metals

Article
A New Phenomenological Model to Predict Forming Limit
Curves from Tensile Properties for Hot-Rolled Steel Sheets
Wei-Jin Chen 1,2,3 , Hong-Wu Song 1,2, *, Shuai-Feng Chen 1,2 , Yong Xu 1,2 , Si-Ying Deng 1,2 , Zheng Cai 3 ,
Xin-Hua Pei 3 and Shi-Hong Zhang 1,2

1 Shi-Changxu Innovation Center for Advanced Materials, Institute of Metal Research,

Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenyang 110016, China; [email protected] (W.-J.C.);
[email protected] (S.-F.C.); [email protected] (Y.X.); [email protected] (S.-Y.D.); [email protected] (S.-H.Z.)
2 School of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Science and Technology of China,
Shenyang 110016, China
3 Research Institute, Baoshan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., Shanghai 201999, China; [email protected] (Z.C.);
[email protected] (X.-H.P.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-024-83970203

Abstract: A phenomenological model for the prediction of the forming limit curve (FLC) based on
basic mechanical properties through a uniaxial tensile test can tremendously shorten the design time
of the forming process and reduce the measuring costs. In this paper, a novel phenomenological
model named the IMR-Baosteel model (abbreviated as the IB model) is proposed for efficient and
accurate FLC prediction of hot-rolled steel sheets featuring distinct variations in thickness and
mechanical properties. With a systematic test of the plane strain forming limit (FLC0 ), it was found
that a higher regression correlation exists between the FLC0 and the total elongation under different
sheet thicknesses. For accurate assessment of the FLC0 from tensile properties, compared using
experiments, the error of FLC0 calculated with the proposed model is within 10%. In the IB model,
the left side of FLC can be calculated using a line with a slope of −1 while the right side of the FLC
is obtained via a modified Keeler model with the exponent (p) determined as 0.45 for hot-rolled
steels. Complete experimental FLCs of hot-rolled steels from measurements and the literature were
Citation: Chen, W.-J.; Song, H.-W.;
used to validate the reliability of the proposed model. Resultantly, the prediction of FLCs with the
Chen, S.-F.; Xu, Y.; Deng, S.-Y.; Cai, Z.;
proposed IB model is greatly improved, and agrees much better with the experimental FLCs than the
Pei, X.-H.; Zhang, S.-H. A New
Phenomenological Model to Predict
predictions of the well-known Keeler model, Arcelor model and Tata Steel model.
Forming Limit Curves from Tensile
Properties for Hot-Rolled Steel Sheets. Keywords: forming limit curve (FLC); phenomenological model; IMR-Baosteel model; tensile
Metals 2024, 14, 168. https://doi.org/ property; hot-rolled steel
10.3390/met14020168

Academic Editor: Mohammad

Jahazi
1. Introduction
Received: 2 December 2023 Hot-rolled high-strength steels are employed widely in chassis parts of passenger
Revised: 2 January 2024 cars and commercial vehicles to reduce automotive weight for energy saving and carbon
Accepted: 10 January 2024
dioxide emission reduction [1–3]. In the automotive industry, excessive thinning or necking
Published: 29 January 2024
are both unacceptable. When sheet thickness is reduced and material strength increases, the
formability of the material is always decreased. It is an especially great challenge to produce
complex components with high-strength steels, which always need trial and error iterations
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
for the design of the component profile and the forming process [4]. Thus, accurate
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
evaluation of hot-rolled sheet formability is essential for improving design efficiency and
This article is an open access article the quality of complex components.
distributed under the terms and The concept of the forming limit curve (FLC) was initially proposed in 1963 [5], and
conditions of the Creative Commons was usually determined from standard experiments using the Marciniak [6] test or the
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Nakazima test [7]. Nowadays, the FLC is popularly chosen to provide efficient prediction
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ of the failure risk in sheet metal forming processes [8–10]. In the FLC, the FLC0 is the
4.0/). forming limit under plane strain conditions, which is near the vertical axis and is usually

Metals 2024, 14, 168. https://doi.org/10.3390/met14020168 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/metals

Metals 2024, 14, 168 2 of 18

the lowest point of the FLC. The strain values of the FLC are usually determined through
strain measurement procedures on gridded specimens. The main problem is that the
experimental determination of the FLC is always costly, time-consuming and inconsistent,
and the measurement results highly depend on the mechanical properties of the specimen
being tested at that time. Another problem is that friction affects the location, deformation
behavior and strain path of the necking point during the experimental tests [11]. In
order to improve the quality and efficiency of FLC experiments, many test methods have
been developed. A new procedure based on the hydraulic bulging of a double specimen
was proposed for the experimental determination of the FLCs to reduce the frictional
effects [12]. A test procedure for determining the complete left-hand side of the FLC via
tensile tests without friction was outlined [13]. A method was developed to determine the
width of specimens to obtain the FLC with the minimum number of tests [14]. However,
shortcomings in FLC testing such as laborious measurement and data discretization still
cannot be overcome.
Then, much work has been performed to determine the FLC more cheaply, efficiently
and accurately during the last few years. One research direction is to develop theoretical
models to estimate the FLC. The Hill–Swift model is based on the Swift diffuse instability
theory [15] and the Hill localized instability theory [16], and has been expanded to many
modified models. However, it has been reported that the Hill–Swift model delivers too-
small FLD0 values [17]. The Marciniak–Kuczyński (MK) model is the most widely used
model to estimate the necking limit strain for sheet metals [18]. However, it is not popular
to estimate the formability of hot-rolled steels with the MK model. This is because the
characteristics of hot-rolled steels are weak anisotropy and a low strain hardening exponent,
which are different from cold-rolled steel, stainless steel and aluminum alloy [19,20]. Fur-
thermore, it is typical to calculate the forming limit under plane stress conditions with these
theoretical models, and the relationship between the through-thickness stress and sheet
thickness was ignored. The nonconstant through-thickness normal stress was presented
as a critical factor in the FLC prediction for medium plate [21]. For hot-rolled steels with
a larger thickness range, the complicated calculation process of the FLC cannot meet the
need for efficient formability evaluation in the automotive industry [22].
Another research direction is to develop empirical methods from simple and low-cost
experiments to predict the FLC. Empirical methods based upon basic mechanical properties
through tensile tests to predict the FLC have been popular for many decades [23]. Keeler
and Brazier [24] proposed a regression equation to predict the FLC0 with a strain hardening
exponent and thickness. Raghavan [25] described an equation to predict the FLC0 with total
elongation and sheet thickness. Paul [26,27] proposed a nonlinear regression equation to
predict the FLC0 with ultimate tensile strength, total elongation, strain hardening exponent
and sheet thickness. Cayssials [28] developed a predictive method with the strain rate sensi-
tivity, the strain hardening and the sheet thickness based on plastic instability and damage
theories. Furthermore, the model was extended by Cayssials [29] to predict the FLC of
ultrahigh-strength steels with ultimate tensile strength, uniform elongation, the anisotropy
coefficient and the sheet thickness; this is called the Arcelor model. Abspoel [30,31] de-
veloped a model to predict the FLC with four strain points including the uniaxial tensile
necking point, the plane strain point, the intermediate biaxial stretching point and the equi-
biaxial stretching point. The four representative points are calculated using the Lankford
coefficient, total elongation and sheet thickness. This model is also called the Tata Steel
model. Gerlach [32,33] provided equations to calculate the three characteristic points of the
FLC based on three parameters, including ultimate tensile strength, total elongation and
sheet thickness. Among these empirical methods, the Keeler model, Arcelor model and
Tata Steel model have been integrated into commercial finite element simulation software
AutoForm R5.2 [34]. However, since these predictive models are mainly developed from
cold-rolling steel sheets or aluminum alloy sheets, the FLC prediction results for hot-rolled
steel sheets have a large deviation from the experimental results.
Metals 2024, 14, 168 3 of 18

Consequently, in order to shorten the time for the forming process design and reduce
the test costs, a reliable phenomenological model named the IMR-Baosteel model (IB model)
is established based upon tensile properties in this work, and can effectively predict the
formability of hot-rolled steel sheets.

2. Prediction of FLD0 with Classic Empirical Models for Hot-Rolled Steel Sheets
2.1. Data Collection from Experimental Tests
The tensile test is the most widely used method to determine the mechanical properties
of materials. Therefore, empirical models are always derived from the statistical relations
between the experimental FLC points and the mechanical properties. The details of the
test data measured from the Baosteel laboratory are tabulated in Appendix A (Table A1).
There are almost eighty hot-rolled steel sheets in various thickness and strength ranges
for this investigation obtained from regular steel production in the Baosteel workshop.
Figure 1a shows the range of the mechanical properties. The ultimate tensile strength varies
between 200 MPa and 1100 MPa, and the total elongation varies between 10% and 50%.
The thickness of the sheets varies between 1.5 mm and 6.0 mm, as shown in Figure 1b.
The mechanical properties were obtained from uniaxial tensile tests, performed ac-
cording to ISO 6892-1:2019 [35], on Instron testing equipment. The collected mechanical
properties are yield strength Rp , ultimate tensile strength Rm , total elongation At , uni-
form elongation Ag , the plastic strain ratio r-value and strain hardening exponent n-value.
The r-values and the n-values were determined between 2% and 20% strain or between
2% and Ag when the Ag was lower than 20%, according to ISO 10113:2020 [36] and ISO
10275:2020 [37], respectively. The gauge length L0 to measure At is correlated with sheet
thickness, which can be determined as
p
L0 = 5.65 ∗ t ∗ b0 (1)

where b0 is the specimen width of the measurement area in the tensile test.
The experimental strains of FLC0 and complete FLCs were obtained from Nakazima
tests according to ISO 12004-2: 2008 [38] using a 750 KN Interlaken sheet metal testing
machine with the Vialux photogrammetric measurement system. A pattern of 2 mm square
grids was applied to the surface of the specimens using the electrochemical method. Then
the specimens were deformed until fracture using a hemispherical punch with a diameter
of 100 mm. Ten specimens with the same length of 196 mm but different widths (varying
from 20 mm to 180 mm) were selected to obtain limit strains under different loading paths.
Finally, the complete experimental FLCs were obtained with these limit strains under
different strain states. The specimens were measured transverse to the rolling direction.
Additionally, two specimens of the same size were tested to take the average value. The
FLC0 is usually determined using the widths of 90 mm and 100 mm, which are nearest to
the plane strain state.
Metals 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18
Metals 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18
Metals 2024, 14, 168 4 of 18

Figure
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Mechanical
Mechanicalproperties
Mechanical propertiesof
properties eighty
ofof
eighty measured
eighty measured
measured hot-rolled steels:
hot-rolled
hot-rolled (a)
(a) total
steels:
steels: elongation
(a) total
total with
elongation
elongation ulti-
withwith
ulti-
mate tensile
mate tensile
ultimate strength,
strength,
tensile and
strength, (b)
andand ultimate
(b) (b)
ultimate tensile
tensile
ultimate strength
strength
tensile with
with
strength sheet
sheet
with thickness.
thickness.
sheet thickness.

FLC
FLC000 is
FLC is the
is the forming
the forming limit
forming limit for
limit for plane
for plane strain
plane strain conditions,
strain conditions,
conditions, and and denotes
and denotes the
denotes the lowest
the lowest point
lowest point
point ofof
of
the
the FLC.
FLC. So
So the
the accurate
accurate determination
determination
the FLC. So the accurate determination of the FLC of of
thethe
FLCFLC is is primarily
0 primarily important
important for for predicting
predicting
0 0 is primarily important for predicting the
the
the FLC.
FLC. FLC. Experimental
Experimental
Experimental FLC0FLC 0 values
values
FLC werewere
0 values plotted
were plotted with
with mechanical
with mechanical
plotted properties,
properties,
mechanical and the
properties, and the
the in-
influence
and in-
fluence
of these of
fluence of these
mechanical mechanical
properties
these mechanical properties on the
on the characteristics
properties characteristics
of the FLC
on the characteristics of the
was
of 0the FLC was
studied.
FLC 0 studied.
0 was studied.
Figure
Figure 222shows
Figure shows
showsthe the correlation
thecorrelation
correlation between
between
between thethe
FLC
the FLC
FLC 0 and
0 and tensile
tensile properties.
properties.
0 and tensile properties.
R
Rpp (Figure
Rp (Figure 2a),
(Figure
2a), Rm (Figure 2b), Ag (Figure 2c), At (Figure 2d) and the n-value (Figure 2e) show an ap-
2a),
R m R m (Figure
(Figure 2b), 2b),
A g A g (Figure
(Figure 2c), 2c),
A t A t (Figure
(Figure 2d) 2d)
and and
the the n-value
n-value (Figure
(Figure 2e) 2e)
show show
an an
approx-
ap-
proximately
imately
proximatelylinearlinear
trendtrend
linear withwith
trend the FLC
with the
the 0FLC, while
FLC 0, while
therethere
is noissignificant
no significant correlation
correlation between
between
0, while there is no significant correlation between
the
the
the FLC
FLC 0 and
FLC 0 and
thethe r-value
r-value (Figure
(Figure 2f)2f) or or thickness
thickness t (Figure2g).
t (Figure 2g).Furthermore,
Furthermore, among
0 and the r-value (Figure 2f) or thickness t (Figure 2g). Furthermore, among these
among these
mechanical
mechanical properties
properties obtained
obtained from
from regular
regular tensile
tensile tests,
tests, the coefficients
coefficients
mechanical properties obtained from regular tensile tests, the coefficients of determination of determination
of
of three
three properties
properties including A
properties including
including A
Aggg,, AAttt and
and thethe n-value
n-value are are more
more than
than 0.8,
0.8, which
which shows
shows aa
stronger correlation
correlation with
with the
stronger correlation with the FLC0.the FLC
FLC 0.
0

Figure 2. Cont.
Metals 2024, 14, 168
x FOR PEER REVIEW 55of
of 18
18

Figure 2. Correlation between FLC0 and tensile properties: (a) yield strength (Rp), (b) ultimate tensile
Figure 2. Correlation between FLC0 and tensile properties: (a) yield strength (Rp ), (b) ultimate tensile
strength (Rm), (c) uniform elongation (Ag), (d) total elongation (At), (e) strain hardening exponent (n-
strength (Rm ), (c) uniform elongation (Ag ), (d) total elongation (At ), (e) strain hardening exponent
value), (f) plastic strain ratio (r-value) and (g) sheet thickness (t).
(n-value), (f) plastic strain ratio (r-value) and (g) sheet thickness (t).
2.2. Prediction
2.2. Prediction Results for FLC
Results for FLC0 with Classic Empirical Models
0 with Classic Empirical Models
The Keeler
The Keeler model
modelisisthethemost
mostpopular
popularmethod
method forfor predicting
predicting thethe
FLC,FLC, especially
especially in
in the
the automotive industry [39]. However, the comparison showed that
automotive industry [39]. However, the comparison showed that the Keeler model was the Keeler model
was only
only reliable
reliable for classic
for classic forming-grade
forming-grade steels
steels [40].[40]. In this
In this section,
section, these
these classic
classic empir-
empirical
ical models including the Keeler model, Raghavan model, Paul model,
models including the Keeler model, Raghavan model, Paul model, Tata Steel model Tata Steel model
and
and Arcelor model are employed to verify the prediction reliability for hot-rolled
Arcelor model are employed to verify the prediction reliability for hot-rolled steel sheets. steel
sheets. The collected FLC0 data of hot-rolled steel sheets are grouped according to sheet
thickness and tensile strength.
Metals 2024, 14, 168 6 of 18

The collected FLC0 data of hot-rolled steel sheets are grouped according to sheet thickness
and tensile strength.
The Keeler model is shown as
23.3 + 14.13 ∗ t
   
FLC0 = ln 1 + ∗n (2)
21

The Raghavan model is shown as

FLC0 = 2.78 + 3.24 ∗ t + 0.892 ∗ At (3)

The Paul model is expressed as

FLC0 = 7.702 ∗ exp(−0.0122 ∗ Rm ) − 0.1124 ∗ r − 0.6908 ∗ exp(−12.4187 ∗ At ) + 0.1149 ∗ n + 0.0823 ∗ t + 0.3011 (4)

The Tata Steel model is expressed as

FLC0 = 0.0084 ∗ At + 0.0017 ∗ At ∗ (t − 1) (5)

Furthermore, the equation for the Arcelor model was not provided in papers and the
FLC prediction can be obtained from AutoForm R7 [41].
First, the calculation results from the well-known empirical models were compared
with the experimental FLC0 according to the stratification of sheet thicknesses. For sheets
of a thickness less than 3 mm, as shown in Figure 3a, the Keeler model and Arcelor model
can predict well for sheets with high formability, and the predicted deviation is even lower
than 10%. However, the Keeler model and Arcelor model severely underestimate the FLC0
of sheets with low formability. The Paul model and Raghavan model slightly overestimate
the FLC0 , with the predicted deviation between 10% and 30%, while the Tata Steel model
underestimates the formability, with the deviation exceeding 10%. For sheets of a thickness
greater than 3 mm, as shown in Figure 3b, the prediction results with the above models
have a large scatter. The predicted deviations of the Keeler model, Raghavan model and
Tata Steel model are barely less than 30%.
Second, the calculation results using the well-known empirical models were compared
with the experimental FLC0 according to the stratification of tensile strength. For the
sheets with a tensile strength lower than 550 MPa, as shown in Figure 3c, the Paul model
and Raghavan model slightly overestimate the FLC0 while the Tata Steel model slightly
underestimates the FLC0 with the predicted deviation almost between 10% and 30%. In
comparison, the Keeler model has the best prediction accuracy with a deviation less than
10%. For the sheets with a tensile strength higher than 550 MPa, as shown in Figure 3d,
the prediction accuracy of these empirical models is much more unreliable. The predicted
deviation of the Raghavan model is just near 30%, while the predicted deviation of the
other models actually even exceeds 30%.
In summary, for hot-rolled steel sheets, when the sheet thickness is less than 3.0 mm
and tensile strength is lower than 550 MPa, the prediction accuracy of the Keeler model is
comparatively reliable. However, when the sheet thickness is greater than 3.0 mm or the
tensile strength is greater than 550 MPa, the prediction accuracy of the above five empirical
models is significantly poor.
Metals2024,
Metals 2024,14,
14,168
x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 18
7 of 18

Figure 3. Prediction
Figure Predictionofofplane
planestrain
strainforming
forming limit (FLC
limit (FLC0) of
0 ) hot-rolled steel
of hot-rolled sheets
steel by different
sheets em-
by different
pirical models
empirical under
models the following
under conditions:
the following (a) sheet
conditions: (a) thickness less than
sheet thickness 3 mm,
less than(b)
3 sheet
mm, (b)thickness
sheet
greater than
thickness 3 mm,than
greater (c) sheet
3 mm,tensile strength
(c) sheet lower
tensile than 550
strength MPathan
lower and (d)
550sheet
MPatensile
and (d)strength higher
sheet tensile
than 550 MPa.
strength higher than 550 MPa.

2.3. Critical
2.3. Critical Mechanical
Mechanical Properties
Properties for
for FLD
FLD00 Prediction
In aa standard
In standard uniaxial
uniaxial tensile
tensile test,
test, the
the digital
digital image
image correlation
correlation (DIC)
(DIC) method
method is is used
used
to measure strain and elongation.
to elongation. Figure Figure4a4ashows
showsthe theengineering
engineering stress–strain
stress–strain curve
curve of
of hot-rolled
hot-rolled high-strength
high-strength steel
steel S550MC
S550MC withwith a thickness
a thickness of 2.5of 2.5 The
mm. mm.engineering
The engineering
stress–
stress–strain
strain curve curve is transformed
is transformed into theintoreal
thestress–strain
real stress–strain curvecurve by fitting
by fitting the index;
the index; then, then,
the
the n-value
n-value cancan be obtained.
be obtained. TheThe n-value
n-value is often
is often used used to describe
to describe sheetsheet formability
formability as anasim-
an
important parameter, such as in the Keeler model. However,
portant parameter, such as in the Keeler model. However, as shown in Figure 4b, there is as shown in Figure 4b, there
is a yield
a yield plateau
plateau ononthethe engineering
engineering stress–strain
stress–strain curve
curve ofof hot-rolled
hot-rolled steel.
steel. DueDuetoto that,
that, it it
is
is notsufficient
not sufficienttotodescribe
describethe thestress–strain
stress–strainbehavior
behaviorwith withthe the power
power law law equation [42],
which
which further
further means
means the the n-value
n-value obtained
obtained from from thethe power
power law law equation
equation cannot
cannot accurately
accurately
capture
capture the the actual
actual strain
strain hardening
hardeningbehavior.
behavior.
Figure
Figure 4c4c shows
shows the the true
true plastic
plastic strain
strain measurement
measurement of of the
the local
local necking
necking point
point inin the
the
uniaxial
uniaxial tensile test. It can be seen that the plastic strain in the whole narrow region of the
tensile test. It can be seen that the plastic strain in the whole narrow region of the
test
test specimen
specimenisisuniform
uniformbefore beforethethetime
time of of
thethe
maximum
maximum uniaxial
uniaxialtensile force.
tensile During
force. this
During
period, the strain
this period, ratio ratio
the strain of theoftrue
theplastic widthwidth
true plastic strain strain
to the to truetheplastic longitudinal
true plastic strain
longitudinal
is stable
strain is at −1/2.
stable It is worth
at −1/2. mentioning
It is worth mentioning that, at theat
that, time
theof maximum
time of maximumuniaxial tensiletensile
uniaxial force,
the uniform elongation is approximately equal to the true plastic
force, the uniform elongation is approximately equal to the true plastic longitudinal strain. longitudinal strain. After
the time
After theoftime
maximum
of maximum uniaxial tensile tensile
uniaxial force, the region
force, the where
region the whereplastic
the strain
plasticincrement
strain in-
continues reduces gradually until local instability and fracture
crement continues reduces gradually until local instability and fracture occur. Simultane- occur. Simultaneously, the
strain state changes from uniaxial tension to a plane strain condition.
ously, the strain state changes from uniaxial tension to a plane strain condition. It is clear It is clear that the
Metals 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18
Metals 2024, 14, 168 8 of 18

that the between

distance distance between
the uniformthe elongation
uniform elongation
point andpointlocaland
onsetlocal onset point
necking necking pointforis
is long
long for hot-rolled steel sheets. The local onset necking point is much
hot-rolled steel sheets. The local onset necking point is much closer to the specimen fracture closer to the speci-
men fracture
point point whichtocorresponds
which corresponds to the total
the total elongation. elongation.
Therefore, Therefore,
a stronger a stronger
correlation corre-
between
Alation
t and between
the FLC 0A and
rather
t the
thanFLCAg0 rather
is than
verified. Ag is verified.
Furthermore, the
Furthermore, the effect
effect ofof sheet
sheet thickness
thickness on onthetheFLC
FLC00 has
has been
been widely
widely reported
reported in in
theliterature
the literature[43,44].
[43,44].And Andthetheinfluence
influence ofof thickness
thickness ononthethe
FLC FLC is significant
is significant especially
especially for
for hot-rolled
hot-rolled steelsteel sheets;
sheets; the explanation
the explanation for this
for this is that
is that as thickness
as thickness increases,
increases, local
local neck-
necking
ing becomes
becomes moremorediffusediffuse andtime
and the the time to reach
to reach the critical
the critical depthdepth of fracture
of fracture whichwhich is de-
is defined
fined
as as failure
failure is increased
is increased [45]. [45].

Figure4.4. Measurement
Figure Measurement during
during uniaxial
uniaxial tensile
tensile test
test for
for S550MC:
S550MC: (a)
(a) engineering
engineering stress–strain
stress–strain curve,
curve,
(b) true stress–strain curve and fitting and (c) strain path tracking at local necking point using DIC.
(b) true stress–strain curve and fitting and (c) strain path tracking at local necking point using DIC.

3. Establishment
3. Establishment of of New
New Prediction
PredictionModel
Modelfor forFLC
FLC00
According to the above analysis, the key
According to the above analysis, the key parameters parameters
of At andof A t and thickness
thickness t were
t were adopted
adopted
to establishto the
establish the prediction
prediction model of model
the FLCof0 the FLCwork.
in this 0 in this
The work. The experimental
experimental data
data of FLC 0
of FLC
with 0 with thicknesses
different different thicknesses of hot-rolled
of hot-rolled steel sheetssteel
weresheets weretoextracted
extracted to investigate
investigate the mathe-
the mathematical
matical relation
relation between thebetween
FLC0 and thethe
FLC 0 and
total the totalAelongation
elongation t , along with At,the
along with the
thickness.
thickness.
As illustrated in Figure 5, the correlation of At with the FLC0 was studied from the
typicalAsthicknesses
illustrated 2.0
in Figure
mm, 2.5 5, mm
the correlation
and 3.0 mm. of It
Atiswith the FLC
obvious wascorrelation
that0 the studied from the
of the
FLC 0 with
typical At is not linear
thicknesses at different
2.0 mm, 2.5 mm andthicknesses.
3.0 mm. Then, a cubic that
It is obvious polynomial equationofwas
the correlation the
used
FLC0to regress
with At isthe
notcorrelation with At :
of FLC0thicknesses.
linear at different Then, a cubic polynomial equation was
used to regress the correlation of FLC0 with At:
FLC0 = A0 + A1 ∗ At + A2 ∗ A2t + A3 ∗ A3t (6)
𝐹𝐿𝐶 = 𝐴 + 𝐴 ∗ 𝐴 + 𝐴 ∗ 𝐴 + 𝐴 ∗ 𝐴 (6)
A0 A1 A2 A3 are the constant parameters of the cubic polynomial equation. Then the
𝐴 𝐴 𝐴 𝐴 are the constant parameters of the cubic polynomial equation. Then the
parameters were fitted from the data in Figure 5a–c, and are summarized in Table 1.
parameters were fitted from the data in Figure 5a–c, and are summarized in Table 1.
Metals 2024,
Metals 2024, 14,
14, 168
x FOR PEER REVIEW 99of
of 18
18

Figure 5. Regression of FLC00 with total elongation: (a)

(a) sheet thickness 2.0 mm, (b) sheet thickness
2.5 mm and (c) sheet thickness 3.0 mm.
2.5 mm and (c) sheet thickness 3.0 mm.

Table 1. The fitting parameters of the cubic polynomial equation.

Table 1. The fitting parameters of the cubic polynomial equation.
t (mm) 𝑨𝟎 𝑨𝟏 𝑨𝟐 𝑨𝟑
t (mm)
2.0 0.491A0 A1
−3.88 A2
16.11 A3
−17.20
2.52.0 0.521
0.491 −4.10
−3.88 17.15
16.11 −18.62
−17.20
3.02.5 0.521
0.552 −4.10
−4.36 17.15
18.18 −18.62
−19.15
3.0 0.552 −4.36 18.18 −19.15
Furthermore, the influence of thickness on the FLC0 was studied based on the FLC0
of 2.0Furthermore,
mm thickness. theThe correlation
influence ratio between
of thickness on thestrain
FLC0 and
wasthickness (CRST)
studied based onisthe
defined
FLC0
as 2.0
of the mm
ratiothickness.
of the FLCThe
0 ofcorrelation
other thicknesses to the FLC
ratio between 0 ofand
strain 2.0 mm. The individual
thickness experi-
(CRST) is defined
as the ratio
mental FLC0 of
of the FLC0 TM
QStE600 of other thicknesses
at different to the including
thicknesses, FLC0 of 2.0 2.0 mm.
mm, 2.5The individual
mm, 3.5 mm
experimental
and 5.0 mm, was FLCemployed
0 of QStE600 TM at different
to determine thicknesses,
the CRST. including
The calculating 2.0 mm,
results 2.5CRST
for the mm,
3.5
are mm andin5.0
shown mm,2.was employed to determine the CRST. The calculating results for the
Table
CRST are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. The determination of CRST for QStE600TM.
Table 2. The determination of CRST for QStE600TM.
t (mm) FLC0 CRST
t2.0
(mm) FLC0
0.22 CRST
1
2.52.0 0.24
0.22 1.091
1
3.52.5 0.24
0.26 1.091
1.182
3.5 0.26 1.182
5.0 0.28 1.273
5.0 0.28 1.273
Then the CRST data were plotted vs. the thickness, as shown in Figure 6. The CRST
can be calculated as
Metals 2024, 14, 168 10 of 18
Metals 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18

Then the CRST data were plotted vs. the thickness, as shown in Figure 6. The CRST
can be calculated as
Metals 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 𝐶𝑅𝑆𝑇==1.05
CRST 1.05∗ ∗(t −
𝑡 −1.31 )0.142.
1.31 (7)
10 of(7)
18

.
𝐶𝑅𝑆𝑇 = 1.05 ∗ 𝑡 − 1.31 (7)

Figure6.6. Correlation
Figure Correlationratio
ratiowith
withstrain
strainand
andthickness
thickness(CRST)
(CRST)vs.
vs.thickness.
thickness.

Combining
Figure 6.Equations
Combining (6)
(6)and
Equationsratio
Correlation with(7),
and (7), the
strainthe
andpredictive
predictive model
model
thickness (CRST) vs.of
of the
the FLC
FLC00 with total elonga-
thickness.
tion
tionand
andthickness
thicknessisisestablished
establishedasas
Combining Equations (6) and (7), the predictive model
 of the FLC0 with total elonga-
FLC0 = 0.491 − 3.88 ∗ At + 16.11 ∗ At − 17.20 ∗ At ∗ 1.05 ∗ (t − 1.31) .

𝐹𝐿𝐶
tion =
and 0.491 −
thickness 3.88
is ∗ 𝐴 +
established16.11
as ∗ 2𝐴 − 17.20 ∗ 3𝐴 ∗ 1.05 ∗ 𝑡 − 1.310.142 (8)
(8)
.
Figure 7 shows 𝐹𝐿𝐶 the= prediction
0.491 − 3.88capability
∗ 𝐴 + 16.11 of∗the
𝐴 −proposed ∗ 1.05 compared
17.20 ∗ 𝐴 model ∗ 𝑡 − 1.31 with the
(8)
Figure 7 shows
Keeler model.Figure the
It is clear prediction
that the capability
predicted of the
deviationsproposed model
calculated with compared
the Keelerwith the
model
Keeler model. It is clear 7 shows
thatthe theprediction
predictedcapability of the
deviations proposed model
calculated with the compared
Keeler with
model the
mostly exceed
Keeler 10%model.and even
It is clearexceed
that the30% for high-strength
predicted steel sheets.
deviations calculated with By the contrast,
Keeler model the
mostly exceed 10% and even exceed 30% for high-strength steel sheets. By contrast, the
predictedmostly
deviations
exceedcalculated
10% and even withexceed
the proposed model are almost
30% for high-strength underBy10%.
steel sheets. The the
contrast, re-
predicted deviations calculated with the proposed model are almost under 10%. The
sults show that the
predicted proposed
deviations model can
calculated withaccurately
the proposed predict
modeltheare FLC 0 for
almost hot-rolled
under 10%. The steel
re-
results show
sults
that thethat
proposed model can accurately predict thetheFLC0 for hot-rolled steel
sheets and theshow
performancethe proposed
is muchmodel
bettercan accurately
than that of predict
the KeelerFLC 0 for in
model hot-rolled
the area steel
of
sheets and the performance
sheets and sheets is much
the performance betterbetter
is much than than
that that
of the Keeler
of the model
Keeler model ininthe
thearea
areaof of
high-strength steel especially.
high-strength steel sheets
high-strength steelespecially.
sheets especially.

Figure 7. Prediction
Figure 7. Prediction of plane
of plane strain strain forming
forming limit (FLC
limit (FLC 0) of various steel sheets with (a) Keeler model
0 ) of various steel sheets with (a) Keeler model
Figure 7. and (b) the of
Prediction proposed
plane model.forming limit (FLC0) of various steel sheets with (a) Keeler model
strain
and (b) the proposed model.
and (b) the proposed model.
4. Determination
4. Determination of Phenomenological
of Phenomenological Model Model for Complete
for Complete FLCFLC
A complete
4. Determination FLC consists of two
of consists
Phenomenological limit curves
Model located inFLC
for Complete the tension–tension and ten-
A complete FLC of two limit curves located in the tension–tension and tension–
sion–compression domains, respectively. The FLC covers almost the entire deformation
compression domains,
A complete respectively.
FLC consists The
of two FLCcurves
limit coverslocated
almost in
thethe
entire deformation and
tension–tension domain
ten-
domain in the sheet metal forming processes. In general, the strain ratio spans between
sion–compression domains, respectively. The FLC covers
those induced by uniaxial and equi-biaxial loads. almost the entire deformation
domain in the sheet metal forming processes. In general, the strain ratio spans between
those induced by uniaxial and equi-biaxial loads.
Metals 2024, 14, 168 11 of 18

in the sheet metal forming processes. In general, the strain ratio spans between those
Metals 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18
induced by uniaxial and equi-biaxial loads.
Levy [46] described that the slope of the uniaxial tensile strain path in the forming
limit diagram depends upon the r-value. The higher the r-value, the greater the slope of
Levy [46]
the uniaxial described
tensile strain that
paththeinslope of the uniaxial
the forming tensile strain
limit diagram. path in the
However, forming steels
hot-rolled
limit diagram depends upon the r-value. The higher the r-value, the greater the slope of
have the characteristic of weak anisotropy. The distribution of r-values for hot-rolled
the uniaxial tensile strain path in the forming limit diagram. However, hot-rolled steels
high-strength steel is concentrated between 0.7 and 0.9 (Figure 2f). As a result, the shapes
have the characteristic of weak anisotropy. The distribution of r-values for hot-rolled high-
of FLC curves
strength steelfor hot-rolled steel
is concentrated sheets
between 0.7are
andalmost similar
0.9 (Figure 2f).and
As athe main
result, thedifference
shapes of is the
height of the curves.
FLC curves for hot-rolled steel sheets are almost similar and the main difference is the
According
height to [24], the left side of the strain-based FLC can be calculated with an
of the curves.
equation with a slope
According −1:
ofthe
to [24], left side of the strain-based FLC can be calculated with an equa-
tion with a slope of −1: ε 1 = FLC0 − ε 2 (9)
where ε 1 is major strain and ε 2 is minor𝜀 strain.
= 𝐹𝐿𝐶 − 𝜀 (9)
Then the right side of the strain-based
where 𝜀 is major strain and 𝜀 is minor strain.FLC can be calculated with [26]:
Then the right side of the strain-based FLC can be calculated
p with [26]:
ε 1 = (1 + FLC0 )(1 + ε 2 ) − 1 (10)
𝜀 = 1 + 𝐹𝐿𝐶 1+𝜀 −1 (10)
where p isp ais material
where a materialconstant.
constant.
ToTodetermine
determinethe theparameter
parameter of ofp,p,the
theexperimental
experimental FLCsFLCs of SAPH440,
of SAPH440, QStE460TM,
QStE460TM,
QStE600TM
QStE600TM and
andS700MC
S700MC were employedfor
were employed forfurther
further analysis.
analysis.
FLCFLC0 can
0 canbe
becalculated withEquation
calculated with Equation(8), (8),
thethe
leftleft
sideside of the
of the FLCFLC can
can be be calculated
calculated
with
with Equation(9)
Equation (9)and
andthethe right
right side
sideofofthetheFLC
FLC cancanbe be
calculated
calculatedwithwith
Equation (10) with
Equation (10) with
different
different valuesof
values of p, as
asshown
shown in in
Figure 8. The
Figure 8. right
The side
rightofside
the predicted FLC agrees
of the predicted wellagrees
FLC
with
well thethe
with experimental
experimental FLC.FLC.
Therefore, p was determined
Therefore, p was determinedas 0.45 for
ashot-rolled steels. Fur- steels.
0.45 for hot-rolled
Furthermore, the left side of the FLC predicted with Equation (9) also agreeswith
thermore, the left side of the FLC predicted with Equation (9) also agrees well wellthe
with the
experimental FLC.
experimental FLC.

Figure 8. The determination of p from experimental FLCs: (a) SAPH440 2.3 mm, (b) QStE460TM
2.5 mm, (c) QStE600TM 3.5 mm and (d) S700MC 3.0 mm.
 Figure 8. The determination of p from experimental FLCs: (a) SAPH440 2.3 mm, (b) QStE460TM 2.5
mm, (c) QStE600TM 3.5 mm and (d) S700MC 3.0 mm.
Metals 2024, 14, 168 12 of 18
Therefore, the new phenomenological model for the complete FLC of hot-rolled steel
sheets can be determined with the combination of Equations (8)–(10). This phenomeno-
logical model is named the IMR-Baosteel model, which is shortened to the IB model. Then
Therefore, the new phenomenological model for the complete FLC of hot-rolled steel
several experimental FLCs were collected to validate the reliability of the IB model com-
sheets can be determined with the combination of Equations (8)–(10). This phenomenologi-
pared with well-known models including the Keeler model, Arcelor model and Tata Steel
cal model is named the IMR-Baosteel model, which is shortened to the IB model. Then sev-
model.
eral experimental FLCs were collected to validate the reliability of the IB model compared
with well-known models including the Keeler model, Arcelor model and Tata Steel model.
On one hand, the experimental FLCs of SAPH440, S550MC, S700MC and FB780
On one hand, the experimental FLCs of SAPH440, S550MC, S700MC and FB780 tested
tested
in the in the laboratory
laboratory were employed
were employed to verify
to verify the reliability
the reliability of theofIBthe IB model.
model. As illus-
As illustrated
trated in Figure
in Figure 9a, the9a, the experimental
experimental FLC of FLC of low-strength
low-strength steel SAPH440
steel SAPH440 can
can be be predicted
predicted well
well
with both the Keeler model and the proposed IB model. The left-hand side of theofTata
with both the Keeler model and the proposed IB model. The left-hand side the Steel
Tata
Steel
modelmodel and
and the the right-hand
right-hand side of side of the Arcelor
the Arcelor model
model agree agree
with with the experimental
the experimental points. In
points. In contrast, the slopes of the right-hand side of the Tata
contrast, the slopes of the right-hand side of the Tata Steel model and the Steel model and the
left-hand left-
side of
hand side of the Arcelor model deviate from the experimental points. Then
the Arcelor model deviate from the experimental points. Then the prediction of FLCs with the prediction
of
theFLCs with the
proposed proposed
IB model can IB model
agree withcan
theagree with the experimental
experimental FLCs for
FLCs for hot-rolled hot-rolled
high-strength
high-strength steels (Figure 9b–d). However, these three classic empirical
steels (Figure 9b–d). However, these three classic empirical models cannot accurately models cannot
accurately
predict the FLC, and the main deviation derives from the underestimated prediction ofpre-
predict the FLC, and the main deviation derives from the underestimated the
diction of the FLCfor
FLC0 , especially 0, especially for high-strength
high-strength steels. steels.

Figure
Figure 9.9. Prediction
Predictionof
of complete
complete forming
forming limit
limit diagram
diagram with
with proposed
proposed model
model for
for various
various steel
steel
sheets:
sheets: (a)
(a)SAPH440,
SAPH440,(b) S550MC,
(b) S550MC,(c)(c)
S700MC
S700MCandand
(d) (d)
FB780. Experimental
FB780. FLCsFLCs
Experimental are collected from
are collected
measurement.
from measurement.

On the
On the other
otherhand,
hand,the
theexperimental
experimentalFLCs
FLCsof ofthe
theSAPH370,
SAPH370,QStE340TM,
QStE340TM,QStE550TM,
QStE550TM,
580DP, 700DP
580DP, 700DP and
and Q-P-T
Q-P-Tsteels
steelswere
werecollected
collectedfrom
fromthetheliterature
literaturetoto
verify the
verify reliability
the of
reliability
the IB model. As shown in Figure 10a–c, for SAPH370, QStE340TM and QStE550TM steel, it
is clear that the Keeler model slightly underestimates the height of the FLC, while it overes-
timates the height of the FLC for 580DP and 700DP steel (Figure 10d,e). The Arcelor model
and Tata Steel model both underestimate all of these FLCs except SAPH370. Generally,
the curve slope of the left-hand side predicted with the Tata Steel model overestimates the
 of the IB model. As shown in Figure 10a–c, for SAPH370, QStE340TM and QStE550TM
steel, it is clear that the Keeler model slightly underestimates the height of the FLC, while
Metals 2024, 14, 168 it overestimates the height of the FLC for 580DP and 700DP steel (Figure 10d,e). 13 The
of 18
Arcelor model and Tata Steel model both underestimate all of these FLCs except
SAPH370. Generally, the curve slope of the left-hand side predicted with the Tata Steel
model
measuringoverestimates
points whilethethe
measuring
curve slope points
of thewhile the curve
right-hand side slope of the
predicted right-hand
with side
the Tata Steel
predicted with the Tatathe
model underestimates Steel model underestimates
measuring the measuring
points. Obviously, points.
the prediction Obviously,
with the
the IB model
prediction
agrees better with the the
with IB model agrees better
experimental FLCswith the experimental
(Figure FLCs (Figure 10a–e). For
10a–e). For quenching–partitioning–
tempering (Q-P-T) steel (Figure 10f),(Q-P-T)
quenching–partitioning–tempering the IB model can predict
steel (Figure 10f), the
the FLC 0 well.can
IB model However,
predict the
IB model
FLC 0 well.overestimates
However, thethe IB left
modelsideoverestimates
of the FLC and theunderestimates
left side of the the
FLCright
and side of the
underesti-
FLC, perhaps due to the low r-value, about 0.27, of Q-P-T steel.
mates the right side of the FLC, perhaps due to the low r-value, about 0.27, of Q-P-T steel.

Figure 10. Prediction of complete forming limit diagram by various models for various steel sheets:
(a) SAPH370, (b) QStE340TM, (c) QStE550TM, (d) 580DP, (e) 700DP and (f) Q-P-T steel. Experimental
FLCs data were adapted from Refs. [20,21,47].
Metals 2024, 14, 168 14 of 18

5. Conclusions
In this work, a new phenomenological model named the IB model based on tensile
properties is proposed to predict the FLC for hot-rolled steel sheets accurately and efficiently.
The main conclusions can be summarized as follows:
(1) The effect of tensile properties on the plane strain forming limit (FLC0 ) was studied
with experimental results of eighty hot-rolled steel sheets under various thicknesses
and strengths. Classic empirical models were employed to verify the prediction
reliability. The results show that when the sheet thickness is less than 3.0 mm and
the tensile strength is lower than 550 MPa, the Keeler model has the best prediction
accuracy, with a deviation of less than 10%, which is better than other empirical
models. However, there are distinct deviations in predicting hot-rolled high-strength
steel sheets with all of the current empirical models. For high-strength hot-rolled
steel sheets, the Keeler model almost underestimates the FLC, due to the fact that
hot-rolled steels have the characteristics of a low strain hardening exponent and
higher thickness.
(2) For hot-rolled steels, there is a yield plateau on the engineering stress–strain curve.
Due to this, it is not sufficient to describe the stress–strain behavior with the power
law equation, which means the n-value obtained from power law equation fitting
cannot describe the hardening behavior accurately. Combined with the correlation
analysis and DIC measurement during the tensile test, it was found that there is a
stronger regression relationship between the total elongation and the FLC0 . Then
the IB model, combining the cubic polynomial equation and power equation, was
proposed to regress the correlation of the FLC0 with total elongation and thickness.
The errors calculated for the FLC0 with the proposed model are mainly under 10%
compared with the errors calculated with the Keeler model, which exceed 30–50% for
hot-rolled high-strength steels. Additionally, the IB model is applicable for thicknesses
between 1.5 mm and 6.0 mm, which covers most hot-rolled steels being employed.
And its reliability for hot-rolled steels out of this thickness range is not verified with
effective experimental data.
(3) In the IB model, the left side of the FLC can be calculated via a line with a slope of –1
for the majority of hot-rolled steels with r-values between 0.7 and 0.9, while the right
side of the FLC can be obtained via a modified Keeler model with the exponent (p)
determined as 0.45 for hot-rolled steels. Ten complete experimental FLCs of hot-rolled
steels from measurements and the literature were used to validate the prediction
reliability. The results show that the prediction of the complete FLC with the IB
model matches much better with the experimental FLC than those with the other
empirical models. However, for Q-P-T steel, the IB model can predict the FLC0 well
but cannot predict the left and right sides of the FLC accurately, due to the low r-value
of about 0.27.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.-W.S., X.-H.P. and S.-H.Z.; methodology, W.-J.C., H.-W.S.
and S.-Y.D.; investigation, W.-J.C. and Z.C.; writing—original draft preparation, W.-J.C. and S.-Y.D.;
writing—review and editing, H.-W.S., S.-F.C., X.-H.P., Z.C. and Y.X.; supervision, S.-H.Z.; fund-
ing acquisition, S.-F.C. and Y.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China
(grant number 2022YFB3304800), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number
52111530293 and grant number 52105412), the project of the Institute of Metal Research, Chinese
Academy of Sciences (grant number E055A501) and the scientific and technological cooperation
project between Jilin Province and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (grant number 2022SYHZ0007).
Data Availability Statement: All data are contained within the article and in the Refs. [20,21,47].
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Qin-Bo Shen and Hua Zhang from Baosteel
Research Institute for their help with the experimental phase of this work.
Metals 2024, 14, 168 15 of 18

Conflicts of Interest: Authors Zheng Cai and Xin-Hua Pei were employed by the company Research
Institute, Baoshan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the re-search was
conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Uniaxial tensile properties and experimental FLC0 for data analysis.

Rm Exp Keeler
Steel t (mm) Rp (MPa) n-Value r-Value Ag At Cal FLC0
(MPa) FLC0 FLC0
SPHC 2 228 333 0.195 1 0.24 0.44 0.425 0.436 0.389
SPHC 2.5 222 341 0.19 1.12 0.242 0.442 0.45 0.472 0.424
SPHC 3 245 347 0.193 1.15 0.242 0.445 0.48 0.496 0.471
SAPH370 2 326 413 0.158 1.06 0.17 0.35 0.4 0.368 0.326
SAPH370 2.5 323 410 0.157 0.95 0.171 0.355 0.41 0.403 0.366
SAPH370 3 309 403 0.161 0.92 0.173 0.364 0.43 0.434 0.406
SAPH400 2 341 443 0.153 0.91 0.171 0.345 0.36 0.362 0.317
SAPH400 3 335 440 0.154 0.83 0.174 0.347 0.4 0.414 0.392
SAPH440 2.3 352 477 0.148 0.8 0.168 0.321 0.34 0.353 0.330
SAPH440 2.5 366 485 0.147 0.79 0.169 0.322 0.35 0.364 0.342
SAPH440 3.5 343 465 0.149 0.83 0.171 0.328 0.38 0.404 0.415
SPFH540 2 467 565 0.123 0.78 0.124 0.273 0.27 0.281 0.263
SPFH540 3 493 588 0.121 0.8 0.126 0.276 0.32 0.323 0.320
SPFH590 2 515 615 0.1 0.81 0.09 0.245 0.26 0.253 0.218
SPFH590 2.5 532 622 0.102 0.86 0.094 0.246 0.28 0.275 0.249
SPFH590 4.5 542 646 0.095 0.76 0.099 0.256 0.31 0.328 0.331
QStE340TM 2.5 379 516 0.132 0.85 0.163 0.325 0.35 0.367 0.312
QStE340TM 3 383 501 0.130 0.87 0.161 0.33 0.37 0.392 0.347
QStE380TM 2 401 505 0.126 0.81 0.143 0.301 0.3 0.312 0.268
QStE380TM 2.5 409 510 0.126 0.8 0.141 0.308 0.33 0.346 0.300
QStE380TM 3.75 378 502 0.127 0.85 0.147 0.312 0.4 0.389 0.378
S355MC 2.5 380 495 0.129 0.77 0.156 0.322 0.34 0.364 0.306
S355MC 3 392 515 0.132 0.87 0.157 0.323 0.37 0.383 0.344
S355MC 4 369 503 0.136 0.81 0.159 0.331 0.39 0.421 0.415
S355MC 6 378 489 0.143 0.86 0.168 0.335 0.41 0.461 0.550
S420MC 2 467 578 0.122 0.81 0.125 0.27 0.27 0.278 0.261
S420MC 3 469 587 0.129 0.82 0.127 0.279 0.32 0.327 0.338
S420MC 3.5 483 592 0.117 0.73 0.129 0.282 0.34 0.343 0.339
S420MC 5 477 606 0.116 0.76 0.127 0.301 0.37 0.396 0.417
QStE460TM 2 497 623 0.103 0.78 0.115 0.253 0.26 0.261 0.224
QStE460TM 2.5 483 603 0.107 0.82 0.116 0.254 0.28 0.283 0.260
QStE460TM 3.6 491 611 0.11 0.74 0.112 0.263 0.3 0.321 0.327
QStE500TM 1.8 544 619 0.097 0.82 0.101 0.227 0.22 0.227 0.202
QStE500TM 2.5 565 636 0.098 0.83 0.109 0.237 0.27 0.266 0.241
QStE500TM 3 551 659 0.096 0.78 0.108 0.232 0.29 0.275 0.262
QStE500TM 4.5 542 643 0.102 0.84 0.112 0.248 0.31 0.318 0.351
QStE500TM 6 553 632 0.103 0.81 0.116 0.252 0.32 0.341 0.424
QStE550TM 2 574 665 0.09 0.8 0.098 0.216 0.23 0.230 0.199
QStE550TM 2.5 595 687 0.091 0.76 0.123 0.211 0.26 0.245 0.225
QStE550TM 2.8 604 690 0.085 0.82 0.112 0.219 0.27 0.259 0.226
QStE550TM 3 587 682 0.082 0.86 0.104 0.221 0.275 0.265 0.227
QStE550TM 3.5 591 664 0.089 0.79 0.109 0.231 0.29 0.284 0.268
QStE600TM 2 633 732 0.079 0.78 0.094 0.207 0.22 0.225 0.176
QStE600TM 2.5 635 738 0.08 0.86 0.096 0.208 0.24 0.243 0.201
QStE600TM 3.5 622 716 0.081 0.85 0.095 0.212 0.26 0.268 0.246
QStE600TM 5 627 727 0.072 0.81 0.103 0.21 0.28 0.287 0.265
QStE650TM 2 674 790 0.068 0.77 0.091 0.19 0.22 0.217 0.154
QStE650TM 2.5 665 782 0.066 0.82 0.092 0.196 0.24 0.237 0.173
QStE650TM 3 661 776 0.070 0.83 0.095 0.205 0.25 0.254 0.197
QStE700TM 1.5 739 804 0.062 0.78 0.082 0.181 0.19 0.178 0.123
QStE700TM 1.8 725 790 0.060 0.83 0.08 0.182 0.195 0.204 0.130
QStE700TM 2 737 802 0.063 0.76 0.084 0.171 0.2 0.212 0.143
QStE700TM 2.5 747 820 0.058 0.8 0.081 0.178 0.23 0.230 0.149
QStE700TM 3 724 796 0.061 0.81 0.086 0.184 0.25 0.244 0.174
QStE700TM 4 732 784 0.062 0.73 0.087 0.204 0.26 0.271 0.211
BR440/580HE 3 514 574 0.168 0.75 0.131 0.277 0.35 0.324 0.421
Metals 2024, 14, 168 16 of 18

Table A1. Cont.

Rm Exp Keeler
Steel t (mm) Rp (MPa) n-Value r-Value Ag At Cal FLC0
(MPa) FLC0 FLC0
580DP 3.5 389 636 0.175 0.8 0.175 0.31 0.4 0.380 0.472
700DP 2.5 425 758 0.138 0.76 0.125 0.24 0.27 0.269 0.325
780DP 3.2 577 848 0.125 0.82 0.121 0.21 0.28 0.261 0.341
FB590 2.2 512 621 0.102 0.77 0.128 0.257 0.3 0.275 0.233
FB780 3 665 813 0.071 0.81 0.084 0.187 0.26 0.245 0.200
FB780 4 672 810 0.075 0.75 0.079 0.194 0.29 0.265 0.250
B780NP 3 756 801 0.082 0.88 0.085 0.25 0.3 0.293 0.227
B780NP 3.5 766 812 0.082 0.83 0.091 0.26 0.33 0.316 0.249
B780SF 2.5 784 856 0.080 0.89 0.081 0.245 0.28 0.274 0.201
B510L 3 435 562 0.132 0.9 0.152 0.277 0.33 0.324 0.344
B510L 4 413 535 0.135 0.93 0.155 0.285 0.38 0.357 0.413
B510L 5 420 544 0.136 0.89 0.158 0.294 0.41 0.386 0.474
B510L 6 446 533 0.143 0.69 0.151 0.31 0.41 0.424 0.550
B530L 3 426 562 0.132 0.86 0.148 0.29 0.32 0.341 0.344
B550L 5 480 575 0.125 0.81 0.145 0.278 0.35 0.364 0.443
B610L 3 556 637 0.104 0.82 0.105 0.232 0.28 0.275 0.271
B610L 4.5 572 652 0.103 0.78 0.121 0.24 0.31 0.309 0.354
B650L 3 597 688 0.093 0.83 0.105 0.22 0.26 0.265 0.254
B700L 3 654 732 0.087 0.78 0.106 0.212 0.25 0.259 0.252
B750L 2.5 733 785 0.062 0.77 0.084 0.183 0.23 0.231 0.159
B750L 3.5 735 793 0.064 0.81 0.086 0.184 0.24 0.253 0.200
BWP750 1.5 720 795 0.063 0.75 0.084 0.21 0.22 0.189 0.125
BWP750 3.5 718 804 0.068 0.84 0.096 0.205 0.26 0.263 0.211
BWP750 4 695 805 0.071 0.78 0.092 0.21 0.28 0.275 0.238
B980 2 859 1047 0.06 0.75 0.067 0.14 0.23 0.216 0.137

References
1. Jha, G.; Das, S.; Lodh, A.; Haldar, A. Development of hot rolled steel sheet with 600MPa UTS for automotive wheel application.
Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2012, 552, 457–463. [CrossRef]
2. Hu, J.; Du, L.X.; Wang, J.J.; Sun, Q.Y. Cooling process and mechanical properties design of hot-rolled low carbon high strength
microalloyed steel for automotive wheel usage. Mater. Des. 2014, 53, 332–337. [CrossRef]
3. Chen, W.J.; Song, H.W.; Lazarescu, L.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, S.H.; Banabic, D. Formability analysis of hot-rolled dual-phase steel during
the multistage stamping process of wheel disc. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2020, 110, 1563–1573. [CrossRef]
4. Sansot, P.; Frédéric, B.; Vitoon, U.; Surasak, S.; Suwat, J. Experimental and theoretical formability analysis using strain and stress
based forming limit diagram for advanced high strength steels. Mater. Des. 2013, 51, 756–766.
5. Keeler, S.P.; Backhofen, W.A. Plastic instability and fracture in sheet stretched over rigid punches. ASM Trans. 1963, 56, 25–48.
6. Marciniak, Z.; Kuczynski, K. Limit strains in the processes of stretch forming sheet metal. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 1967, 9, 609–612.
[CrossRef]
7. Nakazima, K.; Kikuma, T.; Hasaku, K. Study on the formability of steel sheet. Yawata Technol. Rep. 1968, 264, 8517–8530.
8. Xia, L.L.; Xu, Y.; El-Aty, A.A.; Zhang, S.H.; Nielsen, K.B.; Li, J.M. Deformation characteristics in hydro-mechanical forming
process of thin-walled hollow component with large deformation: Experimentation and finite element modeling. Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol. 2019, 104, 4705–4714. [CrossRef]
9. Banabic, D.; Aretz, H.; Paraianu, L.; Jurco, P. Application of various FLD modelling approaches. Mod. Sim. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2005,
13, 759–769. [CrossRef]
10. Ma, Y.; Chen, S.F.; Chen, D.Y.; Banabic, D.; Song, H.W.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, S.H.; Fan, X.S.; Wang, Q. Determination of the forming limit
of impact hydroforming by frictionless full zone hydraulic forming test. Int. J. Mater. Form. 2021, 14, 1221–1232. [CrossRef]
11. Kasaei, M.M.; Oliveira, M.C. Influence of the contact with friction on the deformation behavior of advanced high strength steels
in the Nakajima test. J. Strain Anal. Eng. 2022, 57, 193–207. [CrossRef]
12. Banabic, D.; Lazarescu, L.; Paraianu, L.; Ciobanu, I.; Nicodim, I.; Comsa, D.S. Development of a new procedure for the
experimental determination of the Forming Limit Curves. Ann. CIRP 2013, 62, 255–258. [CrossRef]
13. Yang, Q.B.; Min, J.Y.; Carsley, J.E.; Wen, Y.Y.; Kuhlenkötter, B.; Stoughton, T.B.; Lin, J.P. Prediction of plane-strain specimen
geometry to efficiently obtain a forming limit diagram by Marciniak test. J. Iron Steel Res. Int. 2018, 25, 539–545. [CrossRef]
14. Holmberg, S.; Enquist, B.; Thilderkvist, P. Evaluation of sheet metal formability by tensile tests. J. Mater. Process Technol. 2004, 145,
72–83. [CrossRef]
15. Swift, H.W. Plastic instability under plane stress. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 1952, 1, 1–18. [CrossRef]
16. Hill, R. On discontinuous plastic states with special reference to localized necking in thin sheets. J. Mech. Phys. Solids. 1952, 1,
19–30. [CrossRef]
17. Bleck, W.; Deng, Z.; Papamantellos, K.; Gusek, C.O. A comparative study of the forming limit diagram models for sheet steels. J.
Mater. Process Technol. 1998, 83, 223–230. [CrossRef]
Metals 2024, 14, 168 17 of 18

18. Banabic, D.; Kami, A.; Comsa, D.S.; Eyckens, P. Developments of the Marciniak-Kuczynski model for sheet metal formability: A
review. J. Mater. Process Technol. 2021, 287, 116446. [CrossRef]
19. Hao, Q.G.; Qin, S.W.; Liu, Y.; Zuo, X.W.; Chen, N.L.; Rong, Y.H. Relation between microstructure and formability of quenching-
partitioning-tempering martensitic steel. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2016, 671, 135–146. [CrossRef]
20. Chen, W.J.; Yin, S.; Pei, X.H. Mechanical property and formability of 580DP and 700DP hot-rolled dual phase steel. Mater. Mech.
Eng. 2020, 44, 92–97.
21. Ma, B.L.; Wan, M.; Zhang, H.; Gong, X.L.; Wu, X.D. Evaluation of the forming limit curve of medium steel plate based on
non-constant through-thickness normal stress. J. Manuf. Process. 2018, 33, 175–183. [CrossRef]
22. Kim, W.; Koh, Y.; Kim, H. Formability evaluation for hot-rolled HB780 steel sheet based on 3-D non-quadratic yield function. Met.
Mater. Int. 2017, 23, 519–531. [CrossRef]
23. Sing, W.M.; Rao, K.P. Prediction of sheet-metal formability using tensile-test results. J. Mater. Process Technol. 1993, 37, 37–51.
[CrossRef]
24. Keeler, S.P.; Brazier, S.G. Relationship between laboratory material characterization and press-shop formability. Proc. Microalloying
1977, 75, 517–530.
25. Raghavan, K.S.; Van Kuren, R.C.; Darlington, H. Recent progress in the development of forming limit curves for automotive sheet
steel. SAE Technol. Pap. 1992, 920437. [CrossRef]
26. Paul, S.K. Prediction of complete forming limit diagram from tensile properties of various steel sheets by a nonlinear regression
based approach. J. Manuf. Process. 2016, 23, 192–200. [CrossRef]
27. Paul, S.K.; Manikandan, G.; Verma, R.K. Prediction of entire forming limit diagram from simple tensile material properties. J.
Strain Anal. Eng. 2013, 48, 386–394. [CrossRef]
28. Cayssials, F. A new method for predicting FLC. In Proceedings of the 20th IDDRG Congress, Brussels, Belgium, 17–19 June 1998;
pp. 443–454.
29. Cayssials, F.; Lemoine, X. Predictive model for FLC (arcelor model) upgraded to UHSS steels. In Proceedings of the 24th IDDRG
Conference, Besançon, France, 20–22 June 2005; pp. 17.1–17.8.
30. Abspoel, M.; Scholting, M.E.; Droog, J.M.M. A new method for predicting forming limit curves from mechanical properties. J.
Mater. Process Technol. 2013, 213, 759–769. [CrossRef]
31. Abspoel, M.; Scholting, M.E.; Lansbergen, M.; An, Y.; Vegter, H. A new method for predicting advanced yield criteria input
parameters from mechanical properties. J. Mater. Process Technol. 2017, 248, 161–177. [CrossRef]
32. Gerlach, J.; Kessler, L.; Kohler, A. The forming limit curve as a measure of formability is an increase of testing necessary
for robustness simulations. In Proceedings of the IDDRG 50th Anniversary Conference, Graz, Austria, 31 May–2 June 2010;
pp. 479–488.
33. Gerlach, J.; Kessler, L.; Kohler, A.; Paul, U. Method for the approximate calculation of forming limit curves using tensile test
results. Stahl. Und Eisen 2010, 130, 55–61.
34. Pimentel, A.M.F.; de Carvalho Martins Alves, J.L.; de Seabra Merendeiro, N.M.; Vieira, D.M.F. Comprehensive benchmark study
of commercial sheet metal forming simulation softwares used in the automotive industry. Int. J. Mater. Form. 2018, 11, 879–899.
[CrossRef]
35. ISO 6892-1:2019; Metallic Materials—Tensile Testing—Part 1: Method of Test at Room Temperature. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland,
2019.
36. ISO 10113:2020; Metallic Materials—Sheet and Strip—Determination of Plastic Strain Ratio. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
37. ISO 10275:2020; Metallic Materials—Sheet and Strip—Determination of Tensile Strain Hardening Exponent. ISO: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2020.
38. ISO 12004-2: 2008; Metallic Materials—Sheet and Strip—Determination of Forming-Limit Curves—Part 2: Determination of
Forming-Limit Curves in Laboratory. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
39. Shi, M.F.; Gelisse, S. Issues on the AHSS forming limit determination. In Proceedings of the 25th IDDRG Conference, Porto,
Portugal, 19–21 June 2006; pp. 19–25.
40. Ghazanfari, A.; Assempour, A. Calibration of forming limit diagrams using a modified Marciniak–Kuczynski model and an
empirical law. Mater. Des. 2012, 34, 185–191. [CrossRef]
41. Chezan, A.R.; Khandeparkar, T.V.; ten Horn, C.H.L.J.; Sigvant, M. Accurate sheet metal forming modeling for cost effective
automotive part production. In Proceedings of the 38th IDDRG Conference, Enschede, The Netherlands, 3–7 June 2019; Volume
651, p. 012007.
42. Yun, X.; Gardner, L. Stress-strain curves for hot-rolled steels. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2017, 133, 36–46. [CrossRef]
43. Hosford, W.F.; Duncan, J.L. Sheet metal forming: A review. JOM 1999, 51, 39–44. [CrossRef]
44. Hashemi, R.; Ghazanfari, A.; Abrinia, K.; Assempour, A. The effect of the imposed boundary rate on the formability of strain rate
sensitive sheets using the M-K method. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2013, 22, 2522–2527. [CrossRef]
45. Keeler, S.P. Forming limit criteria sheets. In Advances in Deformation Processing; Burke, J.J., Weiss, V., Eds.; Plenum Press: New York,
NY, USA, 1989; pp. 127–157.
Metals 2024, 14, 168 18 of 18

46. Levy, B.S.; Van Tyne, C.J. An approach to predicting the forming limit stress components from mechanical properties. J. Mater.
Process Technol. 2016, 229, 758–768. [CrossRef]
47. Lu, W.Q.; Chen, J.S.; Chen, J.; Shi, L.; Xiao, H.; Tong, G. Application of minimum thickness criterion in forecasting FLC of
high-strength hot rolled-sheet metal. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2010, 18, 387–395.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.