This article was downloaded by: [The University of Texas at El Paso]

On: 05 January 2015, At: 07:06

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Materials and Manufacturing Processes

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lmmp20

An Experimental and Analytical Study on the

Limit Drawing Ratio of Stainless Steel 304 Foils for
Microsheet Forming
a b a
Chi-Han Chen , Jenn-Terng Gau & Rong-Shean Lee
a
Mechanical Engineering Department , National Cheng Kung University , Tainan, Taiwan
b
Mechanical Engineering Department , Northern Illinois University , DeKalb, Illinois, USA
Published online: 16 Dec 2009.

To cite this article: Chi-Han Chen , Jenn-Terng Gau & Rong-Shean Lee (2009) An Experimental and Analytical Study on
the Limit Drawing Ratio of Stainless Steel 304 Foils for Microsheet Forming, Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 24:12,
1256-1265, DOI: 10.1080/10426910903129786

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10426910903129786

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 24: 1256–1265, 2009
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1042-6914 print/1532-2475 online
DOI: 10.1080/10426910903129786

An Experimental and Analytical Study on the Limit Drawing Ratio

of Stainless Steel 304 Foils for Microsheet Forming
Chi-Han Chen1 , Jenn-Terng Gau2 , and Rong-Shean Lee1
1
Mechanical Engineering Department, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
2
Mechanical Engineering Department, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA

A series of micro-deep drawing experiments were conducted on stainless steel 304 foils with four thicknesses that were heat treated at four
different temperatures. Due to heat treatments, a variety of different grain sizes and T/D ratios (the number of grains throughout thickness) were
obtained. In this study, the limit drawing rations (LDR) of these foils were obtained; it has also been found that the factors that influence LRD of
Downloaded by [The University of Texas at El Paso] at 07:06 05 January 2015

the foils include, but are not limited to, thickness, grain size, and T/D ratios. Tensile tests were conducted to obtain their mechanical properties
that were used for two macroempirical equations to predict the maximum drawing load and LDR. It has been verified that the two equations can
be applied to foils that are not thinner than 150
m for reasonable predictions. However, the size effects are more noticeable and significant for
the foils that are less than or equal to 100
m so that the macroscale empirical equations cannot be applied to them.

Keywords Limit draw ratio; Micro-deep drawing; Microsheet forming; Size effects.

Introduction springback behaviors of aluminum, brass, and stainless steel

Due to the trend of miniaturization in diverse market 304 foils, respectively [7–10].
areas such as telecommunication devices, medical devices, For studying micro deep drawing process, Saoteme et al.
automotive industry, consumer electronics, etc., the needs of [11] conducted experiments on the steel with thicknesses
micrometal components have been increasing tremendously from 0.05 mm to 1 mm. They used the relative punch
diameter (punch diameter/thickness of sheet material) as an
[1]. Micromachining and lithographic technologies are
important experimental parameter to determine drawability.
generally used to produce microcomponents with high They found that limit drawing ratio (LDR) decreases with
dimensional accuracy, but they are constrained by their the increase of the relative punch diameter. Vollertsen
high manufacturing costs and material types. Among et al. [12] obtained the LDR with the factors of friction
the micromanufacturing processes, micrometal forming is coefficient and the applied pressure in their experiments.
the most cost effective process to produce micrometallic Recently, Lee et al. [13] carried out microdeep drawing
parts with high precision in mass production. The metal experiments on stainless steel 304 foils for examining the
forming technology and knowledge in macroscale have effect of thickness to grain size (T/D) ratio on LDR. They
been well developed, but they cannot be directly applied to have recommended having at least 10 grains throughout the
microforming through only scaling down the dimensions of stainless steel 304 foils thickness for better formability and
tooling due to the so-called size effects [1–3]. Regarding drawability. Besides, they used LS-DYNA to simulate the
the definitions of size effects, Vollertsen gave systematic microdeep drawing process of stainless steel 304 foils on
explanations and illustrations in his recent publication [4]. ball retainer for understanding size effects on microdeep
Therefore, a comprehensive testing and study of the selected drawing process [14]. Their results showed that the effective
materials in the microscale is required to obtain the stress and strain of the formed ball retainer were influenced
fundamental knowledge for micrometal forming processes. by thickness/grain size ratio.
To investigate and understand the influences of size Stainless steel 304 foils with four thicknesses (150
m,
effects on microbulk metal forming, Cao et al. [5] conducted 100
m, 50
m, and 20
m) annealed at four different
experiments and finite element simulations to study micro temperatures (900
C, 950
C, 1000
C, and 1050
C) for 3
extrusion process on brass micro pins while Chen et al. [6] minutes were used for this study. The purpose of this study
is to find the influences of foil thickness, normal plastic
did the microextrusion experiments for producing micro-
anisotropy, grain size, and T/D ratio (thickness to average
aluminum pins with blind holes. For microsheet forming, grain size ratio) on the LDR of stainless steel 304 foils for
Gau et al. have done experimental studies to understand micro deep drawing. The experimental results of this study
the influences of the size effects on the formability and were also compared with two well-known and accepted
macroempirical equations to discover the limitations of
these two equations’ application on deep drawing. The
Received October 7, 2008; Accepted February 9, 2009 experimental results of this study can be used to not only
Address correspondence to Jenn-Terng Gau, Mechanical Engineering find the usage limitation of macroempirical equations but
Department, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA; E-mail: also create the empirical equations for microdeep drawing
[email protected] in the future.
1256
 LIMIT DRAWING RATIO OF STAINLESS STEEL 304 FOILS 1257

Specimens preparations
Heat Treatment
Stainless steel 304 foils with four thicknesses (150
m,
100
m, 50
m, and 20
m) from MISUMI were used
for this study. In order to obtain different grain
sizes, atmospheric control heat treatments were carried
out. The annealing processes were carried out in a
LINDBURG/BLUE tube vacuum furnace shown in Fig. 1
for preventing oxidation on specimens. The foils were heat
treated at 900
C, 950
C, 1000
C, and 1050
C for 3 minutes.
After putting specimens into the furnace, argon was used
to purge three times at room temperature and three times
and at 300
C for degassing. After the heating tube had
been filled with argon only, the tube was heated up to the
desired temperatures for 3 minutes. Then, the specimens Figure 2.—Setup of the electrolytic etching process [10].
were quickly cooled to room temperature by flowing argon
into the heating tube.
Downloaded by [The University of Texas at El Paso] at 07:06 05 January 2015

That is the reason why it is difficult to have 50 grains in a

Grain Size Measurement drawn line for very thin foils (50
m and 20
m). Figures 4
For observing the microstructures of the stainless steel and 5 show the microstructures of the foils heat treated at
304 foils throughout the thickness, the samples were four different temperatures.
cut along the rolling and transverse directions after
heat treatment. The process for preparing samples for Tensile Test and Blanking
microstructure analysis includes sectioning, mounting,
grinding, polishing, and electrolytic etching. For electrolytic MTS Sintech 2/G with 10 k Newton load cells was
etching, the solution of 60 mL HNO3 and 40 mL H2 O used to conduct tensile test, blanking, and microdeep
was used to reveal austenite grain boundaries. As shown drawing experiments. MTS LX300 laser extensometer was
in Fig. 2, the mounted specimens were immersed in the used for measuring strain of the foils during the tensile
solution with stainless steel cathode, using 1.5 volts DC test. The dimension of tensile specimen can be seen in
power for 120 seconds [15]. ASTM E112-Heyn Lineal Fig. 6(a). Northern Illinois University (NIU) water jet
Intercept Procedure [16] was used to determine the grain was used to cut the specimens of which the dimensions
size of the specimens by analyzing the pictures taken by an were determined by ASTM E8 standard. Figure 6(b)
optical microscope with a fixed CCD camera. The measure shows the 200
m × 200
m microgrids marked on the
approach is to count on five blindly drawn lines along tensile specimens for measuring R values in three different
the longitudinal direction on the thickness section, then to directions. The background of Fig. 6(b) is a 2008 U.S.
calculate the average grain size, as shown in Fig. 3. For the penny. For obtaining round blanks for microdeep drawing
samples with 150
m and 100
m thicknesses, at least 50 study, blanking processes were conducted by the blanking
grains were intersected by a single drawn line. However, punches and bottoms shown in Fig. 7(a). The blanking tool
only 20–30 grains were intersected for the specimens with setup and some blanked specimens can be seen in Figs. 7(b)
50
m and 20
m thickness because the specimens were and (c), respectively.
sometimes slightly curved during making mount samples.
Microdeep drawing experiments
Figure 8 shows the experimental setup for microdeep
drawing experiment. Several types of springs with different

Figure 1.—Furnace. Figure 3.—Average grain size measurement.

 1258 C.-H. CHEN ET AL.
Downloaded by [The University of Texas at El Paso] at 07:06 05 January 2015

Figure 4.—Pictures of the microstructures of the specimens with 20
m and 50
m thicknesses.

spring constants were used to generate different blank holder During experiments, a very small and a very large blank
forces for this study. holder forces were applied to obtain wrinkle and torn cups
Through different combinations of springs, initial blank for each case (i.e., a blank annealed at 1050
C with 150
m
holder forces (IBHF) were varied from 2.2 Newton to 220 thickness and 3.6 mm diameter) at the beginning, so these
Newton (±2N . IBHF is the blank holder force when the two forces were considered as its upper and lower bounds.
punch just contacts the blank without any deformation. After Then, the blank holder force was gradually increased from
the initial contact, the blank holder forces increased with the the lower bound. Even though good cups without wrinkle
increase of punch stroke proportionally. The blank holder were already obtained, the experiments were still continued
to draw cups by gradually increasing blank holder force
forces can be estimated by adding the initial forces with until torn cups were produced. That is the reason why a
the product of the total spring constant and the punch travel huge amount of trial and error tests were conducted for each
distance after initial contact. The deep drawing load also case.
can be calculated by subtracting blank holder force from
the output of the load cell. The punch with 2 mm diameter Results and discussion
Dp  and 0.25 mm punch tip radius Rp  was used for Heat Treatment
experiments. Four different dies were used in the study. Die
diameter Dd  is (11 × foil thickness t × 2 + Dp , and Table 1 shows the average grain sizes and T/D ratios for
the specimens. By observing Fig. 4, it is obvious that there
the relative die shoulder radius Rd  is four times the foil is only 1 grain across the thickness of the 20
m specimen
thickness. These features are shown in Fig. 9. As shown in with 1050
C heat treatment. However, the average gain size
Fig. 8(d), oblique position ring was used to locate the blank is 0.94 when the above measurement method was used to
for deep drawing and guide blank holder and punch. For determine the average grain size. By observing Table 1, the
this study, the punch travel speed was set as 0.1 mm/sec, foils with 900
C annealing have smaller grain sizes than
and the total deep drawing stroke is 2 mm. Punch surface the as-received materials. The reason is that the nuclei were
and die inner surface were polished, and no lubricant was formed at 900
C, and the heated period was too short to
used during experiment. have bigger grains.
 LIMIT DRAWING RATIO OF STAINLESS STEEL 304 FOILS 1259
Downloaded by [The University of Texas at El Paso] at 07:06 05 January 2015

Figure 5.—Pictures of the microstructures of the specimens with 100
m and 150
m thicknesses.

the foils can be found. It is obvious that yield strengths

and tensile strengths of the foils (150
m, 100
m, 50
m,
and 20
m) decrease with the increases of the annealing
temperature (900
C, 950
C, 1000
C, and 1050
C). Due
to work hardening, the as-received foils have larger yield
and tensile strengths than others even though they have
larger grain sizes than the foils annealed at 900
C. R0 , R45 ,
and R90 of the foils were calculated through measuring
the microgrids on tensile test specimens cut along rolling,
diagonal (45
), and transverse directions, respectively, and
they are shown in Table 3. As well known in macroscale
sheet metal forming, R is an indicator of thinning resistance:

the higher the R value is, the better the thinning resistance is.
As shown in Table 2, the normal plastic anisotropy R 
for the foils with 150
m and 100
m thicknesses increases
Figure 6.—(a) Tensile test specimen and (b) Micro grids on tensile test with the increases of annealing temperature. In other words,
specimen surface. for 150
m and 100
m foils, the R  value increases as T/D
ratio decreases. However, this trend cannot be applied to
the foils with 50
m and 20
m thicknesses. By observing
Table 3, it can be seen that for the foils annealed at the
Tensile Tests same temperature the R  increases as thickness decreases.
Tensile test results of this study are listed in Table 2 in This can also be interpreted that the R  increases as T/D ratio
which yield strengths, tensile strengths and normal plastic decreases for the foils annealed at the same temperature.
anisotropy ratios, defined as R  = R0 + 2R45 + R90 /4, of The only exception is for the foils annealed at 950
C with
 1260 C.-H. CHEN ET AL.

Figure 7.—(a) Blanking punches and bottoms; (b) blanking die setup; and (c) blanked specimens.
Downloaded by [The University of Texas at El Paso] at 07:06 05 January 2015

Figure 8.—(a) and (b) Microdeep draw experiments setup; (c) a micropunch; and (d) a microdeep draw die [10].

150
m and 100
m thicknesses. Because the difference is same grain sizes, but different T/D ratios. Furthermore, it
only 0.003, this trend may be applicable to 950
C. can also be seen from Table 4 that the same ranges of blank
holder forces were applied for these two batches during
Microdeep Drawing Experiments experiments. However, two different LDRs were obtained
for these two batches. From this comparison, the effects of
The microdeep drawing experimental results of this study thickness and T/D ratio can be observed. 2) For the two
are shown in Table 4 in which the drawing ratio , batches with 150
m and 20
m thicknesses annealed at
defined as blank diameter divided by punch diameter  = 1050
C and 900
C, respectively, they have almost the same
Db /Dp , can be found. These experiments were conducted T/D ratios, but different grain sizes and thicknesses. The
in different initial blank holder forces by using different same ranges of blank holder forces were applied on these
spring combinations. The  values with underline are the two batches of foils, but, however, different LDRs were
LDR of the foils. obtained as shown in Table 4. This shows the effects of
In addition to blank holder forces, the effects of thickness, thickness and grain size on the LDR. 3) Two batches of foils
grain size, and T/D ratio on LDR can be explained by with the same thickness (100
m) were annealed at 1050
C
comparing the LDRs of some cases as follows: 1) As shown and 1000
C, respectively, so they have different grain sizes
in Table 1, the two batches of foils (with 150
m and and T/D ratios (see Table 1). Likewise, the same ranges
100
m thicknesses) annealed at 950
C have almost the of blank holder forces were applied during experiments.
However, these two batches have two different LDRs (see
Table 4). This indicates the effects of grain size and T/D
ratio on the LDR.
Figures 10 and 11 show the load-stroke curves of
microdeep drawing experiments on the foils with  = 19.
Figure 10 shows the foils with 100
m thickness and heat
treated at different temperatures, while Fig. 11 shows the
foils with different thicknesses but all heat treated at 1050
C
for 3 minutes. As shown in Fig. 10, the drawing loads of
the foils with 100
m thickness decrease with the increases
of annealing temperature (with decreasing T/D ratio). The
reason why there are second peaks on the curves shown in
Fig. 10 is the presence of minor wrinkles on the cup brims.
When too much material flows into the die cavity, a wrinkle
occurs, and it may be stuck between punch and die such that
the material is more difficult to flow into cavity. Therefore,
Figure 9.—Feature drawing. a higher punch force is required for further drawing into
 LIMIT DRAWING RATIO OF STAINLESS STEEL 304 FOILS 1261

Table 1.—Average grain sizes and T/D ratios for the specimens.

Thickness t

150
m 100
m 50
m 20
m
Heat treatment
temperature T  (
C) Grain size (
m) +
T/D ratio Grain size (
m) T/D ratio Grain size (
m) T/D ratio Grain size (
m) T/D ratio

1050 31.36 4.78 29.54 3.39 22.45 2.23 21.18 1 (0.94)

+511 −677 +427 −418 +460 −216 +160 −142
1000 22.37 6.70 21.40 4.67 16.19 3.09 12.01 1.67
+337 −397 +396 −350 +373 −330 +048 −062
950 12.84 11.68 12.57 7.96 9.13 5.48 8.04 2.49
+408 −353 +175 −198 +161 −083 +031 −043
900 7.69 19.50 5.65 17.71 4.75 10.54 4.52 4.43
+144 −093 +247 −130 +134 −127 +055 −071
As-received∗ 12.87 11.66 10.04 9.96 7.68 6.51 4.60 4.35
+588 −287 +246 −29 +232 −143 +04 −06
∗
The results of the as-received materials were published in ICTP [13].
+
T/D: thickness/average grain size.
Downloaded by [The University of Texas at El Paso] at 07:06 05 January 2015

Table 2.—Mechanical properties for stainless steel 304 foils. Table 3.—Plastic anisotropy ratio for stainless steel 304 foils.

Yield Tensile Yield Tensile Heat treatment Blank thickness

Heat treatment strength strength strength strength temperature T  (
C) t (
m) R (0
) R (90
) R (45
) 
R
temperature T  (
C) (MPa) (MPa) 
R (MPa) (MPa) 
R
1050 150 1.08 0.66 1.08 0.975
Blank thickness t 150
m 100
m 100 1.32 0.86 0.95 1.020
1050 303.86 787.99 0.975 298.20 746.47 1.020 50 0.98 0.87 1.29 1.108
1000 328.19 806.55 0.878 324.75 771.26 0.800 20 2.50 0.69 0.76 1.178
950 350.34 827.77 0.798 355.96 806.73 0.795 1000 150 0.96 0.75 0.90 0.878
900 368.69 857.74 0.563 516.15 905.59 0.578 100 0.97 0.69 0.77 0.800
As-received∗ 730.1 1188.9 – 821.5 1233.9 – 50 1.11 0.53 0.95 0.885
50
m 20
m 20 2.00 0.66 0.58 0.955
1050 316.61 738.31 1.108 378.48 636.62 1.178 950 150 1.13 0.94 0.56 0.798
1000 338.77 770.33 0.885 395.89 673.11 0.955 100 1.25 0.71 0.61 0.795
950 375.06 831.92 0.930 457.23 692.91 1.073 50 1.70 0.56 0.73 0.930
900 523.69 897.04 0.748 660.33 903.02 1.310 20 2.05 0.54 0.85 1.073
As-received∗ 1090.4 1301.6 – 1470.6 1470.6 – 900 150 1.02 0.37 0.43 0.563
100 0.96 0.41 0.47 0.578
∗
The results of the as-received materials were published in ICTP [13]. 50 1.16 0.53 0.65 0.748
20 2.30 0.74 1.10 1.310

Table 4.—Microdeep drawing experimental results.

Blank thickness t 150
m 100
m 50
m 20
m

Heat treatment
temperature T  (
C) + IBHF∗∗  IBHF  IBHF  IBHF

1050 2.3 All fail – – – – – –

2.2 35.78–35.78 2.1 All fail 2.0 All fail 1.9 All fail
2.1 4.69–63.86 2.0 19.48–50.87 1.9 27.48–71.96 1.8 22.33–41.62
2.0 2.25–180.5 1.9 2.2–146.34 1.8 12.12–81.71 1.7 7.52–103.5
1.9 2.2–220.0 – – – – – –
1000 2.1 All fail 2.0 All fail 2.0 All fail 1.9 All fail
2.0 22.33–35.78 1.9 16.25–58.84 1.9 41.62–41.62 1.8 35.78–41.62
1.9 7.52–123.7 1.8 4.69–123.7 1.8 16.25–103.5 1.7 12.12–63.86
950 2.1 All fail 2.0 All fail 1.9 All fail 1.9 All fail
2.0 10.34–16.25 1.9 4.69–16.25 1.8 19.48–63.86 1.8 35.78–41.62
1.9 7.52–71.96 1.8 3.41–146.34 1.7 2.2–87.2 1.7 7.52–63.86
900 2.1 All fail 2.0 All fail 1.9 All fail 1.9 All fail
2.0 27.48–35.78 1.9 12.12–23.3 1.8 16.25–50.87 1.8 35.78–35.78
1.9 7.52–117.5 1.8 4.69–146.34 1.7 4.69–87.2 1.7 7.52–71.96
As-received∗ 2.0 50.6–57.2 2.0 35.3–50.6 1.9 26.4–26.4 1.75 7–13
+
The  with underline and bold cases are limit drawing ratios; ∗ As-received results were published in ICTP [13]; ∗∗
IBHF: Initial blank holder force.
 1262 C.-H. CHEN ET AL.

Figure 10.—Drawing load-stroke curves for drawing ratio  = 19,

thickness t = 100
m, initial blank holder force IBHF = 1625 N.
Downloaded by [The University of Texas at El Paso] at 07:06 05 January 2015

die cavity. This is the reason second peaks occurred in the

curves in Fig. 10.
In Fig. 11, it is obvious the drawing loads decrease with Figure 12.—A drawn cup ( = 18, T = 1050
C, t = 20
m) with 2008
the decrease of thickness (T/D ratio). The 20
m specimen U.S. penny: (a) side view; (b) top view; and (c) bottom view.
was broken in Fig. 11. However, it can still show the
approximately drawing load of 20
m specimen if it was
not torn. It can be concluded from Figs. 10 and 11 that the is the same as macroscale deep drawing. In addition, Fig. 14
foils with smaller T/D ratios need less force to draw cups shows the good drawn cups (T = 1050
C) with different
in comparison with those whose T/D ratios are larger. This thicknesses (150
m, 100
m, 50
m, and 20
m).
echo other researchers’ research results (i.e., surface grains Figures 15 and 16 show the LDR vs. grain size and
have less constrains than volume grains) of which surface T/D ratio, respectively. Two phenomena can be observed
models [1, 17, 18] were developed. from Fig. 15(a). For the same thickness, LDR increases
Figure 12 shows three different views of a deep drawn with increasing grain sizes, (b). With the same grain size,
cup (T = 1050
C, t = 20
m, LDR = 18, IBHF = the thicker foil has a higher LDR. Likewise, by observing
4162 Newton). Wrinkles at cup brims can still be observed Fig. 16, it can be found that LDR decreases as the increases
in Fig. 12(a), even though this cup was drawn with of T/D ratios for the foils with same thickness (except
the maximum initial BHF among all successful parts 20
m), and the thicker foils have higher LDR among the
(T = 1050
C, t = 20
m, LDR = 18, IBHF = 2233 ∼ foils with the same T/D ratios.
4162 Newton). Figures 13(a)–(c) shows the torn part due
to wrinkle, good part, and torn part resulted from high Verifying the Limitations of Macroempirical Equations
blank holder force, respectively. The reason the cup torn for Microdeep Drawing
in Fig. 13(a) is the wrinkle that prevented material from Experimental results of this study were also used to find
flowing into die cavity resulted in the sever thinning at the the limitation of the macroscale equations for microdeep
broken area. Both Figs. 13(a) and (c) show the cups torn drawing process. The equations to find the maximum
right above the radius of the punch area. This phenomenon

Figure 11.—Drawing load-stroke curves for drawing ratio  = 19, heat Figure 13.—(a) Wrinkle cup; (b) good cup; and (c) broken cup. ( = 18,
treatment temperature T  = 1050
C. T = 1050
C, t = 20
m parts).
 LIMIT DRAWING RATIO OF STAINLESS STEEL 304 FOILS 1263

be created based on engineering experience and many

experiments.

P = 3su + y Db − Dd − Rd t (1)

where su , y , Db , Dd , Rd , and t are tensile strength, yield

strength, blank diameter, die diameter, die shoulder radius,
and blank thickness, respectively.
The data in Table 2 were used to compute the maximum
drawing loads of all experimental cases shown in Table 4.
Table 5 shows the computed values Pc  and experimental
values Pe  of the maximum drawing loads of this study. In
Figure 14.—Four drawn cups with four different thicknesses annealed at addition, the ratios of Pc /Pe can also be found in Table 5.
T = 1050
C ((a) 150
m,  = 22; (b) 100
m,  = 20; (c) 50
m,  = 19;
and (d) 20
m,  = 18). Limit Draw Ratio. Hosford and Caddell used an equation
shown below to predict the LDR in macroscale deep
drawing under a number of simplifying assumptions that
Downloaded by [The University of Texas at El Paso] at 07:06 05 January 2015

can be found in their book [19] and are summarized as

follows: 1) all of the energy expended is used to deform the
material in the flange; 2) the material does not work harden
because the work hardening exponent has only a minor
effect on the LDR in macroscale; 3) the flow in the flange is
characterized by plane strain; 4) the material properties are
rotationally symmetric; and 5) Hill’s anisotropic plasticity
theory is used to model yielding.


 + 1/2
lnLDR =  R (2)

where  and R  are deformation efficiency (modify frictional

Figure 15.—Limit drawing ratios vs. grain size. and bending work, usually  = 074–0.79) and normal
plastic anisotropy.
The data in Table 3 and  = 0765 were used to compute
drawing load and limit draw ratio in macroscale deep the LDRs for all experimental cases. The experimental LDR
drawing were used for this verification. Two equations were +  and computed LDR cal  for all cases can be seen in
used to compare the experimental results, and they are Table 6 in which the ratios of cal /+ can also be found.
discussed as follows. If the error variations of Pc /Pe and cal /+ are within
±5%, these cases are highlighted in Tables 5 and 6 with
Maximum Drawing Load. Hukui and Yoshida’s equation ∗ symbols, respectively. It is assumed that the ±5% is the
was recently used by Saotome et al. [11] to predict the acceptable range. In other words, the macroscale empirical
maximum drawing load of their thin sheet deep drawing equations can be applied to these cases of which the error
experiments, and the equation is shown in Eq. (1). This variations are within ±5%. By observing these two tables,
equation needs only basic tensile test results of blank and it is obvious that Eqs. (1) and (2) can be used to predict
basic geometry information of tooling and blank. It may the maximum drawing load and LDR for the foils with
150
m thickness regardless of their grain sizes and T/D
ratios. As shown in Table 5, there are three cases of 100
m
and one case of 50
m foils are within the ±5% error.
However, only one case of 100
m foils is within ±5%
range in Table 6. Therefore, it can be concluded that when
the stainless steel 304 foils are not thinner than 150
m,
the macroscale empirical equations for deep drawing can
be used to predict the maximum draw load and LDR.
However, once the foils are equal to or less than 100
m,
the macroscale empirical equations cannot be used.

Conclusion
Stainless steel 304 foils with four thicknesses (150
m,
100
m, 50
m, and 20
m) annealed at four different
temperatures (900
C, 950
C, 1000
C, and 1050
C) for 3
Figure 16.—Limit drawing ratios vs. T/D ratio. minutes were used for microdeep drawing experiments.
 1264 C.-H. CHEN ET AL.

Table 5.—The comparisons of experimental and calculated maximum drawing load.

Experimental max. Calculated max.

Heat treatment Blank drawing force drawing force Within ±5%
temperature T  (
C) thickness t (
m) LDR + ) Pe  (Newton) Pc  (Newton) Pc /Pe variation

1050 150 2.2 706.82 722.26 1.022 *

+308% −257%
100 2.0 440.54 432.49 0.982 *
+328% −217%
50 1.9 239.74 235.77 0.983 *
+595% −392%
20 1.8 69.35 89.90 1.296
+1023% −989%
1000 150 2.0 562.75 546.38 0.971 *
+154% −172%
100 1.9 390.94 387.99 0.992 *
+256% −256%
50 1.9 202.96 247.88 1.221
+387% −484%
20 1.8 68.12 94.67 1.390
Downloaded by [The University of Texas at El Paso] at 07:06 05 January 2015

+769% −840%
950 150 2.0 571.73 567.26 0.992 *
+197% −173%
100 1.9 443.07 411.59 0.929
+178% −216%
50 1.8 219.25 233.55 1.065
+278% −331%
20 1.8 74.43 101.86 1.369
+634% −789%
900 150 2.0 584.09 590.53 1.011 *
+287% −109%
100 1.9 479.41 503.30 1.050 *
+289% −301%
50 1.8 247.37 274.91 1.111
+471% −516%
20 1.8 109.38 138.45 1.266
+893% −975%

Due to a variety of thicknesses and heat treatment strength were obtained from tensile test. The influences of
temperatures, different grain sizes and T/D ratios were foil thickness, normal plastic anisotropy, and T/D ratio on
obtained. Furthermore, the mechanical properties including the LDR of stainless steel 304 foils in microdeep drawing
normal plastic anisotropy, yield strength, and tensile were investigated in this study. The experimental results of
this study were also compared with two well-known and
accepted macroempirical equations to discover the usage
limitation of these two equations.
Table 6.—The comparisons of experimental and calculated LDR. Based on the results of this study, the following
Heat treatment Thickness Experimental ∗ Calculated Within ±5% conclusions for stainless steel 304 foils can been made:
temperature T  (
C) t (
m) LDR (+ ) LDR (cal ) cal /+ variation
1. For the foils with 150
m and 100
m thicknesses, the
1050 150 2.2 2.14 0.97 *  increases with the increases
normal plastic anisotropy R
100 2.0 2.16 1.08
of annealing temperature. In other words, their R values
50 1.9 2.19 1.15
20 1.8 2.22 1.23 increase as T/D ratio decreases. However, this trend
1000 150 2.0 2.10 1.05 * cannot be applied to the foils with 50
m and 20
m
100 1.9 2.06 1.08 thicknesses.
50 1.9 2.10 1.11 2. For the foils annealed at the same temperature, the R 
20 1.8 2.13 1.18 increases as thickness decreases (T/D ratio decreases).
950 150 2.0 2.08 1.04 * 3. For the same thickness foils, LDR increases with
100 1.9 2.07 1.09
50 1.8 2.12 1.18 increasing grain size (except 20
m), but decreases as
20 1.8 2.18 1.21 T/D ratio increases (except 20
m). For the foils with
900 150 2.0 1.97 1.03 * the same grain sizes or T/D ratios, the thicker foil has a
100 1.9 1.97 1.04 * higher LDR.
50 1.8 2.04 1.14 4. The macroscale empirical equations for deep drawing
20 1.8 2.28 1.26
can be used to calculate the maximum draw load and
∗
Calculated LRD is based on Eq. (2), where  = 0765 [19]. LDR on the stainless steel 304 foils which are not
+
Experimental results. thinner than 150
m because the differences between
 LIMIT DRAWING RATIO OF STAINLESS STEEL 304 FOILS 1265

experimental and calculated results are within ±5% for microforming. Journal of Material Processing Technology 2007,
all cases with 150
m thickness. 184, 42–46.
5. The size effect is more noticeable and significant for 8. Gau, J.-T.; Principe, C.; Yang, F.C. An experimental study on
the foils with thickness that is equal to or less than influence of size effect on springback of micro sheet forming.
100
m, and the macro scale empirical equations cannot 2006 ASME International Conference on Manufacturing Science
be applied to them for microdeep drawing prediction. and Engineering; MSEC2006-21037, October 8–11, Ypsilanti,
The factors to influence the LDR of stainless steel 304 MI, 2006.
foils include, but are not limited to, foil thickness, grain 9. Gau, J.-T.; Principe, C.; Yu, M. Springback behavior of brass in
sizes, and T/D ratio. micro sheet forming. Journal of Material Processing Technology
2007, 191, 7–10.
Acknowledgments 10. Chen, C.H.; Gau, J.-T.; Lee, R.S. Tensile and micro bending
stretch bending experiments for studying stainless steel 304
The authors would like to thank the National Science
foil for micro sheet forming. Proceeding of 2008 International
Council (NSC) of Taiwan for sponsoring Mr. Chen while he
Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference; Evanston,
conducted microforming research at NIU with Dr. Gau from
USA, Oct. 7–10, 2008.
January through October 2008. The authors would also like
11. Saotome, Y.; Yasuda, K.; Kaga, H. Microdeep drawability of
to thank Metal Industries Research & Development Centre
very thin sheet steel. Journal of Materials Processing Technology
(MIRDC) in Taiwan for providing micro-tooling for this
Downloaded by [The University of Texas at El Paso] at 07:06 05 January 2015

2001, 113, 641–647.

study.
12. Vollertsen, F.; Hu, Z.; Schulze Niehoff, H.; Theiler, C. State
of the art in micro forming and investigations in micro deep
References drawing. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2004, 151,
1. Geiger, M.; Kleiner, M.; Eckstein, R.; Tiesler, N.; Engel, U. 35–44.
Microforming. Keynote Paper. Annals of the CIRP 2001, 50, 13. Lee, R.S.; Chen, C.H.; Gau, J.-T. Effect of thickness to grain size
445–462. ratio on drawability for micro deep drawing of AISI 304 stainless
2. Vollertsen, F. Metal Forming: Microparts. Encyclopedia of steel. Proceeding of International Conference on Technology of
Materials; Science and Technology. 2001. Plasticity, Gyeongju, Korea, Sep. 7–11, 2008.
3. Kim, G.Y.; Ni, J.; Koc, M. Modeling of the size effects on the 14. Lee, R.S.; Chen, C.H.; Song, Y.F. Investigation of micro sheet
behavior of metals in microscale deformation processes. Journal metal forming of ball retainer using finite element analysis.
of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 2007, 129, 470–476. Proceeding of the 35th International MATADOR Conference;
4. Vollertsen, F. Categories of Size Effects, Production Taipei, Taiwan, 2007; 101–104.
Engineering Research and Development; German Academic 15. Metallography and Microstructure. ASM Handbook; ASM
Society for Production Engineering (WGP), Springer: International 1992, 9, 534–535.
Berlin/Heidelberg, 2008. 16. ASTM Standard E112. Standard Test Methods for Determining
5. Cao, J.; Krishnan, N.; Wang, Z.; Lu, H.S.; Liu, W.K.; Average Grain Size; ASTM International: West Conshohocken,
Swanson, A. Microforming: Experimental investigation of the PA, 2004; 10–11.
extrusion process for micropins and its numerical simulation 17. Kals, T.A.; Eckstein, R. Miniaturization in sheet metal working.
using RKEM. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2000, 103, 95–101.
2004, 126, 642–652. 18. Engel, U.; Eckstein, R. Microforming – from basic research to
6. Chen, C.H.; Gau, J.-T.; Yu, M.; Yang, Z. A study on forming its realization. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2002,
micro aluminum pins by using a micro forward-backward 125–126, 35–44.
extrusion die. Transactions of the NAMRI/SME 2008, 36, 49–55. 19. Hosford, W.F.; Caddell, R.M. Metal Forming Mechanics and
7. Gau, J.-T.; Principe, C.; Wang, J. An experimental study on size Metallurgy; Prentice Hall International Inc.: Englewood Cliffs,
effects on flow stress and formability of aluminum and brass for NJ, 1993; 288–292.