Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

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

A review article on process parameters affecting Incremental Sheet

Forming (ISF)
Dharmin Patel a,⇑, Anishkumar Gandhi b
a
Gujarat Technological University, Gujarat, India
b
C K Pithawala College of Engineering and Technology, Surat, Gujarat, India

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

Article history: The design and fabrication processes involved in traditional sheet metal forming processes are typically
Available online xxxx expensive. Whereas Incremental Sheet Forming (ISF) is extremely adaptable towards traditional milling
kind of machinery and involves minimal utilization of complex tooling, forming presses, and dies along
Keywords: with lowering the cost of the process. In addition to that, it is very convenient to automate the process for
Accuracy and springback the wide scope of application. In the last two decades, comprehensive ISF research has led to substantial
ISF progress in basic understanding and the creation of new processing and tooling solutions. The current
Forming forces
review article seeks to present a thorough assessment of ISF processes’ current state-of-the-art along
Formability
Surface roughness
with the considerations on process parameters of the ISF and their effect on the ISF process, in terms
of their technical capability and limitations. ISF process parameters on forming forces, formability,
Springback, surface roughness, and accuracy, have been given specific attention. The article initially
explains the fundamental of the ISF process along with its attraction and limitation point-of-view.
Moreover, a brief classification of the ISF process is described following it. In addition, the critical aspects
such as forming forces, formability, Springback, accuracy, and surface roughness are explained consider-
ing the influence of process parameters over them.
Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 4th International Con-
ference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Nanotechnology.

1. Introduction
Conventional methods of sheet metal forming such as stamping,
stretch forming, etc. require specific instruments that are explicit
to the forming of the sheet metal part and are suited for mass pro-
duction only. These processes are expensive to implement for
batch production or an individual quantity. Nonetheless, ‘‘Incre-
mental Sheet Forming (ISF)”, which is suitable for single or batch
production, overcomes these limitations. ISF is a newly developed
sheet forming technique that is excellent for rapid prototyping and
batch production.
The procedure of the ISF involves the forming tool controlled by
the CNC machine. It will gradually form a flat metal sheet in the 3D
shape that has been designed in any 3D modelling software.
Throughout the procedure, only a small section of the product is
formed at a time, and the local area of deformation moves through
the entire product to achieve the appropriate geometry. By the uti-
lization of this process, a minimum of specialized tooling may be
⇑ Corresponding author.
used directly from CAD data. As a result, ISF is widely recognized
as a potential technique for forming over the traditional processes
like stamping and deep drawing for custom-made goods and batch
production [1,2].
In the year 1967, the technology of the ISF was protected
through a patent by [3], with rotational symmetric components
of aluminum evidenced to be viable by Kitazawa et al. [4]. Jeswiet
[5] and Filice et al. [6] subsequently performed an assessment of
the ability to use a regular CNC frying machine rather than a spe-
cially designed machine-tool device.
2. Attraction towards ISF and its limitations
2.1. Attraction
As a result of the following advantages, explained in this sec-
tion, Academia and industrialists are increasingly interested in
ISF technology.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.03.208
2214-7853/Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 4th International Conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Nanotechnology.

Please cite this article as: D. Patel and A. Gandhi, A review article on process parameters affecting Incremental Sheet Forming (ISF), Materials Today: Pro-
ceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.03.208
D. Patel and A. Gandhi Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

2.1.1. Improved formability

Incremental deformation of the material to the desired shape
achieves greater formability in the ISF. In Fig. 1, extensive test mea-
surements have revealed that the ISF shaping curve takes a nega-
tive pitch and it is far higher than traditional forming.

2.1.2. Lesser forming forces

The forming forces required are considerably decreased because
just a tiny section of the part is distorted at any given moment dur-
ing ISF. As a result, materials like plastic and wood can be utilized
to support the die. The forming capacity is substantially enhanced
in terms of sheet thickness and materials like ‘‘titanium and
aluminum”.

2.1.3. Less expensive die tooling

Subjected to the part’s shape, in ISF, it may be possible to use a Fig. 2. Various pyramid shapes from a single blank [8].
partial die or perhaps eliminate the die entirely. Fig. 2 depicts
AMINO Corporation [7] forming 6 different shapes from a single
blank. These shapes are made with a very simple die. There is only are caused by clamped and unclamped deviation due to various
1 base plate and 6 cylindrical posts in this set [8]. It is possible to reasons such as the effects of Springback and formation of residual
make the dies for a low cost out of wood or plastic. Furthermore, by stresses.
properly constructing tool paths, a generic forming tool in ISF
maybe build an endless number of 3D shapes. As shown in Fig. 3,
these forming tools are likewise relatively simple, with a variety
2.2.2. Surface-finish
of head designs. According to Dittrichetal, the exergy inputs of
Surface-finish is one of the factors that is regarded as a flaw in
ISF can be saved more than sixty-four percent when making fifty
the products made by ISF. The large-scale and the small-scale
box parts with AA6022 when compared to conventional stamping
waviness of the tool path represents the surface finish and the sur-
processes [10]. As a result, the cost of die tooling is substantially
face strains. The process parameters that impact the surface qual-
reduced.
ity can be regarded as the ‘‘diameter of the tool, the thickness of
Because of the benefits listed above, ISF is a tough impending
the sheet, etc.”.
challenger to traditional forming (sheet) processes. Although, it
has a few limitations that prevent it from being widely used in
industry, as shown below.
2.2.3. Efficiency of process
2.2. Limitation The time taken to finish the process is comparatively higher
than other processes due to the inherent incremental localized
2.2.1. Geometric accuracy deformation feature. Nonetheless, appropriate process settings
This aspect limits the most from the commercialization and may make the energy consumption more tempting under the influ-
technology advancement point of view. Geometric errors in ISF ence of working load and forming time.

Fig. 1. Limit curve (ISF) versus traditional forming processes.

2
D. Patel and A. Gandhi
Fig. 3. Shapes of forming tools [11].
3. Classification of ISF
ISF can be classified based on various perspectives, such as the
method of forming, part geometry, the path of forming, the tools
used, etc. As per the formation method, the usual classification is
‘‘single-point, two-point and hybrid processes”. One of the most
important processes is the ‘‘Single Point Incremental Forming
(SPIF)”, also called ‘‘negative incremental formation”. Whereas
‘‘Incremental two-point forming (TPIF)” is also known as ‘‘positive
incremental forming” [9].
With the geometry of the formed sheet, symmetrical and asym-
metrical incremental forming can be distinguished. Fig. 4 shows
certain basic types of incremental asymmetrical formation. This
figure comprises a different classification based on the tooling
device. This classification in some respects is closely related to
the method of forming. Single point incremental forming can
merely be done with a single tool (Fig. 4(a)) or with a so-called
counter tool without any die (usually called die less forming)
(Fig. 4(b)). The two-point incremental formation can also be per-
Fig. 4. ISF classification.
3
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
formed with a full die (Fig. 4(C)) or through a partial die (Fig. 4
(d)). Fig. 4 summarizes all these process variants.
However, the variant (c) of Fig. 4 cannot be considered an incre-
mental forming process when strictly emphasizing the original
term of incremental forming because the geometry of the part is
essentially determined by the whole die, although it has its incre-
mental in nature.
4. Formability
The formability of a forming sheet is generally defined as a
given metal’s ability to deform without specific types of failure.
The maximum angle defines SPIF’s formability and is calculated
by the unformed blank to the sine law, tf = ti sin(a/2), where ti is
the initial thickness, tf is the final thicknesses, and a is referred
as the angle of the semi cone, respectively [12].
Different types of studies have been carried out in the past years
to understand, evaluate, and positively enhance the formability of
the ISF process. The curves of fracture forming limits must be used
to characterize the increased formability in ISF as an alternative to
D. Patel and A. Gandhi
the FLCs (forming limit curves) for conventional forming processes.
Other formability indicators, such as fracture depth and maximum
forming angle, can also be used to evaluate maximum formability
in the ISF [13].
The deformation modes in SPIF are different from each other.
Some authors believe that deformation occurs due to shearing
[14] grounded on simulations and experiments, while others feel
it is due to stretching [15]. The formability of materials is described
by a forming limit diagram (FLD) in SPIF. To determine the propor-
tional stress before failure, the forming limit curve (FLC) is gener-
ally used, and it is dissimilar from the corresponding in
conventional forming [16].
4.1. Effects of process parameters on formability
Jeswiet et al. [17] examined 4 important parameters in the
formability of the process: ‘‘(a) metal board thickness, (b) vertical
step-down, (c) rotational and feed rate velocity, and (d) the form-
ing tool’s size”. The effect of the thickness of the sheet is generally
clarified by the sine law, where material thinning is linked towards
the angle of the forming wall. Formability is known to be affected
by the forming tool’s speed because the frictional conditions of the
tool sheet interface are directly affected.
As a result of the sheet strains’ concentration beneath the form-
ing tool, it was asserted that forming tools with smaller radii pro-
vided better formability. A larger tool radius is usually distributing
the strain over a wider area, thus reducing the formability. As far as
the size of the step-down is concerned, Ham and Jes wiet [17]
argued that step size has no important effect on their experimental
formability, the general view is that the formability is decreasing
by the step size [18]. However, Li et al. [19] experiments have
shown a stepping-down of 0.1–1 mm increases the formability.
The dissimilarities between this paper and previous publica-
tions can be attributed to two major factors. First, the scope of
the step-down is different. In [25] it was placed inside a minor
range between 0.1 and 1 mm, whereas in previously published
work it was applied to greater step-down dimensions (greater than
0.7 mm) [21,22]. Therefore, the formability can be improved when
the step down is increasing at minor values, and formerly
decreased once the value of step down is further increased. Second,
the forming tool used is larger in size (30 mm in diameter) than
most used. Because the sheet must be deformed to match the tool
surface, the tool radii have a significant impact on the local shear-
ing of the tool material. Nonetheless, further detailed studies are
important to explain the influence of step down and size of the tool
over formability.
The effects of wall angle, tool rotation, vertical step size, tool
diameter, and graft diameter were investigated for the maximum
strains of the formed specimen by Petek et al. [22]. Before the
forming process, the meshing circular grid was printed on the
specimen and then an optical contactless measurement system
measured the grid deformation. The deformations for the formed
part can be obtained with higher wall angles before cracking. Rota-
tion and lubrication of both tools have insignificant effects on the
maximum strains; However, by turning the shaping tool with
grease, the surface quality could be improved.
Hussain et al. [23] discovered that for the formation of ‘‘CP Ti
components”, it is recommended to use high-speed surface hard
steel (HSS) tools and molybdenum disulphide (MoS2) along with
petroleum jelly. Hussian [25] compared the composite sheet metal
roll-bound formability of ISF to stamped sheet processes and found
a 923% improvement rate of formability of ISF composite sheets
that is far greater than monolithic sheets (182–268%) [24].
Studies have been conducted to assess the effects of tempera-
ture on the formability of the materials. Duflou et al. used a
laser-based heating system in the moving contact zone between
4
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
the titanium TiAl6V4 and tool [35]. The results demonstrate that
laser-based heating increases the formability of the material. Ji
and Park [36] tried to use the incremental forming of magnesium
sheets in a warm state. The AZ31 sheet formability was increased
with magnesium alloy with a temperature increase between
20 °C and 250 °C. Fan et al. proposed using electric current to heat
hard forming sheet metal at the tool-blank interface for hot incre-
mental forming [37]. The hard-to-form sheet metal’s formability
was also enhanced when the electric current was increased.
Besides, yield strength was decreased in the contact zone of tool-
blank, thus enhancing magnesium alloy AZ31’s wall angle and
formability. Liu et al. presented a report on the ISF electricity-
assisted development of Titanium-Ti6Al4V plate using new forms
of ISF cooling channel tooling with better formability for this
‘‘hard-to-form material” [38].
In SPIF, the ‘‘maximum forming angle” is an important aspect to
evaluate the formability of the materials. To evaluate the impact of
forming parameters over aluminum AA3003 formability, Ham and
Jeswiet [39] introduced 2 designs of experiments. The experiment
demonstrated a small impact on the ‘‘maximum forming angle” of
1° of distance while material thickness, the diameter of the tool
and the contact among the tool size and material thickness had a
major influence on the ‘‘maximum wall angle”. The maximum
slope angle of pyramid and cone frustums was established by Min-
utolo et al. [40] in aluminum 7075T0 sheet forming. The maximum
angle of wall angle was evaluated in the practical testing program:
66° for a frustum cone, 63° for a frustum pyramid. The influence of
process variables on the ‘‘maximum wall angle” in a blank of
Al5052 is demonstrated by Bhattacharya et al. [41]. Analysis of
investigational results showed that the angle of forming was
reduced when the tool size was increased, the depth incremental
and blank spacing decreased, while the feed rate had no important
effect on the formable angle.
There is still a debatable parameter to influence incremental
depth. Ambrogio et al. [42] conducted theoretical research to
understand more closely the fundamental phenomena associated
with SPIF. The analysis showed that the tensile stresses on walls
and tool-contact zone of constituent portion are negative stress
distributions. With decreased depth, these stresses decrease. Two
new experimental designs in SPIF were studied by Ham et al.
[39] on the formability of the AA3003 sheets and discovered the
significance of incremental depth over formability, improving its
likelihood of forming by reducing the step size. The ISF process
was studied by Kim et al. [43], using a FE simulation and Taguchi
method to create the human face. The FEM method was imple-
mented and evaluated based on the traditional cold-rolled steel
strain and stress values. The down step of the tool was identified
as an important factor in formability improvement based on FE
results based on the Taguchi array.
With both rotational speed and feed rate, which are important
SPIF factors, forming speed has a significant impact on sheet
formability. The friction heat is directly proportional to the relative
movement of the tool and the blank. Although, because of heating
effects, formability increases with forming speed. It is usually
believed, 2 designs of experiments for the formability of AA3003
sheets were presented by Ham and Jeswiet [39] in SPIFS. The set-
ups of the tools at higher rotation rates resulted in additional fric-
tional heat in the contact area and improved the formability of the
higher rotational speed. Furthermore, by reducing the feed rate the
blank formability is improved. Rattanachan and Chungchoo inves-
tigated the effect of speed on the formability of DIN 1.0037 steel
when producing dome geometry by SPIF [44]. The findings
revealed the formability was influenced more by the rotation
speed. On the other hand, the formability is less affected by feed
rate, resulting in lower forms at higher feed speeds.
D. Patel and A. Gandhi
The formability of materials at SPIF is an important factor in
tool size. According to research, a smaller tool radius allows for
greater formability than a larger radius. Hussain et al. [45] investi-
gated the formability of a CP-Ti sheet to study the tool diameter’s
impact. The tool diameter ranged from 8 to 12 and 16 mm, for
three levels. The formability was found to approximately follow a
quadratic relationship by increasing the tool size.
Han and Mo [46] discovered that by applying a final element
model to the ISF of 08Al sheet, reduced increments of thickness
and increased tool size and slope angles of the wall tend to reduce
axial stress and material thinning and lead to more uniform thick-
ening and plastic strain distribution. Jun-Chao [47] investigated
the impact of instrument diameter over thickness. They found that
there was little correlation between the tool size and the minimum
thickness, but the thickness increases constantly when the diame-
ter of the tool rises with a tool path (spiral). In addition, when
using a traditional tool path, the minimum thickness is closely
related to the tool diameter.
The generation of tool paths is one of the key factors to be con-
sidered in ISF. In particular, the thickness distribution of the
formed product has a significant impact on the outcome. Yama-
shita et al [48] tested various tool paths with a FEM (DYNA3D/ex-
plicit coding) to assess the impact of the tool path on the behavior
of deformation. The tool should be initiated from one corner of the
product, subject to the part and thickness of the distribution of
strain for different tool paths. If not, it is preferable for the tool
to move at the same time (i.e., helically) in the vertical and hori-
zontal direction to attain a more even distribution of thickness
within the product.
Liu et al. conducted an experiment on the forming mechanism
and formability of aluminum sheets AA-7075-O in the SPIF process
[49]. There was no difference in the formation of the same section
using helical and Z-level tool paths. The resulting force was
obtained with both tool paths, but the force curve was smoother
with the helical tool path.
5. Forming forces
The study of ISF forming forces is important because it helps to
understand deformation mechanics, the monitoring of the forma-
tion process, failure prediction, optimization, and future online
control. The current section reviews the contact conditions studies
as well as the influence of process parameters over forming force
[20].
Minutolo et al. [26] used an over groove test for force analysis
and discovered that a tool with a larger diameter, deeper drawing,
higher forming forces, and different types of failure could be
observed. The complete metaling, recording, and processing sys-
tems used by Szekeres [27] during ISF were designed by Szekeres
in 2004 and produced successfully. The beam of wheat bridges
mounted by the spindle was utilized by them, which measured
one of 3 orthogonal forces: ‘‘two bending directions and one axial
direction”. Further, Szekeres et al. [28] used power sensors
mounted on the developed tool to identify the ISF’s detailed form-
ing force features. In the course of the cone, formation failure was
found, but for the pyramid formation process, this was not easily
apparent. It was intuitively forecasted by a total force decrement.
This measurement system for force in a TPIF configuration has also
been employed effectively [29].
Duflou et al. [30] presented a study that can quantify the impact
of multiple process parameters on forming forces during the ISF
process: ‘‘the size of the step vertical, the diameter of the tool
and the wall angle”. The more comprehensive outcomes are
described in [31] that considered the influence of the thickness
of the sheet and lubrication. Tests have been conducted using a
5
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
vertical CNC 3-axis milling machine. Also. A force sensor of the
table type has been installed between the milling machine and fix-
tures. For effective data collection efficiency, the force sensor was a
force dynamometer Kistler 9265 connected to a charge amplifier
Kistler 5017A. The number of investigations was carried out with
Al 3003-O sheet materials in various step sizes, wall angles, tool
diameters, and sheet thicknesses. The experimental measurements
may conclude as follows:
1. As step dimensions rise from quarter to one millimeter, the
scale of the top and aggregate force both rise and fit in the linear
function after the peak.
2. Such measured forces, like the impact of step size which is pro-
portional (linearly) to the diameter of the tool between the
range of ten and thirty millimeters.
3. The magnitude of strength required increases gradually as the
angle of the wall increases. For a sixty-degree of wall angle
component that is indicated as a potential sign of the material
fracture, significant peaks can be observed.
4. The scale of the resulting force is determined by the sheet thick-
ness. The required force was increased from 380 to 1460 N by
increasing the sheet thickness from 0.85 to two millimeters.
Petek et al. [22] introduced SPIF force measurement experimen-
tal equipment. The forming force was calculated employing Kistler
9239 dynamometer. The forming force was discovered to be grad-
ually enlarged when wall angles were increased. The rotation and
lubrication of the tools have no significant impact on the forming
forces but a significant effect on surface quality. Greater forces
were achieved by increasing the vertical size of the tool and diam-
eter. They also proposed [32] an autonomous online system for
identifying and localizing fractures through skewness of reaction
force analysis [68–70].
Another research group has also conducted an extensive exper-
imental investigation on force measurements. Filice et al. [33]
studied forces analysis in three types: ‘‘trends in steady-state,
trends in polynomial force, and trends in force which decrease
monotonically”. A statistical analysis based on a proper DOE was
also performed, which included 4 process parameters at 3 levels.
The force gradient that followed the peak was well-defined, and
its relationship with 4 process parameters was investigated. The
following conclusion was made: ‘‘The force gradient after the peak
has been strongly affected by the sheet thickness and the wall
angle, followed by the effects of step size and the diameter of the
tool”. According to Ambrogio et al. [34], the force gradient after
the peak can be regarded as the critical indicator for preventing
and identifying fractures in workpieces.
6. Accuracy and springback
After the forming operation, a change of form occurs due to the
‘‘Springback” when the shape loads are removed. Such a deforma-
tion of the Springback results in deviations from the desired form.
The contact area among forming equipment and sheet during the
forming process is large in traditional metal forming, and the
springboard is gained. Therefore, attempts have been concocted
after load removal to examine the Springback. On the other hand,
the contact area between the tool and the sheet is small, and dis-
torted sections must be normally cut to obtain the final shape.
Thus, 3 kinds of Springback exist in the ISF: ‘‘first occurs at the
same time as the tool moves, which is called a continuous local
Springback. Secondly, the global Springback occurs after the
removal and removal of loads from the clamps. And third, after
trimming (if done) the global Springback [1,67]”. In process of SPIF,
various aspects affect the values of the Springback, such as the
D. Patel and A. Gandhi
‘‘sheet thickness, path of tool, feed rate, speed of the spindle, size of
the tool, step size and the stresses that remain”.
Springback is a critical aspect in the ISF process that impacts
part quality. For the design of the toolpath for ISF, precisely pre-
dicting and managing Springback is critical. Ambrogio et al. [50]
evaluated and compensated for Aluminum sheet AA1050-O with
elastic Springback. Some errors were found alongside the oblique
walls in an investigation, on the straight side, this resulted in a
curve. The elastic Springback is to blame for this, which is less
effective compared with the edges, in which geometric rigidity is
greater than that observed in other areas so that investigational
procedures have been established to bound defects in shape [66].
Dejardin et al. [51] proposed using a FE model based on shell
elements to investigate the Springback effects of aluminium
sheets. Investigation and the FEM demonstrated that the Spring-
back can be predicted accurately with the proper tooling path,
characterized by the cut-ring method. Hartley [52] devised a FEM
to alter the tool path’s final phase. Extending the way to the tool’s
base diminishes the cushion effect in the sheet’s center, according
to the findings.
Five factors, i.e., ‘‘sheet thickness, feed rate, spindle speed, tool
size and increasing depth”, have been found in recent research to
impact Springback. Oleksik et al. [53] employed ISF as a ‘‘Cp Ti
sheet” in a computational condylar surface modelling approach.
The results showed that with the increment in the size of the tool
and the decrement in thickness of sheet and step, the ‘‘global
Springback” value was increased. Springback and its impact on
the geometrical and dimensional accuracy of ISF technology were
explored by Mehdi et al. [54], and an analytical model was pre-
sented to identify the suitable Springback process parameters. An
increment in ‘‘diameter, feed rate, speed and sheet thickness” with
cause decrement in vertical step size could independently lead to
the decrease in the value of the Springback. The DC56 sheet was
used for establishing the ISF multi-stage technology and experi-
mental verification FEM by Junchao et al. [55]. In contrast to a sin-
gle pass process, the Springback grows as the number of forming
stages increases due to the accumulation of Springback during
each forming stage.
7. Surface roughness
The texture of a part is measured by surface roughness or sur-
face finishing. It is possible to indicate the vertical disparities
between an actual surface and a typical form. Various parameters
of roughness are used, however, to determine the values of rough-
ness, ISF uses average roughness (Ra) and maximum roughness
(Rz) parameters more than others. In this field, many papers were
published, all of which seek to achieve a decreased surface- rough-
ness. Few parameters were taken into account for the selection of
appropriate values, such as ‘‘tool rotation, tool forming, tool path,
step size and angle of forming”, to achieve a better surface finish.
7.1. Process parameters affecting surface roughness
Rotations of tools have a major influence on the quality of the
surface; the roughness values depend on the tool’s rotation direc-
tion and rotational speed. Moreover, XY progression affects the
roughness of a surface. Silva et al. [56] modified the tool rotation,
the progression to XY and Z (step size) for producing the most
rapid and high-quality parts of differing sizes and complexities.
In comparison with that obtained at a significantly greater speed
of 8400 mm/min for SAE 1008 stain, the feed rate below
1200 mm/min with an increase in depth of 0.2 mm was shown
to produce rough surfaces [63].
6
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
Cerro et al. [57] detailed their investigation and FEM work on
‘‘Al 1050 sheet” surface-roughing in both the tool advancing and
perpendicular directions. It has been observed that in the tool
advancing direction the value of roughness was constantly less
than in perpendicular direction. The surface roughness in the first
instance was 0.3 lm, with 0.6 lm in the second. However, the axial
step size can be reduced by surface-roughness. To assess the
speed-and-direction impact of the rotation of tools on ISF alu-
minum sheet AA7075-T0, an investigation was conducted by Dur-
ante et al. [58]. It was noted that the roughness values differ in
comparison to a non-rotating tool depending on whether the tool
is rotated or not. Surface roughness is less than 10%.
In the final surface roughness, both the forming material and
the size of the tool have an important role. Some researchers have
therefore attempted to achieve the best material and optimum
diameter to achieve an enhanced surface finish. The two instru-
ments used by Ham et al. [59] were acetal tipped one, and carbide
tipped another, which was used to define the topography of the
aluminum sheet surfaces. The roughness of the surface and degree
of surface anisotropy was found to depend on the material of form-
ing tool. To rub out the surface with which it was in contact during
forming, the acetal tool appeared to be less abrasive than the stan-
dard form tool. Lu et al. [60] employed the typical rigid tool and the
ORB tool to study the influence of friction on the surface- finish.
The ORB tool produced a higher surface finish, according to the
findings.
High surface quality can be achieved depending on the tool path
strategy. Lu et al. [61] introduced a new feature-based ISF tool-
path generation method; the tool trajectory was constructed on a
crucial basis in this approach. When compared to the traditional
ISF method, the feature-oriented algorithm produces a better sur-
face polish at the key edges. This is the situation for several non-
horizontal edges of parts. Skjoedt et al. [62] introduced a custom
software that converted the coordinates into a helical tool path
with continuous feed in all three directions using the profile
milling code. They discovered that using a helical tool route mini-
mized scarring.
The forming angle is normally utilized to evaluate the shape
and surface finish, as the roughness changes as the value of
stretching in a part wall. It changes during the variation in the
angle of a wall, subsequently, the roughness is changed. Thus,
the angle of forming increases and a good surface finish can be
obtained. The high wall angle however leads to failure, so it should
be carefully selected. Bhattacharya et al. [41] carried out an exper-
imental study using various process variables to examine ISF’s
effect on the surface quality of Al5052. When the angle of the wall
was increased, the surface quality improved [64]. Ambrogio et al.
[65] examined Hot ISF. In their study, SPIF was formed using the
continuous current to produce the local heating by 3 alloys (light-
weight) that involve ‘‘aluminum AA2024-T3, magnesium AZ31B-O
and titanium Ti6Al4V”. The results revealed that raising the angle
reduced the surface quality.
8. Future scope and conclusion
On the equipment front, significant progress has been made in
the development of the ISF process throughout time. In the initial
phase, the ISF process was carried out by CNC machines; however,
the employment of industrial robots in conjunction or standalone
equipment with other robots has expanded the ISF process’ flexi-
bility. Commercialization of ISF-specific equipment has also
resulted from continuous development.
The majority of the research is concentrated on SPIF (negative
incremental formation) without die support. The SPIF process takes
advantage of not requiring any complicated tooling to support the
D. Patel and A. Gandhi
formed component, as a result, researchers have conducted exten-
sive research on it. Too little research has been done on the TPIF
method with partial or full die support. It has been discovered that
the TPIF procedure improves formability, which has to be looked
into more. Although, it necessitates the use of support tooling that
is specific to the formed component. The ease with which these
tooling may be prepared at a minimal cost will aid in the TPIF
research opening of a new window [64].
A better formability results from the use of the optimum
parameters: ‘‘workpiece and tool parameters, process parameters,
tool path trajectory, tribological parameters”. One of the important
parameters in the ISF process is to control thinning, formability,
and geometric accuracy. The influence of process parameters like
the diameter of tools, step depth, and feed forming on the forma-
bility of the component is contradictory in the literature. The dif-
fering material, thickness, friction and process variant utilized for
the functioning of investigations may be the reason for this contra-
diction. Besides, the interaction effects on performance measures
may be present in these parameters.
Over a while, the ISF process has improved the geometric accu-
racy, surface finish, and thickness. Nevertheless, the industrial
application of the ISF technology is under investigation and is con-
fined to small batch production. The manufacturing time is the
barrier and must be considered for the industrial application of
the ISF process.
Many aspects, such as tool size and tool route, have a significant
impact on the wall angle, and future studies will be required to
quantify the effects on the wall angle, such as feed rate and step
size. Because there is a knowledge gap about the impact of step
size on the ISF, future research should focus on its influence from
various materials. In addition, a relationship between the step size
and the materials can be established.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Dharmin Patel: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data cura-
tion, Writing – original draft. Anishkumar Gandhi: Supervision,
Writing – review & editing.
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.
References
[1] J. Jeswiet, F. Micari, G. Hirt, A. Bramley, J. Duflou, J. Allwood, Asymmetric single
point incremental forming of sheet metal, CIRPAnn. Manuf. Technol. 54 (2)
(2005) 88–114.
[2] S.B.M. Echrif, M. Hrairi, Research and progress in incremental sheet forming
processes, Mater. Manuf. Process 26(11) (2011) 1404–1414.
[3] E. Leszak, Apparatus and process for incremental dieless forming, USA Patent
3342051A, 1967.
[4] K. Kitazawa, A. Wakabayashi, K. Murata, K. Yaejima, Metal-flow phenomena in
computerized numerically controlled incremental stretch-expanding of
aluminum sheets.アルミニウム薄板のCNCインクリメンタル張出成形におけるメタルフロー
挙動, J. Japan Inst. Light Metals 46 (2) (1996) 65–70.
[5] J. Jeswiet, Incremental single point forming, Trans. North Am. Manuf. Res. Inst.
SME 29 (2001) 75–79.
[6] L. Filice, L. Fratini, F. Micari, Analysis of material formability in incremental
forming, CIRPAnn. Manuf. Technol. 51 (1) (2002) 199–202.
[7] M. Tisza, General overview of sheet incremental forming, J. Achie. Mater.
Manu. Eng. 55 (1) (2012) 113–120.
[8] V. Nallagundla, R. Lingam, J. Cao, Incremental sheet metal forming processes,
in: A.Y.C. Nee (Ed.), Handbook of Manufacturing Engineering and Technology,
Springer, London, 2014, pp. 411–452, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-
4670-4_45.
[9] M. Amino, M. Mizoguchi, Y. Terauchi, T. Maki, Current status of ‘‘dieless”
Amino’s incremental forming, Proc. Eng. 81 (2014) 54–62.
7
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
[10] M.A. Dittrich, T.G. Gutowski, J. Cao, J.T. Roth, Z.C. Xia, V. Kiridena, F. Ren, H.
Henning, Exergy analysis of incremental sheet forming, Prod. Eng. Res. Devel. 6
(2) (2012) 169–177.
[11] D.W. Adams, Improvements on single point incremental forming through
electrically assisted forming, contact area prediction and tool development,
ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2014.
[12] N. Decultot, L. Robert, V. Velay, G. Bernhart, Single point incremental sheet
forming investigated by in-process 3D digital image correlation, EPJ Web.
Conf. 6 (2010) 11001, https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/20100611001.
[13] P.A.F. Martins, N. Bay, A.G. Atkins, M. Skjoedt, M.B. Silva, Single-point
incremental forming and formability–failure diagrams, J. Strain Anal. Eng.
Design 43 (1) (2008) 15–35.
[14] J.M. Allwood, D.R. Shouler, A.E. Tekkaya, The increased forming limits of
incremental sheet forming processes, Key Eng. Mater. 344 (2007) 621–628.
[15] M.B. Silva, M. Skjoedt, P.A.F. Martins, N. Bay, Revisiting the fundamentals of
single point incremental forming by means of membrane analysis, Int. J. Mach.
Tool Manuf. 48 (1) (2008) 73–83.
[16] A. Saad, Single point incremental point, in: Department of Industrial
Engineering And Production. Kth Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm,
Sweden, 2012.
[17] J. Jeswiet, F. Micari, G. Hirt, A. Bramley, J. Duflou, J. Allwood, Asymmetric single
point incremental forming of sheetmetal, CIRPAnn. Manuf. Technol. 54 (2)
(2005) 623–649.
[18] A. Bhattacharya, K. Maneesh, N. Venkata Reddy, J. Cao, Formability and surface
finish studies in single point incremental forming, J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 133 (6)
(2011) 61020.
[19] Y. Li, Z. Liu, H. Lu, W.J.T. Daniel, S. Liu, P.A. Meehan, Efficient force prediction
for incremental sheet forming and experimental validation, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 73 (1-4) (2014) 571–587.
[20] Y.L. Li, Z.B. Liu, H.B. Lu, W.J.T.B. Daniel, P.A. Meehan, Experimental study and
efficient prediction on forming forces in incremental sheet forming, Adv.
Mater. Res. 939 (2014) 313–321.
[21] J. Jeswiet, F. Micari, G. Hirt, A. Bramley, J. Duflou, J. Allwood, Asymmetric single
point incremental forming of sheetmetal, CIRPAnn. Manuf. Technol. 54 (2)
(2005) 88–114.
[22] A. Petek, K. Kuzman, J. Kopač, Deformations and forces analysis of single point
incremental sheet metal forming, Arch. Mater. Sci. Eng. 35 (2) (2009) 107–116.
[23] G. Hussain, L. Gao, N. Hayat, Z. Cui, Y.C. Pang, N.U. Dar, Tool and lubrication for
negative incremental forming of a commercially pure titanium sheet, J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 203 (1–3) (2008) 193–201.
[24] K.A. Al-Ghamdi, G. Hussain, On the comparison of formability of roll-bonded
steel-Cu composite sheet metal in incremental forming and stamping
processes, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 87 (1–4) (2016) 267–278.
[25] G. Hussain, L. Gao, N. Hayat, X.u. Ziran, A new formability indicator in single
point incremental forming, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 209 (9) (2009) 4237–
4242.
[26] F.C. Minutolo, M. Durante, A. Formisano, A. Langella, Forces analysis in sheet
incremental forming and comparison of experimental and simulation results,
in: Intelligent Production Machines and Systems, Elsevier, 2006, pp. 229–234,
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045157-2/50044-4.
[27] A.J. Szekeres, Three axis force measurement for computer numerical control
single point incremental forming. MQ92357, 2004, Queen’s University at
Kingston (Canada), Canada.
[28] A. Szekeres, M. Ham, J. Jeswiet, Force measurement in pyramid shaped parts
with a spindle mounted force sensor, Key Eng. Mater. 344 (2007) 551–558.
[29] J. Jeswiet, J.R. Duflou, A. Szekeres, Forces in single point and two point
incremental forming, Adv. Mater. Res. 6-8 (2005) 449–456.
[30] J.R. Duflou, A. Szekeres, P. Vanherck, Force measurements for single point
incremental forming: an experimental study, Adv. Mater. Res. 6-8 (2005) 441–
448.
[31] J. Duflou, Y. Tunçkol, A. Szekeres, P. Vanherck, Experimental study on force
measurements for single point incremental forming, J. Mater. Process. Technol.
189 (1–3) (2007) 65–72.
[32] A. Petek, K. Kuzman, B. Suhač, Autonomous on-line system for fracture
identification at incremental sheet forming, CIRPAnn. Manuf. Technol. 58 (1)
(2009) 283–286.
[33] L. Filice, G. Ambrogio, F. Micari, On-line control of single point incremental
forming operations through punch force monitoring, CIRP Ann. Manuf.
Technol. 55 (1) (2006) 245–248.
[34] G. Ambrogio, L. Filice, F. Micari, A force measuring based strategy for failure
prevention in incremental forming, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 177 (1–3)
(2006) 413–416.
[35] J.R. Duflou, B. Callebaut, J. Verbert, H. De Baerdemaeker, Laser assisted
incremental forming: formability and accuracy improvement, CIRP Ann.
Manuf. Technol. 56 (1) (2007) 273–276.
[36] Y.H. Ji, J.J. Park, Formability of magnesium AZ31 sheet in the incremental
forming at warm temperature, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 201 (1–3) (2008)
354–358.
[37] G. Fan, L. Gao, G. Hussain, Z. Wu, Electric hot incremental forming: a novel
technique, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 48 (15) (2008) 1688–1692.
[38] R. Liu, B. Lu, D. Xu, J. Chen, F. Chen, H. Ou, H. Long, Development of novel tools
for electricity-assisted incremental sheet forming of titanium alloy, Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Tech. (2015) 1–8 (in-press).
[39] M. Ham, J. Jeswiet, Single point incremental forming and the forming criteria
for AA3003, CIRPAnnManuf Technol 55 (1) (2006) 241–244.
D. Patel and A. Gandhi
[40] F.C. Minutolo, M. Durante, A. Formisano, A. Langella, Evaluation of the
maximum slope angle of simple geometries carried out by incremental
forming process, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 194 (1–3) (2007) 145–150.
[41] A. Bhattacharya, K. Maneesh, N. Venkata Reddy, J. Cao, Formability and surface
finish studies in single point incremental forming, J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 133 (6)
(2011) 061020.
[42] G. Ambrogio, L. Filice, L. Fratini, F. Micari, Process mechanics analysis in single
point incremental forming, in: MATERIALS PROCESSING AND DESIGN:
Modeling, Simulation and Applications-NUMIFORM 2004-Proceedings of the
8th International Conference on Numerical Methods in Industrial Forming
Processes, vol. 712(1), AIP Publishing, 2004, pp. 922–927.
[43] Y.S. Kim, H.J. Lee, J.G. Park, D.T. Nguyen, Finite element method study of
incremental sheet forming for complex shape and its improvement, Proc.
InstMech. Eng. B J. EngManuf. 224 (6) (2010) 913–924.
[44] K. Rattanachan, C. Chungchoo, Formability in single point incremental forming
of dome geometry, AIJSTPME 2 (4) (2009) 57–63.
[45] G. Hussain, L. Gao, Z.Y. Zhang, Formability evaluation of a pure titanium sheet
in the cold incremental forming process, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 37 (9–10)
(2008) 920–926.
[46] F. Han, J.-H. Mo, Numerical simulation and experimental investigation of
incremental sheet forming process, J. Cent S. Univ. Technol. 15 (5) (2008) 581–
587.
[47] L. Jun-chao, L. Chong, T.-g. Zhou, Thickness distribution and mechanical
property of sheet metal incremental forming based on numerical simulation,
Trans. Nonferr. Metals Soc. China 22 (2012) s54–s60.
[48] M. Yamashita, M. Gotoh, S.-Y. Atsumi, Numerical simulation of incremental
forming of sheet metal, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 199 (1-3) (2008) 163–172.
[49] Z. Liu, Y. Li, P.A. Meehan, Experimental investigation of mechanical properties,
formability and force measurement for AA7075-O aluminum alloy sheets
formed by incremental forming, Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 14 (11) (2013) 1891–
1899.
[50] G. Ambrogio, I. Costantino, L. De Napoli, L. Filice, L. Fratini, M. Muzzupappa,
Influence of some relevant process parameters on the dimensional accuracy in
incremental forming: a numerical and experimental investigation, J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 153-154 (2004) 501–507.
[51] S. Dejardin, S. Thibaud, J.C. Gelin, G. Michel, Experimental investigations and
numerical analysis for improving knowledge of incremental sheet forming
process for sheet metal parts, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 210 (2) (2010) 363–
369.
[52] K. Essa, P. Hartley, An assessment of various process strategies for improving
precision in single point incremental forming, Int. J. Mater. Form. 4 (4) (2011)
401–412.
[53] V. Oleksik, A. Pascu, C. Deac, R. Fleaca, B.O. RomanM, The influence of
geometrical parameters on the incremental forming process for knee implants
analyzed by numerical simulation, NUMIFORM 2010 (2010) 1208–1215.
[54] V. Mehdi, S. Mohammad, K. Hossein, An analytical model to reduce spring-
back in incremental sheet metal forming (ISMF) process, Adv. Mater. Res. 83–
86 (2010) 1113–1120.
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
[55] L. Junchao, P. Geng, J. Shen, Numerical simulation and experimental
investigation of multistage incremental sheet forming, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 68 (9–12) (2013) 2637–2644.
[56] P.J. Silva, L.M. Leodido, C.R.M. Silva, Analysis of incremental sheet forming
parameters and tools aimed at rapid prototyping, Key Eng. Mater. 554-557
(2013) 2285–2292.
[57] I. Cerro, E. Maidagan, J. Arana, A. Rivero, P.P. Rodríguez, Theoretical and
experimental analysis of the dieless incremental sheet forming process, J.
Mater. Process. Technol. 177 (1–3) (2006) 404–408.
[58] M. Durante, A. Formisano, A. Langella, F.M. Capece Minutolo, The influence of
tool rotation on an incremental forming process, J. Mater. Process Technol. 209
(9) (2009) 4621–4626.
[59] M. Ham, B.M. Powers, J. Loiselle, Surface topography from single point
incremental forming using an acetal tool, Key Eng. Mater. 549 (2013) 84–91.
[60] B. Lu, Y. Fang, D.K. Xu, J. Chen, H. Ou, N.H. Moser, J. Cao, Mechanism
investigation of friction-related effects in single point incremental forming
using a developed oblique roller-ball tool, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 85 (2014)
14–29.
[61] B. Lu, J. Chen, H. Ou, J. Cao, Feature-based tool path generation approach for
incremental sheet forming process, J. Mater. Process Technol. 213 (7) (2013)
1221–1233.
[62] M. Skjoedt, M.H. Hancock, N. Bay, Creating helical tool paths for single point
incremental forming, Key Eng. Mater. 344 (2007) 583–590.
[63] Sagarsingh Kushwah et al 2021 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 1149 012012.
doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1149/1/012012.
[64] S. Kushwah, An Oscillating Water Column (OWC): the wave energy converter,
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. C 102 (5) (2021) 1311–1317, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40032-021-00730-7.
[65] G. Ambrogio, L. Filice, F. Gagliardi, Formability of lightweight alloys by hot
incremental sheet forming, Mater. Des. 34 (2012) 501–508.
[66] S. Kushwah, S. Parekh, H. Mistry, M. Bhatt, V.K. Joshi, A methodological study
of leaf spring by material comparison and Taguchi’s DOE, Int. J. Interact. Des.
Manuf. 16 (1) (2022) 239–252, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-021-00831-8.
[67] S. Kushwah, S. Parekh, H. Mistry, J. Darji, R. Gandhi, Analysis of cylindrical
pressure vessels with dissimilar ends and material comparison, Mater. Today:
Proc. 51 (2022) 355–368, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.05.466.
[68] J.J. Park, Y.H. Kim, Fundamental studies on the incremental sheet metal
forming technique, J. Mater. Process Technol. 140 (1) (2003) 447–453, https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0924-0136(03)00768-4.
[69] R. Patel, C. Desai, S. Kushwah, M.H. Mangrola, A review article on FDM process
parameters in 3D printing for composite materials, Mater. Today: Proc. (2022),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.02.385.
[70] A. Rajpurohit et al., Design and Analysis of Piston Comparing Different
Materials, Rec. Adv. Manuf. Model. Optim. (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-981-16-9952-8.