journal article·2026-03Open access

Machine learning prediction of the forming limit curve of dual phase steels

André Rosiak, Peterson Duarte Diehl, Roderval Marcelino, Lirio Schaeffer

Abstract

Abstract Accurate prediction of the Forming Limit Curve (FLC) is essential for the design of sheet metal stamping processes; however, its experimental determination is costly and limited by data availability. This work investigates the use of Machine Learning techniques to predict the FLC of Dual Phase (DP) steels based on mechanical properties obtained from uniaxial tensile tests. To overcome the scarcity of experimental data, a synthetic database was developed based on statistical consistency and physical constraints, using Kernel Density Estimation, PCA projections, and controlled probabilistic interpolation, followed by the application of physicometallurgical plausibility criteria. The models use physics-based descriptors as input variables, which reflect known metallurgical mechanisms associated with plastic instability, without explicitly incorporating differential equations into the training process. The results show that all models were able to reproduce the characteristic geometry of the FLC, with errors on the order of 10⁻³–10⁻². Among the investigated techniques, Random Forest exhibited the best performance (MAE = 0.0052; MSE = 0.00011; R² = 0.943), followed by XGBoost, while the Neural Network showed greater variability and a tendency toward overfitting. The results demonstrate that the combination of physics-based descriptors, statistically validated synthetic expansion, and ensemble machine learning methods constitutes a robust and efficient strategy for modeling FLCs of DP steels.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Metal Forming Simulation Techniques · Metallurgy and Material Forming · Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Steels

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (39)

Show source-provided references
1. Rosiak A, Wermuth DP, Costa LLL (2025) Aços avançados de alta resistência: fundamentos e aplicações. Metal Forming – Technology and Innovation, Porto Alegre
2. Fonstein F (2017) Dual-phase steels. In: Fonstein F (ed) Automotive steels. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 169–21610.1016/B978-0-08-100638-2.00007-9 ↗
3. Chen HC, Cheng GH (1989) Effect of martensite strength on the tensile strength of dual-phase steels. J Mater Sci 24:1991–199410.1007/BF02385411 ↗
4. Zhang J et al (2015) Effect of martensite morphology and volume fraction on strain hardening and fracture behavior of martensite–ferrite dual-phase steel. Mater Sci Eng A 627:230–24010.1016/j.msea.2015.01.006 ↗
5. Ahmad E et al (2012) Effect of martensite morphology on tensile deformation of dual-phase steel. J Mater Eng Perform 21:382–38710.1007/s11665-011-9934-z ↗
6. Wang J et al (2022) Effect of martensite morphology and volume fraction on the low-temperature impact toughness of dual-phase steels. Mater Sci Eng A. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2021.14242410.1016/j.msea.2021.142424 ↗
7. Isik K et al (2014) Formability limits by fracture in sheet metal forming. J Mater Process Technol 214:1557–156510.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.02.026 ↗
8. Lou Y et al (2012) New ductile fracture criterion for prediction of fracture forming limit diagrams of sheet metals. Int J Solids Struct 49:3605–361510.1016/j.ijsolstr.2012.02.016 ↗
9. Silva MB et al (2015) Fracture loci in sheet metal forming: a review. Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters) 28:1415–142510.1007/s40195-015-0341-6 ↗
10. Elangovan K, Narayanan CS, Narayanasamy R (2010) Modelling of forming limit diagram of perforated commercial pure aluminium sheets using artificial neural network. Comput Mater Sci 47:1072–107810.1016/j.commatsci.2009.12.016 ↗
11. Jaremenko C et al (2019) Determination of forming limits in sheet metal forming using deep learning. Materials. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma1207105110.3390/ma12071051 ↗
12. Thamm A et al (2023) Unsupervised deep learning for advanced forming limit analysis in sheet metal: a tensile test-based approach. Materials 1610.3390/ma16217001 ↗
13. Kotkunde N, Deole AD, Gupta AK (2014) Prediction of forming limit diagram for Ti-6Al-4V alloy using artificial neural network. Procedia Mater Sci 6:341–34610.1016/j.mspro.2014.07.043 ↗
14. Dengiz CG, Şahin F (2023) Prediction of forming limit diagrams for steel sheets with an artificial neural network and comparison with empirical and theoretical models. Research on Engineering Structures and Materials
15. Derogar A, Djavanroodi F (2011) Artificial neural network modeling of forming limit diagram. Mater Manuf Process 26:1415–142210.1080/10426914.2010.544818 ↗
16. Cheda AM et al (2019) Prediction of forming limit diagrams using machine learning. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 651:01210710.1088/1757-899X/651/1/012107 ↗
17. Finamor FP, Wolff MA, Lage VS (2021) Prediction of forming limit diagrams from tensile tests of automotive grade steels by a machine learning approach. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1157:01208010.1088/1757-899X/1157/1/012080 ↗
18. Demeri MY (1981) The formability of a dual-phase steel. Metall Trans A 12A:1181–1187
19. Marrapu B et al (2020) Experimental and numerical analysis on dual phase steel (DP780) sheet forming limit and effect of microstructure evolution on formability. J Mater Eng Perform 29:8247–826010.1007/s11665-020-05247-1 ↗
20. Konieczny AA (2001) On formability assessment of the automotive dual-phase steels. SAE Technical Paper 2001-01-3075. SAE International10.4271/2001-01-3075 ↗
21. Jeong Y, Panich S (2018) Forming limits of dual phase steels using crystal plasticity in conjunction with MK approach. Procedia Manuf 15:1816–182410.1016/j.promfg.2018.07.209 ↗
22. Alipour M et al (2021) Finite element and experimental method for analyzing the effects of martensite morphologies on the formability of DP steels. Mech Based Des Struct Mach 49:803–82410.1080/15397734.2019.1687313 ↗
23. Ma B, Liu ZG, Jiang Z, Wu X, Diao K, Wan M (2016) Prediction of forming limit in DP590 steel sheet forming: an extended fracture criterion. Mater Des 96:401–40810.1016/j.matdes.2016.02.034 ↗
24. Lu W et al (2024) A lightweight kernel density estimation and adaptive synthetic sampling method for fault diagnosis of rotating machinery with imbalanced data. Appl Sci. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14241191010.3390/app142411910 ↗
25. Plesovskaya E, Ivanov S (2021) An empirical analysis of KDE-based generative models on small datasets. Procedia Comput Sci 193:442–45210.1016/j.procs.2021.10.046 ↗
26. Elreedy D, Atiya AF, Kamalov F (2024) A theoretical distribution analysis of SMOTE for imbalanced learning. Mach Learn 113:4903–492310.1007/s10994-022-06296-4 ↗
27. Dandekar A, Zen RAM, Bressan S (2018) A comparative study of synthetic dataset generation techniques. Hartmann S, Ma H, Hameurlain A, Pernul G, Wagner RR (eds). Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA 2018), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11030. Springer, p 387–39510.1007/978-3-319-98812-2_35 ↗
28. Restrepo JP et al (2023) Nonparametric generation of synthetic data using copulas. Electronics. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics1207160110.3390/electronics12071601 ↗
29. Dankar FK, Ibrahim M (2021) Fake it till you make it: guidelines for effective synthetic data generation. Appl Sci 11:215810.3390/app11052158 ↗
30. Liu Y, Wang Y, Zhang J (2012) Random forest learning algorithm. Liu B, Ma M, Chang J (eds). Information Computing and Applications (ICICA 2012), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7473. Springer, p 246–25210.1007/978-3-642-34062-8_32 ↗
31. Reis I, Baron D, Shahaf S (2019) Probabilistic random forest: a machine learning algorithm for noisy data sets. Astron J 15710.3847/1538-3881/aaf101 ↗
32. Safhi AM, Dabiri H, Soliman A, Khayat KH (2023) Prediction of self-consolidating concrete properties using XGBoost machine learning algorithm: part 1 – workability. Constr Build Mater 40810.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.133560 ↗
33. Rocha RP, Riffel MH, Rosiak A, Follé LF, Lima TN, Schaeffer L (2025) Artificial intelligence-based modeling of hot deformation behavior in AA 5052-H32 alloy. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology10.21203/rs.3.rs-7077970/v1 ↗
34. Rosiak A, Schmeling M, Marcelino R, Schaeffer L (2024) Machine learning applied to predict the flow curve of steel alloys. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-024-14472-010.1007/s00170-024-14472-0 ↗
35. Diehl PD, Rosiak A, Marcelino R, Schaeffer L (2025) Predictive modeling of hardness in bainitic steel forging processes using artificial intelligence. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-025-16888-810.1007/s00170-025-16888-8 ↗
36. Shen F, Münstermann S, Lian J (2021) Forming limit prediction by the Marciniak–Kuczynski model coupled with the evolving non-associated Hill48 plasticity model. J Mater Process Technol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2019.11638410.1016/j.jmatprotec.2019.116384 ↗
37. Banabic D et al (2021) Developments of the Marciniak–Kuczynski model for sheet metal formability: a review. J Mater Process Technol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2019.11644610.1016/j.jmatprotec.2019.116446 ↗
38. Wang H, Wang Z (2023) Theoretical forming limit diagram based on induced stress in the thickness direction. Metals 13:45610.3390/met13030456 ↗
39. Rault D (1976) Description of the deep-drawing end connected problems. In: Baudelet B (ed) Metal forming of the metals and alloys. CNRS, Paris, p 297–303