Multi-objective optimization and sensitivity analysis of tube hydroforming

  • Honggang AnEmail author
  • Daniel E. Green
  • Jennifer Johrendt


Tube hydroforming is a manufacturing process used to produce structural components in cars and trucks, and the success of this process largely depends on the careful control of parameters such as internal pressure and end-feed force. The objective of this work was to establish a methodology, and demonstrate its effectiveness, to determine the optimal process parameters for a tube hydroformed in a die with a square cross section. The Taguchi method was used to establish a design of virtual hydroforming experiments, and numerical simulations were carried out with the finite element code LS-DYNA®. A sensitivity analysis was also carried out with analysis of variance. Multi-objective functions that consider necking/fracture, wrinkling, and thinning were formulated, and the response surface methodology was used with the most sensitive factors to obtain a defect-free part. An objective function, based on the final corner radius in the part, was also included in the optimization model. The forming severity of virtual hydroformed parts was evaluated using the forming limit stress diagram and the forming limit (strain) diagram. Finally, the normal-boundary intersection method and the L 2 norm were used to obtain the Pareto-optimal solution set and the optimal solution within this set, respectively. The hydroforming process for this part was also optimized using the commercial optimization software LS-OPT®, with two different single-objective algorithms. However, the optimum load path predicted with the proposed methodology was shown to achieve a smaller corner radius. The proposed optimization technique helped to define a process window that leads to a robust manufacturing process and improved part quality.


Multi-objective optimization FLSD Taguchi method Sensitivity analysis Pareto optimization NBI Defect-free tube hydroforming 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Asnafi N (1999) Analytical modelling of tube hydroforming. Thin-walled Struct 34:295–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yuan S, Wang X, Liu G, Wang ZR (2007) Control and use of wrinkles in tube hydroforming. J Mater Process Technol 182:6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Taguchi G (1981) System of experimental design. UNIPUB/Kraus International, White PlainsGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ross PJ (1988) Taguchi techniques for quality engineering: loss function, orthogonal experiment, parameter and tolerance design. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 120–123Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Manabe K, Mori K, Suzuke K, Nishimura H (1984) Bulge forming of thin walled tubes by micro-computer controlled hydraulic press. Advanced Technology of Plasticity 1:279–284Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Manabe K, Amino M (2002) Effects of process parameters and material properties on deformation process in tube hydroforming. J Mater Process Technol 123:285–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yang JB, Jeon BH, Oh SI (2001) Design sensitivity analysis and optimization of the hydroforming process. J Mater Process Technol 113:666–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fann KJ, Hsiao PY (2003) Optimization of loading conditions for tube hydroforming. J Mater Process Technol 140:520–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ray P, Mac Donald BJ (2004) Determination of the optimal load path for tube hydroforming processes using a fuzzy load control algorithm and finite element analysis. Finite Elem Anal Des 41:173–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Imaninejad M, Subhash G, Loukus A (2005) Load path optimization of tube hydroforming process. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45:1504–1514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bonte MHA, van den Boogaard AH, Huétink J (2008) An optimisation strategy for industrial metal forming processes, modelling, screening and solving of optimisation problems in metal forming. Struct Multidiscipl Optim 35:571–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li B, Nye TJ, Metzger DR (2006) Multi-objective optimization of forming parameters for tube hydroforming process based on the Taguchi method. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 28:23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li B, Nye TJ, Metzger DR (2007) Improving the reliability of the tube-hydroforming process by the Taguchi method. Transactions of the ASME 129:242–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rimkusa W, Bauerb H, Mihsein MJA (2000) Design of load-curves for hydroforming applications. J Mater Process Technol 108:97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aue-U-Lan Y, Ngaile G, Altan T (2004) Optimizing tube hydroforming using process simulation and experimental verification. J Mater Process Technol 146:137–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li SH, Yang B, Zhang WG, Lin ZQ (2008) Loading path prediction for tube hydroforming process using a fuzzy control strategy. Mater Des 29:1110–1116Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang Y, Zhao S, Zhang Z (2008) Optimization for the forming process parameters of thin-walled valve shell. Thin-Walled Struct 46:371–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Deb K (2008) Introduction to evolutionary multiobjective optimization. In: Branke J et al (eds) Multiobjective optimization: interactive and evolutionary approaches (Chapter 3). ISBN-103-540-88907-8. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stander N, Roux W, Goel T et al (2009) LS-OPT® user’s manual, a design optimization and probabilistic analysis tool for the engineering analyst. Livermore Software Technology Corporation (LSTC), LivermoreGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Balling R (1999) Design by shopping: a new paradigm? Proceedings of the Third World Congress of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization (WCSMO-3), May 17–21s. In: Bloebaum CL, Lewis KE et al (eds) Buffalo, NY, University at Buffalo, vol. 1, pp 295–297Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Myers R, Montgomery D (2002) Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Das I, Dennis JE (1998) Normal-boundary intersection: a new method for generating the Pareto surface in nonlinear multicriteria optimization problems. SIAM J Optim 8(3):631–657zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cramer EJ, Gablonsky JM, Moody RE, Shuster JM (2006) Multi-objective optimization for complex engineering simulation and its application to nozzle design. 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference 3:1937–1943Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rigoni E (2004) NBI-NLPQLP Scheduler, Technical Report 2004-003.
  25. 25.
    Eschenauer H, Koski J, Osyczka AE (1990) Multicriteria design optimization: procedures and applications. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ghosh AK, Laukonis JV (1976) The influence of strain-path changes on the formability of sheet steel. 9th Biennial Congress of the International Deep Drawing Research Group, Sheet Metal Forming and Energy Conservation. ASM, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Graf A, Hosford W (1994) The influence of strain path changes of forming limit diagram of Al 6111 T4. Int J Mech Sci 36:897–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stoughton TB (2000) A general forming limit criterion for sheet metal forming. Int J Mech Sci 42:1–27zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yoshida K, Kuwabara T, Narihara K, Takahashi S (2005) Experimental verification of the path-independence of forming limit stresses. Int J Form Process 8:283–298Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stoughton TB (2001) Stress-based forming limits in sheet metal forming. J Eng Mater Technol, Trans ASME 123:417–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Butuc MC, Gracio JJ, Barata da Rocha A (2006) An experimental and theoretical analysis on the application of stress-based forming limit criterion. Int J Mech Sci 48:414–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Green DE (2008) Formability analysis for tubular hydroformed parts. In: Koç M (ed) Hydroforming for advanced manufacturing (Chapter 5). Woodhead Publishing Ltd., Cambridge, England. ISBN 978-1-84569-328-2Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stoughton TB, Yoon JW (2005) Sheet metal formability analysis for anisotropic materials under non-proportional loading. Int J Mech Sci 47:1972–2002zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hallquist JO (2007) LS-DYNA. Keyword user's manual, version 971. Livermore Software Technology, LivermoreGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Reid JV (2002) Twist compression evaluation of hydroforming lubricants. Private contract report submitted to DA Stuart Inc. by the Industrial Research & Development Institute (IRDI), Midland, ON, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Al-Qureshi HA, Moriera Filho LA (2001) Junction forming in aluminum tubes using an elastomer technique. Mater Manuf Process 16:717–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Koç M, Altan T (2002) Prediction of forming limits and parameters in the tube hydroforming process. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 42:123–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Koç M, Allen T, Jiratheranat S, Altan T (2000) The use of FEA and design of experiments to establish design guidelines for simple hydroformed parts. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 40:2249–2266CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Honggang An
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daniel E. Green
    • 1
  • Jennifer Johrendt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Automotive & Materials EngineeringUniversity of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations