Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 76:2185–2197

DOI 10.1007/s00170-014-6409-z

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Forming forces in incremental forming of a geometry with corner

feature: investigation into the effect of forming parameters using
response surface approach
Khalid A. Al-Ghamdi & G. Hussain

Received: 23 January 2014 / Accepted: 17 September 2014 / Published online: 10 October 2014
# Springer-Verlag London 2014

Abstract Single-point incremental forming (SPIF) is an parameters simultaneously minimizing the force and
emerging sheet forming process. The force-parameter corre- preventing the fabrication problems.
lation is yet not well clear in this process, specifically for
geometries with corners. In the present study, a new level of Keywords Incremental forming . Force . Parameter .
understanding on the parameter-force relationship is present- Response surface . Model . Fabrication defects
ed. A simple shape with corners (i.e., frustum of pyramid
containing corners and oblique wall) is opted as the test Abbreviations
geometry. Following the response surface method, a design to Sheet thickness
of experiments (DoE) comprising of 47 runs obtained by d Tool diameter
varying five forming parameters namely sheet thickness, tool θ Wall angle
diameter, wall angle, step size, and flow stress is performed. p Step size
The analysis of the results reveals that the parameter-force σ Flow stress
relation in SPIF is complex and interactive, explaining that the σ* Ultimate tensile strength
effect of variation in a parameter on the force magnitude is f Feed rate
closely associated with the value and the type of the other ω Rotational speed
parameters employed for forming. From the analysis of the n Hardening exponent
forces involved in forming the pyramid, it is found that the K Strength coefficient
corner requires more force than does the wall. Further, the ε Tensile strain at fracture
normal force (i.e., force along normal to sheet plane) is greater Fw Resultant of force components involved in forming an
than the in-plane force. The use of very small tools, especially oblique wall of a pyramid
low d/to where d is the tool diameter and to is the sheet Fc Resultant of force components involved in forming a
thickness, is observed to cause fabrication defects leading to corner of a pyramid
substantial rise in the magnitude of forming force thus endan- Fsd Resultant force involved in stepping down the sheet
gering the machine tool. Finally, a set of force models is Fxy Resultant of force components acting in the sheet plane
proposed using which one can predict a set of forming Fz Force component normal to the sheet plane

K. A. Al-Ghamdi
Department of Industrial Engineering, King Abdulaziz University,
Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 1 Introduction
e-mail: kaaalghamdi@kau.edu.sa

G. Hussain (*) Incremental sheet forming is believed to be an economical

Mechanical Engineering Department, Eastern Mediterranean alternative of press forming for low batch production. In fact,
University, TRNC, Via Mersin-10, Turkey metal shaping in the incremental processes mainly relies on
e-mail: ghulam.hussain@emu.edu.tr
the path of forming tool, contrary to the die and punch in press
G. Hussain forming operations [1, 2]. This feature leads to a reduction or
e-mail: gh_ghumman@hotmail.com sometimes elimination of male/female dies, thus lowering the
2186
initial investment needs to be spent in order to realize a
product. The incremental forming can be classified into two
types of processes namely conventional and modern [3]. The
conventional processes include metal spinning and flow
forming, and the modern ones comprise of single-point and
two-point incremental forming. The application of the con-
ventional incremental forming techniques, such as metal spin-
ning and flow forming, is limited to the rotational shapes (e.g.,
cones and cylinders). The new methods like single-point and
two-point incremental forming, however, are more flexible in
part shape [3].
Amongst several incremental forming processes, the lat-
est one called single-point incremental forming (SPIF) of-
fers the highest flexibility due to a fact that it employs low-
cost tooling [4]. As shown in Fig. 1, a clamping rig to hold
and a simple spherical end tool to deform the blank are the
main accessories of the process. The forming tool is guided
through a predefined series of loops called trajectory. The
tool following the trajectory progressively deforms the
sheet in a set of incremental steps [5]. In addition to de-
creasing product cost, the process also offers high formabil-
ity in comparison to conventional pressing [6–9]. Owing to
these promising aspects, the process is gaining increasing
popularity in the automotive and biomedical sectors [10,
11]. Recently, many innovative ideas, such as high speed
incremental forming, and use of electric heating and elastic
support have been introduced to improve the performance
of the SPIF process [12–14]. The implementation of these
proposals on industrial scale will widen the applications of
the process.
The knowledge on the forces involved in a manufacturing
process is important not only to design but also to preserve
relevant tooling and machine tool. In SPIF, most of the pub-
lished work deals with the formability and accuracy. Only a
little amount of efforts have been devoted to gain knowledge
on the SPIF forces, a brief account of which is given as
follows. Iseki [15], assuming a plane-strain deformation mod-
el, proposed a formula to predict the forming forces. The
applicability of this formula, however, is limited by the as-
sumed contact area and deformation model. Silva et al. [16]
performed a comprehensive membrane analysis to estimate
the stresses and strains in the contact zone of the forming tool.
The results were not extended to the evaluation of forces,
however. Bagudanch et al. [17] conducted a force study
showing that the magnitude of forming force varies with a
variation in the bending condition. They also found that the
force reduces as the spindle speed increases. Ambrogio et al.
[18] suggested that the force gradient can be used as a failure
precursor in SPIF. Henrard et al. [19] and Arfa et al. [20]
performed a number of numerical and experimental investi-
gations to conclude that the finite element analysis can be
employed as a tool to predict the SPIF forces with an accept-
able accuracy.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 76:2185–2197
Duflou et al. [21] employing a conical test geometry,
depicted as an inset in Fig. 1b, performed a series of experi-
ments in order to investigate the influence of forming param-
eters, namely tool diameter (d), sheet thickness (to), step size
(p), and wall angle (θ) as defined in Fig. 1, on the forming
force. Based on the obtained findings, they reported that the
force increases with the increase in all of these parameters.
Extending work on the forces, Aerens et al. [22] employing
cone geometry and considering each parameter separately
developed a set of linear empirical models to describe the
parameter-force relationship in SPIF. Then by averaging the
coefficients and exponents of linear relations and incorporat-
ing the FE-based information on the contact band, they de-
duced an analytical formula to predict the forming force. The
formula was reported to work well with some exceptions.
The above-cited studies have made significant contribution
in advancing knowledge on the SPIF forces. However, there
are some aspects that yet need to be addressed to further
improve understanding on the forces involved in SPIF. A
sharp curved feature (say corner), which is part and parcel of
several engineering products, in a component (say pyramid) is
believed to have higher geometric stiffness than a planar
feature (say oblique wall as indicated in Fig. 1b) [23]. Due
to this reason, during forming, the former feature may require
more force than does the latter one. Further, very small tools
have been reported to cut the sheet surface [24, 25]. Such a
forming condition could raise the force needed to process the
material. Know-how on the combined effects of parameters is
also necessary in order to thoroughly understand the
parameter-force correlation and to select an optimum set of
forming conditions minimizing the forming force.
In the previous studies [21, 22], it has been shown that the
normal force component Fz in SPIF is greater than either of
the in-plane force components Fx and Fy, defined in Fig. 1b.
However, by which factor and if this factor is influenced by
the choice of the forming parameters, knowledge related to
these important points has not been documented in the litera-
ture. These data are important for the machine tool designers
in order to set the structural stiffness among various compo-
nents of spindle and machine axes. The significance of gath-
ering information on the relative magnitude of force compo-
nents is further increased when the forming equipment is not
stiff such as a robot where even a little excess in the force can
cause deflection of the arm during forming consequently
inducing deviation from the defined tool path. These devia-
tions in turn could affect the profile accuracy and forming
limits of the process.
In the present study, the above discussed points are ad-
dressed systematically. During the entire course of investiga-
tions, the commercial aluminum sheet (AA1060) being exten-
sively used in the structural applications is employed as the
experimental material. In order to quantify the force required
to form a sharp curved feature, a shape with corners (i.e.,
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 76:2185–2197
Fig. 1 a Forming equipment and (a)
b SPIF terminology and test
geometry employed in the current
study: Inset shows cone geometry
used in Duflou et al. [21]
Tool
frustum of pyramid) is opted as the test geometry. To investi-
gate the influence of using smaller tools causing sheet-surface
cutting, tool diameter is varied over a wide range especially
toward the low limit until the metal chips are observed. To
recognize the combined parametric effects on the forces in-
volved in forming, the other parameters namely sheet thick-
ness (to), step size (p), wall angle (θ), and flow stress (σ)
besides the tool diameter (d) (see Fig. 1 for definitions) are
also considered. The test plan is formulated using a design of
experiments (DoE) approach based on a response surface
method. As a result of this study, a new level of understanding
on the parameter-force relationship is identified in SPIF.
2 Experiments
For the sake of simplicity, a frustum of pyramid was employed
as the test geometry (Fig. 1b). Using this geometry, in fact, it
was possible to simultaneously determine the forces involved
in forming the curved and planar features, thus eliminating the
need of separate test for each feature. To know the force
necessary to form a sharp curved feature, the corner radius
in the pyramid was set comparable to that in the tool, i.e., r/rc ≈
1, where r and rc are the tool radius and corner radius,
respectively, as defined in the figure. The base length of the
pyramid was set fixed to 110 mm, and the depth was truncated
to 15 mm. The wall angle θ to be included as a predictor
variable in the test plan was varied from 20° to 55°, however.
To perform experiments, a 3-axis CNC milling machine was
employed as the forming equipment. The forming forces were
measured using a table-type dynamometer (9265B). This dy-
namometer, when mounted under the forming rig as shown in
Fig. 1a, can record forces in all of the three Cartesian directions
(i.e., X, Y, and Z as presented in Fig. 2a), while the forming tool
traces the given trajectory. Two forces were of most interest in
respect of measurement, i.e., for the corner and the oblique wall
2187
(b)
Cone employed as test geometry
in Duflou et al. [21]
d
Tool
1
rc
p
4
15mm
z
2 to
3 θ
denoted as Fc and Fw in Fig. 2a. The resultant of each of these
two forces was determined summing the corresponding X, Y,
and Z components using the following relation:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
F¼ F x2 þ F y2 þ F z2; ð1Þ
where Fx and Fy are the force components which act in the
sheet plane and Fz is the force component that acts along the
normal to the sheet plane. Each of these components was
obtained by processing the force signals in two steps: (1)
windowing the respective force curve over the entire forming
path and (2) then averaging the force from all loops. For more
details on the procedure, a previous study [21] is referred.
According to the previous studies [19–22], five forming
parameters namely sheet thickness, tool diameter, step size,
wall angle, and material strength influence the SPIF forces.
Therefore, all of these were included in the list of variables to
be examined. The spindle speed also affects the forming force;
however, it was set to zero for safety reason. Likewise, the
feed rate was also kept fixed as 2 m/min. In order to fix the
range of parameters, preliminary tests were carried out. The
following standard parameters were employed: diameter=
13 mm, sheet thickness=2.6 mm, steps size=0.1 mm, and
feed rate=2 m/min. To examine the effect of using smaller
tools on the forming force, the tool diameter was decreased
starting from an arbitrary value until significant surface cut-
ting was observed, which achieved with a tool of 8 mm, so this
value was set as the low limit of tool diameter. The high limit
was fixed as 20 mm as further increase in the tool size
surpassed the force capacity of machine tool. The range of
sheet thickness (from 0.7 to 2.6 mm) was selected keeping in
view both the material availability and the machine tool ca-
pacity. The low limit of step size was opted as 0.1 mm because
very small step size was not feasible from the productivity and
cost view point of manufacturing. The high limit of step size
2188
(a)
Fc: force involve at corners 1, 2, 3, 4
Fw: force involve at oblique walls A, B, C, D
Fsd: force involve in stepping down
1 2
A B
(b)
Oblique wall of pyramid
Squeezing
Squeezing
Bulging
Fig. 2 a Force components in a representative loop of forming and b various fabrication defects observed during tests
was set to 0.8 mm as further increase in turn could lead to
increase in force endangering the machine tool.
The high limit of wall angle was kept as 55° in view of load
capacity of machine; the low limit was set to 20° because
further reduction was observed to produce parts with round
bottom when forming was done using a large tool (say
20 mm) thus causing the part shape to deviate from the
truncated pyramid geometry. In order to take into account
the influence of material strength and hardening effect on
the forming force, average flow stress was considered. The
flow stress was obtained by performing tension tests following
the ASTM-E8 material testing standard and using the follow-
ing relation:
n
σ ¼ Kε =nþ1 ; ð2Þ
where σ is the average flow stress, ε is the true tensile strain
till fracture point, and n is the hardening exponent. The high
limit of the flow stress (172 MPa) was predefined by the as-
received condition of the material (i.e., cold rolled to H24).
The low limit, however, was set to 101 MPa after fully
annealing the sheet-metal at 320 °C for 8 h. The material
was annealed at 285 °C also in order to obtain the intermediate
setting of flow stress for DoE plan.
After fixing the range of parameters, designing of test plan
is the next phase in the experimental studies. To do so, the
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 76:2185–2197
Step down
3 4 1
C D
4
3 1
2
Corner-
folding
DoE approach was adopted. This approach employs statistical
tools to design the test parameters. For the current study, a
statistical package called as Design-Expert Dx-8 was
employed to perform DoE. This package offers multiple de-
sign methods including factorial, Taguchi, and response sur-
face. The full factorial design considering five factors with
three levels of each factor requires 81 tests to be performed,
thus requiring long testing time and high cost. The Taguchi
method on the contrary significantly reduces the number of
runs. But, it ignores interactive effects of parameters [26]
which is one of the objectives of this study. Therefore, re-
sponse surface method that serves the said purpose at the
expense of tests quantity somewhere in between the above
two methods was employed. Among various response surface
methodologies, the central composite rotational design
(CCRD) was opted because this option equally distributes
the design points. The low and high settings of the predictor
variables (i.e., forming parameters) were selected as men-
tioned earlier and given in Table 1, from which it can be seen
that the range of parameters especially that of normalized
parameter d/to ( which determines surface cutting) was wider
in comparison to the studies of Duflou et al. and Henrard et al.
[20, 21]. In the preliminary tests, the dynamometer was ob-
served to show a deviation of ±11 N in the force measurement.
Therefore, while preparing test plan, five replicates were
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 76:2185–2197 2189

Table 1 The levels of forming parameters employed in the previous and Table 2 Test plan prepared following the face centered composite design
current studies. method

Parameter Duflou et al. [5] Aerens et al. [22] Current study Run to (mm) θ (deg) σ (MPa) d (mm) p (mm)

Low High Low High Low High 1 0.7 55 172 20 0.8

2 0.7 20 172 20 0.8
to (mm) 0.85 2 0.85 2 0.7 2.6 3 0.7 20 101 7 0.8
d (mm) 10 25 10 25 7 20 4 2.6 20 172 20 0.1
θ (deg) 20 60 20 70 20 55
5 2.6 55 101 20 0.8
p (mm) 0.25 1 0.25 1 0.1 0.8
6 1.65 37.5 137.5 13.5 0.45
σ (MPa) – – 50 185 – –
7 0.7 55 172 7 0.8
σ* (MPa) – – – – 101 172
8 0.7 55 101 20 0.8
d/to 5 20.8 5 20.8 2.7 28.5
9 2.6 20 172 7 0.1
f (mm/min) 2,000 2,000 2,000
10 0.7 20 172 7 0.8
ω (rev/min) Not given >0 0
11 2.6 20 172 7 0.8
Std. geometry Cone Cone Pyramid 12 0.7 37.5 137.5 13.5 0.45
Std. material AA3003O AA3003O AA1060 13 0.7 55 172 20 0.1
14 1.65 37.5 137.5 13.5 0.45
15 0.7 20 101 20 0.8
incorporated in order to account for the said deviation. Finally,
16 2.6 20 101 7 0.1
by varying each parameter over three levels, an experiment
17 0.7 55 172 7 0.1
plan comprising of 47 tests was prepared (Table 2).
18 2.6 55 101 7 0.8
In line with the objectives of the present study, the follow-
ing quantities were measured as the responses of the DoE: 19 0.7 55 101 7 0.1
20 2.6 55 172 7 0.8
& The force Fw involved in forming the oblique wall and the 21 1.65 55 137.5 13.5 0.45
force Fc involved in forming the corner of pyramid in 22 2.6 55 172 20 0.1
order to identify the interactive parameters effects and to 23 2.6 20 101 20 0.8
know the influence of using smaller tools on the forming 24 0.7 20 172 20 0.1
forces in SPIF. Also, to see how Fc and Fw are related in 25 1.65 37.5 137.5 13.5 0.45
terms of magnitude 26 1.65 37.5 172 13.5 0.45
& The relative magnitude of the normal force Fz and the in- 27 1.65 20 137.5 13.5 0.45
plane force Fxy (i.e., Fz/Fxy) to foresee the requirement of 28 2.6 55 101 20 0.1
structural stiffness for designing a machine tool. Fxy was 29 1.65 37.5 137.5 13.5 0.45
calculated using Eq. 1 with Fz component omitted 30 2.6 20 101 20 0.1
31 2.6 20 172 20 0.8
32 2.6 55 101 7 0.1
33 1.65 37.5 137.5 7 0.45
34 0.7 55 101 20 0.1
3 Results
35 2.6 20 101 7 0.8
36 2.6 55 172 7 0.1
After collecting the experimental data, it is a common practice
37 1.65 37.5 137.5 20 0.45
to perform regression analysis in order to find the parameter-
38 1.65 37.5 137.5 13.5 0.8
response relationship, and the analysis of variance (ANOVA) is
39 0.7 20 101 20 0.1
its primary step which is done to identify the significant/
101 1.65 37.5 137.5 13.5 0.45
insignificant parameters. For the present case, DX-8 software
41 0.7 20 172 7 0.1
was used to conduct the said analysis. Firstly, the quadratic
42 2.6 37.5 137.5 13.5 0.45
model was chosen as the fitting model, and in order to improve
43 0.7 55 101 7 0.8
the efficiency of the regression analysis, logarithmic transfor-
44 1.65 37.5 137.5 13.5 0.1
mation was applied on the results. Later, some terms with trivial
45 1.65 37.5 101 13.5 0.45
effects were removed using step-wise elimination option. Dur-
46 2.6 55 172 20 0.8
ing ANOVA, the terms with 95 % confidence level (or p≤5 %;
p is an indicator that decides if a parameter is significant) were 47 0.7 20 101 7 0.1
considered to be influential on the response (i.e., force). The
2190 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 76:2185–2197

ANOVA results are presented in Table 3. It can be seen from Table 3 Summary of ANOVA
the table that besides individual parameters, their products are Force Fw Fc Fz/Fxy
also significant, which means that the parameters effects are Model type Reduced square Reduced square Reduced square
interactive. To know their role on the SPIF forces, each of the Transformation Logarithmic Logarithmic Logarithmic
significant interactions is analyzed as follows. Source p value p value p value

Model <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

3.1 Forces involved in forming the oblique wall and corner to <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0002
of pyramid
d 0.071 <0.0001 0.0019
θ <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0038
From Table 3, it can be observed that there are seven interac-
σ <0.0001 <0.0001 –
tions which significantly influence the forces during the
p <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
forming of pyramid. These interactions, respectively for
tod 0.048 0.0495 0.0260
oblique wall and corner, are portrayed as response surfaces
toθ 0.0008 <0.0001 0.0002
in 3D space in Figs. 3 and 4. The resultant of forces involved
toσ 0.0022 0.0040 –
in forming wall is represented by Fw and that involved in
top 0.0003 0.0043 0.05
forming corner is represented by Fc. The vertical axis of the
dθ 0.0005 <0.0001 <0.0001
surfaces is labeled with the force, and the two horizontal axes
θσ – 0.0215 –
are labeled with the forming parameters.
θp 0.0926 – –
As can be seen from the response surfaces, with the other
σd 0.0502 0.0912 –
parameters held fixed, both Fw and Fc increase with the
dp 0.0025 0.0047 0.0029
increase in the three parameters namely sheet thickness (to),
to2 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0377
wall angle (θ), and step size (p). However, the nature of effect
of the remaining two parameters, i.e., tool diameter (d) and d2 – – 0.0008
flow stress (σ), is dependent on the value of interacting pa- θ2 – – –
rameter. For instance, for low thickness (0.7 mm), Fw in- σ2 0.0145 0.0170 –
creases as the tool diameter increases; however, for high
thickness (2.6 mm), Fw substantially decreases (Fig. 3a). Also,
This is to be noticed from Figs. 3a, 4a, for low thickness
for low wall angle (20°), Fw decreases with the increase in the
(0.7 mm) and any size of tool, and the forming of corner needs
tool diameter, but for high wall angle (55°), Fw increases
higher force than does the oblique wall. This seems to be
(Fig. 3g). The effect of flow stress on Fw is very interesting.
rational because the corner is stiffer than the wall [23]. On
For most of the parameter settings shown in Fig. 3c, f, it
the contrary, for high thickness (2.6 mm), the trend amazingly
increases with the increase in the flow stress to a certain value
becomes reverse: The combination of high thickness (2.6 mm)
(136 MPa) and then begins to decrease. The similar interactive
and low tool diameter (7 mm) requires more force to form the
effects can be observed for Fc in Fig. 4.
oblique wall than that to form the corner. In fact, as expected
Not only the nature of influence (i.e., decrease or increase)
before, this is due to surface cutting of sheet which during
but also the degree of influence (i.e., amount of change) of
experiments was observed to occur when the diameter relative
variation in a parameter on the force also depends on the value
to thickness (d/to) was very small (e.g., 2.7 for the said test).
and type of interacting parameter. For example, for equal
This point will be further discussed in the coming section to
change in the step size (from 0.1 to 0.8 mm), the rise in Fw
clarify how these two forces (i.e., Fc and Fw) should be related
is significantly high for high thickness while low for low
for successful forming (i.e., without cutting) of pyramid.
thickness (Fig. 3d). The same is true for Fc (Fig. 4d). The
similar trend can be seen for a change in the step size in
Figs. 3g, and 4g. 3.2 Comparison between the force Fz and Fxy (Fz/Fxy)
This means that the forming force greatly depends on the
combination of parameters. For example, forming using the Figure 5a–e presents the influence of variation in the param-
combination of low diameter (7 mm) and high thickness eters on the ratio of the normal and in-plane forces (i.e., Fz/
(2.6 mm) requires more Fw force (about 550 %) than does Fxy). As can be noticed from Fig. 5c, e, the ratio Fz/Fxy
the combination of high diameter (20 mm) and low thickness regardless of the value of interacting parameter decreases as
(0.7 mm) (Fig. 3a). The similar fact can be seen for Fc in the step size increases. However, the said force ratio does not
Fig. 4a. As another example, the combination of low wall constitute such a straight relationship with any of the remain-
angle (20°) and high thickness (2.6 mm) involves higher ing parameters. In most of the response surfaces, the middle
forming force than does the combination of high wall angle values of sheet thickness (1.6 mm) and tool diameter
(55°) and low thickness (0.7 mm) (Figs. 3b and 4b). (13.5 mm) and low value of step size (0.1 mm) show high
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 76:2185–2197
(a)
(d)
Fig. 3 Response surfaces showing the effect of significant interactions on the resultant force Fw
force ratio which means that, like other force quantities, the
relation between the force ratio and forming parameters is also
interactive. The maximum force ratio equals 5.1 which is
observed for the combination of low step size (0.1 mm) and
middle tool size (13.5 mm) (Fig. 5e). From the ANOVA
(Table 3), it is to see that the effect of flow stress on the force
ratio is not so significant. This points out that the force ratio
mainly depends on the parameters that affect the contact area
such as wall angle, tool diameter, step size, and to some extent
sheet thickness.
This is worth noticing from Fig. 5 that the force ratio in all
of the shown response surfaces is greater than 1. This follows
that, for any set of parameters, the forming tool applies higher
force in the normal plane than it does in the horizontal plane
(or sheet plane). Moreover, the factor by which Fz is greater
than Fxy depends on the magnitude of the parameters
employed. These findings propose that, in order to ensure
machine safety, the spindle structure should be stiff enough
to withstand high normal loads. The response surface
2191
(b) (c)
(e) (f)
(g)
presented in Fig. 5, therefore, can act as guidelines for design-
ing machine and for defining the load limits.
4 Discussion
Duflou et al. [21] have reported that the forces required to
form the walls of cone and pyramid (corner are not included)
are almost same in magnitude. Therefore, the Fw trends pre-
sented in Fig. 3 can be used for comparing the findings of the
present study with those of the previous studies obtained using
cone geometry [21, 22]. According to the earlier studies, the
forming force decreases as the tool diameter is decreased. On
the other hand, the present study has shown that the force
increases even with the decrease in the tool diameter when a
thick sheet (e.g., 2.6 mm) is processed.
There are two possible reasons of this discrepancy: (1) The
previous works were carried out employing single variable
2192
(a)
(d)
Fig. 4 Response surfaces showing the effect of significant interactions on the resultant force Fc
approach, which means that each parameter was treated sep-
arately keeping the others fixed; (2) mutual value of tool
diameter and thickness (d/to) was not sufficiently low. In fact,
when the d/to ratio is very small (say 7/2.6=2.7), fabrication
defects develop. In the present work, three defects were ob-
served namely wall, pillow, and corner fold. These have been
shown in Fig. 2b, from which it is to see that the folding takes
place only at the corners of the pyramid. These defects re-
spectively represent squeezing, bulging, and folding of metal
due to use of pointed tool. The squeezing occurs due to
excessive compression in the deformation zone, which hin-
ders the flow of material under the tool end consequently
forcing the metal to flow out of the sheet plane. Bulging
occurs due to in-plane stresses and hindrance to metal flow.
Corner folding takes place due to the absence of adequate
forming force and pressure required to shape metal into stiff
corner feature. More details on the causes of fabrication
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 76:2185–2197
(b) (c)
(e) (f)
(g)
defects in SPIF have been given in the other recent studies
by the authors [27, 28].
The relationship between the forming forces (Fw and Fc)
and parameters in the presence of fabrication problems is
separately presented in Table 4. Most important, comparison
among various tests listed in the table confirms that the afore-
mentioned defects primarily appear when forming is per-
formed with unduly small tools. Further, although the mutual
value of d and to (i.e., d/to) is the most influential parameter,
the other forming parameters also affect the defects. As sum-
marized in Table 4, if the other parameters are held fixed, the
squeezing and folding increase with the increase in to, p, θ, and
σ and with the decrease in d. The bulging increases with the
increase in to and p and with the decrease in d, θ, and σ. These
trends can be attributed to variations in the stresses with
variations in the magnitude of parameters [27, 28]. This is to
be noticed that some of the parameters have contradictory
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 76:2185–2197 2193

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e)

Fig. 5 Response surfaces showing the effect of significant interactions on the ratio of forces Fz and Fxy

effects on the defects. For example, the increase in σ on one
hand causes increase in the metal squeezing and folding but on
the other hand concurrently causes a reduction in the bulging
(see tests 2 and 6). The same is true for θ (tests 2 and 8). This
means that, like the parameter-force relation discussed before,
the parameter-defect relationship is also interactive.
From the parameter-defect-force relationship shown in
Table 4, it can be seen that the appearance of defects affects
the forming force. For instance, test 2 which suffers from
defects despite using a small tool (7 mm) employs higher Fw
force (27 %) than does test 1 which does not suffer from
defects and employs a large tool (20 mm). The same is true
for tests 4 and 3. On the other hand, when the defects are not
so significant, test 10 which uses a small tool (7 mm) employs
6 % less Fw than does test 9 which uses a large tool (20 mm).
These findings provide possible reason of force trends

Table 4 The parameters, forces, and fabrication defects observed during experiments

Test Forming parameters Forces Defects Remarks

no.
to d θ p σ d/to Fw Fc Fsd Fc/ Fc/ Pillow Wall Corner
(mm) (mm) (deg) (mm) (MPa) (N) (N) (N) Fw Fsd (mm) (mm) fold

1 2.6 20 55 0.8 101 7.7 1467 2160 1471 1.5 1.47 0.9 0.05 nil 1. Bulging increases as the value of to and
2 2.6 7 55 0.8 101 2.7 1870 1233 1888 0.66 0.65 1.64 2.39 high p increases and decreases as the value
3 2.6 20 55 0.1 101 7.7 1054 1760 1032 1.7 1.7 0.6 0.15 nil of d, θ, and σ increases.
2. Squeezing and corner folding increase
4 2.6 7 55 0.1 101 2.7 1077 741 1063 0.69 0.7 0.65 1.8 medium
with the increase of to, θ, p, and σ and
5 2.6 20 55 0.8 172 7.7 2140 3051 2093 1.4 1.46 0.1 0.06 nil decrease with the increase of d.
6 2.6 7 55 0.8 172 2.7 2549 1301 2459 0.51 0.53 0.2 2.48 very 3. The effects of parameters σ and θ are
high the same for walling and pillowing, but
7 2.6 20 20 0.8 101 7.7 979 1127 1045 1.15 1.08 1.52 0.03 nil contrary for pillowing.
8 2.6 7 20 0.8 101 2.7 2289 1696 1984 0.74 0.86 2.8 0.26 low
9 0.7 20 55 0.8 101 28.5 274 742 333 2.7 2.23 0.54 0 nil
10 0.7 7 55 0.8 101 10 260 368 364 1.42 1.01 0.8 0 nil

Max. Avg. dev in force: ±11 N

2194
discussed before in the d-to response surface (Fig. 3) and also
explain the source of discrepancy between the present findings
and the previous studies [21, 22], clarifying that for a thick
sheet (2.6 mm), the force increases with the decrease in the
tool diameter (from 20 to 7 mm) because the fabrication
defects, which are outgrowth of stresses or hindrance to metal
flow under the tool [27, 28], appear with increasing intensity.
And, for a thin sheet (0.7 mm), the force decreases with the
decrease in the tool diameter because the defects do not appear
significantly or, in other words, the flow of metal is not
hindered. Coupling Fig. 3 with the findings of Table 4, it
can be said that in the normal forming conditions, the findings
of the present and previous studies are in agreement. Howev-
er, a disagreement is observed when the fabrication problems
occur because the parameters employed in the previous stud-
ies were not sufficiently low to perceive such problems.
This is to be observed from tests 2 and 4, which employ
low d/to (2.7) and suffer from defects, that Fw is greater than
Fc. On the contrary, Fw is lesser than Fc in tests 9 and 10 which
employ high d/to (10 and above) and do not suffer from
defects. This follows that a condition Fc >Fw should be main-
tained in order to realize defect-free forming as well as to
control forming force to ensure danger-free machine opera-
tion. This fact can be further witnessed from the Fc/Fw column
in Table 4. In the force curve, the same appears in the form of
peak corresponding to corner location as indicated in Fig. 2a.
Therefore, the condition Fc/Fw >1 and the force curve with
peaks can be used as indicators of defect-free SPIF of pyramid
(i.e., shape with corners). To determine the threshold d/to ratio
minimizing the formation of defects, a series of tests were
carried out by varying d/to. It was found that the objective is
achieved when the said ratio approaches the value of 4.5.
After completing a loop of trajectory, the tool in SPIF steps
down to the next loop. The force involved in stepping down,
denoted as Fsd as indicated in Fig. 2a, was also quantified in
the current study. This is to notice from Table 4 that, when no
defect appears, Fsd is greater than Fw but less than Fc (see
column Fc/Fsd). This highlights that Fc is the greatest of all the
forces involved in forming a pyramid.
Summarizing the discussion, the effects of parameters on
the SPIF forces are highly interactive and complex. Due to this
reason, the choice of a low value of a parameter does not
necessarily lead to force reduction. Further, the use of unduly
small tools, more specifically low d/to, should be avoided
because such a choice depending on the pyramid feature
(i.e., wall or corner) leads to substantial raise/drop in the
forming force consequently causing fabrication problems.
5 Force models
A force model is a compact way to describe the force-
parameter relationship. The following models were obtained
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 76:2185–2197
from the regression analysis:
Lnð F w Þ ¼ −0:18 þ 2:65to þ 0:013θ þ 0:046σ−0:037d
;
þ 0:95p−5:3E−03θt o −2:31E−03σt o −7:24 E−03dt o
ð3Þ
þ 0:3pt o þ 8:06E−04θd − 6:63E−03θp þ 2:03E
−04σd−0:03dp−0:37t o 2 −1:44E−04σ2
Lnð F c Þ ¼ 0:45 þ 2:33t o þ 0:018θ þ 0:044σ−0:06d
;
þ 0:7p−9:97E−03θt o −1:96E−03σto þ 4:42dt o
ð4Þ
þ 0:2pt o −8:3E−05θσ þ 1:93E−03θd þ 1:61E−04σd
−0:028dp−0:34t o 2 −1:28E−04σ2
 
Ln F z = F xy ¼ 0:09 þ 0:3t o − 1:2E−003θ þ 0:27d−1:06p
;
þ 9:97E−003θto þ 0:015dt o −0:23pt o − 1:64E ð5Þ
−003θd þ 0:06dp−0:28t 2o −0:01d 2
Fz is the greatest of all components. Therefore, it is of
interest to the process user and machine designer. Its model
is also given as below:
Lnð F z Þ ¼ −0:34 þ 2:48to þ 0:05θ þ ;0:04σ−0:04d
þ 0:54p−2:8E−03θt o −2:46E03t o σ þ 0:19pt o
ð6Þ
þ 3:61E−04θd þ 2:16E−04σd−0:02dp−0:37t 2o
−5:2E−04θ2 −1:36E−04σ2
where Fw is the resultant of forces involved in forming the
oblique wall (planar feature), Fc is the resultant of forces
involved in forming the corners (curved feature), Fz is the
normal component of resultant force Fw, and Fxy is the in-
plane component of resultant force Fw.
The correctness of the above four force models was exam-
ined by performing two fitness tests, i.e., R2 (multiple corre-
lation factor) test and normal distribution test. As presented in
Table 5, the R2 value for each of the model is very high (i.e.,
>90 %). Also, as can be seen from Fig. 6, the residuals follow
a normal distribution. These results follow that the models
well fit to their respective empirical data and, therefore, can be
reliably used to navigate the design space. The correctness of
the models was further verified by conducting five tests. As
shown in Table 6, the maximum prediction error is below 5 %
which indicates that the experimental results are in good
agreement with the predicted ones and thus the models are
accurate.
Table 5 R2 value for
various force models Fw Fc Fz Fz/Fxy
98.5 % 98.3 % 98.4 % 91 %
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 76:2185–2197 2195

Fig. 6 Normal probability plots Fc

Fw
99 99

Normal % probability
95 95
90 90
80 80
70 70
50 50
30 30
20 20
10 10
5 5
1 1

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Internally studentized residuals Internally studentized residuals

Fz /Fxy Fz
Normal % probability 99 99
95 95
90 90
80 80
70 70
50 50
30 30
20 20
10 10
5 5
1 1

-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Internally studentized residuals Internally studentized residuals

The above proposed force models can be utilized for a However, at present, the given force models are valid for
variety of applications: the investigated range of parameters.

1. For a given set of parameters, one can easily predict the

force required to form a component. Thus, in view of
machine limits, the process can be designed in order to
ensure the safety of the machine.
2. In order to prevent fabrication defects, the process user
may predict an appropriate set of parameters observing
the condition Fc >Fw.
3. By predicting the forming force in the horizontal (i.e.,
sheet plane) and vertical planes, a designer can define
t h e s t i ff n e s s o f s p i n d l e a n d o t h e r m a c h i n e
components.
6 Force optimization
The optimization of force is important for the reasons of
energy saving, process sustainability, and machine safety. This
becomes even more critical when the machine is not suffi-
ciently stiff to apply large force. The data of the current work,
besides predicting, can also be employed for optimizing the
force. For a specific part, the operating parameters can be
optimized minimizing the required force. To demonstrate the
potential application of this study, optimization for a few sets

Table 6 Comparison between the predicted and experimental forces

Forming parameters Fw (N) Fc (N) Fz (N) Fz/Fxy

to (mm) θ (deg) σ (MPa) d (mm) p (mm) Pred Exp Err (%) Pred Exp Err (%) Pred Exp Err (%) Pred Exp Err (%)

1.65 55 137 13.5 0.45 1108 1106 +0.2 1399 1451 −3.5 906 950 −4.6 3.2 3.06 +4.5
2.6 20 172 20 0.8 1583 1572 +0.7 1746 1777 −1.7 1244 1217 +2.2 1.43 1.37 +4.4
0.7 55 101 7 0.1 176 180 −2.2 252 265 −4.9 165 170 −2.9 3.25 3.1 +4.8
2 35 101 20 0.6 811 795 +2 1136 1090 4.2 785 800 −1.8 2 1.92 +4.1
2.6 55 172 7 0.8 2339 2450 −4.5 1371 1320 3.8 1835 1861 −1.4 1.15 1.11 +3.6
2196 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 76:2185–2197

Table 7 Optimized results for the

forces and operating parameters Fixed parameters Objective parameters Optimized parameters

to (mm) θ (deg) σ (MPa) Fc (N) Fw (N) Fz (N) Fz/Fxy d (mm) p (mm) d/to

2.6 55 172 1.2Fw 1296 1089 2.9 16 0.1 6

2.6 55 101 1.2Fw 1015 856 3.5 14.2 0.1 5.5
1.65 38 137 1.2Fw 705 725 4.9 13.4 0.1 8
2 20 172 1.2Fw 705 655 4.5 15.9 0.12 8
0.7 30 152 1.2Fw 198 225 3.9 7 0.1 10

of parameters was carried out. Since the specifications of the
required component are decided by the designer, the design
parameters like to, θ, and σ were set as fixed. To avoid the
formation of fabrication defects, the Fc >Fw condition was
maintained setting Fc =1.2Fw. The force ratio Fz/Fxy was set
as in range. The objective was to minimize the forces Fw and
Fz. The optimization to simultaneously minimize the forces
and to control fabrication defects was performed employing
the Derringer-Suich [29] multi-criteria decision-making algo-
rithm. The optimization results for five different forming
conditions are shown in Table 7. As can be seen from the
table, the d/to ratio for each of the listed conditions is high
enough (i.e., >4.5 necessary to avoid defects as reported
before) to prevent fabrication problems. Further, the proposed
parameters are believed to produce parts with the minimum
possible force (or energy consumption). One following the
optimization results can analyze if the forces lie within the
machine limits or alternatively can find a new set of forming
conditions commensurate with the machine capacity in order
to ensure danger-free operation.
7 Conclusions
In the current study, the effect of some forming parameters on
the forces during SPIF of a geometry with corners (i.e.,
pyramid) was investigated employing response surface meth-
od. The important findings of the study are summarized as
follows:
1. The parameter-force relationship in SPIF is very complex
and highly interactive. Due to this reason, opting a low
value of a parameter, contrary to previous studies [21, 22],
does not necessarily lead to a reduction in the force
magnitude; rather, the force could even rise depending
on the values of the other parameters employed for
forming.
2. The use of very small tools, more specifically that of low
d/to ratio (say 2.7), causes fabrication defects leading to
substantial change in the resultant force. For instance,
about 1,467 N force is required to form the oblique wall
of pyramid when d/to =7.7 (test 1 in Table 4). On the other
hand, accompanied by significant defects, the force is
increased by 27 % when forming is performed employing
d/to =2.7 (test 2 in Table 4). This condition is neither
conducive for part accuracy nor for machine safety.
Therefore, it is proposed to employ a reasonable tool size
preventing fabrication problems.
3. The corner calls for greater forming force (up to 2.7 times
in this study) than does the oblique wall of pyramid. This
means that the deformation of material into sharp curved
features is demanding in comparison to that into planar
features. This point needs to be taken into account while
designing machine tool for SPIF.
4. The normal and in-plane forces are related as Fz >Fxy.
Further, their relative magnitude varies (from 1.1 to 5.2 in
the current study) as the values of the forming parameters
except flow stress are varied. This reveals that the forming
tool applies more force in the normal plane than it does in
the horizontal sheet plane, and also the factor by which Fz
is greater than Fxy depends on the values of the opted
parameters. This information is helpful in designing the
machine spindle as well as for defining the operating
limits of the machine.
5. A number of force models have been proposed in this
work. Using these models, one can easily prevent the
formation of fabrication defects and their related effects
on the force, thereby predicting the optimum set of pa-
rameters needing the minimum possible forming force.
Thus, the user can ensure danger-free operation to pre-
serve the forming equipment. The proposed models can
also guide the designer to define relative stiffness among
various machine components.
Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge with thanks the help and
support that King Abdulaziz University provided for this research.
References
1. Lim WS, Choi HS, Ahn SY, Kim BM (2014) Cooling channel design
of hot stamping tools for uniform high-strength components in hot
stamping process. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 70:1189–1203
2. Hsu TJ (1974) Present scope and future trend of sheet metal forming
research. Int J Prod Res 12(1):99–115
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 76:2185–2197
3. Hagan E, Jeswiet J (2003) A review of conventional and modern
single-point sheet metal forming methods. P I Mech Eng B-J Eng
217:213–225
4. Echrif SBM, Hrairi M (2011) Research and progress in incremental
sheet forming processes. Mater Manuf Process 26:1404–1414
5. Li M, Li Z, Mo JH, Lu Y (2012) Tool-path generation for sheet metal
incremental forming based on STL model with defects. Int J Adv
Manuf Tech 63:535–547
6. Silva MB, Nielsen PS, Bay N, Martins PAF (2011) Failure mecha-
nisms in single point incremental forming of metals. Int J Adv Manuf
Tech 56:893–903
7. Hussain G, Gao L, Zhang ZY (2008) Formability evaluation of the
pure titanium sheet in the cold incremental forming process. Int J Adv
Manuf Tech 37:920–926
8. Ziran X, Gao L, Hussain G, Cui Z (2010) The performance of flat end
and hemispherical end tools in single-point incremental forming. Int J
Adv Manuf Tech 46:1113–1118
9. Hussain G, Gao L, Hayat N, Dar NU (2010) The formability of
annealed and pre-aged AA-2024 sheets in single-point incremental
forming. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 46:543–549
10. Amino H, Lu Y, Ozawa S, Fakuda K, Maki T (2002) Dieless NC
forming of automotive service panels. In: Proceeding of the confer-
ence on advanced technology of plasticity, JSTP Japan, p 1015–1020
11. Ambrogio G, Napoli LD, Filice L, Gagliardi F, Muzzupappa M
(2005) Application of incremental forming process for highly cus-
tomized medical product manufacturing. J Mater Process Tech 162–
163:156–162
12. Ambrogio G, Filice L, Gagliardi F (2012) Improving industrial
suitability of incremental sheet forming process. Int J Adv Manuf
Tech 58:941–947
13. Fan G, Sun F, Meng X, Gao L, Tong G (2010) Electric hot incre-
mental forming of Ti-6Al-4V titanium sheet. Int J Adv Manuf Tech
49:941–947
14. Li J, Bai T, Zhou Z (2014) Numerical simulation and experimental
investigation of incremental sheet forming with an elastic support. Int
J Adv Manuf Tech. doi:10.1007/s00170-014-6117-8
15. Iseki H (2001) An approximate deformation analysis and FEM
analysis for the incremental bulging of sheet metal using a spherical
roller. J Mater Process Tech 11:150–154
16. Silva MB, Skjoedt M, Martins PAF, Bay N (2008) Revisiting the
fundamentals of single point incremental forming by means of mem-
brane analysis. Int J Mach Tool Manu 48:73–83
2197
17. Bagudanch I, Centeno G, Vallellano C, Garcia ML (2013) Forming
forces in single point incremental forming under different bending
conditions. In: Proceedings of 5th Manufacturing Engineering
Society International Conference, Zaragoza. Pages not available
18. Ambrogio G, Filice L, Micari F (2006) A force measuring based
strategy for failure prevention in incremental forming. J Mater
Process Tech 117:413–416
19. Arfa H, Bahloul R, Bel HSH (2012) Finite element modelling and
experimental investigation of single point incremental forming pro-
cess of aluminum sheets: influence of process parameters on punch
force monitoring and on mechanical and geometrical quality of parts.
Int J Mater Form. doi:10.1007/s12289-012-1101-z
20. Henrard C, Bouffioux C, Eyckens P, Sol H, Duflou JR, Van HP, Van-
Bael A, Duchêne L, Habraken AM (2011) Forming forces in single
point incremental forming: prediction by finite element simulations,
validation and sensitivity. Comput Mech 47:573–590
21. Duflou JR, Tunçkol Y, Szekeres A, Vanherck P (2007) Experimental
study on force measurements for single point incremental forming. J
Mater Process Tech 189:65–72
22. Aerens R, Eyckens P, Van-Bael A, Duflou JR (2009) Force prediction for
single point incremental forming deduced from experimental and FEM
observations. Int J Adv Manuf Tech. doi:10.1007/s00170-009-2160-2
23. Hussain G, Gao L, Hayat N (2007) A new parameter and its effect on
the formability in single point incremental forming: a fundamental
investigation. J Mech Sci Technol 24:1–7
24. Centeno G, Bagudanch I, Martinez DAJ, Garcia RML, Vallellano C
(2014) Critical analysis of necking and fracture limit strains and forming
forces in single-point incremental forming. Mater Des 63:20–29
25. Hussain G, Khan HR, Hayat N (2013) Guidelines for tool size
selection for SPIF of an aerospace alloy. Mater Manuf Process 28:
324–329
26. Montgomery DC (1997) Design and analysis of experiments, 4th
edn. Wiley, New York
27. Al-Ghamdi KA, Hussain G (2014) Threshold tool-radius condition
maximizing the formability in SPIF considering a variety of materials:
experimental and FE investigations. Int J Mach Tool Manuf (Submitted)
28. Hussain G, Al-Ghamdi KA, Khalatbari H, Iqbal A, Hashemipoure M
(2013) Forming parameters and forming defects in incremental
forming: Part B. Mater Manuf Process (Accepted)
29. Anderson MJ, Whitcomb PJ (2004) RSM simplified: optimizing
processes using response surface methods for design of experiments.
Taylor & Francis, London