GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AHMEDABAD March – … · with aluminum, magnesium, titanium, composites, foams and also some non-metallic materials like polymers, elastomers and

Parametric Investigation on Single Point Incremental Forming for Difficult to

Form Material

A Synopsis of the Ph. D. Thesis

Submitted to

Gujarat Technological University, Ahmedabad

For the Award of Doctor of Philosophy

In Mechanical Engineering

By

Snehal Viranchibhai Trivedi

Enrollment No: 139997119015

Under the Supervision of

Dr. Anishkumar Hasmukhlal Gandhi Supervisor

Principal C. K. Pithawala College of Engineering and Technology, Surat, Gujarat, India

GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

AHMEDABAD

March – 2019

Index

Sr. No. Description Page No.

1 Abstract 1

2 Brief Description on state of art of the research topic 1

3 Definition of the Problem 3

4 Objective and Scope of work 3

5 Original contribution by the thesis 4

6 Methodology of Research, Results / Comparisons 5

7 Achievements with respect to objectives 12

8 Conclusion 13

9 List of all publications arising from the thesis 14

10 Patents (if any) 15

11 References 15

Parametric Investigation on Single Point Incremental Forming for difficult to form material

139997119015_Synopsis_Gujarat Technological University Page 1 of 19

ABSTRACT:

Global demand of higher strength-to-weight ratio of structures leads progress in development

of variety of lightweight metals and its alloys. Metal forming processes are preferable over range of

manufacturing processes to get the lightweight products due to its significant characteristics of

obtaining homogeneous distribution of material for finished product. Generally, high strength metals

offer non uniform material distribution due to lower nominal strain at fracture which limits the

formability of material.

Hence for the proposed work Single Point Incremental Forming is identified potential dieless

forming process due to its characteristics to offer effective local deformation resulting in greater

formability. SPIF is flexible enough to produce customized formed products of sheet metal. Present

work focuses on investigation of formability of AMS4902 (CP Ti Grade2/ ASTM B265) sheet using

Single Point Incremental Forming (SPIF), which is having typical applications in industrial

and aerospace components, bellows, honeycomb, gaskets, aircraft skin, heat exchanger parts,

medical and dental devices, tubing, pickling baskets etc.

Methodology of the proposed work includes experimental investigation of SPIF of square

pyramid geometry ranging from 50o to 70o wall angle from AMS4902 sheet. Present experimental

investigation is an attempt to analyze the individual effect of various parameters such as tool

diameter, tool speed, tool feed rate, incremental depth of tool and their interaction on thickness

distribution, maximum formable angle, fracture depth and surface roughness of part formed by SPIF.

Experimental investigation was extended to SPIF of 60o and 70o wall angle square pyramid using

multiple pass. BRIEF DESCRIPTION ON THE STATE OF THE ART OF THE RESEARCH TOPIC:

Lightweight construction plays crucial role to improve the performance of product where

masses are subjected to acceleration, such as aeronautical and automobile applications. Reduced

unsprung masses in a car chassis improve driving comfort and safety even at higher speeds.

Selection of materials having maximum strength and stiffness with minimum weight is a key

criterion when selecting them for automobile, train, ship or aircraft kind of applications to meet

requirement of reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gases for improving fuel efficiency in

transport sector. Improvement in fuel economy of 7percentage is estimated by every 10percentage of

weight reduction out of the total weight of a vehicle which also means that for every kilogram of

weight reduced in a vehicle, there is about 20 kg of carbon dioxide reduction. To obtain lightweight



construction, without compromising rigidity, automakers are investigating the replacement of steel

with aluminum, magnesium, titanium, composites, foams and also some non-metallic materials like

polymers, elastomers and polymer matrix composites. To meet the recycling and recovery targets of

85percentage at the end-of-life of vehicles, driving the auto industry to adopt lightweight materials

technology. Appropriate manufacturing technologies for rolling, extrusion, forming and joining

processes need development, simulation and validation for the innovative materials and applications.

Lightweight construction deals with the use of lightweight materials and with different

design strategies too. To design a body structure of trains or cars include design of frame structure

and shell structures both. Thus, lightweight construction can be defined as an integrative

construction technique from the field of design, material science and manufacturing; combined to

reduce the mass of a whole structure and its single element for improved functionality. Higher

strength metals like magnesium and titanium generally offers lower nominal strain at fracture which

exhibits non uniform distribution of material and that ultimately limits the formability of metal.

Parametric design of novel forming processes like incremental forming, superplastic forming,

thixoforming or sheet forming at elevated temperature needs to be developed in order to obtain

lightweight shell structure out of high strength materials.

Incremental forming (IF), popularly known as dieless forming process, has great potential to

form sheet metal into complex three dimensional components using relatively simple and low cost

tools. Sheet metal can be deformed progressively and locally using spherical forming tool controlled

by CNC machine during incremental forming process. Negative dieless incremental forming is

known as single point incremental forming (SPIF) while positive die-less incremental forming is

known as two point incremental sheet forming (TPIF). A greater deformation of a sheet metal can be

obtained by incremental forming compared to conventional forming even at room temperature due to

its ability to deform material locally. Potential application areas of incremental forming include

aerospace industry, biomedical applications and prototyping in the automotive industry.

In order to fulfill the global demand, a newer forming process like Single Point Incremental

Forming Process plays a vital role due to its characteristics of the process like;

(i) Flexibility of process to get customized shape product even for small batch size

(ii) Enhanced formability due to ability to deform material locally.

(iii) Cost effectiveness as there is no dedicated toolings like die and punch are essential.



The present experimental investigation focuses to analyze effect of parametric interaction on

formability of AMS4902 using Single Point Incremental Forming.

DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM:

This is an experimental attempt to determine influence of parametric interaction on

formability of AMS4902 using Single Point Incremental Forming. AMS4902 is an unalloyed grade

of Titanium designated by SAE International under Aerospace Material Specifications which

contains 99-99.5 percent Titanium, with balance being made up of Iron and interstitial impurity

elements Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Carbon and Oxygen; available in the form of strip, sheet and plate.

AMS 4902 is of high demand lightweight material for aerospace applications under the category of

Commercially Pure Titanium Grade 2 which is equivalent to ASME SB265 and ASTM B265 (Grade

2). Aerospace applications of AMS4902 include airframe skins in "warm" areas, ductwork, brackets

and galley equipment.

The crystal structure of pure titanium at ambient temperature and pressure is HCP (hexagonal

close-packed) having grains of α phase and the possibility of small amount of β phase too with c/a

ratio of 1.587. The metal with HCP crystal structure possesses three slip systems observed as

prismatic plane slip, pyramidal plane slip and basal plane slip. Although the HCP and FCC

structures possess highest atomic packing factor of 0.74, signifies 74 percent of volume of unit cell is

occupied by atoms, the HCP structured metals are difficult to deform due to limited number of

available active slip systems compared to BCC or FCC structured metals. The aim of the proposed

work is to investigate Single Point Incremental Forming of AMS4902 into square pyramid geometry

experimentally to analyze the individual effect of various parameters such as tool diameter, tool

rotation, tool feed rate, incremental depth of tool and their interaction during single and multipass of

hemispherical tool on thickness distribution, maximum formable angle and surface roughness for

forming of 1.5 mm thick sheet of AMS 4902.

OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF WORK:

Objectives

The following objectives are set in order to analyze formability of AMS4902 using Single Point

Incremental Forming.

(1) To decide range of speed, feed incremental depth and tool diameter for single pass and multipass

SPIF of AMS4902.



(2) To assess formability of AMS4902 (CP Ti Grade-2/ ASTM-B265) in terms of thickness

distribution, maximum formable wall angle and failure depth (by deforming 1.5mm thick sheet

into 50°, 60° & 70° square pyramid in a singlepass and 60° & 70° in multipass SPIF).

(3) To determine effect of parametric interaction between tool diameter with incremental step depth

on formability of AMS4902.

(4) To determine effect of parametric interaction between tool diameter and incremental step depth

for single pass SPIF on surface roughness of component formed out of AMS4902.

Scope of work Comparing the properties of AMS4902 with other materials;

AMS4902 is having higher yield strength; hence it is less stretchable and difficult to form

than Magnesium alloy. At the same time, AMS4902 is 56 percent lighter than Steel alloy.

As Modulus of Elasticity of AMS4902 is 2.45 times higher than Magnesium alloy, the

Springback for AMS 4902 will be 0.4 times lesser than Magnesium alloy which may offer

more dimensional accuracy of formed component.

Hence, Commercially Pure (CP) Titanium Grade-2 (AMS4902) is having potential to develop

material characteristics and process mechanics for conducting parametric investigation using

Single Point Incremental Forming.

Based on facts reported in literature regarding formability of blank material in SPIF can be

determined in terms of thickness distribution, maximum formable angle, fracture Depth.

METHODOLOGY AND ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION BY THE THESIS:

1. Literature survey was conducted to identify difficult to form material based on comparison

and influence of property parameters on sheet metal forming. Geometry of component to

be formed, range of tool diameters, tool rotations, feed rates and incremental depths were

also decided based on findings from literature survey conducted.

2. A set-up (fixture) for Single Point Incremental Forming was designed and developed in order

to conduct pilot experiment on the sheet of Aluminum and Stainless Steel.

3. Experimental set: 1 and 2 were designed using Design of Experiments (DoE) to perform Single Point Incremental Forming of 1.5mm thick sheet of AMS4902 into 50o wall angle square pyramid of 30mm depth in singlepass using selected range of parameters in order to determine effect of parameters on thickness distribution and surface roughness.



4. Experiments for Single Point Incremental Forming of AMS4902 sheet of 1.5mm thickness into 60o and 70o wall angle square pyramid in singlepass were conducted using optimum parameters derived from Experimental set: 1 and 2 to determine failure depth.

5. Experiments for Single Point Incremental Forming to deform 50o wall angle square pyramid into 60o and 70o wall angle pyramids were conducted.

METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH, RESULTS / COMPARISONS:

Experimentation

(a) SPIF Fixture (b) Geometry of Pyramid to be Deformed

Figure 1 Experimental Set-Up and Geometry of Square Pyramid

A fixture of 250 mm x 250 mm as shown in figure 1 (a) was fabricated to hold sheet of

AMS4902 of 200 mm x 200 mm x 1.5 mm. Truncated square pyramid with a largest size square of

100 mm x 100 mm and constant wall angle of 50o was deformed up to 30 mm depth as per the

geometry shown in figure 1 (b). A hemispherical headed tool of AISI304 was employed to get

deformation by following contour tool path in singlepass. The contour tool path was generated using

MasterCAM software by modeling the geometry of square pyramid to be deformed. VALONA 7035

IN high performance neat oil was used as a lubricant during SPIF. Formability assessment of

AMS4902 was carried out in terms of thickness distribution and maximum formable wall angle. The

range of input parameters influencing percentage thinning was decided based on literature review

conducted.



Taguchi L9 array was selected to get the optimum combination of tool diameter, tool

rotation, tool feed and incremental depth with each other at three levels. Range of tool diameters

varies from 8 mm to 16 mm with the increment of 4 mm at each level, speed range varies from 1250

rpm to 3250 rpm with the increment of 1000 rpm at each level, feed variation of 1400 mm/min at

each level starting from 1200 mm/min and variation of 0.25 mm in incremental depth at each level

starting with 0.25 mm. Design of experiments by L9 array to investigate the effect of selected

parameters is reported in Table: 1 as an Experimental Set: 1.

Table: 1 Experimental Set: 1 for singlepass SPIF to form square pyramid of 50o wall angle

Experiment Number

Tool Diameter

(mm)

Speed (rpm)

Feed (mm/ min)

Incremental Step Depth

(mm) 1 T1 = 8 S1 = 1250 F1 = 1200 z1 = 0.25

2 T1 = 8 S2 = 2250 F2 = 2600 z2 = 0.5

3 T1 = 8 S3 = 3250 F3 = 4000 z3 = 0.75

4 T2 = 12 S1 = 1250 F2 = 2600 z3 = 0.75

5 T2 = 12 S2 = 2250 F3 = 4000 z1 = 0.25

6 T2 = 12 S3 = 3250 F1 = 1200 z2 = 0.5

7 T3 = 16 S1 = 1250 F3 = 4000 z2 = 0.5

8 T3 = 16 S2 = 2250 F1 = 1200 z3 = 0.75

9 T3 = 16 S3 = 3250 F2 = 2600 z1 = 0.25

The forming depth of 30 mm was obtained for the pyramids formed during Experiment No.

1, 4, 5 and 7 out of all nine experiments of Experimental Set: 1. Forming of pyramid at intermediate

or higher tool rotational speed of selected range operated with lower or intermediate feeds led to

excessive friction between tool-sheet interface which ultimately resulted in damage of sheet and tool.

The pinning effect was observed during forming of sheet with 8 mm diameter hemispherical tool.

Based on detailed discussion on results of Experimental Set: 1 carried out in next section, the study

was narrowed down to optimum values of tool diameter, tool rotational speed and feed in order to

determine interaction effect of parameters on thickness distribution and surface roughness of formed

pyramid with 50o wall angle by singlepass SPIF for the Experimental Set: 2 reported in Table: 2.



Table: 2 Experimental Set: 2 for singlepass SPIF to form square pyramid of 50o wall angle

Experiment Number

Tool Diameter

(mm)

Speed (rpm)

Feed (mm/min)


(mm) 10 T1=12 S=1250 F=4000 z1=0.25

11 T1=12 S=1250 F=4000 z2=0.5

12 T1=12 S=1250 F=4000 z3=0.75

13 T2=16 S=1250 F=4000 z1=0.25

14 T2=16 S=1250 F=4000 z2=0.5

15 T2=16 S=1250 F=4000 z3=0.75

Forming depth of 30 mm was obtained for all six experiments of Experimental Set: 2.

Thickness of formed wall was measured using CMM and then percentage thinning was calculated

based on difference of thickness with respect to original thickness. Hence, Experimental Set: 3 was

conducted to deform truncated square pyramid of 60o and 70o wall angle by employing singlepass

SPIF for parametric combination of 12mm tool diameter, 1250 rpm tool speed, 4000 mm/min feed at

0.25 mm incremental step depth which offered minimum thinning and minimum surface roughness

during previous set of experiments.

Table: 4 Experimental Set: 3 for singlepass SPIF to form square pyramid of 60o and 70o wall angle

Experiment Number

Wall Angle

(Degree)

Tool Diameter

(mm)

Speed (rpm)

Feed (mm/min)


(mm) 16 60 T=12 S=1250 F=4000 z=0.25

17 70 T=12 S=1250 F=4000 z=0.25

Further the Experimental Set: 4 was conducted for multipass SPIF to form 60o and 70o wall angle

square pyramid out of already formed pyramid of 50o wall angle with the parametric combination

same as Experimental Set: 3.

Results

(I) Effect of tool diameter and incremental step depth interaction on average percentage

thinning of pyramid wall

Figure 2 (a), (b) and (c) presents the effect of 12 mm and 16 mm diameters of tools on average

percentage thinning obtained at various depths of pyramids formed when operated at incremental

step of 0.25 mm, 0.50 mm and 0.75 mm. Average wall thickness is the average of all four readings



obtained at each walls for five various depths. Looking to the graphs, it is observed that 12 mm

diameter tool offers less thinning and also reasonably uniform thickness distribution compare to 16

mm diameter tool irrespective of value of the incremental depths out of selected range.

(a) Effect of tool diameters at 0.25 mm step depth (b) Effect of tool diameters at 0.50 mm step depth

(c) Effect of tool diameters at 0.75 mm step depth

Figure 2 Average Percentage Thinning Vs Component Depth

(Effect of tool diameter on Average Percentage Thinning for same incremental step depth)

Figure 3 (a) and (b) explains effect of incremental step depth on average percentage thinning

obtained at various depths of pyramids formed when operated with 12 mm and 16 mm diameters of

tools. The combination of 16 mm tool diameter with 0.25 mm incremental step depth offers

maximum thinning compared to 0.50 mm and 0.75 mm incremental step depth. In case of 12 mm

diameter tool, combination with 0.25 mm incremental step depth offers minimum thinning compared

to 0.50 mm and 0.75 mm incremental step depth.



(a) (b)

Effect of incremental depth on Average Percentage Thinning at (a) 12 mm diameter and (b) at 16 mm diameter

Figure 3 Average Percentage Thinning Vs Component Depth

(Effect of incremental step depth on Average Percentage Thinning for same tool diameter)

(I) Effect of tool diameter and incremental step depth interaction on average surface roughness

(Ra)

(a) Calibration of Surface Roughness Tester (b) Roughness Measurement Set-up

Figure 4 Surface Roughness Measurement for Pyramid Wall

Mitutoyo surface roughness tester, SURFTEST SJ-210, was used for surface roughness

measurement of pyramid walls. Surface roughness measurement of pyramid walls was followed by

calibration of surface roughness tester using developed fixture as shown in figure 4 (a) and (b).

Average surface roughness for a pyramid wall was calculated from four readings of Ra value

measured for an individual wall of a pyramid. Similarly, average surface roughness for a pyramid is

determined by average of average roughness for all four walls of that pyramid.

Figure 5 (a) and (b) describes interactive effect of tool diameter and incremental step depth

on surface roughness of three pyramids formed with 12 mm diameter tool and three pyramids

formed with 16 mm diameter tool.



(a) (b)

Effect of incremental depth on Surface Roughness at (a) 12 mm diameter (b) 16 mm diameter

Figure 5 Average Surface Roughness (Ra Value) Vs Pyramid Wall

Irrespective of the tool diameter, 0.25mm incremental depth offers less surface roughness

compared to 0.50 mm and 0.75 mm incremental depth. Tool of 16 mm diameter operated at 0.25

mm incremental step depth offers least roughness compared to 12 mm diameter tool operated at

same incremental depth for difficult to form material like AMS4902.

(II) Results for singlepass SPIF applied to form 60o and 70o wall angle square pyramids

(a) Failure of 60o wall angle square pyramid (b) Failure of 70o wall angle square pyramid

Figure 6 Singlepass SPIF for 60o and 70o wall angle square pyramids

Failure of 60o wall angle pyramid is observed at 8 mm depth while failure of 70o wall angle

pyramid is observed at 7 mm depth as shown in figure 6 (a) and (b) respectively. Looking to the

results, it can be derived that wall angle is also an important limiting parameter in Single Point

Incremental Forming.

(III) Results for multipass SPIF applied on 50o wall angle square pyramids to form 60o and 70o

wall angle square pyramids.



(a) Multipass SPIF to form 50o to 60o wall angle pyramid

Figure 7 Multipass SPIF applied to form 50o into 60o wall angle pyramid

Multipass SPIF was employed to form 60o wall angle pyramid out of already formed pyramid with

50o wall angle. As shown in figure 7, pyramid was formed successfully up to 13mm depth.

(a) Measurement of wall thickness of 60o pyramid (b) Avg. percentage Thinning Vs Component

Depth

Figure 8 Analysis of percentage Thinning after Multipass SPIF applied on 50o wall angle

pyramid

Thickness measurement for the pyramid of 60o wall angle obtained by multipass is carried

out using point micrometer as shown in figure 8 (a). The maximum thinning did not exceed to 87

percent as shown in Figure 8 (b). Hence there was no failure observed during multipass SPIF to

convert 50o wall angle pyramid into 60o. The significance of results obtained led that it is advisable

to apply multipass forming for higher angle of pyramid out of difficult to form materials such as

AMS4902 in cold forming condition.

(b) Multipass SPIF to form 50o to 70o wall angle pyramid

Figure 9 (a) shows the pyramid with wall angle of 70o deformed by applying multipass SPIF

on already deformed pyramid of 50o wall angle with the same parametric combination. The average



percentage thinning for the pyramid with 70o wall angle reaches up to 100 percent as shown in figure

9 (b). The failure depth of 13 mm is observed for 70o wall angle pyramid which is almost double

than the forming of 70o wall angle pyramid formed by singlepass SPIF.

(a) Failure of 70o wall angle pyramid (b) Avg. percentage Thinning Vs Component

Depth

Figure 9 Analysis of percentage Thinning after Multipass SPIF applied on 50o wall angle

pyramid

ACHIEVEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO OBJECTIVES:

Achievement of all four objectives mentioned is as below;

(1) Based on findings of exhaustive literature review conducted, AMS4902 sheet was identified which

is difficult to form based on comparison of effect of property parameters on forming. In line with

the identified material, square pyramid was identified as part geometry, as very less work was

found during literature survey. Selection of range of tool diameter, tool speed, feed rate and

incremental depth were also derived based on findings of literature review tabulated as

Experimental Set: 1 and 2.

(2) Formability of AMS4902 was determined in terms of thickness distribution by deforming 1.5mm

thick sheet of AMS4902 into a square pyramid of 50o wall angle up to 30 mm depth using single

pass Single Point Incremental Forming. Thickness measurement was carried out using CMM after

deformation. (Fig. 1)

(3) During singlepass Single Point Incremental Forming of AMS4902 sheet into square pyramid of

60o and 70o wall angle, failure depth of 8 mm and 7 mm were observed respectively. (Fig. 6)

(4) Multipass Single Point Incremental Forming of 50o wall angle pyramid into 60o wall angle pyramid

was made possible with maximum thinning of 87 percent while failure depth of 13 mm was

obtained during multi pass SPIF of 50o wall angle pyramid into 70o pyramid. (Fig. 7, 8 & 9)



(5) Graphs showing effect of interaction of tool diameter and incremental depth signifies that 12 mm

diameter tool offered relatively uniform thickness distribution irrespective of value of incremental

depth. (Fig. 2 & 3)

(6) Graphs showing effect of interaction of tool diameter and incremental depth signifies that 0.25 mm

incremental depth offered relatively less surface roughness irrespective of value of tool diameter.

(Fig. 4 & 5)

CONCLUSION:

(I) Effect of tool speed and feed interaction

Single point incremental forming of AMS4902 at much higher speed and lower feed was not

conducive as excess local frictional rubbing at a point of tool-sheet interface leads to join the

tool with the sheet which does not allow tool to carry forward the process of forming.

Wavy wall surface was observed for the pyramid of full depth formed with the combination of

intermediate speed and higher feed out of selected range even with moderate tool diameter and

lower incremental depth.

Failure of pyramid was observed due to rapid removal of material from AMS4902 sheet when

smaller diameter hemispherical headed tool was operated at the combination of higher speed

and higher feed of selected range.

Interaction of tool rotational speed and feed plays vital role to satisfy the thermomechanical

demand to form AMS4902 sheet at reduced operating forming force which ultimately leads to

improved tool life, maintain dimensional accuracy and surface quality of pyramid of AMS4902

formed by SPIF.

(II) Effect of tool diameter and incremental step depth interaction

Out of selected range of diameters of tools, 8 mm diameter tool offered pinning effect when it

was operated at the combination of intermediate or higher range of speed and feed which caused

the removal of sheet material that resulted in failure of pyramid wall before targeted depth of

forming.

Tool diameter is found to be significant parameter affecting formability in terms of thickness

distribution.

Incremental step depth was found to be significantly affecting the surface roughness, smaller is

the incremental step depth lesser is the surface roughness.



(III) Regarding singlepass and multipass SPIF to form higher wall angle pyramid of AMS 4902

sheet

Failure of 60o wall angle pyramid was observed at 8 mm depth during singlepass SPIF

performed at optimum parameters while it could be possible to get forming of 50o wall angle

pyramid into 60o wall angle pyramid without failure during multipass SPIF with same

parametric combination. Maximum average percentage thinning of 60o wall angle did not

exceed 87 percent.

Failure of 70o wall angle pyramid is observed at 7 mm depth during singlepass SPIF but failure

could be prolonged up to 13 mm depth of forming when it was formed out of 50o wall angle

pyramid with optimum parameters derived.

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS ARISING FROM THE THESIS:

International Journal

1. Snehal Trivedi, Harshil Shah, Dr. Anishkumar H. Gandhi, (2018) “Significance of

parameters influencing surface roughness during Incremental Sheet Forming of AISI202”,

International Journal of Engineering, Technology, Science and Research (IJETSR), Vol. 5,

Issue 4, pp700-708. ISSN 2394-3386 (UGC approved journal).

1. Snehal V. Trivedi, Dr. Anishkumar H. Gandhi, (2019) “Parameters influencing incremental

sheet forming: An overview”, Int. J. of Materials and Product Technology (Scopus Indexed

Journal)-Under Review.

2. Snehal V. Trivedi, Dr. Anishkumar H. Gandhi, (2019) “Investigation of Grid Marking

Techniques to assess formability of AMS4902 Sheet formed using Single Point Incremental

Forming”, Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR-International

Open Access Journal), ISSN 2349-5162 (UGC approved journal)-Accepted and under the

process of publication. National Conference

1. Pratik R. Bhatt, Snehal V. Trivedi, Dr. Anish H. Gandhi (2016) “An Incremental Sheet

Forming Process: Its Need, Application and Characteristics”, 7th National Conference on

Emerging Vistas of Technology-Smart Innovations in Mechanical and Allied Engineering

ISBN: 978-93-85777-49-3.

2. Piyushkumar A. Gandhi, Snehal V. Trivedi, Dr. Anish H. Gandhi (2017) “Numerical

investigation of effect of wall geometry on formability of parts in single point incremental



forming process, National Conference on Progress, Research and Innovation in Mechanical

Engineering-SCET Multidisciplinary Conferences on Engineering and Technology ISBN:

978-81-933591-5-0

PATENTS (IF ANY): Nil

REFERENCES

1. T.J. Kim, D.Y. Yang, “Improvement of formability for the incremental sheet metal forming process”, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 42, 2000, 1271-1286.

2. Y.H. Kim, J.J. Park, “Effect of process parameters on formability in incremental forming of sheet metal”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 130–131, 2002, 42–46.

3. L. Filice, L. Fratin, F. Micari, “Analysis of Material Formability in Incremental Forming”, Annals of the CIRP 51/1, 2002, 199-202.

4. Jong-Jin Park, Yung-Ho Kim, “Fundamental studies on the incremental sheet metal forming technique”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 140, 2003, 447–453.

5. L. Fratini, G. Ambrogio, R. Di Lorenzo, L. Filice, F. Micari, “Influence of mechanical properties of the sheet material on formability in single point incremental forming”, Annals of CIRP 53/1, 2004, 207-210.

6. W. A. Monteiro, S. J. Buso and L. V. da Silva, “Application of Magnesium Alloys in Transport”, Publisher InTech, http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/48273, 2004, pp. 1-14.

7. J. Jeswiet, F. Micari, G. Hirt, A. Bramley, J. Duflou, J. Allwood, “Asymmetric Single Point Incremental Forming of Sheet Metal”, Metal. Annals of CIRP 54(1), 2005, pp.623–650.

8. G. Ambrogio, L. De Napoli, L. Filice, F. Gagliardi, M. Muzzupappa, “Application of Incremental Forming process for high customized medical product manufacturing”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 162–163, 2005, pp. 156–162.

9. M. Ham & J. Jeswiet, “Single Point Incremental Forming and the Forming Criteria for AA3003”, Annals of CIRP 55/2, 2006, pp. 241-245.

10. E. Billur, M.S. and Prof. Dr-Ing T. Altan, “Challenges in Forming Advanced High Strength Steels”, Engineering Research Center for Net Shape Manufacturing (ERC/NSM), 2006, pp. 285-304.

11. F. Micari , G. Ambrogio, L. Filice, “Shape and dimensional accuracy in Single Point Incremental Forming: State of the art and future trends”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 191, 2007, pp.390–395.

12. M. Ham and J. Jeswiet, “Forming Limit Curves in Single Point Incremental Forming”, Annals of the CIRP, Vol. 56/1, 2007, pp.277-280, doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2007.05.064.

13. Mustafa Kemal Kulekci, “Magnesium and its alloys applications in automotive industry”, Int Journal of Adv Manufacturing Technology 39, 2008, pp.851–865.

14. J. Jeswiet, M. Geiger, U. Engel, M. Kleiner, M. Schikorra, J. Duflou, R. eugebauer,P. Bariani, S. Bruschi, “Metal forming progress since 2000”, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 1, 2008, pp.2–17.

15. G. Hussain & L. Gao & Z. Y. Zhang, “Formability evaluation of a pure titanium sheet in the cold incremental forming process”, DOI 10.1007/s00170-007-1043-7, Int. J Adv Manuf. Technol. 37, 2008, pp. 920–926.

16. J.R. Duflou, J. Verbert, B. Belkassem, J. Gu, H. Sol, C. Henrard, A.M. Habraken, “Process window enhancement for single point incremental forming through multi-step toolpaths”, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 57, 2008, pp. 253–256



17. P.A.F. Martins, N. Bay, M. Skjoedt, M.B. Silva, “Theory of single point incremental forming”, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 57, 2008, pp.247–252.

18. M Skjoedt, M B Silva, P A F Martins and N Bay, “Strategies and limits in multi-stage single-point incremental forming”, Journal of Strain Analysis 45, 2009, DOI: 10.1243/03093247JSA574.

19. P.A.F. Martins, L. Kwiatkowski, V. Franzen, A.E. Tekkaya , M. Kleiner, “Single point incremental forming of polymers”, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 58, 2009, pp. 229–232.

20. Kathryn Jackson, Julian Allwood, “The mechanics of incremental sheet forming”, Journal of materials processing technology 209, 2009, pp.1158–1174.

21. G. Hussain, L. Gao, N. Hayat, Xu. Ziran, “A new formability indicator in single point incremental forming”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209, 2009, pp. 4237–4242.

22. Fahrenttin Ozturk, Murat Dilmec, Mevlut Turkoz, Remzi E. Ece, Huseyin S. Halkaci, “Grid Marking and Measurement Methods for Sheet Metal Formability”, 5th International Conference and Exhibition on Design and Production of Machines and Die/ Molds, 2009, pp. 1-10.

23. Ghulam Hussain, Gao Lin and Nasir Hayat, “A new parameter and its effect on the formability in single point incremental forming: A fundamental investigation”, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 24(8), 2010, pp. 1617-1621.

24. 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”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 210, 2010, pp. 363–369.

25. K. Hamilton, J. Jeswiet, “Single point incremental forming at high feed rates and rotational speeds: Surface and structural consequences”, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 59, 2010, pp. 311–314.

26. W.C. Emmens, G. Sebastiani, A.H. van den Boogaard, “The technology of Incremental Sheet Forming—A brief review of the history”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 210, 2010, pp.981–997.

27. C. Bouffioux, C. Lequesne, H. Vanhove, J.R. Duflou, P. Pouteau, L. Duchêne, A.M. Habraken , “Experimental and numerical study of an AlMgSc sheet formed by an incremental process”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 211, 2011, pp.1684– 1693.

28. G. Hussain, L. Gao and N. Hayat, “Forming Parameters and Forming Defects in Incremental Forming of an Aluminum Sheet: Correlation, Empirical Modeling, and Optimization: Part A”, Materials and Manufacturing Processes 26, 2011, pp. 1546–1553.

29. S. B. M. Echrif & M. Hrairi, “Research and Progress in Incremental Sheet Forming Processes”, Materials and Manufacturing Processes 26, 2011, pp. 1404–1414.

30. M. Kleiner, M. Geiger, A. Klaus, “Manufacturing of Lightweight Components by Metal Forming”

31. Elaheh Ghassemieh, “Materials in Automotive Application, State of the Art and Prospects”, New Trends and Developments in Automotive Industry, University of Sheffield UK, ISBN 978-953-307-999-8, Publisher InTech, Jan. 2011, pp. 365-394.

32. M. Sivanandini, Dr. S. S. Dhami, Dr. B. S. Pabla, “Formability of Magnesium Alloys”, International Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER), ISSN: 2249-6645 Vol.2, Issue.4, July-Aug. 2012, pp-2464-2471.



33. G. Ambrogio, L. Filice, F. Gagliardi, “Formability of lightweight alloys by hot incremental sheet forming”, Materials and Design 34, 2012, pp. 501–508.

34. G. Palumbo, M. Brandizzi, “Experimental investigations on the single point incremental forming of a titanium alloy component combining static heating with high tool rotation speed”, Materials and Design 40, 2012, pp. 43–51.

35. G. Ambrogio, F. Gagliardi, S. Bruschi, L. Filice , “On the high-speed Single Point Incremental Forming of titanium alloys”, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62, 2013, pp. 243–246.

36. Rajiv Malhotra, Liang Xue, Ted Belytschko, Jian Cao, “Mechanics of fracture in single point incremental forming”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 212, 2012, pp.1573– 1590.

37. Tomasz TRZEPIECIŃSKI, “Advances in sheet metal forming technologies”, Rzeszow University of Technology, DOI: 10.7862/rm.2012.12, pp.59-70.

38. Nimbalkar D.H. and Nandedkar V.M., “Review of Incremental Forming of Sheet Metal Components”, Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, Vol. 3, Issue 5, Sep-Oct 2013, pp.39-51.

39. L.M. Gómez-Lópeza, V. Miguela, A. Martínez, J. Coelloa, and A.Calatayud, “Simulation and Modeling of Single Point Incremental Forming Processes within a Solidworks Environment”, The Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference, MESIC 2013, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 63, 2013, pp. 632 – 641.

40. Dongkai Xu, WeichaoWu, Rajiv Malhotra, JunChen, BinLu, JianCao, “Mechanism investigation for the influence of tool rotation and laser surface texturing (LST) on formability in single point incremental forming”, International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 73, 2013, pp. 37–46.

41. Kurra Suresh, Arman Khan and Srinivasa Prakash Regalla, “Tool path definition for numerical simulation of single point incremental forming”, International Conference on Design and Manufacturing, IConDM 2013, Procedia Engineering, vol. 64, 2013, pp. 536 – 545.

42. Cawley B., Adams D., and Jeswiet J.,“Examining Tool Shapes in Single Point Incremental Forming”, Proceedings of NAMRI/SME, Vol. 41, 2013, pp. 1-8

43. Gabriel Centeno, Isabel Bagudanch, A.J. Martínez-Donaire, M.L. García, Romeu, C. Vallellano, “Critical analysis of necking and fracture limit strains and forming forces in single-point incremental forming”, Materials and Design 63, 2014, pp. 20–29.

44. I. Bagudanch, G. Centeno, C. Vallellano and M.L. Garcia-Romeu, “Forming force in Single Point Incremental Forming under different bending conditions”, The Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference, MESIC 2013, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 63, 2013, pp. 354 – 360.

45. J. León, D. Salcedo, C. Ciáurriz, C.J. Luis, J.P. Fuertes, I. Puertas, R. Luri, “Analysis of the influence of geometrical parameters on the mechanical properties of incremental sheet forming parts ”, Procedia Engineering 63, 2013, pp.445 – 453.

46. H. Arfa, R. Bahloul and H. BelHadjSalah, “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”, Int J Mater Form, Vol. 6, 2013, pp. 483–510.



47. Suresh Kurra, Srinivasa Prakash Regalla, “Experimental and numerical studies on formability of extra-deep drawing steel in incremental sheet metal forming”, journal of material research and technology 3(2), 2014, pp.158–171.

48. Bhavin V. Desai, Keyur P. Desai, Harit K. Raval, “Die-Less Rapid Prototyping Process: Parametric Investigations”, Procedia Materials Science 6, 2014, pp. 666 – 673.

49. D. S. Malwad, Dr. V. M. Nandedkar, “Deformation Mechanism Analysis of Single Point Incremental Sheet Metal Forming”, Procedia Materials Science 6, 2014, pp. 1505 – 1510.

50. David Adams and Jack Jeswiet, “Design rules and applications of single point incremental forming”, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 2014, pp. 1-8, DOI: 10.1177/0954405414531426.

51. Y. Fang, B. Lu, J. Chen, D.K. Xu, H. Ou, “Analytical and experimental investigations on deformation mechanism and fracture behavior in single point incremental forming”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 214, 2014, pp.1503–1515.

52. S. Bruschi , T. Altan, D. Banabic, P.F. Bariani, A. Brosius, J. Cao, A. Ghiotti, M. Khraisheh, M. Merklein, A.E. Tekkaya, “Testing and modelling of material behaviour and formability in sheet metal forming”, CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 63, 2014, pp. 727–749.

53. J. Jeswiet, D. Adams, M. Doolan, T. McAnulty, P. Gupta, “Single point and asymmetric incremental forming”, Adv. Manuf. 3, 2015 pp. 253–262, DOI 10.1007/s40436-015-0126-1.

54. J. Naranjo, V. Miguel, A. Martinez, L. M. Gomez-Lopez, M.C. Manjabacas, J. Coello, “Analysis and Simulation of Single Point Incremental Forming by ANSYS”, Procedia Engineering 132, 2015, pp. 1104-1111.

55. I. Bagudanch, L. Lozano-Snchez, L. Puigpinos, M. Sabater, L. Elizalde,Elias Zuniga, M. Garcia-Rueu, “Manufacturing of polymeric biocompatible cranial geometry by Single Point Incremental Forming”, Procedia Engineering 132, 2015, pp. 267-273.

56. Amar Kumar Behera, Bin Lu and Hengan Ou, “Characterization of shape and dimensional accuracy of incrementally formed titanium sheet parts with intermediate curvatures between two feature types”, Int. J. of Adv. Manuf. Technol. 83, 2016, pp. 1099–1111.

57. Shakir Gatea, Hengan Ou, Graham McCartney, “Review on the influence of process parameters in incremental sheet forming”, Int. J. of Adv. Manuf. Technol. 87, 2016, pp. 479–499.

58. Tegan McAnulty, Jack Jeswiet, Matthew Doolan, “Formability in single point incremental forming: A comparative analysis of the state of the art”, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 38, 2016, pp. 1-12.

59. Khalil Ibrahim Abass, “A study to comparing spherical, ellipse and flat forming tool profile effect in single point incremental forming by finite element analysis”, U.P.B. Sci. Bull., Series D, Vol. 78, Iss. 1, ISSN 1454-2358, 2016, pp.1-12

60. E. H. Uheida, G. A. Oosthuizen, D. Dimitrov, “Investigating the impact of tool velocity on the process conditions in Incremental Forming of Titanium Sheets”, Procedia Manufacturing 7, 2017, pp. 345 – 350

61. Amar Kumar Behera, Ricardo Alves de Sousa, Giuseppe Ingarao, Valentin Oleksik, “Single point incremental forming: An assessment of the progress and technology trends from 2005 to 2015”, Journal of Manufacturing Processes 27, 2017, pp. 37–62.

62. Khalil Ibrahim Abass, “Contact statuses distributions of flat forming tool profile effect in incremental forming process by finite element analysis”, MATEC Web of Conferences 112, 02003, IManE&E 2017, DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/201711202003, pp.1-6.



63. ASTM Designation: E8/ E8M – 09, “Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials”, 2009, pp. 1-27.

64. ASTM Designation: E646 – 00, Standard Test Method for Tensile Strain-Hardening Exponents (n-Values) of Metallic Materials, 2000, pp. 1-8.

65. ASTM Designation: E2218 – 02, “Standard Test Method for Determining Forming Limit Curves”, 2002, pp. 1-15.

66. NPL Report DEPC MPE 016, “TESTAND - WP3 Final Report: Modulus Measurement Methods”, 2005, pp.1-41.

Documents

GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AHMEDABAD March – … · with aluminum, magnesium, titanium, composites, foams and also some non-metallic materials like polymers, elastomers and