Incremental Metal Forming Processes in

Incremental Metal Forming Processes in
Manufacturing 9
N. Venkata Reddy, Rakesh Lingam, and Jian Cao
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412
Incremental Sheet Metal Forming and Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
Formability and Thinning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420
Accuracy and Surface Finish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434
Double-Sided Incremental Forming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
Tool Path Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448
Abstract
Incremental sheet metal forming (ISMF) has demonstrated its great potential to
form complex three-dimensional parts without using component-specific tools
against the conventional stamping operation. Forming components without
component-specific tooling in ISMF provides a competitive alternative for
economically and effectively fabricating low-volume functional sheet metal
products; hence, it offers a valid manufacturing process to match the need of
mass customization, which is regarded as the future of manufacturing. In ISMF
process, sheet is clamped in a fixture/frame with an opening window on a
programmable machine, and a hemispherical/spherical ended tool is
programmed to move in a predefined path giving shape to the clamped sheet
N.V. Reddy (*) • R. Lingam

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Hyderabad, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
J. Cao
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
# Springer-Verlag London 2015 411

A.Y.C. Nee (ed.), Handbook of Manufacturing Engineering and Technology,
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-4670-4_45
412 N.V. Reddy et al.
by progressively deforming a small region in incremental steps. Although

formability in incremental forming is higher than that of conventional forming,
the capability to form components with desired accuracy and surface finish
without fracture becomes an important requirement for commercializing the
ISMF processes. This chapter presents various configurations developed to
incrementally form the sheet metal components, experimental as well as numer-
ical methods for estimating forming limits, procedures for enhancing the accu-
racy, and methodologies for tool path generation.
Introduction
Evolution of manufacturing can be broadly divided into manual manufacturing,

mechanization, hard automation (mass production), soft automation, and integrated
manufacturing. Metal forming processes also have gone through a similar evolution
process. Incremental forming is in practice from the day human began processing
the metals using manual hammering for making tools and ornaments. Manual
manufacturing is carried out in an integrated fashion with many limitations. For
example, a blacksmith would have knowledge/information to design, fabricate,
deliver, repair/service, and recycle say a plowing tool. Quality of the tool/ornament
depends on the skill of technician and repeatability is not guaranteed. In addition,
productivity is low. The industrial revolution and development of electrical
and hydraulic machines lead to mass production of forming components using
dies, resulting in traditional art of incremental processes disappear from center
stage except in few cases (Groche et al. 2007). Incremental forming is characterized
by small overlapping regions of deformation in desired sequence to form
the intended geometry using simple tools. Hence, smaller deformation loads are
sufficient at any instance. However, in the recent past, industry has witnessed a
renewed interest in incremental forming (bulk as well as sheet metal) processes due
to change in consumer psychology, emergence of individualism which led the
market towards mass customization, change in market dynamics, reducing product
prices and increasing product features and product variety forcing industry
to reduce costs in order to stay competitive, and the possibility of developing
numerical control machines with complex kinematics. The conventional production
methods used in mass production are no longer able to fulfill the challenging
demand of flexibility and agility at competitive prices. In incremental forming
the shape of product is defined by kinematics of the tools instead of part-specific
dies and punches. Tooling costs and subsequent investment in tool storage, space
required to store dedicated tools and dies, and cost associated with maintenance
of tools are low in incremental forming. Based on the surface area to volume
ratio of material being deformed, incremental forming processes can be broadly
classified into incremental bulk metal forming (IBMF) and incremental sheet metal
forming (ISMF). It is well known that in IBMF, surface area to volume ratio is
smaller than that of ISMF. This chapter will discuss the developments related to
ISMF only.
9 Incremental Metal Forming Processes in Manufacturing 413
Incremental Sheet Metal Forming and Configurations
Sheet metal forming covers a variety of processes wherein shearing, bending,

stretching, and drawing or their combinations are used to produce parts for a
wide variety of applications. Most of the conventional sheet metal forming opera-
tions require component-specific and costly tooling, and their design and fabrica-
tion add to the lead time. Hence, these forming processes are suitable for mass
production to offset for the tool costs. Societal changes impacted manufacturing
including other engineering fields. Earlier industrialized economies were on mass
production; however, a combination of advances in technology and information is
making it increasingly possible to manufacture the customized products. In the
competitive world market, customers are demanding for more flexible and personal
design in quality, performance, services, and aesthetics of the products with
approximately same cost (if not lesser) and quality (if not higher). To be compet-
itive in the global economy and to satisfy customer demand without much lead
time, majority of manufacturers are using computer-aided tools such as computer-
aided design (CAD), computer-aided engineering (CAE), computer-aided process
planning (CAPP), computer-aided manufacturing (CAM), computer-aided inspec-
tion (CAI), etc., leading to integrated manufacturing without any physical bound-
aries between different functional departments of an organization. Development of
neutral data exchange standards led to proper integration of CAX tools. To be
competitive in mass customization era, one shall be able to convert the ideas
quickly into products using flexible and rapid prototyping and manufacturing as
well as computer-aided technologies. In addition, some traditional technologies
also may have to be used. For mass customization (manufacturing system shall be
agile to consumers with customized products at mass production prices with
equivalent or higher quality and lesser lead time), manufacturing processes have
to be flexible with minimum change over time and tooling costs. Manufacturers
worldwide now attempt to grow by competing on product differentiation as much as
on price. This trend leads to short product life cycles, low volume of a chosen
product model, and profitability that is as much dependent on the speed at which
new models and products are introduced as on the control of direct cost. This trend
in manufacturing sector led to the development of flexible manufacturing technol-
ogies including layered manufacturing and particularly in the area of machining to
changeover between different products with the help of fully automated systems.
However, developments in the area of flexible forming (Allwood and Utsunomiya
2006) have not kept pace with machining mainly because of the requirement of
component-specific tooling in many of the operations.
Conventional sheet metal forming operations require component-specific and
costly tooling, and their design and fabrication add to the lead time. Incremental
forming is one of the technologies that have emerged as an alternative to some of
the conventional sheet metal forming processes for mass customization. Incremen-
tal sheet metal forming (ISMF) is commonly regarded as a die-less sheet metal
forming process which can form complex three-dimensional parts using relatively
simple tools. It is receiving attention from the engineering community due to its
Fig. 1 Single-point
incremental forming (SPIF)
flexibility and low cost. This unique combination enables the rapid prototyping of
functional sheet metal parts before mass production. In addition, it offers a valid
manufacturing process to match the need of mass customization, which is regarded
as the future of manufacturing (Wulf 2007). In ISMF process, sheet is clamped in a
fixture/frame with an opening window on a commercial computer numerical
control (CNC) machine, and a hemispherical/spherical ended tool is programmed
to move in a predefined path giving shape to the clamped sheet by progressively
deforming a small region in incremental steps. As the forming tool moves and
deforms a small portion at a time, the overall time to produce one component is
comparatively more, but for small batch sizes and prototyping, ISMF demonstrated
its potential of being cost competitive. Existing experimental configurations for
incremental sheet metal forming can be broadly classified into two categories: with
(full/partial) and without die/pattern (Jeswiet 2001) support.
Negative die-less incremental forming, also known as single-point incremental
forming (SPIF), is the earliest form of incremental forming. Figure 1 shows the block
diagram of SPIF with a spherical tool. In SPIF, tool generally comes in contact with
the sheet close to the clamped boundary at a programmed location and moves down
by an amount equivalent to chosen incremental depth or a fraction of that depending
on the type of tool path used. Figure 2a, b depicts the contour and spiral tool paths. In
both the cases, tool moves along the programmed path peripherally.
In contour tool path, tool moves down by an amount equivalent to incremental
depth at the starting of each contour, whereas in spiral tool path, tool gradually
moves down and completes the downward movement equal to incremental depth by
the time tool completes 360 movement along the spiral, and the same can be
clearly seen in Fig. 2a, b. Note that in contour tool path, tool disengages at the end
of each contour, moves to the starting point of next contour, and plunges down
equivalent to incremental depth from its original location at the end of earlier
contour whereas in case of spiral tool path, tool disengages only after completely
forming the component. Figure 2c, d shows the components produced using contour
as well as spiral paths, and a distinct mark connecting all the start/end points of each
contour can be noticed in case of contour tool path. Bending between the clamped
region and component periphery can be clearly seen from these figures and is one of
the reasons of inaccuracy. Allwood et al. (2005) have designed and built a dedicated
Fig. 2 Contour and helical tool paths
Fig. 3 Block diagram of

SPIF developed at Cambridge
University (Allwood
et al. 2005)
SPIF machine at Cambridge University and its block diagram is shown in Fig. 3.
They have designed a tool-mounting system that allows free rotation of tool
passively and for ease of mounting and un-mounting of tools. Provision for
measurement of load(s) is provided by mounting the fixture on load cells.
Positive die-less incremental forming, also referred to as two-point incremental
forming (TPIF), is another variant of ISMF and is known to be first attempted by
Matsubara (2001). In this process (Fig. 4), clamped sheet can move up and down.
One can clearly see from Fig. 4 that the sheet metal is restrained at two locations
(other than the clamping), i.e., at one location by forming tool and the second
location is the static support. This static support can be a partial die or a full die.
Fig. 4 Two-point incremental forming (TPIF) configurations: (a) partial support and (b) full
support
Fig. 5 Configuration of commercial machine developed by Amino Corporation (http://www.

aminonac.ca/product_e_dieless.asp)
Full die can be either a negative one as shown in Fig. 4b or a positive die. Most of
the above configurations are realized by mounting the required tools on stand-alone
NC machines. Amino Corporation of Japan has developed a commercial machine
for incremental sheet metal forming with pattern support and is shown in Fig. 5.
Note that only movements in two directions are provided to tool and the third
movement necessary to form the component is provided to the fixture, and in
addition, the fixture can move up and down.
Recently, a variant of TPIF (Fig. 6) in which, instead of partial or full die,
another independently controlled forming tool is used which provides further
flexibility to the process as features on both the sides of initial plane of the sheet
can be formed. This variant is named as double-sided incremental forming (DSIF).
Fig. 6 Double-sided
incremental forming (DSIF)
Here, the deforming and supporting roles of each tool will keep changing depending
on the geometry being formed at the instant and the geometry that has to be formed
later. This configuration enhances the complexity of the components that can be
formed and reduces many of the limitations associated with incremental forming.
Modifications of the process setup have been made by various research groups,
for example, to form doubly curved surface, Yoon and Yang (2001) have used a
movable punch. Their setup (Fig. 7) consists of a movable punch and a supporting
tool that has four hemispherical-headed cylindrical pins arranged in a grid. The
sheet is placed between punch and supporting tool without clamping; hence, the
deformation in this arrangement is mainly due to bending. The downward move-
ment of punch bends the sheet, and the movement of sheet on the support tool
changes the deformation location. Each bending operation produces a spherical
shape and their combination gives doubly curved surface. The sequence of opera-
tions in this process is shown in Fig. 7c. Required curvature (R), during the
deformation, is controlled by selecting the downward movement (Δz) of the
punch from the initial plane of the sheet and grid size (2a) and is given by:
a2
R¼ (1)
2 Δz
Meier et al. (2011) have used two robots (Fig. 8) to control different tools on
either side of sheet and termed the process as duplex incremental forming (DPIF).
They used position control for the forming tool and combination of force and
position control for the support tool to maintain continuous contact. Many people
(International Patent 1999; Jurisevic et al. 2003; Emmens 2006) have tried water jet
as a forming tool along with die/pattern support. Note that water jet system is force
controlled, whereas the NC tool systems generally used for incremental forming are
displacement controlled.
The first patent on incremental sheet metal forming is by Leszak (1967) way
back in 1967. In this invention, a turning machine with a backing plate and a pair of
clamping rings (to hold the sheet) mounted on the machine turntable and a roller
tool mounted on carriage as shown in Fig. 9 is used. The sheet is rotated on
Fig. 7 Setup proposed by Yoon and Yang (2001) to form doubly curved surface
Fig. 8 Configuration of duplex incremental forming
turntable, while the roller moving on the carriage applies pressure on the sheet. This
methodology can only be used to produce axisymmetric components. More
recently, Emmens et al. (2010) reviewed the available literature, especially patents,
available on different variants of ISF. Starting from the inception the chronological
developments in ISF have been summarized by them. It can be seen from their
review that all patents are on different forms of SPIF and TPIF with or without
Fig. 9 Schematic showing the apparatus used by Leszak (1967)
partial or full dies (four variants as shown in Figs. 1, 4, and 6). All such kinds of ISF
process variants are able to form simple to complex geometries but having features
only on one side of the initial plane of sheet metal workpiece.
First comprehensive review article on ISMF has appeared in Annals of CIRP by
Jeswiet et al. (2005a). Based on the work presented in literature, they provided many
useful observations and guidelines for incremental forming, as summarized below:
• Formability in SPIF increases with decrease in tool size as well as incremental

step-down.
• Anisotropy has an influence on formability, greater formability being achieved
with smaller diameter tools in the transverse direction.
• Formability decreases with sheet thickness.
• Large incremental step-down increases the roughness.
• Increase in the incremental step-down and tool size increases forming forces.
• There is a limitation on the maximum draw angle that can be formed in one pass;
hence, multiple pass methodologies are preferred for forming large angle
components.
• Spiral tool path is preferred over contour one, but the tool path generation is
difficult.
Fig. 10 Sine law for

thickness prediction in
incremental forming
Most of the attempts on all variants of ISMF are experimental in nature.

Experimental observations/measurements of both single- and two-point incremen-
tal forming have shown that using spiral tool path for simple and reasonably
complex geometries with small to moderate wall angles, deformation is close to
plane strain, i.e., strain in one direction is zero. Material does not deform signifi-
cantly in the peripheral direction, i.e., strain is negligible in the peripheral direction
(tool movement direction). Assuming that the strain in the peripheral direction is
principal one, the thickness strain (reduction in thickness during the deformation)
has to be equal to the meridional strain (increase in length) with opposite sign to
satisfy the volume constancy. Based on the above discussion, for a constant wall
angle cone shown in Fig. 10, the relationship between the wall thickness after
deformation and the original sheet thickness in terms of wall angle can be written as
tf ¼ t0 sin ð90 αÞ (2)
The above relation is very well known as sine law in ISMF. In case of continuously
varying geometries, thickness can be obtained at any location by using the local wall
angle. However, thickness measurement of a wide variety of components formed
using single- and two-point incremental forming has shown that there is a consider-
able difference between the measured values and those predicted by sine law. Note
that the sine-law expression for predicting the thickness is derived under the ideal
deformation conditions as shown in Fig. 10 where there is no radial displacement of
any through-thickness section of the material. Thickness calculated using the sine law
(Eq. 2) can only serve as a rough and an average approximate estimate.
To understand the above mentioned conclusions and insight into various aspect
of ISMF, details of each aspect to a reasonable extent are presented in this chapter.
Formability and Thinning
Literature (Jeswiet et al. 2005a) indicates that formability in incremental sheet

metal forming is much higher than the one reported in deep drawing. Most of the
studies related to formability in ISMF are experimental in nature. Capability to
form components with desired accuracy and surface finish without fracture
becomes an important requirement for commercializing the ISMF processes. Accu-
rate prediction of formability helps in assisting better design of part geometry and
corresponding tool path. It has been well accepted that conventional forming limits
Fig. 11 Schematic representation of forming limit curve in SPIF against conventional forming
are not suitable for incremental forming even when path dependency of strains are
considered. The forming limit of a sheet metal in conventional forming is defined to
be the state at which a localized thinning of sheet initiates when it is formed into a
product shape in a stamping process. Formability of sheet metals in conventional
forming is at present characterized by the Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) intro-
duced in 1960s by Keeler and Backhofen (1964). The forming limit is convention-
ally described as plot of major principal strain vs. minor principal strain. It must
cover as much as possible the strain domain which occurs in industrial sheet metal
forming processes. The curves are established by experiments that provide pair of
the values of limiting major and minor principal strains obtained for various loading
patterns (equi-biaxial, biaxial, plane strain and uniaxial). A schematic representa-
tion comparing the forming limit curves of conventional forming (stamping/deep
drawing) with that of single-point incremental forming is shown in Fig. 11a. It can
be clearly seen that the forming limit curve for incremental forming is a straight line
with a negative slope in the positive region of minor strain whereas the conven-
tional one is present in both the regions of minor strain. Deformed grid obtained
during incremental forming shown in Fig. 11b, c indicates that the deformation that
occurs varies from plane strain to biaxial stretching.
Iseki and Kumon (1994) have proposed an incremental sheet metal stretch test
(Fig. 12a) to estimate the forming limits in incremental forming using a rolling ball
and formed a groove shown in Fig. 12b. It can be seen that both plane strain and
biaxial stretching states are captured during the experiment. Shim and Park (2001)
experimentally investigated the formability (of fully annealed Al-1050 sheets) in
incremental forming (IF) using a tool having freely rotating ball tip similar to that
used by Iseki and Kumon (1994) and generated strain-based forming limit curves
(FLC) for incremental forming by measuring the major and minor strains using a
deformation grid. Different tool path strategies are used to study various strain
paths and their suitability to generate forming limit curves for incremental forming.
Fig. 12 Groove test to obtain formability in incremental forming (Iseki and Kumon 1994):
(a) schematic and (b) formed groove
Fig. 13 Groove test: (a) tool path and (b) forming limit curve (FLC)
They recommended an alternate imposition of vertical and horizontal displace-

ments to form a deep straight groove (similar to that formed by Iseki and Kumon
(1994)) at the central portion of a square specimen clamped peripherally.
Recommended methodology is depicted pictorially in Fig. 13. It is realized by
them also that biaxial stretching occurs near the start and end of groove and plane
stretching occurs along a straight path and tendency of cracking is reported to be
greater at the ends due to biaxial stretching. They formed components having
different shapes starting from triangular opening to octagonal opening and then a
circular opening and observed that deformation is close to equi-biaxial at the
corners and plane strain in the straight regions. Failure conditions of the
abovementioned geometries were in good agreement with the forming limit curve
generated by them using the groove test.
Fig. 14 Variation of formability with tool diameter and incremental depth during groove test
Fig. 15 Tool path to achieve biaxial stretching at the center of two perpendicular straight grooves
Kim and Park (2002) have used the groove test mentioned above to study the
effect of different process parameters on the formability of fully annealed Al-1050
sheets by conducting experiments, and their trends are presented in Fig. 14. It is also
reported that the use of freely rotating ball tool enhances the formability as the
friction along the tool work interface reduces. Formability decreases with increase
in tool diameter and incremental depth. In addition, they carried out finite element
analysis using PAMSTAMP – explicit to understand the effect of process param-
eters on the deformation.
Filice et al. (2002) have proposed experimental tests aiming at achieving differ-
ent straining conditions that occur in incremental forming to study the formability.
They formed a truncated pyramid to obtain the conditions of plane strain deforma-
tion and proposed a geometry with two straight grooves perpendicular to each other
(tool path shown in Fig. 15) to achieve almost pure biaxial stretching condition at
the center of the geometry. In addition, they proposed to form truncated cone
geometry with a spiral tool path explained earlier to achieve the conditions between
plane strain and biaxial states. In all the cases, they formed the components using
hemispherical ended tool (not a freely rotating ball tool) till failure and generated
the forming limit curves for incremental forming. Later, Fratini et al. (2004) have
carried out experimental study to understand the effect of material properties on the
formability in SPIF for commonly used sheet materials, namely, copper, brass,
high-strength steel, deep drawing quality steel, AA1050-O, and AA6114-T4, in
sheet metal industry. They measured strain-hardening constant (K), strain-
hardening exponent (n), normal anisotropy index (R), ultimate tensile strength,
and percentage elongation (%PE) of all the materials by conducting tensile tests.
Truncated cones and pyramids of varying wall angles were formed till failure, to
study the influence of abovementioned process parameters on formability of incre-
mental forming and perform statistical analysis. Based on the analysis, they con-
cluded that strain-hardening exponent, strain-hardening constant, and normal
anisotropy index have high, medium, and low influence respectively. Ultimate
tensile strength has negligible influence, whereas percentage elongation has
medium influence. Among the interactive terms, only interaction between strain-
hardening exponent with strain-hardening constant and percentage elongation are
significant, whereas the others are insignificant. In addition, they reported the
influence of same process parameters on conventional forming limit diagram also.
Ham and Jeswiet (2006) used two fractional factorial designs of experiments to
study the effect of process variables on formability of AA3003. First set of design
(wall angle, vertical step size/incremental depth, base/component opening diame-
ter, component depth, feed rate, and spindle speed) indicates that feed rate, spindle
rotation speed, step size, and forming angle decide whether a part can be success-
fully formed or not. It was also reported that faster spindle rotation speed improves
formability. Second set of experiments (vertical step size, sheet thickness, and tool
diameter) reveals that vertical step size (they used 0.05, 0.127, and 0.25 mm) has
little effect on the maximum forming angle. Material thickness, tool size, and the
interaction between material thickness and tool size have a considerable influence
on maximum forming angle. Later they (Ham and Jeswiet 2007) used Box-Behnken
design of experiments to study the forming limits in SPIF. They considered five
parameters, namely, material type (three different aluminum alloys), thickness,
formed shape (cone, pyramid, and dome), tool size, and incremental step size, at
three levels for the experimentation. Material type has significant effect; the one
having lower ultimate tensile strength will have greater formability. Shape also has
some influence on the formability as the type of deformation is dependent on
geometry. Allwood et al. (2007) conducted experiments using Al 5251-H22 sheets
to explain the reasons behind higher forming limits observed in incremental
forming and shown that the lines joining corresponding points on the upper and
lower surfaces of sheet formed by SPIF remain almost normal to the surface in
meridional plane (Fig. 16), indicating that the deformation in this plane is predom-
inantly pure bending and stretching. Whereas measurements indicated that there is
a relative movement between corresponding points parallel to the tool movement
Fig. 16 Deformation
behavior in meridional plane
Fig. 17 Force measurement and force trend before failure
direction, suggesting that shear occurs in this direction. Above observations

indicate that an appreciable amount of through-thickness shear occurs during
incremental forming in the direction parallel to tool motion. Due to the presence
of through-thickness shear, the tensile stresses responsible for fracture get reduced;
hence, formability is higher in incremental forming.
Ambrogio et al. (2005a) made an attempt to predict the sheet thinning in SPIF
using finite element analysis (implicit) and compared with that of experimental
values and concluded that the predictions using FEA as well as measured experi-
mental values are less than that of sine-law thickness prediction over most of the
deformed region. In addition, experimental values are lower than the values
predicted using FEA. Ambrogio et al. (2006) used a force-based strategy that can
be used online to predict formability/failure. They measured the vertical component
(thrust force on the tool) of the forming force by mounting the incremental forming
fixture on top of a dynamometer similar (Chintan 2008) to that as shown in Fig. 17a.
They used the force gradient (monotonically decreasing curves, Fig. 17b) as a
criterion for failure. Later, Szekeres et al. (2007) observed the similar force trends
while forming cone but not for pyramid shape; hence, they indicated that tool force
measurement may not be very reliable. Many researchers have conducted experi-
mental study on the forming forces by forming a cone using SPIF (Jeswiet
et al. 2005b; Jeswiet and Szekeres 2005; Duflou et al. 2005, 2007a, b, 2008a; Filice
et al. 2006; Ambrogio et al. 2007a; Aerens et al. 2009; Henrard et al. 2011). It is
reported that the forming forces increase with tool diameter, wall angle, incremen-
tal step size, and sheet thickness as shown in Fig. 18. Increasing direction of the
Fig. 18 Variation of vertical component of force with (a) tool diameter, (b) wall angle,
(c) incremental depth, and (d) sheet thickness
parameter is shown using arrow. Note that force in the tool axial direction reaches
peak value and then attains steady state in all cases.
To reduce the number of experiments required to test the forming limits, Hussain
and Gao (2007) considered an axisymmetric component with varying wall angles
along the depth direction. The cross section of the component parallel to the
incremental depth direction is chosen as circular profile, and the same is shown
schematically in Fig. 19. Components are formed till the failure depth and quanti-
fied the formability as wall angle at that height. Later conical components with
failure angle obtained using varying angle components mentioned above are
formed, and it is concluded that formable wall angles obtained by forming conical
cups are more accurate but time-consuming. This work is extended (Hussain
et al. 2007a) by forming components with different cross-sectional profiles, namely,
elliptical, exponential, and parabolic, and found that the forming limits are different
for different profiles (lowest for circular and highest for exponential). Based on the
above observation, they concluded that the forming limits depend on history of
forming in ISMF.
Hamilton and Jeswiet (2010) studied and analyzed the effect of forming at high
feed rate and tool rotational speed in SPIF. They concluded that tool rotational
speed does not have significant effect during SPIF and forming at high feed
(5,080–8,890 mm/min) produced similar thickness distribution as of low feed.
Thus, higher feed rate (less forming time) can be used to reduce the forming
time, making ISMF process suitable for industrial applications. During the study
Fig. 19 Funnel geometry to

evaluate formability
of the microstructure, it was observed that the change in grain size after forming is
dependent on the step size, spindle rotation speed, and feed rate. Cao et al. (2008)
presented a comprehensive review along with the advances and challenges in
incremental forming including formability. They used Oyane criterion (Oyane
1980) along with FEA as well as simple force equilibrium analysis to predict the
forming limits. The Oyane model includes the effect of hydrostatic stress history on
occurrence of the ductile fracture as given below:
ð ef
1 σm
I¼ c1 þ de (3)
c2 0 σ
Here constants c1 and c2 have to be obtained experimentally. They conducted the

necessary experiments and obtained the values of c1 and c2 for AA5052-O material.
The FLC experiments for the SPIF were carried out on a CNC machining center
using straight groove geometry and tool path similar to the one shown in Fig. 13.
Malhotra et al. (2012a) analyzed the fracture behavior in SPIF by using a fracture
model in FEA to predict forming forces, thinning, and fracture. The material model
was calibrated using the forming force history for a cone shape. The model was
validated using a funnel shape (Hussain and Gao 2007; Hussain et al. 2007a)
(varying wall angles as depth increases) by comparing experimental forming
forces, thinning, and fracture depths with predicted values from FEA. It was
concluded that fracture in SPIF is controlled by both local bending and shear.
Local stretching and bending of sheet around the hemispherical tool causes higher
plastic strain on the outer side of the sheet resulting in increased damage on the
outer side as compared to the inner side. Greater shear in SPIF only partially
explains the increased formability as compared to conventional forming. The
local nature of deformation in SPIF is the root cause of increased formability as
compared to conventional forming.
Bhattacharya et al. (2011) conducted experiments to study the effect of incre-
mental sheet metal forming process variables on maximum formable angle.
Box-Behnken method is used to design the experiments for formability study.
From the experimental results it was concluded that during incremental forming,
the formability decreases with increase in tool diameter. The formable angle first
increases and then decreases with incremental depth. The variation in the formable
angle is not significant in the range of incremental depths that are used in their work
Fig. 20 (a) Schematic showing the consideration of overlap in thickness calculation. (b) Com-
parison of predictions of formable angle using triaxiality criterion with the experimental results
to produce good surface finish. To predict thickness during the SPIF, a simple
model is proposed considering the overlap in deformation (Fig. 20a) and thus
estimated the deformed sheet thickness more accurately. They used the proposed
thickness prediction model along with a simple analytical model based on the force
equilibrium to obtain the stress components at any section during SPIF. Ratio of
mean stress value to the yield stress value for all the experiments conducted for
formability study at the maximum formable angle is calculated by them using the
force equilibrium analysis, and its value is found to be very close to unity at all
conditions, hence, used the same as the failure criterion. Maximum formable angles
predicted using a triaxiality criterion mentioned above for plane stretching condi-
tions are in very good agreement with the experimental results (Fig. 20b). Duflou
et al. (2007b, 2008a) have demonstrated that the use of local heating (using NdYAG
Fig. 21 Tool configuration

used to form truncated
pyramid in positive forming
laser) ahead of tool reduces the forming forces and enhances the formability of the
material. They used TiAl6V4 sheets of 0.6 mm thickness. Cone with 56 wall angle
and 30 mm depth is successfully formed with local heating, whereas the maximum
angle that could be formed without heating using the same parameters is only 32 .
Park and Kim (2003) studied the formability of annealed aluminum sheet by
forming different shapes using both positive and negative incremental forming.
While forming a truncated pyramid with negative single-point incremental forming,
cracks occurred at the corners due to biaxial deformation, but no cracks appeared
during positive forming (in positive forming a suitable jig support is used – Fig. 21).
Strain measurements with the help of a grid indicated that in negative forming both
plane strain and biaxial stretching are present whereas in positive forming only
plain strain stretching is present. Further extending their work to more complex
geometries using positive forming, they concluded that the formability in positive
incremental forming is better as the deformation occurs under plane strain condi-
tions in addition to providing the capability to form sharp corners. Designing of
support jig is a challenging task and depends on the components geometry. One can
make use of pattern support to replace the jig necessary during positive incremental
forming.
Recently, Jackson and Allwood (2009) have conducted experimental study to
explain the deformation mechanism in SPIF (Fig. 22a) and TPIF (Fig. 22b, with full
pattern support) to that of forming the same geometry using conventional pressing
operation and to evaluate the validity of sine law and in turn to relate the thickness
measurements to the deformation mechanics. For the abovementioned purpose,
they used copper plate of 3 mm thickness, cut into two halves. Cut section passes
through the center of the component. Faces of each half are machined flat and
1.5 mm 1.5 mm grid pattern was marked. Later these plates were brazed together
and used for forming conical components by SPIF, TPIF, and pressing. After
forming the components are heated to separate the two halves. Then the formed
Fig. 22 Incremental forming configurations used for experimental study and grid for measuring
geometry, thickness, and strains are measured. One half of the component with grid
pattern is shown in Fig. 22c. Note that the measurements of abovementioned
quantities can be carried out before joining the sheets together and after separating
them once the component is formed. Hence, evolution of strain at any instance
cannot be measured, but the final strains representing the final geometry with
respect to initial geometry can be measured. Strain values were calculated by
measuring the relative movement of the points of intersection of the grid before
and after the deformation. Local coordinate system shown in Fig. 22c is used for
strain measurement, where m, θ, and t are meridional, tool movement, and thick-
ness directions, respectively. After analyzing the measured thickness, geometry,
and strains, they concluded that in both SPIF and TPIF, deformation is a combina-
tion of stretching as well as shear and the same increases with the successive tool
laps in the meridional direction with the greatest strain component being shear in
the tool movement direction and shear occurs perpendicular to the tool movement
direction in both SPIF and TPIF but is more significant in SPIF. Deformation
mechanism in SPIF and TPIF is significantly different from the idealized mecha-
nism of shear spinning on which sine-law thickness is proposed. One can easily
realize the same in SPIF as there is no support similar to spinning but the support is
present in TPIF. Critical analysis of measurements indicated that grid lines in the
thickness direction more or less remain axial in ideal mechanism, but not after
TPIF. In addition, circumferential shear is present in TPIF which is absent in the
ideal mechanism. Above observations clearly indicate that there is a radial move-
ment of through-thickness sections during deformation; hence, there is a significant
difference in measured and ideal thickness values in both the processes.
Single-pass SPIF can successfully form wall angles up to 70 for various
aluminum as well as steel sheets of 1 mm initial thickness (Jeswiet et al. 2005a)
using suitable process parameters such as incremental depth, tool diameter,
and forming speed. However, forming a wall angle close to 90 using SPIF is
Fig. 23 Multistage forming strategy using TPIF to increase formable wall angle
challenging. There have been a few attempts to increase the maximum formable
angle by using multi-pass single-/two-point incremental forming (Hirt et al. 2004;
Skjoedt et al. 2008; Duflou et al. 2008b). Hirt et al. (2004) proposed and
implemented a multi-pass forming strategy with partial support die (Fig. 23) to
form components with steep walls which cannot be formed using single-pass
incremental forming. The stages involved in their strategy are:
1. First, form the shallow angle component with final desired component height
(Fig. 23b).
2. Next, the wall angle is increased in steps of 3–5 by moving the forming tool
alternatively upwards and downwards as shown in Fig. 23c, d.
Using the above strategy, first, they made a pyramidal component with 45 wall
angle in the stage 1 and then formed up to 81 wall angle. Thickness measured by
them revealed that the thickness at any location along the wall is more than the
thickness predicted by sine law for 81 . This can be attributed to the availability of
more material as the component is formed to the final desired height in stage 1 and
upward movement of tool in later stages. In addition, they performed finite element
analysis along with damage criterion of Gurson-Tvergaard-Needleman to predict
the damage evolution during incremental forming process and predicted that the
damage increases with increase in tool diameter as well as incremental depth.
Skjoedt et al. (2008) proposed a five-stage strategy as shown in Fig. 24 to form a
cylindrical cup with a wall angle of 90 with height/radius ratio equal to one but the
components fractured in either the fourth stage or fifth stage. They used two
approaches, namely, Down-Down-Down-Up (DDDU, Fig. 24a) and Down-Up-
Down-Down (DUDD, Fig. 24b). They demonstrated that the thickness variation
is dependent not only on tool path but also on its direction (downwards or upwards)
in each stage. In one of the above strategies, i.e., DUDD, component failed in the
fourth stage, while in the other one, i.e., DDDU, it was successful up to the fourth
Fig. 24 Multi-pass strategies used by Skjoedt et al. (2008)
stage, but the component formed did not confine to the designed shape. In addition,
they used the profiles for all the stages with the required component depth similar to
that used by Hirt et al. (2004). Note that the component height is constrained by the
jig used in TPIF (Hirt et al. 2004) but the material shifts down during down pass and
results in more depth than the required component in SPIF.
Duflou et al. (2008b) stated that the only way to achieve large wall angles was to
aim for material redistribution by shifting material from other zones in the blank to
inclined wall regions. They deformed the region of the workpiece area that was
originally unaffected in single-pass SPIF tool paths (Fig. 25) to form vertical walls
without leading to failure. Their tool paths always moved from the periphery
towards the center of the sheet and all the stages are to a depth of required
component. Hence, the stepped features (Abhishek 2009) have resulted using the
tool path used by (Duflou et al. 2008b). Multistage incremental forming consists of
a number of intermediate stages to form the desired geometry. To propose inter-
mediate stages, it is very important to predict the shape that actually forms after
each intermediate stage to select the profile for next stage as well as the direction of
tool movement (i.e., in-to-out or out-to-in). It is very well known that when the tool
is moved from out-to-in during any stage, the material which is present ahead of it
moves down like a rigid body. The stepped feature formed at the bottom of the final
component (Skjoedt et al. 2008; Duflou et al. 2008b) during multistage SPIF is a
Fig. 25 (a) Five stages of tool path to form vertical walls. (b) Stepped features (Abhishek 2009)
result of accumulated rigid body translation during the deformation of the interme-
diate shapes. Abhishek (2009) and Malhotra et al. (2011a) have proposed a meth-
odology using a combination of out-to-in (OI) and in-to-out (IO) tool paths (Fig. 26)
in one pass and by selectively deforming certain regions in an intermediate pass.
Here, “OI tool path” refers to the tool moving from the outer periphery of the sheet
towards the center of the sheet while moving down in the z-direction. The “IO tool
path” refers to the tool moving from the center of the sheet towards the outer
periphery while moving up or staying at a constant depth in the z- direction. They
(Abhishek 2009; Malhotra et al. 2011a) used a seven-stage strategy to successfully
form a cylindrical component with height to radius ratio equivalent to one. For each
tool path the first number denotes the stage number, the number after the dash
denotes the order of execution, and the arrow shows the direction of tool path. Note
that some regions are not deformed in stages 4, 5, and 7. Abhishek (2009) has
extended the methodology to make hemispherical and ellipsoidal components. Note
that stepped features are avoided in the works of Abhishek (2009) and Malhotra
et al. (2011a). Very recently, rigid body movement during in-to-out and out-to-in
tool paths is modeled analytically and validated using finite element simulation for
different materials (Xu et al. 2012).
Kim and Yang (2000) compared two double-pass strategies for SPIF. One was
based on linear blending, i.e., the intermediate shape was calculated to be at a height
of 0.5 times the final height. In the other approach, they calculated the intermediate
shape so that highly deformed regions in the final shape were subjected to lesser
deformation in the intermediate shapes. Their methodologies yielded better thick-
ness distributions than single-pass forming. They concluded that the double-pass
forming method results in improved formability as well as higher mechanical
strength of the formed component. Young and Jeswiet (2004) experimentally
studied the effect of single-pass and double-pass forming strategies on the thickness
Fig. 26 Successful multistage strategy to form vertical wall without formation of stepped
features: (a) tool path, (b) profile comparison, and (c) sectional view of component
distribution in forming a 70 wall angle cone. They concluded that double-pass
strategy causes marked thinning at the flange near the backing plate. In addition,
they concluded that the sine law will not predict the thicknesses correctly when
multiple passes are used for forming angles exceeding 40 . For better understanding
of formability in terms of wall angle for different materials and process variables, a
Table 1 is provided below:
Accuracy and Surface Finish
Accuracy of the component during incremental sheet metal forming is affected by

bending of sheet between the clamped boundary and component opening, contin-
uous local springback that occurs as soon as tool moves away from a point, and
global springback that occurs after the tool retraction and unclamping of the
component. Comparison between the ideal geometry and the possible final geom-
etry during SPIF due to the abovementioned effects is schematically represented in
Fig. 27. One can reduce the deviation between the ideal and formed geometries due
to bending that occurs close to clamped boundary in SPIF by providing a suitable
support/backup or can be eliminated by using a pattern support.
Table 1 Maximum formed wall angle for various parameters

Sheet Tool Incremental
thickness diameter depth
S. No. Material t (mm) D (mm) Δz (mm) Formed angle (degrees)
1 Al 3003-O 2.1 – – 78.1 (Jeswiet
et al. 2005a)
2 1.3 – – 72.1 (Jeswiet
et al. 2005a)
3 1.21 – – 71 (Jeswiet
et al. 2005a)
4 0.93 – – 67 (Jeswiet
et al. 2005a)
5 Al 5754-O 1.02 – – 62 (Jeswiet
et al. 2005a)
6 Al 5182-O 0.93 – – 63 (Jeswiet
et al. 2005a)
7 AA 3003-O 2.1 4.76 1.3 77 (Ham and Jeswiet
2006)
8 1.3 12.7 75 (Szekeres
et al. 2007)
9 1.2 10 0.5 73 (Ambrogio
et al. 2007a)
10 AA 1050-O 1.0 18.0 0.3 70 (Ambrogio
et al. 2006)
11 1 12 1 70 (Ambrogio
et al. 2007a)
12 Aluminum 0.91 8.0 0.15 70 (Hussain
et al. 2007a)
(exponential profile)
13 Steel-DDQ 1.0 – – 70 (Jeswiet
et al. 2005a)
14 Steel-DC04 1 12 1 70 (Ambrogio
et al. 2007a)
15 LY 12 M 0.91 8.0 0.15 66.0 (Hussain
et al. 2007b)
Hirt et al. (2004) proposed an iterative method to improve geometrical accuracy.

First, the formed component was measured using coordinate measuring machine
(CMM) and compared with intended geometry. Deviation vector between mea-
sured and target points is generated and the same is used to modify the tool path.
Ambrogio et al. (2004) have studied the effect of tool diameter and incremental
depth on the geometrical accuracy in SPIF by conducting series of experiments and
concluded that the accuracy is better while using smaller diameter tools and lower
incremental depth. Note that the use of lower incremental depth increases the
forming time. In addition, they also stated that elastic springback and bending in
absence of a backing plate/die is the major cause for geometrical inaccuracies.
Fig. 27 Schematic representation of ideal and formed profiles
Importance of a proper tool path for obtaining desirable geometrical accuracies in

the formed component is emphasized, and a modified tool path is proposed to
enhance the accuracy by forming a component with higher wall angle than the
desired angle up to some depth and then forming the remaining component with the
desired angle. Conical components formed using the above strategy enhanced
the accuracy by reducing the bending near component opening (Fig. 28). Note
that the modified tool path with larger angle than the desired starts deforming the
sheet at somewhat distance away from the clamping region than the ideal tool path.
Ambrogio et al. (2007b) studied the influence of process parameters (tool diameter,
step size, sheet thickness) on springback and pillow effect (Fig. 29) in SPIF by
forming a truncated pyramid with square base. Pillow effect is compensated by
overbending. This in turn increases the bending at the opening region although it
reduces the deviation in the wall region.
Tanaka et al. (2007) have used a backup tool that comes in contact with the work
piece intermittently (following sinusoidal path) during SPIF. Finite element anal-
ysis has demonstrated that this strategy reduces the residual stress gradients and in
turn enhances the component accuracy. Duflou et al. (2007b, 2008a) made an
attempt to improve the geometrical accuracy by applying local heating principle.
Improvement in geometrical accuracy was realized by achieving more localized
forming effect (due to local heating) and reduced residual stress levels which
reduces the springback effects (Fig. 30).
Allwood et al. (2009) suggested a closed-loop control strategy (Fig. 31) that uses
spatial impulse responses to enhance the product accuracy in single-point incre-
mental forming with feedback provided by a stereovision camera. They used a
Weibull distribution curve to impulse responses from a set of experiments for a
conical component and then used the same to form similar conical components
with 0.2 mm accuracy prior to unclamping the component. They measured and
reported that the formed component deviate around 2–3 mm from that of intended,
without using the feedback. Their strategy requires an iterative process in which a
Fig. 28 Schematic representation of tool path strategy adopted by Ambrogio et al. (2004) to
reduce bending in SPIF
Fig. 29 Schematic
illustrating bending and
pillow effect observed
during SPIF
Fig. 30 Schematic to show

the effect of local heating on
accuracy
Fig. 31 Block diagram of closed-loop strategy proposed by Allwood et al. (2009)
few trials were first conducted for a component, and based on the spatial impulses
obtained, tool path compensation was done to obtain a better component.
Behera et al. (2013) proposed a compensated tool path generation methodology
for SPIF to improve the accuracy by using multivariate adaptive regression splines
(MARS) as an error prediction tool. The MARS generates continuous error
response surfaces for individual features and feature combinations. Two types of
features (planar and ruled) and two feature interactions (combinations of planar
features and combinations of ruled features) were studied with parameters and
algorithms to generate response surfaces. The method has two stages: (i) training
stage and (ii) MARS model generation stage. In training stage formed components
are scanned to generate point cloud and are compared with available point cloud of
stereolithography (STL) model to generate accuracy reports and used the same to
build MARS engine (Fig. 32). Feature-assisted single-point incremental forming
(FSPIF) module detects the features and MARS engine adjusts these features and
generates adjusted STL models in second stage (Fig. 33). The components formed
from these adjusted models are again compared with original STL model to
generate reports for validation. The validation results show average deviation of
less than 0.3 mm, and the maximum deviation for horizontal nonplanar feature is of
0.72–0.99 mm. Although the methodology reasonably enhances the part accuracy,
the process of implementation of MARS system is difficult and limited. Also, for
Fig. 32 Flowchart illustrating the generation and use of strategy proposed by Behera et al. (2013)
to improve accuracy in SPIF – generation stage
Fig. 33 Flowchart illustrating the generation and use of strategy proposed by Behera et al. (2013)
to improve accuracy in SPIF – usage stage
parts with wall angles close to maximum formable angle, the compensation of the
STL file results in a compensated geometry having zones with wall angle greater
than maximum formable angle.
Twist is observed in incremental forming of components and its quantity is
dependent on the type of configuration and other process parameters involved.
Twist in incrementally formed sheet metal components is first reported by
Matsubara (2001) while forming cone as well as pyramid shapes using two-point
incremental forming (TPIF). Note that in TPIF, tool moves from inside (starting
from fixed/support tool) to outside. Due to this reason, already formed region of the
part is compelled to tilt/rotate about the fixed tool. Here, fixed tool acts like a pivot.
Matsubara (2001) reported twist as high as 30 in TPIF when the tool path direction
is kept same during each step. To reduce this twist, tool path direction is reversed
between consecutive contours. Alternative tool movement directions are used by
many researchers to reduce the twist in incremental forming (Jeswiet et al. 2005a).
Although twist accumulation can be reduced by alternating the tool path direction,
it also results in the deterioration of surface quality at the location of contour
transition. In addition, spiral tool path (Jeswiet et al. 2005a) is better for product
quality and to enhance formability. Very recently, Duflou et al. (2010) and Vanhove
et al. (2010) have studied the twist in SPIF of pyramid and conical shapes using
unidirectional tool path. Note that in SPIF, tool moves from outside to inside and no
fixed tool or any support is present as in TPIF. Twist quantified by them (Duflou
et al. 2010; Vanhove et al. 2010) is in terms of angle by drawing appropriate lines
(radial lines in case of cone) prior to forming and measuring its deviation after
forming. They classified the twist in two categories, namely, conventional (that
occurs at low wall angles) and reverse (close to formability limits). They concluded
that at lower wall angles, tangential force on the deforming sheet results in twist in
the tool path direction and is named as conventional twist. Asymmetric strain
distribution along the meridional direction at higher wall angles for pyramidal
structures was observed and the twist started reducing and even reversal is reported.
They also concluded that the geometrical features like ribs/corners have significant
influence on the twist. However, they reported that the twist is independent of tool
diameter, rotation speed of the tool, and tool feed rate. They concluded that the twist
along tool movement direction increases with wall angle up to some value and then
the trend reverses with further increase in wall angle. Asghar et al. (2012) have
carried out experimental and numerical analysis to study the effect of process
variables on twist in incremental forming and concluded that the twist increases
with increase in incremental depth and decrease in tool diameter and sheet thick-
ness. Feed rate effect is insignificant. Numerical predictions are in good qualitative
agreement with experimental results.
Surface finish of the formed component is of equal importance as that of
accuracy. Hagan and Jeswiet (2004) carried out experimental study by forming
conical parts with contour tool paths to measure surface roughness in SPIF.
Incremental depths varying from 0.051 to 1.3 mm are used to form a conical
component of 45 wall angle using 12.7 mm tool diameter with a feed rate of
25 mm/s. Peak to valley heights measured between 5 and 25 μ correspond to
incremental depths between 0.051 and 1.3 mm. In addition, spindle speeds varying
from 0 to 2,600 rpm were used. They concluded that it does not have significant
effect, but a minimum surface roughness was observed around 1,500 rpm. Ham
et al. (2009) carried out experiments to study the effect of incremental depth and
tool diameter on the surface roughness of components formed using contour tool
paths and observed that usage of smaller tools results in more distinctive cusps. As
the tool size increases, the increased contact area between the tool and work for the
same incremental depth results in greater overlap of the tool with the previously
formed material; hence, the surface cusps become indistinguishable with increase
in tool diameter. Singh (2009) and Bhattacharya et al. (2011) have studied the
influence of wall angle (20, 40, and 60 ), tool diameter (4, 6, and 8 mm), and
incremental depth (0.2, 0.6, and 1 mm) on surface finish by forming conical
components with spiral tool path keeping sheet thickness, feed rate, and other
parameters constant. Design of experiments was carried out using full factorial
design and the best surface finish (in terms of Ra) obtained by them in the range of
parameters used is 0.3 μ. Empirical equation that relates surface roughness (Ra) to
process variables is reproduced below:
Ra ¼ 8:41 0:069α 2:14d þ 9:13Δz þ 0:0035αd þ 0:0191αΔz

(4)
0:417dΔz þ 0:00005:7α2 þ 0:153d2 4:66Δz2
They concluded that surface roughness decreases with increase in tool diameter
for all incremental depths and it happens due to the increase in overlap between the
neighboring tool paths with increase in tool diameter. In addition, up to certain wall
angle, surface roughness value initially increased with increase in incremental
depth and then decreased. With further increase in angle, surface roughness
increased with increase in incremental depth. It was observed that the undeformed
region between successive tool paths is more at lesser wall angles and higher
incremental depth. Note that the overlap increases with increase in wall angle
whereas contact area of the tool reduces for a given incremental depth. The average
surface roughness (Ra) achieved by SPIF at different process parameters is sum-
marized in Table 2.
Double-Sided Incremental Forming
Double-sided incremental forming (DSIF) uses one tool each on either side of the
sheet. As stated earlier, the deforming and supporting roles of each tool will keep
changing depending on the geometry. DSIF configuration enhances the complexity
of the components that can be formed and reduces many of the limitations associ-
ated with incremental forming. Cao et al. (2008) mounted two tools on a single rigid
C-frame (Fig. 34) to demonstrate DSIF to form features on both sides of initial
plane of sheet. They introduced squeeze factor as ratio between tool gap and initial
sheet thickness and reported that decrease in squeeze factor improves the
dimensional accuracy of the formed component (relative error of 46.6–28.4 %,
Table 2 Average surface roughness at different process variables in SPIF

Wall angle Tool diameter Incremental Surface roughness
S. No. Material (degrees) (mm) depth (mm) (Ra) (microns)
1 Al 3003 45 12.7 0.051 0.5 (Hagan and
Jeswiet 2004)
2 45 12.7 1.3 5.0 (Hagan and
Jeswiet 2004)
3 AA 60 4 1.0 2.99 (Singh 2009)
4 5052-O 60 8 0.2 0.30 (Singh 2009)
5 40 4 1.0 3.91 (Singh 2009)
6 40 8 0.2 0.34 (Singh 2009)
7 20 4 1.0 4.28 (Singh 2009)
8 20 8 0.2 1.75 (Singh 2009)
Fig. 34 Double-sided incremental forming using a C-clamp to mount both the tools (Cao
et al. 2008)
for squeeze of 0–40 % sheet thickness). Their group (Malhotra et al. 2011b) further
studied the effect of squeezing on geometrical accuracy for conical component with
fillet (65 wall angle, depth 36 mm) using two independently moving tools on either
side of the sheet. Note that the squeeze factor definition here is the ratio between
tool gap at any instant and the expected thickness using sine law at that location.
The contact condition of the bottom tool (support tool) is improved with decrease in
squeeze factor, but the effect of squeeze factor on part accuracy is not consistent.
Malhotra et al. (2012b) have proposed another DSIF strategy (accumulative
DSIF) using in-to-out (IO) tool path strategy (Malhotra et al. 2011a) with displace-
ment controlled forming and support tools. Using ADSIF, they formed cones of 40
and 50 angles and reported maximum shape deviation of 1.15 mm. Forming time,
Fig. 35 Block diagram showing the interaction of different modules to generate the tool path for
roboforming (Meier et al. 2012)
using ADSIF, increases drastically to achieve the desired depth and geometry of the
component as it uses only in-to-out tool paths. Meier et al. (2011) used two robots to
control different tools on either side of sheet and termed the process as duplex
incremental forming (Fig. 8). They used position control for the forming tool and
combination of force and position control for the support tool to maintain contin-
uous contact. They used a vision-based measurement technique to estimate devia-
tions from ideal profile and modified the tool path to reduce the deviation. They
made use of FEA predictions also to modify the tool path and reported significant
improvement of accuracy in the wall region. But, the improvement in accuracy in
component opening region and bottom regions is marginal (deviation in the range
of 0.5–1.0 mm). Due to the superimposed pressure from support tool, 12.5 %
increase in formability has been reported. Meier et al. (2012) presented an inte-
grated CAx (CAD, CAM, CAE) process chain (Fig. 35) for the robot-assisted
incremental forming process, called as roboforming, to quickly realized the path
planning and simultaneously raise the geometrical accuracy using different com-
pensation methods. Commercial CAM system with additional features has been
developed for two synchronized tool paths according to different forming strate-
gies. A simulation model uses this tool path for animation of robot movements and
to ensure the experimental safety. Forming results are forecasted using the tool path
in an established FEM model, which are fed back to the CAM program. After the
comparison with the target geometry, the geometrical deviations were used to
adjust the tool paths. They reported reduction of profile deviation from 1.08 to
0.2 mm, but FEA consumes about 10 h for simulation; thus, the real-time compen-
sation is difficult to implement. Recently, DSIF machine has been designed and
developed at Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur and many studies are in

progress (Srivastsava 2010; Koganti 2011; Asghar 2012; Shibin 2012; Lingam
2012). Very recently, Northwestern University, Evanston, has also developed a
DSIF machine.
Tool Path Planning
In incremental forming, tool path plays a significant role on the forming limits,
component accuracy, surface quality, thickness variation, and forming time. Many
attempts have been made to study various tool path strategies (contour, spiral,
radial, and multiple passes – in-to-out and/or out-to-in) and their effect on forming
limits, thickness distribution, accuracy, and surface quality in various variants of
incremental forming (SPIF, TPIF, DSIF), and the same has been presented in the
earlier sections. Hence, certain aspects are not discussed in detail in this section. As
presented earlier, there are two types of tool path used for ISMF process , namely,
contour and spiral (Fig. 2a, b). Most of those tool paths have been generated using
surface milling modules of commercial CAM packages developed for machining.
Deformation is biaxial at the starting and end points of each contour in contour tool
path and is near to plane strain in between; hence, the tendency for fracture at the
start and end points of each contour is higher. Contour tool path leaves stretch
marks at the start points of each contour (Fig. 2c). To avoid equi-biaxial stretching
and the tool marks at the end points of each contour, Filice et al. (2002) have
suggested the use of a spiral tool path (Fig. 2b). In SPIF, tool (either contour or
spiral) moves from out-to-in and represented as conventional strategy in Fig. 36a.
Bambach et al. (2005) have proposed a conical strategy in addition to conventional
strategy. In conical strategy, tool movement starts at the center and opens up with
increasing depth. They studied two in-plane tool movement strategies (contour,
Fig. 36b, and radial, Fig. 36c) coupled with two z-movement strategies, conven-
tional and conical strategies. Considering the time required for producing the part
and the uniformity of sheet thickness throughout the part, they concluded that the
conventional/contour strategy is better (2 min production time with comparable
thickness distribution) as compared to radial strategies (9 min for cone/radial and
40 min for conventional radial trajectory). Time required to form the component
reported by them can be easily understood with the schematic representations
presented in Fig. 36.
Kopac and Kampus (2005) studied the effect of various in-plane tool movement
strategies for axisymmetric components. They examined four procedures in terms
of tool movement, namely, (A) from exterior to interior, (B) from interior to
exterior, (C) first in the center then from exterior to interior, and (D) first in the
center then from interior to exterior, and reported that the maximum depth of
forming can be achieved with case D, i.e., first in the center then from interior to
exterior. Ambrogio et al. (2005b) developed a tool path modification strategy by
integrating an on-line measuring system and tool path to be followed for forming
the remaining portion of the component under consideration. For achieving the
Fig. 36 Different tool path strategies used by Bambach et al. (2005): (a) conventional and
conical, (b) contour tool path, (c) radial tool path, (d) conventional-contour, and (e) conical-
contour strategies
same, they utilized the combination of online measuring techniques, numerical

simulation (Deform3D), and optimization techniques to modify the tool path. Their
path-correcting methodology makes use of the measurement of the previous refer-
ence point on a given section of the spiral and its comparison to the desired position
at the final and current step. Three-dimensional spiral tool paths for forming
asymmetric components (Skjoedt et al. 2007) are generated by first generating
contour tool paths using the milling module available in Pro/ENGINEER and
then interpolating between the individual contours to produce a single 3D spiral.
They used constant incremental depth for generating the contour tool path.
Stereolithography (STL) files are used to develop an iterative tool path generation
methodology (contour tool path was generated using a combination of forming,
scanning, and reforming) (Verbert et al. 2007). It is well known that STL format has
inherent chordal errors and iterative nature increases time. Attanasio et al. (2006,
2008) have investigated two types of tool paths, one with a constant incremental
depth (Δz) and the other with a constant scallop height (h) (Fig. 37). It was reported
that the surface quality of the formed component improved by decreasing the
values of incremental depth (Δz). A shortcoming of their approach is that
when the value of Δz is arbitrarily reduced to a very small value, the forming
time increases, especially when larger components are to be formed. This kind of
Fig. 37 Schematic of tool path with (a) constant incremental depth and (b) constant scallop
height
approach does give the designer the freedom to form a component quickly with
acceptable surface finish.
Malhotra (2008), Malhotra et al. (2010) developed and implemented a platform-
independent methodology for generation of contour and spiral tool paths for an
arbitrary component formable by SPIF. The methodology takes neutral part format
STEP AP203/AP214 of CAD model as input. Adaptive slicing techniques used in
layered manufacturing (Pandey et al. 2003) and 3D spiral tool path generation
methodology for surface milling of freeform shapes with constant scallop height
(Lee 2003) have been modified and used for generating tool paths. Tool path
methodology developed by them for single-point incremental forming addresses
the trade-off that exists between geometric accuracy, surface finish, and forming
time. Steps involved in their tool path generation methodology are:
1. Generation of contour tool path with a constant incremental depth.

2. Calculation of volumetric errors and scallop heights to form components with
good accuracy and surface finish.
3. Usage of adaptive slicing criterion to evaluate the need for new contour
insertion.
(a) Repeat steps 2–4 for the inserted contour and the one above when the new
contour is inserted.
(b) Otherwise move down to the next pair of contours and perform steps 3 and
4 till all the contours are finished.
4. Perform deletion of slices to get the final contours. Here, extra slices are deleted,
which will not adversely affect the accuracy by evaluating the volumetric error
percentage between slice n and slice n + 1.
5. Generation of final spiral path using the finalized contours.
6. Apply the tool radius compensation (Fig. 38) using local geometrical conditions
and generate the tool path for forming the components.
Fig. 38 Schematic showing

the importance of tool radius
compensation
Fig. 39 Comparison of ideal and measured profiles: (a) with and (b) without tool radius
compensation
The adaptive slicing methodology along with volumetric error criterion

enhances the conformity between the formed and the desired components and the
same can be seen from Fig. 39.
Azaouri and Lebaal (2012) proposed a tool path optimization strategy for SPIF
for finding the shortest tool path (less forming time) which distributes the material
as evenly as possible throughout the part. As a consequence of volume conser-
vation, the part with the lowest reduction in sheet thickness would have a
homogeneous distribution of thickness. FEA, in combination with response
surface method and sequential quadratic programming algorithm, was used for
determining the optimal forming strategy. The authors reported a better thickness
distribution (minimum thickness: 0.91–0.96 mm with optimization and 0.79 mm
without optimization, for an initial sheet thickness of 1.5 mm) and less forming
forces. However, in order to achieve the shortest path, the accuracy and surface
finish of the component get deteriorated. Many (Cao et al. 2008; Hirt et al. 2004;
Skjoedt et al. 2008, 2010; Duflou et al. 2008b; Abhishek 2009; Malhotra
et al. 2011a; Xu et al. 2012; Kim and Yang 2000; Young and Jeswiet 2004)
have proposed tool paths for other variants of incremental forming, and
their details are presented in earlier sections dealing with formability, thickness
distribution, and accuracy.
Summary
Incremental sheet metal forming is gaining importance in automobile (Governale

et al. 2007), aerospace (Jeswiet et al. 2005a), and biomedical industries (Ambrogio
et al. 2005c) and even for processing recycling panels (Jackson et al. 2007; Takano
et al. 2008) and producing dies/molds quickly using complex sheet metal surfaces
produced by incremental forming at very less expense (Allwood et al. 2006).
Accuracy of the component during incremental sheet metal forming is affected
by bending of sheet between the clamped boundary and component opening,
continuous local springback that occurs as soon as tool moves away from a point,
and global springback that occurs after the tool retraction and unclamping of the
component. Predicting springback using numerical analysis and compensating for
the same during tool path generation is a time-consuming process due to the nature
of process. Development of DSIF enhanced the product complexity to form parts
with double curvature on both sides of the initial sheet plane without any additional
setups with better accuracy than other incremental forming configurations.
References
Abhishek K (2009) Multi-stage tool path strategies for single point incremental forming. M.Tech.
thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur
Aerens R, Eyckens P, Bael AV, Duflou JR (2009) Force prediction for single point incremental
forming deduced from experimental and FEM observations. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
46:969–982
Allwood JM, Utsunomiya H (2006) A survey of flexible forming processes in Japan. Int J Mach
Tool Manuf 46:1939–1960
Allwood JM, Houghton NE, Jackson KP (2005) The design of an incremental sheet forming
machine. Adv Mater Res 6–8:471–478
Allwood JM, Bramley AN, Ridgman TW, Mileham AR (2006) A novel method for the rapid
production of inexpensive dies and moulds with surfaces made by incremental sheet forming.
Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf 220:323–327
Allwood JM, Shouler DR, Tekkaya AE (2007) The increased forming limits of incremental sheet
forming processes. Key Eng Mater 344:621–628
Allwood JM, Music O, Raithathna A, Duncan SR (2009) Closed-loop feedback control of product
properties in flexible metal forming processes with mobile tools. CIRP Ann 58(1):287–290
Ambrogio G, Costantino I, Napoli LD, Filice L, Muzzupappa M (2004) Influence of some relevant
process parameters on the dimensional accuracy in incremental forming: a numerical and
experimental investigation. J Mater Process Technol 153–154:501–507
Ambrogio G, Filice L, Gagliardi F, Micari F (2005a) Sheet thinning prediction in single point
incremental forming. Adv Mater Res 6–8:479–486
Ambrogio G, Filice L, De Napoli L, Muzzupappa M (2005b) A simple approach for reducing
profile diverting in a single point incremental forming process. J Eng Manuf 219(11):823–830
Ambrogio G, De Napoli L, Filice L, Gagliardi F, Muzzupappa M (2005c) Application of

incremental forming process for high customized medical product manufacturing. J Mater
Process Technol 162–163:156–162
Ambrogio G, Filice L, Micari F (2006) A force measuring based strategy for failure prevention in
incremental forming. J Mater Process Technol 177:413–416
Ambrogio G, Duflou J, Filice L, Aerens R (2007) Some considerations on force trends in
Incremental Forming of different materials. In: Proceedings of 10th ESAFORM conference
on material forming, Zaragoza, Spin, April 2007 vol 907, pp 193–197
Ambrogio G, Cozza V, Filice L, Micari F (2007b) An analytical model for improving precision in
single point incremental forming. J Mater Process Technol 191:92–95
Asghar J (2012) Tool path compensations for enhancing accuracy in incremental sheet metal
forming. M.Tech. thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur
Asghar J, Shibin E, Bhattacharya A, Reddy NV (2012) Twist in single point incremental forming.
In: Proceedings of the international manufacturing science and engineering conference, Uni-
versity of Norte Dame, Norte Dame
Attanasio A, Ceretti E, Giardini C (2006) Optimization of tool path in two points incremental
forming. J Mater Process Technol 177:409–412
Attanasio A, Ceretti E, Giardini C, Mazzoni L (2008) Asymmetric two points incremental
forming: improving surface quality and geometric accuracy by tool path optimization.
J Mater Process Technol 197(1–3):59–67
Azaouri M, Lebbal N (2012) Tool path optimization for single point incremental sheet forming
using response surface method. Simul Model Pract Theory 24:49–58
Bambach M, Ames J, Azaouzi M, Campagne L, Hirt G, Batoz JL (2005) Initial experimental and
numerical investigations into a class of new strategies for single point incremental sheet
forming (SPIF). In: Proceeding of 8th ESAFORM conference on material forming, Cluj-
Napoca, Romania, April 2005 pp 671–674
Behera AK, Verbert J, Lauwers B, Duflou JR (2013) Tool path compensation strategies for single
point incremental sheet forming using multivariate adaptive regression splines. ComputAided
Des 45:575–590
Bhattacharya A, Reddy NV, Maneesh K, Cao J (2011) Formability and surface finish studies in
single point incremental forming. ASME J Manuf Sci Eng 133:0610201–0610208
Cao J, Huang Y, Reddy NV, Malhotra R, Wang Y (2008) Incremental sheet metal forming:
advances and challenges. In: Proceedings of international conference on technology of plas-
ticity, Gyeongju, 1967–1982
Chintan YD (2008) Single point incremental forming: force and thickness measurements. M.Tech.
Duflou JR, Szekeres A, Vanherck P (2005) Force measurements for single point incremental
forming: an experimental study. Adv Mater Res 6–8:441–448
Duflou J, Kol YT, Szekeres A, Vanherck P (2007a) Experimental study on force measurements for
single point incremental forming. J Mater Process Technol 189:65–72
Duflou JR, Callebaut B, Verbert J, De Baerdemaeker H (2007b) Laser assisted incremental
forming: formability and accuracy improvement. CIRP Ann 56:273–276
Duflou JR, Callebaut B, Verbert J, De Baerdemaeker H (2008a) Improved SPIF performance
through dynamic local heating. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 48:543–549
Duflou JR, Verbert J, Belkassem B, Gu J, Sol H, Henrard C, Habraken AM (2008b) Process
window enhancement for single point incremental forming through multi-step toolpaths. CIRP
Ann 57:253–256
Duflou JR, Vanhove H, Verbert J, Gu J, Vasilakos I, Eyckens P (2010) Twist revisited: twist
phenomena in single point incremental forming. CIRP Ann 59:307–310
Emmens WC (2006) Water jet forming of steel beverage cans. Int J Mach Tool Manuf
46:1243–1247
Emmens WC, Sebastiani G, Googaard AH (2010) The technology of incremental sheet forming –
a brief review of the history. J Mater Process Technol 210:981–997
Filice L, Fratini L, Micari F (2002) Analysis of material formability in incremental forming. CIRP
Ann 51(1):199–202
Filice L, Ambrogio G, Micari F (2006) On-line control of single point incremental forming
operations through punch force monitoring. CIRP Ann 55:245–248
Fratini L, Ambrogio G, Di Lorenzo R, Filice L, Micari F (2004) Influence of mechanical properties
of the sheet material on formability in single point incremental forming. CIRP Ann
53(1):207–210
Governale A, Franco AL, Panzeca A, Frantini L, Micari F (2007) Incremental forming process for
the accomplishment of automotive details. Key Eng Mater 344:559–566
Groche P, Fritsche D, Tekkaya EA, Allwood JM, Hirt G, Neugebauer R (2007) Incremental bulk
metal forming. CIRP Ann 56(2):635–656
Hagan E, Jeswiet J (2004) Analysis of surface roughness for parts formed by computer numerical
controlled incremental forming. J Eng Manuf 218:1307–1312
Ham M, Jeswiet J (2006) Single point incremental forming and the forming criteria for AA3003.
CIRP Ann 55:241–244
Ham M, Jeswiet J (2007) Forming limit curves in single point incremental forming. CIRP Ann
56:277–280
Ham M, Powers B, Brown CA, Jeswiet J, Hamilton K (2009) Roughness evaluation of single point
incrementally formed surfaces. Trans N Am Manuf Res Inst Soc Manuf Eng 37:222–230
Hamilton K, Jeswiet J (2010) Single point incremental forming at high feed rates and rotational
speeds: surface and structural consequences. CIRP Ann 59:311–314
Henrard C, Bouffioux C, Eyckens P, Sol H, Duflou JR, Van Houtte P, Van Bael A, Duchene L,
Habraken A (2011) Forming forces in single point incremental forming: prediction by finite
element simulations, validation and sensitivity. Comput Mech 47:573–590
Hirt G, Ames J, Bambach M, Kopp R (2004) Forming strategies and Process Modelling for CNC
Incremental Sheet Forming. CIRP Ann 53(1):203–206
Hussain G, Gao L (2007) A novel method to test the thinning limits of sheet- metals in negative
incremental forming. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 47:419–435
Hussain G, Gao L, Dar NU (2007a) An experimental study on some formability evaluation
methods in negative incremental forming. J Mater Process Technol 186:45–53
Hussain G, Dar NU, Gao L, Chen MH (2007b) A comparative study on the forming limits of an
aluminum sheet-metal in negative incremental forming. J Mater Process Technol 187:94–98
International Patent (1999) WO 00/16926–PCT/US99/21890, 20 Sept 1999, Ball Corporation
(US)
Iseki H, Kumon H (1994) Forming limit of incremental sheet metal stretch forming using spherical
rollers. J JSTP 35:1336–1341
Jackson K, Allwood J (2009) The mechanics of incremental sheet forming. J Mater Process
Technol 209:1158–1174
Jackson KP, Allwood JM, Landert M (2007) Incremental forming of sandwich panels. Key Eng
Mater 344:591–598
Jeswiet J (2001) Incremental single point forming. Trans NAMRI/SME 29:75–79
Jeswiet J, Szekeres A (2005) Forces in single point incremental forming. Trans NAMRI/SME
30:399–404
Jeswiet J, Micari F, Hirt G, Bramley A, Duflou A, Allwood J (2005a) Asymmetric single point
incremental forming of sheet metal. CIRP Ann 54(2):623–649
Jeswiet J, Duflou JR, Szekeres A (2005b) Forces in single point and two point incremental
forming. Adv Mater Res 6–8:449–456
Jurisevic B, Heiniger KC, Kuzman K, Junkar M (2003) Incremental sheet metal forming with a
high-speed water jet. In: Proceedings of the IDDRG congress, Bled, Slovenia pp 139–148
Keeler SP, Backhofen WA (1964) Plastic instability and fracture in sheet stretched over rigid
punches. Trans ASM 56:25–48
Kim YH, Park JJ (2002) Effect of process parameters on formability in incremental forming of
sheet metal. J Mater Process Technol 130:42–46
Kim TJ, Yang DY (2000) Improvement of formability for the incremental sheet metal forming
process. Int J Mech Sci 42(7):1271–1286
Koganti M (2011) Geometrical accuracy and complexity using double sided incremental forming.
M.Tech. thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur
Kopac J, Kampus Z (2005) Incremental sheet metal forming on CNC milling machine-tool.
J Mater Process Technol 162–163:622–628
Lee E (2003) Contour offset approach to spiral toolpath generation with constant scallop height.
Comput Aided Des 35:511–518
Leszak E (1967) Patent: apparatus and process for incremental dieless forming. US patent office,
Patent number: 3,342,051
Lingam R (2012) An interactive tool for feature sequencing in incremental sheet metal forming.
M.Tech. thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur
Malhotra R (2008) Automatic tool path generation for single point incremental forming. M.Tech.
Malhotra R, Reddy NV, Cao J (2010) Automatic 3D spiral tool path generation for single point
incremental forming. ASME J Manuf Sci Eng 132(6):061003.1–061003.10
Malhotra R, Bhattacharya A, Kumar A, Reddy NV, Cao J (2011a) A new methodology for multi-
pass single point incremental forming with mixed tool paths. CIRP Ann 60:323–326
Malhotra R, Cao J, Ren F, Kiridena V, Xia ZC, Reddy NV (2011b) Improvement of geometric
accuracy in incremental forming by using a squeezing tool path strategy with two forming
tools. ASME J Manuf Sci Eng 133:061019. 1–061019.10
Malhotra R, Xue L, Belytschko T, Cao J (2012a) Mechanics of fracture in single point incremental
forming. J Mater Process Technol 212:1573–1590
Malhotra R, Cao J, Beltran M, Xu D, Magargee J, Kiridena V, Xia ZC (2012b) Accumulative –
DSIF strategy for enhancing process capabilities in incremental forming. CIRP Ann
61:251–254
Matsubara S (2001) A computer numerically controlled dieless incremental forming of a sheet
metal. Proc Inst Mech Eng 215:959–966
Meier H, Magnus C, Smukala V (2011) Impact of superimposed pressure on dieless incremental
sheet metal forming with two moving tools. CIRP Ann 60:327–330
Meier H, Zhu J, Buff B, Laurischkat R (2012) CAx process chain for two robots based incremental
sheet metal forming. CIRP Ann 3:37–42
Oyane M (1980) Criteria for ductile fracture and their applications. J Mech Work Technol 4:65–81
Pandey PM, Reddy NV, Dhande SG (2003) Slicing procedures in layered manufacturing. Rapid
Prototyp J 9(5):274–288
Park JJ, Kim YH (2003) Fundamental studies on the incremental sheet metal forming technique.
J Mater Process Technol 140:447–453
Shibin E (2012) Finite element analysis of incremental sheet metal forming. M.Tech. thesis, Indian
Institute of Technology, Kanpur
Shim MS, Park JJ (2001) The formability of aluminium sheet in incremental forming. J Mater
Process Technol 113:654–658
Singh S (2009) Single point incremental forming: formability and surface finish studies. M.Tech.
Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur
Skjoedt M, Hancock MH, Bay N (2007) Creating helical tool paths for single point incremental
forming. Key Eng Mater 344:583–590
Skjoedt M, Bay N, Endelt B, Ingarao G (2008) Multi stage strategies for single point incremental
forming of a cup. Int J Mater Form 1:1199–1202
Skjoedt M, Silva MB, Martins PAF, Bay N (2010) Strategies and limits in multi-stage single-point
incremental forming. J Strain Anal Eng Des 45:33–44
Srivastsava A (2010) Electric pulse aided single point incremental forming, M.Tech. thesis, Indian
Institute of Technology, Kanpur
Szekeres A, Ham M, Jeswiet J (2007) Force Measurement in pyramid shaped parts with a spindle
mounted force sensor. Key Eng Mater 344:551–558
Takano H, Kitazawa K, Goto T (2008) Incremental forming of no uniform sheet metal: possibility
of cold recycling process of sheet metal waste. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 48:477–482
Tanaka S, Nakamura T, Hayakawa K, Motomura K (2007) Residual stress in sheet metal parts
made by incremental forming process. In: Proceeding of the 9th NUMIFORM, Porto, Portu-
guese, June 2007 pp 775–780
Vanhove H, Verbert J, Gu J, Vasilakos I, Duflou RJ (2010) An experimental study of twist
phenomena in single point incremental forming. Int J Mater Form 3:975–978
Verbert J, Duflou JR, Lauwers B (2007) Feature based approach for increasing the accuracy of the
SPIF process. Key Eng Mater 344:527–534
Wulf WA (2007) Changes in innovation ecology. Science 316:1253
Xu D, Malhotra R, Reddy NV, Chen J, Cao J (2012) Analytical prediction of stepped feature
generation in multi-pass single point incremental forming. J Manuf Process 14:487–494
Yoon SJ, Yang DY (2001) Investigation into a new incremental forming process using an
adjustable punch set for the manufacture of a doubly curved sheet metal. Proc Inst Mech
Eng 215:991–1004
Young D, Jeswiet J (2004) Wall thickness variations in single-point incremental forming. J Eng
Manuf 218:1453–1459

Incremental Metal Forming Processes in

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Incremental Metal Forming Processes in

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Incremental Metal Forming Processes in

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Incremental Metal Forming Processes in

N.V. Reddy (*) • R. Lingam

# Springer-Verlag London 2015 411

by progressively deforming a small region in incremental steps. Although

Evolution of manufacturing can be broadly divided into manual manufacturing,

Incremental Sheet Metal Forming and Configurations

Sheet metal forming covers a variety of processes wherein shearing, bending,

Fig. 2 Contour and helical tool paths

Fig. 3 Block diagram of

Fig. 5 Configuration of commercial machine developed by Amino Corporation (http://www.

Fig. 8 Configuration of duplex incremental forming

Fig. 9 Schematic showing the apparatus used by Leszak (1967)

• Formability in SPIF increases with decrease in tool size as well as incremental

Fig. 10 Sine law for

Most of the attempts on all variants of ISMF are experimental in nature.

tf ¼ t0 sin ð90 αÞ (2)

Formability and Thinning

Literature (Jeswiet et al. 2005a) indicates that formability in incremental sheet

They recommended an alternate imposition of vertical and horizontal displace-

Fig. 17 Force measurement and force trend before failure

direction, suggesting that shear occurs in this direction. Above observations

Fig. 19 Funnel geometry to

Here constants c1 and c2 have to be obtained experimentally. They conducted the

Fig. 21 Tool configuration

Fig. 24 Multi-pass strategies used by Skjoedt et al. (2008)

Accuracy and Surface Finish

Accuracy of the component during incremental sheet metal forming is affected by

Table 1 Maximum formed wall angle for various parameters

Hirt et al. (2004) proposed an iterative method to improve geometrical accuracy.

Fig. 27 Schematic representation of ideal and formed profiles

Importance of a proper tool path for obtaining desirable geometrical accuracies in

Fig. 30 Schematic to show

Fig. 31 Block diagram of closed-loop strategy proposed by Allwood et al. (2009)

Ra ¼ 8:41 0:069α 2:14d þ 9:13Δz þ 0:0035αd þ 0:0191αΔz

Double-Sided Incremental Forming

Table 2 Average surface roughness at different process variables in SPIF

developed at Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur and many studies are in

Tool Path Planning

same, they utilized the combination of online measuring techniques, numerical

1. Generation of contour tool path with a constant incremental depth.

Fig. 38 Schematic showing

The adaptive slicing methodology along with volumetric error criterion

Incremental sheet metal forming is gaining importance in automobile (Governale

Ambrogio G, De Napoli L, Filice L, Gagliardi F, Muzzupappa M (2005c) Application of

You might also like