4.7 Article

A numerical method for predicting O-forming gap in UOE pipe manufacturing

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL SCIENCES
Volume 98, Issue -, Pages 39-58

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2015.04.006

Keywords

UOE pipes; O-forming gap; Springback; High-grade steel; Parameter design

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education [311017]
  2. Baosteel

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Large diameter welded pipes used in oil and gas pipelines are primarily manufactured by the UOE process, which consists of U-forming, O-forming, and expansion procedures. The formation of O-forming gap in the O-forming stage is a key processing factor and it involves complex plastic deformation and springback of the steel plate. In this paper, a numerical method is proposed for predicting geometric configuration and O-forming gap of steel plate after C-U-O-forming. A combined hardening model for characterizing the loading-unloading-reverse loading deformation of pipe steels is developed based on the Chaboche hardening model. The yield plateau phenomenon and the variation of elastic modulus with the increase of pre-strain are incorporated. Industrial experiments are carried out, and the proposed method is validated through comparison between experimental and calculated results. Furthermore, the influence of material and processing parameters on O-forming gap is numerically investigated. The results reveal that U-forming radius is the most important factor in C- and U-forming stages to determine O-forming gap, and the opening gap width increases with increasing of compression ratio in O-forming stage. Finally, the established numerical method is combined with a genetic algorithm and applied to optimize UOE process parameters for obtaining an ideal opening gap. The proposed method provides an effective and efficient tool for UOE process design. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available