Vol. 21, n.°4, pp.

97-106, 2022

Revista UIS Ingenierías

Página de la revista: https://revistas.uis.edu.co/index.php/revistauisingenierias

Analysis of formability of AISI 304 steel

sheets with different thicknesses by the tensile
properties
Análisis de la formabilidad de láminas de
acero AISI 304 con diferentes espesores
mediante sus propiedades de tracción
Jhon Barbosa-Jaimes 1a, Ismael García-Páez 1b, Victoriano García-Medina 2

1
Grupo de investigación Gestindustriales-EOCA, Escuela de Ciencias Básicas, Tecnología e Ingeniería ECBTI,
Universidad Nacional Abierta y a Distancia UNAD, Colombia. Orcid: 0000-0001-7890-2678 a,
0000-0003-0698-6395 b. Emails: [email protected] a, [email protected] b
2
Grupo de investigación en Diseño Mecánico, Materiales y Procesos-GIDIMA, Departamento de Diseño Mecánico
Materiales y procesos, Universidad Francisco de Paula Santander UFPS, Colombia. Orcid: 0000-0002-2590-5661.
Email: [email protected]

Received: 25 May 2022. Accepted: 23 June 2022. Final version: 30 October 2022.

Abstract

Although AISI 304 steel is widely used and its manufacturers provide resistance data in the quality certificate, these
are not sufficient to characterize and predict the behavior of the sheets in the drawing and drawing processes. This is
why the objective of this work was to analyze the formability of AISI 304 steel sheets with 16- (thickness 1.5 mm),
18- (1.2 mm), and 20- (0.9 mm) gauges used by the metalworking industry in Colombia by determining intrinsic
properties related to the ability of the sheet to withstand stretching and drawing operations such as the strain hardening
exponent n, the normal anisotropy rm, and the planar anisotropy Δr. The methodology consisted of analyzing the
chemical composition, a metallographic study, and a series of tensile tests. The results show that the steel has a
microstructure of twinned austenite grains of size between 15-30 m. Regarding the mechanical resistance, it was
observed that all the mean values of ultimate resistance, elastic limit, and elongation are above the minimum
established in the standard. Furthermore, all of the tensile test results changed according to the variation of angles
concerning the rolling direction (0°, 45°, and 90°), which indicates the anisotropic character of the sheet. The most
relevant result allows us to infer that the 20-gauge sheet has better formability and therefore, better behavior against
the stretching and drawing processes.

Keywords: Anisotropy; Formability; Metallic sheet; Mechanical properties; AISI 304L; Deep drawing; Stretched;
Metalworking industry; Microstructure; Grain size.

Resumen

Aunque el AISI 304 es ampliamente utilizado y sus fabricantes suministran en el certificado de calidad datos de
resistencia, estos no son suficientes para caracterizar y predecir el comportamiento de las láminas en los procesos de
estirado y embutido. Es por esto que el objetivo de este trabajo fue el de analizar la formabilidad de láminas de Acero
AISI 304 con calibre 16 (espesor 1.5 mm), 18 (1,2 mm) y 20 (0.9 mm) utilizados por la industria metalmecánica en
ISSN Printed: 1657 - 4583, ISSN Online: 2145 - 8456.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. CC BY-ND 4.0
How to cite: J. Barbosa-Jaimes, I. García-Páez, V. García-Medina, “Analysis of formability of AISI 304 steel sheets
with different thicknesses by the tensile properties,” Rev. UIS Ing., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 97-106, 2022, doi:
https://doi.org/10.18273/revuin.v21n4-2022009
98
J. Barbosa-Jaimes, I. García-Páez, V. García-Medina

Colombia mediante la determinación de propiedades intrínsecas relacionadas con la capacidad de la lámina para
soportar operaciones de estirado y embutido tales como: el exponente de endurecimiento por deformación n, la
anisotropía normal rm y de la anisotropía planar Δr. La metodología consistió en realizar un análisis de la composición
química, un estudio metalográfico, y una serie de ensayos de tracción basados en las normas ASTM. Los resultados
muestran que el acero puede clasificarse del grado 304L, con una microestructura conformada, para los tres espesores,
por granos equiaxiales de austenita de tamaño entre 15-30 m con presencia de maclas. En cuanto a la resistencia
mecánica se pudo observar que todos los valores promedio de resistencia última, límite elástico y alargamiento están
por encima de los mínimos establecidos en la norma. Además, todos los resultados de la prueba de tracción cambian
de acuerdo al ángulo de maquinado de la probeta respecto a la dirección de laminación (0°, 45° y 90°), lo que indica
el carácter anisotrópico de la lámina. Los resultados más relevantes permiten inferir que la lámina calibre 20 tiene
mejor formabilidad y, por ende, mejor comportamiento frente a los procesos de estirado y embutido.

Palabras clave: anisotropía; formabilidad; lámina metálica; propiedades mecánicas; AISI 304L; embutido profundo;
estirado; industria metalmecánica; microestructura; tamaño de grano.

1. Introduction The strain hardening exponent, n, indicates how quickly

the sheet increases the strength and hardness due to
Sheet metal forming is the process by which a flat sheet plastic deformation [5]. Its elongation is more significant
of metal is transformed into another shape without in a sheet with a high value of the exponent, n, and
failure, fracture, or excessive thinning. The process can subjected to drawing operations. Its thickness decreases
be simple, for example, a bending, or a very complex more uniformly before necking or failure appears. This
sequence of operations to produce high volumes of parts behavior is an indicator of good formability [10], [11],
by stamping [1]. Forming operations are so diverse in [4]. The above also reveals a large difference between
type, magnitude, and speed that no single test accurately yield stress and the ultimate strength of a material [1].
indicates a material's formability in all situations.
However, the knowledge of the material's properties and Finally, the anisotropy coefficient, r, measures the quality
the detailed analysis of the type of operation used are of a material to assume different properties in different
essential in the manufacture of a specific piece and the directions. For example, according to ASTM E517 [12],
development of the most efficient process [1]. in metal sheets, the anisotropy coefficient r is a parameter
that indicates the ability of a sheet to resist thinning or
Formability refers to the amount of deformation that can thickening when subjected to traction or compression
be obtained from sheet metal in a manufacturing process forces in the plane of the sheet. For Gedney [5], the value
before failure [2], [3]. This property depends on several of r is considered a measure of the drawing capacity of
factors such as thickness, manufacturing process, speed, the sheet.
lubrication, and, to a large extent, the intrinsic properties
of the material [4], [5]. According to Kalpakjian and Schmid [11], this capacity
is acquired in the sheet formation process. It is given by
The tests used to predict the formability of metal sheets the preferential orientation of the grains and the
are divided into two: First, the intrinsic test for alignment of impurities and inclusions throughout the
determining specific information on the material does not thickness (mechanical fiberization).
consider the conditions of the sheet, such as thickness [5],
the standard tensile test [6], and the second is simulations For Güemes and Martin [13], the higher the anisotropy
test that provides specific but limited information on the normal is, the better the material's behavior. Since if it is
manufacturing process and its operating conditions [7], small, cracks or tears may appear in the process of
such as the test to determine the formability limit curve obtaining parts by drawing. In the case of planar
(FLC), which provides the maximum deformation anisotropy, it is preferred that Δr = 0, because if Δr is
delivered by a shell before failure occurs [2], [8]. large, the sheet deforms more in some directions than in
others, and the problem of ear formation occurs in the
From the mechanical properties resulting from the tensile drawing process, in addition to a variation in the
test (intrinsic), which can be related to the formability of thickness of the walls of the piece in different parts.
the sheet, the following are found the elongation at break,
A50, indicates the ductility of the material, which is why In this work, the mechanical characterization of AISI 304
it is related to the forming capacity of the metal sheet [3], steel sheets was carried out using tensile tests. Parameters
[4], [9]. that are not normally supplied by manufacturers, but that
are required by the metalworking industry for the
Analysis of formability of AISI 304 steel sheets with different thicknesses by the tensile properties 99

continuous improvement of the productivity and quality

of the products obtained in processes such as drawing and
drawing of stainless steel sheets, were determined.

2. Materials and methods

For this investigation, AISI 304 steel sheets with 16- (1.5
mm), 18- (1.2 mm), and 20- (0.9 mm) gauges were
selected, which are the most commercially used. The
necessary specimens were machined from these sheets to
perform the elemental chemical analysis, the
metallographic study, and the tensile tests according to
the ASTM standards.

The chemical analysis was performed in a BRUKER

Optical Emission Spectrometer (OES), model Q8
MAGELLAN, and BAS No. 467/1 was used as reference
material.

Metallographic preparation was performed using a

standard procedure: mounting the test piece in Bakelite,
grinding with SiC papers up to 1000 grit, and polishing
with 0.5-micron aluminum oxide. The microstructure
was revealed by etching with hydrochloric acid and Figure 1. Arrangement of machined samples with
hydrogen peroxide (100 mL water, 300 mL of HCl, 15 orientations of 0°, 90°, and 45° to the direction of the
mL of 30% hydrogen peroxide) solution freshly last rolling. Source: authors.
prepared.
The logarithmic representation of the results of the true
For the tensile test, samples at 0°, 45°, and 90° stress vs. the true strain allows for determining the value
concerning the last lamination were cut in a CNC of the strain hardening exponent (n) using the empirical
machining center, with the water jet method, as shown in mathematical Equation (1), which applies to metallic
Figure 1. materials [14].

The tensile test was performed in a SHIMADZU 𝜎𝑟 = 𝑘 ∗ 𝜀 𝒏 (1)

universal traction/compression testing machine, model σr= true stress.
Autograph AG-X plus, with a 100 KN load cell and an Ɛ = true strain.
Epsilon extensometer up to 20% deformation. With the k = strength coefficient.
data obtained in this test, the conventional elastic limit n = strain-hardening exponent.
(σy), tensile strength (σu), elongation at break (A50),
and the strain hardening exponent (n) were calculated. The values of real stress σr and real strain Ɛ were
calculated from the data of stress σ and engineering strain
Four samples were tested for each orientation (12 for ϵ, obtained in the tensile test as shown in Equation (2)
each sheet thickness). The test speed was set at 1 and Equation (3):
mm/min before the elastic limit and 5 mm/min after the
elastic limit and before the ultimate stress. Both, the 𝜎𝑟 = 𝜎 ∗ (1 + 𝜖) (2)
measurements of the specimen and the speed conditions
of the test are under the provisions of the standards 𝜀 = 𝑙𝑛(1 + 𝜖) (3)
ASTM E 8M and ASTM E 646 [6], [14].
Equation (1) written in logarithmic form, equation (4),
After each test, the results of the tensile strength (σu) and indicates that the points must be plotted on a logarithmic
the conventional elastic limit by the creep method (offset scale, or plot directly the logarithms of the values
0.2%) (σy) are obtained directly from the universal obtained, as shown in Figure 2.
machine software. The final gauge length is measured
and the percent elongation at break (A50) is calculated. 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝜎𝑟 = 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑘 + 𝑛 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝜀 (4)
100
J. Barbosa-Jaimes, I. García-Páez, V. García-Medina

Using linear regression by the least-squares numerical ɛt = thickness strain.

method with the pairs of points (σr, Ɛ) the value of the lo = original gauge length.
strain hardening exponent n is obtained, as indicated by lf = final gauge length.
the standard [14]. wo = original width.
wf = final width.
The data used in the calculation, strains between 10 and
20%, correspond to the range between the elastic limit The results of the 5 samples were averaged and the values
and before the necking begins at the ultimate engineering of r in each direction were obtained: r0, r45 y r90, for each
stress point [14], the range over which the equations for thickness.
calculating actual stresses and strains are applicable [15].
Finally, normal anisotropy and planar anisotropy were
Since in all cases the elastic deformation is considerably calculated for each shell thickness, using Equation (6)
less than 10% of the real total deformation, this can be and Equation (7), respectively [16].
considered negligible, as suggested by [15], therefore,
method B of the ASTM E 646 standard was applied [ 14]. 𝑟0 + 2𝑟45 + 𝑟90
𝑟 =⁡
4 (6)

𝑟0 − 2𝑟45 + 𝑟90
𝛥𝑟 = ⁡
2 (7)

Figure 2. Log-log true stress–true strain diagram,

between the elastic limit and the maximum stress.
Source: authors.

The anisotropy coefficient (r) was determined in an

IBERTEST universal traction/compression machine, Figure 3. Measurements for determining r-values.
model IBMT2-600. The test was realized to 5 samples for Source: authors.
each orientation (15 for each sheet thickness), the strain
rate was set at 4 mm/min, and the measurements were 3. Results and discussion
carried out under the ASTM E 517 standard [12]. The
test ended when the length deformation in the original The elemental chemical analysis presented in Table 1
calibrated zone reached 20%, (lf = 60 mm) Figure 3. confirms that the material studied is 304 Steel, which can
be classified as 304L grade, due to its low carbon content,
The initial and final distances in the samples were 0.028%, 0.020%, and 0.025%. This grade of steel is often
measured. Then, the anisotropy coefficient was preferred in applications where welding is required as it
calculated for each specimen (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) in the eliminates the formation of chromium carbides during
three directions (0°, 45°, 90°) of the three thicknesses cooling in the heat-affected zone, HAZ [17].
(0.9, 1.2, and 1.5 mm) using Equation (5):
Figure 4 shows the microphotograph of the 18-gauge
𝑤 sample. In general, there are no significant differences
𝑙𝑛⁡( 𝑜 )
𝜀𝑤 𝑤𝑓 between the microstructures of the three-gauge samples,
𝑟= =
𝜀𝑡 𝑙𝑓 ∗ 𝑤𝑓 (5) and it comprises nearly equiaxed polygonal grains with
𝑙𝑛⁡( ) annealing twins. The grain size of the austenite is
𝑙𝑜 ∗ 𝑤𝑜
between 10 and 25 µm. Since no alignment of the grains
ɛw = width strain. is observed in the direction of the last rolling, it is
considered that the sheets were subjected to an adequate
Analysis of formability of AISI 304 steel sheets with different thicknesses by the tensile properties 101

annealing process. Therefore, a marked

anisotropic behavior is not expected.

Table 1. Chemical analysis of the steels under study

measured by EOS

Gauge 16 Gauge 18 Gauge 20

Element 1.5 mm 1.2 mm 0.9 mm
wt.% wt.% wt.%
(C) 0.028 0.020 0.025
(Si) 0.464 0.506 0.438
(Mn) 1.476 1.315 1.630
(P) 0.029 0.029 0.036
(S) 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054
(Cr) 18.24 18.12 18.13
(Mn) 0.064 0.014 0.430
(Ni) 8.120 8.131 8.1
(Cu) 0.031 0.027 0.490
(Al) ˂0.00050 ˂0.00050 ˂0.00050
(As) 0.0075 0.0067 0.010
(B) 0.00022 0.0011 0.00031
(Co) 0.203 0.253 0.230
(Nb) 0.0066 0.0046 0.021
(Pb) 0.0042 0.0036 0.0043
(Sn) 0.00054 ˂0.00050 0.0097
(Ti) 0.0085 0.0080 0.0081
(V) 0.170 0.137 0.144
(W) ˂0.0020 ˂0.0020 0.055 Figure 4. Microstructure of the 18-gauge sample. (a)
low magnification, (b) high magnification. They were
Source: authors. etched with HCl and H2O2 by 3 s. Source: authors.
The grain size considerably affects the properties of the Figure 5 shows a comparison of the engineering curves
material [18], the fine grain is associated with greater of the 16-, 18-, and 20- gauge sheets for the 0°
strength and hardness, but less ductility, and the coarse orientation. 16-gauge sheets have higher strength, while
grain with greater roughness in the appearance of the 18- and 20-gauge sheets do not differ significantly from
surface "orange peel" [11]. The value between 10 and 25 each other. This behavior is observed in all three
µm is close to the ASTM grain size 7 suggested for sheet orientations. As mentioned above, in all cases the elastic
metal forming operations [11]. deformation is considerably less than 10% of the real
total deformation, therefore, method B of the ASTM E
In Table 2, the results of the conventional elastic limit of 646 standard was applied.
0.2% (σy 0.2%) and the tensile strength (σ u) for sheet
thickness according to its orientation. The mean values The mean values of the tensile strength and the
of the tensile strength of the 16-, 18- and 20-gauge sheets conventional elastic limit of the studied steel are very
are 666.133, 600.631, and 530.220 MPa, respectively. similar to those reported by [19] for an AISI 304 DDQ
steel (drawing quality) of 0.8 mm thickness: 582 and 252
Regarding the conventional elastic limit of 0.2%, σy, MPa, respectively. In turn, they are slightly lower than
(0.2%), the resistance values for the 16-, 18- and 20- those reported by [20] for an AISI 304 steel with a
gauge sheets are 286.015, 251.160, and 253.273 MPa, thickness of 0.7 mm: 662 and 284 MPa, respectively, as
respectively. well as those written by [21] for an AISI 304L steel with
a thickness of 1,168 mm: 670.4 and 290.8 MPa.
102
J. Barbosa-Jaimes, I. García-Páez, V. García-Medina

Table 3. Elongation at break for the three sheet

thicknesses

Percent
Gauge elongation in 50 mm
(A50) %
0° 53.93 ± 1.09
16
45° 58.26 ± 0.32
(1.5 mm)
90° 59.96 ± 1.25
0° 56.14 ± 1.12
18
45° 60.03 ± 2.02
(1.2 mm)
90° 59.19 ± 1.41
0° 59.22 ± 1.33
20
Figure 5. Comparative curves engineering stress vs 45° 64.83 ± 1.35
(0.9 mm)
engineering strain of AISI 304 steel sheets for 16-, 18- 90° 65.91 ± 1.99
and 20-gauge for the 0° orientation. Source: authors. 304 ASTM A 240 40
304L ASTM A 240 40
Table 2. Elastic limit and tensile strength for the three
sheet thicknesses Source: authors.

Tensile strength The strength and elongation values determined in this

Yield strength
Gauge (σu) study are above the minimum values established for AISI
(σy) Mpa
Mpa 304 and AISI 304L steel sheets according to the ASTM
16 0° 687.179 ± 5.482 287.297 ± 5.867 A 240 standard [22].
(1.5 45° 647.428 ± 13.690 279.762 ± 5.361
mm) 90° 663.791 ± 6.257 290.986 ± 5.441 The results obtained from the strain hardening exponent
18 0° 614.412 ± 1.636 248.017 ± 3.321 (n) for the steels studied according to their thickness and
(1.2 45° 588.243 ± 2.845 252.511 ± 4.167 their orientation are shown in Table 4. Again, a behavior
mm) 90° 599.238 ± 2.100 252.954 ± 0.763 similar to that of the elongation is observed, in which the
20 0° 549.487 ± 9.970 255.112 ± 2.120 value in the direction of the last lamination is different,
(0.9 45° 515.401 ± 5.910 251.563 ± 6.251 in this case, higher than those of the other orientations,
mm) 90° 525.772 ± 9.329 253.146 ± 7.672 indicating a slight anisotropic behavior, especially in the
304 18- and 20- gauge sheets, as can be seen in Figure 6.
515 205
ASTM A 240
304 The results are very similar, both for the three thicknesses
485 170 and for the three orientations. The values (mean) were
ASTM A 240
0.378, 0.371, and 0.393 for 16-, 18- and 20-gauge sheets,
Source: authors. respectively, which are higher than the 0.244 reported by
[19] for a 0.8 mm thickness AISI 304 DDQ (drawing
The values of elongation at break in 50mm of calibrated quality) steel. However, they are slightly lower than the
length (A50) obtained in the tensile test for each sheet 0.42 reported by [20] for a 0.7 mm thickness AISI 304
thickness according to orientation are shown in Table 3. steel, and the 0.52 written by [21] for a 1.168 mm
The mean values for the 16-, 18- and 20-gauge sheets are thickness AISI 304L steel.
57.38, 58.45, and 63.32% respectively. These values are
very similar to the 57% reported by [20] for an AISI 304 Table 5 shows the results of the anisotropy coefficient, r
steel with a thickness of 0.7 mm, and the 64% reported for each sheet according to their orientations concerning
by [21] for an AISI 304L steel with a thickness of 1.168 the rolling direction and the influence of the normal and
mm. planar anisotropy for each thickness.

Although according to what was observed in the

microstructure, an anisotropic behavior was not
expected, an elongation lower. Therefore, lower ductility
was observed in the direction of the last lamination (0°)
to the other orientations in all three gauges.
Analysis of formability of AISI 304 steel sheets with different thicknesses by the tensile properties 103

Table 4. Values of the strain hardening exponent for the Table 5. Anisotropy coefficient for the three sheet
three sheet thicknesses thicknesses

Strain-Hardening Exponents, Plastic Normal Planar

Gauge strain anisotropy anisotropy
n
0° 0.381 ± 0.005 Gauge ratio, r Equation Equation
16 Equation (6) (7)
45° 0.379 ± 0.003
(1,5 mm) (5) rm Δr
90° 0.376 ± 0.002
0° 0.388 ± 0.002 r0 0.93 ± 0.02
18 16 (1.5
45° 0.360 ± 0.001 r45 1.24 ± 0.02 1.05 -0.19
(1,2 mm) mm)
90° 0.363 ± 0.002 r90 0.80 ± 0.00
0° 0.409 ± 0.010 r0 0.89 ± 0.01
20 18 (1.2
45° 0.382 ± 0.004 r45 1.14 ± 0.03 0.99 -0.15
(0,9 mm) mm)
90° 0.390 ± 0.005 r90 0.80 ± 0.02
r0 0.87 ± 0.01
20 (0.9
Source: authors. r45 1.04 ± 0.04 0.93 -0.11
mm)
r90 0.76 ± 0.01

Source: authors.

Figure 6. Comparative diagram between values of the

strain hardening exponent in AISI 304 steel sheets for Figure 7. Comparative diagram between mean values of
16-, 18- and 20-gauge. Source: authors. the anisotropy coefficient r (equation 5) in the steel
sheets for the AISI 304 20-, 18- and 16-gauge. Source:
Figure 7 shows the average value of 5 samples for each authors.
orientation of the sheets of the three gauges. It can be
seen that the greater the thickness of the sheet, the greater Regarding the results of the planar anisotropy, Δr,
the value of r in its three directions. The highest values calculated using Equation (7), the values of -0.19; -0.15,
were observed for 45° samples, marking more difference and -0.11 are closer to zero than the -0.22 published by
in caliber 16. Although there is no marked dispersion in du Toit and Steyn for 0.7 mm thickness AISI 304 steel
the data, some authors associate this with the [20]. This behavior indicates that the sheets object of this
crystallographic texture of the material [9], [23]. study would be less susceptible to the formation of ears
in the drawing process.
Values of the normal anisotropy, rm, determined by
Equation (6): 1.05; 0.99, and 0.93 are slightly higher than 4. Conclusions
the 0.906 obtained by Coello and others for an AISI 304
steel (drawing quality) of 0.8 mm thickness [19]. The elemental chemical composition allows classifying
Similarly, they are less than the 2.44 reported by du Toit the steels used in the study as AISI 304 grade L because
and Steyn for a 0.7 mm thickness AISI 304 steel [20], and their carbon content is less than 0.03%.
similar to the r0= 1,01 r90= 0,91 written by V. Talyan for
a steel AISI 304L 1,168mm thickness [21]. The metallographic study shows austenite as the only
phase, in the form of twinned equiaxed grains with sizes
between 4 and 5 ASTM.
104
J. Barbosa-Jaimes, I. García-Páez, V. García-Medina

These results indicate that an annealing process [4] D.R. Askeland, W.J. Wright, Ciencia e ingeniería de
eliminated grain deformation along the last rolling los materiales. México, D. F: Cengage learning, 2017.
direction, but increased grain size, especially for use in
the drawing process. [5] R. Gedney, “Sheet Metal Testing Guide”, ADMET,
Inc, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-9, 2013, [Online]. Available:
The mean values of resistance to traction, of the http://admet.com/assets/ADMET-Sheet-Metal-Testing-
conventional elastic limit of 0.2%, σy, (0.2%), and of the Guide-July-2013.pdf
normal and planar anisotropy coefficient show that the
greater the thickness of the sheet, the better results are [6] Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of
obtained, coinciding with what is reported by the Metallic Materials, ASTM E8 / E8M, 2013.
manufacturer. On the contrary, in the values of tensile
elongation at break (A50) and strain hardening exponent [7] R. Andersson, “Deformation characteristics of
(n), it is observed that the lower the thickness of the sheet, stainless steels,” PhD dissertation, Luleå tekniska
the better results are obtained. These results indicate that universitet, Luleå, 2005, [Online]. Available:
the sheet of 20-gauge will have better behavior in https://www.diva-
drawing operations. portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A990918&ds
wid=-4133
Contrary to what was observed in the metallographic
study, a slight anisotropic behavior was presented in the [8] Standard Test Method for Determining Forming
measured mechanical properties, except for the elastic Limit Curves, ASTM E2218, 2015.
limit. The tensile strength and the hardening coefficient
are higher in the samples with an orientation of 0° (in the [9] J.A. Newel. Ciencia de materiales, aplicaciones en
rolling direction). At the same time, the elongation is ingeniería. México, D.F: Alfaomega, 2010.
lower than in the other two orientations.
[10] J.A. Schey. Introduction to manufacturing
Finally, the planar anisotropy values show, for the three3 processes. United States Of America: McGraw-Hill,
thicknesses, a deviation from the optimal value of zero, 2000.
which indicates a particular susceptibility to the
formation of ears in the drawing process. [11] S. Kalpakjian y S.R. Schmid. Manufactura,
Ingeniería y tecnología. México, D.F: Pearson
Acknowledgment Educación, 2008.

The authors acknowledge the financial support of the [12] Standard Test Method for Plastic Strain Ratio r for
Universidad Nacional Abierta y a Distancia, UNAD, and Sheet Metal, ASTM E517, 2018.
the Universidad Francisco de Paula Santander, UFPS.
[13] A. Güemes, N. Martín, Ciencia de materiales para
Reference ingenieros. México, D.F: Pearson Educación, 2013.

[1] ASM International, Metals handbook volume 14 [14] Standard Test Method for Tensile Strain-Hardening
forming and forging. USA: ASM International, 1996. Exponents (n -Values) of Metallic Sheet Materials,
ASTM E646, 2016.
[2] J.E. Barbosa, I.H. García, J. Fuentes, “Estimación vía
experimental de la formalidad de láminas de aluminio de [15] N.E Dowling. Mechanical Behavior of Materials.
pureza comercial”, Rev. Latinoamericana de Metalurgia England: Pearson Education Limited, 2013.
y Materiales, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 128-134, 2009. [Online].
Available: [16] A. E. Tekkaya, T. Altan. Sheet Metal Forming:
http://ve.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S Fundamentals. USA: ASM International, 2012.
0255-69522009000200008&lng=es&tlng=es
[17] C. Doerr, J.Y. Kim, P. Singh, J. Wall, L.J. Jacobs,
[3] C. L. Casadiego, J. E. Barbosa, I. H. García, “Evaluation of Sensitization in Stainless Steel 304 and
“Determinación experimental de la formabilidad de 304L using Nonlinear Rayleigh Waves”, NDT and E
láminas de acero SG295 mediante sus propiedades International, vol. 88, pp. 17-23, 2017, doi:
tensiles,” Rev. colombiana de tecnologías de avanzada, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ndteint.2017.02.007
vol. 1, no. 29, pp. 9-15, 2017, doi:
https://doi.org/10.24054/16927257.v29.n29.2017.2480
Analysis of formability of AISI 304 steel sheets with different thicknesses by the tensile properties 105

[18] M. A. Martínez, J. Ordieres, J. Botella, R. Sánchez,

R. Parra, “Influencia del tamaño del grano en las
propiedades mecánicas de los aceros inoxidables
austeníticos”, revmetal, vol. 41, no. Extra, pp. 64–68,
2005, doi:
https://doi.org/10.3989/revmetalm.2005.v41.iExtra.1000

[19] J. Coello, V. Miguel, A. Calatayud, A. Martínez, C.

Ferrer, “Deformability analysis of the AISI 304 DDQ
stainless steel under deep drawing multiaxial condition.
Evaluation of the initial strain influence”, Revista de
Metalurgia, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 435–445, 2010, doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/revmetalm.0967

[20] M. Toit, H. Steyn, “Comparing the Formability of

AISI 304 and AISI 202 Stainless Steels”, Journal of
Materials Engineering & Performance, vol. 21, no. 7,
pp. 1491–1495, 2012, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-011-0044-8

[21] V. Talyan, R.H. Wagoner, J.K. Lee, “Formability of

Stainless Steel”, Metallurgical and Materials
Transactions, Vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 2161-2172, 1998. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-998-0041-1

[22] Standard Specification for Chromium and

Chromium-Nickel Stainless Steel Plate, Sheet, and Strip
for Pressure Vessels and for General Applications,
ASTM A240 / A240M, 2020.

[23] M. J. Serenelli, M. A. Bertinetti, J. W Signorelli,

“Influencia de la textura cristalográfica en la dispersión
de coeficientes de lankford en una chapa de acero
galvanizada de bajo carbono”, Mecánica Computacional,
vol XXVII, pp. 993- 1001, 2008. [Online]. Available:
https://cimec.org.ar/ojs/index.php/mc/article/view/1467