Advertisement

Evaluating porthole and seamless aluminum tubes and lubricants for hydroforming

  • Serhat KayaEmail author
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

The effect of extrusion method and lubrication on formability of aluminum tubes in hydroforming is experimentally investigated. First, the formability differences between seamless and porthole aluminum 6063 and 6260 alloy tubes, at T1 and T6 heat treatment conditions, are studied using free bulging. Second, the performances of a wide range of lubricants are ranked using zone-dependent friction tests, e.g., guiding zone and expansion zone, which emulate the two different interface mechanics existing in a THF operation. Results showed that seamless tubes, under any condition, give 5 % more expansion compared to porthole. Also, if a tube has T6 condition, seamless shows clear formability advantage over porthole. However, porthole is found to be quite satisfactory for tubes at T1 condition since they achieved more than %10 expansion. “Zone-dependent” (expansion zone and guiding zone) lubrication tests are conducted using wet and dry lubricants. Results showed that while a dry lubricant performed best in the expansion zone, a wet lubricant performed best in the guiding zone.

Keywords

Aluminum hydroforming Porthole Seamless Extrusion Friction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Koc M, Altan T (2001) An overall view of the tube hydroforming (THF) technology. J Mater Process Technol 108:384–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kulkarni A, Biswas P, Narasimhan R, Luo AA, Mishra RK, Stoughton TB, Sachdev AK (2004) An experimental and numerical study of necking initiation in aluminium alloy tubes during hydroforming. Int J Mech Sci 46:1727–1746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chu E, Xu Y (2004) Hydroforming of aluminum extrusion tubes for automotive applications. Part I: buckling, wrinkling and bursting analyses of aluminum tubes. Int J Mech Sci 46:263–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chu E, Xu Y (2004) Hydroforming of aluminum extrusion tubes for automotive applications. Part II: process window diagram. Int J Mech Sci 46:285–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Varma NSP, Narasimhan R, Luo AA, Sachdev AK (2007) An analysis of localized necking in aluminium alloy tubes during hydroforming using a continuum damage model. Int J Mech Sci 49:200–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Korkolis YP, Kyriakides S (2008) Inflation and burst of anisotropic aluminum tubes for hydroforming applications. Int J Plast 24:509–543CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Korkolis YP, Kyriakides S (2011) Hydroforming of anisotropic aluminum tubes: part I, experiments. Int J Mech Sci 53:75–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Imaninejad M, Subhash G, Loukus A (2004) Influence of end-conditions during tube hydroforming of aluminum extrusions. Int J Mech Sci 46:1195–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Loukus AR, Subhash G, Imaninejad M (2004) Mechanical properties and microstructural characterization of extrusion welds in AA6082-T4. J Mater Sci 39:6561–6569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim BJ, Van Tyne CJ, Lee MY, Moon YH et al (2007) Finite element analysis and experimental confirmation of warm hydroforming process for aluminum alloy. J Mater Process Technol 187–188:296–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Asnafi N, Nilsson T, Lassl G (2003) Tubular hydroforming of automotive side members with extruded aluminium profiles. J Mater Process Technol 142:93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Imaninejad M, Subhash G, Loukus A (2004) Experimental and numerical investigation of free-bulge formation during hydroforming of aluminum extrusions. J Mater Process Technol 147:247–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vollersten F (2001) Challenges and chances of hydroforming of aluminum alloys, German–Chinese ultralight symposium. DVS-Berichte 218:71–79Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vollersten F, Plancak M (2002) On possibilities for the determination of the coefficient of friction in hydroforming of tubes. J Mater Process Technol 125–126:412–420Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lang L, Li H, Yuan S, Danckert J, Nielsen KB (2009) Investigation into the pre-forming’s effect during multi-stages of tube hydroforming of aluminum alloy tube by using useful wrinkles. J Mater Process Technol 209:2553–2563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ceretti E, Contri C, Giardini C (2006) Tube-hydroforming experiments on an Al 7003 extruded tube. J Mater Process Technol 177:672–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davies R, Grant G, Herling D, Smith M, Evert B, Nykerk S, Shoup J (2000) Formability investigation of aluminum extrusions under hydroforming conditions. SAE Technical Paper Series, 2000-01-2675Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chu E, Xu Y (2008) Influences of generalized loading parameters on FLD predictions for aluminum tube hydroforming. J Mater Process Technol 196:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jannsson M, Nilsson L, Simonsson K (2008) On strain localisation in tube hydroforming of aluminium extrusions. J Mater Process Technol 195:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ngaile G, Jaeger S, Altan T (2004) Lubrication in tube hydroforming (THF). Part I. Lubrication mechanisms and development of model tests to evaluate lubricants and die coatings in the transition and expansion zones. J Mater Process Technol 146:108–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ngaile G, Jaeger S, Altan T (2004) Lubrication in tube hydroforming (THF). Part II. Performance evaluation of lubricants using LDH test and pear-shaped tube expansion test. J Mater Process Technol 146:116–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaya S, Shah K, Patil S, Chandrasekharan S, Altan T (2002) Flow stress determination & lubricant evaluation for hydroforming of aluminum alloy tubes. Engineering Research Center for Net Shape Manufacturing, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Report THF/ERC/NSM - 02- R-44Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Engineering Research Center for Net Shape Manufacturing, ERC/NSMThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Department of Automotive EngineeringAtilim UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations