Forming Limit Curves in Single Point Incremental Forming

M. Ham and J. Jeswiet (1)

Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada

Abstract
New experimental data is presented on Forming Limits in Single Point Incremental Forming (SPIF),
which is a sheet metal forming process which does not require dies. A Box-Behnken Design of
Experiment is used to develop the experimental plan and analyze data. In former work, the most
critical factors affecting Single Point Incremental Forming were found to be material type, material
thickness, formed shape, tool size, and incremental step size. In this experimental work, new
results are presented as graphical response surfaces which show the forming limit for all the critical
factors listed previously. In addition, forming limits are presented in terms of Forming Limit
Diagrams.

Keywords:
Forming; Sheet metal; Incremental Forming

1 INTRODUCTION 2 DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS

This paper presents new, unpublished experimental data
on Single Point Incremental Forming (SPIF). SPIF is a
modern viable, relatively inexpensive process capable of
making complicated shapes from sheet metal as
described in the CIRP keynote by Jeswiet et al [1]. In the
CIRP keynote [1], the authors clearly stated although
SPIF is now viable process many challenges remain, this
paper addresses some of these challenges.
The new information is in the form of forming limit
diagrams and is complementary to work reported
previously [1, 2]. Part of the information is presented as
Response Surface (RS) contour plots. The experiments
reported here were done after a statistics; Box-Behnken
Design of Experiment was conducted.
The limits of the process are important to understand, as
they allow failure prediction in the forming process and
hence the design limits. The forming limit in sheet metal is
defined as maximum magnitude of deformation achieved
before failure [3]. The most common method of
determining forming limits, in sheet metal forming (SMF),
is through the development of forming limit diagrams
(FLD). Forming limit diagrams are plots of major and
minor principle strains, the plots show a defined safe and
failure zone [4].
Early investigations determined the strains incurred by the
material undergoing deformation by SPIF are much
greater than those found in traditional methods of SMF
[5]. Traditional FLDs, which are used to predict failure in
SMF, underestimated the ability to form parts with the
SPIF process; thus traditional FLDs provide only part of
the answer in determining sheet metal formability.
Formability in SPIF can be defined in terms of the
maximum draw angle (maximum forming angle, Imax) [1].
The forming angle is measured in terms of a tangent line
from the unformed sheet surface to the deformed surface.
Knowing Imax can be the first step in determining whether
the SPIF process is a good forming application for a given
material and sheet thickness.
Various parameters affect the formability of SPIF; a
keynote by Jeswiet et al. [1] discusses many of them. A
design of experiment (DOE) was utilized to determine the
most critical forming parameters; and the results were
published in the Annals of the CIRP 2006 [2]. In
determining forming limits in SPIF, there are five main
forming parameters (factors) under consideration:
material type, material thickness, forming tool size, shape
of part, and incremental step size; the response to the
factors is maximum forming angle. A second DOE is used
to investigate the applicability of using strains to define
the forming limits in SPIF. This experiment uses the same
five forming factors and the response of average effective
strain incurred in forming.
The objective is to optimize forming parameter settings
and to maximize the forming angle using a response
surface methodology [6]. The forming limits are presented
graphically, in 3D, as a surface which is the function of
different forming parameters. A Box-Behnken response
surface Design of Experiment methodology is used.
A 2k factorial design with incomplete blocking is used; this
is very efficient in determining the number of experimental
runs required. The reasons for choosing the Box-Behnken
technique are experimental runs do not need to be done
at the limits of the process, the zero/central point does not
need to be in the centre of the values, and categorical
testing, such as shape, is possible.
2.1 Box-Behnken Design of Experiment
In a Box-Behnken design, the experimental parameters
are coded, in this case there are three levels codes and
the coded factors are -1, 0 and 1 [7]. The Box-Behnken
design is considered to be rotatable due to the constant
variance in ŷ, since the points are equi-distant variables
from the centre point. The results are based on a second
degree polynomial is fitted by least squares using Eq. 1
[7].

Annals of the CIRP Vol. 56/1/2007 -277- doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2007.05.064

 k k k
yˆ b0  ¦ b x ¦¦ b x x
i 1
i i
i 1 j 1
ij i j (1)

The Box-Behnken design consists of a 2-level factorial

design combined with an incomplete block design.
Starting with a balanced incomplete block design for five
2
factors (k=5) in 10 blocks of size 2; to this is added a 2
factorial design. The design is completed by adding
replication at the centre point (0,0,0,0,0). The design
obtained is rotatable, and second order, allowing for the
analysis of five variables in 46 experimental runs
including centre point replication to improve the variance
in the design. The recommended numbers of centre
points are given by Box and Behnken [7]; these are
determined to be the optimal number for a reasonable
uniform variance. Table 1 shows the experimental
Figure 1. RS Imax – Material Type and Material Thickness.
settings as they are coded in the Box-Behnken design.
On the x-y plane the affect of tool size for all materials is,
Table 1. Box-Behnken Coding of Experimental Factors larger tool sizes decrease Imax. Materials 5182 and 6451
Coding Material Thickness Tool Size Step Size Shape seem to have the most significant change in Imax for the
Type [mm] [mm] [mm] materials tested.
-1 5754 thin 4.7625 0.0508 dome
0 6451 medium 6.35 0.127 cone
1 5182 thick 9.525 0.254 pyramid

5754 6451 5182

-1 thin 0.93 0.8 0.93
0 medium 1 0.9 1.15
1 thick 1.45 1.545 1.5

2.2 Response Surfaces for Maximum Forming Angle

Using the foregoing methodology, a complete set of
experiments was run. The results are reported in three
dimensional Response Surface (RS) contour plots.
The graphs (Figure 1 to 4) are shown as the maximum
forming angle (Imax) on the z axis and the variables:
material type (y axis), material thickness, incremental step Figure 2. RS Imax – Material Type and Tool Size.
size, shape, and tool size on the x axis. On the x-y plane
in the graphs are contours reflected from the Response Figure 3 is similar to Figure 2 with lower Imax values for
Surface (RS) and show how each of the variables affect AA6451 (0). All of the alloys tended to have larger Imax for
the Imax. The codes for the categorical factors were smaller incremental step sizes.
determined based on material availability and use of a
standard shape for incremental forming tests for Shape
[1]. The coding system used is listed in Table 1 above.
All of the plots are concave in profile; this due to the
properties of the material. The AA6451 (0) is a stiffer
material (not as formable) as either of the 5000 series
aluminum (AA5182 or AA5754); thus lower forming
angles are achieved with the AA6451. The model used to
create the response curves, predicts the maximum
forming angles very accurately as seen by the high R2
value of 0.97.
Figure 1 shows a “U” shaped contour on the material axis,
with the lowest Imax values for AA6451 (code 0), with both
the AA5182 and AA5754 materials having higher Imax
values. All the alloys on the thickness axis follow the
same pattern; the medium thickness sheet (0) has the Figure 3. RS Imax – Material Type and Step Size
largest Imax values and the lowest Imax values are for the Figure 4 has a different shape to the other curves. There
thickest sheet (1). is a similar “U” shape on the material type axis, but to a
Figure 2 has a similar shape to Figure 1 and shows a lesser degree than the other graphs. The shape also has
similar pattern with the effect of material on Imax. Hence an effect, pyramid (code -1) has the greatest Imax and
the lower Imax values for 6451 (code 0) causing the “U” domes (code 1) have the lowest Imax.
contour.

-278-
 The tensile test is often used to compare the formability of
various materials. For this work the Ultimate Tensile
Strength (UTS) for AA6451 is 340 MPa and the maximum
strain is 0.170, the average effective strain is 0.495. The
UTS and maximum strain for AA5182 and AA5754 are
155 MPa, 105 MPa and 0.230, 0.240, respectively; while
the average effective strains are 0.975 and 1.10.
450
6451 C 0.9mm
400
6451 A 0.9mm 6451 1.5mm
350 5182 0.9mm
5182 1.15mm
300

True Stress (MPa)

5182 1.5mm
6451 0.8mm 5754 0.9mm
250
5754 5754
1.45mm 1.00mm
200
Figure 4. RS Imax – Material Type and Shape
150

2.3 Forming Limit Diagrams 100

In addition to response surfaces using Imax as the limiting 50

response, FLDs are plotted to show the maximum
allowable strains for SPIF. In this work, a grid pattern of 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
circles is imprinted onto the sheet metal to be tested. The True Strain
circle grid is imprinted through electrochemical means or
silk-screening. Figure 6. Stress-Strain Diagram for Aluminum Alloys
In traditional FLD tests, the sheet metal is stretched over
2.4 Response Surfaces for Effective Strains
a punch. However, the traditional punch test does not
simulate the strains found in SPIF. Thus the strains must Figures 7 to 10 show the response surfaces for the
be determined using parts made with the SPIF process. average effective strain (CH ) versus material and material
In this case, the strains to be measured are from the parts thickness, tool size, step size and shape. These curves
made in the experiments. The parts with Imax are the are similar to the response surfaces for maximum forming
optimal choice as the greatest deformation is achieved in angle. Effective strain (CH ) takes into account all three
these parts and thus the largest strains or limiting strains strains, versus only the major and minor strains observed
have incurred during forming. Figure 5 depicts an FLD in normal FLDs. It can be seen the reflected contours
developed from the experiments in this paper, designated (RC) are not all identical. Similarities that do exist are due
by material type. In this FLD, it can be easily seen to the material type having such a great effect on Imax
significantly higher strains are produced in the 5000 andCH. The predictive model used to create the average
series aluminum compared to the 6000 series. effective strain response can be considered accurate due
2
Similar to traditional forming limit curves, each curve is to the high R value of 0.89.
specific to the material type. Micari et al. [1] were the first Figure 7 shows much lower averageCH values for AA6451
to develop FLDs for SPIF; they found the forming limit (code 0) than either AA5754 (code -1) or AA5182 (code
curves to be linear and only in positive quadrant. 1). The material thickness factor affects each of the alloys
Traditional FLDs utilize Keeler’s formula for the differently. The AA5754 has an increasingCH for
development of the limit curve is this quadrant. Figure 5 decreasing thickness; AA6451 has the largestCH for the
shows the forming limit curves in these FLDs follow medium thickness, while the AA5182 alloy has a
2
Keeler’s formula, or a quadratic formula best; with R decreasingCH for decreasing thickness.
values all greater than 0.90.

1.4
y = -2.8349x2 - 0.7927x + 1.257 6451
1.2 5182

1 5754
Major Strain

0.8

0.6
y = -12.255x2 + 1.5155x + 0.9508
0.4

0.2
2
y = -5.246x + 0.1012x + 0.491
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Minor Strain

Figure 5. Forming Limit Diagram for Material Type Figure 7. RS Avg.CH – Material Type and Thickness
Figure 6 depicts the stress-strain diagram for the Figure 8 shows the same “U” when comparing the affect
materials used in the experiments. The AA6451 of material type on averageCH with the AA6451 having the
aluminum, which incurred the lowest strains in the
lowestCH. When comparing tool sizes to the averageCH,
experiments, had the lowest strains and highest stresses
the AA5754 alloy seems to have no affect as the contour
in tensile tests. The curves on the stress-strain diagram
are the average stress and strains of the tensile tests
completed.

-279-
is flat; AA6451 the largest tool size has the lowestCH and
the other tool sizes have no effect onCH. In AA5182 alloy
the averageCH increases for decreasing tool size.
Figure 8. RS Avg.CH – Tool Size and Material
Figure 9 has the shape common to the other graphs due
to material type. The AA5754 has decreasingCH for
decreasing step sizes, AA5182 has decreasingCH for
increasing step sizes; the AA6451 has the largestCH for
the 0.005 step size.
Figure 9. RS Avg.CH – Step Size and Material
Figure 10 has the most unique surface found in the RS
graph collection. This surface is developed because of
the large affect shape has on the effective strain,CH. All of
the alloys affect theCH the same way. The cone shape
(code 0) causes the greatestCH, followed by the pyramid
shape (code 1) and the dome shape (code -1) causing
the lowest effective strain.
Figure 10. RS Avg.CH – Shape and Material
-280-
3 SUMMARY
The objectives of this research are to develop the best
way to accurately define the forming limits of SPIF. A
Box-Behnken experimental design is used to determine
the affect of material type, material thickness, shape, step
size and tool size on the maximum forming angle,
effective strain, major and minor strains. The
experimental design allows for the solving of these five
forming factors at three levels in forty-six experimental
runs; 500 samples.
Material type has the greatest effect on formability, as
expected; followed by the shape; as shown by the
response curves in both maximum forming angle and
effective strain. Tensile tests can be used to determine
whether a material will be formable, the lower the UTS the
greater the formability.
A set of Response Surfaces (RS) are developed to assist
designers in understanding when SPIF is a viable
process. This research gives great detail on some specific
aluminum alloys. If another alloy is of interest, only eight
experiments are required to update these response
surfaces to reflect the new alloy. This shortens the
experimentation time needed to study specific alloys.
This is a new process a designer can use to determine if
SPIF process is applicable.
This present work is summary of how FLDs in SPIF are
developed and present the methodology for developing
FLDs. Further work on FLDs for SPIF will be forthcoming
by the authors.
4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank Queen’s University Department of
Mechanical and Materials Engineering, the Natural
Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada,
Novelis Global Technology Centre and IRDI for their
support in this research. The authors would also like to
thank Dr J. McLellan for all his assistance with the
statistics involved in this research.
5. REFERENCES
[1] Jeswiet, J., Micari, F., Hirt, G., Duflou, J., Allwood,
J., A. Bramley (2005). “Asymmetric Single Point
Incremental Forming of Sheet Metal”. Annals of
CIRP 54/2/2005; 130 – 157.
[2] Ham, M. and Jeswiet, J. (2006) “Single Point
Incremental Forming and the Forming Criteria for
AA3003 “. Annals of CIRP 55/2/2006; 241.
[3] Lange, K. Handbook of Metal Forming, SME,
Dearborn, MI, (1985).
[4] Keeler, S.P. “On the Origins of the FLD”. Forming
Limit Diagrams: Concepts, Methods and
Applications, TMS, Warrendale, PA,(1989).
[5] Shim, M.Y. and Park, J.J. (2001). “The formability of
aluminum sheet in incremental forming”. Journal of
Materials and Processing Technology; 113, 654-
658.
[6] Montgomery, D.C. Design and Analysis of
Experiments, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York
(1991).
[7] Box, G. and Behnken, D. (1960). ”Some New Three
Level Designs for the Study of Quantitative
Variables”. Technometrics, 2, 4, 455-475.