Abstract
This research conducts a comparative study of finite element analysis (FEA) in tube hydroforming (THF). The investigated tube is stainless steel grade 304 (SS304) of as received and after annealing (AN). Three different finite element modeling techniques have been examined and compared with corresponding experimental results. The main modeling parameters of interest range from element technologies, symmetry modeling, and solving schemes. Other parameters being sensitive to each model are discussed. Formability issues have been investigated through FEA and forming limit diagram (FLD). Computational aspects have been illustrated and discussed for simulating THF and an intermediate AN. Prediction of the required forming pressure is challenging. Both shell and continuum elements have different advantages and drawbacks in simulating THF. A shell element with explicit time integration tends to underpredict the required forming pressure while both axisymmetric and 3D continuum elements with implicit time integration tend to overpredict the required forming pressure. The draw-in observation can also provide an insight of the state of deformation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alaswad, A., Benyounis, K. Y. and Olabi, A. G. (2012). Tube hydroforming process: A reference guide. Materials and Design 33, 1, 328–339.
Belytschko, T., Liu, W. K. and Moran, B. (2000). Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and Structures. John Wiley & Sons. New York.
Buranathiti, T., Cao, J., Baghdasaryan, L., Chen, W. and Xia, Z. C. (2006). Approaches for model validation in simulating sheet metal flanging processes. ASME J. Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 128, 588–597.
Choi, K. Y., Lee, M. G. and Kim, H. Y. (2013). Sheet metal forming simulation considering die deformation. Int. J. Automotive Technology 14, 6, 935–940.
Dohmann, F. and Hartl, C. (1996). Hydroforming — a method to manufacture light-weight parts. J. Materials Processing Technology, 60, 669–676.
DS (2010). ABAQUS User’s Manual.
ETA (2011). eta/DYNAFORM User’s Manual Version 5.8.1.
Jeswiet, J., Geiger, M., Engel, U., Kleiner, M., Schikorra, M., Dufou, J., Neugebauer, R., Bariani, P. and Bruschi, S. (2008). Metal forming progress since 2000. CIRP J. Manufacturing Science and Technology, 1, 2–17.
Lang, L. H., Wang, Z. R., Kang, D. C., Yuan, S. J., Zhang, S. H., Danckert, J. and Nielsen, K. B. (2004). Hydroforming highlights: Sheet hydroforming and tube hydroforming. J. Materials Processing Technology, 151, 165–177.
LSTC (2010). LS-DYNA: User’s Manual Version 971.
MSC (2012). MARC 2012 User’s Guide.
Pattarangkun, A., Thanakijkasem, P., Mahabunphachai, S., Uthaisangsuk, V. and Chutima, S. (2013). Comparative study of finite element analysis in SS304 tube hydroforming. Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Tube Hydroforming, August 25–28, Jeju, Korea, 235–242.
Xia, Z. C. (2001). Failure analysis of tubular hydroforming. ASME J. Engineering Materials and Technology, 123, 423–429.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thanakijkasem, P., Pattarangkun, A., Mahabunphachai, S. et al. Comparative study of finite element analysis in tube hydroforming of stainless steel 304. Int.J Automot. Technol. 16, 611–617 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12239-015-0062-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12239-015-0062-x