Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Global sensitivity analysis and multi-objective optimisation of loading path in tube hydroforming process based on metamodelling techniques

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Tube hydroforming process is widely used in various industrial applications which consists of combining internal pressure and axial displacement to manufacture tubular parts. Inappropriate choice as small changes in such variables may affect the process stability and, in some cases, lead to failure. Consequently, loading path should be optimised to better control the process and to guarantee hydroformed parts with desired specifications. However, optimisation procedure requires several evaluations of the real models which induces a huge computational time. To cope with this limitation, we propose to compare two metamodelling techniques to solve the problem efficiently: the response surface method and the least squares support vector regression. To enhance the metamodels precision, optimal latin hypercube design is used to generate sampled points. It is obtained through iterative optimisation procedure based on a modified version of the simulated annealing algorithm by minimising simultaneously two optimality criterions. Then, multi-objective optimisation problem is formulated to search for the Pareto optimal solutions. Fuzzy classification is then applied to rank the non-dominated solutions which helps designers in the decision-making phase. Before optimising the process, a global sensitivity analysis is carried out using the variance-based method by coupling metamodels and Monte Carlo simulations in order to identify the relative importance of the design variables in terms of internal pressure and axial displacement on the variance of the responses of interest defined to control the process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Oh SI, Jeon BH, Kim HY, Yang JB (2006) Applications of hydroforming processes to automobile parts. J Mater Proc Technol 174:42–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dohmann F, Hartl Ch (2004) Hydroforming-applications of coherent FE-simulations to the development of products and processes. J Mater Proc Technol 150:18–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Palumbo G (2013) Hydroforming a small scale aluminum automotive component using a layered die. Mater Des 44:365–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 41:173–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. An H, Green DE, Johrendt J (2010) Multi-objective optimization and sensitivity analysis of tube hydroforming. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 50:67–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ingarao G, Di Lorenzo R, Micari F (2009) Internal pressure counter punch action design in Y-shaped tube hydroforming processes: a multi-objective optimisation approach. Comput Struct 87:591–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lin FC, Kwan CT (2004) Application of abductive network and FEM to predict an acceptable product on T-shape tube hydroforming process. Comput Struct 82:1189–1200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mirzaalia M, Liaghata GH, Moslemi Naeinia H, Seyedkashia SMH, Shojaeeb K (2011) Optimization of tube hydroforming process using simulated annealing algorithm. Procedia Eng 10:3012–3019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Xu X, Zhang W, Li S, Lin Z (2009) Study of tube hydroforming in a trapezoid-sectional die. Thin-Walled Struct 47:1397–1403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zadeh HK, Mashhadi MM (2006) Finite element simulation and experiment in tube hydroforming of unequal T shapes. J Mater Proc Technol 177:684–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Alaswad A, Benyounis KY, Olabi AG (2011) Employment of finite element analysis and response surface methodology to investigate the geometrical factors in T-type bi-layered tube hydroforming. Adv Eng Softw 42:917–926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Abedrabbo N, Worswicka M, Mayerb R, Van Riemsdijkc I (2009) Optimization methods for the tube hydroforming process applied to advanced high-strength steels with experimental verification. J Mater Proc Technol 209:110–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Di Lorenzo R, Ingarao G, Chinesta F (2009) A gradient-based decomposition approach to optimize pressure path and counter punch action in Y-shaped tube hydroforming operations. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 44:49–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wei D, Cui Z, Chen J (2008) Optimization and tolerance prediction of sheet metal forming process using response surface model. Comput Mater Sci 42:228–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bahloul R, Ben-Elechi S, Potiron A (2006) Optimisation of springback predicted by experimental and numerical approach by using response surface methodology. J Mater Proc Technol 173:101–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hu W, Yao LG, Zhi-Hua Z (2008) Optimization of sheet metal forming processes by adaptive response surface based on intelligent sampling method. J Mater Proc Technol 197:77–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Azaouzi M, Lebaal N (2012) Tool path optimization for single point incremental sheet forming using response surface method. Simul Model Pract Theory 24:49–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tang B, Sun J, Zhao Z, Chen J, Ruan X (2006) Optimization of drawbead design in sheet forming using one step finite element method coupled with response surface methodology. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 31:225–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Naceur H, Ben-Elechi S, Batoz JL, Knopf-Lenoir C (2008) Response surface methodology for the rapid design of aluminum sheet metal forming parameters. Mater Des 29:781–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ingarao G, Di Lorenzo R, Micari F (2009) Analysis of stamping performances of dual phase steels: a multi-objective approach to reduce springback and thinning failure. Mater Des 30:4421–4433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Alaswad A, Benyounis KY, Olabi AG (2011) Employment of finite element analysis and response surface methodology to investigate the geometrical factors in T-type bi-layered tube hydroforming. Adv Eng Softw 42:917–926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Di Lorenzo R, Ingarao G, Chinesta F (2010) Integration of gradient based and response surface methods to develop a cascade optimisation strategy for Y-shaped tube hydroforming process design. Adv Eng Softw 41:336–348

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Alaswad A, Olabi AG, Benyounis KY (2011) Integration of finite element analysis and design of experiments to analyse the geometrical factors in bi-layered tube hydroforming. Mater Des 32:838–850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hasanpour F, Ensafi AA, Khayamian T (2010) Simultaneous chemiluminescence determination of amoxicillin and clavulanic acid using least squares support vector regression. Anal Chim Acta 670:44–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hea K, Laib KK, Yenc J (2012) A hybrid slantlet denoising least squares support vector regression model for exchange rate prediction. Procedia Comput Sci 1:2397–2405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lin KP, Pai PF, Lu YM, Chang PT (2013) Revenue forecasting using a least-squares support vector regression model in a fuzzy environment. Inf Sci 220:196–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Farquad MAH, Ravi V, Bapi Raju S (2010) Support vector regression based hybrid rule extraction methods for forecasting. Expert Syst Appl 37:5577–5589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Morris MD, Mitchell TJ (1995) Exploratory designs for computational experiments. J Stat Plan Infer 43:381–402

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. MATLAB R (2008) The MathWorks Inc., Natick

  30. Zhiwei G, Guangchen B (2008) Application of least squares support vector machine for regression to reliability analysis. Chin J Aeronaut 22:160–166

    Google Scholar 

  31. Abaqus Manual (2010) Version 6.10. Dassault systèmes. http://www.simulia.com

  32. Song WJ, Heo SC, Ku TW, Jeong K, Kang BS (2010) Evaluation of effect of flow stress characteristics of tubular material on forming limit in tube hydroforming process. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 50:753–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Koç M, Altan T (2002) Prediction of forming limits and parameters in the tube hydroforming process. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 42:123–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Yuan S, Yuan W, Wang X (2006) Effect of wrinkling behavior on formability and thickness distribution in tube hydroforming. J Mater Proc Technol 177:668–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ze-jun T, Gang L, Zhu-bin H, Shi-jian Y (2010) Wrinkling behavior of magnesium alloy tube in warm hydroforming. Trans Nonferrous Metals Soc China 20:1288–1293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kim J, Kim SW, Song WJ, Kang BS (2004) Analytical approach to bursting in tube hydroforming using diffuse plastic instability. Int J Mech Sci 46:1535–1547

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Kim J, Kang SJ, Kang BS (2003) A prediction of bursting failure in tube hydroforming processes based on ductile fracture criterion. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 22:357–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wei L, Yuying Y (2008) Multi-objective optimization of sheet metal forming process using Pareto-based genetic algorithm. J Mater Proc Technol 208:499–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sun G, Li G, Gong Z, Cui X, Yang X, Li Q (2010) Multiobjective robust optimization method for drawbead design in sheet metal forming. Mater Des 31:1917–1929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Stoughton TB (2000) A general forming limit criterion for sheet metal forming. Int J Mech Sci 42:1–27

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Helton JC, Davis FJ (2000) Mathematical and statistical methods for sensitivity analysis of model output. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  42. Sobol’ IM (2001) Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates. Math Comput Simul 55:271–280

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  43. Sobol’ IM (1990) On sensitivity estimation for nonlinear mathematical models. Matem Mod 2(1):112–118

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  44. Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andres T, Campolongo F, Cariboni J, Gatelli D, Saisana M, Tarantola S (2008) Global sensitivity analysis: the primer. Wiley Ltd, New York

    Google Scholar 

  45. Saltelli A, Annoni P, Azzini I, Campolongo F, Ratto M, Tarantola S (2010) Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. Design and estimator for the total sensitivity index. Comput Phys Commun 181:259–270

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  46. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA–II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6:182–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Schott JR (1995) Fault tolerant design using single and multi-criteria genetic algorithms. Master’s thesis

  48. Pulido GT, Coello Coello CA (2004) The micro genetic algorithm 2: towards online adaptation in evolutionary multiobjective optimisation. Col. San Pedro Zacatenco, Mexico: CINVESTAV-IPN, Evolutionary Computing Group, Department of Electrical Engineering, Section of Computation

  49. Van Veldhuizen DA (1999) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: classifications, analyses and new innovations. PhD Thesis, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Ptterson, AFB, Ohio

  50. Panigrahia BK, Pandia VR, Sharmab R, Dasc S, Dasd S (2011) Multiobjective bacteria foraging algorithm for electrical load dispatch problem. Energy Convers Manage 52:1334–1342

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université de Bordeaux, I2M, UMR CNRS 5295, 351 Cours de la Libération, 33405, Talence Cedex, France

    Anis Ben Abdessalem

  2. INSA de Rouen, LOFIMS, B.P. 8, Avenue de l’Université, 76801, St Etienne du Rouvray, France

    Abdelkhalak El-Hami

Authors
  1. Anis Ben Abdessalem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abdelkhalak El-Hami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anis Ben Abdessalem.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ben Abdessalem, A., El-Hami, A. Global sensitivity analysis and multi-objective optimisation of loading path in tube hydroforming process based on metamodelling techniques. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 71, 753–773 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-5518-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-5518-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation