Journal of Manufacturing Processes 14 (2012) 487494

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Manufacturing Processes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/manpro

Technical paper

Analytical prediction of stepped feature generation in multi-pass single point

incremental forming
Dongkai Xu a,b,1 , Rajiv Malhotra b,1 , N. Venkata Reddy c,2 , Jun Chen a,3 , Jian Cao a,b,
a

Department of Plasticity Technology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 1954 Huashan Road, Shanghai, 200030, PR China
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208-3111, USA
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, India Institute of Technology, Kanpur, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, 208016, India
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 9 July 2012
Received in revised form 8 August 2012
Accepted 9 August 2012
Available online 20 September 2012
Keywords:
Multi-pass single point incremental
forming (MSPIF)
Geometric accuracy
Analytical formulations

a b s t r a c t
Single point incremental forming (SPIF) is a new sheet metal forming process characterized by higher
formability, product independent tooling and greater process exibility. The inability of conventional single pass SPIF to form vertical walls without failure is overcome by forming multiple intermediate shapes
before forming the nal component, i.e., multi-pass single point incremental forming (MSPIF). A major
issue with MSPIF is signicant geometric inaccuracy of the formed component, due to the generation of
stepped features on the base. This work proposes analytical formulations that are shown to accurately
and quantitatively predict the stepped feature formation in MSPIF. Additionally, a relationship is derived
among the material constants used in these analytical equations, the yield stress and thickness of the
blank material, such that the computational effort required for the calibration of these constants can be
minimized. Finally, the physical effects of yield stress and sheet thickness on the rigid body translation
are further discussed.
2012 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Single point incremental forming (SPIF) is a die-less sheet metal
forming process in which a peripherally clamped sheet is locally
deformed using a simple hemispherical ended tool moving along
a predened toolpath. The cumulative effect of these local deformations leads to the desired nal geometry. Since the tooling is
not product shape specic, SPIF has greater process exibility and
signicant potential to reduce the costs in prototyping and small
batch production. Additionally, SPIF requires lesser forming force
compared to conventional sheet metal forming processes. This
reduction in forming force allows the usage of smaller and more
mobile machines. Furthermore, it has been noted that conventional
forming limit diagrams (FLDs) were not appropriate to evaluate the
blank formability in SPIF [14]. Enhanced blank formability in SPIF
as compared to conventional forming has the ability to reduce the
weight of formed components. The increased through-thickness

Corresponding author at: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Northwestern

University, Evanston, IL 60208-3111, USA. Tel.: +1 847 4671032;
fax: +1 847 4913915.
E-mail addresses: xudongkai@sjtu.edu.cn (D. Xu), malhotrarajiv20@gmail.com
(R. Malhotra), nvr@iitk.ac.in (N.V. Reddy), jun chen@sjtu.edu.cn (J. Chen),
jcao@northwestern.edu (J. Cao).
1
Tel.: +1 847 4671851; fax: +1 847 4913915.
2
Tel.: +91 512 2597362; fax: +91 512 2597408.
3
Tel.: +86 21 62813425x8318; fax: +86 21 62826575.

shear is the reason for increased formability in SPIF as compared to

conventional forming [1,2]. Malhotra et al. [3] indicated that greater
shear in SPIF cannot be held as the only reason for formability
improvement and proposed a so-called noodle theory to explain
the increased formability in SPIF. In this theory, the local nature of
deformation is the primary reason for increased formability in SPIF
as compared to conventional forming. Therefore, a new representation of forming limits for SPIF related to process variables (feed
rate and tool radius, etc.) and part geometry (part slope and part
curvature radius, etc.) was developed [4]. Due to these advantages,
SPIF has found numerous potential applications in the automotive
[5], aerospace [6] and biomedical [7] manufacturing sectors.
Conventional single-pass SPIF forms components in one step,
i.e., without forming any intermediate shapes. One of the main
issues in single-pass SPIF is that components with steep walls, such
as a 90 wall angle, cannot be formed without failure. For example,
the maximum formable wall angle for most steel and aluminum
alloys is about 6070 for blank thicknesses ranging from 0.8 mm
to 1.5 mm [8,9]. While a smaller incremental depth can enhance the
formability, geometry accuracy and the surface nish [6,10], the
forming time is simultaneously increased. Malhotra et al. [11] proposed an automatic 3D spiral toolpath generation method for SPIF
using local geometry dependent incremental depth to minimize
the forming time while satisfying user constraints on geometry
accuracy and surface nish. However, this methodology did not
account for formability as a constraint for generation of optimum
toolpaths.

1526-6125/$ see front matter 2012 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2012.08.003

488

D. Xu et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 14 (2012) 487494

Fig. 1. Multi-pass toolpath strategy in TPIF and the corresponding formed component without stepped features on the base: (a) multi-pass strategy. (b) Preformed
and nal four-sided pyramid with = 81 [13].

Multi-pass single point incremental forming (MSPIF) increases

the maximum formable wall angle in SPIF by forming multiple
intermediate shapes before forming the nal component. Additionally, MSPIF creates the potential to control the spatial thickness
distribution of component. This makes it possible to form a
part with thinner sheets while satisfying the required structural
integrity in key locations. Therefore, toolpath generation in MSPIF
has attracted considerable interest in the sheet metal forming community. Kim and Yang [12] used a double-pass forming method to
form an ellipsoidal cup and a clover shaped cup. It was found that
the formability was improved with a more uniform thickness strain
distribution of the nal shapes. A four-sided pyramid with an 81
wall angle was formed using two point incremental forming (TPIF)
with a multistage toolpath strategy [13]. The sheet was performed
into a shallow shape with a 45 wall angle and then 712 stages
were subsequently formed in which the pitch motion of the forming tool alternated from upward to downward, as shown in Fig. 1a.
There were no stepped features on the base of the formed component because a partial die was used during the forming (Fig. 1b).
Note that the use of a partial die leads to a loss of the inherent
exibility of the SPIF process. Skjoedt et al. [14] formed a circular
cylindrical cup with a 90 wall angle using down-up-down-down
(DUDD) and down-down-down-up (DDDU) toolpath strategies, as
shown in Fig. 2a. They showed that the DUDD strategy resulted in
fracture in the transition zone between the base and the side wall
(Fig. 2b). Duou et al. [15] used MSPIF to redistribute the material
from the previously unformed base of the component to the side
wall and formed vertical walls without part failure (Fig. 2c). Based
on the obtained material ow trajectories from FEA, it was shown
that material movement between two consecutive intermediate
shapes was in a direction normal to the former intermediate shape
(Fig. 2c). While the formability was increased with strategies used
in Refs. [14] and [15], a signicant drawback was the generation of
stepped features on the base of formed components (Fig. 2b and d).
These stepped features cause unacceptable geometric inaccuracy
of the formed components.
Malhotra et al. [16] pointed out that in aforementioned toolpath
strategies a rigid body translation of the base occurred during the
forming of each intermediate shape. It was shown that the stepped
features were caused by accumulation of rigid body translation
of the base during forming of multiple intermediate shapes. They
proposed analytical formulations for calculating this rigid body
translation and created a mixed toolpath strategy that prevented
the generation of stepped feature in MSPIF (Fig. 3). In these analytical formulations used for the calculation of rigid body translations,
three material constants were needed to calculate the rigid body

Fig. 2. MSPIF toolpath strategies and the corresponding formed components with
stepped features on the base: (a) and (b) Skjoedt et al. [14] (c) and (d) Duou et al.
[15].

translation. These constants were calibrated manually by matching the analytical predictions of rigid body translation with those
from FEA. This manual calibration was essentially a repetitive trial
and error process. Therefore, when the blank material or thickness
changes, it becomes necessary to recalibrate the material constants
using additional time consuming simulations. To reduce the needs
of time-consuming simulations for calculating the rigid body translation in generating the mixed toolpath, an analytical model has
been established to predict the rigid body translation when new
blank material or sheet thickness is applied.
This work is an extension of work published by this group [16] to
remove the aforementioned issue by relating the material constants
used in analytical formulations to the yield stress and the sheet
thickness of the blank. First, the analytical models used for cal-

Fig. 3. (a) Toolpaths used to form cylinder with mixed toolpath strategy (b) comparison of formed cylinder proles using mixed toolpath and pure OI toolpath, with
the designed prole geometry [16].

D. Xu et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 14 (2012) 487494

489

Fig. 4. Schematic of (a) OI toolpath (b) IO toolpath.

culating the rigid body translation in MSPIF are discussed. Then,

the methodology for establishing the relationships between these
material constants and the blank properties is described. As a means
of validation, these relationships are used to predict the material
constants for two different materials with different thicknesses,
and the predictions are then used in the analytical formulations
to calculate the rigid body translations. The analytically calculated
rigid body translations are compared to corresponding predictions
from FEA. Subsequently, the effects of yield stress and thickness of
the sheet on rigid body translation are discussed qualitatively.
2. Analytical prediction of rigid body translation

to the base of the nth shape, as shown in Fig. 4. The rigid body
translation OI (Fig. 4a) is calculated using the following equation
[17].
OI = y

 L 


2 [E(R) E(R, 0 )]
K(R) F(R, 0 )

(1)

In Eq. (1),  is a material constant which is calibrated manually, E(R) and K(R) are complete elliptic functions of the rst and
second kind, respectively (Eqs. (2) and (3)), E(R,0 ) and F(R,0 ) are
incomplete elliptic functions of the rst and second kind, respectively (Eqs. (4) and (5)). The expressions for R and 0 are shown in
Eqs. (6) and (7).

/2

The phenomenon of rigid body translation in MSPIF and the analytical formulations used to quantitatively predict this translation
will be discussed in this section. Present work uses two kinds of
toolpaths in MSPIF. When the tool moves from the periphery of the
sheet toward the center of the sheet while moving in the negative
Z direction, the toolpath is called out-to-in (OI), as shown in Fig. 4a.
On the other hand, when the tool moves from the center of the
sheet to the periphery of the sheet while moving in the positive Z
direction, the toolpath is called in-to-out (IO), as shown in Fig. 4b.
While the (n + 1)th intermediate shape is being formed, the region
of the nth shape where r < rtool undergoes a rigid body translation
in the negative Z direction. This phenomenon occurs in both OI and
IO toolpaths. If every intermediate shape for MSPIF is formed using
only OI or IO toolpaths, the rigid body translation accumulates and
results in stepped features on the base of the formed component.
In these analytical formulations, the contact between the forming
tool and the workpiece is assumed frictionless and springback is
not taken into account. The reason for the frictionless assumption
is that friction acts along the toolpath and is not expected to have
a signicant effect on the rigid body translation in the Z direction.
In addition, friction can be signicantly reduced by using lubricant
during the forming process or making the tool tip rotational.

d0

E(R)

1 R2 sin2 0

= E R,

 

/2

1 R2 sin2 0 d0 = K

K(R)


2


R,

(2)


2


(3)

0

d0

E(R, 0 )

1 R2 sin2 0

(4)

0 
1 R2 sin2 0 d0

K(R, 0 )

(5)

R2 =

1 + sin OI
2

 1 
1

0 = sin

2R

(6)
(7)

2.1. Modeling rigid body translation in the OI toolpath

For the OI toolpath, it is assumed that when the (n + 1)th shape is
being formed, the region of the nth shape where r < rtool behaves like
a modied cantilever beam subjected to a large elastic deformation.
Fig. 5 shows a close up view of the contact area between the tool
and the sheet during the deformation of the (n + 1)th shape. At any
point during the deformation, the contact point on the prole of
the (n + 1)th shape is projected onto the nth shape along the normal
direction of nth shape, to nd a corresponding projected point. The
physical signicance of nding this projected point in a direction
normal to the nth shape is based on the material ow direction
shown by Duou et al. [15]. The distance y between the contact
point and the projected point is then calculated. The distance L is
measured along the nth shapes prole from the projected point

Fig. 5. Close up view of the contact area between tool and sheet at any point during
the deformation of the (n + 1)th shape.

490

D. Xu et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 14 (2012) 487494

In Eq. (6) the value of  OI at any contact point on the prole of

(n + 1)th shape is calculated using Eq. (8) [18]. This  OI is used to
calculate R in Eq. (6) and subsequently 0 in Eq. (7).
tan OI =

sin 1
Lx/ + cos 1

(8)

The value of x in Eq. (8) is calculated as

S sin

x =



2 1 
sin 1

(9)

In Eq. (9), S is the length measured from the contact point to the
top of the (n + 1)th shape (Fig. 4a).  2 and  1 are the ideal wall angles
at any contact point on the (n + 1)th shape and at the corresponding
projected point on nth shape, respectively (Fig. 5).

Fig. 6. Schematic of component shapes used to calibrate and validate the analytical
model.

2.2. Modeling rigid body translation in IO toolpath

For the IO toolpath the incremental rigid body translation of the
base IO is assumed to be a power law function of y, L (Fig. 4b)
and  IO (Fig. 5), as shown in Eq. (10).
IO =

 y 
La

b
IO

(10)

where, a and b are material constants which need to be manually

calibrated, y and L are computed in a manner similar to that in
the OI toolpath, and  IO is obtained from Eq. (11) as follows

IO = 2 1 

Fig. 7. Schematic of the setup in FEA simulations.

(11)

Note that  IO is different from  OI in Eq. (8). Subsequently, the

cumulative rigid body translation for IO toolpath, IO , is added up
by IO and expressed as in Eq. (12),
IO =

(IO )i

(12)

i=1

where, N is the number of contact points along the prole of the

(n + 1)th shape. Note that the variables S, L, y,  1 and  2 in Eqs.
(1)(10) are dependent on the toolpath and shape of the components, which can be obtained directly through a user-dened
application programmable interface subroutine in common CAD
software packages. This makes the analytical formulations independent of the incremental depth, component shape and tool
diameters.

3.1. Expression for material constants

To obtain the relationships between the three material
constants and yield stress ( y0 ) and thickness (t) of the blank, FEA
simulations using ABAQUS implicit for both OI and IO toolpaths for
forming a spherical cap shape as the second intermediate shape
with a cone as the rst intermediate shape (Fig. 6) were performed
(Fig. 7). The diameters of tool and blank were 5.0 mm and 80 mm
respectively and the incremental depth used was 0.4 mm. The tool
was modeled as an analytical rigid body and the blank was discretized using linear shell elements with ve integration points
along the thickness of the sheet. The approximate global element
size was 0.7 mm. The periphery of the blank was clamped and the
interface between the tool and the sheet was frictionless according
to the assumption made in Section 2.

3. Relationship between material constants and blank

properties
The material constants , a and b in Eqs. (1) and (10) are independent of the toolpath and the shape being formed. However,
they do depend on the blank material and blank thickness and
have to be manually recalibrated when the blank material or thickness is changed. This requires further simulations and increases
the computational effort required. To minimize the number of FEA
simulations required to predict the material constants when the
material type or thickness changes, this section relates , a and b to
the yield stress ( y0 ) and thickness (t) of the blank. As a rst attempt
toward calculating the material constants analytically, an assumption is made that all these material constants depend linearly on the
yield stress and sheet thickness. It is shown that by deriving such
relationships just six simulations are required to predict the material constants and subsequently rigid body translation for different
materials with different thicknesses.

Fig. 8. Illustration for predicting material constant .

D. Xu et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 14 (2012) 487494

491

Table 1
Material properties used for calibrating the material constant  in OI toolpath and
material constants a and b in IO toolpath.
Material

 y0 (MPa)

t (mm)

SS304
SS304
Ti6Al4V

800
800
469

0.4
1.0
0.4

3.19
2.30
4.24

1.38
1.44
1.25

2.70
2.90
3.25

The methodology of obtaining a relationship between the material constants and the blank properties will now be demonstrated
via the example of expressing  as a function of  y0 and t.
Three FEA simulations were performed for two different materials with two different thicknesses. The value of  was manually
calibrated, as shown in Table 1, by matching predictions of rigid
body translations from Eq. (1) with those from FEA predictions.
To obtain such a relationship two linear assumptions were made in
deriving the relationship between ,  y0 and t. The rst assumption
is that the value of  changes linearly with  y0 when t is constant.
The  values of SS304 and Ti6Al4V for t = 0.4 mm are plotted in
Fig. 8 and these two points are connected by a straight line. From
the equation of this straight line the relationship between material
constant  and  y0 at a constant t, is expressed as
(y0 ) = (y0 B)A

(13)

where
A=

(tbaseline )material

B = (y0 )material

(tbaseline )material

(y0 )material
1

(y0 )material

1
)
(t
A baseline material

This straight line is set as a baseline. The second assumption

is that this baseline will vertically and linearly shift by a certain
amount when sheet thickness changes. The shifting amount is
determined by the current sheet thickness t and a shifting coefcient . Therefore, Eq. (13) is modied to Eq. (14) to take this
thickness effect into account. Here tbaseline equals to 0.4 mm. Note
that, in contrast to the material constant  the shifting coefcient
is a constant that is independent of  y0 and t.

(y0 , t) = (y0 B)A + [ (t tbaseline )]





(14)

Shifting amount

Baseline

The manually calibrated value of  for SS304 with t = 1.0 mm

(Table 1) was used in Eq. (14) to calculate the value of the shifting
coefcient as 1.48. Now, Eq. (14) expresses the material constant
 completely as a function of  y0 and t.
For IO toolpath, the material constants a and b in Eq. (10) were
expressed in a similar form. Therefore, a general equation can
be used to express the relationship among these three material
constants, the yield stress and thickness of the blank material as
shown in Eq. (15).

= (y0 I )T + (t tbaseline )
where

= a , = 0
b

(15)

0,T = C , = 

A, B, C, D, E and F are represented by the material constants

derived from FEA simulations and the corresponding yield stress
when blank thickness is a constant and the values of these
coefcients are listed in Table 2. Only three more simulations for
the materials in Table 1 are required to calculate the corresponding
shifting coefcients  and . In Eq. (15), tbaseline equals to 0.4 mm.

Fig. 9. Predictions using established relationship between material constants, yield

stress and sheet thickness for (a) material constant  (b) material constant a (c)
material constant b.

492

D. Xu et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 14 (2012) 487494

Fig. 10. Comparison of rigid body translation evolutions from FEA simulations and analytical prediction models (the predicted material constant  are used) for OI toolpath
(a) SS304 of thickness 1.5 mm:  = 1.57, max. error = 0.06 mm (b) Ti6Al4V of thickness 0.75 mm:  = 3.73, max. error = 0.08 mm.

The values of the shifting coefcient  and were 0.10 and 0.33,
respectively.
3.2. Prediction of material constants
Using Eq. (15), i.e., for the OI toolpath, the material constant
 was predicted for SS304 with t = 1.5 mm and for Ti6Al4V with
t = 0.75 mm, 1.0 mm, 1.5 mm (Fig. 9a). Additionally, Eq. (15) was

Fig. 11. Comparison of rigid body translation evolutions from FEA simulations and
analytical prediction models (the predicted material constants a and b are used) for
IO toolpath (a) SS304 of thickness 1.5 mm: a = 1.49, b = 3.10, max. error = 0.046 mm
(b) Ti6Al4V of thickness 1.0 mm: a = 1.31, b = 3.44, max. error = 0.049 mm (c) Ti6Al4V
of thickness 1.5 mm: a = 1.36, b = 3.61, max. error = 0.051 mm.

Fig. 12. Comparison of rigid body translations between experiment and analytical
model (a) OI toolpath (b) IO toolpath.

D. Xu et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 14 (2012) 487494

493

Fig. 13. Effects of yield stress and sheet thickness on the evolution of rigid body translation when (a) OI toolpath (b) IO toolpath is used.

Table 2
Coefcient values for establishing the expression for material constants.
A (MPa1 )

3.17E3

B (MPa)

1.81E3

C (MPa1 )

3.93E4

D (MPa)

2.71E3

used to predict the values of a and b for the IO toolpath, for SS304
with t = 1.5 mm and for Ti6Al4V with t = 1.0 mm, 1.5 mm (Fig. 9b and
c).
For further validation, the predicted material constants were
used in analytical formulations (Eqs. (1)(12)) to predict the rigid
body translations when forming the intermediate shapes as shown
in Fig. 6. These analytical predictions of rigid body translation were
compared to those obtained from FEA (Figs. 10 and 11, where
RBTran stands for rigid body translation). Observe that these analytically predicted rigid body translations which use the material
constant prediction formulations match well with those obtained
from FEA.
Furthermore, simulations and experiments were performed to
form the same spherical cap geometry (Fig. 6) using AA5052 blank
with 1.0 mm sheet thickness. In earlier work [16], the values of
material constants , a and b for this case were manually calibrated
by trial and error to be 5.0, 1.0 and 4.0, correspondingly. The values
of , a, and b predicted by Eq. (15) were 4.86, 1.06 and 4.03, correspondingly. The analytically predicted rigid body translations that
used predicted material constants matched well with those from
experiments, as shown in Fig. 12.
Therefore, the developed relationships are able to predict material constants for blank with different yield stresses and sheet
thicknesses quite well. Additionally, only six FEA simulations are
now needed to predict the material constants for any material and
blank thickness.

4. Discussion
In the case of the pure OI toolpath, the rigid body translation
increases with the sheet deformation (Fig. 13a). However, the rigid
body translation saturates after a certain tool tip depth. The reason is that the accumulation of rigid body translation will make the
unformed region of the nth shape (r < rtool ) gradually go downwards
when the (n + 1)th intermediate shape is being formed (Fig. 4a),
which eventually results in contact lost between the sheet and the
tool after this point during the forming process. In addition, the

E (MPa1 )

1.66E3

F (MPa)

2.42E3

Shifting coefcient (mm1 )

1.48

0.10

0.33

generated toolpath does not consider the inuence of accumulation of rigid body translation and the tool still follows the ideal
trajectory.
When only the IO toolpath is used, the rigid body translation of
the base is slightly greater than zero at the beginning (Fig. 13b).
This is because the tool indents into the sheet at the rst point,
which results in the Z depth of tool tip being greater than the Z
depth of the previous component base. Subsequently, the rigid body
translation keeps increasing with the tool movement in the positive
Z direction. Compared with the evolution of rigid body translation
in OI toolpath, there is no saturation of rigid body translation since
contact between the sheet and the tool is never lost. This is because
the unformed region (r > rtool ) in IO toolpath as shown in Fig. 4b is
not affected by rigid body translation.
Additionally, the rigid body translation reduces when yield
stress or sheet thickness increases. This is because the stiffness
of the unformed area is enhanced with the increased yield stress
and sheet thickness. Furthermore, the rigid body translation predictions can be in fact incorporated into the toolpath generation
algorithm for MSPIF to create a mixed toolpath (Fig. 3a) and the
stepped feature generation was minimized as shown in Fig. 3b.

5. Conclusions
This paper enhances the previous work [16] by the authors
on analytical prediction of stepped feature formation in MSPIF by
reducing the number of prior FEA simulations required. In the prior
work, time-consuming nite element simulations are needed to
be performed every time when the material type or sheet thickness of the blank is changed. In this work, the three material
constants used to predict the rigid body translation and subsequent stepped feature formation are now related to the yield stress
and the sheet thickness of the blank. It is shown that these predicted material constants can be used in the analytical model to
predict the rigid body translation accurately. Since only six simulations are required to establish these relationships for arbitrary
material types and thicknesses this methodology is a signicant

494

D. Xu et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 14 (2012) 487494

addition to the prior work. Furthermore, from a more physical point

of view, it is expected and observed that the rigid body translation
reduces when the yield stress or sheet thickness increases since
both enhance the stiffness of the unformed region. Future work will
focus on including the nonlinear effect of working materials on the
material constants , a, and b. Furthermore, springback will need
to be considered in toolpath generation algorithm, particularly, for
non-conical shapes.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the nancial support from the
National Science Foundation, USA, the Ministry of Education, China
and the Chinese Scholarship Council. We also appreciate the support provided by the Indo-US Science and Technology Forum and
the Department of Science and Technology of India.
References
[1] Allwood JM, Shouler DR. Generalized forming limit diagrams showing
increased forming limits with non-planar stress states. International Journal
of Plasticity 2009;25:120730.
[2] Allwood JM, Shouler DR, Tekkaya AE. The increased forming limits of incremental sheet forming process. Key Engineering Materials 2007;344:6218.
[3] Malhotra R, Xue L, Belytschko T, Cao J. Mechanics of fracture in single point incremental forming. Journal of Materials Processing Technology
2012;212:157390.
[4] Strano M. Technological representation of forming limits for negative incremental forming of thin aluminum sheets. Journal of Manufacturing Processes
2005;7(2):1229.
[5] Governale A, Franco AL, Panzeca A, Fratini L, Micari F. Incremental forming process for the accomplishment of automotive details. Key Engineering Materials
2007;344:55966.
[6] Jeswiet J, Micari F, Hirt G, Bramley A, Duou A, Allwood J. Asymmetric single point incremental forming of sheet metal. CIRP Annals: Manufacturing
Technology 2005;54(2):62349.

[7] Ambrogio G, De Napoli L, Filice L, Gagliardi F, Muzzupappa M. Application of incremental forming process for high customized medical product
manufacturing. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2005;162163:
15662.
[8] Young D, Jeswiet J. Wall thickness variations in single-point incremental forming. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of
Engineering Manufacture 2004;128:14539.
[9] Hussaiin G, Gao L. A novel method to test thinning limits of sheet metals
in negative incremental forming. International Journal of Machine Tools and
Manufacture 2007;47(34):41935.
[10] Attanasio A, Ceretti E, Giardini C. Optimization of tool path in two
points incremental forming. Journal of Materials Processing Technology
2006;177(13):40912.
[11] Malhotra R, Reddy NV, Cao J. Automatic 3D spiral toolpath generation for single
point incremental forming. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering,
Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2010;132(6),
061003-1.
[12] Kim TJ, Yang DY. Improvement of formability for the incremental sheet
metal forming process. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences
2000;42(7):127186.
[13] Hirt G, Ames J, Bambach M, Kopp R. Forming strategies and process modeling
for CNC incremental sheet forming. CIRP Annals: Manufacturing Technology
2004;53(1):2036.
[14] Skjoedt M, Bay M, Endelt B, Ingarao G. Multi stage strategies for single
point incremental forming of a cup. International Journal of Material Forming
2008;1(Suppl. 1):1199202.
[15] Duou JR, Verbert J, Belkassem B, Gu J, Sol H, Henrard C, et al. Process window enhancement for single point incremental forming through
multi-step toolpaths. CIRP Annals: Manufacturing Technology 2008;57(1):
2536.
[16] Malhotra R, Bhattacharya A, Kumar A, Reddy NV, Cao J. A new
methodology for multi-pass single point incremental forming with
mixed toolpaths. CIRP Annals: Manufacturing Technology 2011;60(1):
3236.
[17] Yu TX, Zhang LC. Plastic bending: theory and applications. World Scientic;
1996.
[18] Cui Z, Ren F, Xia ZC, Gao L. Deformation analysis of multi-stage incremental
forming. Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Manufacturing
Science and Engineering, 2010 [Paper No. 34040].