Investigation of the effective parameters in tube hydroforming process by using experimental and finite element method for manufacturing of tee joint products

  • Hadi Ahmadi
  • Mehdi Zohoor


Hydroforming is a prominent manufacturing process in automotive, aerospace, and aircraft industries. This process has several advantages compared with other conventional production method, such as weight reduction, part consolidation, improved structural strength, better stiffness, welded assembly obviation, dimensional accuracy, low spring back, and increasing in design flexibility. In tube hydroforming (THF) process, product quality mainly depends on some parameters which determine the boundary conditions of forming process. In the present work, the effect of loading path, friction coefficient, strain-hardening exponent, and fillet radius of the die on height of protrusion in expansion zone and thickness distribution in three different cross-sections is perused. In order to investigate the effects of abovementioned parameters on product quality, finite element method (FEM) was used via ABAQUS/Explicit, as well as to perform the THF process experimentally, a tubular blank was placed between two dies, sealed and filled by injecting pressurized water into it and at last, the tubular blank was shaped into die cavity. The FEM results were then compared with experimental results and were found a good compatibility between them. Finally, according to the results, a useful pattern obtained to show the relevance between effective parameters and product quality. Carefully selected combined parameters can be considered as a key factor for successful THF as well as enhance the formability.


THF FEM Protrusion height Thickness distribution Axial force 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lang LH, Wang ZR, Kang DC, Yuan SJ, Zhang SH, Danckert J, Nielsen KB (2004) Hydroforming highlights: sheet hydroforming and tube hydroforming. J Mater Process Technol 151:165–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lucke HU, Hartl C, Abbey T (2001) Hydroforming. J Mater Process Technol 115:87–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abrantes JP, Szabo-Ponce A, Batalha GF (2005) Experimental and numerical simulation of tube hydroforming. J Mater Process Technol 164–165:1140–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ahmetoglu M, Altan T (2000) Tube hydroforming: state-of-the-art and future trends. J Mater Process Technol 98:25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hwang YM, Chen WC (2005) Analysis of tube hydroforming in a square cross-sectional die. Int J Plast 21:1815–1833CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lang L, Yuan S, Wang X, Wang ZR, Fu Z, Danckert J, Nielsen KB (2004) A study on numerical simulation of hydroforming of aluminum alloy tube. J Mater Process Technol 146:377–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mizumura M, Sato K, Suehiro M (2013) Development of New Hydroforming Methods. Nippon Steel Technical Report No. 103 MAY 2013, UDC 621, 983Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kashani Zadeh H, Mashhadi MM (2006) Finite element simulation and experiment in tube hydroforming of unequal T shapes. J Mater Process Technol 177:684–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 Technol 28(1):23–30. doi: 10.1007/s00170-004-2338-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lin FC, Kwan CT (2004) Application of abdicative network and FEM to predict an acceptable product on T-shape tube hydroforming process. Comput Struct 82:1189–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koc M, Altan T (2002) Prediction of forming limits and parameters in the tube hydroforming process. International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42:123–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Asnafi N (1999) Analytical modeling of tube hydroforming. Thin-Walled Struct 34:295–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Asnafi N, Skogsgardh A (2000) Theoretical and experimental analysis of stroke-controlled tube hydroforming. Mater Sci Eng A279:95–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shulkin LB, Posteraro RA, Ahmetoglu MA, Kinzel GL, Altan T (2000) Blank holder force (BHF) control in viscous pressure forming (VPF) of sheet metal. J Mater Process Technol 98:7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Strano M, Altan T (2004) An inverse energy approach to determine the flow stress of tubular materials for hydroforming applications. J Mater Process Technol 146:92–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim TJ, Yang DY, Han SS (2004) Numerical modeling of the multi-stage sheet pair hydroforming process. J Mater Process Technol 151:48–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Comsa S, Cosovici G, Jurco P, Paraianu L, Banabic D (2004) Simulation of the hydroforming process using a new orthotropic yield criterion. J Mater Process Technol 157–158:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang ZR, Liu G, Yuan SJ, Teng BG, He ZB (2005) Progress in shell hydroforming. J Mater Process Technol 167:230–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smith LM, Sun T (2006) A non-finite element approach for tubular hydroforming simulation featuring a new sticking friction model. J Mater Process Technol 171:214–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    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
  22. 22.
    Brunet M, Boumaiza S, Nefussi G (2004) Unified failure analysis for tubular hydroforming. J Mater Process Technol 148:269–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Teng B, Li K, Yuan S (2013) Optimization of loading path in hydroforming T-shape using fuzzy control algorithm. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 69(5). doi: 10.1007/s00170-013-5086-7
  24. 24.
    Dohmann F, Hartl C (2004) Hydroforming-applications of coherent FE-simulations to the development of products and processes. J Mater Process Technol 150:18–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Aydemir A, De Vree JHP, Brekelmans WAM, Geers MGD, Sillekens WH, Werkhoven RJ (2005) An adaptive simulation approach designed for tube hydroforming processes. J Mater Process Technol 159:303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gao L, Strano M (2004) FEM analysis of tube pre-bending and hydroforming. J Mater Process Technol 151:294–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Islam MD, Olabi AG, Hashmi MSD (2006) Feasibility of multi-layered tubular components forming by hydroforming and finite element simulation. J Mater Process Technol 174:394–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Song WJ, Heo SC, Kim J, Kang BS (2006) Investigation on preformed shape design to improve formability in tube hydroforming process using FEM. J Mater Process Technol 177:658–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lei LP, Kim DH, Kang SJ, Hwang SM, Kang BS (2001) Analysis and design of hydroforming processes by the rigid-plastic finite element method. J Mater Process Technol 114:201–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jirathearanat S, Hartl C, Altan T (2004) Hydroforming of Y-shapes—product and process design using FEA simulation and experiments. J Mater Process Technol 146(2004):124–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Koc M, Altan T (2002) Application of two dimensional (2D) FEA for the tube hydroforming process. International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42:1285–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hwang YM, Altan T (2002) Finite element analysis of tube hydroforming processes in a rectangular die. Finite Elem Anal Des 39:1071–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhongqi Y, Qingshuai K, Changhong M, Zhongqin L (2014) Theoretical and experimental study on formability of laser seamed tube hydroforming. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 75(1–4). doi: 10.1007/s00170-014-6130-y
  34. 34.
    An H, Green D, Johrendt J (2012) A hybrid-constrained MOGA and local search method to optimize the load path for tube hydroforming. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 60(9–12):1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kridli GT, Bao L, Mallick PK, Tian Y (2003) Investigation of thickness variation and corner filling in tube hydroforming. J Mater Process Technol 133:287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Johnson KI, Nguyen BN, Davies RW, Grant GJ, Khaleel MA (2004) A numerical process control method for circular tube hydroforming prediction. Int J Plast 20:1111–1137CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Guan Y, Pourboghrat F (2008) Fourier series based finite element analysis of tube hydroforming-generalized plane strain model. J Mater Process Technol 197:379–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Plancak M, Vollertsen F, Woitschig J (2005) Analysis, finite element simulation and experimental investigation of friction in tube hydroforming. J Mater Process Technol 170:220–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zohoor M (2007) Metalworking. K.N. Toosi University Press, TehranGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Saboori M, Champliaud H, Gholipour J, Gakwaya A, Savoie J, Wanjara P (2014) Evaluating the flow stress of aerospace alloys for tube hydroforming process by free expansion testing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 72(9–12):1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fiorentino A, Ceretti E, Giardini C (2013) Tube hydroforming compression test for friction estimation-numerical inverse method, application, and analysis. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 64(5–8). doi: 10.1007/s00170-012-4044-012-4044-0

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Engineering and Research DepartmentEsfarayen Industrial Complex (EICO)EsfarayenIran
  2. 2.Faculty of Mechanical EngineeringK. N. Toosi University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations