Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Influence of Single-Point Incremental Force Process Parameters On Forming Characteristics and Microstructure Evolution of AA-6061 Alloy Sheet
Influence of Single-Point Incremental Force Process Parameters On Forming Characteristics and Microstructure Evolution of AA-6061 Alloy Sheet
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-019-04446-9 1059-9495/$19.00
Single-point incremental forming (SPIF) process comprises a set of process variables, such as forming tool
diameter, vertical pitch, spindle rotation speed, and tool velocity, which may affect the forming behavior of
the sheet to be deformed. The objective of this work is to study the effect of SPIF process parameters on
forming characteristics and microstructure development for the AA-6061 (T6) aluminum alloy sheet. The
SPIF experiments and finite element (FE) simulations were performed at different process parameters to
achieve conical shapes from the AA-6061 blanks. The effect of process parameters on forming forces,
thickness uniformity in wall region of the cone and surface roughness of the blank was analyzed. A detailed
microstructure study was performed to analyze the effect of process variables on microstructure and
texture evolution during the SPIF process. This study reveals that the process parameters are likely to
influence the texture development especially at high tool diameter and vertical pitch values. Therefore,
suitability and consequences of using different combinations of tool diameter and vertical pitch values are
discussed for AA-6061 alloy.
Table 1 Mechanical properties of AA-6061 (T6) aluminum alloy obtained using tension and r-bar tests (Ref 3)
YS, MPa UTS, MPa Elongation, % Plastic anisotropy r mean
Table 2 Process parameters and cone geometry used in the SPIF process
Inner diameter Outer diameter Spindle rotation Linear velocity Sheet
of the cone of the cone Wall angle Tool diameter Vertical pitch speed of the tool thickness
Fig. 5 Thickness strain distribution in (a) experiment (b) simulation achieved at 0.7 mm vertical pitch and 13 mm tool diameter
vertical pitch value). Therefore, selection of vertical pitch plays pitch values. These figures also show that thickness variation
an important role in striking a balance between exerted forming was observed only in the wall region of the cone where the
forces and deformation time in the SPIF process. forming tool was in contact with AA-6061 aluminum alloy
blank. The center region of the cone, where no interaction
5.2 Thickness Distribution between forming tool and blank occurred, does not show any
variation in thickness distribution regardless of the process
Thickness distribution on experimentally deformed cones
parameters during the SPIF deformation of this alloy. The
was analyzed using optical strain measurement technique. The
thickness in the wall region of the cone varied between
GOM system (combined with ARGUS software) calculates the
0.55 mm to 0.70 mm at different forming tool diameter and
thickness distribution based on the volume constancy law.
vertical pitch values. Moreover, Fig. 6a shows that the
Figure 5a shows the thickness strain distribution on the
thickness at the deformed region of the cone decreases with
experimentally obtained cone, at 0.7 mm vertical pitch and
increase in tool diameter during the SPIF process. Similarly,
13 mm tool diameter. Similarly, Fig. 5b shows thickness strain
Fig. 6b shows the effect of vertical pitch on thickness
distribution on the cone obtained using the SPIF simulation
distribution during the SPIF process. Though this figure does
(Hill + Swift criteria), at 0.7 mm vertical pitch and 13 mm tool
not show any specific trend on the effect of vertical pitch on
diameter. Figure 5a shows that the strain development occurred
thickness strain level in the SPIF process, the effect of vertical
mainly in the deformed region of the blank where forming tool
pitch on uniformity of thickness distribution at the deformed
and blank were in direct contact, whereas the other regions
region is clearly evident. It can be observed clearly that
experienced some bending during the SPIF process. Exactly
thickness uniformity increases with decrease in vertical pitch
similar observations were made for all the other experimentally
value. These effects of tool diameter (7, 10, 13 mm) and
deformed cones irrespective of forming tool diameter and
vertical pitch values (0.3, 0.5 and 0.7 mm) on strain and
vertical pitch values. Hence, thickness strain distribution is
thickness distribution were consistent for all the cases. There-
shown here only for the case of 0.7 mm vertical pitch and
fore, only one case from each set, varying tool diameter (7, 10,
13 mm forming tool diameter.
13 mm) at 0.3 mm vertical pitch and varying vertical pitch (0.3,
Next, Fig. 6a and b compares the effect of tool diameter and
0.5 and 0.7 mm) at 7 mm tool diameter, is shown and discussed
vertical pitch values on blank thickness distribution during the
in the present work to avoid repetition.
SPIF process. The thickness of the deformed blank is plotted on
The thickness uniformity at lower vertical pitch values can
the ordinate and the section length of the blank is plotted on the
be attributed to the fact that the forming tool travels several
abscissa of the graph at different tool diameters and vertical
Experiment Simulation
P=0.3 mm, D=7 mm P=0.3 mm, D=10 mm P=0.3 mm, D=13 mm P=0.3 mm, D=7 mm P=0.3 mm, D=10 mm P=0.3 mm, D=13 mm
P=0.5 mm, D=7 mm P=0.5 mm, D=10 mm P=0.5 mm, D=13 mm P=0.5 mm, D=7 mm P=0.5 mm, D=10 mm P=0.5 mm, D=13 mm
P=0.7 mm, D=7 mm P=0.7 mm, D=10 mm P=0.7 mm, D=13 mm P=0.7 mm, D=7 mm P=0.7 mm, D=10 mm P=0.7 mm, D=13 mm
Fig. 9 Effect of tool diameter on (a) axial and (b) planer forces in the SPIF process (experiments and simulations)
experimental and simulation results for thickness distribution and predicted forming forces is possibly the contact property
was consistent for all the tool diameters (7, 10 and 13 mm) and between forming tool and blank in simulations. It should be
vertical pitch (0.3, 0.5 and 0.7 mm) values. noted that a constant friction coefficient (i.e., 0.08) between
This detailed comparison between SPIF experimental and forming tool and the blank was used for all the SPIF
simulation results shows that although predicted thickness simulations, whereas in SPIF experiments, the interface
distribution shows a trend similar to the experimental strain between these two (tool and blank) keeps changing causing
distribution at different tool diameter and vertical pitch values; dynamic contact between forming tool and blank (Ref 33).
however, force prediction is not accurate especially axial force. Hence, the friction coefficient between forming tool and blank
A more accurate numerical description of the SPIF for AA- may also vary especially with plastic deformation on the blank.
6061 alloy can be achieved possibly by utilizing advanced non- Accordingly, further efforts are required in future to optimize
quadratic yield criteria which requires additional biaxial the friction coefficient and material models for the SPIF
experiment. Another source of difference between experimental simulations of AA-6061 sheets.
With increase in tool diameter, the volume fraction of brass deformation with the sharp increase in brass {011} <211>
component increases barring one exception at tool diameter texture component (Fig. 14d).
of 10 mm and vertical pitch 0.5 mm. This figure also shows These variations in volume fraction of texture components
that the volume fraction of brass texture is considerably affect the yield locus and plastic anisotropy of the sheet
higher at high vertical pitch and tool diameter values. The significantly. It has been found that an increase in cube texture
available literatures on deformation behavior of aluminum component leads to an increase in r-value in RD and TD
alloys show that the reduction in cube texture causes directions of the sheet. In contrast, brass texture component
increase in brass texture (Ref 38, 39). A similar behavior is leads to reduction in r-value in RD and TD direction and
observed in this work, where cube texture decreases while increase in ID direction. Similarly, variation in goss and S-
brass texture increases for AA-6061 alloy during the SPIF texture components also leads to directional properties for this
process. alloy (Ref 26, 41). The detailed discussion on effect of texture
Compared to conventional maximum ODF intensity value, components on anisotropic behavior of the AA-6061 alloy
TI is considered to be a better way of representation of sheet is explained elsewhere (Ref 3). These variations in yield
texturing (Ref 40). TI values are calculated for each sample locus and r-values in different directions may affect the sheet
before and after deformation at different process parameters and formability and its performance significantly. Consequently, the
plotted in Fig. 15. This figure shows the higher TI values at performance of the final product will depend on the process
high tool diameters and vertical pitch. This trend is due to the parameters employed during the SPIF process. Though the
significant texturing of AA-6061 aluminum alloy during texture effect is not significant for this alloy during the SPIF