Journal of Materials Processing Technology 150 (2004) 280289

Characterizing steel tube for hydroforming applications

B.S. Levy1 , C.J. Van Tyne , J.M. Stringfield
Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO 80401, USA
Received 8 January 2003; received in revised form 3 March 2004; accepted 3 March 2004

Abstract

With the increased use of tubular steel products, especially for hydroforming applications, it is important to be able to predict the
performance of tube from sheet tensile tests. In the present study, two aluminum killed draw quality (AKDQ) steels and one high strength
low alloy (HSLA) steel were evaluated. Tensile properties and plastic strain ratios were measured on sheet material in the longitudinal and
transverse directions. Axial tensile tests were performed on material extracted from production tubes. Material from quasi tubes, which are
strip material bent to the same curvature as the tubes but not welded or sized, was also tested. Residual stresses in the production and quasi
tube were determined by displacement methods. A hydraulic burst test was performed on the production tubes to simulate a hydroforming
operation. Effective strains resulting from tubemaking are calculated for two discrete operations: bending and sizing. For the production
tubes, a linear relationship was found between a load factor (strength times thickness) and effective sizing strain. The relationship between
load factor and residual stress was also linear. Predictions of the maximum pressure and the strain at instability during a hydraulic burst
test are shown to compare favorably with experimental values, based on flat sheet properties and tubemaking strains. The prediction of the
yield strength in the tube based on flat sheet properties is shown to be fairly accurate when the effective sizing strain is small compared to
the effective bending strain.
2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Tubemaking; Steel tubes; Residual stresses in tubes; Instability of pressurized tubes

1. Introduction Dofasco [7], was used to provide a simplified assessment

As the industrial use of tube hydroforming increases
[15], characterizing tubes for hydroforming applications
becomes increasingly important [6]. In converting flat steel
sheet to tube, the sheet steel is deformed and residual
stresses are produced. It is desirable to predict the per-
formance of tubes during hydroforming operations based
upon mechanical properties measured in the steel sheet
before it is converted into a tube. In order to develop a
reliable prediction based on sheet properties, it is necessary
to understand the changes in mechanical properties during
tubemaking operations. In this study, conventional tensile
tests on specimens in the axial direction extracted from a
tube were used to measure the effect of tubemaking defor-
mation on tube properties. Since no hydroformed parts were
available for the present study, a hydraulic tube burst test,
which is a circumferential tube expansion test developed by
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-303-273-3793; fax: +1-303-273-3795.
E-mail address: cvantyne@mines.edu (C.J. Van Tyne).
1 He is also associated with B.S. Levy Consultants Ltd.,1700 E. 56th
St., Suite 3705, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
of tube performance.
The objective of the present paper is to show (1) how the
mechanical properties of the steel evolve due to the tube-
making process and (2) how the tube performance can be
predicted based on the mechanical properties of the sheet
and knowledge of the tubemaking operation.
2. Experimental materials and procedures
For the present study, tubes with 76.2 mm (3 in.) outer
diameter (o.d.) produced from two thicknesses of drawing
quality steel and one thickness of HSLA steel were evalu-
ated. Flat sheet and resulting production tubes were secured.
Quasi tubes with 76.2 mm (3 in.) o.d. were produced from
the flat stock, so that the effect of bending and sizing dur-
ing tubemaking could be differentiated. Tensile testing and
residual stress measurements were done on both the quasi
and production tubes.
The two aluminum killed draw quality (AKDQ) steels
had nominal thicknesses of 2.11 mm (0.083 in.) and 2.42 mm
(0.095 in.). The one high strength low alloy (HSLA) steel had

0924-0136/$ see front matter 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.03.008
 B.S. Levy et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 150 (2004) 280289 281

a nominal thickness of 2.22 mm (0.088 in.). The designation
for the three steels used in the paper is the nominal thickness
and steel type.
The flat sheets used in this study were secured from the
heads and tails of the mult. coils used to produce the 76.2 mm
(3 in.) o.d. electrical resistance welded (ERW) tube. As ex-
pected, wall thickness varies around the tube perimeter. The
resulting thickness profiles exhibit minima at 90 and 270
and maxima at 0 (360 ) and 180 , where the 0 position
is taken at the weld. All three lots of tube were produced
consecutively using a single tube mill setup.
The 76.2 mm (3 in.) o.d. quasi tube was produced on a
three-roll bender from the flat sheet with the rolling di-
rection in the sheet corresponding to the axial direction
of the tube. The tube curvature was constant, with the ex-
ception of material near the open edges of the quasi tube.
The material near the edges was not used in subsequent
testing.
Tensile testing of sheet and tube specimens was done at a
strain rate of 0.028 s1 using subsized specimens (a gauge
length of 25.4 mm (1.00 in.) and a width of 6.4 mm (0.25 in.)
per ASTM E 8-99 [8]. Plastic strain ratios (R-values) were
determined with the same subsize specimens using the man-
ual method per ASTM E 517-98 [9]. Specifically, a gauge
length of 19.1 mm (0.75 in.) was scribed lightly on each
tensile bar and measured with a traveling microscope after
deformation. The width was measured with a micrometer at
five locations along the gauge length and averaged. Table 1
shows the mechanical properties for the steels determined
from the tensile testing. The plastic strain ratios for the
steels are given in Table 2. It should also be noted that the
three steels exhibited distinctly different yield behavior;
specifically the 2.42AKDQ exhibits round house yielding,
the 2.11AKDQ exhibits about 1% yield point elongation,
and the 2.22HSLA exhibits a pronounced upper yield point
and about 5% yield point elongation. During the study,
other types of tensile specimens were evaluated. The re-
sults of these various tensile tests are presented in another
paper [10].
The hydraulic burst test used in the present study is a free
expansion of a tube with end force controlled so that the
axial strain in the central portion of the tube is essentially
zero. The result is a near plane-strain condition in the region
where the circumferential strain component is determined
from direct measurements of tube diameter expansion. For
purposes of analysis, plane-strain is assumed, which implies
that the true circumferential strain component is equal to
minus the true thickness strain component.

Table 1
Mechanical properties of flat sheet and tubes
Condition Yield strength Tensile strength Uniform elongation n K (MPa) Total
(MPa) (MPa) (true strain) elongation (%)
2.11AKDQ
Sheet average 243 348 0.250 0.214 600 44.2
Transverse (circumferential) 251 348 0.205 0.213 600 44.1
Longitudinal (axial) 234 347 0.205 0.215 600 44.4
Quasi tube (axial) 239 354 0.196 0.202 593 43.4
Production tube (axial) 268 358 0.209 0.192 593 41.7
2.42AKDQ
Sheet average 260 356 0.181 0.183 579 42.2
Transverse (circumferential) 264 355 0.181 0.184 579 42.2
Longitudinal (axial) 256 358 0.181 0.182 586 42.2
Quasi tube (axial) 288 360 0.182 0.177 579 42.4
Production tube (axial) 300 361 0.184 0.176 579 41.9
2.22HSLA
Sheet average 416 477 0.156 0.158 758 31.4
Transverse (circumferential) 429 479 0.153 0.144 752 30.2
Longitudinal (axial) 403 474 0.160 0.172 758 32.6
Quasi tube (axial) 395 479 0.145 0.144 731 30.4
Production tube (axial) 415 486 0.128 0.126 717 29.8

Table 2
Plastic strain ratios, R-values (tested at strain rate of 0.028 s1 )
Steel RL -longitudinal (axial) RT -transverse (circumferential) RD -diagonal Ra Rb

2.11AKDQ 0.87 0.88 0.99 0.93 0.12

2.42AKDQ 0.88 0.93 0.86 0.90 +0.05
2.22HSLA 0.70 0.81 0.94 0.85 0.18
a R = (RL + RT + 2RD )/4.
b R = (RL + RT 2RD )/2.
282 B.S. Levy et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 150 (2004) 280289
3. Analysis of tubemaking
Tubemaking is typically comprised of the following oper-
ations: (1) decoiling, (2) leveling, (3) side trimming, (4) roll
forming, (5) edge guiding and welding, (6) sizing, and (7)
straightening [11]. Significant deformation occurs during the
roll forming and sizing operations. Roll forming produces
the basic tube shape using break-down rollers, side rollers,
and fin passes. In roll forming, the shape change from flat to
tube is accomplished by bending with some extra deforma-
tion to prepare the edges for welding. Because of the bend-
ing as well as the two edges being pushed together for the
welding operation, residual stresses can be produced in the
tube. The sizing operation slightly decreases the tube diam-
eter and slightly increases wall thickness and tube length,
and can affect residual stresses. In contrast to bending, sizing
does not produce significant through thickness strain gradi-
ents.
Specific pass practices vary among producers. Even dif-
ferent roll forming lines at the same producer may have dif-
ferent pass sequences. Since the three lots of tube evaluated
in this study were produced consecutively with the same tube
mill setup, the results are only representative of the specific
pass practice that was used in producing these tubes.
3.1. Strains due to tubemaking
Bending in a tube mill can be approximated as a
plane-strain process with zero axial strain and a circumfer-
ential strain gradient from tension on the outside surface to
compression on the inside surface of the tube wall. The max-
imum circumferential bending strain (c )max is calculated
using the following equation from Marciniak et al. [12]:

t 
(c )max = ln 1 + (1)
2r
where t is the sheet thickness, and r the inside radius of the
tube.
Table 3 gives the values for circumferential strain com-
ponent on the outside (tension) surface of the tube as calcu-
lated by Eq. (1). The axial strain component is zero due to
plane-strain, and the thickness strain component is equal to
the negative of the circumferential component due to vol-
ume constancy considerations.
With the assumption of a linear strain gradient, the average
circumferential bending strain can be approximated by half
Table 3
Bending and sizing strains
Steel Bending strain components on tensile Sizing strain components
surface of tube
c a t c a t
2.11AKDQ 0.0281 0.0 0.0281 0.0232 0.0021
2.42AKDQ 0.0323 0.0 0.0323 0.0113 0.0010
2.22HSLA 0.0296 0.0 0.0296 0.0036 0.0009
the maximum circumferential bending strain. The effective
strain due to bending is then calculated using the average
circumferential strain, along with Hill 1948 yield criterion
assuming plane-strain (i.e. no axial strain) by the following
equation from Hosford and Caddell [13]:
(RL + 1)/RL
= (RT (a RL t )2 + RL (RT t c )2
RL + R T + 1
+ (RL c RT a )2 )1/2 (2)
where RT is the plastic strain ratio in the transverse (cir-
cumferential) direction, RL the plastic strain ratio in the
longitudinal (axial) direction, c the circumferential strain
component, a the axial strain component, and t the thick-
ness strain component.
It is also assumed that the effective strain due to bending
in producing the quasi tubes and production tubes is similar.
Table 3 provides values for the average effective strain due
to bending.
In determining the effective strain due to sizing in a tube
mill, it is assumed that the change in wall thickness is entirely
due to sizing. Given that the wall thickness varies around
the perimeter of the tube, careful measurements were made
at 10 intervals, and the results were averaged to determine
the average wall thickness. Thickness strain is calculated
from the as-received strip thickness and the average tube
wall thickness. Table 3 lists the thickness strain for sizing
of each tube.
Since the magnitude of the other two principal strain com-
ponents during sizing are undetermined, the principal stress
components must be estimated in order to calculate effec-
tive strain due to sizing. The following approximations are
used in the determination of the other two strain compo-
nents:
The axial stress equals zero.
The circumferential stress equals the transverse yield
strength of the as-received steel.
The through thickness stress equals the circumferential
stress divided by the R-value in the rolling direction.
From the three strain components and the directional
R-values, the effective strain due to sizing is calculated
from Eq. (2).
Table 3 shows the values for the average effective bending
strain and effective sizing strain, b and s , respectively. The
total of these two strains is the effective prestrain, p .
Effective Effective Total effective
bending sizing strain
strain b strain s p = b + s
0.0253 0.0159 0.0274 0.0433
0.0123 0.0183 0.0134 0.0317
0.0045 0.0164 0.0045 0.0209
 B.S. Levy et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 150 (2004) 280289 283

Given the relative similarity in the thickness to bend-

ing radius ratio for the three different tubes, it is expected
that the effective bending strains should be relatively simi-
lar. However, Table 3 shows that the effective sizing strains
exhibit substantial variability. Since the three lots of tubes
were produced sequentially with the same pass practice, it
is reasonable to expect that the difference in effective sizing
strain could be the result of increasing the load separating
the sizing rolls and reducing the magnitude of the deforma-
tion imparted to the tube during sizing.
The load factor, which affects sizing strain, could be either
yield strength times thickness or tensile strength times thick-
ness. The two load factors are calculated using as-received
values of the strength properties. Fig. 1 shows effective siz-
ing strain as a function of these load factors. Fig. 1 shows
that there is a distinct monotonic decrease in effective sizing
strain with increasing load factor. These results are physi-
cally reasonable.
3.2. Residual stresses due to tubemaking
Residual stresses were determined experimentally using
displacement methods. The specimen geometry and calcu-
lation method for determining axial residual stress follows
that of Anderson and Fahlman as described by Sachs and
Espey [14]. The specimen geometry and calculation method
for determining circumferential residual stress adheres to
ASTM E 1928-98 [15]. Given the nature of the quasi tube,
circumferential residual stresses were not determined. Fig. 2
shows the cutting patterns used in the residual stress testing.
Table 4 shows the experimental results from the resid-
ual stress measurements. From the quasi tube, it is seen
that bending creates an axial residual stress. For the pro-
duction tubes, axial residual stress is greater than circum-
(a) (b)
Fig. 2. Schematics of tube specimens used for (a) circumferential and (b)
axial residual stress measurements.
ferential residual stress. Table 4 also shows that the residual
stresses are a significant fraction of the averaged as-received
yield strength. The ratio of axial residual stress to average
as-received yield strength is in the range 0.260.32 for the
quasi tube. In contrast, the ratio of the axial residual stress to
as-received yield strength for the production tube is higher
and varies over a larger range. By comparing Tables 3 and 4,
it can be seen that this ratio increases as the sizing strain de-
creases. Fig. 3 shows the relationship between axial residual
stress to load factor. Fig. 4 shows the axial residual stress as
a function of sizing strain. As the load factor decreases or as
the sizing strain increases, the ratio of axial residual stress
to average as-received yield strength decreases. Also, the ra-
tio of circumferential residual stress to average as-received
yield strength is fairly constant for the three steels.
Analyzing the residual stress to average yield strength ra-
tios provides some insights on the effect of tubemaking prac-
tice on residual stress. Specifically, the bending operation

0.04

Yield Strength x Thickness

Tensile Strength x Thickness

0.03
Effective Sizing Strain

0.02

0.01

0.00
400 600 800 1000 1200

Load Factor -- Strength x Thickness (N / mm)

Fig. 1. Effect of load factor (average sheet strength thickness) on sizing strain.
284 B.S. Levy et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 150 (2004) 280289

Table 4
Residual stresses
Condition Maximum residual stress (MPa) Fraction of as-received yield strength

2.11AKDQ 2.42AKDQ 2.22HSLA 2.22HSLA 2.11AKDQ 2.42AKDQ

Quasi tube axial 69.0 66.2 128.2 0.29 0.26 0.32

Production tube axial 125.5 162.7 280.0 0.54 0.64 0.70
Production tube circumferential 103.4 106.2 160.0 0.41 0.40 0.37

0.80
Ratio of Axial Residual Stress to Yield Strength

Yield Strength x Thickness

0.75 Tensile Strength x Thickness

0.70

0.65

0.60

0.55

0.50
400 600 800 1000 1200

Load Factor -- Strength x Thickness (N / mm)

Fig. 3. Ratio of tube axial residual stress to load factor based on transverse sheet tensile properties.

0.80
Ratio of Axial Residual Stress to Yield Strength

0.75

0.70

0.65

0.60

0.55

0.50
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

Effective Sizing Strain

Fig. 4. Ratio of axial residual stress for production tube to as-received transverse sheet yield strength as a function of sizing strain.
 B.S. Levy et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 150 (2004) 280289 285

is not affected by a load factor. Thus, for a given tube mill 0.20
setup, axial residual stresses from bending depend on the
Predicted Effective Strain at Maximum Pressure

strength of the material. In contrast, the sizing strain data

0.18
suggest that a load factor, i.e. the position of the sizing
rolls, affects axial residual stress. This behavior is proba- 2.11AKDQ

bly a consequence of increasing uniform through thickness 0.16

strain, which decreases the axial residual stress. Circumfer-
2.42AKDQ
ential residual stress is some combination of bending and
2.22HSLA
distortion due to welding. So, the ratio of circumferential 0.14
residual stress to average yield strength should depend on
strength of the steel and not a load factor. However, given
0.12
the interaction of various deformation modes on residual
stresses in both in-plane principal directions, it is somewhat
surprising that the magnitude of the sizing strain appears to 0.10
have no effect on circumferential residual stress.

4. Analysis of tube performance
There are several parameters, calculated based on sheet
properties and the deformation due to tubemaking, that can
provide an assessment of tube performance in a hydroform-
ing process. In this study the actual tube performance in a hy-
draulic burst test is predicted and compared to experimental
values. The parameters of strain at maximum pressure and
the value of maximum pressure are predicted. Also, the yield
strength in the tube is predicted based upon the tubemaking
parameters, and the predicted yield strength is compared to
experimental values of yield strength from tensile specimens
extracted from the tubes in the axial direction. In predicting
the strain at maximum pressure and the maximum pressure
in the hydraulic burst test, as well as the axial yield strength
in tubes, the basic premise is that the average properties
from sheet tensile tests should be used for the calculations.
4.1. Prediction of strain and pressure at instability during
hydraulic burst test
When the internal pressure attains a maximum value dur-
ing the hydraulic bust test, an instability point is reached.
The strain at maximum pressure in the hydraulic burst test is
the instability strain. Given the nature of the hydraulic burst
test, the maximum load at instability can be determined by
the criterion d/d = . For a power law hardening mate-
0.08
0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
Measured Effective Strain at Maximum Pressure
Fig. 5. Effective true strain at maximum pressure for hydraulic burst test.
rial this criterion reduces to = n. For an empirical pre-
diction of effective true strain at maximum pressure in the
hydraulic burst test, the total effective prestrain during tube-
making is subtracted from the average sheet n-value. The
results of these calculations are shown in Table 5 and plot-
ted in Fig. 5. Fig. 5 shows that the predictions for the strain
at instability compared to the experimentally measured val-
ues are excellent for the two AKDQ steels, but poor for the
HSLA steel.
For a material with planar isotropy and normal anisotropy
the maximum pressure in the tube can be related to the cir-
cumferential strain at instability by the following equation:
 n1 
KB ti
pmax = (c )nmax (3)
ri
where p is the internal pressure, ti the thickness at maximum
pressure, where ti = t0 exp(c ), ri the radius of the inside
surface at maximum pressure, where ri rinit exp(c ), c
the circumferential strain, n the strain hardening
 exponent,
K the strength coefficient, B = (1+ R)/ 1 + 2R with t0 the
initial thickness of the tube, rinit the initial inside radius of
the tube, and R = (RL + RT + 2RD )/4 the average R-value.

Table 5
Prediction of effective true strain at maximum pressure for hydraulic burst test
Property 2.11AKDQ 2.42AKDQ 2.22HSLA

Average sheet n-value, nave 0.214 0.183 0.158

Effective prestrain during tubemaking (p ) 0.0433 0.0317 0.0209
Circumferential strain at maximum pressure during burst test (c ) 0.143 0.132 0.082
Predicted effective strain at maximum pressure = nave
p a 0.171 0.151 0.137
Measured effective strain at maximum pressure = (2/ 3)c 0.165 0.152 0.095
Predicted actual +0.006 0.001 +0.042
a This predicted value is used as the strain at instability for calculations in Table 6.
286 B.S. Levy et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 150 (2004) 280289

34 450

Quasi Tube
Production Tube
32 2.22HSLA
400
Predicted Maximum Pressure(MPa)

Predicted Yield Strength (MPa)

30 2.22HSLA

350
28

26 300
2.42AKDQ
2.11AKDQ
2.42AKDQ
24
250

22

2.11AKDQ
200
20
200 250 300 350 400 450
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Measured Yield Strength (MPa)
Measured Maximum Pressure (MPa)
Fig. 7. Axial yield strength of tubes.
Fig. 6. Maximum pressure during hydraulic burst test.

Appendix A provides the full derivation of Eq. (3).
From Eq. (3) the maximum pressure in the hydraulic burst
test is calculated, and the predicted and actual pressures
are shown in Table 6 and plotted in Fig. 6. The predicted
effective strain at maximum pressure during burst testing,
nave p , for each tube is used for the calculations in Table 6.
The predicted effective strain can be determined from sheet
properties and tubemaking parameters, and does not require
any measurements from the burst test itself. As Fig. 6 shows,
the predicted pressures are quite good.
4.2. Prediction of yield strength of steel in tubes
The yield strength of the steel in the tube can be cal-
culated based upon the power law hardening relationship,
using average K- and n-values from the flat sheet (Table 1)
and prestrain (Table 3). Predicted yield strengths for axial
tensile tests from tubes and the corresponding experimen-
tal values are shown in Table 7 and plotted in Fig. 7. For
ratios of effective sizing strain to effective bending strain
in tubemaking of 0.73 or less, the predicted yield strength

Table 6
Predicted and actual maximum pressure from burst test
Steel Predicted pressure (MPa) Actual pressure (MPa) Difference in pressurea (MPa) Difference in pressure (%)

2.11AKDQ 20.96 21.15 0.12 0.19 0.9

2.42AKDQ 24.53 24.90 0.07 0.37 1.5
2.22HSLA 30.54 31.58 0.24 1.13 3.6
a Predicted actual.

Table 7
Prediction of axial yield strength in tube from sheet tensile properties
Steel Predicted yield Experimental yield Difference in yield Difference in yield Ratio of effective sizing strain
strength (MPa) strength (MPa) strengtha (MPa) strength (%) to effective bending strain, s /b
2.11AKDQ
Quasi tube 247 239 +8 +3.5 0
Production tube 308 268 +40 +14.9 1.72
2.42AKDQ
Quasi tube 278 288 10 3.3 0
Production tube 308 300 +8 +2.6% 0.73
2.22HSLA
Quasi tube 396 395 +1 +0.2% 0
Production tube 411 415 4 0.9% 0.27
a Predicted actual.
 B.S. Levy et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 150 (2004) 280289 287

C (+) Circumferential
Strain
A (-) A (+) Axial
Strain
C (-)
Fig. 8. Illustration of vector strain map for circumferential and axial strain.
provides an accurate estimate of the actual yield strength.
However, as the magnitude of this strain ratio increases,
predictions of yield strength become progressively less
accurate.
The ratio of sizing strain to bending strain is a rough mea-
sure of the magnitude of the Bauschinger effect [16]. The
Bauschinger effect occurs during deformation upon strain
path changes. Studies of the Bauschinger effect usually ex-
amine strain reversal deformations. When deformation is re-
versed, the strength exhibited by the metal is usually less
than would be expected due to the work hardening in the
initial direction of deformation. Bauschinger effects can be
graphically illustrated using vector strain maps. Fig. 8 shows
an example of the coordinate system for the vector strain
map used in this paper. Fig. 9 shows strain maps for the
quasi and production tubes including tensile testing. The
strain maps for other types of tube tensile tests are given in
another paper [10].
Fig. 9 shows that the only condition where a significant
Bauschinger effect would be expected is the tensile sur-
face for the production tube. In this case, the sizing strain
reverses the bending strain. As the magnitude of the siz-
ing strain increases relative to the bending strain, the larger
the Bauschinger effect. For a larger Bauschinger effect, a
greater reduction in axial yield strength in a tube would be
expected. Since the calculation method does not account
for the Bauschinger effect, it is logical that the larger the
Bauschinger effect, the greater the over-prediction of yield
strength. Thus, the Bauschinger effect qualitatively explains
the single case of over-prediction of yield strength in Fig. 7.
5. Summary
Methods have been developed for calculating effective
bending and sizing strains as well as measuring residual
stresses in steel tubes due to tubemaking. Both bending and
sizing strains must be known to accurately estimate prestrain
from tubemaking. It has been shown that for a constant
tube mill setup, an increasing yield or tensile strength times
thickness (i.e. load factor) reduces effective sizing strain.
Also, an increase in sizing strain reduces axial residual stress
from tubemaking.
Average sheet n-value and the effective prestrain from
tubemaking can be used to predict the strain at instability
(i.e. at maximum pressure) in a hydraulic burst test. From

Quasi Tube Production Tube

1 25.0 1

Outer Surface 4
2
of Tube Wall 65.0 25.0
4
70.2
C (+) Axes 5.2

A (+)
Scale
Inner Surface = 0.01 Strain
of Tube Wall

1 1
25.0
4 2
KEY 65.0 25.0
4
1 Bending 70.2
5.2
2 Sizing
4 Tensile Testing
Fig. 9. Strain maps for axial tensile tests. Strains are for the 2.11AKDQ steel. Strain vectors are to scale. Step 3, which does not occur in these tensile
tests, would be the flattening of the specimen after extraction from the tube.
288 B.S. Levy et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 150 (2004) 280289

the predicted strain at instability and Eq. (3) the maximum Substitution of Eq. (A.5) into Eq. (A.4) yields
pressure in the hydraulic burst test can be accurately pre- 
   2
dicted. The axial yield strength for tube can be predicted us- 2R R R
= 1 + (A.6)
ing: (1) average sheet tensile properties, (2) prestrain from 1 + R 1 + R 1 + R
tubemaking, and (3) the ratio of effective sizing to effective
bending strains in tubemaking as a measure of the mag- which reduces to

nitude of the Bauschinger effect (the higher this ratio, the 1 + 2R
larger the Bauschinger effect). = (A.7)
1 + R
For an isotropic material (i.e. R= 1) Eq. (A.7) reduces to
Acknowledgements the usual plane-strain factor of 3/2.
Substituting Eq. (A.7) into Eq. (A.3) yields

The authors thank Ispat Inland for the quasi tubes, the 1 + 2R
Auto Steel Partnership for providing the production tubes = c = Ac (A.8)
and flat sheet, Dofasco for the burst test data and the Ad- 1 + R
vanced Steel Processing and Products Research Center at The relationship between effective strain () and the circum-
the Colorado School of Mines for support of this work. We ferential strain component (c ) is
also thank Dr. Timothy Hylton of LTV Copperweld, Prof.
= c (A.9)
Matthew Miller of Cornell University, Prof. Il-Dong Choi
of Korea Maritime University, and Prof. David Matlock of with
Colorado School of Mines for helpful discussions. 
1 + R 2R
=  1+ + 2 (A.10)
1 + 2R 1 + R
Appendix A. Derivation of maximum pressure
For the plane-strain condition with = 0, Eq. (A.9) becomes
equation
1 + R 1
=  c = Bc = c (A.11)
With the use of Appendix A in Stoughton [17] for Hills
1 + 2R A
quadratic normal anisotropic plastic potential one can define
the principal strain component ratio (minor strain to major where A and B are the factors in Eqs. (A.8) and (A.11),
strain ratio) as respectively.
2 a For a material that strain hardens by a power law rela-
= = (A.1) tionship
1 c
= Kn (A.12)
assuming that the circumferential strain (c ) and axial strain
(a ) are principal strain components. The principal stress Substituting Eqs. (A.8) and (A.11) into Eq. (A.12) yields
component ratio (minor stress to major stress) is
KBn nc
c = = KBn1 nc (A.13)
2 a (1 + R) + R A
= = = (A.2)
1 c 1 + R + R The pressure (p) inside a thin walled tube is related to the
circumferential stress in the tube wall by
where R is the average plastic strain ratio. The assumption
is normal anisotropy exists but planar anisotropy is zero. pti
c = (A.14)
For the burst test the effective stress () in terms of the ri
circumferential stress component ( c ) (i.e. major stress com- where ti is the wall thickness and ri is the inside radius of
ponent) is the tube.
= c (A.3) Substituting Eq. (A.14) in Eq. (A.13) and solving for p
gives
with  n1 
 KB ti
  p= (c )n (A.15)
2R ri
= 1 + 2 (A.4)
1 + R At the point of instability in the hydraulic burst test the
pressure is at a maximum. The circumferential strain at
Since the burst test occurs under plane-strain conditions
the instability can be found from the instability criteria.
(a = 0) then = 0 so Eq. (A.2) becomes
Inserting the maximum pressure and the circumferential
R strain at instability into Eq. (A.15) produces Eq. (3) in the
= (A.5) paper.
1 + R
 B.S. Levy et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 150 (2004) 280289 289

References American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken,

PA, USA, 1999.
[9] ASTM E 517-98, Standard test method for plastic strain ratio r for
[1] M. Mason, Hydroforming of high strength steel tubes for body
sheet metal, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 3, vol. 03.01,
and frame applications, in: Proceedings of the 29th International
American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken,
Symposium on Automotive Technology and Automation, vol. 1,
PA, USA, 2000.
1996, pp. 143156.
[10] B.S. Levy, C.J. Van Tyne, M.J. Stringfield, Tensile Properties of Steel
[2] G. Morphy, Hydroforming high strength steel tube for automo-
Tubes for Hydroforming Applications, SAE Paper No. 2004-01-0512,
tive structural applications using expansion, in: Automotive Con-
SAE, Warrendale, PA, USA, 2004.
current/Simultaneous Engineering (SP-1233), SAE, Warrendale, PA,
[11] B. Kato, H. Aoki, Residual stresses in cold-formed tubes, J. Strain
USA, 1997, pp. 107114.
Anal. 13 (1978) 193204.
[3] G. Morphy, Tube hydroforming: dimensional capability analysis of a
[12] Z. Marciniak, J.L. Duncan, S.J. Hu, Mechanics of Sheet Metal
high volume automotive structural component production process, in:
Forming, 2nd ed., Butterworths/Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 2002, p. 83.
Developments in Sheet Metal Stamping (SP-1322), SAE, Warrendale,
[13] W.F. Hosford, R.M. Caddell, Metal FormingMechanics and Met-
PA, USA, 1998, pp. 110.
allurgy, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1993,
[4] K. Siegert, M. Hussermann, B. Lsch, R. Rieger, Recent develop-
p. 276.
ments in hydroforming technology, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 98
[14] G. Sachs, G. Espey, A new method for determination of stress
(2000) 251258.
distribution in thin-walled tubing, Trans. AIME 147 (1942) 348360.
[5] M. Ko, T. Altan, An overall review of the tube hydroforming (THF)
[15] ASTM E 1928-98, Standard practice for estimating the approximate
technology, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 108 (2001) 384393.
residual circumferential stress in straight thin-walled tubing, 1999
[6] B. Carleer, G. Van Der Kevie, L. De Winter, B. Van Veldhuizen,
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol. 3.01, American Society
Analysis of the effect of material properties on the hydroform-
for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1999,
ing process of tubes, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 104 (2000) 158
pp. 10821083.
166.
[16] W.C. Leslie, The Physical Metallurgy of Steels, McGraw Hill, New
[7] R.J. Soldaat, Personal communication, Dofasco Inc., Hamilton, Ont.,
York, NY, USA, 1981, pp. 161162.
Canada.
[17] T.B. Stoughton, A general forming limit criterion for sheet metal
[8] ASTM E 8-99, Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic
forming, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 42 (2000) 127.
materials, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 3, vol. 03.01,