BARATA DA ROCHA A. A theoretical
study on forming limit diagrams prediction[J]. Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, 2003, 142(3): 714724.
[13] HSU E, CARSLEY J E, VERMA R. Development of forming limit
diagrams of aluminum and magnesium sheet alloys at elevated
temperatures[J]. Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance,
2008, 17: 288296.
[14] International Standards Organizations. ISO 120041:2008, Metallic
materials-sheet and strip-determination of forming-limit curves
Part 1: Measurement and application of forming-limit diagrams in
the press shop[S].2008.
[15] International Standards Organizations. ISO 120042:2008, Metallic
materials-sheet and strip-determination of forming-limit curves
Part 2: Determination of forming-limit curves in the laboratory
[S].2008.
[16] WANG Hui. Acquisition method of forming limit diagram and its
application in Sheet metal forming[D]. Nanjing: Electrical and
Mechanical College, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 2011. ( in Chinese)

CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

[17] RAGHAVAN K S. A simple technique to generate in-plane forming
limit curves and selected applications[J]. Metall. Mater. Trans. A,
1995, 26(8): 20752084.
[18] BOISSIRE R, VACHER P, BLANDIN J J. Influence of the punch
geometry and sample size on the deep-drawing limits in expansion
of an aluminium alloy[J]. International Journal of Material
Forming, 2010, 3(1): 135138.
[19] BRESSAN J D. Influence of thickness size in sheet metal
forming[J]. International Journal of Material Forming, 2008, 1(1):
117-119.
[20] BLECK W, DENG ZHI, PAPAMANTELLOS K et al. A
comparative study of the forming-limit diagram models for sheet
steels[J]. Journal of Materials Processing Tech., 1998, 83(1):
223230.
[21] MARCINIAK Z, KUCZYNISK K, POKORA T. Influence of the
plastic properties of a material on the forming limit diagram for
sheet metal in tension[J]. International Journal of Mechanical
Sciences, 1973, 15(10): 789800.
[22] LIU Yulin, CHEN Wenliang, BAO Yidong, Optimization design for
blank shape based on adaptive response surface method[J]. Journal
of Jiangsu University, 2012, 33(3): 322327. ( in Chinese)
[23] National
Standardization
Technical
Committees.
GB/T
15825.81995 Sheet metal formability and test methodsForming
limit diagram(FLD) test[S].1995. (in Chinese)

737

Biographical notes

ZHUANG Weimin, born in 1970, is a professor at Jilin University,

China. She received her PhD degree from Jilin University, China,
in 2005. Her research interests include car body structure
optimization, finite element analysis and metal forming
technologies.
Tel: +86-431-85095584; E-mail: zhuangwm@jlu.edu.cn
ZHANG Mengxi, born in 1989, is currently a MS candidate at
College of Automotive Engineering, Jilin University, China. She
received her bachelor degree from College of Jilin University,
China, in 2012. Her research interests include finite element
analysis and metal forming technologies.
E-mail: zhangmx12@mails.jlu.edu.cn
CHEN Yanhong, born in 1983, is currently a PhD candidate at
Department of Aeronautics, Imperial College London, UK. He
received his master degree from College of Automotive
Engineering, Jilin University, China, in 2012. His research
interests include finite element method, meshfree methods, and
woven composites.
E-mail: yc2012@ic.ac.uk