1. Introduction
In most the industries, including the automotive and aerospace sectors, hydroforming was used to manufacture components which are challenging in metal forming [
1]. It produces structurally strong components with complex geometry quickly, efficiently, and cost-effectively [
1,
2,
3]. The benefits of hydroformed parts include improved strength to weight ratios, weight savings from section designs that are more effective, fewer parts, and reduced costs associated with tooling development, better dimensional stability and reproducibility of produced components, and subassemblies [
4]. Since there are no welding joints, the parts produced in hydroforming can absorb more crash energy. This means that vehicles are more crashworthy, which translates into improved safety for vehicle occupants in the event of a crash [
2]. All complex geometries of automotive components, such as rear axle subframe, a front axle, twin elbow exhaust manifold, fuel tank and roofs for luxury class cars, can be obtained through hydroforming [
2,
5]. Hydroforming processes are eco-friendly, as they reduce the amount of scrap, emit less noise pollution, and protect the environment, as forming is carried out only by the liquid medium [
2]. Tube hydroforming and sheet hydroforming are the two primary divisions of the hydroforming process [
4]. Sheet hydroforming is a near net shape manufacturing process, which means the parts it produces are very close to the final specified geometry and require very little rework [
1]. This process will result in a reduction in the number of production steps and components in an assembly. This would reduce dimensional variations and make assembly easier [
3]. The sheet hydroforming process, as shown in
Figure 1, uses high pressure fluid for deformation of a blank (sheet) into a desired shape with die.
The most common material instabilities in sheet metals are wrinkling and tearing. Parameters of the sheet hydroforming process must be adequately modified to produce the desired results without wrinkling and tearing. The forming process parameters of sheet hydroforming includes pressure, blank holder force, sheet thickness, etc. Although most hydroforming operations are kept under 1000 bar, pressure intensification systems on high pressure hydroforming equipment can reach pressures ranging from 1000 to 4000 bar. Exceeding 4000 bar is possible, but it reduces the equipment’s service life while drastically increasing its complexity [
6,
7]. Blank holding force (BHF) will depend on the magnitude of the fluid pressure and the area of the blank in contact with the blank holder. It should be noted that in sheet hydroforming, the area of the blank in contact with the blank holder continuously decreases, and so, proper BHF is required to avoid wrinkling and rupture [
8]. Sheet thickness influences formability and forming limits [
9].
Improved formability in hydroforming is primarily caused by more evenly distributed strain, which results in less thinning at the corners [
10]. In all forming operations using sheet metal as an input material, it is critical to understand the conditions that cause necking (instability of material) or fracture. Such limits can be represented as a forming limit diagram (FLD) shown in
Figure 2, which plots the curve of major and minor strain coordinates [
11]. The strain in the direction of the maximum strain is defined as the major strain. The strain perpendicular to the major strain is known as the minor strain. The major strain is always positive and is plotted vertically, while the minor strain is plotted horizontally [
12]. The combinations of major and minor strains lying below the forming limit curve (FLC) define a safe operating region and failure is represented by the region above the FLC. FLD offers a useful summary. Formability helps to quickly identify key areas that need additional investigation, especially for early feasibility studies.
As the experimental procedure for the metal forming process is costly and time-consuming, the finite element method (FEM) has the advantage of lowering production costs by predicting part defects such as spring-back, rupture, wrinkling, buckling, and shape errors, as well as optimizing process parameters [
13].
Design of experiments (DOE) approaches were used to maximize response variables in the presence of multiple factors. DOE is the process of using geometric concepts to statistical sampling in order to produce desired outputs. The DOE’s primary goal is to obtain the desired response with the fewest possible trials because conducting fewer experiments results in a reduction in the cost and time needed to carry out the experiments [
14].
Nickel alloys are long-lasting materials known for their ability to operate at extremely high temperatures for extended periods of time. Nickel-based superalloys with outstanding high-temperature tensile strength, improved oxidation resistance, weldability, fatigue resistance, corrosion resistance, and long-term structural stability were used in high-temperature parts of aeroengines and industrial gas turbines [
15]. Single crystal superalloys based on nickel have outstanding high-temperature mechanical properties and are commonly employed as turbine blade materials in current aviation gas turbine engines [
16]. Although strong, nickel alloys are also relatively ductile, allowing them to be formed using a variety of different processes, although at higher pressures than other metals [
17]. Nimonic 90, an nickel alloy, is an ideal material to use in aircraft parts, exhaust nozzles, and gas turbine components where the pressure and heat are extreme [
18]. Nimonic 90 has high strength at high temperature levels, and it is highly resistant to scaling, oxidation, heat, and corrosion [
19].
Existing studies lack in hydroforming Nimonic 90 sheet. The aim of this study is to propose an FEA model for formability analysis in the hydroforming of Nimonic 90 sheets. The following objectives will help to achieve this goal:
Derivation of FEA model for sheet hydroforming;
Validation of FEA result with experimentation;
Evaluation of forming limit diagram;
Determination of optimum process parameters for hydroforming of Nimonic 90 sheet;
Discussion of the FEA model’s accuracy.
In this present study, first, mechanical properties of Nimonic 90 sheet were obtained by uniaxial tensile test as per the standard ASTM E8/E8M. Secondly, finite element method (FEM) simulation of the process was run to obtain the maximum pressure and blank holder force and was compared to experimental results. Thirdly, Box–Behnken design (BBD) of response surface methodology (RSM) was used to design the experiments by using lower and higher levels of variable parameters. Fourthly, FEM simulations were carried out as per the design of experiments (DOE). Fifthly, the impact of process factors (Pressure, Blank Holder Force, and Sheet Thickness) during the hydroforming of Nimonic 90 sheets was analyzed using RSM. Sixth, RSM optimizer was used to predict the optimized process parameter to achieve maximized response (deformation) without failure (crack or wrinkling). Lastly, a validation experiment was conducted, and the findings were discussed.
3. Results and Discussion
Figure 13 shows the analysis result of maximum pressure for failure. The simulation result for maximum pressure was validated using experimentation.
Figure 14 represents the validation result of maximum pressure for failure during hydroforming.
Table 5 represents the maximum pressure obtained during hydroforming in FEA simulation and experimentation. Then, the finite element simulation process was carried out under different conditions according to the design of experiments (
Table 4), and the response variable, i.e., deformation (De), was obtained, as shown in
Table 6. Forming limit diagram obtained using LSdyna, as shown in
Figure 15, depicts the major and minor strain of Nimonic 90 in hydroforming. Strain combinations over the FLC will result in fracture, whereas those below the wrinkling limit line will result in wrinkles. For a fixed minor strain, a larger gap between the FLC and wrinkling limit lines signifies more potential for forming [
27]. In
Figure 15, the gap between the FLC and wrinkling limit line was more, the Nimonic 90 sheet was more suitable for forming.
The ANOVA analysis yielded regression models for estimating the value of deformation (De) for Nimonic 90 as Equation (5).
During this study, a confirmatory experiment was carried out to validate the optimized RSM solutions.
Figure 16 shows the deformed Nimonic 90 sheet.
Table 7 compares the predicted and experimental results of the response (deformation) in the formability of Nimonic 90. The table shows that the error percentage between predicted and experimental results was less than 5%.
ANOVA (analysis of variance) generally helps to understand the influence of independent input parameters on dependent output parameter(s). ANOVA helps the users to prove cause and effect relationships in various forms such as R
2 value, pareto chart,
p-values, etc. Here, the Pareto chart shown in
Figure 17 depicts the standardized effects of input parameters on output parameter (i.e., deformation). The R
2 value for the present regression model of deformation regarding formability of Nimonic 90 was greater than 95%, indicating the authenticity of model [
17]. Furthermore, according to
Table 8, the
p value for most of the input terms were less than 0.05, implying that these terms had a significant influence on the value of deformation in the sheet [
28].
Figure 18 shows the optimized process parameter achieved in RSM optimizer. In experimental validation, the error percentage between experimental and simulation was less than 10%. This indicates that the proposed simulation model is capable of making accurate predictions [
28,
29].
Figure 19 shows the mesh convergence study.