See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225547491

Forming characteristics of austenitic stainless steel sheet alloys under warm

hydroforming conditions

Article  in  International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology · September 2011

DOI: 10.1007/s00170-011-3169-x

CITATIONS READS

8 492

3 authors:

Muammer Koç Sasawat Mahabunphachai

Hamad bin Khalifa University National Metal and Materials Technology Center
237 PUBLICATIONS   3,629 CITATIONS    41 PUBLICATIONS   604 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Eren Billur
Billur Makine, Ankara, Turkey
30 PUBLICATIONS   196 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

INVESTIGATIONS ON THE INTEGRAL EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE, PRESSURE AND BLANK HOLDER FORCE VARIATION ON THE WARM HYDROMECHANICAL DEEP
DRAWING PROCESS AND PARTS PRODUCED View project

Hybrid micro-nano composite coatings for nucleate pool boiling application View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sasawat Mahabunphachai on 20 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int J Adv Manuf Technol
DOI 10.1007/s00170-011-3169-x
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Forming characteristics of austenitic stainless steel sheet
alloys under warm hydroforming conditions
Muammer Koç & Sasawat Mahabunphachai &
Eren Billur
Received: 12 March 2010 / Accepted: 11 January 2011
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011
Abstract Stainless steel sheet alloys have been increasing-
ly used in heating, ventilating, and air conditioning;
appliance; sanitary and medical devices; as well as several
structural and transportation applications, due to their high
strength-to-weight ratio, corrosion resistance, biomedical
compatibility, and esthetic appearance. Among various
stainless steel alloys, austenitic stainless steels are the most
commonly used type. Due to the forming limitations into
complex shapes at room temperature conditions and stress-
corrosion cracking issues, forming at elevated temperature
has been considered as an enabling technique. Formability
of stainless steels is affected by strain rate and temperature
due to martensitic transformation of meta-stable austenite
microstructure. In this study, deformation characteristics of
three common austenitic stainless steels (AISI 201, 301,
and 304) were investigated using closed-die hydroforming
under different process conditions. Specifically, effects of
pressure, temperature, and die/part geometry on the
material forming characteristics quantified using cavity
filling ratio and thinning distribution were investigated.
Results suggested that, in terms of cavity filling, pressure
and material grade are significant factors while temperature
is not in the case of axisymmetric part. For the non-
M. Koç : S. Mahabunphachai : E. Billur
NSF I/UCRC Center for Precision Forming (CPF),
Richmond, VA 23284, USA
M. Koç (*)
Istanbul Sehir University,
Istanbul, Turkey
e-mail: koc.muammer@gmail.com
S. Mahabunphachai
National Metal and Materials Technology Center (MTEC),
Pathumthani, Thailand
axisymmetric case, all parameters were found to be
significant. In addition, finite element (FE) modeling was
performed to simulate several forming cases that were
experimentally conducted in this study. The FE model was
simulated based on material flow curves obtained from
previous studies under similar conditions (strain rate and
temperature) by the authors. FEA results were shown to
be in good agreement with experimental findings,
particularly for cavity filling and part profile predictions.
Hence, the FE model and the material models can be
used for further predictions of complex and different
parts with confidence.
Keywords Hydroforming . Warm forming . Stainless steel .
Formability
1 Introduction
Use of stainless steel alloys is increasing and broadening
due to their corrosion resistance, lightweight, high ductility,
toughness, and weldability characteristics [1, 10, 20, 21].
Austenitic stainless steels (e.g., AISI 201, 301, 304) have
been the most consumed type of stainless steels during the
last decades, by approximately 65–70% of annual produc-
tion of stainless steels [8, 16, 23]. Among several austenitic
grades, AISI 304 (including its modified versions: 304 L
and 304 N) is the most utilized alloy, accounting for 50% of
all austenitic grades consumption because of its good
formability and corrosion resistance. However, due to cost
issues, mainly dictated by the price of nickel, there has been
a trend for switching to 200 series as they contain less
nickel compared to 300 series [3, 8, 14, 19]. However,
lowering the nickel content may cause problems in service
life of the products. One of such problems is the stress-
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Fig. 1 Experimental setup and control for warm hydroforming process

Fig. 2 Geometries of axisym-

metric dies (a) and a
non-axisymmetric dies (b)

b
B

A
A
B

5
10
R5 16.5
R5 R0.125
R6.5

SECTION B-B R5
DETAIL B
80
100
150
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 1 Experimental plan based on a 22 DOE matrix similar to the forming characteristics of low carbon steel
Stainless steel grade (AISI) Temperature Pressure alloys and is reported to have a relative insensitivity to
(°C) (MPa) the small changes in the strain rate and temperature. On
the other hand, austenitic stainless steels (AISI 201, 301,
201 (initial thickness, 0.55 mm) 100 10 304) were found to be significantly affected by the
20 martensitic transformation due to work hardening [18,
200 10 22]. The degree of martensitic transformation due to straining
15 was observed to be influenced by the variations in temperature
301 (initial thickness, 0.76 mm) 100 10 and the strain rate [13, 16, 24]. The formability of stainless
20 steels at elevated temperature and hydroforming condi-
200 10 tions is expected to increase, therefore making complex
15 design, functional and cost-effective products of stainless
304 (initial thickness, 1 mm) 100 15 steels feasible. However, the optimal temperature and
20 process conditions are not fully known under such warm
200 15 and complex loading conditions although uniaxial [4, 6,
20 11, 12] and biaxial with friction [5, 16, 18, 22] behavior of
various austenitic and ferritic stainless steels were studied
previously. Most of these studies focused on austenitic
stainless steel alloys such as 304 [5, 12, 13, 18, 24] and
corrosion cracking (SCC), which is a delayed failure. The 316 [4, 6].
cracks initiate and propagate at very slow rates (∼10−9 to In this study, the main objective is to investigate and
10−6 m/s). They are mainly initiated and affected by residual determine the effects of temperature and hydroforming
stresses, initial cracks, composition, and deformation rate and process conditions (pressure and rate) on the forming
conditions. For example, for lower deep drawing ratios (low characteristics of three different austenitic stainless steel
LDR, less complex parts), AISI 201 has negligible risk of alloys (AISI 201, 301, and 304). In the next section,
SCC. However, as LDR increases, SCC risk goes up to 100% experimental conditions, methodology, and measurements
[1, 7, 9, 15]. Although post-forming heat treatment (stress are explained, followed by presentation of results and
relieving) can be applied to increase the resistance to SCC, it discussions in the third section. In Section 4, finite element
will shift the cost balance. models of warm hydroforming process were developed and
It was reported that the forming behavior of the validated with the experimental results. Finally, a summary
ferritic stainless steels (e.g., AISI 437, 439, 444) is and conclusions are presented.

Fig. 3 Part surface profile mea-

surement and analysis for
hydroformed parts using the
optical measurement system,
ARAMIS

Warm Hydroforming Prepare for ARAMIS

Analyze Take image


Unfilled
Cavity
Filled
Cavity
Fig. 4 Cavity filling calculation based on cross-sectional surface
profiles and die cavity geometry
2 Closed-die warm hydroforming experiments—setup,
conditions, and method
In this study, a series of closed-die warm hydroforming
experiments were conducted to investigate the effect of
temperature and pressure on forming characteristics of
stainless steel alloys using an experimental setup where an
Instron mechanical testing machine (400HVL 5596 with
2,000 kN capacity) was used to provide the necessary
clamping force to overcome the separation force due to
internal pressure as shown in Fig. 1. Two different insert
geometries were used. One of them had an axisymmetric
geometry whereas the other had a non-axisymmetric shape
as illustrated in Fig. 2. The dies, inserts, and the
pressurizing fluid (Marlotherm SH) were all heated to the
same temperature level using cartridge and band heaters
before each experiment. The temperature was monitored
and controlled using several thermocouples and a temper-
r=0 r = 45
5mm
Fig. 5 Thickness measurement locations of hydroformed specimen
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
ature controller (Omega CN616TC1). A pressure transducer
(Omega PX605) was employed for recording the forming
pressure continuously, which was applied at a rate of
0.22 MPa/s to different maximum pressure levels. In order
to investigate the effect of temperature and pressure, a
design of experiment plan with two factors and two levels,
as tabulated in Table 1, was carried out. The selected values
of these parameters (i.e., temperature and pressure) were
based on the preliminary closed-die experiments and
hydraulic bulge test results, where the results showed that
the effect of temperature would be more pronounced
beyond 100°C and the pressure level for good formed parts
was between 10 and 20 MPa. To ensure the test
repeatability, at least two specimens were tested at each
test condition. The initial thickness (t0) of the blanks was
0.55 mm for AISI 201, 0.76 mm for AISI 301, and
1.00 mm for AISI 304.
In order to quantify the material formability under
different process conditions, two types of measurements
were conducted. First, after the parts were removed from
the die set, the surface profiles of the formed parts were
measured using a non-contact CCD-based optical measure-
ment system (GOM ARAMIS). Although full surface
profiles were obtained for each part, as depicted in Fig. 3,
for comparison purposes, cross-sectional profiles were
extracted at the symmetry line(s). These cross-sectional
profiles were then used for calculation of the cavity filling
ratios, defined as the ratio between the volumes of the
formed part to the die cavity, as shown in Fig. 4. Second,
part thickness along the same symmetry line(s) was
measured using a micrometer after cutting the specimens
into two halves as shown in Fig. 5
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Comparison and analysis of die cavity filling ratio
Surface profiles were utilized for calculating the cavity filling
ratio as shown in and Fig. 6 for all axisymmetric experiments.
Results from the hydroformed specimens tested at the same
conditions were found to be in good agreement; therefore,
the repeatability of the system was confirmed. A full-
factorial regression analysis (Table 2) was conducted to
reveal the significant factors and interactions (if any) for the
cavity filling ratio. In this regression analysis, material* was
a coded variable (−1 for AISI 201, 0 for AISI 301, and 1 for
AISI 304); all others were numerical continuous variables
(temperature, pressure, and cavity filling ratio).
The results showed that material grade and pressure were
significant factors (i.e., p<0.05), while temperature was not
(i.e., p>0.05), at least in the temperature range between
100°C and 200°C for the axisymmetric case. However, the
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Grades (AISI)
201 301 304
90

85
Cavity Filling Ratio (%)

80

75

70

65

60
10 20 10 15 10 20 10 15 15 20 15 20 Pressure (MPa)
100 200 100 200 100 200 Temp. ( oC)

Hydroforming Conditions

Fig. 6 Comparison of cavity filling ratios for the axisymmetric case (insert #1)

Table 2 Regression analysis for cavity filling ratio of axisymmetric closed-die hydroforming case

Regression ANOVA Estimate Standard t ratio Prob>|t|

statistics error
df Sum of Mean F ratio
squares square

R-square 0.956704
R-square Adj 0.917016
Root mean square error 1.846257
Mean of response 73.76833
Observations (or sum wgts) 24
Source
Model 11 903.8447 82.1677 24.10553
Error 12 40.904 3.408667 Prob>F
C. total 23 944.7487 . 1.75E−06
Term
Intercept 49.48 2.76 17.92 0.0000
Material×[−1] 3.74 0.67 5.57 0.0001
Material×[0] −1.06 0.67 −1.57 0.1414
Temp 0.01 0.01 1.27 0.2273
Material×[−1]×(temp-150) −0.02 0.01 −1.55 0.1481
Material×[0]×(temp-150) 0.06 0.01 4.56 0.0007
Pressure 1.55 0.13 11.87 0.0000
Material×[−1]×(pressure-15) −0.29 0.18 −1.62 0.1316
Material×[0]×(pressure-15) 0.62 0.18 3.51 0.0043
(Temp-150)×(pressure-15) 0.01 0.00 2.15 0.0528
Material×[−1]×(temp-150)×(pressure-15) 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.5970
Material×[0]×(temp-150)× 0.01 0.00 1.64 0.1274
(pressure-15)
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Fig. 7 Interaction plots of die 85 -1

filling analysis in the case of 0
axisymmetric die (−1 for AISI 80
-1 1

Die Filling
201, 0 for AISI 301, and 1 for 0

Material *
75
AISI 304) Material *
70 1

65

60

85
200
80 100

Die Filling 75 100

Temp
200 Temp
70

65

60

85
20
80
20
Die Filling

Pressure
75
Pressure
70
10 10
65

60 100

120

140

160

180

200

220
10

12

14

16

18

20

22
-1 0 1

interaction between temperature and material grade was be due to higher thermal contraction in high temperature
shown to be significant; therefore, the effect of the and/or high springback in low temperature forming.
temperature on forming characteristics of stainless steel In the second set of experiments, the non-
could not be disregarded either. axisymmetric die insert (insert #2) was used. Hence,
As expected, with an increasing pressure, the cavity filling there were two different cross-sectional profiles extracted
ratio increases for all materials and temperature levels. for comparisons. Figure 8 shows the designation of these
However, it was unexpected to observe that for AISI 201 profiles and cavity filling ratios for some cases. Compar-
and 304, with an increasing temperature (from 100°C to 200° ison of cavity filling ratios is depicted in Figs. 9 and 10 for
C), the cavity filling ratio did not change, or even slightly cross-sectional profile #1. Similar results were obtained
decreased (see Fig. 7). Similarly, at low pressure level, for profile #2. Results for both profiles indicated that
temperature was shown to have a negative effect. This may material, pressure, and temperature were all significant

AISI 201, 200°C, 15 MPa AISI 304, 100°C, 15 MPa

18
18
16
16
Profile Height (mm)
Profile Height (mm)

14
14

12 12

10 10
Die Die
8 8
Exp 1 Exp 1
6 6 Exp 2
Exp 2
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance From Center (mm) Distance From Center (mm)

Fig. 8 Sample part profile and cavity filling for non-axisymmetric die (insert #2) for two different cross-sectional profiles, (left) profile #1, and (right)
profile #2
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Grades (AISI)

201 301 304

100

95
Cavity Filling Ratio (%)

90

85

80
10 20 10 15 10 20 10 15 15 30 15 30 Pressure (MPa)
100 200 100 200 100 200 Temp. ( oC)

Hydroforming Conditions

Fig. 9 Filling percentage calculations from ARAMIS for the non-axisymmetric insert (insert #2), profile #1

factors (p<0.05) affecting the cavity filling ratio. Their
interactions, excluding the interaction between all three
factors, were also significant. As expected, temperature
and pressure had positive effect on cavity filling (i.e.,
when temperature or pressure was increased, the die filling
percentage increased for all materials).
3.2 Comparison and analysis of thinning
The second parameter for comparison of forming character-
istics is final thinning values at different locations along the
part cross section. Specifically, the thickness values were
measured along the symmetry line with intervals of

Fig. 10 Interaction plots of die

filling analysis for non-
axisymmetric die, profile #1
(−1 for AISI 201, 0 for AISI
301, and 1 for AISI 304)
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 3 Thinning values for axisymmetric case along the symmetry line beginning at the center (i.e., r=0)

AISI Temperature Pressure Thinning (%)

(°C) (MPa) r= r= r= r= r= r= r= r= r= r=
0 mm 5 mm 10 mm 15 mm 20 mm 25 mm 30 mm 35 mm 40 mm 45 mm

201 100 10 12.12 13.21 14.24 10.36 12.67 15.15 11.82 12.55 7.94 5.09
20 17.15 16.97 17.33 12.18 20.30 12.97 17.52 2.24 14.61 8.67
200 10 12.42 15.39 10.24 10.79 14.79 16.91 10.36 15.88 10.12 11.21
15 10.55 13.03 14.61 19.39 16.06 15.27 14.85 10.67 2.12 4.36
301 100 10 15.79 14.87 12.41 12.11 12.41 15.18 14.87 6.27 11.71 3.29
20 17.59 13.99 21.49 22.54 22.59 19.04 23.16 16.14 20.35 13.16
200 10 15.66 13.03 16.23 10.96 14.21 15.61 11.75 10.00 7.59 7.89
15 19.74 14.21 20.75 18.64 25.92 13.68 16.67 8.25 11.97 14.56
304 100 15 31.57 30.67 33.33 32.07 27.23 30.93 24.57 27.47 22.17 17.47
20 13.73 11.73 23.33 29.47 29.83 29.83 26.53 26.73 26.40 23.83
200 15 27.10 19.27 27.37 21.87 28.67 23.73 21.97 23.07 20.90 11.63
20 27.13 18.13 40.10 23.83 34.17 26.63 32.83 16.53 29.33 8.00

5 mm using a micrometer as shown in Fig. 5. Thinning
values for each alloy are tabulated in Tables 3 and 4 for
axisymmetric and non-axisymmetric cases, respectively. A
regression analysis was performed for both axisymmetric
and non-axisymmetric cases. For axisymmetric case, the
only significant factor affecting the thinning is the material
(i.e., grade). Temperature and pressure were found to be
insignificant. The regression model has an overall p value
of 8.74E−17≪0.05, which indicates that the model is
acceptable. Figure 11 illustrates the interaction plots for
axisymmetric case. vFrom the first column, it can be
concluded that the least thinning was observed in AISI
201 (coded as −1), while the highest was observed in AISI
304 (coded as 1). Effect of temperature on thinning varies
with material (as shown in the second column of Fig. 11).
For AISI 304, with increasing temperature, the thinning
was found to reduce; however, for AISI 301, it was shown
to increase slightly (as shown in the first row of Fig. 11).
On the other hand, the effect of pressure on thinning does
not follow the same trend for all grades. As expected,

Table 4 Thinning values for non-axisymmetric case along the symmetry line (profile #1) beginning at the center (i.e., r=0)

AISI Temperature Pressure Thinning (%)

(°C) (MPa) r= r= r= r= r= r= r= r= r= r=
0 mm 5 mm 10 mm 15 mm 20 mm 25 mm 30 mm 35 mm 40 mm 45 mm

201 100 10 10.36 11.09 10.18 8.36 6.97 7.88 4.48 3.58 3.82 3.21
20 7.39 10.42 13.76 13.45 22.79 20.85 19.09 19.21 18.24 19.15
200 10 7.94 7.82 5.70 −0.24 1.70 4.18 4.73 4.00 3.70 3.21
15 6.12 8.48 8.42 10.91 11.76 12.48 16.00 18.30 4.30 5.21
301 100 10 10.66 10.00 10.13 11.49 11.84 11.89 12.11 12.15 10.66 9.21
20 14.91 17.94 15.57 15.39 16.18 17.06 19.56 18.64 13.90 15.75
200 10 6.40 9.25 3.20 6.05 8.73 9.65 11.89 4.34 8.07 10.96
15 10.00 13.82 7.85 13.20 12.72 11.75 18.07 15.39 15.31 15.31
304 100 15 25.80 25.33 23.10 23.00 22.23 23.73 19.90 22.80 21.80 19.47
20 17.70 17.10 26.50 28.03 29.40 28.10 26.10 25.63 27.30 26.67
200 15 18.87 17.03 16.87 15.27 18.07 16.83 15.00 14.40 14.40 21.73
20 24.80 22.50 27.07 26.27 27.20 28.43 29.23 29.30 28.70 27.70
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
Fig. 11 Interaction plots of thinning profile, axisymmetric die (−1 for AISI 201, 0 for AISI 301, and 1 for AISI 304)
radial distance has a negative effect on thinning such that
as the distance from center increased, less thinning was
observed. This trend was similar for all interactions.
Similar analyses were performed for the non-axisymmetric
case, profile #1. Results are depicted in Fig. 12. In terms of
thinning, the radial distance was not a significant factor.
However, its interaction with pressure was found to be
significant; therefore, it cannot be neglected. The effect of
material grade on thinning (column 1 in Fig. 12) was shown
to be the least in the case of AISI 201 and the highest for
AISI 304. Temperature has a negative effect (see column 2
in Fig. 12); higher temperatures in forming process will
result with less thinning (i.e., more uniform parts). Note that
this trend was not observed in temperature–pressure interac-
tion for 20 MPa (column 2, row 3 in Fig. 12). Pressure
(column 3 in Fig. 12) has positive effect on thinning with no
exception. This means that with increasing pressure, thinning
will also increase, and better cavity filling could be expected.
4 Numerical modeling and validation of warm
hydroforming of stainless steel alloys
In order to construct and perform finite element analysis
(FEA) of the warm hydroforming process, commercially
available MSC.MARC 2007r1 software was used. Axisym-
metric warm hydroforming was modeled with 2D element
type 10 whereas non-axisymmetric case was modeled using
3D element type 139. The female die was modeled as rigid
curves. Pressure profiles were input as a ramp profile based
on the experimental pressure measurements as reported in
the previous section. Similarly, temperature was assumed to
be uniform on the blank, die, and fluid as in the
experiments (i.e., isothermal case). Figure 13 illustrates
the initial geometry of the die and the blank as well as the
final geometry of the hydroformed part. Table 5 tabulates
other simulation parameters. Material models in the
simulations were constructed using the hydraulic bulge test
results in our previous study of the same alloys (i.e., AISI
201, 301, and 304) [2, 17] and modeled using a constitutive
model according to the Fields and Backofen equation
(s ¼ k"n " m ).
The final geometry of the part was obtained at different
stages of the FEA. In order to compare the FEA predictions
with the experimental measurements, cavity filling ratios
and thinning profiles were extracted from FEA results using
post-processing features of the MSC.MARC software.
Cavity filling ratio was assumed to be 0% initially and
would be 100% if all the uppermost nodes were in contact
with the female die. Results are plotted in Fig. 14 in
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

30
25 1
20 0 1
1
Thinning

Material *
15 -1 0
Material * 0
-1 -1
10
5
0
-5
30
25 100
20
200
200 100 100
Thinning

15

Temp
Temp 200
10
5
0
-5
30
20
25 20
20
20

Pressure
Thinning

15 10 Pressure
10
10 10
5
0
-5
30
25 45
0
20 45
0
Thinning

Distance
15 45
Distance
10
0
5
0
-5

10
10

12
13

15

17

19

21

20

30

40

50
100

120
130

150

170

190

210

0
-1 0 1

Fig. 12 Interaction plots of thinning profile, non-axisymmetric die, profile #1 (−1 for AISI 201, 0 for AISI 301, and 1 for AISI 304)

comparison with experimental findings. All FEA results cavity filling ratio were within ±7.5% of the experimental
had similar deformation trends with experimental profiles measurements. Average error was found to be 4%. The best
as can be seen in Fig. 15 for AISI 201 at different pressure prediction was for AISI 201 steel at 200°C temperature,
and temperature conditions. Overall, FEA predictions for which has error less than 0.2%. Considering the possible

Fig. 13 Finite element model of Die

the axisymmetric hydroforming Time
case: initial model and final part
geometry

Pressure

Pressure

Element Type 10
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 5 FEA parameters for

axisymmetric warm hydroform- AISI 201 AISI 301 AISI 304
ing and material constants
Material properties
Temperature (°C) 100 200 100 200 100 200
k (MPa) 1,528 1,415 1,375 1,153 1,037 921
n 0.529 0.497 0.421 0.380 0.527 0.494
m 0.0173 0.0384 0.0192 0.0221 0.0048 0.0193
E (GPa) 190.3 182.7 190.3 182.7 190.3 182.7
ν 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Density (g/cc) 7.8 7.8 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
Geometry
Thickness (mm) 0.55 0.76 1.00
# of elements through thickness 4 4 4
Element size 0.1375×0.1376 mm 0.19×0.19 mm 0.25×0.25 mm
# of elements 2,180 1,576 1,200
Element type Axisymmetric solid, type 10

errors and variations in the experimental measurements, it
can be concluded that FEA predictions are within accept-
able ranges leading to a conclusion that constitutive
material models (flow curves) are reasonably accurate.
As discussed in the previous section, another important
parameter for comparison and validation of the finite
element models was the thinning on the final part.
Thickness comparisons for AISI 201 at different pressure
and temperature conditions are depicted in Fig. 16 as an
example while Table 6 summarizes the average, minimum,
and maximum errors in prediction of thinning in axisym-
metric warm hydroforming for all grades and conditions.
Note that thinning prediction was better for AISI 201 and
301 steels, especially at lower forming pressures when
compared to AISI 304. For AISI 201 and 301, the average
error of prediction was less than 6%. However, for AISI

Grades (AISI)

201 301 304

95

90
FEA

85
Exp
Cavity Filling Ratio (%)

80

75

70

65

60

55
10 20 10 15 10 20 10 15 15 20 15 20 Pressure (MPa)
100 200 100 200 100 200 Temp. ( oC)

Hydroforming Conditions

Fig. 14 Comparison of cavity filling ratios obtained from FEA predictions with experimental measurements for the axisymmetric case
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

AISI 201, 100°C, 10 MPa AISI 201, 100°C, 20 MPa

25 25

Profile Height (mm)

Profile Height (mm) 20 20

15 15
FEA FEA
10 EXP1 10 EXP1
EXP2 EXP2
5 Die 5 Die

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Distance from center (mm) Distance from center (mm)

AISI 201, 200°C, 10 MPa AISI 201, 100°C, 15 MPa

25 25
Profile Height (mm)

Profile Height (mm)

20 20

15 15
FEA FEA
10 EXP1 10 EXP1
EXP2 EXP2
5 Die 5 Die

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Distance from center (mm) Distance from center (mm)
Fig. 15 Final part profiles of the axisymmetric case obtained from FEA in comparison with the experimental measurements for AISI 201 at
different pressure and temperature conditions

AISI 201, 100°C, 10 MPa

0.6
AISI 201, 10°C, 20 MPa
0.6
0.5
0.5
Thickness (mm)

Thickness (mm)

0.4
0.4

0.3
FEA 0.3
FEA
0.2 Experiments 0.2 Experiments
0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from center (mm) Distance from center (mm)

AISI 201, 200°C, 10 MPa AISI 201, 20°C, 15 MPa

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5
Thickness (mm)

Thickness (mm)

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3
FEA FEA
0.2 Experiments 0.2 Experiments
0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from center (mm) Distance from center (mm)

Fig. 16 Comparison of predicted and measured thickness values for AISI 201 at different pressure and temperature conditions (initial thickness
for AISI 201 blanks was 0.55 mm)
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 6 Average and maximum errors in prediction of sheet thickness performed manually using a micrometer as explained
for axisymmetric case
previously. The tip of the micrometer could penetrate into
Material Temperature Pressure Average Maximum the surface of the base metal (i.e., the measurement value
(AISI) (°C) (MPa) error (%) error (%) would be less than the actual thickness of the specimen). Or
the micrometer tips might not be perpendicular to the base
201 100 10 2.07 7.07
metal (i.e., the measurement would be higher than the
20 3.41 11.38
actual thickness). These sources of error were more
200 10 3.25 6.48
pronounced near curvatures. In order to reduce these errors,
15 5.86 11.84
the measurements were repeated by two operators (error
301 100 10 3.06 6.00 bars include two operators in Fig. 16).
20 5.67 10.69 In order to model the non-axisymmetric die geometry
200 10 2.81 6.72 accurately, 3D modeling approach was followed. Since the
15 5.23 16.44 geometry of the non-axisymmetric die was symmetric in
304 100 15 14.40 22.90 one axis, only half modeling was adequate to reduce the
20 16.14 24.97 size of the model, thus the simulation time. The die was
200 15 17.51 25.57 modeled using 3D rigid surfaces, whereas the blank was
20 15.19 24.18 modeled using thin shell elements, type 139, as illustrates
in Fig. 17. Other parameters, such as material, used in the
FE model are tabulated in Table 7.
Similar to the axisymmetric case, for comparison,
304, it was around 14%. Such deviation may be caused by deformed blank profiles and cavity filling ratios were
(a) limitations in numerical model: four elements through extracted from the 3D FEA results. Findings are depicted
thickness were used. Degree of freedom in thickness in Figs. 18 and 19 for part profile #1 and tabulated in
direction was very limited and the error between the Table 8 for all cases with the comparison between the FEA
prediction and actual measurements was in the order of predictions and the experimental measurements. FEA of
tens of micrometers; (b) modeling of blank holding force: non-axisymmetric warm hydroforming was very successful
blank holding force has strong effect on thinning profile in terms of predicting the part profiles and cavity filling
since it affects the material flow into the die cavity. In the ratios. For profile #1, the average error was found to be
simulations, blank was assumed to be fully constraint at the 3.37%, and the maximum error was observed to be 6.17%
periphery while in the experiments the blank might have in the case of AISI 301 at 200°C and 10 MPa. Better
slipped in although slightly; and (c) errors during the predictions were observed for profile #2 as compared to
thickness measurements. Thickness measurements were profile #1. The average error for profile #2 was found to be

Fig. 17 3D half model for non-axisymmetric warm hydroforming

 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 7 FEA parameters for 3D non-axisymmetric warm hydroforming and material constants

AISI 201 AISI 301 AISI 304

Material properties
Temperature (°C) 100 200 100 200 100 200
k (MPa) 1,528 1,415 1,375 1,153 1,037 921
n 0.529 0.497 0.421 0.380 0.527 0.494
m 0.0173 0.0384 0.0192 0.0221 0.0048 0.0193
E (GPa) 190.3 182.7 190.3 182.7 190.3 182.7
ν 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Density (g/cc) 7.8 7.8 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
Geometry
Thickness (mm) 0.55 0.76 1.00
Element size 2.5×2.5 mm
# of elements 1,500
Element type Solid–thin shell, TYPE 139

1.56%, and the maximum error (3.04%) was observed in summarized in Fig. 20 for all grades and conditions.
the case of AISI 201 at 100°C and 10 MPa. Sample thinning distribution comparisons are plotted in
Thinning distribution was also extracted from 3D FEA Fig. 21 for AISI 201 and profile #1 for different pressure
results along the same two part profiles (#1 and #2) for and temperature conditions. In general, the thinning
comparison with the experimental measurements. Average, predictions with FEA are within ±8% error for AISI
minimum, and maximum errors in thinning predictions are 201 and 301 and within ±22% for AISI 304, which is

AISI 201, 100°C, 10 MPa AISI 201, 100°C, 20 MPa

18 18
16 16
Profile Height (mm)
Profile Height (mm)

14 14
12 12
10 Die 10 Die
8 Exp 1 8 Exp 1
6 Exp 2 Exp 2
6
FEA FEA
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance from center (mm) Distance from center (mm)

AISI 201, 200°C, 10 MPa AISI 201, 200°C, 20 MPa

18 18

16 16
Profile Height (mm)

Profile Height (mm)

14 14

12 12

10 10 Die
Die
8 Exp 1 8 Exp 1
Exp 2 6 Exp 2
6
FEA FEA
4 4

2 2
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance from center (mm) Distance from center (mm)

Fig. 18 Comparisons of FEA predictions and experimental measurements of non-axisymmetric case, profile #1, for AISI 201 at different conditions
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Grades ( AISI)

201 301 304

100

95
Cavity Filling Ratio (%)

90
FEA

85 Exp

80

75

70
10 20 10 15 10 20 10 15 15 30 15 30 Pressure (MPa)
02 100 200 468 100 200 10010 200 12 o
Tem p. ( C)

Hydroforming Conditions

Fig. 19 Comparison of cavity filling ratio for non-axisymmetric case, profile #1

not an acceptable level of prediction accuracy. Major Table 8 Comparisons of cavity filling ratios for non-axisymmetric case
reasons for such deviation could be due to several AISI Temperature Pressure Cavity filling ratio
assumptions that were made in order to simplify the 3D (°C) (MPa)
FE modeling such as (a) isothermal conditions whereas FEA Experiment 1 Experiment 2

in reality there may be heat transfer and temperature Profile #1

fluctuations in the dies and blank, (b) a constant friction 201 100 10 89.95 92.95 94.69
coefficient of 0.05 was assumed whereas in reality 20 94.54 98.02 97.89
friction changes by location and time, and (c) blank 200 10 91.16 93.14 94.37
holding was simplified by constraining the end nodes of 20 95.26 98.55 98.89
the blank whereas in experiments blank may have 301 100 10 80.02 83.45 82.54
moved, although slightly. 20 91.88 95.32 95.01
200 10 83.90 91.35 87.48
20 92.14 96.48 96.39
304 100 15 90.69 86.56 90.12
5 Conclusions 30 94.85 97.09 97.78
200 15 91.34 90.88 92.13
In this study, deformation characteristics of three commonly 30 94.94 98.23 98.25
used austenitic stainless steels (AISI 201, 301, and 304) Profile #2
were investigated using closed-die hydroforming at warm 201 100 10 84.50 80.96 83.06
conditions. Effects of pressure, temperature, die/part geom- 20 89.27 89.49 90.57
etry, and material grade on the cavity filling ratio and 200 10 85.72 84.94 85.56
20 90.24 91.23 91.05
thinning were studied and analyzed using linear regression
301 100 10 76.57 75.85 76.51
method. Based on the experimental results, the following
20 86.20 88.28 87.97
conclusions were drawn: 200 10 79.50 81.12 81.25
1. In terms of material formability, pressure was shown to 15 86.39 88.59 88.66

be a more significant parameter than the temperature, 304 100 15 85.34 83.34 83.24
30 89.43 89.99 90.01
especially for the axisymmetric case between the
200 15 85.91 84.26 84.94
temperature range of 100°C and 200°C. As expected,
30 89.77 91.46 90.63
the cavity filling ratio increases with increasing
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Grades (AISI)
201 301 304
30

Max

Ave
20
Error (%)

10

0
10 20 10 15 10 20 10 15 15 20 15 20 Pressure (MPa)
1 3 5 7 9 11
100 200 100 200 100 200 Temp. ( o C)

Process Conditions

Fig. 20 Average and maximum errors in prediction of part thinning for non-axisymmetric case

AISI 201, 100°C, 10 MPa AISI 201, 100°C, 20 MPa

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5
Thickness (mm)
Thickness (mm)

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3
FEA FEA
0.2 Experiments 0.2 Experiments
0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from center (mm) Distance from center (mm)

AISI 201, 200°C, 10 MPa AISI 201, 200°C, 20 MPa

0.6
0.6

0.5
0.5
Thickness (mm)

Thickness (mm)

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3
FEA FEA
0.2 Experiments 0.2 Experiments

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from center (mm) Distance from center (mm)

Fig. 21 Comparisons of predicted and measured thickness distribution along profile #1 of non-axisymmetric case for AISI 201 at all pressure and
temperature conditions (initial thickness was 0.55 mm)
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
pressure. However, increasing the temperature from
100°C to 200°C for these three alloys did not
significantly improve the formability, and thus, it can
be advised to hydroform stainless steel blanks at low
temperature levels (i.e., 100°C) to minimize the part
cost by saving from the energy cost.
2. In terms of part thinning, both temperature and pressure
were found to have significant impacts. Specifically,
less thinning was observed at lower pressure and higher
temperature. Thus, in order to avoid failure during
hydroforming process (i.e., sheet rupture), selecting
appropriate set of temperature and forming pressure
combination is a vital solution.
3. Based on the comparisons of finite element model
predictions and experimental results, both 2D and 3D
finite element models developed in this study, in combi-
nation with the Fields and Backofen material model for
each stainless steel alloy from the previous study by the
authors, were shown to provide reliable and reasonably
accurate predictions of the final part profile and thinning,
particularly for AISI 201 and 301. These result compar-
isons not only validate the applicability of using FE
models to accurately predict the formability of the parts
under warm hydroforming conditions but also reassure the
accuracy of the Fields and Backofen material models, in
which the material constants were also obtained from
actual material testing (bulge tests) at similar testing
conditions (i.e., pressure rate and temperature).
Acknowledgments Authors are thankful to National Science Foun-
dation (NSF) for the support on this project. It was supported by NSF
CMMI Grant # 0703912-Collaborative Research: Warm Hydroform-
ing of Lightweight Materials Using Selective Heating Strategies. It
also received partial support from NSF I/UCRC Program (Center for
Precision-CPF and its industrial members under NSF IIP Grant #:
0638588). Finally, authors would like to thank CPF group members at
VCU for their support during experiments.
References
1. Bergstrom DS, Botti CA (2005) AL 201 HP alloy: a high-
performance, lower nickel alternative to 300 series alloys.
Proceedings of stainless steel world conference, November 9,
Maastricht, Netherlands
2. Billur E, Koç M (2008) A comparative study on hydraulic bulge
testing and analysis methods, MSEC2008-72238. Proceedings of
the 2008 International Manufacturing Science and Engineering
Conference. MSEC2008 October 7–10, 2008, Evanston, Illinois,
USA
View publication stats
3. Blondeau S (2006) Comparison of the photochemical machining
behaviour of AISI 201 and AISI 304 stainless steels. M.Sc. thesis,
Cranfield University, UK.
4. Byun TS, Lee EH, Hunn JD (2003) Plastic deformation in 316LN
stainless steel—characterization of deformation microstructures. J
Nucl Mater 321(issue 1):29–39
5. Campos HB, Butuc MC, Grácio JJ, Rocha JE, Duarte JMF (2006)
Theoretical and experimental determination of the forming limit
diagram for the AISI 304 stainless steel. J Mater Process Technol
179(1–3):56–60
6. Chen XH, Lu J, Lu K (2005) Tensile properties of a nanocrystal-
line 316 L austenitic stainless steel. Scr Mater 52:1039–1044
7. Douthett JA (2006) Forming of stainless steel. In: Semiatin SL
(ed) ASM handbook, vol 14B, Metalworking: sheet forming.
ASM International, Materials Park, pp 656–669
8. Davis JR (2000) Alloy digest sourcebook: stainless steels. ASM
International, Materials Park
9. Davison RM (1992) Corrosion of stainless steels. In: Korb LJ (ed)
ASM handbook, vol 13, Corrosion. ASM International, Materials
Park, p 547
10. Gardner L (2005) The use of stainless steel in structures. Prog
Struct Mater Eng 7(2):45–55
11. Gronostajski Z (2000) The constitutive equations for FEM
analysis. J Mater Process Technol 106:40–44
12. Hecker HH, Stout MG, Staudhammer KP, Smith JL (1982) Effects
of strain state and strain rate on deformation-induced transforma-
tion in 304 stainless steel: part I. Magnetic measurements and
mechanical behavior. Metall Mater Trans A 13(4):619–626
13. Huang GL, Matlock DK, Krauss G (1989) Martensite formation,
strain rate sensitivity, and deformation behavior of type 304
stainless steel sheet. Metall Mater Trans 20(7):1239–1246
14. ISSF Report (2005) New 200-series steels: an opportunity or a
threat to the image of stainless steel? ISSF, Brussels
15. Jones RH (1992) Stress-corrosion cracking. ASM International,
Materials Park
16. Korhonen AS, Manninen T (2008) Forming and fracture limits of
austenitic stainless steel sheets. Mater Sci Eng, A 488(1–2):157–166
17. Koç M, Billur E, Cora ÖN (2011) An experimental study on the
comparative assessment of hydraulic bulge test analysis methods.
Mater Des 32(1):272–281. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2010.05.057
18. Murr LE, Hecker HH, Stout MG, Staudhammer KP, Smith JL
(1982) Effects of strain state and strain rate on deformation-
induced transformation in 304 stainless steel: part II. Micro-
structural study behavior. Metall Mater Trans A 13(4):627–635
19. Padilha AF, Rios PR (2002) Decomposition of austenite in
austenitic stainless steels. ISIJ Int 42(4):325–337
20. Placidi F, Fraschetti S (2005) Potential application of stainless
steel for vehicle crashworthiness structures. Proceedings of 1st
international conference of super-high strength steels, Rome, Italy
21. Snelgrove P (2008) Stainless steel automotive and transport
developments. Worldstainless Library, 2001. www.worldstain
less.org. Accessed 10 Dec 2008
22. Talyan V, Wagoner RH, Lee JK (1998) Formability of stainless
steel. Metall Mater Trans 29A:2161–2172
23. Totten GE (2007) Steel heat treatment: metallurgy and technolo-
gies, 2nd edn. CRC, Boca Raton
24. Tourki Z, Bargui H, Sidhom H (2005) The kinetic of induced
martensitic formation and its effect on forming limit curves in the
AISI 304 stainless steel. J Mater Process Technol 166(3):330–336