On the tube hydroforming process using rectangular, trapezoidal, and trapezoid-sectional dies: modeling and experiments

  • Abir Abdelkefi
  • Pierrick Malécot
  • Nathalie Boudeau
  • Noamen Guermazi
  • Nader Haddar


It is generally known that the contact between tube and die, in the case of tube hydroforming process, leads to the appearance of friction effects. In this context, there are many different models for representing friction and many different tests to evaluate it. In the present paper, the pin-on-disk test has been used and the theoretical model of Orban-2007 has been chosen and developed to evaluate friction coefficient. The main goal is to prove the capacity of theoretical model to present the friction conditions in comparison with the pin-on-disk test. From the Orban model, values of 0.05 and 0.25 of friction coefficient have been found under lubricated and dry tests, respectively. On the other hand, by the classical pin-on-disk test, other values were experimentally obtained as friction coefficient at the copper/steel interface. In the case of pure expansion hydroforming, based on an internal pressure loading only, a “corner filling” test has been run for tube hydroforming. Both dry and lubricated contacts have been considered. Various configurations and shapes have been studied such as the rectangular, trapezoidal, and trapezoid-sectional dies. Finite element simulations with 3D shell and 3D solid models have been performed with different values of friction coefficients. From the main results, it was found that the critical thinning occurs in the transition zone for the square and rectangular section die and in the sharp angle for the trapezoidal and trapezoid-sectional die. The comparison between numerical data and experimental results shows a good agreement. Moreover, the thickness distribution along the cross section is relatively consistent with those measured for the 3D shell model; however, the 3D solid models do not provide a realistic representation of the thickness distribution in the shaped tube. Finally, the results obtained from the theoretical model were more efficient than the results obtained from the pin-on-disk test.


Tube hydroforming FE simulation Friction coefficient Thickness distribution Lubrication 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Fiorentino A, Ceretti E, Attanasio A, Braga D, Giardini C (2009) Experimental study of lubrication influence in the production of hydroformed T-joint tubes. Key Eng Mater 410:15–24 Trans Tech PublicationsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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(1):108–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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(1):116–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kridli GT, Bao L, Mallick PK, Tian Y (2003) Investigation of thickness variation and corner filling in tube hydroforming. J Mater Process Technol 133(3):287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu G, Yuan S, Teng B (2006) Analysis of thinning at the transition corner in tube hydroforming. J Mater Process Technol 177(1):688–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Orban H, Hu SJ (2007) Analytical modeling of wall thinning during corner filling in structural tube hydroforming. J Mater Process Technol 194(1):7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xu X, Li S, Zhang W, Lin Z (2009) Analysis of thickness distribution of square-sectional hydroformed parts. J Mater Process Technol 209(1):158–164CrossRefGoogle 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(8):1195–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zribi T, Khalfallah A, Belhadj Salah H (2008) Analyse de l’effet des paramètres matériaux sur l’hydroformage des tubes. Congrès Tunisien de Mécanique, Hammamet, Tunisia 17th to 19th MarchGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cui XL, Wang XS, Yuan SJ (2014) Deformation analysis of double-sided tube hydroforming in square-section die. J Mater Process Technol 214(7):1341–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daly D, Duroux P, Rachik M, Roelandt JM, Wilsius J (2007) Modelling of the post-localization behaviour in tube hydroforming of low carbon steels. J Mater Process Technol 182(1):248–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kyriakides S (2011) Hydroforming of anisotropic aluminum tubes: part I experiments. Int J Mech Sci 53(2):75–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Korkolis YP, Kyriakides S (2011) Hydroforming of anisotropic aluminum tubes: part II analysis. Int J Mech Sci 53(2):83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yuan SJ, Han C, Wang XS (2006) Hydroforming of automotive structural components with rectangular sections. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 46(11):1201–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xiao XT, Liao YJ, Sun YS, Zhang ZR, Kerdeyev YP, Neperish RI (2007) Study on varying curvature push-bending technique of rectangular section tube. J Mater Process Technol 187:476–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang WW, Wang XS, Cui XL, Yuan SJ (2015) Analysis of corner filling behavior during tube hydro-forming of rectangular section based on Gurson–Tvergaard–Needleman ductile damage model. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 229(9):1566–1574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yuan S, Song P, Wang X (2011) Analysis of transition corner formation in hydroforming of rectangular-section tube. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 225(5):773–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xu X, Zhang W, Li S, Lin Z (2009) Study of tube hydroforming in a trapezoid-sectional die. Thin-Walled Struct 47(11):1397–1403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li S, Xu X, Zhang W, Lin Z (2009) Study on the crushing and hydroforming processes of tubes in a trapezoid-sectional die. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 43(1–2):67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guermazi N, Elleuch K, Ayedi HF, Fridrici V, Kapsa P (2009) Tribological behaviour of pipe coating in dry sliding contact with steel. Mater Des 30(8):3094–3104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fiorentino A, Ceretti E, Giardini C (2013) The THF compression test for friction estimation: study on the influence of the tube material. Key Eng Mater 549:423–428 Trans Tech PublicationsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang DW, Cui MC, Cao M, Ben NY, Zhao SD (2017) Determination of friction conditions in cold-rolling process of shaft part by using incremental ring compression test. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 1-9. doi: 10.1007/s00170-017-0087-6
  23. 23.
    Ma JP, Yang LF (2017) Measurement methods of friction coefficient for plastic deformation of metals under high strain rate. Mater Sci Forum 878:127–131 Trans Tech PublicationsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wu CL, Yang LF, He YL (2014) On the measurement of friction coefficient at the curved surface in metal forming. Appl Mech Mater 446:1134–1137 Trans Tech PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Plancak M, Vollertsen F, Woitschig J (2005) Analysis, finite element simulation and experimental investigation of friction in tube hydroforming. J Mater Process Technol 170(1):220–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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(3):303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Abdelkefi A, Guermazi N, Boudeau N, Malécot P, Haddar N (2016) Effect of the lubrication between the tube and the die on the corner filling when hydroforming of different cross-sectional shapes. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 87(1–4):1169–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Abdelkefi A, Malécot P, Boudeau N, Guermazi N, Haddar N (2017) Evaluation of the friction coefficient in tube hydroforming with the “corner filling test” in a square section die. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 88(5-8), 2265-2273Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Abdelkefi A, Boudeau N, Malécot P, Michel G, Guermazi N (2014) On the friction effect on the characteristics of hydroformed tube in a square section die: analytical, numerical and experimental approaches. Key Eng Mater 639:83-90Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Abdelkefi A, Boudeau N, Malecot P, Guermazi N, Michel G (2015) Study of localized thinning of copper tube hydroforming in square section die: effect of friction conditions. Key Eng Mater 651:65–70 Trans Tech PublicationsCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abir Abdelkefi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pierrick Malécot
    • 2
    • 3
  • Nathalie Boudeau
    • 2
    • 3
  • Noamen Guermazi
    • 1
    • 4
  • Nader Haddar
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Génie des Matériaux et Environnement (LGME), ENISUniversité de SfaxSfaxTunisia
  2. 2.Institut FEMTO-ST UMR6174, ENSMM, CNRSUniv. Bourgogne Franche ComtéBesançonFrance
  3. 3.ENSMMBesançon CedexFrance
  4. 4.Institut Supérieur des Sciences Appliquées et de Technologie de KasserineUniversité de KairouanKasserineTunisia

Personalised recommendations