Tribological Issues in the Tube Hydroforming Process—Selection of a Lubricant for Robust Process Conditions for an Automotive Structural Frame Part

[+] Author and Article Information
Muammer Koç

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 125(3), 484-492 (Jul 23, 2003) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1580526 History: Received November 01, 2001; Online July 23, 2003; Revised December 01, 2003
Copyright © 2003 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Sequence of forming operations in a typical hydroforming process, (b) Some automotive parts candidate forming with hydroforming
Grahic Jump Location
Schematic of hydroforming of a simple bulge, and various friction zones in a typical hydroforming process
Grahic Jump Location
Some of the existing friction testing apparatus for hydroforming. (a) University of Darmstadt’s testing tooling for guiding zone friction measurements 836, (b) OSU’s test tooling for guiding zone friction measurements 37, (c) OSU’s test tooling for expansion zone friction measurements 37
Grahic Jump Location
Structural hydroform part used this experiment and overall dimensions
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison of minimum thickness measurements in regions B, C, and D for respective lubricants. Tubes with two different initial thickness values (3 and 4 mm) were tested. Lubricant 2 offers the least amount of thinning when all regions and different initial tube thickness conditions are considered.
Grahic Jump Location
(a & b) Comparison of axial force readings for respective lubricants on parts with two different initial tube thickness values. (c) Comparison of punch positions (not real feeding) for parts with initial thickness of 4 mm. Lube 2 performs the best in terms of the smallest force requirements and largest total axial feeding capability.
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison of (a) overall box dimension (height and width) deviation at all regions. (b) Comparison of flatness at Region B and Region C (c) Comparison of overall radius deviation at all regions. None of these measurements indicates a clear result.
Grahic Jump Location
(a) FE Model, (b, c, d) forming sequence, (e) thinning and (f ) thickness distributions on a typical final part
Grahic Jump Location
Methodology used to predict coefficient of friction based on measurement values and FEA results




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