0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Manufacturing, Materials, and Metallurgy

Prediction of Burst Pressure in Multistage Tube Hydroforming of Aerospace Alloys

[+] Author and Article Information
M. Saboori

National Research Council of Canada,
École de technologie supérieure,
Montréal, QC H3T 2B2, Canada

J. Gholipour, P. Wanjara

National Research Council of Canada,
Montréal, QC H3T 2B2, Canada

H. Champliaud

École de Technologie Supérieure,
Montréal, QC H3C 1K3, Canada

A. Gakwaya

Laval University,
Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada

J. Savoie

Pratt & Whitney Canada,
Longueuil, QC J4G 1A1, Canada

Contributed by the Manufacturing Materials and Metallurgy Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received October 3, 2015; final manuscript received November 30, 2015; published online March 8, 2016. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 138(8), 082101 (Mar 08, 2016) (5 pages) Paper No: GTP-15-1473; doi: 10.1115/1.4032437 History: Received October 03, 2015; Revised November 30, 2015

Bursting, an irreversible failure in tube hydroforming (THF), results mainly from the local plastic instabilities that occur when the biaxial stresses imparted during the process exceed the forming limit strains of the material. To predict the burst pressure, Oyan's and Brozzo's decoupled ductile fracture criteria (DFC) were implemented as user material models in a dynamic nonlinear commercial 3D finite-element (FE) software, ls-dyna. THF of a round to V-shape was selected as a generic representative of an aerospace component for the FE simulations and experimental trials. To validate the simulation results, THF experiments up to bursting were carried out using Inconel 718 (IN 718) tubes with a thickness of 0.9 mm to measure the internal pressures during the process. When comparing the experimental and simulation results, the burst pressure predicated based on Oyane's decoupled damage criterion was found to agree better with the measured data for IN 718 than Brozzo's fracture criterion.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Lou, Y. , Huh, H. , Lim, S. , and Pack, K. , 2012, “ New Ductile Fracture Criterion for Prediction of Fracture Forming Limit Diagrams of Sheet Metals,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 49(25), pp. 3605–3615. [CrossRef]
Lei, L. , Kang, B. , and Kang, S. , 2001, “ Prediction of the Forming Limit in Hydroforming Processes Using the Finite Element Method and a Ductile Fracture Criterion,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 113(1–3), pp. 673–679. [CrossRef]
Brozzo, P. , Deluca, B. , and Rendina, R. , 1972, “ A New Method for the Prediction of Formability Limits in Metal Sheets,” 7th Biennal Conference International Deep Drawing Research Group (IDDR), Amsterdam, Oct. 9–13.
Oyane, M. , Sato, T. , Okimoto, K. , and Shima, S. , 1980, “ Criteria for Ductile Fracture and Their Applications,” J. Mech. Work. Technol., 4(1), pp. 65–81. [CrossRef]
Lei, L. P. , Kim, J. , and Kang, B. S. , 2002, “ Bursting Failure Prediction in Tube Hydroforming Processes by Using Rigid–Plastic FEM Combined With Ductile Fracture Criterion,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 44(7), pp. 1411–1428. [CrossRef]
Han, H. N. , and Kim, K. H. , 2003, “ A Ductile Fracture Criterion in Sheet Metal Forming Process,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 142(1), pp. 231–238. [CrossRef]
Ozturk, F. , and Lee, D. , 2004, “ Analysis of Forming Limits Using Ductile Fracture Criteria,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 147(3), pp. 397–404. [CrossRef]
Liu, H. , Yang, Y. , Yu, Z. , Sun, Z. , and Wang, Y. , 2009, “ The Application of a Ductile Fracture Criterion to the Prediction of the Forming Limit of Sheet Metals,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 209(14), pp. 5443–5447. [CrossRef]
Chen, J. , Zhou, X. , and Chen, J. , 2010, “ Sheet Metal Forming Limit Prediction Based on Plastic Deformation Energy,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 210(2), pp. 315–322. [CrossRef]
Lei, L. P. , Kim, J. , Kang, S. J. , and Kang, B. S. , 2003, “ Rigid–Plastic Finite Element Analysis of Hydroforming Process and Its Applications,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 139(1–3), pp. 187–194. [CrossRef]
Kim, J. , Kim, Y. W. , Kang, B. S. , and Hwang, S. M. , 2004, “ Finite Element Analysis for Bursting Failure Prediction in Bulge Forming of a Seamed Tube,” Finite Elem. Anal. Des., 40(9–10), pp. 953–966. [CrossRef]
Song, W. J. , Kim, S. W. , Kim, J. , and Kang, B. S. , 2005, “ Analytical and Numerical Analysis of Bursting Failure Prediction in Tube Hydroforming,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 164–165, pp. 1618–1623. [CrossRef]
Simha, H. M. , Gholipour, J. , Bardelcik, A. , and Worswick, M. J. , 2006, “ Prediction of Necking in Tubular Hydroforming Using an Extended Stress-Based Forming Limit Curve,” ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol., 129(1), pp. 36–47. [CrossRef]
Saboori, M. , Gholipour, J. , Champliaud, H. , Gakwaya, A. , Savoie, J. , and Wanjara, P. , 2011, “ Prediction of Burst Pressure Using a Decoupled Ductile Fracture Criterion for Tube Hydroforming of Aerospace Alloys,” 14th International Conference on Material Forming (ESAFORM 2011), Belfast, UK, Apr. 27–29, pp. 301–306.
Cockcroft, M. , and Latham, D. , 1968, “ Ductility and the Workability of Metals,” J. Inst. Met., 96(1), pp. 33–39.
Oh, S. , Chen, C. , and Kobayashi, S. , 1979, “ Ductile Fracture in Axisymmetric Extrusion and Drawing-Part 2: Workability in Extrusion and Drawing,” J. Eng. Ind., 101(1), pp. 36–44. [CrossRef]
Luo, M. , and Wierzbicki, T. , 2010, “ Numerical Failure Analysis of a Stretch-Bending Test on Dual-Phase Steel Sheets Using a Phenomenological Fracture Model,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 47(22–23), pp. 3084–3102. [CrossRef]
Belytschko, T. , Lin, J. I. , and Chen-Shyh, T. , 1984, “ Explicit Algorithms for the Nonlinear Dynamics of Shell,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 42(2), pp. 225–251. [CrossRef]
Saboori, M. , Champliaud, H. , Gholipour, J. , Gakwaya, A. , Savoie, J. , and 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), pp. 1275–1286. [CrossRef]
Farimani, S. M. , Gholipour, J. , Champliaud, H. , Savoie, J. , and Wanjara, P. , 2014, “ Numerical and Experimental Study of Preforming Stage in Tube Hydroforming,” Key Eng. Mater., 611–612, pp. 1132–1138. [CrossRef]
Farimani, S. M. , Champliaud, H. , Gholipour, J. , Savoie, J. , and Wanjara, P. , 2013, “ Numerical and Experimental Study of Tube Hydroforming for Aerospace Applications,” Key Eng. Mater., 554–557, pp. 1779–1786. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

FE model of the dome height test along with the undeformed and deformed shapes of the IN 718 specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

FE model of the preforming process (a) initial stage and (b) final stage

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

FE model of the THF process (a) initial and (b) final stages

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Flowchart used for predicting the burst pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of burst tube obtained from experiment and simulation using (a) Brozzo's and (b) Oyane's damage criteria for 0.9 mm thick IN 718

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In