journal article·2025-09Open access

Understanding the effect of anisotropic material model parameters for tube hydroforming simulations

Franz Reuther, Sven Winter, Verena Psyk, Verena Kräusel

Abstract

Abstract The complete parameterization of complex anisotropic material models for forming simulation of tubes presents significant challenges due to the inherent limitations of tube material testing. Furthermore, the impact of anisotropic material behavior on the hydroforming process, along with the relevance of specific parameters, remains inadequately understood. This study aims to investigate how selected parameters within elastic-visco-plastic anisotropic material models influence hydroforming simulations. Sensitivity analyses are conducted across three distinct characteristic hydroforming geometries, employing a zone-based approach to enable systematic comparison of parameter sensitivities and their correlation with the underlying hydroforming geometries. The results reveal substantial variations in sensitivity driven by differences in plastic strains, diverse strain or stress states, and interactions between neighboring zones. For accurate material modeling of E235 carbon steel tubes in hydroforming applications, determining the true stress–strain curve is basically important. Additionally, experimental quantification of strain rate sensitivity $$p$$ , uniaxial yield stress $${\sigma}90$$ , and biaxial yield stress $${\sigma}b$$ is essential for ensuring simulation precision.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Metal Forming Simulation Techniques · Metallurgy and Material Forming · Advanced Numerical Analysis Techniques

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

References (25)

Show source-provided references
1. Ablat MA, Qattawi A (2017) Numerical simulation of sheet metal forming: a review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 89(1–4):1235–1250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9103-510.1007/s00170-016-9103-5 ↗
2. Bruschi S, Altan T, Banabic D, Bariani PF, Brosius A, Cao J et al (2014) Testing and modelling of material behaviour and formability in sheet metal forming. CIRP Ann 63(2):727–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2014.05.00510.1016/j.cirp.2014.05.005 ↗
3. Hockett JE, Sherby OD (1975) Large strain deformation of polycrystalline metals at low homologous temperatures. J Mech Phys Solids 23(2):87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(75)90018-610.1016/0022-5096(75)90018-6 ↗
4. Banabic D (2010) Sheet metal forming processes. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg10.1007/978-3-540-88113-1 ↗
5. Reuther F, Dix M, Kräusel V, Psyk V, Porstmann S (2024) Model validation of Hollow embossing rolling for bipolar plate forming. Int J Mater Form 17(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12289-023-01804-w10.1007/s12289-023-01804-w ↗
6. Cowper GR, Symonds PS (1957) Strain-hardening and strain-rate effects in the impact loading of cantilever beams. Defense Technical Information Center, Fort Belvoir, VA10.21236/AD0144762 ↗
7. Reblitz J, Reuther F, Trân R, Kräusel V, Merklein M (2022) Numerical and experimental investigations on the mechanical properties of milled specimens from an AA7020 tube. KEM 926:1949–1958. https://doi.org/10.4028/p-oxs24710.4028/p-oxs247 ↗
8. Reuther F, Winter S, Fritsch S, Kräusel V, Wagner MF-X, Psyk V (2023). Numerical and experimental investigations on tube section flattening for parameter identification and advanced material modeling of tubes. JMMP;7(3):91. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp703009110.3390/jmmp7030091 ↗
9. Neugebauer R (ed) (2006) Hydro-Umformung. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg
10. Khalfallah A, Ktari Z, Leitão C, Fernandes JV (2021) New mandrel design for ring hoop tensile testing. Exp Tech 45(6):769–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40799-021-00462-410.1007/s40799-021-00462-4 ↗
11. Dick CP, Korkolis YP (2014) Mechanics and full-field deformation study of the ring hoop tension test. Int J Solids Struct 51(18):3042–3057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2014.04.02310.1016/j.ijsolstr.2014.04.023 ↗
12. Vitu L, Boudeau N, Malécot P, Michel G, Buteri A (2017) Evaluation of models for tube material characterization with the tube bulging test in an industrial setting. Int J Mater Form 151(1–3):165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12289-017-1380-510.1007/s12289-017-1380-5 ↗
13. Khalfallah A (2014) Experimental and numerical assessment of mechanical properties of welded tubes for hydroforming. Mater Des (1980–2015) 56:782–790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.11.05110.1016/j.matdes.2013.11.051 ↗
14. Moon J, Jeong HJ, Joo S-H, Sohn SS, Kim K-S, Lee S et al (2018) Simulation of Pipe-Manufacturing processes using sheet Bending-Flattening. Exp Mech 58(6):909–918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-018-0397-010.1007/s11340-018-0397-0 ↗
15. Khalfallah A, Oliveira MC, Alves JL, Menezes LF (2020) Constitutive parameter identification of CB2001 yield function and its experimental verification using tube hydroforming tests. Int J Mech Sci 185:105868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2020.10586810.1016/j.ijmecsci.2020.105868 ↗
16. Flores P, Tuninetti V, Gilles G, Gonry P, Duchêne L, Habraken AM (2010) Accurate stress computation in plane strain tensile tests for sheet metal using experimental data. J Mater Process Technol 210(13):1772–1779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2010.06.00810.1016/j.jmatprotec.2010.06.008 ↗
17. Zribi T, Khalfallah A, BelHadjSalah H (2013) Experimental characterization and inverse constitutive parameters identification of tubular materials for tube hydroforming process. Mater Design 49:866–877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.02.07710.1016/j.matdes.2013.02.077 ↗
18. Bach M, Degenkolb L, Reuther F, Psyk V, Demuth R, Werner M (2020) Conductive heating during press hardening by hot metal gas forming for curved complex part geometries. Metals 10(8):1104. https://doi.org/10.3390/met1008110410.3390/met10081104 ↗
19. Reuther F, Mosel A, Freytag P, Lambarri J, Degenkolb L, Werner M et al (2019) Numerical and experimental investigations for hot metal gas forming of stainless steel X2CrTiNb18. Procedia Manuf 27:112–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.12.05210.1016/j.promfg.2018.12.052 ↗
20. Barth, K., Afrasiabi, M., Bambach, M. (2024). Inverse identification of the YLD2000-2D yield locus exponent for stainless steel 1.4301 using a time-dependent optimization method. In K. Mocellin, P.-O. Bouchard, R. Bigot, T. Balan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on the Technology of Plasticity – Current Trends in the Technology of Plasticity (pp. 351–362). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.10.1007/978-3-031-40920-2_37 ↗
21. Aretz H, Hopperstad OS, Lademo O-G (2007) Yield function calibration for orthotropic sheet metals based on uniaxial and plane strain tensile tests. J Mater Process Technol 186(1–3):221–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2006.12.03710.1016/j.jmatprotec.2006.12.037 ↗
22. Güner A, Soyarslan C, Brosius A, Tekkaya AE (2012) Characterization of anisotropy of sheet metals employing inhomogeneous strain fields for Yld2000-2D yield function. Int J Solids Struct 49(25):3517–3527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2012.05.00110.1016/j.ijsolstr.2012.05.001 ↗
23. Vegter H, ten Horn C, An Y, Atzema EH, Pijlman HH, van den Boogaard TH et al (2003) Characterisation and modelling of the plastic material behaviour and its application in sheet metal forming simulation. Barcelona
24. Hetz P, Lenzen M, Kraus M, Merklein M (2021) Determination of the biaxial anisotropy coefficient using a single layer sheet metal compression test. KEM 883:303–308. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.883.30310.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.883.303 ↗
25. Manabe K-I, Amino M (2002) Effects of process parameters and material properties on deformation process in tube hydroforming. J Mater Process Technol 123(2):285–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-0136(02)00094-810.1016/S0924-0136(02)00094-8 ↗