A loose coupling method is adopted to study electromagnetic tube bulging, and effect of processing parameters on electromagnetic tube bulging is analyzed. The results show that critical relative length increases with the increasing of coil length, when coil approaches infinite length, critical length approximates 1. With the rise of relative position, radial magnetic pressure acting on the top end of tube increases, when relative position is equal or greater than 30 mm, radial magnetic pressure of tube top end remains unvaried. Relative position of 30–50 mm is optimal position for electromagnetic tube flanging.
The authors would like to thank Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China for their support.
The project was sponsored by the Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars, State Education Ministry (No. 1685, China).
Li F, Mo J, Zhou H, Fang Y (2013) 3D numerical simulation method of electromagnetic forming for low conductive metals with a driver. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 64:1575–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu H, Li C, Jiang H, Zhao Z, Deng J (2008) Research on magnetic pulse sizing of aluminum tube. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 38(11–12):1165–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golovashchenko S (2007) Material formability and coil design in electromagnetic forming. J Mater Eng Perform 16(3):314–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu H, Li C (2009) Effects of current frequency on electromagnetic tube compression. J Mater Process Technol 209:1053–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cui X, Mo J, Xiao S, Du E (2011) Magnetic force distribution and deformation law of sheet using uniform pressure electromagnetic actuator. Trans Nonferrous Met Soc 21:2484–2489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li Z, Li C (2007) The effect of tube size on electromagnetic bulging. Trans Nonferrous Metals Soc China 17:705–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imbert J, Winkler S, Worswick M, Oliveira D (2005) The effect of tool–sheet interaction on damage evolution in electromagnetic forming of aluminum alloy sheet. J Eng Mater Technol 127(1):145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unger J, Stiemer M, Schwarze M (2008) Strategies for 3D simulation of electromagnetic forming processes. J Mater Process Technol 1999(1–3):341–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jimberta P, Eguiaa I, Pereza I, Gutierreza M, Hurtadob I (2011) Analysis and comparative study of factors affecting quality in the hemming of 6016T4AA performed by means of electromagnetic forming and process characterization. J Mater Process Technol 211(5):916–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li Z, Jiang H, Liu S, Li J (2014) Effect of system parameters on electromagnetic forming. J Comput Theor Nanosci 11(7):1660–1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar