Springback behaviors of bi-layered non-homogeneous bellows in hydroforming

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 124 Downloads

Abstract

Due to the complicated material and structural characteristics of bi-layered non-homogeneous bellows (BNBs) in hydroforming, the bellow deviates easily from its designed profile and this inevitable phenomenon results in a low forming precision. Therefore, it is important to study the springback behavior of bellows for precision forming. Based on finite element (FE) analysis, comparative studies on profiles of single-layered bellows, bi-layered homogeneous bellows (BHBs), and BNBs with two expansion ratios (k, the ratio of outer-to-inner diameter) k = 1.2 and k = 1.6 as well as two materials 304SS and Inconel 718 are implemented. The springback behaviors of different simulation settings are investigated, and several conclusions are drawn: (1) after springback, the U-shaped convolution profile is changed to tongue shape accompanied by a 2.5~38.5% axial elongation and a 0.1~0.6% radial shrinkage; (2) the springback tendency grows with the increase of number of layers, the improvement of mechanical properties of material, and the decrease of expansion ratio.

Keywords

Hydroforming Bi-layered non-homogeneous bellows (BNBs) Springback behavior Finite element analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Derkach GG, Chvanov VK, Movcha JV, Zykov MI, Polushin VG (2001) Method for producing multilayer thin-walled bellows. United States patent US 6202281B1Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Furushima T, Hung NQ, Sasaki O (2013) Development of semi-dieless metal bellows forming process. J Mater Process Technol 213:1406–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kang BH, Lee MY, Shon SM, Moon YH (2007) Forming various shapes of tubular bellows using a single-step hydroforming process. J Mater Process Technol 194:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Li TX (1998) Effect of the elliptic degree of Ω-shaped bellows toroid on its stresses. Int J Pres Ves Pip 75:951–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mashhadi MM, Norouzifard V, Faraji G (2009) Evaluation of effective parameters in metal bellows forming process. J Mater Process Technol 209(7):3431–3437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pavithra E, Senthil Kumar VS (2016) Microstructural evolution of hydroformed Inconel 625 bellows. J Alloys Compd 669:199–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Azarbarmas M, Aghaie-Khafri M, Cabrera JM, Calvo J (2016) Microstructural evolution and constitutive equations of Inconel 718 alloy under quasi-static and quasi-dynamic conditions. Mater Des 94:28–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alaswad A, Benyounis K, Olabi A (2012) Tube hydroforming process: a reference guide. Mater Des 33:328–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim SY, Joo BD, Shin S, Van Tyne CJ, Moon YH (2013) Discrete layer hydroforming of three-layered tubes. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 68:56–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee SW (2002) Study on the forming parameters of the metal bellows. J Mater Process Technol 130-131:47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Olabi A, Alaswad A (2011) Experimental and finite element investigation of formability and failures in bi-layered tube hydroforming. Adv Eng Softw 42:815–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alaswad A, Olabi AG, Benyounis KY (2011) Integration of finite element analysis and design of experiments to analyses the geometrical factors in bi-layered tube hydroforming. Mater Des 32:838–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Xie WC, Teng BG, Yuan SJ (2015) Deformation analysis of hydro-bending of bi-layered metal tubes. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 79:211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Faraji G, Besharati MK, Mosavi M, Kashanizadeh H (2008) Experimental and finite element analysis of parameters in manufacturing of metal bellows. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 38:641–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Faraji G, Mosavi Mashhadi M, Norouzifard V (2009) Evaluation of effective parameters in metal bellows forming process. J Mater Process Technol 209:3431–3437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Djavanroodi F, Gheisary M, Zoghi-shal H (2008) Analytical and numerical analysis of free bulge tube hydroforming. Am J Appl Sci 5(8):972–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Islam M, Olabi A, Hashmi M (2006) Feasibility of multi-layered tubular components forming by hydroforming and finite element simulation. J Mater Process Technol 174:394–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu J, Liu Y, Li LY, Li X, Yang SF, Geng YH, Liu FY (2015) Springback analysis of thin-walled stainless steel bellow in hydroforming. Adv Mater Res 1095:855–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li HW, Ren GY, Li ZJ, Feng L, Yang H (2016) Forming mechanism and characteristics of a process for equal-thickness in-plane ring roll-bending of a metal strip by twin conical rolls. J Mater Process Technol 227:288–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Keck P, Wilhelm M, Lange K (1990) Application of the finite element method to the simulation of sheet forming processes: comparison of calculations and experiments. Int J Numer Meth Eng 30(8):1415–1430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Standards of the Expansion Joint Manufacture Association (EJMA) Inc., 9th Edition. (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Materials Processing Engineering, School of Material Science and EngineeringXi’an Shiyou UniversityXi’anPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Solidification ProcessingNorthwestern Polytechnical UniversityXi’anPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Bime, Bremen Institute of Mechanical Engineering, MAPEX Center for Materials and ProcessingUniversity of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations