Next Article in Journal
Printing, Debinding and Sintering of 15-5PH Stainless Steel Components by Fused Deposition Modeling Additive Manufacturing
Previous Article in Journal
Metallographic Evaluation of Increased Susceptibility to Intermediate Embrittlement of Engine Valve Forgings Made of NCF 3015 High Nickel and Chromium Steel
Previous Article in Special Issue
Pulsed TIG Cladding of a Highly Carbon-, Chromium-, Molybdenum-, Niobium-, Tungsten- and Vanadium-Alloyed Flux-Cored Wire Electrode on Duplex Stainless Steel X2CrNiMoN 22-5-3
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 16
Issue 19
10.3390/ma16196371
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of Incremental Sheet Forming of Aluminum Alloy

by
Costel Catalin Coman
,
Simona-Nicoleta Mazurchevici
*,
Constantin Carausu
and
Dumitru Nedelcu
Faculty of Machine Manufacturing and Industrial Management, Machine Manufacturing Technology Department, “Gheorghe Asachi” Technical University of Iasi, Blvd. Mangeron 59A, 700050 Iasi, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2023, 16(19), 6371; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16196371
Submission received: 25 August 2023 / Revised: 15 September 2023 / Accepted: 21 September 2023 / Published: 23 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Materials for Multifunctional Applications)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Recent developments in incremental sheet forming have resulted in the creation of novel manufacturing processes that are highly adaptable and could bring significant economic benefits for advanced technologies and low-volume production. In this manuscript, the following variables were examined: the variation in the deformation forces for a part with a pyramidal trunk shape; the variation in the deformations and thinning of the Al 3003 material during the incremental forming process; and the variation in the accuracy of the incrementally formed part and the quality of the surfaces (surface roughness). The components of the forces in the incremental forming have increasing values from the beginning of the process to the maximum value due to the hardening process. The TiN-coated tool ensures lower values of the forming components. Due to the kinematics of the forming process, deviations, especially in shape, from the part in the drawing are observed, which are shown by the radius of curvature of the side wall of the part, the appearance of a radius of connection between the wall and the bottom of the part, as well as dimensional deviations that are expressed by the variation in the forming depth. Concerning the smoothness of the surfaces, it was observed that the best roughness results were obtained in the case of the TiN-coated tool.

1. Introduction

Incremental sheet forming (ISF) is a novel and adaptable technology for prototyping and small-lot production.
A classification of the ISF process is conventional and hybrid methods with a brief description as follows:
-
Single-point incremental forming—one shaping or deforming tool passes on a sheet through a series of tiny progressive deformations until the desired shape is obtained [1,2,3,4,5,6];
-
Two-point incremental forming—two forming tools are used: one deforms the sheet into the appropriate geometry, while the other one supports the sheet from the rear [7,8,9];
-
Multi-point incremental forming (flexible 3D manufacturing process)—used for big sheets and has two opposed hard dice (lower and upper) with systems consisting of multiple punches with the highly precise movements that are necessary to obtain the desired shape being carried out with linear actuators [10,11,12];
-
Single-point incremental forming with hydraulic fluid—the forming tool is on one side, and the hydraulic fluid pumped to a high pressure is on the opposite side [13,14,15];
-
Two-point incremental forming with partial die—the sheet is formed using a partial die on one side and a moving forming tool on the other [16,17,18];
-
Two-point incremental forming with full die—a complete die is applied to one side of the sheet, while the forming tool rotates on the other side [19,20,21,22].
The process parameters involved in ISF encompass various factors, such as tool path, wall angle and tilting angle, incrementation/step depth, speed of rotation, tool diameter, temperature, and lubrication. These parameters interact with each other, influencing the overall outcome of the ISF process. Other key output parameters are also taken into consideration, such as the following [23,24,25,26]:
-
forming force—There are three types of forces that contribute to sheet deformation: those derived through prediction, analysis, and experimentation. Finally, the forming force shifts when different inputs are used [27];
-
formability—The evaluation of a material’s deformation characteristics can be conducted using various methods, such as the swift cup drawing test and the Erichsen cupping test [27,28];
-
surface roughness—The tool radius, the initial roughness of the active part of the tool, the thickness of the sheet, the flow rate, the incremental depth, and the various tool designs are all process characteristics that might affect surface roughness [29];
-
spring back—There are two types of spring back: local and global. The first one produces poor accuracy, and the second produces residual stresses [30];
-
failure to fracture—During the process of sheet material deformation, it undergoes multiple stages that ultimately lead to the fracture stage [31].
The vast majority of incremental sheet-forming applications have been carried out in the metalworking industry, and the most significant raw materials that are used currently in the industry are mild steel (small-batch production or rapid prototyping); aluminum/aluminium alloys (frequently used due to small forming loads); stainless steel/high-strength steels (limited by difficulties related to significant elastic spring back); copper, brass, and titanium (heat up during forming—blister appears); magnesium; platinum alloys; polymers (not really suitable—short life cycles but, by using single-point incremental forming, this raw material can be considered); and even sandwich panels (sheets from different materials as steel/polymer/steel or aluminum/polymer/aluminum with a lightweight core that improves buoyancy, impact absorption, thermal insulation, vibration absorption, and sound-deadening) [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39].
Single-point incremental forming is an improvement over traditional sheet forming because it does not require the use of dies. For low-volume production items, the reduction in die can save tooling costs while increasing turnaround time. Die for the two-point incremental forming procedure can be constructed from cheap materials like wood, allowing for a low total tooling cost. However, this method is inherently time-consuming, and it often results in diminished dimensional accuracy—especially for intricate components. When it comes to the construction of automobile prototypes and the manufacture of parts in small quantities, incremental sheet forming is a method that is both practical and cost-effective [40,41,42,43].
The researchers are conducting different studies in the ISF area in order to explain some behaviors or to observe, for instance, the influence of process parameters on the obtained part characteristics.
The mechanism of sheet deformation is associated with the shearing and stretching that appear in the plane perpendicular to the direction of the tool and the shear parallel to it [1,44]; also, other researchers [25] consider that this is produced with a mixture of spinning and stretching.
The reduction in part size to the micro domain is another goal, achieved by using devices installed on a scanning electron microscope [45], a conventional CNC machine modified to function as a micro incremental sheet forming system [46], different types of thin sheets from classic alloys (aluminum, cooper), stainless steels, and silver or titanium [47,48,49,50,51].
The physical and mechanical characteristics of the sheet are significantly influenced by the microscale and macroscale forming processes [52,53]. Also, classic determination of mechanical properties was realized on deformed sheets: tensile test at different temperatures [54,55], yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, total elongation [56,57], spring back defect [58], the phenomenon of shape distortion resulting from supplementary heat treatment [59], and the effect of lubrication [60,61].
From a simulation point of view, the studies are focused on the sequential limit model for thickness distribution [62], influence of the thickness and average grain size ratio on the yield stress and tangent modulus [63], finite element model (FEM) to observe deformations and elasto-plastic behavior material [64], FEM that simulate the impact of plastic deformation on the force precision [40], and three-dimensional FEM that incorporates both elastic and plastic material behavior for three completely different materials (wood, polymer, and rubber) [65,66,67].
In order to highlight even more, the studies carried out so far on single-incremental forming (SPIF) have been selected from the specialized literature (Table 1).
The main problems that are not solved by the previous researchers are the particularities of incremental forming in a single point for obtaining parts in the pyramid trunk form (without revolution movements) and incremental forming with titanium nitride-coated tools in order to observe their characteristics.
No research has been carried out on forming processing performed with tools coated with titanium nitride led by industrial robots. This type of processing is different from that performed with CNC milling machines due to the lack of rotation movement of the tool as well as a lower rigidity of the technological system.
The original contribution of this study is that tools coated with TiN (used in the forming process) allow for an improvement of the results of the incremental forming process of a part with a pyramid trunk shape.
Extensive experimental investigations and numerical simulations have been conducted to study the incremental sheet forming (ISF) process. These studies have contributed to establishing a comprehensive understanding of the deformation mechanism involved in macro ISF. In this manuscript, we analyzed the variation in the deformation forces for a part with a pyramid trunk shape; performed ANOVA analysis of the experimental results regarding the maximum components of force in the incremental forming process; and analyzed the variation in the accuracy of the incrementally forming part and the quality of the obtained surfaces (surface roughness).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

The semi-finished products used to obtain the parts with incremental stamping were constructed of sheet materials of EN AW 3003 aluminium alloys with a thickness of 1.8 mm. The main mechanical and physical properties of EN AW 3003 aluminium alloy (AlMnCu DIN 3.0517) used for incremental drawing are the following [94]: tensile strength (120–160) MPa; yield strength—min 85 MPa; elongation at break (sheet thickness 1.2–6.3 mm)—6% (out of 50 mm); hardness—36 HB; density—2.73 (g/cm3); modulus of elasticity—69 GPa; thermal conductivity at 25 °C—193W/m.K; melting point—655 °C; and coefficient of thermal expansion (20–100 °C)—23.2 μm/m/°C. The geometric features of the sheet were the following: thickness—1.8 mm; length and width before cutting (6000 × 2000) mm; length and width after cutting (240 × 200) mm; forming depth—200 mm; large base of the pyramid trunk—a square with 85 mm side; and pyramid wall inclination angle—55°.
The material used for the execution of the incremental forming tool was X153CrMoV12 steel with the following mechanical and physical properties [95]: tensile strength—860 MPa; yield strength—420 MPa; density 7.7 (g/cm3); modulus of elasticity—210 GPa; thermal conductivity at 350 °C—21 W/m∙K; coefficient of thermal expansion (at 20 °C)—13 μm/m/°C; and hardness—54–60 HRC.
Following the processing with spirit, the produced parts are presented in Figure 1.

2.2. Machine Tools, Equipment, and Tools

The machines, equipment, and tools used in the incremental ambush were as follows:
✓
Kuka KR210-2 6-axis robot, developing a maximum load of 2100 N with a positioning repeatability of ±0.06 mm. It is equipped with a KR C2 controller (KUKA Roboter GmbH, Augsburg, Germany), and the numerical programming software is SprutCam (X version, SprutCAM Tech, Limassol, Cyprus) [96,97]. This robot, together with the Aramis measurement system, was used for measuring deformations and wall thinning;
✓
Incremental forming force measurement device. A measuring system, consisting of the PCB261A13 sensor (PCB Piezotronics, Inc., NY, USA), the CMD600 signal amplifier (KUKA Roboter GmbH, Augsburg, Germany), and the Quantum X MX840B acquisition system (Hottinger Brüel & Kjær, Naerum, Denmark), was used to measure the forces during the incremental forming process. The force sensor makes it possible to acquire forces in dynamic and quasi-static format, and the amplifier creates the signal voltages required for acquisition with the Quantum X system. The force transducer consists of a piezoelectric sensor assembled between 2 plates.
The CMD600 amplifier was used to obtain ±10 V voltages on the signal acquired from the force sensor PCB261A13 [98]. Three such amplifiers were used for the experimental research, one on each channel (for each of the forces Fz, Fx, and Fy).
The Quantum X MX840B acquisition system [99] has 8 individually configurable and electrically isolated measurement channels. For each channel, 16 types of transducers can be connected.
The OGP SMARTSCOPE 600 FLASH (OGP Messtechnik GmbH, Wallau, Germany) and Formtracer Avant FTA-H8 D4000-D (Mitutoyo, Sakado, Japan) measuring machine were used for the measurement of the acquired parts.
The power tools used for the preparation of the incremental forming process were the following: angle grinder Panzer AP125-12 (Panzer, Germany); and the drilling and screwing machine MAKITA DF347DWE (Makita Corporation, Anjo, Japan);
A 10W40 engine oil (MOTUL, Aubervilliers, France) was chosen as the lubricant for better stretching of the material during the incremental forming process.
The tools used were of two types as follows: simple ball-tip tool (uncoated tool) and a ball-tip tool coated with TiN titanium nitride (coated tool). In the case of both tools, the ball had a diameter of Ø12 mm and a hardness of (53–58) HRC. The TiN coating has the advantage of good wear and corrosion resistance. The hard material applied without a metallic binder has a high hardness, i.e., it has an extremely fine grain size that allows for very good friction resistance [100]. The hardness of the TiN layer is approximately 2300 HV, and the coating thickness is (2–4) μm.
To determine the microstructure of the tools, SEM and EDS analyses were performed using VegaTescan LMHII equipment (TESCAN ORSAY HOLDING, Kohoutovice, Czech Republic) with an EDX detector X Flash 6I10 from Bruker, Germany, Esprit 2.2 software. Figure 2 shows the two tools, the uncoated and the coated one. The SEM image of the uncoated tool (after use) highlights visible traces of wear. The sample coated with titanium nitride, according to the SEM and EDS analyses, reveals a uniform deposition of the layer but also an insensible wear of the tool after use.
The Solidworks 2018 software package was used for the 3D modeling of the parts as well as for the execution drawings.
In order to perform the finite element modelling, the software package Abaqus/CAE version 6.14 was used.

2.3. Methods

The Erichsen method was used for tensile/compression testing of the semi-finished product. The specimens used for the punching test were rectangular with one side 50 mm and the other side 300 mm. The condition of the test sample is prescribed by the respective material standards. No machining of the samples was carried out prior to the test because machining may affect the material’s ability to be drawn and influence the test results. Sample deformation in the Erichsen equipment was performed with radial and circumferential stretching [101].
The experiments were conducted following a full factorial experimental design with three influencing factors, each on 2 levels, of type 23 = 8 experiments. The factors considered were the tool (−1—uncoated tool; +1—TiN-coated tool), feed rate (−1—5500 mm/min; +1—8500 mm/min), and increment step (−1—0.28 mm; +1—0.56 mm).
Table 2 shows the experimental results of the maxima of the force components in the full factorial design.
The flowchart of the conducted experiments is presented synthetically in Figure 3.
The ANOVA method with the MiniTab software (17.1.0 version, Minitab, LLC, State College, PA, USA) package was used for statistical processing and determining the influence of factors, and the LS-DYNA software package (3.2 version, Livermore Software Technology Corporation (LSTC), Livermore, CA, USA) was used for numerical simulation.
The type of problem required for the selected simulation from the LS-DYNA program was Forming. The created model was composed of the following elements: semi-finished product, active plate, and withholding plate and tool—modeled in the form of a sphere.
Figure 4 shows the model used to define the problem in two situations: at the beginning of the incremental forming process (Figure 4a) and at the end of the processing (Figure 4b).
The semi-finished product was discreet with elements of Shell type (with the help of the Elform parameter) for which the explicit formulation #16 was chosen, forms that ensure the calculation of the deformation forces but also an increase in the solving time. The number of integration points by thickness, nip, was chosen as 7, which allowed for a high accuracy to the detriment of increasing the running time.
For the other two boards and for the sphere, the same type of element (Shell) was chosen but with two integration points.
For discretization, the method of adaptive refinement was used, starting from a network of coarse finished elements. At each iterative step, each element from the previous step was divided into four smaller finished elements.
Three contacts of the type “forming-other-wayfaceosurface” were generated between the electric elements: between the sphere (tool) and the semi-finished product, between the active and semi-finished plate, respectively, and between the withholding and semi-finished plate. In order to solve the contact problem, the penalty method was applied.
The kinematics of the tool was defined with the key word *Boundery_Prescriebed_Motion_Rigid, which allowed for the direction of movement and speed by specifying the movement curves after the three axes. The action of the retention plate was modeled by applying a 2000 N press force in the Z direction.
The rubbing between the tool and the semi-finished product was modeled by adopting a friction coefficient, which allowed for the differentiation of the use of the two types of tools. Thus, for the uncoated tool, the coefficient of friction was 0.09, while for the coated tool, the coefficient was 0.075. The running time on the computer that was required to solve the problem (either with an uncoated or coated tool) was 68 h.

3. Results

3.1. Numerical Simulation of the Variation in the Components of the Ambulation Force

In the numerical simulation, two cases were considered as follows: case 1 corresponds to the uncoated tool (Figure 5 and Figure 6), and case 2 corresponds to the tool coated with TIN (Figure 7 and Figure 8). Thus, the Fz component (Figure 1 and Figure 3) increases from zero towards the maximum value, reaching the maximum towards the end of the working stroke but also having a series of local maxima at each change in direction of the plane of the tool. The Fx component (Figure 2 and Figure 4) and Fy have the same type of variation, lagging each other, going from negative to positive values depending on the direction the tool is moving at a given time. For both the Fx and Fy components, the maximum value is obtained at the end of the tool’s working tool.

3.2. Influence of Working Parameters on the Components of the Forming Force

The deformation force is an important process parameter during the incremental forming process, which has a major influence on the machining results of the parts. The deformation forces in incremental forming are relatively small compared to those in classical forming but are an important factor when using CNC machining centers or industrial robots. The forming forces used in the incremental forming process depend largely on the depth of forming, the tool diameter, the angle of the part being formed, the blank used and its thickness, and the lubricants used; the axial force Fz is not influenced by the rotational speed of the tool and the lubrication of the blank during the forming process—only by the radial force Fx [64].
For comparison with the results obtained from the numerical simulation, the experimental results of experiments 2 and 6 in the experimental design will be presented.
In Figure 9 and Figure 10, the variation in the components Fz and Fx along the direction of the two coordinate axes XZ in experiment 2 is shown graphically. The forming time was 157.4 s; this was lower because the incremental step was double, and the number of passes was lower. The maximum forming force Fz obtained in experiment 2 is 1.39 kN; the maximum value obtained for the Fx force is 0.38 kN.
In Figure 11 and Figure 12, the variation in the force components Fz and Fx along the direction of the three XYZ coordinate axes for experiment 6 (case 2 of the coated tool) is plotted. Thus, the maximum values of the forces are as follows: Fz reaches the maximum value of 1.38 kN, and Fx reaches the maximum value of 0.42 kN.
After running the numerical analyses with the finite element method, it was possible to compare the results obtained theoretically (numerically) with those obtained experimentally. A summary of these results and, especially, of the differences obtained between the numerical and experimental results is presented in Table 3 (comparative results for the uncoated tool, case 1 of the simulation and experiment 2) and Table 4 (comparative results for the TIN-coated tool, case 2 of the simulation and experiment 6).
It should be mentioned at the outset that the results obtained for the force components in the numerical simulations have a higher percentage than those obtained for the deformations due to the fact that the program calculates these components as being those of the reaction occurring between the nodes of the tool and those of the blank. However, as can be observed from Table 3 and Table 4, the differences are acceptable with the highest values being 7.97% and 7.89%, respectively. From the analysis of the data presented in Table 3 and Table 4, it can be observed that the values for case 2 are higher in the OX and OY directions and lower for the force in the OZ direction than those for the forces obtained in case 1. In conclusion, it can be stated that the simulation using the finite element method leads to results with a relatively low percentage of error and can be successfully used for numerical simulation of the incremental buckling process.
The influence on the maximum force component Fz is shown in Table 5, and the influence graph is shown in Figure 13.
Tool is the only factor that has a statistically significant influence on the magnitude of the Fz force (significance threshold p < 0.026). The other factors have no statistically significant influence (p > 0.03).
The TIN-coated tool provides a lower maximum force Fz during incremental forming than when using the uncoated tool.
The influence on the maximum force Fx is shown in Table 6, and the influence graph is shown in Figure 14. According to Table 6, none of the factors has a statistically significant influence.
It is found that the value of the maximum force component Fx increases with increasing forward speed.
As in the case of the maximum value of the Fx force, a similar influence of the analyzed factors is found.
Due to the large variation in the disturbances influence in the case of maximum values of the forces components (obtained at the end of the forming process), the experimental results have variations that have a high dispersion, which determines that the advance speed influences and the incremental step are not statistically insignificant in the case of the Fz component. In the case of the X and Y directions (the tool movement directions in the perpendicular plane to the forming direction), no parameter is statistically significant, and the variability of these components is even greater. One solution would be to increase the distance between the two levels (−1 and +1) of these parameters but only for quantitative parameters (speed advance and increment). Thus, in the study carried out by [102] with the same type of material as in the present paper, by the statistical processing of the experimental results with the MiniTab software 17.1.0 version, the increment step influence on the Fz component came out strongly significant (p = 0.01). The result was obtained due to the fact that the difference between the two levels was seven times (0.1 mm and 0.7 mm, respectively).
Disturbance can also occur due to the variability of the parameters of the technological system.

3.3. Execution Accuracy

After the parts are produced with the incremental forming process, the measurement of the parts obtained is carried out. For the measurement of the depth of the part, the measuring equipment took, as a basis, a theoretical straight area as can be observed in Figure 15 and Figure 16.
In the study [103], the geometric accuracy of the pieces processed by using SPIF is analyzed, underlining that the geometric and form deviations are produced as a result of unwanted plastic deformations, spring back, and the pillow effect. The study does not signal the deviation from the rectilinearity of the wall of the part obtained with forming. The present study signals the appearance of a wall form deviation of convex shape of wall curvature. This form deviation occurs due to the forming force variation during the process, the increase in the cold hardening (due to the spring back reduction), and the material thinning; thus, at the beginning of processing, the Fz is smaller, and the deformation of the material is lower, which leads to a smaller forming angle [104]. At the maximum forming depth, the wall thinning is maximum, and the forming force is maximum, which determines a higher deformation degree, thus, obtaining a maximum forming angle.
The deviation from the forming depth is due to spring back and has relatively high values due to the SPIF (one tool). The reduction solutions are the use of the counter-tool and the introduction in the deformation area of a controlled temperature of 200–300 °C.
Another cause of deviations is the use of the robot (compared to milling CNC) that, according to [105], induces position errors of the tool center that are caused by the elastic deformations to which the robot is subjected to during the process.

3.4. Quality of the Surfaces Obtained

The quality of the surfaces obtained with the incremental forming process is influenced by a number of factors, such as the surface quality of the blank and the die and their shape deviations. Another key factor is the process parameters used in the incremental forming process. If all these factors have been checked, the next step is to determine how the process is to be carried out with or without lubrication, as friction between the tool and the blank causes a temperature rise; for this reason, we can have significant influences on the roughness of the machined surface. A very important thing is the choice of the type of lubricant that meets all the conditions to allow the tool to stretch the material so that there will be influence on the quality of the incrementally ground surface. In this work, an aluminium alloy blank was used, where it was taken into account to avoid, as much as possible, material deposits on the tool surface by choosing 10W40 engine oil, which could have a significant influence on the roughness of the incrementally ground surface. In order to check the quality of the surface obtained, the roughness Ra (μm) and Rz (μm) were measured (Figure 17 and Figure 18) for all the parts obtained experimentally. It can be observed that, in the case of the TiN-coated tool, a better smoothness of the surfaces of the obtained parts was obtained.
An improved smoothness of the surfaces was attained in the tool case with the TiN coating due to a superior superficial hardness that reduced the local deformation in the contact area, tool semi-finished product, and, as a consequence, the contact area. On the other hand, the initial roughness of the tool coated with TiN was lower (Ra = 0.2 μm) compared to that of the uncoated tool that had the parameter of the roughness Ra = 0.3 μm.

4. Conclusions

This manuscript is a comparative study on the SPIF process with the use of coated and uncoated tools led by an industrial robot.
The variation in the deformation forces for a part with a pyramidal trunk shape, the ANOVA analysis for experimental research on the maximum deformation force in the incremental forming process, numerical simulation with LS-DINA software, 3.2 version, of incremental deformation process, the variation in the accuracy of the incrementally formed part, and the quality of the surfaces (surface roughness) were all examined in this manuscript. The forces in incremental forming have components with rising values from the start of the procedure to the maximum value as a result of the hardening process. The Fx and Fy components oscillate between positive and negative values as a result of the change in the direction of the tool, and the Fz component oscillates with a certain amplitude and frequency due to the modification of the feed rate when changing the direction of the formation. Lower values of the forming components are ensured with the TiN-coated tool. Due to the kinematics of the forming process, deviations from the part in the drawing are observed, particularly in shape.
Based on the data obtained, the study limitations consist of the following:
-
the temperature is not controlled in the deformed area (with the possibility of improving the material deformability);
-
reduced precision of the process (need to use the counter-pouch (tool)/counter-matrice);
-
the inclination angle of the wall cannot exceed 70° (under special conditions) because breaks and cracks occur;
-
the process is limited and of a lower precision due to the use of a robot for traveling the tool, which has low rigidity. On the other hand, industrial robots can be used in the processing with incremental forming of areas of large assemblies that cannot be placed on the CNC milling machines’ table;
-
long processing time compared to classic forming, which recommends it only for small and unique series production.
The practical recommendation that can be made is the use of tools coated with hard alloys (as titanium nitride) that, among others, improve the contact from the tool and the piece (deformed area). Also, it should be used counter-tool with a correlated movement with that of the tool (the kinematics of the equipment used, programming the movement of both tools and others).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.N. and C.C.; methodology, C.C.; software, C.C.; validation, D.N. and S.-N.M.; formal analysis, S.-N.M.; investigation, C.C.C.; resources, C.C.C.; data curation, C.C., C.C.C. and D.N.; writing—original draft preparation, S.-N.M.; writing—review and editing, S.-N.M., D.N. and C.C.C.; visualization, D.N. and S.-N.M.; supervision, D.N.; project administration, D.N.; funding acquisition, C.C.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

“Gheorghe Asachi” Technical University of Iasi, Bd. Dimitrie Mangeron, no. 53A, 700050 Iasi, Romania, under funding number.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Emmens, W.C.; van den Boogaard, A.H. An overview of stabilizing deformation mechanisms in incremental sheet forming. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2009, 209, 3688–3695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Button, S.T. Introduction to Advanced Forming Technologies. In Comprehensive Materials Processing; Hashmi, S., Batalha, G.F., Van Tyne, C.J., Yilbas, B., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zheng, K.; Politis, D.J.; Wang, L.; Lin, J. A review on forming techniques for manufacturing lightweight complex—Shaped aluminium panel components. Int. J. Lightweight Mater. Manuf. 2018, 1, 55–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kumar, Y.; Kumar, S. Advances in Material Forming and Joining; Springer India: New Delhi, India, 2015; pp. 29–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Duflou, J.R.; Habraken, A.-M.; Cao, J.; Malhotra, R.; Bambach, M.; Adams, D.; Vanhove, H.; Mohammadi, A.; Jeswiet, J. Single point incremental forming: State-of-the-art and prospects. Int. J. Mater. Form. 2018, 11, 743–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Behera, A.K. Ricardo Alves de Sousa, Giuseppe Ingarao, Valentin Oleksik, Single point incremental forming: An assessment of the progress and technology trends from 2005 to 2015. J. Manuf. Process. 2017, 27, 37–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tisza, M. General overview of sheet incremental forming. Manuf. Eng. 2012, 55, 113–120. [Google Scholar]
  8. Peng, W.; Ou, H.; Becker, A.; Forming, D.-S.I.; Eng, J.M.S. Double-Sided Incremental Forming: A Review. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 2019, 141, 050802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mostafanezhad, H.; Menghari, H.G.; Esmaeili, S.; Shirkharkolaee, E.M. Optimization of two-point incremental forming process of AA1050 through response surface methodology. Measurement 2018, 127, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Li, M.Z.; Cai, Z.Y.; Sui, Z.; Yan, Q.G. Multi-point forming technology for sheet metal. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2002, 129, 333–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bhaskar, R.S. Analysis of Various Sheet Incremental Metal Forming Processes: A Review. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Res. Technol. 2017, 2, 128–131. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ramkumar, K.; Baskar, N.; Elangovan, K.; Narayanan, C.S.; Selvarajan, K.A.; Jesuthanam, C. Comparison of Multi Point Incremental Forming Tool with Single Point Incremental Forming Tool Using FLD, Fractography and 3D-Surface Roughness Analysis on Cr/Mn/Ni/Si Based Stainless Steel. Silicon 2021, 13, 487–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kumar, Y.; Kumar, S. Experimental and analytical evaluation of Incremental Sheet Hydro-Forming strategies to produce high forming angle sheets. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Shamsari, M.; Mirnia, M.J.; Elyasi, M.; Baseri, H. Formability improvement in single point incremental forming of truncated cone using a two-stage hybrid deformation strategy. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2018, 94, 2357–2368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shang, M.; Li, Y.; Yang, M.; Chen, Y.; Bai, L.; Li, P. Wall Thickness Uniformity in ISF of Hydraulic Support: System Design, Finite Element Analysis and Experimental Verification. Machines 2023, 11, 353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bhatt, D.K.; Rana, J.; Shah, K.; Patel, K.J. Incremental Sheet Metal Forming Process: A Review. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 2016, 4, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  17. Silva, M.B.; Martins, P.A.F. Two-Point Incremental Forming with Partial Die: Theory and Experimentation. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2013, 22, 1018–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lu, H.; Kearney, M.; Wang, C.; Liu, S.; Meehan, P.A. Part accuracy improvement in two point incremental forming with a partial die using a model predictive control algorithm. Precis. Eng. 2017, 49, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Young, D.; Jeswiet, J. Wall thickness variations in single-point incremental forming. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 2004, 218, 1453–1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Reddy, N.V.; Lingam, R. Double Sided Incremental Forming: Capabilities and Challenges. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2018, 1063, 012170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nourmohammadi, A.A.; Elyasi, M.; Mirnia, M.J. Flexibility improvement in two-point incremental forming by implementing multi-point die. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2019, 102, 2933–2952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bhasker, R.S.; Kumar, Y. Process capabilities and future scope of Incremental Sheet Forming (ISF). Mater. Today Proc. 2023, 72, 1014–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gatea, S.; Ou, H.; McCartney, G. Review on the influence of process parameters in incremental sheet forming. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2016, 87, 479–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Patel, D.; Gandhi, A. A review article on process parameters affecting Incremental Sheet Forming (ISF). Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 63, 368–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kim, Y.H.; Park, J.J. Effect of process parameters on formability in incremental forming of sheet metal. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2002, 130–131, 42–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Maaß, F.; Hahn, M.; Tekkaya, A.E. Interaction of Process Parameters, Forming Mechanisms, and Residual Stresses in Single Point Incremental Forming. Metals 2020, 10, 656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Xiao, X.; Kim, C.I.; Lv, X.D.; Hwang, T.S.; Kim, Y.S. Formability and forming force in incremental sheet forming of AA7075-T6 at different temperatures. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2019, 33, 3795–3802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Shi, X.; Hussain, G.; Zha, G.; Wu, M.; Kong, F. Study on formability of vertical parts formed by multi-stage incremental forming. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2014, 75, 1049–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gandla, P.K.; Inturi, V.; Kurra, S.; Radhika, S. Evaluation of surface roughness in incremental forming using image processing based methods. Measurement 2020, 164, 108055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Edwards, W.L.; Grimm, T.J.; Ragai, I.; Roth, J.T. Optimum Process Parameters for Springback Reduction of Single Point Incrementally Formed Polycarbonates. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 10, 329–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ai, S.; Long, H. A review on material fracture mechanism in incremental sheet forming. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2019, 104, 33–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Heggemann, T.; Homberg, W.; Sapli, H. Combined Curing and Forming of Fiber Metal Laminates. Procedia Manuf. 2020, 47, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ding, Z.; Wang, H.; Luo, J.; Li, N. A review on forming technologies of fibre metal laminates. Int. J. Lightweight Mater. Manuf. 2021, 4, 110–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Magrinho, J.P.G.; Silva, M.B.; Martins, P.A.F. Incremental sheet forming. In Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhang, Q.; Li, G.; Liu, Z.; Zhao, A.; Xiong, X.; Lei, Y. Friction Stir Incremental Forming of AA7075-O Sheets: Experimental Investigations on Performance Evaluation of Formed Parts. Rare Met. Mater. Eng. 2018, 47, 3659–3665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Heinz, A.; Haszler, A.; Keidel, C.; Moldenhauer, S.; Benedictus, R.; Miller, W. Recent development in aluminium alloys for aerospace applications. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2000, 280, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Weblet Importer, (n.d.). Available online: https://european-aluminium.eu/resource-hub/aluminium-automotive-manual/ (accessed on 7 January 2018).
  38. Harrison, N.R.; Luckey, S.G. Hot stamping of a B-Pillar outer from high strength aluminum sheet AA7075, 2014-01e0981. SAE Int. J. Mater. Manuf. 2014, 7, 567–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hirsch, J. Recent development in aluminium for automotive applications. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2014, 24, 1995–2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sousa, R. Incremental Sheet Forming Technologies. In Reference Module in Materials Science and Materials Engineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; ISBN 9780128035818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kridli, G.T.; Friedman, P.A.; Boileau, J.M. Chapter 7—Manufacturing processes for light alloys. Updated by Boileau, J.M.; Mallick, P.K.; Woodhead Publishing in Materials; In Materials, Design and Manufacturing for Lightweight Vehicles, 2nd ed.; Mallick, P.K., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2021; pp. 267–320. ISBN 9780128187128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cheng, Z.; Li, Y.; Xu, C.; Liu, Y.; Ghafoor, S.; Li, F. Incremental sheet forming towards biomedical implants: A review. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2020, 9, 7225–7251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Emmens, W.C.; Sebastiani, G.; van den Boogaard, A.H. The technology of Incremental Sheet Forming—A brief review of the history. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2010, 210, 981–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jackson, K.; Allwood, J. The mechanics of incremental sheet forming. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2009, 209, 1158–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Saotome, Y.; Okamoto, T. An in-situ incremental microforming system for three-dimensional shell structures of foil materials. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2001, 113, 636–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Obikawa, T.; Satou, S.; Hakutani, T. Dieless incremental micro-forming of miniature shell objects of aluminum foils. Int. J. Mach. Tool Manu. 2009, 49, 906–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dejardin, S.; Thibaud, S.; Gelin, J.C. Experimental and Numerical Investigations in Single Point Incremental Sheet Forming For Micro parts. AIP Conf. Proc. 2007, 907, 145–150. [Google Scholar]
  48. Obikawa, T.; Hakutani, T.; Sekine, T.; Numajiri, S.; Matsumura, T.; Yoshino, M. Single-Point Incremental Micro-Forming of Thin Shell Products Utilizing High Formability. J. Adv. Mech. Des. Syst. 2010, 4, 1145–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sekine, T.; Obikawa, T. Micro Incremental Forming Characteristics of Stainless Foil. Key Eng. Mater. 2010, 447–448, 346–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Otsu, M.; Hiroshi, T.; Kazuki, T. Micro-incremental forming of Ti and Au foils by indentation method. Key Eng. Mater. 2007, 345–346, 1101–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Song, X.; Zhang, J.; Zhai, W.; Taureza, M.; Castagne, S.; Danno, A. Numerical and Experimental Study of Micro Single Point Incremental Forming Process. Procedia Eng. 2017, 207, 825–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Vollertsen, F. Categories of size effects. Prod. Eng. 2008, 2, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Geiger, M.; Vollertsen, F. Fundamentals on the Manufacturing of Sheet Metal Microparts. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 1996, 45, 277–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Iadicola, M.A.; Foecke, T.; Banovic, S.W. Experimental observations of evolving yield loci in biaxially strained AA5754-O. Int. J. Plast. 2008, 24, 2084–2101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ramesh, R.; Bhattacharya, R.; Williams, G. Effect of ageing on the mechanical behaviour of a novel automotive grade AleMgeSi alloy. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 541 2012, 128–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Abedrabbo, N.; Pourboghrat, F.; Carsley, J. Forming of AA5182-O and AA5754-O at elevated temperatures using coupled thermo-mechanical finite element models. Int. J. Plast. 2007, 23, 841–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Aerospace Aluminum Distributor Supplier. Available online: http://www.aerospace-metals.com/aluminum-distributor.html (accessed on 15 June 2023).
  58. Wang, A.; Zhong, K.; El Fakir, O.; Liu, J.; Sun, C.; Wang, L.-L.; Lin, J.; Dean, T.A. Springback analysis of AA5754 after hot stamping: Experiments and FE modelling. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2017, 89, 1339–1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Fan, X.; He, Z.; Zheng, K.; Yuan, S. Strengthening Behavior of Al-Cu-Mg Alloy Sheet in Hot Forming-Quenching Integrated Process With Colda^V“Hot Dies. Mater. Des. 2015, 83, 557–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jawale, K.; Duarte, J.F.; Reis, A.; Silva, B. Microstructural investigation and lubrication study for single point incremental forming of copper, in press. Int. J. Solids Struct. 2018, 21, 145–151, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Azevedo, N.G.; Farias, J.S.; Bastos, R.P.; Teixeira, P.; Davim, J.P.; De Sousa, R.J.A. Lubrication aspects during single point incremental forming for steel and aluminum materials. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 2015, 16, 589–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mirnia, M.J.; Dariani, B.M.; Vanhove, H.; Duflou, J.R. Thickness improvement in single point incremental forming deduced by sequential limit analysis. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 2014, 70, 2029–2041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Yang, C.; Wen, T.; Liu, L.; Zhang, S.; Wang, H. Dieless incremental hole-flanging of thin-walled tube for producing branched tubing. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2014, 214, 2461–2467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bahloul, R. A study on optimal design of process parameters in single point incremental forming of sheet metal by combining Box- Behnken design of experiments, response surface methods and genetic algorithms. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2014, 74, 163–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Li, J.; Bai, T. Numerical simulation and experimental investigation of incremental sheet forming with an elastic support. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2014, 74, 1649–1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Echrif, S.B.M.; Hrairi, M. Materials and Manufacturing Processes Research and Progress in Incremental Sheet Forming Processes. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2011, 26, 1404–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Araghi, B.T.; Manco, G.L.; Bambach, M.; Hirt, G. Investigation into a new hybrid forming process: Incremental sheet forming combined with stretch forming. CIRP Ann. 2009, 58, 225–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Formisano, A.; Boccarusso, L.; Durante, M. Optimization of Single-Point Incremental Forming of Polymer Sheets through FEM. Materials 2023, 16, 451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Rosa-Sainz, A.; Centeno, G.; Silva, M.B.; López-Fernández, J.A.; Martínez-Donaire, A.J.; Vallellano, C. On the Determination of Forming Limits in Polycarbonate Sheets. Materials 2020, 13, 928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Jeswiet, J.; Adams, D.; Doolan, M.; McAnulty, T.; Gupta, P. Single point and asymmetric incremental forming. Adv. Manuf. 2015, 3, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Cusanno, A.; Negrini, N.C.; Villa, T.; Farè, S.; Garcia-Romeu, M.L.; Palumbo, G. Post Forming Analysis and In Vitro Biological Characterization of AZ31B Processed by Incremental Forming and Coated With Electrospun Polycaprolactone. ASME. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 2021, 143, 011012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Singh, S.A.; Priyadarshi, S.; Tandon, P. Comparative Study of Incremental Forming and Elevated Temperature Incremental Forming Through Experimental Investigations on AA 1050 Sheet ASME. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 2021, 143, 064501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Li, W.; Attallah, M.M.; Essa, K. Experimental and numerical investigations on the process quality and microstructure during induction heating assisted incremental forming of Ti-6Al-4V sheet. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2022, 299, 117323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kotkunde, N.; Gupta, A.K.; Paresi, P.R.; Singh, S.K. Experimental and Finite Element Studies of Stretch Forming Process for Ti-6Al-4V Alloy at Elevated Temperature. Mater. Today Proc. 2017, 4 Pt D, 5266–5273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Cheng, D.-J.; Xu, F.; Xu, S.-H.; Zhang, C.-Y.; Zhang, S.-W.; Kim, S.-J. Minimization of Surface Roughness and Machining Deformation in Milling of Al Alloy Thin-Walled Parts. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 2020, 21, 1597–1613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Riaz, A.A.; Hussain, G.; Ullah, N.; Wei, H.; Alkahtani, M.; Khan, M.N. An investigation on the effects of tool rotational speed and material temper on post-ISF tensile properties of Al2219 alloy. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2021, 10, 853–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kumar, V.; Kumar, R. Investigation of Surface Roughness in Incremental Sheet Forming of AA 2014-T6 using Taguchi’s Method. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1519, 012009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Wu, R.; Hu, Q.; Li, M.; Cai, S.; Chen, J. Evaluation of the forming limit of incremental sheet forming based on ductile damage. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2021, 287, 116497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Pandivelan, C.; Jeevanantham, A.K.; Sathiyanarayanan, C. Optimization Study on Incremental Forming of Sheet Metal AA5052 for Variable Wall Angle using CNC Milling Machine. Mater. Today Proc. 2018, 5 Pt 2, 12832–12836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kumar Singh, A.; Agrawal, A. Formability Analysis of AA1200 H14 Aluminum Alloy Using Single Point Incremental Forming Process. Trans. Indian Inst. Met. 2020, 73, 1975–1984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rashid, H.; Hussain, G.; Rehman, K.; Khan, S.; Alkahtani, M.; Abidi, M.H. Characterization of residual stresses in an asymmetrical shape produced through incremental forming. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 2020, 31, 478–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Shojaeefrd, M.; Khalkhali, A.; Shahbaz, S. Sensitivity analysis and optimization of the surface roughness in the incremental forming of mild steel sheets. Sci. Iran. 2021, 28, 316–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Dabwan, A.; Ragab, A.E.; Saleh, M.A.; Anwar, S.; Ghaleb, A.M.; Rehman, A.U. Study of the Effect of Process Parameters on Surface Profile Accuracy in Single-Point Incremental Sheet Forming of AA1050-H14 Aluminum Alloy. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 2020, 7265941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Mandaloi, G.; Nagargoje, A.; Gupta, A.K.; Banerjee, G.; Shahare, H.Y.; Tandon, P. A Comprehensive Review on Experimental Conditions, Strategies, Performance, and Applications of Incremental Forming for Deformation Machining, ASME. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 2022, 144, 110802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Shrivastava, P.; Tandon, P. Microstructure and texture based analysis of forming behavior and deformation mechanism of AA1050 sheet during Single Point Incremental Forming. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2019, 266, 292–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Chang, Z.; Chen, J. A new void coalescence mechanism during incremental sheet forming: Ductile fracture modeling and experimental validation. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2021, 298, 117319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Nirala, H.K.; Agrawal, A. Reprint of: Residual stress inclusion in the incrementally formed geometry using Fractal Geometry Based Incremental Toolpath (FGBIT). J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2021, 287, 116623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Kubit, A.; Al-Sabur, R.; Gradzik, A.; Ochał, K.; Slota, J.; Korzeniowski, M. Investigating Residual Stresses in Metal-Plastic Composites Stiffening Ribs Formed Using the Single Point Incremental Forming Method. Materials 2022, 15, 8252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Najm, S.M.; Paniti, I.; Trzepieciński, T.; Nama, S.A.; Viharos, Z.J.; Jacso, A. Parametric Effects of Single Point Incremental Forming on Hardness of AA1100 Aluminium Alloy Sheets. Materials 2021, 14, 7263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Li, R.; Wang, T. Research on Single Point Incremental Forming Characteristics of Perforated TA1 Sheet. Metals 2022, 12, 1944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Oleksik, V.; Trzepieciński, T.; Szpunar, M.; Chodoła, Ł.; Ficek, D.; Szczęsny, I. Single-Point Incremental Forming of Titanium and Titanium Alloy Sheets. Materials 2021, 14, 6372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Bai, L.; Li, Y.; Yang, M.; Lin, Y.; Yuan, Q.; Zhao, R. Modeling and Analysis of Single Point Incremental Forming Force with Static Pressure Support and Ultrasonic Vibration. Materials 2019, 12, 1899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Trzepieciński, T.; Kubit, A.; Dzierwa, A.; Krasowski, B.; Jurczak, W. Surface Finish Analysis in Single Point Incremental Sheet Forming of Rib-Stiffened 2024-T3 and 7075-T6 Alclad Aluminium Alloy Panels. Materials 2021, 14, 1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Available online: https://www.atlassteels.com.au/documents/Atlas_Aluminium_datasheet_3003_rev_Oct_2013.pdf (accessed on 26 May 2023).
  95. Available online: https://www.theworldmaterial.com/din-en-1-2379-steel-x153crmov12-material/ (accessed on 26 May 2023).
  96. Available online: https://www.robots.com/robots/kuka-kr-210 (accessed on 26 May 2023).
  97. Available online: https://www.kuka.com/-/media/kuka-downloads/imported/8350ff3ca11642998dbdc81dcc2ed44c/pf0031_kr_2102_k_en.pdf (accessed on 3 May 2023).
  98. 2823-12. Available online: https://www.sensor-hbm.com (accessed on 4 May 2023).
  99. QuantumX MX840B/MX440B: Universal Data Acquisition Module. Available online: https://www.hbm.com/en/2129/quantumx-mx840b-8-channel-universalamplifier/ (accessed on 23 September 2022).
  100. Available online: https://www.archimina.ro/articole/Articles-Detail/52-Placarea-sculelor-aschietoare-cu-Nitrura-de-Titan---TiN/0 (accessed on 6 March 2021).
  101. Available online: http://magnum.engineering.upm.ro/~gabriela.strnad/Tehnologia%20materialelor%20I%20-%20curs%20licenta%20an%20I/2%20LABORATOR/saptamana%205-6/Incercarea%20de%20ambutisare%20prin%20metoda%20Erichsen.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2021).
  102. Oraon, M.; Sharma, V. Predicting Force in Single Point Incremental Forming by Using Artificial Neural Network. Int. J. Eng. 2018, 31, 88–95. [Google Scholar]
  103. Harfoush, A.; Haapala, K.R.; Tabei, A. Application of Artificial Intelligence in Incremental Sheet Metal Forming: A Review. Procedia Manuf. 2021, 53, 606–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Arshad, S. Single Point Incremental Forming. A Study of Forming Parameters, Forming Limits and Part Accuracy of Aluminium 2024, 6061 and 7475 Alloys. Ph.D. Thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, June 2012. [Google Scholar]
  105. Trzepiecinski, T.; Oleksik, V.; Pepelnjak, T.; Najm, S.M.; Paniti, I.; Maji, K. Emerging Trends in Single Point Incremental Sheet Forming of Lightweight Metals. Metals 2021, 11, 1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Materials 16 06371 g001
Figure 1. Images of the semi-finished products after processing. (a) uncoated tool. (b) TiN-coated tool.
Figure 1. Images of the semi-finished products after processing. (a) uncoated tool. (b) TiN-coated tool.
Materials 16 06371 g001
Materials 16 06371 g002
Figure 2. Tools used for SPIF. (a) uncoated tool. (b) TiN-coated tool.
Figure 2. Tools used for SPIF. (a) uncoated tool. (b) TiN-coated tool.
Materials 16 06371 g002
Materials 16 06371 g003
Figure 3. Flow chart of the experimental procedure.
Figure 3. Flow chart of the experimental procedure.
Materials 16 06371 g003
Materials 16 06371 g004aMaterials 16 06371 g004b
Figure 4. Simulation model: (a) at the beginning of the incremental forming process; (b) at the end of the process; 1—tool; 2—semi-finished product; 3—restraint ring; 4—active plate.
Figure 4. Simulation model: (a) at the beginning of the incremental forming process; (b) at the end of the process; 1—tool; 2—semi-finished product; 3—restraint ring; 4—active plate.
Materials 16 06371 g004aMaterials 16 06371 g004b
Materials 16 06371 g005
Figure 5. Variation in Fz force for case 1—uncoated tool—obtained with numerical simulation with LS-Dyna.
Figure 5. Variation in Fz force for case 1—uncoated tool—obtained with numerical simulation with LS-Dyna.
Materials 16 06371 g005
Materials 16 06371 g006
Figure 6. Variation in Fx force for case 1—uncoated tool—obtained with numerical simulation with LS-Dyna.
Figure 6. Variation in Fx force for case 1—uncoated tool—obtained with numerical simulation with LS-Dyna.
Materials 16 06371 g006
Materials 16 06371 g007
Figure 7. Variation in Fz force for case 2—coated tool with TIN—obtained with numerical simulation with LS-Dyna.
Figure 7. Variation in Fz force for case 2—coated tool with TIN—obtained with numerical simulation with LS-Dyna.
Materials 16 06371 g007
Materials 16 06371 g008
Figure 8. Variation in Fx force for case 2—coated tool with TiN— obtained with numerical simulation with LS-Dyna.
Figure 8. Variation in Fx force for case 2—coated tool with TiN— obtained with numerical simulation with LS-Dyna.
Materials 16 06371 g008
Materials 16 06371 g009
Figure 9. Variation in Fz force in experiment 2.
Figure 9. Variation in Fz force in experiment 2.
Materials 16 06371 g009
Materials 16 06371 g010
Figure 10. Variation in Fx force in experiment 2.
Figure 10. Variation in Fx force in experiment 2.
Materials 16 06371 g010
Materials 16 06371 g011
Figure 11. Variation in Fz force in experiment 6.
Figure 11. Variation in Fz force in experiment 6.
Materials 16 06371 g011
Materials 16 06371 g012
Figure 12. Variation in Fx force in experiment 6.
Figure 12. Variation in Fx force in experiment 6.
Materials 16 06371 g012
Materials 16 06371 g013
Figure 13. Influence of factors on the maximum force component Fz.
Figure 13. Influence of factors on the maximum force component Fz.
Materials 16 06371 g013
Materials 16 06371 g014
Figure 14. Influence of factors on the maximum force component Fx.
Figure 14. Influence of factors on the maximum force component Fx.
Materials 16 06371 g014
Materials 16 06371 g015
Figure 15. Measurement of the part profile obtained in experiment 2.
Figure 15. Measurement of the part profile obtained in experiment 2.
Materials 16 06371 g015
Materials 16 06371 g016
Figure 16. Measurement of the part profile obtained in experiment 6.
Figure 16. Measurement of the part profile obtained in experiment 6.
Materials 16 06371 g016
Materials 16 06371 g017
Figure 17. Roughness values for the part in experiment 2.
Figure 17. Roughness values for the part in experiment 2.
Materials 16 06371 g017
Materials 16 06371 g018
Figure 18. Roughness values for the part in experiment 6.
Figure 18. Roughness values for the part in experiment 6.
Materials 16 06371 g018
Table 1. Studies from the technical literature regarding the SPIF.
Table 1. Studies from the technical literature regarding the SPIF.
No. crt.MaterialAnalysisReferences
1polymer sheetsoptimization of forming forces[68]
2polycarbonateformability limits (necking, fracture)[69]
3titanium and magnesiumsurface roughness, design and production of parts, maximum forming angle[70]
4AZ31B-H24 (magnesium sheet)temperature effect on roughness, microstructure and hardness, coating of parts using electrospun polycaprolactone[71]
5AA 1050 (aluminium alloy sheet)role of heat in formability, comparation between elevated temperature incremental forming and conventional method[72]
6Ti-6Al-4V (titanium sheet)analysis of forming force, surface roughness, geometric accuracy, thickness profile, micro-hardness for induction heating SPIF; finite element analysis—FEA (strain and stresses), Arrhenius model[73]
7Ti-6Al-4V (titanium sheet)tensile test, stretch forming experiments (at 400 °C), FEA [74]
8Al alloy 5083
(aluminium alloy sheet)		surface roughness, deformation of thin-walled, mathematical models, optimization[75]
9Al2219-O, AA2219-T6
(aluminium alloy sheet)		tool rotational speed influence on tensile strength, microstructure analysis[76]
10AA 2014-T6 (aluminium alloy sheet)surface roughness, Taguchi’s analysis, input parameters influence[77]
11AA1050-H111 (aluminium alloy sheet)fracture forming limit, failure mechanism, ductile fracture, tensile stress, process parameter influence[78]
12AA 5052 (aluminium alloy sheet)formability, optimization, variable wall angle, orthogonal array[79]
13AA1200 H14 (aluminium alloy sheet)formability analysis, ANOVA analysis, microstructure[80]
14AA 1050 (aluminium alloy sheet)residual stresses, hole drill test, Taguchi analysis[81]
15St12 (mild steel sheet)surface roughness, Taguchi analysis, ANOVA methodology[82]
16AA1050-H14 (aluminium alloy sheet)surface profile, influence of process parameters[83]
17Monolithic geometryperformance, strategies of experimental conditions, applications[84]
18AA1050 (aluminium alloy sheet)microstructure, texture based analysis, structural and morphological analysis[85]
19AA2024, AA6061 (aluminium alloy sheet)void coalescence and cluster, ductile fracture, GTN model, FEA[86]
20Al 6063-T6 (aluminium alloy sheet)residual stress, nanoindentation
fractal geometry		[87]
21LITECOR® composite material (metal-plastic)residual stresses, structural and morphological analysis[88]
22AA1100 (aluminium alloy sheet)hardness, artificial neural network, relative importance[89]
23TA1 (titanium sheet)FEM, tensile test, thinning ratio, forming strain[90]
24titanium and titanium alloy sheetsmicrostructure, friction, lubrication[91]
25AL1060 (aluminium alloy sheet)ultrasonic vibration, forming force, experimental verification, analytical modelling[92]
262024-T3, 7075-T6 (aluminium alloy panels)surface finish, surface roughness, surface topography, artificial neural networks modelling[93]
Table 2. Experimental data with maximum values of force components.
Table 2. Experimental data with maximum values of force components.
No.ToolFeed Rate, Vs [mm/min]Forming Step, Pi [mm]Fz
[kN]		Fx
[kN]		Fy
[kN]
1.uncoated55000.281.20.40.35
2.uncoated55000.561.390.380.4
3.uncoated85000.281.00.210.17
4.uncoated85000.561.410.40.47
5.coated with TIN55000.281.250.370.35
6.coated with TIN55000.561.380.420.44
7.coated with TIN85000.281.260.40.41
8.coated with TIN85000.561.410.370.41
Table 3. Numerical and experimental results for forces—case 1.
Table 3. Numerical and experimental results for forces—case 1.
CaseFeed RateForming StepMaximum Force FzMaximum Force FxMaximum Force Fy
[mm/min][mm][N][N][N]
Experimental55000.561390380400
Simulation55000.561395410420
Diference [%]0.367.895
Table 4. Numerical and experimental results for forces—case 2.
Table 4. Numerical and experimental results for forces—case 2.
CaseFeed RateForming StepMaximum Force FzMaximum Force FxMaximum Force, Fy
[mm/min][mm][N][N][N]
Experimental55000.561380420440
Simulation55000.561490440450
Diference [%]7.974.762.27
Table 5. Analysis of variance of factors on the maximum force component Fz.
Table 5. Analysis of variance of factors on the maximum force component Fz.
FactorNo. Degrees of Freedom (DF)Adj. MSF ValueThreshold of Significance, pStatistical Significance *
Tool10.096811.900.026S
Feed rate, Vs10.0050.610.477NS
Forming step, Pi10.00720.880.400NS
* S—statistically significant; NS—not statistically significant.
Table 6. Analysis of variance of factors on the maximum force component Fx.
Table 6. Analysis of variance of factors on the maximum force component Fx.
FactorNo. Degrees of Freedom (DF)Adj. MSF ValueThreshold of Significance, pStatistical Significance *
Tool10.0045131.310.316NS
Feed rate, Vs10.0105133.060.155NS
Forming step, Pi10.0021130.610.477NS
* S—statistically significant; NS—not statistically significant.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Coman, C.C.; Mazurchevici, S.-N.; Carausu, C.; Nedelcu, D. Analysis of Incremental Sheet Forming of Aluminum Alloy. Materials 2023, 16, 6371. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16196371

AMA Style

Coman CC, Mazurchevici S-N, Carausu C, Nedelcu D. Analysis of Incremental Sheet Forming of Aluminum Alloy. Materials. 2023; 16(19):6371. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16196371

Chicago/Turabian Style

Coman, Costel Catalin, Simona-Nicoleta Mazurchevici, Constantin Carausu, and Dumitru Nedelcu. 2023. "Analysis of Incremental Sheet Forming of Aluminum Alloy" Materials 16, no. 19: 6371. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16196371

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop