View
214
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
1/37
Accepted Manuscript
Title: Fourier series based finite element analysis of tubehydroforming - generalized plane strain model
Authors: Yabo Guan, Farhang Pourboghrat
PII: S0924-0136(07)00634-6
DOI: doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.06.044
Reference: PROTEC 11049
To appear in: Journal of Materials Processing Technology
Received date: 21-11-2006Revised date: 3-6-2007
Accepted date: 15-6-2007
Please cite this article as: Y. Guan, F. Pourboghrat, Fourier series based finite element
analysis of tube hydroforming - generalized plane strain model, Journal of Materials
Processing Technology (2007), doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.06.044
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production processerrors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.06.044http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.06.044http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.06.044http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.06.0448/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
2/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
1
FOURIER SERIES BASED FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF TUBE
HYDROFORMING -
GENERALIZED PLANE STRAIN MODEL
Yabo Guan1, Farhang Pourboghrat
2
1Department of Neurosurgery, Medical College of Wisconsin,
Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA
2Department of Mechanical Engineering, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI, 48824-1226, USA
Corresponding author:
Yabo GuanDepartment of Neurosurgery
Medical College of Wisconsin
9200 West Wisconsin AvenueMilwaukee, WI 53226, USA
Tel: 414-384-2000-ext 41387Fax: 414-483-4393E-mail: yguan8805@yahoo.com
Pag
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
3/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
2
Abstract In previous paper (Fourier series based finite element analysis of tube hydroforming --
an axisymmetric model. Engineering Computations. 23(7): 697-728, 2006), an axisymmetric
analysis of tube hydroforming process was discussed. In the present paper, a generalized plane
strain implicit formulation of the cross sectional expansion of an extruded aluminum tube with
pressurized fluid to fill a hydroforming die is presented. The cross-section of the tube is modeled
with thin straight and circular segments with constant thickness, and Fourier series are used to
approximate nodal displacements. The material of the tube is assumed to obey a rate-independent,
elastoplastic model that takes into account work hardening and normal anisotropy. At the tube-die
interface, frictional stress is assumed, based on Coulomb friction, to be proportional to the contact
pressure whenever relative sliding occurs. The kinematics relationships are derived based on thin
shell theory, and the equilibrium equation is derived based on virtual work principle. The axial feedis implemented by imposing either a compressive force or strain in the tube length direction.
Frictional boundary condition is introduced into the formulation in the form of a penalty function,
which imposes the constraints directly into the tangent stiffness matrix. The Newton-Raphson
iterative method is used to incrementally solve the resulting nonlinear equations. Two examples of
tube hydroforming problems are solved and numerical predictions of the deformed shape,
hydroforming pressure, and deformation strains are compared with experimental and ABAQUS
results.
Keywords: Aluminum; Tube Hydroforming; Finite Element; Contact Analysis; Fourier series;
Plane Strain
Pag
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
4/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
1
1. Introduction
Tube hydroforming is receiving the greatest attention, especially in the auto industry, because existing multi-piece, stamped/welded assemblies in auto body and frame
structures could be potentially replaced with less expensive hydroformed parts that are
lighter, stronger and more precise. Well known hydroformed automotive applicationsinclude exhaust manifolds, radiator enclosure, dash assemblies, frame rail, and engine
cradles etc. [1, 2].
Prior to tube hydroforming, pre-bending and stretching operations take place to shape
the blank tube to fit into the hydroforming die. The analysis of this pre-forming isnecessary in order to accurately predict the formability of the tube during the
hydroforming process. Wu and Yu [3] simulated the multi-operation tube hydroforming
of an automotive structural part with explicit LS-Dyna3D commercial code. Using the
explicit finite element code LS-Dyna3D, Srinivasan et al. [4] provided additionalcorrelation of experimental and simulation results for tube hydroforming, and Liu et al.
[5] provided analytical and experimental examination of tube hydroforming limits. Kaya
et al. [6] performed plane strain analysis of crushing and expansions of tube cross-sections using the two-dimensional implicit finite element code DEFORM 2D. Kim et al.
[7] developed a rigid-plastic finite element method for the analysis of tube hydroforming
process. Hwang and Altan [8, 9] evaluated the quality of the tubes formed byhydroforming and crushing in a square die and rectangular die respectively. A two
dimensional model for the bend-stretch-pressure forming process was developed by
Corona [10]. Other numerical analyses of tube hydroforming performed recently can befound in Refs. [11-28].
Tube hydroforming is the process whereby a closed-section hollow part with varying
cross sections is formed by applying internal fluid pressure and axial compressive loads
to force a tubular metal blank to conform into the shape of a given die cavity. Althoughfinite element method has been used widely for simulating the process, unfortunately it
becomes very costly when three dimensional model of working piece is created and usedfor analysis directly. Therefore, cost-efficient two dimensional finite element method
capable of simulating various cross section shapes is desirable. In our previous study
[29], an axisymmetric tube hydroforming finite element analysis program was developed.
Fourier series interpolation functions, which reduce the size of the global stiffness matrixand the number of variables considerably, were employed for approximating the
displacements. Some simplifications were assumed. The principal geometrical
assumption is that the representative meridian of the tube is initially straight. Thisassumption however could be relaxed by using a curved, instead of a straight segment to
represent the initial geometry of the tube. All segments making up the meridian areassumed to be relatively thin and of constant thickness. The deformation of the tube isassumed not to vary along its cross-section, hence, the analysis could be considered to be
axisymmetric. The axisymmetric hydroforming program (AXHD) written based on this
formulation is very efficient in predicting the deformations for the free-forming stage oftube hydroforming under simultaneous action of internal pressure and displacement
stroke. Failure model (FLC) based on shear instability was also incorporated into the
code to predict the onset of fracture for the steel tube. The hoop and axial strains
anuscript
Pag
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
5/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
2
predicted with AXHD code compared excellently with those from ABAQUS using plane
stress axisymmetric (SAX1) and four-node shell (S4R) elements.
In the present study, the principal geometrical assumptions of the model are that thecross-section of the round extruded tube can be modeled with circular segments, and all
segments are relatively thin and of constant thickness. The axial feed is implemented by
imposing either a compressive force or strain in the tube length direction. The material ofthe tube is assumed to be elastoplastic and to obey a plasticity model that takes into
account rate-independent, work hardening and normal anisotropy. The boundary friction
condition is introduced into the formulation in the form of a penalty function, which
imposes the constraint directly into the tangent stiffness matrix. The Newton-Raphsonalgorithm is used to solve the nonlinear equations. The PSHD (Plane Strain
Hydroforming) program has been written based on the above formulations.
The layout of present paper is as following: In Section 2 the thin shell model is
described. The kinematics assumptions and principal strain formulations are discussed inSection 3. The constitutive model and contact algorithm are described in Sections 4 and 5
respectively. Section 6 describes the equilibrium equation formulations based on the
virtual work principle (VWP) and the application of Newton-Raphson iterative method tosolve the resulting non-linear equations. Finally, in Section 7 two examples are provided
in support of the section-analysis finite element model, where numerical predictions of
the deformed shape, hydroforming pressure, and deformation strains are compared withexperimental measurements and the nonlinear finite element code ABAQUS.
2. Thin Shell Theory
The deformation of the mid-surface of an element will be considered based on thin
shell theory. Figure 1 shows the shell mid-surface at the reference time ot and currenttime tas it bends and stretches.
Pourboghrat et al. [30] derived the principal curvatures and stretches of a shell ofrevolution undergoing axisymmetric deformation using both total and updated
Lagrangian formulations. Below, the principal curvature and stretch of a thin shell
undergoing generalized plane-strain deformation will be derived. The generalized planestrain assumption implies that strain in the third principal direction (in this case the tube
length direction) could be specified as a constant value. When this constant value is
chosen to be zero, conventional plane strain assumption will result.
2.1 Principal Curvature and Stretch (updated Lagrangian)
After bending and stretching, the principal mid-surface curvature, k1, of a shell
element at the current configuration, t (=ot+t), could be calculated from the known
information about the element at the reference configuration (timeot, see Figure 1), as
follows:
Pag
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
6/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
3
~~~~
NwAuRr ++= (1)
where~
R is the reference configuration at timeot and u and w are incremental
displacements defined in Figure 1. In Eq. (1), the unit tangent vector ~A and the unit
principal normal vector~
N to the mid-surface of the reference configuration are defined
as
SR
S
RA
,~
~
~
=
= (2)
1
,~
~
K
AN
S= or,1
,~
~
K
NA S= (3)
whereK1 is the centerline curvature at the reference configuration. To calculate centerline
curvature at the current configuration, k1,the unit tangent vector
=
~~~ aaa and the unit
principal normal vector of the mid-surface of the shell
=
~~~ nnn must be known. Using
Eq. (1), the tangent vector~a could be calculated as
SS
SS
sSNwNwAuAuRr
S
ra
,~~,
,~~,
,~,~
~
~ ++++==
= (4)
By substituting from Eqs. (2) and (3) into (4), and after re-arranging, the following
expression results:
~~~1,
~1,
,~
~
~
)()1( NdAcNuKwAwKurS
ra SS
S+=+++==
= (5)
The principal incremental stretch of the mid-surface in the radial direction calculated
from the magnitude of the base vector~a in Eq. (5) is
( ) ( )[ ]2
1
21
21
221 1 uKwwKudcaaa S,S,
~~~+++=+=== (6)
The current length of the mid-surface of the shell in the radial direction, ds, is calculated
from the reference length, dS, and 1 as follows:
ds = 1dS (7)
Pag
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
7/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
4
The unit principal normal vector of the surface of the current shell,~n , is
~ ~
~1
d A c N
n
+= (8)
which, from Eqs. (5), (6) and (8), shows that 0~~
= an . The current principal curvature of
the shell, k1, could now be found as
S,~~s,~s,~s,~~nanrnak
===
2
1
1
1(9)
where~a is given by Eq. (4) and
Sn
,~ can be derived from Eq. (8):
1 , , 1 1 1,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
2~ ,1
( ) ( )
S S S
S
d n d A c N K c A K d N d A c N n
dS
+ += = (10)
In Eq. (10), S,1 is assumed to vanish within an element and the above expressionsimplifies as
( ) ( )
1
11
+++= ~
S,~
S,
S,~
NdKcAcKdn (11)
By substituting from Eqs. (5), (6) and (11) into Eq. (9), the current centerline curvature ofthe shell, k1, can be found:
3
1
2
11
1
+=
Kdccdk
S,S,(12)
3. Kinematics of the Circular Segment
Using the updated Lagrangian formulation, exact expressions for membrane strains,
normal vector rotation, and principal curvatures of plane strain shell element werederived in Section 2 (Shell Element Model). By using in these expressions the values of
displacements and curvatures of the shell at previous time increment (i.e., ot t= ), onewould recover the incrementalvalues of strains. However, by using in these expressionsthe values of displacements and curvatures of the shell at the initial time (i.e., 0t= ) one
would recover the totalvalues of strains. In this paper, the difference between the totalstrains at time t (current) and o t (previous) is used to calculate the incremental strains,
i.e., ( ) ( )oY ,t Y , t = , where Ycorresponds to the location of a material point onthe cross section of the tube.
Pag
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
8/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
5
3.1 Kinematics Assumptions
The hydroforming of a tube, shown in Figure 2a, proceeds by calculating the
deformation of its cross section (YZ-plane), while applying a compressive force or strainin the length direction (
X-axis) to simulate the axial feed. The cross section of the tube,
Figure 2b, could be a closed or open section comprised of straight and circular segments.
Only circular segment kinematics will be discussed in the present paper for the roundextrusion tube hydroforming application. Detail of kinematics formulation for straight
segment can found in a previous paper [29].
All segments making up the cross-section of the tube are assumed to be thin and of
constant thickness. To meet the thin shell assumption, the radius of the circular segmentshould be greater than eight times the thickness. Based on thin shell theory described in
Section 2, deformation (i.e., strain, rotation) and curvature expressions will be derived
only for circular segments as functions of displacements ( wu, ), and their derivatives
( ssssss wwuu ,,,, ,,, ). Details of these derivations are given in appendix A.
3.2 Principal Strains
For the circular segment shown in Figure 3, the local coordinates of the segment are
defined by the angle and the through-thickness axis z. The initial geometry of thesegment is specified by: 1) the coordinates of the center of the arc, cY and cZ , 2) the
angle 0 , which locates the line where 0= , 3) the centerline radius R, 4) the anglespanned by the arc , and 5) the thickness of the segment t. As in the straight segment,
the mid-surface is atz=0 and is indicated by the dashed line.
The rotation of a through-thickness line, , is derived in appendix A (Eq. A7) to be:
R
wu
,= (13)
The true axial strain at any point along the tube cross section was given by
+= Yzxx0 (14)
where and are defined as
)cos(sinzcosusin)wR(Zc +++++= (15a)
)sin(cossincos)( +++= zuwRYc (15b)
where += 0 . The engineering tangential strain is given by
Pag
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
9/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
6
zee +=0 (16)
where membrane portion of the strain, 0e , and the local curvature are derived in
appendix A (Eqs. A3 and A12) to be:
2
,
2
,,0
21
21
++
+
+=
Ruw
Rwu
Rwue (17)
and
2,
,
)(1R
wuR
R
wu
= (18)
The true strain is then calculated from )1( en += l .
3.2 Constraints
Since the cross-section is made up of several independent segments, with their ownlocal coordinate systems and variables, it is necessary to enforce compatibility of
deformations at junctions of two or more segments. Two constraint equations are used to
ensure compatibility of displacements and one equation to ensure compatibility ofrotation between two segments. Therefore, at a junction where M segments come
together, 3(M-1) constraint equations need to be enforced. At a junction between two
straight segments having orientation angles 1 and 2 and components 11, wu and 22 , wu ,the two displacement compatibility conditions can be written in terms of the displacementcomponents in the Y and Z directions as follows:
011112222 =+ sinwcosusinwcosu (19)
011112222 =+ coswsinucoswsinu (20)
The rotation constraint requires that the angle between segments at a junction remainunchanged. For the current example, if the rotations of the two members at the junction
are 1 and 2 , compatibility condition is
012 = (21)
4. Constitutive Equation
The elastic-plastic, rate-independent constitutive model implemented in the
generalized plane strain tube hydroforming analysis code assumes isotropic hardeningand is based on Pourboghrat et al. [30]. The uniaxial stress-plastic strain curve of the
material is assumed to have the following power-law form:
Pag
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
10/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
7
( )noK + (22)where is the effective stress and is the effective plastic strain. Parameters K, n and
0 are material constants that are calculated by curve fitting Eq. (22) to stress-strain datafrom a uniaxial tensile test. The elastic strain increment is related to the stress increment
through the equations of linear, isotropic elasticity with Youngs modulus E andPoissons ratio . The yield function given below allows for anisotropic yielding of thematerial:
( )22 2
20
1
x s x sR
R
+ + = =
+(23)
whereR is the normal anisotropy parameter andx ands indicate axial and hoop direction,respectively.
.
During the loading, Hooke's law is used to calculate stress below the elastic limit; i.e.,
y , where y is the initial yield stress of the tube material obtained from a uniaxialtensile test. Beyond the elastic limit; i.e., y> , the co-rotational time derivative of
stress (Jaumann stress rate) is calculated, for a given strain rate, from an elastic-plastic
constitutive equation:
( ) ( )~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~~ ~ ~
: ::
: :
L P P LL D
h P L P
= +
(24)
Here
~
and )DD(Dp
~
e
~~+= are the Jaumann rate of stress and strain rate tensors,
respectively,~ is the stress tensor, )(h = is the plastic hardening parameter, ~L is
the fourth order elastic tensor and
=
~~~P , where
~~~: = , is the second order tensor representing the unit normal to
the flow potential surface. The effective plastic strain rate, associated with Eq. (24), is
calculated from the following expression:
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
: :
: :
P L D
h P L P =
+
.(25)
The fourth order elastic tensor )L(L ijkl~
= used in this work is the standard tensor for the
isotropic elasticity, which has only two independent components.
Pag
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
11/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
8
5. Contact Algorithm
The tube hydroforming simulation requires modeling the frictional contact betweenthe tube and the die. The contact analysis is complex because it requires accurate
tracking of the motion of multiple bodies, and the motion due to the interaction of these
bodies after the contact. The numerical objectives are to detect the motion of the bodies,apply a constraint to avoid penetration, and finally apply appropriate boundary
conditions to simulate the frictional contact behavior. Each of these objectives will be
separately described next.
5.1 Contact Detection
Many contact search algorithms including methods for global search and local search
using sheet (mesh) normal or tool normal were proposed in the sheet metal forming
simulation literature [31-39]. In the present paper, a global search method using tubesurface normal was employed.
To detect contact between the tube and the die, evenly spaced contact nodes are
initially defined along the tube cross section (e.g., at os , 1 os s s+ , etc.). During thecontact analysis, the displacement of each contact node is checked for surface
penetration, by determining whether it has crossed into the die. For this purpose, the
calculation of the tube surface normal is required, since it is used to determine which
segment on the die is closest to a potential contact node on the tube cross section. For
example, as shown in Figure 4, the closest segment on the die (i.e., ii BB 1 or 1+iiBB ) to
the contact node ( kA ) on the tube can be determined using the following cross-product
algorithm:
If: k i k i 1 (A B ) (A B ) 0n nuuuuur uuuuuuur
+ < (26)then, 1+iiBB will be the die segment associated with the contact node kA .
5.2 Projection Algorithm
A nodal position produced by the trial solution may penetrate the die. By using thecross-product algorithm, the closest segment on the die corresponding to the contact node
can be found. The nodal coordinates are then modified by a projection scheme such that
the contact node just touches the die surface. There are two ways to bring the penetratedcontact node back to the die surface. As shown in Figure 5, PQ is assumed to be the die
segment associated with the penetrated contact node A, point B is the intersection point
between the normal vector and PQ, and O is the original location of the contact node.Based on the following vector equation, the coordinate of point B could be calculated:
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
12/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
9
ABOAPBOP +=+ (27a)
PQ
PQPB 1= , 2 AB nuuur (27b)
where 21, are scalar parameters. Once 21, are solved for from Eqs. (27a) and (27b),
the coordinate of point B could be determined.
5.3 Implementation of Contact Constraints
A contact node projected on the die surface at time tt + , is constrained to move inthe tangent direction defined by the trial solution, *u
%. The constraint on the
displacement vector ( , )u u w%
, for contacting nodes is then:
0u n =%
(28)
5.4 Separation of a Node in Contact
After a node on the tube comes into contact with the die surface, it is possible for it toseparate from the die surface in a subsequent iteration or deformation increment.
Mathematically, a node should be separated from the die when the calculated reaction
force at the node becomes tensile, as it would imply that the node on the tube is beingpulled by a tensile force to keep it in contact with the die. In contrast, when the reaction
force on the node is compressive, the node continues to stay in contact with the die.
When contact occurs, a reaction force associated with the contact node balances the
internal stress of the element sharing this node. When separation occurs, this reactionforce behaves as a residual force (as the force on a free node should be zero). This
requires that the internal stresses in the deformable body be redistributed.
6. Equilibrium Equation
The equilibrium equation is satisfied using the virtual work principle (VWP). Incontrast to traditional finite element method, nodal displacements in this formulation are
approximated with Fourier series, which makes the implementation of contact constraints
and boundary conditions more challenging. The boundary friction condition is introduced
into the formulation in the form of penalty functions, which imposes those constraintsdirectly into the tangent stiffness matrix. The Newton-Raphson algorithm is then used to
solve the nonlinear equilibrium equations. In the following sections the VWP will be
discussed for bending, pressure loading and frictional contact modeling.
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
13/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
10
6.1 Tube Bending Problem
The principle of virtual work for tube bending could be expressed as following:
( ) 011
xj
J
j
j
I
iA
ii
s
i
s
i
x
i
x TCdAi ii =++ ==
(29)
where the integral on the left hand side represents the virtual internal work ( IntW ), the
term on the right hand side represents the virtual external work ( 0Ext xW T ) due to
axial feed, indexIcorresponds to the total number of segments defining the cross-section,
index J corresponds to the total number of constraint equations, j are Lagrange
multipliers, jC are the constraint equations (from Eqs. (19-21)), Tis the applied tension
(compression) due to axial feed, iii
dzdsdA = is the area of a straight segment, andii
ii dzdRdA = is the area of a circular segment,x ands indicate axial and hoop direction,respectively.
To solve Eq. (29), the displacement components ,i iw u for each circular segment are
approximated using the following Fourier series expressions:
0
1 1
cos sin
i iN Ni i i ii i
n ni in n
n nw
= == + +
(30a)
0
1 1
cos sini iN N
i i i ii in ni i
n n
n nu
= == + +
(30b)
After substituting from Eqs. (30a-b) into the principle of virtual work, Eq. (29), anonlinear expression of the following form will result:
0,,,c~
=dTdd ZY f (31a)
where
{ }jxininiinini ,,,,,,,c 000~
= (31b)
Equation (31a) should be incrementally solved for the unknown vector, c%, given input
values for incremental bending curvatures, Y Zd ,d , and incremental axial force, dT,
applied to the ends of the tube (along X-direction) for the purpose of axial feeding. Since
Eq. (31a) is highly nonlinear, it is numerically solved using the Newton-Raphson method.
The final form of the Newton-Raphson iterative method used for solving c%
looks as
following:
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
14/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
11
~~~~IntExt FFRcdK ==
(32)
where
K ( c cIntW2=
% %) is the second variation of the virtual internal work with
respect to c%
,~cd is the incremental c
%, and
~R is the residual.
~ExtF ( cExtW=
%) is the
variation of the virtual external work with respect to c%
, and~IntF ( cIntW=
%) is the
variation of the virtual internal work with respect to c%
. The nodal force~
F (
~
~
~
c
uFInt
= )
can be calculated from~IntF and
~
~
c
u.
6.2 Pressure Loading Model
Pressure loading is modeled as an external force to expand the tube. The virtual
external work done by a pressurep applied to the inside of the tube is equal to
~ ~1 1
~
( ) ( )
i ip p
iI IP i i i i i
Ext p p
i iA A
uW p n u dA p n c dA
c
%= =
= = (33)where )(
~
iu is the incremental virtual displacement vector having two components
( )i
w and ( )iu , and in is the unit outward normal to the tube surface ipA .
The principle of virtual work for bending and pressure loading of a tube then becomes
( )I1 1 1
( )i i
i ip
J Ii i i i i o i i
x x s s j j x i p
i j iA A
dA C T p n u dA = = =
+ + = + %
(34)
The variation of the virtual external work due to internal pressure loading is:
( )1
~
i
iI
P i i
Ext p
i A
uF p n dA
c
= %
%(35)
Due to the follower forces effect [40], the load stiffness matrix is
2
21
~ ~ ~
( ) ( ) ( )
ip
i i iIP i i
pExt
i A
n u uK p n dA
c c c
= + % %
1~ ~
( ) ( )
ip
i iIi
p
i A
n up dA
c c
= % (36)
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
15/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
12
Equations (35) and (36) will appear on the right- and left-hand sides of the Newton-
Raphson expression, Eq. (32), as follows
~~ ~ ~ ~
p p
Ext Ext Ext Int K K d c R F F F = = + (37)
Once the above formulation was implemented into the numerical analysis code, it wasfound that the load stiffness matrix
p
ExtK has no or little effect on the solution, which
drove us to further simplify the formulation. To that end, by using the following
approximation,~
( ) ( )i i in u w , the whole formulation was greatly simplified. The
details of the proof could be found in appendix B. Since 2 2~
( ) 0iw c = , there is alsono contribution to the stiffness matrix as a result of
p
ExtK , appearing on the left hand side
of the Newton-Raphson expression, Eq. (37). When both methods were implemented into
the numerical code, the results turned out to be almost identical.
6.3 Frictional Contact Modeling
The most challenging task when developing a numerical code for metal forming
processes is to model frictional contact. To model the tooling-workpiece frictional
contact correctly, the following two conditions were continuously monitored during theequilibrium iteration:
(1)Penetration of the contact nodes into the die, and(2)
Nodal contact forces becoming tensile at the contact boundary (separation).
Once the penetration of the contact nodes into the die has been detected, the
penetrated nodes were returned to the die surface and constrained to stay on the diesurface for the remainder of the equilibrium iterations. The nodes, which were returned to
the die surface, were constrained to move only tangent to the die surface and only
condition 2 stated above could cause the contacting node to be separated from the die
surface. Figure 6 shows the schematic of a typical contact check during the Newton-Raphson equilibrium iteration. The external work done by the frictional contact is added
to the virtual work principle Eq. (34) as following:
( )i
I0
i
1 1 1 i 1A
( ) ( )i i i
I J I i i i i i i i i i
x x s s j j x i pA
i j i
dA C T Pn u dA u dA
= = = =+ + = + +
% %
(38)
where i is the traction on the surface of the tube and ( )i
u%
is the virtual incremental
displacement of the contacting nodes.
In order to improve convergence, a special algorithm was introduced. For each trial
set of contacting and non-contacting nodes, equilibrium iteration was performed. Afterequilibrium was satisfied, the nodes were reexamined for non-penetration condition.
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
16/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
13
Releasing or projecting certain nodes then updated the contact set and another
equilibrium iteration was initiated.
During contact iteration, the trial displacements were first updated according to theNewton-Raphson procedure and the non-penetration contact condition was then applied
to these trial values by projecting the contact nodes to the die surface along the normal
vector. The modified trial solutions were then used for Newton-Raphson iteration. Withinthis force equilibrium iteration, the internal force was calculated. The signs of the sheet
normal force at contact nodes were checked so that the nodes having non-compressive
(tensile) force were released.
7. Numerical Results
The PSHD (Plane Strain Hydroforming) program has been written based on the above
formulations and examples of generalized plane strain tube hydroforming with analuminum tube were solved and verified with ABAQUS finite element code, and when
available, compared with experimental results. The results of these simulations will be
presented next.
7.1 Hydroforming of a Round Aluminum Tube into a Square Die
The following example was chosen in order to illustrate the capability of the new
formulation to model the hydroforming of a round aluminum tube into a square die, and
to also study:
(a)Effect of die-tube friction coefficient on predicted strains,(b)Sensitivity of the contact solution to the number of segments used, and(c)Effect of pre-bending on tube hydroforming.
For case (a), the predicted shape of the hydroformed tube for an applied internal pressure,
and deformation strains were verified by direct comparison with experimental data. Forcase (b), the shape of the hydroformed tube was verified against ABAQUS simulation
results. Verification of case (c) was not possible since no experimental data was available
and we were unable to get converged solution with ABAQUS.
7.1.1 Tube Hydroforming Experiment
An 8.0 (203 mm) long aluminum 6061-T4 tube with an outer radius of 1.0 (25.4mm) and a thickness of 0.049 (1.24 mm) was hydroformed into a square die with a side
length of 2.0 (50.8 mm) using a maximum internal pressure of 3040 psi (21 Mpa). Themechanical properties of the aluminum 6061-T4 tube obtained from a uniaxial tensile test
are shown in Table 1.
Figure 7a shows the hydroformed tube and its cross section. The hoop strain
distribution of the hydroformed tube at the maximum pressure of 3040 psi was
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
17/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
14
experimentally measured using circular grids etched on the straight tube. Table 2 shows
measured hoop strains as a function of the angular position along the cross section of thehydroformed tube, as shown in Figure 7b. It can be seen, from Table 2, that the maximum
hoop strain is measured to be between 7-11%, which occurs in the 0-10 degree zone.
Near the boundary between the curved and flat portion of the tube (i.e., 10-20 degree
zone), hoop strains are about 7%. The tube was axially compressed a total of 0.1181 (3mm) from each end during the hydroforming process, which resulted in a measured axial
strain of -3%.
7.1.2 Tube Hydroforming Simulation with PSHD Code
The tube hydroforming process was simulated using the new formulation to illustrate
its capability to model frictional contact. Due to symmetry, only one quarter of the tube
was modeled, as shown in Figure 7b, to reduce computational time. The tube was
modeled using 8 circular segments, and for each segment 6 Fourier series terms wereused (i.e., N=6). The best number of terms to use in the simulation was determined based
on whether or not a converged solution was obtained. It was found that N=4 to 6 (total of
9 to 13 coefficients) would result in numerically stable solutions. Divergence of solutionmore commonly occurred when larger values of N were used. Sometimes using larger
values of N caused numerical instability during the contact search algorithm. To obtain
accurate contact solution, 20 evenly distributed contact nodes were used for each segment.The number of Gauss integration points used along the length of the segment was 12,
while that used through the thickness was 3.
The tube hydroforming simulation was carried out incrementally. That is, the total
pressure was divided into several hundred steps, and at each step 10 psi of pressure was
applied to the tube until the total pressure of 3040 psi was reached. The size of theincremental pressure loading was decided based on whether or not a converged solutionwas obtained. It was found that at early stages of the deformation it is better to take very
small pressure loading increments, but larger increments was taken once the tube became
fully plastic. Figure 7b shows the predicted deformed shape of the tube at 2000 psi and3040 psi. The friction coefficient used in this simulation was 0.1. It can be seen that at
3040 psi, the predicted cross section of the tube slightly underestimates the actual shape
of the tube.
The convergence difficulties occurring in this example using the implicit codeindicated the sensitivity of the mesh normal direction method. It is difficult to define the
tube normal accurately at each node during each increment while the accurate die normal
can be determined from the die geometry. Although it was shown that mesh normalcontact search algorithm was cost efficient and robust in the dynamic explicit FE code for
sheet forming simulation [39], it was recommended to use tool normal instead in order to
obtain better simulation accuracy [41].
7.1.3 Effect of Die Friction Coefficient
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
18/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
15
The predicted hoop strain variation as a function of three different friction
coefficients are shown in Table 2, and compared with experimental data. In this work theactual friction coefficient was not measured. Instead, the sensitivity of predicted hoop
strain as a function of friction coefficient, as it increased from 0.0 to 0.3, was studied with
the PSHD program. It was found that by increasing the friction coefficient the strain
magnitude decreases only where the tube contacts the die, and there is little or no effecton the hoop strain where the tube is freely expanding. At 0= the maximum hoopstrain occurs in the 0-10 degree zone and the magnitude of the strain matches the
experimental one.
7.1.4 Sensitivity of the Contact Solution to the Number of Segments Used
A fictitious tube hydroforming problem was devised to numerically study thesensitivity of the contact solution to the number of segments used to model the tube. In
this problem, a larger square die with a side length of 3.0 (76.2 mm) was used so that the
tube with a radius of 1.375 (35 mm) and a thickness of 0.1378 (3.5 mm) had to firstexpand before making contact with the die. Since no experimental data was available, for
verification purposes this tube hydroforming example was also simulated with the
commercial code ABAQUS. In this numerical example, the aluminum tube (Table 1) washydroformed with a maximum pressure of 7000 psi. Beyond this pressure, the code could
not converge to a solution due to tensile instability. The goal of this exercise was to
determine the minimum number of circular elements required in order to predict a
comparable deformed tube shape as ABAQUS.
Due to the symmetry of the die, only one half of the tube was modeled for the
hydroforming simulation, as shown in Figure 8a. The ABAQUS model used 26 8-node
shell elements with reduced integration (S8R5) for a more efficient simulation. In all
ABAQUS simulations the number of elements to be used was decided by trial and error.That is, tube hydroforming simulation was performed with a few elements and the
number of elements was then increased until no additional improvement (changes) in the
simulation results occurred. Figure 8a shows the predicted shape of the hydroformedtube with 1 and 4 circular segments, using the current formulation. In the simulation, 4
Fourier series terms were used to approximate displacements (i.e., N=4), 8 Gaussintegration points were used along the length of the element, and 3 integration points
were used through the thickness of the tube. A friction coefficient of 0.1 was also used
for the simulation. Figure 8a also shows the predicted shape of the hydroformed tube byABAQUS. When using only 1 segment, although very CPU-efficient, the PSHD model
was stiff and had difficulty capturing the expansion and the true size of the contact area
between the tube and the die. However, by using 4 segments the model, similar toABAQUS, was able to capture the deformation of the tube. Using more than 4 segments
only slightly changed the result, however, the CPU time increased dramatically.
Figure 8b shows predicted hoop strain distribution as a function of the internal
pressure by the new formulation. It could be seen that predicted strains are constantthroughout the tube as long as no contact occurs between the tube and the die. However,
as soon as a finite size contact region develops, e.g., at 7000 psi, strain distribution
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
19/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
16
changes from being constant. In fact, strains are largest around the contact region, e.g.,
1.5Z= .7.1.5 Effect of Pre-Bending on Tube Hydroforming
As mentioned in the Introduction section, it is common in tube hydroforming industry
to pre-bend the tube before hydroforming it. To study the effect of pre-bending, the
previous tube hydroforming example (7.1.4) was used with 4 segments, but this time the
tube was first bent to a maximum curvature of 0.04/y in = before hydroforming it
with a maximum pressure of 7000 psi. Similar to previous examples, this combined
bending/hydroforming problem was solved incrementally. That is, by applying a smallcurvature at each step, the incremental tube-bending problem was solved until the total
curvature of 0.04 /y in = was reached. Then, by applying a small pressure the
incremental tube hydroforming process was solved, until the maximum pressure of 7000
psi was reached. As in the previous example (7.1.4), once pressure exceeded 7000 psi,the code could not converge to a solution due to tensile instability.
Figure 9a shows the deformed shape of the tube after bending and hydroforming.
Compared to Figure 8a, the tube-die contact is asymmetric with respect to 0Z= . Figure9b shows the hoop strain distribution in the tube. Initially, strain distribution corresponds
to that of a bent tube, i.e., positive strains where 0 1.5Z , and negative strainswhere 1.5 0Z < . As the tube is further pressurized, the strain distribution continuesto grow, due to the superposition of a positive hoop strain. A comparison between
Figures 8b and 9b at the maximum pressure of 7000 psi shows that the maximum strain is
larger when the tube is bent first and then hydroformed, i.e., 26% vs. 22%. However, the
minimum strain is lower in the bent/hydroformed tube, i.e., 12% vs. 16%.
8. Conclusions
A generalized plane strain assumption allows the user to specify a compressive load
or axial strain to each end of the tube to simulate axial feeding. Based on this formulation,a tube hydroforming code (PSHD) was written and several examples of this process were
investigated. Only a few circular segments and 4-6 Fourier series terms to approximate
displacement were required to model the cross section of the tube and accurately predictthe final deformed shape and strain distribution of the hydroformed tube. Numerical
codes such as the one described in this paper are useful engineering tools for quick and
efficient simulation of tube stretching, tube bending and tube hydroforming at earlystages of the process design.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the National Science Foundation for the partial support of
this project through the grant DMI 0084992 in conjunction with Alcoa through the
GOALI program.
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
20/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
17
Appendix A
According to the total Lagrangian formulation discussed in Section 2 (Shell Element
Model), we derived the membrane strain, rotation of normal vector and the current
principal centerline curvature used in Section 3 (Kinematics Assumptions).
1. Membrane strain
Forcircular arc segment, the undeformed shell is non-flat and has an initial curvature K1,
then rearranging Eq.(6) and approximating the square root , we obtain
]2222[2
11 ,1
22
1
2
,,11
22
1,
2
,1 SSSSS uwKuKwwuKwKwKuu ++++++ ,
then membrane strain is
)()()( ,,,,, wwuuwKuwuKwue SSSSS +++++ 1222
1
22
2
1
2
1(A1)
Consider the circular arc segment shown in Figure 3. Since dSRd = , then
=
=
)()(1)(
1KRS
, Eq. (A1) becomes:
)()(2
1)(
2
1,1,11,1
222
1
2
,
2
,
2
1 wwuKuwKKuKwuKwuKe +++++
)()](2)()[(2
1 ,1,,
222
,
2
,
2
1 wuKwuuwwuwuK +++++=
22
2
1
2
1
+
++
=
R
uw
R
wu
R
wu ,,,(A2)
As shown in Figure 3, if the positive w direction is in the opposite direction of the normal
to the mid-surface vector,~n , then Eq. (A2) becomes:
2
,
2
,,
2
1
2
1
++
+
+=
R
wu
R
wu
R
wue
(A3)
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
21/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
18
which is used in Section 2 as Eq.(17) and Eq.(4.3) in Brush and Almroth [42].
Based on the following assumptions, we could derive the normal vector rotation and
current principal centerline curvature for both straight segment and circular arc segment.
Assumption 1: The rotation angle is small,
Assumption 2: Bending deformation is dominant and stretching is negligible, namely,
0,0 ,, SSs uu or 11 =dS
ds .
2. Rotation of normal vector
We assumed the angle between the current normal vector~n and the S(arc length) is
, the angle between the current normal vector~n and normal vector
~
N at the reference
is .
Then, we have 2
=+
, and -sincos ==~~
An (A4)
Substituting Eq. (8) in Section 2 into Eq. (A4), we obtain:
, 1 , 1
2 21 1 , 1 , 1
sin(1 ) ( )
S S
S S
w K u w K ud
u K w w K u
+ += = =
+ + +(A5)
Forcircular arc segment( )01 K , according to assumptions 1 and 2, Eq. (A5) becomes:
SwuK ,1 += Since RddS= andR
K1
1 = , we obtain
R
wu ,
+= (A6)
For the coordinates shown in Figure 3, we have
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
22/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
19
R
wu ,
= (A7)
which is used in Section 2 as Eq. (13) and Eq. (4.4) in Brush and Almroth [42].
It should be noted that the rotation of a through-thickness line, , was considered andcontributed to the hoop strain, however, there is no transverse strain considered in the
formulation.
3. The current principal centerline curvature
Forcircular arc segment, using Eq. (A5) and finite rotation assumption, we have
R
wu ,sin = (A8)
According to Flugge [43], we have the change in curvature:
R
=
&(A9)
By differentiating Eq. (A8), we obtain:
cos
,
,R
wu
d
d ===& (A10)
where
2,2 )(1sin1cosR
wu
== (A11)
Substituting from Eqs. (A10), (A11) into Eq. (A9), we have
2,
,
)(1R
wuR
R
wu
= (A12)
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
23/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
20
Which is used in Section 3 as Eq. 18.
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
24/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
21
Appendix B
Here we will prove the equivalence of the two formulations in the pressure modeling, i.e.:
( ) ( )1 1
~ ~
i i
i iI I
P i i i
Ext p pi iA A
u w
F p n dA p dAc c
== %% (B1)In Eq. (B1), the displacement vector iu
%has two components, iu and iw . For a point
at the mid-surface, i.e., z=0, of a circular segment, Eqs. (15a-b) will be:
( )sin cosi i icZ R w u = + + + (B2.a)
( )cos sini i i
cY R w u = + + (B2.b)
where += 0 .
The unit outward normal to the surface ipA ,in , is then defined as
),(
),(
=
ii
ii
in (B3)
where
sin ( )cos cos sini i i
i iw uR w u
= + + (B4.a)
cos ( )sin sin cosi i i
i iw uR w u
+ (B4.b)1/ 2
2 2
( , ) ( ) [( ) ]
i i i ii i iw u
u R w R w
= + + + + (B4.c)
We also have,
~ ~ ~
( ) ( ) ( ),
i i iu
c c c
% (B5)
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
25/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
22
where
sin cosi i iw u + (B6.a)
cos sini i iw u (B6.b)Combining (B3), (B4.a-c), (B5) and (B6.a-b), we have
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
( ) 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
i i i i i i ii i i
i
u w u u w w un R w u
c R w c c c c
+ + + %
~
( )
iw
c
(B7)
Thus, we have proved that (B1) is correct. Since 0)(
~
2
2
=
c
wi, there will be no change in
the stiffness matrix and pressure will only show up on the right hand side of the Newton-
Raphson expression, Eq. (37).
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
26/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
23
References
[1] G. Morphy, Hydroforming high strength steel tube for automotive structural
applications using expansion, SAE International Congress & Exposition (1997).
[2] F. Dohmann, Ch. Hartl, Hydroforming: a method to manufacture light-weight parts, J.Mater. Process. Tech. 60 (1996) 669-676.
[3] L. Wu, Y. Yu, Computer Simulations of Forming Automotive Structural Parts by
Hydroforming Process, 3rd
International Conference: Numerical Simulation of 3D Sheet
Metal Forming Processes Verification of Simulations with Experiments, Dearborn,Michigan (1996) 324-329.
[4] T.M. Srinivasan, J.R. Shaw, K. Thompson, Tubular hydroforming: correlation of
experimental and simulation results, SAE Technical Paper# 980448 (1998) 131-137.
[5] S.D. Liu, D. Mueleman, K. Thompson, Analytical and experimental examination oftubular hydroforming limits, SAE Technical Paper# 980449 (1998) 139-150.
[6] S. Kaya, I. Gorospe, T. Altan, Preforming and expansion of an aluminum alloy in
tube hydroforming comparison of FEA predictions with existing experimental data,Transactions of NAMRI/SME, 30 (2002) 119-126.
[7] J. Kim, B.S. Kang, H.H. Choi, Numerical analysis and design for tube hydroforming
process by rigid-plastic finite element method, Transactions of NAMRI/SME, 30 (2002)127-134.
[8] Y.M. Hwang, T. Altan, Process fusion: tube hydroforming and crushing in a squaredie, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B Journal of
Engineering Manufacture, 218 (2) (2004) 169-174.
[9] Y.M. Hwang, T. Altan, Finite element analysis of tube hydroforming processes in a
rectangular die,Finite Element in Analysis and Design, 39 (11) (2003) 1071-1082.
[10] E. Corona, A simple analysis for bend-stretch forming of aluminum extrusions,Int. J.
Mech. Sci., 46 (2004) 433-448.
[11] A. Aydemir, J.H.P. de Vree, W.A.M. Brekelmans, M.G.D. Geers, W.H. Sillekens, R.
Werkhoven, An adaptive simulation approach designed for tube hydroforming processes,J. Mater. Process. Tech., 159(3) (2005) 303-310.
[12] Y. Aue-U-Lan, G. Ngaile, T. Altan, Optimizing tube hydroforming using process
simulation and experimental verification, J. Mater. Process. Tech., 146 (1) (2004) 137-143.
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
27/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
24
[13] A. Kulkarni, P. Biswas, R. Narasimhan, , A.A. Luo, R.K. Mishra, T.B. Stoughton,
A.K. Sachdev, An experimental and numerical study of necking initiation in aluminiumalloy tubes during hydroforming, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 46(12)
(2004) 1727-1746.
[14] T. Papelnjak, Numerical analyses of tube hydroforming by high internal pressure,Strojniski Vestnik-Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 50(1) (2004) 31-43.
[15] T. Hama, M. Asakawa, A. Makinouchi, Investigation of factors which causebreakage during the hydroforming of an automotive part, J. Mater. Process. Tech., 150
(1-2) (2004) 10-17
[16] T. Hama, M. Asakawa, H. Fukiharu, A. Makinouchi, Simulation of hammering
hydroforming by static explicit FEM, Iron and Steel Institute of Japan, 44(1) (2004) 123-
128.
[17] T. Hama, M. Asakawa, S. Fuchizawa, A. Makinouchi, Analysis of hydrostatic tube bulging with cylindrical die using static explicit FEM, Materials Transactions, 44(5)
(2003) 940-945.
[18] F.C. Lin, C.T. Kwan, Application of abductive network and FEM to predict an
acceptable product on T-shape tube hydroforming process, Computers and Structures, 82(15-16) (2004) 1189-1200.
[19] M. Imaninejad, G. Subhash, A. Loukus, Influence of end-conditions during tubehydroforming of aluminum extrusions,Int. J. Mech. Sci., 46(8) (2004) 1195-1212.
[20] P. Ray, B.J. Mac Donald, Determination of the optimal load path for tube
hydroforming processes using a fuzzy load control algorithm and finite element analysis,Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 41(2) (2004) 173-192.
[21] K.I. Johnson, B.N. Nguyen, R.W. Davies, G.J. Grant, M.A. Khaleel, Numerical
process control method for circular-tube hydroforming prediction, Int. J. Plasticity, 20(6)
(2004) 1111-1137.
[22] Q.C. Hsu, Theoretical and experimental study on the hydroforming of bifurcation
tube, J. Mater. Process. Tech., 142(2) (2003) 367-373.
[23] K.J. Fann, P.Y. Hsiao, Optimization of loading conditions for tube hydroforming, J.
Mater. Process. Tech., 140 Sp. Iss (2003) 520-524.
[24] J. Kim, B.S. Kang, Analytical approach to bursting failure prediction in tube
hydroforming based on plastic instability, Advances in Engineering Plasticity and itsApplications, Parts 1 and 2 Key Engineering Materials, 274-276 (2004) 601-606.
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
28/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
25
[25] J. Kim, B.S. Kang, S.M. Hwang, H.J. Park, Numerical prediction of bursting failure
in tube hydroforming by the FEM considering plastic anisotropy, J. Mater. Process. Tech.,153-54 Special Issue Part 1 (2004) 544-549.
[26] J. Kim, S.J. Kang, B.S. Kang, A prediction of bursting failure in tube hydroforming
processes based on ductile fracture criterion, International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology, 22(5-6) (2003) 357-362.
[27] L.H. Lang, S.J. Yuan, X.S. Wang, Z.R. Wang, Z. Fu, J. Danckert, K.B. Nielsen, Astudy on numerical simulation of hydroforming of aluminum alloy tube, J. Mater. Process.
Tech., 146 (3) (2004) 377-388.
[28] J.W. Yoon, K. Chung, F. Pourboghrat, F. Barlat, Design optimization of extruded
preform for hydroforming processes based on ideal forming design theory, Int. J Mech.
Sci. 48 (2006) 1416-1428.
[29] Y. Guan, F. Pourboghrat, W.R. Yu, Fourier series-based finite element sectionanalysis of tube hydroforming - an axisymmetric model, Engineering Computations, 23(7)
(2006) 697-728.
[30] F. Pourboghrat, M.E. Karabin, R.C. Becker, K. Chung, A Hybrid Membrane/Shell
Method for Calculating Springback of Anisotropic Sheet Metals UndergoingAxisymmetric Loading,Int. J. Plasticity, 16 (2000) 677-700.
[31] J.O. Hallquist, G.L. Goudreau D.J. Benson, Sliding interfaces with contact-impact inlarge-scale Lagrangian computations, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 51 (1985)
107-137.
[32] T. Belytschko, J.I. Lin, A Three-Dimensional Impact-Penetration Algorithm With
Erosion, Comp. Struct. 25 (1987) 95-104.
[33] E Nakamachi, A finite element simulation of the sheet metal forming process, Int. J.
Numer. Meth. Engng. 25 (1988) 283-292.
[34] Z.H. Zhong, L. Nilsson, A contact searching algorithm for general contact problems,
Comp. Struct. 33 (1989) 197-209.
[35] Y.T. Keum, E Nakamachi, R.H. Wagoner, J.K. Lee, Compatible description of tool
surfaces and FEM meshes for analysing sheet forming operations, Int. J. Numer. Meth.
Engng. 30 (1990) 14711502.
[36] D.J. Benson, J.O. Hallquist, A single surface contact algorithm for the post-buckling
analysis of shell structures, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 78 (1990) 141-163.
[37] T. Belytschko, M.O. Neal, Contact-impact by the pinball algorithm with penalty and
Lagrangian methods, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng. 31 (1991) 547-572.
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
29/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
26
[38] M. Oldenburg , L. Nilsson, The position code algorithm for contact searching, Int. J.Numer. Meth. Engng. 37 (1994) 359 386.
[39] S.P. Wang, E. Nakamachi, The inside-outside contact search algorithm for finite
element analysis, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng. 40 (1997) 3665 3685.
[40] H.D. Hibbitt, Some follower forces and load stiffness, Int. J. Num. Mech. Engng., 14
(1979) 937-941.
[41] T. Hama, M. Takamura, C. Teodosiu, A. Makinouchi, H. Takuda, Effect of Tool
Modeling Accuracy on Sheet Metal Forming Simulation. Key Engineering MaterialsVols. 340-341 (2007) 743-748.
[42] D.O. Brush, B.O. Almroth, Buckling of Bars, Plates, and Shells, McGraw-Hill, 1975.
[43] W. Flugge, Stress in Shells, 2
nd
Edition. Springer-Verlag. New York, 1973, pp. 362.
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
30/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
Figure 1. Shell mid-surface at reference timeot and current time t.
u
w
uw
e1
e2
Z
X
z
z
time t
R~ r
~
AN
a
n ds
dS time to
ure
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
31/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
(a)
(b)
Figure 2. (a) The assumed global coordinate system for the tube, (b) The rectangular
cross section of the tube is defined with 4 straight and 4 circular arc segments.
Figure 3. Geometry of a circular segment.
Arc
Segment
Straight
SegmentYBending
Surface
Y
Tube
Zc
Yc
Z
Y
X
z
R
t
u
w
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
32/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
Figure 4. The associated die segment with contact node.
Figure 5. The projection Algorithm.
Tube Segment
Die Segment
Ak
n
Bi-1Bi
Bi+1
O
P
B
Q
A
n
1
2
Die Segment
Tube Segment
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
33/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure 6. A schematic of tool-workpiece contact check; (a) shows the tube and the
tooling, (b) shows initial penetration of some of the contact nodes as internal pressure
increases from P0 to P1, (c) shows how those nodes are returned to the tooling surface,and finally (d) shows how the equilibrium shape is reached after several iterations.
P0 P1 P1 P1
Tooling SurfaceTube
Node on
The Tube
Symmetry Line
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
34/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
(a)
(b)
Figure 7. A 6111-T4 aluminum alloy tube was hydroformed with a maximum pressure of3040 psi into a square die, (a) deformed tube and its cross section, and (b) predicted
intermediate tube shapes compared with the actual tube cross section.
Actual
cross section
Actual
cross section
Actual
cross section
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
35/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
(a)
(b)Figure 8. A tube expanded into a symmetric square die,
(a) deformed tube shape, (b) strain distributions.
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
36/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
(a)
(b)Figure 9. A tube bent and then expanded into a symmetric square die,
(a) deformed tube shape, (b) strain distributions.
Page
8/9/2019 2007 - Fourier Series Based Finite Element Analysis of Tube Hydro Forming - Generalized Plane Strain Model
37/37
Ac
cepted
Manu
script
Table 1. Material properties of aluminum 6061-T4 tube
Material
Type
YoungsModulus
(psi)
Poisson
Ratio
YieldStress
(psi)
R-valueK-value
(psi)N-value 0
Aluminum6061-T4
1.03E+7 0.33 18,730 0.82 69,183 0.2646 0.0
Table 2. Predicted and measured strains at the maximum pressure of 3040 psi
Hoop StrainsAxial
Strains
FrictionCoefficient
0~10degree
10~20degree
20~30degree
30~45degree
=0.0 6.5%~12.1% 6.7%~6.8% 6.9%~7.2% 6.7%~7.0% -3.25%
=0.1 6.4%~6.8% 6.8%~7.1% 6.8%~7.1% 6.8%~7.3% -3.34%=0.3 6.3%~6.7% 6.7%~7.0% 6.7%~7.0% 6.7%~7.3% -3.25%
Experiment 7-11% 6-7% 6-7.5% 6-8% -3%
le
Recommended