10.57647/jsm.2026.1801.02

A Comparative Assessment of DF2016 and MMC3Fracture Criteria for Predicting Crack Initiation inSingle Point Incremental Forming

Show Details XML PDF
  • Seyed Amin Teymouri Sendesi1,
  • Mohammad Mehdi Kasaei*,
  • Majid Majidi,
  • Seyed Jalal Hashemi,
  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Qa.C., Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran

Received: 2026-01-14

Revised: 2026-02-23

Accepted: 2026-02-23

Published in Issue 2026-03-31

Copyright (c) 2026 Seyed Amin Teymouri Sendesi, Mohammad Mehdi Kasaei, Majid Majidi, Seyed Jalal Hashemi (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

teymouri, seyed amin, Kasaei, M. M., Majidi, M., & Hashemi, S. J. (2026). A Comparative Assessment of DF2016 and MMC3Fracture Criteria for Predicting Crack Initiation inSingle Point Incremental Forming. Journal of Solid Mechanics, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.57647/jsm.2026.1801.02
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 41

Abstract

Accurately predicting fracture remains a significant challenge in single point incremental forming (SPIF) due to the complex and inherently nonlinear loading paths. This study presents a comparative evaluation of two advanced ductile fracture criteria, DF2016 and the modified Mohr-Coulomb (MMC3), for predicting crack initiation in SPIF of AA1050 aluminum sheets. The fracture models were calibrated using tensile tests and implemented in Abaqus/Explicit 2022 via a VUSDFLD user subroutine, coupled with a Swift-Voce hardening law. Numerical models were validated by comparing simulated thickness distributions and in-plane strains against experimental data from truncated conical and pyramidal specimens with variable wall angle. To account for the non-proportional loading characteristic of SPIF, a nonlinear damage accumulation rule, calibrated using the straight groove test, was incorporated to improve prediction precision. The results indicate that both criteria successfully predict the onset depth and location of cracks, demonstrating good agreement with experimental observations. However, the DF2016 criterion exhibited superior accuracy over MMC3, attributed to its enhanced capability to capture a wider range of deformation modes.

Keywords

  • Incremental forming,
  • Fracture prediction,
  • Crack depth,
  • MMC3,
  • DF2016 criterion
PDF

References

  1. Patel D, Gandhi A. A review article on process parameters affecting Incremental Sheet Forming (ISF). Mater Today Proc. 2022;63:368-75. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.03.208
  2. Skjoedt M. Rapid prototyping by single point incremental forming of sheet metal [dissertation]. Lyngby: Technical University of Denmark; 2008. Available from: https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/rapid-prototyping-by-single-point-incremental-forming-of-sheet-me
  3. Cheng Z, Li Y, Xu C, Liu Y, Ghafoor S, Li F. Incremental sheet forming towards biomedical implants: A review. J Mater Res Technol. 2020;9(4):7225-51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.04.096
  4. Jeswiet J, Micari F, Hirt G, Bramley A, Duflou J, Allwood J. Asymmetric single point incremental forming of sheet metal. CIRP Ann. 2005;54(2):88-114. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-8506(07)60021-3
  5. Reddy NV, Lingam R, Cao J. Incremental metal forming processes in manufacturing. In: Handbook of manufacturing engineering and technology. Springer; 2015. p. 411-52.
  6. Pineau A, Benzerga AA, Pardoen T. Failure of metals I: Brittle and ductile fracture. Acta Mater. 2016;107:424-83. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2015.12.034
  7. Emmens W, van den Boogaard AH. An overview of stabilizing deformation mechanisms in incremental sheet forming. J Mater Process Technol. 2009;209(8):3688-95. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2008.10.003
  8. Jackson K, Allwood J. The mechanics of incremental sheet forming. J Mater Process Technol. 2009;209(3):1158-74. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2008.03.025
  9. Talesh RBM, Keshtiban PM, Oskui AE. Investigation of mode-I fracture behavior by essential work of fracture during the single-point incremental forming process. Eng Fail Anal. 2023;154:107677. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107677
  10. Sharma M, Bhattacharya A, Paul SK. Failure behavior in single point incremental forming parts of AA6061-T6. Eng Fail Anal. 2025;149:109682. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2025.109682
  11. Kumar A, Mehtani H, Shrivastava A, Mishra S, Narasimhan K, Samajdar I. Failure mechanism during incremental sheet forming of a commercial purity aluminum alloy. Eng Fail Anal. 2023;146:107090. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107090
  12. Gatea S, Ou H, Lu B, McCartney G. Modelling of ductile fracture in single point incremental forming using a modified GTN model. Eng Fract Mech. 2017;186:59-79. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.09.021
  13. Mirnia MJ, Shamsari M. Numerical prediction of failure in single point incremental forming using a phenomenological ductile fracture criterion. J Mater Process Technol. 2017;244:17-43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2017.01.029
  14. Wang C, Daniel WJ, Lu H, Liu S, Meehan PA. A comparative investigation of damage models for fracture prediction in two-point incremental forming. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2021;112:3069-81. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-06587-x 0.57647/jsm.2026.1801.02
  15. Bharti S, Gupta A, Krishnaswamy H, Panigrahi S, Lee MG. Evaluation of uncoupled ductile damage models for fracture prediction in incremental sheet metal forming. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol. 2022;37:499-517. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2022.02.023
  16. Kumar P, Tandon P. Investigating the capability of the Lemaitre damage model to establish the incremental sheet forming process. Arch Civ Mech Eng. 2022;22(2):66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43452-022-00391-y
  17. Kasaei MM, Pereira JA, Carbas RJ, Marques EA, da Silva LF. Ductile fracture prediction in hole hemming of aluminum and magnesium sheets. Metals. 2023;13(9):1559. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/met13091559
  18. Lou Y, Huh H, Lim S, Pack K. New ductile fracture criterion for prediction of fracture forming limit diagrams of sheet metals. Int J Solids Struct. 2012;49(25):3605-3615. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2012.02.016
  19. Lou Y, Huh H. Extension of a shear-controlled ductile fracture model considering the stress triaxiality and the Lode parameter. Int J Solids Struct. 2013;50(2):447-455. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2012.10.007
  20. Lou Y, Yoon JW, Huh H. Modeling of shear ductile fracture considering a changeable cut-off value for stress triaxiality. Int J Plast. 2014;54:56-80. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijplas.2013.08.006
  21. Lou Y, Chen L, Clausmeyer T, Tekkaya AE, Yoon JW. Modeling of ductile fracture from shear to balanced biaxial tension for sheet metals. Int J Solids Struct. 2017;112:169-184. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2016.11.034
  22. Behrens B, Rosenbusch D, Wester H, Althaus P. Comparison of three different ductile damage models for deep drawing simulation of high-strength steels. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. Vol 1238. Bristol, UK: IOP Publishing; 2022. p. 012021. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1238/1/012021
  23. Wang S, Wang Y, Yu L, Ji K, Liu X, Lou Y. Failure Modeling for QP980 Steel by a Shear Ductile Fracture Criterion. Metals. 2022;12(3):452. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/met12030452
  24. Zeinali MS, Naeini HM, Talebi-Ghadikolaee H, Panahizadeh V. Numerical and experimental investigation of fracture in roll forming process using Lou–Huh fracture criterion. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering. 2022;47(12):15591-15602. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-022-06662-3
  25. Akşen TA, Özsoy N, Esener E, Özsoy M, Fırat M. Predicting the fracture initiation of dual-phase steels under different stress paths through an implicit stress update scheme. Eng Fail Anal. 2025;175:109578. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2025.109578
  26. Nielsen CV, Martins PA. Metal forming: formability, simulation, and tool design. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 2021.
  27. Bai Y, Wierzbicki T. Application of extended Mohr–Coulomb criterion to ductile fracture. Int J Fract. 2010;161(1):1-20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-009-9422-8
  28. Mahmoodi M, Tagimalek H, Maraki M, Karimi S. Experimental and numerical investigation of the formability of cross and accumulative roll bonded 1050 aluminum alloy sheets in single point incremental forming process. Int J Eng. 2022;35:1707-1715.
  29. Tayebi P, Hashemi R. Study of single point incremental forming limits of Al 1050/Mg-AZ31B two-layer sheets fabricated by roll bonding technique: Finite element simulation and experiment. J Mater Res Technol. 2024;29:149-169.
  30. Gatea SM. Experimental and numerical investigation of formability and ductile fracture in incremental sheet forming. [dissertation]. Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham; 2017.