A different approach to estimate the process parameters in tube hydroforming
Source abstract
Abstract
An enhanced unfolding inverse finite element method (IFEM) has been used together with an extended strain-based forming limit diagram (FLD) to develop a fast approach to predict the feasibility of tube hydroforming process of concept part and determine where the failure or defects can occur. In tube hydroforming, the inverse IFEM has been used for estimating the initial length of tube, axial feeding and fluid pressure. The already developed IFEM algorithm used in this study is based on the total deformation theory of plasticity. Although the nature of tube hydroforming is three-dimensional deformation, in this article a modeling technique has been used to perform the computations in two-dimensional space. Therefore, compared with conventional forward finite element methods, the present computations are quite fast with no trial and error process. In addition, the solution provides all the components of strain. Using the extended strain-based forming limit diagram, the components of strain can lead us to measure the potentials for failures during the deformation. The extended strain-based FLD based on the Marciniak and Kuczynski (M-K) model has been computed and used to predict the onset of necking during tube hydroforming. The extended strain-based FLD is built based on equivalent plastic strains and material flow direction at the end of forming. This new forming limit diagram is much less strain path dependent than the conventional forming limit diagram. Furthermore, the use and interpretation of this new diagram is easier than the stress-based forming limit diagram. The results of analysis for free bulging and square bulging have been compared with some published experimental data and the results obtained by conventional commercial software. The results indicate that the fluid pressure estimated by this method is 2.7 % greater than the results obtained by the experiment in the square bulging sample. In addition, the fluid pressure estimated in the free bulge sample is 5.6 % greater than the experimental results.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Metal Forming Simulation Techniques · Metallurgy and Material Forming · Microstructure and mechanical properties
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (16)
Show source-provided references
1. Siva Prasad Varma N, Narasimhan R, Lu AA, Sachdev AK (2007) An analysis of localized necking in aluminium alloy tubes during hydroforming using a continuum damage model. Int J Mech Sci 49:200–20910.1016/j.ijmecsci.2006.08.005 ↗
2. Hashemi R, Assempour A, Abad EMK (2009) Implementation of the forming limit stress diagram to obtain suitable load path in tube hydroforming. Mater Des 30:3545–355310.1016/j.matdes.2009.03.002 ↗
3. Hashemi R, Faraji G, Abrinia K, Dezaji AF (2010) Application of the hydroforming strain- and stress-limit diagrams to predict necking in metal bellows forming process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 46:551–56110.1007/s00170-009-2121-9 ↗
4. Hashemi R, Abrinia K (2014) Analysis of the extended stress-based forming limit curve considering the effects of strain path and through-thickness normal stress. Mater Des 54:670–67710.1016/j.matdes.2013.08.023 ↗
5. Zeng D, Chappuis L, Xia Z, Zhu X (2009) A path independent forming limit criterion for sheet metal forming simulations. SAE Int J Mater Manuf 1:809–81710.4271/2008-01-1445 ↗
6. Nurcheshmeh M, Green DE (2014) On the use of effective limit strains to evaluate the forming severity of sheet metal parts after nonlinear loading. Int J Mater Form 7:1–1810.1007/s12289-012-1104-9 ↗
7. Hwang YM, Lin YK (2002) Analysis and finite element simulation of the tube bulge hydroforming process. J Mater Process Technol 125–126:821–82510.1016/S0924-0136(02)00381-3 ↗
8. Trana K (2002) Finite element simulation of the tube hydroforming process-bending, preforming and hydroforming. J Mater Process Technol 127:401–40810.1016/S0924-0136(02)00432-6 ↗
9. Bunge HJ, Pöhlandt K, Tekkaya AE, Banabic D (2000) Formability of metallic materials: plastic anisotropy, formability testing, forming limits. Springer, New York
10. Majlessi SA, Lee D (1993) Deep drawing of square-shaped, sheet metal parts Part 1. FEM. Trans ASME 115:102–10910.1115/1.2920961 ↗
11. Guo YQ, Batoz JL, Detraux JM, Duroux P (1990) Finite element procedures for strain estimations of sheet metal forming parts. Int J Numer Methods Eng 30:1385–140110.1002/nme.1620300804 ↗
12. Liu SD, Karima M (1992) A one step finite element approach for production design of sheet metal stamping. In: Chenot JL, Wood RD, Zienkiewicz OC (eds) NUMIFORM 92, Valbonne, France. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, p 497
13. Azizi R, Assempur A (2008) Application of linear inverse finite element method in prediction of the optimum blank in sheet metal forming. Mater Des 29:1965–197210.1016/j.matdes.2008.04.015 ↗
14. Yang L, Cheng G (2008) A simple experimental tooling with internal pressure source used for evaluation of material formability in tube hydroforming. J Mater Process Technol 180:310–317
15. Hashemi R, Abrinia K, Assempour A (2013) The strain gradient approach to predict necking in tube hydroforming. J Manuf Process 15:51–5510.1016/j.jmapro.2012.11.001 ↗
16. Abedrabbo N, Worswick M, Mayer R, Van Riemsdijk I (2009) Optimization methods for the tube hydroforming process applied to advanced high- strength steels with experimental verification. J Mater Process Technol 209:110–12310.1016/j.jmatprotec.2008.01.060 ↗