Optimization of Process Parameters to Study the Influence of the Friction in Tube Hydroforming

  • Smita P. Rudraksha
  • Shravan H. Gawande


Tube hydroforming (THF) is a well-known metal forming technology. This technology enables the manufacturing of a variety of intricate shape parts used in automobile industry. Tribology plays an important role in THF, required in the automobile industry. THF process is influenced by many process parameters. Friction between outer surface of the tube and the inner surface of the die is significant and influences the process parameters and quality of components. The aim of the proposed work is to optimize the different process parameters which influence the coefficient of friction in the THF using mathematical model based upon the tube upsetting method. Influence of friction on process parameters, mainly inner pressure and wall thickness, is analyzed and optimized. The proposed mathematical model is verified by comparison of coefficient of friction with original values for Steel35NBK and AlMgSi materials. COF (μ) decreases from 0.15 to 0.0289 for Steel35NBK and from 0.1 to 0.0136 for AlMgSi after optimization of initial tube thickness, S 0 = 3.5 mm and pressure p i = 142.9554 MPa for Steel35NBK and pressure p i = 143.5730 MPa for AlMgSi.


Coefficient of friction (COF) Tube hydroforming (THF) Tube upsetting Tribology 

List of symbols


Outer diameter of the tube before deformation (mm)


Inner diameter of the tube before deformation (mm)


Punch-side inner diameter after deformation (mm)


Inner diameter of tube at the side of a fixed punch after deformation (mm)


Force by punch (N)


Reaction force from die end (N)


Force due to friction between wall and tube (N)


Height of tube after deformation (mm)


Height of tube before deformation (mm)


Inner pressure of tube (N/mm2)


Thickness of tube before deformation (mm)


Thickness of wall on the side of movable punch (mm)


Thickness of wall on the side of fixed punch (mm)


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.


  1. 1.
    Dohmann F, Hartl Ch (1996) Tube hydroforming—a method to manufacture light-weight parts. J Mater Process Technol 60(1-4):669–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vollertsen F (2001) State of the art and perspectives of hydroforming of tubes and sheets. J Mater Sci Technol 17(3):321–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Geiger M, Duflou J, Kals HJJ, Shirvani B, Singh UP (2005) Improvement of formability in tube hydroforming by reduction of friction with a high viscous fluid flow. Adv Mater Res 6–8:369–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dohmann F, Hartl C (1997) Tube hydroforming—research and practical application. J Mater Prod Technol 71(1):174–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schmoeckel D, Hessler C, Engel B (1992) Pressure control in hydraulic tube forming. CIRP Ann 4(1):311–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prier M, Schmoeckel D (1999) Tribology of internal high pressure forming. In: Proceeding of the international conference on hydroforming, Stuttgart, Germany, pp 1–6, 12–13th OctoberGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hwang YM, Huang LS (2005) Friction test in tube hydroforming. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf 219(8):587–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prier M (2000) Die Reibung als Einflussgrosse in Innenhochdruck-Umformprozess. Dissertation; Berichte aus Produktion and Umformtechnik, PtU, Universitat Darmstadt, pp 1–105, Band 46, Shaker AachenGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vollertsen F, Plancak M (2002) On possibilities for the determination of the coefficient of friction in hydroforming of tubes. J Mater Process Technol 125–126:412–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Plancak M, Vollertsen F, Woitschig J (2005) Analysis, finite element simulation and experimental investigation of friction in tube hydroforming. J Mater Process Technol 170(1–2):220–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Trana K (2002) Finite element simulation of tube hydroforming process-bending, preforming and hydroforming. J Mater Process Technol 127(3):407–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lang L, Yuan S, Wang X, Wang ZR, Zhuang F, Danckert J, Nielsen KB (2004) A study on numerical simulation of hydroforming of aluminum alloy tube. J Mater Process Technol 146(1–3):377–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abedrabbo N, Worswic M, Mayer R, van Riemsdijk I (2009) Optimization methods for the tube hydroforming process applied to advanced high-strength steels with experimental verification. J Mater Process Technol 209(1):110–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zadeh HK, Mashhadi MM (2006) Finite element simulation and experiment in tube hydroforming of unequal T shapes. J Mater Process Technol 177(1–3):684–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manabe K, Amino M (2002) Effects of process parameters and material properties on deformation process in tube hydroforming. J Mater Process Technol 123(2):285–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sedighiamiri A, Hojjati MH (2016) A finite element-based model of elastic–plastic contact between two cylindrical bodies with rough surfaces. Int J Numer Anal Methods Eng 4(2):57–64Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hebbar A, Kaïdameur D, Ouinas D (2014) Modelling of the wear of some tooling materials. Int J Adv Mater Technol 2(5):113–117Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mendas M, Ben Tkaya M, Benayoun S, Zahouani H, Kapsa P (2015) Experimental and numerical analysis of the scratch behaviour of steels: description of the effect of work hardening. Int J Numer Anal Methods Eng 3(2):27–37Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    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):695–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Karami JS, Sheikhi MM, Payganeh G, Fard KM (2017) Experimental and numerical investigation of single and bi-layered tube hydroforming using a new sealing technique. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 92(9–12):4169–4182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peng J, Zhang W, Liu G, Zhu S, Yuan S (2011) Effect of internal pressure distribution on thickness uniformity of hydroforming Y-shaped tube. Trans Nonferrous Metal Soc China 21:s423–s428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    He Z, Yuan S, Li L, Fan X (2012) Reduction of friction in the guiding zone during tube hydroforming. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf 226(7):1275–1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Koc M (2003) Tribological issues in the tube hydroforming process—selection of a lubricant for robust process conditions for an automotive structural frame part. J Manuf Sci Eng 125(3):484–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tolazzi M (2010) Hydroforming applications in automotive: a review. Int J Mater Form 3(1):307–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Trinity College of Engineering and Research, PuneS.P. Pune UniversityPuneIndia
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical Engineering, PES Modern College of Engineering, PuneS.P. Pune UniversityPuneIndia
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical Engineering, M.E.S. College of Engineering, PuneS.P. Pune UniversityPuneIndia

Personalised recommendations