j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 290–303

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

Incremental forming of sandwich panels

K.P. Jackson a,∗ , J.M. Allwood a , M. Landert b,c

a Institute for Manufacturing, Mill Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1RX, UK
b Department of Materials Science, Pembroke Street, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 1QZ, UK
c Singapore Institute of Manufacturing Technology (SIMTech), 71 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 638075, Singapore

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Applications of sandwich panels as 3D shells are limited by the high costs of tooling required
Received 28 June 2007 for conventional forming operations. This paper presents an investigation into whether
Received in revised form incremental sheet forming (ISF) would be mechanically feasible alternative means to form
24 September 2007 sandwich panels. Process feasibility is assessed through examination of failure modes, thin-
Accepted 5 November 2007 ning and surface quality after application of ISF to various sandwich panel designs. It is
shown that ISF can be applied to sandwich panels which have ductile and largely incom-
pressible cores. For a formable sandwich panel, the influence of ISF on the panel and a metal
Keywords: sheet of comparable plastic bending moment were evaluated. Similar trends in tool forces
Incremental sheet forming were observed, the sine law had similar accuracy in predicting thinning and the through-
Sandwich panels thickness deformation was similar for both materials. It is shown that 3D sandwich shells
with aluminium foam cores can be produced by using ISF to form a precursor expand-
able material and that ISF can be used to form impressions on one surface of metal foam
core sandwich panels. Failure mode maps are proposed as a future means to represent the
boundaries of safe forming regions.
© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction techniques used to build boat hulls, is given by Karlsson and

Sandwich panels comprise of two stiff outer faceplates sep-
arated by a lightweight core (Fig. 1) giving a higher stiffness
to weight ratio than monolithic materials of equivalent
dimensions. In addition to weight saving, they offer sound-
deadening, vibration absorption, thermal insulation, impact
absorption and buoyancy. Applications of sandwich panels
are diverse and include aircraft interiors, car body panels and
architectural panels.
For many applications, sandwich panels are required as 3D
shells rather than 2D sheets. There are two main approaches
for creating 3D sandwich shells: building the sandwich panel
into the required shape from its component parts or form-
ing the sandwich panel directly. A comprehensive review of
methods for building 3D sandwich shells, such as wet lay-up
Åström (1997). Where sandwich panels can be formed directly,
the cost of forming can be high for processes such as pressing
or deep drawing where specialised tooling is required. Sand-
wich panels are often used for specialised applications with
low volumes, so the high cost of tooling is particularly disad-
vantageous. There is therefore a commercial motivation for
exploring the possibility of shaping sandwich panels by other
forming processes that allow a reduction in these high tooling
costs.
Variations of incremental sheet forming (ISF) have long
been practiced in small workshops and private enterprises,
and some early concepts of ISF were patented in the USA by
Roux in 1960 and Leszak in 1967. Academic research began
in the early 1990s in Japan, and more recently has attracted
increasing interest in Europe and Canada. A comprehensive

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1223 764628; fax: +44 1223 338076.
E-mail address: kpj21@cam.ac.uk (K.P. Jackson).
0924-0136/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.11.117
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 290–303
Fig. 1 – Structure of a sandwich panel.
review of the development of the process is given by Jeswiet et
al. (2005a). In the basic process illustrated in Fig. 2, now some-
times called single-point incremental forming (SPIF), a sheet is
clamped around its edges and is deformed by a small smooth
hemispherical indenter which presses normally on one side of
the sheet and moves around a programmed path, usually in
descending contours. Several variations of this process have
been explored, including the use of a one-sided male or female
die, a mobile supporting tool, the use of a water jet instead
of a solid tool, and vibration of the tool. ISF in which the
sheet is formed by two contact points is commonly called two-
point incremental forming (TPIF). The principle goal which
motivates the development of ISF is the possibility that many
different components can be made without the need to manu-
facture tooling: the tool path defines component geometry, so
a new tool path can be programmed and used without incur-
ring costs of tool development of setup and switchover costs.
Additionally, ISF has been shown to give increased forming
limits compared to pressing processes. To date all reported
applications of ISF have been with sheet metal. Is it possible
that the benefits of ISF could also apply in forming sandwich
panels?
2. Review
In exploring the applicability of ISF to sandwich panels, two
bodies of literature are relevant: previous work on ductile
forming of sandwich panels and insights into the mechanics
of ISF. These are presented in the following sections leading
to a definition of the scope of the present paper.
Fig. 2 – Single-point incremental forming (SPIF) on the
Cambridge ISF machine.
291
2.1. Ductile forming of sandwich panels
The development of sandwich panels has led to many dif-
ferent panel designs, which have quite distinct forming
characteristics. Two key issues determine the success of such
forming: whether the structure of the panel can survive
the forming operation; and what failure mechanisms limit
the deformation of the panels. Previous work in this area
is organised here according to three major groups of panel
design: metal/polymer/metal sandwich panels; metal/metal
fibre/metal sandwich panels; and metal/metal foam/metal
sandwich panels.
Metal/polymer/metal sandwich panels are one of the most
successful formable designs and were first developed in the
early 1980s. The formability of these sandwich panels is com-
parable to monolithic sheet metals. Miller (1981) found that
the formability of mild steel/polypropylene/mild steel sand-
wich panels is similar to automotive aluminium alloy but less
than low carbon steel. DiCello (1980) found that the formabil-
ities of a range of steel/polypropylene/steel sandwich panels
were all greater than AA5182, but only one had a formabil-
ity greater than AK steel used for car body panels. McKenna
et al. (1981) also found that the limiting draw ratio of alu-
minium/nylon/aluminium sandwich panels is greater than
or equal to that of auto body panel materials and drawing
quality steels. Somoyajulu (2004) found that the forming limit
of aluminium/polymer/aluminium sandwich panels strongly
depends on skin thickness. However, DiCello (1980) reported
wrinkling in deep drawing of metal/polymer/metal sandwich
panels which was more severe than in monolithic sheets.
Metal/metal fibre/metal sandwich panels have also exhib-
ited ability to be formed, but this is limited by wrinkling,
core crushing and surface waviness. The panels include HSSA
(Hybrid Stainless Steel Assembly), patented by Gustafsson
(1998), and sandwich panels with a core of sintered metal
fibres, developed at the University of Cambridge (Clyne and
Markaki, 2001). The core fibres in HSSA are oriented almost
perpendicular to the faceplates and are bonded by epoxy resin
or rubber, whereas the fibres are oriented at an acute angle
to the faceplates in the Cambridge design and are bonded
by brazing or adhesive (Markaki and Clyne, 2003a,b). In both
panels the core and faceplates are usually made of stainless
steel. Landert (2006) observed wrinkling of the inner face-
plates of HSSA in deep drawing, and similar was observed
for the Cambridge sandwich panel with a brazed core. How-
ever, Landert reduced the wrinkling by using a flange, and
a hydraulic counter-pressure resulted in a more uniform
through-thickness strain. Mohr (2005) found that core shear
failure was the dominant failure mechanism in draw bend-
ing of the Cambridge sandwich panel and recommended that
the shear strength should be at least one order of magnitude
higher to prevent this.
Metal/metal foam/metal sandwich panels are typically
available in total thickness of greater than 10 mm, and hence
are thicker than sheet metal parts. Methods for manufacturing
metal foams and their mechanical properties are described by
Ashby et al. (2000). Metal/metal foam/metal sandwich pan-
els are not usually formed to intricate geometries due to
the high compressibility of the core, and hence the forming
characteristics have not been extensively researched. How-
292 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 290–303
ever, a recent study by Contorno et al. (2006) showed that
an aluminium/aluminium foam/aluminium sandwich panel
(Alulight® ) of thickness 13.5 mm could be formed by draw
bending to depth of 13 mm without damage. Bending tests
have given insight into the deformation and failure modes
of these materials, where strips have been bent until failure
against a cylinder of specified radius, enabling failure mode
maps to be plotted against dimensionless ratios of core thick-
ness to span length and faceplate thickness to span length.
McCormack et al. (2001) reported failure mode maps of face
yielding, face wrinkling, core failure and indentation in three-
point bending. Bart-Smith (2001) similarly measured failure
modes of face yielding, core shear or indentation of thin metal
foam core sandwich panels in three-point bending. Chen et
al. (2001) measured collapse mechanisms in four-point bend-
ing as core shear, indentation or face yield. A more successful
method of creating intricate 3D sandwich shells with metal
foam cores is to use conventional sheet metal forming meth-
ods to form a compacted precursor material which can later
be inflated into a metal foam core sandwich panel by heating,
as explained by Banhart (2001). An example of an application
given by Stöbener et al. is a frontal crash energy absorber for
a suburban railcar (Stöbener et al., 2003).
2.2. The mechanics of incremental sheet forming
Previous research into the mechanics of ISF has focused on
three approaches: experimental measurement of strains and
displacements of the surfaces of sheets; the use of the finite
element (FE) method for prediction of strains through the
thickness; and measurement of tool forces. This previous
research, which although insightful is sometimes limited or
contradictory, is reviewed below.
Measurements and numerical simulations of both SPIF and
TPIF have shown that, for a conventional spiral tool path
along straight or gently curved sides, material does not move
significantly in the direction parallel to the plane of the unde-
formed sheet, but moves mainly normal to this plane. Hence,
strains on the surface of the sheet are zero or negligible par-
allel to the tool direction and positive perpendicular to the
tool direction, and these directions correspond to the minor
and major directions of surface strain, respectively. This was
first measured for SPIF of circular and elliptical frustums by
Iseki in 1993 (Iseki et al., 1993). A similar result was later mea-
sured experimentally by Park and Kim (2003) for pyramids
formed by both SPIF and TPIF with a central support post.
Near to uniaxial strains have subsequently been measured for
a straight sided pyramid formed by TPIF by Bambach et al.
(2003), a truncated cone formed by SPIF from various materials
by Fratini et al. (2004), and for various shapes formed by SPIF by
Jeswiet and Young (2005). Hence it has been widely accepted
that the deformation created by ISF is largely one of plane
strain.
The above result brings about an approximate relationship
between the wall thickness after forming (t1 ) with the wall
angle (˛) and the original wall thickness (t0 ) known as the sine
law (1).
t1 = t0 sin ˛
A detailed investigation of the accuracy of the sine law
across the profile of cones of various wall angles formed by
SPIF was carried out by Young and Jeswiet in 2004, which
showed that the wall thickness is higher than the sine law
prediction over the first 10–15 mm and reduces to approxi-
mately 0.05–0.2 mm thinner than the sine law prediction over
the remainder of the profile. In 2005, Ambrogio et al. (2005)
similarly found that the wall thickness across a cone of con-
stant wall angle formed by SPIF is higher than the sine law
prediction close to the perimeter of the sheet and approxi-
mately 0.2 mm lower than the sine law prediction over the
remainder of the profile. However, in both these studies the
sine law prediction was based on the wall angle of the tool
path, not the measured wall angle of the sheet, which is likely
to reduce the accuracy of the sine law prediction.
FE modeling has given a more detailed insight into the
deformation mechanics through the thickness of the sheet.
Sawada et al. (1999) used a 2D numerical model to demonstrate
the sheet experiences bending and stretching in the plane per-
pendicular to the tool direction. Bambach et al. (2003) used a
full 3D FE model to numerically predict that stretching and
thinning occurs in the plane perpendicular to the tool direc-
tion, although, in contrast to Sawada et al., they also predicted
that shear in this plane dominates in TPIF. In the plane parallel
to the tool direction, it was predicted that shear strains occur,
increasing with decreasing forming head diameter, which is
contradictory with the plane strain assumption.
The influences of process parameters on tool forces in
ISF have given further insight into the deformation mechan-
ics. Duflou et al. (2005) found that total tool force in SPIF
increases with vertical pitch, tool diameter and wall angle.
Bologa et al. (2005) measured the influence of sheet thick-
ness, vertical pitch and diameter on vertical and horizontal
force and concluded that the sheet thickness had the most
significant influence on vertical force. Trends in tool force
throughout a given forming process have also been measured.
Duflou et al. (2005) observed for SPIF and Jeswiet et al. (2005b)
observed for both SPIF and TPIF that tool force increases,
sometimes to a peak, and then stabilises to a steady-state
value whilst forming a product with a constant wall angle.
Iseki (2001) measured tool force around the first few laps
of square shell and found that the tool force peaks in the
corners.
2.3. Scope of present research
This paper is a first report in the journal literature on ISF of
sandwich panels and builds on previous work by the authors:
the Ph.D. thesis of Landert (2006) and a conference paper by
Jackson et al. (2007). Two themes are investigated in this paper.
Firstly, the mechanical feasibility of ISF of various formable
sandwich panel designs has been evaluated in order to exam-
ine the link between the construction of the panel and the
forces applied in ISF (Section 3). Secondly, trials are conducted
to examine whether existing insights into ISF mechanics in
sheet metal transfer to sandwich panels (Section 4). Ideas
for future work in this area are proposed in Section 5. The
experiments reported in this paper were performed on the
specialised ISF rig at the University of Cambridge designed by
(1) Allwood et al. (2005) (Fig. 2).
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 290–303 293

Table 1 – Specifications of sandwich panels tested

Sandwich Product name Total thickness Core thickness Core Faceplate Faceplate Core-faceplate
panel (Manufacturer) (mm) (mm) material thickness material bonding
(mm)

MS/PP/MS Sollight® (Arcelor) 2.0 1.44 Polypropylene 0.28 Mild steel Hot co-laminating
Al/PP/Al Hylite® (Corus) 1.2 0.8 Polypropylene 0.2 AA5182 Not available
SS/SS Hybrix® (Lamera) 1.2 0.8 Stainless steel 0.2 Stainless steel Epoxy resin
fibre/SS fibre
Al/Al Alulight® (Alulight) 13.5 9.5 Al alloy foam 2 AA5251-H22 Epoxy adhesive
foam/Al AlMg1Si0.6

Fig. 3 – Design of tool paths to test mechanical feasibility of ISF of sandwich panels: (a) line and (b) spiral.

manufactured by Alulight (Al/Al foam/Al). The properties of

3. Evaluation of the mechanical feasibility the sandwich panels are given in Table 1.
of ISF of sandwich panels

Deformation due to ISF occurs by local indentation as opposed
to wide contact over the surface of a die, and according to
Zenkert (1995), sandwich panels are particularly susceptible
to failure under this type of loading. The aim of this sec-
tion is therefore to evaluate the mechanical feasibility of ISF
of various sandwich panel designs. Four sandwich panels,
representing the range of properties of formable sandwich
panels available, have been selected on which to evaluate
the mechanical feasibility of ISF. Two panels with metal face-
plates and polymer cores have been selected: mild steel
faceplates with a polypropylene core (MS/PP/MS) (Sollight®
manufactured by Arcelor), and aluminium faceplates with
a polypropylene core (Al/PP/Al) (Hylite® manufactured by
Corus). One sandwich panel with stainless steel faceplates
and a stainless steel fibre core (SS/SS fibre/SS) (Hybrix® man-
ufactured by Lamera) has been selected. The fourth sandwich
panel has aluminium faceplates and an aluminium foam core
3.1. Experimental design
Two simple tool paths were used to represent the least
mechanically demanding deformation that could occur in ISF
because if the sandwich panels fail under these conditions
they will also fail under the more demanding descending con-
tour or spiral tool paths typical of ISF. The first tool path is a
straight line (Fig. 3a), representing the first deformation which
occurs in any ISF process. The length of the line is 100 mm
and tool speed is 10 mm/s. The second tool path is a spiral
in a horizontal plane with overlapping passes (Fig. 3b). This
subjects the material to repeated passes, which is typical of
ISF, whilst maintaining a wall angle of zero. The pitch between
successive laps is 0.1 mm, tool speed is 40 mm/s, and the outer
diameter of the spiral is 40 mm. In both tests the tool radius
is 10 mm, the size of the unsupported region of the sheet is
140 mm × 140 mm and lubrication is Castrol Spheerol grease

Fig. 4 – Four failure modes of sandwich panels which may occur in ISF and required loading: (a) faceplate fracture, (b) core
shear failure, (c) local indentation and (d) delamination.
294 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 290–303

Fig. 5 – Cross-sections of sandwich panels before and after deformation: (a) MS/PP/MS, (b) Al/PP/Al, (c) SS/SS fibre/SS and (d)
Al/Al foam/Al.

L-EP2. The depth of the path below the initial plane of the
sheet is 8 mm because this is sufficient to cause a localised
plastic deformation under the indenter whilst accommodat-
ing non-localised elastic deformation over the rest of the
sheet.
The mechanical feasibility has been evaluated by observ-
ing three events which reduce panel performance: mechanical
failure, reduction in thickness and surface quality degrada-
tion. Mechanical failure implies that the faceplates and core
are no longer able to co-operate so that bending stiffness
or strength is reduced. Thickness reduction also results in a
reduction in bending stiffness, although the core and face-
plates can still co-operate. Surface quality degradation has no
structural significance, but is of critical importance for appli-
cations such as car body panels.
The only mechanical failure mode associated with sheet
metals in ISF is rupture, whereas 9 failure modes of sand-
wich panels have been identified by Zenkert (1995). These are:
faceplate fracture, core shear failure, face wrinkling (inwards
or outwards), buckling, shear crimpling, face dimpling and
local indentation. Assuming that shear, in-plane tension and
local indentation are the only loadings that may occur in
ISF, Zenkert’s original list may be reduced to 3 modes most
likely occur in ISF: (a) faceplate fracture, (b) core shear failure
and (c) local indentation. In addition, delamination (d) may
occur. These four failure modes are illustrated in Fig. 4 and
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 290–303 295

will be identified by cutting cross-sections, polishing and then

inspecting under a microscope. An electron microscope Stere-
oscan 430 was used for the thin sandwich panels (MS/PP/MS,
Al/PP/Al and SS/SS fibre/SS), and a digital camera was used to
photograph the wider Al/Al foam/Al.
The reduction in thickness of the sandwich panels is
reported as engineering strain, calculated from thickness
before forming and after forming at the centre of the formed
region, measured with vernier callipers to an accuracy of
±0.005 mm. Surface quality is assessed by a visual inspection
of the upper and lower faceplates of each panel after the area
test. Surfaces were photographed with a digital camera.

3.2. Results and observations

Fig. 6 – Reduction in thickness of sandwich panels after
line and spiral tests at the centre of the formed area
The results show that both MS/PP/MS and Al/PP/Al have sur-
(position showing the most severe reduction in thickness).
vived the tests of Fig. 3. Fig. 5a and b shows that neither
material sustains mechanical failure in either the line or spiral
tests. The core material (PP) is incompressible and therefore
only a small reduction in thickness occurs for both sandwich

Fig. 7 – Lower and upper surface of sandwich panels after spiral test: (a) MS/PP/MS, (b) Al/PP/Al, (c) SS/SS fibre/SS and (d)
Al/Al foam/Al.
296 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 290–303

panels in both tests as a result of volume constancy due to

in-plane stretching, hence bending stiffness is maintained
(Fig. 6). The upper and lower surfaces of MS/PP/MS remain
smooth and flat (Fig. 7a), whilst the coating on the upper sur-
face prevents damage caused by the tool moving across the
surface, which is advantageous for applications with high aes-
thetic requirements. However, the upper surface of Al/PP/Al
shows scratching due to movement of the tool over the sur-
face (Fig. 7b). This is comparable to scratching on sheet metals
in ISF and it is likely that this can be reduced by careful selec-
tion of process variables as it is for sheet metals, such as tool
pitch (measured by Hagan and Jeswiet (2004)), and lubrica-
tion and tool design (measured by Kim and Park (2002)). The
results show that neither SS/SS fibre/SS nor Al/Al foam/Al can
be formed by ISF without compression and likely loss of shear Fig. 8 – Bending moment per unit width vs. displacement
strength of their cores. Fig. 5c and d shows that the cores in three-point bend tests.
of both materials are compressed in both tests although the
extent of damage cannot be assessed from these micrographs.
Fig. 5d also shows delamination between the Al faceplates and
Al foam core. However, the epoxy resin core-faceplate bond-
ing was made in-house and improved bonds are made by the
manufacturer. Fig. 6 shows a large reduction in thickness for
both materials in both tests that is a result of compressibil-
ity of the core materials, and hence volume constancy is not
maintained. This results in a loss of bending stiffness that may
be further increased by a loss in core shear strength. Surface
waviness as a result of compression of the core fibres against
the lower faceplate also occurred for SS/SS fibre/SS (Fig. 7ci),
whilst both surfaces of Al/Al foam/Al remained flat. Scratching
of the upper surfaces of both materials is evident. However, as
Fig. 9 – Stress vs. strain in tensile tests for MS/PP/MS and
for Al/PP/Al, this is likely to be influenced by the process design
aluminium.
and is comparable to that of sheet metals.

3.3. Summary of findings

width to MS/PP/MS. This was established by a three-point bend
test to be 325 Nm/m whilst that for MS/PP/MS was 300 Nm/m
The results above suggest that for ISF to be useful in forming
(Fig. 8). Other basic properties established from a tensile test
sandwich panels, the panels must survive ductile deforma-
(Fig. 9) are shown in Table 2.
tion under the action of the indenter without collapse of the
core. Suitable core and faceplate materials should therefore be
4.1. Influence of tool radius and vertical pitch on
ductile and largely incompressible, such as polymers and met-
vertical tool force
als, respectively. However, ISF could be applied to panels with
compressible cores where the integrity of the core and core
The influence of tool radius and vertical pitch on vertical tool
shear strength are not critical product requirements, such as
force in ISF of both materials was compared by forming pyra-
in decorative features and signs.
mids using all nine combinations of three tool radii (5, 10
and 15 mm) with three vertical pitches (0.1, 0.5 and 2 mm).
4. Comparison of the Influence of ISF on a The pyramids, illustrated in Fig. 10, had a constant wall angle
sandwich panel and sheet metal of 40◦ and a base area of 100 mm × 100 mm centred upon an
unsupported area of 140 mm × 140 mm on a sheet of total size

How much of the knowledge acquired in understanding the

mechanics of ISF applied to sheet metal is applicable to ISF
of sandwich panels? Three characteristics of ISF of the two Table 2 – Mechanical properties of MS/PP/MS and
materials have been compared: (1) the influence of tool radius aluminium, established from tensile test
and vertical pitch vertical tool force, (2) the accuracy of the MS/PP/MS Aluminium
sine law for prediction of wall thickness and (3) relative move- a
Young’s modulus (GPa) 9.4 12.4
ment of upper and lower surfaces of the sheets. The sandwich
0.2% proof stress (MPa)a 77 137
panel selected for testing is MS/PP/MS because it was formed % elongationa 67 21
successfully in the previous ISF trials (Section 3). 2 mm thick
a
5251-H22 aluminium was selected as the sheet metal for com- Properties are taken as the average of rolling and transverse direc-
parison because it has a similar plastic moment per unit tions.
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 290–303
Fig. 10 – Tool path used in comparison of vertical tool forces: (a) in x–y plane and (b) cross-section A–A in y–z plane through
apex.
175 mm × 175 mm. A right-handed co-ordinate set is defined
as (x, y, z) such that x and y are in the plane parallel to the
undeformed sheet and z is the normal direction downwards
(parallel to the tool axis). Lubrication was Castrol Spheerol L-
EP2 extreme pressure grease and tool speed was 40 mm/s for
each experiment.
Fig. 11a shows a time plot of force for the two materi-
als in one of the trials (pitch = 0.5 mm, tool radius = 10 mm).
The shape of this curve is similar in all 9 experiments, and
is consistent with previously reported results for sheet met-
als. Firstly, for both materials, the average vertical force on
each lap increases over the first few laps and then stabilises
to a steady state. Similar behaviour was previously reported
for sheet metals by Duflou et al. (2005) and Jeswiet et al.
(2005b). Secondly, across any given side of the pyramid, tool
force increases towards the corners and then decreases. This
was similarly observed for sheet metal by Iseki (2001). Tool
force throughout a typical lap in the steady state is shown in
Fig. 11b, which shows four peaks corresponding to the four
corners A, B, C, D of the lap. To allow comparison between
the nine trials, the average minimum vertical force on each
side of the pyramid during the steady-state phase (Fss ) was
297
measured and is shown on the typical lap in Fig. 11b. This
is plotted against tool radius and vertical pitch for each of the
nine experiments on MS/PP/MS and aluminium in Fig. 12a and
b, respectively. There are similarities in trends in Fss for both
MS/PP/MS and aluminium, and these trends are consistent
with previously reported results for sheet metals. Fig. 12 shows
that Fss increases approximately linearly with tool radius for
both materials. This is consistent with previous results for
sheet metal in SPIF measured by Bologa et al. (2005). Both
graphs also show increasing Fss with increasing vertical pitch,
which has previously been reported for sheet metals by Duflou
et al. (2005). Although trends in Fss are similar, the magnitude
of Fss for MS/PP/MS was on average 50% that of aluminium
(1.03 kN for MS/PP/MS vs. 2.01 kN for aluminium).
4.2. The accuracy of the sine law
The accuracy of the sine law has been evaluated for both
materials for the truncated pyramids formed in Section 4.1 by
comparing the wall thickness across the cross-sections pre-
dicted by the sine law (1) to the measured wall thickness. This
was found with vernier callipers to an accuracy of ±0.01 mm
298 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 290–303
Fig. 11 – Vertical tool force throughout ISF of a 40◦ pyramid
with 2 mm pitch and 10 mm tool radius for MS/PP/MS and
aluminium: (a) throughout forming process and (b) during
one typical lap in the steady state.
across each of the corresponding pairs of marked points. Note
that the measured wall angle rather than the wall angle of the
tool path has been used for the sine law to ensure that the
accuracy of the results is not affected by deviation between
the profile of the finished product and the profile of the tool
path.
Comparison of measured and predicted wall thickness is
given in Fig. 13. The sine law is shown to give a prediction
of wall thickness which follows the measured wall thickness
to within ±0.2 mm across the cross-sections of both materi-
als. The average errors in both cases are ±0.06 and ±0.09 mm,
respectively. The accuracy of the sine law for the sandwich
panel is therefore comparable to that of the monolithic sheet
metal and previous results presented by Young and Jeswiet
(2004) and Ambrogio et al. (2005). The error is sufficiently low
for the sine law to be a useful tool for process design of ISF of
sandwich panels by prediction of the initial thickness to give
the required final wall thickness.
4.3. Displacement of upper and lower surfaces
Both surfaces of one sheet of each material were marked
at intervals of 5 mm along a straight line through the cen-
tre using a scribe. The positions of the scribed marks were
measured before deformation using a co-ordinate measuring
machine (CMM) to an accuracy of ±0.15 mm, established by
repeatability tests. The sheets were then formed into a trun-
cated pyramid, similar to Fig. 10 but with a plateau of width
Fig. 12 – The influence of tool radius and vertical pitch on
tool force (Fss ) in ISF of a 40◦ pyramid: (a) MS/PP/MS and (b)
aluminium.
20 mm between the inclined surfaces, using a vertical pitch of
0.5 mm, tool of radius 10 mm, tool speed of 40 mm/s and Cas-
trol Spheerol L-EP2 grease as the lubrication. The positions of
the marks were re-measured with the CMM after deformation
and removal from the clamp.
Fig. 14 shows straight lines adjoining corresponding points
on the upper and lower surfaces of the sheets after ISF in 3
planes: z–y, x–y and z–x. Error bars in the x direction are drawn,
whilst those in the y and z directions are not because they are
negligible on the scales used for these axes. The lines adjoin-
ing corresponding points on the upper and lower surfaces have
been corrected for initial misalignment to the vertical. It is
important to note that these lines do not show the profile of
the deformation through the thickness; this is approximated
as a straight line.
Fig. 14 shows that the deformation of MS/PP/MS and
aluminium are similar in the z–y plane and deformation corre-
sponds to previously reported results for sheet metals. In both
cases, lines adjoining the upper and lower surfaces remain
approximately perpendicular to the sheet surface and there is
negligible translation of the surfaces in the y direction. This
implies that stretching is the dominant mechanism in this
plane, whilst shear and bending are less significant. This is
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 290–303
Fig. 13 – Comparison of wall thickness predicted by sine law to measured wall thickness and original wall thickness: (a)
MS/PP/MS and (b) aluminium.
consistent with the results previously found experimentally
by Allwood et al. (2007) and numerically by Sawada et al. (1999)
and Bambach et al. (2003).
The measurements in the x–y and z–x planes for both mate-
rials show that there is translation of both upper and lower
surfaces in the direction of tool movement, with greater trans-
lation of the upper surface resulting in shear between the two
surfaces. This may be attributed to friction of the tool moving
across the upper surface and is consistent with the analysis
of through-thickness shear reported by Allwood et al. (2007).
To some extent this result is surprising, as the polypropy-
lene core is less strong than the steel faces, and it might
have been anticipated that the through-thickness shear stress
might cause the core and faceplates to delaminate. In fact, the
sandwich panel has survived the shearing effect, although the
through-thickness shear measured for aluminium is greater
than that for MS/PP/MS—perhaps because the polypropylene
299
can accept a larger elastic deformation before permanently
changing shape. Through-thickness shear shown in MS/PP/MS
is small enough to be within the bounds of experimental error
across most of the cross-section, and therefore further work
is required to confirm this result. A further useful insight into
the above results could be gained by observing the full profile
of through-thickness deformation. This may be particularly
insightful for the sandwich panel, in which it is possible that
the deformation of the soft and ductile polypropylene core
does not follow a profile that smoothly interpolates between
the stiffer faceplates.
5. Discussion, future work and conclusions
The results of Section 3 show that sandwich panels with duc-
tile and largely incompressible cores can be formed by ISF,
300 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 290–303

Fig. 14 – Deformation of upper and lower surfaces of sheets in x–y plane, z–y plane and z–x plane: (a) MS/PP/MS and (b)
aluminium.

and those of Section 4 show that the main established results
about the effect of ISF on sheet metal apply in a similar manner
to sandwich panels.
Section 4.1 demonstrated that the vertical tool force for ISF
of MS/PP/MS is approximately 50% that of an aluminium sheet
chosen to have a similar plastic bending moment. This result
supports the observation in Section 4.3 that the deformation
of the sheet in the plane perpendicular to tool motion is largely
due to stretching rather than bending—the stretching stiffness
of the sandwich panel naturally being lower than that of the
metal. The lower tool force is advantageous in process design,
as it will reduce tool wear, and allows a lighter weight machine
design for equivalent precision.
The work of this paper has demonstrated that ISF of sand-
wich panels is feasible, but leaves open the question of how
failure occurs in sandwich panels formed by this process. Fur-
ther tests on two sandwich panel materials showed that for a
vertical pitch of 0.5 mm with a tool radius of 10 mm the maxi-
mum wall angles (a widely used measure of ISF forming limits)
were approximately 50◦ and 40◦ on MS/PP/MS and Al/PP/Al,
respectively, and that the limiting failure mechanism in each
case was faceplate fracture (Fig. 15). This shows that the range
of geometries which can be formed in these materials is
slightly more limited than that of sheet metals, for which the
limiting wall angle reported by Jeswiet et al. (2005a) for various
process conditions was between 40◦ (brass of initial thickness
1 mm) and 78◦ (Al 3003-O initial thickness 2.1 mm). However,
it cannot be assumed that these are the limiting wall angles
under all process conditions of ISF for these materials because
other failure mechanisms as illustrated in Fig. 4 may occur.
Failure mode maps have been used extensively to charac-
terise behaviour of sandwich panels: Petras and Sutcliffe (1999)
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 290–303
Fig. 15 – Sandwich panels formed to non-zero wall angles:
(a) MS/PP/MS (45◦ angle without failure) and (b) Al/PP/Al
(40◦ angle showing faceplate fracture).
used them to characterise failure modes under local indenta-
tion of honeycomb core sandwich panels; McCormack et al.
(2001) used them to illustrate the dominant failure mode of
metallic foam core sandwich beams in three-point bending;
Bart-Smith (2001) simulated failure mode maps for sandwich
beams with metallic foam cores in three-point bending; and
Chen et al. (2001) predicted a failure mode map for sandwich
beams with a metallic foam core in four-point bending. Poten-
tially failure mode maps may be a useful means for analysing
Fig. 17 – ISF of an inflatable Al/Al foam/Al sandwich panel: (a) cross-section of precursor material before ISF and (b) an
inflated 3D sandwich shell from a precursor formed by ISF.
301
Fig. 16 – Concept for a failure mode map for representing
the safe forming regions and failure modes against 2
process parameters for an imaginary sandwich panel in ISF.
sandwich panel forming limits and failure mechanisms in ISF
as illustrated in Fig. 16.
5.1. Alternative uses of ISF for sandwich panels
Although, it was shown in Section 3 that it is not possible to
use ISF to form an Al/Al foam/Al sandwich panel, an alterna-
tive approach might be to form a compact precursor sandwich
sheet prior to subsequent expansion to create a foamed sand-
wich shell. For example, a precursor material, manufactured
by Alulight International, consists of a core of aluminium and
TiH2 powder roll bonded between two aluminium faceplates,
as described in detail by Banhart (2001). The material can be
formed in this compacted state, and later heated causing the
core to foam whilst the formed faceplates retain their shape. A
trial has demonstrated that this material can be formed by ISF
to a square based pyramid with a wall angle of 40◦ and then
heated to allow foaming (Fig. 17). Although, the figure shows
distortion of the upper and lower faceplates, this is a result of
the heating process and not the forming process. The high core
compression identified in the tests of the Al/Al foam/Al sand-
302 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 290–303
Fig. 18 – Impressions formed by ISF in upper surface of an
Al/Al foam/Al sandwich panel.
wich panel in Section 3 also suggest that ISF might be used
to form impressions in one surface whilst the lower surface
remains almost flat, as shown in Fig. 18. Possible applications
might include channels in heat exchangers and features on
insulating panels.
5.2. Conclusions
This paper has presented a first investigation into the appli-
cation of ISF to sandwich panels. The conclusions are:
• ISF can be used to deform MS/PP/MS and Al/PP/Al sandwich
panels. These panels have ductile and largely incompress-
ible core and faceplates which survive the local indentation
applied in ISF without collapse of the core.
• The main mechanical results established for ISF of sheet
metals transfer closely to sandwich panels: vertical tool
force shows similar variations with vertical pitch and tool
radius; the sine law describes sheet thinning with wall
angle; the through-thickness strains experienced by both
materials are similar.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express warm thanks to Johan ter
Maat of Corus Hylite, Philipp Zach of Alulight International,
Olivier Brun of Arcelor Commercial FCSE and Anders Axels-
son of Lamera for donating the sandwich panels tested in
this paper. The first author is supported by an EPSRC Ph.D.
studentship.
references
Allwood, J.M., Houghton, N.E., Jackson, K.P., 2005. The design of
an incremental sheet forming machine. In: SheMet ’05
International Conference on Sheet Metal, Erlangen, Germany.
Allwood, J.M., Shouler, D.R., Tekkaya, A.E., 2007. The increased
forming limits of incremental sheet forming processes. In:
SheMet ’07. Palermo, Italy.
Ambrogio, G., et al., 2005. Sheet thinning prediction in single
point incremental forming. In: SheMet ’05. Erlangen, Germany.
Ashby, M.F., et al., 2000. Metal Foams: A Design Guide.
Butterworth Heinemann.
Bambach, M., Hirt, G., Junk, S., 2003. Modeling and experimental
evaluation of the incremental cnc sheet metal forming
process. In: VII Int. Conf. on Computational Plasticity, pp.
1–15.
Banhart, J., 2001. Manufacture, characterisation and application
of cellular metals and metal foams. Progress in Materials
Science 46, 559–632.
Bart-Smith, H., 2001. Measurement and analysis of the structural
performance of cellular metal sandwich construction.
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 43, 1945–1963.
Bologa, O., Oleksik, V., Racz, G., 2005. Experimental research for
determining the forces on incremental sheet forming process.
In: 8th ESAFORM Conference, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Chen, C., Harte, A.-M., Fleck, N.A., 2001. The plastic collapse of
sandwich beams with a metallic foam core. International
Journal of Mechanical Sciences 43, 1483–1506.
Clyne, T.W., Markaki, A.E., 2001. Ultra light stainless steel sheet
material. U.S. Patent 6,764,772, 10/000, p. 117.
Contorno, D., et al., 2006. Forming of aluminium foam sandwich
panels: Numerical simulations and experimental tests.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology 177 (1–3), 364–
367.
DiCello, J.A., 1980. Steel-Polypropylene-Steel Laminate—A New
Weight Reduction Material. SAE, Paper 800078, pp. 1–15.
Duflou, J., Szekeres, A., Vanherck, P., 2005. Force measurements
for single point incremental forming: an experimental study.
In: SheMet ’05. Erlangen, Germany.
Fratini, L., et al., 2004. Influence of mechanical properties of the
sheet material of formability in single point incremental
forming. Annals of the CIRP 53 (1), 207–210.
Gustafsson, R., 1998. Formable sandwich construction material
and use of the material as construction material in vehicles,
refrigerators, boats etc. World Intellectual Property
Organization, WO 98/01295.
Hagan, E., Jeswiet, J., 2004. Analysis of surface roughness for parts
formed by computer numerical controlled incremental
forming. Journal of Engineering Manufacture 218, 1307–1312,
Part B.
Iseki, H., Kato, K., Sakamoto, S., 1993. Forming limit of flexible
and incremental sheet metal bulging with a spherical roller.
In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Technology of Plasticity, Advanced Technology of Plasticity.
Iseki, H., 2001. An approximate deformation analysis and FEM
analysis for the incremental bulging of sheet metal using a
spherical roller. Journal of Materials Processing Technology
111, 150–154.
Jackson, K.P., Allwood, J., Landert, M., 2007. Incremental forming
of sandwich panels. In: SheMet’07. Palermo, Sicily.
Jeswiet, J., Young, D., 2005. Forming limit diagrams for
single-point incremental forming of aluminium sheet. Proc.
IMechE: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 219, 1–6, Part B.
Jeswiet, J., et al., 2005a. Asymmetric single point incremental
forming of sheet metal. In: CIRP.
Jeswiet, J., Duflou, J.R., Szekeres, A., 2005b. Forces in single point
and two point incremental forming. In: SheMet ’05. Erlangen,
Germany.
Karlsson, K.F., Åström, B.T., 1997. Manufacturing and applications
of structural sandwich components. Composites Part A 28A,
97–111.
Kim, Y.H., Park, J.J., 2002. Effect of process parameters on
formability in incremental forming of sheet metal. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology 130–131, 42–46.
Landert, M., 2006. Forming behaviour of metal sandwich sheets.
PhD Thesis, Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy,
Cambridge University.
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 290–303
Leszak, E., 1967. Apparatus and Process for Incremental Dieless
Forming. U.S.P. Office.
Markaki, A.E., Clyne, T.W., 2003a. Mechanics of thin ultra-light
stainless steel sandwich sheet material Part I. Stiffness. Acta
Materialia 51, 1341–1350.
Markaki, A.E., Clyne, T.W., 2003b. Mechanics of thin ultra-light
stainless steel sandwich sheet material Part II. Resistance to
delamination. Acta Materialia 51, 1351–
1357.
McCormack, T.M., et al., 2001. Failure of sandwich beams with
metallic foam cores. International Journal of Solids and
Structures 38, 4901–4920.
McKenna, L.W., Wohl, M.H., Woodbrey, J.C., 1981. New
Light-Weight Materials for Vehicle Body Panels –
Aluminium/Nylon Laminates, vol. 800079. Society of
Automotive Engineers, Inc, pp. 506–
516.
Miller, W.K., 1981. Metal-Plastic Laminates for Vehicle Weight
Reduction, vol. 800077. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc,
pp. 481–490.
Mohr, D., 2005. On the role of shear strength in sandwich sheet
forming. International Journal of Solids and Structures 42,
1491–1512.
303
Park, J.J., Kim, Y.H., 2003. Fundamental studies on the
incremental sheet metal forming technique. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology 140, 447–453.
Petras, A., Sutcliffe, M.P.F., 1999. Failure mode maps for
honeycomb sandwich panels. Composite Structures 44,
237–252.
Roux, P., 1960. Machines for Shaping Sheet Metal. U.S.P. Office.
Sawada, T., et al., 1999. Deformation analysis for stretch forming
of sheet metal with CNC machine tools. In: Proceedings of the
6th ICTP, Advanced Technology of Plasticity.
Somoyajulu, T.S.V., 2004. Vibration and formability characteristics
of aluminium-polymer sandwich materials, PhD Thesis,
University of Michigan.
Stöbener, K., et al., 2003. Composites based on metallic foams:
phenomenology; production; properties and principles. In:
International Conference “Advanced Metallic Materials”,
Smolenice, Slovakia.
Young, D., Jeswiet, J., 2004. Wall thickness variations in
single-point incremental forming. Journal of Engineering
Manufacture 218, 1453–1459, Part B.
Zenkert, D., 1995. In: E.M.A.S. Ltd. (Ed.), An Introduction to
Sandwich Construction. The Chameleon Press Ltd., London,
United Kingdom.