Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 50245034

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Materials Processing Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmatprotec

Forming limit diagrams of tubular materials by bulge tests

Yeong-Maw Hwang , Yi-Kai Lin, Han-Chieh Chuang
Department of Mechanical and Electro-Mechanical Engineering, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung 804, Taiwan

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 6 August 2008
Received in revised form 27 January 2009
Accepted 31 January 2009
Keywords:
Tube hydroforming
Forming limit diagram
Plastic instability criteria
Bulge tests
Tensile tests

a b s t r a c t
This study uses bulge tests to establish the forming limit diagram (FLD) of tubular material AA6011. A selfdesigned bulge forming apparatus of xed bulge length and a hydraulic test machine with axial feeding
are used to carry out the bulge tests. Loading paths corresponding to the strain paths with a constant
strain ratio at the pole of the bulging tube are determined by FE simulations linked with a self-compiled
subroutine and are used to control the internal pressure and axial feeding punch of the test machine.
After bulge tests, the major and minor strains of the grids beside the bursting line on the tube surface
are measured to construct the forming limit diagram of the tubes. Furthermore, Swifts diffused necking
criterion and Hills localized necking criterion associated with Hills non-quadratic yield function are
adopted to derive the critical principal strains at the onset of plastic instability. The critical major and
minor strains are plotted to construct the forming limit curve (FLC). The effects of the exponent in the
Hills non-quadratic yield function and the normal anisotropy of the material on the yield locus and
FLC are discussed. Tensile tests are used to determine the anisotropic values in different directions with
respect to the tube axis and the K and n values of the ow stress of the tubular material. The analytical
FLCs using the n values obtained by tensile tests and bulge tests are compared with the forming limits
from the forming limit experiments.
2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Due to increasing demands for lightweight parts, hydroforming
processes have been widely used to manufacture parts in various
elds, such as automobile, aircraft, aerospace, and ship building
industries (Dohmann and Hartl, 1996). Concerning studies of tube
and pipe hydroforming processes, Ahmetoglu et al. (2000) have
carried out a series of simulations and experiments on tube formability tests. Dohmann and Hartl (1996) have also investigated tube
hydroforming processes, including the manufacturing of axisymmetric parts and T-shaped parts by expansion and feeding. Asna
and Skogsgardh (2000) proposed a mathematical model to predict
the forming pressure and the associated feeding distance needed to
hydroform a circular tube into a T-shape product without wrinkling
and bursting.
During tube hydroforming, several forming parameters, including the loading path, material properties, die design, and friction
at the tubedie interface, signicantly inuence the results. For
example, Ahmed and Hashmi (1997) proposed a theoretical method
to estimate the forming parameters required for hydraulic bulge
forming of tubular components; in particular, they studied the factors of internal pressure, axial load and clamping load. Sokolowski

Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 7 5252000x4233; fax: +886 7 5254299.

E-mail address: ymhwang@mail.nsysu.edu.tw (Y.-M. Hwang).
0924-0136/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2009.01.026

et al. (2000) proposed a tooling and experimental apparatus to

determine the material properties of tubes. Vollertsen and Plancak
(2002) proposed a principle for the measurement of the coefcient
of friction in the forming zone. Lei et al. (2002) used the rigid-plastic
nite element method combined with a ductile fracture criterion to
evaluate the forming limit of hydroforming processes. The present
authors (Hwang and Lin, 2006) proposed a mathematical model
considering the forming tube as an ellipsoidal surface for the purpose of analyzing the forming pressure and maximum bulge height.
The properties of tubular materials were additionally evaluated by
hydraulic bulge tests combined with the above-proposed analytical
model (Hwang and Lin, 2007).
The forming limit diagram (FLD) of tubular materials ought to
be established, because it directly inuences the formability of the
hydraulic forming processes. A few studies concerning the loading
paths or the forming limit of tubes and sheets have been reported.
For example, Tirosh et al. (1996) explored an optimized loading
path for maximizing the bulge strain between necking and buckling
experimentally with aluminum A5052 tubes. Zhao et al. (1996) discussed analytically and experimentally the effects of the strain rate
sensitivity of the sheet material on the FLD in sheet metal forming based on the MK model and GrafHosford anisotropic yield
function. They found that FLDs with different pre-strains are significantly inuenced by the straining paths. However, the converted
forming limit stress diagrams (FLSD) appear not to be strongly
inuenced by the straining paths. Xing and Makinouchi (2001)

Y.-M. Hwang et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 50245034

Nomenclature
A
Fd
F
g
K
L
m
n
P1 , P2
Pi
r
R0
t0
Wp
Zd
Zl

cross-sectional area
feeding distance of the hydraulic cylinder punch
yield function
plastic potential function
strength coefcient of the material
material length
exponent of the yield function
strain-hardening exponent of the material
forming loads in principal directions
internal pressure
normal anisotropy of the material
initial tube outer radius
initial thickness of the tube
plastic work
subtangent of the stressstrain curve for diffused
necking
subtangent of the stressstrain curve for localized
necking

Greek symbols
 1 ,  2 ,  3 principal stresses
1 , 2 , 3 principal strains
,

effective stress and effective strain

principal stress ratio ( 2 / 1 )


principal strain ratio (2 /1 )
cd
critical effective strain for diffused necking
cl
critical effective strain for localized necking
1c ,2c
critical major and minor principal strains for forming limit

investigated the differences in forming limits of tubes under internal pressure, independent axial load or torque based on Yamadas
plastic instability criteria and Hills quadratic yield function. The
above theory coupled with an in-house nite element code ITAS3d
was used to control the material ow and to prevent the nal failure modes from occurring. Nefussi and Combescure (2002) used
Swifts criteria for sheets and tubes and took into account the buckling induced by axial loading in order to predict plastic instability for
tube hydroforming. They concluded that the two Swifts criteria are
applicable to predict necking and that a special attention has to be
paid to plastic buckling, because the critical strains corresponding
to buckling are much smaller than the critical strains predicted by
the necking criteria. However, experiments are required to validate
their theoretical results. Yoshida and Kuwabara (2007) discussed
the FLD of steel tubes subjected to a combined axial load and
internal pressure. They proposed a FLSD, and concluded that the
forming limit stress of the steel tube is not fully path-independent
and that the path dependence of forming limit stress is strongly
affected by the strain hardening behavior of the material for given
loading paths. Korkolis and Kyriakides (2008) investigated the performance of Hosford and Karallis-Boyce non-quadratic anisotropic
yield functions in predicting the response and bursting of tubes
loaded under combined internal pressure and axial load. They concluded that the predicted structural responses are generally, but
not universally, in good agreement with the experimental results,
while the predicted strains at the onset of rupture are somewhat
larger than the values measured. So far, a consistent conclusion for
forming limit theorems of tubular materials has not been established and the forming limit diagram for AA6011 tubes has not been
found.
In this paper, hydraulic forming machines are developed. Experiments of bulge tests with and without axial feeding are carried

5025

out. Loading paths, which correspond to the strain paths with constant strain ratios at the pole of the forming tube, are determined
by LS-DYNA software linked with a self-compiled subroutine
and are used to control the internal pressure and axial feeding in the forming limit experiments. Swifts diffused necking
criterion and Hills localized necking criterion are also used to
predict the forming limit curves of the tubes. The experimentally obtained forming limits are compared with analytically
obtained FLCs using different n values by tensile tests and bulge
tests.
2. Formulation of plastic instability criteria
Swifts diffused necking criterion (Swift, 1952) for thin sheets
and Hills localized necking criterion (Hill, 1952) associated with the
Hills non-quadratic yield function (Hill, 1979) are used to construct
the FLC for the bi-axial tensile strain zone and tensilecompressive
strain zone, respectively. Throughout the analysis of plastic instability, the following are assumed:
(1) The elastic deformation of the material is neglected;
(2) The stress state of the tubes is planar; and
(3) The principal stress ratio at the pole of the forming tube is
constant during the bulge tests.
The subtangents of the stressstrain curve, Zd , and Zl , as diffused necking and localized necking occur, respectively, are given
as below,
d

=
,
Zd
d

(1)

d

= ,
Z
d

(2)

Zd =

1 (g/1 ) + 2 (g/2 )

1 g/1
Zl =

2

+ 2 g/2

dg/d
(g/1 ) + (g/2 )

2


dg
,
d

(3)

(4)

where  and are the effective stress and effective strain, respectively. g is the plastic potential function. The physical meaning of
subtangents Zd and Zl is shown in Fig. 1. It is clear that Z increases
as the strain at necking increases. For the detailed derivation of Zd
and Zl , please refer to appendixes A1 and A2.
For consideration of the effects of normal anisotropy of the
material, the Hills non-quadratic yield function (Hill, 1979) is used
to derive the critical strains for diffused necking and localized
necking. At rst, let the plastic potential function equal the Hills

Fig. 1. Schematic gure of the subtangent of a stress strain curve as necking occurs.

5026

Y.-M. Hwang et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 50245034

non-quadratic yield function with a plane stress state:

g =  m =



1
(1 + 2r)|1 2 |m + |1 + 2 |m
2(1 + r)

(5)

increment as below.
2
d1 =
[2(1 + r)]1/m

where m is the exponent of the yield function and r the normal

anisotropy of the material. Then, substituting Eq. (5) into Eqs. (3)
and (4), the subtangents for diffused necking and localized necking,
respectively, are expressed as

Zd = [2(1 + r)]

1/m

m1

(1 + 2r)(1 )1 


(m1)/m



1 + m/(m1) + (1/1 + 2r)1/(m1) 1 m/(m1)
(15)

m1

+ (1 + )1 + 



(1 + ) (1 + 2r)2 1 2m2 + 1 + 2m2 + 2(1 + 2r)(1 )1 2 m1

m (m1)/m

(1 + 2r)1  + 1 + 

Z=

[2(1 + r)]

1/m


m 
m (m1)/m
(1 + 2r)1  + 1 + 

m1
21 + 

(6)

(7)

where is the principal stress ratio ( =  2 / 1 ).

Let the effective stress of the material be expressed by a power
law of its equivalent strain:
 = K n ,

cd = nZd , cl = nZl .

(9)

From the ow rule (Chen and Han, 1995),



g
m
d1 =
d =
(1 + 2r)|1 2 |m1 + |1 + 2 |m1 d
2(1 + r)
1
(10)


g
m
d =
(1 + 2r)|1 2 |m1 + |1 + 2 |m1 d
2(1 + r)
2
(11)

where d is a positive scalar factor of proportionality. The principal

strain increment ratio can be obtained as

m1

m1

+ 1 + 
(1 + 2r)1 
d2
=
=



m1
m1
d1
(1 + 2r)1 
+ 1 + 

(12)


1/(m1) 
1/(m1)
(1 + 2r) 1 +  
1  
= 

1/(m1) 
1/(m1)
(1 + 2r) 1 +  
+ 1  


(13)

From the plastic work increment dWp = ij dij = d

, it follows
that

1 d1 + 2 d2

[2(1 + r)]1/m ((1 + )/(1 ))(d1 + d2 ) + (d1 d2 )

m 1/m


2 (1 + 2r) +  1+
1

2
[2(1 + r)]1/m


(m1)/m



1 + m/(m1) + (1/1 + 2r)1/(m1) 1 m/(m1)
2

[2(1 + r)]1/m

nZ


(m1)/m



1 + m/(m1) + (1/1 + 2r)1/(m1) 1 m/(m1)
(16)

where Z is equal to Zd and Zl , as given in Eqs. (6) and (7), for diffused necking and localized necking, respectively. The critical minor
principal strain can be obtained from 2c = 1c . A ow chart for
determining the forming limit strains is shown in Fig. 2. At rst,
the exponent of the yield function, m, the strain-hardening exponent, n, and the normal anisotropy, r, of the material are input. After
the strain ratio  is given, the stress ratio can be calculated by Eq.
(13). If  > 0, diffused necking criterion is used. Otherwise, localized
necking criterion is used. The critical major strains corresponding
to different strain ratios can be obtained by Eq. (16). Finally, the
forming limit curve can be constructed using the obtained critical
strain pairs (2c , 1c ) for 1 >  > 0.5.
3. Analytical results and discussion

After arrangement of the above equation, the stress ratio can be

obtained as

d =

1c =

(8)

where K and n are the strength coefcient and strain-hardening

exponent, respectively, of the material. Substituting Eq. (8) into Eqs.
(1) and (2), the critical effective strains for diffused necking and
localized necking can be obtained respectively as

d2 =

During the forming process the stress ratio is assumed to be

constant; accordingly, the strain increment ratio, , equal to the
strain ratio is a constant. The forming limit for the major principal
strain 1c can be obtained by integration on both sides of Eq. (15),
as given below:

(14)

After combining with Eqs. (10) and (11), the major principal strain
increment can be expressed as a function of the effective strain

Fig. 3(a) and (b) shows the effects of the exponent of the yield
function, m, on the yield locus and the forming limit curve, respectively, using Hills non-quadratic yield function with r = 0.5 and
n = 0.3. The region for stress ratios ( =  2 / 1 ) from 0.5 to 0 in the
yield locus gure corresponds to that for strain ratios ( = 2 /1 )
from 0 to 0.5 in FLC gure. Combining Eqs. (7) and (13), the critical strain from Eq. (16) turns out to be independent of m value,
whereas using Eqs. (6) and (13), Eq. (16) is not independent of m,
as shown in Fig. 3(b).
Fig. 4(a) and (b) shows the effects of the normal anisotropy of the
material, r, on the yield locus and the forming limit curve, respectively, using Hills non-quadratic yield function with m = 2.0 and
n = 0.3. From Fig. 4(a), it is known that a larger r value makes the
material more difcult to yield. Accordingly, a larger r value can
raise the forming limit curve in the tensiletensile strain region
as shown in Fig. 4(b). In the tensilecompressive strain region, the

Y.-M. Hwang et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 50245034

5027

Fig. 2. Flow chart for determining the critical major and minor principal strains.

forming limit curves are not inuenced by the r value. It seems that
the forming limit curves in the tensilecompressive strain region
using Hills localized necking criterion are not inuenced by the m
and r values in the Hills non-quadratic yield function.
Fig. 5 shows the effects of the strain-hardening exponent of
the tube material, n, on the forming limit curves using Hills nonquadratic yield function with m = 1.4 and r = 0.5. It is apparent that
the forming limit curves are inuenced signicantly by the n value.
A material with a larger n value undergoes larger plastic deformation before necking occurs, accordingly a larger n value raises the
forming limit curves.
4. Determination of ow stresses and anisotropic values of
tubular materials
4.1. Tensile tests of tubes
Tensile tests are conducted to obtain the stressstrain curve and
the anisotropic values of AA6011 tubes. Specimens in the longitudinal (or axial) direction of the tube for the tensile test are cut
directly from the tube with an ASTM standard dimension. Specimens in the circumferential and 45 directions to the tube axis for
the tensile test are cut from a attened tube. The attened tubes
were annealed before the tensile tests to eliminate the residual
stress resulted from the bending operation. The annealing condition is exactly the same as that used in the heat treatment of the
tubes for bulge tests to get almost the same material properties for
the specimens and tubes. The tensile test was conducted under a
constant strain rate of 2 103 s1 at the room temperature using
an INSTRON universal testing machine. After the tensile tests, the
recorded tensile forces and specimens elongations were converted
into true stresses and true strains, respectively. Three specimens
were tested for each test condition to check the repeatability of the
results. Quite good agreement was found.
Anisotropy is caused by preferred orientations or textures of
grains due to manufacturing processes. The anisotropic r values

Fig. 3. Effects of the m value on the yield locus and forming limit curve with Hills
non-quadratic yield function.

in different directions are used to denote the extent of anisotropy

of the materials. The normal strains in the width and thickness
directions, w and t , during the tensile test in the axial, 45 , and
circumferential directions of AA6011 tubes are shown in Fig. 6.
Anisotropic r values are the ratio of the strain in the width direction
to that in the thickness direction. Thus, r values can be obtained by
calculating the slope of a straight line that best ts the strain data
in Fig. 6. From Fig. 6, it is known that the anisotropic values in the
axial and circumferential directions are r0 = 0.466 and r90 = 0.497.
The anisotropic value in 45 to the tube axis by tensile tests is 0.666.
The normal anisotropy r value used in the Hills non-quadratic yield
function can be obtained as r = (r0 + 2r45 + r90 )/4 = 0.574.
Fig. 7 shows the effective stresseffective strain curves considering isotropic and anisotropic effects by the tensile tests in the axial
and circumferential directions. If isotropy of the material is considered, the effective stress  and effective strain , are equivalent to
the axial stress and axial strain in the tensile test,  0 and 0 , respectively. However, if the anisotropic effect of the material is taken into
account, the effective stress  and effective strain are no longer

5028

Y.-M. Hwang et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 50245034

Fig. 5. Effects of the n value on the forming limit curve with Hills non-quadratic
yield function.

4.2. Bulge tests of tubes

Fig. 4. Effects of the r value on the yield locus and forming limit curve with Hills
non-quadratic yield function.

The yield locus and the effective stress under a biaxial stress
state are usually different from those under a uniaxial stress state.
Thus, Koc et al. (2001), and Strano and Altan (2004) proposed different methods by bulge tests to determine the ow stress curves
of low carbon steel and stainless steel tubes. In this section, bulge
tests are conducted to determine the ow stress of AA6011 tubes.
A self-designed experimental apparatus composed of a tool set, a
hydraulic power system, and a pressure intensier is used to conduct the bulge tests. Fig. 8 shows the schematic diagram of the tool
set, in which the upper and lower plates and the container are xed
together by large bolts on each plate. These bolts carry the loads
normally from the hydraulic pressure. The upper and lower xing dies are used to hold the upper and lower die inserts by the
bolts. In this way, bulge tests for different tube diameters can be
conducted easily by simply changing the die inserts with different

equal to  0 and 0 , respectively. The effective stress and effective

strain can be obtained in terms of r0 , r90 ,  0 and 0 as given below
(Hwang and Lin, 2007).

 

 =

3
2

 
=

2
3

1 + (1/r0 )
(1/r90 ) + 1 + (1/r0 )

(1/r90 ) + 1 + (1/r0 )
1 + (1/r0 )

1/2
0

(17)

(18)

1/2

where  0 and 0 are the axial stress and axial strain in the tensile
tests, respectively. Eqs. (17) and (18) are adopted when plotting the
 curve with consideration of the anisotropic effect of materials. If the ow stress is represented by a power law of its equivalent
strain,  = K n , the strength coefcient K and the strain-hardening
exponent n can be obtained using the least-squares method. The
K and n values for isotropy are 304.9 MPa and 0.308, respectively, and those for anisotropy are 287 MPa and 0.308, respectively.
Clearly, the n values for the ow stresses considering isotropic and
anisotropic effects from the tensile tests are approximately identical.

Fig. 6. Strain relationships of AA6011 tubes by tensile tests.

Y.-M. Hwang et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 50245034

Fig. 7. Effective stresseffective strain curves considering isotropy and anisotropy.

entry radii. In the bulge test, a urethane ring is used to clamp each
end of the tube. A pressure transducer connected to a digital display
is used to measure the forming pressure. The bulge height during
the bulge test can be read from a dial-gauge through a transmission rod, as shown in Fig. 8. After bulging to a certain height level,
the tube is taken out of the tool set and the wall thickness at the
pole of the tube is measured by a dial-gauge combined with a selfdesigned mechanism. A tailored mechanism is required because an
ordinary dial-gauge cannot reach the central part of a long tube.
Furthermore, it is difcult to measure the thickness at a curved surface with an ordinary dial-gauge. A micrometer is used to measure
the bulged diameter of the tube at the pole. The initial diameter
and thickness of the aluminum tubes are 51.91 mm and 1.86 mm,

5029

Fig. 9. Stressstrain curves of AA6011 with bulge tests and tensile tests.

respectively. The die entry radius and bulge length for the bulge test
are 15 mm and 60 mm, respectively. During bulge tests, ve levels
of the bulge height are scheduled and the corresponding forming
pressure and the wall thickness at the pole are recorded. Once the
above experimental data are obtained, the effective stress and effective strain for each level can be determined using a self-developed
model. The stressstrain values of the tubular material AA6011 by
bulge tests is shown in Fig. 9. The strength coefcient K and the
strain-hardening exponent n in the ow stress equation  = K n
obtained using the least-squares method are 254.9 MPa and 0.265,
respectively (Hwang et al., 2007a).
5. Experiments for construction of forming limit diagrams
Before bulge tests, the tubes of AA6011 aluminum alloy are
200 mm long, 1.86 mm thick, and 51.91 mm in outer diameter. They
are annealed at 410 C with a holding time of 2 h. Additionally, for
the tubes used for the forming limit experiments, circular grids with
a diameter of 5 mm and an internal spacing of 1 mm are electrochemically etched on the tube surface before the experiments.
A bulge test apparatus with a xed bulge length without axial
feeding as shown in Fig. 8 is used to implement the forming limit
experiments to obtain the strain path on right side of the forming
limit diagram and a newly developed hydroforming test machine
with axial feeding is used to conduct the experiments to obtain the
strain path on the left side of the forming limit diagram, in which
tensile and compressive strains occur.
5.1. Hydraulic test machine

Fig. 8. Schematic diagram of the experimental apparatus for bulge tests without
axial feeding.

A hydroforming test machine with axial feeding is newly

designed by the present authors to conduct the experiments for
the left-side data in the forming limit diagram. This test machine
consists of three main parts: a platform or foundation for supporting the tooling; a hydraulic power system for providing the pressure
source of the internal pressure and the feeding punches; and a PCbased control system. The test machine can operate with internal
pressure up to 70 MPa and axial force up to 24 tons; this limit is sufcient for hydraulically forming aluminum, copper and low-carbon
steel tubes. Fig. 10 shows a schematic diagram of the platform and
the tooling set. For the details of this test machine, please refer to
Hwang et al. (2007b).

5030

Y.-M. Hwang et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 50245034

Fig. 10. Schematic diagram of the platform and tooling set of the test machine for bulge tests with axial feeding.

5.2. Determination of loading paths by FE-simulations

During the forming limit experiments, the strain ratio at the
pole of the forming tube has to be kept as a constant value. The
loading path or the relationship between the internal pressure and
axial feeding distance that can generate a constant strain ratio
path is determined using an explicit and dynamic nite element
code DYNA 3D linked with a self-compiled subroutine, because this
software is easy to link a subroutine to control the axial feeding
increment.
During the simulations, the die is assumed to be rigid. An elastoplastic material model with strain hardening for the tube is used.
The loading path or the internal pressure is more signicantly inuenced by the strain hardening (n value) of the ow stress than
the anisotropy (r value) of the material, just as the tendency in
the forming limit diagrams shown in Figs. 5 and 4(b), respectively.
Accordingly, von-Mises yield function considering strain hardening is adopted in DYNA 3D. Due to symmetry, only one half of the
objects are adopted for the simulations. An axial feeding velocity
is imposed on the nodes of the elements at the end of the tube
and an internal pressure is imposed on the center of the four-node
shell elements for the boundary conditions. Friction tests using various lubricants have been conducted by one of the present authors
(Hwang and Huang, 2005). The friction coefcients obtained at
the guiding zone during hydroforming are about 0.030.09. Therefore, a constant friction coefcient of 0.05 is assumed at the
interface between the tube and the die during the nite element
simulations.
A ow chart for determining an adequate loading path for strain
ratio of  = 0.1 is shown in Fig. 11. At rst, the initial forming conditions are input. Then, an internal pressure increment is set. For the
xed pressure, a feeding distance and an increment are set. After
running the simulation with DYNA 3D, the strains in the circumferential and meridian directions and the strain ratio at the pole
of the bulging tube can be obtained. If the strain ratio is between
0.1 0.01, the program goes through to the next internal pressure.
Otherwise, the program adjusts the feeding distance increment
until the requirement is satised. The calculation is iterated until
an internal pressure of 15 MPa is reached, which pressure is large
enough to make busting occur.
Four different strain paths with accompanying strain ratios of
 = 0.1 to 0.4 obtained using the ow chart in Fig. 11 are shown
in Fig. 12. The corresponding loading paths to the four strain paths
to be used to control the internal pressure and the feeding distance
in the forming limit experiments are shown in Fig. 13. From Fig. 13,
it is clear that the slope of the feeding distance to the internal pres-

sure increases with increasing the absolute value of the strain ratio
.
5.3. Forming limit experiments
A PC-based control system is used to control the forming pressure and the left and right axial feeding distances of the test

Fig. 11. Flow chart for determining an adequate loading path for strain ratio of
 = 0.1.

Y.-M. Hwang et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 50245034

5031

Fig. 12. Strain paths with different strain ratios for construction of the forming limit
diagram.

machine according to the loading paths shown in Fig. 13. The actual
responses of the forming pressures and axial feeding distances during the forming limit experiments (bulge tests with axial feeding)
for different strain ratios, = 0.1 and 0.2, are shown in Fig. 14(a)
and (b), respectively. Solid symbols () and () are the prescribed
loading paths for the feeding distance and forming pressure, respectively. Hollow symbols, (), () and (), are the actual loading paths
for the left and right axial feeding distances and forming pressure,
respectively. It is clear that the left and right axial feeding punches
moved with the same speed. Generally speaking, the actual internal pressure and the axial feeding distances faithfully followed the
prescribed loading paths. The moment when the pressure drops
implies that bursting of the tube occurs. The bursting pressure

Fig. 14. Loading paths in the forming limit experiments: (a)  = 0.1, (b)  = 0.2.

Fig. 13. Loading paths for the test machine corresponding to different strain paths
with constant strain ratios.

decreases slightly with the increase of the absolute value of the

strain ratio. In Fig. 14(b), there is a small drop right prior to bursting
of the tube. It is probably because of an abrupt change of the thickness at the thinnest part, which results in an abrupt change of the
volume inside the tube and leads to an abrupt drop of the internal
pressure.
The results of the products after bulge tests with axial feeding
for different strain ratios,  = 0.1 to 0.4, are shown in Fig. 15. It
is known that cracks or bursting lines occur around the pole of
the bulged tubes and the maximum bulge height increases with
the increase of the absolute value of the strain ratio . A threedimensional image processing system is used to measure the major
and minor strains of the deformed grids. After the bulge tests, the
measured major and minor strains on the tube surface are used to
construct the forming limit diagram to be discussed in the following
section.

5032

Y.-M. Hwang et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 50245034

Fig. 15. Results of the formed product for different strain paths.

6. Construction of forming limit diagrams and forming

limit curves
In Section 2 of this paper, an analytical model combining Swift
and Hills instability criteria is proposed, which is used to predict
the critical strains in the forming limit diagram. A ow chart for
determining the forming limit strains is shown in Fig. 2. In Section
5.2, the loading paths that can generate strain paths with a constant strain ratio at the pole of the forming tube are determined. A
ow chart for determining adequate axial feeding distances in the
loading path using DYNA 3D linked with a self-compiled subroutine is shown in Fig. 11. The loading paths corresponding to the
strain paths with different constant strain ratios obtained using
the ow chart in Fig. 11 are shown in Fig. 13. In Section 5.3, forming limit experiments are carried out using the loading paths in
Fig. 13 to insure the plastic deformation of the tube with a constant strain ratio at its pole. In this section, the forming limit
curves obtained from the analytical models and the forming limit
strains obtained from the forming limit experiments are compared
below.
From the experimental data and the analytical results, the FLD
and forming limit curves (FLC) of AA6011 tubes are constructed
as shown in Fig. 16. The strain paths at the pole of the forming
tube for different strain ratios are also shown in the gure. The four
strain paths indicated by  = 0.1 to 0.4 in Fig. 16 are obtained from
DYNA 3D according to the ow chart shown in Fig. 11. Apparently,
the deformation at the pole of the forming tube is nearly under a
constant strain ratio during the bulge forming process. The strain
path for no feeding is obtained by DEFORM 2D, an implicit and
static nite element code suitable for simulations of large deformation. During simulations, a rigid-plastic material model considering
strain hardening obtained from bulge tests is used. Symbols () and
() represent the major and minor principal strains of the mesh
where the bursting line passes by and passes through, respectively.
From the gure, it is known that the actually obtained strains for different strain ratios are close to the corresponding prescribed strain
paths and it could be said that the simulation results by DYNA 3D
are acceptable. For bulge tests without axial feeding, the strain path
at the early stage of the bulge tests is close to the plane strain state.
That implies that the stress in the hoop direction is approximately
double the stress in the axial direction. As the bulge test proceeds,
the strain ratio of the strain path at the pole increases slightly.
 = 0.5 and 1 shown in Fig. 16 represent strain paths with uniaxial and equal biaxial stress states, respectively. The n value of the
ow stress obtained from the tensile tests is used to construct the
FLC of AA6011 tubes. From Eq. (16), it is known that the critical

Fig. 16. Experimental forming limit diagram of tubes and predicted forming limit
curves.

major strain is proportional to the n value. The subtangent for the

localized necking criterion, given in Eq. (7), combined with Eq. (16)
is used to construct the left part of the FLC, whereas that for the
diffused necking criterion, given in Eq. (6), together with Eq. (16)
is used to construct the right part. The exponent of the yield function, m, for aluminum alloys is usually between 1.38 and 1.47 (Hill,
1979), thus, m = 1.4 is adopted during constructing the FLC. The normal anisotropy of the material, r, obtained from the tensile testes is
0.574. The dashed and solid lines represent the FLC using n values
from the tensile tests (n = 0.308) and bulge tests (n = 0.265). From
the comparison, it is known that the theoretical FLC from Swifts
diffused necking and Hills localized necking criteria using the n
value from the tensile tests overestimates the real forming limits. It
is clear that the FLC using the n value from the bulge tests is closer
to the forming limits from the forming limit experiments than that
using the n value from the tensile tests.
7. Conclusions
The actual loading paths implemented by the hydraulic machine
with axial feeding followed faithfully the prescribed ones that correspond to the strain paths with a constant strain ratio at the pole
of the forming tube. A forming limit diagram from forming limit
experiments was successfully constructed using an experimental
apparatus with xed bulge length and a test machine with axial
feeding. Analytical forming limit curves were also constructed using
Swifts diffused and Hills localized necking criteria associated with
Hills non-quadratic yield function. The predicted FLC using the
value for n obtained by bulge tests is in better agreement with the
experimental forming limits. Therefore, the bulge test of AA6011
tubes is recommended to obtain the ow stress which is used to
predict the FLCs of tubular materials effectively adopting Swifts
diffused and Hills localized necking criteria associated with the
Hills non-quadratic yield function.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to extend their thanks to the National
Science Council of the Republic of China under Grant no. NSC 932212-E110-002. The advice and nancial support of NSC are greatly
acknowledged.

Y.-M. Hwang et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 50245034

5033

Appendix A. A1: Swifts diffused necking criterion

Appendix B. A2: Hills localized necking criterion

The plastic potential function g( 1 ,  2 ,  3 ) describes the

relationship among the three principal stresses during plastic deformation. The yield function F(Wp ) can be expressed in terms of the
plastic work Wp . The associated ow rule (Chen and Han, 1995) is
postulated, which means that the yield function F and the plastic
potential function g coincide:

Hills localized necking criterion is usually used to construct the

FLC in the tensilecompressive strain zone. At the onset of localized
necking, there is no normal strain increment along a direction and
the following equation must hold (Hill, 1952):

g = F(Wp ).

(A1)

The plastic potential function increment, dg, for a plane stress

state can be expressed as
dg =

g
g
d1 +
d2
1
2

(A2)

where  1 and  2 are the two principal stresses of the biaxial stress
state. The yield function increment, dF, can be expressed as
dF = F  (Wp )dWp = F  (Wp )(1 d1 + 2 d2 )

(A3)

d2
d1
=
= d3
1
2

(A13)

From volume constancy,

d1 = 1 (d1 + d2 ) ,

d2 = 2 (d1 + d2 )

Substituting the above equations into Eq. (A4),

(d1 + d2 )

1

g
g
+ 2
1
2

= F  (Wp )(1 d1 + 2 d2 )

g
g
d1 +
d2 = F  (Wp )(1 d1 + 2 d2 )
1
2

(A4)

Zl =

dg/d
(g/1 ) + (g/2 )

Diffused necking occurs when the loading reaches the maximum

(Swift, 1952), i.e.,

where Zl is the subtangent for localized necking.

dP1 = d(1 A1 ) = 1 dA1 + A1 d1 = 0,

References

dP2 = d(2 A2 ) = 2 dA + A2 d2 = 0

(A5)

From volume constancy (dA/A) = (dL/L) = d, then, Eq. (A5)

becomes
d1 = 1 d1 ,

d2 = 2 d2

(A6)

From the plastic ow rule (Chen and Han, 1995),

d1 =

g
d,
1

d2 =

g
d
2

(A7)

where d is a positive scalar factor of proportionality. Substituting

Eqs. (A6) and (A7) into Eq. (A4) gives


1

g
1

2


+ 2

g
2

2




= F (Wp )

g
g
1
+ 2
1
2


(A8)

The plastic potential function can be expressed as a function of

the effective stress, i.e., g ()
= F(Wp ). Differentiating with respect
to the effective stress yields
dF(Wp )
dF(Wp ) dWp
dWp
dg ()

=
=
= F  (Wp )
d
d
dWp d
d

(A9)

Since dWp =  d, Eq. (A9) becomes

F  (Wp ) =

1 dg d
.
 d d

(A10)

Substituting Eq. (A10) into Eq. (A8) gives

d

=
,
Zd
d

Zd =

(A11)

1 (g/1 ) + 2 (g/2 )
2

1 (g/1 ) + 2 (g/2 )

dg
,
d

(A12)

where  and are the effective stress and effective strain, respectively. Zd is the so-called subtangent of the stressstrain curve as
diffused necking occurs.

(A15)

Substituting Eqs. (A7) and (A10) into the above equation,

d

= ,
Z
d

Due to equality of dg and dF, it follows that

(A14)

(A16)
(A17)

Ahmed, M., Hashmi, M.S.J., 1997. Estimation of machine parameters for hydraulic
bulge forming of tubular components. J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 64, 923.
Ahmetoglu, M., Sutter, K., Li, X.J., Altan, T., 2000. Tube hydroforming: current
research, applications and need for training. J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 98, 224
231.
Asna, N., Skogsgardh, A., 2000. Theoretical and experimental analysis of strokecontrolled tube hydroforming. J. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 279, 95110.
Chen, W.F., Han, D.J., 1995. Plasticity for Structural Enginners. Gau Lih Book Co., Taipei,
Taiwan, pp. 181189.
Dohmann, F., Hartl, Ch., 1996. Hydroforminga method to manufacture light-weight
parts. J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 60, 669676.
Hill, R., 1952. On discontinuous plastic states, with special reference of localized
necking in thin sheets. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 1, 1930.
Hill, R., 1979. Theoretical plasticity of textured aggregates. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, p. 17.
Hwang, Y.M., Huang, L.S., 2005. Friction tests in tube hydroforming. Proc. Inst. Mech.
Eng. B: J. Eng. Manufact. 219, 587594.
Hwang, Y.M., Lin, Y.K., 2006. Analysis of tube bulge forming in an open die considering anisotropic effects of the tubular material. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manufact. 46,
19211928.
Hwang, Y.M., Lin, Y.K., 2007. Evaluation of ow stresses of tubular materials considering anisotropic effects by hydraulic bulge tests. Tran. ASME, J. Eng. Mater.
Technol. 129, 414421.
Hwang, Y.M., Lin, Y.K., Altan, T., 2007a. Evaluation of tubular materials by a hydraulic
bulge test. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manufact. 47, 343351.
Hwang, Y.M., Lin, T.C., Chang, W.C., 2007b. Experiments on T-shape hydroforming
with counter punch. J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 192193, 243248.
Korkolis, Y.P., Kyriakides, S., 2008. Ination and burst of anisotropic aluminum tubes
for hydroforming applications. Int. J. Plasticity 24, 509543.
Koc, M., Aue-u-lan, Y., Altan, T., 2001. On the characteristics of tubular materials for
hydroformingexperimentation and analysis. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manufact. 41,
761772.
Lei, L.P., Kim, J., Kang, B.S., 2002. Bursting failure prediction in tube hydroforming
processes by using rigidplastic FEM combined with ductile fracture criterion.
Int. J. Mech. Sci. 44, 14111428.
Nefussi, G., Combescure, A., 2002. Coupled buckling and plastic instability for tube
hydroforming. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 44, 899914.
Sokolowski, T., Gerke, K., Ahmetoglu, M., Altan, T., 2000. Evaluation of tube formability and material characteristics: hydraulic bulge testing of tubes. J. Mater. Proc.
Technol. 98, 3440.
Strano, M., Altan, T., 2004. An inverse energy approach to determine the ow stress
of tubular materials for hydroforming applications. J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 146,
9296.
Swift, H.W., 1952. Plastic instability under plane stress. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 1, 1
18.
Tirosh, J., Neuberger, A., Shirizly, A., 1996. On tube expansion by internal uid
pressure with additional compressive stress. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 38, 839
851.

5034

Y.-M. Hwang et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 50245034

Vollertsen, F., Plancak, M., 2002. On possibilities for the determination of the coefcient of friction in hydroforming of tubes. J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 125-126,
412420.
Xing, H.L., Makinouchi, A., 2001. Numerical analysis and design for tubular hydroforming. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 43, 10091026.

Yoshida, K., Kuwabara, T., 2007. Forming limits of aluminum alloy tubes under axial
load and internal pressure. Int. J. Plasticity 23, 12601284.
Zhao, L., Sowerby, R., Sklad, M.P., 1996. A theoretical and experimental investigation
of limit strains in sheet metal forming. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 38, 13071317.