Analysis of Springback Behaviour in Micro Flexible Rolling of Crystalline Materials

Table 4

Comparison between numerical results of thickness directional springback for 304 stainless steel specimens based on different constitutive/numerical models.

Thickness directional springback	Specimen no.
	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5	S6
5% reduction
EPMS model (μm)	2.612	2.483	2.625	2.559	2.618	2.814
MISO model (μm)	2.519	2.408	2.523	2.490	2.561	2.776
VMISO model (μm)	2.601	2.462	2.593	2.543	2.597	2.802
Experimental (μm)	2.632	2.529	2.648	2.575	2.654	2.831
Error-I (%)	0.76	1.82	0.87	0.62	1.36	0.60
Error-II (%)	4.29	4.78	4.72	3.30	3.50	1.94
Error-III (%)	1.18	2.65	2.08	1.24	2.15	1.02
10% reduction
EPMS model (μm)	4.427	4.436	4.588	4.534	4.751	4.983
MISO model (μm)	4.271	4.239	4.353	4.391	4.572	4.892
VMISO model (μm)	4.369	4.385	4.514	4.492	4.719	4.934
Experimental (μm)	4.497	4.478	4.684	4.603	4.793	5.015
Error-I (%)	1.56	0.94	2.05	1.50	0.88	0.64
Error-II (%)	5.03	5.34	7.07	4.61	4.61	2.45
Error-III (%)	2.85	2.08	3.63	2.41	1.54	1.62