Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical

Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering

Manufacture
http://pib.sagepub.com/

Forming limit diagrams for single-point incremental forming of aluminium sheet

J Jeswiet and D Young
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 2005 219:
359
DOI: 10.1243/095440505X32210

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://pib.sagepub.com/content/219/4/359

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Institution of Mechanical Engineers

Additional services and information for Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering
Manufacture can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://pib.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://pib.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://pib.sagepub.com/content/219/4/359.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Apr 1, 2005

What is This?

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at SUNY MAIN LIBRARY on October 25, 2014

 359

Forming limit diagrams for single-point

incremental forming of aluminium sheet
J Jeswiet1 * and D Young2
1
Mechanical Engineering, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
2
University of Saarbrucken, Germany

The manuscript was received on 2 March 2004 and was accepted after revision for publication on 14 December 2004.

DOI: 10.1243/095440505X32210

Abstract: The single-point incremental forming (SPIF) process is described. The maximum draw
angle for SPIF is defined and specific values are given for 3003-0 and 5754-0 aluminium. Forming
limit diagrams (FLDs) are developed for incremental forming of aluminium sheet, using SPIF.
Five distinct shapes are used to define the forming limits: a hemisphere, a straight-sided cone,
a hyperbolic-sided cone, a pyramid, and a shape with five lobes. Strains of more than 300 per
cent have been achieved for all shapes.

Keywords: cold forming, sheet, incremental

1 INTRODUCTION 2 SPIF PROCESS

Manufacturers are continually seeking new ways of
gaining a competitive edge. One way is to create
rapid prototypes, which can be used in situ. Single-
point incremental forming (SPIF) of sheet metal, is
one method that can be used to do this. The SPIF
process can also be used to make small-quantity
production lots.
It is important to be able to predict if the SPIF
process can be used to make a part without any
tears. One parameter that is critical in allowing a
prediction to be made about the formability by SPIF
is the maximum draw angle,
max . The draw angle,

, is illustrated in Fig. 1. This paper gives values
obtained experimentally for the maximum draw
angle that can be achieved with the SPIF process in
deforming 3003-0 aluminium and 5754-0 aluminium.
An empirical, linear general relationship for the
maximum draw angle for these materials is proposed.
In addition to defining a maximum draw angle
for SPIF, it is important to be able to determine if
the strains encountered in the process will cause
tearing. This can be done with forming limit diagrams
which, in this paper, are presented for 3003-0
aluminium.
*Corresponding author: Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada. email:
jeswiet@me.queensu.ca
The genesis of SPIF is described in detail by Hagan
and Jeswiet [1]. They clearly show that spinning is
the forerunner of most sheet metal incremental
forming processes, and that the term incremental
forming can be used to describe many other pro-
cesses. Hence, the acronym SPIF is used to indicate
clearly what is meant in this paper.
Single-point incremental forming of sheet metal
has its roots in spinning, but is very different from
spinning because non-symmetrical shapes can be
formed. Several analyses of the spinning process
have been made, including those by Kalpakcioglu
[2], Kobayashi et al. [3], and Sortais et al. [4]. They
derived the following relationship for spinning
tf ¼ t0 sin  ð1Þ
where t0 is the initial sheet thickness, tf is the final
sheet thickness, and  is the spinning angle, all of
which are shown in Fig. 1. The derivation is illustrated
in Fig. 1.
In all methods used incrementally to form sheet
metal, non-symmetrically, the following elements
must be present: a sheet metal blank, a blank
holder which holds the sheet in place but does not
exert very large forces in the clamping process, a
single-point forming tool, and a tool holder, which
is controlled numerically.
There are several ways of incrementally forming
sheet metal non-symmetrically. These are described

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at SUNY MAIN LIBRARY on October 25, 2014

B03504 # IMechE 2005 Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
360
Fig. 1 Derivation of spinning equations that are applic-
able to incremental forming (l0 is the initial length
on the sheet before being deformed; lf is the final
length on the deformed sheet)
by Hagan and Jeswiet [1], Matsubara [5], Kim and
Yang [6], and Filice et al. [7].
Once the foregoing elements are put together,
there are variations that come into play. The process
used in this paper is single-point incremental
forming, shown in Fig. 2. The SPIF process is a
‘freeform’ process in which there are no dies. A
single rounded tool presses into the sheet metal.
The ‘starting pattern’ (d), shown in Fig. 2, is critical
to the process if the CAD file is to be accurately
reproduced. The SPIF process is usually done in a
computer numerical control (CNC) mill. Another
requirement is that the tool rotates as it deforms
the sheet metal. The hypothetical plastic field
shown in Fig. 2 is based upon work by Garner and
Rice [9].
Fig. 2 Single-point incremental forming process described
by Jeswiet [8]
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at SUNY MAIN LIBRARY on October 25, 2014
Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
J Jeswiet and D Young
Fig. 3 Example of a typical tool path followed for manu-
facturing a truncated pyramid
2.1 Tool path for SPIF
A typical tool path is developed with software used
for milling machines. The post-processor is designed
to provide an efficient tool path, making the number
of bytes of information needed to guide the tool a
manageable size. Figure 3 shows an example of a
typical tool path followed for manufacturing a trun-
cated pyramid. The tool starts at point 0 and moves
along the path shown, while pressing down on the
sheet metal. Once a complete circuit has been
made, back to 0, the tool indexes horizontally by
y
and down by
z to point 1, where the procedure
starts over again. The size of each step will determine
both the draw angle,
, and the roughness of the final
surface. The tool can also follow a helical path as it
deforms the sheet, but the end result is generally
the same.
3 PARTS MADE
A variety of shapes have been used to illustrate the
viability of SPIF in making actual parts (see Fig. 4).
The choice of shapes has been dictated by industrial
partners. In all cases they have provided an IGES
file of the part.
In cases 1 and 2, the rapid prototypes were made of
automotive headlight light-reflecting surfaces. Each
prototype gave the proper illumination when used
in a test vehicle [10].
The automotive heat shield shown for case 4 was
meant as a rapid prototype. It became an example
of how a part can be custom made, eliminating the
need to keep parts in storage, since the part can be
stored as an IGES file and produced when needed.
B03504 # IMechE 2005
 Forming limit diagrams
Fig. 4 Examples of parts made for rapid prototypes and
low-volume production runs
The part in case 5 is now part of a low-volume
production run for a custom manufacturer.
If the process is to be of more use, a general method
of deciding if a part can be made from a specific
material is needed, instead of making each prototype
individually. Hence, the objective of the present
work is to develop relationships and forming limit
diagrams that give designers the parameters needed
to decide if a part can be made using the SPIF
process.
4 EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS
All experiments were run on a three-axis CNC mill.
Forming tools with 12.7 and 25 mm radii were used.
The forming tools were made of HRC65 Rc tool steel.
The speed of the spindle was set to match the feed
rate of the machine. This is done so that the tool
actually rolls over the surface of the sheet while
deforming it, thereby minimizing the friction in the
forming process. The feed rate used for the tests
conducted here was 42 mm/min; this matches the
fastest feed rate available on the mill.
A cone shape was used for experiments with the
maximum draw angle,
max . Experience with the
process showed that this shape experiences mini-
mum springback and hence gives accurate values
for the maximum draw angle.
For strain measurements and forming limit dia-
gram experiments, the sheet metal had a silk-
screened circle grid with 2.5 mm diameter circles
spaced at 3.5 mm, centre to centre, applied to one
side.
For the forming limit diagram experiments, the
material used was 1.21 mm thick 3003-0 aluminium.
For the tests used to find the maximum draw angle

max , the following materials were used: 1.21 mm
thick 3003-0 aluminium, 0.93 mm thick 5182-0
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at SUNY MAIN LIBRARY on October 25, 2014
B03504 # IMechE 2005
361
aluminium, 1.02 mm thick 5754-0 aluminium, and
1.5 mm thick 1011 hot-rolled carbon steel.
Five shapes were used to develop the forming limit
diagrams: a cone, a dome, a hyperbola, a pyramid,
and a five-lobe ‘flower’ shape. With the exception of
the pyramid, all other shapes had a base radius of
76.2 mm. Tests were run at intervals of 108 at draw
angles of 30, 40, 50, 60, and 708.
4.1 Spindle rotational speeds
A range of speeds up to 2400 mm/min has been tried in
this process. The experiments show that speed does
not appear to have an effect upon the process for the
speeds tested. However, speed has been found to
have an effect upon the wear of the tool, which is due
to the increased friction at high relative velocities
between the tool and sheet. With high relative veloci-
ties, increased heating occurs. The most obvious
source of heating due to spindle speed is friction. As
the tool travels over the surface of the workpiece it is
also spinning at a certain number of revolutions per
minute. If the tool is stopped it will slide along the
surface of the material, ploughing material ahead of
the tool. In all cases, heating will occur owing to sliding
friction. If the tool is rotated at a high speed, the tool
surface will slide over the workpiece much more
often and there will be excessive heating due to sliding
friction. In experimental work it has been found that
the relative motion of the surface of the tool to the
surface of the workpiece is directly proportional to
the heat generated by sliding friction.
In the work reported here, the spindle rotates so
that the forming tool rolls over the sheet surface. It
is necessary to control this variable, because heating
of the sheet during its deformation possibly intro-
duces further complication in analysing the process.
If the relative motion between the tool surface and
workpiece is small during forming (i.e. all friction is
rolling friction, and not sliding friction), the heating
is minimized. In single-point forming, the forming
tool has a hemispherical shape which is pressed
into the material, causing deformation.
For a given draw angle,
, there will be a point where
the sheet is tangential to the tool hemisphere. This is
the location of the maximum diameter of contact,
dmax . From then on the workpiece is in contact with
the tool down to the very bottom of the sphere, at
which point the diameter of contact is zero. The
average diameter of contact is therefore half of dmax .
The desired result is a tool rolling over the surface of
the workpiece as it is formed. This result requires
that the distance travelled along the workpiece (i.e.
the feed rate) be equal to the average circumference
of the tool in contact with the material multiplied by
the spindle speed. The following equation describes
this mathematically (spindle speed and feed rate are
Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
362
Fig. 5 Maximum draw angle,
max , for a variety of
materials with different thicknesses
represented by ! and v respectively)
v of a forming limit diagram for 1 mm thick 1050-0
!¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
r 12 ð1
cos 2
Þ
This equation gives the rotational speeds needed for a
given feed rate and wall draft angle. This equation
may only be used for a tool with a specific hemi-
spherical end of radius, r. All angular speeds are in
revolutions per minute.
5 CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESSFUL FORMING
A general method of deciding if a part can be made
from a specific material is needed. Hagan [10] and
Young [11] both show that the maximum drawing
angle,
max , is a determining factor in SPIF. The
maximum draw angle,
max , is defined as the largest
angle to which the sheet material can be deformed,
in one pass, without tearing. Figure 5 includes results
for 3003-0 and 5754-0 aluminium. It can be shown that
there is a linear relation between the initial material
thickness, t0 , and the maximum draw angle,
max ,
where

max ¼ t0 þ 
Experiments show that the slope  ¼ 8:5 deg/mm and
the y intercept is an angle  ¼ 60:78 for 3003-0 alumi-
nium, and  ¼ 3:3 deg/mm and  ¼ 58:38 for 5754-0
aluminium.
6 FORMING LIMIT DIAGRAMS
Although the maximum draw angle,
max , provides
important information for the designer, for a particular
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at SUNY MAIN LIBRARY on October 25, 2014
Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
J Jeswiet and D Young
thickness of material, more information is needed
about the strains that can be expected for particular
shapes or combinations of shapes, and hence the
need for forming limit diagrams (FLDs).
6.1 Choice of shapes for FLD development
The forming limit diagrams proposed here are not
derived in the usual manner, with a hemispherical
punch deforming sheets of different widths. For the
forming limit diagrams proposed, shapes were
chosen that, when combined, can best represent the
variety of parts made for demonstration purposes,
shown in Fig. 4. These are a cone (shape 1), a hyper-
bola (shape 2), a dome (shape 3), a pyramid (shape 4),
and a five-lobed shape (shape 5), which can be seen
in Fig. 6. The cone (shape 1) is best suited to experi-
ments made to observe if the sine law is applicable,
and, as already observed, it is well suited to determin-
ing the maximum draw angle,
max [10, 11]. This
was also used by Filici et al. [7] in their development
ð1Þ aluminium.
Three shapes are chosen for their symmetry about
one axis and where the wall changes from a convex to
a concave profile (shapes 1, 2, and 3). In addition,
there is a shape that has flat sides (shape 4), is non-
symmetrical about the third axis, and that can be
used for tensile test specimens and for springback
experiments. Finally, the five-lobe shape (shape 5)
has a profile that has reversals from tension to
compression. These all exhibit the characteristics
that have been observed in the parts in Fig. 4. The
base of the pyramid was 200 mm by 200 mm and
the corner radii were set at 25 mm.
Illustrations of how an element will be deformed for
a cone, hyperbola, and dome are given in Fig. 6. In
each case, the section deformed in one pass is
shown as a shaded area (see the dashed arrows in the
figure). The deformed area for one pass in a pyramid is
ð2Þ
Fig. 6 Shapes used to develop FLDs
B03504 # IMechE 2005
 Forming limit diagrams 363

Fig. 7 Forming limit diagrams for a dome (shape 2) and hyperbola (shape 3)

also shown, but in profile it will be the same as a cone

(shape 1). The difference in this case is that the flat
wall of the pyramid will show springback. Finally, the
five-lobe shape (shape 5) will combine areas of com-
pression and tension at the surface, as shown in the
figure. This shape should give points that have nega-
tive minor strains on the FLD. The dome (shape 2)
and the hyperbola (shape 3) were also chosen because
they are simply reversals of each other and should
show biaxial strain situations.

6.2 Observations on the FLDs

The forming limit diagrams for the dome and hyper-
bola, in Fig. 7, show positive biaxial strains as
expected. The hyperbola (shape 2) is more so,
because the wall thickness remains the same for low
draw angles,
. The opposite is the case for the
dome (shape 3) which has high draw angles in the
first part of forming and always fails at steep angles
within the first few millimetres of forming. High
strains occurred in both cases.
The five-lobe shape (shape 5) in Fig. 8 exhibits
negative strains, as expected. These occur in the
Fig. 8 Forming limit diagram for the five-lobe shape
(shape 5)
area illustrated in Fig. 6. High strains, up to 300 per
cent, occurred for this shape.
The forming limit diagram for the cone (Fig. 9) also
shows very high strains; there were strains up to 300
per cent. A line is plotted showing the maximum

Fig. 9 Forming limit diagram for a cone, showing the maximum strain line

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at SUNY MAIN LIBRARY on October 25, 2014

B03504 # IMechE 2005 Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
364
Fig. 10 Forming limit diagram for all shapes
strains achieved. The slope used for the line is
1, the
same used by Filici et al. [7], but the strains achieved
are substantially higher and the equation in the
present case is
"1 ¼
"2 þ 3
where "1 is the major strain and "2 is the minor strain.
The reason for the large difference is that, upon close
observation, the grid used by Filici et al. [7] created a
stress concentration, whereas the grid used in this
work was a silk-screen layer. Hence, much higher
strains are achieved, by a factor of 3 or larger. This
emphasizes the need to use scratch-free sheet in
this forming operation. Figure 10 shows the results
for all shapes in one FLD and gives the designer
limits for values of strain.
7 CONCLUSIONS
A maximum forming condition has been developed
for the draw angle,
max , in SPIF. This is the angle to
which a sheet can be drawn before tears appear.
Specific values have been given for 3003-0 aluminium
and 5754-0 aluminium.
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at SUNY MAIN LIBRARY on October 25, 2014
Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
J Jeswiet and D Young
Forming limit diagrams have been derived in a
different manner. They have been developed for
3003-0 aluminium, and it has been shown that very
high strains, over 300 per cent, can be achieved with
the SPIF process.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the Natural Sciences and Engin-
eering Research Council of Canada for their financial
support.
REFERENCES
1 Hagan, E. and Jeswiet, J. A review of conventional and
modern single point sheet metal forming methods.
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs, Part B: J. Engineering Manu-
facture, 2003, 217(B2), 213–225.
2 Kalpakcioglu, S. On the mechanics of shear spinning.
Trans. ASME, J. Engng for Industry, 1961, B83, 125–130.
3 Kobayashi, S., Hall, I. K., and Thomsen, E. G. A theory
of shear spinning of cones. Trans. ASME, J. Engng for
Industry, 1961, B83, 485–495.
ð3Þ 4 Sortais, H. C., Kobayashi, S., and Thomsen, E. G.
Mechanics of conventional spinning. Trans. ASME,
J. Engng for Industry, 1963, B85, 346–350.
5 Matsubara, S. Incremental backward bulge forming of a
sheet metal with a hemispherical tool. J. JSTP, 1994, 35,
1311–1316.
6 Kim, T. J. and Yang, D. Y. Improvement of formability
for the incremental sheet metal forming process. Int. J.
Mech. Sci., 2001, 42, 1271–1286.
7 Filice, L., Fantini, L., and Micari, F. Analysis of material
formability in incremental forming. Ann. CIRP, 2002,
51(1), 199–202.
8 Jeswiet, J. Incremental single point forming. Trans.
North Am. Mfg Res. Inst., 2001, XXIX, 75–79.
9 Garner, J. N. and Rice, W. B. Prediction of conditions of
central bursting in hydrostatic extrusion. Ann. CIRP,
1976, 25(1).
10 Hagan, E. CNC incremental forming. MSc thesis,
Queen’s University, 2002.
11 Young, D. Formability in computer numerically con-
trolled single point incremental forming. MSc thesis,
Queen’s University, 2003.
B03504 # IMechE 2005