This article was downloaded by: [Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology]

On: 20 August 2015, At: 22:58

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place,
London, SW1P 1WG

Materials and Manufacturing Processes

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lmmp20

High-Speed Incremental Forming Process: A Trade-Off

Between Formability and Time Efficiency
a b c c d a
H. Khalatbari , A. Iqbal , Xiaofan Shi , Lin Gao , G. Hussain & M. Hashemipour
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta,
T.R.N.C., Via Mersin 10, Turkey
b
Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Institute of Avionics and Aeronautics,
Air University PAF Complex, Islamabad, Pakistan
c
College of Mechanical & Electrical Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics &
Astronautics, Nanjing, China
d
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, GIK Institute of Engineering, Sciences & Technology,
KPK, Swabi, Topi, Pakistan
Accepted author version posted online: 22 Apr 2015.Published online: 22 Apr 2015.
Click for updates

To cite this article: H. Khalatbari, A. Iqbal, Xiaofan Shi, Lin Gao, G. Hussain & M. Hashemipour (2015) High-Speed
Incremental Forming Process: A Trade-Off Between Formability and Time Efficiency, Materials and Manufacturing Processes,
30:11, 1354-1363, DOI: 10.1080/10426914.2015.1037892

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2015.1037892

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 30: 1354–1363, 2015
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1042-6914 print=1532-2475 online
DOI: 10.1080/10426914.2015.1037892

High-Speed Incremental Forming Process: A Trade-Off Between

Formability and Time Efficiency
H. Khalatbari1, A. Iqbal2, Xiaofan Shi3, Lin Gao3, G. Hussain4, and M. Hashemipour1
Downloaded by [Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology] at 22:58 20 August 2015

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta,
T.R.N.C., Via Mersin 10, Turkey
2
Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Institute of Avionics and Aeronautics, Air University PAF
Complex, Islamabad, Pakistan
3
College of Mechanical & Electrical Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics, Nanjing, China
4
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, GIK Institute of Engineering, Sciences & Technology, KPK, Swabi, Topi, Pakistan

Making use of ‘‘optimal experimental design,’’ the paper attempts to investigate individual and interactive effects of predictor parameters,
namely tool size, pitch size, feed rate, spindle rotational speed, and blank thickness, on sheet formability in single point incremental forming
(SPIF) process. For the sake of precision, a novel sensor system was developed and employed to detect crack as it initiates on SPIF test
specimens. A novel benchmark for formability in SPIF was established by addressing normal strain along sheet thickness, maximum
attainable forming angle, and the rate of variation in forming angle. The process was finally optimized in terms of maximum achievable
formability and minimum processing time. Accordingly, high-speed forming (with forming speed of at least 5000 mm/min) was realized
to be perfectly viable, whereas the sheet formability remains quite satisfactory (over 90% of the maximum value). The key role of high spindle
speed (up to 3000 rpm) was also highlighted in this regard.

Keywords Design; Efficiency; Experiments; Formability; Forming; Incremental; Interactive; Optimization.

INTRODUCTION two-level factorial design of eight runs. They concluded

Incremental sheet forming (ISF) is known as a novel
technology, which promises more flexibility in process,
lower production cost, and lead time [1], in addition to
improved formability of material as compared to the
conventional sheet forming processes [2]. The beneficial
aspects of ISF are mainly ascribed to the essence of this
technique; that is progression of forming process by
transmission of localized plastic deformation [3].
However, this characteristic of ISF induces a major
imperfection, that is long processing time.
During the past 10 years, a number of published
studies aimed to examine the effect of ISF process
parameters on the sheet formability. Strano conducted
regression analysis on data points acquired from a series
of ISF tests on commercially pure aluminum sheets [4].
He concluded that decreasing drawing angle and pitch
size while increasing tool size and sheet thickness boosted
the chance of having sound parts. Ham et al. pioneered
the application of design of experiments (DOE) method
conducting a two-phase ISF experimentation [5]. The
first phase was based on a preliminary fractional
Received September 29, 2014; Accepted March 31, 2015
Address correspondence to H. Khalatbari, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta,
T.R.N.C., Via Mersin 10, Turkey; E-mail: khalatbari.hosein@
gmail.com
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be
found online at www.tandfonline.com/lmmp.
the negative effect of increasing pitch size, feed rate,
and slope angle on forming sound parts by using
AA3003-O sheet. By contrast, elevated spindle speed
was found to make a positive effect on the sheet form-
ability. In the second phase, they showed that sheet thick-
ness and tool size significantly affect the maximum
achievable forming angle; however, no significant effect
was observed for step size. The same authors [6] under-
took another study by taking advantage of response sur-
face model (RSM) through a new experimental design,
called Box–Behnken. They considered three categorical
predictor factors, namely material type, sheet thickness,
and part shape as well as two numerical predictors,
namely step size and tool size, each in three levels. The
average effective strain and the maximum achievable
forming angle were both taken into account as measures
of formability. Due to the nature of the categorical
factors, the outcomes of the study were mostly depicted
as qualitative descriptions rather than a detailed numeri-
cal assessment. Hussain et al. attempted to evaluate the
formability of commercially pure titanium sheet in ISF
process, by adopting the one-factor-at-time (OFAT)
experimental method [7]. They concluded that the higher
the feed rate, pitch size, or tool size, the lower the form-
ability of the sheet. Hussain et al. also employed central
composite design of experiments (CCD) to assess the
formability of aluminum sheet AA-2024 [8]. They
demonstrated that the interaction of tool size and
step size provides a significant effect on the maximum

1354
 HIGH-SPEED INCREMENTAL FORMING PROCESS
achievable forming angle. This interactional effect was
reported to be stronger than individual effects of tool size
and step size separately. In addition, they showed that
forming speed of annealed sheet can be increased highly
in favor of process productivity while no significant
decrease occurs in maximum attainable forming angle.
However, inconsistent result was reported in the case of
pre-aged sheet.
Despite such noteworthy efforts as reported above, no
comprehensive study exists to date scrutinizing how
formability in ISF process is affected by individual and
Downloaded by [Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology] at 22:58 20 August 2015
interactional effects of sheet thickness and spindle rota-
tional speed along with those of feed rate, tool size, and
pitch size. Moreover, far less attention has been devoted
so far to optimization of the process. It is expected by
such an optimization to maintain the advantageous
aspect of ISF process, that is, high formability of sheet
material, while the cost generating aspect of the process
should be targeted by minimizing the processing time.
This research work addresses the aforesaid aspects.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Under the condition that certain limitations constrict
applicable ranges or levels of process parameters, e.g.,
sheet metal thickness in ISF, a computer-aided DOE
method, so-called optimal design (henceforth ODM),
can provide a solution. Adopting ODM, each of the
participating factors in the process can be set at distinct
number of levels [9]. In the current research, ODM was
employed by means of a commercial DOE package,
Design Expert, which has been frequently cited in the
literature [10–12]. In order to realize appropriate ranges
of process parameters (factors) in ISF, a set of screening
trials were performed prior to the main experimental
campaign. Through these ISF trials, aluminum sheet
AA3003-H12 (Table 1) was used to form conical frustums
up to fracture. For this purpose, steel (HSS) rods of hemi-
spherical head served as forming tools. Subsequently, the
depth of each specimen at which crack appeared was
considered to assess formability of sheet with respect to
the level of ISF factors adopted. Figure 1 represents a
detailed illustration of the experimental setup.
During the screening trials, application of a thick
blank (2.23 mm), high spindle speed (over 3000 rpm),
small tool size (4 mm), and large step down (1.2 mm)
induced some major defects. Figure 2 illustrates such
defects, namely penetration of the tool to the sheet
material (Fig. 2(c)); adherence of sheet material to the
tool tip (Fig. 2(b)); significant amount of sheet material
TABLE 1.—Mechanical properties of aluminum AA3003-H12 sheet
material.
RD (0 ) TD (90 )
Thickness
(mm) UTS (MPa) YS (MPa) E (%) UTS (MPa) YS (MPa)
0.87 126.57 118.99 1.38 137.97 135.47
1.3 117.26 111.16 4.92 126.68 123.62
1.69 114.02 107.99 6.38 122.45 119.90
1355
removal by tool (Fig. 2(a)); a wrinkle effect on back side
of specimens due to the excessive tool–sheet friction and
the resulting heat (Fig. 2(d)). During the screening trials,
it was also realized that feed rate by itself cannot be held
as the determinant of formability limit in ISF process.
However, the interactional effect of this factor with spin-
dle speed, step size, and sheet thickness should come into
consideration (Fig. 2(e)). Following the screening experi-
ments, proper minimum–maximum values (levels) were
assigned to the process parameters (factors) in Design
Expert. Subsequently, intermediate levels between the
minimum–maximum levels were allocated by the soft-
ware. Three levels of sheet thickness were imposed to
the software according to the available thicknesses of
sheet material. Table 3(I) represents the levels of ISF
factors adopted in the main experimental campaign
based on ODM. The number of model points (number
of the required trials) suggested by Design Expert was
31. However, time efficiency of the planned experiments
was compromised for higher accuracy and robustness.
Hence, 72 trials including 62 model points, five center
points, and five replications were planned. Each run
was replicated once, and the average response value
was considered as the output value.
Reviewing the literature, the maximum forming angle
(hmax) of successfully formable frustums has been fre-
quently referred to as a criterion for formability of sheet
material in ISF process [13]. In pursuance of formability
test in ISF, several frustums of various slope angles (h)
could be formed to estimate the maximum forming angle
corresponding to each combination of ISF process para-
meters. In order to avoid wasting considerable time and
resources, Hussain et al. proposed application of frustum
specimens of increasing wall angle with depth [14].
They formed ISF specimens of circular, parabolic, expo-
nential, and elliptical curvatures of profile (Fig. 1(b)).
Employing identical ISF process parameters, they
declared that frustums of different profiles render differ-
ent values of hmax. Therefore, the authors of the current
paper arrived at a general conclusion that the rate by
which h varies also affects hmax. Introducing a new
benchmark profile in this paper, wall-angle (h) of the
frustum specimen increases along the symmetry axis of
part (Z) according to a specific constant rate (dh=dz ¼ a;
a; such that a is a constant value); therefore:
h ¼ az þ b ð1Þ
Considering tan(h) ¼ dz=dx, thus tan(az þ b) ¼ dz=dx
and x, the other coordinate of the part-profile (Fig. 1),
can be calculated as follows:
Z Z
dx ¼ cotðaz þ bÞdz ð2Þ
Resolving the integral in Eq. (2), the general equation of
the profile with constant rate of increasing slope angle
E (%) (henceforth CRISA) along symmetry axis of the part
(Z) can be derived as
0.55  
1.06 1
2.07 x¼ ln½sinðaz þ bÞ þ c ð3Þ
a
 1356 H. KHALATBARI ET AL.
Downloaded by [Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology] at 22:58 20 August 2015

FIGURE 1.—Illustration of the ISF experimental setup (a) and an ISF specimen (conical frustum; b).

FIGURE 2.—(a) Two parts formed by the same tool and identical process parameters but different blank thickness; (b) adherence of sheet material to tool
tip; (c) remarkable penetration of tool into sheet; (d) the wrinkle effect at the back side of a specimen due to an excessive frictional stress; (e.1) carefully
adjusted spindle speed and feed rate; (e.2) slight removal of material by giving a remarkable rise to spindle speed.

where a, b, and c are constant values that can be can be obtained as (downward Z was considered
determined by considering the boundary conditions as negative direction):
of the problem, namely the radius of the first circumfer-
x ¼ 85:470 ln½sinð0:012z þ 0:750Þ þ 23:760 ð4Þ
ence (56.5 mm), the initial angle (h ¼ 43 at z ¼ 0), and
the maximum depth of the part (70 mm), corresponding By substituting the values of a and b resulting from
to h ¼ 90 . Solving the system of equations for boundary conditions, in Eq. (1):
the boundary conditions, the profile with CRISA
(Fig. 1) for the condition of this experimental campaign, h ¼ 0:67z þ 43 ð5Þ

TABLE 2.—Results of ANOVA for quadratic RSM based on CCF.

Factors Mean Square F Value P Value Factors Mean Square F Value P Value

A-Tool Tip Diameter 1986.99 28.52 <0.0001 X D-Spindle Speed 3510.38 50.40 <0.0001 X
B-Step Size 1049.74 15.07 0.0003 X E-Blank Thickness 5542.00 79.57 <0.0001 X
C-Feed Rate 5.52 0.08 0.7794 – Lack of Fit 81.69 4.027 0.0113 X

Significant: X; Insignificant: .
 HIGH-SPEED INCREMENTAL FORMING PROCESS 1357
TABLE 3.—Different levels of the ISF process parameters in the main experimental campaign along with the maximum forming angle acquired for each run
(specific combination of ISF factors in the experiment).

(I) Levels of the factors in the main experimental campaign (ODM)

Levels

Factor Name Unit 1 2 3 4 5

A Tool tip diameter (TTD) mm 6 8 9 10 12

B Pitch size (PS) mm 0.1 0.36 0.49 0.62 0.88
C Feed rate (FR) mm=min 800 2200 2900 3600 5000
D Spindle rotational speed (SRS) rpm 0 1000 1500 2000 3000
Downloaded by [Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology] at 22:58 20 August 2015

E Blank thickness (BT) mm 0.87 – 1.30 – 1.69

(II) Maximum forming angle corresponding to each combination of factors

Run Combination of hmax Run Combination of hmax Run Combination of hmax Run Combination of hmax
no. factors (degree) no. factors (degree) no. factors (degree) no. factors (degree)

1 A3B5C3D3E3 75.33 19 A1B3C1D1E3 68.59 37 A5B2C4D5E1 70.67 55 A1B5C5D3E3 74.95

2 A1B5C5D5E1 70.28 20 A3B3C3D3E3 76.41 38 A5B1C5D5E3 71.75 56 A3B5C3D3E3 75.84
3 A3B3C5D3E3 76.84 21 A5B5C4D4E3 73.90 39 A1B5C5D1E1 72.04 57 A1B3C3D3E3 76.85
4 A4B1C2D1E3 72.98 22 A3B3C3D3E1 72.24 40 A5B1C3D1E3 71.26 58 A3B1C5D5E1 73.18
5 A4B4C5E5D5 77.12 23 A3B5C1D1E3 72.83 41 A5B4C1D5E3 73.77 59 A1B1C4D5E5 76.87
6 A3B3C3D3E1 72.64 24 A1B5C1D2E5 78.02 42 A5B2C1D1E5 68.41 60 A5B5C5D5E5 74.71
7 A1B5C1D3E3 75.71 25 A1B5C1D1E1 69.76 43 A3B3C3D3E3 76.68 61 A1B5C5D2E5 76.65
8 A1B4C1D5E5 78.27 26 A5B5C5D1E1 67.40 44 A3B3C5D3E3 76.17 62 A1B1C1D1E5 74.96
9 A5B3C1D1E1 71.46 27 A5B1C1D3E1 68.84 45 A5B1C1D3E5 73.30 63 A1B5C3D1E3 69.88
10 A5B5C1D5E5 76.33 28 A2B1C1D1E1 75.39 46 A1B1C3D1E1 71.96 64 A2B5C2E5D5 78.46
11 A5B4C4D1E3 73.11 29 A1B1C5D1E5 74.75 47 A3B3C3D3E5 79.31 65 A3B3C3D3E3 76.65
12 A2B2C5D1E3 72.97 30 A4B1C5D4E5 73.70 48 A1B5C3D1E5 69.91 66 A5B1C1D5E3 73.03
13 A5B5C1D1E5 69.71 31 A1B1C1D3E3 76.33 49 A3B3C3D3E3 77.58 67 A5B5C5D1E5 73.55
14 A5B1C3D5E5 72.82 32 A1B5C5D5E5 77.66 50 A5B1C5D1E1 69.02 68 A1B2C4D5E1 74.24
15 A3B1C1D5E5 77.85 33 A3B3C3D1E5 72.12 51 A5B3C3D3E5 74.77 69 A1B4C2D5E3 76.46
16 A5B5C1D2E1 73.94 34 A1B1C4D5E5 76.37 52 A3B5C3D3E3 75.90 70 A1B1C5D2E1 73.97
17 A1B1C1D5E1 74.61 35 A5B1C5D1E5 72.19 53 A3B3C3D3E3 77.04 71 A5B5C5D5E1 69.56
18 A3B3C5D3E3 76.21 36 A1B5C1D5E1 72.32 54 A4B5C1D5E1 71.09 72 A1B1C5D5E3 76.08

A3B4C3D3E3 means: A (TTD) ¼ 9 mm; B (PS) ¼ 0.62 mm; C (FR) ¼ 2900 mm=min; D (SRS) ¼ 1500 rpm; E (BT) ¼ 1.3 mm.

where h represents the slope angle in degrees; and z
(mm) stands for the magnitude of vertical depth of the
part from the top surface of undeformed sheet
(h ¼ 0.012z þ 0.750, where h is in radian) (see Fig. 1).
Employing Eqs. (4) and (5), CAD model of the ISF
specimen was created by using the commercial CAD–
CAM package NX (UG). Afterward, using the same
software, contour toolpaths of constant step size
(Table 3) and NC codes were generated.
Any considerable delay between initiation and detec-
tion of crack in ISF may lead to its rapid propagation;
therefore, formability measurement might be more prone
to error. In order to properly address the problem, an
optical sensor system was designed and implemented to
detect the crack (Fig. 3(a)). This system, by implemen-
tation of photo-conductive light sensors (PCLS), benefits
from the darkness in the internal space of the clamping
device in which part is being formed. Light dependent
resistor (LDR) is a particular type of PCLS, which is
made of semiconductor material that reacts to specific
spectrum of light, by altering its electrical resistance
[15]. Therefore, LDR can be used as a light-switch in

FIGURE 3.—(a) Different stages of preparation and application of the sensor system; (b) the samples of cracks detected with the aid of the sensors (left
column), and the ones detected by visual inspection (right column); (c) crack alignment and rolling direction of the sheet (RD).
 1358
circuits. During the screening experiments, the minimum
depth of specimen at which crack may appear was eval-
uated (z ¼ 40 mm). The potential crack area, which is
represented as the red zone in Fig. 1(a), was realized
between the aforesaid depth of the specimen (z ¼ 40 mm)
and the maximum depth of the specimen (z ¼ 70 mm;
h ¼ 90). Special combination of LDRs, as shown in
Figs. 1(a) and 3(a), was designed to be mounted on a
frame. This frame was positioned inside the clamping
device in such a way that the potential crack area was
surrounded by the frame’s eyes. Once the crack grew to
Downloaded by [Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology] at 22:58 20 August 2015
some extent that a slight light beam could pass through
the sheet, the sensor reacted by passing current to the
connected circuit, hence activating the alarms. This
system is as cost-effective as it is simple. However, appli-
cation of the system through the whole experimental
span resulted in a significant improvement in minimizing
the crack size (Fig. 3(b)). The smallest opening size of the
crack detected by this system was approximately 300 mm,
which can be improved by application of the better
illumination system. It was also observed that crack
normally initiated along the rolling direction (RD)
of the sheet (Fig. 3(c)). Such an effect is due to the
anisotropic characteristic of the sheet that is evident from
its mechanical properties reported in Table 1. In fact,
elongation and redirection of the grains along the rolling
track create barriers against crack growth in a perpen-
dicular direction (TD) to the grain boundaries. It is also
worth mentioning that by annealing the sheets prior to
ISF process, which relieves the pre-processing work
hardening and anisotropy effects, better formability is
achievable.
By application of forming-fracture limit curve (FLC),
dependency of FLC on strain path, dominant plane
stress and membrane forces (no bending) in the process,
and negligible through-thickness shear are presumed.
However, these conditions are not entirely satisfied in
ISF process [16, 17]. Furthermore, the specimen being
used for formability test in this experimental investi-
gation offers a curved profile in both the circumferential
and longitudinal directions. The twisting phenomenon
resulting from incremental forming also adds to the
distortion of the elliptical shapes originating from
pre-scribed circles on the sheet (Fig. 1(b)). In pursuance
of deriving FLC, measurement of minor–major strains
from those elliptical shapes on the part surface appeared
to provide low accuracy in this study. Moreover, to
employ the formability as a response factor in RSM
(ODM), it should be expressed as a unique value rather
than a curve. Nevertheless, FLD0, which is defined
as the intersection of FLC and the major strain axis, is
not accurate enough for this purpose.
Since the failure of aluminum sheet in ISF process can
be characterized by ductile fracture [18], formability and
ductility are intimately associated concepts in this
process. The percentage of area reduction during plastic
deformation is well known as a measure of ductility,
which in turn can be derived from true strain in the
corresponding direction. The average true strain along
sheet thickness can be calculated by measurement of
H. KHALATBARI ET AL.
sheet thickness at different points in the same level where
the crack appears (the crack band in Fig. 1(b)).
A comprehensive criterion for formability of sheet in
ISF should encompass the normal strain leading to frac-
ture in ISF. In addition, the sensitivity of the process to
the forming angle (h) and the rate of variation in form-
ing angle (dh=dz) have to be taken into account. Hence
the following criterion was proposed for formability of
sheet material in ISF:
Z zf
CCF ¼ ef hðzÞ dz ð6Þ
t0
where CCF stands for compound criterion of form-
ability; zf and ef, respectively, represent the depth at
which crack appeared, and the average normal strain
along thickness at zf; t0 symbolizes the initial thickness
of the blank (before ISF processing); and h(z) designates
the forming angle in radian.
By receiving the fracture alarm from the sensor device,
CNC machine was immediately halted. Subsequently,
the relevant z coordinate to the fracture depth was
recorded from the machine’s screen while the forming
tool was still in contact with the sheet. This value was
later employed to derive the value of zf and the
maximum forming angle (hmax). Taking this approach,
measurement errors induced by the elastic recovery of
sheet was reduced to a negligible level. The depth of
specimen at which crack appeared was also measured
by using a height-meter with precision of 0.01 mm while
specimen was still clamped. However, investigating the
effect of ISF operating parameters on sheet spring-back
is out of the scope of this research work. A micrometer
with accuracy of 0.001 mm was adopted to measure the
sheet thickness along the crack band (see Fig. 1(b)). The
corresponding values of ef and zf to each experimental
run was employed to calculate the response factor, CCF.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In order to identify the best fitting RSM for regression,
the software was fed with the above-mentioned experi-
mental data. Fitness analysis by execution of successive
ANOVA revealed that a modified cubic model provides
the best fit to the experimental data. ANOVA by
application of a quadratic model still provides empiri-
cally useful information regarding the significance of
each ISF process parameter as formability is concerned.
As is presented in Table 2, feed rate delivers no significant
effect on formability of AA3003-H12 sheet that is in
complete concordance with the results of the screening
experiments. Adopting the modified cubic model while
different formability criteria were taken into consider-
ation, ANOVA revealed that according to any criterion
of formability, feed rate is not a significant factor. This
fact translates to a great possibility of considerably
improving the time efficiency of the process. Step size,
the other participating factor in time efficiency of the
process, does not significantly contribute to formability
of sheet, whether hmax or (zf  t0) is taken into account
 HIGH-SPEED INCREMENTAL FORMING PROCESS
as a formability criterion. However, considering either ef
or CCF, step size was found to produce a significant
effect on formability. This discrepancy suggests that
each formability criterion might represent a particular
deformation mechanism being involved in ISF process.
Thus, the importance of selecting a comprehensive
criterion for formability can be implied. For this reason,
CCF was contemplated as the main criterion of form-
ability in the current study. For the sake of completeness,
the maximum forming angles achieved by deploying
various combinations of ISF operating parameters
Downloaded by [Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology] at 22:58 20 August 2015
(arranged by ODM) are given in Table 3(II).
Figure 4 allows estimating the interactive effects of ISF
operating parameters on sheet (AA3003-H12) form-
ability (CCF). For this purpose, ISF factors, namely
blank thickness (BT), spindle rotational speed (SRS),
feed rate (FR), pitch size (PS), and tool tip diameter
(TTD), were investigated in pairs while the remaining
factors being held constant at their mid-levels. For the
sake of abridgment, the minimum, middle, and maximum
levels of the factors are referred to as 1, 3, and 5, respect-
ively (see Table 3).
Each of the two-dimensional contour plots, in Fig. 4,
can be visualized as a planar cross-section of a three-
dimensional onion shape. In such sliced onion shapes,
CCF reduces by moving from center to edges while it
remains constant in any stratum. For instance, the nearly
parallel contour lines to the vertical axis in Fig. 4(d) sug-
gest that any remarkable change in feed rate, while sheet
thickness being held constant, provides negligible effect
on formability. The maximum formability is shown
in Fig. 4(j) to be achievable by adopting the minimum
levels of feed rate and step size simultaneously, which is
the worst-case scenario as far as time efficiency is con-
cerned. However, maintaining step size around 0.5 mm
(mid-level), while increasing feed rate to 5000 mm=min
(maximum level); the resultant value of CCF is roughly
92% of the maximum CCF in Fig. 4(j). By increasing
sheet thickness from 0.90 to 1.70 mm, contour lines
transforms from nearly straight lines into elliptical curves
in Fig. 4(c). In this case, the best formability can be
achieved by maintaining step size around the midlevel
(0.45 mm). As it is evident from Fig. 4(e), the best
measure of formability can be obtained by application
of the thickest sheet (1.70 mm) while setting spindle speed
roughly at 2500 rpm. The same plot demonstrates
that the least formability was derived by deploying
the minimum levels of spindle speed and sheet thickness
simultaneously. This figure also shows that forming
a sheet of minimum thickness (0.86 mm) by using the
maximum spindle speed delivers the same formability
as of the sheet of 1.70 mm in thickness (maximum level)
being formed at a very low rotational speed (nearly 0).
After performing all the experiments, the processing
time corresponding to the average depth of fracture point
(zfavg ) was calculated for each ISF trial. In order to rectify
the main deficiency of ISF process, that is, long proces-
sing time, Derringer–Suich multi-objective numerical
optimization method was employed based on a hill-
climbing algorithm [19] in Design Expert 8. The objective
1359
was to minimize the processing time, while sustaining the
maximum formability. As discussed before, blank thick-
ness, in contrast to the other ISF operating parameters,
represents a discrete variable. For this reason, process
was optimized by considering blank thickness as a
constant. Hence optimization was performed three times,
each time blank thickness was targeted at one of its
levels. It was also realized through the screening experi-
ments, the significant contribution of spindle speed
toward productivity of ISF process. In order to acknowl-
edge such an influence, the optimization procedure was
repeated maintaining the same criteria as before, whereas
spindle speed was set at 0 rpm (ISF with non-rotational
tool). Figure 5 demonstrates the magnitude of optimized
ISF process parameters and that of the response factors,
namely CCF and forming time. As it is evident from
this figure, magnitudes of CCF corresponding to the
condition of rotating tool reveal a remarkable increase
as compared to that of zero SRS (10%, 47%, and 42%,
respectively, for sheet thickness of 0.87, 1.3, and
1.69 mm). The most optimized condition in terms of
the maximum formability (111.40) and the minimum
forming time (2.87 min) was reported for the sheet thick-
ness of 1.69 mm and spindle speed of 3000 rpm (Fig. 5(c)).
The optimized process parameters were finally adopted
for a confirmatory experiment of two replications.
The resulting magnitudes of CCF were averaged, so that
CCFavg showed an approximate deviation of 5% with
respect to the maximum CCF derived from optimization.
Therefore, the results of optimization were verified by
confirmatory experiments.
Considering the interactive effects of ISF process
parameters and the optimization results discussed
above, the mechanisms behind such observations can
be explained as follows:
1. A high spindle speed (2500 rpm) substantially
contributes toward the improvement of formability.
This effect can be explained by reduction in sliding
friction forces and generation of heat in the contact
area that is due to the increase of relative motion
between tool and sheet. In this research, the tempera-
ture was estimated to reach 150 C for the optimized
condition in terms of the maximum achievable form-
ability. Such a confined heating leads to diminution of
flow stress in the restricted forming area [20], hence,
further localizing deformation, which in turn stimu-
lates larger post uniform deformation in ISF [21].
Spindle speed produces noticeable interactive effects
with all the other ISF factors.
2. Increasing blank thickness from 0.87 to 1.69 mm
improves formability. The increase of sheet thickness
can create bigger barriers against the expansion
of localized necking outside the forming area.
Moreover, by increasing the sheet thickness, larger
spring-back and stronger reactive compressive stress
are expected as forming tool proceeds. Increase in
sheet thickness also leads to decrease in the magnitude
of hydrostatic stress [22]. The active role of through-
thickness-shear in improvement of sheet formability
 1360 H. KHALATBARI ET AL.
Downloaded by [Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology] at 22:58 20 August 2015

FIGURE 4.—Interactive effects of ISF process parameters on CCF; (a) PS:3, FR:3, SRS:3; (b) PS:1, FR:1, SRS:1; (c) TTD:3, FR:3, SRS:3; (d) TTD:3, PS:3,
SRS:3; (e) TTD:3, PS:3, FR:3; (f) TTD:3, PS:3, BT:3; (g) TTD:3, FR:3, BT:3; (h) BT:3, PS:3, FR:3; (i) SRS:3, PS:3, BT:3; (j) TTD:3, SRS:3, BT:3;
(k) BT:3, FR:3, SRS:3; (l) BT:3, FR:3, SRS:5.
 HIGH-SPEED INCREMENTAL FORMING PROCESS
Downloaded by [Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology] at 22:58 20 August 2015
FIGURE 5.—Representation of the predictor and response parameters involved in optimization of ISF.
has been also emphasized by many researchers [23, 24].
Therefore, the higher gradient of shear forces across
the sheet thickness may provide another reason for
better formability of thicker sheets. However, by
further increasing blank thickness (e.g., to 2.23 mm)
magnitude of CCF starts to descend. This is most
probably due to a severe increase in normal loads.
It is noteworthy that interactive effects of blank
thickness with tool size [25] and spindle speed should
be taken into consideration.
3. There is no undesirable effect on formability by raising
the feed rate up to 5000 mm=min. This finding suggests
that a significant improvement in terms of time
efficiency of the process can be achieved. The faster
transition of the loading locus caused by an acceler-
ated feed rate may relax expansion of localized neck-
ing, thereby, extending the post uniform deformation
over a wider range of strain. This mechanism, that
is, fast consecutive relocation of the restricted forming
area can compensate for the undesirable effect of the
resultant high strain rate on formability.
4. Generally, the smaller the step size, the higher is
the formability. The reason is that a larger step
size results in intensification of forming forces
accompanied by extension of the tool–sheet contact
area and the forming area. However, by increasing
sheet thickness and spindle speed to their maximum
levels, the optimum value of step size in terms of the
best achievable formability, approaches its midlevel
(0.49 mm). This combination of ISF factors leads
to a considerable improvement in time efficiency of
the process while acceptable formability is main-
tained. Step size and tool size produce a significant
interactive effect on formability.
5. Generally, smaller size of rotating tools with spindle
speed of above 700 rpm, produce the higher sheet
formability. In fact, enlargement of forming tool leads
to expansion of the forming area, hence suppressing
beneficial effects of localized deformation on sheet
formability in ISF process. However, using any tool
of diameter remarkably smaller than 6 mm (e.g.,
1361
4 mm) results in penetration of tool into sheet
material, and probably removal of material as tool
proceeds. In the case of the non-rotational tool
(0 rpm), it was derived that larger tools provide better
formability. Li et al. employing a non-rotational
tool for a groove test and finite element simulation,
expressed the same result [26]. However, the maximum
formability achieved by using non-rotational tools in
this research does not exceed 70% of the formability
attained by using rotating tools (2500 rpm).
CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of the current study was first to examine
the interactive effects of ISF process parameters, namely
tool size, pitch size, feed rate, spindle rotational speed,
and blank thickness, on sheet formability. Optimization
of the process to achieve the best formability while mini-
mizing the processing time was also among the objec-
tives of this research. The most significant findings to
emerge from this study are as follows:
1. ANOVA as conducted by the present study, revealed
that a particular ISF process parameter may or may
not produce a significant effect on sheet formability,
depending on the criterion of formability being
adopted. For example, taking the maximum achiev-
able depth of fracture or forming angle into account,
step size was realized to produce no significant effect.
However, by using the average normal strain along
sheet thickness as a criterion for formability, step size
induced a significant effect.
2. In order to render a comprehensive measure of
formability, a new criterion (CCF) was proposed. By
adopting CCF, the average normal strain along sheet
thickness, the maximum achievable forming angel and
the rate of change in forming angle along the normal
vector of the blank (Z) were taken into consideration.
By using the new criterion for formability (CCF),
a large number of experiments including 72 ISF trials
of one replication were planned by employing DOE
 1362
(ODM). Performing the experiments, and analyzing
the results by employing RSM, interactive effects of
the ISF process parameters on CCF were precisely
reported in Fig. 4.
3. Accurate measurement of the depth of ISF specimen
at which crack initiates, the corresponding average
normal strain at this level, and the maximum forming
angle was secured by design and application of a sen-
sor system based on LDRs. Therefore, the measure-
ment errors induced by reversible elastic deformation
of sheet in ISF reduced to a negligible level.
Downloaded by [Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology] at 22:58 20 August 2015
4. Derringer–Suich multi-objective numerical optimiza-
tion method was employed to realize the maximum
sheet formability in ISF while minimizing the proces-
sing time. Since sheet thickness provides an example
of a discrete variable, optimization was performed
by considering each sheet thickness separately. There-
fore, the thickest sheet (1.69 mm) rendered the best
formability. Optimization also revealed the great
contribution of high rotational (2400 rpm) and
translational (5000 mm=min) speeds of forming tool
toward productivity and efficiency of the process. The
optimal step size was derived as about the midlevel
(0.49 mm) for the both rotational and non-
rotational tools. The optimal tool size varied from
the minimum level (6 mm) to the maximum level
(12 mm) for the rotational and non-rotational tools,
respectively.
Detailed investigation of the interactive effects of ISF
factors on the stress–strain state and the fracture beha-
vior of sheet calls for an accurate FEA. In order to verify
the results of FEA, it is necessary to experimentally
measure the forming forces and strains. Studying these
aspects of ISF process was out of the scope of the
current experimental investigation and will be addressed
in the forthcoming research work in the near future.
REFERENCES
1. Echrif, S.; Hrairi, M. Research and progress in incremental
sheet forming processes. Materials and Manufacturing
Processes 2011, 26 (11), 1404–1414.
2. Leacock, A.G. The future of sheet metal forming research.
Materials and Manufacturing Processes 2012, 27 (4), 366–369.
3. Arfa, H.; Bahloul, R.; BelHadjSalah, H. Finite element
modelling and experimental investigation of single point
incremental forming process of aluminum sheets: influence
of process parameters on punch force monitoring and on
mechanical and geometrical quality of parts. International
Journal of Material Forming 2012, 6 (4), 1–28.
4. Strano, M. Technological representation of forming limits
for negative incremental forming of thin aluminum sheets.
Journal of Manufacturing Processes 2005, 7 (2), 122–129.
5. Ham, M.; Jeswiet, J. Single point incremental forming and the
forming criteria for AA3003. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing
Technology 2006, 55 (1), 241–244.
6. Ham, M.; Jeswiet, J. Forming limit curves in single point
incremental forming. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Tech-
nology 2007, 56 (1), 277–280.
H. KHALATBARI ET AL.
7. Hussain, G.; Gao, L.; Zhang, Z.Y. Formability evaluation of
a pure titanium sheet in the cold incremental forming process.
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
2008, 37 (9), 920–926.
8. Hussain, G.; Gao, L.; Hayat, N.; Dar, N.U. The formabil-
ity of annealed and pre-aged AA-2024 sheets in single-
point incremental forming. The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2010, 46 (5),
543–549.
9. Montgomery, D.C. Design and Analysis of Experiments;
John Wiley & Sons, 2008; 466pp.
10. Ranganathan, S.; Senthilvelan, T.; Sriram, G. Evaluation of
machining parameters of hot turning of stainless steel(Type
316) by applying ANN and RSM. Materials and Manufacturing
Processes 2010, 25 (10), 1131–1141.
11. Hussain, G.; Hashemipour, M.; Iqbal, A.; Khalatbari, H.
Role of tool size in suppressing defects in SPIF process.
Advanced Materials Research 2013, 746, 167–172.
12. Hussain, G.; Gao, L.; Hayat, N. Forming parameters and
forming defects in incremental forming of an aluminum sheet:
correlation, empirical modeling, and optimization: part
A. Materials and Manufacturing Processes 2011, 26 (12),
1546–1553.
13. Hussain, G.; Khan, H.; Gao, L.; Hayat, N. Guidelines for
tool-size selection for single-point incremental forming of an
aerospace alloy. Materials and Manufacturing Processes
2013, 28 (3), 324–329.
14. Hussain, G.; Gao, L.; Dar, N. An experimental study on
some formability evaluation methods in negative incremental
forming. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2007,
186 (1), 45–53.
15. Neamen, D.A.; Pevzner, B. Semiconductor Physics and
Devices: Basic Principles; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY,
2003; 122pp.
16. Emmens, W.C.; van den Boogaard, A. An overview of stabi-
lizing deformation mechanisms in incremental sheet forming.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2009, 209 (8),
3688–3695.
17. Allwood, J.M.; Shouler, D.R. Generalised forming limit
diagrams showing increased forming limits with non-planar
stress states. International Journal of Plasticity 2009, 25 (7),
1207–1230.
18. Filice, L.; Fratini, L.; Micari, F. Analysis of material form-
ability in incremental forming. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing
Technology 2002, 51 (1), 199–202.
19. Derringer, G.; Suich, R. Simultaneous optimization of
several response variables. Journal of Quality Technology
1980, 214–219.
20. Abedrabbo, N.; Pourboghrat, F.; Carsley, J. Forming of
aluminum alloys at elevated temperatures–part 1: material
characterization. International Journal of Plasticity 2006, 22
(2), 314–341.
21. Malhotra, R.; Xue, L.; Belytschko, T.; Cao, J. Mechanics
of fracture in single point incremental forming. Journal
of Materials Processing Technology 2012, 212 (7),
1573–1590.
22. Silva, M.; Skjødt, M.; Martins, P.A.; Bay, N. Revisiting the
fundamentals of single point incremental forming by means
of membrane analysis. International Journal of Machine Tools
and Manufacture 2008, 48 (1), 73–83.
 HIGH-SPEED INCREMENTAL FORMING PROCESS
23. Eyckens, P.; Belkassem, B.; Henrard, C.; Gu, J.; Sol, H.;
Habraken, A.M.; Duflou, J.R.; van Bael, A.; van Houtte, P.
Strain evolution in the single point incremental forming process:
digital image correlation measurement and finite element predic-
tion. International Journal of Material Forming 2011, 4 (1), 55–71.
24. Jackson, K.; Allwood, J. The mechanics of incremental sheet
forming. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2009,
209 (3), 1158–1174.
Downloaded by [Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology] at 22:58 20 August 2015
1363
25. Hussain, G.; Al-Ghamdi, K.; Khalatbari, H.; Iqbal, A.;
Hashemipour, M. Forming parameters and forming defects
in incremental forming process: part B. Materials and
Manufacturing Processes 2014, 29 (4), 454–460.
26. Li, Y.; Liu, Z.; Daniel, W.; Meehan, P. Simulation and
experimental observations of effect of different contact
interfaces on the incremental sheet forming process. Materials
and Manufacturing Processes 2014, 29 (2), 121–128.