Measurement 157 (2020) 107673

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Measurement
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement

Evaluation and optimization on the formability of an AZ31B Mg alloy

during warm incremental sheet forming assisted with oil bath heating
San Zhang a,b,⇑, G.H. Tang b, Wenqing Wang a, Xiangkui Jiang a
a
School of Automation, Xi’an University of Posts & Telecommunications, Xi’an 710121, PR China
b
MOE Key Laboratory of the Thermo-Fluid Science & Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, PR China

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

Article history: This paper introduces an innovative warm incremental sheet forming approach with global heating
Received 11 December 2019 through an oil bath setup as a heat source to form Mg alloy sheets. An attempt was made to evaluate
Received in revised form 25 January 2020 and optimize the formability of the proposed approach using the maximum forming angle as a measure
Accepted 24 February 2020
of process viability. Then, a series of experiments were conducted according to a Box-Bhenken design,
Available online 27 February 2020
including response surface methodology and an analysis of variance. Next, the results indicated the inno-
vative approach was able to form AZ31B Mg alloy sheets with great feasibility. The most influential factor
Keywords:
affecting the formability was the forming temperature, followed by the step depth, sheet thickness and
AZ31B Mg alloys
Warm incremental sheet forming
tool diameter. The reasons for those results were also explained. Finally, the experiments validated the
Formability predictive model by evaluating an optimal combination of considered parameters for improving the
Oil bath heating formability of the AZ31B Mg alloys.
Evaluation and optimization Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Response surface methodology

1. Introduction
With increasingly stringent environmental protection regula-
tions (e.g., CO2 emissions and fuel consumption, etc.) being univer-
sally enacted, automotive manufacturers have been investigating
effective measures to reduce fuel consumption in their vehicles
[1,2]. The development of highly efficient automobiles is limited
by CO2 emissions and fuel consumption. One feasible measure is
to reduce the weight of automobile bodies without influencing
the mechanical properties of the automotive bodies by replacing
traditional steel materials with lightweight structural materials
[1]. As a kind of potential lightweight structural material, Mg alloys
have notable properties, e.g., high specific strength, low density,
and high specific stiffness. Thus, Mg alloys have become attractive
candidates in the aerospace and automotive industries, where a
light weight is a particularly important parameter [3,4]. Neverthe-
less, basal-textured Mg alloy sheets, such as AZ31B, display extre-
mely low plastic deformation ability at ambient temperatures
because of their hexagonal close-packed (HCP) structure and their
limited number of active slip systems [5,6]. These microstructural
characteristics lead to a limited number of achievable forming
⇑ Corresponding author at: School of Automation, Xi’an University of Posts &
Telecommunications, No. 618, West Chang’an Avenue, Chang’an District, Xi’an
710121, PR China.
E-mail address: ucaszhangsan@163.com (S. Zhang).
angles and a low forming accuracy [7,8]. To overcome these chal-
lenges, a few forming processes have been conducted to address
those issues. An effective solution is to employ a forming process
at high temperatures [9,10]. Therefore, it is vital to find an alterna-
tive advanced manufacturing technology that can nicely improve
the formability and forming accuracy of Mg alloy sheets by elevat-
ing the forming temperatures at a low cost and high efficiency.
Over the past decades, warm incremental sheet forming (WISF)
has received attention for Mg alloy sheet forming [11,12]. It is an
advanced manufacturing technique, where a slice of metal sheet
is formed into a qualified product though a sequence of minute
and incremental localized plastic deformations, and thus, it
belongs to the category of incremental forming [13–15]. It is also
a main research direction for forming hard-to-form materials, such
as Mg alloys and Al alloys. At present, a great number of heating
strategies for the WISF have been broadly developed from experi-
mental to theoretical studies on the basis of the incremental sheet
forming (ISF) methods in previously published literature [16–18].
Therefore, it is difficult to perform a vast review of the literature
on the topic in this short introduction. A detailed review of the the-
oretical and experimental studies conducted on the heating strate-
gies of the WISF is also presented in [19] and [20]. For brevity, only
a few typical approaches are presented here. From an energetic
standpoint, heating strategies for the WISF process can be basically
divided into two categories: heating with energy transformation
and heating with energy transfer.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2020.107673
0263-2241/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 S. Zhang et al. / Measurement 157 (2020) 107673
Energy transformation: Lasers, as excellent assisted heating
sources, have attracted attention from the ISF scholars and techni-
cians [21,22]. Duflou et al. presented a laser-assisted single point
incremental forming (LASPIF) approach, and experimental results
have shown that a processing variant brings about reduced form-
ing forces, improved forming accuracy and increased forming abil-
ity for a diverse range of materials; moreover, residual stresses can
also be dramatically reduced through a dynamic heating system
[23]. Following a similar idea, a large amount of research on the
forming ability and accuracy improvement of hard-to-form metal-
lic sheets formed by the LASPIF has been conducted [24,25].
Although the method has an easily controllable effect on the tem-
perature of the local deformation zone around the tool, its hard-
ware cost is extremely high; furthermore, it is more difficult to
determine optimum process parameters for the LASPIF compared
to the use of global heating because the number of variables is
too large. Kim et al. proposed a local heating appliance for the
ISF [4]. Several moveable halogen bulbs with forming tools were
designed to elevate the forming temperature of an AZ31 Mg alloy
sheet in their appliance. The corresponding results indicated that
the crack height increased with increasing temperature, and the
formability was elevated at different temperatures. Although the
approach has a low hardware cost, the heating temperature is lim-
ited to 180 °C, which is too low to form hard-to-form metal mate-
rials. Al-Obaidi et al. introduced an induction heating apparatus
keeping pace with the tool motion during the forming process
[1]. Experimental results revealed that it provided local heating
of the advanced high strength steel (AHSS) sheet with tempera-
tures of up to 850 °C; moreover, it enabled improved formability
and forming forces and reduced the remaining stresses. However,
the hardware cost is high compared to halogen lamp method,
and the method deteriorated the surface quality due to the heating
temperature being too high to control. G. Fan and A. Ghiotti et al.
proposed a direct electric hot incremental forming (EHIF) method
using electrical current for forming an AZ31 Mg alloy sheet in an
ISF process [26,27]. Following in their footsteps, Ambrogio et al.
further studied the influence of electric current supplementation
on the formability and obtained a higher formability compared
to that when cold forming [28]. Although the EHIF technique
appears easy and inexpensive to conduct, the method may burn
out the metal sheet due to a local accumulation of heat at the
sheet-tool contact area. An indirect electric heating incremental
forming apparatus for forming an AZ31 Mg alloy sheet in an ISF
process was proposed by Ambrogio and Filice [29]. A heater ban-
dage was fixed on the external surface of a clamp. Compared with
a local heating approach, the apparatus is able to globally heat the
whole sheet during the forming process at low cost, but the device
structure and maintenance is complicated because it requires a
special cooler configuration. Subsequently, several variants of elec-
trically assisted incremental sheet forming approaches have been
continuously proposed [16,30].
Energy transfer: Ji and Park made full use of heat convection to
heat AZ31 Mg alloy sheets by using hot air blowers in an ISF pro-
cess [31]. Different forming temperatures were tested, and the
experimental results revealed that the forming limit of AZ31B Mg
alloys increased as the forming temperature was elevated; addi-
tionally, a marked increase in formability was achieved above
150 °C. Nevertheless, the results also demonstrated that it was
overwhelmingly difficult to accurately control the forming temper-
ature by using hot air blowers as the heat source, and the heating
was too low to form AZ31 Mg alloys. To overcome the basic draw-
backs of nonuniform heating in the ISF process, Galdos et al.
offered an alternative strategy to the global heating of an AZ31B
Mg alloy sheet via adopting a hot fluid as a heating source [32].
The sheet metal could be heated indirectly using convection in
hot fluid media, and the temperature of the heated media could
be accurately and easily controlled through a proportion-
integral-derivative temperature control system. Experimental
results have shown that a temperature of approximately 300 °C
can be obtained using this heating approach, but the structure of
the device in this method is awfully complicated because it
requires a special convection heat transfer system.
Considering the limitations and drawbacks mentioned above,
an innovative WISF approach assisted with oil bath heating is pro-
posed in the present paper. To the best of our knowledge, the pro-
posed approach has an extremely simple apparatus structure and
is quite economical, yet experimental investigations on the
approach are particularly rare all over the world. Therefore, one
of the main objectives of the present paper is to explore an innova-
tive and simple experimental setup to form Mg alloy sheets or
other hard-to-form metallic materials. Then, to evaluate and opti-
mize the process capabilities of the oil bath heating strategy, an
experimental investigation while forming Mg alloys, i.e., AZ31B
sheets, is carried out according to the design of the experiment
(DOE). Moreover, the influences of processing factors, such as
forming temperature, step depths, sheet thicknesses, and tool
diameters, on formability are discussed based on an analysis of
variance (ANOVA) and a response surface methodology (RSM),
and an empirical correlation is well defined through a quadratic
model, as it includes all the significant factors affecting formability.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: In Section 2,
we present the definition, experimental principle and measure-
ment method of formability for warm incremental sheet forming.
Then, Section 3 mainly contains the experimental setup, procedure
and evaluation methodology. Next, our experimental results and
discussion and experimental verifications and optimizations are
described in Section 4. Finally, we summarize our main conclu-
sions and outlook in Section 5.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Forming ability of incremental sheet forming
To introduce our proposed WISF strategy assisted with oil bath
heating more effectively and clearly, we have first provided a com-
plete and detailed research flowchart of the current work, as illus-
trated in Fig. 1.
Because the ISF is accomplished with highly localized plastic
deformation and the forming ability is far greater than that of con-
ventional forming processes, e.g., stamping, forging and deep
drawing, the forming limits of the conventional forming processes
as a formability index (e.g., forming limit diagram, FLD) are not
suitable for the ISF. In numerous studies, the maximum forming
angle (umax), which is the inclined angle between the horizontal
plane and the deformed sheet [33], can be considered a formability
index because it has close links with a sinusoidal law [34], which is
extensively used to evaluate the thickness distribution as a plane
strain model [35]. The shearing and stretching of the metal sheet
in the ISF process can induce thinning and cause a fracture, and
the final thickness of the sheet can be approximated through a
sinusoidal law, as demonstrated in Eq. (1) and Fig. 1 (a). Therefore,
the umax is also used as an index to estimate the feasibility of the oil
bath heating-assisted incremental sheet forming process.
hf ¼ hi sinð90  uÞ ¼ hi cosðuÞ ð1Þ
where hf is the final sheet thickness, hi is the initial sheet thickness
and u is the instantaneous forming angle. The equation neglects all
the other processing parameters and conditions, such as step depth,
spindle speed, tool path, feed rate, tool diameter, and lubrication
condition, for the approximate evaluation of final thickness, and
 S. Zhang et al. / Measurement 157 (2020) 107673 3

Study objective: evaluation and optimization

on the formability of an AZ31B Mg alloy
during warm incremental sheet forming

Formability of the WISF: definition,

experimental principle and measurement method

Experimental strategy: considered factors

(Forming temperature, Step depth, Tool diameter
and Sheet thickness)

Experimental Experimental set-up: Experimental Experimental

material: AZ31B WISF with oil bath techniques: model: truncated
Mg alloys heating device Box-Behnken design cone

Experimental results: the maximum forming

angle (φmax)

Evaluation and optimization: ANOVA, RSM,

regression models

Evaluation results: effects of independent

parameters and interaction on the formability

Optimization and experimental verification

Conclusions and outlooks

Fig. 1. Detailed flowchart of the present research.

the equation also implies that a larger forming angle represents a Fig. 2 A schematic diagram of the experimental principle and
thinner final sheet. tool path: (a) the geometric details of the experimental principle
and (b) the desired geometric dimensions for forming and a spiral
2.2. Experimental principle and measurement method tool path to test the formability of the truncated cones.

To simplify the experiment, a varying wall angle truncated cone

3. Experimental setup and procedure
test is used to perform the experiments because of its homoge-
neous geometric structure with a symmetrical cross-section. A
In this section, the sheet metal material, its chemical composi-
forming angle (u) of one point P (x, y) is defined as the included
tions and the machine tool used along with their experimental set-
angle between the horizontal plane and the tangent of the point
ups are described. In addition, the adopted analytical
on a deformed contour, as illustrated in Fig. 2 (a). The radius of
methodologies are presented in detail.
the circle generatrix (R) of the forming part is a predefined param-
eter. The cracked heights (H) in the ISF processing are measured
and recorded to calculate the forming angle according to a simple 3.1. Experimental materials
geometric relation. The forming angle (u) of the cracked location P
(xc, yc) is considered the umax, and each average cracked depth cor- The selected material in the present investigation was AZ31B
responds to a distinct the umax, as demonstrated in Eq. (2). It is Mg alloys due to their frequent and heavy applications in sheet
found that the u is the maximum on the bottom and the minimum metal forming in industry, and blanks with a square size of
on the top of the forming part. 150 mm  150 mm were prepared for the WISF experiments and
the desired geometric dimensions, as illustrated in Fig. 1(b). In
umax ¼ arcosðH=RÞ ð2Þ
addition, the AZ31B material has a strong basal texture, and its
4 S. Zhang et al. / Measurement 157 (2020) 107673

Fig. 2. A schematic diagram of the experimental principle and tool path: (a) the geometric details of the experimental principle and (b) the desired geometric dimensions for
forming and a spiral tool path to test the formability of the truncated cones.

chemical composition has been tested and is listed in Table 1.
Hemispherical ended and tungsten-cobalt cemented carbide form-
ing tools were used to form the material in this experimental work.
3.2. Experimental setup and procedure
A conventional three-axis vertical milling machine (Model
GD650, supplied by Nanjing Gaochuan Sikai Numerical Control
Equipment Manufacturing Co., Ltd.) was used for executing the
new WISF tests, as demonstrated in Fig. 3(a). A special, homemade,
blank-holding fixture with an oil bath apparatus was fabricated to
conduct the global oil bath heating of the metal sheet, as demon-
strated in Fig. 3(b). It was conducted similar to a typical oil bath
heating method, and the proposed fixture is a key part of this work.
A schematic diagram of the special fixture with an oil bath is
systematically illustrated in Fig. 4. A square metal container was
used as a basic framework, and the heating belt and thermal insu-
lating band were used to cover the interior and exterior walls of
the metal container to provide an easy and hard path for heat con-
duction, respectively. The hydraulic oil stored in the container was
heated through an electric heating device (omitted from the fig-
ure); the oil bath temperature could be measured through four
thermocouples, which were uniformly installed in the container
wall. The electric heating device and thermocouples made up a
self-adapted closed-loop temperature control system through a
proportion-integration-differentiation controller. Due to a spatial
reduction during the forming process, to prevent excessive pres-
sure in the container, a pressure relief valve (omitted from the fig-
ure) was installed in the container wall through a connector. An
initial sheet was mounted between the upper clamp and lower
clamp through eight screw bolts and to prevent liquid from leaking
the containers, seals were mounted between the container and
lower clamp. The heat brought forth from the oil bath allowed
the temperature of the sheet to be formed to globally increase, thus
increasing the forming ability of the metal blanks. The experimen-
tal setup allowed for easy control of the temperature and for the
determination of optimum process parameters due to having just
one temperature parameter. Moreover, to ensure temperature
homogenization of the metal sheet, the metal blanks used for
forming were also preheated at a nominal temperature for five
minutes in order. The preliminary test showed that the maximum
reachable temperature of the developed oil bath heating device
was up to 300 °C.
3.3. Tool path description
The executed tests were truncated cones with a variable wall
angle and an outer diameter of 80.0 mm. A spiral tool path with

Table 1
Main chemical compositions of the AZ31B Mg alloy sheet (wt%).

Element Al Zn Mn Si Fe Ca Cu Bi Mg
wt% 2.5–3.5 0.6–1.4 0.2–1.0 <0.1 <0.005 <0.04 <0.05 <0.005 Bal.

Relief valve Forming tool

Hydraulic oil

Heating device

Thermocouple Thermocouple

(a) (b)
Fig. 3. Photographs of the machining tool (a) and the experimental setup (b) for warm incremental sheet forming assisted with oil bath heating.
 S. Zhang et al. / Measurement 157 (2020) 107673
Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup used to investigate the forming ability of the WISF assisted with oil bath heating (1-Upper clamp; 2-Lower clamp; 3-
Initial sheet; 4-Intermediate sheet; 5-Finial sheet; 6-Forming tool; 7-Seal; 8-Electric heating connection; 9-Metal container; 10-Heating material; 11-Hydraulic oil; 12-Relief
valve connector; 13-Insulting material; and 14-Thermocouple).
a constant step depth per revolution was adopted in the forming
strategy. The spiral tool path was continuous with an incremental
descent of the tool distributed over the entire surface of a part,
which defined the formed geometric features, as illustrated in
Fig. 2(b). Its advantage was that no marks occurred at the step-
down. The following process factors, i.e., feed rate 100 mm/min
and spindle speed 3000 rpm, were kept constant and other forming
process parameters were recorded (i.e., forming temperature,
forming angle, step depth, sheet thickness, and tool diameter) for
each designated experimental run. The above values are listed in
Table 3. The tool path data required to form parts with different
geometries were extracted using Unigraphics NX 10.0 software.
Each experimental run was repeated twice to demonstrate good
repeatability of the results. To minimize the frictional force
between the sheet surface and tooltip during the forming process
and reduce the temperature inhomogeneity of the contact area, a
hydraulic oil lubricant was applied to the blank sheet. In addition,
the lubricant also enhanced the functionality of the forming pro-
cess, e.g., cooling, surface quality, and tool life.
3.4. Experimental work plan and evaluation methods
To further evaluate the influence of the processing parameters,
DOE including ANOVA and RSM were employed in the current
work [36,37]. The DOE enabled the researcher to decide the opti-
mum number of experiments and to examine the effect of process
factors on interesting objectives [38]. The DOE had a remarkable
effect on the accuracy and cost of the experiments [39]. Therefore,
it was an effective technical means to evaluate the most influential
processing parameters with a minimum number of experiments
and extensively used RSM for more than 3 factors. The RSM as an
empirical method was employed to optimize the internal correla-
tions of process factors and to develop a regression model that
could approximately describe and predict the whole process.
Because more processing factors were involved in the WISF, a
Box-Behnken design (BBD) with a single block was chosen as the
test method. It was used to investigate the effect of the forming
temperature, initial sheet thickness, tool diameter and step depth
on the formability of a metal sheet in an oil bath heating-
assisted WISF. This design method was extremely economical
Table 2
Processing factors and their respective levels.
Levels Forming temperature (t/°C) A
Low (1) 150
Middle (0) 200
High (+1) 250
5
when the number of factors was more than four. In the design,
each factor was varied over three different levels, which recom-
mended a total of 29 experimental runs with different combina-
tions of the process factors. The process factors and respective
values of the levels in the BBD method are summarized in Table 2.
Although the maximum reachable temperature (umax) of the devel-
oped approach was up to 300 °C, we chose a forming temperature
of 250 °C as the high level of the BBD in the present paper because
such a high temperature from an oil bath heating device was suf-
ficient for forming magnesium or aluminum alloys [29,40,41].
4. Experimental results and discussion
In this section, experimental results and the availability of the
WISF assisted with oil bath heating are presented and evaluated.
In particular, the effects of the considered parameters on the
formability are presented and discussed in detail. Moreover,
regressive models for predicting the formability are established,
and the optimized experimental parameter settings for the desired
response during the processes are also yielded through Design
Expert 10 trial software.
4.1. Experimental results of the Box-Behnken design
The experiments were carried out as per the run order of the
design plan in the oil bath heating-assisted incremental forming
process, as presented in Table 3. A series of experimental results
for different process variables (A, B, C, and D) and the correspond-
ing response value (umax) are noted, as illustrated in Table 3. In
light of the experimental results, further studies are conducted to
explore the effect of each factor on the response. On the existing
basis, mathematical relations between the response and the con-
sidered parameters are fitted using the RSM, and a quadratic model
is adopted in the present investigation, as illustrated in Eq. (3):
X X X
y ¼ b0 þ bi xi þ bij xi xj þ bii x2i þ e ð3Þ
where y is the response value; xi and xj are the considered process-
ing factors, which control the independent WISF processing param-
eter; bi is the coefficient of the linear term; bij is the coefficient of
Step depth (z/mm) B Tool diameter (d/mm) C Sheet thickness (h/mm) D
0.2 8 0.8
0.4 10 1.0
0.6 12 1.2
6 S. Zhang et al. / Measurement 157 (2020) 107673

Table 3 ing factor. P < 0.005 indicates that the proposed mathematical
Design matrix and experimental results. model is highly significant. The influences of independent process-
Std Run Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Response value ing parameters, their interactions and quadratic terms on the
A: t/°C B: z/mm C: d/mm D: h/mm umax/° response variable are listed in Table 4. All significant terms
11 1 150 0.4 10 1.2 57.23 (P < 0.5%) for a 95% confidence level are marked in a bold, and black
24 2 200 0.6 10 1.2 64.14 font. It is extremely obvious from the ANOVA results that A, B, D,
23 3 200 0.2 10 1.2 63.57 AC, BD and CD are the most significant model terms, while C, AB,
15 4 200 0.2 12 1.0 61.37
3 5 150 0.6 10 1.0 58.84
BC, AD, A2, B2, C2 and D2 are nonsignificant. Thus, nonsignificant
25 6 200 0.4 10 1.0 61.14 terms are ruled out from the considered terms to reduce process
19 7 150 0.4 12 1.0 58.04 variability, and the C term is retained due to hierarchical correla-
21 8 200 0.2 10 0.8 61.88 tion in the model. Finally, quadratic regression models of the umax
6 9 200 0.4 12 0.8 59.36
according to the coded and actual factors are given in Eqs. (4) and
22 10 200 0.6 10 0.8 55.73
2 11 250 0.2 10 1.0 63.88 (5), respectively:
16 12 200 0.6 12 1.0 60.45
13 13 200 0.2 8 1.0 64.58 umax ð Þ ¼ 61:64 þ 1:32  A  1:30  B  0:37  C þ 2:28  D
8 14 200 0.4 12 1.2 66.96
þ 1:23  AC þ 1:68  BD þ 1:67  CD ð4Þ
17 15 150 0.4 8 1.0 61.52
18 16 250 0.4 8 1.0 61.78
9 17 150 0.4 10 0.8 58.24 umax ð Þ ¼ 132:44  0:10  t  48:48  z  6:81  d þ 47:08  h
20 18 250 0.4 12 1.0 63.21
29 19 200 0.4 10 1.0 61.14 þ 0:01  t  d þ 42:00  z  h þ 4:17  d  h ð5Þ
27 20 200 0.4 10 1.0 61.14
10 21 250 0.4 10 0.8 61.48 The correctness of the above two quadratic regression models is
4 22 250 0.6 10 1.0 61.28 examined by a coefficient of determination (R2). If the number of
7 23 200 0.4 8 1.2 63.20
independent factors is large, it is more appropriate to consider a
12 24 250 0.4 10 1.2 65.24
1 25 150 0.2 10 1.0 61.18 modified version R2 (adj.) of R2. The R2 (pred.) of 0.7170 is in
26 26 200 0.4 10 1.0 61.14 rational agreement with the R2 (adj.) of 0.8556. This indicates good
5 27 200 0.4 8 0.8 62.27 predictability of Eqs. (4) and (5). In addition, they can be reliably
28 28 200 0.4 10 1.0 61.14 applied to guide the design space.
14 29 200 0.6 8 1.0 60.47
The difference between the predicted and actual responses for
each experimental run can be represented by residuals. To further
check the adequacy of the above regression models, a plot of the
the quadratic term; and e is the experimental error attributed to the normal probability of residuals for umax data is demonstrated in
response. Fig. 5(a), and a plot of predicted vs. actual responses is illustrated
in Fig. 5(b). The distribution of the points is approximately linear,
which indicates that the experimental data are reliable without
4.2. The analysis of variance of the experimental results
significant deviation. This also proves the credibility of the ANOVA
and the reliability of the above quadratic regression models.
An ANOVA is exceedingly valuable in selecting significant fac-
tors from the considered processing variables; thus, it is employed
to estimate the fitness of the proposed empirical correction and to 4.3. Influence of process parameters on the formability
determine the significance of each processing parameter to output
response values. In the ANOVA, the statistical significance levels of Herein, we systematically observe the effects of the indepen-
each coefficient in the empirical regression model are dependent dent and controllable factors on the response to analyze where
mainly on the ‘‘F-value” and ‘‘P-value”. The ‘‘F-value” and the ‘‘P- the effects are derived from. The effects of the four considered fac-
value” of a considered factor implies significance of a correspond- tors on the formability are illustrated in Fig. 6.

Table 4
ANOVA results for the quadratic model of the maximum forming angle quadratic model.

Source Sum of squares df Mean square F-value P-value

Model 93.76 14 10.27 23.92 < 0.0001
A-Forming temp. 20.86 1 20.86 48.58 < 0.0001
B-Step depth 20.15 1 20.15 46.93 < 0.0001
C-Tool diameter 1.64 1 1.64 3.81 0.0713
D-Sheet thick. 12.47 1 12.47 45.50 < 0.0001
AB 0.017 1 0.017 0.039 0.8456
AC 6.03 1 6.03 14.04 0.0022
AD 0.38 1 0.38 0.88 0.3639
BC 2.54 1 2.54 5.93 0.0289
BD 11.29 1 11.29 26.29 0.0002
CD 11.12 1 11.12 25.90 0.0002
A2 0.037 1 0.037 0.087 0.7725
B2 0.14 1 0.14 0.32 0.5830
C2 2.22 1 2.22 5.18 0.0391
D2 4.65 1 4.65 10.83 0.0054
Residual 6.01 14 0.43 — —
Lack of fit 6.01 10 0.60 — —
Pure error 0.000 4 0.000 — —
Total 99.77 28 — — —
R2 = 0.9599 R2adjusted = 0.9197 — R2predicted = 0.7688 — —
 S. Zhang et al. / Measurement 157 (2020) 107673 7

Fig. 5. Diagnostic plots of residuals for the maximum forming angle data: (a) normal probability plot of residuals for the response and the (b) plot of predicted vs. actual
responses.

Fig. 6. Main effect plots of the four influential factors on formability.

8 S. Zhang et al. / Measurement 157 (2020) 107673
4.3.1. Effects of the considered factors
Forming temperature: Owing to an HCP structure and a lim-
ited number of active slip systems in basal-textured Mg alloy
sheets, only three slip systems on the {0 0 0 1} basal plan are acti-
vated at ambient temperatures, which is far below the minimum
requirement of five independent slip systems in polycrystalline
homogeneous deformation; thus, it exhibits extremely low plastic
formability at room temperature. However, with increasing tem-
perature, the activation of nonbasal slip systems and the occur-
rence of dynamic recrystallization contribute to an increased
ductility of the Mg alloy, which brings about an easy flow of mate-
rial toward the vicinity of the tooltip and consequently sharply
improves the localized plastic deformation ability of the material.
Thus, the umax in the ISF linearly increases with a global tempera-
ture increase from 150 °C to 250 °C, as illustrated in Fig. 6(a). This
consequence is also in good agreement with previous studies, as
reported by [2] and [4]. It can also be inferred that an incremental
rate of 0.0275°/°C will be observed in terms of actual factors under
the current conditions. Therefore, increased formability is obtained
when using higher temperatures through oil bath heating, and the
forming temperature has the most significant influence on the
umax. Moreover, the umax is up to 67° in the present work.
Step depth: The value of the umax has a nearly linear decrease
with an increase in the step depth, as illustrated in Fig. 6(b). At a
high step depth value, the deformation of the sheet metal per unit
area is large; thus, a large equivalent strain and thinning rate
results in easier cracking during the WISF assisted with oil bath
heating. Moreover, the deformation is more than just a localized
behavior, and too much stress on the sheets leads to early failure
of the formed parts. Therefore, an increased formability is obtained
when using a small step depth. Although the small step depth may
be able to increase the forming ability during the incremental
forming process, it greatly increases the forming time, also. There-
fore, to improve the processing efficiency and meet various pro-
cessing conditions and requirements, a small step depth can be
selected in the case of forming parts with a small curvature; other-
wise, a large step depth can be selected in the case of a large
curvature.
Tool diameter: The value of the umax is not sensitive to the vari-
ance in tool diameter; it slightly decreases and then increases in a
quadratic form with an increase in tool diameter, as illustrated in
Fig. 6(c). Theoretically, with a large tool diameter, the strains are
small, thus, the low thinning rate leads to an increase in umax. How-
ever, these effects are not numerically significant due to a small
variation in tool diameter. In other words, the tool diameter in a
range of 8.0–12 mm has little effect on the umax. To a certain
degree, the larger the tool diameter is, the larger the contact area
between the tooltip and the sheet metal, which improves the
well-distributed local stress and reduces the stress concentration
of the sheet metal during the forming process. However, if the tool
diameter is too large, the contact area, friction resistance, forming
force and surface wear of the forming tool also increase accord-
ingly during the forming process, and it is difficult to form parts
with complex or small structures. Therefore, a principle of appro-
priateness should be adopted in the selection of tool diameter.
Sheet thickness: The effect of sheet thickness on the umax is
very significant, and the umax increases in a quadratic manner with
an increase in sheet thickness, as illustrated in Fig. 6(d). In other
words, by holding all the remaining process factors constant, a
1.2 mm thick sheet exhibits a umax that is higher than a 0.8 mm
sheet because a large sheet thickness prevents early cracks in the
metal sheet under the same processing requirements and experi-
mental conditions. However, except for decreasing the step depth
and feed rate, if the sheet thickness is too large, the friction resis-
tance, forming stress and surface wear of the forming tool also
increase correspondingly during the forming process, which more
easily decrease processing efficiency and increase energy con-
sumption. Therefore, a principle of appropriateness should be
adopted in the selection of sheet thickness. However, in actual pro-
duction, the sheet thickness is usually predefined.
4.3.2. Response surface results and interaction effects analysis
In a response surface analysis, we can not only judge the inter-
action of two factors but also observe a change in trends. Here, the
effect of the following significant interaction terms in the quadratic
regression models on the formability of the AZ31B Mg alloy, such
as AC, BD and CD, are revealed. Each of them is obtained while
the other two considered processing parameters are held at a mid-
dle level.
AC interaction term: The change in the umax value because of a
combined effect between the forming temperature (A) and tool
diameter (C) is represented in a three-dimensional response sur-
face graph and contour plot, as depicted in Fig. 7(a) and (b). We
can observe that the change trend of the umax diverges from the
minimal value, yet the change rate with the forming temperature
(A) and tool diameter (C) is different in each direction, such as in
the directions marked ①–③. Moreover, the change rate is maximal
in the directions marked ①. The umax value has the closest relation
with the forming temperature (A) and tool diameter (C) in the
direction marked ②. The forming temperature (A) and tool diame-
ter (C) have the most and least influence on the umax in the direc-
tions marked ① and ③, respectively. In other words, the tool
diameter (C) contributes little to improving formability in the
direction marked ①, which is also in good agreement with the pre-
vious results. The umax value is increased by 8.5% from 58.78° to
63.77° when the forming temperature varies from 150 to 250 °C
at a tool diameter of 12 mm, and the maximal value of the umax
is acquired at a forming temperature of 250 °C and a tool diameter
of 12 mm. Moreover, it also reveals that the forming process may
be more sensitive to forming temperature than to tool diameter.
BD interaction term: The combined effect of sheet thickness
(D) and step depth (B) on the umax is illustrated in Fig. 7(c), (d).
We can find that the change trend of the umax decreases to the min-
imal value, yet the change rate with the sheet thickness (D) and
step depth (B) is different in each change direction, such as in
the directions marked ①–③; furthermore, the change rate is max-
imal in the directions marked ①. The umax value has the closest
relation with the sheet thickness (D) and step depth (B) in the
direction marked ②. The sheet thickness (D) and step depth (B)
contribute the most and least to the umax in the directions marked
① and ③, respectively. We also find that the step depth (B) has lit-
tle effect on the umax when the sheet thickness is large; the umax is
increased by less than 0.1% from 63.57° to 64.14° when the step
depth varies from 0.2 to 0.6 mm at a sheet thickness of 1.2 mm.
The maximal value of the umax is acquired at a step depth of
0.6 mm and a sheet thickness of 1.2 mm. Consequently, the inter-
action influence of the sheet thickness (D) and step depth (B) on
the umax is more complex than a monotonic correlation.
CD interaction term: The change in the umax value due to the
combined influence of the sheet thickness (D) and tool diameter
(C) is represented in a three-dimensional response surface graph
and contour plot, and each of them is obtained while the two other
factors (forming temperature and step depth) remain at an average
value, as depicted in Fig. 7(e) and (f). We find that the changes to
the umax are similar to the effect of sheet thickness (D) and step
depth (B), as demonstrated in Fig. 7(c) and (d). Thus, it is not
described to avoid repetition.
4.3.3. Experimental verification and optimization
To further verify the results obtained from the predictive model,
validation experiments were carried out, and the optimized pro-
cess parameters were used for verification experiments.
 S. Zhang et al. / Measurement 157 (2020) 107673 9

Forming angle (°)

12
64 59 63
1
63 1
62 11
2

C: Tool diameter (mm)

60
Forming angle (°)

61
60
10
59 3 61

58 62
9
2
12 250
3
11 230
210 8
10
190 150 170 190 210 230 250
C: T ool diam eter (m m ) 9 170 A: Form ing tem p. (C°)
8 150 A: Forming temp. (C°)

(a) φmax=f (A, C) =f (t, d) (b) φmax=f (A, C) =f (t, d)

Forming angle (°)
1.2
66
1 1
64
2 1.1

D: Sheet Thickness (mm)

62
Forming angle (°)

62
60 2
1.0
58
3
60
56
0.9

3 58
1.2 0.6
1.1 0.5
0.8
1.0 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
D: Sheet Thickness (mm)0.9 0.3 B: Step depth (mm)
B: Step depth (mm)
0.8 0.2
(c) φmax=f (B, D) =f (z, h) (d) φmax=f (B, D) =f (z, h)
Forming angle (°)
1.2
68 64
1
66
1.1
1
D: Sheet Thickness (mm)

64 62
2
Forming angle (°)

62
1.0
2
60

58
60
3 0.9

3
1.2 12 62
1.1 11 0.8
1.0 10 8 9 10 11 12
D: Sheet Thickness (mm)0.9 9 C: Tool diameter (mm)
C: Tool diameter (mm)
0.8 8
(e) φmax=f (C, D) =f (d, h) (f) φmax=f (C, D) =f (d, h)
Fig. 7. Three-dimensional response surfaces and contour plots of interaction on formability: (a, b) the response surfaces and contour plot of forming temperature (A) and tool
diameter (C); (c, d) the response surfaces and contour plot of step depth (B)and sheet thickness (D); and (e, f) the response surfaces and contour plot of tool diameter (C) and
sheet thickness (D).

Optimization of the umax using the RSM is conducted in Design and each parameter shares identical importance in the current
Expert 10 trial software. To acquire the umax, each considered work. However, in practical production, the sheet thickness is usu-
parameter is set to a range from a low to high level, as illustrated ally predefined, and then the extra constraint for optimization is
in the Table 2. The range of the optimal parameter umax is 55–70°, equal to 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2 mm in sheet thickness. The experimental
10 S. Zhang et al. / Measurement 157 (2020) 107673
Table 5
Verification experiments and results for oil bath heating-assisted warm ISF.
No. A-Forming temp. B-Step depth C-Tool diameter
1 250 0.2 8 0.8
2 250 0.2 12
3 250 0.6 12
runs and verification results are illustrated in Table 5. The experi-
ments are conducted within a range of independent processing fac-
tors, and the relative error is obtained by comparing the
experimental results with the predicted values. It has been discov-
ered that the mean error of the umax is 3.71% in absolute value. The
prediction error is not more than 5% and is within an acceptable
range. The generated regression model for the umax can be adopted
to successfully predict the value of the umax for a stochastic combi-
nation of step depth, forming temperature, sheet thickness, and
tool diameter values within the range of the performed experi-
ments. The repeatability and reliability of the empirical correction
to predict umax while forming AZ31B Mg alloy sheets are very obvi-
ous. In addition, without extra constraints on the sheet thickness,
the combination of processing parameters for the optimized value
of the umax is No. 3 in the Table 5.
5. Conclusions and outlook
With respect to the work reported in the current paper, a new
oil bath heating-assisted WISF approach and devices were intro-
duced and developed, and experimental investigations were con-
ducted to assess the forming ability of an AZ31B Mg alloys.
Experimental runs were conducted in term of a Box-Behnken
design, and then the effects of the considered parameters on
formability were discussed based on RSM and ANOVA. The follow-
ing conclusions were drawn from the current work.
(i) An innovative WISF approach and devices with global heat-
ing, by using an oil bath setup as a heat source, is able to
form Mg alloy sheets or other hard-to-form metal materials,
such as Al alloys.
(ii) The most influential factor affecting the formability is the
forming temperature, followed by the step depth and sheet
thickness. The tool diameter is a nonsignificant factor.
(iii) The optimized results indicate that the maximal formability
of 68.144° is acquired at a forming temperature of 250 °C,
step depth of 0.6 mm, sheet thickness of 1.2 mm and tool
diameter of 12 mm while forming an AZ31B Mg alloy sheet.
(iv) The verification experiment indicates that the quadratic
regression model can satisfactorily estimate the correlation
between the formability and considered processing parame-
ters in a range of less than ±5%.
Indeed, the proposed WISF assisted with oil bath heating strat-
egy also has other unknowns (the effect of other factors, e.g., tool
path, spindle speed, and feed rate, on the formability) and limits
(the maximum reachable forming temperature is too low to form
other hard-to-form metal materials, e.g., Ti alloys). Moreover, the
qualities of the formed product, such as scale-up, roughness, sheet
thinning and springback, may be more important for this innova-
tive approach. However, all of these details are outside the scope
of this article and will require further investigation in future work.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
San Zhang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Writing - original draft. G.H. Tang: Supervision,
Writing - review & editing, Funding acquisition. Wenqing Wang:
D-Sheet thickness Pre. results Exp. results Relative error (%)
64.463 65.88 2.15
1.0 65.114 63.34 +2.80
1.2 68.144 65.71 +3.71
Resources, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Xiangkui
Jiang: Data curation, Validation, Visualization.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work was financially supported by the Department of
Science & Technology of Shaanxi Province [Grant Number
2019GY-118]; the Bureau of Science & Technology of TaiZhou City
[Grant Number 1701gy27]; the MOE Key Laboratory of the
Thermo-Fluid Science & Engineering [Grant Number
KLTFSE2018KF03]; the Teaching Reform Project of Xi’an University
of Posts & Telecommunications [Grant Number JGZ201816]; and
theNational Experimental Teaching Demonstration Center of Infor-
mation and Control Engineering of Xi’an University of Technology
[Grant Number 2019ICYB11].
References
[1] A. Al-Obaidi, V. Kräusel, D. Landgrebe, Hot single-point incremental forming
assisted by induction heating, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 82 (2016) 1163–
1171.
[2] T.W. Wong, A. Hadadzadeh, M.A. Wells, High temperature deformation
behavior of extruded AZ31B magnesium alloy, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 251
(2017) 360–368.
[3] K.G. Balamurugan, K. Mahadevan, Investigation on the effects of process
parameters on the mechanical and corrosion behaviour of friction Stir-Claded
AZ31B magnesium alloy, Arabian J. Forence Eng. 40 (2015) 1647–1655.
[4] S.W. Kim, Y.S. Lee, S.H. Kang, J.H. Lee, Incremental forming of Mg alloy sheet at
elevated temperatures, J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 21 (2007) 1518.
[5] J. Lee, H.J. Bong, Y.-S. Lee, D. Kim, M.-G. Lee, Pulsed electric current V-bending
springback of AZ31B magnesium alloy sheets, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 50 (2019)
2720–2731.
[6] N. Duc-Toan, S.H. Yang, J. Dong-Won, B. Tien-Long, K. Young-Suk, A study on
material modeling to predict spring-back in V-bending of AZ31 magnesium
alloy sheet at various temperatures, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 62 (2012) 551–
562.
[7] N.T. Nguyen, M.G. Lee, H.K. Ji, H.Y. Kim, A practical constitutive model for
AZ31B Mg alloy sheets with unusual stress-strain response, Finite Elem. Anal.
Des. 76 (2013) 39–49.
[8] J.R. Duflou, A.M. Habraken, C. Jian, R. Malhotra, M. Bambach, D. Adams, H.
Vanhove, A. Mohammadi, J. Jeswiet, Single point incremental forming: state-
of-the-art and prospects, Int. J. Mater. Form. (2017) 1–31.
[9] J. Yanagimoto, K. Oyamada, T. Nakagawa, Springback of high-strength steel
after hot and warm sheet formings, CIRP Ann. – Manuf. Technol. 54 (2005)
213–216.
[10] R. Neugebauer, T. Altan, M. Geiger, M. Kleiner, A. Sterzing, Sheet metal forming
at elevated temperatures, CIRP Ann. – Manuf. Technol. 55 (2006) 793–816.
[11] Y. Li, X. Chen, Z. Liu, S. Jie, F. Li, J. Li, G. Zhao, A review on the recent
development of incremental sheet-forming process, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. (2017) 1–24.
[12] T. Husmann, C.S. Magnus, Thermography in incremental forming processes at
elevated temperatures, Measurement 77 (2016) 16–28.
[13] T. Mcanulty, J. Jeswiet, M. Doolan, Formability in single point incremental
forming: a comparative analysis of the state of the art, CIRP J. Manuf. Sci.
Technol. 16 (2017) 43–54.
[14] D.Y. Yang, M. Bambach, J. Cao, J.R. Duflou, P. Groche, T. Kuboki, A. Sterzing, A.E.
Tekkaya, C.W. Lee, Flexibility in metal forming, CIRP Ann. 67 (2018) 743–765.
[15] Micari Jeswiet, Bramley Hirt, Duflou, Asymmetric single point incremental
forming of sheet metal, CIRP Ann. –Manuf. Technol. 54 (2005) 88–114.
[16] W. Bao, X. Chu, S. Lin, J. Gao, Experimental investigation on formability and
microstructure of AZ31B alloy in electropulse-assisted incremental forming,
Mater. Des. 87 (2015) 632–639.
 S. Zhang et al. / Measurement 157 (2020) 107673
[17] C. Zhen, F. Wang, W. Qu, Z. Zhang, J. Li, D. Jie, Microstructure and mechanical
properties of AZ80 magnesium alloy tube fabricated by hot flow forming,
Mater. Des. 67 (2015) 64–71.
[18] M.R. Jamli, N.M. Farid, The sustainability of neural network applications within
finite element analysis in sheet metal forming: a review, Measurement 138
(2019) 446–460.
[19] M. Tisza, General overview of sheet incremental forming, J. Achiev. Mater.
Manuf. Eng. 55 (2012) 113–119.
[20] Z. Liu, Heat-assisted incremental sheet forming: a state-of-the-art review, Int.
J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 98 (2018) 2987–3003.
[21] A. Göttmann, D. Bailly, G. Bergweiler, M. Bambach, J. Stollenwerk, G. Hirt,
P. Loosen, A novel approach for temperature control in ISF supported by
laser and resistance heating, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 67 (2013) 2195–
2205.
[22] R. Hino, K. Kawabata, F. Yoshida, Incremental forming with local heating by
laser irradiation for magnesium alloy sheet, Procedia Eng. 81 (2014) 2330–
2335.
[23] J.R. Duflou, B. Callebaut, J. Verbert, H.D. Baerdemaeker, Laser assisted
incremental forming: formability and accuracy improvement, CIRP Ann. –
Manuf. Technol. 56 (2007) 273–276.
[24] A. Mohammadi, H. Vanhove, A.V. Bael, M. Seefeldt, J.R. Duflou, Effect of laser
transformation hardening on the accuracy of SPIF formed parts, J. Manuf. Sci.
Eng. 139 (2017) 1–12.
[25] A. Mohammadi, H. Vanhove, A.V. Bael, J.R. Duflou, Towards accuracy
improvement in single point incremental forming of shallow parts formed
under laser assisted conditions, Int. J. Mater. Form. 9 (2016) 339–351.
[26] G. Fan, L. Gao, G. Hussain, Z. Wu, Electric hot incremental forming: a novel
technique, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf 48 (2008) 1688–1692.
[27] A. Ghiotti, S. Bruschi, A novel experimental set-up for warm incremental
forming of AZ31B magnesium alloy sheets, Steel Res. Int. 81 (2010) 950–953.
[28] G. Ambrogio, L. Filice, F. Gagliardi, Formability of lightweight alloys by hot
incremental sheet forming, Mater. Des. 34 (2012) 501–508.
[29] Filice Ambrogio, L.G. Manco, Warm incremental forming of magnesium alloy
AZ31, CIRP Ann. – Manuf. Technol. 57 (2008) 257–260.
11
[30] D.K. Xu, B. Lu, T.T. Cao, H. Zhang, J. Chen, H. Long, J. Cao, Enhancement of
process capabilities in electrically-assisted double sided incremental forming,
Mater. Des. 92 (2016) 268–280.
[31] Y.H. Ji, J.J. Park, Formability of magnesium AZ31 sheet in the incremental
forming at warm temperature, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 201 (2008) 354–358.
[32] L. Galdos, E. Sáenz de Argandoña, I. Ulacia, G. Arruebarrena, Warm incremental
forming of magnesium alloys using hot fluid as heating media, Key Eng. Mater.
504–506 (2012) 815–820.
[33] M. Otsu, Excellent formability of light metals sheets by friction stir
incremental forming, Key Eng. Mater. 716 (2016) 3–10.
[34] J.R. Duflou, J. Verbert, B. Belkassem, J. Gu, H. Sol, C. Henrard, A.M. Habraken,
Process window enhancement for single point incremental forming through
multi-step toolpaths, CIRP Ann. – Manuf. Technol. 57 (2008) 253–256.
[35] A. Mulay, S. Ben, S. Ismail, A. Kocanda, Experimental investigations into the
effects of SPIF forming conditions on surface roughness and formability by
design of experiments, J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 39 (2017) 1–14.
[36] Y. Li, H. Lu, W.J.T. Daniel, P.A. Meehan, Investigation and optimization of
deformation energy and geometric accuracy in the incremental sheet forming
process using response surface methodology, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 79
(2015) 2041–2055.
[37] A. Kumar, V. Gulati, Experimental investigation and optimization of surface
roughness in negative incremental forming, Measurement 131 (2019) 419–
430.
[38] K. Ajay, G. Vishal, Experimental investigation and optimization of surface
roughness in negative incremental forming, Measurement 131 (2019) 419–
430.
[39] H. Mostafanezhad, H.G. Menghari, S. Esmaeili, E.M. Shirkharkolaee,
Optimization of Two-point incremental forming process of AA1050 through
response surface methodology, Measurement 127 (2018) 21–28.
[40] K. Iwanaga, H. Tashiro, H. Okamoto, K. Shimizu, Improvement of formability
from room temperature to warm temperature in AZ-31 magnesium alloy, J.
Mater. Process. Technol. 155–156 (2004) 1313–1316.
[41] K.F. Zhang, D.L. Yin, D.Z. Wu, Formability of AZ31 magnesium alloy sheets at
warm working conditions, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf 46 (2006) 1276–1280.