Journal of Materials Processing Technology 146 (2004) 124–129

Hydroforming of Y-shapes—product and process design using FEA

simulation and experiments
Suwat Jirathearanat a , Christoph Hartl b , Taylan Altan a,∗
a Engineering Research Center for Net Shape Manufacturing, The Ohio State University, 1971 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
b SPS Research Center, Aalen, Germany

Abstract

Exhaust system components such as 3-way connectors (Y-shapes) are often manufactured by tube hydroforming. Compared to stamping,
tube hydroforming offers higher part quality (tighter tolerances, increased rigidity) with lower manufacturing costs (reduced number of
forming and assembly operations). In this study, the estimation of the process parameters for hydroforming Y-shapes, i.e. pressure levels,
axial feeds, and initial tube length, are discussed. These estimated parameters are then “optimized” through conducting FEA simulations
and verified with hydroforming experiments. A geometric parameter that is of importance is the tube length, which affects formability of
the protrusion. Y-shape hydroforming experiments were conducted to investigate this effect. As expected, Y-shapes with shorter length
formed a longer protrusion with the same axial feeds applied.
© 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Tube hydroforming; Process design; FEA simulation

1. Introduction simulations. SS 304 Y-shapes (Fig. 1) were hydroformed

In the past several years tube hydroforming technology
has proved itself as a vital metal forming process for manu-
facturing a variety tubular parts, i.e. household piping com-
ponents, fittings, complex automotive parts such as exhaust
pipes and structural components. Compared to stamping,
tube hydroforming offers higher part quality (tighter toler-
ances, increased rigidity) with lower manufacturing costs
(reduced number of forming and assembly operations) [1].
Exhaust components are usually made from stainless steels
to prevent corrosion. In the past, these parts were manu-
factured from semi-round stampings that were consolidated
into complete subassemblies by welding. Nowadays, a large
portion of these parts is being hydroformed. Exhaust con-
nector components such as T-shapes (3-way connectors with
a right-angled branch) or Y-shapes (3-way connectors with
an angled branch, see Fig. 1) are the most common compo-
nents hydroformed for exhaust system applications.
In this paper, the process design of hydroforming
Y-shapes is discussed. Simple metal forming equations
were used to estimate necessary process parameters, i.e.
pressure levels, axial feeds, and initial tube length. These
estimated parameters were then refined in process FEA
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: altan.1@osu.edu (T. Altan).
successfully using the designed process parameters. A num-
ber of Y-shape hydroforming experiments were conducted
to investigate the effect of tube length on formability of the
protrusion. Due to the die-tube interface frictional force,
Y-shapes with shorter lengths formed greater protrusion
heights with the same axial feeds applied.
2. Mechanics of hydroforming Y-shapes
Typical tube hydroforming operations are made possible
by a controlled application of internal pressure and axial
feed of tube material from the tube ends. In addition to
the use of internal pressure and axial feed, hydroforming
of Y-shapes requires an application of a counter punch to
support the protrusion (branch) while it is being formed, as
shown in Fig. 2. Thus, the protrusion can be formed with
more uniform thickness distribution.
Successful Y-shape hydroforming depends on the load-
ing paths applied (pressure vs. time and axial feed vs. time
curves), geometry of the Y-shapes (length of Y-shape), ini-
tial geometry of the tube (wall thickness), as well as the in-
terface friction conditions. For the hydroforming of a given
Y-shape material and geometry, the main process parame-
ters to be selected are the following: (i) axial feeds vs. time;
(ii) initial tube length; (iii) internal pressure vs. time; (iv)
counter punch force vs. time.

0924-0136/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0924-0136(03)00852-5
 S. Jirathearanat et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 146 (2004) 124–129
Fig. 1. A stainless steel (SS 304) Y-shape hydroformed at SPS.
Initial estimates of these parameters can be obtained from
simple metal forming equations. Then, all these parameters
will be tried out and “optimized” through iterative FEA sim-
ulations. It is preferred that the initial process parameters be
reasonably accurate. Thus, the number of iterative simula-
tions, necessary to obtain the best process conditions, can
be reduced.
2.1. Axial feeds
To estimate the axial feeds (at the left, daL , and right, daR ,
tube ends) necessary to form a Y-shape with a desired pro-
trusion height (H) (Fig. 3) the concept of volume constancy
must be applied. The original tube wall thickness is assumed
to remain unchanged. The material volume at the protrusion
section of the Y-shape is converted to obtain the necessary
axial feed. In the present case, a Y-shape geometry with a
fixed angle is shown in Fig. 3. The tube blank outside diam-
eter (D0 ) is 50.5 mm (1.988 in.), tube initial thickness (t0 ) is
1.5 mm (0.059 in.), the protrusion diameter (Dp ) is 50.5 mm
(1.988 in.), and the final Y-shape lengths on the left and the
right (LL1 and LR1 ), are varied in this study.
The volume of material formed into the protrusion area
was calculated. Each half of the protrusion was assumed to
have been contributed from the axial feed applied on corre-
sponding side of the protrusion. For this Y-shape geometry
with the specified angles and Dp = D0 (Fig. 3) the rela-
tionship approximated between necessary axial feeds to the
protrusion height (H) indicated that the left axial feed (daL )
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of hydroforming tooling of a Y-shape.
125
Dp
daL daR
60 120 D
0
LL1 LR1
LL0 LR0
Fig. 3. Geometric parameters used for the Y-shape.
and right axial feed (daR ) should be H and 2H, respectively.
This procedure to estimate the axial feeds can be applied
to hydroforming of any other Y-shape geometries. Once the
axial feeds have been estimated, the initial tube length (the
sum of LL0 and LR0 ) (Fig. 3) can be calculated by adding the
approximated axial feeds (daL , daR ) to the designed Y-shape
lengths (LL1 and LR1 ).
It should be noted that this axial feed calculated is just an
initial estimate. The necessary axial feed also depends on the
length of the Y-shape, tube material, and interface friction
conditions. The effect of the designed Y-shape length on the
formability is discussed later in this paper.
2.2. Internal pressure limits
The pressure necessary to start yielding of the tubular
preform (Pi )y is the minimum pressure required to initiate
deformation in the hydroforming process. An equation to
approximate this yielding pressure is derived; based on a
simple axisymmetric expansion of a tube with fixed ends,
see Eq. (1). Although the calculated yielding pressure is
accurate only for a simple tube expansion with fixed ends,
it has proved to be a good initial guess for hydroforming of
more complex parts (i.e. Y-shapes) with axial feed applied:
2t0
(Pi )y = σy (1)
D0 − t 0
where σ y is the yield strength of the tube material, t0 the
initial tube thickness and D0 the outside tube diameter.
Bursting pressure (Pi )b is the maximum pressure that ex-
pands the tube without bursting. Eq. (2) estimates the burst-
ing pressure for a Y-shape hydroforming in which no counter
punch is applied. It is based on a balanced biaxial bulging
of sheet metal. This equation is used because a balanced bi-
axial tensile state prevails, approximately, in the tip area of
the Y-shape protrusion with no counter punch applied [2]:
4t0
(Pi )b = σu (2)
Dp − t 0
where σ u is the ultimate tensile strength of tube material and
Dp the protrusion diameter.
Calibrating pressure (Pi )max is the internal pressure level
required to form/coin a tube wall into small die corners
126 S. Jirathearanat et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 146 (2004) 124–129

(coining). The calibrating pressure can be estimated by using Table 1

Eq. (3) [3]:


2 rb
(Pi )max = √ σf ln (3)
3 rb − t 0
where σ f is the flow stress of the tube material, rb the die
corner radius and t0 the initial tube wall thickness.
With all the estimated pressure limits, i.e. yielding, burst-
ing, and calibrating pressures, an initial pressure curve for
the hydroforming of the corresponding Y-shape can be con-
structed using linear lines connecting these pressure limits,
similar to the pressure variations, shown in Fig. 7(a). The
bursting pressure is expected to be larger than calculated by
the equation when a counter punch is applied. The “optimal”
pressure curve will be determined through iterative FEA
simulations. In cases where initial estimates of the process
parameters are difficult to determine such as complex auto-
motive tubular parts, a kind of process optimization scheme
integrated in FEA should be used to design the process pa-
rameters [4].
2.3. Counter punch force
Unfortunately, due to the complexity of deformation,
there is no simple formula available to determine appro-
priate counter punch forces. However, the counter punch
force profile can be estimated through FEA simulations of
hydroforming Y-shape. In FEA simulation, the displace-
ment curve governing the counter punch movement will
be modified until the designed Y-shape can be formed.
Then, the necessary counter punch force can be obtained
from the contact force between the counter punch and tube
protrusion interface.
Mechanical properties and dimensions of SS 304 tubes (flow stress σ̄ =
K(ε0 + ε̄)n )
Outside diameter, D0 (mm) 50 (1.968 in.)
Wall thickness, t0 (mm) 1.5 (0.059 in.)
Strength coefficient, K (GPa) 1.471 (213.4 ksi)
Strain hardening exponent, n 0.584
Pre-strain, ε0 0.06
results in hydrostatic stress state in the area, thus improving
the formability.
FEA simulations were conducted to investigate hydro-
forming of SS 304 Y-shapes using a counter punch. The
material properties and initial tube dimensions are given in
Table 1.
The hydroforming process can be divided into three main
stages (see Fig. 5): (a) free expansion, (b) expansion against
a counter punch and (c) calibration. The counter punch
was positioned in the die just above the left die corner ra-
dius such that it would not pinch the growing protrusion
in the early hydroforming stage. After the protrusion has
come in contact with the counter punch, the counter punch
will slide slowly upwards as it is supporting the grow-
ing protrusion and come to a stop during the calibration
stage.
The estimated process parameters (pressure and axial
feeds) were refined through these simulations. Fig. 7 shows

3. FEA simulation of process

The FEA simulations of hydroforming the Y-shapes were

conducted with PAM-STAMP. The main defects encoun-
tered in hydroformed tubular parts are wrinkles and burst-
ing, which can be predicted using FEA. Due to the sharper
angle on the left side compared to that of the right side of the
Y-shape, severe wrinkles are likely to occur on the left side
if an excessive amount of axial feed was applied (Fig. 4).
The protrusion tip (Fig. 4) of the Y-shape would burst
prematurely if excessive pressure was applied. A counter
punch should be used to support the growing protrusion. This

Fig. 5. FEA simulation demonstrates intermediate hydroforming steps of

Fig. 4. Simulated defective Y-shape (no counter punch used). a Y-shape.
 S. Jirathearanat et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 146 (2004) 124–129 127

the “optimized” loading paths determined from the simu- 1600 23200
lations and applied in the hydroforming experiments. With Sealing Calibrating
1400 20300
these loading paths, the simulation results predicted a sound
1200 17400
Y-shape with the maximum thinning of 23%. Forming
Pressure (bars)

1000 14500

(Psi)
800 11600
4. Experimental verification 600 8700
Bursting pressure
400 5800
Several hydroforming experiments have been conducted
using the tooling available at the Siempelkamp Pressen Sys- 200 2900
Yielding pressure
teme (SPS) research center, Aalen, Germany. A straight tube 0 0
blank, lubed with a solid film lubricant, was placed in the die 0 5 10 15

and sealed at the ends by the axial punches. Then, the tube (a) Time (sec)

blank was pressurized internally by high-pressured water; 100 3.9

while being under axial compressive stresses by the action
80 3.1
of the axial punches (Fig. 6). A counter punch was used to
Right axial feed
Axial Feed (mm)

provide compressive stresses against the growing protrusion 60 2.4

in order to delay bursting at the protrusion tip, thus increas-

(inch)

40 1.6
ing the protrusion height.
The process parameters estimated and refined through 20 0.8

the FEA simulations, i.e. internal pressure, axial feeds, and Left axial feed
0 0.0
counter punch force (see Fig. 7) were used to hydroform the 0 5 10 15
Y-shapes (see Fig. 1). The internal pressure curve, shown -20 -0.8

in Fig. 7(a), consists of two main stages, i.e., forming stage (b) Time (sec)

(1–11 s) (including free expansion and expansion against the 140 30

counter punch) and calibrating stage (11–15 s). During the
Counter Punch Displacement

120
Counter Punch Force (kN)

forming stage, the pressure went up from 0 to 800 bar, the 25

left and right axial feeds were 40 and 80 mm, respectively 100
Counter punch
displacement 20
(see Fig. 7(b)). The real axial punch displacement curves 80
(mm)

exceeded the axial feeds of 40 and 80 mm due to some ad- 15

60
ditional axial punch displacement for tube sealing at the be-
10
ginning of the process. 40
During the calibrating stage, there were no axial feeds as 20
Counter punch 5
can be seen from Fig. 7(b), the axial punches stopped mov- force
0 0
ing. The axial feeds were not applied during the calibrat- 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
ing stage because the calibrating pressure was usually very (c) Time (sec)
high, so that the tube–die interface friction force became
too large for the tube material to be fed in. Fig. 7(c) shows Fig. 7. (a) Pressure, (b) axial feeds and (c) counter punch force vs. time
curves used to hydroform SS 304 Y-shapes.
the counter punch force curve and the displacement of the
counter punch, which determines the protrusion height of
the Y-shape.
Fig. 8 shows a comparison of thickness distributions of
the Y-shape predicted with FEA and measured from ex-

Fig. 6. Hydroforming of a Y-shape: (a) start—a lubed tube blank is placed

in the die and (b) end—the Y-shape is hydroformed (the upper die is Fig. 8. Comparison of thickness distributions predicted by FEM and
removed to show the position of the workpiece). measured from Y-shapes.
128 S. Jirathearanat et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 146 (2004) 124–129

periments. The results indicated that the simulation predicts

Protrusion Height [Hp: mm]

120
metal flow in the Y-shapes accurately.
119

118
5. Tube length effect
117

Hydroforming experiments of Y-shapes without the use 116

of counter punch were conducted to investigate the effect of 5 0 5 0
12 16 12 16
Y-shape lengths (LL1 and LR1 ) (Fig. 3) on forming of the LL0 [mm] LR0 [mm]
protrusion height.
Tubes with different initial lengths on the left side (LL0 ) Fig. 10. Experimental results: initial length (LL0 and LR0 ) effect on the
and right side (LR0 ) (Fig. 3) were hydroformed to the protrusion height (Hp ).
Y-shapes using the same axial feeds (Table 2). This formed
Y-shapes with different lengths (LL1 and LR1 ). The pres- Fig. 10 illustrates the effect of LL0 and LR0 upon the
sure curve vs. time and the axial feed curves vs. time were protrusion height, Hp . These plots separately show the effect
selected using the analytical equations explained earlier. A of LL0 on Hp while keeping LR0 at a neutral level (i.e.,
linearly increasing pressure curve of 200–600 MPa and lin- average value of 125 and 160 mm) and vice versa. It is clear,
ear axial feeds of 40 and 80 mm for the left and right ends, from Fig. 10, that a reduction of the right length (LR0 ) from
respectively, were applied to all the experiments shown in 160 to 125 mm would increase the protrusion height, Hp ,
Table 2. by 5 mm. The same variation in the left length (LL0 ) would
Fig. 9 compares the protrusion height (Hp ) measured from increase Hp by only 2 mm.
the formed parts. Based on a variance analysis, it is clear The conclusion drawn from the experimental results,
that the initial tube lengths affect the obtainable protrusion shown in Figs. 9 and 10, is that, with this particular Y-shape
heights in hydroforming Y-shapes. It can be shown that the geometry, a larger protrusion height Hp can be achieved by
variations of the protrusion heights among three part samples reducing LR0 than reducing LL0 . Y-shapes (from Exp. #4)
from the same experiment are much less than those caused whose initial tube lengths were shorter (i.e., smaller contact
by changing the initial tube lengths. surface) than those from Exp. #1 experienced less interface
friction in the guiding zone. Thus more material flowed
more easily into the protrusion zone, and resulted in higher
Table 2 protrusion height.
Experiment matrix for investigation of the effect of Y-shape length on
the protrusion height
Experiment Material Diameter (mm) × LL0 (mm) LR0 (mm)
6. Conclusions
thickness (mm)
1 SS 304 50 × 1.5 160 160
2 SS 304 50 × 1.5 160 125
The hydroforming of Y-shapes requires proper selection
3 SS 304 50 × 1.5 125 160 of many process parameters, i.e. the internal pressure, the
4 SS 304 50 × 1.5 125 125 axial feeds (at the left and right ends), and the counter
punch force. All these parameters are crucial to the suc-
cess of the hydroforming operation. In order to reduce the
trial-and-error effort in the designing of the process param-
eters, the analytical models developed should be used to es-
timate valid process parameter values. Using these values as
an initial guess in FEA simulations can help to determine the
“optimum” process parameters through iterative FEA simu-
lations. It was also shown experimentally that, as expected
intuitively, the tube length affects the obtainable protrusion
height; because of the friction in the guiding zones. Thus,
the shorter is the tube length, the greater is the protrusion
height formed.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by (a) the members of THF re-

Fig. 9. Experimental results: comparisons of protrusion heights obtained search consortium and (b) the NSF grant no. 9610323. The
with different tube lengths on the left (LL0 ) and the right side (LR0 ). authors gratefully acknowledge this support. The authors
 S. Jirathearanat et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 146 (2004) 124–129
would also like to extend their appreciation to SPS, Siem-
pelkamp Pressen Systeme, Germany, for technical support
and providing press time throughout the project.
References
[1] H.U. Lucke, Ch. Hartl, T. Abbey, Hydroforming, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 115 (2001) 87–91.
129
[2] S. Jirathearanat, K. Tibari, T. Altan, Evaluation of metal flow in tube
hydroforming Y-shapes, Report No. THF/ERC/NSM-00-R-07, The
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 2000.
[3] M. Koc, T. Altan, Development of guidelines for part, process, and
tooling design in the tube hydroforming (THF) process: Classification
of the parts and analytical models for prediction of process parame-
ters, Report No. THF/ERC/NSM-98-R-34, The Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH, 1998.
[4] T. Altan, S. Jirathearanat, M. Strano, A. Shr, Adaptive FEM process
simulation for hydroforming tubes, in: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Hydroforming, Fellbach/Stuttgart, Germany, 2001.